Rome, The Dark Ages, and Magic-Technology

[Vigilance]

I think what makes magic "mundane" in 3e and have a technological feel is the fact that you can MAKE it.

Basic D&D and 3e have good magic item creation rules, 1e and 2e do not.

When magic cannot be created, but must be found, then a medieval technology and social structure is more attainable imo.

This presents a situation like Conan, or even the historical Dark Ages, in which the remnants of a once-advanced culture try to piece together what they have lost.

So for me the whole crux of the matter involves the ease of creating magic items and/or creating permamnent spell effects.

In 1e and 2e the cost of a permanency was a point of Con as I recall. That makes permanent magic rarer than charging XP.

 

[Hussar]

I think what makes magic "mundane" in 3e and have a technological feel is the fact that you can MAKE it.

Basic D&D and 3e have good magic item creation rules, 1e and 2e do not.

When magic cannot be created, but must be found, then a medieval technology and social structure is more attainable imo.

This presents a situation like Conan, or even the historical Dark Ages, in which the remnants of a once-advanced culture try to piece together what they have lost.

So for me the whole crux of the matter involves the ease of creating magic items and/or creating permamnent spell effects.

In 1e and 2e the cost of a permanency was a point of Con as I recall. That makes permanent magic rarer than charging XP.

There's a couple of problems with that though. The "historical Dark Ages" were nowhere near as "dark" as common though has them. Also, many areas of Europe were less dim than others. Yes, England had it bad, but, on the flipside, other parts of Europe and Asia Minor didn't.

Even without permanent magic items, the ability of clerics and mages to cast spells with permanent duration, like Continual Light and others, can have a huge impact.

I just recieved Dragon 334 a couple of days ago (bloody overseas bulk mail.... grumble... grumble) and they talk about the new Ptolus sourcebook. One quote from there really caught my eye:

One of the big ideas behind Ptolus is that the setting has been shaped around D&D rules, rather than forcing the rules to bend to fit the setting. "While Ptolus is based stronly in a kind of historical reality, this setting was designed primarily with the assumptions the game implies. Monsters, magic and fighters in plate mail with magic swords lie at the center of it all..." says Cook.

And that's a big point that really points to the crux of what we're talking about here. Previous settings have generally started from a quasi-historical point and then shoehorned magic and monsters in. Very few previous settings have been based on the game assumptions. They've basically ignored the assumptions in favour of a particular flavour. While this has created some facinating and rich campaign settings, it is not very realistic.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, this isn't DIRECTLY intended to be a thread about magic being common or rare, thuogh certainly that issue will be addressed.

It's more about the implied culture of the D&D rules over editions, how it has changed and evolved, and if it now represents more of an Empire structure than a Feudal structure.

Romanesque is the word used, but you may also think of it in the other direction -- as if D&D has come to the Age of Exploration, when great European powers became the centers of empires. Are the big D&D cities like the big cities of the Dark Ages? Or are they more like Ancient Rome, or 17th Century London? Exotic beasts from far away? Centers of high learning? "Barbarians" in the hinterlands? Is this a society that is just discovering the ancient remains of old, or is it a society that is now realizing new potential? Is it no longer an age of forgotten lore, but an age of lore rediscovered? Or not yet forgotten?

Magic plays a role in this, because Magic, to a certain extent, = knowledge. Literacy is a good example of this -- as Magic becomes more common in urban centers, will those urban centers have a higher literacy rate? And will the outlands, the lands with few Wizards, have a lower literacy rate (and hence represent the "Only Barbarians are that dumb!" angle)? Is D&D's culture living in an era where specialization and talent for more than just farming is common? And is that different than the older editions?

 

[Turjan]

It's more about the implied culture of the D&D rules over editions, how it has changed and evolved, and if it now represents more of an Empire structure than a Feudal structure.

I'm really not sure where you see a feudal structure in D&D. Do you mean the point that you could become a ruler of some small province after 9th level in "the old days"?

Romanesque is the word used, but you may also think of it in the other direction -- as if D&D has come to the Age of Exploration, when great European powers became the centers of empires.

