PDA

View Full Version : What magic should and should not be



Zen Master
2010-08-26, 02:49 AM
Ok - opinions may vary greatly, but I thought it'd be interesting to hear peoples views on this.

In my opinion magic should be a tool for most - but not all - things, but it should not be allowed to be the tool to end all tools.

For me, it's not as such a balance issue. The issue is for everyone to have fun and participate on an equal footing. This, naturally, relates to balance. But my point is that no one wants to play the wizards sidekick - not that everyone should be equally powerful.

So, to take an example, lets say you want to use magic to open a lock. Magic should never simply open the lock - it should give you a bonus to your open locks skill, similar to but lower than you'd expect of a rogue of the same level.

As another example, lets say you want to use magic to fight better. In that case, a few buffs should make you comparable to, but weaker than a full melee class. A lot of buffs might make a caster better than a fighter (for instance), but not better than a buffed fighter.

And so on.

Similarly, there are things I do not want magic to do to my games. For instance, travelling is part of how I construct stories - and so teleportation is disruptive. In combat, terrain is something that can make a lot of difference and fun - provided npc's and players aren't flying all over the place. The same for scrying - whats the point of wise men and libraries if you can just ask your god or some such?

So ... that's how I'd like the system to be. I've never encountered one that delivered on that.

I imagine a lot of players want more control. More options. For me, it's a question of presenting a world that is similar to the middle ages - but with magic.

So ... does this make sense? And if not, why not?

It might sound silly, but I'd also like to ask: What benefit does teleportation (as an example) bring to the game?

Endarire
2010-08-26, 03:22 AM
Teleport means I as DM can skip past the random encounters. I like it as an overland travel spell.

I like the notion of magic doing everything. By its very nature, it should. How much it solves, however, is up for debate.

Ashram
2010-08-26, 03:44 AM
Similarly, there are things I do not want magic to do to my games. For instance, travelling is part of how I construct stories - and so teleportation is disruptive. In combat, terrain is something that can make a lot of difference and fun - provided npc's and players aren't flying all over the place. The same for scrying - whats the point of wise men and libraries if you can just ask your god or some such?


At higher levels, a group with a 15th level wizard has better things to do than gallivant around the countryside on foot. Typically. Flight is also an effective combat strategy. {{scrubbed}} Also, Scrying and asking your god (A.K.A. the Commune spell) are two entirely different things. Scrying is you spying on a person that you at least have some bare connection to (Provided they fail the Will save). Commune is for moderately high level clerics to ask their deity some simple Yes or No answer questions. Wise men and libraries are around for those people who aren't mid-level clerics.

Gnaeus
2010-08-26, 03:59 AM
The same for scrying - whats the point of wise men and libraries if you can just ask your god or some such?

It depends a lot on how divination works. In D&D, it tends to give very short answers. If I want to know that the Necromancer is living in Dol Guldur, and I know how to ask the question, I can find out. If I want any kind of detail on who he is, I'm gonna need the library.

Similarly, in some games, divination answers are vague and cryptic. Sometimes you need the wise man to figure out what your divination just said.

Also, it can lead to good side quests. In the game in which I am playing, the big bad is shielded from divination, so we used a divination (and a teleport, actually) to figure out where we could go to find more information about him.

Finally, it is a genre staple. Like polymorph, it causes problems sometimes. Like polymorph, it is something that wizards and priests are expected to be able to do across many cultures throughout history and literature.



I imagine a lot of players want more control. More options. For me, it's a question of presenting a world that is similar to the middle ages - but with magic.

So ... does this make sense? And if not, why not?

It might sound silly, but I'd also like to ask: What benefit does teleportation (as an example) bring to the game?

In your middle ages example, lets say that the party consists of knights and wizards in Arthurian England/France, standard D&D. But for some reason, a quest, or a prophecy, or just for fun, someone wants to go to Egypt, or Japan. It isn't fun, nor is it helpful to the story, if other players just go "Eff that! That's really far!".

Also, teleportation (or things very similar to it, like rapid overland flight or 7 league boots), is another genre staple. Whether you are talking about Harry Potter or medieval legends, whisking someone across the world in a short period of time is something that magic is expected to be able to do.

Cainen
2010-08-26, 04:36 AM
If powerful, attach severe drawbacks to wanton use.

If roughly on par with everything else, nix the drawbacks.

If the intended party makeup includes magicians and non-magicians, I neither agree with nor want anything to do with superpowered magic with no drawbacks. I've had a game outright ruined by this school of thought and I have no intention whatsoever of seeing it happen to me again.

On the other hand, having powerful magic in a game like Mage is fine; nobody's intended to be without it.

Zen Master
2010-08-26, 04:49 AM
Teleport means I as DM can skip past the random encounters. I like it as an overland travel spell.

I like the notion of magic doing everything. By its very nature, it should. How much it solves, however, is up for debate.

I don't know if magic should do everything. Or well - if I was an author, that might be. Or not, as the case might be. But this is a game, and if one person can do anything, why would he need the other pc's?

Edit: I forgot. There are NO random encounters in anything I take part in, neither as DM or player. There might be random-seeming encounters - that's something else entirely.


At higher levels, a group with a 15th level wizard has better things to do than gallivant around the countryside on foot. Typically. Flight is also an effective combat strategy. A bad/unimaginative DM says, "No, you can't fly around because I don't like it and it ruins combat for me,", while a creative DM works around that and still makes combat fun and interesting. Also, Scrying and asking your god (A.K.A. the Commune spell) are two entirely different things. Scrying is you spying on a person that you at least have some bare connection to (Provided they fail the Will save). Commune is for moderately high level clerics to ask their deity some simple Yes or No answer questions. Wise men and libraries are around for those people who aren't mid-level clerics.

Have better things to do? Well yea - if you accept as given that teleport must exist, but if it doesn't, then that's the way he travels, however powerful he might otherwise be.

{scrubbed} Lucky for me, I've played as DM and player in the same group long enough that we have a very solid agreement on what is fun and what works - and that isn't and doesn't.

It's not even a question of tactics or strategies. It's a question of gameworld. If you want a world where certain assumptions hold true - that the kings lancers are mounted knights, and that they are a force to be reckoned with - then you need to make certain adjustments to how you use the rules.

I happen to enjoy my various story devices more than random spells designed by TSR/WoTC. They happen to be a lot more flexible, more inventive and a lot less repetitive than just looking up the spell list for a standard solution for a standard problem.

You're right though - I should have said divination rather than scrying.

Saph
2010-08-26, 05:17 AM
The way I prefer it - and the way I run my games - is that magic is powerful and versatile, and doesn't have special restrictions on it. The restriction is your spells per day. If you're spending spell slots on something, it ought to at least have a shot at working.

This means that the world ends up being a hybrid between a medieval world and a fantasy one. In some cases people use magic instead of the medieval equivalents, because it's more efficient. E.g. in my current campaign world, communication is mostly handled by magic, because animal messenger and sending are way way better than sending someone with a letter.

Likewise, I'm fine with utility magic being good at what it does. To pick a few examples:

Knock: You can now open doors. By expending your daily resources, you have a limited ability to mimic what a 1st-level rogue or a 1st-level barbarian can do all day long. A locked door is not considered a challenge in my games - I assume that any remotely competent party can breeze through as many locks as they feel like.

Fly: This enables the party to bypass terrain features by, e.g., sending a flyer up to tie a rope for the rest of the party to cross. Again, that's fine by me. Once you're up to the mid levels, terrain features like cliffs aren't a challenge either.

Teleport: If you've made it up to level 9 or 10, you're important enough that you're frequently going to need to be in multiple parts of the world in quick succession. Teleportation is a necessity, not a shortcut; you simply do not have the time to spend weeks trekking across the countryside.

What these spells do more than anything else is give the player characters much more freedom to choose what's going to happen to them, and in general, I think this is a good thing. I'm wary of DMs who ban effective utility magic on the grounds that it 'disrupts the story', since I've noticed that it often goes along with a tendency to railroad.

Gnaeus
2010-08-26, 05:22 AM
Also, thanks for calling me a bad and unimaginative DM for having another opinion than you. Lucky for me, I've played as DM and player in the same group long enough that we have a very solid agreement on what is fun and what works - and that isn't and doesn't.

He didn't call you a bad DM.

Your lack of imagination of how divination can assist a story does suggest that you need to think more creatively about how a world with magic functions.

You asked for other people's opinions on how teleportation could be fun, or what the point of libraries is in a world with divination. Several people told you. If your response is "well not in my game!", then why did you ask for people's opinions at all? If you don't use it, and your players are having fun, what is the point of the discussion?

oxybe
2010-08-26, 05:30 AM
one thing about your standard D&D world that always bugged me is how it never does anything with it's magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasis). i'll let Nodwick explain my frustration (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/gamespyarchive/strips/2006-12-20.jpg) to an extent as to how it sometimes tries to justify a thousand years of dark ages, even though you had the fantasy equivalent of many modern conveniences.

the handling of magic this is one of many reasons why i like eberron & dark sun:

-eberron because they actually do stuff with magic... looking at the history of the setting you can see their civilizations becoming advanced. long-distance travel and communication is possible between nations in fashion other then "let's hoof it" or "wait 9-10 levels until the casters can cast mass flying/teleportation spells". magic just feels more fantastic in a tangible way since you can see it in action rather then the forced feel of "you're effectively an amish dirt farmer" and an adept is casting sparkly lights. oooh... fantastic!

-dark sun because magic is the horrible thing that destroyed the world (casting a spell requires draining the energy from nearby living creatures), so people have a compelling reason not to use it, or if they do they make damn sure they do it in secret or that they return the unused/residual energy (or they're on the level of a sorcerer king or a templar working for the aforementioned sorcerer king)

like cainen, how "powerful" magic is depends on the game.

in something like D&D, where your mage and your mundane are supposed to mix, i don't want magic substituting for everything the fighter can do. one very big reason why i like 4th ed: since "casters" and "non-casters" work off the same base mechanics, it's easier for the devs to balance the power between the fighter & the wizard, and while it comes easier to wizards/clerics/bards/pastrymancers/etc... everyone can learn ritualistic magic for big effects.

in a game like mage, where the PCs are supposed to be big-shot casters and the mundanes are supposed to be NPCs, i'm perfectly fine with magic being overly powerful since that's the point of the game itself.


Similarly, there are things I do not want magic to do to my games. For instance, travelling is part of how I construct stories - and so teleportation is disruptive. In combat, terrain is something that can make a lot of difference and fun - provided npc's and players aren't flying all over the place. The same for scrying - whats the point of wise men and libraries if you can just ask your god or some such?

this is a big thing that irks me about D&D magic: it forces the GM to create hoops for the players to jump through even though the game supposedly gives the players those tools to bypass the things the GM is putting hoops for in the first place! so to "help" the GM the devs put spells in other books to foil the bypass, but then the players get creative and start using... ugh.

teleport/passwall/etc... is there so you can do a dungeon bypass (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DungeonBypass).

flight is there so you bypass the gulf the gm wants you to go the long way around

divination (either asking an entity or via remote seeing) is there specifically so you can remotely view on an enemy or gather information.

Reinboom
2010-08-26, 06:03 AM
He didn't call you a bad DM.


In combat, terrain is something that can make a lot of difference and fun - provided npc's and players aren't flying all over the place.


