Fixing the Fantasy of Fantasy Gaming

[quanta]

That depends on precisely what the fuck you mean by magic.

Maybe magic is extremely rare, volatile, and difficult to impossible to use systematically, preventing it from making any serious social or economic changes, but occasionally some idiot manages to not blow himself up and becomes a twisted and powerful madman from contact with magic.

Or you can just imagine that the few people who use magic are so high on the totem pole, and magic is so rare that they're effectively like gods to everyone else. But you know... of the greek variety (AKA they are bunch of bickering dicks).

But yes, D&D magic makes absolutely no fucking sense next to a pseudo-medieval world. It's stupidly powerful, consistent, and low risk. Whether it has any bounds whatsoever in what it can accomplish is poorly defined. But fuck D&D magic. Magic that can do absolutely anything ceases to be interesting.

[Midnight_v]

No ff7 style swords, or platemail bikinis, no flying unicorn magic bombers, or dragon cavalry...

I dont' know... I kind of like those things. (Well maybe noe the unicorn, but still the rest? Kinda awesom just like in some distant fashion the flaming war flamigos is awesome) I'm kinda thinking I don't really want to play in the world where people are people and die to bears and would die to dinosaurs if they were still in the wild. I mean we kinda live there.
So you know simulationists gaming can kinda kiss my ass, but if thats your cup of tea, feel free to enjoy. I think thats one off the isses with this type of discussion there's always someone trying to give a definition of what "fantasy" is and different things to different people are acceptable.
I like the "Giant Sword" movement, not because it realistic but it has resonance with me because I've watched "Berserk" and played Soul Calibur and played Final fantasy, but check it the gunblade thing they tried turned me off. So you know its a really wide genre filled with things to satisfy every taste.

It's stupidly powerful, consistent, and low risk.

Maybe its supposed to be limited in that everyone's not smart enough or charismatic enough to use it.

a pseudo-medieval world

According to frank, D&D is really set in the iron age. Which makes way more sense in a way.

Magic that can do absolutely anything ceases to be interesting

Still what are you saying you want?
Specifically I mean? You want magic that is... weak risky and high risk?
or do you just want magic that has some hard limits on it.
Like "Cannot affect Time" "Cannot let people fly"
Didnt' 4th edition do something like that? I mean I don't know I said I'd leave it till they dropped 4.5 at least...
I don't get what people want. I've heard people say things like they want magic to be exausting or something, but what that puts in mind for me is the celerity line of spells. Basically, either you have an effect strong enough, that whatever draw back is well irrelavant, or basically you have effects that DON'T and basically no one plays magic. Which is the same as saying Fuck you no magic. Its a bit of a dilemna... but I dont' ever wanna play:
Lord of the rings simulators either.

[Fuchs]

The iron age, greek heroes, gods walking the earth, and so on, seems to fit D&D much better than some hundred years war, or renaissance, with tacked-on magic.

[PhoneLobster]

Drakensang? Really?

I mean it totally sucked as a computer game.

[mean_liar]

Magic that can do absolutely anything ceases to be interesting

Still what are you saying you want?

Ars Magica is a great example of how to do a magic system. There are limits on what it can do, and more than that it's more nuanced than, "magic". It has a compartmentalized system where earth magics are different from mind magics (for example), and making stuff is different from controlling stuff (for example).

It has guidelines on spell levels such that you can create whatever you want, so long as you can pull off what you're attempting and it doesn't break any of those aforementioned limits.

Think more Master of Magic than DnD.

[quanta]

Maybe its supposed to be limited in that everyone's not smart enough or charismatic enough to use it.

Due to differences between various D&D settings and other what not, I'd say this isn't really a serious limitation in most D&D settings.

Still what are you saying you want?
Specifically I mean? You want magic that is... weak risky and high risk?
or do you just want magic that has some hard limits on it.
Like "Cannot affect Time" "Cannot let people fly"
Didnt' 4th edition do something like that? I mean I don't know I said I'd leave it till they dropped 4.5 at least...
I don't get what people want. I've heard people say things like they want magic to be exausting or something, but what that puts in mind for me is the celerity line of spells. Basically, either you have an effect strong enough, that whatever draw back is well irrelavant, or basically you have effects that DON'T and basically no one plays magic. Which is the same as saying Fuck you no magic. Its a bit of a dilemna... but I dont' ever wanna play:
Lord of the rings simulators either.

