So, I’ve seen several posts in the past few weeks in which people, for some reason or another, have said they didn’t like new magic systems, and others in which people called us curmudgeons or grognards. So, I thought I would write a post explaining some of us hate them, and why I sincerely hope they’re kept out of the Pathfinder RPG.
So, to start thing off, here is my opinion on the matter.
What do I mean by new magic systems:
Defining what is or is not a magic system is a discussion in and of itself, which will inevitably lead to armchair logicians using terms they half-understand from college rhetoric courses. It’s sort of like pornography, I can’t give you a concise definition, but I know it when I see it.
First of all, I’m not talking about variant magic systems. I think these are a great tool for DMs who want to tweak their setting. If you want to use spell points, or the exhausting variant, or all of the unearthed arcana stuff, I’m not talking to you. Have fun.
Second of all, I don’t want to talk about psionics. Whether or not psionics are magic is a question I’m not interested in discussing here.
Third of all, I’m not talking about class features. Depending on definition, Bard performance and Paladin mercies could both be magic systems and both of those are fine and dandy.
What I am talking about are broad systems that create wholly new types of magic or systems that are simply spells but don’t call themselves that. For example, incarnum, book of magic(truenamers, shadowcasters), and artificer infusions.
Why do some people hate them:
Disclaimer: this is not an indictment of all new mechanics. It’s a problem with some new mechanics (poorly designed classes) but it’s a problem that I see being specific troublesome for new magic systems.
In general, the Vancian system is how magic works. It’s not my favorite system, but, for backwards compatibility, and out of respect for the old system, the good folks here at Paizo (and their players) have decided that those are the principles on which magic functions. Druids, Wizards, Clerics, and Sorcerers are all wildly different classes, but all manage to function using the Vancian system. There’s absolutely room for variation from this formula, but that variation is already a part of the existing system. To borrow (sadly) a commonly touted 4e term, it’s a matter of exception based design *shudder*. When everyone’s an exception, there are no exceptions. Not only does adding new entire systems disrupt suspension of disbelief, it gets completely silly for everyone to have some kind of new and rare magic, when such a broad range of existing casters use the same system. Now, at this point, in general, I can simply say no to players who want to play these things. And I do.
To be more specific, the real problem with new magic systems is that they don’t support existing classes and, conversely, they are difficult to support. Things like incarnum, or shadowcasters could easily be done with a series of spells, feats, class features (an incarnum school and sphere, for example), magic items and even, when done well, a prestige class or two, all of which could use the existing magic in a new and interesting way rather than re-invent the wheel. This means that existing classes are getting shiny new options to use with their characters, and that, instead of some whole rare new classes your NPC throws at your PCs, you have rare or unusual spells. It also keeps compatibility issues from occurring, like the following:
-Abjurer: I counter the fecomancer's spell
-DM: Well, he’s not using spells, he’s using turds.
-Abjurer: Uhhh, can I counter that?
-DM: Well, it’s not a spell…and I don’t see a rule…so no
-Abjurer :Dude! I’m built as a counterspeller, and we’ve been fighting these guys for like 5 sessions. You should’ve told me!
-DM: Well, you can’t be good all the time…
-Abjurer: I haven’t been good any of time!
-DM:shhhhh.
-Abjurer: I hate you and I quit gaming forever.
The converse, as I said, is also a problem. It’s easy enough, when writing a new spell, to take a few well-written new base classes into account and decide whether or not they can cast it. And if ,for some reason, they aren’t included, it’s easy enough for the DM to decide if a spellcaster can cast it or not. But, once you have seven new magic subsystems, new books either don’t support them at all, or they chop up book space that might be devoted to cool spells to make room for new binds/shadowthings/turds/infusions. Plus, you don’t want redundancy, so things that’d make dandy new spells for several classes could use might be relegated to one obscure class so it’s at least getting support. The same thing happens with feats and magical items, leading to this:
-Artificer: Awesome, this item grants an extra spell
-DM: You don’t cast spells, you cast infusions.
-Artificer: But…dude, infusions are spells, they’re just spells that you cast on or through an item
-DM: mmmm, sorry the text begs to differ.
-Artificer: But…the book you’re rolling for treasure from was written before artificers existed
-DM: Yeah…sorry about that.
-Artificer: I hate you and I quit gaming forever.
So, what would some of us like to see instead:
I like new mechanics, and I like new concepts, so I’d like to see them done well. For stuff like incarnum, I’d like to see new items (really, I think souldbinds are basically just a type of variant magic item) or, one or two well-written prestige classes. The Incarnum guy and the binder are both cool concepts, they just…need to be written within the existing rules. For stuff like the artificer…can we just call a spell a spell? I see no reason this class doesn’t just have an extremely limited spell list with a few artificer-only spells on it. For stuff like the shadowcaster…why does this exist?
Anyway, I’m very curious what other people’s opinions on this topic are, as there seem to be a very few vocal people on each side. Do we like these new systems? Do we not?
Can I be the first to call you a grognard?
;)
Really though, I see what you mean. And I hate fecomancers too!
On the other hand, I do like the alternate magic systems, so I guess you and I are not gonna see eye-to-eye here.
I think it's fun to introduce something different and new, even though it's often just a skin over something we already have. But sometimes it really is different and new. It presents fresh material to gamers who often have seen pretty much the same thing over and over, all the time, for decades now (at least most of my gamers fit this mold).
I think it imposes a challenge on the players too. Having trouble abjuring those fecalmancies? Well, time to do some research, learn whatever you need to know so next time you face a fecomancer he will be in deep doo-doo...
As for dropping magic items on players in such a way that they can't use them, I'd say that's just bad DMing. Consider a non-magical example. The Monk. How many dungeons from respectable publishers have you seen where 1/4 of the magical items found are nunchucks, sai, sianghams, staves, etc. - monk weapons. Fact is, I have a shelf full of published andventures and I bet if I counted all the magical flaming nunchaku of dragon slaying (or whatever) in all those dungeons, I have less than a dozen magical monk weapons in what amounts to over a hundred levels-worth of adventures. So what happens when a player in my game rolls up a monk? Well, I know, for starters, that I'm going to have to edit a few treasure hoards. If it's my own campaign I will just put monk weapons where I want them, but if I'm using random treasure tables, I will edit those tables to give a useful share of monk weapons.
