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

[willpax]

The story so far:

Part of the point of this thread has been not to look at "balance of combat" issues but rather the ability of various abilities to wreak havoc in the quasi-sorta-literary-medievalish setting that is conventional D&D. If every wide spot in the road has someone who can make magic potions, then our sense of reason tells us the world would be very different.

There seem to be two main responses to this basic observation: either change the world or change the rules that would otherwise distort the world. Both are valid and both have advantages and disadvantages.

If you change the world to fit the implications of (at least some of) the rules, then you gain the ease of knowing what the rules are (which shouldn't be underestimated), but, depending on the degree of change, you may have a world that is difficult for players to understand. Also, allowing the rules to dictate the world narrows the range of possible "feels" that you could create in a world.

If you change the rules to fit the type of world that you want, then you have added to the already time-consuming task of world creation the additional burden of coming up with a magic system (unless you opt for not magic at all, which, while "rules clean," does also narrow the possibilities). Many who have attempted to change the rules significantly are trying various "mix and match" approaches, borrowing mechanics from other d20 games and adapting them slightly. Others attempt to create magic systems from the ground up (although only a few of these, at least in my observation, ever reach a stage of polish that would make it easy for someone else to use them).

Looking at Star Wars d20 and Wheel of Time d20, it does seem that manipulation of the magic system seems to be the favorite way to achieve a radically different feel from conventional D&D.

I'll throw out one rule change I've instituted that could possible work outside my homebrew magic system. I have magic item creation call for a sacrifice of hit points (actually, I use the VP/WP system, but it works out about the same). Permanent items require a permanent sacrifice, but it doesn't have to be from the caster. Charged items require a similar sacrifice, but the points can be healed normally. What that change does is make charged items slightly less common, but still available, but makes permanent items (such as swords) very rare. It seems to be the permanent, always on items that cause the most drastic changes in world logic.

 

[WizarDru]

seem to be two main responses to this basic observation: either change the world or change the rules that would otherwise distort the world. Both are valid and both have advantages and disadvantages.

Good comments, all, but I think there are THREE responses. The third is "Don't change the rules or the world, but be exercise some restraint."

There are a lot of factors that go into the complex equation that is the D&D world. The belief that mages will dominate the world makes several key assumptions that may not be true, for an individual or a world. First off, how do the mages get the necessary resource to become the world dominators that are assumed to exist? That experience has to come from somewhere, and it certainly isn't from throwing magic missles at kobolds.

Second, why is it assumed that the majority of magically-inclined individuals would want to undertake the risky business of adventuring in the first place. Just because "adventurer" is a profession in some worlds, doesn't mean that most people will choose it, even if given half a chance. Many would prefer a nice, comfortable life, using their floating disk, unseen servant and spiderclimb spells to impress the locals.

Third, everybody rests. Arcanists have low hit points, and D&D magic is more about offense than defense. Even Elves need to 'shut-off' for four hours every day. Even a 20th-level mage has to have a support structure when he's resting.

Four, D&D magic is mostly 'individualist' magic. Mage Guilds aren't usually about pooling power, they're about sharing and controlling resources. Mages generally don't trust each other the same way that clerics tend to do. They hoard secrets, develop their own magics and often only act in their own best interests.

Fifth, those in power are usually interested in retaining it. Mages are weak when they're at low levels, and smart rulers would know this. Stopping them before they become a problem would certainly not be out of the question.

Sixth, mages can be part of the system. They may work for the government, be a part of the aristocracy...or they may just believe in the system. Unless they are robots, they have certain value systems they were raised with: one doesn't need to be a paladin to decide not to raze a village. A 10 year old boy with a torch and evil intent can burn a town to the ground, and yet he doesn't. Becoming a mage with Burning Hands doesn't change that, necessarily.

There are plenty of reasons within the standard D&D setting for running a tight game without magic dominating it. there can be an equal reason for why it does. But neither requires and extensive change for this to occur.

 

[Desdichado]

Joshua - I'm going to check out your site today. I do have and like CoC magic. Might have to break out the books again!

Well, like I said, the site is very incomplete at this stage, and it also lacks almost any of the campaign setting material stuff that I intend to eventually put up there. But you're more than welcome to have a look! Let me know what you think.

