D&D 5E Joke Material Components

[Stormonu]

I think I'm going to switch my vote, as others have. I think in the core game, spell components should be dropped. They should either be a module with generic rules, or those familiar with them and who like them can grandfather the original components into their game. Heck, they could list them in a web add-on or Dragon 'magazine' article.

 

[Cyberen]

Maybe they belong to Greyhawk, where generations of apprentice have soiled their robes collecting feces in bat caves...

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm speaking to elements of "style" in terms of the game allowing for magic in the vein of a particular piece of fiction. Quite simply, it's going to have to pick one and go with it simply because there's no way to allow for a system of magic that has universal applicability where style is concerned (short of offering multiple magic systems within the context of the game itself and/or allowing for a high degree of tweaking).

These two parts are not connected. Magic may not have universal applicability (and won't if you go for a Vancian model) but that doesn't mean that you can't make it loose or tight.

A loose system would be one where you have a Vancian casting model but the V/S/M aspects are left entirely to a sidebar. A tight and hard to drift one would be where you hardcode the material components and gestures.

And if you leave the material components in the sidebar there can be a very good justification for pun components. That justification is that the components are something to focus the mind and that the puns associate the spells. This also allows players to come up with their own puns (always more rewarding) rather than stick with the IMO bad jokes that Gygax and co created. This has all the advantages of pun components plus a few. And so far as I can see none of the disadvantages.

If you state that magic needs only verbal and somatic components, for example, with no material components of any kind being necessary, then you're going to have a hard time portraying the allomancers of the Mistborn series of novels, or the wand-based magic of the Harry Potter novels, for example.

And who is saying that? What's being said is that hard coded material components are annoying and limiting. And that mandating one way or the other comes with problems.

I can just see the players stumbling on war plans in a Mage College, finding a military requisition form:

200 lbs of bat guano
13 cubic yards of mongoose fur
4 lbs. of amber cut to small pieces
Three trees worth of nut shells
1 barrel sesame seeds

The rest of the players go: "WTF?"

The wizard player looks horrified: "An army of flying intangible wizards is going to fireball and lightning bolt our beloved kingdom to death!"

The rest of the players go: "How'd you--?"

Nice!

 

[Alzrius]

Whether or not this is true in some abstract sense, it doesn't really seem apposite to the particular discussion - namely, there is no reason why the game can't support the sort of variety @Starfox , I and others have mentioned: some casters using staves, some using words of power, some using bags of weird components, etc. That does not require "multiple magic systems". It just requires a sidebar. Burning Wheel even gives an example of text for such a sidebar (though I'm sure WotC are up to doing this without cribbing).

It seems very germane to the discussion; the game can support a variety of magic system, or can allow for tweaking of a system (both of which, you'll notice, I mentioned in my previous post; your sidebar idea falls under the "tweaking" part), but absent those things it's going to be making a statement about what magic can or can't do via the rules it lays down, regardless of how open it is.

Why would you state such things? The whole point of a sidebar is to leave those things open.

The point I'm making is that you seem to be saying that magic isn't being portrayed in the manner you prefer; I'm broadening the discussion from "components" to all methods of portrayal to point out that no matter what's done in that regard, it's probably going to leave somebody out in the proverbial cold.

B/X didn't say much about how magic worked. Nor did Gygax's AD&D, other than making vague references to the positive and negative material planes. I don't see why most of this stuff can't be worked out by a group in the context of it's own play. Or, again, sidebars (which is what, in effect, Gygax's referene to the energy planes amounts to) can offer examples.

It said a lot about how magic worked, in that it used the Vancian system - if you wanted to cast spells a la Merlin from Disney's The Sword in the Stone, you were probably going to be disappointed. Rules lay down what magic can and can't do, and the latter will invariably rule out some things that people think should be there. Tweaks can help broaden the applicability, though.

These two parts are not connected. Magic may not have universal applicability (and won't if you go for a Vancian model) but that doesn't mean that you can't make it loose or tight.

I'm not talking about loose or tight, though. I'm saying that complaining about the nature of the magic system as not being how you prefer is something of a futile debate (beyond the issue of simply stating that you wished that the game catered to your existing preferences) because there's any number of ways that magic has been portrayed, and so no matter what's presented, it's going to not be what someone wanted.

