# Where Has All the Magic Gone?



## Jack7 (Dec 12, 2008)

*ESSAYS ON GAME DESIGN

Essay Three: Where Has All the Magic Gone?*

_Why don't they make Magic Items like they used to?_ 


I was looking through my AD&D books tonight and noticed how versatile and multi-functional so many of the magic items were.

They were powerful, and they were odd, and fascinating, and most important of all a lot of them could do all kinds of things.

By comparison so many of the magic items of more recent editions are bland, plain, uninspired, and uninspiring. It's like suing a piece of technology from the eighties or something. The items are overly specialized, technical, usually limited to one specific function, top-heavy in design and capabilities. A drag to own and use and usually good only for specific encounter types.

Older magic items were magical. They had so many functions they seemed like a modern mini-computer/cell phone/PDA/wristwatch/GPS/tricorder all in one. Impressive and extremely useful. Versatile. Fluid. A joy to own and use, employable in a wide range of circumstances. They were the Renaissance Men of Miracles, the Polymaths of Magic. And in addition most were mysterious. You had to figure em out as you went along. They could always have extra, hidden potential that you'd never know about til you screwed around with just the right thing and accidentally tripped some concealed latch. And you had Artifacts, and Incredible Devices, and Relics, with strange legends and ancient lore surrounding them. They weren't just treasure types, _*they were items of real magic.*_







*We need to get back to that in modern fantasy games.*
It made fantasy gaming fun instead of a technical exercise in weaponry calibres and target types.

Magic should have some, _*"Boy, now you're really gonna see something!"*_ to it, instead of _"how many rounds ya got in that wand and what is the total count of damage points inflicted by it? I'm trying to calculate exactly how long this combat will last."_

Where has all the magic gone?
It's gone to hell with the idea that magic is about power shots and ammo counts rather than about mystery and wonder.

Somebody needs to dig some real magic up out of the grave and see if they can put a resurrect on it.


----------



## Filcher (Dec 12, 2008)

Agreed. But I think it is all in the fluff; the responsibility rests with the DM. A +1 short sword isn't half as cool as something with the background and style of _Sting._


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 12, 2008)

A clever and imaginative DM (or GM) makes all the difference. Yes, regardless of game (or edition).

Of course, clever and imaginative players help a ton, as well. 

Seriously, that's it. No more, no less.


----------



## SPoD (Dec 12, 2008)

Not every person who picks up the game wants Mystery and Wonder. And it is easier for a DM who wants it to put it back than it is for a DM who doesn't to remove it.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 12, 2008)

Magic items in D&D have always run the gamut from basic tools such as _potions of healing_ and straightforward +n weapons and armor to complex, mysterious and powerful artifacts. 

I would venture to say that the significant majority of magic items in any edition of D&D would be of the basic tool variety, with perhaps one additional, special function.

Like almost everything else, there is an element of diminishing returns when it comes to complexity and mystery in magic items. When a player has only one or two complex, mysterious items, they feel special. When every item that he possesses has multiple, hidden functions, they start to feel ordinary. 

4e seems to have made a clearer distinction between magic items that are basic tools, and magic items that are clearly meant to be complex and mysterious. The former are the magic items that you find in the PH and AV (although you will find a few relatively complex and multifunctional items there, too). The latter are the artifacts in the DMG and sourcebooks such as Draconomicon.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 12, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Agreed. But I think it is all in the fluff; the responsibility rests with the DM. A +1 short sword isn't half as cool as something with the background and style of _Sting._



This is true.

However, considering all the magical items the system assumes the PCs will receive in 2 levels time, it's just a monumental task to make _every one of them_ seem mystical and important.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 12, 2008)

Rechan said:


> This is true.
> 
> However, considering all the magical items the system assumes the PCs will receive in 2 levels time, it's just a monumental task to make _every one of them_ seem mystical and important.



When every magic item is mystical and important, none of them are. 

Oh wait, I hate that quote.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 12, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> Somebody needs to dig some real magic up out of the grave and see if they can put a resurrect on it.



Okay! Here's a +1 Sword from my 1st edition game! And my wand of fireballs that does 6d6 and has 12 charges left!

Oh, that's not what you meant.

Lots of interesting metaphor and hyperbole in your rant, but do you really support it? Even if you did give some examples, it's incredibly easy to pull highly selective examples to either prove or disprove your argument.

Merely having multiple functions doesn't make an item more "magical". In fact, if you're trying to invoke items as depicted in fiction, most items have only a single utility. 

I like that in 4E there are no more plain +1 items - every sword, every shield has at least an added power as well as other possible properties. Wands and Staffs are no longer an exercise in counting charges. These are good changes, in my opinion, making these things become more magical than just "it's... uh... sharper. Magically sharper." or ammo counts, as you say. Those are the hallmarks of _most_ items in earlier editions. 

I look in the latest DMG and still see artifacts. I notice in the Dec preview article on the Wizards site a magical tome that lets you alter the destination of planar portals, and the historied Von Zarovich Family Sword, with multiple properties and even a few drawbacks.

Are magical items different in this edition than previous one? Sure, for a couple of reasons. First, there is a different expectation regarding how much power the sum total of a character's items will give him. Having multiple powers in a single item, like, say, 1st Ed.'s Rings of Elemental Command,  works against this expectation.

Second, in previous editions there was a tendency for a character to become defined by his magical items rather than their own abilities, particularly for some classes.  So this time the spotlight has been taken off of magical items somewhat, and focused more on the classes themselves. Which is as it should be, I believe.

There are still are cool items out there. Just because they aren't multi-function tricorders any more doesn't make them any less magical.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 12, 2008)

The most mystical, magical game I've played in has been Sorcerer.

That game is as basic as it gets; you only have 5 stats.

What's important in that game is _colour_, how things function in the game fiction.  For example, my half-demon's Stamina is defined as "Unnatural Means" - he can handle things because he's a half-demon, he bathes in fire, eats coals, etc.  That's all colour, and doesn't affect his Stamina score of 5.

D&D is a very different game.  There are a lot more numbers to deal with.  And then there's the whole economy of actions going on.

However, I think that 4e could be awesome as it deals with magical effects.  The Wizard in my game has made awesome use of Mage Hand, dealing good damage with it - equal to an encounter power at times.  It's because of the ecnomy of actions and the fact that the guidelines for doing whatever you want are really clear.

Magic items - like an Immovable Rod - could have really cool effects given player creativity.  Let's say that you grab the Immovable Rod with a Minor action and place it in an adjacent square.  Suddenly that square becomes Difficult Terrain!  Your opponent can no longer shift there, and that might be exactly what you want.

To sum up, I think that strange, colourful effects without any mechanics can have an important role to play in 4e.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 12, 2008)

I think this problem started rearing it's head most in third edition and past.  It might be just nostalgia, but I remember magic items being more _awesome_ in 2e.


----------



## Delta (Dec 12, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> _Why don't they make Magic Items like they used to?_




It was abstracted away.

Common arc to the evolution of games: Original creators interested in both flavor and mechanics together, looking for mechanics that evoke a certain atmosphere. Later designers get more focused on the numbers and mechanics that play on those numbers.

IMO it's easier to strip out flavor than add it back in to empty mechanics. But I'm not part of 4E's market or design camp.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Dec 12, 2008)

SPoD said:
			
		

> Not every person who picks up the game wants Mystery and Wonder. And it is easier for a DM who wants it to put it back than it is for a DM who doesn't to remove it.






Delta said:


> IMO it's easier to strip out flavor than add it back in to empty mechanics. But I'm not part of 4E's market or design camp.




I think I agree with Delta on this one. As for people not wanting mystery and wonder in their game isn't it just easier for them to ignore the fluff and concentrate on the crunch? Mystery and wonder to me is a big feature of a game though.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## EroGaki (Dec 12, 2008)

I agree with Jack7, for the most part. It has been my observation that magical items have become very "blah." Most of them have lost versatility and flavor in exchange for steady mechanics. I really wish the creators would have taken a bit more time and developed magic items that contained solid mechanics as well as flavor.

I try to create mystery with the magic items my character own, with limited success. I rarely mention the exact nature of the item, if asked. Instead, I try to give the items mystical sounding names, and I work to detail the items history.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Dec 12, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> I was looking through my AD&D books tonight and noticed how versatile and multi-functional so many of the magic items were.
> 
> They were powerful, and they were odd, and fascinating, and most important of all a lot of them could do all kinds of things.



And are often _broken_ balance wise, 4E cares more about balance than previous editions IMO







> Where has all the magic gone?



here







FireLance said:


> 4e seems to have made a clearer distinction between magic items that are basic tools, and magic items that are clearly meant to be complex and mysterious. The former are the magic items that you find in the PH and AV (although you will find a few relatively complex and multifunctional items there, too). The latter are the artifacts in the DMG and sourcebooks such as Draconomicon.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 12, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I think this problem started rearing it's head most in third edition and past.  It might be just nostalgia, but I remember magic items being more _awesome_ in 2e.




I remember 2e to be a good game. Nostalgia is a bitch...



Seriously. I agree 100%. But maybe it is because our characters became more able, more powerful with 3e and 4e. I mean, as a fighter, all you could do in 2e was hit and be hit, at least if you didn't go beg your DM to "buy your idea". With the later editions, you have so many more options, on your sheet/by the rules.

Also, some stuff was sacrifized on the altar of balance.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Dec 12, 2008)

I think the change from 2e to 3e brought about a lot of thus. I think it was a sacrifice under the alter of everything being bound under rules and the idea of simply using fluff was beheaded. Everything had some mechanic or rule behind it, and as such the more imaginative magical items that wouldn't fit neatly into mechanics began to disappear.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 12, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> Okay! Here's a +1 Sword from my 1st edition game! And my wand of fireballs that does 6d6 and has 12 charges left!




Nice try.  The wand of fire from 1e could do burning hands, fireball, pyrotechnics, and wall of fire.  Much more fun than any old wand of fireballs.  A lot of 1e stuff was way more versatile than later editions.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Dec 12, 2008)

Totally agree.  I don't even need to open my 1E DMG to come up with examples.  Apparatus of Kwalish?  Ring of Shooting Stars, anyone?  I looked through the magic item section of 4E and found it incredibly dull, even worse than the Monster Manual.

And whoever said that its easier to put this stuff in than take it out is dead wrong.  My 1E DMG has hundreds of cool magic items.  It would take me an awfully long time to come up with even a fraction of that number myself.  Sure I could do it, but I've kind of come to expect that the game should provide those for me.


----------



## Korgoth (Dec 12, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> Where has all the magic gone?
> It's gone to hell with the idea that magic is about power shots and ammo counts rather than about mystery and wonder.




Well, that and standardization. I noticed this most clearly with the "Rod of Wonder" in 3E. Why did it go from "Wand of Wonder" in AD&D to "Rod of Wonder" in 3E? Because in 3E, Rods can be used by everybody but all wands can only be used by Wizards. In other words... the Design Cops got mad at the Wand of Wonder for breaking the rules.

Hello... way to miss the point! The Wand of Wonder was _all about_ breaking the rules. Yeah, it's a wand that can be used by a Fighter. So what? It's also a wand that can shoot a rhinoceros at your foe. It doesn't play well with others. What part of "This wand shoots rhinoceroses" suggests that it should play well with others?

Really, though, throughout 3E and 4E I see a continual striving for standardization, rationalization and a smooth mechanistic balance. Hence the tirelessly tiring treatment of magic items as nothing more than pieces of sparkly technology. They all work the same, they all follow the same rules, they contain no surprises and behave exactly as you would expect... The End.

Yet another reason that I like the kooky old products such as OD&D and AD&D. In OD&D, Elves choose at the beginning of the adventure whether they will play as a Fighting Man or a Magic-User for that adventure. They switch classes from adventure to adventure. "But that doesn't make any sense!" you cry. You're right... they're creepy fae folk that live lives ultimately beyond the ken of mortal man. Of course they're weirdos.

Really, you can keep your Fordist Fantasy. And I'll keep my schizo-elfs riding around in apparatuses of Kwalish shooting rhinoceroses at the bullywug hordes.


----------



## Felon (Dec 12, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> A clever and imaginative DM (or GM) makes all the difference. Yes, regardless of game (or edition).
> 
> Of course, clever and imaginative players help a ton, as well.
> 
> Seriously, that's it. No more, no less.



I honestly wish I could still cling this facile outlook on gaming. Being clever and creative is all you need when the people you're trying to dazzle are guileless and inexperienced. A canny (or simply jaded) player will look beneath the candy coating to see whether there's something of substance.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 12, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> Well, that and standardization. I noticed this most clearly with the "Rod of Wonder" in 3E. Why did it go from "Wand of Wonder" in AD&D to "Rod of Wonder" in 3E? Because in 3E, Rods can be used by everybody but all wands can only be used by Wizards. In other words... the Design Cops got mad at the Wand of Wonder for breaking the rules.
> 
> Hello... way to miss the point! The Wand of Wonder was _all about_ breaking the rules. Yeah, it's a wand that can be used by a Fighter. So what? It's also a wand that can shoot a rhinoceros at your foe. It doesn't play well with others. What part of "This wand shoots rhinoceroses" suggests that it should play well with others?



That, and 3e's rule-based insistence that Wands should only be able to copy spells; and I don't know of a spell that fills the room with butterflies.


			
				SPoD said:
			
		

> Not every person who picks up the game wants Mystery and Wonder.



I vehemently disagree.  They're picking up a *fantasy role-playing game*...if they're not looking for mystery and wonder, what *are* they looking for?

Lane-"I need to get me another one of those wands someday"-fan

EDIT: With this post, I finally bump to 2nd level (in 1e)!!!


----------



## FireLance (Dec 12, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> I vehemently disagree.  They're picking up a *fantasy role-playing game*...if they're not looking for mystery and wonder, what *are* they looking for?



To kill things _with magical spells and martial exploits that would be impossible in the real world_ and take their stuff. 

Seriously, though - I prefer fantasy role-playing games because it somehow frees up my imagination and creativity. When I play or run games in historical, modern or science fiction settings, I often get sidetracked by what's actually possible and plausible in the real world, and I don't enjoy the game as much. A fantasy setting somehow gives me a licence to not think too hard. 

So, for me, it's nothing to do with mystery and wonder, and everything to do with the way a fantasy setting allows me to turn off my inner overanalyst. I'm just weird like that, I guess.


----------



## Ydars (Dec 12, 2008)

I do wonder why people play fantasy games, if all they want is kick-ass power. Surely this is the kind of thing that is better played out in Sci-Fi with all its metal-gear heavy-powered weaponry.

Having said this, I think the problem goes back to the roots of D&D and is not edition specific; D&D is NOT a mystical game, though earlier editions could be used to portray some mysticism if the DM wanted.

Magic in D&D has always been far too scientific to be truely mystical and far too logical because of the needs of running a game. You simply have to have some structure.

The problem is, now the people running the show think the structure is more important than the experience it is trying to model. This is a mistake IMHO but it is just a logical extension of the process that started with E.Gary Gygax's take on magic.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 12, 2008)

Felon said:


> I honestly wish I could still cling this facile outlook on gaming. Being clever and creative is all you need when the people you're trying to dazzle are guileless and inexperienced. A canny (or simply jaded) player will look beneath the candy coating to see whether there's something of substance.



Way to _totally_ miss the point. 

It's nothing whatsoever to do with 'dazzling' people, 'candy coating', blah blah, rhetoric, blah.

Made me laugh, anyway. Cheers!


----------



## Baz King (Dec 12, 2008)

This argument has been going on for the entirety of D&Ds lifetime and the answer is always the same: the magic happens at your table, not in the books. 

However, there is mechanical support for more flavour in your items in 4e: Artifacts. I'd love to see a whole book of these, including loads for level 1. I'd want to use these, plus the really mundane stuff like alchemicals and reagents, and just cut out the vast majority of ordinary items altogether. 

Or I could just play Earthdawn.


----------



## Tuft (Dec 12, 2008)

Totally agree with the Op. Not only when it comes to magic items but to 4E in general; The magic is gone - the evocative, the fantastic, the odd and the quirky, the sense of wonder. The things that made the rulebooks _fun_ to read - to get a touch of inspiration, or to dream away for a while. 

The typical roleplaying campaign plays a night once a week. But with the books of old, you could get something out of your rulebooks at any other time, just by throwing up the spells or magic items pages, and starting to wonder "what fun could I have with this, if I try to find a non-combat situation where it fits"? 

My DM recently mailed out the new AV2 excerpts with the tattoos with a "look at these new cool things that are coming", and I got cruelly disappointed: Just a rather convoluted way to trigger the same old "+X damage, move Y squares" that every other power in ED4 has - nothing new and interesting at alls. Nothing exciting, nothing evocative. Unfortunately, I said so, which triggered yet another 4E argument... and bad feelings overall. 

At the end of 3.5, WoTC released both the the Spell Compendium and the magic Item Compendium. The Spell Compendium was universally loved by the players in the gaming group. The Magic Item Compendium, which to a large degree embodies what the Op talks about already in 3.5E, was instead shunned, and those that encouraged by the Spell Compendium bough it regretted that decision.


----------



## avin (Dec 12, 2008)

4E mechanics shine, 4E fluff is boring, so magical items are boring on fourth edition.

Most players I know couldn't care less about "cool items" they just want them to make a lot of damage.

That said, I have seen some real nice fluff items on that Bazaar of the Bizarre Dragon Article. Love it.


----------



## Gruns (Dec 12, 2008)

*They're coming!*



Mishihari Lord said:


> Totally agree.  I don't even need to open my 1E DMG to come up with examples.  Apparatus of Kwalish?  Ring of Shooting Stars, anyone?  I looked through the magic item section of 4E and found it incredibly dull, even worse than the Monster Manual.
> 
> And whoever said that its easier to put this stuff in than take it out is dead wrong.  My 1E DMG has hundreds of cool magic items.  It would take me an awfully long time to come up with even a fraction of that number myself.  Sure I could do it, but I've kind of come to expect that the game should provide those for me.




For what it's worth, the Apparatus of Kwalish made it's way into Adventurer's Vault. We need to remember that 4E is still very new, and there's a good chance a lot of the old favorites will find their way into the game eventually. Of course, they may lose a little of that cool factor for the sake of ease of use/implementaion and balance. That said, I was pleasantly surprised with how the Apparatus turned out. (Vorpal Sword? Not so much...)
Later!
Gruns


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 12, 2008)

Brace yourself, people who don't normally agree with me might be about to ;p

Your really can't just pin it all on 4e.  It was very much a problem in 3e as well, and they BOTH stem from the same idea of regulating things.  3e killed a lot with it's "Ever wand must have *a* spell, and every spell must have a wand" rule.  I think part of that was due to the emphasis on _quantity_ of magical items; instead of maybe one or two really awesome or creative items, you'd have your standard magic sword, your standard magic item, your Heal Stick, etc, etc.  4e is still very much regulated; a little less in some areas, a little more in others.

The problem with items actually being really mysterious and magical is that, as someone else said, it breaks the game balance wise.  *Good lord* does it break the game balance wise.  For some people, that really isn't a problem.  For others, it can be.

I guess for me, the biggest disappointment with magic items came from steering away from the random loot table.  Man, I loved that random loot table.  I think 3e was a good start for that problem too - don't like what you got?  Sell it.  4e doesn't take it forward or backwards, it just side steps; have your players tell you what they want!  I much perfer rolling the die, grinning, and seeing how the players adapt to the decanter of endless water (Footnote: they set it to geyser when defusing a riot and used it as a water canon).  Or what about that wonderful Deck of Many Things?  Does anything beat the one surviving party member panicking, threatening the generic monsters not to step any closer, and then playing 52 card pickup?  (I am aware there are less then 52 cards)  I will give 3rd edition this though, they introduced what may be my favorite item of all time.  Why take some boring new sword when you can have...an *Immobile Rod*!  Which _seriously_ has more uses then you could _ever_ fully comprehend.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Dec 12, 2008)

Tuft said:


> At the end of 3.5, WoTC released both the the Spell Compendium and the magic Item Compendium. The Spell Compendium was universally loved by the players in the gaming group. The Magic Item Compendium, which to a large degree embodies what the Op talks about already in 3.5E, was instead shunned, and those that encouraged by the Spell Compendium bough it regretted that decision.




Why did your group dislike magic item compendruim?
I thought it was the best book yet.


----------



## EroGaki (Dec 12, 2008)

I miss my wand of fire, I really do !!

I think some of my favorite items were the cursed ones. I miss cursed items a lot. Not because they messed around with the players ( I admit that that aspect can be fun), but because they represented a facet of magic that has been lost in 3rd and 4th edition: magic can be unsafe, It can be unpredictable. It can have results that were not intended. That, in my opinion, is what killed much of the mystery and mysticism of magic items, and magic itself, in the current editions. Magic has had all of the bugs worked out of it, for better or worse. It is now safe and entirely predicable. 

A few of my favorite items from AD&D were the Ring of Contrariness, which afflicted the wearer with the inability to agree with any idea, statement, or action, while at the same time granting the powers of a random magical ring. Also, I love the Ring of Truth, which granted the wearer the ability to detect any lie told to him, while at the same time preventing the wearer from lying. These items, while cursed, offered some cool abilities and inspired role playing.

Nowadays you don't find items such as these. Instead, you find lame equipment, such as the Cloak of Resistance. This item, while useful, is dull. And worse, it is one of the most common magical items found in a treasure horde. As you gain levels, you should expect to find better cloaks, such as the Cloak of the Manta Ray. But instead, you just find a more powerful Cloak of Resistance. Yay. 

I feel that magic was more mystical and mysterious when it was a supernatural force. In the current editions, magic is an applied science.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 12, 2008)

As soon as magic items can be bought and sold, magic items have to be "balanced". If you do not allow for magic items to be bought/sold and easily created (contrast for example, what PO:Sp&M said it required to make a Wand of Fire versus the 3e equivalent, Staff of Fire), then you can have as much wahoo magic in the game as before....

The rod vs wand vs staff naming convention shouldn't affect the feel of magic (really, if a person A calls it a wand of fire and person B calls it a staff of fire and they both DO the same thing, I'm not understanding why the latter is less magical than the first).

Spell Compendium might've been loved by players who liked magical classes, but trust me, many a DM and many a martial fan point towards the Spell Compedium as the biggest source of power-creep for the most powerful classes in the game already....

Nostalgia is also a powerful force. I have the Encyclopedia Magica (the leather tomes from pre 3E that had ALL the magical items ever printed for the game up to then....) and the vast majority of the items in the books are, well, shockingly mundane. Great fluff and description but the effect is pretty "normal".


----------



## Vicar In A Tutu (Dec 12, 2008)

I agree with the OP. I'm always a DM, and when I read RPG books I want to be inspired. Reading 4E, I fall asleep (though I'm looking forward to Manual of the Planes). By far the most boring part of 4E, IMHO, are the magic items.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 12, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I will give 3rd edition this though, they introduced what may be my favorite item of all time. Why take some boring new sword when you can have...an *Immobile Rod*! Which _seriously_ has more uses then you could _ever_ fully comprehend.




A truly awesome item but 3rd Ed didn't create it. This was the recreation of the *Rod of Inertia* from the D&D companion rules. 

The magic item issue is the same is pretty much the same as the spell issue in 4E (and 3E to some extent), balance over flavor. Older editions gave you cool stuff and suggestions for balance. The degree of game balance with any edition still comes ultimately from those playing, so killing off the quirky cool stuff in the name of balance certainly dulls the flavor and for what? Something that a good group of players can provide for themselves?

Designing a non-competative roleplaying game with balance as the primary focus seems like designing to the lowest common denominator to me. The design philosophy screams " We know that you are not qualified to use common sense and good judgement to run your games so it will built into the system. We shall therefore remove any and all elements from the core of the system that require common sense or good judgement to include in your game."

Magic that feels magical lives in older editions/other games now.


----------



## Ydars (Dec 12, 2008)

The problem with all D&D magic is the point and shoot aspect of it. It is about as magical in feel as a 357 magnum much of the time. Here are some things I have done in the past to try and put back the magic in various RPGs. They tend to only work well in story driven campaigns and I have never tried them in sandbox or dungeon-bash type games but then neither of those is a particular friend to the mystical anyway.

Magic can be made somewhat more mystical if items and spells are tied to certain places and/or can only be used at certain times. 

If often invent a set of star-formations, like the zodiac, then when the moon is in the house of the hunter, spells of nature would wax whilst those of necromancy would wane. You get the idea. I often use the cliched 3 moons of your average fantasy world to good effect and have items or spells tied to waxes and wanes of one of the moons, or else to the seasons.

Similarly, if you take a leaf from the "Wizard of Earthsea" a wizard's power depends upon words and his powers are blunted when in strange lands where the earthpowers do not recognise his voice. Thus the land becomes a patchwork of locations that favour or disallow certain types of magic. This could be a way of handling over-powerful mages in 3.5E and to prevent the use of certain game-breaking divinations/transportation magic in all editions of the game; just site the adventure in a time and place that makes the use of spell X very difficult. I have even gone so far as to have certain spell be castable only at 2 or 3 sites in the entire world, often divinations or resurrection magic.

Magic can also pierce the veil between worlds very easily at certain times of year and so carries some risks. You can introduce risks into the game associated with magic that include magical laws.

I have used the Law of Threefold consequence to good effect so that any damage done to others is visited threefold unto the mage unless he is protected by ritual at certain times of the year.

Similarly, charm and enchantment spells can be made more powerful through the use of hair or other connections to the target, and rituals can also blunt magical attacks.

I have also ruled in the past that summoning rituals must be performed at certain times and creatures bound into service and only then can you cast summon monster I and expect the creature to come. The creature should have personality and story and be a character as much as NPCs do.

Lastly, I make wizards do magical research to get their new spells at each level; in a proper laboratory. Sorcerors are required to find and hold discource with supernatural powers to gain their new spells. They often have to find a lake with a powerful Fey at the bottom and then bargain to gain new power.

All this slightly nerfs spell-casters but in 3.5E, where I used most of these to best effect, this is no bad thing.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 12, 2008)

Some of the issues have already been explained well (e.g. 3e defined 'wand' and all wands had to fit to that definition).

The other big issue IMO is the idea of 'expected wealth' which was introduced in 3e. Because a lot of the versatile, interesting magic items were still in the DMG, but were given an 'expected wealth value' which was so high they never saw play in the game.

In my Eberron campaign I threw the expected wealth guidelines out the window, and it was the best thing I did for my game. It freed me up to provide powerful, flavourful items as I saw fit without worrying about the supposed 'balance' issues it might cause - I'm a big boy, and I can resolve any power balance issues as they arise.

4e strives to make items a bit more interesting than 3e at low level, but still suffers a bit from the "you're heroic tier? Only one daily power for you!" metagame design - and there seems a complete paucity of multi-functional higher level stuff at all. It is as if an average has been taken which is a bit better than low level 3e, but worse than high level 3e, and that average stretched across all the tiers.

The 4e exception for me is artifacts, which I think have probably recieved one of their best core rules treatments I've seen.

Cheers


----------



## Jack7 (Dec 12, 2008)

> I think some of my favorite items were the cursed ones. I miss cursed items a lot. Not because they messed around with the players ( I admit that that aspect can be fun), but because they represented a facet of magic that has been lost in 3rd and 4th edition: magic can be unsafe, _*It can be unpredictable. It can have results that were not intended. *_That, in my opinion, is what killed much of the mystery and mysticism of magic items, and magic itself, in the current editions. Magic has had all of the bugs worked out of it, for better or worse. *It is now safe and entirely predicable*.





I think a lot of people said a lot of things I entirely agree with, and a lot of people said things I disagree with, but still liked and could see their point.

But this ladies and gentlemen, the quote section above, for those who understand what it means, this said a whole lot about the nature of modern fantasy gaming.

EG, I'll be running some XP up the flagpole in your direction.
Look for my signal.

As for the rest of you, please carry on as you were.
And good job.


----------



## Henry (Dec 12, 2008)

I admit, I've missed the magic items of 1st and 2nd edition for a long time now. I think that part of the issue is that magic items were one thing that separated your character mechanically from others - it was the equivalent of feats or powers nowadays. You weren't just Aravis Blackblade, you HAD the BLACKBLADE, a +2 Dagger that could magically transform into a Tattoo and back again (got that from the Encyclopedia Magica with a little name change to the weapon), or, you had the Rod of Lordly Might, the Swiss Army Knife of AD&D. There wasn't a fighter who didn't dream of one day owning one of those Rods, because you felt like freaking James Bond with that one item. 

4E grabbed a little of that feel (like the swords that explode with area attacks, or the items that give a special defense once a day), but the feel of items like the Wand of Fire, or the Xiphoid Xebec, are still missing from the game, and may never return because of inherent balance issues.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 12, 2008)

Gruns said:


> For what it's worth, the Apparatus of Kwalish made it's way into Adventurer's Vault. We need to remember that 4E is still very new, and there's a good chance a lot of the old favorites will find their way into the game eventually. Of course, they may lose a little of that cool factor for the sake of ease of use/implementaion and balance. That said, I was pleasantly surprised with how the Apparatus turned out. (Vorpal Sword? Not so much...)
> Later!
> Gruns




Indeed.  I agree with the sentiment that most of the magic items in the 4E Player's Handbook are boring as hell.  However, the Adventurer's Vault contains some pretty cool stuff, particularly in the Wondrous Items section.  My personal favorite right now is the Horn of Gondor Summoning.  It's a magic horn that, when blown, can be heard by everyone within a 1-mile radius; and allies within that radius are immediately awakened from sleep and made aware of your situation.

This, to me, is what magic items should be like.  It's difficult to see how it could be used to break the game.  You can't one-shot Tiamat with it, or bypass half the adventure.  It doesn't do a danged thing in combat.  But it's cool and fun and has a lot of style.  Moreover, it encourages the players to look for creative ways to use it.

On the other hand, plenty of legacy stuff from 1st Edition is just as bland and boring as you can imagine.  The biggest offender, to me, is the "+X item."  Those should never have been put in the game.  They add nothing to the game experience and complicate combat math unnecessarily, but now they've become such a sacred cow that I have little hope they'll ever go away.


----------



## el-remmen (Dec 12, 2008)

Is this about player expectation or the game itself?

I mean, the way I got around this issue in 3E is by (as Plane-Sailing said) throwing wealth guidelines out the window and continuing to give out magical items that we were weird and quirky and most have some minor to moderate downside along with their cool power (in my homebrew when you create a permanent (i.e. not charged or potion/wand) magical item it almost always has a small downside unless you are willing to pay more coin and XP to make it).

I also make them a lot less available (i.e. party of 6 5th level PCs have 2 magical items (not including potions or scrolls) among them (they had 3, but one was lost in a duel))

However, if the expectation of your players at the table is that they should have a new magical item every level or so and they should have items that that they fully understand and fit the wealth guidelines as written, then the problem is a difference in playstyle.

The rules are written are beside the point.


----------



## Tuft (Dec 12, 2008)

Starbuck_II said:


> Why did your group dislike magic item compendruim?
> I thought it was the best book yet.





No one simply seemed able to find anything they liked. Note that no one was very interested in weapons or armor in that group either.

Oh, yes - there was the rules for creating your own Runestaff, and the enhancements rules - but not really the items themselves.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 12, 2008)

EroGaki said:


> I agree with Jack7, for the most part. It has been my observation that magical items have become very "blah." Most of them have lost versatility and flavor in exchange for steady mechanics. I really wish the creators would have taken a bit more time and developed magic items that contained solid mechanics as well as flavor.




I mostly agree with Jack7 as well.  Magic in 4e lost something in the balancing act.  I'm particularly displeased with spellcasting, but his post was focused mainly on magic items themselves so i'll stick with that.

Granted, although magic items in 2e did seem more "magical" it might be nostaligia tainting my opinion. 

*The Bag of Tricks *in the AV really bothered me and some of my players when we first read it.  That was our favorite magic item from 2nd edition (along with the Deck of Many Things).  The 4e BoT is so bland and balanced that none of them would actually enjoy using it.  So i made up my own with my own rules and my own animals.  After some playtesting i'll post it here eventually if anyone wants to use it.  It does not follow the 4e magic item paradigm at all and should probably be considered a Minor Artifact, OR, just take up multiple parcels because anyone in the group can use it.


----------



## Jack7 (Dec 12, 2008)

> along with the Deck of Many Things





I never played 2E, but the _*Deck of Many Things*_ was the geschnizzle-snazzle.

Now there was magic, opportunity, and danger, all rolled into one.


----------



## Lacyon (Dec 12, 2008)

FireLance said:


> 4e seems to have made a clearer distinction between magic items that are basic tools, and magic items that are clearly meant to be complex and mysterious. The former are the magic items that you find in the PH and AV (although you will find a few relatively complex and multifunctional items there, too). The latter are the artifacts in the DMG and sourcebooks such as Draconomicon.




This.

Once you start making magic items creatable and/or available for purchase, they start crying out for balance and predictability.

It's the kind that players can't (easily) make for themselves or purchase anywhere that need, and can have, "wacky" functionality. These are the things that should be added to taste by an experienced DM.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 12, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> I never played 2E, but the _*Deck of Many Things*_ was the geschnizzle-snazzle.
> 
> Now there was magic, opportunity, and danger, all rolled into one.




Oh, i'm reintroducing the DoMT to the group eventually.  It's internally balanced by offering you glorious riches or eternal damnation.  god, i love that deck of cards.

Anyway, the bag of tricks i made uses the same check and balance system: every time you pull is a gamble, get a rabbit or get a lion, and there's a healing surge cost associated with it.  Making this thing too me forever, but hopefully it's an item the group will cherish. 

In past editions, pulling a bear from the Bag of Tricks to save your butt in a fight was a definitive game moment that no one ever forgot.  That "gamble" is lost in 4e with every animal you pull being a (mostly) identical minion. And you only do it once per day. I can't see how the Bag of Tricks in an 8th level item as good as a +2 sword.