The same applies to giving out magic items when you have an artificer in the group and your magic treasure tables/books have nothing in them for artificers. It's the DM's job to intervene, not to simply say "Yeah.. Sorry bout that.".
I'm sure since you're posting what you did, that you're one of those DM's who wouldn't say "Yeah.. Sorry bout that.", so I suspect on this point we probably agree after all (though you may not have any artificer players to worry about given your feelings about alternate magical systems, but if you did, I bet you wouldn't drive him to quit gaming forever any more than I would).
I have a similar, if slightly different idea on the subect.
Classes that are spellcasters in all but name and terminology of their spells, such as artificers, shadowcasters, and truenamers for example, are something I don't think we need in the game. The intent behind the artificer class for example, was a class dedicated to the creation of magic items, with a bit of an adventurous/exploratory streak. Cool idea, one I like, kinda like Indiana Jones meets McGuyver, I'm down. In implementation though, I think it could have been done better. Giving them a list of spells that aren't spells just needlessly complicates things. Other companies made artificer like classes, without running into that hang up (Priateer Press and their Arcane Mekanik comes to mind.)
On the other hand, classes like binder, or the incarnum classes, if implemented correctly, I think can add some interesting flavor to the game. I thought, and my group thought, that Binder was done pretty well, but we also didn't look at them as a spellcaster. The abilities that had, and could use, made for a unique class, and one that interacted with existing material fairly well. Sure, it would have been nice to see a vestige or two in books outside of Tome of Magic, but that lack doesn't hurt, since all it takes is some decent fluff about a dead/forgotten being who would have sufficent power, and you cna craft a vestige around that. Incarnum on th other hand, really complicated gameplay, an didn't fit in as intuitivly to the game, so, for me and my group, got seen as more of a disruption to the game than an addition. The idea was nice, but the implementation fell flat for us.
So for me, I don't want to see new classes using spells that aren't spells, and casting but not casting. New classes that use a nifty mechanic and label it magic, not a problem with it, as long as they aren't tossing spells without calling them spells (no, I don't consider the binder to be a spellcaster, they get spell like and supernatural abilities, but use them the exact same way every other being, including established classes/races, use them).
|
I see your point in so far as the problem with "what is magic" classification. IF the designers do ever give alternate systems like those, it should be spelled out in a sidebar, "Magic is Magic" As long as you can identify what alternate magic system is being employed through spell craft or kn:arcana, then it should be able to be countered. Though your examples showed how a vindictive DM would handle the situation.
I do like other systems, I have the half-grognard template applied, certain aspects of the game I like, Vancian magic isn't one of them, although, point-based has other problems, I like skill based casting.
Vanara Fecomancer FTW!
Vanara Fecomancer FTW!
Maybe, maybe.
But I just cannot see Seoni the Fecomancer appearing in any supplement any time soon...
I don't like new systems too. I love alternate systems. I use Everyone-as-Sorcerer in some games and a system as warlocks (at will) in others. Variant and alternate FTW.
I think there is room for any type of system in a game. I like having the options. As mentioned then its up to DM's to select what they want for their campaigns and use them.
I really enjoyed the Incarnum book. It was very easy to select and add some Incarnum material to a game with just a feat or two and it gave you plenty of flavor.
Same with the Binder. They built the system so you could pick up and add the system to your game with feats.
The Shadowcaster is slightly different in its approach. It actually used some spellcasting, spell-like abilities, AND supernatural abilities. I had a player run one in one of my campaigns and didn't really come across any issues though.
Truenaming is an example of a system that should have been ironed out a little more. The skill based system was great...but at higher levels it become increasingly harder to use any of your abilities at all without magical items to increase your skill.
(I played a Truenamer in a friends game and it was REALLy fun. The DM ended up awarding me a item that gave a skill boost and thus I was able to use my abilities. I was also the party "Healer" using truenaming to grant fast healing to the party Knight.)
|
ummm call me stupid or whatever, but aren't variant systems essentially a different system just using some elements of the existing system?
In all honesty variant systems have been part of the game from at least 1st edition. They are as much D&D as the Vancian system is. They just never appeared in core books from TSR or WOTC.
Why do I seriously dislike the Vancian system? It makes no sense at all. Honestly why doesn't the Rogue forget how to pick a lock each time he does so. Shouldn't a Rogue have to prepare pick lock each day? Or perhaps a Fighter should prepare Cleave each day.
I prefer a skill based magic system.
Another reason I dislike Vancian magic is the schools. Umm how many books, have you ready about abjurers. After decades of playing I still have to look that up. I know what elemntalism is. I read about elemntalists. Unfortunately you can't really make an elemntalist with the current Vancian magic. But I have never ready a story about abjurers.
Just because something has always been a part of D&D doesn't mean it should be. Vancian Magic is simple, easy for rules, and makes no sense at all. In 3.x, an edition that strove to reproduce roleplaying in a "realistic fashion" the Vancian system should have died a long awaited death.
It is interesting that 4E, the edition that throws realism out the window, is the one that did away with Vancian. While I seriously dislike the system they do have, at least they finally killed the Vancian system.
Vancian Magic is simple, easy for rules, and makes no sense at all.
Actually, memorizing spells before using them can make quite a lot of sense, when you're dealing with magical energy - particularly ones that require intense study in order to harness. If you think of the mind as actually providing the energy for the spell in just the right way, instead of merely harnessing energy already in the world, it does make a lot of sense.
Spontaneous casters don't fit so well in the Vancian system, and would probably feel better with spell points, but the academic wizard fits better here than in pretty much anything else.
|
I must really be in the grognard camp....
My main issues with alternate magic systems started with Tome of Magic and so it seems for the others.
