Magic deadly to the caster and allies

[Draksila]

Honestly, the tame nature of WotC magic is one of the things that killed my table's enjoyment of magic-users. That very same lethality could be applied by a clever group to get effects out of your spells that were not part of the original intent.

Over the years, my players have intentionally cast fireballs into confined spaces so that the backwash would hit creatures hidden around corners (after loading up on fire resistance spells, of course); set up lightning bolts like pool shots so that they ricocheted down a hallway and eliminated spread-out groups of badguys; used create water as a forced drowning attack (which was specifically cast as a no-no in later printings, so we must not have been the only ones doing it); summoned uncontrolled elementals in an enemy fortress while cloaked by invisibility effects (thus sending the elemental rampaging through the enemy base); used portable holes dropped in bags of holding as triggered traps; used a druid's polymorph to change from hummingbird to bear over the heads of surprised orcs; imploded temples by flinging rods of cancellation onto relics that were summoning demon armies... that's just the ones I recall offhand.

In my opinion, and YMMV, unpredictable magic makes it feel more like magic... and makes those clever spellcasters with the spellcraft skill and a vindictive streak that much more dangerous.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Dangerous magic was exciting. Occasional unpredictable results made
magic feel more like a mystical force that casters dared to tamper with
and less like a tried and true technological tool. Removing the danger from
magic use is partially the cause of overpowered casters in 3E.

Constantly polymorphing the fighter into a giant isn't such a great idea
when a system shock roll had a chance of killing him. Some effects like the aging didn't mean much if you were an elf.
Even 5 years for a wish spell was a drop in the bucket for a 140 year old character with an expected lifespan of 1200-1800 years.

The DM notes on certain spell effects in the 1E DMG were great.
The look on a player's face when they cast that lightning bolt under water
and it behaves like a fireball is priceless.

 

[Storminator]

I think magic can be deadly when it's so easy to make a PC. In 1e, the part that takes the longest is coming up with a good name. If your PC dies, well, a new one is only 3-5 minutes away (less if you have a name picked out!). So let 'er rip!

PS

 

[grodog]

Some other good examples of how magic can be rather deadly occur in Gygax's Dragon "Soapbox" columns, when it's clear that PCs are relying in magic overmuch, and therefore grow cocky/do dumb things/believe that it's infallible. In the final column Gygax recounted the freeing of Fraz'Urb-luu from the dungeons of Castle Greyhawk, when a paladin and another PC were duped by the paladin's "detect evil" failing due to the overwhelming power of the demon prince....

For a summary, see my GH page @ Grodog's Greyhawk Castle Archive - Gary Gygax's "Up on a Soapbox" Archive

 

[Henry]

And someone please explain how tricky and dangerous (to the caster) magic makes playing with magic, as a Player in a group game, makes the play more fun.

It's because many people find it fun to "beat the odds," which is what happens when you dabble in something dangerous to you and come out ahead. It's kind of like gambling or any other activity with a risk element.

Some other examples from old D&D editions:

--Potion Miscibility tables
--Cloudkills in a stiff breeze
--flight spell wearing off or being dispelled
--DMs screwing over improperly worded Wishes
--failed save on polymorph other to lose your mental faculties
--the "Teleport too high or low" chance.

And, of course, all the infamous 'save or die' spells.

Then again, making a new PC took all of 10 minutes, too, so...

 

[Bullgrit]

It's because many people find it fun to "beat the odds," which is what happens when you dabble in something dangerous to you and come out ahead. It's kind of like gambling or any other activity with a risk element.

Was not going on the adventure risky enough?

Then again, making a new PC took all of 10 minutes, too, so...

So if your 5th-level fighter died due to system shock from your magic-user's haste, you didn't mind because it was easy to create a new 5th-level fighter? I take it you didn't start the new character back at 1st level? Or you didn't have any emotional attachment, at all, to the first character? Just name him "John the Figher II"?

Bullgrit

 

[cildarith]

Or you didn't have any emotional attachment, at all, to the first character?

"Emotional attachment"? To a piece of paper with numbers on it? No.

Your mileage (apparently) varies...

 

[Herschel]

And someone please explain how tricky and dangerous (to the caster) magic makes playing with magic, as a Player in a group game, makes the play more fun.

1. Because magic was "untamed" and shaping it was truly a special feat. That feel is awesome.

2. With uber power comes uber risk. Great sense of "realism".

3. Because the chaos is cool. D&D was never about "winning", it was about the "Whoah!" factor.

4. Because it made great narative for self-sacrifice on the part of a character.

5. Because the other players had to be on their toes more, rather than going through standard action progressions fight after fight. Things could change in a hurry.

6. Because lack of risk is sterile. As is simply crunching numbers. Might as well play Sun Dials & Abacus.

7. See #4.

8. Fighters and Thieves, even Clerics were in the thick of it. It gave a mechanic for damage to the Mage even if the rest of the party played defender.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Or you didn't have any emotional attachment, at all, to the first character? Just name him "John the Fighter II"?

You're setting up a false dichotomy here. There are more paths to choose than "Oh gawd, you killed Starbreeze, now I'm going to hang myself!" and "This is John the Fighter, brother of Bill the Fighter." I run in and play role-play heavy, long-haul campaigns, but my players have enough of a disconnect between themselves and their characters that they can laugh and enjoy it when a prized character who has been through 2 years of gameplay gets his head blown off and runs 2d10 yards in a random direction, lighting everything he runs past on fire.

 

[Bullgrit]

"Emotional attachment"? To a piece of paper with numbers on it? No.

Your mileage (apparently) varies...

No, not to a piece of paper. To the character that you've played for a year to get him to 10th level. I'm not saying you'd (or I'd) cry over the dead character, but if I'd just spent a year playing the character up to name level, I'd have some attachment to it. I think even you would have a reaction at least a notch above, "oh well, hand me 4d6."

Now, of course, if your DM let you create new characters at the same level as the dead one, and you had a revolving door of leveled characters over the past year, then I could see not caring. After all, it's just a playing piece, like the top hat in Monopoly.

I've been playing a character for about six months, now, and even though I'm far from sentimental (or emotional) about my D&D characters (I've lost many over the years), I'd miss playing him if he died. I wouldn't shed a tear, or even get a lump in my throat, but I wouldn't just dismiss the character sheet like it was a piece of scrap paper that I wrote a telephone number on.

"Emotional attachment" does not mean you get slobbery tearful over it. I bet you have some emotional attachment to your favorite game, and would miss it if you couldn't play it anymore -- and it's just paper.

Bullgrit