----------



## Miyaa (Dec 12, 2008)

EroGaki said:


> I feel that magic was more mystical and mysterious when it was a supernatural force. In the current editions, magic is an applied science.




This, I think, maybe part of the problem here. 3rd and especially 4th editions makes the powers, rituals, and magical items derivatives (I think that's what they are for the most part) are more or less utilitarian tools. I think it's also the nature of having such a gaming system with a long and evolved history: everyone grows more sophisticated and thus the systems may seem like it now.

I think the solution for me will be to amend or ignore most of the intricacy of the various abilities that the magical items will give you, like how often they can be used, and some of the secondary effects.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 12, 2008)

As someone who never found a whole lot of magic in the D&D magic item lists --though I am partial to the Decanter of Endless Water Cannons and things with borderline brilliant/stupid names like the Sword of Wounding-- I find that the magic is exactly where it always was; in the fertile --or is that febrile?-- imaginations of the people playing the game.

I can't be alone in having friends who pawed through the 1e DMG magic item section treating it like a proto-Amazon Wish List, can I? Players have been busy robbing the game of "wonder" since 1974. And it's hard to blame them. Their characters have problems to solve, frequently problems that are trying to eat them. It's no wonder that the wondrous items of their fantasylands get treated like the tools the players need them to be. 

If you're shooting for "real wonder" in your game, especially of the item/consumer goods variety, it's been my experience that you have to add that to the campaign yourself. It's hard to impress your players with off-the-rack items of magical mystery (seeing as they probably have the same rule books you do). You pretty much have to custom-tailor. All of the most memorable items I remember from gaming-days past were custom DM creations.

edit: except for _Daern's Instant Fortress_. That was just too damn cool.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 12, 2008)

Lots of good comments here - I'm still playing 3.5 and I think that 4E did some nifty things with magic items.  I'm surprised that not everyone loved the Magic Item Compendium, 'cause everyone in my gaming groups thinks its the best thing ever.  It reintroduced a lot of items that could do lots of little things, and made them inexpensive enough to buy a few of them.

As Plane Sailing and El-Remmen have also noted, the wealth guidelines changed the character of games - at least mine.  I'm planning on junking the guidelines and going back to the way I did things in 2E and 1E for my next campaign.  Fewer items overall, but more interesting ones when you get them.  I also want to reintroduce magic with the occasional drawback into my games.  This has been something I've noted since the early 3E days, and its always been one of my (relatively few) complaints about the 3E philosophy.


----------



## Miyaa (Dec 12, 2008)

I found that the Weapons of Legacy book in 3.5 was the most interesting book of the bunch, and I used that often to improve the coolness of most magical items. I'm not completely satisfied how those concepts have been carried out into 4th edition, but I still think it's really good. 

I feel like what's missing from 4th edition are magical backfire from use or perhaps more importantly _overuse_ of an magical weapon, item, or whatever. It's probably how most of the intelligent magical items come into being.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 12, 2008)

Mallus said:


> If you're shooting for "real wonder" in your game, especially of the item/consumer goods variety, it's been my experience that you have to add that to the campaign yourself. It's hard to impress your players with off-the-rack items of magical mystery (seeing as they probably have the same rule books you do). You pretty much have to custom-tailor. All of the most memorable items I remember from gaming-days past were custom DM creations.




Agreed.  And that's what i'm shooting for, to bend the "safe" rules of 4e and interject a healthy dose of "WTF just happened?"

I'm hoping that the "group magic item" will be something i can continue using, i just don't know who to balance it within the existing magic infrastructre. As much as i love adding new stuff, there's always the potential to give them too much of a good thing.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 12, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:


> I'm planning on junking the guidelines and going back to the way I did things in 2E and 1E for my next campaign.  Fewer items overall, but more interesting ones when you get them.  I also want to reintroduce magic with the occasional drawback into my games.  This has been something I've noted since the early 3E days, and its always been one of my (relatively few) complaints about the 3E philosophy.




As much as i'd LIKE to do this, it would totally screw up the player's 4e expectations and disrupt the game we've been running for months now. And it would be a lot of work for me.  What i'll probably do is keeping playing as we have been, get as much enjoyment as i can from D&D 4e, and then switch to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and run it any way i want because magic is wild and crazy in that system.  The way i like it!


----------



## Obryn (Dec 12, 2008)

Since I'm running both 1e and 4e games nowadays, I've definitely noticed this, to a large extent.

First off, although 4e streamlined magic items and put them in a dry, less-interesting-to-read block format, it took a page from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium and made it so that items with effects _other_ than simple plusses are the rule rather than the exception.  I think this enriches magic items pretty significantly from 3.5's default assumptions.

Second, AD&D 1e magic items are awesome.  I love reading through all the bizarre, organic descriptions that make it plain there were no simple formulae at work.  No hint of balance, either, by and large - which is part of the charm.  There's nothing quite like figuring out bizarre uses for crazy items you looted from a hill giant, and determining what that weird cloak does through trial and error.

What could happen in 1e/2e, though, was that magic item abilities could overshadow a character's own abilities.  For example, elven cloaks make everyone better at hiding than a thief.  Elven boots make everyone better at sneaking.  Girdles of Giant Strength are the meanest stat-boosting items in history.  And so on.  I remember characters with pages of magic items in my B/X/AD&D/etc games, back in the day, since they were littered all around published modules like candy.

I had a point, but I lost it somewhere along the way.  Uhm...  Well, I love 1e magic items in 1e-style games.  I like 4e (and, by extension, 3.5 MIC) magic items better in 3e/4e-style games.

-O


----------



## Mallus (Dec 12, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> And that's what i'm shooting for, to bend the "safe" rules of 4e and interject a healthy dose of "WTF just happened?



Same here. My groups 4e campaign is still quite new, we're still clearly in the  "learning the system" phase. But once we get more comfortable, I'm sure the DM will begin deviating more from the written rules to produce the desired level of "WTF just happened?". 

I mean, the seeds are already sown. My PC is running around his home city with an unbreakable wooden box containing a very small god stuffed into his codpiece. 

I'm sure something odd will come of that, mechanically and otherwise.


----------



## Lacyon (Dec 12, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> I'm hoping that the "group magic item" will be something i can continue using, i just don't know who to balance it within the existing magic infrastructre. As much as i love adding new stuff, there's always the potential to give them too much of a good thing.




Don't let the players know exactly how the thing works. For example, your Bag of Tricks pulls out a random critter - don't let the players see the chart (or if you do, make sure they know it's subject to change). If the thing starts disrupting the balance of your game, make the really good animals less likely (or even run out entirely!), or give a chance of the animal attacking the party. If the PCs never use it, beef it up a bit or reduce any drawbacks.

Alternatively, it's make something really, really good with the caveat that it might disappear after a while (like an Artifact). If you don't tell your players how many charges something has, they'll be careful about using it.

As long as you don't give out too many of these kinds of items until you have a pretty good handle on the ones you've already placed, I don't think there's much reason you can't just add these on top of the normal magic items your players are expecting within the system.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 12, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> As much as i'd LIKE to do this, it would totally screw up the player's 4e expectations and disrupt the game we've been running for months now. And it would be a lot of work for me.



Would it really be that hard? In the Preview for December Article there's already a example of drawbacks with the Von Zarovich Family Sword: vulnerable 10 radiant, no reflection and stunned a turn after defeating a living foe (as the sword feeds).

Seems fairly simple to add drawbacks such as these to 4E items, which would lower the items level as well. For inspiration, one only really need to look at the powers of existing items and think "what if that happened to the wielder instead of the target", or "how could that benefit for the wielder be flipped into a drawback?"


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 12, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> Would it really be that hard? In the Preview for December Article there's already a example of drawbacks with the Von Zarovich Family Sword: vulnerable 10 radiant, no reflection and stunned a turn after defeating a living foe (as the sword feeds).
> 
> Seems fairly simple to add drawbacks such as these to 4E items, which would lower the items level as well. For inspiration, one only really need to look at the powers of existing items and think "what if that happened to the wielder instead of the target", or "how could that benefit for the wielder be flipped into a drawback?"




Well, that's a good idea, adding drawbacks to the magic items.  I hadn't seen that example of the Family Sword.  I might need to start doing that.

No, when I said "screw up the player's expectations" I meant that some of the players really dig the balance scheme built into 4e and want me to hand out parcels and magic items "per the book."  Scrapping the rules (as much as i would like to) might not settle well with them. I actually did give a player a new (homebrew) magic item and he talked amost immediately about selling it for something from the AV. 

Or, when they see how fun the game can still be freeform, they might not care.  Maybe i'll do it anyway. 

On a related note, I'd like to see a poll on how close DMs follow the parcel rules.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 12, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> Don't let the players know exactly how the thing works. For example, your Bag of Tricks pulls out a random critter - don't let the players see the chart (or if you do, make sure they know it's subject to change). If the thing starts disrupting the balance of your game, make the really good animals less likely (or even run out entirely!), or give a chance of the animal attacking the party. If the PCs never use it, beef it up a bit or reduce any drawbacks.




I've briefly discussed it with one of them just to get some feedback on how it might work.  It's already been established that the Bag can change the animals without warning, and the magical nature of the bag means it might function differently from time to time.

So basically, as we figure out the pros and cons we have a built in reason for it to behave differently.  It's a wild and whacky bag. 

Oh yeah, i can just see the Ornery Rhino turning on the guy who pulled it!  

"Sorry, man.  That rule was included in the 2.65 version of the Bag of Tricks. Didn't you get the memo?"


----------



## Lacyon (Dec 12, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> No, when I said "screw up the player's expectations" I meant that some of the players really dig the balance scheme built into 4e and want me to hand out parcels and magic items "per the book." Scrapping the rules (as much as i would like to) might not settle well with them. I actually did give a player a new (homebrew) magic item and he talked amost immediately about selling it for something from the AV.




Eek.

As I mentioned above, I think you can give out the "balanced" treasure parcels _and_ these wacky things without having a giant balance impact. But that doesn't help if the PCs want to sell off the wacky for more balance.

However, given that the thing is wacky, it might help to point out to them that people aren't as willing to buy the item as they would be to buy something predictable - so it's not worth much in the way of cash. (You may also have to reduce the amount of residuum it's worth when broken down). If you let them know that this is bonus instead of taking away from the treasure they'll get otherwise, they should accept that.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 12, 2008)

Lacyon said:


> Eek.
> 
> (You may also have to reduce the amount of residuum it's worth when broken down). If you let them know that this is bonus instead of taking away from the treasure they'll get otherwise, they should accept that.




Well, our Bag of Tricks cannot be broken down into residuum.  I'd just have it vanish if they tried. But the balance issue is something i'm trying to work out. It's a pretty damn powerful bag.  Potentially pulling a lion and bear to fight at your side (and they're not minions) in the same encounter is a pretty big deal (although they're not as powerful as a real lion or bear) 

The drawbacks are fourfold: 

1) That lion just cost you 3 healing surges.
2) You still use your minor actions to control it.
3) The bag has a weekly quota of animals that can be pulled. 
4) Animals cannot be used to flank or opportunity attack. They're magical   
    conjurations that do just what it says on their card and nothing else (I  
    made a laminated card for each animal that details its abilities; they're  
    stuffed in Crown Royal bag)

So the bag is not tied to the 4e daily rules at all, but exists wholly outside of them as something above and beyond what the PCs would normally be able to do.  To me, that feels like magic.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 12, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Your really can't just pin it all on 4e.  It was very much a problem in 3e as well, and they BOTH stem from the same idea of regulating things.  3e killed a lot with it's "Ever wand must have *a* spell, and every spell must have a wand" rule.  I think part of that was due to the emphasis on _quantity_ of magical items; instead of maybe one or two really awesome or creative items, you'd have your standard magic sword, your standard magic item, your Heal Stick, etc, etc.  4e is still very much regulated; a little less in some areas, a little more in others.
> 
> The problem with items actually being really mysterious and magical is that, as someone else said, it breaks the game balance wise.  *Good lord* does it break the game balance wise.  For some people, that really isn't a problem.  For others, it can be.




I disagree with the gist of what you're saying. It was never about quantity in 3e. That all came about because magic items suddenly became easy to make.

No, the changes in 3e items were to support a regular structure for making magic items. That's why the Wand of Wonder became a Rod of Wonder and all wands were reduced to single-spell varieties, and all multispell wands became staves. Ultimately, most of these were cosmetic changes alone, but they served to break down the structure into easily understandable chunks for the item creation feats.
Though I have to say that the realistic differences between a rod, a wondrous item, and a ring are minor and could all have been covered by a single feat with ease.
Other changes with 3e were made to foster an easier reference scheme. Hence all girdles became belts so they'd sort properly with other belts and so on.

But aside from the structural changes for item crafting, 3e worked pretty hard to preserve the general feel of the 1e-2e magic items. And largely succeeded in doing.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 12, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> _Why don't they make Magic Items like they used to?_
> 
> I was looking through my AD&D books tonight and noticed how versatile and multi-functional so many of the magic items were.
> 
> They were powerful, and they were odd, and fascinating, and most important of all a lot of them could do all kinds of things.




Got an example per chance?


----------



## malraux (Dec 12, 2008)

As a player who learned the game in 3e, I've always viewed the wealth system and magic item economy as really just an XP system for your gear.  And really, if the system assumes that at certain levels you will have items with certain bonuses, it is an XP system.

That said, I think 4e is a big improvement over 3e because they've dropped the +X items for items with pluses and interesting powers and reduced the incentives to drop the interesting but unusual items for a ring of natural armor.

I also think that 4e has specifically left design space open for the crazy items with unusual drawbacks by the way of artifacts.  Artifacts are now the category of intelligent items, items that give bonuses and penalties, items with unknown powers, items with interesting histories etc.  And in opposition to 3e where most artifacts were really just items that would cost way too much to create by the rules, 4e artifacts are reasonably easily designed for low level characters.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 12, 2008)

I dunno... it seems pretty simple to me.  1E magic item were more "mysterious" because _we had never seen them before_.

In 1982... "Bracers Of Ogre Power raises my strength to 18/00?!?  What?!?  Are you kidding me?!?  That's the greatest thing eve-- wait what-- Girdle of Hill Giant Strength raises my strength to *19*?!?  Oh my freakin' god!!!".

But now... we've had 30 years knowing what Bracers of Ogre Power do.  So _of course_ the mystery is gone.  And when your DM says "you find a pair of bracers that infuse you with the power of the ogre...", we're all _ho-hum_.

And let's be honest here... _even if_ all of you decrying 4E magic item design were to suddenly start playing 1E campaigns again... how many times would a DM hand you a supposedly "mysterious" magic item, only for you to discover that you already know what it was _because you've had the rules for them for 30 years_?

You are all looking for a nostalgia that you cannot get back, because you know Dungeons & Dragons.  And it doesn't matter if you play 1E or 2E or 3E or 4E or Basic or Rules Cyclopedia or any of that stuff... because the "magic" of the game is gone.  *You already know everything*.

You want to truly be surprised and filled with magic and wonder about an RPG again?  Get your DM to pick up a game that none of you have ever played or even read... and have him run it for you.  And make sure none of you players read the rules/setting/game.  Then (and only then) will you have this nostaglic "magic and wonder" that you seem to crave.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 12, 2008)

EroGaki said:


> I miss my wand of fire, I really do !!
> 
> I think some of my favorite items were the cursed ones. I miss cursed items a lot. Not because they messed around with the players ( I admit that that aspect can be fun), but because they represented a facet of magic that has been lost in 3rd and 4th edition: magic can be unsafe, It can be unpredictable. It can have results that were not intended. That, in my opinion, is what killed much of the mystery and mysticism of magic items, and magic itself, in the current editions. Magic has had all of the bugs worked out of it, for better or worse. It is now safe and entirely predicable.




The guys at Paizo, at least partly, agree with you. The Pathfinder Beta now includes magic item crafting rules that require a skill check to succeed. It's a fairly easy check, but you can trade off a higher check to make the item faster or with missing components. Miss by 5 and you've got yourself a cursed item.
That is one thing about 3e item construction - there really was no real way to fail and produce a cursed item.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 12, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Got an example per chance?




I sort of know what the OP means, but it will be hard to give a concrete example without a book in front of me.

Remember The Magister? 







It was either 1e or 2e, i'm not sure. Anyway, it was a thin little book chock full of magic items and spells, but each one probably got half a page of description. A wand might have up to 5 different functions. Each magic item had an extensive backstory about who owned it (and sometimes their ill fate) 

The items were probably unbalanced (as were many things back in those days) but i think the OP is saying that IN that unbalance exists a lasting appeal. The good news is that you can take an item like that, adopt it to 4e, called it a Minor Artifact and slap on some drawbacks, presto, you're done. 

Heck, it would be more fun for me thinking up the bad sh** it will do the players than the good stuff!


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 12, 2008)

DEFCON 1 said:


> You are all looking for a nostalgia that you cannot get back, because you know Dungeons & Dragons.  And it doesn't matter if you play 1E or 2E or 3E or 4E or Basic or Rules Cyclopedia or any of that stuff... because the "magic" of the game is gone.  *You already know everything*.



This has a lot to do with it, I think.

I can understand wanting more versatile items than 4E offers. But I also understand why 4E doesn't have these items (balance).

But I can't follow "less versatile" --> "less sense of wonder".


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 12, 2008)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And let's be honest here... _even if_ all of you decrying 4E magic item design were to suddenly start playing 1E campaigns again... how many times would a DM hand you a supposedly "mysterious" magic item, only for you to discover that you already know what it was _because you've had the rules for them for 30 years_?
> 
> You are all looking for a nostalgia that you cannot get back, because you know Dungeons & Dragons. And it doesn't matter if you play 1E or 2E or 3E or 4E or Basic or Rules Cyclopedia or any of that stuff... because the "magic" of the game is gone. *You already know everything*.
> 
> You want to truly be surprised and filled with magic and wonder about an RPG again? Get your DM to pick up a game that none of you have ever played or even read... and have him run it for you. And make sure none of you players read the rules/setting/game. Then (and only then) will you have this nostaglic "magic and wonder" that you seem to crave.




This is probably true too.  Our fondest memories of D&D (for those playing it many moons now) are probably rose-tinted memories from a 14 year old. 

Sometimes the best solution is to just try a brand new game.


----------



## Korgoth (Dec 12, 2008)

DEFCON 1 said:


> You are all looking for a nostalgia that you cannot get back, because you know Dungeons & Dragons.  And it doesn't matter if you play 1E or 2E or 3E or 4E or Basic or Rules Cyclopedia or any of that stuff... because the "magic" of the game is gone.  *You already know everything*.
> 
> You want to truly be surprised and filled with magic and wonder about an RPG again?  Get your DM to pick up a game that none of you have ever played or even read... and have him run it for you.  And make sure none of you players read the rules/setting/game.  Then (and only then) will you have this nostaglic "magic and wonder" that you seem to crave.




What a steaming load of insulting crap. It has nothing to do with nostalgia. It has to do with a difference in design philosophy. 3E and 4E magic items are assembly line McFantasy compared with 1E magic items.

So why don't you cut out the blanket insults? Oooh, someone committed the high crime of liking a non-pablum version of D&D. Get over it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 12, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> 3E and 4E magic items are *assembly line McFantasy* compared with 1E magic items.






Korgoth said:


> Oooh, someone committed the high crime of liking a *non-pablum version of D&D*.






Korgoth said:


> So why don't you cut out the blanket insults?



Your pleas to cut out the insults might fare better if your own post did not contain so many insults.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 12, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> Oooh, someone committed the high crime of liking a non-pablum version of D&D.



I see you're not so averse to blanket insults yourself...


----------



## Felon (Dec 12, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> Way to _totally_ miss the point.
> 
> It's nothing whatsoever to do with 'dazzling' people, 'candy coating', blah blah, rhetoric, blah.



Well, your post expressed the sentiment that cleverness and creativieness on the DM and players' part is what every game boils down to, so if you weren't trying to advocate the cure-all power of fluff, then you did a good of concealing your actual point with your own rhetoric. Feel free to clarify it.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 12, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> I sort of know what the OP means, but it will be hard to give a concrete example without a book in front of me.
> 
> Remember The Magister?
> 
> It was either 1e or 2e, i'm not sure. Anyway, it was a thin little book chock full of magic items and spells, but each one probably got half a page of description. A wand might have up to 5 different functions. Each magic item had an extensive backstory about who owned it (and sometimes their ill fate)



I remember that supplement. Magic swords with little quirks like floating on water or that remained suspended in mid-air when you let go of them. A glowing orb of starlight that did all kinds of minor but interesting things. Cool stuff.

However, it was a _supplement_, for a _specific campaign_.  The core books of the same edition did not give nearly the attention to fluff detail and history as this did. Nor even the little, cool quirks. 

4E is just starting. The fluff and history will come, particularly in themed books like the Manual of the Planes and Open Grave, or in campaign-specific books. The Blue Dragon Orb (an artifact) gets two full pages in the Draconomicon. Orbs of Dragonkind didn't get nearly that level of detail in the 1st Ed DMG. The designers will have to continue experimenting and pushing the boundaries of magic item types as more material gets published, just like _The Magister_ did. We already see a hint of that in the AV2 playtest, with Orbs that can pull combatants into a pocket-dimension arena. That's a pretty magical feeling item to me.

Plus, if you're talking about fluff, not all historical detail is going to be useful in a homebrew campaign. If it was in the core, it would probably be mostly ignored in favor of the DM's own history or fluff (if he cares that the item has such specific at all.)

And, for the record Korgoth, I don't think nostalgia has _nothing_ to do with it, but it is one of several factors that add to people's perception of this issue. Probably some more than others. (Speaking as someone who's played since 1st Ed. AD&D myself, and enjoyed each iteration.)


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 12, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Your pleas to cut out the insults might fare better if your own post did not contain so many insults.




I must say I enjoyed the Irony.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 12, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> 4E is just starting. The fluff and history will come, particularly in themed books like the Manual of the Planes and Open Grave, or in campaign-specific books. The Blue Dragon Orb (an artifact) gets two full pages in the Draconomicon. Orbs of Dragonkind didn't get nearly that level of detail in the 1st Ed DMG. The designers will have to continue experimenting and pushing the boundaries of magic item types as more material gets published, just like _The Magister_ did. We already see a hint of that in the AV2 playtest, with Orbs that can pull combatants into a pocket-dimension arena. That's a pretty magical feeling item to me.




I hope so. i'm sure it will continue changing and evolving, especially if third parties are ever allowed to tinker with the system.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 12, 2008)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I dunno... it seems pretty simple to me.  1E magic item were more "mysterious" because _we had never seen them before_.
> 
> In 1982... "Bracers Of Ogre Power raises my strength to 18/00?!?  What?!?  Are you kidding me?!?  That's the greatest thing eve-- wait what-- Girdle of Hill Giant Strength raises my strength to *19*?!?  Oh my freakin' god!!!".
> 
> ...




Nostalgia is probably the biggest difference, but the presentation in the game books matters too. Modern game books are written to allow quick and easy access to all the game-relevant information, while older game books provide mini-essays on each item. Hence older game books read more flavorful. 

In an actual game the difference is likely to be near zero. The most important Items in every edition are the ones that provide boni to AC, saves and attack roles. Whether quirky items are kept and used depends more on the ability to buy and sell magic items than on anything else. (It might also depend on the memory of the players, especially if they have the 1st and 2nd edition typical endless lists of magic items.)


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Dec 12, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> I sort of know what the OP means, but it will be hard to give a concrete example without a book in front of me.
> 
> Remember The Magister?
> 
> ...




´t was a typical Greenwood book: flavorful, with interesting ideas, and totally broken. Ah, well. 
Now, i ported lots of Greendwoody items into my Moonsea 3.5 campaign, and you know what? Nobody reads the descriptions. My players roleplay me to tears sometimes (in a very, very good sense), but they don´t want to be told the flavor of their items. So that´s that. 

And of course nostalgia is a part of the whole package. It would be a crazy world if not. New ideas and nostalgiay BOTH fuel the grand campaigns we run today - as it should be.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 12, 2008)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I dunno... it seems pretty simple to me.  1E magic item were more "mysterious" because _we had never seen them before_.
> 
> In 1982... "Bracers Of Ogre Power raises my strength to 18/00?!?  What?!?  Are you kidding me?!?  That's the greatest thing eve-- wait what-- Girdle of Hill Giant Strength raises my strength to *19*?!?  Oh my freakin' god!!!".
> 
> ...




Nostalgia may have a part to play, but it goes way beyond that. Take for example those gauntlets of ogre power and that girdle of hill giant strength.  Now put one of them on weak little Nilbo the sickly halfling. He goes from 8 Strength to meleeing with the big boys on their own terms. That's not just nostalgia, lad. That's really _*something*_!

By comparison, the safe and balanced 3e version is a minor blip on the radar, capable of slightly extending a tendency or slightly compensating for a deficiency.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 12, 2008)

IME, the change has evolved from what the players want. I am in the minority of my group when wanting to keep an item and find a use for it. My last 3E character even went out and bought a ring of sustenance. What strange looks I received that time around. You could just see the "why didn't you buy a cloak of resistance" look on their faces.

And truly quirky things? I have multiple players that won't pull a single card from a magical deck because they fear for screwing their character. And the last time they found a wand/rod of wonder they kept it away (in game) from the one character that would actually use it.

The people I have played with *want* the predictable bonus that add to their power. They don't go looking for decanters of endless water, the apparatus of kwalish or daern's instant fortress. They'd rather sell it and buy a new magic sword. And the only reason they didn't before 3E was because I wouldn't allow them to buy magic items very often and when they were available it was usually potions and scrolls.

3E and 4E have moved down a path that my players enjoy. Me? I like finding uses for odd magic items and would horde the lot before cashing out for a better plus.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 12, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Nostalgia may have a part to play, but it goes way beyond that. Take for example those gauntlets of ogre power and that girdle of hill giant strength.  Now put one of them on weak little Nilbo the sickly halfling. He goes from 8 Strength to meleeing with the big boys on their own terms. That's not just nostalgia, lad. That's really _*something*_!
> 
> By comparison, the safe and balanced 3e version is a minor blip on the radar, capable of slightly extending a tendency or slightly compensating for a deficiency.




Fair enough. Although you could argue that the Stat boosters in 3rd are just functionally different as they will increase your ability no matter what the starting value is. Thinking about it, there is no reason not ot include classical Gauntlets in 3.x, albeit as a high level item (~14, maybe). I am not sure that they would be as useful as statboosters, but that is its own discussion.


----------



## Felon (Dec 12, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> I remember that supplement. Magic swords with little quirks like floating on water or that remained suspended in mid-air when you let go of them. A glowing orb of starlight that did all kinds of minor but interesting things. Cool stuff.
> 
> However, it was a _supplement_, for a _specific campaign_.  The core books of the same edition did not give nearly the attention to fluff detail and history as this did. Nor even the little, cool quirks.
> 
> 4E is just starting. The fluff and history will come, particularly in themed books like the Manual of the Planes and Open Grave, or in campaign-specific books.



I want to believe this is going to happen, but WotC isn't White Wolf. In my gut, it feels like the design philosophy is so fixated on combat utility that giving a magic item an effect just to make you go "wow" won't pass muster. It's like D&D weapons are developed for review by a bunch of jaded four-star generals. It woudl be nice for my gut to be wrong.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 12, 2008)

It always strikes me as amusing when folks say that the 1e X wouldn't be as good if it was being played now, little realizing that, included in the people that they are speaking to, are several folks who are playing 1e now and still find X to be good.

The nostalgia argument falls apart pretty fast when you realize that we are not always talking about what we did when we were 14.  One of the specific design goals I had for RCFG was to put the Encyclopedia Magica into play within a system that didn't utilize THAC0.


RC


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 12, 2008)

There's also such a thing as looking back on certain things and discovering a new appreciation for things you hadn't fully considered in the past.


----------



## Shadeydm (Dec 12, 2008)

The 3E nerfing of Gaultlets of Ogre Power is an excellent example of ways that magic items were changed that I didn't care for.
The change in wands meantion earlier in the thread was another one.

I don't believe this is in any way related to nostalgia.


----------



## nightwyrm (Dec 12, 2008)

I would agree that magic items in older editions (pre-3e) tends to be wackier, more flavourful and more "magical" than modern ones. I think there are several interconnected reasons for this:

1. Rarity. In older editions, magic items were much rarer. Whether you get any magic items were purely up to the DM. But from 3e on, the game expects a character of a certain level to have a certain amount of items in order to face the challenges expected at those levels, causing a proliferation of magic items in modern games.

2. Balance. Modern games are more focused on balance and thus DMs have to have an idea of how powerful a magic item is, whether by assigning a level or a GP cost value to the item. In order to do this, the magic item has to be analyze-able. You have to be able to assign values to the effects of said item. Once you can analyze and do math with the effects of an item or magic in general, mysterious magic quickly becomes applied science.

3. Rules vs. DM ruling. In modern games, RAW is king. The DM has to make his rulings consistent with the rules of the game, rather than make completely arbitrary rulings. So, in order to maintain game balance, magic items and effects have to be codified and presented in simple, concrete terms describing exactly what they do, to allow the DM to make quick, accurate judgements. The easiest way to do this is to standardize the magic items and their effects. And also because of the importance of RAW, the magic items have to be created to fit into the rules framework. If you have a magic item A that can cast three wish spells and if a wish spell can create a magic item of item A's power level, you get an abusable loophole in RAW. This is a much greater problem in modern gaming due to the RAW>DM paradigm.

4. Secondary Magic Market. In 2nd ed and older editions, magic was pretty much untradeable. I've never encountered the mage-mart idea until 3rd ed. But the existence of magic item trading in modern game means that a magic item has to be useful to the player or it gets traded for more useful items. Since magic items can now be analyzed and compared, it's easy for players to see which items are more useful or powerful. Wacky, oddball items are only used to overcome challenges in funny, memorable ways because the players didn't already traded it for something that would allow them to overcome the same challenge in a conventional manner. Would you rather have item A which is cool in theory but unreliable and might only be useful a few times sometime in the future, or trade it for item B which is more mundane in comparison but is reliable and always useful? Most players would choose item B.  A lot of players want simple, reliable items that they know would add a certain amount of power to their character rather than complicated items with unreliable abilities that rarely gets used.


----------



## el-remmen (Dec 12, 2008)

Hey everybody!

Let's avoid the insults and the edition WARZ!

I will start kicking people out of the thread and handing out suspensions and take an unusual amount of pleasure in it and without prejudice.

If you see someone else crossing the line, refrain from commenting on, just use the REPORT A POST button.

Doesn't matter who starts it, I (or one of the other mods) will finish it.

Thanks.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 12, 2008)

Random thoughts:

There's a magic item in Thunderspire Labyrinth that's cursed; it makes you fly into a rage when you are Bloodied.

Would a Belt of Giant Strength/Gauntlets of Ogre Power that changed your Strength score be unbalanced in 4e?  I'm thinking maybe if you get them too early - the Fighter might like 25 Strength at level 1 - but if they are given out at a good level, maybe not.  If the Gauntlets of Ogre Power give you 18 Str, and you find them at level 4-8 (level 8 item, maybe), it doesn't seem like it would ruin things too much.

I think that, since adjudicating strange occurances seems easier to me in 4e, strange items that do crazy things would be very cool in 4e.  Let's say the Decanter of Endless Water is a level 5 item.  If you open it in a tight stream, trying to push someone back: Standard Action, +7 vs. Fort, Hit = 1d6+4 damage and the target is Pushed 1.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 12, 2008)

I don't think it's quite what the OP is talking about, but I disliked Girdles of Giant Strength changing into Belts in 3e.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 12, 2008)

*Couple of interesting points here*



nightwyrm said:


> I would agree that magic items in older editions (pre-3e) tends to be wackier, more flavourful and more "magical" than modern ones. I think there are several interconnected reasons for this:
> 
> 1. Rarity. In older editions, magic items were much rarer. Whether you get any magic items were purely up to the DM. But from 3e on, the game expects a character of a certain level to have a certain amount of items in order to face the challenges expected at those levels, causing a proliferation of magic items in modern games.




If you consider published adventures this is actually false. If you go back and look at any of the 1st ed classics, you will find that players will be veritable Christmas trees after surviving those scenarios.



nightwyrm said:


> 2. Balance. Modern games are more focused on balance and thus DMs have to have an idea of how powerful a magic item is, whether by assigning a level or a GP cost value to the item. In order to do this, the magic item has to be analyze-able. You have to be able to assign values to the effects of said item. Once you can analyze and do math with the effects of an item or magic in general, mysterious magic quickly becomes applied science.
> 
> 4. Secondary Magic Market. In 2nd ed and older editions, magic was pretty much untradeable. I've never encountered the mage-mart idea until 3rd ed. But the existence of magic item trading in modern game means that a magic item has to be useful to the player or it gets traded for more useful items. Since magic items can now be analyzed and compared, it's easy for players to see which items are more useful or powerful. Wacky, oddball items are only used to overcome challenges in funny, memorable ways because the players didn't already traded it for something that would allow them to overcome the same challenge in a conventional manner. Would you rather have item A which is cool in theory but unreliable and might only be useful a few times sometime in the future, or trade it for item B which is more mundane in comparison but is reliable and always useful? Most players would choose item B.  A lot of players want simple, reliable items that they know would add a certain amount of power to their character rather than complicated items with unreliable abilities that rarely gets used.




I think your point 2 by itself is not correct. Even when playing the older editions, we were able to assess which item was useful and which was not. Using the earlier mentioned Wand of fire as an example, some of its abilities provided just a much better bang for buck than other abilities, so only those got actually used. The math was always part of the game.