I didn't really say precisely what I want out of magic, but what I always want is a ridiculously weak restriction in-and-of-itself. What I precisely want depends on the setting, what sort of game I feel like playing, etc.

But the sort of restrictions you're thinking of aren't really anything like the type of restrictions I'm thinking of. Our universe's physics has some pretty strong rules, but it's hardly lacking in complexity and variety.

Think limitations like conservation of energy not shit like "No you can't fly, fuck you." The inability to fly may be a valid choice in designing a particular magic system (perhaps magic can't be stored in a person, and has to be constantly drawn from the earth itself, so all mages walk around barefoot, and act as conduits for magic), but ideally you have an interesting in-game reason for this restriction. Maybe in this setting, some mages can sort of gain some of the benefits of flying by simply calling the earth under them to rise up into thin spires which they then step across. These spires rise to meet the mage as he steps forward and falling back down as he steps away from them. But maybe that doesn't work because the more narrow the cross-section of earth the mage draws up, the less magic can flow and the weaker his magic becomes (so magic is weakest on high mountains and strongest in the deepest valleys) and drawing up sufficiently broad platforms of earth is very difficult.

Or maybe you want a more general restriction like I was talking about before, so you simply rule that when mages/wizards/whatever transmute material, they can't break conservation of mass, but can spend magical energy to affect things like the structure or density of material or to trigger a chemical reaction (like fire) that normally wouldn't happen.

Perhaps the limitation is more metaphysical and magic can't be used to control people's thoughts, emotions, attitudes, etc. So you can't directly dominate someone, or make them fall asleep, but you can falsify their sensory input or set them on fire.

Anyways, I don't really care what the restriction is without knowing a bit more about the rest of the setting, but there has to be some sort of restriction. 3.5 D&D magic has essentially no limits. There's really no reasonable limit on somebody's power in terms of time, energy, material, etc. 2nd Edition D&D, from what I understand is like 3rds except with the limitation of random fuck-you rules that represent magic being... dangerous or something? And only for the more powerful spells.

[Mask_De_H]

I prefer fantasy that doesn't revolve around War Flamingo's. I prefer fantasy with Elves based on tolkiens elves and Dwarves who all get racial abilities to make them look like Gimli and Dark Lord BBEG's that are basically just Sauron and magic swords and Dragon slaying and taking their treasure and by dragons I mean the ones that look like Smaug.
Tolkien is awesome. Tolkien is great. War Flamingo's can suck my dick that shit is unmarketable. Or rather it's marketable in the same way that Pimp: The Slappening or whatever is marketable which means not enough to make me give a shit. And why does marketing matter to me? Is it because I am in charge of Hasbro and need to care about what sells to people? NO. It is because I play with OTHER PEOPLE. And when you want to talk your hot coworker into showing up for a game of DnD you had better be able to tap into themes they already know. Marketable themes. So I can end up railing girls I get to show up to games who want to live out their Xena fantasies or their Tolkien Elf fantasies but I CANT do it with fucking War Flamingo's. That shit would get me quantifiably less ass so FUCK THAT SHIT FOREVER.

One, what the fuck happened to your paragraphs?

Two, why aren't you playing WoD if you want ass?

Three, suck a barrel of cocks, just because I had to read that.

I want to play a fantasy game that's basically a Touhou-style kitchen sink: predominantly one style of time (Iron Age, feudal Japan, frontier America, between World Wars/during Punic Wars Europe) and then throw in some anachronistic bits for flavor.

[Koumei]

I want to play a fantasy game that's basically a Touhou-style kitchen sink:

I'm actually running a Touhou Fantasy game on IRC for the holidays. Set in "It's Cold Outside", all the players decided they should be a Touhou-themed set of maids. Including the Mummy.

It's awesome.

