D&D 5E Subtle and Not-So-Subtle Spellcasting

[aramis erak]

The philosophy predates 4e--how else would it even find it's way into the 4e DMG? It's not like any of its advice was particularly novel. (Although 4e would probably have not skipped such a scene if it could squeeze it into a skill challenge.)

However, I'm confused by your intent. Are you suggesting that the game is more fun when it is less fun?

There is a subset of players for whom D&D is a tactical minis game with an overarching plot driving the encounters, but who also do not care for in-character interactions. For them, RP is unfun, and the combats are the fun.

They tend to be prone to two kinds of "bizarre interactions"... cast a spell (obvious or not) to make the RP go away, or pick a fight to end the talking. The use of a spell to end it will usually not bother them if it triggers a fight...

It's a pretty narrow kind of badwrongfun that goes all the way back.

 

[Rune]

There is a subset of players for whom D&D is a tactical minis game with an overarching plot driving the encounters, but who also do not care for in-character interactions. For them, RP is unfun, and the combats are the fun.

They tend to be prone to two kinds of "bizarre interactions"... cast a spell (obvious or not) to make the RP go away, or pick a fight to end the talking. The use of a spell to end it will usually not bother them if it triggers a fight...

It's a pretty narrow kind of badwrongfun that goes all the way back.

What about the people who are bored because they've already been in this exact situation hundreds of times and really don't derive pleasure from playing the scene out anymore? Is that also badwrongfun?

For that matter, if the group doesn't like any RP at all, how is bypassing it badwrongfun?

Why is more fun badwrongfun?

 

[TwoSix]

Classic 4E DMG trained response.

Talking to city guards isn't fun. Skip the banter and move on to the FUN!

Many people overestimate how enjoyable their witty banter is. Believe me, I get told this all the time.

 

[jayoungr]

This recent thread may be of interest:

Stealthy Spellcasting in 5E

 

[ExploderWizard]

However, I'm confused by your intent. Are you suggesting that the game is more fun when it is less fun?

Nope, just that a rulebook shouldn't be declaring what is fun and what isn't. The people at the table can decide that for themselves.

 

[iserith]

Classic 4E DMG trained response.

Talking to city guards isn't fun. Skip the banter and move on to the FUN!

Talking to city guards can be fun. I'm reminded of an interaction in a recent Ravenloft game I ran where the guards were very much interested in what goes on beyond their city walls and traded information point for point with the PCs - the PCs shared a bit and the guards shared a bit. It was a fun way to engage the players to flesh out their characters' histories and to provide necessary details so the players would know what's up in the city. However, I've seen plenty of DMs who play out the ubiquitous guard-scene as an annoying hindrance to be gotten around than an scene by which to be engaged. I've also seen DMs run these scenes as a reminder to the players that they best not step out of line in civilized lands or else logical but un-fun consequences will ensue. I could live without such scenes.

But who am I to tell people what they find fun? If a player says to me, "Hey, can we just skip this scene?" I will be happy to oblige. If they use a spell to accomplish the same end for the same reason, that's okay too. I see no reason to spend valuable free time on things people don't enjoy. Fast forward to the conflicts everyone wants, whatever that may be.

 

[Rune]

Nope, just that a rulebook shouldn't be declaring what is fun and what isn't. The people at the table can decide that for themselves.

That doesn't seem relevant, since there was no mention of a rulebook at all in the scenario you were responding to.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Where do players get the idea that the Cast a Spell action is like Obi-Wan Kenobi using Force Manipulation, except without the gesture? Where do they get the idea that city guards don't mind you casting a spell on their buddy, or that they react more peacefully to Charm Person than to Hold Person or Dissonant Whispers? Where do they get the idea that they can cast as if using Subtle Spell, except without actually being a sorcerer? And how can I inform them otherwise?

A lot of it probably does come from Obi-Wan. That film series is the single most common depiction of a Charm Person spell being cast, and they use it repeatedly. Also, that spell in particular would be kind of terrible if anyone could notice it being cast, since even a good friend would ask questions of you cast a spell on them without explanation.

As for informing them otherwise, just remember the phrase "You bellow an incantation." When someone takes a spellcasting action, and you start to describe the resolution, that phrase will immediately alert the player as to how this is going to work out. As often as not, the player is likely to stop you at that point and decide to do something else instead. (Be sure to add a dramatic pause, where the player can jump in and abort action.)

Consider what urban life would be like if *ANY* person you talked with might be casting Charm Person or Suggestion on you, while they were speaking with you, and *nobody within sight or earshot, had any way of noticing*. Spellcasters flat-out rule the rest of the population, or paranoia casts a shadow over every social interaction in public spaces such as the market square, or both.

