PDA

View Full Version : Rules for DMs: Wishes



Jay R
2022-02-13, 12:01 PM
I have come up with an addition for my Rules for DMs, and I'd like some critique and discussion on it. I think it says what I'm trying to say, but I also think it's too long.

I am looking for both opinions about this approach to wishes, and for advice on how to phrase it.


44. Wishes ought to be a social contract between the players and the DM. Don’t try to screw up the game, and I won’t try to screw up your character.

a. Just as a player shouldn’t use a wish to screw up the game, neither should the DM. When wishes go wrong, they should put the PC in a difficult and threatening situation, not destroy the character. Difficult and threatening situations are a DM’s stock in trade.
b. Unless it will screw up the game, the DM should follow the exact wording of the wish. This is not necessarily the same as the intent. The danger of a wish is the same as the danger of a car or a power saw; it goes where you steer it, not where you intended to steer it.
c. A wish will be fulfilled in the simplest manner possible. If a player wishes to have the only sword in the world, it is easier for the magic to put him and his sword on a separate world than to find and destroy every other sword on the primary gameworld.

These are reminders, not rules. I don't need to make a niggling precise statement that covers every situation; I need to remind myself of the principles involved.

Also, these rules are deliberately written in an informal style. I don't need suggestions for making them more formal and less interesting to read. I plan to read them before each game I run; they need to be fun to go through again.

I think of a wish as a supremely powerful magic that no mortal completely understands. Subrule 44.b. is intended to make that clear, but I'm not satisfied with it. for that reason, I think the analogy with a car or power saw is crucial. I'm not trying to screw my players, and I abhor twisted interpretations that are clearly not what the words of the wish say. But the magic makes the words real, not the intent. Suggested re-writes?

Finally, there is no need to agree with me, or to confine the discussion to what I'm asking for. A wide-ranging discussion might be more helpful in the long run than simply answering my specific questions. Have fun with it.

MoiMagnus
2022-02-13, 01:11 PM
I've never really liked wishes that stick to the exact wording. But that's probably linked to my opinion that words don't have exact meanings (unless you're using a programming language or anything that has a specific dictionary as an absolute reference), so distinguishing wording from intent is meaningless.

IMO, wishes (and magic contracts) should* use direct intentions, so if you use the word "blue", it correspond to every colour you would call "blue" (maybe it includes turquoise, maybe it doesn't).

However, you can still get screwed over by indirect intentions, so if you wish for a ton of gold, it doesn't come with the means of transporting it unless you specify it.

The only indirect intention I'd include by default is inoffensiveness: unless explicitly specified, the wishes will not harm any character (allied or enemy, physically or mentally) or put them in a directly dangerous situation. So said ton of gold won't appear just above the head of the caster or an enemy. And I'd put it as a major exception to your 44c.

*Alternatively, I'm also fine with wishes and magic contract relying on some special magic language, and the GM should faithfully translate the player's intention in this magic language.

Additionally, I'd also consider the entity granting the wish whenever there is one. If possible, twisting the wish should go in a direction that obviously make senses given the entity. For example, some entities might be more willing to twist egoistic wishes than altruistic wishes, and depending on their personality, they might focus on punishing the wisher for their sin, or trying to make it so more peoples benefits from this wish than just the caster.

Pex
2022-02-13, 05:36 PM
It is simple as player should not try to Win D&D and DM should not make the player Lose D&D. The player gets what he intended.

Players wishes for wealth. Not a problem. Twenty five 1,000 gp gems. Done.

Players wishes to be the wealthiest person in the world. Metaphorically smack the player upside the head. Wish for something reasonable or DM wishes you into the cornfield.

Player wishes for a sunblade. Not a problem. He has a sunblade. Done.

Player wishes for the Holy Scepter of (insert deity). Metaphorically smack the player upside the head. Wish for something reasonable or DM wishes you into the cornfield.

Player wishes for the ability to cast Eldritch Blast under otherwise normal rules for Cantrips. Not a problem. He can cast Eldritch Blast normally.

Players wishes to be able to cast Wish spell at will. Metaphorically smack the player upside the head. Wish for something reasonable or DM wishes you into the cornfield.

tenshiakodo
2022-02-13, 06:23 PM
Yeah, wishcraft has gotten a bad rap in many ttrpg's. It's akin to the "I rolled a nat twenny, the universe should bow to my will!". It's the most powerful magic in the game, and it evokes a sense of wonder and awe...and the inner Lucifer in many DM's, who want to punish players who try to make Faustian deals...or just punish them in general for having the nerve to wield such narrative power.

Even when the exact precise limits of Wish are spelled out, it takes some of the wonder out of the process, and many DM's treat the spell differently. Which leads to players treating it differently. Or maybe it's the reverse, I can't tell you how it started, only the state it's in now.

Punishing players who are trying to get "a little more" is perfectly fine. But what constitutes "too much" really should be spelled out by any DM/GM. If they are going to step beyond the spell description, they have to be up front about it.

