Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Making magic feel "Dangerous"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7531886" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I think that's all true. But the problem with that approach is not one I think a game from 1980 would have particularly concerned itself with - balance. Imagine we have a simple system, and we give the player an option of two classes - warrior and mage. The warrior is 50% more potent than the mage, but the mage has a power where he can be twice as potent as the warrior only there is a 1 in 6 chance he'll die. The two classes are not balanced, and tables will evolve to one of two positions - characters aren't disposable so always play a warrior, or else characters are disposable so always play a mage. IMO, games balanced on random chances of death where the player has no input in what happens just aren't balanced and don't really present any interesting choices. Making the math more complex just obfuscates that problem.</p><p></p><p>(Incidentally, I have the same problem with many complex critical hit/fumble systems that produce random, "You behead yourself with your sword." results. They take control out of the hands of the player and guarantee in the long run no matter what they choose to do, they lose.)</p><p></p><p>You could introduce that sort of thing into D&D and the same sort of logic would follow. If wizards and warriors were roughly balanced to begin with, why would you now ever play the wizard? Or if they weren't balanced, then wizard play would evolve toward the most potent actions they could take which didn't involve significant risk, along with the option to 'nova' with a high risk maneuver when the odds strongly favored defeat anyway. And this still wouldn't feel balanced, nor would I think it feel "dangerous".</p><p></p><p>We've seen magic that is dangerous in D&D, it's just never the province of the player in traditional play. Gygax loaded up his writing with dangerous magic. He just silo'd it off into magical traps and special magical tricks that tended to have immediate obvious consequences. Gygaxian dungeons are loaded up with dangerous magic that can make for play as paranoid as any Call of Cthulhu investigator opening up a musty tome or peering into some dark space. Or think about the Deck of Many Things or the artifacts from the 1e DMG. I think it is a critical difference that the player doesn't know what is going to happen, not even in a broad sense. Gygaxian special magic can do anything, and I think Gygax understood the importance of keeping that safe and secret when he wrote the 1e artifacts with fill in the blank powers selected secretly by the DM.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not necessarily. The 'DM Workload' part comes from the fact that the player doesn't have perfect information. He's carrying for example several magic items with strange quirks that work in special circumstances or are triggered by unusual things. If the DM can remember all that, the player is left in a world were strange things happen and they are not entirely sure why or what it means. But remembering all of that is difficult. Likewise, you can make spells work like unidentified magic items with clauses and features and side effects that the players don't know about, and which might horrify them if they did. But then you have the burden of storing all those rules texts and resolving them secretly. That halts play. You are almost going to have to certainly flip to the appropriate entry, whereas by contrast it is a table rule in my game you can't cast a spell unless you have the rules in front of you, so spellcasters generally do that flipping on other players turns so they can be ready to go.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Absolutely. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Truly dangerous magic causes the demon to break loose and you are not necessarily immediately the wiser that it has. It involves the recognition that lighting the candle with the flame might be giving yourself cancer or causes a hag to snatch a baby in the nearest village or that your eyeball might mutate and sprout from the tip of a tentacle. You can do that with random effects, but that ultimately isn't that interesting, because there is no choice in the system. Dangerous magic gives the illusion of control. You think you can figure it out and use it, but there is always this nagging part that thinks, "What don't I know? Is that weird red glow a fairly harmless side effect, or am I really going to regret this in the long run?" </p><p></p><p>I still do that sort of stuff, but I have to confine to a couple of instances per party and Gygaxian style weird locations, because its otherwise just too much to keep track of.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7531886, member: 4937"] I think that's all true. But the problem with that approach is not one I think a game from 1980 would have particularly concerned itself with - balance. Imagine we have a simple system, and we give the player an option of two classes - warrior and mage. The warrior is 50% more potent than the mage, but the mage has a power where he can be twice as potent as the warrior only there is a 1 in 6 chance he'll die. The two classes are not balanced, and tables will evolve to one of two positions - characters aren't disposable so always play a warrior, or else characters are disposable so always play a mage. IMO, games balanced on random chances of death where the player has no input in what happens just aren't balanced and don't really present any interesting choices. Making the math more complex just obfuscates that problem. (Incidentally, I have the same problem with many complex critical hit/fumble systems that produce random, "You behead yourself with your sword." results. They take control out of the hands of the player and guarantee in the long run no matter what they choose to do, they lose.) You could introduce that sort of thing into D&D and the same sort of logic would follow. If wizards and warriors were roughly balanced to begin with, why would you now ever play the wizard? Or if they weren't balanced, then wizard play would evolve toward the most potent actions they could take which didn't involve significant risk, along with the option to 'nova' with a high risk maneuver when the odds strongly favored defeat anyway. And this still wouldn't feel balanced, nor would I think it feel "dangerous". We've seen magic that is dangerous in D&D, it's just never the province of the player in traditional play. Gygax loaded up his writing with dangerous magic. He just silo'd it off into magical traps and special magical tricks that tended to have immediate obvious consequences. Gygaxian dungeons are loaded up with dangerous magic that can make for play as paranoid as any Call of Cthulhu investigator opening up a musty tome or peering into some dark space. Or think about the Deck of Many Things or the artifacts from the 1e DMG. I think it is a critical difference that the player doesn't know what is going to happen, not even in a broad sense. Gygaxian special magic can do anything, and I think Gygax understood the importance of keeping that safe and secret when he wrote the 1e artifacts with fill in the blank powers selected secretly by the DM. Not necessarily. The 'DM Workload' part comes from the fact that the player doesn't have perfect information. He's carrying for example several magic items with strange quirks that work in special circumstances or are triggered by unusual things. If the DM can remember all that, the player is left in a world were strange things happen and they are not entirely sure why or what it means. But remembering all of that is difficult. Likewise, you can make spells work like unidentified magic items with clauses and features and side effects that the players don't know about, and which might horrify them if they did. But then you have the burden of storing all those rules texts and resolving them secretly. That halts play. You are almost going to have to certainly flip to the appropriate entry, whereas by contrast it is a table rule in my game you can't cast a spell unless you have the rules in front of you, so spellcasters generally do that flipping on other players turns so they can be ready to go. Absolutely. Truly dangerous magic causes the demon to break loose and you are not necessarily immediately the wiser that it has. It involves the recognition that lighting the candle with the flame might be giving yourself cancer or causes a hag to snatch a baby in the nearest village or that your eyeball might mutate and sprout from the tip of a tentacle. You can do that with random effects, but that ultimately isn't that interesting, because there is no choice in the system. Dangerous magic gives the illusion of control. You think you can figure it out and use it, but there is always this nagging part that thinks, "What don't I know? Is that weird red glow a fairly harmless side effect, or am I really going to regret this in the long run?" I still do that sort of stuff, but I have to confine to a couple of instances per party and Gygaxian style weird locations, because its otherwise just too much to keep track of. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Making magic feel "Dangerous"
Top