Magic, first games and expectations

[Undrave]

So, if you've seen some of the D&D 5e arguments we've gotten into over the last few months you've probably seen my dislike for challenges that amount to, in my word, "You Must be This Magical to Contribute". I'm opposed to the idea that playing D&D should absolutely require some amount of spell casting. That your party ABSOLUTELY should include a spell caster or two... or more really.

Plenty of players on these boards, however, have no problem with this idea. "I'm fine with problems needing magic to solve" basically. A lot of them mentioned, incidentally, having played the pre-3.X editions.

And it occurred to me today that why I feel this way might have to do with my own first role-playing game.

My first RPG experience was not with D&D, it was with the British RPG Dragon Warriors! And in that game, the first book only has two classes: Knight and Barbarian. The magic system and its two magical classes (Mystic and Sorcerer, or Druid/Cleric and Mage essentially) came in a separate book.

I'm wondering if this 'Martial Core' might have made my expectations different than players who had Magic Users as one of the core classes of their very first games.

And then, when I first really played D&D, beyond one session, it was in 4e, the ONLY edition where you could build a full Martial Party and have a wide array of strategy available and would be fine adventuring until Epic... Provided you had inherent bonuses.

So, what do you guys think? That your first game influences how important you expect Magic to be?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Undrave]

Um, maybe?

Except that I started all old school (OD&D, 1e, B/X) and I don't like that much magic. I also don't agree with your assessment re: a full martial party and 4e (once again, Robilar, tomb of horrors).

I really think it comes down to preferences. You are playing out what you like; some people love Gandalf and Merlin, while others imagine Conan and Wong Fei-Hung.

Of course people play what they like, but would you be uncomfortable in a party where the most magical character is like... I dunno, an Arcane Trickster or a guy who took Magic Initiate - Cleric? Would you be surprise to get to a random table and find not a single caster? That's sorta what I meant by expectations.

Despite that I've been around for ten years I still feel like an outsider, or a noob, when it comes to D&D and to me it almost looks like there's a sort of 'Wizard subculture' within our little subculture. Not saying it as a negative or a judgement, just an observation. Also, I'm a terrible spell caster player so maybe that gives me a different perspective on the better caster players?

And I guess the full martial party and 4e thing isn't quite right, but I think you would agree that 4e was the first time where the game had this many pure Martial options no?

 

[Arilyn]

I want the magic to match the game world. If there's going to be a lot of magic available to the characters, the world needs to reflect that, and be magical. I don't like the default assumption in 5e that magic is rare. If most of the player character options can cast spells, it's not that rare. I know, player characters are unusual, but still...

As for personal preference, I enjoy a variety of flavours, so can go either way. Sometimes, I'll go martial, sometimes magical. I don't think my first game has influenced my expectations. I don't think a D&D party should have to include spellcasting. I cater my adventures to the party, so am not concerned about the makeup. Everyone can be warlocks or paladins, or fighters, and we'd make a good story out of it.

 

[Undrave]

I don't think my first game has influenced my expectations.

Maybe it's just me then I thought it was an interesting observation of the origin of my own taste.

don't think a D&D party should have to include spellcasting. I cater my adventures to the party, so am not concerned about the makeup. Everyone can be warlocks or paladins, or fighters, and we'd make a good story out of it.

For some DMs that's apparently blasphemy be careful the Simulationists don't get to you

 

[Arilyn]

For some DMs that's apparently blasphemy be careful the Simulationists don't get to you

You know, this got me thinking. In our old myths and legends, the gods loved challenging the heroes by placing obstacles in their paths. So maybe the simulationists have got it wrong all this time? Player characters are special!

Course that means the GM really is a god.

 

[Umbran]

So, what do you guys think? That your first game influences how important you expect Magic to be?

I find this question... strange.

I expect magic's importance to be based on what characters I have in the party. I do not design adventures or prep sessions independent of considering what characters will be in play. If I have an all-martial party, then I'm designing for that group. If I have all spellcasters, without a reasonable melee combatant, I'll be designing for that.

So, there's never an instance where the party cannot solve an issue, unless I intend that issue to be a blocker they need to find another way around.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

Can't really say. I mean, IME 1e (for example) was chock full of non-spellcasting classes. Look at the base-
You had four spellcasters (Cleric, Druid, MU, Illusionist). Each had their own differentiated spell list. Some cross over, but mostly different.

You then had:
Fighter (Paladin, Ranger).
Thief (Assassin)
Monk

Six non-spellcasters (yes, the Paladin and Ranger both got to cast limited spells at name level, but they were not spellcasters).

UA then added more non-casters: Barbarian, Cavalier, Thief-Acrobat. And there were some NPC-only caster classes (or similar) e.g. Shaman, that would show up in adventure modules.

Then there's Bard, which is its own special case; and anyone who ended up with psionics might as well count as a caster as well.

That said, I think @Undrave might be on to something. Many of us started in 0e or 1e D&D, where even though there's not too many caster classes there's otherwise generally lots of magic floating around - magic items, magic traps, oddball magic effects, etc. - which tend to make the game seem magic-oriented; and so that's what we became used to.

Someone starting from a lower- or no-magic system would, I'm sure, have a completely different perspective; as would I in reverse were I to start playing in a no-magic system or game.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I find this question... strange.

I expect magic's importance to be based on what characters I have in the party. I do not design adventures or prep sessions independent of considering what characters will be in play. If I have an all-martial party, then I'm designing for that group. If I have all spellcasters, without a reasonable melee combatant, I'll be designing for that.

So, there's never an instance where the party cannot solve an issue, unless I intend that issue to be a blocker they need to find another way around.

So you have never written/prepped an adventure before the players decided what characters they wanted to play? Or you have never run in a convention environment where you have no clue what characters will be used at your table?