Oh, yeah, relevant to the conversation, though not indirectly, is how Tar-Baphon might have done his Witchgates (exceedingly minor Carrion Crown spoilers).
It's worth reading - Brandon Hodge himself said it was, and I quote, "the most amazing post I have ever seen."
:D
EDIT: to note the spoilers aren't really that big - just a single thing, really, and vague enough that it might not give anything away, regardless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All you'd be doing is reintroducing the problems that led to them being removed in the first place, and you would still have people complaining about the magic system and it's unfair weight on the system. The only real difference is that different people prefer different solutions; the base problem was there from the very start.I've played OD&D, and every version since then, and it's never been my experience that the expansion of supermagic that is evident in Pathfinder was based on any sort of problem or instability within the system.
I disagree.
Three things (at least) helped keep supermagic under control in AD&D. First, wizards were extremely ineffective at everything other than spells -- even with the primitive non-weapon proficiency system, wizards didn't get enough of them to be useful. Similarly, wizards couldn't wear armor and couldn't wield effective weapons, so there's none of this '+5 mithril buckler' nonsense.
Second, magic items were rare and magic item crafting was extremely difficult to the point of effectively impossible. (The official examples in the DMG suggested that a permanent magic item should require a wish to make, and just getting the materials to write a single scroll should require an entire adventure.) So parties couldn't rely on cheap and easy utility items; if you couldn't get a chime of opening or even a knock scroll, someone's going to have to open that door by hand.
Third, the effectiveness of magic dropped off dramatically as your opponents got more powerful. Saving throws depended purely on the target's class and level, and so it didn't matter how powerful you were, a level 15 cleric would laugh at your puny spells. It was also a lot easier to shut down casters. Any amount of damage would do it, for example, and with the casting-time system and the speed factors for weapons, there was a very good chance that an ordinary fighter could put a thrown dagger into your shoulder mid-fireball. This was, in fact, a standard tactic. You didn't get a concentration check or anything to avoid this, you just lost the spell.
Most of these limitations were lifted in various house rules because they slowed the game down unfunly (no one used speed factors, for example) or because people thought it would be more fun (item crafting is fun, because you can actually play with all the cool trinkets listed).
Basically, the game is more fun if magic is less restricted. That's one of the clear lessons of forty years of history. But this also suggests that if you're trying to restrict magic, most people will think you're making the game less fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, the only gaming approach where teleporting shouldn't work is some kind of hard-core simulation where there is way more anti-teleportation effect than there is in pathfinder. So, house rules. And that's not unreasonable as a notion, but the players shouldn't be surprised OOC to find out that their options are suddenly shut down.It's not really house rules. New spells can be created by anyone, by the book (page 219 of the Core Rulebook), and why wouldn't a BBEG trying to secure a stronghold create all sorts of new anti-teleportation wards?Because there are rules, or at least guidelines, about how new spells work. And the first guideline is to look at the existing spell list and make sure it's balanced.
Any spell that is better than teleport trap would therefore have to be at least seventh level and probably higher. Making it cover a substantially larger area, enough that you can't even teleport "near" the BBEG's stronghold, should be at least an 8th level spell.
If we're talking about a group of 9th level characters, they shouldn't be going up against an opponent capable of casting 8th level spells. (That caster is a CR+5 encounter at a minimum, not counting minions or environment.)
The alternative is that you're being horribly adversarial, to the point I'd consider it outright cheating. ("Oh, yes, he's developed a new first-level spell that does 10d6 of fire damage to every opponent within 1000 feet. Reflex save to reduce the damage to 9d6.")
Unhallow with an attached Dimensional Anchor says hi.
Ooh! Good catch. :D
Bottom line is this: if a 5th-level spell is powerful enough to transport a party across the world to a specific location, then the "guidelines" for spell creation should allow for an equal-and-opposite effect by a spell of the same level.
I can use a first-level spell to inflict the dead condition on a creature -- therefore, the guidelines should allow a first-level spell to remove it?
Your "bottom line" is nonsense, and fortunately the designers didn't follow it.
Defense is usually more difficult than offense, because the offense has the advantage of knowing exactly where and when the attack will be made. (Re-read your Clausewitz if you don't believe me.) The larger an area you are trying to defend, the harder it is, of course.
If you want to make a 5th level spell that will stop a single teleport attempt that you designate at casting time, that's easy enough to do. If you want to make a spell that will stop any and all teleport attempts over a long period of time, that's substantially more powerful an effect than 5th level.
Not to mention extremely unsatisfactory to a great many players that wanted to enjoy using magic without being flimsier than a piece of paper.Yes, that is exactly the phenomenon I'm talking about, and it is a social issue, not a narrative one. The narrative value of magic being difficult and dangerous to use is repeated in almost every fantasy story ever written, from Lord Dunsany to J.K. Rowling.
