Overuse of monsters and magic.

[Ridley's Cohort]

I totally agree. Magic should not be a tradeable commodity, nor should PCs be discarding magic swords in favor of something "better." Making a magic sword should be an undertaking made by the most powerful of wizards-you had to be an 18th level mover and shaker to do it in previous editions, and now wizards can do it even before they hit double digits.

You may have had to be a 18th PC before a DM had the tiniest implied obligation to allow it according to the literal RAW, but with respect to the world in general your assertion is pure horse manure. There is just too much magic floating around -- peruse through any module.

In this particular respect, the older editions feel very videogamey compared to 3e. At least 3e makes the effort to go with the idea that magic is not completely arbitrary gibberish forged on the very steel rails of the railroad of the gods, but an art that many in the world acquire some moderate degree of competence in -- as their own eyes testify to the PCs almost every day they still breath the air.

The idea that a hero might persuade a powerful NPC to make him a powerful magic item through bribes, politics, and/or favors or the hero himself might forge such an item is part of the mythic heroic tradition.

There are many good reasons why a DM might want to regulate access to very powerful magic items. But keeping them away from potions, scrolls, and +2 swords is an exercise in futility IMNSHO.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This keeps coming up and yet people ignoring this.

How do you make magic items feel mysterious and magical when 2 members of the classic group (rogue, fighter, wizard and cleric) are busting out magic every day and making reality sit up and beg?

Older editions handled this by giving PCs a suite of powers that did not represent all the magic in the world. Hence, there as "known" magic and "unknown" magic.


RC

 

[Mallus]

I don't play fantasy RPG's to not fight bizarre monsters and not wield mighty magics. I get enough of that in Philadelphia.

The rule books aren't ruined by the inclusion of the fantastic, though individual campaigns are made interesting by a poor use of the fantastic. The most you can blame the rules for is not offering enough guidelines for using the materials presented for creating campaigns w/specific themes/flavors/genre emulation.

 

[Valiant]

I agree that 1E was not supposed to nec. be "low magic". The MM treasure tables that include chances of magic confirm this. Also, many of the early modules had alot of magic.
Also, the number of monsters taht require a +1 weapon to hit suggests +1 weapons aren't totally rare. But, you also need to remember, "adventurers" in 1E are rare (it says so in the PH I believe). These guys actually seek out dangerous dungeons hidden from civilization. When a 2nd level guy gets a +1 long sword, he's typically earned it killing or avoiding something, or was lucky (thats what makes it valuable). Also, be careful to remember some magic is more common then other types (the flame tounge in the above example is rarer then a +1 long sword for instance).

The other pet p I have is how handling "magic" wrong can destroy the fantasy setting (the look of the place). For instance, its perfectly logical to light city streets with continual light spells (as the above poster mentioned); hell every city would have this, as well as every house and place of business. But then suddenly your fantasy setting sound like your real world house. Thats not the escape most of us are looking for in playing AD&D (as for 3E, I'm not familiar enough with the culture to know what the average player of this system is looking for, it doesn't feel "The Hobbit" to me (the way OD&D or 1E did to me) it feels edgier then that.

 

[shilsen]

Q: "I disagree with how unilateral your assertions are." My assertion was not unilateral, despite your attempt to label it so. Infact, thats why I supplied specific examples of the kind of thing I was talking about (dragons reduced to steeds (or have you ever played the Dragon Lance series, yuk!, and light spells lighting up city streets at night (see TLG's CZ1 for example).

That's why I think it was unilateral, because it jumped from a couple of specific examples to making a broad assertion. The existence of magical street lights makes the magic used in those lights seem mundane to PCs, not all magic in the game world.

Sure, some magic is "common" for casters, but those are spells.

Take that a step further. Sure, there are some magic items that are "common" for PCs. But those magic items are not the entirety of magic items in the game world. Nor of all magic phenomena in the game world.

The point of playing a fantasy game is to experiance the fantasy setting afterall.

No. There are many reasons why one may play a fantasy game. Why do you assume that's the only, or main, point? As I've noted before on some of your threads, don't assume that what is true for you is true for everyone else.

