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

[Raven Crowking]

However, in the play of D&D 3E, even with all these known elements, my players still manage to surprise me with unexpected interactions of effects.

It's much like Magic: the Gathering:

(Shudder!)




Failed my Will save.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Err... you've left off the Disguise modifier. You've basically got a Hat of Disguise that adds +6 Cha there. As I said, the hat of disguise is inherently cool.

I wasn't discussing custom items, though, but existing items that have been used in cool ways.

There were lots of cursed items that PCs held onto IME, simply because they could be used against others. Bag of Devouring? Try popping a truly dangerously cursed item into that one, just to be rid of it. Or use it as a garbage disposal. Or pop it over the BBEG's head.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Your 4th level PC's fought an EL 9 encounter and aren't dead. You have far larger problems in your game than players whinging about lack of treasure. I'm sorry that's harsh, but, there's something seriously wrong with a party getting through an encounter that tough and no one dying.

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.

Why? From their point of view, they did the work and didn't reap the benefits. What's the point of whacking the monsters if you have pocket lint to show for it afterwards. This sounds more like a lack of communication problem than anything else.

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.

Maybe. He might be saving up for that keep. Or he might choose not to. That's usually up to the player. Heck, we always found it much easier to turn some critter's lair into our keep. However, that 30 k gp is probably more cash than he could spend in his lifetime.

*snip*

Overall, I don't think 3E is bad -- I like it actually. But it isn't a sword and sorcery game anymore --

In your experience. In my experience, it is far more Sword and Sorcery than 1e ever was where I had groups flogging dozens of magic swords at every opportunity.

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.

See, now this is something else I completely disagree with. Players are a dime a dozen. I know right now that I could boot my entire group (not that I would, it's taken me a while to build the group I have and I'm very, very happy with them) and have an entirely new group next week. I've become far more trigger happy booting players in the past few years because of this realization. I shopped around quite a bit and finally settled on six very golden players whose playstyles mesh nicely with mine.

Talk about player entitlement. As a DM, I should bend over backwards to keep a player at my table? Good luck. There was a time when I might have done that. Now? Nope. I make no bones or pretenses about how my game is played and what I'm willing to compromise about and what I'm not. If a player doesn't like that, that's fine. There's other DM's.

Life's far to short to cater to problem players.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Wow DM, sorry we intruded on your little power play. We'll just have Bob run from now on."

"Alrighty then. Should I email Bob my Flumph-Touched Half-Dragon Warforged Ninja?"

 

[dcas]

I've got no beef about declaring the MM (and all monster and adventure related books) off limits but half of the DMG is rules that the players should know about, or at least it would help if the players understood. I routinely look stuff up in the DMG while the GM is running in the background just to make sure we are playing correctly. We try to offload as much work amongst the players as possible to make it non-brain-straining for everyone involved.

I fully agree that the GM should offload as much work as possible onto the players. That said, if that requires the players to look in the DMG while at the table, then (IMHO) the game is just too complicated for players or GMs or both. YMMV.

 

[diaglo]

Now, obviously you can't have an adventure built around every single item the party comes across.

why not?

diaglo "in it for the long haul" Ooi

 

[hong]

So! Who wants to talk about Achilles?

 

[Henry]

See, now this is something else I completely disagree with. Players are a dime a dozen. I know right now that I could boot my entire group (not that I would, it's taken me a while to build the group I have and I'm very, very happy with them) and have an entirely new group next week. I've become far more trigger happy booting players in the past few years because of this realization. I shopped around quite a bit and finally settled on six very golden players whose playstyles mesh nicely with mine.

That fact drops my jaw for two reasons: (1) Your circumstances vastly differ from mine, and I'd wager a lot of other gamers. There just aren't that many gaming groups running around, and you've lucked out with a area of huge gamer concentration. (2) The players I have are friends first, and gamers second. They're one of the reasons I have my old cliche, "best day fishing is worse than a bad day gaming." Because we still cut up and have a ball doing something else even if the game doesn't turn out. Their playstyles don't mesh perfectly with mine, but we work it out because we're friends first, and want to game together.

Not only wouldn't I boot them for different expectations, I don't think I could, and find a new group at the drop of a hat, and I suspect most people can't, either. It would seem to play to work with the players more than to pick and choose until you had enough to game with.

 

[drothgery]

Here's my response: "Dear players, as you have correctly pointed out, you are currently well behind the "wealth by level" guidelines in the DMG. However, you are so vastly ahead of the "whiny little crybaby" guidelines that everything balances out. Sincerely, the D-fn-M."

"Dear DM, the only one who's been able to damage mosters in months is my wizard, and if he couldn't teleport, we'd've had TPKs three weeks in a row. As it is, Fred's on his third fighter, Jane quit the game because her thief never found any treasure, and Steve's cleric can't even think about preparing spells other than healing spells because we're taking way too much damage. So if you're not going to give us by-the-book treasure, could you stop throwing by-the-book encounters at us? Thanks."

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just looking at your examples, I think we need to distinguish between:
* Magic was more mysterious, and
* Magic was more random.

Random doesn't mean mysterious. Casting prismatic spray was random, not mysterious. I tend to feel the same about the potion miscibility tables. When they could be mysterious was when the players didn't know about them.

Please recall that potion miscability was brought up not to discus mystery (or Sense of Wonder ) but simply to demonstrate that there was (and is) inherent to the RAW a level of unpredictability.

As far as mystery goes, I for one have no more problem with that in 3.X than in 1e, although in order to achieve that end in either case Rule 0 must be adhered to. A player going into a 1e game received very clear direction that the DM could change the rules, and that anything might happen within a game of D&D. A player going into a 3.5 game recieves very clear direction that he should encounter foes within CR X-Y range, after and during which he will gain Z gp worth of reward.

One setup is simply more conducive to mystery (be it related to magic, monsters, and what might happen) than the other. Obviously, a 3e game can have the same elements as a 1e game, but the rulebooks themselves do not prepare the players for the game in the same way.

Throwing cosmetic effects onto an item can quite easily make players view the item as more mysterious, btw. The +2 keen ghost-touch scythe that was found on a Medium-sized, albino goblin, and that makes its user's skin and hair begin to pale IMC was quickly regarded as a potent unknown simply because it was an unknown. I.e., it was not predictable technology when the players found it because it had unexpected effects that, while themselves were knowable, were unknown to the players (and implied the existence of other unknowns).

RC