Musings on the "I Win" Button

[FireLance]

The discussion in the thread on neutered wizards has wandered round to the issue of the "I win" button, why it was (effectively) removed in 4E, and whether or not it is a good thing.

On my part, I can see why the "I win" button is such an attractive concept. Having just the right spell to overcome any problem is one of the key tropes of the wizard, a class that many role-players identify with closely, and it also underscores the limitless possibilities of mind and knowledge.

However, in the context of a group game, the "I win" button has a couple of drawbacks:

1. Overshadowing Other Characters: While the effects of this can be minimized through player co-ordination (the wizard simply does not select spells which duplicate the capabilities of the other characters), the temptation to have a "backup" or a "safety net" (just in case the other character fails) is always present. And when that happens, it's about the closest that a fellow PC can get to being that DMPC who steps in to save the day when the PCs fail.

2. Circumventing the Game's Challenges: Whether it's a fight that ends suddenly because the BBEG rolled a 1 on his saving throw against a death spell, or a utility spell that cuts short what should have been a multi-stage challenge, the "I win" button can sometimes deliver what seems to be a quick and easy victory to the party. It's great for the players (in fact, some types of players live for moments like these) but some DMs find it annoying, especially if they have put a lot of work into preparing the encounter.​

Previous editions worked round the above problems mainly by limiting the frequency of the "I win" button through a variety of means: random allocation of spells so that the wizard might not have all the spells he wants; spell preparation, which requires the wizard the guess what spells he will need; additional costs in terms of gold, XP, ability scores, age, etc.; or simple unreliability (e.g. random effects, saving throws, spell resistance, immunity, etc.) so that the spell does not always work, and so on. The problems still occured from time to time, but hopefully not often enough that anyone got too annoyed.

I wonder whether it would be possible to re-introduce the "I win" button, but in a way that would avoid the two problems mentioned earlier. For example:

1. "We Win": The idea here is that a spell might make the wizard good, but it makes another character better. It is not a new idea - even in 3E, there were some suggestions that knock should give a bonus to Open Lock checks, while invisibility should give a bonus to Hide checks. So, even though a wizard could cast these spells to open locks and sneak around if there was no rogue in the party, he would be better off if there was a rogue, and he used them to improve the rogue's ability instead.

2. The Narrative Win: Here, the "I win" button becomes a plot point, not a challenge. The wizard can, with a single spell, kill the BBEG in one round. However, before he can do that, he need to find the BBEG's true name. And he needs to find a rare component to power the spell. And he needs to fight through the BBEG's minions and henchmen before he can get close enough to kill him. And the party doesn't get any XP for killing the BBEG, except maybe XP for completing a quest. The lower the risk, the lower the reward, and in any case, they should have earned enough XP in the process of fulfilling all the conditions for casting the "I win" spell.​

What do you think? Would you want the "I win" button in your game? If so, which approach would you favor?

 

[TerraDave]

Not to got off topic one post in...

But, as noted in the other thread, the existence of "I win spells" has been somewhat exagerated. Yes, in pre 3E you could win with just a sleep spell or a charm person (with luck you can still do that in 4E). But that wizards supperpowerful high level spell could also be foiled by imunities, magic resistance, or a saving throw. Or being hit first in the round.

Big difference betwee I could win and I will win.

 

[pawsplay]

There is no "I win" button. Using spells or other unusual abilities creatively is a tactical and imaginative challenge as much, if not more so, than battlefield maneuvering.

 

[malkav666]

I don't think the idea of a spell or ability that lets a player or group of players overcome a challenge in a direct way is a terrible thing. These "I win" tactics exist in many many games, and in every edition of D&D.

The only time it really becomes a problem is when the tactic allows a player or group of players to defeat EVERY challenge, which is usually the result of one of two things IMO:

1.) The party is being allowed to "5 minute workday" the encounters, and have all of their big guns for every encounter. This can make classes that have two or three big one shot weapons that they can use a day look like they are dropping bombs all the time, when the reality of the situation is: If they ran more than an encounter or two in a day those big bombs would run out, and then the folks with the not so big (but so small either) guns begin to shine.

To put it into a non D&D perspective: Say we have a combat unit that consists of a rocketeer with three shots whose backup weapon is a pistol. A heavy machine gunner who has a a backup knife, a few pistols, and maybe a grenade or two, an operative with a pair of SMG's and stealth skills and a knife, and finally a medic with a pistol several grenades and all of the drugs.

