Quote from: Opaopajr;861463That's easily a majority of the extant TSR settigns. Magic was habitually dangerous, unreliable, and contingent on setting environment for much of the game up unto the year 2000. And then something happened... :rolleyes:

I do not count not being able to cast spells as "risky" Spelljammer and the module that takes you to modern England do that too. I mentioned Dragonlances moons previously. But that isnt risk. Just power wax and wane.

When did FR introduce the wild magic zones? I dont recall that in the early versions?

But otherwise no. Magic was not risky. Just limited based on setting. Not the same thing at all.

Quote from: Ravenswing;861442I strongly, strongly disagree.  The "basic game" is NOT about "martial undertakings."

Well, that's what it said right on the box cover; that's the game that's described in the books. Go into underworld dark or wilderness wild, defeat traps and monsters and plunder treasures.

QuoteThe "game" is about whatever the players want it to be about, and no one should have to point out the staggeringly obvious fact that forty years into this hobby, there are quite a few campaigns out there that aren't about monster-infested dungeons.  In many a campaign, combat is uncommon, and the problem solving that goes into scenarios involve solutions that aren't about inflicting hit points of damage.

IF so much demand exists, then the reason it's unfilled is either:

A) because it's all from wankers who in so many decades can't get off their asses and actually do squat except whine, or

B) because folks actually get along in that very fashion without needing a bunch of write ups of spells such as Colicky Baby Charm, or

C) you're  mistaking a lot of other games for Dungeons & Dragons games, and folks are instead using other rules sets that are geared to whatever they're doing.

Quote from: Ravenswing;861102Which is something of the standard.  Most systems do have magic that works that way: predictable, repeatable, reliable.

And that's what makes the most sense.  I agree that mysterious/powerful/perilous is a popular literary trope.  Where I differ is in believing that almost no one would really learn such magics, in a realistic world.  If I've got a 1-in-20 chance of blowing myself up through casting a spell, that's grotesquely too risky for anyone with a smidgen of common sense, even barring the probability that your average apprentice wizard would kill himself before graduating.  And if I've got a 1-in-100 chance of razing a city block every time I cast a spell, the mere knowledge of sorcery would be a capital crime in every civilized land.

In the context of real-world historical Occultism: magic was (perceived as) only semi-reliable, semi-predictable and semi-repeatable.  It had a danger of potential madness, demonic attack, potentially risking your immortal soul, and in the case of Alchemy at least of literally killing you (by poisoning, blowing yourself to bits, etc).  

People still did it, though.  Most didn't do it well. Quite a lot only acted like they did it while really just reading a bit about it and talking a lot about it. But there were still quite a few who took all the risks: why? Because the potential rewards were enormous.

And that's without fireballs.

Depends on the culture and mythology.

In many magic is a fairly reliable and even repeatable process. In others it is reliable, but one shot, or limited in potency. In yet others magic has specific limitations that allow it to be countered.

Occultism on the other hand deals more oft in unreliable, fickle power sources that can on a whim turn on the user. But there are also repeatable spells and formula. Often the greater the effect the more the risk. But note that also often these occult sources tend to be more man-made or pact born than purely supernatural. That  is a differene to keep in mind. Citing occultism is like citing UFO sightings. Too much variance.

Quote from: Ravenswing;861442I strongly, strongly disagree.  The "basic game" is NOT about "martial undertakings."  The "game" is about whatever the players want it to be about, and no one should have to point out the staggeringly obvious fact that forty years into this hobby, there are quite a few campaigns out there that aren't about monster-infested dungeons.  In many a campaign, combat is uncommon, and the problem solving that goes into scenarios involve solutions that aren't about inflicting hit points of damage.

D&D doesn't have to be "a game of slaying horrible monsters" (per James Wyatt in 4e preview book) or a game of dungeon-crawling, but clearly it is 'about' the broad fantasy adventure genre. You can emphasise eg social interaction or political intrigue, but it remains a game focused on particular matters, not a general world-sim. You can use it for other stuff, eg the concerns of basket-weaving women in a pre-industrial economy, but you won't get much support from the material provided.

