Spell lists vs. story needs

[Walking Paradox]

A gem was uttered near the end of the latest episode of the Pulp Gamer podcast. "Baum didn't need to write a list of spells for the Wicked WItch of the West. If he needed her to be able to spy on Dorothy, then she could."

This makes a lot of sense. I can't count the number of times that I had a pre-generated (or even a self-generated) character whose spell list consisted of so many spells that I never used. Maybe this is the trouble with fantasy RPGs: character capabilities are not written in terms of what they can do for a story, only in terms of their tactical utility.

What can be done here?

 

[Morrus]

In the same way, if Conan or Indiana Jones need to be able to hit a bad guy, they can. If R2D2 needs to be hit by a shot from a Stormtrooper, he will. If Sherlock Holmes needs to deduce a clue, he can. If The Doctor's sonic screwdriver needs to be able to unlock a door, it can; if it doesn't, it can't.

There are games out there which don't define a character's capabilities (Dread, for example). What we're basically discussing is rules-heavy vs. rules-light systems. D&D is one of the former.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even within rules-heavy systems, potential solutions exist.

HERO, for instance, has a Variable Power Pool, which allows the PC to reshape a certain preset amount of PC resources basically at will- the restrictions on its use are designated at the time of creation.

In 3Ed, the Spellfire Channeller could have been written to do likewise, but was not. (I was working on a modified Spellfire Channeller when 4Ed was announced.)

In some ways, those spontaneous caster classes that can cast from their whole list do something like this as well.

 

[Morrus]

Indeed.4E's action points are exactly that - a tool that hands some of the narrative control over to the players.

 

[Niccodaemus]

A gem was uttered near the end of the latest episode of the Pulp Gamer podcast. "Baum didn't need to write a list of spells for the Wicked WItch of the West. If he needed her to be able to spy on Dorothy, then she could."

This makes a lot of sense. I can't count the number of times that I had a pre-generated (or even a self-generated) character whose spell list consisted of so many spells that I never used. Maybe this is the trouble with fantasy RPGs: character capabilities are not written in terms of what they can do for a story, only in terms of their tactical utility.

What can be done here?

Are we talking PCs here or NPCs? The Wicked Witch would be an NPC. In my mind, her story needs would be addressed first, perhaps creating new spells or magic items to allow her to fill her role. Then she would be statted out for combat, with her special abilities being part of the mix.

As for PCs, if there is a "story need" for a character to do something (who decided's there is a need... the player or the GM?), then either the GM makes the player aware of that "need", as well as the means to fulfill it, or the player informs the GM of the "need", and it is upon the GM to figure out how to introduce the fulfillment into the game.

I think a specific game example might be in order to clarify your question.
What can be done about what, exactly?

 

[Hussar]

Niccodaemus, I'm not Walking Paradox, but I think I can take a stab here. I've certainly experienced this many times where my caster has spells on his memorized list that he never uses. So, once you've played a few times, you realize that something like "Water Breathing" is pretty limited in function, so, you never memorize it and always choose something that has a broader application.

Which in turn means that spell choice is often a function of how broadly the spell can be used, rather than what might make sense from an in game perspective. Spell choice is almost always a purely meta-game decision process, with the occasional occurance (you need water breathing, so you sleep and get water breathing) where spell choice is informed by play.

Back in 2e, I ran a campaign where I allowed clerics to cast whatever they wanted, up to the limit of their spell slots. No memorization whatsoever. They prayed, it happened. Funnily enough, 99% of the spells cast were pretty much what you could have predicted even if you had to memorize the spells - various Cure X spells, bless, etc. But, once in a while, a real gem would come out. The party opened a certain chest in the Tomb of Horrors, spilling out lots and lots of very deadly poisonous snakes.

The cleric cast Snakes to Sticks and poof, encounter ended. Very cool. The one and only time in twenty years of AD&D play I'd ever seen that spell cast.

I sometimes wonder if you pared down the spell lists somewhat and then let casters cast spontaneously, if it would be better.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I sometimes wonder if you pared down the spell lists somewhat and then let casters cast spontaneously, if it would be better.

