Overuse of monsters and magic.

[shilsen]

It is kind of interesting how 2E moved the default "timeline" forward to the Renaissance, isn't it? Note that there was no full plate in the 1E core books.

I've never read the 1e core books, but I've heard that before.

Indeed. However, the thing about game books is they tend to tell you what's a-typical and important. So, it seems like there are huge numbers of high level wizards and magical weapons/items running around, but contextually those things are 1:1000, 1:10000 or even 1:1000000. The PCs and their adversaries operate in a world that is alien to the common peasant, merchant and even baron. These are people in the "know" and able to see the world for what it really is -- a place full of danger and mystery and beauty and horror. Also note that those +1 swords and the like are often considered the treasures of lost ages -- that is why they are in deep holes and broken ruins. There aren't many wizards pumping out magic items in the day and age of the PCs: these items are the labors of dwarven nations long since devoured by the things they woke deep in the earth, elven smiths that have since sailed to the West and arcane empires that have collapsed under the weight of their own decadence. PCs are the people uncovering these age old items and secrets and, perhaps, the ones who can bring this lost knowledge and artifice back to the world. This is especially true in the dark ages/medieval milieu of 1E because it is before the Renaissance or any kind of "enlightenment" -- the old empires have fallen, darkness and depair have descended and history has become myth and legend.

Very nicely put. I think that's a flavor issue the individual DM would have to put in, since I don't think it's supported by the specific settings and modules that came out. For example, in 2e (and from what I've seen of 1e modules too as discussed on these boards, esp. by Quasqueton's detailed coverage of some of the contents) there was such a volume of magical treasure in the average dungeon that it made the explanation that these were all the remnants of lost empires and civilizations a little difficult to swallow. Especially considering how much magic NPCs were walking around with too.

Or maybe it was just me

 

[Valiant]

I've never read the 1e core books, but I've heard that before.



Very nicely put. I think that's a flavor issue the individual DM would have to put in, since I don't think it's supported by the specific settings and modules that came out. For example, in 2e (and from what I've seen of 1e modules too as discussed on these boards, esp. by Quasqueton's detailed coverage of some of the contents) there was such a volume of magical treasure in the average dungeon that it made the explanation that these were all the remnants of lost empires and civilizations a little difficult to swallow. Especially considering how much magic NPCs were walking around with too.

Or maybe it was just me

Shilsen, high volumes of magic in some dungeons doesn't indicate that magic is common in all dungeons, or that its common at all. It just happens to be a high concentration thats all. If you look at the old TSR modules, some have a ton of magic, others almost none (yet their from the same era and often by the same author). Its just variation (the spice of life ).

Concerning Information you can gather about setting from reading the early TSR modules (along with the PH and DMG), often its whats not mentioned that tells you about what the general setting is supposed to be like (for instance we never see magic replacing modern technology taken for granted by peasants). Sometimes what you don't read tells you more then what you do.


Shil -I've never read the 1e core books, but I've heard that before.-

Wow, this is a 1E thread, you really should read the books (at least parts of them) it will give you a better understanding where us 1Eers are coming from. Not to mention, they are alot of fun, great fantasy in their own right (never mind the rules). Of course, you may also discover that you like it and might want to give it a try, who knows, it may even turn out being your favorite FRPG.

 

[shilsen]

Shilsen, high volumes of magic in some dungeons doesn't indicate that magic is common in all dungeons, or that its common at all. It just happens to be a high concentration thats all. If you look at the old TSR modules, some have a ton of magic, others almost none (yet their from the same era and often by the same author). Its just variation (the spice of life ).

Maybe it's just the modules I've looked at and heard about on ENWorld, but I find high concentrations of magic tend to be the norm. I find them quite similar to 3e modules in that regard, and in some ways, I think there's likely to be more magic in 1e/2e modules than 3e. Especially since 3e has guidelines for what kind of magic is just too powerful/costly to be found in a module (whether writers always follow that is another matter, of course), and 1e/2e didn't.

Check out the thread by Quasqueton Treasure and leveling comparisons: AD&D1, B/ED&D, and D&D3. It has some interesting data on the subject.