I personally don't mind stronger wishes, but I think it's important to give the players SOMETHING beneficial, even if there are strings attached, or they'll just avoid wishes like they do intelligent swords or wild mages. Burn me once, etc..

NichG
2022-02-13, 06:52 PM
I really hate any kind of metagame semantic negotiation, the precise phrasing of a wish (or the precise phrasing of a rule) aren't good things to get stuck on for the general function and flow of the game.

So if I want to have something like a wish, it's almost always granted by some in-game sentience that has a reason for doing it and which has practical limits on its power. I try to make it clear what that source is, and what ends up happening with the wish will be consistent with that and will be flexible within that. If a wish is being granted as a favor or a reward, not only will it never be twisted, but the wish granter will actually ask 'would this satisfy what you want?' and will specify e.g. 'its beyond my power to give this to you in the way you asked, but if we modify these few things I can do it' or even 'I don't actually understand what you're asking for here, can you clarify?'. Extorting a wish out of an unwilling creature (e.g. without doing anything to actually make them friendly) is treated the same way as e.g. blackmailing a surgeon to do life-threatening surgery on you - the words you use don't matter, all that matters is what they think they can get away with and escape (or just pay) the consequences of the blackmail. And I'd be completely clear about that if players started to float that kind of strategy before they commit to anything.

Truly unbounded 'dangerous' wishes can be a thing in my games, but instead of having it be based on wording and 'oh, you misspoke/you missed a clause', I have dangerous wishes work according to a principle that whatever force grants the wish will still follow intent (along with the whole iterative process of making sure the wish is actually what the wisher wants), but it will also grant a wish of equal magnitude to some other force in the world antagonistic to the wisher, and that mechanism is clear up front. So the guarantee is you get what you want in the way that you want with no surprises there, but the risk is that you have no control over what that other wish will be beyond limiting the scale and ambition of your own. That keeps the 'playing with fire' aspect and asks for careful consideration without inviting too much semantic negotiation, risking a letdown, etc. Yes, there might be a mess to clean up afterwards, but you're going to get that thing you asked for and it's going to be as close to perfect as we can manage.

And in any of these cases, of course there can be wishes which would be disruptive, but then its always better to say 'hey, please don't ask for that, I think its going to cause problems with the game' out of character than to try to figure out a way that you can technically deny it by twisting rules text or wish text.

Vahnavoi
2022-02-13, 10:18 PM
In my games, the rules for wishes are: wishes are made to some entity, interpreted according to nature of that entity and fulfilled to the ability of that entity. The corollary to that is that when you are making a wish, it's not you who have control and power in that situation.

The only time I put omnipotent wishes in the hands of my players is when said players have explicit task to use those wishes to prevent further wishes from destroying the world, making them into the entities interpreting wishes of others. If you want playgroup-approved legalese governing the functions of wishes, play that scenario before a game including wishes.

Jay R
2022-02-13, 10:41 PM
Wishes in my game conform to the wording because that's consistent with how they work in fantasy literature. One of my goals in a fantasy RPG is to simulate a fantasy story (as much as reasonably possible within the game). Similarly, when I play Flashing Blades, I'm trying to simulate swashbuckler stories, not Parisian history. I play Champions to try to create some of the flavor of a comic book.

Also, I think it's like a car or a power tool. The car drives backwards if you put it in reverse, regardless of what your intention was.

Also, having it follow intent is a straightforward tool for taking the danger and drama out of a situation in a game I play primarily to experience the drama of facing dangerous situations.

[There are players with no interest in simulating fantasy stories, and no interest in having a granted wish be a dramatic and dangerous situation, and there's nothing wrong with playing that way. There's nothing wrong with playing my way for my goals, either.]

Pex wants to avoid the situations that come up in fantasy stories by metaphorically smacking the player upside the head to prevent it. That's a perfectly reasonable approach to do something I don't want to do. I agree with him completely that the player should not try to Win D&D and DM should not make the player Lose D&D. But from my point of view, his solution is, in this one specific instance, to not play D&D.

MoiMagnus is correct in saying that words don't have single, clear, unambiguous meanings. But sentences generally do. If you wish for an extremely valuable gem, that's one thing. But if you wish for the most valuable gem in the world, well, that is a specific object. You'll get it, but the owner who just lost it will probably come looking for it.

tenshiakodo hits a crucial point when he discusses the sense of wonder and awe that wishes can create. I want to retain that. One of my most successful examples was a game in which a player had three wishes and didn't know it. The player tried to convince me that his brigandine armor (which is basically hardened leather) should be nearly as effective as plate. At one point he said, "I just wish this armor was as effective as I thought it was when I bought it." I replied with, "All right. As of now, your brigandine armor is as effective as plate is in the rules."

A bit later, he said, "I wish I understood what just happened back there." I said that his sword speaks, and tells him that it was a sword of three wishes. The first wish made his armor more effective, and the second explained what happened. He used his third wish later, to save himself from a major attack.

