D&D 5E Rarity: Winged Boots v Boots of Levitation - Huh?

[EzekielRaiden]

The 1e DMG actually recommended the DM keep his players in the dark about the rules, and that he should always know the rules better than they do. In 5e, that same idea is reflected in DM Empowerment and 'Rulings, not Rules.' 5e isn't a player-DM negotiation, the DM role is distinct & privileged. Players decide what they want their characters to do, but the DM decides what actually happens. If a given magic item is or isn't available in the campaign, that's his call, how 'rare' the rules say the item is doesn't come into it. The DM might say how 'rare' it is as a detail when someone makes a check to recall facts about it, or a helpful NPC points it out, but it needn't match what's in a book somewhere, and he needn't share (nor even have) already-established house-rules to justify it.

Now, I'll readily admit that's not the only way to design an RPG, but it's how D&D was run for a long time, and lots of DMs are still up for it. It's a different "social contract" than in other modern editions.

Yeah...I have always strongly disliked that particular element of the 1e DMG. For one, because it encourages another type of thinking that I think is poisonous to the game: classifying members of the hobby as "players" xor "DMs." If DMs are supposed to keep their players in the dark about the rules, then no DM should be willing to run a game for someone who has DM experience...which means becoming a DM is a one-way street, you can check out but you can never leave. Anything which discourages DMs from considering taking up the mantle is probably a bad idea, considering how dire the shortage of DMs, and particularly of good DMs, seems to be. And for two, the suggested ways to deal with people who do have and make use of "secret DM knowledge" were incredibly petty and mean-spirited. Essentially, it (or at least what I've heard of it) is "they're definitely obviously cheating, so feel free to punish/torture their characters as much as you like until they stop." But when "stop" means "stop having secret DM knowledge"...

But yeah, the 5e approach appears to be like how an actual student council works (rather than the absurd student council clubs of anime). It's the DM's world, you're just witnessing it. If she graciously deigns to let you choose/have/do something, that is her prerogative. If she does not, that, too, is her prerogative. If she selects a particular course of action or story which the players happen to find cool/exciting/interesting, it is not because they put it forward, but because she elected to choose it. If you dislike it, you can feel free to go to hell close the door on your way out; what is decided is decided, and woe betide the one who questions the viking hat.

(If my rhetoric doesn't make it clear: I'm really not a fan of this style. A refusal to compromise or adapt in a game--refusal to even believe that compromise/adaptation could ever be useful or necessary at the gaming table--is a pretty serious issue in my eyes.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yeah...I have always strongly disliked that particular element of the 1e DMG. For one, because it encourages another type of thinking that I think is poisonous to the game: classifying members of the hobby as "players" xor "DMs." If DMs are supposed to keep their players in the dark about the rules, then no DM should be willing to run a game for someone who has DM experience...which means becoming a DM is a one-way street, you can check out but you can never leave.

That doesn't follow. I've created a number of house rules in 5E for situations the RAW doesn't cover, from how conjured monsters get chosen to how initiative ties are broken to how anti-magic fields interact with permanent effects like True Polymorph and Magic Jar to how much AoE damage is caused by a spelljamming helm going critical. Even if you've DM'ed before, the only way to predict what will happen in these situations is to either do in-game empirical experimentation, or OOC conversation with me, the DM. Apparently Gygax discourages the latter.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That doesn't follow. I've created a number of house rules in 5E for situations the RAW doesn't cover, from how conjured monsters get chosen to how initiative ties are broken to how anti-magic fields interact with permanent effects like True Polymorph and Magic Jar to how much AoE damage is caused by a spelljamming helm going critical. Even if you've DM'ed before, the only way to predict what will happen in these situations is to either do in-game empirical experimentation, or OOC conversation with me, the DM. Apparently Gygax discourages the latter.

As I recall, it's not just house-rules. It's literally written into the 1e DMG itself--or so I've heard. Players read the DMG, you have the right to punish them in-play. I have never played 1e (which, I admit, I only implied and did not overtly say, in that post). I tried to do some Google searches to see if I could find references to it, but it doesn't seem to be very amenable to searching.

