New Monte Cook article Magic and Mystery

[JamesonCourage]

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.

Yeah, it seems much more "simulationist" to me. If you can kill the dragon early, you get dragon-level equipment. If you only ever kill goblin bandits, your gear will really suffer.

I think he's proposing something like what you've touched on. That the players choose to go after goblins, since they're easy to kill, but the rewards are poor past a certain point (they've leveled higher than the goblins). Alternatively, they can attempt to get a reward higher than their level, but it's more risky.

Something like, in this 12th level module, here's a 15th level sword, wielded by a 15th level monster. They can fight it if they choose to: he's bound to this spot with magic, but there are instructions on releasing him. This way, he won't attack them unless they choose the extra challenge, but it's going to be dangerous.

In home games and standard play, it'd be a lot more of, "we heard rumors of a young red dragon who has recently starting bugging a town to the west. Is it worth the risk for us to go take it out? Our skill says he's tougher than us, but he's a dragon, so he's got to have good stuff...

If you earn better gear than your level, yes, challenges become easier. However, the players are theoretically picking the challenge level. If they want easy challenges, they can keep killing goblin bandits. However, if they're the type that went out and killed that level 15 monster at level 12 (but pulled it off), then they'll probably try again on another level 15 monster. Soon they'll level up to level 15, and have appropriate gear, or move on to level 16 monsters at level 13 or 14, and have slightly better gear for their level, though taking on greater risk.

It's just risk vs. reward. However, if you have better gear, but you're constantly fighting harder foes, the challenge in the game supposedly remains.

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.

This is what I did in my game. Magic items aren't priced, because of their rarity. Basically, they're worth whatever you can get for it. And, most of the times, it's far more valuable to get favors than money. I do agree with you on this.

 

[KidSnide]

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 see how unusual and powerful non-combat items (e.g. a low-level party with carpet of flying) could seriously affect certain adventures (say, one where a chasm obstacle plays an important role), but combat power seems pretty easy. If an under-equipped 14th level party is equivalent to a 12th level party in capabilities, then it should be well suited to a published adventure targeted towards 11th-13th level opponents. Similarly, a monte haul 10th level party that's equipped to 12th level could play the same adventure.

In 3x, unusual races had a level adjustment. I see magic items working the same way, except that they could provide a positive or negative adjustment (and, hopefully, the "magic item" adjustment will be a little bit more accurate than racial adjustments were in 3x).

-KS

 

[Kraydak]

...
So you're saying, "This is how it is, tough!"?
...

Depends what you are talking about.

If you want a sense of wonder with magic items? Yes, a thousand times yes. You will not and cannot give magic items a lasting sense of wonder.

If you want magic items to be valuable to players while simultaneously not impacting character power? Yes. Obviously. Moving on...

If you want to remove player agency from magic items? You can do that, at significant cost to setting verisimilitude. But why? It won't net you wonder. It won't magically make magic items that players care about not affect power levels. Remember, getting a cool new magic item just becomes "the way things are" within a session or two. *Not* getting a magic item that is important to your character concept? That drags on and on and causes problems. Removing player agency doesn't actually solve any of the problems people invoke it for, and causes lots of problems of its own.

So yes. DMs, don't set yourself up for failure. Accept that power level affecting magic items, with or without (in practical terms, unimportant) backstories, with at least modest player agency nets you the smoothest play. Deal with the fact that players won't care about the work that a DM puts into magic items, and won't treat them as amazing works of art.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Again I wonder if some people are seeing things right here? Has anyone here tried to ratchet back magic item population using one of the recent versions of D&D? Did you find it did not work very well?

Now imagine that the ruleset takes that baseline to zero. You can play the game without magic and it will work. It WILL work!
BUT if you want heaps of magical items in your game it will also work. In other words, wherever on the magical item spectrum you sit for a particular campaign, it will work!

THAT is a brilliant design goal and challenge!

