Magic vs Mundane (what is mundane?)

[Quertus]

...why do you assume this is a superpower exclusive to "muggles?" Nothing - save not having appropriate class features or the like - prevents spellcasters from using non-spell means to accomplish things.

Certainly, done poorly, it's stupid, but I can see the reasoning behind it, and the extreme "this is horrible! How insulting to make stupid superpowers!" resposne seems to either be hyperbole, or a demonstration of a lack of understanding of what it's supposed to be representing.

Ah. I'm saying two things, and not differentiating well between them.

On the one hand, I'm discussing a class of abilities (retcon powers), and stating my personal hatred of the… contrivance.

On the other hand, when, in the context of this thread, the OP discussed letting muggles retroactively have bought things or built castles, I took those to be intended as muggle super powers. If Wizards could use that same class feature to have retroactively memorized spells, or to have retroactively cast buffs, then it's just… hmmm… an (Ex) super power, rather than a Muggle superpower. I may have misread the intention. OP?

Oh, and that it's apparently a capstone ability makes it no less unpalatable for me. I missed that detail in my first post.

It's not about whether or not it's OP, it's about the feel of it. And that feel is… contrivance.

[Tvtyrant]

Visually how I think this would look:

Spoiler

Show

[Max_Killjoy]

Visually how I think this would look:

Spoiler

Show

AKA "Gambit Pileup".

[Jakinbandw]

Considering 3.5 had that exact mechanic for wizards as a feat set (they could spontaneously cast like a Sorcerer because the Wizard was just that crazy prepared) it is hardly out of the question.

A "xanatos" class would probably let you spend money on goods and services retroactively, playing up the Sherlock Holmes style anticipation. So instead of summons a group of hirelings shows up when you call them from pre-planned ambush, or you have a boat on hand or a magic item you bought off camera.

I would set an amount of gold that can be spent per turn, and an amount per day that scales with level. You could also as easily make it slightly magical by claiming they are an oracle "funny how I always have just the right item."

I mean, that's pretty much how it goes. The only two classes I have with super retcon powers are the soldier profession, and the wealth attribute. Both of them have so many people working for them that having an oracle on staff (or even multiples!) wouldn't be unreasonable. On the other hand, I would prefer to leave such details up to the players, as my primary concern is balance.

And as far as the major capstone goes, it does rely on having infrastructure. You need full industries to be under you control to pull it off, and even then you can only pull it off in areas that you control. You can unveil a castle in Morder, but you can unveil a fortification on your side of the border, where your workers could get to. There are reasonable limitations to what you can build, and where you can build it. That said, the issue seems to be the retcon, not the actual logistics of such a thing.

Ah. I'm saying two things, and not differentiating well between them.

On the one hand, I'm discussing a class of abilities (retcon powers), and stating my personal hatred of the… contrivance.

On the other hand, when, in the context of this thread, the OP discussed letting muggles retroactively have bought things or built castles, I took those to be intended as muggle super powers. If Wizards could use that same class feature to have retroactively memorized spells, or to have retroactively cast buffs, then it's just… hmmm… an (Ex) super power, rather than a Muggle superpower. I may have misread the intention. OP?

Oh, and that it's apparently a capstone ability makes it no less unpalatable for me. I missed that detail in my first post.

It's not about whether or not it's OP, it's about the feel of it. And that feel is… contrivance.

I guess to me it feels like the 'a guy at the gym fallacy.' If you can't imagine someone at the gym being able to do it, then a martial shouldn't be able to do it. For example, just because you can't imagine a way that a character could have a contingency in place should something happen, that character can't have a contingency in place.

As for who get's abilities like this, it's really hard to say. The entire system is built around having players gestalt 3 different classes, and I so far I have 16 out of 50 classes written. It sounds like a lot, but I only have half the elemental sorceries written, and the only attribute I have of the main six written up is strength. For example, the class I expect will probably have the most access to this ability would be the Intelligence attribute class, and in that case there are decent arguments for wizards taking it (or at least for some types of character).

The key thing I'm looking at is for people that don't want to play with any 'superpowers' to be able to keep up without needing to rely on magic, superpowers, or other things. I've had to dig deep to allow those characters to pull such things off.

For a quick example of how the soldiers version of retconing looks (though keep in mind that this is an early draft and a few things will need to be reworded a tiny bit):

Never Alone (Action)
During a long rest you may send any number of mobs into Special Operations. While in Special Operations they exist in a state of uncertainty. As an action you may commit effort for the day to have any number of mobs that were in Special Operations arrive at a location you or a mob you have communication with can perceive. You may choose the manner of their arrival, some examples being emerging through the Ways, or having been hiding in the area in advance. You and your allies may use this ability, though you may not use offensive abilities while using it, and Perception Abilities can counter it, forcing you to appear at a valid location of your choosing.

Now all this said, I'm fine with messing around a bit to have things make a but more sense to players. If people feel they need actual set up ahead of time, rather than fiat, I have no problem doing that, though in return I'd have to increase the scope of powers a bit more to compensate. If it would make certain players happier, I can also easily mark off which classes get access to such abilities, and then they can just get banned from a game. Losing say 8(?) classes out of 50 isn't really going to break the game that much. All it will do is just make it so that players lose access to certain character concepts.

