Has D&D become too...D&Dish?
- Thread starter JohnSnow
- Start date
Raven Crowking
First Post
Hussar said:
Actually, I would contend that any analysis of a world that was going to be claimed to be "logical" must take into account why the demographics are as they are. The assumptions that the RAW are built upon are obviously pertainent to interpreting the RAW. While we might question how the factors described in RAW affect a world, it is equally important (if we want to claim that our result is "more logical") that we examine how the world causes the factors described in the RAW.
In other words, I contend that social factors in the game world would have to give rise to the demographics found in the RAW without using the RAW itself as the causitive if you are claiming that the end result is more logical.
From this standpoin, WHY the peasants stay on the farm, WHY they don't take up adventuring, and WHY they don't simply take PC classes is very, very relevant. If the RAW, as the "physics of the setting" states that NPCs follow certain demographics but PCs do not, then there must be a "physics" distinction between NPCs and PCs. The minute you make that claim, you cannot claim that any behavior of NPCs has a real-world analogue or is more logical than any other claim.
Others, of course, have argued (correctly, I believe) from the basis that the RAW includes both the "physics" of the setting and the visible effects of those physics. IMHO, RAW demographics is part of the latter, not the former. It is the effect of something not made explicit which is going on in the setting.
In this case the aristocracy must be concerned about the casters growing in power, because rather than being "physics" the demographics are the effects of standard D&D societies combined with the "physics" of the D&D world. The characters in that world are well aware that making changes to what is occuring in the setting is changing the baseline (though not the physics). Otherwise, if no assumption within the RAW is malleable from within the game world, what is the point of the game?
Or, to put it another way, the cost of a spell is based at least in part upon the rarity of the item. So, we can place a per-RAW price on those Continual Light stones. However, in a magitech world, the number of those stones can only increase (since they are permanent) which means, logically, that the price per stone should eventually decrease. But, by the "logic" that states that everything in the RAW is part of the physics of the setting the price will never decrease. Either that, or you find yourself claiming that the social baseline can be changed in some ways but not in others, which, again, is clearly illogical.
But, since we now know that the price of magic items does not vary (so as to maintain our baseline), we also know that they cannot be produced in any large amounts. Therefore, going simply by the logic of the RAW, no magitech worlds exist.
Unless you change the baseline.
Which, as you say, is cheating, at least as far as this thought experiment is concerned, and therefore beyond the scope of my point.
RC
Raven Crowking
First Post
Hussar said:
Magic in the D&D RAW is unlike anything found in nature, and unlike anything real world history and politics have had to deal with. The only example worlds we can describe are fictional, and 3e D&D worlds are more like superhero comics than most fantasy novels. In fact, they employ the same conceit: the villians do not take over the world because the heroes always arise to stop them; the heroes don't change the world significantly with their vast powers because they are always too busy with the villians.
Of course, then you can examine D&D worlds, and the games that occur within them. Are the PCs very nationalistic? Unless artificially constrained by the DM, do they use their powers only for good? Do they kill people and rob them of their stuff? You can only posit a world in which magic is exploited by the masses if you ignore PC behavior in favor of very dubious assumptions.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
Interesting point. The RAW itself is self limiting with regards to magic item creation.
Of course that assumes that you want to add actual market factors into the RAW. Since the RAW actually contains no market factors, nor any mechanics for determining market factors, you have actually stepped beyond RAW to make your point.
The price of a light stone does not increase or decrease. Ever. Not by RAW. A spell costs caster level*2*spell level. It doesn't matter, by RAW, if there is only one caster on the entire planet or if every second person can do this. The price is fixed. In order to change that price, you have to step outside of RAW.
I disagree. I don't have to question the baseline assumptions in order for the system to work logically. The logic of the system is defined by the RAW. To discuss the system, I don't have to concern myself with why it is the way it is, only how that state is affected by other elements within that system.
In other words, the demographics rules can create a setting. Within that setting, there are magical spells and those who can use them. The numbers of those people are also defined by the demographics rules. In other words, they are given within certain parameters. For the setting to be logical, I need only follow the parameters set out by the demographics rules. Since the magic spells rules and the class rules are actually distinct from campaign creation, in that they have no impact on the distribution of classes within the setting, I don't have to be concerned about their impact on the creation of the setting.
However, since these spells and classes exist within the framework of the setting, I should be concerned about how they would interact with the the people living in such a setting. Once the setting is created, using the framework given in the demographics rules and elsewhere, then it becomes logical to examine the interaction of the pieces within that system.
Yes, we can certainly question the logic of the system itself, but, to do so invalidates the RAW and reduces the discussion to competing viewpoints. If we cannot start from a common baseline, then we cannot have a logical discussion.
