Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Windjammer" data-source="post: 8204227" data-attributes="member: 60075">Yeah I think it's difficult to get consensus around that issue. Two of the most revered D&amp;D products across time appear to be 1983 Redbox, with a 64 pages player's book, and the 1991 Rules Cyclopedia, with its 400+ pages of consolidated content. Clearly both have a place, and are dearly loved. Maybe it's best if a game has both options?Re magic items, that's another point where I don't think we'll ever get wide consistency among D&amp;D players. As a player, I want full access to magic items and don't want to buy a separate book. As a GM, I hate the idea - like monsters, i feel treasure distribution is my purview. When 4e PHB put the magic items in the players' hands, there was uproar from the grognards that magic gear has finally been trivialized to a build component. That was quite a shift, over time, from 1990s TSR where products would resolutely refuse to give players access to magic item economy, and even modules (like Firestorm Peak) would mock the idea of &quot;magic item shops&quot; that came to define the 3E era and D&amp;D ever since. By the time we got 4e, even item shops weren't the end of the development. Like quite a few other DM's in 2008, I hated and mocked 4e's idea of a &quot;magic item wishlist&quot; for players, treating the DM like a cashier at McDonald's. &quot;I'll have a BigMac +1, and Bob here will have Bracers of Strength; that'll be all for today.&quot; It gave rise to <a href="https://www.gamegrene.com/node/971" target="_blank">this stellar satire, which I still adore to this day.</a>I'm still a fan of 4e's inherent bonuses system. Extract the trivial part of magic gear, put it in player's hands along the equipment section, but leave the truly magical gear, not just artifacts, to the GM. There's no reason why the Holy Avenger should be classified as equipment in the way the CRB does by implication.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Windjammer, post: 8204227, member: 60075"] Yeah I think it's difficult to get consensus around that issue. Two of the most revered D&D products across time appear to be 1983 Redbox, with a 64 pages player's book, and the 1991 Rules Cyclopedia, with its 400+ pages of consolidated content. Clearly both have a place, and are dearly loved. Maybe it's best if a game has both options? Re magic items, that's another point where I don't think we'll ever get wide consistency among D&D players. As a player, I want full access to magic items and don't want to buy a separate book. As a GM, I hate the idea - like monsters, i feel treasure distribution is my purview. When 4e PHB put the magic items in the players' hands, there was uproar from the grognards that magic gear has finally been trivialized to a build component. That was quite a shift, over time, from 1990s TSR where products would resolutely refuse to give players access to magic item economy, and even modules (like Firestorm Peak) would mock the idea of "magic item shops" that came to define the 3E era and D&D ever since. By the time we got 4e, even item shops weren't the end of the development. Like quite a few other DM's in 2008, I hated and mocked 4e's idea of a "magic item wishlist" for players, treating the DM like a cashier at McDonald's. "I'll have a BigMac +1, and Bob here will have Bracers of Strength; that'll be all for today." It gave rise to [URL='https://www.gamegrene.com/node/971']this stellar satire, which I still adore to this day.[/URL] I'm still a fan of 4e's inherent bonuses system. Extract the trivial part of magic gear, put it in player's hands along the equipment section, but leave the truly magical gear, not just artifacts, to the GM. There's no reason why the Holy Avenger should be classified as equipment in the way the CRB does by implication. [/QUOTE]

Verification