This assumes a certain level of awareness to the existence of spellcasters within a setting. In many settings, even if characters have heard stories of powerful wizards, they don't think about that sort of thing because it's nothing that's ever affected them personally. The first rule of being a wizard, then, is to never let anyone know that you're a wizard.

Only if magic is common and undetectable do you end up with a crazy paranoia society.

 

[evilbob]

I think the spells themselves lend themselves to this type of interpretation. I mean, reading Charm Person, that's the sort of interaction you get in your mind immediately. What is not obvious or really intuitive is the little "S" and "V" near the spell name. That doesn't mean much to someone thinking about how cool this spell could be in X situation...

Battle spells are obvious because you're fighting. Just like brandishing a sword, casting a fireball is a big, obvious effect and everyone knows it. But spells that seem more situated toward RP and dialogs are nearly worthless when you realize that they cannot be used in those situations, and are actually more useful as... battle spells. Why in the world would you have a Charm Person spell if everyone knows you're using it, and it extra doesn't work against someone you're fighting? Seriously, none of my players have touched this spell. They all thought it was cool and then when I pointed out the limitations they realized it was junk. (Or when they read the final line about how it remembers being charmed.)

I guess the point is that magic isn't as powerful, and you can't just sway the king's favor with a 1st level enchantment. But as-is, the spell is useless. So when people read it, they assume it's not completely useless - thus the interpretation is reached.

 

[Riley37]

But who am I to tell people what they find fun? If a player says to me, "Hey, can we just skip this scene?" I will be happy to oblige. If they use a spell to accomplish the same end for the same reason, that's okay too. I see no reason to spend valuable free time on things people don't enjoy. Fast forward to the conflicts everyone wants, whatever that may be.

First: I was mainly interested in the question of spellcasting, and I appreciate the link to a previous thread on that topic. The same question has been raised, I think, with Guidance in social settings. (Thanks, jayoungr!)

Second: forum discussion about what moments in D&D are and aren't fun...
...well, those discussions are fun for some forum participants, and not for others. How meta!

If the PC stabs a guard (in front of the guard contingent of a large city's main gate), because a player is bored and wants to make the RP go away, then... well, that's an issue, which I'll address in a moment. If a PC casts a spell, as their equivalent of stabbing a guard to make the RP go away, then I respond just as I would if they had stabbed a guard.

Is there a significant difference between stabbing a guard to make the RP go away, and casting a spell to make the RP go away?

Okay, at this point I'm interested in a point raised, which is not about spellcasting, unless someone shows me that there's a difference between "stab the RP away" and "spellcast the RP away".

TOPIC TANGENT GAMMA (NOT ABOUT SPELLCASTING):

If a player assumes that this particular guard-PC interaction is going to be stock and boring, *and that it will take more than ten seconds*, then that's not giving me much benefit of the doubt as DM. I was going around the table and having each player describe their new PC and play out a snapshot of their entry to the city. If player #3 is bored by describing the first appearance of their new PC to the other players (and to me), then *player #3 can gorram tell me that they're bored*, and perhaps player 3 will make the great sacrifice of spending ten seconds on boring RP so that the rest of the table knows something about the new PC as a sentient humanoid, before we get to the FUN of damage per round.

Thing One: I am a human DM, not the CPU of a first-person-shooter. If a player is bored, then the player can *tell me with their own words*, rather than by the proxy of what their PC does to NPCs. I provide a more rewarding experience to players who TALK TO THE DM, than to players who use the indirect semaphore of having their PC stab guards in the game world.

Thing Two: table time is a limited resource. If the most interesting thing about player #3's new PC is the chain-gun hidden under the PC's overcoat, then player #3 can have their PC grunt and hand the guard a fistful of GP. That costs the table about ten seconds. Or you can go to a player-to-DM negotiation: "Dude, city guard interactions bore me". I might respond with "okay, mark off 5 gold in gate tolls, and let's move to the tavern scene." I might respond with "well, this is your new character's first close-up moment, is there some way that we can get a glimpse of their personality"? This conversation still escalates the table-time usage to *more* than the ten-second table-time cost of "grunt and pay". But maybe it saves table time overall, or results in a net increase of fun.

If, instead of admitting boredom, the player declares "I kill all the guards", is that going to take *less* than ten seconds to resolve?

I have, not much farther down the railroad, a fight scene in which the PC gets to use that chaingun on mutant zombie demon were-golems. Would you really rather spend table time killing all the guards, *at the expense* of table time spent gunning down mutant zombie demon were-golems? Keep in mind, we were going around the table, offering each player an entering-the-city mini-scene. Player #3 in that sequence avoided ten seconds of boring RP by spending ten minutes of the table's time on killing all the guards. This means, that when we resume going around the table, Player #4's PC arrives at a city gate which is now blocked by a pile of dead guards. Each player's choices have consequences for other players.