Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8928696" data-attributes="member: 6696971">That looks right.  Let me clarify where I'm coming from and what I'm driving at in this conversation.  I'll go ahead and mention [USER=4937]@Celebrim[/USER] and [USER=6684958]@bloodtide[/USER] as they've got a few responses up to me.First, my entry into the conversation isn't around "what sort of fiction does creative action declarations make?"  That is an interesting (and important, in some corners of play) question, but that isn't the one I'm engaging with here.  So I don't want to run together things like "story", "simulation", and "game" (hat tip [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] in another conversation).  These are not only not the same things but, given a particular play paradigm, they may not even be connected or relevant.I'm exclusively talking about "game" here and of Traditional D&D specifically (to remove many things, but one in particular being Cantrips and another being Rituals); the layer of D&D play where:1) players make observations (through conversation at the table, typically with "GM as lens" in some capacity) about the imagined space >2)  orient themselves to a suite of prospective, permissible moves based on a combination of (a) what is before them + (b) their conception of what might be ahead of them + (c) the move-space and resources native to their character >3) winnow that down to a particular line of play that they deem most applicable (which may not be optimally effective in this exact moment...but sufficiently effective + sufficient immediate and future risk assessment folded in)4) > execute and resolve the play.So I’m using the language of Obstacles/Problem Areas (or Situations) rather than "Scene." Yes, the interaction with and resolution of these things typically constitutes a “scene.”. But “scene” is parlance used in story dynamics rather than game dynamics, so I’m choosing language based on concerns of the latter rather than the former.Alright, with that out of the way, let me piece together my sense of the important constituent, converging parts here. * At level 3, both AD&D and B/X put the M/U at 3 spells; 2/1. * At this point in play, the significant bulk (exclusive in Basic) will be Dungeon Delves; contained adventuring sites with particular dynamics.  One of those important dynamics is # of Obstacles/Problem Areas in a dungeon.  Let us just establish a number here and say the average dungeon, before Wandering Monsters, will contain roughly 6-8 Obstacles/Problem Areas (not the same as # of Rooms).* With 3 spells, and only 1 x level 2, the M/U's spell loadout and deployment decisions will be intensive and consequential as both their repertoire and their "gas tank" is thin, particularly with respect to # of Obstacles/Problem Areas faced; see my (2) above.* Name Level for an M/U in Expert is 9, while its 11 in AD&D.  For Expert there isn't much play left, but when you extend to CMI, there is a lot of play left.  For AD&D, there is a ton of play left by level 11.  Lets work off level 11.  The spell loadouts are subtly different here and, imo, more advantageous to the AD&D (now) Wizard, despite the fact that the B/X (now) Wizard gets access to a level 6 spell while the AD&D counterpart does not.  This is because the AD&D Wizard has 18 total spells usable by this point with a huge 12 between 1-3 levels and a chunky 6 at 4-5.  Meanwhile, the B/X Wizard will have 2 less spells usable total (16), with those 2 less being in that sweet level 2-3 range (where there is an abundance of "answers to problems"). * So the problem is 4-fold.  The first issue is the bullet point directly above about (i) spell proliferation/potency.  The next 3 work in concert to create a positive feedback loop that amplifies the situation.  Those are other 3 are:(ii) The # of Obstacles/Problem Areas of a dungeon/adventure does not scale with either # spells usable or spellbook growth.  At most, you may see either (a) a small increase in total # of Obstacles/Problem Areas on a per dungeon/adventure basis or (b) an increase in "Megadungeons."  But this doesn't remotely do the necessary work.  Wizard players will suddenly have a considerable increase in their 2c (their prospective move-space/"answers") above while simultaneously dealing with a decrease of downward pressure on their loadout and resource management concerns.(iii) Dungeon delves at this point notoriously break down for a myriad of reasons.  Consequently, the constraints/pressures on Wizards reduce further while their prospective move-space expands even further when out of that artificial "obstacle course" environment of the dungeon. (iv) To compound matters, Wizards develop more means to both "refresh the Adventuring Day" and "bigger guns" to allowing them more potent means to "recontextualize situations" (or reframe scenes).  These further reduce pressures on curation of loadout/spell deployment because refresh = your allocation of loadout per Obstacles/Problem Areas is now completely undone while Big Guns can mean obviating multiple Obstacles/Problem Areas (or even just fundamentally "re-wiring a scenario" in a single spell deployment.[HR][/HR]So this is where I'm at with your "recontextualizing situations" paradigm.  The game doesn't scale for M/U's turned Wizard.  And that scaling problem isn't univariate.  There are multiple issues with lack of scaling, the host of which converge to create Wizards who recontextualize situations at a rate that is far, far beyond their martial counterparts, therefore disproportionately controlling the trajectory of play.And how does that massive advantage get "offset?"  By GM intervention via Force and Calvinball buggery that typically gets justified by either/or/both "simulation pretensions/veneer" or "storytelling imperatives."And why does this problem not happen in Torchbearer at level (say) 6?  Because none of the above apply to the TB Magician and the fundamental loop of play retains its integral components.</blockquote>

Verification