I have had players not get the most value from their wishes that way, but no players in my games have ever been hurt by their wishes -- starting with the first wishes I granted back in 1977.

vasilidor
2022-02-14, 12:03 AM
It really depends on the source of the wish, how it is phrased and what the character is trying to get out of it.
If it comes from the spell cast by a player character and is replicating another spell, even if a enhanced version of said spell within certain limits, the result will be what the player asked for, nothing more or less. The wish spell is the caster enforcing their will upon the universe. outside of this there is a chance for something to go ary.
If the wish comes from something like a genie, then the player may get a twist on their spell regardless.

KorvinStarmast
2022-02-14, 10:30 AM
I have come up with an addition for my Rules for DMs, and I'd like some critique and discussion on it. I think it says what I'm trying to say, but I also think it's too long.

I am looking for both opinions about this approach to wishes, and for advice on how to phrase it. For this edition, (1) because wish takes an Action, and (2) because I have lived through the "write three pages of lawyerese when casting a wish" era,

I require that the wish can be spoken aloud in six seconds or less by the player - and yes it's OK to take a moment to scribble a few things down to organize one's thoughts and then say it out loud.
That's the casting. (True for rings, luck blades, cast from spell or scroll) :smallsmile It has worked reasonably well.

While I don't by default apply a monkey's paw, there can be ripple effects (some minor, some major, some just silly/funny - it really depends on the wish and the situation).
The concept behind this is that Reality just got checked into the boards, and TNSTAAFL.

As to 44.b, I guess you are asking for word-smithing?

b. Unless it will screw up the game, the DM should follow the exact wording of the wish, which is not necessarily the same as the intent. The danger of a wish is the same as the danger of a car or a riding lawnmower; it goes where you steer it, not where you intended to steer it. I'd use aircraft rather than a saw or a lawn mower.
I am not sure if you were referring to a circular saw (hand held) or a hand held jigsaw so I swapped it to a visual picture that I think fits well. If you meant something like the standard 10' circular saw or the 7 1/2" battery operated circular power saw, it might be worth clarifying since the powered saw that came to my mind was a table saw or a band saw.

Other remarks:

Wishes in my game conform to the wording because that's consistent with how they work in fantasy literature. Which will inform a bit of monkey paw here and there, but it does not require it.

But if you wish for the most valuable gem in the world, well, that is a specific object. You'll get it, but the owner who just lost it will probably come looking for it. This is a good example of the ripple effect I mentioned above.

tenshiakodo hits a crucial point when he discusses the sense of wonder and awe that wishes can create. Yes, which context argues (in my view) for wish being only available when found on items rather than a spell that you can cast each day when you wake up in the morning.
(To illustrate a somewhat mundane use of that spell ... my bard (clvl 20) is going to spend a year, now that she's retired, doing a permanent dwelling (Mighty Fortress) in the seaside town where she lives ... and she has to do it every 7 days for a year).
A bit over a year later, she'll be working with the retired paladin (clvl 20) to set up a teleportation circle near to his home town, keyed to a TP circle that our adventurer's guild has in a major city. That's using the "cast any spell 8th or below" feature and will also require a dedicated year. (This is a modes assist for the DM with world building, and she's got enough gems, or gold to buy those gems, to do it ... ).
PS:
{Nice example of in play three wishes sword}.

icefractal
2022-02-14, 04:20 PM
IMO, twisting a Wish maliciously only makes sense when the Wish-granting entity is malicious. In the case of casting Wish yourself, the wish granting entity is either "you" or "the weave / arcane magic in general", so malevolent intent doesn't really make sense.

I think how I'd do it for "Wishing above the safe limit" is that the caster / granter gets a feeling that the energy's building up beyond what's safe, and they have a choice - achieve as much as they can within the normal limits, or push on, taking a moderate downside and gaining a corresponding amount of extra power. If that's still not enough for their Wish, they get the choice again - accept where they're at now, or take more downside for more power. It's an iterative process, because I find "how far will you go for this?" more interesting than "how can the exact wording screw you over?"

There are still upper limits - a normal Wish isn't going to make you into a god.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-02-14, 04:53 PM
For me and my setting, wishes are attempts at root access to the underlying universal OS, while running live in production. But the universal OS has consistency checks, and failing those causes BAD THINGS to happen as it tries to stabilize itself.

So operationally, I run it as:
0. The player and I talk, OOC, about what the intent is. What do they really want to happen. Not looking at specific wording. Ideally, this happens well before the actual event (ie offline, between sessions) for anything other than obviously safe wishes.
1. Is it a listed "safe" use (replicating a spell of 8th or lower) or could it be interpreted as such without denying important parts of the intent? It happens, no monkey paw. If not, GO NEXT.
2. Is it a listed "unsafe" use or could it be interpreted as such without failing the intent? It happens, with the listed possible consequences (ie "stress"). If not, GO NEXT.
3. List the minimal set of changes that will happen OOC. The intent here is to preserve universe integrity with minimal changes and minimal monkey paw. GO NEXT
4. Allow the user to change their intent, require affirmative "I'm ok with those consequences." Note that changing the wording doesn't necessarily change the intent, and it's the intent that matters to me. The exact wording isn't the words you're actually saying in character anyway (different language, for one), so I ignore that entirely[1].
5. Once they consent, apply the patch.