A bad/unimaginative DM says, "No, you can't fly around because I don't like it and it ruins combat for me,", while a creative DM works around that and still makes combat fun and interesting.

The original writing presented by Ashram here is presented as a binary choice (given the word "while") and, as it was referring back to Acromos's statement, is an argument by innuendo where the suggestion could be lead to be that, since the first part of the binary conclusion matches in similarity a statement given by Acromos, that Acromos is thus a bad/unimaginative DM.

So no, Ashram did not directly call Acromos a bad DM. Instead, there was suggestion by the writing (whether or not that was the intent).



Your lack of imagination of how divination can assist a story does suggest that you need to think more creatively about how a world with magic functions.

It is not very nice to directly state a lack of imagination on a subject as it is presumably impossible for you to know exactly what Acromos's imagination is.

It is quite possible for Acromos to have pondered on the idea of how a world with divination might function. Creatively even. Acromos may have concluded that s/he does not like given worlds.
(Consider this statement only as an example counterpoint - signaled by the use of possible - and not a direct declaration that Acromos did, in fact, ponder such an occurrence. Only that it is possible for him/her to have done so.)

Also, on this same statement, "world with magic" is a rather broad category. A given example "world with magic" may or may not contain the idea of divination. The one (divination) is generally recognized as subset of the other (worth with magic), but they can exist exclusively. As such, I'm unsure if it actually suggests such a statement if Acromos did in fact show such a lack of imagination.


You asked for other people's opinions on how teleportation could be fun, or what the point of libraries is in a world with divination. Several people told you. If your response is "well not in my game!", then why did you ask for people's opinions at all? If you don't use it, and your players are having fun, what is the point of the discussion?

Acromos did, in fact, only post a response of a nature that is similar to the one you suggest here as a reply to only a single poster. Due to the issue of lumped statements, the writing here suggests that s/he has told each of these posters a statement similar to "well not in my game!". This is simply not true and you may wish to edit to clarify if that wasn't your intent.

Not that there is anything wrong with the statement "not in my game!" of course. As such a statement furthers the discussion by offering more declarations and more information on the request at hand.

:smallsmile:


=========


I imagine a lot of players want more control. More options. For me, it's a question of presenting a world that is similar to the middle ages - but with magic.

So ... does this make sense? And if not, why not?

It might sound silly, but I'd also like to ask: What benefit does teleportation (as an example) bring to the game?

It does make sense and I generally agree with you. That is the style of game you wish to play and those options do not necessarily make such a game world better (or worse. Of course, that depends on execution).
It's in a similar vein as to deciding to run Mouse Guard because you like a world presented with mice. One does not play a human in such a game because that is not what the game is for. It is absolutely fine for you to establish your world to how you want it to work.

On to the benefits of teleportation:
I see that as an issue of what the game is trying to accomplish. Teleportation offers an advantage of in that many DMs just want to skip the wilderness and travel areas and get straight to the scene location. Or they don't want to deal with the party's trudge back.
There are many other reasons, but these are the reasons that I come across the most, personally.

With most games, I tend to disagree with the OTHER things that teleportation can offer. To these, I restrict them. Usually in such ways as requiring a spellcaster to set a warp point with one casting of the spell and then go to that warp point with a second. Or jumping between preset teleportation circles that are connected to each other. In this manner, the first two advantages can be obtained without the expanded issues.
Of course, I'm fine with a world without even those as well. It all depends on the game. :smallsmile:

potatocubed
2010-08-26, 06:06 AM
It's a good question. When I write, I usually design the magic system so that it has in-built limitations so magic-users can't just win at everything. Or I design a world in which magic-users do win at everything, and explore the consequences thereof.

What magic can and cannot do is more a function of the setting and the explanation they use for magic than anything else. If magic is a divine gift, then it can only do things that the gods approve of. If it's fate manipulation, you're limited to subtle effects. If it's bending reality to your will, then it can do anything.

Apropos...


I don't know if magic should do everything. Or well - if I was an author, that might be. Or not, as the case might be. But this is a game, and if one person can do anything, why would he need the other pc's?

I think there's a difference between doing anything and doing everything. So long as there's a limitation on how much the magic-users can do before they run out of steam - mana, spells-per-day, soul fragments, human sacrifices, whatever - you have a limitation on the effectiveness of magic-users.

Of course, because D&D is a group game, when the wizard runs out of juice the party does not typically push on regardless. If you're going to make a drawback like this meaningful you have to give wizards a good reason not to just nova the first encounter or two and go home. In AD&D that limitation was the time it took to memorise spells. In some games it's a time limit - if the dungeon's only on the material plane for one day you can't afford to only explore one room. And so on.

Lapak
2010-08-26, 06:39 AM
I like the notion of magic doing everything. By its very nature, it should.While this is just a difference of opinion, I don't agree - that it should be or even that its nature suggests that it should be a universal problem-solver. I prefer magic to be significantly more limited in its application, both as a DM and as a player. There's plenty of genre material where it isn't a solution to any problem which comes to hand; in fact, I'd say that the message of 'magic can't solve every problem' is much more common than the opposite across fantasy in general. In fiction, there's often a pretty severe set of limitations on magic and what it can do, ranging from 'it physically exhausts the mage' to 'so perilous that it's an absolute last resort.'

I don't have any problem at all with utility spells, mobility spells, or anything else in D&D, but I'd rather see magic in general carry a heavier cost than it does in 3.x. I think that 4e was very much on the right general track with rituals - taking the utility spells and making them carry a significant time/effort cost keeps them from being tossed around at will. 2e and prior also had a reasonable tradeoff, in that a wizard who blew out all his spells took quite a while to recharge and very few of the game-changing spells (teleport and powerful divinations have already been mentioned) were completely safe to use. Even a 1% chance of serious failure was enough to cause PCs to shy away from teleporting over the landscape every time they wanted to go somewhere.

Having talked through it above, I guess my position can be summed up as:

"Magic should be able to do just about anything, but it should always carry either a cost or a risk - or both. The more potent the effect, the higher the cost should be; for really significant benefits, there should be a small (but real) change of a serious risk."

So I don't mind teleports; I don't mind spells that make a caster temporarily more potent in combat than a melee class; I don't mind spells that tell a caster how to solve their problems or spells that alter reality. But teleport having a small risk of going off-course or dumping you on the Etherial plane will keep casters from using it every day. Super-melee buffs that carry a 1-in-200 chance of heart failure when it expires will prevent casters from making themselves stronger than the fighter every single combat. And so on. That's what I feel powerful magic should be: a trump card that's too dangerous to whip out for minor hassles.

Zombimode
2010-08-26, 07:48 AM
one thing about your standard D&D world that always bugged me is how it never does anything with it's magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasis). i'll let Nodwick explain my frustration (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/gamespyarchive/strips/2006-12-20.jpg) to an extent as to how it sometimes tries to justify a thousand years of dark ages, even though you had the fantasy equivalent of many modern conveniences.

This notion, as well as the Tippyverse as a "logical" result of the D&D 3.5 rules, is largely based on a fallacy. It makes assumptions on things that are simply not addresed or out of the scope of the ruleset. The D&D 3.5 ruleset does not describe how the things are in a given world. This is part of the DMs job.
The rules merely describe how certain events will work out if and only if evoked.

Simple example:
The PhB details the spell "Fireball". By that it makes a statement on how the action "casting fireball" will work out if successfully tried, or more generally how the event "casted spell: fireball" will work out if evoked.
It does not however make any statements about why, when or even if the event ever occurs in a given world.

Those details are dependent on factors not addressed by the rules and thus completely left up to the DM to decide.

So yes, a setting where the cultural, technological and economical evolution (or the lack of it, but this is a whole another issue) is largely unaffected by the presence of pontent magic and equally potent wielders of said magic can make as much sense as Tippyverse or Eberron, entirely depending on additional assumptions on magic and magic users that are not addressed by the rules.

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 07:53 AM
Similarly, in some games, divination answers are vague and cryptic. Sometimes you need the wise man to figure out what your divination just said.

BINGO! I like cryptic messages from the "other side." It makes the players think (or take the cheap way out and roll a check).

If you want a system that really limits magic try to find a copy of The Slayers d20. The magic is overwhelmingly powerful, in short bursts. You take non-lethal damage based on the power level of the spell. It also makes the blaster wizard a viable option. Dragon Slave, anyone?

Gnaeus
2010-08-26, 09:09 AM
The same for scrying - whats the point of wise men and libraries if you can just ask your god or some such?



It is not very nice to directly state a lack of imagination on a subject as it is presumably impossible for you to know exactly what Acromos's imagination is.

It is quite possible for Acromos to have pondered on the idea of how a world with divination might function. Creatively even. Acromos may have concluded that s/he does not like given worlds.

I do not know what Acromos' imagination is. Acromos did not say "I don't like scrying", which would be a matter of personal opinion in which every opinion is equally valid. He said that he didn't understand the point of wise men or libraries in a world including scrying (where scrying was later amended to include divination).

Since there are obvious reasons for wise men in a world with divination (the severe limitations of common spells, the costs, lack of universal access, ect), which have already been pointed out, this leaves us with several possibilities.

1. He could have figured out these reasons, if he had thought about it. or.
2. He did not have the capacity to figure this out (which I think is unlikely) or.
3. He doesn't understand how divinations work.

Now, Acromos says that he is a good DM, and I take him at his word, so he probably has the requisite imagination to figure out results from setting conditions. He appears to be a reasonably experienced player, so I suspect that he at least generally understands how divinations work, at least in 3.5, if not in other systems. So I arrive back at #1, that he hasn't applied his imagination to this particular problem, and he will get there if he thinks about it for a while. That doesn't mean that he will like divinations any better, but at least he will ask more meaningful questions about them.

valadil
2010-08-26, 09:13 AM
I think magic should be riskier. In MERP, the forces of evil notice when you use magic. Roll badly while fireballing an orc and some Nazgul show up on the scene. In a system like that, I'm find with wizards being able to unlock doors. It carries enough risk that nobody will do so lightly.

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 09:17 AM
I think magic should be riskier. In MERP, the forces of evil notice when you use magic. Roll badly while fireballing an orc and some Nazgul show up on the scene. In a system like that, I'm find with wizards being able to unlock doors. It carries enough risk that nobody will do so lightly.

Note my above post. The Slayers d20 is similar, except not so much 'evil things notice' and more 'your body gets fatigued (and can possibly die).'

Also I'm a big fan of 'paradox' from oWoD Mage: The Ascension.

Reinboom
2010-08-26, 09:18 AM
Since there are obvious reasons for wise men in a world with divination (the severe limitations of common spells, the costs, lack of universal access, ect), which have already been pointed out, this leaves us with several possibilities.

1. He could have figured out these reasons, if he had thought about it. or.
2. He did not have the capacity to figure this out (which I think is unlikely) or.
3. He doesn't understand how divinations work.

Ah, see, I was reading that statement entirely differently. Instead, I took that statement as a hyperbole. This constructs another possibility entirely.

