Low magic vs. magic as a plot device

[kamosa]

Gandalf only casts a handful of spells in the entire Hobbit-Lord of the Rings saga -- a few flaming pine cones, some light, a failed attempt to hold the portal vs. the Balrog, a beam of light vs. the Nazgul -- and he clearly only casts spells when he really, really has to. He is the good, wise Wizard, the Wizard who only uses spells he can control, and only when absolutely necessary.

Ah, because you have no bias at all.

Perhaps you misunderstand my use of should. If we want wizards in the game acting like wizards in a novel -- that is, not casting spells willy-nilly -- then magic shouldn't be free, reliable, etc.

In Vance's Dying Earth stories, great wizards can cast minor spells safely, but not-so-great wizards, like Cugel, can easily mess up a spell -- with dire consequences.

In D&D, "high level powerful stuff" doesn't "get dangerous"; you can't try it until you're able to cast it flawlessly.

How?

Look all I'm saying is that limiting the reliability of magic and making it not free maps less to fiction than the current D&D system. Building an arguement for destroying the spell casting system based on how it maps to fiction silly. Admit you don't like D&D magic and you want to change it. Don't try to use silly arguements like "it doesn't match fiction". In many cases there is powerful and reliable magic, and a true fantasy feel.

Cugel wasn't really a mage, more of a thief with a high use magic device. Sure Gandolf only cast a handfull of spells, but it wasn't because magic wasn't free or reliable. Also, Gandolf was an NPC in the story. He only used his magic to further the plot when the "players"/main characters screwed up. I suspect many GM's would like to religate wizards to that role if they had the chance.

There are lots of things that don't map to D&D ratio's either. Only two or three encounters through all of Moria. Come on, on a D&D ratio of monsters to rooms, there should have been several hundred if not thousands of encounters in Moria. Everything was less in LOTR compared to the average game, the fact that magic is the only focus of the rules gerrymandering shows the base line bias.

Look, I'm not saying you can't nerf the heck out of magic in your game. I'm just saying don't come to the boards with some total bs arguement that there is no high level magic, or magic never works, or magic is much harder to cast in fiction and therefore magic must be nerfed in the game. It's just not true .

 

[mafisto]

Okay, an answer

The real question isn't should one use an alternate magic system, it's how do you simultaneously prevent magic from becoming little more than a plot device and keep magic from becoming simply a toolbox for your players?

Good point, I'll try to stay out of the tangential conversation.

I didn't really illustrate it very well, but the mechanic I'm using thus far has worked to a certain degree of success. Using magic is, ultimately, harmful to the user. However, I'm realizing that this is effective only because I'm using variant hit point rules (Ken Hood's Grim-n-Gritty) and Arcana Unearthed's spell system. I'll explain the GnG component very quickly, and perhaps the effect can be mapped to base d20 HP rules.

In GnG level one characters start with as many hit points as their Con. The maximum number of hit points a character can get per level is 1, and that is reserved for d8 and higher classes. As well, as characters are damaged they become less battle-worthy - at less than 75% base HPs, they function at a -2 to attack and skills. At less than 50% it's -4, and at less than 25% is -6. Characters heal at one hit point a WEEK in the base rules, which I've modified to one plus CON bonus per week, one plus CON bonus per day if subdual.

If an Awakened character uses a level one spell, they take a point of non lethal damage. You can see how this would make a magic user with 12 hit points very cautious about using spells - with every casting, they become more and more impaired (exhausted, essentially). Casting becomes a whole new ballgame, a balance between the necessity of casting and personal preservation.

My PCs are not at a mid-level quite yet, so there's no telling what the net impact of higher level spells will have on the campaign, but the combination of variant rules and mage frailty seem to be a good track. Magic is most assuredly powerful and lethal, but there is also a price.

Granted, in base d20 hit point rules the damage would be inconsequential. Perhaps a variant? In any case, this seems to be working well for me.

[edit] Ah, didn't address the question of variability. A simple Spellcraft DC attached to spells could make casting a less certain affair, with the effects of failure becoming more dire as the level of the spell increases.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Admit you don't like D&D magic and you want to change it.

