D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Pursuant to post #50, another thought has occurred to me. It's pretty funny that the edition that went out of its way to emphasize how totally unnecessary, even unwelcome, magic items would be...is also the edition that has made baked-in magic more prevalent than it's ever been. I think this is another one of those areas where WotC heard the words, but not the message. Though it didn't help that the message was unclear.

People told them they wanted magic to feel magical again, and that too many magic items were to blame. The first is too nebulous and ill-defined to be in any way useful. It is like saying one wants cheeseburgers to taste cheesy again, or for milkshakes to bring back the ice cream flavor. And the second is, quite simply, incorrect, at absolute best targeting a symptom rather than the cause, and IMO mostly just getting lost in the weeds.

Part of the problem is that heady combo of nostalgia and time. Things can't be bright-shiny-new more than once. A D&D that manages to feel familiar cannot be a D&D that manages to retain all the old "magic," that is the feeling of wonder, because part of the "magic" came from ignorance about what the game contained. I don't mean that in a disparaging sense; it is easier, more natural, to feel wonder about things that have not become familiar, categorized, quotidian. An awful lot of the proposals--make magic hard/dangerous, make it require sacrifices, make it rare, etc.--are simply trying to find a substitute for unfamiliarity. But none of those things will actually bring back the "I have no idea what this might be capable of" feeling, no matter how much we might want it to come back.

Another part, however, is that people mistake rarity for specialness. They labor under Syndrome's flawed logic from The Incredibles. He claims that, "when everyone is special, no one will be," but he's simply incorrect. Though the film tries very hard to make it seem like he's being incredibly clever, he isn't. Specialness is a function of appreciation; it is a matter of human evaluations. Rarity is, to some degree, a measurable property of something: natural fancy blue-green diamonds are rare, not because the color is particularly special (though I do quite like it myself), but because the specific processes required to form such a diamond are very difficult, because that color can only be produced by radiation, and natural sustained sources of the appropriate types of radiation are not common in places where diamonds naturally form. But to a blind person, whether the diamond is fancy blue-green or pink or black is completely irrelevant; there is nothing special about color to the blind, even though they would totally grant that the object is rare. Meanwhile, the thermos-cup my mother gave me is very special to me, because I use it essentially every single day, even though it's literally an as-seen-on-TV product; there is nothing rare about it, but I deeply appreciate it, and thus it is special to me.

People want magic to be special, to be appreciated, but they fall into the trap of thinking that making it rare, unpleasant, annoying, or complicated will ensure that it will be special...and it won't. The fact that magic had certain characteristics in 1e or 2e isn't what made it special. It was special because it was unknown, because the unknown could be painted with whatever colors you wanted. It was, in a very meaningful sense, the positive inversion of that classic horror movie/game trope, the fear of the unknown. That is, you can give someone a significantly greater fear purely by denying them information, by forcing them to remain ignorant of exactly what they're facing. The same works in a positive sense: when you don't know what can or can't be done, the world is your oyster, and every new discovery is a eureka moment unto itself.

But in an era of internet access and adult lives and public playtests, it isn't possible to replicate that. Even if those things didn't affect it, the fact that we want D&D to "feel like D&D" already makes replicating that specific source of wonder impossible. You can't have a game you're familiar with that you also have no idea what might be possible in. Inasmuch as you support the one goal you are necessarily abandoning the other.

The thing is...that doesn't mean magic needs to not be magical anymore. It means we need to start looking for the other ways magic can be special. We need to ask ourselves what it is magic can do that still gives us excitement and joy and wonder, even without relying on the ephemeral wonder that arises from ignorance about a system's contents.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

payn

He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
Heh... well, I'd say the big difference between then and now was that even though those spells were in the game... no one barely ever took them because they just weren't very good options compared to Clerics and Druids needing to usually take nothing but healing spells and Wizards needing as much AoE as possible to deal with the massive combat threats that DMs threw at them all the time. When you had to earmark every single spell you wanted into each spell slot and you had no options to change it until the next morning's rest... I think more often than not players said to themselves "Having another casting of Fireball today will ultimately have a better chance of being needed than Create Food and Water".

So it's actually part of 5E's casting system that allows spells like LTH and Goodberry to be used nowadays... because you can prepare it for little cost (just one of your myriad number of prepared spells) and then if you need it, great! But if not... then you can just keep casting that Fireball as much as you need instead.
Sort of, yeah. I thought unlimited scaling cantrip attacks would make casters and magic too powerful. In practice I found that the cantrips took the edge off needing damage spells, so I ended up using a lot more utility magic. I played a Sorc in my 5E game and folks often say they aint got enough slots, but I think I had plenty. Its likely my point of view would be wizard has too many slots and flexibility, but I cant say for certain.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Here is the ultimate irony though... the 4E mantra of "skip to the good stuff" was skipping the roleplay event with the town guard to get to the combat encounter inside the gates. The 5E mantra of "skip to the good stuff" is skipping unnecessary combat encounters to get to the roleplaying event where your characters can actually engage with the narrative of what is happening in the world.

