Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7188132" data-attributes="member: 4937">My apologies, page 84.  The text of the 'enchant an item' spell.  Fair enough.  If you have an nigh unlimited supply of wishes, then really the world is yours.  You can do nearly anything with a nigh unlimited supply of wishes.  However, to make a few points:a) The only reasonable way to actually get a night unlimited supply of wishes is to cast them yourself, and if you do you are disabled for 2d4 days (per the spell description).  Thus, if wish is used as anything but the last step of item manufacture, it fails, since the next step must be started within 24 hours. b) The discretionary power of the DM is in play if you begin to abuse the wish spell.  If you start using wish spells to subvert game balance, the DM is fully empowered to begin interpreting wishes according to their strict wording rather than their intent, and even in some cases interpreting the wish perversely to prevent the entire game from being derailed.c) Fundamentally, we are talking about characters that have obtained 16th-18th level.  Most groups would retire characters by then or before then.   We are in 1e terms well passed the normal end game, and there is very little provided in the game to challenge characters of such extraordinary puissance - even if we weren't providing them with all sorts of generous interpretations of the rules.I've already called out that I consider it perfectly acceptable for the DM to depart from the official rules and play however they liked.  I've also called out that I myself did so.   For example, while I was as stickler regarding most rules of the game - right down to weapon vs. AC modifiers - I by conscious choice ignored the rules on training time and costs and applied XP to players immediately upon the receipt thereof.  I did so because my stories were often what we would call now 'adventure paths', and I did not want to interrupt the story - which might be occurring in far corners of the world or other planes - to force players to return to civilization for training.   Others made other choices to ignore the rules in order to facilitate the particular sort of play that they desired.My only quibble is vehemently announcing how strictly you are following the rules, and proclaiming how things were, when anyone that can actually read the rules can point to a half-dozen rule violations in as many sentences - even before we get to the matter of rulings.  Gygaxian process of play and advice to fellow DM's has a particular form, that can be summed up as, "Be harsh, but fair."  Gygax's sees the main role of the DM as ensuring the cultivation of what he calls 'skillful play', where skillful play is marked by the creativity of the players in utilizing the limited resources they have available, by their carefulness, and their foresight, and by the cooperation to achieve a task.   He most certainly does not consider it to be skillful play to wheedle or browbeat the DM, to engage in rules arguments, to be creative in rules interpretations, and generally to try to win through the metagame rather than through play.   He likewise continually points out that players will expect and will argue that they ought to receive something for nothing, when in fact they ought to always pay through the nose for any advantage that they are seeking.  For example, he points out in particular that players will expect to be able to trade spells or items with NPC friends or followers either for free or in even trade, when in fact even close friends or loyal henchmen will demand exorbitant surcharges if they are even willing to cooperate at all.   Define 'harsh'.  Obeying the letter of the rules of the game is not 'harsh'.  Demanding that the DM set the cost according to what the NPC wants to receive, not what the player wants to give is not 'harsh'.   Making the NPC's and foils of the PC's as creative or more creative than the PC's is not 'harsh'.   Ensuring that the game always offers a challenge for all participants, and a suitable reward for the challenge is not 'harsh'.  That's actually just 'fair'.  Look, fundamentally, all I have to do to win this argument is demonstrate that in 1e, magic item creation was less accessible and more difficult than it was in 3e.  I think I've done that in spades.  I think winning my side of the argument is trivially easy, because anyone familiar with both systems will recognize that having fixed costs of abundant and well defined resources (gold and XP), and allowing you to create almost anything by 5th level and certainly every level appropriate item by that point without any special restrictions beyond abundant chargen resources that a player is in full control of, makes for a much more accessible magic item creation system than exists in 1e.What I have no desire to do is recreate the table arguments I had with rules lawyers and power gamers back in the 1e era.  I leave it up to the interested reader to examine the rules being tossed around here and see if what is being said about them actually matches the text.</blockquote>

Verification