The Mysterious Mage vs. Pew Pew

[Stormonu]

A night or two ago, I watched the Tales of Earthsea video and it reminded me of something that has dramatically changed over the course of editions in the game.

Back in the days I played of BECM, 1E and part of 2E, the magicks of mages was infrequent and deadly. When a wizard stepped up to cast a spell, it was a thing to fear, but it often took great danger for the wizard to step forward in the first place. While the use of magic was certainly powerful, it was exercised with restraint.

In these earlier games, a starting wizard had one spell - no others due to high intelligence and you couldn't scribe scrolls until 8th-9th level. A DM would sneer at his players should they request to buy or be given scrolls, wands or other items to enhance the number of spells they could unleash upon their foes. Magic resources had to be very carefully doled out; even a 5th level wizard could only hope to unleash a measly 6 spells in a given day and yet be expected with his companions to face dozens of encounters in a given adventure.

That seemed to change somewhere about the time of 2E's Skills & Powers - with rules for "mana", bonus spells for high intellegence and more generous systems for regaining spells. Magic became even more commonplace in 3E with bonus spells for high intelligence, the scribing of scrolls and more generous access to crafted or acquired magic items such as scrolls, wands and the like. Late 3E (or early pre-4E) even introduced Reserve feats that gave near unlimited magical ability to spellcasters, as long as they were slightly conservative with their spells.

It seems that by the time of 4E, wizard players were arguing that they weren't worth anything if they weren't using magic for every little thing they did. At-will spells became the meat of the wizard's arsenal; while the top end of magic was lopped off, the low end became even more common than the local thug on the street with a 9mm - at least the thug will run out of ammo at some point!

What prompted this change? Was it something in media, was it an aspect of video games, books, anime or certain movies or just the evolving mindset of gamers? Where did this "entitlement" of mundane magic come from?

And of course, has it helped to remove the "mystery" of magic and ruined some of the fun or has it made the game better for players (and DMs)?

 

[Meatboy]

I think it probably has to do with players wanting to magic more often. Early edition spells were generally super powerful. A spell like sleep or charm person could instantly overcome a challenge, when used correctly. This works fine but only when the mage is limited in the amount of spells the can cast and have access too.
However people want to cast more than once and then cower for an adventure, but with more spells to cast, especially challenge enders, the mage ends up being super powerful. Because with good spell selection they end up taking over. Just look at all the fighter vs caster threads that pop up for 3.x edition.
In 4e however they wanted to be able to cast their spells but not over power the wizard types this takes away that sense of mysterious power that a wizard can end things with a wave of their hand and basicly leaves them as a magic machine gun/flame thrower type guy.

 

[GSHamster]

(I'm not 100% convinced of this line of thought, but perhaps it contains a seed of truth.)

One argument is that Harry Potter happened. The first book in the series was released in 1997, possibly just around the time that 3E was being developed. And the series continued gaining in popularity, possibly at it's apex right when 4E came out.

Unlike Gandalf, the previous archetypical wizard, wizards in Harry Potter are steeped in magic. They use magic constantly, to the point where normal things befuddle them. A game which allows wizards to play more like Harry Potter needs to allow wizards to cast lots and lots of magic.

I would point to Harry Potter as the moment the zeitgeist of wizards changed from scarce powerful magic to plentiful magic. Post-Harry wizards like Butcher's Dresden tend to act more like Harry and less like Gandalf and Sparrowhawk.

 

[Kaodi]

I wonder if perhaps you wanted to return to rarer and more powerful magic, but did not want to go back to having characters who are basically useless most of the time, the thing to do would be to change the assumptions about adventurers.

Perhaps it should just be the case that every adventurer is a competent combatant, but fighters and rogues are really good combatants, while clerics and wizards are decent combatants, but really shine when they do have the opportunity to use magic. In a way, it would be as if the standard classes were fighter, rogue, paladin, swordmage rather that fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric. After all, Gandalf uses a sword and uses it to slice goblins in half, more or less, in between epic magical duels.

 

[FireLance]

I see it more as expanding the concept of the magic-user/wizard to include how they are portrayed in other works of fiction (apart from Vance) and to include playstyles that are quite happy to trade reduced power for increased frequency of magical abilities.

