Monte Cook Back to Work

[Winnah]

Removal of magical items from the expected level of character abilities is a good idea in theory.

It's the implementation of magical items in this type of system that has me concerned.

Temporary McGuffins are lame. Great for TV scripts, but there has to be an incentive to sacrifice power beyond "Must complete quest."

Taking turns holding a magic item does not reduce magic item dependancy. The system may be fine without the players holding items, but the moment one player gets a magic sword, the other players are going to feel entitled to get theirs too.

Using magic items to define a character or a campaign sounds great in theory. Big problem is if the character ends up playing second fiddle to the object. The characters story becomes the objects story. The item becomes a Mary Sue character prop that (probably) does not speak.

[Swordslinger]

Actually, with the exception of keeping the +3 nomenclature, this article is pretty spot on. I notice the repeated digs he makes at 4th edition, and I brace myself for the 4rries to writhe in angry anguish.

I don't see it as being any kind of digs at 4E specifically, given 3E was the edition that invented WBL, had widespread magic item shops and built into its balance assumptions that you needed certain items to survive.

4E continued that tradition, but it's roots have always been in 3E, since that was the edition that took magic items out of the DM's hands and into the player's hands.

The problem with removing magic item dependency altogether is that determining encounter difficulty becomes much more difficult to do, since all your balance standards are set at a level that nobody actually plays at. So while it's beneficial psychologically, as far as preparation, the DM definitely needs useful guidelines to actually answer the question: Will this kill my PCs?

[GâtFromKI]

The problem with removing magic item dependency altogether is that determining encounter difficulty becomes much more difficult to do, since all your balance standards are set at a level that nobody actually plays at. So while it's beneficial psychologically, as far as preparation, the DM definitely needs useful guidelines to actually answer the question: Will this kill my PCs?

I prefer a game without magic item than a game where the opposition is balanced against my items.

MC: You find a +2 greatsword!
Me: Woo-hoo!
MC: And now all monsters have +2 AC.

[hogarth]

But what are you supposed to do when Fighter A has a magic sword and Fighter B has jack shit? Console Fighter B by telling him magic swords are optional -- just ask Frank and Monte? Bullshit.

But what really is a "magic sword?" It really breaks down to three things.

A crappy bonus ...
A cool special effect ...
(In some editions) A plot mcguffin ...

The crappy bonus may seem important, and a +2 is still 10%, but fighter bonuses can easily be just as much.

You must have played in different groups than I did. In my AD&D groups, the 14 Str fighter was always jealous of the 18 Str fighter and the fighter with a +1 sword was always jealous of the fighter with the +3 sword.

[Username17]

If magic items are special, then are something to be jealous of and then people will be jealous of them. That is an undeniable fact.

The hard reality is that if you make magic items something that you are assumed to get, then the only thing they do is to make people sad. It makes people feel sad when they realize that their character needs a magic cock ring to compete in their division, and it makes people sad when they don't get the stuff they "deserve".

On the flip side: if you hand out magic items randomly and in a non-guaranteed fashion, they make people happy. They make people happy when they get something awesome they weren't expecting and they make people happy when they can use these things to beat enemies they know that they aren't "supposed" to be able to beat. And yes, that means that people will be jealous.

You can either accept that resentment of the have nots is an acceptable price to pay for the happiness provided by the overpowered magic item, or you can decide that it is not. But if you decide that it is not, the logical solution is to remove magic items entirely. Because magic items that aren't an increase in power to above par for your level are actively detrimental to peoples' fun.

-Username17

[hogarth]

If magic items are special, then are something to be jealous of and then people will be jealous of them. That is an undeniable fact.

Not exactly. Magic items that give you vertical bonuses will inspire jealousy, certainly. It's not clear that magic items that give you horizontal abilities do so, however. Bob the fighter doesn't particularly care if Joe the fighter has a ring of water walking or a rod of wonder, for instance. I mean, presumably he cares in the sense that he'd like a magic item too, but there's nothing about a ring of water walking that says "You must be this high to participate in this fight".

Wasn't that K's suggestion for magic items at one point?

[Username17]

If magic items are special, then are something to be jealous of and then people will be jealous of them. That is an undeniable fact.

