Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[Wormwood]

There's already far too much player entitlement crap out there because of all the splatbooks. We don't need it forced on dm's anymore than it already is.

You keep repeating that.

But you fail to see that there are plenty of GM's (myself included) who *like* what you call "player entitlement crap".

I really enjoy a more cooperative gaming experience. I like it when players take charge of their character's story in fundimental ways. I like that 4e agrees with me on this.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

If you've managed to run the campaign successfully and your players enjoyed it, then what are you bitching about?

Because finding acceptable and reliable players that will give the campaign a shot grew progressively harder as WotC released more and more splatbooks with even more powerful magic and more powerful classes, broken feats, and the like. They won't even give a low magic campaign a shot unless they're allowed to play whatever class they want, regardless if it fits into the campaign. WotC made it harder for dm's to run campaigns their way, with the increasing amount of player entitlement they put into their books.

What does "Identifying items" by only a specific spell, "Identify" actually bring to the game?I'm serious, what was I doing wrong IMC that made it so that other DMs consider identifying items such an important endeavour?

EDIT: If you can run a low magic item campaign in 3rd, mayb I'm reading something differently about the excerpt but why wouldn't you actually have an easier time in 4e?

It's not about whether or not you can run it in 4th edition, it's the wording in the PHB and the articles I've read. They're creating a sense of D&D, is by default a magic rich setting where players get all the magic items they want for all their slots and if they have the gold, they can buy it. It makes DM's out to be the badguy when the DM is forced to say no to that kind of crap. WotC should have went with a more conservative approach to elements of the rulebooks that can drastically alter the tone/genre of a campaign setting.

Accessibility to magic items is a huge part of what differentiates campaign/gameplay styles from each other.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

What I want is for low, normal, and high magic settings to be given equal time in the books.

While I can't be sure about "equal time" the previews have stated out right - multiple times I believe - that low magic should be easy this time around. We have also had this confirmed by a WotC employee (I don't have search capability so I can't track it down): build in the expected pluses to weapons and armor and ditch most (if not all) of the magic items for the other body slots since they are (supposedly) not needed for purposes of the power curve.

I fail to see the low magic problem given the information we have so far. Once the books come out there may be a problem - but so far this is the best setup to have High Magic and Low Magic campaigns. Much, much easier for Low Magic than 3.X was.

As far as player expectation goes, tell me at the beginning what the settings of the campaign are and I'll be fine with it. And I'm a player. If my DM tells me there's no magic then there is no magic.

 

[C_M2008]

...

If the rules were written intelligently with a conservative outlook on what's allowed in campaigns, then the DM wouldn't have to say no in the first place, thus they would not look mean. So yes, it is a fault of the book that DM's who have to houserule stuff and say no are made to look mean. D&D isn't just about high magic / high fantasy settings. It has the capability to be used for a variety of campaigns and WotC should have went middle of the road. That would allow the default setting to be a magic is uncommon points of light campaign where items are wondrous and you'll most likely only find them adventuring or very rarely from specific merchants. Then if the DM's wanted, they could give double standard treasure for magic rich campaigns and have the magic shops. Or the DM could abolish all magic items, reduce npc stats by the threshold and poof. Low to no magic. Very easy and more appealing to a variety of gamers instead of just the magic rich gamers.


And if the rules were written to be a little more conservative... you know middle of the road, guess what?! The DM's would not have to say no to a half dozen things every game. The DM's that want the overabundant magic item crap would be able to say, yes you can get that and the DM's that want a normal game could stick to the rules and not have to say no.


Yeah, let's punish all the dm's that have campaigns they have been running for years because they want to keep running those campaigns and maybe find some new players or something. Let's punish dm's and provide players with an even bigger sense of entitlement that is already way out of control. I'm sick of players that whine because I won't allow them to use the latest splatbook with the next arms race upgrade to feats and powers and prc's. My campaign setting, my rules. I don't need craptastic splatbooks from WotC ruining my setting.


Yeah, because high magic automatically means "fun". Give me a break.

Can I play in your game? It sounds like the sort of game I would enjoy: gritty, low magic, more than a couple PC deaths(and if it's my PC that's more than fine), where the characters have to rely on their wits, skills and abilities alone to help them.

I largely agree with your assesment; however I would say that 4e seems easier to modify in the magic item department than 3.x at the least. I would hope there are multiple suggestions in the DMG as to how to modify the magic level to a desired point.

For an idea (in progress) I had on altering the 4e magic items for low magic check out this thread on the wizards boards Low magic campaign: item changes

 

[Aria Silverhands]

You keep repeating that.

But you fail to see that there are plenty of GM's (myself included) who *like* what you call "player entitlement crap".

I really enjoy a more cooperative gaming experience. I like it when players take charge of their character's story in fundimental ways. I like that 4e agrees with me on this.

I keep repeating it because it's a problem. Its not something you should like. The DM has to have control over what is allowed in their campaign. Period. They can listen to player suggestions and think it over, but the players should not ever expect to get their way all the time, like it seems the PHB is being written for 4th edition. Every article and excerpt I've read about the phb keeps pointing to player entitlement and it's bullcrap. I don't want my campaigns ruined and I'm sick of the rulebooks making me out to be the villain.

