Paying Dues - Magic-Users

[continued from here]

Monday, I decided it was time to teach my son how to play D&D. I offered him a choice between Holmes Basic and B/X and he decided on Ye Olde Moldvay. Here is a picture of his character sheet:

The writing is mine, other than the name (yes, he decided to name the character after himself). The picture is his (in case folks are wondering, he has a small pet monkey perched on his shoulder...a request from my son, that I allowed him to purchase for 10 gold pieces). All equipment (including a normal dagger...the silver one was "too expensive") is written on the back.

The choice of magic-user was based on his ability scores (3D6, rolled in order), intelligence being his best stat. His choice of spell (magic missile) was based on my brief description of the magic system and each available 1st level spell. This was to be B/X strictly "by the book;" with the only exception being that I allowed him maximum hit points at level one. I opened my book to The Haunted Keep scenario in the book, explained the background and started the game with Diego the Mage (and Meme the Monkey) outside the door to the east tower, where the goblins' tracks had led.

"I blast the door with my magic missile."

I explained (again) that his spell could only be used once per day, and that was really intended for combat. I also explained to him that the tower was fairly dilapidated and the wooden door was rotten and hanging by one rusty hinge...easily opened without the aid of magic. Would he prefer to save his spell? Yes, of course.

He entered the tower and avoided the pit trap (thanks to his 10' pole). After exploring the pit with his rope, he proceeded through the interior door, finding himself in a hallway with doors to both the left and right.

"I blast the right-hand door with my magic missile."

I should point out that my son only just turned five (last month). His relationship with doors are not the same as an adult, nor even an older child. There are many doors he's not allowed to pass through without permission. Doors that are stuck or locked can easily confound him (especially if the key hole is higher than he can reach unaided, as with our exterior door). And, of course, he has no preconceived notions of how the D&D game is "supposed" to be played...I'm trying to NOT instill any of my "gaming sensibilities" into him, wanting him to formulate his own ideas, come to his own conclusions. In the past, I've taken this tactic with "newbie" role-players and found the results surprisingly excellent.

However, here I was running up against the confounding limitation imposed by the D&D system...that ridiculous model that requires characters to "pay their dues," playing multiple sessions of ineffectuality (is that a word?) before becoming even mildly proficient.

Mmm...let me back up a moment. It's not really the model that's "ridiculous." A fantasy character beginning her adventuring career can be expected to be a bit wet behind the ears, and should also be expected (with time and experience) to become more proficient and effective. To me, that's what the whole level thing models...1st level characters are new to the career while a 9th ("name") level adventurer should be pretty darn proficient...near the top of her game, really. At least, that's kind of the implication of making a "name" for oneself, no?

[of course, I realize that's not actually the case. Character hit dice peak at level 9 and most "endgame" options are opened for B/X characters at this level. However, magic-users don't gain their full abilities (spell-wise or endgame) till 11th level, fighters gain even greater attack abilities at levels 10 and 13, while thieve abilities don't start hitting the 90s till levels 11 and 12. In the end, the only thing reaching "name" level actually ensures is the end of new level titles for your character]

But a 1st level magic-user shouldn't even be let out of the tower. Compare such an entity to, say, the children in those Harry Potter novels (and please allow me to say for the record that I dislike a LOT about J.K. Rowling's wizarding world, both as a setting, as a magic cosmology, and even as children's literature. Sorry, J.K.). Look at the newbie wizard, Skeeve, from Robert Aspirin's humorous Myth books. While clearly "apprentice level" youngsters, their abilities utterly dwarf that of a beginning magic-user in B/X...or most Old School editions of D&D.

More powerful than your seer.

This is not a new bitch for Yours Truly, by the way. This post is a pretty good example of my standard gripes. But while I've come to accept (or, rather, re-accept) "Vancian" magic (in light of its injection of a distinct play style...not to mention ease of implementation), I quite simply hate the way it scales. One more time: it's too weak at the low levels; too much at the high levels.

Yes, too much. 30-40 spells...hell, 20 spells...is simply too many for a single session of game play, in my opinion. Consider a typical session: you can expect perhaps 4 to 7 encounters in an evening of B/X play; my sessions average about six, probably four of which have some sort of combat component or potential (interactions with "monsters," in other words). Should magic-users be able to cast a spell every round? Or should there be some threat of "running low," prompting them to husband their resources? To me, 10-12 spells in a game session feels about optimal (2 or 3 per encounter, with another 2 to 3 used outside of combat), with something like 15-18 spells being the maximum (for the highest level characters) for a single game session...though even that feels pretty darn high to me.

Note, I'm talking about the number of spells being cast, not necessarily the number of spells known. I think it would be fair (and sticking with the strategist play style paradigm) to allow a magic-user to actually know more spells than they can cast (that's an AD&D concept, by the way, not B/X). On the low end (for the newbie adventurers), I'd think four or five spells cast would be about right, maybe as low as three for a truly deficient wizard. The problem is, how can you scale that over X number of levels?

Doesn't that dude with the pointy hat look capable of more than one spell?

[in writing this, I am reminded of the Dungeon! board game. In the 1975 edition, wizards received 7 spells to start (each spell being represented by a card that was discarded when cast), but could opt for an additional +D6 spells by choosing to forgo the use of magic swords during the game]

Because THIS is the main "carrot" for the magic-user. M-U players are not expecting to gain much in the realm of combat ability (HPs/attack bonus), but they are expecting to become more proficient in their craft. More spells known, more spells cast, and more powerful spells. Certainly, these things are best linked to level (the more proficient the adventurer, the more powerful the magic)...I'm just not sure they need to be linked in the specific fashion they are.

This is about to go off the B/X grid. Ah, well...just call it a 'thought exercise.'

I suppose the easiest thing thing would be to link spell-casting to hit points. Spells would be given a power rank (say, from 1 to 3) and each spell cast would drain a number of hit points from the caster. I did something similar to this in Cry Dark Future in order to model Shadowrun's "mana burn" system, and it worked pretty good...but then even a 1st level spell-caster in CDF/SR can fall back on an automatic weapon when they're running low on spell juice.

[I say this would be "the easiest thing," though one could certainly fall back on the CHAINMAIL system...as I did in Five Ancient Kingdoms...of requiring a dice roll to effectively cast a spell, with higher level characters having a better chance of casting spells...in effect, making the magic system more-or-less the same as combat. But here I'm trying to preserve the asymmetry of the class and magic system, even if I'm otherwise changing it]

*ahem* The note here is that unlike a traditional "spell point" system (Palladium, as an example) you're only tracking a single resource: your character's health. Plus it measures the effects of pain and suffering as a distraction without the need for "concentration" checks and such. Also, it models that hoary staple of fantasy literature where the mage sells her life to get off "one final spell." I dig all that.

So then, what effect would leveling up have on your character's magical might? Other than increasing your hit points, of course. Well, you'd need gain additional spell knowledge (more arrows for your quiver)...perhaps one or two spells per level...and might increase the power rank of spells that could be learned. With such a system, I'd probably try something like:

1 point spells at 1st level
2 point spells available at 4th level
3 point spells available at 7th level

With 1 pointers being the equivalent of 1st and 2nd level spells, 2 pointers being the equivalent of 3rd and 4th level, and 3 pointers being 5th and 6th level spells.

Alternatively, you could keep the standard rate of spell level gained (2nd level spells at 3rd, 3rd level spells at 5th, 4th level spells at 7th level, etc.)...but I'm not sure that's really necessary. After all, B/X fighters don't learn more weapon and armor types as they level up, and thieves are likewise stuck with the same skills at 1st level as 10th (yes, they get the ability to read languages and magic..but magic-users gain the ability to enchant items and brew potions; it's a wash). Allow each character to start with a number of spells determined by their intelligence...say six for average INT and add the standard B/X modifier of plus/minus one to three.

That gives a range of three to nine to begin and, on second thought, I'd probably limit the number of spells gained to one per level. However, magic-users could attempt to "master" any spell scrolls found (adding the spells to their repertoire) or spend hard earned treasure on additional spell research to increase their knowledge. That's a win-win in my book: players have a good reason to spend gold and it gives me an alternative use for spell scrolls (since they won't function the same under this system as they do in the Vancian universe).

