# Confirmed: Magic items and summoned monster stats in PHB



## TerraDave (Feb 19, 2008)

From Slashdot:

Players won't need the Dungeon Master's Guide to equip their higher-level characters, because the PH will have plenty of magic items for all levels. Players won't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects, because those effects will be self-contained within the classes or powers that grant them.​


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 19, 2008)

PHBII "X-Form" spells for the win!


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 19, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Players won't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects, because those effects will be self-contained within the classes or powers that grant them.



Which means more space in MM for monsters and less space wasted with cats and dogs, although I think there will be animals in MM, but maybe a page or two.

It was discussed in this thread. I'm glad this information was confirmed!


----------



## drothgery (Feb 19, 2008)

There were some rumors to that effect early on, and I'm glad they were right. Players shouldn't need a DMG or an MM at the tabletop, even when they're shopping at high levels.


----------



## rkanodia (Feb 19, 2008)

If the PHB entry for a summoned Celestial Dire Aardvark doesn't tell me how many ranks it has in Craft (Basket Weaving), it will be a SLAP IN THE FACE to everyone in this community.


----------



## Raduin711 (Feb 19, 2008)

So this makes me think a Summon Monster I, Summon Monster II, etc. setup is going to be gone, replaced with narrower spells, like Summon Fire Elemental, for instance.  Maybe?
It would seem more practical to do it that way rather than one hodgepodge spell followed by fie pages of monsters for one spell...  This also makes it easier to expand the repetoire of summoning spells, instead of paragraphs that say "in this campaign setting you may add the following monsters th the summon monster lists...."


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 19, 2008)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> So this makes me think a Summon Monster I, Summon Monster II, etc. setup is going to be gone, replaced with narrower spells, like Summon Fire Elemental, for instance.  Maybe?



I'd rather have a couple of stat blocks with a small a-la-carte menu of powers to choose from. 

Call the resulting creature an elemental or astral construct or pikachu for all I care.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 19, 2008)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> So this makes me think a Summon Monster I, Summon Monster II, etc. setup is going to be gone, replaced with narrower spells, like Summon Fire Elemental, for instance.  Maybe?
> It would seem more practical to do it that way rather than one hodgepodge spell followed by fie pages of monsters for one spell...  This also makes it easier to expand the repetoire of summoning spells, instead of paragraphs that say "in this campaign setting you may add the following monsters th the summon monster lists...."




If I were going to play 4e, that would be a change that I would go for. I have been going through phb spells and that is pretty close to what I have planned for the summon monster spells.  I hadn't considered narrowing  it as far as  Fire Type, water type, but it's definitely better than how monster summoning currently works.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 19, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a couple of stat blocks with a small a-la-carte menu of powers to choose from.



This.

I actually liked the Astral Construct method.


----------



## Set (Feb 19, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a couple of stat blocks with a small a-la-carte menu of powers to choose from.
> 
> Call the resulting creature an elemental or astral construct or pikachu for all I care.




That makes more sense.  The Astral Construct format allows the designers (or GM) to invent new monsters willy-nilly without worrying about what happens if a PC Summoner conjurers up such a critter.

The two-tier system they are espousing, with monsters / NPCs having one set of rules and PCs having a second set of rules makes it seem like standard 3.X Summoning (and Polymorphing) spells, where the PCs gain access to NPC abilities, would be a logicistical nightmare, and quite likely unbalancing as all heck, since 'monster powers' aren't supposed to be used by PCs, since they use different rules.

Now they can make beasties with all sorts of abilities that would never be balanced for PC use, and not worry about a PC summoning or turning into such a critter and messing up the game.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 19, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> If the PHB entry for a summoned Celestial Dire Aardvark doesn't tell me how many ranks it has in Craft (Basket Weaving), it will be a SLAP IN THE FACE to everyone in this community.




Nah, the slap in the fast is the summoned Celestial Dire Aardvark in the first place


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

Seems to be continuing and even exacerbating the 3E trend.
Players shouldn't be equipping their PCs with magic items; DMs should be equipping the PCs with magic items.
Players shouldn't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects; DMs should adjudicate all effects of any kind whatsoever.


----------



## Ebon Shar (Feb 19, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> If the PHB entry for a summoned Celestial Dire Aardvark doesn't tell me how many ranks it has in Craft (Basket Weaving), it will be a SLAP IN THE FACE to everyone in this community.




Coffee+Keyboard=very funny.  You owe me a new laptop!


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Players shouldn't be equipping their PCs with magic items; DMs should be equipping the PCs with magic items.
> Players shouldn't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects; DMs should adjudicate all effects of any kind whatsoever.



Maybe at your table. Not at mine.


----------



## Protagonist (Feb 19, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> If the PHB entry for a summoned Celestial Dire Aardvark doesn't tell me how many ranks it has in Craft (Basket Weaving), it will be a SLAP IN THE FACE to everyone in this community.





I hope the don't dare exclude the summoned Fiendish Dire Aardvark, the summoned Axiomatic Dire Aardvark and the summoned Anarchic Dire Aardvark!


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Seems to be continuing and even exacerbating the 3E trend.
> Players shouldn't be equipping their PCs with magic items; DMs should be equipping the PCs with magic items.
> Players shouldn't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects; DMs should adjudicate all effects of any kind whatsoever.




I can see the argument about the first but the second? If Druid uses Nature Ally's to get a bear, why force the DM to have to run the stats? Similarly, if the mage summons a monster in combat, why is the DM rolling the dice for its attacks?


----------



## FadedC (Feb 19, 2008)

Notice they don't say summoend monsters will be in the PHB, they just say they will be in the same book as any class that summons or shapeshifts. From what we have heard it's quite possible that no PHB class will be able to do that.


----------



## DreamChaser (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Seems to be continuing and even exacerbating the 3E trend.
> Players shouldn't be equipping their PCs with magic items; DMs should be equipping the PCs with magic items.
> Players shouldn't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects; DMs should adjudicate all effects of any kind whatsoever.




Huh? I'm not sure whether this is meant seriously or not. If it is serious, then this philosophy is part of what makes changing groups so frustrating. DM adjudication may take less space in the rules but it definitely leaves a great deal of space for abuse, whether accidental or otherwise.

In regards to magic items, it is easy for a DM to keep characters from buying tons of magical items: give them magical items instead of money. If they have items but no money, they the are taking a loss (in the current rules at least) if they go and sell them to get what they want. Of course, I'm not sure how keeping the character / player away from what they "want" is increasing the fun.

I as a DM, get tired of having to be responsible for the PCs as well; I have enough on my plate managing the rest of the world.

DC


----------



## Greg K (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I can see the argument about the first but the second? If Druid uses Nature Ally's to get a bear, why force the DM to have to run the stats? Similarly, if the mage summons a monster in combat, why is the DM rolling the dice for its attacks?




Because the creaturee is not the player's character.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 19, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Notice they don't say summoend monsters will be in the PHB, they just say they will be in the same book as any class that summons or shapeshifts. From what we have heard it's quite possible that no PHB class will be able to do that.




"those effects will be self-contained within the classes or powers that grant them."

Hmm...I think we will see _something_ in the PHB. But it might not be a "summoned monster" exactly.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 19, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Because the creaturee is not the player's character.




I would disagree with this since, in all respects of how it acts, summoned critters act as the player character wants.

That still leaves the situation where you shapechange into a different creature. If I'm a druid and I shapechange into a bear, why do I give up my character to the DM? Why NOT have the stats listed IN the book itself, next to the ability?


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> Huh? I'm not sure whether this is meant seriously or not.



Is it meant seriously.



			
				DreamChaser said:
			
		

> In regards to magic items, it is easy for a DM to keep characters from buying tons of magical items: give them magical items instead of money. If they have items but no money, they the are taking a loss (in the current rules at least) if they go and sell them to get what they want. Of course, I'm not sure how keeping the character / player away from what they "want" is increasing the fun.



I despise the entire idea of PCs buying magic items -- whether I am a player or a DM.  It kills the wonder.  It makes them too commonplace.  It doesn't fit with the legends and stories I know.  It has always been the thing I've hated the most about 3E.  As a player, I enjoy making do with what is found or won or given. 

"Adjudicate" specifically means "to act as a judge."  That's the DM's job.  I'm not opposed to players rolling the dice, but the choice of the word "adjudicate" was the issue.  As to how much information the players should have, it varies.

Here's how it might work in earlier editions: player casts "Monster Summoning VI," and DM rolls randomly on a chart in his MM to see what monster appears.  Maybe he gets an umber hulk.  The DM thinks it is better that the PCs not know the exact AC, HP, and saving throws of this creature in case he wants to use it against them (he wants to prevent metagaming).  So maybe he lets the players roll the dice, but he keeps track of the results.

Polymorph?  The PC turns into a creature that he has seen (not browsing through the MM for the right form) and the DM tells him what abilities he gets.  "Frost giant?  Okay, you'll do damage as a frost giant, and you can throw rocks, but you're not immune to cold." 

I think in the long run that reducing the emphasis on DM judgment and trying to define everything precisely in the rules leads to a weaker game.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Feb 19, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Because the creaturee is not the player's character.



No, but it is an _extension of the character_, much the same as an arrow or a thrown spear.  It is acting at the whim and under the command of the character.  Having the DM control a summoned creature means introducing just one more barrier to slow down the game as the player has to tell the DM what the character wants the creature to do.  The chance for misinterpretation introduces an unnecessary opportunity for frustration and argument in exchange for absolutely _nothing_.  Nothing is added to the game experience by consolidating this level of control in the hands of the DM.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Seems to be continuing and even exacerbating the 3E trend.
> Players shouldn't be equipping their PCs with magic items; DMs should be equipping the PCs with magic items.




This? Yes.



> Players shouldn't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects; DMs should adjudicate all effects of any kind whatsoever.




This? No. I have enough to deal with by running my NPCs and monsters. If players summon something or shapechange into something that should be the player's responsibility to deal with. Now not only is it their responsibility, I no longer have to worry about them min-maxing the best possible thing to shapechange into or summon by reading through the monster manual. I like this a lot.

And if I'm playing I prefer to run my own summoned creatures. I consider them an extension of my character.


----------



## Atreides (Feb 19, 2008)

I would infer that most adjudications regarding polymorph are simply gone.  See the PHB II for the 'new' Druid Shapeshifing mechanic - there are generic 'form types' that you can shift into, and regardless of what flavor you attach to them the forms grant a specific series of bonuses - no Monster Manual needed.  

It is quite the improvement over the PHB polymorph situation.  

As for summoning monsters - I would guess that Summon Monster I-IX are also gone, and summoning will now be closer to Summon Planar Ally.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 19, 2008)

Atreides said:
			
		

> It is quite the improvement over the PHB polymorph situation.



You have a gift for understatement.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> No, but it is an _extension of the character_, much the same as an arrow or a thrown spear.  It is acting at the whim and under the command of the character.  Having the DM control a summoned creature means introducing just one more barrier to slow down the game as the player has to tell the DM what the character wants the creature to do.  The chance for misinterpretation introduces an unnecessary opportunity for frustration and argument in exchange for absolutely _nothing_.  Nothing is added to the game experience by consolidating this level of control in the hands of the DM.



I think it would add something.  I play a Drd20 in MarauderX's game.  This druid uses summoning spells.  He gets animals that have a 1 or 2 Int and don't speak Common.  Unless he casts Speak with Animals, he can't direct them precisely.  They don't have the information that he does, so he can't expect that they'll always act optimally.  It's difficult to know who they should attack or how they should act, since they're just dumb beasts.

We're in the middle of a major battle right now, with three Animal Growthed T-Rexes boosted by bard songs and attacking a Great Wyrm White Dragon they they have cornered (they're really serving as meat shields to block his movement).  If the dragon casts Prot Good on himself, should I, on my turn, have my dinosaurs waste their turn trying to attack the dragon?  That seems like more honest and better gaming, though it's going to hurt the PCs.  Or should I have my druid cast Speak With Animals and direct the dinosaurs differently?  Is it reasonable for one of them to attack the enemy giant that just attacked him?  Or will he keep to his original orders?

It's really hard; they're NOT extensions of the PC the way an arrow is.  So I'll ask the DM what they'll do.


----------



## Stone Dog (Feb 19, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> No, but it is an _extension of the character_, much the same as an arrow or a thrown spear.  It is acting at the whim and under the command of the character.



Obviously the DM should be rolling for fireballs too since those aren't the character either.  

Summoned creatures may be happy about being summoned, they may be sad, they may laugh at your jokes.. but above all they do exactly what you tell them to do when you tell them to do it.  They have no opportunity to rebel, resist or hesitate.  There is no reason to put that level of total control in the hands of the DM.  It just gives the DM something else to worry about that he doesn't have to.

I'm fine with magic items being in the PHB too.  All it does is help the player plan what they want for their character.  The availability is still completely up to the DM just like not every podunk hamlet is going to have glittering masterwork spiked chains just because the PHB tells you how much they are.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 19, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Because the creaturee is not the player's character.



I have never, ever seen a DM _ever_ propose running summoned creatures, animal companions or familiars of a PC. As a DM, that notion makes me queasy thinking that I have to keep track of all their stats and actions in combat _in addition_ to monsters. And as a PC, it insults me that I wouldn't have the leeway to play my familiar, because that's half the fun of _having_ one. 

I have seized such creatures to puppet the DM for a plot point, just as I have seized PCs to tell them what they do when they are _Dominated_. 

And while I agree with you that the notion of buying magical items obliterates the sense of wonder, I would also point out that, when one is making a non-1st level PC, they are picking magical items they themselves have acquired in their adventures. _And_, PCs who are _using those magical items during game_ should have access to their rules in the PHB just like the rules over their abilities.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I despise the entire idea of PCs buying magic items -- whether I am a player or a DM.  It kills the wonder.  It makes them too commonplace.  It doesn't fit with the legends and stories I know.  It has always been the thing I've hated the most about 3E.  As a player, I enjoy making do with what is found or won or given.



I'll echo the collective "Huh?"

Just because items are in the PHB doesn't mean the DM loses control of how items are distributed in the game. Their inclusion doesn't mean PCs are free to buy them at will.

But once the DM does give the PCs items, it makes sense that the players have easy access to see how they work without having to borrow the DMG in the middle of the game.


----------



## Stone Dog (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> It's really hard; they're NOT extensions of the PC the way an arrow is.  So I'll ask the DM what they'll do.




It isn't hard at all.  Okay, sure if you want them to do anything other than kill your opponents then you have to be able to talk with them ala Speak With Animals.  Other than that they just go and kill things that are trying to kill you.  How hard is that?  Dirt simple.  

And what exactly makes the T-Rexs hindered by Protection from Good?  Just let the Rexes chomp down and roll for them.  

Summoned creatures attack your enemies.  If you can tell them what else to do, they do it right away.  They don't run away or show mercy or stop to have a snack in the middle of a fight.  Unless you can tell them otherwise.   It isn't hard work.   They are YOUR spell effects.  They are just as much your responsibility as fireballs and shadowy tentacles and other such and sundries.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Feb 19, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> But once the DM does give the PCs items, it makes sense that the players have easy access to see how they work without having to borrow the DMG in the middle of the game.




This is true.

Unless, of course, one likes the PCs to not know that they have a +1 sword, even after three weeks and 20 combats.  Why someone would like this, I really have no idea, but I'm sure there are some people who do.

Brad


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 19, 2008)

1: Putting magic items in the PHB doesn't mean that the players get to pick and choose amongst them.  It just means that information the player uses during the game is in one book instead of two.

2: There are DMs who take control of summoned creatures?  Do they do the same for familiars, animal companions, and divine mounts?  I never even considered doing that.

3: I don't even know what it means to say that the DM should adjudicate shapechanging effects.  That's like saying that the DM should adjudicate sword effects.  If the rules are written well, there's nothing to adjudicate.  The player says they shapechange into a wolf, ok, they're a wolf now.  I, as DM, do not have to make up rules for how that works.  Its in the book.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

In previous editions, players were strongly discouraged from looking at the DM sections of books.  They didn't know the abilities of monsters or the abilities of magic items.

This really, truly, DID increase the fun and the sense of wonder in my experience.  That's not nostalgia.  Most players that I have known enjoy a sense of mystery and the experience of discovery.

When I, as a DM, got a chance to play, I really enjoyed playing in games with creative DMs.  Monsters whose abilities I didn't know; magic items with abilities that were mysterious.

3E put way too much _information_ into players' hands. 

On reflection, 4E might do better if its summoning and shapechanging rules are truly limited.  There would still be enough room for mysterious and wondrous creatures that the players are NOT familiar with through their own abilities.

Magic item abilities?  Some you can give the players right away, but others it's best to keep hidden.  Suppose you have a custom Rod of Wonder.  A player with access to the table might look and say "Okay, there's a 60% chance of getting a beneficial result here," whereas a player without that table has to figure it out in-game.  The latter is a lot more fun IMO.

I really think the game would be just fine with no familiars or animal companions and very rare summoned creatures.  BECMI had Conjure Elemental as a 5th-level spell, and it was dangerous to use, and there were really no other spells or abilities.  Having played a 3.5 druid, I can tell you the game moves a lot faster when you skip the zoo (although it's also a lot harder to succeed without the zoo).


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> In previous editions, players were strongly discouraged from looking at the DM sections of books.  They didn't know the abilities of monsters or the abilities of magic items.



Well, at least for a while.


> Having played a 3.5 druid, I can tell you the game moves a lot faster when you skip the zoo (although it's also a lot harder to succeed without the zoo).



On this point you and I are in COMPLETE agreement.

I *hate hate hate* having perfectly good game time being sucked up by Mister Menagerie.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

For what it's worth (about 2 cp), in my homebrewed rules, animal stats are covered as an appendix.  Of course, this is important because some of those animals might be PCs, but it is also useful for summoning creatures, etc., as well as statting out party pets and mounts.

I use an easy mechanic that says that a spellcaster must have studied a particular creature in order to summon it.  In this case, "studied" means _you have the statcard ready_.  That makes my life as a DM much easier.

OTOH, I don't think that PCs should have magic items at their fingertips.  I think that magic items are far "cooler" & much more fun when sometimes unexpected things happen.  For instance, when that snake-shaped mace suddenly opens its mouth and _bites_ the target on a critical, delivering a dose of poison to the foe, that is a thrilling jolt for the player, and reinforces the idea that magic isn't always tame or well understood.



RC


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> It isn't hard at all.  Okay, sure if you want them to do anything other than kill your opponents then you have to be able to talk with them ala Speak With Animals.  Other than that they just go and kill things that are trying to kill you.  How hard is that?  Dirt simple.



Really?  In a combat with 12+ possible opponents to choose from, NONE of which attacked my PC in the most recent round?  Many of which would attack in ways that a dinosaur could not perceive?  
It is the decision of WHICH enemies to attack that isn't simple.  Will they attack the dragon, the giant, the monk, or one of the undead casters? 



			
				Stone Dog said:
			
		

> And what exactly makes the T-Rexs hindered by Protection from Good?  Just let the Rexes chomp down and roll for them.



It blocks physical contact from non-evil summoned creatures.


----------



## IanB (Feb 19, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Which means more space in MM for monsters and less space wasted with cats and dogs, although I think there will be animals in MM, but maybe a page or two.
> 
> It was discussed in this thread. I'm glad this information was confirmed!




This assumes that summons will work like they do in 3.0/3.5 where the lists are dominated by different animals. I'm not sure we have any reason to believe that will be true in 4th edition; personally I would expect a fair amount of the MM (more than one or two pages, anyway) to be devoted to 'normal' creatures, much as it always has been.


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> The DM thinks it is better that the PCs not know the exact AC, HP, and saving throws of this creature in case he wants to use it against them (he wants to prevent metagaming).  So maybe he lets the players roll the dice, but he keeps track of the results.
> 
> Polymorph?  The PC turns into a creature that he has seen (not browsing through the MM for the right form) and the DM tells him what abilities he gets.  "Frost giant?  Okay, you'll do damage as a frost giant, and you can throw rocks, but you're not immune to cold."




How can you stop this from happening? When every PC can buy Monster book at the shop. The cat is already out of the box, don't you see?

I agree it's impossible to memorize everything, but your PC can come back to the next game and try to memorize all his summoning monsters stats.

Even worst, because you forbid this, it could be even more tempting for your PCs to memorize has much monsters as possible. When the DM is less protective about information, the players are less tempted to get the information in the first place.




> I think in the long run that reducing the emphasis on DM judgment and trying to define everything precisely in the rules leads to a weaker game.




You are free to run your game as you wish.

But IMO, I'm for the arguments that the less the DM has on his mind, the more he can focus on running his game.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 19, 2008)

Summoned Creatures: These are clearly part of the domain of the DM.  They are NPC's.  It's is the DM's role to run NPC's.  

The srd states:



> This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.




They are clearly not mere extensions of a players will.  Like any other NPC, the player must have his character communicate with them in character if he wishes to direct them to do anything specific.  It is then entirely up to the DM how to run the summoned character, and it is entirely up to the DM to personify it - how it feels about being summoned, its feelings toward the summoned character and the task at hand, its desires and understanding of the situation, what mannerisms it has and so forth.  The fact that this particular NPC is rarely called on to be in any way interesting doesn't mean it's entirely under the DM's control.

I'm astounded that people are used to running thier own familiars.  What's the fun of that?  Do you set there talking with yourself?  Does your familiar never get into mischief?  Does it never have a mind of its own?  Sure, it's your familiar, and you may direct, command and rebuke it in a way that you can direct and command few NPC's, and there is very little that the DM could do with a familiar that you cannot overrule, but that too is part of the fun.  A familiar is such a limited part of a Wizard's arsenal that what possible justification could you have for having one if not for the fun of having an interesting NPC at your beck and call?

I speak from experience in this.  One of my all time favorite NPC's was one of my PC's familiars.  Again, its an usual NPC in the amount of influence I had over the creation of the character, but it was certainly never my character.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 3: I don't even know what it means to say that the DM should adjudicate shapechanging effects.  That's like saying that the DM should adjudicate sword effects.  If the rules are written well, there's nothing to adjudicate.  The player says they shapechange into a wolf, ok, they're a wolf now.  I, as DM, do not have to make up rules for how that works.  Its in the book.



"If the rules are written well."  It's always been the case for polymorph rules that there are some areas of interpretation needed.
Look at the BECMI spell "Polymorph Self," where you get "purely physical" abilities.  That asks for a DM judgment call.  Look at the threads that 3E polymorph and wildshape spawned here.  
What items continue to function?  What items can you wear in an alternate form?  It's never been an easy issue to fix, and (aside from illusions) it's one of the areas most demanding of adjudication.  I think it will be easiest to just restrict it to a few physical changes (attack, damage, AC, movement), give almost no special abilities, and rule that items continue functioning. 



			
				MaelStorm said:
			
		

> How can you stop this from happening? When every PC can buy Monster book at the shop. The cat is already out of the box, don't you see?



Well, I would regard it as poor sportsmanship for a player to buy the MM explicitly for the purpose of meta-gaming and learning the monsters' abilities.  I would likely stop gaming with such a player.  Now, if I knew that they bought it for their own use in running a game, then to make the game better for them I would make an effort to mix up monster names, descriptions, and abilities.  That way they could know that their DM knowledge wouldn't interfere with their ability to have fun discovering the world of my campaign.

As to summoned monsters, I'd be happy to give the PCs the information as they come to be familiar with their creatures.  Keep it about as mysterious as that magic sword; after a few battles, tell them "It's a Sword +2," and tell the wizard "The Umber Hulk you can summon has 8+8 HD, THAC0 10, AC 2, 44 HP, and a confusing gaze (save vs. Spells)."


----------



## fedelas (Feb 19, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> This is true.
> 
> Unless, of course, one likes the PCs to not know that they have a +1 sword, even after three weeks and 20 combats.  Why someone would like this, I really have no idea, but I'm sure there are some people who do.
> 
> Brad



 I'll think that if a DM don't want to let his player knows what an item is, simply don't tell them exactly the game stats of an item, the fact that the magic item was in the PH isn't a change IMO. In fact, magic items are most than not PC tools so the PH can be the best place to put them.
Regarding the summoning and shapechange thing i'll go with the 3.5 PHII way (x-spell=x-form, same for summmon, like Summon Fire archon) or something like the Astral Construct
Cheers
Fede
P.S. I apologize for my grammar and spelling, but english isn't my first language


----------



## Stone Dog (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> It is the decision of WHICH enemies to attack that isn't simple.



Yes it is.  Very simple.  When in doubt, they attack the one that is closest until it is out of the fight, then they go to the next one unless you can tell it not to.  they are your opponents.  the spell makes the summoned creatures attack your opponents.  Intelligence has nothing to do with it.  Perception has nothing to do with it.   The magic tells it what it is going to do.

They aren't NPCs.  they are practically robots that are programmed by the spell.  the only free will they have is flavor text.  "It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability."  No arguments.  No personality except talking and body language.  It can yell and complain all it likes, but it is still going to attack whatever it is that is on the opposing team at the moment.





> It blocks physical contact from non-evil summoned creatures.



That is a new reading to me and my crew.   Lemme see..."This spell functions like protection from evil, except that the deflection and resistance bonuses apply to attacks from good creatures, and *good summoned creatures cannot touch the subject.* "  Those must be some pretty altruistic dinosaurs.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Well, I would regard it as poor sportsmanship for a player to buy the MM explicitly for the purpose of meta-gaming and learning the monsters' abilities.  I would likely stop gaming with such a player.  Now, if I knew that they bought it for their own use in running a game, then to make the game better for them I would make an effort to mix up monster names, descriptions, and abilities.  That way they could know that their DM knowledge wouldn't interfere with their ability to have fun discovering the world of my campaign.




One of the essential jobs of a DM is to see to it that a players natural, understandable, and perhaps even necessary desire 'to win' doesn't in fact get in the way of thier enjoyment of the game.  Most players recognize that peeking behind the DM's screen is not only unethical, but is also spoiling the game for themselves.  They less often understand that this desire to understand everything as it happens and put labels and numbers on everything is part of the same unhealthy impulse as the temptation to read the DM's notes.  So, your job as a DM includes making it hard for the players to rely on thier meta-knowledge rather than what they gleaned from in game by narrative or by application of a knowledge skill.

In my case, this means that virtually every monster or magic item is either difficult to identify or else completely out of my own head.  They'll find out where mewlips come from in due time.  That sort of campaign secret is not one I want spoiled because finding out in game is so much more compelling than if I simply told you where they come from.  They'll find out about crag fiends, the secret lives of griffins, what a gnome is, what a crypt knight is, what the spawn of ugopoth are, who the crypt children are, what an air elemental really looks like, and so forth by experience, and not from a stat block.  And its more fun for everyone this way, because you never have the same sense of wonder reading a stat block that you have finding out things in a story.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 19, 2008)

In our group the players run summoned creatures, animal companions and cohorts in combat. The DM plays the part of cohorts and companions out of combat. So the players have to know the stats and in 3e this means they have to have access to the Monster Manual.

If 4e is moving away from this requirement then it means there will be more 'sense of wonder', not less.

I get the impression the magic items in the PHB will be limited to the 'Charlie Brown Xmas tree' the system assumes as a default. I don't see anything wrong with that. A DM who is deviating from this default should mention it to his players. If he isn't then there was no mystery to be crushed in the first place.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Unless, of course, one likes the PCs to not know that they have a +1 sword, even after three weeks and 20 combats.  Why someone would like this, I really have no idea, but I'm sure there are some people who do.



I'm certainly not one of those.  I'd let my player know it was a +1 sword after maybe 2-3 combats.  But after 3 weeks and 20 combats, they might not know that it is a dragon-bane sword that gives a 2/day reroll on saving throws vs. dragon-caused effects.  Or they might not know the sword gives the Practiced Spellcaster feat and forces the wielder to make a DC 30 Will save or be _Dominated_ by his intended victim if he ever attacks an elf.

I prefer DM-given items, especially with secret benefits or drawbacks.


----------



## FadedC (Feb 19, 2008)

With regards to summoning spells, according to the rules no speech or communication is necesary for the monster to "attack your enemies". I would assume by this that they are summoned with some innate knowledge of who is friend and who is foe. With that said I think it's also reasonable that the player would not have perfect control over them without the ability to communicate. Most of the time though it's easier to give the player control fo the monster and just have the DM step in when necesary. I'd expect an animal intelligence creature like a T-Rex to usually attack whoever attacked him rather showing strategic planning. But I might also expect even an animal to realize if it can't effect a target due to pro-good at least after the first attempt. In either case a player should certainly know the abilities of the creature they can summon.

I've played in lots of games where the players don't know what their magic items do. There were fun parts, but I really don't miss players having to say "well my ac is 25 plus any magic item bonuses" or "I hite AC21....but presumably actually 22 or 23 depending on the bonus of my sword". The current version of identify tells you all item properties which I don't really have a problem with. Either way having rules for the players on the items they are expected to have seems like a good thing.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 19, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> If 4e is moving away from this requirement then it means there will be more 'sense of wonder', not less.



Excellent point.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Feb 19, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> But IMO, I'm for the arguments that the less the DM has on his mind, the more he can focus on running his game.



This.  Why take on extra work when you don't have to?


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> Yes it is.  Very simple.  When in doubt, they attack the one that is closest until it is out of the fight, then they go to the next one unless you can tell it not to.  they are your opponents.



So they go by proximity?  Doesn't matter if certain of the enemies have attacked them and other haven't?  Okay, it sounds like your gaming group has agreed on a house rule for how summoned creatures will act.  That's your perogative.  At least you have some definition rather than "they do whatever the PC wants them to do regardless of ability to communicate."



			
				Stone Dog said:
			
		

> That is a new reading to me and my crew.   Lemme see..."This spell functions like protection from evil, except that the deflection and resistance bonuses apply to attacks from good creatures, and *good summoned creatures cannot touch the subject.* "  Those must be some pretty altruistic dinosaurs.



This has been debated before on the rules boards.  Look it up.  "Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect. The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature. Spell resistance can allow a creature to overcome this protection and touch the warded creature."

Prot Evil keeps both neutral and evil creatures from making bodily contact.
Prot Good is "like protection from evil... and good summoned creatures cannot touch the subject."
Does that mean it protects from neutral, evil, AND good creatures?  Or is the "neutral and evil" of Prot Evil replaced with just plain "good" in Prot Good, which would make it a less powerful spell than Prot Evil?  Which is your reading?
If so, that dragon would be wise to use Prot Evil, since that will keep the neutral creatures at bay.  
I go with an "apparent intent of the rules despite the poor wording" and interpret it as "Neutral and Good creatures cannot touch the subject."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> One of the essential jobs of a DM is to see to it that a players natural, understandable, and perhaps even necessary desire 'to win' doesn't in fact get in the way of thier enjoyment of the game.  Most players recognize that peeking behind the DM's screen is not only unethical, but is also spoiling the game for themselves.  They less often understand that this desire to understand everything as it happens and put labels and numbers on everything is part of the same unhealthy impulse as the temptation to read the DM's notes.  So, your job as a DM includes making it hard for the players to rely on thier meta-knowledge rather than what they gleaned from in game by narrative or by application of a knowledge skill.





