Where Has All the Magic Gone?

[Nagol]

That's an interesting set of observations Doug and Nagol.

Personally I think it is based on the following technique(s) of displaying magic as a game concept in D&D. With artifacts and relics and so forth you have so many different kinds of magical effects that can be displayed that one has a hard time "guessing or knowing" what effect the item will manifest next.

That is to say high level magic items have a wide option choice of magical effects and displays, which adds to the mystery of the manifestation. It is not a simple one lever-one effect operation.

Simple magical items, +1 swords and so forth, can't project that element of "the unknown or mysterious." Not with that system anyway. It's like you say, low magic is a simple mechanical or technological operation. It only usually does one simple thing, like an extremely simple machine.

I think you can change that by making low level magical items fluctuate in what they do, or by changing the way they "present helves" on occasion. They would still do mild things, by comparison to high level magic, but only one thing at a time, yet also various or changing things.

But I think you made a good observation and I like the idea of the paradox of magical-technology in D&D. I think it can be fixed, or at least changed, but I like the point.

The difficult part is balancing useful reliability with unpredictability.

The character and/or the player not being capable of predicting what the magic item will do next severely reduces the player's incentive to use the tool. Reliability and predictability is highly sought after in tools that you are relying upon for success (and in the character's case for survival).

The Wand of Wonder is the archtypal unpredictable magic item. Many players will pass on its acquisition. Many others will only use it when either (a) success is all but certain or (b) defeat is almost certain otherwise. Very few individuals in my experience pull it out as a tool of choice when they think the outcome is tight, but winnable. The reason for that is simple: the item is too unpredictable to be relied upon. Wild Magic has gone through a lot of revisions/publications of possible results because the unpredicatablility one group appreciates is unacceptable to another.

Adding an item that shifts between known states adds uncertainty for the player at the cost of complexity of tracking for the DM. The player's state only lasts until he works out the pattern for shifting. At that point, it adds some complexity to the player to work out when/how to shift the item to achieve the desired result. Alternatively, the player doesn't take the item into consideration and only takes advantage of it when it coincidentally offers the effects desired at the time of need.

 

[Raven Crowking]

How the pet project coming along these days?

Very well.

Thanks for asking!

RC

 

[Jack7]

The difficult part is balancing useful reliability with unpredictability...


Adding an item that shifts between known states adds uncertainty for the player at the cost of complexity of tracking for the DM. The player's state only lasts until he works out the pattern for shifting. At that point, it adds some complexity to the player to work out when/how to shift the item to achieve the desired result. Alternatively, the player doesn't take the item into consideration and only takes advantage of it when it coincidentally offers the effects desired at the time of need.

I think you got a good point there.

However I didn't mean to imply that it (a magic item - especially low level magic items) changes every time you use it. But maybe I should have been clearer.

What I meant, but didn't elaborate on, was this:

1. The capabilities of items may change over time. Old powers or abilities can be lost, new ones might be gained. This is especially true when items have been exposed to other magical items or to the influence of high level magic's such as spells. It alters what the item can do or in what way.

2. Certain abilities can lie dormant or hidden until exposed to a certain trigger.

3. Certain active abilities can be forced into hibernation or dormancy by exposure to certain devices, magics, or events.

4. The capabilities or powers of a item can wax or wane in certain situations.

So, assuming you already know what an object can do then you can rely upon it to a degree, but you cannot rely upon it to be the same or static forever. And you cannot always rely upon it to be consistent in the degree of intensity by which the magic in it manifests itself.

I think the idea of static magic being inflexibly matched to corresponding physical objects is simply a sort of technological analogy, where most technological objects are "fixed in their nature" and so do not change or alter over time.

But it is hard for me to imagine magic as being physically and technologically "fixed and static" in the same way as say, a television set. You can buy a new and better television (maybe even add things to it and upgrade it) but it will in effect always be a television set. It will never be a motorcycle.

However with magic I don't imagine the same situation at all. I see magic as fluid and transmutable, flowing, always in motion, active and changing. It would not "adhere to" or "affix itself" to objects in the same way that technological functions do. For instance it is easy for me with magic to imagine a spear that assist the user in combat, but which also assist the user to read magical scripts and which may even on occasion allow the user to fly. It is therefore a weapon, a communications device, and a means of transportation. Such a spear is a magical multi-tool of drastically different and varied capabilities. Magic can do that, technology has a much harder time being that fluid and flexible.

