A world without magic? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

A world without magic?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
therecruiter
Mar 08, 2012 19:05:08 Hey all, my first post here.

So I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons since understanding Thac0 was necessary, however I am being faced with something I just do not understand. I am part of a group of weekend DND players who runs the gammut so to speak when it comes to diversity. Yet, I am starting to see a narrowing of ideals in my group. I am one of 3 who typically dm, and I rarely ban anything from the games I run, however the other 2 dm's are starting to impose quite a few restrictions that I do not think are appropriate.

At first one of the other DM's banned any non Wotc materials, while I personally have enjoyed much of the material presented by Green Ronin and Sword and Sorcery, I complied with little complaint. However the next restriction that seems to be budding has really begun to push me in the direction of all out mutiny.

NO MAGIC!!!

I understand their reasons, and perhaps that is why I am having such a hard time with this. Over half the group has children, are in relationships, work full time jobs, and some are even full time college students. It makes sense to want to have a more simplified game, however I believe we are crossing the line from simplified to out and out restrictive. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what I could do to try and convince the others that magic is not the enemy?
#2
salla
Mar 08, 2012 19:43:15 You should ask them why they are wanting to do this. We can't refute their reasons without knowing what they are.
#3
therecruiter
Mar 08, 2012 20:42:39 Current game: The reasons are limited time for the DM to prepare content for the game. Magic can really throw a wrench into something planned out and he is wanting to have a very simple campaign. In this game magic is very limited, not extinct, I am playing a bard variant that has unlimited use of his songs. It is the most powerful magic anyone from the party has seen yet, and none of the others (there are 6 players) are playing anything with any form of magic.

The thought of an absolute ZERO magic world is being brought up by our newest member, who I believe has only played with one other group, for a limited time. He wouldn't tell me why he wanted to ban magic, other than that he liked the "flavor" of a world without it, and he felt that people who played casters were typically irresponsible with their powers in games. There is a very good chance that if he offers to run his campaign the rest will jump on the band wagon. It just doesn't feel like DND to me if you were to take an entire aspect away from it.
#4
zyraen
Mar 08, 2012 23:17:33
The reasons are limited time for the DM to prepare content for the game. Magic can really throw a wrench into something planned out and he is wanting to have a very simple campaign.

4E cures most of this by making overall effects less swingy. The Magic is there but hugely less wrench-throwing. Hardly takes any effort to stat NPCs on the spot as well, I've gone into 2 games without Enemy Stats (rushed from home due to gf aggro) and just made them up on my laptop in under a minute.

There is another aspect that comes into play though
- Enhancements
- Item Abilities

Enhancements are the easiest to deal with, in DMG2 (4E) there's even a segment that proposes this. Basically every X levels players get +1 to Attack and all Defenses, effectively compensating for Enhancement.

Item Abilities can be mostly done away. Situational +X given to a good use of a skill is quite sufficient.

Alternatively, look at the D&D Boardgame mechanics. They're really distilled for a simple game that requires minimum preparation.
#5
therecruiter
Mar 08, 2012 23:24:26 We only play 3/3.5. Most of the guys in my group started as 2nd ed. players, and are somewhat put off by 4E. Which is hilarous since most of them were hesitant to try 3rd edition and give up there 2nd ed, ways.
#6
zyraen
Mar 08, 2012 23:53:53 I really started as a 2.5E player, albeit not on a tabletop setting.

I disliked 3.5E not because of the mechanics (Thac0 REALLY should go and be replaced by bonuses...) but because of the potential overpowering issues, and that Players could go Solo with 3-4 Classes on a single character. Which to me, was a big middle finger to the party-cooperation mechanic that Classes came with, and which I had previously defined D&D by (I emphasise "I had previously defined" because this is just one big opinion)

That said, there's no point switching to 4E, but its worth to look through the mechanics to get a feel how it reduces swinginess.

Alternatively, without looking at any 4E material, just give a few considerations
- a powerful effect (say Harm, Finger of Death) does not go off immediately. The bad guy gets to make X more saving throws after the first round, and failing X times (say twice) it comes into effect
- a lesser effect (say Charm or Dominate) goes off immediately, but lasts only X rounds, where every round the affected person makes a Save, and if he makes the Save the effect ends.

