Arcane Magic, Divine Magic, Nature Magic and Psionics are too much alike.

[Mordane76]

As to the flavor issue, I agree it can seem very much the same. The next time I start a game, I may take steps to modify the system some, but not the core mechanic. As Celebrim points out, if you think D&D magic is dull, you've never played a "Mage-by-flowchart" from GURPS. I like the system in GURPS, but it has all the flavor of corrugated cardboard. Things like ecentuating the nature of the spell-lists that are available is one way to customize them, and enforcing the often ignored restritcions is another (for example, how many mages actually carry a piece of fur and a glass rod in their inventories to cast spells? Beuller? Beuller?). But you have to do so in a responsible manner as DM, or else you're penalizing someone's choice in class, which is usually not that fun.

This becomes incredibly difficult, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Why do people overlook these simple restrictions... a good idea for a new thread...

I think what would do it for me is entirely non-rule-changing. How can one get players to be more descriptive? Hmm... yet another good idea for a new thread...

 

[Geoff Watson]

I actually feel exactly the opposite; IMO, magic by its very nature should be chaotic and mysterious, and the unified system just drains away some of the mystery of the operation. A lot of people have gone out and altered the way the system works, to varying degrees of success -- and I think this is great; the Vancian system that D&D uses, while straightforward and elegant in execution, is completely... dull.

Mystery and chaotic magic may work fine in a novel or story, but in a game the players have to understand the rules, which either removes the mystery, or the mystery makes it unplayable.

Geoff.

 

[Voneth]

Unfortunately, the system provided, IMO, is draining player's innovation -- why should they put forth the effort to play up their character?

IS?
How about always has drained player innovation.

On the other hand the dullness of DnD magic had probably been one of the biggest motivations of innovation for the rpg industry as budding game designers have said "I can do something mroe exciting than that!"

But most GM don't want exciting magic, they want predicatable, safe magic.

 

[Olive]

i also have no need for four different magic systems. my players have a hard enough time remembering what die to roll for initiative, and how domain spell lists work...

 

[barsoomcore]

I don't get people who blame a system for their creative failings.

A system is just a system. It has to work SOMEHOW, it has to provide some sort of structure.

The great thing about D&D magic is, once you learn it, you learn it. All the spells are described the same way because, in the D&D system, all spells are the same TYPE of thing. Which makes it very easy to figure out if one spell is more powerful than another. And that's a good thing, because it helps players realise that they're becoming more powerful. And because it helps the DM to scale encounters and NPCs.

If you have trouble making it SOUND exciting, the problem's not with the system.

Now, I should point out that I've created not one, not two, but three entirely separate magic systems for Barsoom. And do not use the default system because I hate it to bits.

But not because I have trouble making it exciting.

It doesn't drain player innovation. Not my players, anyway. Maybe there's something in the water over where you are?

Mordane76 muttered:
How can I reward one player for staying in flavor without looking like I'm playing favorites?

Forgive me for saying so, but you ARE playing favourites. So go ahead and look like you are. What's wrong with playing favourites?

Well, lots of things and that's why I don't try to reward role-playing. My feeling is that if my players are having fun and I'm having fun, then who cares? If somebody's not having fun they should speak up and say, "Hey guys, I'm not having much fun. Let's do something to fix that."

 

[Victim]

It's always risky for a player to add flavor. If a player makes a number of flavorable assumptions, he runs the risk of contradicting what the DM wants.

 

[Olive]

I don't get people who blame a system for their creative failings.

A system is just a system. It has to work SOMEHOW, it has to provide some sort of structure.

hear hear!!!

 

[barsoomcore]

It's always risky for a player to add flavor. If a player makes a number of flavorable assumptions, he runs the risk of contradicting what the DM wants.

Well, just how much "risk" are we talking about, here? The risk that the DM might say, "No, actually, fireballs are always pink, never green. Sorry, that's the way it is."?

I don't see that as all that risky, actually. And in any event, there are plenty of ways to add flavour with making flavourable assumptions. Like, asking the DM, "What colour are fireballs?" before launching into your big flavour-filled description.

 

[Victim]

Well, I meant stuff beyond the color of spells. Without specific information, a player's assumptions about magic or the nature of class might be different than the DM's.

For example, I will generally assume that elves in a DnD game will be the somewhat wimpy elves in the PHB, while the DM might be thinking of Tolkien demi-god elves.

Or, in the case of wizards, I might be thinking Turjon or Rhialto the Marvelous, and the DM might have Gandalf in mind. Or maybe I'm thinking of Lina Inverse, while the DM is thinking Gandalf.

If the DM thinks of odd spirits as powering magic, while I build a character based around the idea of Will overpowering reality, then there will be problems.

If the DM hasn't supplied almost all the flavor already, he's either going to have to be open minded, or the flavor that the player is supplying won't fit right.

 

[Voneth]

I don't get people who blame a system for their creative failings.

A system is just a system. It has to work SOMEHOW, it has to provide some sort of structure.

Great, lets dump DND levels and use tea leaves then.

What some people are saying is that the rules are not conducive to the atmosphere. Here are a few examples:

Ley Lines, Heroes of High Favor, Elf book, 3rd Party support:
Now this is exactly what some posters are talking about. The book introduces Ley lines and Power Nexuses to the DnD slot system, which are the magical equivalent of power station and eletric lines running across the land. Spellcasterscan hook into them to boost their spellcasting ability in various ways as well as ways to control, ward and fight through these constructs. The book warns that using the concept can radicaly change the metaphysics of your game world and I can see why. PHB magic has no metaphysics. Yet, this small chapter can add a ton of "flavor" with out a ton of rules.

DnD Psionics, 3rd Party support:
On this part, I disagree that DnD psionics are not as dull as the DnD slot system. The way that several 3rd party support products lets a player store, transfer and maniupulate power points, gives the "feeling" that there is an energy that one can play with and do exciting, expermental things with. The really sad thing is 1.) a lot of people have issues with psionics (hell, you can't even seem to get three people to agree if psionics is overpowered, just right, or underpowered) and 2.) the best 3rd party support is from the guy who wrote the PsiHB, WTF?

Mage: the Ascension:
Even though this game's stats are much less defined than all those DND details, almost every game session has players rping the character talking about the metaphysics of the world and how they can maniupulate it. Some even try to see if they can change the rules.

And yes it boils down to personal taste, for some the ability to chose a spell on the fly and to have another class that gets to know a new special spell at every other level is enough flavor. Others want more, the challenge is how to get that flavor with out adding too many cumbersome rules (psi combat anyone?)