I do want magic-users to pay some dues, after all...I just don't think their dues need to be as high as they are in the default B/X system.

[as always, feedback and disagreement is welcome]

Vance (Take 37)

Vancian magic is so easy.

Which is probably why it's lasted as long as it has, being a staple of the D&D game through almost every edition (we'll forget that 4E experiment for the moment). The ease is, frankly, part of the brilliance of the original game design...it offers yet another type/style of play for players of the Dungeons & Dragons game.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to have stated this, but it's worth noting: it's the asymmetry of play styles that gives D&D much of its charm. Look at the four basic character types:

Fighters are the most basic. They have no special skills, but they have no limitation when it comes to combat, having the best armor, hit points, attack ability, and weapon access of any of the classes. Sure, they are a "one-trick pony" but there is freedom in that. They are the foundation of the adventurer archetype.

Thieves (yes, I realize they were not a class in the earliest iteration of D&D...they became one of the four archetypes beginning with Holmes and extending through 2E) trade in fighting ability in exchange for some nifty options. However, they're options (skills) are extremely random, giving the character type a "gambler" aspect, as I discussed in a previous post. For players that like a little risk, and who don't feel the need to wade into combat (unless odds are on their side: see backstabbing), it's a different way to play. And yet their low-staying power (poor HPs, poor armor class, tendency to make more trap-related saving throws) requires a degree of smarts about how they gamble.

Clerics, like thieves, trade in basic fighting ability for additional abilities and, unlike thieves, there's little gamble involved. Spells always function and few of them are the type that give saving throws (being beneficial), and even their turning ability functions automatically as they go up in level. However, clerics also carry the additional burden of responsibility...a thief may not always be required to sneak ahead or disarm a trap (due to the potential for failure), but parties have an expectation that clerics will use their spells and abilities for the party's benefit. Indeed, while the thief's lowered combat ability is in staying power, clerics have excellent armor, hit points, and saving throws...they are supposed to "stick around" in order to fulfill their responsibilities in support of the party.

And then there's magic-users. Magic-users have almost no combat ability (compared to the other classes), but what they have is a number of versatile, powerful spells that automatically function, unless directly targeting a foe (who then usually receives a saving throw). There is no expectation of magic-users to fight well, no gamble in the use of their abilities, and little responsibility associated with their spells (other than to use them as they become viable options). Players of magic-users must be smart (and fairly good strategists) to play well due to the nature of the Vancian magic system.

Changing that magic system dramatically...as I did in Five Ancient Kingdoms, for example, or as recent editions of D&D have done...actually undermines one of the neat, asymmetrical pieces of the D&D game. I've been thinking about this a lot the few weeks (since doing that Holmes review) as I consider different magic systems for designs I'm working on. The system of linking power to level...limited (finite) power, but versatile power that functions without any sort of dice roll...balances well with the limitations of the magic-user class to make for a very different style of play.

And the more I think about it, the less I want to take away that option, that style of play...even though the Vancian system (so called) doesn't model the kind of magic system that I want in a fantasy adventure game. Magic-users in D&D don't look like anything but out of legends or fairy tales or S&S novels....not in the way their magic functions, that is...but they provide an alternative version of play, an unbalanced version that (when considered next to their other basic counterparts) makes for a nice stew of play types.

And the interaction of those play types, at the game table, helps give an organic feeling to the D&D game, very different than a game like, say, FATE or Savage Worlds where all the players are using the same mechanics, jockeying for ways to bring their strongest aspects to bear rather than working in a completely different fashion from their peers. Vancian magic, as designed, is part of the reason why D&D play has been able to sustain interest for as long as it has.

I just hate the way it scales.

So...working on that and (possibly) a few other minor tweaks, but will otherwise (for the foreseeable future) be scrapping any and all non-Vancian systems for my D&D-ish games. It hurts (a little) and means more spell lists (*sigh*) but the end benefit outweighs the discomfort. I think.

Crap...back to the drawing board.

Delving 4E (Part 4)

Over the years of writing this blog, I've posted many times about the Vancian magic system of Dungeons & Dragons, usually regarding some dissatisfaction with it. It doesn't scale well, for example, being too weak at lower levels, too strong at higher levels. Or (more commonly) it's not "magical" enough for my taste, failing to model the fictional magic systems of fantasy literature.

I've delved into the origins of the system, reviewed Gygax's inspirations and reasonings, perused Arneson's own system, studied the original base of Chainmail (even adapting Chainmail's system to my own Five Ancient Kingdoms), mused and analyzed its development over editions, and postulated ideas on "how to make it work better." Hell, when I wrote The Complete B/X Adventurer, I included several new spellcasting classes and gave each one different, new mechanics to distinguish them from the standard magic-user/cleric paradigm. I've written many new spells for the B/X game (both in TCBXA and my B/X Companion) and adapted spells from other books to the B/X (Vancian) system.

That being said, I have precious little experience actually playing magic-users, in any edition of D&D. Other games, sure (Ars Magica, WW's Mage, FATE's Dresden Files, Shadowrun, a couple others here or there)...but none of those use the magic system of D&D, even the close analogies (like DragonQuest and Palladium). There's nothing out there like D&D's Vance-based system that combines auto-effects (no dice roll is required to succeed) with resource management (limited spell quiver). At least, not that I'm remembering at the moment. It is (as I've written before) one of the key elements that identifies that D&D system. Love it or hate it, Vancian magic IS Dungeons & Dragons.

Or, at least it was Dungeons & Dragons. That, of course, changed with 4E. All protestations to the contrary (that magic is still limited by daily and encounter allotments), if you're allowing mages to create magical effects at will (and all spell-users get two to three such "at will" powers, in addition to unlimited use cantrips) then you've stepped outside of the Vancian paradigm. And I think it's fair to argue that the requirement of making D20 rolls for any attack spell (versus a target's appropriate defense), would also negate any claim to the traditional Vancian system.

But then, I did write (earlier in this series) that 4E's "not really D&D." You can argue the issue, fine. My point is not to look at the system as it's own thing, nor spend a bunch of time bashing it (for not being "real D&D"), but rather talking about my thoughts/feelings on its various aspects as points of interest...things I like that I might adapt ("steal") for my own D&D (or D&Dish) game. Now, regarding that magic system...

Not sure if I've told you this story that I heard (2nd hand) from an American couple that've been living down here the last seven years. It seems that a couple years ago, there was a yoga fad that swept Asuncion (as fads sometimes do in communities), with yoga studios popping up all over the nicer neighborhoods. A yoga guru (non-Paraguayan) was invited down here and was making the rounds, visiting places, giving talks, and generally enjoying a little local celebrity. Then at a seminar he was giving, he had the audacity to suggest that, in other parts of the world, people felt that eating a little less red meat might be a good thing for one's personal health and fitness. Not becoming a vegetarian, mind you, just going a little easy on the beef that is such a staple of the Paraguayan asado culture.

He was booed off the stage and run out of town. The fad has faded to only a couple-three remaining studios since then.

