Low Magic Campaigns?

AllisterH said:
EDIT: Now I'm actually curious. What DID everyone do with all the non-magical wealth they used to get?

In my 1E campaign people bought and sold magic items - there was nothing against it in the rules, the DMG gave GP values for magic items, so I'm not sure where the idea came from that this didn't happen. I mainly (as I do now) sold magic items in auctions because of the prices involved - there were no shops with 100,000 gp of inventory just sitting there. A player would say "hey, I'd like to have my character find a magic sword", and given enough time and research they could locate someone whose rich fighter relative passed away and left his sword collection behind.

Also, creating magic items, and even spell research cost money. Plus the high level adventurers built castles, temples, bought sailing ships, etc. I didn't use the level advancement costs though. Oh - and golems cost money too - so does a crane to load an iron golem onto a ship.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

AllisterH said:
I'll state here and now that I hated this paradigm. I mean, if someone somewhere came up with the folded boat magic item, it has to have some value to someone, so there should always be a market for items.

Yea - I completely agree that it makes no sense. In a long enough running campaign, you can see tons of reasons why magic items would be bought and sold, even if you only observe the action of players. I don't think there's anything about the paradigm that's 1E though - I think it was much more a matter of individual DM preference.

However, "market" to me doesn't mean that there's a magic shop with folding boats sitting on the shelf (which isn't what you said anyway AFAICT). I would think the market would work a lot more like housing, where you sort of have to wade through the existing stuff for sale, plus your item finder would take a commission. Unless you're rich and know a wizard and then you can have one made.

BTW - I think it would work the same in a low-magic world, except maybe for the lowest possible magic, like fairy-tale level magic where a handful of beans and a wish ring are the only magic items in the world. Then again, even in such a world, if you're lucky you could still buy some magic beans for the cost of a cow.
 

I don't want to turn this into an edition war. I'm just going to relate my experiences as a 1st edition player.

The 1st edition DMG was very clear on the idea that wealth should be difficult to acquire, usually not in the form of actual cash (so a result of 1000 gp might or should be interpreted by the DM as 100 gp plus trade goods that could be sold for 900 gp), should be subject to taxation, and should only rarely contain magical items. These guidelines were backed up strongly by the MM treasure tables. Many observers look at the monster manual treasure tables and make extravagent claims about the wealth generated by rolling on those tables. I strongly suggest that those observers have never done the actual math. Not only is the chance of wealth relatively low for all but the most generous tables, but if you actually read the rules you'll see that that the result is the assumed amount for an average lair of several individuals. If you actually divide the average wealth by the average number of individuals, I think most people will be startled by how little treasure the 1st MM treasure tables actually produce for anything less than say a large ancient red dragons, beholders, or other top end monsters.

Likewise, the DMG was very clear that while you can sell magic items in large markets, even in large markets thier will be few if any magic items for sell. It was assumed by me and by every DM I played under in 1st edition, that the only magic items which could be regularly obtained in shops were potions and scrolls and that these were available in limited quanities as determined by the DM (often randomly). Otherwise, you had to find things in adventurers or else adventure to find someone willing and able to accept a commission to produce a particular item you desired (after which it might take an in game year for the item to actually be manufactured). Often this person would accept payment only in the form of a favor, which meant doing some adventure and recovering some gizmo that they'd trade for the item you wanted.

These are the guidelines that I used, and these are the guidelines used by DMs I played with.

Now, it is certainly true that published modules contained more treasure than was suggested by the DMG or by the MM. Most DMs I played with accepted this on two accounts. First, the DMG and the MM both agreed that the best treasure was to be found in dungeons and the guidelines should be relaxed in dungeons. And secondly, it was assumed that not all the treasure would be obtained (it usually wasn't), that the enormous treasure was a product of the modules need to produce fast leveling within the limited space provided by the text, and that a DM would pare back the suggested treasure/and or elaborate on the published module as suited the needs of his campaign. Typically, I would find myself removing certain stashes of magical treasure from published module, reducing hordes of coin, usually 2-3 magic items which I considered to be too easily obtained for the power of the magic involved (a mace +3 randomly in an otherwise empty room).

Many DMs I knew in 1st edition fiddled with the XP tables and such to try to reduce the need to dole out gold in order to level, which was the driving force behind large amounts of coin in published modules.

My most influential guidelines to how much treasure a dungeon should have were actually the random dungeon generating tables in the back of the 1st edition DMG. I typically would place important items designed to appeal to particular characters, and randomly roll up treasure elsewhere.

As a player, I don't recall ever being upset that I had all sorts of random magic items. In 1st edition, at least amongst the people I played with, for the most part thier was little emphasis on optimizing your character. I have a hard time understanding the perspective of the modern player, except that it seems to be very much informed by games like Diablo. Random magic items meant you had tools stashed away for when you need them. A folding boat was great. Who knew when you might need a boat? No one was worried that you might never need a boat. It was more like, "If we need a boat, we're set." No one would sell a magic item that had any sort of potential use at all. Wand charges were horded for emergencies. Who knew when you might find another one? Expect to need that wand to last for many many sessions. Don't waste it.

