D&D 5E Joke Material Components

[MarkB]

Three nut shells as the material component for Confusion is a joke - based on the slang usage of "nuts" to mean crazy.

A pinch of sesame seeds as the material component for Passwall is also a joke - based on the tale of Ali Baba and "open sesame" as the password for the bandits' cave.

Not only are they jokes, but they're jokes based on idiosyncracies of English usage that there is no reason to suppose make any sense in the fiction. In Greyhawk, when a Suel-speaking apprentice asks a Suel-speaking master why they use nuts as the material component for a Confusion spell, what answer does the master give? Am I supposed to imagine that "nuts" is a slang word for "crazy" in every single language in the D&D mulitverse? That every wizard is familiar with the tail of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves?

Actually, once one prominent arcane tradition starts using a specific material component, the folklore associated with that component will tend to be re-told amongst apprentices of that tradition, and from there may enter into common folklore and be disseminated far and wide, eventually being adopted by other arcane users. So to some extent these little cultural references will be self-sustaining - the memes of the fantasy culture.

And as to real-world versus fantasy world references, how often do you worry about that otherwise? Do you take the time to strip every idiom from each sentence when talking in-character, never venturing a joke or play-on-words for fear that it wouldn't translate? Or do you simply assume that standard translation convention applies, and that what you say in English is simply an equivalent to what your character is saying in Common, or Elven, or Suelese?

 

[pemerton]

as to real-world versus fantasy world references, how often do you worry about that otherwise? Do you take the time to strip every idiom from each sentence when talking in-character, never venturing a joke or play-on-words for fear that it wouldn't translate? Or do you simply assume that standard translation convention applies, and that what you say in English is simply an equivalent to what your character is saying in Common, or Elven, or Suelese?

I assume that language translates, although I try to avoid visual but language or letter-based puzzles for that reason.

But I don't really understand how translation applies to material components. Am I meant to assume that when my character sheet says my PC has nuts in a component pouch for casting Confusion spells, those are really something else - whatever would make for a humourous allusion to confusion in my PC's native language?

And what happened to the importance of fictional positioning - can I use my nutshells to play conkers with the village children, if in fact "nuts" on my character sheet is just a stand-in for some genuine material component?

 

[MarkB]

I assume that language translates, although I try to avoid visual but language or letter-based puzzles for that reason.

But I don't really understand how translation applies to material components. Am I meant to assume that when my character sheet says my PC has nuts in a component pouch for casting Confusion spells, those are really something else - whatever would make for a humourous allusion to confusion in my PC's native language?

And what happened to the importance of fictional positioning - can I use my nutshells to play conkers with the village children, if in fact "nuts" on my character sheet is just a stand-in for some genuine material component?

<sigh> The point I was trying to make is that it's not useful to overthink things when it comes to translating between real-world linguistic references and those in the game world, as it just opens a can of worms and bogs things down, while at the same time limiting the available range of communication.

Go ahead and worry about such questions if you must - I'll happily let my character play metaphorical conkers with his metaphorical nutshells.

 

[pemerton]

The point I was trying to make is that it's not useful to overthink things

Some people get very anxious about metagame rather than ingame rationing of player resources (eg martial encounter powers). If they're allowed to overthink things, why aren't I? And I'm actually talking about something ingame, namely, material components. Yours is the first time I've ever seen it suggested that material components are in fact metaphorical placeholders for ingame culturally appropriate items.

 

[Raith5]

I'm all for components that enhance or modify the spell in some way when used on the fly. I think both 3e and 4e had them.

Seriously though, this is something that screams "module" to me.

Hopefully you are right. I dont mind spell or ritual components. But I also like the idea of magical implements.

I just cant help ponder that somebody sat down and said that nuts listed on the spell description for confusion is a crucial thing to add to the game at this juncture. Surely there are other more important things worth looking into?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is D&Dnext meant to be the unity edition or the grognard edition? I mean, we can't have warlords lest anyone who disliked 4e have their suspension of disbelief shattered, but material components based on punning that is not very funny even in the only language it makes sense in (ie contemporary English) are just light-hearted fun!

Check out the most recent playtest package. Look at some of the Fighter options. Start a thread about how those fall flat from your warlord expectations.

Here with spell components, I'm sympathetic to the idea of it being jarring to immersion, so the question to me shifts to "what would happen if this was opt-in? what would happen if it's opt-out?" Silly spell components seem like a great place for opt-out: DMs who handle it more abstractly ("component pouch" with x uses) or who are more Serious Business and/or Deep Immersion (it's just some other magical component) don't need to worry about the punny wackiness. But everyone who reads the books might be exposed to them, and thus exposed to the idea that a game of magical make-believe elves should first and foremost be fun, and not take itself too seriously. Which is, IMO, worth exposing everybody to.

It's like when WoW quests make real-world puns (but better because your version never needs to if you're concerned about it being too silly).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Here with spell components, I'm sympathetic to the idea of it being jarring to immersion, so the question to me shifts to "what would happen if this was opt-in? what would happen if it's opt-out?"

Then why can't we have consistency? Apparently the Warlord can't be default and opt-out because that would be damaging to peoples immersion even if most parties don't actually have one. But adding an obnoxious little piece of grit to every single spell description that isn't particularly funny and is harmful to immersion is something that should be a default and with an opt-out?

But everyone who reads the books might be exposed to them, and thus exposed to the idea that a game of magical make-believe elves should first and foremost be fun, and not take itself too seriously. Which is, IMO, worth exposing everybody to.

That's never the impression I had from spell components. Having to track individual spell components is IMO the opposite of fun. And if you don't have to track them it's just the game designers showing off how they can be funny.