Well put, Sir.    

This is, unfortunately, one of the areas of DMing that is often overlooked, and almost never addressed in books on the art (such as the DMG).




> In my case, this means that virtually every monster or magic item is either difficult to identify or else completely out of my own head.  They'll find out where mewlips come from in due time.  That sort of campaign secret is not one I want spoiled because finding out in game is so much more compelling than if I simply told you where they come from.  They'll find out about crag fiends, the secret lives of griffins, what a gnome is, what a crypt knight is, what the spawn of ugopoth are, who the crypt children are, what an air elemental really looks like, and so forth by experience, and not from a stat block.  And its more fun for everyone this way, because you never have the same sense of wonder reading a stat block that you have finding out things in a story.





I like the cut of your jib, newsletter, etc.



RC


----------



## Caliban (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren: Your way is not the only way to play D&D.   What is fun for you is not fun for everyone.

Personally:

As a DM,  I really don't want to be in charge of tracking what all the PC's magic items and summoned monsters do, as well what all my NPC's and their equipment does.   

As a player, I really don't find it more fun to be left in an information vacuum  and dependent on the DM's good will and memory when I try to use one of my items in combat.  I wan't be in control of my character and his actions, and part of that is knowing (within reason) what my gear does and what my summoned critters (if any) are capable of.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> This.  Why take on extra work when you don't have to?



It's not for me about managing details, but about making judgment calls.  3E is explicitly LESS encouraging of DM judgment calls.  I think that in the short term this makes it easier for a wider range of people to DM, but in the long term it reduces the emphasis on the necessary skills to make a game run well.  Monte Cook said it better than I did.

"The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook

" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook

"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> Brother MacLaren: Your way is not the only way to play D&D. What is fun for you is not fun for everyone.



Really?  Thanks.

I do hope that Doug McCrae's observation is correct and that 4E will increase the sense of wonder by keeping most monsters' abilities more mysterious.


----------



## Caliban (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Really?  Thanks.




You're welcome.   Monte Cook's style isn't the be-all end-all of good gaming either.


----------



## Set (Feb 19, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Brother MacLaren
> I despise the entire idea of PCs buying magic items -- whether I am a player or a DM. It kills the wonder. It makes them too commonplace. It doesn't fit with the legends and stories I know. It has always been the thing I've hated the most about 3E. As a player, I enjoy making do with what is found or won or given.




Depends on the legends and stories you refer to.  Elric of Melnibone had a magic sword and a magic ring and brewed up some potions on occasion.  Frodo Baggins carted around a mithril shirt, magic orcbane shortsword, rope of climbing, phial of elven starlight, cloak of elvenkind and food that never ran out.  Oh.  And some ring.

The newer generation of gamer is used to having a pair of magic earrings, a magic helm, magic necklace, magic cloak, magic bracers, two magic rings, magic sleeves, magic shoulderpads, a magic tunic/robe/breastplate, magic belt, magic pants ("Are those magic pants?  'Cause your @$$ is enchanting!"), magic boots, etc.  Whether or not it fits the genre of, say, Conan, who generally avoided anything that stank of magic, it's part of the genre now.

As long as the game system requires weapon feats, for instance, 'making do' is simply not an option for fun gameplay.  If I weapon specialized in Dwarven Spiked Double-Hafted Petard-Hoister, I'm not particularly interested in 'making do' with those +2 Nunchaku the DM randomly rolled up, just as Merry and Pippin got their hands on magical *short swords* and didn't have to 'make do' with an interesting selection of magical polearms.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 19, 2008)

RE: Magic Items in the PHB. I really don't have a problem with this at all. In fact, I fail to see how it will impact on my ability as a DM to maintain the "mystery" that is unidentified magic items. Just because the items are there at the players' finger tips doesn't mean I, as the DM, can't continue to give them unidentified magic items that they have to figure out. Judging from what some people have said, it sounds like they're expecting to have to say to the players, "OK, you've found a _+2 mace of poison_, look at page 225 in your PHB for the details." You can still maintain your players' sense of wonder by simply not telling them what they've found ... but by having the magic items in the PHB, it'll make it easier for players to look up the abilities of the items they _have_ identified and it'll also make it easier to create PCs above 1st level.


----------



## rkanodia (Feb 19, 2008)

Protagonist said:
			
		

> I hope the don't dare exclude the summoned Fiendish Dire Aardvark, the summoned Axiomatic Dire Aardvark and the summoned Anarchic Dire Aardvark!



Presumably, the Anarchic Dire Aardvark will have Craft (Letterbomb) instead.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> One of the essential jobs of a DM is to see to it that a players natural, understandable, and perhaps even necessary desire 'to win' doesn't in fact get in the way of thier enjoyment of the game.




I prefer to treat players differently.  If they want to look behind the screen, I assume that they enjoy doing it, that they know better what they enjoy from the game, and I don't try to stop them.  Maybe I'd start a conversation to get on the same page, but that's it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

Set said:
			
		

> Depends on the legends and stories you refer to.  Elric of Melnibone had a magic sword and a magic ring and brewed up some potions on occasion.  Frodo Baggins carted around a mithril shirt, magic orcbane shortsword, rope of climbing, phial of elven starlight, cloak of elvenkind and food that never ran out.  Oh.  And some ring.




LOTR corrections:

There is no evidence that the mithril shirt was magical.  Sting was a long dagger, not a shortsword (according to _The Hobbit_, at least) that served as a sword for one of Bilbo's/Frodo's size.  Frodo didn't have a _rope of climbing_, as it had to be fastened normally to function -- the knot simply could be undone at will.  The Phial of Galadrial is correct, as is the _cloak of elvenkind_, but Frodo's food certainly could run out....and did, it was explicit that Sam and Frodo didn't have enough food to journey back from Mordor.


RC


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 19, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Excellent point.




And with the more efficient stat write-up, how much space do you really need to present a summoned monster's stats? Or a mount's? Wouldn't a Warhorse's write-up look something like:

*Warhorse Level 8 Brute*
*Cost* 400 G.P.
Large natural quadruped (animal)
*Initiative* +9 *Senses* Perception +4; low-light vision 
*HP* 80; *Bloodied* 40 
*AC* 17 (unarmored); *Fortitude* 17, *Reflex* 15, *Will* 14 
*Speed* 12
*Melee Kick (standard; at-will)*
+9 vs. AC; 1d10 + 9 damage. 
*Melee Trample (full-round; at-will)*
+9 vs. Ref; 2d10 + 9 damage and the target is knocked prone.
*Alignment* Unaligned
*Skills* Athletics +14,  Initiative +9
*Str* 20 (+9) *Dex* 12 (+5) *Wis* 10 (+4) *Con* 16 (+7) *Int* 2 (-2) *Cha* 10 (+4)

That's pretty short. And it could probably be made shorter. With proper formatting, that's hardly longer than many Third Edition spell descriptions. It hardly takes up more room than the description for, say, _prismatic spray._


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

Set said:
			
		

> Depends on the legends and stories you refer to.  Elric of Melnibone had a magic sword and a magic ring and brewed up some potions on occasion.  Frodo Baggins carted around a mithril shirt, magic orcbane shortsword, rope of climbing, phial of elven starlight, cloak of elvenkind and food that never ran out.  Oh.  And some ring.



It is specifically the purchasing that I object to.  Finding things, winning them in battle, receiving gifts or family heirlooms -- all fine.  Stores?  No, I hate them.  And even more than that, I hate having players know the finite universe of possible items to buy.  It's not "I'd like to find a magic axe of some sort for sale"; it's "I want a +1 flaming dragonbane dwarven waraxe, so that costs 18,000 gp, and it should be available for sale in any large city."



			
				Set said:
			
		

> Hoister, I'm not particularly interested in 'making do' with those +2 Nunchaku the DM randomly rolled up, just as Merry and Pippin got their hands on magical *short swords* and didn't have to 'make do' with an interesting selection of magical polearms.



Yes, well, in a game with an emphasis on DM judgement calls, a DM will take player needs and convenience into consideration and choose particular treasures.  Maybe neat items with hidden magical properties that aren't revealed until a dramatic moment.  In a game where PCs can pick and choose, they all get the "Big Six."  That was a HUGE reason for the "Big Six" being as prevalent as they were in 3E -- the assumption that PCs could generally get the specific items they wanted.


----------



## Stone Dog (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> So they go by proximity?  Doesn't matter if certain of the enemies have attacked them and other haven't?  Okay, it sounds like your gaming group has agreed on a house rule for how summoned creatures will act.  That's your perogative.  At least you have some definition rather than "they do whatever the PC wants them to do regardless of ability to communicate."



Nope.  Doesn't matter who has attacked who in any way.  The targets don't even have to be combatants.  The spell dictates that they attact your opponents.  As long as the caster is perfectly clear who the opponents are (as in; An individual or group who is your rival, one who attempts to stop your progression or one who objects to you.), they go after the opponents regardless of how a creature might personally define "enemy."  

I can summon celestials to slaughter good people serving the same god if I want to (well, not as a cleric).  They will do it.  They will wail and lament, but they will do it.




> Which is your reading?



My reading is the one that says Protection from X protects from X and not something that isn't X.  I have to admit that this one would be a house ruling according to the RAW.  Sorry about that.  

As far as the RAW goes, I have to admit you are right about that part.  As ridiculous as it is,  Protection from Evil can protect you from something that isn't Evil and Protection from Good can protect you from something that isn't Good.  My mistake there.


----------



## lukelightning (Feb 19, 2008)

Set said:
			
		

> Depends on the legends and stories you refer to.  Elric of Melnibone had a magic sword and a magic ring and brewed up some potions on occasion.  Frodo Baggins carted around a mithril shirt, magic orcbane shortsword, rope of climbing, phial of elven starlight, cloak of elvenkind and food that never ran out.  Oh.  And some ring.




Not to mention that magic items have to come from _somewhere_. If people can make 'em, then people can sell 'em.  I don't think D&D should be restricted to the conventions of fantasy literature or myths.

That being said, they've mentioned several times that magic items in 4e will play a different role than in 3e (more about "doing new things" rather than "improving you"), and that it's easier to customize a high-vs.-low magic level. So I'd wager that you could easily play a 4e game with very few magic items.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I'm certainly not one of those.  I'd let my player know it was a +1 sword after maybe 2-3 combats.  But after 3 weeks and 20 combats, they might not know that it is a dragon-bane sword that gives a 2/day reroll on saving throws vs. dragon-caused effects.  Or they might not know the sword gives the Practiced Spellcaster feat and forces the wielder to make a DC 30 Will save or be _Dominated_ by his intended victim if he ever attacks an elf.
> 
> I prefer DM-given items, especially with secret benefits or drawbacks.



Having items in the PHB invalidates _*none*_ of this. It doesn't matter what book it's listed in if you don't tell the player what the item is. _But once you do_, once the PC figures it out, and they will, it's a much greater convenience  to have the item in the PHB.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 19, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Having items in the PHB invalidates _*none*_ of this. It doesn't matter what book it's listed in if you don't tell the player what the item is. _But once you do_, once the PC figures it out, and they will, it's a much greater convenience  to have the item in the PHB.



 My sentiments exactly (see #56 above).


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> In a game where PCs can pick and choose, they all get the "Big Six."



And with 4e's shift away from 'the Big Six', players should be able to choose interesting and unusual items without screwing themselves over mechanically.


----------



## Gort (Feb 19, 2008)

To be honest, magic items are such a standard staple of D&D adventurer equipment, it makes little sense _not_ to have them in the PHB next to 50 feet of rope and storm lanterns. I think a lot of people who have a problem with this positioning actually have a problem with how magic items are treated in general - like standard equipment. But that's a deeper problem than which book they're in.

I would strongly object if my DM wouldn't let me find out the numeric modifiers on my magic stuff (like "it's a +3 sword, and that's a +2 shield") because it's not like me knowing my sword does 3 extra damage is going to take away from my "sense of wonder". It's just basic game mechanics. I'd object just as strongly if the DM said, "You can take this feat that makes you better with a sword, but I won't tell you what mechanical bonus it gives you".


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Having items in the PHB invalidates _*none*_ of this. It doesn't matter what book it's listed in if you don't tell the player what the item is. _But once you do_, once the PC figures it out, and they will, it's a much greater convenience  to have the item in the PHB.



But my original issue was the player equipping his PC versus the DM equipping the PCs.  That's the REASON for the magic items being in the PHB, and that reason is a problem for me.  Do you see how, if the player is equipping his PC, he gets known, defined, non-mysterious items from the PHB, whereas if the DM equips the PCs, items can have hidden abilities?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Having items in the PHB invalidates _*none*_ of this. It doesn't matter what book it's listed in if you don't tell the player what the item is. _But once you do_, once the PC figures it out, and they will, it's a much greater convenience  to have the item in the PHB.





Besides, that way it'll be easier to market the 4e Magic Item Compendium as a "must have" for all players as well as for DMs.  And, let's face it, it'll be easier to fill the PHB V with magic items and spells than it will be to come up with new PC classes and PC races.  

"With the advent of the PHB X, half-giant half-ooze war hulk ravagers appeared!  And they always were there, just unnoticed!  And don't forget that Doohickey of Hickery Doo for your gnome druid (made from the gnome in the PHB IV and the druid from the PHB IX....as opposed to the sucky druid in the PHB II that no one uses anymore)!

Meh.

I am not, I hope, alone in thinking that no player should need to look up "+3 sword" to know what it does.  And, for things like, say, wings of flying, I prefer that the player discovers how fast the wings can fly by trying them.

(For the record, I do not tell you that your +1 sword is a +1 sword after 10, 20, or 100 combats.  If you haven't noticed that Bob hits on 15 and you hit on 14, that's perfectly fine with me.  If you really want to know what your items do, cast _detect magic_ and _identify_.)


RC


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 19, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Having items in the PHB invalidates _*none*_ of this. It doesn't matter what book it's listed in if you don't tell the player what the item is. _But once you do_, once the PC figures it out, and they will, it's a much greater convenience  to have the item in the PHB.




I believe the argument is that putting the items in the PHB implies they're purchasable at "Ye Olde Village Magicke Shoppe."

Which is, of course, nonsense. Just because something is _in_ the PHB doesn't mean that every village green-grocer has it for sale. It just means that _if_ it's for sale, _somewhere_, this is what it would cost.

Just as you can't _necessarily_ buy a caravel or a spyglass in every village, you can't _necessarily_ buy a magic sword, _heward's handy haversack_, or hippogriff either.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> But my original issue was the player equipping his PC versus the DM equipping the PCs.  That's the REASON for the magic items being in the PHB, and that reason is a problem for me.  Do you see how, if the player is equipping his PC, he gets known, defined, non-mysterious items from the PHB, whereas if the DM equips the PCs, items can have hidden abilities?



That's not the reason for items being in the PHB. The reason is to make it easier for the players to reference information. It does not entitle the players to equip themselves with anything they want. Heck, my players have to ask me if they want to purchase anything off the regular item list if availablity might be questionable.

Edit: Puknui, JohnSnow, et. al... I wonder if it counts as being ninja'd if the horse is starting to look a little lifeless...


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> It is specifically the purchasing that I object to.  Finding things, winning them in battle, receiving gifts or family heirlooms -- all fine.



One of the big problems (or is that features?!) of 3.x is that magic items constitute a point-buy powers system in disguise. Take away the ability for non-casters to purchase the magical abilities of their choosing/price range, and you tilt game balance in favor of the classes that get magic powers as class abilities.

If you remove 'item shopping' from the game, you need to also restrict spell access for the casters. The system assumes a fairly high degree of player choice when it comes to equipping character with supernatural assets. Restrict that in one place and you end up having to restrict it across the board.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I believe the argument is that putting the items in the PHB implies they're purchasable at "Ye Olde Village Magicke Shoppe."
> 
> Which is, of course, nonsense. Just because something is _in_ the PHB doesn't mean that every village green-grocer has it for sale. It just means that _if_ it's for sale, _somewhere_, this is what it would cost.
> 
> Just as you can't _necessarily_ buy a caravel or a spyglass in every village, you can't _necessarily_ buy a magic sword, _heward's handy haversack_, or hippogriff either.



It is partly my reading of the phrase about players equipping their PCs with magic items, and partly my lingering resentment of 3E.
3E recommended that ANY item a PC wanted, if under a community's GP limit, should be available for sale.  But it was a "Schroedinger's Town," since it had a fixed total limit.  Exactly what items were for sale wouldn't be determined until PCs said what they wanted.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (For the record, I do not tell you that your +1 sword is a +1 sword after 10, 20, or 100 combats.  If you haven't noticed that Bob hits on 15 and you hit on 14, that's perfectly fine with me.  If you really want to know what your items do, cast _detect magic_ and _identify_.)



Personally, I find this method to be tedious and totally un-fun. As the DM, I have so many things to remember already that having to remember to mentally add the magical enhancement of so-and-so PC's unidentified magic weapon is a real pain in the ass. Besides, just because the _player_ hasn't noticed doesn't mean the _PC_ hasn't either.



			
				Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Edit: Puknui, JohnSnow, et. al... I wonder if it counts as being ninja'd if the horse is starting to look a little lifeless...



LOL.



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> But my original issue was the player equipping his PC versus the DM equipping the PCs.  That's the REASON for the magic items being in the PHB, and that reason is a problem for me.  Do you see how, if the player is equipping his PC, he gets known, defined, non-mysterious items from the PHB, whereas if the DM equips the PCs, items can have hidden abilities?



You can always either assign some hidden abilities to the items your players have chosen or else just say that they didn't find anything with hidden abilities during their off-stage adventures and then you can start handing out the "cool stuff" during the actual adventure you're running. How hard is that?

As a fairly time-strapped DM, I find it much easier to let my players choose their equipment than to do it for them (as much as I might prefer the latter option) ... however, it's difficult for some of them to do this because they only have the PHB, so I either end up having to do it for them or else they have to come over to my house and look through my books to find the stuff they want.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> That's not the reason for items being in the PHB. The reason is to make it easier for the players to reference information.



Guess I read this wrong:
"Players won't need the Dungeon Master's Guide to equip their higher-level characters, because the PH will have plenty of magic items for all levels."

Looks to me like that sentence says the items are in the PH so that player can _equip_ their PCs.


----------



## Caliban (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> But my original issue was the player equipping his PC versus the DM equipping the PCs.  That's the REASON for the magic items being in the PHB, and that reason is a problem for me.  Do you see how, if the player is equipping his PC, he gets known, defined, non-mysterious items from the PHB, whereas if the DM equips the PCs, items can have hidden abilities?




Why does it have to be one or the other?   That is my problem with your whole attitude.  

As a player, I DON'T WANT the DM to equip my PC with all his gear.   And as a DM, I really don't want to do that either.   

Some items the players equip themselves with - those are the ones they buy with their PC's gold.

Some items the DM equips the player with - those are the items that are gained through adventuring, either won in combat or gifted to them via Plot NPC's or whatever.  These can have whatever mysterious or hidden the abilities the DM wants.  And if the players don't like it, they can simply choose not to use it.


----------



## Stone Dog (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Guess I read this wrong:



No, you aren't reading it wrong, but I think you are putting implications that aren't inherent in the game.

Yes, the players can equip PCs with magic items at higher levels.  That doesn't necessarily mean that they bought these item from a shop, just that when a PC is equipped at a higher level, the players can all look at their PHB's to do it instead of passing around a couple of DMGs.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Guess I read this wrong:
> "Players won't need the Dungeon Master's Guide to equip their higher-level characters, because the PH will have plenty of magic items for all levels."
> 
> Looks to me like that sentence says the items are in the PH so that player can _equip_ their PCs.



In the sense that I, the player, have to write/type the item on my sheet, and figure out - once the DM has told me what the item is or allowed me to identify it according to the in game rules - how the item interacts with my character's statistics, yes, I, the player, am equipping the item. And it's easier if the item is in the PHB.

Your reference to the DM "equipping" players seems a little strange to me, anyway. DM's place or provide items in the context of the adventure. A player then has his PC pick up and use the items, thus they are the ones equipping them.

You're just reading too much into the statement, I think. Equip <> Purchase At Will.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 19, 2008)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Some items the players equip themselves with - those are the ones they buy with their PC's gold.
> 
> Some items the DM equips the player with - those are the items that are gained through adventuring, either won in combat or gifted to them via Plot NPC's or whatever.  These can have whatever mysterious or hidden the abilities the DM wants.  And if the players don't like it, they can simply choose not to use it.



And, personally, I don't see why you, as the DM, couldn't assign "hidden" abilities to a magic item that a PC _has_ bought! Who's to say that the seller knew exactly what the thing did? Maybe it's a cursed item but the curse never manifested itself to the seller so he thinks it's just a plain old whatever ... that could be really fun, if you ask me. The player _thinks_ he's bought a something-or-other from the PHB, but you, as DM, have decided it's really something else ...

I believe there's going to be less emphasis on the whole character wealth by level thing (if it hasn't been completely thrown out the window), so I doubt it'll be too much of a problem to "up" the power level of an item that a player has chosen ... especially if they don't know about it and maybe the extra powers don't manifest until the PC is at an appropriate level anyway.




			
				Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> In the sense that I, the player, have to write/type the item on my sheet, and figure out - once the DM has told me what the item is or allowed me to identify it according to the in game rules - how the item interacts with my character's statistics, yes, I, the player, am equipping the item. And it's easier if the item is in the PHB.
> 
> Your reference to the DM "equipping" players seems a little strange to me, anyway. DM's place or provide items in the context of the adventure. A player then has his PC pick up and use the items, thus they are the ones equipping them.
> 
> You're just reading too much into the statement, I think. Equip <> Purchase At Will.



If I understand Brother MacLaren properly, he's saying he doesn't like the idea of players being able to pour through the PHB and pick out magic items for their PCs in the same way they pick weapons, armor, and mundane equipment. I can see his point of view but I think it's an easy enough problem to solve. I also think the benefits of having the magic items in the PHB far outweigh any of the potential drawbacks.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 19, 2008)

Caliban said:
			
		

> As a player, I DON'T WANT the DM to equip my PC with all his gear.   And as a DM, I really don't want to do that either.



Two simple statements which perfectly encapsulate my thoughts on this matter. Thanks.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 19, 2008)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Why does it have to be one or the other?   That is my problem with your whole attitude.



You have a problem with my attitude?

I've found this thread to be an interesting conversation about the changing expectations over time of what information players should have and what information DMs should have.  There really is a difference from earlier editions to 3E/4E.  The issue of buying magic items ties into the importance of optimization; another very significant difference from earlier editions to 3E.  The fact that 3E was designed to reduce the importance of DM judgment calls is also worth talking about. 

Some of the responses have been illuminating, some frustrating, and some thought-provoking.  Overall I thought it was a conversation worth having, and I didn't try to insult anybody.  Okay, I didn't preface my initial post with "*in my opinion*, it's better when the DM is the one deciding what magic items exist and deciding how to adjudicate things," and I guess that was a mistake.  I'm sorry to have offended you, and I guess I should bow out of this thread now.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 19, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Two simple statements which perfectly encapsulate my thoughts on this matter. Thanks.



Me, too. 

I don't want to bother with micromanaging my PCs statistics. I am pretty content with managing the flow of the campaign and the adventures, and adjudicating crazy stuff my players come up with...


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I despise the entire idea of PCs buying magic items -- whether I am a player or a DM.  It kills the wonder.




Exactly how much wonder can you have in a situation that generally amounts to 4-6 geeks sitting around a table, possibly in a basement, rolling dice and playing make believe while moving little figurines around on a grid?

While the fantasy and story elements of D&D are of great importance, attempts to look past the fact that it is a game is impossible.  There are some things where a DM judgement call are perfectly fine, such as in a goofy player stabbing himself with a sword because he knows he has more HP than the weapons max damage output.  And no matter how many ranks in Diplomacy a player has, he is not going to convince the king to abdicate and turn the throne over to him just because he asked nicely.

However, sooner or later, there will be some metagame aspects added in.  You cannot turn a balony sandwich into a steak sandwich by slathering on A1 Steak sauce.  No matter how much effort you put into describing the damage the player is taking, if he still has 50 out of 60 HP, he is not likely to act all that hurt until his HP drop low enough to make death a real threat.  No matter how dangerous you describe the spears of the hobgoblin warriors, he may choose to eat the AoO while going after the primary villain.  Most importantly, the magic of the D&D game is about as likely to inspire wonder as an empty pop can.  I just do not see how anyone can expect otherwise.  At the end of the day, this is a game that describes magical weapons as a "Sword +1" at times.  Not a whole lot of wonder regarding that kind of item.  Maybe magic ought to be rare and wonderous, but it is not likely to be.  If it were, a 1st level mage could probably cow an entire town into obedience by his aw inspiring burning hands spell.

Ultimately, relying on Wonder through Obscurity Of Game Elements is not a particularly good approach.  Having compelling characters, interesting story elements, and a compelling adventure hook seem much more important.  And no amount of rules knowledge is likely to to impair those things.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## jaer (Feb 19, 2008)

The last thing I want to do as a DM is control summoned monsters.  Had a druid player who summoned 1d4+1 monsters often in order to crowd out enemies or get flanking bonuses.  If I'm already controlling 4 or 5 creatures in combat, I don't want to deal with 4 more!

As a player, I had a wizard with an infernal owl familiar.  The owl had personality, and often spoke with me as an NPC would (it had it's own agendas, too, which we worked together on), but in combat, he did as I directed.  If he was to deliver a touch spell, he did so.  I was in control...but that does not mean he didn't have his own personality.

My players tend to have their summoned monsters react animalistically as appropriate unless they can be directed otherwise.  Similarly, when PCs are charmed, dominated, or confused, I don't start playing for that person.  I might write a note telling them what the dominating created ordered them to do, but they must do it (I really don't need to suddenly have some character sheet I've never seen before in my hands, and me trying to use it in a fight).  If a PC typically Power Attacks in combat, it is understood in my group that he should continue to do so when confused and fighting a friend.  They should do their best to not metagame the confusion; I trust my players to do so.

As for magic items, when I DM, I tend to start of restricting the PCs.  Generally they are in places that don't have a lot of magic items; selection is low.  I control the flow through low levels.  But when they get higher, I remove those restrictions.  They still clear items with be before any purchase, but I try not to hamper my character's ability to buy or create items.  Having them in the PHB does make it easier; much less "what does this do again?" and  "can I borrow someone's DMG?"

And just because it is in the PHB, even if the game is intended for open-market, there is nothing to restrict the market or add smaller side effects.


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 19, 2008)

Caliban said:
			
		

> As a player, I DON'T WANT the DM to equip my PC with all his gear.   And as a DM, I really don't want to do that either.




Yeah, me too I totally agree 100% on this. Live and let live.




			
				Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> Ultimately, relying on Wonder through Obscurity Of Game Elements is not a particularly good approach. Having compelling characters, interesting story elements, and a compelling adventure hook seem much more important. And no amount of rules knowledge is likely to to impair those things.




I agree 100% on this too. This is the single most important element in RPG.


----------



## Set (Feb 19, 2008)

Ironically, we've had less of the 'magic item shop' syndrome in 3E than we had in 2nd edition, when we'd go into a town and roll to see if they had any Elven Chain for sale (which they never did), mutter and then roll to see if they had any Sea Elven Scale (which, even in deserts, if the GM gave them a 1% chance, they always seemed to have in stock, leading to a whole lot of Sea Elven Scale clad magic-users...).

In 3.5, I'm not even sure if there are availability rules for items.  In our gaming group, the GM just decides if something is available, and, if not, how long it will take to special order.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm astounded that people are used to running thier own familiars.  What's the fun of that?  Do you set there talking with yourself?  Does your familiar never get into mischief?  Does it never have a mind of its own?




Just for fun, we usually pick another player to play the role the a familiar.  So Player A's familiar may be run by Player B.

Mostly though, the DM allows the player's to control familiars and companions, so long as they don't abuse the ability.  I don't know if it is expressly written anywhere as to WHO should be controlling these creatures (Player or DM), it is just something we've adopted that works for our group.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Seems to be continuing and even exacerbating the 3E trend.
> Players shouldn't be equipping their PCs with magic items; DMs should be equipping the PCs with magic items.
> Players shouldn't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects; DMs should adjudicate all effects of any kind whatsoever.



I do enough work.  The more block-stacking tasks I can delegate to my players, the better.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 19, 2008)

For what it's worth, I've also found that my players, all of whom are older gamers who don't really like 3e's dependence on mechanical optimization, often suffer because they haven't got the right magical equipment ... and this is primarily because they _don't_ have access to the magic items in the DMG (most of them don't, anyway) so they don't even know what they're missing let alone what they could be using to make things easier for them.


----------



## Caliban (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> You have a problem with my attitude?




Just as much as you have a problem with the very idea of PC's being able buy magic items out of the PHB. 

I think comes down to the attitude of "My Campaign" vs "My Character".

As a DM (especially those with the "Great Storyteller" slant) the tendency is to want as much control over the elements of the campaign as possible so as to better to direct the direction and story of the campaign.

As a Player (especially those with a competitive slant) the tendency is to want as much information about and control of your characters abilities as possible.   

As time has progressed and the player base has grown up and matured, the core rules of the game have leaned more and more towards the "My Character" side of things.   

Obviously, I think this is a good thing.  I've been on both sides of the screen, and I simply don't have the time to be the DM and keep track of everything the PC's have at the same time.  The more control the PC's have over their characters (within reason), the more I can focus on creating the story and running the game.  

As a player, I personally don't enjoy it much when I'm kept in the dark about my character can do or what options he has available.  Too much of that, and I feel like I'm basically a spectator in the DM's "Great Story" that will unfold as he wills it, regardless of the wishes of the players.   Some DM's are good enough storytellers that even this can be enjoyable, but most are not.  What's worse is the DM's who think they are that good a storyteller, when they are not. 

And of course things can go to far in the other direction.  But I don't think we are there yet. 



> I'm sorry to have offended you, and I guess I should bow out of this thread now.




Meh.  I don't think I'm the one who has been "offended".


----------



## Rechan (Feb 19, 2008)

I personally don't even make my PCs track their ammunition or rations, so I can't imagine having to keep track of what the PC's items are, much less track their animals or summoned monsters.

As for "Equipping"... Look.