I love the visual aspect of the book but that ends here.
The binder makes for a decent show, but I am not thrilled a t real-life "sorcery" implied.
The truenamer is really inept. D&D is a rules-heavy game, even if there are efforts to make it run better with PFRPG. So having all the other characters struggle with rulebooks and strict adherence to the mechanical effects of each spell/power/feat, while allowing someone else next to basically just do gurgling noises and have whatever they want happen ... just a spectacularly bad idea I think.
As for the shadowmancer ... there was already plenty of shadow/shadow-like/plane of shadow/youname it effects, spells and items in the game.
WHY break the wheel and reinvent a whole system ? You could perfectly achieve a similar effect using the existing rules. In fact Paradigm concept did in Living Arcanis with the Holy Champion of Cadic.
It adds nothing, AND forces you to rememorize yet another additional set of rules, as if we did not have enough of them already.
And in Incarnum case, the binding soulstuff so you gain items .... bwa ! I can't even respect the idea enough to discuss it. Same as shadowmancer, plus ridiculous, and the text was written so badly it was really a pain to understand.
Another reason I dislike Vancian magic is the schools. Umm how many books, have you ready about abjurers. After decades of playing I still have to look that up. I know what elemntalism is. I read about elemntalists. Unfortunately you can't really make an elemntalist with the current Vancian magic. But I have never ready a story about abjurers.
Interesting point. Without commenting on my opinion of the point, I can express my opinion as an author who has extensively studied the craft of writing fantasy fiction, there is a reason you haven't read about abjurers.
First and foremost, just how many fantasy novels have you read where the world is full of spellcasters running around casting spells to solve all their problems?
The answer is probably none. Oh, sure, a few such novels exist out there, but I'm at a loss to name any that reached world-wide success.
For what it's worth, a novel needs challenge. Needs growth. The heroes need to begin small and grow throughout the novel (or trilogy, or extended series, etc.). If every hero just solves his problems with magic, the reader feels cheated, robbed of the chance to see his beloved heroes learn and grow.
Gandalf cast less than two spells per novel in which he appeared, and those were mostly petty magic. Ventriloquism (which might not have been magical at all), light, etc.
Harry Potter uses lots of magic, but he doesn't really know how, and he gets a lot of it wrong, or fails often, so using magic to solve all his problems is just about impossible for him.
Even Luke Skywalker couldn't use the force to solve all of his problems.
The Sword of Truth, Wheel of Time, Belgariad, Jhereg, Fafhrd and Gray Mouser, Riftwar Saga, the Shanara novels, etc. Give me time I could go on nearly endlessly. They all have many spellcasters of varying degrees of power, but all of them rarely use any magic at all.
Magic is anathema to learning, growing, and solving problems. It is anti-climactical.
So, authors use magic very sparingly. It's flavor, fluff, scenery, but it isn't plot.
So, with magic being fairly rare in these magical realms of fantasy fiction, there is no need for abjurers.
D&D needs abjurers because in D&D, we DO solve many, even most, of our problems with magic. Magic is on every street corner, in every dungeon and crypt, it is commonplace throughout the land, and abjurers have plenty of magic out there for them to abjure.
Quite the opposite of fantasy fiction, when you get down to it.
And if you take all the spells away from an abjurer that deal with magic, magical effects, and magical or pseudomagical abilities, you're left with a very small list of spells indeed. Spells such as Arcane Lock, Shield, Protection from Arrows, etc. And truthfully, I have seen authors use magic such as this - though I have not seen them build an entire character out of this type of magic.
That is why there are no abjurers in fantasy fiction, and that is also why there is a great deal of use for them in D&D and Pathfinder.
Defining what is or is not a magic system is a discussion in and of itself, which will inevitably lead to armchair logicians using terms they half-understand from college rhetoric courses. It’s sort of like pornography, I can’t give you a concise definition, but I know it when I see it.
...
Third of all, I’m not talking about class features. Depending on definition, Bard performance and Paladin mercies could both be magic systems and both of those are fine and dandy.
What I am talking about are broad systems that create wholly new types of magic or systems that are simply spells but don’t call themselves that. For example, incarnum, book of magic(truenamers, shadowcasters), and artificer infusions.
I'm curious as to which group you would sort something like my variant bard into. (No, this isn't an attempt to make the discussion personal so that I can get all indignant: if you think it's poorly designed or that its effects should have been spells, you're more than welcome to say so. :) ).
In my mind, "bardic music" (especially when expanded on to this degree) is a magic system. It's a way of producing magical effects which is completely divorced from D&D's "spell" mechanic. To achieve these exact effects with bardic spellcasting I would have needed to hack the hell out of the spell system. Not only that, but I would have gone out of the way to spell out things that you're complaining about: bardic music shouldn't be able to duplicate just any new spell effect. You shouldn't be able to counterspell a bard song.
Reading your recent post, though, it sounds like you aren't talking about this sort of thing (or at least, you aren't talking about the old bardic music).
This makes me want to think that you're real issue is with new magic systems which aren't different enough (from spells) to carry their weight. However, I've also heard you condemn SLA-based classes like the witch or warlock, which really do work differently from spells.
For what its worth, wizards haven't "memorized" and "forgotten" spells since 3.0 came out. Wizards spend an hour or so starting to cast several spells, so that they have a "mantle" of unfinished spells around them, and then do the last few bits of the spell in combat to get it to go off.
I've liked this new explanation since I first read it.
For what its worth, wizards haven't "memorized" and "forgotten" spells since 3.0 came out. Wizards spend an hour or so starting to cast several spells, so that they have a "mantle" of unfinished spells around them, and then do the last few bits of the spell in combat to get it to go off.
I've liked this new explanation since I first read it.
I love the explanation myself. Loving this system is largely about managing your own pre-conceptions about magic. At some point, I realized that a spell isn't a skill but a discrete formula. Preparation isn't study but ritual that establishes a spell within you like a loaded weapon, and casting components are the trigger.
