Quote from: cranebump;955713See, now, you have this "you have your powers, here's the tradeoff" thing going, which is always something I can always get behind. That's why I like magic with some element of risk involved. You're tinkering with awesome forces. It's dangerous. There's a price to pay. Nice!

Yeah, that's the point:).

QuoteI was working with the same idea while creating a system that used a version of "Strain," which I called "Exhaustion." You could "overstrain," but with increasing consequences (and every spell *might* have a consequence, if you flub the casting roll). But we went with 5E, and seeing as how I've already nuked some magic in the current campaign, for good or ill (to include making Necromancy illegal in the "civilized" lands), introducing an additional sub-system might be a bit much.

Oh, I'm not recommending to tangle with the existing magic system of 5e, I'd rather avoid that, too, if I was running it. My whole point was that your restrictions aren't "too much", since no matter how you look at it, even wizards with no divinations have many more abilities than just a human with a magic sword;).

Quote from: cranebump;955764That's "grand concept," or, as I like to call it "rationale for the way things work."

And that's why I've never done it, merely considered it. It's not worth the effort to me, since I could do the same thing more easily with another game and it doesn't come with the expectations baggage of 'D&D.'

Quote from: cranebump;955764How about we assume that isn't the purpose . . . [?]

I already know that wasn't your purpose, as I noted upthread.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;955616But it sounds like you didn't really think it through, rather than set out by design to fuck the players in the earholes.

But please, continue getting pissed at me for assuming I'm trying to bust your balls specifically, rather than speaking about refereeing generally.

Quote from: cranebump;955764If fairness doesn't enter into it, then it doesn't matter why a GM wants to tweak his campaign, because now we've removed the main criticism one would expect to receive.

I wouldn't expect that to be the main criticism at all - I'd expect the main criticism to be, 'But divination magic is part of D&D, and now we're playing something that feels less like D&D.' The World's Most Popular comes with a shitload of expectations, and I'm fine with that - I'll tweak around the edges to fit the game-world, but wholesale changes to broad swaths of the rules? Not worth the effort to me.

Quote from: cranebump;955764I don't actually disagree with the criticism that making a campaign decision simply to screw with players is poor GM'ing. But it's hard to figure where you're coming from -- most of the time -- because (a) you don't seem to like anything anyone else does, regardless of what it is . . .

Ninety percent of everything is bullshit. I'm tough to impress.

Quote from: cranebump;955764. . . and (b) your manner of knee-jerk, guttural presentation too often obscures any insights one might gain from your wisdom or experience . . .

Anyone who expects wisdom from me needs to rethink their life.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;955787I wouldn't expect that to be the main criticism at all - I'd expect the main criticism to be, 'But divination magic is part of D&D, and now we're playing something that feels less like D&D.' The World's Most Popular comes with a shitload of expectations, and I'm fine with that - I'll tweak around the edges to fit the game-world, but wholesale changes to broad swaths of the rules? Not worth the effort to me.

Anyone who expects wisdom from me needs to rethink their life.

1: Newsflash. If no one takes a cleric and no cleric NPCs are around then guess what? A WHOLE CLASS of magic and abilities isnt present. AD&D Conan removes clerics, druids paladins and rangers and makes magic users and the like really rare. Theres been settings with this or that removed and sorry. Still D&D.

2: Well that post above sure proved that...

ahem.

Vuls right though in that theres a line where it stops being "correcting a mistake/oversight" and becomes "shackle the players/PCs so they cant mess with my plot."

Wether the OP falls into column A or B or in between is hard to say as I dont know his setting, style, or the players prefs.

Well, there is also "players can't think."

Like, down in my dungeon on the first level is Necross the (Ha Ha Ha!) Mad.

Sitting in an open chamber, relaxing in an armchair, smoking a pipe, and reading a book.

Some dimbulb said "Just poison his next batch of pipe tobacco, that'll fix him!"

To which I replied  "yeah, sure, nobody in the last 200 years has ever thought of that."

Wizards live in towers.  Wizards also know damn well about "Rock to Mud."  Think about it.

Et fucking cetera.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;955787Anyone who expects wisdom from me needs to rethink their life.

On this point, I must agree.:-)

Quote from: Omega;955853Vuls right though in that theres a line where it stops being "correcting a mistake/oversight" and becomes "shackle the players/PCs so they cant mess with my plot."

Whether the OP falls into column A or B or in between is hard to say as I dont know his setting, style, or the players prefs.

I can speak to the setting, style thing.