My RPG uses a "build spells on the fly" style, and there's really no such thing as "memorizing spells" unless you limit yourself purposefully (which is doable mechanically). It definitely opens things up, and I like it a lot more. If spells are balanced*, I think it can open things up a lot, and add a lot of fun to spellcasting. As always, play what you like

* [WARNING: RAMBLING AHEAD] Yes, opinions differ on "balance". Since this method adds a lot of versatility to magicians, I "balanced" it by making them do less damage unless they spent a lot of resources, toning down the power of spells (things like invisibility give concealment, but you need to make Hide checks like normal), and drastically slowed down spell regeneration (a single level 5 spell slot takes 2 days to come back, for example, and spells don't overlap. That is, if you use two level 5 spell slots, that's 4 days before it's all back).

Again, I balanced the slower regeneration time with the ability to cast spells at will, albeit not as efficiently. So, at low level, you can basically cast low level 1 spells at will, while at level 16 you might be able to cast level 3's or 4's without difficulty. Then, when you want to kick some ass, you spend your level 8 spell slot (16 days to get back), and do your best to help out (the system really does reward helping allies over hurting enemies, which I've put much thought into). This preserves resource management, but enables a constant stream of spells that your magician can use, and varied in use at that.

This makes magicians kind of a "jack of all trades, master of none" unless they buy the Specialization or Lost version of certain "threads" (basically schools of magic, of which there are 20). Having the Lost Elemental thread might let them deal nearly 70 damage (on average) as a level 8 spell, but it's a short burst of damage on a high recharge time (16 days). It also takes heavy investment to get that high (you need the Specialization and Lost version of Elemental), and you have to be level 15 to get your first level 8 spell slot (well, most of the time, at least).

As far as single attacks go, 70 damage is a lot, but the damage-focused warrior builds will probably be doing 58 damage per round (unless they're getting extra attacks, which will put them at 87-116) with no resources consumed. Of course, that damage will come at a high cost (since the game is point-buy), so the damage-focused warrior builds will be much better at damage, and not nearly as broad as a skill-based build (which might be something close to Batman... think Nightwing ). So while a damage-focused magician might get one round of rivaling a damage-focused warrior build, he consumes massive resources to accomplish it (16 days before he can do that again), but this is complemented by his vast amount of versatility (he can cast a useful spell in almost any situation, even if it means making someone else better), and has an endless supply of at-will spells he can cast that become more powerful as he levels.

But, enough on this. I just meant to say (I think I need to put a warning at the top of this...) is that I think Hussar is correct . At least, as far as my players go (since my game has no "spell list", though the options are compounded, which probably goes against what Hussar means...). Of course, fun varies. As always, play what you like

 

[Stormonu]

I sometimes wonder if you pared down the spell lists somewhat and then let casters cast spontaneously, if it would be better.

Late in 2E, one of my cousins that joined me for a game told me that they'd done spontaneous spellcasting in their game for several years. Leerily, I allowed him to do so with his character in my game. It turned out to be a fantastic idea, and I started allowing it in my game.

I can see where it might be a problem at higher levels (double-digit levels), but for at least 9th level and lower, if the character's spell list isn't outlandish (no more than 15-20 spells per level), allowing half or more of the spells to be spontaneously cast generally makes it a lot more fun. It does somewhat step on the sorcerer's toes, though in 3E, but it's relatively easy to fix (I personally believe the class has too restrictive a known spell list and it needs to be loosened up a bit by 2-3 spells per spell level).

 

[Fanaelialae]

If you need story magic, including location-based magic items in your campaign is another means to that end.

For example, if you want the players to scry, then the necromancer's lair they just cleaned out contains a scrying pool. Alternately, perhaps the local oracle is willing to let the PCs use her scrying tools (in exchange for a favor).

 

[Luce]

Two things:
First, in 2E I interpreted the rules for memorization to make it possible to do so at any time (after the required rest of course). Thus mid level casters often left few of their spell slots open to fill as needed. The balancing factor was random encounters, you spend too long in one place you risk one. Then again I have always seen spell casters' other role to be creative solution guys.
For example the combination of grease to guide the way and levitate on a large stone/statue to make it manageable to move can be used in a variety of ways- bridge a gap; set pressure traps; discourage pursuit; move a lot of gold etc.
Two, higher level parties (especially in the earlier editions due to slower advancement rate) have so much inventory it is a logistic nightmare. For reference 2ed DMG suggests 4-6 adventures to level up. The party ends up with dozens of nearly depleted wands, +1 weapons and miscellaneous items they never use or even forget they have. Thus eventually as the DM I started allowing players to retroactively trade up items (within reason) for scrolls of the spells they need.