Moral of the story: fantasy needs more Touhou

[K]

DnD is specifically post-apocalyptic, except the apocalypse was a magical one and not a technological one. I realized this after watching a few zombie movies and apocalypse movies in a row on Netflicks and realizing how much people in those movies act like adventurers.

That's why the dungeon exists. And magic items that no one really makes any more, and even things like Ye Olde Magic Shoppe that is like the tech shop from Book of Eli.

This is also why weird crap is everywhere. Sometimes it's feral children like in Mad Max and sometimes it's zombie infestations, but the reason things seem to be placed in a patchwork manner is because anything left from the last apocalypse survived in patches.

Now, in a technological setting things would even out over time. The lizard men from the nearby swamp would start trading beads for rare swamp woods or fish or something and in few generations they'd be living in the cities and trying to get voted onto the city council.

Unlike a technological setting, DnD's magical apocalypses are recurring. The lizard men actually ruled this area a few hundred years ago and are basically hiding out until the heat is off from THEIR apocalypse and maybe hoping to miss the next one altogether. People don't start building cars and airplanes because the knowledge gets lost.

But the raw materials are everywhere so people start up civilization fast. Ancient cities ravaged by magic plagues or rains of fire get scavenged faster than the Parthenon.

In that context, everything in DnD makes sense. The reason why wizards don't join the government and start chain-binding efreet for the public welfare is because they are the few people who can actually tell you what happened the last four or five apocalypses and know that it won't last so it's better to just build isolated little towers of stored knowledge to jump-start civilization after the next apocalypse.

[Kot]

Drakensang? Really?

I mean it totally sucked as a computer game.

Really? Show me another game that had such great scenery? And i'm not talking about tha 'two sets of blocks disguised as a city', or a 'five shacks disguised as a village' kind. Places you visit in Drakensang are like real. You see leaves falling from trees, fireflies near water, light beams in forests, and such. And people acting and dressing like real people. You can buy a goddamn bar of soap.
And magic exists there. Like in Alchemists who brew potions and cast spells. With priests who heal wounds and cure illness. And mages who live in towers and experiment with things beyond understanding of the common folk...
And if by 'sucked' you mean 'didn't throw tons of enemies, magical items, pointless quests(kill a hundred rats, and bring me their spleens), and "romance" options' then yes, it did. I'm playing River of Time now, and the introduction already charmed me...

[souran]

\
No. For starters, why the fuck anyone would choose to use swords when you have lasers?

Frank Herbert came up with a rather elegant solution to this in Dune:

Nothing in Dune is elegant, its byzantine and arcane and nonsensical to the extreme. Its just treated by everybody as "just the way it is" so it seems more normal while reading.

Everyone also has shields. When a lasgun hits a shield, you may melt each participant in the equation, or the shield may go nuclear, ensuring that the rest of the galaxy nukes whoever they believe responsible back to radioactive glass. There's just no real way to be sure. And that's the fun of it!

You misunderstood this. Shields are actually very expensive. Paul atraides, his father, and perhaps thier closest retainers like Duncan Idahoe or Gurney Halleck have shields. The rest don't.

However, even just a few people having shields makes using laser weapons in most cases a very risky idea because shooting a personal shield device with a laser gun causes a nuclear explosion.

The reason that the Sadukar can't use guns on Arakis is because on Arakis using lasers attracts the sandworms which is also usually fatal.

Then again, the concept of the Dune universe in the early novels was one of stagnation and the decline of humanity, so having people use knives and swords made sense thematically.

Also the nobles were supposed to do most of the fighting of the other nobels and so they wieleded weapons that would be useful if you carry a personal shield device.

However, in the end, lets remember that in the first Dune novel that the fate of the entire universe comes down to a knife fight with roughly the same rules as the one from the "beat it" music video. This is NOT what we should be shooting for.

[fectin]

The reason that the Sadukar can't use guns on Arakis is because on Arakis using lasers attracts the sandworms which is also usually fatal.

Shields attracted the sandworms. I don't recall there being a good explanation for why the saudakker(sp?) didn't just shoot everyone, though IIRC, lasers were very unreliable.

