Critical Absences

[Brimshack]

More and more, I am thinking about what I DON'T want in the bag of tricks for my game. And by that I do not mean major points of style or types of gaming experience. I am talking about specific strategic options that sound cool and any player is certainly going to want to have them if he can. I am talking about the sort of options that preclude otehr interesting things.

For example in a high fantasy setting I am determined to avoid anything like the big general teleportation that one finds in most variants of D&D. These just kill the logic of an epic journey. Sure, the little characters can go on a long distance adventure, but if your big wizard has the ability to move everyone at once to Mount Doom, then why walk them around the country side, it ain't that pretty. In my game, I have a very expensive special ability that will allow a caster to take herself a great distance, and a familiar or a mount if she has one. Other members of the party? No. And even if the caster does do this, she will use a great deal of her magic for the game session in doing so. This allows players to solve some practical problems without enabling them to bypass a challeneg in the form of a journey.

I am also trying to avoid the many varieties of duplicate means that one sees in D&D3.5. Just had this come up in the game. A player noticed that there was only one way to give a character the ability to breathe under water and it was VERY difficult (i.e. would take several game sessions to get the ability and/or cost several spells to accomplish it), plus it would only last a few minutes. He wanted me to consider making another spell or a magic item to solve the problem. I am considering it in view of the possibility that a different option with longer duration may open up interesting game options, but as a general rule I am really trying to stick with one-option-is-enough as the general principle for the game. When there are 3 or 10 ways to get a certain magical effect, the significance of any one ability diminishes.

The thing I am thinking about here is just the idea that creating one option can very often preclude others, and I am going over it in my head. I think I will include a list of these for GMs. I probably won't call them 'don'ts,' but just suggest that the GM consider the range of long-term implications before creating something via houserules. "Before creating a more general means of teleport, you may want to consider..."

Does anyone else struggle with the need to exclude popular, often expected options? For those interested in high-fantasy, are there any other scenario-killing options you find yourselves trying to keep out of the mix?

[Vordark]

You mention D&D specifically in your post, so I'll use it in my examples.

High-level magic in 3.5 can easily be an incredible foil for the GM depending on the kinds of stories he wants to tell.  One of its designers commented "With a high-level wizard it ceases to be about how many hit points of damage he does, and becomes more about how many people in the room die."  As an example, if you take a look at the DMG, you'll see that the CR of the sample traps only goes up to 10.  This is explained in the DMG2.  Once the characters get much past level ten, and have access to things like Disintegrate and Heal, traps cease being much of an issue unless you are specifically tailoring them to the group (with the DMG2 gives you a toolkit to do precisely this).  They just stop being viable as challenges.

My biggest pet peeve with magic, though, isn't this kind of stuff.  I've just adjusted the stories I tell.  Adventures where the over-land journey is important happen earlier in the campaign, and go away once teleportation pops up.  No, my problem is with Identify.

I love cursed items.  I also love items with an allure of mystery.  And here's a first level spell costing 100gp to cast (free if you're a cleric!) that means no player will ever, ever just try out an item.  Or have to research it.  Any time an effect allows a player an unambiguous peek behind the GM screen I tend to get irritated.

[chance.thirteen]

On the Identify thing: D&D 3.5 is about items just like previous versions. So why not have a spell identify the basic function of an item so it can be used, but research and experimentation to learn about curses, special abilities, and so on?

[Vordark]

On the Identify thing: D&D 3.5 is about items just like previous versions. So why not have a spell identify the basic function of an item so it can be used, but research and experimentation to learn about curses, special abilities, and so on?

The Identify spell (and identifying magic items in general) has seen a lot of updates throughout D&D's publishing history.  First edition actually had it that the wizard had to attempt to use the item at the end of the spell, and thus got all of the nasty effects if it was cursed.   (Neighborhood wizard upon identifying an item for the PCs:  "It's cursed!  I'm blind!  Where is my gold!?!")  And now with the abomination that some people call the fourth edition, all you really need to do is have the "Lore" skill (which anyone can take) and just hold the item for a little while until the light bulb goes on over your head and you go "Oh yeah!"  Basically it's been trending towards getting easier.

3.5 devotes several pages to cursed items and whatnot, but ultimately if you're using the rules as written (with the actual, intended Identify spell) they might has well have just finger painted on the page.  The party finds a bunch of items, at the end of the day they pile them up, cast detect magic, then put anything magical in a sack to identify later.  No one just tries the items anymore.

A mod a friend of mine came up with was simply making the Identify spell a ninth level spell that takes a year off your life to cast.  A bit extreme, but we started just trying the items again.

[Brimshack]

Heh!