Hating magic is a perfectly valid stance, but I don't find low level utility magic to be any worse than "badass normals" who are all renaissance men.

I do also like the idea of magic being dangerous (like in Stormbringer or WFRP 1e) or unpredictable, but D&D style functional magic doesn't upset me.

Quote from: S'mon;862706D&D doesn't have to be "a game of slaying horrible monsters" (per James Wyatt in 4e preview book) or a game of dungeon-crawling, but clearly it is 'about' the broad fantasy adventure genre. You can emphasise eg social interaction or political intrigue, but it remains a game focused on particular matters, not a general world-sim. You can use it for other stuff, eg the concerns of basket-weaving women in a pre-industrial economy, but you won't get much support from the material provided.

Not the point.

No one's saying that RPGs can't be used for "martial undertakings."  Some of you seem very heavily invested in insisting they're not permitted to be used for anything but.  However bizarre it may seem to the D&D-is-a-wargame set, a lot of game systems have spells, skills, abilities, systems and the like with no direct application to martial adventures.  

Heck, even D&D does, although if this was a topic that was supposed to discuss ONLY D&D, it might have been helpful to hang "[D&D]" off the thread title.

Quote from: Ravenswing;862720Not the point.

No one's saying that RPGs can't be used for "martial undertakings."  Some of you seem very heavily invested in insisting they're not permitted to be used for anything but.  However bizarre it may seem to the D&D-is-a-wargame set, a lot of game systems have spells, skills, abilities, systems and the like with no direct application to martial adventures.  

Heck, even D&D does, although if this was a topic that was supposed to discuss ONLY D&D, it might have been helpful to hang "[D&D]" off the thread title.

Well, you said "the basic game" - 'The "basic game" is NOT about "martial undertakings." The "game" is about whatever the players want it to be about - you were talking about RPGs in general, not any particular RPG?

Quote from: Ravenswing;862720No one's saying that RPGs can't be used for "martial undertakings."  Some of you seem very heavily invested in insisting they're not permitted to be used for anything but.

I've got no issues at all with magic being used for non-combat purposes.
What I'm generally not a fan of is settings with ubiquitous cheap magic... magical street lamps and animated brooms cleaning out the root cellar. But I can imagine loads of uses that magic could be put to, besides combat, and retain the flavor of the expensive/dangerous/unreliable magic I prefer. Stuff like trying to control the weather, effect public sentiments, explore astral realms, etc.

One negative view on "utility magic", which I think is a preference worth considering when designing/choosing what one wants to play intentionally, is that some magic, particularly if available with little or no limit, cost, risk, nor needed uncommon supplies, is that is can remove elements, situations, conflicts and considerations from play which might otherwise be considered interesting or desirable for some players. (Of course, other players may like not having these areas, and may even ignore them without magic. They're all choices.)

Examples:

* Excessive magic that creates food - no more need to consider supplies, their cost, weight, cooking skills, spoilage, loss, etc.

* Magic that heals wounds - no more concern about wounds outside combat, if the magic healing source survives. No need for mundane healers, time to rest, consideration for how to protect and care for the wounded, or allocation of limited healing resources. Enough magic healing can also reduce the consequences of combat to nearly nothing unless the whole party is wiped out or something special happens. This can escalate violence in a game as players realize they may as well fight anything they can beat without getting totally wiped out, because healing is trivial. Gets more extreme when it's hard to really die and/or resurrection is easily available.

* Magic that reliably detects lies can completely change / eliminate situations that would otherwise exist around loyalty, secrets, and schemes. E.g. I've been in games where anyone joining the group needs to submit to "routine" mindreading first, and games where all the PCs are psychic and expected to constantly be in telepathic rapport so they all see what everyone else sees all the time. Telepathy not only made it hard to hide anything, but removed all sorts of communication issues that would otherwise be part of play.

* Magic that trivializes other game elements that could pose interesting or at least significant non-trivial problems to work around for non-magical parties, such as weather, lighting, carrying capacity, terrain, cleaning, equipment maintenance.

