D&D General What Should Magic Be Able To Do, From a Gameplay Design Standpoint?

[pemerton]

D&D is already a 'super' game, just that the superpowers used to just be in casters and Items.

More than that - a D&D magic-user or wizard, with their flashy blasts and shields and their magical accoutrements, has more in common with Dr Strange than with Merlin or Gandalf.

 

[pemerton]

Science deals with trial and error. It's not an alternative to trial and error.

Science, at least as I understand it, is the systematic generation of knowledge by (i) careful observation, including but by no means limited to careful counting and measurement, and (ii) by deliberately creating opportunities for careful observation to take place, often very controlled opportunities.

It also uses theoretical, typically but not always mathematical, techniques for grouping, integrating and extending the results of observation.

This is quite different from trial and error, which is more like how most people learn to perform moderately complex tasks involving relatively straightforward equipment.

 

[Lanefan]

D&D is already a 'super' game, just that the superpowers used to just be in casters and Items.

Only to a point. Many caster powers below very high level simply replicate technology or artillery that the game doesn't otherwise have. Much of the remainder is there to allow for various well-known story and fantasy tropes e.g. The Invisible Man, the skinchanger, and so forth. There's not that many low-to-mid level "superpowers" (flight being the big exception) and those that do exist can be reined in.

Personally, I can live with D&D becoming like a supers game when play is getting close to capstone level; but earlier than that is too soon.

 

[Corinnguard]

This is quite different from trial and error, which is more like how most people learn to perform moderately complex tasks involving relatively straightforward equipment.

Most people does include those who actively and systematically generate knowledge. The scientific method is not error free.

 

[Lanefan]

It doesn't always. But it very frequently does, in fact, end up that way.

It can, I'll freely admit. But it shouldn't.

That's why I said that designing a game this way isn't compatible with modern audiences. You are here admitting that the direct consequence is intentionally turning away lots of players. That's the whole point. That's the very reason why such mechanics are actively avoided in most TTRPG design today. It's not only not popular, it actively fosters greater hostility against itself when folks are forced to play that way.

I'm not at all convinced about this.

And what happens if someone uses it for bad-faith play? Someone uses it just to mess with one of the other players, or to get back at them for something they did elsewhere, or in an attempt to trigger a pissing contest, or to get "even" because the target player won the roll for an item this player wanted, or whatever else?

Then - with one exception - that player can find another table.

The one exception is when everyone proactively decides it's brawl time, at which point all I-as-DM can do is sit back and referee. IME when there is a storm like this (quite rare) it usually blows over pretty fast.

This is only true if the conflict in question actually is unavoidable, hence why you used the word "war." If we instead changed it to "alligator wrestling", the whole concept collapses because that's obviously a ridiculously dangerous thing you don't have to do.

But which is "foster CVC conflict" more like: a literal societal-level threat where the outright destruction or domination of your home and people is at stake, where your choices are "fight or surrender"? Or is it more like alligator wrestling, meaning, a thing you can do, if you feel like it, but unless you're a real adrenaline junkie, why would you?

You can tell I fall on the "alligator wrestling" side here. Pretending that CVC conflict is an absolutely unavoidable thing that you can only either cower in fear from, or face boldly, is so many stacked bad arguments, I'm struggling to pick which one. (Appeal to emotion, appeal to virtue, false dichotomy, bad analogy...)

Then perhaps I should put it that those who have wrestled some alligators come away tougher and stronger (or dare I say, more experienced) than those who have not; never mind they're also now better at alligator wrestling.

Perhaps so, though the root came from the assertion that magic should cause harm to other players' characters through no fault of their own.

Two things here:

"Should cause harm" is too strong; I'd more go for "could cause harm".

Also, bad luck and bad aim happens. If a fighter can miss with an arrow shot and shoot the wrong guy (via a confirmed fumble, something I strongly believe should be in the game) then a mage should be able to miss with the placement of a spell and sometimes hit the wrong people.

I'm not saying these things should happen all the time, more that they should be able to happen at all. Quite literally on topic for this thread, even - magic should be able to, on a bad roll, go places the caster doesn't intend.

The problems arise when a player has their mage either a) be intentionally careless with their aim or b) blast a surrounded front-liner on the logic "I'll knock off five of them at cost of hitting just one of us" (which from the caster's standpoint might sometimes in fact be the optimal thing to do in the situation).

Which, again: making character archetypes specifically designed to cause problems for others as one of the costs of using that archetype's features? Yeah. That's a direct anti-player, high-frustration feature. Smart game design for games made to be cooperative doesn't do that--it leaves such things as an opt-in choice, rather than opt-out.

The way I see it adventuring is a dangerous profession, adventurers are dangerous people, and accidents happen.

 

[Lanefan]

These two statements are precisely in conflict though. The first specifically say able to do anything, meaning, everything that can be done. The second says NOT able to do everything, and not only that, specifically not able to do anything anyone else is already doing.

And that's before we even get into the extreme grey areas of what "emulates other classes" means, and the onerous design consequences that arise from such a commitment.

While I agree with most of this comment, designing in some niche protection for non-casters is not all that onerous.

 

[Lanefan]

More than that - a D&D magic-user or wizard, with their flashy blasts and shields and their magical accoutrements, has more in common with Dr Strange than with Merlin or Gandalf.

Today with at-will magic in the game, yes.

In the TSR days, I'm not so sure. They could do some flashy stuff, yes, but not that often due to Vancian slot limits. Flip side: a high-end psionic in the TSR editions could get pretty close to Dr Strange territory.

 

[pemerton]

Today with at-will magic in the game, yes.

In the TSR days, I'm not so sure. They could do some flashy stuff, yes, but not that often due to Vancian slot limits.

My recollection is that there's a picture of Dr Strange in one of the OD&D rulebooks.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Which class becomes the area-effect blast artillery, then; or how would a-o-e blast artillery be achieved?

while i too favour magic to be implemented more for 'problem solving', utility, support and control over damage i'm more than fine with the existence of a singular designated 'blaster caster' class, however, this is in a scenario where plonking a damage oriented martial into a group of enemies has a similar results and effect as hitting them with blast artillery.

 

[nevin]

What magic can do in a fantasy setting in general, or in a D&D like setting in particular, is a complicated conversation.

What I would like to do is narrow that conversation a little bit and focus a discussion here on what D&D magic should be able to do or accomplish specifically in the hands of PC casters, and specifically from a game design standpoint with an eye toward balance and playability.

Note that I am tagging this D&D general but I understand we are likely to discuss this primarily from a 5E perspective because it is the current game and one that is very hackable. But we can also certainly talk about it with regards to earlier editions, retroclones, and adjacent systems.

I feel like there are a couple schools of thought folks might fall into, summed up broadly as "Anything, but not very often" and "Damage and status effects." I feel like utility spells are generally the most controversial and lead to discussions about spotlight stealing, among other things.

I don't want this discussion to be too focused on the traditional debate about casters versus martials, although that is going to come up. I am more interested in what role folks see D&D magic as filling in the game design and play experience, and by extension what that looks like in a theoretical PHB.

Anything, with the caveat that the bigger the effect the bigger the consequences.