Too much magic in DnD - lets do something about it !

[kenjib]

So don't use them. Even if you were to replace these monsters with another six million variants on orcs, there are only so many niches to fill -- an orc is an orc, and a mook is a mook. This holds regardless of whether it's brown, purple or blue, or has a tail or a pointy head. At least the monsters in the MM serve some useful purpose for those DMs who _do_ have idiosyncratic niches to fill.

And really, no monster is as mysterious or as terrifying as a human with class levels.

If that's a good justification for why we have a Tojanida, a Yrrthak, an ethereal filcher, and a digester (!), but we don't have a cyclops, then we have truly reached the point for D&D in which the fantasy has become less important than a ruleset that is becoming increasingly self-referential and divorced from any mythological and cultural themes. We have Diablo (which I do think is a fun game btw, but not what I'm looking for in tabletop), where the role of a creature in the game mechanics is more important than what that creature represents in a story. D&D is becoming ever more insular and disconnected from the rest of our cultural traditions.

Do you wonder why more mainstream people don't play D&D? Perhaps if it was a game that was all about the Knights of the Round Table, or Robin Hood, or even the Fellowship of the Ring, more new people would be interested in playing it because it would be connected to their lives in some way. As it is now, D&D is about psion half-dragon tieflings and +3 ghost touch spiked chains. You can't use the system to play things that non-D&D people can relate to because the rules do not support it. The massive proliferation and demystification of magic is one of the primary factors driving this.

This is a huge problem and IMO largely responsible for the whole D&D=geek syndrome. People make fun of D&D just by saying "he has a +1 sword." It's a joke precisely because "+1" is self-referential and disconnected from the rest of society. People would not make fun of D&D by saying "he has excalibur." There's no humor in excalibur precisely because everyone can relate to it.

The concept of "+1 sword" is a fundamental representation of the demystification of magic. Magic has been reduced from mystery to a simple mathematical formula. The "+1 sword" joke cuts to the very center (must have been a +1 keen sword - punny guy - har har har) of this whole issue.

So I think that the trick is to de-emphasize the mathematics as much as possible while still maintaining a set of well defined and balanced rules. I guess that's where I'm coming from with my latest suggestion to alter the spell list and magic item selections. The rules mechanics remain well defined but the focus of each spell is on the story, and dramatic impact, with the mechanics only helping to drive it. This also ties in with my earlier post regarding how I feel that spells and magic items were designed backwards in 3e - rules first and concept later. I think that it's an important thing to correct for the kind of play style I'm looking for.

Consider how the Wheel of Time or Sovereign Stone magic systems were made. They were made concept first - the controller of the weave, or the shaper of elemental forces respectively. Because of this, the systems feel less mechanical. You feel like casting spells is part of the story, not just a mechanical tool.

 

[hong]

Do you wonder why more mainstream people don't play D&D?

Because they don't have any great interest in playing make-believe games?

Perhaps if it was a game that was all about the Knights of the Round Table, or Robin Hood, or even the Fellowship of the Ring, more new people would be interested in playing it because it would be connected to their lives in some way. As it is now, D&D is about psion half-dragon tieflings and +3 ghost touch spiked chains. You can't use the system to play things that non-D&D people can relate to because the rules do not support it. The massive proliferation and demystification of magic is one of the primary factors driving this.

This is a huge problem and IMO largely responsible for the whole D&D=geek syndrome. People make fun of D&D just by saying "he has a +1 sword." It's a joke precisely because "+1" is self-referential and disconnected from the rest of society. People would not make fun of D&D by saying "he has excalibur." There's no humor in excalibur precisely because everyone can relate to it.

I can't believe you're serious.

People make fun of D&D because D&D players tend to be self-absorbed, self-important and self-centered geeks, who have a preoccupation with living in make-believe worlds that's quite foreign, if not slightly suspicious, to most mainstream people. +1 swords and the like have absolutely nothing to do with it. Try telling your workmates that you found Excalibur over the weekend, and they'll give you the exact same look as if you'd told them you found a +1 sword.

The concept of "+1 sword" is a fundamental representation of the demystification of magic. Magic has been reduced from mystery to a simple mathematical formula. The "+1 sword" joke cuts to the very center (must have been a +1 keen sword - punny guy - har har har) of this whole issue.

You are, I think, taking this whole issue far too seriously and should consider taking a break from gaming.

 

[kenjib]

I should also say that GURPS has its own problems; one, in particular, that seems apposite to this thread is that high-level people in GURPS are mortal. It doesn't matter if you're a 100 or 200-point character, a couple of critical hits from a pick will take you down. While this can be good from a certain point of view, it does tend to discourage the devil-may-care attitude that epitomises the "heroic" style of play.