Given, I am in error there in that I shouldn't have assumed it was a hyperbole. I just neglected to read that specific statement differently. :smalleek:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-26, 09:20 AM
Writing Excuses Ep. 14 : Magic Systems and their Rules (http://www.writingexcuses.com/2008/05/12/writing-excuses-episode-14-magic-systems-and-their-rules/)

This is pretty much all I'd have to say about the appropriate role of magic in a game, or any internally-consistent fictional setting.

valadil
2010-08-26, 09:43 AM
Also I'm a big fan of 'paradox' from oWoD Mage: The Ascension.

Yeah, paradox was just right. My only problem with it was that different GMs had different ideas about what qualified as vulgar.

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 09:50 AM
Yeah, paradox was just right. My only problem with it was that different GMs had different ideas about what qualified as vulgar.

Which was the real p.i.t.a. in a revolving storyteller campaign. What I considered vulgar some people considered safe, and others considered uber-vulgar. But then again, according to the movies, hacking can do anything!
(Can I get a w00t for V.A.s? :smallbiggrin:)

Quietus
2010-08-26, 10:16 AM
This notion, as well as the Tippyverse as a "logical" result of the D&D 3.5 rules, is largely based on a fallacy. It makes assumptions on things that are simply not addresed or out of the scope of the ruleset. The D&D 3.5 ruleset does not describe how the things are in a given world. This is part of the DMs job.
The rules merely describe how certain events will work out if and only if evoked.

Simple example:
The PhB details the spell "Fireball". By that it makes a statement on how the action "casting fireball" will work out if successfully tried, or more generally how the event "casted spell: fireball" will work out if evoked.
It does not however make any statements about why, when or even if the event ever occurs in a given world.

The way the world works is mechanically described by the rules of the game. It is assumed that the rules written - at least in core, which includes everything needed for the Tippyverse - will be used in that game world. In that world, if someone of sufficient power moves his hands like so and pronounces arcane syllables like so, then they produce a Fireball. That's part of the world, and is assumed. So are magical traps, which can be made to be repeating... and are made by people whose intelligence dwarfs that of the most intelligent people the real world has ever known. It's not unreasonable to take that logical step and have someone who makes Stephen Hawking look like an imbecile realize that hey, if you can put a magic spell into a trap and have it go off every time someone steps on this plate here, and we have a spell that creates food and water, we can set up constant feeding stations, and no one has to farm ever again.

Extensions of that train of thought are exactly what created the Tippyverse.

dsmiles
2010-08-26, 10:18 AM
The way the world works is mechanically described by the rules of the game. It is assumed that the rules written - at least in core, which includes everything needed for the Tippyverse - will be used in that game world. In that world, if someone of sufficient power moves his hands like so and pronounces arcane syllables like so, then they produce a Fireball. That's part of the world, and is assumed. So are magical traps, which can be made to be repeating... and are made by people whose intelligence dwarfs that of the most intelligent people the real world has ever known. It's not unreasonable to take that logical step and have someone who makes Stephen Hawking look like an imbecile realize that hey, if you can put a magic spell into a trap and have it go off every time someone steps on this plate here, and we have a spell that creates food and water, we can set up constant feeding stations, and no one has to farm ever again.

Extensions of that train of thought are exactly what created the Tippyverse.

Well, you know what assumptions do. :smalltongue:

Gnaeus
2010-08-26, 10:34 AM
Ah, see, I was reading that statement entirely differently. Instead, I took that statement as a hyperbole. This constructs another possibility entirely.

Given, I am in error there in that I shouldn't have assumed it was a hyperbole. I just neglected to read that specific statement differently. :smalleek:

O.K. maybe that statement and the asking about what teleportation adds to a game were rhetorical. Call that possibility 4. I took them as real questions, because they are things that people ask about.

To give a side example, I have heard the complaint "Divination short circuits my plot. I want to do a murder mystery, but players will just speak with dead". On its face, that presents a problem.

But if you examine the spell, and use the slightest amount of creativity, the problem disappears.

You need a body, which is mostly intact. What if the murderer destroyed it? Better yet, what if it is hidden/stolen, and PCs have to find it.

The answers are short and sometimes cryptic. A cryptic answer is at best a clue, and may even mislead.

The corpse may not know. Worse, the corpse may be incorrect. In real world, rape convictions (in which the victim has a good incentive and likely a good opportunity to view the attacker) are often proven to be false convictions, based on the problems inherent in eywitness testimony. Filter that through a world in which disguise self is a common spell and a cheap item, and there is no guarantee that what the corpse "knows" isn't a red herring. Maybe there has already been a conviction based on a Speak with dead, and the party has to discover the truth!

So this slam dunk spell which ends murder plots in fact does anything but. Lots of divinations are that way. They don't give you a complete picture, they depend on how good the questions asked are, and in some cases they are a good tool for the DM to use to challenge the party. Frankly, I think Divination is an awesome tool for a clever DM. The challenge is often in mixing its clear limitations with enough rewards to make it worthwhile for the party to learn and cast it. And if your players happen to be amazingly good at properly wording and deciphering divination clues, shouldn't they be rewarded for their cleverness?

Quietus
2010-08-26, 11:47 AM
Well, you know what assumptions do. :smalltongue:

Make an ass out of... umm.. Hm.

They create Tippyverses?

Zombimode
2010-08-26, 12:25 PM
In that world, if someone of sufficient power moves his hands like so and pronounces arcane syllables like so, then they produce a Fireball.

Nope, thats not what the rules state at all. The ruleset makes a statement on the neccessary conditions for the casting of the spell "fireball". One of the alternatives that are outlined is, for example, being an at least 5th level wizard with fireball on the list of spells known and having it prepared (and not yet cast), plus being able to meet the spells inherent requirements (having acces to the required material components, being able to perform the somatic and verbal components) and an array of ceteris paribus clauses (not being in an anti-magic field, maintain concentration, etc.).

What you fail to realize is that most of the requirements are very abstract. Having a high enough level of the class wizard is one possible neccessary requirement for casting Fireball. But "having a high enough level of the class wizard" is a very abstract condition. It has to be translated to a concrete meaning for a given world. But this is out of the scope of the rule set. It make no statement about how this abstract condition is translated.
The possible translations are manifold, some of them not prohibiting the Tippyverse. But only some of many possibilities.


So are magical traps, which can be made to be repeating... and are made by people whose intelligence dwarfs that of the most intelligent people the real world has ever known. It's not unreasonable to take that logical step and have someone who makes Stephen Hawking look like an imbecile realize that hey, if you can put a magic spell into a trap and have it go off every time someone steps on this plate here, and we have a spell that creates food and water, we can set up constant feeding stations, and no one has to farm ever again.

...

:smallsigh:

This is so incredible dumb, I almost refuse to react to it.
No seriuosly, this is munchkinery at its worst. Like trying to be healed by drowning. Such things have no place in an honest discussion about non-comedy settings.

A magic device that is used for supplying food is obviously not a trap!

If the Tippyverse relies on munchkinism like that, I fail to see why it not simply state: Pun-Pun, end of story.

Quietus
2010-08-26, 12:33 PM
This is so incredible dumb, I almost refuse to react to it.
No seriuosly, this is munchkinery at its worst. Like trying to be healed by drowning. Such things have no place in an honest discussion about non-comedy settings.

A magic device that is used for supplying food is obviously not a trap!

If the Tippyverse relies on munchkinism like that, I fail to see why it not simply state: Pun-Pun, end of story.

Just because it's silly, doesn't mean it's not true. It wasn't my idea, not even close, but to be fair, if it makes ENOUGH food to suffocate a person, would you consider it a trap then? What if the person who steps on the trigger platform is dropped into a 20 foot pit, then has 2 tonnes of delicious cake dropped on their head?

potatocubed
2010-08-26, 01:12 PM
A magic device that is used for supplying food is obviously not a trap!

Well, no it isn't. Rather, traps and Tippyverse non-traps are both subsets of the category of 'mechanisms which cast a spell under certain pre-defined circumstances'.

The necessary conditions as written in the rules are very basic - activate trigger, receive spell. If you can craft a device that fires a lightning bolt every time someone stands on a trigger, why can't you craft one that fires a create food and water?

Zen Master
2010-08-26, 01:49 PM
I do not know what Acromos' imagination is. Acromos did not say "I don't like scrying", which would be a matter of personal opinion in which every opinion is equally valid. He said that he didn't understand the point of wise men or libraries in a world including scrying (where scrying was later amended to include divination).

While that may be an accurate description of my post, it's not entirely what I meant.

Suppose the world I want my players to dwell in, and the story I want to tell, is a mysterious place where ancient secrets are passed down from father to son, and only the select few know these hidden things ... well, those select few, and everyone else with access to a given spell of a high enough level?!

Now, the divination spells aren't as a whole badly designed, there are numerous limitations on the information they give. Except that in many cases, you can simply cast, recast and recast the same spells over and over, until you have the whole picture.

Divination can, at least theoretically, create problems for which there are no solutions - other than playing with someone else, or limiting their use in game.


Now, Acromos says that he is a good DM, and I take him at his word, so he probably has the requisite imagination to figure out results from setting conditions. He appears to be a reasonably experienced player, so I suspect that he at least generally understands how divinations work, at least in 3.5, if not in other systems. So I arrive back at #1, that he hasn't applied his imagination to this particular problem, and he will get there if he thinks about it for a while. That doesn't mean that he will like divinations any better, but at least he will ask more meaningful questions about them.

I am, if nothing else, an experienced DM.

Lets say there are two ways to get the answer to a question.

The first way is to track down a decendant of Haahn, son of Brathul. Their family, House Ishar, have guarded the location of the Vault of Blades since time out of memory. But when the Second War of the Fiery Heavens began 40 years ago, they went underground. Your only clue is .... some random old merchant, you get the point.

The other way is to cast a divination, scry on the location and teleport right there.

Now I don't know about you, but for me that first example is a far, far more attractive example of what roleplaying is supposed to be.

Now, they might use divination to find out that an old tobacco merchant was the foster father of someone called Little Ishar years ago - but there is no limitation in the spell description that says 'you must use this spell in an interesting manner.'

So it's not that I particularly hate divinations. But potentially they produce a game that's far less interesting and entertaining than what's possible. They risk detracting from everyones enjoyment of the game. This I do dislike.

Now ... the clever use of a divination is creativity on the part of the players. But so is clever roleplay. Clearly I'll reward both - but roleplaying cannot create problems, and overzealous use of spells can. So I prefer roleplaying. That's not such a sin in a roleplaying game, is it? =)

Caphi
2010-08-26, 01:55 PM
The first way is to track down a decendant of Haahn, son of Brathul. Their family, House Ishar, have guarded the location of the Vault of Blades since time out of memory. But when the Second War of the Fiery Heavens began 40 years ago, they went underground. Your only clue is .... some random old merchant, you get the point.

The other way is to cast a divination, scry on the location and teleport right there.

Your basic fallacy is to assume that "find a location" and "make it to that location" are appropriate challenges for a high-level party. They are not, by design, for the same reason that a level 2 goblin fighter is not an appropriate challenge for the same party. Make better challenges that actually challenge the players' resources as they are, instead of limiting players until a level 2 goblin fighter (metaphorically) is a challenge even to a level 20 worldshaper.

valadil
2010-08-26, 01:58 PM
Suppose the world I want my players to dwell in, and the story I want to tell, is a mysterious place where ancient secrets are passed down from father to son, and only the select few know these hidden things

...

The other way is to cast a divination, scry on the location and teleport right there.



