Most Ridiculous Rules in RPGS

[Max_Killjoy]

No we haven't. That's mostly just a 3.x thing. (I like 3.x/Pathfinder; I just keep to the first 8-10 levels before casters become OP. The game flows better anyway.)

Not that other editions haven't had their own issues.


Also - you're acting like other systems with different magic systems don't have the same issues. Many of them do.

And if you want to discuss the failings of those systems, feel free.

If you think that "linear vs quadratic" thing started with or was largely confined to 3.x, you need to go back and study the history of the D&D family.

[Thrudd]

The kind that doesn't require hanging one's disbelief by the neck until dead.

That is all magic, of any sort. Suspending disbelief is required no matter how you explain it. Why is believing that a spell can erase itself from your memory just too much, when you're ok with the existence of creatures the size of houses capable of flight that breath fire (among other things), the ability to shapechange into things of vastly different mass, sentient beings made out of rock or fire, people flying and teleporting and bringing furniture to life, people altering objective reality with mind-power in general: I don't need to go on.

The arguments against vancian magic are all preference, no objective substance. A game where exploration and resource management is the focus can still be a game with story and role played characters. Just as easily or moreso in comparison with a tactical battle game.

It's a system you don't like and think isn't fun. It's a kind of fantasy that you don't enjoy or don't "get". That's not the same as being ridiculous or a bad rule.

[Telok]

(And notice that each of the things you picked is something the wizard is likely to be poor at -- Animal Handling, Strength check, improvised weapons, Charisma check, and perception check. The second one of those becomes hard, a competent party member will have to take over from the wizard.)

Exactly, a one dimensional, idiot savant magic-user character whose only contribution can ever be casting spells. It's a lousy character to play regardless of edition, game, or magic system. You may also be confusing Vancian casting with a game system that makes anything outside of a character's core competency effectively impossible or useless. D&Ds 3 and 4 both do that, and I don't think that 5 has really gotten away from it either.

You can make such a character in a game like Shadowrun or Champions too, a character with a limited capacity for doing one strong trick and nothing else. But in both of those games the rulebooks actually have advice to not do that and the cost of broadening the capabilities of a character isn't as high as in D&D.

Note: I say this as a guy who once spent several complete sessions playing the wizard who had been feebleminded, before the party found a cure. Sure. I could role-play it a bit, but it was very different.

Yeah, that sucks. I've found that the best thing to do is to have a solution appear at the first plausable instance either later in the same session or as close to the beginning of the next session as possible. Struggling under a curse for a while is fine, but several game sessions (especially like the once a week sessions that tabletop is prone to) is really bad.

In 2e, a wizard who was out of spell slots had the feeblest attack, the worst armor, and the least useful skills of any member of the party. It wasn't pretty.

I've been there, it's not terrible. Don't blow all your spells too early and have some backups. You go into it knowing that you'll run out of spells at some point, being useless and incompetent after that is just bad planning. It's that way in all games with limited resources. In 4e if you blew all your dailies and encounters on minions you were left with minimum effect at-wills when the bosses showed up. If all you ended up with was a little 2d6 firebolt against a fire elemental demi-god then you shouldn't have wasted all your resources on the yard trash.

A one-shot-wonder character isn't the result of Vancian casting, it's the result of player choices.

[Cazero]

That is all magic, of any sort. Suspending disbelief is required no matter how you explain it. Why is believing that a spell can erase itself from your memory just too much, when you're ok with the existence of creatures the size of houses capable of flight that breath fire (among other things), the ability to shapechange into things of vastly different mass, sentient beings made out of rock or fire, people flying and teleporting and bringing furniture to life, people altering objective reality with mind-power in general: I don't need to go on.

You're mixing up realism and verisimilitude. Magic is never realist, but what people dislike about Vancian magic is that no simple explanation making it consistent are provided.

Suspending disbelief for a couple second to accept the fact some dudes can make fireballs with their mind is one thing. But it's very difficult to accept that a trained wizad who spent his entire life studying magic has litteraly no difficulty learning dozen of spells every morning but somehow forgets them upon casting. The "magi curse" and "almost finished ritual" explanations make some sense but create new inconsistencies wich need more explaining. For example : how can a wizard memorize the same spell several times (magi curse), or why can't the wizard make the complete ritual from scratch when he's not hurried (almost finished ritual). All could probably be explained, but then you don't have a short suspension of disbelief. You're hanging it until it dies because you need to read a goddamn thesis before it starts making sense.