The problem is that most writers acknowledge that it's usually the implementation of magic that can be difficult or dangerous, not the concept. And even Tolkien included effects that would amount to PF cantrips that both Gandalf and the elves used routinely. Rowling also had Harry and his friends routinely using small spells from the very get go as well. So it's not narratively sound to say that a level 1 wizard can barely get a magic missile off, but that is precisely what usually happened in most games. Also, the social issue very quickly becomes a narrative issue when the player of the wizard is forced to manipulate the rest of the game just to have a chance of getting even a 1st level spell off successfully. At least with PF, a fighter at higher levels can still be effective in the right circumstances. Before that, a low level wizard that didn't seize narrative control was simply dead or doing so little that the character was functionally not there. Personally, I find the view that magic must always be this terrifying and mysterious thing a large part of why D&D will never find any balance on the issue. I much prefer a more scaled approach where common magic is common and understood, but higher level magic is rarer and harder to study and control. Eberron, to this day, is still the best world I've seen created, because it embodies this perfectly; magic as a concept is able to be used in the game, but players don't feel entitled to every high level effect the system provides for.
Unhallow with an attached Dimensional Anchor says hi.
Any spell that is better than teleport trap would therefore have to be at least seventh level and probably higher. Making it cover a substantially larger area, enough that you can't even teleport "near" the BBEG's stronghold, should be at least an 8th level spell.
Forty foot radius. But that's a good catch.
Bottom line is this: if a 5th-level spell is powerful enough to transport a party across the world to a specific location, then the "guidelines" for spell creation should allow for an equal-and-opposite effect by a spell of the same level.I can use a first-level spell to inflict the dead condition on a creature -- therefore, the guidelines should allow a first-level spell to remove it?
Your "bottom line" is nonsense, and fortunately the designers didn't follow it.
Defense is usually more difficult than offense, because the offense has the advantage of knowing exactly where and when the attack will be made. (Re-read your Clausewitz if you don't believe me.) The larger an area you are trying to defend, the harder it is, of course.
If you want to make a 5th level spell that will stop a single teleport attempt that you designate at casting time, that's easy enough to do. If you want to make a spell that will stop any and all teleport attempts over a long period of time, that's substantially more powerful an effect than 5th level.
So what would you say about a level 6 spell like say Scrying can be defeated by a something that isn't even a spell.
Scrying: a scrying spell creates an invisible magical sensor that sends you information. Unless noted otherwise, the sensor has the same powers of sensory acuity that you possess. This level of acuity includes any spells or effects that target you, but not spells or effects that emanate from you. The sensor, however, is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours, and thus functions normally even if you have been blinded or deafened, or otherwise suffered sensory impairment.
A creature can notice the sensor by making a Perception check with a DC 20 + the spell level. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell.
Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of these limitations were lifted in various house rules because they slowed the game down unfunly (no one used speed factors, for example) or because people thought it would be more fun (item crafting is fun, because you can actually play with all the cool trinkets listed).
That wasn't the way I saw it happen at all. I never once heard a single complaint about the limitations to wizards being unfun, or slowing the game down. I believe that was a social phenomenon that came later, and was perhaps retrofitted into history. Not the way it actually happened, from my observation.
Basically, the game is more fun if magic is less restricted. That's one of the clear lessons of forty years of history. But this also suggests that if you're trying to restrict magic, most people will think you're making the game less fun.
Yep, that's the exact attitude I'm talking about. For me, and those I have gamed with, the opposite is true. In fact, we don't even think of it as "restrictions", because we never felt entitled to unrestricted power in the first place. Meanwhile, the newer school of player feels that "restrictions are less fun", but then this is the result -- and it doesn't sound like it turned out to be that much fun after all, based on the comments in this thread.
Forty foot radius. But that's a good catch.Unhallow with an attached Dimensional Anchor says hi.
Any spell that is better than teleport trap would therefore have to be at least seventh level and probably higher. Making it cover a substantially larger area, enough that you can't even teleport "near" the BBEG's stronghold, should be at least an 8th level spell.
For a year. You could easily protect an entire castle with a half months worth of spells.
The bigger point is that a level 4 spell Dimensional Anchor is capable of defeating level 5 or higher spells like teleport.
By RAW, you can easily stop players from using scry and fry with just Unhallow, Dimensional Anchor and lead sheeting
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what would you say about a level 6 spell like say Scrying can be defeated by a something that isn't even a spell.
Even better! And another good example of how magic acts in a believable fantasy narrative -- that is, it has limitations. And what self-respecting BBEG would spend years creating a lair, and not put a sheet of lead lining in the walls? Of course, if your players read every detail of a spell, and use it to their advantage, that's "good play". If a BBEG does the same thing it's called "DM Fiat". Makes no sense to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of these limitations were lifted in various house rules because they slowed the game down unfunly (no one used speed factors, for example) or because people thought it would be more fun (item crafting is fun, because you can actually play with all the cool trinkets listed).That wasn't the way I saw it happen at all. I never once heard a single complaint about the limitations to wizards being unfun, or slowing the game down. I believe that was a social phenomenon that came later, and was perhaps retrofitted into history. Not the way it actually happened, from my observation.
I can only suggest that your observations differed strongly not only from mine, but also from the game designers'. They didn't write 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, 3.5, and Pathfinder in a vacuum, but in response to market pressures, to make a game that would sell well (because it was more fun).
I'm faintly amused at the thought of Zeb Cook sitting there with the rest of the 2nd edition design team and saying "No, we have to make magic-users more powerful, because that's not what the market wants, and otherwise we might risk making a profit on this game."
