Quote from: Sommerjon;860803I don't know.  I find all editions of D&D's magic item economy borked.

None of them are borked. It just they fail to address why are there magic-users and clerics in the world. I am not talking about why magic exists.

Rather I am talking about why in a world where there is a force that can be manipulated by spells into doing useful things there are people called magic-users and clerics in the first place. In short what is the culture that surround the magic-users and clerics.

That culture could impose severe limits on magic that not expressed through the mechanics. For example clerics are agents of a higher power so their actions are subject to contraints imposed by their divine patron.

Magic-users are in most edition of D&D presented as a literate profession. Pre-industrial cultures had severe limits on the number of people they could support not actively farming. Even if magic could be employed to feed a nation it has to be bootstrapped from an earlier time where that wasn't the case.

If a magic system is considered broken because it grants unlimited resources and food to spell-wielders it doesn't meant that the faux-medieval setting is at the point in time when that it occurred. It could be an earlier time where that knowledge of magic was there but philosophy and techniques to use it on a industrial scale have not been conceived. Even if it was thought of it still would take decades or centuries before a magical-revolution changed society radically from a D&D norm.

I have rarely ran into a magic system where it was so broken that it immediately leads to a civilization that vastly different than the faux-medieval default of D&D.

Quote from: estar;860811None of them are borked. It just they fail to address why are there magic-users and clerics in the world. I am not talking about why magic exists.

And your trying to show what might happen not from having magic in the world but what happened in our world.

Quote from: Kiero;860586It's well known that I don't have much time for magic generally in roleplaying games. I avoid magic-using classes in games that structure themselves that way, I opt not to take magic powers in favour of more skills and other mundane stuff in more allocative systems.

I also tend to avoid fantasy in general, preferring historical, as the presence of magic often leads to lazy worldbuilding. We either get what is basically a pastiche of a period of history, but magic is present with little thought on how it would impact societies; or we get random fantastical shit thrown around with little thought or justification beyond "a Wizard did it".

Anyway, it was in a discussion about the logistical aspects of overland travel in games that someone raised the point that most of those things are basically irrelevant when you have magic that can make the problem go away. Where magic becomes the default solution to every constraint, and it becomes merely a question of whether you have the ability/resources to use that magic, or can be creative enough with the way you use it to solve it. The worst excess in this regard I've seen is The Dresden Files RPG, where Thaumaturgy can literally do anything with enough time and creative use of resources.

Worse still when mages make anyone with mundane skills surplus to requirements because you can just use magic to achieve the same thing that took them years of focus and practise. D&D 3.x is the worst example of this trend, but is by no means unique.

When that utility is permanent, it feeds into another dislike of mine: magic items. They can become little more than magic-tech gear where characters are more about assembling an optimal panoply of gadgets than anything else. Not to mention where keeping hold of that sword your character's grandfather used becomes the bad choice.

And into one more: meta-magic. When there are spells which extend, augment, enhance or otherwise improve other spells, all they do is invite abuse.

If I have to suffer magic at all, I want it of the slow ritual kind that only does weird stuff you can't achieve through mundane means. Or flashy and instantaneous, but still doing things you couldn't achieve with time and effort at a skill.

So there we have it.

I'm usually like you in preferring weird and mysterious ritual magic, except I'd rather have utility than flashy and instantaneous.
The exception is when everything is magic, in this case I'm fine with utility magic as well as with limited combat magic. Then your combat and non-combat skills are also magic, magic is based on mundane skills, so the whole distinction is out.

Quote from: Omega;860723Except that literature has exactly this fairly frequently. The progenitors of the cantrips. Little utility spells to do minor things like sweep the floor, do the dishes.

No kidding.  One of the things that drive me nuts about how a lot of RPGs and campaigns are structured is the fucked up notion that the only spells any wizard would likely know are paramilitary.

Sorry, but a lot of wizards are going to have spells to tell time.  To light fires.  To clean themselves (or their surroundings) without fuss, water or soap.  To measure volumes and distances in a snap.  To make small change when the pushcart vendor can't possibly change a gold sovereign for a three-bit meat pie.  The most powerful PC wizard in my campaign's history -- and at a skill level to make her one of the world's greatest wizards -- knows Summon Teapot, because you never know when you might want a hot, soothing cup in the back of beyond.  And let's face it, if a Birth Control spell doesn't make the Top Five List of any gameworld's enchanted item roster by volume, it's because the concept is forbidden by religion or the GM has no handle on the motivations of real people.

As far as the general desirability of spellcasters in campaigns, that's of course a personal preference thing.  But as to how much a wizard "usurps" the niches of other characters?

Bullshit.  Just bullshit.

I will be one happy camper when the 1950s-two-women-at-the-party-wearing-the-same-dress BS concept of "niche protection" is a vanished memory.  The job of adventurers is to solve the adventure.  Period.  I freely admit that there are drama queens out there whose egos can't stand the concept of not having a skill that They Do Better Than Anyone Else, but I see no reason to coddle or cater to them.

Quote from: Omega;860807Theres an economy? Where? :confused:

Crafting rules, wealth by level, that sort of thing. Everyone of X level will have N value of magical loot. Dirt cheap scrolls & wands that make the spell slots per day fairly meaningless.

That kind of stuff.

As near as I can tell some people must be real shitheads, and the people they play with are real shitheads, and they never talk to each other to, oh, you know, coordinate their efforts.

I think you're overly liberal with your disdain.  A more involved rule set is a tool for broader and more complex communication.  You might not need or want it but other people do and I don't think it means they're shit heads.  They just have different priorities and preferences than you.

As for the fifteen minute adventuring day, that's just lazy DMing and poor dungeon design.