And damn it if I couldn't agree more with Monte's view of magic and mystery and making the game more magical and mysterious! As I have said many times on other threads, magical items should not be a spoonfed and expected meal - the concept of "treasure packets" drives me insane!!!. If you want the big magical item, you are going to have to earn it. This as the default style of play suits me down to the ground. However, it certainly sounds like Monte's "game" is also capable of suiting my friend Dave who loves magical items out of every orifice. In other words, Monte is planning to design a game for all of us.

Damn straight and more power to you Monte Cook!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[RHGreen]

How about:

Normal Quality : +0
Masterpiece : +1
Magical : +2

Just a thought, but it wouldn't effect the game balance too much. For a good bit of cash you can just buy a masterpiece weapon and only be 1 (5%) down off max. Get disarmed and at worse you are 2 down (10%)

Magic Item : Magic Fire Pommel

Magic can only be triggered by level 10. It is powered by the character's will. A lowly character cannot generate the will to power it.

Can be bound to a character through a blood ritual.

Can be attached to a masterpiece weapon with a pommel attachment. Enhancement improves to +2. Damage gains fire type on command. Can command weapon to return to hand on your turn (minor action - Will Check)

Having the magic in a pommel rather than the whole weapon means it can be transferable. A rogue finds it - attach it to a dagger, a fighter - 2H-Sword, cleric - mace. It's up to the player.

Also: Sturm Brightblade has his father's ancestral sword. He finds a +5 sword. He throws his dad's sword away and uses the new one.

Wouldn't it be better if he could attach some magic to it rather than dump it. There are other reasons, for roleplay sake, where you wouldn't want to be rid of an old weapon.



Father dies and leaves him the family sword
Old Ancestral Sword +0

Master Weapon Smith repairs Ancestral Sword
Ancestral Masterpiece Sword +1

Finds Radiant Pommel Stone
Magic Radiant Ancestral Sword +2



Just thinking out loud.

 

[the Jester]

Depends what you are talking about.

If you want a sense of wonder with magic items? Yes, a thousand times yes. You will not and cannot give magic items a lasting sense of wonder.

I'll agree that this is quite difficult, but it is possible. Two examples: Items whose powers are gradually revealed over time and items that grow in power over time. Part of the reduction in the wonder and magic of magic items is the ease of fully and flawlessly identifying them.

If you want to remove player agency from magic items? You can do that, at significant cost to setting verisimilitude.

I disagree again. Just because there are magic items around doesn't mean you know how to make them. Maybe they're from an ancient empire. Maybe humans and their ilk have never been able to make them, only genies. Maybe they're the exclusive province of the gods, and the god of crafting has been making them daily for centuries. Maybe pcs can make them but it takes time and effort. There are tons of ways to do it.

But why? It won't net you wonder. It won't magically make magic items that players care about not affect power levels. Remember, getting a cool new magic item just becomes "the way things are" within a session or two. *Not* getting a magic item that is important to your character concept? That drags on and on and causes problems.

Frankly, if your concept depends on a magic item, you shouldn't play in a campaign like mine. Your concept should involve how you start out, not how you grow- that happens in the campaign over time.

Removing player agency doesn't actually solve any of the problems people invoke it for, and causes lots of problems of its own.

For some styles of play, yes, but you keep saying these things like they are true for everyone. I 100% guarantee you that is incorrect. My games have never given tons of control over what magic items they have to the pcs. Never ever. And I have always had a full table and a long waiting list of would-be players. So what you say cannot work, has worked just fine for me for three decades.

So yes. DMs, don't set yourself up for failure. Accept that power level affecting magic items, with or without (in practical terms, unimportant) backstories, with at least modest player agency nets you the smoothest play. Deal with the fact that players won't care about the work that a DM puts into magic items, and won't treat them as amazing works of art.

Apparently my experience is very different from yours. "DMs, don't set yourself up for failure" assumes One True Way of Playing D&D. There is no such beast.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

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.

But that's the thing isn't it. The PCs should be in charge of which challenges they face. If they go after the +5 holy avenger too early, they are going to get their backsides handed to them. If they go after it when they have a chance of grabbing it and do - shouldn't they be rewarded? It does affect their advancement in that now, they can maybe bite off a little more next time.