Setting is homebrew that came out of our Dungeon World Saga, which we are continuing as a 5E campaign. Sparing the details but currently, due to various incidents, resembles a "points of light" campaign, with the character base location being a sprawling city, which became so during a big ol' war with demons, during which the nature of magic was reshaped (i.e., we switched from DW to 5E, so the magic systems are different).

Style: Normally work with whatever the players bring to the table. I'm a "say Yes" GM, with the exception of limiting race/class selection in this instance. Normally, anything in the core rules is fair game (and other things brought to the table might be). The exceptions in this instance are:

*No Tieflings (because anything that looks like a demon would be hunted and killed).

*No Dragonborn. (because no [personal prejudice on my part, more than anything] They also were never established, and there's no compelling reason to bring them in.).

*No Clerics (the nature of the whole "reshaping" has also cut the world off from the divine).

*No divination magic (the reasons for which form the basis of this discussion thread--really an off the cuff comment that I've decided to stick with (which could turn out to be a poor decision--we'll see).

*Players: the campaign conceits have come out of the decisions they made during the Dungeon World saga. My decisions for playable race/class are based on what has been established in the game world, which came out of direct player input, both in and out of game sessions. They are a good group that just wants to play the game, for the most part. We are not a very serious group (case in point: one of the Gods created during the DW campaign was "Eunomoch," who looked like Jeff Bridges as "The Dude," and whose Holy Symbol is often found stitched into rugs and tapestries).:-)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;955787But please, continue getting pissed at me for assuming I'm trying to bust your balls specifically, rather than speaking about refereeing generally.

Fair enough. But please consider that your previously established (likely trademarked) dickery might create those assumptions on my part. Shitwit.:-)

QuoteI wouldn't expect that to be the main criticism at all - I'd expect the main criticism to be, 'But divination magic is part of D&D, and now we're playing something that feels less like D&D.' The World's Most Popular comes with a shitload of expectations, and I'm fine with that - I'll tweak around the edges to fit the game-world, but wholesale changes to broad swaths of the rules? Not worth the effort to me.

That would be something to consider, I agree. However, I would offer that the criticism heavily depends on whether you consider a school of divination magic an integral part of what makes D&D what it is, or just another part of the campaign tool box, along with races, classes, skills, etc. I also think it's less effort to say, "No Enchantment spells," rather than "this works, this doesn't, and this does, under these circumstances." I can't say whether it feels less D&D, because I haven't run it enough yet, but the first sessions was D&D enough. In the long run, your assertion, above, may prove to be true. I just don't know yet.


Tangential: What I REALLY would rather do is make every Wizard a school caster who cannot cast from the opposition schools, a la 2E D&D, and the way I used to run Wizards when I ran that system. (and probably what I should have done in the first place).

QuoteNinety percent of everything is bullshit. I'm tough to impress.

Hey, no one said anything about impressing. Just maybe lightly beat people on the head with the pommel once in awhile, rather than going for the gut slice.

Quote from: Omega;955853Newsflash. If no one takes a cleric and no cleric NPCs are around then guess what? A WHOLE CLASS of magic and abilities isnt present.

*facepalm*

'If I don't see a tree from my window, guess what? THERE ARE NO FORESTS!'

Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury in the last six months, or did I somehow hold a higher opinion of you than you warrant?

Quote from: Omega;955853AD&D Conan removes clerics, druids paladins and rangers and makes magic users and the like really rare.

And that's specifically so if feels like the Hyborian Age, which doesn't feel like out-of-the-box D&D.

Quote from: cranebump;955912But please consider that your previously established (likely trademarked) dickery might create those assumptions on my part.

Or your reading comprehension sucks.

Occam's razor.

Quote from: cranebump;955912That would be something to consider, I agree. However, I would offer that the criticism heavily depends on whether you consider a school of divination magic an integral part of what makes D&D what it is, or just another part of the campaign tool box, along with races, classes, skills, etc.

For me, speaking to the gawds is part-and-parcel of playing a cleric, so I tend to think of it as integral to the game.

I also think D&D is overrated as a toolbox - yeah, it's been stretched this way and that over its long life, but when I hear 'D&D' I think of a knight, a wizard, and a warrior monk setting forth to win a dragon's hoard or die trying.

Quote from: cranebump;955912I also think it's less effort to say, "No Enchantment spells," rather than "this works, this doesn't, and this does, under these circumstances."

Agreed, provided you know exactly what you're giving away when you say no enchantment spells.

