D&D (2024) Uncommon items - actually common?

[Minigiant]

I can't parse this

There is a certain percentage of the D&D fan base who want the entire world outside of the dungeon to be void of magic but the dungeon itself to be flooded with magic but players having the option to create a magic user with no restriction and no story link to creating that magic user.

They claim that it creates that sense of wonder where every magic item is a rare specialty however this was never the base assumption of how D&D worked. In D&D the rich and powerful had access to magic.

Creating such a world where magic was extremely rare is required an alteration of the base assumptions of the game. It was never default.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's been decades since leveling leveled what you actually used to get the XP.

So killing a bunch of dudes would in a rules-as-physics world male you better at playing board games and picking locks.

Also, since XP is only awarded for challenges by the DM, the DM would need to actively award XP to the trillions of characters they technically control across the universe and retroactively away it to the googleplex of past characters who created the current state of the world.

That's what you get if rules are physics.

You can practically taste the 'verisimilitude'.

That's what abstract means. Certain things, like hit points and leveling, are abstracted for practical game play. That does not mean that the entire concept of simulationist play should be abandoned.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But if a tool slips, it will cut off a finger or whatever. And a potion of healing can't heal that - it can only heal hp loss.

Whatever game you're using would do for a better healing system. Or you rule that hp loss by itself means nothing specific.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In Gygax's PHB, a ranger PC must have at least 13 STR and INT, and at least 14 WIS and CON.

In his DMG (p 100), a ranger NPC is built quite differently:

Fighter: strength +2, constitution + 1​

Ranger: as fighter, 12 minimum wisdom​

So it turns out that players are only allowed to play the tougher, cleverer rangers. That is a feature of game play. It is irrelevant to whether or not the setting is verismilitudinous.

All versions of D&D have manticores in the fiction. No version of D&D I'm aware of sets out rules for a player to play a manticore. So basically all the manticores in the fiction are not protagonists in the play of a game. That is also irrelevant to whether or not the setting is verisimilitudinous.

In my 4e D&D game, the player of the chaos sorcerer had abilities on his sheet that let him manipulate dice rolls. This was a gameplay technique that reflected the character's control, in the fiction, over the forces of chaos. Similarly, the player of the Deva Sage of Ages had dice-manipulation abilities that reflected the character's knowledge, in the fiction, of both the past and the future.

In my Torchbearer 2e game the players have all sorts of ways, consistent with the game's rules, to manipulate dice pools and dice results. Some of these reflect in-fiction capabilities, like knowledge and personality traits. Some are purely meta. In the fiction, the upshot is simply that things happen of the sort that might happen to lucky people with that knowledge and those traits.

The attempt to infer from stuff that happens at the table, in the process of authorship to the verisimilitudinous nature of the fiction, is hopeless. And the reason is easily explained: whether fiction is verisimilitudinous depends upon its content. But the content of a fiction is independent of how it is authored. QED.

So it turns out Gygax doesn't practice what he preaches. We all knew this.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's what abstract means. Certain things, like hit points and leveling, are abstracted for practical game play. That does not mean that the entire concept of simulationist play should be abandoned.

It does mean that simulationist play has to make allowances for the fact that it's being applied to a game and storytelling engine and trying to couch a dislike for narrativist play as being on the side of 'logic' or 'verisimilitude' is a losing gambit.

Especially since verisimilitude as a term was stolen from storytelling vernacular and absolutely has nothing to do with simulation of real life. The guy who taught people to use this as a weapon on the old WotC boards has much to answer for.

 

[ezo]

In my world, 1g is roughly equivalent to $100. Therefore...

This is a very common comparison IME. My groups do the same thing.

• A riding horse for 75g is effectively $7,500. Not everyone owns a riding horse.
• A Common magic item worth 50g equals $5,000. Is there a non-dangerous magic item that a commoner is willing to spend that much money on? Would they rather save for a horse or have a common magic item?
• An Uncommon magic item worth 400g is equivalent to $40,000. This is the big list of what people in the world might have, but it would still be uncommon. An Uncommon broom of flying is effectively buying a slow, flying bicycle. A bag of holding is also Uncommon. You can have 5 horses and 25g left over for this amount. Which would a commoner rather have?
• A Rare magic item worth 4,000g is equivalent to $400,000. That is a LOT of value. But just because it exists, it doesn't mean that it is easy to sell/offload. This is a level that is suited to bartering (like for other magic items).

