Answers to Question #1:

From Lfnotter : The simple answer is, "Because it's fun"; however, I doubt that will satisfy you. Therefore:

In times past, before the age of mass media, people actually had to entertain themselves. One of the most common forms of entertainment back then was storytelling. Tales of far-off places, of great adventures, and of unseen wonders were common. Storytelling is a social activity, one that brings together all who listen. Now, most storytelling is done by the television. For some of us, that's not enough. We want to tell our own stories.

Role-playing games are a different kind of storytelling - these stories are written by the players as a group. The story is created as we go along, and instead of passivly listening as Jack steals the Golden Goose or as James Bond defeats Dr. No, we see our imaginary selves in their places, and the ending of the story is for us to create.

The fact that it's not real is irrelevant. Unless you are a professional footbal player and are on the field, about to get drilled by a 300-lb linebacker, a televised football game is just as real. You watch it. You see the story. You cheer at the good parts. And *more than likely*, you see yourself on the field, making the big play of the game. In that moment of fantasy, you, too, are a role-player.

People have hobbies. Golf. Trains. Pottery. Scrapbooking. Art. Writing. These are the things that make life worth living. The things we do that bring joy into our lives. You do something, whatever it may be, that fulfills you and gives you your moment of victory. But I guarantee this: whatever it is you take pleasure in, someone else doesn't get it. There is someone out there who thinks you are wasting your time on something boring and foolish.

Who cares? You're having fun, and that's what matters.

You obviously like different things than your brother does. That's normal. It's OK if you don't get it. Because we are having fun, and that's what matters.

 

From Vonromig: One can ask why people watch TV? Why men watch sports and women read romance novels. Why do you go to see the newest action film or stay up late to watch a murder mystery? You are not actually part of the 'cast' and therefore you just view others doing things that you, either can not do or fear trying to do.

So we watch our TV, go to the movies, and read the books, thus we can live vicariously through these mediums. We mentally put ourselves in the 'cast'. Role-playing games just take this one step further. Through them we can actually 'cast' ourselves as the hero or villian, and it is our own actions and reactions that we can enjoy, instead of from the mind and imagination of others. That is just as players...

Dungeon masters and game masters of role-playing have it even better, in my opinion. For they can be a 'cast' of millions. For as the years go by the DMs, with the players as guides, creates a view better then any painting, a story more unique then any one writer could imagine, and make it last so much longer then any film or TV show. They get to create a whole world that he brings alive each time they sit at the table.

And why do we spend so much time on creating this world? If for no other reason then the act of creation. Just as those who feel themselves really living when the are expressing themselves and their visions through paints, pages of paper, or behind a camera... all to create, and bring into the world something that was not there before. DMs do this each time they tell the players what the see, hear, or smell.

Why do I like to play role-playing games? Because I AM that painter, that author, that director. Behind my DM screen I am everything, and all, of a whole world! And yet the thrill of the unknown is still there, for I have no control of the players nor the dice... Thus I create it and still can be surprised by what I have created.

This is why I like D&D...


From Reverend Zen: Well, I think lfnotter and Von summed it up, but I'll add my 2 cp.

As an aspiring author, I need something to write about. I tried making it all up, but characters' personalities started bleeding together or changing drastically, settings looked the same, and my vivid descriptions started to diminish toward the end of my manuscripts.

D&D lets other people make up the characters for the story I write, and they help tell the story and guide it along. All I need to do is add flavor text and describe the scenery. It takes quite a bit off me as the author, and makes it fun for all to know they're helping to write the book.

Other than that, I enjoy escaping reality. Very few people, in my experience, actually enjoy their jobs 100%. This is why we have hobbies. Sports with friends, books to read, models to put together and paint, movies to watch... It is all a form of relaxation. That's what D&D is. It allows the normal people of the world to become the hero that saves the day. It allows the less-than-average-income making person to get rich in a matter of days, weeks, or months (in game time). It's also a great stress relief from work, too. For that person who could just kill his boss (figuratively speaking), he can pretend the next orc he slays is said boss, and get more enjoyment from it.

It's no different from watching a movie. After a movie, most people will say, "That character was cool!" or "I wish I could do something like that!" D&D (or any RPG for that matter) is a way of doing that. You can live out a personality you always wanted to, but never thought you could.

As a side note, I love painting the miniatures, which makes a good display of my creative talents, but I like to use the painted miniatures and cardboard cutout houses and such for more than eye candy.



