Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
It's all Jack Vance's fault
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8806089" data-attributes="member: 6799660"><p>Okay, I have reread a few Dying Earth stories, looked up Gygax's references to spellcasting in the early days, and checked out some of the alternate systems people have referenced. Here are some thoughts --</p><p><u>Regarding Vance's writing</u> -- one thing thing that struck me solidly is that Vance's spells did seem like an arsenal (or as mentioned upthread, Q's Bond gadgets/a Chekov gun, since they always ended up being the perfect solution for a problem which came up). Mostly in that a wizard almost never got to re-charge or change out their allotment in a plot-timely manner. This emulates the supposed original Gygax intent of the spell allotment being per any single adventure (each one usually being a night's worth of gaming), and the framework fuindordm mentions about him thinking highly-powerful/limited use spells would be the most fun. I think that's probably one of the biggest challenges D&D has had to deal with ever since -- stopping players from making the tactically reasonable decision to rest and recharge at every opportunity. Sure there are doom clocks (or environments where resting is as perilous as pressing on with some spells burned), but then you need your adventures to look like that. Excluding 4e/13A, the standard way D&D and D&D-alikes have handled this has been to simply state a standard of expected encounters (6-8 in 5e, 4/day in 3e) and note that if you deviate from this, it will effect the inter-class balance. Certainly a way to deal with it, but also unsatisfying to a significant subset of gamers.</p><p></p><p><u>Regarding other systems</u> -- mana points vs. con-damage vs. weaker-but-at-wills and so on seem like... not minutia, but specifics where the other nuances of the game rules may well overcome them in terms of the impact of magic. What strikes me as a near-universal theme is that other systems rarely have the 'usually takes a single combat-frame and always works' quality that D&D has. Sometimes it is a skill test, other times charge up time, or major constraints on when you can readily do so (Tekumel and the 'metal makes you blow up' quality being a pure example there). AD&D specifically had a taste of this in spell disruption (in theory 3e did as well, but getting around it was entirely too easy), but there is so much variability in how much of a hindrance that is (notably whether your caster was behind a retinue of hirelings in 10' corridors or not, but also the incredible variation in whether people actually used the AD&D initiative rules -and correctly. Also then it has no meaning for spells cast away from a fight). Fundamentally I think if utility spells were just another test you made like a skill check there might be less frustration with magic being able to do what a skill-expert does.</p><p></p><p>Another thing I noticed while reading spell lists (and yeah, massively many other games also use discrete lists of spells with very solidly defined effect parameters): very few games have spells (especially ones without lasting costs or consequences that you can cast day after day) that scale as high as D&D spells do (relative the system as a whole). Nor in many are you usually expected to cast spells as often as even TSR-era D&D casters. There are lots of systems where a TSR-era <em>Charm Person</em> would be considered hugely powerful, or where a <em>Magic Jar</em>-like effect would be something you spent days recovering your power pool from casting (or like <em>Symbaroum</em> --where all magic is risky--has a <em>baleful polymorph</em>-like effect, but it's considered 'the broken spell'). Very few games have magic that is so fire-and-forget, so convenient, and so disruptive. OTOH, this is also true of many D&D magic items, and this leads me back to another thing I realize about AD&D -- getting new spells was hard. They were often found as treasure and became the magic users' part of the loot, very much like magic items. The loss of the uncertainty of having the spells you want is a major change in how the game has progressed, similar to the removal of spell disruption. Still, at the same time, I think each individual change to how inconvenient spellcasting used to be is very very reasonable, since 'this is powerful, but a pain in the rear' isn't necessarily a great balancing mechanism (but then the effects should have been scaled down or the like). </p><p></p><p><u>Regarding Gygax</u>:-- </p><p></p><p></p><p>I think this is spot on. While people argue which of Appendix N is most represented in D&D, I think the EGG always just wanted more Conan/Grey Mouser/Cugel than Tolkien set dressing, but his real main focus was a preparation/logistics/weighing-of-options problem-solving game .