Magic, first games and expectations

[Tonguez]

One of the flaws of DnD is its over reliance on magic, in particular utility spells that substitute for others skills and abilities.

Of course no party is required to have a spellcaster but the ubiquity of magic items, magic traps and pesudomagical abilities gives the game a very magical orientation to the extent that certain scenarios only work if magic is either allowed for or actively countered, The classic example is Murder mystery V Speak with dead, and trying to lock things or bar doors is pointless when someone can cast Knock (I personally hate this spell)

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

A magical low-level Sword & Sorcery style is possible but this would need some changes because magic is necessary for fast healing, to discover some clues for investigations and monster with special damage resistance. Some monsters may be too powerful for PCs without the right spells.

 

[Undrave]

I find this question... strange.

And BTW it's totally fine, I was just musing on my own beginning and felt there might be an interesting origin to my tastes and wanted to share my reflection to stimulate discussion and activity on the board.

Doesn't really matter if I'm way off or weird, just that we got some chatter going

 

[Undrave]

One of the flaws of DnD is its over reliance on magic, in particular utility spells that substitute for others skills and abilities.

Of course no party is required to have a spellcaster but the ubiquity of magic items, magic traps and pesudomagical abilities gives the game a very magical orientation to the extent that certain scenarios only work if magic is either allowed for or actively countered, The classic example is Murder mystery V Speak with dead, and trying to lock things or bar doors is pointless when someone can cast Knock (I personally hate this spell)

It would be interesting if we were able to know why some particular 'overcome challenge' spells like Knock or Speak With Dead were invented and in what circumstances, what was their intended usage. Like, there's no reason for a spell like Knock to exist in D&D aside from tradition.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't think I've ever designed an adventure that requires magic using characters. There might be obstacles that can be bypassed more easily with magic but generally, any party would be able to make it through with or without spellcasting. This is probably because I build my adventures for the party so I know what they are capable of doing. Even if I do have spellcasters, I'm not going to put something critical to the adventure behind something that is gated behind specific magic since I don't know which spells the party will have prepped.

If I am putting something in the game that requires magic then it is something set in the adventure that has some sort of magical key or effect that the players can find, sort of like the various Zelda games and their dungeons that can only be completed once you find the new magic item in the dungeon.

 

[Umbran]

And BTW it's totally fine, I was just musing on my own beginning and felt there might be an interesting origin to my tastes...

Well, then we should note that tastes and expectations are two different beasts. Your tastes and preferences are fine - I do not argue with them.

The statement, "I prefer a party that has X, Y, and Z," is not the same as, "I expect A, B, and C in adventures," are not the same.

I have game preferences to. But I expect the adventures to take the party into account, even if the party doesn't match my preferences.

 

[the Jester]

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

Hey, you can be a simulationist while still acknowledging that other playstyles are valid.

I like to think of this as a spectrum, rather than an either-or option. Kind of like the sandbox-to-story-based spectrum.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, then we should note that tastes and expectations are two different beasts. Your tastes and preferences are fine - I do not argue with them.

The statement, "I prefer a party that has X, Y, and Z," is not the same as, "I expect A, B, and C in adventures," are not the same.

I have game preferences to. But I expect the adventures to take the party into account, even if the party doesn't match my preferences.

It's a question of which should bend: the adventure to suit the party, or the party to suit the adventure.

Realism would suggest the party bends every time, as the adventure simply is what it is no matter who goes there. (and who goes back there; who says any given adventure is only going to be run once?)

 

[prabe]

It's a question of which should bend: the adventure to suit the party, or the party to suit the adventure.

Realism would suggest the party bends every time, as the adventure simply is what it is no matter who goes there. (and who goes back there; who says any given adventure is only going to be run once?)

That's fair. Even if the adventure doesn't bend to suit the characters, one presumes it might bend to suit the players, at least as far as choice of adventure, or at least adventure type. At least, if it's not something previously placed. Dunno if I'm clear ...

 

[Lanefan]

That's fair. Even if the adventure doesn't bend to suit the characters, one presumes it might bend to suit the players, at least as far as choice of adventure, or at least adventure type. At least, if it's not something previously placed. Dunno if I'm clear ...

Clear enough.

Most of the time there's several adventures (of different types) they could choose to do next, unless they've embarked on what amounts to a mini-AP where one directly follows another.