The problem of keeping magic items scarce...

[NilesB]

Government have an inherent interest in keeping monsters from eating their taxpayers. If they do not it can be assumed they cannot. For this reason it is self evident to PCs that any tax collector intent on seizing their treasure is less formidable than the monsters who the PCs looted them from.

It is impossible to conceal what this act is: sacrificing the consistency an plausibility of the campaign world to hose the players. It is a rare player who will not resent that.

 

[Emirikol]

This has resulted in them slaughtering opponents in encounters, who almost always have fewer magic items than the PCs, thus allowing them to accumulate new magic items with ease. The solution seems to be to have decked-out NPCs running all over the place, but I fear that will cause a veritable flood of magic items into the PCs hands.

Two things:
1. Say that all items are bonded to a character (otherwise they revert to masterwork). Make a simple rule.
2. Give your PC's a reason to destroy their own items..for example: we have a fumble rule where the PC's can do an massive autocrit on a 1 if they choose, but it destroys the weapon and the PC get's bonus x.p. and a heroic story to tell.

jh

 

[Raven Crowking]

Government have an inherent interest in keeping monsters from eating their taxpayers. If they do not it can be assumed they cannot. For this reason it is self evident to PCs that any tax collector intent on seizing their treasure is less formidable than the monsters who the PCs looted them from.

Often true, and at some point absolutely true.

But it is also true that any given government has limited resources that it allocates to deal with whatever seem to be the most pressing problems first. Because a goverment allows a nest of goblins to move into its locale doesn't mean that it cannot drive that nest out; just that there are more important issues at stake.

Even at lower levels, the PCs are likely to be able to trounce the local tax collector (guards included), but this sort of behaviour can escalate the PCs up into the "important issues" that the government wishes to use most of its resources in dealing with.

To use a Wild West analogy, the farm hands at 1st level might be outlaws by 2nd level and US Marshalls by 5th level.

(Of course, this advice largely requires setup from the word Go, and I could see that the players might resent it if it shows up late in the game.)

Of course, if the Godfather really wanted something you had, he'd start with a friendly offer. It wouldn't be all against you. It might even be very reasonable. Likewise with the local government. I could quite easily see "Well, you know that there's a tax on that treasure, but we could see our way to forgoing that, but Baron Corleone views that particular item as an heirloom of his house, and wouldn't take amiss to having it returned......"


RC

 

[Remathilis]

The problem (and D&D sums it up perfectly) is that Feudalism requires a few rich nobles controlling 1,000s of poor, uneducated peons. To get a truly Feudal feeling, you'd have to remove the whole "take their stuff" part out of the game.

Think. A knight is in the service of his lord. He makes a few successful campaigns. He is rewarded with land and a keep, plate armor (a small fortune) a noble steed (perhaps from the King's steed's breeding stock!) and the opportunity to marry another noble's daughter.

However, what out of that does he "own?" The land? Nope. The king owns that and he can give it any other knight whom he deems "fitter". The armor? Insofar as that can't be resold, but I'm sure the king, if sufficiently annoyed, would see that reclaimed for its steel. The horse? Horses are a burden to keep up without grooms and land. The wife? Legally yes, but another mouth to feed (and more, if he's had children) is no consolation when you having nothing else. And the wife could always seek shelter with her family or in a convent. At the end of the day, he has all he has because his king "likes" him and has given him these gifts "on loan".

D&D doesn't work like that. You kill an orc, you have his 100 silver pieces. You gather enough silver (and kill enough orcs) you buy your own armor. You buy your own horse. You settle your own land (and attract followers, pre-3e) and you marry whoever you damn-well please. And if the king doesn't like it, he has nothing to threaten you with except your death or the destruction of all that you've bought with blood and orc-silver. And as we all know, most people will fight to the death to defend their lives, loves, and property. After killing 1,000s of orcs, what a few royal guards? Or Royals themselves?

D&D is venture-capitalism with democratic overtones and a dollop of egalitarianism masquerading around as late-medieval European feudalism. Trying to make it anything else is lipstick on a pig.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The problem (and D&D sums it up perfectly) is that Feudalism requires a few rich nobles controlling 1,000s of poor, uneducated peons. To get a truly Feudal feeling, you'd have to remove the whole "take their stuff" part out of the game.

Hence my "The Godfather" analogy.


RC

 

[Kraydak]

D&D is venture-capitalism with democratic overtones and a dollop of egalitarianism masquerading around as late-medieval European feudalism. Trying to make it anything else is lipstick on a pig.

A DnD world is supremely well suited to feudalism. People 8 ELs below you CANNOT hurt you. They cannot gather together and rebel (at least successfully). You very naturally end up with a tiered power system where people at EL X divide up the world, are protected by EL X+5 patrons from other EL X+5s and rule EL X-5s at their every whim. Note that the actual power structure doesn't need to follow the "official" political structure and indeed (given the adventurer types are unlikely to relish day-to-day governance) probably won't.

PCs are unusual in such a world in that they are (for some reason) unusually able to climb the power structure (via leveling). They are the world's natural nobility and (even at low level) will draw attention due to their long term potential.

 

[NilesB]

But it is also true that any given government has limited resources that it allocates to deal with whatever seem to be the most pressing problems first. Because a goverment allows a nest of goblins to move into its locale doesn't mean that it cannot drive that nest out; just that there are more important issues at stake.

It says unfortunate things about a government's priorities if it would rather seize wealth from people making the area safer than from people eating monsters.

 

[hong]

It says unfortunate things about a government's priorities if it would rather seize wealth from people making the area safer than from people eating monsters.

Have YOU tried to seize wealth from a person who eats monsters? It's not as easy as it looks.

... also, in before the lock!

 

[Raven Crowking]

It says unfortunate things about a government's priorities if it would rather seize wealth from people making the area safer than from people eating monsters.

Many RL examples spring to mind, but probably cannot be discussed here.

 

[pawsplay]

The problem (and D&D sums it up perfectly) is that Feudalism requires a few rich nobles controlling 1,000s of poor, uneducated peons. To get a truly Feudal feeling, you'd have to remove the whole "take their stuff" part out of the game.

Actually, the basis of the feudal system is simple mathematics:

I have land + I have warriors armed and ready to kill you = I am in charge

The "killing people and taking their stuff" method of feudalism is not only classic, but archetypal, and has well served any number of individuals from Julius Caesar to William of Normandy to Genghis Khan. The entire basis of feudalism is the control of armed might through land and vice versa.

A more sophisticated variant involves killing people and taking their kingdoms.