Is Magic a Setting Element or a Plot Device

[Janx]

I missed this the last time I read.

I think this really does get to the heart of things. It's all about genre expectations. Walls of Iron don't break the world because that would wreck the genre, so, we just don't do that. Sure, we can come up with various work arounds and reasons why not, but, at the heart of it, that's why.

And, as reasons go, it's not a bad one. Don't read the rules as the reality of the setting, and we're pretty much good to go.

I think you've nailed the crux of your original post's problem.

I learned this lesson in Battletech. You could find all sorts of explanations of why battlemechs couldn't work by players of the game. That way lies madness, as you are basically ruining your own suspension of disbelief.

Many of Celebrim's house rules that he's posted have a trait I like, where they account for keeping these concepts in check (like his reasons people don't run rampant with Raise Dead).

I wouldn't want to require a mile of house rules to counter these things, but the idea has merit.

One potential house rule concept would be the idea of "Equivalent Exchange" stolen from Full Metal Alchemist. With this concept, casting Wall of Iron would require as much material of equal value. Thus, the wall of iron isn't actually free.

 

[MarkB]

Now that you mention it, that sounds right. Still, I recall that they mention how dangerous the roads are becoming and that the only reason they were open was because of the Beornlings. Dain still should have equipped everyone properly...

I re-read Fellowship of the Ring the other week, so this is still fresh in my mind. All the peoples know that things are getting a lot worse in their own neck of the woods, but it's not until they all compare notes at the Council of Elrond that they truly realise just how widespread the danger is.

Eh, I'm probably still just sore over Gimli being comedic relief in the movie.

Yeah, I'm right there with you on that one. It's the most annoying mis-characterisation in the films, and quite unnecessary.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That makes sense. What would further the realism of the setting, making magic more mundane than myth, I guess, would be that when you come to those decisions you adjust things across the board. So, if chopping up walls of iron is unacceptible to you and you decide that "broken" walls fade away you need to apply that to all magical effects. Does that change anything else in the system?

In our games for some time now, it has been the general rule that I as the DM handle how the game rules work with the reality of the setting, but we as a group set the genre expectations. If something arises that will cause conflict with the two, I put it to a debate.

So if someone wants to "invent gunpowder," I'll get feedback on whether we want gunpowder in our genre expectations. Usually, the players will develop a consensus one way or the other, and that's that. If there is contention, we'll eventually put it to a vote.

But I make it very clear what will be the results on the reality. So if we accept gunpowder, the players will have a monopoly for a short period of time. Then they'll have people stealing it and also ticked at them for having it. If this is relatively early in a long campaign, this might mean, for example, that they spend the later part of the campaign worried about someone exploding a barrel of gunpowder under their castle. It means that firearms might take on added importance, compared to the weapons and magic that they have worked so hard to perfect skill with. On the plus side, they'll get to shoot things and blow them up.

If the players are doing something exotic and fun that fits a particular situation, without any idea that they are setting up new rules for magic and how the world works--I'm inclined to let it go. This is what makes magic mysterious. If an alchemist blows up a castle with some strange powder, and the characters don't view this as reproducible, fine.

The upshot of all this is that the players are a lot more sticklers for genre expectations than I am. They pretty much police this kind of things themselves, to keep it somewhere they want it to be. The only time I have to get involved is when they are going down a path where they don't see what some of the side effects might be.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, I'm right there with you on that one. It's the most annoying mis-characterisation in the films, and quite unnecessary.

The weird thing is that Jackson chops out all the actual humour in LoTR, which tends to originate from the 'Great & the Good' like Gandalf & even Elrond - in favour of making Gimli comic-relief. I'm guessing he doesn't share Tolkien's Oxford Don-ish SOH.

 

[Hussar]

I think you've nailed the crux of your original post's problem.

I learned this lesson in Battletech. You could find all sorts of explanations of why battlemechs couldn't work by players of the game. That way lies madness, as you are basically ruining your own suspension of disbelief.

Many of Celebrim's house rules that he's posted have a trait I like, where they account for keeping these concepts in check (like his reasons people don't run rampant with Raise Dead).