Well, this is better than "Admit you just don't like magic," which was your previous demand. But "wanting to change something" is not necessarily the same as "don't like it." I want to change lots of things that I like because I think they could be made even better. My pancake recipe and my country's democracy, to name two.

I disagree with your assertion. Gandalf *did* refrain from casting spells at specific times because it wasn't "safe and reliable." While it was reliable enough (he was more or less a demigod after all), it wasn't safe - Gandalf using his magic would alert Saruman and Sauron "Gandalf is here." I think it was on Caradhras when they were trying to get a fire started and Aragon failed his Survival check.
Now you could devise a mechanic like that to capture that feel and encourage PCs to be very restrained in their magic and only use it when asbolutely necessary. In fact, Midnight has done so. In fact, if you had some other types of constraints in place, you could do away with the spells-per-day limits. You'd be replacing one constraint on magic with another. (Long casting times, ability point damage, chance of insanity, etc.)

Madsen's ideas are pretty good principles IMO - can use one or more of them to make magic somethng to be properly wary of.

 

[kamosa]

I disagree with your assertion. Gandalf *did* refrain from casting spells at specific times because it wasn't "safe and reliable." While it was reliable enough (he was more or less a demigod after all), it wasn't safe - Gandalf using his magic would alert Saruman and Sauron "Gandalf is here." I think it was on Caradhras when they were trying to get a fire started and Aragon failed his Survival check.

But that isn't the style of unsafe that is being bantered about here. And you could have epic level casters do the same thing in D&D with the current spell system.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

But that isn't the style of unsafe that is being bantered about here. And you could have epic level casters do the same thing in D&D with the current spell system.

People have put together a number of ideas for making magic either less safe or less reliable or more mysterious. Some are exhaustion-based (which reminds me of low-level Raistlin). Some are not. I didn't think Madsen was that specific on what he meant by "safe and reliable" as to exclude the Midnight model.

Let me ask you - have you ever considered another way to limit magic? That is, the spells-per-day limit (or spell point systems) provide one way. Other checks in the existing system include the need for spell books and components, limited spells known, etc. Have you ever considered using different restraints? Removing some of the existing ones and adding others? Do you favor removing limits altogether? I'm honestly curious.

 

[kamosa]

Now you could devise a mechanic like that to capture that feel and encourage PCs to be very restrained in their magic and only use it when asbolutely necessary. In fact, Midnight has done so. In fact, if you had some other types of constraints in place, you could do away with the spells-per-day limits. You'd be replacing one constraint on magic with another. (Long casting times, ability point damage, chance of insanity, etc.)

Madsen's ideas are pretty good principles IMO - can use one or more of them to make magic somethng to be properly wary of.

I think this strikes at the heart of the issue. Some think mages should be an active part of the game that takes action as often as the fighters and with similar effectiveness in taking down monsters, solving puzzles and in general completing the adventure. Some think any solution that involves magic is cheap and should be pushed to the back ground and crushed. IE: wouldn't it be great if all magic was NPC magic and all the players could do is swing their swords. (I realize that is a broad stroke and some truely neuanced positions, I apologize in advance.)

After all, if magic is only a plot device or can only be rarely used, what is a player supposed to do in the game if they are playing a mage. If that character stops using magic as a tool, what are they doing? You don't have hitpoints, skills, or feats on anyone else. You are just sitting there trying not to get killed. That doesn't fit with my feel for the great wizards of fiction at all.

 

[kamosa]

People have put together a number of ideas for making magic either less safe or less reliable or more mysterious. Some are exhaustion-based (which reminds me of low-level Raistlin). Some are not. I didn't think Madsen was that specific on what he meant by "safe and reliable" as to exclude the Midnight model.

Let me ask you - have you ever considered another way to limit magic? That is, the spells-per-day limit (or spell point systems) provide one way. Other checks in the existing system include the need for spell books and components, limited spells known, etc. Have you ever considered using different restraints? Removing some of the existing ones and adding others? Do you favor removing limits altogether? I'm honestly curious.

Yes, we have looked into it. In fact we spend quite a bit of between game time kicking around different methods of doing spells. Personally I like the Soviern Stone casting system and spells. I also liked the old limited point but semi quick recovery system that 2e had for Psionics. That seemed to limit what could be done in any one encounter, but allowed the character to act in multiple scenes. We also played Darksun for a while and tried the channeler stuff. We played Gurps fantasy for awhile and we played White Wolf Mage for a while.