Concerning Information you can gather about setting from reading the early TSR modules (along with the PH and DMG), often its whats not mentioned that tells you about what the general setting is supposed to be like (for instance we never see magic replacing modern technology taken for granted by peasants). Sometimes what you don't read tells you more then what you do.

True. Of course, I wasn't referring just to modules but the settings too, although in the case of the latter I'm referring primarily to 2e. In the settings I looked at, lots of NPCs tend to walk around with very heavy collections of magic, which didn't jibe very well with the "magic items are all remnants of lost empires that are discovered by adventurers" concept to me.

Wow, this is a 1E thread, you really should read the books (at least parts of them) it will give you a better understanding where us 1Eers are coming from. Not to mention, they are alot of fun, great fantasy in their own right (never mind the rules).

Well, I've actually read bits of the books, just not all of them in their entirety. It's a little hard to spend the better part of a decade on ENWorld without learning a lot about 1e. Actually, when I first learned about D&D (I was born and raised in India, where it was never marketed, AFAIK) it was via a book called something like "What is Dungeons and Dragons?" It was written for people who might have heard of the game and wondered what it was, and provided a very detailed coverage of the game. The entire thing was focused on 1e. And the vast majority of the people I've gamed and continue to game with started with 1e and have mentioned a lot about it to me. So I'd say I have a fair amount of information about it, even if I never played it.

Of course, you may also discover that you like it and might want to give it a try, who knows, it may even turn out being your favorite FRPG.

Good one. Seriously, not at all likely. Even though I'm good at bending and even breaking written mechanics to fit the flavor I want, something like 1e is just so far removed from what I want in my D&D games both mechanically and in flavor that I'd basically be spending all my time trying to change things to suit me. As we've already established, my tastes and playing style are very different from yours in many ways. Besides all the mechanical issues, from a flavor standpoint I don't want an authentically medieval setting and I want magic to have a strong effect on the nature of society (and yes, I'm very happy with magic as technology). And there are a ton of others things I enjoy having in my games that wouldn't fit with 1e. The fact that my favorite blend of mechanics and flavor is to play Eberron (that setting just pushes my buttons in all the right ways) using 3.5e should tell you how different what I want is. More power to you for enjoying 1e, and I hope you get as much enjoyment playing it as I do out of my games, but it's definitely not for me.

 

[Valiant]

Maybe it's just the modules I've looked at and heard about on ENWorld, but I find high concentrations of magic tend to be the norm. I find them quite similar to 3e modules in that regard, and in some ways, I think there's likely to be more magic in 1e/2e modules than 3e. Especially since 3e has guidelines for what kind of magic is just too powerful/costly to be found in a module (whether writers always follow that is another matter, of course), and 1e/2e didn't.

Check out the thread by Quasqueton Treasure and leveling comparisons: AD&D1, B/ED&D, and D&D3. It has some interesting data on the subject.

Oh, I agree PCs can be walking around with alot of magic in 1E, probably more then in 3E (at least we did, afterall every class in 3E has magic or magic like powers in skills and feats).

But in AD&D we are talking about "adventurers" (a different breed altogether, who find this stuff deep underground or guarded by powerful monsters, even hidden behind secret doors, places normal folk wouild never go). And these are player PCs to boot, who have accumulated more then most (and who will likely be dead in a few gaming sessions anyhow). If you look at the magic held by NPCs in the early modules they have almost none. Magic is mostly unknown to the average peasant, even to the average soldier or aristocrat. In short, the AD&D world would be just like what we'd experiance if we went back in time to 1200 AD and walked around, except for the occasional monster eating your goats. You wouldn't see magic displayed on a regular basis (unless you were an adventurer) or some high level soldier or something. The "wow factor" for a peasant seeing a light spell go off in a dark room would be very high in 1E, even though a low level PC might not even yawn having seen their cleric cast it a dozen times already. Thats the kind of thing were talking about.

PS I was joking about converting you to 1E, I long ago scratched you off as a lost cause.

 

[shilsen]

But in AD&D we are talking about "adventurers" (a different breed altogether, who find this stuff deep underground or guarded by powerful monsters, even hidden behind secret doors, places normal folk wouild never go). And these are player PCs to boot, who have accumulated more then most (and who will likely be dead in a few gaming sessions anyhow). If you look at the magic held by NPCs in the early modules they have almost none. Magic is mostly unknown to the average peasant, even to the average soldier or aristocrat.

