Confirmed: Magic items and summoned monster stats in PHB

[Cadfan]

D&D requires a certain suspension of disbelief. I've yet to see a campaign that had a completely internally consistent setting. This is especially true in settings that seek to mimic the real world- the real world didn't have magic, so you get consistency issues when you mix magic and historical locales. And players are really good in coming up with ways to exploit magic rules to break your gameworld. I don't see a solution for this, frankly, other than 1) players voluntarily not playing the game that way, or 2) retconning really fast to stop players from exploiting things you didn't think up.

I love the comic Knights of the Dinner Table, but if your standard for RPG design is that it must be able to thwart that style player, you're going to hate anything WOTC comes up with. Once you include a certain degree of complex, mundane detail, and then add magical rules that break the rules of mundanity, you're going to end up with exploits. You can either embrace exploit play as a riot (some people love it), or you can voluntarily forgo it, or you can end up in an ever escalating battle between the players and the DM.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So if I don't want to DM for the Knights of the Dinner Table, I'm a tool?

From the sounds of things, you are too worried that, when the players respond to perceived opportunities in the game world, that they are actually trying to "show off" and "outplay" you.

Well, obviously, the players are trying to show off. They are trying to be the cool, clever, tough characters in the game world. They are trying to be movers and shakers. And there is (or should be) nothing wrong with that.

It is rather your concern that they are trying to "beat" or "outplay" you (as DM) that is questionable. That players can't win against a DM determined to make them lose is a given; that the players see an opportunity and try to make use of it, assuming that you are not out to make them lose, should be a given too. There might be a good in-game reason that their idea won't work, but that in-game reason should never exist simply to foil the PCs.


RC

 

[Voss]

So, to change the subject back to the subject. I'm frankly fine with summons being in the spell description, assuming thats where the stats are, since I'm fine with the players running their summons (or familiars). DMs don't tend to force other spells or class features to blow up in the face of the players, so I'm comfortable with this.

But the magic items. This bugs me. Not for any game reason, but economic ones. All the books are $39.95 and the DMG is almost 100 pages shorter than the PH. The DMG costs the same for less content. Put the items back in that and bring the value of the book back up to its actual cost. And hey, maybe there would have been enough space to include another class or two in PH. That would have been nice, though its probably too late now.

But it doesn't give me much hope for their pricing system.

 

[Cadfan]

Oh. Ow. The pain. I do believe I have been surreptitiously insulted.

So if I don't want to DM for the Knights of the Dinner Table, I'm a tool?

If that's your definition, then yeah. Guilty as charged.

Bah! How dare you type a Knights of the Dinner Table reference at the same time as I was typing mine, and then post it first! Now I look like I copied! Teleplagiarist!

 

[kennew142]

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'.

My point was that it seems from many of your posts that you are worried about what your players may want to do given the rules of the game. If your players want to play one way, and you want to GM another way, it appears to be a compatibility problem.

My players and I have very compatible tastes. I know what kinds of games they are interested in, and they know what kinds of games I am interested in GMing. If they wanted to play a game where they played water traders, they know that other GMs can be found to run such a game. If they are interested in a campaign where there is high adventure, detailed world design, three dimensional NPCs, consistent and deep storylines that intertwine their character's personal storyline with that of the world as a whole, then they know I am happy to run it for them.

I would imagine that very few GMs want to spend the time and effort to design scenarios for characters with no depth, who don't want to exist as a part of the world.

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.

When I was in the army, I ran games with a constantly changing player base. Even in that situation, I would rather run games for three or four really good gamers who were compatible with my style than with a full table of folks who were looking for something different than I was offering.

It would seem that many of our tastes our actually quite similar when it comes to gaming. The difference is that I have never believed that the players should have access to anything they want, whenever they want it - even if it is in the PHB. I fail to see how it can possibly affect my game if magic items are in the PHB. Unless I present a certain item as being available for purchase within the context of the game world, they cannot buy it.

