Low Magic Campaigns?

[gizmo33]

How can something be based on tribute or allegiance with no social bonds?

Colour me confused.

Yea, my use of the word "social bonds" was a little more specific. I was referring to the kind of tight feudal agreements that we were talking about earlier. In the case of the Chinese, actually, tribute means something much closer to an international trade agreement than you would think. In any case this example is getting too convoluted and I think I've made a similar enough point elsewhere.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yea, my use of the word "social bonds" was a little more specific. I was referring to the kind of tight feudal agreements that we were talking about earlier. In the case of the Chinese, actually, tribute means something much closer to an international trade agreement than you would think. In any case this example is getting too convoluted and I think I've made a similar enough point elsewhere.

I'm not sure where we differ, then.

 

[gizmo33]

I believe he's referring to the Magic Item Compendium.

While going over my houserules for magic items, I spotted checked some of the values in the DMG for particular magic items and found that they didn't follow the general rules for calculating price (for example - an items cost is 1000 gp x bonus squared). That makes them wrong according to the framework established in the rules - is that the type of error that the MIC corrects? Or did they change the actual formulas?

 

[gizmo33]

I'm not sure where we differ, then.

We probably don't differ by much at this point. Maybe just some minor things, which could just be a matter of vocabulary.

One minor point could be this issue of "monetary incentive" that you're talking about. You've emphasized non-money economies in a lot of ways that I'm not clear on the significance exactly, though I find nothing to object to that you say, the statements proximity to my statements and the tone would imply disagreement, but I don't understand what.

I have some problems with putting too much emphasis on non-money economies (which I'm not sure you're doing). One is simply that DnD from beginning to end assumes such an economy for players - even if a character's starting goods are those he inherited, those goods have a value that's determined by gp value. There's very little-nothing in the default rules that makes non-money conditions on when you can buy swords or whatever.

Secondly, I think a money-based economy is appropriate to the technological level that DnD seems to represent. You have platemail, merchant ships, mineral acids, spyglasses, etc. I don't think that the economic practices of the Early Middle Ages are necessarily the best fit. There are historical periods both before and after that seem better for this. (This makes DnD not a good match for Tolkien's world, but then I think Gygax always maintained this.)

Lastly, there's what I call the "buried treasure" fantasy. Such stories of buried treasure are fairly ubiquitous, ranging from stories of Egyptian tomb robbers, to leprechaun's and their pots of gold, or even the contracts that devils would make with the conjurer to reveal treasure in Renaissance grimoires. I don't really know that these folktales exactly correspond to the Early Middle Ages, but they seem to suggest a fantasy in the minds of the people that doesn't make sense if they can't spend gold fairly freely. If there are so many social restrictions on the use of money that it doesn't represent basically unlimited potential, then I can't reconcile that with the environment that these stories seem to describe.

As a corollary, one of my problems with being too restrictive on the selling of magic items is that you impede the "treasure fantasy" of the PCs. A big pile of gold ought to be a glorious thing to adventurers, it ought to translate as power and potential as it does in most historical periods in the real world. And yet if all you can do with it is buy oxen, or get saddled with a castle and a mortgage then it loses it's luster.

 

[Raven Crowking]

While going over my houserules for magic items, I spotted checked some of the values in the DMG for particular magic items and found that they didn't follow the general rules for calculating price (for example - an items cost is 1000 gp x bonus squared). That makes them wrong according to the framework established in the rules - is that the type of error that the MIC corrects? Or did they change the actual formulas?

I'm not sure. I was just contemplating buying that one when Dungeon & Dragon got pulled, and I have decided not to buy any WotC products until their print existence is ensured once more. However, I have heard reports that many magic items are repriced in the book.

MerricB would know.


RC

 

[Brother MacLaren]

As a corollary, one of my problems with being too restrictive on the selling of magic items is that you impede the "treasure fantasy" of the PCs. A big pile of gold ought to be a glorious thing to adventurers, it ought to translate as power and potential as it does in most historical periods in the real world. And yet if all you can do with it is buy oxen, or get saddled with a castle and a mortgage then it loses it's luster.

This is an interesting point. But, not to be a grognard, in the campaigns I ran in B/X and in 2e, there was NO market for magic items, and the ruleset discouraged there being such things. Typically PCs were saving up to build strongholds and hire mercenaries to defend their lands. These things certainly contribute to "power and potential." And in B/X they mostly valued the gold for the XP it brought.

And in 3.5, even without shops selling magic items, you still need to buy magic components -- the diamonds for Raise Dead spells and Stoneskin, the expensive components for stronghold wards such as Hallow or Forbiddance, and scroll scribing. And bribes for the ever-useful Planar Ally spells.

My biggest problem with magic shops is that one doesn't imagine the great heroes of legend buying magic items. They are family heirlooms (Aragorn's sword), gifts from the gods (Excalibur, Perseus' shield, Cuchulainn's spear), or long-lost items that were found (Sting in LOTR, or the Atlantean sword in Conan). Or potions and charms made by a wizard and typically GIVEN to one on a quest the wizard supports. So even when playing in a game that has magic shops, I'll rarely have a character patronize one. It just seems to go against the mythic hero feel that I like so much.

