3e players=consumers not creators

[ColonelHardisson]

Well, to quote what you've said yourself...

*sigh*

First, yes, anyone can pick up magic. Yes, they have minimum stat requirements, but anyone with a 10 in any of those 3 Ability Scores can pick up a level of a casting class and gain various useful spells, and 11 just makes it sweet. Oh, hey... Got a 13? Might as well get 5 levels, than you can cast fireball and lightning bolt. Despite your claims to the contrary, even an abundance of trivial spells is still an abundance of spells.

And, no, changing spell levels isn't the "only" way to develop a different system. Mongoose's Elementalism has a variant within it. Sovereign Stone has another variant. Another can be found in Dragonlords of Melnibon'e. In a sense, Wheel of Time is different from the Core system. Even Call of Cthulu uses a variant magic system. Any one of these could be used instead of the Core System for spells and magic.

I myself use two variant systems (Elemental Sorcerers and fatigue-hindered Channelers) and have the groundwork for a variant psionics system developed. I've even considered an Arcane System based entirely on Spell Seeds that would cost Experience Points to use, thus mimicing the magical flavor of certain literature like in The Belgariad.

Is this metagame thinking? Only if you consider making the game different from the Default to be metagame thinking. But that's an interesting term, isn't it? Default, which basically means unchanged. The very use of that word indicates change can and will occur. Rule 0 indicates that the person that chooses such change is the DM. So how can this be metagame thinking? I'm not in a game right now. We're discussing rules. We're discussing the alteration of rules.

When rules are applied, be they Core, 3rd Party or homebrewed, you aren't metagaming. What you are doing is establishing a world environment in which the characters live and adventure. Whatever these rules are, the outlook and behavior of the characters will be effected. High Magic world? Magic and monsters shouldn't surprise the characters too much. Low Magic world? Magic and monsters should be terrifying and worrisome.

This isn't metagame thinking. Rather, it is the nature of the game.

Let's get on the same page. "Metagame thinking" means that decisions in-game are made using info about the game itself. That is, you say "anyone" can take magic, because the game lets you. I'm saying that everyone in the campaign world - the characters that inhabit the world - cannot all be spellcasters, either because they aren't smart enough or personally powerful enough or rich enough or culturally predisposed enough to do so. You're basing your entire assertion on what goes on in the game on information that the characters could not know, info that comes from outside the game - and by "game" I specifically mean the campaign world. That's metagaming. "In-game" usually means what is going on with the characters, not the players, and does not refer to the actual mechanics of the game itself. "Metagaming" is when someone uses knowledge that their character couldn't know - such as game rule knowledge.

And where did I make any claims "to the contrary" about and abundance of trivial spells not being an abundance of spells? You're reading too much into what I wrote that I did not say.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Let's get on the same page. "Metagame thinking" means that decisions in-game are made using info about the game itself. That is, you say "anyone" can take magic, because the game lets you. I'm saying that everyone in the campaign world - the characters that inhabit the world - cannot all be spellcasters, either because they aren't smart enough or personally powerful enough or rich enough or culturally predisposed enough to do so.

Well, we are indeed on the same page. However, the reasons of "personally powerful enough or rich enough or culturally predisposed enough" is not universally true. You might play it that way. I might play it that way. However, this is far from fact within the game world. After all, look at the Sorcerer: None of the reasons you state except a low Charisma (<10) is a real hindrance in the matter. Wealth, social status or power have nothing to do with it.

In fact, that is the purpose of the class!

(It's also why I scuttled that bad boy in a hot minute. )

You're basing your entire assertion on what goes on in the game on information that the characters could not know, info that comes from outside the game - and by "game" I specifically mean the campaign world. That's metagaming. "In-game" usually means what is going on with the characters, not the players, and does not refer to the actual mechanics of the game itself. "Metagaming" is when someone uses knowledge that their character couldn't know - such as game rule knowledge.

