Rome, The Dark Ages, and Magic-Technology

[Whisper72]

Well... on a tangent note, what makes the magic 'mundane' in 3.x IMHO is the introduction of certain su, sp and ex powers inherent in certain classes, and certain feats that makes ordinary beings into kinda superhero's (of the Marvel kind).

When PC's, simply because they gain a level, somehow 'suddenly' develop all manner of magical powers, then for me it becomes more disneyesque then historical.

Now, I am not saying that this is a BAD thing. If it floats your boat, fine. But if you ask what makes current D&D almost inherently less feudal/historical/medieval, then this is part of the problem AFAIAC.

The amount of magic is, for me, not the problem, but the way things are explained, the feel and fluff around it. A city with magical lighting is fine for me, as long as the explanation is 'logical' to the feel of the setting.

 

[Hussar]

It was never medieval. The easiest thing would just be to drop the word "medieval". It's modern without gunpowder and with magic.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Silveras]

It was never medieval. The easiest thing would just be to drop the word "medieval". It's modern without gunpowder and with magic.

Well, I can't agree there. 1st and 2nd Edition rules had some very different assumptions about the world. Primarily, that began with the notion that "classed" PCs were, at 1st level, already exceptional among the populace. The populace was all "0-level" creatures, with at most 6 hp + Con bonus (based on the type of job they performed), THACO of 21, and those things would never get better. Classed PCs were supposed to be about 1% of the population. Magic-users/Wizards were a small sub-set of that, with Fighters and Thieves/Rogues being vastly more common than all other classes. For the PCs to make their own magic items was a much more difficult process, one whose failure rate made it also very expensive. Each spell, each effect, required a dice roll, and any failure meant starting over at the beginning. Magic items were handed out like candy in dungeons, but the rules also presumed that a lot of them would be destroyed, and that you had to figure out how to get them back home with you. Weapons were common, but portable holes and bags of holding showed up much less often. Ever try to carry a 2-ton solid gold door out of a dungeon ? That type of problem was pretty common in 1st Edition; more treasure than you could actually take with you.

D&D 3.5 makes vastly different assumptions. All of the populace has classes and levels, and their combat abilities and resilience increase proportionally. PC classes are still better, in that regard, but not in the "nigh-infinite" way they were before. Now, every village is almost guaranteed of having at least 1 each of Sorcerer and Wizard (and, theoretically, more if you use more classes, like Warlock, Hexblade, and Warmage). PCs and NPCs can now reliably make their own items, and are *expected* to have at least X amount of wealth (much of it in magic items) at level Y.

No, I don't think you can legitimately point at older material and say "It was the same".

 

[S'mon]

I find the kind of swords & sorcery campaign I run is at least as much Roman as medieval in flavour, yup. One of my biggest influences is Lankhmar, which is pretty Romanesque. City State of the Invincible Overlord takes a similar approach. The D&D rules seem to imply a culture more Romanesque than medieval, so it's a good fit.

 

[Silveras]

I agree here. One has to look no further than to The Principalities of Glantri to encounter water-elemental propulsed gondolas in Glantri City, and household magic items.

Magic as technology and weird special effects is as much part of D&D as is feudal settings, lost worlds or ancient empires. It always depends on what part of D&D a DM wants to emphasize, and what background he chooses for that. If I want a roman empire in decline, for example, I look for Thyatis.

The bottom line is that not everything in the "older editions" was Dark Ages. Quite on the contrary, actually. It always depends on how you play it, and what material you use.

I think it is important to separate a setting published for use with the rules set from the rules set itself.

Settings can take the rules in widely divergent directions, and can introduce new or modified rules to generate the "flavor" that the setting is supposed to exemplify. Few would argue that the Forgotten Realms are the same flavor as Planescape or Birthright, for example. Each setting took the rules and modified them to suit its needs.

However, the 3.x rules are very different in assumptions from the 1st and 2nd edition rules, to the point where things that were present, but definitely not the norm, in 1st and 2nd are indeed the assumed normal setup in 3.x.

 

[Turjan]

Well, I can't agree there. [snip]

No, I don't think you can legitimately point at older material and say "It was the same".

Actually, I fail to see the connection between your post and your quote of my previous statement.

My post was regarding the assumption of a "medieval" feel of D&D, which in my opinion has never been there, and if the original poster wants to "re-insert" it into the game, there will be nothing to re-insert. Your post is tackling on a completely different aspect of D&D, i.e., bringing back the awe to D&D. I think the main problem here is that D&D theorizes too much about the economics and society point nowadays, which brings this apsect much more upfront. Old editions just put out a claim about the wealth of the general populace, and everybody was done with that point. Just roll on your random table for your artifacts. Nowadays you can calculate everything, and the players can make availability assumptions of magic items. It's random vs. taken for granted. That's about the main difference.

 

[Jraynack]

I have played since the first box sets way back when and I have to say that all campaign worlds used magic to make lives easier (I recall the book of gnomish inventions: the bard in the box - a boombox; even a soft drink vending machine for thirsty dungeon dwellers). Anyway, the more recent campiagns have focused more on the use of magic.

