For you rule zero doesn't answer the question. For other people it settles the matter quite well. Your mileage may vary, expect table variation.
As far as rudeness goes, as an aside, implying that something is a cheat is also rude. If you felt strawmanned I apologize.
It was not my intention to be rude with the cheat code thing... allow me to restate my position.
Rule zero can settle the matter without question, as that is basically the point of rule zero so things undefined or contrary the rules can be maintained to help the games flow, themes and the enjoyment of the players (including gamesmaster).
But settling the matter doesn't necessary answer the question. If a student asks a science teacher a geography question, a teacher is well within their rights to say "Unfortunately, that is off topic and not the subject of this lesson." But the question remains unanswered.
Does that make sense?
Yes, I makes perfect sense.
That said, for my money, it does answer the question posed by the OP, of which the last line reads "Now, suppose you wanted to keep the tech level stable, AND have wizards. For that, you would need some counterbalance to magic, something that would slow down the progress of society back to normal levels. What do you think that might be?"
The rules exist in a vacuum and don't take this sort of thing into account because the devs aren't taking this into account. I firmly believe that they're leaving that grey area thought exercise to individual GMs and players. There isn't going to be one answer that is going to make everyone happy. There are those that will argue that the rules CLEARLY show that you can do something, and those that will say that the rules are very muddy on the topic.
since he's ignoring the question the entire thread is based on with his flip answer that everyone already knew, I suspect you are correct.
I was merely pointing out the rules and how they work. Note I did not get into eternally revolving loans to fund all this, which is again pure gm fiat and not in the rules...although it was amusing to read.
Blaming me for what the rules read as 'my interpretation' is pretty funny too.
No, I'm not ignoring the question. I'm answering it in a way that you dislike. You are pointing out that the rules exist and that, in theory, one could do this. That's great, but once the rules reach the table it stops becoming theory.
We've gone around and around on this on other threads as well. The rules require interpretation AND someone to sign off on them. The GM and the other players do not have their hands tied because the book says something. This is why there is someone to interpret the rules rather than a computer program that simply reads the text and rules flatly.
|
A friend of mine asked me this question a couple of days ago, and so far, I don't have a good answer.
Wikipedia tells us that, in real life, industrial revolution "included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, improved efficiency of water power, the increasing use of steam power, the development of machine tools and the rise of the factory system."
Now, suppose you are a 14-th century England with no magic, and you suddenly got a bunch of wizards(let's say 10 of them, each at lv 12). Just your ordinary wizards without any particularily unusual spells in their spellbooks. What can they do to initiate their own industrial revolution?
Well, for starters, they can just make pure iron. Wall of Iron spell makes a 5ft sq/level , 1/4 inch/level thick wall of, well, iron. That is 16.7 metric tons(5*5 square=25 square feet=2.32sq meters; 3 inch=0.0762 meters;density of iron=7.87 tons/cubic meter; 2.32*0.0762*12*7870=16.7 metric tons) of iron for your average 12 lv wizard, per one cast of the spell. And they can cast 2 of those per day(3 with a high INT score), which brings them to 33.4 tons per day minimum. Internet tells me that british iron production in 1700 was 12,000 metric tonnes a year, or 32 tons per day, so 10 wizards can outproduce a country without even trying much.
Secondly, they can eschew machine tools. Who needs machine tools when you have Fabricate? Transmute all that iron you just made into whatever is made of iron. Pots, nails, I-beams...Sky is the limit, really. And it only takes a minute to turn all that iron you produced with your wall of iron into finished products.
Next, why don't we ruin agricultural sector while we are at it? For example, we can make a tractor. Be it a construct, an actual vehicle with a Wondrous Item for an engine or something else, point is, Wizard can make it happen. And it probably wouldn't cost a stupendous ammount of money to do so. Now your agriculture is incredibly efficient, and you...
Short answer? No not really if you start to think about it.
