Anybody else getting sick of the pervasive-magic crutch in the game?

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think you have to worry about magic becoming too pervasive until one of the following happens:

(1) Someone suggests that the Rust Monster isn't a good monster because it takes away your items, and many people accept this suggestion.

(2) Someone suggests that the Antimagic Cone of a Beholder's central eye has to be replaced because there are so many buffs on the characters that you have to stop combat in order to recalculate everything.

(3) Official websites begin running articles on how hard creatures (ex. dragons) are to run, primarily because their spells and buffs are hard to keep track of.

I'm sure that events like these are a long, long way off.


RC

 

[Geoff Watson]

This was explicitly stated a number of times in one of the Disjunction threads: people said that they'd rather their character died - to be resurrected later - than lose their items.

That's simple economics. True Ressurection costs 25000gp, while a high level character may have hundreds of thousands of gp worth of items.

Geoff.

 

[Raven Crowking]

BTW, I am alone in thinking that "The default isn't a problem because I don't have to use the default" is sort of a cop-out answer? True, but obvious, and it doesn't really answer the question. I mean, my house rules tone down magic a lot, but I didn't think that we were talking about the Rules As Changed.

The OP sort of assumes that we are talking about the RAW, rather than the OP's house rules, after all. Or are we up in arms against/in support of Emirikol's house rules?

"I gave out a ton of magic because that was the core assumption" is, of course, as lame a response. Still, if you want to use published material (and many do, even if only for the stat blocks), then the core assumptions do affect your game (or at least your prep time).

YMMV, of course.


RC



EDIT: The ruleset and the core assumptions are not the same thing, BTW. The ruleset could easily accomodate other core assumptions. Though modification would be required (as in my house rules), those modifications do not require to adjust the most basic mechanics.

IOW, I think that the ruleset is great, but what they chose to do with it is not. I imagine that I am not alone in this; after all, who was that guy who wrote an alternate Player's Handbook with a different spell selection? What other books did he write? I think it was clear before Book One hit the shelves that there was going to be a call for alternates to the core assumptions.


RC

 

[Shades of Green]

In real life, I have items like my <i>stapler</i> and my <i>computer</i>.

In my fantasy role-play life, I have items like my <i>+1 Frost Rapier</i> and my <i>Ring of Wizardry II</i>.

You have a very important point here - magic-item power progression shouldn't be linear. Simple expendable items such as the lower-level potions and scrolls could be common; powerful items should be extra-rare. Low-level spellcasters capable of creating these simple items are pretty common in the avarage D&D game, and these items require a relatively low amount of XP. But powerful items are expensive, require rare high-level casters, and require a massive investment of mental/spiritual energy (represented by XP), and thus shouldn't be common.

 

[Ace]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz
This was explicitly stated a number of times in one of the Disjunction threads: people said that they'd rather their character died - to be resurrected later - than lose their items.

The proper response, then, is to just say "no" to these people.

Then house rule Mordenkainen's Disjunction to a 6th level spell and have NPCs use it until they get the message.

Your group might tolerate that sort of thing but if you tried that with the guys I play with you would need to get a new group. We would all leave en mass. I have seen it happen 5 or mroe times with different

Anway as a point of modern gaming the DM is not in charge of the games folks the players are --- You have some say in what goes on but if the DM doesn't give the players what they want they'll soon start making excuses and the next time you see them they'll be playing WOW or EQ2 instead.

Its not 1983 anymore people have lots more choices and unsatisfied players or players with a power tripping GM (which is what this will be recieved as) will just go do something else. I am not a hostage to your "story" or "flavor" I simply don't care -- I'll play -- I'll RP and I'll try to increase everyones fun but I expect
that I play D&D to have items within 20% of the suggested amount at all times or so other rules (like my own) that compensate for the D&D's screwed up armor class rules and what all. if you aren't interested -- have a good game without me.

Also I expect to level up roughly at the suggested rate or faster. If I wanted gritty I'd play GURPS

The rules as written mandate a reliance on items -- I refuse to do the math again and show the differences but flatly without magic items D&D is less for fun many maybe most gamers

if you don't like this fact and want a low magic item game either make a patch (as I did) or play something else

D&D is for playing D&D -- learn it -- love it.

