Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Putting The Awe Back In Magic
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 7998660" data-attributes="member: 6993955"><p>The idea was certainly not never having to adjudicate. That would be patent nonsense in a TTRPG. The point of the mechanics, whatever they might be, is to allow the plaqyers to select tactical options with confidence, to put some authority in their hands. This really couldn't be super specific, or you end up with the examples you list form above and the whole idea collapses into absurdity. Even with a mechanic some of your examples would fall outside it anyway - that mithril beam, for example, would probably prevent just about any level of property damage save from very high level spells. </p><p></p><p>My point was actually precisely that the secondary effects fall outside the rules. The magic system is quite rigid in how magic effects the diagetic plane. Spells <em>should</em> have more ability to do things other than damage enemies. What I would prefer not to do is have to adjudicate this from scratch every time someone has a fancy idea. MOre in a second...</p><p></p><p>The difference comes from parsing the authority over the fiction at the table.. D&D generally works on a<em> the DM has all the authority over the fiction model. </em>Currently, the consequences of spellcasting, stuff like the fireball sets the house on fire, are generally unintended consequences that reflect a lack of player foresight. Casting a fireball inside a wooden structure for example, I might, and have, ruled that significant property damage and fires are a result. That's not the same as providing some guidelines for players as to how they might plan to things like that on purpose. The fireball setting things on fire is a pretty simple case really, and wouldn't actually be tough to rule on. Things get more complicated when you're talking about lightning or acid though. Both those things should have effects on the environment, but don't mostly as per the spell write up, the possibilities are less obvious. </p><p></p><p>I wasn't specific about a mechanic, but what I think is useful is to provide a mechanic that allows for a level of abstraction when it comes to property damage. Abstraction is really one of things that makes TTRPG rules useful. It allows us, for example, to skip over resolving every individual thrust and parry in combat. An abstracted rule for property damage would probably link total dice of damage to size of property damage result, maybe with light riders for damage type. A rough framework there would probably start with minor, small, medium, and large and then add in some description and examples. If, just to spitball an example, a fireball is powerful enough to <em>break a thin stone wall</em>, and the players know this, not only can they plan for it, and not only does it expand the uses of the spell, but it also serves to narrow immensely the set of questions from players to me. It's pretty easy to relate things to a thin stone wall, or a wooden door, or a fortified door, or a iron portcullis. Call it a rubric or a heuristic for property damage.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Cantrips scale with level, so the wizard is getting something very like four attacks, and can also do it the following turn. </p><p></p><p>Obviously. There are no unintended consequences though, nor any consequences to the wizard. </p><p>Banishment is probably a bad example - despite the fact that it's all or nothing it's an <em>immensely</em> powerful control spell. Power level and unreliability shouldn't be added via the spell descriptions IMO. That's a ridiculous amount of work. I'd probably add a casting roll with consequences for failure, but also increase the number of spells potentially cast in a day. I'm working on a system that eliminates spell slots, and allows players to cast spells of any level, but has a fatigue and exhaustion mechanic to limit total daily spell use, and a consequence set that makes casting above your usual level pretty dangerous. That's one example, but I'm sure other people have other systems to achieve the same goal. </p><p></p><p></p><p>That fact that you don't think such a system is possible worries me not at all. I have the basics of a workable system already, so I know its at least theoretically possible. The devil is always in the details. </p><p></p><p>Wow. I think we've gotten our wall of text work in for the day, eh? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fenris-77, post: 7998660, member: 6993955"] The idea was certainly not never having to adjudicate. That would be patent nonsense in a TTRPG. The point of the mechanics, whatever they might be, is to allow the plaqyers to select tactical options with confidence, to put some authority in their hands. This really couldn't be super specific, or you end up with the examples you list form above and the whole idea collapses into absurdity. Even with a mechanic some of your examples would fall outside it anyway - that mithril beam, for example, would probably prevent just about any level of property damage save from very high level spells. My point was actually precisely that the secondary effects fall outside the rules. The magic system is quite rigid in how magic effects the diagetic plane. Spells [I]should[/I] have more ability to do things other than damage enemies. What I would prefer not to do is have to adjudicate this from scratch every time someone has a fancy idea. MOre in a second... The difference comes from parsing the authority over the fiction at the table.. D&D generally works on a[I] the DM has all the authority over the fiction model. [/I]Currently, the consequences of spellcasting, stuff like the fireball sets the house on fire, are generally unintended consequences that reflect a lack of player foresight. Casting a fireball inside a wooden structure for example, I might, and have, ruled that significant property damage and fires are a result. That's not the same as providing some guidelines for players as to how they might plan to things like that on purpose. The fireball setting things on fire is a pretty simple case really, and wouldn't actually be tough to rule on. Things get more complicated when you're talking about lightning or acid though. Both those things should have effects on the environment, but don't mostly as per the spell write up, the possibilities are less obvious. I wasn't specific about a mechanic, but what I think is useful is to provide a mechanic that allows for a level of abstraction when it comes to property damage. Abstraction is really one of things that makes TTRPG rules useful. It allows us, for example, to skip over resolving every individual thrust and parry in combat. An abstracted rule for property damage would probably link total dice of damage to size of property damage result, maybe with light riders for damage type. A rough framework there would probably start with minor, small, medium, and large and then add in some description and examples. If, just to spitball an example, a fireball is powerful enough to [I]break a thin stone wall[/I], and the players know this, not only can they plan for it, and not only does it expand the uses of the spell, but it also serves to narrow immensely the set of questions from players to me. It's pretty easy to relate things to a thin stone wall, or a wooden door, or a fortified door, or a iron portcullis. Call it a rubric or a heuristic for property damage. Cantrips scale with level, so the wizard is getting something very like four attacks, and can also do it the following turn. Obviously. There are no unintended consequences though, nor any consequences to the wizard. Banishment is probably a bad example - despite the fact that it's all or nothing it's an [I]immensely[/I] powerful control spell. Power level and unreliability shouldn't be added via the spell descriptions IMO. That's a ridiculous amount of work. I'd probably add a casting roll with consequences for failure, but also increase the number of spells potentially cast in a day. I'm working on a system that eliminates spell slots, and allows players to cast spells of any level, but has a fatigue and exhaustion mechanic to limit total daily spell use, and a consequence set that makes casting above your usual level pretty dangerous. That's one example, but I'm sure other people have other systems to achieve the same goal. That fact that you don't think such a system is possible worries me not at all. I have the basics of a workable system already, so I know its at least theoretically possible. The devil is always in the details. Wow. I think we've gotten our wall of text work in for the day, eh? :D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Putting The Awe Back In Magic
Top