When module writers try to wow their players by throwing in novelty for the sake of being different, which often includes the kitchen sink then the setting suffers in the long run. Esp. when it becomes a competition for "novelty". One example of this can be seen in 3E when first they introduced one half this and half that, and then when people got bored with that introduced another 1/3 this 1/3 that 1/3 that, and then to "one up" that one we eventually ended up with the most obsured mixes to the point monster archetypes are becoming second place citizens in the classic fantasy setting. And once all these new monster combo's with odd class combinations become "ordinary" and there is nothing left to make novel, the game implodes upon itself (infact anything novel driven dies the same death).

I haven't noticed any particular implosion of D&D, which seems to be doing just fine.

Late 1E/2E did this sort of thing, and so did 3E. I imagine 4E will follow the same path. The only ones that kept a handle on this was Gygax in OD&D and early 1E (before the shiat hit the fan at TSR).

Dude, I get that you like Gary, and from what I hear he's a very creative and fun guy. But enough with the genuflecting already.

 

[Treebore]

No edition of D&D is assumed to be low magic. Its just assumed the DM will do only what they feel comfortable with DMing. So if they want low magic, they make it low magic.

I play the system "as is". I award the treasure and XP's, the PC's level, becoming more and more powerful. I run the game until the players want to move on to new characters.

Which tends to be between 15th and 25th level. The only time it ends sooner than that is when players, or I, move away.

I allow Teleport, Raise Dead, Ressurection, even Wish. I deal with if just fine. Usually by accepting the "realities" of a world where such magics exist, rather than force it to fit a "vision".

Take "continual flame", as the example. Its a second level spell. Not that expensive to make. Not that expensive to buy, especially if you get a discount because you place an order for 500 of them at one time.

Plus, the basic premise of the game, or at least most campaign worlds, is that any decent sized city has a couple of dozen wizards and priests capable of casting the spell. Just look at the 3.5 DMG for generating city stats.

So there are DM's who try to jam square blocks into round holes and then say how it doesn't work. Then there are DM's who accept and adapt to how the system sets things up to work. Then there are a whole bunch some where in between those two points.

Then there are the DM's who change the system to work how they want it to. Thats always been one of the coolest things about RPG's. Changing, deleting, and adding rules to make the RPG do what you want.

 

[Valiant]

That's why I think it was unilateral, because it jumped from a couple of specific examples to making a broad assertion. The existence of magical street lights makes the magic used in those lights seem mundane to PCs, not all magic in the game world.



Take that a step further. Sure, there are some magic items that are "common" for PCs. But those magic items are not the entirety of magic items in the game world. Nor of all magic phenomena in the game world.



No. There are many reasons why one may play a fantasy game. Why do you assume that's the only, or main, point? As I've noted before on some of your threads, don't assume that what is true for you is true for everyone else.



I haven't noticed any particular implosion of D&D, which seems to be doing just fine.



Dude, I get that you like Gary, and from what I hear he's a very creative and fun guy. But enough with the genuflecting already.

Sil, you seem to think I like anything "Gary", yet I am not a fan of CZ1 (if you'd care to read the above post again).

Your comment: "That's why I think it was unilateral, because it jumped from a couple of specific examples to making a broad assertion". doesn't make since. All magic can be treated in this fashion (those are 2 examples, I could supply you with more if you like).

 

[shilsen]

Your comment: "That's why I think it was unilateral, because it jumped from a couple of specific examples to making a broad assertion". doesn't make since. All magic can be treated in this fashion (those are 2 examples, I could supply you with more if you like).

Okay, let me try to make it simpler. Your examples show that some types of magic can become mundane because PCs are used to encountering them. Which I agree with. You then jump to the assertion that all magic becomes mundane in such a case. It's the jump that I disagree with, because you're moving from a specific example to a unilateral claim about all magic.

In fact, you use an example above which illustrates precisely the argument I'm making. You mention how a flame tongue would be much rarer than a +1 sword. Which, of course, means that the discovery of such a sword would be exciting and interesting even if the PCs have seen many +1 swords. That's basically what I'm trying to point out. You can have a game world where some magic is common and well known to PCs and simultaneously have magic which is uncommon and unknown to the PCs. The same is true for magic items. So the existence of ye olde magic shoppe and magical street lights does nothing to prevent the existence of unusual, rare, exciting and interesting magic in the same game world. All it takes is a little creativity. As you'll see from many of the posts above, lots of us are running games like that with no problem whatsoever.

