Where is my Freaking Mule?!

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So if everyone shows interest in buying a book of useless stuff, WOTC will simply ignore that?

If everyone shows interest in buying a book of useless stuff I sure WotC will not ignore it. But not even the majority of people in this thread would find this book of useless stuff useful, ironic.

People have given you many sources for what you're looking for. I'd look into one of those before holding my breath over WotC's release of Complete(ly) Useless.

 

[Alex319]

I think the problem that some people are having is that so many of the examples being given as "something we'd like to see" are either 1) already present in the rules (sailing ships) or 2) are easily approximated by just reducing the price of something already in the books (ex: Why can't a mule just be a cheaper riding horse with the same stats?).

The thing is, if the item is truly as mundane as a pack mule or a 10' pole, you don't need a professional designer writing the rules for it. There is no "the math" to get wrong. It's a 10' wooden pole... you know, as in... a stick. It should be as close to free as makes not difference, at least as far as adventurers (who deal in gold) are concerned. I think people are just having a hard time understanding where the burden is for a DM in saying "OK Joe the Fighter, you now own a 10' stick. It does all the things you'd expect a 10' stick to be able to do.". I think people are also having a hard time understanding the value of a book that's filled with entries like....

That's only partially true.

1. Some of the desire is not necessarily for "mundane" items as you are describing, but more "magical items with non-combat uses." For example things that give bonuses to skills, or make overland travel easier, and such-and-such. Those do require game mechanical rules.

2. Even "mundane" items might require game mechanical rules. Probably the 10 foot pole example, you are correct it is too simple to require game mechanical rules. But lets take the pack mule. If all you're planning on doing with it is carrying stuff around, then just set a capacity and you're done. But lots of other things can happen with it. Will it automatically obey any order, or will it resist if forced into a dangerous situation (like to set off a trap)? Does getting it to do certain things require skill checks, and if so what are the DCs? Is there a risk of it running away with your stuff if it feels in danger, and if so what (if any) rolls are required? Do you have to talk to it to give it orders, or can you give it orders in other ways (say if you are bound and gagged and want to get your mule to bring you something to help free you). So there's a lot to potentially make up.

3. There's another, more general reason why not having rules for something might make players less likely to want to try it. Consider the situation from the DM's perspective. My player asks to do something or have an item outside the rules, and I have to decide how powerful/effective to make it. It's often hard for me to tell when I make up rules for it, how it will turn out in play. If I make it too strong, then he's going to use it as often as possible, and potentially unbalance the game. If I make it too weak, then it gets used less, so it unbalances the game much less. So my incentive is to err on the side of making it too weak. But of course the player knows this, and anticipating that has an incentive to assume the worst, and thus not try it. If the rules were already there then players would know how it would work, so this problem would be elimianted.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

That's only partially true.

1. Some of the desire is not necessarily for "mundane" items as you are describing, but more "magical items with non-combat uses." For example things that give bonuses to skills, or make overland travel easier, and such-and-such. Those do require game mechanical rules.

I don't think anyone has argued against non-combat magical items.

But lets take the pack mule. If all you're planning on doing with it is carrying stuff around, then just set a capacity and you're done. But lots of other things can happen with it. Will it automatically obey any order, or will it resist if forced into a dangerous situation (like to set off a trap)? Does getting it to do certain things require skill checks, and if so what are the DCs? Is there a risk of it running away with your stuff if it feels in danger, and if so what (if any) rolls are required? Do you have to talk to it to give it orders, or can you give it orders in other ways (say if you are bound and gagged and want to get your mule to bring you something to help free you). So there's a lot to potentially make up.

I'm sure there's enough to publish Quintessential Mule. I'm also sure you'd be better off running a small print run. This kind of stuff is what DMing is all about. To borrow from the "videogamey" thread, trying to quantify all the potential interactions with a mule puts up artificial barrier to owning a mule. Trust your DM to do what is fun. That's what all of us OD&D through 3E DMs did (and for that matter 4E DMs now too).

3. There's another, more general reason why not having rules for something might make players less likely to want to try it. Consider the situation from the DM's perspective. My player asks to do something or have an item outside the rules, and I have to decide how powerful/effective to make it. It's often hard for me to tell when I make up rules for it, how it will turn out in play. If I make it too strong, then he's going to use it as often as possible, and potentially unbalance the game. If I make it too weak, then it gets used less, so it unbalances the game much less. So my incentive is to err on the side of making it too weak. But of course the player knows this, and anticipating that has an incentive to assume the worst, and thus not try it. If the rules were already there then players would know how it would work, so this problem would be elimianted.

Try erring on the side of the players. It's part of the "say yes" attitude. You have control as DM and can take things away that you find too powerful, Whereas, like you say, you can easily discourage players back into "the box" if you always err on the side of making things too weak.

 

[Zaran]

People have given you many sources for what you're looking for. I'd look into one of those before holding my breath over WotC's release of Complete(ly) Useless.

Actually, the positive response from many of the people in this thread has convinced me that there would be market for such a thing. I understand that alot of you guys are wonderful GMs and don't need anything more than a notebook and some dice to gm your way out of any game.

I still want my donkeyhorse! And I would like to see it's entry into a future DnD product.

I have both the Complete Builder's Guide and the 3.5e PHB to give me values for such things but I would rather they be included in the 4e material. I do think it has a place in this edition as do others.

 

[Ourph]

That's only partially true.

