Would You Rather Maintain Campaign Theme or Win?

[GMMichael]

Sample scenario: my game provides two low-level spells that cause damage. Fire does physical damage while Stun does mental damage. Physical damage is by far the most prevalent, so most combatants (animals and monsters included) have physical protection that reduces damage. Mental protection is rare. While Stun takes twice as long to cast as Fire does, it does a smidge more damage and faces less resistance.

If you're a fighting wizard (as opposed to the scholarly kind) would you stick to a wizardly spell like Fire, or capitalize on the potential of Stun despite its more psionic flavoring?

 

[Umbran]

So, Stun is better.
But, for some reason, Fire is more common.

WHY is Fire more common, among folks who can see that Stun is superior? Is there an in-game narrative reason why wizards in this world make a clearly sub-optimal choice?

 

[Lanefan]

Assuming I have access to both spells, I'll cast whichever one has the better chance of "winning" in that moment.

Stun against a mindless zombie is pointless. Fire against something that's protected from fire is pointless. Thus in each case I'd cast the other one.

 

[MarkB]

If the Stun spell isn't thematic to the campaign, why is it there? If it's there and people in that campaign world choose to use it, why isn't it thematic?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sample scenario: my game provides two low-level spells that cause damage. Fire does physical damage while Stun does mental damage. Physical damage is by far the most prevalent, so most combatants (animals and monsters included) have physical protection that reduces damage. Mental protection is rare. While Stun takes twice as long to cast as Fire does, it does a smidge more damage and faces less resistance.

If you're a fighting wizard (as opposed to the scholarly kind) would you stick to a wizardly spell like Fire, or capitalize on the potential of Stun despite its more psionic flavoring?

If I can cast it using wizardly means, then it's wizardly enough for me. I would have no thematic concerns as a PC about Stun, only tactical concerns about which is more cost-effective.

As a player or a GM I might have thematic game-design concerns about whether Stun ought to be a low-level wizard spell though, just as I might have thematic concerns if an AD&D DM made Raise Dead a wizard spell. But the character is not a game designer. They're a gameworld inhabitant.

 

[CleverNickName]

If the Stun spell isn't thematic to the campaign, why is it there? If it's there and people in that campaign world choose to use it, why isn't it thematic?

Asking the real questions.

 

[Darth Solo]

Following the theme of a "Fighting/War Wizard" (one of my favorites), Physical.

I can't damage or destroy physical objects with Mental/Stun magic, and combat isn't always about targeting living targets. Having the ability to destroy an opponent's possessions could even have greater psychological impact than "zapping" their brain. The Physical spell gives me more options, and therefore, I have a better chance of "winning" in disparate situations.

 

[GMMichael]

So, Stun is better.

It's not that cut-and-dried, as @Darth Solo 's post points out. Further, the action-economy consideration is not insignificant: Stun takes longer to cast, and a lot can happen in just a few actions. But the question remains...

WHY is Fire more common, among folks who can see that Stun is superior? Is there an in-game narrative reason why wizards in this world make a clearly sub-optimal choice?

The in-game reason depends heavily on GM choices. There's no "spell list" that tells a player what his or her class automatically gets, except what players and GMs agree upon. Spells can be researched, taught, or inborn. Metagame: 2nd level spells don't give you a casting bonus, so characters with embarassing attributes are unlikely to be able to cast them. Thematically, Stun is very likely to be taught to psions, but not as an apprentice wizard spell.

As a player or a GM I might have thematic game-design concerns about whether Stun ought to be a low-level wizard spell though, just as I might have thematic concerns if an AD&D DM made Raise Dead a wizard spell. But the character is not a game designer. They're a gameworld inhabitant.

The Stun spell (as well as Fire) is included in a genre-free list. Players and GMs determine the house-list, subject to rule zero (and rule 001). So yes, a GM can say "welp, Stun's not an option." But the question is for the player: would you choose the harder path if it meant supporting the campaign's theme? Or given the sample: would you spam Stun if you found it got better results than Fire?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The Stun spell (as well as Fire) is included in a genre-free list. Players and GMs determine the house-list, subject to rule zero (and rule 001). So yes, a GM can say "welp, Stun's not an option." But the question is for the player: would you choose the harder path if it meant supporting the campaign's theme? Or given the sample: would you spam Stun if you found it got better results than Fire?

Wait, so this is about the player's decisions at chargen, not the character's decisions in the game? Or both? ("Spamming" is a gametime decision, not a chargen activity.)

I have enough powergamer in me that I find powerful and legal but unthematic options both tempting and stressful. (Warlock 2 dips in 5E, Broadsword-30 hyperspecialization in GURPS.) Historical evidence says I am likely to give in to temptation and rationalize a way to take the ability on the character, but I'll also feel shame about that choice, and I'll be happier if the tension is resolved either by adjusting the theme to fit the rules or the rules to fit the theme.

 

[Pedantic]

The Stun spell (as well as Fire) is included in a genre-free list. Players and GMs determine the house-list, subject to rule zero (and rule 001). So yes, a GM can say "welp, Stun's not an option." But the question is for the player: would you choose the harder path if it meant supporting the campaign's theme? Or given the sample: would you spam Stun if you found it got better results than Fire?

Yes, but also, I have questions about the cohesion of the setting. Is my character special in some way that makes it reasonable I have access to this spell and other people don't?

If I am supposed to be representative of wizards in setting, and the setting has wizards using Fire, why is this not reflected mechanically?

I just don't think it's on the player to make the proposed setting and system cohere. That's a design and/or worldbuilding question.