How on Earth do you have a tightly controlled D&D world with normal magic (Long)

Joshua Dyal said:

And with a simple word, he dismisses all those who find this very activity to be fun! :rolleyes:

What part of "For ME" didn't make sense, there? Who dismissed anyone? If you find it fun, go crazy. For me, figuring out why every street doesn't have magical "Continual Light" street lamps isn't my idea of fun, and my players aren't that interested in it, either. It can be a great deal of fun figuring that out....but not FOR ME. I can justify it in my game enough to stand up to light scrutiny, and that's enough to not bother my players with issues of verisimilitude.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

WizarDru said:


What part of "For ME" didn't make sense, there? Who dismissed anyone?

The canonical rejoinder in this situation is "which part of ____ do you have trouble understanding?"

HTH!


Hong "caring prolix bastard" Ooi
 

hong said:


The canonical rejoinder in this situation is "which part of ____ do you have trouble understanding?"

HTH!


Hong "caring prolix bastard" Ooi

I expected you to suggest something involving pants. :)
 

WizarDru said:
figuring out why every street doesn't have magical "Continual Light" street lamps

Because such a street lamp would cost individually 90 years of the average worker's earning ? Because a 600 000 people city would deplete the whole kingdom's ruby resources in order to be lit correctly ? Because attempts at mining more rubies in the Elemental Plane of Earth would just result in a war with xorns and dao genies ? Because a rogue would steal all the stock of ruby powder in the mageguild tasked of crafting the lamposts ?
 

(ie. i dont care how powerful of a wizard you are, you're still not going to fart in public because people will not take you seriously

Well, unless it happens to be the somatic component for a stinking cloud spell...:D


Everyone has good ideas but, ultimately, it depends on the LEVEL of magic in the campaign world. Brust's novels are a good example of a HIGH magic world (resurrection is a common thing, most people seem to have psionic ability of some degree, the Imperial Orb pretty much lets EVERYONE be a sorceror...). Something like Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series (though i'm loathe to make mention of it) shows how rather limited magic might be used in a society (the Aes Sedai are an elite who pretty much have their own agenda(s) and might have political power but have no desire to be the rulers of the land themselves...or that's how I remember it, it might have changed in the 70 books in the series since that time). Back to the other end of the spectrum is Robert Heinlein's book...I think it was Magic, Inc.??? (someone help me on that title)...where magic had largely replaced technology. If anything, it was even more prevalent than in Brust's books.

I can't, personally, stomach very much magic. I like it to be a relatively rare thing. In my world, most people have seen someone working magic or seen the results of a spell but those who can use magic are really not all that common. Think of something along the lines of a judge in our own world...everyone knows that they exist and we hear about their rulings and stuff but how many of us actually see a judge in public, know one, or are ever in a courtroom? If we are an attorney or a criminal (is there really a difference?) or a LEO, then it is part of our job to deal with judges but the vast majority of the public will never see one or feel (directly) the effects of a ruling.
 

Gez said:


Because such a street lamp would cost individually 90 years of the average worker's earning ? Because a 600 000 people city would deplete the whole kingdom's ruby resources in order to be lit correctly ? Because attempts at mining more rubies in the Elemental Plane of Earth would just result in a war with xorns and dao genies ? Because a rogue would steal all the stock of ruby powder in the mageguild tasked of crafting the lamposts ?

It only takes a material component (canonically a ruby) worth 50 GP. Properly lighting a city would cost 50,000GP worth of rubies (or less) chicken scratch
 

Gez said:


What was medieval feudalism ?

Nobles owned Land, land owner were nobles. (Some nobles didn't owned lands, but they were then vassal knights of a land-owner noble).
Nobles had owe of fealty between them.
Commoners were either burgher, villein or serf. Serfs were part of the land they lived on. Villein were rich peasant that owned their villa (latin meaning, i.e. house). Burgher lived in burgs.

