D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

Yes you do. And trying to just hyperbolize it to try and discredit the point does not do your argument any favors.

If you want to disagree with my point, that's fine. But at least have the courtesy of discussing it, rather than go to the tired "Well, then get rid of ALL THE RULES!!!" Because all that does is suggest you don't actually have an argument. :)
Perhaps you should have the read rest of my post?

I am not particularly convinced by your argument that a game balanced around 6-8 combat encounters per day that doesn't contain much useful advice on crafting compelling stories is intentionally structured to support storytelling because some spells are overpowered and let you skip significant parts of adventures and because the GM can just railroad by fiat.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Perhaps you should have the read rest of my post?

I am not particularly convinced your argument that a game balanced around 6-8 combat encounters per day that doesn't contain much useful advice on crafting compelling stories is intentionally structured to support storytelling because some spells are overpowered and let you skip significant parts of adventures and because the GM can just railroad by fiat.
I'm not suggesting 5E supports storytelling (in other words, goes out of it's way to instruct people how to play in that fashion)... but what I am saying is that it does go out of its way to remove the challenges that came out of AD&D dungeon crawling, survival, and "the traditional game" as it were. That style of AD&D gameplay just doesn't really work in 5E. And the "6-8 encounters" thing that everyone gets all up in arms about and which we all know doesn't actually play as it's meant to are a major proof of that. Trying to string together encounter after encounter to lower resources just ends up being a total pain that no one barely ever wants to try.

Which means if 5E isn't meant to successfully play the "combat survival game" of AD&D like people remember and want... then concern about the narrative is what's left. (Unless you believe there's a different thing besides the narrative that 5E is geared towards rather than the "combat survival game"... but if that's the case I'd be curious what that could be. I don't personally see one, but could be convinced otherwise.)
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
It is also a game and unless you presell the notion not paying attention to supplies up to a certain point and then it becomes an issue you are in effect doing some rug pulling in that you are changing the rules part way through the game.
Now, I have never got to try it, but it is one of the things I like about AIME Journey rules was that you do this in an abstract way by changing the terrain hostility without the minutiae of tracking every gram of bean, bacon and hardtack the PC are carrying.
Nods l like that too... not much of a bean counter ... but abstracted difficulties are ok
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
RE: the bolded bit... No, it wasn't. And I'm pretty tired of people saying stuff like this.
One source, that DEFCON1's example is pretty much drawn from, is the 4e DMG - page 105.
4e DMG said:
Fun
Fun is one element you shouldn't vary. Every encounter in an adventure should be fun. As much as possible, fast-forward through the parts of an adventure that aren't fun. An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn't fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance aren't fun, so don't sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren't fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!
So... not really a press release for that one.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
The point is - if you wanted to play with reduced resource management in 1e, you could. And you did it by taking LTH, by playing races with infravision, by hiring a local guide when in wild lands and thus avoiding any chance of getting lost.
And if you want to play a game with more resource management in 5e, you can. Omit a few spells (or remove ritual castability) and races and you're pretty much there.

The fundamental difference is in the culture you want to foster for your specific table and campaign.
The difference is, in 1e you didn't have to change the rules or remove anything. In 5e you kinda do.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
Who are you even playing with? Strangers? Newbies?

Because if this is your main group this is very hard to believe. Playing with largely non-strangers I haven't seen any increase in recklessness in 5E, in fact, because it's relatively easy to die, I've seen people be more cautious than 2E/3.XE/PF, where the usual cause of death was unpreventable unlucky rolls, or DM being a twerp. In 5E the whole "Locked in another building" thing is laughable nonsense. Three death saves. That could happen in one round, very easily. And it can happen in a much fairer and less bad luck/DM being a twerp way than the previous games, so there's less acceptance of it, and more active effort to avoid it.
Both experienced and newbies & it's easy to believe when you consider the impact of death saves on player mindset. I started in the 90s well into the hickman revolution so d&d was always heavy on story for me. Thanks to death saves though NPCs offering powerful healing potions/cure items went from "oh wow how many can I buy" to "no... I think it's a waste of money but guess I'll buy one"->gm: "anyone else?"->Other players: "no... I have a regular potion".

