|
I don't think that the game needs to be so simple it can be mastered in 20 minutes by a 12-year-old. When I was 10 and started playing AD&D, I didn't understand all the rules for quite a while. But my preference is for a game that the 12-year-old can play along with, quickly mastering the basic rules he needs to run his one character, and later, gradually, learning the more complex stuff. And based on my experience with the nephew, 3.5 is not that game.
This confuses me. What did he have trouble with specifically? What advanced concepts did he encounter that he could not understand in his introductory session?
Vancian magic is only mostly going away in 4th Edition, and despite the fact that it technically has worked (in that the rules for it work), its not necessarily good, or as good as it could be.
Vancian magic places severe limits on what a wizard can do: you must prepare your spells in advance, and once you've done so can only switch them out by spending 8 hours resting. You can also leave some slots open and fill them later, but you risk the chance of getting caught with limited magical resources.
Now, when preparing, you need to choose carefully. Which spells do you think you will need? How well you make these guesses varies from adventure to adventure: if you know what you are going up against, chances are you can make some pretty solid choices in terms of combat spells, and maybe even defensive magic.
There are a lot of miscellaneous spells, however, that you likely wont have any clue if you are going to need (mostly divinations).
So, while I like wizards, I think that the magic system could be better. They added a lot to it in 3rd Edition, but to me its still a work in progress.
This confuses me. What did he have trouble with specifically? What advanced concepts did he encounter that he could not understand in his introductory session?
Keep in mind that this was a couple of years ago, and we've played on two other visits since then (we visit twice a year).
Bret chose to play a rogue, so we weren't actually dealing with spellcasting. Bret's dad (who hadn't played since 1st edition) played a barbarian, and I ran a cleric. My husband ran a 1st level adventure - I don't remember the name, it was possibly the first Delve-format thing WotC published, with goblins and hobgoblins in a cave system, a section with some undead, and another section with a wyrmling black dragon.
And really, Bret (the 12 year old) did okay - he understood the attack rolls better than his father did, and after a bit he started figuring out how to do flanking for his sneak attacks.
But the fact that sneak attacks didn't work on undead was one of those "Why does it work that way" moments. Not that he got upset, he certainly didn't, just that it took some effort to explain that part of the rules to him. He'd also chosen to play a halfling for the high Dexterity, and even though we'd explained the trade-offs, he was disappointed and a bit confused by the difference between the damage he could deal (1d4+sneak attack) versus what his dad's barbarian could do. I think there was some critter in the adventure with damage reduction (or maybe that was on a later visit), and that took some explaining, too.
Ultimately, he had fun, and whenever we visit, he's very excited about playing. But even though he's bright and a voracious reader, he doesn't try to play or learn the game on his own. He hasn't tried teaching it to his friends. He perceives the game as this very complicated thing that he only gets to do when we come for a visit. We gave him the core rulebooks and that first adventure, thinking that would get him started, but it didn't, and we haven't been able to change that yet.
When you got to the part about how, after casting a spell, a spellcaster forgets the spell, did you say "Oh, that makes sense"? Show of hands.You see, I decided in my own head awhile ago that wizards simply have to do X amount of prep (taking about 1 hour) and they have to do it when they are thoroughly rested and have their minds clear of distractions (requiring 8 hrs of sleep). So the "forget" thing to me really didn't apply.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is exactly how it is described. The whole "you learn the spell in the morning and then forget it when you cast it." thing isn't very accurate. You PREPARE to cast the spell in the morning and to do the finishing touch(es) later in the day. You haven't forgotten it, it just is no longer prepared. Of course you can always leave a few slots open to be prepare later in the day to allow for some versatility.
I have a soft spot for the Vancian system too, and I've always enjoyed playing spellcasters. That said, I've played them enough to see some weaknesses in the system.
For starters, playing spellcasters is harder than playing melee classes. Because you have to pick your spells ahead of time, you have to know what they all do, and know enough about the system to see which ones are good and which ones are going to be semi-useless. Since I'm already good at playing spellcasters, a part of me views this as a strength. But of course it's also a weakness. It makes it hard for an all-new group to get into the game.
Secondarily, the resource management aspect of the Vancian spell system had some unintended consequences. the 15-minute adventuring day is a problem everybody knows about, but there were also some more subtle aspects that having to ration your spells brought out.
In 3rd edition, the combat model was often one of attrition. The general adventure outline was 2-3 easy fights and then one tough one. The easy fights served to wear down the spells-per-day resources of the wizard and cleric, and then you would bust out all you had left in the tough fight.
The problem, as WotC even mentions in their Worlds and Monster excerpt is that a lot of groups, mine included, wanted every fight to be challenging. Just plain ol' fights against a single monster with CR equal to party level just aren't what we wanted to spend our time on. We wanted every fight to be one where the players consider using some of their best spells and tactics. But then when that happens, you cut the 10-minute adventuring day down to like a 2-minute adventuring day.
Last, but not least, the Vancian system makes low-level magic items constantly necessary. The wand of cure light wounds was ubiquitous, as were other little things like healing potions, scrolls of knock, etc. So it doesn't end up exactly making magic rare and powerful in most games. Instead, you have a constant supply of common and disposable magic items. Why not just build some of that stuff right into the character, so that they're the focus?
|
There is a ray of hope - I saw a kid at Toys'R'Us asking his mom to buy him Basic D&D to go with his Lego Castle.Did he get it?
I don't know, but he seemed like the kind of kid that would get his way eventually. The shopping cart full of toys was a dead give away that he had mommy wrapped around his little finger.
|
|
What did not happen is that all of the Neopolonic people had to move to Warhammer 40K because more people like it.
