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

[Celebrim]

In short, if the mystery does not make the game FUN, it's not an improvement to the game.

For the record, I would not and never have put a cloak of poisonness into play in my game. I don't consider them fun either.

But it is one thing to argue that too much unpredictability, too much randomness, too much unknown, and too little player control over the outcome of thier actions is bad for the game, and quite another to argue that these things don't make the game more mysteriousness.

I'm not interested in proving that 1st edition is a better game than 3rd edition. I don't think that I can prove that (I certainly don't see a means how), and I do think that saying one game is better than the other is entirely someone's opinion.

But obviously, I think that its reasonable to enumerate the ways in which 1st edition was more unknowable to the players than 3rd edition and then suggest from there that 1st edition makes magic more mysterious than 3rd edition, and state that as an objective statement. That proposition might be unprovable if the game hadn't so clearly moved in one direction (we'd be weighing whether this factor is more important than some other factor), but since pretty much all the movement has been in one direction I'm not seeing alot of counter-examples being offered and don't expect them.

 

[MerricB]

Celebrim, you'd have more luck debating if you paid attention to who says things. I don't have the same opinions as Kamikaze Midget or Vocenoctum. You perceive the goalposts are changing only because each of us (and I include you there) have different views of where they are. If you only debated me, my goalposts wouldn't be changing all the time. But if you read my reply and assume that what I believe is the same as Vocenoctum, you'll be wrong.

They can do anything that the DM wants them to do. "You open the book and your face melts off." Again, you can argue that this isn't healthy for the game, but I don't think you can reasonably argue that this doesn't increase the mystery experienced playing the game because the player is forced to consider the fact that the possibilities are not constrained to those in his common experience of the rules.

Err - what has that to do with anything? AFAIK, all the participants in this thread are more than happy to have magical effects that do anything, albeit reluctant to create unfun situations.

Within the framework of 3e, I could make such items artefacts if I didn't want them to be reproduced. If I wanted to have them as reproducable I just need to set a cost and prereqs for crafting. The first encounter the PCs had with this brand new magic would be mysterious and new; after that they can learn what it does.

Cheers!

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim, you'd have more luck debating if you paid attention to who says things. I don't have the same opinions as Kamikaze Midget or Vocenoctum.

I didn't say you did. When I refered to the 'the game has never been mysterious' crowd, you were clearly excluded because you had just said, "The play-style where players don't have access to the DMG does promote the mysteriousness of magic items; it is encouraged more in 1e than 3e..."

Err - what has that to do with anything? AFAIK, all the participants in this thread are more than happy to have magical effects that do anything...

Based on my past participation in threads like this, I would be very surprised if that was the case. I would predict a fairly strong correlation between those that believed that magic was a commodity, and those that believed that (for example) magical effects without saving throws or doors which were simply immune to force were not only things which you should be careful with but which simply shouldn't exist. In fact, I would predict a fairly strong correlation between those holding the 'magic as a commodity' opinion and those that believed that you were breaking the RAW to have a door which was immune to all kinds of force. I believe this is because both opinions are manifestations of an underlying preference for how the game should be ran.

 

[MerricB]

Ah right - just putting it in a post where you were replying to me made it confusing.

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

One shouldn't need the game to supply the imagination.

Quoted very, very much for troof! If the only source of mystery in your game comes from the opacity of the rules, then, perhaps a bit of brushing up on DMing skills is in order.

*snip*

EDIT: Tnagential, but related -- I got an email today from my players "reminding" me that they were well behind the "wealth by level" guidelines in the DMG. i mean, when would that have happened with 1E? WTF?

It wouldn't have because, by the time you were about 6th level, you already had more money than you could ever spend in an elven lifetime and the fifteen +1 swords that you flogged just added to the money pile.

*snip*

Based on my past participation in threads like this, I would be very surprised if that was the case. I would predict a fairly strong correlation between those that believed that magic was a commodity, and those that believed that (for example) magical effects without saving throws or doors which were simply immune to force were not only things which you should be careful with but which simply shouldn't exist. In fact, I would predict a fairly strong correlation between those holding the 'magic as a commodity' opinion and those that believed that you were breaking the RAW to have a door which was immune to all kinds of force. I believe this is because both opinions are manifestations of an underlying preference for how the game should be ran.

Umm, well, of course you are breaking RAW to do this. The aren't any doors, or even any substances in RAW that is immune to all kinds of force. So what? Rule 0 is your friend and it appears in the first pages of the DMG. You want an unbeatable door? The rules will back your play.

Now, is it fun to have that door? That will depend on a whole lot of factors and is the subject for an entire thread.

See, where you've made the faulty assumption is that people who think that there should be rule explanations for everything in the game also feel that you can never make up new rules. The game is, and always has been, about making up new rules. The big thing is why are you making up these rules? Are you doing it so the party is forced to jump through certain hoops and protect your private railroad? Then that's bad. Is it done because there are very valid in game reasons for the existence of this door? Then that's probably good.