[Lokathor]

Shields and Lasers are a bad mix. That's why no one uses lasers, because the enemy just might be insane enough to have a shield, so you don't fucking chance it. Shields attract sandworms, but only while they're on. So the enemy might carry around a deactivated shield, then turn it on to fight with.

Instead, everyone had knives and firearms and grenades. In the far future, warfare is like it was 40 or 60 years ago.

[kzt]

However, even just a few people having shields makes using laser weapons in most cases a very risky idea because shooting a personal shield device with a laser gun causes a nuclear explosion.

Luckily for the plot, in Dune, just like in Star Dreck Voyager, nobody ever heard of timers.

[name_here]

However, even just a few people having shields makes using laser weapons in most cases a very risky idea because shooting a personal shield device with a laser gun causes a nuclear explosion.

Luckily for the plot, in Dune, just like in Star Dreck Voyager, nobody ever heard of timers.

Actually, it's because they're afraid that if they use a timered lasgun, people will think they used actual nukes and blow the shit out of them. It's stated more-or-less explicitly in the first book.

[TheFlatline]

You misunderstood this. Shields are actually very expensive. Paul atraides, his father, and perhaps thier closest retainers like Duncan Idahoe or Gurney Halleck have shields. The rest don't.

However, even just a few people having shields makes using laser weapons in most cases a very risky idea because shooting a personal shield device with a laser gun causes a nuclear explosion.

The reason that the Sadukar can't use guns on Arakis is because on Arakis using lasers attracts the sandworms which is also usually fatal.

Shields weren't that expensive. There's significant talk about how the 'thopters on Dune didn't have shields installed on them, just as a normal precaution.

Even Leto Atredies says flat out "I don't like this de-emphasis on shields" referring to Dune.

Also, shields, not lasguns, attract worms. It's one of the two things that makes Arrakis an anomaly when it comes to warfare: Shields either fritz out from the static buildup in the sandstorms (which is what knocks out the Emperor's house shields at the end) or they ring the dinner bell and worms come to eat you. The second is that Spice renders you immune to most poisons if you consume it long enough, meaning that a good deal of house intrigue can't be conducted. Leto again remarks "Arrakis makes us ethical" in regards to house warfare.

I do remember lasguns being expensive, cranky, unreliable, and temperamental however.

I agree that we don't want to mimic Dune, but my point was that it was entirely possible to have a setting where despite having lasers and shit, swords are preferable.

[Archmage]

I agree that we don't want to mimic Dune, but my point was that it was entirely possible to have a setting where despite having lasers and shit, swords are preferable.

While this is true, for the purposes of a game, if we're going to include both swords and laser guns in our setting, there have to be very good reasons for players to want to use both, and it's arguably a valid goal for their choice to be based entirely on personal preference instead of practicality. Otherwise one or the other is a trap option.

[Gnyahaha]

How about lasguns are super rare and their ammunition is nigh-impossible to produce plus theyre exotic weapons from bygone times vs swords are long pieces of metal you stick in anything?

You dont really have to go on about the practicality or trappings of shields and lasguns. If lasguns are very hard to produce in your fantasy world then thats that and nobody is going to use them en masse.

Plus,people always use swords because lets face it, its cooler.

[K]

If lasers are as hard to produce and use and recharge as Wands of Fireball, then they can't break a fantasy setting.

[MGuy]

Would they be worth including then? If a player wants to use it then it is either so rare that its not worth it or accessible enough where its rarity doesn't matter. But if its easy for a player to get hold of and use regularly then what's the point of giving it the *rare* stamp?

[Username17]

Would they be worth including then?

In a Final Fantasy world, some people use chain guns and some people use swords, and people don't seem to have a problem with either one being "better" than the other. But stylistically, people like having the option.

My suggestion is to go for steam punk with Victorian style crazy crap. Lightning rods, long rifles, swords.

-Username17

[TheFlatline]

Would they be worth including then?

In a Final Fantasy world, some people use chain guns and some people use swords, and people don't seem to have a problem with either one being "better" than the other. But stylistically, people like having the option.

