TheRPGSite

So, we crank up this 5E thing, and I dismiss Wizard (Diviner) as a playable archetype, partly because one of the players says that the Diviner has an OP special ability at lower levels. While we're running session #1, I get asked, "so, was that just diviners, or all divination spells?"

Thinking about the current campaign, wherein various "chaos spouts" (called "kataria") have opened in order to keep the Gods of Law at bay (thus screening ALL gods from exerting influence, therefore no divine magic), I figure, "well, maybe divination magic is screwed up, too, as the "weave" is constantly in flux (which would really mess with ALL magic, but never mind that), and I say, "Nope--no divination spells. They just don't work."

Oh, my, my...boy are there a lot of useful tools now GONE. Yet, I find this intriguing.

So, my question, has anyone ever done this sort of thing, no divination spells? (abilities like Paladin sense still work, though).

Quote from: cranebump;955532So, my question, has anyone ever done this sort of thing, no divination spells?

I tend to avoid 'high concept' shit.

Yes, everyone in my cooking fantasia carries half an onion, just like Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment. Basically there was little on hand to cook game in the wilderness besides the herbs available in the immediate vicinity of battle. So, I decreed that every NPC carries half an onion, just in case -- and thus it became setting canon.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;955550I tend to avoid 'high concept' shit.

Not sure it's so much "high concept" as it is, "sorry, this shit don't work." In particular, a LOT of helpful shit--all the detection shit, to be specific. Conceptually, the whole "chaos spouts" thing came out what happened with the Dungeon World capstone. The wizard succeeded in destroying a relic in order to "protect the world." It did so, but at a cost, and this is one of them. I guess that's a "concept." I guess...

Anyhoo, we just started, but I feel like it might make the world even more interesting, and certainly more mysterious, for the players, because they can't dice their way to knowledge. What's the potion? Dunno, taste it. Wonder what their alignment is? Fuck if I know. No finding, scrying, detecting or communing. No comprehending languages or speaking with animals. No Locate Object. Goodbye shortcuts (well, outside skills, I guess).

Then again, maybe it's just some GM dickery, rationalized.:-)

I probably have, but I also long ago granted myself the ability to say "That was a mistake so I'm declaring it's really this way instead."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955606I probably have, but I also long ago granted myself the ability to say "That was a mistake so I'm declaring it's really this way instead."

Same here, especially when you're piggy backing on the campaign weave via reaction to player stuff and all that. These days, my biggest mess ups occur when I do something like, "So, now that you figured out your mentor was kidnapped, what next?" and they all look around at each other, til one of them says, "He was kidnapped? We didn't know that." (You didn't? But I thought you...okay, so...now you know... [derrrrrrr]).:-)

Quote from: cranebump;955532and I say, "Nope--no divination spells. They just don't work."

Oh, my, my...boy are there a lot of useful tools now GONE. Yet, I find this intriguing.

So...you're saying a bit of foresight might have helped before dismissing all divinations? :D

Quote from: Tristram Evans;955610So...you're saying a bit of foresight might have helped before dismissing all divinations? :D

The irony is not lost on me, my friend. (and I LIKE IT).:-)

Quote from: Opaopajr;955553Yes, everyone in my cooking fantasia carries half an onion, just like Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment. Basically there was little on hand to cook game in the wilderness besides the herbs available in the immediate vicinity of battle. So, I decreed that every NPC carries half an onion, just in case -- and thus it became setting canon.

That is some cool stuff, right there.

Quote from: cranebump;955605Not sure it's so much "high concept" as it is, "sorry, this shit don't work."

Saying it's a world without divination magic may not be, but the part about 'chaos spouts' and the 'Gods of Law' most certainly is, to my narrowed, jaded eyes.

Quote from: cranebump;955605Then again, maybe it's just some GM dickery, rationalized.:-)

Given that divination is the very last form of magic I would throw out, yeah, it seems a bit like 'no cellular service or Internet access' in a modern game, a way for shitty referees to dodge access to information and aid by the players' characters.

But it sounds like you didn't really think it through, rather than set out by design to fuck the players in the earholes.

I havent banned a whole spell array mainly because Im aware that there are many counters either allready in place in the system, or ones that can be created on the fly. That could be anything from a zone that prevents X from being used, to masking items or spells that counter the effect. etc.

I have though had whole classes not available due to a setting just not featuring them. Not because they were problematic. They just werent part of the setting.

I have no problem with a major change to define a homebrew setting.

It's no different than "Humans are the Only Sentient Race" or "There is no day or night, just gloom" or whatever.

I personally like Divination spells, but I could see declaring No XYZ spells for a certain campaigns. Hell, I've run D&D with no clerics only mages, and no mages only clerics, and both campaigns worked fine. The players just adjust and experience a different game.