[Edit]
@Quertus I doubt you would be interested in this system. It is meant to allow characters to go from civilians to (sometimes literally) gods that can shape the entire world. It's not set up so that you tell a specific story, because players will tend to have enough options to just bypass any attempts at corralling them. Instead it's about setting up situations in the setting, and then watching the players react to them. From posts I have read from you, you prefer if characters are a lot weaker, and aren't able to turn the world into a paradise, or alter the structure of how physics or magic works in the setting. It's meant for a more sandbox style of play, rather than setpiece play.

[Lord Raziere]

ah, but....

here is the thing.

Vancian magic is already the meta-narrative contrivance made manifest.

just because its has the excuse of magic, doesn't mean it isn't also the contrivance in effect.

because for those spells to be casted, you have to have that bag of materials that just so happens to have the right ones for you to cast. and most tables just assume that the wizard just has them. in their pouch. and assumes that the wizard has already prepared their spells when they go adventuring.

thing is, you can't possibly have all the possible ingredients for every single spell in that bag. its not magical. magical items specifically cost more, and have explicit rules about how they hold a lot of things and what happens when you put a thing that holds a lot of things inside of another extra-dimensional thing. its not pretty.

so the DnD 3.5 magic this board assumes as default is already committing both violations of mundanity/consistency in one system. vancian magic is already meta-narrative nonsense, all along. it just replaces the tech with arcane trappings.

thats why its so powerful, its both magic AND meta-narrative contrivance in one system, it just tricks you into thinking its not by providing some in-setting stuff for it.

[Max_Killjoy]

ah, but....

here is the thing.

Vancian magic is already the meta-narrative contrivance made manifest.

just because its has the excuse of magic, doesn't mean it isn't also the contrivance in effect.

because for those spells to be casted, you have to have that bag of materials that just so happens to have the right ones for you to cast. and most tables just assume that the wizard just has them. in their pouch. and assumes that the wizard has already prepared their spells when they go adventuring.

That's at the "don't worry if you have 18 feet or 20 feet of rope" level, or the "you wrote climbing gear on your equipment list, of course you have some rope" level, or the "oh for pete's sake no one cares about that list of the 97 things in your purse" level... not at the "my character has been building a castle for the last 2 years" or "I've been in correspondence with an expert for the last week because I suspected this" level.

One is about getting on with the game instead of wasting an hour on pointless details, the other is a blatant exercise in retroactive continuity or player-level narrative-manipulation.

[Lord Raziere]

That's at the "don't worry if you have 18 feet or 20 feet of rope" level, or the "you wrote climbing gear on your equipment list, of course you have some rope" level, or the "oh for pete's sake no one cares about that list of the 97 things in your purse" level... not at the "my character has been building a castle for the last 2 years" or "I've been in correspondence with an expert for the last week because I suspected this" level.

One is about getting on with the game instead of wasting an hour on pointless details, the other is a blatant exercise in retroactive continuity or player-level narrative-manipulation.

Okay.

so vancian magic has this spell to like, make a mansion right? just out of nowhere.

so if the mundane character pulled out an invention that unfolds into a non-magical castle because he likes to have a castle he can pull out and live in wherever he goes, would that be too much?

and if instead of an expert consultation, say the person just so happens to remember an old fact from their teacher long ago giving them a big general education on this and that, or remembering something mentioned in passing by another student.

would those be too implausible?

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay.

so vancian magic has this spell to like, make a mansion right? just out of nowhere.

so if the mundane character pulled out an invention that unfolds into a non-magical castle because he likes to have a castle he can pull out and live in wherever he goes, would that be too much?

Compressing a castle into something portable (by weight and volume) is either magic, or "Clark's magic".

and if instead of an expert consultation, say the person just so happens to remember an old fact from their teacher long ago giving them a big general education on this and that, or remembering something mentioned in passing by another student.

Does the character already have a skill or background or whatever, or already-established backstory, that reflects a character history that would make that knowledge or that "old teacher" plausible?

Or is the player just trying to establish retroactive facts on the spur of the moment?

[Lord Raziere]

Compressing a castle into something portable (by weight and volume) is either magic, or "Clark's magic".

Does the character already have a skill or background or whatever, or already-established backstory, that reflects a character history that would make that knowledge or that "old teacher" plausible?
Or is the player just trying to establish retroactive facts on the spur of the moment?

So your just picky about it then? go complain to your gourmet roleplay chef.

why does that matter? what "skill" is there and what worth is it to everyone to prove they are "skilled" enough to play things the way you want? why do you assume you can have everything you want?

[Quertus]

ah, but....

here is the thing.

Vancian magic is already the meta-narrative contrivance made manifest.

just because its has the excuse of magic, doesn't mean it isn't also the contrivance in effect.

because for those spells to be casted, you have to have that bag of materials that just so happens to have the right ones for you to cast. and most tables just assume that the wizard just has them. in their pouch. and assumes that the wizard has already prepared their spells when they go adventuring.

That is not the horror of terrible Vancian magic (which is terrible). That is the horror of the 3e Spell Component Pouch.

By RAW, in 2e (and earlier, IIRC), spell components were tracked individually. They even had listed process in 2e.

(EDIT: of course, by RAW, you also had to track food, ammunition, encumbrance, etc. Many tables didn't.)

