SDOgre
First Post
I was talking about magic items. Being a wizard never took away the mystery, surprise, or excitement of magic items.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Response to recent article by James Wyatt on DMG
- Thread starter wrightdjohn
- Start date
I was talking about magic items. Being a wizard never took away the mystery, surprise, or excitement of magic items.
FireLance
Legend
Fair enough. I guess it depends on whether you prefer to surprise your players, or to leave them in a constant state of anticipation. I personally find the latter to be a bit more fun, though.
EDIT: Oh, and if I really wanted to surprise them, I can just come up with something new and unique by myself.
ryryguy
First Post
In some groups, for some players (newbs). In many groups, veteran players will know what magic items are out there anyway.
Even the veterans can be a little surprised by what actually shows up in the treasure... and they will definitely still be excited to actually get the level + 5 item that they've seen in the book.
I can appreciate what you're saying though, if you're running a game where the players are brand new and going to be shocked when a troll comes back to life. You could always suggest that they not read the magic items, and when they get to the point when they are creating their own, to not read those above their level.
Just a quick look at men's versus women's weight lift records (http://users.pandora.be/tom.goegebuer/WR92_M.htm was the only one I could find good comparisons of men-women in the same weight range), the reality of the matter is women in the same weight range as men can lift comparable weights (ie, can achieve the same levels of strength).
1e tried to mimic male delusions.
Well.......not that I'm supporting different strength maximums for men and women in a RPG, but did you actually look closely at the website you linked? In every weight category, men were able to life dramatically more weight. Usually by around 60-70%, and sometimes even more then that.
Incenjucar
Legend
This is what homebrew is for.
The core books are for standard options and default assumptions that every player can be expected to know at least some of, especially any experienced gamer not living in a cave without a computer.
Terramotus
First Post
ZOMG! What horrible things could happen if the players actually get the stuff they want?!? Synergies? Effectiveness? Dare I say it... enjoyment?
Feeding the players random crap that they can't use is frustrating the players for frustration's sake - nothing more. Sure, it acts as a check on the wealth system, as they have to sell it for less than the original value, but then, you could have solved that by putting less wealth out there in the first place.
Or is the point to force players to build their characters in certain ways by starving them of the gear they need? That's also ridiculous. If you don't want those character concepts in there, ban them from the beginning. But don't let a guy play a spiked chain user and then refuse to ever give him a magic spiked chain.
IMO, a good DM should actually know the system he's running. That includes understanding what types of magical items there are out there. Assuming the system is balanced, then there's no excuse for NOT being able to handle any item in the book. If you can't it's time to study up and become better at running your chosen system. Or to find a new system.
And if an item IS broken, then there's no excuse for the DM not having the guts to tell the players that X item is wrecking the game and we need to figure out something else for your magic sword - either modification of the rule or a different item.
I play about 1/2 the time. Personally, I would refuse to play in a game where the DM did not take my desires into account when awarding magical items.
Feeding the players random crap that they can't use is frustrating the players for frustration's sake - nothing more. Sure, it acts as a check on the wealth system, as they have to sell it for less than the original value, but then, you could have solved that by putting less wealth out there in the first place.
Or is the point to force players to build their characters in certain ways by starving them of the gear they need? That's also ridiculous. If you don't want those character concepts in there, ban them from the beginning. But don't let a guy play a spiked chain user and then refuse to ever give him a magic spiked chain.
IMO, a good DM should actually know the system he's running. That includes understanding what types of magical items there are out there. Assuming the system is balanced, then there's no excuse for NOT being able to handle any item in the book. If you can't it's time to study up and become better at running your chosen system. Or to find a new system.
And if an item IS broken, then there's no excuse for the DM not having the guts to tell the players that X item is wrecking the game and we need to figure out something else for your magic sword - either modification of the rule or a different item.
I play about 1/2 the time. Personally, I would refuse to play in a game where the DM did not take my desires into account when awarding magical items.
In 3e and 4e, the wealth guidelines likely assume that PCs are equipped appropriately for their ECL if they are to stand a chance against encounters of their lv. This means that PCs should ideally be able to access magic gear which they can use effectively (in one way or another, it does not matter if they craft it, buy it from magic shops or loot it from a treasure hoard).