The obvious answer to that is that if you are guarding a secret location and scrying and teleport both exist in your world, you'll take measures against them. Yes, it's a little cliched to say that scrying doesn't work now. But it's also realistic.

And even then, you can still give the players the option to defeat the scry defenses. Maybe they can't succeed without modification, but a body part (including hair) gives you +10 to scry on someone (well, gives them a -10 to resist, but you get the idea). Personally I think this is the best way to handle the situation. You don't completely let the players bypass things, but securing the right components becomes a quest in and of itself and the players still feel cool when they get to scry.

Saph
2010-08-26, 02:02 PM
Lets say there are two ways to get the answer to a question.

The first way is to track down a decendant of Haahn, son of Brathul. Their family, House Ishar, have guarded the location of the Vault of Blades since time out of memory. But when the Second War of the Fiery Heavens began 40 years ago, they went underground. Your only clue is .... some random old merchant, you get the point.

The other way is to cast a divination, scry on the location and teleport right there.

Now I don't know about you, but for me that first example is a far, far more attractive example of what roleplaying is supposed to be.

Not necessarily. Sure, tracking down a random person across an entire continent with only a few inaccurate clues can be fun. It can also be a horrible grindfest where the players spend hours going from place to place and interrogating one person after another. Investigation missions are one of the more difficult types of adventure to run - they can stagnate very fast and it's hard to keep all the players involved.

Sometimes it's nice to skip the legwork. Making the dangerous two-week journey from Important Plot Location A to Important Plot Location B can be fun - the first time. By the third or fourth time, though, it gets old real fast, and that's where you start wishing for a teleport spell. The point about these kind of spells is that they give you a choice. As a player, I can choose whether I want to solve a problem the basic way or the magic way. I like this.

If utility magic is banned or nerfed, then these sort of choices are all up to the DM, giving the players less freedom and letting the DM control the players' actions more closely. A lot of DMs think this is a good thing, but I'm not so sure.

PersonMan
2010-08-26, 02:19 PM
Not necessarily. Sure, tracking down a random person across an entire continent with only a few inaccurate clues can be fun. It can also be a horrible grindfest where the players spend hours going from place to place and interrogating one person after another. Investigation missions are one of the more difficult types of adventure to run - they can stagnate very fast and it's hard to keep all the players involved.

Sometimes it's nice to skip the legwork. Making the dangerous two-week journey from Important Plot Location A to Important Plot Location B can be fun - the first time. By the third or fourth time, though, it gets old real fast, and that's where you start wishing for a teleport spell. The point about these kind of spells is that they give you a choice. As a player, I can choose whether I want to solve a problem the basic way or the magic way. I like this.

If utility magic is banned or nerfed, then these sort of choices are all up to the DM, giving the players less freedom and letting the DM control the players' actions more closely. A lot of DMs think this is a good thing, but I'm not so sure.

Basically what I wanted to say, before my post exploded.

Gnaeus
2010-08-26, 02:23 PM
Lets say there are two ways to get the answer to a question.

The first way is to track down a decendant of Haahn, son of Brathul. Their family, House Ishar, have guarded the location of the Vault of Blades since time out of memory. But when the Second War of the Fiery Heavens began 40 years ago, they went underground. Your only clue is .... some random old merchant, you get the point.

The other way is to cast a divination, scry on the location and teleport right there.

Now I don't know about you, but for me that first example is a far, far more attractive example of what roleplaying is supposed to be.

Now, they might use divination to find out that an old tobacco merchant was the foster father of someone called Little Ishar years ago - but there is no limitation in the spell description that says 'you must use this spell in an interesting manner.'

One of us doesn't know how divinations work. I hope you are right and I am wrong. It will make my campaign much easier.

Scrying doesn't work that way. You scry on a person, not a place. They get a will save, with a bonus because you don't know them, and they can easily shield themselves with magic items or spells (which they probably have access to if they have been guarding a vault for generations.) If there is a spell that does what you describe then I have GOT to buy a scroll of it.

The best way I can think of to do what you describe is to start binding imps and throwing out Commune's. Personally, as a DM I would make the vault itself immune to direct divination magic. It has a permanent Dimensional Lock and a variant of mind blank that works on locations, or it is surrounded in lead, or thaumium or something. Or the knowledge of its location was shielded from outsiders by powerful magic.

So you start asking questions.
Is there anyone who knows where Vault is?
Uncertain (Little Ishar has a ring of mind blank)
Is there any person who can give us a lead on how to find the vault?
Yes (Someone knows who Little Ishar is)
Is that person on this plane/landmass/kingdom/city etc. Until you can find your lead.

Eventually you find the person who has a clue about Little Ishar. Track him down, and we have arrived at your plot.

Morithias
2010-08-26, 02:25 PM
I personally like it when my player's use div and teleport to get by my dungeons. I don't even alter my encounters, because 3 dungeons down the line, all the XP and gold they missed means that now they're level 12 facing a pit fiend.

Needless to say TPK quickly follows, cause as the FC2 says....the devil made me do it.

Aroka
2010-08-26, 02:53 PM
Magic works great when it's one or more of several things, mainly including:

Costly. There should some risk or cost associated with studying and/or using magic that makes it powerful, but forces players to think twice either about making a magic-user PC or using magic. The cost should not make them strictly worse, just different. Permanent costs for permanent effects, exhaustion or injury from casting, or some kind of backlash from the world are the standard options. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's Chaos surge tables are a good example. In Artesia: Adventures in the Known World, the power of magic is proportional to how high a cost you pay, and the duration is proportional to how permanent a cost you pay. This is always a balancing act, because if playing a magic-user is strictly less fun or less appealing, then what's the point of it?

Equally available. Or common. In Glorantha (of RuneQuest and HeroQuest) and Artesia:AKW, magic abounds to the degree that it's literally hard to separate it from other skills. In Glorantha, you know how to throw a spear and know how to leap over a mountain - they're both just things you can do (and both skills taught to your people by some deity, usually). In A:AKW, there's only a thin barrier between knowing the names of stars and knowing how to read the future from them, or understanding a cult's beliefs and calling upon the cult's deity for spells, or knowing the principles of (al)chemistry and creating alchemical elixirs. When everyone has essentially equal access to magic, it balances out, but can still be very special, especially if combined with the above. Specialization should be rewarded, too.

Limited. Magic can be awesomely powerful, but it can only do certain things. Maybe magic takes forever to cast. (This is more or less true in The Riddle of Steel, where most spells can't be used in combat unless you've got someone to keep the enemy off you, because it'll be trivial to skewer you mid-spell.) Maybe only a narrow spectrum of effects can be achieved. Maybe magic focuses on the manipulation of very specific things (knowing True Names and exerting control over things with them, or whatever) and is therefore only useful for certain things.

An improvement. In the Lord of the Rings RPG, magic is rarely an overwhelming solution, but it can be useful. A wizard throwing a lightning bolt won't be as deadly as an elf archer firing an arrow, but it's still useful, and it's economical for the wizard to learn a spell rather than learn an entire new skill. Similarly, spells that influence others or make you appear mighty tend to improve your skills rather than cause effects - if you appear to grow in stature and power, you get an Intimidate bonus. And the healing spells just grant you bonuses to healing checks, allowing an unskilled wizard to act as a skilled healer, or allowing a skilled healer to cure wounds usually beyond even their capacity. Most spells won't let you blast through situations, but many will let you come up with clever ways to handle them. Combined with the cost of casting, above, this means the wizard will usually step in and rock everyone's socks when there's no other way, making him the Big Gun, used in extreme circumstances.

Lord Vampyre
2010-08-26, 03:42 PM
Ok - opinions may vary greatly, but I thought it'd be interesting to hear peoples views on this.

In my opinion magic should be a tool for most - but not all - things, but it should not be allowed to be the tool to end all tools.

I like D&D in general, but it doesn't work for all game worlds. This tends to be the main reason I've played as many systems as I have over the years.

OWoD Mage is great for the over the top wizard who can pretty much break the universe, if it weren't for the fact that it would cause such a tremendous Paradox backlash the moment he tried.

Warhammer FRPG is great for a slightly darker campaign where casting a spell runs the risk of having unexpected consequences attached to any mishaps.

GURPS tends to work for customization, but often takes a lot of work on the GM's part about what will be allowed, what won't be allowed, and how everything works, with a fairly long discussion with the players. This tends to sum up a lot of homebrew games that I've played in as well. Every time you stray away from the formula, it takes time to explain it to the players.

There are times when I want certain things to be appropriate, and times when I want them to be inappropriate. It really depends on the story I'm trying to tell at that point in time, and how much leeway I'm willing to give my players. In the end I try to stay with in the system that I'm running, I hate trying to create what are often arbitrary rules that try to restore game balance.

Zen Master
2010-08-26, 04:05 PM
Your basic fallacy is to assume that "find a location" and "make it to that location" are appropriate challenges for a high-level party. They are not, by design, for the same reason that a level 2 goblin fighter is not an appropriate challenge for the same party. Make better challenges that actually challenge the players' resources as they are, instead of limiting players until a level 2 goblin fighter (metaphorically) is a challenge even to a level 20 worldshaper.

I'm reasonably sure I didn't specify high-level - nor mention level at all. It's an example of play. Level is irrelevant. I'm making a comparison - roleplaying finding a solution, or letting spells do the work so you can skip to the fight. The specifics of the example are irrelevant.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-26, 04:07 PM
Magic should do what the mundane cannot. It should replicate abilities found in tales throughout history. It should be flexible and powerful. It should be strange and wonderful, yet still systemic and containing limits.

RndmNumGen
2010-08-26, 04:43 PM
In my games I prefer magic to be weaker, but usable as often as needed. Maybe you'll need to take a couple minutes to rest between large spells, but it's not something where you can only cast X spells per day, but you can cast those X within 20 seconds or 20 hours.

Zen Master
2010-08-26, 05:27 PM
Magic should do what the mundane cannot. It should replicate abilities found in tales throughout history. It should be flexible and powerful. It should be strange and wonderful, yet still systemic and containing limits.

Well - yes. On the other hand, I enjoy a level of overlap. I like for warriors to have abilities that a mortal swordsman (as in, real life) could not attain. Basically, I guess I just like a level playing board - where everyone is powerful in their own right, and no one has an all-overpowering trump card.

Gensh
2010-08-26, 06:30 PM
In our culture, magic is a catch-all term to apply to anything that is not strictly divine intervention - and sometimes things that are. As a result, it is a popular opinion that magic should be able to do anything. For a cooperative game, this just isn't fair if that means that the casters have a significant advantage, so in the case of DnD3, it requires a certain amount of intervention on the part of the DM. You don't want to anger your players by crippling them, yet you also want to make it fun for those who aren't playing casters. Just as importantly, you have to know that magic will definitely have an impact on your game world if you're not just running the nonsensical generic setting.

Perhaps the easiest way to limit how much magic affects one's world is to simply limit spell selection. For example, in one of my worlds, flight and teleportation would ruin the military standoff I've set up as a main part of the plot, so I changed how they work. Spells that grant flight are now all two levels higher than usual, so only mid-level casters can gather information by zipping around and the employment of one is a significant investment for a country. On the same note, fire spells are still the same, so zeppelin travel is fairly prominent and a cheap way for mid-level PCs to travel when they absolutely don't want to walk. Teleportation and shapeshifting is a different story.