Any time a DM has said, "We're starting at level 5" (or whatever over level 1), you know what I had to do? 1) Go to the DMG and look up the point-buy mechanic. 2) Go to the DMG and look up the wealth-per-level so I know how much wealth I have to build the character. 3) Go the DMG and pick out the magical items my character has. 

All that is being done is putting all that crap in the PHB, instead of the DMG.

I've always seen the pricetag on magical items not as an actual pricetag, so much as a level indication when you should get it. +2 weapon is affordable and not out of reason around level 8, etc. 

Otherwise, in the game where my PC starts at level 5, I don't really see him walking into Joe's Magical Emporium and dropping 5,000gp to stock up on magical equipment right before he meets up with the other characters. Those are just items he got in his travels. It's no different, to me, than a mage picking the spells in his book up to the first session of the game. 

Otherwise, I have to go through the character creation process, let the DM see my character sheet, and then ask, "Can you give me magical items now for my level?" 

Is that what is preferred? Asking the GM what magical equipment you have _before you even sit down at the table_?


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 19, 2008)

More to the point, I don't think ALL the magical items will be in the PH, just the "basic ones". By that, I mean those that are low-powered (everburning torches), practical (handy haversacks, journeybread) one shot (potions) and extremely commonplace (+X swords). All OTHER magical stuff will probably be in the DMG, like gloves of titan-strength, armbands of elusive action, ring of the fire archon, or boots of the mountain king. 

So a new PC can gain access to the "big three" (cloak/amulet, weapon/implement, armor/robe) and disposable items (potions) or pratical magic (haversacks) without much fuss, but finding the cool boss new rare or interesting items requires the DM to place them in treasure piles guarded by horrible monsters and fiendish traps.

Sounds good to me.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 19, 2008)

> I'm astounded that people are used to running thier own familiars. What's the fun of that? Do you set there talking with yourself? Does your familiar never get into mischief? Does it never have a mind of its own?



Of course it does. That's actually part of the point. _I_ get to do the mischief, as opposed to letting the DM have all the fun. 

And yes, I talk to myself.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> But my original issue was the player equipping his PC versus the DM equipping the PCs.  That's the REASON for the magic items being in the PHB, and that reason is a problem for me.  Do you see how, if the player is equipping his PC, he gets known, defined, non-mysterious items from the PHB, whereas if the DM equips the PCs, items can have hidden abilities?




I don't see that.  Because a player can always read the DMG, so the abilities aren't going to be "hidden" for very long.  And, regardless if they are in the DMG or PHB, the DM can make customized magic items that truly do have "hidden" abilities that the player doesn't know about.  So that solves the problem either way.

You seem to be saying that, just because magic items are in the PHB, that automatically allows players to pick them as part of equipment regardless of what the DM says.  Or, at the very least, expect them as part of treasure.  I disagree.  I am with the others that beleive, if they are in the PHB, they are merely there for easy referrence for the players.  If the player seems them in the book and *expects* them to be part of the game, that is on the player (and perhaps the DM).  It might be a good idea for the DM to let the players know up front if magic items in the PHB are going to be something that is commonplace.  Just as the DM goes over all aspects of their campaign world (we have DMs already disallowing Tieflings and Dragonborn, and they will be just as Core as Magic Items).


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 19, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> This is true.
> 
> Unless, of course, one likes the PCs to not know that they have a +1 sword, even after three weeks and 20 combats.  Why someone would like this, I really have no idea, but I'm sure there are some people who do.
> 
> Brad




I'm totally on board with you there.  I can't stand keeping track of unidentified magic items.  I have the choice of either stating the magic items don't work until you identify them (a la Diablo II), or I just make it easy to identify them.  I went with the latter route.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> Personally, I find this method to be tedious and totally un-fun. As the DM, I have so many things to remember already that having to remember to mentally add the magical enhancement of so-and-so PC's unidentified magic weapon is a real pain in the ass. Besides, just because the _player_ hasn't noticed doesn't mean the _PC_ hasn't either.




To each his own.    

In a lower-magic world, such as mine, each magic item has more importance, and figuring it out is part of the fun and challenge of playing the game.  Having played both ways, from either side of the screen, I know that I prefer the in-game verisimilitude of figuring things out to the DM-gimme of being told.  I understand, though, that there are folks who feel that my "in-game verisimilitude" is a bore-fest, while my "DM-gimme" is a convenience.

(I just don't agree with them, and deep down suspect that they've never encountered a "good" version of in-game verisimilitude.  Of course, it is always hard to determine what the objective truth is where one's deeply ingrained subjective values are involved.  On either side of the equation.    )

OTOH, I guess it would be fair to say that in your games choosing the learn the _Identify_ spell is a poor choice indeed?

RC


----------



## Rechan (Feb 19, 2008)

Okay, MacLaren, question for you.

Spells are in the PHB.

Do you feel that spells are somehow lacking in wonder? Or that being in the PHB, this limits the DM's ability to give the spells as treasure, in enemy spellcaster's spellbooks, or to restrict certain spells "Until you get them otherwise"*?

*I have found this is often the case with splatbook spells. DMs want to reduce the number they're picked, so that they can be treasure or special.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Okay, MacLaren, question for you.
> 
> Spells are in the PHB.
> 
> ...





I don't know about BM, but I think that Monte's Arcana Evolved had a better system, and I like the idea of unique spells (and other secrets) that can be given as treasure.

RC


----------



## Rechan (Feb 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't know about BM, but I think that Monte's Arcana Evolved had a better system, and I like the idea of unique spells (and other secrets) that can be given as treasure.
> 
> RC



As someone unfamiliar with AE, that really doesn't answer my question. 

I feel that as a DM, I am well within my right to say, "You want to take Maximize Spell feat? Sorry, you have to go talk to the Cabal of the Scorched Mountain to learn the secrets of dragging all the destructive potential from your spells." 

Anything, and I mean _anything_ can be made special.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I personally don't even make my PCs track their ammunition or rations, so I can't imagine having to keep track of what the PC's items are, much less track their animals or summoned monsters.




We play and want to play in such different games that there is probably no possibility but that we'll talk right past each other.

If I set down as a player, I'm going to keep track of my ammunition and rations both because I'll assume its expected of me and because I want to.  If I knew that there was this unspoken understanding that I had unlimited ammunition and rations, it would harm my enjoyment of the game.



> Any time a DM has said, "We're starting at level 5" (or whatever over level 1), you know what I had to do? 1) Go to the DMG and look up the point-buy mechanic. 2) Go to the DMG and look up the wealth-per-level so I know how much wealth I have to build the character. 3) Go the DMG and pick out the magical items my character has.




That's what _you_ had to do.  For one shots, I've even encouraged that sort of thing myself.  But that's far from the only or even best way to handle things.

In earlier editions of the games, there were various techniques for randomly generating magic items if you needed them.  For example, 'Appendix P' of the 1st edition DMG.  The implications of that method is that +2 magic items are rare before 10th level!  When my DM ran us on 'Tomb of Horrors' as a one shot, he rolled up a bunch of random magic items while we were making characters and said, "Distribute this among yourselves."


----------



## Rechan (Feb 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> We play and want to play in such different games that there is probably no possibility but that we'll talk right past each other.



More than likely.



> If I set down as a player, I'm going to keep track of my ammunition and rations both because I'll assume its expected of me and because I want to.  If I knew that there was this unspoken understanding that I had unlimited ammunition and rations, it would harm my enjoyment of the game.



And I consider it a drag to have to keep up with that kind of thing. I care about the _story_. When I watch a movie or a TV show, the characters aren't seen keeping count of groceries, they just announce "We need food, let us go get food" and something happens.  The same with ammo. If the PCs are stranded in the wilderness, their ammo and food suddenly counts because it's a plot point. Otherwise, it's just counting beans for the sake of counting beans. 

It reminds me of a recent session. We needed to escape on horseback, FAST. We had one fewer horse than PCs because one had just joined. The one PC who had no horse was a warforged. It suddenly became an argument of what we were going to do with the warforged. People were looking up rules on how long a warforged could run before falling over, how many hours it would take him to recover, how much he weighed and how that would impact the horses.

Meanwhile, there's monsters on our tail about ready to eat us.

I finally just stood up and said, "I will give the warforged my horse. Someone, let me ride with you."



> In earlier editions of the games, there were various techniques for randomly generating magic items if you needed them.  For example, 'Appendix P' of the 1st edition DMG.  The implications of that method is that +2 magic items are rare before 10th level!  When my DM ran us on 'Tomb of Horrors' as a one shot, he rolled up a bunch of random magic items while we were making characters and said, "Distribute this among yourselves."



WHich is sort've pointless when you build your character to use scimitars, but the random table says you have a +2 bohemian earspoon, and otherwise you have just a regular scimitar. Uh, no.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> To each his own.



Indeed. Your way is just as good as mine. 



> In a lower-magic world, such as mine, each magic item has more importance, and figuring it out is part of the fun and challenge of playing the game.  Having played both ways, from either side of the screen, I know that I prefer the in-game verisimilitude of figuring things out to the DM-gimme of being told.  I understand, though, that there are folks who feel that my "in-game verisimilitude" is a bore-fest, while my "DM-gimme" is a convenience.



I would love to run a low-magic game, but I feel it is virtually impossible to do one justice with the 3.5 rules. At least, with my level of understanding of the 3.5 rules (3.5 strikes me as the ideal edition for people who love math. I don't.).



> OTOH, I guess it would be fair to say that in your games choosing the learn the _Identify_ spell is a poor choice indeed?



Not at all. I use a mixture of the two methods. The vast majority of the magic items found by the players have to be identified, either through trial-and-error or the _identify_ spell. It's only the always-on static "booster" items (+x weapons/armor, +x ability score/saving throw/etc items) that get the "auto-identify" treatment. And even then, I never just say, "You've found a _+1 sword_".

To give an example from a few sessions ago, the PCs fought a red dragon who was wearing an _amulet of health +2_ and a _ring of minor cold resistance_. One of the PCs already has the former, and he was the one searching the body of the dragon, so I told him the amulet he found looked a lot like the one his character already had. I then let him draw the conclusion that it was the same thing, so he gave it to another player's character, and when that PC put it on, I told him he felt healthier or tougher or something. As for the ring, when the first PC (whose player is much more of a risk-taker than any of the others) put it on, I said it made him feel warm ... so the players began debating whether that meant it provided resistance to fire or cold. That was fun. I'll keep track of the ring's effects for now, but having to keep track of the amulet's effects (since it gives the PC now wearing it extra hp) would be a pain in the butt.

I used to (and sometimes still do) keep track of static pluses on weapons and armor and then after a few encounters I'd tell the player whose character was wearing it that they found the sword or whatever was more effective ... and then I'd say, "In game world terms, your PC has found that his magic weapon is more effective than normal ... in mechanical terms, that means it functions as a +2 weapon". You'll note that while the player now knows his weapon has a +2 magical enhancement on it, I haven't just out and out said, "It's a _+2 longsword_" or whatever. It might have other abilities he doesn't know about, and even if it doesn't, by not specifically saying what it is, then he might _think_ it has hidden abilities ... which is all part of the fun.




			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> And I consider it a drag to have to keep up with that kind of thing. I care about the _story_. When I watch a movie or a TV show, the characters aren't seen keeping count of groceries, they just announce "We need food, let us go get food" and something happens.  The same with ammo. If the PCs are stranded in the wilderness, their ammo and food suddenly counts because it's a plot point. Otherwise, it's just counting beans for the sake of counting beans.



This is exactly what I do. I hate micro-managing silly stuff like food and bathroom breaks. They don't do that in movies unless it's relevant to the story. My players aren't really "simulationists". They're "escapists". They just want to have fun. They don't even like it when I sit there describing the weather and the terrain while they're traveling. I'm a bit more inclined to keep track of things like ammo and weight, but I'm willing to let the boundaries go a bit blurry ... with food, I tell them it should only ever be an issue if they're out in the middle of the desert where there's absolutely no way they could feasibly get food if they haven't brought any with them. At all other times, we just assume they not only can get enough food (whether it's through hunting, foraging, or eating at an inn or wherever) but also that they have an extra bit of money that they use to pay for it when necessary so they don't have to worry about subtracting little copper and silver pieces from their gold stash ...


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 19, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> In previous editions, players were strongly discouraged from looking at the DM sections of books.  They didn't know the abilities of monsters or the abilities of magic items.
> 
> This really, truly, DID increase the fun and the sense of wonder in my experience.  That's not nostalgia.  Most players that I have known enjoy a sense of mystery and the experience of discovery.




Every single person in my gaming group GMs at some point or another. No GM has any right whatsoever to even attempt to control what his *players * read. Most gamers I know (and have known for the last 30 years) like to know the rules of the game they are playing.

Nothing about the above statements will prevent a creative GM from changing monsters and items in a creative way. Players don't have the right to look at the GMs campaign notes, but GMs do not have the right to control a player's access to information. The very idea is ridiculous.

I support the inclusion of magic items in the PHB. The magic mart is very popular among players and it is unlikely to go away. That said, I will not allow it in my games. Most of the other GMs in my group will not allow it. But arguing that it shouldn't be allowed is hubristic at best. I never make the mistake of assuming that my style of play is the only appropriate style. That's what this argument is about.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 19, 2008)

As for the Magic Shop, I prefer the "Weapons of Legacy" deal. Everyone gets their hands on a magical weapon sooner or later, but it has various utilities and you unlock the powers as you go up in levels (which requires quests), and so you keep the same sword from level 1 to level 20. 

This should be easier to do in 4e, because only three items are assumed (Weapon, Armor, and Cloak). So I'll just give the PCs those bonuses rather than have them attributed to items, and then put the misc abilities of other magical items on whatever equipment they find. 

This fits my belief that every adventurer should have 2-3 magical items, but those magical items should 1) stay with them for their career, their signature item, and 2) have varied, thematically appropriate powers.


----------



## Gundark (Feb 19, 2008)

@ Raven Crowking

Nothing to say about your post...but you stole my sig!!!! You Bastard


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 19, 2008)

I used to play in games where magic items were a DM secret back in my early edition days. Sometimes it was cool, sometimes it wasn't. It really depended on the DM.

If an item is a plot device, or artifact level, I think it should be kept secret what it does. Not only that, I don't think the DM should even define what it does. The item just does whatever it needs to do to fit the needs of the story.

For less world shaking items, I just tell the players what it does and move on. I don't even bother with Identify anymore. I just assume the item's abilities are mentally imprinted on whoever picks it up. However, sometimes I'll add a little subtle comment and a devious smile to keep the PCs guessing.

For example: "You pick up the fallen ogre's axe. The blade is beautifully crafted and etched with glittering runes that seem to dance in the light as you tilt the blade to examine it. It's swing feels solid and sure, and you feel you have but to will it so and flames would erupt along its surface. You feel a surge of confidence as you hold it, and images of violence, destruction, and fire fill your thoughts for a brief instant. Almost as if the blade itself thirsted for such things. You have what _seems_ to be a +2 flaming greataxe."


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> As for the Magic Shop, I prefer the "Weapons of Legacy" deal. Everyone gets their hands on a magical weapon sooner or later, but it has various utilities and you unlock the powers as you go up in levels (which requires quests), and so you keep the same sword from level 1 to level 20.
> 
> This should be easier to do in 4e, because only three items are assumed (Weapon, Armor, and Cloak). So I'll just give the PCs those bonuses rather than have them attributed to items, and then put the misc abilities of other magical items on whatever equipment they find.
> 
> This fits my belief that every adventurer should have 2-3 magical items, but those magical items should 1) stay with them for their career, their signature item, and 2) have varied, thematically appropriate powers.




I should say that I do allow the characters to purchase magic items. It makes no sense that characters can sell magic items, but not buy them. However, I keep track of what items are available and where, changing it a little from visit to visit to reflect NPC purchases.

I really like the idea of legacy weapons. In my next campaign I am toying with the idea of magic magic items *really * rare. There will be few, if any, simple +1 weapons. Such items will be scaling, so that characters can only unlock their powers as they increase in level. The upside is that all magic weapons, armor, implements, etc... will sell only as the lowest level item. Characters will be encouraged by the economics to keep the items they've found rather than to sell them and buy something different.

I will often keep it secret if a weapon has the flaming burst ability, the shocking ability or the returning ability (for example), letting the players know only when the ability activates. But I let the players know the simple mechanical plus of any item. It's too much trouble for the possible benefit.

As for identifying an item, I prefer the characters figure it out from the description, its name, or by doing alittle bit of research. I have always hated the identify spell.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

Gundark said:
			
		

> @ Raven Crowking
> 
> Nothing to say about your post...but you stole my sig!!!! You Bastard




Great sig, and it needed an adequate, always-on response.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> As someone unfamiliar with AE, that really doesn't answer my question.




Surely, though, "and I like the idea of unique spells (and other secrets) that can be given as treasure" answered your question?



> I feel that as a DM, I am well within my right to say, "You want to take Maximize Spell feat? Sorry, you have to go talk to the Cabal of the Scorched Mountain to learn the secrets of dragging all the destructive potential from your spells."
> 
> Anything, and I mean _anything_ can be made special.




I agree.

RC


----------



## pukunui (Feb 19, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I should say that I do allow the characters to purchase magic items. It makes no sense that characters can sell magic items, but not buy them. However, I keep track of what items are available and where, changing it a little from visit to visit to reflect NPC purchases.
> 
> I really like the idea of legacy weapons. In my next campaign I am toying with the idea of magic magic items *really * rare. There will be few, if any, simple +1 weapons. Such items will be scaling, so that characters can only unlock their powers as they increase in level. The upside is that all magic weapons, armor, implements, etc... will sell only as the lowest level item. Characters will be encouraged by the economics to keep the items they've found rather than to sell them and buy something different.



I've always liked the idea of being able to upgrade your items. Rather than selling your _+1 sword_ and buying a _+2 sword_, why not seek out a smith who knows the secret of enchanting weapons and get him to upgrade your weapon? The cost is the same but you get the added benefit of being able to keep your sword (maybe it was your family's heirloom weapon that started out as a masterwork item and you had it enchanted with the original _+1_ in the first place) and you get a possible quest (find the smith) and make a contact/interact with the game world (whereas you might otherwise just do an OOC sale/purchase thing).

Despite the fact that upgrades have always been an option (and the 3.5 _Magic Item Compendium_ has a table that makes them even easier), none of my players have ever done it and I've never seen anyone on the boards talk about it.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Great sig, and it needed an adequate, always-on response.




Hey, Raven Crowking.  I hate to ask you this in a public post, but I couldn't send you a private message.

How did you put the show/hide button in your signature?

Thanks!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Hey, Raven Crowking.  I hate to ask you this in a public post, but I couldn't send you a private message.
> 
> How did you put the show/hide button in your signature?
> 
> Thanks!




First off, you ought to be able to send me an email.  If you ever have trouble doing this, use either ravencrowking at hotmail dot com or dbishop at danieljbishop dot ca.

The text you need to use is (sblock=Whatever You Want to Call It) and (/sblock), changing the parenthesis () for brackets [].

RC


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 19, 2008)

Thanks!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 19, 2008)

> So this makes me think a Summon Monster I, Summon Monster II, etc. setup is going to be gone, replaced with narrower spells, like Summon Fire Elemental, for instance.




I'm surprised no one called this out yet.

The spells won't be called Summon Fire Elemental or Summon Angel or Summon Fiendish Asp.

They'll be called "Evoke the Curtain of Red Pixie Warblood" or "Meluciber's Seventh Secret Warrior" or "Toothed Silver Warhedgehog Technique."

"Summon Fire Elemental?!" That's way too straightforward and....boring...it needs at least two more "wars," some fantasy animal, and an arbitrary color. GO!


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> I've always liked the idea of being able to upgrade your items. Rather than selling your _+1 sword_ and buying a _+2 sword_, why not seek out a smith who knows the secret of enchanting weapons and get him to upgrade your weapon? The cost is the same but you get the added benefit of being able to keep your sword (maybe it was your family's heirloom weapon that started out as a masterwork item and you had it enchanted with the original _+1_ in the first place) and you get a possible quest (find the smith) and make a contact/interact with the game world (whereas you might otherwise just do an OOC sale/purchase thing).
> 
> Despite the fact that upgrades have always been an option (and the 3.5 _Magic Item Compendium_ has a table that makes them even easier), none of my players have ever done it and I've never seen anyone on the boards talk about it.






1


----------



## pukunui (Feb 20, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> 1



Um ... ok? Are you sad cos I said I've never seen anyone take advantage of the 3.5 upgrade mechanics? Or some other reason? And what's the 1 for? I'm confused ...


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 20, 2008)

Worlds & Monsters talk about this a little.

Some of the fantastic (magic items) is being made for the PHB since they weren't really that fantastic to begin with or that the book always hinted at but never explain.

For the former, they mention healing potions versus full plate (paraphrasing, why is it that full plate which costs 1500 gp is considered "ok" to buy, yet a potion of cure light wounds, at a cost of 50gp is "restricted" from the PCs , even though many more people will want the latter? Admittedly, this has been true across ALL editions IMO)

As for the latter, that's where the hippogriff comes in. The Hippogriff MM in 2e/3e mentions that hippogriffs can be trained as flying mounts, however, there's no hippogriff costs in the PHB.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I should say that I do allow the characters to purchase magic items. It makes no sense that characters can sell magic items, but not buy them. However, I keep track of what items are available and where, changing it a little from visit to visit to reflect NPC purchases.




That's one of the small problems with the "players shouldn't buy magic items!" view; if nobody's able to buy a magic item, you're not going to be able to sell one, either.



> As for identifying an item, I prefer the characters figure it out from the description, its name, or by doing alittle bit of research. I have always hated the identify spell.




It's one of those annoying necessities.  "Hrm, now, what does *this* do?"  You can figure out what a plus is on a weapon given a log and sufficient time, but incidental abilities like Keen, Holy, Flaming, etc aren't necessarily going to be obvious, and hard to test for without magic.

OTOH, research only works if there is either (A) a known number of magic items in the world, or (B) a series of universal aesthetics that are used in item creation.  "Hrm, that's four stars on the blade, with a squiggle, and it's a Roman shortsword...per the book, that's a +4 Elemental Bane short sword."  While (B) is my preferred style if I run a game, that runs across the whole "not enough skill points" thing.

Brad


----------



## Voss (Feb 20, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> More to the point, I don't think ALL the magical items will be in the PH, just the "basic ones". By that, I mean those that are low-powered (everburning torches), practical (handy haversacks, journeybread) one shot (potions) and extremely commonplace (+X swords). All OTHER magical stuff will probably be in the DMG, like gloves of titan-strength, armbands of elusive action, ring of the fire archon, or boots of the mountain king.
> .




Unfortunately I think you're partially right.  But the non-basic items are going to be in the separate and in the $30(?) magic item book in the fall.  I'm starting to see why the DMG page count is so low, and why there is only room for 8 classes in the PH...


----------



## Rechan (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Surely, though, "and I like the idea of unique spells (and other secrets) that can be given as treasure" answered your question?



Not to if the spells in the PHB take away the wonder or if that encrouches on the DM.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 20, 2008)

I feel that as a DM, I am well within my right to say, "You want to take a "Shape Spell" feat? Sorry, you have to go talk to the Order of the* Golden Wyvern *to become *Adept* at reshaping your spells." 
.....

Well, isn't that the point?


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 20, 2008)

We're hopefully past that part of the thread - but just a reminder not to bicker, folks. If you start addressing one person's attitude, it's probably time to step away from the thread for a bit.


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 20, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> I've always liked the idea of being able to upgrade your items. Rather than selling your _+1 sword_ and buying a _+2 sword_, why not seek out a smith who knows the secret of enchanting weapons and get him to upgrade your weapon? The cost is the same but you get the added benefit of being able to keep your sword (maybe it was your family's heirloom weapon that started out as a masterwork item and you had it enchanted with the original _+1_ in the first place) and you get a possible quest (find the smith) and make a contact/interact with the game world (whereas you might otherwise just do an OOC sale/purchase thing).




Solves so many other issues, too, like making sure the available magic weapons are what the characters are proficient with, and allows you to make larger treasure hordes, since you can take the 6000gp worth of magic items and replace them with 6000gp, which really helps with dragon-sized treasure piles.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> And I consider it a drag to have to keep up with that kind of thing. I care about the _story_.




Well, that's fine.  Very high minded of you.  Amongst RPGers, claims of caring about the story can be used to justify just about anything.  I care about the story too.  Very much so.  But if I just wanted to tell a story, I'd write a novel or I'd literally tell a story to an audience.  But the process of story creation is occurring within a game, and that carries with it all those other notions of simulation and competition that make it more than just another story artform.  If I'm not keeping track of ammo, then that part of the game which is about me solving problems with my wits suffers.  

And in my opinion, even the story suffers.  It's annoying to watch a movie where the protagonist draws a revolver and then fires off 12 shots in rapid succession.  It's annoying to watch stories where the writer doesn't pay attention to what is going on in the universe of his story.  It breaks faith with the audience.  In an RPG, it breaks faith with all the other players, even the ones just interested in story, in as much as having limitless ammo makes it more of a game even than keeping track of the ammo does.



> It reminds me of a recent session. We needed to escape on horseback, FAST. We had one fewer horse than PCs because one had just joined. The one PC who had no horse was a warforged. It suddenly became an argument of what we were going to do with the warforged. People were looking up rules on how long a warforged could run before falling over, how many hours it would take him to recover, how much he weighed and how that would impact the horses.




Whereas, when I run a game, you have six seconds to come up with a plan of action or your character is assumed to do nothing but stand there feeling lost, confused, and perhaps paniced.  It annoys some new players, but pretty soon they see the sense of it because not only do I not have to deal with problems like you discuss but I get a story in which the protagonists can feel lost, confused, and perhaps paniced.    

On the other hand, if I only cared about the story, we might sit down and think awhile about the best way to run this scene so that it would produce the best story.  But obviously, we both care about something more than that and mean something more than that when we talk about 'caring for the story'.  I claim that keeping track of your own ammo as a player is part of that good caretaking of 'the story' in the same way that keeping focused on the idea that there is a monster about ready to eat you is good caretaking of the story.



> WHich is sort've pointless when you build your character to use scimitars, but the random table says you have a +2 bohemian earspoon, and otherwise you have just a regular scimitar. Uh, no.




Well, if you'd read Appendix P, you'd find that you get your choice of weapon which might be magical, and you have various other choices.  But, I suppose you are talking about the generation of items in a more random way than that.  This gets really off target, but one of the things that has long annoyed me about the specialization rules is that they impose such a limitation on play.  Time was, you could find +2 bohemian earspoons and it wasn't a disappointment.  In fact, you might say, "Wow.  This is going to be much more effective than my longsword against heavily armored foes."  Now, apparantly characterization somehow equates with 'building your character to use scimitars', and DMs have to explicitly tailor thier treasure to fit the sort of things a character wants to find or they somehow feel cheated because thier character concept included having a +X doohickey by level 8.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> That's one of the small problems with the "players shouldn't buy magic items!" view; if nobody's able to buy a magic item, you're not going to be able to sell one, either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




IMC, (magical) function follows form. Certain design elements must be present in order for certain magical properties to be endowed withing. A character who is sufficiently skilled, or who has access to a good library, can spend time researching the function of the item based on its design elements.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Well, that's fine.  Very high minded of you.  Amongst RPGers, claims of caring about the story can be used to justify just about anything.  I care about the story too.  Very much so.  But if I just wanted to tell a story, I'd write a novel or I'd literally tell a story to an audience.  But the process of story creation is occurring within a game, and that carries with it all those other notions of simulation and competition that make it more than just another story artform.



Fine. Allow me to rephrase: I care more about the story than I do about minutia. Minutia and simulation be damned. 

So much so that I'm really adoring the narrative-modifies-mechanics rules that Spirit of the Century/Dresden Files emphasizes. 



> If I'm not keeping track of ammo, then that part of the game which is about me solving problems with my wits suffers.



In my experience, players never run out of ammo. They take the enemy's ammo, they stockpile ammo, they carry barrels of ammo in their bag of holding. There's no "Wit" to it. 



> And in my opinion, even the story suffers.  It's annoying to watch a movie where the protagonist draws a revolver and then fires off 12 shots in rapid succession.  It's annoying to watch stories where the writer doesn't pay attention to what is going on in the universe of his story.  It breaks faith with the audience.  In an RPG, it breaks faith with all the other players, even the ones just interested in story, in as much as having limitless ammo makes it more of a game even than keeping track of the ammo does.



*For you* it does. 

I find no faith lost when no one has to pay attention to their rations count. When I proposed that to my group, people were _relieved_, not complaining about the loss of realism.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> I've always liked the idea of being able to upgrade your items. Rather than selling your _+1 sword_ and buying a _+2 sword_, why not seek out a smith who knows the secret of enchanting weapons and get him to upgrade your weapon? The cost is the same but you get the added benefit of being able to keep your sword (maybe it was your family's heirloom weapon that started out as a masterwork item and you had it enchanted with the original _+1_ in the first place) and you get a possible quest (find the smith) and make a contact/interact with the game world (whereas you might otherwise just do an OOC sale/purchase thing).
> 
> Despite the fact that upgrades have always been an option (and the 3.5 _Magic Item Compendium_ has a table that makes them even easier), none of my players have ever done it and I've never seen anyone on the boards talk about it.




My campaigns, with the exception of the FR campaign that is about to end, tend to be very low on high level NPCs. Upgrading is not much of an option above caster level 10.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I find no faith lost when no one has to pay attention to their rations count. When I proposed that to my group, people were _relieved_, not complaining about the loss of realism.



I'd be laughed out of the room if I suggested that we start keeping track of 'rations'.

Naturally, if we're running a 'shipwrecked on a desert island' or 'trapped by an avalanche' story, then food becomes an obstacle which we can explore in play.

But otherwise? That sort of play is not to our tastes.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I'd be laughed out of the room if I suggested that we start keeping track of 'rations'.
> 
> Naturally, if we're running a 'shipwrecked on a desert island' or 'trapped by an avalanche' story, then food becomes an obstacle which we can explore in play.
> 
> But otherwise? That sort of play is not to our tastes.




This is one where I'm with the simulationists. IMC characters just pay upkeep when they are traveling in areas with markets, inns and taverns. I assume the characters can replenish their consumables and feed their faces without trouble. Whenever they enter the dungeon, or venture into less civilized territory, they keep track of rations. They *always* track ammunition.

That's what makes D&D so great. Every table has different tastes, and what works for any group is the correct way for them to play.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> That's what makes D&D so great. Every table has different tastes, and what works for any group is the correct way for them to play.



Absolute, enthusiastic agreement on this point.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 20, 2008)

I would enjoy tracking ammunition if the game didn't make tracking ammunition stupidly painful.

