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

[Maggan]

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?

My guess is that the properties of gauntlets of ogre strength and other magic items didn't vary that much between games.

The house rules we had was mainly us mucking about with combat and monsters, trying to make it more realistic. A futile endeavor, but we had fun.

Magic items, we just used what was written.

/M

 

[Raven Crowking]

The difference is, Magic Mart has a large concentration of magic items in a central location where you can walk in and take a number, then get it.

In a more abstract system, the players may take a day wandering around looking for the proper item. The difference in flavor between Magic Mart and Communal Magic Items is a big difference. The straw man is the idea that those of us that allow player choice automatically encourage Magic Mart and the lack of flavor. There's plenty of room for flavor without castrating the players ability to choose their character.

Let me see it I understand what you are trying to say here.

Are you saying that things in the game are more than just the sum of their mechanical components, and that the way they are presented has a large impact on how they are perceived? Would you further say that this is a fairly obvious position to take?

 

[Raven Crowking]

These are all part of it. Why not have magic be magical too? I mean, it's right there. It's what makes fantasy different than, say, playing normal people in 2007. Why limit the potential for fun?

If magic wasn't part of the fun....and, frankly, if an unknown world wasn't part of the fun....D20 Modern would easily outsell D&D. I mean, in D20 Modern, it is explicit that you can buy anything. In D20 Modern it is explicit that the type of knowledge we have in the modern world is available to the PCs.

You can use all of the monsters from the SRD in D20 Modern, and then some. Heck, D20 Modern even has magic.

Yet D20 Modern doesn't sell nearly as well as D&D.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

In a previous post you also mentioned:

(7) The results of 1e Identify are far more uncertain than 3e Identify.

I don't regard potion miscibility or wands of wonder as being all that significant as they are rare. The weakness of Identify is a lot more important though as it relates to all magic items. The question then is does it mean common items, such as a +1 sword, become unpredictable. Are they unusable, as cars would be, if 1% were Christines.

I would say, no, a +1 sword is still reliable, though it will take the fighter who carries it a while to test it. This is 1e so he can't rely on Identify. Knowing items can be cursed he'll be very wary the first time he uses it. But as he continues to do so in fight after fight, it will surely become obvious to an experienced warrior that the blade is guiding his hand a little, cutting deeper, harming creatures otherwise invulnerable. In battle after battle it does the exact same thing every time. Insofar as a man can ever be certain of anything, the fighter will be certain of his weapon.

Your point about the rules being more opaque and uncertain in 1e doesn't really fly as it's saying, 'Everything was uncertain in 1e, magic is a subset of everything therefore magic was uncertain'. If everything were uncertain then the universe would be a strange place indeed. Everything would be mysterious, not just magic. Horses would be mysterious. And swords. And shoes. Nothing could be relied upon. I don't think 1e was trying to present this sort of world, it's just a weakness in the rules.

I agree that there should be mystery in a campaign world. There should be wild, unpredictable, exotic magic. There should be some magic that the PCs (and players) don't understand, magic that breaks the rules. But that's not a +1 sword, that's not magic missile or fireball. Magic missiles and +1 swords are, to an adventurer, everyday fare, commonplace. He knows how it works. He uses it day-in, day-out. It helps him do his job. It's technology, his world's equivalent of a sniper rifle or a computer.

 

[Maggan]

If magic wasn't part of the fun....and, frankly, if an unknown world wasn't part of the fun....D20 Modern would easily outsell D&D. I mean, in D20 Modern, it is explicit that you can buy anything. In D20 Modern it is explicit that the type of knowledge we have in the modern world is available to the PCs.

You can use all of the monsters from the SRD in D20 Modern, and then some. Heck, D20 Modern even has magic.

Yet D20 Modern doesn't sell nearly as well as D&D.

I think it would if it was named "D&D" and not "d20 Modern".

/M

 

[Jedi_Solo]

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.

At least as far as that goes I will point myself out as someone who sees magic items as a commodity (usually) and welcomes the Impossable Door. And yes, I'm usually a player - not a DM.

I may be the odd man out but I would love to see more puzzels in my campaign. I like mysteries and puzzels but most of my group doesn't so I don't see them that often. I started on Hardy Boys and moved on to Sherlock Holmes. I eat this stuff up.

To make things a mystery to me the DM would need to play within the rules. As far as "why" the Door is Impossable as far as I am concerned it is a +20 Adamantine Door with a few Miracles or Wishes cast on it. Improbable and insanely expensive, but doable. But then again the puzzle is to get around the door and that is what I'm looking forward to, not how the door was made.