SOooo...my first thoughts on seeing the magic system in 4E is: I don't totally hate it. In fact, there are some things I kind of dig here, at least conceptually, if not the actual execution. Here's the bullet point list (for the sake of expedience):

• I like the split between spells that are known/cast-able at a moment's notice (the character's "powers," whether arcane or divine) and ritual magic. There's a bit of an extension of the 3E "wizards-can-take-feats-to-master-favorite-spells-but-otherwise-have-them-in-their-books."
• Ritual magic, in general: I like how any person with the correct feat and skill can learn some ritual magic without a need to multiclass. To me, this is very "fantasy literature-esque."
• I like the limitations imposed by the daily/encounter restrictions. Rather than allowing MUs to stockpile bunches of lightning bolts (for example) there's a need to diversify the actual spells used in play, making the wizard's spell-throwing more interesting, and adding back that challenge of deciding when to use that dispel magic and when to look for another option.
• At the same time, I like there's an epic feat that allows wizards to recast daily spells. An "epic wizard" should be able to toss around multiple fireballs, unlike lesser magicians.
• I like the idea of implements and how specialization allows minor bonuses without penalizing the caster for losing an implement (gives flavor and encourages style with one swift stroke). 
• I like immediate interrupt spells, like shield, giving a kind of counterspell feel without some clunky mechanic.
• I like the at will cantrips. I've always liked the idea of magicians performing such minor, inconsequential magics without limit, both because it allows magicians to always remain "magical" even when they're not throwing prismatic sprays AND because creative players can figure out ways to make such spells effective and consequential when they're regular "quiver of spells" are exhausted.
• While "at will" attack spells (which will be used over-and-over again, especially at low levels when a character's number of dailies and encounter attacks are expended) have the potential to make the game feel LESS magical (because the magic becomes so common) in a high magic setting I can see it a little. Better than the magic-user with the bandolier of knives, after all. Still, you run the risk of looking like a cartoon action hour sorcerer or comic book character shooting lasers out of your hands. I'd rather these were all limited use spells...cloud of daggers, by the way, is an awesome spell that should have been an encounter attack and definitely needs to be 'ported into the B/X game.
• I already mentioned previously that I like the warlock class. Again, not thrilled about eldritch blast being "at will," but if you're going to go with at will attack magic, that one's an awesomely appropriate class feature.
• The cleric's prayers are closer to the non-spellcasters' power sets than the arcane dudes (and definitely non-Vancian). However, I will say I prefer the deity-specific channel divinity feats to 3E's endless lists of bonus "domain" spells. Oh, yeah...and godsmite is uber-cool on just about every level. Who wouldn't want to hit some cretin with that?

None of which is to say there isn't some serious ugliness within the system. I read somewhere that the placement of magical items in the PHB equipment lists encourages 4E games to feature setting with the dreaded cheesiness of "magic shops," in order to turn hard-earned treasure into enchanted gear commensurate with their level. Personally, I see no reason anyone would do such a thing when a 175gp buys anyone the enchant item ritual which any arcane skilled character of 4th+ level can use to create any/all magic items...for the same price as their listed cost (in other words, the party is pretty much presumed to be its own "magic shop"). Talk about taking the magic out of the game and making it mundane.

And, of course, the game suffers from its basic design of a skirmish-level war-game. Nearly all the spells are combat oriented, making the wizards' "fighting style" nothing more than "choose-your-flavor-of-ranged-damage-this-round." But that's beating the proverbial dead horse, yeah? We don't have to keep flogging the overall design choice (when 4E has already "failed" and been replaced with the latest-shiniest). Still, it's worth pointing out that this may be the least "magical" of all the D&D systems I've seen (note: I still haven't read the 5E books). My own magic designs have tried to move away from "wizards as damage dealers" and this opposite approach...well, it just makes the magical ordinary.

Gone are the spells one might use outside of a combat situation or dungeon environment...things like rope trick and weather control and cacodaemon. Or even wall of stone...how am I supposed to magically construct my tower of sorcery?  Heck, there isn't even a charm person spell...that's got to be a first for any tabletop RPG. Too much imagination required, I suppose.

[the 29th level bard power spellbind is the closest thing I find, though I admit I'm not looking terribly hard; fast friends (another bard power in the PHB2) is pretty weak sauce compared to the traditional charm person]

Which reminds me: the level assignments for powers are a little jarring. Mirror image at level 10, fly at 16, Evard's black tentacles at 19? Yeah, throwing a 4th level spell like EBT into the experience tier where 1E magic-users usually expect a 9th level spell is odd...but not as odd as seeing confusion (another traditional 4th level spell) as a 27th level epic spell. Hell, timestop becomes available at level 22!

[confusion is also incredibly watered down...it targets a single creature, and forces it to make a single basic attack against its nearest ally. All that an average of 15 damage (+INT bonus). That's what a 27th level wizard can do? Blast of cold (level 15) would appear to be more effective. The scaling here is really strange]

But all that's besides the point. 4E may be too strange a beast for me to play, but there's is some interesting ideas buried here. All right....that's enough for tonight.

"I need a long rest..."

Chop! Staves and Spells

[this is my final post in a series discussing the removal of "saving throws" from your D&D game. You can see the formative thoughts here and here; links to Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3...plus a four part series on "dragon breath"...um...here, here, here, and here. Let's get to it]

Well, it's about time...a few ten thousands of words and a couple weeks later, we're finally down to the last saving throw on the chopping block: Staves and Spells. I managed to get both kids to sleep (Sofia is literally "rocking out" to Don Felder's Heavy Metal (Takin' a Ride) next to me), so the beer's been cracked and the laptop's been fired up. Let's see if I can get through this before people start waking up.

I'll start with the easy one first: Staves. A magic staff is just a lesser extension of the magic-user's might...if we can get rid of magic wands (either because we don't need saves to dodge magic ray-guns or because we're rolling them into the overall category of "magic") then we can easily drop the longer version.

*CHOP*

Now let's take a step back for a moment and talk about dice rolling, that hoary tool for randomly resolving in-game happenings. Fortune (as the injection of random chance is called) is a great little bit of impartiality and surprise...a little somethin'-somethin' to keep everyone on the edge of their seat during a game, even when the DM's narrative abilities fall short. Gamers of all stripes are prone to dislike too much random chance...we've outgrown the strategy-less days of Candy Land and Chutes & Ladders, after all. Allow us at least some (and hopefully more) input into what happens...otherwise, why not just hit the casino down the street and throw some cash at the roulette table?

[*ahem* okay that's a ridiculous apples-to-bowling balls comparison. Forget I mentioned it]

Let's put it a different way: while we like some randomness - to surprise us, to thrill us, to not leave things up to GM fiat (see Amber: Diceless Role-Playing) - it's certainly not the dice-rolling that drives our interest in role-playing games. Even when we hear the phrase, "Let's hurry up and get to some dice rolling," what's being asked is that we get to one of the exciting, active parts of the game...because those are the times when dice-rolling (for the most part) are going to take place. This IS a "fantasy adventure" game we're talking about, ja?

SO...we don't want too much randomness...just enough. That's one of the reasons I wanted to cut damage rolls out of combat: find a way to incorporate the resolution of random damage (if you even want random damage...see my Five Ancient Kingdoms for a different option) into the attack roll, rather than random roll followed by random roll (followed by random roll again, if you're using an "initiative" mechanic). It's one of the reasons that I hate things like "dodge/parry" rolls (sorry Rifts, Chaosium, etc.). Let's just get to the meat of the action: it's your turn in the combat round, you get one roll to see how successful you are, then it's someone else's turn. Period.

I'm not a minimalist...I still want some back-and-forth in a resisted sequence of action (which is what combat is), rather than "one roll scene resolution" (see Story Engine as an example). I just want things tightened up, okay?

[and, yes, there are sometimes when extra dice rolls are cool with me: usually games that involve lots of gunfire and bullets and rolls to see how riddled with holes you are...but that's not sword-swinging fantasy, 'kay?]

And so now we get back to our topic at hand, and the problematic issue of D&D's Vancian magic. See, when we look at Chainmail we see that magic was divided into two, one-roll type actions:

• Fireball/lightning throws from a wizard wherein certain targets (Heroes and whatnot) received a "save" roll, and
• Other spells that had no save, but required a dice roll from the wizard to succeed.

Wizard takes a spell (or spell-like) action and one die roll determines whether or not it is successful. In the former it's a save roll, in the latter it's the wizard's own casting roll.

What D&D did with its adaptation of Chainmail magic was to remove casting rolls (and counter-spelling, but that's its own story) and instead limit spell-casters in other ways...namely, quantity of spells and spell accessibility. Chainmail had some limits in quantity of spells (though even the most insignificant of Seers still had unlimited fireballs and the ability to turn invisible at will), but any wizard, regardless of power, could know the spell cloudkill or anti-magic shell (for example), not just spell-casters of "high level."

