Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[Raven Crowking]

But, your assumption is that such items must be sold in a shop. Why? Why would a leader of a city be forced to go to a magic shop to buy continual light stones? Why couldn't he simply deed some juicy land to a sympathetic church and reap the benefits? I brought this up earlier and it got lost in the wash I think.

That isn't a bad point, and there is nothing wrong with setting up a world that way. The assumption that the magic of the gods should be used to light the streets might not wash with the clerics, however. That they can have light at any time in the abbey is a statement of their power. Few people with power share that power unless it is to gain significantly more power. Which begs the question of why the city leader would give up the land for those stones when a curfew and watch patrols are cheaper.

One of the problems here is the assumption of power. Feudal states were rarely so concentrated.

I agree. I also agree that things would centralize in an actual magitech world due to the availability of communications and travel magitechnology. However, it doesn't require a magitech world being completely set up for a group of high level characters to achieve the same results.

The point is not that your assumptions create an invalid world; the point is that they are not the only assumptions that can be used, nor are they necessarily the most "logical" set of assumptions.

RC

EDIT: Hussar, I think that there is little doubt that the "lots of magic" paradigm is more inherent in 3e than in previous editions. Even when you consider the loot in modules, you need to consider that it was never intended that the average party would find all of it -- hence the appearance of the term "Greyhawking" a dungeon, as a direct attempt to overcome the designer's attempt to hide loot where you will not find it.

I'd rather that the designers of 3e set a lower magic level as the default, but I agree that this is easily modified. What having a high-magic default does, that I do not care for, is set an expectation of high-magic. Again, though, this is easily modified.

RC

 

[Numion]

Modules??? I played AD&D for 5 years and never touched a single module. They are just lazy DMing. The rules in 2e worked fine with lower magic, if adventure writers messed with that for your games then your blame lies with the individual writers and not with the system.

Two points:

1) Whether you used modules or not is irrelevant. For many new DMs those modules showed how adventures should be made. They establish a baseline. Which, in 1E and 2E, was very montyhaulish.

2) Lazy DMing? IMO modules are also for DMs with an actual life. You know, who don't have the time to construct proper adventures. Sometimes life gets into way of gaming. Premade adventures can alleviate that somewhat.

 

[Numion]

EDIT: Hussar, I think that there is little doubt that the "lots of magic" paradigm is more inherent in 3e than in previous editions. Even when you consider the loot in modules, you need to consider that it was never intended that the average party would find all of it -- hence the appearance of the term "Greyhawking" a dungeon, as a direct attempt to overcome the designer's attempt to hide loot where you will not find it.

Not directed at me, but I'll chime in anyway

Quasquetons analysis of ToEE revealed that only a pittance of the full loot was 'Greyhawked'. Great majority was in plain sight.

Myth - Busted!

 

[Psion]

Not directed at me, but I'll chime in anyway

Quasquetons analysis of ToEE revealed that only a pittance of the full loot was 'Greyhawked'. Great majority was in plain sight.

Myth - Busted!

I deny your reality and substitute my own!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not directed at me, but I'll chime in anyway

Quasquetons analysis of ToEE revealed that only a pittance of the full loot was 'Greyhawked'. Great majority was in plain sight.

Myth - Busted!

As much as I respect Q, I haven't read his analysis (link?), and I have read posts in which people take issue with his base assumptions (again, though, without specifics, so who knows?). My experience was and is that most players don't find the majority of treasure, even when it is in plain sight. YMMV. I recently ran the caves portion of Keep on the Borderlands, converted to 3.X, and the vast, vast majority of treasure went unclaimed.

(In fact, the PCs stopped to rest often enough that, frequently, they would kill off the warriors and allow the women and children to escape with the loot while they rested.)

RC

 

[Numion]

As much as I respect Q, I haven't read his analysis (link?), and I have read posts in which people take issue with his base assumptions (again, though, without specifics, so who knows?). My experience was and is that most players don't find the majority of treasure, even when it is in plain sight. YMMV. I recently ran the caves portion of Keep on the Borderlands, converted to 3.X, and the vast, vast majority of treasure went unclaimed.

Um .. let me think, it's not the current one, but one of the older analysis threads. I don't have search.

About his assumptions .. if the current thread is any indication his assumptions are brought in to questioning, but it seems he's going easy on the previous editions. Like no xp from magic items or loot, while the opposition brings up pretty minor adjustments.

But still, some obfuscation is better than none, right?