A loose system would be one where you have a Vancian casting model but the V/S/M aspects are left entirely to a sidebar. A tight and hard to drift one would be where you hardcode the material components and gestures.

I don't have a problem with that, save that I'd reverse it to have the components in the written rules, and the "leave them out" option in a sidebar. That's because it's easier to say "we're not using components" than it is to write down a list of components for several dozen spells.

And if you leave the material components in the sidebar there can be a very good justification for pun components. That justification is that the components are something to focus the mind and that the puns associate the spells. This also allows players to come up with their own puns (always more rewarding) rather than stick with the IMO bad jokes that Gygax and co created. This has all the advantages of pun components plus a few. And so far as I can see none of the disadvantages.

The issue of justification is a personal one; plenty of people don't see any disadvantages with the system as it is now, puns and all.

And who is saying that? What's being said is that hard coded material components are annoying and limiting. And that mandating one way or the other comes with problems.

You're saying that, in that it's a singular example of the "magic isn't working the way I think it should work" argument. Every rule system is going to be a "mandate" that comes with problems to someone. That can't be avoided, which means that this issue is one of personal preference more than anything being objectively disadvantageous with the existing rules.

 

[pemerton]

The point I'm making is that you seem to be saying that magic isn't being portrayed in the manner you prefer

<snip>

I'm saying that complaining about the nature of the magic system as not being how you prefer is something of a futile debate

I'm saying that I don't like joke material components (ie I'm replying to the OP). And I'm saying that it would be easy enough not to include component descriptions in with the spell descriptions (ie follow the lead of B/X rather than AD&D) and to have a sidebar on components (a la Burning Wheel).

How is that futile?

 

[Alzrius]

I'm saying that I don't like joke material components (ie I'm replying to the OP). And I'm saying that it would be easy enough not to include component descriptions in with the spell descriptions (ie follow the lead of B/X rather than AD&D) and to have a sidebar on components (a la Burning Wheel).

How is that futile?

You're conflating two different statements that I made.

First, I'm also replying to the OP, I'm just expanding on the parameters of the topic (e.g. how "best" to portray the magic system) - in that regard, I'm saying that any one system versus any other is a "futile" debate because that's coming down to personal preference.

Now, in regards to tweaks to the rules, I'm all for that. However, I'd prefer that they include the most that they can, and relegate removing those to a sidebar, rather than presenting as little as possible, and relegating how to add more to a sidebar. As I stated before, it's easier to remove a long list of pre-existing component descriptions rather than writing one.

 

[Starfox]

Now, in regards to tweaks to the rules, I'm all for that. However, I'd prefer that they include the most that they can, and relegate removing those to a sidebar, rather than presenting as little as possible, and relegating how to add more to a sidebar. As I stated before, it's easier to remove a long list of pre-existing component descriptions rather than writing one.

I (and permerton, it seems) disagree and like the opposite approach - style add-ons in sidebars, minimal basic rules. I don't think arguments are going to change either of our preferences.

 

[Alzrius]

I (and permerton, it seems) disagree and like the opposite approach - style add-ons in sidebars, minimal basic rules. I don't think arguments are going to change either of our preferences.

I don't think they will either, if it's just a case of people stating their preferences. However, I do think that it's fairly objective to point out that while both options can be presented, one way of doing so offers significantly less work for those who want to avail themselves of components.

 

[Starfox]

...one way of doing so offers significantly less work for those who want to avail themselves of components.

While giving those who don't want to use them the burden of having to put this into their house rules, convince the other players, and -if it is a player having this view- the GM

 

[Alzrius]

While giving those who don't want to use them the burden of having to put this into their house rules, convince the other players, and -if it is a player having this view- the GM

If it's in a sidebar, I'm not sure if that counts as a house rule (since it's in the book).

That said, that "burden" consists of saying "we're using the optional rule for no components for spells." In other words, it's not really a burden at all.

Flip this around to a default of no components, and then if you want to include material components you're expected to come up with a long list of them for dozens, if not hundreds, of spells.

One is a much greater burden than the other.

(The issue of having to convince other players/the GM is one that goes both ways, so it's meaningless to appropriate that as being more difficult for one preference versus the other.)