Not exactly. Magic items that give you vertical bonuses will inspire jealousy, certainly. It's not clear that magic items that give you horizontal abilities do so, however. Bob the fighter doesn't particularly care if Joe the fighter has a ring of water walking or a rod of wonder, for instance.

Wasn't that K's suggestion for magic items at one point?

Such things are less likely to upset the applecart of encounter balance, but are no less likely to inspire jealousy. In fact: it will take many attacks before the fact that another player has a +1 to-hit or damage is even noticed - but you'll see through the green eyes of envy the very moment that someone takes an action like standing on the ceiling or shooting a fire bolt that they can do something you can't.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

It's not clear that magic items that give you horizontal abilities do so, however. Bob the fighter doesn't particularly care if Joe the fighter has a ring of water walking or a rod of wonder, for instance.

Yes, if you hand out shitty prizes no one will care who has them. Why don't you give the party something good?

K's suggestion is also unworkable over the long run. People care about stuff that is relevant to their idiom. Vertical advancement is a popular whipping boy on these boards because it's easy to point to and implement. But TGD is apparently under this delusion that horizontal advancement can be substitute in for this without causing any of the harmful effects.

The bottom line is that in a game that fetishes squad-level melee combat, people will mostly care about stuff that makes them better in combat, either directly (like +5 swords) or indirectly (like rings of invisibility or wings of flight). Who cares if it's a cynical number manipulation to the sheet or a complicated Scooby Doo Plan magical item? If it helps them fight, it'll be wanted, if it doesn't, it won't. And it someone has something that makes them better in combat it'll still inspire jealousy.

Now once you realize that, you're right back at square one. If you want people to be excited about getting +12 Hackmasters or Rings of Invisibility, or ANY magical item there has to be a chance of not getting it. If you want magical items to come at a predictable schedule then they're not going to be special no matter how many flying carpets or darkskulls you throw at them.

[Gx1080]

There's also the fact that "equally shared screentime" is a pipe dream even with constant magic items.

[hogarth]

It's not clear that magic items that give you horizontal abilities do so, however. Bob the fighter doesn't particularly care if Joe the fighter has a ring of water walking or a rod of wonder, for instance.

Yes, if you hand out shitty prizes no one will care who has them. Why don't you give the party something good?

I tend to agree, which is why I'm mostly happy with the 3E version of magic items (i.e. everybody gets a similar amount of the good stuff). The down side, as noted, is that they feel a bit less special, but I'd rather have that than saying player B should be happy that he's getting punished relative to player A.

[Winnah]

b-but redefining reward schedules means PC's need other motivations for adventuring...

Risking your life for a mountain of gold and a flaming BFS is one thing.

Risking your life for intangible rewards is quite another.

By intangible, I mean things that do not directly influence a characters abilities and are not worth noting on the first page of a bio/character sheet.

Speaking of which, without magick shoppes, how is a PC going to spend the gold they pillage? Building a fortress? Raising an army? Training?

[tzor]

You must have played in different groups than I did. In my AD&D groups, the 14 Str fighter was always jealous of the 18 Str fighter and the fighter with a +1 sword was always jealous of the fighter with the +3 sword.

Well, remember I started out in 1E, so you have to factor in the exceptional strength roll. That can make quite a difference but even then jealousy was probably more directed to the Bend Bars / Lift Gates disparity than the simple "to hit" disparity. And while it certainly was possible to have overall point disparity, that 14 str fighter probably had better con than the 18 str fighter and thus better hit points.

It also depended on the weapon but this gets into a complex discussion on damage verses speed factors and so on.

It also depended as much on the bling. A +1 sword of sharpness is so much more desirable than a +3 of I only hit things better. (I'm at home, I'm pretty sure swords of sharpness were higher than +1 but you get my point.) And don't forget to throw intelligence into the mix.

But all Destruction wanted was his girdle, his gauntlet and his hammer of thunderbolts. I don't think the + value was all that important compared to the good bling of the weapon.

[hogarth]

You must have played in different groups than I did. In my AD&D groups, the 14 Str fighter was always jealous of the 18 Str fighter and the fighter with a +1 sword was always jealous of the fighter with the +3 sword.