If the party is allowed to refill their ammo and supplies after every single encounter, then the rocketeer and the medic seem like the MVP all the time, with the machine gunner and opertive geting in a good shot every now and again. If you take that same group and put them on a mission deep into enemey teritory where the ammo (rest in this analogy) is few and far between, and the group has to do 3-5 encounters before restocking, then the folks with 2-3 big guns still have the option of looking like the big dog, but during the encounters when they are out of ammo, the operative, and the machine gunner are the big guns.

So IMO a lot of the issue with "I win" is pacing your game so that they are available every combat. If you wizard comes out int he first round and lauches a bad guy to the moon, there is no reason for the party to stop and rest. If you as a DM let them rest, then what you will have is a series of lunar launches, and rest in a never ending spin cycle.

2.)There are some poorly written (or at least not plainly written) abilities in several games. There are abilities from many sources in all of these D&D editions. Some of them or unbalanced, don't work well, and a few are outright broken. Thems the ropes. If you find these in your group, and they are coming up all of the time and taking away the enjoyment of other players then they need to be addressed. It could be anything from the use silence to counter any spell ever clerics in 3e, to the intimidate anything ALL the time paladins in 4e (and those should be read as my opinions of systems that don't fit into MY games). You just deal with em'


So in short the TLDR version is; IMO an "I have a chance to win one to two encounter a day out of a series" is OK in my book (most of the time). "I have a chance to win against a certain type of enemy" is OK in my book. I have no problem with my players kicking ass.

I automatically win every encounter is not OK. And TBH I have not personally seen very many mechanics of this nature in D&D (of any edition). But I am sure others have as there are lots of threads about it. Maybe I am just lucky and have a good group for D&D.

love,

malkav

 

[Kishin]

There is no "I win" button. Using spells or other unusual abilities creatively is a tactical and imaginative challenge as much, if not more so, than battlefield maneuvering.

There is nothing creative and tactical about picking a target and casting slow, flesh to stone (or flesh to ice or the even worse glasstrike), Evard's, or any of several dozen other spells, including the longtime veteran I Win Button forcecage. It also ludicrously easy to optimize for these spells. Heck, you don't even have to for forcecage.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Not to got off topic one post in...

But, as noted in the other thread, the existence of "I win spells" has been somewhat exagerated. Yes, in pre 3E you could win with just a sleep spell or a charm person (with luck you can still do that in 4E). But that wizards supperpowerful high level spell could also be foiled by imunities, magic resistance, or a saving throw. Or being hit first in the round.

Big difference betwee I could win and I will win.

Yes indeed. The whole automatic win and I can do everyone's job problem only happened with the release of 3E. Plentiful cheap scrolls and wands, and the extreme difficulty of disrupting a spell due to turn based initiative created these problems.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes indeed. The whole automatic win and I can do everyone's job problem only happened with the release of 3E. Plentiful cheap scrolls and wands, and the extreme difficulty of disrupting a spell due to turn based initiative created these problems.

No, it gained widespread USE in 3e, but it existed before. I have 7+ years of playing a thief in a group dominated by wizard and wizard-hybrids to show for that. Don't underestimate the ability of a couple of M-U's getting together to coordinate their spells-per-day to make the fighter and thief seem like XP sponges rather than contributing members.

 

[pawsplay]

There is nothing creative and tactical about picking a target and casting slow, flesh to stone (or flesh to ice or the even worse glasstrike), Evard's, or any of several dozen other spells, including the longtime veteran I Win Button forcecage. It also ludicrously easy to optimize for these spells. Heck, you don't even have to for forcecage.

While forcecage is powerful, and probably should have some sort of defense available, trapping your foe in an impenetrable, immobile cube for 2 hours/level is a far cry from defeating them, particularly if they have friends.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, it gained widespread USE in 3e, but it existed before. I have 7+ years of playing a thief in a group dominated by wizard and wizard-hybrids to show for that. Don't underestimate the ability of a couple of M-U's getting together to coordinate their spells-per-day to make the fighter and thief seem like XP sponges rather than contributing members.

Just curious, did your group have the short adventuring day problem, and did you use standard per-round declared casting initiative or turn based?

 

[Remathilis]

Just curious, did your group have the short adventuring day problem, and did you use standard per-round declared casting initiative or turn based?

To answer in order

1.) Our group for a long time wasn't big into "dungeons", so most adventures were short "hideout/minion/boss" style excursions (kinda like the Delves today, but with a purpose).

2.) 2e. 1d10+casting time-dex mod per round. Declare action before init is rolled.

Fighters were just there to stop quick baddies from stabbing mages while mages descimated foes with fire & lightning. Sure, the fighter might get the killing blow, but he probably did less than 20% of the total damage to the foe.