1. Some of the desire is not necessarily for "mundane" items as you are describing, but more "magical items with non-combat uses." For example things that give bonuses to skills, or make overland travel easier, and such-and-such. Those do require game mechanical rules.

If I'm not mistaken, there are quite a few of those already around. A lot of Wondrous Items qualify in this respect. I'm sure we'll continue to see more and more of them as the game gets expanded.

2. Even "mundane" items might require game mechanical rules. Probably the 10 foot pole example, you are correct it is too simple to require game mechanical rules. But lets take the pack mule. If all you're planning on doing with it is carrying stuff around, then just set a capacity and you're done. But lots of other things can happen with it. Will it automatically obey any order, or will it resist if forced into a dangerous situation (like to set off a trap)? Does getting it to do certain things require skill checks, and if so what are the DCs? Is there a risk of it running away with your stuff if it feels in danger, and if so what (if any) rolls are required? Do you have to talk to it to give it orders, or can you give it orders in other ways (say if you are bound and gagged and want to get your mule to bring you something to help free you). So there's a lot to potentially make up.

Here you're going beyond just including more items in the game, you're completely going against the design philosophy of 4e; i.e. the game rules aren't the physics of the game world or by extension, a model of animal behavioral psychology. By design the game gives the DM broad tools (like skills, templates for skill challenges and creative ways to use the attack vs. defense mechanic), it doesn't tell you which skill to use or what the DC is for convincing your pet mule to walk into a mine field. Not only is it something that wouldn't interest most people who play 4e (IMO) it's a lot of work for the writers; work that would keep them from doing other projects that would have broader appeal.

3. There's another, more general reason why not having rules for something might make players less likely to want to try it. Consider the situation from the DM's perspective. My player asks to do something or have an item outside the rules, and I have to decide how powerful/effective to make it. It's often hard for me to tell when I make up rules for it, how it will turn out in play. If I make it too strong, then he's going to use it as often as possible, and potentially unbalance the game. If I make it too weak, then it gets used less, so it unbalances the game much less. So my incentive is to err on the side of making it too weak. But of course the player knows this, and anticipating that has an incentive to assume the worst, and thus not try it. If the rules were already there then players would know how it would work, so this problem would be elimianted.

If it's an item that has the ability to unbalance the game, I think we're well outside the realm of the OP's topic. A 10' pole isn't going to unbalance the game, no matter how cheap you make it. Neither will a magical spoon that makes all of your food taste like ice cream. If we're talking about something that actually has the ability to change the outcome of in-game events, I don't think those belong in the same discussion as Mules and 10' poles.

 

[darjr]

Did someone already mention the adventuring gear decks from Paizo?

they do seem rather cool.

I don't know if there are prices.

http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/gameMastery/itemPacks/v5748btpy7u5o

I think there is a version two of that specific deck and there are others for other types of gear.

 

[darjr]

Complete AD&D Items List: Miscellaneous Equipment

That list is neat and there are other lists for other things at the bottom of the page.

 

[korjik]

I think the problem that some people are having is that so many of the examples being given as "something we'd like to see" are either 1) already present in the rules (sailing ships) or 2) are easily approximated by just reducing the price of something already in the books (ex: Why can't a mule just be a cheaper riding horse with the same stats?).

The thing is, if the item is truly as mundane as a pack mule or a 10' pole, you don't need a professional designer writing the rules for it. There is no "the math" to get wrong. It's a 10' wooden pole... you know, as in... a stick. It should be as close to free as makes no difference, at least as far as adventurers (who deal in gold) are concerned. I think people are just having a hard time understanding where the burden is for a DM in saying "OK Joe the Fighter, you now own a 10' stick. It does all the things you'd expect a 10' stick to be able to do.". I think people are also having a hard time understanding the value of a book that's filled with entries like....

There are thirty levels, going from 'which end of the sword do I hold?' to 'Move over god-boy, I am the new sherrif in town.' Oddly enough, you could probably get items that range from the 10 foot pole to the interdimensionally travelling floating flying magical city of the New Gods.

Open your mind. Leave the 10-foot pole behind.

 

[coyote6]

BTW, we seem to have missed an important entry in our earlier cataloging of mule types -- we didn't cover the one in the OP's subject line!

I'm not 100% sure where the regular "freaking mule" is listed, but the epic tier version, with that super power to never let your spirits down and its reputation as the kind you don't take home to mother, is listed as the Rickjames Donkeyhorse.

 

[Dausuul]

Here you're going beyond just including more items in the game, you're completely going against the design philosophy of 4e; i.e. the game rules aren't the physics of the game world or by extension, a model of animal behavioral psychology.

4E's rules are designed to address questions likely to come up in play. The "use <random animal, summoned creature, or hapless hireling> to set off traps" tactic is one with a long and well-attested history in D&D, so it's not unreasonable to want at least some guidance from the book on how to handle it. (My old gaming group called it "throw in a rat." Any time we suspected magical shenanigans, we would huck some poor rodent into the danger zone and see what happened to it.)

If it's an item that has the ability to unbalance the game, I think we're well outside the realm of the OP's topic. A 10' pole isn't going to unbalance the game, no matter how cheap you make it. Neither will a magical spoon that makes all of your food taste like ice cream.

You'll be eating those words when a PC sees the commercial possibilities in that spoon, corners the market, and builds a multi-million-gold-piece fake ice cream empire on magic spoons and gruel.