D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

[FrogReaver]

Then what pre-existing fiction do you think D&D is modeling?

For this discussion there are two types of magic in fiction. Magic such that there is great uncertainty and/or cost associated with the magic. Then there is magic that just works how it's supposed to work so long as the caster knows the spell.

D&D didn't invent magic that just works when cast - and there have been countless stories about magic both before and after where the caster was able to produce the effect he wanted when he cast the spell. That's the kind of fictional magic D&D is modeling.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ok then. But perhaps tell the other people contributing to this thread so that this discussion can actually go somewhere.

Please?

Perhaps. Without the actual texts in question we can't argue that he is wrong i.e. no one can disagree that D&D does a good job of modelling those texts.

But at the same time I don't see how anyone can be convinced of the opposite either.

It's a strange sort of cul de sac.

Then you should have thought about that and asked without a personal attack to begin with. In addition - you just made clear that you just want the examples to prove me wrong. From personal attacks, to only wanting to prove me wrong - your behavior isn't appropriate for discussing anything with me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For this discussion there are two types of magic in fiction.

If they're both out there, why should D&D model only one? And, if only one, why the current, problematic, one?

D&D didn't invent magic that just works when cast -

-and is "forgotten" when cast, true. Jack Vance did, in a science-fiction setting, the Dying Earth.
EGG adopted it, according to comments in 1e, for what we, today, might call 'gamist' reasons.
No reason not to change the way magic works for the same reasons.

 

[5ekyu]

Then say that.

And then we need to admit that we're back to square 1. Square 1 being:

The only way to achieve spellcaster : martial parity (particularly as levels accrue and arcane power surges upward and outward) is (a) GM Force in the way of the classic (brutally obnoxious in my opinion) premptive or post-hoc block tropes that we're all very aware of (rampant...stealing spellbooks and components, anti-magic fields, anti-teleportation circles, counterspelling NPCs, etc) and/or (b) heavily GM-curated play where they have a massively disproportionate role in the trajectory of play with "tailored encounters" and "spotlight dispensation."

Going back to that square 1 is a non-starter for @Campbell (the thread's starter) and many, many, many other players of D&D and its offshoots.

Well, i think what we hae here is differing objectives and differening perspectives.

I too have played more than a few unreliable magic games and sorry, it did not suddenly provide this balance of amorphous feelings that seem to be seeking. Nothing close.

To me, though, straight up,the notion of what seems to be the desire for sandbox play and balance of feeling and balance of complexity of skilled play across the pc choices is impossible. You are removing the primary driver of balace, GM "curation" of the challenges and plot elements to show sone off the strengths and differences of each character being vital.

Once you remove that dastardly GM curation, you wind up with so much player control of the challenges they face that its no longer possible to spotlight or highlight each character in turn unless they choose it.

Exception - if the pcs and players have significant power that is non-defined such as scene edits or amorhous powers-on-demand by gimmick points and the like. But, as observed, that style of gaming seems toalso be unaceptable to many playing this kind of "specified traits" char-gen game.

It seems to me that the three things being sought - pre-specified abilities, mmm o or minimal GM curation of challenges/sandbox, all these different bslances and feeling - are not simultaneously providable by a system.

In a game of pre-specified abilities divisions, you need GM assisted balance to get that balance. In a game with amorphous gimmick point scene edit "spend to solve" mechanics, that becomes irrelevant and the "manifested solution type" just fluff.

"My barbarian in rage punches wall, spend gimick point, exposing a secret compartment with vital clue."




I have yet to see a game that produed all three.

 

[FrogReaver]

If they're both out there, why should D&D model only one? And, if only one, why the current, problematic, one?

First I dismiss the part of the question where you ask if it can model both. I see no particular upfront issue with adding in a class that does magic the other way. So I'm not opposed to having both in the game.

To answer why we should stick with the current fictional basis for magic:
1. Tradition
2. Many people enjoy that kind of magic in games
3. It models quite a bit of fiction.

-and is "forgotten" when cast, true. Jack Vance did, in a science-fiction setting, the Dying Earth.
EGG adopted it, according to comments in 1e, for what we, today, might call 'gamist' reasons.
No reason not to change the way magic works for the same reasons.

Thankfully 5e fixed the weird nuance of forgetting a spell once you cast it!

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, i think what we hae here is differing objectives and differening perspectives.

I too have played more than a few unreliable magoc games and sorry, it did not suddenly provide this balance of amorphous feelings that seem o seeking. Nothing close.

To me, though, straight up,the notion of what seems to bethe desire for sandbox play and balance of feeling and balance of complexity of skilled play across the pc choices is impossible. You are removing the primary driver of balace, GM "curation" of thechallenges and plot elements to show sone ofthe the strengths and differences of each character being vital.