They exist in that world's mythology, much like in our own, but the most advanced teleportation spell to date simply reduces the caster to a fine mist at the proper location, killing him/her instantly, while shapeshifting is frequently messy, but as a result, baleful polymorph doubles as a SoD. Both types have their level increased by 3. The only exception to this is the voyage into shadow mystery, and gaining levels in shadowcaster requires a vampire tutor (obviously requiring questing to find). Thus, I'm able to prevent my players from simply popping into the enemy's base until level 15, while still allowing a method of fast travel (zeppelins) and leaving my villains as mobile as ever.

Zen Master
2010-08-27, 09:15 AM
Perhaps the easiest way to limit how much magic affects one's world is to simply limit spell selection. For example, in one of my worlds, flight and teleportation would ruin the military standoff I've set up as a main part of the plot, so I changed how they work. Spells that grant flight are now all two levels higher than usual, so only mid-level casters can gather information by zipping around and the employment of one is a significant investment for a country. On the same note, fire spells are still the same, so zeppelin travel is fairly prominent and a cheap way for mid-level PCs to travel when they absolutely don't want to walk. Teleportation and shapeshifting is a different story.

We're a group of 5-6 players - 3-4 of whom DM more or less often.

One of the other DM's invented the flightbreaker arrow - a oneshot magic item that holds a targeted dispel for flight magics.

For my own part, I work with the rule that teleportation requires careful telemetry, astrological observations and calculations to be accurate, meaning that while it's quick to cast, it takes a week or longer to prepare.

Roderick_BR
2010-08-27, 10:13 AM
In my opinion, is not how much stuff you can do with magic. As it was pointed out, high level characters have access to resources that allow them to bypass challenges that would hinder low level character. In short, low level characters need to worry how they'll pay the rent, and to bargain horses. High level characters can teleport around and make magical sheltering.

The problem is how easy and accessible magic is in D&D. In most scenarios, magic is very powerful, but hard to use, and costly. In D&D, all it takes is a spell slot (not counting material and xp costs that becomes irrelevant at higher levels), and how most effects uses an ultimate and unavoidable effect, no matter the level. Example: Wind Wall. It doesn't make small projectiles (arrows and bolts) be extremelly hard to hit. It doesn't allow. Period. The avatar of the elf god, armed with the epic artifact of godly elven bow can't bypass a 3rd level spell, unless it gives a special and specific ability (can bypass any barrier, or counts as a siege weapon projectile), and then D&D turns into an arms race, for effects being created for the sole purpose of bypassing a previous effect.

dsmiles
2010-08-27, 10:16 AM
High level characters can teleport around and make magical sheltering.


Funny story, I once houseruled that there was only one MMM, and the party wizard cast the spell to find another adventuring party already in it! :smallbiggrin: (Good times...good times.)

Umael
2010-08-27, 12:24 PM
Magic should be internally consistent, where its consistency is clearly understood by whomever designed it.

Everything else is gravy.

(My problem with D&D magic isn't with the magic itself, but rather with how the system interacts with magic.)

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 12:33 PM
but as a result, baleful polymorph doubles as a SoD. Both types have their level increased by 3.

Er, since when is this new? Baleful polymorph has always been a SoD, when desired. *poof* you are now a toad. Good luck with that. *splat*

Lysander
2010-08-27, 12:43 PM
I also dislike teleport as a travel-skipper. Yes travel is tedious, but you don't have to do it, your character does. Traveling for a week can be fast-forwarded just by saying "After a week of tedious walking..."

The DM can also decide when random encounters can be skipped over. So the first time you travel through the Giant Rat Swamps at level 1 you'll have to fight rats and roll for success. When you return at level 10 the DM can say "You're attacked by several rats during your trek through the swamp but with your improved skill killing them is now child's play."

dsmiles
2010-08-27, 12:45 PM
The DM can also decide when random encounters can be skipped over. So the first time you travel through the Fireswamp at level 1 you'll have to fight R.O.U.S.s and roll for success. When you return at level 10 the DM can say "You're attacked by several R.O.U.S.s during your trek through the swamp but with your improved skill killing them is now child's play."

There. That looks more appropriate. :smalltongue:

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-27, 12:54 PM
I've always been cool with magic as the rules state it, but my brother has an odd love-hate relationship with it. On the one hand, he likes playing wizards...but on the other hand he doesn't like the idea of magic being used outside of the main combat things like fireballs and whatnot. He cites Control Weather as one of his least favorite spells, since it doesn't seem to have any damaging capabilities (ignoring that it has a number of different tactical uses), and doesn't like teleportation spells because it is, in his mind, cheating.

Gensh
2010-08-27, 01:06 PM
Er, since when is this new? Baleful polymorph has always been a SoD, when desired. *poof* you are now a toad. Good luck with that. *splat*

Yeah, more or less, but my way frequently ends with a wet splatter of flesh on the wall, even if you were only trying to turn the guy into a pig or something.

Jolly
2010-08-27, 02:42 PM
It's simple. DnD is a game not a thought experiment that asks "What if magic were real?" It's sacrifices logic and internal consistency in the name of people having fun killing monsters and looting the corpses.

Umael
2010-08-27, 03:05 PM
It's simple. DnD is a game not a thought experiment that asks "What if magic were real?" It's sacrifices logic and internal consistency in the name of people having fun killing monsters and looting the corpses.

Except that the OP's question was about magic - not about D&D.

Not only are there more than one gaming system out there for which this question is relevant, but there are also a myriad of fantasy stories that have a magic system.

Nor is D&D all about people killing monsters and looting the corpses. Maybe your game of D&D, but not mine.

And finally, yes, it is about internal consistency. The same magic spell will work the same way (not the exact same way, given that random numbers modify the effectiveness for various spells) when it is cast two different times under the same circumstances.

Zen Master
2010-08-27, 03:41 PM
Hm ... I've been reading replies and thinking.

Lets say my statement was this:

Anything any character can do in the game is first and foremost a part of the game. Hence, it must be viewed as a part of the game - before it is viewed as a magic spell, or a swordblow, or a bardsong. And since the point of the game is to have fun, any part of the game must add to the fun for all players, rather than detract from it for some or all players.

Would that make sense? I'm trying to avoid any sort of balance issues, stating simply what might be a sound base-rule?!

Jolly
2010-08-27, 03:46 PM
Umael:

The example given was a DnD one, and this board is heavily DnD based in general. If the question is just "all magic in all games as well as all fiction and historical mythos" then it's so broad as to be pointless.

All editions of DnD are almost exclusively combat based in design. The personal interaction resolution mechanisms are minimal and generally clunky. Of course you can have heavy RP DnD games where no one rolls a die most sessions, but that's hardly what the ruleset is designed for.

Lastly, DnD is not logical or internally consistent in any published setting I'm aware of, nor are most games/fiction. You could try to Rule 0 / fan fic them into it, but as written they are not.

Edit: magic is inconsistent for the same reason female characters (according to most in game / general fantasy artwork) heavily favour some variant of either a bikini or evening gown as proper adventuring gear. Versimillitude doesn't sell as well as cheesecake.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 03:50 PM
Spells involving tentacles. Those are things that should not be.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-27, 04:02 PM
Meh, tentacles get a bad rap because of their connotations in both Japanese smut and New England horror fiction. I've never really been bothered by those kinds of spells.

Saph
2010-08-27, 04:05 PM
For my own part, I work with the rule that teleportation requires careful telemetry, astrological observations and calculations to be accurate, meaning that while it's quick to cast, it takes a week or longer to prepare.

Eh. I just let players cast teleport. The characters are theirs, not mine - if they want to go to some random location, why should I stop them?

Umael
2010-08-27, 04:45 PM
Umael:

The example given was a DnD one, and this board is heavily DnD based in general. If the question is just "all magic in all games as well as all fiction and historical mythos" then it's so broad as to be pointless.

1) The OP asked a general question, not one that singled out D&D. Read it again.
2) Just because the board is predominantly D&D does not mean it is totally D&D. A little respect for that goes a long way.
3) Empty rhetoric. The question inferred was not that broad, nor is such a question pointless.



All editions of DnD are almost exclusively combat based in design.

1) Combat is the most complicated part of any game system. Doesn't mean it is the most important all the time.
2) All campaigns of D&D are not almost exclusively combat-based.



The personal interaction resolution mechanisms are minimal and generally clunky. Of course you can have heavy RP DnD games where no one rolls a die most sessions, but that's hardly what the ruleset is designed for.

Who said anything about the mechanisms of personal interaction resolution? Put down the dice and role-play.



Lastly, DnD is not logical or internally consistent in any published setting I'm aware of, nor are most games/fiction. You could try to Rule 0 / fan fic them into it, but as written they are not.

...I can see this argument is going nowhere fast.

Lord Raziere
2010-08-27, 04:47 PM
one thing about your standard D&D world that always bugged me is how it never does anything with it's magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasis). i'll let Nodwick explain my frustration (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/gamespyarchive/strips/2006-12-20.jpg) to an extent as to how it sometimes tries to justify a thousand years of dark ages, even though you had the fantasy equivalent of many modern conveniences.

the handling of magic this is one of many reasons why i like eberron & dark sun:

-eberron because they actually do stuff with magic... looking at the history of the setting you can see their civilizations becoming advanced. long-distance travel and communication is possible between nations in fashion other then "let's hoof it" or "wait 9-10 levels until the casters can cast mass flying/teleportation spells". magic just feels more fantastic in a tangible way since you can see it in action rather then the forced feel of "you're effectively an amish dirt farmer" and an adept is casting sparkly lights. oooh... fantastic!

-dark sun because magic is the horrible thing that destroyed the world (casting a spell requires draining the energy from nearby living creatures), so people have a compelling reason not to use it, or if they do they make damn sure they do it in secret or that they return the unused/residual energy (or they're on the level of a sorcerer king or a templar working for the aforementioned sorcerer king)
.

I think we agree with a lot of things on DnD, thats why I like those settings to, and why I'm writing up my own setting where magic is basically central to everything and all the conflicts of the world can be traced back to its discovery

Jolly
2010-08-27, 05:51 PM
Who said anything about the mechanisms of personal interaction resolution? Put down the dice and role-play.


What's the point of playing a system when you're going to ignore the majority of the rule set the majority of the time? I'm honestly confused why anyone desiring a solely or mostly RP with no die based resolution system would goto DnD.

Umael
2010-08-27, 06:59 PM
What's the point of playing a system when you're going to ignore the majority of the rule set the majority of the time? I'm honestly confused why anyone desiring a solely or mostly RP with no die based resolution system would goto DnD.

Again, I'm not talking about solely D&D, nor is it fair to always assume that every thread in this sub-forum which does not clearly state it is in regards to D&D (or a similar system, like PF) IS primarily the domain of D&D.

As for your confusion, why are you so locked into the system? My d20 Rokugan game (heavily D&D based) was mostly just RP, no dice needed.

Dice added an element of unknown, of uncertainty, the possibly of failure. When they get used, it means combat, possibly something lethal, something that the characters might fear. If overdone, the threat of death no longer is as strong of a motivator.

*shrug*

Different groups have different styles. My group goes without combat for entire game sessions and doesn't miss it. Why should they?