 

[kengar]

If you want the same feel in D+D simply give every spell a DC. If you fail the DC the spell still casts, but you take damage.

I've considered something similiar. Spellcraft rolls for every casting. If you fail, the spell fizzles. Also, adopting a stricter stance towards material components for spellcasters might be worth a try. I wouldn't want to make the components for a 1st level spell TOO expensive, but keeping track of whether the wizard is out of a given substance could be fun (in the right kind of game).

Now, I've not actually implemented these rules, I've just fiddled with them in some homebrew concepts.

 

[willpax]

If you think a spell roll is too penalizing, you might consider making the save against it harder if the roll succeeds well, like +1 to save DC for every +5 over the roll.

 

[bmcdaniel]

Mythological Greece as model for D&D

Getting back to people who are interested in what a world would look like under core D&D, I suggest thinking about the world of mythological Greece.

In mythological Greece, cities are ruled by hero-kings, and positions are hereditary only to the extent the son(s) are strong enough to fend off rivals. All cities, major and minor, claim descent from hero-founders, and new cities are constantly being carved out of thewilderness. It is quite common in established cities for one hero to displace another, perhaps with the help of a local faction and some companions. For cultural reasons, these heroes tend toward the warrior-type (priests try to stay out of city politics and sorcerors are too strange for people to follow).

Conversely, the very dependence on the hero to maintain a cities security limits the size and political power of a city. Greeks being rather egoistic and freedom-loving, tend to avoid forming hierarchical political groups beyond a handful of close companions. Since, in a world populated by fearsome monsters, not to mention other heroes, the heroes are necessary for security, the size and power of any particular city is limited to what a handful of companions can ensure.

 

[Gez]

Re: Mythological Greece as model for D&D

For cultural reasons, these heroes tend toward the warrior-type

Or rogue type ! A typical greek hero, like Jason (of the Argonauts) would be considered a crook or a plunderer outside of his country; mainly because they preyed on strangers. Greek heroes tend to use guile and cunning as much as strength (even Herakles, the strongest and dimmest witted of them).

 

[S'mon]

It may not be possible for a gang of six high level PC's to defeat an entire socity but of your society is basically"Midieval England with Wizards" and the effect the wizards have isn't factored in well...

The PC's can and will bring that society to its knees.

At the very least a typical D&D medieval-style kingdom will have its Court Wizard (& apprentices), its secret agents (mid-high level Rogues), various orders of knighthood (fighters) and at least one order of Clerics who support the established order - the priests of the God of Rulership, most likely (who may be LN if you don't think LG deities would support feudalism!). In a warlike realm the king is most likely a high-level fighter or high-level in another class, but even if not the king will be able to call on a variety of high-level NPCs who serve him.

This isn't to say that a party of 20th level PCs couldn't ever single-handedly conquer a small kingdom, but level distribution of NPCs should match PCs.

A small barony might only have 5th-level NPC leaders, and thus be conquerable single-handed by a ca 10th level PC group, but then a dukedom will have ca 10th level leaders, a kingdom 15th, a great empire 20th level or even higher.

The presence of powerful adventurers may make the D&D world somewhat unstable, but if you look at the real middle ages, they were often very unstable also. Mages may replace cannons and high-level fighters may dominate the masses of spearcarriers Iliad-style, but the basis remains the same.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: Mythological Greece as model for D&D

Or rogue type ! A typical greek hero, like Jason (of the Argonauts) would be considered a crook or a plunderer outside of his country; mainly because they preyed on strangers. Greek heroes tend to use guile and cunning as much as strength (even Herakles, the strongest and dimmest witted of them).

The dimmest witted of them? Why do you think that? Say rather than Herakles was the ultimate hero to the Greeks -- all the other heroes fell to their fatal flaws, while Herakles overcame his and was eventually deified.

 

[Alchemist]

Whoo. Not to promote the highjacking of this thread, but:

Jason was not a particularly good "Greek Hero". Greek Heroes triumphed due to strength of body and great wit. Jason triumphed because he got women to help him out.

Not bashing women here, but you weren't really a hero to the greeks if you didn't pull off the great feats yourself.

Heroes died in battle, heroically. Jason did not. He was a suck.

The hero of that story was Medea, even though she was all kinds of evil, and female.

Now, back to discussing low-power campaigning!

Edited for spelling.