Low Magic Campaigns?

[gizmo33]

One thing I do love about Tolkien though is his use of item-gifting, as mentioned upthread. If you want a game where the PCs actually like and respect the NPC rulers, it's a far better approach than the grudging bag of gold at the end of the quest. In my C&C Wilderlands game when the PCs rescued some Tharbrian barbarian girls from slavery, the Tharbrian chief gifted them with magic weapons, which made a big impression on the players.

There was an old dragon magazine article (moment of silence...) that described barbarian culture. A big part of the distribution of wealth had to do with the status that a chieftain gained from giving away items of wealth rather than hoarding them. Sounds like the Tharbrians might have read this article to?

It would have been really nice if the 3E DMG would have included such cultural notes as world-building options, I agree with the sentiment that I've seen in this thread that finds 3E to be way too anachronistic and dismissive of real historical cultures as inspiration for the game. Then again such detail could have increased the length of the DMG significantly - closer to the 1E size which I don't think is a bad thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In fact, there's no discussion of transactions or currency, or any of the other stuff you'd expect to find underlying Middle Earth societies.

Sure there is.

In The Hobbit, we have, among other things:

(1) The contract between Bilbo and the dwarves (including that the dwarves pay expenses, and funeral costs if needed),

(2) The economics of Long Lake and the Wood elves (including the mayor's love of gold),

(3) The expectation of recompense and aid from the dragon's treasure....Including the expectation that the dwarves would give some of their own share if they wanted the honour and aid of folk in the area.

(4) Bilbo's need to buy much of his furnishings back and the auction at his hobbit hole,

(5) and Bilbo's gift-giving to the Elvenking.

In LotR there is, among other things:

(1) Cost of provisioning for Bilbo's Long Expected Party,

(2) A postal system in the Shire,Sherrifs, and a network of inns and taverns (all of which require economics),

(3) A trade between the Southfarthing and Isegard,

(4) The Nazgul's offer of gold for news of Baggins,

(5) The inn in Bree, the cost for reprovisioning, and the cost for new ponies,

(6) Frodo's purchase of the house at Crickhollow, and his sale of Bag End,

(7) and some discussion in Bree about how much money the hobbits have on them as well as how long they will need it.

It is only when the Fellowship gets past Bree and into the Wild that monetary trade gets sparse. Of course, that is because people get sparse as well. Once they are known to have become embroiled in the affairs of the high and mighty (Theodin, Denethor, Galadrial, Elrond) they are outside the base economic system and into The Godfather territory.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think geography, human geography and demographics just wasn't Tolkien's forte.

The geography and human geography of Middle Earth in LotR is, if anything, too painstakingly detailed. There is far more geography than poetry.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There was an old dragon magazine article (moment of silence...) that described barbarian culture. A big part of the distribution of wealth had to do with the status that a chieftain gained from giving away items of wealth rather than hoarding them. Sounds like the Tharbrians might have read this article to?

I remember that article. I would gladly buy a compilation of the Dragon worldbuilding articles.

It would have been really nice if the 3E DMG would have included such cultural notes as world-building options, I agree with the sentiment that I've seen in this thread that finds 3E to be way too anachronistic and dismissive of real historical cultures as inspiration for the game. Then again such detail could have increased the length of the DMG significantly - closer to the 1E size which I don't think is a bad thing.

I agree completely.

 

[S'mon]

There was an old dragon magazine article (moment of silence...) that described barbarian culture. A big part of the distribution of wealth had to do with the status that a chieftain gained from giving away items of wealth rather than hoarding them. Sounds like the Tharbrians might have read this article to?

I hadn't read it, but (a) I'm Northern Irish so I have a certain cultural affinity here anyway and (b) the Wilderlands Tharbrians are basically horse-riding Celts (presumably cousins of the Rohirrim horse-riding Saxons) so I went with "How would a Celtic chieftain act to the guys who, unbidden, returned his daughter and a bunch of other girls in the middle of the big Spring clan-meet when every other chief within a hundred leagues is watching..."

- So the Skandik (Norse) PC was gifted a Skandik runesword taken from a warrior the chief had killed, and the dagger-wielding PC a dragonbane dagger made from the tooth of a dragon.

 

[Raven Crowking]

BTW, Gizmo33, here's your 500 XP for that necklace in the other thread, courtesy of Mr. Longsword +4.

(Do we really need to know his gender, or even that it's a jewelry item, or even travel to a trading post, or have a town 24)

Good stuff.

 

[gizmo33]

BTW, Gizmo33, here's your 500 XP for that necklace in the other thread, courtesy of Mr. Longsword +4.

Thanks. I was doing an imitation of people I've actually DMed though, if you can believe it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thanks. I was doing an imitation of people I've actually DMed though, if you can believe it.

Every time I hear something like that, I have to wonder: have I been extraordinarily lucky in my D&D experiences, or are some people simply extraordinarily unlucky?

 

[gizmo33]

Every time I hear something like that, I have to wonder: have I been extraordinarily lucky in my D&D experiences, or are some people simply extraordinarily unlucky?

I've had that same thought in other threads where I read about some player foible that I've never encountered. In my particular experience this player was a friend of mind and his rants were sort of a mock-indignation that made as much fun of his shallowness as anything else. He really did feel like he'd rather kill things and take their stuff than keep track of setting details. Another player IMC went to the opposite extreme and used to request historical information about my campaign.

The players you describe seem to take the setting elements you create and perhaps build their characters and actions on them. That's my favorite kind of player. The typical player I DM is somewhat less involved than that. I think there's this reluctance to take up everyone's time with having your character interact with NPCs or do things that don't relate to the current mission. It seems to depend on the personality of the player more than anything that I can manage to do.