My suggestion is to go for steam punk with Victorian style crazy crap. Lightning rods, long rifles, swords.

-Username17

Yeah but in FF the damage tradeoff for a ranged weapon vs a melee weapon is either non-existent or negligible.

As for steampunk, I'm helping a friend flush out a setting that's sort of a Jules Verne take on Mars. It's got some of that kind of stuff strange stuff, all based off of ether, electric fluid, and steam.

[PhoneLobster]

Really? Show me another game that had such great scenery?

Tons of games, tons of BAD games, have really nice graphics.

Places you visit in Drakensang are like real.

What you mean "like real" as in real cities made out of invulnerable block like houses you cannot enter the vast majority off, all the shops being outdoor market vending stores, and the city having a fine populations of barrels and boxes for you to smash and loot right under the noses of their uncaring owners? Is it the armies of wandering peasants you can't talk to that makes the cities more real for you? What other non-interactive gaming anachronism makes the cities so real to you?

And people acting and dressing like real people.

Er. No. People do not and did not dress like that. Dressing like that is dressing like a somewhat casual renaissance fair. And as for acting like real people... the Drakensang writers couldn't manage that in a MILLION YEARS. Dark Eye was a long script of dickish interchangeable idiots almost all of whom were dickish swashbucklers and were indeed so dickish you had to wonder whether each and every one of them was actually working for the forces of evil, which they never turned out to be doing since they were just that stupidly dickish from the guy who just liked chilling in jail for no reason other than to freak the shit out of his girlfriend to the grand wizard murdering his own teenage apprentices FOR NO REASON, Drakensang was full of decidedly UN-realistic and jarringly STUPID behavior.

And magic exists there. Like in Alchemists who brew potions and cast spells.

Using a potion crafting system that is stupidly expensive in cash, character points, exploration, time and raw tedium. And at the end you get... nothing worth caring about. Better to sell all the junk you pick up for cash. And even THAT is tedious and hardly worth it.

With priests who heal wounds and cure illness.

Did I mention both the damage AND healing systems in the original Drakensang were HORRIFICALLY BAD. I mean mechanically because they were CRAZY bad for game play.

And mages who live in towers and experiment with things beyond understanding of the common folk...

What you mean like that guy who murdered his own apprentice for kicks but you were SUPPOSED to treat like a hilarious funny old eccentric man. The one with the super magic powers made out of arbitrarium that could have solved every problem you ever had at the flick of a finger but that he DIDNT USE LIKE THAT because he was a homicidal old DICK.

And if by 'sucked' you mean 'didn't throw tons of enemies, magical items, pointless quests(kill a hundred rats, and bring me their spleens)

Did you miss the rat dungeon? No really. Anyway every second fight was with rats even without it!

[Dean]

why aren't you playing WoD if you want ass?

Because WoD IS ass.

I want my peanut butter AND my chocolate.

[Shazbot79]

In a Final Fantasy world, some people use chain guns and some people use swords, and people don't seem to have a problem with either one being "better" than the other. But stylistically, people like having the option.

My suggestion is to go for steam punk with Victorian style crazy crap. Lightning rods, long rifles, swords.

-Username17

For whatever reason, tabletop RPG fans are peevish when it comes to gun rules.

In games like D&D with abstract "health bar" mechanics, people find it easier to buy sword cuts and axe blows that shave off only a small fraction of one's HP total as being merely "shallow wounds" or "near misses", but will go apeshit if damage from a gun is anything but an insta-kill, even though three feet of steel or a crossbow bolt through the gut is probably just as deadly as a musketball.

The end result is that game designers tend to make firearms far more deadly for the sake of "verisimilitude", which in turn makes guns a clearly superior choice to melee weapons. Though they tend to put some limiting factor on guns such as longer reload times to encourage melee combat, all this really does is encourage ranged combat and guerilla tactics.

Given, this certainly doesn't HAVE to be the case...but more often than not, games either support either melee combat or ranged combat primarily. You could add firearms to say, D&D, and treat them like wands with limited charges, but eventually the Wizard with max ranks in alchemy is going to be conjuring bullets for the DEX based rifle Fighter.