Where Has All the Magic Gone?

Felon · Dec 12, 2008

Aus_Snow said:
Way to totally miss the point.

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

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

Sir Brennen · Dec 12, 2008

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

Remember The Magister?

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

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

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

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

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

And, for the record Korgoth, I don't think nostalgia has nothing to do with it, but it is one of several factors that add to people's perception of this issue. Probably some more than others. (Speaking as someone who's played since 1st Ed. AD&D myself, and enjoyed each iteration.)

Harlekin · Dec 12, 2008

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

I must say I enjoyed the Irony.

Nebulous · Dec 12, 2008

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

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

Harlekin · Dec 12, 2008

DEFCON 1 said:
I dunno... it seems pretty simple to me. 1E magic item were more "mysterious" because we had never seen them before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keefe the Thief · Dec 12, 2008

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

Remember The Magister?

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

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

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

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

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

billd91 · Dec 12, 2008

DEFCON 1 said:
I dunno... it seems pretty simple to me. 1E magic item were more "mysterious" because we had never seen them before.

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

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

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

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

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

Vyvyan Basterd · Dec 12, 2008

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

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

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

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

Harlekin · Dec 12, 2008

billd91 said:
Nostalgia may have a part to play, but it goes way beyond that. Take for example those gauntlets of ogre power and that girdle of hill giant strength. Now put one of them on weak little Nilbo the sickly halfling. He goes from 8 Strength to meleeing with the big boys on their own terms. That's not just nostalgia, lad. That's really something!

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

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

Felon · Dec 12, 2008

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

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

4E is just starting. The fluff and history will come, particularly in themed books like the Manual of the Planes and Open Grave, or in campaign-specific books.

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