Wishes: How Cruel Are You?

[quinron]

Whether it be D&D's game-breaking spell, a genie's lamp, a boon from the gods, or what have you, making a wish is one of the iconic moments in a fantasy RPG. But decades of Sorcerer's Apprentice-type screwings over due to poor wording have turned players into contract lawyers and have taught GMs to take advantage of every loophole to indulge their vindictive streak.

How cruel are you when your players make a wish? What circumstances can change that?

For example, in my D&D game, demons, devils, and evil genies granting wishes are going to exploit boor loopholes far more often than an angel, a good genie, or a self-cast Wish spell.

[NichG]

I tell my players that I'm far more likely to outright grant a simple, honestly stated Wish than something written up in a page of legalese. If the circumstances are such that the Wish should come from a hostile source, generally the way I run it is not that the hostile source tries to pervert the intention of the Wish, but rather that the act of granting the Wish also grants a completely independent Wish to the hostile source itself. I also don't run Wishes as generally being omnipotent sources of power that can do anything, but rather things that will do as best they can to satisfy the intent of the wisher given the constraints on the power.

Essentially, I want players to be thinking 'whats the coolest reasonable thing to use this on?' rather than 'how can we protect ourselves from being screwed over?' or 'how can I figure out the perfect wording that will break the game?'. The first thing encourages simplicity and clarity, making it easier for me to actually understand what the player wants and will be satisfied with. Because of the second thing, if the wish is one that should have negative consequences because of its nature, the player accepts those consequences whatever they might be when they make the choice to pursue the wish and their job is just to figure out how to get as much of a positive thing as they can given that the negative side is out of their control. Because of the third thing, there's no need for me to keep wish-twisting in reserve as a balancing method to prevent obviously game-breaking wishes such as 'I wish for infinite wishes', etc.

[Tiktakkat]

It depends on what they wish for.
If they try and break my game, they will regret it.
If they want something some other 9th level spell can provide, they can get away with it.

The source of the wish will affect things as well, but usually less than what it is they are wishing for.

As for players who can out-contract me, I have not met one yet.

[Kelb_Panthera]

How cruel am I?

Depends on whether you're trying to game the system.

[quinron]

...there's no need for me to keep wish-twisting in reserve as a balancing method to prevent obviously game-breaking wishes such as 'I wish for infinite wishes', etc.

I've come to enjoy the time-stuttering variant for the "infinite wishes" problem: once you finish saying, "I wish I had infinite wishes," time skips back to you beginning that sentence again; repeat ad infinitum. Locked in a time loop because you got greedy.

[Slipperychicken]

As a player, I've seen so many shenanigans, it makes me want to go for "I wish that you shall never hereafter grant any wishes to anyone ever". Just to spare future would-be wishers (and anyone else that might be harmed by their wishes) from the genie's chicanery and word-twisting. Failing that, just waste the wishes so I don't feel tempted to use them.

I've come to enjoy the time-stuttering variant for the "infinite wishes" problem: once you finish saying, "I wish I had infinite wishes," time skips back to you beginning that sentence again; repeat ad infinitum. Locked in a time loop because you got greedy.

Even Aladdin's genie had rules, notably including "you can't wish for more wishes". A sensible GM could implement a similar set of rules.

[BWR]

How cruel am I?

Depends on whether you're trying to game the system.

This.

If it furthers the story and doesn't resolve everything wrong in one go, I'm pretty lenient. Tippy-like stuff will simply fail if I'm feeling nice or more likely blow up spectacularly in your face.

[goto124]

Or make the Wish-maker be a powerful and sufficiently sensible person.

"I wish for infinite wishes"? Frying pan to the head.

[nedz]

I liked the AD&D 2E variant whereby the wish was granted by the local 'power'. If you make the wish whilst standing in your local friendly temple then you will probably get what you wanted, irrespective of what you actually said; in an enemy temple you are currently sacking: not so much.

I also apply the principle of least action: what's the least amount of power required to satisfy the wish ?

"I wish for infinite wishes"? Frying pan to the head.

Principle of least action: you get Prestidigitation at will.

"I wish for a +5 Holy Avenger"
Principle of least action: this is just a teleport and guess who has a Paladin after them now, for theft.

I also treat the word 'and' as a delimiter in overly complex wishes. "I wish Fred was Raised and Healed" is probably fine; but much more than this risks it being treated as two wishes. You can just have the Wish giver interject with the word "Granted" at the appropriate point to accomplish this.

[noob]

Principle of least action: you get Prestidigitation at will.

This is much better than unlimited wishes.

"I wish for a +5 Holy Avenger"
Principle of least action: this is just a teleport and guess who has a Paladin after them now, for theft.

Logically it should teleport the wisher to the paladin since the wisher is willing since he made the wish(while the paladin is not willing to have his sword disappear and so he have his will to try to counter the teleport and teleporting something against the will of somebody is much much much harder than teleporting someone who is willing)
or if the wisher is not willing to be teleported by his wish because he did not intended to there should we a comparison of the will saves and the one with the lower will save is teleported.