[CharonsHelper]

why can't the wizard make the complete ritual from scratch when he's not hurried (almost finished ritual).

That one's super easy. The rest/meditation beforehand is part of the ritual.

[Max_Killjoy]

You're mixing up realism and verisimilitude. Magic is never realist, but what people dislike about Vancian magic is that no simple explanation making it consistent are provided.

Suspending disbelief for a couple second to accept the fact some dudes can make fireballs with their mind is one thing. But it's very difficult to accept that a trained wizad who spent his entire life studying magic has litteraly no difficulty learning dozen of spells every morning but somehow forgets them upon casting. The "magi curse" and "almost finished ritual" explanations make some sense but create new inconsistencies wich need more explaining. For example : how can a wizard memorize the same spell several times (magi curse), or why can't the wizard make the complete ritual from scratch when he's not hurried (almost finished ritual). All could probably be explained, but then you don't have a short suspension of disbelief. You're hanging it until it dies because you need to read a goddamn thesis before it starts making sense.

Exactly. For some reason, there's this belief out there that once you include the slightest bit of magic or the smallest fantastic element in a work of fiction or a game setting, then any need for the setting to have internal coherence and consistency is gone, and absolutely anything goes, without limits. Lack of strict realism is taken as an excuse for lack of verisimilitude, and a false dichotomy is put forth in which a setting must be entirely realistic before any aspect of it can be questioned for anything, even a lack of internal logic.

Then you get the other side, in which the most convoluted just-so stories are put forth as "acceptable" explanations of why a certain thing is as it is within the setting, which really just amounts to elephants, or rather excuses, all the way down -- nothing is every explained or giving internal logic, it just layers on additional unexplained excuses infinitely downward. Much verbiage, nothing is actually answered.

Or to put it more succinctly -- It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

[Thrudd]

You're mixing up realism and verisimilitude. Magic is never realist, but what people dislike about Vancian magic is that no simple explanation making it consistent are provided.

Suspending disbelief for a couple second to accept the fact some dudes can make fireballs with their mind is one thing. But it's very difficult to accept that a trained wizad who spent his entire life studying magic has litteraly no difficulty learning dozen of spells every morning but somehow forgets them upon casting. The "magi curse" and "almost finished ritual" explanations make some sense but create new inconsistencies wich need more explaining. For example : how can a wizard memorize the same spell several times (magi curse), or why can't the wizard make the complete ritual from scratch when he's not hurried (almost finished ritual). All could probably be explained, but then you don't have a short suspension of disbelief. You're hanging it until it dies because you need to read a goddamn thesis before it starts making sense.

The verisimilitude answer is easy- that's how magic works. Wizards maybe know why, just like they know how to do all the things required to cast a spell. They spent their life studying, and they've learned that this is how it works. There's no inconsistency: when you prepare a spell it is imprinted on a special memory slot in your brain. When you trigger the spell, the imprint fades away, and you need to prepare it again. Preparing a spell requires a sufficiently rested mind, a period of ritual and concentration, and access to a medium which can store and preserve spell energy. I'm confident any question someone has in regards to verisimilitude can be answered as easily and as simply as can questions about how and why any other type of magic system works.

I don't know why this is more unbelievable than any other explanation of magic.

[Democratus]

I don't know why this is more unbelievable than any other explanation of magic.

It's not. Max is just unable to disentangle "things I don't like" from "things that don't work".

[Max_Killjoy]

Verisimilitude is not well-maintained by just-so stories.

It's not. Max is just unable to disentangle "things I don't like" from "things that don't work".

Speaking of fallacies...

[Theoboldi]

Verisimilitude is not well-maintained by just-so stories.

You do realize what 'just-so stories' are, right? They are made stories that are both unproveable and unfalsifiable which serve to explain a certain phenomenon. That is literally the definition of any sort of explanation for magic.

I don't really want to get tangled up in this discussion, but please use terms like this when they are actually relevant.

[AMFV]

You're mixing up realism and verisimilitude. Magic is never realist, but what people dislike about Vancian magic is that no simple explanation making it consistent are provided.

