[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Plane Sailing]

It would be a shame to see this thread closed.

I also think it would be a shame to see this thread closed because of rudeness or snarkiness.

I've just deleted two posts on this page, and I'm prepared to delete other posts which even border on being rude or condescending. The moderators are also in email contact with certain people about their posts.

And if anyone thinks its clever to try to torpedo this thread by being deliberately rude* in it after this warning, I'm willing to hand out a three day ban.

* that includes attempting to provoke other people too

Regards,

 

[Hussar]

What I think irks DMs in magic item creation by PCs and buying them is this: as a DM when designing an adventure the DMs puts there neat magic items that he would like the PCs to get (after maybe being used against them). The DM has spent effort on this, and the items are cool.

But then the PCs come, they bag the loot, cart it of to the nearest wizard in the business, sell the stuff and buy items they want. At least that's what annoyed me when I started 3E.

But after playing (as in being a player instead of DM) 3E I noticed that from that POV it's actually great that I can customize my items. Maybe there's less sense of wonder from the DMs point of view, but not from the players. At least in my mind. The DM planted items great history etc. don't matter to me or my character squat compared to what I have accomplished with it. For example: I don't care if my bow was the one used to destroy the great wyrm dragon Fieryballs 1000 years ago. I care much more that I slew an adult dragon with it just last week.

I get much more sense of wonder from customizing my own bows flames to be silvery colored after my characters name, than .. you get the point.

Besides, if I make a really cool magic item the players will want to keep it for its own sake, and not just because customized ones werent available.

I can agree with this. As a DM, it did bother me when the players chucked out my nifty lumpy metal thing of doom in favour of something they could buy. I got over it though. I've come to the opinion that their character's are their's. It's the only thing in the game they have control over. Allowing them to have a very high degree of control makes them happier, so, who am I to get in the way of that?

As DM's we control just about every aspect of the game. Why not allow the players to help out by controlling their ends of things? Within reason of course, I'm not talking about allowing stuff that doesn't fit in a campaign, so please, no cries of stripping all power from the DM.

A personal anecdote. Back in 2e, I played a paladin with a bad DM. Hit the level to go get my mount. So, I borrowed from whatever book I happened to be reading at the time (Adam's Bili the Axe IIRC) and asked if my mount could have low level telepathy with me. I wanted something a little funkier than a standard horse and I really liked the books. The DM was fairly non-commital. Fast forward to mount getting time and my telepathic horse somehow morphed into Battle Kitty, a smilodon riding cat. :/ I was so disappointed in this that I refused the mount. It just did not remotely fit in with my concept. The DM was so pissed off about this that he made my character unplayable (not too hard with a paladin).

I think letting players have control over the characters that the DM allows in his campaign (added that caveat to stop the complaining) is not a bad thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A personal anecdote. Back in 2e, I played a paladin with a bad DM. Hit the level to go get my mount. So, I borrowed from whatever book I happened to be reading at the time (Adam's Bili the Axe IIRC) and asked if my mount could have low level telepathy with me. I wanted something a little funkier than a standard horse and I really liked the books. The DM was fairly non-commital. Fast forward to mount getting time and my telepathic horse somehow morphed into Battle Kitty, a smilodon riding cat. :/ I was so disappointed in this that I refused the mount. It just did not remotely fit in with my concept. The DM was so pissed off about this that he made my character unplayable (not too hard with a paladin).

Yeah, I've heard this anecdote before, and I agree with you that it sucks. Not that the idea of the Battle Kitty necessarily sucks, but it sucks that the DM knew exactly what you had hoped for, and didn't care at all. (I am assuming, of course, that all paladins in that world did not have Battle Kitties.....or you would have been expecting this.)

But I do not think that this is the same thing as allowing treasure to be endlessly morphable, which is essentially what 3e set up. Nor do I believe that role-playing game rules should be set up on the basis of the "worst possible scenario". That is simply self-defeating. If you have a bad DM, it doesn't really matter what the rules are. Even within the context of the rules system, a DM who is out to get you will always win.

IMC, I introduced a varient that allows for the creation of some items ala standard 3.5, but limits which specific items/item qualities you can create. So, if it is terribly important to you that you can make an Apparatus of Kwalish, you can do that....without turning into Bill the Wandering SuperMagicMart. Players still get to select (via crafting or commission) some specific items without any change, but because each feat represents the potential to learn how to craft an item (plus some specific examples of that potential, chosen by the player, and added to automatically every X levels, where X varies by Item Creation Feat) magic items themselves retain something of thier pre-3e sense of wonder.