By implementing this Vancian sensibility (spell-casting is not so much a matter of the character's skill, but a matter of storage capacity), it makes it a lot harder to CHOP magic saving throws. I mean, if you make magic-users roll a D20 to cast spells (the way fighters have to roll a D20 to successfully damage someone), then its simple to say, hey, no save allowed buddy. Because...well, I've asked this question before in this series (several times) so I guess I can do it once more: what the hell does this saving throw versus magic represent?

My 11th level magic-user has memorized the spell Flesh to Stone, successfully implanting the living, wriggling bit of magic in my noggin. What is the difference between casting it at a 1st level fighter rather than a 10th level fighter? What does the one with the "10" saving throw have that the one with the "16" doesn't?

"Must...not...turn...to...stone!"

Absurd. The magic is the magic. For that matter, what does it mean that the 1st level fighter makes his saving throw? If it's a matter of willpower "resisting the magic" then Why O Why does a save versus a lightning bolt still mean the character takes half damage? Why doesn't the same principle of resistance (no effect) apply?

This bullshit is further confused with 3rd edition and its different saves (Reflex for lightning bolt...as if someone could dodge a flash of lightning...versus Will for imprisonment), and compounded in 5th edition with different ability saves for different spells (Constitution, Dexterity, Wisdom, whatever).

"Dodge this, pal."

"It's just magic, dude...get over it." Bullshit, I say. It's not "magic"...it's game design and lazy game design at that. You have a resource (magic) that has an in-game effect and you're giving the target an "out" (saving throw). But just as we can read a fantasy novel and say, hmmm, this plot is full of holes and doesn't make sense logically we can say, boy this design is full of inconsistencies. Sure...there's magic and it works "magically" (the way a "hyperdrive" in space opera works on scientific principles that can't be explained in real life). But if they don't have internal consistency, they're rendered absurd or ridiculous or whatever you choose to use as your derogatory term. Do you want to play Steve Jackson's Munchkin? Or do you want to explore a fantasy environment that works on consistent natural (and supernatural) laws? Sure, sometimes the beer & pretzel game is fun, but if you want satisfying, long-term play you need to hold your game to a higher standard than just, "well, this works."

Because that's what you're doing now: oh, we want magic to automatically work BUT we don't want it to automatically work. Dude...figure it the fuck out.

Now, I've got my own take for the new fantasy heartbreaker, but my magic works on different principles than the Vancian model. For purpose of illustration I'll describe it a bit...though keep in mind that mine's a different animal from standard "wa-hoo" D&D:

Magic is hard, but not relegated to people with a natural "gift." Anyone who falls into the "above average" education level will know some magic, but only dedicated scholars are going to know more than a handful of spells. Similar to mathematics (in our real world), magical knowledge is gradually built upon a foundation of knowledge...you need to learn "prerequisite" spells before you can learn the higher arts. There are different "levels" of spells (three, in fact), but they are not restricted to a particular character level...a higher spell level just means a more difficult spell to cast. This difficulty is modeled by the target number a spell-caster must roll to successfully create the spell. Having a higher level of experience means its easier to cast the spell (like a high level fighter has an easier time hitting a low armor class).

Now, keeping in mind that this is how magic operates in my heartbreaker, where would a saving throw fit? If a fighter hits you with a sword, do you receive a saving throw to avoid taking damage or (God forbid!) death? No, of course not. If you failed to wear adequate armor, picked a fight with a dangerous warrior, and stayed within sword-reach, well...that's on you, buddy. Why should magic be any different?

As it is, the arbitrariness of saving throws in D&D is pretty ridiculous. The only thing that doesn't keep a DM from achieving a TPK with a 1st level magic-user using a (save-less) sleep spell on a group of 1st - 3rd level adventurers and then slitting their thieving throats is the sheer kindness of the DM. Why shouldn't the NPCs arm themselves with the exact same repertoire of magic as the average PC adventuring party? Magic-users are supposed to be highly intelligent right? Why play them stupidly? Have the orc shaman throw an auto-hit magic missile at the 1st level party's magic-user and watch that "sleep bomb" go down the toilet.

But noooo, "that's not fair." You'd much rather have a game where the PCs go into the dungeon, fire off a sleep spell at a group of goblins, retreat, rest for the night, then come back and do it again. Boy, am I tired of that.

SO...I don't have (or need) saving throws versus magic for my new heartbreaker. If a character wants to resist a command while under a mind control spell (as is depicted so often in Conan-style fantasy), they have a (limited) resource called Grit that they can spend. But that doesn't help you folks who are still playing D&D. How can you chop saves, while sticking with your Vancian paradigm?

Well, let's look at the B/X spells that would give saves and see if we can just get rid of 'em (the way the designers have already done away with saves for 1st level spells sleep and magic missile). Okay, my list shows the following: Charm Person, Light/Darkness (in the eyes), Continual Light/Darkness (same deal), Phantasmal Force (disbelieve), Web, Fireball, Hold Person, Lightning Bolt, Charm Monster, Confusion, Dimension Door, Polymorph Other, Curse, Cloudkill, Hold Monster, Magic Jar, Death Spell, Disintegrate, Flesh to Stone, and Geas. Oh, wait: web doesn't have a saving throw in B/X...good. Cleric spells with saves include the same ones listed, plus Silence 15' Radius (if cast on a person), Cause Disease, Dispel Evil, Finger of Death, and Quest. With a few slight alterations, we should be able to axe all the saving throws here.

[sorry, I could go through all of OD&D and AD&D and BECMI but that would take a much longer series of posts than what I really want to do. You should be able to extrapolate as necessary]

Magic-user spells first:

Charm Person: this spell basically gives the caster a "12" reaction roll ("Enthusiastic Friendship") and should be treated as such: the monster is charmed, not dominated. Any command/request that goes against something the creature would normally do should break the spell. Creatures with a high intelligence should never be charmed for more than a day.
Light/Darkness, etc.: don't allow this to target a creature...period. Cursing someone with blindness is a 4th level spell; why would you allow the PCs to do so with a cheap Continual Darkness?
Fireball/Lightning Bolt: reduce overall damage to D6 per two levels (round up). No saving throw.
Hold Person (or Monster): limit this to creatures whose HD do not exceed the caster's level.
Phantasmal Force: just don't allow it to do harm. If it's touched, it's dispelled; forget "disbelieving."
Charm Monster: as charm person, but again limited to no more HD than caster level. Groups must have less than half HD/level.
Confusion: problematic for a number of reasons. Just limit it to creatures of 2HD or less (or reduce the duration for larger creatures). More useful as a battlefield spell (see Chainmail).
Dimension Door: don't allow its use on others.
Polymorph Other: do not allow targeting of creatures with more HD/level than caster.
Curse: why should a player receive a save when there's no save against a cursed scroll? Answer: they shouldn't.
Cloudkill: limit poison to damage. Duh.
Magic Jar: limit to creature with HD/level not exceeding caster's level.
Telekinesis: no save allowed.
Death: this doesn't need a save; use as written.
Disintegrate: limit to single creature with HD/level not exceeding caster's level.
Flesh to Stone: limit to creature with HD/level not exceeding caster's level.
Geas: limit to creature with HD/level not exceeding caster's level.

Cleric spells next (I should probably note that I dislike the idea of giving saving throws to clerical spells in general...this IS the divine will of the gods we're talking about!):

Silence 15' Radius: can't cast it on a person.
Cause Disease: no saving throw.
Dispel Evil: total HD affected cannot exceed caster's level.
Finger of Death: total HD/level of creature cannot exceed caster's level.
Quest: no save, but must be same alignment (and/or religion) as caster.

Does this make spell-casters more dangerous? Sure...but that's to the good, in my opinion. Anyway, the average party of adventurers is going to outnumber the number of auto-kill spells a caster is going to throw at a party...and I'm sure the players with spell casters will appreciate not having their spells thwarted by a good DM saving roll (ask my old player Luke how frustrating that can be).