Quote from: cranebump;955912Just maybe lightly beat people on the head with the pommel once in awhile, rather than going for the gut slice.

A poster tried to forum-nanny me once. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

QuoteOr your reading comprehension sucks.

Occam's razor.

My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. Or rather, it's no worse than your assumptions about what you think you meant versus what others think you mean. Communications is a circular process. I don't think we're absent explanations, though, so I'm not sure we need Occam and his silly ass razor (Occam needs a new fucking hobby).

QuoteFor me, speaking to the gawds is part-and-parcel of playing a cleric, so I tend to think of it as integral to the game.

Makes sense, if you're running straight outta the box. I have no personal antipathy toward clerics. Just following the cosmic ethos, with was inspired, in part, by a gnostic view of the universe (yeah, I know--metashit, but I feel like I should have some idea of the way the world works, if I'm going to run it).

We ran just like that, until our particular situation changed because of a player decision that brought about an unexpected (to them) consequence. The current world really is the lesser of two evils, and the player knew that would be the case when he made his decision.  That said, it doesn't mean the consequence is necessarily a permanent affliction. Certainly re-establishing the divine could become a part of the campaign fabric. Unfortunately, I'm moving out of state in a couple of months, so I don't know how that will suss out. The players would have to want to look into that. If they did, it would become part of their campaign.

P.S. I think it's helpful to remember here that the previous campaign was Dungeon World, so meta-stuff was ingrained.

QuoteI also think D&D is overrated as a toolbox - yeah, it's been stretched this way and that over its long life, but when I hear 'D&D' I think of a knight, a wizard, and a warrior monk setting forth to win a dragon's hoard or die trying.

Man, I wish. My current crop doesn't go for the gold and glory thing. They pursue what they pursue. I follow the threads they tug on, and then try to conjure some sort of logical consequence for what they do. It's an imperfect science, for sure, but the upside is nothing need be permanent, especially if I have screwed up royally.

They say, "make it your own," which, for me, normally doesn't involve too much wanking with the core. This time, through a combination of choices and me shooting my mouth off, it did. We'll see what happens.

QuoteAgreed, provided you know exactly what you're giving away when you say no enchantment spells.

Ay, there's the rub. I think I have an idea of what we're giving up, but I'm not sure how fubar it may be (which is why I asked if anyone else had done anything like that). For all I know, it may be fine. I think it would be the height of hubris for me to assume I have all the answers. If I did, I wouldn't play.

Per the linked thread, above, I can see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, you don't know if players are going to find things less fun (though I know these players pretty well--only one of them is a huge magic advocate and, guess what? He decided not to run a wizard--BEFORE the whole "hey, guess, no divination!"). However, the "dull and tired" argument hinges on what is "fun," which is utterly subjective. There is therefore no way to know whether what we're doing is "fun" or "not." If it isn't, there's no reason we can't change it back, if it comes to that. I think you don't really know for sure whether you like the goddamned broccoli until you taste the damned broccoli.

QuoteA poster tried to forum-nanny me once. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Change fava to borracho beans and the Chianti to Belgian Ale, and I'm there with you (though my aged stomach would hate me for it).

For the record, I'll revisit the question with the players and see what they think. If they believe it will just fuck things up, I'll drop it. I'll also ask them why they didn't say something about it when it come up, though.

Any offhand comment can be offhandedly uncommented.

So try it and if it doesn't work, change it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;956022*facepalm*

'If I don't see a tree from my window, guess what? THERE ARE NO FORESTS!'

Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury in the last six months, or did I somehow hold a higher opinion of you than you warrant?

Nice goal post moving there. Try again please.

Quote from: Omega;956055Nice goal post moving there. Try again please.

Translation: 'I'm too stupid to (1) understand the analogy and/or (2) formulate an actual witty/scathing reply.'

That something isn't available in your immediately situation isn't the same as that something never being available anywhere anytime. That there are no clerics among the player characters or no non-player character clerics in the vicinity is not the same as no clerics anywhere in the setting.

That I had to explain this to you is just another way of making yourself look dumb. You'd've been better off keeping your fingers away from your keyboard rather than confirming just how dense you are.

Quote from: Omega;956055Nice goal post moving there. Try again please.

It's the Vully, he's not worth discussing with.  All he's got is insults and nothing else.

I'm beginning to think my half onion bit might be the best part of this topic...

Quote from: Opaopajr;956284I'm beginning to think my half onion bit might be the best part of this topic...

It would be hard to dispute that, at this point.:-)