Standard DM behavior?

I just tend to suspect that the desire to start stronger isn't a new thing.
I know it's not. However, OD&D was not designed to provide challenges for characters beyond a point, and AD&D pushed that point back only a bit.

That's not to say it couldn't be done; OD&D especially had no explicit level cap, and Warlock and Arduin offer examples of spin-offs built to deal with higher levels. As far as TSR was concerned, though, you were on your own if you brought in characters of 40th, 50th, etc., level.

It's normal enough for people past their period as novices to find early levels to lack interest, and Gygax in the DMG suggested starting them with higher-level characters (if they don't already have appropriate ones). The "house rules" and "gamer culture" in some places favor always starting at 1st, though -- even if it's decades ere the basics held novelty, mystery and wonder.

It's also normal enough to find the (old) game notably less satisfying past a point in the low teens of levels. Not everyone, of course, chooses to retire characters there (or even in the 20s). A fair number, though, prefer to play mostly in the 4th-13th range.

Particular numbers aside, there's the "sweet spot" concept to which 4e designers have referred. They took the radical measure of cutting and stretching stuff to fit hard limits. In the OD&D and 1e AD&D era, the designers just offered advice.

There had been a problem early on with "Monty Haul" games in which after a few months the characters had killed and taken the stuff of everything including the gods -- and the players got bored. Just piling up ever bigger numbers didn't rock their boats, and the game was not really designed with that in mind (unlike the WotC-D&D "arms race" maths). That got a lot of attention in the hobby press.

The opposite problem of "Scrooge" campaigns was less common (at least in public discussion) and widely viewed as easier to correct gracefully.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

It's interesting to follow manga back, actually: modern fight manga derives a lot from kung fu movies, which are themselves derived from kung fu novels, which themselves follow on from classics like Journey to the West, Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Outlaws of the Marsh, which themselves borrow a lot from oral traditions. Humility is a big virtue in many of those stories, as it is over here, but it's often applied to attitude but not to power.

That is my perception also; humility is not tied to the "power level" -- whether we're talking about wuxia novels, myths, fantasy, oral tradition or epics.

I don't know if it's so much that computer and video games are the reason, mostly because it's hard to say how much is the influence of one thing and how much is the lack of influence of another. In the early 80s or so, dirt-poor farmer's sons were the dominant RPG paradigm. Even Champions and the like would start out awfully tender in point value compared to what you saw in the comics. Gradually, though, you started seeing more games where you started out closer to what you'd eventually end up as, such as the WoD games.

It's very hard to actually tell, of course. But I can't help but wonder just how much of the shift is due to outside influences gaining dominance, and how much is due to the "start lowly, end heroically" play style just not having the same sort of first-to-the-market, duplicated-by-all status it used to. I suspect it's a mix of the two and of other factors I may not be tracking, but it's damn hard to tell.

That is an interesting point, and I have to say I agree. It's indeed hard to say anything that isn't purely speculative and anecdotal.

Well, technically one would hope that the protagonists who start humble and those who don't all have sufficient flaws and weaknesses to make them interesting. But I quite sympathize. I tend to be more eclectic in my preferences, but I'd be unhappy if I didn't have the Prydain Chronicles and Lord of the Rings to sit alongside my copies of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, and Orlando Furioso. I enjoy a humble protagonist as much as anyone.

Orlando Furioso does have elements associated with fantasy works, and it has influenced fantasy authors and works of "magical realism", but I wouldn't personally regard Orlando Furioso into the fantasy genre, or as a myth; it's really an epic poem based on 'Song of Roland' and a "sequel" to Orlando in Love (just as I wouldn't regard the adventures of Baron Munchausen or, say, Italo Calvino's works, as fantasy).

(I'm surprised that Ariosto, the poster, hasn't commented on this particular subject! ;):p)

I wouldn't call Beowulf brought down by flaws or hubris; "betrayal" maybe, but he fought the dragon out of duty and bravery, really. To Howard's figures I'd add Ruggiero, Bradamante, Orlando and Astolfo from the Italian romances, Sun Wukong and assorted company from Journey to the West. The real question is "is this a story where we get the 'happily ever after', or is it a tragedy?" Power level may or may not attach to that; the Orlando romances have happy endings, Arthurian stories don't. Journey to the West ends with everyone becoming Buddhas and Outlaws of the Marsh ends with the heroic bandits mostly slaughtered. LotR and Prydain end with the decided mixed blessing of magic leaving the world. D&D tends to try for happy endings,

Hmmm... it's been a while since I read Beowulf, but I have the distinct feeling that he wasn't exactly a humble peasant hero, and for the large part his downfall was due to his own hubris, i.e. exaggarated sense of his own abilities. He did fight the dragon to protect his people, out of bravery and sense of duty, though. And, as far as I can recall Ruggiero, Orlando et al. are all characters from the era of chivalric romance, and display those very qualities (questing knights/warriors that seem to possess superhuman talents) that Cervantes later satiricized in Don Quixote. That is not to say that you wouldn't have a point; indeed, literature has a score of protagonists that don't start out as humble farmboys, and it's not a sign of "badwrongfun" if a novel or a game takes a more "heroic" approach to protagonists, or whether it's about a tragic or happy ending (BTW, if you yet haven't tried it, I'll recommed reading and trying 'Polaris' from Tao Games -- it's so damn well-written and well-designed that I'd wish every gamer out there would try it at least once in his/her life).