Would anyone be willing to help a guy out and quote, or (if it's not a rules violation) find an image of just that passage?

I know I have seen passages (a passage?) about dealing with "problem players" that directly advise(s) using peer pressure and passive-aggressive actions (rolling extra "random monster" dice in plain view, "bolts from the blue," I believe there's even something about a ghost or something similar that surprise attacks the party!) in order to "salvage" a problem player. No mention, IIRC, of having an adult conversation with them. Perhaps Gygax assumed that that had been tried and had failed, I dunno, but it's not super great as written.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hmmm. Okay. I never played 1E either (except in computer games). If Gygax is really hard-nosed about this attitude then I would disagree pretty strongly with him, too.

 

[GuardianLurker]

So, I'm looking through the Magic Items section of the DMG, to decide what goodies to stick in the next hoard and I come across this anomaly. Boots of Levitation are listed as 'rare', but Winged Boots are listed as 'uncommon'. Does that seem reversed to anyone? Levitate is strictly up/down, with no lateral motion possible (except by pulling oneself along a wall or ceiling, etc). Winged boots grant motion on all three axes. The only justification I could see for this would be that Winged Boots have limited duration per day v the Boots of Levitation being at will, but I assert that 4 hours of flight per day is sufficiently unlimited for adventuring purposes. The only person I can imagine that would prefer unlimited levitation over limited duration flight would be a librarian working long shifts.

So something that gets missed is the in game justification - I'm no longer sure if it's explicitly called out, or just something I concluded. In the time lapse between 4e and 5e the "default world" societies collapsed (for some reason) - potentially to the equivalent of "bouncing rubble", and all the races were affected. At any rate, the ability to create magic items was lost *completely*, and is *just now* being rediscovered (hence GM optional). So "Potions of Flying" are rare because they're consumables, and didn't get replaced. "Boots of Levitation" are rare because pre-collapse not many were made, so not many survive. Etc.

Prices are rarity-, not utility-, based. And that means that yes, the "prices" are completely wonky. Not that it matters, in the default assumption. (While as a whole, 2 pairs of winged boots might be found for every pair of boots of levitation, only 6 pairs of boots that let you fly/sort-a-fly have been found at all, and they're all owned by {list of incredibly powerful NPCs}. So do you want this 7th pair, wonky price and all, or not?) As people learn how to remake the items/more are found the pricing basis will change to be more utility-based (a la 3.X/Pathfinder).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So something that gets missed is the in game justification - I'm no longer sure if it's explicitly called out, or just something I concluded. In the time lapse between 4e and 5e the "default world" societies collapsed (for some reason) - potentially to the equivalent of "bouncing rubble", and all the races were affected.

99.9% sure this is something you "concluded" rather than being stated, or even implied.

Particularly because the Forgotten Realms is the default setting, and Waterdeep, Amn, Neverwinter, and all their magic item shops, continue to exist. Unless I'm very much mistaken, Elminster and Drizzt and (maybe?) Khelben and all the other crazy-powerful NPCs still exist, too.

"The entire economy mysteriously crashed and has only recently recovered" is a perfectly cromulent justification for prices that don't reflect utility--and a world with relatively rare magic items. I'm just not sure it's an explanation that actually dovetails with the kind of world 5e is (at core) portraying.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah...I have always strongly disliked that particular element of the 1e DMG. For one, because it encourages another type of thinking that I think is poisonous to the game: classifying members of the hobby as "players" xor "DMs." If DMs are supposed to keep their players in the dark about the rules, then no DM should be willing to run a game for someone who has DM experience...which means becoming a DM is a one-way street....

Personally, in the context of 5e, I'm fine with that. Running it and playing it are two very different experiences, and only the former really appeals to me, atm.

Anything which discourages DMs from considering taking up the mantle is probably a bad idea, considering how dire the shortage of DMs, and particularly of good DMs, seems to be.