I know of a campaign that actually ended up hinging in its climatic moment on the fact that someone had not sold a wand of fire extinguishing. I honestly can't imagine a default 3E campaign ever being in a situation like that.
 

Celebrim said:
Likewise, the DMG was very clear that while you can sell magic items in large markets, even in large markets thier will be few if any magic items for sell. It was assumed by me and by every DM I played under in 1st edition, that the only magic items which could be regularly obtained in shops were potions and scrolls and that these were available in limited quanities as determined by the DM (often randomly).

The 1E DMG had, IMO, guidelines that ranged from reasonable (an ogre's treasure might include trade goods) to down-right adversarial and meta-gamey (an NPC wizard would trade a spell for 3 potions, a scroll, and the PCs wizard's first-born, assuming his apprentice could first be defeated in single combat). Basically, I think that 1E advice went towards one extreme end and 3E goes towards the other. Neither, I think, strikes me as being particularly believable in terms of how the economics would work with real people and real money. Then again most DMs just don't have the time to come up with a system for this, so they fall back on the tools that they have.
 

AllisterH said:
Alchemist Fire: Er, when did this become magical? Even in 1E, I had this at 1st level.

I always thought that Alchemist's Fire was renamed version of Greek Fire. Greek Fire is what a sort of gasoline mixture (I think the exact composition is unknown) was called that was used around the Mediterrenean during the middle ages, especially against boats and stuff. I'm sure Wiki has an entry on it.

So unless gasoline is magical, I don't think alchemist's fire is. In fact, I think there are non-magical equivalents for all of the alchemist items in the PHB, so I wouldn't think that any of them (smokesticks, thunderstones, etc.) would have to be magical unless the DM decided that they were.
 


Raven Crowking said:
gizmo33, I always just role played the character & determined what to ask for from there.

I don't know what you mean. Who are you asking and what are you asking for? Are you talking as a DM, or player? If your determining the worth of something based on roleplaying, how does that work? Wouldn't you need a table of relative values to know what things are worth?
 

gizmo33 said:
The 1E DMG had, IMO, guidelines that ranged from reasonable (an ogre's treasure might include trade goods) to down-right adversarial and meta-gamey

Without question. While Gygax gives some very good advice IMO in the 1st edition DMG, he also gives some advice which is IMO very bad.

In some fairness, I think Gygax's bad advice was reactionary in nature and was meant to be over the top and extreme. Gygax I think had a reputation he was trying to keep up and much of the extreme stuff should be read with wry DM humor. Gygax certainly didn't want to be accused of being a softy. I think in context it should probably be seen as a response to Gygax hereing how some DMs had lost control of thier campaigns, and giving the DM's ammunition to fight back against that. For example, if the PC complained that the NPC was being unreasonable in not simply giving the PC the spell, the DM could respond by pointing to the text in the DMG and saying that in context his demands were actually quite small and if he would prefer the official guidelines to the generous terms the DM was offering, well that could be arranged. Besides which, I myself maintain a public persona of a RBDM which is very much at odds with my private feelings. I may publicly gleam at killing PC's or 'screwing the party over', but behind the screen I'm often fudging a bit to keep PCs alive because while I might keep a running table of PC deaths and gloat about it, secretly I think killing PCs is not much fun for anyone. But, its better I find to make players think I'm in at least somewhat of an adversarial role, hard but fair, and somewhat fearsome because it keeps them in line and thier mind on what they're doing.

But, mostly, your right; it was just bad advice.
 

gizmo33 said:
If your determining the worth of something based on roleplaying, how does that work? Wouldn't you need a table of relative values to know what things are worth?

No. The thing is worth however much the PC is willing to pay for it, weighed against how much utility you think the PC would get from it. In your role as DM, you take on the hat of the NPC selling the item and you play him as if he was your PC (well, as if your PC had the personality and character of the NPC).
 

gizmo33 said:
I don't know what you mean. Who are you asking and what are you asking for? Are you talking as a DM, or player? If your determining the worth of something based on roleplaying, how does that work? Wouldn't you need a table of relative values to know what things are worth?

Imagine that you are playing in a campaign. You are seeking knowledge of some spell known to the Blue Wizard of the Rock and Hambara, the local wiseman. The Blue Wizard is known for his isolationism and love of privacy. Conversely, you've done a few favours for Hambara in the past. Which one is likely to "trade a spell for 3 potions, a scroll, and the PCs wizard's first-born, assuming his apprentice could first be defeated in single combat"?

As a DM, I don't need to know the absolute value of an item; I need to know the value of an item relative to that particular NPC. That doesn't require a table at all.

My players gain contacts that often simply give them things because it is good policy for them to do so. Likewise, I encourage players to do the same to powerful NPCs. Think of The Godfather, where people give the Don things because they later might need his favour, and where the Don does things for future favours.

D&D economics (and politics) can learn a lot from that movie.


RC
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top