Most of these limitations were lifted in various house rules because they slowed the game down unfunly (no one used speed factors, for example) or because people thought it would be more fun (item crafting is fun, because you can actually play with all the cool trinkets listed).That wasn't the way I saw it happen at all. I never once heard a single complaint about the limitations to wizards being unfun, or slowing the game down. I believe that was a social phenomenon that came later, and was perhaps retrofitted into history. Not the way it actually happened, from my observation.
That wasn't what happened with your group perhaps, but other groups clearly had it happen. Even if it didn't happen with the original players, it probably started as soon as the challenge of recruiting new players came up, which would have been fairly early because a lot of those who originally tried didn't bother complaining, they just quit playing what was at the time nothing more than a strange new fad, leaving gaps to fill. When it came time to fill those gaps, you can bet the new blood started asking why the old players stopped playing. At that point, the restrictions would have become a major problem for a lot of groups trying to build a complete party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what would you say about a level 6 spell like say Scrying can be defeated by a something that isn't even a spell.Even better! And another good example of how magic acts in a believable fantasy narrative -- that is, it has limitations. And what self-respecting BBEG would spend years creating a lair, and not put a sheet of lead lining in the walls? Of course, if your players read every detail of a spell, and use it to their advantage, that's "good play". If a BBEG does the same thing it's called "DM Fiat". Makes no sense to me.
I do agree with you on this. Way too many players think it's cool when they manipulate the details of the magic system and the individual spells, but get huffy when the DM tries doing exactly the same thing. I also think that far too few DMs actually run spell users as a player would, feeding the viscous cycle.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because there are rules, or at least guidelines, about how new spells work. And the first guideline is to look at the existing spell list and make sure it's balanced.
Any spell that is better than teleport trap would therefore have to be at least seventh level and probably higher. Making it cover a substantially larger area, enough that you can't even teleport "near" the BBEG's stronghold, should be at least an 8th level spell.
There are some false assumptions here, the largest of which is that a spell to counter teleportation needs to be more powerful than teleport trap. Redirecting a teleport attempt is a much more powerful effect than, say, simply blocking a teleport attempt. Or a spell that blocks the scrying attempt that allowed the characters to teleport right into someone else's lair in the first place. Or a scrying misdirection, that leads to the characters' teleporting intentionally to the wrong location.
I could go on.
Bottom line is this: if a 5th-level spell is powerful enough to transport a party across the world to a specific location, then the "guidelines" for spell creation should allow for an equal-and-opposite effect by a spell of the same level.
This is exactly it. The problem again of course is that the evolution of the teleport - the need to put it in the game from older editions was that the game was player adventure focused. Beat the dungeon sort of design philosophy and as the game expanded to a bigger world with campaign play designers should have put in common "counters" to existing technology (re: magic).
So a passive counter to teleport could easily start at 2nd-3rd level. Think about it - creating a passive ward with a single function that may or may not need to come into play - an insurance spell if you will.
While the teleport spell is an aggressive, convenient, fast and low risk method of possibly attacking a foe/infiltrating his base. Large area/more reliable counter raises the level of the counter-teleport.
As far as the quoted post - we set the rules and numbers we need. The spell level of Teleport trap is based off of a notion of "balance", a concept that is very subjective (when it comes to 3.x at least).
We are not slaves to numbers or systems, at least some of us are not. We realize that things like saves for fighters are not "game balanced" or well written. You can run it as is, house rule it, beg the devs to change it or run a different (and better) game. But there is no one single correct approach to addressing the issue.
And just because it's in print doesn't make it "right" or "correct". I've seen several feats, spells and rules in print that were not worth the paper they were printed on.
-
It all boils down to how relevant or how much of an impact you want those powers to have in your game. In the case of PF and it's precursors they didn't think about the impact of any of their spells on a given game world.
I can only suggest that your observations differed strongly not only from mine, but also from the game designers'. They didn't write 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, 3.5, and Pathfinder in a vacuum, but in response to market pressures, to make a game that would sell well (because it was more fun).
There are two issues being conflated here. The first is "why did this change". I agree 100% it was due to "market pressures".
The second issue is "what is the origin of the market pressures"? As both you and sunshadow21 suggest, it wasn't from complaints about the current system from players that had used it, but rather from new players who approached gaming with a different initial attitude. Of course game designers cater to the prevalent attitude, since attracting new players is key to a successful game publishing business.
New players, raised on different literature, and a different gaming culture, thought "less restrictions would be more fun", and Zeb, et. al. responded with a product that gave the public what it wanted. Reading this thread, it seems that same public is now complaining about the consequences of what they wrought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree with you on this. Way too many players think it's cool when they manipulate the details of the magic system and the individual spells, but get huffy when the DM tries doing exactly the same thing. I also think that far too few DMs actually run spell users as a player would, feeding the viscous cycle.So what would you say about a level 6 spell like say Scrying can be defeated by a something that isn't even a spell.Even better! And another good example of how magic acts in a believable fantasy narrative -- that is, it has limitations. And what self-respecting BBEG would spend years creating a lair, and not put a sheet of lead lining in the walls? Of course, if your players read every detail of a spell, and use it to their advantage, that's "good play". If a BBEG does the same thing it's called "DM Fiat". Makes no sense to me.
Well there is also the problem with adversarial DMs. A lot of players cannot tell the difference between a DM who uses good system mastery to challenge them and a DM who uses arbitrary rulings and unlimited resources to crush them. This is especially true in the middle of an encounter.
