Confirmed: Magic items and summoned monster stats in PHB

[JohnSnow]

I'm not suggesting we need to exactly emulate earlier editions, but I am suggesting we shouldn't rule out play styles that emmulate the feel of earlier editions - whatever feel you happen to believe that to be.

While that sounds good in theory, it's when the "rubber meets the road" of determining what goes in which books that you run into conflicts.

No game can, by definition, accomodate both the Gygaxian ideal of "keeping the dispensation of magic items solely in the hands of the DM" and the Third-Edition mindset of "Give the players control over what items their characters get."

A choice has to be made. If the vast majority hold to the playstyle of "Players get to decide what magic items their characterts have," then the game should be laid out in such a way as to cater to that majority.

In First Edition, most of the resolution rules (like the mechanics for Saving Throws) were not even in the PHB. Second Edition put more and more of those rules in the PHB, and fewer in the DMG. When Third Edition first came out, it had a mini-DMG section and a mini-MM in the back. When combined with the "nearly complete" combat and adventuring rules, you could actually play with just the PHB.

As others have pointed out, spells have always been in the PHB, because the players need to know how their spells work. In Third Edition, characters can make magic items. Since those are things players control, why shouldn't they be in the PHB as well?

I think the reason the statistics for summoned monsters and alternate forms will be in the PHB is so that the player can have ready access to the statistics so that he can still run his own character. That's all.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. All they're saying is: "Sorry, if you're one of those DMs who want to control what magic items your PCs get, you're in the minority. Of course, as always, you're the DM, and it's your right to change the rules."

As much as these DMs say "my players never complain," I think a lot of them actually DO have players who feel differently and they're terrified that they won't be able to maintain their authority without the layout of the game rules to back them up.

What's so hard about saying: "I don't care WHAT the PHB says - in my campaign, you can't buy magic items and that's final."

Do you just have trouble saying "No" to your players?

 

[Lizard]

My players are more interested in adventuring than in forming trading companies. I would suggest finding a more compatible gaming group. Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way.

I can't see players NOT doing so. Or, at the very least, not asking why no one else has done so.

"So...there's high level clerics in the Holy City?"
"Yeah...it's the Holy City. Duh."
"And you said it's also a center of magical learning?"
"Yes. Where are you going with this?"
"Well, why do they need a thousand camels a day bringing in water?"
"I told you! A century ago, there was a Big Magic Catastrophe and the fields dried up, so..."
"No, I mean, shouldn't all those high-level magic types be capable of making a couple of hundred Decanters Of Endless Water to keep the city flourishing without all the damn camels?"
"Uhm...but this adventure is about you guarding the water caravans!"
"Oh. OK. Forget I said anything." (Begins making plans with other players to open up water-creation business)

I mean, I'm in a campaign where the bars pay a small retainer to the local Ogre Magi to stop by once a day to Cone Of Cold the basement and keep the beer chilled....

 

[Celebrim]

I too have resented the implication in 3e that any and all magic items were for sale in any community of the appropriate size. But the setting always determines what is available. I don't allow the mega-magic-mart in 3e homebrew games, and I won't in 4e. What could possibly rule out that style of play in 4e. No one is suggesting that the WotC ninjas will break into your house and disrupt your game if you don't allow every player to buy whatever items they want...I just don;t understand the argument that putting magic items in the PHB will rule out your playstyle (and mine). To me, the argument is nonsensical.

I can definately see how you'd think that. In a nut shell, the missing peice of the puzzle you aren't seeing is 'player expectations'. If you've been fortunate enough to have a single stable base of players for a long time, its probably not an issue for you. I on the other hand have moved around alot so I pretty much have to find new players any time I want to start a campaign, because generally what ends a campaign is me moving away. So, I've not had the luxury of always DMing in 'high trust environments' with long established friends and shared expectations. If you have, then alot of what I say probably sounds like nonsense to you.

One thing I've noticed the longer that 3E is out is that the younger players increasingly feel entitled to certain things. In particular, they feel entitled to plan out there PC's future career down to the smallest details. The believe that they have a right to take a certain PrC when they hit X level, to have a certain amount of money by Y level, and to buy item Z with that money when they can afford it. It's kinda like a battle plan for them, and resembles to me more the sort of strategy guide you might read for a game like Civilization 4 or Diablo II than anything I associate with a PnP RPG. If you try to tell them that this isn't going to be that sort of game, there initial response is to suggest that you are impinging on thier right to play the sort of character that they want to play. That is to say, they believe they have a right to assign magic items to thier character using resources they have to right acquire as a result of play and hindering that is not only unfair but some how immoral and unethical for the DM. They believe that you are breaking what they consider to be the rules. Needless to say, this can create table conflict if your goal is among other things to not have everyone decked out like a Christmas tree and to have the sort of balance sorely lacking in the game as the splatbooks continued to roll out in later 3.X. (Nevermind that I have to wonder about a players that not only write up thier character's past, but his future too.) If it was just one player, I'd just chalk it up to hard core gamist rules lawyers like we've always had, but its been more than one player and its an attitude I've regularly encountered here at EnWorld.