Long answer? Not so long as the mechanics and their most popular presented interpretation remain the same. Pathfinder is a world with magic that is more reliable than even some of the most common technology in our world and often can run indefinitely without GM fiat to cause faults from plow golems that never break down to the ability to bring people back from death after decades of decomposure. Hell they can fabricate items instantly with a thought. On top of that their worlds are ones that lack patent laws but simultaneously offer all casters easy access to some of the most powerful magics by just picking up a scroll in the shop and adding it to his retinue of spells. And with that kind of access the acceleration towards a very magi tech society is pretty quick especially if you have a lot of communication, trade, and travel over long distances like a lot of these societies do with spells like sending, animal messenger, shadow walk, and teleport.
If you want to limit this then as a GM you have to start thinking about the idea of more limited access to things like scrolls and learn able magic, vest more power in those organizations that have the magic but limit what they have (say one group of mages is conjurers but lacks enchantment magic so they don't have a lot of spells of that school that they can reproduce etc.) and make those organizations stingy with what they hand out. Remember before we could patent ideas you basically had the guild system and keeping your mouth shut as the best (and likely only) ways to keep your corner of the market to yourself so realize most magicians wouldn't be just passing their magic along to whomever throws 12 gp at them for a scroll. Probably would also see more potions and wands floating around and far less scrolls in this world.
Well, the Op has also said that his question was Golarion specific, unless I'm thinking of another thread. That being the case, no one but Paizo staffers can give an adequate answer.
I mean, personally I think the biggest barrier would be the cost and availability of spell components, but the rules don't model supply and demand. Whenever the PCs need more money they can just go to a dungeon and kill monsters till they have the enough GP to suit their needs. Any rules system that accounts for the sort of societal development that results in a magitech explosion is going to have an equally robust economy system, and "you find all the money for the goods and services you need in a hole in the ground guarded by a tiger" just isn't going to be a result on that table.
For a low magic setting, eberron has the dubious distinction of putting out more overpowered PrCs then any other game world...and that includes FR!
Does low magic fairly well, if you ignore the high level stuff, and its magitech isnt bad, either.
Nor is, "prices stay constant regardless of how many trinkets you bring back from the dungeon". There's no gold rush pricing or if there is, it's assumed to always be in effect, regardless of where you go.Well, the Op has also said that his question was Golarion specific, unless I'm thinking of another thread. That being the case, no one but Paizo staffers can give an adequate answer.
I mean, personally I think the biggest barrier would be the cost and availability of spell components, but the rules don't model supply and demand. Whenever the PCs need more money they can just go to a dungeon and kill monsters till they have the enough GP to suit their needs. Any rules system that accounts for the sort of societal development that results in a magitech explosion is going to have an equally robust economy system, and "you find all the money for the goods and services you need in a hole in the ground guarded by a tiger" just isn't going to be a result on that table.
I totally feel like Gygax talked about gold rush pricing, but I can't cite anything to back that up. But, yeah, I completely agree, the closest I've seen any version of D&D even come to recognizing that economics exist is some some sort of rules appendix about how much it costs to maintain a church/castle/thieves' guild/wizard's tower once you reach high enough level.
For a low magic setting, eberron has the dubious distinction of putting out more overpowered PrCs then any other game world...and that includes FR!
Does low magic fairly well, if you ignore the high level stuff, and its magitech isnt bad, either.
As mentioned: I'd recommend limiting reading to Eberron Campaign Setting, Dragonmarked and Sharn, City of Towers, plus Keith's blog. With those and a little bit of work revising the published campaign world (scale/population etc) you can wind up with something both workable and immersive.
Some books are worth a browse for ideas now and then: Races of Eberon, Explorer's Guide to Eberron, Secrets of Xendrik etc.
Some books just aren't worth touching: Five Nations, Faith's of Eberron, Forge of War and Magic of Eberron, primarily.
There are almost certainly others (Wizard's put out a ton of books), but those are the ones I'm most familiar with.
I don't mean to quibble with you, TheJeff (and given what you said in this thread, I don't think I'm actually doing so) but I think what makes no sense is treating tabletop RPGs as an automated system wherein the world building has the same mechanical function as playing at the table.
I don't mean to quibble with you, TheJeff (and given what you said in this thread, I don't think I'm actually doing so) but I think what makes no sense is treating tabletop RPGs as an automated system wherein the world building has the same mechanical function as playing at the table.Well, yeah.
That was most of the point. You can, if you must, add house rules to fix most of these world problems, one at a time. But those are going to screw with the actual playing the game part.