I mean, that's pretty much how it goes. The only two classes I have with super retcon powers are the soldier profession, and the wealth attribute. Both of them have so many people working for them that having an oracle on staff (or even multiples!) wouldn't be unreasonable. On the other hand, I would prefer to leave such details up to the players, as my primary concern is balance.

And as far as the major capstone goes, it does rely on having infrastructure. You need full industries to be under you control to pull it off, and even then you can only pull it off in areas that you control. You can unveil a castle in Morder, but you can unveil a fortification on your side of the border, where your workers could get to. There are reasonable limitations to what you can build, and where you can build it. That said, the issue seems to be the retcon, not the actual logistics of such a thing.

I can't speak for others, but, for myself, if it's grounded in game physics of "questionable Divinations equal to 'what the player sees as he plays' - yes, skewing what is 'important' that way", then I could accept it. You may want to look into other ways to get equivalent abilities, that wouldn't require "a Wizard did it".

I guess to me it feels like the 'a guy at the gym fallacy.' If you can't imagine someone at the gym being able to do it, then a martial shouldn't be able to do it. For example, just because you can't imagine a way that a character could have a contingency in place should something happen, that character can't have a contingency in place.

No, it's "if you want to have a contingency in place, bloody put one in place". Especially if you're the GM, running an NPC - publish your module to a sealed envelope, that I'll read after the adventure is over.

None of this, "oh, um, he's smart - he would have had a plan for that" - if you're too dumb to make the plan, you're too dumb to make it not feel contrived.

Now, if the group is working together on this style of retcon power, eh, sometimes, some groups can succeed at making something palatable where am individual would fail. But, again, I can't speak for everyone, to know if that could work at any given table.

As for who get's abilities like this, it's really hard to say. The entire system is built around having players gestalt 3 different classes, and I so far I have 16 out of 50 classes written. It sounds like a lot, but I only have half the elemental sorceries written, and the only attribute I have of the main six written up is strength. For example, the class I expect will probably have the most access to this ability would be the Intelligence attribute class, and in that case there are decent arguments for wizards taking it (or at least for some types of character).

Seems more like Wisdom, to me…

The key thing I'm looking at is for people that don't want to play with any 'superpowers' to be able to keep up without needing to rely on magic, superpowers, or other things. I've had to dig deep to allow those characters to pull such things off.

For a quick example of how the soldiers version of retconing looks (though keep in mind that this is an early draft and a few things will need to be reworded a tiny bit):

I think I started describing abilities for a "Muggle" class somewhere… maybe I'll look it up for inspiration for you, at some point.

Admittedly, I didn't get very far, because I am not the target audience ("I play Wizards"), and, thus, a felt it inappropriate for me to try to write a better Muggle.

Now all this said, I'm fine with messing around a bit to have things make a but more sense to players. If people feel they need actual set up ahead of time, rather than fiat, I have no problem doing that, though in return I'd have to increase the scope of powers a bit more to compensate. If it would make certain players happier, I can also easily mark off which classes get access to such abilities, and then they can just get banned from a game. Losing say 8(?) classes out of 50 isn't really going to break the game that much. All it will do is just make it so that players lose access to certain character concepts.

That's a lot of retcon powers.

I mean, if it were me, I might give retcon powers to the Chronomancer, the Diviner, something luck-based, and the "my character is smarter than that" feat. Things that such mechanics would directly make sense for them to have (and the ban-bait feat).

From a… Gamist(?) perspective, I'm really liking the idea of a retcon buff-bot.

[Edit]
@Quertus I doubt you would be interested in this system. It is meant to allow characters to go from civilians to (sometimes literally) gods that can shape the entire world. It's not set up so that you tell a specific story, because players will tend to have enough options to just bypass any attempts at corralling them. Instead it's about setting up situations in the setting, and then watching the players react to them. From posts I have read from you, you prefer if characters are a lot weaker, and aren't able to turn the world into a paradise, or alter the structure of how physics or magic works in the setting. It's meant for a more sandbox style of play, rather than setpiece play.

Um… I'm honestly not sure how it's possible that this was your takeaway from my posts. I'm not only a "**** story, <3 Sandbox" kind of guy, but I think most games end before we get to the good parts, of actually changing the world - and experiencing the consequences of those changes.

[Max_Killjoy]

So your just picky about it then? go complain to your gourmet roleplay chef.

Yes, that's it, of course, anyone who doesn't share your love of gonzo anything-goes wackadoodle rewl-of-kewl gaming or settings is just "picky". (Description and tone chosen very deliberately to make the point, if one stops to consider what the point actually is.)

why does that matter? what "skill" is there and what worth is it to everyone to prove they are "skilled" enough to play things the way you want? why do you assume you can have everything you want?

Who said anything about player "skill"?

I'm talking about players attempting a blatant ***pull that's not justified by what came before, either in-play or in-background. (Link NSFW for language.)

That is not the horror of terrible Vancian magic (which is terrible). That is the horror of the 3e Spell Component Pouch.

By RAW, in 2e (and earlier, IIRC), spell components were tracked individually. They even had listed process in 2e.

On the other hand, not everyone's gaming enjoyment is enhanced by tracking individual measures of pigeon poop. The "spell component pouch" is a compromise solution to what some consider an onerous and tedious exercise.

