Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm not saying this kind of situation can never be used to roleplay, just that it hasn't worked in my experience. It's not usually interesting for the player (who just wants to know what the item does), it's not that interesting for the other players (who want the opportunity to know what their items do) and it's not that interesting for me (who wants to get to the meatier encounters, roleplaying or otherwise, that are fun for everyone).

Exactly. It is about getting rid of the boring parts: "I look in the bag, is it bigger on the inside?", "Does it have a command word written on it anywhere?", "A horn? I blow it! Does anything happen?" until the party has managed to bury themselves in a pile of rubble and fireball themselves with that wand that had a command word on it. Causing the session to become about digging themselves out, then heading back to town to heal up and find a way to excavate the dungeon they just collapsed.

It looks like this rule got changed slightly from the copy I've seen, however. I liked the original rule better: "When you pick up an item you know what it does." Mostly because it invoked the idea that part of the property of magic items was bestowing their wielder with the knowledge of their use. It also avoids a situation I see happening now: "We have 10 magic items? Time to rest for 50 minutes to identify them all." Which just needlessly slows down the game for no reason.

 

[The_Fan]

Exactly. It is about getting rid of the boring parts: "I look in the bag, is it bigger on the inside?", "Does it have a command word written on it anywhere?", "A horn? I blow it! Does anything happen?" until the party has managed to bury themselves in a pile of rubble and fireball themselves with that wand that had a command word on it. Causing the session to become about digging themselves out, then heading back to town to heal up and find a way to excavate the dungeon they just collapsed.

It looks like this rule got changed slightly from the copy I've seen, however. I liked the original rule better: "When you pick up an item you know what it does." Mostly because it invoked the idea that part of the property of magic items was bestowing their wielder with the knowledge of their use. It also avoids a situation I see happening now: "We have 10 magic items? Time to rest for 50 minutes to identify them all." Which just needlessly slows down the game for no reason.

10 minutes if you have 5 party members. Just give them to whatever party member you think is most likely to use them.

 

[Knightlord]

There's nothing between the lines.

Yeah, I think there might be.

The one thing I've never had a problem with, didn't have a reason other than the fact I dislike gnomes. I've never allowed gnomes in any of my campaign settings. For a pointless and aesthetic reason. I just didn't like them and funnily enough... that's the only restriction no one has ever had an issue with. I am a good dm and I tell damn good story that does involve the players and their backgrounds, as long as the players do their part and try to be part of the campaign instead of wresting control of it to make their own little version of it.

D&D is cooperative. Give and take. And, honestly, judging from your posts, it sounds like its "you" who is taking, not your players.

No, I harbor a lot of ill will towards poorly written rulebooks and outright faulty design decisions.

That is your opinion, though I believe you may be in the minority. Hence that is the reason why the books are written as they are. They serve the majority. And even so, they allow for deep customization.

When people start paying me to run a game for them, then I'll run exactly what they want. Until they pay me, I will take their ideas under advisement but ultimately, the theme of the campaign setting that I am spending my free time creating, aside from actual game time, will be done by my standards and preferences for that setting, regardless of what it may be.

DM, especially in regards to campaign building, does not equate "Authoritarian". Again, D&D is cooperative, and players play in order to have fun. If they feel like they are being forced to play "your way or the highway", they'll more than likely choose "the highway". Perhaps if you made a few concessions to your players, you may actually find attracting players much easier.

I will never compromise on psionics. That crap doesn't belong in D&D period. If it wouldn't ruin the book, I'd cut it out of the PHB2 when it's released.

I was using the Psionic example to highlight your confrontational stance. I did not mean to drag the debate of that topic into this thread (where it does not belong). However, your response only strengthens not only my argument, but also those who have made the same claim. You continually make declarative statements in regards to what is right and wrong, what is crap (in your own words) and what is not. The point is, what is crap and wrong to you, may not be in regards to others. And many others, and not just in this forum, seem to prefer D&D as it is written (not default low-magic). Thus the majority rules, and WotC produces such because it will not only sell, but, again, is what the majority wants. And if you do not like it, you can easily change it on your own.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

One thing I wonder from that article is whether or not there will be level 31+ items. And if they might not be in PHB1, will they show up in books further down the road.

 

[keterys]

Given they say that weapons cap at +6... it seems likely there are not. Otherwise you'd be getting them at 27-30.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I didn´t meant this offensive and I not even disagree. I just think ther may be special items not so easy to identify. And to prevent nonsense like swinging it defensively or especially agressive, i would make it clear that the character has tried every fighting style he can imagine in the last 5 minutes. So the whole party can try interesting things instead of one player asking redundant questions.

No offense taken, and I think we're basically in agreement. I actually just wanted to make sure I wasn't coming off hard-nosed.

 

[Rechan]

I figure the "Requires an Arcane Check" is for more obscure things, or artifacts, sure. Similar to how Galdolf had to throw the One Ring into the fire to get the words to show up.

Meanwhile, the magical dagger (or was it an amulet?) Sam used to battle Shelob, Sam had no idea what it'd do when it did it.

Besides, some magical items ain't that hard to figure out. "Pointy end goes in the other guy. Baboom."

 

[Tervin]

I am a good dm and I tell damn good story that does involve the players and their backgrounds, as long as the players do their part and try to be part of the campaign instead of wresting control of it to make their own little version of it.

And right there I see something that in my little mind is the core of the problem. Sorry if I am misreading you, but this is what it looks like to me:

You look at the story and the campaign as yours, and more or less yours alone. While most players these days want to do their part in all of that. My own experience is that when the campaign becomes ours instead of just mine, that is when we get the really good stuff.

I have a rich imagination. I have been writing RP stories and campaigns for 25 years or so. The campaign that I plan to launch soon has been growing in my head and in my notes for five years now. I am honestly afraid to tell my players how many hours I have put into it already... Still I can't wait to see what ideas the players will bring to the table. Yes, I have well behaved players who accept any reasonable setting induced house rules - as long as they feel that I try to play their game as well as mine. And when they feel that their ideas are welcome, they start adding to the world, creating scenes, characters, storylines... all in the end much better than anything I could have created on my own.

And that way I end up feeling like I get paid to DM.

 

[Duelpersonality]

One thing I wonder from that article is whether or not there will be level 31+ items. And if they might not be in PHB1, will they show up in books further down the road.

My guess would be that 31+ is artifact territory, and then all rules are off. The characters will never be able to create said items, so it makes a very cut and dry unatainable mark that artifacts have always been known to occupy.

An interesting thought is that this might make a great Epic Desitiny quest for characters that have the rituals to create magic items. When it is done so much of your power and energy are poured into the item that you begin to fade away, only to live on forever in the mighty work you have wrought.

 

[TerraDave]

DM Authority: Really? Still? Now? For this? (The secret: The DM has huge power...and the more he uses it to make the game entertaining, the more power he has).

Banning Halflings: Been there, done that (and psionics, and monks and splats...) Might actually allow the little...people...this time around.

Identify: Not to touch on the actual article...but yes, in 3E, finding out how items work is not this cool, interesting part of the game (I think that was Gamma World), its a basic transaction cost. (As a DM, I/you may make it more intersting, but was our value added). This approach does leave wiggle room and is a better baseline.

Player Authority?: Should this be in the PHB? Could it be in the DMG? Yes. BUT, the system does have a sneaky little feature: the DM easily controls the most powerfull items the party has. And those items come as rewards, they are not bought or made, Sure, he also controls access to rituals and wandering weapon merchants...but the control on the best items is very direct.