I make it very clear that anything I do can be done by the players. Usually once I explain the rules of why something doesn't work, my players realize they can do the same thing, and they are ok with it. Do this for a while, and you build up trust with your players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, that's the exact attitude I'm talking about. For me, and those I have gamed with, the opposite is true. In fact, we don't even think of it as "restrictions", because we never felt entitled to unrestricted power in the first place. Meanwhile, the newer school of player feels that "restrictions are less fun", but then this is the result -- and it doesn't sound like it turned out to be that much fun after all, based on the comments in this thread.
I think you are missing the point many people are saying. I dont have a problem with what magic can do, so long as non-magic can do equally cool stuff. It has nothing to do with unrestricted magical power being a problem.
The original game put tight restrictions and strong limits on what casters can do, but it also meant that often casters were not actually getting to participate in the game. They had their one or two spells that had to be saved, and the rest of the time they were a commoner with a crossbow. Thats not a fun time in my opinion.
Over the editions, we've come to the point where these restrictions are mostly gone. But we didnt adjust for the scale of the impact of those spells (other then damage spells). I dont mind this. I mind that non-magical characters dont get to have the same affect.
I am not upset when a casting player takes some narrative control in my game. I just want things to be equal.
There are two ways to do this. One is to provide non-magical abilities that give such power, the other is to rewrite magic from the ground up.
The whole 'well if you just dont let caster's spells work the way they expect its not a problem' is bs. If a wizard gets the scry spell, he should have a reasonable chance to use scry in the adventure. If he never gets to use it in a meaningful way because everyone knows they should line their homes with lead, you as a dm are being a jerk. You are explicately countering choices made by your players.
Whether its 'logical' or not in the game world is besides the point. This isnt fantasy world simulator. This is a game, you play with your friends to have fun. Never getting to use your cool toys is not fun. Its frustrating, and it becomes antagonistic in what should be a cooperative experience.
I just want everyone to have cool toys, not just some of the people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well there is also the problem with adversarial DMs. A lot of players cannot tell the difference between a DM who uses good system mastery to challenge them and a DM who uses arbitrary rulings and unlimited resources to crush them. This is especially true in the middle of an encounter.
I make it very clear that anything I do can be done by the players. Usually once I explain the rules of why something doesn't work, my players realize they can do the same thing, and they are ok with it. Do this for a while, and you build up trust with your players.
This is fundamentally true for me: anything my NPCs can do, if the Players go through that process, they can repeat it themselves.
That's something I like as a player, and it's something that I hope my players appreciate as a GM.
The fact that few actually do that, though, is somewhat disheartening sometimes.
A few do, however! :D
That wasn't what happened with your group perhaps, but other groups clearly had it happen. Even if it didn't happen with the original players, it probably started as soon as the challenge of recruiting new players came up...Most of these limitations were lifted in various house rules because they slowed the game down unfunly (no one used speed factors, for example) or because people thought it would be more fun (item crafting is fun, because you can actually play with all the cool trinkets listed).That wasn't the way I saw it happen at all. I never once heard a single complaint about the limitations to wizards being unfun, or slowing the game down. I believe that was a social phenomenon that came later, and was perhaps retrofitted into history. Not the way it actually happened, from my observation.
Our groups had it happen with the "original players." The original D&D ruleset was clunky and hard to run, with way too many charts and tables, and a number of companies from that era (e.g., Iron Crown Enterprises) were trying to put out products that were even more simulationist and detailed. (This seemed to make short-term sense, as much of the target audience were wargaming grognards who would rejoice over the level of detail in tabletop war games, but was never really commercially viable in the RPG world, which is why you may not even remember ICE. The only reason they held on as long as they did was because they had the Middle-Earth license.)
At the table, however, it was simply too much work to do the damn math, and every group started simplifying as much as they could. The weapon vs. armor table, for example, got dropped by every group I ever knew, and it was one of the first things that got cut in the transition from 1st to 2nd edition D&D, (although 2nd ed. kept the weapon "speed factors.") Instead, armor was rated vs. slashing/piercing/bludgeoning (chain mail was +2 vs. slashing but -2 vs. bludgeoning), which may have been borrowed from the Virginia group that created ICE. Of course, 2nd Ed. kept THAC0, which made no sense from the beginning -- but that was fixed in 3rd precisely because people didn't like trying to sort out the THAC0 math.
At the same time that this was happening, however, we also saw the beginning of the splat-book power-creep. Some of the best evidence for this is in the various D&D editions, from Basic (1977), Expert (1981), Companion (1983), Master (1985), and Immortals (1986), covering successively more powerful characters (Dates are from Wikipedia, by the way). I'm sure that Immortals wasn't published because TSR wanted to lose money providing something that people didn't want. High-level play and powerful characters are more fun, as voted on by the market.
Similarly, most of the restrictions on wizards were dropped in home games, even among long-standing players (material components, for example, are a whole bunch of BS record keeping) until they get dropped officially in the published material ("spell component pouch").