That's what it all comes down to. I just tend to suspect that the desire to start stronger isn't a new thing. I also wonder if it isn't partly because the start-low-end-high model was "unusually" strong during the nascent days of RPGs because that's what the biggest and first-to-market game was doing. But like I say, it's all theoretical.

Very true; it's becoming a trend in contemporary works of popular culture (movies, novels, comic books, games). Some of them even combine the both aspects; the hero has a greater destiny to fulfill, and in all appearances starts out "small" although he/she may very well possess superhuman powers and/or learning capacity, but does not initially remember or grasp how to harness or wield those powers (e.g. Dragonball Z, Naruto, Wheel of Time, Eragon and so on). Effectively, the reader is told that there is "more than meets the eye" in the protagonist, and a lot of the excitement comes from following this process as the young protagonist slowly (or even in some works, quickly) outranks his/her elders in terms of power and skill. It's enjoyable for me, too, but I don't know if I like it in fantasy RPGs. Again, this is purely a matter of taste. :)
 

I'm surprised that Ariosto, the poster, hasn't commented on this particular subject!
It is not clear to me how the categorization of Orlando Furioso relates to the issues at hand. I think it a bit misleading to say that it is "based on 'Song of Roland'", though. They have characters (or at least names) in common, but their plots are utterly different. The relationship is more like that of the ongoing Marvel Comics version of Thor with any particular tale of Norse mythology. The shift in tenor between the epic poems is even more striking (the old chanson being more like a tragic saga).
 
Last edited:

It is not clear to me how the categorization of Orlando Furioso relates to the issues at hand. I think it a bit misleading to say that it is "based on 'Song of Roland'", though. They have characters (or at least names) in common, but their plots are utterly different. The relationship is more like that of the ongoing Marvel Comics version of Thor with any particular tale of Norse mythology. The shift in tenor between the epic poems is even more striking (the old chanson being more like a tragic saga).

It was just a humorous remark about your alias and Ariosto (the author)! ;)

True, you're dead on about their differences, at least based on what I remember about them; still, literary history (at least in the works I've read) claims 'Orlando Furioso' is based on 'Song of Roland'. Maybe it'd actually be more correct to say the latter influenced the former, in the same sense Beowulf, for example, influenced Tolkien's Middle-Earth.
 

DM's can allow or disallow any items they want in their game, much like how much XP they give out. Many DMs don't allow "magic item" shops.

Or, like these DM's, put limits on the availability of magic items to be bought.

The problem here seems to be inexperienced DM's, who have just figured out WHY other DM's do that.

Of course your DMs could have been more creative and stated that the store that you bought the items was burned down or the owner moved away.
I'm sorry you are getting jerked around though.

I agree it's not ideal to change the rules around in an on-going campaign, but for folks who are learning the game, I'd take a "oh well, give the DM's a break as they're new to the job" view and move on.

If anyone cares, my approach to this issue as a DM is to create magic shops as a campaign feature, rather than strictly thinking about it from a "here are the arbitrary rules to make the game balanced/to keep my story happening like I want it/to keep the PC's from complaining by letting them get whatever they want".

Here's how I think about what they'd be like in my milleau (3.5e):
-- There must be retired low-level who need money more than XP, so there should be low-level expendable items like potions and 1-3 level spells
-- Some items are more in demand (potions of Cure Light Wounds, scrolls of Restorations, scrolls of Fireball) by parties I've run than others (e.g., a +2 club or Horseshoes of Speed). Therefore, magic shops should endeavor to encourage retired spellcasters to keep a steady stream of FMCG -- fast moving consumer goods like CLW potions -- coming in, as they will sell a lot of these. Magic items will also tend to have white elephants -- the Horseshoes of Speed and other such items that parties tend to want to sell, and that move slowly, like antiques. But the magic shop won't want all its capital tied up in white elephants, so they will sell them more like a consignment store -- the seller gets paid only after the magic shop does. And items that everyone wants but few PC's can make -- like a +2 longsword -- will rarely be in stock.
-- Players sometimes talk about robbing a magic shop. It's where the magic is, after all. Therefore, a magic shop that sells anything worth stealing -- beyond CLW potions and the like -- must have protection. But, in D&D, there's always a bigger fish, so just having a golem or something (while not a bad idea in a shadier area/campaign with shadier PC's) is a good idea, it's not sufficient. What's the real protection -- the people who put up the capital to run the store. Likely, the mages guild, the Church of Boccob (the god of magic), or some rich powerful retired adventurers. Also, the adventuring parties who are trying to sell white elephant items on consignment would be mighty pissed if someone steals them -- heck has no fury like a PC who lost a magic item, so shouldn't NPC parties -- as Gygax said, the most dangerous of monsters -- be equally peeved if someone robs the magic shop?
-- Though logically a scroll of Fireball is more in demand and could be sold for more than other 3rd level spells, it's a guild world, so prices are fixed, not up to the shopkeeper -- and not negotiable.