But then again, my favorite Halo mod was the deathmatch with only rocket launchers and swords.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;955616Given that divination is the very last form of magic I would throw out...

Interesting way to put it. in what order would you throw types of magic out of a setting? What gets the axe first, and so on?

I cut divination spells from a short campaign which was basically a who-dunnit mystery.  Not much of a campaign if they could just divine the answers.

The diviner mage does have a pretty busted meta-power...but there are plenty of those. There are a few divination spells (eg, Wizard Eye) which are ridiculously good, but I hold that more to poor thinking/negligible playtesting by WotC than an actual problem with divination as a concept.

If I was going to throw out one class of spells, it'd be "cantrips." That might not be the what was intended, though. Next up? Probably summons, or at least I'd rewrite them so they don't require either the player to flip through all possible monsters to figure out what's bestest, or for the DM to be a dick/prepare in advance for every possibility to come up in some fair way.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;955616Saying it's a world without divination magic may not be, but the part about 'chaos spouts' and the 'Gods of Law' most certainly is, to my narrowed, jaded eyes.

Given that divination is the very last form of magic I would throw out, yeah, it seems a bit like 'no cellular service or Internet access' in a modern game, a way for shitty referees to dodge access to information and aid by the players' characters.

But it sounds like you didn't really think it through, rather than set out by design to fuck the players in the earholes.

To follow along with the metaphor, if divination spells are the equivalent of internet and cell phones, they'll still be able to find shit out. It'll just be more difficult, or take longer. Experiment versus button mashing. A sage, instead of a spell slot. the short cut is missing is all. We'll see how it works.

(P.S. what do you feed that bug up your ass to keep it so hale and hardy? You can hear it buzzing in every fucking post you make)

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;955643Interesting way to put it. in what order would you throw types of magic out of a setting?

If we're going by the D&D 'schools,' evocation and alteration go first, followed by illusion, enchantment, conjuration and summoning - with the caveat that all the monster summoning shit can go straight in the dustbin from the giddyup - then necromancy and finally divination.

Quote from: cranebump;955648To follow along with the metaphor, if divination spells are the equivalent of internet and cell phones, they'll still be able to find shit out. It'll just be more difficult, or take longer. Experiment versus button mashing. A sage, instead of a spell slot. the short cut is missing is all.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the players having to work harder to get information, but it's a common refereeing crutch to want to fall back on The Gauntlet of challenges that higher level characters, by virtue of abilities, spellcasting, &c, can readily bypass: 'Why no, you can't wind walk over the Jungle of Robotic Kaiju 'cause . . . uh . . . anti-magic field! Guess you have to go on the ground.' *nervous laugh* To me, that's the worst kind of lazy-ass refereeing, after illusionism.

Quote from: cranebump;955648(P.S. what do you feed that bug up your ass to keep it so hale and hardy?)

The plentiful tears of gaming forum posters.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;955652The plentiful tears of gaming forum posters.

If only Chuck Norris posted here - then you could cure cancer!

Wizards Eye and Clairvoyance at least have the risk of you peeping a Medusa and getting remote stoned.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;955550I tend to avoid 'high concept' shit.

So like always you have nothing to offer except insults and anger?  Good to know.

As for the OP, I've done similar for various games.  I once ran a Super's setting that had no 'magic'.  I've taken out Evocation spells out of a 3.x game (Didn't affect it in the least.)  Shoulda hit the Divination school (which was obscenely overpowered in 3.x.)

Quote from: cranebump;955532So, my question, has anyone ever done this sort of thing, no divination spells? (abilities like Paladin sense still work, though).

Your fiat is a much more generous variant of what I'm doing in my current campaign;).

Quote from: Omega;955669... and getting remote stoned.

Is that like when someone smoking pot walks past you in the street and you inhale the second hand fumes?

Quote from: Black VulmeaIf we're going by the D&D 'schools,' evocation and alteration go first, followed by illusion, enchantment, conjuration and summoning - with the caveat that all the monster summoning shit can go straight in the dustbin from the giddyup - then necromancy and finally divination.

I'm surprised Enchantment was so high and Necromancy was so low. I figured your approach would be based on how subtle the effects were. What's your criterion?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;955652There's nothing inherently wrong with the players having to work harder to get information, but it's a common refereeing crutch to want to fall back on The Gauntlet of challenges that higher level characters, by virtue of abilities, spellcasting, &c, can readily bypass: 'Why no, you can't wind walk over the Jungle of Robotic Kaiju 'cause . . . uh . . . anti-magic field! Guess you have to go on the ground.' *nervous laugh* To me, that's the worst kind of lazy-ass refereeing, after illusionism.

Right. But there's a difference between throwing up an on-the-spot roadblock/set of railroad tracks to "protect" your adventure and laying down a setting convention and sticking to it, across all adventures, whatever or wherever they may be.