</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 8806089, member: 6799660"] Okay, I have reread a few Dying Earth stories, looked up Gygax's references to spellcasting in the early days, and checked out some of the alternate systems people have referenced. Here are some thoughts -- [U]Regarding Vance's writing[/U] -- one thing thing that struck me solidly is that Vance's spells did seem like an arsenal (or as mentioned upthread, Q's Bond gadgets/a Chekov gun, since they always ended up being the perfect solution for a problem which came up). Mostly in that a wizard almost never got to re-charge or change out their allotment in a plot-timely manner. This emulates the supposed original Gygax intent of the spell allotment being per any single adventure (each one usually being a night's worth of gaming), and the framework fuindordm mentions about him thinking highly-powerful/limited use spells would be the most fun. I think that's probably one of the biggest challenges D&D has had to deal with ever since -- stopping players from making the tactically reasonable decision to rest and recharge at every opportunity. Sure there are doom clocks (or environments where resting is as perilous as pressing on with some spells burned), but then you need your adventures to look like that. Excluding 4e/13A, the standard way D&D and D&D-alikes have handled this has been to simply state a standard of expected encounters (6-8 in 5e, 4/day in 3e) and note that if you deviate from this, it will effect the inter-class balance. Certainly a way to deal with it, but also unsatisfying to a significant subset of gamers. [U]Regarding other systems[/U] -- mana points vs. con-damage vs. weaker-but-at-wills and so on seem like... not minutia, but specifics where the other nuances of the game rules may well overcome them in terms of the impact of magic. What strikes me as a near-universal theme is that other systems rarely have the 'usually takes a single combat-frame and always works' quality that D&D has. Sometimes it is a skill test, other times charge up time, or major constraints on when you can readily do so (Tekumel and the 'metal makes you blow up' quality being a pure example there). AD&D specifically had a taste of this in spell disruption (in theory 3e did as well, but getting around it was entirely too easy), but there is so much variability in how much of a hindrance that is (notably whether your caster was behind a retinue of hirelings in 10' corridors or not, but also the incredible variation in whether people actually used the AD&D initiative rules -and correctly. Also then it has no meaning for spells cast away from a fight). Fundamentally I think if utility spells were just another test you made like a skill check there might be less frustration with magic being able to do what a skill-expert does. Another thing I noticed while reading spell lists (and yeah, massively many other games also use discrete lists of spells with very solidly defined effect parameters): very few games have spells (especially ones without lasting costs or consequences that you can cast day after day) that scale as high as D&D spells do (relative the system as a whole). Nor in many are you usually expected to cast spells as often as even TSR-era D&D casters. There are lots of systems where a TSR-era [I]Charm Person[/I] would be considered hugely powerful, or where a [I]Magic Jar[/I]-like effect would be something you spent days recovering your power pool from casting (or like [I]Symbaroum[/I] --where all magic is risky--has a [I]baleful polymorph[/I]-like effect, but it's considered 'the broken spell'). Very few games have magic that is so fire-and-forget, so convenient, and so disruptive. OTOH, this is also true of many D&D magic items, and this leads me back to another thing I realize about AD&D -- getting new spells was hard. They were often found as treasure and became the magic users' part of the loot, very much like magic items. The loss of the uncertainty of having the spells you want is a major change in how the game has progressed, similar to the removal of spell disruption. Still, at the same time, I think each individual change to how inconvenient spellcasting used to be is very very reasonable, since 'this is powerful, but a pain in the rear' isn't necessarily a great balancing mechanism (but then the effects should have been scaled down or the like). [U]Regarding Gygax[/U]:-- I think this is spot on. While people argue which of Appendix N is most represented in D&D, I think the EGG always just wanted more Conan/Grey Mouser/Cugel than Tolkien set dressing, but his real main focus was a preparation/logistics/weighing-of-options problem-solving game . [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
It's all Jack Vance's fault
Top