Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[Aria Silverhands]

QFT! This about sums up the entire argument in my mind. D&D is NOT a DM vs. the Players scenario. It is supposed to be a mutual experience. If you want to run a dirty, gritty, deny the PCs this-and-that style game, and find that the players don't like that, its a clue to change your base assumptions and DMing style and meet somewhere on middle ground. It should never be a situation where the DM says "Its My way or the highway".

When it comes to the campaign setting, it is the DM's way. They're the ones creating it and spending time making the maps, the handouts, the storylines and preparing for the game. Yes, they should take the players into account somewhat, but not to the point where it's not what the DM wants to run at all. Players need to remember the DM isn't just there to run the game, they're there to have fun as well and being forced to run the game the player's way, is not fun.

To me personally, DMing is like a professional entertainment job. Its my JOB as DM to entertain the players, letting them enjoy their characters, trigger their imagination, inspire roleplaying and create an engaging environment for them. Its not the players' JOB to live out my story plotlines in my world the way I want. Yes I can set the basics of the world assumptions, but I am not doing my job if I specifically choose to make rules that none of the players like. Thats not fun for anyone. If you are not playing the Game to have fun, you shouldn't be wasting your or the players' time.

When I get paid for being a DM, then the players can tell me how to run my campaign.

If the designers have good evidence that the more permissive approach leads to a more fun game for the majority of their audience, how can they choose anything else? Does saving a small number of DM's from suffering a possible "hardass penalty" really have more weight than that?

They know that people are going to houserule publishing campaigns, they know that people are going to create houserules, and they know people are going to homebrew their own campaigns. It's in their best interest to make the rules support that type of gameplay. By creating the default rules with that ambiguity in mind and a constant reminder that the DM can and probably will alter things to suit their style, their campaign... it makes the rulebook better.

"You can sometimes buy magic items just as you can mundane equipment. It’s rare to find a shop or a bazaar that routinely sells magic items, except perhaps the lowest-level items. Some fantastic places, such as the legendary City of Brass in the heart of the Elemental Chaos, have such markets, but those are the exception rather than the rule. Your DM might say that you can track down a seller for the item you want to buy or that you might have to do some searching, but in general you can buy any item you can afford."

It could have been written as:

Magic items will usually be acquired as part of treasure when defeating dangerous encounters or as a reward from powerful entities when completing a quest. Some DM's may allow the purchase of magic items, although it would be rare to find a shop or bazaar that routinely sells magic items, except perhaps the lowest-level items. Some fantastic places, such as the legendary City of Brass in the heart of the Elemental Chaos, may have such markets, but those are the exception rather than the rule. DM's may also require you to track down a seller for the item you want to buy or that you might have to do some searching.

My revision is friendlier to DM's that don't want magic items to be a simple transaction, while allowing for more or less restrictions, depending on the campaign setting.

 

[JesterOC]

Unless the all magic is made to 'tell' the user how it works. And it just needs a few minutes to be able to atune itself with the new master. It is "magic" after all. Of course if a item was special and wanted to hide its nature like the one ring, then that just special case it.

JesterOC

Dang you are fast. I noticed others said the same thing better so I tried to kill the comment before anyone said it. But now since you quoted me...too late. Perhaps I need some shut eye.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Unless the all magic is made to 'tell' the user how it works. And it just needs a few minutes to be able to atune itself with the new master. It is "magic" after all. Of course if a item was special and wanted to hide its nature like the one ring, then that just special case it.

Both options would be pretty campaign specific, which is what the rules should try to avoid. The rules should provide DM's and players alike with ideas and not hardset rules that affect the overall tone of a campaign setting. The economics of magic items is just one example of poorly written default rules that I feel many campaigns will have houseruled in some fashion.

 

[JesterOC]

The rules should provide DM's and players alike with ideas and not hardset rules that affect the overall tone of a campaign setting. The economics of magic items is just one example of poorly written default rules that I feel many campaigns will have houseruled in some fashion.

Ok I don't agree with this. The core rules should be rules, not a bunch of suggestions. If the book is filled with suggestions that try to handle all situations, you end up wasting a lot of space and end up confusing new players (new players are looking to the DMG for answers not more questions) and wasting the time of older players that have their own system already.

The DMG needs to set firm rules, those rules should all have an internal consistancy and all work together smoothly. Once that is established you could suggest other ways, and if the rules are great they may suggest how changes made to the rules as written will effect the other established rules. That way in the best case scenarior the DMG will provide the answer to a given DM's question, as well as alternatives with a heads up on how the alternatives may break other systems.

JesterOC

 

[Parlan]

Attempting to put this more succinctly than my previous post...

If the designers have good evidence that the more permissive approach leads to a more fun game for the majority of their audience, how can they choose anything else? Does saving a small number of DM's from suffering a possible "hardass penalty" really have more weight than that?

Well said, sir.

 

[Parlan]

Ok I don't agree with this. The core rules should be rules, not a bunch of suggestions. If the book is filled with suggestions that try to handle all situations, you end up wasting a lot of space and end up confusing new players (new players are looking to the DMG for answers not more questions) and wasting the time of older players that have their own system already.

Amen. It's one of my problems with GURPS. I love the system in theory, but after reading through the books and all the options presented, there's so many choices that I lose my enthusiasm for playing.

