PDA

View Full Version : A Question To Those With Thoughts.



Shadow Lord
2011-07-21, 01:58 PM
Now, I know that this might not apply to some threads, but this is what keeps on coming up, if you were to amalgamate it: Magic should have a high cost. It shouldn't be able to do anything that could be done through mundane means. It should be taxing on the user, making him get tired. It should have a set chance of back firing. It shouldn't be able to effect Nature.

My question is: Why? Why does it keep on coming up that the way to fix Magic is to make it just about useless; make it so that it has a high cost and that it still can't do anything that could be done through mundane means anyway? Why not just fix the broken spells? Why is it necessary to decide that someone who uses Magic should have such a great amount of consequences, and still not be able to do anything that someone could? Why do this for games that are intended to replicate fictions where Magic isn't some wild, unknowable force? Why do this for systems that are in worlds where Magic is as tame as fabric, as the analogy of ' Weaving Magic ' would suggest? Why make a system closer to Warhammer Fantasy when we're in games that aren't crazy-magic. I mean, I can understand doing this if you're in a setting where Magic isn't tame, and those who wield it have to use their very life essence to keep it from going wild... but why make it like that in places like Eberron? How about in Faerun? It doesn't make sense! I could understand this in a setting that is Low Magic, and people have just recently began using Magic; I could understand this in a setting that is Super Duper Ultra Magic, where Magic saturates everything; but I can't understand this in anything from Medium-Low Magic to High Magic, where Magic has been here for a while, and people truly understand it.

So, my question to you fellow Forumites; Why?

Greensleeves
2011-07-21, 02:10 PM
Isn't this more of a 3.5 question? Since you refer to broken spells, Eberron and Forgotten Realms, I assume that's what it's about.

In the case of 3.5, it's an attempt to balance the game. I happen to agree with you that fixing the few broken spells is a much better solution than applying stupid blanket costs on all spell-casters.

In general, it's due to convention. If magic is powerful, almost overly so, in fiction, there are always high costs. Look at The Belgaraid, where magic is just as taxing on the mind as doing it physically would be on your body. I think the Dragonlance novels use the same system. Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar saga uses something very similar too.

When magic has low costs, or costs that are easily won back, magic tends to be less powerful. Great examples of this is Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy. Magic mainly costs metal in this trilogy, making the cost almost negligible. This also means that magic, while powerful, is not on par with what one finds in the works mentioned in the paragraph above.

Vultawk
2011-07-21, 02:14 PM
In general, it's due to convention. If magic is powerful, almost overly so, in fiction, there are always high costs. Look at The Belgaraid, where magic is just as taxing on the mind as doing it physically would be on your body. I think the Dragonlance novels use the same system. Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar saga uses something very similar too.

When magic has low costs, or costs that are easily won back, magic tends to be less powerful. Great examples of this is Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy. Magic mainly costs metal in this trilogy, making the cost almost negligible. This also means that magic, while powerful, is not on par with what one finds in the works mentioned in the paragraph above.

Pretty much. Couple that with the fact that many go to D&D in hopes of re-enacting those same sorts of stories, the high-power, cheap magic norm for the game is jarring in contrast to what was expected.

Shadow Lord
2011-07-21, 02:20 PM
It's sort-a a 3.5 question, but it also applies to all RPGs in general.

Vultawk
2011-07-21, 02:24 PM
If it's just a general RPG question, it comes down to what the expectations are.

Sword and sorcery magic is different from comic book superhero magic, and both are different from gothic horror magic, and so on.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-21, 02:26 PM
Because if magic didn't have a downside that balanced out what it can do, everyone would want to have/use magic. And if this happened, everyone would use magic, period. And if everyone used magic, you wouldn't have mundane characters because it'd be a terrible idea, like not going to school in this day and age or not wanting to have money.

And if the author/designer handwaves this as "only a select few are able to use magic!" then you get unfairness, because magic becomes a plot device. Who has magic? Those the plot deems worthy. How can magic be used? As the plot demands on that particular moment. When can magic be used? When the plot allows you to.

gkathellar
2011-07-21, 02:27 PM
This is mostly an elaboration on what people have already said, but an actual D&D world, played straight, looks more like a medieval superhero universe than fantasy fiction. And people are bothered by that.