I've been building upon the internal logic of magic in my own campaign, but I would love to see a whole Sourcebook on the Metaphysics of Magic in Golarion. For example, I'm pretty damn sure that people in the game world are aware of the existence of 9 spell levels. So... what explanations have they cooked up?
In fact, I'm going right back to the request thread with this.
For what its worth, wizards haven't "memorized" and "forgotten" spells since 3.0 came out. Wizards spend an hour or so starting to cast several spells, so that they have a "mantle" of unfinished spells around them, and then do the last few bits of the spell in combat to get it to go off.
I've liked this new explanation since I first read it.
I love the explanation myself. Loving this system is largely about managing your own pre-conceptions about magic. At some point, I realized that a spell isn't a skill but a discrete formula. Preparation isn't study but ritual that establishes a spell within you like a loaded weapon, and casting components are the trigger.
I've been building upon the internal logic of magic in my own campaign, but I would love to see a whole Sourcebook on the Metaphysics of Magic in Golarion. For example, I'm pretty damn sure that people in the game world are aware of the existence of 9 spell levels. So... what explanations have they cooked up?
In fact, I'm going right back to the request thread with this.
Cool. :)
In my game I once explained the existence of "Circles" of magic within the game world: for instance, Raise Dead was a 5th circle spell. A 9th or 10th level cleric was therefor a priest/cleric/caster of the 5th circle, and in turn, a +3 weapon was a blade of the 5th circle.
The players grasped it, but didn't really like it, and it was forgotten after a session or two.
|
|
I'm with you here, Velderan. The biggest failing of Incarnum and the Tome of Magic was the fact that their systems required their own, special obscure classes that were spellcasters that didn't cast spells, but turds. And these abilities were largely (or completely) unavailable to other classes. Sadly, the same can also be said of psionics, divine magic or arcane magic. I guess for me, alternate magic systems have just kind of sucked. Why create 7 systems of magic when 2 should do just fine within the game? That said, I'm always up for looking at new systems; I hope someday someone will come up with something good.
...I like the Vancian system personally, it's part of what makes D&D feel like D&D. At least for me.You know, that's a big part of my dislike of 4E: for all its faults, Vancian magic feels like D&D. Without it, its just not the same.
I respectfully defy you to name the "faults" of the Vancian system.
Until about 1 year ago, I was so indoctrinated by the Shadowrun (and then World of Darkness) style skill-based magic that I grew to hate Vancian as "unrealistic".
Now, I'm back in the other camp. Skill-based magic is fine, but it's not "better".
Skill-based casting was mentioned several times. Color me intrigued. Until a year and a half ago I still played and dmed using Skills & Powers for 2nd Ed. So, I'd like to hear something more about those alternative casting methods based on skills. Please?
Well, in Shadowrun 3rd, you roll a skill to cast. You set a target number based on how effective you want the spell to be. That target number determines how much stun or physical damage you need to cope with once you've cast the spell.
It sounds like it really boils down to not liking new rules that are either:
a) Not fully fleshed out, so there's a lot of DM adjudication required to make it fit with everything else.
or
b) Designed specifically to be different, so that it clashes with player and DM expectations. Nothing ruins a game more than finding out the choices you made actually produce a different result. Planning ahead is a hallmark of RPGs.. cripple this, and it makes things frustrating.
.
So a variant form of casting (Skill based, Psionics, spellpoints, infusions, whatever), doesn't have to be hateful. As long as it follows those two rule up there.
An artificer's infusions would probably be accepted better if they were better described, or more discreetly implemented.
Make a short list of things that don't apply to them, and then treat them as spells in every other way not mentioned.
|
The Arcana system from Blue Rose is also skill based.
Casters (Adepts) received arcana like Battle Dance (Wis), Beast Link (Wis), Beast Messenger, Beast Reading (Wis), Fire Shaping (Int), Object Reading (Wis), Visions (Wis), and others.
Most Arcana were provided by feats called Talents. Talents allow certain Arcana to be used untrained, but a caster could get some good Arcana by taking the Arcane Training feat which provided access to 2 Arcana.
An example "Psychic" build from the book gives the adept the feats Arcane Training (Mind Touch, Psychic Shield), Arcane Training (Mind Reading, Illusion), Iron Will, and Psychic Talent.
Let's look at Mind Touch.
Mind Touch (Cha), can be used to establish mental contact with another mind, with a base difficulty of 10, modified for familiarity with the objet. This allowed you to hear each other's thoughts and send visual images back and forth each roud.
A successful Will save or Psychic Shield check broke the mind touch contact if the effected creature wanted to.
|
|
I think there is room for any type of system in a game. I like having the options. As mentioned then its up to DM's to select what they want for their campaigns and use them.
I agree with "a game", just not "in D&D". The Vancian system was one of the core developments of Gygax and D&D as a game. Changing that changes D&D at a fundamental level. Not saying better or worse, I liken it to changing say gravity. Now D&D (be it pf or 4e) has moved on and evolved and for the better or worse is personal preference. But I am of the opinion that there are founding principles in D&D and they are those decided on by it's creator (Gygax). There was a HUGE outcry about the "new" system that is 4e D&D and it's "non-D&Dness", but as it is want to do irony now rears it's ugly head in pfRPG where "non-D&Dness" is being introduced but in this case seemly embraced?
As an observation more and more what seems to be the focus of D&D-type games is having a large amount of mechanics behind your character. Articles tell you how to more you character around some squares to get the most out of your 5'-step and less about writing background and other things that don't end up giving you +2 to something. I ask are we not so much losing the heart and soul of Gygax's creation mechanically as losing the reason he made D&D - to tell interactive stories?
But on the up side pfRPG is NOT D&D so really what Paizo decide is best for THEIR game based on public opinion isn't a bad thing.
Taking a 5' step to avoid the attacks of opportunity,
S.