Actually what I'd like as spell components is for them to be specific to the mage/spell combination. When you pick a spell you also decide what your components for it are, and can decide generic incense and residuum, can decide something inherently magical, can decide something along the lines of sympathetic magic, or can decide a pun. With a few paragraphs at the opening of the Spells chapter illustrating each of these and what sort of impact it has on the gameworld.

And yes, you can give a good justification for pun components to manipulate magic in a serious world (it focusses you personally). Much more like modern real world notions of magic. You can add to the world by making it modular and optional, but I've never understood why Athas and Ravenloft use the same compnents.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Then why can't we have consistency? Apparently the Warlord can't be default and opt-out because that would be damaging to peoples immersion even if most parties don't actually have one. But adding an obnoxious little piece of grit to every single spell description that isn't particularly funny and is harmful to immersion is something that should be a default and with an opt-out?

I think you misapprehend why the warlord isn't its own class. I don't believe it is due to immersion. I'll repeat what I said above: check out the new playtest packet. Look at some of the warlord-esque fighter options. Start a thread about specifically how those fall short of your expectations for a warlord.

I'd also keep in mind that "warlord deserves to be a class!" is a distinct conversation from "inspirational healing should exist by default!"

That's never the impression I had from spell components. Having to track individual spell components is IMO the opposite of fun. And if you don't have to track them it's just the game designers showing off how they can be funny.

I think tracking spell components is a distinct problem from silly spell components. And either way, both can be solved with a "component pouch" as it has existed since 3e.

Actually what I'd like as spell components is for them to be specific to the mage/spell combination. When you pick a spell you also decide what your components for it are, and can decide generic incense and residuum, can decide something inherently magical, can decide something along the lines of sympathetic magic, or can decide a pun. With a few paragraphs at the opening of the Spells chapter illustrating each of these and what sort of impact it has on the gameworld.

Sounds a little "lots of effort for not much reward," but it also sounds like it has the potential to generate some interesting and unique spellcasters. Of course, nothing should stop you from doing this for your games.

And yes, you can give a good justification for pun components to manipulate magic in a serious world (it focusses you personally). Much more like modern real world notions of magic. You can add to the world by making it modular and optional, but I've never understood why Athas and Ravenloft use the same compnents.

I'm reminded of Planescape's spell keys: every plane had a different way to cast magic, and different effects on magic. I'm fond of the idea of stealing that fluff without necessarily mucking about with those mechanics (because those mechanics are some of the poster children of "lots of effort without much reward!")

 

[Cyberen]

Wow !
I am surprised by the heat of the debate.
When the Wandering Monsters column casually dismissed some bizarre monster from ADD Fiend Folio, because it was dumb, badwrongfun, or silly, people were complaining.
Now, wotc tries to give a nod to old school material components. It is, of course, made on purpose, so that we, the playtesters, could comment on it. That's fine ! Finding the apropriate tone for Next is quite a big issue.
I am 120% with KM here : I think the touch of silliness coming with those (bad) puns is a welcome addition to the game. It is super-trivial to ignore if you want a more serious tone, but it is there as a relief, and a reminder of the "don't overthink Hit Points and have fun" aspect of the game.
We had an interesting discussion trying to decide if D&D was a toolbox or a setting. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], you even said D&D was a genre, which was, imho, a smart conclusion to the thread.
As for me, D&D is a toolbox, and I like my tools clean (i.e. without stupid baggage coming from Gary and co jokes at their table)... but I think those jokes are kind of genre-defining for D&D. They are a staple of some source material (Vance mages'manners, Moorcock naming conventions, Monty Python, ...).
In my (french) version of ADD DMG, the classic drawing depicting an adventurer hit by a skeleton in a water filling room was captioned "the rules say on page 12 skeletons can't swim". This final line (and the very idea of adventurers'final lines) is definitely genre-defining for me, and I quite often quote it (to enforce rule 0, to prevent rule-lawyering, and to remind people around the table to relax because they are supposed to have fun playing a game).
Of course ymmv.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think you misapprehend why the warlord isn't its own class. I don't believe it is due to immersion. I'll repeat what I said above: check out the new playtest packet. Look at some of the warlord-esque fighter options. Start a thread about specifically how those fall short of your expectations for a warlord.

Until a low magic campaign without a god-botherer or healbot is practical it will fall massively short. Or do fighters restore characters HP up to their full value now? The expectation for the Warlord is we do not need a cleric in the party. And we do not need spellcasters to keep going - we don't have to play a high magic campaign. And Mearls is explicitely opposed to this, making quips about shouting hands back on despite the fact that's way outside the Cure Wounds territory. (No one is arguing Warlords need a Regenerate equivalent, merely being able to handle the normal rigors of the adventuring day).

I'd also keep in mind that "warlord deserves to be a class!" is a distinct conversation from "inspirational healing should exist by default!"

Without inspirational healing the Warlord can not fulfil its metagame role. And we revert to the narrowness of settings and worlds that all previous editions of D&D enforced (yes, even 3.X). Without the Warlord we are effectively limited to worlds where spells can be cast almost instantaneously, and where even a third level caster uses far more magic than Gandalf. Yes, there are other ways than the Warlord class to do this - but Next isn't offering them either.

I think tracking spell components is a distinct problem from silly spell components. And either way, both can be solved with a "component pouch" as it has existed since 3e.

That solves the tracking spell components. The silly spell components are a separate problem.

Sounds a little "lots of effort for not much reward,"

Which is why residuum and incense were options

but it also sounds like it has the potential to generate some interesting and unique spellcasters.

That was the point - default options for those who didn't want to go in for such customisation

I'm reminded of Planescape's spell keys: every plane had a different way to cast magic, and different effects on magic. I'm fond of the idea of stealing that fluff without necessarily mucking about with those mechanics (because those mechanics are some of the poster children of "lots of effort without much reward!")

Sounds good to me. Both ways.