From Bitterlemming: I actually gave this some thought right after I read it, and had prepared to give something of a sociological answer. Having read the original post again, I'm not sure that's entirely the point I want to convey.

We're all a bunch of overly stereotyped nerds. There, I said it. We're our own happy little subculture. We're all into this really creative thing that "normal" society can't always wrap their minds around. Role-playing games, from a certain point of view, deviate from the norm.

There are other hobbies that do similar things. A lot of us don't "waste energy" drinking beer and watching sports every chance we get. Maybe role-playing is a more intellectual pursuit. It's usually non-confrontational- there's no direct competition between players. It's hard for some people to wrap their minds around that, too.

The question I have to ask the dear reader is: Have you ever sat in with your brother "and his weird friends" while they're doing this "gaming thing?"

Another way to look at all of this is that role-playing is a form of interactive story-telling. It spans all ages and social classes because imagination spans all ages and social classes. The other great thing is, you don't have to be a genius or overly athletic to enjoy it. Think of it as a social gathering and a story. You get to participate in the story.

It beats watching TV or movies every night. Although some of us still do that, I'd imagine. Role-playing lets you "BE" a character in a series or a book. It lets you flex those literary and acting muscles every week. It's more than just watching, it's interactive.

Our society, (I'm speaking mainly about U.S. citizens, here.) encourages us to work in teams. There is a lot of emphasis right now in both education and business on group work and team play. Hmmm, five guys sitting around a table, sharing a story that they create together... Seems to involve a lot of group effort. I imagine those skills translate quite nicely into the real world.

Yet another way to look at it is that there used to be groups for people who didn't exactly "fit in" to regular society. They were called lodges. Basically, they were a bunch of men, or women that got together to have a good time to share a common purpose. Role-players are like that too, to an extent. Of course, there are still some lodges around (Elks, Lions.) However some of the more exciting ones have disappeared. Role-players kind of take up some of that slack. We'll always welcome new players.

One more way to look at it, from an outside point of view, is that it's like poker night. You wouldn't likely look down on someone who gets together with the guys from work and drink beer and play poker on friday night, would you? D&D isn't all that different in that social regard. It's just a newer game.

DMing is a lot of sweat, blood and tears sometimes. We rack our brains and burn a lot of creative energy trying to do something new and unusual every week. We worry that our players are having a good time. We want everything to be just right for the group, so everyone does have a good time. You don't see that kind of devotion or managerial skills every day out in the rest of the world. The great thing about creative energy is, unlike fossil fuel, we never waste it or run out.

(I can't believe my post was actually too long. How odd.)

I'm not looking for converts. This is not a religious cult. Role-playing isn't for everyone. For a lot of people it's "that thing I did in college for a while" or that "weird thing my brother and his geeky friends do." And that's okay, too. I know role-playing isn't something that anyone considers perfect for the intellectually or socially elite. (At least I hope not.) The great thing about role-playing is, practically anyone can get involved if they want to but it's not a "Must." It never hurts to try, though.

Here's the last thing I'll say on the subject. TV has given D&D specifically and role-playing in general bad reputation. Everyone from Pat Robertson to Ally McBeal have had something negative to say or poked fun at it. Saturday Night Live has poked fun at D&D on a couple of occasions that I'm aware of. It's just easier to ridicule or hate something you don't understand. I applaud the effort anyone puts forward to at least become more enlightened on the subject.

If you still "don't get it," well, maybe it's not for you. But please don't try to force others to give up something they enjoy. To each his own.

Like I said before, hopefully I haven't offended anyone. I'm 29 and fairly passionate about this subject (and long-winded.) It's just my opinion.



From Brotherbarnabus: Given the wording used in the message, I'm not sure a real explanation is wanted, but here goes.

I'm not a sports fan. I don't go out to bars, or bowling, or playing softball, or snowmobiling, or many of the other past times that other men my age (now 40) take part in. I'm not an idle person, being involved in local politics and currently serving on the town board, working a full time job, helping out with activities that my kids are in such as marching band and a voluntter group. I have hobbies, such as woodworking and tinkering with the computer. I'm a fledgling children's writer, and I work as a computer programmer/multimedia developer.

And I'm a gamer.