But such explanations do exist, there are more than half-a-dozen of them some that were provided and created in this very thread. I mean there's even a physical parallel, supposing I can leg press 2,000 lbs, I can't do that indefinitely all day. And supposing that I can squat world record levels, I can't do that on the same day as I leg press 2,000 lbs for reps. So there's even a real world physical parallel. I have to pick which physical activities I do, and can only do a certain amount of them in a given time before I recover.

Generally the problem with verisimilitude arguments is frame of reference. Different people have very different frame of reference and won't believe different things are equally plausible. In fact, many people would believe that things that are perfectly realistic are not so, because of their frame of reference. So it winds up being largely a taste issue.

[Khedrac]

Guys - can you please move on to finding more ridiculous rules, rather than debating how ridiculous or not already given examples are.

Whether something is "ridiculous" or not is always a personal subjective position - some people will find one thing ridiculous, others will find something else, neither of you is wrong, you just have different personal standards of expectation.

One can mage a good case for any fantasy game's magic system being "ridiculous":
Vancian casting - already discussed
Power points resetting every day - excuse me, why does an arbitary time of day take the caster form 0 power to ready to go?
Power points resetting when you sleep 8 hours - better than most, but one can have a gentle day doing very little and staying up late because you are reading a good book - no 8 hours sleep, no power regain, have an full on day but get 8 hours sleep and full power regain.
Power points returning through the day at 1/24th total per hour (AH RQ3 the way we played at Uni) - so being in a running battle is just as 'restful' as sleep? really?

All games are limited in how they represent whatever they cover - they have to, to be playable. The most complex simulations always fall short of reality - you cannot model everything and it would be no fun as a game.
Just accept that different people like different styles and acccept it and move on.

We can (or should be able to) see the humour that other see in a rule even if we personally have no problems with the rule. I am happy with Vancian casting, but I don't disagree that it is a silly way of doing it - it's a silly way that works for me.

So - what other magic systems are there out there that we can show are silly?

Let's start with Rolemaster. Loads of spell lists, each with one spell of each level (well from 1 to 20, less than that over 20) and casters have to choose individual lists to try and learn (and most lists are one class only). The on top of that bolt spells, ball spells etc. are all different attack skills.

[Kapow]

Another System (although not ridiculous imho, sry) is the Dark Eye (Das Schwarze Auge).
It is convoluted.
Each skill check is three ability-rolls and you can use skill ranks to compensate, the more you keep the better your result.
Now, EACH spell is effectively a separate skill.

And you level EVERYTHING by spending xp AND time for training.
The only exception are special experiences (you only have to spend xp and also less of them) which are either given by the GM at the end of a session (e.g. you've been on a boat for some time, so you get a special experience in seafaring)
OR by a critical success or failure (they aren't at 5% because of the triple roll), because, it is said you learn from those things

Magic points (yep, you have those too) and hp are replenished only by a d6 (+ boni sometimes) per 8 hours rest

As I said, convoluted, but it works quite well.

After rereading this, I'm sure there are some, who find this ridiculous

[Jay R]

You see, this is why we should abolish levels and just give XP that can be spent on everything. It's annoying when I need to improve my climb skill but the GM goes 'sorry, you won't level for another two weeks'.

There are such games. If that's what you want, play Fantasy Hero.

Every skill has a rating from 0-100. You succeed at a skill if you roll under it's rating on d100. If you succeed at a skill when it's actually relevant and useful to the adventure (rather than sitting at home rolling dice all day), then you get to put a check mark next to the skill. At the end of the adventure, you get to roll to see if you can increase the skill. This time, you have to roll *above* your skill rating (since someone who already knows how to do something well is unlikely to get better at it). If you succeed, you get to add a d6 to your skill. Otherwise, you get nothing.

This is very similar to the way skills increase in Flashing Blades, except that it's in 5% increment (a d20) and when it goes up, it goes up by exactly 5%.

First, I'm also looking at the very concept of a Vancian magic system, outside of the rules, and finding it patently ridiculous, even accounting for the fact that it's magic in a fantasy setting.

Second, as a rules set, regardless of setting, I consider a Vancian system a kludgey nightmare that doesn't balance, but that rather has simply long been taken for granted because it's the "original recipe".

Near as I can tell, the two biggest problem people have with D&D are that:
1. Vancian magic is too weak, and
2. Casters are too over-powered.

I've never understood how it could be both.

[Max_Killjoy]

There are such games. If that's what you want, play Fantasy Hero.



This is very similar to the way skills increase in Flashing Blades, except that it's in 5% increment (a d20) and when it goes up, it goes up by exactly 5%.



