|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 18, 2021 2:34:34 GMT -6
30 hobgoblins, the hobgoblin King, and his 2 bodyguards
|
|
Elphilm
Level 3 Conjurer
ELpH vs. Coil
Posts: 69
|
Post by Elphilm on Apr 18, 2021 8:19:50 GMT -6
The whole "victim looks on you favorably" redefinition through 1E and later makes me queasy because it's so open to unpredictable DM fiat. At least with the full-enslavement it's easy to agree on what that means. It's not a redefinition, though. It was confirmed by Mike Mornard on this site that the way Gygax and friends always used charm person was to make the target react favorably to the caster, rather than the spell completely enslaving a person or something to that effect. "Charmed, I'm sure," is how Mornard described the spell. I've never understood why this is a problem. Every time the DM rolls dice to determine an NPC's reaction and gets the maximum result, i.e. an enthusiastic response, the DM has to make a judgement call on what that means. That's really all that charm person does, at least in my view. It's an automatic maximum result on a reaction roll, and if the situation is such that getting one person to react enthusiastically to the party would not make a difference, charm person isn't going to change the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Apr 20, 2021 14:23:03 GMT -6
The whole "victim looks on you favorably" redefinition through 1E and later makes me queasy because it's so open to unpredictable DM fiat. At least with the full-enslavement it's easy to agree on what that means. It's not a redefinition, though. It was confirmed by Mike Mornard on this site that the way Gygax and friends always used charm person was to make the target react favorably to the caster, rather than the spell completely enslaving a person or something to that effect. "Charmed, I'm sure," is how Mornard described the spell. I've never understood why this is a problem. Every time the DM rolls dice to determine an NPC's reaction and gets the maximum result, i.e. an enthusiastic response, the DM has to make a judgement call on what that means. That's really all that charm person does, at least in my view. It's an automatic maximum result on a reaction roll, and if the situation is such that getting one person to react enthusiastically to the party would not make a difference, charm person isn't going to change the outcome. Do you have a link to that assertion by Mornard, by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 20, 2021 16:46:54 GMT -6
It's not a redefinition, though. It was confirmed by Mike Mornard on this site that the way Gygax and friends always used charm person was to make the target react favorably to the caster, rather than the spell completely enslaving a person or something to that effect. "Charmed, I'm sure," is how Mornard described the spell. I've never understood why this is a problem. Every time the DM rolls dice to determine an NPC's reaction and gets the maximum result, i.e. an enthusiastic response, the DM has to make a judgement call on what that means. That's really all that charm person does, at least in my view. It's an automatic maximum result on a reaction roll, and if the situation is such that getting one person to react enthusiastically to the party would not make a difference, charm person isn't going to change the outcome. Do you have a link to that assertion by Mornard, by any chance? I could go ask him, I suppose...
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Apr 20, 2021 19:13:50 GMT -6
It's not a redefinition, though. It was confirmed by Mike Mornard on this site that the way Gygax and friends always used charm person was to make the target react favorably to the caster, rather than the spell completely enslaving a person or something to that effect. "Charmed, I'm sure," is how Mornard described the spell. I've never understood why this is a problem. Every time the DM rolls dice to determine an NPC's reaction and gets the maximum result, i.e. an enthusiastic response, the DM has to make a judgement call on what that means. That's really all that charm person does, at least in my view. It's an automatic maximum result on a reaction roll, and if the situation is such that getting one person to react enthusiastically to the party would not make a difference, charm person isn't going to change the outcome. Do you have a link to that assertion by Mornard, by any chance? odd74.proboards.com/post/129342/thread
|
|
|
Post by blackwyvern on Apr 20, 2021 22:07:45 GMT -6
I handle Charm Person like rolling a 12 on the initial reaction table, +3 to loyalty. Calculate morale using the 3d6 + Chr mod +3 for the charm. The random roll on the loyalty table is basically how loyal the person/creature is inherently modified by the strong attraction caused by the Charm spell. How they react to requests that would stress the friendship will be determined by a straight morale check. Charm Person or Monster really just gets the ball rolling in a favorable manor.
So the Charm spells have never been a worry for me. As a player I frequently take it over even Sleep. Some DMs let you get away with murder with the spell and even used by my interpretation if used on the right person it can sway multiple encounters in the party's favor. Even at the worst having a hobgoblin henchmen or two is never a bad thing for a low level magic-user. It is the spell that keeps on giving.
In my son's second B/X game, when he was 11 years old, he charmed the ogre in B2 and had a powerful bodyguard for the entire module, one that he treated very well. It was actually a pretty cool part of the adventure. Though the goblins might disagree. This also leads me to ask the question, if the spell was so over powered in the original rules, then why did later editions make it more so? I think the answer lies in people's interpretation of the spell's function.