Read the DMG's example of multiclassing. Lydda is taking on a level of Wizard. She's doing it exactly the way I suggest (i.e., in a trivial, anyone-can-do-it manner)*.

Yet you claim this isn't the case.

And where did I make any claims "to the contrary" about and abundance of trivial spells not being an abundance of spells? You're reading too much into what I wrote that I did not say.

You indicated that my statements about an abundance of magic were incorrect, but your "to the contraries" are based entirely on two things:

1. All three stats are low.
2. Everyone treats magic the same way you do.

It is important to note, however, that there are no longer any Classes that can treat Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma as "dump stats". One of them? Yes. Two? Well, sure. But all three? Hardly. Too many things rely on them now, particularly Feat prereqs.

*Note that the example is wrong; Unable to cast read magic, Lydda couldn't read over Mialee's shoulder.

 

[Deedlit]

Lidda probably took some ranks in decipher script or use magic device.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Well, we are indeed on the same page. However, the reasons of "personally powerful enough or rich enough or culturally predisposed enough" is not universally true. You might play it that way. I might play it that way. However, this is far from fact within the game world. After all, look at the Sorcerer: None of the reasons you state except a low Charisma (<10) is a real hindrance in the matter. Wealth, social status or power have nothing to do with it.

It does - or can - depending on the individual game. The assumption the game makes is that everyone's campaign world will be different. "Default" games are exactly what I am saying is the problem. The fact that many seem to think that if something isn't explicitly stated within the rules, it doesn't apply or exist is exactly the type of thinking I was ranting about.

Read the DMG's example of multiclassing. Lydda is taking on a level of Wizard. She's doing it exactly the way I suggest (i.e., in a trivial, anyone-can-do-it manner)*.

Yet you claim this isn't the case..

No, I didn't. PCs can do what they like, within the limits that the DM imposes. These limits are often in-game restrictions, cultural or monetary or whatever limits you can think of, imposed within the campaign world itself, not delineated by the bare rules. My entire point is that too many people get stuck on what they feel the books imply (ignoring all the stuff about making the campaign world one's own), and have the individuality of the campaign world rules-lawyered out - for example, since there isn't a restriction on multiclassing in the PHB or DMG, then there can't be any, at least in the minds of quite a few people. If, as a DM, I say Lidda can't take that level of wizard because it doesn't work that way in my world, she can't take that level of wizard - I don't care what the books say. If I say that the vocal and somatic components of a Fireball spell are to sing "Yankee Doodle" and do the Bunny Hop - that's the way it works in my world. Doing more such in-game thinking is what I am talking about.

You indicated that my statements about an abundance of magic were incorrect, but your "to the contraries" are based entirely on two things:

1. All three stats are low.
2. Everyone treats magic the same way you do.

It is important to note, however, that there are no longer any Classes that can treat Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma as "dump stats". One of them? Yes. Two? Well, sure. But all three? Hardly. Too many things rely on them now, particularly Feat prereqs.

*Note that the example is wrong; Unable to cast read magic, Lydda couldn't read over Mialee's shoulder.

I don't understand your point. The completely average human will have, basically, all 9s or 10s. In-game, how many of them will have the wherewithal, or desire, to study magic for such minimal gain? In some worlds, sure, some might. But, if I say someone can only take a level of sorcerer if they've gone to a wizard school which costs 50,000gp, then that's how it works in my world. Now who's gonna take that level just to pick up a few 0-level spells? Saying that it works a certain way because it says so in the rules is metagame thinking, no matter how you spin it.