Yep. But the companies that write Napoleonic rules and produce Napoleonic minis shrunk down into a tiny niche.
I would hope that D&D can avoid that. The only way I can see that happening is to adapt and change to meet the expectation of new players.
|
|
So, while I like wizards, I think that the magic system could be better. They added a lot to it in 3rd Edition, but to me its still a work in progress.
I completely agree with you there. My issue is not "It doesn't need fixing!" it is that we need to understand what is broken about it and fix that. Where I differ with people is in the belief of what is broken. Some say it is that D&D doesn't reflect "modern views" of magic. Modern magic has singularly failed to catch on in the PnP format and thus we need to look for solutions to the problems with 3E magic in places other than the modern concept of magic.
I like analogies; here is another. Looking at Everquest (once the dominant leader of MMORPGs) and WoW, we see that there was a genuine need in the marketplace that Everquest was not meeting. People wanted something that Everquest wasn't giving them and thus WoW was born and now clearly has beaten the crap (marketwise if by no other measure) out of EQ. Everquest is in a position where it should adapt or perish. It has to see the writing on the wall and move toward what the market demands. Some would like to say that D&D is in the same position as Everquest and that the market is demanding (based on popular culture alone) something other than the D&D rules system and thus we need to change to meet this need. But this need simply does not exist for the PnP market. No one is out there beating the crap out of D&D in all PnP RPGs combined let alone a given rule set. Thus while I agree that D&D is in need of some help, I do not think we should abandon a clearly dominant market position and risk all that has come before on unwarranted change. What WotC should do is examine the system and improve upon it by making it more internally consistent and smooth out the jagged edges that have begun to show after 30 years. This need not take the form of destroying fundamental concepts in the game, concepts that no other system has mounted even a reasonable challenge to in the marketplace all in the name of attempting to play catch up to an industry (the MMORPG industry) that fundamentally does not operate in the same manner as the PnP industry.
Let me turn it around for you. I wonder if, over at Blizzard Headquarters, a bunch of marketing people are sitting around saying "You know, we have had a great run with WoW and we are the huge industry leaders in MMORPGs, but subscriptions have leveled off and I think it is because there are so many D&D players out there playing PnP games, games that tap into the concept of high fantasy we are modeling here. So we should reprogram WoW to put in DMs and Vancian magic and change our pricing model to move from subscription to one-time buy to match WotC's model of publishing..."
Yeah, sure they are. This is exactly what WotC is doing though. They look at WoW and say "OK, we are the dominant leaders but we want some of that WoW sugar!!! Nine million subscribers at $15 a month! Man! Ok so we need to move our systems over to WoW-like rules and create an online component to the game and charge a monthly fee for access..."
Sound familiar?
The MMORPG and novel delivery mechanisms are fundamentally different from each other and from the PnP delivery mechanism. Each mechanism provides a different sort of benefit to its participants. Attempting to turn one thing into another (remember those novel-adventure books where you chose the path for the hero?) just doesn't work in the long run, they are too different. While I concede that we can learn something from Wow or novels and use that to make D&D better, we don't need to move the entire system to one of these in the vain attempt to mimic their success and claim new proponents, especially when their fan base has been clearly exposed to and rejected the PnP approach to fantasy delivery.
Edit: clarity
But the fact that sneak attacks didn't work on undead was one of those "Why does it work that way" moments. Not that he got upset, he certainly didn't, just that it took some effort to explain that part of the rules to him. He'd also chosen to play a halfling for the high Dexterity, and even though we'd explained the trade-offs, he was disappointed and a bit confused by the difference between the damage he could deal (1d4+sneak attack) versus what his dad's barbarian could do. I think there was some critter in the adventure with damage reduction (or maybe that was on a later visit), and that took some explaining, too.
Ultimately, he had fun, and whenever we visit, he's very excited about playing. But even though he's bright and a voracious reader, he doesn't try to play or learn the game on his own. He hasn't tried teaching it to his friends. He perceives the game as this very complicated thing that he only gets to do when we come for a visit. We gave him the core rulebooks and that first adventure, thinking that would get him started, but it didn't, and we haven't been able to change that yet.
Ok ... Now I'm confused. Why are you still playing D&D with him? End of the day, D&D is a rules heavy game. It will always be a rules heavy game because the more rules you have, the more options you have. The fan base and creators like options so D&D will always be a rules heavy game. No matter how streamlined the game is, it will still have alot of rules.
Why not play a rules lighter game? You can still play a D&D type world with D6 Fantasy, Tri-Stat dX, Fudge, and a whole host of other game systems that are lighter then d20. He might like one of those better. Maybe if you tried a different setting (like Star War, Conan, Babylon 5, Wheel of Time, and so on), he'd be so excited for that he'd pursue it on his own. Maybe he'd like something more modern like vampire or mage. If you keep trying to do the same things over and over again with him, why would you expect the results to be different?
|
|
Ultimately, he had fun, and whenever we visit, he's very excited about playing. But even though he's bright and a voracious reader, he doesn't try to play or learn the game on his own. He hasn't tried teaching it to his friends. He perceives the game as this very complicated thing that he only gets to do when we come for a visit. We gave him the core rulebooks and that first adventure, thinking that would get him started, but it didn't, and we haven't been able to change that yet.
I am probably going to surprise you and say that I can clearly see the issue here and have seen the same in my kids. Out of (admittedly more than) curiosity, does he play any CRPGs, MMORPGs, console or computer games? What competes for his time?