Then of course - subjective Power Ban. Some abilities and powers are simply "banned" by the DM.
#7
Krusk
Mar 09, 2012 9:31:01
Have you considered not applying the bans when you DM? Even more severe is to sit out on games where those rules are in effect. "You guys go ahead, just let me know when this ends cause I have one I want to run I think you will enjoy".
#8
tubaman
Mar 09, 2012 9:56:34 D&D is a group game. Everyone in the party should have a say in what kind of game you play; from the level of magic, to the abundance of magic items, to the speed of levelling, to the evil/good-ness allowed.

Keep in mind this is a group decision, not a majority decision. If 4 people want no magic and 1 person can't stand no magic, then you should really still be talking about this until everyone is satisfied. Its no more fair for 1 person to hold out and refuse to comply with 4 others, than it is for those 4 others to impose their preferences on the 1 person.

Have you sat down and discussed your views? have you told him you don't think you can have fun in a game that has no magic? Maybe he'd be fine with something like a warmage (pure combat magic) in 3.5, or a non-ritual using caster in 4e. After all, you said it was due to limited prep time. I could see a DM with limited prep time not wanting to deal with an enchanter/abjurer/diviner wizard who charms people and uses scrying to see where you're going all the time. I can't really see that same DM having a problem with a wizard who prepares only magic missile for 1st level, only acid arrow for 2nd level, only fireball for 3rd level, etc. (in other words, damage spells....spells that do what the other characters are already doing) - or a similar cleric that uses healing and self/group buffing spells only.
#9
kenlar
Mar 26, 2012 3:58:20
Keep in mind this is a group decision, not a majority decision. If 4 people want no magic and 1 person can't stand no magic, then you should really still be talking about this until everyone is satisfied. Its no more fair for 1 person to hold out and refuse to comply with 4 others, than it is for those 4 others to impose their preferences on the 1 person.