Near as I can tell, the two biggest problem people have with D&D are that:
1. Vancian magic is too weak, and
2. Casters are too over-powered.

I've never understood how it could be both.

My disdain for Vancian magic is unrelated to strength or weakness of the spells -- the spells cast with those bizarro slots can be as arbitrarily weak or powerful as the author or game designer sees fit.

It's the very structure of such a system, and the need for the sort "explanations" for it all we see in this thread and elsewhere, that drive my disdain.

"I forgotted my spells again, durp." is always going to be laughable no matter how many "explanations" you layer on it.

[AMFV]

My disdain for Vancian magic is unrelated to strength or weakness of the spells -- the spells cast with those bizarro slots can be as arbitrarily weak or powerful as the author or game designer sees fit.

It's the very structure of such a system, and the need for the sort "explanations" for it all we see in this thread and elsewhere, that drive my disdain.

"I forgotted my spells again, durp." is always going to be laughable no matter how many "explanations" you layer on it.

"I'm too exhausted and can't lift anything." It's as reasonable as many real world limits on what a person can do physically in a day. The reason that you find (and many others find it somewhat laughable) is that they don't attribute the same kind of stress to mental work as too physical work. All systems of magic are going to require some sort of explanation. If they have rules attached to them.

[GorinichSerpant]

My disdain for Vancian magic is unrelated to strength or weakness of the spells -- the spells cast with those bizarro slots can be as arbitrarily weak or powerful as the author or game designer sees fit.

It's the very structure of such a system, and the need for the sort "explanations" for it all we see in this thread and elsewhere, that drive my disdain.

"I forgotted my spells again, durp." is always going to be laughable no matter how many "explanations" you layer on it.

My gripe with the vatican system is less "and now I forgot my spell", and more that the spell slots are weird. This could be paralleled with how you have a limited amount of physical strength every day, but the way you use vatican spells doesn't imply that. The way the mechanic usually ends up working is that you have a metaphysical "gun" that you can reload every day during rest with any of a wide array of ammunition that appears out of somewhere. To me the vatican system feels blatantly the way it is only because there needs to be some way to balance abilities. As most people have already said, it's a preference thing.

[Telok]

"I'm too exhausted and can't lift anything." It's as reasonable as many real world limits on what a person can do physically in a day. The reason that you find (and many others find it somewhat laughable) is that they don't attribute the same kind of stress to mental work as too physical work. All systems of magic are going to require some sort of explanation. If they have rules attached to them.

I've found, over the years, that if I'm doing heavy lifting for a day all I need is a couple hours rest and a meal to get going again. On the other hand when I write computer code all day I won't be physically tired, but if I don't get a solid night's sleep I turn into useless crankypants the next day. I do wonder what percentage of people who complain about explanations for Vancian and other magic systems actually read the original fiction that lays it out.

What I've grown to really dislike is the D&D 4th and 5th editions setups where bards insult things and they take damage. A monster doesn't speak your language? Insult it to death. It's deaf and doesn't even have ears? Insult it to death. It's a mindless clockwork? Insult it to death. It's the kitchen table? Ok, that's immune. Untill some wizard animates it, then you insult it and it breaks in half. Bleah.

[ClintACK]

"Rest issues" is just icing on the cake when it comes to the problems with Vancian magic. Conceptually, it's nonsense, and for balance, it's a kludge.

*shrug*

I *can* be explained well (as it was, sort of, by Vance, and better by Zelasny). It just *wasn't* explained well by Gary Gygax. (Making it about "memorizing" and "forgetting"... *sigh*.) And that poorly explained version is how everyone remembers it.

(Short version of Zelasny's take on Vancian magic --- Merlin could cast spells whenever he wanted, but each ritual was long and involved. So before he headed into a dangerous situation, he'd spend an hour working some magics he thought might be helpful. Then he'd have those spells hanging around him just waiting for the last word or gesture to trigger them. No "memorizing" or "forgetting" involved. It kind of fits with the way Ritual Magic works in 5e.)

[Shpadoinkle]

RPGS try to create a semblance of realism but many rules are so ridiculous that you can't even see the logic behind them.

My most ridiculous rule: The gold to exp rule was pretty ridiculous in AD&D 2e. One time I had a player open up a gold mine to gain exp through this method. From there on, I scrapped that rule.

