General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
The discussion in the thread on neutered wizards has wandered round to the issue of the "I win" button, why it was (effectively) removed in 4E, and whether or not it is a good thing.
On my part, I can see why the "I win" button is such an attractive concept. Having just the right spell to overcome any problem is one of the key tropes of the wizard, a class that many role-players identify with closely, and it also underscores the limitless possibilities of mind and knowledge.
However, in the context of a group game, the "I win" button has a couple of drawbacks:
1. Overshadowing Other Characters: While the effects of this can be minimized through player co-ordination (the wizard simply does not select spells which duplicate the capabilities of the other characters), the temptation to have a "backup" or a "safety net" (just in case the other character fails) is always present. And when that happens, it's about the closest that a fellow PC can get to being that DMPC who steps in to save the day when the PCs fail.
2. Circumventing the Game's Challenges: Whether it's a fight that ends suddenly because the BBEG rolled a 1 on his saving throw against a death spell, or a utility spell that cuts short what should have been a multi-stage challenge, the "I win" button can sometimes deliver what seems to be a quick and easy victory to the party. It's great for the players (in fact, some types of players live for moments like these) but some DMs find it annoying, especially if they have put a lot of work into preparing the encounter.
Previous editions worked round the above problems mainly by limiting the frequency of the "I win" button through a variety of means: random allocation of spells so that the wizard might not have all the spells he wants; spell preparation, which requires the wizard the guess what spells he will need; additional costs in terms of gold, XP, ability scores, age, etc.; or simple unreliability (e.g. random effects, saving throws, spell resistance, immunity, etc.) so that the spell does not always work, and so on. The problems still occured from time to time, but hopefully not often enough that anyone got too annoyed.
I wonder whether it would be possible to re-introduce the "I win" button, but in a way that would avoid the two problems mentioned earlier. For example:
1. "We Win": The idea here is that a spell might make the wizard good, but it makes another character better. It is not a new idea - even in 3E, there were some suggestions that knock should give a bonus to Open Lock checks, while invisibility should give a bonus to Hide checks. So, even though a wizard could cast these spells to open locks and sneak around if there was no rogue in the party, he would be better off if there was a rogue, and he used them to improve the rogue's ability instead.
2. The Narrative Win: Here, the "I win" button becomes a plot point, not a challenge. The wizard can, with a single spell, kill the BBEG in one round. However, before he can do that, he need to find the BBEG's true name. And he needs to find a rare component to power the spell. And he needs to fight through the BBEG's minions and henchmen before he can get close enough to kill him. And the party doesn't get any XP for killing the BBEG, except maybe XP for completing a quest. The lower the risk, the lower the reward, and in any case, they should have earned enough XP in the process of fulfilling all the conditions for casting the "I win" spell.
What do you think? Would you want the "I win" button in your game? If so, which approach would you favor?
But, as noted in the other thread, the existence of "I win spells" has been somewhat exagerated. Yes, in pre 3E you could win with just a sleep spell or a charm person (with luck you can still do that in 4E). But that wizards supperpowerful high level spell could also be foiled by imunities, magic resistance, or a saving throw. Or being hit first in the round.
4E has rituals, use them, they're magic; Want to see the greatest thing you will ever see? then click; You can use “Earth” as a D&D setting; Origins of The Rouse; (look for it) The Rouse responds; (look for it) One can appreciate both old and new D&D.
There is no "I win" button. Using spells or other unusual abilities creatively is a tactical and imaginative challenge as much, if not more so, than battlefield maneuvering.
I don't think the idea of a spell or ability that lets a player or group of players overcome a challenge in a direct way is a terrible thing. These "I win" tactics exist in many many games, and in every edition of D&D.
The only time it really becomes a problem is when the tactic allows a player or group of players to defeat EVERY challenge, which is usually the result of one of two things IMO:
1.) The party is being allowed to "5 minute workday" the encounters, and have all of their big guns for every encounter. This can make classes that have two or three big one shot weapons that they can use a day look like they are dropping bombs all the time, when the reality of the situation is: If they ran more than an encounter or two in a day those big bombs would run out, and then the folks with the not so big (but so small either) guns begin to shine.
