# Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?



## Emirikol (Mar 25, 2007)

Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?

Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?  Does it just become a Mario-Bro's game where you're just trying to get enough "coins?"  Can you hear the blinging sound in your campaigns?

jh


----------



## WildWeasel (Mar 25, 2007)

The spirit of the game is to ave fun by going on adventures and getting stuff.  Magic item shops and the like increase that by allowing one to customize the stuff, thereby making the adventures more fun.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Mar 25, 2007)

*My opinion mind you!*

Ya, magic shops don't exist in my campaign. It tends, for me mind you, to make the magical less magical. I have customized my campaign to the extent that high level characters do not have the 'recommended wealth' for their level.

I have adjusted the encounters to reflect this. I heavily house rule too. But luckily, d20 lets me do this.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 25, 2007)

WildWeasel said:
			
		

> The spirit of the game is to ave fun by going on adventures and getting stuff.  Magic item shops and the like increase that by allowing one to customize the stuff, thereby making the adventures more fun.




I'm sure "shopping" is fun.  My wife tells me that all the time and my accountant confirms that my wife finds "shopping" fun  

Why bother to "hand out" magic items in Dungeons if PC's can just buy whatever they want?

jh


----------



## S'mon (Mar 25, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?




Not if they're the Bazaar of the Bizarre.    

It's not item shops per se, it's the "You can have any item in the book up to X,000 gp" that is harmful to the dynamics of the game, far more harmful than I initially realised.


----------



## Napftor (Mar 25, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Why bother to "hand out" magic items in Dungeons if PC's can just buy whatever they want?
> 
> jh




I doubt magic shops carry every item a PC might desire.  The inventories of such venues would depend on the availability and willingness of area spellcasters (who better be high level to contribute regularly to the crafting and selling of items).  I would run a magic item shop as more of a trade depot--"Oh, you need a magic missile wand?  Well, one of my customers has been looking for that ring of protection you have there.  Let's haggle!"


----------



## S'mon (Mar 25, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Why bother to "hand out" magic items in Dungeons if PC's can just buy whatever they want?




Yep - running 3e I often feel I might as well just hand out X,000 gp, since that's what the items handed out represent anyway.  A really powerful item just represents more money to be split among the PCs.


----------



## Dog Moon (Mar 25, 2007)

IMO, Magic tends to be common enough that some sort of shop for Magic certainly has to exist.  Now, it wouldn't be anything like Walmart though where you could browse aisles of Magic Items.  I think there would probably be two versions of the shop.

1. A Wizard setting up a little area and when the PCs buy an item, they are paying the Wizard to start making the item and in 1day/1,000gp, the Wizard will have the item ready for them.  However, the PCs, as part of the price, will need to pay for any necessary scrolls [or perhaps part of the repeat option, he offers to buy the scrolls himself; depends on how well they know each other].

2. A person has a shop, but all of the items within the store are replicas except perhaps the potions and a number of items worth like 1,000gp or less.  The rest of the items are stored in a secret, highly protective place.

I also figure there would be some sort of black market area for magic items.  You know, like talking to a cloaked figured in an alley.  Maybe you'll get what you asked for, maybe you won't.  A lot more items can be found this way, but the risk is also much higher.

That's my personal preference of how I think Magic Item 'Shops' would work in dnd while keeping in with the spirit of dnd.  I mean seriously, in the real life, if you know the right people, you can buy pretty much anything.  I think dnd should be the same, which also keeps some realism, IMO.


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 25, 2007)

The last campaign I was part of featured a rather prominent magic shop run by a possibly crazy elf.  We spent a lot of time there, buying mainly potions and minor scrolls, though I did also buy a clockwork toy.  We enjoyed interacting with the shopkeeper so much, and had gone so far off the track of the published adventure, that our DM wove the magic shop into the events of the campaign (the shopkeeper's apprentice was involved in the smuggling ring we were trying to bust up, though we first suspected the shopkeeper after some incriminating evidence appeared).

No problems with integrating magic shops from my experience.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 25, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?
> 
> Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?  Does it just become a Mario-Bro's game where you're just trying to get enough "coins?"  Can you hear the blinging sound in your campaigns?




No, not having a market for magic items wrecks the spirit of D&D because it hopelessly strains credulity. In the game, magic items are tools, and little more. This is not a new phenomenon - even back in Ye Olde Days of OD&D they were nothing more than very useful tools. The edict that they were not for sale, when you had PCs who sold excess magic items all the time (or at least who wanted to sell such items) simply made the game make little sense in regards to these items.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 25, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, not having a market for magic items wrecks the spirit of D&D because it hopelessly strains credulity. In the game, magic items are tools, and little more. This is not a new phenomenon - even back in Ye Olde Days of OD&D they were nothing more than very useful tools. The edict that they were not for sale, when you had PCs who sold excess magic items all the time (or at least who wanted to sell such items) simply made the game make little sense in regards to these items.




Well, yeah, fine to say roll on the DMG treasure tables once a month to see what items come on the market. Not fine to say that everything in the book under 100,000 gp is automatically available.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 25, 2007)

The only stuff I allow to be bought and sold anymore is potions.  I've reduced the sale value of MI's to 1/10th of normal..it's a lower magic world anyways so it doesn't matter.

"Sure, you want 5 or 6 donkeys for that pretty sword, what did you call it?  Vor-pallll?  Whatever...I'll throw in my buck-toothed serving wench."
"Gee, thanks..how about a tank of ale too"
"Now, that's pushing it..how about as much ale as you can carry in your cupped hands?"
"DEAL"

jh


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 25, 2007)

The "spirit of the game" is something that comes in as many varieties as there are gaming groups.

Sometimes that spirit includes magic shops, and sometimes it doesn't.


----------



## Sketchpad (Mar 25, 2007)

I don't think so ... I use them all the time in my games   Gives the players a place to buy and sell various items


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Mar 25, 2007)

Well, they make it a VASTLY different game than the BECM or 2e that I played before.  As DM I run worlds that wouldn't have them, and as a player I generally avoid using them even if they exist.

There's a great deal of logic lacking in the demographics and community wealth guidelines.  For example, you need a 12th-level caster with the right feat to make a Ring of Protection +1.  Large towns are not expected to have such casters.  Yet, EVERY large town is expected to have Rings of Protection +1 available for sale.

They also make the "recommended wealth by level" guidelines rather useless.  Consider 4 PCs who each find 10,000 gp worth of magic items that are not specifically optimized to their builds.

PC #1 is old-school.  He makes the best use of them he can, or gives them to cohorts or followers.  Buying and selling magic items is not the stuff of heroic adventure.

PC #2 works under the 3e default assumptions.  He sells these things for one-half their value and buys 5,000 of items tailored for him.  

PC #3 somehow sells the items at full price and buys 10,000 gp of items tailored to his needs. 

PC #4 is rather self-reliant.  He sells the items for 5,000 gp, invests 400 XP, and crafts 10,000 gp of items tailored for him.  

Should the DM change the allocation of treasure among these PCs?  Do the wealth by level guidelines recognize that 10,000 of customized and chosen items are far more valuable than 10,000 of random magic items?  Do they recognize that a PC with crafting feats may have more GP value in gear at the cost of those feats?


----------



## Deekin (Mar 25, 2007)

Cannith run magic items shops don't ruin feel of Eberron. Granted, the stuff that they have will be limited based on the highest level artificer present, and the GP limit of the community that it is in. Granted, in Sharn, you can pretty much buy scrolls of raise dead and such, but they probably will only have a few in stock. You can always have them make the item, but that takes time.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 25, 2007)

Not this topic again...

Magic Item Shops do not wreck the spirit of D&D, but they do wreck the spirit of a large percentage of D&D settings including all of those that are loosely based on medieval/early modern culture, and all of those which lean toward heroic high fantasy, and all of those which lean toward Heroic Age pre-history.

I have in my campaign allowed potions and scrolls to be purchased in small amounts from alchemists, churches, and wizards but IMO if you go much beyond that magic items cease to be magical and wonderous, and players cease to feel like they've accomplished something important when finding a powerful magical treasure.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 25, 2007)

Deekin said:
			
		

> Cannith run magic items shops don't ruin feel of Eberron.




And a I agree, but the setting of Eberron is Edwardian in inspiration and has magic in the role of the technology explosion of the late 19th/early 20th century, which makes the setting a far cry from the high fantasy/quasi-medieval setting most people associate with D&D.


----------



## Jack of Shadows (Mar 25, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Why bother to "hand out" magic items in Dungeons if PC's can just buy whatever they want?
> 
> jh




My group uses an equal value treasure share method. We take all the treasure we've found, add up all of it's sale value (remember magic items sell for half their value) and then divide that number by the number of PC's. Each PC now has a pool of funds which they can use to buy items from the treasure list or to spend on other items as they wish. The advantage is that any items in the treasure list are only going to cost the character their value as treasure which is half their market value. This makes found items much more valuable as you essentially acquire them for a considerabe discount. It also allows for PC's who find nothing of use in the list to acquire things that they want to improve their character. 

We've found this really works well for us and keeps us compatible with the 3.5 expectations. I think the view presented in the MIC is sound in that given the amount of specialization that characters can now acomplish it just doesn't make sense to rely on random treasure allotments. Players with strong character concepts are going to feel cheated. I'm of the school that the more control you give a player over their character's evolution the happier that player is going to be.

Now some GM's are going to counter that they always consider their player's needs when alloting treasure. That's fine but how is that any different? It still takes away from the randomness of magical treasure and creates an environment where the GM decides what is best for the player's character. I consider this a bad idea generally as it will almost always leads to resentment and reduces the investment the player has in the game.

Jack


----------



## Corsair (Mar 25, 2007)

Assuming there is anyone to act as a middle man, people with money and people with stuff they are willing to sell will find each other eventually.  Even if the only people interested in magic items are adventurers and the richest nobles, they will find a way to get rid of what they don't need, and in return get something they do need.

To tell a player "No, no one is interested in buying that magic sword you found" is just nonsensical.  Clearly if the players are willing to buy and sell items, other adventurers would be as well.

The market may be small, but unless you're running a ridiculously low magic game, or one where adventurers and their ilk are extremely rare, the market should exist.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 25, 2007)

If it wrecked the spirit of the game, then doing so would hurt my game. Since my game has only improved because of magic item shops (which I used long long before 3e came out), I can confidently say that they do not wreck D&D.

There's a huge gap between "wreck the spirit of D&D" and "some people don't like it" that needs to be admitted here...


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 25, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> if you go much beyond that magic items cease to be magical and wonderous, and players cease to feel like they've accomplished something important when finding a powerful magical treasure.




*
I always got a kick out of campaigns where the DM thinks really hard about a treasure hoard and the PC's promptly go out and sell the whole lot for quick cash.*

I'm starting to think that player "mentality" is more like  the MY-PAY-DAY-LOAN shops.  GET FAST CASH NOW!!!!    Other than the people that "must" use those kinds of stores...hmmmmmmm.....

jh
why make trillions when we could make...billions from our white trash magic shop chain?





..


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Mar 25, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Magic Item Shops do not wreck the spirit of D&D, but they do wreck the spirit of a large percentage of D&D settings including all of those that are loosely based on medieval/early modern culture, and all of those which lean toward heroic high fantasy, and all of those which lean toward Heroic Age pre-history.




That's pretty much how I see the matter. Also, I feel that the magic as a commodity mindset detracts from a lot of the reasons why magic is special in first place. There's no fear, no amusement, no excitement; it's just another way to do things; essentially it is technology seen in a different prism.

It works pretty well in some settings, Eberron for instance, but I believe it should feel more like the exception, not the rule.

In the end, the DM will choose if the commodity mindset is good for his campaign, but sometimes will have to argue with someone who came to the game during the days of 3E and believes that's the way things should always be (and this also ends up being a problem, as 3E also tries to move out of the "DM rules" paradigm into a "players rule" one).

Cheers,


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 25, 2007)

One thing my group has often done with the magic shop idea is kind of a James Bondish motiff. We customize our gear for the mission at hand, just like Q would give Bond certain weapons to use. Part of the fun is planning the mission and our gear for success.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Mar 25, 2007)

There are some items that are just useless, that PCs should never be able to sell for full "book value" (and that a DM would be foolish to even create).

+2 Splint Mail: same AC as fullplate, with no Dex bonus possible and much higher cost.
Magic non-composite shortbow or longbow: why bother?
Non-returning magic thrown weapons of more than +1 bonus: pathetic range, poor rate of fire, middling damage, generally poor crit multipliers, and you run out of them quickly. 
Weapons with non-synergistic bonuses: a keen wounding ghost touch weapon of throwing is nowhere near the value of a holy undead-bane ghost touch weapon of disruption.
Efreeti bottle.  You'd have to be an utter moron to pay full price for the services of a hostile, resentful, powerful, intelligent evil outsider.
Bracers of Armor +5 or less (if the Twilight property exists)


----------



## Jack of Shadows (Mar 25, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> *
> I always got a kick out of campaigns where the DM thinks really hard about a treasure hoard and the PC's promptly go out and sell the whole lot for quick cash.*
> 
> I'm starting to think that player "mentality" is more like  the MY-PAY-DAY-LOAN shops.  GET FAST CASH NOW!!!!    Other than the people that "must" use those kinds of stores...hmmmmmmm.....
> ...




This is a thing with a lot of DM's, they think they know what's best for the players and are then shocked when the players don't agree. 

A good GM says, "welcome to my game." A great GM says, "welcome to _our_ game."

Jack


----------



## Andre (Mar 25, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> There's a huge gap between "wreck the spirit of D&D" and "some people don't like it" that needs to be admitted here...




Agree 100%. This is like the arguments about "hack-n-slash" style games, or "powergamers" - the spirit of the game is having fun, not conforming to someone else's preferences.


----------



## NanocTheCivilized (Mar 25, 2007)

> _Do not let magic become a commodity. Magical items should never be bought and sold like milk and eggs. Allowing PCs of any level to simply purchase magical items, or even to purchase magical supplies such as quills and inks for writing scrolls, takes some of the mystique away from magic and makes the whole world seem a little more commonplace.
> 
> It is not necessary to stubbornly forbid the buying and selling of magic; the key to keeping magic fanciful is to make sure that any transaction is an adventure of a sort.
> 
> ...




Pretty much sums it up for me.

Nanoc


----------



## Whimsical (Mar 25, 2007)

Check my sig to see why buying and selling magic items is a good thing.

Right now, I'm running Shackled City. There is a magic shop, but it has a specific inventory of around twenty items. But there are also alternatives to "the Magic Shop" that round out the experience. To start with, the church of St. Cuthburt sells low level clerical scrolls and potions.

There is also the Cathedral of Wee Jas. Magic item creation is an important duty of the church. I declared that the church would create and sell arcane and divine magic items of up to 6th level caster level at book price. Anything of higher caster level would require a favor from one of the high priests. This would take the form of a social challenge for the PCs to negotiate.

To buy a magic weapon or armor, the character needs to buy a MW weapon or armor from a weaponsmith or armorer, then take it to the church of Wee Jas to get it enhanced. In other settings, the martial churches would enhance arms and armor, or the weaponsmith would do it himself as part of the crafting of the weapon.

I have also added to Cauldron a noble clothier. The noble clothier makes the noble and royal outfits and jewelry for the upper crust of the town. They also sell enhanced clothing and jewelry. Mostly those items that would interest nobles. Clothing with illusionary highlights; appearance enhancers. Social skill buffers (such as the circlet of persuasion). Defenses against charms and compulsions, illusions and lies. Catch-22: to walk into the door, you must appear like you belong there. But they are the only clothier in town that sells noble clothing.

Gather Information, Knowledge: Local, and Knowledge: Nobility are invaluable skills to find buyers and sellers of magic items. You can find out who owns what in the area, then you can try to convince them to part with their item for cash. Just as magic items are more valuable than cash for PCs, there are NPCs on the decline that need to liquidate their assets to take care of other problems. And right now, their magic item is a white elephant. Or at least that is what the PC is going to try to persuade them.

Again, check out my sig for why being able to select magic items is the game within a game that is fun for PCs to play.


----------



## Rolzup (Mar 25, 2007)

As a GM, I really dislike magic shops.

As a PC, I really like being able to equip my PC howsoever I like.

In balance, therefore, I'm leaning more towards my PC aspect's point of view.  Empower the players as much as you can, sez I.  IF -- and this is key -- that's what your players want.  If they're happier prying their treasure from the cold dead claws of dragons, more power to 'em.

As to the shops themselves, well, there's any number of things you can do.  Take a look at the Goblin Market from Neil Gaiman's *Books of Magic* for a classic sort of example.


----------



## Whimsical (Mar 25, 2007)

I remember playing in 2nd edition campaigns where we would have around a hundred thousand gps each, but nothing to buy. Whereas if we were playing Cyberpunk or Shadowrun, we would be able to buy various upgrades after each adventure. The old way sucked. And, no. I don't want to take an adventure to make a friggin' scroll! And if you think about it, neither does the DM. Because it is better for everyone when the focus of the game is on the current adventure instead of a sidequest that only the spellcaster is on.


----------



## helium3 (Mar 25, 2007)

I would think that what Skip meant when he said "make it an adventure" is that as a player you need to figure out who it is that sells the item you want and then you have to go buy it from them, thus necessitating some role playing. I want to buy some scrolls? I have to figure out who makes the dang things and go see what's available.

I'm not sure I agree about the pen and ink though . . .


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 25, 2007)

I think magic shops are a setting element, not a system one.  Plenty of people have them in their gameworlds.  

The problem arises when D&D is expected to have magic shops because it's the default playstyle.  Or worse yet, the rules themselves require magic shops so the game can function.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 25, 2007)

Jack of Shadows said:
			
		

> This is a thing with a lot of DM's, they think they know what's best for the players and are then shocked when the players don't agree. A good GM says, "welcome to my game." A great GM says, "welcome to _our_ game."  Jack





Not disagreeing with this aspect.  I'd also like to point out that the problem with a lot of players, they think they deserve everything in the game to come to them easy and are shocked when the DM puts constraints on them. 

A good player says, "Show me a great game."  A great player says, "I'm happy to share in your game."

jh


----------



## Ace (Mar 25, 2007)

I have magic shops IMC as I see D&D as high magic game where magic is technology.

As a DM I am likely to simply give a few magic items that I know the PC's will keep (on the cool/usefull) factor and just give them  the rest in equivalent to spend as they wish.

It increases player fun and decreases my prep time so its win/win IMO.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 25, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I think magic shops are a setting element, not a system one.  The problem arises when D&D is expected to have magic shops because it's the default playstyle.  Or worse yet, the rules themselves require magic shops so the game can function.





Ain't that the truth  

Allow me to clarify:  Most good DMs don't put magic items out there to cater to players' whines(yea, we've all broken that rule)..they put magic items out there as part of the plot and theme of the game.  You don't find a +1 sword at first level for the heck of it.  You find it because maybe there's going to be a monster out there that you need to use it on because the last guy who tried to kill this thing got whacked.

You find potions of healing becasue someone put them there for themselves..not because it seems like a good recharge place for the scenario.

Magic item shops, would fall into this category if you went to town and they had a bunch of stakes, crosses, cold iron weapons and wolvesbane for sale in a town of superstitious people with nearby vampires and werewolves.  *Magic item shops should not a panacea of twinky-min-maxery.*  That's just lazy DMing.

I'm so lazy, I'd rather not hand out magic items than watch players degenerate into ..well, I'd hate to use those words again 



jh


----------



## WildWeasel (Mar 25, 2007)

"The problem arises when D&D is expected to have not magic shops because it's the default playstyle. Or worse yet, the rules themselves forbid magic shops so the game can function."

It cuts both ways.  Somehow, I'm getting the suspicion that the OP has long since made up his mind and isn't interested in actually debating the matter.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 25, 2007)

The Magic Item Compendium specifically talks about Magic Item shops and buying magic items. (pages 231-2).

It says that, in general, you should allow PCs to buy magic items. One reasoning given is that for many levels its the only way the players can customise their PCs, and is significantly more fun than getting skill points.

It also says that large one-stop-shop magic emporiums are unrealistic... a community's stock of magic items will be in alchemist's shops, bookstores, pawn shops, elixir brewers, curio shops, the residences of retired adventurers and so on. 

It suggests abstracting the search for magic items except when you want to advance an adventure or campaign story arc; if there's a time limit involved, a Gather Information check must be made to track down the item.

Personally, I don't think magic item shops wreck the spirit of D&D. I think there are some items (stat boosters) that cause problems, but that not relying on DM whim or random dice rolls to get something to make your PC effective is a good thing.

Cheers!


----------



## Crothian (Mar 25, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?




No, when they are done with character and with care.  And not just an open shop that happens to have plenty of every kind of magical item.



> Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?




Yes


----------



## Eosin the Red (Mar 25, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?




Yeap.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 25, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Not disagreeing with this aspect.  I'd also like to point out that the problem with a lot of players, they think they deserve everything in the game to come to them easy and are shocked when the DM puts constraints on them.
> 
> A good player says, "Show me a great game."  A great player says, "I'm happy to share in your game."




The reason I hate it when these threads come up - and it seems they come up in about 1 in every 100 threads - is that invariably they devolve into name calling threads.  

To put a straw man simplification on a subject already prone to straw men, the two camps essentially end up saying, "You are a bad DM/person if you don't have magic shops." and "You are a bad DM/person if you do have magic shops."  Anyone that says anything more subtle and interesting than that, as you have just done, tends to be either ignored or else miscategorized as falling into one of the two camps.

I really don't have a problem with magic shops provided that they really fit what the players and the DM both want out of thier games and are added to the setting thoughtfully.  What I have a problem with - other than the inevitable personal attacks on my ability as a DM or character as a person that come up as soon as I suggest that I don't have magic shops - is magic shops unreflectively added to or assumed within a setting, often one for which it is wholly unsuited, anachronistic, and even down right illogical in context.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 25, 2007)

WildWeasel said:
			
		

> It cuts both ways.  Somehow, I'm getting the suspicion that the OP has long since made up his mind and isn't interested in actually debating the matter.




It's ok.  You can use my name.  It's Jay.  You can also call me names, Ray, Jay, Jaybird, JayDude, Stray, At-Bay, It's-Been-A-Long-Day-Jay (that's my wife's favorite).

_I have made up my mind, yes.  I'm not presenting this so you can change it.  I'm presenting it so I can argue with with everyone about it.   Honestly, what fun would this post be without that?  _

Here's an example:
Post #1:  "I dont' think magic items belong in D&D at all."
Post #2:  "Jay, you shouldnt' think that way.  Magic items do belong in D&D."
Post #3:  "Ok, you're right."

Now, look at this thread.  How long has it gone?  More than three right?

jh


----------



## WildWeasel (Mar 25, 2007)

Then why frame it as a question?  Just throw up a [RANT] tag and go to town.

I for one have no interest in "arguing" with someone that paints those who disagree with thier view as twinks and munchkins right off.

And that's that for me.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 25, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The Magic Item Compendium specifically talks about Magic Item shops and buying magic items. (pages 231-2). It says that, in general, you should allow PCs to buy magic items. One reasoning given is that for many levels its the only way the players can customise their PCs, and is significantly more fun than getting skill points.  It also says that large one-stop-shop magic emporiums are unrealistic.





Realism is not one of D&D's strong points.  

I totally agree that spazzing out on magic items feels good.  It's like morphine.  It feels good to have your character totally maxed out.

..but I'm arguing that it wrecks the spirit of the game.  Of course, we've never defined what the "spirit of the game" IS? (I thought for sure someone would come up with that point long before the 'strawman' was pulled).

WHat is the spirit of the game in regards to magic item shops?

jh


----------



## MerricB (Mar 25, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> WHat is the spirit of the game in regards to magic item shops?




It is in the spirit of the game for the players to have fun. If magic shops make the game fun, then they're in the spirit of the game. If some people find that magic shops make the game fun, and other people find that magic shops don't make the game fun, then DMs should choose whether to allow them or not based on what their players want.

Gary Gygax has Gord buying a magic dagger in one of his (TSR) Gord the Rogue books. (Saga of Old City). It's a very special dagger as well - one that can cut through stone or metal. 

Sure, you don't have magic emporiums, but you have a shop that sells magic items. 

Consider this: Is it in the spirit of the game to only give out magic items that the Wizard can use?

Cheers!


----------



## wayne62682 (Mar 25, 2007)

Wreck the spirit?  Not at all.  IMO it gives more power to the players and less in the hands of the "Almighty" DM who decides IF you find a magic weapon in a treasure horde as opposed to you being able to GET one.

Besides, the Core rules assume that you can purchase magic items as the baseline for dealing with monsters that require special things to hurt.  If you take those out of the game, then you damn sure better compensate it somehow because otherwise you've just imbalanced the game against the players.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 25, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I have in my campaign allowed potions and scrolls to be purchased in small amounts from alchemists, churches, and wizards but IMO if you go much beyond that magic items cease to be magical and wonderous, and players cease to feel like they've accomplished something important when finding a powerful magical treasure.




But in D&D worlds, most magic items are not wonderous. 7 of 11 core classes are spellcasters, and one other one is chock-full of quasi-magical special abilities. All but the lowest-level adventurers can afford at least some magical gear. No humanoid that's any threat to adventurers will lack magical gear.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 25, 2007)

!!!

LOOK OUT, D&D! HERE COME THE MAGIC SHOPS! THEY'RE GONNA GET YOU AND WRECK YOUR SPIRIT! 







Seriously, if you're not a fan of allowing PC's to customize themselves to a certain extent by permitting magic shops, whatever, but the "spirit of D&D" is a lot more than the non-existence of magic shops, and it takes a lot more than being able to buy a +1 sword to ruin the "magicness of magic." They exist together quite happily in many campaigns. Maybe not in yours, but that's one of the great things about the customization of D&D, Billy.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 25, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Gary Gygax has Gord buying a magic dagger in one of his (TSR) Gord the Rogue books. (Saga of Old City). It's a very special dagger as well - one that can cut through stone or metal. Sure, you don't have magic emporiums, but you have a shop that sells magic items. Consider this: Is it in the spirit of the game to only give out magic items that the Wizard can use?





Right you are.  I remember reading that.  But, also remember, that Gord's dagger was not given to him by the 'almighty' DM so that he could be maxed out.  It was available as a plot device.

Plot devices would also, IMO, be a reason for having some kind of magic shop then.  It may be the "PLOT vs. CUSTOMIZATION" issue that many players have problems with..who later then argue that all characters feel the same. I can't argue that customization isn't fun in many cases, but I can argue that the plot is more important than customization hundreds of times over.

Here's another thought:  The players probably shouldn't be reading the DMG during the game to figure out which item is going to best compliment (to use a softer word) their characters..but at the same time, when you have a list of items at a magic shop, you waste valuable gaming time while players look up the various benefits of each of the items and how each of these benefits can be used to their greatest possible degree to find the largest value to the function of the character.

Outfitting a character with items or other resources that are not normally available in regards to the ongoing campaign is probably what wrecks the spirit of the game.

jh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinking
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maximize




..


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 25, 2007)

> But, also remember, that Gord's dagger was not given to him by the 'almighty' DM so that he could be maxed out. It was available as a plot device.




Same thing! 



> "PLOT vs. CUSTOMIZATION" issue that many players have problems with




This is not an issue for most games! It is all in your head! There is no Vs.!



> The players probably shouldn't be reading the DMG during the game to figure out which item is going to best compliment (to use a softer word) their characters..but at the same time, when you have a list of items at a magic shop, you waste valuable gaming time while players look up the various benefits of each of the items and how each of these benefits can be used to their greatest possible degree to find the largest value to the function of the character.




OR, they just say "I buy a +1 sword." And the DM says "Okay, it's about 2500 gp." And the player says "Done!" If you need to look up what a +1 sword does, the game's gonna take a long time either way, so this won't add to it.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 25, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Right you are.  I remember reading that.  But, also remember, that Gord's dagger was not given to him by the 'almighty' DM so that he could be maxed out.  It was available as a plot device.




Err... he sells a magic dagger. He buys another magic dagger. Sounds like 3e, with the abstraction prettied up for the book.



> Here's another thought:  The players probably shouldn't be reading the DMG during the game to figure out which item is going to best compliment (to use a softer word)




To use a wrong word, actually. You mean "complement". Unless of course, you have the PCs buying magical talking articles that talk like this, "Wow! You are so great! Your hair is nice! Your armour is nice! Hey... you're just nice! I'm glad you bought me!" 

I sympathize with the "keep the players out of the books" notion; but I consider it unsustainable.



> Outfitting a character with items or other resources that are not normally available in regards to the ongoing campaign is probably what wrecks the spirit of the game.




But what's "normally" available in regards to the ongoing campaign? 

The spirit of old-D&D is for the PCs to overcome the challenges the DM puts in their path by any means necessary (subject to alignment, of course!) Not so different from new D&D. There isn't so much an idea of "plot" and "verisimilitude" in old-D&D, not if the tales of Castle Greyhawk are to be believed. 

In AD&D, any PC who knew what he was doing would immediately sell any magic item not immediately useful to him, because the gold he got out of it would translate into XP... and generally about 5 to 10 times the XP that he could have gotten by keeping the item. (Case in point: a +1 sword is worth 400 xp if kept, and 2000 xp and gp if sold. That _helm of underwater action_ is 1000 xp if kept, and *10000* xp and gp if sold!

Hmm.

The real trick is to give out magic items that PCs want to keep - and, especially, if you want found items to be special, to create them yourself as a DM. Almost by definition, anything in an official book is no longer special.

Cheers!


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 25, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The real trick is to give out magic items that PCs want to keep - and, especially, if you want found items to be special, to create them yourself as a DM. Almost by definition, anything in an official book is no longer special.





My point is that 'because' of magic shops where PC's can pick up anything official on a whim, it's no longer special.

I cannot think of any way, without eliminating or severely restricting magic shops, to "give items that PC's want to keep."
_
Stoopid shiny silver sword with ritual runes...yea, gonna sell that one...._

jh


----------



## Corinth (Mar 25, 2007)

Magic always was a commodity.  Magic is a commodity.  Magic always shall be a commodity.  Allowing PCs to buy and sell items and enchants is nothing more than making this truth work for you, instead of fighting a futile battle against it.  D&D needs a more robust crafting and market system, if anything.


----------



## Jer (Mar 25, 2007)

> I cannot think of any way, without eliminating or severely restricting magic shops, to "give items that PC's want to keep."




This probably counts as "severely restricting", but in my current campaign, "magic shops" are restricted to alchemists (who sell various potions, powders, and ointments) and the occasional "town wizard" who's willing to scribe a scroll for a fee.  In other words, "Magic shops" to the extent that they exist in this current campaign only deal in one-shot items.  And not everything is available all of the time.

Instead I "give items that the PC's want to keep" by asking my players what kinds of items they want their characters to have and then work those items into the adventures.  I also make use of a modified system that I've used for years (back to my Basic/Expert/Companion set days) that allows characters to "upgrade" their magic weapons, armor, and other permanent items by undertaking pilgrimages to "reforge" the items.  I make sure in 3e to hand out enough magic to keep the characters roughly where they should be for the CR system to work, but not enough that they feel like they even HAVE enough surplus to want to sell them (even with potions and scrolls, which they conceivably COULD sell, my players have become horrible misers and don't even think of selling them off).  Plus, since I only give out "good" items that are upgradable to "better" items, the players don't want to let them out of their sight for fear that recurring villains might get ahold of them.

The easiest way to "give the players items they want to keep" is to find out what your players want and give them opportunities to get them.  If a player just wants a big-ass flaming sword, there's no reason not to put one into an adventure when he gets to an appropriate level for the item.  Give it a bit of backstory (or let him come up with an appropriate backstory) and he'll jump into a crevasse after it rather than even try to sell it.


----------



## grodog (Mar 25, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Not if they're the Bazaar of the Bizarre.




Well-said, S'mon!  I'll hazard (ahem) that the one from "Vashanka’s Minion" in the Thieves World *Tales from the Vulgar Unicorn* anthology would also be appropriate for most games   

In Gygax and Kuntz's original Greyhawk campaign there was also the "Mystic Trader":



			
				Gygax in Horsemen of the Apocalypse said:
			
		

> ...run by thieves who offered spurious magic items for sale, meantime doing their best to purloin the real ones possessed by the unsuspecting players.  Naturally, this establishment changes locations frequently, and the proprietors altered their appearance with each removal.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 25, 2007)

Let's see ... my take is that magic shops has been a part of how I have experienced D&D since my introduction to the game in 1984. So for me, magic shops are an integral part of what makes the game D&D.

/M


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 25, 2007)

Magic in D&D has never been mysterious, it's always been reliable technology, since PC wizards and clerics were available. GMs are absolutely right to want mystery, surprise and awe in their games. They are right to want 'magic' - in a certain sense of the word magic. But that's not a +1 sword. A +1 sword is a minor bit of technology. It's reliable, helpful but hardly world shattering. 

For the mysterious, the unbuyable, the uncraftable, one should use high end magic - artefacts, spells beyond ninth level, the divine, weird permanent effects that aren't to be found in any rule books. In fact maybe this sort of transcedent stuff shouldn't be called magic at all.

The term 'magic shop' is a bit misleading as it conjures up images of the supermarket. I agree with the 1995 Skip Williams that that is going too far. My take is that the vast majority of purchased magic items are crafted to order. There is little or no stock available. The other thing to note about the 1995 quote is that Skip has obviously changed his mind since then.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 25, 2007)

The problem of PCs selling most items they find is real and is due to many of the items in the DMG being woefully overpriced. Magic Item Compendium solves this problem.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 25, 2007)

grodog said:
			
		

> In Gygax and Kuntz's original Greyhawk campaign there was also the "Mystic Trader":




What's "Horsemen of the Apocalypse", Allan? I don't know that source.

Cheers!


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 25, 2007)

Well, IMHO, "magic shops" is sort of a strawman. Most games I've played in have never had "magic shops" but rather the DM saying "Ok, you're in a city large enough to have buy magic items or have them made during our downtime, go to it". In a rule set with item creatuion rules, it follows that such things can be bought on comission if nothing else. Assuming some XP flow, even your low level wizard or cleric, selling a few low level potions or scrolls can live in a fairly nice lifestyle wihtout even delaying his advancement much. IIRC, from the exercise I worked out such an NPC selling such items to adventurers could live in a very posh lifestyle without ever delaying his level advancement by more than one year during his lifetime. The same follows for other magic items although there may be issues with having soembody of high enough level to actually make such an item who would be willing to do it, but that's a DM issue, not a rule issue.

If such exchanges do well with the flavor of the game totally, IMHO, depends on the flavor of the game the DM is trying to run. "Low magic D&D games' have been hashed out here to now end, and I think it's fairly reasonable to say that they are possible with the existing ruleset providing the DM pays attention to CR and plans adventures with about as much thought as a DM used in earlier editions before CR. one DM may run a flavor of game where adventurers keep their magic items no matter what it is because they'll never see another like it, while another may play a game much like the Jereg series where magic is a commidity to be bought, sold as needed. It's up to the DM, and whether it ruins the style of play depends on what the DM is trying to produce. Of course, you may not like the style of play such a DM is providing either way, then it's your job to either compromise with the DM on style, suck it up, or find a new DM.


----------



## shilsen (Mar 25, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> My point is that 'because' of magic shops where PC's can pick up anything official on a whim, it's no longer special.
> 
> I cannot think of any way, without eliminating or severely restricting magic shops, to "give items that PC's want to keep."




Then you're not trying hard enough. 

In my Eberron camapaign, because the PCs are in Sharn, magic items shops are available. And every PC has at least one unique item which provides abilities that no item from a shop can provide, ranging from heirloom swords that increase in power with the wielder, to a millennia-old harness that has grown into the warforged's body and permanently modified it, to a necklace that gives the wizard access to every spell in the PHB and some non-PHB ones, to a living parasitic armband which absorbs nutrition from the wearer and provides significant benefits, etc. The PCs enjoy buying and selling many items. And they have also never considered selling the items that are unique to them, are tied into their past adventures and provide avenues to consider for the future, and also provide benefits that no shop-bought item does.

Quite commonly we get one of these threads whining about the supposed problem of magic item shops in the game. I've always thought that if the effort put into the thread was instead put into thinking about one's game and dealing with it, things would be better for all concerned.


----------



## Presto2112 (Mar 25, 2007)

The way I'll be doing it is that I'm not gonna have an a la carte magic shop, but if the PCs can get in friendly with a wizard or sorcerer in town that can craft the appropriate magic items, and they have the money and time to wait for the item to be crafted, then "I'll see what I can do".

In the meantime, there won't be any "gimme the DMG, I need to see if there's a magic item that will do X".  It will be left to the PCs to suck up to the spellcaster in question and figure out what they want / need.


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 25, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Err... he sells a magic dagger. He buys another magic dagger. Sounds like 3e, with the abstraction prettied up for the book.
> 
> Cheers!




Actually he loses the first dagger by throwing it at a Sea Serpent, he didn't sell it.  When he goes to the weapon dealer (not a magic shop), he tells him about the magic dagger and asks if he has anything special like that.  He gets offered a half-dozen or so knives that have various abilities but mostly duplicating abilities.  Gord wasn't offered one of every type of knife at varying degrees of enchantment, he was offered what the guy had in his limited stock.


----------



## Slife (Mar 26, 2007)

If by "shops" where you "buy" magic items, you mean "dungeons" where you "kill things" for magic items, then yes.

Actually, come to think of it, buying/selling is abstracted more than anything else.  I just assume that the rogue or wizard in the party knows a guy, who knows a guy, who has it.


----------



## scriven (Mar 26, 2007)

Magic shops don't, by themselves, wreck the spirit of the game.  The idea that any item worth X gp or less should be available at such shops, does, in my opinion.

I was introduced to this concept in the last game I played in.  It was my first experience with 3E as a player.  After the initial shock wore off, the fun drained right out of the game for me.  I found that rather than gazing longingly through the item lists, wondering whether our group might find this one or that, deep within some gods-forsaken subterranean labyrinth...  I was presented merely with an optimization problem: buy the items that would maximize my numbers.  And even though I hated doing so, I had no choice if my character was to be at all effective.  Because the other players were.  The pressure to munchkinize was dreary and oppressive.

And the treasure hordes we found were as magical as paper squares stamped with gp values.  It was irrelevant what magic items we found; we sold them to buy others of our choosing.

I like many things that came with 3E (including attacks of opportunity), but this is one of the few that really, really disagrees with me.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Mar 26, 2007)

Yes...

I don't believe Wal Magic is an even remotely believable idea...why would anyone sell a magic item?   To get a better one?  Why not use it to reward a retainer and bump their loyalty/morale?  Not that magic items aren't available, but there isn't a counter in the back under glass and an exploding runes symbol that reads "Consult employee before handling.', but that if there are items available, they are probably stolen and being sold by 'Vinnie' from a moving cart at a street corner or back alley near you. 

Does it kill the spirit of the game?  I won't even touch that, because that IS a personal POV and an argument one way or another.  The defiying of logic is my reason, again personal, YMMV.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 26, 2007)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> Yes...
> 
> I don't believe Wal Magic is an even remotely believable idea...why would anyone sell a magic item?




... because they found one that they can't use. Unless they happen to hold some sort of feudal rank of nobility, NPCs are no more likely to have retainers than PCs are. And even if they do have some, it's unlikely that a dragon's horde contains _glasses of beuaracracy_ or a _rod of agriculture_ that a typical feudal estate's managers could actually use.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 26, 2007)

> I cannot think of any way, without eliminating or severely restricting magic shops, to "give items that PC's want to keep."
> 
> Stoopid shiny silver sword with ritual runes...yea, gonna sell that one....




Try harder. Give your players things tied to their past, things with unique powers, things relevant to various plots that are going on in the game world. Things they make themselves, things that are slightly dangerous to use.

And if they're not interested in any magic item, and prefer gold, I'd wonder exactly how much you're charging these guys for daily missions. 



> I don't believe Wal Magic is an even remotely believable idea...why would anyone sell a magic item?




Why would the party wizard give the party fighter a +1 sword? Because the party fighter can make better use of it. Why would the retired NPC adventurer sell the party their old boots of striding? Because he doesn't need 'em. 

There's a market for it, and there is a craft that makes them. Spellcasters make 'em. Adventurers buy 'em.


----------



## Psion (Mar 26, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?
> 
> Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?  Does it just become a Mario-Bro's game where you're just trying to get enough "coins?"  Can you hear the blinging sound in your campaigns?




It depends on how you handle them, but done in the made-to-order anything-goes way that would result in your scenario, yes, it does.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 26, 2007)

*This Thread Is Much Better With Graphics*

THIS THREAD IS MUCH BETTER WITH GRAPHICS RELEVANT.

Anyone care to create an opposing humorous graphic?

jh


----------



## Thurbane (Mar 26, 2007)

IMC, magic item shops don't exist - the occasional hedge wizards may sell low value items like potions and scrolls, and some items do come up for sale from private sellers.

But the concept of walking into a shop to custom order a +1 Keen Flaming Holy Burst kukri does not exist...


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> IMC, magic item shops don't exist - the occasional hedge wizards may sell low value items like potions and scrolls, and some items do come up for sale from private sellers.




IMC, magic item shops don't exist except in the biggest cities, and those are mainly have a limited supply of things, e.g. "wand of fireballs for those going into the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk!" 

However, there exist crafters for hire, so PCs can get many items made for them.

But, for the most part, they don't bother. Oh, yes, you see people getting their weapons and armour upgraded (less once I introduced _Weapons of Legacy_), but mostly they're having too much fun adventuring to be spending lots of time poring over the books.

Cheers!


----------



## Rolzup (Mar 26, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> IMC, magic item shops don't exist - the occasional hedge wizards may sell low value items like potions and scrolls, and some items do come up for sale from private sellers.
> 
> But the concept of walking into a shop to custom order a +1 Keen Flaming Holy Burst kukri does not exist...




Nor does it, I think, in most games.

But if a Gurkha Paladin really wants such a weapon, he can obtain it...maybe by seeking out someone to forge the thing for him, or by travelling to the Celstial realms to negotiate directly with Schick, the Archangel of Sharp Things, or...whatever.

And if you want to play that out, great.  At that level of play, I'm more than willing to abstract it down to "A month passes, you have your kukri, what's your next step?"


----------



## Nathan P. Mahney (Mar 26, 2007)

In roughly 20 years of gaming, I have never played in a campaign where magic items were available to purchase.  It was always rare for someone to sell one, either - we held onto those things for dear life!  I think my 20th-level halfling thief has something like four +1 short swords.

The current campaign I'm DMing doesn't have magic shops - partly because it's D&D-as-post-apocalypse, and partly because I don't like the idea of my players being able to buy whatever they like.  I prefer magic items (aside from scrolls, potions and wands) as relics of a bygone age which current wizards lack the power to recreate - doesn't really mesh with a system that has Item Creation Feats.

Still, I'm planning on having a 'magic shop' in my next campaign.  It'll be more of a cluttered shop full of weird crap, kind of like the store from Gremlins, that will have weird curios and cursed monkey paws and the occasional real magic item.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 26, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> But the concept of walking into a shop to custom order a +1 Keen Flaming Holy Burst kukri does not exist...




To a large extent, the idea of custom ordering a +1 keen flaming holy burst Kukri doesn't bother me.  It's the idea that there is a +1 keen flaming holy burst Kukri gathering dust on a shelf somewhere waiting for the PC to come along and buy it that I find both unrealistic and unhelpful to the game.

If the PC's can find someone who is capable of manufacturing a +1 keen flaming holy burst kukri, then the PC's are free to try to talk this person into making them one.  I've no problem with that.  Of course, manufacturing a magic sword isn't exactly like manufacturing a masterwork since you are investing some essential quality of yourself (whatever XP represents) into the work, so its not like high level crafters are just going to be jumping at the chance to make and sell something to total strangers.  I mean, when's the last time you saw a PC crafter make items and sell them to total strangers?

One of the worst problems created by the idea of magic shops is such shops would represent an unbelievable level of wealth concentrated in a small area.  Anything less than a dungeon protecting such a place would invite robbery.  Adopting a CRPG approach to the problem would create CRPG problems.  If the merchants must protect thier wares, so that plundering the dungeon is more attractive than plundering the town, then they must present CR equivalent challenges to the would be robbers.  

One of the DM's who taught me my trade said that his PC party ended up plundering the Keep on the Borderlands rather than the Caves of Chaos, because the treasure was much better there.  If you'll look at the design of the Keep in B2, for example the Bank, you can see some of PC proofing going on but to make such PC proofing really effective it must itself become absurd.  In order to make the town secure from the PC's, the NPC's in the town must be made far more dangerous than the monsters that supposedly threaten them, to the point that it becomes versimlitude destroying.  You can actually see this going on in alot of CRPG's.  I remember the first time I played Ultima IV, Quest of the Avatar, I thought it was ridiculous to think that the Land of Britania needed me to protect them from monsters, considering that any given town in it had enough level 12 gaurds to polish off most any dungeon in the game.  If you are going to have magic shops, you have to deal with the fact that 'Magic McWallyWorld's' security implies the existance of more high level NPC's than the tables would suggest, and that a significant portion of the wealth of every town is spent on highly devious traps.

But if magic items are custom ordered, this is much less of a problem.

And as someone else pointed out, every town is supposed to have these fantastic magic items available for sell, but strangely not every town has NPC's capable of making these items.  If magic items though are custom ordered, this isn't a problem, since magic items will be available for sell only in the sort of place where they can actually be made.



> Why would the retired NPC adventurer sell the party their old boots of striding? Because he doesn't need 'em.




Presumably all retired NPC adventurers are childless, friendless, and never suspect - as I'm certain my PC's would - that adventure might one day find them again whether they want it or not?

I'm very skeptical of any justification that relies on large numbers of NPC PC classed individuals acting in ways that I know my own PC's and the characters of players I DM would in fact never act.


----------



## darkseraphim (Mar 26, 2007)

I don't believe that magic shops wreck the spirit of D&D, because the spirit of the game has changed considerably over the decades.  But I do believe that they wreck the spirit of heroic fantasy.

To me, they're indicative of the momentous swing of the pendulum away from the DM, and toward the players and their character aggrandizement.  The game since the late 1990s has shown a marked preference away from storytelling, and toward wish fulfillment.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, although personally I prefer my D&D to be heroic fantasy, not wish fulfillment.  For the latter I tend to turn to videogames (WoW or whatever).

In a campaign world with commonplace magic, shops are a logical extension of the availability.  In a dark or heroic world where magic is rare, they should not exist.  Each transaction in such a world should be an adventure hook, and played out as a dangerous enterprise.  Sometimes the players will get something better than they expected, but will find their item was stolen and the original owner has assassins looking for it.  Or, the item will be a fake and they'll have a chance for revenge.  Or, they'll find that the item has hidden properties that only respond to a certain class/alignment, and the former owner will suddenly want the item back.  Or ... (etc.)

The current game focuses on stat building, min-maxing and player empowerment.  There's nothing wrong with that, if the DM and the players are all happy with that.  I play stat-building games all the time (one of my faves being X-Com).  But that theme is markedly different from that in the stories I try to emulate when I run a game.  It all depends on what the players want, and whether they want immediate gratification, delayed gratification or actual challenge to acquire their riches.  C'est la vie.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I mean, when's the last time you saw a PC crafter make items and sell them to total strangers?




That's a bad justification, because the crafting rules are set up specifically to *stop* PCs selling items. It costs 1000 GP + 80 XP to make a +1 sword, which you then sell for 1000 GP.

D&D is designed around a game economy that keeps the focus on the game on adventuring.

Cheers!


----------



## FireLance (Mar 26, 2007)

Really, it all boils down to:

1. What do the players want?
2. What does the DM want?

Assuming a group in which the players have specific magic items in mind for their characters, and the DM is prepared to give it to them, exactly how the DM puts the magic items in the hands of the PCs can be altered to suit the DM's taste.

Magic item shops is one option.

Putting magic item X in the main treasure room of the next dungeon is another option.

Having the PC make Gather Information checks and discovering that an ex-adventurer is prepared to sell magic item X is a third.

Having a patron reward the PC with magic item X is a fourth.

Having the PC commission magic item X from a spellcaster is a fifth.

Having the PC belong to a wealthy organization (possibly supported by the local lord or king) that keeps him supplied with equipment appropriate to his level (including magic item X) is a sixth. (This is the "Q" option mentioned by Stalker0).

I tend to adopt the last in the games I run as it frees me up from having to place treasure in my games, or crack my brains trying to guess what the players want. I just tell the players that their PCs have a budget equal to the standard wealth for their level and to equip them accordingly. Generally, the only restriction is that no single magic item can be worth more than half their wealth.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2007)

darkseraphim said:
			
		

> The current game focuses on stat building, min-maxing and player empowerment.  There's nothing wrong with that, if the DM and the players are all happy with that.  I play stat-building games all the time (one of my faves being X-Com).  But that theme is markedly different from that in the stories I try to emulate when I run a game.  It all depends on what the players want, and whether they want immediate gratification, delayed gratification or actual challenge to acquire their riches.  C'est la vie.




Actually, the game focuses on...

*in play:* Adventure!
*out of play:* DMs creating adventures; players optimising their PCs.

3e deliberately sets it up so that more than just the DM is interested in the game outside of the play of the adventure.

Cheers!


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 26, 2007)

Nathan P. Mahney said:
			
		

> In roughly 20 years of gaming, I have never played in a campaign where magic items were available to purchase.  It was always rare for someone to sell one, either - we held onto those things for dear life!  I think my 20th-level halfling thief has something like four +1 short swords.




I have the same experience, and the two ideas go together.  If you take away the ready supply of commodity magic items, then magic items - even relatively trivial ones - become too precious to sell.  Instead, you horde them, never knowing when you might need a backup because your main weapon has been sundered, or when you'll want to gift them to a favored retainer or ally, or when you might want to present them as a present to an important NPC whose favor you want to win.  Because magic items are irreplacable, you'd never dream of selling one.

And this creates an very ready explanation for why those magic wal-marts don't exist.  The NPCs act in the very same way.  Those that can afford to gather magic items do so.  Almost everyone who comes upon a magic item protects it as the most valuable possesion that they have, because it is.  

No, sure, the occasional item might come on the market - stolen goods to hot to retain, an item discovered which the discoverer has no use for, the occasional item from someone who had to part with it, or who died without heirs - but these items are snatched up quickly by the power brokers, and unless the PC's are themselves power brokers with good contacts, they'd never be a part of this.  A market in magic items would be much closer to a market for weapons technology and national security secrets than a corner store, and its operation would be invisible and inaccessible on average.  And in a fantasy universe, the merchants themselves likely to be quite bizzarre, powerful, and secretive individuals (and likely nomadic).  For one thing, they'd have to be just to stay alive.

The sort of magic which would be available would be the sort of magic which ordinary non-adventuring wizards could make at very low levels - potions and scrolls mainly - and the sort of mundane 'technology' which would not raise them up to the level of something worthy of notice.  For example, in larger towns it would be possible IMC to find 'hedge wizards' selling things like Pitchers which cooled (or heated) beverages, combs which untangled hair, candles that lighted themselves on command, mirrors which made the viewer appear more attractive to themselves than they were, and other sorts of mundane items which required no powerful spells to create. If there was someone who could make swords +1 in the town, and if that person was willing to sell such a product for a living, then they'd almost certainly already have an exclusive contract with the local government and the PC's business would by no means be welcome or needed.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 26, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The problem of PCs selling most items they find is real and is due to many of the items in the DMG being woefully overpriced. Magic Item Compendium solves this problem.





Doesn't it seem unusual that there's no mark-up in the DMG?  I mean who's running those shops..wait...are they selling them for lower than their competitors?

ALWAYS LOW PRICES ON MAGIC ITEMS...WAL-MAGIC

FEATHER FALLING PRICES...WAL-MAGIC.

Doug...you're so luck you don't have to deal with WalMart where you live...
http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28410
jh


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 26, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> That's a bad justification, because...




Ok, when you propose that it is a bad justification, its implied that you'll then present evidence which contridicts the justification.  But instead, you continue with..



> the crafting rules are set up specifically to *stop* PCs selling items.




If that is the case, then the crafting rules are also set up to stop NPC's selling items, and if that is the case then my justification for suggesting that NPCs would not normally sell the items that they create is made stronger by your evidence - not weaker. 

If you don't like that, you should propose changing the crafting rules.  But the crafting rules as they are, by your own admission, do not encourage the crafting and selling of magic items.  Why the rules are like that is irrelevant.  The fact is that if the fantasy world simulated by the rules is to be consistant with the rules that simulate it, by your own admission magic items made to be available for sell would be very rare.

Cheers!


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 26, 2007)

I think PC's should be able to take magic items apart rather than sell them.

Really, extract the x.p. and gold from them just like oil or something.


----------



## grodog (Mar 26, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> What's "Horsemen of the Apocalypse", Allan? I don't know that source.




It's an OOP collection of essays published by Jolly Roger Games, written by various industry folks (including Stafford, Gygax, etc.).  Gary's essay is quite good, and details the history of his development of the Greyhawk castle, city, and wilderness.  I'm reprinting the essay in a book of essays on designing dungeons that I'm working on.

edit - the ISBN for HotA is 1-55878-240-0 (original MSRP $20, published in 2000).


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 26, 2007)

In the Cook/Marsh Expert rules an Alchemist could be hired for 1,000gp per month; he could make potions at 1/2 cost.  I was recently thinking that it would be possible to have a "Potion Shop" available... there would only be a few such places in the world.  But other magic?  It's just too rare and expensive.

But I like to keep a tight reign on magic items anyway.  A +1 weapon is a rare find, probably from a time long past.  You'll want to keep it, especially since a magical creature may someday be encountered that requires such a weapon to hit it.


----------



## Imp (Mar 26, 2007)

Magic item shops don't ruin the spirit of D&D, as such, but making them as standard as the rules kinda sorta imply really strains an awful lot of settings.  But I think the whole item-christmas-tree issue only really starts to break credibility at the higher levels, where a lot of other things get twisted; having as many high-level _characters_ wandering about as the rules kinda sorta imply _also_ really strains an awful lot of possible settings.

(Personally, the rules behind making magic items don't make any sense to me in a fantasy setting.  They sort of make sense in a far-future setting, where credits can be swiftly funneled into appropriate resources, and advanced technology allows fabricating complex, customized equipment faster than we can today, thus: powerful enhancements, in a few days' time.  As written, the rules allow a caster to make many magic items, individually craft them, in just two or three or four days!  It takes longer to lay out a _newsletter_.  It would sort of make sense if it took a month, or a week, perhaps, to make & enchant the magic gloves, and you had to get the right ingredients to do it.  Or, it would make sense if you just sacrificed the gold and part of your heroic soul (XP) and poof! gloves of dexterity.  But as is, items made quickly out of completely fungible resources, it makes no sense except as a matter of convenience.)


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 26, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Doesn't it seem unusual that there's no mark-up in the DMG?




Ummm, there is.  The DMG price is double the cost of making an item.  Admittedly, there is the intangible of the xp cost.  However, that's a pretty vague thing to put a price on (how many gp is an xp worth?)


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If that is the case, then the crafting rules are also set up to stop NPC's selling items, and if that is the case then my justification for suggesting that NPCs would not normally sell the items that they create is made stronger by your evidence - not weaker.




An NPC can sell an item for full cost. A PC can't. 

The D&D Economy is bunk. This is intentional.

There are 10th level Experts out there. How did they gain the XP? By killing monsters? No. How? The rules don't address it. All that actually matters to the game is that you know that they exist, and how to run them in play.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 26, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I mean, when's the last time you saw a PC crafter make items and sell them to total strangers?




Not all that long ago, my PC did that. We had some downtime, and he was short on cash; making some power stones and selling them did a lot to remedy the situation.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 26, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Ummm, there is.  The DMG price is double the cost of making an item.  Admittedly, there is the intangible of the xp cost.  However, that's a pretty vague thing to put a price on (how many gp is an xp worth?)




See graphic for graphic details..


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> But I like to keep a tight reign on magic items anyway.  A +1 weapon is a rare find, probably from a time long past.  You'll want to keep it, especially since a magical creature may someday be encountered that requires such a weapon to hit it.




Nothing wrong with that at all. 

Mind you, as Quasqueton will tell you, the idea of "rare magic items" in earlier editions is somewhat bunk when you look at the adventures.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2007)

Imp said:
			
		

> Magic item shops don't ruin the spirit of D&D, as such, but making them as standard as the rules kinda sorta imply really strains an awful lot of settings.




Worth looking at the notes on magic item shops in the MIC.

Cheers!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 26, 2007)

> But other magic? It's just too rare and expensive.




Part of me has never understood this mentality in a 3e D&D world (I can't speak with much experience to how common magic items are in earlier editions).

I mean, it's definitely possible to create a world in which magic items ARE rare and expensive, and they'll always be such to the "common folk" of the world, but for PC's? For adventurers? 

I mean, in the real world, brave souls head into caves deep underground and emerge with something precious after risking life and limb. Say, gold.

In D&D, brave souls head into dungeons deep underground and emerge with something precious after risking life and limb. Say, a +1 sword.

Gold is melted down, turned around, transformed into art and jewelry and coinage.

Magic items are researched, distilled, displayed, and re-sold to those who want to buy 'em.

It seems to me that magic items are at least as common in a typical D&D world as gold, or platinum, or diamonds. Even assuming there's no one crafting these for market (which isn't a fair assumption, but it's not necessary to worry about here), just going with the trinkets recovered from dragon hoards and ancient ruins around the world....rare? Expensive? Yeah, I wouldn't expect Joe Commoner to get his paws on one, much like I wouldn't expect more than about 10% of the earth to get their paws on a solid gold watch, either. But they exist, there's a high-end market for them, and they are useful at least as displays of status, and often as much more (they are better-than-average items). 

As far as the rules suggest (what with adventuring being not unique to the PC's), magic items don't seem to be very rare at all, among adventurers.


----------



## Saladman (Mar 26, 2007)

Not for everybody, obviously, but for me they do.  Actual stores with nothing but magic items on their shelves is something I have a hard time wrapping my brain around.  Stores selling regular items with a handful of super-valuable items in the back is also odd.  I am okay with players buying and selling magic items, but in a much more restricted way.  Wealthy merchants, lords and high level wizards may have a handful of specific items they might be willing to part with for the right price.  (Ditto the earlier poster on Gather Info, Knowl.-Nobility, etc.)  In other words, I'll roll to see what's for sale if I need to abstract it; I ask my players to handle all magic item purchases at the table, and not just pencil it in out of session.  This also means I don't make everything under X GP available in a city.

Parenthetically, I'm also open to the possibility of PCs selling items for anywhere from 50% to 100% of market price, depending on finding a motivated buyer.  Practically speaking, they'll need to make some skill rolls and spend some time in game to get more than 50%.  But its theoretically possible for a PC spellcaster to make money by crafting magic items on commission, if they have enough downtime to arrange it.


----------



## Drowbane (Mar 26, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> The only stuff I allow to be bought and sold anymore is potions.  I've reduced the sale value of MI's to 1/10th of normal..it's a lower magic world anyways so it doesn't matter.
> 
> "Sure, you want 5 or 6 donkeys for that pretty sword, what did you call it?  Vor-pallll?  Whatever...I'll throw in my buck-toothed serving wench."
> "Gee, thanks..how about a tank of ale too"
> ...




Hmm, you have a Vorpal sword and want his donkeys and ale.  Seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Mar 26, 2007)

Okay midget, I see where you are coming from, but answer this then, if an escalatory situation as the one describe exists, then the market would plummet and the magic items would be worth less than the mundane.  

My problem with magic item shops are myriad, first though magic is somewhat common place in the form of spell casters, even in previous editions the amount of resources to create an item was pretty hefty (scrolls and potions excluded - as the time and resources are both neglegible and plentiful).  In 3.X the addition of XP cost even more so.  (Merric, your argument is built on sand and amounts to because I said so... PCs are people too, if the rules cover them in a specific way NPCs are governed by the same rules in similar situations by default - and your point about monster slaying is valid, the only beef I have with the 3.X XP system is the lack of a 'real' alternate XP earning (the ones in the DMG don't hold much water))  

The time and effort to guard against these items being stolen from a town full of mamby pamby NPCs (as pointed out so excellently earlier by Celebrim).  More importantly as I stated in my first post is (by example) that if you own a +1 sword and find a +2 sword  you should horde your +1 sword so when you have a retainer of some sort (I personally would want a house full of servants if I could afford it) especially a bodyguard or lieutenant to have that item and would guarantee their loyaty or at least make them more loyal.  In a campaign I ran the party found a +2 set of Plate armor that no one wanted and a +3 longsword they gave them to a lowly 1st level fighter NPC - he immediately became the most loyal bodyguard (was just a highered 'gun') you ever did see.  Offered to do guard duty, buy drinks, secure passage, etc because they just handed him a fortune in stuff.  

And as an example of where rare and wonderous items end up in the real world - the go to National museums and become priceless artifacts.  Think about this a second, inn the 14th century a folded steel samurai sword was uncommon, but nearly every peasant had seen one on the hip of a Samurai or Shogun to which they owed allegiance or a longsword in the western civilizations hung at the belt of every lord and knight as they rode off to the crusades.  In the 20th century, each of these items if found are considered 'priceless' and if sold fetch 100s of 1000s and in some cases millions of dollars.  So while the magic itself may be common or more to the point uncommon to the average person, the ararity of the items created by said magic shouldn't be considered ordinary or commonplace.

And as I said, items are out there, but not in a single location under a blinking neon sign that says 'Magic - slightly used, all sales final...'  If so, I for one would be VERY wary about purchasing anything found there.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2007)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> Merric, your argument is built on sand and amounts to because I said so... PCs are people too, if the rules cover them in a specific way NPCs are governed by the same rules in similar situations by default




Which part of "PCs sell magic items for half-price, NPCs sell magic items for full-price" do you not understand?


----------



## KiwiGlen (Mar 26, 2007)

I love magic shops, it's a great way to annoy the PCs with an irascible NPC owner, soak up excess cash in the form of good one-off magic buys (just in, 10 CLW potions, what, you want ALL of them?) and create adventure hooks


----------



## molonel (Mar 26, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> If it wrecked the spirit of the game, then doing so would hurt my game. Since my game has only improved because of magic item shops (which I used long long before 3e came out), I can confidently say that they do not wreck D&D.
> 
> There's a huge gap between "wreck the spirit of D&D" and "some people don't like it" that needs to be admitted here...




Amen.

Yes, it can ruin it for some in the spirit and flavor they are trying to create. Does it ruin it for everyone else, or make the games that use them into shallow, 1-dimensional entities.

I sometimes wonder what some folks mean by, "The spirit of D&D" because I played 1st Edition AD&D and Basic D&D, and we had magic item shops back then, or we would tell the DM what we wanted, and we'd go on an adventure to find it.

I particular enjoyed the story of the magic item shop, and the crazy elf who ran it. It's just proof that it's the story that matters, and what the characters and the DM want.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 26, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Which part of "PCs sell magic items for half-price, NPCs sell magic items for full-price" do you not understand?




The page number that that quote comes from would be a good start. 

I also wonder if you are misidentifying what is going on.  Let me use an example which I think everyone can be familiar.  "Game players sell games for half-price.  Game store owners sell games for full-price"  Does this imply that there is some unfair principle at work which gives a game store owner some unfair advantage over me, or is it rather that the difference comes from the nature of the transaction.

Let's say I sell some MtG rares to a game store owner.  If he's willing to buy them at all, he'll probably only pay me half of what he intends to sell them at.  Why is that?  Because he's accepting some risk in buying the item.  The item may not sell at all.  The item may not sell for quite some time, during which time his monetary investment in the item is tied up and useless to him.  Before the item sells it might be stolen, or it might turn out to be stolen, or it might turn out to be fake.  In order to find a buyer, the owner must pay for a property and advertising so that buyer can find him.  This is called overhead.  In the end, the owner may only realize a 4% return on his investment in purchasing your cards, and from this money he must then support himself and his family.

So is it unfair that the owner buys the card from me for only half of what he sells it at?  Is it unfair that 'game players' sell games for half-price?  Not really.  If I wanted to accept the risks myself, I could go out and try to find a buyer for it other than the reseller.  It might cost me significant time and a certain ammount of resources, but if I established myself in a business there is no reason in theory why I couldn't sell games for thier full market price.  

Likewise with PC's, NPC's and selling magic items.  PC's could certainly sell magic items for full price, if they set up a shop, established a business and a reputation, and waited around for a buyer.  I don't see anything in the rules that precludes this.  I don't see the rule "PCs sell magic items for half-price, NPCs sell magic items for full-price" anywhere in the DMG.  But PC's are typically in the position of game players selling thier items.  They have no real leverage and they want or need the cash now rather than later.

Incidently, this is yet another reason why magic item shops are unlikely, or at least that commisioned works are far more likely.  I can't imagine crafters are going to be glad to risk dead inventory or not being able to sell the item at market price for lack of eager buyers.  Not at least, if they are investing XP.

While I'm looking through the DMG, I thought I'd quote a few interesting passages:

"Magic Items are the hallmarks of a legendary campaign.  They are gleaned from the hordes of conquered monsters, taken from fallen foes, and sometimes crafted by the characters themselves."

Oddly, no mention of large discount stores.

"Including magic items as part of treasure is a vital task of the DM.  It's also a delicately difficult one."

Don't you think it particularly odd that it would say that, since if magic items are only commodities to be freely bought and traded, presumably a DM could forgo this delicate difficult task by just leaving around enough coin and letting the players do thier own shopping?

"Occasionally however you'll want to give your players items you have hand-picked as especially suitable to thier characters.  Feel free to do this more and more often as you gain experience as a DM..."

Oddly, the DMG makes no mention here of letting the players hand pick thier items.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Oddly, no mention of large discount stores.




You really need to get the MIC.

Page 231:
A player points to an item published in this book or the _Dungeon Master's Guide_ and asks, "Can I buy this?" The answer should usually be "yes."

Page 232:
Large one-stop shop "magic emporiums" are unrealistic and rare even in metropolis-sized cities. Instead, a community's total stock of magic items for sale is widely distributed among dusty alchemist's shops, bookstores, scribers' boutiques, pawn shops, elixir brewers, the residences of retired adventurers, the old mage on the corner, and so on.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2007)

The Player's Handbook states: "In general, a PC can sell an item for half its listed cost... Tradegoods are the exception..." (pg 112). So, that's the half-price rule. The full-price rule for NPCs can be seen by the fact PCs have to buy *from NPCs*.

Right.

The quote "Including magic items as part of treasure is a vital task of the DM. It's also a delicately difficult one" is because you shouldn't give out too powerful items - like a +5 vorpal sword to a 1st level PC. 

However, the 3e game has evolved greatly since Monte Cook was writing that back in 1999-2000.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 26, 2007)

This thread inspired me to start rolling randomly to see what MI would come on the market IMC (C&C rules) over the next few years.  The PCs are ca 9th level, we took ca 35 sessions and two years real-time to play through Lost City of Barakus, and they are now 'movers and shakers' in Endhome, a metropolis of some 33,000 or so.

I used the 1e DMG treasure tables, here's what I came up with:

_______________________

 Year / Season       Item   / Best Price (Brokered)

2746 YE

1d6-1/season

S3-4: 1 

Potion – Speed – 450 gp

2747 YE

S1-2: 1 

Ring – Invisibility – 15,000 gp

S3-4: 4 	

E5 – Rope of Climbing – 10,000 gp
Sword – Long, +4 Defender, 30,000 gp
Misc Weapon – 6 +3 arrows, 450 gp each
Scroll – Protection from Undead, 7,500 gp


2748 YE

S1-2: 2 

Potion – frost giant strength (STR 21) – 1,000 gp
Armour/Shield - +1 leather, 2,000 gp

S3-4: 4

E3 Horn of Valhalla, 15,000 gp
Bastard Sword + 3 Frost Brand, +6 vs Fire Using/Dwelling, 8,000 gp
E1 – Amulet vs Detection & Location, 15,000 gp
Scroll – Protection from Lycanthropes, 5,000 gp


2749  YE

Goes to d6-2

S1-2: 4

Potion
E4
Potion
Armour/Shield

S3-4: 0

2750 YE

S1-2: 3 

Estate of Sea Captain Mullar in Probate.  Includes MAP to chest of pearls, under water in sunken  schooner wreck, The Empress Wave – 100gp – Thanegioth - Isle of Dread?  Refers to  Rory Barbarossa’s journal, & a rough map.  “Following the directions in Barbarossa’s journal, we navigated the eastern ocean for a thousand miles, and after two weeks at sea at last came to an archipelago of fertile, pleasant isles, the waters teeming with oyster beds…”

Sword
Scroll

S3-4: 2

Potion
Misc Weapon

2751 YE

S1-2: 1

Adventurer Shakri Jameson (?) offers MAP to the Treasure Vault of Larin Karr (Drow Knave-12), hidden in ruins in Quail Valley – 1000gp

_________________

I also allow PCs to commission stuff from friendly wizards etc they personally know; eg if the Wiz-9 guildmaster likes you you can get your sword upgraded to +3 by him.  And +1 items (or many other things with book price under 3,000 gp) are common enough they can often be bought.  So by 1e standards this is a high magic, munchkinny setting, by 3e standards it's low magic and I'm a meanie GM.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 26, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> You really need to get the MIC.
> 
> Page 231:
> A player points to an item published in this book or the _Dungeon Master's Guide_ and asks, "Can I buy this?" The answer should usually be "yes."