Hussar
Legend
A facinating read RC - take a gander through at Fusangite's comments. I think you would enjoy.
Raven Crowking said:
Any two things are similar and dissimilar logically. IMO magic in DnD is like technology in a few basic, important ways. Also, the real world has had magic that people believe existed, and their reactions can be informative as to how people in a DnD world might react (one example is that IMO, people DID treat magic like technology - I'm not sure they would have appreciated the difference as much as modern people try to).
And also, history is full of situations where individuals or groups were a threat to the state. Does it really matter whether that threat stems from a fireball or a bazooka? Sure, there might be some superficial differences in the "technologies" of modern vs. magic, but one could argue that the overall psychology would be similar.
Raven Crowking
First Post
gizmo33 said:
Sure. But on a more basic level, magic is inherent in individuals. When you say "Does it really matter whether that threat stems from a fireball or a bazooka?" the answer is obvious: Can you disarm the spellcaster? We put a lot of stock in preventing average citizens from walking around with bazookas. What I am suggesting is that a D&D government would do the same.
Hussar said:
Either normal socio-political effects occur in D&D worlds or they do not. If they do, then it is reasonable to assume that the demographics in the RAW are the result of normal socio-political effects. In this case, we can extrapolate from the demographics some idea of what might cause the demographics. If normal socio-political effects do not occur, conversely, then we can say nothing from a logical standpoint. Everything that we might say is pure speculation.
If normal socio-political effects occur, we can look at the non-varying price of magic items and claim that therefore there cannot be a ready market or supply. If normal socio-political effects do not occur, we can say whatever we please with an equal chance of being correct.
If normal socio-political effects occur, we can look at the demographics and say that there must be forces at work that prevent the domination of spellcasters. If normal socio-political do not occur, we can say whatever we please with an equal chance of being correct.
Any way you slice it, it comes up peanuts. A D&D world in which magitech exists is neither more, nor less, logical than a world in which it does not. Both can be equally reasonably extrapolated from the RAW.
Game worlds have internal logic, but none of this has anything to do with some specific and mandatory logical extrapolation from the RAW .
Hussar
Legend
I'd agree with that except for the last bit. The logic of game worlds are mandated by the RAW (of that setting). It doesn't have to be any sort of realistic in the real world sense, it just has to work with the dictated logic of the RAW.
I think logical is possibly just as bad as mature as a descriptor. I think you do as well RC.
My English is failing me. What is a word for something that evokes a willing suspension of disbelief? SODable? This is the effect I'm going for.
To me, it's extemely difficult to ignore the elephant in the corner that is low level permanent magics. As was mentioned, these exist solely for metagame reasons. That's true. The only reason to have permanent light sources is to reduce the PITA factor of dungeon crawling. However, again, that reason doesn't have to be examined. We only have to worry about how it affects the setting, not why it's there in the first place.
Perhaps that is what's tripping us up here. I'm not terribly concerned with the why. Why something is in the game world, or why that game world looks like it does doesn't really concern me. It's a given. However, my concern is given a particular starting point (RAW demographics ((LOL, typoed this as demongraphics))) how is that setting affected by the presence of cheap permanent spells?
I think Gizmo33 makes a good point. The people of Rome certainly didn't think magic didn't work. They believed that it did and acted accordingly. Those leaders spending the equivalent of millions of dollars on a fingerbone of some dead important guy didn't do so because they thought it was a hoax. They acted as if magic worked. There are so many real world examples of societies that believe in magic and spend vast resources fueling that belief. Why should the provable existence of magic change that?
The question is raised of controlling those who cast spells. Churches work extremely well for this. Mage guilds are certainly a solid part of the genre. Both work pretty well in controlling magic. Dragonlance featured wizard police that killed unlicensed mages for example.
I do agree that there would be SOME sort of control placed over spell casters. They would not likely be allowed to operate in a power vacuum, at least, not for very long. Would this be state controlled? Possibly. But, then again, guilds work as a protection both for and against the state. As do churches. It is possible to have the numbers of spell casters as dictated by the RAW without having totalitarian states cutting out the tongues of everyone with magic abilities.
Odhanan
Adventurer
Excuse me, but the equation for pricing the fabrication of magical items assumes this is the overall cost in components, materials and various items used to build the magical trinket, right? Wouldn't these prices vary from nation to nation or from world to world, given the rarity or not of materials, availability of spellcasters and specialists (such as alchemists, smiths and jewelers) and basic services needed.
Where in the RAW does it state that basic prices may NOT vary at all from place to place, or under specific circumstances?
Where in the RAW does it state that basic prices may NOT vary at all from place to place, or under specific circumstances?
