Need help with wording of a wish

[ThirdWizard]

Player character interaction only, or are NPC interactions allowed to be DM-discretionary?

In my current campaign, a player of mine has returned to his villiage on the Beastlands after a journey about the Planes. Recently he found a powrful sword that had the markings of his tribe on them, and returned secretly to speak to the oracle of his people about the sword. Discovering its history, he found that it belongs to the leaders of the tribe and was stolen decades before he was even born. He had a choice: return the sword to its rightful owner or continue using it in his fight against evil. He knew that if he handed it over it would hang on a wall somewhere not being used, but he was not the rightful owner.

Not knowing what would happen, he confronted the village leader at the festivities they were having. He knew the leader to be an honerable man, a man who cares for his people. So he asked that he be allowed to continue using the weapon that was stolen so long ago as he believes it should be used. But, what would his leader say? He has been away for several years, and he couldn't be sure.

As a DM I made a judgement based on the NPC, what had happened in the time the PC was gone, and what kind of person he was. That I would consider DM discretion that is a lot more interesting than ruling on what happens during a wish spell, personally, and much more meaningful to the player. He had knowlege to go on, he knew the man, he knew his actions in the past, but this situation was unlike any other that he had witnessed. He has grown attached to that sword, but he offered it willingly if the leader so desired.

If that isn't DM discretion then what is it?

How is "exploration of the multiverse" a thing under DM discretion? The players choose where to go.

Do the players choose what they find?

What unknown things are you talking about?

This I don't understand. Isn't adventuring, by its very design, going into the unknown?

There's just no way around the fact that some spell effects will have a certain amount of DM discretion built in, if you're playing D&D.

Sure. But they know flamible things will catch on fire if you toss a fireball at them. I don't really see the point here.

Nice tack on. You're more of a player who has been screwed by some DMs (or a DM) than a DM who feels this way, aren't you? That's really what this is about, isn't it? Because I could understand what you've been saying, if it's being said from that perspective, even though I'd still disagree.

I've only ever played in one campaign, unfortunately. I didn't get a chance to play as a player for 8 or 10 years of playing D&D. I admit that the DM wasn't very good. He was the kind to give you something and then take it away the rare time he actually did give something, but that was due to inexperience more than anything else. In some ways I blame myself, because I was getting burned out and wasn't doing a as good a job as usual before he took over.

 

[Mark]

If that isn't DM discretion then what is it?

Was there ever really a chance the playe wouldn't have ended up with the sword? really?

Do the players choose what they find?

They choose where they go based on what they see.

This I don't understand. Isn't adventuring, by its very design, going into the unknown?

That's my point. You said there was DM disceretion in that.

Sure. But they know flamible things will catch on fire if you toss a fireball at them. I don't really see the point here.

What if the DM uses his discretion to decide the wind shifts...because he thinks it will make the adventure more interesting?

I've only ever played in one campaign, unfortunately. I didn't get a chance to play as a player for 8 or 10 years of playing D&D. I admit that the DM wasn't very good. He was the kind to give you something and then take it away the rare time he actually did give something, but that was due to inexperience more than anything else. In some ways I blame myself, because I was getting burned out and wasn't doing a as good a job as usual before he took over.

I think that one experience has caused you to over compensate in the other direction and require too much definition in the rules.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Was there ever really a chance the playe wouldn't have ended up with the sword? really?

His grandfather was the one who stole the sword, being manipulated by a devil. In atonement, he set out to return it to his only living desendant. If the PC had been using non-detection abilities, he never would have been able to find him.

They choose where they go based on what they see.

You're saying DM discretion has no bearing on PC exploration? I don't believe it.

That's my point. You said there was DM disceretion in that.

As the DM determines what the uknown is, by definition the unknown is DM discretion. Everything beyond PC actions is DM discretion. I just don't want the PC actions themselves to be DM discretion.

What if the DM uses his discretion to decide the wind shifts...because he thinks it will make the adventure more interesting?

Yes, you're right. No matter what, events will always come down to DM fiat. We just disagree on the degree.