TL;DR version -- D&D has a long history of evolving, and the direction it's evolving has always been to "more fun," in the opinion of the gamers who are actually buying and playing the game. 2nd Edition D&D provided something that gamers wanted and didn't have, which is why it was publishable in the first place and profitable in the second. And a lot of what it provided was more power to the casters, because more magic == more fantasy == more fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a passive counter to teleport could easily start at 2nd-3rd level. Think about it - creating a passive ward with a single function that may or may not need to come into play - an insurance spell if you will.
While the teleport spell is an aggressive, convenient, fast and low risk method of possibly attacking a foe/infiltrating his base. Large area/more reliable counter raises the level of the counter-teleport.
Using the spell creation rules, you could make a spell that functions exactly like Hallow, but limited in that it only allows you to attach a spell to an area for a year(the other 3 effects of Hallow are removed). Since the spell is basically a weakened version of Hallow, that would put it at a level 4 spell. Combine with diminsional anchor, and you can ward an area for a year the cost of 2 4th level spells. A level 7 wizard could ward quite a large area in a month's time.
This all ignores that to teleport, you need to have viewed the area once. Lead sheeting blocks scrying, so if the area is shielded, then the only way you can teleport in is to have actually been there before.
All of that is RAW. One of the biggest problems with magic in Pathfinder is that DMs are not enforcing the limits on spells that are already in the game.
The second issue is "what is the origin of the market pressures"? As both you and sunshadow21 suggest, it wasn't from complaints about the current system from players that had used it, but rather from new players who approached gaming with a different initial attitude. Of course game designers cater to the prevalent attitude, since attracting new players is key to a successful game publishing business.
New players, raised on different literature, and a different gaming culture, thought "less restrictions would be more fun", and Zeb, et. al. responded with a product that gave the public what it wanted. Reading this thread, it seems that same public is now complaining about the consequences of what they wrought.
Those new players probably aren't always as new as you might think. Many groups would have had to deal with "new" players pretty early on and if those "new" players noticed that clerics tended to be healbots and wizards needed system mastery to be playable at all, as would have been the case in many, many groups, then the groups affected would have had to start adjusting those restrictions pretty early in order to retain players. It's more than reading different literature, it's also the matter of adjusting literary expectations to a table top environment; magic being rare and mysterious is fine as a literary concept, but loses its luster quickly when a person is devoting an entire play session to being a wizard and nothing else. As interesting as Raistlin and Gandalf are to read about, very few players would eagerly embrace playing them in tabletop game; they make far better NPCs than PCs. That would have been just as true early on as it is now. I don't think anyone at first was asking for 3rd edition power levels, but I bet a lot of folks were saying they needed something more than what the initial wizard offered.
I do find it funny that people chose to completely remove the restrictions and are now complaining about the same problem from a different angle, but the removal of the restrictions didn't cause the base problem; it simply highlighted the difficulties in taking expectations from literary works and translating them into an interactive environment.
I think you are missing the point many people are saying. I dont have a problem with what magic can do, so long as non-magic can do equally cool stuff. It has nothing to do with unrestricted magical power being a problem.
Oh, I get this part fully. I don't agree that it's a problem, but I get it. However, the conversation in this thread expanded to also include the notion of magic vs narrative, which is what my more recent posts have addressed. Essentially, I don't agree with the premise that spellcasters have any more narrative power than anyone else.
The whole 'well if you just dont let caster's spells work the way they expect its not a problem' is bs. If a wizard gets the scry spell, he should have a reasonable chance to use scry in the adventure. If he never gets to use it in a meaningful way because everyone knows they should line their homes with lead, you as a dm are being a jerk. You are explicately countering choices made by your players.
If your players expect Scrye to bypass all by-the-book limitations, or in general expect than any power available to them has a "reasonable chance of success" in every -- or even most -- cases ... I don't even know what to say about that, other than it's a perfect example of the new school of thought that I see as a social phenomenon. It also makes me shudder a bit, personally, which is a matter of taste, of course.
|
|
Most of these limitations were lifted in various house rules because they slowed the game down unfunly (no one used speed factors, for example) or because people thought it would be more fun (item crafting is fun, because you can actually play with all the cool trinkets listed).That wasn't the way I saw it happen at all. I never once heard a single complaint about the limitations to wizards being unfun, or slowing the game down. I believe that was a social phenomenon that came later, and was perhaps retrofitted into history. Not the way it actually happened, from my observation.I can only suggest that your observations differed strongly not only from mine, but also from the game designers'. They didn't write 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, 3.5, and Pathfinder in a vacuum, but in response to market pressures, to make a game that would sell well (because it was more fun).
I'm faintly amused at the thought of Zeb Cook sitting there with the rest of the 2nd edition design team and saying "No, we have to make magic-users more powerful, because that's not what the market wants, and otherwise we might risk making a profit on this game."
3rd ed is not a progression of 2nd ed, at least not the way 2nd ed was from 1st. So this is a false comparison.
3rd ed was an effort by wizards to "mainstream" the game, simplify (re: dumb down) the need for tables, charts an obscure knowledge in favor of an easy, unified system to make an "accessible" product. Once TSR died their core philosophy that "power is difficult" died with them.
No doubts that 2nd ed was a power up for casters over 1st, 1st already introduced weapon specialization via Unearthed Arcana, so the next thing would be to give casters a little more. This was done by giving them an extra spell at each level at the cost of school prohibition. That's it. That was the bump. That's what Zeb Cook was thinking of.