A level 6 archer is probably throwing out 3 arrows per round once his allies cast Haste, which at that level they probably will.  His quiver holds 20 arrows.  That's about 7 rounds he can fight before he's empty.  Once he's empty, he can salvage arrows.  To do so he has to know how many arrows he fired missed, because he can salvage half of those.  But of course that only works if there are no environmental conditions that make this impossible, which means he has to ask the DM.  So after each fight he has to replenish what arrows he can, and then take a sizable amount of arrows from one of his many backup quivers.  Eventually, at higher levels, he will stuff 300 or 400 quivers into a bag of holding, and forget about counting ammunition comletely.

This is dumb.  If archers were balanced so that they fired ONE arrow per round, counting ammunition would be cool.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I would enjoy tracking ammunition if the game didn't make tracking ammunition stupidly painful.
> 
> A level 6 archer is probably throwing out 3 arrows per round once his allies cast Haste, which at that level they probably will.  His quiver holds 20 arrows.  That's about 7 rounds he can fight before he's empty.  Once he's empty, he can salvage arrows.  To do so he has to know how many arrows he fired missed, because he can salvage half of those.  But of course that only works if there are no environmental conditions that make this impossible, which means he has to ask the DM.  So after each fight he has to replenish what arrows he can, and then take a sizable amount of arrows from one of his many backup quivers.  Eventually, at higher levels, he will stuff 300 or 400 quivers into a bag of holding, and forget about counting ammunition comletely.
> 
> This is dumb.  If archers were balanced so that they fired ONE arrow per round, counting ammunition would be cool.




The archer in our group really enjoys keeping us all informed of how many arrows he's used in each combat. It's a point of pride for him. I've noticed similar tendencies among other archer fans. The great quantity of arrows is part of the appeal of the class for them.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 20, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> As someone unfamiliar with AE, that really doesn't answer my question.
> 
> I feel that as a DM, I am well within my right to say, "You want to take Maximize Spell feat? Sorry, you have to go talk to the Cabal of the Scorched Mountain to learn the secrets of dragging all the destructive potential from your spells."
> 
> Anything, and I mean anything can be made special.



You know, I love this and I hate it.

On the one hand, it makes the world more interactive and deep.  On the other hand, my players end up traipsing across the known world if they want to accomplish the basic tasks involved in levelling up their characters.  On the way, they encounter challenges, and gain XP, and so by the time the wizard learns Maximize Spell, he's ready for another feat, and so is the fighter, and the rogue, and the cleric.  They never get the opportunity to go on adventures that aren't directly related to training, because they're always trying to meet the fluff requirements for their class abilities.  It's fine for entry requirements for a PrC to turn something into a short side-quest, like "to join our ranks, you must go rout out this den of bandits".  But when you turn half of everything into that sort of quest, it starts to get old.  Then "anything can be made special" turns into "everything is so goddamn special that it's starting to get boring."

Sometimes you just want to write down "Maximize Spell" and get on with saving the world.


----------



## Nytmare (Feb 20, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You know, I love this and I hate it.




Yeah, but you don't have to do something like that for every bit and piece of the character, and there's no reason you have to wait till after you should have access to something to start fulfilling possible story-esque requirements for it.  Not everyone plans out their characters ahead of time, but there are some decisions that they know they're going to make in advance, and you can turn them into special things.

As an example, players in my group tend to have their characters start sucking up to and interacting with their PRC groups long before they're technically elligible for the class.  It avoids the last minute hand waving and 5 minute cliff notes version of things you have to come up with if you don't want to derail the group on an single character's quest of discovery.


----------



## Orius (Feb 20, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Players shouldn't be equipping their PCs with magic items; DMs should be equipping the PCs with magic items.




I have no problem keeping powerful magic items descriptions away from players.  Basic stuff like _+1 swords_ makes less difference.  Also scrolls (if they're still around) don't need to be kept hidden from players, since they duplicate spell effects.  The same goes for potions, assuming they work about the same the did in 3e.  Wands in 3e also fall into that category, but I think they're changing yet again in 4e.



> Players shouldn't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects; DMs should adjudicate all effects of any kind whatsoever.




Yes, because the potential for widely varying and unpredictable PC abilties by DM fiat is really desirable in the game.

Players shouldn't need to look into the MM during a game, but they should have some idea of how a spell or class ability is going to work.  Consistancy in different games is also useful.


----------



## Orius (Feb 20, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Yes, well, in a game with an emphasis on DM judgement calls, a DM will take player needs and convenience into consideration and choose particular treasures.  Maybe neat items with hidden magical properties that aren't revealed until a dramatic moment.  In a game where PCs can pick and choose, they all get the "Big Six."  That was a HUGE reason for the "Big Six" being as prevalent as they were in 3E -- the assumption that PCs could generally get the specific items they wanted.




Not necessarily.  There's plenty of DMs out there who take perverse pleasure in plunking down _+1 obscure Gygaxian polearms_ or some such knowing damn well that the players won't really use them.  And of course, there's nowhere for them to unload them either.

I agree that powerful magic items should not be bought and sold like commodities.  I have less problems with players buying minor items like _potions of healing/cure light wounds_ or low-level scrolls, _+1 weapons_, or minor magic trinkets, though only the larger cities have such item.  The selection of minor magic items for sale is limited and somewhat random, so the PCs can't really shop for items, but they end up being impulse buys instead.


----------



## Orius (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I really like the idea of legacy weapons.




So do I.  It's one of 3e's more interesting ideas.  I'd be happy if the DMG had some basic rules on legacy weapons/items, just like the sections that have always been there on intelligent weapons.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But the process of story creation is occurring within a game, and that carries with it all those other notions of simulation and competition that make it more than just another story artform.  If I'm not keeping track of ammo, then that part of the game which is about me solving problems with my wits suffers.
> 
> And in my opinion, even the story suffers.  It's annoying to watch a movie where the protagonist draws a revolver and then fires off 12 shots in rapid succession.  It's annoying to watch stories where the writer doesn't pay attention to what is going on in the universe of his story.  It breaks faith with the audience.  In an RPG, it breaks faith with all the other players, even the ones just interested in story, in as much as having limitless ammo makes it more of a game even than keeping track of the ammo does.



Neither my players nor I feel like our game is suffering because we don't bother with certain micromanagement aspects of the game. I don't totally ignore ammunition, weight limits, or rations but I tell my players that unless there's a good reason to pay attention to them (like if they're adventuring in a desert without much prospect of finding food), then they shouldn't bother. To my group, rations and that just make the game slow down and anything that makes the game slow down is deemed not fun. That's just how it works for my group.



> Whereas, when I run a game, you have six seconds to come up with a plan of action or your character is assumed to do nothing but stand there feeling lost, confused, and perhaps paniced.  It annoys some new players, but pretty soon they see the sense of it because not only do I not have to deal with problems like you discuss but I get a story in which the protagonists can feel lost, confused, and perhaps paniced.



I'd love to do this. I have threatened to do this. I have told my players that I am actually going to do it. But it never actually happens. 1) I generally forget to enforce it and 2) my players don't think it's fun. The be all and end all of playing _any_ kind of game is to have fun. If you don't think it's fun, that doesn't make you wrong.


----------



## Orius (Feb 20, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> On the one hand, it makes the world more interactive and deep.  On the other hand, my players end up traipsing across the known world if they want to accomplish the basic tasks involved in levelling up their characters.  On the way, they encounter challenges, and gain XP, and so by the time the wizard learns Maximize Spell, he's ready for another feat, and so is the fighter, and the rogue, and the cleric.  They never get the opportunity to go on adventures that aren't directly related to training, because they're always trying to meet the fluff requirements for their class abilities.




That's why lasat time I bother with training rules like that I tried to make sure it wasn't excessively restrictive.  I had decided that there were certain types of feats that didn't require NPC training (like Skill Focus, I assumed the PC just basically practiced to get better).  After that, I tried to make sure the feats in the PHB could be learned somewhere in the city that they were using as their home base, so they wouldn't have to traipse halfway around the world.  However, feats from other sources would require some amount of travel, depending on the source where the feat was, and stuff like prerequisites.

Don't know if 4e will bother with training rules or not.  In the old days they were pretty much a way to eat up a player's gp (since they couldn't buy magic items), but it just seems like an asinine vicious circle these days.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Feb 20, 2008)

Considering the 'sense of wonder' involving magic items only lasts until they get 100 GPs for Identify, I dont really see any mystery lasting to long unless you're already into house rule territory. It's a speedbump at best. Beyond this, having magic items in the PHB makes sense for two good reasons.

One: Not everyone is going to be starting with level 1 characters.  Whether it be someone new joining the campaign, or a character replacing a dead one (And remember, they've mentioned it's going to be close to impossible for characters below level 10 to get raised), they're going to need to be equiped with gear appropriate to their levels.  Considering the fact that players tend to toss equipment that doesnt help them much, rather then store them like arcane obsessed packrats, it makes sense to me that, at the very least, the most common magic items are listed so they know what's appropriate for their level rather then them having a grabbag of assorted random magic items.  This is especially true considering that we know the rules incorporate you having at least three magic items into the math.

Two: Players can CREATE magic items.  This is the more important one, IMO.  In a world where the characters can create the silly things, it doesnt make sense to me that they dont get to look at what they're creating, cant see the requirements to create them, and dont even have the the faintest idea of what's even possible to create without having to crack open a new book.  

Your mileage may very, but that's how I see things.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Fine. Allow me to rephrase: I care more about the story than I do about minutia. Minutia and simulation be damned.




Really?  What story is _*not*_ made up of minutia and simulation?  What story's success is not examined in the light of these benchmarks.

DM:  Going down the corridor, you see some orcs.  They attack you.

Player 1:  How many orcs?

DM:  Don't bother me with minutia!  They're some orcs!  You fight them and win....

Player 2:  Don't we need to make some die rolls to win?

DM:  I care more about the story.  Simulation be damned.

Player 1:  I guess we loot the bodies.

DM:  You find some gold and some potions of healing.

Player 2:  I guess there's no point in asking how much gold, or how many potions of healing, is there?


The worst modules of all time can be considered gems if you are only concerned with "the story" and not the things that the story is comprised of.  "You see a group of people walking down the road.  They are not skipping.  They are not singing.  They are walking neither fast nor slow....."

If you ignore keeping track of ammo, why bother keeping track of gp?  Or hit points?  Or AC, for that matter?  To me, this smacks of "D&D with ADD".


RC


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you ignore keeping track of ammo, why bother keeping track of gp?




Why indeed? Gold grinding is so videogamey.



> Or hit points?  Or AC, for that matter?




Because this directly impacts on the promulgation of violence. NEXT!



> To me, this smacks of "D&D with ADD".




You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> DM:  Don't bother me with minutia!  They're some orcs!  You fight them and win....




Good ol' reductio ad absurdum. The classics never go out of style.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 20, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Good ol' reductio ad absurdum. The classics never go out of style.



Though in this case it didn't really require much reductio.  The actual idea was already right there at absurdum.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Really?  What story is _*not*_ made up of minutia and simulation?  What story's success is not examined in the light of these benchmarks.



It depends on whether you consider the one (or maybe two - offhand, I can't remember the minutiae) time that Legolas ran out of arrows in the Lord of the Rings to have happened because:

1. Tolkein kept careful track of the number of arrows that Legolas had with him at all times, how many he used in battles, how many could be salvaged after the fights, how many were replaced through crafting or purchase, etc. and discovered that Legolas happened to run out of arrows at Helm's Deep; or

2. Tolkein decided that it was dramatic and/or logical that Legolas ran out of arrows at that point.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> It depends on whether you consider the one (or maybe two - offhand, I can't remember the minutiae) time that Legolas ran out of arrows in the Lord of the Rings to have happened because:
> 
> 1. Tolkein kept careful track of the number of arrows that Legolas had with him at all times, how many he used in battles, how many could be salvaged after the fights, how many were replaced through crafting or purchase, etc. and discovered that Legolas happened to run out of arrows at Helm's Deep; or
> 
> 2. Tolkein decided that it was dramatic and/or logical that Legolas ran out of arrows at that point.




So in other words, the DM decides when you run out of arrows because its dramaticly appropriate to the story?  Again, story narratives don't really offer a good analogy to the sort of story creation which is being created within a game, and the game needs are different than story creation needs.

Besides which, as long as we are talking stories, Legolas runs out of arrows practically every time that they fight.  He's always scavaging for arrows on the battlefield.  He's almost always forced to do 'knife work'.  He's always firing off 'his last arrow'.  Gimli is pretty much always catching up to him in effectiveness because Legolas doesn't have unlimited ammunition.  I don't think that Tolkien decides merely that it is dramatically appropriate for Legolas to run out of arrows at some point.  Pretty much universally, he decides that its dramactically appropriate for archers to run out of arrows and there is rarely a battle with archers where they don't.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> It depends on whether you consider the one (or maybe two - offhand, I can't remember the minutiae) time that Legolas ran out of arrows in the Lord of the Rings to have happened because:
> 
> 1. Tolkein kept careful track of the number of arrows that Legolas had with him at all times, how many he used in battles, how many could be salvaged after the fights, how many were replaced through crafting or purchase, etc. and discovered that Legolas happened to run out of arrows at Helm's Deep; or
> 
> 2. Tolkein decided that it was dramatic and/or logical that Legolas ran out of arrows at that point.




Is there any battle in which it is not explicit that Legolas is forced to scavenge arrows from the field?  I hope you realize that we are talking about the guy who was so careful with verisimilitude that he can have Sam realize that more time passed in Lothlorian than it seemed like because of the phase of the moon.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So in other words, the DM decides when you run out of arrows because its dramaticly appropriate to the story?  Again, story narratives don't really offer a good analogy to the sort of story creation which is being created within a game, and the game needs are different than story creation needs.




Also this.



> I don't think that Tolkien decides merely that it is dramatically appropriate for Legolas to run out of arrows at some point.  Pretty much universally, he decides that its dramactically appropriate for archers to run out of arrows and there is rarely a battle with archers where they don't.




Yup.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Though in this case it didn't really require much reductio.  The actual idea was already right there at absurdum.




Exactly so.  The minute degree of reductio required actually demonstrates the absurdum of that which is being reduced.


RC


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Besides which, as long as we are talking stories, Legolas runs out of arrows practically every time that they fight.  He's always scavaging for arrows on the battlefield.




To be precise, he always talks about scavenging for arrows. Actually, no, he sometimes talks about scavenging for arrows. Or maybe, once or twice, he talks about scavenging for arrows.



> He's almost always forced to do 'knife work'.




Damn AoOs.



> He's always firing off 'his last arrow'.  Gimli is pretty much always catching up to him in effectiveness because Legolas doesn't have unlimited ammunition.




Gimli is always catching up to him in effectiveness because Gimli is always behind in the first place, because Legolas never seems to want for ammunition.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So in other words, the DM decides when you run out of arrows because its dramaticly appropriate to the story?



I prefer it when the player decides that sort of thing.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Really?  What story is _*not*_ made up of minutia and simulation?  What story's success is not examined in the light of these benchmarks.



The Ramayana? The Old Testament? 



> DM:  Don't bother me with minutia!  They're some orcs!  You fight them and win....



A perfectly valid response, depending on the level of the PC's. Handwave non-challenges unless the goal is to showcase the power of the protagonists cf. mooks-as-party-foils. 



> If you ignore keeping track of ammo, why bother keeping track of gp?  Or hit points?  Or AC, for that matter?



Because not all bean-counting is of equal importance? Some things are significant, others less so, some not at all. Moreover, certain aspects of play lose significance as character's level, as the game moves from The Black Company to the Justice League in medieval drag. 

You have notices this change in the overall timbre of play, yes?


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 20, 2008)

I can see both sides of the argument for magical items in the PHB (the monster summoning though? I'm firmly 100% behind WOTC on this one).

On the one hand, it makes me somewhat leery of a player simply buying a vorpal weapon or some other outlandish weapon.

Yet at the same time,I honestly can't see why things like Potion of Cure X wounds are 
NOT in the PHB especially given their costs in relation to normal gear (full plate costs 1500 gp and unless the campaign world is Athas or some other non-standard/lost in time setting, I haven't heard DMs say "You can't buy that..you only get it on a quest!") and the fact that it is an item EVERYONE (PCs and NPCs) would buy.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> You have notices this change in the overall timbre of play, yes?



I can't be the only D&D player who has looked at his 15th level character sheet and noticed the flask of oil and torches I bought at 1st-level.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

Let's be completely blunt here.  No more beating around the bush.

What is the difference between 'not keeping track of arrows' and not keeping track of other minutiae, like gold, hit points, the distance between a PC and his foe, and so forth?  It's not about 'caring about the story'.  It's not about making the game better. 

It is entirely that most players natural, expected, and perhaps even necessary desire to win encourages them to accept 'you have unlimited ammunition except when I say so', far more readily than 'you don't have any gold unless I say so' or 'monsters have the hit points remaining that I say that they have'.  In other words, most players by thier natural inclination are more likely to accept fudging on thier behalf than they are fudging that they feel might actually work against them.  Anytime the fudging might actually work against them, you'll find that they are exacting sticklers for every little minutiea.  They'll want an exact accounting of the treasure down to the last brass ring.  They'll pause the game to recalculate thier attack bonus just in case that they forgot something.  It isn't that they ignore ammunition or encumberance or food because they think it will make for a better story.  It's that these things they naturally 'forget' to do anyway not merely because they are time consuming or hard (because generally they aren't), but because they feel it only penalizes them.  And, when you tell them that they can forget about it anyway they are relieved because now they don't feel guilty for having been 'forgetting' about it.

The needs of the story are hardly entering into the calculation.  

For me, as a player, I feel like when I fudge my hitpoints, or my ammunition, or 'forget' to keep track of my encumberance, as so many players I know do - I feel like I'm cheating myself.  Some players feel like that, and some of them don't.  For me as a DM, I feel like the archer who tells me how boring it is to keep track of ammunition is unconscioiusly cheating his friend with the greatsword by stealing the spotlight in his desire to always be successful.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 20, 2008)

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> /snip
> 
> Ultimately, relying on Wonder through Obscurity Of Game Elements is not a particularly good approach.  Having compelling characters, interesting story elements, and a compelling adventure hook seem much more important.  And no amount of rules knowledge is likely to to impair those things.
> 
> END COMMUNICATION




QFT.  Again.  And sigged as well. 

On the tracking minutia - well, it really depends on the situation doesn't it?  Do you really bother keeping track of food at all times?  In towns?  During down time?  

Or, are you like most DM's and only track it when replacing whatever resource is suddenly a problem?  Running out of arrows only becomes a problem if you can never get more arrows.  Most PC's simply loot a couple of bodies and they're off to the races again.

Funny story.  During my time running World's Largest Dungeon, where we were very careful to track ammo because purchasing more was impossible, the archer Favored Soul never once ran out of arrows.  53 sessions that character survived, plunking arrows as fast as she could in every fight, and there were lots of them, and not once did she run out of arrows.

Was it really time well spent pissing about making her count something that never once mattered in over a year of gaming?


----------



## Mallus (Feb 20, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I can't be the only D&D player who has looked at his 15th level character sheet and noticed the flask of oil and torches I bought at 1st-level.



And the war-dog.

It times like this I really miss AD&D.


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> It is entirely that most players natural, expected, and perhaps even necessary desire to win encourages them to accept 'you have unlimited ammunition except when I say so', far more readily than 'you don't have any gold unless I say so' or 'monsters have the hit points remaining that I say that they have'.  In other words, most players by thier natural inclination are more likely to accept fudging on thier behalf than they are fudging that they feel might actually work against them.  Anytime the fudging might actually work against them, you'll find that they are exacting sticklers for every little minutiea.  They'll want an exact accounting of the treasure down to the last brass ring.




I know maybe 2 players like that. It's amazing what you can achieve when you set out to foster a non-adversarial approach to gaming.



> They'll pause the game to recalculate thier attack bonus just in case that they forgot something.




This is why I don't play with players who spend 10 minutes figuring out what to do each round.



> It isn't that they ignore ammunition or encumberance or food because they think it will make for a better story.  It's that these things they naturally 'forget' to do anyway not merely because they are time consuming or hard (because generally they aren't),




But they are boring.



> but because they feel it only penalizes them.  And, when you tell them that they can forget about it anyway they are relieved because now they don't feel guilty for having been 'forgetting' about it.




And what, exactly, is the problem with not feeling guilty?


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Feb 20, 2008)

Tracking ammunition is just as important as watching your HP values in my game. I can think of at least three different scenarios where my players have been "locked down" and surrounded throughout the countryside. Reserving their arrow pool was important, due to that they had nothing else on them and/or needed range in order to gain a foothold or move further out of the red zone.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So in other words, the DM decides when you run out of arrows because its dramaticly appropriate to the story?



No, the DM decides whether or not it is worthwhile to track details like arrows and food and gold. Do games which have an abstract wealth mechanic like d20 Modern fail to create good stories because the minutiae of how much money the characters have on them at any one time is not tracked?



> Again, story narratives don't really offer a good analogy to the sort of story creation which is being created within a game, and the game needs are different than story creation needs.



Agreed, but the post I was responding to did not make such a distinction. In any case, I simply disagree with the premise that minutiae are required for a good story or a good game. Every story or game glosses over certain minutiae, whether it is going to the bathroom, keeping track of rations, or accounting for every last piece of ammunition.



> Besides which, as long as we are talking stories, Legolas runs out of arrows practically every time that they fight.  He's always scavaging for arrows on the battlefield.  He's almost always forced to do 'knife work'.  He's always firing off 'his last arrow'.  Gimli is pretty much always catching up to him in effectiveness because Legolas doesn't have unlimited ammunition.  I don't think that Tolkien decides merely that it is dramatically appropriate for Legolas to run out of arrows at some point.  Pretty much universally, he decides that its dramactically appropriate for archers to run out of arrows and there is rarely a battle with archers where they don't.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Is there any battle in which it is not explicit that Legolas is forced to scavenge arrows from the field? I hope you realize that we are talking about the guy who was so careful with verisimilitude that he can have Sam realize that more time passed in Lothlorian than it seemed like because of the phase of the moon.



I quickly checked through my copy of the book, and I think that Legolas was involved in the following fights:

1. The fights in Moria
2. The fight with the Urik-Hai during which Boromir died
3. The battles at Helm's Deep
4. The battle of the Pelennor fields
5. The battle at the Black Gate

In the above fights, I could only find references to Legolas running out of arrows or scavenging for them during the Uruk-Hai fight and at Helm's Deep. So, I wouldn't say that there was anything "always" or "explicit" about Legolas running out of arrows or scavenging for them.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> What is the difference between 'not keeping track of arrows' and not keeping track of other minutiae, like gold, hit points, the distance between a PC and his foe, and so forth?



The difference is they're not all minutiae. 



> It's not about 'caring about the story'.



No. It's about not getting bogged down in non-significant details that don't add to the play experience. It's about streamlining.



> It's not about making the game better.



Sez you.  



> Anytime the fudging might actually work against them, you'll find that they are exacting sticklers for every little minutiea.



I find the opposite in the groups I game with. Then again, I game exclusively in high-trust environments. 



> For me, as a player, I feel like when I fudge my hitpoints, or my ammunition, or 'forget' to keep track of my encumberance, as so many players I know do - I feel like I'm cheating myself.



That's cool.



> Some players feel like that, and some of them don't.



Exactly.



> For me as a DM, I feel like the archer who tells me how boring it is to keep track of ammunition is unconscioiusly cheating his friend with the greatsword by stealing the spotlight in his desire to always be successful.



It's not cheating to enjoy the game differently from someone else. The trick is how to reach accommodations so that players with differing play priorities/verisimilitude requirements can game at the same table. 'Cause you know, ours is not a large and growing hobby --unless you're referring to our ages and waistlines.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I find the opposite in the groups I game with. Then again, I game exclusively in high-trust environments.



You took the words right out of my keyboard.

Different groups, different expectations.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 20, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I can't be the only D&D player who has looked at his 15th level character sheet and noticed the flask of oil and torches I bought at 1st-level.




And probably that same 2 weeks of iron rations as well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> The Ramayana? The Old Testament?




We must be reading different books, then, not only because (as should be obvious) _all_ stories are by necessity composed of incident and detail (minutia), but because (for example) there are parts of the OT which are entirely comprised of "X begat Y, Y begat Z, Z begat A, etc."  I suppose that these works were chosen because, with EN World's "no religion" policy, they cannot be discussed in detail.  Suffice it to say that even a casual examination of either work will discover it to be no less minutia-filled than any other story.



> Because not all bean-counting is of equal importance? Some things are significant, others less so, some not at all. Moreover, certain aspects of play lose significance as character's level, as the game moves from The Black Company to the Justice League in medieval drag.




Funny, but the "I can't be bothered to count ammo/rations" crowd seldom qualifies this as "once I reach Justice League in medieval drag level".

But, of course, that doesn't answer the question as to why rations and ammo are "unimportant" bean counting, but hit points and gold pieces are not.  If you only care about what is "dramatically appropriate" on the basis of your "story", then why should you care exactly how much money the PCs have available to them?  If you want the PCs to be able to buy something, they simply have the money.  Likewise, why bother bean-counting hit points?  If you want them to drop, they drop.  If it isn't "dramatically appropriate" they do not.  Likewise, rather than roll damage, the DM (or players) simply decide how long a fight should last.  Indeed, if your primary concern is the "dramatically appropriate" narrative you are creating, why bother rolling dice or having game rules at all?  Why is any of the bean-counting important to any degree at all?


RC


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> What is the difference between 'not keeping track of arrows' and not keeping track of other minutiae, like gold, hit points, the distance between a PC and his foe, and so forth?  It's not about 'caring about the story'.  It's not about making the game better.




Those other things aren't minutiae, IMO.  Arrows are.  Personally, I DO track arrows, as I actually fall more towards the simulationist side of things.  However, I can't recall ever actually running out.  In 29 years of playing.  So it doesn't bother me to leave this aside.

As for the main topic of the thread, any item a player needs to adjudicate and/or refer to should be in the PHB.  I'm 100% behind the idea of putting magic items and summon monster stuff in the PHB.  I feel empowered to tell my players "you can't get that" for whatever reason, or to make the call that magic items can't be bought or sold (however illogical that may be - historically, _everything_ was bought and sold).  If I think the stats in the summon or polymorph spells are bad, I'd house rule them - but then I'd give the players those stats.

The days are long since past where you could try to keep your players from owning or reading the DMG or the MM in order to keep them in the dark.  Most of the people I play with have been playing ar DM'ingfor so long it's foolish to even try.


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> We must be reading different books, then, not only because (as should be obvious) _all_ stories are by necessity composed of incident and detail (minutia), but because (for example) there are parts of the OT which are entirely comprised of "X begat Y, Y begat Z, Z begat A, etc."  I suppose that these works were chosen because, with EN World's "no religion" policy, they cannot be discussed in detail.  Suffice it to say that even a casual examination of either work will discover it to be no less minutia-filled than any other story.




But not, of course, ammunition.




> But, of course, that doesn't answer the question as to why rations and ammo are "unimportant" bean counting, but hit points and gold pieces are not.  If you only care about what is "dramatically appropriate" on the basis of your "story", then why should you care exactly how much money the PCs have available to them?  If you want the PCs to be able to buy something, they simply have the money.  Likewise, why bother bean-counting hit points?  If you want them to drop, they drop.  If it isn't "dramatically appropriate" they do not.  Likewise, rather than roll damage, the DM (or players) simply decide how long a fight should last.  Indeed, if your primary concern is the "dramatically appropriate" narrative you are creating, why bother rolling dice or having game rules at all?  Why is any of the bean-counting important to any degree at all?




Is this a trick question?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I quickly checked through my copy of the book, and I think that Legolas was involved in the following fights:
> 
> 1. The fights in Moria
> 2. The fight with the Urik-Hai during which Boromir died
> ...




Perhaps you would find it different if you read the chapters in question rather than quickly scanning them?

EDIT:  Excepting, of couse, the Black Gates, which is told with Pippin as the POV character, and says almost nothing about what the other members of the Fellowship did.

RC


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> The days are long since past where you could try to keep your players from owning or reading the DMG or the MM in order to keep them in the dark.



Of course, this entire subject could have been avoided if Wizards had moved out of the dark ages and actually released the game in one book.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Of course, this entire subject could have been avoided if Wizards had moved out of the dark ages and actually released the game in one book.




If they did so, it would interfere with their plan to sell you the PHB II, the MM IV, and the DMG XXIX.

RC


----------



## Mad Mac (Feb 20, 2008)

> I DO track arrows, as I actually fall more towards the simulationist side of things. However, I can't recall ever actually running out.




  Same here. Arrows are dirt cheap, anyone who is a dedicated archer keeps a mountain of them, they can scavenge them back after the battle or take them off enemies, ect. I've never seen anyone run out of ammo. Tracking Silver arrows, sure, or arrows of slaying or whatever. But regular arrows? I've always done it, but I'm willing to admit it's a complete waste of time. 

  It's not like there's a balance problem if the Archer specialist can spend all his turns shooting instead of punching. That's the default balance assumption, after all. And keeping track of the whopping 5 gp the character might need to buy 100 arrows every level or so is not exactly a critical bit of accounting, either.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

As far as Tolkein goes, the dwarves are given bows by Beorn in _The Hobbit_, and run out of arrows in Mirkwood, making their bows useless.

I'm reading _The Hobbit_ to my older girl right now, and we are just about to read "Flies and Spiders", where this happens.  And those bows would have been useful against the spiders, had they not wasted their ammo on black squirrels and white deer.



RC


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And those bows would have been useful against the spiders, had they not wasted their ammo on black squirrels and white deer.



That's the risk you take grinding low-level mobs.


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As far as Tolkein goes, the dwarves are given bows by Beorn in _The Hobbit_, and run out of arrows in Mirkwood, making their bows useless.




... Thus conveniently allowing the elves to capture them. Those damn storytellers.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> The difference is they're not all minutiae.




No, the difference is you decided that they were not minutiae.  The difference is you decided that they were non-significant.  We haven't established what the criteria for this decision was, especially given how (unlike say encumberance) extremely easy and non-time consuming tracking things like ammunition and food is.



> I find the opposite in the groups I game with. Then again, I game exclusively in high-trust environments.




I have no idea what 'the opposite' means in this context.  I would think that the opposite is that players are more likely to be exactly sticklers for minutiea when doing so would impose a penalty on them.  Or in other words, those groups have players who consistantly keep track of arrows, encumberance, food, and every sort of 'realistic minutiae' that solely by tracking is to thier disadvantage, but who on the other hand are fine to hand wave any minutiae which by tracking exactly would be an advantage to them.   That would indeed be a 'high-trust' environment, and I much prefer to play with players that keep track of thier own character sheet so I don't have to, but that also doesn't seem to be what you are saying.