I started in college, though it would have been earlier if my best friend and I could have found a gaming group to learn from. In college, I found two different gaming groups, and found friends there. I had a third gaming group back at home. They made up about 1/3 of my social activity at the time. After college, the hometown group stayed together for about a year, then dispersed. For a short time, I was part of a group that played during lunch at my job, which was at a major defense contractor. When that stopped, I was out of the gaming loop for about 11 years.

I now have a 14 year old son, who found my old gaming books a couple years ago. At first, he used them strictly for artistic inspiration. Then he started reading them and finding out about the games. He found some like-minded friends at school, and they tried their hand at running their own games. Last year, they asked me to join them and "show them how it's done". I, and another adult friend, have been part of their group since.

Why? Because it's fun. It's fun trying to use our brains (something rare these days) to solve problems, it's fun to forget for a while that I'm the overweight blue belt who got his head handed to him by his own son last year during said son's black belt testing (we were taking TaeKwon Do) and go wrestle with the bad guys.

No, it isn't real. Neither is football, which is just a fake combat after all. But this, I can do.

From Thrandorian: Yea, what they said... In addition to general camaraderie and enjoyment, I also play to exercise my higher thought functions.

Often, jobs and everyday life fail to do this. Rather than submit to the mediocrity of everyday humdrum thoughts; we research, create, archive and problem-solve in a variety of different areas with varying levels of demi-expertise.

We must then account for our perceptions and conclusions in a court of our peers; who will abandon their temporary "suspension-of-disbelief" if we fail to remain credible, consistent and entertaining.

Entertainment, challenge and pressure. I believe these are the commodities intrinsic to most successful games.

Answers to Question #2:

 

Note : As Rob was asking for a ruling from the DM's of our guild, I must point out the following. We are continually reminded that there is always more than one answer to any question. The ruling depends on the interpretation you choose to accept. Below, I have reproduced the answering posts verbatim and in the sequence posted on the club message board.

I suggest you and your players review all opinions below. They usually include the members reasons for making the interpretation they have and should at least present you with most of the information you need to make this ruling.

 

 

From Shinto Gaijin:

Essentially, that with 'detect magic' a mage can see an aura, maybe determine that it is an Illusion aura, but not actually see the invisible creature. (He might jump to that conclusion, but that's a dangerous thing to do.)

From Aden:                     

I would rule that Invisibility is a "light-based illusion" and that the light generated by the detect magic (glowing) would be masked.

Perhaps, I'd have the glowing to be immediately available for just a second (I have no real reason for this....I guess it would just be my way of rewarding the players for checking).

-Adaen

 

From Sgernant:

i tend to overthink these things, but maybe in this case i'm underthinking it... seems to me that since there are two spells, detect magic and detect invisibility, the intent of the game designers was that detect magic wouldn't detect invisibility, otherwise why include the second spell?

 

From Red69dog:

 

I have had this come up in one of my games and i ruled the detect magic would not reveal the invisibility spell. The basis for this arguement is that if it would, all invisibility spells could be negated by any amature spell lobber who can cast a cantrip. My thoughts are the wizards who made the spell found a way to mask the invisibility from magical detection.
Just my 2 cents.
Redd dawg

From Bitterlemming:

I seem to recall a similar question in regards to shapeshifting not all that many months ago. Here goes...

In 3E, Detect magic is a 0 level spell. (Basically, a cantrip for all of you non 3E folks.) The character has to concentrate for up to three rounds to get any specific information about creatures/items within line of sight. Even then, all the caster will really see is an aura. So, ya, technically it could tell you there is something invisible in a room. The spell can even penetrate barriers.

Invisibility even obscures the target from Darkvision in 3E, though. I can see an argument made for it blocking the auras of the items carried. The problem is I don't think it would cover it's own aura, odd as that sounds. However, magic tends to work a little differently in everyone's campaign, so inevitably it's up to the DM to make the final call stick.

See Invisible, on the other hand, is a 2nd Level Bard and Wiz/Sor spell. You see invisible, ethereal and astral creatures as if they were totally visible and solid.

I've always thought both were a little potent for low level spells. Invisibility always causes a huge debate in every group I've known, so do the detections. Praise to your group for going 10 years without major incident.

I've got one last note about all of this. Without having read the novel, I will point out the fact that it IS a novel. I've noticed characters in novels tend to get away with tons of stuff I would probably not allow in game play. Sometimes a novel writer just needs a spell or item to go the extra mile for purposes of plot. Of course, players read this kind of thing and get ideas. My final thought on this is: THE DM has the final say on what goes in his campaign and what doesn't. Make the call. If you don't think detect magic affects invis, then it doesn't. As long as the ruling is applied across the board, it doesn't matter.