Likewise, magic eq allow you to further customize your character by letting him access special abilities he normally would not be able to get by virtue of his class features alone.
This is probably what he meant. For example, if your fighter has gone the sword+shield route, then you as a DM should ensure that he finds appropriately enchanted 1-handed weapons for him to use, and not throw 2-handed weapons which he cannot make proper use of because it does not synergize with his fighting style and character build.
Granted, 4e is better than 3e in this aspect as you no longer needed that many basic +x boosters just to survive. But the basic concept is still applicable, IMO. The game assumes that you will have access to certain types of eq at any particular lv, and as such, you as a DM must ensure that your players to get to access them by that time, or at least adjust the difficulty of your enemies accordingly to avoid game imbalances.
Likewise, magic eq allow you to further customize your character by letting him access special abilities he normally would not be able to get by virtue of his class features alone.
This is probably what he meant. For example, if your fighter has gone the sword+shield route, then you as a DM should ensure that he finds appropriately enchanted 1-handed weapons for him to use, and not throw 2-handed weapons which he cannot make proper use of because it does not synergize with his fighting style and character build.
Granted, 4e is better than 3e in this aspect as you no longer needed that many basic +x boosters just to survive. But the basic concept is still applicable, IMO. The game assumes that you will have access to certain types of eq at any particular lv, and as such, you as a DM must ensure that your players to get to access them by that time, or at least adjust the difficulty of your enemies accordingly to avoid game imbalances.
small pumpkin man
Explorer
Why on earth are you applying balancing suggestions from 3 or 4 editiona ago to the current system? In 4e Magic items are balanced by the assumption players get their hands on them of course PCs will eventually get them, that's like saying "be ready DM.. any Wizard spell in the book could be coming your way after the group levels up after their next adventure." It doesn't mean anything, hell, it's harder for PCs to choose their own magic items in 4e compared to 3.x, because the sell percentage is so much lower, and making items costs almost as much as buying them, PCs can't just get the Wizard to "swap out items" with the only penalty being a little bit of xp loss for the Wizard.
You are wrong. Every single person I've ever seen complain using the term "magic wall mart" was complaining about the falvour. I've seen people with your opinion before, but they never used that term.
Nothing a Player has on their sheet which they have full controll over will ever be mysterious. Especially when you have 8 of them.
wrightdjohn
Explorer
Thanks for responses
I'm not trying to antagonize. But even James Wyatt admitted in his article that the people at Wizards were divided over this issue. There are two camps out there. Why write the rules to deliberately annoy one camp which in my opinion is the larger camp.
Let me make a few things clear though...
1. I am not a low magic or stingy DM. In fact for 4th I'll probably follow the DM guidelines.
2. I am not unresponsive to the desires of my players for a magic item.
3. I am aware that the 4e game is far more balanced. But can you assume any game is perfect. Based on prior experience (1st, 2nd, 3rd, editions)... I would say it would be insanity to assume perfection on the part of the designers.
Here are the things I consider when thinking about a magic item...
1. Is it unbalancing.. too good for its level... etc... I agree that in 4e this should be a very rare issue. It was commonplace though in all the other editions so I am not willing to say it will never occur. Especially as more books are published.
2. There are in game campaign reasons for not wanting some magic items to get in a characters hands at a particular time. Here are a few hastily scratched together examples..
a. An item provides some special power that will nullify the fun of an adventure that the group is about to embark on... so you either cancel the adventure and thats weeks entertainment when a particular item gets created or bought? or you delay when the player can get the item. Using my optional rules... I'd say... yes you can get the recipe for the item but it will take 30 days to get here from the far off city of bla bla via caravan. The adventure won't wait though so what do you want to do. Either choice is ok.
b. In a particular campaign world there may be special reasons for some items to not be available. Perhaps in your world you don't allow that type of magic. In previous editions teleport and scrying were vastly reduced in power (much like they are in 4e in fact funny that). This is pure flavor I agree but it does come up.
3. My goal as DM is to make the game fun for the group. Sometimes it is more fun to quest for an item and fight some horrible monster to achieve it than to casually drop some gold for the item. Nothing is prized more than that which is earned via in game challenges. Obviously the challenges are fun but there is still that feeling of accomplishment.