I would like D&D to be simpler too and feel it needs to be simpler for many of the reasons given in this and other threads. I also feel there is a place for complexity, because that adds richness (How many people still play 'Go Fish' with people of their age? I think Texas Hold Em and other card games of complexity win out in the long run). Simplify the rules too greatly and only children will play it; they will outgrow it like they outgrow playing War with a deck of cards. I concede there are beautiful games with simple rules (Go and Chess comes to mind) but I also do not see any PnP reaching that lofty height. Thus we need complexity and intricacy to keep the game moving forward and can (as DMs) simplify the rules for our newest and younger players (I once ran a game where the other player knew NO rules and just played while I handled everything. She played a Sorc from 1st through 10th level and used the SRD from time to time just to reference what her spells could do).
I am most concerned that in our rush to improve a system that is showing its age (and the weight of a triple-dozen supplements) we are throwing what made D&D the greatest PnP game ever made away.
|
Good Gawd...
The RPGA KEPT me in gaming in the early 90s (I probably would have dropped RPGs to go back into board and war games); they started driving me out around '97 with all sorts of rules tweaks that didn't make sense, the move to "free membership" etc. I haven't done much with them since (in 2001 I DID go to "miniatures gaming only" for two years - then got into HackMaster and resurrected some old Star Wars d6 stuff, with occasional forays into the FUDGE-based "Now Playing" and infrequent d20 variants)... The more I hear about what they've become, the happier I am at my decision... :(My experience with the RPGA is nothing like the one stereofm described. Yes, rules do become critical because everything is by-the-book and so life and death sometimes hinge on getting the rule right. There is no rule zero in the RPGA so the judge (not a GM) cannot just make it up as he goes.
And not every RPGA gamer is a rules lawyer. Heck, they are not even all that common. Most players just have fun. Not every table at a con or at a local game day is a joyful experience but thousands and thousands around the world love playing in living campaigns.
Thank you to you both and the original poster for listening to me.
But yes, sadly, these are the kind of experiences i had with RPGA.
I want to stress out though, that not everything was bad. I also met plenty of great people thanks to the RPGA gang.
But so many sessions were wasted ... while they could have been good fun. So today, it's back to homebrew for me.
|
|
Now, now... Hold on a second. There is quite a bit of fantasy based products where the magic "system" isn't clear, and it may be "fire and forget." Granted, it might not as well.
Like 'em or hate 'em, here is a quick list I can come up with.
Lord of the Rings
Eragon
Willow
Shrek
Conan moviesWhile these may not be a very good argument for Vancian Magic, they can't automatically be used against it either.
You're not wrong, though I think some of your examples are a bit of a stretch. However, you're also not speaking to the actual point I was making. Lich-Loved declared that the Harry Potter magic system is so divorced from D&D that it does not qualify as "high fantasy." The implication seemed to be that removing Vancian magic from D&D would divorce D&D from being high fantasy.
My point is not that high fantasy cannot be Vancian--clearly it can. My point is that high fantasy can also NOT be Vancian. Changing the D&D magic system does not inherently prevent DMs from telling high fantasy stories.
In fact, can you point out any products where magic is clearly not Vancian?
EDIT:: Unless you meant RPG products. I thought we were talking entertainment products.
I meant literature, yes.
How about the Wheel of Time? Clearly not Vancian, and while not perfectly high fantasy, it's got some of that feel to it. Other examples are escaping me at the moment, but I'm confident there are other pieces of high fantasy literature where wizards can create or modify spells on the fly, or where use of magic has a clearly debilitating effect on the caster, or where wizards clearly have whatever spell is necessary at any given time. What I cannot think of are non-Vance/D&D stories where the wizard says "I'd love to fly us down from this ledge, but I just flew us up here a few minutes ago, and I need to take a nap and then re-read my spellbook first."
|
|
What did not happen is that all of the Neopolonic people had to move to Warhammer 40K because more people like it.Yep. But the companies that write Napoleonic rules and produce Napoleonic minis shrunk down into a tiny niche.
I would hope that D&D can avoid that. The only way I can see that happening is to adapt and change to meet the expectation of new players.
This gets to my point, really. To what new players are you referring? My core point is that the PnP market is a fading market in general, a market that is slowly losing to technology-based entertainment. Those that are busy watching Buffy, playing WoW and whatnot have had ample opportunity to move to a PnP-based delivery mechanism and have never done so. It is not that systems out there haven't been presented to them that reflect their view of the world, it is that they have rejected the systems outright. What we have is a situation where there is no significant competition for PnP-based gaming. No one is out there, WoW style, hammering the Everquest-ish D&D over the head saying "The market demands this kind of PnP game!". No one is out there saying "See, there is a demand for Warhammer-ish game and you silly D&D-Napoleonic gamers didn't adapt!"
We absolutely could use some help polishing D&D and helping it dig out from under its own success. But the answer to falling D&D sales isn't to turn D&D into WoW or anime, it is to fix D&D and understand that it remains the definitive fantasy RPG and has been widely successful for decades.
I too want D&D to live on forever as a PnP based game, but do you really believe that it will, even if it was turned into a WoW clone on paper? Oh wait, that has already been done...sales were...hmm....
|
|
My point is not that high fantasy cannot be Vancian--clearly it can. My point is that high fantasy can also NOT be Vancian. Changing the D&D magic system does not inherently prevent DMs from telling high fantasy stories.
I completely agree with you on this. The Sorcerer, the Warlock, the spell point system and other aspects of D&D demonstrate this quite clearly. My concern is that by ditching the highly customizable, modifiable and undeniably successful Vancian system, we have departed the path of success. The system has its flaws as it is written, but I fervently believe these can be fixed in a way that preserves the beauty and flexibility of the system and does not force the game to conform to one particular view of magic.
