Should Wizardry Require Player Intelligence?

[Bill Zebub]

To the extent that we can measure intelligence (we can't), SATs are tightly correlated to IQ tests. (Divide your SAT score by 10 and it's damned close to your IQ test, in most cases.)

IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure your ability to take IQ tests.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure your ability to take IQ tests.

To the extent that we can measure intelligence (we can't)

 

[CleverNickName]

The only "player requirement" I have is that everyone read up on all of their character's abilities and stuff before coming to the table. Wizards have a lot more required reading than, say, a Fighter or Barbarian, so whenever someone says they are going to roll one up we make sure the player understands what they're getting themselves into.

Few things are more annoying than a player (or DM) who stops the game to look something up on every single turn.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The Ars Magica-derived Mage: The Ascension has rotes -- pre-designed spells as an option to use rather than making stuff up on the fly for this reason. (Ars Magica may do it as well; I don't own the game.)

That said, once mages get used to combining elements -- and no mage will have access to all elements of magic at all power levels -- things do speed up. In the example, Stephen would know that he has power over matter and distance, but not time, energy or entropy, for instance, and would be planning to dissolve an enemy's armor or rusting it solid, for instance, or spying on them at a distance.

The magic style allows more flexibility than Vancian casting, but it's still constrained.

Everyone is a magi in Ars Magica/Mage. I'm against such things in D&D because it puts even more spotlight on casters who already have more levers to drive the narrative than non-casters and makes them more of the focus than the other players.

 

[loverdrive]

I think everything should require player skill. Given the nature of tabletop games as a medium, it will probably involve intelligence.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think everything should require player skill. Given the nature of tabletop games as a medium, it will probably involve intelligence.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[GMMichael]

As stated early in this thread, it would be nice to have options for non-spellcasters to have more complex and interesting abilities that will tax and challenge creative players.

Instead of making spellcasters ‘easier’ to play, it would be nice if all classes had a variety of complexity that was fun but not mandatory.

Edit: I think this less about player intelligence and more about system mastery.

I re-examined your mastery idea, wondering if Modos 2 (un-modded) requires wizard player intelligence and/or gives non-wizards some fun complexity. I looked at attacks in combat (because anything goes outside of combat):

Wizards	Non-Wizards
Choose spell, predetermined rules effect	Choose weapons, but effects are more limited
Decide on range, most ranged spells must be on turn	Decide range, can take reload/shoot actions whenever
Add an additional "magic difficulty" to contests	Additional difficulty borne by defender (e.g. shields)
Manage casting/mana cost of spells	Not a non-wizard concern
Roll damage and/or determine effect variables	Roll damage / disarm opponent / inflict difficulty / ???
Retain contest result for future opposition	Contest results are generally disposable
Consider future actions/timing to maintain spell	Possible to maintain some actions, like blocking/wrestling
Protect metaphysical health	Not a non-wizard concern

Outside of paying a metaphysical cost for attacks and managing that MP health, the non-wizard players are engaging in everything that the wizard players are, but in a different way.

Wizards get cool attacks, but must use more rules to do it. Non-wizards get cooler attacks as they get more creative with the rules . . . to an extent.

@TaranTheWanderer, I think you're confusing system knowledge with system mastery. One can know all the rules without being any good at using them, i.e. mastering them. What if wizard players are required to use more rules, instead of those rules being optional?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I don't know about player intelligence, but every player, regardless of character creation choices, should know what their characters abilities do.

And it's a really hard thing to tactfully tell a player that maybe they aren't ready to play that particularly complicated class, and go with the simpler one. And in my experience, it sure seems like the players that aren't up to playing complicated classes go for the complicated classes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I assume Ars Magica magic is like this.

People are not respecting this comedic banger for what it is!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For 5E, I would like to implement the Shadowdark system, where there are activation rolls and potential mishaps.

Honestly this fixes like 50% of the whole problem with D&D magic, if there's a chance for any spell to fail and go wrong. That there isn't is the key think that makes magic >>>> every other method of solving a problem.

If only I liked the rest of Shadowdark! < mutters darkly about random advancement and overly simple combat rules and torches >