Rome, The Dark Ages, and Magic-Technology

[Turanil]

My question would then be, how does one emulate a Medieval fantasy world with the current ruleset without resorting to low magic, grim 'n' gritty alternate rules such as those found in Iron Heroes or even True20? Is it possible?

You could try Legends of the Dark Ages (it is d20, and close to D&D 3e).

 

[ptolemy18]

In another thread, it was said that the historical style that many D&D games aim for is something Lord-of-the-Rings/King Arthur kind of Dark Ages of Europe.

However, with the preponderance of magical reliability, popularity of magical items, and population of dangerous and horrific monsters that are "common-ish knowledge" amongst townsfolk, that the feel of the campaigns is more like Ancient Rome, with warriors, gladiators, nobles, monstrous beasts, foreign lands, polytheistic faith, and, ultimately, the wheels of economy greased not by a kingdom, but by an Empire.

So I've started a new thread to discuss it.

This has some connection to older editions of D&D as well. Many of the criticisms of D&D3e seem to be levied at this level of "magical technology," at reliable spells, at frequent magic items, at common monsters that aren't mythic, but that are real. This ruin the feel of the game for some who appreciate the more Dark Ages feel of older editions.

By embracing the magical technology, it seems that 3e has also embraced an Age of Discovery, much like Rome at the height of Imperial conquests. This doesn't easily resonate with those who appreciate a more dark and mysterious world, where foul beasts and powerful magiks are rare and special.

Is this a significant divide in flavor between the editions? Is the "D&D Timeline" in an age of discovery and acceptance of magical technology?

Speculate and ponder away!

As a sort-of-off-topic ramble... I'm actually running a heavily D&D-ized Rome/Egypt game right now (hurray Mythic Vistas!).

Since this homebrew world has magic and so forth, one of the first things I realized is that, when you put magic in a formerly historical setting, unless you're assuming that magic is unbelievably rare (which I'm not... although I am assuming it's rarer than in the baseline 3.X game), technological advances become almost pointless. Who cares if you can build really cool roads and sailing ships if the other country has access to the same-level spells that you do?

So, in addition to JUST SLIGHTLY nerfing magic, I've decided that "arcane magical technology" is basically the true measure of technological might in this world. The weaker countries may have some clerics and a few sorcerers here and there, but only the civilized parts of the world (i.e. Rome, mainly) have high-level wizards and specialist wizards and warmages and effigies and golems and so on.

Also, although all countries have at least some clerics, I've also decided that some countries have more powerful *divine* magical technology than others... because not all gods are created equal! But of course, this doesn't reflect any religious beliefs on my part and is just a secret built into the campaign world to freak out the player characters when they find out.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

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.

Green Ronin's excellent EGYPTIAN ADVENTURES setting does something similar. In EGYPTIAN ADVENTURES, only Priests (clerics) and Kheri-Hebs (wizards) can read & write without paying skill points. (I forget whether the Paladin-equivalent can...)

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

By the way, this is what I did to nerf magic to make a slightly more plausibly "realistic" historical-world D&D setting for my campaign:

(1) I weakened all the Raise Dead, Reincarnation, Resurrection-type. spells in a few critical ways. Basically -- spells which once required a body to be dead "no more than X days" now require a body to be dead no more than X _hours_. Spells which once required a body to be dead "no more than X years" now require a body to be dead no more than X days. And I eliminated True Resurrection altogether, so if you really want to make sure someone stays dead, you can just dismember them and throw their head in the ocean, or something.

Also, I decided that Clerics can only resurrect/raise people who aren't higher level than them. So if you're TOO bad-ass (like, say, Alexander the Great or someone) you have to stay dead unless your friends can find a really awesome cleric. Seemed like a good opportunity for pilgrimages.

(2) I weakened all Teleport so its range is in miles, not hundreds of miles. I weakened Greater Teleport so its ranges is in tens of miles. I weakened all travel magic similarly (mostly just instant teleportation-type spells... spells like Fly or Overland Flight are too fun to change, and you could always get intercepted by flying monsters).