This, however, is were we differ in preference. The concept of a "common" magic item should not exist. Personally, in a fantasy game, I don't like the magical equivalent to the modern conveniences we enjoy.

Even a potion of healing, which in 5E terms, recovers a commoner from 0 hp to 4 hp every single time (healing a minimum of 4 hp), should be an item rarely seen. At 50 gp (or $5,000) that is not nearly enough cost to represent the idea of an item so rarely seen by a commoner.

If we look at the 2014 PHB, a "comfortable" lifestyle is 2 gp / day. Such a person must make at least that amount to maintain their lifestyle; a skilled blacksmith is good example. Now, a "modest" lifestyle is 1 gp / day. If our blacksmith choose to live a modest lifestyle, they would save 1 gp / day over what they make. In under two months, they could afford that potion of healing. For me, that is too easy and too low. If they saved an entire year's worth of workdays (say 250 days) and had 250 gp, that would be more reasonable to my liking for a potion of healing. At 250 gp, a potion of healing is also something no PC could begin the game with, but a party might pool their initial resources to have one in the group.

So, it is easy enough for myself to adapt for my games when compared to 5E's design. No "common" magical items at all. "Convenience" magical items do not exist in that sense. For all other magical items, I can multiply the buy / create costs by a factor of x5 and I can deal with that; I would also double the time factors.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It does mean that simulationist play has to make allowances for the fact that it's being applied to a game and storytelling engine and trying to couch a dislike for narrativist play as being on the side of 'logic' or 'verisimilitude' is a losing gambit.

Especially since verisimilitude as a term was stolen from storytelling vernacular and absolutely has nothing to do with simulation of real life. The guy who taught people to use this as a weapon on the old WotC boards has much to answer for.

I preferred the term "realism" over verisimilitude, but was shouted down long ago.

And I do make allowances. All the time. Mentioned a couple in the post you responded to. I just try to avoid making more than I have to.

 

[ezo]

There is a certain percentage of the D&D fan base who want the entire world outside of the dungeon to be void of magic but the dungeon itself to be flooded with magic but players having the option to create a magic user with no restriction and no story link to creating that magic user.

You can just use my username, I don't mind.

And you are no where near correct in what I was saying. If you were referring to someone else, fine, I suppose you could be...

However, I, for one, never said I "want the entire world outside of the dungeon to be a void of magic" or anything like it. I don't recall anyone else saying anything like that either. Nor do I want dungeons "flooded with magic", and again I don't recall anyone else claiming that, either. You are exaggerating my statements and shifting goalposts at the same time.

Correct me, if I am wrong?

They claim that it creates that sense of wonder where every magic item is a rare specialty

Yes, I said that. And I know others think like that as well, feeling +1 items, etc. are patently boring and so on.

however this was never the base assumption of how D&D worked.

Look at the costs for magical items in AD&D compared to 5E. Costs for "minor" items is typically 5x to 10x the cost in AD&D.

We all (I hope) know Monty Haul games were common enough in AD&D, and I never claimed otherwise was the base assumption. What I said was you did not have the prevalence of magic items in an AD&D game world as 5E implies exists in the modern D&D world. By comparison, magic was rarer. We weren't buying potions of healing on the standard equipment list in AD&D that I recall.

In D&D the rich and powerful had access to magic.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. They certainly would have the money to make it more likely, but it was never a certainty.

Creating such a world where magic was extremely rare is required an alteration of the base assumptions of the game. It was never default.

This is where you are incorrect IMO and IME.

I can certainly have magic ITEMS (which, by the way, this was always supposed to be about magic ITEMS, not magical classes or anything else magical--only ITEMS... at some point you shifted the goalposts) be rare and not common in the world as a whole. No one might craft them currently, and items found are from the lost ages, etc.--yes, typically in (shocker!) dungeons!

 

[jmartkdr2]

But if a tool slips, it will cut off a finger or whatever. And a potion of healing can't heal that - it can only heal hp loss.

You can live without a finger or a leg, but only if you survive the blood loss and infection. That's what the potion's for.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I preferred the term "realism" over verisimilitude, but was shouted down long ago.

It is rather hard to shout realism at someone trying to pretend they're an elf who made a deal with Titania so they can wear armor made of popsicles.

And I do make allowances. All the time. Mentioned a couple in the post you responded to. I just try to avoid making more than I have to.

Then why can't WotC?