 

[Reynard]

On +1 swords: it is only "just another +1 sword" if you let it be. Every edition of the game has, in supplements and Dragon and the like, offered, somewhere, lists of ways to make those +1 swords unique (and not necessarily by adding powers, either). there's a reason for this. A "+1 sword" is dull and uninspiring. Gregor's Blade, used by the legendary troll-hunter to cut the arm from the Darkling Prince at the foot of the Chaos Gate, is interesting, and quite frankly, the number of "plusses" on it doesn't matter one whit. When the player character who found it swings it in desperation at the spectral thing trying to devour his essence, and the thing actually screeches and flees, that character is going to recognize the power of that weapon and isn't likely to kick it to the curb when the "+2 sword" pops up in Unnamed Dungeon #5. Want to make +1 swords interesting? Get rid of plusses entirely.

On spells and magic: The list of spells in the PHB is the list of spells common and available to player character casters. It does not represent the whole of spell knowledge in the world, or represent spells that non adventuring spellcaster types even have access to. Local wise men and women will have their own spell lists, designed to ease birth and help crops grow and read the flights of birds. The vizier's of decadent emperors will have their own spell lists, designed to inspire fear and awe in the populace, provide pleasure and health to their masters, and allow themselves to gain more and more power behind the throne. Necromancers, demonologists and fleshweavers should all have like lists: unique spells geared toward what they use magic for. Don't have time to create lists of new spells? thankfully, there's tons and tons of spells out there in supplements, 3rd party products and magazines to choose from. Just don't let the PC casters have access to them (unless, of course, they want to delve into those other arts, for which there will be a price to pay...).

On monsters: Why have ten manticore when you can have just one, The Manticore. As with spells, there are literally tens of thousands of monsters to choose from out there. Making The Medusa, The Minotaur or The Dragonne a unique creature will not make the DM want for creatures. Or, simply change the description -- or presentation of the description -- of the monster. You may know that those creatures with skin of stone and great crushing boulders for hands are trolls, but your players don't have to. Or do the flip side: an ogre isn't an ogre when it is a creature with the lower body of a bull and the upper body of a minotaur.

The point is that with players familiar with the tropes of D&D, the key to getting their attention and bringing the mystery and magic back is to break, twist or alter their expectations. In addition, as DM you have the right and responsibility to just make crap up that will entertain your players and make for a better game. Pulling the same old stuff out of the monster manual, going by the letter of the rules all the time, and just plain doing things by the book is simplistic, bottom floor DMing.

 

[Hussar]

I agree that 1E was not supposed to nec. be "low magic". The MM treasure tables that include chances of magic confirm this. Also, many of the early modules had alot of magic.
Also, the number of monsters taht require a +1 weapon to hit suggests +1 weapons aren't totally rare. But, you also need to remember, "adventurers" in 1E are rare (it says so in the PH I believe). These guys actually seek out dangerous dungeons hidden from civilization. When a 2nd level guy gets a +1 long sword, he's typically earned it killing or avoiding something, or was lucky (thats what makes it valuable). Also, be careful to remember some magic is more common then other types (the flame tounge in the above example is rarer then a +1 long sword for instance).

The other pet p I have is how handling "magic" wrong can destroy the fantasy setting (the look of the place). For instance, its perfectly logical to light city streets with continual light spells (as the above poster mentioned); hell every city would have this, as well as every house and place of business. But then suddenly your fantasy setting sound like your real world house. Thats not the escape most of us are looking for in playing AD&D (as for 3E, I'm not familiar enough with the culture to know what the average player of this system is looking for, it doesn't feel "The Hobbit" to me (the way OD&D or 1E did to me) it feels edgier then that.

And this is where I hit the wall of how schizophrenic AD&D tended to be. Sure, the rules talk about how rare "classed" people are. But, when the rubber hits the road, suddenly classed people are coming out of the woodwork. Looking at module after module you can see this. Homlet, a village, has a dozen or so classed individuals, some fairly high level. Orlane has about an equal amount, including a fairly high level wizard.

Then take the mentioned follower rules. Clerics get literally hundreds of followers, many of which are classed individuals. Rangers got monsters as followers.

Never mind the idea of henchmen and hirelings. After all, I can hire higher level classed NPC's by RAW.

The rules can go on and on all they like about how classed people should be rare and all that, but, when you start actually playing, this goes straight out the window. Heck, the cliche of the retired adventurer now tending bar is a cliche for a reason.

As for level of magic, I agree with Treebore 100%. ((Which gives me a nice warm, fuzzy feeling.))