I think that one experience has caused you to over compensate in the other direction and require too much definition in the rules.

Perhaps, but this is how I think as a DM as well as a Player. It's my philosphy on gaming in general. I don't think its too much, I think it is what it is.

I think illusion is a much better example of this than wish. However, its easier for players to get a hold of it when they can cast a few a day. As a DM I favor more subtle illusions and my players know this. As such, they use illusions in more subtle way. A player in my games likes wacky illusions, so I give him leeway occasionally. I know if he were DM, wacky illusions would work very well.

 

[Mark]

I don't mind making the rules that exist clear, I just don't want there to be be rules for everything. But the important distinction between our positions, IMO, is that you use the word "fiat" where I use the word "discretion" which points up my trust in the use of that leeway in the rules, and your inherent mistrust. I can't, and won't, play in a game where that inherent mistrust exists. I don't think any amount of rules codification can nulify that inherent mistrust and allow a game to be fun.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Fiat just means its an arbitrary decision. It might not be the best or worst solution, it simply is. You see fiat as a negative thing whereas I see it as a thing that merely is, neutrality designed not to help or hinder but merely to exist. I use it simply to mean that the wish spell in each case isn't being ruled well or badly, and since there is no "best" way to run wish, it is difficult for a player to know what to expect from a ruling before they see it occur.

Perhaps I should have used the word judgement.

 

[Mark]

Fiat just means its an arbitrary decision. It might not be the best or worst solution, it simply is. You see fiat as a negative thing whereas I see it as a thing that merely is, neutrality designed not to help or hinder but merely to exist. I use it simply to mean that the wish spell in each case isn't being ruled well or badly, and since there is no "best" way to run wish, it is difficult for a player to know what to expect from a ruling before they see it occur.

Perhaps I should have used the word judgement.

I know what "fiat" means. I don't think DMing is arbitrary. It's why I use the word "discretion" which is not arbitrary and is even more on point than "judgement" because it includes a greater sensitivity in the decision making process. "Discretion" is what I used because it inherently means there is a trusting relationship between the players and their DM. I use "discretion" because it is not a neutral word.

 

[ThirdWizard]

If I give a player a wish, then they get overly dramatic with the spell and nothing happens that's anti-climatic and boring. "I wish my invocations wouldn't hurt allies." "You feel nothing. You think the wish might have fizzled away." "Oh..." Or the person might consult a sage or ask the party wizard, "Do you think I could make my invocations change in nature?" *person rolls a Knowlege (Arcane) check* "Nah, I think that's too powerful for that spell." "Hmm, I'll think of something else then."

Is that really too much?

 

[Mark]

If I give a player a wish, then they get overly dramatic with the spell and nothing happens that's anti-climatic and boring. "I wish my invocations wouldn't hurt allies." "You feel nothing. You think the wish might have fizzled away." "Oh..." Or the person might consult a sage or ask the party wizard, "Do you think I could make my invocations change in nature?" *person rolls a Knowlege (Arcane) check* "Nah, I think that's too powerful for that spell." "Hmm, I'll think of something else then."

Is that really too much?

The wish spell description text is pretty clear on what the spell can and cannot do and what might happen if a caster tries to overreach. However, a "person" doesn't roll a Knowledge (arcane) check, the DM rolls it in this case. The player may or may not know if they fail. They might misinterpret information during their 'research' and think they have an answer when they really do not. So, "yes", that is really too much by the rules but if you want to house rule it that way, then certainly you can. IMO, and as the rules are written, your suggestion allows the player to essentially meta-game around a potential obstacle that is meant to be built into the game.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I suppose if there has been no reasearch in your world on what a wish can do, then it is meta-gaming... That seems kind of un-wizardly though. What about Bardic Knowlege? Would you allow the bard to remember the story of "Kyochius the White, who wished for...?"

 

[Particle_Man]

Please stop hijacking this thread. Both of you. You may start your own thread to continue this conversation. I just want ideas about how to word a wish, and the "Talk to your DM" idea, as well as the "Trust your DM" idea, while having merit, have now been said.