I think there is room for any type of system in a game. I like having the options. As mentioned then its up to DM's to select what they want for their campaigns and use them.I agree with "a game", just not "in D&D". The Vancian system was one of the core developments of Gygax and D&D as a game. Changing that changes D&D at a fundamental level. Not saying better or worse, I liken it to changing say gravity. Now D&D (be it pf or 4e) has moved on and evolved and for the better or worse is personal preference. But I am of the opinion that there are founding principles in D&D and they are those decided on by it's creator (Gygax). There was a HUGE outcry about the "new" system that is 4e D&D and it's "non-D&Dness", but as it is want to do irony now rears it's ugly head in pfRPG where "non-D&Dness" is being introduced but in this case seemly embraced?
As an observation more and more what seems to be the focus of D&D-type games is having a large amount of mechanics behind your character. Articles tell you how to more you character around some squares to get the most out of your 5'-step and less about writing background and other things that don't end up giving you +2 to something. I ask are we not so much losing the heart and soul of Gygax's creation mechanically as losing the reason he made D&D - to tell interactive stories?
But on the up side pfRPG is NOT D&D so really what Paizo decide is best for THEIR game based on public opinion isn't a bad thing.
Taking a 5' step to avoid the attack of opportunities,
S.
Well, not an attack, just a thought to chew on...
Is it having the ability to put "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover that makes it DnD, or the design principles and philosophy that goes into making it?
|
|
Well, not an attack, just a thought to chew on...
Is it having the ability to put "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover that makes it DnD, or the design principles and philosophy that goes into making it?
I can answer that... Design Principles. I play and like playing 4e, but still have issues calling it "D&D". For me it is a legal discriptor and NOT an actual discription of the contents. Then again unless you put and "A" on the front to give you AD&D I think I can take issue of some degree with all the "D&D's"...
Did I get away with that?
S.
Well, not an attack, just a thought to chew on...
Is it having the ability to put "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover that makes it DnD, or the design principles and philosophy that goes into making it?
I can answer that... Design Principles. I play and like playing 4e, but still have issues calling it "D&D". For me it is a legal discriptor and NOT an actual discription of the contents. Then again unless you put and "A" on the front to give you AD&D I think I can take issue of some degree with all the "D&D's"...
Did I get away with that?
S.
Its not a right or wrong kinda question. Everyones answer is likely to be different =)
|
|
Yeah, to me Vancian casting says D&D.
Mana says whatever game uses mana.
I like Shadowrun's "fatigue" system, but it isn't D&D.
While "D&D" is a trademark only usable by WotC ATM, D&D is about the traditions and Gygaxian/Arnesonian stuff that makes it different from other games. A lot of RPGs have orcs, magic, dragons, fighter types, stuff like that, but it's the quilt of quirks sewn together from the books and movies Arneson and Gygax devoured that make D&D "feel" like D&D.
Vancian magic is one of those patches on the D&D quilt.
And like Stefan says, 4e is a pretty cool game, but it's hard to think of it as the successor to the game I grew up with because of the many changes to basic assumptions about what makes D&D D&D. That really isn't a knock on 4e, as, like I said, the system is pretty good, it's a reflection on my grognardedness, and my stubborn belief in what D&D should be.
I'm old. Meh.
I think there is room for any type of system in a game. I like having the options. As mentioned then its up to DM's to select what they want for their campaigns and use them.I agree with "a game", just not "in D&D". The Vancian system was one of the core developments of Gygax and D&D as a game. Changing that changes D&D at a fundamental level. Not saying better or worse, I liken it to changing say gravity. Now D&D (be it pf or 4e) has moved on and evolved and for the better or worse is personal preference. But I am of the opinion that there are founding principles in D&D and they are those decided on by it's creator (Gygax). There was a HUGE outcry about the "new" system that is 4e D&D and it's "non-D&Dness", but as it is want to do irony now rears it's ugly head in pfRPG where "non-D&Dness" is being introduced but in this case seemly embraced?
As an observation more and more what seems to be the focus of D&D-type games is having a large amount of mechanics behind your character. Articles tell you how to more you character around some squares to get the most out of your 5'-step and less about writing background and other things that don't end up giving you +2 to something. I ask are we not so much losing the heart and soul of Gygax's creation mechanically as losing the reason he made D&D - to tell interactive stories?
But on the up side pfRPG is NOT D&D so really what Paizo decide is best for THEIR game based on public opinion isn't a bad thing.
Taking a 5' step to avoid the attacks of opportunity,
S.
I have always and will continue to object whenever someone calls on the sanctity of "old school D&D" (or, worse, directly invokes the name of Gygax) as a means of staunching inventiveness, creativity, and the continued evolution of the game. I like vancian casting and I am happy that Pathfinder still uses it, but introducing new systems is still 100% in keeping with the spirit of the game as its creators intended.
"Vancian casting" is not what D&D is about. Imagination is what D&D is about. This game was never intended to be a static thing. Boundaries and restrictions were never, ever what this game was supposed to be about.
|
|
I think there is room for any type of system in a game. I like having the options. As mentioned then its up to DM's to select what they want for their campaigns and use them.I agree with "a game", just not "in D&D". The Vancian system was one of the core developments of Gygax and D&D as a game. Changing that changes D&D at a fundamental level. Not saying better or worse, I liken it to changing say gravity. Now D&D (be it pf or 4e) has moved on and evolved and for the better or worse is personal preference. But I am of the opinion that there are founding principles in D&D and they are those decided on by it's creator (Gygax). There was a HUGE outcry about the "new" system that is 4e D&D and it's "non-D&Dness", but as it is want to do irony now rears it's ugly head in pfRPG where "non-D&Dness" is being introduced but in this case seemly embraced?
As an observation more and more what seems to be the focus of D&D-type games is having a large amount of mechanics behind your character. Articles tell you how to more you character around some squares to get the most out of your 5'-step and less about writing background and other things that don't end up giving you +2 to something. I ask are we not so much losing the heart and soul of Gygax's creation mechanically as losing the reason he made D&D - to tell interactive stories?
But on the up side pfRPG is NOT D&D so really what Paizo decide is best for THEIR game based on public opinion isn't a bad thing.