To boil it down - my original point was that indidualization of the game is as easy as simply describing how things work, rather than continually questing for "fixes" to the actual game mechanics. The D&D magic system can cover everything from technomages to Gandalf, depending on how they are described by the DM. I don't think everyone treats magic the same way I do - in fact, I was decrying the fact that too many use the magic rules the exact same way, describing them exactly as described (and I am explicitly saying that I don't mean the actual game effects) in the books.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Y'know, I was essentially agreeing with the original poster to this thread. I like customization, because it make each DMs world unique. Some don't have time for massive overhauls of the game, so I tossed in my opinion that such customization is as easy as describing how things work in-game. Even if not a single rule is changed, one can still devise a new and unique world using such a method. When people say "yeah, but no blue nimbus that encompasses the caster's feet when the spell is cast is described in the PHB," that is metagame thinking. It's not bad, but it can produce the type of argument going on here, which can really cramp a DM's style.

I'm just trying to condense down what I've said in my other posts, for clarity to myself and others.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I agree with you more than you think.

However, you should note that saying that a blue nimbus appears whenever a spell is cast might seem minor, but it is, in fact, a rules change. Half of the reason for taking Still Spell, Silent Spell and/or Eshcew Components is to cast spells without being noticed. What a blue nimbus does is add a visual give-away to a spell being cast. Thus, you have indeed added a new detail which is, believe it or not, a rule.

If you determine that going to a Wizard's School is required, you have, believe it or not, added a rule.

So, while you indicate that these changes can be implemented without changing the rules, you seem to overlook the fact that you are indeed changing them by virtue of adding to them. It's changing them because, although not altering the mechanics in any real way, you have changed the conditions under which they may be applied. The Core Rules say that you can do it. You say, you can do it if.

That's a change to the rules.

Again, I'm not effectively disagreeing with what you've done; My own changes are far more radical. What I am disagreeing with is your statement that changes can be implimented merely through description instead of rule changes when every description you've given is, in fact, a rule.

 

[Drakmar]

well.. Bendris Noulg.. I can see what I think you mean.

I have made a rule that says.. to become a mage, you must be awakened by another mage.. I have made a rule. However... I have not made the rule system for it. I think the difference is though.. I might tell my players that. what I don't tell them is that this is a crock, that the mages have spread this rumour to control it. So.. in effect this is not a "System" rule, it is a "Rule of Society" in my little world. different.. but both rules.. that is the way I read the difference between what you and CH are saying.

The way I look at it. d20/OGL has allowed D&D to become more of a Free Market. Now.. WoTC has given us many many books.. so.. you don't have to customise the rules is you don't want to. But at the same time.. the whole system is setup so that customisation is quite easy. WoTC has basically given us a framework for Roleplaying that is modular enough that almost anything can be done with it. that makes me happy.

I, personally, like customising. So for me.. when I read about the Sacred Dwarves in TQD.. I thought they are cool.. but I don't like them as is.. So.. in my world as I am building it now.. the way dwarves do spellbooks is (I describe this a lot more in Plots n places) is they shave a little bit of their beard.. and replace it with a braid of metal that they connect to their body via a piercing. And on the braid.. is a kind of brail. Now.. we have a spellbook.. works like a spellbook. no real game mechanic difference from a spellbook.. but is it way different from a normal spellbook.

All this OGL stuff.. give me more ideas to um.. well.. pilfer for my game. I will change them to suit.. heck.. I will even come up with my own.. but I love rehashing somebody elses idea..

 

[Bendris Noulg]

well.. Bendris Noulg.. I can see what I think you mean.

I have made a rule that says.. to become a mage, you must be awakened by another mage.. I have made a rule. However... I have not made the rule system for it. I think the difference is though.. I might tell my players that. what I don't tell them is that this is a crock, that the mages have spread this rumour to control it. So.. in effect this is not a "System" rule, it is a "Rule of Society" in my little world. different.. but both rules.. that is the way I read the difference between what you and CH are saying.

You are right on that part. However, the issue of the "blue nimbus". Does this effect hiding? How bright is it? Does it still appear if I'm invisible. CH can say it's just description and flavor, but a glowing nimbus would have far more effect than that, and once that effect is considered ("Yes, it imposes a -X to you Hide check", "No, it doesn't appear when you are invisible"), then further rules are being put into place. Rules that are indeed mechanical as opposed to flavorful.