Ideally, everyone will be amused (OOC, the characters might not be) by the effects. I'm not going to try to "punish" a player by punishing the character.

Although I'm leaning toward removing wish as an actual spell from the game and just leaving it as a special ability for certain items and powerful creatures.

[1] with one caveat. I'll look for evidence in their wording that they're being evasive and trying to weasel-word things. If they're trying to weasel-word things to pull a fast one or are being evasive about their intent, I'm going to default to assuming munchkinry is afoot. And I don't like munchkinry. Because it smells like there's a lack of trust. And that's fatal to a game. If I smell munchkinry, I'm going to stop things and call that out. If they persist, it's an OOC problem at that point. If I was wrong, then I'll apologize and go back to where we were.

Pex
2022-02-14, 05:58 PM
Forgot about save or die. Yeah, hate that too. Ditto gotcha DMing where the DM demands for specifics of what you do but then because you didn't say something you're surprised by a trap or monster. ""You didn't say you search the ceiling, so . . ." They'd also require you to specify how you search a room so you don't get the treasure when you forgot to say you check the pillowcase. They want to know exactly how you search for a trap or do any particular activity looking for any excuse to have something go wrong because you didn't account for something the DM has a loophole to screw you over.


Edit: Oof! This is in the wrong thread! Sorry.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-02-14, 07:26 PM
Forgot about save or die. Yeah, hate that too. Ditto gotcha DMing where the DM demands for specifics of what you do but then because you didn't say something you're surprised by a trap or monster. ""You didn't say you search the ceiling, so . . ." They'd also require you to specify how you search a room so you don't get the treasure when you forgot to say you check the pillowcase. They want to know exactly how you search for a trap or do any particular activity looking for any excuse to have something go wrong because you didn't account for something the DM has a loophole to screw you over.

Had a DM tell another player (playing a necromancer) that, because he didn't verbally order the skeletons to turn the corner while walking up the stairs on the outside of this building, the skeletons just walked off the edge of the stairs and fell down. It came across as super passive-aggressive and obnoxious. And I don't even like minion-mancy at all.

Jay R
2022-02-15, 05:43 PM
In my opening post, I wrote, “A wide-ranging discussion might be more helpful in the long run than simply answering my specific questions.” I think this has happened.

I disapprove of DMs who use a wish to destroy a character just as much as I disapprove of players who try to use a wish to destroy the game, or to get a power level that takes all the drama and danger out of the game – and for exactly the same reasons.

There should be drama and potential danger in any D&D encounter. That’s what makes it a game, rather than just talking about how bad-*ss the PCs are. [Of course, the danger should rarely destroy the PCs. But if it’s impossible for the PC to be killed or permanently hurt, then there is no drama.]

Some DMs have evidently used wishes to destroy the drama of the moment. I think that’s wrong. But to prevent this, some people want to take away the drama and potential danger of the fantasy moment of using a wish. I think that’s wrong too, and for the same reasons. Both destroy what could be a great character moment.

I suppose that I might feel the need to take away all the drama from those moments, too, if I had ever faced such a DM. But in role-playing on-and-off since 1975, I have never had a DM do that. And I’ve never done it to my players.

There are legitimate judgment calls to be made about which moments should have drama and potential danger, and about how potentially dangerous the moment should be. We won't all agree, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Personally, I think the potential risk should mostly be wasting the power of the wish, not destroying the character. That’s how such situations usually work in fantasy literature. Most bad wish effects are undone by the final wish. I only know of two examples of unambiguous character-destroying wishes that aren’t undone by the end of the story. The first, of course, is in W. W. Jacobs’s story, “The Monkey’s Paw”. The other is the final wish made by Jafar, and it was a trap set for him by Aladdin.

By contrast, I’ve seen several in which a wish went wrong, and was undone by another wish.

Weaknesses or loss of abilities are possible, but like any curse, they should be short-lived, lasting just long enough to add a new challenge for a while, and gone before they become too frustrating or boring.

And if the wording of the wish is clear, and the power level not too great, the wish should happen as intended.

I have no problem with people who, having experienced bad situations I’ve never experienced, feel the need to protect themselves from those situations with an approach that I don’t feel the need for.

PhoenixPhyre and icefractal gave perfectly reasonable approaches to protecting the PCs from playing out the drama of wishes. I have no problem with that; I also have no interest in playing that way. NichG, Vahnavoi, and vasilidor gave reasonable approaches based on the assumption that wish magic is always under the complete control of some entity. That’s a reasonable approach, but in my world, magic that powerful and flexible is hard to completely comprehend and control – like writing a program. I don’t think computers are malevolent, but they don’t always do what I intend, either.

So if you don’t think using a wish is a fantasy moment that should have drama and potential danger, I have no problem with that. Play the game the way that makes you and your players happy. I just disagree, and I will play the game the way that makes me and my players happy.

My especial thanks to KorvinStarmast, who actually discussed the wording I proposed for my Rules for DMs.

