The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

Manbearcat · Aug 7, 2014

Raith5 said:
But yeah if the Knock spell enabled the caster to swap their arcana for thievery skill for eg - that would work for me in a more realistic and interesting sense.

I particularly loved 4e's resolution by way of this:

- Sub Arcana for this skill because you're a Wizard and the associated narrative to the resolution is you Wizarding the problem solved.

but also

- Sub Streetwise for this skill because you're a Rogue and the associated narrative to the resolution is you Roguing the problem solved.

Hussar said:
Y'know, I never thought of that Manbearcat. it's a good point. Memorization and casting is supposed to be difficult. So difficult that you require extensive training to do it. But, once you've had that training, you absolutely cannot ever fail to succeed in doing it (unless something outside prevents you) every time you try. But a rogue trying to hide, despite his extensive training in it, fails fairly often.

It is a good point. Why is "extensive training" acceptable in one case for automatic success, but not in others?

Absolutely. I've brought this precise point up before. With respect to those who are ok with that double standard, it didn't get much traction from them in terms of an explanation.

Emerikol said:
I see the usual suspects are front and center on this subject.

So magic can do magic things and non-magic cannot and that is a problem? Scratches head.

We aren't "the usual suspects" decrying that "magic can do magic things and non-magic can't so there is a problem." The problem is a lot deeper than that. Give us a little more credit for nuanced positions than that. They've been explained dozens of times in dozens of directions.

ExploderWizard said:
At one time, spells were very easy to interrupt. Casting had to be declared before initiative was determined. The caster couldn't move so much as a step on the round a spell was cast, and a small rock hitting the caster before completion spoiled the spell AND expended it.

ALL of these things were sacrificed on the altar of un-fun. Now we have unlimited casting, nigh uninterruptable casting and yet people are STILL at a loss as to why magic is so good.

This was indeed the case for the combat mechanics of spellcasting but this isn't quite what I was trying to capture. I was mostly trying to capture the (seemingly to me) inescapable reality that there are several component parts of the art of spellcasting that are mundane (but not unexceptional). These would be all the stuff I mentioned in my posts (and the stuff pemerton has outlined below) and compared it to a mundane craft with a healthy margin of error (75 % success for a proficient, free-throw-shooting craftsman). These aren't supernatural and they have real world analogues (the same means that GMs use to apply double standards when adjudicating mundane hero's contests/trials). Why do we grant Wizards outright mechanical fiat in each and every one of the extremely difficult (presumably so or Wizarding would be extremely pervasive), mundane component parts of spellcraft, but fightercraft and roguecraft (et al) each need to be put through the ringer?

Sadras said:
I'm going wade in here, albeit a little late and despite that my opinion means nothing really, but from my perspective @Manbearcat hit the nail on the head with his post which included the "OMGHOWCANWIZARDSNEVERFAILSPELLCASTINGWTF!!!?" and effectively ended our diatribe a while ago.

I have seen nothing from the opposition since which comes close to countering the points he made. For the record, I am from the opposition. I am one of those that dislike mundanes with mythic/legendary powers. My preference has always been they should be an optional module in the DMG. And I feel the below quote by @Savage Wombat explains my 'unreasonable' logic

It would be nice to have a sufficient answer or a "well crap" by folks who are good with this paradigm.

pemerton said:
I think both of these responses to @Manbearcat and @Hussar don't quite address the point.

It's true that many parts of D&D magic are unexplained. But some bits are explained. For instance, you have to wiggle your fingers a certain way. You have to speak certain words in the right way. At least in some editions, you have to memorise some stuff that's hard to memorise.

Why does this not require stat/skill checks from a spell caster, when exactly the same sort of stuff (a bard singing a song, a thief performing stage magic, any PC trying to remember and recall complicated stuff) does require a check? Or in other words, why does a spell caster get auto-success on the purely mundane, physical parts of casting a spell, when martial PCs don't get auto-success on the comparable mundane, physical activities that they undertake?

This is it. 100 % it.

Minigiant said:
Because magic is not explained.

No, the supernatural components are not explained, this is true. But the natural, mundane components of spellcraft and Wizarding:

(a) are both intuitive and easy to extrapolate the difficulty/margin-of-error due to real world analogues.