What is your most ridiculous rule.

Actually no, it's really not. Saved this quote from somewhere I don't remember, but it makes sense if you look at it this way.

Spoiler

Show

XP = Loot is actually the way the game is supposed to be played. It fixes a lot of problems. Just make XP interchangable with Gold Pieces (at 1 to 5), and you will be amazed how many things in D&D suddenly make sense.

To elaborate:

XP comes from death. When a commoner dies, he gives out XP appropriate to a CR 1/2 encounter. Now this XP can be harvested no matter how he dies, so the local lord collects a death tax of all the XP from a community (that's roughly 2 deaths per 100 people per year).

The lord invests this XP into protecting the community - which, in D&D, means giving himself levels, since 1 high lvl > many low levels. Still, he needs mooks and helpers (and eventually a replacement) so he gives some of the XP to his followers. Or gives it to a wizard in exchange for magic items.

This produces a medieval economy where the number of peasants you control = the amount of power you have. Adventurers don't have fiefs and plantations, so they go out and kill monsters for XP (the monsters, of course, have plantations of their own peasant class, like goblins or orcs).

Now look how much this solves. The PCs can't push around the local lords anymore - the King is not only rich, he is powerful, because in D&D those mean the same thing. The highest level dude around is the local ruler. The DM can figure out what level that guy is, and how many troops he has, based on the size of his holdings - and the players can figure it out too, meaning they know who to be scared of and who they can push around.

High-levels having castles for the peasants to hide in makes sense, because those peasants are the source of their income. Clerics caring about their flock - same thing. Wizards selling items make sense - they make a net profit on the XP, so they can go up levels just by catering to loser fighter-types.

Side-quests to level up before taking on the big bad? Killing monsters just for the XP/Loot? All of these are features of D&D, and now they make sense. Genies spawning wishes? Sorry, somebody has to pay XP for those wishes. The Genie will give you a free one 'cause you called him, but it comes out of his pocket. He can't give you more. Shadows spawning all over the world? Sorry but it takes XP to make a magical monster (as much for a CR 3 monster as for a Lvl 3 character); that whole village only makes 1 or 2 Shadows and meanwhile the local lord is coming to protect his property.

Seriously, it just fixes so much. And players love it, since they can use their XP for levels, or henchmen, or magic items, or just gold. It empowers them over an whole 'nother level of the game.

[Anonymouswizard]

There are such games. If that's what you want, play Fantasy Hero.

I don't actually play D&D when I have the choice anymore. I can stomach not being able to do it, but it's really annoying and I prefer levelless.

[Knaight]

Fair enough. Instead of saying that balance doesn't really matter in abstract games, I should have just said that it doesn't really matter "as much".

It's more that different types of games have different balance. Something hyper combat focused with a design about adventurers doing things is going to need balance between adventurers, and a case like Superman and Lois Lane is going to be poorly fitting at best. Something involving character drama on the other hand needs a balance between character depth and spotlight focus more than anything, so that sort of situation is fine, whereas a character like Fitor or Wizherd the archetype that isn't even really named isn't going to work particularly well.

[Max_Killjoy]

I've found, over the years, that if I'm doing heavy lifting for a day all I need is a couple hours rest and a meal to get going again. On the other hand when I write computer code all day I won't be physically tired, but if I don't get a solid night's sleep I turn into useless crankypants the next day. I do wonder what percentage of people who complain about explanations for Vancian and other magic systems actually read the original fiction that lays it out.

I tried... I just plain don't care that much for Vance, et al.

What I've grown to really dislike is the D&D 4th and 5th editions setups where bards insult things and they take damage. A monster doesn't speak your language? Insult it to death. It's deaf and doesn't even have ears? Insult it to death. It's a mindless clockwork? Insult it to death. It's the kitchen table? Ok, that's immune. Untill some wizard animates it, then you insult it and it breaks in half. Bleah.

What makes a bard a bard (especially in the source culture instead of the "character class") is a cultural role and a set of performance and social skills. Trying to shoehorn those into a combat-centric RPG ruleset and "weaponize" them is silly.

[Jay R]

My gripe with the vatican system is less "and now I forgot my spell", and more that the spell slots are weird. This could be paralleled with how you have a limited amount of physical strength every day, but the way you use vatican spells doesn't imply that. The way the mechanic usually ends up working is that you have a metaphysical "gun" that you can reload every day during rest with any of a wide array of ammunition that appears out of somewhere. To me the vatican system feels blatantly the way it is only because there needs to be some way to balance abilities. As most people have already said, it's a preference thing.