However, there is the matter of the use of a high Wisdom since (in B/X) its only benefit outside the cleric class in providing a bonus to saving throws versus spells. My thought? Use it to award "grit" points to PCs that can be used to automatically resist a magic spell that would otherwise de-protagonize the character (that is: mentally control the PC or transform their body in some way). In B/X it would look like this:

13-15 +1 grit point
16-17 +2 grit points
18 +3 grit points

Give ALL player characters one or two grit to start (a below average WIS would result in a lesser starting amount). Grit is regenerated at the beginning of each game session. Sound good? Sounds good to me.

*CHOP*

: )

Cacodemon

What do you think of, what image comes to mind, when you hear the word "wizard?"

Is there some iconic character of the silver screen pops into your head? A classic illustration of some sort? Merlin? Gandalf? A video game persona you've been running on your favorite MMORPG? A medieval woodcut?

I wouldn’t be surprised to find that more than a few of my readers have their images of the “magic user” informed by RPG art, especially that of Dungeons & Dragons. Depending on how young you were when you were introduced to the concept of D&D, it’s quite possible that much of your mental pictures of “fantasy” were informed by D&D…or informed by art inspired by D&D.

My iconic wizard.

My own mental image goes back to something different, though. I usually picture the wizard off the cover of the Time Life Book, Wizards and Witches, which was one of my favorites as a child…despite not owning it.

[I don’t know if Time Life Books still publishes these types of series books. They used to be advertised in TV infomercials all the time…volumes on the Old West or WW2, for example. I knew a couple people who collected the “fantasy” series growing up and had a chance to peruse these books…later on, I was fortunate enough to pick up Wizards and Witches, the first volume of the series, in a used book store]

Wizards and Witches provides a lot of good, fun information on the magic users of folklore and mythology, collecting a number of stories from different cultures, not to mention containing many beautiful illustrations. Published circa 1983, this was the first place I discovered Baba Yaga and Vainamoinen and Faust, despite being a (young) veteran of D&D. But then, I was always drawn towards fairy tales as a child (even before D&D) and stories of knights and dragons and wizards and unicorns, etc. would get me amped up faster than a two-liter bottle of Coke. It’s probably why I read so much as a child…back then, books were the main place (or only place) to find such stories, which I devoured when I could get my hands on ‘em.

Anyway, wizards (as depicted in W&W) were pretty much always shown as older gentlemen with long beards and fantastic headgear…miracle workers, with a penchant for flamboyant garb, if an otherwise, respectable and learned “elder” air about them. And I daresay that one will find a similar theme running through the illustrations of the older D&D editions. Whether you’re talking Easley’s painting of “Ringlerun” on the re-vamped PHB (my go-to book for many years) or the Otus drawing on the cover of the Cook Expert set, the robe-and-beard chic instantly identifies an image as a person of sorcery.

Who are these geezers?

THIS is Dungeons & Dragons.

Take a look at the original cover of the AD&D PHB…beautiful and iconic and probably the best depiction of “what D&D is all about” just in terms of the action portrayed. Yes, we have a number of adventurers depicted doing “adventurous stuff.” Can you spot the wizard in the illo? My guess is you’d be drawn to this geezer here:

Withered much?

Now tell me: exactly what retirement home did the party knock over to get this guy on the team?

In my D&D games, I can’t ever recall seeing an “old” wizard. After all, nothing in the rules requires you to create a character that is anything other than a young adventurer in the prime of life…and considering the fact that most campaigns will see you starting at a low level (i.e. “with little magical knowledge”), who would want to play an old coot that’s still “learning the ropes?”

Even if you use the aging tables in the 1^st edition AD&D DMG (we always did, back in the day), a first level magic-user has a maximum starting age of 40, and an average age of 30 or so. The guys on the cover of the PHB seem to about the right age for a group of adventures (20s and 30s that is)…except for the geezer with the staff and the long beard. How is that representative of D&D?

Answer: it’s not. But it IS representative of the iconic figure of the “old, bearded wizard.”

But those iconic wizards with the bent back and long beard are also miracle workers, full of might and power...or at least well versed in magical knowledge. If anything, the rules of D&D allow you to create a young magician and tell the story of how exactly he got to the old age, long beard, and powerful wisdom so often depicted in images and folklore.

Except to do so would make the other heroes likewise old and decrepit. Heroic adventurers (other than wizards) are supposed to be hale and hearty individuals in the prime of their lives…and unless there’s some sort of carry-over from campaign-to-campaign (with old, high-level wizards being “grandfathered in,” no pun intended) you’re never going to see that stereotypical geezer hanging with the young Turks. Well, maybe after an unfortunate run-in with a ghost.

But, okay, let’s forget the whole “geezer deficit” thing for a moment. Let’s ask WHY the archetype is typically portrayed in this way?

My guess (or theory or whatever) is that it has something to do with these individuals being wise and learned individuals. Knowledge and lore is, for the most part, only acquired with time and experience and wizards, having excessive amounts of knowledge (compared to the average person) must have been around for a long time.

[yes, there are some pretty young thang sorceresses to be found in folklore, but the really powerful witches – like Baba Yaga – tend to be portrayed as ancient crones, and more than a few of those female mages are said to augment their appearance with their magic. The main vanity of the male wizard appears to be the length and flow-yness of his beard]

I mean, I suppose they could all be half-demons aging backwards like Merlin or Benjamin Button…but then wouldn’t the stories be littered with child-size archmagi?

No, I think that wizards are supposed to be old and stooped due to the time it takes them to acquire and learn the magical knowledge that sets them apart from their fellows. In a pseudo-medieval world (like your typical D&D campaign) there’s no internet and a near total lack of libraries and “centers for higher education.” Knowledge…especially occult knowledge…is scarce and hard to come by. There’s a reason why your average villager isn’t learning a handful of crop-growing spells. It’s not that there’s a limit on magical talent in the fantasy world…it’s that there’s a dearth of learning opportunity.

And trying to get that learning is going to COST you, too. Being a scarce resource allows wizards to charge a pretty penny for their knowledge…and keeping that price high means keeping a lid on the supply. If the village does happen to have a hedge wizard or wise woman, they’re unlikely to want to train any new apprentices…at least not until they’re ready to retire as the local potion-maker of the region. Any type of “wizard school” is likely to only enroll the wealthiest of students…and knowledge will probably only be doled out by the spoonful, as the majority of an apprentice’s time will be spent doing chores around the tower or recopying ancient, decaying tomes…not to mention working in the gardens, cooking meals, satisfying the wizard’s more carnal desires, etc. Basically paying an exorbitant amount of gold for the privilege of being a slave; all for the promise of learning magic. Only the most intelligent of nobleman’s children are going to learn much of anything anyway…and only after a long time (and probably only after taking the initiative to do their own extra studies in snatched, spare moments).

Is it any wonder when sorcerers turn to supernatural means of acquiring knowledge? Including diabolic sources?

The idea of learning magic from Satan or his minions isn’t a new one, of course. Even outside of fiction, the Christian prohibition on working magic is in part based on the premise that its knowledge is procured from hellish sources (the other part of the prohibition comes from the separation from God that occurs when one attempts to acquire powers that should only be available to our Divine Creator). The word occult simply means “hidden,” and there’s a school of thought that such knowledge is hidden with good reason. The Faust story, retold often over the last several centuries, is the prototypical illustration of this.

Faust is an aged, learned guy who, being jaded and getting on in years, decides to make a pact with Satan to live out his last years with all the decadence that magic and hell can provide. Of course, this costs him his eternal soul…but then, that’s why it’s a morality tale. You learn Faust got the short end of the stick and you shouldn’t make his mistake (even in the Goethe version, BTW…Faust is only saved because of his actual repentance, and the kind of divine intervention no one should expect).

But D&D is a game, not a morality tale. I don’t kill people and take their gold in real life…my normal approach to “conflict resolution” usually involves establishing a dialogue and using a little empathy. Part of the fun of a fantasy game is gleeful immersion in the role of a “scurrilous rogue;” why wouldn’t you make a Fasutian bargain if it was available?