I think it's also important to note that, if they can't use divination, I can't, either. So, no scrying and spying from afar by any magical bad guys. No detecting lie through a spell when party tries to bluff their way past the court mage. If it works both ways, it's fair. If it's something I'm doing on the spot to simply or temporarily avoid a design challenge, then, yeah, it's being a lazy dickhead. Then again, if I have an "explanation" for why shit doesn't work, like, say, all the reasons certain things do not work in, oh, the Tomb of Horrors, then I guess I'm no longer a "lazy" DM, but a "challenging" one?

Quote from: AsenRG;955689Your fiat is a much more generous variant of what I'm doing in my current campaign;).

Oh, man...what ARE you doing?

Quote from: cranebump;955701Oh, man...what ARE you doing?

There's no magic except some hard to obtain potions, the magical abilities of magic creatures, and the Powerz of Thy Swords.
http://storiescharactersandsystemsinrpgs.blogspot.bg/2017/03/my-low-fantasymythras-setting.html

Quote from: AsenRG;955707There's no magic except some hard to obtain potions, the magical abilities of magic creatures, and the Powerz of Thy Swords.
http://storiescharactersandsystemsinrpgs.blogspot.bg/2017/03/my-low-fantasymythras-setting.html

See, 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!

I 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.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;955691What's your criterion?

I like magic that feels like trafficking in spirits and I like the implied setting it suggests.

Quote from: cranebump;955700. . . [T]here's a difference between throwing up an on-the-spot roadblock/set of railroad tracks to "protect" your adventure and laying down a setting convention and sticking to it, across all adventures, whatever or wherever they may be.

Not really, if the purpose is to make your life easier by cock-blocking the players. In fact, it's considerably worse, in my experience.

Quote from: cranebump;955700I think it's also important to note that, if they can't use divination, I can't, either. . . . If it works both ways, it's fair.

'Fair' doesn't enter into it. There are Imperial fucktons of shit in my campaigns which are in no way 'fair' to the player characters.

Quote from: cranebump;955700Then again, if I have an "explanation" for why shit doesn't work, like, say, all the reasons certain things do not work in, oh, the Tomb of Horrors . . .

Oh for the love of fucking Baby Jesus, can we please stop using that stupid module as a surrogate cock for dick-measuring? It's a fucking tournament one-shot, not a gawddamn campaign design treatise.

Quote from: cranebump;955700Then again, if I have an "explanation" for why shit doesn't work, like, say, all the reasons certain things do not work in, oh, the Tomb of Horrors...

Quote from: Black Vulmea;955733Oh for the love of fucking Baby Jesus, can we please stop using that stupid module as a surrogate cock for dick-measuring? It's a fucking tournament one-shot, not a gawddamn campaign design treatise.

Does B2 Keep on the Borderlands count?  Pretty much all the undead in the Shrine of Evil Chaos have amulets of protection from turning.  The amulets just bump them up a row on the turning chart (e.g., the zombies are turned as if they were ghouls) rather than giving them immunity, so it's not a total "fuck you" to the players, but it still smacks of "the players have an obvious easy solution, and I don't want them to use it" to me.

Well, the high-powered magic abilities are one of the reasons I don't run D&D at all.

I have made some mid-campaign rulings affecting what exists, which led to me deciding to think about those things in advance. So my decisions like that were mainly in TFT, which has a much more limited/balanced/manageable magic system. For instance, there are NO healing spells and only very limited healing potions ($100 each, heals ONE point of damage.) One of my first reactions was to the only (IIRC) strong divination ability, which is an enchanted crystal ball. I didn't handle it well, having the first player to hire the use of one get a vision of an assassin waiting for them to leave the building they were in. It did at least have the effect that they never tried looking in crystal balls ever again. And I then quietly made crystal balls slip into unavailability by casual consumers and anyone else relevant to the PCs. And I came to wish I had ruled that they didn't exist or no one knew how to make them. Which partly led to me deciding in future I should intentionally give thought and carefully limit what is available.

I also find GURPS Magic abilities overwhelming just to try to think about the implications of as a GM running a world with various powerful wizards in it.

I tend to be much more interested in non-magical problems and solutions, and the magic I'm least interested in tends to be the kind that makes interesting game situations trivial - e.g. healing, resurrection, long-distance teleportation, and spells which make needs like food/light/shelter/carrying/knowledge vanish in a puff of 95+% chance probability spells.

So what I have tended to do for many years now is build limited magic into my settings. Instead of "all magic exists" as the baseline, I start with "no one knows any magic" and then specify who knows what magic, and how they learn it. So, the Pyromancers on Penzance teach aid ritual, ignite, shape and restrain fire to apprentices, and certain more advanced spells to higher ups, mostly just fire spells with a few others, and a couple of mostly forbidden & forgotten spells locked in a dusty tome in storage. Then, the Druids of the Huldre Forest know Commune With Trees, etc etc etc. And that's it. Makes it possible to think rationally about who can do what, and I just really like that sort of thing.

