the Jester
Legend
If "no magic item shops" is a dealbreaker, you're probably not going to enjoy a lot of peoples' campaigns. This doens't make the dm a control freak, it's a playstyle choice.
Standard DM behavior?
- Thread starter DarkLord Of DForce
- Start date
If "no magic item shops" is a dealbreaker, you're probably not going to enjoy a lot of peoples' campaigns. This doens't make the dm a control freak, it's a playstyle choice.
Dannager
First Post
Perhaps not coincidentally, "it's a playstyle choice" has been the catch-all justification from control freak DMs for a huge array of needlessly restrictive decisions.
"No magic item shops" isn't a dealbreaker. "No magic item shops and no access to Enchant Magic Item," however, is a dealbreaker. In my experience, that's usually one of the first signs that the DM is looking to exert control over the player characters, not just the game world. It is possible (though rare, in my experience) that a DM is legitimately trying to run a low-magic world, but if that's the case I expect the DM to throw something the PCs' way to make up for losing out on a fun and helpful set of mechanics.
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
billd91 is correct in that there are many play styles that range from greatly limiting magic item purchases (or disallowing entirely) to freely open purchasing. My game in particular has no magic shops but allows free purchase also. Every level the character receives a budget measured in GP with which he can purchase any item from an approved source. The purchases reset at each level and the character re-buys everything. The player is allowed to explain these "purchases" in any way that fits his character. They could be new techniques the player has developed. It could be the growing power of an ancestral item that the character has carried from the start. It could have be found in the hoard of the dragon the characters just defeated. Or the character could have made shady deals in the back alleys of a metrolpolis.
I've not yet banned any 4E magic item. The players have access to anything in the Compendium. I police on an item by item basis.
the Jester said:
It's not the "no magic item shops" that makes me think he is a control freak. It's getting angry that a plot element didn't go the way he expected and in reaction he "closed" the magic item shops. It could be the player that overstepped his bounds, but I only have his point of view to judge.
I completely agree. However, the OP asked how common it was to restrict purchasing items. My point was that it was not uncommon and, among the DMs that I know, it is very common to restrict the purchase of certain items including magic items.
Obryn
Hero
Bingo. It's a classic sign of a railroad. As a DM, when I'm writing my own scenarios, I pretty much just do that - write scenarios. In most cases, I have some ideas of how the players will solve them, but certainly won't stand in their way if they solve them differently.
(When I'm running Call of Cthulhu, OTOH, I make scenarios where I frankly have no idea how the PCs will get out of it.
)At any rate, I don't think there's any problem with "No magic item shops." It's one way to run the game, and perfectly valid. I think the big issue is that your DMs need to get on the same page - any time there's a shared campaign, there's a big need for consistency.
-O
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Yes, that's a far greater concern than any issue about the purchase or creation of magic items. Frankly, I can sympathize with making magic items harder to get.
Right we don't know if the OP overstepped his bounds, but we also don't have anything that should cause anyone to assume the DM in question is a control freak either.
The OP told us that he bought the item from the Adventurer's Vault with gold pieces earned in game and, later, states he assumed players had the right to spend gold earned in game as they chose. It is possible that the DMs had not expected that anyone would assume that they could just purchase items from the Adventurer's Vault and the OPs item was a complete surprise which led them to clarify their positions on the acquisition of magic items.
Last edited:
Dannager
First Post
Yes, we do.
The DM in question gave the party a sheet of paper that is critical to the plot. They can't read it, because it's in secret-language-X-that-PCs-can't-know. This is a terrible, unprotected plot device. The DM could have done any number of interesting things with it to make it unreadable, but all he did was change the language. This can be foiled by any number of reasonably easy-to-come-by methods, including (but not limited to) magic items and rituals. The PCs, of course, easily foiled this plot device. The DM a) should have known this was coming, b) should have rolled with it, and c) should have reacted reasonably to the situation. He didn't do any of these things. Instead, he got upset that the game provides ways for the PCs to solve trivial "puzzles" like this, and knee-jerk banned everything from the Adventurer's Vault (again, ignoring that the truly economical way to read the paper would be to cast a level 1 ritual).
This is like eight different warning flags of control freak. He felt the plot jerk out of control for a brief moment, panicked (probably because he hates not being in control), and instead of adjusting the plot to account for the PCs' actions simply banned an entire book (which, in turn, allows him to reassure himself that he's in control of the campaign).
Obryn
Hero
Heck; a quick, cheap, low-level ritual can let the caster comprehend languages. The magic item is just more convenient.
It probably would have been better if the text had been encrypted. I can't see a good justification for Comprehend Languages translating what amounts to an intentionally-obscured coded message.
-O
It probably would have been better if the text had been encrypted. I can't see a good justification for Comprehend Languages translating what amounts to an intentionally-obscured coded message.
-O
It strikes me as heavy-handed and poorly handled, but I can see where the DM is coming from. Basically, it's a conflict between the DM's reluctance to audit the players' every niggling purchase and the DM's need to know the players' capabilities when planning encounters and puzzles. If you design an elaborate quest to find someone who can translate an inscription, and one of the players busts out a magic translating device right at the start, that's a lot of work down the tubes and a table full of players staring at you while you scramble for something else to do that evening.
(While I support rewarding player ingenuity, buying a magic item does not strike me as ingenious.)
It was much worse in 3E and previous. Back then, you had to watch every spellcaster like a hawk, or they'd whip out random utility spell #248 and bypass the whole damn adventure. This was one of the driving forces behind "core-only" games. 4E has dramatically reduced the number of potential plot-smashers - for the most part, all you have to worry about nowadays are magic items and ritual spells - but the problem is really inevitable in D&D's splatbook-driven sales model.
(While I support rewarding player ingenuity, buying a magic item does not strike me as ingenious.)
It was much worse in 3E and previous. Back then, you had to watch every spellcaster like a hawk, or they'd whip out random utility spell #248 and bypass the whole damn adventure. This was one of the driving forces behind "core-only" games. 4E has dramatically reduced the number of potential plot-smashers - for the most part, all you have to worry about nowadays are magic items and ritual spells - but the problem is really inevitable in D&D's splatbook-driven sales model.
Similar Threads