Jeez.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Jeez.




Yeah, I know. The reasoning behind why you should say "Yes" is important, but I've copied enough out already.

Personally, I'd have no trouble in saying "No" to a player... but I do have to ask why I'm saying no. Is it to maintain the wonder in the game by just having the items appear from adventuring, or is it to be a control freak?

This is the same philosophy I use with Prestige Classes (and indeed, Classes and Races): If something will make the game more fun for me and my players, it's worth including. Some of the best adventures I've run have happened because a player has said, "Can I take...?"

One thing I've observed about D&D is that overall it is _not_ a low-magic game... but it is astonishingly low-magic at lower levels. It may become a little less so now the MIC has some reasonable item costs, but up until about 8-10th level, PCs don't really have that much in the way of magic. Later it becomes more prevalent, but a lot of players (apparently) don't get to experience those levels.

Cheers!


----------



## Brimshack (Mar 26, 2007)

Just responding to the OP:

I think it really depends on the type of flavor you want for a campaign. For my own settings, I prefer not to have magic that easy to acquire. I wouldn't say it ruins the game, but it is something that can erode the flavor I want to produce, so I control it a bit.

even without the stores, I prefer a much more low magic campaign to the general outlines of 3.5. Does the extra magic ruin the game? No. I just don't run it quite that way, and the players usually get along fine with lower quantities of magic than usual. I still have magic shops, but in most cases the availability is limited (this or that merchant only has up to level 6 magic, etc.) and inflate prices quite often. If the shop has significant magic, then just getting to it safely can be a game in itself. It's easy enough to contain it if you like. But I could just as easily see a campaign that works fine with that much magic. I just haven't


----------



## molonel (Mar 26, 2007)

The thing I don't understand about low magic vs. video game arguments, and that's really all this thread is in another incarnation, is why the folks who oppose the game in its present form have to insist that low magic games are the only one preserving the "true spirit of the game" or whatever the catch phrase is ... this time.

Why are you folks so insecure about your gaming style? Because out of the 15 bazillion threads like this that I've read - there should be another two or three in the next ten minutes on this or the other gaming forums I read - these threads are almost NEVER started by high magic, high fantasy freaks going off on those stupid low magic games that DON'T have magic item shops.

I say this as someone who is playing in a low magic game, and running two of my own (one online, one FTF). I'm running my low magic games because that's the flavor I'm going for right now. That's all. I don't feel the need to start a thread about how it's the ONLY way to fly, or somesuch similar nonsense.

I'd much rather read a lot of rich, interesting threads about the mechanics about how people accomplish their low magic games. House rules, game tweaks, what rules set (Grim Tales, Conan d20, Midnight, Iron Heroes, homebrew, other), how you handle the game and how INTERESTING it is than read another @#$@#ing "ZOMG! Low magic games R the b3st! And UR gam3z 4 th3 suxx0rz!" thread.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 26, 2007)

> Okay midget, I see where you are coming from, but answer this then, if an escalatory situation as the one describe exists, then the market would plummet and the magic items would be worth less than the mundane.




...I don't understand. The price of gold doesn't plummet, and gold watches aren't worth less than mundane watches.

Why would a magic sword cause markets to plummet? Why wouldn't a magic sword still be worth more than a mundane sword?


----------



## rounser (Mar 26, 2007)

> The time and effort to guard against these items being stolen from a town full of mamby pamby NPCs (as pointed out so excellently earlier by Celebrim).



The NWN solution to this is to have the storekeeper a powerful outsider, such as a genie, fiend or arcane, and the merchandise kept safe in a pocket dimension, or at the other end of a gate that only the outsider can use etc.  The shopkeeper can be summoned from a given location or item.  Assume the items can be demo'ed by illusion.

This solves multiple problems at once.  Theft and violence become non-issues, because the item is only retrieved on payment.  If the shopkeeper is threatened, he or she simply gates out, or turns out not to have really been there in the first place.

It also solves economic problems associated with justifying where the items are coming from or ending up, locally.  The infinite planes would have trade enough to justify almost any item being available, at the DM's discretion.  It's also an interesting hook into planar goings-on.


----------



## Someone (Mar 26, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Really, it all boils down to:
> 
> 1. What do the players want?
> 2. What does the DM want?




And also 3. What's good for the game?

Magic Marts where you can drive in your cart full of gold and come out with every possible magic item in existence, or where you can sell your magic items and drive out a cart full of gold are as corrosive to *most* games as having the King be a talking Yorkshire Terrier called Bob.

On the other hand, in most games it's incredible that nobody, no matter what, under no circumstances ever will sell a magic item.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 26, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?



I think that if you overcusomize and over twink then you have wrecked the spirit of your game, pretty much by definition.

Maybe I'm forgetting, but I don't recall anything in the core that states that "shops" automatically exist.  Gold limit availability guidelines do not equate to a statement that stuff is just sitting on a shelf or custom crafters are standing by.

In my typical games cheap stuff can be found fairly easily if you go to the obvious places.  Being able to buy potions of Cure Moderate Wounds from a large enough church doesn't wreck the spirit for me.  

By the time the characters are high enough level to afford bigger stuff they tend to have reputations and contacts that make in-story justifications pretty easy.  If the character can afford a +2 flaming keen great axe and that is what the player would like to have, then there is no added fun in telling the player "neener neener you can't have it".  
You don't get to the gp point and write the axe on a character sheet.  And you don't go to the "flaming" aisle at magic-mart.  But next time you are back at a "safe" home base type location and have time to talk to your contacts, you can make a payment and a month later you have your axe.  By that method you can aquire pretty much whatever customized item you want eventually, as long as you have the money, which means you're going to be high enough level to have that item one way or another.  So it ends up having the same bottom line effect as a magic-mart, only without the story impact of a magic-mart.

Now if you want to play D&D with a lower magic item level then that's fine.  But that doesn't justify being critical of playing at the standard level.  

So to me, the initial question assumes a narrow range of options that result in lack of imagination wrecking the spirit of the game, rather than the rules themselves doing it.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 26, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> You really need to get the MIC.
> 
> Page 231:
> A player points to an item published in this book or the _Dungeon Master's Guide_ and asks, "Can I buy this?" The answer should usually be "yes."



Yeah, but as I stated above, this doesn't mean it is sitting on a shelf somewhere.

If you're playing default D&D then you are in a world where a lot of people (npcs) can make most of this stuff and large hordes of treasure pass through character hands over time.  You've got the cash and somebody has the ability.  It is only reasonable that, eventually, you should be able to buy one of whatever.  But that doesn't at all suggest (much less demand) "large discount stores".


----------



## Presto2112 (Mar 26, 2007)

I'm thinking of opening a magic shop in my campaign akin to a cheese shop.

"How about a Ring of Feather Falling?"

"I'm afraid we're fresh out of those, sir."

"Oh, never mind, how about a Rod of Cancellation?"

"I'm afraid we naver have those at the end of the week.  We'll get some fresh on Monday."

"Tish tish, no matter; how about some Boots of Elvenkind?"

"They've been on order for two weeks, I was expecting them this morning."

"It's not my lucky day, is it?  Wand of Lightning Bolts?"

"Afraid not."

"Keoughtom's Ointment?"

"Ah! We have Keoughtom's Ointment, yes sir."

"You do! Excellent."

"Yes, sir. It's, ah ..... it's a bit runny."

"Oh, I like it runny."

"I think it's a bit runnier than you'll like it, sir."

"I don't care how runny it is. Hand it over with all speed!"

"Oh ....."

"What now?"

"The cat's eaten it."

"I see.  This is a magic item shop, correct?"

"Oh, yes, sir, finest in the district!"

"Obviously.  Um, Mace of Disruption?"

"No."

"Cloak of Resistance?"

"Not today."

"That's unfortunate.  How about a Potion of Cure Light Wounds?"

"Not much call for that around here sir."

"Not much call?  It's the single most used magic item in the whole DMG!"

"Not around here sir."

etc, etc, etc


----------



## Herobizkit (Mar 26, 2007)

My DM doesn't care for magic shops, but as a DM, I think they're a necessary part of today's D&D.  

It makes sense to me that those NPC spellcasters are going to earn their non-adventuring xp and gold somehow.  Non-cursed items under 1000 gp value should be readily available to any town/city that has at least one spellcaster; Potions, scrolls, and 1st-level wands are easiest to make and would have the highest demand.

For wondrous items, a high-level wizard could hire himself out to make the items so PC's can save in-campaign time and a few feats here and there.  Same goes for weapons and armor.  

It just seems to me that if PC's can do it, so should NPCs.


----------



## Presto2112 (Mar 26, 2007)

Herobizkit said:
			
		

> For wondrous items, a high-level wizard could hire himself out to make the items so PC's can save in-campaign time and a few feats here and there.  Same goes for weapons and armor.




What a cool idea for a side thing.  I have an artificer in my game.  I think that after he reaches a certain level, he will develop a bit of a reputation, and I'll have people starting bugging HIM as being a magic shop.

On a side note, if I ever made magic items for other people, I'd make every magic item with an extra added bonus - a contingency spell that activated Phantasmal Killer if they ever decide to use the magic item against me.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 26, 2007)

Which spirit?

The spirit of 1st edition, 2nd edition or 3rd edition?

The one where we grew up reading Conan or the one where we grew up playing Final Fantasy VII?


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?




not alone. the ready availability of magic does that.



> Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?




not alone.


> Does it just become a Mario-Bro's game where you're just trying to get enough "coins?"  Can you hear the blinging sound in your campaigns?




yes, at times.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 26, 2007)

In my campaigns, it might be possible to buy a magic item once in a while, but there certainly are no "shops" set up where you can browse around or special order what you want.  Even having a magic item for sale is pretty darn rare, and it's usually stuff like potions and scrolls.  

I don't like the idea of buying and selling magic items, so I keep it to an absolute minimum in my game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 26, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Not if they're the Bazaar of the Bizarre.
> 
> It's not item shops per se, it's the "You can have any item in the book up to X,000 gp" that is harmful to the dynamics of the game, far more harmful than I initially realised.




QFT.

This goes for mundane items as well as magical ones.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 26, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> It says that, in general, you should allow PCs to buy magic items. One reasoning given is that for many levels its the only way the players can customise their PCs, and is significantly more fun than getting skill points.





This, I find, is a pretty weird statement in 3.X.  How can it be that in 1e and earlier editions, players could customize their characters using imagination, role-playing, and the limited stat block differences available, yet in 3.X you cannot customise your PC unless you can buy magic items?

Sorry, but I don't buy that for one second.

Characters are important for what they _do_ and how they _interact with the game world_.  This doesn't require bennies, or Kewl Powerz at each level, or the ability to shop for magic items.  This is just another example of the "character build" mentality of 3e:  To be an interesting, well-rounded character, you have to twink.

bleh.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 26, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> It is in the spirit of the game for the players to have fun. If magic shops make the game fun, then they're in the spirit of the game. If some people find that magic shops make the game fun, and other people find that magic shops don't make the game fun, then DMs should choose whether to allow them or not based on what their players want.





Sure.

It is in the spirit of the game for the players to have fun. If sub machine guns, tactical nukes, and starships make the game fun, then they're in the spirit of the game. If some people find that submachine guns, tactical nukes, and starships make the game fun, and other people find that sub machine guns, tactical nukes, and starships don't make the game fun, then DMs should choose whether to allow them or not based on what their players want.

RC


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This, I find, is a pretty weird statement in 3.X.  How can it be that in 1e and earlier editions, players could customize their characters using imagination, role-playing, and the limited stat block differences available, yet in 3.X you cannot customise your PC unless you can buy magic items?
> 
> Sorry, but I don't buy that for one second.




Nor do I. 

To me it sounds like something someone will say because they want to sell books, not because its actually good for the game.


----------



## Presto2112 (Mar 26, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Nor do I.
> 
> To me it sounds like something someone will say because they want to sell books, not because its actually good for the game.




That's the way they've been marketing this book, insisting even that magic items before MIC essentially suck, too.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It is in the spirit of the game for the players to have fun. If sub machine guns, tactical nukes, and starships make the game fun, then they're in the spirit of the game. If some people find that submachine guns, tactical nukes, and starships make the game fun, and other people find that sub machine guns, tactical nukes, and starships don't make the game fun, then DMs should choose whether to allow them or not based on what their players want.




I think that's a gross oversimplification.  It is certainly the spirit of the game for the players to have fun, but in the larger scheme of things the DM is also a person playing the game.  Moreover, in a fashion that is fairly unique among games, a greater burden of time and effort falls to a RPG storyteller so that without one, the game doesn't happen.  So the DM's notion of what is fun is important too.  It's not all important, but its definately important.  One can't demand that the DM run a game that he won't find interesting as well.

Secondly, particularly with inexperienced players, they don't necessarily have enough variety of experience to know what will be fun.  They might have - especially if they've had bad experiences - very definate opinions about what isn't fun, but they haven't tried enough things to know what they like.  Its hard for me to prove that this is true, but one bit of evidence would be a quick browse through the house rules forum to see how many bad ideas are mixed in with the good.  These are people who are disatisfied in some fashion, but it isn't necessarily obvious to them how they'd go about fixing the problem and many of the things that they first try are also going to leave them disatisfied.

My guess is that a player that wanted submachine guns and tac nukes introduced to a D&D game would very quickly realize if it was given to them that this wasn't in fact what they wanted.  Nukes make for notoriously unfun gaming.  In the mean time, they just ruined the game for everyone else at the table and wasted a good deal of the DM's time.

The DM should give the players what they want in a broad sense.  If for example he discovers that his players are all tactical players that just love to dungeon crawl, he should minimize the characterization, the setting detail, the simulation aspects of the game and as much as possible get down to what the players want to do.  On the other hand, he might find his players are method actors who enjoy highly imaginative play, and who hate dungeon crawling - in which case he should keep the dungeons down to a bare minimum and not try to force the players to do something that they don't find fun.  But I think it goes way to far to insist that a DM include this item or that one into the game.  A player that wants that much direction over the story, and insists on DMing while wearing a player hat, should probably just run his own game.  And if he's not running his own game or willing to (and in my experience capable of), he should probably be more considerate and respectful to the DM.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 26, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The page number that that quote comes from would be a good start.
> 
> I also wonder if you are misidentifying what is going on.  Let me use an example which I think everyone can be familiar.  "Game players sell games for half-price.  Game store owners sell games for full-price"  Does this imply that there is some unfair principle at work which gives a game store owner some unfair advantage over me, or is it rather that the difference comes from the nature of the transaction.




No, the principles at work are 

- adventurers are typically skilled in killing things and taking their stuff but unskilled in haggling
- adventurers want to unload their useless (to them) magic items quickly
- adventurers want to buy useful things quickly
- magic shopkeepers are highly skilled in bargaining (they deal in very expensive goods, and so can afford the best)
- magic shopkeepers are willing to to take their time to sell things
- for commissioning items, finding the right NPC crafter takes time and money, and they need to be compensated for their XP
- the game isn't Magic: The Shopping, so extensive rules for role-playing out magical commerce are not provided


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I mean, in the real world, brave souls head into caves deep underground and emerge with something precious after risking life and limb. Say, gold.
> 
> In D&D, brave souls head into dungeons deep underground and emerge with something precious after risking life and limb. Say, a +1 sword.
> 
> ...




Say, minions of the BBEG.    

When the PCs recognize that the _wand of fireballs_ they've been blasted with, the swords used by the Minions of Evil (TM), and the armour the BBEG is wearing as items _*they sold*_.....well, that's the moment it all comes together.  Right?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 26, 2007)

Maybe I misunderstand how magic shops work, but how can players ask for items they don't know exist or faithfully purchase ones while clueless to their function?  

Part of the faulty assumption comes from viewing DMG magic items as mass produced rather than once-made and unique in the world.  

I think MerricB has it right.  If fantasy is exploration, and finding and testing magic items is part of that discovery, the DM needs to alter or remove all aspects known to the players.  That includes monsters, spells, and magic items.


----------



## Numion (Mar 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Say, minions of the BBEG.
> 
> When the PCs recognize that the _wand of fireballs_ they've been blasted with, the swords used by the Minions of Evil (TM), and the armour the BBEG is wearing as items _*they sold*_.....well, that's the moment it all comes together.  Right?




It's a nice thing as a DM to see the players battling with their inner greed when deciding if they _really_ want to sell that Ultimate Blackguard Ensemble they've just recovered


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 26, 2007)

Presto2112 said:
			
		

> That's the way they've been marketing this book, insisting even that magic items before MIC essentially suck, too.





Yeah.  You should get it, though, because it makes authoritative statements about how you should run your game.    

CHEERS!


----------



## francisca (Mar 26, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?
> 
> Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?  Does it just become a Mario-Bro's game where you're just trying to get enough "coins?"  Can you hear the blinging sound in your campaigns?
> 
> jh



 Depends on the setting.  

Hyboria?  Yeah, that's kinda out of place.

FR? Probably OK there.

Homebrew megaworld?  On every corner.

Greyhawk?  Could go either way.  I've run Greyhawk as both uber-magic and low magic grim'n'gritty.  

Like most things, it depends on the expectations of the group.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 26, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think that's a gross oversimplification.





That was my point.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Maybe I misunderstand how magic shops work, but how can players ask for items they don't know exist or faithfully purchase ones while clueless to their function?
> 
> Part of the faulty assumption comes from viewing DMG magic items as mass produced rather than once-made and unique in the world.
> 
> I think MerricB has it right.  If fantasy is exploration, and finding and testing magic items is part of that discovery, the DM needs to alter or remove all aspects known to the players.  That includes monsters, spells, and magic items.




ditto.

no opening up a book as a player and asking the DM to buy said item at ye olde (not even old) majicke shoppe

sure you can use the DMG for inspiration. but no demanding random shop x have the item. that's bullpuckey in my opinion.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 26, 2007)

I have a slightly different problem. With an epic level group, they can effectively make any item they want. At least with a magic store I could roleplay the crazy old shopkeeper!

I have no problem with item customization, actually. I just have dead enemies supply items that they would never have thought of themselves.


----------



## francisca (Mar 26, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> ditto.
> 
> no opening up a book as a player and asking the DM to buy said item at ye olde (not even old) majicke shoppe
> 
> sure you can use the DMG for inspiration. but no demanding random shop x have the item. that's bullpuckey in my opinion.




Yeah, I had a new player walk into a magic shop and ask for a longsword +3.  There was about 10 seconds of stunned silence, before the laughter began.  I guess the look of disdain on my face was pretty funny. 

But again, he had different expectations from the rest of the group.  I helped him acclimate.


----------



## Anti-Sean (Mar 26, 2007)

francisca said:
			
		

> But again, he had different expectations from the rest of the group.  I helped him acclimate.



Did they ever find his body?


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 26, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Maybe I misunderstand how magic shops work, but how can players ask for items they don't know exist or faithfully purchase ones while clueless to their function?
> 
> Part of the faulty assumption comes from viewing DMG magic items as mass produced rather than once-made and unique in the world.



In campaigns that I've seen where magic shops used, part of the reason behind that is usually because X number of wizards of the appropriate levels should exist, and since they exist, they can make items.  Et cetera.  That is, the whole idea "magic shops should exist just based on the makeup of the D&D world."  If you accept that reasoning (I don't, but some people do), then it's not a great leap from "magic item market economy" to "magic items made-to-order."

I don't like that approach, but I've certainly seen it used.


----------



## Someone (Mar 26, 2007)

How do _characters_ ask for a +3 longsword, anyway?


----------



## robberbaron (Mar 26, 2007)

Let me think....

No and yes.

I think that 'magic shops' of some sort are a reasonable product of crafting feats. Mages who are a bit tired of blasting monsters can sit down for a month or two, knock out 60kGp of items and sell them to people who do want to go duffing up monsters. Makes sense to me, anyway.

Twinking really &*%$s me off. That's one reason why my campaign is more-or-less core - I seriously don't want my players to get into a 'my class combination is more kickass than your class combination' competition and I don't want to have to read every ridiculously unbalanced class/PrC/spell/power/feat/whatever that players have found buried in a third-party book.


----------



## Rolzup (Mar 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure.
> 
> It is in the spirit of the game for the players to have fun. If sub machine guns, tactical nukes, and starships make the game fun, then they're in the spirit of the game. If some people find that submachine guns, tactical nukes, and starships make the game fun, and other people find that sub machine guns, tactical nukes, and starships don't make the game fun, then DMs should choose whether to allow them or not based on what their players want.
> 
> RC




Pretty much, yeah.

Ptolus has guns.  Including semi-automatic weapons, as I recall.

Starships?  Seems that Spelljammers still has a pretty good following, from what I've seen.  And _Expedition to the Barrier Peaks_ is pretty fondly remembered as well.

Tactical nukes...well, that's your typical high-level mage right there.  (Anyone remember Wizardry?  The spell Tiltowait?)  But, hell, given a setting like Eberron a magical equivalent of a tacnuke wouldn't be at all out of place.  Trying to find it, hidden somewhere in Sharn, before it detonates?  Sounds like a fun evening to me.

Hell, I'm playing in a game right now in which we've seen magical artillery shells, submarines, and powered armor...see my sig.  And it's a freakin' great game, too.

My lord, people!  Is it that horrible that other people have preferences that differ from yours?  Hurting Bad Fun, at its very worst....

The point is, indeed, to have fun.  Not everyone enjoys the same thing.  Nothing wrong with that, one hopes.  If the players are having fun, and if I'm having fun as well, then my job is being done, and done well.

Nothing else matters.


----------



## scriven (Mar 26, 2007)

I have an honest question for those who like the idea of players being able to choose specific items from the books and then have their characters buy them.  If that's how the game's supposed to be played -- if it's the by-the-book norm under the current rules -- why would any PC ever bother with the crafting feats?  Why spend XP to create an item when you can simply buy it?

I don't mean to be inflammatory.  This is something that honestly puzzled me in the game I mentioned earlier in the thread.  I'd thought that the XP cost of item creation was a clever bit of game design: it balanced a great benefit (the opportunity to choose specific items from the books) with a steep cost that players would really feel (XP).


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 26, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> How do _characters_ ask for a +3 longsword, anyway?





*I'd like to see that written up in a novel:*

"Uhm, hello Mr. Shopkeeper Wizard sir..."
"Yes, how may I help you?"
"Uhm, I'm not sure if I'm asking this right.  I feel the compunction to have something called a +3 longsword after going on a murderous rampage against some sentient creatures and looting their still-breating blood-stained bodies."
"Ah, yes!  Certainly.  We have the +1, +2 and +3 versions right here."
"Well, how do you know the difference?"
"Trust me, I'm a wizard.  I'm the next most trusted profession other than paladin."
"Well, uhm, how do you "KNOW" that it's a +3?"
"Look at your character sheet."
"Look at my what???"
"Well son, everyone in this world has something called a character sheet.  It's like a rap sheet kept by the constable..only yours is kept by some strange supernatural being in the sky called a PLAYER."
"Ooooh. I have a PLAYER?"
"Yes, and he is the one compelling you to get this 'thing' called a +3 longsword.  It means that he's compensating for something."
"My player is compensating for something?"
"Sure.  Don't be bothered by it too much.  Many players have compensation issues."
"Does that make ME have compensation issues?"
"Evidently, or you wouldn't be in here trading in these boots of speed for a +3 sword."
"Boots of speed?  I just thought the label was cool.  'Rothgar the quick' and that when I put them on they made me run and fight really fast..they acutally have a technical name?"
"Yes, all things have technical name.  It's like LATIN."
"What's LATIN?"
"OK, let me tell you what you do.  I want you to go on a quest..a quest for a holy book.  It's called the DUNGEONMASTER'S GUIDE.  Inside you'll find all the answers to all your questions."
"Where do I find this DUNGEONMASTERS GUIDE?"
"In terrible reeking shops filled with grotesque humanoid creatures called gamers."
"Oooh, sounds like a lovely quest.  Do I slay the gamers?"
"Yes, and you can loot their bloody corpses for paper money."
"Paper money?  What the heck?"
"Again with the questions!  Seek now your DUNGEONMASTERS GUIDE!"
"EEEeeeeeoooooookaaaaay!"

jh





..


----------



## molonel (Mar 26, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Which spirit? The spirit of 1st edition, 2nd edition or 3rd edition? The one where we grew up reading Conan or the one where we grew up playing Final Fantasy VII?




3rd Edition was actually the edition under which the BEST gaming world equivalent of Robert E. Howard's Conan was created:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpg/series.php?qsSeries=7

Even before that, we saw significant efforts to recreate Conan under the 3.0 rules set:

http://www.enworld.org/Inzeladun/conan.htm

I've never played Final Fantasy. But this whole "We play a roleplaying game, and you play a video game" straw man evidently never grows old to some folks.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 26, 2007)

scriven said:
			
		

> I have an honest question for those who like the idea of players being able to choose specific items from the books and then have their characters buy them.  If that's how the game's supposed to be played -- if it's the by-the-book norm under the current rules -- why would any PC ever bother with the crafting feats?  Why spend XP to create an item when you can simply buy it?



Some players don't mind trading a bit of xp for a gp discount off the magic item they want, especially if it won't make much of a difference to their actual level (a wizard with 11,000 xp and one with 10,500 xp are still both 5th level).

In other games (like mine) magic item creation feats don't have an xp cost, but provide a 25% discount on the cost to acquire magic items that the character could make himself.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> How do _characters_ ask for a +3 longsword, anyway?




for the 1st lvl fighter:  i want a magical weapon that will make me an equal of... (insert 4th lvl fighter's name) in combat.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 26, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?
> 
> Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?  Does it just become a Mario-Bro's game where you're just trying to get enough "coins?"  Can you hear the blinging sound in your campaigns?
> 
> jh





Yes.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 26, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Yes.



Well, based on that highly detailed and well-supported opinion, let me offer a valid counterpoint:

No.

I think now we have a slap-fight to see who wins.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 26, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I have in my campaign allowed potions and scrolls to be purchased in small amounts from alchemists, churches, and wizards but IMO if you go much beyond that magic items cease to be magical and wonderous, and players cease to feel like they've accomplished something important when finding a powerful magical treasure.




Magic items in D&D are not, and have never been "magical and wonderous". They are tools. They are really cool and useful tools to be sure. But really, they are nothing more than that, at least as far as the rules of the game are concerned. The quixotic quest many people embark upon to try to change this basic fact without changing the rules in a way that would reflect the change is, in my experience, one of the greatest areas of frustration for many DMs.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 26, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> *I'd like to see that written up in a novel:*
> ..




I'd like to see how it'd play out in any number of computer or console games.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 26, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If that is the case, then the crafting rules are also set up to stop NPC's selling items, and if that is the case then my justification for suggesting that NPCs would not normally sell the items that they create is made stronger by your evidence - not weaker.




Well, no, because the rules for NPCs are: craft for 1,000 gp and 80 xp, sell for 2,000 gp. In other words, for NPCs, the crafting market is extremely lucrative. I justify this by positing that NPC crafters spend a lot of their time establishing market contacts and so on to allow them to make sure they are able to locate the exact customer for the items they are able to craft, whereas PCs simply don't have this sort of information available. If a PC sets about establishing this sort of information network, they can get better prices for their crafted items too, but establishing and maintaining such a network is sort of a campaign in and of itself.

Your initial premise is wrong (that the rules are the same for PCs and NPCs), and hence, your conclusions about what the rules encourage and don't encourage is wrong.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 26, 2007)

> But really, they are nothing more than that, at least as far as the rules of the game are concerned.




Really, as far as the rules of the game are concerned, they are nothing more than mathimatical modifiers or occasionally grants to break ingame environmental restrictions - though according to the latest thinking apparantly all of the later 'suck' (and I'm beginning to see where this thinking comes from).  

And really, as far as the rules are concerned, all PC's are merely peices of paper with numbers on them.

I suppose the 'quixotic quest' to change this basic fact is one of the greatest areas of frustration for many PC's?  

"Stop pretending that your peice of paper is an imaginary person.  It's just a freaking peice of paper.  No amount of imagination can change that!"



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Magic items in D&D are not, and have never been "magical and wonderous".




I bet I could get quotes from each edition's DMG that suggests that the intention is otherwise.



> The quixotic quest many people embark upon to try to change this basic fact without changing the rules in a way that would reflect the change is, in my experience, one of the greatest areas of frustration for many DMs.




And the really funny thing about this assertion is that this has never been an area of frustration for me.  In fact, creating wierd and wonderful magical items which sometimes become player's treasured possessions has long been one of the things I consider fun about DMing.  No, the area of frustration is merely listening to people rant how this is basically impossible and how I can't have done it and so on and so forth, and the smaller area of frustration is the fear of dealing with a whole generation of players raised (IMO quite unnecessarily) to believe the same thing.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 26, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> 3rd Edition was actually the edition under which the BEST gaming world equivalent of Robert E. Howard's Conan was created:
> 
> http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpg/series.php?qsSeries=7
> 
> ...




Uh, perhaps you don't know it, but Conan OGL plays MUCH differently than standard D&D, which I believe this thread is addressing.

Midnight, A Game of Thrones, Black Company, and other D20 variants showcase how strong the d20 engine is, but D&D is not those things.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Well, based on that highly detailed and well-supported opinion, let me offer a valid counterpoint:
> 
> No.
> 
> I think now we have a slap-fight to see who wins.



what kinda odds are they giving in Vegas?


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 26, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Which spirit?
> 
> The spirit of 1st edition, 2nd edition or 3rd edition?




Don't fool yourself. Magic wasn't rare, wonderous, or mystical in any edition of D&D.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 26, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I bet I could get quotes from each edition's DMG that suggests that the intention is otherwise.



You'll find them in 1e and 2e, not in 3rd. But it's utterly irrelevant. A +1 sword has never been mystical and mysterious no matter what the DMG claims.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 26, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Don't fool yourself. Magic wasn't rare, wonderous, or mystical in any edition of D&D.





IME, it depends very much on who was running the game.  I will certainly accept it was true in your games, however, if you say so.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 26, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?




No. On the other hand, tight fisted micromanaging DM's do.

Dont worry, you can still kill the players at any time, even if you let them buy a sword +1.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> You'll find them in 1e and 2e, not in 3rd. But it's utterly irrelevant. A +1 sword has never been mystical and mysterious no matter what the DMG claims.




The story of the blade of the longdead Hero of Midora's Field would beg to differ.  

at least in our campaigns we have always given backstory and such to every magic item. mechanically it may be a +1 sword. but you'd never know it in game.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 26, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> The story of the blade of the longdead Hero of Midora's Field would beg to differ.
> 
> at least in our campaigns we have always given backstory and such to every magic item. mechanically it may be a +1 sword. but you'd never know it in game.





By 7th level in 1st edition, we had scores of generic +1 weapons. No one ever gave 2 craps about them.

The rules suggested that magic was rare. The treasure tables suggested otherwise.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 26, 2007)

scriven said:
			
		

> why would any PC ever bother with the crafting feats?  Why spend XP to create an item when you can simply buy it?



To save money. 

As written, 3e is a very money-oriented system, it's not like Lord of the Rings at all. It's grubby and mercantile, just like the real world. That's one of the reasons I love it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 26, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Really, as far as the rules of the game are concerned, they are nothing more than mathimatical modifiers or occasionally grants to break ingame environmental restrictions - though according to the latest thinking apparantly all of the later 'suck' (and I'm beginning to see where this thinking comes from).




And as such, nothing more than really well made tools as far as the game is concerned. 



> _I bet I could get quotes from each edition's DMG that suggests that the intention is otherwise._




And those quotes have been nonsense in every DMG they have been printed in. Gygax talked about how magic was supposed to be rare and wondrous back in the 1e DMG, and every edition has parroted this untenable assertion, but the rules of the game simply contradict this assertion. The rules of the game make magic items into a regular, predictable, and understandable element. The practice revealed in published adventures dating back to 1e days makes magic items as common as horseshoes. Sure, the DMG would say something like "a magic item is a benison beyond price", but that was clearly not supported by the actual rules of the game, or the prectice revealed by published works. Especially since they were given an actual price (listed next to the item in the DMG no less).



> _And the really funny thing about this assertion is that this has never been an area of frustration for me.  In fact, creating wierd and wonderful magical items which sometimes become player's treasured possessions has long been one of the things I consider fun about DMing.  No, the area of frustration is merely listening to people rant how this is basically impossible and how I can't have done it and so on and so forth, and the smaller area of frustration is the fear of dealing with a whole generation of players raised (IMO quite unnecessarily) to believe the same thing._




I've played D&D for three decades now. In my experience you sometimes have a PC who treasures a particular magic item as sepcial, but it almost never has anything to do with the actual item, but rather the story behind how and when the item was obtained. The item itself is almost irrelevant in this regard. Just like someone in real life can fall in love with a car, despite the fact that the car is a standard make and model, it is _their_ car, and special to them. This does not make cars mystical or wondrous, nor does it mean that cars are not a commodity, or that cars should not be treated as such. I think that, in this case, you are misidentifying the cause of the attraction the item has, seeing it as the "mystical wondrousness" of the item itself, rather than the circumstances behind the acquisition. But the fact that sometimes people get attached to cars is not a reason to regard cars as something other than tools that can be bought and sold. We don't go around saying if only we made cars impossible to buy, then people would treasure their cars all the more, and when they had two, they would always want to hand them over to valued retainers rather than selling them to their neighbor for thousands of dollars.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IME, it depends very much on who was running the game.  I will certainly accept it was true in your games, however, if you say so.




No matter who was running the game. Magic in D&D has never been wondrous or mystical. The rules of the game simply make it not work that way. I suppose you could radically alter the way the rules of D&D work with respect to magic items, but then there isn't really a basis for discussion any more.

Not even giving magic items copious backstories makes them much more than well-made tools. A _+1 sword_ is still pretty much a _+1 sword_ even if it was carried by the reknowned elven paladin in the battle of endless night and severed the hand of the great orc king.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm forgetting, but I don't recall anything in the core that states that "shops" automatically exist.



DMG 3.5 page 142 -



			
				DMG said:
			
		

> The magic items described in Chapter 7 all have prices. The assumption is that, while they are rare, magic items can be bought or sold much as any other commodity can be. The prices given are far beyond the reach of almost everyone, but the very rich, including mid- to high- level PCs, can buy and sell these items or even have spellcasters make them to order. In very large cities, some shops might specialize in magic items if their clientele is very wealthy or includes a large number of adventurer [sic] (and such shops would have lots of magical protections to ward away thieves). Magic items might even be available in normal markets and shops occasionally. For example, a weaponsmith might have a few magic weapons for sale along with her normal wares.


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Mar 26, 2007)

Personally, I really dislike the "Magic Item Shop" aspect of 3.x.  The ability to simply purchase whatever you want tends to result in a series of "cookie cutter" characters who all have ability score buff items for all 6 scores which also double as ac bonuses and _+3 keen, speed, vicious, holy spiked chains_.  Magic items have lost their magic...  I really miss getting a cool item in a dungeon and actually _keeping_ it instead of trading it in for something from munchkinland...


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 26, 2007)

Although I'm 'pro-shop' I actually think Emirikol's approach, and that of others of a similar view, is perfectly reasonable. Most likely you all run good games, and I'd probably enjoy playing in them.

Different approaches are possible in D&D. Making magic items unbuyable, uncraftable and unsellable is quite viable. It makes them a lot more special and makes ownership both more significant and closer to fantasy novels.

On the other hand allowing the extreme character customisation of purchaseable items is also fun, of a different kind. To my way of thinking there's nothing wrong with the 'build mentality' per se. Personally I really enjoy putting together every aspect of a character, including the items. Constructing something that does what it's supposed to in-game and makes thematic sense is very pleasing to me.

To answer the original question in the thread topic - it doesn't matter. The spirit of D&D is irrelevant, all that matters is whether a given game is fun for the participants.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 26, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> The story of the blade of the longdead Hero of Midora's Field would beg to differ.
> 
> at least in our campaigns we have always given backstory and such to every magic item. mechanically it may be a +1 sword. but you'd never know it in game.





No matter the backstory, that +1 longsword is still being tossed somewhere and not used once the Vorpal Blade is found. Stormbringer wasn't important because it had a backstory. It was important because of what it could do. I'm sure Elric was presented with many gifts of named +1 longswords, and they're all in some forgotten alcove next to the love letters from adoring fans.

I've been playing D&D since long before computer games, and frankly no edition has ever supported making the magic items rare and wondrous. It is certainly possible to make them so, but that applies equally well to all editions. It's based on the DM and setting, not the rules for how a +1 item works.

And, I often wonder, what about the other magic items such PC's had? When the +1 longsword has a rich and varied history, what does that mean for Armor? Did his mystic boots of swimming and climbing have a great story of helping Vladimir The Daft climb out of wells?


Besides that, as I've said before, 3e is the first edition, IMO, that actually encourages the players to take that +1 longsword and keep it forever. Sure you can sell it, but you can also enhance it later on, making it +2, +2 Flaming, +2 Flaming Keen, +3 Flaming Keen Can Opening...

You've got Craft Item feats, Ancestral Relic, Weapons of Legacy, the OA Samurai, the CW Kensai... there are a LOT of options for customizing a blade and using that same sword throughout your career.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> No matter the backstory, that +1 longsword is still being tossed somewhere and not used once the Vorpal Blade is found.



nope, it wasn't.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 26, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> nope, it wasn't.





So, the 15th level fighter is using his +1 longsword, and surviving battles with creatures only hit by +2 or better weapons?

You run very strange games.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> You run very strange games.



OD&D(1974)


----------



## Rothe (Mar 26, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?
> 
> Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?  Does it just become a Mario-Bro's game where you're just trying to get enough "coins?"  Can you hear the blinging sound in your campaigns?
> 
> jh




Not at all.  Yet if that is an implicit rules assumption it can certainly wreck your setting.


----------



## shilsen (Mar 26, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> OD&D(1974)



 I think you just proved Vocenoctum's point


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 26, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?



No. They form one part of the spirit of D&D.




> Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?



No. It's part of the spirit of the game.




> Does it just become a Mario-Bro's game where you're just trying to get enough "coins?"



No. These are very different types of game.




> Can you hear the blinging sound in your campaigns?



No. That would get irritating, no doubt.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I think you just proved Vocenoctum's point



:doh:


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 26, 2007)

francisca said:
			
		

> Depends on the setting.
> 
> FR? Probably OK there.



3e mentions that the Wizards of Thay create plenty of items for sale. Not sure the players want a +1 Longsword made by High Wizard Doom the Slayer Of Men, but hey, his prices ARE 5% lower than the competitors.

FR has so many wizards as core, it almost has to have a magic item economy.

Contrast this with Eberron. Folks like to pick on Eberron for available magic, but they generally miss the fine details. Eberron has a lot of low-level magical types, so potions of CLW and low level wands are fairly common. But, there are less high level mages about, so high level items are probably a lot less common. With House Cannaith though, at least you have an idea of where you'd need to go.

In almost ANY setting, if there's a local cleric, then there almost has to be magical healing available. If the local clerics lets Little Bobby die because his CLW is not for sale, then I doubt he'll hold the locals faith very long.



> Greyhawk?  Could go either way.  I've run Greyhawk as both uber-magic and low magic grim'n'gritty.




For myself, Greyhawk has as many mages as any other setting really, but I think Greyhawk feels more "obscured" in their magics. So sure, you can find a +1 longsword, or a mage to make it Flame, but not as much in a local Thayvian embassy or Cannaith Hold. You might have to be a member of a secret fraternity to get access. That's just my impression though.


----------



## molonel (Mar 26, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Uh, perhaps you don't know it, but Conan OGL plays MUCH differently than standard D&D, which I believe this thread is addressing.




So you evidently didn't read what I was responding to, or even what I said, the point I am addressing is that people who played earlier editions of the game read Conan, while people who play the game now play Final Fantasy. 

It is old, tired argument I've seen in these discussions so many times that it completely undermines itself and the credibility and intelligence of anyone who uses it.

This edition of D&D created a better version of Conan than any previous edition modeled. Hands down. If you don't want to play high magic, high fantasy and you read and enjoy Robert E. Howard, then you can play an absolutely delightful recreation of that world with mechanics that meld perfectly with the setting.

Did 1st or 2nd Edition AD&D model Conan as well as Conan OGL? Absolutely not. Does 3rd Edition model that particular world as well as Conan OGL? Absolutely not. But it shares that with both 1st and 2nd Edition, and saying otherwise is a laughable farce. The 1st Edition AD&D Unearthed Arcana offered you a twinked-out Barbarian class that was ubercheesy.



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Midnight, A Game of Thrones, Black Company, and other D20 variants showcase how strong the d20 engine is, but D&D is not those things.




D&D is all of these things, and allows for all of them, as well.


----------



## molonel (Mar 26, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> No matter the backstory, that +1 longsword is still being tossed somewhere and not used once the Vorpal Blade is found. Stormbringer wasn't important because it had a backstory. It was important because of what it could do. I'm sure Elric was presented with many gifts of named +1 longswords, and they're all in some forgotten alcove next to the love letters from adoring fans. I've been playing D&D since long before computer games, and frankly no edition has ever supported making the magic items rare and wondrous. It is certainly possible to make them so, but that applies equally well to all editions. It's based on the DM and setting, not the rules for how a +1 item works. And, I often wonder, what about the other magic items such PC's had? When the +1 longsword has a rich and varied history, what does that mean for Armor? Did his mystic boots of swimming and climbing have a great story of helping Vladimir The Daft climb out of wells? Besides that, as I've said before, 3e is the first edition, IMO, that actually encourages the players to take that +1 longsword and keep it forever. Sure you can sell it, but you can also enhance it later on, making it +2, +2 Flaming, +2 Flaming Keen, +3 Flaming Keen Can Opening...You've got Craft Item feats, Ancestral Relic, Weapons of Legacy, the OA Samurai, the CW Kensai... there are a LOT of options for customizing a blade and using that same sword throughout your career.




Very well said.

And very true.

I've played 1st, 2nd and 3rd Edition, and Basic D&D, and there was simply no edition of the game that made characters swoon and fall in love with +1 swords, no matter how much backstory they had.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 26, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Well, based on that highly detailed and well-supported opinion, let me offer a valid counterpoint:
> 
> No.
> 
> I think now we have a slap-fight to see who wins.





Hey, he asked, I answered.     A yes or no question shouldn't require a 5 page essay.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 26, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No matter who was running the game. Magic in D&D has never been wondrous or mystical. The rules of the game simply make it not work that way.




No matter who was running the game _in your experience_.

Until 3e, there was never an assumption of "if the NPCs can do it, the PCs can do it" or (vice versa), which led to all sorts of unique magical effects in various modules, campaign settings, and homebrewed worlds.  And, of course, in many worlds, one never knew for sure that the "+1 sword" was, in fact, a +1 sword.  Even after you'd figured out the mechanical bonus, you didn't know if some wierd power(s) would later manifest, nor did you know for sure that the thing wasn't cursed (acts like a +1 sword until....).  There was a lot of room for variety, and divination spells explicitly didn't tell you everything.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 26, 2007)

Faerl'Elghinn said:
			
		

> Magic items have lost their magic...  I really miss getting a cool item in a dungeon and actually _keeping_ it instead of trading it in for something from munchkinland...




Well, if you got a decent item in a dungeon, wouldnt you keep it? So really its a DM issue, of not giving you anything but a jar of vastly overpriced keoghtom's ointments and a bunch of weapons and armor subpar to what you're already wielding. What the hell else are you supposed to do with your 5th cloak of resistance +1 in a 4 person party?

The current system creates a way to turn the scads of +1 swords you aquire into something worthwhile.

The magic item compendium remarks on this. A lot of items are just overpriced even at half value. Unless you just have some kind of wacky sentimental attachments to that cube of frost, you'd be a sucker NOT to sell it for 13500. Censor of Air Elemtals Market Price is 100k, another item that seems worth way more than its actual practical value. 

If players arent keeping loot, a) give them more stuff that they want, and b) drop the market price of items that are overvalued to encourage players to keep them.


----------



## Abraxas (Mar 26, 2007)

> Until 3e, there was never an assumption of "if the NPCs can do it, the PCs can do it" or (vice versa)



 In your experience...in my experience there was nothing the NPCs could do that the PCs couldn't try to do (or vice versa) - it was just that sometimes the cost of doing it was too high, or the attempt killed them.

To the OP's question . . . 

The presence of magic shops where you can buy and sell magic items is a great idea and has no detrimental effect on the game - in the right setting. In a setting where PCs don't have access to item creation feats, where magic items were all created in an age long past and no one remembers how or creating magic items is so mind numbingly difficult that it is a world shaking event to try, etc etc - they don't make much sense. But if the prevalevnce of magic items isn't also reduced significantly there is also a problem...

In 1E and 2E, the games I played in typically used the standard treasure distribution as described in the DMG.  By the time our characters got to levels in the teens we had so many back up items it wasn't even slightly funny. Granted we somtimes needed them - because a single failed save could destroy everyhthing you were carrying, but man, we didn't need as many as we had. Also, in 1E and 2E the cost to the character of using an item found wasn't as high as it can be in 3.XE.

In my Eberron campaign - the presence of artificers who buy items to fuel xp costs to make other items is really cool. The players dig it and if they choose to sell off some magical doohickey cause they want something else, its no bother to me - of course they might actually need that magic doohickey for something later. Thats when they get to figure out how to solve a problem when they've sold the solution and its been turned into an xp well to make a magical chandelier.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No matter who was running the game _in your experience_.
> 
> Until 3e, there was never an assumption of "if the NPCs can do it, the PCs can do it" or (vice versa), which led to all sorts of unique magical effects in various modules, campaign settings, and homebrewed worlds.



I don't think that's automatically true of 3e, but I agree that NPC's are created from the same basis as PCs. In earlier editions, NPC only classes changed things some, but that as about it. As for "unique magical effects", I don't see that being any element. In regard to NPC magic items, I never saw anything in the rules that said NPC's get different items than PCs, especially when the PC's end up with the stuff anyway.




> And, of course, in many worlds, one never knew for sure that the "+1 sword" was, in fact, a +1 sword.  Even after you'd figured out the mechanical bonus, you didn't know if some wierd power(s) would later manifest, nor did you know for sure that the thing wasn't cursed (acts like a +1 sword until....).  There was a lot of room for variety, and divination spells explicitly didn't tell you everything.




This is another thing where I think folks confuse "earlier editions" with "how I ran the game". Identifying magic items isn't really different in 3e, it's still not a matter of "cast this spell, get a detailed listing". Most DM's I've encountered identify the loot as a convenience, to allow the players to track such things instead of them having to constantly refer to their Secret List. Have I as a DM hidden certain features of magic items before? Sure, and I can do so as easily in 3e (if not more so) than in previous editions.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I've played 1st, 2nd and 3rd Edition, and Basic D&D, and there was simply no edition of the game that made characters swoon and fall in love with +1 swords, no matter how much backstory they had.



i've played chainmail, 0 , 1, becm, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.11, 4 etc...

you are right. it isn't the edition that makes any character swoon and fall in love with his weapon or magic item.

it is the group you are playing with and the campaign.

i gave my example. V tried to tell me they dropped. and i told him. no they didn't. and i ain't talking about any players. i'm talking about my players in my OD&D campaign that ran 10+ years.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No matter who was running the game _in your experience_.




No. No matter who was running the game using the D&D rules.



> _Until 3e, there was never an assumption of "if the NPCs can do it, the PCs can do it" or (vice versa), which led to all sorts of unique magical effects in various modules, campaign settings, and homebrewed worlds.  And, of course, in many worlds, one never knew for sure that the "+1 sword" was, in fact, a +1 sword.  Even after you'd figured out the mechanical bonus, you didn't know if some wierd power(s) would later manifest, nor did you know for sure that the thing wasn't cursed (acts like a +1 sword until....).  There was a lot of room for variety, and divination spells explicitly didn't tell you everything._




Odd. You start with a complete _non sequitur_ about NPC/PC parity and then go on to a tangent in which you describe radically altering the rules concerning how magic items work and are identified. Which is exactly what I said you would need to do if you thought that magic items should be rare and wondrous. (Of course, even in 1e, the _identify_ spell existed, and was easily available to players whose magic-users wanted to identify magic items, did you radically alter that spell too?) Then again, I also pointed out that once you made those radical alterations to the rules, there is no longer a basis for discussion.

Sure, you can make magic items mystical and wondrous - if you change the D&D rules concerning how magic items work. Which brings us back to the original question: do magic items shops violate the spirit of D&D? The answer is clearly no - because to make magic items mystical and wondrous you need to _change the rules of the game_. The baseline rules of the game make magic items a commodity. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.


----------



## Shades of Green (Mar 26, 2007)

From an economical POV, the big question here is who, in the game world, has the money to buy a given magic item. Shops are based on a high turnover rate. If all you're gonna do is sell a 50,000gp item to a wealthy client once or twice in the year, you don't need a shop - maintaining it will be just a wasted expense and security risk; you'd be better off presenting your selected wares at the halls of kings and noblemen. A shop would sell magic items that a larger strata of the D&D world's society would be able to afford: potions first and foremost (most urban middle-class - or even well-off peasant - families would keep a potion or tow of Cure Light Wounds at home to deal with emergencies), but also scrolls (for small-time magic-users to use), a few wonderous items (the one below 500-1,000gp), the lower-level wands, and a few magic weapons and armor that cost 1,000gp or less. In a big city, shops might also carry the rings costing 2,000gp or less as well as +1 weapons and armor and almost any kind of potion. Beyond the 1,000-2,000gp level (or 5,000-10,000gp in a big city), you usually won't find the items in shops - you'll have to contact a dealer in magic items and cut a deal with him. Think of magic items as of works of art: shops in small towns would usually have trinkets, cheap and low-grade art and so on for peasants to buy and hang above their mantlepiece; in a big city you would be able to get higher quality work in shops; but, if you want a masterpiece, you either comission it or go to galleries, art dealers and so on - the higher the pricetag, the more you'll have to deal with dealers and the less with shops.

And, ofcourse, a good place for not-so-good-aligned PCs to find magical goods or to sell ones would be the thieves' guild (especially a big and well-connected guild), for three reasons:
1) The thieves' guild has access to a wide variety of expensive items (not nescerily stolen, though this is always a risk - especially if the original owner finds out that the PCs have his stolen item).
2) The thieves' guild is already set up to fence and "launder" high-priced goods without asking too many questions about their origin.
3) The thieves' guild probably has several high-level rogue memebers with ranks in Use Magical Device who could utilize magic items themselves.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No. No matter who was running the game using the D&D rules.




i disagree.





> (Of course, even in 1e, the _identify_ spell existed, and was easily available to players whose magic-users wanted to identify magic items, did you radically alter that spell too?)



you should go read the identify spell again in 1edADnD. how long you had to cast it after being exposed to the item you wished to identify.

how many magic users did you know who used up their 1st lvl spell slots on identify while in a dungeon?


----------



## Ealli (Mar 26, 2007)

The spirit of D&D is to go into the dungeon, kill the inhabitants, and take their stuff, usually while retrieving some MacGuffin.  There are some interesting conclusions to be drawn from this.

First, stuff can be divided into two categories: items and coins.  Items have uses, even if that use is very specialized and weird.  Coins do not have uses, or rather their use is to be turned into items and NPC services when returning to town.  Coins could be thought of as Item -- Wildcard.

Second, if we're spending significant playing time exploring the town and meeting its inhabitants in order to acquire items, then those inhabitants should be dead at the end -- the town is the dungeon and the inhabitants of dungeons die.  Basically this point is saying that shopping is not interesting and generally not part of a heroic story.  Towns are to start quests and to finish quests, if someone in town is neither of these, get them off stage as soon as possible.  What you want is available somewhere in town and you probably did run from one end of town to the other talking to all manner of people, but we're not spending playing time to deal with it.

A follow up idea to the second point, has any DM ever given out XP for tracking down someone willing to buy or sell a magical item?  Consider why one should: when the DM is putting lots of challenges in the way of buying or selling items, and the PCs are overcoming the challenges through roleplaying and skill checks (e.g. Gather Info), that is very nearly the exact definition of what XP should be awarded for.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 26, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i gave my example. V tried to tell me they dropped. and i told him. no they didn't. and i ain't talking about any players. i'm talking about my players in my OD&D campaign that ran 10+ years.




My example was actually a bit more than that, but you only addressed it in the briefest bit. I said they'd toss it somewhere and use the other sword. You said they didn't. You never did answer whether they were using your +1 sword at such high levels. Did they toss it in the bag of holding and talk about it around the inn-room, or did they use the item in combat? What about other magic items?

In the basic, we agree. It's up to the DM to instill the sense of wonder for magic items. My basic point was simply that most folks who "remember it being different" aren't remembering Rules, they're remembering how THEY did it.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> My example was actually a bit more than that, but you only addressed it in the briefest bit. I said they'd toss it somewhere and use the other sword. You said they didn't. You never did answer whether they were using your +1 sword at such high levels. Did they toss it in the bag of holding and talk about it around the inn-room, or did they use the item in combat? What about other magic items?
> 
> In the basic, we agree. It's up to the DM to instill the sense of wonder for magic items. My basic point was simply that most folks who "remember it being different" aren't remembering Rules, they're remembering how THEY did it.



they fought and defeated a foe around lvl 3 to recover the sword. they found backstory about it from lvls 3, 4, 5, and almost 6. the fighter who had the sword used it until he retired at lvl 10.

when he came out of retirement for one more great adventure he took it with him.

he died in the Tomb of Horrors.

we played 3-4 hrs/day; 5 days/week; 50 weeks/year; for a month shy of 11 years. it took roughly 900 hrs of roleplay to reach a new level in the campaign.

you can say that sword saw a lot of game time.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 26, 2007)

Shades of Green said:
			
		

> From an economical POV, the big question here is who, in the game world, has the money to buy a given magic item. Shops are based on a high turnover rate. If all you're gonna do is sell a 50,000gp item to a wealthy client once or twice in the year, you don't need a shop - maintaining it will be just a wasted expense and security risk; you'd be better off presenting your selected wares at the halls of kings and noblemen.




You do have to keep in mind that locales have GP limits. Very few cities will have access to such wealthy items, and you may have to travel. Low level items are easier and quicker to make, and are more volume sellers. Higher priced items are probably custom made, or as the MIC mentions, you're buying something adventurers have from long ago, or maybe ransacking the old guys barn to find his stash of vorpal blades from when he was having jabberwocks in the garden.

So, Magic-Mart or not, you're not finding powerful, high GP items in every small town across the land. If you want something truely epic, you'll probably have to make it, as even a metropolis is limited to 100K.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 26, 2007)

I'm sure I'm not the only one, but we've had magic item shops of one form or another in our games practically started playing, back when we used the Red Box Basic set. One of the earliest inspirations for such came from a scene in Saga of Old City (by EGG) where Gord purchased a magical dagger from a dwarf in Greyhawk.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 26, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> they fought and defeated a foe around lvl 3 to recover the sword. they found backstory about it from lvls 3, 4, 5, and almost 6. the fighter who had the sword used it until he retired at lvl 10.
> 
> when he came out of retirement for one more great adventure he took it with him.
> 
> ...





Yup, a lot of gametime. In that time, the fighter never found it a drawback that he couldn't affect anything hit by +2 or better weapons though?

I've always liked personalizing major gear, but that doesn't mean keeping an inferior item in main use just because it has an interesting story. About half of my PC's have either Craft Weapons & Armor or Ancestral Relic so I can customize the weaponry. I also like intelligent items, so I've had a fair amount of those too.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 26, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> I'm sure I'm not the only one, but we've had magic item shops of one form or another in our games practically started playing, back when we used the Red Box Basic set. One of the earliest inspirations for such came from a scene in Saga of Old City (by EGG) where Gord purchased a magical dagger from a dwarf in Greyhawk.





We used to have magic item shops run by retired PC's in our games, in all but our earliest games.


----------



## molonel (Mar 26, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i've played chainmail, 0 , 1, becm, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.11, 4 etc...
> 
> you are right. it isn't the edition that makes any character swoon and fall in love with his weapon or magic item.
> 
> ...




I didn't say "his weapon or magic items." I said a +1 sword. There simply comes a point where you can paint the lily however you like it. But a +1 sword is a +1 sword is a +1 sword. The Hammer of Thunderbolts is a special, magical, mystical weapon. I've had a character who wielded it in 1st Edition AD&D. I found it in the Against the Giants series of modules. That's a special weapon.

A +1 sword is kinda sorta cool. But in ANY edition of the game, it is nothing particularly special.

And that hasn't changed.


----------



## jdrakeh (Mar 26, 2007)

As Mr. Gygax noted in the original AD&D 1e DMG, the "give away" campaign is not in the intended spirit of the game. I'm of the opinion that magic item retail outlets work toward that same end, so. . . yes. I think retail magic outlets have a tendency to wreck the spirit of the game as it was originally envisioned. That said. . . 

The game has changed quite a bit in scope since those days and I don't think that the spirit has remained unchanged. In the modern incarnation of D&D, I think that retail magic items are not only approrpriate but, in many cases, necessary (given the mechanical import of magic items in the current edition of the system).


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2007)

Just a tangent:
_Identify_ has changed markedly over the years. In 1e, you first had to wear the item in the proper way, then cast the _identify_ spell. For each segment you had it on (1 segment/level), you had a 15%+5%/level chance of learning one property of the item. If you were trying to identify a cursed item, bad luck! The + modifier of a sword/armour was never learnt. 

In 2e, you could learn 1 property/level (10%/level chance of success) of several items - a 10th level caster could learn 10 properties, split between up to 10 items (so 1 property of each, or 10 properties of 1, etc.) Again, you couldn't learn the attack/damage bonuses of the item.

In 3e, _identify_ actually got worse! 1 item/level, but you only could learn the most basic property of an item... a +2 vorpal sword registered as a +2 sword.

In 3.5e, _identify_ became 1 item, but you learnt everything about it.

In the MIC, it's stated that a _detect magic_ spell with a Spellcraft check of 10 or more over the result needed to determine the school of magic will identify an item fully. I like this, if only because keeping track of what items are can be a real challenge to me as a DM, especially if a session or two passes before identify can be cast. 

Cheers!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 26, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> A +1 sword is kinda sorta cool. But in ANY edition of the game, it is nothing particularly special.
> 
> And that hasn't changed.




You can take a +1 sword and weave a rich history and plot element into it, and make the PC want to use it for as long as possible. He can enjoy wielding his grandpa's sword that struck down Oligarth the Ogre Barbarian and was used to pry open the gates to hell back in the days before the crowbar was invented.


In previous editions though, what you were doing was penalizing the player for immersing himself in that story. Even in 3e, DR made that hard. In 3.5 you can at least still count it as "magic" and hit things. In 1st edition that guy had no real canonical way to improve on the sword. "awakening" the powers was a common house-rule-system, but was unsupported in the rules.

3.5 rules greatly aid such backstoried items. Even if they're not Weapons of Legacy, you can further enhance them. Grandpa's sword can stay with you forever (or at least until it gets sundered, but even then you can "reforge" it, and it's a good excuse to sneak in Flaming while you do).


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I didn't say "his weapon or magic items." I said a +1 sword. There simply comes a point where you can paint the lily however you like it. But a +1 sword is a +1 sword is a +1 sword. The Hammer of Thunderbolts is a special, magical, mystical weapon. I've had a character who wielded it in 1st Edition AD&D. I found it in the Against the Giants series of modules. That's a special weapon.
> 
> A +1 sword is kinda sorta cool. But in ANY edition of the game, it is nothing particularly special.
> 
> And that hasn't changed.



i guess David(the player whose PC had the +1 sword) would disagree with you. there were other swords in the campaign the party found. some they could have kept (not owned by some other noble's family or somesuch) that mechanically were better. but the story of the sword and Sir Handor (David's Character) would not be the same. the Sword of Handor was laid to rest with the remains of that PC.

edit: the +1 sword on my 3X5 index card. became something  in the campaign. first it was named for the field of battle where they won the sword.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> You can take a +1 sword and weave a rich history and plot element into it, and make the PC want to use it for as long as possible. He can enjoy wielding his grandpa's sword that struck down Oligarth the Ogre Barbarian and was used to pry open the gates to hell back in the days before the crowbar was invented.



 i agree.

but.




> In previous editions though, what you were doing was penalizing the player for immersing himself in that story.




i disagree here.

it isn't my job as a referee to play the PC. that is what players do.

i provide them options. and they build the story or take the challenges.


----------



## molonel (Mar 26, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i guess David(the player whose PC had the +1 sword) would disagree with you. there were other swords in the campaign the party found. some they could have kept (not owned by some other noble's family or somesuch) that mechanically were better. but the story of the sword and Sir Handor (David's Character) would not be the same. the Sword of Handor was laid to rest with the remains of that PC.
> 
> edit: the +1 sword on my 3X5 index card. became something  in the campaign. first it was named for the field of battle where they won the sword.




Okay, so a third party believes that someone who isn't a part of the conversation would disagree with me. It's kind of a moot point since he's not here to say one way or the other, and I dislike arguing through proxy.

But when you use the phrase, "that mechanically were better" you are agreeing with me. In all odds, the sword was not particularly special, nor did the game reward it as such.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> As Mr. Gygax noted in the original AD&D 1e DMG, the "give away" campaign is not in the intended spirit of the game. I'm of the opinion that magic item retail outlets work toward that same end, so. . . yes. I think retail magic outlets have a tendency to wreck the spirit of the game as it was originally envisioned. That said. .




Hmm. My reading of Gary's comments on the "give-away" campaign is where treasure outstrips where wealth should be, and so the PCs become ever-more-powerful, and the DM must throw sillier and sillier threats at them because everyone is wielding Vorpal swords and the like...

Because of the wealth guidelines in 3e, you have far more correlation between the power of the items the PCs get, and the PCs power due to their level. That a PC could possibly buy a vorpal sword (heh!) is balanced by the fact that the PC won't have the money to do so until very high levels.

Cheers!


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Yup, a lot of gametime. In that time, the fighter never found it a drawback that he couldn't affect anything hit by +2 or better weapons though?




yes and no. this is a group game. yes, he fought things that were not harmed by the sword. but no he was not alone and some one else in the party stepped up in their role to shine.



> I've always liked personalizing major gear, but that doesn't mean keeping an inferior item in main use just because it has an interesting story. About half of my PC's have either Craft Weapons & Armor or Ancestral Relic so I can customize the weaponry. I also like intelligent items, so I've had a fair amount of those too.




i like research too. i like the ability of the pcs to make or find things. go hunting for material components or to do some sage chat to find hidden treasures. these lead to adventures.

in the campaign it was the PC who was most important. he was the hero. detracting from that with his bling was not always what the players wanted.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 26, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Okay, so a third party believes that someone who isn't a part of the conversation would disagree with me.



Unless I miss my guess, the third party is Angelsboi, an EN Worlder who died two or three years ago. So Diaglo, in any response, please separate emotion from the discussion -- right?

Right.

Back on track, I love the idea of legacy-style items because I want items to grow with the heroes. It's a shame when the +1 sword penalizes good storytelling and backstory, just because it doesn't get any better.


----------



## jdrakeh (Mar 26, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Hmm. My reading of Gary's comments on the "give-away" campaign is where treasure outstrips where wealth should be, and so the PCs become ever-more-powerful, and the DM must throw sillier and sillier threats at them because everyone is wielding Vorpal swords and the like...




Yep, that's about the size of it. And. . . wait for it. . . I think that making magic items available for retail purchase at the local Magic Mart (TM) works toward that end


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Unless I miss my guess, the third party is Angelsboi, an EN Worlder who died two or three years ago. So Diaglo, in any response, please separate emotion from the discussion -- right?
> 
> Right.
> 
> Back on track, I love the idea of legacy-style items because I want items to grow with the heroes. It's a shame when the +1 sword penalizes good storytelling and backstory, just because it doesn't get any better.





no emotion on my part. i was trying to explain what it meant for the "spirit" of D&D from a perspective outside of what the others are saying about +1 swords. :shrug:

edit: it wasn't Ryan. David Harwood played in my group from 1979 until 1989.

edit2: and he lived down the street. we were friends from 1974 on when i moved into the neighborhood.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 26, 2007)

I always see +1 swords as being like the scads of magic weapons acquired by the hobbits in LOTR -nice, and you can kill a wight with them, but not generally plot-centric.  In fact I tend to feel most +1 weapons are created by dwarven armourers labouring on their masterworks, or by priests who bless the paladins' weapons in the name of their god, not by wizards at all.

Edit: The sword forged by Conan's dad in CtB would be a fair example of a +1 sword; maybe +2 if you're generous; whereas the one Conan finds in the Atlantean cairn might be +3.


----------



## molonel (Mar 26, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Back on track, I love the idea of legacy-style items because I want items to grow with the heroes. It's a shame when the +1 sword penalizes good storytelling and backstory, just because it doesn't get any better.




I actually like the legacy-style items very much, and used a similar but much less mechanically developed means of improving items that grew as the user grew in one of my longterm campaigns. I think the idea both builds on and surpasses the 3rd Edition mechanic of further enchanting items.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 26, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i disagree here.
> 
> it isn't my job as a referee to play the PC. that is what players do.
> 
> i provide them options. and they build the story or take the challenges.





You might not have seen it as you penalizing him, but the player (who didn't care, due to Cool Factor) was indeed penalized because the sword was worse than other swords. He chose to take the penalty for roleplaying purposes, but he was still mechanically penalized, IMO. The player may have been perfectly happy using that sword, but I'm sure he wouldn't have minded if he could have found ways to make the sword better as well.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Okay, so a third party believes that someone who isn't a part of the conversation would disagree with me. It's kind of a moot point since he's not here to say one way or the other, and I dislike arguing through proxy.




i was still relating my experience with my group. i was the referee. David was the player. how is that proxy?



> But when you use the phrase, "that mechanically were better" you are agreeing with me. In all odds, the sword was not particularly special, nor did the game reward it as such.




yes and no. as the referee i provided the group (David being part of the group) with the chance to improve his weaponry. either thru "legacy" type ways if you want to call it that. or thru choosing another weapon.
that is my job as the referee.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> You might not have seen it as you penalizing him, but the player (who didn't care, due to Cool Factor) was indeed penalized because the sword was worse than other swords. He chose to take the penalty for roleplaying purposes, but he was still mechanically penalized, IMO. The player may have been perfectly happy using that sword, but I'm sure he wouldn't have minded if he could have found ways to make the sword better as well.



you should have heard the rest of the group (14 players).  

edit: i think he did it b/c it was fun. and to rib the rest of the group.


----------



## scriven (Mar 26, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The practice revealed in published adventures dating back to 1e days makes magic items as common as horseshoes. Sure, the DMG would say something like "a magic item is a benison beyond price", but that was clearly not supported by the actual rules of the game, or the prectice revealed by published works. Especially since they were given an actual price (listed next to the item in the DMG no less).




Sure, the early modules contained lots of magic items. But when you found, say, a _serpentine owl_ (there's one in _The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth_), there was a good chance that it would be the only one you'd ever see. To me, that's just inexpressibly cool.

If anyone with the funds could go out and buy another, the experience wouldn't be the same.


----------



## molonel (Mar 26, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i was still relating my experience with my group. i was the referee. David was the player. how is that proxy?




Because you're not him?


----------



## diaglo (Mar 26, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Because you're not him?



true dat.

having played with him for so many years tho i felt for sure what he would say.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 26, 2007)

RC said:
			
		

> How can it be that in 1e and earlier editions, players could customize their characters using imagination, role-playing, and the limited stat block differences available, yet in 3.X you cannot customise your PC unless you can buy magic items?




No, in 3.X, you can customize your character using your imagination, role-playing, diverse stat block differences, AND magic items.

The more customization a character gets by default, the better IMHO. You don't always want all those options, but it's always nice to have the...er...option of having them.


----------



## Imp (Mar 27, 2007)

Actually in 1e the main way I customized my characters _was_ through the magic items. You just had to find the things first.  If the DM's amenable to it, you told him what you're after and you hunted down whatever you needed for your concept and that's a fun way of doing things.  But, if sorcery eBay's your only viable option, run with that, I guess.

3e makes the desire for customization via item less acute.  Part of why straight stat boosters are common.  They're not only useful, if you want a character with (say) sun powers, you pick a bunch of feats and maybe a prestige class - you don't need to center yourself around a sunblade and a helm of brilliance or whatever.


