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

Status
Not open for further replies.
molonel said:
Elric is high fantasy and high magic, and what he lacked in NUMBER of magic items, he certainly made up for in QUALITY.

If a DM told me I could only have two artifacts and the ability to call in the lords of other realms to do my bidding, I'd hardly call that a low magic environment.
I dont think anyone is claiming it is low fantasy.

In fact its similar to one of my most enjoyable D&D games. It started when 3e had just come out. we knew nothing of the apparent "assumptions" of the CR system and most of us hadnt played D&D for numerous years.

After 18 months of excellent gaming the campaign came to its climax. We saved the world, hit level 9 and each of us had maybe 2 magic items apiece. Each item was special, they had names, a history, reasons for exisiting and added depth and flavour to the game.

Its not the only way to do it certainly, nor even the best or right way to do for any particular group but it worked for us.

Looking back I wonder how we managed against equal CR challenges, given we were nothing like optimised (Druid, Fighter/Sorc, Ftr/Rog and Ftr/Cleric) and woefully undergeared. And yet, manage we did.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

molonel said:
I'm presently reading through the last FOUR PAGES of this thread that popped up since yesterday - curse you, Enworld! I need to get WORK done today! - and I'm composing my reply, but this one caught my eye.

How do you think I feel? I make a reply, and during that reply, 5 new replies pop up!

In fact, I wanted to post a link to the WotC site's article about loot.
(http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20070327a)

Specifically, these lines:
"Greg: And are you seriously still rolling treasure randomly? Come on, that's so 1978!

Andy: I guess I just figured that my treasure hoards should be realistic. I mean, just because nobody in the party uses a trident doesn't mean that there aren't any magic tridents out there to find.

Greg: I challenge you to find one non-merman PC who uses a trident. Do it. I'll buy pizza for a year if you do.

Andy: That's "merfolk," you misogynist punk."

That would have been great as a reply to the mention of magical tridents earlier in the thread, but I can't go back and find it, or I'll come back and find 2 more pages!
 

Jedi_Solo said:
How many different stories can you come up with? How many times can famous warrior X kill villain Y and then disappear when they tried to do Z thousands of years ago. Eventually those stories get old and mundane in-and-of themselves.

Well, part of my original argument was that PCs should not be laden with gear the way they are expected to be in 3.x, and by that you can make a game where every item, even a crappy +1 sword, special and unique. After all, how many boring old stories are you going to have to come up with throughout a campaign like that? 10? 20? That shouldn't be too hard for a DM, considering it's his job to come up with cool stuff every week (or whatever).

The next questions is 'how long before they get a +2 weapon?' What is the point of having a backstory to a weapon they will only be using for five sessions?

The real problem lies right here in this quote: 5 session between a +1 sword and a +2 sword? That's just too fast, IMO. It should take 5 sessions to level. Even so, if there comes a time when a greater weapon is discovered by the party, surely they have some allies, friends or family to give the sword to? A cohort, perhaps? Or is the baseline assumption that the PCs exist alone in the world and NPCs exist only to run magic shops?

I don't want to call anything badwrongfun, but that seems like a waste of a perfectly good RPG to me, and I would honestly rather spend the evening (with the same friends, drinking the same coke and eating the same pizza) throwing down with Zombies or Dungeon or Munchkin if all we got out of D&D was "see it, kill it, take its stuff".
 

Vocenoctum said:
You didn't say all magic items must be special, but others have. I havent' seen anyone suggest that NO magic item can be special. The "absolute" only seems to go one way.

Well, that seems to be exactly what Storm Raven was saying (IMHO, at least). I would be happy to hear him say that I am wrong in thinking so.

So, how about it SR? Can magic items be something other than predictable technology or not?
 

Vocenoctum said:
I think it depends on what you consider magical items. I think LotR had a lot more magic than is immediately obvious, but there was no Detect Magic spell to tell. Sting would glow, so it was magic, but were the Barrow swords magic or masterwork? Sure the Rings were magical, but was Aragorns bow perhaps what in D&D would be considered magical? I'm sure it was lovingly crafted by hot elven babes and woven with the tears of prancing elven men, so maybe it was. Tolkien didn't call attention to his magic in an obvious manner, and I think that's the bigger difference.