Yes, I said beauty.
Ok ... Now I'm confused. Why are you still playing D&D with him?
Because he really looks forward to playing D&D. He loves it, he just feels overwhelmed enough that he won't pursue it on his own. Also because he does buy the miniatures and he loves seeing the minis we use when we visit.
First time, we used minis for the PCs, and tokens for monsters, to help him get the idea that he has everything he needs for the game. We've given up on that and show off minis now when we visit.
I am probably going to surprise you and say that I can clearly see the issue here and have seen the same in my kids. Out of (admittedly more than) curiosity, does he play any CRPGs, MMORPGs, console or computer games? What competes for his time?
Actually, I think the minis may have been part of the problem. He got so excited about the starter and booster of minis we gave him with the books, and that's the part he's wanted to spend his money on. I don't think he plays the minis game, although admittedly, we don't either so we never taught him how.
I don't know what computer games he plays, but I know he doesn't have internet access to play the online versions. (The internet-PC in their household is only for adults or with supervision.) I'll have to check into that when we visit at Easter.
|
|
I completely agree with you on this. The Sorcerer, the Warlock, the spell point system and other aspects of D&D demonstrate this quite clearly. My concern is that by ditching the highly customizable, modifiable and undeniably successful Vancian system, we have departed the path of success. The system has its flaws as it is written, but I fervently believe these can be fixed in a way that preserves the beauty and flexibility of the system and does not force the game to conform to one particular view of magic.
Yes, I said beauty.
Do realize, though, that they're not completely throwing out the Vancian model, merely de-emphasising it. We have been told that wizards will have some at-will, some per-encounter, and some per-day slots to play with. What we have not been told is how many or how flexible each of those categories are.
What I would be happy to see is a wizard that posesses a couple at-will forms of blast damage (a'la Warlock), a decent handful of per-encounter slots (with hopefully about a sorcerer-esque variety of spells to use in those) and just a couple per-day slots per spell level, with a wizard's variety of spells to put into them. That would preserve both a wizard's flexibility of spellcasting and the resource-management aspects of Vancian casting, without ever leaving a wizard helpless because he blew his wad by 10am, or because he's got a full load of "dispel magics" in preparation for the boss fight they know is coming.
Until the game is released, we won't know whether my expectations are met or not, but nothing that I am hoping for has been directly contradicted by what little information we have available. Then again, maybe what I'm hoping for is still too distant from D&D's Vancian roots for you, in which case that's a real shame, but not every game is perfect for everyone.
Then again, perhaps what they release will be truly terrible, and we can both be annoyed together. Then you can come over to my place and join my Age of Worms campaign that is destined to keep me "stuck" in 3.5 until a good year after 4E releases anyway ;)
Everything was fixed,changed or cast aside to fit the GSL-
|
|
Do realize, though, that they're not completely throwing out the Vancian model, merely de-emphasising it. We have been told that wizards will have some at-will, some per-encounter, and some per-day slots to play with. What we have not been told is how many or how flexible each of those categories are.
What I would be happy to see is a wizard that posesses a couple at-will forms of blast damage (a'la Warlock), a decent handful of per-encounter slots (with hopefully about a sorcerer-esque variety of spells to use in those) and just a couple per-day slots per spell level, with a wizard's variety of spells to put into them. That would preserve both a wizard's flexibility of spellcasting and the resource-management aspects of Vancian casting, without ever leaving a wizard helpless because he blew his wad by 10am, or because he's got a full load of "dispel magics" in preparation for the boss fight they know is coming.
Until the game is released, we won't know whether my expectations are met or not, but nothing that I am hoping for has been directly contradicted by what little information we have available. Then again, maybe what I'm hoping for is still too distant from D&D's Vancian roots for you, in which case that's a real shame, but not every game is perfect for everyone.
Then again, perhaps what they release will be truly terrible, and we can both be annoyed together. Then you can come over to my place and join my Age of Worms campaign that is...
Yes I am aware of that Vancian magic may not be fully destroyed. My only concern is that in an effort to fix the problems with the Vancian system they wrongly attribute those problems to market forces that do not exist and therefore fix it in the wrong way, breaking what was good before and failing to fix what should have been fixed all along. Despite the amount of passion I have expressed on this topic in this thread, I am still hopeful for 4E and am still looking forward to getting the rulebook in my hot little hands and seeing if the game really has had its blemishes airbrushed or if they have given it a Michael Jackson nose job. I know the game I get will not be the D&D I knew (just as 3E was different from 2E), but I hold out hope that the fixes are tempered and moderate and carefully playtested. If the new game is easier to run, flexible and eliminates the issues with feats, frequent party rests, prep time, skill points, PrC wackiness and the like, I will be thrilled, even if I have to give up some parts of the game I have played for so long.
And that offer of AoW is very tempting...
|
|
Actually, I think the minis may have been part of the problem. He got so excited about the starter and booster of minis we gave him with the books, and that's the part he's wanted to spend his money on. I don't think he plays the minis game, although admittedly, we don't either so we never taught him how.
I don't know what computer games he plays, but I know he doesn't have internet access to play the online versions. (The internet-PC in their household is only for adults or with supervision.) I'll have to check into that when we visit at Easter.
Yes, my kids loved the minis too. At their insistence I started playing mini's with them and that actually helped bring them into the D&D fold, perhaps in the same way Gygax migrated from wargaming to taking a personal interest in a single soldier's plight as the individual soldier stormed the castle.