(This part not directed at you, Quertus). And no, glossing over the tracking of individual measures of pigeon poop is NOT equivalent to "I started building a castle last year but didn't tell anyone".

[Lord Raziere]

Yes, that's it, of course, anyone who doesn't share your love of gonzo anything-goes wackadoodle rewl-of-kewl gaming or settings is just "picky". (Description and tone chosen very deliberately to make the point, if one stops to consider what the point actually is.)


Who said anything about player "skill"?

I'm talking about players attempting a blatant ***pull that's not justified by what came before, either in-play or in-background. (Link NSFW for language.)

Ah of course, because anyone who doesn't share your love of ultra-consistency and hyper-realism is blatantly ass-pulling and has no justification for their behavior. (point being made right back at you, I care not for my own preferences at the moment, yours is the only one that matters, and you will not transform this conversation about your flaw into mine to distract the issue here)

[awa]

now theirs degrees of retro activeness. The castle one is a pretty extreme one because of both the resources and time necessary to pull it off.

Exactly where you draw the line varies but "i have bat poop in my bag" is clearly less of a stretch than "i built an entire castle in secret for just this moment".


I have a home-brew game with an ability that allows people to perform retroactive actions they just have to convince me that they could plausibly thought of the thing they needed to do.

So like in a modern setting retroactively looking up the buildings floor plans would plausible if you knew what building you were going into in advance, if you just randomly chased a guy their it would be implausible.

Now being implausible is fine if you are going for a goofy setting but it will hurt a more serious tone, or strain suspension of disbelief.

So like people have mentioned the problem with bat shark repellent, its not that mundanes should not be able to repel sharks but that its a very specific piece of equipment typical their should be no way of knowing he would need.

Course meta resources like luck and retroactive actions can be a sore point for some people apparently.

[Lord Raziere]

now theirs degrees of retro activeness. The castle one is a pretty extreme one because of both the resources and time necessary to pull it off.

Exactly where you draw the line varies but "i have bat poop in my bag" is clearly less of a stretch than "i built an entire castle in secret for just this moment".

I have a home-brew game with an ability that allows people to perform retroactive actions they just have to convince me that they could plausibly thought of the thing they needed to do.

So like in a modern setting retroactively looking up the buildings floor plans would plausible if you knew what building you were going into in advance, if you just randomly chased a guy their it would be implausible.

Now being implausible is fine if you are going for a goofy setting but it will hurt a more serious tone, or strain suspension of disbelief.

So like people have mentioned the problem with bat shark repellent, its not that mundanes should not be able to repel sharks but that its a very specific piece of equipment typical their should be no way of knowing he would need.

Course meta resources like luck and retroactive actions can be a sore point for some people apparently.

Heres the thing:

Without the meta, realistically speaking mundane loses against magic a vast majority of the time, if not all the time.

any consistent setting with magic has two states: either the mundane has been crushed, or magic is irrelevant. any attempts at high fantasies "magic is there but is rare but is totally still relevant somehow" has problems explaining why it remains rare and often crushes the mundane anyways. while any setting where magic is irrelevant- well why have magic at all then?

and if expand the definition of magic to include martial arts and meta-narrativity, then there is no mundane hero in any work of fiction at all. since we're playing fictional characters, based on those fictional heroes which often use meta-narrativity even if they don't use martial arts. even action heroes have those moments where the story just decides they don't die even though they should, or pull off incredible stunts.

therefore there is no "mundane" at all, there is only magic vs. less obvious magic. no amtter what, mundanity loses. because if we restrict mundanity so much, make it so real and 1:1 with our real world- it can't do anything against magic. guns? a wizard makes immunity to bullets spell. same with explosives, rockets, acids, gasses, any possible invention we have. not even nukes, because a wizard can just teleport the nuke away. similar thing with superheroes, or meta-narrative reality warpers, whatever you want to call them.

thats the answer, mundane always loses. the only way they win is if arbitrary limits and weaknesses are imposed upon the magic- or when the mundane convinces a magical being to fight for them using mundane talking and treating them like a person- which means the mundanes exist at this magical beings mercy, which is true even if they have been raised to be incredibly merciful. that will always be the answer, unless you expand the definition of mundane.

[Jakinbandw]

I can't speak for others, but, for myself, if it's grounded in game physics of "questionable Divinations equal to 'what the player sees as he plays' - yes, skewing what is 'important' that way", then I could accept it. You may want to look into other ways to get equivalent abilities, that wouldn't require "a Wizard did it".

As I said, the player fluffs it how they want, just like players get to choose what verbal components they use for spells. My personal preference is for players just being that skilled. I just feel that sometimes mechanics can be fluffed in different ways.

No, it's "if you want to have a contingency in place, bloody put one in place". Especially if you're the GM, running an NPC - publish your module to a sealed envelope, that I'll read after the adventure is over.

None of this, "oh, um, he's smart - he would have had a plan for that" - if you're too dumb to make the plan, you're too dumb to make it not feel contrived.

Now, if the group is working together on this style of retcon power, eh, sometimes, some groups can succeed at making something palatable where am individual would fail. But, again, I can't speak for everyone, to know if that could work at any given table.