It shouldn't be able to effect Nature.

I don't even know what that means.

Shadow Lord
2011-07-21, 02:29 PM
Basically, Magic shouldn't be able to effect Nature. It was something I heard said a few times. I didn't understand it either, but, hey! It was something that was said, so it got added to the list.

gkathellar
2011-07-21, 02:30 PM
Do you know what the person who was saying that defined "Nature" as? Because that's a big, fuzzy, ambiguous word that only druid fluff pretends is straightforward.

Vultawk
2011-07-21, 02:31 PM
Technically, everything is nature.

Shadow Lord
2011-07-21, 02:31 PM
Yeah. That's why I was confused :smallsigh:

Occasional Sage
2011-07-21, 02:31 PM
The trite answer is: because it creates a world the players enjoy. That's rather a cheap answer though.

In D&D, it's one of the proposals to correct some perceived game-balance issues, setting aside whether those perceptions are or are not valid. There are a bajillion threads on GitP discussing those issues and possible ways to fix them; reading through those will provide a couple (couple hundred?) answers to your question.

In games other than D&D, well, there are as many answers to that as there are other systems. What they all boil down to is that the system is supposed to evoke the world-style the creators envisioned, whether that is high-fantasy uber-magic or gritty street-level magic. Costs of anything create limits on its appearance: if laser weapons in your scifi game are astronomically expensive they're hardly ever seen, and if magic is easy in your fantasy setting it's in every peasant's hut.

I guess really, there isn't any one answer to your question. It's all very system- and even world-specific.

Trekkin
2011-07-21, 02:38 PM
Because without the risk inherent to use of magic, it's less dramatically fun. If a melee char can simply steamroll everything in his path effortlessly, he's boring to play; similarly, if a mage can just cast Win Encounter over and over, it becomes monotonous to play. Making magic inherently costly or risky lets you make it sufficiently powerful to be interesting without being too safe to be fun.

I keep being reminded of that one quote from Warhammer 40,000: "The Emperor will judge you not by your medals but by your scars". Mages deserve a chance to get scarred too.

Treblain
2011-07-21, 02:43 PM
I would say the answer is balance, but that's not really true.

The idea of magic having a price didn't originate in tabletop games in the name of game balance. It goes back to folklore and myths, which used it for two reasons:

1. Their intended moral was that taking the easy way was wrong and hard work was better. Also, most cultures had a taboo against magic, so they invented a drawback to deter people from thinking magic was so great.
2. They were stories, and internally consistent stories need reasons why the character couldn't just wave away their problems with magic.

Crow
2011-07-21, 02:48 PM
Because if magic didn't have a downside that balanced out what it can do, everyone would want to have/use magic. And if this happened, everyone would use magic, period. And if everyone used magic, you wouldn't have mundane characters because it'd be a terrible idea, like not going to school in this day and age or not wanting to have money.

And if the author/designer handwaves this as "only a select few are able to use magic!" then you get unfairness, because magic becomes a plot device. Who has magic? Those the plot deems worthy. How can magic be used? As the plot demands on that particular moment. When can magic be used? When the plot allows you to.

This.

Why be a fighter if I can be a wizard for less effort and get more power?

Shadow Lord
2011-07-21, 03:17 PM
This.

Why be a fighter if I can be a wizard for less effort and get more power?

Because a Fighter doesn't require as much forethought? With a Wizard, if you don't know what you're going up against, you are slightly screwed.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-21, 03:22 PM
Because a Fighter doesn't require as much forethought? With a Wizard, if you don't know what you're going up against, you are slightly screwed.

Nope, not even close. The only true threat a sufficiently high level wizard can face is another high level wizard. There are many spells that offer blanket protections, obtain the necessary information a wizard needs to be properly prepared or provide ways to defeat foes regardless of what they actually are.

With a wizard, if you don't know what you're up against, it's because you just don't care.

Jay R
2011-07-21, 03:49 PM
My experience (with older games) is that the biggest imbalance magic-users get comes from starting the game above first level. Originally, magic-users had to survive the greatest risks at first level before earning the right to wield the greatest power at high levels. If a player begins with a magic-user of eighth level or above, he gets all the pluses and none of the minuses of the class.