However, as you said, selling magic items was pretty much pointless. Hence we kept weak magic items around on the off chance that we might use them.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 12, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Random thoughts:
> 
> There's a magic item in Thunderspire Labyrinth that's cursed; it makes you fly into a rage when you are Bloodied.




I like that.  4e needs more cursed stuff. Magic is too safe. 




LostSoul said:


> Would a Belt of Giant Strength/Gauntlets of Ogre Power that changed your Strength score be unbalanced in 4e? I'm thinking maybe if you get them too early - the Fighter might like 25 Strength at level 1 - but if they are given out at a good level, maybe not. If the Gauntlets of Ogre Power give you 18 Str, and you find them at level 4-8 (level 8 item, maybe), it doesn't seem like it would ruin things too much.
> 
> I think that, since adjudicating strange occurances seems easier to me in 4e, strange items that do crazy things would be very cool in 4e. Let's say the Decanter of Endless Water is a level 5 item. If you open it in a tight stream, trying to push someone back: Standard Action, +7 vs. Fort, Hit = 1d6+4 damage and the target is Pushed 1.




I'd certainly allow Gauntlets of Ogre Power at the Heroic Tier...I don't think it would be particularly broken. Alternatively, you could really pull the stops out and add a Belt of Giant Strength but add considerable drawbacks...maybe your muscles bulge so much you can't wear armor at all.  It would be interesting to see the Fighter wade into combat with a 26 Strength and 10 AC.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 12, 2008)

Nightwyrm, I agree with a lot of what you wrote, except for the first thing, here...



nightwyrm said:


> 1. Rarity. In older editions, magic items were much rarer. Whether you get any magic items were purely up to the DM. But from 3e on, the game expects a character of a certain level to have a certain amount of items in order to face the challenges expected at those levels, causing a proliferation of magic items in modern games.




A quick read-through of the classic 1e modules shows that magic items were anything but rare.   Additionally, many creatures required +X weapons to even hit, so naturally many campaigns had to include magic weapons.

Now, if what you mean by "rare" is that buying magic items was much less common, I'll agree 100%.  But they're easy enough to find in most classic adventures.  (I'm kind of surprised how much treasure - magical and otherwise - there is in ToEE, for example.)

-O


----------



## Obryn (Dec 12, 2008)

Harlekin said:


> However, as you said, selling magic items was pretty much pointless. Hence we kept weak magic items around on the off chance that we might use them.



Not if you used the RAW and considered 1 gp = 1 xp.   In fact, it is _very_ worthwhile to sell off those unneeded items as soon as you can, once you get out of the dungeon.

A Gem of Seeing (to name an extreme example) nets you 2,000 xp if you keep it, but *25,000* gp+xp if you manage to sell it!  That'll keep you in hirelings for years.

Heck, even a humble +1 sword only nets you 400 xp for keeping it, but 2,000 gp+xp for selling it.

-O


----------



## nightwyrm (Dec 12, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Nightwyrm, I agree with a lot of what you wrote, except for the first thing, here...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ah, I was unaware of that since my old 2nd ed group never used any module. I think I got a +1 sword after 7 levels....anyways, maybe rare isn't the correct term. What I do mean is that getting magic items in older editions were completely up to the DM. There was no wealth by level tables or stuff like that. If the DM didn't want you to have anything, you don't get jack and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Thus, anything you get was valuable and precious....or maybe my old DM was just a meanie...

Anyways, another thing that comes to mind is that there is usually not a alot of duplicate items in the party while playing in older editions.  The DM might not like to give out duplicate items and there's no mage-mart, so if you have a cloak of resistance, you're probably the only one in the group that have a cloak of resistance.  This makes it feel that your cloak is a unique item.  In 3e and later, everyone buys a cloak of resistance if they're not using the slot for something more important.


----------



## Miyaa (Dec 12, 2008)

Deleted because of misplaced quote.


----------



## Miyaa (Dec 12, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Same here. My groups 4e campaign is still quite new, we're still clearly in the  "learning the system" phase. But once we get more comfortable, I'm sure the DM will begin deviating more from the written rules to produce the desired level of "WTF just happened?".
> 
> I mean, the seeds are already sown. My PC is running around his home city with an unbreakable wooden box containing a very small god stuffed into his codpiece.
> 
> I'm sure something odd will come of that, mechanically and otherwise.




You have a very disturbing DM.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 12, 2008)

nightwyrm said:


> If the DM didn't want you to have anything, you don't get jack and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Thus, anything you get was valuable and precious....or maybe my old DM was just a meanie...




Something about this really, really appeals to me (and i'm not a meanie). I can appreciate the level of balance built into 4e, but when i'm "expected" to hand out items of a certain power level at a certain time, well, it just reinforces the gaming aspect of the game and reduces the fun factor. For me, as DM.  I don't think players look at it like that.  I really have no problem handing out magic items, i just don't like being told i have to do something or i'll break the game.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 12, 2008)

nightwyrm said:


> What I do mean is that getting magic items in older editions were completely up to the DM.



It's my experience that this resulted in _more_ items of greater power in characters hands at lower levels.



> There was no wealth by level tables or stuff like that.



But there were commonly used published modules that were chock-full of magical items. They were essentially parcels of items grouped by a level range. So there really wasn't that much of a difference. 



> Thus, anything you get was valuable and precious....



This is something I like to call the "+1 longsword fallacy". The relationship of scarcity to value works a little differently with imaginary goods. 

Interesting items are precious, as are ones that confer significant bonuses. Dull-but-rare items, and ones that confer minor bonuses, not so much...


----------



## Shadeydm (Dec 12, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Random thoughts:
> 
> There's a magic item in Thunderspire Labyrinth that's cursed; it makes you fly into a rage when you are Bloodied.
> 
> ...




I don't think anyone is disputing the notion that you could make up or recreate old school magic items for 4E but rather lamenting the need to do so. Many of the changes to magic items that I don't like happened in 3E so this isn't really about knocking 4E from my perspective.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 12, 2008)

Miyaa said:


> You have a very disturbing DM.



I'm lucky to have a terrific DM (and while the god-in-the-box was his idea, stuffing it into the codpiece was mine).


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 12, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> Something about this really, really appeals to me (and i'm not a meanie). I can appreciate the level of balance built into 4e, but when i'm "expected" to hand out items of a certain power level at a certain time, well, it just reinforces the gaming aspect of the game and reduces the fun factor. For me, as DM.  I don't think players look at it like that.  I really have no problem handing out magic items, i just don't like being told i have to do something or i'll break the game.




Shrug. I warned the players in my game that I tend to be stingy with magic items and that they should not expect level-appropriate equipment. I think 4th handles poverty of magic items better than 3rd or older editions, so i am pleased by that.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 12, 2008)

Harlekin said:


> I think 4th handles *papacy *of magic items better than 3rd or older editions, so i am pleased by that.



What does the Pope have to do with it?


----------



## DracoSuave (Dec 12, 2008)

I think the main design for 4e wasn't that you didn't get magical items with nifty powers, but that you had magical -characters- with nifty powers.  Used to be in previous editions that if you weren't a wizard, you described your character by -what he had.-  Fighters were distinguished by their gear and their randomly rolled attributes, not by any selections or uniqueness of the player;  this was a failing of how fighters used to be handled because they were solely the result of luck or DM capriciousness.  The player had little input at all as to where his character would develop.

Now, characters decide their own path of development, and items don't play as prominant a role as to the -abilities- a character can bring.  

In 1e you described your fighter as 'I have a vorpal sword and magical plate armor that lets me teleport across the field, plus a shield that casts fear on my enemies.'  In 4e, you're a 'sword and board fighter who specializes in mobility and tactical deployment.  I have this cool maneuver that hits a guy, runs, hits another guy, then runs more...'

In the end, 4e is designed more around character than a shopping list.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 12, 2008)

EroGaki said:


> I think some of my favorite items were the cursed ones. I miss cursed items a lot. Not because they messed around with the players ( I admit that that aspect can be fun), but because they represented a facet of magic that has been lost in 3rd and 4th edition: magic can be unsafe, It can be unpredictable. It can have results that were not intended. That, in my opinion, is what killed much of the mystery and mysticism of magic items, and magic itself, in the current editions. Magic has had all of the bugs worked out of it, for better or worse. It is now safe and entirely predicable.




I agree with many points made by the OP and others, but WHAMO! This one knocks it straight out of the park! Some of the BEST magic items for pure fun were the Wand of Wonder, Deck of Many Things, Bag of Beans, etc. My son and his friends play in a group I've run for years and these are BY FAR their favorite items. 

The Wand of Wonder has saved them from TPK more than once but also made some more mundane encounters hilarious and fun, albeit more challenging at times. 

The shear paranoia when picking from the deck is an absolute blast. 

I think it also changed when magic items became a commonly traded commodity, but man, some of teh great chaos is just snuffed out of teh game and thrown to the Munchkins. I do feel 4e is trying to find a balance that 3e demolished, but it's just not there yet.


----------



## Allister (Dec 12, 2008)

I think it all comes down to "not being able to sell those items".

Take for example, this post detailing items from classic modules

If the same modules was run in 3e/4e, without a doubt, most of those magic items would be sold and used to finance more mundane but more consistent/powerful items like +2 swords/armours/cloaks etc...


----------



## billd91 (Dec 12, 2008)

Allister said:


> I think it all comes down to "not being able to sell those items".
> 
> Take for example, this post detailing items from classic modules
> 
> If the same modules was run in 3e/4e, without a doubt, most of those magic items would be sold and used to finance more mundane but more consistent/powerful items like +2 swords/armours/cloaks etc...




When run in 1st edition, a lot of those items _were_ also, without a doubt, sold using the gp values of the magic items in the DMG. And in 1e, there wasn't even a distinction between making something to sell and finding it in a hoard to sell... the GP sale value was the same either way. 

The difference between 3e and 1e wasn't the ability to _sell_ items, but the ability to easily make (or commission) them.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 12, 2008)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I dunno... it seems pretty simple to me. 1E magic item were more "mysterious" because _we had never seen them before_.
> 
> In 1982... "Bracers Of Ogre Power raises my strength to 18/00?!? What?!? Are you kidding me?!? That's the greatest thing eve-- wait what-- Girdle of Hill Giant Strength raises my strength to *19*?!? Oh my freakin' god!!!".
> 
> ...




Sure, nostalgia plays a part in it, but it goes far beyond that. Your overly simplistic presentation leaves out acknowledging the vast majority of information already posted. Then again, maybe you haven't really played much in the older editions.

They are GAUNTLETS of Ogre Power. Sorry thief and somatic spellchuckers, you are out-of-luck. They rocked, but also had a major drawback for anyone but the fighters.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 12, 2008)

Herschel said:


> They are GAUNTLETS of Ogre Power. Sorry thief and somatic spellchuckers, you are out-of-luck. They rocked, but also had a major drawback for anyone but the fighters.



Which was probably a good thing, since fighters also had a major drawback: that they were fighters 

Joking aside, what drawbacks did the more powerful girdles of giant strength have for non-fighter classes?

(Hint: none.)


----------



## Herschel (Dec 12, 2008)

Harlekin said:


> If you consider published adventures this is actually false. If you go back and look at any of the 1st ed classics, you will find that players will be veritable Christmas trees after surviving those scenarios.




This assumes a party searched every single room in the joint. In many of them, the goal was to get to the goal and get out alive. I've run "Against the Giants" a few times and all the Giants are never killed. Snurre got mega-critted early once and our sneaky little nemesis took a scroll of Raise Dead when the party holed up to heal and he grabbed some reinforcements and had some nasty surprises ready for them. They got through that alive, but didn't have much left for the chase and had to be careful heading for the Underdark. That Drow ambush I set in the cavern was downright wicked while not causing death, dropped two of the five to unconscious and some of the drow retreated to set traps if they tried to retreat back up themselves. 

In the "House of Strahd" you just try to annoy Strahd enough to escape with your life. You don't get to do a concerted search of his castle to loot it.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 12, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> Which was probably a good thing, since fighters also had a major drawback: that they were fighters
> 
> Joking aside, what drawbacks did the more powerful girdles of giant strength have for non-fighter classes?
> 
> (Hint: none.)




Girdles were a bit whack. I never let any of those out until double-digit levels, and rarely even then.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 12, 2008)

Herschel said:


> This assumes a party searched every single room in the joint. In many of them, the goal was to get to the goal and get out alive. I've run "Against the Giants" a few times and all the Giants are never killed. Snurre got mega-critted early once and our sneaky little nemesis took a scroll of Raise Dead when the party holed up to heal and he grabbed some reinforcements and had some nasty surprises ready for them. They got through that alive, but didn't have much left for the chase and had to be careful heading for the Underdark. That Drow ambush I set in the cavern was downright wicked while not causing death, dropped two of the five to unconscious and some of the drow retreated to set traps if they tried to retreat back up themselves.
> 
> In the "House of Strahd" you just try to annoy Strahd enough to escape with your life. You don't get to do a concerted search of his castle to loot it.



Well, every gm runs his game differently. To get the best evaluation at the level of magical items expected to be looted from an adventure, you really only can look at everything that is available. Dependent on the GM, you will get some proportion of that. And even if only half of all the magic available in these adventures is handed out, the players will still be laden with magic by level 6.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 12, 2008)

Harlekin said:


> Well, every gm runs his game differently. To get the best evaluation at the level of magical items expected to be looted from an adventure, you really only can look at everything that is available.





Not so.

The 1e DMG has rules that tell you how long it takes to search a given area, and how often wandering monsters occur (unless the module specifies otherwise).  If a module has a time limit, you can determine exactly what percentage of the area can be searched within that limit.  If the module does not specify that there are no wandering monsters, you can determine roughly how may additional encounters prolonged searching will cause, and what the average effects of those encounters will be.

A more in-depth analysis of any 1e module will show that the odds of finding all the treasure in most modules (while succeeding/surviving) is virtually nil, so long as the DM uses the searching times in the rules, and makes wandering monster checks in accordance to the rules/module text.


RC


----------



## Herschel (Dec 12, 2008)

Rust Monsters and Disenchanters were also in the hizouse, as were dragons where items had to save when engulfed in a breath weapon or disintigration ray.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 12, 2008)

Double post


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not so.
> 
> The 1e DMG has rules that tell you how long it takes to search a given area, and how often wandering monsters occur (unless the module specifies otherwise).  If a module has a time limit, you can determine exactly what percentage of the area can be searched within that limit.  If the module does not specify that there are no wandering monsters, you can determine roughly how may additional encounters prolonged searching will cause, and what the average effects of those encounters will be.
> 
> ...




So you are saying all this treasure was in the adventure, but the pcs were not supposed to find it? 

Furthermore, given that most of the treasure was usually carried by defeated foes or located in treasure piles/chests, PCs loose out little (10-20%) if they do not spend time searching the dungeon. 

Finally, nothing really keeps players from coming back and doing a thorough search after clearing out the section of the dungeon, assuming that wandering monsters actually have to come from somewhere and don't just pop out of empty air.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 12, 2008)

Harlekin said:


> So you are saying all this treasure was in the adventure, but the pcs were not supposed to find it?




Absolutely.  Items were placed, in many cases, to reward "good play", or to allow for the _*potential*_ of being found.  This isn't so different from the inclusion of "secret areas" that might, or might not, be found by any given group of adventurers.  In the 1e era, these things were considered hallmarks of good design.



> Furthermore, given that most of the treasure was usually carried by defeated foes or located in treasure piles/chests, PCs loose out little (10-20%) if they do not spend time searching the dungeon.




Is this based on a "feeling", or have you actually examined the modules to come up with those numbers?  



> Finally, nothing really keeps players from coming back and doing a thorough search after clearing out the section of the dungeon, assuming that wandering monsters actually have to come from somewhere and don't just pop out of empty air.




The 1e DMG has some discussion on monster populations, how areas re-fill, and how monsters react to PC incursions.  A monster lair that is severely damaged, but that manages to stave off the PCs, might not be there when the PCs get back after licking thier wounds.  Healing times in 1e play a major factor in this.  If you look at, say, Keep on the Borderlands, and read Gary Gygax's notes on how the various humanoids deal with PC incursions, it is quite clear that failure to wipe out a group might mean that the survivors -- and the treasure -- are not there when the PCs come back.

Likewise, there is a dragon hoard example in the DMG that spotlights how, if the players kill the monsters and leave, others are very likely to come in and take what is left.

Of course, this assumes a game philosophy where the PCs are not special snowflakes, where the value of treasure (or encounter) is in its potential whether found or not, where wandering monsters are not considered unfun, where the treasure doesn't follow the PCs around until they pick it up in neat parcels, and where success and failure are determined by game play rather than by meticulously balanced rules that mandate certain types of success (wealth/treasure/magic) go hand-in-hand with other types of success (levels).

TSR-D&D was, from a game design philosophy standpoint, a very different animal than WotC-D&D.  A large amount of treasure was available because it was expected that much of it would be left behind.


RC


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Is this based on a "feeling", or have you actually examined the modules to come up with those numbers?




Based on having played or gmd many of them. And based on remembering how often i removed magic treasures because the adventures were too monty haul for my tastes.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> The 1e DMG has some discussion on monster populations, how areas re-fill, and how monsters react to PC incursions.  A monster lair that is severely damaged, but that manages to stave off the PCs, might not be there when the PCs get back after licking thier wounds.  Healing times in 1e play a major factor in this.  If you look at, say, Keep on the Borderlands, and read Gary Gygax's notes on how the various humanoids deal with PC incursions, it is quite clear that failure to wipe out a group might mean that the survivors -- and the treasure -- are not there when the PCs come back.
> 
> Likewise, there is a dragon hoard example in the DMG that spotlights how, if the players kill the monsters and leave, others are very likely to come in and take what is left.
> 
> ...




I was not assuming the PCs would come back for treasure, I was assuming a scenario where every threat had fled or been killed by the players. At that point the player have ample time to tear the dungeon stone from stone to find every piece of treasure they overlooked before. If we take the earlier mentioned moathouse as an example, what is keeping the players from finding every bauble once they have killed all the cultists?


I would argue that TSR had very little design philosophy other than "that sounds fun" and most philosophy that is now ascribed to them is projected  from our vantage point of 30 years game evolution. But that is a different topic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 12, 2008)

Harlekin said:


> I was not assuming the PCs would come back for treasure, I was assuming a scenario where every threat had fled or been killed by the players. At that point the player have ample time to tear the dungeon stone from stone to find every piece of treasure they overlooked before. If we take the earlier mentioned moathouse as an example, what is keeping the players from finding every bauble once they have killed all the cultists?




Hmmmm.....possibly (1) other events in the campaign world, (2) more cultists coming from the Temple of Elemental Evil, and (3) more interesting areas to explore.  Also, once the moathouse has been emptied, the agents in the Village of Hommlet would certainly move to examine what remained.......

EDIT:  I should also note that, within the context of 1e at least, it wasn't intended that the DM tell the players where there were no more threats in an area, or when they had found everything/missed something.  Several modules include reinforcements, for example, that arrive after the PC's initial foray(s).  Players who assume that they have killed all the opposition and begin tearing the dungeon apart stone by stone may well be in for a rude awakening.

Oh, yeah, and in 1e at least you have to shell out gold for non-adventuring downtime, which means that searching stone-by-stone can bleed you dry, unless you have a very clear idea that something is hidden in some particular place.  And, since most dungeons are located in the wilderness, the DM should be rolling on the Wilderness Encounter Table to see if some monsters have located the PCs worksite.  Use the rules in the 1e DMG for clearing an area/establishing a domain, and good luck.......



> I would argue that TSR had very little design philosophy other than "that sounds fun" and most philosophy that is now ascribed to them is projected  from our vantage point of 30 years game evolution. But that is a different topic.




I would argue that reading the 1e DMG could (for many people) easily counter that argument.  

EDIT:  See also Melan's analysis of dungeon maps, showing the complexity/hidden areas of some earlier maps compared to the sterile "gotta hit every room"-type maps that you see in some adventures (from all eras).  The real classics of almost any era allow multiple routes and the possibility of missing several areas.


RC


----------



## el-remmen (Dec 12, 2008)

I must say that the first thing I do with any published adventure of any edition after the first read through, is go through with a black sharpie and mark out the magical items (and some treasure) I wanted to eliminate.  There has always been more magical stuff in printed D&D than I like, even when I did have a much more magic item-rich campaign than I have these days.


----------



## Jack7 (Dec 13, 2008)

> Items were placed, in many cases, to reward "good play", or to allow for the potential of being found. This isn't so different from the inclusion of "secret areas" that might, or might not, be found by any given group of adventurers. In the 1e era, these things were considered hallmarks of good design.





I can say this much from memory Harl.
It was often very hard to ransack a place because early versions of D&D were dangerous to the characters in ways that later versions never imagined,  or sought to entirely mitigate.

And to me that's what bothers me about later versions, though I think later versions also had/have some really positives attributes. *But when the game itself is designed in such a way* as to hand-hold players, and circumvent character danger, and *"balance risk"* (_when in life do you really get balanced risk_) in-game, and prevent you from dying, or getting too out of breath, well, you've missed one of the key elements of what separates Heroes from those who'd rather hire out their risk to more courageous types.

A fantasy game without a Hero willing to risk his head for others against things potentially far more dangerous than he is, (as opposed to just a powered up, bauble painted, self-interested mercenary who won't fight anything or anyone unless he knows the fight is a balanced and fixed one) well - that's like a magic item that's determined by how many pluses it sports rather that what kinda wonder it evokes.

As for what RC was saying about the potential of reward, rather than the assurance of reward, well that also reminds me of the fact that they call it _*treasure*_ for a reason. It's valuable because you take a real risk to get it, or somebody else takes a real risk to keep it. Or both.

If there were no real risk and cost involved it would be a token, _not a treasure_ - welfare, not wealth. And risk can always go wrong. You can fail. You can lose. Seems a radical idea these days, in-games and outside of them, but there was a day when it was the way things were.

But RCs idea about treasure being potential rather than assured also reminds me of this - *Easter Eggs.* They're excellent to find, but sometimes, you miss a few. And that's okay.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 13, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hmmmm.....possibly (1) other events in the campaign world, (2) more cultists coming from the Temple of Elemental Evil, and (3) more interesting areas to explore.  Also, once the moathouse has been emptied, the agents in the Village of Hommlet would certainly move to examine what remained.......
> 
> EDIT:  I should also note that, within the context of 1e at least, it wasn't intended that the DM tell the players where there were no more threats in an area, or when they had found everything/missed something.  Several modules include reinforcements, for example, that arrive after the PC's initial foray(s).  Players who assume that they have killed all the opposition and begin tearing the dungeon apart stone by stone may well be in for a rude awakening.




OK, you may continue to believe that although even low level adventures hand out enough magic to stock a small magic emporium, most of the items listed in an adventure will not be found by PCs that are specialized in killing and looting. However, I hope your arguments made clear to other readers of this thread that this is not the most parsimonious assumption and that serious contortions are necessary to make it to your conclusion. 




Raven Crowking said:


> I would argue that reading the 1e DMG could (for many people) easily counter that argument.
> RC




Really, a philosophy? I see an unorganized heap of underdeveloped, albeit often brilliant ideas. If there is one thing missing in the DMG it is a governing philosophy.
However, i do think that because of its chaotic nature, the DMG is a great projection surface. You will find a lot of things in there that support a given point of view, for almost any point of view.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 13, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> I can say this much from memory Harl.
> It was often very hard to ransack a place because early versions of D&D were dangerous to the characters in ways that later versions never imagined,  or sought to entirely mitigate.
> 
> And to me that's what bothers me about later versions, though I think later versions also had/have some really positives attributes. *But when the game itself is designed in such a way* as to hand-hold players, and circumvent character danger, and *"balance risk"* (_when in life do you really get balanced risk_) in-game, and prevent you from dying, or getting too out of breath, well, you've missed one of the key elements of what separates Heroes from those who'd rather hire out their risk to more courageous types.
> ...




You are aware that we are in generic edition war territory here? 

Into the breach: Your argument has two commonly made mistakes:
1) The first mistake is assuming balanced encounters do not mean risk to the pcs. The opposite is true:A balanced encounter is one where there is risk  but not certainty of the pc's death. And if you played modern editions of D&D you may have made the experience that characters die even in balanced encounters. So there is clearly real risk involved. And I have seen multiple TPKs in 3rd edition, probably more than I have ever seen in the older editions. 

2)The second mistake is assuming that later editions only "allow" balanced encounters. All they do is provide tools to create balanced encounters. How to use them is the GM's choice. The 4th edition DMG  even states that some encounters should not be balanced.  Remember, in any RPG, a GM should design challenges that the Pcs can either defeat of avoid (The operative word is "can" not "will"). So you want to know as a GM if your group can handle 3 Trolls, otherwise you better give them an option to run away or parley. In older editions you just made this assessment by eyeballing rather than using the support provided by the rules.


----------



## Jack7 (Dec 13, 2008)

> So you want to know as a GM if your group can handle 3 Trolls, otherwise you better give them an option to run away or parley.





Why would I as a DM determine if my players fight, parley, or run away? 
That's their job. How they react to the world, that's their play, not for me to determine.

That's exactly what I mean by an underlying ideal of balance.
It's so pernicious and deeply infiltrated, it's almost unnoticed as a principle. You don't balance, you give tools of balance, so that you can balance without   
balancing and provide the potential for risk without real risk. And black is white and slavery is freedom, and the very best way over the mountaintop is to start swimming now.

I'm saying all this facetiously of course, but in all honesty it ain't my job as DM to tell the players how to act, to balance the world for them, or pre-determine their possible courses of action, or reaction. I don't think for them, I don't worry for them, I'm not their momma. I just provide imaginary scenarios and situations of risk and opportunity. What they do with that, well, they're big enough to handle for themselves.

You don't lay out balanced courses of action for a Hero, because _that's their job._ Come hell or high water, heroes adapt and overcome.

But as for Edition Wars, I'm not interested in that. Though I reckon it's hard to compare apples and oranges when the rules are, "you shall not speak of the differences between apples and oranges when you seek to compare them." But as for me I'm talking general principles and approaches to gaming, including how the ideas and items of magic are approached, not who is zooming who.

Now if you'll excuse me Harl I'm gonna go watch the _*Brave and the Bold*_. Red Tornado tonight. I always liked that guy.

Yak with ya later.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 13, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> Why would I as a DM determine if my players fight, parley, or run away?
> That's their job. How they react to the world, that's their play, not for me to determine.




Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear enough. i am not telling my players to react. But you know how there are encounter setups that give players no choice? For example, if the PCs are clearly unable to handle the Trolls, i cannot set up an ambush where the PCs are attacked without warning and without a way to flee. That's gamemastering 101. 

However, if the Trolls are a balanced encounter, then such an ambush can be set up.


----------



## nightwyrm (Dec 13, 2008)

The balancing guidelines in the DMG is to give the DM an idea of how dangerous an encounter is for the PC party. It doesn't restrict you to only using risk-free encounters. The DM can make harder or easier encounters as he sees fit. But the guidelines let the DM know what he's sending so that he doesn't make a crazy hard encounter when he wants a easy one, or vice versa. The DM can still populate the world with nothing but ancient red dragons in a 1st level game if he wants.  Just don't expect the players to be staying in the game for long.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 13, 2008)

Harlekin, if you can read even the first five pages of the 1e DMG and come away believing there was no design philosophy involved, nothing I (nor, I suspect, anyone else) can say is going to persuade you otherwise.  But I find it as mind-boggling a conclusion to draw as if I said the same about the 4e DMG (which I would not).

EDIT:  I just re-read the first 5 pages of the 1e DMG before typing the above.  This isn't based on memory, or upon idle speculation!    Gary is as entertaining to read as ever.

For the record, I think that playing WotC-D&D mechanics with a TSR-D&D philosophy has made 3e a much better game for me than it was following the WotC-D&D philosophy.  In the Megadungeon thread, I suggested that the DM simply chuck encounter-and-treasure balancing and let the players worry about deciding what they are capable of tackling.

IMHO, it makes for a better game.  YMMV, though.


RC


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 13, 2008)

Harlekin said:


> For example, if the PCs are clearly unable to handle the Trolls, i cannot set up an ambush where the PCs are attacked without warning and without a way to flee. That's gamemastering 101.
> 
> However, if the Trolls are a balanced encounter, then such an ambush can be set up.



If the PCs don't use intelligent scouting options to learn what may be encountered in a given area (thief sneaking ahead, interrogating defeated monsters, asking NPCs, _clairaudience_, _clairvoyance_, noticing Troll spore in near the vicinity, etc.) and are ambushed by Trolls with no way to flee, their deaths are mostly their own (the players') fault. A TPK in such an instance ought to be a learning for the players.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 13, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> For the record, I think that playing WotC-D&D mechanics with a TSR-D&D philosophy has made 3e a much better game for me than it was following the WotC-D&D philosophy.  In the Megadungeon thread, I suggested that the DM simply chuck encounter-and-treasure balancing and let the players worry about deciding what they are capable of tackling.
> 
> IMHO, it makes for a better game.  YMMV, though.
> RC



Not sure about that, I have never seen a game improve by many random deaths. However, I am very willing to believe that it makes for a better game if your players _think_ that you do not balance encounters. Hmmm.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 13, 2008)

I see Raven et al are still in disbelief with Q's thread even though he answered those "well you're not supposed to find all those treasure".

As for the belief that in 1e that one can "plan" for encounters beforehand, how does that jive with the random encounter table?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 13, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> I see Raven et al are still in disbelief with Q's thread even though he answered those "well you're not supposed to find all those treasure".




Sure, given that there are some very good, specific reasons why you are very unlikely to do so, and given that his answer amounts to nothing more than "Sure you are", there is no reason to accept his answer.

I began DMing on Christmas Day of 1979, and I have run most of the TSR classics many times, for many different players (due, in a large part, to a four year stint in the US Army) in many states.  Not so long ago, I ran KotB using the EN World conversion to 3.5.

IME, despite having played these modules dozens of times with over a hundred different players, _*no one has ever found all of the treasure in even one of them*_.  The average haul, IME, is approximately 25% of what is available in the adventuring area.

If Q did an analysis that showed the time required to "Greyhawk" the modules he has examined, including the time needed to rest and recover due to the extra encounters "Greyhawking" forces on the players, it would quickly become evident that there is a real unlikelihood of gaining most of the treasures in most modules.  It would also show that the tournament modules have the easiest loot to acquire, simply because acquiring said loot is part of the scoring of the tournament, and the characters do not need to be suitable afterwards for an ongoing campaign when designing a tournament.  Tournament modules also have, by and large, the most linear maps of the 1e era....largely for the same reason.

If Q's analysis was correct, and I am wrong, I have offered some pretty straightforward criteria to proving me wrong -- square footage x time searching per square foot = X time to Greyhawk the dungeon.  Y wandering encounters happen on average within X time, characters must rest after Z encounters, increasing time factor by a minimum of 8 hours.  You can figure out exactly how long any adventure would take to Greyhawk and then determine whether or not the PCs would be likely to survive/do so based upon that estimate.

IMHO, of course.  

Should a sufficient quantity of any such evidence that demonstrates that Q is correct be offered, I will shift my opinion.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 13, 2008)

Harlekin said:


> Not sure about that, I have never seen a game improve by many random deaths. However, I am very willing to believe that it makes for a better game if your players _think_ that you do not balance encounters. Hmmm.




The DM making the players responsible for balance =/= many random deaths.

It does potentially mean many non-random deaths until play improves, however.


RC


----------



## Toben the Many (Dec 13, 2008)

The OP illustrates why I do my magic items the way I do now. 

For a long time, now, instead of giving my PCs a lot of magic stuff with the "Christmas Tree effect" I've given them just a few magic items. However, each item I've given them has been multi-use item, that does a variety of things. Some of those things are directly useful (like damage and AC), but some of the effects are more "random". 

It's worked out for me for a while, now.


----------



## EroGaki (Dec 13, 2008)

Toben the Many said:


> The OP illustrates why I do my magic items the way I do now.
> 
> For a long time, now, instead of giving my PCs a lot of magic stuff with the "Christmas Tree effect" I've given them just a few magic items. However, each item I've given them has been multi-use item, that does a variety of things. Some of those things are directly useful (like damage and AC), but some of the effects are more "random".
> 
> It's worked out for me for a while, now.





Can I join your game?


----------



## billd91 (Dec 13, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> I see Raven et al are still in disbelief with Q's thread even though he answered those "well you're not supposed to find all those treasure".
> 
> As for the belief that in 1e that one can "plan" for encounters beforehand, how does that jive with the random encounter table?




I don't think anyone's saying you can absolutely plan for every contingency. But how do you plan for random encounters? You figure out how to reduce your vulnerability - you keep moving and don't spend lots of time doing meticulous searching and fiddling around. So you stock up on magical healing you can use on the fly and don't "Greyhawk" rooms but spend short amounts of time searching most likely locations efficiently.
You can't completely eliminate the risk, but you reduce it through appropriate planning.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 13, 2008)

nightwyrm said:


> The balancing guidelines in the DMG is to give the DM an idea of how dangerous an encounter is for the PC party. It doesn't restrict you to only using risk-free encounters. The DM can make harder or easier encounters as he sees fit. But the guidelines let the DM know what he's sending so that he doesn't make a crazy hard encounter when he wants a easy one, or vice versa.



The problem I keep encountering is that my players invariably find ways of turning the crazy hard encounters into  well-won victories, and the easy ones into near-TPKs.  I can balance till I'm blue in the face, but I can't account for their dice, or their thought processes.

In most modules, the wandering monster encounters usually average as lower-risk than the planned ones.  That said, I don't tend to use wandering monsters once a given dungeon has been cleaned out because...well, it's been cleaned out.  The only place something can wander from is in through the front door; and if the place has a dangerous reputation most things will avoid it anyway.  In fact, the continued appearance of wandering monsters in a cleaned-out dungeon is a pretty good indication the place *hasn't* been cleaned out, and they've missed something.

