Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1718485" data-attributes="member: 812">Excuse me, but you are mistaken. Just to jog your memory, here's my entrance into this discussion:Sorry to burst your little bubble, there, but no, your "points" haven't accomplished a thing. My position remains as it was when I started. I started this conversation by pointing out that your statements concerning how much gear Conan possesses or how powerful he may be are irrelevant to the question of "Is Hyboria a low-magic world?" I was correct to say so, and the point stands.Now, if you want to call Hyboria a high-magic world, hey, do as you like. My point is simply that for the majority of its inhabitants, it is a lower-magic world than standard D&D, as is Third Age Middle-Earth. In standard D&D, virtually everyone in the world knows a spellcaster; indeed, most know several. This is not the case in either Hyboria or Third Age Middle-Earth. This is what I've been saying, and again, this point stands.Hm, attack straw men much?I agree with you (as I've said previously) that both settings display local variations. I'm glad you think it's interesting. It has nothing to do with my point, however. I'm not saying that each and every corner of Hyboria is lower-magic, I'm saying that on average, Hyboria is lower-magic than standard D&D -- for the average person. I'm not saying (and never have said) that the stories of Conan exhibit very low levels of magic. I'm saying that for the average joe, magic is much more prevalent in D&D than in Hyboria.I am not incorrect in my assumption about the frequency of magical creatures -- I am incorrect in my belief there was evidence for any particular level of frequency. The frequency isn't different than I assumed -- there simply isn't any evidence to prove it one way or the other. I might still be right about the frequency, but neither of us can decide the issue, so it's a wash.You seem to want to use that to argue that I'm probably wrong about other stuff. Sorry, but ad hominem attacks convince me not at all.If someone has encounter tables for Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, that would provide some evidence. I'm more than happy to drop that particular assertion since doing so in no way impairs my argument. If you want to keep worrying at it, feel free, but until somebody comes up with some evidence, I'm uninterested.Oh, well, then, I'll make sure not to do that. You'll note I haven't done so yet, so again, this is yet another strawman that you're setting up in order to shoot down.I wouldn't use either as a "baseline for low magic", either. I've never said anyone should. All I've said is that they exhibit less magic than standard D&D.Huh? Did you forget to put up a post or something? If you're going to claim that you've already backed up your rebuttals to my points with references to the texts themselves, you should actually back up your rebuttals to my points with references to the texts themselves. Cause otherwise that claim falls a little flat, I'm afraid.Unless you think your offhand mentions of "wizard cults in Stygia" and "Lothlorien" count as "several anecdotes". Please refer to this post where I discuss the existence and relevance of local variations in these settings. I am not suggesting there are no variations, nor do I see how their existence is relevant to my point, which centers on the average condition. Local variations must be combined and, er, averaged to produce the average, right? So unless you've got anecdotes, let's not pretend you do, okay? And until you've shown my statements are incorrect, let's not pretend you have.Implying that I haven't read them closely or carefully enough. You don't need to attack my scholarship like this in order to prove your points, you know. You simply have to be right.You seem to think I'm saying a whole raft of things I'm not. And I'm sorry if I'm a poor communicator and have given you that idea. Let me try to be clear.It is not my contention that all of Hyboria or Third Age Middle-Earth displayed a uniform distribution of magic (defined as number of spellcasters per unit of population). It is not my contention that those seeking an "ideal" low-magic setting should use either of these settings as their example. It is not my contention that in the stories set in these setting, magic is unheard of.My contentions are two:1. That the heroes of a story set in a particular setting themselves display high amounts of magic use in no way indicates that the setting itself displays an average of high amounts of magic use. It is perfectly possible to have high-magic heroes in a low-magic world.2. That both Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth display lower average distributions of magic (defined as spellcasters per unit of population) than the standard D&D setting mandates. There may be other measures by which they display higher distributions of magic, but it is clear from reading the stories set in these worlds that for most people, magic is very rarely encountered. This is not the case in standard D&D, where it is stated that nearly all people encounter magic on a daily basis.You seem to be attacking very different points -- namely those contentions I've listed above as NOT supporting. If you feel the need to keep attacking those points, I won't stand in your way, but I'd be more interested in reading your responses to the points I'm actually making.</blockquote>

Verification