Well, just look at the Forgotten Realms, especially that part what made them. You'll see that this is 19th century North America. If you set it early, then Waterdeep is New York, and behind it stretches the unknown East (or West, or North, however you see it). If you set it later, Waterdeep is St. Louis. Someone else said that it's actually directly modeled after Toronto (which explains "the North").

If you look at this assumption, the setting actually makes sense. The PCs are the conquererors of the unknown West and fighting against indians (orcs) and monsters (grizzlies), only in a pc version. Cowboys and indians, if you want . This also explains the modern society in most D&D settings (all those nobles are mere decoration; they are nothing else than cattle barons).

Magic plays a role in this, because Magic, to a certain extent, = knowledge. Literacy is a good example of this -- as Magic becomes more common in urban centers, will those urban centers have a higher literacy rate? And will the outlands, the lands with few Wizards, have a lower literacy rate (and hence represent the "Only Barbarians are that dumb!" angle)? Is D&D's culture living in an era where specialization and talent for more than just farming is common? And is that different than the older editions?

As D&D settings are mostly modern, it's just the normal polarity of city and countryside. This was still very pronounced till late in the 20th century.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm really not sure where you see a feudal structure in D&D. Do you mean the point that you could become a ruler of some small province after 9th level in "the old days"?

Well, like some other posters are saying: Weren't commoners assumed to be illitterate in other editions? 0-level farmers without any appreciable skills? Weren't monsters assumed to be rare? The goblin was lurking in the shadows and whispered about on the streets, a creature that only adventurers met in dark dismal dungeons and that normal people would be terrified of....

This awe, as you call it, is linked to the rules structure.

Feudal Europe was more than a government structure. Living a life in those rules meant many things. Lineages. Marriages as diplomatic maneuvres. Treasure hoards in palaces. It meant that at any time, some opposing army or secret demon could challenge the common folk, and that the nobles were employed against it. It meant a near-religious tie between a ruler and the land. Education was not in theories of governing, but in methods of farming. Disease and enemies were nearby, but mysterious all the same. There were very few of Us. There were hoardes of Them.

Compare this kind of outlook to one in a big Imperial city. Dangers are distant. Life is secure. Food is bought, not grown. Treasure is in the city, not in the royals. Theories of governance affect everyday life, and education is an essential component. The fears of the world are distant and theoretical, and were being conquered by knowledge and technology (and, in D&D, in magic). Us could include all thinking, breathing beings. Them may be only in our heads.

It certainly seems that many people see older editions of D&D supporting the former view, while the current edition is more stuck in the latter style.

Is this an accurate view? Would you say D&D's "Implied Setting" was never anything other than fully modern?

 

[Turjan]

Well, like some other posters are saying: Weren't commoners assumed to be illitterate in other editions? 0-level farmers without any appreciable skills? Weren't monsters assumed to be rare? The goblin was lurking in the shadows and whispered about on the streets, a creature that only adventurers met in dark dismal dungeons and that normal people would be terrified of....

Everybody except clerics was illiterate in the Middle Ages. Why do you think the bibles of medieval kings were nicely illustrated? Monsters and dungeons are not specifically medieval. They generally disappeared with the use of electric street lights. What you are talking about is the atmosphere of a typical 19th/20th century gothic story.

Feudal Europe was more than a government structure. Living a life in those rules meant many things. Lineages. Marriages as diplomatic maneuvres. Treasure hoards in palaces. It meant that at any time, some opposing army or secret demon could challenge the common folk, and that the nobles were employed against it. It meant a near-religious tie between a ruler and the land. Education was not in theories of governing, but in methods of farming. Disease and enemies were nearby, but mysterious all the same. There were very few of Us. There were hoardes of Them.

Some of that stuff still exists today. Have a look at the English countryside. The idea of a religious tie between ruler and land culminated during the time of absolutism, a phenomenon of the modern era.

Compare this kind of outlook to one in a big Imperial city. Dangers are distant. Life is secure. Food is bought, not grown. Treasure is in the city, not in the royals. Theories of governance affect everyday life, and education is an essential component. The fears of the world are distant and theoretical, and were being conquered by knowledge and technology (and, in D&D, in magic). Us could include all thinking, breathing beings. Them may be only in our heads.