See, a game can and does create certain expectations of how to play and that is part of the games culture. A game can contain in its text a description of the 'proper' way to play it. And it seems to me with all of its talk from 4E about how certain things 'aren't fun' and thus have to go, talk which has invariably supported positions I associate with the 'new gamer', that the new edition is more or less explicitly going to say that the way I've played for 25 odd years is somehow 'not fun' and or 'badwrongfun'. Explicitly putting magic items in the players price list would be an example of trending in that direction. It's not that a high trust group of players couldn't agree to ignore this and play differently, its that the default assumption of the game is going to change radically. It is going to effect the expectations of the player base. I think it is going to result in 'I control summoned creatures as an extension of my will'/'I don't have to keep track of ammo because it isn't fun'/'Magic items can be bought at abstract supermarkets whenever we get to a town' being the default and expected way of playing.

 

[MaelStorm]

While that sounds good in theory, it's when the "rubber meets the road" of determining what goes in which books that you run into conflicts.

No game can, by definition, accomodate both the Gygaxian ideal of "keeping the dispensation of magic items solely in the hands of the DM" and the Third-Edition mindset of "Give the players control over what items their characters get."

A choice has to be made. If the vast majority hold to the playstyle of "Players get to decide what magic items their characterts have," then the game should be laid out in such a way as to cater to that majority.

In First Edition, most of the resolution rules (like the mechanics for Saving Throws) were not even in the PHB. Second Edition put more and more of those rules in the PHB, and fewer in the DMG. When Third Edition first came out, it had a mini-DMG section and a mini-MM in the back. When combined with the "nearly complete" combat and adventuring rules, you could actually play with just the PHB.

As others have pointed out, spells have always been in the PHB, because the players need to know how their spells work. In Third Edition, characters can make magic items. Since those are things players control, why shouldn't they be in the PHB as well?

I think the reason the statistics for summoned monsters and alternate forms will be in the PHB is so that the player can have ready access to the statistics so that he can still run his own character. That's all.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. All they're saying is: "Sorry, if you're one of those DMs who want to control what magic items your PCs get, you're in the minority. Of course, as always, you're the DM, and it's your right to change the rules."

As much as these DMs say "my players never complain," I think a lot of them actually DO have players who feel differently and they're terrified that they won't be able to maintain their authority without the layout of the game rules to back them up.

What's so hard about saying: "I don't care WHAT the PHB says - in my campaign, you can't buy magic items and that's final."

Do you just have trouble saying "No" to your players?

Since English is not my native tongue I can't put on and defend my opinion adequatly enough (IMO). I would like to be quick, and reply, and understand all the hidden assumption in a comment. Because of that I try not to intervene in debate. (What does he say? I won't waste time talking to him)

But you have voiced many things that was in the back of my head while I was reading some reply.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A choice has to be made. If the vast majority hold to the playstyle of "Players get to decide what magic items their characterts have," then the game should be laid out in such a way as to cater to that majority.

Excepting, of course, that we don't know what the vast majority hold to. Nor, really, could WotC possibly know, because at the time of their much-vaunted survey the game didn't support that playstyle very well. All they could have asked was, essentially, "Would you like to pick/make your own magic items?" and the majority may well have said "Yes"....but that doesn't make it an informed decision. Nor does it mean that this aspect of 3e has been particularly successful, apart from its constant reinforcement by WotC to sell more books.

Supposedly, in 4e, magic items aren't going to be so very important. In this case, it would seem, it is less important in 4e that players have access than in 3e. However, it is a lot easier to sell new PHBs when a new PHB can be mostly a collection of new magic items. The market of players is always larger than the market of DMs.

This makes it obvious, of course, that without access to the actual results of the WotC polls we can't know what the majority prefer. What we can reasonably guess, though, is what WotC thinks will sell best. For example, the WotC data showed that gamers who buy minis tend to spend far more than gamers who do not. It shouldn't be much of a surprise that 3e, 3.5, and 4e are each progressively more mini-centric. Heck, WotC even intends to sell randomized virtiual minis on the DI!

So there is just as good a chance that the vast majority hold to the playstyle of "DMs get to decide what magic items are found in the game world," and that the game should be laid out in such a way as to cater to that majority.

What's so hard about saying: "I don't care WHAT the PHB says - in my campaign, you can't buy magic items and that's final."

Do you just have trouble saying "No" to your players?

What's so hard about having DMs who want players to be able to buy magic items making it an additive bonus to their games? Do you just have trouble saying "Yes" to your players?



RC

 

[JohnSnow]

I can't see players NOT doing so. Or, at the very least, not asking why no one else has done so.