4. I've found that allowing the exchange of magic items and gold freely also has the unintended consequence of making gold useless for anything not a magic item. One of the great joys my players find in my world is using their gold for building castles, temples, etc... Attracting followers and equipping them etc... All this was taken for granted and discussed at length in the 1st Edition players handbook. I guess due to my age I didn't find anything wrong with playing this way and neither did my players.
Most of my players that also DM use the same philosophy when handing out magic items and allowing their creation. How much or how little occasionally varies some more and some less. They agree though that that is a DMs job. So perhaps I've "brainwashed" them to my philosophy but they seem to enjoy playing that way and carry it on to their own campaigns.
My critique of James Wyatts approach was that they chose one side in this debate and pushed that on readers of the players handbook. Why not just give several options and leave it a little more open ended. Also I think that not knowing the details of every magic item coming and going was a great thing back when I first started playing. The sense of unknown and mystery was a great joy. Thats all been thrown overboard now with the items in the players handbook.
I'm not trying to antagonize. But even James Wyatt admitted in his article that the people at Wizards were divided over this issue. There are two camps out there. Why write the rules to deliberately annoy one camp which in my opinion is the larger camp.
Let me make a few things clear though...
1. I am not a low magic or stingy DM. In fact for 4th I'll probably follow the DM guidelines.
2. I am not unresponsive to the desires of my players for a magic item.
3. I am aware that the 4e game is far more balanced. But can you assume any game is perfect. Based on prior experience (1st, 2nd, 3rd, editions)... I would say it would be insanity to assume perfection on the part of the designers.
Here are the things I consider when thinking about a magic item...
1. Is it unbalancing.. too good for its level... etc... I agree that in 4e this should be a very rare issue. It was commonplace though in all the other editions so I am not willing to say it will never occur. Especially as more books are published.
2. There are in game campaign reasons for not wanting some magic items to get in a characters hands at a particular time. Here are a few hastily scratched together examples..
a. An item provides some special power that will nullify the fun of an adventure that the group is about to embark on... so you either cancel the adventure and thats weeks entertainment when a particular item gets created or bought? or you delay when the player can get the item. Using my optional rules... I'd say... yes you can get the recipe for the item but it will take 30 days to get here from the far off city of bla bla via caravan. The adventure won't wait though so what do you want to do. Either choice is ok.
b. In a particular campaign world there may be special reasons for some items to not be available. Perhaps in your world you don't allow that type of magic. In previous editions teleport and scrying were vastly reduced in power (much like they are in 4e in fact funny that). This is pure flavor I agree but it does come up.
3. My goal as DM is to make the game fun for the group. Sometimes it is more fun to quest for an item and fight some horrible monster to achieve it than to casually drop some gold for the item. Nothing is prized more than that which is earned via in game challenges. Obviously the challenges are fun but there is still that feeling of accomplishment.
4. I've found that allowing the exchange of magic items and gold freely also has the unintended consequence of making gold useless for anything not a magic item. One of the great joys my players find in my world is using their gold for building castles, temples, etc... Attracting followers and equipping them etc... All this was taken for granted and discussed at length in the 1st Edition players handbook. I guess due to my age I didn't find anything wrong with playing this way and neither did my players.
Most of my players that also DM use the same philosophy when handing out magic items and allowing their creation. How much or how little occasionally varies some more and some less. They agree though that that is a DMs job. So perhaps I've "brainwashed" them to my philosophy but they seem to enjoy playing that way and carry it on to their own campaigns.
My critique of James Wyatts approach was that they chose one side in this debate and pushed that on readers of the players handbook. Why not just give several options and leave it a little more open ended. Also I think that not knowing the details of every magic item coming and going was a great thing back when I first started playing. The sense of unknown and mystery was a great joy. Thats all been thrown overboard now with the items in the players handbook.
wrightdjohn
Explorer
Well its hard to debate a fact. I leave it to the readers to check the various mage mart debates and I believe you will see that many of the people oppossing the idea are doing so for more than flavor. I don't disagree that the flavor affronts me also and that is a good reason but its not the only aspect for many people.