Lanefan


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 13, 2008)

I am disappointed in how for me the magic left the game.  I also think a lot of the things that gave it the magical feeling helped balance the game.  And 3e became a spell caster paradise because of it.  

Fireballs not filling a volume made the fireball spell absurdly reliable, same with bouncing lightning bolts.   The difficulty in learning spells, making magic items in earlier editions was a huge balancing factor.  I loved the chapters in the complete wizards handbook on outfittig your place with a library in order to research spells.  When you just learn 2 every level, and the idea of spell research falls away, it stopped feeling like a magical magic system and more like a game mechanic.  And it had the side effect of giving spellcasters a power up whcih totally wa snot needed, especially when they are on the same XP scale.

Spell wise I remember one of my largest disappointments in 3e was because how clone worked in 3e, a cool story arc in the forgotten realms could not happen.  Near the end of 2e, the spell caster(whose name I can't ever remember) who invented the stasis clone spell had an incident.  

Back in the day clone created a clone, stasis clone was kind of like the 3e clone spell in that it was a you in stasis until your death, but the difference was, your soul did not go to the clone, it was just a clone of you with your memories and level -1.  So the story arc was all his clones in stasis became active at once and he had hundreds.

Originally if a clone was active on the same plane as the original, both parties felt an urge to murder each other.  So hundreds of high level mage clones were running aorund the world, grabbing up stashes of magic and slaughtering each other in the streets.

Frickin awesoem to me.  In 3e the clone is just a lump of flesh waiting for your sould to enter it.  It just took the cool out of it for me when it became a raise dead variant with a trigger.  

Side note on expected magic items in earlier editions.  As pointed out earlier you lost a ton of items due to area of effect spells and effects.  Fail a save and then you have to amke a save for every item on your person.  Cloaks don't sruvive dragon breath well.  Also the hate in my heart for mordinkins disjunction is legendary.(okay I love it, but dang items went down the tubes when that spell came into play)  So even if you magically got every item in a dungeon instead of the 30-50% I am used to, you would not be stocked up for long.


----------



## SHARK (Dec 13, 2008)

Greetings!

Wow. I don't know. Maybe I'm just not *getting* what some of you are so ferociously arguing about. Balance? Don't balance? It's the DM's responsibility to balance? It's *not* the DM's responsibility to balance encounters?

Gee whiz. Honestly, come on now.

If you have a party that is suitable in general to fight trolls, well, if 3 trolls would be too easy, the DM shouldn't ambush them with 10 trolls. The DM in such a case should think perhaps 5 or 6 or even 7 trolls might be just the right degree of challenge, without being overwhelming and giving the PC's a dismal--and forgone defeat.

It *is* the responsibility of the DM--in my view, anyways--to design or adjuducate randomly rolled encounters--to be reasonably balanced--in that the party has a decent chance of emerging victorious, but also has a reasonable chance of experiencing defeat. Last time I checked...that's the goodness of providing a *Challenge*. Not a cakewalk, and not a damn exercise in smearing the party's characters all over the dungeon floor faster than they can blink. Isn't *ENCOUNTER DESIGN* something learned in basic Dungeon Mastering Campaigns 101 anymore?

As for magic items. Well, honestly, yes, *textwise* 1E wins hands down. That's simply due to the great Gary Gygax. It's been a long time since then, so the flavour text in new editions of D&D magic items are *bleh* Yeah, I get that. I agree. Thus, you have to make up your own.

Jack7, my friend, when it comes to making new powers and stuff, you just gotta get your hands dirty and make up your own interesting, mysterious magic items that will enthrall and exhilirate your players. When using published items, feel free to add, subtract, and tweak various powers and properties, adding new effects, drawbacks, limitations, whatever my friend. YOU must make the magic items interesting. We can all pretty much forget about WOTC making most magic items terribly interesting.

Why, you might ask? Because it's not the same writers. A different generation of writers. Not everyone is a good writer, or you have good writers, but who have different styles and specialties, or talents, in what they write, and *how* they write. Matching the wonderful Gary Gygax is a asking to fill some very large shoes indeed!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Obryn (Dec 13, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> I see Raven et al are still in disbelief with Q's thread even though he answered those "well you're not supposed to find all those treasure".
> 
> As for the belief that in 1e that one can "plan" for encounters beforehand, how does that jive with the random encounter table?



Yep, as an aside to folks reading this thread who may not know the background...

RC and others very certain that they played AD&D _right_ back in the day (and still do so now).  They do not remember finding much treasure, and as a result, character advancement was rather slow.

Quasqueton and others are _also_ very certain they played D&D _right_ back in the day (and still do so now).  They remember finding quite a bit more treasure, and as a result, advancement was much faster, and in fact close to or (at low levels) exceeding 3.5's.  

Q wrote a very well-researched thread about this, and since it doesn't match some peoples' experiences (but does match others'), it's controversial, and this argument has spread outwards to every single thread that so much as mentions either advancement or treasure in 1e.

-O


----------



## SHARK (Dec 13, 2008)

Greetings!

Here is one item used in my campaigns.

"Darthan" (The Hand of Judgement)
Weapon Type: Light Mace Damage: 1d6

"Darthan" was crafted over 12 centuries ago by the holy priest Halbar, a high priest of the god Ullric. The mace is just over 3' in length, and crafted of black steel, and inlaid with mithril. The head of the mace is a finely detailed wolf-head, with life-like pale grey eyes. The pommel of the mace is crafted into the likeness of two hands, gripping each other to form a larger "fist" with the fingers interlaced. "Darthan" is very intelligent, and very perceptive and wise, though not especially charming. The mace is valiant, devout, and zealous, being devoted to protecting followers of Ullric, and serving the interests of the fierce god of war, winter and wolves. The mace speaks on occasion to it's wielder to offer encouragement, as well as advice and spiritual counsel. The mace is a fierce opponent of all evil aberrations and monstrous humanoids.

(1) +5
(2) Holy (Inflict +2d6 Holy damage against all evil creaatures)
(3) Ghost Touch (Allows normal attack against all incorporeal undead)
(4) Bane against Monstrous Humanoids (+7 weapon; inflicts bonus +2d6 damage against such opponents.)
(5) Bane against Aberrations. (+7 weapon; inflicts bonus +2d6 damage against such opponents.)

Intelligent Item

Possesses Speech and Telepathy; 120' Darkvision, blindsense and hearing.
Read Languages, Read Magic
Int 19, Wis 19, Cha 10 
Item Ego: 35
Languages Known: Common, Elvish, Dwarvish, Celestial
Alignment: Lawful Neutral

Lesser Powers (4)
Item has 10 ranks in Sense Motive 
Item has 10 ranks in Diplomacy
Item has 10 ranks in Knowledge (History)
Item has 10 ranks in Knowledge (Nature)

Greater Powers (3)

Item can use Fear against foes, 3/day
Item can use Haste on wielder, 3/day
Item can cast Daylight, 3/day

Special Purpose: Defend the servants and interests of the god, Ullric.
Dedicated Power: Item provides the wielder with +2 bonus to attacks, saves, and checks.


----------



## Delta (Dec 13, 2008)

SHARK said:


> It *is* the responsibility of the DM--in my view, anyways--to design or adjuducate randomly rolled encounters--to be reasonably balanced--in that the party has a decent chance of emerging victorious, but also has a reasonable chance of experiencing defeat.




But that's purely a matter of taste. Even the 3E DMG has a section called "Tailored vs. Status Quo" adventure design, that supports either philosophy.


One thing that I do notice between editions is that if you use the 3E random encounter tables, they always result in an encounter exactly equal to the given level of the dungeon. 1E encounter tables didn't do that, so you had harder & easier encounters automatically built into the tables.


----------



## SHARK (Dec 13, 2008)

Delta said:


> But that's purely a matter of taste. Even the 3E DMG has a section called "Tailored vs. Status Quo" adventure design, that supports either philosophy.
> 
> 
> One thing that I do notice between editions is that if you use the 3E random encounter tables, they always result in an encounter exactly equal to the given level of the dungeon. 1E encounter tables didn't do that, so you had harder & easier encounters automatically built into the tables.




Greetings!

Yep! That's right, Delta. That's why a good DM that *doesn't* want every encounter perfectly *balanced* can and should--make up some custom encounter tables that provide a range of possibilities of encountering weaker, equal, or stronger encounters.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Staffan (Dec 13, 2008)

A big chunk of the lack of "wonder" in 4e items comes via 3e and its item costs. Assigning a gp value to every item is essentially turning the items into a point-based system, and point-based systems tend to have a lot less flavor in them.

For example, look at the _ring of shooting stars_ in 3e. It's a pretty cool item, letting you cast _dancing lights_ or _light_ with varying frequencies as well as a pair of cool offensive powers (_ball lightning_ and _shooting star_). But it costs 50,000 gp, making it the kind of thing you find at 15th to 20th level. At that level, lightning balls that hit for a total of 4 to 6 d6es once per night and what's essentialy a 7d6 fireball (DC 13 for half) paired with 3d6 impact damage (except they're both static values) twice per week just isn't that exciting. From a power level point of view, the +5 to AC you'd get from a _ring of protection +5_ is way better. Hell, the +4 you can get from little over half the price is also better, or the defensive benefits of a _ring of evasion_. So, you won't be seeing many 3e characters with a _ring of shooting stars_.

This is also the same reasoning that probably makes _wands of cure light wounds_ the most common magic item in the D&D universe - they are so dirt cheap for what they do that not using them to get back on your feet after a fight makes no sense at all.

I think this is the same thing that happens when you compare point-based and class-based systems. Class-based systems allow, to a greater degree, that you include some nice flavor or situational abilities as well, that in a point-based system would get eschewed in favor of greater ability in your area of specialization.

For example, take my Warlock character in WoW. Her focus is on spells that inflict lots of ongoing damage, life-draining spells, and summoning a demon that keeps enemies away from her. But she also has a couple of utility spells, like Water Breathing, or summoning a demonic eye that she can send out to scout on the surrounding area. If I had built the character with a point-based system, I would never have chosen abilities like these, but since I have them anyway I might as well use them, and I feel they add quite a bit of flavor.

I think they were on the right track with things like these when they talked about "siloing" abilities in 4e design, but the implementation seemed only to extend to turning a bunch of stuff into rituals, and to some extent separating utility powers from attack powers (though most utility powers are still combat powers).


----------



## billd91 (Dec 13, 2008)

Staffan said:


> A big chunk of the lack of "wonder" in 4e items comes via 3e and its item costs. Assigning a gp value to every item is essentially turning the items into a point-based system, and point-based systems tend to have a lot less flavor in them.
> 
> For example, look at the _ring of shooting stars_ in 3e. It's a pretty cool item, letting you cast _dancing lights_ or _light_ with varying frequencies as well as a pair of cool offensive powers (_ball lightning_ and _shooting star_). But it costs 50,000 gp, making it the kind of thing you find at 15th to 20th level. At that level, lightning balls that hit for a total of 4 to 6 d6es once per night and what's essentialy a 7d6 fireball (DC 13 for half) paired with 3d6 impact damage (except they're both static values) twice per week just isn't that exciting. From a power level point of view, the +5 to AC you'd get from a _ring of protection +5_ is way better. Hell, the +4 you can get from little over half the price is also better, or the defensive benefits of a _ring of evasion_. So, you won't be seeing many 3e characters with a _ring of shooting stars_.




I think you're close to the right track. Prices on magic items wasn't new since they were there in 1e. But the pricing of items then was intended to be reasonable for selling the item, primarily, rather than buying or making the item. So, in at least some respects, there was a lot less need for rampant item value inflation and that ring of shooting stars could be more reasonably priced at 15,000 (rather than 50,000) and a vorpal sword at 50,000 (rather than 128,000).

Plus, though there were implied level/wealth guidelines with respect to power of magic weapons and the requirement to buy your way out of your current level with cash, there were no other really explicit guidelines about placement of magic treasure other than the admonition to be generally stingy and make challenges reasonably appropriate to the treasure find. The random treasure tables could lead to some quirky placements even though they tended to favor weaker items, but the DM was fully expected to overrule them as necessary.

3e magical treasure placement and wealth values were tremendously affected by the ease with which items could be made. That had the two effects of skewing interesting and quirky items into the "so expensive and marginal in use, why would I make (keep) it?" category and promoting the strategy of making stuff that was useful in 90% or more of the cases in which you want magic items. And that's the Big 6 right there.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 13, 2008)

SHARK said:


> It *is* the responsibility of the DM--in my view, anyways--to design or adjuducate randomly rolled encounters--to be reasonably balanced--in that the party has a decent chance of emerging victorious, but also has a reasonable chance of experiencing defeat. Last time I checked...that's the goodness of providing a *Challenge*.




SHARK, always nice to hear from you.

Consider, if you will, the original concept of a megadungeon.  PCs of any level can attempt any level of the dungeon, but as the dungeon descends, the challenges become harder.  The DM does not determine whether or not the PCs have a decent chance of emerging victorious from any encounter.  The players do, and they do so based upon where they choose to go.

It is relatively easy to map the same philosophy onto the world at large.  So long as the players have a reasonable means to guage the "threat level" of various regions, they determine what level of risk they want to accept.  Knowing, of course, that greater risk often (but not always) leads to greater reward.

If the players know that Smaug lives on the Lonely Mountain, and they decide to go and attack Smaug at 1st level, I don't feel at all bad about letting them encounter Smaug.  And I don't care what their chances of survival are.

Likewise, if the players know of a local kobold nest, and decide to wipe it out at 10th level, I don't feel at all bad about letting them mop up the joint easily for a few copper pieces and trinkets.

IMHO, player decision-driven campaigns make for the best RPG experiences.  YMMV.



Obryn said:


> Q wrote a very well-researched thread about this, and since it doesn't match some peoples' experiences (but does match others'), it's controversial, and this argument has spread outwards to every single thread that so much as mentions either advancement or treasure in 1e.




Q wrote an excellent article that listed what was available (i.e., what was in the module), but it didn't provide anything in the way of research re: how "available" the treasure actually was (i.e., what was required to actually get the listed treasure).

I offered some very specific guidelines about what would demonstrate me wrong.  Time required to search is extremely simple to determine.

It isn't about who "played the game right".


RC


----------



## SHARK (Dec 13, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> SHARK, always nice to hear from you.
> 
> Consider, if you will, the original concept of a megadungeon.  PCs of any level can attempt any level of the dungeon, but as the dungeon descends, the challenges become harder.  The DM does not determine whether or not the PCs have a decent chance of emerging victorious from any encounter.  The players do, and they do so based upon where they choose to go.
> 
> ...




Greetings!

Hail, my friend! Well, of course! I use many such encounters--I forgot what the DMG calls them at the moment--"Fixed" and "Tailored" or something like that. Indeed, I have many areas that the PC's would die swiftly in if they were foolish enough to go there! 

I suppose I should have been more specific.

My comments were meant with the line of reasoning...the PC's are traveling in an area reasonably expected to be equal with them...they've been fighting Kobolds, bandits and goblins--or maybe if somewhat higher, say, in a cavern system--they are fighting Orcs, Ogres, and Trolls. Within that *context*--the DM has the responsibility of providing balanced encounters. They wouldn't expect to run into a room of four Lvl 60 dragons, or if they encountered something less grand, but clearly much more powerful--then they should have a reasonable chance of escape.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Rel (Dec 13, 2008)

Folks if there are old arguments to be rehashed, then please let the the hasher state their position for themselves rather than do it for them.  That will lead to a much more productive discussion.


----------



## Andor (Dec 13, 2008)

SPoD said:


> Not every person who picks up the game wants Mystery and Wonder. And it is easier for a DM who wants it to put it back than it is for a DM who doesn't to remove it.




If they don't want mystery and wonder they don't want Dungeons & Dragons, they want Papers & Paychecks.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 13, 2008)

Andor said:


> If they don't want mystery and wonder they don't want Dungeons & Dragons, they want Papers & Paychecks.




I dunno. I often wonder where my paycheck goes and why it goes so fast. And that's not even mentioning the 401K contribution being thrown in to the great black hole...


----------



## malraux (Dec 13, 2008)

I think another area ripe for interesting effects could be the rituals section.  If you want a weird power that the PCs can use but that isn't a weapon or the like, why not make it a ritual scroll?


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 13, 2008)

Andor said:


> If they don't want mystery and wonder they don't want Dungeons & Dragons, they want Papers & Paychecks.




Thanks for dictating to other people what they want. That's useful in a discussion.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Dec 13, 2008)

I am not sure if this has been brought up yet, but the sheer number of magic items I think has a impact. No matter how interesting a magic item it is if you know there is whole lot more powerful ones out there or you already got a ton then it loses some of its luster.

In a way it is sorta funny a low-magic game would probably help even simple magic items like a +5 flaming longsword look/feel much more interesting then a campaign with many magical items.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 13, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Thanks for dictating to other people what they want. That's useful in a discussion.




He actually makes a very good point. D&D is a fantasy rpg. If your biggest concern is numbers and a power curve there are far better options out there in video games and even professions.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 13, 2008)

Herschel said:


> He actually makes a very good point. D&D is a fantasy rpg. If your biggest concern is numbers and a power curve there are far better options out there in video games and even professions.



And if that's not his biggest concern?

Perhaps you could ask what his biggest concern is, rather than assuming?


----------



## Herschel (Dec 13, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> And if that's not his biggest concern?
> 
> Perhaps you could ask what his biggest concern is, rather than assuming?





Conversely, you may want to not assume I was referring specifically to him or to any one person but possibly outlining a general principle.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Dec 13, 2008)

Herschel said:


> He actually makes a very good point. D&D is a fantasy rpg. If your biggest concern is numbers and a power curve there are far better options out there in video games and even professions.




So you have to like interesting magic items with a fantastic backstory now? Poor fellows that just wanted a +2 sword, but play interesting characters.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 13, 2008)

Keefe the Thief said:


> So you have to like interesting magic items with a fantastic backstory now? Poor fellows that just wanted a +2 sword, but play interesting characters.




I'm surprised at the number of obtuse martyrs on here. Try reading it again without the victim card. Either that or I can get my pliers and help you off the cross.

There are far better, more efficient games activities if number crunching is your thing. Odds Making, cards and gambling, for example. These don't have a fantasy base and are all about playing the numbers and can also be very good social activities. There are better gaming systems for numbers crunching too.

Once again, D&D is a fantasy RPG. If magic & mystery aren't your thing then you should be doing something else. If I'm a vegan you can bet I'm not sitting down at a rib joint regularly for the cole slaw. I'm not telling you what you have to like, just pointing out the (what should be) obvious.


----------



## Felon (Dec 13, 2008)

Herschel said:


> He actually makes a very good point. D&D is a fantasy rpg. If your biggest concern is numbers and a power curve there are far better options out there in video games and even professions.



Well, that's your opinion. Little Raven's point is, however, factual: telling people why they are (or aren't) supposed to be playing D&D is a dead end. As soon as someone steps up and says "I don't play D&D because of mystery and wonder; I like character-optimization and tabletop skirmish combat", then Andor's declaration becomes just so much empty air.


----------



## malraux (Dec 13, 2008)

Herschel said:


> I'm surprised at the number of obtuse martyrs on here. Try reading it again without the victim card. Either that or I can get my pliers and help you off the cross.
> 
> There are far better, more efficient games activities if number crunching is your thing. Odds Making, cards and gambling, for example. These don't have a fantasy base and are all about playing the numbers and can also be very good social activities. There are better gaming systems for numbers crunching too.




Wanting to know if I should add + 3 or + 4 to a die roll is too extreme a form of number crunching?


----------



## Herschel (Dec 13, 2008)

malraux said:


> Wanting to know if I should add + 3 or + 4 to a die roll is too extreme a form of number crunching?





Heck no, nor do I imply that. I might not have particularly liked Andor's original verbiage, but his reply to SPoD made a good point: D&D is a fantasy RPG. Magic & mystery are basic, core parts of the game.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 13, 2008)

Felon said:


> Well, that's your opinion. Little Raven's point is, however, factual: telling people why they are (or aren't) supposed to be playing D&D is a dead end. As soon as someone steps up and says "I don't play D&D because of mystery and wonder; I like character-optimization and tabletop skirmish combat", then Andor's declaration becomes just so much empty air.




Andor wasn't telling anyone they shouldn't be playing anything. He was pointing out a basic, core concept in the game. If you like table top skirmish combat as your primary enjoyment then there are a number of better games. D&D Miniatures was a better option. There's nothing wrong with wanting your character to be decent and whupping up on some baddies, nobody is saying there is. BUt if your emphasis is on tabletop skirmish combat, then there's one example of a more efficient option.

SPoD's original post was that those core concepts basically weren't important enough to have in the resource material and could be read as implying they weren't a big part of the game. 

Well, they are. You know, wizards and monsters and that kind of stuff.


----------



## malraux (Dec 13, 2008)

Herschel said:


> Heck no, nor do I imply that. I might not have particularly liked Andor's original verbiage, but his reply to SPoD made a good point: D&D is a fantasy RPG. Magic & mystery are basic, core parts of the game.




So is rolling a d20 and adding numbers to it.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 13, 2008)

malraux said:


> So is rolling a d20 and adding numbers to it.





Who said they weren't? Although you could argue it as rolling a D20 and subtracting, depending on edition and calculation method.


----------



## Andor (Dec 14, 2008)

To quote a recent Girl Genius "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."

If there is no wonder, and no mystery it isn't magic, it's science with newts and circles instead of cogs and circuits. If I want to play with science I don't need an RPG, I have a garage and a soldering iron. 

If you don't want magic in your game, you shouldn't be playing a fantasy RPG. Period. Play a SF game, play a modern day game, play a historical game, play an alternate historical game where you explore the ramifications of a chinese expedition introducing horses and gunpowder to south america before the spainiards arrive. 

Do not however whine that a fantasy game has magic in it, because that is the _whole freaking point!_


----------



## Gimby (Dec 14, 2008)

Herschel said:


> Andor wasn't telling anyone they shouldn't be playing anything. He was pointing out a basic, core concept in the game. If you like table top skirmish combat as your primary enjoyment then there are a number of better games. D&D Miniatures was a better option. There's nothing wrong with wanting your character to be decent and whupping up on some baddies, nobody is saying there is. BUt if your emphasis is on tabletop skirmish combat, then there's one example of a more efficient option.




Its not neccesarily a player issue though, it can equally be a character one.  If I'm playing Wacky McNutjob then I'll love to get a Rod of Wonder.  If I'm playing Sgt Grimm, then I'm going to dump that unreliable junk as fast as possible and go for the +1 thats going to help me live through the next day.

The magic and wonder doesn't have to be in items - places, NPCs, plots can all provide that without needing random magic items.  See how many threads there are about people playing low-magic campaigns or asking how to hack the game to make them work.

On top of that , while the random powers can be fun, they can also be very damaging to a campaign - theres plently of stories out there about how a Deck of Many Things derailed or destroyed a game.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 14, 2008)

Gimby said:


> Its not neccesarily a player issue though, it can equally be a character one. If I'm playing Wacky McNutjob then I'll love to get a Rod of Wonder. If I'm playing Sgt Grimm, then I'm going to dump that unreliable junk as fast as possible and go for the +1 thats going to help me live through the next day.
> 
> The magic and wonder doesn't have to be in items - places, NPCs, plots can all provide that without needing random magic items. See how many threads there are about people playing low-magic campaigns or asking how to hack the game to make them work.
> 
> On top of that , while the random powers can be fun, they can also be very damaging to a campaign - theres plently of stories out there about how a Deck of Many Things derailed or destroyed a game.





I'm not disagreeing with any of your basic points, except the last one.

If you allow the deck, you had better be prepared for all the possible outcomes. If it derails a campaign, so be it. If things blow up too much, giving the last living character a wish with his draw that can be used to reverse the events by going back in time just a bit is a pretty easy solution if you really want to reverse it. Just let the players know they would get the exact same pulls if they tried to use it "again". 

Or let him go recruit a new party of characters around him just like if the group narrowly avoided TPK.

The DM chose to leave it in/insert it and the characters chose to draw from it. You can also choose to charge that elder wyrm with your bard or play it safe. Both have their merits.


----------



## Jack7 (Dec 14, 2008)

I hope ladies (assuming there are any in this thread) and gentlemen that this won't turn into anything more than a peculiarities argument (I like this, you don't, so you're a jerk). On the other hand I don't really see how folks can argue without disagreeing about content. (I can see how you do it without being disagreeable people, but not about what you're actually arguing about.) 

That said I got no way to control this, and maybe it shouldn't be controlled, but then again, c'est la vie. I think people oughtta be tough enough to take a few insults in pursuit of their cause, it's just usually that's not necessary to get your point across if all you're arguing with is words. Instead of with bullets and knives, when it's kinda hard not to take it personal. But that's just me.




> So you have to like interesting magic items with a fantastic backstory now? Poor fellows that just wanted a +2 sword, but play interesting characters.




It don't necessarily have to be either/or Keefe. It could be that an interesting magical item enhances rather than replaces a character's own nature. Becomes an ally, part of his nature, lore, personality. As when men think of Arthur they think of Caliburn, or when men think of Roland they think of Durandal and his Horn. That is it doesn't have to be a man overshadowing his sword, or a sword overshadowing his man. there was a time when it was common for men to consider their swords, and items such as that as part of their nature, as symbolic of their own power. The Staff of Merlin, the Rod of Aaron, the Staff of Moses. You carried such items throughout your life and career. Sometimes they were passed on and sometimes they were so unique to you they couldn't be employed by anyone else, and so they were buried with you. That's definitely something I miss. In the game. 

Magic in-game is becoming modernized to the point that people lose associations with what they possess, and instead everything about them is expendable, even their swords, staves, and most important heirlooms. There was a time when magical items were heirlooms, expressive of the nature of an individual, not disposable paper napkins you used and discarded later on. They stayed with you, adventured with you, became part of you. And that was magical, and others knew those things about you. Because they could plainly see it in what you carried. It was like a marque, a signature, a signet ring saying, "This is me." And when others saw what you carried they knew it was you and it was part of your legend. Part of your fame. It was part of your name.

*Compare this:* "I am Arthur, King of Britain, and here be Excalibur that I won from the ancient stone with my own hand." 

*With this:* "I am Thaddeus and here is my +3 longsword that I bought at a discount! It was an upgrade from my old +2 short sword! When I get enough experience I'll sell this sword too and buy me a +4 Bastard! Huzzah!"

Something gets lost in the translation. Something too has been lost in the game over time in the rush to trade meaning for mechanics.




> I think another area ripe for interesting effects could be the rituals section. If you want a weird power that the PCs can use but that isn't a weapon or the like, why not make it a ritual scroll?




Maybe not even a scroll. Maybe rituals associated with magical items in strange or unusual ways. That would potentially open up a whole new field of magic/magical item usage. 




> Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear enough. i am not telling my players to react. But you know how there are encounter setups that give players no choice? For example, if the PCs are clearly unable to handle the Trolls, i cannot set up an ambush where the PCs are attacked without warning and without a way to flee. That's gamemastering 101.
> 
> However, if the Trolls are a balanced encounter, then such an ambush can be set up.




That's certainly a valid enough point Harl, though I think you made an honest enough reply the first time. The modern game theory of "balance" does lead one to imagine that it really is the duty of the DM, or the writer, to "balance things out." I suspect it is as much subconscious and reflexive an impulse, as a considered and well-reasoned idea.

If you're telling me that DMs and module writers should not place characters in absolutely impossible situations, that this is somehow unfair, then I agree with you. (Though such truly absolutely impossible situations are rather rare, even in real life.) I'm with you. The game wouldn't last long and neither would the characters if you set out to give them truly impossible fights. However I suspect that is not what is really being implied by balance. That balance really implies something insidious (in game terms), almost subconscious, about the true nature of heroism. And if that's true then this is my opinion of balance for the sake of balance - *To Hell With Balance*

Let me illustrate exactly what I mean by a couple of examples.


*Example One:* You're a US Marshal. One day you are off-duty and walking in a store parking lot and you see an agitated man taking swings at customers. You walk over and tell the man to calm himself or you'll run him in, but he's really topped-off and decides he'll take a swing at you. You go at it with him. He's about your size, your weight, your age, your strength. He ain't a great fighter, but he ain't bad either. You trade up blows for awhile, you have the advantage of experience and calmness, he has the advantage for fury and persistence. Eventually you wear each other down but you're last man standing and you take him into custody, hand him over to a beat cop, and go home to shower off and tend your bruises. The next day your buddies come up to you at the office and say, "Yeah, I hear it wasn't much but then again you're not as young as you used to be." They pick at your fat lip and the cut over your eye, you laugh, they laugh, everybody goes back to work. And you move on to the next case.

_*Example Two:*_ You're a US Marshal. One day when you are off duty and walking through a parking lot you see a suspicious looking guy trying to manhandle a woman and her little girl into a car. You sprint over. When you get there you realize the suspect is a guy you know of by reputation and record. He's already been convicted for three murders, one for beating a kid to death, another for strangulation murder. He's on the loose, probably escaped. Known car-jacker. He's big, he's tough, he's a former gangmember, and even his gang was afraid of him. And they were Mexican Mafia. You know he'll kill you if he can and kidnap the woman and kid as hostages if necessary. You're not packing. He may be. You hit him hard in the mouth and tell the gals to run. They do. He jumps on top of you and starts stomping the living hell out of you. You fight back. It looks bad. He's probably cracked a rib or two of yours already. You're having trouble seeing through your own blood. You're rolling dizzy through the debris of what the lady bought in the store. He weighs a lot more than you and he's using it to advantage. He's on top punching down and his arms are like hydraulic pistons. You think any minute you'll go under and he'll finish you. You rifle through the debris with your free hand and find a screwdriver the lady just bought. You shank it through his ribs and he screams and rolls off you. While he's pulling it out (in another second and he's got the weapon) you wipe your eyes clean, find a hammer (Thank God the woman was shopping for her husband) in the bag and whack the guy hard in the head. You figure you probably split his skull but he's still moving, and yelling, and cursing. So you hit him twice more til he don't move anymore. Then you pull out your cell phone, punch in 911 and hope they get there before he wakes up and have to do it all over again.

You're hospitalized for three days, and the thug for a week. The guys from the office come to vast you in your room and although they give you hell about how stupid and lucky you are, you know what happened, and they know what happened. You lost a tooth in the parking lot too, and so they bring you a fake gold one as a joke. When you laugh or breathe it hurts, and so the guys sneak a beer into to ya. 

Now, all things being equal, you could probably describe the first fight in a lot for ways. Doing your job, a moment of have to, but it was pretty Even-Steven all the way. "A Balanced Fight." But neither you, nor anyone you know would really consider it heroic. It was worth a joke or two, a slap on the back, and a nick-name like "punch-drunk."

But the second fight. The totally unbalanced, he meant to kill you with his bare hands for fun, if you hadn't of interfered he would have raped and killed those two girls, you're lucky to be alive fight. You're too modest to admit it but you know, deep down inside, what almost happened, and so do your buddies.

They wanna take you out to eat and for beers and get the whole story, what you remember of it anyways - it happened so fast and yet took so eternally long that you really aren't sure what exactly went down. But everybody knows one thing. There was no balance, it should have been a one-way fight with at least one corpse, yours. But you did it anyways. And by God you won. And people who know about it whisper about it behind your back. They give you nicknames. The Hammer, the Fool, the Toughest SOB I ever saw.

And that my friend is the difference between heroism and just doing your job. The difference between real danger and risk, and the "balanced encounter." Something you know inside yourself. That when blood hits the ground, your blood, against almost impossible odds, against guys a lot bigger and meaner and seemingly more lethal than you are, you got it where it counts. You ain't afraid of the monster, not anytime, not anywhere. Oh, you don't make a joke of it, not inside your own heart. But in the end, you just ain't afraid.

And I know it's just a game, and it's just imagination. But perhaps it's also training for certain ideals in real life. For putting inside of your own head, and your own heart, and your own soul, the difference between a fair fight, and a truly heroic one. And I have a hard time believing that you grow real heroes from "seeds of balance." Just like I have a hard time believing you grow magic from numbers and arithmetrical mechanics. So yeah, it's just a game. But then again principles are just principles. Unless they really mean something when you really have to prove it.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are few heroic magical items anymore. Few life-time or legacy magical items anymore. Few mysterious and truly magical items anymore. Just as their are few heroes. And I think it is because, as a lot of others have pointed out, the Age of the Hero and the Age of the Heroic Magical Item is over (for the moment at least) in-game. And the real reason is, I suspect and as others have also pointed out, is because we have traded up (or is it down, or is it out, or is it down-n-out) history, and meaning, and mystery, and danger and risk, and wonder, and magic, for things like mechanics (there is nothing wrong with mechanics, everything has to work some way - but in what way - that's the question), and control, and a sort of artificial semblance of power, and mathematics, and balance.

Well folks I've been out working in the cold for most of the day. 
I'm kinda beat down and numb.

Carry on fellas. It's been fun reading what you guys have been selling.
Night all.


----------



## Felon (Dec 14, 2008)

Herschel said:


> Andor wasn't telling anyone they shouldn't be playing anything.



Just there's anyone still lingering under a misconception, let's go straight to the horse's mouth:


Andor said:


> To quote a recent Girl Genius "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
> 
> If there is no wonder, and no mystery it isn't magic, it's science with newts and circles instead of cogs and circuits. If I want to play with science I don't need an RPG, I have a garage and a soldering iron.
> 
> ...



Well, Andor, that's your two cents. Now remind yourself that you're just one of a legion of nonentities posting in these forums, and attaching an overinflated sense of worth to your words doesn't do much to elevate you from the pack.

Now back to Herschel:


> If you like table top skirmish combat as your primary enjoyment then there are a number of better games. D&D Miniatures was a better option. There's nothing wrong with wanting your character to be decent and whupping up on some baddies, nobody is saying there is. BUt if your emphasis is on tabletop skirmish combat, then there's one example of a more efficient option.