And divination spells in general are a particular area that boggles my mind, because it seems like a nightmare to think of who's scrying whom and predicting what, IF the spells are as they're written, almost always giving nice accurate information without much restriction or uncertainty. I tend to want to nerf divination into more like real-world divination, where it is intuitive, uncertain, and gives feelings and hints and perspectives and enigmatic suggestions, and are not at all certain or reliable. (To my GM's mind, tracking political intrigue without any magic is bad enough, but as soon as people are commonly able to spy on each other with super-reliable instant magic, or even predict the future, that's crazy to think about the tactical implications. And, several of those implications involve ruining the fun and/or lives of independent adventuring parties starting to gain useful abilities.)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;955733I like magic that feels like trafficking in spirits and I like the implied setting it suggests.

To each his own. P.S. That's "grand concept," or, as I like to call it "rationale for the way things work."

QuoteNot really, if the purpose is to make your life easier by cock-blocking the players. In fact, it's considerably worse, in my experience.

How about we assume that isn't the purpose, since I already detailed the conditions by which magic works in that one campaign instance, and also admitted it was a spur of the moment decision (and ALSO added "we'll see how it works," to indicate it could turn out to be a poor decision). Further, we might also assume that I've GM'ed WITH all those spells for 30, 40 years now, and have been able to handle them ably enough.  

And finally, we might assume that ANY GM can attempt tweaks or changes in order to create a setting feel, without having some sort of agenda concerning how to make their own lives easier, or to primarily block our player options (indeed, if another, less convenient option is available, then the players are SLOWED, I guess, but not blocked).

Really, Black -- just because your first inclination seems to be douche baggery doesn't mean the rest of us play (or, evidently, live) that way.

Quote'Fair' doesn't enter into it. There are Imperial fucktons of shit in my campaigns which are in no way 'fair' to the player characters.

If 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. Or let me put it this way: you basically imply "cock blocking" ain't fair (above), then said fairness doesn't matter. So, which is it? Or are you making your decision about Syria even as we watch you stutter through your speech?

QuoteOh for the love of fucking Baby Jesus, can we please stop using that stupid module as a surrogate cock for dick-measuring? It's a fucking tourhen if it doesn't, a GM could "cock-block" all he wants to, because nament one-shot, not a gawddamn campaign design treatise.

Again, a whole lot of talk about dicks. Guess it was a rough time in Alcatraz last night...

I think we can cite ToH as a ready made, well-known, prime exemplar of GM dickery, totally designed to force the players to play the DM's way, written by a master DM. I would imagine the stuff you use that "isn't fair" fits the same mold, and is really no different than someone else saying, no cantrips, no enchantment, no summoning, etc. Because fairness doesn't matter.

(P.S. I 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, and (b) your manner of knee-jerk, guttural presentation too often obscures any insights one might gain from your wisdom or experience (assuming they want to parse their way through the dick references). Don't worry--I've no expectation that anything anyone says is going to make you change your stripes. It'd just be nice if, even on occasion, maybe once a week, maybe even once a year, if you were less able to so easily forgive yourself your own blustering douche baggery. That whole, adolescent, "Well, you don't have to listen to it" argument simply doesn't hold water anymore, kemosabe.)

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... :D

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?29785-Your-dungeon-is-dull-and-tired!&p=770861&viewfull=1#post770861) 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?29785-Your-dungeon-is-dull-and-tired!&p=770861&viewfull=1#post770861) 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... :o

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

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

I'd officially take umbrage at my homebrew being rated below a half onion:p:D;)!

Quote from: cranebump;956294It would be hard to dispute that, at this point.

You'd get no argument from me.

Usually if I nix something for power, I don't justify it in-milieu. Frex, I just don't allow Summoners in Pathfinder. No in-game reason needed. It wasn't part of the core rulebook, so I don't feel that I had to explain it out. On the contrary, if there is a new element, I usually feel like it has to fit before I let it in.

I do off-handedly make setting elements that make a world differ from the D&D norm. In my Trinalia setting, the goddess of the moon destroyed lycanthropes as an affront to her portfolio; those that didn't die became permanent beast-men or undead. No balance reason, just a flavor/history thing.

Fun fact, historically many lycanthropes are undead anyway:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;956367Fun fact, historically many lycanthropes are undead anyway:D!

Or a sort of warlock or evil druid as one or two got their power from demonic deals.

Quote from: Omega;956415Or a sort of warlock or evil druid as one or two got their power from demonic deals.

Warlock yes, but those are often undead in folklore, too.