In my son's example he treated the ogre so well that we never even worried to much about the charm wearing off. The creature became his actual friend and loyal henchman, until killed by a dragon in the Cave of the Unknown.
I think the only broken ability of those mentioned is Turn Undead and even that not in the way most people would think. I hate Turn Undead because it is so unpredictable. Too often I have bolstered the numbers of undead based on the number of clerics in the party and had bad rolls turn what should have been a moderate encounter into an extremely tough one. I personally give clerics a spell at first level and made turn undead a 2nd level spell.
I even hate Turn Undead as a player. Seems like we are doing a fine job beating up on the undead beasties and then boom, the party cleric/s turn and cause a bunch to run away. I am always looking over my shoulder for them to come back when we least expect it.
|
|
Elphilm
Level 3 Conjurer
ELpH vs. Coil
Posts: 69
|
Post by Elphilm on Apr 21, 2021 1:54:56 GMT -6
Thank you, I was trying to find the quote for my initial post, but without success.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Apr 21, 2021 9:21:36 GMT -6
Thanks a bunch for that. I do think it's worth being at least a bit skeptical of some of the things Mornard has said. The language in the book (Vol-1) of course says, "come completely under the influence of the Magic-User". And "Charm Person" is also the ability specified for Vampires, Nixies, and Dryads, which mythologically seem a lot more powerful than that (victim follows them unfailingly for a year or forever, etc.) Again if those abilities had been equivalent to a higher-level magic-user spell, then I'd have less problem with it. It's still not entirely clear from his curt comment exactly what he'd expect to happen if you cast Charm on an enemy fighter in the midst of combat (as is the situation being discussed in that thread). But the quote's indeed very helpful, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Apr 21, 2021 10:01:58 GMT -6
Thanks a bunch for that. I do think it's worth being at least a bit skeptical of some of the things Mornard has said. The language in the book (Vol-1) of course says, "come completely under the influence of the Magic-User". And "Charm Person" is also the ability specified for Vampires, Nixies, and Dryads, which mythologically seem a lot more powerful than that (victim follows them unfailingly for a year or forever, etc.) Again if those abilities had been equivalent to a higher-level magic-user spell, then I'd have less problem with it. It's still not entirely clear from his curt comment exactly what he'd expect to happen if you cast Charm on an enemy fighter in the midst of combat (as is the situation being discussed in that thread). But the quote's indeed very helpful, thank you. The definition of “Influence” in 1973-74 might be helpful. Here’s a Wikipedia link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_influence. Influence over a person, no matter how complete, is still less than a “hold” over a person. It’s, of course, up to the game referee to decide the difference.
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Apr 21, 2021 19:51:32 GMT -6
To me "completely under the influence" suggests something different than 'looks on you favorably' or 'sudden friendship' - friendship implies more of a relationship of equals - but less than total control. 'Artificial' loyalty - but not complete suppression of individuality, so the Charmed being may happily accept the M-U's goals and directions, but will still work toward those goals and carry out those directions as *it* would (which may not be exactly what you wanted in the case of say, an Ogre, without great care). I don't think that's terribly different from what blackwyvern said above: not necessarily "more" than the best natural loyalty, but it's not a relationship of equals either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 17:51:18 GMT -6
Looks like what we have here is a classic example of Gary's writing and intentions being as clear as black molasses. But would we have had him any other way?
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Apr 22, 2021 22:08:30 GMT -6
It may be a later reading, but I believe "Views everything you say 'Favorably'" is a reference to relationship status and not to DM whim. "Fully under the influence" then because lacking in all doubt the caster is their good friend per relationship status rules. The creature would still be self-willed and adhere to inner personality traits and preferences, personal knowledge, objectives, morale rating, obedience figures, and so on, not to mention Ability Scores and other physical abilities. However the target can safely be negotiated with as only a good friend can be. (Yes, YMMV)
This means Charm is a cheat - but isn't all magic though? - in a conversation game which still needs to be played to gain value from the victim. But it is much easier than negotiating with someone who isn't Charmed. Even an actual good friend NPC won't be open to considering every suggestion without questioning their loyalty. [EDIT: I believe this is when the DM rolls a Charm save again] In contrast, Dominate is the Purple Man effect.
I see Charm as ideal for learning private secrets, getting inside help, avoiding undesired combats, and the like. It isn't an extra hand in the fight. Well, unless they are open to fighting said foe anyways. Great play is ballsy, like Charming the Orc Leader and having him lead you "under his protection" into the orc lair and telling his underlings you are evil humanoids they must work with. Now try working with an orc who is supposed to obey orders not to attack you after the Leader isn't even there...