To put it into a non D&D perspective: Say we have a combat unit that consists of a rocketeer with three shots whose backup weapon is a pistol. A heavy machine gunner who has a a backup knife, a few pistols, and maybe a grenade or two, an operative with a pair of SMG's and stealth skills and a knife, and finally a medic with a pistol several grenades and all of the drugs.
If the party is allowed to refill their ammo and supplies after every single encounter, then the rocketeer and the medic seem like the MVP all the time, with the machine gunner and opertive geting in a good shot every now and again. If you take that same group and put them on a mission deep into enemey teritory where the ammo (rest in this analogy) is few and far between, and the group has to do 3-5 encounters before restocking, then the folks with 2-3 big guns still have the option of looking like the big dog, but during the encounters when they are out of ammo, the operative, and the machine gunner are the big guns.
So IMO a lot of the issue with "I win" is pacing your game so that they are available every combat. If you wizard comes out int he first round and lauches a bad guy to the moon, there is no reason for the party to stop and rest. If you as a DM let them rest, then what you will have is a series of lunar launches, and rest in a never ending spin cycle.
2.)There are some poorly written (or at least not plainly written) abilities in several games. There are abilities from many sources in all of these D&D editions. Some of them or unbalanced, don't work well, and a few are outright broken. Thems the ropes. If you find these in your group, and they are coming up all of the time and taking away the enjoyment of other players then they need to be addressed. It could be anything from the use silence to counter any spell ever clerics in 3e, to the intimidate anything ALL the time paladins in 4e (and those should be read as my opinions of systems that don't fit into MY games). You just deal with em'
So in short the TLDR version is; IMO an "I have a chance to win one to two encounter a day out of a series" is OK in my book (most of the time). "I have a chance to win against a certain type of enemy" is OK in my book. I have no problem with my players kicking ass.
I automatically win every encounter is not OK. And TBH I have not personally seen very many mechanics of this nature in D&D (of any edition). But I am sure others have as there are lots of threads about it. Maybe I am just lucky and have a good group for D&D.
There is no "I win" button. Using spells or other unusual abilities creatively is a tactical and imaginative challenge as much, if not more so, than battlefield maneuvering.
There is nothing creative and tactical about picking a target and casting slow, flesh to stone (or flesh to ice or the even worse glasstrike), Evard's, or any of several dozen other spells, including the longtime veteran I Win Button forcecage. It also ludicrously easy to optimize for these spells. Heck, you don't even have to for forcecage.
__________________ It doesn't matter how gimped the class may be, people will always play Rangers. Saying "I'm a Ranger" in fantasy gaming is kinda like saying "I'm Batman."
"I have no silver gifts for thee,
No scented words nor frankincense:
Only this love, that burns in me
Like a vain fire in valleys whence
The sun has flown beyond the sea."
-Clark Ashton Smith, 'The Song at Evenfall'
"Oh pick up flutes and fiddles, a new tune is beginning
A melody forsaken, on the chords of our elders' song
Each note is telling a story, a fragment of existence."
-Elvenking, 'Oakenshield'
But, as noted in the other thread, the existence of "I win spells" has been somewhat exagerated. Yes, in pre 3E you could win with just a sleep spell or a charm person (with luck you can still do that in 4E). But that wizards supperpowerful high level spell could also be foiled by imunities, magic resistance, or a saving throw. Or being hit first in the round.
Big difference betwee I could win and I will win.
Yes indeed. The whole automatic win and I can do everyone's job problem only happened with the release of 3E. Plentiful cheap scrolls and wands, and the extreme difficulty of disrupting a spell due to turn based initiative created these problems.
Yes indeed. The whole automatic win and I can do everyone's job problem only happened with the release of 3E. Plentiful cheap scrolls and wands, and the extreme difficulty of disrupting a spell due to turn based initiative created these problems.