Or you'll wind up doing something like RDM42's "active"/"academic" distinction, which is basically, if not exactly, a PC/NPC distinction. And if you're going to make a PC/NPC distinction, why not make it a broader one that lets you do the world-building you actually want.
Not to put you on the spot, but do you need a PC/NPC distinction (or any game mechanics, really) to do world building? I never made millions with my mini comics or anything, but I found that relying on any sort of RPG preconceptions about plot functions was an impediment to actually crafting an esthetically pleasing story.
I hope that made sense.
Edit to RDM42: I think it would end up looking a lot like Risk or SimEarth, or any of the myriad resource management games out there. I enjoy those games, but they're not RPGs, you know?
The end result is that you have to rebuild the world to suit what the rules make possible, or you redo the rules to set what the world is going to be like.
Those really are mutually conflicting, because the rules don't have the internal limits that the default game world suggests they do. i.e. the game world is not 'realistic' by the rules of the magic that is possible.
As for retraining...I just consider that a 'base magic' of the setting. Seriously, any person with 100 hp can fall from a 100 foot cliff onto concrete, get up and walk away. What is so unbelievable about them being able to learn stuff at an accelerated rate? It's already built right into the XP rules that you can learn without actually training or studying. Training or studying JUST to learn should be able to be accelerated, too!
==Aelryinth
which means they are GM/player fiating and house ruling, and not worldbuilding.
I.e. in contradiction and just focusing on one aspect of the game instead of trying to build a realistic world using the presented rules.
And of course, the whole purpose of the thread is not 'how do you ignore what the rules allow you to do', which is the solution you are talking about.
==Aelryinth
The end result is that you have to rebuild the world to suit what the rules make possible, or you redo the rules to set what the world is going to be like.
Those really are mutually conflicting, because the rules don't have the internal limits that the default game world suggests they do. i.e. the game world is not 'realistic' by the rules of the magic that is possible.
As for retraining...I just consider that a 'base magic' of the setting. Seriously, any person with 100 hp can fall from a 100 foot cliff onto concrete, get up and walk away. What is so unbelievable about them being able to learn stuff at an accelerated rate? It's already built right into the XP rules that you can learn without actually training or studying. Training or studying JUST to learn should be able to be accelerated, too!
==Aelryinth
I feel like there's a huge middle ground where the GM says, "This is the world, just accept it," and the rules give you a mechanical function to run around and have fun.
If you're asking what so unrealistic about retraining rules, I'd just point out that hit points weren't invented to model violent physical trauma so much as main character durability, if you see what I mean; nothing is realistic in this modeling system. As I have said before, I preferred D&D with 0-level characters, but that's just not how it works anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that training everyone on the planet to be a wizard is a realistic world, whether the rules as presented would allow it or not.
Pish. Making a realistic world wouldn't take THAT many rules. Else all those world simulators out there wouldn't work at all.
But you'd have to insert logic and reality into a "let the PC's have all the fun" world, including things like scarcity, rarity, and shortages, and ewww, can't have that.
The game isn't an economic sim, we all know that. And making it one would be interesting, since running on magic would shift a LOT of economic realities around that we would otherwise have to apply.
For instance, the mere existence of teleport makes law enforcement nigh impossible, and national borders superfluous, without massive defenses against dimensional movement.
But the game does not have this restriction, since it would mean mages couldn't use blink, dim door, etherealness, summon monsters, and the like, so it would be 'less fun'.
So, simply to start the project, you have to have a determination of how much 'anti-magic' defenses are in the world, i.e. you have castle walls to protect your towns from mundane threats, where are the walls against magica threats? Because castles sure aren't going to stop them.
==Aelryinth
|
They certainly didn't [have NPC classes] in 1E. There might have been something introduced late in 2e, but not in the core rules.
[tangent] There was some wonky 'complete specialist' or something in 2e, IIRC, that had classes like the Blacksmith and Apothecary and Guide, meant for NPC specialists that your PC would hire, but they were fairly niche, and I never saw anybody use them.
I only remember it because of the Apothecary and it's 'concoctions,' which were basically weak alchemy/herbalism type things that were supposed to never quite equal the power of a 1st level spell (even if the Apothecary was 8th level or so).