Quote from: AsenRG;956367Fun fact, historically many lycanthropes are undead anyway:D!

Part of the reason I went there, m'boy. Something about "all werewolves are also vampires" appealed to the evil GM in me. :)

It's one of the reasons I have largely moved on from D&D as a system. Too much assumed baggage. Sure I could tweak it as desired, but I also maintain that most (not all) of their settings do not strictly resemble the assumptions of the ruleset without a massive amount of hand-wavery via Divine fiat.

And even then it's not remotely believable. The Forgotten Realms would largely be ruled by Mageocracies (and in the Old Empires they were). Civilization wouldn't resemble what it is written about if all these forces were in play. That's why as a GM you have to decide what gets emphasized and to what degree.

Obviously if you use your own homebrewed setting your conceits may differ. I'm slowly moving towards the poles of what I want in a game: either low-magic (S&S), or lots and lots of magic (Rifts, something like Exalted that's not Exalted). I'm finding the need for curtailing schools of magic silly, because the propositions of logic will demand that Spellcasters always introduce Spellcaster-problems into a campaign, and you'll either have to up the ante for non-casters which in D&D terms usually means itemization.

I think ultimately you're going to keep running into this "issue" as long as you approach D&D "as is" and use it as a toolkit, which "as is" - it doesn't do a good job of it. It's one of the reasons I moved to Fantasycraft. That *is* a toolkit and lets you do those things. I've shifted to lighter systems like Savage Worlds and I've found they handle most D&D settings better than D&D's established systems do for the kinds of games I run.

That's why I've never, ever, ever used an "established" setting.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;956441That's why I've never, ever, ever used an "established" setting.

Yeah, I'm a lazy fuck. But I'm currently rectifying that.

I actually think that as you hinted at earlier, using an established setting is MORE work than your own because of the shit you have to "reconcile."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;956456I actually think that as you hinted at earlier, using an established setting is MORE work than your own because of the shit you have to "reconcile."

Depends. For example if I took the FR, all the work saved by a million detailed maps and locations would more than compensate me for the trivial task of flushing the timeline, going back to greybox and removing or downgrading all the uber NPCs.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;956456I actually think that as you hinted at earlier, using an established setting is MORE work than your own because of the shit you have to "reconcile."

That's exactly right. It becomes this subtle (at first) tug-of-war between what I want out of the setting vs. the ever-growing conceits of an established setting getting more and more shit piled onto it from outside sources. This is precisely why I like Greybox Forgotten Realms, and Greyhawk original boxset. Sure there is nice material from later on - but with the Realms, once all the fiction-crap started getting mechanics to justify up the stupid novels in the various later-splatbooks - it got ugly fast.

I've never held to canon in any game I've ever run in an established setting. So I've come the long way around to realize that all the years I've been running stuff, essentially I've been creating my own fantasy world out of an established setting that oddly takes D&D mechanics more head-on. I've transformed over the course of many years of campaigning, the Realms into what I think it ought to look like *based* on the conceits of the mechanics of D&D/3.x.

Double-irony- it's made it impossible to reconcile what I wrought from 1e-Pathfinder/3.x with 5e. It's led me on this interesting journey that has really just let me jettison D&D altogether, with respect, as something that I don't feel meets my needs. Now I want something either more basic and focused in scope (low-magic gritty) or something *really* big and blown out. I'm going to get around to checking out Godbound. I'm considering at some point in the future doing a FASERIP system stripped of genre-conceits. Then making those genre-modules myself with slight tweaks.

This very thread is but one "issue" in D&D that I find a nuisance. I can easily deal with this stuff. It's the tip of a much larger iceberg for me in that I want the setting to take into account all this stuff *before* my Players make characters. Which is what I do in D&D normally - I set those expectations. But then at that point, you're doing your own homebrew setting, regardless of what you want to call it.

So now I'm saying - call the duck a duck and just fucking do it. So I shall!...so I shall!

Quote from: AsenRG;956418Warlock yes, but those are often undead in folklore, too.

Often?

To be frank, even having to deal with 5E --more or less as is -- has made me a very grumpy GM. I don't like Feats at all, and I'd rather have have a pared down skill list, or none at all. I'm not looking forward to grindy combat due to people looking up stuff (and they will, unless I make a time rule on turns). The biggest proponent of 5E in the group gives me the typical "but it has more options" argument, to which I just reply, "It has more codified options than a stripped down version. You have the same amount of actual options in any game system, based on describing what you want to do. This just lets you put a name to what you do."

It's an age thing. He and his bud are younger players still basking in the glow of sundry widgets. But, this sums up the difference for me. When asked about their character, one of them tells me, "I'm playing a feylock wood elf eventually going pact of blade, maybe pact of tome."

