New Monte Cook article Magic and Mystery

[Plane Sailing]

On my return I had to learn what this TPK thing was. We never had that in the old days. DMs used experience and judgment to guage appropriate challenges.

Was the rise of the idea of the TPK just a recognition that there things happened, a change of play style or was it a result of people believing the CRs too much?

TPKs could always happen, but 3e+ introduced 'critical hits' which made it much harder for PCs to judge when they should pull out of a fight and retreat; it was much easier to accidentally end up in a potential TPK situation because of a couple of lucky crits by the DM.

 

[Vascant]

I have NEVER had a lot of magic item purchasing allowed in my game. Never. Although pcs can make magic items by the RAW in my game, I much prefer a simpler but harder system:

1. Find or research the item's formula.

2. Find or purchase necessary ingredients ("Dust of disappearance? I need ten sets of pixie wings!")

3. Spend time and money. And by 'time' I mean days to months to (for very high powered items) years.

What's that? You don't want to retire your cleric for a year while you make a +5 holy mace of disruption? Then try to find one or accept that you don't have one.

Some of the coolest adventures ever have been quests for a magic item. One in particular that I ran involved tracking down a holy avenger, journeying far away to the continent it was on, fighting through a bayou of dragon servants and then confronting the dragon himself to win it. This was about ten sessions of play.

I have been doing this same exact process since 1e, I like it and my players love it. In fact my current group is currently wandering a desert looking for ruins of a place where rumor has it the wizard there could craft armor of fortification (critical hits can be especially deadly in my game).

 

[GSHamster]

While emotionally, I'm with Monte Cook on magic items, I think he's ignoring the fact that 3E and 4E magic item rules evolved the way they did for a reason. Without addressing those reasons, this seems more like wishful thinking and/or throwing red meat to the D&D grognards.

The truth is that giving a +5 holy avenger to a 5th level character does change the game. Challenges that would be difficult can become a lot easier. Going the other way, where a character has less magic than expected, a difficult challenge might shift to impossible.

If the magical items don't have this effect on challenge, then they are not useful, and are mere trinkets or window-dressing.

As for magic item economy, well, lets say the players want to sell a magic item? Is it sensible for people to not buy the item if it is offered at a price they can afford? Of course not. I would buy it, and so would you. So why does the situation not exist in reverse? Similarly with crafting items. If a player can create an item, then so can an NPC. And then wealth/knowledge/favors can be exchanged for the creation of items.

I don't see how Monte can avoid a magic item economy without significantly changing the basic properties of magic items. Just going from the fact that you can find and use magical items sort of makes some form of magic item economy inevitable.

To me, this column was a lot of "wouldn't X be great" without acknowledging the fact that there were reasons the game moved away from X.

 

[KidSnide]

The truth is that giving a +5 holy avenger to a 5th level character does change the game. Challenges that would be difficult can become a lot easier. Going the other way, where a character has less magic than expected, a difficult challenge might shift to impossible.

If the magical items don't have this effect on challenge, then they are not useful, and are mere trinkets or window-dressing.

I don't think there is any question that magic items have an effect on the power of the PCs and that powerful magic items can have a large effect on the power of the PCs. That's not the issue.

The problem with 4e is that assumes a certain level of magic item power for a given PC level and that the math doesn't work if you violate that assumption. A heavily under-equipped party will miss all the time (slowing down combat) and the encounter building guidelines won't generate balanced encounters.

Monte isn't suggesting that magic items be removed from the power structure. He is suggesting making them optional. In other words, the encounter guidelines would include a method of measuring how the amount of magic held by the PCs affects their "effective level" for purposes of building xp budgets for encounters.

Also, because hitting your opponent is a crucial part of the game, the to hit (and defense) bonus granted by magic items shouldn't exceed the adjustment magic items provide to the party's effective level.

-KS

 

[GSHamster]

Monte isn't suggesting that magic items be removed from the power structure. He is suggesting making them optional. In other words, the encounter guidelines would include a method of measuring how the amount of magic held by the PCs affects their "effective level" for purposes of building xp budgets for encounters.

I just don't see how you can make them optional. Especially in a game where you create the encounters before you know the party makeup (published adventures).

I guess that's what I want to see from the next column. Ideas which are solutions to the problems. This particular column just came across as wishful thinking for me.

 

[LostSoul]

I think he's suggesting a more radical change:

Players who beat the dragon would just be better off than those that played it safe. As I wrote earlier, working harder really will get the PCs ahead. Those that succeed at greater challenges will be more powerful than those that don't. That seems to be a bit of the heart and soul of D&D that has somehow become lost.​

The way I read this is that the game will assume that the players determine the level of challenge they are willing to face, not the DM or encounter-building guidelines.

 

[kitsune9]

I think one issue is that magic items are priced too. If the DM truly wants to keep magic items as a reward, they should be priceless and rare. Exceptions could be potions and scrolls, but weapons, armor, staves, etc. shouldn't have a gp value. Othewise, the PC's will work to get a workaround on selling a magic item and trying to find some wizard or someplace to buy their own magic item.

The caveat for DM's to have magic items full of mystery though is that it's more work for the DM to provide appropriate level items and / or useful magic items. I can't tell you how many lazy DMs I've gamed with who want to control the flow of magic items and the only thing you find in hoards are cure potions, longswords +1, and shields +1 over and over again.

