If not magic items, then what?

[kennew142]

In earlier editions of the game, the default was that magic items were rare and that players could not purchase them. Some settings and GMs allowed occasional magic shops with a set inventory (not a full DMG worth of inventory). Some made sure that PCs were loaded with dozens of magic items.

In the olden days (when we weren't walking to school uphill through 5 feet of snow), we called this last group Monty Haul GMs. (We weren't very open minded.)

I can remember being surprised when one player pointed out to me that the rules did not allow more than one magic ring on each had. No one had ever had more than one or two in all the games I had ever run.

In 3.0, the default changed and Monty Haul was the new standard. It isn't so bad for us that the standard changed; it was very bad that the rules had been changed so that those of us not playing Monty Haul games were no longer supported by the rules. All the PCs in our games were weak and underpowered against their opponents.

IMO, having a lower standard for magic item accessibility is a better standard. Not just because it is my preferred style, but because a GM who gives out more magic items can just increase the difficulty of all the encounters his players face. It is much harder to do this is reverse. (Not impossible, just harder.)

Back in the olden days, players played because we enjoyed the game. We earned less gold, we got fewer magic items and it took forever to gain a level. Since we couldn't purchase magic items, we were forced to spend our character's money on ale, gambling, supporting their ancient grandmothers and hordes of illegitimate children, crazy schemes, mansions (or inns) to retire in, etc....

Since third edition hard-wired the need for certain magic items into the system, it more or less required that we allow magic shops and whatever items the players felt their characters needed. The DMG told players that every character of class w and level x had to have stat bump +y, cloak of resistance +z, etc....

Our style of play was no longer supported by the rules.

I sympathize with many of the grognards ( ) in these forums. They feel that their playing style will no longer be supported in 4e. I happen to feel that they are wrong. Most of the issues I've seen are matters of fluff, not structural elements of the game itself. For me, most of what I've seen makes it seem as if I will be getting back some of that earlier edition feel. I hope so.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I scrupulously avoided handing out anything more than one or two "signature" magic items per PC in my 1e/2e days (which made editing 1e modules a pain in the neck due to the vast quantities of magical wealth present in those scenarios; ditto for treasure types as written). I was lucky enough to transit to 3e first with converted 2e PCs, when most of the adventure wasn't really about CR-appropriate encounters, and then pretty late in the day, by which time enough low-magic d20 variant systems had emerged for me to cobble together compensating mechanics.

I prefer to encourage my players to send their PCs on adventures for rewards other than simply new weapons that allow them to take on bigger challenges. Vast wealth (as in wealth that buys luxury, not a better arsenal), political and social power, triumph in the name of a good cause, or the rewards of heroism itself (saving the land from a great evil, giving the common folk freedom and the means to a good livelihood, being admired for one's virtue, or just the emotional satisfaction of a deed well done) are IMO more than adequate substitution for shiny stuff pried from your enemies' cold dead hands.

This works.

And ultimately magic items are useless, because the GM has an infinite amount of weights he can put on his end of the scale until you're back to parity. It's a no-win situation. The same cannot be said of fame and virtue, which are unassailable.

 

[Lanefan]

The movement is not against bad things happening Lanefan, it's against things which disengage the player and result in his having nothing to do. The new DMG isn't going to have a section which counsels you to remove adversity from the lives of your players as the GM.

Specifically, no it won't. However, if the game design makes it harder for me to throw real adversity at them, the end result is the same.

As both a GM and a player, I don't like players sitting around with nothing to do. Their time is valuable, and the more they are engaged the easier it is to keep people from getting distracted.
This aspect of 4e design is anti-boring, not anti-bad things.

There's in-game ways around the problem of bored players.

One is to play more than one character, either via two full PCs or via henches, cohorts, and hirelings.

Another is for the DM to always try to have an NPC or two in the party that a characterless player - or a visitor - can roll for.

I expect to be sitting out sometimes, as a player...it's just part of the game. As a DM, I'll only worry about it if it always seems to be the same person sitting out (unless it's due to their own stupidity, in which case: tough). My biggest problem is players getting distracted when they *should* be paying attention.

Lanefan