Pacts. Tomes. Feylock. Wood Elf. Could've been worse. He might've said, "I'm playing a Feylock Pact of Tome Wood Elf Kor Hookmaster Acolyte. Named Bob." It just sounds so freakin' pretentious. Makes me miss the days of, "I'm playing an Elf."

Yep. Just a goddamned Elf...

Like I said, I get grumpy...I'll get over it, because we can likely have fun with any system. Plus, it's only a few weeks before the move, then I can kiss 5E core goodbye for good. (I honestly can't believe how annoyed I've been with it [grrrrrr, damned chargen took a couple hours because we had to scour the goddamned feats and spell lists [GRR, I SAY!]).

Quote from: cranebump;956474To be frank, even having to deal with 5E --more or less as is -- has made me a very grumpy GM. I don't like Feats at all, and I'd rather have have a pared down skill list, or none at all. I'm not looking forward to grindy combat due to people looking up stuff (and they will, unless I make a time rule on turns). The biggest proponent of 5E in the group gives me the typical "but it has more options" argument, to which I just reply, "It has more codified options than a stripped down version. You have the same amount of actual options in any game system, based on describing what you want to do. This just lets you put a name to what you do."

It's an age thing. He and his bud are younger players still basking in the glow of sundry widgets. But, this sums up the difference for me. When asked about their character, one of them tells me, "I'm playing a feylock wood elf eventually going pact of blade, maybe pact of tome."

Pacts. Tomes. Feylock. Wood Elf. Could've been worse. He might've said, "I'm playing a Feylock Pact of Tome Wood Elf Kor Hookmaster Acolyte. Named Bob." It just sounds so freakin' pretentious. Makes me miss the days of, "I'm playing an Elf."

Yep. Just a goddamned Elf...

Like I said, I get grumpy...I'll get over it, because we can likely have fun with any system. Plus, it's only a few weeks before the move, then I can kiss 5E core goodbye for good. (I honestly can't believe how annoyed I've been with it [grrrrrr, damned chargen took a couple hours because we had to scour the goddamned feats and spell lists [GRR, I SAY!]).

Where you moving?  Maybe there are some fellow Old Fucks around.

Quote from: cranebump;956474To be frank, even having to deal with 5E --more or less as is -- has made me a very grumpy GM. I don't like Feats at all, and I'd rather have have a pared down skill list, or none at all. I'm not looking forward to grindy combat due to people looking up stuff (and they will, unless I make a time rule on turns). The biggest proponent of 5E in the group gives me the typical "but it has more options" argument, to which I just reply, "It has more codified options than a stripped down version. You have the same amount of actual options in any game system, based on describing what you want to do. This just lets you put a name to what you do."

I'm with you - but it's not about the mechanical options. It's about the lack of context in which the core-rules assume are "normal".

It's an age thing. He and his bud are younger players still basking in the glow of sundry widgets. But, this sums up the difference for me. When asked about their character, one of them tells me, "I'm playing a feylock wood elf eventually going pact of blade, maybe pact of tome."

Pacts. Tomes. Feylock. Wood Elf. Could've been worse. He might've said, "I'm playing a Feylock Pact of Tome Wood Elf Kor Hookmaster Acolyte. Named Bob." It just sounds so freakin' pretentious. Makes me miss the days of, "I'm playing an Elf."

Yep. Just a goddamned Elf...

QuoteThis is exactly what I'm talking about. It's *assumed* that regardless of what you're running with the system your players can make PC's with these descriptors completely free of any context towards the campaign you're running. Of course you might be running that kinda game - for all I know, but the mechanics as they are don't really do much for making those descriptors meaningful in my opinion.

Quote from: cranebump;956474Like I said, I get grumpy...I'll get over it, because we can likely have fun with any system. Plus, it's only a few weeks before the move, then I can kiss 5E core goodbye for good. (I honestly can't believe how annoyed I've been with it [grrrrrr, damned chargen took a couple hours because we had to scour the goddamned feats and spell lists [GRR, I SAY!]).

Way ahead of you.

OD&D is available in PDF. Use that.  Don't even tell them.  Just say "Tell me what you want to do, I'll tell you if and when you roll."

Quote from: CRKrueger;956482Where you moving?  Maybe there are some fellow Old Fucks around.

Western Colorado. Looks pretty rural. Don't know exactly where we'll end up, but the job is in the New Castle Area, so Glenwood Springs and Rifle are options, with NC and Rifle being much closer to the job than GS.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;956502OD&D is available in PDF. Use that.  Don't even tell them.  Just say "Tell me what you want to do, I'll tell you if and when you roll."

I'll do you one better (possibly) -- I should say the exact same thing as I drag out Swords & Six-Siders.:-)

Quote from: Omega;956468Often?

Most of the original tales that I can think of at first try, but I assume there are other tales that I could think of if I was to spend a bit more mental effort;).