In other words magic would be open to change and that change might be very wide ranging indeed.

Therefore I think the way games sometimes view magic as static and fixed is simply an easy technological analogy, not by any means a necessity of function.

 

[Lanefan]

You know, I don't know a single person who heeded that particular admonition .

Whereas I know many; and was one myself before I began DMing.

I found the only way to conceal magic item properties is to make them up yourself.

Or swipe them from sources other than the list provided for the particular game/edition you're playing. Got a bunch of players who've only played 3e? Then the 1e DMG is Your Friend. Your players got the 1e DMG memorized? Bet they haven't seen the new Equipment Guide (or whatever it's called) just put out for 4e. And so on.

The Wand of Wonder is the archtypal unpredictable magic item. Many players will pass on its acquisition.

Not me! Other people passing them up just leaves more for me to play with, so gimme gimme gimme! (and then stand back. Way back.)

Lanefan

 

[Desdichado]

We need to get back to that in modern fantasy games.

Which version of older D&D are you looking at? Y'know what I remember most from my BD&D and AD&D days? +1 swords.

It wasn't until lateish 3.5, with Weapons of Legacy that I remember D&D ever really trying to bring "magic" to their magic items. So, if you mean modern as in "post 2007" I'd agree with you, otherwise, I'd say your evaluation of "magicalness" of magic items over the years is not consistent with my experience at all.

Plus, you assume a priori that there's an objective, quantifiable positive to having magic items done the way you want them, which I'd disagree with. I think the paradigm in Eberron, with it's almost assembly line minor magic items, is an intriguing change; a cool new idea that hits like a gust of fresh air.

:shrug:

 

[tomBitonti]

For what it's worth, the Apparatus of Kwalish made it's way into Adventurer's Vault. We need to remember that 4E is still very new, and there's a good chance a lot of the old favorites will find their way into the game eventually. Of course, they may lose a little of that cool factor for the sake of ease of use/implementaion and balance. That said, I was pleasantly surprised with how the Apparatus turned out. (Vorpal Sword? Not so much...)
Later!
Gruns

Umm, say what?

4E is FOURTH edition

A game with 30 years of history.

How can there be less than a vast amount of fluff available?

 

[howandwhy99]

Plus, you assume a priori that there's an objective, quantifiable positive to having magic items done the way you want them, which I'd disagree with. I think the paradigm in Eberron, with it's almost assembly line minor magic items, is an intriguing change; a cool new idea that hits like a gust of fresh air.

:shrug:

I agree with you about Eberron being a breath of fresh air. It's a nice setting with lots of new ideas and old ones presented in interesting new ways. However, I would disagree with magical items being made on an assembly line. A barrel full of umbrellas that inexplicably keep the wind from blowing rain in is not a barrel full of magical items. It's magic-tech, which is equipment. Magical items are magical, unknown quantities, especially for the Players. Magic-tech is simply non-real world technology. Star Wars is magic-tech.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Which version of older D&D are you looking at? Y'know what I remember most from my BD&D and AD&D days? +1 swords.

Sad.

But that is an artifact of your experience, rather than an artifact of the game, as is demonstrated wonderfully in the Encyclopedia Magica, which lists every magic item in the game (up to 2e) as well as where it came from.


RC

 

[Desdichado]

Sad.

But that is an artifact of your experience, rather than an artifact of the game, as is demonstrated wonderfully in the Encyclopedia Magica, which lists every magic item in the game (up to 2e) as well as where it came from.

Never heard of it. I stopped playing D&D before 2e came out, and I certainly never played during the 2e era.

That said, my "experience" included being pretty darn familiar with the BD&D and AD&D books at one point. For every Apparatus of Kwalish, there were forty bazillion +1 swords.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Never heard of it. I stopped playing D&D before 2e came out, and I certainly never played during the 2e era.

That said, my "experience" included being pretty darn familiar with the BD&D and AD&D books at one point. For every Apparatus of Kwalish, there were forty bazillion +1 swords.

As I said, the books contains all of TSR's magic items up to the time of publication. I would really recommend them, if you can find them, for ideas if for nothing else.

That said, AFAICT, there are exactly one listing each for "+1 sword" and "Apparatus of Kwalish" in the books, so I'm not sure what to make of your "experience" listed above.

I would agree that +1 swords are far more common than any other unusual item, but that doesn't mean that the full sum of unusual items is not greater than that of +1 swords.


RC