I personally don't want to keep track of six player characters plus adventuring cohorts and NPCs and what magic items would be beneficial for their characters while keeping it fair for each player and balanced for my game. I'd rather they go to Magic Mart and buy / craft their own magic items with a set GP limit instead of me having to keep track of their magical equipment. The same with their mundane equipment which I allow them to buy offgame so as to not waste time.

Some of the players also posted that they don't like +X items. I think that's accurate in terms that getting rid of them would add more mystery. For example a magical longsword could possess powers instead of +X to hit and damage. Also, the more powerful it is, the greater chance it will possess a flaw or curse as well.

Also, in order to keep magic items rare, they need to have longevity. How many of us get our first +1 longsword around 2nd to 4th level and by 5th - 7th level were ready for +2 and for three levels beyond, another +1? Players are apt to keep a weapon around longer if they know there's still some mystery behind the weapon or the weapon needs to have special rites in order to unlock its true potential.

In getting away from the example of +X items, that would be discovering additional powers behind the weapon.

Of course, other posters here have suggested other good ideas so there's lot of room to address to this issue.

 

[Gronin]

While I personally love Fantasy RPGs that have very few (if any) magic items that is not what I play D & D for.

An abundance of magic items is as much D & D as the six attributes, levels or anything else you care to throw out there as an example of what D & D is at its core. Virtually every edition has had a very large number of magic items available for the group and if you as a DM (I would hope in conjuction with your players) don't want to play a heavy magic campaign there are options available. (Either the inherent bonuses or just back off the encounter levels a bit -- as long it is still a challenge for the players that is all that matters). Magic items are a big part of the appeal of the game (AV1, AV2 and most recently Mordenkaniens can attest to that).

As I said I personally love the idea of little or no magic and I jumped all over Mike Mearls "Iron Heroes" when it came out and enjoyed it immensely but the group I play in was less enthused.

Perhaps there is a way to make magic rare but still tied into the character/encounter math. The Game Mechanics put out something along those lines for 3.5 --- can't remember the name of the product and I think WOTC put out something similar later on. The idea being that magic items improved with the character.

Earthdawn is the best example of this. For those who haven't played -- characters are able to tie magical threads (or links) to magic items which allow them to further explore the powers of the item. As this is a slow process the items grow with the character. The sword you find when you are low level is still the sword you use several levels later.

 

[Gronin]

On my return I had to learn what this TPK thing was. We never had that in the old days. DMs used experience and judgment to guage appropriate challenges.

Was the rise of the idea of the TPK just a recognition that there things happened, a change of play style or was it a result of people believing the CRs too much?

Apologies for taking this thread a bit off topic.

Two points

1/ I have DMed a lot and I don't believe that a DM should only stage encounters that are an appropriate level to the group. Sometimes the party should kick some butt and sometimes they should get their butt kicked (or at the very least have to run to survive). Sometimes the NPCs get humbled and sometimes the PCs get humbled. There is always someone bigger and tougher.

2/ TPK has been around since long before 3rd edition. My very first exposure to D & D was in 1976 and that character (I won't bore you with the story -- as much as I love to tell it) lasted about an hour and a half and he lasted longer than anyone else. First encounter, first day playing, first TPK. I spent an entire summer playing D & D almost every evening and I can't even begin to give you an accurate count of how many characters I went through or even how many times we were wiped out. I should add that (and I suppose that this is obvious) TPKs never disuaded me in any way from continuing to play.

 

[billd91]

While emotionally, I'm with Monte Cook on magic items, I think he's ignoring the fact that 3E and 4E magic item rules evolved the way they did for a reason. Without addressing those reasons, this seems more like wishful thinking and/or throwing red meat to the D&D grognards.

The truth is that giving a +5 holy avenger to a 5th level character does change the game. Challenges that would be difficult can become a lot easier. Going the other way, where a character has less magic than expected, a difficult challenge might shift to impossible.

If the magical items don't have this effect on challenge, then they are not useful, and are mere trinkets or window-dressing.

As for magic item economy, well, lets say the players want to sell a magic item? Is it sensible for people to not buy the item if it is offered at a price they can afford? Of course not. I would buy it, and so would you. So why does the situation not exist in reverse? Similarly with crafting items. If a player can create an item, then so can an NPC. And then wealth/knowledge/favors can be exchanged for the creation of items.

I don't see how Monte can avoid a magic item economy without significantly changing the basic properties of magic items. Just going from the fact that you can find and use magical items sort of makes some form of magic item economy inevitable.

To me, this column was a lot of "wouldn't X be great" without acknowledging the fact that there were reasons the game moved away from X.

I think Monte Cook knows the evolution of the magic item economy pretty well. He was a part of it and, I think, he's in a pretty good position to recognize whether the assumptions and expectations built into 3e ended up being borne out in how the game actually played.

I agree that giving a +5 holy avenger to a 5th level character is of great significance. But rather than building up a structure of expectations like the Wealth By Level tables and magic item prices, I think I'd rather see the game move in the direction of instructing DMs in how to cope with power-increasing magic items or lack thereof rather than denying them until the highest character levels.

I would also like to see the default nature of the magic item economy changed. It's all well and good for some campaigns to have the buying and selling of any and all magic items, but players often do come to look at the exercise as a question of power up buying rather than building an interesting set of items. Items that are priced highly but are of intermittent use almost immediately get sold in favor of items that provide a more constant effect. The magic item economy coupled with the power up strategy, based on easy magic item selection or creation, is the single most problematic element of 3e, in my opinion.