* Magic that detects and/or analyzes magic can remove what would otherwise be mysterious or risky situations dealing with unknown enchantments, spells, potions, etc.

* Various other types of information magic can remove entire other types of inquiry / investigation / scouting which could otherwise be interesting material for mundane skills and situations. No need for stealthy human scouts when you can send a bird or illusionary bat and see through its eyes, etc.

* Routine "buff" and skill-imparting/replacing spells can trivialize the abilities of non-magical specialists in combat or other activities.

Etc.

Quote from: Skarg;862800One negative view on "utility magic", which I think is a preference worth considering when designing/choosing what one wants to play intentionally, is that some magic, particularly if available with little or no limit, cost, risk, nor needed uncommon supplies, is that is can remove elements, situations, conflicts and considerations from play which might otherwise be considered interesting or desirable for some players.

I like your ideas, Skarg. It might be interesting to explore the extent to which the development of magic in a setting had affected the development of other disciplines, like natural sciences or climbing techniques. A world with a completely different understanding of medicine, for example, so that certain healing (of visible wounds, say) would be trivial but anything without a magical analogue would be unavailable. Developing new spells for medical purposes might also be difficult or impossible while the caster still attributes pain to the stomach goblin. If magic is plentiful enough, you could even get situations where the mad villain is doing research into crazy "new" disciplines, like siege technology or herbalism that no one else understands. That could be fun.

I guess my point is that no magic, limited dangerous magic, and ubiquitous magic (Earthdawn? Eberron?) can all be fun for me, depending on how they are explored and the ways in which they affect the gaming experience.

Quote from: Simlasa;862754I've got no issues at all with magic being used for non-combat purposes.
What I'm generally not a fan of is settings with ubiquitous cheap magic... magical street lamps and animated brooms cleaning out the root cellar. But I can imagine loads of uses that magic could be put to, besides combat, and retain the flavor of the expensive/dangerous/unreliable magic I prefer. Stuff like trying to control the weather, effect public sentiments, explore astral realms, etc.

Ubiquitous cheap magic was part of the premise of Operation Chaos. Crystal Balls as TV sets. Illusions for advertising. You need a setting that supports this stuff. Otherwise you end up with a potential discordant mishmash. And that applies to non-magical things as well.

Probably why some Dragonlance fans so dislike the Tinker Gnomes. Or why some D&D players do not want guns and cannons in their campaigns. Or why some dislike Psionics, or even non-humans in their fantasy settings.

I'm torn on utility magic.  On one hand, it can be really problematic and yes, it seems like no (or at least not nearly enough) thought is given to how it would really affect the world it exists in, but on the other hand it makes playing mages a lot more fun than they would be were it not around.

My biggest qualm with magic is when it is so powerful that it acts as a quick win button for an entire scenario, and/or makes any games about mysteries, or about difficult travel impossible.  I've been fortunate that my group doesn't mind me either tweaking how such spells work or banning them.

I love utility magic, that's probably why I love GURPS Magic, in all its world breaking glory, so much.

But I do think it should be a thing that works best for wizards and isn't readily or cheaply available at the marketplace.  "Yes I have a fey goblin which handles my excrement.  How?  I haven't the foggiest.  There's also a boggart in the wine cellar that eats the rats.  You wouldn't want one, it has certain esoteric needs you wouldn't care to meet."

Quote from: S'mon;862743Well, you said "the basic game" - 'The "basic game" is NOT about "martial undertakings." The "game" is about whatever the players want it to be about - you were talking about RPGs in general, not any particular RPG?

He was responding to me, and I was talking about D&D. I was also talking about every other handbook of my experience in which in what he complained about -- focus on military spells -- is in fact the case. It is the case because the originators made up a game about military matters. They did not make up a game about Jane Austen marriage intrigues and then stupidly write tons of irrelevant material while neglecting stuff they would actually use, as Ravenswing accuses.

Maybe Ravenswing could clue us in by giving actual examples of the rules sets he has in mind? Helpful advice on products to avoid is better than sweeping accusations that just make for bewilderment without his apparently eccentric experience.