For some, you'd be right. For others, not so much. Others may like D&D for the one thing that really makes it stand out from other tabletop RPG's: its shameless focus on loot. A lot of folks like D&D because loot emphasizes a nice clear-cut set of incentives and rewards. 

And that's just one reason to prefer D&D that has zip to do with wonder. That you think it makes it sense to indict other reasons to play D&D as "inefficient" or "impractical" rings odd. You'd do better to accept that personal preferences aren't a simple exercise in logic as to what would best suit them; they like what they like.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 14, 2008)

Andor said:


> If there is no wonder, and no mystery it isn't magic, it's science with newts and circles instead of cogs and circuits. If I want to play with science I don't need an RPG, I have a garage and a soldering iron.



So if you have a system/setting where wizards have developed magic into a science, then that game cannot be fantasy? Why is magic the only source of mystery?

No one is arguing they don't want magic in their game at all, that's a strawman. The discussion originated with a "sense of wonder" type of argument, nothing to do with the presence or lack of working magic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 14, 2008)

How odd is the statement Andor made (If you don't want magic in your game, you shouldn't be playing a fantasy RPG. Period.) if you accept that the presence of magic is the defining quality that makes an RPG a "fantasy" RPG?  I personally see this is no different than "If you don't want X in your game, you shouldn't be playing an X RPG. Period."  IOW, it is a statement that relies on tautalogical definition, and is therefore inherently true.


RC


----------



## jasin (Dec 14, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> *Example One:* You're a US Marshal.
> 
> _*Example Two:*_ You're a US Marshal.



So in the actual game, how do you run #2?

If you use monsters that are genuinely stronger than the PCs, like the criminal in your story, how often does it end like your story, and how often does it end with the heroes making a valiant effort, but in vain?

In a story, the author chooses whatever the outcome he wants, however unlikely. In a dice-based game, the outcomes will be dictated by statistics. Heroes facing truly unlikely odds will be truly unlikely to succeed.


----------



## Andor (Dec 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> So if you have a system/setting where wizards have developed magic into a science, then that game cannot be fantasy? Why is magic the only source of mystery?
> 
> No one is arguing they don't want magic in their game at all, that's a strawman. The discussion originated with a "sense of wonder" type of argument, nothing to do with the presence or lack of working magic.




Sure it could, from our perspective, because their science is not our science and so seems fantastical. We have sense of wonder as we explore the unfamiliar. However a (magician, technician, scientist?) scientologist from that world would not consider an RPG set in his own world a _fantasy_ game anymore than we would consider an RPG set up around the adventures of 19th centry botanists exploring Africa to be a fantasy game. Conversely they might consider d20 Modern a fantasy game and have long boring arguements on the ethernet about what an engineer could really do. 

BTW since we seem to have entered the semantics phase here let's have a peek at the word fantasy.



			
				dictionary.com said:
			
		

> [sblock]fan⋅ta⋅sy   /ˈfæntəsi, -zi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation  [fan-tuh-see, -zee] Show IPA Pronunciation
> noun, plural -sies, verb, -sied, -sy⋅ing.
> –noun 1. imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained.
> 2. the forming of mental images, esp. wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.
> ...




By the majority of those definitions _any_ RPG is a fantasy. So obviously 'a flight of fancy' is too imprecise since we wish to differentiate between 3e and d20 modern as belonging to different genres. 

So to pick a few more precise definitions:

_Literature. an imaginative or fanciful work, esp. one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters._

_Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements._

So I'm going to pick out two words as being key to the definition of a fantasy RPG. Supernatural and Unnatural. If the nature of the game world includes elements nature does not allow in ours then I call those fantastic elements. If some of them comprise the focus of the game then that is a fantasy RPG. Note that this extremely broad definition includes both Call of Cuthulu and Superhero RPGs along with the more popcorn SF games. 

Now the name of the game we are disussing is Dungeons and Dragons. Dragons are a fantastical element. They are right there in the bloody name of the game. D&D is a fantasy game. If you don't want fantastical elements in your game then _for the love of god don't play a fantasy game!_ There are dozens of non-fantasy games out there and there are plenty of people here and elsewhere that can help you find the one that suits you. 

Does anyone have a serious counter-argument beyond some kneejerk "Don't tell me how to play man!" blather?


----------



## Xath (Dec 14, 2008)

Herschel said:


> I'm surprised at the number of obtuse martyrs on here. Try reading it again without the victim card. Either that or I can get my pliers and help you off the cross.




And you're done.  I'll advise you to go back and read the rules of ENworld before posting anything else.  You will no longer be able to post in this thread.

To everyone else, I'll remind you of ENworld's civility rules.  If you can't express your opinions without insulting others, don't express them.  

- Xath


----------



## Gimby (Dec 14, 2008)

Andor said:


> Does anyone have a serious counter-argument beyond some kneejerk "Don't tell me how to play man!" blather?




Because different people like different kinds of fantastical elements?  Pan's Labyrinth is one kind of fantasy, The Wizard of Oz is a different one, Lord of the Rings would be a third.  Elements that make sense in one are out of place in another.  

In this edition the fantastical elements are focused on the internal abilities of the characters themselves rather than their magic toys.  Even then, there are a decent number of highly fantastical items that seem to be being ignored - even something as humble as the Everlasting Provisions (level 4, 840gp) is fantasitcal enough for something similar to be the focus of several Brothers Grimm tales.  

There are very few people asking for the complete removal of fantastical elements, but there does reach a stage where some people feel that what  they are getting isn't fantastical, its gonzo.  That line will be in a different place for everyone, its just it seems to have been drawn a little lower this time out.

One side point:



> *Compare this:* "I am Arthur, King of Britain, and here be Excalibur that I won from the ancient stone with my own hand."
> 
> *With this:* "I am Thaddeus and here is my +3 longsword that I bought at a discount! It was an upgrade from my old +2 short sword! When I get enough experience I'll sell this sword too and buy me a +4 Bastard! Huzzah!"




It should be noted that the second is precisely what Ffahrd and the Grey Mouser do - the names for their weapons stay the same but the actual object changes on a frequent basis.


----------



## Jack7 (Dec 14, 2008)

> If you use monsters that are genuinely stronger than the PCs, like the criminal in your story, how often does it end like your story, and how often does it end with the heroes making a valiant effort, but in vain?
> 
> In a story, the author chooses whatever the outcome he wants, however unlikely. In a dice-based game, the outcomes will be dictated by statistics. Heroes facing truly unlikely odds will be truly unlikely to succeed.





It ain't the job of the DM to do this Jas. _*It's the job of the players. *_That's something that keeps getting missed. 

But as to whether or not a fella, or a team, becomes a mere set of statistics, that depends upon them. Not you. How clever, tough, and creative they are.  You've got _to let your players grow up_, *take real risks, be real heroes*.  The DM can't plot out heroism on a graph, and just because a player chooses a Paragon path or an Epic destiny doesn't mean there's anything epic about him, or that he'll ever do one truly heroic thing in his life. It's how a man behaves in the heat of the fire, not how he behaves in the balanced and comforting waters of the hot springs that makes the difference between a hero and a guy sporting a longknife and a funny name.

And of course not every fight is heroic. As I said. Sometimes you're just doing your job. But let them fight the dragon too, the real monster. The thing they know can kill them, the thing that will kill them unless they do their very, very best. How sad, that even in a game, where little is really risked (unless you count the ideals that men hold most true in their own hearts) the idea must be held in the back of the mind, _"you know, if it weren't for the statistics, I'd have been a real hero?"_ Out of the womb of statistics, how many people ever grow a hero? Maybe, just maybe, you don't grow a hero by following the odds, _*maybe, just maybe, you grow a hero by forgetting the odds.*_

But as to whether they can do it, and they can if they really try, they employ techniques that assure they do as much as they can the right way, and assure the enemy makes as many mistakes as they can encourage him to make in the meantime. They don't just fight hard, and valiantly, and with determination. *They also fight with cleverness, craftily, and with purpose.* Anything can be killed if you go about it the right way. Including the idea that the fight must be fair, just because it seems impossible.

What I'm saying is that even in a game you can't grow real heroes out artificial mechanics and pre-plotted career paths. Just like you can't grow magic out of the number of pluses and minuses you employ.

You have to let people risk the dangerous thing, do the hard thing, actually be heroic. You can't write heroism into the script, and you can't write it into a person with mere words and attribute scores and character powers. It comes when a fella is far less concerned with whether his fight is "fair and balanced or not," and instead is far more concerned with what he's fighting for, not who he's fighting against.

Be that kind of fellow and sooner or later you'll become heroic. Be concerned about the odds and the balance and and whether you're man enough for the risk and you'll end up distinguished merely by your statistical limitations.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 14, 2008)

I think the two biggest misconceptions about balance (with repsect to PCs vs encounters, anyway) are:
1. The PCs always win a balanced encounter.
2. The PCs always have balanced encounters. 

The PCs may be _likely_ to win a balanced encounter, but as with any game of skill and chance, the players may make tactical mistakes and the dice may not always go their way. Even if the PCs have a 90% chance of winning a "balanced" encounter and only ever fight "balanced" encounters, that means about one in ten encounters will end in defeat.

Furthermore, whether or not the PCs will have balanced encounters is entirely up to the DM in a non-sandbox game. In addition, encounter difficulty is not a binary "balanced"/"unbalanced" switch. There is a continuum of encounter difficulty, from encounters that the PCs are almost certain to win, to encounters where they have an better than average chance of victory, to encounters which could go either way, to encounters that the PCs would do well to run away as fast and as far as they can. 

Encounter balance is descriptive, not prescriptive. 



jasin said:


> So in the actual game, how do you run #2?



Put them in a situation where they face a hard encounter; according to the DMG, one of Level+2 to Level+4.



> If you use monsters that are genuinely stronger than the PCs, like the criminal in your story, how often does it end like your story, and how often does it end with the heroes making a valiant effort, but in vain?
> 
> In a story, the author chooses whatever the outcome he wants, however unlikely. In a dice-based game, the outcomes will be dictated by statistics. Heroes facing truly unlikely odds will be truly unlikely to succeed.



From a certain perspective, facing truly unlikely odds and actually succeeding is what _makes_ them heroes.

However, you've put your finger on the key difference betwen a game and a narrative. In a narrative, last, desperate, one in a million chances might come up nine times out of ten.  In a game, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine times, the PCs lose. 

Some games offset this by giving the players narrative tools which make that one in a million chance more likely to come up: in D&D, these include action points, second wind, daily abilities, etc. However, this shifts the _actual_ chances of the PCs' victory back to something closer to 50-50, which by the previous definition no longer makes them heroes.

As for me, I base my definition of heroism not on beating the odds, but on doing the right thing. In my games, you can be a hero by doing the right thing even if you have an 80% chance of success. If the PCs are in the game long enough, the dice will make them fail often enough anyway.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 14, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> It ain't the job of the DM to do this Jas. _*It's the job of the players. *_That's something that keeps getting missed.



I'll refine this slightly based on my gaming philosophy: In a non-sandbox game, it's the job of the DM to present the players with challenges that they have a decent chance of overcoming. It is the job of the players to actually beat them.

A challenge is not necessarily a combat encounter, though. The PCs may encounter creatures and NPCs that they have no realistic chance of beating in combat. In such cases, part of the challenge may be for the players to realize that they are outclassed (assuming they were attacked, or were silly enough to initiate hostilities in the first place), and the remainder may be for the players to negotiate, run, or otherwise get themselves out of the situation.

In addition, a challenge, even a "balanced" challenge, does not need to be easy. I expect my players to fight cleverly when in battle, and to use their intelligence, creativity and imagination in non-combat challenges. As a DM, I like to use opponents clever and ruthless enough to exploit any and every tactical error they make.



> You have to let people risk the dangerous thing, do the hard thing, actually be heroic. You can't write heroism into the script, and you can't write it into a person with mere words and attribute scores and character powers. It comes when a fella is far less concerned with whether his fight is "fair and balanced or not," and instead is far more concerned with what he's fighting for, not who he's fighting against.



This I agree with 100%. The numbers are there just to make sure that the PCs have a reasonable chance of success - _if_ they do the right things.


----------



## jasin (Dec 14, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> It ain't the job of the DM to do this Jas. It's the job of the players.



To do what? To consistently roll better than 10.5 on a d20?

As much as it's a central conceit of the game to pretend otherwise, D&D is rigged in the PCs' favour, either through statistics or through fudging. It's not something you want on the surface of the players minds because it detracts from the experience, but when talking game design, it's denial to pretend that the PCs should (or can!) be expected to face unfavourable odds and win with regularity.

All the rousing speeches about forgetting the odds and fighting for what's right and growing out your fears don't change the fact that if you need 20 on a d20 to defeat the villain, the villain defeats you in 19 games out of 20.

Naturally, things like clever tactics, teamwork, equipment all affect the odds, but if we're talking game design, they should already be accounted for. If you need a 20, but have +2 from flanking, +5 from a magic sword, +2 from your ally aiding you, and +4 from using your Defeat Villain 1/day ability, that's actually called "needing a 7", and it's _not_ heroically going forward in face of overwhelming odds.


----------



## jasin (Dec 14, 2008)

FireLance said:


> Put them in a situation where they face a hard encounter; according to the DMG, one of Level+2 to Level+4.



So you have 5 Nth-level PCs fighting five 5 (N+2)th-level villains and think "wow, these guys are really outclassed!" and they still manage to win.

But this is because 4E, using different notations for PCs and monsters, can nicely camouflage what the numbers really mean. And what they really mean is not much different from 3E, where a "hard encounter" was actually a reasonably fair fight: EL = level + 4, facing an equal number of equally strong folks.

Similarly, in 4E encounter level = party level doesn't mean "this is an even match". It means "this is an appropriate encounter, which means the monsters are significantly outclassed". Harder encounters just mean the monsters are _less_ outclassed than usual.

Of course, you already knew that. 



> From a certain perspective, facing truly unlikely odds and actually succeeding is what _makes_ them heroes.
> 
> However, you've put your finger on the key difference betwen a game and a narrative. In a narrative, last, desperate, one in a million chances might come up nine times out of ten.  In a game, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine times, the PCs lose.



Exactly.



> Some games offset this by giving the players narrative tools which make that one in a million chance more likely to come up: in D&D, these include action points, second wind, daily abilities, etc. However, this shifts the _actual_ chances of the PCs' victory back to something closer to 50-50, which by the previous definition no longer makes them heroes.



Exactly.



> As for me, I base my definition of heroism not on beating the odds, but on doing the right thing. In my games, you can be a hero by doing the right thing even if you have an 80% chance of success. If the PCs are in the game long enough, the dice will make them fail often enough anyway.



And again, exactly.


----------



## Andor (Dec 14, 2008)

Gimby said:


> Because different people like different kinds of fantastical elements?  Pan's Labyrinth is one kind of fantasy, The Wizard of Oz is a different one, Lord of the Rings would be a third.  Elements that make sense in one are out of place in another.




True. But that's more a matter of genre and suspension of disbelief. D&D has always tended towards the "Throw the Encyclopeadia of Mythology into the blender and hit frappe." end of the spectum but there is plenty of wiggle room. I do think that if on seeing an Apparatus of Kaliwash the D&D players reaction should be "Cool!" not "Wouldn't it have been more efficient to model a magical mecha submarine on a Mantis Shrimp?"


----------



## Jack7 (Dec 14, 2008)

> To do what? To consistently roll better than 10.5 on a d20?




I'm saying there is a fundamental difference between _*a Hero*_ and a calculator. Because Fortune favors the Bold, but timidity, not chance, is the father of the impossible.

No man grows brave through practice of statistics, and comforting assurances of favorable odds. He grows brave through the exercise of danger, and risk. And no manipulations of probability, or improbability, can change that fact.

But, just for sake of argument, let's redefine the game hero. Let me rephrase the problem by proposing a "more pragmatic and modern definition of in-game heroism": *The Hero is that man who upon a sufficient calculation of all available data concerning the statistical probability of success for any given venture, makes a well-considered determination of what is an acceptable level of personal risk and thereby concludes whether he will undertake, or avoid said venture, as a course of profitable enterprise independent of all other possible considerations, such as aspects of necessity or superfluidity, right and wrong, etc.*


I'm not really sure what you'd grow with such a set of heroic parameters Jas, but I'm pretty sure it could calculate actuary tables in its head like a real champ. You could write-up something like Conan the Forensic Accountant, or Herakles of the Seven Statistical Labors. (By the way, can you write game heroes like that off on your taxes? It seems like there oughtta be a clause covering that.)

But in all seriousness, whereas I would always encourage in-game cleverness and shrewdness, as well as the rational analysis of risk, I would never encourage anything even remotely resembling the idea that you carefully balance your way into cautious heroism across the tightrope of mathematical certitude.


----------



## malraux (Dec 14, 2008)

Personally, when I want a game in which everything is mystical, magical, and near incomprehensible, where the heroes both give of themselves and have no idea if they will succeed, and statistics and numbers are of little comfort to the player, I play Cthulhu.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 14, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> I'm saying there is a fundamental difference between _*a Hero*_ and a calculator. Because Fortune favors the Bold, but timidity, not chance, is the father of the impossible.
> 
> No man grows brave through practice of statistics, and comforting assurances of favorable odds. He grows brave through the exercise of danger, and risk. And no manipulations of probability, or improbability, can change that fact.
> 
> But in all seriousness, whereas I would always encourage in-game cleverness and shrewdness, as well as the rational analysis of risk, I would never encourage anything even remotely resembling the idea that you carefully balance your way into cautious heroism across the tightrope of mathematical certitude.



I didn't see anywhere that jasin was implying that such detailed, mathematical analysis is a desired approach to play.  

I think it's more like this: a firefighter reasonably fits the image of a hero... going into dangerous situations to aid others. And, much like a D&D adventurer, he does it on a regular basis. However, do you think they do so without rigorous training, adequate preparation and taking every precaution they can to minimize the risk to themselves even as they enter a burning building? Will they normally do things where the odds don't favor them? Of course not. Does this make them less heroic? I think not.

So even in real life, heroes will do things to try and make sure the odds are in their favor as much as possible.

Similarly, as PCs face danger on a routine basis, they of course will do things which minimize risk and perform "manipulations of probability" by doing things which shift the dice roll in their favor. Just the basic knowledge each player has that each +1 gives you a 5% better chance to succeed and trying to get those bonuses doesn't mean they're "carefully balance your way into cautious heroism across the tightrope of mathematical certitude." 

Just like the heroes of fiction will try to have better equipment, keep their skills honed and exercise beneficial tactical maneuvers in combat, so do D&D players. It's just that the fact that it's a _game_ means there's math involved to reflect those things the heroes of fiction do.

However, with heroes of fiction, there is no real risk! They can succeed at  amazing and impossible things because the author has already predetermined that they will do so. They _cannot fail _unless the author wants them to.

This is not true in a D&D game, which is co-authored by DM and players, because it *is* a game, which is dependent on the roll of a die to determine the outcome of actions, and through cumulative action results, an entire challenge. You can't expect PCs to "act like heroes" and continually take on situations where the odds are against them, because, *unlike heroes of fiction, the statistical odds are actually against them*. So they won't end up heroes, they'll just end up dead. No amount of florid prose regarding what heroism is "really" about will change that.

So, to create the experience of having your PC be more like heroes of fiction, they have to have a reasonable chance of success, to be able to continue the story. There's a certain amount of trust on the part of the players that the DM will make this the case. Not to make victory certain, or eliminate all risk, as it is in the fiction you seem to be basing your heroic ideal on, but at least challenging and entertaining.


----------



## Gimby (Dec 14, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> I'm saying there is a fundamental difference between _*a Hero*_ and a calculator. Because Fortune favors the Bold, but timidity, not chance, is the father of the impossible.




However, in the context of the game, fortune does not favour the bold.  You can be as bold as you like and it won't make your dice roll higher.  You can make the game favour the bold through fiat or by inbuilt bonusses if you like, but these can be looked at statistically.



Jack7 said:


> No man grows brave through practice of statistics, and comforting assurances of favorable odds. He grows brave through the exercise of danger, and risk. And no manipulations of probability, or improbability, can change that fact.
> 
> But, just for sake of argument, let's redefine the game hero. Let me rephrase the problem by proposing a "more pragmatic and modern definition of in-game heroism": *The Hero is that man who upon a sufficient calculation of all available data concerning the statistical probability of success for any given venture, makes a well-considered determination of what is an acceptable level of personal risk and thereby concludes whether he will undertake, or avoid said venture, as a course of profitable enterprise independent of all other possible considerations, such as aspects of necessity or superfluidity, right and wrong, etc.*




Here, I think we are getting to the heart of your issue.  There is a clear difference between the risk as perceived by the player and that perceived by the character.  The character is willing to stride into the jaws of hell armed only with their wits and their trusty blade.  The player on the other hand, is aware of the exact capabilities of the character and can make the kind of cost/benefit analysis that you describe.  The character can do things which are risky and unlikely in context of the gameworld, which are reliable in terms of the rules mechanics.  

An example of this would be using Wushu on the US Marshal example earlier in the thread - depending on how the encounter is set up, its possible that in either case the risk of actual failure is zero.  However, it is possible in the context of the game rules to narrate either of those outcomes, depending on the desires of the players.  Does that stop the second case being heroic, even though the narrative generated is exactly the same?



Jack7 said:


> I'm not really sure what you'd grow with such a set of heroic parameters Jas, but I'm pretty sure it could calculate actuary tables in its head like a real champ. You could write-up something like Conan the Forensic Accountant, or Herakles of the Seven Statistical Labors. (By the way, can you write game heroes like that off on your taxes? It seems like there oughtta be a clause covering that.)
> 
> But in all seriousness, whereas I would always encourage in-game cleverness and shrewdness, as well as the rational analysis of risk, I would never encourage anything even remotely resembling the idea that you carefully balance your way into cautious heroism across the tightrope of mathematical certitude.




Indeed, and I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that characters should be timidly edging their way along that tightrope.  Characters should (have the choice to, if appropriate to their characterisation) be bold and brave.  Players on the other hand, may like not having to continually having to roll up new characters because the dice do not favour the bold.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 14, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> So, to create the experience of having your PC be more like heroes of fiction, they have to have a reasonable chance of success, to be able to continue the story. There's a certain amount of trust on the part of the players that the DM will make this the case. Not to make victory certain, or eliminate all risk, as it is in the fiction you seem to be basing your heroic ideal on, but at least challenging and entertaining.




I'd qualify this a bit. They need to have a reasonable chance for success or at least a reasonable chance to determine that they have no reasonable chance so that they can make the decision to cast the die and cross the Rubicon or prepare for confrontation on a later date.


----------



## Lacyon (Dec 14, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> Because Fortune favors the Bold, but timidity, not chance, is the father of the impossible.




A game designed such that fortune to actually favors the bold should be right up your alley.


----------



## jasin (Dec 14, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> I'm saying there is a fundamental difference between _*a Hero*_ and a calculator.



And I'm saying there's a fundamental difference between the mindset of a hero, and the mindset of a designer of a framework which is to rely on randomization and expected to produce stories which we characterize as heroic.



> Because Fortune favors the Bold,



I don't think that adage is true in the sense in which you think it's true.



> but timidity, not chance, is the father of the impossible.



You're starting to sound like Sphinx from Mystery Men.



> No man grows brave through practice of statistics, and comforting assurances of favorable odds.



No man grows brave through ignorance of statistics either.



> But, just for sake of argument, let's redefine the game hero. Let me rephrase the problem by proposing a "more pragmatic and modern definition of in-game heroism": *The Hero is that man who upon a sufficient calculation of all available data concerning the statistical probability of success for any given venture, makes a well-considered determination of what is an acceptable level of personal risk and thereby concludes whether he will undertake, or avoid said venture, as a course of profitable enterprise independent of all other possible considerations, such as aspects of necessity or superfluidity, right and wrong, etc.*



You're starting to sound like... well, pretty much anyone from Vance.



> I'm not really sure what you'd grow with such a set of heroic parameters Jas, but I'm pretty sure it could calculate actuary tables in its head like a real champ. You could write-up something like Conan the Forensic Accountant, or Herakles of the Seven Statistical Labors. (By the way, can you write game heroes like that off on your taxes? It seems like there oughtta be a clause covering that.)



I, on the other hand, have played in games where the odds were genuinely against the PCs and there was no fudging. Some of it has been fun, and there were even rare moments of genuine heroism, but mostly we've written up something like the Assassin Who Fell Down the Stairs and Was Paralyzed For Life, the Monk Who Couldn't Punch Through Plate Armour, the Battle-Priest Who Tripped On His Own Chainmail, and the Few Good Men Who Got Eaten By a Random Encounter Giant Slug.

Consistently going against the odds results in consistent failure, and consistent failure isn't what's associated in most people's minds with heroism. It's associated with lack of wisdom and lack of competence.



> But in all seriousness,



Ah, that was humour? I mistook it for snideness.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 14, 2008)

billd91 said:


> I'd qualify this a bit. They need to have a reasonable chance for success or at least a reasonable chance to determine that they have no reasonable chance so that they can make the decision to cast the die and cross the Rubicon or prepare for confrontation on a later date.



Oh, absolutely. And being able to determine if the odds are against them either relies on players being familiar enough with the _statistics_ of the threat to decide it's out of their league or some narrative clues _from the DM_ that indicate they might want to reconsider charging in. 

Having encounters that the PCs have to figure out in the middle of combat that they're in over their heads (in the instance where the DM knew this going in) aren't cool to me, though. Usually a PC has to go down for that understanding to sink in, and might not be recoverable if the rest of the group runs. Also, as a game, combat is more fun than running away, so often players will continue to fight even when they shouldn't. 

There's a few reasons for this. Again, unless the DM is giving clues that they are actually losing, they may not realize they are since they have no idea what the opponents' hit points or unused capabilities are. They may also not relish the idea of having to do a tough fight over again. And there's the psychological concept of "sunk cost", where one is reluctant to let go of an endeavor that they've already expended resources on. And, since it is a game, many times players, especially newer ones, may not realize that a situation where they have to run away from combat would ever come up unless the DM has set that expectation before hand.


----------



## Andor (Dec 15, 2008)

jasin said:


> No man grows brave through ignorance of statistics either.




"Never tell me the odds!" - Han Solo


----------



## billd91 (Dec 15, 2008)

Andor said:


> "Never tell me the odds!" - Han Solo




I die a little every time some fanboy quotes this when you tell him "That plan will never work. The odds are stacked against you." It's especially appalling when they say it playing poker, only to lose big... which is practically inevitable whenever you say that but are not Han Solo.


----------



## nightwyrm (Dec 15, 2008)

In fiction, something that has a million to one chance of success will always succeed. This is because everything is determined by the writer. Hot blood and courage can alter the laws of physics and the heroes can win even with 0% chance of success. Trying to apply this to real life games where random chance actually means something and You Fail Statistics Forever.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> Q wrote an excellent article that listed what was available (i.e., what was in the module), but it didn't provide anything in the way of research re: how "available" the treasure actually was (i.e., what was required to actually get the listed treasure).
> 
> ...




This is actually false:



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Quasqueton
> I’ve read this assertion before, but I haven’t seen this in the adventure modules I’ve gone through. The vast majority of treasure is not hidden. And that treasure that is hidden, is not much, and only rarely “ridiculously” or “devilishly” (as someone else said) well hidden.
> 
> The Moathouse's "hidden" treasure:
> ...




From This Thread

The myth that treasure was well hidden has been well and truly disproved already.  TEN PERCENT of the treasure is not readily available.  One has to wonder at Raven Crowking's assertion that his players regularly only find 25 % of the treasure in an adventure.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 15, 2008)

Hussar said:


> The myth that treasure was well hidden has been well and truly disproved already.  TEN PERCENT of the treasure is not readily available.  One has to wonder at Raven Crowking's assertion that his players regularly only find 25 % of the treasure in an adventure.




Disproved... for the TOEE moathouse anyway.

But let's not forget that PCs often don't have horses with wagons adventuring with them and that it used to be 10 coins to the pound. PCs often didn't come away with the full amount of loot... because they couldn't carry it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 15, 2008)

nightwyrm said:


> In fiction, something that has a million to one chance of success will always succeed.[/URL].




Terry Pratchett has a bit of fun with this.



> "Never tell me the odds!" - Han Solo




In the TV show _Psych_, the lead character quotes Wesley Snipes from _Passenger 57_ when he says "Always bet on black!" (as part of a pithy exchange about odds and roulette, in an analogy about the hostage situation).

In _Psych_, the character takes this literally, and bets his detective agency's entire fee for a particular case on one spin of the roulette wheel.  Oddly enough, black is _not_ where the ball landed.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 15, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Disproved... for the TOEE moathouse anyway.
> 
> But let's not forget that PCs often don't have horses with wagons adventuring with them and that it used to be 10 coins to the pound. PCs often didn't come away with the full amount of loot... because they couldn't carry it.



Lol... never underestimate player creativity. I think it was at the end of one of the Giants adventures that my party was bound and determined to haul off every single copper piece at the end. Stacked, levitating spell casters with rings of Tenser's Floating Disks around them teleported the whole shebang outta there. We might have used a couple of other spells too, but we did it.

Otherwise, just take the higher value coins and one still came away with quite a bit.

For the most part, my own personal recollection from adventures I've read/run was pretty much the same.  1E didn't give me the impression that there was some standard for how much treasure was suppose to be difficult to find. Plus, modules were written by a variety of different authors, who probably did their treasure placement differently. 

If there was suppose to be a standard regarding how much treasure should be put behind secret doors or in devilishly designed hidden compartments, don't you think the 1E DMG would have had some indication on what that percentage would have been so DMs could place treasure accordingly in their own adventures? Were the early edition rules really that opaque that we have to do a thorough statistical analysis of these published adventures to reveal the Word of Gygax, like some get-rich-quick Bible Code of D&D? Yeah, you'll probably find a pattern, but in all likelihood it's meaningless in and of itself.

IIRC, there was pretty much just treasure type by monster to roll up and then left to the DM to decide where to place it. That was about it. This lack of guidance about treasure placement was what often lead to Monty Haul campaigns in games of yore.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 15, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Disproved... for the TOEE moathouse anyway.
> 
> But let's not forget that PCs often don't have horses with wagons adventuring with them and that it used to be 10 coins to the pound. PCs often didn't come away with the full amount of loot... because they couldn't carry it.




The moathouse, IIRC, is less than a days journey from town.  How hard would it be to kill everything, and then take a couple of days hauling loot back?  Let's not forget, we're talking 6-9 pc's, plus henchmen, hirelings and sundry other hangers on.  And, while 10 coins might be 1 pound, most of the big treasure is in gems or jewelry.  

People can go on and on about how treasure was hidden, how the game forced you to leave treasure behind and all that, but, at the end of the day, all we have is your word on that.  The modules don't support this interpretation, actual gameplay by a number of gamers (NOT all, I do NOT mean that this is universal) doesn't support that.  The idea that players would miss 75% of the treasure in a module is patently ludicrous IMO.  

But, besides all this, there is still the fallacy of rarity being played out here.  That just because magic is rare, it's special.  That's not what makes a magic item special.  No matter how rare magic is, a +1 sword will NEVER be special on its own.  Magic items as well as anything else in the campaign becomes special because the PLAYERS make it so.  I can come up with the most eloquently written, fantastic backstory for the item that you can possibly imagine, but, until such time as the players decide that Item X is cool, it's just not.

And no amount of rules can change that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 15, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Disproved... for the TOEE moathouse anyway.





I'd like to see the actual analysis that disproves this.  


RC


----------



## radferth (Dec 15, 2008)

billd91 said:


> I die a little every time some fanboy quotes this when you tell him "That plan will never work. The odds are stacked against you." It's especially appalling when they say it playing poker, only to lose big... which is practically inevitable whenever you say that but are not Han Solo.




Said in response to the ubiquitous Han Solo quote "Never tell me the odds."

I'd assume that the "real" Han Solo (the one who shot Greedo first, when he tried to shakedown Han) knows the odds at poker rather precisely, but says "Don't tell me the odds," a lot to get his opponent to think Han is bluffing when he is actually not.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 15, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I'd like to see the actual analysis that disproves this.
> 
> 
> RC




Oh, bloody hell, someone quote my original post so this guy can see the bloody link since he cannot seem to find it himself, DESPITE trying to quote Quasqueton in the first place.


----------



## Delta (Dec 15, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> IIRC, there was pretty much just treasure type by monster to roll up and then left to the DM to decide where to place it. That was about it. This lack of guidance about treasure placement was what often lead to Monty Haul campaigns in games of yore.




I think there's quite a bit of guidance. 1E DMG has an entire section on "Placement of Monetary Treasure". The Appendix A random dungeon tables basically have every treasure either trapped (1-8 on d20) or hidden (9-20 on d20) -- starting with _invisibility_ and working up from there.

1E DMG p. 92:


> There will be much there, but even the cleverest of players will be more than hard put to figure out a way to garner the bulk of it after driving off, subduing, or slaying the treasure's guardian.




OD&D Vol. 3 p. 6-8:


> Naturally, the more important treasures will consist of various magical items and large amounts of wealth in the form of gems and jewelry. Once these have been secreted in out-of-the-way locations, a random distribution using a six-sided die can be made as follows...
> 
> Unguarded Treasures should be invisible, hidden behind a secret door or under the floor, locked in hard-to-open strong boxes with poison needles or deadly gas released when they are opened. (There are many variants of the above possible, and many other types of protection which can be devised.)​



​


----------



## billd91 (Dec 15, 2008)

Hussar said:


> The moathouse, IIRC, is less than a days journey from town.  How hard would it be to kill everything, and then take a couple of days hauling loot back?  Let's not forget, we're talking 6-9 pc's, plus henchmen, hirelings and sundry other hangers on.  And, while 10 coins might be 1 pound, most of the big treasure is in gems or jewelry.
> 
> People can go on and on about how treasure was hidden, how the game forced you to leave treasure behind and all that, but, at the end of the day, all we have is your word on that.  The modules don't support this interpretation, actual gameplay by a number of gamers (NOT all, I do NOT mean that this is universal) doesn't support that.  The idea that players would miss 75% of the treasure in a module is patently ludicrous IMO.




