Who holds the spell charts - GM or PC?

[CHC]

Hey everyone,

Just a question about how you handle DCC spells at the table. When a caster PC has a spell that he is casting, who is the one who generally holds the spell table? As the GM I would feel inclined to do that, and have the player simply roll and then tell them what occurs, though it seems like a lot of book keeping when you factor in all the other tables the GM has to manage.

While giving the player the spell table would certainly save time, it also seems like it would sap some of the mystery, wonder and risk from casting as studious players would know EXACTLY what they could be in for... I'm thinking things like standing back from pits when casting feather fall, and sort of wimping around the risks of magic by being overly cautious.

So who hold the spells at your table... GM or PC?

[smathis]

Good question.

A lot depends on the player or group.

As a GM, I prefer to adjudicate spell results even though it adds a bit of overhead to the time it takes to resolve spellcasting. I just like it better than, as you said, "studious players [knowing] EXACTLY what they could be in for".

But I've had a number of players in various games who are insistent about handling their own spell charts.

Ideally, a player would have the book open to the spell they're casting and then give me the opportunity to read the result and then use description and action in the game to infer the result. Ideally.

It doesn't always work that way though.

[GnomeBoy]

The games I've played have been sporadic and not a contiguous thing, but particularly as a caster levels up, I see no reason that they shouldn't have an idea of what can happen when they cast, and so why not let them deal with the chart...

Appropriate for the GM to handle that at first level, but somewhere during or after that, let the player do it.

I also think if the player is *already* familiar with the spells because they have their own copy of the book, just let them do it. If they're into roleplaying it, they'll do it justice, if not, keeping it a secret probably isn't making it more fun anyway...

[finarvyn]

Appropriate for the GM to handle that at first level, but somewhere during or after that, let the player do it.

Pretty much my thought. The first time they play a given spell the spell effects can be extra-cool because they haven't seen the charts yet, but once they've cast a spell a few times I turn it over to the player to handle.

Ultimately, my game runs smoother if players can do some of the lifting.

[Coleston the Cavalier]

I don't disagree with any posts, it is just for me, I LIKE the fact that the Judge is encouraged to roll IN THE OPEN, so I have no problem with players rolling in the open and looking it up on a spell chart. The excitement / fear seems deeper when the player is the one who reveals what has happened in a spell check.

Again, just me.

[TheNobleDrake]

I prefer letting the players know what their spells do in vague terms, such as "if you get at least a 12 that spell provides you a defensive bonus against certain enemies, but if you roll pretty high that might actually manifest as an aura that protects your allies in the same way. In all cases a higher result is better protection" instead of handing them the protection from evil chart.

...anything to keep the player (and thereby, the character) away from being able to say "I'd better not even try because I need an 18+ to get that to do what I want it to." In my experience, players having the ability to know their chances for something are particularly slim without first trying it leads to players not trying anything other than that which is either most likely to succeed or carries the least risk of failure - and I dislike clerics and wizards choosing to skip spellcasting.

[Rostranor]

I have my players roll in the open. Then so I am not monopolizing all the conversation I have them narrate how the spell manifests and what happens. I have them do the same thing with crits. I have found that this expands the narrative input to the players and allows them to feel special and involved in the world.

[themightyeroc]

I have my players roll in the open. Then so I am not monopolizing all the conversation I have them narrate how the spell manifests and what happens. I have them do the same thing with crits. I have found that this expands the narrative input to the players and allows them to feel special and involved in the world.

I do all of the above as well. I also turn the spell charts over to the PC after he has cast a spell between 2-3 times.

I also have them play out their death scenes.

[Aplus]

As much as I would love to maintain an air of mystery around spellcasting, I simply wouldn't find it practical for me to handle all the spell chart lookups. Players handle it in my games, and if they're being pokey about it, I go to the next person and come back to them.

[Raven_Crowking]

Standard spell? The players.

New or unique spell? Me. Until the players get an idea what to expect.