A better metaphor is a crossbow or a musket. It takes some time to load, but you can then carry it loaded for hours before shooting it at a moment's notice.

Or think of food in a backpack. I can decide what food to carry, up to my carrying capacity. It takes time to buy food, prepare it, and pack it in the pack, but then I can eat anything I thought to bring with me immediately. But once I eat it, and can't eat the same thing, until I get back to town, buy food, prepare it, and pack it.

Once you accept that your mind can manipulate physical reality in a magic-filled world, there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea that you can carry a mostly-finished ritual in your head, but once you use that magical force, you don't have it to use again until you go through the rituals again. And there's nothing wrong with the idea that you can only do that so many times in a day, based on your intelligence and experience.

When I say, "I can see someone" in this world, that means that the person must be in front of my eyes. But in a world with scrying, , you can say "I see someone" in a very different sense. When I say, "I'm flying tomorrow," I mean I have a ticket for an airplane flight. A D&D wizard can say it in an entirely different sense.

Stop trying to interpret the words "memorize" and "forget" in a non-magical sense, recognize that mental actions are different in a world in which your mind can cause fireballs or flight, and it's just as reasonable as any other system of magic.

[Max_Killjoy]

A better metaphor is a crossbow or a musket. It takes some time to load, but you can then carry it loaded for hours before shooting it at a moment's notice.

Or think of food in a backpack. I can decide what food to carry, up to my carrying capacity. It takes time to buy food, prepare it, and pack it in the pack, but then I can eat anything I thought to bring with me immediately. But once I eat it, and can't eat the same thing, until I get back to town, buy food, prepare it, and pack it.

None of those things is a brain/mind, or a memory.

Stop trying to interpret the words "memorize" and "forget" in a non-magical sense, recognize that mental actions are different in a world in which your mind can cause fireballs or flight, and it's just as reasonable as any other system of magic.

Stop trying to turn common everyday words into "terms of art" in order to back-explain a system that's conceptually and mechanically lacking.

[goto124]

"Memorize" and "forget" are terrible word choices, even if the concept itself is fair.

[Knaight]

Stop trying to turn common everyday words into "terms of art" in order to back-explain a system that's conceptually and mechanically lacking.

They are terms of art though. The word choice is questionable at best, which is probably why "memorize" has been largely dropped in favor of "prepare", but the whole almost finished ritual concept is solid. It's incredibly setting specific, and it's a large part of why I contend that D&D isn't a generic fantasy system (though there are other, larger parts), but as a mechanic in isolation it works just fine.

[Jay R]

None of those things is a brain/mind, or a memory.

Of course. That's why I called them metaphors.

Nothing in our world that can start fires, cause flight, create lightning, make people grow or shrink, or summon monsters is a brain/mind, or a memory. Minds in D&D do things that our minds can't. They really do. They dominate people, create fireballs, cause levitation. As long as you assume a mind cannot control magic, you will not understand any theory about how minds in D&D control magic. But that's not a hole in D&D logic. It's you arguing in a circle.

Stop trying to turn common everyday words into "terms of art" in order to back-explain a system that's conceptually and mechanically lacking.

I'm not back-explaining. That was the explanation before D&D existed.

And memory really can work that way. Yesterday I was measuring a desk where I had no paper. I measured it and held those three numbers in my head, thinking of little else, until I found a piece of paper and wrote them down. Twenty minutes later, they weren't in my head, and I had to go look at the piece of paper.

That's not a perfect parallel, but it's enough to make the Vancian system reasonable.

[Max_Killjoy]

Hardly, but we'll have to disagree. There is literally no explanation you can offer that won't sound like a ridiculous excuse for a rotten concept, as far as I'm concerned.

Perfume on a pig, as it were... as I said earlier, it's all just ways to cover up for the raw silliness of "I forgot my spells. Again."

[Thrudd]

There is literally no explanation you can offer that won't sound like a ridiculous excuse for a rotten concept, as far as I'm concerned.

That is apparent. Dying Earth just rubs you the wrong way. So what is a reasonable concept for how magic works, to you? Is the problem that you can't believe the mind/memory itself could be affected by or changed by magic? How does Suggestion and Charm work?