Assuming your character isn’t some do-goody paladin-type, of course.

Now, personally, I don’t think the concept of demon summoning goes very well with the Vancian magic of D&D. The pseudo-scifi-weirdness of Vance’s Dying Earth is…well, it’s a different animal compared to the spell working and conjuration found in many folklore tales. A character in Vance’s DE imprints a spell in his brain through memorization (duh) and “fires” the incantation like a chambered bullet, taking immediate effect. There’s no gathering of ingredients, no waiting for the right stars, no chanting and dancing and ritual…all things associated with magic in tales and literature (the only “instant” spells being…usually…associated with magic items, which themselves may have taken time to prepare)…unlike D&D’s Vancian magic.

Or rather, “unlike D&D’s Vancian magic as originally conceived.” Since the advent of AD&D, magic has become a bit of a hybrid, combining folklore with Vance. Spells have “casting times” often exceeding the “instant” time frame. Spells require “material components,” some of which require elaborate preparation. Whether this was done to make Gary’s world more “mythic” in feeling, or simply a matter of “game balance”…who knows? To me, the answer doesn’t really matter, because the starting point (i.e. Vance; see OD&D) doesn’t work for me. It’s a faulty foundation from which to derive the system of magic most folks now take for “D&D magic.”

Yeah, that’s the heart of the matter, and the crux of this post. I don’t play wizards in D&D, don’t much like wizards in D&D, because they don’t meet my expectations of what a wizard is or should be. How’s that grab you? I don’t want to play a 30-something dude with a sleep spell and maybe a charm spell imprinted on my brain…that doesn’t meet my world view when it comes to spell-casters. What I want are old geezers who can truck with demons and spirits and produce supernatural effects because of the occult lore they’ve accumulated over decades.

Is that too much to ask?

I mean is it? Does that wreck the “game balance?”

Let me tell y’all a story. There’s this little spell in 1^st edition PHB called cacodemon…not sure how many of you are familiar with it. It’s a 7^th level spell; its first appearance (maybe only appearance) in any edition of D&D is in 1E AD&D. It allows the magic-user to summon a single demon of the more powerful type (IV, V, or VI) and bargain with it for service…or condemn it to an otherworldly prison.

You may not be familiar with this spell…I wasn’t (even after many years of playing AD&D) until I saw it used in a game my younger brother was running for two friends. They were about age 12 or so at the time, and it was a fairly typical Monty Haul type game with high level pregens…the kind of game you run when you’re a young DM and have just gotten your hands on your older siblings supercool AD&D books. My brother’s buddy Mike was playing an evil mage (a typical character for this particular player), and when they got into a combat with some monster or other, Mike announced he wanted to summon a demon using cacodemon.

Unfortunately, the casting time is six hours so my brother (in typical young DM fashion) ruled the PC would be out of action for the duration while completing the summoning…presumably off in some corner of the dungeon. The combat proceeded with the other buddy (Brandon) in equally ridiculous fashion, and they all had a few laughs and a pretty good time. I had only been brought in for “consultation,” but having never seen the cacodemon spell in action, couldn’t really provide any great insights.

That was almost 25 years ago. It was the one and only time I’ve seen someone attempt to use the spell.

I like the idea of cacodemon, but I can’t for the life of me see any real application for it in the AD&D game. I guess it could be used like a suped-up invisible stalker, but there sure is a lot of work and effort needed considering its effect…including the need to discover a demon’s “true name?” Why go through the trouble, even to “imprison” the creature; you’d probably have an easier time simply killing the monster if you really had a bone to pick with it!

The presence of cacodemon…and spiritwrack, for that matter…is just odd to me. As I said, I like the idea of it (because, you know, Faust) but it’s a 7^th level spell, requiring a 14^th level character to cast it. And most 14^th level characters don’t have much use for a 7+7 or 8+8 hit dice servant…especially one so resentful and dangerous and so limited in scope of duration. The time to summon such creatures should be when a character is of a lesser level…when the wizard is inexperienced and naïve, and believes the reward outweighs the risk. Not when the wizard can toss around disintegrate spells and14 hit die lightning bolts! I can only assume this is Gygax’s homage to Faust and other demon summoning in literature, and that it was given as a 7^th level spell for purposes of “game balance.” Or maybe it was simply provided as a justification for high level opponent wizards to have demonic servants?

I really don’t know…what I do know is that in 25 years of play, I’ve never seen it used. In fact, I briefly considered trying to beg my way back into Alexis’s on-line campaign with  sole objective of playing a mage and trying the cacodemon spell (how many hit points would a Type IV demon have in his campaign using its size/mass?)…but upon realizing it would probably take 10+ years to achieve the required level, decided the “experiment” wouldn't be worth the amount of effort involved.

Such is the case with a lot of the “high level content” of D&D. You pick up the book and say, “hey, my character can control weather or teleport once I hit X level.” But the chance of hitting that level (and opening that content) is so remote given the normal parameters of table-top play, that you might as well save yourself the despair and skip the spell descriptions of any spell over the 4^th magnitude.

Frustrating. Give me my old geezer who can at least do a neat thing or two. I’m willing to be aged and beardy if it means I can part the sea and call rocks down from the mountains. Hell, I don’t want to play a “young apprentice;” I want to play a wizened loremaster. Forget game balance for a moment…game balance is only a “problem” due to magnitude of spell being linked to ass kickery and putting wizards in the role of “fantasy artillery.” The whole damn class needs a paradigm shift, in my opinion. Which means, from a design perspective, starting from scratch once again.

Consider the desired end result:

-        Magicians should have enough knowledge to be (magically) effective throughout a game session.

-        Magicians should be old geezers and crones by default…unless you want to play someone young and not very knowledgeable/proficient.

-        Magicians shouldn’t over-shadow the other characters. Magic cannot solve every problem.

-        Magic has limitations and/or hazards; there are reasons for not using magic all the time.

-        Magic is not Vancian.

-        Magic is not confined to individuals who possess a special “magic gene.”

-        Magic is not artillery…or only in very limited circumstances.

-        Magic use requires secret knowledge.

-        Magic use requires belief and conviction.

I’ll be building from there. More on all this later.

"Come forth, Mephisto!"

Killing Vancian Magic (Part 1)

[I have a busy weekend ahead of me...including taking the boy to see his first Seahawks game today in what will undoubtably Matthew Hasselbeck's last appearance on Century Link field until he retires and is inducted into Seattle's "Ring of Honor." Chokes me up a bit thinking about it...I really hope we don't injure him with our new, tuned up defense (maybe the 12th Man will take it easy on him?). ANYway...as such, I'm setting up a schedule of posts for blogger to put out over the next couple days; please feel free to comment, but it might be awhile before I respond!]

Time for a little more deconstruction.

In the past I’ve been, if not completely raving in favor of the D&D magic system, at least accepting of it as is. I was never bothered (much) by the “mental blackboard/eraser” process, and the weirdness of Vancian magic (borrowed from Jack Vance’s weird Dying Earth stories) actually contributes a “psychedelic” tone to the game which I appreciate, even if it makes the system hell to justify in a “mythic Europe” setting or the literary paradigm of “swords & sorcery.” People who prefer something akin to Tolkien or Howard have all had to find a way to reconcile Vancian magic, a system developed as a GAME mechanic that breaks the 4th wall suspension of disbelief due to its lack of justification outside a world drawn by Erol Otus.

Or so it’s always seemed to me. When I was a kid it didn’t matter because, well, I never really thought about the “underlying logic of the game world.” As a teen and young adult I railed at the “nonsensical” system of magic (in comparison with examples of magic in literature and film) and looked for better, “more accurate” magic systems. As a more mature adult, I embraced the weirdness or (as said) accepted it, being more concerned with other issues…like running a good game and enjoying the “balance” of it. I’ve never really had any major complaints with the Vancian system.

Of course, I’ve never been one to play magic-user characters.