And really, one way or the other, if you want to play something like GURPS, you'd be best off playing GURPS. Tweaking the rules to make D&D more like GURPS doesn't really accomplish very much as far as I can see. It's been said that D&D has a bigger base of supplements and fan material, but you'd still have to tweak these supplements to match. I don't see this as being a lot of work saved. Ultimately, that's probably the best reason for simply playing low-level: you don't have to do any major conversion work, whereas you would if you wanted to overhaul high-level D&D drastically

I agree with you 100% and I think that you misunderstood my argument. The only reason I brought GURPS into the picture was to show an example of a system that has more granularity for advancement, which is an advantage for play in a more narrow range of power. I don't want to play in a more narrow range of power. I have no contention with the D&D ranges of increasing power. This is about magic, not power levels. You were the one who suggested that we all just play the game only at levels 3-5 and I was explaining why I don't want to do this. D&D is a poor choice for someone who wants to play in a narrow power range like you suggest. Thus, I don't want to play GURPS either. Is my point more clear now?

Familiarity breeds contempt. Ultimately, for a good game, I think you want mechanics that are dependable and reproducible (this has nothing to do with whether dice rolls are involved). This means that spellcasters are likely to reuse those spells that tend to be most useful, whatever they may happen to do. And if you have a spell that's being used time and again by the spellcaster in your group, eventually it'll cease to become "mysterious".

(There are games that feature magic systems that are neither dependable or reproducible; Mage is the canonical example of these. I think the Mage system is great if you have a good GM. I also think it can be horribly abused if you have a _bad_ GM. Since I think one of the main reasons to have a ruleset in the first place is as a hedge against GM capriciousness or incompetence, the Mage system isn't to my liking.)

I've already said several times that I agree that the system should be dependable and reproducible. I agree with you. I understand, however, that it's really hard to keep track of who's who and who said what when responding to multiple people so that's okay. I don't want magic to be unreliable, I want it to be less consipcuous. See my suggestion for altering spell list to all non-flashy spells for a better understanding of what I'm getting at.

So replace magic missile with ray of enfeeblement, or burning hands, then -- the underlying principle is the same. I really don't have any problem with magic missile as it is; 1st level arcane spellcasters tend to be utter wimps in D&D (although not to as great an extent as they used to be). If they have one spell that lets them do funky stuff, more power to them.

By my criteria, none of those spells are mysterious. That's my point. See my last paragraph above.

Sure. In any case, though, I fail to see how a 3rd level spell somehow counts as "high level".

It's not high level. I didn't mean to imply that.

Chill touch, ray of enfeeblement, doom and bane all seem like nifty 1st level "curses" to me.

That's a great point and I agree. As per a previous post I think that it would be interesting to see a magic system where all spells were more subtle like these and less flashy like magic missile, color spray, and burning hands.

I don't think that we disgree on nearly as many things as you think we do. In any case, thanks for stimulating a nice round of thought clarification and interesting discussion of the issue with your skepticism. It definitely helped me, and others it seems, to hone in better on exactly what it is I'm looking for.

 

[rounser]

I get the feeling that you're using the royal plural meaning of "people" here. How do you know that the monsters in the MM aren't "fun" or "cool"? Even if _you_ find that some of them are lacking, others may find that they're good. Conversely, what others find useless, you may think is just what's needed in your game. Diversity is a good thing.

Ah, but look at the way I'm speaking for everybody:

"If the system doesn't provide fun, cool monsters that people want in their games, then the system has problems - especially D&D, because monsters are one of the core appeals of the game."

Now, if you want to argue that fun, cool monsters aren't one of the appeals of D&D for most people, that's a whole different ball game/kettle of fish/barrel of monkeys. It's true that what I consider a lame monster is subjective. I don't see the appeal of yrthaks nor destrachans, and I don't think my taste is flawed in this respect, nor several other examples from the MM. But that's taste for you. All I know is that the 3E MM has significant flavour problems for me that I didn't encounter in earlier monster tomes - which has to be worth something, since there have been a few of them. It's exacerbated by being the core book - I think some of the appeal of the game towards newcomers may have been compromised by their selection as well, as kenjib points out.

Of the monsters you mention, I think the destrachan and yrthak are quite interesting. I haven't really looked at the chuul, but then I haven't looked at every monster in the MM in fine detail. I certainly don't need some of the comedic material that made up the 1E Fiend Folio or MM2, by contrast. (Not that there's anything wrong with comedy. But Roy and H.G. would be up the creek if rugby league ever started to think it was there just to provide laughs, so to speak.)

There were indeed some silly creatures in the FF and 1E MM2, but the cool factor of most of the other monsters in those tomes far outstrips the majority of the new 3E MM offerings, IMO. The reason why is because the designers were attempting to think up good monsters in their own right, not niche-fillers with whether they were a cool or fun monster you'd want to use as an afterthought, or secondary concern.