Just my opinion. Hope this helps.

B L

From Skid5212000:

I have always ruled that Detect Magic picks up on the inherit magical properties of the item being examined. Magical items are created by binding the magic to the normally mundane item. This binding is what the Detect Magic spell picks up.

The Invisibility spell is a masking spell. There is no magic bound to a single physical object. This is also why I rule that Detect Magic will not pick up the magic items on a person protected by Invisibility.

My 2 coppers.

SKiD

From Orkokhan:

In 1st Edition, detect magic will detect all magical eminations along a 1" x 3" path, unless blocked by some substance (metal, thick wood, stone, etc.) Invisibility is essentially a magical effect that prevents the user from being seen by any visual means. Thus, a sort of magical "field" exists on the invisible creature. By definition, a detect magic spell would not only be able to detect this magical field, but the magic radiating from any magical items or objects carried by the invisible creature.

Remember, the ONLY thing an invisibility spell does is render something invisible to sight (or infravision), it does not block any other effects coming from the invisible thing; you can still feel an invisible being's breath, hear the sounds it makes, touch it, etc.

This is one of those loopholes in the rules that a clever player (or character) will eventually come up with, and they should be able to use the spell as written, even if it throws a monkey wrench in your game. You can't make things completely balanced all the time, and unless the players carry around a library of scrolls full of detect magic spells and cast them at every turn, it shouldn't be to much of a problem in any case.

From Madteuton:

I had always just taken it as a foregone conclusion that Detect Magic would *of course* detect whether there was (or was not) a concentration of magic present in a particular area (by the 3rd round), thereby allowing arcane spell casters to determine that there is "something" of roughly humanoid-size (or, whatever) in their area that radiates a magical aura (of the Illusion school, unless they totally crap out on a Spellcraft check), but which they cannot see with their normal vision.

From SCA Bard:

>>This is one of those loopholes in the rules that a clever player (or character) will eventually come up with, and they should be able to use the spell as written, even if it throws a monkey wrench in your game.

I don't know about that. The absolute rule in my game is Common Sense. It doesn't make sense to me that there would be a Detect Invisibility spell if Detect Magic functioned that way.

I refuse to let some mere mortal at TSR dictate rules to me. If I think his spell or rule is broken, I will fix it. I think I have at least as much of a right to do this as he does, so long as I am consistent and let my players know what I'm doing.

Now, if the rule is consistent with Common Sense *and* it throws a monkey wrench in my game, I feel obligated to allow it. But rules that are dumb I have no problem with breaking.

From Umbratikus:

On the other hand, it is also Common Sense to say that if something is masked by magic, (and is perhaps carrying magical items, to boot), then Detect Magic would detect it.

Just playing Devil's Advocate

Umbratikus

From Reverend Zen:

Quick response on how I would handle this. It would depend on how the person was invisible. If it were by a ring, the ring would detect as magical in mid-air. If it were a spell, yes, magic would be detected in that area, but the person castin detect magic would not know the source of the magic.

Zen

From Adaen:

If a DM really wants to have Detect Magic be able to detect "Invisibles", it seems to me that the best way to resolve this is to have it detect them...just not as well as "Detect Invisible" does. Otherwise no one would have developed a higher level spell to accomplish what a lower level one can do....unless it does it better.

-Adaen

From Reverend Zen:

 

I fully agree with Umbratikus. You are using magic to prevent anyone from seeing you. Detect magic will show the caster the location of the magical aura (in the case of invisibility, the aura is around the creature/character/NPC and its possessions). Detect invisibility only detects items that are invisible, and not necessarily all things magical.

Zen

From SCA Bard:

>>Detect invisibility only detects items that are invisible, and not necessarily all things magical.

So this sounds like Det Magic is a better spell than Det Invisible and indeed includes it. So why is Det Invisible higher level?

I suppose an alternate solution would be to get rid of Det Invis, Det Charm, and Det Undead altogether?

From LF Notter:

Generally, I'd hold that Detect Magic would reveal the general presence of magical energy, but not pinpoint the specific source with any degree of precision.

The spellcaster is not able to focus on a specific item or location; only a general area, and then they would do this only if they felt there was a reasonable basis for believing there was an invisible object in that general area.

So, I'd say, "Yes, sort of, but not very well." Det. Invis. is a spell designed to perform this function; common sense dictates that it does it much better than Det. Magic.

