Party Magic Pool

[Michael Silverbane]

"They're searching for the princess and after killing some of the bad guy's henchmen they find a trove of underwater breathing potions. They shout, "cha-ching!" and hock them immediately. Then the next week they discover that the princess is being held by kuo-toa in a prison at the bottom of the sea. Sucks to be them." That ain't railroading.

Some folks might call that railroading (some folks will call just about anything railroading). I, personally, call it Pavloving... As in, "I'm Pavloving my players not to immediately sell any magic item whose use is not immediately obvious to them." Or, "I'm Pavloving my players not to trust NPCs with mustaches by describing all lying NPCs as having mustaches..."

Later
silver

 

[00Machado]

Let 'em sell it and then almost immediately hit them with a situation where they'll wish they had a flying combat mount. If your players are anything like I am as a player you'll have to do this three or four times and then explain to them what you are doing. Then explain it again using small words and diagrams. Eventually they'll learn that you're not giving them slick little 'get out of trouble' magic items for your own health.

I was inclinded to suggest something similar, but then I stepped back and though that I shouldn't be forcing my view of what is cool and/or useful on the players. I also shouldn't decide for them that party items are better than individual items. After all, the abilities of their characters are part of their fun. As GM I should control whether or not someone will sell them an item they want, but I shouldn't try and control whether or not they sell something they've got.

And then I was sort of disappointed, and thought, but now the game is less fun for me to play because I'll never get to see these cool magic items in play. I thought, I'll just create encounters where they really would have found that item useful and railroad, I mean 'encourage' in a heavy handed way them to keep the items I think are cool. And I thought to myself, well, that might be a good surprise once or twice as a player, to make me gnash my teeth and wish I'd kept it, all in good fun, but if it happens all the time, you feel like the unwritten rule is that you must keep the items instead of the ones you want to have, which is no fun. Then it struck me. I am the GM. If I think an item is cool, and I want to encourage it being seen as useful and worth having, I will lead by example. I don't have to force the players to use it in order to see it in the campaign. I'll let the villains use it. Those are characters I get to play. If players decide their items and strategies are cool and adopt them for themselves (i.e. keep those items next time, or even seek them out), then great. And if they don't, well, I still get to introduce those items and see them in play. And if I, with all the GM powers at my disposal, can't create encounters where they are worthwhile for a villain to have, maybe I should take a hint from the players and realize the item isn't worth keeping.

 

[00Machado]

You say that like its a bad thing.

But I'm not sure this is railroading. Is it railroading if they find a key today and the chest that it opens next week? Hardly. Perhaps I was a bit overdramatic in my suggestion that you tell the players that a lot of the niche magic items they encounter might be useful down the road, but I don't see anything wrong with punishing...no wait, that's a bad word...I don't see anything wrong with holding players accountable when they (short sightedly) sell useful magic items.

"They're searching for the princess and after killing some of the bad guy's henchmen they find a trove of underwater breathing potions. They shout, "cha-ching!" and hock them immediately. Then the next week they discover that the princess is being held by kuo-toa in a prison at the bottom of the sea. Sucks to be them." That ain't railroading.

This puts the idea in a much better light. That, I think is just them rushing to sell something and suffering the consequences.

 

[JonMonster]

Then it struck me. I am the GM. If I think an item is cool, and I want to encourage it being seen as useful and worth having, I will lead by example.

Sure. That's part of the give and take of the game. I can't tell you how many times I've tossed a throw-away item into a hoard just to add some non-gp value and then had a player latch onto what I considered fluff and turn it into something really cool. While part of the fun of the game for players is finding new and effective ways of using those odd magic items, part of the fun for the GM is finding a way to make those odd magic items fit seamlessly into the campaign.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Removing the economy or lowering the sale value of the items is probably the best method for achieving what I want from items.

The point is that I want to be able to give them different items, sometimes useful, sometimes just quirky, outside of the normal gear that PCs expect. They get enough enough gear to keep them up with the Joneses. This was the extra stuff.

I wanted to come up with a way to quantify it, thats was the purpose of the original post. A numerical guideline for the magic that is above and beyond the norm.