The fighters protect the MUs at low levels, and the MUs protect the fighters at high level, and everyone gets a turn at being the party's big power. But that only works if you play the entire game.

Vultawk
2011-07-21, 04:03 PM
Nope, not even close. The only true threat a sufficiently high level wizard can face is another high level wizard. There are many spells that offer blanket protections, obtain the necessary information a wizard needs to be properly prepared or provide ways to defeat foes regardless of what they actually are.

With a wizard, if you don't know what you're up against, it's because you just don't care.

And that's the best reason to nerf spells and spellcasters.

Fhaolan
2011-07-21, 04:21 PM
Why should magic be more difficult, or at least equal, in cost/effort than mundane means?

Because if it is cheaper/easier than mundane means, then you will be breaking the setting economy, unless you make magic a limited resource in some other manner.

In other words, if using magic is reasonably easy, there is no reason to do things in a non-magic way. If magic is really easy, then you won't be *able* to do things in a non-magic way because there will be a mage there before you. If it is easy to use Disintegration spells to clear an area of trees, why go through the effort of hiring lumberjacks? If it's easier to lift a car via magic than use a forklift, then infinite loop 'free energy' generators become possible. If you can control a mob via magic, then you won't be able to be a king without also being a mage.

In many older fictions this cost/benefit balancing is present, but not in a way that most RPGs can model without players complaining about 'unfairness'. The magic is not really the mage's, but is gained via barter from otherworldly creatures such as demons, genii, etc. Or that the act of doing magic is damaging physically, mentally, or spiritually, but is also addictive like a drug.

Another classic limiting move is the make it such that magic is only available to certain rare bloodlines or races. Again, difficult to model in RPGs unless the GM somehow enforces it. After the tenth gaming group composed completely of first cousins, you'll wonder if anyone *not* of that bloodline actually exists in the game world.

Erloas
2011-07-21, 04:27 PM
Why do this for systems that are in worlds where Magic is as tame as fabric, as the analogy of ' Weaving Magic ' would suggest? I think you are using this analogy wrong. Weaving might seem like a simple task now, but without machinery it isn't. The thing about weaving is that it takes specialized equipment and a lot of practice to do a good job. It takes a tremendous amount of skill to do anything more complex then a basic pattern and to make a weave that will hold up. It is a fairly precise task with a small margin of error if you want to have a high quality piece of fabric when you are done. And as a note, 99.9% of clothing most people wear at this point doesn't fit that definition, its a very simple weave with a very forgiving material type.

Well as you implied, I think it has a lot to do with the setting. Most people, I don't think, are looking for a high magic setting, because as magic gets common and controlled it also basically becomes mundane. If someone is able to magically propel their carts, send messages instantly to whomever they choose, and have the magic do all sorts of common every day tasks for them then you've basically just turned magic into electricity for most of the world and you loose some of the fantasy feel.

Its different to have a setting where magic is powerful, but uncommon, and I think that is what most people want. The only logical reason for magic to be powerful, and available to those that want to learn it, but not something that everyone does, then there has to be some obvious drawbacks to magic. There has to be a logical reason why not everyone would pick up magic.

That would be the risks involved with it. Because you can't just use time to learn because then no faster living race could use it and all long living races should have a high number of users.

If turning on the lights in your house was risky then you would probably use some other form of light whenever possible.


It seems that with D&D in particular, and the idea sort of transfered over to other systems as well, magic started out with high risks and high rewards, but as revisions came and went the risks tended to be too high for a game and a character you've invested a lot of time into, so the risks where slowly reduced but the spells' power wasn't reduced at the same time.

And that leads to two basic forms of fixes that people recommend, either increase the risks and keep the spells or decrease the power of the spells. I think the main problem is that people don't necessarily separate them into two different ideas or they just sort of get lumped together.