The problem is, people are trying to argue that there was some sort of special sense of wonder (or mystery or mystique or whatever other adjective you want to use) that was fostered by having rules that the players didn't know. Gauntlets of Ogre Power weren't mysterious. They didn't make me go "ooooh ahhhh". They made me jump up and down for happy joy because my fighter was going to lay a world of hurt on something.

Some people keep trying to apply their playstyles as a general rule. If your playstyle was such that magic items were weird and wonderful, that's groovy. That's fine. That's great. But, it's also YOURS. My playstyle was that you picked up a +1 sword and you were happy. When the +2 sword came along, you chucked the +1 sword faster than an empty Ding Dong wrapper.

That doesn't make my style better or worse. And, I certainly am not trying to say that you should follow it. But, trying to state that the rules favoured one style or another is ridiculous. Gamists played 1e. Really, they did. Honest. Gamists played 2e as well. And, oh look, they play 3e too. Gee imagine my shock and awe.

 

[Imp]

They are freaking gauntlets of ogre power!!! Gauntlets of ogre power!!! No mystique to gauntlets of ogre power!?!?!

I dunno, man, 18/00 strength was a pretty big whopping bit of mystique to me I tell you what. But then, the highest I ever got in 1e was like 10th level and that dude was a thief. Some of you sound like you got to play with all kinds of stuff – best things I ever found were like a frostbrand, magic boomerangs (totally made up), and flying carpets. Vorpal swords? Pssh. I wished.

On another note: one campaign style where pick-and-choose-magic-from-the-catalog does make some sense is an episodic campaign, which is something I like a lot more in 3e, because otherwise you can wind up with guys going from 1 to 20 in a game year or two and I have trouble with that. If there was a game year gap between sessions, I'd let 'em shop around.

 

[Celebrim]

Umm, well, of course you are breaking RAW to do this. The aren't any doors, or even any substances in RAW that is immune to all kinds of force.

So how would I be breaking the RAW to have one? As I understand the nature of rules, I would only be breaking the rules as written if the RAW explicitly forbid such a substance. Where the rules are silent, then I may do whatever I please. I would only need rule zero if there was a rule like "No material with a hardness more than 50 is allowed in the game." Since no such restriction is imposed, all I need is an imagination and a reason.

Now, is it fun to have that door? That will depend on a whole lot of factors and is the subject for an entire thread.

Which we've had before, so let's not go there again.

See, where you've made the faulty assumption is that people who think that there should be rule explanations for everything in the game also feel that you can never make up new rules.

Is this addressed to me? If it is, I don't understand why it is, or even what you mean by it. What assumption are you referring to and who are these people? My assumption is that there is a certain segment out there that operate under assumptions like, "Anything that is not explicitly allowed by the rules is implicitly forbidden." Hense, they would suggest that since there is no substance in the core rules that has 300 hardness, that you would have to break the rules to have one.

 

[Nightfall]

*looks over the bag of magic items Mesos gave him last week* Glad to say I'm not handing these out.

I'm against cloak of poison-ness, myself, but not against something like say, an armor of raging. That to me seems cool. Of course I make sure to save it for the barbarian.

 

[Hussar]

Is this addressed to me? If it is, I don't understand why it is, or even what you mean by it. What assumption are you referring to and who are these people? My assumption is that there is a certain segment out there that operate under assumptions like, "Anything that is not explicitly allowed by the rules is implicitly forbidden." Hense, they would suggest that since there is no substance in the core rules that has 300 hardness, that you would have to break the rules to have one.

Which is pretty much the same thing as what I said, just from the other direction.

However, anyone who tells you that is wrong. Flat out. Any element in which the rules are silent are entirely the purview of the DM. Numerous FAQ's, and the DMG all support that. If you want to have a hardness 300 door of antimagic, go for it. There's nothing stopping you.

The problem I have is that you are equating people who don't mind hand waving magic item acquisition with people who are ignoring the rules. They are nothing the same and not even remotely related. The rules do state that you should be able to purchase most magic items of a given value in a given setting. They also go further and say that it is up to the DM to say yes or no.

I fail to see the problem here.

 

[Doug McCrae]

As to customization of the PCs by players, I'm all for it. However, my view is: the players design their character, I design the world. As magic items are part of the world, a treasure for PCs, not a right, they are under the DM's purview.

When you think of the magic sword Excalibur, do you connect it more closely with King Arthur or the world King Arthur inhabited?

Magic items are property, and property attaches to individuals. Fantasy is replete with signature weapons. Elric wouldn't even work as a character without Stormbringer. Elric and Stormbringer had to be created together as a unit. Admittedly there are plenty of fantasy heroes who don't have, or need, signature items, Conan being an example.

But sometimes a player wants to create an Elric, not a Conan. One of my most successful character concepts was a flighty catgirl armed with a talking sword that had been intended for a paladin. The 'odd couple' relationship between the two was absolutely central to the character concept. This PC would've been impossible if I hadn't been allowed to choose my own magic items.

Sometimes, players are the best judge of what's right for their characters.