The Big Dice
2010-08-27, 07:44 PM
I tend not to think of what should magic be able to do. I'm more interested in what it shouldn't be able to do. Because other than things it can't do, it should be able to do anything. But under no circumstances should it be the answer to all the world's problems.

And that's the problem with D&D magic: it's both too easy and too powerful.

Gensh
2010-08-27, 08:19 PM
What's the point of playing a system when you're going to ignore the majority of the rule set the majority of the time? I'm honestly confused why anyone desiring a solely or mostly RP with no die based resolution system would goto DnD.

I dunno. I'm usually on the "4e is standardized and boring" bandwagon, but with the DM for that one game I had to participate in, my cleric only rarely had to roll diplomacy since I delivered his sermons so well.

Aroka
2010-08-27, 09:31 PM
It's simple. DnD is a game not a thought experiment that asks "What if magic were real?" It's sacrifices logic and internal consistency in the name of people having fun killing monsters and looting the corpses.

Yes, but D&D is generally a poor specimen of a RPG, it's just popular. All aspects of RPGs are done better by other games - often a single game will do all of those better - except for one, which is "being D&D" (and Unisystem can give it a run for its money there).


If the question is just "all magic in all games as well as all fiction and historical mythos" then it's so broad as to be pointless.

No it's not, and you're positing a false dilemma and/or a strawman. The question can very reasonably be limited to, say, "magic in RPGs in general", which is the question I answered, for instance, and many have discussed.


Edit: magic is inconsistent for the same reason female characters (according to most in game / general fantasy artwork) heavily favour some variant of either a bikini or evening gown as proper adventuring gear. Versimillitude doesn't sell as well as cheesecake.

Magic is inconsistent because of misogyny/the patriarchy/heterosexism? Interesting argument.

Edit: And if bare skin sold RPGs, Artesia:AKW would be the most popular one. (Yes, even over that one, because Smylie's art is plain better.)

The Glyphstone
2010-08-27, 09:39 PM
Magic is inconsistent because of misogyny/the patriarchy/heterosexism? Interesting argument.

Edit: And if bare skin sold RPGs, Artesia:AKW would be the most popular one. (Yes, even over that one, because Smylie's art is plain better.)

No, I think he's saying the parallel is in that "fun/coolness/attractiveness" sells better than "realism/versimilitude". People want their magic to be...magical...awesome, not constrained by rules and limitations that keep them from using it to be awesome.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 10:42 PM
Again, I'm not talking about solely D&D, nor is it fair to always assume that every thread in this sub-forum which does not clearly state it is in regards to D&D (or a similar system, like PF) IS primarily the domain of D&D.

Well, it's primarily a D&D forum, on a site about a D&D based comic. So...if you don't specify, it's completely normal for people to assume the most common system discussed here by far.


As for your confusion, why are you so locked into the system? My d20 Rokugan game (heavily D&D based) was mostly just RP, no dice needed.

Because it's a bit silly to say "I play X", when your actual playstyle bears little resemblance to the rules of X. There's nothing wrong with freeform or mostly freeform gaming, but if you dislike heavy use of detailed combat rules, some systems are inherently a lot less suited for you than others.

Umael
2010-08-28, 12:43 AM
Well, it's primarily a D&D forum, on a site about a D&D based comic. So...if you don't specify, it's completely normal for people to assume the most common system discussed here by far.

Normal does not mean correct.

And I bet you know what they say about "assume".

(Mind you, I'm not denying that D&D is the baseline, just lamenting that people latch onto it as being the be-all, end-all.)



Because it's a bit silly to say "I play X", when your actual playstyle bears little resemblance to the rules of X. There's nothing wrong with freeform or mostly freeform gaming, but if you dislike heavy use of detailed combat rules, some systems are inherently a lot less suited for you than others.

*laugh*

Wow, Tyndmyr.

Read my posts again. I never said that I dislike heavy use of detailed combat rules, just that I played a RPG in a non-traditional manner. I'm not that unique in this regard. People have played Champions without rolling a single die the entire session, and played Vampire and had heavy debates about the combat rules.

For the record, I actually like playing D&D in the traditional manner as well. However, my gaming group does not. *shrug* Go figure.

Zen Master
2010-08-28, 02:15 AM
Just for the record, I play mostly DnD. But the question I ask is general, and could just as well be applied to Shadowrun or Dark Heresy.

About social interactions, as were mentioned, my own approach is that you roleplay what's important - and the roleplay generally means more for the level of succes than the diceroll. So - after roleplaying the senate debate or whatever, the die is rolled, to modify the succes or failure already indicated by the words actually said.

The other way around doesn't work for me at all. Like: I want to convince the senate to pass suggestion 442, allowing Ashramian ships access to our ports. I roll a natural 20 - yay, it worked.

That's just not happening.

That's secondary to the magic discussion tho.

PersonMan
2010-08-28, 02:49 AM
Just for the record, I play mostly DnD. But the question I ask is general, and could just as well be applied to Shadowrun or Dark Heresy.

About social interactions, as were mentioned, my own approach is that you roleplay what's important - and the roleplay generally means more for the level of succes than the diceroll. So - after roleplaying the senate debate or whatever, the die is rolled, to modify the succes or failure already indicated by the words actually said.

The other way around doesn't work for me at all. Like: I want to convince the senate to pass suggestion 442, allowing Ashramian ships access to our ports. I roll a natural 20 - yay, it worked.

That's just not happening.

That's secondary to the magic discussion tho.

Eh. If someone shy and not very word-y is playing Charisma McHandsome, I think they should be allowed to get by with that. You can roleplay for bonuses, but I think it's unfair to the people who're playing people far more charismatic than they are.

I'd probably want them to outline their argument, though.

But! Back to the magic stuff.

Thrawn183
2010-08-28, 08:12 AM
I think the real key is whether or not you're able to adapt your game to the magic.

Using teleport as an example. At low levels in D&D, I've seen a lot of missions where half the time was spent getting from point A to point B and then fighting something at point B. When you get to higher levels in D&D, it should be more like getting to points A-M, two or three of which are on different planes, all within less than 36 hours.

Really, it's the missions themselves that need to change.

Chauncymancer
2010-08-28, 08:41 AM
Good stories have problems. If you want your problems to be anything else, magic needs to have some sort of limit, so that there is some actual chance of failing to solve the problem.
If you want universe shaping magic that can do anything, magic itself and the players' reaction to it should be the central problem.

Aroka
2010-08-28, 02:56 PM
No, I think he's saying the parallel is in that "fun/coolness/attractiveness" sells better than "realism/versimilitude". People want their magic to be...magical...awesome, not constrained by rules and limitations that keep them from using it to be awesome.

But that's a false dilemma too. There's countless ways besides D&D's patently broken paradigm that let magic be even more awesome. And you seem to be just taking as granted that verisimilitude doesn't make a game popular (it certainly makes it better), and falsely suggesting that verisimilitude is somehow opposed to fun/coolness/attractiveness. Realism is pretty irrelevant in a discussion of magic, obviously.

Umael
2010-08-28, 03:24 PM
Realism is pretty irrelevant in a discussion of magic, obviously.

Realism, perhaps.

But its close cousins, consistency and plausibility, not so much.

If I have the magic to create a ball of fire that can be hurled, then I want the world to react to this magic in a manner that I find believable, each and every time.

Aroka
2010-08-28, 03:32 PM
But its close cousins, consistency and plausibility, not so much.

If I have the magic to create a ball of fire that can be hurled, then I want the world to react to this magic in a manner that I find believable, each and every time.

That's the verisimilitude.

Zen Master
2010-08-28, 06:20 PM
That's the verisimilitude.

Verisimilitude affects magic, as well as all other aspects of play, though.

Kyeudo
2010-08-28, 08:07 PM
No, I think he's saying the parallel is in that "fun/coolness/attractiveness" sells better than "realism/versimilitude". People want their magic to be...magical...awesome, not constrained by rules and limitations that keep them from using it to be awesome.

Let's take a side trip away from D&D to a place where the spellcasting system is considered relatively balanced: Exalted. Yes, the system as a whole has plenty of balance issues that are almost intentionally spiked in, but I haven't heard any of them being related to the casting system.

Spellcasters in Exalted can do practically anything. The first spell a caster can pick up could be one that replicates 70% of biblical miracles, something a D&D caster would need to be 5th level at least to pull off. The magic feels deep and powerful and insteresting. However, it comes with appropriate trade-offs.

All of the spells one would find useful in combat, from Death of Obsidian Butterflies to Magma Kraken to Total Anihilation, take a good deal of time to cast, during which your ability to defend your self is severly hampered. Further, they cost alot to use and are easily disrupted. Without the guy with the sword to protect you, you have little to no hope of getting one off. Once you get one off, you still haven't invalidated the guy with the sword, as defenses exist that spellcasting can't break through. Those that can survive your best spell are people that the melee guy(s) must wear down if you are going to win.

The same continues to pretty much every other situation. Spellcasting can solve almost any problem, but that solution is more resource intensive than just having a specialist in the group deal with the problem. Using a specialist usually comes with upsides, too, such as not alerting everyone within miles that someone just cast a spell.

Aroka
2010-08-28, 11:48 PM
Verisimilitude affects magic, as well as all other aspects of play, though.

I do not understand why you say this to me.

Jolly
2010-08-29, 09:58 PM
I like similes.

Playing DnD (or WFRP or GURPS or any other fairly combat oriented, rule heavy game) for a heavy RP campaign where multiple sessions go by without a die being rolled is like a soccer mom with one kid driving a vintage Lamborghini Countach to run her errands and ferry the kid about. Sure, you can do it. If it works for you, great. But don't act fussy when other people think it's a weird choice. Because it is.

Endarire
2010-08-30, 12:54 AM
Another part of this debate is in character versus out of character.

In character, you can have all the excuses you want as to why magic is difficult or shouldn't work. Out of character, I want my game to work consistently. I don't want to be penalized for doing my thing.

I believe 'safe' magic on the part of the PCs to be integral to the plot. If casters are an assumed part of the default adventuring party, then as a DM and a player, I don't want the ground suddenly opening in a river of lava with a fiendish salamander grabbing my character and dragging him to Hell unless I wanted it to happen. As a DM, I have greater trouble with "wild" magic because it's just so random.

I flock to D&D 3.5 because it works consistently and logically. If all the rules were merely in the GM's head, I'd be very hesitant to trust said GM.

Zen Master
2010-08-30, 01:57 AM
I like similes.

Playing DnD (or WFRP or GURPS or any other fairly combat oriented, rule heavy game) for a heavy RP campaign where multiple sessions go by without a die being rolled is like a soccer mom with one kid driving a vintage Lamborghini Countach to run her errands and ferry the kid about. Sure, you can do it. If it works for you, great. But don't act fussy when other people think it's a weird choice. Because it is.

To me, system has absolutely nothing to do with how I roleplay. The rules are there to run combat, and very little else. But when I do go into combat, I want the smothest ride available - I want combat to be swift and smooth, and over as quickly as possible.

DnD is fine for this.


I do not understand why you say this to me.

Commenting on your exchange with Umael. It seems you're saying that, because what Umael is saying is verisimilitude, it doesn't apply to magic.

