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

[Hussar]

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.

Superior is a very loaded word that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Or an eleven foot one either.

The original point of this whole mess was the idea that DnD becoming self reflective was a bad thing. If you swim WAY up thread, you'll see that. My point was always that self-reflection is a signal of a genre beginning to mature as a genre.

You can see it in the development of the game. Going back to Keep on the Borderlands. There's nothing in there about what the Cave dwellers eat, there's no attempt at any sort of reason for them being there. It was simply "There's a keep, there's a bunch of monsters, go kill them." And it was glorious.

Then, a little later on, people started detailing things a little more. Adventures became tied to a general theme. Slave Lords comes to mind here. The encounters in the modules are generally tied to the theme of the module. There are reasons given for many of the monster's being where they are. There are guidelines given for what the monsters do in their day to day existence. Sure, it's emaciated to the point of undeath, but, it's still there. And, again, it was glorious.

Skipping over 2e since many of the modules in 2e were not very good, we come to 3e. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. There is little or no sense that the monsters are simply a random conglomeration of critters. There are leaders in each group and they all talk to eachother. There is an attempt to make the entire complex act in a manner that is consistent.

Compare THAT to Shackled City or Age of Worms.

Now, to me, this is the sign of the genre of DnD maturing. Like fine wine, it gets better with age. Not that new wine is BAD. It's not. There are lots of very fine new wines. It's just that it gets better. And part of that is actually taking the time to examine how the RAW interacts with the setting.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

And it's equal fun to either take the RAW (and its mindset) and create a campaign world from that, or take a campaign background and tailor the RAW to it.

By the way...I agree to your last post, Hussar. D&D as a game, including most of it's players and authors, has matured in its mindset of what to achieve with the RAW. And that's definitely a good thing. It stimulates the creation of new adventures and campaign settings, and it encourages to look at the old stuff with new eyes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Superior is a very loaded word that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Or an eleven foot one either.

So is "mature".

Seriously, though, being self-reflexive is not, in and of itself, either a good thing or a bad thing. I certainly don't accept that it is "a signal of a genre beginning to mature as a genre"....It can just as easily be a signal of a genre collapsing under its own weight (literally jumping the shark) or a signal of nothing at all. Compare The Blues Brothers ( ) with the very self-reflective Blues Brothers 2 ( ).

OTOH, I think you should re-read Keep on the Borderlands. It was certainly assumed that the DM could (and would) do a lot of the background work as to why the characters were there, where the Keep was, and what the background story was. IMHO, the evil power saturating the very stones in the temple cave probably drew the creatures to the area.

The module provides a strong skeleton that the DM must add flesh to. To my mind, this is not a fault, and is certainly no different than some 3.X modules, such as WLD (which, IMHO, requires a lot more work/room to bring up to par than B2 does...several magnitudes more, I'd say).

Far from being no mention of what they ate, Gygax included storerooms of food as "treasure" in the module, and the careful party could surprise some of the humanoids going about their daily business. One of the orc caves includes an ongoing feast! (Or, at least, does if the PCs are quite and clever!) They also lived in a forest, allowing for plentiful game, and carried on raids against the Keep or caravans going to the Keep (as evidenced by their treasure, and supplying the motive to wipe them out).

The module included factions and alliances, allowing the PCs to deal with some of the creatures through role playing rather than combat. It had encounters that took wits to deal with as well as brawn. It acknowledged that the PCs were not the first adventurers in the area (prisoners & bugbear caves). And, on top of that, it offered a heck of a lot of adventure.

The biggest downside? The DM had to name the NPCs. If that forms a major stumbling block, maybe it's time to reconsider this whole DMing thing.....

To my mind, B2 is still the benchmark module. From debating theology with evil acolytes to hunting an owlbear, there's a lot of stuff to do. The DM advice is good. The map is cool. There's plenty of areas for the DM to expand, and there's a lot of room for customization.

Few adventures rival B2 in material per page, fewer still in content. IMHO, and YMMV, of course.

Skipping over 2e since many of the modules in 2e were not very good

Here, at least, we agree!

RC

 

[Numion]

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?!?

So, you're arguing that some god would get super-angry at friggin' streetlights?

But it would be okay to have normal streetlights, like torches and lanters? Well, my dad sometimes got angry if the lights were on needlessly during the days too, like everburning torches would be ..

 

[Quasqueton]

Common lantern = 1sp, 15’/30’, 6 hours per pint of oil (2 pints per night)

Hooded lantern = 7gp, 30’/60’, 6 hours per pint of oil (2 pints per night)

Pint of oil = 1sp

Sunrod = 2gp, 30’/60’, 1 hour (12 per night)

Torch = 1cp, 20’/40’, 1 hour (12 per night)

Continual flame = 50.01gp, 20’/40’, permanent (1 ever)

365 days x 12 hours per night* = 4,380 hours

So. . .

Common lantern = 73gp per year (plus 1sp once)

Hooded lantern = 73gp per year (plus 7gp once)

Sunrod = 4,380gp per year

Torch = 43.8gp per year

Continual flame = 0gp per year (plus 50gp once)

And the above costs do not include the payment of a streetlight keeper.