Of course, none of the above heroes are about getting gold first and foremost, and the same is true for most of my PCs. I prefer to have a goal like "saving the world" or "avenging my clan" or "discovering the mysteries of Ptolus" or something big.

 

[gizmo33]

My biggest problem with magic shops is that one doesn't imagine the great heroes of legend buying magic items.

I have the same problem, and I never meant to suggest that magic items should be sitting on store shelves. A "market" for such items would probably mean something closer to what Celebrim gives as examples.

On the topic of Aragorn not buying his magic items - that's another case where IMO DnD is an uncomfortable fit with Tolkien (ie. a more Dark Ages heroic setting). For one, the frequency of +1 swords in a typical game far exceeds anything you find in folklore.

Another thing is that I find the economic picture of Middle Earth to be extremely undeveloped, and frankly implausible. The hobbits travel through huge swaths of abandoned wilderness. There was one scene in the book I recall where the orcs are converging on a fort (Helms Deep maybe?), and the fires of burning villages were seen in the distance as they approached. I found that jarring because no such mention was made of those villages in the hobbits approach to the fort.

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. The trolls had Orcrist and Sting sitting in their treasure pile in the hobbit. Isn't it possible that men have also hoarded these things? Descendants of great fighters who themselves are too sedintary to see much use for keeping around something worth so much that they'll never use? There's really nothing like that discussed in the books. Where's all the rest of the mithril? Did the dwarves trade it for something?

I don't think that Tolkien really cared a whole lot about the economic nature of his world, because I don't find it to be that developed. A DnD world, though, I think has a greater requirement for versimiltude than a novel - unless your players are of similar mindset and can put aside their questions about how stuff works.

 

[Celebrim]

Another thing is that I find the economic picture of Middle Earth to be extremely undeveloped, and frankly implausible. The hobbits travel through huge swaths of abandoned wilderness.

Abandoned is the key word. The population of a ME at the time of the novel is a small fraction of its previous population. Various invasions, plagues, and famines have denuded much of Middle Earth of its population. We can assume that Sauron has been orchastrating the destruction of the free people of ME for centuries now.

There was one scene in the book I recall where the orcs are converging on a fort (Helms Deep maybe?), and the fires of burning villages were seen in the distance as they approached. I found that jarring because no such mention was made of those villages in the hobbits approach to the fort.

You are confused. Aragorn and company ride up into Helms deep from the valley side, passing many burning hamlets and villages to either on the way. This is explicitly mentioned. The Hobbits never approach Helm's Deep until after the battle. They go straight to Isengard with the Ents.

For the most part, Aragorn and company deliberately keep to sparsely inhabited areas during the Fellowship.

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. The trolls had Orcrist and Sting sitting in their treasure pile in the hobbit. Isn't it possible that men have also hoarded these things? Descendants of great fighters who themselves are too sedintary to see much use for keeping around something worth so much that they'll never use? There's really nothing like that discussed in the books. Where's all the rest of the mithril?

For example, the helms of the guards of the white tower.

But seriously, its a novel. All the world building detail can't be squeezed into it. We are able to infer that the Dwarves maintain a trade network across the whole of the middle earth, and that they have built roads for those purposes. We don't actually here about it except when Bilbo employs it to prepare for his Birthday party, and the fact that Dwarves apparantly stop regularly in Bree. Tolkien mentions that there are actually a great many Hobbits living outside of the Shire, but except for Bree and its surrounding communities we never see any of them. There are many communities implied by the text that aren't even on the map. They just aren't part of the story.

 

[S'mon]

But seriously, its a novel. All the world building detail can't be squeezed into it....

Yet we get endless linguistics and ancestry... I think geography, human geography and demographics just wasn't Tolkien's forte. I too have the problem with Middle Earth that the non-orc population seems so sparse, it couldn't possibly maintain a sedentary medieval style culture like we see in Arnor with Bree and The Shire. Rohan and Gondor are better, though Gondor still has some issues - cities without villages. The semi-nomadic Rohirrim with their 650 AD tech are probably the most plausible element, much as "Anglo Saxon Cossacks" apparently are mocked by the snobs.

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.

 

[gizmo33]

You are confused. Aragorn and company ride up into Helms deep from the valley side, passing many burning hamlets and villages to either on the way.

Yea, I don't remember who was doing what, this is an old memory. What I do recall was my reaction at the time which was "where did all these villages come from?".

But seriously, its a novel. All the world building detail can't be squeezed into it.

I agree. But when someone says "well it doesn't seem right to have markets for magic items because they didn't exist in LotR", or something like that, then it's relevant. I'm not trying to criticize LotR, I'm just trying to point out that it might be of limited usefulness as a guide for certain aspects of world-building.