I, personally, like customising. So for me.. when I read about the Sacred Dwarves in TQD.. I thought they are cool.. but I don't like them as is.. So.. in my world as I am building it now.. the way dwarves do spellbooks is (I describe this a lot more in Plots n places) is they shave a little bit of their beard.. and replace it with a braid of metal that they connect to their body via a piercing. And on the braid.. is a kind of brail. Now.. we have a spellbook.. works like a spellbook. no real game mechanic difference from a spellbook.. but is it way different from a normal spellbook.

That is cool... I, of course, have questions... I'll hunt down your other thread though.

All this OGL stuff.. give me more ideas to um.. well.. pilfer for my game. I will change them to suit.. heck.. I will even come up with my own.. but I love rehashing somebody elses idea..

I know what you mean. My own netbook started as a means of supplying Aedon's Houserules to my Players in a single, printed format.

 

[Drakmar]

yup.. definately. but.. what I was saying was.. that there are blue nimbus's..and they require certain rules to be taken into consideration.. and other things that well. are just flavour..

But since the way I play is.. I have rules.. I follow them.. if the rules are broken.. I will fix them.. usually on the fly.

in the blue nimbus situation.. I might never have to think about it. until the player uses that spell in a situation that requires it.. then I would just give a circumstance penalty.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I agree with you more than you think.

However, you should note that saying that a blue nimbus appears whenever a spell is cast might seem minor, but it is, in fact, a rules change. Half of the reason for taking Still Spell, Silent Spell and/or Eshcew Components is to cast spells without being noticed. What a blue nimbus does is add a visual give-away to a spell being cast. Thus, you have indeed added a new detail which is, believe it or not, a rule.

If you determine that going to a Wizard's School is required, you have, believe it or not, added a rule.

So, while you indicate that these changes can be implemented without changing the rules, you seem to overlook the fact that you are indeed changing them by virtue of adding to them. It's changing them because, although not altering the mechanics in any real way, you have changed the conditions under which they may be applied. The Core Rules say that you can do it. You say, you can do it if.

That's a change to the rules.

Again, I'm not effectively disagreeing with what you've done; My own changes are far more radical. What I am disagreeing with is your statement that changes can be implimented merely through description instead of rule changes when every description you've given is, in fact, a rule.

You're stretching in search of an argument. This is a matter of semantics, which, quite honestly, I would rather not discuss. I think any reasonable reader knows what I meant. The specific examples I gave were just that - examples, and off the top of my head at that. I'm sure that any number of unobtrusive bits of flavor could be devised. OK - the blue nimbus is faint, and only visible to the caster.

The D&D rules are akin to a toolbox. They give a basic framework upon which to work. What you are failing to see or acknowledge is that the rules changes I'm talking about are in-game, and largely cosmetic, in the sense that they do not alter the basic framework of how the mechanics work in an actual dice rolling sense. Further, you also are ignoring - or at least downplaying - perhaps the most basic, most implicit rule within the game, the one that supercedes all the others - DM's discretion.

This isn't just a "yeah, but..." type of thing that can be glossed over. It's the rule that is the landscape upon which the structures of the game are built. The DM is encouraged in the DMG, often explicitly, to customize his or her world. If this involves changing or adding rules - and I use that word very loosely for this discussion - then so be it. My specific point of contention is that these changes can be nothing more than descriptive, which obviates the need for massive changes of the framework itself. It's one thing to require characters to spend 5000gp to go to wizard school, and another to come up with a new magic system.

There really isn't anything specific in the rules that says that players can take any class they want, in the sense that nothing supercedes their decision-making - only that it's possible. Again, DM's discretion is implicit - those classes or races can only be taken at the DM's approval. One of the most important aspects of D&D rests in this - DM's discretion is one of the cornerstones of the game. It totally permeates the game, to the point that it sometimes is ignored, like not seeing the forest for the trees.