It just makes perfect sense to me for a game to be designed middle of the road. That way it offense the least amount of players and dm's. Magic rich is not middle of the road. WotC made a mistake with how they're wording campaign effecting aspects of the game in the PHB. Stuff like that should have been left in the DMG period and each broad style given at least a blurb.

Edit : I've gotta go run some errands, but I'm not arguing about whether or not 4th edition can handle different styles of campaigns. What I am arguing against and criticizing is the tone with which the writers have written the rules in the book. The rules are fine. Easily modded and well thought out for the most part. My issues, again, is how they're written.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

As far as identification goes, this is how it worked in our group:

Player A: [Casts detect magic.]
Player B: How many magic items?
Player A: Seven.
Player B: [Removes 700 gp from treasure haul.]
DM: Okay, this is what you have...

Leaving item unidentified just made more work for our DM. He had to keep track of what items we got where so he could remember what they were. If an item got used in combat it slowed things down when he had to find the sheet of paper the item was on. And woe be to the session where an unknown weapon got used...

"My attack roll was 24... as far as I know."

Then the DM (who has admitted that math isn't his strong point) would need to take my roll, find the sheet of paper with the weapon stats on it, remember what I rolled and adjust the number accordingly, find the paper with the monster stats (which likely got moved or buried when finding the weapon stats) and find out if the attack hits. Then comes the fact that the player won't know for sure how much damage the weapon does or if there are any special side effects.

Or our DM could just tell us what the weapon does...

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Because finding acceptable and reliable players that will give the campaign a shot grew progressively harder as WotC released more and more splatbooks with even more powerful magic and more powerful classes, broken feats, and the like. They won't even give a low magic campaign a shot unless they're allowed to play whatever class they want, regardless if it fits into the campaign. WotC made it harder for dm's to run campaigns their way, with the increasing amount of player entitlement they put into their books.

If the people you game with won't play unless they get their way - maybe you should consider not gaming with them? Or maybe you should consider offering them something else?

You, as the DM, have the right to make house rules. This is an absolute given for me. If the players don't want to play by your rules, they can say. You are under no obligation to accept players in your games.

However, WotC are under no obligation to provide materials for YOUR style of gaming. They are trying to produce a game that sells, and that is enjoyable to play. If it doesn't suit your tastes, that doesn't make it wrong or badly designed - it simply doesn't suit your tastes.

As has been noted, the previews have bent over backwards to part-explain why low-magic is easier to work with - the math is laid clear. In your Wizard hunter game, you can keep the magic items out of the players hand, include the +1/5 levels to their attack, damage and defences, and with little other modification they'll be fine to fight level appropriate monsters.

It makes DM's out to be the badguy when the DM is forced to say no to that kind of crap. WotC should have went with a more conservative approach to elements of the rulebooks that can drastically alter the tone/genre of a campaign setting.

You keep saying this and I'll keep disagreeing with you.

A DM who wants to play a certain way is not a badguy - if the players don't like the style of the DM they shouldn't play in that game, and if the DM doesn't enjoy running games for the group then they shouldn't.

You seem to be blaming your problems with your players on WotC's decisions. You always have the choice of what style of game you run, with what players. Anything WotC does is seperate from that.

 

[TheWyrd]

If the game wasn't set to High magic then Psionicists would walk all over Wizards when they get released in the PHB II.

 

[Andur]

Aria, the biggest part of your problem is that the game is not me versus them. It is also not YOUR campaign, but "our" campaign. The story and the plot only progress as far as the players allow, as a DM you adjust the focus of the setting based upon the needs/wants/desires of the players.

Last I checked in a "typical" DnD game only 20% of the participants were DM's. Considering that the vast majority of people who play DnD live in the free world, they are pretty use to the concept of one person, one vote, and majority rules.

From what you've posted here I doubt I would ever play in one of your games, and I rarely do anything but "low magic" campaigns. It sounds too much like you want to be the author of a book, the other players are just there to fulfill the role needs of the books, but they really don't have any "say" in the book, they are merely literary puppets. Been there, done that, and no I'm not going to save the kingdom just because that is what the DM's plot/story calls for, in fact we'll start up/head up a rebellion and take advantage of that impending undead army marching in on the western front in order to overthrow the realm, make a deal with the devil, and run this place the way we want...

Default rules are just fine, and "modding" them works well too. You'd think that TSR/WotC have never put out alternate settings which "mod" the default rules. Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Birthright, Planescape and Dragonlance are all fine examples of TSR/WotC changing the default rules to fit the settings, and it doesn't seem like people have problems with the concept.

 

[hong]

Because finding acceptable and reliable players that will give the campaign a shot grew progressively harder as WotC released more and more splatbooks with even more powerful magic and more powerful classes, broken feats, and the like. They won't even give a low magic campaign a shot unless they're allowed to play whatever class they want, regardless if it fits into the campaign. WotC made it harder for dm's to run campaigns their way, with the increasing amount of player entitlement they put into their books.

But if you're running the campaign successfully and your players are having fun, why are you regularly having to find new players?