From Madteuton:

To say Detect Magic overshadows See Invisibility in this case is not accurate. Detect Magic has a range of 60', only lasts (while you actively concentrate) for upto 1 min./level. Even there, the caster is only privy to certain information:

"1st Round: Presence or absence of magical auras.

2nd Round: Number of different magical auras and the strength of the strongest aura.

3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, the character can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + half caster level for a nonspell effect.)

Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may confuse or conceal weaker auras.

Aura Strength: An aura's magical power and strength depend on a spell's functioning spell level or an item's caster level."

And that's after three full rounds of concentrating! If you concentrate for two rounds on detecting magic, then do something else, you have to start all over before the duration expires.

It's only a vaguely successful spell and has a fairly disturbing chance of failure, but I maintain (with all due respect to house rules) it is certainly *capable* of detecting an invisible creature!

See Invisibility is a 2nd level arcane spell. Its range is 100'+10'/level and it lasts 10 minutes/level. Its advantages begin instantaneously upon it being cast.

Hardly a case of one overshadowing the other.

From Xenzie:

Well Invisibility is a very powerful and often debilitiating spell. One rogue with invisibility could take out a whole camp of officers. And think about a rogue/wizard who's an assassin. People are paranoid and certainly invisible people would be the first thing that many people would concentrate on when thinking about defenses. It's not hard to believe that people worry about invisible people so much that counter spells are taught to people quickly at low levels.

However you still need to know to look in the first place, and know where to look to see the person. Only a dumb invisible person doesn't use cover and shadows when availible to heighten his cover. I would say use the 50% miss on invisible people for all rolls in attempting to spot them. Or use the spellcasters DC for the invisibility spell as teh DC for the players to see through it...

Xen

From Madteuton:

True that.

Indeed, I would have the party make a hefty listen or scry check to even be aware of an invisible assailant.

From Xenzie:

Also, if I was invisible and suddenly saw someone casting a spell, logic dictats that I would get out of the way. If I saw the person staring in my general direction I would move.

At best I would give my players the info, "You sense a magical aura of *** type but you cannot seem to pinpoint it. It seems to be moving." If the invisible person was behind cover I would not even give that much info.

But these rules would also qualify for if the PCs had access to the Invisibility spell.

Xen

From Reverend Zen:

Detect magic only detects the presence of magic, not necessarily its form. Undead are not magical, so detect magic wouldn't work on them. (Skeletons and zombies take magic to raise, though are not magical creatures. Ghosts, wights, and such don't need magic to be alive; they're a supernatural entity.) Detect magic would detect a magical charm on a subject, and would reveal the enchantment variety, though would not necessarily let the spellcaster know that the person was charmed. Same with the invisible. The spellcaster wouldn't know that someone was invisible, just that the presence of an illusion was in a given area.

Zen

From Madteuton:

I agree. A caster would have to make very successful spellcraft to get all that info.

However, a conjured creature or animal would radiate conjuration magic so I would offer, too, that raised/summoned undead would radiate similar magic.

From Reverend Zen:

"...a hefty listen or scry check to even be aware of an invisible assailant."

For higher-level games, this is where improved invisibility comes in real handy, especially for assassins!

Zen

From Orkokhan:

Umbratikus wrote:

>>On the other hand, it is also Common Sense to say that if something is masked by magic, (and is perhaps carrying magical items, to boot), then Detect Magic would detect it.<<

I believe that distills the essence of the Detect Magic spell and invisibility very clearly. Combine this with what I posted about the two, and I think this should be rather authorative. The Detect Magic spell will always detect the presence of any magic within its area of effect, unless it is blocked by some means. It won't necessarily tell you what is there, just that something magical is present. To me, this has always been crystal clear, but hey, that's just me.

From Thrandorian:

I see this as two different issues.

#1 Detect magic should not reveal an invisible entity. I believe the spirit of the spell is to mask the individual from detection visually. This for me includes Detect Magic; which is a visually attuned spell. Detect Magic will not reveal the magical aura produced by the Invisibility spell itself.

#2 This however does not mean that the magical aura from any devices or other aura producing spells would go unnoticed. They IMHO would not be masked. Thus, one seeking total non-detection from the Detect Magic spell had best not have any other magical auras on their presence. No rings, no spells, nothing. Otherwise those auras will be detected and any reasonably intelligent foe will know what's up.

T