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

[Deadguy]

And even if you do have the time, modules can be a good way to mix thing up a bit, keep the players guessing.

Yes. With the best will in the world, as DMs we can get stuck into ruts with ideas for adventures, adventure locales and motivations. Seeing other people's adventures can help you see where those ruts have led you, and open up a vista of other places it never even occurred to you to visit!

 

[Hussar]

I thought your point was that the current "magitech" extrapolation of the RAW was more logical than other past and possible extrapolations. If this isn't your point, then obviously I don't need to argue about it.

Actually, the logical part was yours. I said mature. LOL.

OTOH, this is actually somewhat removed from what I was saying. My original point was the examination of a setting where RAW forms the basis of the settings physics rather than creating a setting and then applying the rules to it is a more... ahem, sorry, I said mature .. approach.

Yeah, mature is the wrong word. I just can't think of another one. Verisimilitudinous? Can I say that?

In the past, settings were created and then the RAW overlaid on top. And it made for some really wonky things. Current design approaches seem to be coming from the other direction. We have the basic physics of the setting, now, what would a setting look like where all those things are true?

In other words, self reflection. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. It is far less wrenching to my personal sensiblities to say that low level spells with permanent effects will be widespread than to try to manipulate the setting into some sort of anachronistic Orwellian setting where the massive State controls every facet of society.

Really, it's the differnce in approach between the Known World and Greyhawk. Greyhawk was created with a particular end in mind - a pseudo European setting with lowish magic. Known World said bugger that and went all out.

To me, the problems with Greyhawk, and then Forgotten Realms was this huge dichotomy between the source material. In one book magic should be rare and beyond the ken of mortal man. Yet in the next one, every NPC has more magic than the average dragon.

If you have a low magic setting, fine. I have no problems with that. But, if you want to have a low magic setting while retaining all of the RAW, then I see it spiraling out of control.

Using the idea that what is in the RAW goes without trying to determine how the RAW fits into normal socio-economic and political behavior means that a world in which spellcasters never cast spells unless paid and spend the rest of their time acting like chickens is as "logical" as the next one. Somehow, I don't buy that.

Well, not really, since I don't believe anywhere in the RAW it states that spellcasters should act like chickens. Nor does it state anything about spell casters not casting unless they get paid. What it does state is that if someone wants to pay a spell caster to cast a spell, it costs Caster LevelXSpell LevelX20. Extrapolating beyond that is again, going beyond the RAW.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, the logical part was yours. I said mature. LOL.

I thought you said both. Perhaps it was someone else.

OTOH, this is actually somewhat removed from what I was saying. My original point was the examination of a setting where RAW forms the basis of the settings physics rather than creating a setting and then applying the rules to it is a more... ahem, sorry, I said mature .. approach.

Why? Because this is, right here, where you and I differ. First off, I don't believe that it is anything other than a stylistic difference to either extrapolate from rules to make a setting or to make a setting and then fit the rules to it. Neither is more "verisimilitudinous" though either, if done badly, can break suspension of disbelief.

This doesn't even violate RAW, btw, because there is nothing in the RAW that says all things in the book must be available. In fact, the RAW says exactly the opposite.

Second off, I don't think that even "self reflection" requires that a D&D world rationally derived from the RAW must look "magitech-y".

If you have a low magic setting, fine. I have no problems with that. But, if you want to have a low magic setting while retaining all of the RAW, then I see it spiraling out of control.

I can see that. I tend to think that a more focused world is going to be easier to keep from spiralling out of control, regardless of magic level.

Well, not really, since I don't believe anywhere in the RAW it states that spellcasters should act like chickens. Nor does it state anything about spell casters not casting unless they get paid. What it does state is that if someone wants to pay a spell caster to cast a spell, it costs Caster LevelXSpell LevelX20. Extrapolating beyond that is again, going beyond the RAW.

This is the other area where we differ. The RAW says that X number of spellcasters of various types and levels live in area Y. It doesn't say how easy or hard they are to find. It doesn't say what spells they know. It doesn't say what their lives are like; whether they live in fearful hiding or if you can find one by asking at the local pub. The RAW does say that NPCs act the way the DM says they act. Which means that, if we accept your arguement that nothing in the RAW needs explaining, they act the way the DM says they act and it needs no explaination.