Morghen
2011-07-21, 04:29 PM
My experience (with older games) is that the biggest imbalance magic-users get comes from starting the game above first level. Originally, magic-users had to survive the greatest risks at first level before earning the right to wield the greatest power at high levels.But really, that's just an inconvenience and I don't think I've ever seen it actually come about. If that held true, then this should be accurate:

Wizard:Adventuring Party::Drummer:Spinal Tap

This question is for any and all:

When playing levels 1-5, how often is your arcane caster really threatened with death?

Crow
2011-07-21, 05:47 PM
This question is for any and all:

When playing levels 1-5, how often is your arcane caster really threatened with death?

In 4e, never.

In 3.5, every once in a while.

In AD&D, all the friggin time.

navar100
2011-07-21, 06:02 PM
Because some people hate it that a player character is "powerful". They think a player character defeating an obstacle "easily" is a crime against gaming. Therefore, if a player character is to do something powerful they must pay for the audacity.

Unlimited power is not the opposite. There does need to be a set rules to define how magic will work in a game. It is ok to have limits to prevent unplayability of the game itself. For a level based system like D&D, it is appropriate to have relative power levels based around the levels of the characters. In a game like Ars Magica, where characters are supposed to start off as magi of some power, having Big Flashy Spells at character creation is the point. Ars Magica does have fatigue rules for casting spells, in a sense a punishment for the audacity of casting spells, but it's not really a punishment. The game allows for casting powerful spells without fatigue without regret, and it could help a player to think of non-magical solutions since excessive casting is what causes most fatigue.

Fhaolan
2011-07-21, 06:31 PM
Because some people hate it that a player character is "powerful". They think a player character defeating an obstacle "easily" is a crime against gaming. Therefore, if a player character is to do something powerful they must pay for the audacity.

Interesting phrasing. In any case, it's not a crime against gaming. It's just dead boring to me. If a character is powerful enough that defeating obstacles becomes trivial, I lose interest in the game. Unless, of course, I'm not treating it as a game anymore and there's something else going on that I'm finding entertaining. Like a fascinating story being woven by the GM and the players, or some such.

I play RPGs when I am in some way challenged or entertained. Not the characters; me as a player. I don't find immense, unstoppable power challenging or entertaining.

Other people like that kind of thing. They like the idea that their characters are that powerful and can breeze through with ease and minimal effort. If so, more power to them [literally! :smallsmile:], but it's not me. They can go on playing their games, all I ask is that they let me go play my games.

Acanous
2011-07-21, 09:04 PM
How many times is my low level wizard threatened with death?

Well, Bold Hallmark was in the negatives three times before level three, the first time against a skeleton, the second from drowning, and the third a lucky crit on an enemy fighter. I took reasonable precautions, not taking risks in combat or casting anything big and flashy, trying to lay low.

If your DM wants your low level caster dead, all he has to do is assign one undead/construct to you in a combat while the party's fighting other things. The best save-or-suck spells from the lv 1-2 range don't affect either, and you propably aren't going to do enough direct damage to incapacitate an enemy in the round before it hits you and spoils your spellcasting.

I have had to work for my spellcasting, and play smart. Spellcasters in 1-5 have to play extremely carefully. 6-10 becomes more of a game of proper resource management, and 11-15 is just you testing your preparation and spell loops against what the DM throws at you. 16-20 and you've seriously got no problem with anything that isn't an equal or higher level wizard.

Stubbazubba
2011-07-21, 09:19 PM
Actually, even in Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn, those who can use magic (typically Allomancy) are far more effective than mundanes, who are best suited to cowering behind said Allomancers for protection, as Elend Venture proves through the second book.

The major points have already been made, but I'll throw in my perspective anyway; fantasy fiction usually gives mundane and magical characters an equal amount of screen time because the author can control it that way. In a genre such as TTRPGs, that balance of screen time has to come through mechanical balance, otherwise by sacrificing power you sacrifice your character's contribution to the collaborative narrative.

Unrelated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw).

So casters and mundanes must, mechanically, be playing in the same ball park in order for both to meaningfully contribute to the overall success of the party. That means mundanes either become quasi-magical wuxia types, or casters have real consequences to using powerful magic to discourage the frequent pushing of the 'win button.' Because the former tends to split off from the normal idea of a fantasy martial hero, the latter tends to be more popular for western-themed settings.

navar100
2011-07-21, 10:34 PM
Interesting phrasing. In any case, it's not a crime against gaming. It's just dead boring to me. If a character is powerful enough that defeating obstacles becomes trivial, I lose interest in the game. Unless, of course, I'm not treating it as a game anymore and there's something else going on that I'm finding entertaining. Like a fascinating story being woven by the GM and the players, or some such.