Quote from: tenbones;956448Yeah, I'm a lazy fuck. But I'm currently rectifying that.

There's nothing wrong with using an established setting.  You're going to personalize it anyway.  It's like a sandwich, the base setting is the bread, you add all the fixings and trimmings you want, sometimes it turns out great and delicious, other times not so mush, but it's still something uniquely suited to your palate.

Aren't feats and skills optional in 5e?

Quote from: Voros;956557Aren't feats and skills optional in 5e?

They are, but...dumb ass me, I already sanctioned the core, with some addendum about race/classes (no tieflings, no dragonborn, etc.). Did no anticipate how annoyed I'd get until chargen.

My options now would be to say, "Hey guys, this shit makes me grumpy. Can we take out the skills and Feats so I can look myself in the mirror?" or "Hey, guys. Fuck this shit. Let's play Microlite20." I doubt the two old farts would care. Not sure what the two young farts would do.

It't the highest form of martial arts to be without form. Not the earliest.  If you try to be with out form from the start its just sloppy.  

I wonder if role playing is like that?  Players need to have mastered a number of systems before they can move beyond the system.

Quote from: cranebump;956474I don't like Feats at all,

 and I'd rather have have a pared down skill list, or none at all.

 I'm not looking forward to grindy combat due to people looking up stuff (and they will, unless I make a time rule on turns).

1: er? Feats are optional?

2: er... its a pared down skill set as is???

3: er... it shouldnt be? So far combats have zipped along pretty well. There might be some initial looking things up. But thats true of any first few sessions. Not so much an excuse if they know the system.

x: players like that might well bug me too.

Quote from: Omega;9566231: er? Feats are optional?

2: er... its a pared down skill set as is???

3: er... it shouldnt be? So far combats have zipped along pretty well. There might be some initial looking things up. But thats true of any first few sessions. Not so much an excuse if they know the system.

x: players like that might well bug me too.

I acknowledged that I should've dropped Feats, but since I didn't, and the characters are made, I don't feel I can rightly go back on that.

"Pared down" for me is 4-5 broad skill groups (or just the 6 abilities).

Two of them don't know the system. One of them is playing a Paladin, the other is a Wizard. Even with that, you have actions, reactions, special ability activitations, etc., etc., etc. Then there's the "sack of HP's" issue that makes up come of the monsters, so...we'll be plodding along.

(My own experience with 5E is playing every iteration of the playtest, then running as a player for a few sessions using the finished product. I don't think it's a bad system. I think I got used to Microlite when I ran "D&D," and that fits my grumpiness better).

Basic D&D 5e is your 5e core! :) ta-dah! I fixed your core PHB problem. :D

(Under Skills chapter they also talk about resolving things without specific skills and just using ability score checks with or without proficiency, as per GM adjudication. It actually really strengthens the fighter class because of how many extra Ability Score Increases it gets.)

(edit: It's neither here nor there that you no longer want to use 5e, to me. I also have some issues with the system for use in my desired settings or campaigns. So I'd change it accordingly, or just use a different system (like 2e for quite a few), and then go play. Solid chassis, great DIY potential, feels a bit squandered given the UA releases. Happy gaming in your new home!)

Quote from: Opaopajr;956725Basic D&D 5e is your 5e core! :) ta-dah! I fixed your core PHB problem. :D

(Under Skills chapter they also talk about resolving things without specific skills and just using ability score checks with or without proficiency, as per GM adjudication. It actually really strengthens the fighter class because of how many extra Ability Score Increases it gets.)

(edit: It's neither here nor there that you no longer want to use 5e, to me. I also have some issues with the system for use in my desired settings or campaigns. So I'd change it accordingly, or just use a different system (like 2e for quite a few), and then go play. Solid chassis, great DIY potential, feels a bit squandered given the UA releases. Happy gaming in your new home!)

Basic 5E was actually my initial thought.  But I already allowed them to make the characters according to the non-basic rules.  Have I to do it over again, and was forced to run 5E, your suggestion is likely exactly the thing I would do.  Which means my grumpiness is likely due to the fact that I've made a decision that I don't want to stick with.

Quote from: cranebump;956738Basic 5E was actually my initial thought.  But I already allowed them to make the characters according to the non-basic rules.  Have I to do it over again, and was forced to run 5E, your suggestion is likely exactly the thing I would do.  Which means my grumpiness is likely due to the fact that I've made a decision that I don't want to stick with.

So your problem is by fiat you allowed the players to make charcters more "gamey" with feats and such than you want to deal with?  

Can you have a version of "the talk" with them?  Change systems? Make a no rule books at the table rule?  Hard for a wisard but if you print their spell book, the can flip through a limted number of spells instead of the whole players hand book.