[CHC]

Good answers everyone - thanks. I like the "hold until they know" idea, or the idea of having them hold the charts but not obsessively memorize them, there's defniitely some fun and tension in the open roll and chart consultation.

[Raven_Crowking]

Following the wisdom of Joseph Goodman, strongly consider charts of additional affects for certain areas. Even if the players memorize the spell charts, they will never know when a ringer will come into play!

[Gameogre]

Like I would let those filthy apes touch my DCC RPG hardback book if there very lives depended on it! HA!

The day one of those dice monkeyes loops up to the table after having slapped some hard earned cash down for there very own rpg book I will: A- Let them look at spell charts ect at the table. B- Shout for joy and cry tears of happiness. C- Check my book bag and shelves to make sure my book hasn't been stolen. In fact swap out A and C with each other order wise.


The last time I let one of those Neanderthals near one of my books was with the pathfinder core book,they then dropped it onto one of there big hairy feet,broke the binding,caused the page with ability scores to rip out and proceeded to tell me I'm lucky I don't have to pay for medical bills from a broken foot.

[Tortog]

Having made my reflex save to avoid snarfing tea onto my computer (thanx Gameogre) and having cleaned up the floor; I now have a chance to reply to the thread.

As much as I'd like to preserve the mystery, pragmatism usually wins out, and I let the players manage and narrate their own spell table results. I had one player who was so keen on the spell manifestations that he insisted on rolling a new one with each use of a spell. At first I would print out copies of their spells from my digital copy so they only know the spells to which they have access. Most of the time now, players have their own copies or there are a few to share about the table and I run everything from my digital copy. Though I have taken the time to get a new 'table' copy so that I could retire my first edition to my collectables shelf. Sadly, it has seen its fair share of dents, rents, and grubby fingerprints.

I will sometimes write up a new spell for a specific encounter or bad-guy. The characters don't get to use it. They get to suffer through its effects long enough to force the baddy to hand over the knowledge... In those situations I'll go to the trouble of keeping the write-up for the new spell secret until they've been brave enough to cast it several times (5-10). Then the character will have adream that shows them all the gruesome possibilities within the spell. Judging by players reactions, I think that knowing just how bad things can go and choosing to continue onward is much more frightening and a richer experience for them.

...anything to keep the player (and thereby, the character) away from being able to say "I'd better not even try because I need an 18+ to get that to do what I want it to." In my experience, players having the ability to know their chances for something are particularly slim without first trying it leads to players not trying anything other than that which is either most likely to succeed or carries the least risk of failure - and I dislike clerics and wizards choosing to skip spellcasting.

While this may be true, have you considered that a wizard who is smart enough to know when not to cast a spell might be attempting to do a good job role-playing their character's advanced intellect? Like wise, a priest that isn't wise enough to know when casting is is both futile and likely to anger their god isn't likely to be trusted by that god with the knowledge of the deeper mysteries (higher level spells gained with exp advancement). Not arguing, just curious.

[TheNobleDrake]

While this may be true, have you considered that a wizard who is smart enough to know when not to cast a spell might be attempting to do a good job role-playing their character's advanced intellect?

I have always been of the opinion that, when dealing with magic as a chaotic and dangerous thing to toy with, a person must have by necessity a flawed intellect that prevents them from accurately judging their own ability - or to put it more simply, all wizards must have an overabundance of hubris or they would not toy with magic in the first place.

Wizards in game worlds where magic operates on codified principle, however, would be fully capable of realizing when some work of the art is beyond their ability.

Like wise, a priest that isn't wise enough to know when casting is is both futile and likely to anger their god isn't likely to be trusted by that god with the knowledge of the deeper mysteries (higher level spells gained with exp advancement). Not arguing, just curious.

I feel that if a cleric was meant to be able to accurately judge how their god is going to feel about them making a particular request (meaning spell check), that there would be no need for the spell check - but there is a need as it represents the abstraction of the entire process of request and answer, and even includes way to decide to what degree the god disapproves if/when they do disapprove.

Of course, that's all just my way of reconciling the mechanics with an explanation that I feel makes sense in every case.