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

[MerricB]

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.

Indeed. Fun is important, isn't it.

Just another point of comparison between AD&D and 3e: new magic items tended to appear more in AD&D adventures. Thus, as part of the adventure module, the players would have no idea of what they'd found... once items appeared in Unearthed Arcana, the mystique was broken to some extent.

Cheers!

 

[jcfiala]

40d6 is nothing to sneeze about, I'll say, but there *are* save or die effects. Phantasmal Killer is a 4th level spell which is save (twice) or die, Trap the Soul is a save or leave the game for a long time effect, and Symbol of Death is another save or die.

What dc13 effect are you thinking of? I'm thinking of the fact that if someone is nth level, and they take n or more negative levels, they die right then - no 'save in 24 hours to get it back', no more saving throws - dead.

Like it or not, negative levels and some spells are save or die effects - as is the 50 hp in one wound save - it may not be easy for 8th level characters to fail a DC 15 Fortitude save, but they *can* fail it if they roll a 1 on the die.

I've discovered another method to die in 3rd edition! If a Shadow drains your STRENGTH down to 0, then you die and come back as another Shadow.

 

[I'm A Banana]

(snipping some good stuff]

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.

I see what you're saying. To a certain extent, I agree.

However, even in core 3e, there's unique magic items. The concept of "lesser artefacts" and intelligent weapons, and construct-creatures gives much significance and history to the magic items, but these come only at a fairly late levels. It seems that, at lower levels, what you call "background items" are the norm, but 3e certainly doesn't lack these kinds of items (they just are rare)

Do you think the new magic item format, the existence of things like Weapons of Legacy and the upcomming Magic Item Compendium help alleviate this problem without forcing so much change?

So is it still accurate to say that points a through d are more strongly represented in earlier editions? Since 3e magic items are often do things that spells cannot (the lion's shield? The rhino hide armor?), the magic item distribution is still in the hands of the DM (vorpal swords can still be unique, and Weapons of Legacy is filled with unique items), the magic item creation system assures that new weapons (even storied ones) can be introduced reliably (thus having new items unknown to the players appear), and still, not everyone can have your magic (adventurers being an elite lot, and high-level adventurers being, by the RAW, limited to the deepest centers of population and being a very, very small percentage of the habitation of the world).

What I see today in D&D is "buckets of +1 swords commissioned at the local forge" existing alongside of "sacred special items of deep history and campaign signficance," and it's all available with a DM owning the core, and enriched by a DM owning supplements designed to enrich that aspect. In the core, it's available through unique items (weapons, armor, wonderous items...), minor artifacts, and intelligent items, though it's not often available to low-level adventurers (because, in the theory of the rules, no 3rd level sellsword should be wieldilng a blade of the greatest world power). In the supplements, it's more available at a lower level and grows along with the character, providing world information as its power is increased (Weapons of Legacy) and always having a story behind it's development (the new Magic Item format).

Do you see that, or do you see it more in earlier editions with good DMs (ones who specifically made buckets of +x items significant...because D&D has *always* been about buckets of +x items. )?

 

[Hussar]

RC - I'd buy that. Yes, there are some situations where rewarding player behaviour is the way to go. If you want a high rp game, then obviously something has to be added (like people to talk to) to acheive that.

I guess I differentiate somewhat between some of those goals. To me, I prefer the lightest touch possible in the game. I would prefer to react to what the players want rather than try to push what I want onto the players. Now, again, this also gets into campaign creation which is entirely the purview of the DM.

I have no problem with the DM at the outset of the game saying, "I want to run X, who's with me?" That's fine. But, to me, X is going to be pretty broad - Dungeon crawl, high rp, political, whatever. So long as whatever the player wants jives with that broad statement, I'm pretty content.

So, I have no interest in changing mechanics beyond what I need to to construct the campaign. Starting to monkey with fiddly bits does not appeal to me whatsoever. I want to play the game, not be a game designer. You mention that I prefer the 3.5 system. That's true and that's why. I have found, over the past several years, that I can rely on the mechanics of 3e very heavily and not have to tinker with anything.

Sorry, meandered far there for a bit.

See, you keep saying encourage the players to do something. Why? Why should I have to? The players are there to play, presumably. I set the stage, arrange the chairs, turn on the lights. I have no problem with the players spending three sessions in a bar if that's what they want to do. If the players sat in a single room slowly starving to death, I'd probably be annoyed, but, thankfully, that would likely never happen. Most players are actively engaged in the game, rather than passively being poked and prodded and led by the nose to dance to whatever tune I prefer.

In my last campaign, a high rp game set in Shelzar (Scarred Lands), I tossed out hook after hook and basically let the players do whatever they pleased. Their actions had consequence, of course, since the setting wasn't static, but, there was certainly no larger story and no particular actions I wanted them to do.

As I've said many times before, I strive to be as neutral as possible in the game as I DM. Granted, it's impossible to be entirely neutral, but, that's the goal. If the players head down alleyway X, then Y happens, if they don't, then it doesn't.

Then again, I ran Keep on the Borderlands without any rewriting either. Never bothered. You've brought up the WLD a few times, and said that you felt that it needed a massive rework. And that's fine, for you. For me, I run it almost entirely as is. I've added this or that bit, because I wanted to and I thought it might be interesting. But, largely, the WLD has been almost verbatim in my game. Like I said, the lightest of touches is the way I DM. I have zero interest in playing The Greatest Game. I'm content with Pretty Damn Good.

