The Mysterious Mage vs. Pew Pew

[pemerton]

In a recent campaign the PCs had an artefact - a mirror from Open Grave. It had a personality and was pretty insane.

<snip>

I think it seemed mysterious - partially because it had a personality, partially because its history was unknown (it was tied into setting elements which the players had yet to uncover).

You could probably do that pretty easily with D&D's standard spell casting system.

<snip>

Not the only way to make magic mysterious, but it seemed to work in this one case.

Good stuff.

In 4e I think that warlocks would particularly lend themselves well to this. I also find that the chaos sorcerer Demonskin Adept in my group has something of a mysterious feel to him - in part because of the funny things happening on random die rolls, in part because he has a range of immediate actions which mean that his magic use is never predictable, in part because of the sorts of story elements that are inherent in his source of power, which resemble in some ways what you were saying about the mirror in your game.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Which is one of my biggest criticisms of D&D, even now. Even as a kid, Vancian casting never totally sat right with me.

On the whole I find it more compelling when magic is more......not esoteric, but unpredictable, maybe even a little bit exclusive, where not just anyone can sit down and learn a cantrip or level 1 spell. In fact, I'd be all in favor of all caster classes in D&D to require actually taking a feat for it at first level, and if you want to multiclass into another caster class, you have to spend another feat to do it.

The total lack of danger and mystery in magic use, especially in 3.x, is one of the system's biggest drawbacks for me, in spite of its flavor and ease in creating a semi-"balance" due to the way it limits daily casting resources.

My feelings are similar but I am not sure if unreliable magic makes a good game. Also one of my issues wih D&D back in the day was the wizard is hanging out with these tough fighters dudes, tramping about the country and scrambelling around ruins and never learns the basics of weapon fighting?

I think I would be happier if the wizard was a basically competent fighter that trades weapons tricks for indept sudy of the arcane and know only a few on the fly spells all the rest is rituals and is looked up in books.

Thinking some more I don't mind the wizard throwing darts but he should be better at it.

 

[LurkAway]

Another way to make magic mysterious is not to be so formulaic about types of magic items and codifying what they do.

In Tolkein, from one story, you have magic staves, rings, etc but whose to say that Tolkein would have never made a staff of invisibility? D&D set up a de facto standard that all permanent invisibility magic is in a ring. It's like stereotyping. If you want to open doors, you know to go to nearest magic shop and buy a Knock scroll -- as if it's the same thing product everywhere, like ordering a Big Mac at McDonalds.

A mysterious magic item system would encourage the spell caster to pick any vessel and transfer magic into it. It could be called a charm or a fetish or whatever. It could be a disposable one-time use, or have charges, or be permanent, depending on how much arcane investment was put into it.

Mysterious doesn't mean chaotic/unpredictable, it just means that you can't categorize/identify something from its initial appearance.

 

[Umbran]

Mysterious doesn't mean chaotic/unpredictable, it just means that you can't categorize/identify something from its initial appearance.

I don't think making a hat of invisibility is going to make magic mysterious. Quickly enough, I'll figure out that it makes me invisible, just like a ring. If the difference is in form, not in magical function, then it isn't really mysterious. Invisibility is invisibility. Hat-based invisibility is not more wondrous than ring-based.

I don't think mystery is based in not being able to judge a book by its cover. Mystery is in not being able to read the book well. It isn't appearance, but understanding, that matters. But, lack of understanding is in direct conflict with magic being a useful tool for the character to use to meet the world's challenges.

In my Deadlands game, as an example, to the PCs the magic they use isn't really mysterious. They know the rules, so casting the spells isn't really an experience of wonder.

However, they are just starting to learn that the metaphysics matter. The dark sorcerers have powers the PCs don't, and *can't* have. That magic is a mystery to them, and while no PC can use the stuff, why and how it works is plot-relevant - it is a mystery they can unravel, if they so choose, that will tell them something about why events in their world are unfolding as they are.

