D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[Crimson Longinus]

I am sympathetic to these concerns, but there's a countervailing concern that is arguably stronger, and part of what brings people in to D&D things. (There's a reason it's one of the few things semi-common between 4e and PF1e.)

That is, class fantasy. One of the benefits of a class-based game, as opposed to other approaches like pure point-buy or short-run "kits" you stitch together over time, is that classes offer (I would say "promise") a particular class fantasy: an experience that the player can then embellish, alter, defy, or question. Paladin offers the Knight in Shining Armor class fantasy, the devoted servant empowered to fulfill an oath unto the bitter end (whether that oath be for weal or for woe.) Warlock offers the Faustian Bargain class fantasy, patron and client using one another, the heroic client wresting power from the hubristic patron, the villainous client inevitably undone by their foolishly biased exchange. Sorcerer offers the Inborn Power class fantasy: to awaken one day and find power flows in your very veins, and now you are connected to something both influential and dangerous without your intent. Druid offers the One With Nature class fantasy, someone who straddles the line between savage and civic, between man and beast, between material and spiritual--and blurs that line whenever it is advantageous to do so. Etc.

Fulfilling that class fantasy on the regular, not just at long intervals, is an important gamist consideration, believe it or not. The game can, and should, make you feel like these class choices really matter. (This is just one of several reasons why it is necessary to pursue asymmetrical balance in game design, not merely aesthetic design.)

The problem is, the ultra-classic Vancian structure is directly, intentionally, incompatible with feeling that class fantasy mattering on the regular. The whole point is that it can only matter rarely, but in a big way. This is putting all one's eggs in a single basket, with predictable results: the big moments really hit, but the duds hurt even more. Their rarity does sweeten them, but the droughts between draughts can parch, badly. Especially when you know that other players are getting to do their thing quite regularly.

If you have a better solution than simply going back to that boom-and-bust approach, I'd love to hear it, but honestly, I don't think there really is one. The whole point of the Vancian structure is to punctuate rare dramatic moments--which is fine, because that's part of telling a prewritten narrative, where the author's whole job is making sure that those moments really land. I don't think it translates well to TTRPGs for the same reason I don't think the structure of psychohistory (since I've recently been re-reading Asimov's work) translates well to TTRPGs. The scope is...just off.

Some amount of concession to "actually fulfilling the class fantasy in the small moments" is unavoidable, I think. Anything less will chafe. So, what concessions are sufficient without being excessive--since you find the current situation excessive? These come to mind (but are far from comprehensive, I'm sure):

• Cantrips remain as they are or toned down a little, but spells are much more sharply limited, perhaps slightly increased in power. A Wizard deploys perhaps two or three Spells a day, but they should generally be devastating when they are. Outside of that, though, they are left with relatively weak cantrips, not useless, but clearly feeble magic in comparison to their phenomenal power. (This is, effectively, "status quo tweaked." That makes it both more likely to work out, and more likely to leave everyone dissatisfied, as such things so often go.)
• Cantrips become more like ammunition. You don't have only four cantrips a day flat, but you also can't use them indefinitely. Like having an arrow of quivers. Perhaps preparing the same cantrip twice lets you use it more often? (This is, essentially, going back to the old way with a slight tweak for approachability--and carries most of the problems associated with going back to old ways.)
• The old 3e "reserve feat" concept. That is, as long as you have a prepared spell of <type>, you can perform a cantrip-like effect. This would need to be adjusted since spells are no longer prepared into specific slots anymore, but I'm sure something could be done.
• "Recharge" or some other mechanic like that, where the Wizard can periodically (e.g., per short rest) regain some of their weaker mojo (perhaps based on spell slots they've consumed or schools they've cast that day?) through resting and meditation etc. Essentially, your power tapers off, rather than being a flash-and-fizzle situation.
• The Spheres of Power type system, where magic becomes much more focused. I rather like this approach, but it does diverge quite far from where D&D's magic system came from.
• The obvious, but IMO exceedingly unlikely, "make magic painful/dangerous to use." I personally think this is an absolute non-starter that would never appeal to enough people.

Have you any other ideas how to address this gap, between the desire for punchy-but-rare spells, and the pretty demonstrable need for fulfilling class fantasy at the table on the regular?

