New Monte Cook article Magic and Mystery

[Kraydak]

Out of curiousity, why jump on 4e for this one? 3e allowed you (and certainly carried a pretty strong expectation) to buy whatever magic item you could afford/want. It was pretty easy to just give the PC's whatever treasure and then let them customize from there.

I get that it's a playstyle thing. But, why specifically call out 4e here for something that was common to other editions?

There is a gulf between 3e, where enemy dropped loot is reasonably random/setting prescribed, followed by the PCs correcting large anomalies through magic item trading/purchasing/creation, and 4e where the latter is strongly discouraged so the enemy dropped loot has to be more tailored.

3e's model actually fits MMORPGs a lot better, and those outfits have the money to research what pulls our poor predictable human levers better...

 

[the Jester]

If they go looking for the weapon they NEED so they can kill the monster, this is effectively WISHLIST behavior. They are telling the GM they want a certain weapon by seeking it out in the game.

...which is definitely not the same as "wishlist behavior."

Questing for an item is an in-game action taken by the characters. Giving the dm a wishlist is an out-of-game action taken by the players.

Re: Your example of magic swords- since 3.5, not having the "right" magic weapon hasn't made anything immune to your attacks, it just makes 'em tougher. "+1 or better weapon to hit" is absolutely inferior, imho, to "DR 5/+1".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Now using this metaphor of My PC = My D&D Sword of bonuses I want. One could argue that if all I have is a crappy PC, I should use a lighter developer tool. Technically I can write a program on the computer. However, to solve the problem at hand, I actually do need a more powerful PC.

The same goes for magic swords. Sure, I could stick to killing rats and goblins with my non-magic sword. But if I am actually confronted by a level appropriate monster that has magic requirements to hit (silver, +1, etc), then I actually do need a proper magic weapon.

D&D has ALWAYS suffered from this concept. Werewolves always needed magic or silver to-hit. Other monsters always needed magic of a minimum + to hit. This meant that if the PCs encountered it, they HAD to have the item or were probably screwed.

Right. However, I think you are concentrating more on the boundary conditions while I'm talking about the stuff in the middle. (I say this with VS 2010 also eating up my RAM as I type. )

I think most of the arguments have traditionally been about the boundary conditions, and I already see Jester's response to your post, which is talking about the same thing. Basically, there is this boundary "zone" on each end of the efffective range where your characters are definitely sub-optimal or super-optimal, but still have a shot. This is analogous to me using a wrench to drive a nail, or using a nail-gun to drive six nails into a single 2x4, respectively. There are thing that you might do isolated that a professional won't repeat, if they can avoid it--i.e. struggling or overkill. Naturally, people have different places where they draw the exact line in the boundary zone, and every situation is different. I can easily conceive of situations where I would fine confronting the party--having no silver or magic weapons--with a werewolves to be entirely fun and fair, or not.

But what I was more interested in is that band in the middle. If there is one. Maybe that is my question and you are answering it in the negative, because of the frequency of the boundaries? That is, how often do we have a fight where +1 weapons are entirely adequate, no matter what the situation, but +2 or even +3 weapons are nice to have, not ridiculously over-powered, etc? I'm fairly certain it happens in isolated incidents going from +1 to +2, or similar, but how often? How often do we get to a point where any reasonable conception of "necessary" has been met, but their is still room for maginal tool improvement outside of character skills?

 

[Janx]

...which is definitely not the same as "wishlist behavior."

Questing for an item is an in-game action taken by the characters. Giving the dm a wishlist is an out-of-game action taken by the players.

I wonder if player wishlisting is touching off a trait of Refusing when Asked.
If a kid asks for their present early, adults are inclined to say No.

It's akin to "Not Invented Here" syndrome. If the GM thinks of it, it's OK. If the players ask for it before him, the GM refuses.

This might be the real crux of wishlist resentment. It's threatening the GM's power perception.

Bear in mind, I don't like wishlists either. But I translate a wishlist into "You are more than welcome to make inquiries in-game to find such an item and quest for it..."

...
Re: Your example of magic swords- since 3.5, not having the "right" magic weapon hasn't made anything immune to your attacks, it just makes 'em tougher. "+1 or better weapon to hit" is absolutely inferior, imho, to "DR 5/+1".

Good point. Though Wealth By Level usually means the PC has the +X by the time he needs it...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This might be the real crux of wishlist resentment. It's threatening the GM's power perception.

Bear in mind, I don't like wishlists either. But I translate a wishlist into "You are more than welcome to make inquiries in-game to find such an item and quest for it..."

In my mind, the single biggest flaw in the 4E DMG is a concentrated and systematic effort to beat out of the DM any inclination to even think about walking by the storefront where they sell Viking hats.

Some strenuously worded and repeated cautions were warranted. It was oversold. It reminds me of high school English teachers that only teach the Pardoner's Tale, Othello, Macbeth, or Hamlet--because the racier aspects of Chaucer or the Bard must be avoided at all costs. (You get the same thing with reading Tom Sawyer instead of Twain short stories. And so on.)

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yeah, because you enchanted the characters instead of the items.

I don't find "+1" to be very enchanting.