That is another good one. On the one hand, it can be a pain to try a hundred different magic items out and figure it a little at a time, but if the divination to learn what's what is too easy, then it ruins some interesting game play. I wonder if the trend towards making identification easier can be explained at least partly by the magic christmas tree trend in 3.5. If one magic sword is in the party, then heck it's neat to role-play figuring it out. If there are a dozen new items at the end of each encounter, then it's not fun anymore, it's just a pain in the ass.

I'm trying to keep magic items very rare in my game, so I'm not tempted to make magic too easy. The relevant spell works best on small magic items and can be fooled by large ones. But I may work in an exception, a very simple one, it can't reveal a curse.

[Luke]

I found the best way to omit distasteful artifacts from D&D from your game is not to include them in your game. Seriously, don't mention them, rant about them or explain why you don't have them. No one cares. I made the mistake of omitting stuff but then explaining myself. This just opened up the floor for many frustrating discussions.

[Callan S.]

Hello Brimshack,

I dunno - there seems to be a trend in RP design that people speak in 'what they don't want their game to be', rather than what they DO want their game to be. I've always assumed you start with nothing, in design, then build from that. I don't think something already exists to subtract from. From this perspective it's quite annoying to see someone stating what they'll subtract, as if something would remain after and I can see that. When all I can see is a subtraction from nothing.

[Brimshack]

Honestly, I do not think that is what I am doing, or what I am asking.

[Callan S.]

I should have qualified that and failed to. I just mean it, if it were occuring, creates a communication problem, which wouldn't benefit you. If it were occuring.

[Egonblaidd]

When you think about it, magic seems to be fairly rule-breaking even from a historical perspective in most fantasy RPGs.  On the subject of teleport, what good is a wall if mages can teleport entire armies behind it?  Or what about invisibility spells?  These two spells alone tend to render traditional medieval security systems, and most modern ones, too, anachronistic (obsolete).  Therefore, either the kingdom with the most mages takes over the world, mages are the endangered species Tolkien depicted (e.g. they are non-playable), or the setting has to be significantly modified in order to account for "super powers", and the threat they represent to anyone that might have a mage as an enemy.

The easy way, of course, is to remove magic altogether.  Of course, magic is one of the main appeals of fantasy settings.  Not much better is the Tolkien approach where wizards are few and far between, and definitely NOT playable (it works for novels because characters can't "abuse the system", hence you can have wizard characters).  Probably the best option is to simply limit magic.  This is not to say that you need to make magic impotent, but great balls of fire shouldn't necessarily spring from your fingertips when thinking incendiary thoughts.  Let me explain this a little more thoroughly.  The system should be such that there is the potential for great power (providing magical artifacts and evil sorcerers), but that achieving such is extremely difficult.  Also, there should be an element of mystery to magic.

For example, let's say you CAN teleport anywhere.  However, the farther you try and teleport, the more that statement represents potential accidents rather than a measure of power.  Say you can teleport 5 feet, plus or minus an inch, or 5 miles plus or minus 88 feet.  That's right, teleporting 5 feet can leave your feet stuck in the mud or hovering an inch over the ground, while teleporting 5 miles could leave you entombed underground or falling a lethal distance.  Or maybe the distance is irrelevant, and it's some other factor, such as your knowledge of your target location compared to your current location, making it easy to teleport anywhere within sight, but nigh impossible to teleport some place you've never been.  Or some sort of totally weird restriction/factor for teleporting, like the time of day, or the population of magical teleportation bunnies.

Also, maybe you can't actually turn invisible, you just tell people that they don't see you, so it's more of a persuasion type of spell.  However, only the really weak-minded can be fooled completely, and the strong-minded either won't be affected at all or will be alerted that someone is trying to tamper with their mind.  In this case, it becomes more of a camouflage, enhancing your more natural abilities at stealth or disguises rather than supplanting it.

I'd also recommend adding some sort of mystery element to the mechanics of magic.  For example, in the system I'm working on, a character's Spirit attribute, which is used for using magic, is known only by the GM and not by the player.  How exactly it will figure in to the mechanics of spellcasting I haven't figured out yet.  I'm actually thinking that I'll allow the GM to come up with some way to use the Spirit attribute for magic, possibly with a different system for each player.  Of course, I'd have a few suggestions of different ways they could do it.  The point is there there IS a system, and it CAN be figured out, but the player will always be guessing, and only through extensive practice can the player be fairly confident what his spell casting abilities are.