Actually I seem to recall a lot of the NPCs having a fair amount of magic in the various 2e modules and settings, even the NPCs who were quite explicitly not retired adventurers. FR especially, IIRC, had a lot of that, but then FR also seemed to have so many retired adventurers around that it was apparently the most popular job in the Realms.

PS I was joking about converting you to 1E, I long ago scratched you off as a lost cause.

My mother agrees with you

 

[Hussar]

*snip*



As is thinking that D&D was always, overall, as "magic as technology"-oriented as it is today.


RC

It is exactly as "magic as technology" oriented now as it was then. It completely and utterly depends on the DM running the game. Edition does not change this. Pretending that D&D has changed so dramatically over the years is simply not true.

BTW, full plate existed in the Unearthed Arcana 1e. Not only did it give you a base AC of 1, but it also gave you what amounted to damage reduction as well. 1 point per hit IIRC.

*snip*

If you look at the magic held by NPCs in the early modules they have almost none. Magic is mostly unknown to the average peasant, even to the average soldier or aristocrat. In short, the AD&D world would be just like what we'd experiance if we went back in time to 1200 AD and walked around, except for the occasional monster eating your goats. You wouldn't see magic displayed on a regular basis (unless you were an adventurer) or some high level soldier or something. The "wow factor" for a peasant seeing a light spell go off in a dark room would be very high in 1E, even though a low level PC might not even yawn having seen their cleric cast it a dozen times already. Thats the kind of thing were talking about.

This is untrue. The Village of Homlet had several magic items stored with commoners. The Keep on the Borderlands also had several magical items contained within the Keep. I would also point to the followers you could gain in 1e. Your followers, if you were a fighter or a cleric, could come pre-equiped with magical equipment.

The idea that commoners would be blown away by a light spell is ridiculous. Every module (or nearly) that contained even a hamlet had a temple with a spell casting cleric. The wandering encounter tables for just about any environment included spell casting encounters - wandering wizards or clerics for example.

The level of "wow" to magic is totally and utterly dependent on the DM. The assumed level of magic doesn't appear to be terribly different between editions.

 

[Valiant]

Actually I seem to recall a lot of the NPCs having a fair amount of magic in the various 2e modules and settings, even the NPCs who were quite explicitly not retired adventurers. FR especially, IIRC, had a lot of that, but then FR also seemed to have so many retired adventurers around that it was apparently the most popular job in the Realms.



My mother agrees with you

Heh! A smart woman no doubt.

I don't own anything 2E, not even late 1E (once Dragon Lance showed up), so I can't really comment. I will say that 2E was a big change from early 1E (that I was able to gather just looking at the stuff in gaming stores). I'll bet the high magic (if it did occur) may have tied in with the romance novel like quality of alot of their products. Also, in 2E, from what I have heard, PCs didn't die as frequently (allowing longer accumulation of magic time).

HUSSAR -It is exactly as "magic as technology" oriented now as it was then. It completely and utterly depends on the DM running the game. Edition does not change this. Pretending that D&D has changed so dramatically over the years is simply not true.-

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on those 2 counts. As I see it, magic as technology (as it relates to "common man" and how it effects the setting) has increased since 1E; and the DM's role (and power) has greatly decreased since 1E. Niether of those things have to be "bad", if someone prefers that style of DMing or that sort of setting, more power to them. It's just not my cup of tea.

 

[Hussar]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on those 2 counts. As I see it, magic as technology (as it relates to "common man" and how it effects the setting) has increased since 1E; and the DM's role (and power) has greatly decreased since 1E. Niether of those things have to be "bad", if someone prefers that style of DMing or that sort of setting, more power to them. It's just not my cup of tea.

Now, I'll agree with the second point. 3e does take away power from the DM. No question there.

However, can you point to the assumptions within the rules for how magic relates to the common man has changed? Considering magic items were very common within modules, commoners frequently own magical weapons and other items, followers come equiped with magical items, the assumption of wealth of a 1e adventuring party was expected to exceed 10 magic items per character, even mundane gems had magical properties according to the DMG.

I just don't see how you can say that the default assumptions were somehow less high magic. They might have been in your campaign, but, that's the point I've made already. The magic level of a given campaign was and is determined by the DM.