So, IMC, there are two kinds of magic shops:
-- Small scale dealers who have a few CLW potions in stock, and maybe a few scrolls, and can try and get items on request (from the bigger dealers) in a few weeks time.
-- The Compleat Strategist-type place (like the legendary game store on 33rd St in NYC). They have LOTS of inventory, and higher value, rarer stuff compared to any place else, crammed into nooks and crannies, and a knowledgeable staff (how will, for example, do Identify spells for a fee). But even they don't have everything. To get their inventory, I roll up random magic items. As PC's buy and sell, the inventory changes, and when the PC's go back, I dice to see if some of the inventory has sold, and if knew stuff comes in. Some items will languish for years -- just like at the Compleat Strategist -- while other items are FMCG's.
-- The deal? Items cost full DMG price. Items can be sold for 80% of face value, but it mostly needs to be in store credit, since the store rarely has more than 2000-3000 gp in cash. Sometimes, if you're willing to wait a week or so, the store can broker a deal for cash. True white elephant items may not be bought at all -- but the churches will often buy evil items for cash to destroy them. You can sell anything you want on consignment, though -- you wait for a buyer, and if there is one, you get 90% of the sale price.

My players (in two campaigns/parties, sharing one setting and store) seem to accept how my stores work and appreciate the "realism" of it all.

Of course, your campaign may vary.
 

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.

I just think having magic shops with hundreds of items available, each costing a small fortune, is implausible and senseless.
 

I just think having magic shops with hundreds of items available, each costing a small fortune, is implausible and senseless.
In my previous 3.5e games, the "Magic Items Shoppes" were that world's equivalent of Southeby's and Christie's auction houses.

We have real-world places with hundreds of small fortune sales every month. They're nothing like Wal-Mart, but that's cooler.

The rich, old families that ran these two institutions were a force to be reckoned with -- you never want to be on their bad side, not least because you will have trouble buying & selling magic loot.

Cheers, -- N
 

In my previous 3.5e games, the "Magic Items Shoppes" were that world's equivalent of Southeby's and Christie's auction houses.

We have real-world places with hundreds of small fortune sales every month. They're nothing like Wal-Mart, but that's cooler.

The rich, old families that ran these two institutions were a force to be reckoned with -- you never want to be on their bad side, not least because you will have trouble buying & selling magic loot.

Cheers, -- N

So, we ditch the idea of magic item shops and instead the PC's just list thier stuff on the AH. :lol: Do they get a message saying " A buyer has been found for your auction of (insert item name)?
 

In my previous 3.5e games, the "Magic Items Shoppes" were that world's equivalent of Southeby's and Christie's auction houses.

We have real-world places with hundreds of small fortune sales every month. They're nothing like Wal-Mart, but that's cooler.

The rich, old families that ran these two institutions were a force to be reckoned with -- you never want to be on their bad side, not least because you will have trouble buying & selling magic loot.

Cheers, -- N

That's similar to how I handle it as well. The PCs go to a particular magic shop that the owner runs like a buy/sell used store. It has a spotty inventory at any one time but the owner also acts as a broker for obtaining items from others interested in selling, including arranging commissions from magic item crafters, like the local wizard's college. Her success rate is pretty good, but it may take a little time...
 

So, we ditch the idea of magic item shops and instead the PC's just list thier stuff on the AH. :lol: Do they get a message saying " A buyer has been found for your auction of (insert item name)?
"We"? Who invited you?

That's similar to how I handle it as well. The PCs go to a particular magic shop that the owner runs like a buy/sell used store. It has a spotty inventory at any one time but the owner also acts as a broker for obtaining items from others interested in selling, including arranging commissions from magic item crafters, like the local wizard's college. Her success rate is pretty good, but it may take a little time...
Exactly, time is the essential limiting factor. If you want cash NOW, you will probably be settling for a lower price. If you want to maximize your profit, you need to be flexible about how long you're willing to wait for a buyer. Same deal with buying: you can get items cheap, but only if you don't need them right away (or if you're very lucky).

Attending auctions can be quite instructive, too, since many items are effectively weapons. (Imagine if most major arms deals were public auctions, but not recorded.) It's a great place to gather information.

Cheers, -- N
 

Remove ads

Top