That's long been the stereotype, but I haven't seen a shortage of DMs lately. Not since Encounters started (2010), really. Players seem to transition quickly to trying out DMing. Maybe it was the context of casual play, where there's just less pressure? Maybe clearer/better encounter-building guidelines or simplifying other traditional DM tasks have helped?

And for two, the suggested ways to deal with people who do have and make use of "secret DM knowledge" were incredibly petty and mean-spirited. Essentially, it (or at least what I've heard of it) is "they're definitely obviously cheating, so feel free to punish/torture their characters as much as you like until they stop." But when "stop" means "stop having secret DM knowledge"...

Yeah, well, y'know, it was a different time...

It's the DM's world, you're just witnessing it. If she graciously deigns to let you choose/have/do something, that is her prerogative. If she does not, that, too, is her prerogative.

Nod. It's dependent on having a good, or at least well-meaning, DM, but if you do draw a bad one, you just don't come back to that table. I guess that's also something were the casual play context makes coping easier.

(If my rhetoric doesn't make it clear: I'm really not a fan of this style. A refusal to compromise or adapt in a game--refusal to even believe that compromise/adaptation could ever be useful or necessary at the gaming table--is a pretty serious issue in my eyes.)

It's not a refusal to adapt, quite the opposite, it's a /requirement/ that the DM adapt the game (DM Empowerment). But, yes, the decision whether or how much to compromise rests with the DM, the player's only option is binary: play with that DM or not.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Personally, in the context of 5e, I'm fine with that. Running it and playing it are two very different experiences, and only the former really appeals to me, atm.

Well, that's...fine for you, I guess. But the really old way (that is, as allegedly advocated in the 1e DMG--please correct me if I'm wrong here!) strikes me as punishing people who enjoy both sides of the screen. And that's crappy.

That's long been the stereotype, but I haven't seen a shortage of DMs lately. Not since Encounters started (2010), really, players seem to transition quickly to trying out DMing. Maybe it was the context of casual play, where there's just less pressure? Maybe clearer/better encounter-building guidelines have helped?

I doubt Encounters has hurt. Perhaps you're just in an area relatively flush with them? I can't really speak from experience, I don't frequent game stores (not that I dislike them, I just have reasons for not doing so). On the other hand, I'd be extremely surprised if 5e's encounter-building guidelines are responsible though; the vast majority of people who say anything about it at all tend to say "eh, I don't even check anymore" or "I've concluded on my own that it's not at all reliable."

Nod. It's dependent on having a good, or at least well-meaning, DM, but if you do draw a bad one, you just don't come back to that table. I guess that's also something were the casual play context makes coping easier.

I've never actually had a "viking hat" DM, but I'll be honest, I have a somewhat morbid concern about having to deal with one--in part because of my personal interests WRT class and race. (The sheer number of people I interact with who have nothing but bile for my favorite of one, the other, or both does nothing to help these concerns.) When you compound this with the significant difficulty I have in even finding a group to play with at all, I hope it's a bit clearer why "casual play" isn't an option and "vote with your feet" is tantamount to having to refuse water in the desert because some jerkwad dumped cyanide into it.

It's not a refusal to adapt, quite the opposite, it's a /requirement/ that the DM adapt the game (DM Empowerment). But, yes, the decision whether or how much to compromise rests with the DM, the player's only option is binary: play with that DM or not.