Win-win on both sides of the screen, IMHO.


RC

 

[Numion]

I'd like it if my players sometimes made their own items. They don't like losing XP, so a fat chance of that :\

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd like it if my players sometimes made their own items. They don't like losing XP, so a fat chance of that :\

Varient rules like power components and levin (Advanced Gamemaster's Manual) can be used to substitute in-game effort for XP, and can add a lot of flavour to the process. IMHO, of course.

It helps if you think about what kind of things you want your players to do, and then build in means to reward those types of actions. For example, if you want PCs that craft items, you can build rewards around crafting that offset the penalties.

 

[I'm A Banana]

magic items themselves retain something of thier pre-3e sense of wonder.

Hussar teased out this comment earlier, but I'm going to tease it out, too, since it is repeated:

Why did buckets of +x swords have a sense of wonder in earlier editions that 3e has lost?

Is it just because the NPC's in the world couldn't make/replace them, or know that much about them unless they were a sage?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar teased out this comment earlier, but I'm going to tease it out, too, since it is repeated:

Why did buckets of +x swords have a sense of wonder in earlier editions that 3e has lost?

Is it just because the NPC's in the world couldn't make/replace them, or know that much about them unless they were a sage?

You know, in doing my rewrite of the 3e rules, this is the thing that I've had to give the most thought to. Exactly why were 1e items more wondrous-seeming than 3e items? I think it boils down to a number of factors:

1. Buckets of +x weapons are never wondrous. This is because anything that appears to have been made via assembly line simply lacks that sense of wonder. In a D&D sense; there are some very nice automobiles out there.

2. Unique items are wondrous.

a. Older editions were full of items that had cool effects one simply could not duplicate short of having the item. Since not every item was a "spell in item form" items themselves could have a mystique all their own.

b. Older editions, with strict DM control of items, allowed the DM to place the Vorpal Sword. There was no guarantee that any given item existed in a campaign world, let alone more than one item.

c. Older editions were replete with magic items that the players simply could not know about until they encountered them. The unknown is interesting; this is why so many modules introduce new monsters and new magic.

d. This means that you can make the "lightning rail" wondrous simply because not everyone can have one.​

3. Any item that merely boosts a number, such as a +x sword, is inherently less wondrous than something that allows you to do something you couldn't without the item, such as a Cloak of the Manta Ray.

SOLUTIONS

1. No magic shops. Individual crafters are fine, but every item should seem to be individually crafted insofar as it is possible. Even that +1 dagger should have a smith's mark....and the smiths should have some interesting background as well. In other words, know where the magic items you placed in your campaign come from, at least tangentially.

2. Name items whenever possible. Encourage PC crafters to name their items. Have items named when delivered by NPC crafters.

a. Come up with the means to create "special effects" that do not replicate spells. IMC, this falls under the title "Secrets" and are things PCs can learn.

b. The creation of every item requires a Secret, and just because a PC knows it doesn't mean anyone else does. So, when a PC creates a Vorpal Sword, the DM can easily make it the Vorpal Sword.....or at the very least, an incredible achievement to every NPC they meet.

c. Don't tell the PCs all the possible Secrets. Better yet, make sure that the players know that they can create new Secrets that only their PCs know.

d. This actually isn't a problem.​

3. Campaigns require stat boost items, so earrings of swimming and +3 bohemian earspoons are going to exist. You can either make them interesting in terms of presentation (this polearm channels part of its last owner's skill), description (earrings of bone and coral, shaped like twin fish), or function (you can share the earrings with one other character; each of you gains only 1/2 the bonus from wearing only one of the earrings). Or else you can just accept that this particular item isn't going to be wondrous; it is simply background.

Admittedly, my solution complicates things a bit, and it means that balance requires more DM attention than in standard 3e. But it is fun, and it allows for a wider range of effects without slapping the words "minor artifact" on every item that breaks the mold.

YMMV, of course.

RC

 

[Hussar]

It helps if you think about what kind of things you want your players to do, and then build in means to reward those types of actions. For example, if you want PCs that craft items, you can build rewards around crafting that offset the penalties.((Bold mine))

See, now that's a big difference right there. I don't really want my players to do anything. That's their job. They are the ones who have to want to do things. I simply provide the vehicle for that. I oppose the idea that the DM should be trying to steer the game so to speak. There's other people at the table and it's every bit their game as well.