(b) have various aspects of the craft which have actually had tests for success throughout the editions (there just isn't coherent follow-through..."because game" and "because different designers").

(c) must require an extraordinarily honed acumen such that the club is exclusive in the extreme. if it didn't require extensive training to yield that acumen in each mundane component part and/or if it didn't have any real margin-of-error, then wizards would be more common than Starbucks baristas in our present world (imagine that!).

Sadras · Aug 7, 2014

Manbearcat said:
I was mostly trying to capture the (seemingly to me) inescapable reality that there are several component parts of the art of spellcasting that are mundane (but not unexceptional). These would be all the stuff I mentioned in my posts (and the stuff pemerton has outlined below) and compared it to a mundane craft with a healthy margin of error (75 % success for a proficient, free-throw-shooting craftsman). These aren't supernatural and they have real world analogues (the same means that GMs use to apply double standards when adjudicating mundane hero's contests/trials). Why do we grant Wizards outright mechanical fiat in each and every one of the extremely difficult (presumably so or Wizarding would be extremely pervasive), mundane component parts of spellcraft, but fightercraft and roguecraft (et al) each need to be put through the ringer?

When devising a system for failure for the wizard with regard to his mundane actions, one has to be very careful as failure in that system could incorporate:

inability to learn the spell (hampering progression/gaining of power); and
losing the spell altogether while casting (loss of resources)

Whereas the Rogue can keep on sneaking and the Fighter can keep on swinging with no comparable resource having been lost and no hampering of progression or gaining of power.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for ability/skill checks for the mundane actions of spellcasters, its just the system needs to take those considerations into account and not utilise the same % of skill success or 'to hit' success as the rogue and fighter respectively since their actions don't generally result in resource loss and don't hamper power gain.

pemerton · Aug 7, 2014

Minigiant said:
Because we dont know what wizards do when they cast a spell.

I was following your lead in your earlier post and moving my focus from casting to preparation.

We know that preparation is hard - because you have to train for years to be able to do it. In AD&D, at least, the flavour is rather Vancian: you have to impress these mystic sigils upon your brain. So why is an INT check not required for success? Why can is the action declaration "I memorise/prepare spell XYZ" an auto-success, whereas the action declaration "I perform stage magic trick XYZ" or "I walk on the tightrope from A to B" or "I hide behind the whatever-it-is" not an auto-success? It's not as if any of those things is harder, within the fiction of the gameworld, then memorising/preparing a spell.

Sorry if you think I'm badgering you - I'm not meaning to. It's just that you're the main poster engaging with my argument/analysis!

Pickles JG said:
TNoone though has advocated a return to these older rules (except arguably pemerton in this discussion).

My preference, I think, is for a degree of parity. If martial exploits require checks, then so should magical ones. (And all the resources that get brought to bear to help checks - buffs, inspiration, stats, etc - can apply in either domain.) Or, conversely, if magical exploits are auto-successes, then so should martial exploits be auto-successes.

In my discussion with Minigiant the focus has turned to spell memorisation/preparation, but I think there are broader gameplay reasons for making any caster checks happen at casting rather than at the prep stage: if you require checks at the prep stage, and the players fail them, then you just encourage a zero-minute adventuring day as they have another go. So my preference would be for magic checks to happen at the point of casting.

4e actually mixes the two approaches I describe above. All characters get some auto-successes (powers, some rituals also for casters), and all characters get some check-required abilities (skills, including p 42, plus some rituals for casters). For me that's a fine way to do it.

I've also played a lot of RM, which is all checks all the time. That's fine too, although sometimes the rolling can get a bit much.

For me, the bottom line is that the mantra "because it's magic, auto success is OK in a way it's not for martial endeavours" ignores the point that invoking the magic requires mundane performances (of memory, gesticulation, etc) which are just as liable to error/interference as any martial ability, and so could in pricple require checks for just the same reasons. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] says in the post just upthread that when he's raised this in the past he's got little traction. I can say the same thing - I have raised this in the past, most recently I think in discussions of DoaM, and likewise have got little traction. But for me it's exactly parallel. If we're happy with a system which says an action declaration of "I cast this spell by wiggling my fingers and speaking my magic words" can never fail (because the mage is so expert) then I have no problem at all with the system saying that an action declaration of "I cut down this goblin by swinging my sword and chopping its head off" can never fail (because the fighter is so expert).

