As to the content of the article itself, I can't deny that it's rather well done. Dobson is to be admired for his intestinal fortitude in providing a comprehensive accounting of all of AD&D's material spell components, including their costs, where they might be obtained, and their rarity. He then uses this information to provide the referee with the likelihood that various locales might have the components for which one is searching. There's a base chance, modified by rarity, the size of the locale in which one is searching, and other factors. It's actually a fairly easy system to use if you have the article handy, but one wonders why anyone would bother – at least I do (and did).
I want to be clear here: I don't begrudge anyone who finds dealing with such minutiae to be fun in their campaigns. Everyone has a slightly different notion of how much detail is "too much" and how much is "not enough." There's no single path to Verisimilitude. And I think, ultimately, that's my biggest beef with articles like this. They're part of a trend that D&D – and RPGs generally – adopted in the mid-80s that equated more detail with "better gaming." I don't deny that I've often indulged in more detail when I happened to like the topic in question, but material components have never been one of those topics.
They still aren't.
---Jim Hodges
ReplyDeleteWell said in the closing, and the idea that more detail equates to "better gaming" absolutely did not register with me. We had the most fun with light, loose sessions that prioritized fun and the spirit of D&Ds adventuring goals over absolute adherence to every tiny rule, and the legalistic DMs we knew, especially when it came to magic using, took much of that fun away.
On the other hand, the gaming ecosystem i spent my late teens in pushed for that realism. To the detriment of fun to be sure, but not entirely mean of spirit.
DeleteAegrod.
I can't ever remember worrying about material components when playing AD&D. I can remember thinking that 1E's inclusion of material components was much too fiddly-- who wants to keep track of how much sand a 1st level magic-user has on hand for his sleep spell?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I can see adventures being built around searching for components for the higher-level spells-- either to help the good guys or to keep the component away from the bad guys.
It's an example of how spells are the D&D game's most conserved/conservative element, that despite almost everyone who plays 5e using a spell focus to evade material components, they're still part of the listings in all their sympathetic or pun-ridden glory.
ReplyDelete>
Delete> almost everyone who plays 5e using a spell focus to evade material components
>
Unless, of course, one needs to have spell components that either come at a cost in gp (like a diamond or something) , or are consumed (used up) when casting the spell so one cannot easily cast the spell a second time without having obtained the necessary component for a second time. Both of which the spell focus cannot provide.
I always *want* to like material components -- they're awesomely flavorful -- but, in practice, they amount to little more than a pile of tedious bookkeeping. The resolution I eventually hit upon was to require them for spells with a casting time of one round or greater, my thinking being that those are the proper magic rituals, with the wizard toiling over a bubbling cauldron or whatnot.
ReplyDeleteI find the idea of material components as a limit on unrestrained spell casting attractive. But either stuff is too rare or too abundant and cool spells never get cast or all the mainstays are systematically backed up by limitless “spell ammo.”
ReplyDeleteI think if you had a magician-centric campaign spell components would be a worthwhile thing to remember and keep track of. Also, if you had a major spell casting be a focus of an adventure, something like turning back time, or a wish, then it would be a good side line to follow.
ReplyDeleteAgain, if you wanted to limit certain spells, this is a good method.
Ah yes, the image of an MU frantically fumbling for that feather in a side pocket to cast flight as he plunged to his death is one that immediately comes to mind when I think of material components...
ReplyDeleteAnother "inconvenience" of material components (and spell books) that most players overlooked was their vulnerability — sure your character had enough hit points to survive that fireball, but what about all your stuff? Somehow that never ever ever came up during play.
>
Delete> sure your character had enough hit points to survive that fireball, but what about all your stuff ?
>
At least in 5e, fireball only sets flammable items on fire that aren't being worn or carried, so your stuff is safe.
I think these kinds of articles were useful in reminding GMs and players that there was a balancing element to spell components. After all, how often have we read on this blog and others about the power creep in high level play where the humble fighter could not hold a candle to a magic user? Yet if the MU has not been able to visit the local bat cave (insert your own joke here) to collect the requisite guano, no Fireball. Something to think about, I think.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I got hold of several old Dragon magazines some years ago as I was trying to learn my way around the hobby. This was one, and I saw this article and immediately put it to use. I suppose for me, the trick is not be a stickler. I find dreams of a D&D world where we have to worry about bridge tolls and belt buckles sounds good, but usually don’t last long when implemented. Nonetheless, there can be ways of adding some detail, and I think it works by just not overdoing it. If a spell requires sand, I won’t make players tell me how they’re looking for sand. But some strange or unique component? Something rare and expensive? That’s where side-quests come in, either in the wilderness or in the seedy parts of the city. Plus, focusing on things like material components can be fun. One of our characters was a druid, attacked by a young dragon, red. In those cases (but again, not all), I’ll have them save their items v. the event. He failed and lost his mistletoe. Since it was far away from Midsummer, he had to play the next many months of games with substandard borrowed mistletoe that cost his spell potency more than once. It was fun stuff. When it came time to get the proper component in accordance with the PHB, I made him do so, but only in the sense of telling me he did and getting to a place where it would work. But I think it added flavor to the game, and threw a wrench in (and made the whole party make sure they have such materials protected in the future).
ReplyDelete