D&D 5E DM's: How Do You Justify NPC's Having Magic/Abilities That Don't Exist in the PHB?

[TwoSix]

These claims aren't true. I know, because I GM RPGs which are not Calvinball at the table and don't approach magic in particular, nor worldbuilding in general, in the way you describe here. (I'm thinking of Prince Valiant, Agon, Cortex+ Heroic, 4e D&D and Torchbearer 2e in particular.)

It's not mysterious, either, why this is so: none of the RPGs I'm thinking of elevate Unmediated GM adjudication of the fiction as a principle of action resolution.

This is half-baked early morning thoughts, so I apologize for riffing here a bit.

This whole discussion is a little odd, in that some of the participants who argue for more DM empowerment and loose/FKR-style resolution are suddenly arguing for more codification, which is a classic player-empowering tactic. Likewise, loose magic adjudication is almost certainly a grant of authority to the DM, which isn't the way these discussions normally go.

So is there another aesthetic consideration here that's mixing up the normal lines of discussion?

Right now, I feel like the desire for strong magical definition is about handing off authority to the setting, away from both the players and the DM, and improving that sense of being lost in the setting, trying to get closer to fully immersed like a holodeck. What that other thread about play motivations would call Submission or Abnegation, the idea of getting lost in the play experience.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This is half-baked early morning thoughts, so I apologize for riffing here a bit.

This whole discussion is a little odd, in that some of the participants who argue for more DM empowerment and loose/FKR-style resolution are suddenly arguing for more codification, which is a classic player-empowering tactic. Likewise, loose magic adjudication is almost certainly a grant of authority to the DM, which isn't the way these discussions normally go.

So is there another aesthetic consideration here that's mixing up the normal lines of discussion?

Right now, I feel like the desire for strong magical definition is about handing off authority to the setting, away from both the players and the DM, and improving that sense of being lost in the setting, trying to get closer to fully immersed like a holodeck. What that other thread about play motivations would call Submission or Abnegation, the idea of getting lost in the play experience.

I think you have a strong point here, at least from the pov so some interlocutors on the thread.

 

[pemerton]

This is half-baked early morning thoughts, so I apologize for riffing here a bit.

This whole discussion is a little odd, in that some of the participants who argue for more DM empowerment and loose/FKR-style resolution are suddenly arguing for more codification, which is a classic player-empowering tactic. Likewise, loose magic adjudication is almost certainly a grant of authority to the DM, which isn't the way these discussions normally go.

So is there another aesthetic consideration here that's mixing up the normal lines of discussion?

Right now, I feel like the desire for strong magical definition is about handing off authority to the setting, away from both the players and the DM, and improving that sense of being lost in the setting, trying to get closer to fully immersed like a holodeck. What that other thread about play motivations would call Submission or Abnegation, the idea of getting lost in the play experience.

A riff on your riff.

Having magic be "magical", or not tied down by reference to PC build elements, or a pre-determined "physics of the setting", doesn't necessarily entail loose magic adjudication. I can make up some weird setting element in 4e D&D, for instance, and have the adjudication be quite straightforward (most likely based around keywords and the skill challenge rules, including the role of improvised use of powers in a skill challenge). Or in the Prince Valiant scenario The Crimson Bull, which one of my players thought had the most magical and engaging treatment of magic in any of his FRPGing, the adjudication - involving dispelling a demon with a blessed dagger - was quite straightforward, because Prince Valiant uses a simple, consistent resolution technique.

So for me, at least, this is not a discussion about GM authority in adjudication. It's about GM authority in framing. And there's an argument that the GM's authority in respect of framing should be tied down by reference to an already-defined setting; where that prior definition of setting is done in terms of PC build and related mechanical elements. The GM is still taken to be in charge of that setting definition, though.

Where my riff converges with yours is that setting is being prioritised, over colour and situation. What I find a bit frustrating is the apparent insistence that the RPGing roof will fall in if colour or situation are prioritised over setting (and especially over setting approached through the lens of mechanical PC build elements). That's an empirical claim which I know from my own experience is false.

 

[TwoSix]

Where my riff converges with yours is that setting is being prioritised, over colour and situation. What I find a bit frustrating is the apparent insistence that the RPGing roof will fall in if colour or situation are prioritised over setting (and especially over setting approached through the lens of mechanical PC build elements). That's an empirical claim which I know from my own experience is false.

I think for those whose aesthetic goals are to achieve either classic or trad style play, then "setting is king" is an actual tentpole of their play. Gameplay that focuses on developing the situation over prioritizing the fidelity of the setting's simulation is close to verboten.

