[Penny Arcade] Do you use "Magic!" too much or not enough?

[BiggusGeekus]

Comic strip for context:

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/700674603_mAVrc-L.jpg

I put far too much time into thinking about this kind of thing than I really should. On the one hand, verisimilitude helps build the setting of the story and that adds to the player's immersion. On the other hand, I'm all for a return to not obsessing over the details and just bringing the stuff I think will be fun.

I doubt there is a one-size-fits-all answer to this, but I am interested in folk's thoughts.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I have been using the "There are different rules for me (the DM) than there are for you (the players)" argument for years.

It is the appearance of enough seeming realism that is important, not the actual mathematical proof of the NPC's stat blocks that matters. No, you can't look at his stats after the combat is over.

If the players are interested enough in what's behind the curtain, let them look into it in character and create some good plot and story.

 

[Henry]

Yeah, I never got that "the players must know every detail of how an NPC did something" thing. I might get curious as a player, but some things you just WON'T have an answer for, not matter how much you might want one, and that's just life, for you.

I used to put weird stuff in the middle of a campaign just to make it more realistic, that the world moves without the PCs, and they won't be privy to why something is the way it is, all the time. I've had NPCs with totally 90 degree perpendicular plots just wander on and off stage, and let the PCs decide of they want to get involved or not. If they do, great --- I have some details I can supplant. If not, then weirdness just drifts across their field of perception after two or four rounds, and it's gone. This, honestly, is more realistic than knowing exactly why the NPC bad guy can raise an army of skeletons as a plot device, or why a given plot device works no matter the cost.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

By the way, I'm listening to "Believe it or Not" as I type my response. I've always liked your avatar!!!

My view is this: It is perfectly acceptable for the DM to pull things on the Players that they either don't understand and more than likely cannot do themselves. I have no problem with DMs saying "Because" or "Magic".

However [Ooh, I love that key change], I would have liked SOMEONE to have worked out the details involved. The level system in D&D in 3.x makes this a little awkward because sometimes you want your 5th level bad dude to pull off something pretty neat but that is either way above his level, or of an expense that makes you wonder why he doesn't just plane hop to the Bahamas with his loot. Communal rituals of 13 necromancers or the sacrifice of several virgins may be possible to achieve these grand results minus the expense and level required but please tell me the details - don't just say to me the DM "because" or "magic" or "you play join-the-dots". Such details give you a myriad of springboards for interaction and adventure.

As well, if you can't explain the details it may just be illogical or implausible (or possibly just boring), even in a fantasy setting. And don't wheel out the "well you're playing a game of Elves and Magic". Science fiction and fantasy in some ways has to be more accountable in terms of it's tropes and internal logic.

So yeah, details are not needed at the table by players or DM but as long as the details are worked out by someone out there, everyone's happy regardless of gamestyle.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Mouseferatu]

The best DM is not the one who tries to have everything worked out mechanically in advance.

The best DM is the one who can run a game where the players cannot tell and/or do not care when he does not.

(Edited for clarity: So yes, DMs use different rules than PCs--including, if used sparingly, with extreme care and skill, no rules at all.)

 

[awesomeocalypse]

I use it all the time. 4e practically mandates it if you want monsters do have cool powers that aren't directly related to combat. I give Liches and Dragons powers all the time that are "just magic".

 

[delericho]

I don't use "it's magic".

In the Penny Arcade example given, I would point out that the players are wrong - the rules do support reverse Necromancy, there just aren't any existing spells to do it. The BBEG in question obviously researched some. If the PCs can find his notes, then they too can have this power. (If it came to that, I would refit the lich ritual for this purpose (we use 3.5e).)

In the case of some ancient Elven structure held together with magic, it's "secrets long lost to us". If the PCs really want to know, they can investigate it in detail, and there will be an answer. Oddly, nobody has ever been interested to actually go and find out. (The "Stronghold Builder's Guidebook" is quite helpful here, as it gives precedent for expanding the magic item creation rules to buildings.)

It's a minor, and perhaps meaningless, difference. Essentially, I've replaced "it's magic" with "arcane technobabble". Still, I have found that, for my game and my players, this improves versimilitude and leads to an overall improvement in the play experience. YMMV, of course.

(I do sometimes wish 3.5e included rules for collaborative magic and extended rituals... but then these already exist in the 3rd party material. Besides, they would be used so rarely, and are so flexible, that they're probably more trouble than they'd actually be worth.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I rarely use "Magic!", preferring to run my NPCs by the same rules as the PCs.

However, when I do use "Magic!", I usually allow the PCs to gain access to the same kind of effects...if they go through the same process the NPC did.

This has led to some very interesting side missions and, in one case, a PC spending hundreds of thousands of PP (yes, PP) in the search to circumnavigate a particular drawback that was a precondition to gaining that "Magic!"

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't use "it's magic".

In the Penny Arcade example given, I would point out that the players are wrong - the rules do support reverse Necromancy, there just aren't any existing spells to do it. The BBEG in question obviously researched some. If the PCs can find his notes, then they too can have this power. (If it came to that, I would refit the lich ritual for this purpose (we use 3.5e).)

In the case of some ancient Elven structure held together with magic, it's "secrets long lost to us". If the PCs really want to know, they can investigate it in detail, and there will be an answer. Oddly, nobody has ever been interested to actually go and find out. (The "Stronghold Builder's Guidebook" is quite helpful here, as it gives precedent for expanding the magic item creation rules to buildings.)

It's a minor, and perhaps meaningless, difference. Essentially, I've replaced "it's magic" with "arcane technobabble". Still, I have found that, for my game and my players, this improves versimilitude and leads to an overall improvement in the play experience. YMMV, of course.

(I do sometimes wish 3.5e included rules for collaborative magic and extended rituals... but then these already exist in the 3rd party material. Besides, they would be used so rarely, and are so flexible, that they're probably more trouble than they'd actually be worth.)

This is very much my approach too.

Cheers

 

[vagabundo]

I use arcane techno-babble too, if my players ever care to investigate.

However, while they can detect and possible get the gist of some weird magical effect, actually researching and creating it may take years of study - essentially taking the character out of the playable realm for a long time, probably forever.

My players seems content that there is a magical world around their characters with lots of one-off magical mysteries...