Aroka
2010-08-30, 02:14 AM
Commenting on your exchange with Umael. It seems you're saying that, because what Umael is saying is verisimilitude, it doesn't apply to magic.

No, I said realism is pointless but verisimilitude (a semblance of truth, subtly by definitely different from realism) makes a game better. What he named - plausibility and consistency - is verisimilitude, and therefore he was in agreement with me, although he seemed to think he was not.

My relevant original comment on this particular subject:
"And you seem to be just taking as granted that verisimilitude doesn't make a game popular (it certainly makes it better), and falsely suggesting that verisimilitude is somehow opposed to fun/coolness/attractiveness. Realism is pretty irrelevant in a discussion of magic, obviously."

"Realism" and "verisimilitude" are not there used as synonyms.

The point was that The Glyphstone seemed to me to be conflating realism with verisimilitude and suggesting that this combination was inimical to fun and awesomeness, which is clearly not true. Both Umael and I seem to be of the opinion that verisimilitude increases awesomeness.

Jolly
2010-08-30, 10:10 AM
Verisimilitude does increase awesomeness, in theory. However, in some systems (DnD for example) if one follows the logical path that the magic system leads down, you get tippyverse or worse. As I said, magic systems in many games and many fantasy worlds are designed to be cool, not as logical thought exercises that follow the unintended consequences of the system presented to their conclusion.

Math_Mage
2010-08-30, 12:41 PM
Verisimilitude does increase awesomeness, in theory. However, in some systems (DnD for example) if one follows the logical path that the magic system leads down, you get tippyverse or worse. As I said, magic systems in many games and many fantasy worlds are designed to be cool, not as logical thought exercises that follow the unintended consequences of the system presented to their conclusion.

The potential of the game system is not necessarily actualized in the campaign. For example, a dearth of high-level characters would preclude a Tippyverse. A setting where powerful magic is rare, and its practitioners secretive and paranoid, would not go Tippy. A setting where wizards have been demonized out of superstition or apocalyptic history wouldn't either. Consider that science is sometimes thought theoretically able to solve all problems; that doesn't mean our universe is a Tippyverse. One can have verisimilitude in a D&D setting without going the "Magic solves all problems, the end" route.

Kyeudo
2010-08-30, 02:47 PM
The potential of the game system is not necessarily actualized in the campaign. For example, a dearth of high-level characters would preclude a Tippyverse. A setting where powerful magic is rare, and its practitioners secretive and paranoid, would not go Tippy. A setting where wizards have been demonized out of superstition or apocalyptic history wouldn't either. Consider that science is sometimes thought theoretically able to solve all problems; that doesn't mean our universe is a Tippyverse. One can have verisimilitude in a D&D setting without going the "Magic solves all problems, the end" route.

The Tippyverse only requires mages reach levels in the 5-10 range. 11-20 are icing on the cake.

Basically, as soon as Create Food and Create Water are spells in your universe, it begs the question as to why anyone farms and why droughts are some sort of problem.

Jolly
2010-08-30, 03:05 PM
The potential of the game system is not necessarily actualized in the campaign. For example, a dearth of high-level characters would preclude a Tippyverse. A setting where powerful magic is rare, and its practitioners secretive and paranoid, would not go Tippy. A setting where wizards have been demonized out of superstition or apocalyptic history wouldn't either. Consider that science is sometimes thought theoretically able to solve all problems; that doesn't mean our universe is a Tippyverse. One can have verisimilitude in a D&D setting without going the "Magic solves all problems, the end" route.

Things which are not present in most of the major DnD published settings.

Divine magic is worse. No more sickness, no more crippling infections and injuries. Rez often available, but you'd be... what, an indentured servant to the church of Pelor? Imagine the insane power of the churches when they could literally feed, heal, and bring back from the dead ex nihilo at will.

The Big Dice
2010-08-30, 04:12 PM
Basically, as soon as Create Food and Create Water are spells in your universe on the Arcane spell list in your universe, it begs the question as to why anyone farms and why droughts are some sort of problem.
Fixed that for you.

Seriously, there's a simple reason why the Tippyverse wouldn't happen. The same reason why alternative fuels and power sources that have been realistic technology since the 70s haven't come in to general use. Part social inertia, part vested interests not wanting to develop things that will affect their power base.

There's absolutely no reason why the gods would grant Clerics the ability to arramge things so that people don't have to work. And no way the established nobility would allow a situation to develop that means they have neither a source of income nor someone to rule over.

HamHam
2010-08-30, 04:27 PM
Fixed that for you.

Seriously, there's a simple reason why the Tippyverse wouldn't happen. The same reason why alternative fuels and power sources that have been realistic technology since the 70s haven't come in to general use. Part social inertia, part vested interests not wanting to develop things that will affect their power base.

There's absolutely no reason why the gods would grant Clerics the ability to arramge things so that people don't have to work. And no way the established nobility would allow a situation to develop that means they have neither a source of income nor someone to rule over.

1) All it takes is one god of charity or akuhnametata or something.
2) Yes, the nobility's perfect ability to stop progress is why we still live under a monarchy and... oh wait...

The Big Dice
2010-08-30, 05:03 PM
1) All it takes is one god of charity or akuhnametata or something.
2) Yes, the nobility's perfect ability to stop progress is why we still live under a monarchy and... oh wait...

There's charity and there's undermining society to the point where it's going to change beyond all recognition. A single shrine where the lowest members of society can get help if they need it is one thing. A replicator and medikit in every house is another.

All it takes to stop self resetting "spell traps" from working is a hammer. And of course, an army to swing those hammers when ordered to.

Who controls the army? Oh, that's right, the nobility.

HamHam
2010-08-30, 05:05 PM
There's charity and there's undermining society to the point where it's going to change beyond all recognition. A single shrine where the lowest members of society can get help if they need it is one thing. A replicator and medikit in every house is another.

All it takes to stop self resetting "spell traps" from working is a hammer. And of course, an army to swing those hammers when ordered to.

Who controls the army? Oh, that's right, the nobility.

A hammer stops a printing press too.

The French Revolution still happened.

The Big Dice
2010-08-30, 05:54 PM
A hammer stops a printing press too.

The French Revolution still happened.

Printing presses never put the farmers, not to mention the guilds that are dependent on moving the goods produced by farmers, out of business.

Guilds are there to protect a monopoly, and to protect the intersts of the people who are members of that guild. Kind of like a union, but a union that will break the legs of someone who tries to muscle in on their action.

As for the French Revolution, there was a Civil War in my home country of Britain. A war that overthrew the monarchy. But that was because of politics, not because of technology,

Think about it, bio fuels have been a viable alternative to oil for almost 40 years. I won't go into the politics of why they haven't been adopted by the whole world, but the same social inertia would prevent anything like the Tippyverse from getting off the ground.

Too many people would lose out on too much money for it to ever be a realistic option.

Mike_G
2010-08-30, 06:31 PM
A hammer stops a printing press too.

The French Revolution still happened.

Yes, it did.

It changed France dramatically.

But oppressive, totalitarian regimes exits. Monarchies still exist.

History isn't inevitable. Even technology isn't inevitable. China developed paper and gunpowders years before Europe, but cultural factors kept them from the rapid advance of tech so European society passed them in the 18th Century like they were standing still.

We could have adopted alternative energy sources, but we haven't. We could have abandoned conventional armies and just nuked any country we didn't like until they did what we wanted. We could have created a system of universal healthcare, but we haven't.

Just 'cause you could, doesn't mean it's gonna happen. That's my problem with the Tippyverse argument.

It's like reading Karl Marx. The premise of humanity inevitably attaining a Utopian level is a pipe dream that ignores the fact that humans are unpredictable bastards. Tippyverse logic says that since anyone with 10 ranks in Craft: Printing Press can make one, universal literacy is inevitable.

As a possible game world, the Tippyverse in an interesting option. One that I wouldn't play in for a cargo container of money and all the hookers I could handle, but an interesting concept. As the inevitable state toward which all RAW worlds must settle, it's a poor understanding of history and human nature.

Jolly
2010-08-30, 08:18 PM
Fixed that for you.

Seriously, there's a simple reason why the Tippyverse wouldn't happen. The same reason why alternative fuels and power sources that have been realistic technology since the 70s haven't come in to general use. Part social inertia, part vested interests not wanting to develop things that will affect their power base.

There's absolutely no reason why the gods would grant Clerics the ability to arramge things so that people don't have to work. And no way the established nobility would allow a situation to develop that means they have neither a source of income nor someone to rule over.

Unless you're referring to nuclear power, this statement is factually incorrect. The alternative fuel sources are not viable, outside of massive fed.gov coercion. Heck, massive fed.gov corporate welfare is the only thing that keeps bio-fuel, solar etc alive in spite of not being able to field a commercially viable product. As for the "The man is just keeping us down!" rhetoric, well that's just silly. Conspiracy theories are hardly a logical basis for argumentation.

Also, as for "Well the gods wouldn't let their clerics cast Create Food that often" well... that may be your interpretation of the actions of fictional mythical beings, but nothing in the rule set prohibits clerics from doing exactly that.

Umael
2010-08-30, 08:26 PM
...do you guys realize that you're trying to dispute the theoretical with the unproven?

Jolly
2010-08-30, 08:38 PM
What else would you expect in a thought experiment that posits the laws of physics being shattered at will?

Lord Vampyre
2010-08-30, 08:42 PM
Unless you're referring to nuclear power, this statement is factually incorrect. The alternative fuel sources are not viable, outside of massive fed.gov coercion. Heck, massive fed.gov corporate welfare is the only thing that keeps bio-fuel, solar etc alive in spite of not being able to field a commercially viable product. As for the "The man is just keeping us down!" rhetoric, well that's just silly. Conspiracy theories are hardly a logical basis for argumentation.

Also, as for "Well the gods wouldn't let their clerics cast Create Food that often" well... that may be your interpretation of the actions of fictional mythical beings, but nothing in the rule set prohibits clerics from doing exactly that.

Yes, alternative fuel sources have been viable for quite some time, and in truth it isn't the "man" keeping anyone down. Social inertia is a real phenomenon though, consider how many things need to be in place for the electric car or bio-fuels to be practical. Currently gas stations are everywhere, but you cannot refuel a vehicle that runs on bio-fuel just anywhere. Nor can you recharge an electric car anywhere.

As for the "gods wouldn't let their clerics cast Create Food that often," the fact is they probably wouldn't. It really does depend on your game world, but in many worlds 1 cleric of that level would not be able to sustain the entire village all of the time. Yes, he could supplement them in times of need, but it wouldn't be practical to rely on him as a sustaining food source. Now, if we consider further that most outlying priests are probably only 1st to 2nd level then, these sort of miracles become impossible to sustain the entire planet all the time.

Now, I'm sure its possible that in your game worlds clerics that can cast create food/water are a dime a dozen. But that just comes back to the OP's question of what magic should and should not be.

Now, I like to apply unexpected consequences to magic. It's similar to the abuse of technology that we have here in the 21st century, aka pollution. I tend to speculate that if magic were abused in a world where it existed what would the unexpected consequences be of such actions. It was many years before we understood what kind of effect pollution was having on our surrounding environment, so it stands to reason that in a world where magic(not technology) is dominant, then its abuse would have unexpected consequences.

