[Question] What don't you like about magic?

Hibou · August 21, 2006, 08:43:04 PM

I believe that with balancing magic vs. matter, the best answer is a little bit like the Gestalt optional rule, and its approach is somewhat cruel: a system where there is no real class distinction, or restriction on the use of magic and powerful combat abilities. A system where it only takes practice to achieve amazing levels of power in both areas is not unbalanced, but appears to be because one character with the equal amounts of earned XP may be ultimately greater at one than the other. However, it is one's choice of abilities and skills that he pays for with the XP he earns, and if he chose to spend it one way then there should be no complaining.

A friend of mine once showed me a system like this that his dad had created in disgust over AD&D and several other roleplaying systems a long time ago. I thought it was totally cool, but I never got into it because very few other people were willing to try playing it.

beejazz · August 21, 2006, 08:54:35 PM

Quote from: Epic Meepo
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
QuoteA fighter doesn't get Imp.Uncanny dodge, wich totaly baffles me.
Definately. I mean, honestly, how do you flank a high-level monk? You shouldn't be able to.
There's a feat that prevents flankage in the CW... but it's kind of half-assed.

On an unrelated side note, has anyone but me noticed how often casters die? They've got nil defensive capabilities without spells. And death costs precious xp... as does item creation... as do some of the more "broken" spells... It's no surprise to see a party wizard one or two levels lower than the rest of the party.

Epic Meepo · August 22, 2006, 02:43:51 PM

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
Quote from: Epic Meepo
Quote from: the_takenThat's a Paper, Rock, Scissors sceneario. Which is totaly unfair.
The entire class and level system is a Paper, Rock, Scissors scenario. That's the point. Some classes will almost always win in certain circumstances, others will almost always win in others.
This is true. The artificial part of a rock-paper-scissors scenario is that one-on-one fights between equal-levelled characters of Class X vs. Class Y are not the way issues in-game are typically resolved.

If you're playing Mortal Kombat-style d20, then "Class X beats Class Y" discussions are very useful. Most games don't happen that way, though, and consequently I don't care whether Class X knocks the stuffing out of Class Y nine times out of ten or not. That's because characters of Class X, Class Y, and Class Z are all working together to achieve goals cooperatively, in a forum where (ideally!) all of their varied strengths cover each others' varied weaknesses.

Because gaming is typically a cooperative effort, not a battle royale, "Class X beats Class Y in a fight" is not a useful statement on its own. If that's someone's only evidence of a problem, it's not enough to make me care. However, "Class X makes Class Y unnecessary and redundant" is a very different issue-- and a pretty serious one.

Hey! Why am I the one being quoted as an example of "Class X beats Class Y" mentality? I argued against that very thing several dozen posts back! (In the above quote, I am using "wins" to mean -roughly - "has a chance to shine.")

Lmns Crn · August 22, 2006, 02:51:59 PM

Quote from: Epic MeepoHey! Why am I the one being quoted as an example of "Class X beats Class Y" mentality? I argued against that very thing several dozen posts back! (In the above quote, I am using "wins" to mean -roughly - "has a chance to shine.")

I didn't quote you to argue with you; I quoted you because you reminded me of something I wanted to rant about anyway. :)

Epic Meepo · August 22, 2006, 03:43:10 PM

Post moved to Off Topic Rant thread.

CYMRO · August 22, 2006, 05:22:39 PM

QuoteArcane means that you can't do it perfectly in armor and you need a few extra material components; divine means that you can and you don't. That's really about it, mechanically speaking.

That is not what they mean, those are mechanical istinctions built into the rules.

It is all about the source of the power, just as psionics represents a third source of power.

Quote[blockquote]Magic is the skeleton key-- it fits every lock-- especially at high levels.

I agree with that statement.[/blockquote]

Concur. Maybe a liitle judicious paring of spells, as well as a stricter separation of divine/arcane/psionic speels/powers.

Quote[blockquote]I don't like systems that aren't explained.

Justifying the game mechanics is the DMs job.[/blockquote]

I would think that justifying game mechanics is the game creator's job.

QuoteMagic makes a lot of interesting hardships trivial.