Of course that is assuming that the real puzzle is to get around the door. If the "real" mystery you have planned is how is the door even possable then there better be an answer in the rules, otherwise it isn't a mystery to me but a DM power trip.

If you want something to be a mystery (to me at least) don't break the rules. If you break the rules then there is no reason for me to even try to figure it out. Why should I even bother with a puzzle if there is no way to know the answer? Having it SEEM like you broke the rules is fine (you found some fun interactions between multiple spells or something) as long as you actually didn't.

 

[Storm Raven]

The 'is magic mysterious' subthread is getting tiresome.

Yes, but only because you keep harping on the same irrelevant points.

1) Magic was more mysterious in earlier editions than it is now.

Flatly wrong. Magic was, in some ways, more random thatn it is now. But it was a very bounded randomness, and one that was predictable within a very small range. Randomness isn't mysterious. It doesn't even contribute to mysteriousness any more than poorly maintained equipment would be mysterious.

Some of your specific points don't even make sense.

the fact that spells had a chance of failure,

Only cleric spells for clerics with low wisdom. Which basically never showed up in play. Hence, an irrelevant point.

the fact that the DMG contained a goodly portion of the description of many spells kept secret from the caster,

Everything you needed to know about a spell was in the PHB. The DMG had some minor clarifications, but nothing of any significance.

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,

Which is entirely irrelevant when evaluating whether magic items are "mysterious" or not. I cannot make an airplane. I wouldn't know where to start. It doesn't make the airplane mysterious.

2) Magic can never be completely mysterious in any game where the players contol it.

This is true. However, you don't actually grasp the full extent of the issue. Magic can never be mysterious in any game in which the rules mechanics define it. Once you define magic, it loses all mystery. No matter how many random tables you throw in, or other bells and whistles you add, it loses its mystery.

There were plenty of 'touch this and suffer some horrible fate with no saving throw' effects in earlier editions of the game.

That isn't "mysterious".

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,

Well, no. Since, by the rules as written in 1e, it wasn't. Magic, in 1e, is technology. Nothing more. You can trot out pseudo-random tables, and talk about how no player should have ever looked at the DMG (which would have been difficult, since no one exclusively played or DMed in any group I was ever familiar with, rotating every now and then was the norm), but it doesn't change the fact that magic, as defined in the 1e PHB and DMG was predictable, regular, understandable, technology.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

On +1 Swords: Give it a name, even something as silly as Goblin Cleaver, and your players will respond to it better.

As I stated earlier, and again - coming from a player - giving it a name doesn't cut it for me. I, personally, don't care about the history of an item if it doesn't have anything to do with the story. If Goblin Cleaver is a +1 sword and that is all it ever will be as far as the campaign is concerned, then it is a +1 sword.

However - if a local lord is having a goblin problem and he will send his own troops to help the PCs destroy the local scurge IF they grab the Legendary Goblin Cleaver from a nearby cave... Then the item has history with the party. It isn't just a +1 sword they looted from a spider cave. It is a +1 sword that they looted from a spider cave in order to rally a town against a goblid horde. That would give the name meaning - a reason it is called Goblin Cleaver and not Jackie's Cooking Knife. That is cool to me and would make me care about an item.

Now, obviously you can't have an adventure built around every single item the party comes across. But if each player has one or two that they have a story for - a story they were there for and a story they think is cool, that will put the "magic" back in "magical" and make the items - a few items at least - not ones they will just turn around and sell.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

QFT....and for being so much better put than I was putting (part of) it.


EDIT: Of course, for those in Bizarro Land, "No it isn't; and the Earth is flat too!" seems to make a pretty Stern Rebuttal.

RC

 

[DragonLancer]

The trouble with the LotR setting - as applied to D&D - is that Middle Earth during the Third Age doesn't have the number of active magic users that D&D has. If you chose the right period of Middle Earth - say, the First Age - then amongst the elves you'd find a *lot* of magical items. And yes, they'd be trading them. I find the First Age (as described in the Silmarillion) a really magical age; and it's with a lot of magic about.

In fact, LotR really presents magic items as we have it in D&D today in some ways - so that those who have it don't even think about it. For the hobbits, the elven cloaks are miraculous (and Galadriel's rope), but all the elves are clad like that and they're not going around saying "wow, look at my fancy cloak!" They've moved past that. The really special things are the artefacts, such as Galadriel's Mirror.

Absolutely right. The difference between LotR and D&D is that in D&D everyone and his brother seems to have magic items. In LotR I doubt anyone in the Shire had a magic item (not counting Bilbo or Frodo since they are the protagonists of the tale).
The elves have them in spades but they are an ancient breed and seperate from the rest of the world by choice. Thats their mysticism.