3rd ed isn't on the same planet as 2nd ed... or even another planet in the system - it's another galaxy.
BUt I want to comment about the "narrativist approach". Rewritting everything because the PC made a bad decision (teleporting or traveling by land, or whatever really) just diminish the value of this style. It does not matter what the player choose because everything will be accommodated to be "fair" for them. The player made a decision, the world react to that decision in whatever appropriated,done.
I think you may not understand the narrativist style. Narrativist style gaming is not about "fair," but about "fun."
It may help to think of a narrativist group as a group doing improvisational theater. The point is to react to what everyone else in the group is doing in an interesting way. If I'm on stage and the girl in the nun costume announces "I'm pregnant," I might have to abandon my really funny oneliner about the local political situation, because the show's just turned into a sex comedy.
Similarly, if the girl in the wizard costume announces "we're teleporting to Mordor," the appropriate thing to do is to lose the Moria skit because it won't be needed. No matter how much work I put into that marvelous Balrog accent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
magic being rare and mysterious is fine as a literary concept, but loses its luster quickly when a person is devoting an entire play session to being a wizard and nothing else
See, for me, that's exactly as it should be. It took a rare player that wanted to struggle through to become a powerful wizard ... just like a typical fantasy narrative suggests. It meant that in game, just like in fantasy literature, wizards were rare compared to fighters and thieves. Only the players who were seethingly patient and clever were ultimately rewarded with the terrible power of high-level magic.
Later, players came along and wanted to be wizards without any of the work, and they were gratified, so of course nowadays there's no reason to be anything else. Power with no effort -- that's what lacks all fun for me. Where's the challenge? Frankly, I'm glad to see folks realizing the folly of easy wizardry ... again.
BUt I want to comment about the "narrativist approach". Rewritting everything because the PC made a bad decision (teleporting or traveling by land, or whatever really) just diminish the value of this style. It does not matter what the player choose because everything will be accommodated to be "fair" for them. The player made a decision, the world react to that decision in whatever appropriated,done.
I think you may not understand the narrativist style. Narrativist style gaming is not about "fair," but about "fun."
It may help to think of a narrativist group as a group doing improvisational theater. The point is to react to what everyone else in the group is doing in an interesting way. If I'm on stage and the girl in the nun costume announces "I'm pregnant," I might have to abandon my really funny oneliner about the local political situation, because the show's just turned into a sex comedy.
Similarly, if the girl in the wizard costume announces "we're teleporting to Mordor," the appropriate thing to do is to lose the Moria skit because it won't be needed. No matter how much work I put into that marvelous Balrog accent.
The problem with that approach is when teleporting into Mordor is either A. not possible by the rules or B. a really bad idea because that is exactly was the villain is expecting.
If you are dealing with a smart opponent, then you have to assume that they have through of the easy and obvious things, and try the things they may not think of, like say sneaking into Mordor the back way through a deathtrap guarded by a giant demon spider.
I may not get to use my awesome Balrog voice, but the player telling me "Why don't we just fly into Mordor on eagles?" would get a response of "Roll a DC 10 wisdom check" followed by "Do you thing the master of Mordor has flying forces of his own, and don't you think you might be a tad bit obvious?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, for me, that's exactly as it should be. It took a rare player that wanted to struggle through to become a powerful wizard ... just like a typical fantasy narrative suggests. It meant that in game, just like in fantasy literature, wizards were rare compared to fighters and thieves. Only the players who were seethingly patient and clever were ultimately rewarded with the terrible power of high-level magic.
Except we don't typically watch/read the powerful wizards become powerful.
We didn't have to watch Conan do pushups for hours on end in order to build up his muscles.
We didn't have to watch Batman sit there at the architect's desk designing the Batcopter.
We didn't have to watch the Grey Mouser sit there and pick the same lock over and over and over again.
We didn't have to watch Robin Hood fire twenty arrows at a target, then walk down to the end of the field and pick them up.
We didn't have to watch Aragorn wander through the wilderness for ninety years learning woodcraft.
We didn't have to watch Tony Stark sit through a calculus class at MIT.
... and the wizards in fantasy literature typically didn't become powerful wizards through adventuring anyway (as 1st edition AD&D cheerfully pointed out).
Gaining abilities is boring and best handled through a training montage. We did get to see Luke jogging through the swamps of Dagobah --- for about five minutes, and then we saw him go off and do stuff.
Heroic fiction is typically about heroes.
The problem with that approach is when teleporting into Mordor is either A. not possible by the rules or B. a really bad idea because that is exactly was the villain is expecting.
BUt I want to comment about the "narrativist approach". Rewritting everything because the PC made a bad decision (teleporting or traveling by land, or whatever really) just diminish the value of this style. It does not matter what the player choose because everything will be accommodated to be "fair" for them. The player made a decision, the world react to that decision in whatever appropriated,done.
I think you may not understand the narrativist style. Narrativist style gaming is not about "fair," but about "fun."
[...]
Similarly, if the girl in the wizard costume announces "we're teleporting to Mordor," the appropriate thing to do is to lose the Moria skit because it won't be needed. No matter how much work I put into that marvelous Balrog accent.
Well, neither of those cases are "fun," so obviously neither of those cases hold.