I used to live in Nashville (I checked your profile, I like to know who I am speaking with), so I understand the Internet restrictions on gaming. But I would guess that he has other forms of entertainment that curtail his time and compete for his attention and these forms of entertainment are likely electronic. For my kids, the many interesting games they have access to combined with demanding homework (I am very strict with them about this) and participation in traveling sports teams means they have limited gaming time. During this limited time, they want to dive right into the action and be entertained, not spend time referencing rule books and whatnot. In this, I fully understand yours and CrossWiredMind's point of view. Where I strongly differ, however, is in the belief that we have to change all of the rules to get this group to join us at the PnP table. I firmly believe that the interactiveness of MMORPGs, their simplicity, speed of play, and integrated multimedia entertainment deliver an experience that PnP cannot deliver. We older folk know this comes at a price of richness and depth of storytelling, and truth be told, they realize it too after a while, but the fact remains that the online/PC gaming experience meets their needs in a way that PnP just will never do, no matter if they have a PnP wand and can fire it every round just like their WoW character can do. In order to keep D&D viable for the market it does have left, it needs to be nurtured and grown and pruned and carried forward by people that care about the game. Trying to morph it into something it can never be (an MMORPG or a living version of Sailor Moon) will just break what we love about it and still fail to attract their attention.
(Warning: analogy incoming...)
Let's have a look at the modern phenomenon of Guitar Hero and Rock Band. These are console-based games that allow one player (in the case of Guitar Hero, or a full up band with guitar, base, drums and vocals - either face to face or grouped over the Net in the case of Rock Band) to take on the role of band member. You get cool controllers in the shape of guitars and drums and can "jam" karaoke-style to many great rock songs in what is both a competition and a demonstration of skill. Kids love these things, and I have to admit I am into singing "Gimme Shelter" in Rock Band while my kids play the instruments or I pick up the guitar for a romp through a Nirvana tune while my oldest flails away on the drums. These games are tremendous sellers and I would wager they sell better (or are more profitable than) the real instruments are. Suggesting that popularity of the Rock Band and Guitar Hero games reflects a popular culture movement and therefore concluding that any guitar manufacturer with flagging sales is losing sales to Rock Band is ridiculous. However, this is the kind of reasoning I see when people tell me that Harry Potter and WoW and anime have redefined fantasy. No, they have not redefined fantasy. They are their own thing, comparable to one another (WoW vs Everquest, Potter vs Spiderwick, anime vs ... Spongebob(?)) but they are not PnP competition nor are they particularity adept at crossing over (beyond a nod here and there) to other forms of entertainment. Thus any attempt to fix flat or falling D&D sales by mimicking what is seen in those implementations of fantasy is doomed to failure. It is like Fender saying they are going to fix flagging sales by producing only Guitar Hero controllers (though they did put out a Fender Stratocaster just for Rock Band) and telling their customers that "All the kids aren't learning guitars, the new market is in these plastic replicas. If you don't like it, you still have your old six string - play that you ol' gorgnard...until the strings break, that is!" Somehow, the marketing hum from WotC and a few like-minded individuals here sounds a good deal like this.
It's hardly that easy. Quick, which of the following spells have somatic components, material components, or both: Daze Monster, Blindness/Deafness, Resist Energy, Glitterdust, Ghoul Touch, Alter Self, and Bull's Strength?
Or I flip through my spell cards (3x5 index cards with the spell information on them) in a couple seconds. Granted, this isn't something most beginning DMs would do, but it's not tremendously difficult to do with planning and preparation, either.
But that's the point, isn't it? Everything's easier with planning and preparation. But there aren't a lot of people that find that kind of planning and preparation very fun. The hobby would appeal to a lot more casual gamers if it didn't require that kind of devotion.
Besides, now the monk PC has read the 4-page article on the WotC site, and the GM has prepared all the spell cards, but then the cleric gets attacked by a roper and you have to start over.
And grapple's unbalanced against spellcasters; try explaining to a novice sorcerer who gets attacked by a mimic they literally can not do anything useful except get crushed to death in 3 rounds. Couple that with a lot of fiddly rules--an ogre with reach can grapple you without provoking an attack of opportunity, unless you've got reach as well--and it's one of the subsystems I'm most hoping gets taken out back and shot.
|
|
Couple that with a lot of fiddly rules--an ogre with reach can grapple you without provoking an attack of opportunity, unless you've got reach as well--and it's one of the subsystems I'm most hoping gets taken out back and shot.
Hmm I believe you are incorrect here. Where in the rules does this occur? Please link me to the SRD or provide a page number, it may be time for me to learn something again.
Couple that with a lot of fiddly rules--an ogre with reach can grapple you without provoking an attack of opportunity, unless you've got reach as well--and it's one of the subsystems I'm most hoping gets taken out back and shot.Hmm I believe you are incorrect here. Where in the rules does this occur? Please link me to the SRD or provide a page number, it may be time for me to learn something again.
You can only take AoO in squares you threaten. If the ogre is using its reach, it is not in a square you threaten, thus you can't take an AoO.
|
|
I too want D&D to live on forever as a PnP based game, but do you really believe that it will, even if it was turned into a WoW clone on paper?
No I do not. I do, however, believe that D&D is sure to disappear forever if it "sticks to its roots" without taking into account the popular view of fantasy.
Manga are now close to outselling traditional comics. Harry Potter outsells Lord of the Rings. World of Warcraft is passing D&D by as the fantasy game of choice for young gamers.
