Overuse of monsters and magic.

[Thornir Alekeg]

Ever notice how when ever a monster is overused or becomes too common it makes it seem less "monstery". For instance, the overuse of Dragons (everyone having one to ride on in our high level games) turned dragons (once a cool creature bringing images of Smog into ones mind) into little more then domestic flying battle horses. After that we never thought of Dragons the same.

Same with magic. Once we started letting PCs buy magic (to eat up their GPs) we ended up devaluating the rare pieces we found adventuring. Ho hum was what we felt.

The same can be said for game settings where continual light spells light entire dungeons or even city streets. Once magic becomes as common as modern technology, its no longer "magic" in practicality.

Or do you disagree with this assessment?

So, I'm a little confused. Is your point that the overuse of magic and monsters makes us as players feel that they are less "magical" and "monsterous," or that if a setting uses magic and monsters as a common part of the setting, the PCs and NPCs will feel it is less "magical" and "monsterous?"

If your point is the first one, I will disagree. The feel changes as it becomes familiar. "Overuse" may make it happen faster, but it still happens. I've been playing D&D for 27 years. Whether I'm playing in a Conan style low-magic setting or Ebberron style common magic, I am not going to get a rush from seeing a Continual Light spell. Been there, done that. Now, Ebberron adding things like the Lightning Rail and elemental powered airships brings back a touch of that magical feeling for a short time. Why? Because it is new to me, but just like everything, after a while the newness wears off and it becomes one more feature. If you play long enough it is bound to happen.

Now within settings and campaigns, I will agree with you - but that is because by the very definition of the setting, those things are more common. When magic becomes a substitute for technology, it becomes as accepted to the people of that world as technology is to us.

I understand your desire for more published material where magic is a rare and amazing thing, but it hasn't been that way with D&D for a long time (some would argue that it never was).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Thats why alot of the guys that still play 1E that I know just make up their own stuff (or replay the early TSR classic modules) and don't bother posting on boards like this. They are an almost totally unsupported segment (save for a handful of really super small publishers).

This is not meant as a criticism, but one might argue such a segment is practically unsupportable. Not only do those DMs tend to have strong personal likes and dislikes such that they are difficult to win over, but if a publisher comes out with a low-magic adventure they get ugly reviews with comments like "The sorceror cast Fly on the entire party and they waltzed right through the adventure without breaking a sweat! This module is stupid."

I happen to really like a well-written adventure that presupposes little about magic, BTW.

 

[Reynard]

re: +1 sword.
The only way to get rid of pluses would be for the DM to keep track of the sword, which in of itself, is another DM headache.

I suppose so, but then I have a little cheat sheet with all the PCs vital stats when I run, so it isn't a big deal. Besides -- I am not saying "don't tell the players the plusses"; I mean don't have the plusses, at all. use different abilities and modifiers. Don't give a damage bonus, change the damage of the weapon. Have it increase THACO or BAB or effective level or whatever, not give a flat bonus. But it is "magic", so it works like a magic weapon re: DR, immunities, etc...

 

[Hussar]

Shil, I could care less what people do at their own tables. What I do care about however, is the general trend of most publishers to produce non-classic fantasy (which is trendier). Leaving the smaller publishers to support us (I suppose we are the minority).

What do you consider classic fantasy?

After all, Vance is classic fantasy and contains all the things you complain about. As do many of Moorcock's books. Heck, Barsoome is classic fantasy yet contains airships and guns.

And that's not stepping into truly classic fantasy like Greek epics or the like. I mean, take a look at some 18th century fantasy where all the characters are furry animals. Narnia is a more modern version of the same thing, where the only humans are the four or five children and all the other characters are fantastic.

There is just so much more to classic fantasy than Howard, Lieber and Tolkien. Sure, it's fine to limit yourself to those sources, but, pretending that they are the be all and end all of fantasy does a great disservice to all the other Golden Age writers.

 

[Hairfoot]

No love for the flail snail? How depressing.

 

[Hairfoot]

No love for the flail snail? How depressing.

Through the arcane sorcery of "multiple windows", I have managed to post in the wrong thread. My support for the flail snail remains firm, however.

 

[Valiant]

What do you consider classic fantasy?


There is just so much more to classic fantasy than Howard, Lieber and Tolkien. Sure, it's fine to limit yourself to those sources, but, pretending that they are the be all and end all of fantasy does a great disservice to all the other Golden Age writers.

Good question. Your correct of course, all of these sources are true fantasy, I suppose I meant more sword and sorcery or Fairy Tales etc (def. Tolkien, Howard, etc.)

 

[Hussar]

Good question. Your correct of course, all of these sources are true fantasy, I suppose I meant more sword and sorcery or Fairy Tales etc (def. Tolkien, Howard, etc.)

See, the problem is, sword and sorcery and fairy tales are antithetical genres. You shouldn't mix them really because the themes contained within each is pretty much the exact opposite of the other. S&S fantasy is humanocentric, low magic, grim and gritty and very much personal in scope. Heroic fantasy, like Tolkien, has a very broad, world reaching scope, is generally fairly high magic, and has all sorts of non-humans as protagonists.

Trying to mix the two doesn't really work. You wind up with campaigns that are one or the other, but, rarely both. Thus, we see the HUGE difference in play experiences in 1e. For those who went the S&S route, it's all about Conan and small groups in a big world. For those who went the heroic fantasy route, it was Dragonlance and Tolkien.

I'd much prefer D&D simply went a toolkit approach that supported all kinds of fantasy and didn't close off any possible inspiration. If you want wushu, go for it. If you want Conan, Harry Potter and Legolas hanging out at the bar, knock yourself out.

But, trying to force the game to only be one way is a mistake. D&D is at its best when its D&D, and not about genre emulation.

 

[Valiant]

Trying to mix the two doesn't really work. You wind up with campaigns that are one or the other, but, rarely both. Thus, we see the HUGE difference in play experiences in 1e. For those who went the S&S route, it's all about Conan and small groups in a big world. For those who went the heroic fantasy route, it was Dragonlance and Tolkien.
D&D is at its best when its D&D, and not about genre emulation.

Interesting, my take is just the opposite. I think AD&Ds strength is its broad inclusion of elements that allow for a wide variety of settings and player experiances. By not tieing to any one "story" setting (for instance, not going pure Tolkien), the DM and players get to create their own (thus they have "ownership" of it. However, the early modules (and the 3 core books) suggested the creators had certain bounds they would not cross.

 

[Hussar]

Interesting, my take is just the opposite. I think AD&Ds strength is its broad inclusion of elements that allow for a wide variety of settings and player experiances. By not tieing to any one "story" setting (for instance, not going pure Tolkien), the DM and players get to create their own (thus they have "ownership" of it. However, the early modules (and the 3 core books) suggested the creators had certain bounds they would not cross.

What bounds would those be? Early 1e modules had robots, lasers, Victorian houses, six shooters, cannons (A1), and a host of other things as well.