The game does not have a regular stock of magical items the PCs might be expected to use. There's no mechanic for PCs to make permanent magical items, as such. So, I'm introducing a few select artifacts. They'll be wondrous because the PCs won't know how or why they work, and they can only find out through trial, error, and experimentation.

 

[Mallus]

Another thought re: older D&D and le pew pew...

... it existed back then, too, after a fashion. In the form of found scrolls and, especially, wands.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I see a lot of discussion here about how unfun cowering behind the fighter or plinking away with darts was.

The solution is rather simple, if that doesn't seem like fun then don't do it. Do something else.

Magic in the game became more frequent and commonplace because players were either not aware or didn't want to think about actions that were not hotkeyed to a character sheet.

It was the same reason that magic got absorbed into the massive borg of powers, so that all players could have the same amount of mechanical buttons to manipulate during a session.

If rules and precisely defined mechanical implementations are not the beginning, middle, and end of play this whole magic thing isn't so much of an issue.

 

[Umbran]

Magic in the game became more frequent and commonplace because players were either not aware or didn't want to think about actions that were not hotkeyed to a character sheet.

Right. The game changed because the players were lazy or ignorant and lacked imagination, then? Change in style is due to character flaws?

I hope not, because that's pretty darned insulting.

EW, you sometimes have good ideas, and I don't know what's going on inside your skull, but you come across as quite the elitist curmudgeon much of the time.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Right. The game changed because the players were lazy or ignorant and lacked imagination, then? Change in style is due to character flaws?

I hope not, because that's pretty darned insulting.

EW, you sometimes have good ideas, and I don't know what's going on inside your skull, but you come across as quite the elitist curmudgeon much of the time.

Character flaws? Not really. I suspect a lot of the drive came from bad DM experiences. How many threads have there been about that just on this forum? Sometimes it might only take one terrible game to crush the desire to think outside the box for someone.

Magic is only one aspect of the game that has been changed over the years by a 'more mechanics will fix everything' mentality.

That approach has worked for some people to a greater or lesser degree throughout the various editions but I think it has run its course.

I don't where the elitism is coming from? Curmudgeon.....perhaps . I'm a simple old fart that can still enjoy simple things. In this hobby, the people you share it with are far more important than any mechanics.

 

[Umbran]

Character flaws? Not really. I suspect a lot of the drive came from bad DM experiences.

Ah. Okay.

[quyote]Magic is only one aspect of the game that has been changed over the years by a 'more mechanics will fix everything' mentality. [/quote]

I'll be honest, I don't see that at all. 1e magic was arguably the most mechanically complicated part of the system. By comparison, 3e, and even more 4e, reduced the mechanics required to play with magic. In the process, the magic was simplified, and fell in line with everything else, so that it became less special (IMHO).

So, not so much "more" as "more unified" mechanics.

I don't where the elitism is coming from? Curmudgeon.....perhaps . I'm a simple old fart that can still enjoy simple things.

The elitism... well, especially with the use of "hotkey", it sure looked like a videogame-based argument - all those new kids just want to mash buttons, and us oldsters are the ones with *real* imagination and independent thought, yadda-yadda-yadda. I'm glad that wasn't what you meant to say.

 

[Saracenus]

There was never any mystery to spellcasting in any edition of D&D aside from arguments over poorly worded spell descriptions.

I think one of the aspects of this thread (not the only one, but one of them) is folks feeling the loss of system mastery meaning something in the game.

It used to be that if you wanted to play a wizard you had to have more system mastery to do it. Even with 3e streamlining mechanics you still had to do a lot of work to play and effective mage (trust me I had all sorts of aids to deal with Summon Monster spells, polymorphing, etc).

In 4e, wizards are on the higher end of the complicated play spectrum (all controllers are) but the barriers to playing an effective one are much lower than in the past.

Low frequency != mmystery. It really means that you have to be "special" to want to play one effectively.

My two coppers,