And when I HAVE played an arcane caster, it wouldn’t be the traditional robed and pointy-hatted wizard. I had a 3rd edition magic-user modeled after Gandalf (including spending feats on sword skills, and non-damaging, utility spells). I played a gnome assassin-illusionist that behaved more like a fighter. I had another (single class) illusionist in a recent game that spent most of his efforts on wooing ladies and being talky-talky. I’ve never been the “lightning-slinger” (or “sleep-bomb”) type…but then, I really don’t have that much experience playing arcane spell-casters.

But I’ve seen quite a few of ‘em…both in games I’ve played and in games I’ve run…and I’ve come to a conclusion over time:

Magic-users suck.

I make this statement from the perspective of a player, and from an analysis of the magic-user as a player character class. As a monster, they’re just fine: an interesting opponent, lightly armored, variable abilities, scalable to a party’s level, and usable in a variety of ways. As an NPC (both opponents and allies) the DM can prepare the magic-user in any fashion appropriate for the situation at hand. But then, DMs can do this with any NPC (magic-users just give more in-game justification for their customizability).

So when I say, MAGIC-USERS SUCK, I’m only talking about the magic-using class, as used by player characters. And my astute observation (that they suck) comes from a careful review of the rules as written and their actual use in-play. My concern is about the “fun factor” of the class, both for the player who actually plays the character, the other players in the party, and the DM running the adventure. My thoughts are not considerate of “game balance,” but rather about EFFECTIVENESS and USABILITY.

Just by the way (before I begin to enumerate my position), people who disagree with my position should observe the following pieces of evidence that “something is wrong” with the magic-user class:

1. The existence of house rules in many, many campaigns to change or increase magic-user effectiveness. This includes bonus spells, bonus hit points, bonus starting levels, ease of weapon and/or armor restrictions, etc. all of which express dissatisfaction with the class as written.
2. The modification and tweaking of the class and its abilities over-time and across editions, expressing dissatisfaction with the class as conceived in prior/earlier editions.

The simple fact is that few people seem satisfied with the character class as designed. Gygax’s own house rules, from what I’ve read, started new characters at 3rd level and granted a bonus 1st level spell for high Intelligence. That’s fairly beefy compared to your Rules As Written starting M-U.

In my own B/X campaigns (the ones I’ve run over the last couple years) I’ve included only a couple house rules that effected magic-users: max hit points at 1st level and the ability for any class to use any weapon (at 1st based on my B/X Companion rules, and later simply because I “regressed” to all weapons doing D6 damage and didn’t see how it was “unbalanced” to restrict magic-user and cleric weapon selection). Oh, yeah…and I waffled back-n-forth at times about how spell research worked. But for the most part I played “straight” B/X. Here’s what magic-users get with the B/X rule set:

• Character starts at 1st level with 0 XP.
• No ability restrictions; Intelligence (high or low) only adjusts XP earned.
• 2500xp necessary for level 2 (highest of any character except elves).
• No armor/shield; dagger only (D4 damage if using “variable damage” rule)
• Character knows one spell of 1st level.
• Character can cast one spell per day.
• Hit points determined by 1D4 (average 2.5) and may reroll 1s and 2s at 1st level.
• Combat and saves advance upon reaching 5th level (20,000XP needed).

Now this is based almost entirely on OD&D, only using Supplement I when it comes to variable hit points and weapon damage, and the inclusion of new spells (like magic-missile) in the spell list. AD&D increases the characters choice of available weapons and increases the number of spells in the character’s spell book (if not the number the character can cast on a daily basis). 2nd edition adds some additional options (especially with the later Player Options book: I remember my brother creating a Githzerai wizard who had the ability to wear armor while spell-casting). 3rd Edition adds feats and skills and bonus spells based on Intelligence and reduces all advancement to a single table (so wizards advance as quickly as anyone else); plus the ability to make multiple attacks at high level and multi-class as desired. 4th Edition adds more changes including the unlimited ability to cast “cantrip” spells, including magic missile.

But, whatever…I mean, I have many reasons for not playing AD&D or 2nd edition or 3rd or 4th, so I’m not going to worry about them for the purpose of this discussion. Presuming you (like me) are more enchanted with B/X or Holmes or OD&D, let’s look at the “littlest wizard:” that geezer in the robes with the beard, dagger strapped to his belt and single page spell book. This guy? What do you think is the chance he’s going to survive to 2nd level? Or 3rd (at which time he will receive his first 2nd level spell)? 5000xp is a lot, after all…even assuming a high prime requisite score and a liberal amount of treasure. How easy is it for a guy with no armor to take 5+ points of damage (presuming average hit points at 2nd level) and die-die-die? Pretty easy…against a single orc, the average 2nd level magic-user will not survive past round three.

‘Course, it’s not likely the magic-user will be getting stuck-in with the baseline humanoid. Instead, they’ll be skulking around the back of the pack, or whining that they need to retreat the dungeon to re-memorize their sleep spell(s), or bitterly complaining that they “can’t do anything.” Or all of the above. At least, in my experience that’s the usual thing that low-level magic-users are doing for most of a three to five hour game session.

Does that sound like fun to you?

As a DM, I hate it. I HATE it. From every angle. I hate the bitching and moaning and requests for house rules. I hate the party constantly mounting “retreats” to “sleep and regain spells” just so they can rinse and repeat the same approach to encounters. I hate that players get “left out” of action because they’re out of spells, or only have a single spell left that’s inappropriate for the circumstance. I hate that players feel compelled to take the same selection of “most useful spells” including such gems as sleep, charm, web, fly, and fireball. And I REALLY hate the magic-user with the bandolier of throwing knives…it was cool the first time, but has since lost any trace of coolness or originality.

Breaking with Tradition (Part 2)

All right, a little more time on my hands…let’s continue.

In order to figure out what a magic system looks like, one has to consider how magic works in one’s particular game world…the WHYS of magic, if you will. For most players (including DMs/GMs), I realize, the whys don’t matter a whole hell of a lot: the important thing is the mechanics of an RPG. How many spells does my magic-user get to cast during the game session? What are the ramifications of using spells? This has a direct impact on how the game is played.

For example, in D&D my 1st level magic-user is able to cast ONE spell. After that spell is gone I am left with an unarmored, dagger-wielding adventure possessed of D4 hit points. What does that say to me as a player? Make that one spell count. And so the spell players tend to choose is the one that can have the most lasting impact (i.e. Charm Person or Sleep)…even though a different spell might end up being the exact perfect the party requires to overcome a particular challenge or encounter.

If I’m playing a street shaman in Shadowrun, I know my spells cause me fatigue (and serious injury if I reduce my magic attribute with cybernetic enhancement) depending on the power and type of spell used. The number and variety of spells available to me differs depending on which edition one plays, which can make your character more prone to relying on guns then your Power Ball spell.

As said, PLAYERS don’t usually care WHY magic works in a game, just HOW it does. And many games don’t really give a good reason as to why magic works anyway (see recent discussions on disassociated mechanics, especially regarding 4th Edition)…at least from an “in-game” perspective.

But for traditional RPG designers, the “whys” ARE important. The designer needs to know the “logic” of the game world, so they can create game mechanics that are connected to that game logic. Knowing and working with one’s “fantasy physics” helps create a rich imaginary environment into which participants can better lose themselves, the desired end of non-narrative agenda role-playing.

[if you don’t buy that last statement I’m not sure why you’re still playing table top role-playing games]

“Applied game logic” isn’t anything new to designers with a specific setting attached to their RPG, it’s something considered (at least, haphazardly) with regard to monster cosmologies (what monsters/opponents make sense and are available) and chargen (what classes/skills should be available for player characters). Lesser designers (i.e. “poor” or “inadequate” for my tastes) will think less about these things and simply take a “kitchen sink” approach to what goes into a game (leading to all sorts on inanity like bestiaries with conflicting cultural mythologies and skill lists containing unused skills like “cooking” and “small power boat” just for the sake of “completeness”). Greater designers will hone every aspect of a game to razor sharp pertinence, right down to setting specific ability scores (instead of generic “Strength, Intelligence, Personality,” etc.).