Taking a 5' step to avoid the attacks of opportunity,
S.I have always and will continue to object whenever someone calls on the sanctity of "old school D&D" (or, worse, directly invokes the name of Gygax) as a means of staunching inventiveness, creativity, and the continued evolution of the game. I like vancian casting and I am happy that Pathfinder still uses it, but introducing new systems is still 100% in keeping with the spirit of the game as its creators intended.
"Vancian...
Huh.
Ok, I'll take M:TG, WoD and Ars Magica, put them in a blender, paint them with Hero, publish and slap "D&D" on the cover. Doesn't work.
D&D is a flavor, like GURPS, HERO, WoD, etc are flavors. Take the marshmallows out of rocky road and you don't have rocky road any more...
What makes D&D D&D is purely a matter of opinion. You can say that 4e isn't D&D- in fact, you have ever right to- but the lion's share of 3e veterans appear to disagree with you. They're playing 4e.
Which isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, anyway. Vancian casting is in Pathfinder and no one is talking about taking it out. If you're talking about new magic systems, you're adding to the game, not taking away.
Anyone who thinks that additions to the game (possibly even quirky or ill-fitting additions, such as barbarians or monks) aren't in keeping with the spirit of D&D clearly hasn't been playing for very long.
Again, you don't have to like new magic systems, or even think they're appropriate for the game, but to invoke "old-school D&D" as a mantra against inclusion is ridiculous. Old-school D&D was inclusive to the point of absurdity.
|
|
I have always and will continue to object whenever someone calls on the sanctity of "old school D&D" (or, worse, directly invokes the name of Gygax) as a means of staunching inventiveness, creativity, and the continued evolution of the game.
Staunching inventiveness? Nope, just saying that at some point "evolution" can change something beyond it's original form. Do you still refer to the person sitting next to you as "hey you, single celled organism"? I would think not, as humans, althought we started as such things, we have evolved to a point where we renamed ourselves. Yet in "spirit" we are still the same replicating molecules.
Now in D&D's case pfRPG suits me fine (love the game), an evolution of D&D but make no mistake it is NOT D&D. 4e retains D&D only in name almost if we dig out the original works of Gygax for comparsion. But for reasons of brand recognition and legal tradename ownership (which they rightly can do) WotC would be silly as all hades not too call it D&D. Both are excellent fantasy games and great fun however.
Name me one adventure idea or character concept you could NOT make under AD&D. One that you think requires the "improved" inventiveness and creativity of later editions. I'll see if I can prove you can. I love a challenge.
S.
PS: I am in NO way implying ANY edition is better than another.
Personaly I'm a fan of the Vancian system, although I don't have problems with any alternatives.
Psionics in 3rd ed technically added the spell-point system and I think that the sorcerer could also be a good candidate for alternation, if the class wasn't so 'core' (with 3.something compatibility).
For me the wizard class is the paragon of Vancian spellcasting and the class best suited for it.
What makes D&D D&D is purely a matter of opinion. You can say that 4e isn't D&D- in fact, you have ever right to- but the lion's share of 3e veterans appear to disagree with you. They're playing 4e.
In my experience, the lion's share of 3rd edition players actually disagree with you. Either they don't play 4e, or they play it but don't like to think of it as D&D.
What makes D&D into D&D is to a point a matter of opinion, but I agree that there are certain things that SCREAM D&D, things that if removed, don't ruin the game, but definitely change the feel from D&D to "something else."
I mean, I'm not agreeing with the OP that new magic systems are bad. I actually like the options. But that's just it, OPTIONS. The Vancian magic system is part of what makes D&D the game it is. Not because it was in previous editions, there are plenty of things that have either been dropped or changed drastically throughout D&D's history. Vancian magic is D&D because it is very much in the flavor of D&D for the party's Fighter to yell back at the Wizard "Cast SOMETHING, ANYTHING, before this dragon kicks my ass completely!" and the Wizard to respond "But I'm out of spells!"
Duh duh DUUUUUUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Staunching inventiveness? Nope, just saying that at some point "evolution" can change something beyond it's original form. Do you still refer to the person sitting next to you as "hey you, single celled organism"? I would think not, as humans, althought we started as such things, we have evolved to a point where we renamed ourselves. Yet in "spirit" we are still the same replicating molecules.
Exactly. You don't say that Rock & Roll is the Blues, but that's where it came from. Punk isn't Rock & Roll, but it came from it. Each change was enough that though it still has similarities and influences, each became a different monster.
I like the different kinds of magic systems in 3.5 & PF. Vancian is cool if that's what you want to play, but the warlock mechanics are fun, especially for a newbie who doesn't have time to learn all the spells and stuff, but still wants to be a "caster."
Likewise, the classes in Tome of Magic provide some really neat mechanics and play options that never existed before. The binder lets you change your role in the party every day--you can be a tank, stealthy, healer, blaster, illusionist, scout, whatever, one day, and choose a different role the next. Also, binders have supernatural powers--this means you don't have to worry about things like AoOs, Spell Resistance, or spell levels, so it can be a little bit easier than other "spellcasting" classes. Although a binder isn't really a spellcaster, and not just because of the supernatural hullabaloo. They're mostly self-buffers, like barbarians, monks, and paladins, but potentially more versatile, if focused, in their abilities.
The Truenamer introduces a neat mechanic. You won't run out of magic, but it gets harder and harder to use. So at 1st level, you won't cast both your 1st level spells and then have to go home to rest. You just have to keep trying. You're not as potent as a warlock (cast all day), but you're potentially a lot more versatile.
I agree the shadowcaster is a little weak and clunky (you have to wait til 7th level to cast the same 1st level spell twice in 1 day???), but it's very flavorful and can be quite powerful (I figured out a way for an 18th level naked (no equipment) shadowcaster to kill a CR 25 dragon in 1 round). Probably not the best example if you don't like new magic systems and think they can be abused.
But my default setting is: let someone play what they want, and I'll play what I want, and hopefully we'll have fun playing together.