The continual flame costs more upfront, but the others cost more over a relatively short period of time.

* Average year round – less night in summer, more night in winter.

Quasqueton

 

[JohnSnow]

Let's see. What say we compare two spells to determine how likely magical streetlights are...

From the SRD:

Continual Flame
Evocation [Light]
Level: Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Object touched
Effect: Magical, heatless flame
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or quenched.
Light spells counter and dispel darkness spells of an equal or lower level.
Material Component: You sprinkle ruby dust (worth 50 gp) on the item that is to carry the flame.

Compare to...

Dispel Magic
Abjuration
Level: Brd 3, Clr 3, Drd 4, Magic 3, Pal 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target or Area: One spellcaster, creature, or object; or 20-ft.-radius burst
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, to end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area, or to counter another spellcaster’s spell. A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired. Some spells, as detailed in their descriptions, can’t be defeated by dispel magic. Dispel magic can dispel (but not counter) spell-like effects just as it does spells.
Note: The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.
You choose to use dispel magic in one of three ways: a targeted dispel, an area dispel, or a counterspell:
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10) against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature. The DC for this dispel check is 11 + the spell’s caster level. If you succeed on a particular check, that spell is dispelled; if you fail, that spell remains in effect.
If you target an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by monster summoning), you make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured the object or creature.
If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item’s caster level. If you succeed, all the item’s magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional interface (such as a bag of holding) is temporarily closed. A magic item’s physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed magic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.
You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself.
Area Dispel: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot radius.
For each creature within the area that is the subject of one or more spells, you make a dispel check against the spell with the highest caster level. If that check fails, you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks. The creature’s magic items are not affected.
For each object within the area that is the target of one or more spells, you make dispel checks as with creatures. Magic items are not affected by an area dispel.
For each ongoing area or effect spell whose point of origin is within the area of the dispel magic spell, you can make a dispel check to dispel the spell.
For each ongoing spell whose area overlaps that of the dispel magic spell, you can make a dispel check to end the effect, but only within the overlapping area.

So, with one Dispel Magic, I can probably end every Continual Flame in a 20 ft. radius. That's just as likely as someone casting the Continual Flames in the first place.

And the Dispel Magic is free, so all you need is one mischievous wizard, sorcerer, cleric, (or bard!), and he can undo 1000s of gp of magical light in...ohh...about 2 weeks.

Uh-huh. That'd NEVER happen.

Magical vandalism is just as likely a behavior as magical altruism or professional spellcasting...and a whole lot less expensive.

A bored bard might do it for yucks...Heck, it could result from an area effect dispel thrown in a barfight.

 

[boredgremlin]

I doudt the local thieves guild would be too happy about all these permanent lights everywhere either. Between stealing them when no one is looking and having guild wizards dispel a few each week the magical street lights would wind up costing far more in the long run and not being much more effective.

Citizens forced to buy lantern oil or pay 50gp (that no commoner should ever have according to the RAW) if they dont want to live in the dark would encourage tons of everyday citizens to steal one for use at night as well. Continual flame streetlights would be great... if you could keep everyone and thier brother from stealing them.

 

[Quasqueton]

Wow there's a lot of people (in the D&D game world) who *really* hate light. Would these people also smash lanterns, or is it just magical light they hate?

"Hey, Bob, there's another streetlight. Call the mage and have him snuff it out. Oh, wait, it's a normal oil-burning lamp. Nevermind. Let's just walk through the alley."

An arrow costs very little, and any 1st-level rogue could shoot and kill the streetlamp lighters easily from the shadows. Heck, a mage could throw a fireball in the oil storage house and really burn down a chunk of the city. (But maybe they wouldn't do that because the burning structures would cast light -- and they hate light.)

Very soon, these light-haters could keep the whole city in shadowy darkness.

Quasqueton

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, you're arguing that some god would get super-angry at friggin' streetlights?

Have you ever read much mythology? Old-timey gods get angry whenever their perceived domains are challenged by mortals. When Prometheus gave humans fire (which the gods didn't want them to have), what happened to him? It doesn't require a lot of people to hate light; it requires one god -- just one -- or any form of creature that subsists off magical energy. Heck, that jewel shining in the night might just attract the attention of ethereal filchers and dragons (who apparently love to hoard magic items).

Of course, D&D worlds never contains gods of darkness or magiovoures.

 

[Numion]

Have you ever read much mythology? Old-timey gods get angry whenever their perceived domains are challenged by mortals.

If that was the case in a D&D world, adventuring would hardly be possible. If some gods flip out at the upgrade of torch'n'lantern streetlights to magical streetlights (a luddite god or whatever), wouldn't the gods of orcs and kobolds stomp down on anyone killing them? Like adventurers?

I mean .. killing a kobold would be a lot bigger offense to kobold god, than the upgrade of a lantern to an everburning torch to a darkness god. Because, lantern and everburning torch give about the same amount of light.