Even the current NPC classes seem a little wonky, and I'd have them use a different exp track than PC classes, at the very least. [/tangent]
OH, I absolutely agree. Restrictions are a part of world-building, as I mentioned above. What you can and cannot do has to be a part of the world and the balance you are trying to maintain. This can be in actions, and in possibilities, and stupid little things like unlimited spells, spell comps, casting services, and goods.
It's just that Paizo's rules on what is possible and can be done do not match at all the world image they are trying to convey.
==Aelryinth
No, at this point the aim of the thread is to find The Rule that Aelryinth is looking for - the one that definitively prevents a magitech explosion from happening.
Aelrynth's magitech explosion is predicated on 1. his particular view on how rules should be parsed,and 2. a DM allowing a given chain of assumptions to dictate how SHE should be running her game.
The Rule is simple. GM's table, GM's rules. And the plain simple fact that the world doesn't run on it's own, it's the GM that both propels and guides it.
Aelrynth's magitech explosion is predicated on 1. the way the default rules are actually written, NOT 2. a DM rewriting the rules to dictate how SHE wants to run her homebrew.
Fixed that for ya. :)
Kindly keep in mind that I am arguing what the rules are...I don't let this stuff get away IMC, because (gasp) I houserule other things aside. But I'm not arguing my home rules here (which I posted early in the thread), I'm arguing what the core and default rules ARE, not what I turn them into.
==Aelryinth
It isn't a matter of 'houseruling'. It's a matter of when you permit the rules-as-written to be used, and when you don't permit them to be abused. Your current argument, Aelryinth, is that the rules-as-written/presented should be the only things taken into account, ever, that the guidance of the GM - Rule #0, 'GM Guidance', actually being the very first rule that's written - is in no way necessary for an actual game.
Which is, in a word, bullsh!t. And here's the thing: you know it, you're playing Devil's Advocate, or Internet Troll, whichever you like, because you were giving good advice right through Page 3 of this discussion. You know very good and well that playing sans GM is a no-go scenario, that strictly applying the rules and only the rules is gaming the system - blatantly attempting to break the system (which I did above, and if you have more than 30k to invest, hey you can break it faster) which is something that a GM might allow for a thought experiment like we do on the boards, but which in an actual game is never going to fly.
So here's my new question:
Why are you playing at Internet Troll and taking the opposite position ad absurdum?
Except the behavior of those in the world, save for the effects of things like fear spells, in not in the provenance of the rules, but instead of the GM. And if those peasants don't want to cooperate with your mass social engineering project, they don't want to go cooperate, whatever you may think the rules 'dictate'.
Use kingdom building to amass a small nation then have people geas'd into learning basic magic :P
Aelrynth's magitech explosion is predicated on 1. the way the default rules are actually written, NOT 2. a DM rewriting the rules to dictate how SHE wants to run her homebrew.Fixed that for ya. :)
Kindly keep in mind that I am arguing what the rules are...I don't let this stuff get away IMC, because (gasp) I houserule other things aside. But I'm not arguing my home rules here (which I posted early in the thread), I'm arguing what the core and default rules ARE, not what I turn them into.
==Aelryinth
If your point is that a game can be broken going by strict RAW, that's generally how munchkins have always operated. It's been tradition since day 1 that rules don't run the game, that they are tools used by the GM, as opposed to the other way around. This is where D+D and it's descendants have always differed from board games like Monopoly. The rules have never been the be all and end all, nor have they ever been the final determinant, because unlike board games it's not a competitive scenario where one player wins at the expense of everyone else.
The Core/Default/Whatever rules have always been a toolbox instead of a strict road map. It's always been implicit that every GM, including Paizo itself, will modify them for their home games. Just as RPGA modified and continues to modify D+D for their network campaigns.
It isn't a matter of 'houseruling'. It's a matter of when you permit the rules-as-written to be used, and when you don't permit them to be abused. Your current argument, Aelryinth, is that the rules-as-written/presented should be the only things taken into account, ever, that the guidance of the GM - Rule #0, 'GM Guidance', actually being the very first rule that's written - is in no way necessary for an actual game.