 

[pemerton]

I think for those whose aesthetic goals are to achieve either classic or trad style play, then "setting is king" is an actual tentpole of their play. Gameplay that focuses on developing the situation over prioritizing the fidelity of the setting's simulation is close to verboten.

I think "yes" for trad. I don't think I agree for classic. If you look at early D&D modules (think WPM, or ToH, or Castle Amber, for instance) they are full of magical effects, tricks, puzzles etc that - while not necessarily "magical" magic - are often wacky, sometimes whimsical, and rarely bound by any system or logic. This is the same general spirit, and the same general era, that generated many of the classic and bizarre monsters (ochre jellies, owlbears, umber hulks, etc).

I think the systematisation, and associated "setting as king", is one of the markers of the transition from classic to trad as the dominant ethos in D&D play. And it's still with us.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't quite know what you mean by "Agency" in this context. Nor what you mean by the GM "going off script".

When I, as a GM, design some element of the fiction - a NPC, a place, an object, etc - that is not explicable or definable by reference to elements of the PC build rules, how am I affecting anyone's agency? I mean, ochre jellies in classic D&D have abilities and behaviours that are not explicable or definable by reference to elements of the PC build rules. They might be a bit wacky, but I don't see how their existence is at odds with anyone's agency.

I also don't recall saying that a PC's magic is always limited to RAW/RAI. Why can't players perform improvised actions? (I posted an example upthread, from my 4e play. Someone else in this thread posted that 5e contains similar rules to 4e in this respect.)

Yes, now you're reframing the debate and potentially muddying the conversation as it appears you agree with magic being constrained within some sense of framework which is what most are saying.
The OP was about the DM using magic without any sense of framework - are you for or against this treatment of magic?

EDIT: @TwoSix corrected my interpretation of the debate further down.

 

[TwoSix]

I think "yes" for trad. I don't think I agree for classic. If you look at early D&D modules (think WPM, or ToH, or Castle Amber, for instance) they are full of magical effects, tricks, puzzles etc that - while not necessarily "magical" magic - are often wacky, sometimes whimsical, and rarely bound by any system or logic. This is the same general spirit, and the same general era, that generated many of the classic and bizarre monsters (ochre jellies, owlbears, umber hulks, etc).

I think the systematisation, and associated "setting as king", is one of the markers of the transition from classic to trad as the dominant ethos in D&D play. And it's still with us.

Yes, that makes sense. I would apply "setting as king" to classic only in the sense that for "map-and-key" type play, the map is typically assumed to be immutable once play starts.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, now you're reframing the debate and potentially muddying the conversation as it appears you agree with magic being constrained within some sense of framework which is what most are saying.
The OP was about the DM using magic without any sense of framework - are you for or against this treatment of magic?

The OP wasn't about magic with no framework, it was about magic without the explicit framework found in the PHB.

The real difference here is whether keeping the working of magic opaque to the players is a good practice.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, that makes sense. I would apply "setting as king" to classic only in the sense that for "map-and-key" type play, the map is typically assumed to be immutable once play starts.

Yes. And so it operates as a constraint on framing. But it's something like a structured bundle of incipient situations. It doesn't have to have the sort of setting logic that some posters in this thread are arguing for.

Whereas @Lanefan's post (which I see as strongly advocating "setting as king") don't seem to regard situation as especially important at all. The GM is establishing a binding setting logic independent of any particular situation(s) it might yield.

 

[pemerton]

it appears you agree with magic being constrained within some sense of framework which is what most are saying.

What framework? The word "framework" doesn't appear in the post you quoted.

Posts 319 and 321 upthread have examples of magical places, effects etc that I have included in my FRPGing. They didn't conform to, or arise out of, PC build rules.

The real difference here is whether keeping the working of magic opaque to the players is a good practice.

I think the idea you state here can have at least two readings. (Maybe more? But at least two.)

(1) Is having the fiction of magic opaque from players good practice? To which my answer is, opacity of magic is like opacity of anything else in the shared fiction - it may be good or bad depending on context. Part of the context for magic is that it's magic! And so mystery or opacity can reinforce that colour.

(2) Is having the mechanical resolution of magical effects be opaque to players good practice? There's a long tradition of this in D&D - think eg the demilich in ToH - but it's not my personally favoured approach. I mostly play RPGs - 4e D&D, Prince Valiant, Agon, MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, Torchbearer 2e, etc - that have uniform or at least systematic resolution processes.

(2) and (1) are independent. Someone could set up a non-opaque fiction around magic (and so reject (1)) but have it be opaque in its resolution (and hence an instance of (2)), eg because it involves directly persuading the GM by reference to the fiction, like how some people like social resolution to be handled.