D&D has a fantastic opportunity to take its brand and broaden its market. I do not believe it could have even tried to do so without a new edition - an edition that lowered the barriers to entry like overly complex rules and out dated notions of how the fantasy genre works.
|
|
I too want D&D to live on forever as a PnP based game, but do you really believe that it will, even if it was turned into a WoW clone on paper?No I do not. I do, however, believe that D&D is sure to disappear forever if it "sticks to its roots" without taking into account the popular view of fantasy.
Manga are now close to outselling traditional comics. Harry Potter outsells Lord of the Rings. World of Warcraft is passing D&D by as the fantasy game of choice for young gamers.
D&D has a fantastic opportunity to take its brand and broaden its market. I do not believe it could have even tried to do so without a new edition - an edition that lowered the barriers to entry like overly complex rules and out dated notions of how the fantasy genre works.
In the end, you believe that WoW players and manga readers will crossover to PnP fantasy if it is made palatable to them and I believe that these markets have already rejected PnP as a methodology and thus further pursuit of this market can only hurt what remains of the D&D market.
Where we can agree is that D&D won't last forever and neither of us want it to fade anytime soon. I am ok with this as well. Anyone that wants to see this game move forward and wants the best for the game is still someone I can agree with, even if our opinions differ about the hows and whys. I truly hope that D&D does flourish in the future regardless of its incarnation. I fear it will not, and only time will tell. I think you have heard me out and I understand you, so this discussion has been a good one for us both.
you're also not speaking to the actual point I was making.
Sorry. I didn't realize.
How about the Wheel of Time?
I don't know much about it, so I can't comment.
but I'm confident there are other pieces of high fantasy literature where wizards can create or modify spells on the fly, or where use of magic has a clearly debilitating effect on the caster, or where wizards clearly have whatever spell is necessary at any given time.
Well, you seem to miss a bit of my nuance earlier, so let me preface the following with "I am not trying to argue that those systems are Vancian, or not something else."
With that, the examples you have given could just be narratives overlaying Vancian Casting. Yes, it is a bit of a stretch.
Hell even Harry Potter could be Vancian. I am not a big fan, so I haven't read all the books cover to cover. In other words I am prepared to be wrong about this.
We are never shown wizards preparation of spells (granted, that doesn't mean they do prepare spells).
And, we never see any wizards cast enough magic to run out in a Vancian system.
Because of that, Harry Potter can't be clearly non-Vancian.
((Side Note: Harry Potter style magic could even be run without spells. All you really need is to change wands so they act like staves - and a few other tweaks, and make Use Magic Device an exclusive skill to wizards. But that is something else entirely.))
I might also point out that in many settings, magic is not done "on the fly". Spells must be cast over a substancial bit of time (not < 6 sec). In that case it could be argued that those casters will merely using a slot they had not prepared earlier in the day (15 minute mediation + time to actually cast).
I want to start by saying I have never read a Vance book in my life. The fact that D&D spellcasting actually came from a literature source was a complete unknown to me up until a few years ago. (And I've been playing D&D since the late 70s-early 80s.)
So the point has come up that the new magic system that they are implementing in 4e is "Harry Potter-ish" because it relies too heavily on the wizards implements. (I believe they have said since then that implements improve magic effectiveness, and are not necessary, but let's ignore that for a minute.)
Now correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't actually read Lord of the Rings cover-to-cover in a long, long time, but in the movie version of Two Towers, there is the scene where Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli go to see Theodred, and Wormtongue gets quite upset that the guards did not remove Gandalf's staff, with the distinct impression that Gandalf required his staff to do magic.
Since we never saw Gandalf "prepare" his spells in the morning, and since he required (or at least appeared to require) his staff to cast spells, wouldn't the change in 4e to implements for wizards be more of a throw-back to Tolkein, as opposed to a nod to Rowling?
This is something that has been stuck in my mind for a while, and I'd seriously like to hear other's opinions on this. I'm not the most learned Tolkien scholar out there :-) so I'm sure there are other that can correct me if I'm wrong.
Greg
Ok ... Now I'm confused. Why are you still playing D&D with him?Because he really looks forward to playing D&D. He loves it, he just feels overwhelmed enough that he won't pursue it on his own. Also because he does buy the miniatures and he loves seeing the minis we use when we visit.
First time, we used minis for the PCs, and tokens for monsters, to help him get the idea that he has everything he needs for the game. We've given up on that and show off minis now when we visit.
So? True20 is a rules lighter version of d20. Call it a different version of D&D (because technically, it is) and play the same game with him. And nothing says you can't use the exact same minis with a different system. You can do that with fudge or d6 fantasy or ... etc.
If he feels overwhelmd by a rules heavy game, a new edition will not fix that.
Alright, so I've read enough of everyone's statements (no, sorry I haven't read everyone's statements, but those I haven't, I skimmed and got the gist), it sounds to me that it comes down to personal preference. Old foggies like me (I'm 30) that like magic to feel .... magical and scarce and high powered compared to the fighter's capabilities like the 3.5 magic system.
Those that want a setting that has a greater blend of magic into daily life, want magic to feel more common place to the setting, and more inline with the fighter's capabilites like what they're hearing of the 4.0 magic system.
Do you feel this is a fair representation of both sides?
I want to start by saying I have never read a Vance book in my life. The fact that D&D spellcasting actually came from a literature source was a complete unknown to me up until a few years ago. (And I've been playing D&D since the late 70s-early 80s.)
So the point has come up that the new magic system that they are implementing in 4e is "Harry Potter-ish" because it relies too heavily on the wizards implements. (I believe they have said since then that implements improve magic effectiveness, and are not necessary, but let's ignore that for a minute.)