I...think we're using incredibly different--like, worlds apart--definitions of "adapt" here. To the point of I don't actually see how heavy (e.g. 5e) or hardline (e.g. 1e) DM Empowerment requires any amount of "adapting" at all. So...what do you mean by that term?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Yeah...I have always strongly disliked that particular element of the 1e DMG. For one, because it encourages another type of thinking that I think is poisonous to the game: classifying members of the hobby as "players" xor "DMs." If DMs are supposed to keep their players in the dark about the rules, then no DM should be willing to run a game for someone who has DM experience...which means becoming a DM is a one-way street, you can check out but you can never leave. Anything which discourages DMs from considering taking up the mantle is probably a bad idea, considering how dire the shortage of DMs, and particularly of good DMs, seems to be. And for two, the suggested ways to deal with people who do have and make use of "secret DM knowledge" were incredibly petty and mean-spirited. Essentially, it (or at least what I've heard of it) is "they're definitely obviously cheating, so feel free to punish/torture their characters as much as you like until they stop." But when "stop" means "stop having secret DM knowledge"...

But yeah, the 5e approach appears to be like how an actual student council works (rather than the absurd student council clubs of anime). It's the DM's world, you're just witnessing it. If she graciously deigns to let you choose/have/do something, that is her prerogative. If she does not, that, too, is her prerogative. If she selects a particular course of action or story which the players happen to find cool/exciting/interesting, it is not because they put it forward, but because she elected to choose it. If you dislike it, you can feel free to go to hell close the door on your way out; what is decided is decided, and woe betide the one who questions the viking hat.

(If my rhetoric doesn't make it clear: I'm really not a fan of this style. A refusal to compromise or adapt in a game--refusal to even believe that compromise/adaptation could ever be useful or necessary at the gaming table--is a pretty serious issue in my eyes.)

Short version:

Discouraging non-DM's from reading stuff not in the PHB was primarily for two things.

First, to distinctly differentiate the Players role from the DM's role. Just like the top dogs at WotC don't disseminate their confidential memos about where they want to take the D&D brand, to everyone that works for them. Same idea; those who are not "in control of the operation" don't need to know any of that stuff, and by not knowing it, it differentiates the roles between Player and DM. That difference allows the DM leeway for the introduction of his/her own 'stuff' (rules, items, monsters, etc) and no Player would know the difference. Encountering a Ettercap for the first time, or a Vanderlaang for the first time....the Players would see both on "equal footing". This leads into...

Second, mystery. It allows "mystery" for the Players. The Players don't know the monsters. They don't know the magic items. They don't know their chances for surviving being thrown into a deep river, being swept down rapids, whilst wearing their backpack, weapons and armor. From their perspective they just use their imaginations to picture the situation. From there, they role-play what their character would do to try and survive. Dread and excitement ensue! The DM tells them to make this roll, or that save, or some other check... and the Player rolls, not knowing the exact details. Excitement in the face of the unknown is a KEY (if not THE key) ingredient of playing an RPG in the first place. By keeping the players from "peeking behind the curtain" (as some wise writer once said), it helps maintain that mystery. As soon as you have a Player instantly flip open the PHB, then make some quick calculations, roll a d20, then blurt out, "Ok. I made my Swim check with all the appropriate modifiers. I beat the DC for River - Rapids by 6... so I swim to shore"... well, you've just (A) erased that distinction between DM and Player, and (B) sucked all the mystery and excitement out of would could have been a wonderfully dramatic situation.

So, while I understand your stance on it, I don't think you've thought through the actual consequences of what the 3e+ "Everyone can read every book" action. I NEVER has as many arguments with players as I do when I'm trying to DM players who have grown up with 3.x/4e/PF. Virtually every ruling or adjudication I make is questioned and dissected. Books are flipped open, rules are pointed out, Feats are read aloud, etc, etc, etc. I have to explain why their roll of 22 failed when the rules say the DC check is a 18 at maximum. If I don't, kittens are lost in epic fashion. Giving in, I finally say "Guys! It's a fricken illusion! OK?! See!? THAT'S why you 'failed'...because the illusion makes you 'fail'." Aaaaaannnd.... POOF! Mystery gone. DM authority undermined. Future situations with anything "not in the rules", negated. No thank you. I will not play/DM in that kind of game.