What I don't like for limits is anything that just out right punishes casters for playing their character. In those systems it always feels like either the GM or the other characters is passing judgement on the players everytime they try to act. That just feels wrong and always seems to cause hard feelings.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I think this strikes at the heart of the issue. Some think mages should be an active part of the game that takes action as often as the fighters and with similar effectiveness in taking down monsters, solving puzzles and in general completing the adventure.
[snip]
After all, if magic is only a plot device or can only be rarely used, what is a player supposed to do in the game if they are playing a mage. If that character stops using magic as a tool, what are they doing? You don't have hitpoints, skills, or feats on anyone else. You are just sitting there trying not to get killed. That doesn't fit with my feel for the great wizards of fiction at all.

Well, first of all, I think many games have the fighters swing their swords and try to kill things "only when absolutely necessary." It just happens that life-and-death situations come up with considerable frequency in a D&D game, so even with a tendency for restraint, mages would still turn to magic fairly often. And outside of combat, the wizard's great intellect and knowledge (plus the awe or fear he inspires in non-magic-users) should make him more useful than most fighters.

See, I think a wizard should have *much* more than their spells. This game is much more than a CRPG, after all. If you're going to make magic less of an always-useful tool, then it is important to play up what wizards do have - knowledge. The role of a wizard is often just to know stuff, in cases where knowledge greatly increases the chance of survival (Gandalf finding out about the Ring; Tim the Enchanter knowing about the bunny). A campaign in which magic is less of a tool and more of a last resort should have plentiful opportunities for knowledge and spellcraft checks to resolve or shortcut problems, plus the occasional craft (alchemy). Give the wizards more skill points, and make the whole range of knowledge skills useful. Increase the use of non-magic counters to certain effects (gold crown protecting against mind control; line of salt protecting a house against incorporeal undead; gorgon's blood preventing teleportation; hammering iron nails into a warlock's footprints to injure him) so that wizards can do a lot more without actually casting spells. A wizard's reputation is also not a bad thing to have, especially in a game where magic is feared.

It's a good point you raise, and it's important to adjust the game so that playing a mage is fun even when magic is rare, wondrous, and awe-inspiring. My solution would be to give the wizard more to do than just spellcasting. (And, as it happens, Midnight does the same.)

 

[mmadsen]

Unlimited Mana

I have to say that Brother MacLaren has effectively spoken for me -- so, instead of arguing for or against "low" magic, I'd like to further explore one possible "straightforward, easy-to-adjudicate way to get that 'plot device' magic feel -- without losing game-ability":

GURPS' alternate unlimited mana rules offer a surprisingly elegant solution: instead of providing spellcasters with a hard limit (whether in terms of fatigue points, power points, or spell slots), it gives them a soft limit they can cross -- with (random) consequences.

Also -- and this may sound trivial -- it gives spellcasters quite a bit of power, but power that does not return completely overnight. Much of the mundane nature of gaming magic is in its trivial cost. If you make a D&D spellcaster's slot monthly rather than daily, you don't change his adventuring behavior much, but you explain why magic isn't quite so ubiquitous.

GURPS' normal magic system has spells costing a few power points to cast (e.g., three for a fireball), and those points count as fatigue (i.e., strength drain). A high enough skill level with a particular spell reduces its fatigue cost. A typical character has 10 points of strength, and those points return fairly quickly.

Not very dramatic, but D&D could obviously use a similar system instead of fatigue-free spell slots -- and it would fit Raistlin, Gandalf, and other fictional wizards fairly well.

GURPS' alternative Unlimited Mana rules give wizards a much, much bigger pool of power points to play with (e.g., 30, rather than 10), but those power points don't return within minutes or hours; the wizard only recovers eight per day. Under such a system, wizards can cast really big spells when they need to -- and they can even cast multiple really big spells in a row -- but they can't cast spells, day in, day out.

This actually makes wizards more powerful than under the normal system, at least in the course of a typical adventure -- it makes magic use rarer in the world at large, yet more common "on screen" with our heroes.

D&D could obviously use a similar system, with spellcasters getting their spell slots with the new moon, or only after special ceremonies, or whatever.