----------



## Rolzup (Mar 27, 2007)

...and of course, you can also create brand new magic items, and astound the players with those.

One of the players in my game has an item that I hadn't thought too much about when they found it.  It's a silver mug; fill it with alcohol, and three times a day it turns the liquid ito a potion of Cure Light Wounds.  And you can also use the mug as a set of (essentially) +2 silver brass knuckles.

The player loves it, and has been using it as his only weapon ever since....much to my surprise, and with disturbing effectiveness, especially when he's prone and surrounded by foes.

(He's playing a Binder.  When he's got Paimon bound, he gets Whirlwind attack.  Nobody's ankles are safe.)

Two sessions ago, they recovered (among other things) a skull with a simple enchantment on it.  At the proper command word, the eye sockets light up and it floats into the air to take up a position over the speaker's left shoulder.  All it does is give him 60' darkvision and a +5 bonus to his Intimidate checks, but as I was coming up with this thing I knew how delighted he'd be with it.

Plus, y'know, they can buy stuff.  So the best of both worlds, right there.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This, I find, is a pretty weird statement in 3.X.  How can it be that in 1e and earlier editions, players could customize their characters using imagination, role-playing, and the limited stat block differences available, yet in 3.X you cannot customise your PC unless you can buy magic items?




Because in OD&D your level 8 fighter had the same chance to smack anyone around with a stick as well as a halberd.  If a snazzy +3 stick of smiting came along, you would start to use that instead of your +1 axe of flaying.

In 3.X your level 8 fighter is based on a Weapon Finesse build, using two handed weapons.  When you kill a dragon and find a +4 two-handed vorpal backscratcher your character can't really use it withing negating your "build".  "Build" in this case means you have decided your character likes to fight with two smaller weapons instead of one big one because he uses his speed instead of his might in battle.  Ditching his 1 handed and light backscratchers for a MORE MAGICAL AND FUN +4 two handed backscratcher makes him a worse fighter.

DS


----------



## MerricB (Mar 27, 2007)

Rolzup said:
			
		

> ...and of course, you can also create brand new magic items, and astound the players with those.




Which is what I've been doing with Legacy Items. I've also been scouring the new MIC for abilities to turn into legacy item abilities.  (Current # of Legacy Items active in my campaigns: 9).

Cheers!


----------



## Rolzup (Mar 27, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Which is what I've been doing with Legacy Items. I've also been scouring the new MIC for abilities to turn into legacy item abilities.  (Current # of Legacy Items active in my campaigns: 9).
> 
> Cheers!




I'm pretty sure the Mug of Doom has turned into a Legacy Item, although as I don't actually have the book in question, it's hard to be certain.  But its powers are going to grow over time; most recently it's started doing an additional 1d6 of cold damage when it hits something.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 27, 2007)

Rolzup said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the Mug of Doom has turned into a Legacy Item, although as I don't actually have the book in question, it's hard to be certain.  But its powers are going to grow over time; most recently it's started doing an additional 1d6 of cold damage when it hits something.




There's a Mug of Doom? Cool. 

Cheers!


----------



## molonel (Mar 27, 2007)

The nice thing about "legacy items," also, is that it eliminates the concern about putting items that are too powerful into the PCs hands. The item, in someone's hands who is not attuned to it, is just a +1 sword.


----------



## Maldin (Mar 27, 2007)

Yes, this indeed a very old, weather-beaten discussion, yet interest still continues unabated, as evidenced by the sheer number of posts in just 2 days.

As the writer who personally placed two shops that sell magic items into the most recent official WotC version of the City of Greyhawk (Maldin and Elenderi's Shoppe of the Arcane, and Eridok's Expedition Provisions), I guess its clear that I have no problem with it. ;-) But, really, who cares? If as a DM you don't like it? Don't use it. Just that simple. However...

The answer to "do magic item shops wreck the spirit of D&D" is "absolutely not". Do DM's have the freedom to personally dislike them? Absolutely. But that is not the same thing, as others have already stated. The effect of such a shop on any game is a direct result of how the DM uses it. In any economy, supply and demand will govern whether something will be sold or not. When a fighter finds a wizard-only staff, or a wizard finds a +crazy suit of platemail, its natural for either to sell it off (because there IS demand). It absolutely makes sense that such shops would spring up (at least in larger cities frequented by people with both supply and demand). As a mechanic, a specialty shop is also the best way to take items off the hands of PCs. There is certainly a demand for magic items in a magical world, and their potential supply is completely controlled by the DM. 

Some here have blamed the need/non-necessity or the usefulness/uselessness of such places on certain editions or campaign worlds. Possible "oversupply" has been around since forever, whether you are playing the magical cornucopia of the 1st Ed GDQ series, or an overpowered 3rd Ed FR ubergame. Edition certainly has little to do with it. The group only has their own DM to blame or thank, whichever your preference. ;-)

Denis, aka "Maldin"
========================
Maldin's Greyhawk  http://melkot.com
Loads of edition-independent Greyhawk goodness... maps, magic, mysteries, mechanics, and more!


----------



## darkseraphim (Mar 27, 2007)

Sigh.  I miss the days when fleshing out a character meant writing up a paragraph explaining why his Intelligence was 7 and his Wisdom was 16.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 27, 2007)

darkseraphim said:
			
		

> Sigh.  I miss the days when fleshing out a character meant writing up a paragraph explaining why his Intelligence was 7 and his Wisdom was 16.




Yeah. And when I had a gnome with a Wisdom of 6 running around after a female elf PC with a Comeliness of 28.

The player of that elf was asking for it. Really. Love-struck gnomes are fun to roleplay, although possibly not fun to roleplay _with_.

Cheers!


----------



## molonel (Mar 27, 2007)

Ah, but back in The Day, we only had +1 swords that we had to walk uphill BOTH WAYS to obtain, and wade through an ocean of dragons and beholders with nothing but a leather cook's apron and a sharp stick, but gosh darn it, we LIKED those +1 swords!

Not like you kids, nowadays, with your +5 vorpal flaming shocking cold-burst adamantine greatswords.


----------



## Tzeentch (Mar 27, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> One of the worst problems created by the idea of magic shops is such shops would represent an unbelievable level of wealth concentrated in a small area.  Anything less than a dungeon protecting such a place would invite robbery.  Adopting a CRPG approach to the problem would create CRPG problems.  If the merchants must protect thier wares, so that plundering the dungeon is more attractive than plundering the town, then they must present CR equivalent challenges to the would be robbers.




These comments are far more insightful then I think has been given credit. I think people are too wrapped up in metagame aspects of D&D via the computer games (all the way back to the old SSI games) and MMORPGs.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?
> 
> Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?  Does it just become a Mario-Bro's game where you're just trying to get enough "coins?"  Can you hear the blinging sound in your campaigns?
> 
> jh




No.  If this happens in your campaign, that's a DM failure, not a game failure.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 27, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Ah, but back in The Day, we only had +1 swords that we had to walk uphill BOTH WAYS to obtain, and wade through an ocean of dragons and beholders with nothing but a leather cook's apron and a sharp stick, but gosh darn it, we LIKED those +1 swords!




Actually, back in the day, we got +1 swords all the time. We needed them, because those swords kept failing saves whenever we got _fireballed_.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 27, 2007)

Tzeentch said:
			
		

> These comments are far more insightful then I think has been given credit. I think people are too wrapped up in metagame aspects of D&D via the computer games (all the way back to the old SSI games) and MMORPGs.




They're true to an extent... except that 3e doesn't assume magic shops of the emporium type where everything is available. More that magic items are scattered across small shops, curio shops, old adventurers, etc... and that you can find them to purchase them.

Cheers!


----------



## Tzeentch (Mar 27, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> They're true to an extent... except that 3e doesn't assume magic shops of the emporium type where everything is available. More that magic items are scattered across small shops, curio shops, old adventurers, etc... and that you can find them to purchase them.



Aye, but the base assumption of many of the comments seems to be something analogous to a merchant at a counter with a huge laundry list of magic items and another next to him that seems to simply eat your old magic items and spit coins at you - which is essentially just the video game model of doing business.

That concept is just silly in a game without hard rules constraints that prevent players from skipping the middle man and just robbing the questgivers instead of running FedEx and Terminator missions. The only way to prevent that is through ridiculous Wrath of God results on any thieves ("WHO DARES STEAL THAT SPOON?! FACE MY WRATH <BOOM!>") or guards that miraculously know of any skullduggery and are powerful enough to singlehandedly hand a demigod their butts (i.e. Ultima and Morrowind)


----------



## MerricB (Mar 27, 2007)

Any actual "magic emporium" would have to have pretty good guards. 

Hmm - I seem to remember a couple of Gord the Rogue stories that have itinerant magic sellers and their important guards that Gord takes great delight in relieving of their possessions. Or at least they have the appearance of such...

Cheers!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 27, 2007)

Tzeentch said:
			
		

> These comments are far more insightful then I think has been given credit. I think people are too wrapped up in metagame aspects of D&D via the computer games (all the way back to the old SSI games) and MMORPGs.




The idea that the items in a common D&D game are concentrated in one store that has loads of magic items is mostly a strawman created by those that don't like players having free choice in magic items. Various magic shops might have small bits of inventory here and there, or have access to such, but most folks don't believe that means walking into a store where they're hanging on racks next to the gum.


In addition, lots and lots of us that feel this way, didn't grow up with CRPG's as a major influence on our games. I don't think it's fair to try to catagorize our opinions as "less D&D" than others simply because of differing playstyles. CRPG's use that style for the same reason that quite a lot of D&D games did, not automatically the other way around.

I don't roleplay out when the team purchases a longsword, or a masterwork longsword, and don't think it is a big difference to let them buy a +1 Longsword.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 27, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Any actual "magic emporium" would have to have pretty good guards.




Just think of it like buying a gun in the USA. You can find cheap stuff anywhere, $1000 range less so, $50,000 guns you might have to travel to a large city, $100,000 guns you may only have 3 places in the USA to buy from. None of these places is a cakewalk, but if you have the money, you can get what you want.

The same applies to computers, or cars, or magic armor, or staves of magi...


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Celebrim
> One of the worst problems created by the idea of magic shops is such shops would represent an unbelievable level of wealth concentrated in a small area. Anything less than a dungeon protecting such a place would invite robbery. Adopting a CRPG approach to the problem would create CRPG problems. If the merchants must protect thier wares, so that plundering the dungeon is more attractive than plundering the town, then they must present CR equivalent challenges to the would be robbers.




The funny thing about this is if you look at old 1e modules, robbing the town was always more profitable than clearing the dungeon.  Keep on the Borderlands, Orlane, Hommlet, all had scads more goodies than their attached dungeons.  Yet, by and large, we didn't go around pillaging the towns (mostly).  Why?  Because, for the most part, we're playing heroes and that's not what heroes do.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 27, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> In addition, lots and lots of us that feel this way, didn't grow up with CRPG's as a major influence on our games. I don't think it's fair to try to catagorize our opinions as "less D&D" than others simply because of differing playstyles. CRPG's use that style for the same reason that quite a lot of D&D games did, not automatically the other way around.




Indeed, I haven't played any MMORPGs, and don't play many CRPGs... indeed, the modern CRPGs that I *have* played (Baldur's Gate in the main), have a limited selection of magic items in stock. Once you buy them, they're gone.

(This is as opposed to the old CRPGs of the SSI Gold Box series).

I like having the choice between limited access to magic items, and unrestricted access to magic items, and I use whatever seems right for the campaign. Mostly, unrestricted access has meant that the PCs have only been getting the Big Six items anyway - and those would be common in a world that allows crafting. (I like Steven Brust's _Dragaerea_ for a reason).

Cheers!


----------



## Nathan P. Mahney (Mar 27, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Indeed, I haven't played any MMORPGs, and don't play many CRPGs... indeed, the modern CRPGs that I *have* played (Baldur's Gate in the main), have a limited selection of magic items in stock. Once you buy them, they're gone.
> 
> (This is as opposed to the old CRPGs of the SSI Gold Box series).




The SSI games were the best, because if you knew the appropriate disk-swapping/saved-game tricks, you could duplicate any magic item that you found.  So you got a girdle of giant strength and a longsword +5?  Congratulations, make some more for the rest of your party, and a few spare just to sell for training money.  You could also modify your characters to have straight 18s and maximum hit point.  (I was such a cheater.)


----------



## Cathix (Mar 27, 2007)

An exciting game "world" should have a realistic culture. Cultures usually have some form of commerce. If the world has magic, so should the world's commerce. A "magic shop" can be a variety of things, depending on the style of the GM and players:

-- In a low magic setting: a shop where potions, "1-use" items, familiars and  spell components are for sale.

-- Mid to high: wondrous items brought in by adventurers; magic treasure seized from households, tombs or treasuries by those in power; unique items hand-crafted by expert magic users.

The idea of a place that sells magic items is infused with any "spirit" D&D may possess - whether or not the magic in your campaign is rare or commonplace, it does exist - and that which is in demand will always be for sale.

The mundane aspects of life always bring greater flavor to fantasy than the fantastic.


----------



## Victim (Mar 27, 2007)

Magic item security is somewhat self solving.  The only way to make good items is to be a powerful caster type.  Same thing for accurately identifying them.  So an item seller either is a powerful caster type or has connections to them.  They'll have ways of dealing all but the most exceptional thieves.  Especially if there's some organization like the Arcane Order or House Cannith (they're why all prices are pretty much fixed ) involved in the trade.  I mean, those kinds of people can track you down across long distances and summon fiends to torture you.  On a timeless plane or demiplane, so it lasts forever.  

That being said, I also think that magic item "shops" wouldn't keep all that much in inventory and instead go by commisions.  Keep some potions and wands (mainly cure sticks) around since they don't cost too much to make and the demand is pretty universal.  But high end permanent items are too expensive in terms of opportunity cost to be sitting on self.  That gold and XP could most likely be put to better use.  There might be a piece items sitting around - showpieces, stuff that hasn't been recycled yet, items made on now defunct deals, or fairly low level items etc - but the most important part of the store is the guy who can make or get items.


----------



## hong (Mar 27, 2007)

Tzeentch said:
			
		

> Aye, but the base assumption of many of the comments seems to be something analogous to a merchant at a counter with a huge laundry list of magic items




Said comments are based on faulty assumptions, then.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 27, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> That being said, I also think that magic item "shops" wouldn't keep all that much in inventory and instead go by commisions.  Keep some potions and wands (mainly cure sticks) around since they don't cost too much to make and the demand is pretty universal.  But high end permanent items are too expensive in terms of opportunity cost to be sitting on self.  That gold and XP could most likely be put to better use.  There might be a piece items sitting around - showpieces, stuff that hasn't been recycled yet, items made on now defunct deals, or fairly low level items etc - but the most important part of the store is the guy who can make or get items.




Indeed.

Mind you...

"Pick up this +5 vorpal sword! Only one previous owner!" (Died in an encounter with a rust monster... what a way to go )

I use the commission method a lot in my games; although I sometimes work out what crafters are available, in a place like the Free City of Greyhawk, there tend to be enough for the PCs need.

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Not this topic again...
> 
> Magic Item Shops do not wreck the spirit of D&D, but they do wreck the spirit of a large percentage of D&D settings including all of those that are loosely based on medieval/early modern culture, and all of those which lean toward heroic high fantasy, and all of those which lean toward Heroic Age pre-history.
> 
> I have in my campaign allowed potions and scrolls to be purchased in small amounts from alchemists, churches, and wizards but IMO if you go much beyond that magic items cease to be magical and wonderous, and players cease to feel like they've accomplished something important when finding a powerful magical treasure.




Funnily enough, I was watching Discovery and they were talking about the trade in "magic" relics throughout the ages.  Middle Ages and, indeed, Dark Ages merchants traded in artifacts quite commonly.  Some cities would compete briskly to buy authentic relics to be housed within the cities.

The idea of magic shops, or at least commercial magic is well grounded historically.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 27, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, I was watching Discovery and they were talking about the trade in "magic" relics throughout the ages.  Middle Ages and, indeed, Dark Ages merchants traded in artifacts quite commonly.  Some cities would compete briskly to buy authentic relics to be housed within the cities.
> 
> The idea of magic shops, or at least commercial magic is well grounded historically.




Percy - "Behold! I have here the finger of our Lord. Baldrick, you look surprised.." 

Baldrick-"I am. I thought they only came in packs of ten!"


----------



## billd91 (Mar 27, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> There simply comes a point where you can paint the lily however you like it. But a +1 sword is a +1 sword is a +1 sword. The Hammer of Thunderbolts is a special, magical, mystical weapon. I've had a character who wielded it in 1st Edition AD&D. I found it in the Against the Giants series of modules. That's a special weapon.
> 
> A +1 sword is kinda sorta cool. But in ANY edition of the game, it is nothing particularly special.
> 
> And that hasn't changed.




Well, no Mercury Tracer is going to have quite the cachet of a Ferrari either, yet that Tracer may still have character and be beloved for many years. So a +1 sword may be just a +1 sword _mechanically_, it may have a great deal more sentimental value than a simple +1 would indicate.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Well, no Mercury Tracer is going to have quite the cachet of a Ferrari either, yet that Tracer may still have character and be beloved for many years. So a +1 sword may be just a +1 sword _mechanically_, it may have a great deal more sentimental value than a simple +1 would indicate.




Fair enough, but, it would take an extremely rare and special person (in the short bus sense of the word) to pass up a free Ferrari for a Mercury Tracer.  The same goes for magic items.  In all editions of the game, PC's dump their magic goodies for something better.  I've never seen anyone get particularly attached to a +1 sword.  When that Frost Brand get's trotted out in the dragon's hoard, Mr +1 Whacker goes away pdq.


----------



## Baron Opal (Mar 27, 2007)

Haven't waded through the whole thread yet, but...



			
				Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?



Define "magic shop". I've seen everything ranging from Thingizzard's Hut (hermit in the woods) to a Thayvian Enclave ("Wal-Magic"). Each has their own in game reasons for existence. Personally, I find that having the player opening a book and saying "I want this" to be a bit unrealistic. I have no problem what so ever with a player buying a case of CLW potions from the temple of Avanthe, three sunrods and a shortsword of alchemical steel from the natural philosopher and a lucky charm (+1 to saves) from the astrologer down the street.

So, I guess it matters how you define "magic shop".



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, sure, the occasional item might come on the market - stolen goods to hot to retain, an item discovered which the discoverer has no use for, the occasional item from someone who had to part with it, or who died without heirs - but these items are snatched up quickly by the power brokers, and unless the PC's are themselves power brokers with good contacts, they'd never be a part of this. A market in magic items would be much closer to a market for weapons technology and national security secrets than a corner store, and its operation would be invisible and inaccessible on average.




But, once characters reach appropriate levels they become part of that culture and that economy. There have always been multiple economies where there is civilization. There are items for sale today for outrageous amount of money that you or I would never even consider buying.  Million dollar jewelry*, for example. Once you reach "name level" you would certainly be considered a "power broker", wouldn't you? Spend a feat or two on leadership and you can have, potentially, your own private army. A bard, paladin, cleric or anyone else with a deceint charisma and Gather Information should be able to put you "in the know". Or have all of those nobles and their daughters you have rescued completely ungrateful? Surely they can put you in touch with the right people. It makes sense to me that there would be a  limited supply of powerful, exotic items that are privately sold through exclusive channels. For me, that means rolling up 5-8 items, half of which are magical weapons (it's a dangerous world). I customize them a bit so that I think they're cool, and there you go.

Even here, however, I would employ some limits. For example, +3 keen adamantine longsword. I consider weapons in the +8 range and items in the 100,000 range not for sale ant any price simply for the fact that any item priced like that is too useful to too many people to be sold. But, if the players discover who has it they may be able to barter a deal.

Also, at this level of economy you have to consider what you are exchanging. The aforementioned sword is not for sale just for a collection of gold coins. There would have to be other items on the table, large gems, rare materials (ivory, ambergris) or other such things. Any noble worth their title has a mine or other resources. It needs to be something not so "easily" available like gold.

Anything that exists that is useful, pretty or confers status will be desired by people. There will arise other people who will broker those things in return for some kind of compensation. If there is a meaningful civilization there will be enough societal penalties to prevent adventurers from ransacking the town. At worst, other adventurers will be called upon to put down these villians like the rabid dogs they are. And, if there aren't any, well, there is a reason evil overlords come to power.

* = http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2004/02/10/cx_ns_0211guideslide_12.html?thisSpeed=6000
Hmm, being a bit dim with formatting my linkage.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 27, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> The story of the blade of the longdead Hero of Midora's Field would beg to differ.
> 
> at least in our campaigns we have always given backstory and such to every magic item. mechanically it may be a +1 sword. but you'd never know it in game.





And there were several excellent articles in Dragon magazine suggesting this very thing.

Background and history can make an item more interesting.

However, like describing monsters in Ravenloft, sometimes an ogre is just an ogre, not an omnimus creature that towers over even the largest of you and whose drool splatters evily as it hits the ground and it's stench makes your eyes water and...   

Depending on the campaign base power level and player's using of item creation feats, the need for description on item histories may vary.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> No, in 3.X, you can customize your character using your imagination, role-playing, diverse stat block differences, AND magic items.




Maybe...but the quote I was responding to from the MC said that at certain levels, players can ONLY use magic items to customize their characters....and that is so deep in the doo doo that I had to call it out.

RE:  What PCs/NPCs can/cannot do in various editions of D&D, I think if you examine the 1e modules in particular, you will notice that NPCs are given the ability to do things PCs cannot (such as fight blind, in one of the Slavers modules), and weird effects are created in dungeons that PCs have no means to duplicate.

Even the obvious "human/half-orc leading a band of orcs" can be a PC/NPC divide in games where orcs attack you on sight.

On EN World, we have threads where people have argued that NPCs shouldn't be described as having their heads stove in, or as having wounds beyond the power of magic to heal, because (1) there is no mechanic in the rules for it, and (2) it doesn't happen to PCs/PCs can't create that effect.

Earlier editions took a different view.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> Because in OD&D your level 8 fighter had the same chance to smack anyone around with a stick as well as a halberd.  If a snazzy +3 stick of smiting came along, you would start to use that instead of your +1 axe of flaying.
> 
> In 3.X your level 8 fighter is based on a Weapon Finesse build, using two handed weapons.  When you kill a dragon and find a +4 two-handed vorpal backscratcher your character can't really use it withing negating your "build".  "Build" in this case means you have decided your character likes to fight with two smaller weapons instead of one big one because he uses his speed instead of his might in battle.  Ditching his 1 handed and light backscratchers for a MORE MAGICAL AND FUN +4 two handed backscratcher makes him a worse fighter.
> 
> DS





How, exactly, does that make it sensible that the 3.X character, at certain levels, can ONLY be customized by magic items?  How does that make skill points unfun?  How does that somehow remove the ability to customize via in-game story and imagination?

Moreover, the choice to follow "build" or circumstance is a _meaningful choice_, and, IMHO, making meaningful choices is not only inherently fun, but is also part of the spirit of the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The idea that the items in a common D&D game are concentrated in one store that has loads of magic items is mostly a strawman created by those that don't like players having free choice in magic items.




If you cannot locate the item in question, how exactly can you have free choice?  If you can locate any item you want, how is the idea a strawman?

EDIT:  I think that there is a very wide difference between magical artisans who are willing to craft items for you for a price, and a store that sells magic items in anything more than the most rudimentary way.  Places like the trader shop in _Village of Hommlet_ or _Keep on the Borderlands_, for example, are not "magic shops" in this sense.

At the entrance to the Dungeon of Thale in one of my past campaigns, there was an outpost that sold minor magic items found in the dungeon by one party to other parties.  You could use that place to turn minor magic into cash, and it was _heavily_ guarded.  (This was in 2e.)  Still, there were no custom orders, no ability to determine what would be available ahead of time (I had a random chance for any of a number of common items), and if you went out of the dungeon that way they taxed you on your "take".  That's about as close to a "magic shop" as I've ever come.

If you mean things like this, then you don't mean what springs to my mind with the words "magic shop" -- and you are certainly getting less than "free choice" as to what your character can buy.

I think that the main difference is whether or not you want your fantasy world to feel that it has an industrialized economy.  I, for one, do not.

RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you cannot locate the item in question, how exactly can you have free choice?  If you can locate any item you want, how is the idea a strawman?




There usually isn't one store, any more than there is one store which stocks all of the mundane weapons and armor desired by the players. But for game purposes, like many things in D&D, the process of wandering about town, checking out different curio dealers and haggling to locate private stocks is dealt with in an abstract manner.


----------



## Ealli (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you cannot locate the item in question, how exactly can you have free choice?  If you can locate any item you want, how is the idea a strawman?



I, the player, have access to a DMG and/or the SRD for magic items in addition to what is listed in the various splat books.  It is quite easy for me to locate items in these sources.  Vocenoctum was talking about the players having free choice you will notice.

There will be things I notice about my character that the DM does not.  I will notice before he does that my character is having trouble hitting with consistency, or is falling too far behind in damage potential, or is too regularily getting screwed over by failing saving throws and I will look for the remedies and that will mean I will want my character to acquire certain items.


The strawman is saying "Wal-Magic, isn't that rediculous, having so many magical items in one place store."  Pretty much everyone who argues for magical items being able to be bought and sold without great hassle are assuming that there are many stores each having just a couple items, but the abstraction of any buying/selling in the game doesn't worry about interacting with ten differenct NPCs to make your purchase.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> There usually isn't one store, any more than there is one store which stocks all of the mundane weapons and armor desired by the players. But for game purposes, like many things in D&D, the process of wandering about town, checking out different curio dealers and haggling to locate private stocks is dealt with in an abstract manner.





Then, one might just as well say that the city is a magic shop, in the same way that one might say "a +1 sword is a +1 sword".  The mechanics are the same, right?  That's all that counts, right?  In which case, the idea isn't a strawman.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 27, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> As Mr. Gygax noted in the original AD&D 1e DMG, the "give away" campaign is not in the intended spirit of the game. I'm of the opinion that magic item retail outlets work toward that same end, so. . . yes. I think retail magic outlets have a tendency to wreck the spirit of the game as it was originally envisioned. That said. . .




What Gygax said is oftentimes in direct contradiction to the nature of the rules he wrote. In the case of magic items, he seems to have said one thing, but provided rules that do something very different. He _said_ magic should be rare and wondrous, but then set up a system and sold adventures that made magic items as common as wheelbarrows. He _said_ magic items should not be for sale, but then set of a system in which the players have lots of incentives to sell off excess items, which then begs the question of who is buying the items, and do they have anything they could sell to the players. he _said_ magic items were too valuable to be bought and sold, and then gave them price tags.



> _The game has changed quite a bit in scope since those days and I don't think that the spirit has remained unchanged. In the modern incarnation of D&D, I think that retail magic items are not only approrpriate but, in many cases, necessary (given the mechanical import of magic items in the current edition of the system)._




I don't think it has changed since the early days with respect to magic items. I just think that the rhetoric is more in line with the reality of the rules now.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Then, one might just as well say that the city is a magic shop, in the same way that one might say "a +1 sword is a +1 sword".  The mechanics are the same, right?  That's all that counts, right?  In which case, the idea isn't a strawman.




No, the idea remains a strawman, because the "flaws" that the Wal-Mart argument latches on to are only flaws if you literally have a Wal-Mart of Magic on the corner of Ninth and Main.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Ealli said:
			
		

> I, the player, have access to a DMG and/or the SRD for magic items in addition to what is listed in the various splat books.  It is quite easy for me to locate items in these sources.  Vocenoctum was talking about the players having free choice you will notice.





Yes, but free choice in any meaningful context includes the idea that the choice can be followed through.  In other words, when I "look for the remedies" and "want my character to acquire certain items", free choice requires that, perforce, those remedies and those items can actually be acquired.  Otherwise it isn't "free choice"; it's wishing.



> The strawman is saying "Wal-Magic, isn't that rediculous, having so many magical items in one place store."  Pretty much everyone who argues for magical items being able to be bought and sold without great hassle are assuming that there are many stores each having just a couple items, but the abstraction of any buying/selling in the game doesn't worry about interacting with ten differenct NPCs to make your purchase.





If the abstraction "doesn't worry about interacting" then, by definition, the place where the items are being bought/sold _is_ a Wal-Magic.  Wal-Magic is any place where any magic item can be bought or sold without hassle or effort, whether that place is a hut, a city, or a wizard's tower.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, the idea remains a strawman, because the "flaws" that the Wal-Mart argument latches on to are only flaws if you literally have a Wal-Mart of Magic on the corner of Ninth and Main.





How so?  I see the flaws as being exactly the same.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Then, one might just as well say that the city is a magic shop, in the same way that one might say "a +1 sword is a +1 sword".  The mechanics are the same, right?  That's all that counts, right?  In which case, the idea isn't a strawman.




By George, I think he's got it.  In exactly the same way that we don't ponce about going to fifteen different stores shopping for a weapon, a suit of armor, torches, bedroll, backpack, rations, holy water and the umpteen other things that my PC will buy pretty much any time he needs to.

Now, we could detail out my search for a pint of lamp oil, and, honestly, I've actually played in games where this seemed to be the case.  I told the DM I wanted to buy three crossbows for our mooks that we were carting about and he had me traipsing all over Cauldron to find them.  In the same way, I could rp going to fifteen different merchants trying to buy a Ring of Protection +1 for my rogue.  

And if this floats your boat, go for it.  I don't play at this level of simulation.  I simply don't care.  For my time, I'd much rather say, "Hey, DM, I have x coins, I'd like to buy a Ring of Protection +1 when we hit the city."   

Poof, instant fix.

Yes, mechanically, the city is one giant Wal-Mart.  How detailed you want to get with the shopping is up to the group.  Detailed or hand waved, it's all good.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, we could detail out my search for a pint of lamp oil





By George, I think he's got it!  Some of us think that equating your magic items with a pint of lamp oil perforce reduces their importance to that of a pint of lamp oil.


----------



## molonel (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> By George, I think he's got it!  Some of us think that equating your magic items with a pint of lamp oil perforce reduces their importance to that of a pint of lamp oil.




And I think, as some of us have stated quite plainly, some magic items really ARE that important.

To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a +1 sword is just a +1 sword.

No version of D&D has imbued each and every magic item with glowing mystery and deep character. If that's the game you want to run, great. But don't act like the present incarnation of the game has somehow shamed some grand overarching tradition of characters dancing around like Ewoks after the battle singing, "Yub nub! We found a +1 dagger!"


----------



## Slife (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> By George, I think he's got it!  Some of us think that equating your magic items with a pint of lamp oil perforce reduces their importance to that of a pint of lamp oil.



Why, one might think in a world where magic replaces technology, that you could buy magic just as you can purchase technology.

What a thought!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> By George, I think he's got it!  Some of us think that equating your magic items with a pint of lamp oil perforce reduces their importance to that of a pint of lamp oil.




But, this has always been true.  Groups would routinely sell off items when something better came along.  Or foist it off on someone else.  It was a pretty rare gamer who got emotionally attached to his +1 lumpy metal thing when that +3 one came along.  (Yes, I know that YOU did, but, I'm talking about that other guy)

There's another issue that gets glossed over in these discussions.  If the player is entirely dependent on the DM to gift him with magic items, players will create cookie cutter characters to maximize their chances.  Particularly if modules are being used.

After all, how many NPC's that aren't merfolk would ever use a trident?  So, if my PC takes tridents as his favourite weapon, spends feats on trident and whatnot, the chances he'll actually ever see a magic one are pretty much zero.  Unless the DM specifically puts one in an adventure as a present.

How is that any different than the player spending cash to get a magic trident?  It's special because the DM gave it to him?  It's somehow more believable because it just happened to be in that treasure pile?  Gimme a break.

So, players all take longswords.  Because they know that the random treasure tables come up longswords far more often than any other magic weapon.  Because they know that those critters in the module will most likely have a magic longsword.  In other words they are gaming the system.

I know that it is threatening to so many DM's to allow their players to actually control how the player's PC advances, but, maybe a little less micromanaging might lead to a lot less stress.  A mercantile trade in magical items makes historical and logical sense in most campaign settings.  At least it makes enough sense to be plausible.  Why the huge beefs that player's want to customize their own characters?


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> By George, I think he's got it!  Some of us think that equating your magic items with a pint of lamp oil perforce reduces their importance to that of a pint of lamp oil.




You are misinterpreting cause and effect. The ring of protection was little more important than the pint of lamp oil to begin with. You see, once you make magic items a predictable technology (a decision made in the earliest days of the development of D&D), then they become little more than well-made tools. And players (correctly) treat them as such.

Think of it this way - suppose you were playing in a modern era game. The PCs come to the "bug city" and one of them decides he wants to buy a car. He says "I'd like to buy a cherry red mustang convertible". Do you role play out his traipsing about town looking for just the right car having him follow leads and seach for just the right dealer who has that car on hand for sale, or do you say "you spend a day searching and find the car you want, it costs $45,000." You could do either, but as a DM, I would only worry about role-playing out the hunt for the car if it was something that was important for reasons other than obtaining the car - there was some plot point or contact to be made that was part of the car hunt process, and so on. Why? Because for the most part, hunting for individual equipment is an individual process, and role-laying out the day long process would just bore the only, non-participating players at the table. So you abstract out the shopping trip, the player finds what he would have found if you did the drawn out version, and the other players don't sit on their thumbs for an hour while you make the utterly ordinary _+1 ring of protection_ "special" by boring them with the epic story of walking around the marketplace trying to find Jake the One-Eyed ring dealer.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> But don't act like the present incarnation of the game has somehow shamed some grand overarching tradition of characters dancing around like Ewoks after the battle singing, "Yub nub! We found a +1 dagger!"




Hmmmm....Did I say this was the fault of the _game rules_?  I can recall threads in which I argued, quite vehemently, that the 3.X rules _do not_ logically lead to the idea of "magic shops".  For my game, I altered the Item Creation feats slightly as well.

I certainly do think that there is more than a little marketing behind the proliferation of the idea, however, and I do think that the quotes Merric made from the MIC are more marketing than good game mastering.

YMMV, of course.


RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Hmmmm....Did I say this was the fault of the _game rules_?  I can recall threads in which I argued, quite vehemently, that the 3.X rules _do not_ logically lead to the idea of "magic shops".  For my game, I altered the Item Creation feats slightly as well.




Well, if you don't see the connection between treating magic as a predicatable technology and treating magic items as a tradeable commodity, then it is difficult to find a basis for discussion. The D&D rules have _always_ pointed to magic shops. 3e is just the first edition to actually recognize this and incorporate it into the rhetoric.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You are misinterpreting cause and effect. The ring of protection was little more important than the pint of lamp oil to begin with. You see, once you make magic items a predictable technology (a decision made in the earliest days of the development of D&D), then they become little more than well-made tools. And players (correctly) treat them as such.





You missed my earlier point, then, because magic items were not always a predictable technology, within the RAW.  In 1e, you explicitly could never be certain what any item did.  There was always a chance that the item was cursed, or had some unknown property.  Items did things other than reproduce spell effects as well.  Crom knows what might happen if you drank two potions.

With less codified rules, even spells were not necessarily predictable.

Actually, I am sure that I've read threads about this very subject before, and I am sure that someone else made exactly that point about spell effects being unpredictable in earlier editions (although it was intended to be a disparagement of those editions).    

RC


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Some of us think that equating your magic items with a pint of lamp oil perforce reduces their importance to that of a pint of lamp oil.




For some of us it is just a pint of oil.

In my current campaign our boat is more important to me (at least) than the +2 shortbow I have.  Why?  Because the boat has a more interesting history to me than the bow does.  I could go on about the adventure of how we got the boat, what the boat has allowed us to do and some really cool fights we had on the boat.  My +2 shortbow is... well... a +2 shortbow.  I don't remember where I got it.  I'm sure I've killed some critters with it but i can't recount what they were.

If my DM gave me a four page history for this +2 shortbow it wouldn't help me think the bow was cool.  When I first played the first Bauldur's Gate game I read the insanely long hostory of the first magic item I found.  I found it kind of cool that they went into that much detail.  Ithem realised later that the four or five screen length history had nothing to do with the rest of game and switched that item (likely a +1 sword of some type) for the better item when it came along.  It also had a four screen history that I didn't care about.

I don't care about an item's history before I got it (if it doesn't relate to the game somehow).  I care about MY history with the item.  Diaglo's story about his player and his "weaker" sword makes perfect sense.  Since there were others that could pick up the slack (and apparently didn't mind) he could keep using the sword that was cool to him. 

I don't care if some sword killed some powerful priest 1325 years ago (if we aren't facing said priest ourselves).  I care if I used said sword to kill said priest.  Otherwise it's just a +1 sword.  I don't care about a +1 sword - I care about MY +1 sword.


----------



## Ealli (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes, but free choice in any meaningful context includes the idea that the choice can be followed through.  In other words, when I "look for the remedies" and "want my character to acquire certain items", free choice requires that, perforce, those remedies and those items can actually be acquired.  Otherwise it isn't "free choice"; it's wishing.



You can deny the possibility of free choice in magic items, but you have to remember to look at why you are doing so.  The original quote is that some DMs don't like players having free choice.  Either players get free choice or they don't.  If they don't, is it because the DM doesn't like the idea of free choice?  Is the DM not liking the idea of free choice a problem?



> If the abstraction "doesn't worry about interacting" then, by definition, the place where the items are being bought/sold _is_ a Wal-Magic.  Wal-Magic is any place where any magic item can be bought or sold without hassle or effort, whether that place is a hut, a city, or a wizard's tower.



The first thing that happens when the items are spread out through many shops within a city is that there is no longer a single location where all the items are gathered and ready to be stolen.  If thieves, especially players, are robbing the entire city, then dealing with the plague of thievery (or conquering the city) becomes a very good plot of its own.

For the purposes of shopping, black boxing the city works very well for expiditing the time taken to shop while still leaving the versimilitude of no one shop having a warehouse worth of items.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think that the main difference is whether or not you want your fantasy world to feel that it has an industrialized economy.  I, for one, do not.



Industrialisation means factories, mass production, cheap one-size-fits-all consumer goods. Expensive magic items crafted to a PC's specifications are bespoke tailoring, the polar opposite of industrialisation.


----------



## molonel (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Hmmmm....Did I say this was the fault of the _game rules_? I can recall threads in which I argued, quite vehemently, that the 3.X rules _do not_ logically lead to the idea of "magic shops". For my game, I altered the Item Creation feats slightly as well. I certainly do think that there is more than a little marketing behind the proliferation of the idea, however, and I do think that the quotes Merric made from the MIC are more marketing than good game mastering. YMMV, of course.




Yes, I do think you are arguing that that it is at least partly the fault of the game rules, and you say so quite deliberately when commenting on the MIC.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You missed my earlier point, then, because magic items were not always a predictable technology, within the RAW. In 1e, you explicitly could never be certain what any item did. There was always a chance that the item was cursed, or had some unknown property. Items did things other than reproduce spell effects as well.




So are you blaming the rules for not being quite so ..... fuzzy?

Because I played 1st Edition, and although it's fun to jerk the rug out from under players's feet once in a while, the whole "We don't know what it does!" thing gets old, after a while. Telling the DM what armor class you hit, and having them tell you if that's good enough - because you don't know what plus the weapon is - or not knowing how strong your girdle of giant strength made you, or whatever, got very very old after a while.

Most times, because tracking these things was a pain in the butt, the DM just had some wizard look at it, and tell you what it did. Cursed items or unpredictable items were the exception, not the rule.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Crom knows what might happen if you drank two potions.




Ah, yes. The delightful potion-mixing rules. These added about as much to the game as the wandering prostitute encounter charts in the 1e DMG.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> With less codified rules, even spells were not necessarily predictable.




Not really. The expansion rules for fireball were a little fun, but after a while you just got a feeling for how and when to place a fireball, and then you generally never got enveloped in one.


----------



## darkseraphim (Mar 27, 2007)

So if the cities have all the items (much more selection than the dungeons, and easier to get), then why go adventuring at all?  Just money, right?  But wouldn't it be easier to treat the city as the dungeon, a type of Thieves World or evil campaign?  (You plunder the city, get out and move on.  If gear is all-important, then alignment is changeable to serve the higher cause, I suppose?)  And why have monsters spit out anything but gold pieces in such a scenario?

It seems that players smart and calculating enough to min/max everything are going to reach the logical conclusion that dungeoneering is a waste of time, and "cut out the middle man."

From there it's a natural progression to settle down and take up shopkeeping, selling and buying magic items (Papers & Paychecks).  The game is now about shopping.  The circle is now complete ...

OK, I'm being slightly facetious.  But really, this is a slippery slope and any smart player allowed this free reign is going to figure out very quickly where things are heading, once taken to their logical conclusion.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 27, 2007)

The terms 'magic item shop' and 'Wal-magic' are extremely problematic. The former should be used with caution as it conjures up images of a single store with a decent stock when in fact it's often used as a shorthand for 'magic items can be bought and sold'.

'Wal-magic' shouldn't be used at all imo. It's only purpose is to set up a straw man. No one is claiming there should be vast warehouses selling every item in the DMG. But that is the image the phrase suggests.


----------



## Rolzup (Mar 27, 2007)

This whole thing is inspiring a bunch of ideas for the Next Campaign.  Start things out in the sticks, fringes of the Empire or whatever, where the Village of Hommet would fit in perfectly.  Magic's rare, and mysterious, something that the wise man doesn't entirely trust.

Meanwhile, we have the Imperial Capital.  Which looks more like Sharn....  Airships, semi-industrialized magic, regular trade with other planes, firearms, the whole nine yards.  Better suited to high level play, and the concerns of high-level characters.

In Hicksville, you can't buy magic items...not for love or money.  In the Capital, anything and everything is for sale.

Amorphous as of yet, but plenty of room for me to work with.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 27, 2007)

Rolzup said:
			
		

> This whole thing is inspiring a bunch of ideas for the Next Campaign.  Start things out in the sticks, fringes of the Empire or whatever, where the Village of Hommet would fit in perfectly.  Magic's rare, and mysterious, something that the wise man doesn't entirely trust.
> 
> Meanwhile, we have the Imperial Capital.  Which looks more like Sharn....  Airships, semi-industrialized magic, regular trade with other planes, firearms, the whole nine yards.  Better suited to high level play, and the concerns of high-level characters.
> 
> ...




welcome to my OD&D campaign.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 27, 2007)

Rolzup said:
			
		

> This whole thing is inspiring a bunch of ideas for the Next Campaign.  Start things out in the sticks, fringes of the Empire or whatever, where the Village of Hommet would fit in perfectly.  Magic's rare, and mysterious, something that the wise man doesn't entirely trust.
> 
> Meanwhile, we have the Imperial Capital.  Which looks more like Sharn....  Airships, semi-industrialized magic, regular trade with other planes, firearms, the whole nine yards.  Better suited to high level play, and the concerns of high-level characters.
> 
> ...




It is a good idea, and would probably make a great campaign, with one addition:

That wealth in the Imperial City?  It comes from the hoards of dragons.  Launching military campaigns against the dragons would result in a full force response, one that would likey destroy the Empire.  But small groups of specialist "retrievers" can act independently, ensuring a flow of magic and money into the Empire without awakening the wrath of the Draconic Alliance.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Some points and responses:

(1)  There is a degree to which the idea of magic item shops is the fault of the (non-Core) rules (like the MIC), but there is nothing in the Core rules, IMHO, that implies magic item shops.  Moreover, I do believe that some of the tag-on rules are, in effect, "booster packs" for the game.  In 2e, the Complete series was also booster-packy, so this isn't new with 3e.

(2)  Being able to customize order an item from an artisan is not, in any way shape or form, the image that comes to my mind when one says "magic shop".  I fully agree that individuals will exist that custom craft.  Many mundane items for that matter, such as plate mail and ships, should only come into existance as the result of custom crafting -- no one in their right mind invests that kind of time and effort in the hopes that a buyer might come along.

(Mass production and an industrial economy changes this quite a bit; but even that is a relatively recent phenomenon for big-ticket items, and probably relates to the success of the automobile IRL.)

(3)  I do believe that a certain amount of "fuzziness" is desirable in a RPG ruleset, yes.  That said,

(4)  The "delightful potion-mixing rules" were brought up as a counter to Storm Raven's ascertation that magic in D&D was always "a predictable technology".  That is simply untrue, as an examination of the rules in question easily shows.  Those delightful rules are, in essence, the polar opposite of predictable technology.  From _wands of wonder_ to _bags of beans_, 1e was chock-full of unpredictable items that otherwise had no model in the rules.

(5)  Darkseraphim's point is accurate (not that he's the first to say it), whether the items are all easily located in a big box store or in a city....and that is the flaw that Wal-Magic model implies.....if you can just get the same items in town, and it is easier to do so in town, why go into a dungeon at all?  Why not treat towns like dungeons?  For that matter, if there is a thriving magic market, why wouldn't you just craft items and not adventure at all?  You can claim that the term "Wal-Magic" somehow creates the problem as a strawman, but the problem is there no matter what you call it.

(6)  Not everything can be special.  It's perfectly OK that your boat means more to you than your magic shortbow.  

(7)  If you are trying to create a post-industrial feel, magic shops fit right in.  Victorian Era?  Magic shops fit right in.  Spelljammer?  Magic shops (ala the Arcane) fit right in.  Other settings, not so much so.

(8)  It is against the directly stated intent of the game in both 1e and 2e that magic shops exist.  In that sense, the idea violates the previously existing "spirit of the game" (although it should be noted that in 2e, Spelljammer specifically and intentionally violated that spirit, and the Arcane appeared in the MC, which made that violation "Core"....Which is a really weird sort of shitzophrenic take on magic shops at best).

(9)  On anothe thread, I suggested that if "because the players want it" is a valid reason to include something in a game, then why not tactical nukes?  The response was that high-level casters are effectively tactical nukes.  Extrapolating from that, if high-level magic is like tactical nukes, shouldn't the availability of that magic be something like the availability of tactical nukes IRL?

(10)  In any event, you are certainly entitled to play the game however you like.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 'Wal-magic' shouldn't be used at all imo. It's only purpose is to set up a straw man. No one is claiming there should be vast warehouses selling every item in the DMG. But that is the image the phrase suggests.




Ahhh... yes.  But what some are arguing is that in fact any town can be treated as 'Wal-Magic' in abstraction.  That is to say, while there is no vast warehouse selling every item in the DMG (below a certain monetary value) out of the same door, in practice the effect should be the same.  Whatever actual imaginary institutions exist in thier game world is irrelevant, because they themselves have argued that such imaginary institutions should not come into play so that (from the perspective of a player in such a campaign) there is no discernable difference between whatever those imaginary institutions might be and shopping at 'Wal-Magic'.

Now, they justify this abstraction by noting that in practice most people treat mundane goods in much the same way most of the time.  If you need torches, food, and so forth, you acquire it with a handwave from some abstract equivalent of a large general supply store (Wal-Medieval?).  And, to a large extent this is true.  But, what some others of us are trying to suggest is that while its probably a perfectly reasonable assumption to assume that mundane things appropriate to a setting are available in a large town, the same assumption is not necessarily true of any given setting with regards to things which are by definition not-mundane.

Now, please don't get me wrong.  As I said way back at the beginning of this, there are settings where the assumption that magical things are themselves a mundane is perfectly reasonable.  Any setting where magic has largely replaced techology and is used much as technology would be used is probably such a setting.  Eberron for example, or Planescape, or perhaps even an Arabian Nights inspired campaign probably would have magic being sold alongside mundane items on a regular basis, and a DM that has made that decision in my mind has made a perfectly reasonable decision.  But, I do not agree that such a setting is necessarily a default setting for D&D.  Nor do I agree that making the decision to run a setting where magic is not made to be mundane somehow makes you a worse DM than someone that just abstracts everything down to 'Wal-Magic' so they can get on with the monster bashing.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You missed my earlier point, then, because magic items were not always a predictable technology, within the RAW.  In 1e, you explicitly could never be certain what any item did.




Yes, you could. There were plenty of options to evaluating magical items and learning their abilities. The _identify_ spell was not nearly as opaque as you seem to think. Magic items have, since OD&D, been an entirely predictable technology.



> _With less codified rules, even spells were not necessarily predictable._




Actually, they were. Look at the 1e PHB. The spells all have defined, predictable effects.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, you could. There were plenty of options to evaluating magical items and learning their abilities. The _identify_ spell was not nearly as opaque as you seem to think. Magic items have, since OD&D, been an entirely predictable technology.




OK, then.  If they are entirely predictable, tell me exactly what will happen when I drink a potion _of healing_ followed by a _potion of gaseous form_ using 1e rules.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (9)  On anothe thread, I suggested that if "because the players want it" is a valid reason to include something in a game, then why not tactical nukes?  The response was that high-level casters are effectively tactical nukes.  Extrapolating from that, if high-level magic is like tactical nukes, shouldn't the availability of that magic be something like the availability of tactical nukes IRL?




Of course, high-level magic is in fact, nothing like tactical nukes.  The closest you can come is with spells like 'Storm of Vengence', and even it is nothing like even a low yield nuke in terms of instantaneous beat down.

Moreover, the thing about tactical nukes is that you don't need rare high level casters to deploy them.  A team of low level experts works just fine.

In any event, were tactical nukes introduced to play, PCs would begin using them thusly.  "I sneak within 1000' of the bad guy, then I set the timer on the tactical nuke for 8 seconds and teleport away." or "I fire an invisible tactical nuke at the bad guys lair 8 miles away, destroying everything within a 1 mile radius of the point of impact."

Hopefully one can see the problem.  The problem is not that the PC's easily defeat the bad guys.  That's not a real problem.  The problem is that the bad guys would use the same tactics back at the PC's.  And that results in situations were the DM simply says to the party without any warning, "Well, nice game.  You are all dead.  Lets make some new character sheets....What do you mean, huh?... A goblin suicide bomber setoff a 25kt tactical nuke in the sewers less than 200' from where you are standing.  You've all taken 20d20 damage, and have been buried under 20' of debris and soil in an area that's now glowing with radioactivity.  You were largely incinerated and your bodies where never recovered."


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OK, then.  If they are entirely predictable, tell me exactly what will happen when I drink a potion _of healing_ followed by a _potion of gaseous form_ using 1e rules.




Nothing noteworthy other than the two potions each working normally. The _potion of healing_ cures you. Then you drink the _potion of gaseous form_ and it makes you turn into a cloud of gas. They have no durations to overlap, neither is effective in your system at the same time. Hence, the potion miscability tables have no bearing on the situation.

Now, if you mixed them together, or you drank two potions that had an effect that had a duration (say, a _potion of fire giant strength_ followed by a _potion of invisibility_), then you would check the potion miscability table. But that is an _entirely predictable outcome_: "if you do X, consult table Y" is predictable technology. Of course, if you drank them seperately, then thier effects would be _wholly predictable_, without consulting a table.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 27, 2007)

It's a bizarro world where the Ref dictates what adventures will be had and Players dictate what rules will be used.

Has the whole game become about optimization?  The MIC certainly isn't Core, but stating the players must have access to magic shops (in essence, for the "balanced" PC optimization metagame) is the publisher championing one playstyle over another.  Why can't we choose?  If the rules won't work without them, change the rules.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But that is an _entirely predictable outcome_: "if you do X, consult table Y" is predictable technology.





"If you do X, something random will happen; consult table Y" = predictable technology.

Welcome to Bizarro Land.



No doubt the _wand of wonders_ and _bag of beans_, that invited the DM to make whole new random events, were equally predictable.  And clearly, the effects of the potion miscability table were written in clear rules terminology so that, in each case, if one were to get the same result drinking the same potions, they would have exactly the same outcome....right?    

That's just way too funny.


----------



## Rothe (Mar 27, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> we played 3-4 hrs/day; 5 days/week; 50 weeks/year; for a month shy of 11 years. it took roughly 900 hrs of roleplay to reach a new level in the campaign.
> 
> ...




Forget the +1 sword, what magic item did you find to stop time?  I'm amazed you could get so much game time in.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 27, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Eberron for example, or Planescape, or perhaps even an Arabian Nights inspired campaign probably would have magic being sold alongside mundane items on a regular basis, and a DM that has made that decision in my mind has made a perfectly reasonable decision.  But, I do not agree that such a setting is necessarily a default setting for D&D.



Buying and selling magic items is the default in 3rd ed. See the 3.5 DMG page 142. The section headed 'Magic Items'.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Nor do I agree that making the decision to run a setting where magic is not made to be mundane somehow makes you a worse DM than someone that just abstracts everything down to 'Wal-Magic' so they can get on with the monster bashing.



I agree with you entirely on this.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There is a degree to which the idea of magic item shops is the fault of the (non-Core) rules (like the MIC), but there is nothing in the Core rules, IMHO, that implies magic item shops.



From the DMG 3.5 page 142 -



			
				DMG said:
			
		

> The magic items described in Chapter 7 all have prices. The assumption is that, while they are rare, magic items can be bought or sold much as any other commodity can be. The prices given are far beyond the reach of almost everyone, but the very rich, including mid- to high- level PCs, can buy and sell these items or even have spellcasters make them to order. In very large cities, some shops might specialize in magic items if their clientele is very wealthy or includes a large number of adventurer [sic] (and such shops would have lots of magical protections to ward away thieves). Magic items might even be available in normal markets and shops occasionally. For example, a weaponsmith might have a few magic weapons for sale along with her normal wares.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> "If you do X, something random will happen; consult table Y" = predictable technology.
> 
> Welcome to Bizarro Land.




One might also phrase it thus:

if you do X, one standard event randomly determined from a predetemined and immutable table of events will occur.

It's not totally random. It's not entirely predictable, but there are only 9 different results on the table. Not really a bonanza of randomness, IMO.

/M


----------



## donremus (Mar 27, 2007)

I personally don't like the idea of going to a magic shop that has anything in the DMG available for sale - just don't make plain sense to me. When I played in Shackled City there was a shop that had a few items and the DM made random rolls every so often to see what had been sold/bought by the shopkeeper. I don't have a problem with this kind of shop and sometimes an item appeared that everyone was drooling over but was way out of our price range.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> "If you do X, something random will happen; consult table Y" = predictable technology.
> 
> Welcome to Bizarro Land.




No, more like "if you do X, then, predictably, a result drawn from set Y will happen". The table isn't actually "random", it is a limited set of predictable results from a particular set of starting conditions.

If you swing a sword at your enemy, you might or might not hit him. When you hit him, it might do a little damage, or a lot. Does that make a sword an unpredictable technology? If I fire a black powder rifle, it might fire, or it might misfire and fail to work. Does that make rifles a non predictable technology?

I think you need to go back and rethink some of your assumptions here.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 27, 2007)

donremus said:
			
		

> I personally don't like the idea of going to a magic shop that has anything in the DMG available for sale - just don't make plain sense to me. When I played in Shackled City there was a shop that had a few items and the DM made random rolls every so often to see what had been sold/bought by the shopkeeper. I don't have a problem with this kind of shop and sometimes an item appeared that everyone was drooling over but was way out of our price range.




And I don't think anyone is saying that this is not a perfectly reasonable way to handle magic item markets in a campaign. And it is entirely within the spirit of D&D to have such a set-up.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> "If you do X, something random will happen; consult table Y" = predictable technology.
> 
> Welcome to Bizarro Land.






He just keeps digging himself deeper doesn't he?


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Buying and selling magic items is the default in 3rd ed. See the 3.5 DMG page 142. The section headed 'Magic Items'.




Point.  Allow me to ammend that to say, "I also don't like the extent to which 3.X has made such assumptions default, particularly to the extent that 3.X rules lawyers tend to interpret such suggestions as actual immutable rules rather than guidelines and ignore the word _'might'_ that is liberally sprinkled through that passage."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Hopefully one can see the problem.  The problem is not that the PC's easily defeat the bad guys.  That's not a real problem.  The problem is that the bad guys would use the same tactics back at the PC's.  And that results in situations were the DM simply says to the party without any warning, "Well, nice game.  You are all dead.  Lets make some new character sheets....What do you mean, huh?... A goblin suicide bomber setoff a 25kt tactical nuke in the sewers less than 200' from where you are standing.  You've all taken 20d20 damage, and have been buried under 20' of debris and soil in an area that's now glowing with radioactivity.  You were largely incinerated and your bodies where never recovered."





And the reply would be:

"Didn't I get a Fort save?"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Buying and selling magic items is the default in 3rd ed. See the 3.5 DMG page 142. The section headed 'Magic Items'.





Thank Crom I just stayed with the 3.0 books and the SRD, then.  Although, I note the words "might exist" when they talk about magic item shops, hence not default.  Otherwise, good point.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If you swing a sword at your enemy, you might or might not hit him. When you hit him, it might do a little damage, or a lot. Does that make a sword an unpredictable technology? If I fire a black powder rifle, it might fire, or it might misfire and fail to work. Does that make rifles a non predictable technology?
> 
> I think you need to go back and rethink some of your assumptions here.





Yes, because that is exactly like, say, sprouting grass and flowers all over your body as a result of using a wand, having a seed become a purple worm that attacks you or a gigantic tree, or becoming permanently gaseous.  Yup.  Nothing Bizarro about your contention at all.


----------



## scriven (Mar 27, 2007)

donremus said:
			
		

> I personally don't like the idea of going to a magic shop that has anything in the DMG available for sale - just don't make plain sense to me. When I played in Shackled City there was a shop that had a few items and the DM made random rolls every so often to see what had been sold/bought by the shopkeeper. I don't have a problem with this kind of shop and sometimes an item appeared that everyone was drooling over but was way out of our price range.




I think a persuasive argument has been made in favor of this kind of shop.  Some adventurers will want to sell items (e.g. class-specific items they can't use).  Other adventurers will want to buy those items.  It's simple economics.

I haven't seen an in-game argument for why it would be reasonable to pick a specific item out of the books and expect to find it in a shop.  It seems highly unlikely, in fact, that a given vendor, at a given time, would have an arbitrary item in stock.  (A big city might have several vendors, giving more chances for an item to turn up, but still, it would be by no means a sure thing.)


----------



## Reynard (Mar 27, 2007)

The worst mistakle I ever made running a game was when I wanted to eliminate the ned to "loot" so the campaign was mission based and when each mission was complete, the archmage (eviul dragon in disguise) let the PCs "buy" items from his vault (hoard) based on what the expected treasure from the mission's encounters would be worth.  Moreover, I gave them free reign over items in the DMG, so long as they could afford them.

My intent was to make sure the party stayed within the "suggested wealth by level" guidelines.  The result was a huge, imbalanced mess.  And, worse yet, since the PCs were much more powerful than their levels would indicate (because they cherry picked the perfect items for their characters and for their team tactics) I had to up the CR of encounters, which meant they got even bigger rewards, and so on...

I tried to eliminate the problem by having the archmage/dragon kick out the PCs and become an enemy.  The campaign collapsed anyway and I almost didn't run D&D ever again.

Now, I prefer lower magic, slower advancement and less "build" -- so I am going back to 1E.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> From the DMG 3.5 page 142 -
> Originally Posted by DMG
> The magic items described in Chapter 7 all have prices. The assumption is that, while they are rare, magic items can be bought or sold much as any other commodity can be. The prices given are far beyond the reach of almost everyone, but the very rich, including mid- to high- level PCs, can buy and sell these items or even have spellcasters make them to order. In very large cities, some shops might specialize in magic items if their clientele is very wealthy or includes a large number of adventurer [sic] (and such shops would have lots of magical protections to ward away thieves). Magic items might even be available in normal markets and shops occasionally. For example, a weaponsmith might have a few magic weapons for sale along with her normal wares.




I still say there is a vast amount of room between this description and the stereotype of a supermarket style "magic shop".

Default D&D does assume that a character with the means should be able to obtain more or less any magic item, and that finding someone to sell it to them is one standard mechanism.  But the text you have quoted simply indicates that there will likely be high end magic brokers in wealthy areas in a default D&D world and that low end magic items can show up as the special back room extras in a more common store.  Neither the idea of a high dollar broker being able to hook you up with the "custom item" within a month or so or a standard weapon shop having 2 or 4 +1 items in the back are outside of the idea presented in the DMG.  And neither of these ideas imply a supermarket pick-and-pay concept.  And, IMO, neither of them come close to disturbing the spirit of D&D.  To the contrary, it seems quite obvious that such as this would exist in a world that worked as defined in the core books.


----------



## darkseraphim (Mar 27, 2007)

For a little positivity, I thought I'd mention one campaign where the idea of magic shops was not only integral, it was also perfect for flavor and the main source of player entertainment.

This was an HP Lovecraft's Dreamlands campaign.  The characters were locked away in insane asylums, trying to still complete missions to save the world after no one would believe them.  This involved linking up in the Dreamlands where Cthulhoid entities have some of their consciousness invested.

Item shops were everywhere.  Later, characters learned how to dream up items, literally.  You want a sword?  Concentrate on the idea and watch it materialize in your hand.  No problem.

However, in times of stress or terror, there were nightmare checks.  If you had a sanity / nightmare failure, your sword might turn into a serpent or a scorpion tail (or whatever you're phobic of) and attack you.  Conversely, if you were a very powerful dreamer, you could not only keep your sanity, but force nightmare checks on enemies.

Things get interesting as the characters want more powerful items.  You want a sword of Deep One slaying?  Sure, but that requires you to dream about Deep Ones, and dreaming about them beckons their attention.  Hope you get that sword quickly, because you'll be needing it.

Not 100% applicable to D&D (although it would make a great side campaign), but an example of a gameworld where I feel magic shops should absolutely exist.  Heroic fantasy, though?  Not so much.  The best treasures are earned through blood, not gold.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

I once had in my campaign a really nice (but evil) sword that had belonged to the BBEG in ages past.  The PCs found the sword, accidently awoke the BBEG, and used the sword to defeat (but not slay) the BBEG.  What did the party do?

Naturally, they sold the sword.

To the minions of the BBEG.

That they _knew_ to be the minions of the BBEG.

That offered them a modest sum now, and much more later, but wanted the sword _now_.

That, of course, never paid the much larger sum.

That, of course, gave the evil powerful sword to the BBEG.

 

The only difference between what happened IMC, and what happens in a "magic shop" campaign, is that in the "magic shop" campaign there is a middle man.


----------



## Henry (Mar 27, 2007)

scriven said:
			
		

> I haven't seen an in-game argument for why it would be reasonable to pick a specific item out of the books and expect to find it in a shop.  It seems highly unlikely, in fact, that a given vendor, at a given time, would have an arbitrary item in stock.




Heck, even in the modern day, your local supermarket/hardware store/megastore won't have EVERY possible brand of item you might want.  However, I think a lot of DMs (like myself, at times) just assume that a given shops has what the PC wants, and glosses over it, to save time and argument, more than anything.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes, because that is exactly like, say, sprouting grass and flowers all over your body as a result of using a wand, having a seed become a purple worm that attacks you or a gigantic tree, or becoming permanently gaseous.  Yup.  Nothing Bizarro about your contention at all.




You asked about potion miscability. Which is an entirely predictable element. You know how to trigger it, and the range of outcomes it produces. It is easy to avoid it. If you want to get all up in a lather over a couple of items that you didn't actually mention in the question I was responding to, that seems entirely silly on your part.

Further, you seem to now be hanging your hat on all of two items in 1e. If you want to hitch your wagons to the _bag of beans_, and the _wand of wonder_, then you are hanging on a slender (and not really relevant) thread. There are at least 500 completely predictable, standardized items listed for each of those. Which do you think relfects the "spirit" of the 1e magic item more? The two relatively obscure and little used exceptions, or the thousand plus predictable regular items that completely dominated the treasure troves of published adventures?


----------



## Numion (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes, because that is exactly like, say, sprouting grass and flowers all over your body as a result of using a wand, having a seed become a purple worm that attacks you or a gigantic tree, or becoming permanently gaseous.  Yup.  Nothing Bizarro about your contention at all.




Well, 3E has _about_ the same amount of random (unpredictable) magic items that 1E has, so I don't see your claim about 1E magic more unpredictable by nature as having much basis.

3E has the wan.. sorry, rod of wonder, deck of many things, etc .. where you have to roll on a table. Whoop-dee-doo .. in both editions 99% is perfectly predictable. Why make a sweeping claim on that 1%?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You asked about potion miscability. Which is an entirely predictable element.




Again, Bizarro.

Bizarro One:  The question about potion miscability came up within the context of earlier edition AD&D magic, so the relevance of other magic is as germaine as that of, say, swinging swords.

Bizarro Two:  Swinging a sword has a hit or miss chance, and a range of damage.  It always either hits or misses, and it always does some amount of damage if it hits (even if the creature doesn't take that damage).  Conversely, drinking two potions can do...anything to you.

Bizarro Three:  You equate the procedure followed by the DM with the in-game effect on the PC.

Bizarro Four:  You keep using the word "predictable".  I do not think that word means what you think it means.  The Potion Miscability Table is a _starting point_ for what can happen.  It is inclusive, not exclusive.  Having a potion with instantaneous results _doesn't necessarily_ mean that potion miscability isn't consulted, so you could indeed have a wierd effect from drinking a _potion of healing_ and then a _potion of gaseous form_.  Even two identical rolls with two identical sets of potions can have differing effects based upon the wording of the results.  This is the opposite of predictability.

"If I use this item, the sun is likely to still rise tomorrow, therefore the item is predictable" doesn't connotate predictability to me.  However, if this is what you mean by predictable, then it is probable that we agree about the predictability of magic in earlier editions, and merely disagree on what "predictability" is.    

The vast majority of modules produced for AD&D include new magic items, the functions of which should not be known to the players at the time they are acquired.  Tons of cursed items mimicked "good" items until certain conditions were met...heck, there are "good" items in the DMG that mimic other "good" items until certain conditions are met.  The DM is encouraged to create new items, further adding to uncertainty, because these new items do not merely duplicate known effects or spells the way items made by Item Creation feats do _as a matter of rules_ -- even the lowly potion could literally do _anything_ depending upon the DM, the campaign, and the situation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Well, 3E has _about_ the same amount of random (unpredictable) magic items that 1E has, so I don't see your claim about 1E magic more unpredictable by nature as having much basis.





Ah, excepting that my claim is that magic has not always been a "predictable technology" in the game.  If you want to say that it is not, now, a predictable technology, then more power to you.    

I'd say, though, that things like Item Creation feats have increased the predictability of magic manyfold.  In order to be a predictable technology, an item must be predictable in both its manufacture and use.  3e has gone a very long way toward the former, and by making most items effectively spell-holders, it has gone a very long way toward the later as well.  Even the changes to spells such as _identify_ exist for the purpose of making magic more predictable.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 27, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I still say there is a vast amount of room between this description and the stereotype of a supermarket style "magic shop".



I don't think anyone in this thread is in favour of supermarket-style magic shops. I'm not, it makes the exotic too commonplace for my taste.

The Magic Item Compendium has rather a strange sentence on the subject:



			
				MIC said:
			
		

> Large one-stop-shop "magic emporiums" are unrealistic and rare even in metropolis-sized cities.




It's peculiar to say that something is both unrealistic (which suggests it doesn't exist at all) and rare (which makes it clear that it does).


----------



## Maggan (Mar 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's peculiar to say that something is both unrealistic (which suggests it doesn't exist at all)




Nah. There's quite a lot of unrealistic things in D&D. A magic emporium would feel unrealistic, but hey, it could work.

/m


----------



## wally (Mar 27, 2007)

I had a situation in my game where a player was browsing through the DMs guide and found the Dancing Shield, or something like that. Anyway, he was playing a fighter type that used a sword that required two hands, so the shield that he didn't have to wield sounded great to him.

In my game world, nobody had ever made such a magic item.  Nobody had ever found such a magic item. They didn't exist in my gameworld.

The player had to ask why, as they were in the book and he said his character wanted one. It isn't that expensive or over powering. Why couldn't he get it? There isn't a general magic emporium, but if he went into the large metropolis and made some good gather info checks, then why shouldn't he get it? That last question is based on some of the opinions of posters in this thread. I don't ask this to argue specifics, I just wonder if you guys would say, let him have it.

-wally


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

I should also note that I am simply choosing the most obvious counter-examples.  If one proposes that all birds fly, one doesn't have to itemize every non-flying bird to prove him wrong.  One need only point to a penguin or an ostrich.  Choosing a kakapo is simply more work for no extra reward.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 27, 2007)

Let's quit calling magic items Magical.  Let's just call them what they really are: Equipment.  There's nothing mysterious or grand about them at all.  Nothing awe inspiring.  Nothing to _play_ with.  Nothing to make the game worth playing.  Just another +# bonus.  And of course they've _always_ been this way, so let's cheer now, 30 years later, that we've finally got the name right.  

Without magic, why bother even calling it Fantasy?


----------



## Numion (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ah, excepting that my claim is that magic has not always been a "predictable technology" in the game.  If you want to say that it is not, now, a predictable technology, then more power to you.