I once played in a 3.25 low magic campaign, and the DM and the single magic-using PC used a totally different magic system from the standard D&D rules. It was awesome! My character didn't know anything about magic (he was a ranger) and I didn't know anything about the magic system (I didn't know the magic rules), so it really enhanced the role playing because magic really was mysterious. I didn't have to fake ignorance. And I could ask the magic-user questions about magic, and he would answer them, and I would have to trust him, not a rulebook. It was really, really neat.
I once played in a 3.25 low magic campaign, and the DM and the single magic-using PC used a totally different magic system from the standard D&D rules. It was awesome! My character didn't know anything about magic (he was a ranger) and I didn't know anything about the magic system (I didn't know the magic rules), so it really enhanced the role playing because magic really was mysterious. I didn't have to fake ignorance. And I could ask the magic-user questions about magic, and he would answer them, and I would have to trust him, not a rulebook. It was really, really neat.
I hope my "Age of Legends" campaign setting will create this kind of awe in non-caster characters.
Exactly. You don't say that Rock & Roll is the Blues, but that's where it came from. Punk isn't Rock & Roll, but it came from it. Each change was enough that though it still has similarities and influences, each became a different monster.
Staunching inventiveness? Nope, just saying that at some point "evolution" can change something beyond it's original form. Do you still refer to the person sitting next to you as "hey you, single celled organism"? I would think not, as humans, althought we started as such things, we have evolved to a point where we renamed ourselves. Yet in "spirit" we are still the same replicating molecules.
I'm not sure how strong this analogy is, but I'll play along:
Punk has as much to do with Rock & Roll as Rolemaster has to do with D&D. But, even without crossing genre lines, Ozzy is still a far cry from Elvis.
My point is that D&D was intended to keep changing as time went on, and this is where the analogy breaks down. Gygax and Arneson created a game which they new would change according to the whims of its fanbase: anyone who has taken even a casual look through the 1e DMG will tell you that.
Yes, there are also going to be offshoot games which owe everything to D&D yet embody something else, but labeling Pathfinder as one of them would be grossly hyperbolic (unless you a.) Don't feel that AD&D/3e were really D&D either- in which case I still contend that you've seriously missed the point-, or b.) are simply speaking of brand names, which we've established is something different). This is far from the biggest change that the game has undergone.
In my experience, the lion's share of 3rd edition players actually disagree with you. Either they don't play 4e, or they play it but don't like to think of it as D&D.
Your experiences are hardly a core sample. We all influence and are influenced by the tastes of the gamers we associate with.
Consider 4e's sales (or what little we know about them, at least). Now realize that most of those people are not going to game stores or internet forums to argue and defend this game: they're simply playing it.
I once played in a 3.25 low magic campaign, and the DM and the single magic-using PC used a totally different magic system from the standard D&D rules. It was awesome! My character didn't know anything about magic (he was a ranger) and I didn't know anything about the magic system (I didn't know the magic rules), so it really enhanced the role playing because magic really was mysterious. I didn't have to fake ignorance. And I could ask the magic-user questions about magic, and he would answer them, and I would have to trust him, not a rulebook. It was really, really neat.
That's pretty cool. :)
It makes me reconsider making class info available to players who aren't actually playing that class.
WTF is wrong with fecomancers? My "maker" was one.
For stuff like the shadowcaster…why does this exist?
While back in 3E this phenomenom was merely a byproduct of everyone writing whatever they wanted for d20, in PF it might actually become a necessity given how PF's core classes are oriented towards specialization, which means plenty of concepts are not available. Sure, there might still be PrCs, but some players don't want to wait 6 levels to finally start playing the character they wanted to play from the start, so you need more base classes.
You're free to ostracize these non-conformists and call them names, but to publishers they're all Paying Customers, their money is as good as anyone's, so you can be certain more and more base classes are bound to come to PF, if not from Paizo, then from someone else. Now, any publisher presuming of possessing a single real game designer in their payroll is likely to include in whatever add-ons they create notes on how their magic systems interact with already existing magic systems for compatibility purposes (like the psionics-magic transparency rules from the SRD) so that shouldn't be an issue as much as GMs simply not wanting to bother with extra-reading.
Exactly. You don't say that Rock & Roll is the Blues, but that's where it came from. Punk isn't Rock & Roll, but it came from it. Each change was enough that though it still has similarities and influences, each became a different monster.
Staunching inventiveness? Nope, just saying that at some point "evolution" can change something beyond it's original form. Do you still refer to the person sitting next to you as "hey you, single celled organism"? I would think not, as humans, althought we started as such things, we have evolved to a point where we renamed ourselves. Yet in "spirit" we are still the same replicating molecules.
I'm not sure how strong this analogy is, but I'll play along:
Punk has as much to do with Rock & Roll as Rolemaster has to do with D&D. But, even without crossing genre lines, Ozzy is still a far cry from Elvis.
My point is that D&D was intended to keep changing as time went on, and this is where the analogy breaks down. Gygax and Arneson created a game which they new would change according to the whims of its fanbase: anyone who has taken even a casual look through the 1e DMG will tell you that.
Yes, there are also going to be offshoot games which owe everything to D&D yet embody something else, but labeling Pathfinder as one of them would be grossly hyperbolic (unless you a.) Don't feel that AD&D/3e were really D&D either- in which case I still contend that you've seriously missed the point-, or b.) are simply speaking of brand names, which we've established is something different). This is far from the biggest change that the game has undergone.
You'd say that Ozzy was Rock & Roll?
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but personally, when you say that, I just think you're crazy. There's a reason that Black Sabbath and Ozzy are in the "Metal" section, and not the "Rock & Roll" (or "Rock/Pop") section in record stores.
Back to the subject at hand: Actually, I haven't even said anything about whether PF is D&D or anything. I don't know why you even brought that up. I was merely saying that Vancian magic is a key part of what makes D&D the game it is.
Yes, the game will change and grow. That's the nature of things, everything changes. All I'm saying is that if it changes enough, it's no longer what it was, and saying it is is ignorant.