We once tried playing a game like this, where I as DM ruled that no magic was allowed. However, one of my players wanted to play a mage (the others were a Rogue and an Artificer with a Warforged companion) so we talked a bit about it, and reached the conclusion that "Magic is extremely rare, and only a few people have control of the power, and using magic in public will have negative repurcussions". Everyone could settle for the rules, and it actually turned out to be quite a lot of fun, until I accidentally made an encounter a bit too hard and killed the party.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 therecruiter Mar 08, 2012 19:05:08	Hey all, my first post here. So I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons since understanding Thac0 was necessary, however I am being faced with something I just do not understand. I am part of a group of weekend DND players who runs the gammut so to speak when it comes to diversity. Yet, I am starting to see a narrowing of ideals in my group. I am one of 3 who typically dm, and I rarely ban anything from the games I run, however the other 2 dm's are starting to impose quite a few restrictions that I do not think are appropriate. At first one of the other DM's banned any non Wotc materials, while I personally have enjoyed much of the material presented by Green Ronin and Sword and Sorcery, I complied with little complaint. However the next restriction that seems to be budding has really begun to push me in the direction of all out mutiny. NO MAGIC!!! I understand their reasons, and perhaps that is why I am having such a hard time with this. Over half the group has children, are in relationships, work full time jobs, and some are even full time college students. It makes sense to want to have a more simplified game, however I believe we are crossing the line from simplified to out and out restrictive. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what I could do to try and convince the others that magic is not the enemy?
#2 salla Mar 08, 2012 19:43:15	You should ask them why they are wanting to do this. We can't refute their reasons without knowing what they are.
#3 therecruiter Mar 08, 2012 20:42:39	Current game: The reasons are limited time for the DM to prepare content for the game. Magic can really throw a wrench into something planned out and he is wanting to have a very simple campaign. In this game magic is very limited, not extinct, I am playing a bard variant that has unlimited use of his songs. It is the most powerful magic anyone from the party has seen yet, and none of the others (there are 6 players) are playing anything with any form of magic. The thought of an absolute ZERO magic world is being brought up by our newest member, who I believe has only played with one other group, for a limited time. He wouldn't tell me why he wanted to ban magic, other than that he liked the "flavor" of a world without it, and he felt that people who played casters were typically irresponsible with their powers in games. There is a very good chance that if he offers to run his campaign the rest will jump on the band wagon. It just doesn't feel like DND to me if you were to take an entire aspect away from it.
#4 zyraen Mar 08, 2012 23:17:33	The reasons are limited time for the DM to prepare content for the game. Magic can really throw a wrench into something planned out and he is wanting to have a very simple campaign. 4E cures most of this by making overall effects less swingy. The Magic is there but hugely less wrench-throwing. Hardly takes any effort to stat NPCs on the spot as well, I've gone into 2 games without Enemy Stats (rushed from home due to gf aggro) and just made them up on my laptop in under a minute. There is another aspect that comes into play though - Enhancements - Item Abilities Enhancements are the easiest to deal with, in DMG2 (4E) there's even a segment that proposes this. Basically every X levels players get +1 to Attack and all Defenses, effectively compensating for Enhancement. Item Abilities can be mostly done away. Situational +X given to a good use of a skill is quite sufficient. Alternatively, look at the D&D Boardgame mechanics. They're really distilled for a simple game that requires minimum preparation.
#5 therecruiter Mar 08, 2012 23:24:26	We only play 3/3.5. Most of the guys in my group started as 2nd ed. players, and are somewhat put off by 4E. Which is hilarous since most of them were hesitant to try 3rd edition and give up there 2nd ed, ways.
#6 zyraen Mar 08, 2012 23:53:53	I really started as a 2.5E player, albeit not on a tabletop setting. I disliked 3.5E not because of the mechanics (Thac0 REALLY should go and be replaced by bonuses...) but because of the potential overpowering issues, and that Players could go Solo with 3-4 Classes on a single character. Which to me, was a big middle finger to the party-cooperation mechanic that Classes came with, and which I had previously defined D&D by (I emphasise "I had previously defined" because this is just one big opinion) That said, there's no point switching to 4E, but its worth to look through the mechanics to get a feel how it reduces swinginess. Alternatively, without looking at any 4E material, just give a few considerations - a powerful effect (say Harm, Finger of Death) does not go off immediately. The bad guy gets to make X more saving throws after the first round, and failing X times (say twice) it comes into effect - a lesser effect (say Charm or Dominate) goes off immediately, but lasts only X rounds, where every round the affected person makes a Save, and if he makes the Save the effect ends. Then of course - subjective Power Ban. Some abilities and powers are simply "banned" by the DM.
#7 Krusk Mar 09, 2012 9:31:01	Have you considered not applying the bans when you DM? Even more severe is to sit out on games where those rules are in effect. "You guys go ahead, just let me know when this ends cause I have one I want to run I think you will enjoy".
#8 tubaman Mar 09, 2012 9:56:34	D&D is a group game. Everyone in the party should have a say in what kind of game you play; from the level of magic, to the abundance of magic items, to the speed of levelling, to the evil/good-ness allowed. Keep in mind this is a group decision, not a majority decision. If 4 people want no magic and 1 person can't stand no magic, then you should really still be talking about this until everyone is satisfied. Its no more fair for 1 person to hold out and refuse to comply with 4 others, than it is for those 4 others to impose their preferences on the 1 person. Have you sat down and discussed your views? have you told him you don't think you can have fun in a game that has no magic? Maybe he'd be fine with something like a warmage (pure combat magic) in 3.5, or a non-ritual using caster in 4e. After all, you said it was due to limited prep time. I could see a DM with limited prep time not wanting to deal with an enchanter/abjurer/diviner wizard who charms people and uses scrying to see where you're going all the time. I can't really see that same DM having a problem with a wizard who prepares only magic missile for 1st level, only acid arrow for 2nd level, only fireball for 3rd level, etc. (in other words, damage spells....spells that do what the other characters are already doing) - or a similar cleric that uses healing and self/group buffing spells only.
#9 kenlar Mar 26, 2012 3:58:20	Keep in mind this is a group decision, not a majority decision. If 4 people want no magic and 1 person can't stand no magic, then you should really still be talking about this until everyone is satisfied. Its no more fair for 1 person to hold out and refuse to comply with 4 others, than it is for those 4 others to impose their preferences on the 1 person. We once tried playing a game like this, where I as DM ruled that no magic was allowed. However, one of my players wanted to play a mage (the others were a Rogue and an Artificer with a Warforged companion) so we talked a bit about it, and reached the conclusion that "Magic is extremely rare, and only a few people have control of the power, and using magic in public will have negative repurcussions". Everyone could settle for the rules, and it actually turned out to be quite a lot of fun, until I accidentally made an encounter a bit too hard and killed the party.