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

[Storyteller01]

Magic shops don't, by themselves, wreck the spirit of the game. The idea that any item worth X gp or less should be available at such shops, does, in my opinion.

I was introduced to this concept in the last game I played in. It was my first experience with 3E as a player. After the initial shock wore off, the fun drained right out of the game for me. I found that rather than gazing longingly through the item lists, wondering whether our group might find this one or that, deep within some gods-forsaken subterranean labyrinth... I was presented merely with an optimization problem: buy the items that would maximize my numbers. And even though I hated doing so, I had no choice if my character was to be at all effective. Because the other players were. The pressure to munchkinize was dreary and oppressive.

And the treasure hordes we found were as magical as paper squares stamped with gp values. It was irrelevant what magic items we found; we sold them to buy others of our choosing.

I like many things that came with 3E (including attacks of opportunity), but this is one of the few that really, really disagrees with me.

I'd have to agree with this sentiment. It's why I went to various OGL rules (IK magic item creation rules and Spycraft blackmarket tables especially).

 

[Jemal]

Originally Posted by scriven
Magic shops don't, by themselves, wreck the spirit of the game. The idea that any item worth X gp or less should be available at such shops, does, in my opinion.

I was introduced to this concept in the last game I played in. It was my first experience with 3E as a player. After the initial shock wore off, the fun drained right out of the game for me. I found that rather than gazing longingly through the item lists, wondering whether our group might find this one or that, deep within some gods-forsaken subterranean labyrinth... I was presented merely with an optimization problem: buy the items that would maximize my numbers. And even though I hated doing so, I had no choice if my character was to be at all effective. Because the other players were. The pressure to munchkinize was dreary and oppressive.

And the treasure hordes we found were as magical as paper squares stamped with gp values. It was irrelevant what magic items we found; we sold them to buy others of our choosing.

I like many things that came with 3E (including attacks of opportunity), but this is one of the few that really, really disagrees with me.

So two things - First off, why is playing a character who's optimized a bad thing? You don't like being effective? And I deplore the insinuation that doing so is 'munchkinizing'.. Why is it people think that a character can be either Role Play worthy or Effective but not both? I happen to prefer playing the Heroic Warrior-king or powerful Archmage who saves the world from marauding demons to the anorexic bard with 10 pages of backstory who wants to make a couple bucks by stealing from peasants. (And just for the record, I happen to think Conan has one hell of a good 'story' to him, and wow guess what.. he kicks Ass too!)

Secondly, If you're selling off ALL of the stuff you find to buy what you want, then you're loosing about half your treasure value.. Remember, resale is half price. Thus, if there's anything even a little interesting in a treasure horde, most smart players I've known will take it first.. it's only if nobody can use something that it gets hocked. If your DM throws you a Wand of Fireballs and there's no mage or anyone with UMD, what the heck were you going to do with it ANYWAYS?

 

[diaglo]

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.

don't forget OD&D(1974)

 

[diaglo]

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

the sword is only +1 in my campaign.

it was Arthur and not the sword who united the land.
excalibur was his sword. but it was the King that gave the sword it's fame.

paraphrase: only the true king can pull the blade from the stone.

many tried and failed... but arthur came along and did it.

it wasn't the sword who had the power. it was arthur.

gary and his power gaming scions gave too many plusses to the sword in their printing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You seem to have quoted me out of context.

I don't see how that's so.

How does this claimed unpredictability of magic affect play? When the items are used during play. It doesn't matter how the item came into being when it's used in the game. Only its mechanics matter when it's used to do something. In that regard 99% of items are still utterly predictable in both editions.

You're still basing your claims on that 1%.

If you play in a world in which determining which items fall within that "1%" (and "1%" isn't accurate) and which do not is a simple matter, then certainly you don't need to worry about unpredictability. If you play in a world in which spell effects are precisely laid out, and you can easily craft an item because you intrinsically know how to do so, then you may say that magic is a predictable technology.

However, that isn't the world presented in 1e or in 2e. It isn't the world presented in BD&D.

Whether or not it is the world presented in 3e is debatable.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Except that's not what you're doing. You're generalizing one instance to characterize the whole, and I'm pointing out that your one example is the exception (potion miscability table -> magic in 1E was unpredictable is your claim, I'm saying it's the exception compared to 99% of items / item use).

Now that we're into ornithology, your claim is the same as claiming "Penguings don't fly, so birds don't fly", a complete reversal of your intent in the quoted section.

Obviously, not a student of logic.

To disprove the claim "All birds fly" requires that one can example a bird that does not fly. Once this is the case, the claim is disproven. It doesn't mean or imply the opposite (that all birds do not fly).