My responses:

I hadn’t considered using aircraft instead of cars, because I was looking for something anybody who read it would actually have used. But aircraft might be better – everybody knows that planes crash. I may change it to “The danger of making a wish is the same as the danger of flying a plane; it goes where you steer it, not where you intended to steer it.”

I didn’t name the saw in question, because I want the reader to fill in whatever saw he or she has used that seemed hard to control.

So this is an issue of whether or not I conveyed the right thought. Everybody, which of these versions more successfully conveys to you the idea that potential danger exists, not because of malevolence, but because the power is inherently hard to control?


b. Unless it will screw up the game, the DM should follow the exact wording of the wish. This is not necessarily the same as the intent. The danger of a wish is the same as the danger of a car or a power saw; it goes where you steer it, not where you intended to steer it.


b. Unless it will screw up the game, the DM should follow the exact wording of the wish. This is not necessarily the same as the intent. The danger of making a wish is the same as the danger of flying a plane. Controlling is a highly complex task; it goes where you steer it, not where you intended to steer it.”

Thanks for all the discussion.

icefractal
2022-02-15, 06:02 PM
PhoenixPhyre and icefractal gave perfectly reasonable approaches to protecting the PCs from playing out the drama of wishes. I have no problem with that; I also have no interest in playing that way. IDK that I agree? My approach doesn't play out "the drama of trying to pick lawyer-proof exact wording", that's true. On the other hand, it does play out "the drama of going past the safe limits and getting hazardous effects as a result", and I'd argue it does that more than a "strict wording" approach, which would presumably let someone achieve as much as they wanted with no downside if they were simply good enough at choosing their wording.

Basically, the question is - which one should be riskier?
A) A sloppily worded wish for a sandwich?
B) A precisely-phrased wish for godlike power?

IMO, B should be the dangerous one, A should not.

KorvinStarmast
2022-02-15, 06:05 PM
Thanks for all the discussion.
I'll vote for the second one, but of course, I am biased. :smallsmile: Interesting thoughts all around, I find myself very much in agreement with your points on drama and danger.

LibraryOgre
2022-02-15, 06:18 PM
I think your rules look good, but I do vary it according to the source.

If you are a powerful wizard and you cast wish, the wish should mostly follow your intentions... you're creating it, after all.
If you've been given a wish by a powerful entity, you should get a wish based on what the entity thinks you mean.
If you've extorted a wish from a powerful entity, you will get anything that can be construed as your wish.
If you've got an unintelligent item that casts a wish for you, then you will get something pretty literal.

So, the wish "I want a ring of wizardry!"

The wizard caster gets a ring of wizardry, probably of really useful spell levels.
The entity gives you a ring of wizardry. This item may be normal, or it may be cursed in ways the entity wouldn't understand, or have some weird rules about it, but it will be a ring of wizardry.
The ifreet steals a ring of wizardry from a very vengeful lich.
The magic item produces a ring of wizardry, but it's probably the least powerful version.

Also, however, I limit wishes to one breath and two clauses. No "I have a 75 page wish, iron-clad to ensure there is no way for you to mess it up." You have to be able to say the whole thing without taking an extra breath, and it can have no more than 2 clauses.

NichG
2022-02-15, 06:35 PM
I guess there are two separate things behind why I run it the way I run it.

One is just about understanding 'how magic works' in a way that I can feel is self-consistent enough to adjudicate e.g. corner cases, weird experiments, etc. To me, the biggest question that needs to be answered about magic or really any system of personal power (superpowers, future tech, etc) is how human-level concepts are bridged with physical-level concepts. The more open-ended an effect is, either: the more explicit comprehension is required of the one who produces the effect, or the more external assistance is required from some other force that possesses that comprehension. Since a Wish may have to influence things without giving awareness of what options there are to influence to the caster, that strongly favors an interpretation of Wishes - even those cast by wizards - as being processed by some sentience outside of the wizard themselves. That could be a wish-granting entity, an inevitable tasked with the job of processing wishes, a deity, a nascent panpsychic sentience inherent the the universe itself, etc. But what follows logically for me from that is that the words themselves don't matter, its the alignment between the understanding of the person requesting the wish and the force implementing it. So it seems likely to me that the elements and complexity of a Wish spell are largely about bridging that gap - creating an opportunity for the caster to share minds with a cosmic force that has both the necessary perspective to conceptualize how exactly the details of a wish might be brought about, and a perspective close enough to the mind of the caster that communication is possible. For a 'Wish bound by the limits of emulating another spell' cast directly, that external contact wouldn't be strictly necessary since the caster presumably does have an intuitive grasp of the elements of magic by that point - in that case, the spell can merely turn inward and give the caster the mindspace to align with their own intent and the power to make it stick.