In our campaign world, there is several things that I do to keep the realistic medieval feel of the world without restricting players' options.

1st - make it known that the medieval villager or peasant is tied to the land and can't travel much. The most dangerous creature that they may witness in their lifetime is a CR 3. The role of the adventurer is to seek out and adventure, thus sees many things a normal NPC would never see and only hears tales of such things.

2nd - What noble lord would want a peasant under their control to learn arcane magic. It would mean the upset of the balance of power in his region. So the feudal lords keep an eye on anyone trying to obtain such power.

3rd - The church sees arcane magic as a rival source of power to their divine masters. Casting magic without paying tribute to a diety - that's heresy. Most church members respect arcane magic in little doses but believe the more powerful arcane magics to be the work of devils and demons (which was true in the medieval train of thought).

4th - Those that possess arcane powers are generally looked upon with suspicion and those that cast such magics in the vicinity of the commoners must make an immediate Diplomacy check -1 per spell level (this is equivalent to the caster explaining his actions to those witnessing great power and convincing them that it is safe) - a bad roll could result in lowering a NPC's attitude.

5th - We made a rule featured in a Question of Honor: A Guidebook to Knights called the delay time. Basically, it takes you one day per 1,000gp when selling or buying an item. Since there is no "magic stores" it represents the character attempting to locate a seller or buyer with the object they have in mind, negotiating for a price, and so on. This simple rule creates the atmosphere that a character can't just go into town and drop a few thousand gold and pick up magical full plate in an afternoon then head back to the dungeon.

In the first case, the availability of spells like Resurrection would mean that all nations would have laws regarding their use.

I agree - In my campaign world, also the one our company's product are built around, there are somewhat strict rules on resurrection. First, those who are noble (i.e. own hereditary property or rule) cannot be resurrected. Second, elves and other sylvan races do not use resurrection by reincarnate instead.

In the second case, as I read Crime & Punishment by Keith Baker (published by Atlas Games), I was struck by how the rules modeled modern investigative techniques. Police forces and investigation are largely modern concepts; most "town watches" were more geared toward breaking up fights ("disturbances of the peace") and watching out for fires. They were *preventative* rather than *investigative* operations.

This is true and quite funny, because in reality (during the medieval period), it didn't really matter who started the fight - both were at fault and were fined appropiately. It was your duty to instead call the hue-and-cry if witnessing a crime or a victim of one and then flee. If you didn't, you were fined as if you committed the crime. The only real investigation to place was with murders - and then a coroner would come and investigate the crime.

Anyway, there are many ways to tone down the presence of "magic gone overboard" and create a more realistic/tolkienisc feel for a campaign.

 

[Turjan]

2nd - What noble lord would want a peasant under their control to learn arcane magic. It would mean the upset of the balance of power in his region. So the feudal lords keep an eye on anyone trying to obtain such power.

Given that most probably neither the noble lord nor the peasant would be able to read or write, the spellbooks should be safe from them .

 

[Jraynack]

Given that most probably neither the noble lord nor the peasant would be able to read or write, the spellbooks should be safe from them.

True enough - - but in the D&D realm of 3.0 and onward everyone but barbarians can read and write. Something that I thought about changing.

Which brings up a significant change from 2nd edition to 3rd edition. The ability to read and write for characters and NPCs alike - something that only the highest clergy men and monks were capable of during the medieval period (parish priests rarely could read or write but only memorized portion of latin phrases for mass not knowning what they really said).

This simply change impacts the feel of a campaign world. I often find it funny now when I see artwork in newer campaign books depicting store shops with signs with pictures descriping what the shop is. If most is able to read and write, the signs should have the names of the stores .

 

[wingsandsword]

Well, I brought up this issue in the other thread, so I'll speak up.

I didn't mean to talk about magic being common. Ironically, the Roman-themed homebrew I'm working on is very low-magic (I was making it with d20 Modern/Past but now considering Iron Heroes).

I was talking about technological and cultural elements of a pseudo-Roman setting which seem to fit the typical D&D setting a lot better than the pseudo-medieval model that is typically presumed. Things like polytheism, a known-worldwide common language, a huge city as the center of civilization, strange cults, bizarre creatures from afar, slavery, mighty empires, vast armies, all these fit a lot better around 100 AD than 1100 AD.

A pseudo-medieval setting strains it's historic roots when it has a culture tolerates the existence of arcane magic, allows more than one religion (or for PC's to deviate from the beliefs of that religion), has any language in common use among people of various lands.

Personally, I like my settings to have some aura of pseudohistory, a flavor and style reminiscent of some time in the past. Strange high-fantasy worlds that are totally unlike anything that ever happened seem to strain credibility to me in the long term, because I always find myself asking "could a culture last like this", "could this model of civlization arise and last like this" and similar questions. By rooting the game in a historic base, the verisimilitude of the setting is greatly augmented, it also gives the players more of a mental anchor to help imagine the setting with.

Even as a patchwork of various elements from various times and cultures (like the Forgotten Realms, with it's Celtic, Italian, Moroccan, Spanish, Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian and Persian themed areas) works, because the real world also was quite a patchwork of cultures, with often very different languages and peoples living fairly close to each other.