Well, remember I started out in 1E, so you have to factor in the exceptional strength roll.

Sorry, I meant AD&D in general, not 2E specifically.

But all Destruction wanted was his girdle, his gauntlet and his hammer of thunderbolts. I don't think the + value was all that important compared to the good bling of the weapon.

Are you fucking kidding me?? The +16 (or more) TO DAMAGE is a HUGE difference in AD&D, where you're usually scrambling for a +3 bonus (say)!!

That's hilarious: "I don't care about magic items; I'm satisfied if I only have the best possible set of magic items in the game."

[tzor]

Are you fucking kidding me?? The +16 (or more) TO DAMAGE is a HUGE difference in AD&D, where you're usually scrambling for a +3 bonus (say)!!

Yes, but the fact that it was the only returning range weapon was more important than the damage bonuses provided by the other magic items that were the hammer's prerequisite for use. Combined with the speical effect when it hit.

Besides, I thought we were talking about "to hit" not "damage." When I get home I'll look through my books ... I'm pretty sure the damage bonuses were slightly better than "scrambling for a +3 bonus."

[GâtFromKI]

b-but redefining reward schedules means PC's need other motivations for adventuring...

Except using the reward system as a motivation is retarded. You kill a bigger monster to get a bigger sword to kill a bigger monster to get a bigger sword to kill a bigger monster to get a bigger sword...

You actually need intangible reward for the game to make sense.

[RadiantPhoenix]

You actually need intangible reward for the game to make sense.

That is only true for us (un?)fortunate non-MMO-ers.

[K]

b-but redefining reward schedules means PC's need other motivations for adventuring...

Except using the reward system as a motivation is retarded. You kill a bigger monster to get a bigger sword to kill a bigger monster to get a bigger sword to kill a bigger monster to get a bigger sword...

You actually need intangible reward for the game to make sense.

Yeh, once you start using magic items to boost power, then it just never ends. Other players need equivalent items so that they too can fight monsters above their level, and before you know it there is a constant arms race.

Horizontal power and one-off boosts to power has to be the only way. I mean, people may get jealous when you get an amulet that casts charm monster at a level of a spellcaster of your level, but they don't feel powerless the way not getting a +3 sword and having all the monsters get AC-adjusted up 3 points does.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I mean, people may get jealous when you get an amulet that casts charm monster at a level of a spellcaster of your level,

I disagree. If I was playing a beguiler and the party rogue (assuming that the classes were balanced and the amulet was level-appropriate) got one of those things I would feel worse than if the rogue got a +4 vorpal dagger.

Vertical advancement creates envy and greed for the players that don't have it, but horizontal advancement (especially horizontal advancement big enough to make people care) can do the exact same thing. If I'm playing Katara, I get offended if Toph learns to firebend as well as earthbend or picks up a credible swordfighting schtick.

[Fuchs]

Though horizontal overlap can be a good thing. If you've got two people good at sneaking and diplomacy, for example, odds are either skillset will get more spotlight time since it involves more people.

[K]

I mean, people may get jealous when you get an amulet that casts charm monster at a level of a spellcaster of your level,

I disagree. If I was playing a beguiler and the party rogue (assuming that the classes were balanced and the amulet was level-appropriate) got one of those things I would feel worse than if the rogue got a +4 vorpal dagger.

Vertical advancement creates envy and greed for the players that don't have it, but horizontal advancement (especially horizontal advancement big enough to make people care) can do the exact same thing. If I'm playing Katara, I get offended if Toph learns to firebend as well as earthbend or picks up a credible swordfighting schtick.

That's role-protection jealousy, and a different beast altogether.

It 's also is greatly eased if Katara picks up earth-bending at around the same time Toph picks up firebending.

Since we are not talking about Avatar, but DnD, the event we are talking about is the "finding a dragon's horde." At this point, the guy who finds the Ruby Amulet that charms is standing next to the guy who's finding the trumpet that summons ghost warriors. Everyone is getting a horizontal power boost.

Even if it's not simultaneous, most people can figure out a reasonable system. The guy who finds an amulet will not get the next three items, and those might be cooler than the amulet.