Kyeudo
2010-08-30, 09:15 PM
As for the "gods wouldn't let their clerics cast Create Food that often," the fact is they probably wouldn't. It really does depend on your game world, but in many worlds 1 cleric of that level would not be able to sustain the entire village all of the time. Yes, he could supplement them in times of need, but it wouldn't be practical to rely on him as a sustaining food source. Now, if we consider further that most outlying priests are probably only 1st to 2nd level then, these sort of miracles become impossible to sustain the entire planet all the time.


The Tippyverse does not rely on Clerics to cast the Create Food and Water spell. It instead relies on a Cleric or a Wizard with the Arcane Disciple(Creation Domain) Feat creating automatic reset trigger activated Create Food and Water "traps". These instantly remove any need for subsistance farming whereever they are found. Add a Prestidigitation "trap" for better flavor and presto: endless cheap food.

As the level of the spellcaster who figures out he can make a killing undercutting food prices increases, the quality of these traps improve. Wall of Stone traps for construction, Wall of Iron traps for Industry, etc.

All it takes is ONE spellcaster to get the ball rolling and progress towards the Tippyverse is all but inevitable. And no, the ruling noble's army doesn't really have a good response. The Wizard or Cleric outclasses them greatly. A couple reserve feats or some Persisted Vigor spells and you can kill the low level mooks that make up most armies all day long. Besides, free food frees up people for more profitable industries, meaning MORE MONEY for the Noble (until the Wizard takes over and assassinates him).

Mike_G
2010-08-30, 09:29 PM
Unless a handful of high level wizards don't want to see the Tippyverse, and squash it in its infancy every time it crops up.

Aroka
2010-08-30, 09:30 PM
Verisimilitude does increase awesomeness, in theory. However, in some systems (DnD for example) if one follows the logical path that the magic system leads down, you get tippyverse or worse. As I said, magic systems in many games and many fantasy worlds are designed to be cool, not as logical thought exercises that follow the unintended consequences of the system presented to their conclusion.

Yes, and that's the problem. When the system is designed as insanely as D&D's, attempts at verisimilitude just make it worse.

Examples of awesome verisimilitude would be things like all bandits, muggers, assassins, etc. wearing masks or hoods with eye-holes in them in Artesia:AKW because they can't afford to be identified by the spirits of their killers (and, by the same token, victorious armies taking the time to give a proper burial to everyone dead in the field, because leaving someone unburied is almost the worst thing you can do to someone, far beyond just killing them; the only thing worse than not burying a person would be to hang them, which dooms their spirit never to get to the afterlife).

Or the Gloranthan burial customs, where corpses are displayed in their home for a full week after death, just in case they suddenly heal their wounds and get up, as heroes sometimes do. (After a week, you need true resurrection magic, which is HeroQuesting magic and involves huge risks.)

Funnily enough, the second at least is just a consequence of mechanics rather than a design point (since "interrogate a ghost" is from Artesia Afield #3 and predates the game), but both work well because the games have cool, interesting, and awesome magic systems that don't result in the complete breakdown of society, just changes. For instance, to create something permanent in Artesia:AKW, you have to permanently devote power to it - this places a very strict limit on creating something from nothing.

Umael
2010-08-30, 09:49 PM
*sniff*
*sniff*

Hmm... geek testosterone.

dsmiles
2010-08-31, 04:43 AM
Unless you're referring to nuclear power or wind power, this statement is factually incorrect. The alternative fuel sources are not viable, outside of massive fed.gov coercion. Heck, massive fed.gov corporate welfare is the only thing that keeps bio-fuel, solar etc alive in spite of not being able to field a commercially viable product. As for the "The man is just keeping us down!" rhetoric, well that's just silly. Conspiracy theories are hardly a logical basis for argumentation.

Also, as for "Well the gods wouldn't let their clerics cast Create Food that often" well... that may be your interpretation of the actions of fictional mythical beings, but nothing in the rule set prohibits clerics from doing exactly that.

Fixed it for you. :smalltongue: [/nitpick]

Solar power is viable, but the initial cost is prohibitive in most cases.
Win power is not only viable, but also comparatively inexpensive.
Nuclear power is already around, but ignorant people seem to think that one or two mishaps (chernobyl, three mile island) are representative of the entire industry, and it scares the pants off of them.

potatocubed
2010-08-31, 06:31 AM
The primary problem with nuclear power is not so much the power bit, or even the safety bit, but what to do with all the leftover waste. The current popular solution is, almost literally, "bury it in a hole for a billion years", which has not yet been properly tested for validity.

Esser-Z
2010-08-31, 09:27 AM
The primary problem with nuclear power is not so much the power bit, or even the safety bit, but what to do with all the leftover waste. The current popular solution is, almost literally, "bury it in a hole for a billion years", which has not yet been properly tested for validity.

HOLD IT! There are (more expensive) technologies that (a) get very much more energy out of fuel* and (b) reduce the burying time to a few centuries!

*Including recycling our current waste.

Zen Master
2010-08-31, 09:33 AM
To my way of thinking, the Tippy-verse is no concern at all. This is only peripherally because no one (that I know, that is) wants to play that way.

I don't, as such, want to discuss a world viewed in Typpi Vision, but to my mind it's entirely obvious why it would never work. Of course that comes from interpretation more than from the notorious Rules As Written, but:

A trap that produces food is not a trap.

Were I to accept that sort of function, it'd still be very expensive to produce.

It would then produce the same meal, without variation of any kind, every time it was triggered.

The only people who'd be interested in that would be those close to starvation - potentially a lot of dirt poor indentured farmers, spread over large land areas, and without any cash means of paying for such food. On top of which such people would largely self sufficient (at least they'd pretty much have to).

Only opinion, of course - but because of that opinion, Tippyverse is not a concern to me.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-31, 09:38 AM
Great Modthulhu: Please try to stay on-topic everyone. Real world energy generation, especially as it pertains to politics, isn't on-topic.

Jolly
2010-08-31, 10:18 AM
Yes, and that's the problem. When the system is designed as insanely as D&D's, attempts at verisimilitude just make it worse.


Sounds like we agree. I suppose we differ in that I don't really see the design as an issue because it's a game, not an exercise in logical thought experiments.

Acromos: Tippyverse is merely one aspect of how unlimited ex nihilo magic would break a world.

Kyeudo
2010-08-31, 10:40 AM
It would then produce the same meal, without variation of any kind, every time it was triggered.


Prestidigitation is a cantrip and can change the flavor of anything to anything else. A prestidigitation trap is as cheap as you can get and can make that tasteless gruel into fillet minion or ice cream or whatever else suits your fancy.

Prestidigitation also allows for the creation of fantasy washing machines.

Math_Mage
2010-08-31, 11:01 AM
Prestidigitation is a cantrip and can change the flavor of anything to anything else. A prestidigitation trap is as cheap as you can get and can make that tasteless gruel into fillet minion or ice cream or whatever else suits your fancy.

Prestidigitation also allows for the creation of fantasy washing machines.

No, you get flavored gruel. And not very well-flavored gruel, either. The washing machines I'll grant.

The Big Dice
2010-08-31, 11:36 AM
The Tippyverse does not rely on Clerics to cast the Create Food and Water spell. It instead relies on a Cleric or a Wizard with the Arcane Disciple(Creation Domain) Feat creating automatic reset trigger activated Create Food and Water "traps". These instantly remove any need for subsistance farming whereever they are found. Add a Prestidigitation "trap" for better flavor and presto: endless cheap food.
At Caster Level*50+ cost of Components, getting a wizard to cast spells for you isn't an option for most people. Normal people who count their salary in silver pieces. And setting up traps to cast a 3rd level spell is going to cost around 3,000 gp and 200+ xp.

Who is going to invest in the infrastructure that is the base requirement of the Tippyverse. It's not like it's going to make people rich. If anything, it's going to do the exact opposite. It's going to turn the country into something like the Federation from Star Trek. Which means it will only survive if it has plot armour.

Yes, and that's the problem. When the system is designed as insanely as D&D's, attempts at verisimilitude just make it worse.
That's one of the things I like about L5R. The setting and the mechanics go hand in hand, to the point where you almost can't have one without the other. Which is a tradition that goes back to RuneQuest and Glorantha.

Unfortunately, D&D has two strikes against it. It's a legacy system that has a lot of baggage that goes back all the way to the mid 70s. And it's also a generic system that's based on itself rather than on any recognisable literary, tv or movie source.

Zen Master
2010-08-31, 03:18 PM
Prestidigitation also allows for the creation of fantasy washing machines.

Yes. That's very nice, but I still don't buy it.

In a world where the wealthy have servants to wash for them - where the poor simply cannot pay, especially for something they can just do themselves by hand - and where a wizard has to invest his hard-earned experience ... in the making of a silly device for doing household chores ...

I simply don't see that happening.

For the wealthy - the only real group of customers - it's still cheaper to let the maid do it. It could work as a showpiece though, I'll grant that.

For the poor it's just out of the question.

And why a mage would even consider doing it, I cannot fathom.

Anyways ... I'll gladly grant it's possible by RAW. And that the likelyhood of it occuring in fact is opinion, of which everyone has their own.

HamHam
2010-08-31, 04:43 PM
Yes. That's very nice, but I still don't buy it.

In a world where the wealthy have servants to wash for them - where the poor simply cannot pay, especially for something they can just do themselves by hand - and where a wizard has to invest his hard-earned experience ... in the making of a silly device for doing household chores ...

I simply don't see that happening.

For the wealthy - the only real group of customers - it's still cheaper to let the maid do it. It could work as a showpiece though, I'll grant that.

For the poor it's just out of the question.

And why a mage would even consider doing it, I cannot fathom.

Anyways ... I'll gladly grant it's possible by RAW. And that the likelyhood of it occuring in fact is opinion, of which everyone has their own.

The artisan middle class, obviously.

Mike_G
2010-08-31, 05:26 PM
The Tippyverse does not rely on Clerics to cast the Create Food and Water spell. It instead relies on a Cleric or a Wizard with the Arcane Disciple(Creation Domain) Feat creating automatic reset trigger activated Create Food and Water "traps". These instantly remove any need for subsistance farming whereever they are found. Add a Prestidigitation "trap" for better flavor and presto: endless cheap food.

As the level of the spellcaster who figures out he can make a killing undercutting food prices increases, the quality of these traps improve. Wall of Stone traps for construction, Wall of Iron traps for Industry, etc.


But he can't make a killing undercutting food prices.

A poor meal costs 1 sp. At an Inn. So, wholesale, the ingredients cost say 5 cp, or cost the farmer 2 cp to produce them.

The trap costs 3000 gp. So, you need to sell 30,000 units to make back your money, if you charge the same as the Inn does. Create Food produces tasteless gruel. Sure, it'll keep you alive, but it's not what anyone would buy if they could afford stew, which costs a few silver.

Plus, even if it resets, it still takes time to trigger one casting. So you have a huge line out the door for your gruel.

So, you need a market that has enough people who are poor and desperate enough to eat your gruel, and still have enough money to pay you for it. And who are willing to stand in line to step on the "trigger" at the counter to get their gruel.

You need a lot of these desperate but just wealthy enough people that you can sell 30,000 units in a short enough time to make back what you spent.

You'd do better by mugging kobolds like the other adventurers.

Otherwise, Taco Bell would currently have taken over the world, and we would be just their slaves.