And, as a final note, you not liking the distinction between Player and DM is just something you'll have to live with. You can try and delude yourself into thinking both are "the same", but they aren't. And they SHOULDN'T be. Not any more than the players in a sport should have equal say in rulings made by the referee. The Ref is there to maintain structure and fairness. This should lead to the players enjoying the game more. Yes, they may argue with this call or that, but ultimately they know that the Ref is not "just another player"... and that he/she is outside all that stuff. A Referee in an RPG is the very similar; he/she is not a player. Different responsibilities and different goals. Why do people play sports? Because they enjoy it. Why do people Referee sports? Because they enjoy it. Claiming that both types (players and refs) should be treated "equal" is...silly, IMHO.

PS: As for "punishing DM's when they play", I don't think so. It advocates punishing those who abuse it; those who use their knowledge above and beyond what their PC's may reasonably know. That said...any DM worth his salt would have a LOT of different things anyway. So a DM playing in another's game may have his DM knowledge bite him in the butt by making the assumption that Rule X works as per the DMG Page XX; when in fact, in this DM's game, it has been modified significantly. This all ties back into the "Players don't need to know" thing quite nicely.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, that's...fine for you, I guess.

It's a blast, yes. :>

But the really old way (that is, as allegedly advocated in the 1e DMG--please correct me if I'm wrong here!) strikes me as punishing people who enjoy both sides of the screen. And that's crappy.

I both DM'd and played in the 1e era, and there were plenty of 'rules lawyers' who had thoroughgoing knowledge of the rules from the player side of the screen. So it was, like so many ideals, one that was not always lived up to.

Of course, as in 5e, the rules of 1e were subject to DM fiat, so a DM could always stay ahead of his players in 'rules knowledge' as long as they couldn't read his mind. ;P

I doubt Encounters has hurt. Perhaps you're just in an area relatively flush with them? I can't really speak from experience, I don't frequent game stores (not that I dislike them, I just have reasons for not doing so). On the other hand, I'd be extremely surprised if 5e's encounter-building guidelines are responsible though; the vast majority of people who say anything about it at all tend to say "eh, I don't even check anymore" or "I've concluded on my own that it's not at all reliable."

It's a trend I've seen starting with Encounters which, yes, was 4e. It was easy to DM, certainly, in part because of fairly decent encounter design (the relative clarity of the rules lending them to an 'above board' style didn't hurt, either), and that may have contributed to getting the ball rolling and getting more players to try DMing and be successful at it. But, even if 5e encounter-building guidelines aren't terribly useful (or even seem actively bad) to experienced DMs, 5e didn't do away with them, so it still presents the idea that DMing is a task that can be done by following reasonably clear steps, even if there's an extra multiplication step in the encounters guidelines, and regardless of how great the results may be. At the very worst/most cynical, it's a bait-and-switch, which gives new or 4e-accustomed DMs a false sense of security with guidelines that don't work, then presents them the opportunity to fix the problems on the fly by Empowering them through a system that relies heavily on their rulings.
Either way, I still haven't seen a shortage of DMs at our FLGS, even for 5e tables, even a year in.

I've never actually had a "viking hat" DM, but I'll be honest, I have a somewhat morbid concern about having to deal with one--in part because of my personal interests WRT class and race. (The sheer number of people I interact with who have nothing but bile for my favorite of one, the other, or both does nothing to help these concerns.) When you compound this with the significant difficulty I have in even finding a group to play with at all, I hope it's a bit clearer why "casual play" isn't an option and "vote with your feet" is tantamount to having to refuse water in the desert because some jerkwad dumped cyanide into it.

Sure, not everyone is in an ideal circumstance. Just because DMs aren't in short supply here in the middle of geek-central Silicon Valley doesn't mean game aren't hard to find elsewhere.

I...think we're using incredibly different--like, worlds apart--definitions of "adapt" here. To the point of I don't actually see how heavy (e.g. 5e) or hardline (e.g. 1e) DM Empowerment requires any amount of "adapting" at all. So...what do you mean by that term?

It's all about adapting: you rule in the way that's best for your campaign (and, yes, your players), instead of following some inflexible Rule as Written.