Of course, the moathouse part of T1-4 is for low level characters. Less likelihood of lots of henchmen and hangers on. Plus, the Temple is a dynamic environment, recruits keep coming in. It's not unreasonable to think that some actually appear a the moathouse as well, leading to potential competition in looting.

Shifting to other adventures. Try hauling a lot of treasure out of the Pomarj in the A series while surrounded by hostile humanoid tribes. Or out of the Hellfurnaces in G3 (where a substantial amount of the treasure is, in fact, hidden in a secret and easily defended cache). Or the underground shrine of the Kuo-toa. Not all adventuring sites are as easily accessed as the T1 moathouse. And though a lot of value was tied up in gems and jewelry, for other objects of value (particularly magical armors), weight and bulk become significant factors. Some objects d'art may be worth more per pound than the coins, but unless the DM has been extremely up front about value, they are still often the first to be weeded out due to their bulk.

Tracking the value of treasure out of 1e modules, in practice, is a substantially different situation than simply recording them out of the adventures which assumes perfect recovery.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 15, 2008)

My practical experience with D&D (1e-4e) is that a _lot_ of magical treasure winds up in the hands of PC's. 

My practical experience with 1e is that there is a dichotomy between the treasure guidelines in the DMG and the sheer amount of enchanted bling found in the popular published modules (including the pre-generated character's gear).

My practical experience with D&D (1e-4e) is that DM's _want_ enchanted bling in the players hands. While _some_ DM's pride themselves on stinginess when it comes to magic items (or choose to focus on the in-play challenges involved in locating said items), the majority like their players armed with wahoo. Frankly, players using a lot of wahoo is one D&D's defining characteristics (though some choose to play otherwise). 

My practical experience with comparing characters that enjoy plot-immunity (ie Luke Skywalker, Bilbo Baggins) with those that don't (insert PC name here) is that they're a considerable waste of time. Call it the "Luke was a Commoner Fallacy".


----------



## Jack7 (Dec 15, 2008)

> However, do you think they do so without rigorous training, adequate preparation and taking every precaution they can to minimize the risk to themselves even as they enter a burning building? Will they normally do things where the odds don't favor them? Of course not. Does this make them less heroic? I think not.




Perish the thought SB. But if the front of a building were too engulfed in fire do you think they might seek an alternate way in? Through a back-door, or put up a ladder? Chop a hole through a wall? Do you also think, in the course of their job, if they needed to rescue a trapped person most firefighters would hesitate to risk their own lives to do their job? Of course not. (I’ve seen that happen myself. My old man used to run a volunteer fire dept.) 

Putting out a fire in an abandoned building is likely heroic to the owner, but not worth the firefighter’s own life if the situation were helpless (I never encouraged entertaining helpless situations). However just because the odds say the risk is dangerous (as opposed to hopeless) doesn’t mean the firefighter wouldn’t risk their own life to save somebody else, odds to the devil. And that’s all I said. Heroes don’t let odds motivate their behavior or impulse to do the right thing.  They do heroic things despite the odds. Jas asked me how do you play such a thing? Heroism? 

Why you play it just like you would in real life. If it needs to be done you do it because heroism is not odds-determined. It is behavior-determined. I didn’t say it was easy, I said it was simple. And it is. As a matter of fact most of the time you can do the math in your head, even if you’re not real good at math.




> I don't think that adage is true in the sense in which you think it's true.




 Alright. I'll bite. What is my normal thought process, and what did I really think it meant was true? I'm just curious in case I ever have to use the phrase again.  I’ll wanna know I’m getting it right next time.




> Consistently going against the odds results in consistent failure, and consistent failure isn't what's associated in most people's minds with heroism. It's associated with lack of wisdom and lack of competence.




Who in God's name ever suggested, even obliquely, that one should shoot for consistent failure? Or any type of failure? The Marshal in my examples won both his fights. Is this another example where you know my thought processes better than I do? Cause I'm beginning to wonder if I've been thinking the wrong way around these things the whole time.  But you know what, even if he had lost his second fight he’d have still been a hero to most folks. Not trying, he wouldn’t have been to many.




> You're starting to sound like Sphinx from Mystery Men.




Is he the guy who had the one about the four legged, the two legged, and the three legged used car salesman? That one always makes me laugh. And if I can make people laugh then I must be doing something right. 


Alright now, let’s get serious. You raise an interesting point. 



> No man grows brave through ignorance of statistics either.




You do understand that statistics are created, computed, and compiled as an after action result *of action?* Statistics are not actions in and of themselves, they are not real events, except to mathematicians, and they get paid to think that way. Statistics are _*the calculated results *_of whether men took action (and in this case we appear to be talking game actions), or did not, and what the levels of success they enjoyed as a result of those actions, or what the extent of the level of failure they suffered as a result their actions.  (Or inactions.)

I’m gonna posit a theory now. You cannot dissuade a brave man from taking action as a result of the statistical analysis of prior events (statistical calculations can render odds about future behavior, but cannot determine the future), and you cannot encourage a timid man from not taking action by demonstrating to him that statistics are reports of prior behavior. (Meaning you are not automatically condemned to repeat the prior mistakes of others through the operations of statistics, but that doesn’t matter if you believe it is not possible to avoid past mistakes based on a particular analysis of statistical models and what they might imply.)

There is however an apparent problem based upon your previous examples. You seem to be implying that dice rolls are numbers only, not mathematical representations of decided [decision] events. Let’s say you need a D20 to hit an opponent. You roll and your attack misses. Now you’ve nothing else to do right? No other decision to make? You’ll eventually hit or you won’t and so will your opponent? But what if, knowing your attack odds with a sword are bad you instead employ a magical item? Throw a spell? Retreat? Set something on fire? Redeploy with bows that have a better chance? Employ a power? Present a feat? Create a distraction so someone can maneuver to a weak point on your opponent? Change your tactics? Or make any other decision(s) based upon any other resource you possess, or that exists in the surrounding environment, that will change the conditions of the battlespace?
Even using things that don’t rely so heavily, or maybe not at all, on chance? Then is it still just a matter of die rolls? Then is it a matter of just consistently rolling a 10.5 on a D20? Then is heroism, or success or failure in a venture, just a matter of doing the same ineffective thing over and over again and letting the die roll determine the course of action and the pacing of events? Or do actual decisions then start to modify the outcome value of the die? And shape events despite the temporary vicissitudes of chance? You know why heroes in stories succeed so often, despite the odds? Because when they do one thing that doesn’t work, they try something that will? Because they adapt and overcome, without excuse? Because they do not accept that chance determines their actions and therefore insist on making their own decisions? Because they look for an avenue of advantage while those who deiced fate is their master have given up? Is it also possible that players, while in-game and emulating real heroes, might learn the same skills? Practice the same outlook? Apply the same principles? Even against heavy odds? Someone once told me anything is possible when you trust others to be at least as clever as you are. He didn’t have a fancy name like Sphinx, but he did know something about people. And what they can accomplish if they'll try.

But as for me I also never said ignore the odds. I don’t think men should ignore odds. But I also don’t think men should be ruled by them. *I said, by example and proclamation, do not let them determine your actions. * If you believe that the dice are the primary determinants of your actions in-game (and I ain't saying you do, but that seems to be your implication, but then again it might not be, it could just be a ruse to confuse salesmen), or chance the primary determinant of events in real life for that matter, and will determine the outcome of your every action, then I'd probably suggest that you aren't playing an RPG (and I'm not saying you are - but iffin you were then what does it matter how you play your role if your role will be settled by events beyond your control, by what model of statistical variation is applied in formulating the necessary and operational functions of that particular game’s mechanistic modes of play) but are in actuality playing something very like Russian roulette. Because no matter how good you are at spinning sooner or later, according to the odds you’re gonna pull a hammer that strikes paydirt.) 

However I'm still failing to see how things like statistics and balance can influence deterministically on either how a character behaves or, for that matter, on how magical items should work. Can statistics control the dice (assuming the dice are all important)? Or do statistics tell you what the dice have reported about prior rolls, about previous events? Or, in the same vein, is balance likely just a game mechanism, like the dice themselves, as statistical calculations are, to determine levels of friction and oppositional force? (That is to say mechanisms are not motives and dice-rolling is not the same as  decision-making, and if balance, and the odds, and statistical models are merely game mechanisms then do they determine the nature of the game and your actions, and if they do then why don't you juts create a computer model to run such calculations ad infinitum? Because you are going to lose encounters, both unbalanced and balanced ones. So why the effort to make decisions of your own based on anything but the inevitability of the numbers? Right? You could play D&D even when asleep by having the statistics that cannot be ignored by mechanisms that cannot be subverted or circumvented by rational action played for you in abstentia and save yourself the trouble of making decisions for yourself or of having to make calculations upon human factors like heroism, right or wrong, or danger and risk. Until that is the statistics tell you that you are going to lose (and eventually you will, statistically speaking), and then the game can be over, you having enjoyed your foray into the dark and dangerous realms of balanced numbers, where the statistical bandersnatch roam.

I do though allow for the fact that I may be either exaggerating or misinterpreting your point and the real implications of your argument, and if that is the case then I’ll let you clarify. Unless of course you tell me that’s not really what I meant to say then I’ll just wait to hear what you thought I was really thinking.

However I do believe we can agree on one point. The way a person looks at real life is very likely to determine how he thinks his entertainments should operate, that they imply, and what they should be about. But then again maybe we won’t agree on that unless you tell me we do _and then I guess there’s nothing I can about that. _ It's just the way things are.

No, I’m just kidding. I’m already working up a plan in the case you’re not thinking what I think you’re thinking I oughtta be thinking.

Anyways, I like you Jas. You remind me of an old buddy a mine.
It was fun arguing with him too.

See ya later.


----------



## Gimby (Dec 15, 2008)

Leaving aside that heroes overcome their opposition so often in fiction because their victory is a matter of author fiat rather than any contact with the odds, you do touch on the point about why people would take the +1 sword over the wand of wonder.  

If a course of action is proving pointless, you change your action.  In doing so, you *change the odds*.  The use of clever tactics, positioning and so on doesn't mean that you beat unfavourable odds, it means that you first make the odds favourable (represented here by lowering the required target number on the dice) and then beat the now-favourable odds instead.  

Essentially, you contradict yourself within your post - you say this:



> *I said, by example and proclamation, do not let them determine your actions.*




After just giving examples of how actions are determined by unfavourable odds - to whit, taking actions to improve said odds.  

So in the context of magic items, getting permanent bonuses is one of many methods that can be used to shift the odds in your favour.  By getting that extra +1 I can now confidently take on more powerful challenges than before.  

The point of encounter balance is to make encounter design predicable for the DM - so they can confidently say whether a fight will be easy or hard or nigh impossible.  Its still up to the players to decide whether or not to take on that hard encounter - the heroism of their characters depends very much on what they decide to face, what rewards are worth what risks.  Timid characters will face only easy encounters, heroic ones will risk the tougher ones - confident that they can use their teamwork and abilities to give them acceptable odds of success. 

To give an example of an unbalanced encounter, consider a CR 9 encounter vs a EPL 10 party.  Should be a pushover, right?  Except that this CR 9 encounter is 20 level 1 kobold sorcerors with Magic Missile.  Unless they have brooches of sheilding, this encounter will probably kill one party member per turn(no save, just die), until they run out of missiles, at which point they present essentially no threat at all.  Its that kind of idiocy that balanced encounters attempt to avoid.  

Just because an encounter is balanced does not mean that victory is certain, that you don't have to play smart to win or it doesn't require any player input (or luck) at all.   

To address this point:


> You do understand that statistics are created, computed, and compiled as an after action result *of action?*




This is certainly true for the real world.  It is not however true for the simulated game world - this is because we know the probabilities associated with every event that occurs in the game world - if we didn't, we couldn't simulate it.  We can use this to follow every path in a decision tree and determine the probability of every outcome.  Do we actually do this in actual play? Of course not, but its part of the game design process.  It's where the values of ACs, attack bonusses and so on come from.  

In short, I'm not sure what you are arguing.  That characters shouldn't only take actions that they are 100% likely to succeed at?  That heroism requires taking risks? These aren't particularly contentious positions.  I am confused about your railing against balance here - what is it that you think balance means?


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> My practical experience with comparing characters that enjoy plot-immunity (ie Luke Skywalker, Bilbo Baggins) with those that don't (insert PC name here) is that they're a considerable waste of time. Call it the "Luke was a Commoner Fallacy".




Oh yes, I agree 100%. I think the "X was a commoner" fallacy is one of the biggest problems when trying to translate prose into game rules.

Another prime example would be Conan. Many people point to Conan as an example of a normal melee guy who overcomes the odds but also tend to forget that Conan has straight 18s across the board.

Basically, Conan is a twinked out stat character....


----------



## jasin (Dec 16, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> There is however an apparent problem based upon your previous examples. You seem to be implying that dice rolls are numbers only, not mathematical representations of decided [decision] events. Let’s say you need a D20 to hit an opponent. You roll and your attack misses. Now you’ve nothing else to do right? No other decision to make? You’ll eventually hit or you won’t and so will your opponent? But what if, knowing your attack odds with a sword are bad you instead employ a magical item? Throw a spell? Retreat? Set something on fire? Redeploy with bows that have a better chance? Employ a power? Present a feat? Create a distraction so someone can maneuver to a weak point on your opponent? Change your tactics? Or make any other decision(s) based upon any other resource you possess, or that exists in the surrounding environment, that will change the conditions of the battlespace?



Shouldn't all these be accounted for in a balanced encounter?

Game balance isn't about monsters rolling d20+10 and you rolling d20+15 and seeing who rolls higher. It's about monsters outnumbering you 5 to 1, but only having half of your hit points, but then again you have better powers, and yet they have the advantage of terrain, but quick thinking and good teamwork can turning that advantage to your side, but they'll also get reinforcements in the middle of the fight, but you have action points which allow you to bend the usual rules &c., all of which combines to give you a 90% chance of success. So in 9 out of 10 such encounters the PCs win despite the illusion of terrible danger. That's how D&D emulates heroism (numbers adjusted to taste, obviously).

If the PCs face genuine danger (say, 33% odds of success _even if they do all the right things_), 2 attempts out of 3 will just end in failure. That sort of (imaginary) disregard for personal safety in order to do the (imaginary) right thing might be in some ways closer to true heroism than consistently having the odds subtly stacked in your favour, but for most people the illusion of danger and consistent success feels more satisfying (and heroic!) than true danger and consistent failure.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 16, 2008)

I completely, 100% agree that 1st edition AD&D was the leader in terms of style and flavour. As for the rest of it....



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> I have the Encyclopedia Magica (the leather tomes from pre 3E that had ALL the magical items ever printed for the game up to then....) and the vast majority of the items in the books are, well, shockingly mundane. Great fluff and description but the effect is pretty "normal".




This is probably the most important point, the +1 dagger does in fact predate 3E..



			
				el remmen said:
			
		

> I must say that the first thing I do with any published adventure of any edition after the first read through, is go through with a black sharpie and mark out the magical items (and some treasure) I wanted to eliminate. There has always been more magical stuff in printed D&D than I like, even when I did have a much more magic item-rich campaign than I have these days.




And you can have to much of a good thing. 1E was treasure rich (no matter what RCK says), and it could just get overwhelming. Daods Wonderous Lanthorn, A Deck of Many Things, The Demonicon of Igwiz...try having that in the group at the same time, and more! Its over top, but maybe worse, at some point, everyone just starts to loose track of stuff. Which leads to...



			
				Allister said:
			
		

> I think it all comes down to "not being able to sell those items".
> 
> Take for example, this post detailing items from classic modules
> 
> If the same modules was run in 3e/4e, without a doubt, most of those magic items would be sold and used to finance more mundane but more consistent/powerful items like +2 swords/armours/cloaks etc...




Even PCs loose interest. I have seen in various editions, clever items being traded for the most boring crap by good players, because they want to use the boring crap...



			
				Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that not everyone loved the Magic Item Compendium, 'cause everyone in my gaming groups thinks its the best thing ever. It reintroduced a lot of items that could do lots of little things, and made them inexpensive enough to buy a few of them.




And speaking of latter editions, there are multi function items, even some flavourfull ones, and the compendium has plenty of them (many pretty clever)



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> The other big issue IMO is the idea of 'expected wealth' which was introduced in 3e. Because a lot of the versatile, interesting magic items were still in the DMG, but were given an 'expected wealth value' which was so high they never saw play in the game.
> 
> 4e strives to make items a bit more interesting than 3e at low level, but still suffers a bit from the "you're heroic tier? Only one daily power for you!" metagame design - and there seems a complete paucity of multi-functional higher level stuff at all. It is as if an average has been taken which is a bit better than low level 3e, but worse than high level 3e, and that average stretched across all the tiers.
> 
> The 4e exception for me is artifacts, which I think have probably recieved one of their best core rules treatments I've seen.




4E did reprice items, give them some powers...and artifacts, artifacts are great, and made so that you can actually use them at the levels you will actually play at. 

But, as I went through all this, I realized:

_I have continued to use multifunction, flavourfull items all along._ Some from published sources, some I just made up. 

But of course, I am a DM, so I am capable of doing that. 

It does make me wonder about this 11+ page thread though.


----------



## Jack7 (Dec 18, 2008)

I like some of the things all of you said. And agreed with many other of the things you said, as well as disagreeing with a few.

I got some more things to say on the matter but didn't want you guys to think I was ignoring what you said.

But I've been busy lately, real busy. And didn't wanna give hurried, sloppy, misleading answers to your points. And I realized we kinda got off track because I personally see a real connection between magic in fantasy games and heroism in fantasy games. I can't respond like I'd like right now so I'll come back to this later.

*If you guys want to continue this without me til then please feel free.*


Til then I've got a couple of questions about magic and if you guys wanna discuss/argue/debate them then go at it.

_1. What, if any, do you think is the underlying connection between magic and heroism in fantasy RPGs?

2. What do you think is the connections between magic and treasure in fantasy RPGs? Is magic a type of treasure or is it a treasure of a totally different kind? If so then why?

3. Have these connections been lost over time?

4. What does magic do differently than powers?

5. What does magic do differently than science, and/or technology? (in other words what separates science from magic and what separates the Scientist from the Wizard, the Technician from the Thaumaturgist?)

6. Is magic a weapon? Is it only a weapon? What else should it be aside from a weapon?

7. Should the Wizard control magic in the same way a scientist controls electromagnetism, or channel magic as if he were a conductor?

8. Should the Cleric control Divine magic, or should God, or the gods?

9 What is the real nature of magic and how should it function as a game device for changing game-reality?
_


Well, gotta go.
Looking forward to your replies.
Of course you're not limited to these questions. Talk about whatever you wish. I just thought they'd give you something to ruminate about.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 18, 2008)

> 1. What, if any, do you think is the underlying connection between magic and heroism in fantasy RPGs?




Magic is the "tech" of FRPGs.  Its not integral to the definition of "hero" to use tech to achieve his goals- indeed, heroic achievements without using tech seem more heroic than those achieved with it.

However, sometimes, tech is necessary.  Knights have their armor.  Modern Action Heroes usually carry some kind of firearm, possibly explosives.  MacGyver carried nothing, but improvised a lot of tech.

In a fantasy world, Dutch (the Governator's character from Predator) would trade his machine gun for a magic staff or weapon.  (When that failed, of course, he'd still be setting up his primitive traps- another form of tech).



> 2. What do you think is the connections between magic and treasure in fantasy RPGs? Is magic a type of treasure or is it a treasure of a totally different kind? If so then why?




To me, Magic is both a subset of treasure that may be found or won and something that can be created by one's self or allies.



> 3. Have these connections been lost over time?




Not IME.


> 4. What does magic do differently than powers?




For one thing, its removable.  And because its removable, it can be used against its former possessors or even completely destroyed.



> 5. What does magic do differently than science, and/or technology? (in other words what separates science from magic and what separates the Scientist from the Wizard, the Technician from the Thaumaturgist?)




The old Arthur C. Clark adage comes into play here: Any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.  Some would argue that the reverse is also true.

However, one thing that magic does that (real) technology doesn't is break the laws of physics.




> 6. Is magic a weapon? Is it only a weapon? What else should it be aside from a weapon?




Like Weapons, Magic is a tool.   As such, it can be bent to any task that a creative mind can come up with.  Sometimes, though, the use of magic is impractical, as it is with RW tech as well.

One wouldn't create a 5 hour ritual to sharpen your pencil, after all- that would be the magical equivalent of a Rube Goldberg device.



> 7. Should the Wizard control magic in the same way a scientist controls electromagnetism, or channel magic as if he were a conductor?




That depends upon the setting and the kind of magic.


> 8. Should the Cleric control Divine magic, or should God, or the gods?




Clerics channel divine energies granted to them by their god or philosophy.  Their power is not inherent, but rather, is on loan.



> 9 What is the real nature of magic and how should it function as a game device for changing game-reality?




Again, that depends upon the setting and kind of magic.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 18, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> Well, that and standardization. I noticed this most clearly with the "Rod of Wonder" in 3E. Why did it go from "Wand of Wonder" in AD&D to "Rod of Wonder" in 3E? Because in 3E, Rods can be used by everybody but all wands can only be used by Wizards. In other words... the Design Cops got mad at the Wand of Wonder for breaking the rules.
> 
> Hello... way to miss the point! The Wand of Wonder was _all about_ breaking the rules. Yeah, it's a wand that can be used by a Fighter. So what? It's also a wand that can shoot a rhinoceros at your foe. It doesn't play well with others. What part of "This wand shoots rhinoceroses" suggests that it should play well with others?
> 
> ...



This post is quoted in its entirety as it is A Thing of Beauty.


----------



## avin (Dec 18, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> 4E is just starting. The fluff and history will come, particularly in themed books like the Manual of the Planes and Open Grave, or in campaign-specific books.




I'm inclined to disagree... except for Bazaar of the Bizarre 4E isn't very fond of fluffed items... and I suppose it won't be.


----------



## Delta (Dec 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> Another prime example would be Conan. Many people point to Conan as an example of a normal melee guy who overcomes the odds but also tend to forget that Conan has straight 18s across the board.




Gygax's writeup of Conan in Dragon #49 gives him:
Age 15 -- 18/76, 12, 8, 18, 18, 15
Age 30 -- 19, 16, 11, 19, 18, 16
Age 70 -- 18/01, 18, 15, 16, 15, 17

With some other iterations at ages in between.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 18, 2008)

Delta said:


> Gygax's writeup of Conan in Dragon #49 gives him:
> Age 15 -- 18/76, 12, 8, 18, 18, 15
> Age 30 -- 19, 16, 11, 19, 18, 16
> Age 70 -- 18/01, 18, 15, 16, 15, 17
> ...




Er, you need to also write the corresponding ability name but from the actual novels, Conan's non physical stats were all in the high teens. Conan was able to do ritualistic magic, was able to learn multiple languages, was remarked as one of the greatst inspirers of men and in multiple stories was remarked as having somewhat unearthly willpower...


----------



## Obryn (Dec 18, 2008)

Delta said:


> Age 15 -- 18/76, 12, 8, 18, 18, 15
> Age 30 -- 19, 16, 11, 19, 18, 16
> Age 70 -- 18/01, 18, 15, 16, 15, 17






AllisterH said:


> Er, you need to also write the corresponding ability name




AD&D 1/2e:

Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> Conan was able to do ritualistic magic




???????

What story are you thinking of here?

????????


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 18, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha




There can be only one. 

joe b.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> ???????
> 
> What story are you thinking of here?
> 
> ????????




*Chuckle*

Yes, Conan did ritualistic Magic in a real Howard story...check out the REH forums for the exact story but yes, Conan can and does use magic...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> *Chuckle*
> 
> Yes, Conan did ritualistic Magic in a real Howard story...check out the REH forums for the exact story but yes, Conan can and does use magic...




I have read, and own, a copy of every REH Conan story.  And, again, I ask which story you are referring to.  Is the answer "I don't know?" because I certainly know of no story in which Conan qualifies as a character who "can and does use magic".

EDIT:  And a quick check seems to confirm my memory.  If you know of a REH story where Conan uses ritualistic magic, I'd be interested to hear it.  If not, I am going to call shennanigans on this one.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Dec 19, 2008)

Delta said:


> Gygax's writeup of Conan in Dragon #49 gives him:
> Age 15 -- 18/76, 12, 8, 18, 18, 15
> Age 30 -- 19, 16, 11, 19, 18, 16
> Age 70 -- 18/01, 18, 15, 16, 15, 17
> ...




That's splitting hairs a bit no?  While it's technically NOT straight 18's, it's bloody well close enough.  

And, I gotta go with Raven Crowking on this one.  While I might disagree with him on a number of things Conan related, Conan using magic is something I've never come across.


----------



## Jack7 (Dec 20, 2008)

> Magic is the "tech" of FRPGs.






> However, one thing that magic does that (real) technology doesn't is break the laws of physics.




Interesting. So for the sake of discussion let's ask some more questions...

If magic is the "tech" of a FRPG world then in what sense is it technological?

For instance, in the real world technology is technology specifically because it is repeatable (that is, when I use my TV remote control it always operates my televise, not my blender, and when I tune it to certain channels it always aligns with that particular television frequency), controllable, and recognizable (it has recognizable effects, causes, methods of operation, etc.). Assuming technology is operating correctly, there is no obvious source of interference or breakdown in equipment then technology is technology precisely because it is always depend, with predictable aspects at every stage of operation, from generation to conclusion.

Would magic necessarily operate in the same way? At all? For instance if magic really does break the laws of physics then does it do so only as to effects and outcomes, or would it not also break the rules of physics in the way in which it operated? 

If it breaks the laws of physics in every-way, how it is evoked or generated, how controlled or not controlled, how it operates, and in the effects it causes, then would it really be a tech of any kind (other than as a not very good analogical metaphor)? 

If, one the other hand, it breaks the rule of physics only in the effects it causes then how come it wouldn't break the laws of physics in how it operates? Why would it have controllable and predictable effects when it is breaking the laws of physics, and how come it would have predictable effects, or methods of operation if it is indeed breaking the laws of physics? In other words why would it be so easy to control if the effects it produces are directly opposite to the laws of science, physics, and technology?




> It's about monsters outnumbering you 5 to 1




It is if you're regularly fighting monsters who outnumber you by 5 to 1.
But I thought you didn't like danger and the odds that went along with it?
And yes, I'm just kinda teasing you a bit.

I'll answer some of the other questions later, but I've caught some kinda crud from my wife and children.
Kinda slow in my thought processes and very tired, generally speaking.
Trying to take most things in short orders.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 21, 2008)

> If magic is the "tech" of a FRPG world then in what sense is it technological?




Magic is FRPG tech because it is:

1) generally repeatable, and has teachable & learnable rules of use and operation- at least the Arcane stuff is.  Divine Magic is a slightly different beast.

2) is used to amplify the impact of the actions of a person or persons;

3) or is used to save the energy of the user by making difficult tasks easier;

4) like technology, it is not 100% reliable.



> If it breaks the laws of physics <_snip_>




Let me clarify- magic breaks the laws of physics of _our_ world as we know it.  Almost any use of magic in an RPG involves cheating the laws of thermodynamics.

A world in which real magic (as opposed to Clarkian ultra-tech) operates is a world with different laws of physics.


----------



## nightwyrm (Dec 21, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Let me clarify- magic breaks the laws of physics of _our_ world as we know it. Almost any use of magic in an RPG involves cheating the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> A world in which real magic (as opposed to Clarkian ultra-tech) operates is a world with different laws of physics.




To put it another way: "There is no magic." 

A magic user in an RPG world simply uses the natural laws of his own RPG world to produce his effects. It seems magical and mysterious to _us_ because the laws of _our_ world do not allow such effects. To the inhabitants of the RPG world (and certainly to the magic user), their magic would be no more magical to them than relativity or quantum mechanics would be magical to us.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 21, 2008)

nightwyrm said:


> To put it another way: "There is no magic."
> 
> A magic user in an RPG world simply uses the natural laws of his own RPG world to produce his effects. It seems magical and mysterious to _us_ because the laws of _our_ world do not allow such effects. To the inhabitants of the RPG world (and certainly to the magic user), their magic would be no more magical to them than relativity or quantum mechanics would be magical to us.




It would be an exaggeration to say I've never seen a fantasy world where magic was treated by the inhabitants like something mundane and non-magical, but it is not a  big exaggeration.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> ???????
> 
> What story are you thinking of here?
> 
> ????????




Beyond the Black River.

He _kind of_ uses magic in The Tower of the Elephant, but I don't think that really counts.  

There might be another couple of examples.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> EDIT: And a quick check seems to confirm my memory. If you know of a REH story where Conan uses ritualistic magic, I'd be interested to hear it. If not, I am going to call shennanigans on this one.




Closest I can think of is "The Phoenix on the Sword".  Assuming that phoenix symbol qualifies as "ritualistic magic" then Conan is using the results of that ritual.  He's not preforming the ritual, but in the context of the magic vs. technology thing, a race car driver probably doesn't work on his own car much either at a certain level.

I'd have a hard time accepting someone trying to make the case that Conan is anything but exceptional, across the board.  He's certainly a very intelligent person - just not civilized, but he learns to read, and speak languages etc.  He wouldn't "have all 18s" because he's not a DnD character, but I think he would have what "has all 18s" would signify when translated out of DnDese.

I think there are matters of degree when it comes to technology vs. magic, and I don't think there is a clear dividing line between the two.  On one hand, it seems very easy to see examples of people using magic like technology - throwing salt over their shoulder to ward off evil, for instance.  On the other hand, it seems likely that many historical people would have instinctively sensed a difference between issues having to do with gods, ghosts, etc. and those with mundane explanations.  I recall reading somewhere that a Sumerian or Babylonian medical text made a distinction between mundane and magical diseases.  

Ultimately, I can't imagine that in either a historical or fantastic setting, that the inhabitants wouldn't view magic with a sense of wonder, even if they make use of some small part of it when they need to.  That sense of wonder seems to be to almost be required as the definition of magic.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 21, 2008)

nightwyrm said:


> To put it another way: "There is no magic."
> 
> A magic user in an RPG world simply uses the natural laws of his own RPG world to produce his effects. It seems magical and mysterious to _us_ because the laws of _our_ world do not allow such effects. To the inhabitants of the RPG world (and certainly to the magic user), their magic would be no more magical to them than relativity or quantum mechanics would be magical to us.




In a magical system, human beings are at the center of the universe and are the measure of reality.  The stones and trees have an intelligence because people do, and people project themselves and their psychologies onto the surrounding reality.  This makes the reality of a magical world extremely significant to human beings.  Magic is always perfect, even if people aren't prepared for the results (ie. Monkey's Paw) or someone elses magic is stronger.  There's never a "better theory" when it comes to magic.

On the other hand, science, by it's own definition, avoids this projection.  It's a tool for measuring a predicting things, but it does not purport to capture the essence of reality.  Quantum mechanics is not magic because it's fallible.  For instance, it doesn't predict the results that relativity does - the two theories are well known to be incompatible but are reasonable approximations for their respective scopes and will be replaced when something better comes along.

I would imagine that a wizard, if there were such a person, would understand his world totally different than a scientist does (at least a good one that's learned from the past 400 years of scientific mistakes).  Most scientists that I knew (that I took classes from) would acknowledge that science will always be an approximation of reality.  On the other hand, wizards seem to think that magic is capable of achieving perfection, past which there is nothing (ex. the philosopher's stone).  

IMO the real historical world is an example of a world where the inhabitants believed their magic to be real, and IMO it certainly was treated with a level of awe/fear/respect that is not comparable to the way a person casually aquainted with quantum mechanics would think of it.  The philosophy at the root of the Scientific Method, and the one at the root of "Magic" are significantly different.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 21, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> _1. What, if any, do you think is the underlying connection between magic and heroism in fantasy RPGs?_



_There may not even be one.  Magic is just one more tool in the toolbox for some heroes, while for others it is something they have to fight against.



			2. What do you think is the connections between magic and treasure in fantasy RPGs? Is magic a type of treasure or is it a treasure of a totally different kind? If so then why?
		
Click to expand...


In general, I'd say magic is treasure the same way anything else of value or usefulness is treasure - once you've found it, you're (usually) either richer or more powerful or both.



			3. Have these connections been lost over time?
		
Click to expand...


The first one no, as I don't think it really ever existed.  The second one no; in fact I'd suggest the opposite, in that magic has become the cornerstone of most treasure hoards.



			4. What does magic do differently than powers?
		
Click to expand...


Runs out.  Also, it *should* present more risk to use, given proper design.



			5. What does magic do differently than science, and/or technology? (in other words what separates science from magic and what separates the Scientist from the Wizard, the Technician from the Thaumaturgist?)
		
Click to expand...


All in all, probably not very much; it achieves many of the same ends via different physical means...see below.



			6. Is magic a weapon? Is it only a weapon? What else should it be aside from a weapon?
		
Click to expand...


It can be a weapon, or not, depending what its caster/owner/user wants to do with it at the time.



			7. Should the Wizard control magic in the same way a scientist controls electromagnetism, or channel magic as if he were a conductor?
		
Click to expand...


Channel (or summon) it, shape it, and send it.  The three components of casting any spell (though a true wild mage skips the second one).   To me, magic is merely a type of physical energy that some living beings can tap into and - to some extent - control.



			8. Should the Cleric control Divine magic, or should God, or the gods?
		
Click to expand...