How's that incompatible with D&D ?
  • Clerics will be either nobles or rich burghers. They'll be fine with such a society. They've been raised in it, it's how things work. If they see injustice, like sick and starving serfs, they'll try to better their lot with some spells that will heal them and bless the fields and cattle they work on.
  • Druids will like the serf thingie, people being litterally owned by the land. They'll find that the model of power where the lord is the one who own the land is the only one that makes sense.
  • Wizards, even more than clerics, will be either nobles or rich burghers. They won't bother with how the society work, unless they're nobles.
  • Sorcerers may hail from anywhere. If you go with the bloodline thingie, most families with sorcerers will be noble themselves, either from start or because one of their ancestor had been ennobled in reward for helping the lord with sorcery. Even if they're not noble, they will devote more interest in discovering, awakening and taming their powers than in starting a revolution.
  • Bards will behave either like bards and skalds (and stay in their hometown, schooling children, and singing the prowess of the chef and his heroic warriors) or like minstrels (and wander from town to town, entairtaining the nobility and spreading news and gossip). Neither role has any interest in upsetting the political order.
  • Rogues will typically live in the underground society. By definition, they have no will of upsetting the balance, they'll just want to stay below the radar of the autority, whatever it is (feudal, imperial, democratic, theocratic, communist, anarcho-syndicalist, oligarchic, gerontocratic, militaristic, they don't care).
  • Monks live in their secluded mountain monastery. They depend on the noble supporting them. They have no interest in politics.
  • Paladin are most often noble themselves. They will be the first to support their kings. The word paladin, by the way, was coined on the same root that the word palace. These guys are the elite order of noble knights, even if some commoners are in their rank.
  • Rangers, unless they are Aragorn son of Aratorn, known as Strider, will have no interest at all in the political system. If they are Aragorn, they'll want to be king, not to destroy feudalism.
  • Fighters will typically work for a noble, be payed by that noble, etc.
  • Barbarians, by definition, will be foreigners in a feudal system. As such, they are a clear minority. They won't try to indoctrinate feudal folk into barbarianism, as they will either despise these "soft-skinned guys who're there just so we may plunder their wives, rape their cattle, and roast their harvests, or something like that, don't remember well my one-liner" or admire "the civilized people from the cities, who build stone tent that climb in the sky, and have plentiful food even in the dead of winter".

I suppose its not. These are all good thoughts

For comparison my game world is a little odd is places.

I take humans with a distorted 20th/21st century mind set, drop them in a world with tons of magic and an absolute proof of life after death (in this case reincarnation)

Midrea (my game world) is in no way and organic world, in fact none of the native animals larger than a vole or a few small predators are left.

The world has been so throughly altered by magic its no anything like it would have been with natural evoloution. The previous inhabitants (an unpleasnt race called the shapers) were a little, umm Nuts. "Don't like that mountain?" No problem.... flatten it

As for a Noble class , they met a terrible fate IMC.
Most of them were horribly slian and soul bound into crystals by Anarachist Necromancers

I think the best running gag for my kingdom would be "In Midrea your need to know the plural of apocolypse"

I think if you limit magic items (especially at will items) and spellcasters, yeah I think you can get by with the same stuff you see on our world.

However if you follow the PHB guidelines --- You will end up with a rather magical world-- along the lines of the Realms
 

WizarDru said:
What part of "For ME" didn't make sense, there? Who dismissed anyone? If you find it fun, go crazy. For me, figuring out why every street doesn't have magical "Continual Light" street lamps isn't my idea of fun, and my players aren't that interested in it, either. It can be a great deal of fun figuring that out....but not FOR ME. I can justify it in my game enough to stand up to light scrutiny, and that's enough to not bother my players with issues of verisimilitude.
Hold on there! No reason to get all size=5 on me. I realise you added the phrase "for me" although I don't know why you think simply adding that phrase doesn't make your post dismissive. Seems to me that if you don't find the activity worthwhile, you probably don't have much to add to the discussion. Coming on board just to say you think the whole thing is a waste of time is hardly constructive.

Personally, I feel that it's better (and easier) to tweak the rules (i.e., custom spell system) than it is to create a world that works with the assumptions of the rules as written. I think the point is though, that the published worlds and the published systems seem to be somewhat incompatible: the worlds don't actually follow to their logical conclusion the assumptions that the rules would seem to imply. We had a discussion along these lines recently in a SHARK thread -- I'll see if I can find the URL and resurrect it. SHARK's world is one that is built on the assumptions inherent in the rules and follows through with them to create a world that is different from your standard D&D campaign setting. The kind I prefer to run are also different, but I steal spell-systems from other games and work them into a d20 framework so I can get a setting that is more along the lines of what I want. It's a bit of a chicken/egg question: which one do you want to influence, the setting or the rules? In other words, which variable drives the other?
 

Joshua Dyal said:

SNIP

Personally, I feel that it's better (and easier) to tweak the rules (i.e., custom spell system) than it is to create a world that works with the assumptions of the rules as written. I think the point is though, that the published worlds and the published systems seem to be somewhat incompatible: the worlds don't actually follow to their logical conclusion the assumptions that the rules would seem to imply. We had a discussion along these lines recently in a SHARK thread -- I'll see if I can find the URL and resurrect it. SHARK's world is one that is built on the assumptions inherent in the rules and follows through with them to create a world that is different from your standard D&D campaign setting. The kind I prefer to run are also different, but I steal spell-systems from other games and work them into a d20 framework so I can get a setting that is more along the lines of what I want. It's a bit of a chicken/egg question: which one do you want to influence, the setting or the rules? In other words, which variable drives the other?

Bravo. You hit the nail on the head.

My next game world will not be high magic like this one is. My players and I find Midrea a little too alien at times and that has hurt the fun factor considerably

My next influence order will be setting/rules not rules/setting like I did this time.
 

God, Land, and King are One

I often rely on the Divine Right of Kings. True claimants to the throne not only have Ladies in Lakes handing them (un)holy swords, but damage resistance, spell resistance, and angels (or devils) looking out for them.
 

Remove ads

Top