Low magic vs. magic as a plot device

[Elindor]

Actually, I find that the Slayers D20 Magic System makes magic a little more free (in the sense of removing spell levels and such), while simultaneously extracting a price (Fort save and drain) and making it less reliable (Fort save and Control Check). I've been putting some thought to converting standard D&D to this system. Just need to do some baseline comparisons...

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

You go right ahead. Discussions on Star Trek are of zero interest to me. Brought it up only as an example. If you want to say the example is a bad one, I have no reason to contest that. The principle remains.

No, remove the example that defines your principle, and the principle crumbles.

D&D society was obviously not created with consideration of magic. Star Trek society has no problems with transporters. You should call the princple "The D&D Problem".

 

[kamosa]

This requires changing the way magic works in the world. Specifically, changing the bit in the DMG where it says that anybody with the intelligence (11+) and the training can become a wizard.
Personally, that is the first change I would make as a house rule. And I would carry that over into the design of the game world, to make it very clear that magic is not science.
Would other changes be necessary to make magic feel mysterious and wondrous? Possibly. But this change is certainly among them.

That is one standard, but not the only standard. You could rule that it requires magical apptitude and every character had this apptitude. You're characters are the one in a million that gets magic. Isn't that simpler than rewriting a whole class?

 

[kamosa]

Kind of off-topic here, but I had at one time put some thought into making "spell preparation" feel a little more magical. Perhaps rather than "memorizing" spells as written on the caster's mind, you could have different mages utilize other methods to achieve the same result:
1: After resting and focusing his mind, the wizard performs rituals to call mystical spirits to serve him. These spirits hover around, invisible (but can be seen with detect magic), and when "casting" the spell he sends forth the spirit to do its work. The power of the wizard determines how many he can have bound to him at any one time. For all mechanical purposes, this is exactly identical to spell-memorization and casting.
2: The wizard's ritual consists of crafting small tokens from his mystical clay (this replaces his spellbook). Each token corresponds to a spell (small arrow for Magic Missile), and when "casting" he throws or crushes the token. If he has too many at once (exceeding spells per day cap), there is a chance they interfere with each other and invoke prematurely.
3: The wizard's ritual consists of scribing runes on his staff (which replaces his spellbook). When "casting" the rune disappears from the staff. If he inscribes too many at once (exceeding spells per day) there is a chance that he invokes the wrong one by accident.

None of these nerf the caster, but all add some flavor and variety. The key is to make up more and keep them secret from the players. The biggest difficulties to having magic feel magical is that players know what the rules for NPCs are, know what the spells are, and know how casting works for NPCs. Spells they've never seen before, NPCs who cast differently, NPCs with non-book magic progression - these changes will establish that magic isn't as predictable as they suppose.

Those are all cool ways to change the flavor. In the campaign I'm currently running, my wizard gets his spells from an item that talks to him and teaches him about magic. Basically it is a tutor that explains the rituals and gesticulations that will cause the spell to occur. We play this as an item that probably isn't on the up and up. It slowly draws the character deeper into it's world of screwed up values and warped point of view.

None of this has changed the rules for the wizard. All the rules for learning spells, gaining spells and casting spells are still in tact, but it changes the flavor and gives the player a sense that he is being corrupted as the game goes on. Role playing differences that make all the difference without changing the rules. (this is some what in reply to someone that ask way up thread how to roleplay the differences.)

 

[kamosa]

In a 2nd Edition game world, I made all arcane magic manna based, with reduced manna costs for having a spellcaster theme (ie, a spider-based caster casting spidery spells). Manna costs replaced the spells/day, spells/level rules, and you could gain extra manna through special components, places, times, and items. One of the things that made spellcasters "great" was that they had learned more ways to gain extra manna than other "lesser" spellcasters.

In this game, non-spellcaster PCs also had manna, and a knowledgeable mage could use them as a "manna sump" -- essentially casting spells by burning off their manna.

It was pretty cool for the wizards, but not so cool that everyone wanted to be a wizard. The "feel" was better, though there were some adjustments needed to the mechanics from time to time. You could accidently drain a manna sump dry, fatiguing or even killing him if you pushed him too far.

In those days, low-level wizards were largely still one-shot wonders. Not so bad as in 1st Edition, maybe, but still....It helped. And it was fun to play.

Raven Crowking

Sounds like a cool system. As I've stated many times, I have not problems at all with changing magic. I just think it is punative to the player to create a system where normal use of magic causes XP, HP, OR Stat damage.

Even the DMG states that altering the system to punish players in this fashion is likely to cause problems. (and yes the call it a punishment in the DMG).

 

[barsoomcore]

No, remove the example that defines your principle, and the principle crumbles.

D&D society was obviously not created with consideration of magic. Star Trek society has no problems with transporters. You should call the princple "The D&D Problem".

Hm, Star Trek fan? That's fine, call it whatever you like. Just so you know, though -- when I refer to the "Transporter Problem", I'm talking about the "D&D Problem".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sounds like a cool system. As I've stated many times, I have not problems at all with changing magic. I just think it is punative to the player to create a system where normal use of magic causes XP, HP, OR Stat damage.

Even the DMG states that altering the system to punish players in this fashion is likely to cause problems. (and yes the call it a punishment in the DMG).

Thank you.

Of course, most tinkering with magic systems by DMs is related very specifically because of their ideas as to what "normal" use of magic should be. I personally like the idea of XP costs for, say, magic item creation -- though I also think that only lazy crafters should be stuck paying them for the big ticket items. The rest of us will go off and get power components. Evil spellcasters might sacrifice a peasant or two....unless the PCs stop them....?

