Do Magic Item "Shops" wreck the spirit of D&D?

[Celebrim]

The 'is magic mysterious' subthread is getting tiresome.

1) Magic was more mysterious in earlier editions than it is now. There are any number of examples: the potion miscability tables, the fact that duration of spells/potions/effects tended to be random and that the caster would not know necessarily when they would expire, the fact that spells had a chance of failure, the fact that the effect misfired spells were largely the provence of DM fiat, the fact that the DMG contained a goodly portion of the description of many spells kept secret from the caster, the fact that the vast majority of magical items were beyond the players ability to create and those that they could create the mechanisms of the creation were both secret from the players and subject to DM fiat, the fact that Gygax didn't even stat out the artifacts in the DMG lest thier mysteriousness be lost, the fact that spells like identify worked less effectively in earlier editions, the fact that the DMG contained an extensive listing of how spells would function differently in usual settings, the fact that random magic effects and unique items and cursed items played a greater role in the game, the DMG, and in published modules. And so forth. If that isn't enough evidence for you, then there is little point in discussing this with you further.

2) Magic can never be completely mysterious in any game where the players contol it. In fact, its difficult for magic to be completely mysterious in any game where the players know the rules, the setting, and the magic must be described in mechanical terms. In D&D players can become the mysterious figures of power themselves, and they have to have significant knowledge of how 'magic works' in order to play thier characters. Magic in D&D is by default somewhat less mysterious and somewhat more mechanical than it is in some published settings, though not IMO markedly so and a good portion of this is simply the average players greater familiarity with the mechanics. Nonetheless, there is no particular reason why magic need be any more or any less mysterious in D&D than it is in say CoC. There were plenty of 'touch this and suffer some horrible fate with no saving throw' effects in earlier editions of the game. You can argue with a degree of persuasiveness that such gross effects aren't necessarily fun in play, but you can't argue the superiority of 3rd edition in that regard and then at the same time argue that magic in D&D has always been nothing more than a mere predictable commodity. Well you can, but it won't make any sense.

3) The rules of a game contribute to magic's flavor in the setting, but they don't define it. There is nothing about the 1st edition rules that forces magic to be mysterious, and nothing about the 3rd edition rules that forces magic to be a commodity. There is certainly nothing so astounding about the rules that lets someone say, "Based on the rules, you aren't doing it right when you make magic to have this (or that) flavor." There is only flavors of magic which are appropriate or are not appropriate to the setting, and flavors of magic which contribute or detract from the DM's goals for the game. I personally think that you cheat yourself when you make the setting less fantastic than it could be, but there are all sorts of ways to create a fantastic fantasy setting - from the high magic of Arabian Nights to the low magic of a alt-Earth inspired campaign. It's not that one sort of fare is superior to the other, its only that either sort of fare can be prepared in a superior fashion. What is good for one might ruin the other.

 

[Slife]

The Feather Token-Tree is one of the biggies for creative uses. But it doesn't cost that much, so I'm not sure why anyone would want to sell one. I never would.

 

[Reynard]

This whole thread underscores one of the fundamental differences between editions of D&D: 1E was a DM's game; 3E is a player's game; 2E bridged the gap.

 

[howandwhy99]

Customization should be the norm for both DMs and players. That's why, as a DM/GM, having players customize and control their characters doesn't bother me in the slightest. I do it with the rest of the world.

I can understand customizing characters. What I dislike is the commonality of magic items as world element handed to the players as equipment.

It's called nostalgia.

I enjoy D&D now more than I ever have. I wish I could recover that feeling of playing AD&D as a 6th grader when I would roll the dice, and look up at my older brother and say, "What happened?" but that's not the game. I was a kid exploring something new.

And yes, even then, I powergamed and optimized as much as my juniorhighschool mind would allow. There were no message boards on the internet to read, otherwise I would have. Instead, I satisfied myself with whatever snippets I could sneak into the game from Dragon articles.

Nostalgia is not what I meant about the DMG. It was a belief while young and playing older versions of the game. I'm glad you are enjoying the game. I want to as well, but find it wanting. Exploring something new is still possible, it just takes work.

The game hasn't changed. You have. I have. We all have.

Probably, the game no longer seems magical because it's a different game than the one you played when you were younger.

The game has changed. Considerably. It is different from the one I played when I began. It plays differently because of the assumptions made in design. IMO, it is no longer magical because it has left much of what made magical behind.

D&D is doing fantastically in a world flooded with video games, knock-offs and alternate systems. They have accomplished more by staying afloat and prospering in a competitive market than previous editions did when they virtually owned the field. The former is more of an accomplishment than the latter, and more of a success. It's much easier to win when nobody else is playing.

This discussion seems tangential. I want D&D to be popular and it is again. That's enough for me.

It's unimaginative if you insist that players can't touch certain books because that will RUIN THE MYSTERY of magic. I invent material all the time. I pull it from message boards like this one, or write it, or sponge out of other games and other books.

Nothing in the rules or the game says that players should be omniscient, or know everything, or that all magical items and magical knowledge is the purview of all players.

That's simply a straw man.

Taking what was the standard D&D magic and making it the "known" deflats its' value IMO. Yes, I know everyone has read the SRD, so changes are necessary by default.

You are the DM. If you can't handle that responsibility, then don't run a game. I'm very clear with my players, and up front, that the rules in my game are consistent and will only change with notice. They are participants, after all, and cocreators of this world in which they play. But they shouldn't expect everything to work in the way in which they've always been accustomed. The rules give me that right, and if someone came to me in a game where I'd said that there wouldn't be magic shops, or magic items were rare or almost nonexistent (in, say, a Ravenloft or Midnight game, or a homebrew), I'd laugh in their face.