Okay, the big city is mostly a modern idea (or a classic one). In this sense, you are right if you look at the Waterdeeps, Greyhawks and Sharns of D&D. They don't have many medieval counterparts, except maybe Moscow, Paris or Venice (or cities outside Europe). The specific image you are trying to evoke is a typical 20th century one, though. In the times before 1900, the city population was often worse off than in the Middle Ages.

It certainly seems that many people see older editions of D&D supporting the former view, while the current edition is more stuck in the latter style.

Is this an accurate view? Would you say D&D's "Implied Setting" was never anything other than fully modern?

As I said before, I think the main difference is that nowadays we have everything, including economics, explained. And we like to theorize about it. If we'd just play the game, I doubt there would be much of a difference. And don't forget the evocative writing style of an E. Gary Gygax . Today, the rule books read like an electronics manual. This has, of course, influences on the overall atmosphere of D&D.

 

[Hussar]

^ I'd like to argue agains that, but I'm not sure if I can.

 

[wingsandsword]

And that's a big point that really points to the crux of what we're talking about here. Previous settings have generally started from a quasi-historical point and then shoehorned magic and monsters in. Very few previous settings have been based on the game assumptions. They've basically ignored the assumptions in favour of a particular flavour. While this has created some facinating and rich campaign settings, it is not very realistic.

I strongly disagree. A quasi-historic setting isn't unrealistic because the game doesn't support it well, it's a poor fit for the system. Just because the system doesn't fit the setting well doesn't make the setting unrealistic.

A problem that D&D has long had is that many suppliments, players, DM's, and settings were built on the idea of the game having a quasi-historic background, with magic existing in small quantities, magic items being rare, and monsters being uncommon (but players just happen to have easier access to magic and find monsters more often than common folk for one reason or another). Other settings and source materials presumed that magic was common and easy, or magic items were relatively abundant. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Mystara were all using the same rules, at three increasing levels of magical power, as an example.

A lack of any clear treasure guidelines in earlier versions of D&D also meant that the magic-item levels of parties could vary wildly. Some official modules would have so many +1 swords that you could equip a small garrison, while others were so magic-poor that a few scrolls were a potent bounty. The magic level of the game was generally at the GM's discretion, but even higher magic books said that No Matter What, Magic Items Shalt Never Be Sold, At Any Price.

Just because a PC could be a Wizard or Cleric with a 9 INT or WIS didn't mean that every faithful priest with a 9+ WIS became a Cleric and got divine spells, and every alchemist or sage with a 9+ INT who studied arcane lore became a Wizard. Continual light may be permanent, but the people who could cast it would be rare.

3rd Edition took D&D and assumed that it would always be a higher magic level, where the game itself was carefully balanced on a high level of magical power, magic items were made very easy to make (no dangerous CON loss, and creatable at much lower levels). It gave a fixed price for magic items. This is really good for standardization, but messed with some existing settings.

I think this is part of why Iron Heroes (and Grim Tales) are popular in sections of the d20 Market, that they are built on a lower-magic framework and players who may want a lower magic level have a game that is built to fit the settings they want to depict. It's about using the rules to depict the setting you want, instead of choosing your setting to fit your rules.

When a setting and the game mechanics depicting that setting come into conflict, it is the mechanics that are wrong. Creating a setting to fit the mechanics is okay, but saying it's revolutionary that you created a setting just to account for all the eccentricities of D&D isn't the peak of creativity, it's practicality. Frankly, I've seen plenty of attempts by GM's to shoehorn various D&Disms into their own homebrew worlds, and come to the conclusion that it's best that you create the world first, and then find the perfect system to depict it that you and your players agree on. For fantasy that may be D&D, Iron Heroes, C&C, Grim Tales, or if the players want, GURPS, HERO, BESM, or Storyteller even. If you want to play a rules set and whatever setting fits, then go right ahead and find a setting that is already close (D&D has plenty of those already), but a setting that is designed from the ground-up to be a perfect fit for D&D isn't anything new.

 

[S'mon]

When a setting and the game mechanics depicting that setting come into conflict, it is the mechanics that are wrong.

Sigged.