Quote from: jibbajibba;544003Again all fair points.

4e took the Spell Y has this range, that casting time, and does Xd6 points of damage to its limit such that the spell/effect/power could only do that which was written. I am assuming you don't want to head all the way down that path.

You have a keen insight into my psyche.  

I was really just describing the bare-bones of a spell.  Naturally, there would have to be additional information in there, but that is the kind of thing that should be more or less decided by each table.  As in my previous example, if you want fire-based spells to have some kind of connection to the Elemental Plane, great, more power to you and your players.  I just don't want to see that codified in the rules themselves.  That limits what I can do at my table, and the designer would probably have all kinds of hooks into dozens of other spells and effects besides.  That makes it increasingly difficult to extract all that stuff so I can run things my way.

QuoteThis is just one of my foibles.

We all have them.  I suspect you wouldn't want them 'officially' codified any more than I would want mine similarly codified.  My quirks or your quirks are not necessarily everyone's quirks.

QuoteNow cutting back to fantasy for a moment, as I noted up post all decent fantasy novels that focus on the magical have a Magic system a magic as science kind of set up. It might be that through knowing a creatures true name you can control them it might be that you can open up pockets to other elemental planes and pull in fire or ice or whatever, but they uniformly have a structure to them.

Hmmmmm... I would have to disagree with that.  Most of the fantasy I have read presents a very vague idea of how magic works.  Tolkien doesn't even narrate the causes, just the effects.  In Earthsea, knowing the true name only gives the wizard control of something, the methodology in obtaining a result is very much opaque.  Of course, I do not have every fantasy book memorized, so I would be happy to hear some counter-examples.

QuoteI like the Mage approach but there is also a touch of laziness to it.

I think it is a much better as a framework for the DM to adjudicate spell research, or as a method of keeping spells relatively powered.  A fireball is one rank of forces (fire) and two ranks of correspondence (range and area of effect); in effect, the level dependant variables.  Blam, third level spell.  This is just a extremely basic example, but I think it conveys the point.  The player would just see fireball, and if they wanted a more powerful one, the DM would add a rank or whatever to the base spell and increase the level or whatever accordingly.

QuoteI totally understand the argument for setting filling in the detail of magic but it irks me when a spell is nerfed for game reasons.

EDIT:  Agreed, but that is a separate issue.
(Dammit!  Missed a whole section!  Where is my proofreader?)

QuoteMagic missile is similar. It creates a bolt of force that will target a creature unearingly. So is it intelligent? can it detect life, what about animated cretures that have no life how can it target them. All that stuff irks me.

The easiest way is just to declare that it only interacts with a life force.  I can see how it would be irritating, though.  No matter how you explain the effect, it says something about how magic works in your world.  The simplest explanation that impacts the least number of spells/effects is my usual fall-back.  And that is the direction I think game designers should take as well.

QuoteI know its just me and its just a game but like I said we all have foibles

Absolutely.  

Quote from: jeff37923;543797I'd say it could disrupt spellcasters with 10lbs of force applied to their junk.

I'd say that should require Bigby's Nad-Crushing Clench.

JG

Quote from: RPGPundit;543958I should really try to convince Mearls to explicitly state in the final product, in either the Magic Missile description and/or the Darkness description, that casting magic missile at the darkness has no effect.

RPGPundit

I'd definitely buy it then.

Quote from: B.T.;543969Tell Mearls to format the spells a little better so I don't have to hunt through the damn spell description to find out what it does.

That too.

JG

Quote from: Benoist;544056What you call mother-may-I, us human beings like to refer to as "talking to each other."

eeeeeeee
            E
             E
              E
               E
                E
                 E
                  E
                   E
                    E
                     E
                      E
                       E
                {BLAM}

Quote from: James Gillen;544350I'd say that should require Bigby's Nad-Crushing Clench.

JG

OK, I'm stealing that name, but the spell is still a cantrip.

Bigby's Castrating Clutch.

There is the variant, Bigby's Penetrating Purple Nurple.

Quote from: jeff37923;544367There is the variant, Bigby's Penetrating Purple Nurple.

Don't forget the most popular usage: Bigby's Discreet Masturbation

"Of course I'm not doing that!  Can't you see both my hands are here!"

Quote from: jibbajibba;544003Again all fair points.

4e took the Spell Y has this range, that casting time, and does Xd6 points of damage to its limit such that the spell/effect/power could only do that which was written. I am assuming you don't want to head all the way down that path.

