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

[Rothe]

Quote:

pre-3E [/S] D&D actually... it can be practically whatever you want it to be.

Fixed it for, well, most of the rest of us, I guess.

That's the beauty of Traveller actually... it can be practically whatever you want it to be.

Wanted to fix that for both of you. Just drop the spaceships, advanced weapons and world generation. Since there seems to be no real "level progression," no real need for class based systems, especially when there really is no spell slinging. Or just use skill level progression.

What magical effects there are can be modeled with the Traveller's psionic rules, select the effects that are appropriate.

Base any "saving throw" on character traits.

The skill system makes it even better, when that Lakeman asks you what's his chance of keeping the boat from a capsizing in high waves or getting that extra speed out of her to get to shore, let's see you have Boating-3, roll 2D6 add 3 and get 8 or higher to succeed.

Very easy to stat out anybody, no need to worry about class combos or saying he's a ranger except he can't cast all spells and he has a few thief abilities but not all. Just decide on the skills evidenced and note the level.

One could also say "That's the beauty of TFT actually... it can be practically whatever you want it to be."

Even more appropriate, use the skill approach and broad categories to easily make a stealthy-fighter, a fighter-wizard etc. No need to make an exception for Gandalf using a sword, not that he's human or even mortal. No funky multi-class with partial class ability builds to get Aragon (or Conan). You also have all the spells and monsters built in.


Not saying you can't use D&D to do LOTR. As you might imagine, this has been tried and done, many, many times before, in fact, half the OD&D campaigns from the '70's (again IME) tried to do this. The class based definition of D&D characters was the most problematic part. IME it's not the easiest fantasy RPG system to modify to emulate the LOTR, others worked much better.

 

[molonel]

It's an often misinterpreted complaint. It is sometimes due to a clash of playing styles - players who want a standard wealth game and a DM who wants to run a low-magic or low-wealth game - but it does sometimes have a real basis, when it is directed at a DM who does not take into account the PCs' lower wealth when designing challenges for them. It is not always the players' fault when there are problems in a gaming group. DMs are not all paragons of excellence and creative geniuses who are forced to cripple their wondrous and sublime visions because of petty, demanding and ungrateful powergaming munchkins. DMs can be stupid, incompetent, arrogant, and blind to their own faults, too.

Agreed, and low-magic or low-wealth campaigns are more often rhapsodized than understood or run well, in my opinion. I've played through several crawl-through-the-lovely-filth games that frankly were just plain boring. Those "wake up a in a jail in your skivvies" games where you're supposed to be grateful for the sharpened stick you found. (I wish I was exaggerating.)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It's an often misinterpreted complaint. It is sometimes due to a clash of playing styles - players who want a standard wealth game and a DM who wants to run a low-magic or low-wealth game - but it does sometimes have a real basis, when it is directed at a DM who does not take into account the PCs' lower wealth when designing challenges for them.

It is not always the players' fault when there are problems in a gaming group. DMs are not all paragons of excellence and creative geniuses who are forced to cripple their wondrous and sublime visions because of petty, demanding and ungrateful powergaming munchkins. DMs can be stupid, incompetent, arrogant, and blind to their own faults, too.

Yup. If the DM sets expectations, most players can very easily go with the flow.

I have gotten tetchy with one DM who insisted he was right on the guidelines when really he was ~30% below. I am not proud of that and I have learned to be more patient since, but it was not unjustified either.

The DM's job is to know his world or accept that he does not understand everything about his world -- pretending to know things that are fairly easy to disprove is simply a mistake.

 

[drothgery]

I see this assumption again and again in these type of threads.

No credit is given that any DM can run an effective and balanced campaign unless he slavishly follows WBL/CR formulas.

Well, the thing is that it's a very hard thing to do. It's almost impossible to keep major spellcasters from dominating a D&D 3.x game where magic item availability is signifcantly below WBL, and almost no one takes measures to prevent that. So while I'm sure that someone out there has run a well-balanced low-magic-item D&D 3.x game, my experience with them says that they're few and far between.

 

[Hussar]

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).
*snip*

See the problem I have is is that some people, Reynard included, seem to think that 3e games are "laden with gear". This is a very personal point of view. The treasure tables in the Monster Manual gave you about a 10-25% chance of getting 1-4 magic items. I know I have those numbers wrong, but they're close. By the book treasure in 1e resulted in a metric pile of magic items in every group I ever played with.

Quasqueton's excellent threads on the amount of magical loot in 1e modules is really an eye opener. 1 MILLION gp's in cash treasure alone in the G series. It doesn't matter if the party doesn't find half of it, that's still 500, 000 gp's. That's not including the almost double amount of treasure you could get for flogging the magic items. Again, even if you only find a quarter of it, you are still absolutely swimming in treasure.

