D&D General What Should Magic Be Able To Do, From a Gameplay Design Standpoint?

[EzekielRaiden]

Characters resenting characters = / = players resenting players.

It doesn't always. But it very frequently does, in fact, end up that way.

If this becomes untrue, get different players.

That's why I said that designing a game this way isn't compatible with modern audiences. You are here admitting that the direct consequence is intentionally turning away lots of players. That's the whole point. That's the very reason why such mechanics are actively avoided in most TTRPG design today. It's not only not popular, it actively fosters greater hostility against itself when folks are forced to play that way.

See above.

Ditto.

Also, for me "it's what my character would do" is the natural (and expected) result of good-faith play.

And what happens if someone uses it for bad-faith play? Someone uses it just to mess with one of the other players, or to get back at them for something they did elsewhere, or in an attempt to trigger a pissing contest, or to get "even" because the target player won the roll for an item this player wanted, or whatever else?

A mechanic that depends on zero-divergence good-faith play to not go wrong is risky, inherently. One that depends on players never ever using it for even slightly disingenuous reasons is much worse. This isn't just a requirement of good faith; it's a requirement of perfect good faith, where there's never even a single moment of perverse desire or incentive. Such things don't happen.

My rebuttal here is that you become stronger by going through the wars and coming out the other side than by avoiding them and hoping they'll go away.

This is only true if the conflict in question actually is unavoidable, hence why you used the word "war." If we instead changed it to "alligator wrestling", the whole concept collapses because that's obviously a ridiculously dangerous thing you don't have to do.

But which is "foster CVC conflict" more like: a literal societal-level threat where the outright destruction or domination of your home and people is at stake, where your choices are "fight or surrender"? Or is it more like alligator wrestling, meaning, a thing you can do, if you feel like it, but unless you're a real adrenaline junkie, why would you?

You can tell I fall on the "alligator wrestling" side here. Pretending that CVC conflict is an absolutely unavoidable thing that you can only either cower in fear from, or face boldly, is so many stacked bad arguments, I'm struggling to pick which one. (Appeal to emotion, appeal to virtue, false dichotomy, bad analogy...)

(it occurs to me this tangential discussion might better fit in the "what D&D is bad at" thread - iwhether or not D&D is good at supporting CvC play)

Perhaps so, though the root came from the assertion that magic should cause harm to other players' characters through no fault of their own.

Which, again: making character archetypes specifically designed to cause problems for others as one of the costs of using that archetype's features? Yeah. That's a direct anti-player, high-frustration feature. Smart game design for games made to be cooperative doesn't do that--it leaves such things as an opt-in choice, rather than opt-out.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In the context of PC spellcasters, I think that magic should be able to do anything. This is a fantasy game, and you should be able to let your imagination run wild.

I'm just not very interested in magic that emulates other classes. I don't want to be a wizard that picks locks and disarms traps with ~☆ MaGiCk ♧~, I want to have my own role.

These two statements are precisely in conflict though. The first specifically say able to do anything, meaning, everything that can be done. The second says NOT able to do everything, and not only that, specifically not able to do anything anyone else is already doing.

And that's before we even get into the extreme grey areas of what "emulates other classes" means, and the onerous design consequences that arise from such a commitment.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are you aware that this tends to make other players resent the person doing the releasing? Because if you aren't, you should be.


Yeah, so, that? That almost always leads to MASSIVE player resentment on both sides. Like it's one of the most damaging things that can happen in most games. Even pawn-stance games are not somehow immune to the "you messed me up, I'm upset you now" problem. Hiding behind the cover of "it's just RP" or the like has absolutely no effect on how plenty of players feel about harms intentionally caused by other players at the table. (Because uh...yeah in their eyes that's 100% pulling the bovine feces "It's what my character would do!!!" excuse for being an a-hole to your buddies. And I can't say I disagree.)