Yeah that's the rub. It is pretty subjective what for example "feeling like a wizard" means. There was a lot (a lot!) talk about Gandalf in this thread. He is the archetypal wizard, yet, as noted, doesn't do that much actual "magic." Is it enough to feel like a wizard if you are an arcane expert that solves magical mysteries and knows about the esoteric secrets of the world, whilst casting couple of spells per day? To me it probably would be, but I suspect that you're right that to most people these days it isn't.

 

[pemerton]

The Dreamwalker in my Torchbearer game has cast one spell, and that failed - so has never successfully cast a spell in eleven sessions of play. But she has read runes, tricked demons, and received important messages in her dreams. She is likely to be the first character to make 4th level.

The reason for this post is to argue that it is possible to have distinct classes - the Dreamwalker brings a different suite of capacities to the table, compared to the Dwarven Outcast or the Elven Ranger or even the human Skald - without the scholar/mage being defined by their spell casting.

But this does require scenarios and situations where knowledge of lore, and the ability to read ancient writings, matters. I'm not sure this would be easy to operationalise in D&D.

 

[CreamCloud0]

• Cantrips remain as they are or toned down a little, but spells are much more sharply limited, perhaps slightly increased in power. A Wizard deploys perhaps two or three Spells a day, but they should generally be devastating when they are. Outside of that, though, they are left with relatively weak cantrips, not useless, but clearly feeble magic in comparison to their phenomenal power. (This is, effectively, "status quo tweaked." That makes it both more likely to work out, and more likely to leave everyone dissatisfied, as such things so often go.)
• Cantrips become more like ammunition. You don't have only four cantrips a day flat, but you also can't use them indefinitely. Like having an arrow of quivers. Perhaps preparing the same cantrip twice lets you use it more often? (This is, essentially, going back to the old way with a slight tweak for approachability--and carries most of the problems associated with going back to old ways.)

personally i'd prefer if cantrips were the infinite basic attack of wizards, especially if you're combining it with the idea of 'more impact less uses' levelled casting made in the point above, but yeah by all means rescale them apropriately, but for that same measure, i'd rather everyone had their reliable unlimited basic attack rather than potentially running out of being able to make a half decent attack, so a ranger when they buy their bow also functionally gets 'a quiver with as many basic arrows as they'll ever need' with it, i don't want my wizard or ranger to be relying on a d4 emergency dagger cause they ran out of cantrips/arrows, but that's just me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah that's the rub. It is pretty subjective what for example "feeling like a wizard" means. There was a lot (a lot!) talk about Gandalf in this thread. He is the archetypal wizard, yet, as noted, doesn't do that much actual "magic." Is it enough to feel like a wizard if you are an arcane expert that solves magical mysteries and knows about the esoteric secrets of the world, whilst casting couple of spells per day? To me it probably would be, but I suspect that you're right that to most people these days it isn't.

Though I think some of it is just a general public bias, I do think the Harry Potter books (and probably the movies) have pushed things pretty hard toward that direction. They show a magical world where people are swish-and-flick-ing their wands practically every other sentence. Magic is friggin' everywhere in there, and basically all millennials and younger grew up with that burned into their minds as stereotypical "wizardry."

 

[Zubatcarteira]

For the LoTR magic stuff, there was the duel between Sauron and Finrod, showing both can use song magic:

He chanted a song of wizardry,
Of piercing, opening, of treachery,
Revealing, uncovering, betraying.
Then sudden Felagund there swaying
Sang in answer a song of staying,
Resisting, battling against power,
Of secrets kept, strength like a tower,
And trust unbroken, freedom, escape;
Of changing and of shifting shape,
Of snares eluded, broken traps,
The prison opening, the chain that snaps.
Backwards and forwards swayed their song.
Reeling and foundering, as ever more strong
The chanting swelled, Felagund fought,
And all the magic and might he brought
Of Elvenesse into his words.

I believe Finrod also had an illusion spell he used on Beren, Sauron could create illusions as well, and Lúthien did something similar along with her very op sleeping magic. Eldrond I think used his power ring to do that river flood on the Nazgul, and Galadriel learned magic from Melian.