[RazorChain]

I am very cruel....I never dole out wishes

[Quertus]

How cruel am I?

Depends on whether you're trying to game the system.

I do something similar, I think.

When the system says that X wishes are safe, well, those are safe. Otherwise, expect at least something unexpected to occur.

I am most cruel with wishes that use OOC information.

My next level of cruelty occurs when you go crazy with the power of the wish.

When you wish for something awesome but reasonable, I'm a minor rules lawyer, but not overly cruel.

When you wish for something well below wish's pay grade, it's generally safe, although there may be unexpected hiccups.

When you wish for something you could have had anyway, kudos.

For example, back in 2e, I had a player's character wish for something the player could have given him to begin with: namely, the character had always wanted to be an elven wizard. Well, changing race required a system shock roll (kinda mean of me, but felt odd not to include it). Because he wished to be "....a wizard, and every thing that went with it", I was left to figure out what went with being a wizard. I decided a spellbook (which had a fairly generous selection of spells) and training. Queue angry archmage showing up, under a compulsion to teach the character about magic. First thing he taught him was about the danger of wishes, and how they can have unintended consequences!

[Slipperychicken]

For example, back in 2e, I had a player's character wish for something the player could have given him to begin with: namely, the character had always wanted to be an elven wizard.

I dunno. Personally, I like when an RPG character is for some reason not quite proud of or satisfied with his own identity, and instead wishes or aspires to change. I imagine that being particularly prevalent in the case of muggles wishing they were magic; after all, those damned wizards have everything easy, but us honest muggles have to do everything the hard way. Same goes for someone born ugly wishing he was more attractive, or to have been born a member of a less-stigmatized race. I could totally see an acne-scarred dwarf fighter lamenting her romantic prospects and sometimes quietly wishing she was a beautiful human sorceress instead.

[OldTrees1]

OOC problems dealt with OOC: Nobody uses wish to try to break the game at my table. Any attempt merely rewinds time to before wish was cast and we continue from there.


In game the cruelty of the wishes depends on 5 things:
1) The mental ability of the player phrasing the wish as demonstrated in the phrasing
2) The mental ability of the PC of the player phrasing the wish as it would modify the phrasing
3) The character granting the wish as demonstrated by motives
4) The mental ability of the character granting the wish as it would examine the phrasing
5) My mental ability to think of a result that is reasonable for the above


In other words: I want you to treat the wish as dangerous if mishandled but I want you to succeed.
You may mess up and a genie might find some way to harm you with your wish or you may repeat Roy's 2 gates mistake(asking which of 2 when there are 3 remaining). Or it might go off without a problem.

[Belac93]

If my players wished for infinite wishes, I would give them infinite wishes. Then, I would twist around every single wish they made.

"I wish Ted could be raised and healed?" Congratulations, you are now fighting a full health vampire.
"I wish this monster would die?" Sure, why not? The monster dies, and then reanimates.
"I wish for 100'000'000 gp?" Of course! But it appears on top of you.

If a player wished for most of these things with their 1 wish, I'd be fine with that. Ted it alive again, the monster is dead, and you have 100'000'000 gp. (although it might be stolen from a dragons hoard for the last one.)

[goto124]

"I wish this monster would die?" Sure, why not? The monster dies, and then reanimates.

The next day, in the worst possible situation for a(nother) monster to enter:

"HOW DID THIS MONSTER APPEAR OUT OF NOWHERE?"
"DIDN'T WE KILL IT YESTERDAY? WITH A WISH!"
"STOP WISHING YOUR STUFF, ALEX!"

[Toilet Cobra]

Not very. Typically I just tell someone why their wish won't work, rather than letting it go through with weird consequences. I have a pretty good group though, so it's never really been that difficult to get them to understand "I can have anything a 9th-level spell could do for me".

[Mr.Moron]

It would depend entirely on the entity granting the wish. That said I'm more likely to introduce a wish-granter as bonus than a trap. However if was doing the "wish as trap" I think i'd try to telegraph to the player ahead of time that it's a super terrible idea, while making the idea seem as appealing as possible for the character.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm very cruel.

I go by the simple motto of ''you can't get anything for free''. This is something every intelligent, wise being should know. And they will never make a wish.

I don't go by the ''rules lawyer'' interpretation of a wish, no matter how hard a player does. The wish will have a bad, cruel outcome no matter what.

A player that makes too many wishes will likely end up with a dead character.

[Kami2awa]

In most of the fantasy worlds I've gamed in, GMs simply rule that Wish does not exist.

[Final Hyena]

I change how a wish works based on its source, so if it comes from the chaotic god then it's always gunna **** you over, if it comes from the motherly god then it is best used to help others or you'll get a good lesson etc etc. Beyond that I tend to try and complete the affect as easily as possible.

[Lord Torath]

Okay, so how would you react to this wish?