No, it gained widespread USE in 3e, but it existed before. I have 7+ years of playing a thief in a group dominated by wizard and wizard-hybrids to show for that. Don't underestimate the ability of a couple of M-U's getting together to coordinate their spells-per-day to make the fighter and thief seem like XP sponges rather than contributing members.
There is nothing creative and tactical about picking a target and casting slow, flesh to stone (or flesh to ice or the even worse glasstrike), Evard's, or any of several dozen other spells, including the longtime veteran I Win Button forcecage. It also ludicrously easy to optimize for these spells. Heck, you don't even have to for forcecage.
While forcecage is powerful, and probably should have some sort of defense available, trapping your foe in an impenetrable, immobile cube for 2 hours/level is a far cry from defeating them, particularly if they have friends.
No, it gained widespread USE in 3e, but it existed before. I have 7+ years of playing a thief in a group dominated by wizard and wizard-hybrids to show for that. Don't underestimate the ability of a couple of M-U's getting together to coordinate their spells-per-day to make the fighter and thief seem like XP sponges rather than contributing members.
Just curious, did your group have the short adventuring day problem, and did you use standard per-round declared casting initiative or turn based?
Just curious, did your group have the short adventuring day problem, and did you use standard per-round declared casting initiative or turn based?
To answer in order
1.) Our group for a long time wasn't big into "dungeons", so most adventures were short "hideout/minion/boss" style excursions (kinda like the Delves today, but with a purpose).
2.) 2e. 1d10+casting time-dex mod per round. Declare action before init is rolled.
Fighters were just there to stop quick baddies from stabbing mages while mages descimated foes with fire & lightning. Sure, the fighter might get the killing blow, but he probably did less than 20% of the total damage to the foe.
There is no "I win" button. Using spells or other unusual abilities creatively is a tactical and imaginative challenge as much, if not more so, than battlefield maneuvering.
This.
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
While forcecage is powerful, and probably should have some sort of defense available, trapping your foe in an impenetrable, immobile cube for 2 hours/level is a far cry from defeating them, particularly if they have friends.
Esp. if the "BBEG" you forcecaged turns out to be the minion of the real BBEG, who is now stomping on you because you've used all your spells.
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
I'm a fan of the "We win" button and perhaps the best example of that is from ironically 3.5
From Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords 9th level White Raven Manoeuver.
"War Master's Charge"
This manoeuver, theoretically, is one of the most powerful/damaging one action option in the game. However, it requires crazy level amounts of coordination between allies.
The only problem is that it really is hard to find good options like that in the game.
As an aside, needless to say, I'm with Exploderwizard. Once 3e got rid of the relatively random nature of spell AND item acquisition that was a hallmark of pre 3e D&D, spells and items naturally got out of hand.
I always come back to this but Knock isn't a big deal in 1e/2e when you only have 4 2nd level slots and only have a 80% chance to learn a spell and can only know in total 11 2nd level slots....
Knock is a problem when you can whip out a wand with 50 charges pretty much on demand at frankly, ridiculously low price.
1.) Our group for a long time wasn't big into "dungeons", so most adventures were short "hideout/minion/boss" style excursions (kinda like the Delves today, but with a purpose).
2.) 2e. 1d10+casting time-dex mod per round. Declare action before init is rolled.
Fighters were just there to stop quick baddies from stabbing mages while mages descimated foes with fire & lightning. Sure, the fighter might get the killing blow, but he probably did less than 20% of the total damage to the foe.
OK, short excursion adventures= frequent recharges, no problem.
How did fighters "stop" spell disruption unless they both went first and killed the threats in one shot?
