Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[Aria Silverhands]

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.

Which makes the DM look like a mean DM because they keep saying no to this, that or whatever.

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.

Yeah, because an online forum is representative of the hobby as a whole. Somehow it even takes into account the opinions of all those people that don't read or post to forums.

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.

All I'm saying is that it should have went with middle of the road and ambiguity when it comes to decisions that influence the tone of the whole campaign. Magic items are a huge factor in that regard.

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.

And it still paints those DM's with a negative light. They're "bad" dm's because they take options away from players. I know this for a fact because I've seen it happen. I've had players whine and complain about my houserules when I hand them out. They whine because I say humans only or no arcane casters, because I'm trying to create a certain tone to the setting.

Maybe the issue here is actually using the word rules. What I'm talking about are less rules and more about design choices when creating a campaign. The books need to give equal emphasis to all options when it comes to campaign altering decisions. Lots of magic, moderate magic, or little to no magic. Running a no magic campaign would be easy. Just reduce monster attacks, defenses, and skills by the magic threshold. Boom... monsters are balanced for parties with no magic items.

The excerpt on magical items, which again, is a huge part of what sets the tone of a campaign, should have been ambiguous by providing some detail on all three options instead of offering a default mode and then a more restrictive option.

 

[Ecaiki]

My magic items would come with more then an "on / off" button, they would have instructions too!

Example of what would be inscribed on the hilt of a Flaming Sword, "Think me hot and I shall burn, think me cold and I shall not".

 

[Aria Silverhands]

My magic items would come with more then an "on / off" button, they would have instructions too!

Example of what would be inscribed on the hilt of a Flaming Sword, "Think me hot and I shall burn, think me cold and I shall not".

Or how about just describing the blade as covered in a flametouched sheen that glitter red in the failing light of day. The crossgard and hilt could have a fire motif and that would provide a perceptive player all the clues they need or give someone skilled in arcane knowledge a path by which they can discern the true nature of the item and what its command word may be.

If thinking of fire is all that's required. I wouldn't make them roll, but if it's a specific command word or perhaps fire in a different language... that requires study.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Aria,

I'm glad that you've joined us here on ENworld, but I'm noticing a moderately aggressive tendency in your posting habits. Please could you increase your level of courtesy when discussing things with other people.

This goes for everyone else too please.

Thanks

 

[AZRogue]

And it still paints those DM's with a negative light. They're "bad" dm's because they take options away from players. I know this for a fact because I've seen it happen. I've had players whine and complain about my houserules when I hand them out. They whine because I say humans only or no arcane casters, because I'm trying to create a certain tone to the setting.

I disagree that this would change merely because the rule books were worded a certain way. What you're describing isn't bad DMing. Bad DMing is not knowing how to run and manage an interesting campaign that holds the players' interest. What you're describing is a STYLE of campaign. A style that many players don't want to play in. I submit that if the core rules had included more restrictions and set a more moderate tone as the default that players would have begun complaining that you didn't OPEN more options. What you seem to be looking for can't be gained from the wording of a rulebook but by locating players that actually want to play in that style of campaign.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Aria, I can't see the advantage in having a three-tier rules strategy that you propose. Your primary complaint appears to be that as a DM, if you want to have a house rule, it is in all probability going to be a restrictive one given the liberal nature of the new ruleset. This restrictive rule will make the players dislike you in some way and makes your job as DM more difficult. I have some thoughts on this:

Firstly, the three-tier system will not prevent the players disliking you. They will surely ask why you have chosen the more restrictive version and if they truly take offense at being limited by a house rule then surely they will take similar offense to your choice of the restrictive ruleset?

Secondly, house rules are either for flavour or a rules-fix. Flavour house rules are likely to be restrictive, strange and unliked by the sort of player you seem to be invoking. There's not much you can do about that other than make the flavour so immersive and high quality that the restrictions become a necessary sacrifice for how awesome your setting is. For rules fixes, I would never be able to play with a DM, or even DM players with a rules change that I couldn't justify to them. In 3.5 I changed Scorching Ray, for instance, into a single ray whose damage scaled 1d6/level, as I kept seeing the multiple attack routine abused and time-wasting. I told the players, they discusssed it with me and we agreed. If there had been a character whose schtick was abusing that rule I would have taken more time to accommodate them. I would, and would hope DMs in general don't, arbitrarily ban something.

My overall point really is that players are reasonable. Discuss why you want to make the changes you do, the restrictions you feel you need to impose to meet the requirements of your game, and it is your game, and I can't see why they would storm off unless they were particularly immature. Having the default restrictive ruleset you ask for would mean more work for those DMs that are happy to give the players freedom and restrict things only when necessary and with consultation. I don't want to houserule magic item economics because the rules say they aren't by default bought and sold. I might alter the numbers involved however, and I really doubt any player I've known would take offense to that (ok well there was this one guy but he was *special* in more ways than one..).

 

[WhatGravitas]

I have an actual question to the readers of the thread: How many of you have bothered with magic item identification?

I mean, it's fun for the first two or three items... but considering the amount of items 3.5E doles out with treasure, I found that I always handwaved it after the first two or three levels of play. Plus I have the tendency to put magic items in their opponents' hands, so they usually have seen them in action already!

And from the verisimilitude side: Why would anybody craft magic items without marking them as such? For stealth? Swords aren't exactly unobtrusive, nor is armour. I'd even say that most magic item makes have reason to put in some personal touches, making them stand out.

And for the items not covered by "most"... well, some do need Arcana or even more involved methods.

Cheers, LT.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Which makes the DM look like a mean DM because they keep saying no to this, that or whatever.

It isn't what's in the rulebook that makes the DM look like a mean DM, it's the DM always saying no to this, that or whatever.

I haven't seen WotC's market research, and likely never will. But, over all the time I've been playing, the number one reason I've heard from people who had tried DND and didn't want to play it again has been some variation of, "I tried that once and it was just some guy [though the word used was always less polite than guy] saying over and over, "You can't do that."

So, shifting the blame from the game to the DM making the restrictions is doing the right thing in my opinion. I'd even include a paragraph in the PHB explaining that while DM's are free to make changes to the game, not all DMs do (and even those that do don't always make more restrictive changes) and if changes are made that aren't to a players liking, players should find other games (perhaps using the opportunity to plug DDI as a place to meet other gamers and DMs).

 

[AZRogue]

I have an actual question to the readers of the thread: How many of you have bothered with magic item identification?

Standard houserule since AD&D was that the players would know what an item did or was by the next session, as an arbitrary length of time. We only saved the Identify stuff for very powerful items or artifacts.

As a DM, of course, I would always try to sound doubtful when I told the players, though. "You're pretty sure the sword is a +2 Flametongue. You think." Just in case the item was cursed. Same way I handled trap checks. "Are there any traps on the door?" <die roll> "None that you've found." Always makes them pause.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I have an actual question to the readers of the thread: How many of you have bothered with magic item identification?

In my groups it would typically be a Knowledge: Arcana check, or Spellcraft, or Craft: Alchemy for interesting items. Read Magic obviously dealt with scrolls. Low DCs for potions and ammunition, higher for weapons and armour and super-high for weird wondrous items. It was always more of an art than a hard-coded rule though