There's your solution right there. Don't quantify it. If it's an extra, just don't let them sell it. "Nope, ain't got no call fer them hereabouts." Of course, you'll probably have to come up with a few good reasons, but they should get the hint quickly enough.

 

[Maldor]

"They're searching for the princess and after killing some of the bad guy's henchmen they find a trove of underwater breathing potions. They shout, "cha-ching!" and hock them immediately. Then the next week they discover that the princess is being held by kuo-toa in a prison at the bottom of the sea. Sucks to be them." That ain't railroading.

this is a better stated comment and hopefully your players will wonder why the bad guy had a stock pile of that condation useful item
00MachadoI am the GM. If I think an item is cool, and I want to encourage it being seen as useful and worth having, I will lead by example. I don't have to force the players to use it in order to see it in the campaign. I'll let the villains use it. Those are characters I get to play. If players decide their items and strategies are cool and adopt them for themselves (i.e. keep those items next time, or even seek them out), then great. And if they don't, well, I still get to introduce those items and see them in play. And if I, with all the GM powers at my disposal, can't create encounters where they are worthwhile for a villain to have, maybe I should take a hint from the players and realize the item isn't worth keeping.
now this is a idea i really like

 

[Ahrimon]

Assume your characters represent the average mentallity of the worlds adventurers. Who in turn make up 90% of the wealthy population. If the characters look at this item and say "I'd rather sell it to get the next stat boost/armor/NA amulet/etc..." then who would be around to buy it? Most people who could afford an item would be the same as the character and not want to buy it. So demand is next to non-existant. Therefore when they try to sell it, they best they can get is say 25%. Once they start looking at these items as useful trinkets and not cash they'll be more inclined to keep them.

 

[Kestrel]

Great replies, lots of ideas in here I could use. I like the lowering the value idea should they try to sell it.

(The griffon example has become moot because the Drow Bard in the party believes that all Drow adventurers must have a Figurine of Wonderous Power...not sure where he got that idea )

I think in the end I just need to hammer into my and the players' brain that the wealth guidelines are simply that, guidelines. Also that the DMG prices are not set in stone.

 

[The_Ditto]

Our party has always been of the tact: "If it's useful to a PC, they get it .. " .. we don't track their wealth or go "Hey you already have 20k worth of stuff, I only have 5k ... so I get this" ... we look at it as "Who benefits the most, and how does the party benefit the most?"

Yes, we may try to balance things around a bit ... but there is not pool of "wealth" that they have to deduct from ... personally, I think that's the first problem.

If I have a limit of 10k ... than yes, I will be very very picky about which items I "want" ...
If however, I have no limit, then I will likely hang onto any item that is evenly moderately useful ... such as the figurine you mention ...

========

On another track entirely ... (consider this a seperate post)

What about setting up a bidding system?
That is, the PCs bid for an item ... subtracting from their "total" whatever the high bid was (as opposed to the actual value of the item).

In this case, I might just take the figurine if I can get it "cheap" enough not to hurt my wealth total ...

 

[S'mon]

(I'm starting to realize that its a moot discussion anyway. The only way to really restrict it is to do away with Magic Item shopping altogether and make them take what I give them. But that's not satisfying either, so I'll just keep churning out the +1 weapons, armor, cloaks of resistance, and stat buffers on the npcs, since the pcs are just after the money anyway)

I think the best way to do it is run a lower wealth economy and

(a) Restrict sale value of the most powerful items - although this probably wouldn't apply to the flying griffin at only 10,000 gp, what sensible Fighter-9 baron wouldn't want this! But don't let them sell weird stuff for 50,000 gp, lower the gp limit for your largest cities to say 10,000 gp rather than 100,000 gp.

(b) Restrict what's available, 3,000 gp seems like a reasonable limit, but maybe up to 5,000 gp so you can buy +2 Buff items, but not +6. So they can cover the basics, but really powerful stuff still must be quested for. The obvious reason is that XP are worth comparatively more to high level Wizards & Clerics - a low-leveller might make a +1 sword for cash, but few 15th levellers will take the XP hit to craft a +5 weapon.