I wouldn't want to require a mile of house rules to counter these things, but the idea has merit.

One potential house rule concept would be the idea of "Equivalent Exchange" stolen from Full Metal Alchemist. With this concept, casting Wall of Iron would require as much material of equal value. Thus, the wall of iron isn't actually free.

Heh, Battletech, don't get me started.

Just to jump on the other side of the fence for a while, I can really appreciate what's being said here. Once you start down this road, where do you stop? The fantastic (whether magic or SF or whatever) is inherently illogical. At some point, it's going to go pear shaped.

So, where do you say, "Ok, yes, I KNOW this is wahoonie shaped, but, it works, it's fun, so shut up and just shoot the damn PPC will ya?"

 

[Ariosto]

What would happen?

What does happen is what happened in the games in which stuff was actually playtested before publication. Note, however, that the added spell levels in D&D Supplement I were apparently not among those (no PCs of such levels yet).

What happens is that people adapt to new situations, following new strategies and forming new balances in the secondary world that is the game.

Players don't do this for two reasons. One, it's boring and two, most players have no interest in being jerks and destroying someone's campaign.

It's not clear to me what your "this" is, but I am guessing that "destroying someone's campaign" means to you players altering the DM's initial large-scale status quo.

That doesn't mean they can't do it, but, most players are a bit more respectful than that. And, while Wall of Iron might not be done, I know that IME, Continual Light was used constantly - every high level PC's castle/tower/home was lit by it.

What's wrong with that? That the people who created D&D thought it appropriate that the lords of realms fantastic should have such splendid abodes? I happen to agree with them, but if you do not then you are free to leave out such magics (or whatever else offends your sensibilities).

If someone inflates the ranks and deflates the status of high-level characters, especially of wizards, then he or she may look in the mirror to find the culprit for too much of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

 

[Hussar]

What does happen is what happened in the games in which stuff was actually playtested before publication. Note, however, that the added spell levels in D&D Supplement I were apparently not among those (no PCs of such levels yet).

What happens is that people adapt to new situations, following new strategies and forming new balances in the secondary world that is the game.


It's not clear to me what your "this" is, but I am guessing that "destroying someone's campaign" means to you players altering the DM's initial large-scale status quo.


What's wrong with that? That the people who created D&D thought it appropriate that the lords of realms fantastic should have such splendid abodes? I happen to agree with them, but if you do not then you are free to leave out such magics (or whatever else offends your sensibilities).

If someone inflates the ranks and deflates the status of high-level characters, especially of wizards, then he or she may look in the mirror to find the culprit for too much of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

Which splendid abodes would these be? AFAIK, continual light appears to be pretty much not even on the radar when it comes to any setting guides.

 

[Ariosto]

Which splendid abodes would these be?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe...

I know that IME, Continual Light was used constantly - every high level PC's castle/tower/home was lit by it.

 

[ACreepierFolklaw]

*first post*
I have had this same problem with my players. I tend to play 1on1s with friends who have never played any rpg's before. The major obstacle that i get from the Players is they cannot stomach magic. (these players of course are not fans of the fantasy genre in general and usually have had no previous interest in rpg's... so different crowd).
The major issue they have is that with magic there seems to be no particular rules. like if gandalf can call up an eagle when trapped on the tower, why can't he do it to take frodo and sam straight to mordor? or (even more annoyingly) why does hermione and harry only ever use the time turner once when it would solve all of their problems in one fell swoop.
The solution i have had which seems to satisfy these casual converts is to set my own set of rules and limits on what magic is and what it can do. In my universe magic can only effect the senses not the "real" world and can only be sustained as long as the character can hold their breath. I have yet to have a player complain about these modifications as it also frees magic users in other ways. I suggest if you don't like magic (and prefer sci-fi which almost always has certain limits) then you could apply your own notions of how it works and why.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe...

I think that's pretty much precisely my point, so why are you arguing with me?

If the PC's are doing this as a matter of course, then why don't cities like Greyhawk, or Waterdeep also do these things?