The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

[The Crimson Binome]

So if narrative justifies a double-standard, that double-standard should be that the narrative of magic is entirely subordinate to balance & playability.

I don't really feel strongly on this subject, either way, but I do feel that there's something to be said for keeping the narrative simple as a means of easing buy-in. A big explosion is easier to understand than some sort of contest of imposing wills in order to affect reality. Obviously, it's a matter of preference, as to how important that is relative to balance and playability.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't really feel strongly on this subject, either way, but I do feel that there's something to be said for keeping the narrative simple as a means of easing buy-in. A big explosion is easier to understand than some sort of contest of imposing wills in order to affect reality.

"Magic spells take too long to cast to be used in combat, at all" is pretty darn simple, too.

And, while 'explosion' is a simple enough narrative, the explanations for Vancian magic certainly weren't, so I still don't see any impediment to subordinating the narrative of magic to the needs of the system. Outside of genre conventions, there's nothing much to shape that narrative, so there's a great deal of freedom to limit it as much as needed to achieve a playable, balanced games.

Magic that can fail to produce any effect when botched, for instance, could be magic that works without the bizarre, unintuitive, counter-genre, and mechanically clunky/broken Vancian system, for instance.

Appealing to 'the narrative of magic' just opens up a tremendous number of ways magic could be done 'better' in the sense of system requirements, balance, and playability - and genre fidelity, for that matter.

 

[Morty]

Batman is hardly /the/ archetypal high-level rogue (that'd be Fritz Lieber's 'Grey Mouser,' IMHO - though people also suggest Cudgel the Clever and the LotR hobbits as possibilities) - not even the same genre.

Gray Mouser is certainly a rogue, but high-level? Hardly. He and Fafhrd would stay firmly on low levels in any edition of D&D.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Gray Mouser is certainly a rogue, but high-level? Hardly. He and Fafhrd would stay firmly on low levels in any edition of D&D.

You think? Levels are harder to draw with non-casters, since 'best swordsman in the world' means a very different thing in a world where everyone else is 2ne level than one with more of a range, for instance. They did tangle with some serious stuff, though, up to and including nominal deities.

In any case, he's the archetypal rogue (you can point to a lot of the early Thief oddities, like the affinity for languages, minor use of magic (reading scrolls) and preference for the sling, as Mouser-inspired), whatever level you might think is appropriate, while Batman isn't even in the same genre.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"Magic spells take too long to cast to be used in combat, at all" is pretty darn simple, too.

Maybe, but it wouldn't be fun for a lot of players. It sounds more like an excuse to balance magic, rather than anything resembling magic seen in the video games (or even much of the literature) with which players would be familiar.

From what I recall, though, even Vancian magic was done as a concession to gameplay. Back in the day, the designers looked at their alternatives and decided that this was the most balanced and least obnoxious way to go about it (not that the alternatives were terribly well developed at that point).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe, but it wouldn't be fun for a lot of players. It sounds more like an excuse to balance magic,

It's just an example to illustrate how 'narrative of the magic' and 'keep narrative simple' don't have to lead to magic being overpowered, and, indeed, could as easily justify the exact opposite.

From what I recall, though, even Vancian magic was done as a concession to gameplay.

My recollection matches yours in this regard. Gygax said at some point that they settled on Vancian because of it's relatively quick casting time making it combat-practical, and small number of spells/day (among many other restrictions & limitations) keeping it balanced. Of course, actual Dying Earth Magicians could only memorize a few spells at a time, 1 for quasi-charlatans like Rialto the Marvelous, up to 4-6 (depending on how potent) for the greatest of an age, like Mizirian the Magician.

It didn't work outside the narrow 'sweet spot' of mid-levels, of course, but that was the intent.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe, but it wouldn't be fun for a lot of players. It sounds more like an excuse to balance magic, rather than anything resembling magic seen in the video games (or even much of the literature) with which players would be familiar.

I don't get this at all. At least as characterised by the contemporary OSR, magic in classic D&D is more about solving problems than winning combats. And Gygax in his AD&D emphasises the dificulty of using spells in combat.

If it's OK to have fighters who are largely ineffectual in non-combat situations, what would be objectionable about mages who are largely ineffectual in combat?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If it's OK to have fighters who are largely ineffectual in non-combat situations, what would be objectionable about mages who are largely ineffectual in combat?

Thirty years of video games having programmed people into thinking that wizards are supposed to throw Fireballs.

Although I would disagree with the premise, that it's okay for fighters to be terrible out of combat. I would much prefer for everyone to have their own areas of specialty, outside of combat, and then combat can be the thing where everyone gets to show off at the same time. (In my experience, having a high Strength score does a lot for out-of-combat utility, even moreso than the wizard's meager handful of spells-that-are-totally-not-appropriate-for-this-situation.)

 

[Hussar]

Batman is hardly /the/ archetypal high-level rogue (that'd be Fritz Lieber's 'Grey Mouser,' IMHO - though people also suggest Cudgel the Clever and the LotR hobbits as possibilities) - not even the same genre.

How so? Both use ranks, both require two skills (hide/sneak and spot/listen). The need to make two opposed checks to both hide and avoid being heard stacks the deck against the stealth character (since he must win /both/ to remain hidden), of course, but that's regardless of level.

The only problem with Grey Mouser is that so few people have actually read any of the stories. At least compared to Batman. Insisting that the archetype for a class should be based on a series of novels that have been out of print for several decades isn't my idea of a good archetype. Sure, Batman might be a different genre, although not that far off either, but, I'd say he's an easier archetype to wrap people's heads around.

Spot skills with monsters tend to get skyrocketed because of a number of factors. Number one, stats for monsters in 3e aren't tied to level. High level monsters tend to have very high stats, which jacks up spot pretty quickly. Addtiionally, many senses negate Hide - Scent, dark vision, that sort of thing. The higher level you go with critters, generally the better their senses get.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The only problem with Grey Mouser is that so few people have actually read any of the stories. At least compared to Batman. Insisting that the archetype for a class should be based on a series of novels that have been out of print for several decades isn't my idea of a good archetype.

OK, you got me. I'm guilty of grognardism, there.

Though, really, by that standard, can we even run around saying 'Vancian?' ;P

Surely someone in LotR is reasonably stealthy? We can go somewhere other than superheroes for an example.

Spot skills with monsters tend to get skyrocketed because of a number of factors. Number one, stats for monsters in 3e aren't tied to level. High level monsters tend to have very high stats, which jacks up spot pretty quickly. Addtiionally, many senses negate Hide - Scent, dark vision, that sort of thing. The higher level you go with critters, generally the better their senses get.

OK, sure, you're right about senses often too-easily negating stealth. But does very high WIS (say 28 vs 12) really make a huge difference compared to 20 ranks vs none? Not really.