As to the decanters of endless water issue, IMC the gp cost for creating items is a generic cost to cover the acquisition of the rare materials necessary for making the item. If the characters attempted to mass produce them, they would likely find that certain rare components were increasing in price (along with the demand), necessitating either an adventure to procure them - or an ever increasing amount of gold to purchase them. The point is that my players do know that this would be the likely result of any such scheme. That's why they would not try it. They understand that the economy of my game operates as much as possible within the known laws of economics. No GM fiat is necessary.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Link?

http://www.gamingsteve.com/archives/2007/12/gaming-steve-episode-64-12042007.php
or
http://www.gamingsteve.com/archives/2007/12/gaming-steve-episode-65-12112007.php

They are planning on selling NON-RANDOMIZED virtual minis.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Put the items back in that and bring the value of the book back up to its actual cost. And hey, maybe there would have been enough space to include another class or two in PH.

Having that space in the PHB makes it harder to justify the druid in the PHB II, the bard in the PHB III, and the monk in the PHB IV. If they didn't do this, you might not buy those books.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

http://www.gamingsteve.com/archives/2007/12/gaming-steve-episode-64-12042007.php
or
http://www.gamingsteve.com/archives/2007/12/gaming-steve-episode-65-12112007.php

They are planning on selling NON-RANDOMIZED virtual minis.

There isn't a transcript somewhere, is there? Or do I have to download & listen to both "shows" to find out what is actually said?

 

[JohnSnow]

So, I guess that if the PCs are quick enough, your scenario of

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."​

won't take place? So your players know to make sure that they make those decanters elsewhere, without telling you what they are for, and then teleport to the desert city later, because you aren't going to make up something to foil them on the spot?

Sorry, but while I have no difficulty with the idea of the DM not having his/her world fully defined beforehand, this sounds like you are taking an adversarial role that punishes the players for thinking outside the box (or off the railroad).

RC

And I have no trouble with the notion that you can't totally undo a part of the DM's campaign world just to prove you're more clever than he is. As I said above, that's kinda pathetic. If I, as DM, haven't set up Decanters of Endless Water to solve the city's water shortage, and there are people there capable of making them, then it can't be done. Why? I don't know, but that's not the solution. If "why" is important, I'll come up with a reason.

At the very least, I'd make the PCs spend some time figuring out why it hasn't been done before. There's no reason why they would know, so if they want to learn, they'll have to spend some time to figure it out. Yes, that serves the secondary purpose of giving me time to think of a good reason.

And screaming "railroad" to justify why the DM should just say "yes" to every hairbrained scheme you come up with is, IMO, the Knights of the Dinner Table defense. If you want a good game, you shouldn't go running too far off the rails. It's disrespectful to your supposed "friend" who's trying to make sure you have a good time.

I think it's perfectly alright for the DM to say "sorry guys, I didn't prep for that. If that's what you insist on doing, we won't be doing any gaming this week." Not every DM wants to have to make things up on the spot just so his players can prove how clever and how much smarter than him they are.

I have no tolerance for players who are constantly trying to "beat me" by coming up with a clever solution that I missed in my adventure prep. I'm certainly NOT going to say "Oops, caught me with my pants down - Okay, you guys make a killing setting up a water trading business," because it's f'ing boring.

I'm also not going to suddenly invent an adventure around the local merchants who use the camels to bring in water trying to prevent the PCs from putting their whacky scheme into effect. Actually, on second thought, I might do that. It's less railroad-y than the "cut off from the elemental plane of water" scenario, and, for heroic adventurers, it's probably more appropriate.

Not to mention it would probably let me make use of the NPCs or encounters from my original "caravan guards for water merchants" scenario.

Yes, the DM needs to be accomodating. But he doesn't have to go "okay, ya beat me."

 

[Voss]

Having that space in the PHB makes it harder to justify the druid in the PHB II, the bard in the PHB III, and the monk in the PHB IV. If they didn't do this, you might not buy those books.


RC

The way its looking, I probably won't buy those books anyway.
Besides, they can only fit in so many classes in the PH II-X in the 8-10 years they have before 5th edition. (which they posited as the likely time frame in the slashdot interview thing).