Once you remove that dastardly GM curation, you wind up with so uch player control of the challenges they face that its no longer possible to spotlight or highlight each character in turn unless they choose it.

Exception - if the pcs and players have significant power that is non-defined such as scene edits or amorhous powers-on-demand by gimmick points and the like. But, as observed, that style of gaming seems toalso be unaceptable to many playing this kind of "specified traits" char-gen game.

It seems to me that the three things being sought - pre-specified abilities, mmm o or minimal GM curation of challenges/sandbox, all these different bslances and feeling - are not simultaneously providable by a system.

In a game of pre-specified abilities divisions, you need GM assisted balance to get that balance. In a game with amorphous gimmick point scene edit "spend to solve" mechanics, that becomes irrelevant and the "manifested solution type" just fluff.

"My barbarian in rage punches wall, spend gimick point, exposing a secret compartment with vital clue."




I have yet to see a game that produed all three.

Very well said!

 

[Don Durito]

I'm not sure unreliable magic would do anything to provide balance in combat. Things like save throws mean that magic already has a degree of unreliable - it's just more often on the target's side than on the casters.

Outside of combat...magic does provide a kind of narrative power. There's something different about the ability to just say 'this happens'. It makes a big difference when planning to be able to say "I'm going to climb that wall because I will cast Spider Climb (or just levitate)" - than to say "I can probably climb that wall" - because a plan that relies on the wall being climbed has the potential in the latter case to fail at the first hurdle - therefore it doesn't pay too plan too much beyong that point - and if there's 3 or 4 such points of failure then you're almost certainly going to fail.

But I'm not necessarily sure that magic is a fault here.
One thing I often saw in 3.X was one player deciding that they really want to be, guaranteed never fail (or as close to it as possible) good at one skill and stacking a whole lot of things together. (Basically they wanted the certainty of magic). It's a lot harder to do this in 5E (especially for classes that don't get expertise).

4E had Martial Practices which were a way of giving non-magical characters some of this narrative certainty. (At the cost of a healing surge - so a daily resource - although this did not always make sense in the fiction which was an issue.)

And of course the 5E rogue builds towards this kind of heavy degree of "I just do it" reliability - especially at higher levels.

 

[5ekyu]

Once more for those up the back....."SPELLCASTERS CAN DO THAT AS WELL, THE UNBALANCE OF AGENCY STILL REMAINS".

Nope. Not at all. Well, not necesarily.

As in, the agency is like any impact on outcomes is driven by the needs, the challenges and those can be empowered differently and used by the GM to help balsnce out agency.

Unless you then add in the "sandbox, non-curated, etc" shackles to the gameplay.

But the jey is, if you add those shackles, you give up control of cgsllenges and needs so that any pre-selected specific traits have no guarantee or likelihood of balance.

Really, you can have two of the three...

1 Specified abilities pre-determined (not gimmick point screentime style edit driven resolution by fluff on demand) that differ between characters

2 no or minimal GM curation of challenges and needs

3 Balance or equal feeling or agency or power (whatever you care about balancing)

Simple example, if i as gm setup a desert full of giants, a valley of undead and a treacher city of assassins and dont curate things then neither inor the players got any promise or expectation that the undead-fighting priest, the range witj desert home or the dwarven giant slayer see anything close to "balance of x" in play because the players might choose to go to one of those and pursue that for the entire game...

Unless of course, every choice leads to somehow evenly divided evenly important etc no real difference challenges - which is the pretence of agency, cuz then their choice doesnt matter really.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not opposed to having both in the game.

Cool

To answer why we should stick with the current fictional basis for magic:
1. Tradition
2. Many people enjoy that kind of magic in games

This is a discussion about change, so those are irrelevant points.

Yes, by definition, any change would be at odds with tradition, and of no value to those already happy with casters having "compelling game play" to themselves.

3. It models quite a bit of fiction.

Dying Earth, poorly, and fiction influenced by D&D, for the most part.
It fails to model most other fantasy fiction. So there's really a lot of opportunity there.

 

[FrogReaver]

Cool

This is a discussion about change, so those are irrelevant points.

Yes, by definition, any change would be at odds with tradition, and of no value to those already happy with casters having "compelling game play" to themselves.

Tradition is always an important consideration. Something has to be a vast improvement to justify changing tradition for it. IMO. Changing something a lot of people like for something they may not is also an important consideration.

Dying Earth, poorly, and fiction influenced by D&D, for the most part.
It fails to model most other fantasy fiction. So there's really a lot of opportunity there.

Oh I'm thinking more mainstream. Which models Harry Potter's magic better - is magic in Harry Potter mostly reliable or not?