(In fact, the PCs stopped to rest often enough that, frequently, they would kill off the warriors and allow the women and children to escape with the loot while they rested.)

I'm glad to hear you're not a wuss DM Still, this is kind of a peculiar MO for an adventuring group. Clearly they don't deserve the loot.

 

[Hussar]

Then you have to consider why they don't simply desert and become adventurers, in a D&D world anyway. There have to be some pretty heavy incentives. Then you have to consider how to prevent them taking over the farmlands.

Actually, no I don7t have to consider this. Since this is a RAW discussion, this factor doesn't enter into the equation. They don't defect since the demographics rules say they don't.

There is a significant difference here between applying the RAW and questioning the assumptions that the RAW are built upon. I have no interests in the latter. It's not an issue here for me.

The question on the table is how do the factors described in RAW affect a world? Sure, you can change the RAW which will then change the results of how those rules affect the setting. Of course you can do that. But, that's not the issue. The point here is that we are looking at how the rules of the setting as defined by the RAW affect that setting.

To use a real world example. Take any experiment. In that experiment, you must control almost all the variables (or as many as you can) and then see what happens when you change a small number of things. If you don't control the variables, then the experiment will fail. You must have a baseline.

In DnD, that baseline is the RAW. You can change that baseline, I'm not implying that you can't. But, if you do, then that changed baseline is now your baseline. You can't change the baseline and then apply it back to the old system. That's cheating.

So, back to the original point, now that I've meandered quite a bit. It doesn't matter WHY the peasants stay on the farm. It doesn't matter WHY they don't take up adventuring. The physics of the setting - the RAW - states that they do so.

Now, a point RC brings up is very valid. A spell is actually not 100 gp. A spell is caster level*spell level*10. Plus, of course, any raw materials and the like. This pretty much takes it out of the hands of the vast majority of the populace and places it pretty squarely in the aristocracy. So, why isn't the aristocracy going to utilize it?

RC claims that the aristocracy must be concerned about the casters growing in power. However, that again is changing the baseline. We don't have to worry about that since the demographics show that this isn't true. Casters are actually pretty darn rare and high level casters even moreso. YOu need at least a hamlet to find a cleric of maximum 6th level (druid as well, however, it is unlikely) and a village (minimum 400 people) before you can find a 5th level wizard (again, fairly unlikely). According to the demographics, you actually can't randomly find a wizard over 10th level and that's in a major city.

The RAW equates a fairly low magic setting actually. With a limit of 10th level wizzies, finding someone to make you a magic sword is going to be very tricky. Finding people who are going to be able to single handedly take over the country is even more difficult. A 10th level wizard is powerful, true, but, not that powerful.

However, Even in a hamlet, I can find 3rd level wizards and clerics without too much difficulty. Granted, the majority of the population does not live in hamlets or larger, but rather in smaller places, but, all I need for my purposes - low level, permanent magic - is a third level cleric or wizard.

The RAW provides me with that. It does not provide RC with his nation toppling mages. Yes, the RAW also states that the DM is free to add in higher level NPC's. Of course that's fine. However, that's going to vary wildly from campaign to campaign and is beyond the scope of my point.

 

[Hussar]

That isn't a bad point, and there is nothing wrong with setting up a world that way. The assumption that the magic of the gods should be used to light the streets might not wash with the clerics, however. That they can have light at any time in the abbey is a statement of their power. Few people with power share that power unless it is to gain significantly more power. Which begs the question of why the city leader would give up the land for those stones when a curfew and watch patrols are cheaper

Churches never trade upon their holy might for political and capital gain? I'm not sure I buy that arguement too much. From the noble's point of view, I give you the Parthenon. Or any of a bazillion cathedrals in Europe. Angkor Wat. There are rather a lot of temporal, secular leaders out there who have done exactly what I've said in many, many cultures all over the world. It's not exactly a stretch.

Besides, considering the light is permanent, there is no possible way that it is more expensive than the watch in the long term.

 

[edbonny]

"armamentist"

Couldn't find this word in my "dictionominary"

 

[Raven Crowking]

Um .. let me think, it's not the current one, but one of the older analysis threads. I don't have search.

About his assumptions .. if the current thread is any indication his assumptions are brought in to questioning, but it seems he's going easy on the previous editions. Like no xp from magic items or loot, while the opposition brings up pretty minor adjustments.

But still, some obfuscation is better than none, right?

Sorry, Numion, I'm not following you here. I cannot comment on Q's analysis without reading it, nor can I comment on the value of other's comments about it. I just don't have enough information.