Eh, wealth has so much counter play at that level it's stupid. If you're fighting a person with wealth, just blow up their industries till they don't have the money to do anything impressive. If the players aren't doing that, then I would argue it would be the same as fighting a vampire in the dark without a single thing a vampire is weak to. At some point the players are just being foolish.

I think I started describing abilities for a "Muggle" class somewhere… maybe I'll look it up for inspiration for you, at some point.

Admittedly, I didn't get very far, because I am not the target audience ("I play Wizards"), and, thus, a felt it inappropriate for me to try to write a better Muggle.

I'd be interested to see it. I have several muggle classes (One is a noble and has no retcon powers).

That's a lot of retcon powers.

I mean, if it were me, I might give retcon powers to the Chronomancer, the Diviner, something luck-based, and the "my character is smarter than that" feat. Things that such mechanics would directly make sense for them to have (and the ban-bait feat).

From a… Gamist(?) perspective, I'm really liking the idea of a retcon buff-bot.

Honestly it's not that many abilities. Even wealth only has like 4 or 5 of it's 24 abilities that do recons. The soldier has I think 3.

Also Retcon buff bot sounds really fun. I'll make sure it's possible!

Um… I'm honestly not sure how it's possible that this was your takeaway from my posts. I'm not only a "**** story, <3 Sandbox" kind of guy, but I think most games end before we get to the good parts, of actually changing the world - and experiencing the consequences of those changes.

I guess I just remembered (or misremembered) a post you made about the players doing a game where the world was ending and the players could only try to rescue some people and not try to stop it. I apologize for getting it wrong.

One of the big elements of my game is that players can change the world, and it's one of the reasons I'm working on the system. I hope I can build something you (or someone like you) would like like.

[Arbane]

Heres the thing:

Without the meta, realistically speaking mundane loses against magic a vast majority of the time, if not all the time.

any consistent setting with magic has two states: either the mundane has been crushed, or magic is irrelevant. any attempts at high fantasies "magic is there but is rare but is totally still relevant somehow" has problems explaining why it remains rare and often crushes the mundane anyways. while any setting where magic is irrelevant- well why have magic at all then?

You're ignoring a lot of possible inbetween states, like "Magic is powerful, but usually more trouble than it's worth" or "Hokey religions and ancient superstitions are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid".

Now, in D&D, specifically, Magic Always Wins, but there's plenty of possible setups where magic isn't that omnipotent, but is still really useful.

[Lord Raziere]

You're ignoring a lot of possible inbetween states, like "Magic is powerful, but usually more trouble than it's worth" or "Hokey religions and ancient superstitions are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid".

Now, in D&D, specifically, Magic Always Wins, but there's plenty of possible setups where magic isn't that omnipotent, but is still really useful.

So "irrelevant" and "irrelevant". because if magic is only coming out to play during very specific events and then chills so that everyone goes back to status quo isn't a great definition of irrelevant, I don't know what is.

[awa]

So "irrelevant" and "irrelevant". because if magic is only coming out to play during very specific events and then chills so that everyone goes back to status quo isn't a great definition of irrelevant, I don't know what is.

your making a huge number of assumption on how magic works in a given setting. Yes d&d magic does every thing all the time but were not in the d&d forum. 6 simple examples of how magic could be relevant but not render martial irrelevant.

1) combat magic is good but not better than a gun, so its good for some one who cant get a gun or at least cant bring it to the target, but will lose against a skilled soldier.

2) magic is specialized, magic is extremely effective against lets say demons and ghosts but against humans a skilled warrior with a sword is equal.

3) magic is rare, lets say it needs a non-human assistance of some kind that cant be forced so their is never enough magic to render martial irrelevant.

4) apples to oranges magic does some thing you simply cant do without it like lets say talk to ghosts.

5) magic is hard, it takes years of training a special mental regime and a high natural aptitude, once you have all those things you are equal to the warrior, who spent years training had a special physical regime and a natural aptitude.

6) magic has counters, magic is very powerful but lets say a prepared person can counter it with salt and iron

Not all magic systems are d&d where magic just wins everything all the time
(also if you are explaining meta narrative abilities as magic they are not actually meta narrative there just abilities )

edit a bonus one
magic used to be overpowered but now as technology has improved your starting to see revolutions against the mageocracy. Their still in charge but now a bunch of farmers with guns are starting to get opinions about all the virgins your sacrificing, and while magic is static in power technology is ever growing in power. (assume aptitude for magic is genetic so only certain bloodlines are actually good enough to make learning worth the effort)

[Max_Killjoy]

(point being made right back at you,

Try getting your racket on the ball first, before you get excited about the "return".

This is just another example of how you routinely dismiss any rubric other than your own as "picky" or a "double standard", while standing on a pile of unspoken assumptions of your own and a ton of false equivalencies and false dichotomies, with a tone somewhere between snide and enraged... and then act like you're shocked and hurt and aggrieved when you get a taste of your own medicine... even when someone openly says "I'm doing this to parrot how you denigrate other people's gaming preferences".

I've lost track of the number of times you've said something that amounts to "No one cares about your preferences, we just want as much awesome as we can get" to another poster on these forums, myself or otherwise. Don't act all innocent and victimized when someone holds up a mirror.

You're ignoring a lot of possible inbetween states, like "Magic is powerful, but usually more trouble than it's worth" or "Hokey religions and ancient superstitions are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid".

