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

[Vocenoctum]

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?

You and Storm Raven are having your own side-arguement

I said "special" in regard to the whole discussion about story elements and flavor. This isn't about your "predictable" thing!

The "predictable" thing is the other part of the discussion. On that, I said that a magic item here or there might have unpredictable results, but that magic items as a whole are predictable. This isn't an absolute situation, like the bird example. I do think that magic items as a whole are generally predictable in 1e and now and all in between, with specific exemptions. I also still believe that 3.5 has more customizing and story elements (such as weapons of legacy) than 1e, and will result in magic items being less predictable than in previous edition. (mixing potions notwithstanding)

 

[molonel]

I'll point out at this .. um, point, that 3E can in someways keep that sense of wonder that comes from not knowing all the monsters, spells, effects, etc, for longer. Many people in this thread have said that when starting the game everything was wondrous, because you didn't know the spells, you didn't know the effects magic items had, etc.. Now, 3E has so much more material published for it, by WotC and all the countless 3rd party publishers. Heck, there probably was at some point more publishers for d20 than there were products for 1E! By utilizing these zillion monster books, feat books, class books, spell books, magic system books, there's always something new to throw at the players. When the players don't know what books the DM is going to use, that's unpredictable. At least I get that ol' magical feeling when reading a good* magic supplement for D&D.

This is exactly what's happening in my d20 Modern games, right now. I ran last night's adventure using Blood & Brains. It was awesome. They've all read the d20 Modern book. We all have it. We all use it. But while the basic rules of the game, and their equipment, are known and reliable, the monsters and situations they encounter in the game are not. I like mystery. Who doesn't? But I don't have to put a padlock on the rulebooks or have spells do weird things in their guts or have spells blow up in their faces to create mystery.

 

[S'mon]

I am reasonably familiar with Classic D&D (in its various forms, it has been years since I played it though), and no, it doesn't fit all that well. The spell lists are very un-Tolkien (and need to be changed much more than you suggest), the demi-human classes don't fit LotR all that well. Magic items remain much more prevalent (I refer you to, for example, the "B" series of adventures, which were dripping with magic items even though they were aimed at beginning characters). And OD&D isn't very good at accounting for various odd abilities that characters in LotR had (Aragorn is a bad fit for a OD&D fighter).

Personally my impression of Tolkien is that there are tons of low-power items and some better ones, like that ring of invisibility. I don't see B2 as all that different from The Hobbit & LOTR in likely MI count. I find the B/X Dwarf, Halfling and Elf fit Tolkien fine, unsurprising since Tolkien was the clear inspiration. You're right about the spells in that if you allow free choice of spells there's much more area-effect stuff than in Tolkien (Gandalf blasting the goblins in The Hobbit is the only Tolkien AoE spell I recall), but free choice is only for Clerics in B/X, not for M-Us. GM assigning M-U spells is the B/X standard, and of course you only assign the spells you want to see in your game.

Edit: Finally, Aragorn's unique abilities are just that, unique. There are PCs in my own B/X campaign whose backgrounds give them unique abilities because of (eg) their bloodline. I don't need to give Faoil the 'Blood of Imarok' template in B/X, I just GM it the way I want it.

 

[Vocenoctum]

[*] 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.

The thrill of finding "stuff" is as present now as ever. I'm still not sure why people feel that 1e made buying & selling magic items forbidden. I remember 2nd edition having some notes about it, but they were usually ignored. There is still an advantage to finding an item rather than buying it, and I think in an RPG it is as likely to tailor magic to the party's desires as much as making it truely random.

 

[jensun]

Personally my impression of Tolkien is that there are tons of low-power items and some better ones, like that ring of invisibility. I don't see B2 as all that different from The Hobbit & LOTR in likely MI count. I find the B/X Dwarf, Halfling and Elf fit Tolkien fine, unsurprising since Tolkien was the clear inspiration. You're right about the spells in that if you allow free choice of spells there's much more area-effect stuff than in Tolkien (Gandalf blasting the goblins in The Hobbit is the only Tolkien AoE spell I recall), but free choice is only for Clerics in B/X, not for M-Us. GM assigning M-U spells is the B/X standard, and of course you only assign the spells you want to see in your game.

Edit: Finally, Aragorn's unique abilities are just that, unique. There are PCs in my own B/X campaign whose backgrounds give them unique abilities because of (eg) their bloodline. I don't need to give Faoil the 'Blood of Imarok' template in B/X, I just GM it the way I want it.

OK, its late and my sarcasm detectors seem to be on the blink so I have to ask.

Your kidding right, please tell me your kidding...?

 

[S'mon]

OK, its late and my sarcasm detectors seem to be on the blink so I have to ask.

Your kidding right, please tell me your kidding...?

?? No, I'm not kidding. It may be that the background world of The Hobbit and LoTR is low magic and mundane, but equally well the background world of Keep on the Borderlands might be low magic and mundane. It's what's 'on stage' that matters, and LOTR especially is chock full of magic items; which was probably the inspiration for OD&D being chock full of items. Tolkien works great in B/X, where Gimli is a Dwarf Hero (4th level Dwarf), Elrond a 9th level Elf Wizard-Lord, maybe Gandalf is a 10th or 12th level Wizard (and the Balrog is similar; though 1e Balor only gets 8+8 hd, poor guy).

 

[jensun]

and some better ones, like that ring of invisibility

I assumed from this quote that you were being sarcastic.

Your post fills me with despair.

 

[Pielorinho]

I assumed from this quote that you were being sarcastic.

Your post fills me with despair.

Moderator's Notes:
Jensun, I thought I was pretty clear before about the need to be respectful, civil, and courteous. This post is one of at least two you've made since my warning that violates board rules, and my specific warning. Please do not post in this thread again. If you have questions about this, email me; do not discuss this note in this thread.

Everyone else, please stay civil and courteous; if you see folks violating that rule, please report their post.

Thanks!

Daniel

 

[painandgreed]

I think part of the disconnect here might be (and I could be wrong) that I think all that little stuff is important and fun and memorable, because I don't try to "tell a story" when I DM. I try to create a situation and a setting in which players can forge their own stories. Hunting down Archmage Smartypants and convincing him to sell is foozle has as much potential for story -- the kind you tell with your friends when not gaming, or bore your wife with -- as going into a dragon's lair. I like "sandbox" gaming, and running "sandbox" games. It has taken me a while to get there, mind -- I have had more than 1 "epic quest" fizzle, or be rejected by the players. So now, I try to go "Here's the world. Go play." Of course, I toss out threads and plots and such, but if the players ignore or reject them, so be it. There is always another adventure around the corner.

Finally, somebody who plays "goodrightfun"!

 

[I'm A Banana]

As far as the original post goes, Magic Shops, in whatever form they might take, may or may not be appropriate for your particular game.

D&D, and especially the earlier versions, doesnt have an overriding spirit. Each game creates its own and magic shops will appear or not depending on that.

Fourteen pages and finally someone states the obvious.

Gracias!

By utilizing these zillion monster books, feat books, class books, spell books, magic system books, there's always something new to throw at the players. When the players don't know what books the DM is going to use, that's unpredictable. At least I get that ol' magical feeling when reading a good* magic supplement for D&D.

Heck yah! It's also very easy to create your own stuff for 3e and still be fairly balanced, leaving room for all sorts of campaign-specific creations by innovative DMs. Not to mention the old "goblin stats, looks like some sort of gibbering tentacled horror" trick.

There's zero truth to the statement that 3e is necessarily less mysterious than any other edition of the game.