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

[JohnSnow]

To me, consistency is the goal. If the setting is inconsistent, ie. allows for the sale but not the purchase of magic items, then it is not consistent. There's a giant gaping hole there that needs to be explained and not hand waved.

What you see as making a setting slave to the rules, I see as actually examining how those rules interact with the setting. By ignoring or handwaving that interaction, you create a setting which has glaring inconsistencies. You can either change the RAW, which is perfectly acceptable since that changed RAW becomes the new RAW for that setting, or you can change the setting to conform to the RAW.

However, ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away.

Fair enough. This is where I agree with you completely. I think the setting should be internally consistent. I don't really think we're after settings that are self-reflective so much as settings that actually consider their implications. That's definitely a good thing (TM) and reflects a more "mature" (or, put another way, well thought out) approach to setting design.

Where I (and Raven Crowking, I think) disagree is the notion that substantial amounts of that can't be fixed without changing anything about the RAW except for societal attitudes about magic, which, while hinted at in the RAW, are not explicitly stated.

You are correct that a world that never developed any societies that exploit magic is not consistent with the RAW. And I firmly believe that it's much easier to provide a setting with less ubiquitous magic by altering the Core Rules of D&D. Either substantially so (such as by using a variant PHB, like Iron Heroes) or more subtly. Altering the mechanics of magic IS the most important change if you want internal consistency.

And I agree that a setting with consistent rules is a good thing. Some times, the changes can be done subtly, whereas other times, more drastic measures are necessary. It how depends on how much you have to change, and what other assumptions, outside the RAW, you use in your setting design.

My two cents.

 

[rounser]

D&D isn't logical, it's not even internally consistent!

insults removed

No ecosystem as we know it could possibly support that number of predators, and no civilisation as we know it could survive them. Society would be completely alien to the one we know if magic existed in commonplace use, if trolls waylaid travellers and attacked towns, or if a single man could defeat an army. insults removed

insults removed

Rounser, if you can't participate without name calling, don't participate. Thanks - Plane Sailing

 

[JohnSnow]

Perhaps I overstated it with "mature."

How about "interesting?" I appreciate the fun that comes from taking a couple elements from the RAW and extrapolating them to their logical conclusion.

No, I don't think it's necessary (or even possible) to do this with everything in the game. But doing it with a few things can lead to some interesting exercises in creativity. And in one sense, Hussar is right. Ignoring obvious implications from in your face rules (like the magic system, for example) is (IMO) a poor choice. Considering them and addressing them by contrast, can make for a far more interesting setting.

Just my opinion. I do think the game shouldn't become so self-reflective that it can't readily handle a different approach. But again, that's just me.

 

[boredgremlin]

you dont need to change a single thing in the RAW to have a non-magitech world. what you need to do is enforce all of RAW. Including the NPC pay charts in the DMG. Once you actually enforce a normal D&D economy it becomes apparent why omnipresent magic is not a likelyhood.

Take government public works magic projects for instance....
A large city has between 12,000 and 25,000 people. The wages for NPC's run between 2gp per month for a laborer to 8gp a week for a sage... the majority of npc's will be laborers and lower paid jobs just like in the real world, but lets ignore that and just take an average of 5 gp per week per person or 20gp per month, and 140 gp per year. Assuming a maximum population of 25,000 people each making average money thats a total GDP of 350,000gp per year.

It also says under taxes and tithes that a truly oppressive government took up to 1/5 of that in taxes. For a total of 70,000gp per year for the governments total budget. Now its only fair to assume that around half of that gets dumped on paying civil servants and soldiers. leaving the city government with 35,000 per year. Enough to buy 17 +1 weapons for fighting magical enemies, raising dead important people, fighting deseases and hiring the all important random adventuring party for a grossly inflated price compared to what everyone else in the world makes of course. And this assumes that the government wants to spend every copper it brings in each and every year.

Take for instance the 150 gp permanent street lights.... that means for an entire years excess money (if thier administrators are immensely better then ours in real life of course, lol) the government could buy 200 street lights per year. With a 30ft light radius that would illuminate around 6000 sq ft... or a little over a mile, of completely open terrain where the lights can be used to best advantage without being obstructed.

Of course you cant pack 25,000 people into 6,000 square feet can you? Assuming a mere 10sq ft per person (slightly higher then New york city, where everyone built up instead of out) that means you would need to illuminate 250,000 square ft. Thus a completely averaged income city with an oppressive tax rate could illuminate its whole city in only 12 years, if it spent every spare dime on light, no lights were ever damaged or stolen, no emergencies involving unforseen expenses arose in over a decade, no city politician got it into his head to appropriate extra funds for a pet project or his own pocket, and none of the cities nobles balked over thier tax dollars being spent so peasents could have magical lights. That sounds amazingly likely doesnt it?