"I wish to be able to see as clearly in the dark as I currently see in the light". From a human with normal vision.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Okay, so how would you react to this wish?

"I wish to be able to see as clearly in the dark as I currently see in the light". From a human with normal vision.

Partial fulfillment. They get dark vision out to 30 feet.

[OldTrees1]

Okay, so how would you react to this wish?

"I wish to be able to see as clearly in the dark as I currently see in the light". From a human with normal vision.

What are the motives of the wish granter?
Benevolent: You can now see in the dark, even magical darkness, as far as you would be able to see if it were not dark. (Ignore lighting conditions when rolling spot checks)
Neutral: Darkvision range = current sight range(probably indoors so radius of the room or length of the hall). Probably Darkvision 30ft or 60ft. (Here the word "currently" backfired)
Malicious: You can never see in the dark. Thus your vision in the dark(0ft) will always be as clear as currently in the light. (Here the word "currently" protected the wisher)

[Slipperychicken]

Okay, so how would you react to this wish?

"I wish to be able to see as clearly in the dark as I currently see in the light". From a human with normal vision.

You could give it to him as a limited use power. Say he gets 3-6 hours of unlimited-range darkvision per day. It's hardly game-breaking.

[Templarkommando]

I have personally shied away from implementing wishes in my campaign world. Technically they exist, but I've avoided the topic for a multitude of reasons. The following webcomic is a good illustration of why:

https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/06/28

I want to echo the calls for certain rules surrounding wishes. In fact, in the 3.5 PHB, there's a whole slew of rules that go with the 9th level wish spell. I'd be sure and enforce these as concepts:

1.) Protect the campaign world. - A wish that brings an end to everything, or even the engine for adventure should be avoided.

2.) Something that trivializes gameplay - No weapons that kill all enemies simply if the player thinks it so... things that completely break game mechanics. These are bad things.

[Tiktakkat]

Okay, so how would you react to this wish?

"I wish to be able to see as clearly in the dark as I currently see in the light". From a human with normal vision.

Good Player (brings the munchies) - darkvision 120 ft. and low-light vision
Ordinary Player - darkvision or low-light vision, but in an item that can be stolen or spell-like ability of limited duration
Poor Player (finishes the munchies) - darkvision spell cast on him once, right then
Annoying Player (backwashed the soda) - unlimited darkvision plus light blindness (he sees in the dark as he currently sees in the light, he also sees in the light as he currently sees in the dark)
Really Annoying Player (tries to rules weasel me on a constant basis, dogears my books, touches my dice, annoys my cat, or similar offenses) - where is the wish made? 10'x10' room? gets darkvision 10', since that is as he "currently", sees in the light OR turned into an orc or similar monster with darkvision OR effect deferred until he dies and becomes a petitioner, gaining darkvision (he wished "to be able", presumed future tense, so at some point he will be able, just not anytime it will be of use) OR he will be able to see clearly in "The Dark", a specific location he is unlikely to ever reach, as he would see in "The Light", another specific location where it is so bright he would be blinded, OR several other gratuitously abusive options, as that phrasing is egregiously open-ended and you really shouldn't touch my dice

[icefractal]

I'm very cruel.

I go by the simple motto of ''you can't get anything for free''. This is something every intelligent, wise being should know. And they will never make a wish.

I don't think that a spell which only the greatest mages can cast, plus a hefty sacrifice of life force counts as "getting something for free", but hey.

More importantly, this seems kind of pointless. You might as well just get rid of Wish in this case - why would anyone even learn it if it exists solely as a source of problems?

Or is this a case of "Mislead the players, then laugh at them for believing anything you said?"

[NichG]

Okay, so how would you react to this wish?

"I wish to be able to see as clearly in the dark as I currently see in the light". From a human with normal vision.

Weak (repeatable) source: Permanency + Darkvision, CL17

Strong (one-off) source: wisher's vision is replaced with density-sense, basically like a ring of x-ray vision but without the downside. Functions as blindsight within 120ft, as normal sight but with material composition replacing native color sense and not caring about light level out to the usual range. The character becomes unable to perceive light directly, but gains immunity to visual illusions.

[It Sat Rap]

Hmmm, I have been a GM for over 4 years, but I have never granted a player a wish so far.

Anyway, here is my solution:

-A wish granted by a friendly creature is granted without any loopholes.
-A wish granted by a hostile creature is granted with loopholes and never turns out good.
-A wish granted by a neutral creature or a magic item depends on luck. The GM rolls a D20 to determine if the wish is granted with cruel loopholes, with little loopholes, or without loopholes.

Example: "I wish for a chocolate cake!"

Roll result 20: You get a delicious chocolate cake, and who eats it gets the benefits of a Heroes Feast spell.

Roll result 13-19: You get a delicious chocolate cake.

Roll result 8-12: You get a mundane chocolate cake.

Roll result 2-7: You get a mundane chocolate cake filled with raisins.

Roll result 1: You get a rotten chocolate cake in your face.