Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[Wormwood]

Players, the worst aspect of any game...

This job would be great if it wasn't for the customers.

 

[Scipio202]

Aria: I'm just not convinced that players' preferences are as maleable as you seem to think. I think most players have preferences, and look for the game systems, and then the DMs/campaigns, that will suit that. Many players might be fairly open minded/flexible - and I doubt they'll become less so based on how the rules are written. You seem to have pretty strong preferences for a low-magic world - and how the rules are written isn't going to change that. I bet a bunch of players will really want to play low magic, and the how the rules are written won't change them. I wish you good luck in finding more of them. Others will want to play high magic, and writing the rules differently won't change them either.

To that end I think having the rules be flexible is far more important than which flavor is the default.

 

[JohnSnow]

I can't help but think from reading his posts that Aria's gaming group must likely consist of his enemies.

Isn't the point of D&D that it's something you can play with your friends?

On occasion, life and circumstances force you and your gaming group to move apart (or at least, not game together). After years of non-gaming, I had a great group I managed to pull together from the WotC classified boards. We weren't all friends when we started, but we became friends around a D&D table. Then one guy's band took off, another got a job out of state, the DM moved to Ireland, the rest of us got busy and the group kinda broke up.

At this point, I have a group of friends who are interested in gaming again - some of whom are old 1e gamers, others who have stuck with the game through thick and thin, and still others who would be brand new to it. I've had them express interest since last fall, but I didn't want to introduce the new (and returning) players to 3e only to make them learn a new ruleset in 6 months.

Given that Aria ran the setting successfully in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Edition, but is (from his(?) posts) now having trouble keeping gamers, I think it's possible that the longtime players may have grown bored with the setting.

That happens. No matter how innovative and fun your setting is, or how much loving effort you put into it, people eventually grow bored with all but the most wide open settings.

It's possible Aria's players just want to try something different for a while that doesn't involve dodging the witch hunters. After a while, they may have their fill of that and want something new again.

The takeaway I've gotten from all the WotC guys' blogs is that most of them reinvent their campaign every few years (at least!). That also saves you from having to use every cool idea you have in a single campaign. You can use a few of them in this campaign and save others for the next one.

I'd never really thought of it that way. It's kinda liberating.

And I'm looking forward to June. I'll actually probably start running the game with just the RAW and be happy (although I may pick up Necromancer's release to get more class options ASAP). That makes me very excited. It's something I had trouble doing in 3e...

 

[Wormwood]

And I'm looking forward to June. I'll actually probably start running the game with just the RAW and be happy (although I may pick up Necromancer's release to get more class options ASAP). That makes me very excited. It's something I had trouble doing in 3e...

That's how my 4e game is going to roll. 3 books, implied setting. Go.

Liberating? I'd say so.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Hmm... so your playstyle is so far afield of the norm in your area that you can't keep players unless the D&D 4e books are specifically setup to please your sensibilities?

 

[Tewligan]

Yeah I know, but it seems like nearly all the stuff in 4th edition is by default, in the player's hands and it requires the DM to be a hardass and say, no you can't do this. No you can't do that. Instead of the DM saying, here's what you can do.

That's one of my problems with it too.

 

[Rechan]

A few things.

Aria: Perhaps at this point, we should agree to disagree. You have made your stand arguing your point for many pages, and at this point we all get your argument. There's little headway going to be made.

Player entitlement: For the most part, I'm fine with this. However, I do understand the issue where a player will whine and dig their heels in.

I encountered this when trying to adjust some rules with regards to class. Like saying "Swordsages cannot regain their abilities inside combat" and I was met with "but why? C'mon, you haven't seen it in action why neeeeeeerrf it?" It was exceedingly annoying. But then, I'm spineless and have trouble saying no.

Even better, you can leave magic items in, but not worry about the plus, just the special abilities. I'll have to look at the full set of rules, but I'm very tempted to say that, all magic swords (for example) scale their bonus with the PC's level. That way, the ancestral weapon the dwarven warlord is always useful. Meanwhile, the tiefling fighter can continue to loot tombs for "better" weapons. A magic weapon ceases to be "+1" or "+4". It's just "+20%" and some toys.

That's really, really attractive as every PC IMC who uses a weapon has a signature weapon and most have custom crafted armor. I'm already trying to fiddle with scaling weapons and such.

I hope you didn't get whiplash, because I just yoinked this so very hard.

 

[JohnSnow]

Even better, you can leave magic items in, but not worry about the plus, just the special abilities. I'll have to look at the full set of rules, but I'm very tempted to say that, all magic swords (for example) scale their bonus with the PC's level. That way, the ancestral weapon the dwarven warlord is always useful. Meanwhile, the tiefling fighter can continue to loot tombs for "better" weapons. A magic weapon ceases to be "+1" or "+4". It's just "+20%" and some toys.

That's really, really attractive as every PC IMC who uses a weapon has a signature weapon and most have custom crafted armor. I'm already trying to fiddle with scaling weapons and such.

Yeah, I was thinking about yoinking this too. Although, I actually have a suggestion that I KNOW won't break game balance.

Give out the extra bonus as if it were treasure. Don't tie it to a specific level, but rather to a particular encounter. If you pre-determine it, you can give the PC that proper interim "boost," and the feeling of incremental improvement, without handing out a new item.

There's no reason that all those encounter-specific "bumps" (usually treasure) have to take the form of physical objects.

Just a thought.

Although...if I was giving out those bumps, I'd tie them to the odd levels. Grant a +1 to attack bonuses at about Level 3, say, so that there's a numerical "boost" between the one granted by level 2 and that granted by level 4. You could even parse those out so that they got defense bonuses before attack ones...or whatever.

 

[ShockMeSane]

JohnSnow-

I totally appreciate the fact that gaming groups breakdown all the time for real life reasons, it has happened to me over the years. I guess the crux of my point was that I'd far rather simply give up the hobby rather than play with infuriating people with a sense of entitlement that would rather create the most uber character possible rather than actually play constructively as a team.

 

[KidSnide]

WotC understands that many (if not most) GMs will alter the rules. And, I agree that it is a good idea for the DMG to give advice about how to run non-standard (e.g. low-magic) campaigns.

But the "default settings" of rules should not be chosen to be "middle of the road". The default settings should be chosen to provide the best game possible when run by a new-ish and mediocre GM. Those are the people who need guidance, and that's why the "default" settings for the game is a fast-paced, quick-leveling, high-magic game.

If players are seeing their characters get more powerful quickly, they don't care as much if the game is only so-so. However, if you want to run a game where the PCs are weak in the world, don't have many powers or level only once-per-year (real-time), you had better have a good game -- the type of game that you can't learn how to run by just reading a book.

Maybe it's cynical to say that the rules are focused on what (in my view) are barely functional campaigns? But I'm not sure that's the wrong choice for WotC. Sure, I have no doubt that they want everyone's campaign to be as good as possible. But, in my experience, the difference between OK and great is mostly in the skills and abilities of the players and GM, not the rules of the game. And, since it takes time to acquire those skills, it makes sense for WotC to focus on pushing as many games as possible from "failures with promise" into "barely successful campaigns".

Lifting campaigns from "barely successful" to "awesome" -- that's our job.

One campaign at a time...