Sometimes, more choices are a *bad* thing, because the effort of choosing becomes burdensome.

See:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Paradox-of-Choice/Barry-Schwartz/e/9780060005696

The designers' job is to create a set of rules that works and are fun to play. If they try to appeal to every niche campaign out there, they just make a shmorgasbord of options that all DMs are forced to address before they can play, even if most of them would have been perfectly happy with whatever rules the designers had chosen.

Ideally, I want to read the rules and find them so appealling that I get all fired up to play. I don't want to have to spend hours thinking about which of the 8 options for handling the Magic Item Economy is best for me and my group.

If you enjoy spending your time that way, then have at hoss.

Just don't force *all* DMs to have conversations with their players just because a minority of DMs want to make those coversations go a little bit smoother.

 

[Ipissimus]

Holy avenger and Phasing weapons are awesome. But the description for Flaming Weapon... are they even trying?

'You can will this weapon to burst into flame.'

I can hear the catcalls now. Incendiary swords. Exploding hammers. Dipping clubs into oil and lighting them for the same effect...

How hard is it to make a weapon that burns with magical flame as you're wielding it sound COOL? Not very hard, but somehow they've managed to make it a joke. -sighs- maybe it wouldn't be as glaring if the other two fluff bits weren't better written.

 

[FireLance]

The rumors are true! The following is a quote from the latest Confessions of a Full-Time Wizard:

4th Edition is supposed to make Dungeon Mastering easier. Digital tools, restructured rules, more of what the players want, so you—the DM—look even better.

4e really is all about giving the players what they want! It is no wonder that the PCs are allowed to buy and sell magic items and identify them after just five minutes!

 

[Hambot]

You mean like radio/timer detonated C4? Or bombs that are pre-programmed with specific altitudes to explode? Or what about cruise missiles with pre-plotted gps routes? May as well just give everyone lightsabers with buttons that say "On" / "Off" if you want to go that route with magic items.

There's already precedent for magic items with buttons - Rod of Lordly might. No reason why the flaming swords can't have them because it does make a lot of sense.

And yes, you can make more complicated items, but that doesn't mean the vast majority of bombs aren't grenades or RPG's. I expect that Magic items would be the same. Most would be very easy to use, while a few made by specialized sources would have all sorts of secret command words to stop them being used by the enemy. Those would require Arcana checks to identify, as the excerpt suggests.

The funny thing is that the example weapons you describe are routinely used by people who are not super bright, but they DO know fighting. Because that's what they've learned through experience. shoving a detonator in a lump of explosive, arming it then flipping the switch is just learned behavior, that anybody can do if they have seen or heard about it. And in a magical world, figuring out how to use a magical item without arcane training is like someone figuring out how to drive a car, when they rode in one once years ago and they've heard a lot about them, so they know whats possible if they just play around with it.

I imagine kids growing up in a D&D world would be told fairy tales about magical wonders so even if they never saw pictures in a Mages tome they would have a good idea about what sort of things to expect from a weapon, cloak or armour. If many of the items in 4E do similar things in particular body slots, this makes more sense. If you can't handle a fighter figuring out all the properties of a wondrous item, just let him figure out the most obvious one.

Complaining that the default rules set in a game of make-believe lets people's characters do fantastical things without realistic limitations defeats the purpose of escapism. Considering that at every major point they do call out the DM has the option of tightening things up to fit with their campaign world I believe they are doing a good job of giving everybody the options they need. The majority of posters here so far are in favour of much of the text, so it looks like they hit a default that just manages to please the majority, while allowing you do do otherwise if you wish. We could all be upset that the default options presented in the book don't match up very well with the fantasy worlds that we have made and believe make the most sense, or with our default play style, but that is pointless because whatever they make the default, there will be lots of people whose style is different.

You seem to be mostly upset that the default of the whole book is permissive to the players, rather than moderately restrictive because that is how you prefer it. In 4e Wizards seems to have tried to make every decision with maximising gameplay fun in mind. They often sacrifice versimilatude in the interests of a faster paced game. All you can reasonably ask for is that they offer outs to those who want to restrict gameplay options in order to increase their versimalitude. Which is what they did in this case.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Ok I don't agree with this. The core rules should be rules, not a bunch of suggestions. If the book is filled with suggestions that try to handle all situations, you end up wasting a lot of space and end up confusing new players (new players are looking to the DMG for answers not more questions) and wasting the time of older players that have their own system already.

The DMG needs to set firm rules, those rules should all have an internal consistancy and all work together smoothly. Once that is established you could suggest other ways, and if the rules are great they may suggest how changes made to the rules as written will effect the other established rules. That way in the best case scenarior the DMG will provide the answer to a given DM's question, as well as alternatives with a heads up on how the alternatives may break other systems.

Which is why the rules should be middle of the road instead of so far left for player empowerment. Especially economics and how it relates to magic items. Those specifically will drastically change a campaign setting depending on how it handles them. Middle of the road with numerous suggestions would have been a far better way than having the PHB state flat out that if you can afford it, you can generally buy it.

Ideally, I want to read the rules and find them so appealling that I get all fired up to play. I don't want to have to spend hours thinking about which of the 8 options for handling the Magic Item Economy is best for me and my group.

Three. Mostly unrestricted, default, highly restricted. That's all the dmg needs to really cover.