Works the same as for a wizard (see question 7) except the magic in this case is not summoned from the surroundings but from the deity.  The Cleric still shapes it and sends it.



			9. What is the real nature of magic and how should it function as a game device for changing game-reality?
		
Click to expand...


A two-part question.  The "real" nature of magic I see as being the 5th energy type, along with gravity and three others I can't remember right now; the difference being in how it interacts with lifeforms or spirit.  How should it function as an in-game reality changer?  Hell if I know. 

Good questions.

Lanefan_


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 21, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Beyond the Black River.
> 
> He _kind of_ uses magic in The Tower of the Elephant, but I don't think that really counts.
> 
> There might be another couple of examples.




If you think breaking a gew-gaw is kind of using magic, then I suppose Gollum was a magic-user, too.  

I am curious what you think qualifies as "magic use" in Beyond the Black River; I will re-read this story tonight.  Nothing springs immediately to mind.  My immediate thought, though, is "shennanigans".  Still, it is possible that I am wrong.  



gizmo33 said:


> Closest I can think of is "The Phoenix on the Sword".  Assuming that phoenix symbol qualifies as "ritualistic magic" then Conan is using the results of that ritual.  He's not preforming the ritual, but in the context of the magic vs. technology thing, a race car driver probably doesn't work on his own car much either at a certain level.




That's not so different from claiming that Conan makes magic swords because he uses one.  Sorry, but I don't find that argument compelling.  It is certainly not an example of Conan performing ritual magic.  

Saying "Conan did ritualistic Magic" =/= "Conan benefited from someone else's magic".  There are several stories in which Conan benefits from someone else's magic, or performs an action that undoes that magic.


RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Saying "Conan did ritualistic Magic" =/= "Conan benefited from someone else's magic".




I'm not saying either one of these things, and based on your other comments I think you misunderstood my post.  In the case of the phoenix on the sword, Conan didn't perform a ritual.  But "benefitting from someone else's magic" is way too conveniently vague.  That would fit better for the case of an enemy of Conan being killed by some friendly wizard off-stage.  Carrying around a sword that was a subject of an enchantment, and using it to slay a demon (however unintentional perhaps) is significantly more immersed in the magic than the off-stage situation.  

I'm not laying claim to someone elses context on this discussion though, so please read my posts literally because I've gotten a little turned around about what the case is that other folks are trying to make regarding this.  I don't think Conan needs to perform rituals in order to prove that he has higher than average intelligence.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 21, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> I'm not saying either one of these things, and based on your other comments I think you misunderstood my post.  In the case of the phoenix on the sword, Conan didn't perform a ritual.  But "benefitting from someone else's magic" is way too conveniently vague.  That would fit better for the case of an enemy of Conan being killed by some friendly wizard off-stage.  Carrying around a sword that was a subject of an enchantment, and using it to slay a demon (however unintentional perhaps) is significantly more immersed in the magic than the off-stage situation.
> 
> I'm not laying claim to someone elses context on this discussion though, so please read my posts literally because I've gotten a little turned around about what the case is that other folks are trying to make regarding this.  I don't think Conan needs to perform rituals in order to prove that he has higher than average intelligence.




Anyone who doubts that Conan has higher than average intelligence has never read a Conan story.  

IMHO, Conan's Wisdom (perception and intuition) is higher than his Intelligence.  I would say, 16 Int in AD&D 1e, and 18 Wisdom by the time he is 30.

However, I denied -- and asked for examples to demonstrate my denial was wrong -- that "Conan did ritualistic Magic in a real Howard story", and I thought that you were counter-exampling me.  Conan certainly does make use of magic performed by others in several stories.

EDIT:  In Beyond the Black River, Conan is being tracked by a supernatural panther.  He scratches a symbol into the ground that he has seen scratched elsewhere, sacred to the power that fuels the creature tracking him.  This makes the panther go away, and Conan indicates that he believes it will protect him and his companion from other creatures of the same type -- although it leaves a clear mark to men.

I am not sure that I would call this "ritual magic", though, although I can certainly see the argument that it is _*some form of*_ magic use.



RC


----------



## Loonook (Dec 21, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> Til then I've got a couple of questions about magic and if you guys wanna discuss/argue/debate them then go at it.
> 
> _1. What, if any, do you think is the underlying connection between magic and heroism in fantasy RPGs?_



_

It exists as part of the narrative, and as an essential part of the milieu.  Be it a locale where the heroes fight with silver and cold iron against oppressive fey matriarchs or a place where magic carpets and fireballs rule the player's damage dealing ability, magic is first a narrative function; magic allows (X,Y,Z) which furthers Goals A, B, C to conclusions 1,2,3.




			2. What do you think is the connections between magic and treasure in fantasy RPGs? Is magic a type of treasure or is it a treasure of a totally different kind? If so then why?
		
Click to expand...



Treasure?  Ehh, moreso reward.  As part of the narrative, the necessity of reward as part of the general advancement of the PCs can make magic a nice side dish, or the main course.  Boons, banes, and weaponry are all great tools to grant the PCs an edge, but to say that they qualify as a separate piece of the prize puzzle is being a bit obtuse in your thinking.  

A shaman of the Cargul tribe grants the player's mount a powerful pattern tattoo allowing it to run in the Spirit Wilds.  The player gains an amulet that grants him the ability to shift into the Plane of Shadow.  A mage casts Plane Shift.  Each is a means to an end (go to location A, do action B), but the level of flavor changes it all.




			3. Have these connections been lost over time?
		
Click to expand...



Connections are only lost by the lazy and unimaginative.





			4. What does magic do differently than powers?
		
Click to expand...



Magic provides a narrative outlet beyond a power.  A villain who can literally rend heart from flesh with the gesture of a hand seems more fierce, more otherworldly (and rightly so) than the evil Melee Brute who kills with blows of his great ax.




			5. What does magic do differently than science, and/or technology? (in other words what separates science from magic and what separates the Scientist from the Wizard, the Technician from the Thaumaturgist?)
		
Click to expand...



Magic shouldn't necessarily do anything differently than science; usually it is just at a higher level.  Some settings (Shadowrun and Arcanum are great examples) make a separation between magic and tech.  Really, a mundane society should come up with ways to deal with magic if it is omnipresent; even in our own cultures there were always little tricks and common charms to stop devious effects of alleged magicians.




			6. Is magic a weapon? Is it only a weapon? What else should it be aside from a weapon?
		
Click to expand...



Magic is a force applied to a desired goal.  It takes time, dedication, and will to hone and shape.  If given enough talent and time, magic should be able to do damn near anything . . . but it comes at a price (spell components, XP loss, damage to self, isolation, etc.) and should be limited based on the spread of knowledge (not every hedge wizard has access to the Spell Compendium, and neither should your players).




			7. Should the Wizard control magic in the same way a scientist controls electromagnetism, or channel magic as if he were a conductor?
		
Click to expand...



Depends on the style.  Some magic users may burn themselves in the process, others may channel the energy of the land around them, others use fetishes and gris gris (and may not even appear too wizardly).  It's a matter of flavor setting-by-setting, really.




			8. Should the Cleric control Divine magic, or should God, or the gods?
		
Click to expand...



Again, depends.  Is it the cleric's belief or divine intercession which grants spells?




			9 What is the real nature of magic and how should it function as a game device for changing game-reality?
		
Click to expand...



Ahh, the crux of the whole thing, and it would take me a page or two to really get into it deeper than I already have . . . so I'll leave my other answers to divine the roots of my argument.





			Well, gotta go.
Looking forward to your replies.
Of course you're not limited to these questions. Talk about whatever you wish. I just thought they'd give you something to ruminate about.
		
Click to expand...



Really, my issue is one of flavor and narrative vs. mechanics.  I enjoy having a mechanic which is flexible enough to give a lot of leeway when it comes to materials, but I really don't like a strong mechanical backing when it comes to other things.  I enjoy the fairly generic Modern for this reason; I build flavor around it, it suits me fine.  Thus, when I have to see Random Items +X all about, I get a touch angry... but I also have come to the realization that none of my books magically go away, and if I want to tear out some Dragon's Teeth or Heward's Organ into any game I choose... well, I still have the right to do so.

Slainte,

-Loonook._


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 22, 2008)

Ahglock said:


> > A magic user in an RPG world simply uses the natural laws of his own RPG world to produce his effects. It seems magical and mysterious to us because the laws of our world do not allow such effects. To the inhabitants of the RPG world (and certainly to the magic user), their magic would be no more magical to them than relativity or quantum mechanics would be magical to us.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be an exaggeration to say I've never seen a fantasy world where magic was treated by the inhabitants like something mundane and non-magical, but it is not a  big exaggeration.




Just because magic is not as mysterious to the inhabitant of a typical fantasy world as it is to us, doesn't mean that they don't find it amazing.

I'm surrounded by technology that I don't understand.  I watch shows on futuretech & prototypes.  Some of that stuff blows me away.  I mean, have you ever heard a quantum physicist talk about quantum entanglement, a.k.a. "spooky action at a distance?"  To me, that's pretty near to magic.


----------



## Jack7 (Dec 22, 2008)

*A Quantum of Solitude*



> I'm surrounded by technology that I don't understand. I watch shows on futuretech & prototypes. Some of that stuff blows me away. I mean, have you ever heard a quantum physicist talk about quantum entanglement, a.k.a. "spooky action at a distance?" To me, that's pretty near to magic.





I think this set of observations says something very important and intuitive about the similarities, and differences, between magic (at least as expressed in game terms) and science and technology. (As have some of the other previous observations on the questions I asked.)

_*Now I'm gonna tell ya my opinion of why magic is nothing like science and technology both in how it works and in how it would be perceived.*_

We (generally speaking) call magic a tech, merely because this is the closest thing we could relate it to, based on the parameters of how our modern world functions. But people who lived in a world in which magic operated sans a corresponding version of our science and technology would not only not think of magic as a "technology" they would have no means of controlling it like one.

In other words we only imagine magic would work like a technology because that's the only way we are conditioned to think of it. Those who actually lived in such a society would not think of magic as science. Because they would have no science to compare and contrast it by. But furthermore and far more fundamentally speaking, if magic did break the laws of physics (which the people in such a world would also not really be aware of in a scientific and technological fashion, but would be only vaguely aware of such "laws" and their breakage) then it would seem very likely that magic would break scientific and physical laws in most every respect, including, how it operated, was controlled or not controlled, what effects it produced, and how it was evoked, invoked, and stimulated. In any case it seems extremely unlikely it would operate by a formulaic process like this, Take A, Do B, Then C will occur, always in the same way and at the same instance and with the same effect, which ends up producing X, and that was the desired outcome all along.

We describe magic like this from our point of view, from a modern scientific point of view, not because it would really be likely to operate in this mechanistic fashion, but simply because we often lack the effort of imagination to try and imagine how it might really work (in any other way than our most common way of thinking, and in terms of our most obvious analogies to our paradigm of how we imagine the world to "really work.")

We imagine magic as science in another form and on a different world not because that world would really be different (if magic really worked on a different world like science does, as a technology, then that world would not really be different from ours at all, it would just be in a more primitive state of technological development, and the sconce merely proto-science, rather than magic), and not because magic would really be different, but simply because if magic were real then it would be so fundamentally different that few of us have ever exercised the real effort of imagination to describe just how exactly fundamentally different it would be. So we fall back upon easy analogies and simple paradigms and methods of conceiving of the world that are already familiar to us. (And usually uncritically unquestioned.)

Since we are discussing simple analogies and their effectiveness at disclosing or concealing the truth, then let me now use an analogy of my own. Suppose a Cro-Magnon individual were to encounter a modern jet fighter, like the Raptor, saw it flying over his head, performing maneuvers, perhaps strafing the ground, firing rockets. Think he would describe such a thing in technological terms? How exactly would he describe it? Devise new terms to accurately reflect the nature of his observations, or far more likely describe it in terms relative to his own and previous experience? (And why would he do the latter, because it would be more accurate, or because it would be easier?)

*We do the same thing in reverse to magic.*

Now could the Cro-Magnon man describe the Raptor (assuming he has a developed language) more or less accurately if he sat down and really tried to imagine how the thing might operate, what it really was and exactly what he had really seen. He certainly wouldn't be as accurate as the draftsmen who helped design it, or even one of us casually observing it in flight, but he could probably come much closer to the truth, be much more precise, than if he just said, "giant-fire-thunder-bird."

But we are really just in the same basic rowboat without an oar of truth as the primitive man when we try and describe magic in mechanistic, scientific, technological terms. Because if myth, and religion, and psychology, and stories from the past are any indication, any guide at all, then magic is anything but mechanistic, mechanical (in the modern sense), scientific, and proto-technological. *Magic would rather be much more like a force arising from the souls of men,* than from their minds, and only laziness of habit makes us try to imagine magic as a mental construct, as a paradigm of the mind (because we are a mind obsessed culture) rather than as a psychic (as the Greeks meant the term, to describe the soul) contract and a paradigm of the spirit.

We aren't able to even imagine the real possibilities of magic, as out ancestors could, because we are self-absorbed in our own view of the world. (I am not debating what view of the world is superior by the way, I don't consider the scientific paradigm either superior to, or inferior to, a psychaec paradigm.) And for that reason we also cannot imagine magic as intimately related to personal heroism. Because through lack of imagination we can only imagine it as technological in nature, and therefore cold, impersonal, and open to easy manipulation and exploitation from anyone and from any source. 

(And this, by the way, explains where all of the Heroes went. Because when the magic of Heroes moves from being an internal force of character, of personal nature, and of the soul, to being a "technological force" then magic stops being magic at all, it becomes a mere mechanical contrivance. And Heroes are not creatures of technology, that is to say they can employ any technology available, but it is not the technology that makes them Heroes and it is not the technology that evokes magic from within. _Magic cannot create Heroes, *Heroes create magic*._ Because in at least one sense, they are magic. The Heroes, like magic itself, now slumber in an artificial womb of wires, gear-plates, cogwheels, and a precisely suspended chemical soup of how magic is weakly imagined. And you can cook up a lot of things with modern chemistry, but one thing you can't cook up with such a febrile recipe is a real Hero. The best you can do is just to create different versions of the same Clone. _*Heroes are cooked in the hot-kiln of personal struggle, *_not in the tepid tea-pot of impersonal technology.)   

That isn't how our ancestors saw magic (that is, a modern construct or viewpoint of magic, that magic is separate from the user of magic, and indifferent to his fate). Even as late as the Arthurian legends magic was intimately connected to the user. It arose from his soul. No one else could effectively use Excalibur or the magic inherent in it because that magic was in some way directly tied to the nature, character, and soul of Arthur. Merlin's magic likewise came from within him. (For that matter so did Aragorn's, Gandalf's and Sam Gamgee's - the real hero of the LOTR.)

With science, all of the laws and principles come from outside ourselves. They operate external to our wishes. Gravity works on you regardless of your opinion of it. It is by learning to internalize the ideal of the objective that a man learns to harness and control forces and powers external to himself. Technology is the embodiment of learning to master external force and redirect it as one wills for useful purposes.

Magic is the exact reverse, if myth and so forth are any guide. Magic is the process of observing and then mastering the forces within an individual to render a unique and characteristic expression of internal force. But magic is not tame-able, as technology so often renders the external world. There always remains a "wild aspect" of the soul that makes magic very, very different from mechanistic, Newtonian physics. Magic can do the impossible, operates in an impossible way, renders impossible effects, and also remains untamed and uncontrolled. Magic is the embodiment of learning to master internal force and redirect it as one wills for greater purposes. We through lack of imagination describe it as a science, as controllable, as predictable, as technological, when in every way, from how it is invoked to how it operates it would be much more like _"shock and awe._" Not as a simple display of "shock and awe," not as visual cue nor a military metaphor of the precise application of force, but from beginning to end. From genesis to revelation, odd things would be occurring, things that could not be explained, predicted, or prepared for, in a scientific sense. (There is however perhaps one form of science which would have some parallel properties to magic, and that would be Quantum sciences. In some respects anyways.)

Magic arises from within the individual and so is heroically tied to the destiny of that individual. Only the outward expressions of magic become visible and manifest in a way that in some respects seems similar the operations of scientific principles, like electromagnetism, or the strong and weak forces. But that is an illusion, an appearance, a simulacrum, a phantasm of the mind that tricks modern men into thinking that just because a thing looks like something else it must be similar in nature, it must operate in the same way. That because a fireball looks like a big ball of plasma they operate the same way and are triggered by the same source. Hell, that's even bad science, it is certainly very bad magic.

_*Because magic is a Quantum of Solitude*_, not a quantity of science. *It is intrinsic*, _not geometric_. It arises from the souls of individuals, not from staves of dead wood and funny shaped crystals.

So games and game designers should go back to the true and original sources of magic, and discard the foolish notion that a Ring of Wishes and Radio Waves are the same kinds of things, just packaged differently. They are certainly not. Try this right now. Turn on your Wish Remote and wish yourself into being Conan the Barbarian. See how this world, and the principles that govern it, work differently than magic?

Now, does anyone honestly imagine that describing magic in terms of electromagnetic spectra, neutrino wave transmission, and technological artifaction is the very best way to describe how magic would operate if it did operate?

If you do then I gotta Portable Hole made out of an atomic singularity I'd like to sell ya.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 22, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> In other words we only imagine magic would work like a technology because that's the only way we are conditioned to think of it.



Most D&D players treat magic like technology because that's how it's used in the game, ie as a tool. 

edit: and the in-game magic that isn't a tool is usually a plot device.   

It's no more complicated than that. Anything else is sophistry... not that I'm knocking sophistry mind you, it can be very entertaining. But let's call a spade a spade (note: that was a pun. A spade is a tool. Even if it's a +5 Spade of Digging).


----------



## Rel (Dec 22, 2008)

Re:  The "laws of physics" in fantasy worlds...

Them's more guidelines than actual rules.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 22, 2008)

Jack7 said:


> That isn't how our ancestors saw magic (that is, a modern construct or viewpoint of magic, that magic is separate from the user of magic, and indifferent to his fate). Even as late as the Arthurian legends magic was intimately connected to the user. It arose from his soul. No one else could effectively use Excalibur or the magic inherent in it because that magic was in some way directly tied to the nature, character, and soul of Arthur. Merlin's magic likewise came from within him. (For that matter so did Aragorn's, Gandalf's and Sam Gamgee's - the real hero of the LOTR.)




Maybe you're defining magic in a way that's not obvious to me, but I think there are tons of counter-examples to what you're claiming here.  The first two that come to mind:
1.  Aladdin and the magic lamp
2.  Tristan, Iseult, and the love potion.
These two are examples of people using magic not "meant" for them.

The entire field of alchemy of pseudo-scientific and mechanistic in a way that contradicts what you're saying.  In fact, I'm able to say that I'm "skeptical" about your claims in a fundemental psychological difference in this area, thanks to Greek philosophy that is firmly grounded in the time period that I think we're talking about.  There are plenty of examples of magical thinking in the modern period and scientific thinking in ancient times - though it can come down to definitions.

The One Ring was used by Bilbo, Frodo and other people - and on top of that was sought by pretty much everyone else because it was what you're saying magic isn't.  In fact, in one episode Excalibur was stolen by Morgan LeFey and I don't recall that it was said to be unusable by anyone else.

Speaking of Arthurian legends - I wonder (and I don't think I'm the only one) how much of those stories are influenced by forgotten religious beliefs and practices.  The notion that Merlin's powers are unique to him has some basis, but is also contradicted by the story of his eventual imprisonment.

Religion can tend to focus more on the soul/spirit of the practitioner, and yet even in this it is not exclusive.  Sacrifices, signs against the evil eye, and various other talismans seem very mechanistic in their description - you kill an animal in the temple of a god and you get a good harvest - what you're thinking at the time doesn't seem to be an issue.


----------



## Ydars (Dec 22, 2008)

The problem with D&D magic is that is an entirely separate and distinct entity that is not connected to any belief system or any natural force or event. It is never used as a way to displace our scientific assumptions about the world, so of course we fall back on what we know. If the game world told us the world actually was flat, then we, as players, would be forced to accept that this was true of the game world. Similarly, if we are told how magic works and how it functions (even if this is not always logical or predictable) then we would be able to use it and interact with it in a meaningful way. Yet D&D completely sidesteps what magic is and how it works, except to allude to Vance, whose views on magic were fairly obscure and not completely explicit.

So of course magic gets used as a flavourless tool. It was designed to be used that way, though some might say this was a mistake.

Magic originally arose as a way of explaining the world and how it functioned. It was tied to how ancient peoples percieved their world and their own place in it.

There were obviously many magical traditions that became associated with various belief systems and all could be mined for ideas; Cabalism, the philsophers stones, the doctrine of signatures, the law of arcane connections, etc. The problem is, what results would be closer to Ars Magica than D&D and it is probably too late to do more than nudge D&D towards this now.

The irony is, that Gygax's original decision on magic allowed lots of different worlds to evolve because of the lack of this kind of fluff. Now we have a unified cosmology for all the D&D worlds with 4E, it actually would be more feasible to create a unified theory of magic than at any time in the past.


----------



## Ydars (Dec 22, 2008)

Oh and the idea that people in a world ruled by magic would be as blase about it as we are about technology only have to think about the medieval world to realise this is not true.

Ancient peoples all believed in magical forces and realms beyound their own senses and up to thw 18th century, people were afraid of the dead walking in the the UK and of possession by evil humours and miasmas that were often associated with magical forces. Even most religions were thought of as magical to most peasant folk and the divide between the arcane and divine did not exist. The queen's own physican cast horoscopes before giving treatment in the 1700s, as did the famous herbalist Culpeper. it was all part making sense of a magical world.

We understand such things are nonsense because of education and even someone who has never been to school understands a hundred times more about the way the world works than any person in the medieval world because of TV and other ways of acquiring "general knowledge".

The key thing about magic is AWE; this was a very familiar feeling to ancient peoples. They could observe many more things than we can now about the natural world as they lived so close to it. Yet they could explain almost none of it and so stood in awe of the majesty of it all.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 22, 2008)

Ydars said:


> So of course magic gets used as a flavourless tool. It was designed to be used that way, though some might say this was a mistake.



The trick is to make magic flavorful while still acknowledging it's role in the game is primarily as a problem-solving tool. 



> Magic originally arose as a way of explaining the world and how it functioned.



In the real world. In D&D worlds magic arose as a toolbox full of artillery shells.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 22, 2008)

Mallus said:


> In the real world. In D&D worlds magic arose as a toolbox full of artillery shells.




Hmmm... I'd say that in D&D _rules_ magic arose as a toolbox full of artillery shells (plus a variety of multi-tools and scanners). That says very little about how magic arose in D&D worlds, which presumably would have an in-character perspective and would probably have more in common with how beliefs about magic developed in the real world. The main difference in this case is that the beliefs about magic in D&D worlds, being part of fantasy fiction, were not necessarily domitable by real physical laws and could develop as an alternative means of explaining and manipulating the environment.

To push on from there, from an in-character perspective, the common features involved in manipulating magical forces could certainly come to approach a level of technology - albeit one that allowed talented individuals, whether that talent came from innate ability, divine connections, or long study, to manipulate the environment in ways that could otherwise break the standard physical laws binding other forms of technology. That, I think, takes magic out of the realm of regular technology as far as the feel goes even if it does bear some similar trappings.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 22, 2008)

One of the challenges/problems with basing an in-character perspective on folklore or history is that AFAIK magic was always described from the perspective of an outsider.  In DnD terms - wizards in stories are always NPCs - at least in folklore.  When actual occult practices, like the Rennaissance stuff, is documented they become very mechanistic IMO.  I think the lesson from that is - the less you know about magic the more wonderous it will all seem.  The relevance to DnD is that putting all of the magic rules (like listing magic items in the PHB) in the hands of the players runs counter to this sense of wonder.  I think it's a real challenge to make a rule system for a character (wizard) whose folklore persona is basically about breaking rules.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 22, 2008)

I think what Jack7 is saying could be made by analogy to how the Force was described in the original _Star Wars_ films compared to how it was described _The Phantom Menace_. 

I think he may have a point there, but I won't attempt to apply it to RPGs, specifically D&D.


----------



## nightwyrm (Dec 22, 2008)

May I suggest that what people calls "magic" is simply stuff that they can't explain. To ancient people, lightning is magic and a power wield by the gods because they can't understand its cause. Curses were thought to work because people didn't understand germ theory and how people got sick.

Once you can clearly provide a mechanistic explanation of cause and effect, "magic" becomes tech. That is not to say that tech is not mysterious to the layperson. I don't know very well how my computer works and I doubt very much if anyone on this board completely understands quantum theory, but we wouldn't call them magical. I go to the tech support when my computer breaks down, but if I had completely no understanding of modern technology, I might as well call them witch doctors.

Magic is tech in D&D and many other RPGs is because the books provides the rules for magic. They have to, in order to make the game work. You mix bat guano and a few words and you get a fireball. Completely mechanistic with clear cause and effect. Even if the magic rules include a chance of failure everytime someone casts a spell, the player knows why the spell failed (you rolled poorly).

In a "magical" world, the world is whimsical. An inhabitant don't know or understand why the world works the way it does. He cannot establish mechanistic cause and effect. He may not even believe that you can understand the cause and effect in that world.

In a "tech" world, the world is orderly. A person may not know or understand exactly the rules by which the world works, but he knows that there are rules. If something happens that he can't explain, he knows that it's because of his lack of knowledge of the rules of the world, not because the world doesn't have any rules.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 22, 2008)

Gentlegamer said:


> I think what Jack7 is saying could be made by analogy to how the Force was described in the original _Star Wars_ films compared to how it was described _The Phantom Menace_.
> 
> I think he may have a point there, but I won't attempt to apply it to RPGs, specifically D&D.



That's actually quite good. Allow me to extend it a little. 

In fantasy fiction and film people prefer magic to be like the Force as it was described in _Star Wars_. In fantasy RPG's like D&D, people prefer magic to be like the Force as it was described in _The Phantom Menace_. Because in a fiction and film we are vicarious participants in the action. We can sit back and enjoy the mystery. But when we're gaming, we are direct participants. Our choices decide the outcomes. We want magic _quantified_, so we can both use it and defend against opponents using it against us.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 23, 2008)

There are two separate instances regarding the feel of magic as it pertains to D&D play. The first is from the perspective of the player and the second is from the perspective of a fictitious character within a fantasy world. 

To the player at the table, that sense of wonder at discovering magical items and thier function when first encountering them  is difficult if not impossible to maintain. Experienced players are familliar with the workings of such items after years of play and so the standard array of items become all too ho-hum and expected. Keeping the player mystified by the workings of magic requires a constant influx of non-standard magic to keep them guessing which can amount to a lot of work.

To a character within a fantasy world magic will be as wonderous as it is rare and unknown. If the vast majority of magical items are available for sale or can be constructed by the typical adventurer then what was once magic simply becomes designer gear. 3E brought about this style of magic with the detailed item creation rules. Suddenly any adventurer with the right feats, and resources could make items that were magical, and functional. Made to order gear became standard (RAW only-subject to individual tweaking) and thus wonderous items became standard gear, not only to the players but to their characters as well. 

I remember a section on magical items from the 1E DMG that talked about the rarity of or even unique nature of certain items. It was suggested that perhaps only a few or even one of certain items might exist within the campaign world. Lets take a typical wonderous item such as a pair of _boots of speed_ for example. Suppose these items were crafted long ago by a famous elven wizard. Only three pairs are known to exist and one of those pairs is owned by a well known retired adventurer. While exploring a ruined city, the PC's discover a pair of these boots in the lair of some beastie. How valuable and treasured a find will this be? On the other hand if these boots can be cranked out by a party member with some time, gold and a Keebler elf sweatshop then they will probably get tossed in the pile of other goodies to sell because everyone in the party who wants such an item probably already has it. 

The 4E design that was supposed to put an end to the reliance on magical gear could have made magical items actually magical again but it didn't. Magic items are still just designer gear like they were in 3E with a narrower selection of must have slotted items and larger percentage of add-hoc doodads. If you add the ability to squish unwanted gear into magical poop to fertilize other items with then its easy to see where the magic has gone.

That ooh-ahh feeling from simple magic items may be next to impossible to get back for the players but making magic rare and not so easily obtainable can help bring back that feeling for the characters.


----------



## Ydars (Dec 23, 2008)

I know what people are saying about how difficult it is to make magic mystical in a game but the point is, I feel other games manage it much better; take Ars Magica for example! 

Here magic somehow feels more authentic and mystical because there are a set of laws of magic that must be contended with, as if magic is indeed a mystical and ill understood force. These laws are also vaguely patterned after historical/cultural perceptions of magic that seem "right" like the law of arcane connection; you need a hair or object owned by someone to affect them with a spell if you can't see them.

I think D&D magic could be made much more mystical, indeed I have my own system to do so, so that magic itself almost becomes another character in the story.


----------



## EroGaki (May 30, 2009)

Ydars said:


> I know what people are saying about how difficult it is to make magic mystical in a game but the point is, I feel other games manage it much better; take Ars Magica for example!
> 
> Here magic somehow feels more authentic and mystical because there are a set of laws of magic that must be contended with, as if magic is indeed a mystical and ill understood force. These laws are also vaguely patterned after historical/cultural perceptions of magic that seem "right" like the law of arcane connection; you need a hair or object owned by someone to affect them with a spell if you can't see them.
> 
> I think D&D magic could be made much more mystical, indeed I have my own system to do so, so that magic itself almost becomes another character in the story.




I would be very interested in hearing more about this system of yours. Magic could use some vitality these days. Especially 4th Edition magic.


----------



## Hereticus (May 30, 2009)

I miss my *Eversmoking Bottle*.


----------



## FireLance (May 30, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> I miss my *Eversmoking Bottle*.



Why? You've got the Internet, haven't you?


----------



## Hereticus (May 30, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Why? You've got the Internet, haven't you?




?????


----------



## FireLance (May 30, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> ?????



Possibly the closest thing you can get to a never-ending stream of hot smoke in real life.


----------



## Hereticus (May 30, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Possibly the closest thing you can get to a never-ending stream of hot smoke in real life.




Ahhh... thank you, I agree completely!

We did alot of interesting things with the Eversmoking Bottle, including provide cover for ourselves.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 30, 2009)

Andor said:


> If there is no wonder, and no mystery it isn't magic, it's science with newts and circles instead of cogs and circuits. If I want to play with science I don't need an RPG, I have a garage and a soldering iron.
> 
> If you don't want magic in your game, you shouldn't be playing a fantasy RPG. Period. Play a SF game, play a modern day game, play a historical game, play an alternate historical game where you explore the ramifications of a chinese expedition introducing horses and gunpowder to south america before the spainiards arrive.
> 
> Do not however whine that a fantasy game has magic in it, because that is the _whole freaking point!_



There's a paradox here. A major part of rpgs is the tendency to define, to categorise, to enumerate, to systematize, to represent numerically. In short, to make the unknown known. If magic means unknown or mysterious and magic is the essential part of fantasy then the term 'fantasy rpg' is an oxymoron. It's impossible. You can have a fantasy novel or a movie, but not a fantasy rpg.

Maybe the answer to the paradox is - only the GM should know the rules. Or maybe the only truly magical rpg can be one where there aren't any rules. But I think for a lot of rpg players mastering the rules is a big part of the draw.


----------



## Nagol (May 30, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> There's a paradox here. A major part of rpgs is the tendency to define, to categorise, to enumerate, to systematize, to represent numerically. In short, to make the unknown known. If magic means unknown or mysterious and magic is the essential part of fantasy then the term 'fantasy rpg' is an oxymoron. It's impossible. You can have a fantasy novel or a movie, but not a fantasy rpg.
> 
> Maybe the answer to the paradox is - only the GM should know the rules. Or maybe the only truly magical rpg can be one where there aren't any rules. But I think for a lot of rpg players mastering the rules is a big part of the draw.




The other option is to damage the reliability of magic through the inclusion of a random element a la Wild Magic or Deadlands' playing card draw.

The player knows the game mechanism, but cannot make accurate predictions as to the final result.


----------



## nightwyrm (May 30, 2009)

Holy thread necromancy!!


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 30, 2009)

Or have no rules for magic items and spells, only mundane activities. This would be the precise opposite of old school D&D which, bizarrely, precisely delineates magic while such activities as climbing trees and swimming in the village pond are left in the realm of eldritch mystery.

Or ban magic users. Pretty much the way Pendragon handles it, all the PCs are knights. Or ban magic users and magic items. But what would be the fun in that?


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 30, 2009)

The way D&D handles magic as mystery is to make only the very high end stuff mysterious - artefacts, bizarre 10th level spells that were lost in ages gone. So magic (in the D&D sense) only becomes magic (in the sense of mysterious) when it's really powerful. The low end stuff, like +1 swords and magic missile spells? Just another kind of technology.


----------



## Jack7 (May 31, 2009)

> There's a paradox here. A major part of rpgs is the tendency to define, to categorise, to enumerate, to systematize, to represent numerically. In short, to make the unknown known. If magic means unknown or mysterious and magic is the essential part of fantasy then the term 'fantasy rpg' is an oxymoron. It's impossible. You can have a fantasy novel or a movie, but not a fantasy rpg.
> 
> Maybe the answer to the paradox is - only the GM should know the rules. Or maybe the only truly magical rpg can be one where there aren't any rules. But I think for a lot of rpg players mastering the rules is a big part of the draw.






> The other option is to damage the reliability of magic through the inclusion of a random element a la Wild Magic or Deadlands' playing card draw.
> 
> The player knows the game mechanism, but cannot make accurate predictions as to the final result.






> The way D&D handles magic as mystery is to make only the very high end stuff mysterious - artefacts, bizarre 10th level spells that were lost in ages gone. So magic (in the D&D sense) only becomes magic (in the sense of mysterious) when it's really powerful. The low end stuff, like +1 swords and magic missile spells? Just another kind of technology.