> That's cool...Exactly...The trick is how to reach accommodations so that players with differing play priorities/verisimilitude requirements can game at the same table.




Let's backup and look how this got debate got started.  Some of us claimed that by the rules, summoned creatures were not completely in the control of the players.  For example, control of summoned creatures requires communication, and that requires not only a common language but that the summoned creature have the understanding to perform the instructions.  This claim was met with extreme dismay and ridicule, among which was the claim that not letting the player have complete control of a summoned creature would be as ridiculous was keeping track of ammunition.  To that I have responded, "Wait a minute... keeping track of ammunition isn't ridiculous either.  There are some very good reasons for keeping track of ammunition."

To that, primarily the responce has been for the most part variations on, "Oh yeah.  Well its far too time consuming and gets in the way of play."

And that strikes me as an utterly bogus argument, because the amount of time it takes is being greatly exaggerated.  What I'm hearing is really, "If it takes any time at all, then that is too time consuming."  And that suggests that there is a deeper reason for ignoring it.

However, whatever the reasons may be, I'm not suggesting that groups where everyone could care less are having 'badwrongfun' because they don't always explicitly track these things.  If that's all you are trying to prove, you are arguing with the wrong person.  Alot of the discomfort people are having with 4e is that the game seems to be moving to explicitly or implicitly saying that the way that they play is not the right way to play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> That's the risk you take grinding low-level mobs.




 I'm not sure what you mean here.   

In TH, the dwarves are trying to bring down a deer or squirrel on the trail, because they are also running very low on rations.    

RC


----------



## Insight (Feb 20, 2008)

I doubt I'm the only one who'd like to see 4E shapeshifting to be more like the options presented in PHB2.  In essence, for the uninitiated, your character takes on certain attributes, but you don't actually _become_ an animal.  Makes bookkeeping a _lot_ easier.


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean here.
> 
> In TH, the dwarves are trying to bring down a deer or squirrel on the trail, because they are also running very low on rations.




That's what you get when you're trying to fudge a way to get dwarves captured by elves.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 20, 2008)

I find it a really gross misrepresentation to claim that "trust" is in any way remotely related to people's enjoyment of a more simulationist style game.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 20, 2008)

Insight said:
			
		

> I doubt I'm the only one who'd like to see 4E shapeshifting to be more like the options presented in PHB2.  In essence, for the uninitiated, your character takes on certain attributes, but you don't actually _become_ an animal.  Makes bookkeeping a _lot_ easier.



I am certain you are right.  But I also doubt I am the only one who is willing to put a bit more effort in in exchange for a wider range of options.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Perhaps you would find it different if you read the chapters in question rather than quickly scanning them?
> 
> EDIT:  Excepting, of couse, the Black Gates, which is told with Pippin as the POV character, and says almost nothing about what the other members of the Fellowship did.



Right - there was one fight with wargs before the Fellowship reached Moria in which Legolas retrieved his arrows (except for one) after the battle.

In Moria, he was shooting arrows up to the point that he ran from the Balrog. Also no mention of running out of arrows at the Pelennor Fields, or the earlier battles with the Haradrim (although he probably did not need to fight much as the Dead did most of the work there).


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Those other things aren't minutiae, IMO.




Fine.  That can be your opinion.  But until we establish why your criteria is for minutiae, we don't know very much about your opinion.



> As for the main topic of the thread, any item a player needs to adjudicate and/or refer to should be in the PHB.  I'm 100% behind the idea of putting magic items and summon monster stuff in the PHB.




My opinion is slightly different.  I don't think that the player 'adjudicates' anything, in the literal sense of 'acting as a judge to settle disputes'.  That's not the players role in the game.  I do however think that the player does need to be provided with any information that his character would have, and you can make a reasonable case that a summoner would know something of the abilities of the creatures he's summoning.  I think however you can make a reasonable case that this isn't necessarily true.  It's easy to imagine a summoner without alot of actual knowledge who doesn't understand what he is summoning, and in fact this is a standard trope of fantasy.

I personally prefer the line between 'what the DM is responcible for' and 'what the player is responcible for' to be very clearly drawn, and that distinction is increasingly being blurred with the result of making D&D more and more a tactical skirmish game and less and less of an RPG.  Someone accused me of encouraging 'adversarial gaming'.  I'm not entirely sure what he means, but the claim that players need to control the creatures that they summon strikes me as meeting my definition of 'adversarial gaming'.



> The days are long since past where you could try to keep your players from owning or reading the DMG or the MM in order to keep them in the dark.  Most of the people I play with have been playing ar DM'ingfor so long it's foolish to even try.




I don't think that's remotely the issue.  I'm pretty good at keeping them in the dark even if they have a DMG or MM open in front of them.   What I was arguing against was the notion that player control explicitly or implicitly extended to any of the NPCs in the game.


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Right - there was one fight with wargs before the Fellowship reached Moria in which Legolas retrieved his arrows (except for one) after the battle.
> 
> In Moria, he was shooting arrows up to the point that he ran from the Balrog. Also no mention of running out of arrows at the Pelennor Fields, or the earlier battles with the Haradrim (although he probably did not need to fight much as the Dead did most of the work there).



 Legolas does a lot of talking about running out of arrows, for someone who is pretty much never depicted as actually doing so. Paranoid player.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Right - there was one fight with wargs before the Fellowship reached Moria in which Legolas retrieved his arrows (except for one) after the battle.




Well, rather off target, but, yes.



> In Moria, he was shooting arrows up to the point that he ran from the Balrog.




But he was implicitly not shooting alot of them either.  It was too dark for good shooting, and the narration implied that the quarters were generally too close for archery work, which meant the humans with the swords were doing most of the fighting.  His recorded kills in Moria aren't much higher than the halflings.



> Also no mention of running out of arrows at the Pelennor Fields, or the earlier battles with the Haradrim (although he probably did not need to fight much as the Dead did most of the work there).




Again, there is no mention of him firing any arrows either.


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Someone accused me of encouraging 'adversarial gaming'.




They did?



> I'm not entirely sure what he means, but the claim that players need to control the creatures that they summon strikes me as meeting my definition of 'adversarial gaming'.




The first step to a non-adversarial gaming atmosphere, grasshopper, is full disclosure.


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Well, rather off target, but, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Are we arguing about whether Legolas was a spray-and-pray archer, or something else?


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Bold type is mine for emphasis.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I personally prefer the line between 'what the DM is responcible for' and 'what the player is responcible for' to be very clearly drawn, and that distinction is increasingly being blurred with the result of *making D&D more and more a tactical skirmish game and less and less of an RPG*.




We have the winner. The new talking point for the anti-4e crowd is: _4e edition is not an RPG, it's a tactical game_.

I'm calling D&D is too much like pinochle for the next line of attack.

EDIT: A good role-player will role-play in whatever edition. Someone interested only in tactics and combat will not role-play in any edition. The divide has been with us from the beginning. Any argument that the new edition will be less of an RPG just because it provides good rules for tactics is simplistic at best.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> "Wait a minute... keeping track of ammunition isn't ridiculous either.  There are some very good reasons for keeping track of ammunition."



Now that isn't something that I would disagree with. However, I would disagree that keeping track of ammunition (or other minutiae) is necessary for a good story or a good game.

Perhaps it was the term "minutiae" that was off-putting. An alternative word like "details" probably wouldn't have elicited such a negative reaction from me. "Minutiae" carries with it a connotation of "unimportant" which, almost by definition, means that tracking it is more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I find it a really gross misrepresentation to claim that "trust" is in any way remotely related to people's enjoyment of a more simulationist style game.




Indeed, and I think that Celebrim nailed it in his response:

Or in other words, those groups have players who consistantly keep track of arrows, encumberance, food, and every sort of 'realistic minutiae' that solely by tracking is to thier disadvantage, but who on the other hand are fine to hand wave any minutiae which by tracking exactly would be an advantage to them. That would indeed be a 'high-trust' environment​
Moreover, IME, if all else is equal, a game with a higher degree of verisimilitude will always draw more players than a game without.  I have found this to be universally and overwhelmingly true throughout almost 30 years of play in two countries (USA and Canada), including play in Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia, California, Lousiana, and Missouri.  Given a choice between a good DM who cares not a whit for verisimilitude, and a good DM that carefully includes verisimilitude, the second DM will always have more than double the player base than the first DM.  Again, this is IME, and YMMV, but it does seem to me that there is a much greater desire for verisimilitude among D&D players than WotC seems to believe.  

The difficulty, of course, is that is it inherently _harder_ to carefully include verismilitude than it is to ignore it.  This may be especially true in 3e, where players and DMs have a much larger group of numbers to monitor than they did in previous editions.  However, like many things, what you get out of it is often directly related to the effort you put into it.

Again, IME.  YMMV.

RC


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Moreover, IME, if all else is equal,




Well, yes.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Now that isn't something that I would disagree with. However, I would disagree that keeping track of ammunition (or other minutiae) is necessary for a good story or a good game.




Then we don't actually disagree all that much.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Alot of the discomfort people are having with 4e is that the game seems to be moving to explicitly or implicitly saying that the way that they play is not the right way to play.




Or alternately:

1) Alot of the discomfort people are having with 4e is that they seem to read into innocent comments made by the designers that the game seems to be moving to explicitly or implicitly saying that the way that they play is not the right way to play.

2)Alot of the discomfort people are having with 4e is that the game seems to be that the rules will now support other styles of gaming in addition to their own preferred style.

EDIT: I'm really not trying to pick on Celebrim here. The two posts I've responded to just happen to be his. I've seen this general tone of argument from numerous posters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> 2)Alot of the discomfort people are having with 4e is that the game seems to be that the rules will now support other styles of gaming in addition to their own preferred style.





It seems very unlikely that, by reducing options, 4e will support more playstyles than 3e.

RC


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It seems very unlikely that, by reducing options, 4e will support more playstyles than 3e.
> 
> RC




No options will be reduced in 4e. Some options will not be PHB1.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

I play alot of different games other than D&D.  In addition to RPGs, I play alot of competitive games, and I'm generally pretty good at them.  One of the games I'm pretty good at is Bloodbowl.  When I was first learning the game, I got extremely frustrated with the rule that says, "If you do anything in your turn before moveing your turn track, you forfiet your turn."  It seemed like a really really harsh penalty for what at first seems like pointless bookkeeping, and it seemed really frustrating how the guy who was teaching this first time player was such a stickler about it.  It felt overly harsh, since as a highly experienced player playing a casual non-tournement sort of game, he didn't really need to penalize me in order to win.  In short, it sucked, and I was angry by about the third time I lost a turn to that rule.

It took me probably a dozen games to realize just how completely fair and important that rule was.  I had to deeply understand the game before I understood just how extremely important that minor bookkeeping was and why it absolutely had to be done before the game would work right.  It wasn't long before I was that harsh highly experienced player punishing brand new players for not moving the turn track, even though I could see in thier eyes just how unfair they thought the whole thing was and was saying to myself, "I know exactly what you are feeling."  One of the ways in which I learned my lesson was playing a game where we were casual about the turn track and seeing then, only by comparison what a mess it made of the game.

My point is not that keeping track of ammunition is nearly as important as keeping track of the turn in bloodbowl.  It's not.  My point is that there can in fact be things that at first seem tedious and pointless and which just seem like the game would be better off if you treated them more casually so you can get on with the story, when in fact even though it may be fun to ignore them its even more fun to consider them seriously.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 20, 2008)

Hmm.

We've always run the game as "Players control their own damn menagerie!", including followers (in combat; OOC, they're the DMs little playthings...) One thing I did find irksome about 3x was the expectation that I'd prepare stats for whatever thing the PCs planned to summon, so if the burden is officially placed on them, good.

But if they don't give it Celestial Basket Weaving as a Trained skill, they will NEVER escape the Fiendish Wicker Trap! Bwahahaha!


----------



## Lizard (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> 2)Alot of the discomfort people are having with 4e is that the game seems to be that the rules will now support other styles of gaming in addition to their own preferred style.




What have you seen which implies the scope of play will be broadened, rather than narrowed? At best, it can be argued that the simplification of the rules will make making changes to said rules to support different playstyles easier; I'm not sure how this is superior to a ruleset which is in itself broad enough to support multiple playstyles easily.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> No options will be reduced in 4e.




Are you part of the design team?



> Some options will not be PHB1.




Ah, now I see.  So, I'll have the same level of options in five years, when the PHB V comes out?  But I shouldn't complain that I don't have a whole game in the initial release?    

Colour me confused, and unimpressed as well.    


RC


----------



## Mallus (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> We must be reading different books...



We're reading the same texts different ways...



> I suppose that these works were chosen because, with EN World's "no religion" policy, they cannot be discussed in detail.



Now you're ascribing motives, which is bad form.

I choose the Ramayana because at some point Rama fires two million or so arrows during a battle. I take this as an example of 'not tracking' ammo.

I choose the Old Testament because at some point, all creatures that exhibit sexual dimorphism get shoved into an ark.

In neither case is bean-counting important to the story. The minute details get glossed over. You're confusing the _existence_ of certain details in a text with the _importance_ of certain details in a text. 



> Funny, but the "I can't be bothered to count ammo/rations" crowd seldom qualifies this as "once I reach Justice League in medieval drag level".



That's not my experience. The people I game with recognize that the game changes a lot as character progress in level. Coincidentally, the 4e designers seem to noticed this too...


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> My point is that there can in fact be things that at first seem tedious and pointless and which just seem like the game would be better off if you treated them more casually so you can get on with the story . . .



I see your point, but in my experience these things *were* important and necessary at first. Now that I'm older and more experienced, I no longer believe they are.

Now I have different play priorities, and I prefer to route around that which doesn't contribute to them.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> EDIT: I'm really not trying to pick on Celebrim here. The two posts I've responded to just happen to be his. I've seen this general tone of argument from numerous posters.




No, by all means, 'pick on' me.  If you must make a strong argument using someone as an example, pick me, because I want take it personally and go whining to the moderators about how harsh and cruel kennew142 is merely because he disagrees with me strongly and passionately.  

In fact, I'll see it as a sign of respect.  The posters I don't respond to are the ones who in the long run are making the least interesting and least well considered statements.  I don't want to have a discussion with someone who is an idiot, and so I don't.  The fact that you want to address me specifically is interpretted to me to mean, at worst, "Even though I think you are being an idiot, I don't think you are hopelessly so.", which is as much as you can really expect from someone that is passionately disagreeing with you.



> Alot of the discomfort people are having with 4e is that they seem to read into innocent comments made by the designers that the game seems to be moving to explicitly or implicitly saying that the way that they play is not the right way to play.




"We removed X because it's not fun", is not an 'innocent' comment.  We gotten alot of that from the 4e designers, and it is no more 'innocent' than my statements implying things like, 'If you don't think X is fun, it is because you don't really know what fun is.  You like what you know, but you don't know what you like.'



> 2)Alot of the discomfort people are having with 4e is that the game seems to be that the rules will now support other styles of gaming in addition to their own preferred style.




And I agree with RC here, it seems unlikely that the game will support more playstyles by removing more options from the game.  There has been a consistant pattern to the design philosophy of 4E where if something seems like a problem, the solution has been to just remove it.  And as I've been repeatedly saying, it is alot easier to ignore rules and remove rules and remove subsystems you don't like from play, than it is to put all that stuff back in if you do like them.  So for example, one of the selling points of 4E is that the monster stat blocks are streamlined to just the things that you need to run combats.  Which is fine if the play style you prefer only has monsters doing things in combat.  But if you don't prefer that playstyle, then it is much harder to add back in what has been taken out, than it would be to ignore any extra rules and abilities that the monster has that you don't need.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2008)

> My point is that there can in fact be things that at first seem tedious and pointless and which just seem like the game would be better off if you treated them more casually so you can get on with the story, when in fact even though it may be fun to ignore them its even more fun to consider them seriously.




IMO, ammunition and rations and the like aren't part of that. Heck, I've been tempted to use variant wealth mechanics, so GOLD is sometimes a part of that. When I DM, I don't use XP, so CHARACTER ADVANCEMENT is part of that. And with games like True20, you find no hp management, so HEALTH is sometimes a part of that. Tracking fiddly points isn't usually much fun.

With HP, I keep it, because it adds that 'slow degeneration' terror that is nice. With gold, I keep it, mostly because I haven't found a better system. XP I ditch without a second thought. 

Ammo and rations I don't really worry about.

I kind of do. I use an 'upkeep' mechanic where the PC's pay a fee at each level to train/get new arrows/replenish suppies/sharpen their swords/etc. Moments where they run out of arrows or food just don't happen IMC, because I find it remarkably dull to make PC's go without their favorite weapon or starve to death. The rules I use are an abstraction -- they pay upkeep, so they have enough food and arrows to last them until they pay upkeep the next time.

I also think that spell effects, even if they use summoned monsters, and mounts, and animal companions, are all part of a PC's ability, so the PC gets to control them. I let the PC control cohorts, too. I retain some veto power, but it's largely in their hands, not mine.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, I'll have the same level of options in five years, when the PHB V comes out?  But I shouldn't complain that I don't have a whole game in the initial release?



Did you complain that you couldn't play a Warlock in 2000?


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> My point is that there can in fact be things that at first seem tedious and pointless and which just seem like the game would be better off if you treated them more casually so you can get on with the story, when in fact even though it may be fun to ignore them its even more fun to consider them seriously.




Maybe people know what they like and what they don't, and for some it's _not_ more fun to consider them seriously.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> Bold type is mine for emphasis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is not a new taking point.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 20, 2008)

It is again worth noting that whether counting ammunition is a worthwhile task is a HIGHLY contingent issue.  The rules can make it easy, or the rules can make it hard.  The rules can also make this sort of thing more or less palatable to players depending on how the rules treat other, similar issues.

In 3e, I hate tracking ammunition for Ranger archers.  I rather liked tracking ammunition for my slightly customized shuriken throwing Scout.  I sort of resented in general that ammunition had to be tracked when other issues that should be similarly simulationist (or similarly NOT simulationist) were not tracked.  So what was the difference?

The archer fired arrows like a machine gun, and his quiver only held 20.  He typically ran out of arrows in any protracted fight, unless I carried multiple quivers.  But carrying multiple quivers created a contradiction- it was realistic to count arrows, but unrealistic to imagine an archer with three full quivers of arrows on his back.  Those are BIG.  It became literally impossible to carry sufficient arrows for an extended journey unless 1) I found arrows on enemies, 2) I used magical means to carry more arrows.  Finding arrows on enemies was not an option because I didn't want to be at risk of not encountering archers.  So I had to carry arrows magically.  Once I chose to do THAT, the whole issue evaporated.  I got a magical quiver that held lots of arrows.  Then I obtained a bag of holding, and stuffed it full of extra arrow quivers.  For a relatively trivial cost, I got literally thousands of arrows, and stuffed them in that bag.  At this point, counting ammunition became silly.  I counted arrows to know how many were in the quiver on my back, and then after each fight I refreshed that quiver.  There were two problems with this system, in terms of game play.  First, subtracting 15 arrows from my stockpile of 2000 was just annoying.  It wasn't like I was ever going to run out.  Second, I could refill the entire bag with a 100 gp investment, which at that level, was a joke.  Why was I doing all this work to find out if I spent 3 gold pieces at each visit to a town, instead of 4?  I made a deal with my DM.  I'd pay 10 gp whenever we hit a town, and we'd just stop counting arrows in the bag.  I was probably paying for twice as many arrows as I consumed, but I didn't care.  It was worth the whopping 5 gp (that's a 100 arrow safety margin) to not have to deal with this anymore.

So what made the Scout's ammunition enjoyable, when the Ranger's was not?

Well, the Scout threw only one shuriken per round, thanks to Skirmish and Shot on the Run.  In a prolonged fight, that meant maybe seven shuriken.  It was a lot easier to keep track of that.  Plus, the shuriken I threw were generally magical after a certain level.  This made them more expensive.  Unlike spending 1 gp for 20 nonmagical arrows (fired from a magical bow), I was spending lots of GP for Shuriken +3, and so forth.  Knowing whether I threw 5 shuriken or 6 was a difference of a meaningful amount of money.  Further, I had to carry shuriken of different types to combat different foes.  I wasn't counting out 1 arrow from 2000 identical arrows, I was counting out a single Good Cold Iron Shuriken +2 (demon hunting shuriken  ) from my supply of five similar shuriken.  This made it much more meaningful.

Finally, there was the resentment when I was playing the archer.  Why did I have to count arrows, collect arrows after a fight, and generally do all this bookkeeping when the wizard had a never ending supply of bat guano?  He never counted that.  He never went spelunking to collect it.  He never even really BOUGHT bat guano.  One day he leveled up, and now he knew Fireball.  Suddenly he had all this bat guano.  Where did it come from?  Nobody knew.  How did the bat guano not ruin the other components in the spell component pouch?  Was it loose in there?  He had a special, non magical pouch that apparently contained every basic spell component for every spell ever written, in infinite quantities.  And here I was counting arrows, counting arrows that miss, dividing by two and recovering them, and making sure arrows were wrapped in cloth so they wouldn't pierce my magical bag of holding.  This didn't seem fair.

I don't know how all of this will apply to 4e, because I don't know the context in which 4e places characters who use ammunition based attacks.  But I hope it illustrates a bit how the game rules can affect the entertainment value of simulationism.  Creating a great deal of bookkeeping in order to achieve a very small, easily bypassed outcome is not a good idea.  Inflicting bookkeeping on one player and not another, even though they are doing basically the same thing, is not a good idea.  Creating simple bookkeeping that has meaningful in game effects IS often a good idea.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I choose the Ramayana because at some point Rama fires two million or so arrows during a battle. I take this as an example of 'not tracking' ammo.
> 
> I choose the Old Testament because at some point, all creatures that exhibit sexual dimorphism get shoved into an ark.
> 
> In neither case is bean-counting important to the story. The minute details get glossed over. You're confusing the _existence_ of certain details in a text with the _importance_ of certain details in a text.




So, ultimately, if deities can fire arrows without counting ammo, it follows that PCs should fire without counting ammo?    

As I recall, in the Noah story, the "two of each kind" and the exterior size of the ark were details that were not glossed over.  That the size of the ark wouldn't allow said animals to fit is either indicative that the story is not meant to be taken literally, is evidence of a miracle, or is evidence that Noah was a Time Lord and the ark a TARDIS, depending upon your viewpoint.  In none of these cases are the details given meaningless.  In none of these cases is this a forum in which further discussion about this topic really advisable.

If you want to pick an example we can actually discuss, I'll be here.....?


RC


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I personally prefer the line between 'what the DM is responcible for' and 'what the player is responcible for' to be very clearly drawn, and that distinction is increasingly being blurred with the result of making D&D more and more a tactical skirmish game and less and less of an RPG.




Lets back up the discussion truck here.

3e is the edition with the most in common with a tactical skirmish game. Heck, the entire notion that DM NPCs and monsters have to play by the same rules as PCs is essentially saying that the DM and players are basically playing DDM with some story thrown in.

4e, with its design framework of monsters and NPCs existing only as tools for the DM to facilitate adventure RPing is making D&D LESS like a skirmish game. Not more. 3e is the epitomy of adversarial tactical skirmish play.

There are valid concerns about 4e, but saying its making D&D into more of skirmish game is NOT one of them.

4e is getting away from that, which is one of the reasons I'm so looking forward to it.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> What have you seen which implies the scope of play will be broadened, rather than narrowed? At best, it can be argued that the simplification of the rules will make making changes to said rules to support different playstyles easier; I'm not sure how this is superior to a ruleset which is in itself broad enough to support multiple playstyles easily.



Well, I can, and have, make FUDGE suit whatever group I play it with. Having a simple core system upon which to build is actually quite liberating, and I think it's a pretty good idea to start from an abstracted, easy-to-understand system and add complexity with optional rules and supplements.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Did you complain that you couldn't play a Warlock in 2000?




No.  Of course, I don't use warlocks now, either, as the AE witch is a better class filling the same niche.  I certainly would have complained had I been told to wait until 2000 to play a druid.

In any event, we are now at Point X, which has a number of options to the value Y.  That value Y is the culmination of not only WotC support, but also (often superior, IMHO) third-party support.  When 4e premieres, it will have options equal to Y minus C where C is an amount yet unknown, but certainly a massive amount.

Over time, 4e will grow to (Y minus C) plus U, then plus D, then plus Z, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the accumulated Us, Ds, and Zs will ever be equal to C.  If we examine what bits of material that have been let loose from the vault, we see a design philosophy that is consistently about simplification, and is consistently about removing problematic options.

It doesn't take a genius to know that, if simplification remains your goal, that goal is incompatable with ever achieving the options currently present in the simplified edition.  The non-OGL OGL, from what we have been told, is apparently being written to limit certain types of third party support.  This is again, inevitably, going to limit options.

Moreover, as the options in 4e grow toward the previous options of 3e, those who continue to play and support 3e will continue to push its boundaries, and increase the options of the system.

I don't see 4e as ever having the same level of options as 3e does now, and I certainly don't see 4e as ever having the same level of innovation or options as 3e does when compared side-by-side at any given point in the future.

RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2008)

> 3e is the edition with the most in common with a tactical skirmish game. Heck, the entire notion that DM NPCs and monsters have to play by the same rules as PCs is essentially saying that the DM and players are basically playing DDM with some story thrown in.
> 
> 4e, with its design framework of monsters and NPCs existing only as tools for the DM to facilitate adventure RPing is making D&D LESS like a skirmish game. Not more. 3e is the epitomy of adversarial tactical skirmish play.
> 
> 4e is getting away from that, which is one of the reasons I'm so looking forward to it.




This is a very bizarre statement.

The first point is that DDM was built on 3e rules, not the other way around, so that 3e wasn't a skirmish game with story thrown in, but rather an RPG that had a spin-off skirmish game that stripped the story out. The fact that PC's and monsters play by the same rules doesn't indicate skirmish one way or the other necessarily (I'm in favor of the concept, and my games certainly aren't skirmish games -- we don't use minis, or have many combats at all).

The second point is that 4e is actually making their rules CLOSER to what DDM has. The framework is different, but the framework was different in 3e, too. The combats will actually be more similar in 4e than they were in 3e. The rest of the game will be unchanged, because 3e and 4e have basically the same differences from a skirmish game. And, again, the PC/Monster rules don't really affect it's nature as a skirmish game one bit.

So 4e is actually getting CLOSER to being a game like DDM than 3e was.

So.....what was your point?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> 4e is getting away from that, which is one of the reasons I'm so looking forward to it.




You are going to be really disappointed then.



> 3e is the edition with the most in common with a tactical skirmish game.




Of the existing editions, I agree.  I've long made various minor complaints against the trend toward requiring minatures to be a part of the game.  One of the things about the 4E commercial looking at the history of the game that rings so untrue, is that the players of the first edition of the game are using makeshift minatures to precisely track where thier characters were with respect to the monster.  I can't imagine many groups thought it necessary.  While I did know groups with minatures for props, it was mostly because the DM really enjoyed painting minatures.  I didn't use a minature in play until 3e. 

But from everything I can tell about 4e, the requirement to use minatures is going to be even stronger in 4e than 3e.  We don't have to speculate deeply about why that is to be.  WotC is now in the business of making minatures, so publishing a game the depreciates the value of minatures is not in the corporate interest.



> Heck, the entire notion that DM NPCs and monsters have to play by the same rules as PCs is essentially saying that the DM and players are basically playing DDM with some story thrown in.




Err... no.  That doesn't follow.  I'm not sure that 'essential' means what you think it means.  There are quite a few elements of essential DDM still missing.   



> 4e, with its design framework of monsters and NPCs existing only as tools for the DM to facilitate adventure RPing is making D&D LESS like a skirmish game. Not more. 3e is the epitomy of adversarial tactical skirmish play.




I'm not sure that 'epitomy' means what you think it does.  I would think that DDM is the epitomy of adversarial tactical skirmish play, and I would imagine that 4E is going to be more compatible with DDM than 3E was.  For example, one very good reason for streamlining a monster in the RPG rules is to make its stat block more closely match its DDM stat block.  One of the explicit and implicit goals of 4E design is to use the same rules set for PnP, minatures, and electronic play.

UPDATE: It's also worth noting that as 3E evolved, it became more and more of a tactical skirmish game over time rather than less.  In particular, by late 3.X, the layout of encounters in official WotC modules was increasingly looking like the layout of encounters in a tactical skirmish game.  If you look at the encounter format of something like 'Expedition to Castle Ravenloft', it looks very much like scenarios from a minatures book.  What we are being told about 4E, is that these sorts of innovations in late 3.X are previews of 4E.  So what we have in 4E is a game more explicitly a tactical skirmish game with possibly some story tacked on than ever before.

UPDATE 2: One of the things that everyone agrees about 4E is that it encourages less 'static' and more 'dynamic' combat.  From the 4E playtest reports, one of the things that we can gather that they mean by that is that alot of the 4E abilities include pushing back or moving the target of the attack in some way.  In many cases it seems to be the primary purpose of the attack.  On one level, that's kinda exciting.  But if your style of play involves not using minatures, you don't want to hear too many examples of this because one of the reasons that very few D&D abilities over its history have involved moving around the target of the attack is that such abilities don't really facillitate tracking the location of combatants abstractly.  If you want to make pushing someone 5' in some direction really relevant, you really need to precisely track everyone's location and that means at some point using minatures.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> In 3e, I hate tracking ammunition for Ranger archers.  I rather liked tracking ammunition for my slightly customized shuriken throwing Scout.  I sort of resented in general that ammunition had to be tracked when other issues that should be similarly simulationist (or similarly NOT simulationist) were not tracked.  So what was the difference?




I would say that running out of ammo is a consequence of a high fire rate, and that part of choosing to play a character with a higher firing rate is knowing that you burn through ammo faster.



> Why did I have to count arrows, collect arrows after a fight, and generally do all this bookkeeping when the wizard had a never ending supply of bat guano?  He never counted that.  He never went spelunking to collect it.  He never even really BOUGHT bat guano.  One day he leveled up, and now he knew Fireball.  Suddenly he had all this bat guano.  Where did it come from?  Nobody knew.




That bothers me in 3e, too.

RC


----------



## Mallus (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, ultimately, if deities can fire arrows without counting ammo, it follows that PCs should fire without counting ammo?



Past a certain level, yes. But my point was merely that not all storytelling, for example, the mythic kind, relies heavily on minute detail, like arrow counting.  



> If you want to pick an example we can actually discuss, I'll be here.....?



Police procedurals and mysteries often hang on precise physical details.

Other modes of literature do not. 

The relative importance of precise detail --and more importantly, what constitutes "precise detail"-- is a function of the kind of storytelling an author is engaging in.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Past a certain level, yes. But my point was merely that not all storytelling, for example, the mythic kind, relies heavily on minute detail, like arrow counting.