I play RPGs when I am in some way challenged or entertained. Not the characters; me as a player. I don't find immense, unstoppable power challenging or entertaining.

Other people like that kind of thing. They like the idea that their characters are that powerful and can breeze through with ease and minimal effort. If so, more power to them [literally! :smallsmile:], but it's not me. They can go on playing their games, all I ask is that they let me go play my games.

There is a difference between a particular spell effect being too powerful and must be nerfed or eliminated, and hurting a character by game mechanics because he casted a spell. The former is adjusting the game to taste. The latter is punishing the player for the audacity of having his character use the ability that's the whole point of being the character.

Ban Gate. Don't cause a wizard to lose half his hit points, become fatigued, and can't cast 9th level spells for 24 hours after casting Gate. (Hyperbole extreme made up example, not any particular reference to anything anyone wrote.) That said, I was ok with 3E's XP cost. Philosophically speaking it stung a little in my craw, but it wasn't excessive for the character level and it was only the calling aspect that had the cost.

Jay R
2011-07-21, 10:48 PM
When playing levels 1-5, how often is your arcane caster really threatened with death?

I just reached 5th level in a 2E game. I've been down to three or fewer hit points twice, been in one situation in which winning a single initiative saved my life, and avoided a rockfall that would have killed my character but nobody else's in the party. By contrast, the fighter, ranger and paladin in the party have never been below half their starting hp.

But that's normal. Of course I've been the weakest in the party. I'm still soft and squishy, but I just got Fireball and Lightning Bolt, and am suddenly pulling my weight in the battles.

Treblain
2011-07-21, 10:56 PM
Can this not be a tier debate? I mean, I guess it's not entirely off-topic, but it's not really useful.

Why does magic have a cost? Why does anything have a cost? Why do people have to work for a living? What's the meaning of life? Why am I soft in the middle now? Where's my wife and family? What if I die here? Who's gonna be my role model? Why's... Sorry, I'm drifting off into Paul Simon.

BTW, I totally knew exactly what Stubbazubba's link would be. Sad...

But Shadow Lord, I'm curious. I can understand not liking that magic has to be inexplicably measured against mundane abilities. I can understand that it doesn't make sense, because quite often, it doesn't. But I don't understand where your protest is going, because I feel like you're challenging the premise that balance has to be attempted, successfully or not.

Since we're on Sanderson, I wonder if you're familiar with Sanderson's First Law (http://www.brandonsanderson.com/article/40/Sandersons-First-Law): "An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic."

Whether in fiction or in tabletop gaming, this leads to the fact that the more detailed magic is, the more capable magic is of solving problems without being a lame, contrived Deus Ex Machina. Magic is quite detailed in 3.5 D&D, and it can solve virtually any problem, according to the rules. If it was less detailed, then no one would be able to shout about what RAW says. Details inevitably include limitations, because limitations on magic enable one to understand it, and understanding magic enables it to solve problems to everyone's satisfaction. So there you go. Gaming is in part shared storytelling, and to tell a story with magic requires either the group's full cooperation, or pre-arranged limitations that satisfy the group.

Fhaolan
2011-07-22, 01:08 AM
There is a difference between a particular spell effect being too powerful and must be nerfed or eliminated, and hurting a character by game mechanics because he casted a spell. The former is adjusting the game to taste. The latter is punishing the player for the audacity of having his character use the ability that's the whole point of being the character.

Personally, I like the 'extra effort' mechanic where a character must expend some kind of limited resource to produce an effect beyond what is normal for that character. Providing that this mechanic is applied to non-magical actions as well. In this model, a low-level warrior can fight as normal, provide tactical bonuses, etc. and an equivalent level mystic can cast force bolts, do minor scrying, mesmerism, etc. But if the warrior wants to guarantee a critical hit on the BBEG with all his might/the mystic wants pour all his power into a single lighting bolt [actions with similar end effectiveness], then the warrior might tear his muscles/the mystic might get a blinding migrane, something of equivalent cost, with equivalent (but not identical) recovery methodology. And as the level of the characters increase, their normal abilities increase as well as what 'extra effort' gets them.