Now, in D&D, specifically, Magic Always Wins, but there's plenty of possible setups where magic isn't that omnipotent, but is still really useful.

Or to take a real-world example, consider how long it took the firearm to completely supplant bows, crossbows, pole arms / pikes, shields, swords, knives etc across the whole of military and civilians uses. Just on the battlefield, the overlap of seeing firearms and melee weapons together on the battlefield lasted centuries.

But there will likely always be those who say "the gun immediately made the sword obsolete and armor useless!", just as there will likely always be those who say "Any magic makes all non-magic useless!"

your making a huge number of assumption on how magic works in a given setting. Yes d&d magic does every thing all the time but were not in the d&d forum. 6 simple examples of how magic could be relevant but not render martial irrelevant.

1) combat magic is good but not better than a gun, so its good for some one who cant get a gun or at least cant bring it to the target, but will lose against a skilled soldier.

2) magic is specialized, magic is extremely effective against lets say demons and ghosts but against humans a skilled warrior with a sword is equal.

3) magic is rare, lets say it needs a non-human assistance of some kind that cant be forced so their is never enough magic to render martial irrelevant.

4) apples to oranges magic does some thing you simply cant do without it like lets say talk to ghosts.

5) magic is hard, it takes years of training a special mental regime and a high natural aptitude, once you have all those things you are equal to the warrior, who spent years training had a special physical regime and a natural aptitude.

6) magic has counters, magic is very powerful but lets say a prepared person can counter it with salt and iron

Not all magic systems are d&d where magic just wins everything all the time

(also if you are explaining meta narrative abilities as magic they are not actually meta narrative there just abilities )

edit a bonus one
magic used to be overpowered but now as technology has improved your starting to see revolutions against the mageocracy. Their still in charge but now a bunch of farmers with guns are starting to get opinions about all the virgins your sacrificing, and while magic is static in power technology is ever growing in power. (assume aptitude for magic is genetic so only certain bloodlines are actually good enough to make learning worth the effort)

8) Magic is expensive -- the very wealthiest and/or connected can get magic locks and magic communication and magic food storage and magic healing... everyone else has to make do with less fantastic means of accomplishing the same things.

9) Magic is useful but not overpowering. The smith who can call on spirits of metal and fire can forge a better blade, but that doesn't make blade forged without the spirits useless, nor does it make the smith the best in the world on its own, a mediocre smith with spirit help doesn't automatically trump a master smith who works without the aide of spirits.


And the part I bolded is very important to keep in mind. For example, the ability of the character, within the setting, to actually retroactively alter the past such that "I started building that castle years ago!" becomes literally true opens a giant can of worms... but it's fundamentally different from the player having the rules-granted authority to impose a retroactive change on the established facts, or impose a fact on the world that's utterly disconnected from their character's abilities or actions.


(Also the other part I bolded... that this is not a D&D specific part of the forums... would be nice if more posters remembered that more often.)

[Talakeal]

any consistent setting with magic has two states: either the mundane has been crushed, or magic is irrelevant. any attempts at high fantasies "magic is there but is rare but is totally still relevant somehow" has problems explaining why it remains rare and often crushes the mundane anyways. while any setting where magic is irrelevant- well why have magic at all then?.

What about a setting where magic is equivelent to a high end skill in the real world?

Brain surgeons, rocket scientists, particle physicists, and nuclear engineers sre all very rare and prestigious positions that are very important for sociaty as a whole and can dramatically change both individual lives and society as a whole.

Yet at the same time, they have very little use in day to day life, and for the vast majority of things that need doing in the real world they would be of very little help at all, certainly not to the point where they make every other profession obsolete.

[Jakinbandw]

And the part I bolded is very important to keep in mind. For example, the ability of the character, within the setting, to actually retroactively alter the past such that "I started building that castle years ago!" becomes literally true opens a giant can of worms... but it's fundamentally different from the player having the rules-granted authority to impose a retroactive change on the established facts, or impose a fact on the world that's utterly disconnected from their character's abilities or actions.


(Also the other part I bolded... that this is not a D&D specific part of the forums... would be nice if more posters remembered that more often.)

Okay, a few things:

1) the retroactive ability I mentioned can only complete projects that would take up to a month to complete. This is less "I started building a castle years ago" and more, "so you know how we split up for the last month to work on differant projects? This is what I was setting up!"

2) The retroactive part of this is a player action, not a character one.

3) You and others have suggested many neat ways magic could work. Sadly they don't apply to my system. A character with the strength attribute class can pick up a city, or mountain and carry it to a new location, or throw it as a weapon. Magic operates on the same level. Retroactive abilities are one way I can allow more grounded classes able to keep up. I am aware that not everyone likes them, but at the power scale that I'm working at, I can only do so much. I can make it so hints need to be dropped, but not finalized for example. But at the end of the day, I want this to be a very high powered game, and that means mundane classes need to scale to be batman.

4) This isn't martial vs magic. It's mundes vs magic and martial. Matials in my system are decently strong (see the ability to pick up a city).

[Segev]

And no, glossing over the tracking of individual measures of pigeon poop is NOT equivalent to "I started building a castle last year but didn't tell anyone".