The other is, I think I have a fundamentally different view of what's interesting about gaming than the 'drama & risk' perspective. To me, the gameplay in a scenario where I've given a PC a perfect, intent-based, wish isn't 'will they phrase what they want correctly?' but 'given an infinity of possibilities, will they pick the thing that they will actually be satisfied with having?'. E.g. the experience of playing through the game is coming to a better understanding of what the character wants, how they think the world should be, how they understand the forces in the world, etc. It's asking questions which are difficult to answer not because the wrong answer is easy to find, but because there isn't actually a 'right' answer but rather a choice and a commitment to the direction that the self takes in making that choice. To me, that's more what I'd be going for by introducing that sort of element than just trying to create a risky situation. It's asking the question 'how broad is your imagination, once you remove the limits of necessity?' or rather 'how broad do you want your imagination to be, before things become meaningless to you?'

Mutazoia
2022-02-15, 09:14 PM
Wishes in traditional literature have always come with a bit of a monkey's paw as a moral lesson. Some lazy/greedy human forces a magical being into giving them something they have neither earned nor deserve. Mimicking this in a game setting is only natural, and keeps players from abusing wishes. Personally, I disallow access to the wish spell for my players to help avoid the temptation (on both sides) when dealing with wishes. But..

In the game, a wish is the magical equivalent of "I reject your reality and substitute my own." You are quite literally attempting to forcibly change the fundamental state of the universe into a different state that you prefer. The bigger that alteration, the more danger is inherent in the task and the more risk is involved. Thus the bigger the change desired, the more specific you are going to have to be when making the wish. (see below)

As Mark Hall states, if the wish is granted by an entity, then the player is stuck with how the entity understands the wish as spoken. Few wish-granting entities are mind readers, and even fewer are benevolent and will grant wishes grudgingly at best. Depending on the situation they may be more or less inclined to twist an ambiguous word or phrase as a sort of FU to the (demi)human dragging a wish out of them.

Even if the wizard is casting the spell himself, the magical energies of the universe do not have an INT or WIS stat and shouldn't be able to handle abstract concepts very well. For example: "I wish I had a ton of money." If the money appears next to you, you don't technically HAVE it, so it would have to appear on your person. A ton of money would easily crush most people. "I wish all my enemies were dead!" Okay the DM can either kill anyone and anything the player has considered an enemy (how much XP is that anyway?) or transport the homicidal maniac into the far future when all of those entities have died.

Basically, the monkey's paw effect has always been there to provide a limit on the amount of abuse players can and usually do get up to when they get access to one or more wishes. If you're duplicating a spell of 8th level or below, no big change, so no real risk. But if you are trying to break the world economy, or cause a mass extinction event you better believe there's going to be a major risk involved, and you need to choose your words carefully.

KorvinStarmast
2022-02-16, 10:26 AM
Wishes in traditional literature have always come with a bit of a monkey's paw as a moral lesson. Some lazy/greedy human forces a magical being into giving them something they have neither earned nor deserve.
The story of King Midas is a fine example.


In the game, a wish is the magical equivalent of "I reject your reality and substitute my own." You are quite literally attempting to forcibly change the fundamental state of the universe into a different state that you prefer. The bigger that alteration, the more danger is inherent in the task and the more risk is involved. Thus the bigger the change desired, the more specific you are going to have to be when making the wish. (see below) You put your finger on something I was thinking, thanks for how you said that.

As Mark Hall states, if the wish is granted by an entity, then the player is stuck with how the entity understands the wish as spoken. Seems a fair assessment.

Even if the wizard is casting the spell himself, the magical energies of the universe do not have an INT or WIS stat and shouldn't be able to handle abstract concepts very well. {snip} "I wish all my enemies were dead!" Okay the DM can either kill anyone and anything the player has considered an enemy (how much XP is that anyway?) or transport the homicidal maniac into the far future when all of those entities have died. I don't find the "ton of money" illustration to be as good as the other one.

But if you are trying to break the world economy, or cause a mass extinction event you better believe there's going to be a major risk involved, and you need to choose your words carefully. I look at it a little differently. If one is going to have make that big of a change to all of reality, right now, you can expect powerful ripple effects / side effects (TNSTAAFL) to accompany that profound change. If you check reality into the boards hard enough, you may get that four minute major, or an ejection (to use a Hockey metaphor)

RandomPeasant
2022-02-16, 09:53 PM
Trying to pull tricks by following the literal wording of wish may work once, but after you've done it you're going to get an arms race between you and the player making a wish that is effectively a contract negotiation. That's not fun for you, it's not fun for the player making the wish, and it's definitely not fun for everyone else watching you two bicker about what "shall" means. wish should follow the intent of the caster, and if you are trying to get a wish out of a source that is willing to pull Literal Genie shenanigans on you the negotiation of terms should be abstracted to an opposed Intelligence check.

KorvinStarmast
2022-02-17, 04:59 PM
That's not fun for you, it's not fun for the player making the wish, and it's definitely not fun for everyone else watching you two bicker about what "shall" means. IME it is sometimes its own fun minigame, the word-smithing challenge and traps therein, but not every player will get enjoyment out of that, nor will every DM.