This is just one of my foibles. It stems I expect from my degree, although I suspects it predates it and my degree reflects the interest. I studied Anthropology and specialised in myth magic and ritual and a prevalent theme in the anthropological study of magic is looking for its internal consistency. Every Since Evans-Pritchard wrote 'Myth, Magic and Ritual among the Azande' that has been the approach and indeed whenever you analyse the magical rituals of a pre-literate society you see strong logical themes.
Now cutting back to fantasy for a moment, as I noted up post all decent fantasy novels that focus on the magical have a Magic system a magic as science kind of set up. It might be that through knowing a creatures true name you can control them it might be that you can open up pockets to other elemental planes and pull in fire or ice or whatever, but they uniformly have a structure to them.

I like the Mage approach but there is also a touch of laziness to it. D&D has hundreds of spells with evocative names and histories. Mage avoids having to do that work. I really want to see both. Here is the way magic works and here are 300 examples of spells designed with that system. Then a player who wants to use premade spells can do so and one that wants to create their own unique magic can.

I totally understand the argument for setting filling in the detail of magic but it irks me when a spell is nerfed for game reasons.
If you look at Mage hand, what is does, it really makes no sense that it can't attack for example. Can it pinch a wenches bum in a bar? if so it can touch and exert pressure so why can't it stick it's finger in someones eye? Now if it was a divine gift I could see how the power source wouldn't allow it, if it was granted by a pact with some creature a bond with the faey or something, then fair enough, but its not. The spell creates a spectral hand controled by the caster that can move about upto 5 feet off the ground etc etc It can't attack because that would make it too powerful in the GAME. That just irks me.
Magic missile is similar. It creates a bolt of force that will target a creature unearingly. So is it intelligent? can it detect life, what about animated cretures that have no life how can it target them. All that stuff irks me.

I know its just me and its just a game but like I said we all have foibles

I don't know if anyone has asked yet, but have you seen the Atomik Magick and Atomik Grimoire books? Sounds like you'd really dig them.

Ok, /minor derail

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;544041I don't really deal in "ifs". When they change the playtest to something like what you describe above, I'll form a new opinion on that. Until then, I'm judging the game based on concrete evidence, that being the actual playtest which is mother-may-I up, down, and sideways.

It's a taste thing. I dislike mother-may-I intensely.

So in your view, what exactly does "mother-may_I" mean? I can't help but completely shut-down when I see someone post that phrase because from what I have seen other mean by it, I have never, in all my vast RPG experience actually seen it in any RPG I've ever played. DM fiat, sure. DM interpretation, often with player input, absolutely. But anything resembling the "mother-may-I" tone of pleading or being at a DM's "mercy"? Never in over 30 years. In my experience a DM that displays this attitude would have no players. So, any time this "mother-may I" bullshit (which is what it seems like to me) is presented I literally shake my head in disgust, but I'm really trying to keep an open mind despite this reaction, therefore I'm asking you what this means to you. What kind of game sessions did you participate in that led you to this view, and why didn't you exert any kind of opinion about it's quality at the time? Were you not able to like or trust your fellow gamers enough? I just don't get it. This whole idea just comes across to me like a steaming pile of reeking shit, either from the extreme disfunction of the people involved, or the dishonesty of the one presenting it. Please show me where I'm wrong.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;544046Why would I do something like that instead of just sticking with 4E? If I have to make major changes to 5E to make it tolerable, there just isn't any point. I have an edition of D&D I'm satisfied with, WotC needs to do better than that.

Don't you think calling the minor list of group rules "major changes" is either a tad over-stating at best or pathetically dishonest at worst? Really? "Major changes"? A miniscule list of 5 one line group rules? Do your DMs never limit anything in your 4e games? Are you able to create Dark Sun characters for Forgotten Realms or Eberron games? Use every option ever presented all the time? If so, I can see where your problems actually come from (hint, it's not the rules).

Quote from: Sigmund;544462So in your view, what exactly does "mother-may_I" mean? I can't help but completely shut-down when I see someone post that phrase because from what I have seen other mean by it, I have never, in all my vast RPG experience actually seen it in any RPG I've ever played. DM fiat, sure. DM interpretation, often with player input, absolutely. But anything resembling the "mother-may-I" tone of pleading or being at a DM's "mercy"? Never in over 30 years. In my experience a DM that displays this attitude would have no players. So, any time this "mother-may I" bullshit (which is what it seems like to me) is presented I literally shake my head in disgust, but I'm really trying to keep an open mind despite this reaction, therefore I'm asking you what this means to you. What kind of game sessions did you participate in that led you to this view, and why didn't you exert any kind of opinion about it's quality at the time? Were you not able to like or trust your fellow gamers enough? I just don't get it. This whole idea just comes across to me like a steaming pile of reeking shit, either from the extreme disfunction of the people involved, or the dishonesty of the one presenting it. Please show me where I'm wrong.