I don't know how "typical" my own experiences were, but I was introduced to D&D before I read anything written by Vance. The idea of a magic-user that was limited to a handful of spells per day was quite jarring, to say the least, as it did not gel at all with the typical wizards I had encountered previously in fiction, who, among other things, conjured magical fire to light their pipes and used their powers for a variety of mundane purposes such as cooking and cleaning.

I suppose the distinction was that wizards could choose to show restraint when using their powers (such as the wizards of Earthsea) but they were not forced to by the laws of magic.

 

[S'mon]

There may have been a cultural shift, but I think it's mostly about game balance - 4e making wizards feel more like fighters, with plentiful attacks of limited power, is a lot easier to balance, and gets rid of the 3e "I win" effect where spellcasters rapidly dominated play after about level 4, and rarely ran out of spells - if they did run out the whole party would have to rest, because 3e 'balanced' encounters tended to assume & require the casters. 3e had abandoned the 1e dynamic where most encounters could be handled by Fighters alone, and the M-Us could spend most of their time lurking in the back and throwing darts. 4e could have gone back to that 1e approach, instead it took a different tack. Fighter-ising wizards has many advantages in terms of flexibility - I can run a 10-encounter day or a 1 'spike' encounter day, and both work. That was not IMO the case in 3e.

 

[steeldragons]

Back in the days I played of BECM, 1E and part of 2E, the magicks of mages was infrequent and deadly. When a wizard stepped up to cast a spell, it was a thing to fear, but it often took great danger for the wizard to step forward in the first place. While the use of magic was certainly powerful, it was exercised with restraint.

Ah. Bring back those good ole days.

In these earlier games, a starting wizard had one spell - no others due to high intelligence and you couldn't scribe scrolls until 8th-9th level. A DM would sneer at his players should they request to buy or be given scrolls, wands or other items to enhance the number of spells they could unleash upon their foes. Magic resources had to be very carefully doled out; even a 5th level wizard could only hope to unleash a measly 6 spells in a given day and yet be expected with his companions to face dozens of encounters in a given adventure.

That seemed to change somewhere about the time of 2E's Skills & Powers - with rules for "mana", bonus spells for high intellegence and more generous systems for regaining spells. Magic became even more commonplace in 3E with bonus spells for high intelligence, the scribing of scrolls and more generous access to crafted or acquired magic items such as scrolls, wands and the like. Late 3E (or early pre-4E) even introduced Reserve feats that gave near unlimited magical ability to spellcasters, as long as they were slightly conservative with their spells.

I introduced additional spells for high intelligence before the editions did. I've found that between those couple of additional resources (even if it was only one more 1st level spell/day) and the introduction of the "cantrip", a low level wizard was able to hold their own much better and not feel like the "one and done"/useless the rest of the day party member.

While still needing to be conservative with your casting, this had the added bonus of trying to think/come up with creative uses for your cantrips that might actually help in a combat situation. No, it couldn't blast the goblins away all of the time, but they might delay or distract or otherwise inconvenience them in a way that could make a difference in the outcome of a battle.

In terms of the discussion at hand, it made "mundane"/low level magic a bit more commonplace, but kept the "real power" (higher level spells) still rare and "mysterious" (since even with high intelligences, a wizard could only hope for a single additional 3rd level spell even with an 18 Int...and pretty much by 5th level -when 3rd level spells were acquired- a mage was pretty much holding their own without additional spells, IMO)

When a wizard "stepped up" or began casting, it was anyone's guess what "weird thing" was going to happen...sometimes it was a bolt of lightning...sometimes it was just a dazing, but otherwise harmless, flash of light....but you just didn't/don't know when you see the robed guy with the staff start mumbling and making gestures.

It seems that by the time of 4E, wizard players were arguing that they weren't worth anything if they weren't using magic for every little thing they did. At-will spells became the meat of the wizard's arsenal; while the top end of magic was lopped off, the low end became even more common than the local thug on the street with a 9mm - at least the thug will run out of ammo at some point!