You seem to have quoted me out of context. I know your claim, and addressed that in the second part of my post. You shouldn't claim magic to be unpredictable if only 1% of items (it's probably less than 1%, actually) are somewhat unpredictable.




> I'd say, though, that things like Item Creation feats have increased the predictability of magic manyfold.  In order to be a predictable technology, an item must be predictable in both its manufacture and use.  3e has gone a very long way toward the former, and by making most items effectively spell-holders, it has gone a very long way toward the later as well.  Even the changes to spells such as _identify_ exist for the purpose of making magic more predictable.




How does this claimed unpredictability of magic affect play? When the items are used during play. It doesn't matter how the item came into being when it's used in the game. Only its mechanics matter when it's used to do something. In that regard 99% of items are still utterly predictable in both editions.

You're still basing your claims on that 1%. Sounds a bit incredible that, for example, PCs were mixing and quaffing multiple potions like it was happy hour _that_ often. 99% of the time they were swinging that +1 sword, firing magic missiles and wearing +2 armor - the predictable stuff.

Anyway, the point is pretty moot for me, since my players value xp more than crafting their own items (they've not even read the item creation rules). By your logic that's a big chunk of predictability of magic gone for them


----------



## Numion (Mar 27, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Let's quit calling magic items Magical.  Let's just call them what they really are: Equipment.




Now don't be silly. It's called magical because it doesn't work in an anti-magic field.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 27, 2007)

wally said:
			
		

> In my game world, nobody had ever made such a magic item.  Nobody had ever found such a magic item. They didn't exist in my gameworld.
> 
> The player had to ask why, as they were in the book and he said his character wanted one. It isn't that expensive or over powering. Why couldn't he get it? There isn't a general magic emporium, but if he went into the large metropolis and made some good gather info checks, then why shouldn't he get it? That last question is based on some of the opinions of posters in this thread. I don't ask this to argue specifics, I just wonder if you guys would say, let him have it.




Nope. There's a world of difference between saying 'this item doesn't exist in my campaign' -- no one has one, and there is no way to make one -- and saying that the only way to get an item that does exist (and by standard pricing would be within the means of a PC) is to hope it shows up in random treasure, or just maybe commission it (but don't count on it, because no one would ever trade XP for money).

It's perfectly reasonable to ban animated shields in your campaign because you think they're silly -- or for all magic shields to be animated, because of some strange property of enchanted shields in your world. Either is a house rule, and, were I to DM a game, I'd probably ban animated shields because I think they're silly.


----------



## Numion (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I should also note that I am simply choosing the most obvious counter-examples.  If one proposes that all birds fly, one doesn't have to itemize every non-flying bird to prove him wrong.  One need only point to a penguin or an ostrich.  Choosing a kakapo is simply more work for no extra reward.




Except that's not what you're doing. You're generalizing one instance to characterize the whole, and I'm pointing out that your one example is the exception (potion miscability table -> magic in 1E was unpredictable is your claim, I'm saying it's the exception compared to 99% of items / item use).

Now that we're into ornithology, your claim is the same as claiming "Penguings don't fly, so birds don't fly", a complete reversal of your intent in the quoted section.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 27, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Now don't be silly. It's called magical because it doesn't work in an anti-magic field.



Good catch.  Why don't we call that one anti-electrical field?


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, Bizarro.




Only if you torture the word.



> _Bizarro One:  The question about potion miscability came up within the context of earlier edition AD&D magic, so the relevance of other magic is as germaine as that of, say, swinging swords._




Other magic as in "most items in the 1e DMG"? I'd say that's pretty relevant.



> _Bizarro Two:  Swinging a sword has a hit or miss chance, and a range of damage.  It always either hits or misses, and it always does some amount of damage if it hits (even if the creature doesn't take that damage).  Conversely, drinking two potions can do...anything to you._




No, it can't. It can do a very small set of things to you, defined by a table that has exactly nine possible outcomes. And that only happens _if_ you mix potions. If you don't, then there is _never_ any potion miscability issues, and magic remains entirely predictable. Mixing potions is like trying to hit someone with a sword. It has a narrowly defined possible set of outcomes. This is not unpredictable.



> _Bizarro Three:  You equate the procedure followed by the DM with the in-game effect on the PC._




Magic is not mysterious _because_ it is defined in a predictable manner by the rules. Is chemisty mysterious? I mean, there are no DMs following procedure, but if you do X then you will get outcome Y. Hence, it is predictable based upon the observations of the experimenter - just as determining that mixing potions in a 1e defined world would be observable to inhabitants of that world. "If you mix potions, you get this range of possibilities occurring" would be pretty easy for experimenters to figure out - and they probably would given the benefits of figuring that out.



> _Bizarro Four:  You keep using the word "predictable".  I do not think that word means what you think it means.  The Potion Miscability Table is a starting point for what can happen.  It is inclusive, not exclusive.  Having a potion with instantaneous results doesn't necessarily mean that potion miscability isn't consulted, so you could indeed have a wierd effect from drinking a potion of healing and then a potion of gaseous form._




First off, no, you couldn't. You need to reread the rules for using the table.



> _Even two identical rolls with two identical sets of potions can have differing effects based upon the wording of the results.  This is the opposite of predictability._




There are nine possible outcomes that arise from mixing a pair of potions. If you don't mix potions, there is no consulting the table. Predictably. If you do mix potions, then you consult the table and get one of a limited set of outcomes. Predictably.



> _"If I use this item, the sun is likely to still rise tomorrow, therefore the item is predictable" doesn't connotate predictability to me.  However, if this is what you mean by predictable, then it is probable that we agree about the predictability of magic in earlier editions, and merely disagree on what "predictability" is._




Predictability means knowing what will trigger certain sets of outcomes. If I pull the trigger on a loaded black powder rifle it will either (1) fire a bullet, (2) misfire and nothing will happen, or (3) misfire in a catastrophic way. Even though there is more than one possible outcome, the technology is still predictable, because I know pretty much the set that it will be drawn from, and have a good idea what the relative frequencies of these occurences will be. Potion miscability is _exactly the same_.



> _The vast majority of modules produced for AD&D include new magic items, the functions of which should not be known to the players at the time they are acquired.  Tons of cursed items mimicked "good" items until certain conditions were met...heck, there are "good" items in the DMG that mimic other "good" items until certain conditions are met._




Examples please. And also provide the frequencies of these items relative to the entirely ordinary run-of-the mill magic items provided.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Mar 27, 2007)

wally said:
			
		

> I had a situation in my game where a player was browsing through the DMs guide and found the Dancing Shield, or something like that. Anyway, he was playing a fighter type that used a sword that required two hands, so the shield that he didn't have to wield sounded great to him.
> 
> In my game world, nobody had ever made such a magic item.  Nobody had ever found such a magic item. They didn't exist in my gameworld.
> 
> ...




Frankly, the idea that NO ONE would EVER want a floating shield strains believability to the breaking point. 

How many thousands of years have humans been using shields and magic? 
How long have the Elves been using shields and magic? 
The Dwarves? 
Magic items don't wear out. They get lost, yes, or stolen or taken away to enemy fortresses, but they don't stop working.
Probably there's quite a lot of them around, since they are pretty useful to warriors. Sure, some of them will be lost in dungeons or cave complexes or wars or in happy owner's hands, but it's possible there's one up for sale.


----------



## Slife (Mar 27, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> no one would ever trade XP for money



Yes they would.  Experience is a river.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 27, 2007)

wally said:
			
		

> I had a situation in my game where a player was browsing through the DMs guide and found the Dancing Shield, or something like that. Anyway, he was playing a fighter type that used a sword that required two hands, so the shield that he didn't have to wield sounded great to him.
> 
> In my game world, nobody had ever made such a magic item.  Nobody had ever found such a magic item. They didn't exist in my gameworld.
> 
> ...




Simple answer, regardless of edition, would be this: I would allow the PC to search high and low for some reference to such an item and, assuming the player made a good-faith effort (i.e. more than making an Gather Info roll), let them find a long lost tale of The One Armed Knight and His Dancing Shield, as well as a clue to where the OAK might be buried.

Then I would promptly thank the player for coming up with my next adventure for me.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 27, 2007)

What is truly repulsive out of this all is magic items no longer being considered special.  The DMG list is THE list of available technology.  The items aren't _suggestions_ anymore.  They are the law of the land.  To imagine anything else would be... against the rules.

A setting where magic isn't commoditized and mass produced is now considered against the RAW and unworkable under it.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Mar 27, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Frankly, the idea that NO ONE would EVER want a floating shield strains believability to the breaking point.
> 
> How many thousands of years have humans been using shields and magic?
> How long have the Elves been using shields and magic?
> ...



Magic shields can be sundered, however.  
If the concept of floaty shields annoys you (and it does annoy me, since it makes sword-and-board irrelevant) then rule that it's a +5 equivalent bonus and rule that it requires a 15th-level caster to create.  The DM is always free to modify ANYTHING in the DMG at a whim.  Everything in the DMG is his domain, nothing in that book can be taken as a default assumption by the players.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 27, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> What is truly repulsive out of this all is magic items no longer being considered special.




I disagree with you on the "no longer" part.



> _The DMG list is THE list of available technology.  The items aren't suggestions anymore.  They are the law of the land.  To imagine anything else would be... against the rules._




They are just as much subject to change as any other rule.



> _A setting where magic isn't commoditized and mass produced is now considered against the RAW and unworkable under it._




That has pretty much been the way every edition of D&D has treated magic items in practice. The rhetoric has been different, but the mechanics have always pointed towards the commoditization of magic items. The only difference now is that the rhetoric is finnaly being altered to match what the rules have always said.


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 27, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> How many thousands of years have humans been using shields and magic?
> How long have the Elves been using shields and magic?
> The Dwarves?
> Magic items don't wear out. They get lost, yes, or stolen or taken away to enemy fortresses, but they don't stop working.
> Probably there's quite a lot of them around, since they are pretty useful to warriors. Sure, some of them will be lost in dungeons or cave complexes or wars or in happy owner's hands, but it's possible there's one up for sale.




Ya, but I could easily see such shields requiring an exotic armor feat. Once found, somebody might spend the effort to use it. Probably fewer than everybody will be willing to get the item and then spend a feat. I don't really want to say that such items can't exist, but they do seem like an item that I'd want to restrict because otherwise, yes, everybody would get one, and I don't want a world where everybody is running around with them.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 27, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> What is truly repulsive out of this all is magic items no longer being considered special.  The DMG list is THE list of available technology.  The items aren't _suggestions_ anymore.  They are the law of the land.  To imagine anything else would be... against the rules.
> 
> A setting where magic isn't commoditized and mass produced is now considered against the RAW and unworkable under it.




I am trying to figure out whether you are engaging in hyperbole to make a point, or if you really think the things you post.  If it is the latter, I'd personally like to apologize to you on behalf of Wizards of the Coast, the 3rd Edition Design team and whatever DM hurt you like that.


----------



## Evilusion (Mar 27, 2007)

I know in most of my campaigns there have always been magic shops. I know I know most people are yelling at me going what the hell man. You just need to control what is in the shop. They do not have everything list in the DMG. Plus you can also sell crused item or magic items that don't work. I have never found them to be game breaking but that is just me.

Viking698


----------



## MerricB (Mar 27, 2007)

wally said:
			
		

> The player had to ask why, as they were in the book and he said his character wanted one. It isn't that expensive or over powering. Why couldn't he get it? There isn't a general magic emporium, but if he went into the large metropolis and made some good gather info checks, then why shouldn't he get it? That last question is based on some of the opinions of posters in this thread. I don't ask this to argue specifics, I just wonder if you guys would say, let him have it.




I'd say, "No, you can't have it." I note that the MIC clearly states that you can bar people from getting magic items (although generally it should be for a good reason, like they don't exist in your world).

Indeed, in my campaigns, I do say, "No, you can't have it". I hate animated shields with a passion.

Cheers!


----------



## Reynard (Mar 27, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Ya, but I could easily see such shields requiring an exotic armor feat. Once found, somebody might spend the effort to use it. Probably fewer than everybody will be willing to get the item and then spend a feat.




[threadjack]
::shudder::
That's one of those idea that would, if a DM I played under suggested such a thing, make me roll up a Vow of Poverty Half-Orc Monk.  That feats have become currency with which to 'purchase' coolness is one of those things that makes me pull farther and farther away from 3E. (And yes, I meant to type "have become" -- the Core feats are not like this.)  I mean, a *feat* to make use of a hard won reward?
[/threadjack]


----------



## MerricB (Mar 27, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Frankly, the idea that NO ONE would EVER want a floating shield strains believability to the breaking point.




Yes, but that doesn't imply that they have managed to get one to work. 

"Yes, sir... we've made your floating shield. Won't protect you, but it will carry your treasure!"

Cheers!


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 27, 2007)

darkseraphim said:
			
		

> For a little positivity, I thought I'd mention one campaign where the idea of magic shops was not only integral, it was also perfect for flavor and the main source of player entertainment.
> 
> This was an HP Lovecraft's Dreamlands campaign.  The characters were locked away in insane asylums, trying to still complete missions to save the world after no one would believe them.  This involved linking up in the Dreamlands where Cthulhoid entities have some of their consciousness invested.
> 
> ...



Very cool idea.  Here the rules actually make sense.


----------



## Numion (Mar 27, 2007)

wally said:
			
		

> I had a situation in my game where a player was browsing through the DMs guide and found the Dancing Shield, or something like that. Anyway, he was playing a fighter type that used a sword that required two hands, so the shield that he didn't have to wield sounded great to him.
> 
> In my game world, nobody had ever made such a magic item.  Nobody had ever found such a magic item. They didn't exist in my gameworld.
> 
> The player had to ask why, as they were in the book and he said his character wanted one. It isn't that expensive or over powering. Why couldn't he get it? There isn't a general magic emporium, but if he went into the large metropolis and made some good gather info checks, then why shouldn't he get it? That last question is based on some of the opinions of posters in this thread. I don't ask this to argue specifics, I just wonder if you guys would say, let him have it.




That was about the first item that got booted from my campaign. Not very good design - do we really need to take away all the advantages of sword & board fighters? They're inferior as is, and that floating shield would just kill the concept.

Decision like that doesn't really require, IMO, that much in-game or out-of-game justification. Much of the DMG lists are inherited from previous editions where some dude thought up a bunch of cool stuff. It might've easily been a different list, i.e. there's not that much rhyme and reason to it. Removing one item from the list doesn't affect the overall picture that much, be that item introduced in 3E or not.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 27, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That has pretty much been the way every edition of D&D has treated magic items in practice. The rhetoric has been different, but the mechanics have always pointed towards the commoditization of magic items. The only difference now is that the rhetoric is finnaly being altered to match what the rules have always said.



Where did you play D&D?  This is totally outside my experience.  If this historical revisionism is widely believed, we've jumped the shark.  Science has pervaded the core thinking of this crazy thread.  Nothing is unknown.  Nothing is unpredictable.  Nothing is outside of easy reach.  To withhold an option is to oppress the players.


----------



## molonel (Mar 27, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Indeed, in my campaigns, I do say, "No, you can't have it". I hate animated shields with a passion.




Ditto. As if sword and board weren't already a subpar option under the rules, they give you a magic item that imitates sword and board while letting you wield a weapon in both hands.

Yay!

(Not.)


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 27, 2007)

Evilusion said:
			
		

> You just need to control what is in the shop. They do not have everything list in the DMG.







Amen.




jh
(still not here to have his opinion changed


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 27, 2007)

Psion's law has been utterly disregarded.  Worlds are now built by extrapolating upon what the rules actually create vs. having the world dictate what rules are used.  Everything not SuperMagiTech is left behind or requires a massive d20 overhaul.

Destroy the attraction of magic and you've destroyed the game for a majority of players.  To claim all old players have been duped all this time is even more insulting.

The DMG was OFF LIMITS to the players.  Learning how magic items worked was to be as shocking, terrifying, and wondrous as learning what a module had in store for you.  If the players CHEATED and knew them all, you're going to have to alter every one or make new ones.  Ditto on monsters and the MM.  

The fact that the PCs are assumed to metagame know this massive list of mass produced magic items also assumes that the world must be of a magic level beyond almost all fantasy fiction.  How are we to play out our fantasy worlds when the default rules presume absurdity?


----------



## Numion (Mar 27, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Where did you play D&D?  This is totally outside my experience.  If this historical revisionism is widely believed, we've jumped the shark.  Science has pervaded the core thinking of this crazy thread.  Nothing is unknown.  Nothing is unpredictable.




Nobody's saying that. Just that most of magic has always been predictable. There has always been a list of spells - with complete effects listed that are quite predictable. There are a couple of exceptions, like Wish and Limited Wish (and Miracle in 3E). 

There has always been a similar list in the DMG for magic items. Almost all were and still are quite predictable. The exceptions like wand/rod of wonder and deck of many things are the exceptions.

Rose colored glasses in action once again. Magic would still seem unpredictable to a player just starting 3E just as it did for us when we started 1E. But once you've read the rules, there's no going back in either system. The system is what it is once you know it, in both systems. I claim that it's quite predictable in both editions due to the fact that 99% of magical effects are well defined and predictable. Potion miscability table or wand of wonder doesn't change this.



> Nothing is outside of easy reach.




I don't know about that. All editions of D&D provide a wide array of things for the DM to make the reach as difficult or as easy as they please. 



> To withhold an option is to oppress the players.




No need to hyperbole, even if it was kinda your thing judging by your earlier posts.


----------



## Numion (Mar 27, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The DMG was OFF LIMITS to the players.  Learning how magic items worked was to be as shocking, terrifying, and wondrous as learning what a module had in store for you.  If the players CHEATED and knew them all, you're going to have to alter every one or make new ones.  Ditto on monsters and the MM.




It would be a loss to the game if anyone who's ever DMed a game could no longer function as a player. 60% of my current group do both.


----------



## molonel (Mar 27, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Destroy the attraction of magic and you've destroyed the game for a majority of players. To claim all old players have been duped all this time is even more insulting.




Oh, baloney. The magicalness of magic has never sustained D&D. It is a spice, just like any other spice. Some people use more of it. Some people use less. If I had to play in a game where magic was this unpredictable thing where two potions might make my stomach blow up, and at any moment my +1 sword might turn into a wet noodle - because hey, magic is UNPREDICTABLE! - or a block of stinky cheese, then that wouldn't be any fun, either.

D&D is a game that people play to have fun. The magicalness of magic is only one element, and frankly, not one of the most important ones, either.

Since people are complaining about the customization of magic items, and how this makes magic more available, and yet, destroys the game while D&D is presently enjoying it's largest success is an odd contortion of the facts before us.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The DMG was OFF LIMITS to the players. Learning how magic items worked was to be as shocking, terrifying, and wondrous as learning what a module had in store for you. If the players CHEATED and knew them all, you're going to have to alter every one or make new ones. Ditto on monsters and the MM.




Whatever. We all combed through the DMG back in 1st Edition, too, and told the DM what sort of items we wanted. We metagamed and powergamed like a bunch of mad little fiends. Just like people now.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The fact that the PCs are assumed to metagame know this massive list of mass produced magic items also assumes that the world must be of a magic level beyond almost all fantasy fiction. How are we to play out our fantasy worlds when the default rules presume absurdity?




Because the DM controls the rules. That's written into the rules. You are given a baseline, and then you pick and choose what you want. Just like always.


----------



## Victim (Mar 27, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> It would be a loss to the game if anyone who's ever DMed a game could no longer function as a player. 60% of my current group do both.




Exactly.  Everyone is my current group has DM'd at one point (with varying degrees of success).  Even in the old school game club I played with at college, most peopled had DM'd DnD at least.


----------



## scriven (Mar 27, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That has pretty much been the way every edition of D&D has treated magic items in practice. The rhetoric has been different, but the mechanics have always pointed towards the commoditization of magic items. The only difference now is that the rhetoric is finnaly being altered to match what the rules have always said.




Perhaps I've misunderstood, because that seems demonstrably false. Suppose that a player presents his DM with a list of magic items and says, "I want to buy these. I should be able to."  In 3E, there are rules he could quote to support his assertion. In 1E, there aren't.  He could use in-game arguments such as those presented in this thread, but they'd only get him as far as the conclusion that there should exist magic items for sale in the game world.  The likelihood of finding the specific items on his list would be vanishingly small.

Surely that's a difference?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 27, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I am trying to figure out whether you are engaging in hyperbole to make a point, or if you really think the things you post.  If it is the latter, I'd personally like to apologize to you on behalf of Wizards of the Coast, the 3rd Edition Design team and whatever DM hurt you like that.



Hyperbole.  I'm hoping the extrapolation of the ideas some are suggesting here might help show how false they are.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 27, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> Yes they would.  Experience is a river.




Does sarcasm need to be pointed out in 18-point bold type now?


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 27, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Whatever. We all combed through the DMG back in 1st Edition, too, and told the DM what sort of items we wanted. We metagamed and powergamed like a bunch of mad little fiends. Just like people now.




Not all of us.  Of course, if you meant "we" in the royal sense, then you might well be correct.  My group didn't comb through the DMG back then (aside from the two GM's).  Now?  Now you'll get labelled "overcontrolling" or a "Bad DM" if you so much as ask a player not to comb through the DMG or MM.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Because the DM controls the rules. That's written into the rules. You are given a baseline, and then you pick and choose what you want. Just like always.




Didn't they remove Rule Zero from the 3.5 DMG?


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 27, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> ::shudder::
> That's one of those idea that would, if a DM I played under suggested such a thing, make me roll up a Vow of Poverty Half-Orc Monk.




Heh. You probably don't want to know what I've done to half-orcs.

Exotic weapons require an extra feat. I see nothing special about requiring same for exotic armors. Either that or upping the + bonus for such a power. Perhaps something like the dancing ability for weapons whcih seems to be the same power but more powerful because the weilder doesn't have to operate the sheild first. 


back on topic:


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Then, one might just as well say that the city is a magic shop, in the same way that one might say "a +1 sword is a +1 sword".  The mechanics are the same, right?  That's all that counts, right?  In which case, the idea isn't a strawman.




I'd say no. There is a difference between having "magic shops" and hand waving the long tedious search among a variety of stores and sources while playing D&D. The former is definatly a matter of flavor to the campaign setting, and the second is a game aid to save time. (Of course, either one could be both.) Just letting the players pick their weapons out of the DMG can take a good hour. Role playing everything, let alone figuring out what might or might not be avaiable at any give second, means no adventuring is happening that game session. They are as different as teleportation or a long boring train ride when not role playing the train ride. Just because my CoC investigators ride a train does not mean they teleport.


----------



## Numion (Mar 27, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Hyperbole.  I'm hoping the extrapolation of the ideas some are suggesting here might help show how false they are.




Hyperboling tends to make claims false. So it's not going to help you show anything false, except your own logic.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 27, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Nobody's saying that. Just that most of magic has always been predictable. There has always been a list of spells - with complete effects listed that are quite predictable. There are a couple of exceptions, like Wish and Limited Wish (and Miracle in 3E).
> 
> There has always been a similar list in the DMG for magic items. Almost all were and still are quite predictable. The exceptions like wand/rod of wonder and deck of many things are the exceptions.
> 
> Rose colored glasses in action once again. Magic would still seem unpredictable to a player just starting 3E just as it did for us when we started 1E. But once you've read the rules, there's no going back in either system. The system is what it is once you know it, in both systems. I claim that it's quite predictable in both editions due to the fact that 99% of magical effects are well defined and predictable. Potion miscability table or wand of wonder doesn't change this.



Predictability is a requirement of the DM to run the game.  It's what the players are their to learn IC in game.  The fact that the spell lists are in all AD&D editions and now spells are considered "ubiquitiously known, easily trusted, and repeatedly predictable in the gameworld" means they are nothing less than science.  So, yes.  Spell lists belong in a DM-only DMG.  Along with magic items.   Once your players know them, change 'em.



> No need to hyperbole, even if it was kinda your thing judging by your earlier posts.



I'll try and lay off.  Much of what has been said in this thread by many others has been just as hyperbolic, imo.


> It would be a loss to the game if anyone who's ever DMed a game could no longer function as a player. 60% of my current group do both.



I understand with the level of complexity the game contains now, altering spells, monsters, and magic items is difficult.  But it is no harder for any one DM than another.  You wouldn't share your world secrets with DM-players too, right?


----------



## dcas (Mar 27, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> It would be a loss to the game if anyone who's ever DMed a game could no longer function as a player. 60% of my current group do both.




I think the DMG (and the MM, etc.) should be off-limits to players _at the table_.

What they do on their own time is their business.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 27, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Oh, baloney. The magicalness of magic has never sustained D&D. It is a spice, just like any other spice. Some people use more of it. Some people use less. If I had to play in a game where magic was this unpredictable thing where two potions might make my stomach blow up, and at any moment my +1 sword might turn into a wet noodle - because hey, magic is UNPREDICTABLE! - or a block of stinky cheese, then that wouldn't be any fun, either.



I agree wands of wonder would be a horrible choice if D&D could only have one magic item.  See my post above for how magic is predictable, but unknown to both players and their PCs.



> D&D is a game that people play to have fun. The magicalness of magic is only one element, and frankly, not one of the most important ones, either.
> 
> Since people are complaining about the customization of magic items, and how this makes magic more available, and yet, destroys the game while D&D is presently enjoying it's largest success is an odd contortion of the facts before us.



Magic is fun.  Maybe not that important for you, but to leave fun out of the game because character optimization is more enjoyable should really be a DM choice, not a publisher one.

D&D sales have declined since 2002.  3rd edition was not its largest success ever.



> Whatever. We all combed through the DMG back in 1st Edition, too, and told the DM what sort of items we wanted. We metagamed and powergamed like a bunch of mad little fiends. Just like people now.



Now I understand why magic was never magical for you.  Not reading the spoilers before every mystery novel actually helps in their enjoyment too.



> Because the DM controls the rules. That's written into the rules. You are given a baseline, and then you pick and choose what you want. Just like always.



Then books like MIC and the DMG _shouldn't_ have ridiculous, setting dictating, sentences like "magic shops _should_ be available to players" or "give players what magic items they want unless you have a good reason not to". 

Yes, I have a good reason.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 28, 2007)

RC said:
			
		

> If one proposes that all birds fly, one doesn't have to itemize every non-flying bird to prove him wrong. One need only point to a penguin or an ostrich.




If I said "birds fly," and my friend said "Penguins don't!" I'd slap him in the face and call him bad names. I'd also say "You know what I mean, jerk-off."

Storm Raven is saying "Magic wasn't really unpredictable in 1e" and you're screaming "But the bag of beans wasn't!", so I'm tempted to do the same. 



			
				Howandwhy said:
			
		

> Then books like MIC and the DMG shouldn't have ridiculous, setting dictating, sentences like "magic shops should be available to players" or "give players what magic items they want unless you have a good reason not to".
> 
> Yes, I have a good reason.




Okay, then, obviously they're not talking to you. They're talking to the DMs who want to know whether or not magic shops should be available and whether or not they should give the PC's the items they want.

The answer, as far as the core rules are concerned is, "Sure. It's good to let PC's customize themselves."


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Then, one might just as well say that the city is a magic shop, in the same way that one might say "a +1 sword is a +1 sword".  The mechanics are the same, right?  That's all that counts, right?  In which case, the idea isn't a strawman.




The difference is, Magic Mart has a large concentration of magic items in a central location where you can walk in and take a number, then get it.

In a more abstract system, the players may take a day wandering around looking for the proper item. The difference in flavor between Magic Mart and Communal Magic Items is a big difference. The straw man is the idea that those of us that allow player choice automatically encourage Magic Mart and the lack of flavor. There's plenty of room for flavor without castrating the players ability to choose their character.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The DMG was OFF LIMITS to the players.  Learning how magic items worked was to be as shocking, terrifying, and wondrous as learning what a module had in store for you.  If the players CHEATED and knew them all, you're going to have to alter every one or make new ones.  Ditto on monsters and the MM.




That was bunk before even the DMG came out. You find Tim Kask (IIRC) admitting in Eldritch Wizardry that players would read the rulebooks.

Gary makes particular note that new players should not read the DMG - which I totally agree with. Let them discover the game through play, when everything is wondrous. But experienced players who also wish to DM?

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Not all of us.  Of course, if you meant "we" in the royal sense, then you might well be correct.  My group didn't comb through the DMG back then (aside from the two GM's).  Now?  Now you'll get labelled "overcontrolling" or a "Bad DM" if you so much as ask a player not to comb through the DMG or MM.




As I recall, my group back in the day was a group of DMs. I spent a lot of time in the DMG (and I wasn't the main DM back then), but I wasn't choosing magic items I had to have. Despite that, the adventures still managed to give my magic-user PC...

* a Wand of Fire
* a Staff of Power
* Bracers of Defense, AC 2
* Bag of Holding

Cheers!


----------



## molonel (Mar 28, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Not all of us. Of course, if you meant "we" in the royal sense, then you might well be correct. My group didn't comb through the DMG back then (aside from the two GM's). Now? Now you'll get labelled "overcontrolling" or a "Bad DM" if you so much as ask a player not to comb through the DMG or MM.




You know, I'd venture to say with a fair amount of confidence that you were in the minority by treating the DMG as a sacred text which the players's filthy hands should never touch.

You can ASK your players not to look at it, but you were lucky back in 1st Edition if your players didn't read through the modules you were running. 



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> Didn't they remove Rule Zero from the 3.5 DMG?




If you'd like to point to me where it says in the 3.5 DMG that the DM doesn't control the game, and it gives anything except guidelines and leaves the final choice up to the DM, I'd really LOVE to see that.

Otherwise, no, rule 0 is still VERY much in play.



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> Magic is fun. Maybe not that important for you, but to leave fun out of the game because character optimization is more enjoyable should really be a DM choice, not a publisher one.




Character optimization and magic have BOTH been a part of the game for as long as its been out there. One need only flip through a copy of the 1st Edition Unearthed Arcana or the 1st Edition Oriental Adventures to understand that.



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> D&D sales have declined since 2002. 3rd edition was not its largest success ever.




Actually, this most certainly IS its largest success ever. Gary Gygax and TSR never, EVER faced competition from multiple RPG producers and the vast market of games like World of Warcraft which sold - I believe - a million copies during its first week of release.



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> Now I understand why magic was never magical for you. Not reading the spoilers before every mystery novel actually helps in their enjoyment too.




See, this is why I really have a hard time taking folks like yourself seriously in this discussion. The pretensiousness of a sentence like, "Now I understand why magic was never magical for you" beggars my ability to mock it.

Magic and mystery don't come out of putting a padlock on the DMG, and if you have to shake your finger at your players for reading it instead of inventing your own custom magic items that fit your individual players, then don't accuse me of lacking imagination, sir, because you are exhibit A.

Magic is only one element of the story, and frankly, I'm run low-magic and no-magic games that were every bit as interesting as a high-magic FR monty haul campaign, if not more so.



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> Then books like MIC and the DMG _shouldn't_ have ridiculous, setting dictating, sentences like "magic shops _should_ be available to players" or "give players what magic items they want unless you have a good reason not to".




Why not? You're free to ignore and change anything you like.

I think animated shields are nonsense. So poof! They're not in my game.

"But it says they exist in the DMG!"

That's great. They still don't exist in my game.



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> Yes, I have a good reason.




Bravo!

Then you are following what the rules tell you to do.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The fact that the PCs are assumed to metagame know this massive list of mass produced magic items also assumes that the world must be of a magic level beyond almost all fantasy fiction.  How are we to play out our fantasy worlds when the default rules presume absurdity?




You don't think that in Introduction to Wizard Training 101 they have a section of the textbook that lists common magical items and their relative rarity (aka value)?

Why is it so difficult to believe that in D&D world people have heard of things they haven't seen.  I have never seen a LOT of animals that exist currently and in the past on this planet but I know *OF* them and could possibly ID one if it came running through my basement.  At least until the T-rex did, then i'd poo myself.   Thats not the same thing as saying I can go to Petland and buy a three-toed sloth or that I could just head down to South America and find one in the wild.

DS


----------



## dcas (Mar 28, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Role playing everything, let alone figuring out what might or might not be avaiable at any give second, means no adventuring is happening that game session.



Exactly. This will then encourage the players to take their characters adventuring for loot and magic instead of poking around town looking for it.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> You can ASK your players not to look at it, but you were lucky back in 1st Edition if your players didn't read through the modules you were running.




It seems like you had really bad players. I wasn't looking through my DM's modules in the day. I agree that the DMG wasn't off-limits, but adventures? They definitely were.

Cheers!


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 28, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> I think the DMG (and the MM, etc.) should be off-limits to players _at the table_.




I've got no beef about declaring the MM (and all monster and adventure related books) off limits but half of the DMG is rules that the players should know about, or at least it would help if the players understood.  I routinely look stuff up in the DMG while the GM is running in the background just to make sure we are playing correctly.  We try to offload as much work amongst the players as possible to make it non-brain-straining for everyone involved.

DS


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Okay, then, obviously they're not talking to you. They're talking to the DMs who want to know whether or not magic shops should be available and whether or not they should give the PC's the items they want.
> 
> The answer, as far as the core rules are concerned is, "Sure. It's good to let PC's customize themselves."



They are talking to the community at large.  "Start using magic shops in your game!  It will work better!  Be more fun!"  

The reason I don't include them: It is NOT more fun.  It is reading the spoilers of the mystery novel before the novel.  I don't need a community of players duped into believing otherwise.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> That was bunk before even the DMG came out. You find Tim Kask (IIRC) admitting in Eldritch Wizardry that players would read the rulebooks.



I'm sorry you and Tim Kask find it bunk.  I'd hate to have to play like that.



> Gary makes particular note that new players should not read the DMG - which I totally agree with. Let them discover the game through play, when everything is wondrous. But experienced players who also wish to DM?



Like you mentioned earlier in the thread, rework the monsters to keep them fresh.  Introduce new magic items your old players don't know.  Remember when Pcat put that monster encounter in "Of Sound Mind" that was so unique?  Yeah, like that.


EDIT: stepping out for a minute


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> Exactly. This will then encourage the players to take their characters adventuring for loot and magic instead of poking around town looking for it.




LOL! 

Very nice.

I just use judgement calls on whether something is available or not - especially if they want it in a limited time. I'll be happy with the new Gather Information rules in the MIC to make that easier. Oh, and commissions are very useful - if it takes a month to upgrade an item, then are they able to wait?

Cheers!


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Predictability is a requirement of the DM to run the game.  It's what the players are their to learn IC in game.  The fact that the spell lists are in all AD&D editions and now spells are considered "ubiquitiously known, easily trusted, and repeatedly predictable in the gameworld" means they are nothing less than science.  So, yes.  Spell lists belong in a DM-only DMG.  Along with magic items.   Once your players know them, change 'em.




Purely IMO but this sounds like a horribly unfun way to play what should be an entertaining game.  It effectively makes a magic-oriented character impossible by taking away all knowledge of the player.  They may know that they have a spell but they have no idea what it really does, it's simply the DM turning their magic into a plot device of whatever manner they think appropriate at the moment.

EDIT:  And yes I find it appropriate that magic should behave predictably.  In the D&D genre magic has always seemed to behave as if it WAS their version of science and I have no trouble handling it that way.


----------



## molonel (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> It seems like you had really bad players. I wasn't looking through my DM's modules in the day. I agree that the DMG wasn't off-limits, but adventures? They definitely were.
> 
> Cheers!




The fact that we were in 8th grade MIGHT have had something to do with that.

And we had LOADS of fun, so no, I'd say they were great players.

Even the kid who said with a completely straight face that he rolled all 18s on 3d6, in order.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

They were in order. He just left out all the other rolls in-between. 

(I have seen a player roll 18, 18, 18, 17, 16, 14 on 4d6, though).

Cheers!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Ahhh... yes.  But what some are arguing is that in fact any town can be treated as 'Wal-Magic' in abstraction.



Making note of course that not every town has a sizeable store of magic items. GP limits still apply.




> That is to say, while there is no vast warehouse selling every item in the DMG (below a certain monetary value) out of the same door, in practice the effect should be the same.  Whatever actual imaginary institutions exist in thier game world is irrelevant, because they themselves have argued that such imaginary institutions should not come into play so that (from the perspective of a player in such a campaign) there is no discernable difference between whatever those imaginary institutions might be and shopping at 'Wal-Magic'.



The simple fact is that flavor is, was, and ever shall be up to the DM and the campaign. This is the same as every edition of D&D. When folks say "walmagic is illogical, the security concerns alone!" and we point out that "walmagic" was never our side of the discussion, the other side suddenly decides that it's not about the issues of Wal-Magic".


> Now, they justify this abstraction by noting that in practice most people treat mundane goods in much the same way most of the time.  If you need torches, food, and so forth, you acquire it with a handwave from some abstract equivalent of a large general supply store (Wal-Medieval?).  And, to a large extent this is true.  But, what some others of us are trying to suggest is that while its probably a perfectly reasonable assumption to assume that mundane things appropriate to a setting are available in a large town, the same assumption is not necessarily true of any given setting with regards to things which are by definition not-mundane.




Actually, the supposition I make is that a 100,000 gp item, whether a magical staff or a bejeweled crown fit for a king, is available somewhere for a price.

The fact that it's magical doesn't make it uber-special, so much as the fact it's a 100,000gp item.


So, is a Vorpal Blade the same as a vial of oil? Of course not, it costs quite a bit more. Is it the same as a real high priced mundane gem? Still no, though the same value perhaps, the sword is useful.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 28, 2007)

> They are talking to the community at large. "Start using magic shops in your game! It will work better! Be more fun!"
> 
> The reason I don't include them: It is NOT more fun. It is reading the spoilers of the mystery novel before the novel. I don't need a community of players duped into believing otherwise.




They're not trying to change you if you're happy doing what you're doing, they're just giving people suggestions that they see result in most people enjoying. People enjoy customizing themselves, having special magic items that fit their concept.

It's not a delusion or a lie, it's just a suggestion on what's good for most people. You're far too defensive about this.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Purely IMO but this sounds like a horribly unfun way to play what should be an entertaining game.  It effectively makes a magic-oriented character impossible by taking away all knowledge of the player.  They may know that they have a spell but they have no idea what it really does, it's simply the DM turning their magic into a plot device of whatever manner they think appropriate at the moment.



The magic is predictable to the DM, not random.  The player receives a description, like boxed text, wherein they can learn more about what it does through experimentation and use.  Like fireballs filling space and lightning bolts reflecting instead of grounding on the first target.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The magic is predictable to the DM, not random.  The player receives a description, like boxed text, wherein they can learn more about what it does through experimentation and use.  Like fireballs filling space and lightning bolts reflecting instead of grounding on the first target.




So, somehow, despite generations of wizards casting _fireball_, no-one noted in the spell description that "Oh, by the way, this spell expands to fill its volume"?

I can see your world now - no caster above level 4. At level 5, they learn fireball and cast it... and die.

Not to mention the amount of work that is placed on the DM's shoulders. The players know nothing, the DM must remember everything... or spend a lot of time looking it up.

Madness.


----------



## molonel (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The magic is predictable to the DM, not random.  The player receives a description, like boxed text, wherein they can learn more about what it does through experimentation and use.  Like fireballs filling space and lightning bolts reflecting instead of grounding on the first target.




To me, as a DM/GM, that is going to grind my game to a halt as I have to explain how EVERYTHING works.

There just comes a point where I don't CARE if fireballs can swallow players unintentionally, or lighting bolts reflect. I already look for ways to shorten combat, and the thought of explaining each and every spell effect because - hey, it's MAGIC! it's UNPREDICTABLE! - makes me want to stab out my eyes with a #2 pencil.

What makes my game magical is the characters, and the roleplaying, and the story. The players can read all of my books all day long, but they have no idea what they are going to encounter in my stories any more than they would know what I'm going to build by looking at a stack of lumber, nails and tools.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> You know, I'd venture to say with a fair amount of confidence that you were in the minority by treating the DMG as a sacred text which the players's filthy hands should never touch.
> 
> You can ASK your players not to look at it, but you were lucky back in 1st Edition if your players didn't read through the modules you were running.



Perhaps this is why modification was the norm?



> Character optimization and magic have BOTH been a part of the game for as long as its been out there. One need only flip through a copy of the 1st Edition Unearthed Arcana or the 1st Edition Oriental Adventures to understand that.



Two supplements akin to later ones printed for Palladium?  I'll accept that.  My point is: magic is no longer magical.  It's being pointed out as _never_ having been magical.  It is not unusual to here of players who regarded the original AD&D DMG with a bit of mystical regard.



> Actually, this most certainly IS its largest success ever. Gary Gygax and TSR never, EVER faced competition from multiple RPG producers and the vast market of games like World of Warcraft which sold - I believe - a million copies during its first week of release.



Inflation dollar-wise?  no.  But yes, D&D only competed against the mimics and other games that came in its' wake.



> See, this is why I really have a hard time taking folks like yourself seriously in this discussion. The pretensiousness of a sentence like, "Now I understand why magic was never magical for you" beggars my ability to mock it.
> 
> Magic and mystery don't come out of putting a padlock on the DMG, and if you have to shake your finger at your players for reading it instead of inventing your own custom magic items that fit your individual players, then don't accuse me of lacking imagination, sir, because you are exhibit A.
> 
> Magic is only one element of the story, and frankly, I'm run low-magic and no-magic games that were every bit as interesting as a high-magic FR monty haul campaign, if not more so.



I agree published materials don't have padlocks.  So I make my own materials.  How is this unimaginative?  Magic can be mysterious in high or low magic worlds.  What isn't mysterious is omniscient, metagaming players assuming all magical knowledge (and items) are known.

I'm free to change not allow magic shops in my game, sure.  The difficulty is, no I have a community of players who believe this is how the game should be played.  It even says so in the DMG.  Splatbooks are aggravating the problem.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> You don't think that in Introduction to Wizard Training 101 they have a section of the textbook that lists common magical items and their relative rarity (aka value)?
> 
> Why is it so difficult to believe that in D&D world people have heard of things they haven't seen.  I have never seen a LOT of animals that exist currently and in the past on this planet but I know *OF* them and could possibly ID one if it came running through my basement.  At least until the T-rex did, then i'd poo myself.   Thats not the same thing as saying I can go to Petland and buy a three-toed sloth or that I could just head down to South America and find one in the wild.



What your saying is what I'm regarding as a Modernist mindset.  Again, if fantasy is exploration, and the awe and mystique of discovery (through experimentation for magic items) is a learning process, assuming PCs know all DMG-listed magical secrets removes their magic.  

A vast body of reliable knowledge about the world is a decidedly Modern development.  Medievals horded knowledge.  Knowledge was power and you shared it at your detriment.  Combative magic even more so.  I'm not saying everyone play a Medieval game, I just want the option accepted by the rules.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 28, 2007)

> It is not unusual to here of players who regarded the original AD&D DMG with a bit of mystical regard.




Because irrational reverence for a book makes the game better?  :\


----------



## Slife (Mar 28, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Does sarcasm need to be pointed out in 18-point bold type now?



In this thread?  Yes.


Anyway, according to standard DnD cosmology, the planes are infinite.  Therefore, if there is any chance whatsoever of anything being created, it will exist, and if there's any chance it can be sold, it will be.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> So, somehow, despite generations of wizards casting _fireball_, no-one noted in the spell description that "Oh, by the way, this spell expands to fill its volume"?
> 
> I can see your world now - no caster above level 4. At level 5, they learn fireball and cast it... and die.
> 
> ...



Madness with a 1000 page ruleset where all aspects are considered simply Core.  The incredible over complication of DMing is well known for 3E.  And it's not half of what I'm suggesting.

So, yeah.  Magic shops are not the first thing to remarket the "spirit of D&D".


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> To me, as a DM/GM, that is going to grind my game to a halt as I have to explain how EVERYTHING works.



Every spell effect is narrated by the DM, no?



> There just comes a point where I don't CARE if fireballs can swallow players unintentionally, or lighting bolts reflect. I already look for ways to shorten combat, and the thought of explaining each and every spell effect because - hey, it's MAGIC! it's UNPREDICTABLE! - makes me want to stab out my eyes with a #2 pencil.
> 
> What makes my game magical is the characters, and the roleplaying, and the story. The players can read all of my books all day long, but they have no idea what they are going to encounter in my stories any more than they would know what I'm going to build by looking at a stack of lumber, nails and tools.



These are all part of it.  Why not have magic be magical too?  I mean, it's right there.  It's what makes fantasy different than, say, playing normal people in 2007.  Why limit the potential for fun?

I'm thinking some of this may be related to my previous post on the world being bizarro.  Players make the story, DMs set up the mystery of the world and rules - consistent and predictable behind-the-scenes, but still unknown.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Making note of course that not every town has a sizeable store of magic items. GP limits still apply.




Which I noted in the very next sentence.  



> Actually, the supposition I make is that a 100,000 gp item, whether a magical staff or a bejeweled crown fit for a king, is available somewhere for a price.




Actually, I would assume neither is to be found.  I would assume that either could be commissioned for a price, but noone makes an item like a 100,000 gp crown and then just hopes to find a buyer for it at some point.  Find someone that can do the work and then wait a few months.  

The question then becomes, "Are people that can make high quality jewelry more or less common than those that can make top end magical items?"  And the answer to that question is I think fairly obvious based on even the most modern interpretations of the abundence of high level spellcasters.  If you want to change that, you are free to do so but I'll have a bit more respect for your ability to craft a setting if in changing that the setting changes with it.  For example, someone mentioned a 'Dreamlands' campaign.  In that case it fits.  In most cases, I don't see it fitting.  



> The fact that it's magical doesn't make it uber-special, so much as the fact it's a 100,000gp item.




A crown is a few pounds of gold and say 100 relatively mundane gems and pearls, which any decent jeweler could make given the materials and time.  Besides being valuable, it's uber-special only because of who has worn it.  Putting one on doesn't make you a king and doesn't even start you on that path unless it is something more than a crown.  A magical item worth 100,000 gp on the other hand is a legend, a mighty peice of magic of renown, the stuff of heroes, and grasping it in your hand imparts some of that to you and if it is any other way in your campaign I feel that you are cheating yourself.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Because irrational reverence for a book makes the game better?  :\



Because keeping magic in the game makes it better.

That was the off limits source.


----------



## molonel (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is why modification was the norm?




Customization should be the norm for both DMs and players. That's why, as a DM/GM, having players customize and control their characters doesn't bother me in the slightest. I do it with the rest of the world.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> My point is: magic is no longer magical. It's being pointed out as _never_ having been magical. It is not unusual to here of players who regarded the original AD&D DMG with a bit of mystical regard.




It's called nostalgia.

I enjoy D&D now more than I ever have. I wish I could recover that feeling of playing AD&D as a 6th grader when I would roll the dice, and look up at my older brother and say, "What happened?" but that's not the game. I was a kid exploring something new.

And yes, even then, I powergamed and optimized as much as my juniorhighschool mind would allow. There were no message boards on the internet to read, otherwise I would have. Instead, I satisfied myself with whatever snippets I could sneak into the game from Dragon articles.

The game hasn't changed. You have. I have. We all have.

Probably, the game no longer seems magical because it's a different game than the one you played when you were younger.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Inflation dollar-wise? no. But yes, D&D only competed against the mimics and other games that came in its' wake.




D&D is doing fantastically in a world flooded with video games, knock-offs and alternate systems. They have accomplished more by staying afloat and prospering in a competitive market than previous editions did when they virtually owned the field. The former is more of an accomplishment than the latter, and more of a success. It's much easier to win when nobody else is playing.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I agree published materials don't have padlocks. So I make my own materials. How is this unimaginative? Magic can be mysterious in high or low magic worlds. What isn't mysterious is omniscient, metagaming players assuming all magical knowledge (and items) are known.




It's unimaginative if you insist that players can't touch certain books because that will RUIN THE MYSTERY of magic. I invent material all the time. I pull it from message boards like this one, or write it, or sponge out of other games and other books.

Nothing in the rules or the game says that players should be omniscient, or know everything, or that all magical items and magical knowledge is the purview of all players.

That's simply a straw man.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I'm free to change not allow magic shops in my game, sure. The difficulty is, no I have a community of players who believe this is how the game should be played. It even says so in the DMG. Splatbooks are aggravating the problem.




You are the DM. If you can't handle that responsibility, then don't run a game. I'm very clear with my players, and up front, that the rules in my game are consistent and will only change with notice. They are participants, after all, and cocreators of this world in which they play. But they shouldn't expect everything to work in the way in which they've always been accustomed. The rules give me that right, and if someone came to me in a game where I'd said that there wouldn't be magic shops, or magic items were rare or almost nonexistent (in, say, a Ravenloft or Midnight game, or a homebrew), I'd laugh in their face.

Nobody is always going to be happy with every game, and that was true before 3rd Edition came out, and it's going to always be true. There are substantial differences in gaming styles which are mutually exclusive and incompatible.

If you've been gaming this long, you knew that, though.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Just letting the players pick their weapons out of the DMG can take a good hour. Role playing everything, let alone figuring out what might or might not be avaiable at any give second, means no adventuring is happening that game session.




I believe that is the best argument advanced so far why magic items should not be available for sell under any normal circumstances.  One hour picking thier weapons out of the DMG???

I'd pack my briefcase and go home, and seriously consider ending a campaign right there.  You are @#$#@$#@$ right that no adventuring was happening there, and _at least_ if the players were willing to RP out this silliness I wouldn't be bored to tears.

Or better yet, lets just go find the treasure in the dungeon/wilderness/wherever, don't you think?


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Every spell effect is narrated by the DM, no?




In my experience - and this is for all editions of the game from AD&D on - no.

Spell effects are adjudicated by the DM, but the level that the DM needs to adjudicate varies markedly. With a spell like _magic missile_, the player would roll dice needed, add the result, and tell the DM how much damage the orc took, which the DM would then note down. The DM's adjudication came to telling the player when the spell took place (esp. in 1e's complex initiative system), and keeping note of the orc's hit points.

Spells like _web_ require more adjudication, of course.

The narration of the spell's effects (as in, making them seem colourful) is purely optional. "The fireball bursts and there's a series of loud screams from the orcs, which then fall silent as their scorched bodies lie where they fell." D&D's emphasis as a game changes from group to group. I tend for the more mechanical in combat ("The orcs die"), although I get more florid when describing magical areas and when roleplaying.

In 3e, it would be quite possible for the notes on the requirements needed to *escape* a web spell part of the DM-only information, noting only the basic information in the spell description, as was done for certain spells in the DMG. However, the splitting up of that information often causes more trouble than it's worth, and doesn't make the spell more magical - just more troublesome to adjudicate.

Cheers!


----------



## molonel (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Every spell effect is narrated by the DM, no?




Quite frankly, no.

Sometimes, a wizard just says, "I drop a fireball .... here." Then he counts off the squares, rolls damage and I pull figurines or Pente pieces or M&Ms or whatever happens to represent the bad guys off the map if they die.

Or the cleric says, "I cast Cure Serious Wounds" and rolls how much damage she heals, and it's done.

Sometimes, it's story important.

Other times, I couldn't care less.

Magic is not the star of the show. Sometimes, it's just woven into the background like any other story element. I don't have to hit the spotlight every time a spell is cast, and dim the lights, and say, "Okay, folks. This is magical spell. Try not to scream, ladies!"



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> These are all part of it. Why not have magic be magical too? I mean, it's right there. It's what makes fantasy different than, say, playing normal people in 2007. Why limit the potential for fun?




Because my players are the most important element of the story. Not the Magicalness of Magic. Magic is simply one element of a story alongside a cornucopia of others. I can play a game without magic. I can't play a game without my players.

Well, I can. But that really WOULD be a videogame.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I'm thinking some of this may be related to my previous post on the world being bizarro. Players make the story, DMs set up the mystery of the world and rules - consistent and predictable behind-the-scenes, but still unknown.




See, I get tired of playing hide the hamster with rules. The world itself is far more interesting than trying to keep players guessing when spells are going to blow up in their faces or wondering if their magical sword is going to sag like a limp noodle at any given moment/ (Because hey! It's MAGIC! It's UNPREDICTABLE!)

There are certainly unknown elements in the world, and mystery. But the standard tools that players use SHOULD be reliable. Getting enveloped with your own fireball is fun, I guess. The first time. But not the second or the third or fourth/fifth/sixth time it happens.

Then, it just becomes a running gag.

I much prefer the mystery of when players encounter a being they've never encountered before, and drop the ever-so-reliable fireball .... to no effect. Or watch in horror as it heals the monster, instead of killing it.

That is mystery.

Not making the players feel like Keystone Cops tripping over their own feet every time they cast a spell.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I believe that is the best argument advanced so far why magic items should not be available for sell under any normal circumstances.  One hour picking thier weapons out of the DMG???




Heh.

I believe I mentioned earlier (might not have been in this thread, but anyway), that the increased customisation of their characters gives something for the players to do *away* from the game table, thus increasing their involvement in the game as a whole.

I think this is to the good.

Instead of the DM being the only one involved in the game when everyone is not on an adventure, everyone can be involved. The DM can plan the next adventure, the PCs can plan their advancement: feat choices, skill choices, and, now, magic item choices.

Although there have been times in my Age of Worms game when everyone sits down at the game table and deals with advancement together (new levels, magic items and the like), mostly this this takes place away from the table; it's something I encourage. The players will e-mail me with requests, "Can I buy a _belt of magnificence +6_?", and I'll reply in the negative or affirmative, with any other conditions.

The players looking through the DMG at the table for things to buy is something I generally discourage. I am uncertain if it is the norm, though.

Cheers!


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Or better yet, lets just go find the treasure in the dungeon/wilderness/wherever, don't you think?




You're obvisouly a narrativist getting angry over gamist play, neither of which I like because I'm a simulationist. You just don't get it. 

Which goes to the idea that the question, "Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?" translates to "Is this (undefined) way of playing D&D badwrongfun?"


----------



## molonel (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The narration of the spell's effects (as in, making them seem colourful) is purely optional. "The fireball bursts and there's a series of loud screams from the orcs, which then fall silent as their scorched bodies lie where they fell." D&D's emphasis as a game changes from group to group. I tend for the more mechanical in combat ("The orcs die"), although I get more florid when describing magical areas and when roleplaying.




I had a group of players who were accustomed to 1st Edition play in one of my games, and they were surprised - and extremely pleased - because I let THEM describe the effects of their special abilities or spells. My standing rule is that you can describe whatever you like, and add whatever flavor you prefer as long as it doesn't change the mechanics or effects. Your magic missiles can be throwing knives that materialize out of nowhere, or you can cup your hands and blow on glowing fireflies that materialize in your palm, or darts that you throw with unerring accuracy. But it still does 1d4+1 per missile.

I've had Shadowdancers that dissolved like sand blown away by the wind when they used Hide in Plain Sight, or shimmered into nothingness, or melded visibly with the shadows around them, or became 2-dimensional and visible only from a certain angle (to explain how those making their spot checks could see them, but they remained invisible to others).


----------



## Thirsty (Mar 28, 2007)

I've been following this thread with interest and don't recall seeing any post discussing the biggest effect I have seen in my game with the introduction of readily tradeable magic items. Apologies if I have missed it.

I have found that being able to trade magic items easily has seen the interesting uses of unusual magic items disappear. Whereas before the players were inclined to keep all the magical items they found and try and put them to use in creative and interesting ways, now items fall into two categories: those to keep because they are immediately and/or obivously useful and those to sell because they are not.

While this has empowered the pc's it has detracted from the creativity of the game. This has my job as DM simpler as I no longer have to try and adjudicate effects where a magic item has been used for a purpose it is not obviously designed for (in most cases anyway  ) but has made DM'ing the game less interesting for the same reason.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

Thirsty said:
			
		

> I have found that being able to trade magic items easily has seen the interesting uses of unusual magic items disappear. Whereas before the players were inclined to keep all the magical items they found and try and put them to use in creative and interesting ways, now items fall into two categories: those to keep because they are immediately and/or obivously useful and those to sell because they are not.




Interesting. Could you give some examples of magic items people have used in creative ways?

I've certainly seen that happen with spells - and the expanded lists in the SC have just improved that. With magic items: not so much. Most of the magic items IME don't have that many interesting uses outside the obvious. The great and creative items tend to be obvious in their effect, like the _hat of disguise_. Meanwhile, the poor _helm of underwater action_ remains obvious and dull.

One of the reasons I like the MIC so much is that it allows more interesting effects, combines them with a price that either says, "buy me, buy me!" or "don't sell me!", and the key items can be combined with Big 6 effects so as not to quickly become obsolete.

Cheers!


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2007)

The 'is magic mysterious' subthread is getting tiresome.

1) *Magic was more mysterious in earlier editions than it is now.*  There are any number of examples: the potion miscability tables, the fact that duration of spells/potions/effects tended to be random and that the caster would not know necessarily when they would expire, the fact that spells had a chance of failure, the fact that the effect misfired spells were largely the provence of DM fiat, the fact that the DMG contained a goodly portion of the description of many spells kept secret from the caster, the fact that the vast majority of magical items were beyond the players ability to create and those that they could create the mechanisms of the creation were both secret from the players and subject to DM fiat, the fact that Gygax didn't even stat out the artifacts in the DMG lest thier mysteriousness be lost, the fact that spells like identify worked less effectively in earlier editions, the fact that the DMG contained an extensive listing of how spells would function differently in usual settings, the fact that random magic effects and unique items and cursed items played a greater role in the game, the DMG, and in published modules.  And so forth.  If that isn't enough evidence for you, then there is little point in discussing this with you further.

2) *Magic can never be completely mysterious in any game where the players contol it.*  In fact, its difficult for magic to be completely mysterious in any game where the players know the rules, the setting, and the magic must be described in mechanical terms.  In D&D players can become the mysterious figures of power themselves, and they have to have significant knowledge of how 'magic works' in order to play thier characters.  Magic in D&D is by default somewhat less mysterious and somewhat more mechanical than it is in some published settings, though not IMO markedly so and a good portion of this is simply the average players greater familiarity with the mechanics.  Nonetheless, there is no particular reason why magic need be any more or any less mysterious in D&D than it is in say CoC.  There were plenty of 'touch this and suffer some horrible fate with no saving throw' effects in earlier editions of the game.  You can argue with a degree of persuasiveness that such gross effects aren't necessarily fun in play, but you can't argue the superiority of 3rd edition in that regard and then at the same time argue that magic in D&D has always been nothing more than a mere predictable commodity.  Well you can, but it won't make any sense.

3) *The rules of a game contribute to magic's flavor in the setting, but they don't define it.*  There is nothing about the 1st edition rules that forces magic to be mysterious, and nothing about the 3rd edition rules that forces magic to be a commodity.  There is certainly nothing so astounding about the rules that lets someone say, "Based on the rules, you aren't doing it right when you make magic to have this (or that) flavor."  There is only flavors of magic which are appropriate or are not appropriate to the setting, and flavors of magic which contribute or detract from the DM's goals for the game.  I personally think that you cheat yourself when you make the setting less fantastic than it could be, but there are all sorts of ways to create a fantastic fantasy setting - from the high magic of Arabian Nights to the low magic of a alt-Earth inspired campaign.  It's not that one sort of fare is superior to the other, its only that either sort of fare can be prepared in a superior fashion.  What is good for one might ruin the other.


----------



## Slife (Mar 28, 2007)

The Feather Token-Tree is one of the biggies for creative uses.  But it doesn't cost that much, so I'm not sure why anyone would want to sell one.  I never would.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

This whole thread underscores one of the fundamental differences between editions of D&D: 1E was a DM's game; 3E is a player's game; 2E bridged the gap.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Customization should be the norm for both DMs and players. That's why, as a DM/GM, having players customize and control their characters doesn't bother me in the slightest. I do it with the rest of the world.



I can understand customizing characters.  What I dislike is the commonality of magic items as world element handed to the players as equipment.



> It's called nostalgia.
> 
> I enjoy D&D now more than I ever have. I wish I could recover that feeling of playing AD&D as a 6th grader when I would roll the dice, and look up at my older brother and say, "What happened?" but that's not the game. I was a kid exploring something new.
> 
> And yes, even then, I powergamed and optimized as much as my juniorhighschool mind would allow. There were no message boards on the internet to read, otherwise I would have. Instead, I satisfied myself with whatever snippets I could sneak into the game from Dragon articles.



Nostalgia is not what I meant about the DMG.  It was a belief while young and playing older versions of the game.  I'm glad you are enjoying the game.  I want to as well, but find it wanting.  Exploring something new is still possible, it just takes work.



> The game hasn't changed. You have. I have. We all have.
> 
> Probably, the game no longer seems magical because it's a different game than the one you played when you were younger.



The game has changed.  Considerably.  It is different from the one I played when I began.  It plays differently because of the assumptions made in design.  IMO, it is no longer magical because it has left much of what made magical behind.  



> D&D is doing fantastically in a world flooded with video games, knock-offs and alternate systems. They have accomplished more by staying afloat and prospering in a competitive market than previous editions did when they virtually owned the field. The former is more of an accomplishment than the latter, and more of a success. It's much easier to win when nobody else is playing.



This discussion seems tangential.  I want D&D to be popular and it is again.  That's enough for me.



> It's unimaginative if you insist that players can't touch certain books because that will RUIN THE MYSTERY of magic. I invent material all the time. I pull it from message boards like this one, or write it, or sponge out of other games and other books.
> 
> Nothing in the rules or the game says that players should be omniscient, or know everything, or that all magical items and magical knowledge is the purview of all players.
> 
> That's simply a straw man.



Taking what was the standard D&D magic and making it the "known" deflats its' value IMO.  Yes, I know everyone has read the SRD, so changes are necessary by default.



> You are the DM. If you can't handle that responsibility, then don't run a game. I'm very clear with my players, and up front, that the rules in my game are consistent and will only change with notice. They are participants, after all, and cocreators of this world in which they play. But they shouldn't expect everything to work in the way in which they've always been accustomed. The rules give me that right, and if someone came to me in a game where I'd said that there wouldn't be magic shops, or magic items were rare or almost nonexistent (in, say, a Ravenloft or Midnight game, or a homebrew), I'd laugh in their face.
> 
> Nobody is always going to be happy with every game, and that was true before 3rd Edition came out, and it's going to always be true. There are substantial differences in gaming styles which are mutually exclusive and incompatible.
> 
> If you've been gaming this long, you knew that, though.



Your right here.  Rule Zero is in effect.  It's just a burden, like playing a canonical world, to have rules state "this is how to play" and have it be a setting element.  

I feel we are coming to consensus.  What's missing is the irksome amount of absolutes set out earlier in the thread on how magic shops are a logical extension of the rules.  That magic items aren't magical.  And how they never were.


----------



## PallidPatience (Mar 28, 2007)

The DM is a player, too.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> In my experience - and this is for all editions of the game from AD&D on - no.
> 
> Spell effects are adjudicated by the DM, but the level that the DM needs to adjudicate varies markedly. With a spell like _magic missile_, the player would roll dice needed, add the result, and tell the DM how much damage the orc took, which the DM would then note down. The DM's adjudication came to telling the player when the spell took place (esp. in 1e's complex initiative system), and keeping note of the orc's hit points.
> 
> ...



Narration allows the learning of the spell.  It has certainly always been possible to play the game without any description, just a series of numbers, but that's not attractive to me.  Making magic items "just another number" isn't either.  

Adjudicating how spells operate can be complicated, but only recently has such large of number of spells been commonplace in many games.  That takes skill.  No one thinks PCs with 5000 different spells per day is rational.  Playing with the number we have now takes skill too.  I'm saying that skill is part of the learning of the game.


----------



## Thirsty (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Interesting. Could you give some examples of magic items people have used in creative ways?




On one occasion a folding boat was used as a temporary shelter from a storm by summoning it and turning it upside down. Now there is nothing to stop that from being done again except that the party is likely to have sold it if they were landlocked (as they were in the first situation).


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

Thirsty said:
			
		

> On one occasion a folding boat was used as a temporary shelter from a storm by summoning it and turning it upside down. Now there is nothing to stop that from being done again except that the party is likely to have sold it if they were landlocked (as they were in the first situation).




Heh. Nice. 

(In 1e, a party should have sold it for the XP it would bring...)

Cheers!


----------



## Thirsty (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Heh. Nice.
> 
> (In 1e, a party should have sold it for the XP it would bring...)




Heh true true.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, no.
> 
> Sometimes, a wizard just says, "I drop a fireball .... here." Then he counts off the squares, rolls damage and I pull figurines or Pente pieces or M&Ms or whatever happens to represent the bad guys off the map if they die.
> 
> ...



I'm not trying to make this cheesy David Copperfield.   I'm saying each description of a spell going off allows for experimentation on the variety of ways it can be used.  Each has a single effect, but those effects differ by circumstance.  It's consistent and useful for learning new ways to use old powers. 

I'm not putting magic at the center of the show.  I'm just keeping it's potential for fun and exciting play.  It's not push button, but in some circumstances it acts normally.  Whether it's normal or not is only confirmed by the DM.  (By circumstance: I mean "a fireball in a flour shop", not wand of wonder magic randomness)



> Because my players are the most important element of the story. Not the Magicalness of Magic. Magic is simply one element of a story alongside a cornucopia of others. I can play a game without magic. I can't play a game without my players.
> 
> Well, I can. But that really WOULD be a videogame.



  Yeah.  I prefer players too.  I'm not here to beat some self-avowed "magic" definition over anyone's head.  I just want it seen as something that can happen in game, that has happened in game.  That the rules don't negate it.



> See, I get tired of playing hide the hamster with rules. The world itself is far more interesting than trying to keep players guessing when spells are going to blow up in their faces or wondering if their magical sword is going to sag like a limp noodle at any given moment/ (Because hey! It's MAGIC! It's UNPREDICTABLE!)
> 
> There are certainly unknown elements in the world, and mystery. But the standard tools that players use SHOULD be reliable. Getting enveloped with your own fireball is fun, I guess. The first time. But not the second or the third or fourth/fifth/sixth time it happens.
> 
> ...



I like your example.  The monster is mysterious.  What powers does it have?  Was it the monster, the environment, or the spell?  The description gives clues.  Clues hint to what might be the cause.  So the players try different things.  

Magic is used in the same way.  You wouldn't tell your players the villain's plan beforehand, so why tell them how a magic item works?  It's part of the adventure.  

I'm not saying magic is unreliable or unpredictable.  I'm saying, whether spell or item, it requires a learning process.  It allows players to play out magicians learning their magic.  If this element of the game is undesired, that's your preference.  Posters declaring magic is common and uninteresting as a matter of course through proper interpretation of the rules is denying my preference.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

Thirsty said:
			
		

> I've been following this thread with interest and don't recall seeing any post discussing the biggest effect I have seen in my game with the introduction of readily tradeable magic items. Apologies if I have missed it.
> 
> I have found that being able to trade magic items easily has seen the interesting uses of unusual magic items disappear. Whereas before the players were inclined to keep all the magical items they found and try and put them to use in creative and interesting ways, now items fall into two categories: those to keep because they are immediately and/or obivously useful and those to sell because they are not.
> 
> While this has empowered the pc's it has detracted from the creativity of the game. This has my job as DM simpler as I no longer have to try and adjudicate effects where a magic item has been used for a purpose it is not obviously designed for (in most cases anyway  ) but has made DM'ing the game less interesting for the same reason.



Part of it has to do with the fast and furious playstyle where multiple, very common magic items are found on everything killed.  It's hard to keep things interesting when you find 10 magic +1 swords after raiding an orc outpost.  

As to customization of the PCs by players, I'm all for it.  However, my view is: the players design their character, I design the world.  As magic items are part of the world, a treasure for PCs, not a right, they are under the DM's purview.  I don't let them choose what countries they get to run OOG either.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Actually, I would assume neither is to be found.  I would assume that either could be commissioned for a price, but noone makes an item like a 100,000 gp crown and then just hopes to find a buyer for it at some point.  Find someone that can do the work and then wait a few months.



This is why I used the modern explanation of a gun shop selling 100,000$ shotguns earlier in the thread. They do exist, there are more than a dozen in the USA alone. These guns are in stock. They are not assembly line, they are finely crafted by artisans.



> The question then becomes, "Are people that can make high quality jewelry more or less common than those that can make top end magical items?"  And the answer to that question is I think fairly obvious based on even the most modern interpretations of the abundence of high level spellcasters.




This isn't a normal crown that's a lump of gold in the shape of a hat though. A 100,000 gp crown is crafted by an artisan. It is a lot more customized than a set of Eyes of Petrification. Either way, finding such an item would require travel to a hub of the world. The market for such items would be pretty limited in the world, only the PC's and others like them. In addition, this doesn't mean that someone crafted it for resale. He may have crafted it to use himself, or discovered it in an ancient tomb. The only thing that stretchs reality is saying that the PC's are the only ones that could ever have discovered one of these items.