All story telling, including the mythic kind, relies heavily on detail.  Calling the detail you don't like "minute" serves very little purpose, unless there is some means by which one can discern what detail is "minute" and what is not.

As I said earlier:

But, of course, that doesn't answer the question as to why rations and ammo are "unimportant" bean counting, but hit points and gold pieces are not. If you only care about what is "dramatically appropriate" on the basis of your "story", then why should you care exactly how much money the PCs have available to them? If you want the PCs to be able to buy something, they simply have the money. Likewise, why bother bean-counting hit points? If you want them to drop, they drop. If it isn't "dramatically appropriate" they do not. Likewise, rather than roll damage, the DM (or players) simply decide how long a fight should last. Indeed, if your primary concern is the "dramatically appropriate" narrative you are creating, why bother rolling dice or having game rules at all? Why is any of the bean-counting important to any degree at all?​

RC


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> This is a very bizarre statement.
> 
> The first point is that DDM was built on 3e rules, not the other way around, so that 3e wasn't a skirmish game with story thrown in, but rather an RPG that had a spin-off skirmish game that stripped the story out. The fact that PC's and monsters play by the same rules doesn't indicate skirmish one way or the other necessarily (I'm in favor of the concept, and my games certainly aren't skirmish games -- we don't use minis, or have many combats at all).
> 
> ...




I think your misunderstanding my point. I'm not talking about combat per se. But even if we were, the 4e combat rules are no more or less skirmish-y than the 3e combat rules anyway. So that argument is moot.

What I'm getting at is more fundamental than that. The underlying assumption in 3e is that DMs and players follow the same rules for characters. This assumption, IMO, contributes heavily to the feel of D&D as a tactical skirmish game.

In 4e, this assumption is no longer in the game. IMO, this is a huge attitude shift and will go a long way towards putting the "RP" back in "RPG".


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 20, 2008)

So here's a question.

How many people think potions of cure X wounds should've been in the equipment section in ALL previous editions of D&D.

I tend to lean towards, YES, especially given the price disparity between the potions and plate mail


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2008)

> What I'm getting at is more fundamental than that. The underlying assumption in 3e is that DMs and players follow the same rules for characters. This assumption, IMO, contributes heavily to the feel of D&D as a tactical skirmish game.
> 
> In 4e, this assumption is no longer in the game. IMO, this is a huge attitude shift and will go a long way towards putting the "RP" back in "RPG".




I still don't quite understand.

How does the assumption that players and DMs follow the same rules make it like a tactical skirmish game?

And how does removing that enhance role-playing qualities like character immersion and motivation?


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I still don't quite understand.
> 
> How does the assumption that players and DMs follow the same rules make it like a tactical skirmish game?
> 
> And how does removing that enhance role-playing qualities like character immersion and motivation?




That is a most excellent question! I have derailed this thread enough and I'm guerrilla posting at work. Let me formulate my thoughts and start a new thread later today when I have time, and then you and Celebrim can tear my argument apart.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> How many people think potions of cure X wounds should've been in the equipment section in ALL previous editions of D&D.



I don't know about previous editions---but going forward? Hell yes.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2008)

> That is a most excellent question! I have derailed this thread enough and I'm guerrilla posting at work. Let me formulate my thoughts and start a new thread later today when I have time, and then you and Celebrim can tear my argument apart.




Be happy to, chap.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> All story telling, including the mythic kind, relies heavily on detail.



But not all storytelling relies on the same kind of details. Or the same level. What constitutes significant detail varies. I'm not sure I can say this using simpler language.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> So here's a question.
> 
> How many people think potions of cure X wounds should've been in the equipment section in ALL previous editions of D&D.
> 
> I tend to lean towards, YES, especially given the price disparity between the potions and plate mail




I tend to lean towards, "No.", and think that the price disparity completely misses the point.

And this despite the fact that potions at least, are fairly openly available in my campaigns.  But that's my decision, and not something I want to impose on other DMs.

In fact, I've alot of problems with the existing game economics of which the price lists are the most obvious examples.  Ideally, even the plate mail needs some qualifications attached.  However, that's a whole other topic.

I will say that if you must include non-mundane items in the price list, it would be far better to have a separate section titled - 'Suggested Goods - High Magic Level Areas' - that listed a few such items with the caveat that these goods may be rare and one needs to consult the DM to see if these goods are in fact available in the area where the campaign is beginning.  If feel the same way about things like Full Plate, for that matter.  It's imposing a setting on you which might not be relevant if your setting resembles Merovigian France or bronze age Greece.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I would say that running out of ammo is a consequence of a high fire rate, and that part of choosing to play a character with a higher firing rate is knowing that you burn through ammo faster.



You missed the point.  "Running out of ammo" is NOT a consequence of playing a high fire rate character.  Nobody runs out of ammo, ever, unless their DM is being more stingy with magical gear than the rulebook presumes.*  And if he's doing that, you just end up with other, worse consequences.

The consequence of playing a character with a high fire rate is being forced to do abstruse, kinda stupid gear management involving bags of holding.  This whole "running out of ammo" thing is sort of a red herring.  Running out of ammo SHOULD be a problem, but in 3e past early levels it is not, thanks to Efficient Quivers (capacity: 60 arrows, cost 1,800 gp) and Bags of Holding (capacity: 83 quivers of 20 arrows, or 1660 arrows, cost 2,500 gp, +83 gp for the arrows).  Even a level 16 archer using Rapid Shot and Haste only fires 6 arrows per round, giving him 10 rounds of combat with an Efficient Quiver, and 276 rounds with the small bag of holding.

Counting things, like arrows, is ONLY a good idea if it has a meaningful effect in game.  And how meaningful that effect needs to be depends on how much of a hassle it is to count.  Counting arrows creates two effects.  You have to buy new arrows, and you have to make sure not to run out.  The problem is that you WON'T run out if you take sensible, obvious, rules-determined precautions.  And the cost of buying new arrows for a medium level adventurer is so small that its simply not justifiable.  The hassle of counting arrows is relatively high, unfortunately.  The trivially small cost and low likelihood of running out makes this just an annoyance.

This is why I reached my compromise with my DM.  I counted arrows in my quiver, and ignored arrows in my bag.  This left me with the possibility (never happened) of running out of arrows mid fight, and let me avoid doing all kinds of bookkeeping to account for what was usually, quite literally, under 5 gold pieces.

*From levels 1 to 5, a ranger plays a lot like the scout did in terms of ammunition conservation.  You get a much more realistic feel in that band, where using up ammunition is a meaningful choice.  So for these levels, the environment of the game provides a rewarding ammunition-counting experience.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 20, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> So here's a question.
> 
> How many people think potions of cure X wounds should've been in the equipment section in ALL previous editions of D&D.
> 
> I tend to lean towards, YES, especially given the price disparity between the potions and plate mail




I lean no, but then I also wish things like spiked chains, halfling riding dogs, and most of the alchemical equipment were in a seperate book as well


----------



## Voss (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> Bold type is mine for emphasis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




True.  You can roleplay to almost anything, independent of the rule set.  However, a good RPG supports, well, RPG play.  4e, based on the designer comments, doesn't seem to support roleplaying that well- its incidental, and there are a lot of signposts littering the game rules that that explicitly don't engage the characters.  Like monsters auto-dying at 0, yet a goblin can sit by a dying PC stabbing repeatedly with a dagger to no effect whatsoever.  Or 'magical but sometimes not really magical but still slightly so' power effects that have no real explanation.  Paladin smites create the blue shield on a friendly, inspirational words knit broken legs- in other words, effects give you a mechanical bonus because they do, and thats all you ever need worry about.

When you get down to it, the impression I get of 4e, as presented, is that every time combat breaks out, its time to stop roleplaying and push the minis about.  And combat is being presented as 90+% of the game.  Hence, 'D&D Heroquest'.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I will say that if you must include non-mundane items in the price list, it would be far better to have a separate section titled - 'Suggested Goods - High Magic Level Areas' - that listed a few such items with the caveat that these goods may be rare and one needs to consult the DM to see if these goods are in fact available in the area where the campaign is beginning.  If feel the same way about things like Full Plate, for that matter.  It's imposing a setting on you which might not be relevant if your setting resembles Merovigian France or bronze age Greece.




The thing about Full-plate is that it has been a standard piece of equipment since 1E, yet even the supposedly rare "cure X wounds" potion costs a hell of a lot less. Sure, in Athas and a Greek setting, one could argue quite rightedly that plate mail et al just doesn't exist but looking at the history of D&D campaign settings? Only Darksun would it not be valid.

So how could potions be rare, yet have a price point orders of magnitude smaller? I mean, even in earlier editions, I remember that getting a potion of cure X from the local witchdoctor/shaman/herbologist NEVER cost anywhere near as much as plate mail.

Hell, in fact, they're were actually MORE places you could pick up cure X potions than get plate mail fixed/bought in those old adventures so really, how rare could such potions really be?


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Feb 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Paladin smites create the blue shield on a friendly, inspirational words knit broken legs- in other words, effects give you a mechanical bonus because they do, and thats all you ever need worry about.




You've chosen to interpret those abilities so simplistically, but there's no reason the rest of us have to.  You have chosen to interpret the Warlord's ability to boost healing as words knitting bone, but it needn't represent that at all.  Inspirational words don't knit broken bones because HP doesn't _represent_ broken bones, it represents the courage to press on, which may be adversely affected by injuries.  A good commander can push his soldiers beyond physical pain, beyond fear, to achieve amazing feats, and the Warlord's "healing" represents that.

The Paladin smites a goblin, which confers upon an ally a bonus to AC.  You may interpret that as a garish and game-ish blue shield, but I'll be thinking of it as an intangible blessing conferred upon the ally as a result of the Paladin's prayer.  If her deity confers that blessing on the apostate Rogue, the Rogue may not even believe the god had anything to do with his newly increased agility.  "Divine powers," he says, "Are nothing but holy baloney.  _I_ dodged the highwayman's throwing axe."

If you're a Battlestar Galactica fan, think of the blessings conferred upon Gaius Baltar as a result of his faith in the Cylon god.  He succeeds, often spectacularly, against overwhelming odds, and yet even _he_ is unsure of the existence of his patron deity.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 20, 2008)

Since the poster who objected to my "attitude" seems to have moved on, I'll pop back in. 



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> So how could potions be rare, yet have a price point orders of magnitude smaller? I mean, even in earlier editions, I remember that getting a potion of cure X from the local witchdoctor/shaman/herbologist NEVER cost anywhere near as much as plate mail.
> 
> Hell, in fact, they're were actually MORE places you could pick up cure X potions than get plate mail fixed/bought in those old adventures so really, how rare could such potions really be?



My earlier editions were BECMI and 2E.  Both of which started off explicitly saying there were no magic shops.  BECMI had no prices for magic items until the Companion Set, which talked about private sales in limited cases IF the DM deemed something to be available (rather than shops in which anything was presumed to be for sale).  IIRC the minimum price for potions was about 1,000 gp -- more than plate mail.  2E had no magic items prices at all.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I will say that if you must include non-mundane items in the price list, it would be far better to have a separate section titled - 'Suggested Goods - High Magic Level Areas' - that listed a few such items with the caveat that these goods may be rare and one needs to consult the DM to see if these goods are in fact available in the area where the campaign is beginning.



Indeed.  This was one of my biggest gripes about 3E: the move away from language such as "ask your DM to see what may be available."  The way the system was written, it took away a good deal of DM discretion.  Taking number-crunching away from the DM isn't a bad thing, but reducing the emphasis on DM'ing skills is. 

Anybody recall the thread about dinosaurs as animal companions?  One point of view is "It's there in the PH, so players should expect that it's allowed."  Whereas I, coming from earlier editions, will _always _ read "Check with your DM about what animal companions are permissible" whether or not it is there in the text.

On magic items:
The text at the beginning of the thread suggested to me that magic items of all levels were included in the PH _so that _ players could choose which items their PCs would have.  That optimization aspect was my least favorite thing about 3E.  Treating magic items as mundane was also annoying, and crafting items was way too easy.  Inclusion in the PH also creates an assumption that all listed items exist.  Yes, item creation feats do that too, whereas "Ask your DM what items your Magic-User can create" does not.  Of course it makes sense for players to have the information they need to use the items, but what I don't like is the optimization aspect and the idea that players basically know the full spectrum of magic items that can exist in the world.  I agree that there is some need for balance, because 3E casters are presumed to have free reign to choose from all the PHB spells; so there I'd also gravitate to the mentality of earlier editions in limiting access to spells.

Specifically as to potions and scrolls, I doubt they'll be prevalent in 4E; they're expendable resources that you can use to nova your way through tough encounters and then have to go back and replenish.  I thought 4E was opposed to that idea.

Summoning and wildshape:
My problem was specifically with the choice of the word "adjudicate."  Words matter, and that one was extremely poorly chosen.  The DM is responsible for adjudication, not the players.  If there is a question as to what a summoned creature will do in a given situation, final authority rests with the DM.  If there is doubt as to what abilities you gain in wildshape, or what spells affect you, final authority rests with the DM.  If the DM wants to say that certain creatures do not exist in his world and so are not available for summoning or polymorph (no war trolls!), that is his perogative.  That's adjudication.


----------



## Caliban (Feb 20, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> We're hopefully past that part of the thread - but just a reminder not to bicker, folks. If you start addressing one person's attitude, it's probably time to step away from the thread for a bit.




It's a good thing you intervened when you did.  Who knows what those troublemakers would have done?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> But not all storytelling relies on the same kind of details. Or the same level. What constitutes significant detail varies. I'm not sure I can say this using simpler language.




Sure.  But I think we need to recognize what a "significant detail" is, and hence (by extension) an insignificant detail, no?

I would venture to say that a detail in a story is significant in that, were it not there, the story would be materially changed.  For example, if you have limited rations, then you have the possibility of starvation.  Not tracking rations changes the story.  If you have limited rations, but can magically create food, then that might use up one of your daily spell slots.  Not tracking rations changes the story.  If you are an archer, and you run out of arrows, you have to change tactics.  That changes the story.  The colour of your bow, generally, does not.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> You missed the point.  "Running out of ammo" is NOT a consequence of playing a high fire rate character.  Nobody runs out of ammo, ever, unless their DM is being more stingy with magical gear than the rulebook presumes.*  And if he's doing that, you just end up with other, worse consequences.




According to one poster, from levels 1 to 5, a ranger plays a lot like the scout did in terms of ammunition conservation.  You get a much more realistic feel in that band, where using up ammunition is a meaningful choice.  So for these levels, the environment of the game provides a rewarding ammunition-counting experience.

I would add that, at higher levels, if you have to spend an action to retrieve arrows from a bag of holding, that is a material difference to the fight.  Of course, I _am_ both stingier and more generous with magic than most.  You are not guaranteed to have X bags of holding by level Y (nor, quite honestly, does the game assume that this must be the case).

Nor, honestly, do I think that there is anything wrong with an archer PC having a retainer who hands him extra quivers and/or holds a shield to give that PC cover.


RC


----------



## pukunui (Feb 20, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Two: Players can CREATE magic items.  This is the more important one, IMO.  In a world where the characters can create the silly things, it doesnt make sense to me that they dont get to look at what they're creating, cant see the requirements to create them, and dont even have the the faintest idea of what's even possible to create without having to crack open a new book.



This is an excellent point. The same could be said for traps, since the PCs could (theoretically at least) make traps, but they are in the DMG as well (and AFAIK will still be there in 4e). I wonder if the trap pricing scheme will be any better in 4e. It always struck me as totally bizarre that even a simple pit trap cost like a 1000gp or something. The cost of even the simplest traps in 3e totally put my group off making their own traps ever.


----------



## Caliban (Feb 20, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Since the poster who objected to my "attitude" seems to have moved on, I'll pop back in.




LOL


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Feb 20, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Indeed.  This was one of my biggest gripes about 3E: the move away from language such as "ask your DM to see what may be available."  The way the system was written, it took away a good deal of DM discretion.  Taking number-crunching away from the DM isn't a bad thing, but reducing the emphasis on DM'ing skills is.




Sure, but not all of us adhere to that style of play.  I'm a much less interventionist DM than I think you're used to, so if a player asks if they can buy an item or have a particular pet, my answer is almost always "Yes, You Can!"  If a player is having an argument with an NPC in the NPC's living room, and she wants to threaten him with a a fire-poker, she doesn't need to ask if there's a fireplace.  She says, "I grab the fire-poker from in front of the fireplace and wave it threateningly."  I am the Barack Obama of DMs.  Yes, You Can!

I say, put those options in the PHB so my players can see them, get excited, use them, and have fun.  Leaving it to the DM to decide means I have to be more responsible for my players' happiness at the table; I prefer to have my players use the rules to amuse themselves and each other with pretty scant intervention on my part.  I, for one, am happier when the game moves away from a top-down, monarchical style of DMing toward a group-consensus model.  I've never had a player who abused my notion of social contract in games, never had a player who tried to eke out enormous rewards and outlandish power from the rules, and I don't need rulebooks that presume they'll try.

That said, I think it's as easy for me to ignore authoritarian wording in the rulebooks as it is for you to ignore permissive wording, provided your players share the concept of a social contract and play cooperatively and in good faith.  Troublesome players may be slightly more dissuaded when the rulebooks are written to constrain them, but it's ultimately up to the DM, not the game designers, to curtail bad behavior at the table.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> So how could potions be rare, yet have a price point orders of magnitude smaller?




I so don't want to get in this debate again.   Suffice to they that I don't think that the market for magic items needs to be a free market.  Why are Hellfire II missiles for sell, given that I can go down to several car dealerships in town who are selling more expensive products?  It was the assumption of earlier editions that the market for magical items was for various reasons (whether of setting or game) quite different than the market for mundane items.



> I mean, even in earlier editions, I remember that getting a potion of cure X from the local witchdoctor/shaman/herbologist NEVER cost anywhere near as much as plate mail.




In earlier editions, this was entirely the province of whichever DM you were under.  I haven't found anything in the text of the 1st DMG that implies that any magic items are for sell for mere mundane gold.  Quite the contrary, I find text that indicates that randomly generated magical items and those created by the PC's themselves are to be the only treasure available as a necessity of game balance.  For example it is claimed that M-U's would be too powerful if they could readily equip themselves as they wished.

I'm not suggesting we need to exactly emulate earlier editions, but I am suggesting we shouldn't rule out play styles that emmulate the feel of earlier editions - whatever feel you happen to believe that to be.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> When you get down to it, the impression I get of 4e, as presented, is that every time combat breaks out, its time to stop roleplaying and push the minis about.  And combat is being presented as 90+% of the game.




If that's what you want to do with the system more power to you. The impression I have of 4e, as presented, is that the combat mechanics will be easier, allowing for smoother game play, and will therefore encourage more role-play. The stated goal is to make combat take longer in rounds (i.e. game time), but less time in real time. No where has there been anything that can properly be construed as the new ediiton being 90% combat. 

Many posters choose to take game mechanics they have decided that they will not like, contrue them in the cheesiest manner (the most antithetical to role-playing) possible, and then to argue against their strawman interpretation as if that were the way it was described by the designers. This type of argument is misleading at best, downright deceptive and malicious at worst.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> This is an excellent point. The same could be said for traps, since the PCs could (theoretically at least) make traps, but they are in the DMG as well (and AFAIK will still be there in 4e). I wonder if the trap pricing scheme will be any better in 4e. It always struck me as totally bizarre that even a simple pit trap cost like a 1000gp or something. The cost of even the simplest traps in 3e totally put my group off making their own traps ever.




This is just one of any number of examples of D&D's problimatic history of basing prices on gamist necessity rather than simulation creation.  

Knowing some of the players I've played with in the past, they'd use such rules to go into the 'pit construction business' - selling pit traps at 1000 gp each to desirous buyers, and profiting the difference.  I think its safe to say that the price of materials and labor elsewhere implies that pit traps can be contructed more cheaply than that, so I can just imagine this pit trap construction business generating lots of income, undercutting the competition, and providing petty BBEG's with a sense of security.  Meanwhile, the PC's would be dumping the profits into broken magical items implied by the rules to exist in every small town, and would soon leverage that into some horridly broken money making scheme.

Believe me, I've plenty of cause to hate D&D's economic rules.  For instance, you should have seen the 'Endless Decanters of Water to the Desert' trading company they put together.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In earlier editions, this was entirely the province of whichever DM you were under.  I haven't found anything in the text of the 1st DMG that implies that any magic items are for sell for mere mundane gold.  Quite the contrary, I find text that indicates that randomly generated magical items and those created by the PC's themselves are to be the only treasure available as a necessity of game balance.  For example it is claimed that M-U's would be too powerful if they could readily equip themselves as they wished.
> 
> I'm not suggesting we need to exactly emulate earlier editions, but I am suggesting we shouldn't rule out play styles that emmulate the feel of earlier editions - whatever feel you happen to believe that to be.




I too have resented the implication in 3e that any and all magic items were for sale in any community of the appropriate size. But the setting always determines what is available. I don't allow the mega-magic-mart in 3e homebrew games, and I won't in 4e. What could possibly rule out that style of play in 4e. No one is suggesting that the WotC ninjas will break into your house and disrupt your game if you don't allow every player to buy whatever items they want.

I would like to reiterate that I agree with you 90% about how magic items should be treated in a fun setting. It's probably 100% if you aren't one of the posters arguing that I (as GM) should have to keep track of all the pesky mechanics of all the magic items. I just don;t understand the argument that putting magic items in the PHB will rule out your playstyle (and mine). To me, the argument is nonsensical.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Believe me, I've plenty of cause to hate D&D's economic rules.  For instance, you should have seen the 'Endless Decanters of Water to the Desert' trading company they put together.




My players are more interested in adventuring than in forming trading companies. I would suggest finding a more compatible gaming group. Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 20, 2008)

Hella_Tellah said:
			
		

> Sure, but not all of us adhere to that style of play.  I'm a much less interventionist DM than I think you're used to,



I'm used to the DM defining what I see as setting-specific things.  What creatures exist, what spells exist, what magic items, and so on.  Not "interventionist" in terms of plot or mechanics so much, but in defining the setting, yes.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting we need to exactly emulate earlier editions, but I am suggesting we shouldn't rule out play styles that emmulate the feel of earlier editions - whatever feel you happen to believe that to be.




While that sounds good in theory, it's when the "rubber meets the road" of determining what goes in which books that you run into conflicts.

No game can, by definition, accomodate *both* the Gygaxian ideal of "keeping the dispensation of magic items solely in the hands of the DM" and the Third-Edition mindset of "Give the players control over what items their characters get."

A choice has to be made. If the vast majority hold to the playstyle of "Players get to decide what magic items their characterts have," then the game should be laid out in such a way as to cater to that majority.

In First Edition, most of the resolution rules (like the mechanics for Saving Throws) were not even in the PHB. Second Edition put more and more of those rules in the PHB, and fewer in the DMG. When Third Edition first came out, it had a mini-DMG section and a mini-MM in the back. When combined with the "nearly complete" combat and adventuring rules, _you could actually play with just the PHB_.

As others have pointed out, spells have always been in the PHB, because the _players_ need to know how their spells work. In Third Edition, characters can _make_ magic items. Since those are things _players_ control, why shouldn't they be in the PHB as well?

I think the reason the statistics for summoned monsters and alternate forms will be in the PHB is so that the player can have ready access to the statistics so that he can still run his own character. That's all.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. All they're saying is: "Sorry, if you're one of those DMs who want to control what magic items your PCs get, you're in the minority. Of course, as always, you're the DM, and it's your right to change the rules."

As much as these DMs say "my players never complain," I think a lot of them actually DO have players who feel differently and they're terrified that they won't be able to maintain their authority without the layout of the game rules to back them up.

What's so hard about saying: "I don't care WHAT the PHB says - in my campaign, you can't buy magic items and _that's final._"

Do you just have trouble saying "No" to your players?


----------



## Lizard (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> My players are more interested in adventuring than in forming trading companies. I would suggest finding a more compatible gaming group. Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way.




I can't see players NOT doing so. Or, at the very least, not asking why no one else has done so.

"So...there's high level clerics in the Holy City?"
"Yeah...it's the Holy City. Duh."
"And you said it's also a center of magical learning?"
"Yes. Where are you going with this?"
"Well, why do they need a thousand camels a day bringing in water?"
"I told you! A century ago, there was a Big Magic Catastrophe and the fields dried up, so..."
"No, I mean, shouldn't all those high-level magic types be capable of making a couple of hundred Decanters Of Endless Water to keep the city flourishing without all the damn camels?"
"Uhm...but this adventure is about you guarding the water caravans!"
"Oh. OK. Forget I said anything." (Begins making plans with other players to open up water-creation business)

I mean, I'm in a campaign where the bars pay a small retainer to the local Ogre Magi to stop by once a day to Cone Of Cold the basement and keep the beer chilled....


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I too have resented the implication in 3e that any and all magic items were for sale in any community of the appropriate size. But the setting always determines what is available. I don't allow the mega-magic-mart in 3e homebrew games, and I won't in 4e. What could possibly rule out that style of play in 4e. No one is suggesting that the WotC ninjas will break into your house and disrupt your game if you don't allow every player to buy whatever items they want...I just don;t understand the argument that putting magic items in the PHB will rule out your playstyle (and mine). To me, the argument is nonsensical.




I can definately see how you'd think that.  In a nut shell, the missing peice of the puzzle you aren't seeing is 'player expectations'.  If you've been fortunate enough to have a single stable base of players for a long time, its probably not an issue for you.  I on the other hand have moved around alot so I pretty much have to find new players any time I want to start a campaign, because generally what ends a campaign is me moving away.  So, I've not had the luxury of always DMing in 'high trust environments' with long established friends and shared expectations.  If you have, then alot of what I say probably sounds like nonsense to you.

One thing I've noticed the longer that 3E is out is that the younger players increasingly feel entitled to certain things.  In particular, they feel entitled to plan out there PC's future career down to the smallest details.  The believe that they have a right to take a certain PrC when they hit X level, to have a certain amount of money by Y level, and to buy item Z with that money when they can afford it.  It's kinda like a battle plan for them, and resembles to me more the sort of strategy guide you might read for a game like Civilization 4 or Diablo II than anything I associate with a PnP RPG.  If you try to tell them that this isn't going to be that sort of game, there initial response is to suggest that you are impinging on thier right to play the sort of character that they want to play.  That is to say, they believe they have a right to assign magic items to thier character using resources they have to right acquire as a result of play and hindering that is not only unfair but some how immoral and unethical for the DM.  They believe that you are breaking what they consider to be the rules.  Needless to say, this can create table conflict if your goal is among other things to not have everyone decked out like a Christmas tree and to have the sort of balance sorely lacking in the game as the splatbooks continued to roll out in later 3.X.  (Nevermind that I have to wonder about a players that not only write up thier character's past, but his future too.)  If it was just one player, I'd just chalk it up to hard core gamist rules lawyers like we've always had, but its been more than one player and its an attitude I've regularly encountered here at EnWorld.

See, a game can and does create certain expectations of how to play and that is part of the games culture.  A game can contain in its text a description of the 'proper' way to play it.  And it seems to me with all of its talk from 4E about how certain things 'aren't fun' and thus have to go, talk which has invariably supported positions I associate with the 'new gamer', that the new edition is more or less explicitly going to say that the way I've played for 25 odd years is somehow 'not fun' and or 'badwrongfun'.  Explicitly putting magic items in the players price list would be an example of trending in that direction.  It's not that a high trust group of players couldn't agree to ignore this and play differently, its that the default assumption of the game is going to change radically.  It is going to effect the expectations of the player base.  I think it is going to result in 'I control summoned creatures as an extension of my will'/'I don't have to keep track of ammo because it isn't fun'/'Magic items can be bought at abstract supermarkets whenever we get to a town' being the default and expected way of playing.


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 20, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> While that sounds good in theory, it's when the "rubber meets the road" of determining what goes in which books that you run into conflicts.
> 
> No game can, by definition, accomodate *both* the Gygaxian ideal of "keeping the dispensation of magic items solely in the hands of the DM" and the Third-Edition mindset of "Give the players control over what items their characters get."
> 
> ...




Since English is not my native tongue I can't put on and defend my opinion adequatly enough (IMO). I would like to be quick, and reply, and understand all the hidden assumption in a comment. Because of that I try not to intervene in debate. (What does he say? I won't waste time talking to him)

But you have voiced many things that was in the back of my head while I was reading some reply.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> A choice has to be made. If the vast majority hold to the playstyle of "Players get to decide what magic items their characterts have," then the game should be laid out in such a way as to cater to that majority.




Excepting, of course, that we don't know what the vast majority hold to.  Nor, really, could WotC possibly know, because at the time of their much-vaunted survey the game didn't support that playstyle very well.  All they could have asked was, essentially, "Would you like to pick/make your own magic items?" and the majority may well have said "Yes"....but that doesn't make it an informed decision.  Nor does it mean that this aspect of 3e has been particularly successful, apart from its constant reinforcement by WotC to sell more books.

Supposedly, in 4e, magic items aren't going to be so very important.  In this case, it would seem, it is _less_ important in 4e that players have access than in 3e.  However, it is a lot easier to sell new PHBs when a new PHB can be mostly a collection of new magic items.  The market of players is always larger than the market of DMs.

This makes it obvious, of course, that without access to the actual results of the WotC polls we can't know what the majority prefer.  What we can reasonably guess, though, is what WotC thinks will sell best.  For example, the WotC data showed that gamers who buy minis tend to spend far more than gamers who do not.  It shouldn't be much of a surprise that 3e, 3.5, and 4e are each progressively more mini-centric.  Heck, WotC even intends to sell _randomized virtiual minis_ on the DI!

So there is just as good a chance that the vast majority hold to the playstyle of "DMs get to decide what magic items are found in the game world," and that the game should be laid out in such a way as to cater to that majority.



> What's so hard about saying: "I don't care WHAT the PHB says - in my campaign, you can't buy magic items and _that's final._"
> 
> Do you just have trouble saying "No" to your players?




What's so hard about having DMs who want players to be able to buy magic items making it an additive bonus to their games?  Do you just have trouble saying "Yes" to your players?

 

RC


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I can't see players NOT doing so. Or, at the very least, not asking why no one else has done so.
> 
> "So...there's high level clerics in the Holy City?"
> "Yeah...it's the Holy City. Duh."
> ...




My first thought to this is "Wow...Gamers really are losers."

If your first (or second, or third) thought in a D&D game is finding out how to "beat the system," by discovering the D&D equivalent of a video game's cheat codes, you probably need a new hobby. Because you literally _cannot_ BEAT the DM. Because whatever you try, he can undo with a word. Picture this follow-up to your little scene.