(3) I used the "Diseases have Spell Resistance" rules from Atlas Games' AFRICAN ADVENTURES, to give diseases at least a chance of hurting people, despite clerics.

(4) I eliminated alignments. (Frickin' 3.5 damage resistance rules, making it harder for me to do this....)

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

My post was regarding the assumption of a "medieval" feel of D&D, which in my opinion has never been there...

Well, it sort of was there. In the 3.0 DMG, they actually feel the need to tell people not to run D&D as if it's a sort of straight-up medieval simulation where magic is rare -- that implies that people were doing this in the past.

Also, in terms of D&D 'style', both 1.0 and 2.0 books had TONS of pictures of fairly "ordinary" looking historical/generic knights and clerics with maces and wizards with pointy hats. This may just be the lack of consistent art direction, of course, but it was like that for a looonnng time, with a few exceptions. (Like Erol Otus, my favorite 1.0 artist, whose people always looked like more like strung-out junkies than knights in armor.)

There's probably more evidence, but I can't think of it offhand.

Anyone want to comment on Green Ronin's MEDIEVAL PLAYER'S MANUAL? I kind of liked it...

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

I think the issue is two-fold.

First, for people who are somewhat up on how technology relates to social advancement, the lack of social advancement in "standard D&D" settings becomes awkward.

Second, when the social advancement is made, the game becomes less a "medieval(-esque) fantasy" game and more of an "alternate reality where magic replaces technology" game.

The question about "social advancement" is interesting. By default, most RPG settings are sort of perpetually frozen in time -- waiting to be played!! yeah!! -- and don't really talk much about past history, let alone what might happen to the campaign world in the future.

There's nothing wrong with this... but on the other hand, the original archetypal D&D source material, LORD OF THE RINGS, has a completely mapped-out history leading from the dawn of time 'till the future after all the bad guys have been beaten... (Of course, it doesn't go into boring details such as what happened to the hobbits and dwarves after the elves sailed to the west... etc. etc.)

Jason

 

[Silveras]

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.

Sorry, I did go off on a bit of a tangent. My point was that previous editions *did* feel more like a pseudo-medieval simulation, for the most part, while 3.x has stepped away from that altogether.

 

[mythusmage]

Let's face it, most people don't care about historicity or versimilatude. The world is as it is, let's go find some goblins to mug.

Now if you're the type who prefers some historical basis to his game you need to keep one thing in mind, with reliable magic and creatures out of legend you will not get an historically accurate world.

I have something important to do, I'll explain later.

 

[Turjan]

Well, it sort of was there. In the 3.0 DMG, they actually feel the need to tell people not to run D&D as if it's a sort of straight-up medieval simulation where magic is rare -- that implies that people were doing this in the past.

Sometimes I have the feeling that people mix up "medieval" with "19th century romanticism". There is nothing wrong with 19th century pseudo-medievalism, but be aware that it's generally eclectic. Many traits people today associate with the Middle Ages are actually from the early modern times. Just think of the rumor that medieval people didn't wash themselves. That habit came actually up in the late renaissance/early baroque.

 

[MaxKaladin]

So, in addition to JUST SLIGHTLY nerfing magic, I've decided that "arcane magical technology" is basically the true measure of technological might in this world. The weaker countries may have some clerics and a few sorcerers here and there, but only the civilized parts of the world (i.e. Rome, mainly) have high-level wizards and specialist wizards and warmages and effigies and golems and so on.

I'd had a similar thought once. I theorized that you might have a sort of magical brain-drain where the folks who had the talent and inclination for magic would gravitate towards centers of learning in the large empires (like Rome) leaving the less civilized fringes with fewer spellcasters, and many of those would be the third-rate types who couldn't hack it in the civilized world. Furthermore, this would reduce the number of "up and coming" casters in those areas because the young people with potential would have less exposure to learning and to the people who could recognize and nurture that talent.