Besides, I don't have a problem with PC's custom ordering items, but I believe the process can easily be glossed over rather than roleplaying out a long search for the Eyes. Heck, at high levels where such powerful items would be uncommon, you could be going to the secret portal behind 7-11 and treating with a Celestial Fence to see what he has.

Then the discussion shifts instead to whether you want to micromanage and roleplay every encounter or whether you can gloss over certain facts. This comes down to the Player/DM contract and what the game intends, rather than the focus of whether magic items should be available at all.





> If you want to change that, you are free to do so but I'll have a bit more respect for your ability to craft a setting if in changing that the setting changes with it.  For example, someone mentioned a 'Dreamlands' campaign.  In that case it fits.  In most cases, I don't see it fitting.



Aside from Eberron, or Faerun, or any other setting where economic power can be gained by the trade in magic items?





> A magical item worth 100,000 gp on the other hand is a legend, a mighty peice of magic of renown, the stuff of heroes, and grasping it in your hand imparts some of that to you and if it is any other way in your campaign I feel that you are cheating yourself.




Too much of this discussion focuses on the "cool" magic items. Does the Longsword Sword +2 Holy Dragonbane Flaming Ghost Touch have a nice backstory and out class the 100,000 gp crown in style points. Do the Eyes of Petrification have some story? Staff of the Woodlands, Manual of Bodily Health get stories too? At high levels, the PC's will have a good amount of such items, does every single item get a story?

Sometimes Gauntlets of Dexterity are just Gauntlets of Dexterity.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Interesting. Could you give some examples of magic items people have used in creative ways?



*Ellisandra "The Black Widow" and Perian Palebright*

Beneath the sarcophagus lid, two blackened and twisted corpses clutch each other.  Black ash fills the edge and floor, but upon further examination two cast off pieces of clothing are found: a racy negligee and a prominent codpiece.  They detect as magical, moderate, and varying schools, the identifiable one as transformation.

When placed on either man or woman they turn the wearer into either Ellisandra or Perian.  The key benefit is the +6 charisma bonus each confers, but the Reputation score of the mythical figures can be used as well.  This reputation was not all good, however.  Different lands will treat any PC attempting to pass as the historical figure with quite disparate welcomes.  

Plenty of creative ways to use these and they're essentially just +6 ability bonus items.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Sometimes Gauntlets of Dexterity are just Gauntlets of Dexterity.




That's one of those self-affirming statements that doesn't mean anything.

If gauntlets of dexterity are nigh irreplaceable items of mystery found in the accursed tomb of some slumbering warrior-priest from an earlier age, then "Gauntlets of deterity are _Gauntlets of Dexterity_!"  

And if they are not, if they can be bought in any medium sized town, then they are just Gauntlets of Dexterity.

Whether its more fun to go, "Cool, I've always wanted one of these!", or "Cool, now I can afford to buy Gauntlets of Dexterity!" is I suppose a matter of taste.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I'm not saying magic is unreliable or unpredictable.  I'm saying, whether spell or item, it requires a learning process.




However, in the play of D&D 3E, even with all these known elements, my players still manage to surprise me with unexpected interactions of effects.

It's much like _Magic: the Gathering_: that's a game where all the elements are known (although there were plans for the card set to be mysterious, that went bye-bye about 1 week after the game came out. Love the internet!) However, it's the _interactions_ between the various elements that make things really interesting.

Another factor is that one player is extremely unlikely to know all the elements of the game just due to the sheer number that exist. So there is unknown information there as well. It's potentially known, but realistically not.

The moment something appears in a rulebook, it's no longer automatically mysterious. However, such can be injected by the DM. (One reason I like Weapons of Legacy - the PCs know how they work, and what the penalties will be, but I don't tell them the bonuses until the achieve the levels - I can do that because the items are my own creation).

Cheers!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Thirsty said:
			
		

> I have found that being able to trade magic items easily has seen the interesting uses of unusual magic items disappear. Whereas before the players were inclined to keep all the magical items they found and try and put them to use in creative and interesting ways, now items fall into two categories: those to keep because they are immediately and/or obivously useful and those to sell because they are not.




I think MIC does sort of acknowledge this really, in that they want to make the item's value something where selling the item is actually a question rather than a foregone conclusion. Granted your point is still correct about non-obvious uses.

I will of course mention once again though that we ALWAYS sold items, and that it was standard procedure for every campaign I've ever been aware of locally.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> *Ellisandra "The Black Widow" and Perian Palebright*
> 
> Beneath the sarcophagus lid, two blackened and twisted corpses clutch each other.  Black ash fills the edge and floor, but upon further examination two cast off pieces of clothing are found: a racy negligee and a prominent codpiece.  They detect as magical, moderate, and varying schools, the identifiable one as transformation.
> 
> ...




Err... you've left off the Disguise modifier. You've basically got a Hat of Disguise that adds +6 Cha there. As I said, the _hat of disguise_ is inherently cool. 

I wasn't discussing custom items, though, but existing items that have been used in cool ways.

Cheers!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> That's one of those self-affirming statements that doesn't mean anything.
> 
> If gauntlets of dexterity are nigh irreplaceable items of mystery found in the accursed tomb of some slumbering warrior-priest from an earlier age, then "Gauntlets of deterity are _Gauntlets of Dexterity_!"



Hence the word "sometimes". The statement has to do with the fact that not every item is some special piece of history, sometimes a magic item is just a piece of gear.



> And if they are not, if they can be bought in any medium sized town, then they are just Gauntlets of Dexterity.
> 
> Whether its more fun to go, "Cool, I've always wanted one of these!", or "Cool, now I can afford to buy Gauntlets of Dexterity!" is I suppose a matter of taste.




The discussion has already gone over the ground. Do you randomly throw items at the player and thus he'll never get Gauntlets of Dexterity, no matter HOW much the player would want some for his rogue? DO you tailor the magic items to what YOU think the pcs want?

3e gives the players a say in the matter, though the DM can always override it. You can keep what you find, or sell it for half price and get what you want. There is still a great advantage to finding the Gauntlets of Dexterity rather than buying them.


The "mystery" of Gauntlets of Dexterity is a very subjective thing, and I doubt it was ever as strong as folks suggest in these kinds of threads. If every magic item in your campaign has a backstory, the odds are still likely that the players would focus on one or two objects and the rest would become "Gauntlets of Dexterity" rather than "Beltars Gloves of Dextrous Maneuvering".


----------



## BryonD (Mar 28, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Because irrational reverence for a book makes the game better?  :\



 

Of course, IME, the only "mystical regard" that 1e had over 3e was a result of confusion because nearly every mechanical feature had its own arbitrary system.

The idea that magic isself was somehow more mysterious is just plain silly to me.  If anything 3E has more sense of unknown going for it because of metamagics and templates that make each encounter possibly unique.  I see less fireball, magic missle, fireball now than I did then.  Not that I don't see it.  I see it a lot.  But there is no doubt more variety.

And even with all that, I'd hesitate to call it "more mystical" now.  But the opposite?  Not a chance.


----------



## Thurbane (Mar 28, 2007)

I think a major point that a lot of people are missing or glossing over is the tone of a particular camapaign.

Surely there are some campaigns and settings that are more likely to have "magic shops" than others. There is no "default level" of magic in D&D, save for the WBL tables, which are guidelines anyway...but then that leads to the whole "are low magic camapigns viable" arguments, which is a whole other kettle of fish.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The discussion has already gone over the ground. Do you randomly throw items at the player and thus he'll never get Gauntlets of Dexterity, no matter HOW much the player would want some for his rogue? DO you tailor the magic items to what YOU think the pcs want?




I do neither.  I put items in the game because I think that the player needs the item in order to have a good chance of success, or else because I think it is appropriate to the possessions or horde of a particular type being.  'Appropriate' here covers alot of ground, and can include things like the history and geography of the area, the profession or shtick of the NPC, or some story I've created as backstory.  

I try my best to make items unique.  I like items to have breadth rather than just depth, something that annoys me about the current crafting rules.  I like items to be nearly unique, and I like powerful items to have some sort of drawback or weakness.  
3e gives the players a say in the matter, though the DM can always override it. You can keep what you find, or sell it for half price and get what you want. There is still a great advantage to finding the Gauntlets of Dexterity rather than buying them.



> The "mystery" of Gauntlets of Dexterity is a very subjective thing, and I doubt it was ever as strong as folks suggest in these kinds of threads. If every magic item in your campaign has a backstory, the odds are still likely that the players would focus on one or two objects and the rest would become "Gauntlets of Dexterity" rather than "Beltars Gloves of Dextrous Maneuvering".




I think you are entirely missing my point.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The worst mistakle I ever made running a game was when I wanted to eliminate the ned to "loot" so the campaign was mission based and when each mission was complete, the archmage (eviul dragon in disguise) let the PCs "buy" items from his vault (hoard) based on what the expected treasure from the mission's encounters would be worth.  Moreover, I gave them free reign over items in the DMG, so long as they could afford them.
> 
> My intent was to make sure the party stayed within the "suggested wealth by level" guidelines.  The result was a huge, imbalanced mess.  And, worse yet, since the PCs were much more powerful than their levels would indicate (because they cherry picked the perfect items for their characters and for their team tactics) I had to up the CR of encounters, which meant they got even bigger rewards, and so on...



On the other hand, my experience is completely different. My games also tend to be mission-based, and my standard convention is that the PCs work for a wealthy organization that provides them with equipment equal to the standard wealth level for characters of their level. Nonetheless, even though the PCs are completely free to customize their equipment between adventures (and replace gear that was used, lost, or destroyed), I'm able to provide appropriate and enjoyable challenges for the PCs. Of course, the PCs in my games level up quickly (generally once per session), but we like what some may consider to be an unnaturally fast pace of character advancement.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Hence the word "sometimes". The statement has to do with the fact that not every item is some special piece of history, sometimes a magic item is just a piece of gear.




It doesn't have to be the case, though.  There might only be one set of said gloves, thereby making them inherently special.  There's a similar issue with monsters in the game.  if every other orc the PCs come up against is also a half dragon, the half dragon is dull and rote.  But if there is *a* Half Dragon, it is suddenly much cooler.

3E sets up a situation in which it is assumed that there are reasonably large numbers of "normal" magical gear, all for sale.  That's not something the game designers should decide.  That's something for the DM to decide.  Unfortunately, it would be impossible to run a "1 of each" style campaign in 3rd Edition because ueful, fairly standardized magical gear is an expected part of the equation.  You'd have to do a whole bunch of fiddling with an already uncertain CR/EL system to bring the uniqueness back to magic in 3E using just the Core.  And that shouldn't be the case.

3E added a whole bunch of neatness to magic items -- both mechanically (quantifying prerequisties for their creation, standardizing bonuses, etc..) and flavor wise (love, love, LOVE weapon and armor special abilities).  But built into that same system was an inherently high magic level and an actual need for things like magic shops.  i mean, why they kept random treasure rolls, magic and otherwise, around is beyond me, since everything is supposed to be counted to the last bean in order to ensure balance.

I realize that there was aubiquity of magical items in previous editions as well, especially when you're talking about +1 swords and the like.  However, adjusting that element of the game did not have the same balance breaking effect as it does in 3E.

EDIT: Tnagential, but related -- I got an email today from my players "reminding" me that they were well behind the "wealth by level" guidelines in the DMG.  i mean, when would that have happened with 1E?  WTF?


----------



## Thirsty (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I will of course mention once again though that we ALWAYS sold items, and that it was standard procedure for every campaign I've ever been aware of locally.




We have too. The point I'm trying to make I guess is that we didn't generally as they were magical and we couldn't easily replace them. Where there is significant trade in magical items (even relatively low powered ones) it becomes far more likely that these "odd-ball" items will disappear from the party - to the detriment of the game IMO (but to the benefit of the characters and it is arguable that this outranks the game).


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> On the other hand, my experience is completely different. My games also tend to be mission-based, and my standard convention is that the PCs work for a wealthy organization that provides them with equipment equal to the standard wealth level for characters of their level. Nonetheless, even though the PCs are completely free to customize their equipment between adventures (and replace gear that was used, lost, or destroyed), I'm able to provide appropriate and enjoyable challenges for the PCs. Of course, the PCs in my games level up quickly (generally once per session), but we like what some may consider to be an unnaturally fast pace of character advancement.




Let me ask you this: are you using the CR/EL system, or are you choosing stuff based on what you know aout the players and their PCs?  Do you run the game by the book, dice fall where they may, or do you wing it and handwave stuff?  because if you do the latter in either or both situations, it is easy to have a game that provides appropriate challenges.  If you do the former, I am impressed with your ability to manipulate an arcane and broken system of setting up challenges in the face of a completely unbalanced character dynamic.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> However, in the play of D&D 3E, even with all these known elements, my players still manage to surprise me with unexpected interactions of effects.
> 
> It's much like _Magic: the Gathering_: that's a game where all the elements are known (although there were plans for the card set to be mysterious, that went bye-bye about 1 week after the game came out. Love the internet!) However, it's the _interactions_ between the various elements that make things really interesting.
> 
> ...



Oh yeah.  Synergy is still a big part of the game.  I think optimization forums are still having fun with that.  It's just hardly the only fun magic items can offer.  Heck, even 10' foot poles, towels, and other mundane equipment should allow new uses for the imaginative.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Actually, I would assume neither is to be found.  I would assume that either could be commissioned for a price, but noone makes an item like a 100,000 gp crown and then just hopes to find a buyer for it at some point.  Find someone that can do the work and then wait a few months.



Granted, nobody makes a 100,000 gp crown or magical staff and hopes to find a buyer for it at some point, but you can always assume that at some point in the past, someone wanted the same crown or magical staff and had it made, and whoever owns it now is prepared to sell it for a price.

After all, if the PCs discovered that same 100,000 gp crown or magical staff in a treasure vault, someone must also have made it at some point in the past. If it seems reasonable for a 100,000 gp crown or magical staff to be lying around in a pile of treasure, why is it not equally reasonable that it might be in the hands of someone who is willing to sell it?


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 3E sets up a situation in which it is assumed that there are reasonably large numbers of "normal" magical gear, all for sale.  That's not something the game designers should decide.  That's something for the DM to decide.  Unfortunately, it would be impossible to run a "1 of each" style campaign in 3rd Edition because ueful, fairly standardized magical gear is an expected part of the equation.  You'd have to do a whole bunch of fiddling with an already uncertain CR/EL system to bring the uniqueness back to magic in 3E using just the Core.  And that shouldn't be the case.




Actually, it is absolutely something the designers should decide. With such a tool as CR/EL, they need to make a default assumption about what level of magic is in the campaign. You may not like the level they've set it at, but I know a lot of people do.

It would be quite valid for a version of 3E D&D that doesn't use the current standards of magic-item availability - perhaps one much lower. In that version, all the calculations for CR/EL are redone to fix things.

Cheers!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy said:
			
		

> Because keeping magic in the game makes it better.
> 
> That was the off limits source.




...because irrational reverence for magic makes the game better?

Everyone who plays Eberron or Forgotten Realms would disagree with you. 



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The 'is magic mysterious' subthread is getting tiresome.
> 
> 1) Magic was more mysterious in earlier editions than it is now.
> 
> ...




You know what's getting tiresome? People pretending that items like this are matters of fact instead of matters of opinion and lively debate. 

These are not safe assumptions by any sort of a long shot. So, I guess:

*4) Wrong.*.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> EDIT: Tnagential, but related -- I got an email today from my players "reminding" me that they were well behind the "wealth by level" guidelines in the DMG.  i mean, when would that have happened with 1E?  WTF?




Here's my response: "Dear players, as you have correctly pointed out, you are currently well behind the "wealth by level" guidelines in the DMG.  However, you are so vastly ahead of the "whiny little crybaby" guidelines that everything balances out.  Sincerely, the D-fn-M."

Oy.  Sounds like somebody took the "Bloated Sense of Entitlement" feat.

I'm sure that if they were well _ahead_ of the wealth guidelines you would not have gotten a reminder email.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Err... you've left off the Disguise modifier. You've basically got a Hat of Disguise that adds +6 Cha there. As I said, the _hat of disguise_ is inherently cool.
> 
> I wasn't discussing custom items, though, but existing items that have been used in cool ways.
> 
> Cheers!



Hmm... Well the items were in game justifications for how +6 Cha items would work.  Off the top of my head, I was thinking they actually were the personas in question.  They appear over time in different eras of history and have some fun stories for the players to hear about when they hunt down who they were.  (and the effect was alteration, not glamour)

Another good one would be Cloak of the Bat.  It has a light curse effect, in that the longer one continuously wears it, the more one believes they are a vampire.  That and the character grows more and more attached to wearing it (strengthening the bond).  I'd make secret rolls for it like disease.

This one is actually an old item from a game where we thought we were being stalked by a high-level vampire.  After we killed it we learned he was just a nerdy, pimply, kid commoner with tons of magic items.  Due to the curse he had collected a number of vampire ability mimicking magic items (I don't recall which) all so he could more accurately realize his belief in him being a vampire.  It was really funny actually.  Little did we know the cloak was cursed when we scavenged everything.

Perhaps the dullest, most common DMG item I can think of is the Cloak of Resistance.  It's nothing by a +1->+5 number to all saves.  I suppose keeping the rain off isn't a novel use either.

The key is: why does it work?  What is the in game justification for the mechanics?  Mechanics have rationales in game or they just become pointless power boosts.  In this case, let's say it works as it's a magical creature's hide.  Outsiders have all good saves, so make it an angel's skin.  

In game, it gives +1 to saves, confers negatives on social skills with good outsiders, positive bonuses with evil ones (balancing out), can be studied to learn it's originator, functions as the go between during clerical divination spells, and might even subtly influence the wearer's worshiping practices.  

As for novel uses, that's harder.  Stitch it into a protective saddlebag?  Use it as cover?  How many hobbits can fit under it?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think you are entirely missing my point.




I believe your point was that magic items should be unique and flavorful. My point was that given a plethora of magical items, no matter what flavor you have introduced, the players will still focus on certain items, thus reducing the other items to simple gear. This is assuming you're using the rules as written, rather than custom rules, and applies to every edition.

You can tailor magic items to your campaign, and that will be straying from the RAW, but that doesn't really have any bearing on how the common D&D game is played, basically. Nothing wrong with it, but it's a different sort of discussion.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Here's my response: "Dear players, as you have correctly pointed out, you are currently well behind the "wealth by level" guidelines in the DMG.  However, you are so vastly ahead of the "whiny little crybaby" guidelines that everything balances out.  Sincerely, the D-fn-M."



"Wow DM, sorry we intruded on your little power play. We'll just have Bob run from now on, and you can go back to writing up your Hermoine fanfic."






> I'm sure that if they were well _ahead_ of the wealth guidelines you would not have gotten a reminder email.




I've complained about a DM giving away too much stuff before. We had almost double the gear we should have, and he had no clue how CR worked, it really hurts the game.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Let me ask you this: are you using the CR/EL system, or are you choosing stuff based on what you know aout the players and their PCs?  Do you run the game by the book, dice fall where they may, or do you wing it and handwave stuff?  because if you do the latter in either or both situations, it is easy to have a game that provides appropriate challenges.  If you do the former, I am impressed with your ability to manipulate an arcane and broken system of setting up challenges in the face of a completely unbalanced character dynamic.



Depends on what you mean by "use" the CR/EL system. For me, the CR system is generally a first cut to eliminate creatures that would be either too powerful for the PCs to handle, or not powerful enough to provide a decent challenge. So, when planning challenges I would first shortlist creatures with CR between party level -2 and party level +2. From this band of creatures, I would pick those that fit the theme of the adventure and provide an interesting encounter for the PCs - either because they have a special ability that the PCs have not encountered in a while, or they play to a particular character's strengths (to make the player feel good), or to a particular character's weaknesses (to give the player some tension). 

From that creature base, I generally plan encounters to have an EL of party level to party level +1, with ELs of party level +2 to +3 for the climatic ones. There will usually be at least one encounter with multiple weaker foes (CR less than party level), at least one encounter with a single tough opponent (CR more than party level), and at least one encounter with a tougher opponent supported by some weaker ones (boss with CR equal to party level or party level +1, minion(s) with CR less than party level).

If the adventure is set up so that that PCs do not have the option of retreating and resting whenever their resources run low, I will plan how to insert contingency rest breaks seamlessly into the flow of the adventure in case an encounter turns out to be tougher than expected (or the PCs were just unlucky) so that during the actual running of the game, it is easier for me to pace the encounters.

With this set-up, the need for me to fudge almost never comes up when I'm DMing 3.5e. The one time a PC actually got killed (not just knocked into negatives) in a game I ran, it was partly due to a tactical mistake on the part of the player which left him open to a full attack, and partly because I rolled the entire full attack sequence for the opponent instead of one attack at a time. If I had rolled one attack at a time, the opponent would have stopped attacking the PC once he was unconscious and turned his other attacks on the other PCs instead.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> EDIT: Tnagential, but related -- I got an email today from my players "reminding" me that they were well behind the "wealth by level" guidelines in the DMG.  i mean, when would that have happened with 1E?  WTF?



That's just wrongheaded.  Tell 'em they need to improve upon their treasure hunting skills, as they are obviously behind the class average.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

In AD&D, if they didn't have enough magic items to function, they'd...

...(a) complain
...(b) leave.

In AD&D, if they were given too many magic items, the serious players would complain or leave.

Monty Haul games are related directly to magic items given out. Killer Dungeons can be related to a lack of magic items.

Cheers!


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You know what's getting tiresome? People pretending that items like this are matters of fact instead of matters of opinion and lively debate.
> 
> These are not safe assumptions by any sort of a long shot. So, I guess:
> 
> *4) Wrong.*.



Perhaps you missed the absolute pronouncements of rightness from the other side a few pages back?  C gives a number of backing arguments for each assertion.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> It doesn't have to be the case, though.  There might only be one set of said gloves, thereby making them inherently special.  There's a similar issue with monsters in the game.  if every other orc the PCs come up against is also a half dragon, the half dragon is dull and rote.  But if there is *a* Half Dragon, it is suddenly much cooler.




Right, but either way you need the stats for Half Dragon. Whether common or unique or some place in between, the option comes first. Glove of Dexterity can be a unique set, or it can be a mundane set. Either way GoD are required to be somewhere in there.

FOr myself, as I've mentioned before, I like being able to evolve items, though I prefer having the option myself rather than DM Fiat. I think I'd prefer to make my own legend, rather than inherit some story that will never sync up with what I want for my PC.



> 3E sets up a situation in which it is assumed that there are reasonably large numbers of "normal" magical gear, all for sale.  That's not something the game designers should decide.  That's something for the DM to decide.  Unfortunately, it would be impossible to run a "1 of each" style campaign in 3rd Edition because ueful, fairly standardized magical gear is an expected part of the equation.  You'd have to do a whole bunch of fiddling with an already uncertain CR/EL system to bring the uniqueness back to magic in 3E using just the Core.  And that shouldn't be the case.




I'm generally of a mind that it is;
1) easier to remove a race/class/item/spell than it is if the material didn't exist already
2) easier to scale down monsters to match a weaker group or a groups weakness, rather than scaling up a group when they're too powerful (since Save or Die and such effects can get quite hard to figure on the fly when trying to find the right "shelf" for the players abilities)
3) it is more fun to focus on gameplay and gloss over shopping. A tangent here is that 3e doesn't assume that there are lots of magic items laying about. It simply assumes that the players have access to items appropriate for their level of ability. They can find what they wish without a lot of trouble, since they've learned over long hours of adventuring where such things are.

These are just my opinions, based on my DMing style.




> 3E added a whole bunch of neatness to magic items -- both mechanically (quantifying prerequisties for their creation, standardizing bonuses, etc..) and flavor wise (love, love, LOVE weapon and armor special abilities).  But built into that same system was an inherently high magic level and an actual need for things like magic shops.  i mean, why they kept random treasure rolls, magic and otherwise, around is beyond me, since everything is supposed to be counted to the last bean in order to ensure balance.



randomness is still present, based on the idea that the average value of 13 encounters will come to close to the suggested wealth. The sense of discovery is still present to an extent, and as mentioned, it's still an advantage to find an item over having to buy it (since you only sell at half price).





> I realize that there was aubiquity of magical items in previous editions as well, especially when you're talking about +1 swords and the like.  However, adjusting that element of the game did not have the same balance breaking effect as it does in 3E.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The DMG was OFF LIMITS to the players.  Learning how magic items worked was to be as shocking, terrifying, and wondrous as learning what a module had in store for you.  If the players CHEATED and knew them all, you're going to have to alter every one or make new ones.  Ditto on monsters and the MM.




I do kinda agree on this a little. It's a different topic but we could get away from a lot of the unnessecary powergaming and metagaming (with magic items in this discussion) if players did not have access to anything outside of character creation, skills, feats and spells. It's their ease of scouring the combat rules and MI's that spoil the game for players and cause D&D to lose some of it's magical nature. It has become a game of mathematics and predictability.

Thats just my opinion.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> "Wow DM, sorry we intruded on your little power play. We'll just have Bob run from now on, and you can go back to writing up your Hermoine fanfic."




Oh right, because in the world of 3E any DM who isn't an obsequious toady to munchkin powergamers is some kind of weirdo.  I forgot about that.

But yes, if the players feel like they can do a better job one of them should step up.  It's easy to call the DM's creative decisions a "power play"... but the fact is that if anything goes wrong with the game it is blamed on the DM.  The buck stops with the DM, so he is obligated to be more than the players' stepandfetchit boy.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> In AD&D, if they didn't have enough magic items to function, they'd...
> 
> ...(a) complain
> ...(b) leave.
> ...



Complaining or ditching are a dishonorable practice in any edition.  Declaring _suggested_ wealth levels are core and treasure loads are to be manipulated by the DM to follow it unless house ruled is not the answer.

When a teacher grades students, it may be true the grading curve is too high.  But far more often, it's the students who are performing poorly.

If you're not getting the items you want in game, or not enough treasure in game, it's most likely not the DM's fault.  You need to work harder for bigger payouts.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Oh right, because in the world of 3E any DM who isn't an obsequious toady to munchkin powergamers is some kind of weirdo.  I forgot about that.
> 
> But yes, if the players feel like they can do a better job one of them should step up.  It's easy to call the DM's creative decisions a "power play"... but the fact is that if anything goes wrong with the game it is blamed on the DM.  The buck stops with the DM, so he is obligated to be more than the players' stepandfetchit boy.




It's a social contract, DM & Player. If the players are all munchkins, and the DM isn't, then the DM should be as happy to leave them as they are to leave him.

The response was not about catering to players, it was about your assertion that a DM should be a jack@ss and insult his players when they ask about such things. Stating that you're the DM and as such the god of "your" game is also not much of a way to keep a game fun. I've had such DM's before, though not for long.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I believe your point was that magic items should be unique and flavorful.




That was certainly one of my points, but it was not the point.  I did not (just) say that gauntlets of dexterity needed a cool, interesting, flavorable backstory in order to be more that 'just' gauntlets of dexterity - although it wouldn't hurt.  No, what I said is that they become more than gauntlets of dexterity when they become the player character's gauntlets of dexterity.  They become part of the character's story.  I found these in a magical wal-mart or in some unimportant scene in a in a nameless shop that we didn't even bother to RP out, is not a story.  And gauntlets of dexterity are just gauntlets of dexterity and just another peice of equipment because they can be bought in a nameless store in any small town like any other peice of equipment.

My point is as it always has been that if you treat something like a commodity, then it will just be a commodity, and if you don't then won't be one.  So sure, if you start from the assumption that it is a commodity its really easy to prove that it is a commodity and should be treated like one.  If you don't start from that assumption, it leads you in a whole different direction.



> This is assuming you're using the rules as written, rather than custom rules, and applies to every edition.




This is one of those overbroad usages of the word 'rules' that just annoys the heck out of me.  



> You can tailor magic items to your campaign, and that will be straying from the RAW...




So if I tailor magic items to my campaign, I'm straying from the rules as written?  The rules as written prohibit a DM from having new magic items?  That's your take on the game?

<Insert vulgar interjection here>

You have really get a handle on what is an actual rule and what is suggestions, fluff, options, possibilities, guidelines, advice, etc.  The DMG is not some sort of straight jacket designed to keep DM's in line filled with lots of rules, restrictions, and regulations.  It's designed, I would hope, to inspire the imagination - not limit it.  



> ...but that doesn't really have any bearing on how the common D&D game is played, basically. Nothing wrong with it, but it's a different sort of discussion.




I don't know how common D&D is played, and if I had to guess neither do you.  All I know is how D&D has been played in my experience, and all you know is how D&D has been played in your experience.  I don't know which is more common, nor do I think it really matters all that much.  But, as far as I know, I'm not straying from how D&D is commonly played.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Complaining or ditching are a dishonorable practice in any edition.  Declaring _suggested_ wealth levels are core and treasure loads are to be manipulated by the DM to follow it unless house ruled is not the answer.




There's plenty of in between though. If a DM wants a low-equipment game, that's fine by itself, as long as he communicates this with his players. If the players have different expectations and the DM is not receptive to them, then complaining or ditching is to be expected. It's all about expectations.


----------



## PallidPatience (Mar 28, 2007)

I'm in a game, now, where we all just recently reached 6th level. We all have maybe 1 fiddly magic item (in my case, my backup weapon), and most of our characters have been LOSING money since we first started. We've found almost no magic items, and almost no treasure from adventuring so far (seriously... LOSING money). But, we've levelled up three times over the course of the campaign.

We're in Faerun, and I had to discuss with the DM that we're all THOUSANDS of GP under the wealth by level tables. Our wizard hasn't yet seen enough money to make a second level scroll, even though she's level 6, and she was flat-out told to do so by the DM when she mentioned that she didn't have enough spell slots for some of the situations we've been in (lots of little fights back to back).

If it had been a home-brew setting, I'd not have complained. But, it's Faerun, where the gods walk the land every so often, the Red Wizards of Thay sell magic items in every major city, people like Elminster and Khelben Arunsun live, and ancient empires of magic have risen and fallen.

But a group of 6th level adventurers possess three minor magic weapons, a "call-at-will" spell-book with maybe twenty pages, a magic shield, and maybe twenty platinum each.

My character obviously earned more in his three levels as a mercenary (before the campaign started) than he saw over the three levels as an adventurer. That's pretty sad.

But now the DM understands that we're all pretty discomfited by such a situation, and we're on our way to actually earning money when we kill things.

The campaign I'm running is pretty much by the book, though. Of course, it's Eberron, so magic items are fairly common. The party has a few magical trinkets (+1 armor for one, a +1 ring of protection, and a +1 cloak of resistance, as well as a ton of potions I forgot to have my NPCs use), but they're not overpowered (except that I'm a fairly new DM, and they all have fairly high stats because we like that sort of game, so every once in a while, I judge too low and they trounce what should have been a hard encounter). 

Not much of that was relevant, but my point is this: If it's hard to get items, items become MORE important. Not less. The story suffers (IMHO), because the party is focussed on getting the +x sword of y properties instead of worried about facing Galgarm, Destroyer of Small Peoples, or whatever. The BBEG takes the back seat to outfitting the party, and so do the characters. If you just give them the stuff, they get on with the game, and the story continues. BUT, if you want the party to exist in a world where magic is rare, you have to be careful about how you handle spellcaster PCs. You really have a choice there: you can disallow them, entirely, or you can just get rid of Item Creation Feats. After all, if the PCs can take Item Creation Feats and generate the things they need, they'll start to wonder why others couldn't, unless you make them go on a quest to learn that knowledge (which could be cool). 

I'm rambling, I know. I think that's really all I have to say about that.


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 28, 2007)

Getting back on topic a little here, I like my D&D (and it's how I view D&D anyway) is like Middle Earth. Magic exists and can do wonderful things, but it's not seen by everyday folk. Using LotR as an example, magic items aren't in shops and in people's homes for the most part. They are in the hands of heroes, villains, (for lack of a better term) epic figures and lost in ancient corners of the world. The idea that magic items are made and sold as a commodity like clothing or bread quite frankly horrifies me as far as D&D goes. Where is the mysticism of magic and monsters in a world like that?

The worlds of D&D are by and large faux-medieval so we can take that real world step a little more fantasically but I think my point remains. Everyone's campaigns are different, and thats cool, it's just how I feel about it.

Now I made changes to my game when I started Shackled City. I decided to be a little more open with _some_ options and one of them was to keep the magic shop in the city. Thats the sort of thing I never include because it goes against my (above) D&D sensibilities. Now, as DonRemus pointed out a few pages back, that campaign actually did have something better going for it when the players found that there was a shop that could sell most of what they didn't want and buy a few (random) selections after each chapter/scenario of the campaign.

It has opened up the game a bit more and I'm happy with it for the players, but it really does not fit my view of items. Magic items, even lowly +1 longswords and rings of protection +1, should be priceless and desireable items. If players can buy, sell and craft their own items to match exactly what they want, why are we DM's giving them out in scenarios anyway?

And as for the comment on page 1 about magic stores being raided for their contents, I don't think it would happen. Not more than once anyway. It's adventurers and mercenaries who frequent those stores mainly, and they tend to have the skills and the powers to track down those responsible. Thats assuming the store keep isn't just as powerful. It's not a healthy pursuit to rob a magic store. 

Anyway, this has rambled on too long. If I repeated myself too much I apologise, it's 5am as I write this and insomnia doesn't help. 

It's an interesting discussion. I look forward to seeing where it goes.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> My point is as it always has been that if you treat something like a commodity, then it will just be a commodity, and if you don't then won't be one.  So sure, if you start from the assumption that it is a commodity its really easy to prove that it is a commodity and should be treated like one.  If you don't start from that assumption, it leads you in a whole different direction.



And my point is that no matter what, these gloves are still just gloves. The player will wear them and forget about them. In no edition has there been some mystique to "gauntlets of ogre power" as anything more than a buff item. It's all well and fine that a player might attach to certain items as "his" and storied, but in any edition there are plenty of items that the player has which are simply items. They are unimportant and inconsequential except in their capacity to increase effectiveness. That does not diminish ALL magic items. You can still have the Gauntlets of Ogre Power that you wrested from the Goblin King and tell folks about them, but not every item will be so unique.





> This is one of those overbroad usages of the word 'rules' that just annoys the heck out of me.



I don't see why, the rules as written present certain items and ways of doing things. If you want to invent a system whereby the items gain uniqueness over time, that's fine. It doesn't mean that the Gaunlets were ever anything more than Gauntlets of Ogre Power. It's mostly about older editions though, since 3.5 actually HAS rules for customizing. In earlier editions you basically just made stuff up and guessed.





> So if I tailor magic items to my campaign, I'm straying from the rules as written?  The rules as written prohibit a DM from having new magic items?  That's your take on the game?
> 
> <Insert vulgar interjection here>



The rules are a baseline to which the DM adds or subtracts, mutates and mutilates, in order to build a compelling setting and story for himself and the players amusement. As a community, we can't debate the merits of a personal opinion though, we can only discuss what the rules actually are.

So, new magic items are a great part of the game, but they're in no way debatable when we're talking about the nebulous "spirit of the game". 



> You have really get a handle on what is an actual rule and what is suggestions, fluff, options, possibilities, guidelines, advice, etc.  The DMG is not some sort of straight jacket designed to keep DM's in line filled with lots of rules, restrictions, and regulations.  It's designed, I would hope, to inspire the imagination - not limit it.




The only real issue is when folks present their opinions as fact and draw conclusions about entire editions based on their personal preferences. 3.5 has made magic items more customizable than any previous edition, yet because that power is also by default accessible to players, it's deemed to be bad by some.





> I don't know how common D&D is played, and if I had to guess neither do you.  All I know is how D&D has been played in my experience, and all you know is how D&D has been played in your experience.  I don't know which is more common, nor do I think it really matters all that much.  But, as far as I know, I'm not straying from how D&D is commonly played.




I didn't say I had any great insight into how common D&D is played. You do mention customizing your games in different ways, so obviously you're not using just the D&D rules. It doesn't matter at all really, except in the sense that we're discussing various editions of D&D and how magic items were portrayed. Obviously the further strayed from the baseline, the less valid the information is when discussing that Baseline.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Getting back on topic a little here, I like my D&D (and it's how I view D&D anyway) is like Middle Earth. Magic exists and can do wonderful things, but it's not seen by everyday folk. Using LotR as an example, magic items aren't in shops and in people's homes for the most part. They are in the hands of heroes, villains, (for lack of a better term) epic figures and lost in ancient corners of the world. The idea that magic items are made and sold as a commodity like clothing or bread quite frankly horrifies me as far as D&D goes. Where is the mysticism of magic and monsters in a world like that?




The trouble with the LotR setting - as applied to D&D - is that Middle Earth during the Third Age doesn't have the number of active magic users that D&D has. If you chose the right period of Middle Earth - say, the First Age - then amongst the elves you'd find a *lot* of magical items. And yes, they'd be trading them. I find the First Age (as described in the Silmarillion) a really magical age; and it's with a lot of magic about.

In fact, LotR really presents magic items as we have it in D&D today in some ways - so that those who have it don't even think about it. For the hobbits, the elven cloaks are miraculous (and Galadriel's rope), but all the elves are clad like that and they're not going around saying "wow, look at my fancy cloak!" They've moved past that. The really special things are the artefacts, such as Galadriel's Mirror.

Cheers!


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Perhaps you missed the absolute pronouncements of rightness from the other side a few pages back?  C gives a number of backing arguments for each assertion.




Really, the whole 'that's just an opinion' meme is lame, because it seems like nine times in ten when someone trots it out, it isn't over something that is merely subjective or even normative in nature.  Instead, its trotted out in response to any sort of firm statement, as if there was something inherently wrong with making a firm statement like - "A is equal to itself."

What I find interesting about that sort of behavior is its irony.  Kamikazi would have you believe that it is absolutely true that the three statements I made is are subjective statements rather than objective facts.  No effort is actually expended to show this must be true. No proof is offered.  He simply assumes that it is absolutely true that pronouncements like that can't be absolutely true, even when for example there is nothing more difficult than a proof by definition in the case of #2.

The further irony of that is that he then, after asserting that the three statements are subjective statements, goes on to state that it must be the case that I'm absolutely wrong about statements which - in order for his first proposition to be correct - must be the sort of statements about which one cannot be either absolutely wrong or absolutely right.

Anyway, here's a heads up on a counter-argument Kamikazi:

For number #1 to be wrong, you must show that the things I listed that disappeared from the game have been replaced by things that make the 3.X game less predictable and less transparent to the players and give them a lesser degree of control over the game.  That's going to be amusing, since I suspect based on your reaction you to be in the camp that argues that the fact that the 3.X game has become more predictable for the PC's and gives them a greater degree of control over the game makes for a better game.  

For number #2 to be wrong, you must show that a thing can be both completely known and completely unknown to the same person at the same time. (Hint: the word mysterious is a synonym of the word unknown, and the word control is a synonym of known, for example a scientific control)

For number #3 to be wrong, you have to show that there is no more to a role playing game than the rules.  That is to say, you have to show that the game is only crunch and never fluff and that fluff cannot alter play.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 1) *Magic was more mysterious in earlier editions than it is now.*




Just looking at your examples, I think we need to distinguish between:
* Magic was more mysterious, and
* Magic was more random.

Random doesn't mean mysterious. Casting _prismatic spray_ was random, not mysterious. I tend to feel the same about the potion miscibility tables. When they could be mysterious was when the players didn't know about them. 

The play-style where players don't have access to the DMG does promote the mysteriousness of magic items; it is encouraged more in 1e than 3e, but, as demonstrated by many people over the years, a lot of players read the DMG (for one reason or another). D&D Magic is at its most mysterious - along with the rest of the game - in your first few sessions.  Eventually, how secret you keep magic (and thus the mystery of it) is far more group playstyle matter.

"The fact that spells like identify worked less effectively in earlier editions"... actually, it worked pretty well in 1e. It was least effective in 3e, strangely enough!



> 2) *Magic can never be completely mysterious in any game where the players contol it.*




Yeah, knowing all the rules - and the items created by those rules - does rule out a lot of mystery. Like reading the adventure before you play it.  As above, playstyle decisions.

This is mitigated by the DM creating their own items, of course.



> There were plenty of 'touch this and suffer some horrible fate with no saving throw' effects in earlier editions of the game.  You can argue with a degree of persuasiveness that such gross effects aren't necessarily fun in play, but you can't argue the superiority of 3rd edition in that regard and then at the same time argue that magic in D&D has always been nothing more than a mere predictable commodity.  Well you can, but it won't make any sense.




I don't see what that has to do with your argument. "Put on a cloak of poisonousness and die" is hardly mysterious. Indeed, likely, given a few Killer DMs... 



> 3) *The rules of a game contribute to magic's flavor in the setting, but they don't define it.*




Pretty much. Well, they can define its limitations.

Cheers!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The 'is magic mysterious' subthread is getting tiresome.
> 
> 1) *Magic was more mysterious in earlier editions than it is now.*



Your example prove to randomness, not mystery. There was no "mystery" in random durations, just randomness. It was a mystery how long such a spell might last, but the spell was not mysterious in and of itself.



> 2) *Magic can never be completely mysterious in any game where the players contol it.*  In fact, its difficult for magic to be completely mysterious in any game where the players know the rules, the setting, and the magic must be described in mechanical terms.




I sort of agree, but stretch that to basically mean nothing can be completely mysterious in a game. It's not a novel, so the limitations are there.



> 3) *The rules of a game contribute to magic's flavor in the setting, but they don't define it.*




I agree completely. The game rules provide a baseline for world effects and commonality of rules, not about "feel".


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> And my point is that no matter what, these gloves are still just gloves. The player will wear them and forget about them. In no edition has there been some mystique to "gauntlets of ogre power" as anything more than a buff item. It's all well and fine that a player might attach to certain items as "his" and storied, but in any edition there are plenty of items that the player has which are simply items. They are unimportant and inconsequential except in their capacity to increase effectiveness. That does not diminish ALL magic items. You can still have the Gauntlets of Ogre Power that you wrested from the Goblin King and tell folks about them, but not every item will be so unique.



In our game Gauntlets of Ogre Power are made from ogres, the actual hands of 'em.  Guess what you need, if you want to craft them?  Putting them on is a bit icky, but they make you as strong as an ogre (static STR score), as big as one, as stinky and hairy as one, and with certain personality preferences as well.  

That's not core, so I guess it doesn't count.  When the DMG simply lists +2 to Str, it's offering nothing other than numerical bonuses.  This is a detriment across the items list in 3E, but if you look carefully you'll notice lots of the old idiosyncrasies are still existent, just in watered down form.  Why do wizards need spellbooks?  Why do scrolls need to be deciphered with Read Magic?  Why are so many of the these magic items pieces of clothing?

I suppose someday they'll remove all those little quirks and shave the game down to transparent arithmetic and the all the original flavor of the game will be lost.  Just bland numbers with no apparent reason whatsoever for their existence.  Making people into slotted statistical bonus carriers is hardly a game that stirs the imagination.



> In earlier editions you basically just made stuff up and guessed.



Nor were we timid about making up whatever our imaginations could offer.  Balancing rules for MI are nice, but they can become just as quickly a straitjacket to creativity when viewed as "build rules".


----------



## PallidPatience (Mar 28, 2007)

One shouldn't need the game to supply the imagination.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I don't see what that has to do with your argument. "Put on a cloak of poisonousness and die" is hardly mysterious. Indeed, likely, given a few Killer DMs...



This is not exactly obvious as mysterious.  It goes back to the whole "pull a lever and it kills you" thread from a few months ago.  Random, inexplicable death isn't mysterious and actually quite unfun IMO.   

The key to a "poisoned treasure hoard, save vs. death" is there are subtle hints to its nature all throughout the dungeon it's within.  High level games with these truly nasty traps test highly skilled players studiously looking out for such.  The fact these challenges require clues makes them mysteries.  Well, more appropriately puzzles, but they're in the same vein.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2007)

Voc: We are talking past each other.  Or at least, I know I'm talking past you and in my experience that's usually a two way street.  One last try, and then we'll just have to agree to disagree.



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> And my point is that no matter what, these gloves are still just gloves.




And my point is that you don't need that word 'just'.  It's a qualifier, and its a subjective qualifier.  It implies that they have an inferior quality.  I agree that no matter what, these gloves are still gloves.  I don't agree with the 'just'.  Once you get rid of the 'just', the whole way of looking at things changes.



> The player will wear them and forget about them.




Sure. Or rather, I think you make your point more strongly to say, that he'll forget about how he got them which rather more directly attacks the point.  But still, how a character treats all of his items, the lesser and the greater, will depend greatly on how he anticipates getting future items.



> In no edition has there been some mystique to "gauntlets of ogre power" as anything more than a buff item.




They are freaking gauntlets of ogre power!!!  Gauntlets of ogre power!!!  No mystique to gauntlets of ogre power!?!?!  I do not want to play in your games.



> I don't see why, the rules as written present certain items and ways of doing things.




I just don't see alot of rules in the DMG.  Take page 18.  On it I see written, "Do not tell players what they need to roll to succeed."  That sounds like good advice.  It's written in the imperative voice.  Should I treat it as a rule?  No, its just advice, written from an experienced player to one which may be less experienced.  I know its not a rule because its not a part of a section on resolving in game space actions.  It's part of a section telling me, in the opinion of the writer one DM to another, what I should do to maximize the enjoyment of the players in the long run.  It's telling me how to resolve out of game propositions, meta game requests and so forth.  



> If you want to invent a system whereby the items gain uniqueness over time, that's fine.




I don't have to invent one.  It's called story-telling.  



> It doesn't mean that the Gaunlets were ever anything more than Gauntlets of Ogre Power.




Right.  But do things really have to be anything more than _Gauntlets of Ogre Power_!?!?!?



> It's mostly about older editions though, since 3.5 actually HAS rules for customizing. In earlier editions you basically just made stuff up and guessed...3.5 has made magic items more customizable than any previous edition, yet because that power is also by default accessible to players, it's deemed to be bad by some.




You do know that a rule is a restriction?  Without rules you can do anything.  Customizing things is actually harder in 3.X than in earlier editions.  It takes more work, and there are restrictions in what you can do if you want to maintain the structure.  That isn't to say that the results might not be more satisfying 3.X, but don't imagine that the DM has more options to customize items, monsters, and the like than he had before.  3.5 has certainly not made magic items more customizable than any previous edition, and I am most certainly not complaining that about the power to create items being available to the PC's.  If you think that, you aren't hearing me.



> The rules are a baseline to which the DM adds or subtracts, mutates and mutilates, in order to build a compelling setting and story for himself and the players amusement.




Two completely different settings and stories can be built with the same set of rules.  A DM tweaks the rules to help carry the flavor, but the rules don't build setting and story.  If I change the story, I don't change the rules because the story and the setting elements aren't rules.  The rules are like a hardware emulation layer down at the bottom on top of which all these setting elements ride, hopefully smoothly.  Those rules may help fire the imagination, but they don't build anything for you.  

If I create a new magic item, it in no ways alters the rules.  If I create a new monster it in no way alters the rules.  I can do all sorts of customization without touching the rules.



> You do mention customizing your games in different ways, so obviously you're not using just the D&D rules.




Are you sure about that?  I mean, yes, as a matter of fact I'm not using the rules as written, but if I was, it wouldn't preclude me customizing my game in different ways.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> This is not exactly obvious as mysterious.  It goes back to the whole "pull a lever and it kills you" thread from a few months ago.  Random, inexplicable death isn't mysterious and actually quite unfun IMO.
> 
> The key to a "poisoned treasure hoard, save vs. death" is there are subtle hints to its nature all throughout the dungeon it's within.  High level games with these truly nasty traps test highly skilled players studiously looking out for such.  The fact these challenges require clues makes them mysteries.  Well, more appropriately puzzles, but they're in the same vein.




If I may rephrase that...

"The key to _making_ a "poisoned treasure hoard, save vs. death" fun is _when_ there are subtle hints to its nature all throughout the dungeon it's within."

The cloak itself is not mysterious in effect. It's as mysterious as any item is when you haven't cast _identify_ on it and you don't know what it does. (In 1e, to cast _identify_, you have to first put the cloak on. Oops!) However, you can make it the focal point of a mystery, as you have clues as to what it is, for it can't be identified save by deciphering the clues.

(IIRC, Gygax has one or two _cloaks of poisonousness_ in his adventures. Can anyone remember where?)

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> They are freaking gauntlets of ogre power!!!  Gauntlets of ogre power!!!  No mystique to gauntlets of ogre power!?!?!  I do not want to play in your games.




Mystique, as opposed to mystery, requires something to be known, but rare. 

The Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Girdle of Giant Strength and Hammer of Thunderbolts (also known as Thor's Things ) have real mystique in the 1e game: they were known, but the combination was rare except in Monty Haul games.

It is quite fair to say the mystique of certain items in 3e has been reduced. I definitely think the stat-boosting items fall in that category. Being able to buy and sell any magic item in a rulebook does reduce the mystique of those items, although more so with the cheap items than the expensive ones - the _Staff of Power_ remains a rarity in most campaigns.

Cheers!


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Just looking at your examples, I think we need to distinguish between:
> * Magic was more mysterious, and
> * Magic was more random.
> 
> Random doesn't mean mysterious.




Nice try.  I think we need to go ahead and define 'mystery'.  What is a 'mystery'?  What gives things the quality of being 'mysterious'?

The dictionary defines mystery as:

1) anything that is kept secret or remains unexplained or unknown
2) any affair, thing, or person that presents features or qualities so obscure as to arouse curiosity or speculation
4) obscure, puzzling, or mysterious quality or character

There are alot of other ones, but I think we can see and agree that the quality of mystery is the quality of being 'unknown'.  

Now, it is true that randomness is not in and of itself a synonym for mystery.  We roll a dice.  The result is something between 1 and 6.  There is nothing mysterious about that.  We roll two dice.  The number is between 2 and 12.  There is nothing mysterious about that.  We make a bet on a seven.  The dice are thrown.  They are tumbling in the air.  _We don't know how things are going to turn out._  Because the outcome of the dice throw is random, we don't know if we are going to win the bet or not.  The future is unknown to us.  So, after the dice are thrown, if we know the rules there is no mystery.  But before the dice are thrown it is a totally different story whether we know the rules or not.  And in general, humans love things where the outcome is not known in advance.  We watch (and bet) on sporting games because of the intriguing, mysterious, random factor that lets little teams upset the bigger teams and underdogs become champions.  

So, no, mystery is not the same as randomness.  But randomness does contribute to a things mysteriousness because it contributes to a things unknowability.

To a large extent, I think the 'the game has never been mysterious' crowd are moving the goal posts.  In earlier arguments, it was advanced that random tables were not mysterious because they had a finite range of 'predictable' results.  I think that stretches the notion of what the word 'predictable' beyond recognition, but never mind.  It's isn't necessary to prove that random tables are unpredictable to make the argument, although it would be nice if it went without saying.  The implication of this supposed counter argument is that if the table were infinitely random (and hense infinitely long), then it would be truly mysterious because it would be completely unknowable.  But I'm not worried about proving that something is completely mysterious, only that one thing is more mysterious than something else.  Surely if it follows that a thing becomes completely mysterious if there are infinite random results, then a thing merely become more mysterious if it becomes more random.  Why?  Because, as I said, the outcome becomes less knowable.

Additionally, the examples I provided didn't depend on randomness alone.  I provided examples of other types of 'unknowns' as well.



> The play-style where players don't have access to the DMG does promote the mysteriousness of magic items; it is encouraged more in 1e than 3e, but, as demonstrated by many people over the years, a lot of players read the DMG (for one reason or another).




In the 1st edition DMG, the abilities of the listed artifacts were considered so important to keep secret that they weren't even included or published - merely some guidelines on the items relative power and how to make something like an artifact appropriately unknowable.  So, 1st edition even went so far as to leave secrets that could not be known even to someone that read the rule book, which shows EGG had thought a time or three about this.



> I don't see what that has to do with your argument. "Put on a cloak of poisonousness and die" is hardly mysterious.




In a word, 'numinous' - mystery that surpasses comprehension and provokes awe and terror.  When an object breaks 'the rules', it implies that anything is possible.  It implies that even if you know how things work, that sometimes they just won't work that way.  "What do you mean?  Don't I get a saving throw?"  The cloak of poisonousness is an item that creates mystery _after you find out its existence_.  A PC who doesn't understand that mystery is part of the fun sneaks a peek at the secrets of the fabled DMG.  He stumbles upon an entry for something like a 'cloak of poisonousness' and beholds its dread unfair power.  All bets are off.  The DM can do anything, and any innocous action can lead to consequences of any degree.

We can see this in action in first edition modules, especially those created by EGG.  Random and unique things would happen in response to drinking from a fountain, touching an altar, stepping through an archway, putting your hand on a column.  The existance of items like the 'cloak of poisonousness' implies that there is no actual limitations on the effects of magical items.  They can do anything that the DM wants them to do.  "You open the book and your face melts off."  Again, you can argue that this isn't healthy for the game, but I don't think you can reasonably argue that this doesn't increase the mystery experienced playing the game because the player is forced to consider the fact that the possibilities are not constrained to those in his common experience of the rules.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 28, 2007)

I prefer to let my Clerics of Corean sell some of the most powerful magic items since a) He's the Lord of crafting and b) god of paladins. 

Course I don't stop PCs from ways to make their own, just require power components to "finish" the job.


----------



## PallidPatience (Mar 28, 2007)

IMHO, that sort of thing turns the game into Call of Cthulhu. If I want to be blasted into oblivion by any random action which doesn't seem like it should have that sort of consequence, I'll play Call of Cthulhu. What I want to do is play a character in a fantasy world who, through a series of events, discovers powerful fighting techniques/spells, comes into some sort of wealth, and slays monsters/enemy soldiers/etc... in the search of an ultimate goal. Being killed outright because I put on a random cloak would not strike me as "mysterious". The resulting expression of my displeasure upon the DM might strike the cops, however, as "assault and battery". 

In short, if the mystery does not make the game FUN, it's not an improvement to the game. Not knowing what that cloak does is one thing. Being blasted into death because you tried it on to see what it MIGHT do (with no contextual warning of its deadliness) is quite another.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2007)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> In short, if the mystery does not make the game FUN, it's not an improvement to the game.




For the record, I would not and never have put a cloak of poisonness into play in my game.  I don't consider them fun either.

But it is one thing to argue that too much unpredictability, too much randomness, too much unknown, and too little player control over the outcome of thier actions is bad for the game, and quite another to argue that these things don't make the game more mysteriousness.

I'm not interested in proving that 1st edition is a better game than 3rd edition.  I don't think that I can prove that (I certainly don't see a means how), and I do think that saying one game is better than the other is entirely someone's opinion.  

But obviously, I think that its reasonable to enumerate the ways in which 1st edition was more unknowable to the players than 3rd edition and then suggest from there that 1st edition makes magic more mysterious than 3rd edition, and state that as an objective statement.  That proposition might be unprovable if the game hadn't so clearly moved in one direction (we'd be weighing whether this factor is more important than some other factor), but since pretty much all the movement has been in one direction I'm not seeing alot of counter-examples being offered and don't expect them.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim, you'd have more luck debating if you paid attention to who says things. I don't have the same opinions as Kamikaze Midget or Vocenoctum. You perceive the goalposts are changing only because each of us (and I include you there) have different views of where they are. If you only debated me, my goalposts wouldn't be changing all the time. But if you read my reply and assume that what I believe is the same as Vocenoctum, you'll be wrong.



> They can do anything that the DM wants them to do.  "You open the book and your face melts off."  Again, you can argue that this isn't healthy for the game, but I don't think you can reasonably argue that this doesn't increase the mystery experienced playing the game because the player is forced to consider the fact that the possibilities are not constrained to those in his common experience of the rules.




Err - what has that to do with anything? AFAIK, all the participants in this thread are more than happy to have magical effects that do anything, albeit reluctant to create unfun situations.

Within the framework of 3e, I could make such items artefacts if I didn't want them to be reproduced. If I wanted to have them as reproducable I just need to set a cost and prereqs for crafting. The first encounter the PCs had with this brand new magic would be mysterious and new; after that they can learn what it does.

Cheers!


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Celebrim, you'd have more luck debating if you paid attention to who says things. I don't have the same opinions as Kamikaze Midget or Vocenoctum.




I didn't say you did.  When I refered to the 'the game has never been mysterious' crowd, you were clearly excluded because you had just said, "The play-style where players don't have access to the DMG does promote the mysteriousness of magic items; it is encouraged more in 1e than 3e..."



> Err - what has that to do with anything? AFAIK, all the participants in this thread are more than happy to have magical effects that do anything...




Based on my past participation in threads like this, I would be very surprised if that was the case.  I would predict a fairly strong correlation between those that believed that magic was a commodity, and those that believed that (for example) magical effects without saving throws or doors which were simply immune to force were not only things which you should be careful with but which simply shouldn't exist.  In fact, I would predict a fairly strong correlation between those holding the 'magic as a commodity' opinion and those that believed that you were breaking the RAW to have a door which was immune to all kinds of force.  I believe this is because both opinions are manifestations of an underlying preference for how the game should be ran.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

Ah right - just putting it in a post where you were replying to me made it confusing.

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2007)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> One shouldn't need the game to supply the imagination.




Quoted very, very much for troof!  If the only source of mystery in your game comes from the opacity of the rules, then, perhaps a bit of brushing up on DMing skills is in order.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> EDIT: Tnagential, but related -- I got an email today from my players "reminding" me that they were well behind the "wealth by level" guidelines in the DMG.  i mean, when would that have happened with 1E?  WTF?




It wouldn't have because, by the time you were about 6th level, you already had more money than you could ever spend in an elven lifetime and the fifteen +1 swords that you flogged just added to the money pile.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> Based on my past participation in threads like this, I would be very surprised if that was the case.  I would predict a fairly strong correlation between those that believed that magic was a commodity, and those that believed that (for example) magical effects without saving throws or doors which were simply immune to force were not only things which you should be careful with but which simply shouldn't exist.  In fact, I would predict a fairly strong correlation between those holding the 'magic as a commodity' opinion and those that believed that you were breaking the RAW to have a door which was immune to all kinds of force.  I believe this is because both opinions are manifestations of an underlying preference for how the game should be ran.




Umm, well, of course you are breaking RAW to do this.  The aren't any doors, or even any substances in RAW that is immune to all kinds of force.  So what?  Rule 0 is your friend and it appears in the first pages of the DMG.  You want an unbeatable door?  The rules will back your play.  

Now, is it fun to have that door?  That will depend on a whole lot of factors and is the subject for an entire thread.

See, where you've made the faulty assumption is that people who think that there should be rule explanations for everything in the game also feel that you can never make up new rules.  The game is, and always has been, about making up new rules.  The big thing is why are you making up these rules?  Are you doing it so the party is forced to jump through certain hoops and protect your private railroad?  Then that's bad.  Is it done because there are very valid in game reasons for the existence of this door?  Then that's probably good.

The problem is, people are trying to argue that there was some sort of special sense of wonder (or mystery or mystique or whatever other adjective you want to use) that was fostered by having rules that the players didn't know.  Gauntlets of Ogre Power weren't mysterious.  They didn't make me go "ooooh ahhhh".  They made me jump up and down for happy joy because my fighter was going to lay a world of hurt on something.

Some people keep trying to apply their playstyles as a general rule.  If your playstyle was such that magic items were weird and wonderful, that's groovy.  That's fine.  That's great.  But, it's also YOURS.  My playstyle was that you picked up a +1 sword and you were happy.  When the +2 sword came along, you chucked the +1 sword faster than an empty Ding Dong wrapper.  

That doesn't make my style better or worse.  And, I certainly am not trying to say that you should follow it.  But, trying to state that the rules favoured one style or another is ridiculous.  Gamists played 1e.  Really, they did.  Honest.  Gamists played 2e as well.  And, oh look, they play 3e too.  Gee imagine my shock and awe.


----------



## Imp (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> They are freaking gauntlets of ogre power!!!  Gauntlets of ogre power!!!  No mystique to gauntlets of ogre power!?!?!



I dunno, man, 18/00 strength was a pretty big whopping bit of mystique to me I tell you what.  But then, the highest I ever got in 1e was like 10th level and that dude was a thief.  Some of you sound like you got to play with all kinds of stuff – best things I ever found were like a frostbrand, magic boomerangs (totally made up), and flying carpets.  Vorpal swords?  Pssh.  I wished.

On another note: one campaign style where pick-and-choose-magic-from-the-catalog does make some sense is an episodic campaign, which _is_ something I like a lot more in 3e, because otherwise you can wind up with guys going from 1 to 20 in a game year or two and I have trouble with that.  If there was a game year gap between sessions, I'd let 'em shop around.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Umm, well, of course you are breaking RAW to do this.  The aren't any doors, or even any substances in RAW that is immune to all kinds of force.




So how would I be breaking the RAW to have one?  As I understand the nature of rules, I would only be breaking the rules as written if the RAW explicitly forbid such a substance.  Where the rules are silent, then I may do whatever I please.  I would only need rule zero if there was a rule like "No material with a hardness more than 50 is allowed in the game."  Since no such restriction is imposed, all I need is an imagination and a reason.



> Now, is it fun to have that door?  That will depend on a whole lot of factors and is the subject for an entire thread.




Which we've had before, so let's not go there again.



> See, where you've made the faulty assumption is that people who think that there should be rule explanations for everything in the game also feel that you can never make up new rules.




Is this addressed to me?  If it is, I don't understand why it is, or even what you mean by it.  What assumption are you referring to and who are these people?  My assumption is that there is a certain segment out there that operate under assumptions like, "Anything that is not explicitly allowed by the rules is implicitly forbidden."  Hense, they would suggest that since there is no substance in the core rules that has 300 hardness, that you would have to break the rules to have one.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 28, 2007)

*looks over the bag of magic items Mesos gave him last week* Glad to say I'm not handing these out.

I'm against cloak of poison-ness, myself, but not against something like say, an armor of raging. That to me seems cool. Of course I make sure to save it for the barbarian.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2007)

> Is this addressed to me? If it is, I don't understand why it is, or even what you mean by it. What assumption are you referring to and who are these people? My assumption is that there is a certain segment out there that operate under assumptions like, "Anything that is not explicitly allowed by the rules is implicitly forbidden." Hense, they would suggest that since there is no substance in the core rules that has 300 hardness, that you would have to break the rules to have one.




Which is pretty much the same thing as what I said, just from the other direction.  

However, anyone who tells you that is wrong.  Flat out.  Any element in which the rules are silent are entirely the purview of the DM.  Numerous FAQ's, and the DMG all support that.  If you want to have a hardness 300 door of antimagic, go for it.  There's nothing stopping you.

The problem I have is that you are equating people who don't mind hand waving magic item acquisition with people who are ignoring the rules.  They are nothing the same and not even remotely related.  The rules do state that you should be able to purchase most magic items of a given value in a given setting.  They also go further and say that it is up to the DM to say yes or no.  

I fail to see the problem here.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> As to customization of the PCs by players, I'm all for it.  However, my view is: the players design their character, I design the world.  As magic items are part of the world, a treasure for PCs, not a right, they are under the DM's purview.



When you think of the magic sword Excalibur, do you connect it more closely with King Arthur or the world King Arthur inhabited?

Magic items are property, and property attaches to individuals. Fantasy is replete with signature weapons. Elric wouldn't even work as a character without Stormbringer. Elric and Stormbringer had to be created together as a unit. Admittedly there are plenty of fantasy heroes who don't have, or need, signature items, Conan being an example.

But sometimes a player wants to create an Elric, not a Conan. One of my most successful character concepts was a flighty catgirl armed with a talking sword that had been intended for a paladin. The 'odd couple' relationship between the two was absolutely central to the character concept. This PC would've been impossible if I hadn't been allowed to choose my own magic items.

Sometimes, players are the best judge of what's right for their characters.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> When you think of the magic sword Excalibur, do you connect it more closely with King Arthur or the world King Arthur inhabited?
> 
> Magic items are property...




That's silly - Arthur didn't create Excalibur, he had no say in what powers it had.  He darn well took what his GM gave him!


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2007)

However, as GM I will certainly work with player at time of PC creation re their concept, and I may let them start out with an item that's part of their concept.  That's a million miles from 3e style 'free buy up to 100,000gp'.

Edit: The King Arthur concept works fine without Excalibur, though.  A magic crown (eg) would be just as good.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> They are freaking gauntlets of ogre power!!!  Gauntlets of ogre power!!!  No mystique to gauntlets of ogre power!?!?!  I do not want to play in your games.




You would not want to play in my games either. Gauntlets of Ogre Power hasn't been mysterious to me for about 20 years. They are gloves that give a bonus to strength, that's about it.

There is a limit to how long a magic item that is included in the RAW of any edition can remain mysterious to the community at large.

After a while, probably after a short while now that we have the internet to communicate through, most players have heard of or have found gauntlets of ogre power. And DM's who turn to being players have read the DMG, and can't erase that knowledge from their brains, so they know what gauntlets of ogre power do.

It's difficult to keep things that have been defined in text for 30 years mysterious.

Also, today gamers know alot more about the underlaying assumptions of the games they play. Magic Items have existed in the game since the beginning, and people have grown to expect them to work in a certain way.

For example, most of not all gamers know that if they find a +1 sword ... there is also +2 swords, +3 swords, +4 swords and +5 vorpal swords as well. 

We all know that, we can't unlearn that fact, which in itself is an important factor to consider when trying to make magic items mysterious.

/M


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> However, as GM I will certainly work with player at time of PC creation re their concept, and I may let them start out with an item that's part of their concept.  That's a million miles from 3e style 'free buy up to 100,000gp'.
> 
> Edit: The King Arthur concept works fine without Excalibur, though.  A magic crown (eg) would be just as good.




So, if I have the concept at 1st level, it's ok to pick and choose my magic goodies, but, if I change my mind and want to change concepts, I'm SOL?

Besides that, there are two Excallibur's remember.  The first one gets remade.  Who says that both swords are equal?


----------



## FireLance (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Besides that, there are two Excallibur's remember.  The first one gets remade.  Who says that both swords are equal?



Actually, if I remember my Arthurian mythos correctly, the sword that Arthur pulled from the stone was not Excalibur. He received Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake after his previous sword was Sundered in a combat (probably one of the earliest examples of a DM enforcing the wealth by level guidelines ).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 28, 2007)

I do find lack of mystery in rpgs to be a problem. My main issue is with the players knowing the monsters though. Magic items I see as being much more in the players purview, because the PCs carry them, use them all the time, it seems more appropriate that they should be a known quantity.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I do find lack of mystery in rpgs to be a problem. My main issue is with the players knowing the monsters though.




I had a player who could recite the Red Dragon stats to me. That was scary (I can't remember monsters that well). However, none of my (13) players get the supplemental monster books, so I'm safe there. I do create my own monsters from time to time, of course.

I look to mystery through plot-related items, though.

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2007)

I'm with MerricB and Doug McCrae on this one.  Magic items are things the players carry around and use all the time.  I could never be bothered trying to remember if Jim had that +1 sword and Dave had the +2 or vice versa.  So, I just told them what the plusses were and moved on.  

There's a million things the DM can do to keep mystery in the game.  Letting magic not be one of them doesn't hurt the game at all.  

That being said, certainly the most memorable magic item in my World's Largest Dungeon game has been the intelligent great axe that the orc barbarian carries around.  It's far smarter than him and has allowed the player to play effectively two characters.  That's generally not something that would have gotten bought at the store.

I do agree that it is possible to create interesting magic items.  That's cool.  However, not every one of them needs to be that way and not every character needs a "signature" item.  Sometimes it's easier just to let the player have control over his own character.  I used the axe in my game because the player was a little bored with playing the character and needed something to spice it up.  Having the intelligent weapon let him play the brute and the rp end of things both at the same time.  OTOH, the guy with the solid character concept that he's happy with probably wouldn't even want the intelligent axe.  It would conflict with his view of his character.

As DM, I have complete control over the world.  Letting the players control that very small slice of my world that is their characters makes me happy.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 28, 2007)

> I would predict a fairly strong correlation between those that believed that magic was a commodity, and those that believed that (for example) magical effects without saving throws or doors which were simply immune to force were not only things which you should be careful with but which simply shouldn't exist. In fact, I would predict a fairly strong correlation between those holding the 'magic as a commodity' opinion and those that believed that you were breaking the RAW to have a door which was immune to all kinds of force. I believe this is because both opinions are manifestations of an underlying preference for how the game should be ran.




You mean the preference of running the game mostly by the rules of the game?

Or the preference for running the game in a way that gives the PC's a say in what happens to them?

Or the preference for not enjoying the random danger of stuff like the cloak of poisonousness?

Or the preference for a world view of magic that treats it more like a science you can study and less like a tool for DM fiat?

And...those games are badwrongfun? They have spoiled players and they dishonor magic and they corrupt our children and make society weak and fragile?


----------



## Jemal (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So how would I be breaking the RAW to have one?  As I understand the nature of rules, I would only be breaking the rules as written if the RAW explicitly forbid such a substance.




