Making Magic Magical Again?

[Hassassin]

Can you elaborate on why this is intrinsically 'bad'?

The reason all large numbers and many sources of numbers are bad - bookkeeping.

I would be okay with this approach, but it's a lot easier and more practical, considering the history of the game, to design around the assumption that there will be +x items, and make allowances for not using them.

Keeping the math seems a lot simpler than making ad-hoc judgements about "effective level," though I would be pleasantly surprised if they could make it work.

Suppose characters' attacks and defenses increased by 1/level. Suppose further that the default treasure would give +1 to attacks and defenses by level 6, +2 by level 11, etc.

In that case I could run level 1-5 parties without +X items and not compensate, level 6-10 parties by considering them one level lower, etc.

Unfortunately the math isn't that simple in 3e or 4e, but it certainly could be designed that way from the start. Yes, it would have to take hp and damage increases into account, and so on, but it's doable.

 

[keterys]

I'm hoping that +X gear is a sacred cow we can grill up this go around.

Bring on the bands of billaro, helms of brilliance, cloaks of the bat, decanters of endless water, etc.

Drop the boring.

 

[Electronic]

Games as interactive medium are completely different from books, movies, and the like. Magic can't be completely "magical" (in the romantic sense) because in order to play games--or at least DnD--you have to know the rules.

Further I think the OP left out question. Do you prefer magic to be "magical"?

I like magic to be more of sciencey. More wizard instead of druid. More Ars Magica than Mage.

 

[Jack7]

Define what you mean by "magical" please.

This is rather vague. What are we talking about? Is this about spells and magic items being too obtainable? Or is this one of those "sense of wonder" threads?

I'll let you guys define it as you wish and then work outwards from there. I'm trying to avoid telling you what to think, so then you can modify what I say, agree, or disagree with it.

This is, in my opinion, then single greatest weakness of the Geek mindset. (I am not a Geek, and I'm not attacking Geeks, merely making an observation about the way I notice most thinking and talking, which is: tell me how things operate and then I'll tweak it, improve it, or criticize it. Geeks assume the parameters already exist and therefore their job is to tweak them and make them work better or point out why they are not efficient. They rarely assume, "hey the whole system is wrong, or what if there were a totally different system, how would that work?")

I'm not talking about telling you what I think at this point, though I have my own opinions of course. That's not what I'm talking about at all. My definitions. I'm seeing what you guys can come up originally based upon how you see the problem (assuming there is one to you) or situation.

I've got to sort of define or at least allude to the problem or circumstance in some way, for purposes of dialogue, but I'm being purposely and anti-Geekily vague. I'm not arguing, debating, or defining things Geek style, which is someone else sets the parameters and then you argue their initial assumptions. I'm saying, "what are your initial assumptions, and what will that mean?"

You define things as you wish and then work from there. See what you and others can come up with.

In this way rather than just typically Geekily discussing the minutiae of what has already been defined and redefined a thousand different times, let's see if real breakthroughs and breakaways of past mindsets can be promoted or established.

That's how I'm handling all of these threads. Not as, "explain to me what gravity is and then we'll all argue the accuracy of the calculations."

I'm saying, "let's assume we see gravity but don't yet know how to define it or how it works, or even necessarily what it should be called. Toss out some hypotheses of your own and let's see what might actually work."

So, define things as you wish and run from there. The point is not for you to analyze my theories, but to see if you can start from your own vantage points and make your own breakthroughs based on your own observations, not on the observations of others.

I hope we'll be getting at the way things actually work, and not just arguing one or another of a thousand already known postulated theories.

So do what you do and let's see how it works.

 

[mmadsen]

Magic can't be completely "magical" (in the romantic sense) because in order to play games--or at least DnD--you have to know the rules.

This raises an interesting point though: do all the players need to know how all magic works?

You can't keep everything a mystery forever, but I like the idea of a magic system that is not all spelled out -- pardon the pun -- in the Player's Handbook to the point where everyone knows everything there is to know about it.