Conversely, those who think players who like DoaM are cry babies who can't stand seeing their fighters fail should be leaping at the opportunity to prove their hardiness by embracing robust casting check mechanics (RM, RQ and BW all give examples that I'm familiar with, but there will be dozens of other systems out there too).

ExploderWizard · Aug 7, 2014

Manbearcat said:
This was indeed the case for the combat mechanics of spellcasting but this isn't quite what I was trying to capture. I was mostly trying to capture the (seemingly to me) inescapable reality that there are several component parts of the art of spellcasting that are mundane (but not unexceptional). These would be all the stuff I mentioned in my posts (and the stuff pemerton has outlined below) and compared it to a mundane craft with a healthy margin of error (75 % success for a proficient, free-throw-shooting craftsman). These aren't supernatural and they have real world analogues (the same means that GMs use to apply double standards when adjudicating mundane hero's contests/trials). Why do we grant Wizards outright mechanical fiat in each and every one of the extremely difficult (presumably so or Wizarding would be extremely pervasive), mundane component parts of spellcraft, but fightercraft and roguecraft (et al) each need to be put through the ringer?

If magic was not such a limited resource then I would say the same pass/fail attempts would be appropriate. If a wizard could throw as many fireballs per day as he/she wanted to so long as the skill roll was made do you think it would make a better game?

The bottom line is that magic can accomplish some things that the mundane simply cannot, that is what's so magical about it. As a balancing tool, the magic is bit more reliable (because it is both powerful and limited in quantity).

There are issues when the available quantity rises. Cantrips, more castings per day, regaining spell slots with short rests, the ability to easily create cheap magical goods, etc. Once the quantity of available magic rises to a point that it is as practically as plentiful as needed, the problems begin to arise.

The only suitable tradeoff for reliable magic is scarcity. The original designers knew that much at least. This means ONE spell per day for a lowly first level wizard. Use it wisely. If you INSIST on more plentiful magic so the wizard "feels more magical" or whatever then LIVE with the consequences of that choice-which will be magic becoming ever more powerful and dominant. If you have spammable/plentiful magic AND it remains powerful enough to remain magical, what other outcome can one expect?

The other option? Scale back what magic can accomplish to a point that it is hardly magical anymore. Who cares how much of it is floating around if its virtually useless? This is the route 4E magic items went with and if they seemed awesome and powerful then this may be the option for you.

pemerton · Aug 7, 2014

Sadras said:
When devising a system for failure for the wizard with regard to his mundane actions, one has to be very careful as failure in that system could incorporate:

inability to learn the spell (hampering progression/gaining of power); and

losing the spell altogether while casting (loss of resources)

Whereas the Rogue can keep on sneaking and the Fighter can keep on swinging with no comparable resource having been lost and no hampering of progression or gaining of power.

In Rolemaster, a good proportion of spell casting failure results don't lead to loss of spell points. But more severe ones do. This is, at bottom, an issue of mathematical balance which a good system will factor in in much the same way that climbing and balance rules(presumably) factor in that a failure can cost resources (in the form of hit points lost due to falling).

As for hampering gaining of power - the correct analogue here, in my view, would be crafting rules (which are one of the means whereby martial PCs can gain power - by building better stuff). Burning Wheel is a good example of this, where learnig extra spells involves skill checks and commitments of ingame time and resources that live in the same sort of design space and gameplay space as downtime money-making.

5e, with its downtime mechanics, could probably factor this in very nicely. (And there are a range of options for faiure, depending on taste and other nuances of design: from the classic AD&D "you can never learn this spell" through to BW's "you have to go through the whole process again" through to the much more forgiving "OK, you succeed anyway but it costs you twice as much money or twice as much time, your choice.")

Minigiant · Aug 7, 2014

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION].

D&D is very through on what is done and how difficult it is to prepare a spell. Preparing spells is hard, time consuming, and takes years to learn.

But actually casting spells and how the spell works is unknown and disputed.

If that part was defined somewhat, you could easier answer the title question.