Yes, you might have a problem paying for training at 3rd level, but, by 5th? You're tipping with platinum pieces because it's the smallest change you've got.

That's not what some folks are saying. What they are saying is "Who cares -- might as well just have gems and gps in the hoard" because the players are going to equip their characters how they want, selling off any items they don't want.

I think in my next campaign I will ban the buying and selling of items other than potions and scrools, unles the players actually bother the play out seeking an item and convincing its owner to sell it.

Quote please? No one, I think, is saying that. What people are saying is that players like to personalize their characters and not every magic item they pick up is going to resonate with them. Perhaps one or two items over the course of the campaign might. The sword with a light spell certainly could.

Actually, that's the best reason to give magic items in troves. Sometimes you hit the jackpot and the party goes all goo goo over that talking dagger that can't remember its own name. Other times, they turn up their noses and dump it as fast as they can.

The point of all that is, you shouldn't be forcing your views on the players. By completely shutting down any customization of magic items, you've basically told your players, "My imagination is better than yours. I know best for what your character needs." It's not really surprising that some people don't like that.

On the idea of entitlement. Well, yes, I do think that if my character has braved the terrible dangers of the Lost Temple of Ee, I should reap the benefits. Sure, I'm playing to enjoy the game, but, part of the enjoyment also comes in the phat loot you accumulate as well. Does that make me a problem player? Perhaps. I did play in a 2 year campaign where we advanced from 1st to 3rd level and the party had maybe 500 gp among the five of us. High rp game. It was fun, but, we tried the Shackled City AP afterward. After 16 sessions, we advanced one level and found about 100 gp. I quit the game. Not because the DM was bad, he's actually very very good and I would recommend him to anyone. But, it wasn't fun for me. Spending week after week spinning my wheels and getting nowhere is far too much like real life.

 

[S'mon]

Anyway, all of that stuff is a cinch. That's the beauty of pre-3E D&D actually... it can be practically whatever you want it to be.

My impression though now that I'm running Moldvay B/X D&D for the first time, and finding it an incredibly wonderful and flexible ruleset, is that it and its antecedents back to 1974 D&D, are a lot more flexible than 1e-2e AD&D, because their reduced complexity greatly aids customisability. In 1e, especially post Unearthed Arcana, it feels like you can no longer do Barbarian stuff unless you're a Barbarian, Knight stuff unless you're a Cavalier, and Aragorn Ranger-y stuff unless you're a Ranger. I think 3e is much closer to 1e-2e in this respect, that "Everything not expressly permitted is forbidden".

 

[Nightfall]

Mol,

It's only work if you look at it like work. Besides, I keep everything on an outline basis.

 

[S'mon]

It is not always the players' fault when there are problems in a gaming group. DMs are not all paragons of excellence and creative geniuses who are forced to cripple their wondrous and sublime visions because of petty, demanding and ungrateful powergaming munchkins. DMs can be stupid, incompetent, arrogant, and blind to their own faults, too.

This is true, and 3e is designed to enable a poor GM to run a satisfactory game. In fact it almost _forces_ the poor GM into running a satisfactory game, because when he tries to screw it up he can be told he's deviating from the RAW. However, I think 3e makes it harder for a good GM to run a great game. Certainly it happens, but again it involves deviating from the RAW at times, and the RAW are highly interlinked so you can easily get a cascade of problems. One of my players is a huge 3e fan, but he told me I shouldn't be running it, because it didn't fit my GM style. Now I run C&C and am far far happier, which makes for better GMing.

 

[Nightfall]

*is happy running both Scarred Lands AND Age of Worms* So far no one's complained.

 

[Korgoth]

My impression though now that I'm running Moldvay B/X D&D for the first time, and finding it an incredibly wonderful and flexible ruleset, is that it and its antecedents back to 1974 D&D, are a lot more flexible than 1e-2e AD&D, because their reduced complexity greatly aids customisability. In 1e, especially post Unearthed Arcana, it feels like you can no longer do Barbarian stuff unless you're a Barbarian, Knight stuff unless you're a Cavalier, and Aragorn Ranger-y stuff unless you're a Ranger. I think 3e is much closer to 1e-2e in this respect, that "Everything not expressly permitted is forbidden".

Maybe that's true... although in 1e a Ranger is less a woodsman (there's a secondary skill for that) and more of a Green Beret. I agree with criticism of UA, however... I did not like the direction that was going in. I think 1e was still way more flexible than 3E.

However, Classic is pretty much the best ruleset in my opinion. It is definitely "Rules-Lite D&D"... the best of both worlds!