Similarly, you're not allowed to say "you can't be pregnant, you're wearing a nun costume and we've set this whole sketch up as a religious piece!" because it derails the whole show.
If you are dealing with a smart opponent,
I'm not. What a stupid hypothetical, from a narrativist point of view. I'm dealing with a fun opponent, so unless it would be fun for him to have thought of the easy things, he didn't.
And conversely, if he did think of the easy things, it's because you've got a fun response in mind, something that the group as a whole will appreciate because it makes for an awesome, epic, story.
Because the important thing is not the plausibility or continuity, but the fun.
I may not get to use my awesome Balrog voice, but the player telling me "Why don't we just fly into Mordor on eagles?" would get a response of "Roll a DC 10 wisdom check"
Well, then there's a very good chance that you'd not be allowed to GM again for a narrativist group, in the same way that there's a very good chance you'd be fired from the theatrical troupe.
Writers talk about the "rule of cool" -- it doesn't matter if something doesn't make sense as long as the result is satisfying for the audience. Anyone in the entertainment business knows that an accurate-but-dull product is a death sentence, and that what you're looking for is something entertaining enough to bring the audience back. That's pretty literally what you should be looking for as a game master as well, because if you can't bring people back for next week's session, it doesn't really matter how much work you put in this week.
Heroic Gaming =/= Heroic Fiction
Heroic fiction is typically about heroes.
No, but people get into heroic gaming because they want to recreate heroic fiction.
|
|
Using the spell creation rules, you could make a spell that functions exactly like Hallow, but limited in that it only allows you to attach a spell to an area for a year(the other 3 effects of Hallow are removed). Since the spell is basically a weakened version of Hallow, that would put it at a level 4 spell. Combine with diminsional anchor, and you can ward an area for a year the cost of 2 4th level spells. A level 7 wizard could ward quite a large area in a month's time.
So a passive counter to teleport could easily start at 2nd-3rd level. Think about it - creating a passive ward with a single function that may or may not need to come into play - an insurance spell if you will.
While the teleport spell is an aggressive, convenient, fast and low risk method of possibly attacking a foe/infiltrating his base. Large area/more reliable counter raises the level of the counter-teleport.
Which is great - problem is since it didn't come already written in core or splat any DM who writes up such a spell is resorting to GM fiat and arbitrarily trying to "screw the caster".
At least that's the mentality directed towards people who want to reign in power or try to eliminate win buttons.
stuff
So running a 5 minute session where players try to do stuff, and automatically succeed at everything they attempt, and thus easily defeat all villains in the world is fun?
If you are allowed to change genres with a "Nun is preganant" ploy, why can I not switch to the drama genre with a "No, she is faking it to cover up her torrid affair with the head nun".
You seem to be running under the assumption that challenging the players and giving them temporary set backs is somehow not fun or that what is fun for the players is the only consideration in play.
|
|
No, but people get into heroic gaming because they want to recreate heroic fiction.Heroic Gaming =/= Heroic Fiction
Heroic fiction is typically about heroes.
And yes, this is a big problem for several reasons:
- Their isn't a single protagonist, there's probably around 4 or more
- It's a game
- Success is not dictated by the need for another book or sequel. It's random w/influence by players choices. These heroes die - often.
- It doesn't always end the way heroic fiction is supposed to end
- Many people do not play heroes
- Your character is not exceptional - unless you are actually running a super-hero game. Other people share the same mechanics and rules and beyond hero points (optional) nothing makes you special.
This is something I instill in any new player of RPGs. You can act heroic, make heroic efforts but you are not a hero by mechanics...aka "the world does not revolve around you".
Using the spell creation rules, you could make a spell that functions exactly like Hallow, but limited in that it only allows you to attach a spell to an area for a year(the other 3 effects of Hallow are removed). Since the spell is basically a weakened version of Hallow, that would put it at a level 4 spell. Combine with diminsional anchor, and you can ward an area for a year the cost of 2 4th level spells. A level 7 wizard could ward quite a large area in a month's time.
So a passive counter to teleport could easily start at 2nd-3rd level. Think about it - creating a passive ward with a single function that may or may not need to come into play - an insurance spell if you will.
While the teleport spell is an aggressive, convenient, fast and low risk method of possibly attacking a foe/infiltrating his base. Large area/more reliable counter raises the level of the counter-teleport.Which is great - problem is since it didn't come already written in core or splat any DM who writes up such a spell is resorting to GM fiat and arbitrarily trying to "screw the caster".
At least that's the mentality directed towards people who want to reign in power or try to eliminate win buttons.
A. I would let my players create the exact same spell if they wanted to. It is a balanced spell, and if both the players and the villains have the spell how am I trying to "screw the caster"? DM fiat is when you only let the bad guys have all the fun toys.
B. I have already pointed out multiples ways to stop scry and fry by RAW. Apparently having a evil wizard with superhuman intelligence actually act like a person with superhuman intelligence is somehow trying to screw the players.
Further to previous:
I may not get to use my awesome Balrog voice, but the player telling me "Why don't we just fly into Mordor on eagles?" would get a response of "Roll a DC 10 wisdom check" followed by "Do you thing the master of Mordor has flying forces of his own, and don't you think you might be a tad bit obvious?"
* "Awesome! We'll get some exciting Red Baron fighter combat scenes."
