Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[Cadfan]

1. Identifying items has never added one whit of pleasure to my gaming experience.

I see nothing wrong with letting characters figure out what most weapons do after experimenting with them a bit. "Cuts really well" isn't that hard to figure out. And once that's figured out, I don't have a problem telling the player the numbers. The numbers don't exist in-game anyways, so who cares? The character knows what he knows, and nothing is added by keeping the player in the dark over whether the sword is +2 or +3.

Except confusion. It does add confusion when the player uses the sword.

2. Whining about alleged player senses of entitlement while simultaneously proclaiming that "the DM does all the work so the DM gets to make all the decisions" is possibly the least attractive feature in a DM that I could dream up.

If you make changes to the base game, your players will be uncertain. You're adding something new. Prove to them that your changes are worthwhile, and chances are they'll be fine with them. Complain about their sense of entitlement, and the only thing you accomplish is assuring everyone within earshot of exactly who it is with the bloated sense of entitlement.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

The DM has to have control over what is allowed in their campaign. Period.

And the DM does. Period. And this is coming from a player.

Every article and excerpt I've read about the phb keeps pointing to player entitlement and it's bullcrap.

Heck, most of what I'm seen on the forums say 4e is to restrictive. "Only 20% resell value? That's stupid." And then there was the 'rings at 11th level' issue (which seems to no longer be there).

I don't want my campaigns ruined and I'm sick of the rulebooks making me out to be the villain.

Since when is a DM saying what happens in their campaign making them out to be a villain. If the DM says there are no elves as PCs there are no elves as PCs. If the DM says a spells works like 'this' then it works like 'this'. Period.

And this is coming from a player.

 

[Wormwood]

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.

I respectfully disagree, especially with the more dogmatic, bolded excerpt.

Because when I run a game (any game, not just D&D), we work out these things as a group.

I'm not an autocrat, I'm just the guy who runs scenarios and adjudicates the rules we all agree to play under. But it's our game, and our stories.

So how about you play your way, I'll play mine.

 

[Lacyon]

It just makes perfect sense to me for a game to be designed middle of the road.

How much magic is "high magic"? How much magic is "low magic"?

There is a distinct possibility that the middle of the road is not where you think it is.

 

[AZRogue]

Aria, I would once again suggest that changing the way the rules are written will NOT keep you from saying "no" to players. Why? Because the players are going to ask that you run with the options they want to play under, even if they aren't default. So you would, still, have to say "no". The solution is to locate, if possible, players who appreciate your style of play and court them.

I also have an observation: you seem very confrontational when it comes to players. I imagine that you and your campaign have been burned in the past and you're a bit leery of players painting you and your game in a poor light. The only problem is that your wariness of player power (and they do have power, since they can get up and leave) communicates itself in what you say, at least online. If I was a player and I caught a hint from a DM that they didn't trust me and were watching me, on probation so to speak, then I would quickly leave. People want to enter a game feeling trusted and looking forward to the good times they'll be having, not worried that they're not trusted and the DM is half convinced that they're going to screw the game up any second.

I hope I didn't offend as it wasn't my intention, just my honest opinion.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

But it's our game, and our stories.

Just want to add this to my last statement. It is a group story. Everyone should have fun - even the DM. Everyone should get some say as to what is going on - even the players.

If the DM says the players can not play elves: no elf PCs.

If the Players say they want PrCs, they should be able to talk about it with the DM.

If something comes up mid-campaign and the DM wants to change something they should be able to talk with the players and change it.

If something comes up mid-campaign and the players want to change something they should be able to talk with the DM and change it.

D&D is a group effort: The DM gets the set the stage, the players get to shape the play.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Aria, I would once again suggest that changing the way the rules are written will NOT keep you from saying "no" to players. Why? Because the players are going to ask that you run with the options they want to play under, even if they aren't default. So you would, still, have to say "no". The solution is to locate, if possible, players who appreciate your style of play and court them.

I also have an observation: you seem very confrontational when it comes to players. I imagine that you and your campaign have been burned in the past and you're a bit leery of players painting you and your game in a poor light. The only problem is that your wariness of player power (and they do have power, since they can get up and leave) communicates itself in what you say, at least online. If I was a player and I caught a hint from a DM that they didn't trust me and were watching me, on probation so to speak, then I would quickly leave. People want to enter a game feeling trusted and looking forward to the good times they'll be having, not worried that they're not trusted and the DM is half convinced that they're going to screw the game up any second.

I hope I didn't offend as it wasn't my intention, just my honest opinion.

An alternative possibility - Aria has found the perfect group for their playstyle, but is worrying about like-minded DMs without such a group.

In that case, he is worrying about the wrong thing. The rules can't give you the group that is compatible to your playstyle. You will have to find that group.

If a players enjoys high magic campaigns where magical items tell in a clear voice what they can do and how you activate them, they won't enjoy playing with a DM that tells them they need to find a sage to discover what the slightly glowing sword does. Even if the rules explicitly say that this is a valid approach or even standard assumption.

 

[Tervin]

Identifying items has never added one whit of pleasure to my gaming experience.

Agreed.

And as DM and story writer I am really happy to be without it. Why? Because now I don't have to cheat to keep secrets about magic items from my players. If I want my players to gradually figure out how a certain unusual item works over several adventures I can do that without bending the rules. When I created an item like that a while back I realised I would have to bend the rules and lie to the players in order to make it work. With 4th Edition I actually get the power to give out partial information about items, without the players realising it.

Identify is magic that takes away the magic in magic.

 

[Keenath]

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

Seems to me that's what's going on here. It says, "Here's the normal level. If you want to play low magic, you should reduce treasure by this much and give the players these bonuses to attack, damage, AC, and defense."

That's strong support for a low-magic game; it tells you exactly how to adjust everything to play with a low magic flavor (and low-magic IS only a flavor decision) while maintaining the mathematical mechanics.

What more do you really want? I'm sure in a few years, since they're doing this "three books and out" method with campaign settings, you'll have Darksun or another low-magic CS book that will have even more support for such a game.



And as far as identifying magic items:
I think it's good and fine that a fighter can ID a magic sword without being Arcana trained. This is the difference between a user and an engineer.

You don't need to understand how a car's engine or transmission works to be able to tell quite a lot about it by driving it around. You can quickly learn whether the car has a powerful or weak engine; whether the steering is loose or tight; whether the center of gravity is high or low; how well it grips the road... you can even tell more specific information like whether it has antilock brakes and cruise control.

Similarly, a fighter, who is a "magic weapon end-user", doesn't need to know the theory behind magic weapons to be able to quite quickly learn what it does. He's a weapon expert in a world full of magic weapons; of course he'll have general knowledge of how these things work. He can easily tell if the weapon feels lighter than it should, if the edge is sharper than normal, or if the blade seems to guide itself at whatever he aims at.

Arcana should be saved for really obscure effects -- as it seems they have done.

 

[AllisterH]

How much magic is "high magic"? How much magic is "low magic"?

There is a distinct possibility that the middle of the road is not where you think it is.

That's a good question.

Aria, I think 4E actually is lower on the scale than previous editions...

Unless my math is wrong, a PC gain 0.8 items per level and when a 5 person party reaches the Paragon Tier, they will have the following (assuming they don't sell any items)

1 level 2 magic item
2 level 3 magic items
3 level 4 magic items
4 level 5 magic items
.
.
.
.
.
4 level 11 magic items
3 level 12 magic items
2 level 13 magic items
1 level 14 magic items


Among a 5 person party? That doesn't seem excessiver at all, especially at 10th level when most of a person's magical items are going to be much lower level than they are...