"So...there's high level clerics in the Holy City?"
"Yeah...it's the Holy City. Duh."
"And you said it's also a center of magical learning?"
"Yes. Where are you going with this?"
"Well, why do they need a thousand camels a day bringing in water?"
"I told you! A century ago, there was a Big Magic Catastrophe and the fields dried up, so..."
"No, I mean, shouldn't all those high-level magic types be capable of making a couple of hundred Decanters Of Endless Water to keep the city flourishing without all the damn camels?"
"Uhm...but this adventure is about you guarding the water caravans!"
"Oh. OK. Forget I said anything." (Begins making plans with other players to open up water-creation business)

I mean, I'm in a campaign where the bars pay a small retainer to the local Ogre Magi to stop by once a day to Cone Of Cold the basement and keep the beer chilled....

My first thought to this is "Wow...Gamers really are losers."

If your first (or second, or third) thought in a D&D game is finding out how to "beat the system," by discovering the D&D equivalent of a video game's cheat codes, you probably need a new hobby. Because you literally cannot BEAT the DM. Because whatever you try, he can undo with a word. Picture this follow-up to your little scene.

PC (smug): "Here's our plan to provide water to the Holy City. We should get quite rich in the process."
DM (shrugs): "Hmm...interesting. Well, there's no access to extraplanar water within the desert, so your decanters don't work. Sorry."
PC (flustered): "But we spent all that money making them!"
DM: "You didn't think all those high-level priests were that stupid, did you? Obviously, if they're bringing water in via camel, there must be a reason."
PC: "You...you just made that up to foil our plan."
DM: "Yeah. I did. You can't beat this game. May I suggest you try to enjoy just playing it."

Ta-Da! Problem solved. Now, to be fair, I probably would have handled one of those above questions differently.

PC: "No, I mean, shouldn't all those high-level magic types be capable of making a couple of hundred Decanters Of Endless Water to keep the city flourishing without all the damn camels?"
DM: "Good question. There must be a good reason, if you're interested in finding out. But this adventure is about you guarding the water caravans!" (Makes note to determine "Why" nobody's done that before).
PC: "Oh. OK. Forget I said anything." (Begins making plans with other players to open up water-creation business)

At this point, if the PC continues with his plans, he knows that he runs the risk of the DM coming back at him with a reason for why it doesn't work. Stop trying to beat the DM and find loopholes in his plot. Because unless he's a total tool, you'll always lose.

 

[Celebrim]

My players are more interested in adventuring than in forming trading companies. I would suggest finding a more compatible gaming group.

More compatible playing group?!?!?!? Perhaps you don't understand. Those were the best players I've ever had/played with. They were smart. They were inventive. They could roleplay with the best, and tactically they were far and away the most proficient dungeon crawlers I'd ever had the priviledge to play with. (They tore up DragonCon.) I can deal with smart, inventive players. That's not a problem. Heck, that's a good thing!!!

The incompatible players tend to be the ones that aren't smart and creative, who don't roleplay thier character, who don't interact with the world, who are passive, and who you have to put a ring through thier nose and drag them along before you have any adventures. Those are the players I've had trouble with. I've had campaigns end because I had players that were so boring I couldn't stand to put in the effort to entertain them.

I don't really want a bunch of players who are sitting around waiting for a ride on the railroad, who never entertain by staying in character, and whose ideal of characterization is 'My guy dual wields scimitars'.

Seriously, no player in one of my games would even consider trying to game the system in such a way.

Like I said, if your experience with players is limited to some long time buddies of yours, alot of what I'm talking about probably go right by you.

 

[Lizard]

My first thought to this is "Wow...Gamers really are losers."

If your first (or second, or third) thought in a game is finding out how to "beat the system," by discovering the D&D equivalent of a video game's cheat codes, you need a new hobby. Because you literally cannot BEAT the DM. Because whatever you try, he can undo with a word. Picture this follow-up to your little scene.
.

See, I don't see it as trying to "win" or "beat the system". I see it as trying to imagine that the world is real, and acting accordingly. It's the precise OPPOSITE of a video game, where the 'world' extends only as far as the edge of the screen and your actions are limited to what the programmer imagined.

If my players show cleverness, ingenuity, and creativity, I'm not going to punish them for leaping off the Plot Train and running into the green hills beyond. I'll just make sure there's something cool waiting for them to find in the hills.

 

[Caliban]

Like I said, if your experience with players is limited to some long time buddies of yours, alot of what I'm talking about probably go right by you.

I happen to know Ken personally. His experience is not that limited. So you can drop the "you don't have the experience to comprehend my words of wisdom" routine.

He has played with a lot of different people over the years, he's just talking about his preferred playstyle with his preferred group of players.

Just like you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

See, I don't see it as trying to "win" or "beat the system". I see it as trying to imagine that the world is real, and acting accordingly. It's the precise OPPOSITE of a video game, where the 'world' extends only as far as the edge of the screen and your actions are limited to what the programmer imagined.

If my players show cleverness, ingenuity, and creativity, I'm not going to punish them for leaping off the Plot Train and running into the green hills beyond. I'll just make sure there's something cool waiting for them to find in the hills.

Absolutely, 100%, totally agree.

RC