* "Yeah, that'd be great. Is there any way to, you know, set up some sort of a gatling-wand so I can launch spells at enemy fliers?"* "Oh, I've got it! We'll do The Dambusters and kind of bounce the Ring into the fires of Moria --"
* "-- you mean, Mount Doom -- "
* "-- whatever. Or like that trench scene from Star Wars!"
.... and now you're stuck.
Because this group doesn't want to solve the problem, they want to have a good time. Let's face it, the problem is pretty imaginary anyway. But the fun is real.
Basically, it's a question of trust. A narrativist group typically trusts that the GM wants to tell an exciting and satisfying story, regardless of plausibility. A simulationist group typically trusts that the GM wants to create a robust and consistent world. The problem is that a robust and consistent world is not typically exciting and satisfactory (there's a very high chance, for example, that people will die when put in dangerous situations).
When you're watching a James Bond film, you know he won't die no matter how much trouble he's in, and further that he'll eventually get out and hook up with the lead actress, because to do otherwise would be unsatisfying. On the other hand, the more over-the-top the danger is, the more exciting it is. And that's just how the audience likes it, which is why they flock to Hollywood action-adventure films.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole lead lined castle/dungeon thing is one of the reasons I don't allow 7+ lvl casting.Teleport without error,and alot of other automatic stuff comes online.
The chance of teleporting to the wrong place is fun...and can add to the adventure.
God-like power is good at trivializing encounters,but it doesn't really make it any funner...I'd actually say it does the opposite.
Some people like the feeling of cleverness,or seeing how powerful they can become.
No one is giving out Gold medals for chump bashing though,It's not very heroic.
Teleporting into Mordor would have made for short,s+%+ty story.
In a world where this can be done you can bet that every location of importance in the realm would be lead lined and powerfully warded against this (most obvious) tactic.
Imagine what people would do on earth...there would be massive Blitzkrieg teleportation wars because ambushing ones enemies is incredibly powerful,and anyone with the power to do so will.
Not that lining the world with lead and wards contributes any fun either,it's just what would happen.
Otherwise no one would sleep soundly,knowing that walls and doors count for nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but people get into heroic gaming because they want to recreate heroic fiction.And yes, this is a big problem for several reasons:
- Their isn't a single protagonist, there's probably around 4 or more
- It's a game
- Success is not dictated by the need for another book or sequel. It's random w/influence by players choices. These heroes die - often.
- It doesn't always end the way heroic fiction is supposed to end
- Many people do not play heroes
- Your character is not exceptional - unless you are actually running a super-hero game. Other people share the same mechanics and rules and beyond hero points (optional) nothing makes you special.
None of which is a problem, and most of which aren't even true.
There are four or more protagonists in Star Wars -- Luke, Lea, Han, and Chewie. Multiple protagonists are common in heroic fiction. Ensemble casts are a thing.
Success is never dictated by dice; that's why the GM is there in the first place.
A game will end however the group as a whole want it to end, which means if everyone wants it to end heroically, it will.
Just because a single character isn't a hero doesn't mean that the story isn't heroic. Often a nonheroic character is there for narrative reasons as a foil, and others as an opportunity to develop.
My character is exactly as exceptional as the troupe makes him out to be.
This is something I instill in any new player of RPGs.
Then you're doing a tremendous disservice to the industry as a whole, and I'd very much appreciate if you'd stop before you drive anyone else away from an already weak niche.
God-like power is good at trivializing encounters, but it doesn't really make it any funner...I'd actually say it does the opposite.
I'd suggest that the encounters that it trivializes are typically ones that should be trivialized. Because if the group wanted those encounters, we'd not be trying to skip them to get to the good parts of the adventure.
There's a reason that people talk about "level grinding" in MMOs. The other term I've seen thrown around is "level treadmills." In either case, the implication is that these are not particularly fun activities -- they're activities that I need to do in order to get "good enough" to do what I actually want to do.
Why make the players do something they demonstrably don't want to do? And how is it more fun not to do what you want?
the player telling me "Why don't we just fly into Mordor on eagles?" would get a response of "Roll a DC 10 wisdom check" followed by "Do you thing the master of Mordor has flying forces of his own, and don't you think you might be a tad bit obvious?"What many seem to forget was that the Eagles never entered Mordor until AFTER the Mordor Air Force had effectively been eliminated due to the destruction of the One Ring.
What even more seem to forget is that the Eagles could have entered Mordor at any time if Tolkien thought the story would have been improved thereby. Or, for that matter, if his editor had thought that way.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, it's a question of trust. A narrativist group typically trusts that the GM wants to tell an exciting and satisfying story, regardless of plausibility. A simulationist group typically trusts that the GM wants to create a robust and consistent world. The problem is that a robust and consistent world is not typically exciting and satisfactory (there's a very high chance, for example, that people will die when put in dangerous situations).When you're watching a James Bond film, you know he won't die no matter how much trouble he's in, and further that he'll eventually get out and hook up with the lead actress, because to do otherwise would be unsatisfying. On the other hand, the more over-the-top the danger is, the more exciting it is. And that's just how the audience likes it, which is why they flock to Hollywood action-adventure films.
Folks also love Game of Thrones where almost no character has plot armor. The unknown outcomes of a robust and consistent world are what makes the story/show so exciting.