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

[S'mon]

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...

That's silly - Arthur didn't create Excalibur, he had no say in what powers it had. He darn well took what his GM gave him!

 

[S'mon]

However, as GM I will certainly work with player at time of PC creation re their concept, and I may let them start out with an item that's part of their concept. That's a million miles from 3e style 'free buy up to 100,000gp'.

Edit: The King Arthur concept works fine without Excalibur, though. A magic crown (eg) would be just as good.

 

[Maggan]

They are freaking gauntlets of ogre power!!! Gauntlets of ogre power!!! No mystique to gauntlets of ogre power!?!?! I do not want to play in your games.

You would not want to play in my games either. Gauntlets of Ogre Power hasn't been mysterious to me for about 20 years. They are gloves that give a bonus to strength, that's about it.

There is a limit to how long a magic item that is included in the RAW of any edition can remain mysterious to the community at large.

After a while, probably after a short while now that we have the internet to communicate through, most players have heard of or have found gauntlets of ogre power. And DM's who turn to being players have read the DMG, and can't erase that knowledge from their brains, so they know what gauntlets of ogre power do.

It's difficult to keep things that have been defined in text for 30 years mysterious.

Also, today gamers know alot more about the underlaying assumptions of the games they play. Magic Items have existed in the game since the beginning, and people have grown to expect them to work in a certain way.

For example, most of not all gamers know that if they find a +1 sword ... there is also +2 swords, +3 swords, +4 swords and +5 vorpal swords as well.

We all know that, we can't unlearn that fact, which in itself is an important factor to consider when trying to make magic items mysterious.

/M

 

[Hussar]

However, as GM I will certainly work with player at time of PC creation re their concept, and I may let them start out with an item that's part of their concept. That's a million miles from 3e style 'free buy up to 100,000gp'.

Edit: The King Arthur concept works fine without Excalibur, though. A magic crown (eg) would be just as good.

So, if I have the concept at 1st level, it's ok to pick and choose my magic goodies, but, if I change my mind and want to change concepts, I'm SOL?

Besides that, there are two Excallibur's remember. The first one gets remade. Who says that both swords are equal?

 

[FireLance]

Besides that, there are two Excallibur's remember. The first one gets remade. Who says that both swords are equal?

Actually, if I remember my Arthurian mythos correctly, the sword that Arthur pulled from the stone was not Excalibur. He received Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake after his previous sword was Sundered in a combat (probably one of the earliest examples of a DM enforcing the wealth by level guidelines ).

 

[Doug McCrae]

I do find lack of mystery in rpgs to be a problem. My main issue is with the players knowing the monsters though. Magic items I see as being much more in the players purview, because the PCs carry them, use them all the time, it seems more appropriate that they should be a known quantity.

 

[MerricB]

I do find lack of mystery in rpgs to be a problem. My main issue is with the players knowing the monsters though.

I had a player who could recite the Red Dragon stats to me. That was scary (I can't remember monsters that well). However, none of my (13) players get the supplemental monster books, so I'm safe there. I do create my own monsters from time to time, of course.

I look to mystery through plot-related items, though.

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

I'm with MerricB and Doug McCrae on this one. Magic items are things the players carry around and use all the time. I could never be bothered trying to remember if Jim had that +1 sword and Dave had the +2 or vice versa. So, I just told them what the plusses were and moved on.

There's a million things the DM can do to keep mystery in the game. Letting magic not be one of them doesn't hurt the game at all.

That being said, certainly the most memorable magic item in my World's Largest Dungeon game has been the intelligent great axe that the orc barbarian carries around. It's far smarter than him and has allowed the player to play effectively two characters. That's generally not something that would have gotten bought at the store.

I do agree that it is possible to create interesting magic items. That's cool. However, not every one of them needs to be that way and not every character needs a "signature" item. Sometimes it's easier just to let the player have control over his own character. I used the axe in my game because the player was a little bored with playing the character and needed something to spice it up. Having the intelligent weapon let him play the brute and the rp end of things both at the same time. OTOH, the guy with the solid character concept that he's happy with probably wouldn't even want the intelligent axe. It would conflict with his view of his character.

As DM, I have complete control over the world. Letting the players control that very small slice of my world that is their characters makes me happy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

You mean the preference of running the game mostly by the rules of the game?

Or the preference for running the game in a way that gives the PC's a say in what happens to them?

Or the preference for not enjoying the random danger of stuff like the cloak of poisonousness?

Or the preference for a world view of magic that treats it more like a science you can study and less like a tool for DM fiat?

And...those games are badwrongfun? They have spoiled players and they dishonor magic and they corrupt our children and make society weak and fragile?

 

[Jemal]

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.

He PROBABLY meant that there's no listed substance like that, not that it would be impossible to make...
Although, I must point something out in regards to this :

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.

I'd like to just say something i read somewhere "The rules don't say I can't isn't good enough reason to state that chopping down a tree gives you five levels." I've never ANYWHERE seen it specifically listed that trees are NOT a CR 20 encounter.
ALSO, I've never seen a rule stating that there's no simple light weapon called the "Flanger" that has a threat range of 2-20/X10 and deals 5d8 damage with 20' reach.
And yes, I'm taking it to an obscene level to prove a point... the fact that no rule specifically negates something doesn't mean it automaticaly should be allowed.

Now I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, I'm just saying don't claim the rules back you up when they specifically don't. RAW means rules as WRITTEN.. if it's not WRITTEN, it's not RAW.


NOW, As to the main thread convo - I dont think magic items HAVE to be mysterious - It depends on the campaign setting, high/low magic, character level, and most importantly... The PLAYERS involved, and how THEY feel.
It's probably just me, but it's nearly impossible to keep players from getting the SPECIFIC magic item they want.. If you don't give them what they want, they'll do one of a few things :
If there are places to buy magic, they'll buy it (hocking whatever they need to afford it)
If there aren't, but are known mages, they'll comission it.
Otherwise, the party mage will MAKE the magic items, taking the creation feats when he discovers the lack of access to magic items that they will have.

The only way to prevent this is by specifically banning it. And the last time I saw a DM do THAT, 3 of the 4 PC's took a Vow of Poverty! PC's like deciding their character specifics.. You think they'd let you tell them what Class Level they're taking next? or having someone else decide their feat selection?

Also,

Arthur didn't create Excalibur, he had no say in what powers it had. He darn well took what his GM gave him!

Well obviously ARTHUR didn't create it, he's not a mage.. but how do you know Arthur's PLAYER didn't create it b/c that's the kind of weapon he envisioned his character wielding? Like A Paladin wanting a Holy Avenger. Oh but I see people thinking "the DM had to give it to him at some point, he didn't always have it." That's what backstory is for.. To explain how you got to where you are, with what you have. MAYBE the entire story of Arthur up till when he got Excalibur from the Lady is Backstory, and shortly thereafter is when Play begins.

And how about the player who's concept is a 'really hard to hit character'. Without magic the best AC you can do is around 20(A bit higher if you allow Mithril, though that's also a quasi-magical thing worth thousands). That's not even all that hard for a 1st level character to hit... How's he going to create his "Can't touch this" character without a Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armour, Gloves of Dexterity,either Bracers+Wis enhance(If Monk), or Magical armour (If not)??