Now correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't actually read Lord of the Rings cover-to-cover in a long, long time, but in the movie version of Two Towers, there is the scene where Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli go to see Theodred, and Wormtongue gets quite upset that the guards did not remove Gandalf's staff, with the distinct impression that Gandalf required his staff to do magic.
Since we never saw Gandalf "prepare" his spells in the morning, and since he required (or at least appeared to require) his staff to cast spells, wouldn't the change in 4e to implements for wizards be more of a throw-back to Tolkein, as opposed to a nod to Rowling?
This is something that has been stuck in my mind for a while, and I'd seriously like to hear other's opinions on this. I'm not the most learned Tolkien scholar out there :-) so I'm sure there are other that can correct me if I'm wrong.
Greg
What you see in the LotR films is the creative license of Mr. Jackson. In the original literature, Gandalf carried a staff and fought with it (if not with Glamdring), but the staff was not as inherently tied to his abilities. The staves of the Five Wizards were more badges of office than tools for magic. To be fair, the Wizards seldom used magic at all that you saw in the literature, although there were references to magic throughout the books. Instead, magic drew on the power of the user and could tire/fatigue/exhaust the user (in the literature, Gandalf put an arcane lock on the door to Balin's Tomb when the Fellowship tried to escape out of the room and was drained in his efforts by the balor's counterspell, for example). Gandalf also never lost his staff at the gates of Minas Tirith to the Witch-King. So a Tolkien wizard was not strongly tied to his staff, though Gandalf did seem to use it as a focus for his magic (the bridge of Khazad-dum, or on the side of Caradhras to light a fire).
1) The magic system. Arguments I've heard for why it needs changed to a new level of spells every level gained are that it is an assumed setting piece. I don't agree. I see as mere mechanics and just a way to explain a piece of the setting. What else is the problem? Is it just preference? If that's all it is, I can understand it, even if I don't agree. But are there any other problems that I am just missing? You gain spells at every level.Can't speak to this one, as I haven't been keeping up on 4e magic.
2) Subsystems. Subsystems like grapple work just fine once you get the hang of it. Practice makes perfect. How good do you expect to be at something unless you practice it? I mean if the system is changed to be more like an attack roll, I can see that, even if I feel it is a bit of dumbing down.Well, the grapple problem is somewhat misrepresented, I think. Yes, there's a problem in that there's an entirely different suite of rules you use for it that never are referenced or mimicked otherwise; I've been playing D&D since 3.0 came out (to within a month, I believe), and much like flying maneuverability, anytime grappling comes into play somebody has to pull out their PHB or Rules Compendium, because nobody is really confident they remember how it works.
The real problem with grappling as a separate system isn't the (absolutely extant) nobody-remembers-the-rules issue; the issue is that if your character isn't designed for grappling, and you encounter a monster that is, you're hosed. Grappling is sufficiently divorced from the rest of the system in that specialization in grappling is, for whatever reason (and especially for monsters), a much greater boost to grappling than specialization in anything else is a boost to that specialization. Trip isn't devestatingly effective if you aren't using a spiked chain; it gives you a small bonus against your opponent, but a -4 to hit and AC penalty isn't huge for characters who would otherwise be...
My problem is actually the opposite. After 7th level, Grapple ceases to exist. Once the PC cleric can cast Freedom of Movement, the ability to grapple opponents becomes effectively useless. You can grapple all day and never succeed. If the creature is a Colossal Beat You Down Instantly Melee Machine Monster, and he has a grapple bonus of 1x2 to the 99th power, a 4th level spell kicks him in the nads. :)
As for the Vancean magic system, let me state this very clearly.
We are PLAYING A GAME! The RULES WORK FINE.
If you are writing a book, yeah, the vancean system doesn't work. But D+D is not about writing a book. If you want to write a novel, sit down and try writing a page a day, you'll stand a better chance than playing D+D for four hours.
You CANNOT try to translate what happens in novels into game mechanics. It totally does not function, and any attempt to actually do so usually results in unhappy D+D players, as well as unhappy book readers. (See the Forgotten Realms for more information.)
..lots of stuff...
Thanks for the clarification. It has been a long time (high school, and that was 25 years ago) since I read LotR, so most of that stuff is lost from my mind.
Greg
|
|
"I am not trying to argue that those systems are Vancian, or not something else."
So, we're in agreement. While the Vancian system can (and has, somewhat successfully) allow D&D to tell high fantasy stories, the elimination of Vancian casting does not automatically distance D&D from the high fantasy genre.
If you are writing a book, yeah, the vancean system doesn't work.
I'm confused. I thought the "Vancian" system came from Vance's books. How is the D&D implementation different from the books?
Greg
Alright, so I've read enough of everyone's statements (no, sorry I haven't read everyone's statements, but those I haven't, I skimmed and got the gist), it sounds to me that it comes down to personal preference. Old foggies like me (I'm 30) that like magic to feel .... magical and scarce and high powered compared to the fighter's capabilities like the 3.5 magic system.
Those that want a setting that has a greater blend of magic into daily life, want magic to feel more common place to the setting, and more inline with the fighter's capabilites like what they're hearing of the 4.0 magic system.
Do you feel this is a fair representation of both sides?
I can't speak universally, but that sounds plausible. I'm on the younger end of the player base, and among other things, I love Eberron and giggle whenever somebody argues that mages should inherently be better than fighters at high levels.
|
Seems to me the at will, per encounter, per day set up they're going with is just more book keeping for people playing Wizards. They should have just figured out a way to keep Wizards casting spells using the current system.
1) Wizards prepares X Level-0 spells.. can cast all of them at Will. They get all the spells for free, why not let them cast a reasonable amount of them for free?