That's an interesting set of observations Doug and Nagol.

Personally I think it is based on the following technique(s) of displaying magic as a game concept in D&D. With artifacts and relics and so forth you have so many different kinds of magical effects that can be displayed that one has a hard time "guessing or knowing" what effect the item will manifest next. 

That is to say high level magic items have a wide option choice of magical effects and displays, which adds to the mystery of the manifestation. It is not a simple one lever-one effect operation.

Simple magical items, +1 swords and so forth, can't project that element of "the unknown or mysterious." Not with that system anyway. It's like you say, low magic is a simple mechanical or technological operation. It only usually does one simple thing, like an extremely simple machine.

I think you can change that by making low level magical items fluctuate in what they do, or by changing the way they "present helves" on occasion. They would still do mild things, by comparison to high level magic, but only one thing at a time, yet also various or changing things.

But I think you made a good observation and I like the idea of the paradox of magical-technology in D&D. I think it can be fixed, or at least changed, but I like the point.


----------



## Set (May 31, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Nice try. The wand of fire from 1e could do burning hands, fireball, pyrotechnics, and wall of fire. Much more fun than any old wand of fireballs. A lot of 1e stuff was way more versatile than later editions.




And the generic flavorless '+1 sword' shed light like a torch and had a chance to be sentient and other powers.

Yeah, straw men meant to ridicule the OP aside, some of the old-school items like the Rod of Lordly Might and the Decanter of Endless Water did seem to be a bit more interesting than some of the newer Magic Item Compendium items that do this spell X times / day as a swift action.


----------



## Nifft (May 31, 2009)

Okay, it's time we came clean here.

The magic that used to be found in all games has been steadily acquired by a handful of wealthy individuals, and now only makes its way into the games of the privileged elite. The rest of you just get boring cruft like "+1 sword"s.

This is just one reason why Sepulchrave II's game is better than yours. His group bought call options on magic early.

"_Your childhood memories will be auctioned off next week_", -- N


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jun 1, 2009)

SPoD said:


> Not every person who picks up the game wants Mystery and Wonder. And it is easier for a DM who wants it to put it back than it is for a DM who doesn't to remove it.




Then why are they playing a game like Dungeons and Dragons?  It is full of mystery and wonder.

Isn't that the point of playing it?


----------



## Mallus (Jun 1, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Then why are they playing a game like Dungeons and Dragons?  It is full of mystery and wonder.



It's also full of dull-and-functional wahoo like Magic Missile and a longsword +1



> Isn't that the point of playing it?



Not exactly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 1, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> There's a paradox here. A major part of rpgs is the tendency to define, to categorise, to enumerate, to systematize, to represent numerically. In short, to make the unknown known. If magic means unknown or mysterious and magic is the essential part of fantasy then the term 'fantasy rpg' is an oxymoron. It's impossible. You can have a fantasy novel or a movie, but not a fantasy rpg.
> 
> Maybe the answer to the paradox is - only the GM should know the rules.





It was inherent in earlier versions of the game that what magic items were possible were intentionally hidden from the players (hence the admonition in the 1e DMG that players not pry).  Not only that, but it was easy to create new magic items in a system whereby the means that _*characters in the world make said items*_ need not be known.  Thus the plethora of items found in the Encyclopedia Magica which are just plain wacky, as opposed to those found in WotC-D&D, which are all-too-often just plain bleh.

Inarguably, the +X items of OD&D began the idea of items that add to the characters in a numerical way.  I would say that this is still an important function of magic items within the game.  However, the really fun items are often a heck of a lot more quirky.  And quirky doesn't mean the ability to cast one particular spell (freeing up a spell slot) ala the Wand of Cure Light Wounds.

If experiencing magic and mystery are among the goals of players in a D&D game, I note that placing the magic items in the PHB is among the most boneheaded moves possible.  The addition of rituals (in 3.5 UA, and later in 4e) is, OTOH, a good idea, because a ritual allows any type of magical effect to occur, opening the door to mystery once more.

IMHO, at least.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Jun 1, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> There's a paradox here. A major part of rpgs is the tendency to define, to categorise, to enumerate, to systematize, to represent numerically. In short, to make the unknown known.



This is exactly right. I'd go further and say this penchant for categorization and explanation has become one of the hallmarks of modern fantasy fiction, thanks to the influence of RPG's like D&D. 



> Maybe the answer to the paradox is - only the GM should know the rules. Or maybe the only truly magical rpg can be one where there aren't any rules. But I think for a lot of rpg players mastering the rules is a big part of the draw.



Another approach is to accept that most magic won't be very 'magical'; it's just a tool. This is the stuff found in the rule books. Then, in additional, add some unique magic, whose rules are only known to the DM/GM, and have to be discovered through use by the players. These items/spell/entities/etc. will add back some of the mystery, the joy of discovery and learning.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jun 1, 2009)

Mallus said:


> It's also full of dull-and-functional wahoo like Magic Missile and a longsword +1




Which really is supposed to be full of wonder. An adventurer is a rarity in the D&D world not the norm. Hence why you can still have a plague problem like _Seven Days to the Grave._

In any case, with all of the genres out there, fantasy logically would be the one for those interested in Wonder and Mystery. Otherwise just play the modern genre.



Mallus said:


> Not exactly.



And I would disagree.

Again then why play in the fantasy genre?

Has it really gotten to the point that Dungeons and Dragons is just like any old game?



Mallus said:


> This is exactly right. I'd go further and say this penchant for categorization and explanation has become one of the hallmarks of modern fantasy fiction, thanks to the influence of RPG's like D&D.
> 
> 
> Another approach is to accept that most magic won't be very 'magical'; it's just a tool. This is the stuff found in the rule books. Then, in additional, add some unique magic, whose rules are only known to the DM/GM, and have to be discovered through use by the players. These items/spell/entities/etc. will add back some of the mystery, the joy of discovery and learning.




It would appear that you actually agree with me here.


----------



## Jack7 (Jun 1, 2009)

Personally I like to both take old items and then alter them so that the user can't know exactly what they do ahead of time, why, or how, and to create *New Items*. 

I also like to do the same for *monsters*, and for various other things.

Right now I am experimenting with a way for characters to express magic in individual and unique ways, according to their nature, so that they can do away with spells and preformulated magic. Of course that means that monsters and NPCs will have the same ability.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> It was inherent in earlier versions of the game that what magic items were possible were intentionally hidden from the players (hence the admonition in the 1e DMG that players not pry).



You know, I don't know a single person who heeded that particular admonition . 

I found the only way to conceal magic item properties is to make them up yourself. And not tell anyone. Or write them down. And possibly not _think_ about them too hard, in case one of your players scored highly on the Rhine Sensitivity Test...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 1, 2009)

Mallus said:


> You know, I don't know a single person who heeded that particular admonition .




Really?  Do you mean you don't know anyone _*in person*_?  Or are you attempting to say that no one you know on EN World heeded that particular admonition?



> I found the only way to conceal magic item properties is to make them up yourself. And not tell anyone. Or write them down. And possibly not _think_ about them too hard, in case one of your players scored highly on the Rhine Sensitivity Test...




Your experience with ESP is very different than mine.

I had (and have) no difficulty with making up, writing down, and thinking about magic items.  Perhaps my players all rolled poorly to see if they had psionics (1e style  ).

RCFG has allowed me to use the Encyclopedia Magica again, and that book contains enough ideas that I've never run into a player able (or willing) to memorize them all.


RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 1, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I found the only way to conceal magic item properties is to make them up yourself.




This strategy goes back as far, at least, as Eldritch Wizardry and it's approach to artifacts.  The later 1e DMG used the basically the same concept - and that was that the powers of the artifacts would be chosen from a menu of options by individual DMs so that players that owned the rule books wouldn't know them.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 1, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Which really is supposed to be full of wonder.



To whom? Magic missiles and longswords +1 haven't been full of wonder to D&D players since the 1970's. 



> An adventurer is a rarity in the D&D world not the norm.



But an adventurer is not a rarity among D&D players. In fact, every player has at least one ! 



> In any case, with all of the genres out there, fantasy logically would be the one for those interested in Wonder and Mystery. Otherwise just play the modern genre.



You seem to be under the impression that all fantasy aficionados are interested in 'Wonder and Mystery' (however you're defining them). I'm betting that isn't true.   



> Again then why play in the fantasy genre?



I'm betting there are any number of reasons (hint: we're really talking about taste, a place where logic --rightly-- fears to tread). Perhaps the player wants to play a butt-kicking elf armed with no better than late medieval weapons?



> Has it really gotten to the point that Dungeons and Dragons is just like any old game?



It's like any old game where you pretend to be an elf, kill things, and take their stuff. 

(I actually believe there are a great many things you can do with RPG's, but I'm suspicious of any attempt to mythologize the game)



> It would appear that you actually agree with me here.



Good. Agreement is nice.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Really?  Do you mean you don't know anyone _*in person*_?



In person (sorry, should have been clearer about that). 



> Perhaps my players all rolled poorly to see if they had psionics (1e style  ).



Actually, the only confirmed psionic ability my players had was the one that gave the target a whopping headache (Psychic Crush, I believe... )



> RCFG has allowed me to use the Encyclopedia Magica again, and that book contains enough ideas that I've never run into a player able (or willing) to memorize them all.



How the pet project coming along these days?


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 1, 2009)

Mallus said:


> This is exactly right. I'd go further and say this penchant for categorization and explanation has become one of the hallmarks of modern fantasy fiction, thanks to the influence of RPG's like D&D.




I think this is a bit of a chicken and egg thing.  Fantasy fiction has sometimes experimented with quasi-scientific systems for magic that attempts to quantify it in a way that would seem like an RPG.  Some of these efforts predate RPGs, and in fact (obviously) contributed to the way the magic systems work.  The two big examples being Vancian Magic, and the component system of deCamp's Compleat Enchanter stories.  Both of these predate DnD.  Perhaps not-so-coincidentally, both sets of stories feature magic-users as protagonists of the story, and so I think it's nice to have a "system" of sorts so that the reader can have a sense of the protagonists limitations.  

The concept of magic being inherently unknowable and unquantifiable IMO is not a concept that I've seen outside of this thread and similar speculations by people talking about RPGs.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 1, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> That's an interesting set of observations Doug and Nagol.
> 
> Personally I think it is based on the following technique(s) of displaying magic as a game concept in D&D. With artifacts and relics and so forth you have so many different kinds of magical effects that can be displayed that one has a hard time "guessing or knowing" what effect the item will manifest next.
> 
> ...





The difficult part is balancing useful reliability with unpredictability.

The character and/or the player not being capable of predicting what the magic item will do next severely reduces the player's incentive to use the tool.  Reliability and predictability is highly sought after in tools that you are relying upon for success (and in the character's case for survival).

The Wand of Wonder is the archtypal unpredictable magic item.  Many players will pass on its acquisition.  Many others will only use it when either (a) success is all but certain or (b) defeat is almost certain otherwise.  Very few individuals in my experience pull it out as a tool of choice when they think the outcome is tight, but winnable.  The reason for that is simple: the item is too unpredictable to be relied upon.  Wild Magic has gone through a lot of revisions/publications of possible results because the unpredicatablility one group appreciates is unacceptable to another.

Adding an item that shifts between known states adds uncertainty for the player at the cost of complexity of tracking for the DM.  The player's state only lasts until he works out the pattern for shifting.  At that point, it adds some complexity to the player to work out when/how to shift the item to achieve the desired result.  Alternatively, the player doesn't take the item into consideration and only takes advantage of it when it coincidentally offers the effects desired at the time of need.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 1, 2009)

Mallus said:


> How the pet project coming along these days?




Very well.

Thanks for asking!

RC


----------



## Jack7 (Jun 1, 2009)

> The difficult part is balancing useful reliability with unpredictability...
> 
> 
> Adding an item that shifts between known states adds uncertainty for the player at the cost of complexity of tracking for the DM. The player's state only lasts until he works out the pattern for shifting. At that point, it adds some complexity to the player to work out when/how to shift the item to achieve the desired result. Alternatively, the player doesn't take the item into consideration and only takes advantage of it when it coincidentally offers the effects desired at the time of need.




I think you got a good point there.

However I didn't mean to imply that it (a magic item - especially low level magic items) changes every time you use it. But maybe I should have been clearer.

What I meant, but didn't elaborate on, was this:

1. The capabilities of items may change over time. Old powers or abilities can be lost, new ones might be gained. This is especially true when items have been exposed to other magical items or to the influence of high level magic's such as spells. It alters what the item can do or in what way.

2. Certain abilities can lie dormant or hidden until exposed to a certain trigger.

3. Certain active abilities can be forced into hibernation or dormancy by exposure to certain devices, magics, or events.

4. The capabilities or powers of a item can wax or wane in certain situations.

So, assuming you already know what an object can do then you can rely upon it to a degree, but you cannot rely upon it to be the same or static forever. And you cannot always rely upon it to be consistent in the degree of intensity by which the magic in it manifests itself.

I think the idea of static magic being inflexibly matched to corresponding physical objects is simply a sort of technological analogy, where most technological objects are "fixed in their nature" and so do not change or alter over time.

But it is hard for me to imagine magic as being physically and technologically "fixed and static" in the same way as say, a television set. You can buy a new and better television (maybe even add things to it and upgrade it) but it will in effect always be a television set. It will never be a motorcycle. 

However with magic I don't imagine the same situation at all. I see magic as fluid and transmutable, flowing, always in motion, active and changing. It would not "adhere to" or "affix itself" to objects in the same way that technological functions do. For instance it is easy for me with magic to imagine a spear that assist the user in combat, but which also assist the user to read magical scripts and which may even on occasion allow the user to fly. It is therefore a weapon, a communications device, and a means of transportation. Such a spear i_s a magical multi-tool of drastically different and varied capabilities_. Magic can do that, technology has a much harder time being that fluid and flexible.

In other words magic would be open to change and that change might be very wide ranging indeed. 

Therefore I think the way games sometimes view magic as static and fixed is simply an easy technological analogy, not by any means a necessity of function.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 1, 2009)

Mallus said:


> You know, I don't know a single person who heeded that particular admonition .



Whereas I know many; and was one myself before I began DMing.



> I found the only way to conceal magic item properties is to make them up yourself.



Or swipe them from sources other than the list provided for the particular game/edition you're playing.  Got a bunch of players who've only played 3e?  Then the 1e DMG is Your Friend.  Your players got the 1e DMG memorized?  Bet they haven't seen the new Equipment Guide (or whatever it's called) just put out for 4e.  And so on.


			
				Nagol said:
			
		

> The Wand of Wonder is the archtypal unpredictable magic item. Many players will pass on its acquisition.



Not me!   Other people passing them up just leaves more for me to play with, so gimme gimme gimme!   (and then stand back.  Way back.)

Lanefan


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 1, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> *We need to get back to that in modern fantasy games.*



Which version of older D&D are you looking at?  Y'know what I remember most from my BD&D and AD&D days?  +1 swords.

It wasn't until lateish 3.5, with _Weapons of Legacy_ that I remember D&D ever really trying to bring "magic" to their magic items.  So, if you mean modern as in "post 2007" I'd agree with you, otherwise, I'd say your evaluation of "magicalness" of magic items over the years is not consistent with my experience at all.

Plus, you assume _a priori_ that there's an objective, quantifiable positive to having magic items done the way you want them, which I'd disagree with.  I think the paradigm in Eberron, with it's almost assembly line minor magic items, is an intriguing change; a cool new idea that hits like a gust of fresh air.

:shrug:


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 1, 2009)

Gruns said:


> For what it's worth, the Apparatus of Kwalish made it's way into Adventurer's Vault. We need to remember that 4E is still very new, and there's a good chance a lot of the old favorites will find their way into the game eventually. Of course, they may lose a little of that cool factor for the sake of ease of use/implementaion and balance. That said, I was pleasantly surprised with how the Apparatus turned out. (Vorpal Sword? Not so much...)
> Later!
> Gruns




Umm, say what?

4E is FOURTH edition

A game with 30 years of history.

How can there be less than a vast amount of fluff available?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 2, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Plus, you assume _a priori_ that there's an objective, quantifiable positive to having magic items done the way you want them, which I'd disagree with.  I think the paradigm in Eberron, with it's almost assembly line minor magic items, is an intriguing change; a cool new idea that hits like a gust of fresh air.
> 
> :shrug:



I agree with you about Eberron being a breath of fresh air.  It's a nice setting with lots of new ideas and old ones presented in interesting new ways.  However, I would disagree with magical items being made on an assembly line.  A barrel full of umbrellas that inexplicably keep the wind from blowing rain in is not a barrel full of magical items.  It's magic-tech, which is equipment.  Magical items are magical, unknown quantities, especially for the Players.  Magic-tech is simply non-real world technology.  Star Wars is magic-tech.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Which version of older D&D are you looking at?  Y'know what I remember most from my BD&D and AD&D days?  +1 swords.




Sad.

But that is an artifact of your experience, rather than an artifact of the game, as is demonstrated wonderfully in the Encyclopedia Magica, which lists every magic item in the game (up to 2e) as well as where it came from.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sad.
> 
> But that is an artifact of your experience, rather than an artifact of the game, as is demonstrated wonderfully in the Encyclopedia Magica, which lists every magic item in the game (up to 2e) as well as where it came from.



Never heard of it.  I stopped playing D&D before 2e came out, and I certainly never played during the 2e era.

That said, my "experience" included being pretty darn familiar with the BD&D and AD&D books at one point.  For every Apparatus of Kwalish, there were forty bazillion +1 swords.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Never heard of it.  I stopped playing D&D before 2e came out, and I certainly never played during the 2e era.
> 
> That said, my "experience" included being pretty darn familiar with the BD&D and AD&D books at one point.  For every Apparatus of Kwalish, there were forty bazillion +1 swords.




As I said, the books contains all of TSR's magic items up to the time of publication.  I would really recommend them, if you can find them, for ideas if for nothing else.

That said, AFAICT, there are exactly one listing each for "+1 sword" and "Apparatus of Kwalish" in the books, so I'm not sure what to make of your "experience" listed above.

I would agree that +1 swords are far more common than any other unusual item, but that doesn't mean that the full sum of unusual items is not greater than that of +1 swords.


RC


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> That said, AFAICT, there are exactly one listing each for "+1 sword" and "Apparatus of Kwalish" in the books, so I'm not sure what to make of your "experience" listed above.
> 
> I would agree that +1 swords are far more common than any other unusual item, but that doesn't mean that the full sum of unusual items is not greater than that of +1 swords.




I had the same experience with my combo 1e/2e game.  The reason for it was simple, the average dungeon crawl for us went like this:

Room 1: 4 +1 Longswords
Room 2: 2 +1 suits of Leather, 2 +1 Daggers
Room 3: 2 +1 Rings of Protection and a Wand of Fireball
Room 4: Strange Pink Rhomboid Stone
Room 5: A Mug that seems to give us infinite grog
Room 6: +2 Chainmail, Elven Boots

Then at the end, we'd roll to see who got first pick of the treasure.  The magic weapons, armors, and rings would go first unless the character in question already had a magic weapon and armor that was equal or better than the ones we found(We had one group who would toss away +4 longswords because we ALL had +5 already at level 12).  Only after they were all chosen would the "novelty" items get chosen.  That is, the ones that didn't give us a direct and clear advantage in battle or sneaking past a battle.

We all had read the books, we knew what an Apparatus of Kwalish was.  If we came across one it was likely half the group would be unwilling to touch it due to the large chance that we got ourselves killed by pulling random levers.  Of course, there was always the one joker in our group who would do it anyways and end up getting himself killed...and think it was hilarious.

But we were old school players.  We didn't find any mystery in magic items...just usefulness or danger.  Either you didn't know what an item did, which meant you would likely blow yourself up along with your entire party by pointing a wand of fireballs at the ground in front of you and saying the command word OR you knew exactly what it was in which case you used it only when it was clearly useful with no danger to your party.  So no one used any item that wasn't yet identified or random.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I had the same experience with my combo 1e/2e game.  The reason for it was simple, the average dungeon crawl for us went like this:




I am sorry that your play experience did not live up to the potential of the game you were playing.

Perhaps if spells like _identify_ had given as vague of answers as they were intended to, and you hadn't read all the books (thus depriving yourself from the joy of discovery in-game), or had you a better DM (with both better item distribution and recognition of your having read the books so as to create new items), your play experience might have been better.

I know mine was (and is).




RC


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am sorry that your play experience did not live up to the potential of the game you were playing.



I don't think you get it.  Your paradigm about what is or isn't a "good play experience" is not an absolute.  I'm not holding out my play experience as a sad sob story and asking for sympathy; I'm actively telling you that having mysterious and wondrous magical items doesn't make or break the game for me.  In fact, I don't even think it's all that interesting an aspect of the game.  _In fact_, as a guy who prefers a more Hyborean type experience, all those magic items that you're saying are so... well, _magical_ are actually detrimental to what I want from the game most times.

I actually quite like what Eberron's done, where they said, "OK, really, according to the rules, there's no reason why magic shouldn't be more mundane and ubiquitous, at least of a low level, convenient variety that more approximates what technology has done in the real world."  Too me, that's much more exciting and interesting than trying to come up with yet another way to emulate some mythological or Tolkienian experience with the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Hobo said:


> I don't think you get it.  Your paradigm about what is or isn't a "good play experience" is not an absolute.




Oh, I'm sorry.  I obviously missed the place where "You can't have magic and wonder in an rpg" turned into "You don't need magic and wonder in an rpg".

If you are arguing the second, then I can hardly dispute what you want.

I am doing nothing more than saying that the first is hogwash.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Oh, I'm sorry.  I obviously missed the place where "You can't have magic and wonder in an rpg" turned into "You don't need magic and wonder in an rpg".
> 
> If you are arguing the second, then I can hardly dispute what you want.
> 
> I am doing nothing more than saying that the first is hogwash.



So... you're saying that the first argument that I never made is hogwash?  Sweet.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Hobo said:


> So... you're saying that the first argument that I never made is hogwash?  Sweet.




Just as you are in the post I was responding to (re: absolute play paradigms).  

Funny how that works, isn't it?


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Just as you are in the post I was responding to (re: absolute play paradigms).
> 
> Funny how that works, isn't it?



Actually, no, it's not.  You're not doing the same thing I am, you're just being annoyingly pedantic.  

You said that my experience was sad.  You said Majoru's experience was qualitatively worse than yours.  Presumably you're now going to point to your little winky smilie to say that no, you weren't holding your preference out as an absolute truism now or something equally inane, though.  Or some other pedantic dodge of what you actually said.

Whereas, on the other hand, you just completely made up an argument that I never made and attributed it to me.  How you now compare our two posts and insinuate that I'm also attacking a strawman because... why; because I didn't restate your last severla posts in the exact words that you originally typed them? has me boggling at your posts for the second time this evening.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 3, 2009)

SMITE BICKERING

a.k.a. "Where has all the magic in this thread gone?"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 3, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Actually, no, it's not.  You're not doing the same thing I am, you're just being annoyingly pedantic.
> 
> You said that my experience was sad.  You said Majoru's experience was qualitatively worse than yours.




Really?

Again, I obviously missed the place where "You can't have magic and wonder in an rpg" turned into "You don't need magic and wonder in an rpg".

So far as I am aware, the topic of this thread, and certainly the topic of conversation which I was persuing, assumes that some sense of mystery and wonder in magic is desireable.

Indeed, the original post claims

I was looking through my AD&D books tonight and noticed how versatile and multi-functional so many of the magic items were.

They were powerful, and they were odd, and fascinating, and most important of all a lot of them could do all kinds of things.

By comparison so many of the magic items of more recent editions are bland, plain, uninspired, and uninspiring.​
It is true that I did make the (apparently mistaken) assumption that you were arguing that the AD&D magic items were not as described, rather than arguing that the items the OP describes as "bland, plain, uninspired, and uninspiring" were preferable.  If that is the argument you are making, well, to each his own.

I gained this assumption from the ideas that 

(1)  You were responding in context of the post you quoted, and

(2)  That "when you said

Which version of older D&D are you looking at? Y'know what I remember most from my BD&D and AD&D days? +1 swords.

It wasn't until lateish 3.5, with Weapons of Legacy that I remember D&D ever really trying to bring "magic" to their magic items.​
that you were actually making the claim that I responded to.  I.e., that earlier edition magical items were not magical.  

Moreover, (3)

Plus, you assume a priori that there's an objective, quantifiable positive to having magic items done the way you want them, which I'd disagree with. I think the paradigm in Eberron, with it's almost assembly line minor magic items, is an intriguing change; a cool new idea that hits like a gust of fresh air.​
suggests that the first part of your post is a seperate thought from the idea that "magical" magic items are desirable.

Frankly, you are arguing that D&D didn't have magical magic items, and that when 3.5 came along, and did away with magical magic items it was a breath of fresh air.

I suppose I attempted to resolve the paradox of your post in the way that (to me) seemed to be the least paradoxical.  

I do believe that we read posts through a sort of filter that says, "If I wrote that, this is what I would mean....." which doesn't always convey the intent of the original writer.  If I have done so in your case, I certainly apologize.  

I'd also be interested in learning exactly what you meant by the above.    Because, clearly, I'm not understanding what you are trying to say.



> Presumably you're now going to point to your little winky smilie to say that no, you weren't holding your preference out as an absolute truism now or something equally inane, though.  Or some other pedantic dodge of what you actually said.




No; I certainly stand by what I said.

Your experience with older D&D magical items, _*to the degree in which your description thereof is honest*_, is an artifact of your personal experience, and not an artifact of the game system.  Again, the Encyclopedia Magica shows how many weird and wonderful items existed _*officially*_, let alone those made up by countless DMs throughout the years.

And it is sad that your experience, apparently, is so at odds with what the game could offer.  Especially given your apparent dissatisfaction with what your experience actually was.  Exactly as it would be sad if I judged 4e on the basis of a single class and a couple of monsters, then walked away complaining about the game.

I never my desired play experience was universal.  You just completely made up an argument that I never made and attributed it to me.  


RC


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 3, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am sorry that your play experience did not live up to the potential of the game you were playing.
> 
> Perhaps if spells like _identify_ had given as vague of answers as they were intended to, and you hadn't read all the books (thus depriving yourself from the joy of discovery in-game), or had you a better DM (with both better item distribution and recognition of your having read the books so as to create new items), your play experience might have been better.
> 
> ...




That's kinda not fair Raven....Especially if as a young DM, you assumed that the adventures in 1e were supposed to display the typical adventure...

Take Bullgrit/Quasqueton's look at the "classic" adventures of our youth...

There's WAY more basic +X items and simple stuff like scrolls of single spells than "unique magic items". I have the encyclopedia magica as well and I know what you mean that magic items could be mysterious (items under Artwork were always my favourite) but again, it is hard to deny that TSR didn't follow its own suggestions...


----------



## Jack7 (Jun 3, 2009)

> Plus, you assume a priori that there's an objective, quantifiable positive to having magic items done the way you want them, which I'd disagree with.




What I personally was saying was that anything can be improved upon. And everything that can be improved upon probably should be improved upon.

Sometimes you improve a thing by looking forwards, sometimes you improve a thing by looking backwards, and sometimes by both, or by neither. And that I'm not afraid to look backwards in order to find an improvement to a current state of affairs.




> but again, it is hard to deny that TSR didn't (always - my edit) follow its own suggestions...




I have to agree. Having an ideal is not the same thing as executing that ideal in the best way possible.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 3, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> That's kinda not fair Raven....Especially if as a young DM, you assumed that the adventures in 1e were supposed to display the typical adventure...
> 
> Take Bullgrit/Quasqueton's look at the "classic" adventures of our youth...





As I have said many, many times in the past, I believe that there is quite a bit of skewing in the viewpoints expressed therein.


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 3, 2009)

Your ideas are interesting, Jack, you've taken the Wand of Wonder to its ultimate end point. I particularly like the idea that an item's powers could vary depending on the time of day, month or season of the year. How about an item that has different powers at night than it does during the day?

However in D&D magic items are principally a reward for the player, they're like a different form of level up. So I don't think all, or even the majority, of magic items should be like this. Mostly they should do something beneficial and non-mysterious.

As Mallus says, in D&D some items have always been very mysterious, such as artefacts (in 1e there were spaces in the DMG for the DM to write in his own powers for each artefact, which seems to assume players would be reading the DMG incidentally), some have been somewhat mysterious such as the Wand of Wonder or an item with a lot of functions such as a Ring of Shooting Stars, and some are very straightforward, the +X items.

The 'All magic items are artefacts' approach can only work, imo, if the PCs don't have a lot of magic items. In a typical game of D&D they are expected to have a great many, so it simply isn't practical for the DM to make them all complex and interesting. And that's fine. I think it's perfectly good DMing to have most items non-mysterious, non-storied and useful, with the occasional Stormbringer, Deck of Many Things or Hand of Vecna to add magic to the game. Not everything can, or should, be weird.


----------



## Jack7 (Jun 3, 2009)

Well, don't get me wrong Doug. I'm not saying all magical items should be like artefacts, or artefact level. I'm just saying most all magical items and other magical effects could be far more interesting than just a +1 item.

Let me give you an example.

I gave some of my players a crystal lens which when looked through changes their vision. That's all it does. Just changes how they see things. But for one person, because of his class and nature, he can see magical dwoemers around objects (if they have one). For another it lets him read foreign scripts. For another it apparently does nothing (in truth he just hasn't noticed what it does for him yet). For my daughter it allows her to see things as they truly are. For another guy it lets him see things in the ultraviolet spectrum. For the last character it lets her see in darkness as if in bright moonlight (like nightvision).

The object has no great power in and of itself, but it has a different power for most every person according to their character and nature and capabilities and race. It focuses the way they see the world and creates a new kind of vision for that individual.

You don't necessarily have to make everything superman level powerful, or do thirty amazing things. Sometimes just one thing done differently, or suited to the personality of the character or player makes a thing real interesting, and that's what I mean about the difference between magic and technology. You make a high powered telescope and it lets you see things far way. Make a high powered magical telescope and it may let you see things far way, or even over the horizon, or through time. That's the kind of magic I'm talking about. Not limited to single functions like technology, but adaptable to user and circumstance.

As a matter of fact I think the very _"best magic"_ arises from an interplay between item or spell or situation and individual user.




> How about an item that has different powers at night than it does during the day?




That's a real interesting and useful idea that I think I'm gonna steal mate.
Thanks for that one because it's a keeper. Especially with certain items and in certain circumstances.

Well, I gotta go. Taking my kids swimming and then attending a graduation ceremony this evening.
Later.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 4, 2009)

Re:  The Encyclopedia Magica (2e).  Something RavenCrowking has neglected to mention.  While he did say that the EM does list the source of the magic items, he neglected to say what those sources were.  The VAST majority of the "interesting" magical items come from Dragon magazines.  The next largest source is modules.  The final source is the various source books for D&D.

The problem is, while yes, there are literally hundreds of pages of interesting items, most of them were in obscure places that very few gamers ever saw.  Unless you happened to have Dragon 58, you would never have heard of Item X or Y.  

Far and away more players used modules.  And, guess what you find in modules?  Hoards, and hoards of +1 swords.  And they didn't all shed light actually.  And, they certainly weren't listed as intelligent for the most part.

The idea that magic at some mythical time in the history of D&D was somehow more full of sensawunda is just that - a myth.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 4, 2009)

To be honest, and to get back to the more interesting conversation of how to make magic items interesting, I remember a house rule we used, that I believe came from Dragon magazine, although, thinking about it, it might have come from that Encyclopedia Magica (although, on further thought, I think that was a reprint)... ok, ending digression....

Take your magic item and roll twice.  It's a really simple plan that does make for very different items.  Roll once for what the item is, and a second time for the effect.  Maybe you get Leather Armor of Speed, or Apparatus of Cure Light wounds.  Something like that.  Then massage the two concepts together and Bob's your uncle.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 4, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Re:  The Encyclopedia Magica (2e).  Something RavenCrowking has neglected to mention.  While he did say that the EM does list the source of the magic items, he neglected to say what those sources were.  The VAST majority of the "interesting" magical items come from Dragon magazines.  The next largest source is modules.  The final source is the various source books for D&D.




It is certainly true that Dragon Magazine (and Dungeon) together have a far greater page count than, say, the DMG, and are therefore proportionally represented.  What I find interesting is the leap from this to the idea that one needed to therefore have a complete set of Dragons to have interesting items available, or that, if the second largest source of interesting items is modules, somehow "guess what you find in modules?  Hoards, and hoards of +1 swords."

It should also be noted, obviously, that the purpose of the EM was to make all of these items availble whether or not you had Dragon 58.....I.e., the existence of the EM itself is a counter to the argument that these items were not all available to the DM, at least in 2e.  

This sort of reasoning used as a denial of others experiences leads to conclusions that are no more reliable than myth.


RC


----------



## Primal (Jun 4, 2009)

I personally think the most interesting and mysterious magic items I came across (in every previous edition) were FR-related -- especially those designed by Ed Greenwood.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 5, 2009)

Primal said:


> I personally think the most interesting and mysterious magic items I came across (in every previous edition) were FR-related -- especially those designed by Ed Greenwood.




Honestly, there's always been a special place in my heart for the Rope of Climbing, ever since playing Keep on the Borderlands.  Just loved the heck out of that thing.  Of course, my munchkin tweeny self at the time abused the hell out of it and used it as a death dealing, self moving garrote, but, that came later.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 5, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, there's always been a special place in my heart for the Rope of Climbing, ever since playing Keep on the Borderlands.  Just loved the heck out of that thing.  Of course, my munchkin tweeny self at the time abused the hell out of it and used it as a death dealing, self moving garrote, but, that came later.




For me it was the decanter of endless water.

and the Never ending Peanut. Because dude... Peanut. Never ending.


----------