PC (smug): "Here's our plan to provide water to the Holy City. We should get quite rich in the process."
DM (shrugs): "Hmm...interesting. Well, there's no access to extraplanar water within the desert, so your decanters don't work. Sorry."
PC (flustered): "But we spent all that money making them!"
DM: "You didn't think all those high-level priests were that _stupid_, did you? Obviously, if they're bringing water in via camel, there must be a reason."
PC: "You...you just made that up to foil our plan."
DM: "Yeah. I did. You can't _beat_ this game. May I suggest you try to enjoy just _playing it_."

Ta-Da! Problem solved. Now, to be fair, I probably would have handled one of those above questions differently.

PC: "No, I mean, shouldn't all those high-level magic types be capable of making a couple of hundred Decanters Of Endless Water to keep the city flourishing without all the damn camels?"
DM: "Good question. There must be a good reason, if you're interested in finding out. But this adventure is about you guarding the water caravans!" (Makes note to determine "Why" nobody's done that before).
PC: "Oh. OK. Forget I said anything." (Begins making plans with other players to open up water-creation business)

At this point, if the PC continues with his plans, he knows that he runs the risk of the DM coming back at him with a reason for why it doesn't work. Stop trying to beat the DM and find loopholes in his plot. Because unless he's a total tool, you'll always lose.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> My players are more interested in adventuring than in forming trading companies. I would suggest finding a more compatible gaming group.




More compatible playing group?!?!?!?  Perhaps you don't understand.  Those were the best players I've ever had/played with.  They were smart.  They were inventive.  They could roleplay with the best, and tactically they were far and away the most proficient dungeon crawlers I'd ever had the priviledge to play with.  (They tore up DragonCon.)  I can deal with smart, inventive players.  That's not a problem.  Heck, that's a good thing!!!

The incompatible players tend to be the ones that aren't smart and creative, who don't roleplay thier character, who don't interact with the world, who are passive, and who you have to put a ring through thier nose and drag them along before you have any adventures.  Those are the players I've had trouble with.  I've had campaigns end because I had players that were so boring I couldn't stand to put in the effort to entertain them.

I don't really want a bunch of players who are sitting around waiting for a ride on the railroad, who never entertain by staying in character, and whose ideal of characterization is 'My guy dual wields scimitars'.



> Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way.




Like I said, if your experience with players is limited to some long time buddies of yours, alot of what I'm talking about probably go right by you.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 20, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> My first thought to this is "Wow...Gamers really are losers."
> 
> If your first (or second, or third) thought in a game is finding out how to "beat the system," by discovering the D&D equivalent of a video game's cheat codes, you need a new hobby. Because you literally _cannot_ BEAT the DM. Because whatever you try, he can undo with a word. Picture this follow-up to your little scene.
> .




See, I don't see it as trying to "win" or "beat the system". I see it as trying to imagine that the world is real, and acting accordingly. It's the precise OPPOSITE of a video game, where the 'world' extends only as far as the edge of the screen and your actions are limited to what the programmer imagined.

If my players show cleverness, ingenuity, and creativity, I'm not going to punish them for leaping off the Plot Train and running into the green hills beyond. I'll just make sure there's something cool waiting for them to find in the hills.


----------



## Caliban (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Like I said, if your experience with players is limited to some long time buddies of yours, alot of what I'm talking about probably go right by you.




I happen to know Ken personally.  His experience is not that limited.  So you can drop the "you don't have the experience to comprehend my words of wisdom" routine.  

He has played with a lot of different people over the years, he's just talking about his preferred playstyle with his preferred group of players. 

Just like you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> See, I don't see it as trying to "win" or "beat the system". I see it as trying to imagine that the world is real, and acting accordingly. It's the precise OPPOSITE of a video game, where the 'world' extends only as far as the edge of the screen and your actions are limited to what the programmer imagined.
> 
> If my players show cleverness, ingenuity, and creativity, I'm not going to punish them for leaping off the Plot Train and running into the green hills beyond. I'll just make sure there's something cool waiting for them to find in the hills.




Absolutely, 100%, totally agree.

RC


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Feb 20, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I'm used to the DM defining what I see as setting-specific things.  What creatures exist, what spells exist, what magic items, and so on.  Not "interventionist" in terms of plot or mechanics so much, but in defining the setting, yes.




Yeah, that's cool, and I've tried both ways of DMing.  I find I like giving the players agency in defining the setting as well, although I paint most of it with broad strokes.  They have an idea of where things are, what sorts of races are native to those lands, and get the general "feel" of the place, but they're free to declare that there's a village outside Tsushima City where an old witch sells magical potions (provided their Knowledge: Local check was high enough).


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So, I've not had the luxury of always DMing in 'high trust environments' with long established friends and shared expectations.  If you have, then alot of what I say probably sounds like nonsense to you.



I would never use the word "nonsense", but I believe I understand why your experiences seem so different than mine. 

My core group has been playing for fifteen years---in some cases going on 20---and our tastes and expectations have evolved* together comfortably. 

In all honesty, I had not taken that into account.

edit: Exposure to dozens of RPG systems and a willingness to explore diffferent play styles will do that to a group.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> PC: "You...you just made that up to foil our plan."
> DM: "Yeah. I did. You can't _beat_ this game. May I suggest you try to enjoy just _playing it_."
> 
> Because unless he's a total tool...




Clearly we have different definitions of the word 'tool'.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If my players show cleverness, ingenuity, and creativity, I'm not going to punish them for leaping off the Plot Train and running into the green hills beyond. I'll just make sure there's something cool waiting for them to find in the hills.




I'm not going to punish them either. But the game is _Dungeons & Dragons_, not _Merchants and Moneymaking._

As I said, there's going to be an "in-game" reason why nobody's done that before. But I'm not going to try to make it up on the spot. I'll just say "Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason if you really want to dig into it, but for now you have other concerns."

If the players want to revisit it later, I'll come up with an adventure worthy of heroes to make their scheme work, like the aforementioned "within the desert, there's no access to the elemental plane of water" or "the magical devastation destroyed the crops and water not just in this reality, but in the adjoining planes as well."

Then if the PCs want to journey to the elemental chaos to repair the damage, that's an adventure worthy of heroes.

Whereas whipping up 50 decanters of endless water to become water merchants...isn't.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

Caliban: I don't know why you think Ken needs you to defend him.  My impression of Ken's experience is based on his statements.  Specifically, he said:

"Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way."

And that's fine.  Good for him.  But that is an admission that his experience is more limited in some ways than mine, because he's saying, "I've never had to deal with these sorts of situations."


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Heck, WotC even intends to sell _randomized virtiual minis_ on the DI!




I thought this particular rumor had been debunked by someone from WotC?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> As I said, there's going to be an "in-game" reason why nobody's done that before. But I'm not going to try to make it up on the spot. I'll just say "Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason if you really want to dig into it, but for now you have other concerns."




I try really hard not to tell my players what thier concerns ought to be.


----------



## Voss (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> If that's what you want to do with the system more power to you. The impression I have of 4e, as presented, is that the combat mechanics will be easier, allowing for smoother game play, and will therefore encourage more role-play. The stated goal is to make combat take longer in rounds (i.e. game time), but less time in real time. No where has there been anything that can properly be construed as the new ediiton being 90% combat.




Its not what I want to do.  But there is a reason to construe it as being 90+% combat:  the total and complete lack of previews on *anything* that isn't associated with combat.  There is, in theory, a social system floating around somewhere, but at this point, I'm not convinced it isn't vaporware.
Heck, even traps are part of combat encounters now.



> Many posters choose to take game mechanics they have decided that they will not like, contrue them in the cheesiest manner (the most antithetical to role-playing) possible, and then to argue against their strawman interpretation as if that were the way it was described by the designers. This type of argument is misleading at best, downright deceptive and malicious at worst.




I'm not going to speculate on the motives of other posters.  For myself, I'm legitimately concerned about the possibility that 4e is going to be crap, or at least D&D Lite.  Or, at best, Advanced DDM.  At which point, its back to the BXCMI.


----------



## Caliban (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Caliban: I don't know why you think Ken needs you to defend him.  My impression of Ken's experience is based on his statements.  Specifically, he said:
> 
> "Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way."
> 
> And that's fine.  Good for him.  But that is an admission that his experience is more limited in some ways than mine, because he's saying, "I've never had to deal with these sorts of situations."




*shrug*  I don't think Ken needs me to do anything.  

But don't expect to get much traction with your "you don't have the experience to understand what I'm talking about" line.   It's not true, and it really makes you sound a bit arrogant and condescending.   

And yes, I know some people have that opinion of me, so I probably know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> > As I said, there's going to be an "in-game" reason why nobody's done that before. But I'm not going to try to make it up on the spot. I'll just say "Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason if you really want to dig into it, but for now you have other concerns."
> 
> 
> 
> I try really hard not to tell my players what thier concerns ought to be.




The point of his statement, as I understand it, is not "you have other concerns," but "there's going to be an 'in-game' reason."  I think John and I DM in somewhat similar ways, and were I DMing the hypothetical Decanters in the Desert game, I'd probably do the same.  Tell the players that there is a reason if they want to look for it, and if they decide to do so, there will be a fun adventure and a rational explanation.  As a DM, I can keep my players from breaking the game down or moving into territory I find boring without breaking the verisimilitude of the setting.  I can continue to say "yes" to the possibility of creating Endless Decanters, even while I'm saying "no" to the creation of Endless Decanters right this second.  I find that kind of storytelling agility a necessary, challenging, and rewarding aspect of GMing D&D.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Feb 20, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I thought this particular rumor had been debunked by someone from WotC?




Yes, Didier Monin (D&DI Guy) said that's not going to happen.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> See, I don't see it as trying to "win" or "beat the system". I see it as trying to imagine that the world is real, and acting accordingly. It's the precise OPPOSITE of a video game, where the 'world' extends only as far as the edge of the screen and your actions are limited to what the programmer imagined.
> 
> If my players show cleverness, ingenuity, and creativity, I'm not going to punish them for leaping off the Plot Train and running into the green hills beyond. I'll just make sure there's something cool waiting for them to find in the hills.




I agree with this sentiment. If the players want to bring water to the desert through the creation of decanters, I would let them. Though I would come up with some cool reason for why it had never been done before. Perhaps the Sultan had offended a Marid lord centuries ago and there was an ancient curse blocking access to the elemental plane of water or something. I would turn their desire for profit into a big quest that was both memorable and fun.

And if the players become rich potentates, well so what. That's what high level D&D is all about.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I can definately see how you'd think that.  In a nut shell, the missing peice of the puzzle you aren't seeing is 'player expectations'.  If you've been fortunate enough to have a single stable base of players for a long time, its probably not an issue for you.
> 
> I on the other hand have moved around alot so I pretty much have to find new players any time I want to start a campaign, because generally what ends a campaign is me moving away.  So, I've not had the luxury of always DMing in 'high trust environments' with long established friends and shared expectations.  If you have, then alot of what I say probably sounds like nonsense to you.



I am lucky enough to have a stable group, but I know there are some players in there that would probably abuse any loophole he finds, provided it's not too difficult to find and not too stupid, either.  But I still don't care much about what classes and abilities the players use. I tell them which supplements are okay, and if I use any house rules (like saying which classes are in or which races work differently), and otherwise I only react when something prove game-disrupting. 
What is really helping me here is the fact that the 3.x rule system is pretty strong in the balance department. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better then most games. The trust I can't put in my players I can put on the rules. And the remainder is only the trust in my own ability to handle things gone awry (which is probably the least of all  )

And that's the same what I hope for 4E. I don't have to worry about magical items in the PHB, because the rules are well-designed and will avoid gamebreaking elements for the most part.



> One thing I've noticed the longer that 3E is out is that the younger players increasingly feel entitled to certain things.



I think the reason for this is because a lot of fun of playing 3E also comes from using and combining the mechanical elements. It isn't always about the best character build, it's about interesting build. You can design an entire character around a single weapon, or a type of spells, or define him about some oddball race. That is one of the strength of the 3E systems (from a "game" perspective), in my opinion, but it can still lead to trouble - if certain "builds" don't make sense in your campaign world, you have to tell "no" to a player. 
And that's essentially saying a player he can't play the character he wants to play. Transposing this to non-mechanical game elements, it's saying a player "No, you can't play a mercenary with a shady past in my campaign". 
You would probably rarely say that, but you might feel inclined to say "No Samurai/Ronin characters in my campaign!". But for the (3E) player, it feels the same. He has a character concept (maybe involving the characters story or personality, maybe involving its reflection in game statistics), and the DM says "no" to it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> As I said, there's going to be an "in-game" reason why nobody's done that before. But I'm not going to try to make it up on the spot. I'll just say "Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason if you really want to dig into it, but for now you have other concerns."




So, I guess that if the PCs are quick enough, your scenario of  

PC: "You...you just made that up to foil our plan."
DM: "Yeah. I did. You can't _beat_ this game. May I suggest you try to enjoy just _playing_ it."​
won't take place?  So your players know to make sure that they make those decanters elsewhere, without telling you what they are for, and then _teleport_ to the desert city later, because you aren't going to make up something to foil them on the spot?

Sorry, but while I have no difficulty with the idea of the DM not having his/her world fully defined beforehand, this sounds like you are taking an adversarial role that punishes the players for thinking outside the box (or off the railroad).

RC


----------



## Voss (Feb 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What is really helping me here is the fact that the 3.x rule system is pretty strong in the balance department. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better then most games. The trust I can't put in my players I can put on the rules. And the remainder is only the trust in my own ability to handle things gone awry (which is probably the least of all  )




I have never seen anyone assert this idea before.  The 3e rule set seems to explode if you look at it funny, and it gets worse with every book. Several classes fall off of either end of the balance spectrum just with the PH.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 20, 2008)

Hella_Tellah said:
			
		

> The point of his statement, as I understand it, is not "you have other concerns," but "there's going to be an 'in-game' reason."  I think John and I DM in somewhat similar ways, and were I DMing the hypothetical Decanters in the Desert game, I'd probably do the same.  Tell the players that there is a reason if they want to look for it, and if they decide to do so, there will be a fun adventure and a rational explanation.  As a DM, I can keep my players from breaking the game down or moving into territory I find boring without breaking the verisimilitude of the setting.  I can continue to say "yes" to the possibility of creating Endless Decanters, even while I'm saying "no" to the creation of Endless Decanters right this second.  I find that kind of storytelling agility a necessary, challenging, and rewarding aspect of GMing D&D.




Exactly. Thank you for putting it better than I could.

I suppose the players have the right to ignore the quest that I've placed in front of them. But this whole "players should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want" reminds me of a _Knights of the Dinner Table_ strip. Which is exactly the vibe I get from the hypothetical "Decanters in the Desert" scenario. The PCs are trying to "show off" and "outplay" the DM.

As a player, I don't feel the need to show off my superiority in a D&D game by poking holes in the DM's plot. Frankly, I find that sort of behavior kind of pathetic. Being inquisitive about that sort of thing is fine (because it speaks to the verisimilitude of the setting), but assuming you can "outmaneuver the DM" is just sad.

As a DM, I won't be pressured into making up a reason on the spot. If I honestly didn't think of it beforehand, I'm not going to say "ooo...good one guys...you caught me" and let my players go off and create a new adventure. I'm instead going to say "Hmmm...good question, and one your characters unfortunately don't know the answer too. I suppose you could try to find out, but that might mean missing out on this lucrative job guarding the caravans."

At that point, it's the players' call. Most players (at least the ones I've gamed with) will take the hint and not go "free-wheeling" to force the DM to make it up as he goes. In between sessions, I'll come up with a _good_ answer to their question about _why nobody's already doing that_, and (possibly) a good adventure (if there is one) for finding out what that answer is. And there's definitely another good adventure to be had for undoing the situation, if they so desire.

But allowing the PCs to engage in mass-production of Decanters to "solve" the problem just because I, as DM, didn't think of it beforehand? To me, that's rather lame. With players like that, I'd quickly stop DMing rather than subject myself to that sort of gaming experience.

The point is that gaming is supposed to be "fun" for everyone involved. Ask yourself this: is that kind of nitpicking "fun" for the DM? And is it "fun" for everyone else who just wanted to guard a caravan and kill some sand monsters?

Sure, the showoff player is having "fun." But is it at everyone else's expense?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I thought this particular rumor had been debunked by someone from WotC?




It's come up more than once, and I don't believe that there's been a clear "This isn't going to happen" (although point me to it if you know of it).  Everything I've read has been rather hedging, trying to _imply_ that there would be no random virtual minis while not saying no.  Rather like what WotC did about 4e itself, when they strongly implied that 4e was a long way off while planning the announcement.

At the very least, it is clear that they still intend on selling virtual minis; all that is unclear is whether or not they will be random.  Having them be random was certainly something that WotC admitted to considering.  And WotC also said that 4e would be published under the OGL, and that there would be no tiered licensing, although the "$5000 to get in early" is clearly a tiered license, and 4e will not be OGL.

And, while I managed to get a WotC rep to say that she didn't think there was going to be a problem with 4e materials appearing on EN World's forums immediately, she didn't say that there wouldn't be a problem in the long run, or even that there wouldn't be a problem in the short run.  Lots of implying things, very few solid statements to back up what is being implied.  Several of those solid statements (such as 4e being OGL and no tiered licensing) patently wrong.

Myself, I'd not be too sure that random virtual minis aren't in the WotC's business plan.  They might wait to announce them until after the DI has a solid footing, however.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> Yes, Didier Monin (D&DI Guy) said that's not going to happen.





Link?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> And if the players become rich potentates, well so what. That's what high level D&D is all about.





Excellent DMing attitude there!

Rather than worrying about the players trying to "show off" and beat the DM, it is important to remember that the players are trying to _beat the obstacles the world puts in their path_.  After all, that is generally what defines success in both our real world and in the game.

RC


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Clearly we have different definitions of the word 'tool'.




Oh. Ow. The pain. I do believe I have been surreptitiously insulted.  

So if I don't want to DM for the _Knights of the Dinner Table_, I'm a tool?

If that's your definition, then yeah. Guilty as charged.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 20, 2008)

D&D requires a certain suspension of disbelief.  I've yet to see a campaign that had a completely internally consistent setting.  This is especially true in settings that seek to mimic the real world- the real world didn't have magic, so you get consistency issues when you mix magic and historical locales.  And players are really good in coming up with ways to exploit magic rules to break your gameworld.  I don't see a solution for this, frankly, other than 1) players voluntarily not playing the game that way, or 2) retconning really fast to stop players from exploiting things you didn't think up.

I love the comic Knights of the Dinner Table, but if your standard for RPG design is that it must be able to thwart that style player, you're going to hate anything WOTC comes up with.  Once you include a certain degree of complex, mundane detail, and then add magical rules that break the rules of mundanity, you're going to end up with exploits.  You can either embrace exploit play as a riot (some people love it), or you can voluntarily forgo it, or you can end up in an ever escalating battle between the players and the DM.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So if I don't want to DM for the _Knights of the Dinner Table_, I'm a tool?




From the sounds of things, you are too worried that, when the players respond to perceived opportunities in the game world, that they are actually trying to "show off" and "outplay" you.

Well, obviously, the players are trying to show off.  They are trying to be the cool, clever, tough characters in the game world.  They are trying to be movers and shakers.  And there is (or should be) nothing wrong with that.

It is rather your concern that they are trying to "beat" or "outplay" you (as DM) that is questionable.  That players can't win against a DM determined to make them lose is a given; that the players see an opportunity and try to make use of it, assuming that you are not out to make them lose, should be a given too.  There might be a good in-game reason that their idea won't work, but that in-game reason should never exist _simply to foil the PCs_.


RC


----------



## Voss (Feb 20, 2008)

So, to change the subject back to the subject.  I'm frankly fine with summons being in the spell description, assuming thats where the stats are, since I'm fine with the players running their summons (or familiars). DMs don't tend to force other spells or class  features to blow up in the face of the players, so I'm comfortable with this.

But the magic items.  This bugs me.  Not for any game reason, but economic ones. All the books are $39.95 and the DMG is almost 100 pages shorter than the PH.  The DMG costs the same for less content.  Put the items back in that and bring the value of the book back up to its actual cost.  And hey, maybe there would have been enough space to include another class or two in PH.  That would have been nice, though its probably too late now.

But it doesn't give me much hope for their pricing system.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 20, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Oh. Ow. The pain. I do believe I have been surreptitiously insulted.
> 
> So if I don't want to DM for the _Knights of the Dinner Table_, I'm a tool?
> 
> If that's your definition, then yeah. Guilty as charged.



Bah!  How dare you type a Knights of the Dinner Table reference at the same time as I was typing mine, and then post it first!  Now I look like I copied!  Teleplagiarist!


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> More compatible playing group?!?!?!?  Perhaps you don't understand.  Those were the best players I've ever had/played with.  They were smart.  They were inventive.  They could roleplay with the best, and tactically they were far and away the most proficient dungeon crawlers I'd ever had the priviledge to play with.  (They tore up DragonCon.)  I can deal with smart, inventive players.  That's not a problem.  Heck, that's a good thing!!!
> 
> The incompatible players tend to be the ones that aren't smart and creative, who don't roleplay thier character, who don't interact with the world, who are passive, and who you have to put a ring through thier nose and drag them along before you have any adventures.  Those are the players I've had trouble with.  I've had campaigns end because I had players that were so boring I couldn't stand to put in the effort to entertain them.
> 
> I don't really want a bunch of players who are sitting around waiting for a ride on the railroad, who never entertain by staying in character, and whose ideal of characterization is 'My guy dual wields scimitars'.




My point was that it seems from many of your posts that you are worried about what your players may want to do given the rules of the game. If your players want to play one way, and you want to GM another way, it appears to be a compatibility problem.

My players and I have very compatible tastes. I know what kinds of games they are interested in, and they know what kinds of games I am interested in GMing. If they wanted to play a game where they played water traders, they know that other GMs can be found to run such a game. If they are interested in a campaign where there is high adventure, detailed world design, three dimensional NPCs, consistent and deep storylines that intertwine their character's personal storyline with that of the world as a whole, then they know I am happy to run it for them.

I would imagine that very few GMs want to spend the time and effort to design scenarios for characters with no depth, who don't want to exist as a part of the world.





> Like I said, if your experience with players is limited to some long time buddies of yours, alot of what I'm talking about probably go right by you.




When I was in the army, I ran games with a constantly changing player base. Even in that situation, I would rather run games for three or four really good gamers who were compatible with my style than with a full table of folks who were looking for something different than I was offering.

It would seem that many of our tastes our actually quite similar when it comes to gaming. The difference is that I have never believed that the players should have access to anything they want, whenever they want it - even if it is in the PHB. I fail to see how it can possibly affect my game if magic items are in the PHB. Unless I present a certain item as being available for purchase within the context of the game world, they cannot buy it.

As to the decanters of endless water issue, IMC the gp cost for creating items is a generic cost to cover the acquisition of the rare materials necessary for making the item. If the characters attempted to mass produce them, they would likely find that certain rare components were increasing in price (along with the demand), necessitating either an adventure to procure them - or an ever increasing amount of gold to purchase them. The point is that my players do know that this would be the likely result of any such scheme. That's why they would not try it. They understand that the economy of my game operates as much as possible within the known laws of economics. No GM fiat is necessary.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Link?



http://www.gamingsteve.com/archives/2007/12/gaming-steve-episode-64-12042007.php
or 
http://www.gamingsteve.com/archives/2007/12/gaming-steve-episode-65-12112007.php

They are planning on selling NON-RANDOMIZED virtual minis.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Put the items back in that and bring the value of the book back up to its actual cost.  And hey, maybe there would have been enough space to include another class or two in PH.




Having that space in the PHB makes it harder to justify the druid in the PHB II, the bard in the PHB III, and the monk in the PHB IV.  If they didn't do this, you might not buy those books.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> http://www.gamingsteve.com/archives/2007/12/gaming-steve-episode-64-12042007.php
> or
> http://www.gamingsteve.com/archives/2007/12/gaming-steve-episode-65-12112007.php
> 
> They are planning on selling NON-RANDOMIZED virtual minis.





There isn't a _transcript_ somewhere, is there?  Or do I have to download & listen to both "shows" to find out what is actually said?


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, I guess that if the PCs are quick enough, your scenario of
> 
> PC: "You...you just made that up to foil our plan."
> DM: "Yeah. I did. You can't _beat_ this game. May I suggest you try to enjoy just _playing_ it."​
> ...




And I have no trouble with the notion that you can't totally undo a part of the DM's campaign world just to prove you're more clever than he is. As I said above, that's kinda pathetic. If I, as DM, haven't set up Decanters of Endless Water to solve the city's water shortage, and there are people there capable of making them, then it _can't be done._ Why? I don't know, but that's not the solution. If "why" is important, I'll come up with a reason.

At the very least, I'd make the PCs spend some time figuring out why it hasn't been done before. There's no reason why they would know, so if they want to learn, they'll have to spend some time to figure it out. Yes, that serves the secondary purpose of _giving me time to think of a good reason._

And screaming "railroad" to justify why the DM should just say "yes" to every hairbrained scheme you come up with is, IMO, the _Knights of the Dinner Table_ defense. If you want a good game, you shouldn't go running too far off the rails. It's disrespectful to your supposed "friend" who's trying to make sure you have a good time.

I think it's perfectly alright for the DM to say "sorry guys, I didn't prep for that. If that's what you insist on doing, we won't be doing any gaming this week." Not every DM wants to have to make things up on the spot just so his players can prove how clever and how much smarter than him they are.

I have no tolerance for players who are constantly trying to "beat me" by coming up with a clever solution that I missed in my adventure prep. I'm certainly NOT going to say "Oops, caught me with my pants down - Okay, you guys make a killing setting up a water trading business," because it's f'ing boring.

I'm also not going to suddenly invent an adventure around the local merchants who use the camels to bring in water trying to prevent the PCs from putting their whacky scheme into effect. Actually, on second thought, I might do that. It's less railroad-y than the "cut off from the elemental plane of water" scenario, and, for heroic adventurers, it's probably more appropriate.

Not to mention it would probably let me make use of the NPCs or encounters from my original "caravan guards for water merchants" scenario.

Yes, the DM needs to be accomodating. But he doesn't have to go "okay, ya beat me."


----------



## Voss (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Having that space in the PHB makes it harder to justify the druid in the PHB II, the bard in the PHB III, and the monk in the PHB IV.  If they didn't do this, you might not buy those books.
> 
> 
> RC




The way its looking, I probably won't buy those books anyway.
Besides, they can only fit in so many classes in the PH II-X in the 8-10 years they have before 5th edition.  (which they posited as the likely time frame in the slashdot interview thing).


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Having that space in the PHB makes it harder to justify the druid in the PHB II, the bard in the PHB III, and the monk in the PHB IV.  If they didn't do this, you might not buy those books.




So, it couldn't have been for creative reasons that these were left out of PHB I?  It had to be for monetary reasons, with the implication of monetary reasons are bad?  Why couldn't they have chosen to mix things up a bit with the first base classes?  Why is it difficult to believe some classes such as the bard need more time to design to be a valued party member under the new, or at least more strict, role assumptions?

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And I have no trouble with the notion that you can't totally undo a part of the DM's campaign world just to prove you're more clever than he is. As I said above, that's kinda pathetic.




Again, from the sounds of things, you are too worried that, when the players respond to perceived opportunities in the game world, that they are actually trying to "show off" and "outplay" you.

Well, obviously, the players are trying to show off. They are trying to be the cool, clever, tough characters in the game world. They are trying to be movers and shakers. And there is (or should be) nothing wrong with that.

It is rather your concern that they are trying to "beat" or "outplay" you (as DM) that is questionable. That players can't win against a DM determined to make them lose is a given; that the players see an opportunity and try to make use of it, assuming that you are not out to make them lose, should be a given too. There might be a good in-game reason that their idea won't work, but that in-game reason should never exist _simply to foil the PCs_.


RC


----------



## BryonD (Feb 20, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> My first thought to this is "Wow...Gamers really are losers."



With all the clamoring for lowering of one bar after another, I've been thinking this a lot lately.


----------



## Voss (Feb 20, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I think it's perfectly alright for the DM to say "sorry guys, I didn't prep for that. If that's what you insist on doing, we won't be doing any gaming this week." Not every DM wants to have to make things up on the spot just so his players can prove how clever and how much smarter than him they are.




OK, thats entirely different from how you framed it originally.  Had you responded with that, I wouldn't have blinked much (though it still comes across a bit as a statement 'and so I'm going to punish you by not running a game this week').  But instead you responded with 'The DM decrees that your scheme fails', followed by some justification for same.  Thats why it came across as adversarial- it was just an decree from on high, not an honest discussion with the players.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 20, 2008)

Personally, I find keeping track of supplies, ammo, and to some extent money, to be unfun. It's one area where D&D should be getting less videogame-y than it has been historically as keeping track of minutiae is something computers do a lot better than humans.

A more abstract system, never running out, or trusting the DM to say I run out at a reasonable point would to me all be preferable to the current method.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> So, it couldn't have been for creative reasons that these were left out of PHB I?  It had to be for monetary reasons, with the implication of monetary reasons are bad?  Why couldn't they have chosen to mix things up a bit with the first base classes?  Why is it difficult to believe some classes such as the bard need more time to design to be a valued party member under the new, or at least more strict, role assumptions?




Sure, it could have been for creative reasons.  It could be that, although they've supposedly been designing this new edition for years, that they haven't had the time to redesign certain core classes.  It could be that this new edition is going to be so restrictive as to make it difficult to design new versions of old classes that work.  It could be because little voices in the designers' heads told them Galactus was going to come and eat the earth if they didn't design it that way, too.  Equal odds on all those things, IMHO.

Don't get me wrong; making a profit is a good thing.  Making a profit by playing me for a chump, though?  Not a good thing.  And pushing the basic core classes of most campaign worlds off into later books in order to force you to buy the stuff you don't want in order to get them is playing the player for a chump in my book.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 20, 2008)

On the decanter selling issue: D&D's not a financial simulator. If you try to use it for that purpose it breaks as has been demonstrated. The rules don't simulate a world very well. They are mostly to do with dungeon crawls.

The last campaign I ran, a player thought about (though ultimately didn't use) a character concept that was mostly about selling traps (which are hugely overpriced). I'd have had to tell him no. It just wouldn't work in my game which was mostly about adventure and not very much concerned with money.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It is rather your concern that they are trying to "beat" or "outplay" you (as DM) that is questionable. That players can't win against a DM determined to make them lose is a given; that the players see an opportunity and try to make use of it, assuming that you are not out to make them lose, should be a given too. There might be a good in-game reason that their idea won't work, but that in-game reason should never exist _simply to foil the PCs_.