I tend to have the same reaction in that it just feels like a rhetorical bludgeon to win debate (though to be fair people on e other side of the argument resort to this tactic to). But the problem with mother may is it produces a potent image without really making any valid points or really staking a clear position. Yes bad GMs exist, one danger of the traditional GM player relationship is the game master does has the power to effect the player's enjoyment in a negative way (though he also jas the power to produce an awesome gaming experience). But i am curious what mother may i refers to exactly and hiw it relates to such experiences. Because when i start to think about the label it gets a little muddied for me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;544081I can understand some of what TCO is saying.  If you really enjoy the tactical depth of 4e, then you want tight rules, because that's the only way you can plan your movements.  You need a grid, you need minis, because you don't want your vision of what's happening to be different from the GM's, so when you do a rolling forward tumble dodge past a minion to strike the caster behind him, you don't want that interrupted by the GM saying "You can't do that, he's 15' feet behind the minions, not 10".  Again I'll just say WotC made one helluva tactical miniatures game, too bad they decided to market it as the mainstream D&D RPG, because now they'll probably flush it, which isn't necessary.  They could have had (and still could), a tactical minis game out of 4e that would outsell everything but the Warhammer games, and maybe Warmachine.

However, when the whole "mother may I" thing comes up, it smacks of someone who is thinking about power relationships at the table, which makes TCO seem like just another whiny entitled little shit.  But of course when he's here, he's trolling, so it's completely intentional.

Exactly how I view it. I still have my new Red Box and all my Elements books and box sets, and i have no intention of getting rid of them for this very reason. However, I am asking TCO in good faith because even though I think the argument is 100% bullshit, that doesn't automatically mean he does so I'm at least making the attempt to reach an understanding if not agreement.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544467But i am curious what mother may i refers to exactly and hiw it relates to such experiences. Because when i start to think about the label it gets a little muddied for me.

It's simple, it's asking the DM for something that should be clear and obvious- i.e. spelled out in rules.

"I'm behind the orc, do I get advantage?" (mother, may I have a extra dice).

"I have the high ground for an attack, do I get advantage?" (mother, may I have an extra dice).

"Yes, the orc has the high ground and you've ruled it an disadvantage for me. But I going for revenge for the death of my BFF forever. Can I counter that disadvantage?" (mother, may I avoid the disadvantage die).


Basically the game is gone, a player is no longer making decisions based upon known values and effects (i.e. those things his character knows)- but is now trying to convince the GM to award or not award game bonuses using whatever lame reasons he can up with.


It lack consistancy, it lacks any simulation value at all, it wrecks immersion (i.e. it pulls a player out of the game in order to come up with something that convinces the GM, a person who shouldn't even be in the game), and compared to learning a ruleset- it slows down play.

There is nothing good about the concept in the least, except for storyteller style gaming. It seems the Forgie influences still live in 5th- and even Pundit buys into them.

Quote from: gleichman;544479It's simple, it's asking the DM for something that should be clear and obvious- i.e. spelled out in rules.

"I'm behind the orc, do I get advantage?" (mother, may I have a extra dice).

"I have the high ground for an attack, do I get advantage?" (mother, may I have an extra dice).

"Yes, the orc has the high ground and you've ruled it an disadvantage for me. But I going for revenge for the death of my BFF forever. Can I counter that disadvantage?" (mother, may I avoid the disadvantage die).


Basically the game is gone, a player is no longer making decisions based upon known values and effects (i.e. those things his character knows)- but is now trying to convince the GM to award or not award game bonuses using whatever lame reasons he can up with.


It lack consistancy, it lacks any simulation value at all, it wrecks immersion (i.e. it pulls a player out of the game in order to come up with something that convinces the GM, a person who shouldn't even be in the game), and compared to learning a ruleset- it slows down play.

There is nothing good about the concept in the least, except for storyteller style gaming. It seems the Forgie influences still live in 5th- and even Pundit buys into them.

Hate to say it, but I have never had to ask the DM for a ruling about something that's clearly spelled out in the rules. If you have I can see where your problem really is. if this is truly what this "mother may I" argument means, I now feel confident I can completely disregard it. I'll wait until TCO weighs in to decide fully.