And if you don't like meat shield monsters just have them run or give up after they start losing.  If the are getting whittled they keep fighting, they are big and strong after all.  But if they take a couple of big hits with out answering they bail.

Index cards for spells.

or my personal favourite, Poketmod type spellbooks. A single pocketmod booklet will make an 8 page book counting cover and back. You can bind them together into an ever growing spellbook.

Or any given little blank notebook hardbound or not.

Quote from: Headless;956806So your problem is by fiat you allowed the players to make charcters more "gamey" with feats and such than you want to deal with?  

Can you have a version of "the talk" with them?  Change systems? Make a no rule books at the table rule?  Hard for a wisard but if you print their spell book, the can flip through a limted number of spells instead of the whole players hand book.

And if you don't like meat shield monsters just have them run or give up after they start losing.  If the are getting whittled they keep fighting, they are big and strong after all.  But if they take a couple of big hits with out answering they bail.

You summed it up right there. We can definitely do some things to shorten our "lookup" time. I had forgotten until last night that I bought the Cleric/Wizard spell cards, and have them stowed away somewhere. That will help.

I run monsters much in the way you suggest -- intelligent ones won't stick around to be hacked to bits.

I like your idea of "no rule books," especially since most of what we need to know is on the sheet (most). I can inform them that it is their responsibility to know how their characters run before they show up. So, if they miss out on one of their kewl powerz, it is on them.

Quote from: Omega;956824Index cards for spells.

or my personal favourite, Poketmod type spellbooks. A single pocketmod booklet will make an 8 page book counting cover and back. You can bind them together into an ever growing spellbook.

Or any given little blank notebook hardbound or not.

Good idea. There are also some e-resources that allow looking up on the phone. I think the best thing for this situation is to tell them to be ready to go on their turn, and allow the use of devices for quick reference, off turn, or if the whole table has a question that I cannot easily answer or make a ruling for.

Quote from: cranebump;956896Good idea. There are also some e-resources that allow looking up on the phone. I think the best thing for this situation is to tell them to be ready to go on their turn, and allow the use of devices for quick reference, off turn, or if the whole table has a question that I cannot easily answer or make a ruling for.

One thing I do is warn the player to have their stuff prepped by their turn. "You have all that time to prepare. DO NOT WAIT TO START PREPPING!" (Unless the player happens to be handicapped and literally has to pay attention.) As allways there are moments where you can.

The closest thing I've had that happen, was when I had an ancient graveyard suddenly get up and attack the PC's.  To which the PC's linked the setting's ancient Chaos War to it, and decided that was why they had never seen an actual graveyard in any of the previous villages/towns they saw/went int (Actually, they either never checked if there was one, or I forgot to mention it.)

And so, it came to pass that the modern villager cremated their dead, to prevent the chaos seeped land to bring back loved ones as zombies and stuff.  It was an off hand thing, that became lore and a setting feature.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;956939The closest thing I've had that happen, was when I had an ancient graveyard suddenly get up and attack the PC's.  To which the PC's linked the setting's ancient Chaos War to it, and decided that was why they had never seen an actual graveyard in any of the previous villages/towns they saw/went int (Actually, they either never checked if there was one, or I forgot to mention it.)

And so, it came to pass that the modern villager cremated their dead, to prevent the chaos seeped land to bring back loved ones as zombies and stuff.  It was an off hand thing, that became lore and a setting feature.

That is always a cool thing when something like that happens.

Per my previous reportage, I did contact the players via message and put out the word about, "know your character; have some resources on hand to quickly check things; keep it off turn as much as possible." I also made sure they knew that I have to adhere to those stipulations, as well.

I've never had much of a problem with Divination spells, but I can also certainly respect a GM saying NO to them, partially or completely. The main thing is to be consistent about it; if you do have divination, in my experience the dumbest thing you can do is to keep having 'special situations' ("oh... yeah, well in THIS dungeon divination magic doesn't work!" or "The wizard has anti-divination wards in his tower.. huh? Oh no, YOU can't have that, it's something special").

But a prepped villain may actually warrant special situations. The trick as usual is to not overdo it.

A smart villain might set up their base overtop some anti-magic zone. Curses can spread null zones to X spell or a whole type. Gods can just up and deny whole swaths of spells. Various anti-dectection/scrying items exist too. You just dont want to keep using these gags to the point that the spell/s become effectively non-existent. At that point you might as well have just come clean and said "no".

In Original D&D, the "Magic Research Rules" appeared before the spell list.

This was not an accident.

"Huh?  My ROCK TO MUD spell doesn't work on the evil wizard's castle?  Why not?"

"No, it doesn't.  Interesting, isn't it?"

I don't like switching rules around on my players, it tends to destroy trust which frankly is not fun when you have your players second guessing you rather than playing the adventure.