Manbearcat · Aug 7, 2014

@Sadras and @ExploderWizard , I understand both of your posts. However, they're relevant to interests in game design (resource scheduling/action resolution specifically) to facilitate a functional play experience. While I am very much sympathetic to that general plea, the framework that this point was being addressed was:

However, because Hide is not a supernatural ability, it becomes subject to the dreaded unwritten verisimilitude rules. Rules which seem clear per the RAW are now subject to whatever the group decides is believable for heroic characters in a world full of dragons and wizards to accomplish.

Hence, the double standard (because spellcraft doesn't suffer the same) and the problem in action resolution and narrative influence parity it creates.

I'm fine with fiat for the mundane component parts of spellcraft to exemplify awesome wizarding and to facilitate a functional play experience. But existing simultaneously in the same ruleset must be "say yes" a whole lot to relatively trivial aspects of fightercraft and roguecraft in order to exemplify awesome fightering and roguing. If we're only "rolling the dice" when (relative to the class's shtick) trivial fightercraft and trivial roguecraft actions are undertaken, then we have the aforementioned double standard (and its fallout on play).

pemerton · Aug 7, 2014

ExploderWizard said:
If magic was not such a limited resource then I would say the same pass/fail attempts would be appropriate.

<snip>

The only suitable tradeoff for reliable magic is scarcity.

<snip>

The other option? Scale back what magic can accomplish to a point that it is hardly magical anymore

Yet another option is to require checks to cast successfully. This is the option that many fantasy RPGs use - practically every one that I can think of that is not a derivative of D&D, plus quite a bit of 4e (which is a derivative of D&D!).

Haffrung · Aug 7, 2014

Branduil said:
However, because Hide is not a supernatural ability, it becomes subject to the dreaded unwritten verisimilitude rules. Rules which seem clear per the RAW are now subject to whatever the group decides is believable for heroic characters in a world full of dragons and wizards to accomplish.

Dreaded? We've always regarded the existence of a judge to adjudicate such situations an essential appeal of D&D. What other game formats can call on the enormous power and flexibility of a human mind to interface with the game rules and setting?

Branduil said:
Certainly, it's an understandable tendency. However, it often has the unintentional side effect of neutering martial characters in comparison to spellcasters. No one ever forces the wizard to come up with a new situation where he's allowed to cast his Magic Missile spell he has prepared. No one ever forces the cleric to come up with a believable explanation for why he can cast cure wounds a second time during an encounter.

Surely the fact that non-magical skills can be employed at will weighs into the scales here. And there are situational conditions that can make spells ineffective - D&D 5E is bringing back concentration.

Branduil said:
What can be done to counter the tendency for mundane skills to be overshadowed by always-works magic? Is the only solution to say "all skills are magical so characters trained in them can do them whenever the skill says they can"?

I've never seen this problem at the table, so I personally don't feel any pressing need for a solution.

Tony Vargas said:
This is one of those issues that is so endemic, entrenched, and unquestionable that it's darn near futile to even talk about it. Yes, D&D has a long, long history of casters being superior to non-casters, and, yes, the fans it hasn't driven away in those decades are not only mostly fine with that, but there's a sub-set of them who are violently opposed to doing anything about it.

You really think the alleged superiority of spellcasters has driven people away from D&D? How many? And what do they play now?

D&D is such an enormously popular RPG, you would think that if even 1/4 of its players have been driven away by this issue, then a game that addressed it would have found tremendous traction in the marketplace.

Haffrung · Aug 7, 2014

ExploderWizard said:
The only suitable tradeoff for reliable magic is scarcity. The original designers knew that much at least. This means ONE spell per day for a lowly first level wizard. Use it wisely. If you INSIST on more plentiful magic so the wizard "feels more magical" or whatever then LIVE with the consequences of that choice-which will be magic becoming ever more powerful and dominant. If you have spammable/plentiful magic AND it remains powerful enough to remain magical, what other outcome can one expect?

Exactly. The main limit on magic is availability. If your wizards know any spells they want, of course they'll be extremely powerful. But if you're concerned about spellcasters being overpowered, why would you allow them such liberal access to spells in the first place? Players get to choose, what, two spells per level in 5E? The rest they have to discover or buy in-game. So the means to restrict the flexibility of wizards is largely in the hands of the DM.