Funnily enough I think the key here is building rules into combat that assist the PCs in successfully running away from a challenge too challenging. With that built in to the game, the game supports the daring of hard challenges by improving the PC's survival chances WITHOUT affecting their chance of succeeding - they still have to earn it.

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.

What makes the magical item economy tick is money. There is an assumption that their are thousands (and millions in 4e) of gold pieces lying around. Now lets get rid of that. Imagine if you could shake your campaign world free of it's gold and it only totaled about 100,000 gold pieces all told.And there's a big fat ancient red dragon sitting atop half of that. What happens to your magic item economy then? Sure you could trade a magical item for another if both parties were interested but that's about it (or more likely would be the stealing of magical items but that's all part of the adventure).

So let's suppose you have a +5 holy avenger to sell. Who can afford to buy it? Gavin down the street might offer you his life's savings of 30gp for it, while Dave over the road is going to offer 15gp plus discounts at his pleasure palace. The use for this highly prized item is not in gold but either in using it for adventuring or perhaps for some sort of story goal such as sealing an important alliance or some such. Or if there's a paladin who really wants it and he's willing to trade his McGuffin for it that you are after, then you have a trade. But selling it for dollars simply shouldn't work any more. That is how you begin to deal with the magic item economy in my opinion.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[GSHamster]

What makes the magical item economy tick is money. There is an assumption that their are thousands (and millions in 4e) of gold pieces lying around. Now lets get rid of that. Imagine if you could shake your campaign world free of it's gold and it only totaled about 100,000 gold pieces all told.And there's a big fat ancient red dragon sitting atop half of that. What happens to your magic item economy then? Sure you could trade a magical item for another if both parties were interested but that's about it (or more likely would be the stealing of magical items but that's all part of the adventure).

Then you start trading magical items for land and power. And then you trade the land for other items. Land becomes your currency.

Also, under your scenario, what would you do with gems, jewelry and artwork? They cannot be sold anymore, either. Maybe you can trade artwork for gems. Well, now you've just introduced another functional currency, and you can use that currency to purchase or sell magical items.

Basically, so long as items can transfer from one person to another person, an economy of some sort will exist. If you want to go all video-gamey, a lot of MMOs use a concept called soul-binding to prevent transference and eliminate the economy of magical items [1]. But I sincerely doubt that D&D players will opt for such a solution, especially considering its origin.

[1] This does not strictly eliminate the economy. If you're interested in how an economy can occur with soul-bound items, google up a concept called "Gold-DKP". Such a system wouldn't really apply to D&D, though.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

What makes the magical item economy tick is money. There is an assumption that their are thousands (and millions in 4e) of gold pieces lying around. Now lets get rid of that. Imagine if you could shake your campaign world free of it's gold and it only totaled about 100,000 gold pieces all told.And there's a big fat ancient red dragon sitting atop half of that. What happens to your magic item economy then? Sure you could trade a magical item for another if both parties were interested but that's about it (or more likely would be the stealing of magical items but that's all part of the adventure).

So let's suppose you have a +5 holy avenger to sell. Who can afford to buy it? Gavin down the street might offer you his life's savings of 30gp for it, while Dave over the road is going to offer 15gp plus discounts at his pleasure palace. The use for this highly prized item is not in gold but either in using it for adventuring or perhaps for some sort of story goal such as sealing an important alliance or some such. Or if there's a paladin who really wants it and he's willing to trade his McGuffin for it that you are after, then you have a trade. But selling it for dollars simply shouldn't work any more. That is how you begin to deal with the magic item economy in my opinion.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

So what you end up with is a barter economy. If you have a resource that you don't particularly want, you look for a demographic that WOULD want it the most and trade for something you do want -- land, the hand of the princess (or perhaps the foot), a title, a different item that some other group has (I got a shield, trade for a helmet?), etc.

This is exactly the situation early MMORPGS found themselves in because the in-game currencies were effectively worthless so large barter economies formed.

The problem with making the items unsellable is that doesn't represent priceless, that repreents worthlessness.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The problem with making the items unsellable is that doesn't represent priceless, that repreents worthlessness.

All I can say is that my experience directly contradicts this, and I think it's a rather amusing statement. But, as always, play what you like