 

[Raven Crowking]

See, you keep saying encourage the players to do something. Why? Why should I have to? The players are there to play, presumably. I set the stage, arrange the chairs, turn on the lights. I have no problem with the players spending three sessions in a bar if that's what they want to do. If the players sat in a single room slowly starving to death, I'd probably be annoyed, but, thankfully, that would likely never happen. Most players are actively engaged in the game, rather than passively being poked and prodded and led by the nose to dance to whatever tune I prefer.

Encouraging the players to interact with the game world is part of setting the stage, as I see it. As with your last campaign, my DMing style consists of allowing the PCs to do what they will, with plenty of hooks and things going on around them.

I dislkike the idea of shooting from 1-20 in three weeks of game time. I addressed that as part of campaign creation. I dislike the idea of magic item shops. I addressed that as part of campaign creation. I like the idea that the PCs have the ability to truly change their world. I addressed that as part of campaign construction.

For me, fiddling with the bits is part of campaign construction. I imagine that I am not alone there. After all, popular campaign worlds like Eberron, Scarred Lands, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, and Midnight all have special rules. The designers made their worlds unique, in part, by fiddling with the fiddly bits.

This is even true for the WLD, which suggests some different mechanics to deal with things like XP progression and teleportation spells.

You've brought up the WLD a few times, and said that you felt that it needed a massive rework. And that's fine, for you. For me, I run it almost entirely as is. I've added this or that bit, because I wanted to and I thought it might be interesting. But, largely, the WLD has been almost verbatim in my game. Like I said, the lightest of touches is the way I DM. I have zero interest in playing The Greatest Game. I'm content with Pretty Damn Good.

First off, the rewriting that I feel the WLD needs has nothing to do with the fiddly bits and everything to do with rewriting descriptions and expanding encounters. Some of the descriptions just suck. The room in Area B where the goblins' statue is -- but isn't mentioned in the description -- is probably the worst. In other rooms, the room conditions are given, but nothing in the description makes it clear why that condition exists in that room.

WLD is a huge project, and limitations in the material are not too surprising. This isn't a huge crit (although it is in some sections!). When I ran WLD, I certainly had no interest in trying to "guide" the PCs through the sections I found interesting. One thing I did do, though, was provide maps to speed up "empty hallway" time in Section A!

Second, trying to run The Greatest Game One is Capable Of is the only way I know of to ensure that one's game is Pretty Damn Good.

YMMV.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Do you think the new magic item format, the existence of things like Weapons of Legacy and the upcomming Magic Item Compendium help alleviate this problem without forcing so much change?

I didn't mean to suggest that 3e had no unique magic items; merely that it is far harder to believe in uniqueness when one can easily reproduce most effects. There are dozens of threads on EN World wherein people have positted that the rules of 3e by logical necessity give rise to magic shops, or magic street lighting, etc. While I don't believe this to be true (and have posted often on that topic!), my solution at least offers some concrete reason why it is not true without nerfing the ability to make magic items.

Also, I don't think that change, if it is an improvement, is something to avoid. As I said, my game is largely built off modified 3.5 rules, not 1st edition.

Do you see that, or do you see it more in earlier editions with good DMs (ones who specifically made buckets of +x items significant...because D&D has *always* been about buckets of +x items. )?

I don't believe that D&D ever had to be about buckets of +x items. Because you need the buffs more in 3e, those +x items are probably more important. Actually, that is one of the reasons I use Weapon Skills....you can modify your attack or damage rolls without needing magic to do so.


RC

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.​

RC

I agree that it is not necessary to have 'magic item shops', and prefer the 'individual crafter' approach (with exceptions for the Iron Kingdoms, where there are factories pumping out some of the most common mechanikal items, mostly to military orders).

I like the idea of 'secrets', and I am likely to steal and modify this idea. Secrets can also be a form of treasure - where PCs find how vorpal weapons are made from the notebooks of a sword smith/mage, or reverse engineer from a found vorpal weapon, risking its destruction in the process.

The Auld Grump

 

[Raven Crowking]

I like the idea of 'secrets', and I am likely to steal and modify this idea. Secrets can also be a form of treasure - where PCs find how vorpal weapons are made from the notebooks of a sword smith/mage, or reverse engineer from a found vorpal weapon, risking its destruction in the process.

Feel free to steal the idea!

That Secrets can be a form of treasure is exactly my intention!


RC

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Sometimes it becomes a decision for the players; to stop and train and risk unpleasant developments later, or leave off training till later and carry on with less than maximum abilities.

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.

If you're referring to the bit about out-of-game andf in-game time passing at the same rate between sessions, I've never used that. If it's 4:30 p.m. on Aves 23, 759 when one session ends, it's 4:30 p.m. the same day when that party's next session starts. So yes, I pay attention to time, but it has nothing to do with real-world time at all.

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".

Except in rare instances, not often at all. Sometimes, when the party has temporary use of something spectacular, it can for that time come to define its bearer, but even then the PC is almost always referred to by name.

Lanefan

 

[FireLance]

Because you need the buffs more in 3e, those +x items are probably more important.

You know, I've seen this point of view expressed several times, and it only just struck me that it isn't really true. A 20th-level fighter in 3.5e armed with just a normal longsword, shield and chain mail isn't going to be able to take on a CR 20 challenge, but a 20th-level fighter in any edition armed with the same non-magical equipment isn't going to be able to handle the really tough opponents, either. In any edition, the character is going to have to take on easier challenges than a better-equipped character of the same level.