There is no "I win" button. Using spells or other unusual abilities creatively is a tactical and imaginative challenge as much, if not more so, than battlefield maneuvering.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
I wonder whether it would be possible to re-introduce the "I win" button, but in a way that would avoid the two problems mentioned earlier. For example:
1. "We Win": The idea here is that a spell might make the wizard good, but it makes another character better. It is not a new idea - even in 3E, there were some suggestions that knock should give a bonus to Open Lock checks, while invisibility should give a bonus to Hide checks. So, even though a wizard could cast these spells to open locks and sneak around if there was no rogue in the party, he would be better off if there was a rogue, and he used them to improve the rogue's ability instead.
2. The Narrative Win: Here, the "I win" button becomes a plot point, not a challenge. The wizard can, with a single spell, kill the BBEG in one round. However, before he can do that, he need to find the BBEG's true name. And he needs to find a rare component to power the spell. And he needs to fight through the BBEG's minions and henchmen before he can get close enough to kill him. And the party doesn't get any XP for killing the BBEG, except maybe XP for completing a quest. The lower the risk, the lower the reward, and in any case, they should have earned enough XP in the process of fulfilling all the conditions for casting the "I win" spell.
Both ideas are interesting... and both come under the category of turning it in to "We Win!" can it still become an anticlimax? Maybe but with everybody contributed to it... its more of a Lord of the Rings anticlimax.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
As I've mentioned elsewhere I've been reading through the archive of posts at Grognardia as well as poking around at some other OSR related sites. What's interesting is that doing so has cast the idea of the "I win" button (hereafter known as the IWB) in new light for me.
I think one of the primary problems with the IWB is that when your adventure is set up in story like fashion, that builds to climaxes that the IWB is an anti-climax. The DM makes an effort to give his PC's some big final confrontation only to have all of his work blown out of the water. So you end up with the notion that the IWB is the destroyer of stories and all the DM's hard work, and if you are running your game in such a fashion that's probably not far off the mark.
The other big problem is one of character balance, other players grew resentful of the casting classes, the wizard in particular because it steps on their toes. One of the primary balancing factors of casters is the issue of resource management, and if they are allowed to routinely circumvent this drawback (i.e. the 5 minute work day) then they will routinely be able to use their IWB whenever it is convenient for them, and in effect doing their companions jobs more efficiently than the companions themselves can do them.
Now what does this have to do with the OSR? Well for me its a reminder that the game was initially intended for a different style of play than what is most common now. Story was not as important as it is now, the story was the result of the PC's actions rather than something they discovered along the way. The upshot of this is that climaxes are not really preplanned events, but rather self-creating based on the ebb and flow of gameplay. And if you look at the old school mega-dungeon style of play you can see that there is no real ending in sight and in such an environment you really limit the IWB's ability to short circuit a carefully planned storyline or mounds of hard work. The other thing to consider, is that the dungeon is treated as living environment, a place in which time really means something, it seems to me that this should strongly discourage the 5 minute work day. Resting in the dungeon itself is a dangerous prospect and the preparation of spells is a slow task that does not bear interruption. Taking the time to retreat to safety means that the dungeon as a living environment has time to respond to the adventurers, the longer they are absent, the more of their work is undone and the less headway they will be able to make on their return. If you consider these factors it becomes apparent that as the game was originally conceived that the IWB was much less of a factor.
And just a note to finish up on, I'm in no way an old school expert, having only started gaming in 1998. These are mostly other peoples' thoughts regurgitated through the lens of my own experience. I'm sure more those more knowledgeable than myself will be along to confirm, clarify, or utterly refute what I've said, but the above is my current thought on the matter.
__________________ Oni
"Each man, one way.
Each horse, one stance.
Each church, one buddha.
Each master to his own technique."
I don't miss the "I win" button. I don't want it back in any form. I think the focus on overcoming opponents solely through HP attrition (and things that modify the effectiveness of HP attrition) is one of the best things about 4e and I will be very disappointed if WotC ever start offering options to circumvent that standard.
4E has rituals, use them, they're magic;
Want to see the greatest thing you will ever see? then 
You can use “Earth” as a D&D 
The Rouse 
One can appreciate both old and new D&D.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