You brought up a good point - perhaps without intending to, I'm not sure - earlier when you called this a donkey-pull. "Not tracking all the bat guano and live spiders I'm carrying around" can come off as just as much of a contrivance if you don't have the spell component pouch to say "I've been carrying this in here" about. The reason it doesn't feel contrived for the wizard to pull out a live spider to eat when he casts spider climb is because he's a wizard. His background, profession, and general behavior suggests that he would, of course, have this.

(Incidental tangent: has anybody ever tried to use "I have this becuase it's a spell component" to have something for a non-spellcasting purpose? Handing the rogue a live spider to plant on the bosom of the ingenue in the knitting circle to create a panic sounds like something that could be situationally fun and useful, for instance.)

Likewise, the guy with a background of "I was a ship's cook before I became an adventurer" arguing that he has a small selection of spices he always carries with him seems quite reasonable. Or the guy who has "cooking supplies" on his inventory saying, "I have plenty of salt to make a ring on the floor with to keep the ghosts and demons out!" doesn't feel like it was pulled out of his hindquarters.

Taking this further, the thief who was raised by the Thieves' Guild suggesting that maybe there's a secret sign he can give to identify his membership and thus find local Guild members to talk to is potentially retconning in the existence of the secret sign, but it's not unreasonable. That same thief, who's established that he keeps stashes of supplies hidden all over the city, deciding that the alley two blocks down from where the party is right now contains one of those stashes may be a retcon, but makes sense. Nobody was tracking precise map locations for his stashes; he just "has them," and while the player has only now decided where one is, it's not unreasonable.

If you extend this to other activities, and the would-be castellan is rich and influential enough to reasonably be putting up secret fortresses in various places, it would not be all that contrived. In fact, it would be more along the lines of "of course you do." Now, "castle" is pretty hard to justify. But anything more mobile or portable than that can be pretty well handled. The inventor who reveals that what he's been working on for the last few months was an A-Team style tank-wagon (even if his player only just now decided it) is not straining credulity too much. He builds weird stuff, and it's often quirky, but useful. So sure, he has a tank-wagon today.

It's all about making sure you have adequate nonsepecific justification. Where is your line drawn on what is too fiddly to track? A Merchant Princess with dozens of business ventures declaring that one of them is a shipping company and that she has a ship coming into harbor within the next week (or even that one has arrived and not yet left) is plausible, even if the player hadn't specified what all her businesses are. Assuming, of course, she has the resources invested to support that kind of thing.

In general, mechanically, it should be something a tier or so higher in terms of resource investment value to have this pool of "contrivance" you can pull from, than any given item in that pool is worth. "A kit of climbing gear" is worth enough more than a particular length of rope that you can just have any reasonable amount of rope as part of it. A class feature is worth more than non-magic items, generally speaking, but can be augmented with more gp thrown at a problem. So a class feature of "always prepared" that allowed you to drop gp on a "stash" of stuff, and not declare what you bought with it until you actually produce it, would be an investment of gp AND a class feature, so would probably be balanced. And it handles with verisimilitude because you do have limits on what you can have on hand, and you're establishing (by the class feature and the gp investment into it) that you go shopping for unspecified items and keep an assortment of oddities on you at all times. You're always overprepared, and everyone knows it.

[Anymage]

Is this going to derail this back into another discussion about what magic is and whether it is or isn't science?

On the topic of metanarrative abilities, I will say that it works best in heavily narrative systems where every player understands that they have narrative heft beyond dictating their character's actions. Giving metanarrative powers to just a small handful of classes or power trees is really hard to balance. (WoD mage comes immediately to mind, where the open endedness of their power system allowed them to wreck pretty much anything else in anything outside of straight fisticuffs.) It's possible for some players to invest more in metanarrative abilities, usually through spending points towards some sort of luck stat, but the base option should be open to everyone.

[Karl Aegis]

I ordered pizza. It'll be here in 20-30 minutes. It doesn't matter we're in a dangerous place, I know a guy who delivers.

vs

I had piping hot pizza in my pocket the entire time!

One of these makes more sense than the other.


I've been building a castle for years now, I just didn't tell anyone about it. *wink*

vs

I gathered together millions of punks to build a thriving metropolis out of cardboard overnight just so I, the King of Punks, could fight you in my natural environment!

One of these is more fantastic than the other.

Try to keep things more tame while still being enjoyable. Sure, you can hide an entire regiment of soldiers behind a common streetlight, but having that same regiment appear from under tarps in a place that just suffered an artillery bombardment just doesn't feel right.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm planning on using a limited meta-narrative currency in my 5e D&D games (haven't tested it, but the theory is sound, I think).

Basically, instead of standard inspiration[1], each character will get an Inspiration Point. Those can be used to
a) re-roll any dice roll that directly impacts their character (either outgoing or incoming).
b) declare one fact about the local/immediate scenario, subject to DM veto. In case of a veto, the point isn't spent. I'm imagining things like "sure, I had that" or "I know that..." or "that guard is drunk".

They regain points when
a) the party votes them as having done something awesome or totally in-character, especially if that was mechanically sub-optimal but fit the character.
b) the party takes significant downtime (more than one consecutive long rest with no significant on-camera action) in a safe place such as a city or established base
c) the player accepts a suggested complication based on their character's Bond/Ideal/Flaw that makes the party's life more interesting.