Mutazoia
2022-02-17, 10:47 PM
Trying to pull tricks by following the literal wording of wish may work once, but after you've done it you're going to get an arms race between you and the player making a wish that is effectively a contract negotiation. That's not fun for you, it's not fun for the player making the wish, and it's definitely not fun for everyone else watching you two bicker about what "shall" means. wish should follow the intent of the caster, and if you are trying to get a wish out of a source that is willing to pull Literal Genie shenanigans on you the negotiation of terms should be abstracted to an opposed Intelligence check.

Just how many wishes do you normally hand out during a game? As they can be one of the most game-breaking things in the game, they should be rarer than rare, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Not had for the price of a tiny coin from a gumball machine.

icefractal
2022-02-18, 12:49 AM
Just how many wishes do you normally hand out during a game? As they can be one of the most game-breaking things in the game, they should be rarer than rare, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Not had for the price of a tiny coin from a gumball machine.
Are they though? I mean, the 'safe' uses of Wish are good, but they're not really game-changing unless you get them at quite a low level. As for the unsafe uses, they're only as game-breaking as the GM wants them to be. From this thread, it sounds like they're likely to be monkey-paw stuff that's more downside than upside.


To expand on that -
Wishes on fiction are used (at least) two different ways.

In one, they're found very easily, even by mistake. That weird lamp or doll you found in a mysterious antique shop, a favor in exchange for helping a seemingly-normal old woodsman out of a river, a magic ring that you came across by chance while hunting for mushrooms. These type of wishes usually go wrong, and often act primarily as a cautionary tale about things which seem too good to be true.

In the other, they come at great cost - the end result of a dangerous quest, something you need to die for (or trade your soul for), the result of a great sacrifice, a boon for some huge deed, and so forth. These wishes do sometimes go wrong, but more often the dilemma is about whether they're worth the price it took to gain them. If they were more often bad than good, what kind of fool would go to such lengths seeking them?

IMO, D&D wishes fit the latter more than the former. They're the apex of magic which very few can achieve, items which grant them are extremely valuable, creatures who can grant them often demand harsh deals. You're not likely getting a Wish by accident while trying to catch fish, for instance. So as that's the case, no, I don't think "monkey paw" is a good model.

Jay R
2022-02-18, 07:45 PM
Trying to pull tricks by following the literal wording of wish may work once, but after you've done it you're going to get an arms race between you and the player making a wish that is effectively a contract negotiation.

This is simply untrue, in the initial case we are discussing. I gave out two wishes for the first time in 1977, and one of them was wasted by a literal interpretation. The player got exactly what he wanted for his second wish, and in the next 45 years, there has not, in fact, been an arms race between me and my players.

I suppose such an arms race might be one of the possible results from "trying to pull tricks", but the proposed personal rule that started this discussion opens with "Wishes ought to be a social contract between the players and the DM. Don’t try to screw up the game, and I won’t try to screw up your character." That cannot fairly or accurately be characterized as "trying to pull tricks".


That's not fun for you, it's not fun for the player making the wish, and it's definitely not fun for everyone else watching you two bicker about what "shall" means.

If you have to bicker about what it means, then it isn't the clear literal meaning of the words.

In response to a prayer for divine intervention, Artemis gave the PC a sword with 2 wishes on it. The PC picked up the sword, and said, "I wish I knew what She gave me this for." There was no bickering; that is clearly a wish, with a clear literal meaning.


wish should follow the intent of the caster, and if you are trying to get a wish out of a source that is willing to pull Literal Genie shenanigans on you the negotiation of terms should be abstracted to an opposed Intelligence check.

"should" is an interesting word to use here. Are you proposing as a moral dictum that other people have to play the game your way, or suggesting that the rules clearly and unambiguously make that the only way to play in all versions of every rpg that includes wishes?

The year was 1977, the game was original D&D with the first three supplements, and the idea of an "opposed Intelligence check" didn't exist yet. The player had no problem with what I did as DM, and we are still friends, 45 years later.

In any event, play the game the way you and your friends enjoy it; I think that's great. I will continue to play as my friends and I enjoy it.

icefractal
2022-02-19, 01:19 AM
Maybe to an extent it's the presentation?

I mean, "I used strict wording once in 1977 and it worked out well" - sure, I believe that; it's not like strict wording is the anti-fun equation or something. But that's a lot different than - "And so as a rule all GMs should follow: Use strict wording".

Jay R
2022-02-19, 02:58 PM
Maybe to an extent it's the presentation?

I mean, "I used strict wording once in 1977 and it worked out well" - sure, I believe that; it's not like strict wording is the anti-fun equation or something. But that's a lot different than - "And so as a rule all GMs should follow: Use strict wording".

Maybe you're right. Maybe I should re-name it "Jay R's Guidelines for DMing". And then open with a paragraph that states that this is the way I play, and other people can play other ways.

I'm not sure that approach will work though. It certainly hasn't worked in this thread.

My first post included: "I am looking for ... opinions about this approach to wishes, ..." which clearly implies that there are other approaches.
I concluded that post with "Finally, there is no need to agree with me, ..."

My second post said, "There are players with no interest in simulating fantasy stories, and no interest in having a granted wish be a dramatic and dangerous situation, and there's nothing wrong with playing that way. There's nothing wrong with playing my way for my goals, either."