It's one of the biggest reasons why D&D has pretty much exclusively nixed PVP (or CVC or whatever you want to call it)--because it creates far, far more negative feelings than positive ones, because it leads to many more failed campaigns, because it risks tearing apart groups for the off chance that the flames might be cool to look at.

When did D&D nix PvP?

 

[Micah Sweet]

No need, just change the rules or never allow PvP to happen

Or what @Lanefan said. Either way works.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When did D&D nix PvP?

Certainly by 3e. I mean, you can choose to play it that way if you want (any game can become PVP), but there was a very clear social and cultural change from the AD&D era to the WotC era. 2nd Edition was the transition period, where the "oh yeah, it's totally expected that you're backstabbing your allies left and right" thing was still there in the background, but had been almost totally superseded by the (much more popular) DL-alike "we are Teammates" style of play.

 

[CleverNickName]

These two statements are precisely in conflict though. The first specifically say able to do anything, meaning, everything that can be done. The second says NOT able to do everything, and not only that, specifically not able to do anything anyone else is already doing.

And that's before we even get into the extreme grey areas of what "emulates other classes" means, and the onerous design consequences that arise from such a commitment.

Yes, but you see: m first statement was intended to be more universal, and the second was specific to me and my preferences.

I'm not opposed to the game having options that I'll never use.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, but you see: m first statement was intended to be more universal, and the second was specific to me and my preferences.

I'm not opposed to the game having options that I'll never use.

But that's exactly what I cited above that leads to the problems we have now.

Folks like you want magic to be powerful, but don't really care if it's widely-available or not.

Other folks want it to be widely-available, but don't really care if it's super-powerful or just Also A Thing Folks Do.

The only way to please both is to make magic overpowered: very powerful and easily accessible. Which is the problem we've been trying to address since at least 3e.

 

[Tonguez]

These two statements are precisely in conflict though. The first specifically say able to do anything, meaning, everything that can be done. The second says NOT able to do everything, and not only that, specifically not able to do anything anyone else is already doing.

And that's before we even get into the extreme grey areas of what "emulates other classes" means, and the onerous design consequences that arise from such a commitment.

I think Pass Without Trace is (almost) a good model of how I'd like magic to be emulating other classes ie it doesnt so much eliminate Stealth as much as it enhances it (+10 is arguably too much enhancement though)

So lets take Knock as an example - rather than the current spell outright opening a lock, I'd rather it gave a +5 bonus to the 'unlock' dexterity check ie the Thief still gets their skill use but this time its enhanced, if the Thief isnt there then someone can make the dexterity check +5 instead.

Magic should be impressive stuff like opening Portals or Walking through walls, a spell thats simply unlocking a lock should just be a skill bonus

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think Pass Without Trace is (almost) a good model of how I'd like magic to be emulating other classes ie it doesnt so much eliminate Stealth as much as it enhances it (+10 is arguably too much enhancement though)

So lets take Knock as an example - rather than the current spell outright opening a lock, I'd rather it gave a +5 bonus to the 'unlock' dexterity check ie the Thief still gets their skill use but this time its enhanced, if the Thief isnt there then someone can make the dexterity check +5 instead.

Magic should be impressive stuff like opening Portals or Walking through walls, a spell thats simply unlocking a lock should just be a skill bonus

Whereas I think we should go one step further:

Eliminate pass without trace. Eliminate knock. Or, if we absolutely have to preserve them, bring back the 4e approach, where Rituals are an entirely separate category of magic that anyone can access by spending a feat and some GP to learn the rituals (or just getting a one-use ritual scroll).

Make magic focus almost exclusively on the weird, the utility, the "when would I ever use this???", and the outrightly supernatural.

 

[Corinnguard]

And cooking isn't science either.

See @EzekielRaiden 's comment about cooking being an art and a science. If you decide to be a professional cook in RL, your culinary skills do require learning and using science. Primarily biology and chemistry.

Which is an alternative to trial and error.

Science deals with trial and error. It's not an alternative to trial and error.