Yes, to some degree, in game you need to provide hooks and hints as to where the players can go to do stuff, but, that's very, very different from providing carrots and sticks to guide the players into playing the game the way I want to play it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

See, now that's a big difference right there. I don't really want my players to do anything. That's their job. They are the ones who have to want to do things. I simply provide the vehicle for that. I oppose the idea that the DM should be trying to steer the game so to speak. There's other people at the table and it's every bit their game as well.

Hussar, I take it from many posts on many threads that you are pretty happy with 3.5, right? And, I assume, you are well aware that 3.5 (like all versions of the game) has built-in systems that give rewards or penalties based upon the decisions of the players. Those systems also include subsystems by which the DM is allowed to reward decisions that he or she believes are worth rewarding.

I am not only talking about the XP system here. I am talking about placement of monsters, chances to use skills, placement of treasure, and even simple things like racial penalties and how they interact with class abilities.

These are not only okay things for a game system; they are necessary things.

You say that you don't really want your players to do anything. I submit that this is not true. To use an utterly silly example, you certainly want them to show up for the game and play their characters. You want them to have fun.

Moving a little farther from the silly, I am well aware that you are running a WLD campaign. No doubt you know that some character concepts are better suited for the WLD than others. I imagine that you generally want the players to choose characters suited for the WLD, if only because they'll have more fun, even if you don't specifically want to limit anyone's choices.

Moving farther yet, you probably want them to get involved with the dungeon, and explore it, rather than sit in the first room in Section A and starve to death. This doesn't mean that you're going to force them to not starve to death.....but I feel fairly certain that you would hope they were motivated to do something, and would encourage them in that direction.

Every setting (even the blandest, most vanilla setting) rewards some actions. Every setting perforce gives greater weight to some in-game actions than others. What I am suggesting is that, as DM, if there is something you want to explore, you should give your players motive to do so. If you want your players to talk to NPCs, you need to give them someone worth talking to. If you want your players to trust NPCs, you'd better give them opportunity to learn early and often that this type of behavior will typically be rewarded.

(This is, really, no different than choosing to run a game system because it has a built in bias that you enjoy....such as the over-the-top action, combat-oriented focus of 3.5.....or choosing a setting such as the WLD because it provides encounter opportunities that you will enjoy.)

Frankly, there is no way to DM a game without influencing players through the challenges you create (or run), the way you run them, and the way you dish out information and rewards. Pretending otherwise not only does a disservice to you (because you cannot effectively determine what you want, and how to get it), but it does an enormous disservice to your players (because you cannot effectively communicate your desires, and how those desires affect the game world -- leaving them to guess what will, and will not, be rewarded). Admitting that you do so, and examining how best to do so, can help ensure both that you and your players are a good fit, and that your players understand the dynamics by which your game world operates.


RC

 

[MerricB]

I just don't see this as what PC's do. PC's adventure, they fight things, they Do Deeds, and they find neat stuff...that someone else made! A PC's place is in the field, not the item-construction shop.

...

This, in fact, might hearken back to the start of this enormous thread: the soul of the game. I suggest the game's soul resides in the field-adventuring party, and things like this sitting around waiting for the wizard to build items is rather soulless.

It's funny; you can turn that quote around for the training rules (where it takes 1-4 weeks to gain a level), and then AD&D is soulless because you have to wait around for PCs to gain a level rather than be out there adventuring!

As an aside, I've used training rules in every version of the game I've DMed, and all of them have been swiftly discarded. They make sense, they aren't hard to incorporate, but the disruption they cause to time-dependent plots has never been worth it for me.

I wonder how many people still pay strict attention to TIME, as noted by Gary in the original DMG? There does seem to be an assumption there that play of D&D is very frequent.

Here's something to consider: If you only have magic items through adventuring, when powerful magic items come up, how much do they skew the character towards being defined only by the magic item? For instance: "The PC with the vorpal sword".

Personally, I think there are a range of boring workhorse magic items - there's possibly more in 3e than 1e, but some of that may just be the result of 20+ years of familiarity with them - and then there are the really rare and interesting magic items. That's one reason I like Weapons of Legacy so much - all the items are unique, and, with the ones in my campaigns, the PCs don't know what the new abilities will be until they gain the appropriate levels.

Lane-"how many other 1000-post threads have there been?"-fan

Don't ask!

Cheers!