Again, a paring of spells and powers can rectify this.

snakefing · August 22, 2006, 08:21:23 PM

Quote from: Phoenix Knight
Quote from: snakefingOne approach I've been playing around with is to make the really powerful magic available, but very expensive. Thus, a mage could hypothetical through out that sixth level spell, but it will really tax them and leave them basically helpless. Or they can throw out lots of smaller spells.
Unfortunately, there can still be the issue that even low-level spells allow a wizard to do things a fighter cannot hope to match.
Hold person can often be the low-level equivalent of save-or-die. Fly is hard for a fighter to counter. Invisibility, well, you get the idea. Even something as simple as mirror image can totally tie-up a melee guy while he tries to sort it out (though that's more in-line with the kind of power that makes sense; we'll say close on on-par).

I do agree with you that my general approach (allowing plenty of low-power magic with much less high power magic) will not entirely resolve the issue. Even low power magic can be pretty deadly in the right circumstances. To some extent this needs to be resolved primarily by avoiding the save or die type spells. (E.g., hold person could do something less extreme, like reduce speed, or allow a save per round, or something.)

But overall, the main goal is not necessarily to reduce magic to the level of the mundane, but to make it sufficiently less overwhelming that it doesn't negate all the things other characters can do at equivalent character level. I'm not sure my ideas do anything to help that, I've mainly been playing around with them.

Epic Meepo · August 23, 2006, 01:03:19 PM

Post moved to Off Topic Rant thread.

beejazz · August 23, 2006, 01:53:17 PM

On an unrelated side note, we've lost sight of the idea that the *world* is magic and that magic has its own agenda and ideas about how the world should work. We no longer have porcelain figurines on the countertop escaping up the stovepipe to elope on the rooftops, as in the tale of the shepherdess and the chiminey sweep. Animals and the dead and inanimate objects don't talk unless you make them in this system, thus reducing the awe one feels when something that shouldn't happen does because it's magic! Thus, what we have here is a crude, manufactured magic. Just another tool. Just another weapon. What we have is not a high-magic world! What we have is a low-magic world with high-magic characters! I do not feel so much that we have spoiled game balance as that we have spoiled the original sense of wonder that magic represents! And what ever happened to questing for power? The maddened alchemist who searches almost blindly for the ultimate mystery... never wielding magic, but doing remarkable things without it in the pursuit of his goal? This has been replaced by simple xp penalties for cross-classing. You know, there is a big diference between fantasy and sword-and-sorcery. This is pretty much it.

SilvercatMoonpaw · August 23, 2006, 03:51:31 PM

Well, part of what people want to do in D&D is be superheroes. So they need high magic. A way to put the super back into supernatural is to take it away from the players. But that can be unsatisfying. Of course, D&D magic is hack-and-slash magic. As much as they may try, Wizards makes a majority of spells matter most in combat. Combine this with an unwillingness of players and DMs to allow mages to do things not covered under the rules, and magic simply becomes a form of very powerful sword.

The dead don't talk? Animals don't talk? Inanimate objects don't talk? That's not the fault of the system, that's the fault of all these DMs who get too wrapped-up in trying not to be "corny" or something like that. Animals talk in the Chronicals of Narnia, and its the best part. I, personally, think that people shouldn't limit themselves when they create worlds. If you want talking X, have talking X, and to HELL with what anyone else thinks.

beejaz does have a point that the magic of D&D doesn't fit its core feel of Medievil Europe. Magic items galore, classes with magical abilities out the wazoo, magical monsters, etc. Even when worlds like Eberron they only go half-far enough. Eberron has a few moments where it really picks up the high-magic thing and runs with it: there is an item in City of Towers that lets one scribe non-magical tatoos magically. No useful game function! But it sounds cool! I actually don't expect the people who make D&D stuff to do that anytime soon, so it's up to us to realize the tiny details of a magical world.

My own personal peeve is that magic made mysterious or rare can get boring if it doesn't do anything. Mages toil away for years seraching out rare components and the esoteric knowledge needed to create a spell to doÃ¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦what? Invariably the "long and difficult" process only holds our interest if at the end is a big explosion or something similarly dangerous or something spectacular. I prefer my magic to do something like clean the house, which isn't allowed in a "magic is hard" setting. beejazz moans that magic has become a tool, but in my estimation if you don't want magic to be a tool than don't let anyone get a hold of it, PC or NPC. "Magic should bring about wonder" I agree with, but my wonder takes into account that I am a person living in this world: if animals talk then there is no reason they can't live among humans and do all sorts of jobs that only they could do.

(Sorry, sometimes you just have to rant.)

Lmns Crn · August 23, 2006, 04:05:13 PM

Here's a thing: Luminous Crayon responds to a thread!