Yup. I don't approve of this style of wizard. Nothing against the edition, it is what it is. Just not the cup of tea I enjoy. I prefer my wizards to have to think and be judicious in their spell choices and usage...and as I said, maintains that "magic is something mysterious/not to be understood by the uninitiated or uninformed/uneducated."

What prompted this change? Was it something in media, was it an aspect of video games, books, anime or certain movies or just the evolving mindset of gamers? Where did this "entitlement" of mundane magic come from?

I'm inclined to say it was all of those things. Magic in novels that was not "Vancian" in nature. The "blast it again!" of video games. In what anime I am familiar with, magic comes off as more "superhero powers" than "spells." I'll also throw in with GSHamster's observation about Harry Potter. That most certainly has informed the cultural mass' consciousness as to the "practice/use of magic" above and beyond anything Gandalf ever did...or even Merlin.

I would also go a step further and make the presumption that all of these factors are swayed into the cultural "Need for speed" of the computer/internet age.

We do not "wait" for anything anymore...nor do we want to and many get upset at the prospect of "waiting." I.e. "You've exhausted your spells for the day and there are five hours left in the day before you possibly will make camp/rest for the eight hours you need to recoup." does not sit well with anyone, significantly less so than it did before everyone had the interweb, quite literally, in their pockets.

Patience has gone from being a virtue to outright blasphemy! And thinking "ahead", planning/picking your spells and being careful in their use is not at tall desirable (nor perhaps even understood as an option by some) when "I should be able to just 'log on', as it were, and get what I want/need (iow, more magic) right now!"

And of course, has it helped to remove the "mystery" of magic and ruined some of the fun or has it made the game better for players (and DMs)?

Yes and yes, for removing mystery and ruining fun, respectively.

As to whether or not it has made the game "better for players (and DMs)?" That is purely a person-by-person preference and playstyle decision. For me and mine, I say "No, it has not." But thankfully, I still play in the vein I mentioned above and "mysterious magic" is alive and well in my game setting.

Great topic/discussion, Storm.

As always, have fun and happy spellcasting.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Umbran]

What prompted this change? Was it something in media, was it an aspect of video games, books, anime or certain movies or just the evolving mindset of gamers? Where did this "entitlement" of mundane magic come from?

Evolving mindset of players - trying different things and discovering that some were just more fun for them. It isn't "entitlement" to not want to have nothing useful to do if you didn't have just the right spells prepared beforehand, or had run out for the day. Sure, high-level spellcasters were darned powerful, but it took a lot of play to get there. Many campaigns didn't last that long.

Yes, I know, several people will jump on me for saying that, claiming that they didn't have nothing to do, that they were creative, and planned ahead so they never ran out, or always had exactly the right spells, or were always having fun, even when spelled-out for the day. Well, maybe they're just superior beings or something. Such people can go off and feel smug - except that gaming has largely left them behind, and probably for good reason.

I know a lot of people who didn't see low and mid-level spellcasters play out well. One of the reasons why my group left of playing D&D for a while when Shadowrun came out was because a spellcaster in that system was more attractive - they were more likely to have something effective to do in more situations, instead of just waiting for the fighter-types to deal with things.

And of course, has it helped to remove the "mystery" of magic and ruined some of the fun or has it made the game better for players (and DMs)?

Eh. Everyone read the PHB. There was no mystery to the magic used by PCs.

 

[RangerWickett]

Gandalf only used magic . . . like every single time something dangerous was happening. Sure, it might only have been once a day, but The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings usually only had one dangerous thing per day.

 

[SiderisAnon]

I think it's almost entirely a connection to fun and enjoying the game.

The great and powerful wizard who casts one powerful spell when it's needed and basically just offers sage advise the rest of the time makes for a great story element. However, it's just not fun for most people to play. Those wizards are not PCs, they're plot devices.

The wizard with cool "I win the encounter" powers who spend most of the night's encounters plinking away fairly uselessly with their crossbow? That's not really fun to play because it does not feel "wizardly" or "cool".

I like that wizards are given a low level spell they can use all day long. Mechanically, it's not much different than plinking away with the crossbow, but it feels a heck of a lot more like you're playing someone magical and not just a placeholder.