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

[Set]

Anything I spring on the PCs is something that functions within the rules, even if I have to pull out stuff like Incantations to provide a means by which the low-level NPC summoned up some critters that were way past his pay grade.

I've been in *far* too many games where the NPC used something and then the PCs were like, 'that's pretty cool and effective, I try to use that' and get the 'it doesn't work for PCs' excuse. That's just sloppy, IMO.

Games have rules for a reason, to create a sense of fairness and challenge, and it's not like I can't do any darn thing I want by just having the bad-guy have a unique spell or custom feat or freaky magical mutation as a result of huffing too many potions in his dad's alchemy lab as a child. But *I'll* know how it happened, and if I don't want the players to get access to it, I'll show them the downsides (yeah, he can do X, but the side-effect is that he's got a point-buy of 10 and is completely insane, or yeah, he used an Incantation, and it only requires that you be a blood-descendent of the demon whose minions he summoned).

If I were to ignore the rules in designing my encounters, the players victories become meaningless. They aren't playing the game, they are just suffering through whatever rambling story I wish to tell them, with no reward for mastery, no use in engaging in any sort of strategy, no value in taking any knowledge skills (since I'm just making crap up), no sense of fairness and no 'game,' just me and my captive audience. I've been that captive audience, stuck with a bunch of loot that doesn't work for me (just like the thrice-cursed Drow magic items of 1st and 2nd edition, which were removed from the game for a reason), having just fought spellcasters with magical spells and abilities that I'm not allowed to have. What's the point of even calling it D&D if the stuff the DM is throwing at me has nothing to do with the rules of the game?

 

[Dausuul]

When I invoke "Magic!" it's done in advance. In other words, the villain doesn't suddenly, with no warning, bust out a ritual that will let her summon Orcus and bind him to her will; the PCs find out in advance that that's what she's going to do, along with information on what she needs and how to stop it. I'm not above using "Magic!" as a plot device - writing the rules of the ritual to fit the needs of the adventure I'm planning - but I try to avoid using it as a diabolus ex machina.

(I will also put in some requirement for the ritual which the PCs are pretty much guaranteed not to be able to meet, in order to answer the question "Why can't we summon Orcus?" And if they come up with a clever way to meet that requirement... okay, you just summoned freakin' Orcus using a ritual you don't really understand. That's going to end well. But it's important to maintain the sense that the rules of the world are the same for PCs and NPCs, even when the rules of the game aren't.)

In general, I try to make sure that my "Magic!" fits, not necessarily within the explicit rules of the game, but within the conceptual framework of those rules, and abiding by whatever hard limits I've set. For instance, I disallow all long-range teleportation spells in my games; therefore NPC casters don't get them either. Necromancers don't generate auras of pure healing radiance. Druids don't raise undead. Ritual magic requires components and time. An NPC wizard's version of a fireball may not work exactly like the PC wizard's fireball spell, but it'll still do fire damage and target Reflex and hit allied creatures who happen to be within the blast radius.

Again, it's about creating a sense that the world operates by consistent rules, even though the players don't know exactly what the rules are.

 

[Toben the Many]

Right. I think people have been hinting here (and I agree) that taken to an extreme, the "it's magic" approach can be used to make a campaign too arbitrary. Again, going with an extreme example, I once saw a player get very upset when a DM took away his character's paladin powers for no apparent reason. It turns out that there was "a plot reason" why the paladin's powers had gone away - even though the character had been on the complete straight and narrow.

But the complete and total arbitrariness of the situation was very frustrating to the player. It's the same thing as, "Oh, well you're turning ability doesn't work here. Your spells all work backwards here."

Again, these are extreme examples and I very rarely see this anymore.

 

[roguerouge]

Plot holes bedevil every author who fails to remember that a plot hole is just a synonym for an opportunity.

 

[Barastrondo]

Right. I think people have been hinting here (and I agree) that taken to an extreme, the "it's magic" approach can be used to make a campaign too arbitrary. Again, going with an extreme example, I once saw a player get very upset when a DM took away his character's paladin powers for no apparent reason. It turns out that there was "a plot reason" why the paladin's powers had gone away - even though the character had been on the complete straight and narrow.

I agree. Conversely, I also don't care for the "the PCs must be able to gain mechanical access to the NPCs' powers" when taken to an extreme. There's a big wide area in between "rules are just arbitrary things used against the PCs" and "the players should be able to audit the GM's books at any time and claim restitution if there are any rules discrepancies." I like it in that space, not at either end.