Of course, there's also the other option available, and the one that did get used a lot in myth and legend (rather than literature). That the warriors are also magical in nature. Hercules, Cu Chulain, Samson, etc. The term 'hero' orignally meant 'demi-god' quite literally. The difficulty with this is that due to over-exposure to anime and under-exposure to European/African/etc. cultures' myths and legends, there's a serious stigma against this methodology.

For me personally, I prefer playing games in settings like Lahkmar, Hyperboria, Middle Earth of the Third Age, etc. Where heroes of wit and skill can compete favourably with mystics. And when the game reaches levels where high magic comes into play, then the non-mystics of the same level will have options that make them equally attractive to play. But that's my preference, and I understand if others don't.

Totally Guy
2011-07-22, 02:52 AM
A choice with an optimal solution is not really a choice at all.

Do you heal your friend or kill your enemy? Or do you do both?

The ability to do both makes that situation uninteresting. It's no longer possible to demonstrate that I care about my friend more than my enemy or vice versa.

Similarly with magic, the absence of a cost mean that the use of magic tends to be an optimal solution. As such you can then no longer demonstrate the importance of your own choices.

In most fiction this choice of whether to use magic or not and weighing up the cost is the interesting part. It tells you how far a character is willing to go to get what they want.

My own gaming choices reflect this preference.

navar100
2011-07-22, 06:18 PM
Personally, I like the 'extra effort' mechanic where a character must expend some kind of limited resource to produce an effect beyond what is normal for that character. Providing that this mechanic is applied to non-magical actions as well. In this model, a low-level warrior can fight as normal, provide tactical bonuses, etc. and an equivalent level mystic can cast force bolts, do minor scrying, mesmerism, etc. But if the warrior wants to guarantee a critical hit on the BBEG with all his might/the mystic wants pour all his power into a single lighting bolt [actions with similar end effectiveness], then the warrior might tear his muscles/the mystic might get a blinding migrane, something of equivalent cost, with equivalent (but not identical) recovery methodology. And as the level of the characters increase, their normal abilities increase as well as what 'extra effort' gets them.

Of course, there's also the other option available, and the one that did get used a lot in myth and legend (rather than literature). That the warriors are also magical in nature. Hercules, Cu Chulain, Samson, etc. The term 'hero' orignally meant 'demi-god' quite literally. The difficulty with this is that due to over-exposure to anime and under-exposure to European/African/etc. cultures' myths and legends, there's a serious stigma against this methodology.

For me personally, I prefer playing games in settings like Lahkmar, Hyperboria, Middle Earth of the Third Age, etc. Where heroes of wit and skill can compete favourably with mystics. And when the game reaches levels where high magic comes into play, then the non-mystics of the same level will have options that make them equally attractive to play. But that's my preference, and I understand if others don't.

That's mine too. If two characters/classes have shown to be of significant different relative power level, it is better to raise the one who is lower to the level of the one who is higher rather than lower the one who is higher to the level of the one who is lower.

It is ok to do a little of both, that is lower the higher one a bit as you raise the lower. That accounts for personal taste of your power level comfort. The crux is how much lower/raising is too much.

Personally, I find Tome of Battle did a good job of raising warrior types to spellcaster level. Spells >> maneuvers, but the warrior type is good enough. Expanded Psionics did a good job of lowering the spellcaster type but not too much. Less powers known and fixed limit on how much of a resource can be used to power them, but in return give flexibility in how to use their powers such that low level ones don't lose their effectiveness as the character levels increase.

I find 4E did a poor job of lowering spellcasting types. They went too far as to make them indistinguishable. Casting a spell is the just another way of saying swinging a weapon or firing a bow. I'm not saying spellcaster should always be greater than warrior. I'm saying I don't see any spellcaster at all in 4E. They did a good job in raising the warrior type because they can now do more things besides "I attack" as well as have better defensive capability.