And this complete interpretation of the RAW is exactly why i dont use magitech worlds, or magical wallmarts. Its only believable and likely if you ignore the parts of the rules that make it unlikely, like a haflway believable economy. And thats a part of the RAW that i refuse to abandon, lest my games devolve into Final Fantasy clones.

 

[Nightfall]

Heh, I'm not ignoring you. I thought you agreed with me.

There's a pretty strong suggestion there in those few pages, that the slarcians were the ones to teach wizard magic to the world. True, there are other interpretations, but, IMO, it sounds like the Slarcians were the ones.

Sounded differently to me but okay. I answered this anyway in my "Ask the Sage thread". Also checked with Trick, since he's good at fact checking just in case.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

This is simply a matter of very differing points of view in this discussion. For example, to me the Core Rulebooks are simply a collection of tools and rules that I can take or leave at my leisure while building a campaign world. To me, it has a sign saying "If you need to resolve a situation, or describe it in rules terms, here's our suggestions for that." That's the way I handled every edition of D&D, and in fact any RPG. To me, having to adhere to ALL RAW while building something just because I use some of them has never been a question or an issue...I simply don't. I take what I need to describe the world I envision, and what I want to add because it fits, and discard the rest. And especially with D&D 3E, a game that offers so many options and rules for all kinds of games, it's obvious to me that I only apply those rules that I really want in a situation, not all of them.

To keep with the current example...just because clerics of 3rd level are able to cast Continual Flame, the RAW state how much the spell costs, how much a spellcaster charges for casting it, and how many clerics of 3rd level should exist in a settlement of a certain size, doesn't mean they run around illuminating their city, for free or otherwise. And usually, it's never a problem. Why? Because most players know that humans are weird, illogical creatures that don't automatically do what would be the logical conclusion of a row of facts. Quite often, they do the opposite.

 

[Hussar]

Just as a point about the size of cities. Feudal era cities are much more densely populated than modern cities. Well, maybe not all modern cities, but, still. Rome had a million people crammed into a couple of square miles. You could walk from one side of Rome and back in an afternoon.

The point you are missing BoredGremlin, is that a govenment need not pay in cash. My example of paying with land works quite well. Also, applying income tax in a feudal setting is very anachronistic. You don't pay a percentage of your wages, you pay a flat tax generally, based on the land you own.

But, all this is somewhat beside the point.

At first glance, it appears that there are two camps in the lighting the city discussion. However, for my purposes, there is only one. Both sides are relying on the RAW to define their positions. In other words, they are examining the RAW to determine how RAW affects the setting.

IMO, this is a very good thing. I never said that an examination of RAW must lead to magitech. That is, of course, only one interpretation among many. However, what I did say was that in order to acheive consistency, you have to examine how RAW affects the setting. Either to change the setting or to change the RAW. It is that examination process which leads to more consistency, not necessarily the answers that come from any given examination.

In a system as complicated as DnD, it is extremely unlikely that any of us would come up to a common idea as to the implications. And that's great. That means that the RAW will support a wide variety of ideas. Great. But, simply ignoring RAW and its implications is not a better way to develop a setting. It's a better way to have giant gaping holes in the setting, but not a better way to develop a setting.

Take the idea of the number of predators. Now, if we accept that there are so many predators, then there should be some reason in the campaign setting as to why. Perhaps elf makes for very healthy meat. I dunno. Don't care since my settings generally don't include so many.

However, simply ignoring it and saying, "Well, it's DND" is overly simplistic. To me, ignoring the elephant in the corner is far more short sighted than actually making some sort of attempt to develop a workable solution.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Whoever said the clerics and wizards were doing it for free? Wizards would probably charge the standard fees for doing it, Id assume! They be the technicians of the world.

Sorry, but I was "answering" Q there, and, like Kid C, I expect that at the very least spellcasters would charge the labour costs listed in the PHB. I know my auto mechanic charges them!

Who is arguing against that? Thats completely reasonable. Ive kinda gotten lost through this thread. Magic as technology can follow logically from the rules. It can also not, for several reason (gods, secretive wizards wanting magic kept for the elite, magic hating societies, etc) Its up tp the setting builder to decide which they want, and come up with the reasoning themselves. You can rationalize almost anything.

Well, then, you and I are in agreement. Hussar, however, may disagree with you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

One central theme of both Nodwick and KoDT, the abusing of hired help, has got to be as old as D&D itself. So is another central theme, the adventurers actually causing more harm than good, and then being mostly oblivious as to why the townsfolk aren't grateful to them.

YMMV, but I think D&D itself has matured* away from those prospects, mostly because the players have matured (as in being older nowadays).

* I know, the word ..

I agree absolutely. And I loved those old cartoons in the DMG.

 

[Hussar]

Well, then, you and I are in agreement. Hussar, however, may disagree with you.

Hang on, read what I wrote above. Althought, when you think about it, how is it different? Me insisting that low level permanent magics would affect a setting you or others saying that it won't? Either way, it's still examining the effects of low level magic on the setting.

Which has been my main point all along.