He PROBABLY meant that there's no listed substance like that, not that it would be impossible to make... 
Although, I must point something out in regards to this :


> Where the rules are silent, then I may do whatever I please.  I would only need rule zero if there was a rule like "No material with a hardness more than 50 is allowed in the game."  Since no such restriction is imposed, all I need is an imagination and a reason.



I'd like to just say something i read somewhere "The rules don't say I can't isn't good enough reason to state that chopping down a tree gives you five levels."  I've never ANYWHERE seen it specifically listed that trees are NOT a CR 20 encounter.
ALSO, I've never seen a rule stating that there's no simple light weapon called the "Flanger" that has a threat range of 2-20/X10 and deals 5d8 damage with 20' reach.
And yes, I'm taking it to an obscene level to prove a point... the fact that no rule specifically negates something doesn't mean it automaticaly should be allowed.

Now I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, I'm just saying don't claim the rules back you up when they specifically don't.  RAW means rules as WRITTEN.. if it's not WRITTEN, it's not RAW.


NOW, As to the main thread convo - I dont think magic items HAVE to be mysterious - It depends on the campaign setting, high/low magic, character level, and most importantly... The PLAYERS involved, and how THEY feel.
It's probably just me, but it's nearly impossible to keep players from getting the SPECIFIC magic item they want.. If you don't give them what they want, they'll do one of a few things : 
If there are places to buy magic, they'll buy it (hocking whatever they need to afford it)
If there aren't, but are known mages, they'll comission it.
Otherwise, the party mage will MAKE the magic items, taking the creation feats when he discovers the lack of access to magic items that they will have.

The only way to prevent this is by specifically banning it.  And the last time I saw a DM do THAT, 3 of the 4 PC's took a Vow of Poverty!  PC's like deciding their character specifics.. You think they'd let you tell them what Class Level they're taking next? or having someone else decide their feat selection?

Also, 


			
				S'Mon said:
			
		

> Arthur didn't create Excalibur, he had no say in what powers it had. He darn well took what his GM gave him!




Well obviously ARTHUR didn't create it, he's not a mage.. but how do you know Arthur's PLAYER didn't create it b/c that's the kind of weapon he envisioned his character wielding?  Like A Paladin wanting a Holy Avenger.  Oh but I see people thinking "the DM had to give it to him at some point, he didn't always have it."  That's what backstory is for.. To explain how you got to where you are, with what you have.  MAYBE the entire story of Arthur up till when he got Excalibur from the Lady is Backstory, and shortly thereafter is when Play begins.

And how about the player who's concept is a 'really hard to hit character'.  Without magic the best AC you can do is around 20(A bit higher if you allow Mithril, though that's also a quasi-magical thing worth thousands).  That's not even all that hard for a 1st level character to hit...  How's he going to create his "Can't touch this" character without a Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armour, Gloves of Dexterity,either Bracers+Wis enhance(If Monk), or Magical armour (If not)??


----------



## Storyteller01 (Mar 28, 2007)

scriven said:
			
		

> Magic shops don't, by themselves, wreck the spirit of the game.  The idea that any item worth X gp or less should be available at such shops, does, in my opinion.
> 
> I was introduced to this concept in the last game I played in.  It was my first experience with 3E as a player.  After the initial shock wore off, the fun drained right out of the game for me.  I found that rather than gazing longingly through the item lists, wondering whether our group might find this one or that, deep within some gods-forsaken subterranean labyrinth...  I was presented merely with an optimization problem: buy the items that would maximize my numbers.  And even though I hated doing so, I had no choice if my character was to be at all effective.  Because the other players were.  The pressure to munchkinize was dreary and oppressive.
> 
> ...





I'd have to agree with this sentiment. It's why I went to various OGL rules (IK magic item creation rules and Spycraft blackmarket tables especially).


----------



## Jemal (Mar 28, 2007)

> Originally Posted by scriven
> Magic shops don't, by themselves, wreck the spirit of the game. The idea that any item worth X gp or less should be available at such shops, does, in my opinion.
> 
> I was introduced to this concept in the last game I played in. It was my first experience with 3E as a player. After the initial shock wore off, the fun drained right out of the game for me. I found that rather than gazing longingly through the item lists, wondering whether our group might find this one or that, deep within some gods-forsaken subterranean labyrinth... I was presented merely with an optimization problem: buy the items that would maximize my numbers. And even though I hated doing so, I had no choice if my character was to be at all effective. Because the other players were. The pressure to munchkinize was dreary and oppressive.
> ...




So two things - First off, why is playing a character who's optimized a bad thing?  You don't like being effective?  And I deplore the insinuation that doing so is 'munchkinizing'.. Why is it people think that a character can be either Role Play worthy or Effective but not both?  I happen to prefer playing the Heroic Warrior-king or powerful Archmage who saves the world from marauding demons to the anorexic bard with 10 pages of backstory who wants to make a couple bucks by stealing from peasants.  (And just for the record, I happen to think Conan has one hell of a good 'story' to him, and wow guess what.. he kicks Ass too!)

Secondly, If you're selling off ALL of the stuff you find to buy what you want, then you're loosing about half your treasure value.. Remember, resale is half price.  Thus, if there's anything even a little interesting in a treasure horde, most smart players I've known will take it first.. it's only if nobody can use something that it gets hocked.  If your DM throws you a Wand of Fireballs and there's no mage or anyone with UMD, what the heck were you going to do with it ANYWAYS?


----------



## diaglo (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> This whole thread underscores one of the fundamental differences between editions of D&D: 1E was a DM's game; 3E is a player's game; 2E bridged the gap.



don't forget OD&D(1974)


----------



## diaglo (Mar 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> When you think of the magic sword Excalibur, do you connect it more closely with King Arthur or the world King Arthur inhabited?



the sword is only +1 in my campaign.   

it was Arthur and not the sword who united the land.
excalibur was his sword. but it was the King that gave the sword it's fame.

paraphrase: only the true king can pull the blade from the stone.

many tried and failed... but arthur came along and did it.

it wasn't the sword who had the power. it was arthur.

gary and his power gaming scions gave too many plusses to the sword in their printing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> You seem to have quoted me out of context.




I don't see how that's so.



> How does this claimed unpredictability of magic affect play? When the items are used during play. It doesn't matter how the item came into being when it's used in the game. Only its mechanics matter when it's used to do something. In that regard 99% of items are still utterly predictable in both editions.
> 
> You're still basing your claims on that 1%.





If you play in a world in which determining which items fall within that "1%" (and "1%" isn't accurate) and which do not is a simple matter, then certainly you don't need to worry about unpredictability.  If you play in a world in which spell effects are precisely laid out, and you can easily craft an item because you intrinsically know how to do so, then you may say that magic is a predictable technology.

However, that isn't the world presented in 1e or in 2e.  It isn't the world presented in BD&D.  

Whether or not it is the world presented in 3e is debatable.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Except that's not what you're doing. You're generalizing one instance to characterize the whole, and I'm pointing out that your one example is the exception (potion miscability table -> magic in 1E was unpredictable is your claim, I'm saying it's the exception compared to 99% of items / item use).
> 
> Now that we're into ornithology, your claim is the same as claiming "Penguings don't fly, so birds don't fly", a complete reversal of your intent in the quoted section.





Obviously, not a student of logic.

To disprove the claim "All birds fly" requires that one can example a bird that does not fly.  Once this is the case, the claim is disproven.  It doesn't mean or imply the opposite (that all birds do not fly).

Likewise the claim that "Magic is a predictable technology, and always has been" does not require vast evidence of unpredictability to disprove.  Nor, to be quite honest, does there need to be a lot of unpredictability in a "technology" to render that technology unpredictable.  In the case of 1e (and to some degree, later) magic, I have pointed out:

(1)  Potion miscability,
(2)  Random-effect items, such as wands of wonder and bags of beans,
(3)  The variable (and otherwise unknown) elements involved in item creation (not a feature of 3.X),
(4)  That magic items can, and do, exist that replicate otherwise unknown effects (without being artifacts),
(5)  That the wording of the rules offers more room for interpretation, so that there can be variables in how magic works from casting to casting, based on circumstance,
(6)  The inclusion of "unknown and unknowable" magic effects in many, many published modules -- where rivers might run through midair in one room and a giant crab might be kept alive inside a giant bubble in another.

Even if the rule was that there was "only" a 1% chance of something truly bad happening to you when you used magic (say, because the item was cursed, or because the DM thought that a _sword of wonder_ was a good idea, where it goes off, wand-like, whenever you roll a 1), that would tend to make it something other than a "predictable technology" in the way those words are generally used.

It would also make you think twice about the next glowing sword that you saw.  A little unpredictability goes a long way.

The real-life equivilent would be that, every time you drove a car, there was a 1% (or higher) chance that the car might turn out to be Christine (from the Stephen King novel of the same name).  I doubt that auto sales would skyrocket as a result.  I doubt that this would be considered "predictable technology" by the average consumer.

Bet, you are obviously also visiting Bizarro Land.  Enjoy your stay.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> What is truly repulsive out of this all is magic items no longer being considered special.  The DMG list is THE list of available technology.  The items aren't _suggestions_ anymore.  They are the law of the land.  To imagine anything else would be... against the rules.
> 
> A setting where magic isn't commoditized and mass produced is now considered against the RAW and unworkable under it.





Only in Bizarro Land.  The rest of us are free to run games as we see fit.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Rose colored glasses in action once again. Magic would still seem unpredictable to a player just starting 3E just as it did for us when we started 1E. But once you've read the rules, there's no going back in either system. The system is what it is once you know it, in both systems. I claim that it's quite predictable in both editions due to the fact that 99% of magical effects are well defined and predictable. Potion miscability table or wand of wonder doesn't change this.





Suddenly, out of nowhere, everyone used the same rules in 1e?  I thought our experiences of 1e diverged so widely because, once you read the rules, you still didn't know what was going to happen in someone else's game?


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It wouldn't have because, by the time you were about 6th level, you already had more money than you could ever spend in an elven lifetime and the fifteen +1 swords that you flogged just added to the money pile.




First of all, the reason the PCs in my game are behind the curve is because they've levelled 3 times in about as many game days.  3E's CR system and how it affects advancement is just crazy.  One fight -- 30 orcs and an Ettin -- levelled them rom 4th to 5th.  In 1E that would have given them about 350 XP each.  It was startling when I counted it up.  Right now, they are in the middle of an escape from the bowls of a dungeon.  And they just looted a treasure trove.  But after the session, a couple of the guys added up what they got and compared it to their new level and said "That's not enough!"  it can be exasperating.

To answer your quote directly: by 6th level a fighter has accumulated -- at the top end -- 30,000 gp, which sounds like a lot until you realize that 1E also has training costs for gaining levels and you're expected to spend money left and right.  Moreover, that 6th level fighter needs to save up a pretty substantial nest egg, because in a few levels he'll be building a keep and attracting followers.

On Gloved of Dexterity: what I was saying is that instead o having Gloves of Dexterity be a ubiquitous item, you make ONE set of GoD exist in the whole world.  Then they matter.  But 3E makes that difficult, because typical items (like stat boosters) are built into the system.  In previous editions, if the PCs only ever found one set of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, it wouldn't be a game breaker.  In 3E, it messes up the whole CR/EL system.  As far as crafting items goes: if you have it on hand, read the 1E DMG section on making items and compare it to 3E's.  it is... illuminating to say the least (I just read it last night).

On +1 Swords: Give it a name, even something as silly as Goblin Cleaver, and your players will respond to it better.  One thing that helps with magic weapon turnover in 3.5 is DR/magic vs DR/+X, because that +1 sword is still useful all the way up.  It is one of a small list of 3.x elements I will port into 1E when I start running it in the next couple months.

Overall, I don't think 3E is bad -- I like it actually.  But it isn't a sword and sorcery game anymore -- it is a different kind of fantasy, in its own genre.  It is also much more a player's game, which can (depending on the players) lead to a sense of entitlement on the part of players, where gear and levelling is *the* fun part of the game, instead of the play itself.  it is kind of a reverse of 1E, which was a GM's game which could lead to powermongering, killer DMs who overcontrolled their games and their players.

But, as Gary writes in the 1E DMG, dealing with problem DMs is a whole lot easier than dealing with problem players: all you have to do is walk.  The section on dealing with problem players is a lot longer and a lot more compromising.  Even Gary knew that without players there was no DM, and only suggested booting players if they were really, really disruptive.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Suddenly, out of nowhere, everyone used the same rules in 1e?  I thought our experiences of 1e diverged so widely because, once you read the rules, you still didn't know what was going to happen in someone else's game?




Rules always changed between groups, regardless of edition or game.  But the 1E DMG is very clear: you don't change core rules because the assumption was that players would take their characters with them to new games and campaigns with different DMs.  What was the province of each DM was everything else -- including making new stuff (items, monsters, etc...)


----------



## Maggan (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Suddenly, out of nowhere, everyone used the same rules in 1e?  I thought our experiences of 1e diverged so widely because, once you read the rules, you still didn't know what was going to happen in someone else's game?




My  guess is that the properties of gauntlets of ogre strength and other magic items didn't vary that much between games.

The house rules we had was mainly us mucking about with combat and monsters, trying to make it more realistic. A futile endeavor, but we had fun.   

Magic items, we just used what was written.

/M


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The difference is, Magic Mart has a large concentration of magic items in a central location where you can walk in and take a number, then get it.
> 
> In a more abstract system, the players may take a day wandering around looking for the proper item. The difference in flavor between Magic Mart and Communal Magic Items is a big difference. The straw man is the idea that those of us that allow player choice automatically encourage Magic Mart and the lack of flavor. There's plenty of room for flavor without castrating the players ability to choose their character.




Let me see it I understand what you are trying to say here.

Are you saying that things in the game are more than just the sum of their mechanical components, and that the way they are presented has a large impact on how they are perceived?  Would you further say that this is a fairly obvious position to take?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> These are all part of it.  Why not have magic be magical too?  I mean, it's right there.  It's what makes fantasy different than, say, playing normal people in 2007.  Why limit the potential for fun?





If magic wasn't part of the fun....and, frankly, if an unknown world wasn't part of the fun....D20 Modern would easily outsell D&D.  I mean, in D20 Modern, it is explicit that you can buy anything.  In D20 Modern it is explicit that the type of knowledge we have in the modern world is available to the PCs.

You can use all of the monsters from the SRD in D20 Modern, and then some.  Heck, D20 Modern even has magic.

Yet D20 Modern doesn't sell nearly as well as D&D.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Likewise the claim that "Magic is a predictable technology, and always has been" does not require vast evidence of unpredictability to disprove.  Nor, to be quite honest, does there need to be a lot of unpredictability in a "technology" to render that technology unpredictable.  In the case of 1e (and to some degree, later) magic, I have pointed out:
> 
> (1)  Potion miscability,
> (2)  Random-effect items, such as wands of wonder and bags of beans,
> ...



In a previous post you also mentioned:

(7) The results of 1e Identify are far more uncertain than 3e Identify.

I don't regard potion miscibility or wands of wonder as being all that significant as they are rare. The weakness of Identify is a lot more important though as it relates to all magic items. The question then is does it mean common items, such as a +1 sword, become unpredictable. Are they unusable, as cars would be, if 1% were Christines.

I would say, no, a +1 sword is still reliable, though it will take the fighter who carries it a while to test it. This is 1e so he can't rely on Identify. Knowing items can be cursed he'll be very wary the first time he uses it. But as he continues to do so in fight after fight, it will surely become obvious to an experienced warrior that the blade is guiding his hand a little, cutting deeper, harming creatures otherwise invulnerable. In battle after battle it does the exact same thing every time. Insofar as a man can ever be certain of anything, the fighter will be certain of his weapon.

Your point about the rules being more opaque and uncertain in 1e doesn't really fly as it's saying, 'Everything was uncertain in 1e, magic is a subset of everything therefore magic was uncertain'. If everything were uncertain then the universe would be a strange place indeed. Everything would be mysterious, not just magic. Horses would be mysterious. And swords. And shoes. Nothing could be relied upon. I don't think 1e was trying to present this sort of world, it's just a weakness in the rules.

I agree that there should be mystery in a campaign world. There should be wild, unpredictable, exotic magic. There should be some magic that the PCs (and players) don't understand, magic that breaks the rules. But that's not a +1 sword, that's not magic missile or fireball. Magic missiles and +1 swords are, to an adventurer, everyday fare, commonplace. He knows how it works. He uses it day-in, day-out. It helps him do his job. It's technology, his world's equivalent of a sniper rifle or a computer.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If magic wasn't part of the fun....and, frankly, if an unknown world wasn't part of the fun....D20 Modern would easily outsell D&D.  I mean, in D20 Modern, it is explicit that you can buy anything.  In D20 Modern it is explicit that the type of knowledge we have in the modern world is available to the PCs.
> 
> You can use all of the monsters from the SRD in D20 Modern, and then some.  Heck, D20 Modern even has magic.
> 
> Yet D20 Modern doesn't sell nearly as well as D&D.




I think it would if it was named "D&D" and not "d20 Modern".

/M


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I would predict a fairly strong correlation between those that believed that magic was a commodity, and those that believed that (for example) magical effects without saving throws or doors which were simply immune to force were not only things which you should be careful with but which simply shouldn't exist.  In fact, I would predict a fairly strong correlation between those holding the 'magic as a commodity' opinion and those that believed that you were breaking the RAW to have a door which was immune to all kinds of force.




At least as far as that goes I will point myself out as someone who sees magic items as a commodity (usually) and welcomes the Impossable Door.  And yes, I'm usually a player - not a DM.

I may be the odd man out but I would love to see more puzzels in my campaign.  I like mysteries and puzzels but most of my group doesn't so I don't see them that often.  I started on Hardy Boys and moved on to Sherlock Holmes.  I eat this stuff up.

To make things a mystery to me the DM would need to play within the rules.  As far as "why" the Door is Impossable as far as I am concerned it is a +20 Adamantine Door with a few Miracles or Wishes cast on it.  Improbable and insanely expensive, but doable.  But then again the puzzle is to get around the door and that is what I'm looking forward to, not how the door was made.

Of course that is assuming that the real puzzle is to get around the door.  If the "real" mystery you have planned is how is the door even possable then there better be an answer in the rules, otherwise it isn't a mystery to me but a DM power trip.

If you want something to be a mystery (to me at least) don't break the rules.  If you break the rules then there is no reason for me to even try to figure it out.  Why should I even bother with a puzzle if there is no way to know the answer?  Having it SEEM like you broke the rules is fine (you found some fun interactions between multiple spells or something) as long as you actually didn't.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The 'is magic mysterious' subthread is getting tiresome.




Yes, but only because you keep harping on the same irrelevant points.



> _1) *Magic was more mysterious in earlier editions than it is now.*_




Flatly wrong. Magic was, in some ways, more random thatn it is now. But it was a very bounded randomness, and one that was predictable within a very small range. Randomness isn't mysterious. It doesn't even contribute to mysteriousness any more than poorly maintained equipment would be mysterious.

Some of your specific points don't even make sense.



> _the fact that spells had a chance of failure,_




Only cleric spells for clerics with low wisdom. Which basically never showed up in play. Hence, an irrelevant point.



> _the fact that the DMG contained a goodly portion of the description of many spells kept secret from the caster,_




Everything you needed to know about a spell was in the PHB. The DMG had some minor clarifications, but nothing of any significance.



> _the fact that the vast majority of magical items were beyond the players ability to create and those that they could create the mechanisms of the creation were both secret from the players and subject to DM fiat,_




Which is entirely irrelevant when evaluating whether magic items are "mysterious" or not. I cannot make an airplane. I wouldn't know where to start. It doesn't make the airplane mysterious.



> _2) *Magic can never be completely mysterious in any game where the players contol it.*_




This is true. However, you don't actually grasp the full extent of the issue. *Magic can never be mysterious in any game in which the rules mechanics define it*. Once you define magic, it loses all mystery. No matter how many random tables you throw in, or other bells and whistles you add, it loses its mystery.



> _There were plenty of 'touch this and suffer some horrible fate with no saving throw' effects in earlier editions of the game._




That isn't "mysterious".



> _3) *The rules of a game contribute to magic's flavor in the setting, but they don't define it.*  There is nothing about the 1st edition rules that forces magic to be mysterious,_




Well, no. Since, by the rules as written in 1e, it wasn't. Magic, in 1e, is technology. Nothing more. You can trot out pseudo-random tables, and talk about how no player should have ever looked at the DMG (which would have been difficult, since no one exclusively played or DMed in any group I was ever familiar with, rotating every now and then was the norm), but it doesn't change the fact that magic, as defined in the 1e PHB and DMG was predictable, regular, understandable, technology.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> On +1 Swords: Give it a name, even something as silly as Goblin Cleaver, and your players will respond to it better.




As I stated earlier, and again - coming from a player - giving it a name doesn't cut it for me.  I, personally, don't care about the history of an item if it doesn't have anything to do with the story.  If Goblin Cleaver is a +1 sword and that is all it ever will be as far as the campaign is concerned, then it is a +1 sword.

However - if a local lord is having a goblin problem and he will send his own troops to help the PCs destroy the local scurge IF they grab the Legendary Goblin Cleaver from a nearby cave...  Then the item has history with the party.  It isn't just a +1 sword they looted from a spider cave.  It is a +1 sword that they looted from a spider cave in order to rally a town against a goblid horde.  That would give the name meaning - a reason it is called Goblin Cleaver and not Jackie's Cooking Knife. That is cool to me and would make me care about an item. 

Now, obviously you can't have an adventure built around every single item the party comes across.  But if each player has one or two that they have a story for - a story they were there for and a story they think is cool, that will put the "magic" back in "magical" and make the items - a few items at least - not ones they will just turn around and sell.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The 'is magic mysterious' subthread is getting tiresome.
> 
> 1) *Magic was more mysterious in earlier editions than it is now.*  There are any number of examples: the potion miscability tables, the fact that duration of spells/potions/effects tended to be random and that the caster would not know necessarily when they would expire, the fact that spells had a chance of failure, the fact that the effect misfired spells were largely the provence of DM fiat, the fact that the DMG contained a goodly portion of the description of many spells kept secret from the caster, the fact that the vast majority of magical items were beyond the players ability to create and those that they could create the mechanisms of the creation were both secret from the players and subject to DM fiat, the fact that Gygax didn't even stat out the artifacts in the DMG lest thier mysteriousness be lost, the fact that spells like identify worked less effectively in earlier editions, the fact that the DMG contained an extensive listing of how spells would function differently in usual settings, the fact that random magic effects and unique items and cursed items played a greater role in the game, the DMG, and in published modules.  And so forth.  If that isn't enough evidence for you, then there is little point in discussing this with you further.
> 
> ...





QFT....and for being so much better put than I was putting (part of) it.


EDIT:  Of course, for those in Bizarro Land, "No it isn't; and the Earth is flat too!" seems to make a pretty Stern Rebuttal.    

RC


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The trouble with the LotR setting - as applied to D&D - is that Middle Earth during the Third Age doesn't have the number of active magic users that D&D has. If you chose the right period of Middle Earth - say, the First Age - then amongst the elves you'd find a *lot* of magical items. And yes, they'd be trading them. I find the First Age (as described in the Silmarillion) a really magical age; and it's with a lot of magic about.
> 
> In fact, LotR really presents magic items as we have it in D&D today in some ways - so that those who have it don't even think about it. For the hobbits, the elven cloaks are miraculous (and Galadriel's rope), but all the elves are clad like that and they're not going around saying "wow, look at my fancy cloak!" They've moved past that. The really special things are the artefacts, such as Galadriel's Mirror.




Absolutely right. The difference between LotR and D&D is that in D&D everyone and his brother seems to have magic items. In LotR I doubt anyone in the Shire had a magic item (not counting Bilbo or Frodo since they are the protagonists of the tale).
The elves have them in spades but they are an ancient breed and seperate from the rest of the world by choice. Thats their mysticism.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> However, in the play of D&D 3E, even with all these known elements, my players still manage to surprise me with unexpected interactions of effects.
> 
> It's much like _Magic: the Gathering_:






(_*Shudder!*_)


 

Failed my Will save.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Err... you've left off the Disguise modifier. You've basically got a Hat of Disguise that adds +6 Cha there. As I said, the _hat of disguise_ is inherently cool.
> 
> I wasn't discussing custom items, though, but existing items that have been used in cool ways.





There were lots of cursed items that PCs held onto IME, simply because they could be used against others.  Bag of Devouring?  Try popping a truly dangerously cursed item into that one, just to be rid of it.  Or use it as a garbage disposal.  Or pop it over the BBEG's head.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> First of all, the reason the PCs in my game are behind the curve is because they've levelled 3 times in about as many game days.  3E's CR system and how it affects advancement is just crazy.  One fight -- 30 orcs and an Ettin -- levelled them rom 4th to 5th.  In 1E that would have given them about 350 XP each.




Your 4th level PC's fought an EL 9 encounter and aren't dead.  You have far larger problems in your game than players whinging about lack of treasure.  I'm sorry that's harsh, but, there's something seriously wrong with a party getting through an encounter that tough and no one dying.



> It was startling when I counted it up.  Right now, they are in the middle of an escape from the bowls of a dungeon.  And they just looted a treasure trove.  But after the session, a couple of the guys added up what they got and compared it to their new level and said "That's not enough!"  it can be exasperating.




Why?  From their point of view, they did the work and didn't reap the benefits.  What's the point of whacking the monsters if you have pocket lint to show for it afterwards.  This sounds more like a lack of communication problem than anything else.



> To answer your quote directly: by 6th level a fighter has accumulated -- at the top end -- 30,000 gp, which sounds like a lot until you realize that 1E also has training costs for gaining levels and you're expected to spend money left and right.  Moreover, that 6th level fighter needs to save up a pretty substantial nest egg, because in a few levels he'll be building a keep and attracting followers.




Maybe.  He might be saving up for that keep.  Or he might choose not to.  That's usually up to the player.  Heck, we always found it much easier to turn some critter's lair into our keep.    However, that 30 k gp is probably more cash than he could spend in his lifetime.



> *snip*
> 
> Overall, I don't think 3E is bad -- I like it actually.  But it isn't a sword and sorcery game anymore --




In your experience.  In my experience, it is far more Sword and Sorcery than 1e ever was where I had groups flogging dozens of magic swords at every opportunity.



> it is a different kind of fantasy, in its own genre.  It is also much more a player's game, which can (depending on the players) lead to a sense of entitlement on the part of players, where gear and levelling is *the* fun part of the game, instead of the play itself.  it is kind of a reverse of 1E, which was a GM's game which could lead to powermongering, killer DMs who overcontrolled their games and their players.
> 
> But, as Gary writes in the 1E DMG, dealing with problem DMs is a whole lot easier than dealing with problem players: all you have to do is walk.  The section on dealing with problem players is a lot longer and a lot more compromising.  Even Gary knew that without players there was no DM, and only suggested booting players if they were really, really disruptive.




See, now this is something else I completely disagree with.  Players are a dime a dozen.  I know right now that I could boot my entire group (not that I would, it's taken me a while to build the group I have and I'm very, very happy with them) and have an entirely new group next week.  I've become far more trigger happy booting players in the past few years because of this realization.  I shopped around quite a bit and finally settled on six very golden players whose playstyles mesh nicely with mine.  

Talk about player entitlement.  As a DM, I should bend over backwards to keep a player at my table?  Good luck.  There was a time when I might have done that.  Now?  Nope.  I make no bones or pretenses about how my game is played and what I'm willing to compromise about and what I'm not.  If a player doesn't like that, that's fine.  There's other DM's.  

Life's far to short to cater to problem players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> "Wow DM, sorry we intruded on your little power play. We'll just have Bob run from now on."




"Alrighty then.  Should I email Bob my Flumph-Touched Half-Dragon Warforged Ninja?"


----------



## dcas (Mar 28, 2007)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> I've got no beef about declaring the MM (and all monster and adventure related books) off limits but half of the DMG is rules that the players should know about, or at least it would help if the players understood.  I routinely look stuff up in the DMG while the GM is running in the background just to make sure we are playing correctly.  We try to offload as much work amongst the players as possible to make it non-brain-straining for everyone involved.



I fully agree that the GM should offload as much work as possible onto the players. That said, if that requires the players to look in the DMG while at the table, then (IMHO) the game is just too complicated for players or GMs or both. YMMV.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 28, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Now, obviously you can't have an adventure built around every single item the party comes across.



why not? 

diaglo "in it for the long haul" Ooi


----------



## hong (Mar 28, 2007)

So! Who wants to talk about Achilles?


----------



## Henry (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> See, now this is something else I completely disagree with.  Players are a dime a dozen.  I know right now that I could boot my entire group (not that I would, it's taken me a while to build the group I have and I'm very, very happy with them) and have an entirely new group next week.  I've become far more trigger happy booting players in the past few years because of this realization.  I shopped around quite a bit and finally settled on six very golden players whose playstyles mesh nicely with mine.




That fact drops my jaw for two reasons: (1) Your circumstances vastly differ from mine, and I'd wager a lot of other gamers. There just aren't that many gaming groups running around, and you've lucked out with a area of huge gamer concentration. (2) The players I have are friends first, and gamers second. They're one of the reasons I have my old cliche, "best day fishing is worse than a bad day gaming." Because we still cut up and have a ball doing something else even if the game doesn't turn out. Their playstyles don't mesh perfectly with mine, but we work it out because we're friends first, and want to game together.

Not only wouldn't I boot them for different expectations, I don't think I could, and find a new group at the drop of a hat, and I suspect most people can't, either. It would seem to play to work with the players more than to pick and choose until you had enough to game with.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 28, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Here's my response: "Dear players, as you have correctly pointed out, you are currently well behind the "wealth by level" guidelines in the DMG.  However, you are so vastly ahead of the "whiny little crybaby" guidelines that everything balances out.  Sincerely, the D-fn-M."




"Dear DM, the only one who's been able to damage mosters in months is my wizard, and if he couldn't teleport, we'd've had TPKs three weeks in a row. As it is, Fred's on his third fighter, Jane quit the game because her thief never found any treasure, and Steve's cleric can't even think about preparing spells other than healing spells because we're taking way too much damage. So if you're not going to give us by-the-book treasure, could you stop throwing by-the-book encounters at us? Thanks."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Just looking at your examples, I think we need to distinguish between:
> * Magic was more mysterious, and
> * Magic was more random.
> 
> Random doesn't mean mysterious. Casting _prismatic spray_ was random, not mysterious. I tend to feel the same about the potion miscibility tables. When they could be mysterious was when the players didn't know about them.





Please recall that potion miscability was brought up not to discus mystery (or Sense of Wonder   ) but simply to demonstrate that there was (and is) inherent to the RAW a level of unpredictability.

As far as mystery goes, I for one have no more problem with that in 3.X than in 1e, although in order to achieve that end in either case Rule 0 must be adhered to.  A player going into a 1e game received very clear direction that the DM could change the rules, and that _anything_ might happen within a game of D&D.  A player going into a 3.5 game recieves very clear direction that he should encounter foes within CR X-Y range, after and during which he will gain Z gp worth of reward.  

One setup is simply more conducive to mystery (be it related to magic, monsters, and what might happen) than the other.  Obviously, a 3e game can have the same elements as a 1e game, but the rulebooks themselves do not prepare the players for the game in the same way.

Throwing cosmetic effects onto an item can quite easily make players view the item as more mysterious, btw.  The _+2 keen ghost-touch scythe_ that was found on a Medium-sized, albino goblin, and that makes its user's skin and hair begin to pale IMC was quickly regarded as a potent unknown simply _because it was an unknown_.  I.e., it was not predictable technology when the players found it because it had unexpected effects that, while themselves were knowable, were unknown to the players (and implied the existence of other unknowns).

RC


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 28, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> If you'd like to point to me where it says in the 3.5 DMG that the DM doesn't control the game, and it gives anything except guidelines and leaves the final choice up to the DM, I'd really LOVE to see that.
> 
> Otherwise, no, rule 0 is still VERY much in play.




If I'm not mistaken, Rule Zero is no longer defined in the 3.5 DMG.  That's what I was referring to.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Bravo!
> 
> Then you are following what the rules tell you to do.




Not that anyone seems to have noticed, but in the majority of post #349 you incorrectly attributed howandwhy99's comments to me.  I did not say these things.  Your first two quotes in that post were correctly attributed to me.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Your 4th level PC's fought an EL 9 encounter and aren't dead.  You have far larger problems in your game than players whinging about lack of treasure.  I'm sorry that's harsh, but, there's something seriously wrong with a party getting through an encounter that tough and no one dying.




No, I don't have "far larger problems".  I have players who are good at tactics (they put themselves in a tight place to control how many attackers could hit them at once), teamwork (the clerics stayed behind the front liners, healing as was necessary -- and totally blowing through their spells/day doing so), and creative problem solving (the rogue put himself at great risk to hit the ettin and then avoid getting squashed by it to further control the battlefield).  So no, I am not a poor DM as you so blantantly implied.  I have good players who should be rewarded for their efforts.  It is just that the rewards inherent in 3E are entirely too high, both in XP and in expected treasure.



> Why?  From their point of view, they did the work and didn't reap the benefits.  What's the point of whacking the monsters if you have pocket lint to show for it afterwards.  This sounds more like a lack of communication problem than anything else.




Or, it could be that they weren't satified with the 14K worth of treasure they did get from the trove, because when it is divided up between the PCs and compared to the "wealth by level" chart, they found it lacking.





> However, that 30 k gp is probably more cash than he could spend in his lifetime.




Unless he had to pay 1500 gp per week per level to train, as is suggested.




> In your experience.  In my experience, it is far more Sword and Sorcery than 1e ever was where I had groups flogging dozens of magic swords at every opportunity.




I think we have very different definitions of sword and sorcery.




> See, now this is something else I completely disagree with.  Players are a dime a dozen.  I know right now that I could boot my entire group (not that I would, it's taken me a while to build the group I have and I'm very, very happy with them) and have an entirely new group next week.  I've become far more trigger happy booting players in the past few years because of this realization.  I shopped around quite a bit and finally settled on six very golden players whose playstyles mesh nicely with mine.




I live in the north east, where finding players is not so easy.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, if I have the concept at 1st level, it's ok to pick and choose my magic goodies, but, if I change my mind and want to change concepts, I'm SOL?




I will work with a player whose initial character concept at 1st level involves a quest for their mentor’s staff of power (actual case in my C&C campaign).  I may also be willing to work with a player who decides during the campaign that they want their PC to quest for their father's vorpal sword, now wielded by the demon overlord.  
I also recall in one game starting an Elric-ish PC, a prince of a degenerate pre-human race, off with a powerful item resembling the Actorios Ring, able to summon and command elementals, demons et al.  What I will never ever do is agree that a player is _entitled_ to a vorpal sword or a staff of power just because they decide in the middle of the campaign that they want one.   Nor will I pay much heed to a player whose sole concept is “I’m totally bad-ass, dude” –  if they can play a bad-ass and make it enjoyable for me to GM, that’s great.  But there is no entitlement.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Quoted very, very much for troof!  If the only source of mystery in your game comes from the opacity of the rules, then, perhaps a bit of brushing up on DMing skills is in order.




Agreed.  However, it is equally true that the opacity of the rules, by definition, influence the degree of mystery of the game.



> Umm, well, of course you are breaking RAW to do this.  The aren't any doors, or even any substances in RAW that is immune to all kinds of force.  So what?  Rule 0 is your friend and it appears in the first pages of the DMG.  You want an unbeatable door?  The rules will back your play.




Sorry, but this confuses me.  Do the rules back you (i.e., you are following the RAW)?  Or are you breaking the RAW?  I would say that the existence of Rule 0 (in any edition) implies that _no matter what she does, the DM cannot break the RAW_.


----------



## Numion (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Obviously, not a student of logic.
> 
> To disprove the claim "All birds fly" requires that one can example a bird that does not fly.  Once this is the case, the claim is disproven.  It doesn't mean or imply the opposite (that all birds do not fly).




Obviously, one flew over the cuckoos nest in your case   



> (1)  Potion miscability,
> (2)  Random-effect items, such as wands of wonder and bags of beans,
> (3)  The variable (and otherwise unknown) elements involved in item creation (not a feature of 3.X),
> (4)  That magic items can, and do, exist that replicate otherwise unknown effects (without being artifacts),
> ...




3E adventures by Dungeon and WotC include new magic items with non-standard effects. It's clearly possible within 3E. That quashes #3, because the items are outside of the creation rules in 3E. So you're still left with your awesome display of mystery with just point #1, because the other numbers in your list are obviously present in 3E. (I'll give you a pointer: Rod of Wonder, for example, fits #4)



> Even if the rule was that there was "only" a 1% chance of something truly bad happening to you when you used magic (say, because the item was cursed, or because the DM thought that a _sword of wonder_ was a good idea, where it goes off, wand-like, whenever you roll a 1), that would tend to make it something other than a "predictable technology" in the way those words are generally used.
> 
> It would also make you think twice about the next glowing sword that you saw.  A little unpredictability goes a long way.
> 
> The real-life equivilent would be that, every time you drove a car, there was a 1% (or higher) chance that the car might turn out to be Christine (from the Stephen King novel of the same name).  I doubt that auto sales would skyrocket as a result.  I doubt that this would be considered "predictable technology" by the average consumer.




There _is_ a chance of "something truly bad happening to you" (your words from above quote) every time you drive a car. You might crash, for example. It doesn't make driving cars mysterious. It's still a predictable technology.



> Bet, you are obviously also visiting Bizarro Land.  Enjoy your stay.




Everytime I log onto ENWorld. You wouldn't believe the kind of bozos I encounter there


----------



## diaglo (Mar 28, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken, Rule Zero is no longer defined in the 3.5 DMG.  That's what I was referring to.



i think it is in the PHB for the revised edition.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Jemal said:
			
		

> He PROBABLY meant that there's no listed substance like that, not that it would be impossible to make...
> Although, I must point something out in regards to this :
> 
> I'd like to just say something i read somewhere "The rules don't say I can't isn't good enough reason to state that chopping down a tree gives you five levels."  I've never ANYWHERE seen it specifically listed that trees are NOT a CR 20 encounter.
> ...





But surely something doesn't _*break*_ the RAW unless it violates what is WRITTEN.  Right?


----------



## PallidPatience (Mar 28, 2007)

It's never spelled out, but changing the rules is addressed in the 3.5 DMG. Do you know what it says? Think carefully, pay attention to what the change implies about the resulting world, and never do it "just because". In other words, always have a reason, and make sure it won't break the system. 

And as for "why not adventure for every single magic item..." Because I don't want to play Diablo 2 when I sit down to play D&D. I don't want to have to hunt down a simple magic weapon, or a piece of armor, or a pair of gloves. I want to get on with the story. I don't want the game to be about the equipment. Therefore, I want the equipment to just be there, so I can say, "Well, that's done. Now, let's deal with what's threatening the kingdom."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Rules always changed between groups, regardless of edition or game.  But the 1E DMG is very clear: you don't change core rules because the assumption was that players would take their characters with them to new games and campaigns with different DMs.  What was the province of each DM was everything else -- including making new stuff (items, monsters, etc...)





Quote that one for me, because that isn't what MY copy of the DMG says.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Life's far to short to cater to problem players.




QFT....also true that life's too short to play in a game where you're unhappy with the DM.   

I've never understood why anyone would play in a game they were unhappy with, or DM for players they gained no pleasure from DMing.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 28, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> "Dear DM, the only one who's been able to damage mosters in months is my wizard, and if he couldn't teleport, we'd've had TPKs three weeks in a row. As it is, Fred's on his third fighter, Jane quit the game because her thief never found any treasure, and Steve's cleric can't even think about preparing spells other than healing spells because we're taking way too much damage. So if you're not going to give us by-the-book treasure, could you stop throwing by-the-book encounters at us? Thanks."




So you assume that because the DM is not giving out the "by-the-book" wealth that he is therefore and inept Killer DM?

Every post like this is just another nail in the 3E coffin as far as I'm concerned.  The game evidently tries to ensure that your campaign is run by a multi-million dollar corporation, instead of by a human being.  Why not just replace the DM with a cardboard standee of some faceless suit from Hasbro?

Maybe, as a human being, the DM possesses more _prudence_ than some lifeless game manual, and furthermore since he is responsible for how the game turns out, maybe he should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to wealth "guidelines" and other decisions that affect the course of the game?

This "consumer model" is evidently more infectious than I thought.  Obviously Hasbro has been using a business Poke-model: if you want the kewl power-ups for your character you have to buy an endless stream of hardcovers which have all the latest killer combos.  You can even (PHB2) rewrite your character to retroactively incorporate new combo items that you may have missed - thereby ensuring that you buy all the books!  Your character is _deprived_ unless he has all the latest, greatest Magical Sharper Image Toys and super extra special foil rare limited edition Feats.  Your character is really your Consumer Avatar... so it would be evil of the DM to deprive you of the latest expensive gizmos!  And speaking of consumerism: you want to make sure, since we at Hasbro have everything so scientifically balanced for your easy consumption, that your DM is using only a Corporate-Approved Campaign Model.  After all, you don't want your access to power-ups limited and we don't want our Brand Identity associated with inferior and unscientific forms of creativity.  If your DM tries to get creative, show him in the book that he's wrong!

Well, it sure is a good thing that 3E did away with that terrible bogeyman of "adversarial" player-DM relations.  I can't believe what a tyrant I was in the old, pre-corporate days.  I wonder why I never got many complaints?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> 3E adventures by Dungeon and WotC include new magic items with non-standard effects. It's clearly possible within 3E. That quashes #3, because the items are outside of the creation rules in 3E.




Um...did you read #3?  #3 was about the Item Creation Rules, not about what those rules could be used to create.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> That fact drops my jaw for two reasons: (1) Your circumstances vastly differ from mine, and I'd wager a lot of other gamers. There just aren't that many gaming groups running around, and you've lucked out with a area of huge gamer concentration. (2) The players I have are friends first, and gamers second. They're one of the reasons I have my old cliche, "best day fishing is worse than a bad day gaming." Because we still cut up and have a ball doing something else even if the game doesn't turn out. Their playstyles don't mesh perfectly with mine, but we work it out because we're friends first, and want to game together.
> 
> Not only wouldn't I boot them for different expectations, I don't think I could, and find a new group at the drop of a hat, and I suspect most people can't, either. It would seem to play to work with the players more than to pick and choose until you had enough to game with.




The advantages to playing online.    I live in an area where there are zero gamers.  So, I tried OpenRPG.  It's been a very good thing for me.  OTOH, I haven't played with friends, or rather people I associate with outside of the game, in years.  I have the people I game with and I have the people I don't game with.  I consider both to be friends, but, they are generally not the same people.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> Agreed. However, it is equally true that the opacity of the rules, by definition, influence the degree of mystery of the game.




I disagree.  While I may not know the mechanics of how to build an airplane, or even the exact physics that keeps it in the air, that doesn't make airplanes particularly mystical after the tenth time I've seen one.  Sure, it might have been the first time, and maybe the second, but, after a fairly short period of time, the mystery wears off.  Same goes for magic items.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> No, I don't have "far larger problems". I have players who are good at tactics (they put themselves in a tight place to control how many attackers could hit them at once), teamwork (the clerics stayed behind the front liners, healing as was necessary -- and totally blowing through their spells/day doing so), and creative problem solving (the rogue put himself at great risk to hit the ettin and then avoid getting squashed by it to further control the battlefield). So no, I am not a poor DM as you so blantantly implied. I have good players who should be rewarded for their efforts. It is just that the rewards inherent in 3E are entirely too high, both in XP and in expected treasure.




But, you didn't reward the players for their efforts.  You deliberately shortchanged them.  The expected treasure is far less than it was in 1e.  A 7th level PC should have about 19 k worth of goodies.  That's just about half what you expected from a 1e character.  Granted, the xp award is higher, but, that's because they didn't get 14k xp for the gold you gave them.



> Or, it could be that they weren't satified with the 14K worth of treasure they did get from the trove, because when it is divided up between the PCs and compared to the "wealth by level" chart, they found it lacking.




Well, for that single encounter, they should have gotten about 4500 gp, so I'm assuming you had more encounters.  

Hang on a tick.  The difference between 4th and 5th in terms of wealth is about 3600 gp.  That would put your wealth by level at exactly dead on, and perhaps a tad high.  Point to the RAW and tell your players to shut it.   



> Unless he had to pay 1500 gp per week per level to train, as is suggested.




You realize you only pay that once right?  When you level up?



> I think we have very different definitions of sword and sorcery.




No, I don't think so.  S&S fiction is very magic item light and is usually far darker than standard heroic fantasy.  Since my 1e days were characterized by going through modules and walking out with three page long lists of magic items yoinked from the dungeon, I would say that, for me, 1e was about the polar opposite to sword and sworcery fiction.  Add to that the fact that most of the people I played with never played humans and, yup, 1e was miles away from S&S fiction for me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Everytime I log onto ENWorld. You wouldn't believe the kind of bozos I encounter there




I find most of the people on EN World to be interesting, thoughtful, and often insightful.  The number of people that I wouldn't game with on this Forum (that I know of) I can count on one hand.

Very, very few bozos (or Bizarros) IME.

Then again, there aren't many people that argue that something was up to DM Fiat in one thread, argue the same thing is utterly predictable in another thread, and fail to see where their so-called logic leads one to believe that they are arguing simply to be contrary (or are, themselves, irrational).

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I disagree.  While I may not know the mechanics of how to build an airplane, or even the exact physics that keeps it in the air, that doesn't make airplanes particularly mystical after the tenth time I've seen one.  Sure, it might have been the first time, and maybe the second, but, after a fairly short period of time, the mystery wears off.  Same goes for magic items.





Where X is a set that contains items that perform only function Y, familiarity with X and Y will naturally remove any sense of mystery that accompanies X and Y (at least as they relate to each other).

Where X is an infinite set of items that performs infinite functions Y, no amount of familiarity with examples of set X and Y will produce familiarity with X and Y as a group.

Where the range of possibilities in sets X and Y is somewhere between a monoset and an infinite set, the amount of familiarity with examples of items and effects in sets X and Y will reduce the amount of mystery inherent in sets X and Y in direct proportion to the amount that sets X and Y resemble a monoset, and in opposite proportion to the degree to which sets X and Y resemble an infinite set.


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 28, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Every post like this is just another nail in the 3E coffin as far as I'm concerned.  The game evidently tries to ensure that your campaign is run by a multi-million dollar corporation, instead of by a human being.  Why not just replace the DM with a cardboard standee of some faceless suit from Hasbro?




I agree with this statement. It's the problem with 3.X and gaming forums across the net these days. For some reason that I cannot fathom, players are being elevated to be the arbitrators of what goes on in the game. That is such BS.

The DM is the final arbitrator of what happens in game or the game world. Just because one guy decides to be a paladin doesn't mean that the character will find or be rewarded with a holy avanger. Same goes for the wizard and a staff of power, for example.

The DM is the one who has final say. The players are there to have a fun game in a social setting, and to play the story that the DM has created. Thats how gaming groups have been for last last 30 years so why is that that 3.X (and  WotC) has tried to turn it around and make the DM the little guy?

I bite my tongue on this every time I see it on ENWorld just for the sake of not starting an argument or being jumped on. This thread has shown that too many players have come to expect that they can have what they want.

So what if your party is below the expected wealth level, so long as the game is fun and enjoyable. Try it sometime.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, you didn't reward the players for their efforts.  You deliberately shortchanged them.  The expected treasure is far less than it was in 1e.  A 7th level PC should have about 19 k worth of goodies.  That's just about half what you expected from a 1e character.  Granted, the xp award is higher, but, that's because they didn't get 14k xp for the gold you gave them.





Those statements imply that the players are _entitled_ to a certain amount of treasure, and that anything less than the "expected amount" means "you deliberately shortchanged them".  The implication is that the players are right to be mad if they're "shortchanged".  That sort of statement drips with player entitlement.

It is this sort of thinking, IMHO, that is detrimental to the game as a whole.  YMMV, and probably does.

As for what you would expect from a 7th level 1e characters, I suppose we could total up the gp value of items from 7th level example PCs in various modules to determine what was "normal" (within the context of TSR, at least).


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 28, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken, Rule Zero is no longer defined in the 3.5 DMG.  That's what I was referring to.




Pedantic. Rule Zero was never in the DMG. It is in the PHB.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 28, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> So you assume that because the DM is not giving out the "by-the-book" wealth that he is therefore and inept Killer DM?




I assume that if he's not giving by-the-book wealth and the players aren't fine with it, then there's probably a reason. And it's probably not 'the players are munchkin powergamers', it's probably 'the DM likes low magic item games but hasn't adjusted the rest of the world accordingly', since it's mind-bogglingly easy to get balance out of whack when running low magic item D&D at anything beyond extreme low levels, and most players are not munchkin powergamers.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, for that single encounter, they should have gotten about 4500 gp, so I'm assuming you had more encounters.




Right.  I used the trove to cover a few encounters that didn't provide treasure, for the express purpose of trying the get the PCs closer to where they should be for their level.  When I designed the adventure and put the loot in, though, I hadn't quite realized how much XP they were actually going to get for the encounters (since I think CR/EL is horribly innaccurate anyway, I design encounters with the players' and PCs' capabilities in mind, not what the CR or EL is).



> Hang on a tick.  The difference between 4th and 5th in terms of wealth is about 3600 gp.  That would put your wealth by level at exactly dead on, and perhaps a tad high.  Point to the RAW and tell your players to shut it.




Part of the problem is that the players threw away their reward by ditching the McGuffin, which will have put them back a step once they get back to "civilization".



> You realize you only pay that once right?  When you level up?




Right, but you pay it every time you level.  So when the first level fighter goes up to level 2 (let's assume *all* of his XP came from treasure, for sake of argument) he has to pay 1500 of his 2000 gp to level.  When he hits 3rd (assuming he didn't spend anything else in the interim) he has to pay 3000 gp of his 2500 gp -- oops, time to borrow some money from the cleric!



> No, I don't think so.  S&S fiction is very magic item light and is usually far darker than standard heroic fantasy.  Since my 1e days were characterized by going through modules and walking out with three page long lists of magic items yoinked from the dungeon, I would say that, for me, 1e was about the polar opposite to sword and sworcery fiction.  Add to that the fact that most of the people I played with never played humans and, yup, 1e was miles away from S&S fiction for me.




I do not have much (any, really) experience with 1E modules.  When I played it back in the day, my brother was the DM and he made his own adventures.  I do the same now.  Going by both the probabilities and advice in the 1E DMG, there is far, far less magic in a 1E world than the 3E one -- and high level characters are not super-heroes, and magic is much less certain, and old stanbys never go out of style or have to get "levelled' up to be used later on.  That, to me, is much more S&S and 3E is.

3E is a different kind of fantasy (so was 2E, btw -- 2E was a Tolkien pastiche as much as 1E was a Conan pastiche -- presence of elves and dwarves in both editions notwithstanding).  3E is a cool game that has a very distinct, high fantasy, high action feel to it.  What I am saying is that taking it back to a S&S game requires so much work, it isn't D&D 3.x anymore.  Why else would mongoose's Conan RPG be oft hailed as the right way to do S&S with the d20 rules?


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 28, 2007)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Absolutely right. The difference between LotR and D&D is that in D&D everyone and his brother seems to have magic items. In LotR I doubt anyone in the Shire had a magic item (not counting Bilbo or Frodo since they are the protagonists of the tale).
> The elves have them in spades but they are an ancient breed and seperate from the rest of the world by choice. Thats their mysticism.




And a LotRized campaign in which magic was rare, and mysterious would probably be fun too. But it isn't a campaign that would be very easy to replicate with any version of D&D as the rules are written. I can think of some other RPG systems that would probably work well (GURPS, for example), but they have different baseline assumptions than any edition of D&D has ever had.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> EDIT:  Of course, for those in Bizarro Land, "No it isn't; and the Earth is flat too!" seems to make a pretty Stern Rebuttal.




I think that you don't actually understand what "Bizarro" means.

When your argument is "The rules say X", and the rules say exactly the opposite, it pretty much destroys your point when someone says "the rules don't work the way you say they do". Thus far, your track record on 1e rules mechanics isn't very good.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I do not have much (any, really) experience with 1E modules.  When I played it back in the day, my brother was the DM and he made his own adventures.  I do the same now.  Going by both the probabilities and advice in the 1E DMG, there is far, far less magic in a 1E world than the 3E one -- and high level characters are not super-heroes, and magic is much less certain, and old stanbys never go out of style or have to get "levelled' up to be used later on.  That, to me, is much more S&S and 3E is.




If you used the treasure types listed in the 1e MM, the players would usually be rolling in magic items by the time they were mid-level.


----------



## PallidPatience (Mar 28, 2007)

Dragonlancer said:
			
		

> The players are there to have a fun game in a social setting, and to play the story that the DM has created.




If they are not having fun, they can leave. Or they can petition the DM to change the elements of the game that are not fun so that they can. If this includes how much treasure is released, why shouldn't they state their complaints? Oh, yeah. Because it's "dishonorable" to complain or to leave, as stated by another poster earlier. Well, I don't play to be "honorable". I play for fun. I'll choose fun over anything else. And if the DM doesn't state up front what the expectations for the campaign are going to be, I'm going to assume the baseline values. Why? Because they're the baseline.

Stop thinking about them like they're restraints. Do you know what the guidelines do for you? They give you a starting point for customisation. They're not to be upheld in every campaign. Having default values merely gives you the chance to tell your players definitively "THIS is how my campaign is different". If you don't say that, don't expect anyone to know it, and expect players to be annoyed. I'd be irritated if I was led to believe the game would be one kind and it led to another. Not letting them know the commonality of magic items is, in this case, like telling them "we'll all be pirates!" and then grounding their ship for a huge "explore the dangerous, uncharted continent" story arch. If a DM told me, when I let him know that he'd completely missed the expectations I have for the game, to shut up, that it's his game, and it doesn't matter what I say, I would probably just leave. But I might hit him, first, because that's my first urge to people who are such s. 

In short, the guidelines give you a baseline for expectations, so you know how to tell the player to change theirs if they want to play. Letting the players know how the world works up front should be the baseline for any DM, anyway, since in most cases, the players are playing characters native to the world. The possible trade of magic items (or lack thereof) would be common enough knowledge, I'm sure, for ADVENTURERS to pick up on it. There are always rumours, if nothing else.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 28, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And a LotRized campaign in which magic was rare, and mysterious would probably be fun too. But it isn't a campaign that would be very easy to replicate with any version of D&D as the rules are written. I can think of some other RPG systems that would probably work well (GURPS, for example), but they have different baseline assumptions than any edition of D&D has ever had.




I don't see why it would be hard to run LotR with Classic.  Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit racial classes already built around the Tolkien tropes... everybody else is a Fighter or a Thief.  Elves cast spontaneously and Elven Lords (Name level) can also use spells from the Cleric list (except Raise Dead).  Wood Elves don't cast magic but get some extra bonuses (bow stuff probably); easy to draw that up as a separate class.  Regular Clerics don't exist, and regular Magic-Users are extremely rare (the Mouth of Sauron is the only one I can think of offhand); the Istari are a special class (easy to draw up).  Everything else pretty much goes by the book.

The Fellowship has several high level Fighter types (Aragorn, Boromir and Gimli) who get access to the Smash attack [Mentzer]... -5 to hit and add your Str score to damage.  Lots of one-hit takedowns.  Legolas probably has some kind of "Elf Archer" move that does the same thing but lets him add his Dex to damage instead.  Voila!  Instant Tolkien.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> When your argument is "The rules say X", and the rules say exactly the opposite, it pretty much destroys your point when someone says "the rules don't work the way you say they do". Thus far, your track record on 1e rules mechanics isn't very good.





Quote 'em up, then.


EDIT:  I certainly accept MerricB as an authority on what various rules editions actually say, as I would say his knowledge is pretty darn encyclopedic & I have yet to see him err substatially (if at all).  (Note that I don't always agree with the conclusions he draws from the material, merely that his knowledge of the material is impressive.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I don't see why it would be hard to run LotR with Classic.  Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit racial classes already built around the Tolkien tropes... everybody else is a Fighter or a Thief.  Elves cast spontaneously and Elven Lords (Name level) can also use spells from the Cleric list (except Raise Dead).  Wood Elves don't cast magic but get some extra bonuses (bow stuff probably); easy to draw that up as a separate class.  Regular Clerics don't exist, and regular Magic-Users are extremely rare (the Mouth of Sauron is the only one I can think of offhand); the Istari are a special class (easy to draw up).  Everything else pretty much goes by the book.
> 
> The Fellowship has several high level Fighter types (Aragorn, Boromir and Gimli) who get access to the Smash attack [Mentzer]... -5 to hit and add your Str score to damage.  Lots of one-hit takedowns.  Legolas probably has some kind of "Elf Archer" move that does the same thing but lets him add his Dex to damage instead.  Voila!  Instant Tolkien.





Yep.  Pretty durn easy for most = Impossible in Bizarro Land.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Voc: We are talking past each other.  Or at least, I know I'm talking past you and in my experience that's usually a two way street.  One last try, and then we'll just have to agree to disagree.



I don't think we are really. I think we agree on many points, but that I think the rules allow all these playstyles whereas you present that somehow these other play styles are flawed compared to the way you customized your campaign.




> And my point is that you don't need that word 'just'.  It's a qualifier, and its a subjective qualifier.  It implies that they have an inferior quality.  I agree that no matter what, these gloves are still gloves.  I don't agree with the 'just'.  Once you get rid of the 'just', the whole way of looking at things changes.



The word "just" fits, because there is no mystique to Gauntlets of Ogre Power in most campaigns, and never has been. Are the players happy to now have 18/00 strength? most certainly. Does it make a difference if the item is Gaunlets of Ogre Power, or  Boots of Heavy Lifting? In the vast majority of cases, no. The player will remember he has 18/00 strength, but the gaunlets themselves are nothing more than a venue. If you make the item "more" by detailing the background and building a story around them, and do the same with every magic item that the players have, then the gauntlets will still most likely lose their mystique and return to the status of "reason I have strength".

Unless of course you're building the Gauntlet/Girdle/ Hammer setup of course. 





> They are freaking gauntlets of ogre power!!!  Gauntlets of ogre power!!!  No mystique to gauntlets of ogre power!?!?!  I do not want to play in your games.



Probably not. I don't make a big deal about inconsequential items. I also don't have 15 minutes of backstory every time the Magic User casts Magic Missile.


You know, in previous editions, we didn't wonder why wizards made powerful items. We wondered why they made the weak stuff. The rules were so nebulous that it seemed the same effort to make a +1 sword as to make a +5 sword.





> I don't have to invent one.  It's called story-telling.



Here we do seem to be talking across one another, as I'm refering to actually changing the item, vs adding to a story where the item remains the same. One is rules based, one is storytelling.







> You do know that a rule is a restriction?  Without rules you can do anything.  Customizing things is actually harder in 3.X than in earlier editions.  It takes more work, and there are restrictions in what you can do if you want to maintain the structure.  That isn't to say that the results might not be more satisfying 3.X, but don't imagine that the DM has more options to customize items, monsters, and the like than he had before.



Again, you're crossing things up here. 3.5 is a lot easier for a player to customize things, as there ARE rules he can assume are in place. In earlier editions, the DM adjudicated such things and the random factor was so nebulous as to make it more of a bargaining process with the DM rather than a player crafting something he wanted.


As DM, the power to "customize" things was all based on the DM's will in earlier editions, and there is no way a ruleset can prohibit the DM from customizing his game, so it's the same in 3.5. 3.5 does give guidelines for power balancing and such, but if the DM wants to throw a CR5 monster at his first level PC's, he can do it. (or he can just run a Necromancer module. 





> 3.5 has certainly not made magic items more customizable than any previous edition, and I am most certainly not complaining that about the power to create items being available to the PC's.  If you think that, you aren't hearing me.



In the core rules a player can customize his magic items by adding powers to retain the Masterwork sword he started with. This wasn't a core rule in previous editions. They've also added customization options such as Weapons of Legacy, Ancestral Relic, Kensai, etc.

I think you're saying that items aren't as customizable because the options are presented, and somehow that limits the player. I disagree, since in previous editions the options were not presented at all, and that limited the player a lot more. Now we at least have a baseline before having to stray into DM Fiat land.






> If I create a new magic item, it in no ways alters the rules.  If I create a new monster it in no way alters the rules.  I can do all sorts of customization without touching the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?  I mean, yes, as a matter of fact I'm not using the rules as written, but if I was, it wouldn't preclude me customizing my game in different ways.




I'm not saying that customizing the game and changing rules to fit the game are in any way wrong. I regard them as required for most things, otherwise we wouldn't need teh DM as referee. If you create a new system for making magic items scaleable or otherwise useful throughout a career, at least in previous editions, then you're customizing/houseruling and while that's fine, it is a change.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Imp said:
			
		

> I dunno, man, 18/00 strength was a pretty big whopping bit of mystique to me I tell you what.  But then, the highest I ever got in 1e was like 10th level and that dude was a thief.  Some of you sound like you got to play with all kinds of stuff – best things I ever found were like a frostbrand, magic boomerangs (totally made up), and flying carpets.  Vorpal swords?  Pssh.  I wished.




I'm not sure how long you were in the game, so hard to say. It also depended on how much free time you had at the time of course...

But, we played a lot. We had lots of characters over lots of games. We had "iconic" characters for each of us that went well into triple digit levels. The most fun was a dragonlance group who stopped around 16th level. (That one had the only time I've seen the Gauntlets/ belt/ hammer grouping, in the hands of a minotaur barbarian.)

We had lots of free time, lots of imagination, we had different campaigns so we could play something when only certain players showed. (i.e. we had a Campaign for A,B,C,D and another campaign for A,C,D and another for A,B,C,E...)


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> My assumption is that there is a certain segment out there that operate under assumptions like, "Anything that is not explicitly allowed by the rules is implicitly forbidden."  Hense, they would suggest that since there is no substance in the core rules that has 300 hardness, that you would have to break the rules to have one.





I would posit that you are better off judging our discussion by our discussion, rather than bringing external baggage from past threads into it. No where have I said that adding stuff to the campaign is somehow wrong or limiting. I DO of course maintain that such things are straying from the baseline, and you might get complaints when the guy who got the Adamantine sword to slice through stuff is frustrated when he can't slice through your Unobtanium door. That's a seperate issue of course.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Pedantic. Rule Zero was never in the DMG. It is in the PHB.




Pedantic.  While not called "Rule Zero", the basic concept was pretty clearly written into the 1e DMG.

However, I certainly agree that "Rule 0" _belongs_ in the PHB.  Prominently.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I do find lack of mystery in rpgs to be a problem. My main issue is with the players knowing the monsters though. Magic items I see as being much more in the players purview, because the PCs carry them, use them all the time, it seems more appropriate that they should be a known quantity.




I would say there are magical item plot devices that should center around discovery and mystery when appropriate, but that such things should be rare and unique. Weapons of Legacy is good for this if it's not a central plot item.  The problem with this discussion is that folks seem unwilling to let any magic item be mundane. Elric had plenty of magic items on him, I'm sure, but only Stormbringer is noteworthy. It's not the idea that magic items can be mysterious, so much as that they all have to be.


For monsters, it's all in the description. I had a pair of xorns destroying a town, the party never saw them and fled from their presence. Mystery is easy to impart when needed. When Vasdenjas the Fiend Under The Whispering Rock popped out in tentacular glory, the party never knew I was using Marilith stats. (they were only like 6th level, so they'd probably have been just as afraid, but still.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Absolutely right. The difference between LotR and D&D is that in D&D everyone and his brother seems to have magic items. In LotR I doubt anyone in the Shire had a magic item (not counting Bilbo or Frodo since they are the protagonists of the tale).
> The elves have them in spades but they are an ancient breed and seperate from the rest of the world by choice. Thats their mysticism.




The shire is a low level area. The PC's don't have magic items there either. As they go further along, they encounter more magic and gain more themselves at a fair pace. The scale might be different (and the definition of what a magic item is, sometimes magic items could be just an enhanced item), but that seems like a typical pacing of a D&D adventure.


----------



## Pielorinho (Mar 28, 2007)

Two Moderator's Notes

1) I want to remind folks to keep things civil.  It's against the rules to insult people *even if you do it as part of a post complimenting someone else*.  It's against the rules *even if you're oblique about it*.  Civility, courtesy, and respect must be your guides if you would like to keep posting here.

2) I recently made a similar note in another thread; a few people ignored it, and then were outraged when they suffered temporary bans from the site or permanent bans from the thread.  Learn from their lesson:  when a moderator steps in reminding folks to stay civil, courteous, and polite, that means *everybody* needs to be on their very best behavior for the remainder of the thread.  Eggshells have been scattered, people--walk carefully! 

Daniel


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The problem with this discussion is that folks seem unwilling to let any magic item be mundane.





I don't think that anyone is saying that, either.    

Saying that magic has the potential to be something other than "predictable technology" -- and that this has always existed within D&D -- isn't the same as saying that every potion has to be a special snowflake.

"Magic items are not wondrous, and cannot be made to be so within the framework of the game" is an all-encompasing, extreme statement.  "Magic items _can be_ wondrous, and _can be_ something other than predictable technology" is not.

The first statement says that all things X (magic items) fall into category Y (predictable technology).  This is akin to the statement "All birds fly."  Saying that it is untrue that all things X fall into category Y does not imply that no things X can fall into category Y.  This is akin to the statement "Not all birds fly."

For the first statement to be true ("All birds fly.") it is necessary that the second statement is not true ("Not all birds fly.").  However, for the second statement to be true, the first statement can be true (but doesn't have to be true) by changing the "All" to "Some".  In otherwords, the second statement says that set X is larger than (but not necessarily exclusive of) category Y.

The acknowledgement that some items X fall outside of category Y carries with it the inherent proposition that knowing that an item is in set X doesn't mean that you know it is in category Y.  The degree to which category Y encomases set X partially determines how safe an assumption that X = Y is in any given case, as does the degree of potential consequences of being in error.

Magic in D&D (regardless of edition) can run in a spectrum from "X always equals Y" to "X sometimes equals Y".  The DM can forbid spellcasting classes (easier in earlier editions!), and change the casting rules, but I would argue that D&D _*never*_ includes the proposition "X never equals Y". 

RC


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> So you assume that because the DM is not giving out the "by-the-book" wealth that he is therefore and inept Killer DM?




TO be fair, my post and that one are not refering to the original DM's post. We're replying to your assertion that you can do whatever you want as "D-Fn-M" and telling them they're whiney. You went further than the original post, and we built off of that in rebuttal.

So, no, no one is assuming that the original is automatically a Killer DM, since hopefully he knows his group better than we do. (though, I've been in a campaign where the DM thought ambushing our sleeping 2nd level PC's with a CR6 encounter was "fair", so it's far from a sure thing. 

It certainly IS a possibility of course.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't think that anyone is saying that, either.
> 
> Saying that magic has the potential to be something other than "predictable technology" -- and that this has always existed within D&D -- isn't the same as saying that every potion has to be a special snowflake.




See, that's part of the problem though, because in this thread I've repeatedly asked about other items, and been told that all things are mysterious and special.


Even Gauntlets of Ogre power! 




> "Magic items are not wondrous, and cannot be made to be so within the framework of the game" is an all-encompasing, extreme statement.  "Magic items _can be_ wondrous, and _can be_ something other than predictable technology" is not.



The first part is in quotes, but it doesn't have attribution, so I'm not sure who made that assertion. We used wands of wonder in the game, we had a kender pull a sphere of annihilation from her pouch with a very odd set of rolls. We've had plenty of random.

I don't think that results in Mystery though, or Wonder, in regard to even the vast majority of items. I specifically disclaim that the rules ever made anything more mysterious or wondrous in the editions from my first box of D&D up to the latest books. The random factor was a much different thing than adding an air of story and mystery to an object.

It's easy to focus on Stormbringer and ignore that Elric's ancestral armor. He probably also had a real nice set of enchanted boots and such... not everything is important.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I don't see why it would be hard to run LotR with Classic.  Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit racial classes already built around the Tolkien tropes... everybody else is a Fighter or a Thief.  Elves cast spontaneously and Elven Lords (Name level) can also use spells from the Cleric list (except Raise Dead).  Wood Elves don't cast magic but get some extra bonuses (bow stuff probably); easy to draw that up as a separate class.  Regular Clerics don't exist, and regular Magic-Users are extremely rare (the Mouth of Sauron is the only one I can think of offhand); the Istari are a special class (easy to draw up).  Everything else pretty much goes by the book.
> 
> The Fellowship has several high level Fighter types (Aragorn, Boromir and Gimli) who get access to the Smash attack [Mentzer]... -5 to hit and add your Str score to damage.  Lots of one-hit takedowns.  Legolas probably has some kind of "Elf Archer" move that does the same thing but lets him add his Dex to damage instead.  Voila!  Instant Tolkien.