I also vaguely recall Aragorn's parents just casually seeing the future to say prophecies to each other about their son. Magic seems to be something people can just have or learn.

 

[Cadence]

Magic seems to be something people can just have or learn.

Well, the elves and people descended from them anyway. What was Wormtongue's ancestry?

 

[mamba]

Fulfilling that class fantasy on the regular, not just at long intervals, is an important gamist consideration, believe it or not. The game can, and should, make you feel like these class choices really matter. (This is just one of several reasons why it is necessary to pursue asymmetrical balance in game design, not merely aesthetic design.)

all fine and well, I still consider the 5e spellcasters to be too powerful / versatile. You can get the same thing while taking them down a notch or raising the non-casters too

I’d like a combination of your last two options (probably more on the unreliable / unpredictable side for the last)

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Well, the elves and people descended from them anyway. What was Wormtongue's ancestry?

That I recall using magic off the top of my head: Anuir, Elves, Humans descended from elves, wildshaping Humans like Beorn, Dragons, maybe Dwarves and Orcs since they have spells in their languages, Tom Bombadil and Ungolianth (whatever they are).

People aren't slinging fireballs like in D&D, but it's definitely out there.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It doesn’t actually matter if they are consciously, actively, thinking about Story. They are playing D&D or WoD or whatever instead of pandemic Cthulhu because they get to create story, rather than just experience it. Whether they are here to immerse or to eat pretzels and kill goblins with their Human Champion Fighter with a greatsword named Jeff, is irrelevant to the question. Making story with the group is what makes TTRPGs even be a different experience from other types of games. The fact that some groups have a guy who is only there because all their friends play and they want to be at game night and participate doesn’t impact the point of the game in any way.

I’m not talking about “story” as limited to The Story of the adventure or campaign. They care about the story of killing 100 goblins and becoming more powerful, or some other element of story that drives play regardless of agenda.

That is exactly my point. Story is why anyone plays these games rather than some other game. It’s the only real defining difference. .

Yeah, that isn't the only defining difference. In fact you are, IMHO, confusing cause with effect. The defining difference is open-endedness. THE core difference between RPGs and board/parlor games is that they have open-eneded situations and rules which are designed to accommodate means of adjudicating arbitrary fiction states. I mean, the 4e-era Ravenloft board game (Curse of Strahd?) has all the RP you could ever want, but it is a closed-ended game, only specific situations can arise and only designated actions can be taken. There's plenty of fiction attached to them, its practically oozing out! But in the end fiction can only really feed back into mechanics when you can do anything and it can be adjudicated. Its not the resulting story anyone cares about (well, probably SOMEONE does somewhere). Instead what they care about is the doing of stuff at the table and how it lets the players use creativity to evolve the situation instead of just gamist tactics. This is also why the replay value is very high on RPGs, they are unlikely to play out in largely the same way over and over like a board game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The Dreamwalker in my Torchbearer game has cast one spell, and that failed - so has never successfully cast a spell in eleven sessions of play. But she has read runes, tricked demons, and received important messages in her dreams. She is likely to be the first character to make 4th level.

The reason for this post is to argue that it is possible to have distinct classes - the Dreamwalker brings a different suite of capacities to the table, compared to the Dwarven Outcast or the Elven Ranger or even the human Skald - without the scholar/mage being defined by their spell casting.

But this does require scenarios and situations where knowledge of lore, and the ability to read ancient writings, matters. I'm not sure this would be easy to operationalise in D&D.

I'd argue the reason for that being that D&D (4e aside) lacks the capability to operationalize the use of those abilities and make them directly relevant to success in a concrete way. Its easy to cast spells at opponents, or hack them up, in combat, and the game pretty well establishes the player's ability to make non-controvertible declarations of fact on matters of who lives and dies, etc. in a fight.

That ability is utterly non-existent outside of combat! The best you can do is 'roll and hope', because there's no measure of success in achieving your goals, no measure of the overall difficulty of such, and no meter for progress towards it. So any ability you may have, like say the ranger's famous tracking ability (not explicitly present in all editions). Its a complete crapshoot as to how useful this might be. It is 100% up to the GM how many times I might have to roll to achieve some goal (IE tracking a bad guy all the way to his lair).