Likewise the claim that "Magic is a predictable technology, and always has been" does not require vast evidence of unpredictability to disprove. Nor, to be quite honest, does there need to be a lot of unpredictability in a "technology" to render that technology unpredictable. In the case of 1e (and to some degree, later) magic, I have pointed out:

(1) Potion miscability,
(2) Random-effect items, such as wands of wonder and bags of beans,
(3) The variable (and otherwise unknown) elements involved in item creation (not a feature of 3.X),
(4) That magic items can, and do, exist that replicate otherwise unknown effects (without being artifacts),
(5) That the wording of the rules offers more room for interpretation, so that there can be variables in how magic works from casting to casting, based on circumstance,
(6) The inclusion of "unknown and unknowable" magic effects in many, many published modules -- where rivers might run through midair in one room and a giant crab might be kept alive inside a giant bubble in another.

Even if the rule was that there was "only" a 1% chance of something truly bad happening to you when you used magic (say, because the item was cursed, or because the DM thought that a sword of wonder was a good idea, where it goes off, wand-like, whenever you roll a 1), that would tend to make it something other than a "predictable technology" in the way those words are generally used.

It would also make you think twice about the next glowing sword that you saw. A little unpredictability goes a long way.

The real-life equivilent would be that, every time you drove a car, there was a 1% (or higher) chance that the car might turn out to be Christine (from the Stephen King novel of the same name). I doubt that auto sales would skyrocket as a result. I doubt that this would be considered "predictable technology" by the average consumer.

Bet, you are obviously also visiting Bizarro Land. Enjoy your stay.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What is truly repulsive out of this all is magic items no longer being considered special. The DMG list is THE list of available technology. The items aren't suggestions anymore. They are the law of the land. To imagine anything else would be... against the rules.

A setting where magic isn't commoditized and mass produced is now considered against the RAW and unworkable under it.

Only in Bizarro Land. The rest of us are free to run games as we see fit.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Rose colored glasses in action once again. Magic would still seem unpredictable to a player just starting 3E just as it did for us when we started 1E. But once you've read the rules, there's no going back in either system. The system is what it is once you know it, in both systems. I claim that it's quite predictable in both editions due to the fact that 99% of magical effects are well defined and predictable. Potion miscability table or wand of wonder doesn't change this.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, everyone used the same rules in 1e? I thought our experiences of 1e diverged so widely because, once you read the rules, you still didn't know what was going to happen in someone else's game?

 

[Reynard]

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.

First of all, the reason the PCs in my game are behind the curve is because they've levelled 3 times in about as many game days. 3E's CR system and how it affects advancement is just crazy. One fight -- 30 orcs and an Ettin -- levelled them rom 4th to 5th. In 1E that would have given them about 350 XP each. It was startling when I counted it up. Right now, they are in the middle of an escape from the bowls of a dungeon. And they just looted a treasure trove. But after the session, a couple of the guys added up what they got and compared it to their new level and said "That's not enough!" it can be exasperating.

To answer your quote directly: by 6th level a fighter has accumulated -- at the top end -- 30,000 gp, which sounds like a lot until you realize that 1E also has training costs for gaining levels and you're expected to spend money left and right. Moreover, that 6th level fighter needs to save up a pretty substantial nest egg, because in a few levels he'll be building a keep and attracting followers.

On Gloved of Dexterity: what I was saying is that instead o having Gloves of Dexterity be a ubiquitous item, you make ONE set of GoD exist in the whole world. Then they matter. But 3E makes that difficult, because typical items (like stat boosters) are built into the system. In previous editions, if the PCs only ever found one set of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, it wouldn't be a game breaker. In 3E, it messes up the whole CR/EL system. As far as crafting items goes: if you have it on hand, read the 1E DMG section on making items and compare it to 3E's. it is... illuminating to say the least (I just read it last night).

On +1 Swords: Give it a name, even something as silly as Goblin Cleaver, and your players will respond to it better. One thing that helps with magic weapon turnover in 3.5 is DR/magic vs DR/+X, because that +1 sword is still useful all the way up. It is one of a small list of 3.x elements I will port into 1E when I start running it in the next couple months.

Overall, I don't think 3E is bad -- I like it actually. But it isn't a sword and sorcery game anymore -- it is a different kind of fantasy, in its own genre. It is also much more a player's game, which can (depending on the players) lead to a sense of entitlement on the part of players, where gear and levelling is *the* fun part of the game, instead of the play itself. it is kind of a reverse of 1E, which was a GM's game which could lead to powermongering, killer DMs who overcontrolled their games and their players.

But, as Gary writes in the 1E DMG, dealing with problem DMs is a whole lot easier than dealing with problem players: all you have to do is walk. The section on dealing with problem players is a lot longer and a lot more compromising. Even Gary knew that without players there was no DM, and only suggested booting players if they were really, really disruptive.

 

[Reynard]

Suddenly, out of nowhere, everyone used the same rules in 1e? I thought our experiences of 1e diverged so widely because, once you read the rules, you still didn't know what was going to happen in someone else's game?

Rules always changed between groups, regardless of edition or game. But the 1E DMG is very clear: you don't change core rules because the assumption was that players would take their characters with them to new games and campaigns with different DMs. What was the province of each DM was everything else -- including making new stuff (items, monsters, etc...)