It seems painfully obvious to me that answering "We have the basic physics of the setting, now, what would a setting look like where all those things are true?" requires one to go beyond the RAW.

It seems to me that you are looking at a few options of how that could be done as though those were the only options. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You also seem to be looking at worlds designed for the current edition as examples of this process, without acknowledging that those worlds go "beyond the RAW" as much as (or more than) the divergence required to create a low magic setting.

RC

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Well, not really, since I don't believe anywhere in the RAW it states that spellcasters should act like chickens. Nor does it state anything about spell casters not casting unless they get paid. What it does state is that if someone wants to pay a spell caster to cast a spell, it costs Caster LevelXSpell LevelX20. Extrapolating beyond that is again, going beyond the RAW.

Nope, it is what others call "Dungeon Mastering", and it cannot go beyond the RAW, because doing so is encouraged in quite a lot of places in the DMG already, in order to make a campaign world your own, or make it yourself, and as such is part of the RAW as anything else. I'm not sure if you're just silly-teasing with this line of argumentation, but nowhere in the core books can I find the attitude that as long as it isn't expressively written in the rules, it isn't valid as part of the game. Especially the DMG states the opposite repeatedly.

 

[Hussar]

I think we do agree on one thing. It is perfectly possible to create a setting by taking the setting first and overlaying the rules. Of course that is true. Twenty-five years of game design shows that.

However, it is also perfectly true that you can go the other direction. Start with the rules of the setting being dictated as much as possible by the RAW and going from there.

Yes, it doesn't state how easy the CLERICS are to find (now I don't have to worry about what spells they know, they know them all), but, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the king probably could find one.

And, that's all it takes. One. One single 3rd level cleric could light a city in his lifetime. And that city now has a huge advantage over cities that don't have light.

For me, it comes down to what is easier to believe. That no king, anywhere in a setting would avail himself on this resource or that one would and others would follow. True, this is a style difference, but, this comes out of looking at the RAW and how it works in a setting rather than letting the setting dictate RAW.

Take the buying and selling of magic items. What are the chances that no one, not one single person, will ever sell a magic item, but, anyone will buy one? Or, conversely, that no magic item ever created can be bought or sold?

Any resource that a society is capable to exploit will be exploited. RC has gone on at length about human nature. This too is part of that. If something can be used, it will be. How can you justify a setting where magic is not exploited without relying on that magic itself to create a setting where it can be supressed?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Note that the only thing I disagree from your posts here right now is your notion as to what can and cannot be inferred from the RAW as you demonstrated it in your last few posts.

As for your reasoning about a magic-using nation, I perfectly agree. One of the first TSR products to hold my fancy was The Principalities of Glantri, which had magically illuminated streets, water-elemental driven gondolas and moving services that offerd everything from flying carpets to teleportation. Of course, it also was a magocracy.

On the other hand, it also had regions were magic was either a tightly controlled financial commodity (Darokin) or a mysterious and rare force (Karameikos). All variants are easily explained by human nature. In one area, magic is the ruling force, and wizards display their power by deploying it to make their lands more to their liking, and safer. In another, only one organization holds the key to that power, and controls all influx of it from outside, setting the prices and the rarity of it. In the next, magic is hard to come by, and those who try to pursue it have a hard time finding a teacher and overcoming the superstitious reactions of their fellow people. And in those worlds that have no easy transportation, where you have to walk for weeks before you might find somebody to teach you magic, fewer will take that ordeal on their shoulders, and not "take a level of wizard on a whim".

And no matter that a low-level wizard can throw a few magic missiles, as long as he can't fly, teleport, turn invisible or throw mass destruction around, a superstitious mob will get him if they think they have to.