Quote from: Phoenix Knight'm not sure you can "fix" magic because different people have different conceptions of the problem with it and how it should be. All you can really do is create it the way you envision it, and hope those playing in your game, setting, or reading your work appreciate your vision.

expect[/i] people to agree with all of them. 8)

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWhen I said that magic in stories could only be trumped because there is a narrator pulling all the strings, part of what I meant is that magic is supposed to be better than mundane stuff in myths and legends. Magic lets you do what was previously impossible or really hard. Magic is a plot-excuse, a facillitator for getting the story from A to B. D&D, or indeed any other high-fantasy game, does is split the story between the characters and the narrator, and once the plot-excuse is no longer completely contolled by the one creating the plot it can circumvent the plot rather than be part of it.

So what do we have to do to fix magic? Start by remembering that the system being designed is for a game and not a story.

imitate[/i] that sort of thing all day long, but we can't just copy it, because gaming and literature have different safeguards.

Quote from: Epic MeepoIncidentally, it's also nearly impossible to use the plot device where a messenger stumbles up to the PCs and keels over dead before fully explaining his presence. The line between alive and dead is so clearly defined in D&D that you can almost never have a mortal wound and be walking around, talking about it.

(Also, its nearly impossible in d20 Modern to hold someone at gunpoint, since they don't become helpless and can thus fight back by just sucking up one readied attack that deals normal damage.)

On an unrelated side note, we've lost sight of the idea that the *world* is magic and that magic has its own agenda and ideas about how the world should work.[/quote]mine[/i] to make.

Me, the writer. The writer who doesn't want mechanics and rules systems stepping on his creative toes.

Wensleydale · August 23, 2006, 05:10:07 PM

I like literature-esque magic systems; that is, ones that can be adapted and used for any purpose. I've developed this with Aelwyd's druidic system, using MP to, in effect, create whole new spells (take fire damage, extend it from touch to short range, make it cover a cone, make it do 2D6 damage, and hey presto!) I too dislike the arcane/divine divide...

Matt Larkin (author) · August 23, 2006, 05:40:06 PM

Quote from: Luminous CrayonWe've lost sight of it, in the sense that I haven't seen many settings lately that ascribe to that idea. Then again, I think it's an idea that not every setting needs to ascribe to; for example, it's not something I want for my own work. If it were an idea built into the system, I'd be complaining about that, too. Again, not because it's a bad idea on it's own, but because I don't want a system of mechanics making choices that should be mine to make.

Me, the writer. The writer who doesn't want mechanics and rules systems stepping on his creative toes.

Well said.

snakefing · August 23, 2006, 09:49:44 PM

Quote from: Epic MeepoTrue, though paring spells without also eliminating the ability to reproduce literary tropes can be tricky. For example, you couldn't stay faithful to the fantasy genre and eliminate all pesky scrying spells at the same time. Scrying spells are part of the fantasy genre.

This is true, which is one of the confounding factors. We want magic to be as powerful as its literary inspirations, and at the same time we want to be able to play magic-using characters who can cast spells as they see fit. (Within mechanical limits, of course.)

One problem I think D&D has always had is they try to include all the literary models in one agglomerated system. Priestly magic, death magic, nature magic, summoning, pacts with demons, flying, invisibility, flame blasts, the parting of the Red Sea, aetherial projection, it's all there, and then some. Small wonder it is hard to make coherent sense out of it.

I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense, when creating a world, to take a more coherent subset of magic that respects just one or a few cultural sources. Or perhaps to have a world where different cultures have such different takes on magic that the spells are different, the mechanics are different, the classes are different, ...

I'm not sure how to do that, starting from the D20 system. I mean, you could use the core mechanics for most skills and combat, but all the spell casting classes would have to be redesigned from the ground up I think. Perhaps by representing spell casting abilities as a collection of feats, you could create a base spell-casting class that could be customized for a world by changing the spell lists, feat availability, etc. It would be tough.

Alternatively, you could just create specialized magic systems and classes for each world, with mechanics to match the associated tropes and styles. Other DMs could borrow or modify to suit. That would hard to do well too.

Epic Meepo · August 24, 2006, 12:29:24 AM

Quote from: http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13080Off Topic Rant[/url] thread.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

[Question] What don't you like about magic?

Hibou

beejazz

Epic Meepo

Lmns Crn

Epic Meepo

CYMRO

snakefing

Epic Meepo

beejazz

SilvercatMoonpaw

Lmns Crn

Wensleydale

Matt Larkin (author)

snakefing

Epic Meepo