Yeah, this pretty well describes my B/X 'Duskmoon Hills' PBEM more or less precisely.    1981 B/X D&D  seems perfect for Tolkien; for one thing it doesn't give sale values for magic items!


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't think that anyone is saying that, either.




Actually, I'm saying it.  Or, at least, saying that it should be a perfectly viable way to play DnD. *Every* magic item can be unique, mysterious and special.  *Every* magic item can have a story and be more than its plusses.  *Every* magic item can make the game more magical and more fun.

Unless you let players get whatever they want, whenver they want -- via the magic shop handwave -- and then *every* character is going to have the same crap.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 28, 2007)

Is anyone in this thread arguing that artefacts are mundane? I haven't seen it if they have. But some people have certainly been arguing that +1 swords are special snowflakes.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> *Every* magic item can have a story and be more than its plusses.



Should it though? Surely that would only work in a low magic game, otherwise you'd have a heck of a lot of backstory to write.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Should it though? Surely that would only work in a low magic game, otherwise you'd have a heck of a lot of backstory to write.




Why not?  I mean, it isn't a +1 Sword.  it is Grimfang, blade of the Goblin King of Old, found beneath the offal of a wyrm that long ago decided to make the goblins' warren its lair.  It has been lost for hundreds of years, and now sits in the hands of the intrepid adventurers thatn defeated the foul dragon.  It happens to have a+1 enhancement bonus.

That took about 7 seconds.  I am sure more than a few people can pull a couple adventure ideas out of that description, to boot.


----------



## Numion (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Then again, there aren't many people that argue that something was up to DM Fiat in one thread, argue the same thing is utterly predictable in another thread, and fail to see where their so-called logic leads one to believe that they are arguing simply to be contrary (or are, themselves, irrational).




A system can be predictable - the DM using it doesn't have to. Rules and applying them are two different things. DM fiat exists always in greater or lesser quantities.

That's the basis for many many D&D adventures, for example. The DM decides that there's some world destroying magic coming about, say, someone is summoning an evil god. There's no spells for that in the system, yet I've run such an adventure (campaign, really).

That doesn't affect squat as to whether the D&D magic system, as written, was unpredictable or not. The bread and butter of the system, the spell lists and rules, magic item lists and rules, are very predictable in both editions. That makes the whole system quite predictable. 

There are exceptions, and you seem to put a lot of weight on those exceptions, but I consider them just that - exceptions. They're pretty rare too, so their effect on gameplay is minor. A telling sign is that one your strongest examples is the potion miscability table. How often is that going to happen, given that players can choose to ignore it completely _by not drinking two potions at the same time?_

Oh, and let me save you the trouble: bizarrobizarrobizarrolalalalaimnotlisteningtoyourargumentsfrombizarroworld


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 28, 2007)

There just doesn't seem much point to doing a big story behind a +1 sword. The effect of the item is too weak to justify it. If you did, you may as well do the same for a masterwork sword. Or a normal one. After all, any item could've had a famous owner or owners and much history.

If you're going to do that it would seem more appropriate to have a game where magic is rare but powerful when it does occur. No magic swords except +5 vorpals or artefacts. Those sorts of items are truly terrifying, they're like nuclear weapons, not sniper rifles.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by Doug McCrae
> > Should it though? Surely that would only work in a low magic game, otherwise you'd have a heck of a lot of backstory to write.
> 
> 
> ...




How many different stories can you come up with? How many times can famous warrior X kill villain Y and then disappear when they tried to do Z thousands of years ago.  Eventually those stories get old and mundane in-and-of themselves.

The next questions is 'how long before they get a +2 weapon?'  What is the point of having a backstory to a weapon they will only be using for five sessions?

Did you ever play the Baulder's Gate games?  If so, how long before you stopped reading the backstories to all of the magic weapons?  To me, they got old - really fast.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2007)

Re +1 swords - I do "This is the Wolf Sword, fashioned by the Wizard Lord Faolan for his chief of guards" or even just "This was forged by the dwarves" or "This was crafted by the master sorcerer-smiths of the Old Imarran Empire".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> See, that's part of the problem though, because in this thread I've repeatedly asked about other items, and been told that all things are mysterious and special.
> 
> 
> Even Gauntlets of Ogre power!




Sure, the gauntlets _can be_ mysterious.  That doesn't mean that they _have to be_.  I think the quote you are referring to had more to do with individual preference than an absolute statement that GoOP must be myseriously imbued with mystery-ness.      As I recall, it was an IF/THEN statement, as in "IF GoOP are not special in your game, THEN I don't want to play in your game."  Not the same thing as saying they _*must*_ be special in your game.



> The first part is in quotes, but it doesn't have attribution, so I'm not sure who made that assertion.




It is in quotes (rather than a QUOTE tag) to differentiate it from the rest of the text as a seperate phrase.  However, I am sure I could pull several equivilent quotes from this thread.

_I don't think that results in Mystery though, or Wonder, in regard to even the vast majority of items. I specifically disclaim that the rules ever made anything more mysterious or wondrous in the editions from my first box of D&D up to the latest books. The random factor was a much different thing than adding an air of story and mystery to an object._

I agree with you that story (and unique bennies/non-stat-related atmosphere bits) adds more to an item than random rolls.  OTOH, "randomness" and "predictability" are (as the words are normally used) opposites, and I brought up the random items in that context.



> It's easy to focus on Stormbringer and ignore that Elric's ancestral armor. He probably also had a real nice set of enchanted boots and such... not everything is important.




Don't forget his Muffler of Warmth, either.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 28, 2007)

the things about magic items is that their mechanical effects are factored into the assumed baseline for character power at certain levels.  This is what makes the plethora of magic items so crucial if you're running a fairly standard campaign, not being able to match the assumed baseline hurts the characters thus players want to at least hit the baseline.

If you want magic ITEMS to be special, you need to divorce the mechanical effects of the item from the item itself.  Incorporate the assumed baseline bonus normally seen through items into character progression as an inherent effect, then allow a reasonable discretionary amount of customizable magical doo-hickies to that.  Now the only sort of actual magic items you have left are the expendable stuff casters will want to make and artifacts.  Suddenly the proliferation of magic items ends, the characters are inherently magical and mostly they can just use whatever, its only magical for them.  When they encounter an item that is in and of itself inherently magical it will be more interesting because magic items are themselves less common and more unique.


----------



## jensun (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Don't forget his Muffler of Warmth, either.



At the risk of throwing the thread off on a bit of a tangent the Elric universe, much like Tolkien, was one with little in the way of magical gear.  I find a suggestion that Elric was wearing magic boots but Moorcock never bothered to mention them about as credible as saying Frodo was packing some Gloves of Dex.

As far as the original post goes, Magic Shops, in whatever form they might take, may or may not be appropriate for your particular game.

D&D, and  especially the earlier versions, doesnt have an overriding spirit.  Each game creates its own and magic shops will appear or not depending on that.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure, the gauntlets _can be_ mysterious.  That doesn't mean that they _have to be_.  I think the quote you are referring to had more to do with individual preference than an absolute statement that GoOP must be myseriously imbued with mystery-ness.      As I recall, it was an IF/THEN statement, as in "IF GoOP are not special in your game, THEN I don't want to play in your game."  Not the same thing as saying they _*must*_ be special in your game.



I think the two statements are closer than you make it out to be though. If Gauntlets of Ogre Power aren't special in my game, then my game isn't desireable to such a person. This extends to all magic items for some folks, though perhaps not for you.

You didn't say all magic items must be special, but others have. I havent' seen anyone suggest that NO magic item can be special. The "absolute" only seems to go one way.




> It is in quotes (rather than a QUOTE tag) to differentiate it from the rest of the text as a seperate phrase.  However, I am sure I could pull several equivilent quotes from this thread.



 I don't think anyone really meant that though is my point. It's just an extreme example of the opposite of what one side is saying, rather than being an accurate view of the opposing side.




> I agree with you that story (and unique bennies/non-stat-related atmosphere bits) adds more to an item than random rolls.  OTOH, "randomness" and "predictability" are (as the words are normally used) opposites, and I brought up the random items in that context.



True, but I do think there's a matter of degree. The idea is that even random items (such as a wand of wonder) were somewhat predictable because they always did the same range of things. You didn't swing a +1 longsword and consult a table to see if it exploded instead of doing damage to the enemy. There were specific items of unpredictability, vs "magic items" being unpredictable.

If you ever played in Dragonlance and used the Tinker Gnome Invention chart, THAT is unpredictable. Every item made was unpredictable to some extent. Magic items in general were not. So, I agree that absolutely all magic items were not predictable, but on the whole I think magic items were as predictable in 1e as in 3e. It's just a matter of the degree to which you think "magic items are predictable commodities" must be proven. 90%, 98%, 100%...





> Don't forget his Muffler of Warmth, either.




Of course.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm saying it.  Or, at least, saying that it should be a perfectly viable way to play DnD. *Every* magic item can be unique, mysterious and special.  *Every* magic item can have a story and be more than its plusses.  *Every* magic item can make the game more magical and more fun.




I stand corrected.    

So, then, that's two polar extremes of how magic items can be played.  Every item is special; no item is special.  However, you still aren't saying that this is the_only_ way to play, are you?    



> Unless you let players get whatever they want, whenver they want -- via the magic shop handwave -- and then *every* character is going to have the same crap.




The tendency for the same items to come up repeatedly....myth or not?  Those of you who use this handwave would seem to be best situated to answer that.....


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Is anyone in this thread arguing that artefacts are mundane? I haven't seen it if they have. But some people have certainly been arguing that +1 swords are special snowflakes.




Mundane?  No.  Predictable technology?  Yes.  If the argument is made that any magic which has rules is perforce predictable technology, and artifacts are magic which have rules, then the argument encompases the idea that artifacts are predictable technology.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Is anyone in this thread arguing that artefacts are mundane? I haven't seen it if they have. But some people have certainly been arguing that +1 swords are special snowflakes.



who's arguing?

i once had The Sword of Light in a treasure trove. (light spell effect when activated. no plus to the sword at all.)

the party thot it was the best item in the whole trove.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> At the risk of throwing the thread off on a bit of a tangent the Elric universe, much like Tolkien, was one with little in the way of magical gear.  I find a suggestion that Elric was wearing magic boots but Moorcock never bothered to mention them about as credible as saying Frodo was packing some Gloves of Dex.




I think it depends on what you consider magical items. I think LotR had a lot more magic than is immediately obvious, but there was no Detect Magic spell to tell. Sting would glow, so it was magic, but were the Barrow swords magic or masterwork? Sure the Rings were magical, but was Aragorns bow perhaps what in D&D would be considered magical? I'm sure it was lovingly crafted by hot elven babes and woven with the tears of prancing elven men, so maybe it was. Tolkien didn't call attention to his magic in an obvious manner, and I think that's the bigger difference.

For Elric, I think as emperor he had a lot of magic items, in the sense of demon bound items or other items of superior craftsmanship. He had to really. The story just didn't consider them important unless they came up in the text.

I think the difference is that these items in both cases didn't have special/ obvious effects, but were simply enhancements. A sword that strikes better and has an enhancement bonus of +5 instead of +0, is still a pretty mundane looking sword.

It just comes down to every item doesn't need to be a storied artifact, or it detracts from the actual storied artifacts. Because frankly, even in my earliest memories of D&D, we always had quite an array of magical items in mid to high levels of play.


----------



## molonel (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> For Elric, I think as emperor he had a lot of magic items, in the sense of demon bound items or other items of superior craftsmanship. He had to really. The story just didn't consider them important unless they came up in the text.




I'm presently reading through the last FOUR PAGES of this thread that popped up since yesterday - curse you, Enworld! I need to get WORK done today! - and I'm composing my reply, but this one caught my eye.

Elric had two artifacts - Stormbringer and the Ring of Kings - and regularly called in favors his people forged with the lords of other realms.

Elric is high fantasy and high magic, and what he lacked in NUMBER of magic items, he certainly made up for in QUALITY.

If a DM told me I could only have two artifacts and the ability to call in the lords of other realms to do my bidding, I'd hardly call that a low magic environment.


----------



## jensun (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> For Elric, I think as emperor he had a lot of magic items, in the sense of demon bound items or other items of superior craftsmanship. He had to really. The story just didn't consider them important unless they came up in the text.



From the books he had two, Stormbringer and the Emperors Ring.  Thinking through the rest of the books the examples of other magical gear are all extremely rare.  Mournblade, the giant mechanicals the priestess of law whose name I forget just now had.  

The idea of demon binding to create gear is very much an artifact of the RPG and not something really supported within the books.  

For well made stuff, absolutely yes.  For alchemical stuff, yes, in fact in one book he makes a sort of invulnerability elixir.  For random lots of +1 magical gear, not really.  There is no real "magic artificer" class within the novels and beyond demon binding the RPG's dont support it either.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I stand corrected.



You should invest in a good chair, standing at the computer gets old quick. 



> The tendency for the same items to come up repeatedly....myth or not?  Those of you who use this handwave would seem to be best situated to answer that.....




My view is that maybe 25% of magic items are important to the wielder, meaningful in some way. A sword for the warrior, the robes of arch-dudeness for the wizard, etc.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power or other stat buffers are not as important, and generally are as replaceable as the silk rope you bought at first level. The exception might be Headband of Intellect or Cloak of Charisma for a caster, since it is tied to what the character IS.

I think MIC pushes the idea to combine these effects into items that WILL be more important. Instead of having a mundane boring +2 Belt of Strength, you can get the same bonus added to an item you actually do care about.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> A system can be predictable - the DM using it doesn't have to.




In terms of a D&D game in actual play, what the system allows the DM to do determines the level of predictability.



> Oh, and let me save you the trouble: bizarrobizarrobizarrolalalalaimnotlisteningtoyourargumentsfrombizarroworld




Put forth an argument that requires a response other than cut & pasting my (or better, since others have written responses much better than mine) earlier responses to it and I'll respond.  Actually answer the earlier lines of reasoning rather than ignoring them, and I'll respond.

Otherwise, why would you expect anything different?


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 28, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I don't see why it would be hard to run LotR with Classic.  Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit racial classes already built around the Tolkien tropes... everybody else is a Fighter or a Thief.  Elves cast spontaneously and Elven Lords (Name level) can also use spells from the Cleric list (except Raise Dead).  Wood Elves don't cast magic but get some extra bonuses (bow stuff probably); easy to draw that up as a separate class.  Regular Clerics don't exist, and regular Magic-Users are extremely rare (the Mouth of Sauron is the only one I can think of offhand); the Istari are a special class (easy to draw up).  Everything else pretty much goes by the book.
> 
> The Fellowship has several high level Fighter types (Aragorn, Boromir and Gimli) who get access to the Smash attack [Mentzer]... -5 to hit and add your Str score to damage.  Lots of one-hit takedowns.  Legolas probably has some kind of "Elf Archer" move that does the same thing but lets him add his Dex to damage instead.  Voila!  Instant Tolkien.




Well, for one thing, you've had to make a host of changes, which is different from playing D&D as written. Many of the differences are pretty substantial in scope, and have some pretty dubious grounding. Where, for example, do elves in LotR really cast anything resembling a D&D type spell? You can make a limited argument that Elrond cast some sort of divination in _The Hobbit_, and may have used a healing spell of some sort on Frodo in LotR, and there is the control over the waters of Rivendell's river, but that's it, and those don't fit any known D&D spells with respect to their use (and at least two seem more to be simply "really good skill" rather than "spells"). Galadirel scried using her font, but that seems to have been a property of the font, not a D&D style spell. And you're "everything else goes by the book" leaves a lot undefined. Do ranger's get animal companions? Do paladins exist? Do they have special mounts? Is Aragorn really a plain fighter, or is he some other class? Does he cast spells?

But the real difference is in magic availability. Using the standards set in the various editions of D&D, magic items are just much more common, and much more prominent in D&D than they ever are in LotR. You have to radically alter how magic really works to make D&D work like LotR, unless you are willing to handwave away a _lot_. And that's why D&D is a poor fit for LotR - the volume of handwaving and customized rules starts to overwhelm the system. At that point, there are a lot of systems that work much, _much_ better for getting a LotR feel into a game session.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> For well made stuff, absolutely yes.  For alchemical stuff, yes, in fact in one book he makes a sort of invulnerability elixir.  For random lots of +1 magical gear, not really.  There is no real "magic artificer" class within the novels and beyond demon binding the RPG's dont support it either.




My view is not that he had scores of unique items, but rather that what D&D makes a "magical item", the world of Tolkien or Moorcock makes a "well made" item. Elric also uses the Emperors Armor or whatnot, right? In D&D such an item might be Adamantine Full Plate +5 Fortification. In the story, it would look just like any other well made item.

When a hobbit finds an elven sword, he doesn't spell out that it's +4 Keen, but it certainly hits harder and easier and cuts off limbs better.


----------



## jensun (Mar 28, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Elric is high fantasy and high magic, and what he lacked in NUMBER of magic items, he certainly made up for in QUALITY.
> 
> If a DM told me I could only have two artifacts and the ability to call in the lords of other realms to do my bidding, I'd hardly call that a low magic environment.



I dont think anyone is claiming it is low fantasy.  

In fact its similar to one of my most enjoyable D&D games.  It started when 3e had just come out.  we knew nothing of the apparent "assumptions" of the CR system and most of us hadnt played D&D for numerous years.  

After 18 months of excellent gaming the campaign came to its climax.  We saved the world,  hit level 9 and each of us had maybe 2 magic items apiece.  Each item was special, they had names, a history, reasons for exisiting and added depth and flavour to the game.  

Its not the only way to do it certainly, nor even the best or right way to do for any particular group but it worked for us. 

Looking back I wonder how we managed against equal CR challenges, given we were nothing like optimised (Druid, Fighter/Sorc, Ftr/Rog and Ftr/Cleric) and woefully undergeared.  And yet, manage we did.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I'm presently reading through the last FOUR PAGES of this thread that popped up since yesterday - curse you, Enworld! I need to get WORK done today! - and I'm composing my reply, but this one caught my eye.




How do you think I feel? I make a reply, and during that reply, 5 new replies pop up!

In fact, I wanted to post a link to the WotC site's article about loot.
(http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20070327a)

Specifically, these lines:
"Greg: And are you seriously still rolling treasure randomly? Come on, that's so 1978!

Andy: I guess I just figured that my treasure hoards should be realistic. I mean, just because nobody in the party uses a trident doesn't mean that there aren't any magic tridents out there to find.

Greg: I challenge you to find one non-merman PC who uses a trident. Do it. I'll buy pizza for a year if you do.

Andy: That's "merfolk," you misogynist punk."

That would have been great as a reply to the mention of magical tridents earlier in the thread, but I can't go back and find it, or I'll come back and find 2 more pages!


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> How many different stories can you come up with? How many times can famous warrior X kill villain Y and then disappear when they tried to do Z thousands of years ago.  Eventually those stories get old and mundane in-and-of themselves.




Well, part of my original argument was that PCs should not be laden with gear the way they are expected to be in 3.x, and by that you can make a game where every item, even a crappy +1 sword, special and unique.  After all, how many boring old stories are you going to have to come up with throughout a campaign like that? 10? 20?  That shouldn't be too hard for a DM, considering it's his job to come up with cool stuff every week (or whatever).



> The next questions is 'how long before they get a +2 weapon?'  What is the point of having a backstory to a weapon they will only be using for five sessions?




The real problem lies right here in this quote: 5 session between a +1 sword and a +2 sword?  That's just too fast, IMO.  It should take 5 sessions to level.  Even so, if there comes a time when a greater weapon is discovered by the party, surely they have some allies, friends or family to give the sword to?  A cohort, perhaps?  Or is the baseline assumption that the PCs exist alone in the world and NPCs exist only to run magic shops?

I don't want to call anything badwrongfun, but that seems like a waste of a perfectly good RPG to me, and I would honestly rather spend the evening (with the same friends, drinking the same coke and eating the same pizza) throwing down with Zombies or Dungeon or Munchkin if all we got out of D&D was "see it, kill it, take its stuff".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> You didn't say all magic items must be special, but others have. I havent' seen anyone suggest that NO magic item can be special. The "absolute" only seems to go one way.




Well, that seems to be exactly what Storm Raven was saying (IMHO, at least).  I would be happy to hear him say that I am wrong in thinking so.

So, how about it SR?  Can magic items be something other than predictable technology or not?


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I think it depends on what you consider magical items. I think LotR had a lot more magic than is immediately obvious, but there was no Detect Magic spell to tell. Sting would glow, so it was magic, but were the Barrow swords magic or masterwork? Sure the Rings were magical, but was Aragorns bow perhaps what in D&D would be considered magical? I'm sure it was lovingly crafted by hot elven babes and woven with the tears of prancing elven men, so maybe it was. Tolkien didn't call attention to his magic in an obvious manner, and I think that's the bigger difference.




From my recollection, the magic items that actually showed up in LotR (and _The Hobbit_):

*Certainly magical*:
The One Ring
The elven rings
The _palantir_
The nine rings for men (they only show up in context with the ringwraiths)
The seven dwarven rings (which don't actually show up in the stories, but are talked about, some of these have been destroyed by the time the events of the books take place).
The phial of Galadriel.
Sting
Orcrist
Glamdring

*Probably magical*:
Anduril

*Possibly magical*:
The elven cloaks
The barrow blades
The "gift" bow given to Legolas by the Galadhrim

*Arguably magical* (although in my opinion, calling these magical is dubious):
The font of Galadriel
Elven rope
Lembas
The horn of Gondor


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, that seems to be exactly what Storm Raven was saying (IMHO, at least).  I would be happy to hear him say that I am wrong in thinking so.
> 
> So, how about it SR?  Can magic items be something other than predictable technology or not?




They could, but in the D&D rules, they have not been.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Greg: I challenge you to find one non-merman PC who uses a trident. Do it. I'll buy pizza for a year if you do.




The lizardman at the back of the original Rogue's Gallery.  Do I get a pizza?


----------



## jensun (Mar 28, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *Arguably magical* (although in my opinion, calling these magical is dubious):
> The font of Galadriel



From my recollection it was the font which showed Frodo and Sam visions of the future rather than anything Galadrial herself did.  I distincly recall lines about it being dangerous to look in.

I would add to the first category the Staves of the Istari although they didnt really get used to do anything.


----------



## scriven (Mar 28, 2007)

Jemal said:
			
		

> So two things - First off, why is playing a character who's optimized a bad thing?  You don't like being effective?  And I deplore the insinuation that doing so is 'munchkinizing'.. Why is it people think that a character can be either Role Play worthy or Effective but not both?  I happen to prefer playing the Heroic Warrior-king or powerful Archmage who saves the world from marauding demons to the anorexic bard with 10 pages of backstory who wants to make a couple bucks by stealing from peasants.  (And just for the record, I happen to think Conan has one hell of a good 'story' to him, and wow guess what.. he kicks Ass too!)




I wouldn't make the blanket statement that playing an optimized character is a bad thing.  It's just that I'm distressed by the idea that hand-picking one's magic items is a valid avenue of optimization.

This thread has really made me reflect on why I consider hand-picked magic items so detrimental to the game, on why the idea gets under my skin.  I think it boils down to a couple of things:


 It eliminates the thrill of finding magic items in a treasure hoard.  This thrill didn't derive from the items' being unknowable or mysterious or unpredictable, but simply from the fact that any given item, such as a _serpentine owl_, was so rare as to often be unique within a given campaign.  This thrill was present in 1E, 2E, and even the computer RPGs I've played. (Think of finding a _Ring of Polymorph Control_ down in the dungeons of _Nethack_. Or the _Wand of Wishing_, one of the incredibly rare opportunities to pick any item you wanted, but which only had a few charges -- now there was a find! You did well to think long and hard about what to wish for when you used it.) In 3E, this thrill is gone, and I miss it terribly.

 There's no in-game justification for an arbitrary list of items under a certain price limit to all happen to be on the market in a given place, at a given time.  It's just not plausible.


The argument that it's great to be able to customize your character's items, well, it just doesn't resonate with me. You could customize your character's items in _Nethack_ or _Diablo_ by using a cheat program.  What I quickly found was that doing so took the fun out of the game.  Sure, it was cool for a little while, but then it just got boring.

To each his own!  One man's meat is another man's poison, as they say.




> Secondly, If you're selling off ALL of the stuff you find to buy what you want, then you're loosing about half your treasure value.. Remember, resale is half price.  Thus, if there's anything even a little interesting in a treasure horde, most smart players I've known will take it first.. it's only if nobody can use something that it gets hocked.  If your DM throws you a Wand of Fireballs and there's no mage or anyone with UMD, what the heck were you going to do with it ANYWAYS?




We weren't aware of that rule.  (Was it present in 3.0?  The campaign started before 3.5 came out.)

I can see that it would have mitigated things a bit, but it seems hard to justify from an in-game standpoint.  Is the idea that NPCs have more time to build up contacts to whom they can sell?  Then what if the PCs befriend an NPC and have him sell things for them?  Maybe they could offer him a cut to make it worth his while.  Or what if someone sets up a cohort as a merchant and has him sell things?

(Or perhaps the next time they save someone's life... "A reward?  Why no, no, I could never accept a reward.  As a small favor, however, perhaps you could liquidate these items for me -- I'm so busy with heroic deeds, you see...")


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> They could, but in the D&D rules, they have not been.





Well, Vocenoctum, it sounds as though someone is saying exactly that.

Numion, if the Wand of Wonder is an exception (even if it is 1%), that makes Storm Raven wrong.

Doug McCrae, I didn't see anything that disincludes artifacts there.  Did you?


EDIT:  The reason I find this so offensive, btw, is that it not only states that the "magic items are predictable technology" is the One True Way to play D&D, but that it is the Only Way Possible, and anyone whose experience differs must therefore be deluding himself.

Again, though, I'd be happy to hear SR say that this wasn't at all what he meant, and then clarify exactly what he did mean.


----------



## jensun (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, Vocenoctum, it sounds as though someone is saying exactly that.
> 
> Numion, if the Wand of Wonder is an exception (even if it is 1%), that makes Storm Raven wrong.
> 
> Doug McCrae, I didn't see anything that disincludes artifacts there.  Did you?



At this point you are just being petty. The vast majority of magical effects in D&D, whatever edition you are looking at, are predictable.  

When the wizard casts magic missile, guess what, he creates magical missiles.  He doesnt have a chance of getting it wrong, slipping up or otherwise botching and instead creating a bunnch of daffodils.  D&D doesnt work that way now and it never has. 

What you are quoting are exceptions, exceptions which do not invalidate the general rule at all.


----------



## molonel (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 1) *Magic was more mysterious in earlier editions than it is now.*




No, it really wasn't. Earlier editions have a sense of nostalgia that 3rd Edition lacks, but magic wasn't any more mysterious or mystical than it is, now.

To you, perhaps.

But some things truly are relative.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> There are any number of examples: the potion miscability tables, the fact that duration of spells/potions/effects tended to be random and that the caster would not know necessarily when they would expire, the fact that spells had a chance of failure, the fact that the effect misfired spells were largely the provence of DM fiat, the fact that the DMG contained a goodly portion of the description of many spells kept secret from the caster, the fact that the vast majority of magical items were beyond the players ability to create and those that they could create the mechanisms of the creation were both secret from the players and subject to DM fiat, the fact that Gygax didn't even stat out the artifacts in the DMG lest thier mysteriousness be lost, the fact that spells like identify worked less effectively in earlier editions, the fact that the DMG contained an extensive listing of how spells would function differently in usual settings, the fact that random magic effects and unique items and cursed items played a greater role in the game, the DMG, and in published modules. And so forth. If that isn't enough evidence for you, then there is little point in discussing this with you further.




As several people have already pointed out, randomness and Keystone Cop splatter effects do not make magic mysterious or even interesting. They make it annoying, like a car that always breaks down when you need it most. Potions doing weird things in my character's lower intestines didn't make me swoon about the magicalness of magic. It was just annoying, and a lot of DMs just dumped those rules because they weren't very much fun.

Artifacts most certainly WERE statted out in the 1st Edition DMG. We had several of them in our group.

Spell descriptions were written up in exact detail in the PHB.

There are alternate rules for environment in 3rd Edition if you want to use them. Frostburn, Stormwrack, and alternate effects for magic items and spells in supplements like Ghostwalk where brilliant energy weapons can harm ghosts and incorporeal creatures.

That hasn't changed.

If I really wanted to use explosive effects for mixing potions, I would. But they don't add anything to my game, so I don't.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> 2) *Magic can never be completely mysterious in any game where the players contol it.*




Player never control magic completely. But they have spells they have made the effort to learn, and gained levels in order to gain access to.

Playing hide the hamster with spell effects doesn't reward players for the work they've done, or make magic more mysterious. It's antagonistic.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I can understand customizing characters. What I dislike is the commonality of magic items as world element handed to the players as equipment.




Why?

Did Frodo ever wonder what Sting did? No. It was an extremely sharp dagger or short sword that glowed when orcs were about. He knew exactly what his mithral shirt did. Other people were amazed when they found out he had it, but they weren't amazed by what it could do. Because, of course, that's what mithral DOES. It might be rare, but it wasn't mysterious.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Nostalgia is not what I meant about the DMG. It was a belief while young and playing older versions of the game. I'm glad you are enjoying the game. I want to as well, but find it wanting. Exploring something new is still possible, it just takes work.




If I were you, and I found the game in its present incarnation wanting, I'd look at Midnight, or Castles & Crusades, or Grim Tales, or Conan OGL. There are so many options available that I find the idea that you're sitting here complaining about a game that doesn't satisfy you astounding.

I'm not being sarcastic, either.

In my group, we're running almost nothing but low magic games right now. Why? Because it's superior gaming? No. We had a campaign that went up to 25th level and reached sublime heights of high magic that I'd never ever SEEN before. It was cool. Now, we want something else. 

There are so many alternate rules and ways of tweaking D&D to make it do what you want. 3rd Edition is an EXTREMELY adaptable game.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The game has changed. Considerably. It is different from the one I played when I began. It plays differently because of the assumptions made in design. IMO, it is no longer magical because it has left much of what made magical behind.




So change it. Or play something else. But why complain about it? I'm not being sarcastic, either. I'm genuinely baffled.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Your right here. Rule Zero is in effect. It's just a burden, like playing a canonical world, to have rules state "this is how to play" and have it be a setting element.




Why? I take things out that I don't like all the time.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to make this cheesy David Copperfield.  I'm saying each description of a spell going off allows for experimentation on the variety of ways it can be used. Each has a single effect, but those effects differ by circumstance. It's consistent and useful for learning new ways to use old powers. I'm not putting magic at the center of the show. I'm just keeping it's potential for fun and exciting play. It's not push button, but in some circumstances it acts normally. Whether it's normal or not is only confirmed by the DM. (By circumstance: I mean "a fireball in a flour shop", not wand of wonder magic randomness)




Okay. Fair enough. Thank you for explaining that.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Yeah. I prefer players too. I'm not here to beat some self-avowed "magic" definition over anyone's head. I just want it seen as something that can happen in game, that has happened in game. That the rules don't negate it.




Again, fair enough, and well explained.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I like your example. The monster is mysterious. What powers does it have? Was it the monster, the environment, or the spell? The description gives clues. Clues hint to what might be the cause. So the players try different things.




Right.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Magic is used in the same way. You wouldn't tell your players the villain's plan beforehand, so why tell them how a magic item works? It's part of the adventure.




With some magic items, mystery is good. I absolutely agree with that. Artifacts and McGuffins and the Rod of Seven Whats-its, or whatever. A signature item or a new gizmo can provide marvelous avenues of adventure and discovery.

But even Tolkien didn't dwell for pages and pages on the elven cloaks, or Sam's rope, or the blades they found in the Barrow Downs. Sting didn't even really get that much explanation or camera time. It just did its job.

Not every magic item is going to get stage time. Sometimes, it's just a set of stat gloves. Or it's just a ring of protection. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Magic, in the bigger sense, doesn't take a body blow just because minor magic items work exactly the way you expect them to.



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I'm not saying magic is unreliable or unpredictable. I'm saying, whether spell or item, it requires a learning process. It allows players to play out magicians learning their magic. If this element of the game is undesired, that's your preference. Posters declaring magic is common and uninteresting as a matter of course through proper interpretation of the rules is denying my preference.




A learning process can be fun, but I've got bigger plans for my adventures than watching players sit around trying to figure out what their gear does, or how their basic spells work. Some magic is just common, and does exactly what it should. Does that mean my games lack mystery? Of course not. But the mystery of the story is, "Who is causing this ripple in the fabric of reality that threatens our very existence?" or "What is beside this super-secret cult that attempted to assassinate the king?" or "How do we ally ourselves with in this war?"

Questions like THAT are interesting to me.

"How do I get these @#$#@ing gauntlets to work?" or "My spell misfired AGAIN?" by comparison are really rather dull plot points.

To me.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> They are freaking gauntlets of ogre power!!! Gauntlets of ogre power!!! No mystique to gauntlets of ogre power!?!?! I do not want to play in your games.




Okay, then you wouldn't want to play in my games, either. But if that's your idea of drama, or an interesting storyline, then I don't feel too bad about that, either.


----------



## Thirsty (Mar 28, 2007)

scriven said:
			
		

> It eliminates the thrill of finding magic items in a treasure hoard.  This thrill didn't derive from the items' being unknowable or mysterious or unpredictable, but simply from the fact that any given item, such as a _serpentine owl_, was so rare as to often be unique within a given campaign.  This thrill was present in 1E, 2E, and even the computer RPGs I've played. (Think of finding a _Ring of Polymorph Control_ down in the dungeons of _Nethack_. Or the _Wand of Wishing_, one of the incredibly rare opportunities to pick any item you wanted, but which only had a few charges -- now there was a find! You did well to think long and hard about what to wish for when you used it.) In 3E, this thrill is gone, and I miss it terribly.




This hits the nail on the head from my perspective.


----------



## donremus (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I believe that is the best argument advanced so far why magic items should not be available for sell under any normal circumstances.  One hour picking thier weapons out of the DMG???
> 
> I'd pack my briefcase and go home, and seriously consider ending a campaign right there.  You are @#$#@$#@$ right that no adventuring was happening there, and _at least_ if the players were willing to RP out this silliness I wouldn't be bored to tears.
> 
> Or better yet, lets just go find the treasure in the dungeon/wilderness/wherever, don't you think?




A good argument yes, but I believe limited buying availablility is not a bad thing (as I stated in my previous post in this thread).

A better argument for not having unlimited buying availability is that if the players can buy whatever they want/require from shops etc it completely destroys the excitement of the reward of the BBEG's treasure hoard, identifying the items, then roleplaying your case to receive an item you really want. The hoard just becomes a pile of items with monetary value that you can haul off to Ye Olde Magick Shoppe to sell because you already bought what you wanted from the DMG. Not much fun if you ask me.

Just my opinion


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, for one thing, you've had to make a host of changes, which is different from playing D&D as written. Many of the differences are pretty substantial in scope, and have some pretty dubious grounding....  And you're "everything else goes by the book" leaves a lot undefined. Do ranger's get animal companions? Do paladins exist? Do they have special mounts? Is Aragorn really a plain fighter, or is he some other class? Does he cast spells?




Hm, I can see you're not familiar with Classic (O, Holmes, and Moldvay-Cook B/X) D&D.   
Really, remove Clerics and tweak the M-U spell list a bit (add Cure Light Wounds, remove Fireball & Fly, but add Burning Hands) and it fits Tolkien like a glove.  The Moldvay Basic treasure table might need some 0s taken off the amount of money, but the amounts of magic seem tailored fine to The Hobbit or LOTR levels.


----------



## PallidPatience (Mar 28, 2007)

Being able to buy a magic item doesn't preclude finding it elsewhere.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> At this point you are just being petty. The vast majority of magical effects in D&D, whatever edition you are looking at, are predictable.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What you are quoting are exceptions, exceptions which do not invalidate the general rule at all.





If I am being petty at this point, I must have been petty throughout the entire thread, because I haven't changed what I was saying.  And, I will point out, when I suggested that these were exceptions, SR countered that they were _*not exceptions*_.  You both cannot be right.   

EDIT:  I don't think that calling an extreme position extreme is petty.  YMMV.  But, again, if SR is willing to say that there are exceptions, I would be happy to agree with him.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 28, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> From my recollection it was the font which showed Frodo and Sam visions of the future rather than anything Galadrial herself did.  I distincly recall lines about it being dangerous to look in.




I'd say it was arguably magical because it was unclear whether the font itself was magical, or it was some attribute of Galadriel's that allowed visions of the future to be seen in it's waters, or if it was the influence of her elven ring that made it possible. Although it is unclear, it seems to me most likely, given the context of the scene in which the font appears, that if Galadriel had not ben present, then it would have been unusable as anything other than a water bowl.



> _I would add to the first category the Staves of the Istari although they didnt really get used to do anything._




Once again, the question with respect to these items is whether the item is magical, or it represents the power of the wielder. Would Gandalf's staff have been anything other than a stick in anyone else's hands? It is unclear, but the thrust of the text, at least to my eyes, seems to indicate no.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'd say it was arguably magical because it was unclear whether the font itself was magical, or it was some attribute of Galadriel's that allowed visions of the future to be seen in it's waters, or if it was the influence of her elven ring that made it possible. Although it is unclear, it seems to me most likely, given the context of the scene in which the font appears, that if Galadriel had not ben present, then it would have been unusable as anything other than a water bowl.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the question with respect to these items is whether the item is magical, or it represents the power of the wielder. Would Gandalf's staff have been anything other than a stick in anyone else's hands? It is unclear, but the thrust of the text, at least to my eyes, seems to indicate no.




I agree with Storm Raven in both cases.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 28, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Hm, I can see you're not familiar with Classic (O, Holmes, and Moldvay-Cook B/X) D&D.
> Really, remove Clerics and tweak the M-U spell list a bit (add Cure Light Wounds, remove Fireball & Fly, but add Burning Hands) and it fits Tolkien like a glove.  The Moldvay Basic treasure table might need some 0s taken off the amount of money, but the amounts of magic seem tailored fine to The Hobbit or LOTR levels.




I am reasonably familiar with Classic D&D (in its various forms, it has been years since I played it though), and no, it doesn't fit all that well. The spell lists are very un-Tolkien (and need to be changed much more than you suggest), the demi-human classes don't fit LotR all that well. Magic items remain _much_ more prevalent (I refer you to, for example, the "B" series of adventures, which were dripping with magic items even though they were aimed at beginning characters). And OD&D isn't very good at accounting for various odd abilities that characters in LotR had (Aragorn is a bad fit for a OD&D fighter).


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If I am being petty at this point, I must have been petty throughout the entire thread, because I haven't changed what I was saying.  And, I will point out, when I suggested that these were exceptions, SR countered that they were _*not exceptions*_.  You both cannot be right.




Your argument though, doesn't track. Just because there might be a random outcome within a certain range to certain things does not mean that something is not a predictable technology. For example, when you drive a car, it might throw a rod and punch a hole in the engine block. It might not. This doesn't make cars an unpredictable technology. The same analysis holds true for potion miscability. When you mix potions, you get a range of possible results. This _only_ happens when you mix potions, and _only_ has certain defined possible outcomes. This is not unpredictable, any more than dumping water on your toaster having a range of possible outcomes indicates that toasters are not a predictable technology.

You seem to think that "any amount of randomness at all" means that something is "not predictable". This is simply an untenable position.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> Being able to buy a magic item doesn't preclude finding it elsewhere.




That's not what some folks are saying.  What they are saying is "Who cares -- might as well just have gems and gps in the hoard" because the players are going to equip their characters how they want, selling off any items they don't want.

I think in my next campaign I will ban the buying and selling of items other than potions and scrools, unles the players actually bother the play out seeking an item and convincing its owner to sell it.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The real problem lies right here in this quote: 5 session between a +1 sword and a +2 sword?  That's just too fast, IMO.  It should take 5 sessions to level.




Poor phrasing; my fault.  

Let me try this again.  How long will they be using that weapon?  Maybe they have the feats for an axe.  The first +1 weapon is a sword.  How long before they come across a +1 axe?  Maybe the +1 dagger that the wizards wants was the last one to be found, how long before they come across a +2 dagger?  How long before they come across a weapon that is +1 and something else?

As I said before I'm not one to be impressed by past history that is completely removed from the game.  I don't want a side story that will be nothing but an extra sheet of paper in my character folder.  I likely won't care if the biggest baddie the weapon killed was a kobald or an elder dragon.  That's not the story I'm paticipating in with the others and the DM.  That's not the story I help create.  That's not the story I get to tell others and look like a geek for.  Now, when my character is the one that gets the final blow on the dragon... that's a story to tell.

To try and tie this in with the original post all those pages ago...

I, as a player, don't find magic items special because they are "magic".  What makes an item special to me isn't that they are +1, +2 or a Vorpal Holy Avenger.  I don't care what they did in the past.  The back story to weapon could be that it was used by the last king of a forgotten empire to slay a demon prince or it could have been placed on the shelves of Magic Mart ten minutes ago.  Beyond the time it takes to read the back story and say "cool" it won't make much difference to me.

That may seem cold and I can already some people shaking their heads at me or lifting their jaws off the floor in astonishment.  It's not that I don't appreciate the work that would go into a four page backstory on the +1 sword.  The story may be really cool and I may ask for that story to be the next campaign.  Doesn't help make that weapon "special" to me though.  This may seem egotistical but I want to tell MY story of the item, not the DM's story.  

When I look at a magic item I want there to be history and context that I can relate to.  If I have the Holy Avenger I want to have earned it.  If I have spiffy armor I want to say who I had to kill to get it.  If my DM wants me to think that those Gloves of DEX +2 are the [bleep] then have me get them after a greuling battle in a Thieve's Maze against a recurring villain and let me pry them off of his cold dead corpse.  Then those gloves will be "cool" to me.

If I don't have that context, that connection to the item then the "magical" item will just be numbers on a page.  Gloves of DEX +2 are boring.  Gloves of DEX +2 that used to belong to Black Jack the Master Thief who dies 3647 years ago are boring after a minute or two.   Gloves of DEX +2 that my PC retrieved after he killed Karl who betrayed my PC to the city guards five years ago... now those are cool.  If they hadn't belonged to Karl then I wouldn't have cared if I picked them up from Magic Mart.  

And if that is all the gloves are then no, having Magic Marts don't kill the spirit of the game.  They don't add anything but they don't take anything away either.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I think in my next campaign I will ban the buying and selling of items other than potions and scrools, unles the players actually bother the play out seeking an item and convincing its owner to sell it.




Now, to me, that seems like a lot of the sort of thing that rules like Take 10 and Take 20 were intended to eliminate. I mean, you, as the DM, already know if they are going to be able to find Archmage Smartypants and get him to sell/make/trade his Foozle. To me, unless the process of hunting down Archmage Smartypants and getting the Foozle is otherwise important in some way, then it is just "dead space" in the campaign, so to speak, like walking from the Castle of Iron to the Village of Vulnerable Peasants. Sure, it feels "right" for players to spend half a session looking for the thing, but from my perspective, that's just time that would better spent hunting dragons, foiling evil necromancers, and all the other things that adventurers undertake as their profession.

So I hand wave it. "You search for half a day . . ." [make a couple of Gather Information and Diplomacy checks] ". . . and locate Archmage Smartypants, he has a Foozle . . . " [negotiate for the Foozle, making a couple reaction checks and then some back and forth] ". . . . he'll sell it to you for 15,000 gold coins, or your 6,000 coins and your Whatsit in trade".


----------



## Slife (Mar 28, 2007)

scriven said:
			
		

> It eliminates the thrill of finding magic items in a treasure hoard.  This thrill didn't derive from the items' being unknowable or mysterious or unpredictable, but simply from the fact that any given item, such as a _serpentine owl_, was so rare as to often be unique within a given campaign.  This thrill was present in 1E, 2E, and even the computer RPGs I've played. (Think of finding a _Ring of Polymorph Control_ down in the dungeons of _Nethack_. Or the _Wand of Wishing_, one of the incredibly rare opportunities to pick any item you wanted, but which only had a few charges -- now there was a find! You did well to think long and hard about what to wish for when you used it.) In 3E, this thrill is gone, and I miss it terribly.



But wait!  Nethack HAS magic item shops.  And clearly that didn't kill the wonder for you.

QED.


----------



## molonel (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I think in my next campaign I will ban the buying and selling of items other than potions and scrools, unles the players actually bother the play out seeking an item and convincing its owner to sell it.




That's one of those often-made campaign promises that rarely gets kept, in my opinion.

It makes more sense to make items more rare, and lessen the need for them - Iron Heroes does this, Conan OGL, and many other rules sets - than to say, "Well, you just can't sell them at all!" because the latter makes no sense whatsoever. If it's useful, then there will be people or beings who want it and are willing to pay for it.



			
				Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> To try and tie this in with the original post all those pages ago ... I, as a player, don't find magic items special because they are "magic". What makes an item special to me isn't that they are +1, +2 or a Vorpal Holy Avenger. I don't care what they did in the past. The back story to weapon could be that it was used by the last king of a forgotten empire to slay a demon prince or it could have been placed on the shelves of Magic Mart ten minutes ago. Beyond the time it takes to read the back story and say "cool" it won't make much difference to me. That may seem cold and I can already some people shaking their heads at me or lifting their jaws off the floor in astonishment. It's not that I don't appreciate the work that would go into a four page backstory on the +1 sword. The story may be really cool and I may ask for that story to be the next campaign. Doesn't help make that weapon "special" to me though. This may seem egotistical but I want to tell MY story of the item, not the DM's story. When I look at a magic item I want there to be history and context that I can relate to. If I have the Holy Avenger I want to have earned it. If I have spiffy armor I want to say who I had to kill to get it. If my DM wants me to think that those Gloves of DEX +2 are the [bleep] then have me get them after a greuling battle in a Thieve's Maze against a recurring villain and let me pry them off of his cold dead corpse. Then those gloves will be "cool" to me. If I don't have that context, that connection to the item then the "magical" item will just be numbers on a page. Gloves of DEX +2 are boring. Gloves of DEX +2 that used to belong to Black Jack the Master Thief who dies 3647 years ago are boring after a minute or two. Gloves of DEX +2 that my PC retrieved after he killed Karl who betrayed my PC to the city guards five years ago... now those are cool. If they hadn't belonged to Karl then I wouldn't have cared if I picked them up from Magic Mart. And if that is all the gloves are then no, having Magic Marts don't kill the spirit of the game. They don't add anything but they don't take anything away either.




I wouldn't have thought to put it that way, but that was VERY well said.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Now, to me, that seems like a lot of the sort of thing that rules like Take 10 and Take 20 were intended to eliminate. I mean, you, as the DM, already know if they are going to be able to find Archmage Smartypants and get him to sell/make/trade his Foozle. To me, unless the process of hunting down Archmage Smartypants and getting the Foozle is otherwise important in some way, then it is just "dead space" in the campaign, so to speak, like walking from the Castle of Iron to the Village of Vulnerable Peasants. Sure, it feels "right" for players to spend half a session looking for the thing, but from my perspective, that's just time that would better spent hunting dragons, foiling evil necromancers, and all the other things that adventurers undertake as their profession.




I think part of the disconnect here might be (and I could be wrong) that I think all that little stuff is important and fun and memorable, because I don't try to "tell a story" when I DM.  I try to create a situation and a setting in which players can forge their own stories.  Hunting down Archmage Smartypants and convincing him to sell is foozle has as much potential for story -- the kind you tell with your friends when not gaming, or bore your wife with -- as going into a dragon's lair.  I like "sandbox" gaming, and running "sandbox" games.  It has taken me a while to get there, mind -- I have had more than 1 "epic quest" fizzle, or be rejected by the players.  So now, I try to go "Here's the world.  Go play." Of course, I toss out threads and plots and such, but if the players ignore or reject them, so be it.  There is always another adventure around the corner.

I think this kind of campaigning is the kind that leads to cool stories and years-long adventuring.  If the campaign is about killing Mister Big Bad Evil Guy, you're pretty much done when the players win.  If the campaign is about 5 guys who travel around (and happen to take on Big Bad Evil Guy) the story continues even after BBEG is moldering undewr the rubble that was once his fortress.  As such, "I want to find a Dancing Shield" from a player is as much an adventure hook as "My parents were murdered by the Red Wizards."


----------



## jensun (Mar 28, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Once again, the question with respect to these items is whether the item is magical, or it represents the power of the wielder. Would Gandalf's staff have been anything other than a stick in anyone else's hands? It is unclear, but the thrust of the text, at least to my eyes, seems to indicate no.



Saruman accuses Gandalf of trying to seize the rods of the 5 Wizards.  Thats pretty indicative that they are more than just symbolic.


----------



## Numion (Mar 28, 2007)

I'll point out at this .. um, point, that 3E can in someways keep that sense of wonder that comes from not knowing all the monsters, spells, effects, etc, for longer. Many people in this thread have said that when starting the game everything was wondrous, because you didn't know the spells, you didn't know the effects magic items had, etc.. 

Now, 3E has so much more material published for it, by WotC and all the countless 3rd party publishers. Heck, there probably was at some point more publishers for d20 than there were products for 1E! By utilizing these zillion monster books, feat books, class books, spell books, magic _system_ books, there's always something new to throw at the players.

When the players don't know what books the DM is going to use, that's _unpredictable_. At least I get that ol' magical feeling when reading a good* magic supplement for D&D. 


* That's another point, that almost nullifies my post above. Most stuff for d20 is crap, and that's _predictable._


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> That's not what some folks are saying.  What they are saying is "Who cares -- might as well just have gems and gps in the hoard" because the players are going to equip their characters how they want, selling off any items they don't want.
> 
> I think in my next campaign I will ban the buying and selling of items other than potions and scrools, unles the players actually bother the play out seeking an item and convincing its owner to sell it.




A 100K gem is worth 100K, a Censor of Water Elementals is 100K if you buy it, 50K if you sell it.

There is a bonus to finding an item over buying it. This is mitigated if you Craft the item, but then you're paying in XP also.


It's a matter of playstyles, as usual. If you want magic items to require work and time, then more power to you. If you want to ban Wizards from your campaign, so be it.

I've been in campaigns where we played out long tedious road trips where nothing happened. I'd rather handwave that. I'm sure I could roleplay out tracking down a mage and waiting while he crafted my armor, but again, I'd rather handwave that. The problem isn't the concept that the players are walking into a store and buying an item vs having the item Wished into existence by a Djin merchant or commisioning it, IMO.

The problem for me is waiting and waiting while I try to get something through a form of commerce that makes sense, rather than waiting for happenstance to provide my character with it.


I mean, really, is it more logical that a PC stumbles on the Full Plate +3 in a pile of Otyugh loot, vs making inquiries in Waterdeep to see if some Lord has an old set from when he upgraded to +4 armor?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, that seems to be exactly what Storm Raven was saying (IMHO, at least).  I would be happy to hear him say that I am wrong in thinking so.
> 
> So, how about it SR?  Can magic items be something other than predictable technology or not?




You and Storm Raven are having your own side-arguement 

I said "special" in regard to the whole discussion about story elements and flavor. This isn't about your "predictable" thing!

The "predictable" thing is the other part of the discussion. On that, I said that a magic item here or there might have unpredictable results, but that magic items as a whole are predictable. This isn't an absolute situation, like the bird example. I do think that magic items as a whole are generally predictable in 1e and now and all in between, with specific exemptions. I also still believe that 3.5 has more customizing and story elements (such as weapons of legacy) than 1e, and will result in magic items being less predictable than in previous edition. (mixing potions notwithstanding)


----------



## molonel (Mar 28, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> I'll point out at this .. um, point, that 3E can in someways keep that sense of wonder that comes from not knowing all the monsters, spells, effects, etc, for longer. Many people in this thread have said that when starting the game everything was wondrous, because you didn't know the spells, you didn't know the effects magic items had, etc.. Now, 3E has so much more material published for it, by WotC and all the countless 3rd party publishers. Heck, there probably was at some point more publishers for d20 than there were products for 1E! By utilizing these zillion monster books, feat books, class books, spell books, magic _system_ books, there's always something new to throw at the players. When the players don't know what books the DM is going to use, that's _unpredictable_. At least I get that ol' magical feeling when reading a good* magic supplement for D&D.




This is exactly what's happening in my d20 Modern games, right now. I ran last night's adventure using Blood & Brains. It was awesome. They've all read the d20 Modern book. We all have it. We all use it. But while the basic rules of the game, and their equipment, are known and reliable, the monsters and situations they encounter in the game are not. I like mystery. Who doesn't? But I don't have to put a padlock on the rulebooks or have spells do weird things in their guts or have spells blow up in their faces to create mystery.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I am reasonably familiar with Classic D&D (in its various forms, it has been years since I played it though), and no, it doesn't fit all that well. The spell lists are very un-Tolkien (and need to be changed much more than you suggest), the demi-human classes don't fit LotR all that well. Magic items remain _much_ more prevalent (I refer you to, for example, the "B" series of adventures, which were dripping with magic items even though they were aimed at beginning characters). And OD&D isn't very good at accounting for various odd abilities that characters in LotR had (Aragorn is a bad fit for a OD&D fighter).




Personally my impression of Tolkien is that there are tons of low-power items and some better ones, like that ring of invisibility.  I don't see B2 as all that different from The Hobbit & LOTR in likely MI count.  I find the B/X Dwarf, Halfling and Elf fit Tolkien fine, unsurprising since Tolkien was the clear inspiration.  You're right about the spells in that if you allow free choice of spells there's much more area-effect stuff than in Tolkien (Gandalf blasting the goblins in The Hobbit is the only Tolkien AoE spell I recall), but free choice is only for Clerics in B/X, not for M-Us.  GM assigning M-U spells is the B/X standard, and of course you only assign the spells you want to see in your game.

Edit: Finally, Aragorn's unique abilities are just that, unique.  There are PCs in my own B/X campaign whose backgrounds give them unique abilities because of (eg) their bloodline.  I don't need to give Faoil the 'Blood of Imarok' template in B/X, I just GM it the way I want it.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2007)

scriven said:
			
		

> [*] It eliminates the thrill of finding magic items in a treasure hoard.  This thrill didn't derive from the items' being unknowable or mysterious or unpredictable, but simply from the fact that any given item, such as a _serpentine owl_, was so rare as to often be unique within a given campaign.  This thrill was present in 1E, 2E, and even the computer RPGs I've played. (Think of finding a _Ring of Polymorph Control_ down in the dungeons of _Nethack_. Or the _Wand of Wishing_, one of the incredibly rare opportunities to pick any item you wanted, but which only had a few charges -- now there was a find! You did well to think long and hard about what to wish for when you used it.) In 3E, this thrill is gone, and I miss it terribly.




The thrill of finding "stuff" is as present now as ever. I'm still not sure why people feel that 1e made buying & selling magic items forbidden. I remember 2nd edition having some notes about it, but they were usually ignored. There is still an advantage to finding an item rather than buying it, and I think in an RPG it is as likely to tailor magic to the party's desires as much as making it truely random.


----------



## jensun (Mar 28, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Personally my impression of Tolkien is that there are tons of low-power items and some better ones, like that ring of invisibility.  I don't see B2 as all that different from The Hobbit & LOTR in likely MI count.  I find the B/X Dwarf, Halfling and Elf fit Tolkien fine, unsurprising since Tolkien was the clear inspiration.  You're right about the spells in that if you allow free choice of spells there's much more area-effect stuff than in Tolkien (Gandalf blasting the goblins in The Hobbit is the only Tolkien AoE spell I recall), but free choice is only for Clerics in B/X, not for M-Us.  GM assigning M-U spells is the B/X standard, and of course you only assign the spells you want to see in your game.
> 
> Edit: Finally, Aragorn's unique abilities are just that, unique.  There are PCs in my own B/X campaign whose backgrounds give them unique abilities because of (eg) their bloodline.  I don't need to give Faoil the 'Blood of Imarok' template in B/X, I just GM it the way I want it.



OK, its late and my sarcasm detectors seem to be on the blink so I have to ask.

Your kidding right, please tell me your kidding...?


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> OK, its late and my sarcasm detectors seem to be on the blink so I have to ask.
> 
> Your kidding right, please tell me your kidding...?




?? No, I'm not kidding.  It may be that the background world of The Hobbit and LoTR is low magic and mundane, but equally well the background world of Keep on the Borderlands might be low magic and mundane.  It's what's 'on stage' that matters, and LOTR especially is chock full of magic items; which was probably the inspiration for OD&D being chock full of items.  Tolkien works great in B/X, where Gimli is a Dwarf Hero (4th level Dwarf), Elrond a 9th level Elf Wizard-Lord, maybe Gandalf is a 10th or 12th level Wizard (and the Balrog is similar; though 1e Balor only gets 8+8 hd, poor guy).


----------



## jensun (Mar 28, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> and some better ones, like that ring of invisibility



I assumed from this quote that you were being sarcastic.

Your post fills me with despair.


----------



## Pielorinho (Mar 28, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> I assumed from this quote that you were being sarcastic.
> 
> Your post fills me with despair.



Moderator's Notes:
Jensun, I thought I was pretty clear before about the need to be respectful, civil, and courteous.  This post is one of at least two you've made since my warning that violates board rules, and my specific warning.  Please do not post in this thread again.  If you have questions about this, email me; do not discuss this note in this thread.

Everyone else, please stay civil and courteous; if you see folks violating that rule, please report their post.

Thanks!

Daniel


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I think part of the disconnect here might be (and I could be wrong) that I think all that little stuff is important and fun and memorable, because I don't try to "tell a story" when I DM.  I try to create a situation and a setting in which players can forge their own stories.  Hunting down Archmage Smartypants and convincing him to sell is foozle has as much potential for story -- the kind you tell with your friends when not gaming, or bore your wife with -- as going into a dragon's lair.  I like "sandbox" gaming, and running "sandbox" games.  It has taken me a while to get there, mind -- I have had more than 1 "epic quest" fizzle, or be rejected by the players.  So now, I try to go "Here's the world.  Go play." Of course, I toss out threads and plots and such, but if the players ignore or reject them, so be it.  There is always another adventure around the corner.




Finally, somebody who plays "goodrightfun"!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 28, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> As far as the original post goes, Magic Shops, in whatever form they might take, may or may not be appropriate for your particular game.
> 
> D&D, and especially the earlier versions, doesnt have an overriding spirit. Each game creates its own and magic shops will appear or not depending on that.




Fourteen pages and finally someone states the obvious.

Gracias! 



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> By utilizing these zillion monster books, feat books, class books, spell books, magic system books, there's always something new to throw at the players. When the players don't know what books the DM is going to use, that's unpredictable. At least I get that ol' magical feeling when reading a good* magic supplement for D&D.




Heck yah! It's also very easy to create your own stuff for 3e and still be fairly balanced, leaving room for all sorts of campaign-specific creations by innovative DMs. Not to mention the old "goblin stats, looks like some sort of gibbering tentacled horror" trick.

There's zero truth to the statement that 3e is necessarily less mysterious than any other edition of the game.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> It may be that the background world of The Hobbit and LoTR is low magic and mundane, but equally well the background world of Keep on the Borderlands might be low magic and mundane.  It's what's 'on stage' that matters...




LotR specifics aside, this is a very good point and something that I think a lot of people forget.  it may be that the party consists of a half-dragon giantkin, a drow paladin and a centaur wizard.  That doesn't mean any of those things are common in the world.  The presence of a magic item on the list (or amonster in the manual, or even a spell in the PHB) doesn't necessarily make those things automatically common in the campaign setting.  If PCs are special, and their adventures are special, then the trappings of the PCs and their adventures are special, too.  One could reasonably play D&D RAW set in dark ages England and not change history one iota -- it just so happens that all the typical D&Disms exist only the the PCs' immediate sphere of influence and contact.

Hence unique Gloves of Dexterity and +1 swords.  Just because it is "common" from a PC's perspective doesn't mean it is actually common.


----------



## scriven (Mar 28, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> But wait!  Nethack HAS magic item shops.  And clearly that didn't kill the wonder for you.
> 
> QED.




Perhaps you missed some of my previous posts? It has been quite a long thread.

I don't object to magic shops like the ones in _Nethack_ or _Diablo_.  They limit you to the relative handful of items the shopkeeper has on hand.  You can't choose an arbitrary item and expect him to have it.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Mar 28, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> From my recollection, the magic items that actually showed up in LotR (and _The Hobbit_):
> 
> *Certainly magical*:
> The One Ring
> ...




Don't forget the magical toys that Bilbo gives the hobbit children at his party.
If kids have magic items, why wouldn't adults? They just weren't important to the story.

Geoff.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Pedantic.  While not called "Rule Zero", the basic concept was pretty clearly written into the 1e DMG.




Were we talking about Rule 0 not being in the _*3.5e*_ DMG?

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 29, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Artifacts most certainly WERE statted out in the 1st Edition DMG. We had several of them in our group.




Artifacts, whilst in the DMG, were not given all of their powers. They had several blank spaces that the DM could fill in from the tables provided, so the artifacts could vary from campaign to campaign.



> Spell descriptions were written up in exact detail in the PHB.




Not entirely true. The DMG had additional notes on several spells, containing material needed to adjudicate the spells. However, I think they rarely came up in actual play.



> There are alternate rules for environment in 3rd Edition if you want to use them. Frostburn, Stormwrack, and alternate effects for magic items and spells in supplements like Ghostwalk where brilliant energy weapons can harm ghosts and incorporeal creatures.




Not to mention the changes in magic in the planes - though to a much lesser extent than in AD&D. (You were mad to go onto the planes in AD&D after _Manual of the Planes_ was released, one of the biggest mistakes of Grubb's writing. Funnily enough, his 3e version shows he learnt from his mistakes, and is one of the more praised of the 3e canon).

Cheers!


----------



## FireLance (Mar 29, 2007)

scriven said:
			
		

> I don't object to magic shops like the ones in _Nethack_ or _Diablo_.  They limit you to the relative handful of items the shopkeeper has on hand.  You can't choose an arbitrary item and expect him to have it.



It doesn't necessarily have to be a single shopkeeper, or even a shopkeeper at all - there could be agents or brokers who specialize in obtaining rare items for the wealthy and powerful (such as mid-level adventurers), for example.

Based on your previous posts, your objections seem to run along the lines of:

1. The PCs should not be able to customize their magical gear.
My question is, why the arbitrary distinction between magical and non-magical gear? If you are prepared to allow the PCs to purchase full plate armor or a spyglass, why not low-level potions and scrolls, or _+1 bracers or armor_, or a _+1 breastplate_? I can understand limiting items on the basis of price, but that's what the rules on community gp limits do, anyway.

2. The PCs should not be able to buy certain magical items because certain items should be unique.
I can understand the sentiment although I wouldn't have a problem with the PCs buying unique items myself (unique works of art are regularly sold at auctions in the real world, after all). The question is where you draw the line. Perhaps there has only been one _holy avenger_ in the history of the world, but what about a _+1 longsword_? Even if each individual _+1 longsword_ in the world has a name and a history, if there are 100,000 of them, you should be able to find at least one owner who is willing to part with it for gold.

Finally, there's nothing to stop the DM from just making the item available. If he can put the exact magical item that the player wants in a pile of treasure, he can just as easily have the exact magical item that the player wants show up in the inventory of a dealer in rare and wondrous items.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 29, 2007)

Were there Magic Shops in Lord of the Rings?  I know I've never seen them in Melnibone and the Conan stories...

Now the MYTH series...there was a series with magic item shops!

jh


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Mar 29, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Were there Magic Shops in Lord of the Rings?




I'm not sure that I understand the relevance of this question...

Later
silver


----------



## MerricB (Mar 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Can magic items be something other than predictable technology or not?




Here's an interesting question, and a lot of it boils down to definitions. In essence, any item that can be written down must be predictable to some extent, even if its "make a roll on this table and see what happens". An item that has the DM make up an effect each time it is used isn't predictable, but is a little too much trouble for most games. 

Let's take as our poster child of predictable unpredictability the _wand of wonder_. From the DM's eyes, this is a fairly predictable item. Roll the dice, get one of these results. The result may be unpredictable, but the mechanism of working it is predictable.

From a novice player's eyes, this is an utterly strange and unpredictable item. It's a great example for keeping the DMG out of the hands of the players. To the experienced player (who still hasn't seen the DMG), it is still unpredictable in effect, but a lot more of a known quantity. To the really experienced player (who has read the DMG), it's the same as the DM: a predictable unpredictability.

However, a question that needs to be answered is this: will the item get used? A _wand of wonder_ is very much an item that get used once or twice and then gets thrown away. It may be kept in the party longer if they're very low level (a _wand of wonder_ is great for a 1st or 2nd level party), but at higher levels they have more reliable technology to use: either their spells, or more predictable magic items.

We've occasionally debated that legendary thing called a "sense of wonder". I'm going to call it the "cool factor", being the number of times a player says "cool!" in relation to an item:

* Upon first learning of the item, there's a "cool!" (assuming the item is, in fact, interesting. A +1 sword qualifies. Obviously, we've moved past that point for +1 swords...)
* Upon first using the item, there's a "cool!".
* Upon first using the item in a new way, there's a "cool!"

A +1 sword really only gets two "Cool!" marks. "You mean I can hit for +1 attack and damage?" "Wow, I just hit for +1 attack and damage!" Ditto for gauntlets of ogre power and the like.

Meanwhile, an item that allows you to slide a creature 5' in any direction scores much higher.  Move a friend into flanking? Cool! Move a vampire into sunlight? Cool! Move a friend out of harm's way? Cool!

Within the constraints of a game like D&D, unpredictable magic - or magic with drawbacks - really won't get used much. If a combat lasts 5 rounds, why spend two of those rounds doing nothing but watching the flowers grow with a Wand of Wonder? Predictable magic trumps that, and that's why we see the Big 6 so much.

What I think is important is magic that allows exploration of its uses, which is much harder to create.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 29, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Were there Magic Shops in Lord of the Rings?  I know I've never seen them in Melnibone and the Conan stories...




Were there actual mundane shops in LotR? Taverns, yes. Shops? Not so sure. The story doesn't cover them, so we can't make an assessment of their existence.

There are certainly magic shops in the Vlad Taltos books of Stephen Brust.

(And yes, the Myth series definitely has magic shops).

Cheers!


----------



## molonel (Mar 29, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Artifacts, whilst in the DMG, were not given all of their powers. They had several blank spaces that the DM could fill in from the tables provided, so the artifacts could vary from campaign to campaign.




For example?



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Not entirely true. The DMG had additional notes on several spells, containing material needed to adjudicate the spells. However, I think they rarely came up in actual play.




For the overwhelming majority of spells, the effects were laid out precisely in the PHB for everyone to see. There is no such equivalent listing for every spell in the DMG, and any adjucations were the exception, not the rule.

Ergo, saying that magic was mysterious and unpredictable in that game is untrue.


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 29, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> For example?




Sword of Kas, Hand and Eye of Vecna, Teeth of St. Cuthbert.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 29, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> For example?




All of the artifacts in the 1e DMG had things like:

Hand of Vecna... description blah blah... some basic powers... and 4 powers from table I, 3 powers from table II, 2 powers from table III, 1 power from table IV.

There were lots of blank lines then that you filled in yourself.

Cheers!


----------



## molonel (Mar 29, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> All of the artifacts in the 1e DMG had things like:
> 
> Hand of Vecna... description blah blah... some basic powers... and 4 powers from table I, 3 powers from table II, 2 powers from table III, 1 power from table IV.
> 
> There were lots of blank lines then that you filled in yourself.




Oh, you're referring to the random powers and drawbacks charts. Okay.

When I think of filling in the blanks, I think of writing stuff yourself. The powers of the various artifacts were filled in, and you could roll on those charts, yes.

But as we've speaking about already, randomness is not mystery. I remember reading through those charts, and thinking why would anyone ever use this crap?

You get a wart on the end of your nose?

Wow, that's epic.

And mysterious! And unpredictable!

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)


----------



## MerricB (Mar 29, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Oh, you're referring to the random powers and drawbacks charts. Okay.
> 
> When I think of filling in the blanks, I think of writing stuff yourself. The powers of the various artifacts were filled in, and you could roll on those charts, yes.
> 
> ...




I noticed. The tables aren't random, btw. They're to be chosen by the DM - thus, a player who buys the DMG doesn't know what the exact powers each artifact has because they're only in his DM's copy.

Cheers!


----------



## molonel (Mar 29, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The tables aren't random, btw. They're to be chosen by the DM - thus, a player who buys the DMG doesn't know what the exact powers each artifact has because they're only in his DM's copy.




I don't know that arbitrary is necessarily a step above random, mysterywise.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 29, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I don't know that arbitrary is necessarily a step above random, mysterywise.




Err... 

The players not knowing what the _Hand of Vecna_ does makes its exact powers a mystery. Once discovered, they're no longer a mystery.