 

[GSHamster]

+X might not be very exciting, but it's the simplest way to represent a sword with unnatural sharpness, or one who's sole property is that the wielder becomes a better fighter than she normally is.

That too is an archetype of magical weapons, and should be modeled.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Yes! And what happens then is that who a character is and what they do defines them more so than what magical equipment they carry.

I am defined more by what I (can) do than by the clothes that I wear, and yet there are those who would define me by the clothes I wear. At the same time, who I am defines the clothes I wear.

A character's gear is (or should be) a reflection of who the character is, and if that defines them in the mind of others that is not necessarily a reflection of reality.

Replace should with can and I'd find that a little more palatable. The main problem I have had with both 3e and 4e over the years is the assumption of magical items as part of character. It means I have either had to bash the ruleset into some semblance of what is needed to represent my campaign world; or as my preference with most things is to just play RAW (simpler/easier) I have to DM/GM with Magical Item assumptions that don't jive with my campaign world. If Monte's new ruleset does not have this MI assumption hard-coded into the rules, it means that I can play RAW the way I like, and you too will be able to play the way you like. Wouldn't that be a good thing rather than hard-coding a particular playstyle?

And thus, what a character becomes good at is in the hands of the player choosing certain abilities/power/paths for their advancing character, rather than sending stupid damn treasure wish lists to their DM/GM to put in stupid damn treasure packets!!!

And rather than depending upon what the dratted GM deigns to chuck into a treasure chest for them?

I agree that players should be in control of their character's nature and capabilities (as limited by the world and/or the rules). I don't see why equipment - much less one arbitrarily defined segment of equipment - should be an exception to this.

Because the campaign worlds that we play in are pretty much defined by the level and flavour of magic that exists within them. If the rules determine/encourage/hard-code a particular level and flavour of magic, then the rules are pushing what defines my campaign world rather than me - and I don't really appreciate that. Again, what Monte seems to be saying is that the rules should allow a spectrum of playstyles and campaign worlds, and I am so on board with that.

And then magical items can go back to being the gravy, reward, and mysterious cherry that they should be; with the deeds, actions and achievements of the characters back at the fore. Monte has most certainly nailed my interest in what he is now doing.

Magic items being "mysterious" in a world where wizards cast fireballs, priests raise people from the dead and important people die only when they run out of "hit points" seems bizzarre, to me. "Hey - that stick created a ball of fire just like Old Theophilus does!" "Oooooohhhhh!! Spooky!! how can this be?!?!?"...

Um, Old Theophilus made it?? Tsk.

That is such a trite example that assumes a very particular playstyle. What if fireball-casting wizards are rare to the point where the average commoner has never seen such magic but is haunted by the tales that such things exist in the world? What if raising people from the dead simply doesn't happen except by the direct action of a deity and not by one of their priests? What if any character (player or non-player) could be killed by a simple dagger thrust into the braincase? While not a playstyle for everyone, I would like it if the rules could actively support a playstyle I enjoy (as well as yours).

I personally like Magic Items as an element of that "levelling up" process because they represent character design/development resources that are in the hands of the party, rather than a specific player. They give scope to "optimise the party", enhancing the party interdependence alongside the "roles" in 4E. They also help identify weaknesses in specific character roles or builds; if all the players agree that one specific role or character needs "extra help" from a disproportionate allocation of magic items, it can be indicative of an issue that could do with addressing.

Why can't you just have these as abilities (even party abilities) rather than forcing them as magical items? While MIs are an effective way of doing this, it also carries a lot of baggage that does not jive with all playstyles. By decoupling MIs from the equation, you can support a greater spectrum of how people wish to play their game.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

+X might not be very exciting, but it's the simplest way to represent a sword with unnatural sharpness, or one who's sole property is that the wielder becomes a better fighter than she normally is.

That too is an archetype of magical weapons, and should be modeled.

Why does it have to be magic though. I play pool (8 ball) to an international standard of play (or at least I used to a few years ago although most of the chops are still there). A crap cue would directly affect my performance while my customised Predator cue (A special P3 for those interested) means I have far greater control over what I'm doing. Why can't the mundane quality of the weapon (be it poor, used, standard, superior, masterwork, or exquisite in craftmanship) affect the plus side of things, and leave the magic to be magical and mysterious?

A sword with unnatural sharpness might overcome a foe's armor more easily (I really wish they'd go to an Armor as DR approach) rather than making the wielder "artificially better".

A sword that makes the wielder "artificially better" as in being a better fighter might have the spirit of a particular fighter imbued within it so that the wielder now has a minimum BAB of +8/+3, or it allows the wielder certain powers that were representative of the spirit of the imbued fighter [4e is already quite close to this]. Decoupling such things from the "plus x" side of things is what is important here and divorcing magic from character assumptions [which 4e is hampered by in my opinion].

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I may be under the wrong impression then. Are players expected to get treaure parcels automatically. My main objection is to pc wishlists and the idea that pcs would automatically get magic items. However like i said i am objecting more to those concepts than editions.

Yes, thaugh it is an aspect of 4e that i do not personnaly care for, as much as I like the restr of it. I prefer inderent bonuses.