If your monsters have half a brain they will slip out the back door and be waiting for the weakened adventurers to leave if they pull the go back to camp overnight stunt more than once.  Ambushes at the entrance and reprisal attacks on the camp.  And boy, if the adventurers decide to camp in the same spot every time and fortify it they might just undermine it and drop them into a sink hole.

Generally I believe the GM should always hand out a few goodies to keep the PCs going until they're over their heads.  A few healing potions and scrolls early on will keep low level characters involved without making the game a dull grind.

But in general I prefer games like GURPS that give people relatively competent player characters from the start and lack the steep power climb of D&D.  Not that I don't think the spell Measurement and the Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Greek Philosophy skill combo isn't as broken as all get out.  Being able to measure things very accurately and having a basic knowledge of logic can be really powerful.

Nothing to do with "a more involved rule set."  At all.

The complaint was "Always great to be playing a thief that needs to roll to pick a lock (having a chance of failure) when Beardy McTwiddlethumbs can wiggle his eyebrows and just make it happen."

My response is "learn to cooperate."

Okay, I'm pretty sure we can agree that niche protection is an absurd notion at the best of times.  It's like people complaining about groups that are missing skills in Traveller when you can always hire someone.  Sure they're going to betray you eventually but in the mean time they've got the skill you needed.

In D&D, at low levels Beardy McTwiddle thumb sacrifices a good chunk of expendable fire power to open the door or climb the wall and even at high levels he is sacrificing a lot of long run ability.  It used to take a long time for a Wizard to study a full load of spells at tenth level.

None of this cast any first level spell slot nonsense back then.  (actually I don't mind that change but it did make Wizards more complex)

Though actually, running games for teenagers at my store, yes I game with some real shit heads sometimes.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;860887Crafting rules, wealth by level, that sort of thing. Everyone of X level will have N value of magical loot. Dirt cheap scrolls & wands that make the spell slots per day fairly meaningless.

That kind of stuff.

None of that other than some loose crafting rules are in A or BX D&D. Id have to dig out the DMG but I am fairly sure the scrolls and wands were relatively expensive and not exactly super common unless the DM was stocking magic shops. Which is a problem with the DM. Not the game.

Quote from: Ravenswing;860818Sorry, but a lot of wizards are going to have spells to tell time.  To light fires.  To clean themselves (or their surroundings) without fuss, water or soap.  To measure volumes and distances in a snap.  To make small change when the pushcart vendor can't possibly change a gold sovereign for a three-bit meat pie.

That's all assuming a certain flavor of fantasy... ubiquitous, repeatable, reliable, safe magic. Which is fine... but that's just one approach among many.
Not that I think all spells should be 'paramilitary' either... I'm thinking of what uses would be worth the cost/risk... seducing a king/queen, angering/pacifying the populace of a city, immortality for the wizard, enchanting men to fight for your cause.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860898Nothing to do with "a more involved rule set."  At all.

The complaint was "Always great to be playing a thief that needs to roll to pick a lock (having a chance of failure) when Beardy McTwiddlethumbs can wiggle his eyebrows and just make it happen."

My response is "learn to cooperate."

That would be the difference, the thief needs to make a check which isn't guaranteed, the spell doesn't and is.

So they can easily cooperate, Sticky McFingerthumbs rolls and fails then Beardy McTwiddlethumbs can wiggle his eyebrows and make it happen.  What people finally figured out was why have Sticky McFingerthumbs even roll.

Quote from: Omega;860909None of that other than some loose crafting rules are in A or BX D&D. Id have to dig out the DMG but I am fairly sure the scrolls and wands were relatively expensive and not exactly super common unless the DM was stocking magic shops. Which is a problem with the DM. Not the game.

I was speaking exclusively about 3E. These became problems in 3.0 when they weren't really issues before that.

Quote from: Sommerjon;860914That would be the difference, the thief needs to make a check which isn't guaranteed, the spell doesn't and is.

So they can easily cooperate, Sticky McFingerthumbs rolls and fails then Beardy McTwiddlethumbs can wiggle his eyebrows and make it happen.  What people finally figured out was why have Sticky McFingerthumbs even roll.

That didn't happen in OD&D, AD&D or B/X because memorized spells were not as plentiful, and cheap wands & scrolls were not available by default. A wizard in these editions who tried to play thief was only good for a short day and couldn't do much else so it was pointless.

A 3E wizard could simply load up on scrolls and wands of thief ability spells, then use spell slots for wizard spells.

It reminds me of the same complaints against generalists, like bards. Flexibility is a strength unto itself. Specialization becomes critical if you can anticipate and manage party composition in response to the expected challenges.

I personally think the time grind of longer combats exacerbated this. Because with less playtime, the less encounters or challenges per delve. And thus the greater necessity for hyperspecialization (and subsequent desire for niche protection).

Further, the combat length grind bookkeeping, and hyper-focus on combat for XP, ends up discouraging hirelings. Which in turn tightens the circle of reliance onto the PCs themselves as much as possible. Why risk sharing XP or treasure, and why give the GM more playtime bookkeing with himself?

I blame 3e. It may not be completely true, but I just like saying that. (Because 2e did have short combats and a manifold of ways to gain XP besides combat. Sooo, the timeline suggests... :rolleyes:)

I seem to recall scrolls being purchasable in BX, although it might have been B or BECMI. I don't remember them being overly expensive, although with no (greater than potion/scroll) magic item purchasing, there wasn't much to do with gold until it was time to build a keep, so my perspective might have been skewed.

As to ExploderWizard's point--yes, 3rd edition had some serious issues with it, easy and assumed scroll purchasing being a big one. I think everyone still playing it or PF have pretty much put fixes in place by now if they feel the need.