 

[nightwyrm]

This raises an interesting point though: do all the players need to know how all magic works?

You can't keep everything a mystery forever, but I like the idea of a magic system that is not all spelled out -- pardon the pun -- in the Player's Handbook to the point where everyone knows everything there is to know about it.

I think we should stop pretending that players won't buy and read through the DMG. This goes for both the magic system and magic item lists.

 

[Jack7]

Probably it is ultimately up to the gaming group to find their own way to bring some wonder back.

I think that at least in part, this is true. Game designers set general parameters, end users enliven that because RPGs are not passive enterprises, but active ones.

do all the players need to know how all magic works?

Does even the DM need to know beforehand exactly how each spell will work every time? Not to me.

 

[mmadsen]

I think we should stop pretending that players won't buy and read through the DMG. This goes for both the magic system and magic item lists.

If you recall the 1E DMG, it specifically did not define the powers of the various artifacts and relics. It provided a list of potential powers, and it was up to the DM to choose which ones went with his version of the Eye of Vecna, etc.

I would like to see a lot more of that. In fact, I think the core books should be full of scenarios, villains, monsters, etc. with options for the DM to choose from.

 

[Electronic]

This raises an interesting point though: do all the players need to know how all magic works?

You can't keep everything a mystery forever, but I like the idea of a magic system that is not all spelled out -- pardon the pun -- in the Player's Handbook to the point where everyone knows everything there is to know about it.

Yes, they need to know how it works.

In order to chose a class, players need to know what they can do, and if they like it. In order to play a class, players need to know what they can do.

If you recall the 1E DMG, it specifically did not define the powers of the various artifacts and relics. It provided a list of potential powers, and it was up to the DM to choose which ones went with his version of the Eye of Vecna, etc.

I would like to see a lot more of that. In fact, I think the core books should be full of scenarios, villains, monsters, etc. with options for the DM to choose from.

Having a list of potential powers is still defining powers.

 

[Aenghus]

in 3e and earlier editions cleric was my favourite class and wizard was my second favourite class. Magic was the initial attraction, these classes becoming increasingly powerful each edition was a bonus.

But every new spell increases the potential power of these classes, and the best of the spells tend to be either broken or really really broken.

1st ed level 1 magic users were weak, really weak. They had to hide from everything waiting for the right time to use their single overpowered spell. I will never choose to play a class that weak again.

But the price of playing these spellcasters well in general was ruthlessly rationing spellpower. Hoard spells jealously till they could be cast with maximum effect, and otherwise throwing darts/daggers/ using a crossbow in 3rd ed.

When I saw other players "waste" spells by using them all the time even when not needed, using multi target spells on single creatures, Fort spells on creatures who obviously had good Fort saves and generally being flashy and ieffectual, it was hard not to react loudly in protest.

The most fun part of playing a wizard in 4e was having unlimited cantrips and at-will attacks. It felt far more magical to me than desparately hoarding spells until their use could be justified.

I would gladly accept weaker spells as in 4e if every full caster class gets unlimited use of appropriate cantrip magic and some sort of at-will attack.
In previous editions of D&D I hated lack of balance, the alternatives of not playing at full power or of completely dominating play and making the non-casters irrelevant. And sometimes I like to play fighters and want continue to be effective with rising level.

I don't see secrecy as a way of providing magical magic. It never lasts.

What feels magical to each player is intensely personal, the only way I can see is for referees to find out what each player of a spellcaster feel is magica in terms of the feel and appearance of magic and try to provide that sort of presentation in the game. Thematic description of magic, allowing casters to have their own style of magic in terms of how it looks, sounds, smells, these are the most balance way of providing personalised magic to players without affecting the power of the magic itself.I have increasingly done this since 2e - some players love it, others aren't too bothered.

But NPC casters have their own flavours of magic as well, and the PCs learn to recognise some of them over time, and react accordingly.