On the subject of magic items, why exactly are "magic" items different from normal items?  To the medieval world, many phenomena we now know to be natural seemed magical to people back then.  Also, someone has said something about magic and technology being indistinct at a certain level.  A steel sword might be "magically" durable compared to iron or bronze swords.  A "magically" forged sword might be indistinct from a high quality sword.  That being said, magic (and magic items) is everywhere.  At the same time, you don't need really ostentatious magic to be everywhere.  If flaming swords are a dime a dozen, they cease to be a novelty.  Items that are magical to that degree would best be used as plot devices, like the One Ring in the Lord of the Rings.  If a character has a sword of ogre-slaying, then work in ogre-slaying as a major point of the plot.  Maybe the whole point of the campaign is to kill a certain ogre warlord.  Don't just hand out "magic" items to everyone all the time.

Another thing to consider in this context is, if magic is a part of everything and indistinct from the natural world, then what exactly do spells like "anti-magic", "sense magic", "identify" (as you mentioned) really do?  If an eclipse is "magical" then can you prevent it with an anti-magic field?  If life itself is somewhat magical, then wouldn't a true anti-magic field kill those it touched, including the caster?  Wouldn't it be more appropriate if "anti-magic" only allowed you to block specific effects (more like a spell negation), or "sense magic" simply alerted you to strong magical movements, which may include spellcasting in addition to more "natural" phenomena?

For additional reading, see the articles on John Kim's site.

[Bossy]

A rant thread... good!

The Matrix. Or any parallel world where a character can enter and do millions of things in a fraction of a second (Psionics, The Spirit Plane, etc.).

First these things are so cliché they rarely add something useful or fun to the game. Second, all players sit powerless waiting (getting bored, kibbitzing, backing off the game) for that second to finish while the netrider searches for information, reaches his contacts, fights the security agent AI, downloads the data, etc.

"Hello, this my cyberpunk game and, surprise, surprise, we have a network where people live virtual lives. And the virtual time is way faster than in the real world because... well, uh, because for no other reason that it is well known that virtual is faster than real. I should mention I completely ignore the fact that this is constitutionally a complete game pace wrecker."

My pet peeve.

[Brimshack]

I should have qualified that and failed to. I just mean it, if it were occuring, creates a communication problem, which wouldn't benefit you. If it were occuring.

Oh, thank you. I thought my OP was the target of your criticism, but your post does have me thinking a bit. And no, that's not really helpful here. It's a question of how some interesting options preclude others, and how best to address the problem in a kitchen sink setting that encourages GM's to get creative.

[chronoplasm]

Does anyone else struggle with the need to exclude popular, often expected options? For those interested in high-fantasy, are there any other scenario-killing options you find yourselves trying to keep out of the mix?

No furries; no cat-people, no dog-people, no fox-people, I won't have it.
I'm sorry. I'm just bigoted against anthropomorphic animals with human dangly-bits.

Teleportation I'm okay with though as long as there is a risk involved.
Perhaps teleportation is not truly instantaneous travel, but a short-cut through the maddening warp?
Perhaps wizards who teleport risk attracting attention from nightmarish creatures like the Hounds of Tindalos?

[Egonblaidd]

One of the points I was making is that if teleportation is at all common (as in, any mage or any school of mages can learn it, as opposed to one or two ancient wizards being the only ones ever to have the ability), then sooner or later someone is going to use it as a weapon.  If you want to invade a rival kingdom, overthrow a ruler, etc. and you have mages that can teleport, what precautions are your enemies going to take against you?  What precautions are you going to take against them?  If someone can walk (or warp) through a solid wall, then what good is the wall?  What "extra" can you add to prevent enemies breaking into areas they aren't supposed to be?  If there is no defense against an ability, then something is wrong and either the ability should be removed or altered.

For a fantasy novel I was going to write (I still haven't started it yet) I came up with a variety of races to use.  I specifically wanted to avoid clichés like elves and dwarves.  Unfortunately, "anthropomorphic animals with human dangly-bits" was all I could come up with.  But come on, what kind of wolf-man isn't cool?  I didn't have cat people, though.  My dragon people were pretty cool, too.  I suppose there's a lot of room for creativity, but it's easier to combine creatures we're already familiar with to make new ones.

[Vordark]

Teleportation I'm okay with though as long as there is a risk involved.
Perhaps teleportation is not truly instantaneous travel, but a short-cut through the maddening warp?
Perhaps wizards who teleport risk attracting attention from nightmarish creatures like the Hounds of Tindalos?

If I recall correctly, there was a 3.5 module that featured a kind of teleportation trap.  It was a tower enchanted such that it randomly sucked in teleporting characters/groups from anywhere in the world, to be murdered and looted by the tower's creator.  I'm pretty sure it was called "The Tower of Deception".  Nice way of reminding the characters that they aren't necessarily all-powerful.

Although I do think every game should feature the Hounds of Tindalos.