[A Man In Black]

Since we are not talking about Avatar, but DnD, the event we are talking about is the "finding a dragon's horde." At this point, the guy who finds the Ruby Amulet that charms is standing next to the guy who's finding the trumpet that summons ghost warriors. Everyone is getting a horizontal power boost.

So uh.

What part of this wouldn't work with vertical advancement?

[K]

Since we are not talking about Avatar, but DnD, the event we are talking about is the "finding a dragon's horde." At this point, the guy who finds the Ruby Amulet that charms is standing next to the guy who's finding the trumpet that summons ghost warriors. Everyone is getting a horizontal power boost.

So uh.

What part of this wouldn't work with vertical advancement?

Vertical power advancement has one guy getting more power, and the encounters have to get harder to compensate. This means the other three people in the party just got relatively weaker because one guy got something, and they have to suck it up and eat that weakness until the best they get is parity with the first party member.

That parity lasts until the next item comes along again, and they are suddenly weaker again. In a four person party, assuming similar power boosts each time, you personally might be weaker than someone in the party 3/4ths of the time and at best equal 1/4th of the time.

That leads to a different kind of resentment combined with entitlement as people start to demand items so that they aren't weaker all the time.

Entitlement is probably the most poisonous and most likely to lead to bickering.

Now, you could solve this by giving out items in party-sized sets, but that's weird and forced and I don't think people will like it.

Horizontal power is mostly an illusion. I mean, learning a 5th level 3 spell is not like learning a level 4 spell because most days the extra variety to already decent variety is not going to solve any extra problems. It will feel more powerful.

[Username17]

Since we are not talking about Avatar, but DnD, the event we are talking about is the "finding a dragon's horde." At this point, the guy who finds the Ruby Amulet that charms is standing next to the guy who's finding the trumpet that summons ghost warriors. Everyone is getting a horizontal power boost.

So uh.

What part of this wouldn't work with vertical advancement?

It can work with vertical advancement, it is just harder. Here's the deal: imagine that one player gets a magic amulet that let's them remove curses and another player gets a wand that lets them hand out fire damage. That expands the range of enemies that the party can take on. Now imagine instead that the party had gotten a +3 shield and a +3 bow - that also expands the range of opponents that the party can take on. But it's different in that it also reduces the range of enemies that aren't pushed off the RNG by one player or another.

If Hank gets a magic bow, that means that there are 3 more AC points at the bottom end of the scale that don't make any difference to Hank, and 3 more points of monster AC that are handlable by Hank but not by the other players. Conversely, when Eric gets a magic shield there are 3 more points of monster attack bonus he can handle that the other players can't, and 3 more points of monster attack bonus that he doesn't give a shit about.

It's also iterable. After you give out 5 pieces of different horizontal advancement, there will probably be a bunch of overlap between characters and it may be hard to remember what all the players do. But if you hand out divergent vertical advancement five times the chances are incredibly good that two players won't be on the same RNG as each other. And that means you just can't make fair encounters anymore. Monsters that hit hard enough for Eric's massive defenses to matter will turn Hank into chunky salsa, and monsters tough enough to need Hank's powerful bow blasts with bounce Eric's sword strikes like they don't matter.

Now that having been said, if you hand out magic items piecemeal and randomly and don't have them stack much (if at all), then you can include some vertical advancement without breaking things. But yes, vertical advancement of any kind does contract the amount of difference between one monster and the next before it falls off someone's RNG.

-Username17

[hogarth]

Since we are not talking about Avatar, but DnD, the event we are talking about is the "finding a dragon's horde." At this point, the guy who finds the Ruby Amulet that charms is standing next to the guy who's finding the trumpet that summons ghost warriors. Everyone is getting a horizontal power boost.

So uh.

What part of this wouldn't work with vertical advancement?

If you mean the 3E system ("Joe got his +2 sword now and Bob will get a +2 sword real soon now"), it works just fine.

If you mean the system Monte is proposing ("Joe got a +2 sword now and that may literally be the last magic sword you see for the rest of the campaign so suck it up, Bob -- maybe you'll get a ring of water walking some day"), it sucks ass.

[echoVanguard]

How do single-use items figure into this sort of thing?

echo