 

[Beginning of the End]

It's something that the designers of 3e didn't "get" when they decided to balance the game around the concept of adventurers having the "appropriate wealth" for their level.

Hasn't this been debunked often enough? The 3rd Edition designers got that concept by looking at the actual reality of what was happening at the gaming table. There's a thread floating around here somewhere that analyzes the treasure that could be readily acquired in the old 1st Edition modules, and I see Hussar has already brought up the paladin.

EDIT: A thread which I see has also been mentioned and linked to.

Q: "I disagree with how unilateral your assertions are." My assertion was not unilateral, despite your attempt to label it so. Infact, thats why I supplied specific examples of the kind of thing I was talking about (dragons reduced to steeds (or have you ever played the Dragon Lance series, yuk!, and light spells lighting up city streets at night (see TLG's CZ1 for example). [...] The only ones that kept a handle on this was Gygax in OD&D and early 1E (before the shiat hit the fan at TSR).

You do realize that Castle Zagyg is Gygax's Greyhawk, right? The same Greyhawk that was described as having those continual light spells back in 1E?

Anyway, I find the solution for this is to make magic and monsters about more than just the stats.

For spells, I'll compile spellbooks out of various supplements to create unique tomes with memorable names. Wizards don't just cast a new spell, they cast the fiery blossom that they learned from the Seven Sagas of the Djinn.

For items, I try to invest them with unique mechanics; names; and/or histories. A +5 longsword can become ho-hum. A +1 longsword crafted all from bone that drinks the blood of its victims, pulsing with thick veins of dark crimson as it gains an additional +1 bonus for very 25 hp of damage it inflicts gets remembered. If you give someone +3 mithril plate, it just becomes a line on their character sheet. Given them a glittering vial of liquid mithril which, when opened, flows over their body and provides a seemingly impenetrable protection (while having all the same stats as +3 mithril plate) and it becomes the signature trademark of their character.

For monsters, I remember that the reason Smaug was cool wasn't (just) because he was a dragon, but because Tolkien had given him a rich history, made him the living nemesis of an important PC (so to speak), and then spent an entire book building up his rep: Just getting to Smaug was an epic adventure. So when I want the PCs to be awed by an opponent, I spend some time on them.

(Familiarity can also work the other way if you're careful about it: When of the most memorable moments I've had while gaming is when a random encounter table for Rappan Athuk turned up a beholder in the wilderness outside the dungeon. The veteran player at the table, who was playing a 5th level character, hit the deck... and we spent several tense moments as the party clung to their hiding places and prayed that the beholder wouldn't detect them. Part of the secret here is using these legendary creatures in non-combat encounters.)

Anything can be special the first time you see it just because it's nifty cool. The first time I played D&D, continual light was pretty cool. After casting it a dozen times or so, though, it had become rote routine. The first time I encountered the idea of lighting a city with continual light spells, I thought it was magical and awesome. But, yeah, after seeing a dozen cities like that, it just becomes set dressing. So, maybe continual light just can't be cool any more...

... unless, of course, by continual light you mean the Royal Court of the Gilded Emperor, where the ceiling is fretted with a roiling cloud of pale blue flame. Inquiries will reveal that the ceiling was thus enchanted in remembrance of the fall of ancient Aerioch, which perished in flames 3000 years ago.

If the only way you can make magic mysterious, awe-inspiring, and memorable in your campaign is by controlling the rarity with which a particular stat block shows up... well, then I'd argue that your magic is about as mysterious, awe-inspiring, and memorable as a particularly powerful Magic: The Gathering card.

 

[Valiant]

I guess its more to do with the supplemental stuff for 3E which really made magic visible and common to "regular people". In 1E the occasional farmer who had a +1 dagger tucked away surely didn't brag about it likely, it didn't make magic common to his village only to himself and only that particular sort. If he brag about it someone would surely take it from him.

I think magic used in public settings to the point that its taken for granted (the way we take electricity or jets for granted) is a key difference. Look at some of these settings, perminant lights (or flames) floating ships etc.).

Also, magic in 3E has been cheapened by all the classes either having early access to it or having FEATS that are so similar its difficult to tell the difference Wizard: "I cast fire ball", Fighter "I use ...........fill in the blank".