Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 4302784" data-attributes="member: 1106">That's a bit unfair.  I mean, you're correct, but Zeb threw in these bunch of impossible suggestions which included things like "capture the breath of the wind" and "forge it at the heart of a living mountain".Now, it's not the "power to the players" that some of us prefer, and it is indeed DM fiat, but this does a few things:<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/1.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":1:" title="One    :1:" data-shortname=":1:" />  Gives the campaign one heck of a good adventure hook.  A really epic one, in fact, reminiscent of the OD&D Masters set paths to godhood, where you have to do similar such impossible stuff.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/2.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":2:" title="Two    :2:" data-shortname=":2:" /> Maintains the mystique of magic items (which, although everyone read the DMG anyway such that it was doomed to failure, at least 2E had a shot at).  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/3.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":3:" title="Three    :3:" data-shortname=":3:" /> Made players give up on the idea of doing it at all, given that you had to jump through such hoops to get a lousy +1 longsword.If it weren't for the third bit, and the evil of the fiat, I think perhaps that Zeb was actually on to something here.  It's certainly more having a stab at keeping that D&D mystique about magic items than putting all the magic items in the PHB.  But between the attempts of Eberron and 4E to put D&D magic in an autistic little box (the psychology and rules needs behind which I am completely sympathetic to) and therefore bitch-slapping most of the actual magic out of it, I'm pretty sure WOTC doesn't prioritise the concept of keeping magic magical in rules and setting material.  This is the trend at the moment - magic as a utility, versus magic as a vibe.  MMORPGs come down firmly on the side of the former, so naturally this is being copied as a sign of the times.I can see why the 2E approach was thrown to the wolves, though, because apart from the fact that part of 3E design philosophy was about killing DM fiat wherever it could be found in the rules, like a pig rooting for truffles, the 2E approach didn't jive with the fact that PCs were carting so much loot out of dungeons.  The fifth +1 longsword you find isn't going to seem much more magical than the third (unless perhaps it has an interesting history, an evocative name, turns into a pizza slicer in the presence of phantom fungi, or other window dressing).In fact, I've just realised something:<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/c.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":close:" title="Close    :close:" data-shortname=":close:" /> A major philosophy behind design 3E is that you couldn't trust the DM and his dumb fiat.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/c.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":close:" title="Close    :close:" data-shortname=":close:" /> With 4E it's that you can't trust the players and their dumb character creation choices.Where to next?  5E, where you can't trust the designers?</blockquote>

Verification