If the players are trying to break the game, I see no reason why I shouldn't attempt to foil them.  Trying to make a million gp on a get-rich-quick scheme is trying to break the game.  They know they're not supposed to have that kind of wealth without actually earning it.  I can't imagine a group who would attempt such a thing, though, precisely because if they had the idea, they'd probably say to themselves either:

No, that would never work, because it would break the game if it did (see Wall of Iron).
or 
No, that would never work, because someone else would have thought of it by now.

Either of which is fine by me if it keeps my game from careening off in some direction that doesn't involve heroic adventure.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 20, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> My point was that it seems from many of your posts that you are worried about what your players may want to do given the rules of the game. If your players want to play one way, and you want to GM another way, it appears to be a compatibility problem.



Nah, Celebrim and his players are in accord. His problem is the rules set he was using isn't. He wanted a complete world simulator, which D&D has never been.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong; making a profit is a good thing.




I agree.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Making a profit by playing me for a chump, though?  Not a good thing.  And pushing the basic core classes of most campaign worlds off into later books in order to force you to buy the stuff you don't want in order to get them is playing the player for a chump in my book.




I disagree with your assumptions, but will resist the urge to continue this off topic debate.
---

I like that when I attend GenCon, I will need one book, not three to play a character regardless of the character's level, wealth, or powers.  At the next Gencon, I'll need the relevant PHB and maybe the relevant Power book.  Putting summons and magic items all in one place drastically reduces the strain on convention-goers.  I applaud.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> OK, thats entirely different from how you framed it originally.  Had you responded with that, I wouldn't have blinked much (though it still comes across a bit as a statement 'and so I'm going to punish you by not running a game this week').  But instead you responded with 'The DM decrees that your scheme fails', followed by some justification for same.  Thats why it came across as adversarial- it was just an decree from on high, not an honest discussion with the players.



Huh.  See, one of my best skills as a DM, I think, is my ability to make good fiat rulings on the fly while simultaneously putting off the need to decide or justify those rulings until the next session.  The trick is to make sure the players never know it happened.

Player: I can't figure out why this castle is still standing.  Its big, wide, has no roof, and its supposed to be holding back an army of dragon riders.  Why don't they just fly over the walls at high altitude, past the siege engines, and land in the middle?  That's what we should do.  We can take this thing down in a single battle.

Me: That castle has stood against the dragon rider clans for over four hundred years.  They must be doing _something_ right.  *I smile confidently.*  Why don't we work out the plans for deploying your forces today, so that I can work out battle details over the weekend?  It will save me a lot of ad lib bookkeeping during the game.

Player, sweating nervously: Uh... I vote we engage in reconnaissance.  Lots of reconnaissance.  And we send an envoy to the dragon rider clans and ask them about their past experience doing battle against the plainsmen.  The more I think about it, there must be something _really dangerous_ in that castle if its stood for so long against the dragon rider clans.

Me: Well, work out the details, and issue the relevant orders.  Maybe I'll email you guys the results of your reconnaissance over the weekend, so you can plan ahead a bit more.  This is going to be pretty climactic.

Player: Sounds good.

Me: *runs home and thinks up a reason the dragons don't fly over the stupid wall*


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> If the players are trying to break the game, I see no reason why I shouldn't attempt to foil them.  Trying to make a million gp on a get-rich-quick scheme is trying to break the game.  They know they're not supposed to have that kind of wealth without actually earning it.  I can't imagine a group who would attempt such a thing, though, precisely because if they had the idea, they'd probably say to themselves either:
> 
> No, that would never work, because it would break the game if it did (see Wall of Iron).
> or
> ...




You should never feel like you have to DM a game that you do not enjoy.  However, neither should you ever imagine that players trying to get a handle on the world are trying to beat you personally.  Nor is trying to maximize profit while minimizing risk bad play.

Yes, as a DM, it is your job to put roadblocks in the way.  Frustrating player desire is one of the important parts of DMing, because much of the joy of rpgs comes from overcoming that frustration.

Saying that the decanters don't work because of X, which means that the players have to do Y to "earn" their reward is fine.  Saying that Cabal Z, who control the water caravans and by so doing control the area try to stop the PCs (and again, force them to earn their reward) is fine.  Letting those PCs grow rich and then retire as famous and powerful NPCs is fine.

Saying "Yes, I did that just to foil you 'cause I'm the DM and your ideas are pathetic" is not fine.

IMHO, of course.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## TessarrianDM (Feb 20, 2008)

1. Having magic items in the Player's Handbook keeps players from having to reference other books if they are the only items the player character can possess. Otherwise, it is no different from the current system of having items scattered throughout multiple books which may or may not be owned by one or more members of the group. You still need access to the relevant information, wherever it may be located.

2. My players have never been allowed to summon or shapechange into something they had not already worked up the statistics for (although I have been less restrictive about summon spells since I began using DMGenie).

3. Keeping track of ammunition can be quite important at times. We are currently engaged in a running battle with a tribe of frost giants with ogre and winter wolf allies. It has lasted (so far) 32 rounds. The ranger has been firing 1-4 arrows per round and has already emptied his Quiver of Ehlonna; he has had to arrange for resupply from the only other member of the party who carries a longbow (via a message spell), move to where the other player dropped his quiver, and retrieve it, taking him out of the fight for a couple of rounds. This aspect of the game has created more excitement for the player, as he has to make tactical decisions based on his rapidly dwindling ammo supply. It is no different than the spellcasters having to decide when or what spells to cast, whether they should use charged or single-use magic items, etc.
    Admittedly, this is rarely an issue, for most of our combats do not last this long, and access to _wind walk _ and _teleport_ make resupply relatively simple.


----------



## Voss (Feb 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Huh.  See, one of my best skills as a DM, I think, is my ability to make good fiat rulings on the fly while simultaneously putting off the need to decide or justify those rulings until the next session.




I tend to be uncomfortable with fiat rulings.  It tends to point out the holes in logic or prepardness on the part of the setting designers or DM.  Not to mention it revs up memories of the Gygaxian  'DM is out to get you' playstyle, and you have to start looking for insta-death traps every ten feet.

And, I hate to say it, but your player in your example seems horribly gullible.  And to a certain extent, it comes across as punishing the players for coming up with a solution.  Why not reward it, with the understanding that you can make it challenging with the resources that exist within the castle?  For example, if they land in the middle of the castle, once the fracas starts, they can get attacked from all sides.


----------



## Voss (Feb 20, 2008)

TessarrianDM said:
			
		

> 1. Having magic items in the Player's Handbook keeps players from having to reference other books if they are the only items the player character can possess. Otherwise, it is no different from the current system of having items scattered throughout multiple books which may or may not be owned by one or more members of the group. You still need access to the relevant information, wherever it may be located.




Well, here's the thing, within 3-4 months of release(with martial power and the treasure book), let alone a year (with PH II and etc), this multiple book problem is going to be a problem again.  It doesn't actually solve anything.


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 20, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> ...Why couldn't they have chosen to mix things up a bit with the first base classes? Why is it difficult to believe some classes such as the bard need more time to design to be a valued party member under the new, or at least more strict, role assumptions?




For the missing space in the PHB, I have a theory.

Yes making money was part of it, they plan to unfold 3 power sources per PHB and that would have been a fourth one with two more classes. But the problem is that they want to release one Power sourcebook for each source, you would have to create a fourth splatbooks before the release of the second PHB. A fourth sourcebook would have delayed the scheme of 1 PHB per 12 months with 3 power source, to a 1 PHB every 15 month with 4 power source, and they didn't want this.

Of course this is all conjecture, but it is my 2 cp.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 20, 2008)

TessarrianDM said:
			
		

> 2. My players have never been allowed to summon or shapechange into something they had not already worked up the statistics for (although I have been less restrictive about summon spells since I began using DMGenie).



Okay, they have to have the stats.  Does anything else determine the availability of summons?  Do you have all the creatures on the lists in your world?  Or might you say "No, sorry, Xorns don't exist."  How about the monsters added in later MMs with the note that they can be summoned with spell Y?

What determines the availability of polymorph forms?  Can players browse the MM to pick the forms to use?  Do all of those creatures exist in your world?  How about MM2-5, Fiend Folio, and other books?

As I noted, I generally see "defining what exists in the world" to be the DM's job.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Okay, they have to have the stats.  Does anything else determine the availability of summons?  Do you have all the creatures on the lists in your world?  Or might you say "No, sorry, Xorns don't exist."  How about the monsters added in later MMs with the note that they can be summoned with spell Y?




IMC characters with summon spells start off with knowledge of a limited number of creatures they can summon. They have to research the summoning of other creatures, or find another spellbook with the summon monster spell and a different list of monsters allowed.



> What determines the availability of polymorph forms?  Can players browse the MM to pick the forms to use?  Do all of those creatures exist in your world?  How about MM2-5, Fiend Folio, and other books?
> 
> As I noted, I generally see "defining what exists in the world" to be the DM's job.




This has always been a difficult one in my mind. I used to say that characters could only assume forms of creatures they had seen, but the various knowledge skills make that harder. I have lately been using the concept that a magician must learn each form separately, although I allow them all to be assunmed with the same spell. Learning it can be through research or through interacting with a living creature. I like the idea of using the polymorph spell to duplicate the form of a newly encountered monster. Once the magician has done it the first time, the form is added to those known.

I agree that the GM should exercise creative control over what creatures are available for summon X spells, as well as what forms they may assume with the polymorph spell. None of this argues against the player having access to the appropriate rules in the PHB.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Feb 20, 2008)

"These decanters certainly are exquisite," observes the cabal official to the wizard, letting the water pool in his hand before overflowing into the basin, "obviously the work of one who is as fine of a magician as they are a sculptor." "I must warn you, though, that this town can be quite dangerous - one must always be wary of thieves." A thoughtful expression crosses his face. "Perhaps my organization would be willing to purchase these wonderful fruits of your labor - our guildhall is rather well guarded, and these would make magnificent decorations."

His eyes meet the warlord's. "After all, we wouldn't want any harm to befall you or your property..."

"I'm sure you will think over it." With that, he turns toward the door, gesturing to the companion he entered with. The companion, standing in the corner till now, steps beside the official, the heavy robes he wears despite the searing heat concealing all aspects of his person, save for a golden falchion resting at his hip. It is not until they've crossed the portal and into the bustling streets that you notice the damp trail left behind by the the robed one.


----------



## jaer (Feb 20, 2008)

The idea was stated earlier that putting the treasure list in the PHB takes the power out of the DMs hands and gives it to the PCs.  It was also suggested that WotC couldn't know what the majority of players wanted.  Most of the anti-PHB magic item statements seem to be coming from DMs who feel they are loosing control...but for every DM, there must be 3-6 players or so...wouldn't they desire the move?

As a DM, I like controlling what my players have, but as levels get higher, I become a little more lax.  They always need to clear item purchases with me, but I can't think of anything I haven't allowed.  I may have told them they couldn't get it where they were, but they would make a point of traveling somewhere if it was something they really wanted.

As a player, my DM plays a very fast-paced game.  Danger and evil is happening all around us, and he does a great job of keep suspence high and keeping us feeling the need to be on the move.  If the undead horde are scheduled to attack on March 4th (in game) and we do nothing about it before then, they attack.  If we spend all of Feb (in game) fighting them, we might defeat the horde before they attack.  We rarely have time to make magic items that take more than a day or two (we COULD make magic items, but we wouldn't have stopped the undead!  The plot moves too fast for us to take the time) and there are very few places to buy them other than the occasional wand or scroll or potion (often over DMG market price).

Now, we do get some awesome stuff from the DM, which he designs himself, but it also means that we are reliant upon the DM to give us things.  My current fighter is massively longsword specialized...since I cannot be responsible for getting a decent longsword (no way to make one or buy one), my DM must make sure he gives me one or else all my feats are wasted.  I am playing a fighter who used banded mail and a shield +1 through to 8th level (and just got a shield +2 at 11th) because I had no way of upgrading these items on my own.  I got Gauntletss of Str +1 at lvl 3...and I'm still wearing them!  I have 12k+ of gold because there hasn't been anything worth spending it on except to give the wizard some money to pen a scroll or two of stoneskin.  And the only reason I don't have more is we haven't sold any of the magic stuff we no longer use (we have a small armory of +1 and +2 weapons).

As a player, this can be a little frustrating.  I enjoy the game very much, but at times, I just want to spend some of my hard earned loot.  There are small things I want that the DM hasn't doled out (like + strength items) and as a player, I would like more options to buy them.

I believe the general feel presented in the core books should reflect the desires of both the DMs and the PCs.  The core game should not cater to DM wishes alone.  It is up to the DM to house-rule their own look-and-feel if what the core rules present is not the type of game they want to run.  Putting this info in the PHB seems very pro-PCs to me; I have no problem with that as a DM.


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, I guess that if the PCs are quick enough, your scenario of
> 
> PC: "You...you just made that up to foil our plan."
> DM: "Yeah. I did. You can't _beat_ this game. May I suggest you try to enjoy just _playing_ it."​
> ...




The second step in fostering a non-adversarial gaming environment is ensuring congruent expectations among all participants, grasshopper.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> OK, thats entirely different from how you framed it originally.  Had you responded with that, I wouldn't have blinked much (though it still comes across a bit as a statement 'and so I'm going to punish you by not running a game this week').  But instead you responded with 'The DM decrees that your scheme fails', followed by some justification for same.  Thats why it came across as adversarial- it was just an decree from on high, not an honest discussion with the players.




Well, it's not a punishment so much as a statement of fact. I can't always run an adventure "off the cuff," and more importantly, I don't _want to_. If I go to all the trouble of preparing an adventure, I expect that the players will let me run it (more or less) rather than try to poke holes in its internal logic so they can "beat it." The latter may be "fun" for them, but it isn't for me.

So, yes, it is a "punishment" in that sense. By saying "we don't want to go on the adventure you've spent all week preparing," the players are collectively telling me "your adventure doesn't look like it'll be any fun." And by doing this before it's even started, they haven't even given it a chance. I think that's horribly disrespectful of my hard work, but whatever. Still, I reserve the right to say: "Fine. But pulling this other adventure you have in mind out of my ass doesn't sound like fun to me tonight. And if I can't have fun, neither can you. If this is what you insist on doing, we won't be doing it tonight."

As for why I didn't phrase it this way sooner, one constant problem with hypothetical situations is that they're hypothetical. That means lots of important factors are left open to interpretation. When presented with this hypothetical situation, I _assumed_, rightly or wrongly, that this was a group that made a habit of this sort of thing. Because to me, people who do this sort of thing tend to do it _all the time_. I would not enjoy being the DM for such a group, because I don't enjoy constantly flushing my hardwork "down the drain" just because the players want to be "creative" or "clever." I have no problem with my players going "off the rails" _once in a while_, but if they make a habit of trying to avoid the adventure I've planned, I'm going to stop DMing for them. Because for me, constantly making stuff up isn't any fun. 

As presented, the players seem to have decided that the adventure will "suck" without even giving it a chance. They're essentially saying they have no faith in their DM. What kind of person would _want_ to DM for such a group? Not I.

Some DMs don't prepare anything in advance. They would love a "creative" group like this. Some give players the illusion of choice but actually railroad them into the adventure they have planned by "tweaking it" to fit the player's new agenda. However, let's be clear. That's still a railroad. If you wanted the players to kill goblins in the mountains, and they go kill kobolds in the hills, but you use the same lair maps and almost identical stats, what you've actually done is railroaded the players into your pre-prepared little goblin dungeon and filed the serial numbers off.

So, how many of you, when faced with that situation, actually make up a new dungeon and generate new challenges on the fly? Be honest.

On topic, I have no problem telling my players they can't use something, even if it's in the PHB. As others have said, it's a game, not a virtual reality simulator. Push too hard on the rules in any direction and they'll break. 

Obviously, not everyone thinks that's a problem. But I think that touches uncomfortably on "the degree to which the rules define reality" argument again.


----------



## Bohemian Ear-Spork (Feb 20, 2008)

Honestly, people....

If the players want to be water-merchants, run with it.

Let 'em discover that the reason that there's no Decanters is because the merchants backing the water caravans don't like the idea.  And they aren't shy about using bribery, violence, or whatever to keep their monopoly going.

There you go.  Plenty of room for conflict and strife.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Caliban: I don't know why you think Ken needs you to defend him.  My impression of Ken's experience is based on his statements.  Specifically, he said:
> 
> "Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way."
> 
> And that's fine.  Good for him.  But that is an admission that his experience is more limited in some ways than mine, because he's saying, "I've never had to deal with these sorts of situations."




"Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way."

is not equal to

"I've never had to deal with these sorts of situations."

You have an interesting way of jumping to conclusions. My statement means what it says. No one, once they've experienced the way my game works, would ever consider trying to game the system in such a way. If you are a an intelligent and perceptive player, you can easily pick up on a GM's style in only a few sessions of play.

It is true that my current group of players has been together for about five years, and that four of them have been with me even longer. Nonetheless, I have done my fair share of gaming with high turn around tables. 

My players appreciate the storylines of the campaign, and the ways in which each character's individual storyline is interwoven in the grand tapestry of the campaign. If I had a character who was interested in forging trade relations and making money, I would be sure to incorporate that element into the game. But they also know that I have very little tolerance for any scheme that entails finding a loophole in the mechanics of the game and exploiting it for an in-character benefit (such as a get rich quick scheme).

I may add that this particular situation would never arise in one of my homebrew worlds. I always acknowledge the existence of magic. The last desert city I ran already had great fountains, the equivalent of multiple decanters of endless water, shooting into the sky. They were a gift from a great mage-lord in ages past.

It is the idea that players must always be free to do whatever they want, while GMs may only react to their desires that I find so disturbing. Gaming is a social activity. In my mind, the players and the GM have an unspoken contract that they will participate together in the crafting of a story. Each has input, although the GM must adjudicate the outcome of all interactions between the characters, the world, the NPCs and the story.

I have played in games (I guess the term for them is _sandbox_), in which there was no story. The GM basically said, just do whatever you want. IMO these games are pointless. I didn't have fun and I left them. I don't think the people playing them are bad, or poor gamers. It's just not what I enjoy.

This is where the issue of compatibility comes in. I don't like to play in games that are incompatible with my style. I also do not enjoy GMing for players who are looking for something that I'm not offering. I have some friends (gamer friends) with whom I do not game. It's a better thing all around in my mind.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 20, 2008)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> "These decanters certainly are exquisite," observes the cabal official to the wizard, letting the water pool in his hand before overflowing into the basin, "obviously the work of one who is as fine of a magician as they are a sculptor." "I must warn you, though, that this town can be quite dangerous - one must always be wary of thieves." A thoughtful expression crosses his face. "Perhaps my organization would be willing to purchase these wonderful fruits of your labor - our guildhall is rather well guarded, and these would make magnificent decorations."
> 
> His eyes meet the warlord's. "After all, we wouldn't want any harm to befall you or your property..."
> 
> "I'm sure you will think over it." With that, he turns toward the door, gesturing to the companion he entered with. The companion, standing in the corner till now, steps beside the official, the heavy robes he wears despite the searing heat concealing all aspects of his person, save for a golden falchion resting at his hip. It is not until they've crossed the portal and into the bustling streets that you notice the damp trail left behind by the the robed one.




This is pretty cool.

And as I said, after giving it some thought, if I were in the right mood, I might let there be a political reason rather than a metaphysical one. But there will be _some_ reason. Because I think it's far more fun if there is a better one than just "the players caught the DM with his pants down."

Perhaps there's a secret cabal of merchants that profits from the situation the way it is. So they "take care of" any competition. Maybe the church leaders believe the devastation is a punishment from the gods and that skirting it magically is blasphemy. Maybe they're right! Maybe it's some combination of the above.

Maybe the merchants also provide some other valuable service to the church in exchange for the church paying them to deliver water. So inquisitive PCs might get the "blasphemy" or "punishment from the gods" answers only to find out later that the situation is far more complex.

I guess I just don't hold with the theory that the PCs should be able to just make up whatever adventure they want to go on, and totally ignore the work their DM has done to prepare for the session.

On the other hand, in my mind, a "good" adventure is more open-ended than "you must guard the water caravans." If the PCs have a choice, the adventure should never entirely hinge on the choice the PCs make. What happens might change, but there should always still be a way to involve the PCs in the adventure.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 20, 2008)

Bohemian Ear-Spork said:
			
		

> Honestly, people....
> 
> If the players want to be water-merchants, run with it.
> 
> ...




Sure. Assuming that I, as DM, have planned the adventure around the intrigues of the water-merchants, there's no problem here. For example, if I was planning to have the PCs work for Merchants A & B as they deal with the nefarious plans of Merchant C, the PCs deciding to go "off the rails" is totally acceptable. A tweak here, and a tweak there, and I can use most of what I prepared.

On the other hand, if the adventure hinges on the PCs signing up as Caravan guards and the situation they have to deal with when the caravan is attacked by a sand dragon, I really think I, as DM, have a right to be ticked if they won't even give my adventure a chance because they've decided they'd rather work on their Decanter of Endless Water business.

As I said before, I don't usually enjoy having to make up an adventure out of whole cloth. I'd do it on occasion, but if my players made a habit of this kind of behavior, I'd suggest they find a DM whose style they like better, rather than constantly subject myself to the aggravation.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, I guess that if the PCs are quick enough, your scenario of
> 
> PC: "You...you just made that up to foil our plan."
> DM: "Yeah. I did. You can't beat this game. May I suggest you try to enjoy just playing it."
> ...




There is another way. One need not either make excuses or blindly go with the flow even when it hampers game enjoyment. One can instead engage in a discussion with one's players on how they wish to precede, including the game play ramifications of different decisions. The general idea is to approach the game is a cooperative juncture and enable decisions to be made with full disclosure.

Basically what hong said.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 20, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Basically what hong said.



I'll just note that this was your 666th post.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 21, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I'll just note that this was your 666th post.



My 3000th will either be "You say that like it's a bad thing" or a long badly spelled rant accusing 1e of being too videogame-y.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 21, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> My 3000th will either be "You say that like it's a bad thing" or a long badly spelled rant accusing 1e of being too videogame-y.




You say that like that's a game of Diablo!

Thaumaturge.


----------



## rkanodia (Feb 21, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> You say that like that's a game of Diablo!
> 
> Thaumaturge.



ENworld is too videogamey.  You heard it here first.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 21, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> This is pretty cool.
> 
> And as I said, after giving it some thought, if I were in the right mood, I might let there be a political reason rather than a metaphysical one. But there will be _some_ reason. Because I think it's far more fun if there is a better one than just "the players caught the DM with his pants down."



In any case, the reason why there's a metaphysical or political reason is because the players discovered a plot hole.  They caught the DM with his pants down, and so the DM comes up with something.  The DM has the choice whether to run with it or not.  It's his prerogative.


----------



## Voss (Feb 21, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> As presented, the players seem to have decided that the adventure will "suck" without even giving it a chance. They're essentially saying they have no faith in their DM. What kind of person would _want_ to DM for such a group? Not I.




Or they suddenly came up with an idea, and it isn't a value judgement on your adventure in any way at all...


----------



## Lizard (Feb 21, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> My 3000th will either be "You say that like it's a bad thing" or a long badly spelled rant accusing 1e of being too videogame-y.




Oh, please! The Amulet Of P'ong is a CLASSIC!


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Oh, please! The Amulet Of H'ong is a CLASSIC!




Hmmmm.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Or they suddenly came up with an idea, and it isn't a value judgement on your adventure in any way at all...




Sure. No problem coming up with an idea. Choosing to pursue that idea over the DM's objections is absolutely a value judgement on the adventure.

It's not like the players are sitting in a dark room going "huh, what do we do?" They're getting a bunch of adventure hooks thrown at them by the DM. If they choose to ignore all of them and do _something else_ instead, it's obviously because they think that _something else_ will be more fun than what the DM had planned. If they thought they'd have more fun with the DM's planned adventure, then I guarantee that's what they do. People aren't generally going to decide to do something they think will be less fun.

Either that, or they just get their jollies driving their DM nuts. Which isn't a mindset I'd want to put up with very often. As I said, once in a while it's fine - I like a challenge.

But when you make a habit of it, it's just plain disregard for the guy who spent his free time preparing an adventure for your amusement.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 21, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Sure. No problem coming up with an idea. Choosing to pursue that idea over the DM's objections is absolutely a value judgement on the adventure.
> 
> It's not like the players are sitting in a dark room going "huh, what do we do?" They're getting a bunch of adventure hooks thrown at them by the DM. If they choose to ignore all of them and do _something else_ instead, it's obviously because they think that _something else_ will be more fun than what the DM had planned. If they thought they'd have more fun with the DM's planned adventure, then I guarantee that's what they do. People aren't generally going to decide to do something they think will be less fun.
> 
> ...



This goes back to the old argument about whether following the DM's plot hooks constitutes railroading.  After the DM has spent all week coming up with a handful of different directions the campaign could go, fleshed out some plots and NPCs along those options, and given the players their choice of things he has prepped for, the players decide to do something completely incongruous.  The DM is annoyed that all his hard work is being ignored and his role as game organizer disrespected.  He comes to teh internet to complain about it, and gets flamed for not running a totally sandbox game like real, manly DMs do.


----------



## Orius (Feb 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As far as Tolkein goes, the dwarves are given bows by Beorn in _The Hobbit_, and run out of arrows in Mirkwood, making their bows useless.
> 
> I'm reading _The Hobbit_ to my older girl right now, and we are just about to read "Flies and Spiders", where this happens.  And those bows would have been useful against the spiders, had they not wasted their ammo on black squirrels and white deer.




You're expecting dwarves to use bows properly?


----------



## TessarrianDM (Feb 21, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Okay, they have to have the stats.  Does anything else determine the availability of summons?  Do you have all the creatures on the lists in your world?  Or might you say "No, sorry, Xorns don't exist."  How about the monsters added in later MMs with the note that they can be summoned with spell Y?
> 
> What determines the availability of polymorph forms?  Can players browse the MM to pick the forms to use?  Do all of those creatures exist in your world?  How about MM2-5, Fiend Folio, and other books?
> 
> As I noted, I generally see "defining what exists in the world" to be the DM's job.




Yes, I have determined what creatures exist in my campaign world. As others have said, the PC's can only shapechange into creatures they have encountered or are otherwise familiar with. As far as summons go, I only allow a divine PC to summon a creature of the same alignment (or within one step if there is not one that matches), and some creatures cannot be summoned (such as dinosaurs) because they do not exist. Some summoning/calling spells I just do not allow (such as Dragon Ally and Summon Bralani Eladrin from the SC).

Adding creatures from other sourcebooks besides the Monster Manual has not been an issue, as I am the only member of our group who has purchased any of them. Few of my players own anything more than the PH (and SC for spellcasters).


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 21, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> This goes back to the old argument about whether following the DM's plot hooks constitutes railroading.  After the DM has spent all week coming up with a handful of different directions the campaign could go, fleshed out some plots and NPCs along those options, and given the players their choice of things he has prepped for, the players decide to do something completely incongruous.  The DM is annoyed that all his hard work is being ignored and his role as game organizer disrespected.  He comes to teh internet to complain about it, and gets flamed for not running a totally sandbox game like real, manly DMs do.



One good compromise might be to try to get the PCs to decide what to do next at the end of a gaming session.  You can give them several options, or let them come up with their own, and they can show you the consideration of giving you prep time.

So near the end of a session, the caravan guard gig is offered.  The PCs can decide to take it (your suggestion), to try to make an end-run around it by finding or making a Decanter and bringing that to the city (their suggestion #1), to make a pre-emptive raid on the lair of the bandits who attack the caravans (their suggestion #2), or to ignore this city entirely and deal with one of the other things they have in mind (maybe previously ignored plot hooks).  These kind of discussions can also happen between session (such as on an online forum), but IME some players just do their gaming at the table and don't get engaged in "between-session" interaction.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Or they suddenly came up with an idea, and it isn't a value judgement on your adventure in any way at all...




See, that's the thing that bothers me.....The repeated idea that because the players saw something that they might profit from, that they are "against" the DM.

I find the "Guys, I'm not prepared for running with that, so if we go that direction you'll have to wait until next week" a far more acceptable response to player ideas than a simple "No!"  I also think that, overall, deciding why it hasn't been done, and what the rammifications are, and what the PCs can do about it, will lead to more fun, out-of-the-box gaming for both DM and players.

But, then, I'm a "manly, sandbox" DM.

(I wonder what being a sandbox DM has to do with being manly.  Maybe Dr. Awkward can tell me?)

RC


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 21, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> One good compromise might be to try to get the PCs to decide what to do next at the end of a gaming session.  You can give them several options, or let them come up with their own, and they can show you the consideration of giving you prep time.



Amen.  Its not a railroad, its a highway system- and every juncture occurs at the end of the evening so you can write the next road at your leisure.  You still have to define the available choices during the session, of course- which means you may have to make ad hoc rulings and then justify them later once you have the time.  This is ok!  In fact, no one ever need know.

*DM:* I present to you... the campaign climax!

*Player:* I have a rules exploit that lets us bypass this entire thing, and which also undermines the verisimilitude of the entire campaign setting because lots of other people COULD have done this, but inexplicably have not.

*DM:* That rules exploit won't work, actually.  If it did, don't you think someone would have done it by now?

*Player:* Sure, if these were real people, but they're not.  It is only in-game that this particular scenario has been tested against the best and brightest heroes of the past.  Out of game, the only person who's reviewed this is you, and you probably missed this possibility.

*DM:* Well, you can try it, but don't say I didn't warn you.  If you want to get everything ready for that, go ahead, but we'll have to do it next session.  Its late now that we've wound up everything from today.

See?  There you go.

And for those of you who have implied, or stated outright, that having these issues crop up means that I'm not a well prepared DM- screw off.  If this doesn't happen to you it is because of one of three reasons.  Either 1) your players accept the campaign premises and don't TRY to do this to you, 2) you enjoy campaigns in which heroes essentially hack the world for exploits (cool for you if you do, don't expect everyone to enjoy this), or 3) this DOES happen to you and you are lying about it online.  I've yet to witness the airtight campaign, and I don't expect to, ever.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Amen.  Its not a railroad, its a highway system- and every juncture occurs at the end of the evening so you can write the next road at your leisure.  You still have to define the available choices during the session, of course- which means you may have to make ad hoc rulings and then justify them later once you have the time.  This is ok!  In fact, no one ever need know.




This is bang-on, IMHO.  

Players coming up with curve balls is part of the game; it doesn't imply that they are out to get you.  Heck, when they come up with those curve balls they might not even realize that they _are_ curve balls.  They might have thought your hooks were leading them along the bend.

EDIT:  BTW, human history is one long string of things that others could have done before the people who finally did them, but inexplicably did not.  All sorts of things have inexplicably fallen to the wayside, only to be rediscovered later by other people.  There is nothing verisimilitude-breaking about it.

RC


----------