As to whether or not these things are punishments, or investments, etc., that's frankly subjective. No matter how you look at it, they are objectively costs. If the DM is good, and the system works, and it seems like you can do some really cool things even if you can't easily do some other things, then the players are liable to be happy. If it seems like limitations that the PCs "enjoy" but the NPCs don't, then it'll seem like punishment. Or worse.

I was talking to a friend once who was setting up a campaign world (2nd Ed AD&D). He said, "You always have these human wizards in charge of orc tribes, and there are these half-orcs, but every time someone encounters orcs in most campaigns, they immediately attack and fight to the death. So, how do the NPCs do it?" Or something like that. And he's right. If an NPC can do it, a PC should be able to do it. Or else there should be a good reason why not, such as "She can breath fire because she's a dragon, and I don't allow dragon PCs." The converse isn't true. Sometimes a PC should be able to do something no NPC can.

IMC, elves and gnomes are rarely encountered. Elf and gnome PCs are a lot more common. The PCs represent a unique group. Saying the same thing for spellcasting PCs is fine. In fact, whatever works for a group is (barring weird illegal things ) fine.

IMO, the D&D magic system is not as evocative as it could be. I love the idea of allowing spellcasters to do more, at a potential cost, and I love the idea of making some spells rare enough that they don't get overused. And, yes, that does mean that my opinions as to which spells become "rare" might step on a few toes. But I've never forced someone to play at my table by gunpoint. If anything, I've been deluged with players every time I set up my homemade DM's screen.

Raven

 

[Raven Crowking]

D&D society was obviously not created with consideration of magic. Star Trek society has no problems with transporters. You should call the princple "The D&D Problem".

I love Star Trek. I think Enterprise is the best Trek since the original, and it is the only program I make sure I'm watching the night it airs.

Since you're up on the transporters, maybe you can explain something to me, though.

There was a TNG episode where Picard, Guinan, and Ro all end up as kids. Except, they were kids with all of their adult memories and knowledge. Then, engineering figured out what got mixed up and restore it, returning them to their adult forms without harm.

Now, my understanding is that transporter technology by this time is relatively cheap and reliable. In fact, society has improved to the point where humans do not need to use money; everyone has a minimum standard of living that's comfortable enough for Picard to consider switching his career to archaeologist even though he's fairly old.

Then, in Insurrection, the Federation considers the benefits of using a planet's unique radiation to reverse aging...even if it means violating the Prime Directive to do so.

I thought transporter technology had eliminated this problem? I mean, if you know what changed to accidentally make Picard into a kid, why can't you do the same thing on purpose? The transporter should become a perpetual Fountain of Youth!

I only ask because, as you say, Star Trek has no problem with transporters. This is just one of the little problems that's bothered me about Insurrection, and if you cleared it up for me I might be able to enjoy the movie more. Maybe the answer's obvious, and I'm just missing it!

Raven

 

[kamosa]

Of course, most tinkering with magic systems by DMs is related very specifically because of their ideas as to what "normal" use of magic should be. I personally like the idea of XP costs for, say, magic item creation -- though I also think that only lazy crafters should be stuck paying them for the big ticket items. The rest of us will go off and get power components. Evil spellcasters might sacrifice a peasant or two....unless the PCs stop them....?

Raven

I don't think magic item creation counts as as standard every day use of magic, even for those that have it as a feat. If it is a standard thing in the campaign, I believe that the XP penalty should be mitigated by some form of GM intervention.

The power item helping to craft something is a good substitution. I like it because I can give them to the players as rewards for good play. Here kido, take a free magic item you create for doing a good job on the adventure (I usually try to word that better, but same idea). I've also allowed the players to make items for others in the group and let the person that the item is being made for pay the XP cost.

In the current campaign I want them to be able to create low level magic items, so I've removed the XP penalty for single use items like scrolls, potions and tattoos. They still pay the gold and time costs, which keep them in line, but they know that I don't consider it taboo to create mundane items.

I point all that out just to show how I believe the XP, HP and stat punishments are used. If you want something discouraged you attach a penalty to it. You can call it an investment if you want, but the reality is you are restricting how often something can be used with a negative effect that happens everytime it is used. That sounds like a penalty to me, no matter whether the penalty is worth paying or not.

If something becomes a normal, encouraged, part of the game, the game penalties should be mitigated for the players, IMHO.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

If something becomes a normal, encouraged, part of the game, the game penalties should be mitigated for the players, IMHO.

In your post, you use "XP Cost" once, for a change, which is how I view it. The rest of the time you use "XP Penalty." Is the difference that having to spend XP for something you're supposed to do routinely is a "penalty" but having it for something you only do on exceptional occasions is a "cost"?

My point of view is that the XP cost for creating items is trivial next to the increase in power those items give, so they are essentially XP investments with a very high rate of return, not penalties or punishments. I had a potion-creating cleric once (that was Brother MacLaren), and the usefulness of those potions far exceeded the insignificant XP cost. Did he make potions any less often because of the XP cost? No, because the potions resulted in a net increase in XP earned. Net increase, therefore not a penalty or punishment but instead a benefit.

I tend to use "penalty" to mean "A punishment for doing something you're not supposed to." Parking tickets, 2 minutes for fighting (hockey), withdrawing money early from an IRA, etc. With regard to using magic that costs XP (to go over spells per day limit, craft items, or cast the spells with XP costs), you're not telling the player what to do one way or the other. It's "here's an option for you - but it has a price."