Colour and variety can be found anywhere you care to look for it. If you want variety, give that troll a couple of levels of barbarian (remember Skurge Dwarfbane, anyone?). If you want colour, make it a bard. While I don't think it's necessary to cut down the menagerie to half-a-dozen monster types, I also think that multiplying them out just to provide variation is ultimately pointless, not to mention self-defeating.

Arguing that we should have even less monsters to select from is a bit of a head scratcher. Remember, 3E is "all about options".

I prefer the syllabicationist school. Every module and splatbook must meet a certain quota of polysyllabic words, in the grand tradition of E "Gary" Gygax, late of Lake Wisconsin, Geneva, to be considered a success. Or maybe the vitrionationalist school. The rules must contain examples featuring iconic characters from every race, which hate each other in the name of verisimilitude. Or, speaking of which, the verisimilitist school, which mandates that all supplements must harken back a facet of real life, no matter how obscure or far-fetched the link.

Indeed.

 

[kenjib]

You are, I think, taking this whole issue far too seriously and should consider taking a break from gaming.

There's no need to make a personal attack here. It only shows who, indeed, might be taking this far too seriously. I'm only speaking from the head. There's a big difference between taking something too seriously and thinking critically (or perhaps overanalyzing something if that's what you think I'm doing - which is definitely a fair critique). Don't worry about me. LOL. Just take a breather and come back when you are ready to discuss without resorting to insult. I've enjoyed the debate and would not like to see it turn sour, but I certainly wouldn't mind it continuing on a more amicable level.

 

[Deadguy]

Hong, I tend to agree with you that D&D is not really the best medium to do a 'mysterious magic' game. Some, for example, kenjib, have suggested changes that might take D&D in more of a direction that he, and perhaps others, might want to take. But having settled that you don't agree with that approach and got people to clarify what they are trying to do, it seems little point you continuously returning to the debate and basically saying in a roundabout way "I don't agree with you."

I think that others in this thread are clear on that, so perhaps there's no need to repeat it?

 

[hong]

I think that others in this thread are clear on that, so perhaps there's no need to repeat it?

IT'S FOR THE LURKERS!!!1!

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE LURKERS??/??

Ahem. Whoops. Where was I?

 

[kenjib]

People make fun of D&D because D&D players tend to be self-absorbed, self-important and self-centered geeks, who have a preoccupation with living in make-believe worlds that's quite foreign, if not slightly suspicious, to most mainstream people. +1 swords and the like have absolutely nothing to do with it. Try telling your workmates that you found Excalibur over the weekend, and they'll give you the exact same look as if you'd told them you found a +1 sword.

I disagree with your general assessment of D&D players as a whole and feel that you are far too critical and stereotyping of them as people. You also point out that people find these make-believe worlds to be "quite foreign, if not slightly suspicious." At the same time, you do not think that the fact that these make believe worlds have very little similarity to traditional cultural themes has nothing to do with peoples' perception of them as foreign?

I agree that I was indeed a bit extreme by implying that it was the primary factor, but I still think that it is a significant factor. Consider two kids playing "wizard" on the school playground:

Kid 1: I am elminster with my +5 quarterstaff of power. I cast evard's black tentacles and kill three destrachans.

Kid 2: I am Harry Potter. I have the sorcerer's stone and will cast a spell to hide from the evil school headmaster who's after me.

Another example:

Kid 1: I am Drizz't. I am a chaotic good drow. This sword is a +5 defender and this other one is a +3 fiery burst sword.

Kid 2: I am conan the barbarian. I am strong and have a big sword.

Which one is going to be more socially acceptable to other kids? You might think both, and that's fine, but I still think that Kid #2 is going to be much more accepted because people can relate to him - everyone knows Harry Potter. It's a shame that D&D doesn't really support any easily recognizable themes very well - and I could be wrong but I think that it's in large part due to how magic is represented in D&D. This argument is all useless heresy on both of our parts, though, and it's getting pretty far off topic, so I won't press it any further. I guess I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. Sorry.

 

[rounser]

IT'S FOR THE LURKERS!!!1!

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE LURKERS??/??

*hides from the lurkers*

Ahem. Whoops. Where was I?

Australia, I'd wager.

*looks around pensively*

Are they gone yet?

 

[mmadsen]

Game balance trumps everything else, as it should.

Except that you can easily manipulate game balance by increasing or decreasing a few numbers, shoving game balance into the background where it belongs.

Obviously we can increase the damage from Ray of Frost until it no longer deserves to be a 0-level spell. In fact, we can quite easily bring it up to 3rd-level by stealing the stats from Lightning Bolt or Flame Arrow (Fiery Bolts). Similarly, we can scale down the effects of Bestow Curse from 4th-level down to 0- or 1st-level.

If we then put all subtle spells at the lower levels and any flashy spells at higher levels, we're left with a game that fits the paradigm you described: subtle "low magic" spells fitting folklore (and most fiction) at the lower levels and flashy earth-shaking epic spells at the higher levels.