Which is, in a word, bullsh!t. And here's the thing: you know it, you're playing Devil's Advocate, or Internet Troll, whichever you like, because you were giving good advice right through Page 3 of this discussion. You know very good and well that playing sans GM is a no-go scenario, that strictly applying the rules and only the rules is gaming the system - blatantly attempting to break the system (which I did above, and if you have more than 30k to invest, hey you can break it faster) which is something that a GM might allow for a thought experiment like we do on the boards, but which in an actual game is never going to fly.
So here's my new question:
Why are you playing at Internet Troll and taking the opposite position ad absurdum?
In opposition: using rule 0 is houseruling, so you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
And you are utterly mistaken, I'm not the one arguing that RAW should be the only thing. I'm the one arguing that this is what RAW says, and you're the one saying that 'This is Aelryinth's interpretation of the rules', which means you are saying that that the RAW is me Rule O'ing stuff.
And I do take offense to that. Most of the examples I've given are the what I've observed other people noting the rules allow you to do. No, I don't let that stuff get away in my home game, I've got more sense then that.
So here's MY new question:
When did I become the poster boy for your mad on against the RAW, and the one to blame for pointing out all the stuff the RAW allows you to do?
And WHY are you trying to argue that Rule 0 is not House Ruling, when the standard on these boards is that RAW is RAW, and Rule 0 is trying to fix the holes in RAW by house-ruling, and you are instead trying to blame me for being obstinate when all I'm doing when talking about rules is cleaving to the core standard, and not introducing my own homebrews?
Because from where I stand, you're the one being the Internet Troll, conjuring up a rules argument via blame and pseudo-personal attacks against the baseline standard of these boards, and it is annoying. I know the reflex is to want to attack a person instead of the rules, but as I've repeatedly said, I didn't make the rules...I just note what they are. Blaming me for them existing and calling them 'my interpretation' is ignoring the very definition of what RAW and House-ruling MEAN.
So, I'm holding to standards of the boards here, you're not, and you're attempting to blame me for it. It's REALLY annoying.
==Aelryinth
Aelrynth's magitech explosion is predicated on 1. the way the default rules are actually written, NOT 2. a DM rewriting the rules to dictate how SHE wants to run her homebrew.Fixed that for ya. :)
Kindly keep in mind that I am arguing what the rules are...I don't let this stuff get away IMC, because (gasp) I houserule other things aside. But I'm not arguing my home rules here (which I posted early in the thread), I'm arguing what the core and default rules ARE, not what I turn them into.
==Aelryinth
If your point is that a game can be broken going by strict RAW, that's generally how munchkins have always operated. It's been tradition since day 1 that rules don't run the game, that they are tools used by the GM, as opposed to the other way around. This is where D+D and it's descendants have always differed from board games like Monopoly. The rules have never been the be all and end all, nor have they ever been the final determinant, because unlike board games it's not a competitive scenario where one player wins at the expense of everyone else.
The Core/Default/Whatever rules have always been a toolbox instead of a strict road map. It's always been implicit that every GM, including Paizo itself, will modify them for their home games. Just as RPGA modified and continues to modify D+D for their network campaigns.
And I'm not in disagreement with any of that. Your 'munchkin' insult is off track, however...these aren't corner cases, and they aren't exploits. Anyone can take a look at those rules and extrapolate and realize they are absolutely wonky. So it's not munchkins looking for exploits...it's bad rules. There's an absolute difference there.
But when we talk about the rules, we talk about the rules ...core/defined/default, what have you. They are the standard. This is so everyone is on the same page when discussing rules.
Rule 0, houseruling, and all that, are deviations from the RAW. Politely ignoring what the rules say is another form of that on the player side.
That's how these boards operate, talking about the standard rules, and if you want to deviate from them, you say you are doing so.
So, it isn't 'my interpretation' of the rules. I talk about the rules as RAW. 'My' interpretation of the rules is very different from the RAW, because the RAW don't work in many ways to reflect the world outside of 'PC fun time', and when I do that, I'll specifically note that these are 'my rules' and 'my interpretation'.
Saying the RAW is 'my interpretation' of the rules is shooting a cannon at a blank field...it's no such thing, and comes across that you're blaming me for the rules saying what they do, and ignoring the rules is what everyone should do as the new standard, so then nobody knows what anybody is talking about because there is no standard.
Meh!
==Aelryinth