Not having the exact powers in the DMG preserves the mystery that bit longer. (For many players are also DMs...)

Cheers!


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 29, 2007)

*likes players not knowing stuff* It's like Merric and me viewing Age of Worms from different angles. He liked Prince of Redhand. I did not.


----------



## molonel (Mar 29, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Err ... The players not knowing what the _Hand of Vecna_ does makes its exact powers a mystery. Once discovered, they're no longer a mystery. Not having the exact powers in the DMG preserves the mystery that bit longer. (For many players are also DMs...)




Many of the powers and drawbacks on those charts, though, weren't even options that anyone seriously considered. A lot of people just downright skipped them, because they were silly. Knowing that it had to come from a numbered list in the DMG just means it's a game to figure out which ones. Putting a padlock on the DMG wasn't an option in most cases, and I can't really say that keeping the book a hush-hush secret ever really improved the game.

The end result being, magic doesn't seem any more mysterious or magical to me because an item says, "Choose one from chart A, two from chart B and one disadvantage from chart C" than it does when it asks you to roll on a percentile table.

YMMV.


----------



## molonel (Mar 29, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *likes players not knowing stuff* It's like Merric and me viewing Age of Worms from different angles. He liked Prince of Redhand. I did not.




I like incorporating new material into the game, actually.

But keeping the players in the dark about the basic rules, the functioning of their own spells and abilities and their gear?

Too much unnecessary work.

I'd rather be working on plot points, NPCs and monsters.


----------



## Numion (Mar 29, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I noticed. The tables aren't random, btw. They're to be chosen by the DM - thus, a player who buys the DMG doesn't know what the exact powers each artifact has because they're only in his DM's copy.




This is not different from the DM selecting abilities for a magic sword he's going to place in an adventure, in 3E.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 29, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> This is not different from the DM selecting abilities for a magic sword he's going to place in an adventure, in 3E.




True, although the abilities of artefacts tended to be odder than those of magic swords.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 29, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Many of the powers and drawbacks on those charts, though, weren't even options that anyone seriously considered.




Not the point, though. 

Check out my post on the last page about Coolness in magic items.

Cheers!


----------



## molonel (Mar 29, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Not the point, though.
> 
> Check out my post on the last page about Coolness in magic items.




Which is why I went on to say more than that.

Neither randomized charts nor Pick 1 from A, 2 from B and 1 from C situations create a sense of mystery for me, nor in fact are they qualitatively different from a 3rd Edition DM going through the randomized power charts for weapons, for example, and constructing them by picking powers off the charts.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, for one thing, you've had to make a host of changes, which is different from playing D&D as written. Many of the differences are pretty substantial in scope, and have some pretty dubious grounding. Where, for example, do elves in LotR really cast anything resembling a D&D type spell? You can make a limited argument that Elrond cast some sort of divination in _The Hobbit_, and may have used a healing spell of some sort on Frodo in LotR, and there is the control over the waters of Rivendell's river, but that's it, and those don't fit any known D&D spells with respect to their use (and at least two seem more to be simply "really good skill" rather than "spells"). Galadirel scried using her font, but that seems to have been a property of the font, not a D&D style spell. And you're "everything else goes by the book" leaves a lot undefined. Do ranger's get animal companions? Do paladins exist? Do they have special mounts? Is Aragorn really a plain fighter, or is he some other class? Does he cast spells?
> 
> But the real difference is in magic availability. Using the standards set in the various editions of D&D, magic items are just much more common, and much more prominent in D&D than they ever are in LotR. You have to radically alter how magic really works to make D&D work like LotR, unless you are willing to handwave away a _lot_. And that's why D&D is a poor fit for LotR - the volume of handwaving and customized rules starts to overwhelm the system. At that point, there are a lot of systems that work much, _much_ better for getting a LotR feel into a game session.




Storm Raven, I think you are using some hyperbole here and I really disagree with you.  Those Classic/LotR notes I wrote up took me _10 minutes while getting ready for work_.  That doesn't constitute a "host of changes".  I could have the full guidelines for a playable and fun Classic D&D LotR campaign in 2 hours or less.  The game would certainly feel like LotR and would work fine.  As far as "handwaving"... that's the best part about Classic!  If you're a Northman Fighter of Arnor, you get to do Rangerish things if you want, etc.  Men of Laketown know about boating, veterans of Ithilien are also Rangerish, men of Rohan are expert riders, etc.  I don't need a spreadsheet and 15 full-color supplements to do that stuff.  That stuff is Baby Easy.

Elrond?  Well he cast Read Magic on Bilbo's map, he cast Remove Curse (or Cure Disease) on Frodo as well as healing magic, and his control over the Anduin is a unique power.  However, spells in general are problematic in Middle Earth because they draw the attention of Sauron.  And we all know what that means: increased random encounters (or worse)!

Anyway, all of that stuff is a cinch.  That's the beauty of pre-3E D&D actually... it can be practically whatever you want it to be.


----------



## Jemal (Mar 29, 2007)

scriven said:
			
		

> I can see that it would have mitigated things a bit, but it seems hard to justify from an in-game standpoint.  Is the idea that NPCs have more time to build up contacts to whom they can sell?  Then what if the PCs befriend an NPC and have him sell things for them?  Maybe they could offer him a cut to make it worth his while.  Or what if someone sets up a cohort as a merchant and has him sell things?
> 
> (Or perhaps the next time they save someone's life... "A reward?  Why no, no, I could never accept a reward.  As a small favor, however, perhaps you could liquidate these items for me -- I'm so busy with heroic deeds, you see...")




Why can't I sell my used TV back to the store for what it was originally worth? 
If you DID set up as a Magic-Item Merchant, then you WOULD have cause to sell stuff for full price, b/c that's what Merchants do, they sell stuff for more than they BUY it for.. Why would someone pay you 2300GP for a +1 sword?  Either they're going to sell it again (in which case they'd want to make a profit), or they'd be using it, in which case unless you ARE a merchant, they'd probably go to the merchant b/c he's more liable, what with running a business... Unless you sell your item for a discount.

Also, the rule exists for Game Balance reasons... treasure hordes can give significantly more magical items than the 'average' table suggests for GP value.  If the PC's keep them, then it's a bit more balanced b/c A)they didn't decide which items they got, and B) The DM DID, meaning he didn't give them anything that would wreck the campaign..  If the PC's SELL stuff, then they're getting less worth in order to decide what that worth IS.
remembe,r Money changers charge you to change Gold into Silver..


----------



## FireLance (Mar 29, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> That's the beauty of pre-3E D&D actually... it can be practically whatever you want it to be.



Fixed it for, well, most of the rest of us, I guess.


----------



## Thurbane (Mar 29, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> So you assume that because the DM is not giving out the "by-the-book" wealth that he is therefore and inept Killer DM?



I see this assumption again and again in these type of threads.

No credit is given that any DM can run an effective and balanced campaign unless he slavishly follows WBL/CR formulas. 

From my own personal experience of 20+ years, in several different editions, the DMs I've played with have all been able to step beyond RAW to varying degrees and still keep the game fun and balanced...but then, all of the games I've been involved in were played for all involved to have fun, not as some sort of DM vs. players arms race...


----------



## MerricB (Mar 29, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I see this assumption again and again in these type of threads.
> 
> No credit is given that any DM can run an effective and balanced campaign unless he slavishly follows WBL/CR formulas.




Hmm... I think it far more likely in this thread you're seeing the assumption that if you slavishly follow the EL/CR formulas, but give out much less treasure than average, then your PCs are going to run into trouble.

A DM who realises that giving out fewer powerful magic items means that some monsters will be tougher than normal is fine. 

Inexperienced DMs are more likely to need the EL/CR and WBL guidelines than experienced DMs, although experienced DMs may find those guidelines very useful.

Cheers!


----------



## FireLance (Mar 29, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I see this assumption again and again in these type of threads.
> 
> No credit is given that any DM can run an effective and balanced campaign unless he slavishly follows WBL/CR formulas.



It's an often misinterpreted complaint. It is sometimes due to a clash of playing styles - players who want a standard wealth game and a DM who wants to run a low-magic or low-wealth game - but it does sometimes have a real basis, when it is directed at a DM who does not take into account the PCs' lower wealth when designing challenges for them.

It is not always the players' fault when there are problems in a gaming group. DMs are not all paragons of excellence and creative geniuses who are forced to cripple their wondrous and sublime visions because of petty, demanding and ungrateful powergaming munchkins. DMs can be stupid, incompetent, arrogant, and blind to their own faults, too.


----------



## Rothe (Mar 29, 2007)

Quote:


			
				Korgoth
That's the beauty of [S said:
			
		

> pre-3E [/S] D&D actually... it can be practically whatever you want it to be.






			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Fixed it for, well, most of the rest of us, I guess.




That's the beauty of Traveller actually... it can be practically whatever you want it to be.

Wanted to fix that for both of you.  Just drop the spaceships, advanced weapons and world generation.  Since there seems to be no real "level progression," no real need for class based systems, especially when there really is no spell slinging.  Or just use skill level progression.

What magical effects there are can be modeled with the Traveller's psionic rules, select the effects that are appropriate.  

Base any "saving throw" on character traits.

The skill system makes it even better, when that Lakeman asks you what's his chance of keeping the boat from a capsizing in high waves or getting that extra speed out of her to get to shore, let's see you have Boating-3, roll 2D6 add 3 and get 8 or higher to succeed. 

Very easy to stat out anybody, no need to worry about class combos or saying he's a ranger except he can't cast all spells and he has a few thief abilities but not all.  Just decide on the skills evidenced and note the level.  

One could also say "That's the beauty of TFT actually... it can be practically whatever you want it to be."

Even more appropriate, use the skill approach and broad categories to easily make a stealthy-fighter, a fighter-wizard etc.  No need to make an exception for Gandalf using a sword, not that he's human or even mortal.  No funky multi-class with partial class ability builds to get Aragon (or Conan).  You also have all the spells and monsters built in.


Not saying you can't use D&D to do LOTR.  As you might imagine, this has been tried and done, many, many times before, in fact, half the OD&D campaigns from the '70's (again IME) tried to do this.  The class based definition of D&D characters was the most problematic part.  IME it's not the easiest fantasy RPG system to modify to emulate the LOTR, others worked much better.


----------



## molonel (Mar 29, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> It's an often misinterpreted complaint. It is sometimes due to a clash of playing styles - players who want a standard wealth game and a DM who wants to run a low-magic or low-wealth game - but it does sometimes have a real basis, when it is directed at a DM who does not take into account the PCs' lower wealth when designing challenges for them. It is not always the players' fault when there are problems in a gaming group. DMs are not all paragons of excellence and creative geniuses who are forced to cripple their wondrous and sublime visions because of petty, demanding and ungrateful powergaming munchkins. DMs can be stupid, incompetent, arrogant, and blind to their own faults, too.




Agreed, and low-magic or low-wealth campaigns are more often rhapsodized than understood or run well, in my opinion. I've played through several crawl-through-the-lovely-filth games that frankly were just plain boring. Those "wake up a in a jail in your skivvies" games where you're supposed to be grateful for the sharpened stick you found. (I wish I was exaggerating.)


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 29, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> It's an often misinterpreted complaint. It is sometimes due to a clash of playing styles - players who want a standard wealth game and a DM who wants to run a low-magic or low-wealth game - but it does sometimes have a real basis, when it is directed at a DM who does not take into account the PCs' lower wealth when designing challenges for them.
> 
> It is not always the players' fault when there are problems in a gaming group. DMs are not all paragons of excellence and creative geniuses who are forced to cripple their wondrous and sublime visions because of petty, demanding and ungrateful powergaming munchkins. DMs can be stupid, incompetent, arrogant, and blind to their own faults, too.




Yup.  If the DM sets expectations, most players can very easily go with the flow.  

I have gotten tetchy with one DM who insisted he was right on the guidelines when really he was ~30% below.  I am not proud of that and I have learned to be more patient since, but it was not unjustified either.  

The DM's job is to know his world or accept that he does not understand everything about his world -- pretending to know things that are fairly easy to disprove is simply a mistake.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 29, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I see this assumption again and again in these type of threads.
> 
> No credit is given that any DM can run an effective and balanced campaign unless he slavishly follows WBL/CR formulas.




Well, the thing is that it's a very hard thing to do. It's almost impossible to keep major spellcasters from dominating a D&D 3.x game where magic item availability is signifcantly below WBL, and almost no one takes measures to prevent that. So while I'm sure that someone out there has run a well-balanced low-magic-item D&D 3.x game, my experience with them says that they're few and far between.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Well, part of my original argument was that PCs should not be laden with gear the way they are expected to be in 3.x, and by that you can make a game where every item, even a crappy +1 sword, special and unique.  After all, how many boring old stories are you going to have to come up with throughout a campaign like that? 10? 20?  That shouldn't be too hard for a DM, considering it's his job to come up with cool stuff every week (or whatever).
> *snip*




See the problem I have is is that some people, Reynard included, seem to think that 3e games are "laden with gear".  This is a very personal point of view.  The treasure tables in the Monster Manual gave you about a 10-25% chance of getting 1-4 magic items.  I know I have those numbers wrong, but they're close.  By the book treasure in 1e resulted in a metric pile of magic items in every group I ever played with.

Quasqueton's excellent threads on the amount of magical loot in 1e modules is really an eye opener.  1 MILLION gp's in cash treasure alone in the G series.  It doesn't matter if the party doesn't find half of it, that's still 500, 000 gp's.  That's not including the almost double amount of treasure you could get for flogging the magic items.  Again, even if you only find a quarter of it, you are still absolutely swimming in treasure.

Yes, you might have a problem paying for training at 3rd level, but, by 5th?  You're tipping with platinum pieces because it's the smallest change you've got.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> That's not what some folks are saying.  What they are saying is "Who cares -- might as well just have gems and gps in the hoard" because the players are going to equip their characters how they want, selling off any items they don't want.
> 
> I think in my next campaign I will ban the buying and selling of items other than potions and scrools, unles the players actually bother the play out seeking an item and convincing its owner to sell it.




Quote please?  No one, I think, is saying that.  What people are saying is that players like to personalize their characters and not every magic item they pick up is going to resonate with them.  Perhaps one or two items over the course of the campaign might.  The sword with a light spell certainly could.

Actually, that's the best reason to give magic items in troves.  Sometimes you hit the jackpot and the party goes all goo goo over that talking dagger that can't remember its own name.  Other times, they turn up their noses and dump it as fast as they can.  

The point of all that is, you shouldn't be forcing your views on the players.  By completely shutting down any customization of magic items, you've basically told your players, "My imagination is better than yours.  I know best for what your character needs."  It's not really surprising that some people don't like that.  

On the idea of entitlement.  Well, yes, I do think that if my character has braved the terrible dangers of the Lost Temple of Ee, I should reap the benefits.  Sure, I'm playing to enjoy the game, but, part of the enjoyment also comes in the phat loot you accumulate as well.  Does that make me a problem player?  Perhaps.  I did play in a 2 year campaign where we advanced from 1st to 3rd level and the party had maybe 500 gp among the five of us.  High rp game.  It was fun, but, we tried the Shackled City AP afterward.  After 16 sessions, we advanced one level and found about 100 gp.  I quit the game.  Not because the DM was bad, he's actually very very good and I would recommend him to anyone.  But, it wasn't fun for me.  Spending week after week spinning my wheels and getting nowhere is far too much like real life.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 29, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Anyway, all of that stuff is a cinch.  That's the beauty of pre-3E D&D actually... it can be practically whatever you want it to be.




My impression though now that I'm running Moldvay B/X D&D for the first time, and finding it an incredibly wonderful and flexible ruleset, is that it and its antecedents back to 1974 D&D, are a lot more flexible than 1e-2e AD&D, because their reduced complexity greatly aids customisability.  In 1e, especially post Unearthed Arcana, it feels like you can no longer do Barbarian stuff unless you're a Barbarian, Knight stuff unless you're a Cavalier, and Aragorn Ranger-y stuff unless you're a Ranger.  I think 3e is much closer to 1e-2e in this respect, that "Everything not expressly permitted is forbidden".


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 29, 2007)

Mol,

It's only work if you look at it like work. Besides, I keep everything on an outline basis.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 29, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> It is not always the players' fault when there are problems in a gaming group. DMs are not all paragons of excellence and creative geniuses who are forced to cripple their wondrous and sublime visions because of petty, demanding and ungrateful powergaming munchkins. DMs can be stupid, incompetent, arrogant, and blind to their own faults, too.




This is true, and 3e is designed to enable a poor GM to run a satisfactory game.  In fact it almost _forces_ the poor GM into running a satisfactory game, because when he tries to screw it up he can be told he's deviating from the RAW.  However, I think 3e makes it harder for a good GM to run a great game.  Certainly it happens, but again it involves deviating from the RAW at times, and the RAW are highly interlinked so you can easily get a cascade of problems.  One of my players is a huge 3e fan, but he told me I shouldn't be running it, because it didn't fit my GM style.  Now I run C&C and am far far happier, which makes for better GMing.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 29, 2007)

*is happy running both Scarred Lands AND Age of Worms* So far no one's complained.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 29, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> My impression though now that I'm running Moldvay B/X D&D for the first time, and finding it an incredibly wonderful and flexible ruleset, is that it and its antecedents back to 1974 D&D, are a lot more flexible than 1e-2e AD&D, because their reduced complexity greatly aids customisability.  In 1e, especially post Unearthed Arcana, it feels like you can no longer do Barbarian stuff unless you're a Barbarian, Knight stuff unless you're a Cavalier, and Aragorn Ranger-y stuff unless you're a Ranger.  I think 3e is much closer to 1e-2e in this respect, that "Everything not expressly permitted is forbidden".




Maybe that's true... although in 1e a Ranger is less a woodsman (there's a secondary skill for that) and more of a Green Beret.  I agree with criticism of UA, however... I did not like the direction that was going in.  I think 1e was still way more flexible than 3E.

However, Classic is pretty much the best ruleset in my opinion.  It is definitely "Rules-Lite D&D"... the best of both worlds!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> This is true, and 3e is designed to enable a poor GM to run a satisfactory game.  In fact it almost _forces_ the poor GM into running a satisfactory game, because when he tries to screw it up he can be told he's deviating from the RAW.  However, I think 3e makes it harder for a good GM to run a great game.  Certainly it happens, but again it involves deviating from the RAW at times, and the RAW are highly interlinked so you can easily get a cascade of problems.  One of my players is a huge 3e fan, but he told me I shouldn't be running it, because it didn't fit my GM style.  Now I run C&C and am far far happier, which makes for better GMing.




There's a bit of a danger there though in that statement.  The idea that a great game _must_ deviate from RAW and that any game which attempts to cleave to RAW is inferior.  I'm not saying that's what you are saying S'mon, but it is a fairly common idea.  

Now, I defy anyone to say that they play 100% RAW.  That's not what I mean.  But, the intent to follow RAW as much as possible certainly doesn't automatically doom a campaign to mediocrity.


----------



## molonel (Mar 29, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> This is true, and 3e is designed to enable a poor GM to run a satisfactory game. In fact it almost _forces_ the poor GM into running a satisfactory game, because when he tries to screw it up he can be told he's deviating from the RAW. However, I think 3e makes it harder for a good GM to run a great game. Certainly it happens, but again it involves deviating from the RAW at times, and the RAW are highly interlinked so you can easily get a cascade of problems. One of my players is a huge 3e fan, but he told me I shouldn't be running it, because it didn't fit my GM style. Now I run C&C and am far far happier, which makes for better GMing.




I'm glad you're happier running C&C, but I marvel at your descriptions of 3rd Edition.

I've been playing 3rd Edition since six months after it came out. I don't KNOW anyone personally who runs a game purely by the RAW. Everyone has house rules and deviations, many of them quite major.

I almost think you get your impressions of this "cascade of problems" more from reading message boards than from playing the game.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The idea that a great game _must_ deviate from RAW and that any game which attempts to cleave to RAW is inferior.  I'm not saying that's what you are saying S'mon, but it is a fairly common idea.




I'm trying to say almost the opposite, that a game which cleaves to RAW is likely better than most games that don't, because most GMs are not that great.  Yet conversely, IMNSHO, very few games that cleave strictly to  RAW are truly great.  I expect it's possible, but I haven't seen it and I have trouble imagining it.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 29, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I'm glad you're happier running C&C, but I marvel at your descriptions of 3rd Edition.
> 
> I've been playing 3rd Edition since six months after it came out. I don't KNOW anyone personally who runs a game purely by the RAW. Everyone has house rules and deviations, many of them quite major.
> 
> I almost think you get your impressions of this "cascade of problems" more from reading message boards than from playing the game.




Ha, no, definitely not!  I GM'd 3e regularly for 6 years, from when it came out in 2000 to December 2006.  I consistently found that house-ruling 3e led to the cascade effect.  I still house ruled, but the head aches got worse and worse until I was driven to seek an alternative system.

Edit: I think Monte Cook's statement that 3e was designed to "Take the DM out of the equation" supports my view, too.  3e is intended to be a robust, comprehensive, interlinked ruleset.  It is not designed for house-ruling.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 29, 2007)

*1st edition treasure 'hordes'*

As a counterpoint to the discussion of the abundant treasure in certain published 1st edition modules, I ran through the first few monsters in the 1st edition MM and calculated the expected treasure for defeating a particular monster in its lair.

Aerial Servant: -
Ankheg: 371 cp, 300 sp, 71 ep, 25% chance of 1 gem, 11% chance of 1 piece of jewelry, 6% chance of one magic item.
Giant Ant: 3% chance of one gem, 1.6% chance of one potion
Ape, Gorilla: -
Ape, Carniverous: 260 cp, 210 sp, 50 ep, 18% chance of 1 gem, 8% chance of 1 piece of jewelry, 4% chance of 1 magic item
Axebeak: -
Baboon: -
Badger: -
Barracuda: -
Baluchitherium: -
Basilisk: 420 sp, 390 ep, 880 gp, ~2 gems, 22% chance of 1 piece of jewelry, 60% chance of 1 magic item (no weapons)
Bear: -
Beaver, Giant: -
Beetle, Giant: -
Beholder: 315 pp, ~ 6 gems, ~3 pieces of jewelry, 15% of 1 magic item, 2 potions, ~1 scroll
Black Pudding: -
Blink Dog: 130 cp, 105 sp, 25 ep, 9% chance of 1 gem, 4% of 1 piece of jewelry, 2% chance of 1 magic item
Boar: -
Brain Mole: -
Buffalo: -
Bugbear: 120 cp, 52 sp, 37 ep, 29 gp, 6% chance of 1 gem, 2.4% chance of 1 jewelry, 0.5% chance of 1 magic armor or weapon
Bullette: -
Bull: -
Camel: -
Carrion Crawler: 643 cp, 250 sp, 179 ep, 107 gp, 39% chance of 1 gem, 14% chance of 1 jewelry, 2.8% chance of 1 magic item
Catapolus: 519 cp, 294 sp, 99 ep, 35% chance of 1 gem, 20% chance of 1 jewelry, 8% chance of 1 magic item
Cattle, Wild: -
Centaur: 32 cp, 70 sp, 48 ep, 130 gp, 23 pp, ~2 gems, 29% chance of 1 jewelry, 9% chance of 1 scroll, 1% chance of 1 potion, 3% chance of 1 magic item
Centipede, Giant: -
Cerebral Parasite: -
Chimera: 420 sp, 390 ep, 880 gp, ~2 gems, 22% chance of 1 piece of jewelry, 60% chance of 1 magic item (no weapons)


Numbers aren't exact because I tended to round to the nearest whole number, but they do give you an idea of what the random treasure tables would be generating if you used them as written.

For those without prior experience, '1 magic' item refers to a randomly generated magic item - 20% would be potions and 15% would be scrolls.  Scrolls and potions in the hands of intelligent creatures would be expected to be used, as would weapons in the hordes of humanoids.  Although it may not be clear, the biggest bulk of the wealth by far comes from gemstones.  Keep in mind the 20 sp = 1 gp exchange rate.

And of course, you wouldn't actually get the treasure in even units like that.  It would come randomly in a horde so you might fight a band of monsters and get nothing and then fight another band and find 5 magic items and some jewelry.  In theory, it would even out.

Looking over the table, the best 'value' on the whole table is Centaurs, who have good treasure by the book (at least by these standards) and are only 4 HD creatures with no special attacks.  

It should be obvious that the random tables will not generate large hauls of magic items.  If all you fought was bugbears (in thier lair!), you'd have to kill about 200 bugbear warriors and thier leaders to gain a magic weapon.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, I defy anyone to say that they play 100% RAW.  That's not what I mean.  But, the intent to follow RAW as much as possible certainly doesn't automatically doom a campaign to mediocrity.




I don't think 'mediocrity' is a very helpful word here.  I'd say it 'dooms' your campaign to be better than ca 80% of non-RAW games, but makes it very unlikely that it'll be in the top (say) 5% of all games.  The exact %s are a matter of personal preference, but I think this was the clear design intent of 3e - to ensure that simply following the rules would result in a good game.  This was equally clearly NOT EGG's intent with 1e...


----------



## scriven (Mar 29, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I'm still not sure why people feel that 1e made buying & selling magic items forbidden.




It didn't. But take a look at the "Placement of Magic Items" section  on pages 92 - 93 of the 1E DMG.  DMs are strongly advised to control the availability of magic items in their campaigns.  The tool by which they're to exercise this control is careful placement of items as treasure.  Moreover, "...you need never feel constrained to place or even allow any item in your campaign just because it is listed in the tables.  Certainly, you should never allow a multiplicity, or possibly even duplication, of the more powerful items."

That advice is consistent with magic shops where you can buy +1 weapons and potions.  It's inconsistent with shops where you can find arbitrary items picked from the books.  Indeed, shops of the latter type would completely negate all the DM's care in placing items and avoiding multiplicities.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2007)

scriven said:
			
		

> It didn't. But take a look at the "Placement of Magic Items" section  on pages 92 - 93 of the 1E DMG.  DMs are strongly advised to control the availability of magic items in their campaigns.  The tool by which they're to exercise this control is careful placement of items as treasure.  Moreover, "...you need never feel constrained to place or even allow any item in your campaign just because it is listed in the tables.  Certainly, you should never allow a multiplicity, or possibly even duplication, of the more powerful items."
> 
> That advice is consistent with magic shops where you can buy +1 weapons and potions.  It's inconsistent with shops where you can find arbitrary items picked from the books.  Indeed, shops of the latter type would completely negate all the DM's care in placing items and avoiding multiplicities.




Now that's true.

OTOH, look at the items that are actually being bought in play.  Very, very few pc's comparitively, are buying Vorpal swords.  But, there are a plethora of players buying Gauntlet's of Ogre Power (which is a fairly minor magic item in 3e, certainly much less powerful than in 1e).   While the rules don't necessarily preclude buying a 100k gp item, in play, you rarely see it done.

In other words, it all ends out equal in the wash.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2007)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> Don't forget the magical toys that Bilbo gives the hobbit children at his party.
> If kids have magic items, why wouldn't adults? They just weren't important to the story.
> 
> Geoff.





The map with its moon-writing, and the secret door to the Lonely Mountain were both clearly magical, as was the door into Moria.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> See the problem I have is is that some people, Reynard included, seem to think that 3e games are "laden with gear".  This is a very personal point of view.  The treasure tables in the Monster Manual gave you about a 10-25% chance of getting 1-4 magic items.  I know I have those numbers wrong, but they're close.




But randomness isn't the issue at hand, because 3E has a "wealth by level" assumption, most of that wealth being in the form of gear.  It doesn't matter if there's only a 25% chance of magic items in a treasure trove.  By the time the PCs are done shopping, they'll have the items they want.  3E is laden with gear for this very reason.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2007)

Really, the amount of magic in any given novel is exactly as much magic as they need.  If they need an item to get past something, they will have it.

In novels, a character who receives a magical item will always use it.  You never see a character pick up a magical bottle of water that glows in the dark and think, "Gee, I don't think he's EVER going to use THAT."  And, lo, it gets used sometime before the final credits roll.

That's because magic items in novels are plot devices.

OTOH, it's not rare to see PC's hoarding potions and various other items, particularly single use ones, "for that rainy day".  PC's frequently will have more than a few items that never get used, or, if they get used, it's not particularly relavent to the game at hand.  A Deck of Many Things, for example, is never used to defeat the BBEG.  It's there because it's fun, but, it doesn't really serve any purpose than to just be fun.

This is why novel comparisons always fall flat.  We have no idea if Gimli had +5 armor.  He could have.  In a game, he likely did have.  In the novel, it never comes up because it serves no purpose to come up.  Gimli survives because the author has decreed so.  There is no such protection for PC's.  And, as there is no protection inherent in the game, players are going to want to make their characters live as long as possible.  While it's very hard to "win" in an RPG, dying is a pretty easy way to lose.  

That's where magic shops step in.  Gimli's player decides that he wants to take the Dwarven Defender PrC and buff the heck out of his AC.  Good tank build.  Behind the scenes, without interrupting the flow of the game, he mentions this to his DM and at some point, perhaps in Rivendell or Lothlorien or Helm's Deep, he blows his accumulated wealth (also not mentioned in the book because it serves no plot purpose) on a juicy suit of +3 Armor of Fortification.


----------



## scriven (Mar 29, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Based on your previous posts, your objections seem to run along the lines of:
> 
> 1. The PCs should not be able to customize their magical gear.
> My question is, why the arbitrary distinction between magical and non-magical gear? If you are prepared to allow the PCs to purchase full plate armor or a spyglass, why not low-level potions and scrolls, or _+1 bracers or armor_, or a _+1 breastplate_? I can understand limiting items on the basis of price, but that's what the rules on community gp limits do, anyway.
> ...




Why distinguish between magical and non-magical gear?  Well, if you want an in-game justification, that's easy: magical gear is much, much harder to make than non-magical gear. (In 1E the rules for item creation were murky, but you had to be high-level to do it, and you stood a 5% chance of losing a point of constitution for each permanent item you made.  2E, I think, was similar.  And in 3E, of course, you have to spend XP to make items.)

From a rules or campaign-design standpoint, the question isn't so much customization of magical vs. non-magical gear, as whether (or what proportion of) the fruits of adventuring should also be available for sale.

I'm saying that most of those fruits should not be available for sale -- that it makes the game more enjoyable for (admittedly subjective) reasons that I've stated.  Since, in D&D, "fruits of adventuring" largely means "magic items," the magical vs. non-magical gear distinction and the effective uniqueness of most magic items fall out as consequences.

(And since I'm not saying that _absolutely none_ of the fruits of adventuring should be available for sale, I do admit the possibility of shops with minor items such as the ones you list, or even with a few more significant ones.)




> Finally, there's nothing to stop the DM from just making the item available. If he can put the exact magical item that the player wants in a pile of treasure, he can just as easily have the exact magical item that the player wants show up in the inventory of a dealer in rare and wondrous items.




I agree with this.  I have no problem with the DM putting a limited selection of items in shops, and thoroughly agree that he should exercise the same care in doing so as he does when placing treasure.

Hence, to me, letting the players choose the magic items they'll find in shops would be like letting them choose what's in a monster's hoard after they've defeated it.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's where magic shops step in.  Gimli's player decides that he wants to take the Dwarven Defender PrC and buff the heck out of his AC.  Good tank build.  Behind the scenes, without interrupting the flow of the game, he mentions this to his DM and at some point, perhaps in Rivendell or Lothlorien or Helm's Deep, he blows his accumulated wealth (also not mentioned in the book because it serves no plot purpose) on a juicy suit of +3 Armor of Fortification.




The problem with this particular example is that we know in fact that he didn't.  

Most of the characters in the LotR either start with the items that they have, or they acquire them after defeating a monster, or they recieve them as gifts from a powerful NPC.

In Gimli's case we know that he began with a chain shirt of dwarven make, and that no finer suit of mail could be found for him.  There is no particular demarkation between 'magic' and things that are very finely made in LotR, but for D&D purposes it's fair to assume that Gimli's dwarven chain shirt was magical.  After all, we know that the dwarves of the mountain made 'magical toys' and 'wrought mighty spells' and what sort of spell could be more dwarven than a charm of making or an enchantment on the thing made?

We can pretty much track every item that the 'players' get because JRRT in the role of story teller makes a point of describing these 'gifting ceremonies' because they are so important to the culture he's drawing on.  We know Aragorn gets a suit of chain mail from Theoden, and we know Legolas gets a bow from Galadriel, that Sam and Frodo get walking staves from Faramir, and so forth.  We know that the hobbits get short swords of Numenorean make from the Barrow Wight's tomb, and that Gandalf's sword Glamdring came from the horde of some trolls, and Frodo's suit of mithril chain mail came from the horde of a dragon and was gifted to him by Biblo, and so forth.  We know every single weapon that the party had because JRRT lists all the martial gear carried by the company when they depart Ravenloft.  

What we don't know however, whether Aragorn had a magic ring, because we don't know for certain if he carried the ring mentioned in association with him, and we don't know if it had any value besides being a heirloom.

We pretty much can certainly know that they didn't buy anything in a shop, because we know that in the source material - things like Beowulf - the hero doesn't buy things from a shop either.


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The point of all that is, you shouldn't be forcing your views on the players.  By completely shutting down any customization of magic items, you've basically told your players, "My imagination is better than yours.  I know best for what your character needs."  It's not really surprising that some people don't like that.




Forcing might not be the best way to put it, but the DM is in charge. He creates his homebrew with a certain theme/s in mind, or converts a published world to his vision. The players who want to partake must play to that vision. 

It's not a case of saying that the DM's imagine or world/setting is better, it's that he has an idea what he wants for that world and his campaigns in it. It's hardly fair on the DM if after all this hard work making it work, that his players than turn around and demand they get treasure and wealth equal to the RAW. I class that as another form of powergaming.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Your argument though, doesn't track. Just because there might be a random outcome within a certain range to certain things does not mean that something is not a predictable technology. For example, when you drive a car, it might throw a rod and punch a hole in the engine block. It might not. This doesn't make cars an unpredictable technology. The same analysis holds true for potion miscability. When you mix potions, you get a range of possible results. This _only_ happens when you mix potions, and _only_ has certain defined possible outcomes. This is not unpredictable, any more than dumping water on your toaster having a range of possible outcomes indicates that toasters are not a predictable technology.




When I purchase a car, I know what it is.  It might be a lemon; it might be a good vehicle.  The operating principles by which it works are known, and in the event that it thows a rod I can simply go to a mechanic, pay, and have it repaired.  Should I so choose, I can easily learn exactly how the car works, and, with somewhat more effort, build one from scratch.  In fact, my older brother regularly machines his own parts.  The odds of my throwing a rod, or having another mechanical failure, while driving is considerably less than 1%.  If I crash the car, that is the result of user error.  These things combine to make the automobile predictable technology.

In 3e, when I purchase a magic item, I know what it is within a finer range than in real life, because 3e assumes few (if any) "lemons".   In the event that it is sundered, I can simply get it repaired.  Should I choose, I can take classes and feats that allow me to build one from scratch (with the exception of artifacts).  These things combine to make magic items in 3e a fairly predictable technology (although I would not say absolutely so in the sense that 3e artifacts are similar to 1e magic items).

In 1e, by RAW, I cannot generally purchase magic items.  When I find one, I do not know what it is.  My ability to determine what it is is severely curtailed by DM Fiat and the limitations of Identify and similar magics.  There are far more "lemons" than in real life, and those "lemons" can leave you very dead very quickly.  They may also violate the rules that are otherwise in place (i.e., magic items can kill you without a save, and create any effect at all).  In the event that it is broken, it might explode or might do nothing, and I might be able to get it repaired or not, depending upon DM Fiat.  Should the DM choose, I might learn how to make one, but the ability to learn is out of my hands, nor can I assume that what I must do to make one today is the same as what I must do to make one tomorrow.  These things combine to make magic items, IMHO, something other than a "predictable technology".  

Frankly, if automobiles worked this way, I doubt anyone would consider them a predictable technology in the real world.  "I need a new car.  I think I'm going to head out into the wilderness in order to find one.  I sure hope I get a car that I can use for transportation, not one that makes you invisible or melts your face off.  Oh, well."



> You seem to think that "any amount of randomness at all" means that something is "not predictable". This is simply an untenable position.




Not at all.  Shall I cut & paste for you?

The acknowledgement that some items X fall outside of category Y carries with it the inherent proposition that knowing that an item is in set X doesn't mean that you know it is in category Y. The degree to which category Y encomases set X partially determines how safe an assumption that X = Y is in any given case, as does the degree of potential consequences of being in error.

Magic in D&D (regardless of edition) can run in a spectrum from "X always equals Y" to "X sometimes equals Y". The DM can forbid spellcasting classes (easier in earlier editions!), and change the casting rules, but I would argue that D&D never includes the proposition "X never equals Y".​
(Though, of course, I was wrong there -- some people _do_ run games wherein they say X never equals Y.)

In order for a technology to be predictable, it must fall within a certain range wherein X can be reliable equated with Y.  You seem to think that "any amount of predictability at all" means that something is "predictable technology".  This is as untenable a position as the one you (mistakenly) attribute to me.


RC


----------



## scriven (Mar 29, 2007)

Jemal said:
			
		

> Why can't I sell my used TV back to the store for what it was originally worth?
> If you DID set up as a Magic-Item Merchant, then you WOULD have cause to sell stuff for full price, b/c that's what Merchants do, they sell stuff for more than they BUY it for.. Why would someone pay you 2300GP for a +1 sword?  Either they're going to sell it again (in which case they'd want to make a profit), or they'd be using it, in which case unless you ARE a merchant, they'd probably go to the merchant b/c he's more liable, what with running a business... Unless you sell your item for a discount.




Sorry if I was unclear.  I was just trying to point out that a rule like "NPCs sell for full price, PCs sell for half price" would be easy to circumvent via in-game means.  Just have a loyal NPC, like a cohort, sell the items at full price and then give you the money (perhaps taking a cut, depending on how loyal he is).

The DM could of course say, "Nice try, wise guy.  He was actually a spy for your arch-nemesis.  He sells the stuff and runs off with your money!" How legitimate that would be is a matter of taste.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 29, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Storm Raven, I think you are using some hyperbole here and I really disagree with you.  Those Classic/LotR notes I wrote up took me _10 minutes while getting ready for work_.




You outlined a collection of changes. You didn't actually do the legwork necessary to make them work. And the list was woefully incomplete.



> _That doesn't constitute a "host of changes".  I could have the full guidelines for a playable and fun Classic D&D LotR campaign in 2 hours or less._




Given the list of changes you described, I doubt it would take only two hours to implement. Plus, as the list of changes you proposed wasn't anywhere near adequate to the task of making D&D LotR-like, I don't think it has much bearing either.



> _The game would certainly feel like LotR and would work fine.  As far as "handwaving"... that's the best part about Classic!  If you're a Northman Fighter of Arnor, you get to do Rangerish things if you want, etc.  Men of Laketown know about boating, veterans of Ithilien are also Rangerish, men of Rohan are expert riders, etc.  I don't need a spreadsheet and 15 full-color supplements to do that stuff.  That stuff is Baby Easy._




Or, handwaving everything just causes people to do what they did in the days of "Classic" D&D - wonder what the heck their characters are able to do, and how to get more of what the other guys can do.



> _Elrond?  Well he cast Read Magic on Bilbo's map, he cast Remove Curse (or Cure Disease) on Frodo as well as healing magic, and his control over the Anduin is a unique power.  However, spells in general are problematic in Middle Earth because they draw the attention of Sauron.  And we all know what that means: increased random encounters (or worse)!_




On the other hand, Elrond's spells could just as easily been high levels of skill - the books imply much more that what he did was a "skill" rather than a "spell". But that leaves open the fact that unless you radically alter the spell list in D&D, the magic system just doesn't fit LotR - D&D has far too much flashy "on the spot" magic (it apparently took days for Elrond to cure Frodo, but the time casting the _cure disease_ spell requires can be counted in seconds).

And you still haven't addressed the issue of magic items.



> _Anyway, all of that stuff is a cinch.  That's the beauty of pre-3E D&D actually... it can be practically whatever you want it to be._




I played plenty of pre-3e D&D - and in every one of them at least one DM tried to make a middle-earth style campaign (in 1e days, it seemed that every other campaign was an attempt to do this). None of them worked. D&D just didn't mesh well with the feel of LotR. If it was as simple as you assert, at least one of the dozen or so DMs that I have seen try it would have succeeded.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In order for a technology to be predictable, it must fall within a certain range wherein X can be reliable equated with Y.  You seem to think that "any amount of predictability at all" means that something is "predictable technology".  This is as untenable a position as the one you (mistakenly) attribute to me.




There is no point.  You are facing a problem of moving goal posts and shifting definitions.  Since the people you are arguing with advance no definitions of what mysterious might be, they can say anything that they want and you can't call them on it because they aren't advancing any position or defend any position anything.  You just are going to run around in circles listening continually to, "No, you're wrong.  No, you're wrong."

You are also trying to prove a much stronger assertion than you really need to prove.  You don't need to prove that magic meets some arbitrary standard for what is 'mysterious' in the past.  All you have to prove is the relative assertion that it was more mysterious in the past than it is now.  So any counter argument that it wasn't really 'mysterious' being advanced from someone with no firm or even open standard for what 'mysterious' is and who is just using the word as an emotional signifier ('It doesn't _feel_ mysterious...') can together with a $1.98 buy you a coffee.

It should have been obvious that the thread was basically done when people were reduced to claiming, in defiance of the evidence of thier eyes and the text and the declaration in the text of the author's intent, that artifacts had been stated out in the 1st edition DMG.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 29, 2007)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> Don't forget the magical toys that Bilbo gives the hobbit children at his party.




I don't think the toys were actually magical. They were dwarven made, so probably better quality stuff than the hobbits in the Shire ever saw (and possibly better technology), but they aren't described as magical by anyone other than the children themselves, and I'm taking their opinions with a grain of salt.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I played plenty of pre-3e D&D - and in every one of them at least one DM tried to make a middle-earth style campaign (in 1e days, it seemed that every other campaign was an attempt to do this).





That may be the fault of the people involved as much as the system, you know.  If a group of people wanted to make the game work, I am sure they could use M:tG cards to play a tabletop RPG.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I don't think the toys were actually magical. They were dwarven made, so probably better quality stuff than the hobbits in the Shire ever saw (and possibly better technology), but they aren't described as magical by anyone other than the children themselves, and I'm taking their opinions with a grain of salt.




Actually, they are described as magical in the narration.  

(And this wasn't all of the toys; the narration says that "some" were magical.)

RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That may be the fault of the people involved as much as the system, you know.  If a group of people wanted to make the game work, I am sure they could use M:tG cards to play a tabletop RPG.




Then it would have had to have been a failure of several dozen people on three different continents over the course of more than two decades. I'm reasonably convinced after seeing over a dozen different DMs with many dozens of different players, over the course of many years fail to hammer D&D into anything remotely LotR-like, that there is something to do with the system that makes it not work very well for the setting.

I suppose there might be a miracle DM out there who could make it work, but I haven't seen him. I _have_ seen campaigns run using systems other than D&D work very well to capture the feel of LotR, oftentimes by the same DM and players who could not make it work using D&D (and they were very proficienct with the D&D system).


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> When I purchase a car, I know what it is.  It might be a lemon; it might be a good vehicle.  The operating principles by which it works are known, and in the event that it thows a rod I can simply go to a mechanic, pay, and have it repaired.  Should I so choose, I can easily learn exactly how the car works, and, with somewhat more effort, build one from scratch.  In fact, my older brother regularly machines his own parts.  The odds of my throwing a rod, or having another mechanical failure, while driving is considerably less than 1%.  If I crash the car, that is the result of user error.  These things combine to make the automobile predictable technology.




99% of the items in 1e AD&D (and other pre-3e editions of D&D), work _exactly like this_. Your arguments concerning the opacity of _identify_ are (in my opinion) vastly overblown. Characters almost always had no trouble at all figuring out the powers of their items - I would point, at this stage, to the characters provided for use in various modules - all of them had the _exact_ powers of their magic items listed on their characters sheets. Something that you seem to contend wouldn't happen! They would have something like "magical cloak, some sort of protection" or something like that, because the methods for identifying magic were so "vague". But the reality is that they weren't.

The remaining 1% of items have some variability. But it is such a closely bounded "variability" that it isn't really random at all, any more than driving a motorcycle on a dirt path gives a "variable" experience. You get one of six, or one of ten or some similar number of possible results. This isn't unpredictable, in point of fact, since it is based on a table with dice, it is as predictable as quantum mechanics.



> _In order for a technology to be predictable, it must fall within a certain range wherein X can be reliable equated with Y._




And in 1e, magic items were (and remain, for those who still play that edition of the game) exactly like this.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Then it would have had to have been a failure of several dozen people on three different continents over the course of more than two decades.




Of course that's possible.  I decided that it was possible to have great fun with 1e due to gaming with many dozens of people over the couse of more than two decades, but many people assure me that they had problems that just never seemed to have come up in the games I was involved in.  

And I don't think that the people reporting those problems are lying; I think that different people relate to a given ruleset in different ways.  My conclusion is that the type of people that I am likely to play games with (quite possibly by sheer luck) are not the type of people liable to those problems.

The dataset is simply too small to make a sustainable sweeping generalization.



> I'm reasonably convinced after seeing over a dozen different DMs with many dozens of different players, over the course of many years fail to hammer D&D into anything remotely LotR-like, that there is something to do with the system that makes it not work very well for the setting.




Of course, you'd have to define what you meant by "remotely LotR-like" before I could tell you whether or not my experiences were similar to your own.     I think that there are some aspects of Tolkein's work that are easier to reproduce in D&D than others.  What does a game need to be "remotely LotR-like" IYHO?

In any event, though, seeing twenty DMs fail doesn't mean that the DM who succeeds is a "miracle DM" -- I've seen 20 crappy DMs, and that doesn't make a good game a miracle, either.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Characters almost always had no trouble at all figuring out the powers of their items - I would point, at this stage, to the characters provided for use in various modules - all of them had the _exact_ powers of their magic items listed on their characters sheets. Something that you seem to contend wouldn't happen!




No...I contend that this is something that wouldn't _necessarily_ happen.  For example, in my campaigns during my 1e days, there were _many_ items that were never fully identified.



> The remaining 1% of items have some variability. But it is such a closely bounded "variability" that it isn't really random at all, any more than driving a motorcycle on a dirt path gives a "variable" experience. You get one of six, or one of ten or some similar number of possible results. This isn't unpredictable, in point of fact, since it is based on a table with dice, it is as predictable as quantum mechanics.




Again, only assuming that the DM does not include additional variation of his own -- a process that is encouraged rather than discouraged by the RAW.  Not to mention that several of those variables themselves have variable interpretations (and therefore variable effects in play).

I am not saying that your experience is wrong, simply that it doesn't represent the only model by which the game can be played.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You outlined a collection of changes. You didn't actually do the legwork necessary to make them work. And the list was woefully incomplete.




I see how this is going to go.  You're going to make a bunch of bare assertions wrapped in hyperbole.  I think this will be my last response to one of your posts.

The list I outlined was not "woefully incomplete" as you woefully assert.  In fact, it's woefully complete and woefully functional and we'd have a woefully good time with it.

And legwork?  Designing a wood elf class and an Istari class?  I can do that in my sleep.  Remember, this is not the version where I need an 8 paragraph stat block.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Given the list of changes you described, I doubt it would take only two hours to implement. Plus, as the list of changes you proposed wasn't anywhere near adequate to the task of making D&D LotR-like, I don't think it has much bearing either.




Well, that's my estimation on the implementation time.  Why is it not "anywhere near adequate"?  I think it's perfectly adequate.  It sounds like you're only saying that it is not anywhere near adequate because you don't like being shown up on even a relatively minor point. You were wrong, let it go.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Or, handwaving everything just causes people to do what they did in the days of "Classic" D&D - wonder what the heck their characters are able to do, and how to get more of what the other guys can do.




So now we've gone to the old saw that nobody knew how to play D&D back then... we all just fumbled around and it somehow happened to be the world's most successful roleplaying game.

I'm sorry but that's just not how it was.  If your Fighter is a woodsman, you can do woodsy things like track, survive in the woods, make shelter, etc.  If your Fighter is a sailor than he can handle a ship, gauge the weather, etc.  Just because it is freeform does *NOT* make it confusing.

If it is too confusing for someone to state a character background, just let anybody make a stat roll for anything.  They are heroes after all.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> On the other hand, Elrond's spells could just as easily been high levels of skill




Or I could rattle off any number of pointless speculations, too.  I gave you a viable means of representing the sort of things that happen in LotR.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And you still haven't addressed the issue of magic items.




What issue?  Give them out as appropriate.  Numenorean, Dwarven and Elven blades will usually be +1.  Something like Narsil/Anduril is more powerful.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I played plenty of pre-3e D&D - and in every one of them at least one DM tried to make a middle-earth style campaign (in 1e days, it seemed that every other campaign was an attempt to do this). None of them worked. D&D just didn't mesh well with the feel of LotR. If it was as simple as you assert, at least one of the dozen or so DMs that I have seen try it would have succeeded.




Well here we have the real explanation.  "I have an anecdotal data set and therefore I will assume that everybody is as inept a DM as some guy(s) I played with back then."  You really played with a dozen or so guys who all tried this and they all failed?  OK.  But nothing follows from that necessarily.  Maybe they were a dozen guys who didn't know what they were doing.  Or maybe your definition of failure is somehow colored by other experiences that have no bearing on this discussion.  I don't know, I wasn't there.

You should really try to be a little bit more fair with people, particularly when they set out to honestly provide you with information.  This could have actually been a productive discussion, if you didn't just throw everything back in my face with rude hyperbole and no substantive criticism.


----------



## Crysmalon (Mar 29, 2007)

back to the original question.  IMO, maybe   I think shops and merchants should be spread thin and more powerful (subjective) items might not be sold at all and only found as relics.


----------



## molonel (Mar 29, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Ha, no, definitely not! I GM'd 3e regularly for 6 years, from when it came out in 2000 to December 2006. I consistently found that house-ruling 3e led to the cascade effect. I still house ruled, but the head aches got worse and worse until I was driven to seek an alternative system.




I houserule all the time with intelligent, rules-knowledgeable players playing anywhere from 1st through 35th level. If you actually DM-ed the game for six years, I am entirely baffled that you never acquired the rules confidence to make house rules. 3rd Edition is not some ticking time bomb that goes off whenever you make some modification. 

To be completely honest, if you found it THAT difficult to make house rules, I can see why you left the system. But the fault did not lie with the system itself.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Edit: I think Monte Cook's statement that 3e was designed to "Take the DM out of the equation" supports my view, too. 3e is intended to be a robust, comprehensive, interlinked ruleset. It is not designed for house-ruling.




Monte Cook regularly posts house rules on his website, like modifications to the DR system, that I have used in my games:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_damage_reduction

So he's a bad person to quote when arguing that you can't change anything in 3rd Edition.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course that's possible.  I decided that it was possible to have great fun with 1e due to gaming with many dozens of people over the couse of more than two decades, but many people assure me that they had problems that just never seemed to have come up in the games I was involved in.




Sure it is possible. I just don't think it is a likely conclusion, especially since many of the individuals I observed were quite good at the job of DMing and coming up with good and interesting campaigns, so long as it wasn't an attempt to do LotR.



> _Of course, you'd have to define what you meant by "remotely LotR-like" before I could tell you whether or not my experiences were similar to your own.     I think that there are some aspects of Tolkein's work that are easier to reproduce in D&D than others.  What does a game need to be "remotely LotR-like" IYHO?_




It has to capture the feel of Tolkien's books. That's hard to define, but there was generally enough consensus on what that would be when the attempts were made that just about everyone was on the same page as far as what the goal was. The biggest hurdle was usually morphing the D&D magic system to something that would reflect the magic seen in LotR (and other works concerning middle-earth). Another issue was the rigid class system, and how it just didn't seem to mesh well with the various personalities seen in the books. Oddly enough, another game system that I have found (in my experience) that doesn't do LotR real well is MERP, and I think that the shared characteristics of the systems may be what gets in the way of attempts in that vein.



> _In any event, though, seeing twenty DMs fail doesn't mean that the DM who succeeds is a "miracle DM" -- I've seen 20 crappy DMs, and that doesn't make a good game a miracle, either.   _




I've seen my share of lousy DMs too - but many of the DMs I am talking about were, other than trying to use D&D for LotR, excellent in that role.


----------



## Pielorinho (Mar 29, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I see how this is going to go.  You're going to make a bunch of bare assertions wrapped in hyperbole.
> ...
> I could rattle off any number of pointless speculations, too.
> ...
> ...



Moderator's Notes

Okay, remember how I said that everyone needed to be on their best behavior, and take great pains to be civil, respectful, and courteous?  Remember how I said that last time I gave out such warnings, people ignored them, and then got upset when they got temporary bans from the site?  I was really hoping that wouldn't happen again, but it has.

The quoted bits from this post are not civil, courteous, or respectful.  *Korgoth*, check your email.  Everyone else, please pay attention to this warning and take it seriously.

Daniel


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 29, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> As far as "handwaving"... that's the best part about Classic!  If you're a Northman Fighter of Arnor, you get to do Rangerish things if you want, etc.  Men of Laketown know about boating, veterans of Ithilien are also Rangerish, men of Rohan are expert riders, etc.  I don't need a spreadsheet and 15 full-color supplements to do that stuff.  That stuff is Baby Easy.





			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> You are facing a problem of moving goal posts and shifting definitions.  Since the people you are arguing with advance no definitions of what mysterious might be, they can say anything that they want and you can't call them on it because they aren't advancing any position or defend any position anything.  You just are going to run around in circles listening continually to, "No, you're wrong.  No, you're wrong."
> 
> You are also trying to prove a much stronger assertion than you really need to prove.  You don't need to prove that magic meets some arbitrary standard for what is 'mysterious' in the past.  All you have to prove is the relative assertion that it was more mysterious in the past than it is now.  So any counter argument that it wasn't really 'mysterious' being advanced from someone with no firm or even open standard for what 'mysterious' is and who is just using the word as an emotional signifier ('It doesn't _feel_ mysterious...') can together with a $1.98 buy you a coffee.
> 
> It should have been obvious that the thread was basically done when people were reduced to claiming, in defiance of the evidence of thier eyes and the text and the declaration in the text of the author's intent, that artifacts had been stated out in the 1st edition DMG.



Both QFT - double-true!







			
				Emirikol said:
			
		

> Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?
> 
> Does the overcustomization and overtwinking of the game wreck the spirit of the game?  Does it just become a Mario-Bro's game where you're just trying to get enough "coins?"  Can you hear the blinging sound in your campaigns?



The "spirit" of _D&D_ varies from group to group and player to player. For some it's a tactical wargame only slightly removed from chess, for others it's a framework from which to craft a shared story experience, and for others it's a mix of the two or possibly something else entirely.

My experience is that magic shops appeal to players who have a very specific concept for the character they want to play and want the opportunity to customize that character's gear to fit that image. The motivation isn't necessarily twinkery: it could be a player who wants her paladin to wield a _holy avenger_ greatsword that was entrusted to her by the master of her order, something that is important to the player from a roleplaying standpoint as much or more than the mechanical advantage it confers. For this player, a _+1/+3 v. trolls_ longsword found in a dungeon doesn't carry the same significance as the magic blade that was blessed by her deity and bourne by one of the founders of her order.

I can understand why a player running a thief character might want to convert a _horn of Valhalla_ and a _helmet of light_ to _gauntlets of dexterity_, an _amulet of proof against poison_, and a pair of _boots and striding and springing_, and a magic shop, however that's defined in the campaign-world, provides an opportunity to do so.

While I understand that style of play, it's not one that personally appeals to me, and it's not one that someone playing in the games I run should necessarily expect. In my 3.0 game, potions could be purchased relatively easily and scrolls were often available in large cities, but otherwise obtaining a specific magic item was very, very difficult. Wizards willing to craft items for adventurers were few and far between, and rarely were magic items bought and sold - they were more likely to be exchanged as gifts or loaned than purchased for mere gold, if they were available at all. The adventurers were more or less dependent on what they could recover while adventuring, so this was an aspect of character customization that for all intents and purposes wasn't open to them in the game.

In a 1e game many years ago, I did include one "magic shop," but like the Bazaar of the Bizarre, the goods were rarely what they seemed . . .

When I'm on the far side of the screen, I rarely run a character in which I postulate certain gear as essential to the concept, beyond mundane items for flavor. I prefer to let what the character encounters during the course of play determine if an item becomes a "part of the character." It's what I enjoy as a player, so playing in a world where magic items are a common commodity doesn't appeal to me.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 29, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> The list I outlined was not "woefully incomplete" as you woefully assert.  In fact, it's woefully complete and woefully functional and we'd have a woefully good time with it.




It is woefully incomplete because you didn't cover even a tenth of what would need to be addressed to make LotR work. You didn't address numenoerans, and the related issue of rangers, clearly subsets of humans, and yet different. You didn't cover half-elves - which didn't appear in 'Classic" D&D, but would need to be added, and didn't resemble AD&D half-elves in much other than name. You didn't cover elves, which don't resemble D&D elves except in passing. You basically glossed over a wide variety of very salient problems.

And then when this gets pointed out, you got yourself in a huff.



> _So now we've gone to the old saw that nobody knew how to play D&D back then... we all just fumbled around and it somehow happened to be the world's most successful roleplaying game._




No, we got to the stage where everyone knows how to play D&D, but wonders why their characters aren't able to do all the cool special things that you gave to lake-men and rohirrim, and wonder how they can get those abilities, or why they can't other than "because I said so". You know, reasonable questions asked by players.



> _I'm sorry but that's just not how it was.  If your Fighter is a woodsman, you can do woodsy things like track, survive in the woods, make shelter, etc.  If your Fighter is a sailor than he can handle a ship, gauge the weather, etc.  Just because it is freeform does *NOT* make it confusing._




If I'm a sailor and want to learn how to track, how do I do that?



> _Or I could rattle off any number of pointless speculations, too.  I gave you a viable means of representing the sort of things that happen in LotR._




Means that _don't fit what is described in the books_. Hence, they are't very viable. Elrond takes days to cure Frodo, with assistance from Gandalf. How long does _cure disease_ take to cast? That's not a very good fit.



> _What issue?  Give them out as appropriate.  Numenorean, Dwarven and Elven blades will usually be +1.  Something like Narsil/Anduril is more powerful._




So, having characters laden with piles of magic items seems LotR-like to you? How about folding boats? Magic potions (didn't see any of those). Scrolls? Wands? And so on and so forth. Playing D&D "by the book" results in piles of magic items that just don't fit. Many of which are ubiquitous in D&D (potions and scrolls for example), one of which (scrolls) is almost necessary for wizards.



> _Well here we have the real explanation.  "I have an anecdotal data set and therefore I will assume that everybody is as inept a DM as some guy(s) I played with back then."  You really played with a dozen or so guys who all tried this and they all failed?  OK.  But nothing follows from that necessarily.  Maybe they were a dozen guys who didn't know what they were doing._




Out of the dozen guys, at least half were excellent as DMs. About a quarter were pretty good. One was incompetent. All had troubles getting D&D to work in a LotR style.



> _You should really try to be a little bit more fair with people, particularly when they set out to honestly provide you with information._




The information you gave was perfunctory at best, and assumed that I didn't know anything about older editions of D&D. You assumed that I was some dumb ignoramus who just bounced in off the turnip truck and needed to be shown the "light" of classic D&D. Which is a huge and erroneous assumption on your part, and quite rude to boot. I have seen attempts to make D&D work as a LotR system, attempts made by very good DMs with quite willing players. None worked well. None worked _nearly_ as well as LotR campaigns using different RPG systems (such campaigns often involving the same DMs and players as the failed D&D campaigns). I've seen classic D&D, I have copies of the game sitting on my bookshelf as I type this. I know what it can do, and what it isn't very good at doing.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No...I contend that this is something that wouldn't _necessarily_ happen.  For example, in my campaigns during my 1e days, there were _many_ items that were never fully identified.




Maybe in your campaign, but that's not the way the rules worked. Look at all of the published adventures for which sample characters are provided. If they have magical treasure, in _no_ case is their treasure listed in anything other than an explicit manner (and it would have been almost trivially easy to make their treasure more opaque). When evaluating what the "standard" is, and I am confronted with the experience of a person in his home campaigns, and the evidence provided by dozens of published texts, I'll go with the published texts. And in those, magic was not only fully identifiable, it was _expected_ to be fully identified.



> _Again, only assuming that the DM does not include additional variation of his own -- a process that is encouraged rather than discouraged by the RAW.  Not to mention that several of those variables themselves have variable interpretations (and therefore variable effects in play)._




And interesting element, however, not actually part of the rules of the game. House ruling is great, and most D&D campaigns I have played in have been rampant with house rules (moreso in the 2e era than any other, since that system seemed to need it more, but a lot in 1e, slightly less in 3e). But house rules are not a particularly good basis for discussion on this sort of issue, since they vary so much, and the _original_ question concerned the "spirit" of D&D, which has to be based on the rules in the books - otherwise you are talking about "the spirit of Storm Raven's campaign" or the "spirit of Raven Crowking's campaign", which is an entirely different question.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> otherwise you are talking about "the spirit of Storm Raven's campaign" or the "spirit of Raven Crowking's campaign", which is an entirely different question.




Aaaah! When I read that I realised where my feeling of Deja Vu had been coming from all day.

Storm Raven and Raven Crowking. Raven and Raven.

Haven't you two been doing this dance in a lot of other threads as well? Did you ever convince one another of changing any views on the subject?   

/M


----------



## billd91 (Mar 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But randomness isn't the issue at hand, because 3E has a "wealth by level" assumption, most of that wealth being in the form of gear.  It doesn't matter if there's only a 25% chance of magic items in a treasure trove.  By the time the PCs are done shopping, they'll have the items they want.  3E is laden with gear for this very reason.




3E isn't the only edition with a wealth by level assumption. Earlier editions had it as well, just not explicitly laid out. NPCs you encountered had particular chances at magical gear as laid out in the DMG, monsters invulnerable to non-magical weapons were rated at levels higher than similar ones that didn't. There wasn't a particular quantity laid out, but there were certainly assumptions made that characters got gear, increasingly powerful as they went up in levels, and were necessary to fight high level monsters (demons, devils, golems, etc).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It has to capture the feel of Tolkien's books. That's hard to define, but there was generally enough consensus on what that would be when the attempts were made that just about everyone was on the same page as far as what the goal was.




Yeah, that's the tough point in a discussion like this.  I've played in games that had something of the feel of Tolkein's books without being anything like Middle Earth, and I've played in campaigns designed to be like Middle Earth that nonetheless failed to feel like Tolkein's books.  It probably depends very much on what "pings" your "radar" in terms of Tolkein-book-ness, and what doesn't.

As far as the magic system goes, though, if players don't get to choose their spells, the DM can easily give spell lists that more closely reflect a Tolkeinian style of play....as they define the term.  Some 1e spells, like _fire seeds_ seem to be derived from Tolkein (_The Hobbit_ in this case).  Gandalf and Thorin say spells over the troll's loot to protect it as well.  There seem to be various spells of opening...._wizard lock_ and _knock_ would certainly apply, just as _fireball_ would not.

You might have to redo some of the classes, I would agree (although the rigid class system would work well enough for most characters, IMHO....better, in fact, than it would to reproduce many other works of fantasy fiction.)

I agree with you about MERP.  In the case of MERP, I think the game failed (for me) because (1) it wanted to allow the PCs to do more than Tolkein envisioned as possible, and (2) the rolemaster system itself has too many charts.  

For me, the essential quality of Tolkein's writing was to make things seem to reflect their Platonic ideal -- gold seems to possess more "goldness" than real gold, forests more "forestness", and so on.  Rigid class structure is actually a boon in attempting this sort of world -- the Riders of Rohan are horsemen, through and through, and the rangers aren't closet clerics.  YMMV, and obviously does.    



> I've seen my share of lousy DMs too - but many of the DMs I am talking about were, other than trying to use D&D for LotR, excellent in that role.




Yes, but you can be an excellent DM for some types of games, and yet be utterly unsuited to others.  

For example, I don't GM _Gamma World_ because, although I quite enjoy playing in it, I don't have the necessary strengths to make GMing it a satisfactory experience for me.  While I can describe a smithy in great detail, and have a very good idea of what can be found within a grist mill, I am a lot more fuzzy on an abandoned oil refinery.  If the PCs zig where I expect them to zag, I can't make the world seem as precise on the fly as I can with my D&D campaign.  Likewise, I'd enjoy playing in Eberron, but the setting doesn't play to my strengths.

A DM who games to his strengths can create a great game.  Going against your strengths can result in a good game, or a mediocre game.  Often, if you go too far against your strengths, the result is a poor game.  (And I don't mean "you" you, that's a sort of general "you" encompasing any given DM.)

It is also possible to be great GMing a particular setting type with a particular ruleset, but to be unable to breathe life into that setting type with another ruleset.  It doesn't mean that the ruleset can't do that setting type; it means that it is a bad match for that GM.  I am using a modified version of the D20 System to run _Doctor Who_.  I'm not great at running _Doctor Who_ using _Time Lord_ or the FASA ruleset.  That doesn't mean that it can't be done, or even that it is the fault of those rulesets.

Those conclusions aren't warranted by the available evidence.  In effect, they become a matter of faith, rather than a reasoned conclusion.

RC


----------



## apoptosis (Mar 29, 2007)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> My experience is that magic shops appeal to players who have a very specific concept for the character they want to play and want the opportunity to customize that character's gear to fit that image. The motivation isn't necessarily twinkery: it could be a player who wants her paladin to wield a _holy avenger_ greatsword that was entrusted to her by the master of her order, something that is important to the player from a roleplaying standpoint as much or more than the mechanical advantage it confers. For this player, a _+1/+3 v. trolls_ longsword found in a dungeon doesn't carry the same significance as the magic blade that was blessed by her deity and bourne by one of the founders of her order.
> 
> ...




That is a great post Shaman, wanted to say basically the same thing myself, but apparently I dont have to.

Apoptosis


----------



## Bardsandsages (Mar 29, 2007)

If I may chime in with the one issue that seems to be the real problem:

The Character does not know what the Player knows.

There is no problem with having a magical shop.  There_ is_ a problem with a 5th level fighter walking into said shop (with no ranks in Knowledge arcane or spellcraft) and asking to buy a _+2 keen defending longsword._  or a rogue with no appropriate ranks requesting a mage craft _+3 moderate fortification leather armor with silent moves and shadow._   The players can only request items that are within their knowledge.  Now the fighter can walk in and ask the shopkeeper if he has any longswords that might be of interest, to which the shopkeeper can show his wares.  

It's like someone who has no knowledge of computers walking into Best Buy or Circuit City for the first time.  They aren't going to articulate the exact nature of the computer they want.  All they are going to say is "I need something that will run World of Warcraft" or whatever else it is.  They may or may not end up with what they want.

If magic shops, or trading magical items, is ruining the game, that is the fault of the DM, because the DM is allowing out of character information to dictate in character actions.  

Most major cities in my game do have magic shops.  And the players have learned to adapt their purchasing habits to actually roleplay.  Sometimes the players find honest merchants and get great deals. Other times they get ripped off by high pressure salesmen trying to offload a lot of +1 shortswords.  And sometimes they make the mistake of going to a Thayan enclave and buying in bulk.  It's part of the fun.


----------



## Pielorinho (Mar 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And then when this gets pointed out, you got yourself in a huff.



Moderator's Notes

Again, folks, posting politely, courteously, and respecfully is not difficult, and if you cannot do it, you will receive a ban from the site.

Check your email, *Storm Raven*.

The rest of you:  best behavior.

Daniel


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 29, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It is woefully incomplete because you didn't cover even a tenth of what would need to be addressed to make LotR work. You didn't address numenoerans, and the related issue of rangers, clearly subsets of humans, and yet different. You didn't cover half-elves - which didn't appear in 'Classic" D&D, but would need to be added...




Oh, I see the problem.

Elrond Half-Elven got his name from his parentage.  But he was fully 100% elf.  There is no such thing as a Half-Elven racial type in the LotR.  Anyone that gave Elrond different racial modifiers than those of any other elf, clearly didn't understand the situation.  There are no racial 'half-elfs', and Arwen is not 'quarter elvish'.  Conversely, if someone doesn't cover half-elves, it suggests strongly to me that there is a chance that they know that half-elves don't need to be covered.  But, since none of this was clear to you, it seems that what constitutes 'the proper feel' of the LoTR to you appears to be entirely subjective.



> So, having characters laden with piles of magic items seems LotR-like to you? How about folding boats?




You think folding boats would be hard for a DM to keep out of the campaign?


----------



## Pielorinho (Mar 29, 2007)

Yeah.  You know what?  When one thread is causing this many problems, it's time for it to close.

Clunk.

Daniel


----------