Nobody is always going to be happy with every game, and that was true before 3rd Edition came out, and it's going to always be true. There are substantial differences in gaming styles which are mutually exclusive and incompatible.

If you've been gaming this long, you knew that, though.

Your right here. Rule Zero is in effect. It's just a burden, like playing a canonical world, to have rules state "this is how to play" and have it be a setting element.

I feel we are coming to consensus. What's missing is the irksome amount of absolutes set out earlier in the thread on how magic shops are a logical extension of the rules. That magic items aren't magical. And how they never were.

 

[PallidPatience]

The DM is a player, too.

 

[howandwhy99]

In my experience - and this is for all editions of the game from AD&D on - no.

Spell effects are adjudicated by the DM, but the level that the DM needs to adjudicate varies markedly. With a spell like magic missile, the player would roll dice needed, add the result, and tell the DM how much damage the orc took, which the DM would then note down. The DM's adjudication came to telling the player when the spell took place (esp. in 1e's complex initiative system), and keeping note of the orc's hit points.

Spells like web require more adjudication, of course.

The narration of the spell's effects (as in, making them seem colourful) is purely optional. "The fireball bursts and there's a series of loud screams from the orcs, which then fall silent as their scorched bodies lie where they fell." D&D's emphasis as a game changes from group to group. I tend for the more mechanical in combat ("The orcs die"), although I get more florid when describing magical areas and when roleplaying.

In 3e, it would be quite possible for the notes on the requirements needed to *escape* a web spell part of the DM-only information, noting only the basic information in the spell description, as was done for certain spells in the DMG. However, the splitting up of that information often causes more trouble than it's worth, and doesn't make the spell more magical - just more troublesome to adjudicate.

Cheers!

Narration allows the learning of the spell. It has certainly always been possible to play the game without any description, just a series of numbers, but that's not attractive to me. Making magic items "just another number" isn't either.

Adjudicating how spells operate can be complicated, but only recently has such large of number of spells been commonplace in many games. That takes skill. No one thinks PCs with 5000 different spells per day is rational. Playing with the number we have now takes skill too. I'm saying that skill is part of the learning of the game.

 

[Thirsty]

Interesting. Could you give some examples of magic items people have used in creative ways?

On one occasion a folding boat was used as a temporary shelter from a storm by summoning it and turning it upside down. Now there is nothing to stop that from being done again except that the party is likely to have sold it if they were landlocked (as they were in the first situation).

 

[MerricB]

On one occasion a folding boat was used as a temporary shelter from a storm by summoning it and turning it upside down. Now there is nothing to stop that from being done again except that the party is likely to have sold it if they were landlocked (as they were in the first situation).

Heh. Nice.

(In 1e, a party should have sold it for the XP it would bring...)

Cheers!

 

[Thirsty]

Heh. Nice.

(In 1e, a party should have sold it for the XP it would bring...)

Heh true true.

 

[howandwhy99]

Quite frankly, no.

Sometimes, a wizard just says, "I drop a fireball .... here." Then he counts off the squares, rolls damage and I pull figurines or Pente pieces or M&Ms or whatever happens to represent the bad guys off the map if they die.

Or the cleric says, "I cast Cure Serious Wounds" and rolls how much damage she heals, and it's done.

Sometimes, it's story important.

Other times, I couldn't care less.

Magic is not the star of the show. Sometimes, it's just woven into the background like any other story element. I don't have to hit the spotlight every time a spell is cast, and dim the lights, and say, "Okay, folks. This is magical spell. Try not to scream, ladies!"

I'm not trying to make this cheesy David Copperfield. I'm saying each description of a spell going off allows for experimentation on the variety of ways it can be used. Each has a single effect, but those effects differ by circumstance. It's consistent and useful for learning new ways to use old powers.

I'm not putting magic at the center of the show. I'm just keeping it's potential for fun and exciting play. It's not push button, but in some circumstances it acts normally. Whether it's normal or not is only confirmed by the DM. (By circumstance: I mean "a fireball in a flour shop", not wand of wonder magic randomness)

Because my players are the most important element of the story. Not the Magicalness of Magic. Magic is simply one element of a story alongside a cornucopia of others. I can play a game without magic. I can't play a game without my players.

Well, I can. But that really WOULD be a videogame.

Yeah. I prefer players too. I'm not here to beat some self-avowed "magic" definition over anyone's head. I just want it seen as something that can happen in game, that has happened in game. That the rules don't negate it.

See, I get tired of playing hide the hamster with rules. The world itself is far more interesting than trying to keep players guessing when spells are going to blow up in their faces or wondering if their magical sword is going to sag like a limp noodle at any given moment/ (Because hey! It's MAGIC! It's UNPREDICTABLE!)

There are certainly unknown elements in the world, and mystery. But the standard tools that players use SHOULD be reliable. Getting enveloped with your own fireball is fun, I guess. The first time. But not the second or the third or fourth/fifth/sixth time it happens.

Then, it just becomes a running gag.

I much prefer the mystery of when players encounter a being they've never encountered before, and drop the ever-so-reliable fireball .... to no effect. Or watch in horror as it heals the monster, instead of killing it.

That is mystery.

Not making the players feel like Keystone Cops tripping over their own feet every time they cast a spell.

I like your example. The monster is mysterious. What powers does it have? Was it the monster, the environment, or the spell? The description gives clues. Clues hint to what might be the cause. So the players try different things.

Magic is used in the same way. You wouldn't tell your players the villain's plan beforehand, so why tell them how a magic item works? It's part of the adventure.

I'm not saying magic is unreliable or unpredictable. I'm saying, whether spell or item, it requires a learning process. It allows players to play out magicians learning their magic. If this element of the game is undesired, that's your preference. Posters declaring magic is common and uninteresting as a matter of course through proper interpretation of the rules is denying my preference.