[1] normally can be used to gain advantage on any roll and assigned whenever the DM feels like it, which I usually forget to do and which is weak.

[Lord Raziere]

@ Max killjoy:
Funny. Holding up a mirror is what I do to all of you, every day. Your no different. Everyone is horrible. No one is an exception. I realized long ago that all perception is flawed, that everyone is what you say I am. everyone points the flaws of others and while denying their own. that they do it to distract from their own flaws, to take the attention off them. offense is the best defense after all. that everyone is isolated in their irreconcilable worlds and bubbles, separated despite the vast connection of media by their life experiences and being unable to imagine in being another shoes. thats just life. people lying to themselves about being better people than they are, trying their best anyways but arguments breaking out because someone else trying their best to be good just as hard doesn't understand them, when we should just acknowledge we're all horrible and thus in humility know we are no different in being horrible and thus work to become better through knowing we are not, rather than becoming worse through the lie that we are.

though your the first person I ever said "picky" to, and thats most out of a food analogy rather than anything to do with me. you seem to be unable to accept any playstyle that isn't your own much like others with strong opinions on these things, perhaps your right and I'm no better, oh well, what else is new?

What about a setting where magic is equivelent to a high end skill in the real world?

Brain surgeons, rocket scientists, particle physicists, and nuclear engineers sre all very rare and prestigious positions that are very important for sociaty as a whole and can dramatically change both individual lives and society as a whole.

Yet at the same time, they have very little use in day to day life, and for the vast majority of things that need doing in the real world they would be of very little help at all, certainly not to the point where they make every other profession obsolete.

well let see, what these four professions done so far?

brain surgeons? I don't recall anything important happening because of them. important to perhaps a couple lives thanks to their surgery, but the world?

rocket scientists? well lets see....I guess they're the reason why we have satellites, but a lot of people aside from the scientists go into that. they're just one piece

particle physicists: these do what exactly? mash protons together in large artificial tunnels to try and see even smaller things? has that affected anything yet? no? Exactly.

nuclear engineers: well I guess they have made the world more terrifying.

I mean I guess its possible, but I don't see the point. the point of these professions is their astoundingly narrow application just so happen to be an important cog in a vast clocktower while magic is inherently flexible and open to many applications in many of its depictions. sure you can come up with a highly specialized form of magic only useful in certain situations equivalent to them, but at that point its nothing you can make an rpg class from or use for a hero in a story, they'd be npcs at best which I guess is good for low fantasy if you like that sort of thing. I don't, so its not really my concern. at best such kind of magic is a plot device while other more common and usable forms of magic exist and are used by the protagonists. much like how there are many more common forms of science that are used as well, and these specialized sciences only exist because other more common ones built up to them.

[Jakinbandw]

I've been building a castle for years now, I just didn't tell anyone about it. *wink*

vs

I gathered together millions of punks to build a thriving metropolis out of cardboard overnight just so I, the King of Punks, could fight you in my natural environment!

One of these is more fantastic than the other.

Try to keep things more tame while still being enjoyable. Sure, you can hide an entire regiment of soldiers behind a common streetlight, but having that same regiment appear from under tarps in a place that just suffered an artillery bombardment just doesn't feel right.

Fluff it how you want, but at the point where someone is pulling castles out of planning, they can build castles en mass. They have enough wealth, and laborers that they can afford to build a castle ever month. Take a year off, and they can have 12 or more castles up and running. These aren't things that take years to do.

Also, I personally find having been working on a castle for years to be more realistic than building one out of cardboard in a single night.

Even the pizza example I personally find that carrying a pizza into a dungeon is more believable then having someone who could waltz into the tomb of horrors without a problem to deliver it.

But that's the thing fluff it however you want. It's an ability. Have fun fluffing it however you want.

[Max_Killjoy]

@ Max killjoy:
Funny. Holding up a mirror is what I do to all of you, every day. Your no different. Everyone is horrible. No one is an exception. I realized long ago that all perception is flawed, that everyone is what you say I am. everyone points the flaws of others and while denying their own. that they do it to distract from their own flaws, to take the attention off them. offense is the best defense after all.

You're making Freud and Jung's mistake.

[Lord Raziere]

Don't make Freud's mistake of assuming your personal issues are shared by the rest of humanity.

Of course not. everyone is horrible in their own special way, thats the great thing about individuality.

[awa]

but at that point its nothing you can make an rpg class from or use for a hero in a story,

I disagree.
Lets take a hypothetical necromancer class in a setting with lots of undead,
1) they can talk to dead bodies useful for information gathering
2) they can repel/ weaken undead en mass (a common threat in the hypothetical setting)
3) lets say they can deaden their body to pain and make it resistant to injury
4) they can kill with a life draining touch
5) there resistant to lets say disease, poison and negative energy

We can say in this hypotetical setting iron interferes with magic
So we have a class that can hold its own both in combat and explorations but because they forced to wield inferior weapons and armor (bronze is both expensive and not as good as steel) they dont overshadow a skilled warrior with a sword.

They are a huge boon when the zombie horde rolls into town or they need to defeat an evil ghost, but he will need the warriors help when gang of deranged murderers comes after them.

There is a difference between being useless on an adventure and being able to do everything all the time. Magic can be useful and powerful with out being the best of everything.