D&D is D&D because of the way it is played. You remove levels, or classes, and you wouldn't call it D&D anymore. In my opinion, it's the same with the Vancian magic system. The changes that HAVE happened to D&D have changed the character of the game a bit, but at it's core, it's still played the same way. You're still gonna have 5th level fighters, and wizards using their spells like ammunition.
In my experience, the lion's share of 3rd edition players actually disagree with you. Either they don't play 4e, or they play it but don't like to think of it as D&D.
Your experiences are hardly a core sample. We all influence and are influenced by the tastes of the gamers we associate with.
Consider 4e's sales (or what little we know about them, at least). Now realize that most of those people are not going to game stores or internet forums to argue and defend this game: they're simply playing it.
I once played in a 3.25 low magic campaign, and the DM and the single magic-using PC used a totally different magic system from the standard D&D rules. It was awesome! My character didn't know anything about magic (he was a ranger) and I didn't know anything about the magic system (I didn't know the magic rules), so it really enhanced the role playing because magic really was mysterious. I didn't have to fake ignorance. And I could ask the magic-user questions about magic, and he would answer them, and I would have to trust him, not a rulebook. It was really, really neat.
Your right, my experience isn't a core sample. But what makes you think that those great 4th edition sales are all 3e players. I bet a whole bunch of them are new players.
That's pretty cool. :)
It makes me reconsider making class info available to players who aren't actually playing that class.
|
|
So having all the other characters struggle with rulebooks and strict adherence to the mechanical effects of each spell/power/feat, while allowing someone else next to basically just do gurgling noises and have whatever they want happen ... just a spectacularly bad idea I think.
:) Sounds like the difference between a fighter and a wizard to me. The wizard just gurgles some jibberish and there is magic that destroys continents... yeah ok :)
there is a reason you haven't read about abjurers.The reason that I have never read a story about abjurers is that the very definition is incompatible with magic. The definition from PFRPG, and from 3.x is
The abjurer uses magic against itself, and masters the art of defensive and warding magics.yet the word abjuration has absolutely nothing at all to do with magic.
Abjuration is the solemn repudiation, abandonment, or renunciation by or upon oath, often the renunciation of citizenship or some other right or privilege. It comes from the Latin abjurare, "to forswear").
More appropriately an abjurer would be someone who has foresworn the use of magic.
And let's look at evokers.
Evokers revel in the raw power of magic, and can use it to create and destroy with shocking ease.yet an evokation is
the act of calling or summoning a spirit, demon, god or other supernatural agent
so in reality an evoker is a summoner... ummmmm so what is the difference again?
Ok, I'll take M:TG, WoD and Ars Magica, put them in a blender, paint them with Hero, publish and slap "D&D" on the cover. Doesn't work.
D&D is a flavor, like GURPS, HERO, WoD, etc are flavors. Take the marshmallows out of rocky road and you don't have rocky road any more...
actually, flavor has absolutely nothing at all to do with D&D. I no longer play D&D. I play Pathfinder now. The reason I stopped playing D&D is that D&D changed its flavor. No matter what you might like to think, 4E IS D&D, and Pathfinder is not. You slap D&D on the cover, and yeah, it IS D&D, that is what they did with 4E. That is what they did with 3.x. I mean really 3.x has nothing at all that feels or has flavor like my beloved Basic D&D. Does that mean that 3.x was not D&D? Does that mean that 2E was not D&D?
The Vancian system is NOT D&D. 4E no longer uses the Vancian system so that argument makes no sense at all. And for people who say 4E is not D&D, maybe they need to look at the cover and see that logo that says otherwise.
4e retains D&D only in name almost if we dig out the original works of Gygax for comparsion.
D&D retains the original setting, the monsters unique to D&D (Mind Flayer, Beholder, Yuan Ti among others) that make up more of the D&D worlds and flavor than just the magic system. In fact 3.x retains very little of the flavor of earlier game versions -WHERE IS THAC0?. One reason was I slow to adopt 3.x was that it certainly was NOT my D&D. It had almost nothing at all in common with the game I had played for years. The mechanics were bulky, omnipresent and oppressive, unlike earlier versions of the game. Face it, 3.x was some guys' idea of making fantasy roleplaying "realistic." How silly is that?
I like new magic systems because I find the Vancian system boring. Not only for the resource management aspect, but more importantly because magic grows into 1,000 spells and items and the focus feels lost. When you have the shadowcaster, the binder, the dragonfire adept (because the warlock wasn't focused enough), and incarnum you have systems which limit themselves to a focus, and by that focus the magic actually means something, has as much depth as a good character.
I don't think you could have this in core D&D without revisions: class spell lists would have to be sharply narrowed and items would need to be changed so that you don't just get rid of them when a shiny new one comes along. If that requires slaughtering some sacred cows then I'm all for it because I believe the result would be better for it.
But remember 3.x introduced the Sorcerer, a completely useless class in and of itself, that mimics the Wizard, right down to the spell list. But I know what you mean. Wouldn't the Sorcerer have actually been cool if it used a different magic system, if it wasn't a clone of the wizard? Actually wouldn't it be cool if the differences between divine and arcane magic were something more substantial than nothing at all?
Take Summon Monster, a cleric has a scroll and a wizard tries to read it. He can't. Why? The wizard has the EXACT same spell on his list? Well, because it is a divine spell, not arcane. Ummmm same EXACT spell! HELLO!?
Okay, now don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying it is wrong to dislike other systems of magic. And while I think the Vancian system is probably the worst system out there, it works well enough mechanics-wise to make playing easy- it just makes no sense- and yes there were alternate rules and others who hated Vancian even back in the 70s & 80s that I know of. Quite simply, the gaming industry is really big enough for everyone to play the way they want to.
Sure, it's fine to say "I don't like new systems" (which amuses me when people are saying this about a new gaming system called Pathfinder- may be BASED upon an old system but it IS a new system) but I seriously object when saying "I don't like new systems" turns into meaning, "and that means I object to other systems being suggested for you to use, because you have to play my way."