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

[jensun]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

• 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]

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]

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]

Being able to buy a magic item doesn't preclude finding it elsewhere.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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]

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]

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]

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).