Magic Items, PC Level, and 'old school' feel

[Starbuck_II]

What does one mean by old school? I played since 2nd, but I've never thought regulating magic items makes sense.

2nd edition has loads of magic items. They weren't exactly rare by the books/modules. Maybe uncommon a tad.


I've never minded fast leveling or the number of high level NPCs. Granted, my DM never played anything but 2nd edition so when I wanted to go to 3rd I had to switch DMs.
Sadly, I never got use most of the rules because he didn't want them like proficiency slots (making Fighter much suckier since can't specialize).

 

[Bullgrit]

OK, not helpful.

My point is that what you suggest gives you an "old school" feel, but it won't/can't give "old school" feel universally.

Judging from what you said in the OP, "old school" to you is relatively low levels, slow advancement, and lots of magic items. Judging from other's comments throughout the years in this forum, those are not universally considered aspects of "old school."

Hell, for some, making the new editions feel "old school" is a negative -- they wouldn't want to make their game "old school." And for others, it is impossible to make the new edition feel "old school," by definition.

So talking about how to make "old school" feel is like Applebee's trying to make their meals like "home cooking."

Bullgrit

 

[thedungeondelver]

In vintage D&D (AD&D, original D&D, the variegated forms of basic D&D and possibly 2nd edition (never played it beyond a couple of one-offs), there was no given, hard-coded expectation of "Well, we're at so-and-so level we should have such-and-such magic items."

It happened as a matter of course, that characters picked them up, sold the lesser items off, and so on. But a DM could just as easily throw penniless orcs at a party for the duration of their careers.

Not having the books in front of me now I can't point to page and passage but isn't it essentially stated in the 3rd, 3rd-and-a-half and 4th edition rules that it is expected that players at a given level will (must) have a certain amount of gear?

With an edict* like that, how fares the game of latter-day D&D where we come back to the DM who prefers to throw penniless orcs at a party until they're 4th or 5th level, and then start trickling in magic items?

Does it break gameplay badly, or is the creation of magic items now so pat that it simply doesn't matter? EG, "Bob the 'blaster' will take a jar of residium and spend some gold and XP and knock me together that +8 plate mail I wanted."

 

[billd91]

My point is that what you suggest gives you an "old school" feel, but it won't/can't give "old school" feel universally.

Judging from what you said in the OP, "old school" to you is relatively low levels, slow advancement, and lots of magic items. Judging from other's comments throughout the years in this forum, those are not universally considered aspects of "old school."

Hell, for some, making the new editions feel "old school" is a negative -- they wouldn't want to make their game "old school." And for others, it is impossible to make the new edition feel "old school," by definition.

So talking about how to make "old school" feel is like Applebee's trying to make their meals like "home cooking."

Bullgrit

Actually, it's more like coming up with a common standard for obscenity. Nobody can describe it comprehensively but we know it when we see it... even if we disagree on when we see it.

That doesn't make it a useless term.

 

[billd91]

Not having the books in front of me now I can't point to page and passage but isn't it essentially stated in the 3rd, 3rd-and-a-half and 4th edition rules that it is expected that players at a given level will (must) have a certain amount of gear?

With an edict* like that, how fares the game of latter-day D&D where we come back to the DM who prefers to throw penniless orcs at a party until they're 4th or 5th level, and then start trickling in magic items?

If that's the way you're reading it, as an edict or that the PCs must have that amount of wealth, then you read it wrong. It's a guideline and a DM's tool to gauge how the PCs are building up to face the CRs estimated by the designers, nothing more.

Comments like that aren't helping much either.

 

[S'mon]

What is that point? It is that what magic items player-characters possess depends upon their fortunes in adventures. The DM governs the distribution of items in the environment. The DM does not govern PCs' acquisition of items; that is up to the skill of the players and the fall of the dice.

Yes, that is important to me.

I probably should not have included "old school feel" in the thread title since it has derailed the thread into "what is old school".

What I'm actually interested in here is a discussion of how magic item distribution & acquisition affects the feel of the game and how it interacts with the mechanics of 3e & 4e.

 

[S'mon]

With an edict* like that, how fares the game of latter-day D&D where we come back to the DM who prefers to throw penniless orcs at a party until they're 4th or 5th level, and then start trickling in magic items?

My experience of 3e is that 3e doesn't work because without lots of magic items, the non-spellcaster PCs are totally outpowered by the casters. Also, the CR/XP system depends on PCs having a certain range of power at a certain level. 18th level Fighters without any magic items may literally be incapable of earning XP, because any monster of CR high enough to appear on the XP chart (ie 10+ in this case) will be too tough for them to handle.

My experience of 4e so far is that all classes seem to be viable at any particular magic item frequency. If there are less items, the PCs are less powerful, but they can fight less powerful monsters and advance more slowly. The 4e Encounter Design by Level system won't work for higher level 4e PCs without items, but that's not necessary to running the game.

 

[Ariosto]

[edit] This is a response to billd91's post above.

In an "old school" game, it's not the DM's job (except broadly in a tournament or similarly limited scenario) to decide what the PCs tackle -- so such a gauge for the DM is of little use (basically none in normal campaign play). Deciding what a character attempts, or chooses not to attempt, is basic to role-playing in the old game.

 

[FireLance]

In an "old school" game, it's not the DM's job (except broadly in a tournament or similarly limited scenario) to decide what the PCs tackle -- so such a gauge for the DM is of little use (basically none in normal campaign play). Deciding what a character attempts, or chooses not to attempt, is basic to role-playing in the old game.

I would say that's more characteristic of a "sandbox" game rather than an "old school" game - old school games are not necessarily sandboxes, and vice-versa.

 

[FireLance]

My experience of 3e is that 3e doesn't work because without lots of magic items, the non-spellcaster PCs are totally outpowered by the casters. Also, the CR/XP system depends on PCs having a certain range of power at a certain level. 18th level Fighters without any magic items may literally be incapable of earning XP, because any monster of CR high enough to appear on the XP chart (ie 10+ in this case) will be too tough for them to handle.

I'd say this is more of an issue at high levels than low levels. At low levels, the difference between an ordinary weapon and a +1 weapon is a +1 bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls, and the ability to get through DR/magic. In any case, "no magic items" is quite an extreme situation. Many "old school" DMs seldom curtailed magic items to such a degree. The key difference, in my view, was how much input the players had into the magic items they received, and the ease to which they are able to customize them.

As a final point, even in 3e, an 18th-level fighter who has lost all his magic items is not without options. He can still take on lesser challenges, even if he does not earn XP from them, and rebuild his equipment to the point where he can continue to take on level-appropriate challenges. Many "old school" DMs and players would consider this a viable recovery route.