But applied game logic doesn’t always make the cut with more generic RPGs. Now, of course, there’s generic and then there’s GENERIC…some games are simply engines to which one attaches a setting splat book that provides those extra game tweaks and adjustments based on “applied logic.” But then you also have pseudo-generic RPGs, whose ranks include both Dungeons & Dragons and a myriad of other fantasy imitators (knock-offs, heartbreakers, whatever you want to call them). Although D&D purports to be a “generic” fantasy RPG, much can be inferred about its setting simply based on what’s included (and not included) in its hallowed pages.

I’ve discussed this before over many posts (some illustrative examples: plate armor with no firearms, existence of paladins, multi-planar cosmology, Drow and other “civilizations,” named artifacts, etc.) but for this post the only thing I want to spend time on is the cosmology of spell-casting, i.e. magic use.

D&D offers the following cosmology of magic:

- Spells are learned, with more spells being learned by those with more experience (true even of clerics, whose broad spell lists are opened by increasing in level).
- To be a spell-caster one must have “what it takes” to comprehend the power (INT for magi, WIS for clerics).
- Each spell is a bit of finite power (ammunition) to be expended.
- Spells must be memorized by an individual or else stored in a magical device to use.
- More experienced casters can mentally store more spells (ammo) and (conversely) LESS experienced casters are limited in what can be stored.
- Spell-casting requires concentration, often words and gestures, sometimes materials.
- Spells are formulae that need to be performed exactly, and as such they can be interrupted.
- Spells are not always effective depending on the personal strength of a target to resist (saving throws).
- Non-casters have the ability to resist magical spells.
- And finally: Casters must be well-rested to implant spells in their brain, but implanted spells are held indefinitely until used regardless of the caster’s physical or mental state (!!!).

That last bit is the really weird one. To my mind there’s a real implication of spells being living entities, enslaved in a spell book and bound for service through the reading/memorization process (or slaved to deities and bound to service via prayers of supplication). Each spell is thus a mini-demon, being conjured with a specific purpose in mind. In Vance’s Dying Earth stories (the inspiration for D&D magic) this seems more than just an “implication” but it’s not a subject broached in the D&D books (unless, perhaps, the 2nd Edition adventure Return to White Plume Mountain).

Gygax himself simply stated he used Vance’s magic cosmology as it “well articulated” the power of mnemonic incantation (I recall reading somewhere else that he found it a bit different from other systems being floated at the time, and liked that). I would also guess that the main motivation in creating the D&D magic system was an attempt at game balance and playability. While the system IS playable with much more minimal fuss compared to other systems (I find Palladium’s PPE tracking to be a pain in the ass, for example), many folks have decried the game balance issues of D&D magic-users: too weak at low levels, too powerful at high levels. And while I’m not a huge advocate for “game balance,” this particular balance issue has a direct impact on playability.

Look, I know there are folks who are just thinking, dude, shut up, it works okay? Fine, yeah, it WORKS well enough you can play the game. But I for one get tired of it…and tired as well of players either A) complaining about it (especially at low levels), or B) simply ignoring it (i.e. not playing magic-users) because of it. The stupidest thing I’ve ever seen as a DM is players abandoning dungeons as soon as the wizard’s sleep spell is expended. “We’ll be back tomorrow!” Yeah, um, did Gandalf tell the Fellowship to retreat after he ran out of spells in Moria?

And that’s not to say the players are stupid/dumb…they’re playing smart based on the circumstance of the game, right? Tactically dealing with the hand that’s been dealt by the game designer. But I doubt that’s how the designer(s) originally envisioned the game being played (exiting the dungeon mid-session to “refresh?”)…unless they were reading a much different version of the literature in the appendix than what I’ve seen.

I just have to look at Gygax’s own house rules (thanks to Cyclopeatron and others): new player characters start at 3rd level, and magic-users with a high INT (not unusual based on Gary’s method of rolling abilities) gain a bonus spell. For a MU this gives a starting PC magical firepower equivalent to a 4th level magician (if one was using Rules As Written): right square at that “mid-level sweet spot” where wizards are neither too weak nor (yet) too powerful.

I’d be curious to see Arneson’s own house rules on the subject.

But for me, the plan is not how best to house rule playability. As I wrote at the beginning of this post, I’m more interested FIRST in the why of magic and spell-casting: the in-game justification for how it works and why it works for my particular game. This is no big thing to do (even though conspicuously absent from D&D): Siembieda defined it through his psychokinetic energy (PPE) in Rifts, and the Shadowrun guys have their “channeling mana from the astral plane” deal-i-o. Once I’ve got the definition down, THEN it’s a matter of modeling it in game terms AND (lastly) iron out the playability/balance issues.

However, in working on those whys, in defining what magic is and how it works, I can see already that this system is probably NOT going to resemble Vance…which means it ain’t going to look all that much like D&D. Oh, it’ll have some of the trappings: there will be spell lists and levels of power and probably spell books, for example. But that might be the extent of the resemblance.

Let’s talk a little bit about magic in literature (and no, I don’t mean Harry Potter): in books and stories, based on folklore or not, what does magic-use LOOK like? And here I’m only talking about stories and collections that include MULTIPLE magi, not individual plot points like Prospero in The Tempest. I’ll also only be including human magic-users, not angelic “Istari” like Gandalf and his ilk.

Here are my bullet points:

• Magic requires study and training; it is generally taught, master to student.
• Not all magicians are equal; some are more powerful (and feared/respected) than others.
• “Power” is generally defined by one’s repertoire of spells (more is better) and the potency of those spells.
• Becoming a magician requires a certain ambitious temperament; it’s generally described as hard work.
• Becoming a magician requires a certain level of intelligence (“native talent”).
• Magical knowledge is generally stored in writings: books and grimoires, scrolls and tablets. This holds true for priestly magic as well (priests and magicians are often interchangeable where magic is concerned).

So far none of that really disagrees with the “D&D version” of spell-casting. But let’s continue, shall we?

• Being a spell-caster does not preclude one from wearing armor or wielding weapons.

Whoa! Right out of the gate, right? But there it is: what besides game mechanics (or a post-D&D book of fantasy fiction) ever said a wizard was prohibited from wearing armor or wielding a decent weapon? I prefer my wizards to have the option (like the sorcerers in the original Conan film). Okay, now to the nitty-gritty:

• Spells effect supernatural change through the use of magical formula, generally spoken.
• Spells require mental discipline in addition to their formula; only a person with the proper mental state can use a formula even by reading it.
• Conversely, any magician (presuming the proper training) can use a formula by reading it.
• Spell formula are spoken and recorded in ancient, obscure, and/or mystical languages, uncommon to those without training.
• More potent spells are longer and more complex (harder to record, memorize, and/or recite).
• A spell known (i.e. memorized) can be cast.
• Knowledge of a spell formula is only lost through the usual method of losing knowledge: time and age, replacement (learning something new, forgetting something old, etc.) head injury.
• Spell formula, especially those newly discovered/created, are jealously guarded secrets.
• Magic is best performed sparingly and privately as a spell witnessed can be learned and duplicated.
• Because of this, and the aforementioned temperament, magicians tend to be secretive, mysterious, and stand-offish; it is the rare wizard that is jovial or gregarious (antisocial tendencies), let alone reckless and flamboyant/demonstrative.
• This behavior, coupled with general ignorance on magic, adds to their allure as well as their intimidation of non-magi.
• As academics, magicians tend to be less robust (also more cultured and refined) than other adventurers.

There, see? Now I have some idea of what I want magicians in my game to look like. And having that, I can stat out how exactly magic works in my game…and I can see already that there’s little about it that’s “resource based.” Certainly, magic-users are limited by the spells they know or possess (and per the literature, creating a new spell appears to be the work of years or decades, not weeks as per normal D&D research time), but there aren’t any spell slots, or magic points, or fatigue boxes, or mana burn to worry about. No, it’s not going to look much like D&D at all, I guess.

Of course, I could never make D&D look like I wanted to when it came to favorite S&S characters like Lythande and Elric, etc. so I guess that’s a bit of payback.

; )