It's amazing to me how much the raison d'etre of the two games just swapped so completely.
RE: the bolded bit... No, it wasn't. And I'm pretty tired of people saying stuff like this.
 

But those aren't Stories. Those are just different Standard Operating Procedures.

A ranger finding food and shelter? Are you going to play that out every single night? Yes, the first time might be interesting... but after like the third time most modern players won't care about it anymore. So it'll be handwaved-- you find food and shelter. Which is no different than the wizard using Tiny Hut. The Standard Operating Procedure during gameplay is no different.

A dwarf having darvision when no one else does? Sure, the WHY he has darkvision might be interesting from a character perspective... but during gameplay? It means everyone breaks out torches and Light spells and the party proceeds no differently than if everyone is using darkvision. So once again, the Standard Operating Procedure during gameplay is no different.

And if your players keep selecting the "10 most overpowered spells" each and every time... why does that matter? Are they able to get past whatever encounters you throw at them as part of the Story? Isn't that then up to you to change the Story so that they can't just rely on their Standard Operating Procedures (if indeed that is an issue?)

And as far as the King being assassinated... you're the DM. If that's the Story, then why is there a Court Cleric there in the chambers at all, or why does Revivify actually work? You can set up the assassination however you want, and give any reasoning why he wasn't able to be brought back from the dead. That's the glories of being the Dungeon Master. You don't have to play by only the rules within the 3 books... you can make up and play any type of rules and game you want. If you want the King dead because the Story that comes out of it that the players then get involved with... then the King is dead and the Story can progress. That's the entire crux of 5E gameplay.

Why we need rules to bypass wilderness encounters then? After all, if you as GM don't think they make a good story, don't include them, like you don't need to include a cleric capable or resurrecting the king if you want the king dead.*

(* Or even fiat reasons why spells don't work.)

If you want to just invent stories I don't understand what you need the rules for.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
No, it wasn't. And I'm pretty tired of people saying stuff like this.
I'm referring to the hullaballoo regarding that initial press comment that... Jeremy(?)... made prior to 4E's release that got everyone so bent out of shape. Where he talked about having a random convo with a guard was unnecessary when the important stuff was inside the gates, so just skip the random convo.

I agree that the 4E game itself did not forsake roleplaying completely, and that it was an unfair take to suggest that it did. (Although many of the initial Dungeon mag adventures of 4E didn't do themselves any favors when the adventure consisted just of three combat encounters right in a row with a MacGuffin to grab at the end.)
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
If you want to just invent stories I don't understand what you need the rules for.
Yes you do. And trying to just hyperbolize it to try and discredit the point does not do your argument any favors.

If you want to disagree with my point, that's fine. But at least have the courtesy of discussing it, rather than go to the tired "Well, then get rid of ALL THE RULES!!!" Because all that does is suggest you don't actually have an argument. :)
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I'm referring to the hullaballoo regarding that initial press comment that... Jeremy(?)... made prior to 4E's release that got everyone so bent out of shape. Where he talked about having a random convo with a guard was unnecessary when the important stuff was inside the gates, so just skip the random convo.

I agree that the 4E game itself did not forsake roleplaying completely, and that it was an unfair take to suggest that it did. (Although many of the initial Dungeon mag adventures of 4E didn't do themselves any favors when the adventure consisted just of three combat encounters right in a row with a MacGuffin to grab at the end.)
Don't recall the press comment, so I can't comment on it myself.

As for the latter, oh, absolutely. Several of the adventures for 4e were absolutely terrible. Particularly the first two major ones. So terrible I would genuinely be willing to believe they were made intentionally bad if I didn't know better. Diehard fans will be the first to tell you that Pyramid of Shadows and...whatever the other first adventure module was, are some of the worst adventures ever written for D&D in general.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Don't recall the press comment, so I can't comment on it myself.
You don't? Ooooooooooooh boy! If you want to go down a rabbit hole of argumentation... find some way to get far enough back in EN World's archives to see all the talk about when Jeremy made that comment. It was a fun, fun time.

(And by "fun", I mean completely ridiculous and full of people unwilling to see nuance, LOL.)
 


James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Don't recall the press comment, so I can't comment on it myself.

As for the latter, oh, absolutely. Several of the adventures for 4e were absolutely terrible. Particularly the first two major ones. So terrible I would genuinely be willing to believe they were made intentionally bad if I didn't know better. Diehard fans will be the first to tell you that Pyramid of Shadows and...whatever the other first adventure module was, are some of the worst adventures ever written for D&D in general.
Let's be fair here. WotC isn't exactly known for being the best at making adventures.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top