From my recollection, the magic items that actually showed up in LotR (and The Hobbit):

Certainly magical:
The One Ring
The elven rings
The palantir
The nine rings for men (they only show up in context with the ringwraiths)
The seven dwarven rings (which don't actually show up in the stories, but are talked about, some of these have been destroyed by the time the events of the books take place).
The phial of Galadriel.
Sting
Orcrist
Glamdring

Probably magical:
Anduril

Possibly magical:
The elven cloaks
The barrow blades
The "gift" bow given to Legolas by the Galadhrim

Arguably magical (although in my opinion, calling these magical is dubious):
The font of Galadriel
Elven rope
Lembas
The horn of Gondor
 

Raven Crowking said:
Well, that seems to be exactly what Storm Raven was saying (IMHO, at least). I would be happy to hear him say that I am wrong in thinking so.

So, how about it SR? Can magic items be something other than predictable technology or not?

They could, but in the D&D rules, they have not been.
 


Storm Raven said:
Arguably magical (although in my opinion, calling these magical is dubious):
The font of Galadriel
From my recollection it was the font which showed Frodo and Sam visions of the future rather than anything Galadrial herself did. I distincly recall lines about it being dangerous to look in.

I would add to the first category the Staves of the Istari although they didnt really get used to do anything.
 

Jemal said:
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!)

I wouldn't make the blanket statement that playing an optimized character is a bad thing. It's just that I'm distressed by the idea that hand-picking one's magic items is a valid avenue of optimization.

This thread has really made me reflect on why I consider hand-picked magic items so detrimental to the game, on why the idea gets under my skin. I think it boils down to a couple of things:

  • It eliminates the thrill of finding magic items in a treasure hoard. This thrill didn't derive from the items' being unknowable or mysterious or unpredictable, but simply from the fact that any given item, such as a serpentine owl, was so rare as to often be unique within a given campaign. This thrill was present in 1E, 2E, and even the computer RPGs I've played. (Think of finding a Ring of Polymorph Control down in the dungeons of Nethack. Or the Wand of Wishing, one of the incredibly rare opportunities to pick any item you wanted, but which only had a few charges -- now there was a find! You did well to think long and hard about what to wish for when you used it.) In 3E, this thrill is gone, and I miss it terribly.
  • There's no in-game justification for an arbitrary list of items under a certain price limit to all happen to be on the market in a given place, at a given time. It's just not plausible.

The argument that it's great to be able to customize your character's items, well, it just doesn't resonate with me. You could customize your character's items in Nethack or Diablo by using a cheat program. What I quickly found was that doing so took the fun out of the game. Sure, it was cool for a little while, but then it just got boring.

To each his own! One man's meat is another man's poison, as they say.


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?

We weren't aware of that rule. (Was it present in 3.0? The campaign started before 3.5 came out.)

I can see that it would have mitigated things a bit, but it seems hard to justify from an in-game standpoint. Is the idea that NPCs have more time to build up contacts to whom they can sell? Then what if the PCs befriend an NPC and have him sell things for them? Maybe they could offer him a cut to make it worth his while. Or what if someone sets up a cohort as a merchant and has him sell things?

(Or perhaps the next time they save someone's life... "A reward? Why no, no, I could never accept a reward. As a small favor, however, perhaps you could liquidate these items for me -- I'm so busy with heroic deeds, you see...")
 

Storm Raven said:
They could, but in the D&D rules, they have not been.


Well, Vocenoctum, it sounds as though someone is saying exactly that.

Numion, if the Wand of Wonder is an exception (even if it is 1%), that makes Storm Raven wrong.

Doug McCrae, I didn't see anything that disincludes artifacts there. Did you?


EDIT: The reason I find this so offensive, btw, is that it not only states that the "magic items are predictable technology" is the One True Way to play D&D, but that it is the Only Way Possible, and anyone whose experience differs must therefore be deluding himself.

Again, though, I'd be happy to hear SR say that this wasn't at all what he meant, and then clarify exactly what he did mean.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top