2) Wizards prepares spell Y into bonus spellslot (from having a high intelligence) and can cast it X times per day equal to his Int bonus. When he "unlocks" his next spell level with a bonus slot, he can cast the spells of the previous level with a spell slot at will. So if he has bonus spells up to level 4, level 4 and higher spells will never be at will, but atleast he's got some useful spells in his arsenal always even if they're not the most powerful.
Instead of a crossbow, low level Wizards will fall back on their trademark bonus spells. When they're in a real bind, they can fire off lots of Rays of Frost or Acid Orbs.
I'd probably get rid of the term bonus spells and call them Signature Spells since you'd be casting them a lot and in a way, makes you forget about how bonus spells used to work.
All spellcasters could have benefited from this set setup, so the sorcerer wouldn't need much reinventing.
Alright, so I've read enough of everyone's statements (no, sorry I haven't read everyone's statements, but those I haven't, I skimmed and got the gist), it sounds to me that it comes down to personal preference. Old foggies like me (I'm 30) that like magic to feel .... magical and scarce and high powered compared to the fighter's capabilities like the 3.5 magic system.
Those that want a setting that has a greater blend of magic into daily life, want magic to feel more common place to the setting, and more in-line with the fighter's capabilities like what they're hearing of the 4.0 magic system.
Do you feel this is a fair representation of both sides?
I don't think I fit cleanly into either category. I would like magic to be rare compared to the people who just have mundane abilities. I want there to be high ratio of fighters to wizards in any common city.
I would also like the magic to have incredible capabilities compared to fighters, but I don't want them to be superior. I want wizards to have the capability to teleport long distances and scry on others. I don't feel those abilities are appropriate for fighters and rogues. Those abilities though, in my opinion, should not outshine characters in combat situations. If that means teleporting takes a while to cast I'm fine with that.
I don't want magic to be common, but I don't want to deal with a setting that makes one class more powerful than all others or a have a single class that is weaker than the others.
So, we're in agreement.
I don't think so. I am fairly sure we were having two different discussions.
I was saying that the argument that the modern fantasy elements do not support the removal of Vancian magic, despite claims otherwise.
I do, however, concede they do not support keeping Vancian magic.
|
|
I don't think so. I am fairly sure we were having two different discussions.
lol. It would appear that way at points, but I think we're closer than it looks. As far as I can see, we're arguing the exact same point from completely opposite perspectives.
I was responding to a comment by Lich-Loved which followed (as I understod it) the following logic: giving wizards at-will spellcasting instead of Vancian casting makes it resemble Harry Potter -> Harry Potter is not high fantasy -> D&D 4E will not be high fantasy.
I was challenging his basic assumption that a Vancian system was synonymous with the high fantasy genre, by arguing that a non-Vancian system can tell high fantasy stories.
You, as I understand it, are pointing out that even if the goal of the new system is to tell "modern fantasy" stories instead of "high fantasy" stories, it is not necessary to eliminate the Vancian system. You are also correct, though I would point out that a characteristic of many modern fantasy stories is a transparency to the magic system which would make Vancian spellcasting feel very stapled-on. The classic stuff tended to keep magic much more mysterious, allowing nearly any system to describe it.
So, I'm saying that we can toss out the old, dusty Vancian system and still tell classic stories. You're saying that we can keep the beloved and time-honored Vancian system and still tell new-fangled Harry Potter stories. Two sides, same coin.
One thing I hope is that they don't make magic so common place that every class does it to one extent or another. A fantasy setting where everyone does magic is just not very interesting to me. Where is the archtype that hates magic or distrusts it? Or the person who thinks using magic is for wimps?
I was responding to a comment by Lich-Loved which followed (as I understod it) the following logic: giving wizards at-will spellcasting instead of Vancian casting makes it resemble Harry Potter -> Harry Potter is not high fantasy -> D&D 4E will not be high fantasy.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I realized this after you pointed out in your post above.
I went on to clarify my points because it didn't appear that you grasped what I was trying to say. Likely because you were looking at it from a perspective other than I intended them.
So, I'm saying that we can toss out the old, dusty Vancian system and still tell classic stories. You're saying that we can keep the beloved and time-honored Vancian system and still tell new-fangled Harry Potter stories. Two sides, same coin.
While I am not fond of the end result of that point, that Vancian magic isn't needed in D&D, your basic premise is sound. There are several fantasy based systems out there that use totally different magic systems. Earthdawn springs to the forefront for vastly different magic, while retaining a very High Magic feel. Well, at least to me.
(A lot of good stuff)
The MMORPG and novel delivery mechanisms are fundamentally different from each other and from the PnP delivery mechanism. Each mechanism provides a different sort of benefit to its participants. Attempting to turn one thing into another (remember those novel-adventure books where you chose the path for the hero?) just doesn't work in the long run, they are too different. While I concede that we can learn something from Wow or novels and use that to make D&D better, we don't need to move the entire system to one of these in the vain attempt to mimic their success and claim new proponents, especially when their fan base has been clearly exposed to and rejected the PnP approach to fantasy delivery.
Agreed. Most of the identified "problems" with D&D (which are more a matter of RPG style and tastes) have already been addressed in the SRD, which makes them OGC, or are such small pieces of the overall system (diplomacy, grappling) that creating a completely new rules system to fix them is overkill.
IMO, what WotC should be doing with 4e is tightening the existing 3.x rules to make them more straightforward while keeping most of the complexity. They should also be instituting a stripped-down "fast-play" version to be included in pre-packaged "introductory" adventures to draw new gamers to the system.