 

[tbiaslorin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz
This was explicitly stated a number of times in one of the Disjunction threads: people said that they'd rather their character died - to be resurrected later - than lose their items.






Your group might tolerate that sort of thing but if you tried that with the guys I play with you would need to get a new group. We would all leave en mass. I have seen it happen 5 or mroe times with different

Anway as a point of modern gaming the DM is not in charge of the games folks the players are --- You have some say in what goes on but if the DM doesn't give the players what they want they'll soon start making excuses and the next time you see them they'll be playing WOW or EQ2 instead.

Its not 1983 anymore people have lots more choices and unsatisfied players or players with a power tripping GM (which is what this will be recieved as) will just go do something else. I am not a hostage to your "story" or "flavor" I simply don't care -- I'll play -- I'll RP and I'll try to increase everyones fun but I expect
that I play D&D to have items within 20% of the suggested amount at all times or so other rules (like my own) that compensate for the D&D's screwed up armor class rules and what all. if you aren't interested -- have a good game without me.

Also I expect to level up roughly at the suggested rate or faster. If I wanted gritty I'd play GURPS

The rules as written mandate a reliance on items -- I refuse to do the math again and show the differences but flatly without magic items D&D is less for fun many maybe most gamers

if you don't like this fact and want a low magic item game either make a patch (as I did) or play something else

D&D is for playing D&D -- learn it -- love it.

Holy pot-kettle Batman! I agree the example sounds like it could be a power-tripping DM. However, I'd have to say this is a little ironic, as the response sounds like a power-tripping player. 'If you don't DM the way I like, level me up how I want and give me X-gp value of items, I'll take my toys and go home.'

To each their own; if you and your group like a particular magic or level progression that is fine, but dictating to the DM how to DM is as bad as the DM dictating to the players how to play. Players and DM's both need to find groups that fit them (if the intent is enjoyment), that is pretty true in all games, from Chess to Risk to D&D.

Maybe some gamers (or even many) need to have a certain amount or value of magic items, however most people I've ever played with are far more interested in being part of a heroic and engaging story where they are the main actors, with magic items coming in a far second or third or fourth to interesting characters, plots, and adventures. And that is as true now as it was when I was playing and DM'ing (badly) in 1983.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Your group might tolerate that sort of thing but if you tried that with the guys I play with you would need to get a new group. We would all leave en mass. I have seen it happen 5 or mroe times with different

Anway as a point of modern gaming the DM is not in charge of the games folks the players are

Am I allowed to open up a new thread on player entitlement yet?

Seriously, though, Ace, this wouldn't be a problem at my table. Anyone with the attitude of "I deserve to get X and Y by Z, or else" would never get invited back.


RC

 

[Crothian]

Ya, I agree. I'm glad I don't have players like that in my games.

 

[Ace]

Am I allowed to open up a new thread on player entitlement yet?

Seriously, though, Ace, this wouldn't be a problem at my table. Anyone with the attitude of "I deserve to get X and Y by Z, or else" would never get invited back.


RC

I have occasionally played in D&D games with different expectations about leveling up and the like. If I accept them -- I play them. To do otherwise is rude. Otherwise I saty hme and growse on the net 9which I prefer to gaming 9 for 10 times actually)

Also these rules apply only to D&D -- other systems have different styles and requirements

Not every DM has a selection of players to choose from -- often its "take what players you can get and be glad of it" and "be glad anyone showed up" not "do it my way" -- a DM is always welcome to turn down players at anytime but there is a cost.

In my neck of the woods -- out of 8 regulars in the group (5-6 were usually in the game at any given time) 7 were DM/GM's of something and the new player base was real small --

Players got to pick and choose --

Its not always like that -- sometimes its "play my way or have no DM"

when that happens I shrug and go surf the web or play computer games or read or ...

 

[Ace]

Ya, I agree. I'm glad I don't have players like that in my games.

You wouldn't have the problem -- you are generous DM and from all I can tell not a control freak

My guys were the best Buffy/Angel group but I won't D&D with them -- not fun as JOM they really don't like D&D all that much