Players don't have tools to save themselves when things are going bad & they don't consider being at 7/70hp to be the end of the line. Death saves leave players shocked when the monsters confirm the kill or something & as players they didn't even consider themselves to be in danger when the first attack dropped them & even the second doing two death saves wasn't a nail biting moment when so many players could healing word them before that monster got another turn. When that expectation doesn't hold upplayers are shocked & say things like this
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
I mean, spells like Tiny Hut, Goodberry, Teleport, et al. have been a part of D&D for a long time, and I've used them as DM and player in AD&D for a long time--happy to do so! But, for some reason, I feel spells like Teleport should be in tier 4, not tier 2. I feel like casters should get their proficiency bonus in spells per long rest. I feel like magic items should be super rare, and a simple +1 weapon a treasured heirloom.
No, +1 weapons are inherently boring and I'd just have them not be a thing.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
The difference is, in 1e you didn't have to change the rules or remove anything. In 5e you kinda do.
You really don't. If the DM wants to impose that style, the process does involve omission from the campaign. But if the players want to embrace the resource management-heavy options, they can by making the choices to do so and not adding LTH to their spellbooks, by playing races without darkvision, etc.
Basically, the same things they were doing to embrace the style in 1e.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
The difference is, in 1e you didn't have to change the rules or remove anything. In 5e you kinda do.
I've never run 1e. However, in 2e and 3e, as someone who used to try to run games in a predominantly story-oriented style back then, those systems always felt like they were fighting me tooth and nail. Back then I could never understand why; I thought that was just how it was.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Pursuant to post #50, another thought has occurred to me. It's pretty funny that the edition that went out of its way to emphasize how totally unnecessary, even unwelcome, magic items would be...is also the edition that has made baked-in magic more prevalent than it's ever been. I think this is another one of those areas where WotC heard the words, but not the message. Though it didn't help that the message was unclear.

People told them they wanted magic to feel magical again, and that too many magic items were to blame. The first is too nebulous and ill-defined to be in any way useful. It is like saying one wants cheeseburgers to taste cheesy again, or for milkshakes to bring back the ice cream flavor. And the second is, quite simply, incorrect, at absolute best targeting a symptom rather than the cause, and IMO mostly just getting lost in the weeds.

Part of the problem is that heady combo of nostalgia and time. Things can't be bright-shiny-new more than once. A D&D that manages to feel familiar cannot be a D&D that manages to retain all the old "magic," that is the feeling of wonder, because part of the "magic" came from ignorance about what the game contained. I don't mean that in a disparaging sense; it is easier, more natural, to feel wonder about things that have not become familiar, categorized, quotidian. An awful lot of the proposals--make magic hard/dangerous, make it require sacrifices, make it rare, etc.--are simply trying to find a substitute for unfamiliarity. But none of those things will actually bring back the "I have no idea what this might be capable of" feeling, no matter how much we might want it to come back.

Another part, however, is that people mistake rarity for specialness. They labor under Syndrome's flawed logic from The Incredibles. He claims that, "when everyone is special, no one will be," but he's simply incorrect. Though the film tries very hard to make it seem like he's being incredibly clever, he isn't. Specialness is a function of appreciation; it is a matter of human evaluations. Rarity is, to some degree, a measurable property of something: natural fancy blue-green diamonds are rare, not because the color is particularly special (though I do quite like it myself), but because the specific processes required to form such a diamond are very difficult, because that color can only be produced by radiation, and natural sustained sources of the appropriate types of radiation are not common in places where diamonds naturally form. But to a blind person, whether the diamond is fancy blue-green or pink or black is completely irrelevant; there is nothing special about color to the blind, even though they would totally grant that the object is rare. Meanwhile, the thermos-cup my mother gave me is very special to me, because I use it essentially every single day, even though it's literally an as-seen-on-TV product; there is nothing rare about it, but I deeply appreciate it, and thus it is special to me.

People want magic to be special, to be appreciated, but they fall into the trap of thinking that making it rare, unpleasant, annoying, or complicated will ensure that it will be special...and it won't. The fact that magic had certain characteristics in 1e or 2e isn't what made it special. It was special because it was unknown, because the unknown could be painted with whatever colors you wanted. It was, in a very meaningful sense, the positive inversion of that classic horror movie/game trope, the fear of the unknown. That is, you can give someone a significantly greater fear purely by denying them information, by forcing them to remain ignorant of exactly what they're facing. The same works in a positive sense: when you don't know what can or can't be done, the world is your oyster, and every new discovery is a eureka moment unto itself.

But in an era of internet access and adult lives and public playtests, it isn't possible to replicate that. Even if those things didn't affect it, the fact that we want D&D to "feel like D&D" already makes replicating that specific source of wonder impossible. You can't have a game you're familiar with that you also have no idea what might be possible in. Inasmuch as you support the one goal you are necessarily abandoning the other.

The thing is...that doesn't mean magic needs to not be magical anymore. It means we need to start looking for the other ways magic can be special. We need to ask ourselves what it is magic can do that still gives us excitement and joy and wonder, even without relying on the ephemeral wonder that arises from ignorance about a system's contents.
What are those other ways, if in your view making it rare, difficult and/or dangerous is off the table?
 

Remove ads

Top