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 25, 2021 18:03:44 GMT -6
It might have been hilarious for sure, but I fear about the possibility in the "might", you know? There are a couple of reasons for my fears, most of them about past experiences both as a player and as a referee. The first problem is that sometimes a funny situation can be only that, funny, but not fun. Do you know what I mean? As hamurai said, sometimes something can take away the danger and the fun with it. . . . There is also a problem regarding the understanding of the Spell. I have two players that believe, like me, that Charm Person is about making a suggestion, I have one player that believes it's about fully controlling the NPC, and my other two players I don't know what they think about it yet. Okay, I follow. Here is what I see. It seems you have two problems. The easiest to solve is rule clarification. I think to run an original edition game, you may want to consider if you are ready to assert your authority as the referee. I recommend that you define the spell, as clearly as necessary (clarifying as you go), and get the players to understand how you are going to rule it when you run a game, going forward. Then, when it comes time to cast it, they can judge whether it is right for them in that situation or not. The second problem is that it seems to me that you have a preconceived notion of what you want the outcome of a scenario to be -- perhaps for campaign vibe consistency -- or, perhaps (and this is what I am sensing) for some kind of story-line coherence. I think you can use original rules for story-gaming - but I do not think they are built for that or that story-gaming is in the spirit of the original edition. There are systems for that kind of gaming that are more conducive to it. The solution here is to use a system conducive to vibe consistency and or story consistency and leave behind original edition, or to decide to go with the spirit of original edition, which, IMO, is a free-kriegspiel-like campaign, or what some call a "sandbox." So you have to make some decisions so that you are comfortable with whatever your players choose to do with their characters in your campaign world / setting / area. If casting a standard spell spoils your hopes then you may need to redesign your campaign world / setting and/or your NPCs. Whatever you plan, players CAN and WILL mess it up. And that is their job. So, IMO, the solution is to plan outcomes less, and NPC motivation more. What would that high priestess choose to do in a world where she knows very well that when someone with a pointy-hat shows up she may be charmed and that that charm will have X-and-such affect (as you previously determined as a referee and informed your players)? This is all just my opinion so take what you like and leave the rest. But I hope this is at least helpful for thought and conversation. Thanks for setting up this conversation.
|
|
noteef
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 52
|
Post by noteef on Apr 28, 2021 6:43:10 GMT -6
There was a nagging recollection around Charm bothering me, and I finally found it in Frank’s Basic Dungeon Masters Rulebook:
“A Charmed character is confused and unable to make decisions. The Charmed character will not attack or harm the Charming monster in any way, and will obey simple commands from the creature if they both understand a language (whether the alignment tongue or some other language). If the Charmed character does not under- stand the monster's speech, the character will still try to protect the monster from harm. Charmed characters are too confused to use any spells or magic items which require concentration.”
Obviously this was written eight years later, and I am sure there are earlier texts out there which also discuss Charm. What I find interesting is the relationship between Charm and language, and subsequently, what happens if the two cannot directly communicate with one another.
I think the overall answer is there is generally no right or wrong perspective. I simply found this interesting, and thought others might as well.
|
|
kipper
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 55
|
Post by kipper on Apr 28, 2021 8:32:49 GMT -6
There was a nagging recollection around Charm bothering me, and I finally found it in Frank’s Basic Dungeon Masters Rulebook: “A Charmed character is confused and unable to make decisions. The Charmed character will not attack or harm the Charming monster in any way, and will obey simple commands from the creature if they both understand a language (whether the alignment tongue or some other language). If the Charmed character does not under- stand the monster's speech, the character will still try to protect the monster from harm. Charmed characters are too confused to use any spells or magic items which require concentration.” Obviously this was written eight years later, and I am sure there are earlier texts out there which also discuss Charm. What I find interesting is the relationship between Charm and language, and subsequently, what happens if the two cannot directly communicate with one another. I think the overall answer is there is generally no right or wrong perspective. I simply found this interesting, and thought others might as well. There is a similar quote in Moldvay Basic page B29 (referring to monsters charming characters, as above):
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jun 7, 2021 7:36:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jun 7, 2021 20:22:15 GMT -6
I really like the thumbnail image you picked for that. :-)
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jun 8, 2021 15:05:31 GMT -6
I really like the thumbnail image you picked for that. :-) Thanks. Note that I am not arguing against you. I just love to think about this stuff. Thanks for your post! Also, I recently edited the post for some grammar problems.
|
|