About clerics...the fact that not all clerics might simply go and illuminate a city for a secular ruler has been brought up already, even for a tract of land of a generous donation. They might need the spell power for something more important, like healing or blessing, they might not agree with the king that squandering their god's gifts on small alleys is a worthy deed, and might get reprimanded by their deity for doing so (remember, in most D&D worlds, gods make their displeasure pretty imminent, in contrast to the real world), or they simply do not care (neutral churches who don't give a rat's behind about illuminated streets).

And yep, it only takes one 3rd level cleric whose life quest it is to illuminate the cities...and 5 years later, you get another crazy cleric who runs around dispelling or cancelling them lights with his god's blessings. As a secular ruler, I'd not be sure if I wanted lights in my city that can be snuffed out on a god's whim as easily as that.

 

[Hussar]

About clerics...the fact that not all clerics might simply go and illuminate a city for a secular ruler has been brought up already, even for a tract of land of a generous donation. They might need the spell power for something more important, like healing or blessing, they might not agree with the king that squandering their god's gifts on small alleys is a worthy deed, and might get reprimanded by their deity for doing so (remember, in most D&D worlds, gods make their displeasure pretty imminent, in contrast to the real world), or they simply do not care (neutral churches who don't give a rat's behind about illuminated streets).

But, the trick is, it doesn't matter if they all will. I don't need all. I just need one. It would be nice to have more than one. Not required, but nice.

The thing that gets missed here is not only do I only need one cleric, but I only need one cleric in the entire history of my nation. Most campaign settings have at least a couple of centuries of history. Continual light lasts forever. Sure, some wingnut might start dispelling them, someone else might steal them. Such is the life of any commodity. OTOH, it costs me very little other than an initial outlay of cash. Any losses due to vandalism can be written off and replaced pretty easily.

I am not familiar with the Known Worlds all that well. Most of what I know comes from the Voyage of the Princess Ark articles in Dragon. In my mind, a state which burns all its witches is going to be an extremely short lived one. Not only does it have to worry about a neighbouring state which might have a more relaxed view on wizards, but, the large number of magic wielding monsters out there are going to have a HUGE advantage over the low magic state. While higher level characters can deal with DR simply through power attack, low level commoners have not that luxury.

I remember wiping out a fairly large town with my summoned fire elemental in 2e simply because the DM played to the idea that magic should be extremely rare. My 9th level mage decided that the town wasn't being properly subservient and razed it. When an elemental needs +2 weapons to be hit, it's a pretty large tactical weakness not to stock up on some +2 weapons.

And that's why I don't believe that states, regardless of size, are going to cut off their own noses by killing all the wizards. In a RAW setting where you can find higher level NPC's in a large town, what I did would be impossible. In a setting where the state restricts those wizards but isn't 100% effective, the first wizzie to gain double digit levels is pretty much unstoppable.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

But, the trick is, it doesn't matter if they all will. I don't need all. I just need one. It would be nice to have more than one. Not required, but nice.

The thing that gets missed here is not only do I only need one cleric, but I only need one cleric in the entire history of my nation. Most campaign settings have at least a couple of centuries of history. Continual light lasts forever. Sure, some wingnut might start dispelling them, someone else might steal them. Such is the life of any commodity. OTOH, it costs me very little other than an initial outlay of cash. Any losses due to vandalism can be written off and replaced pretty easily.

And yep, it only takes one 3rd level cleric whose life quest it is to illuminate the cities...and 5 years later, you get another crazy cleric who runs around dispelling or cancelling them lights with his god's blessings. And this is entirely probable, even if you play with monotheistic backgrounds, as there will always be devil-worshippers who make it their biggest aim to destroy this sign of goodwill of the "one god". If you play with polytheistic backgrounds, all it needs is a rival god getting his dander up about this divinely illuminated city and sending out his priests to "rectify" the situation. And as we're dealing with religious conflicts, it might easily turn into more than petty vandalism...either you have diabolists running around in the city, or a bigger argument between two churches looms ahead. Both great campaign hooks, of course.

Edit: An easier way to illuminate the whole city, by the way, is to simply pass a law that all registered citizens of the city have to have a light burning outside their house after sundown, at least a candle for normal citizens and bigger oil lamps for taverns and bars. That way, you even support the local wax candle and oil industry.