In my third post, I wrote: "There are legitimate judgment calls to be made about which moments should have drama and potential danger, and about how potentially dangerous the moment should be. We won't all agree, and there's nothing wrong with that." I also wrote: "So if you don’t think using a wish is a fantasy moment that should have drama and potential danger, I have no problem with that. Play the game the way that makes you and your players happy. I just disagree, and I will play the game the way that makes me and my players happy."

The conclusion of my fourth and most recent post (and the one you were replying to) was: "In any event, play the game the way you and your friends enjoy it; I think that's great. I will continue to play as my friends and I enjoy it."

So I've been consistently denying that all DMs should do the same things I do, but nobody seems to notice.

Mutazoia
2022-02-19, 07:50 PM
So I've been consistently denying that all DMs should do the same things I do, but nobody seems to notice.

People have noticed and agreed. Some of us have laid out a "this is why we do it this way in our games" argument but nobody really expects to "win" anybody over to our way of thinking. At least I don't think anybody does. I don't. Ultimately I don't really care how someone else plays their game. If they're having fun, then that's the right way to play.

The debates are fun though.

RandomPeasant
2022-02-21, 10:13 PM
This is simply untrue, in the initial case we are discussing. I gave out two wishes for the first time in 1977, and one of them was wasted by a literal interpretation. The player got exactly what he wanted for his second wish, and in the next 45 years, there has not, in fact, been an arms race between me and my players.

I'm sure you can find someone for whom any given bad idea has worked. That doesn't make them good ideas, it makes you lucky. But the incentives point the way you point, and your anecdotes do not represent a convincing argument against that. In any case, if you're not going to accept advice, it's not clear to me why you bothered asking for it.

KorvinStarmast
2022-02-22, 10:53 AM
So I've been consistently denying that all DMs should do the same things I do, but nobody seems to notice. I noticed. :smallsmile: Providing other DM's the benefit of your own experience is a worthwhile input to a forum discussion.
The debates are fun though. I prefer a conversation when it comes to "DM best practices" topics. Debates get a little testy, and sometimes become counterproductive.

I'm sure you can find someone for whom any given bad idea has worked. That doesn't make them good ideas, it makes you lucky. But the incentives point the way you point, and your anecdotes do not represent a convincing argument against that. In any case, if you're not going to accept advice, it's not clear to me why you bothered asking for it. ... without rancor, I observe that demonstrates what using the debate framework does to the detriment of discussion (which approach I prefer).

I have found the differing inputs useful food for thought, but I still prefer wish to be tied to items. Having used it 'to cast any spell of level 8 or lower' in a limited period of play time I can see where some of the objections to that feature arise from. I had an entire mini campaign planned out in my head to deal with slavers and how I'd screw up their ports and harbors with the use of earthquake (cast using wish) and quick strikes (Lore bard) but as it turned out the other players had no interest in my war/vendetta, so our adventures ended up being in (mostly) other planes until the End of Campaign at level 20.

Jay R
2022-02-23, 01:28 PM
I'm sure you can find someone for whom any given bad idea has worked. That doesn't make them good ideas, it makes you lucky.

Or possibly, if I have done it for over 40 years and it has always worked, it makes me competent to implement my ideas well, and that therefore the idea is a good idea within my approach. I did not say that I have done it only once, in 1977. I have already given two examples, from two different centuries, about how I work wishes. I've been playing rpgs since 1975, and running them off-and-on since 1977. None of my players have objected to how wishes have been handled.

I agree that wishes can be a great tool for a DM to be a jerk to the players.

You think the best solution for this is to write rules for wishes that remove this specific opportunity to be a jerk.

I think the solution is not to be a jerk to the players.


But the incentives point the way you point, and your anecdotes do not represent a convincing argument against that. In any case, if you're not going to accept advice, it's not clear to me why you bothered asking for it.

Did you not read the entire thread? I have already considered modifying my wording based on KorvinStarmast's suggestion, posted that proposed re-write, and asked a specific question about it.

In previous threads, I accepted a new rule whole from a contribution from Max Killjoy, and have modified several other rules based on other people's input.

[Max suggested, "It is not the DM's job to oppose or obstruct the players. It is the GM's job to provide opposition and obstructions to the PCs." I consider that a very elegant way to make a crucial point.]

Suggesting that I will not accept advice, simply because I did not instantly take one specific bit of advice is sloppy thinking.

I can't take everyone's advice, because they don't all agree. And it's been valuable to me to read many different approaches, even though, in the end, I will take only a single approach myself.

Also, my examples are in fact evidence that the incentives have not pointed me in the direction of being a jerk to my players.

Oh, and for the record, based on icefractal's comments, I have written the following introduction for my rules:


These are my guidelines for the way I run a game. I am not saying that anybody else "should" run a game this way. These rules exist to help me be consistent, and so my players can know what to expect.

Anybody else is free to use them as guidelines, to modify them, to use some but not others, or to ignore them altogether, as seems best to you.