I don't tend to use "it's magic" very often, but when I turn to D&D I run very thematic games. I don't place anything that doesn't somehow reflect the theme. If it's something neo-Viking, then everything should somehow hint at rune magic or the hand of the gods or blood-curses or other things that seem to fit. Explanations, even if just cosmetic ones, reinforce the theme and are therefore vital.

On the other hand, I've never cared if an NPC displays some sort of ability not available to the players. I'm kind of fond of the one-trick-pony villain that you see in some things like martial arts novels, who's trained in one freakish technique that is probably going to die with him when the players figure out how to circumvent it. NPCs like that don't have access to everything the PCs can do, anyway -- yeah, so the troll-witch managed to gain secrets that can only be gotten by becoming a troll or hag's love slave. The time he spent doing that he wasn't training in your awesome PC abilities. Admittedly, I could give an NPC access to every trick a PC has and then some, but eh. Not only does that kind of push into the "it's magic!" side of straining credulity, but it's more work than I want to put into a character.

 

[JohnSnow]

The nice part about an exceptions-based design system like Fourth Edition is that this is really easy to explain. Now, I know not everybody likes (or plays) 4e, but here's how you answer that question in that system:

PC: "So, how did Baron Von Evil do that? There's no rules to support it."
DM: "Obviously, he came up with a new ritual. Those things keep popping up."
PC: "Can I learn it?"
DM: "Sure. IF you can find his notebooks."
PC: "Why can't I create it from scratch like he did?
DM: "I suppose you could. Let's see - it took him 20 years of dedicated research and trafficking with dark forces. So, what are the rest of you doing in the meantime?"
PC1: "That's not fair!"
DM: "Who said life is fair?"

That's makes the answer less: "it's magic" and more "magic sometimes takes a LONG time." PCs are notoriously impatient. BBEGs have all kinds of time to plot and plan. Their plans just happen to be about to come to fruition (or just have) when the PCs encounter them. That's a different kind of magic I like to call "narrative coincidence."

 

[Henry]

PC: "So, how did Baron Von Evil do that? There's no rules to support it."
DM: "Obviously, he came up with a new ritual. Those things keep popping up."
PC: "Can I learn it?"
DM: "Sure. IF you can find his notebooks."
PC: "Why can't I create it from scratch like he did?
DM: "I suppose you could. Let's see - it took him 20 years of dedicated research and trafficking with dark forces. So, what are the rest of you doing in the meantime?"
PC1: "That's not fair!"
DM: "Who said life is fair?"

That's makes the answer less: "it's magic" and more "magic sometimes takes a LONG time."

Absolutely - it's the way the first generation of gamers did it, Gygax included. If the players show an interest in it, then it's something that has them hooked into your campaign -- use that ammo! Keep them hooked and entertained. There's a reason that Rob Kuntz' Robilar tried dozens of wacky techniques to get to the Moon... and Gary strung him on on how to get there.

Grodog's Greyhawk Castle Archive - Gary Gygax's "Up on a Soapbox" Archive

 

[awesomeocalypse]

A common trick I'll use when trying to make an NPC or monster seem especially magical, is to take elements of the story or encounter that I was planning to use anyway and refluff them to be a result of that NPCs magic.

For instance, say I have a fight planned with an elite wizard, plus a few minions and lower level brutes and soldiers. I could just have the players walk in to a room with all of the enemies already there and have it proceed as normal...or I could have them walk into a room that contains only the wizard, and then right before the fight begins have him summon the "reinforcements" that are simply monsters I had planned to include from the beginning to make a balanced fight. The fight is exactly the same either way, but the latter approach makes the BBEG seem that much more powerful.

Similarly, if my players are entering a lich's lair and there is a trap, I'll generally just declare it to be an ongoing spell the lich placed there via ritual. It still functions exactly the way any other trap would, but it also serves the additional function of pumping up the lich as a threat in the player's eyes.

Another trick I'll use is to make reflavor skill challenges or skill checks as being in some way magical. For instance, I might have a dragon disguise themselves via illusion as an ordinary human being--but the mechanism wouldn't be an actual power or illusion spell, but rather simply the "bluff" skill used the same way a character would use it for an ordinary nonmagical disguise. If the players roll a good insight check, they see through the illusion.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

PC: "Can I learn it?"
DM: "Sure. IF you can find his notebooks."
PC: "Why can't I create it from scratch like he did?
DM: "I suppose you could. Let's see - it took him 20 years of dedicated research and trafficking with dark forces.

I like it!

 

[Saeviomagy]

The main problem with "it's magic" is "well, so am I".

The difficulty is in telling the players that they cannot do something when the BBEG can. THAT is what requires a little more finesse in the explanation.