But that's just the first facet of Unlimited Mana. The other important aspect is that the pool of power points doesn't set a hard limit. You can keep spending power way past your threshold -- but bad things might happen. Roll 3d6 (we'd use 1d20) on the Calamity Check table, and add 1 for each five points you've gone over your threshold:

CALAMITY TABLE (3d + Excess/5)
3,4 Nothing bad happens, AND the mage's gets (1d x 5) points of free, instant Recovery!
5-9 Nothing happens - this time.
10 The mage's skin and clothing crawl with strange energies, sparks, or other visual effect for 3d minutes, and his eyes glow bright, making Stealth impossible and frightening small animals and many "mundanes."
11 The mage is struck with violent headaches that prevent any action other than suffering (treat as physical stun) which lasts 3d turns (Or a number minutes equal to the cost of the spell that triggered the calamity, if a HT roll is failed - minimum 5 minutes). Result 10 also applies.
12 The mage becomes horribly nauseous and weak, taking a -4 to DX, IQ, ST and skills. This lasts a number of hours equal to the cost of the spell (minimum 2), after which the mage must make a HT-4 roll every hour to get over the sickness.
13 The mage is cursed with nightmares for 3d days (plus a number of days equal to the spell cost). After the first night, the mage is at -2 to DX, IQ, ST, and skills. The penalties last until the mage gets a normal night's sleep!
14 Any failed casting roll that the mage makes is treated as a critical failure! This lasts for 1d+1 weeks.
15 The mage's mind is bent. The GM should assign one debilitating (15-point) mental disad by fiat. It takes effect immediately, and lasts 1 day. Each day thereafter, the mage may make a Will roll to shake it off. If the spell cost was higher than 25, the disad lasts for (spell cost/25) days, rounded up.
16 The mage has weakened the binding forces around him. His Threshhold for the next 1d weeks is reduced by 2d+5. The mage is aware of a drop, but not of it's severity! Result 10 also applies.
17 The caster gains a 5-point disadvantage. After 3d days have passed, the mage has the option of buying it off (it will simply fade away). If the mage does not wish to, or doesn't have the points, then it becomes permanent. ANY disad is legal; the mage can get ugly, go insane, and so on.
18 The mage's Threshold is reduced by 4d+(the spell cost); the change lasts 1d months, after which the Thresh "heals" back to normal at a rate of 1 point per day. Thresh cannot be reduced below zero. In addition, the mage's spellcasting will be at a -3 penalty for 2d weeks. Result 10 also applies.
19 As per 17, but the disad is worth either 10 or 15 points (50/50 chance of either).
20 The mage is aged 2d+13 years, or a number of years equal to the energy cost of the triggering spell, whichever is worse!
...

This gives spellcasters more power -- but it also gives them enough rope to hang themselves. Naturally, D&D could use a similar system, letting spellcasters cast even once they're out of spell slots -- at the risk of calling down a calamity.

I hope this example of one possible alternative demonstrates how a system can be as straightforward as D&D's current system while being more dramatic -- and all without "nerfing" spellcasters.

 

[kamosa]

I hope this example of one possible alternative demonstrates how a system can be as straightforward as D&D's current system while being more dramatic -- and all without "nerfing" spellcasters.

And as such I have no problem with it. Sounds like a cool idea. Where I start to get my feathers ruffled is when the new system start from the premise that casting magic is a bad thing and if you do it you must immediatly pay a character penalty (HP, XP, or Abilities). That way of making something rare by punishing all that use it is lame.

What your describing is kind of a modified version of the 2e Psionics. There you had a limited number of points that you regained quickly. Most players also had a reserver pool that could be tapped in an item or in abilities that allowed trading stats for points. Those points came back fairly slowly. The key was that you started out with a decent number of points, so you could do mundain stuff without burning your reserve or hurting yourself.

I always thought that the gurps system came up a bit short on the number of points you could use, especially if all you did was cast spells (like D&D mages). Seemed like most combats we engauged in the mage did a couple minor things and then went and rested while the fighters finished it off. I guess that is ok, but the person that played the mage was always bored for that 20 or so minutes while the Gurps system worked it's slow magic.


Anyway...