I am not familiar with the Known Worlds all that well. Most of what I know comes from the Voyage of the Princess Ark articles in Dragon. In my mind, a state which burns all its witches is going to be an extremely short lived one. Not only does it have to worry about a neighbouring state which might have a more relaxed view on wizards, but, the large number of magic wielding monsters out there are going to have a HUGE advantage over the low magic state. While higher level characters can deal with DR simply through power attack, low level commoners have not that luxury.

I remember wiping out a fairly large town with my summoned fire elemental in 2e simply because the DM played to the idea that magic should be extremely rare. My 9th level mage decided that the town wasn't being properly subservient and razed it. When an elemental needs +2 weapons to be hit, it's a pretty large tactical weakness not to stock up on some +2 weapons.

And that's why I don't believe that states, regardless of size, are going to cut off their own noses by killing all the wizards. In a RAW setting where you can find higher level NPC's in a large town, what I did would be impossible. In a setting where the state restricts those wizards but isn't 100% effective, the first wizzie to gain double digit levels is pretty much unstoppable.

And why should something like your wizard did be "impossible" in a campaign world? As far as I know, a big heap of D&D adventures lived on the "mad, powerful wizard terrorizes the countryside, poor helpless peasants can't defend themselves, enter the heroes" kind of story? Happens all the time...and at some point, the wizard hits enough opposition in comparable levels that he's obliterated. Or the church takes an active interest after he razed the third or fourth town with a shrine or temple in it, and sends one of their paladins with retinue. Or he simply gets eaten by one of his own, uncontrollable creations that then roams the countryside.

Oh, and the large number of magical or magic-using monsters is not that large if you consider that many of those monsters have a rarity rating that makes it hard to find two of them within the same 500 miles. And even if...that's what adventurers are living off, too, after all.

You see, the point is that everything is possible, and not everything is logical..and if you look around, you'll find that in more than 50% of what's going on, logic doesn't play much of a role in people's decisions, even those of rulers. Maybe one evil high-level wizard is enough to convince a nation to allow more wizards in order to have countermeasures...it might also drive them away from simply discouraging wizards and magic, and to killing every wizard on sight, with extreme prejudice and the sanction and divine help of the churches. Or it makes them simply put up higher bounties in case one wizard decides to test the waters of the "Dark Side", so he is stopped earlier by greedy adventurers.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, it doesn't state how easy the CLERICS are to find (now I don't have to worry about what spells they know, they know them all), but, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the king probably could find one.

Now you're adding to the RAW. The RAW doesn't state that the King can find one.

If we begin to talk about what we find easier to believe, then we also begin to talk about what makes sense outside of the context of the RAW. And then we get into all those political discussions that you dismissed earlier because the RAW didn't say anything about the dynamics of power as relates to spellcasters.

There is nothing wrong with your conclusions, especially if one removes the conclusion that the "magitech" interpretation of what a D&D world would/should be like is somehow objectively superior to a non-magitech interpretation.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

About clerics...the fact that not all clerics might simply go and illuminate a city for a secular ruler has been brought up already, even for a tract of land of a generous donation. They might need the spell power for something more important, like healing or blessing, they might not agree with the king that squandering their god's gifts on small alleys is a worthy deed, and might get reprimanded by their deity for doing so (remember, in most D&D worlds, gods make their displeasure pretty imminent, in contrast to the real world), or they simply do not care (neutral churches who don't give a rat's behind about illuminated streets).

Also, remember that while a cleric per RAW can cast those spells without the need of a deity or a deity's blessing, an angry god per RAW can make both cleric and king rue the day they thought it was a good idea.....

Does your world have a powerful god of thieves? A god of darkness or the night? Didn't the gods already divvy up day & night between them? Did not the gods of night allow the moon to shine in its phases already? Have they not conceded stars to illuminate? Do they not allow torches, lights that flicker, lights that do not last, and even the occasional continual light? Who, then, has the hubris to steal night from the dark gods?!?

Mindset is not dictated by RAW.

All it takes is one magically illuminated ruin...JUST ONE...for the world to get the idea.

RC