I agree. The DM must retain his credibility. He must define the rules ahead of time and stick by them for both the PCs and the NPCs. That is not to say that the DM can't ever waver (in fact the ability to change one's mind is a sign of great intelligence). What I'm agreeing with is a more-or-less stable rules platform that your players can feel safe to stand on. A DM that changes the rules mid-stream to his own benefit will quickly lose credibility. Of course, this is different from making swift judgments. Sometimes a judgment must be made to keep the game moving. In these cases, the judgment is made and then revisited after the game if there's still a question.
For example, in my campaign, I decided to allow a player to have a swarm as an animal companion. I thought it was an interesting concept and would add to the game rather than detract from it. I developed a template for this creature to be added to the standard Animal Companion progression (with a power level about equal to the companions that already exist). During a recent game, the player wanted to cast a buff on his swarm. Another player pointed out that he couldn't target the swarm. I decided, during that combat not to allow the action. Later, we discussed it briefly and I decided it would weaken the creature too much since I'd balanced the template without that factor in mind.
phantom post
I'm not a big fan of a GM with a binder full of "house rules"; I've noticed that GMs with more home brew stuff tend to screw players over more than people who just run the game as is.One of the best games I ever played had no rules other than the DMs binder of "house rules." The DM had invented the whole system by himself and It was not only the bst campaign that group had, but also the longest lasting. When he got transfered we were all begging him for copies of the rules for ourselves.
I wouldn't classify that example as "house rules"--it was a brand new game from what it sounds like. What I'm talking about is thinking you're going to be playing a certain game and discovering that the GM had modified it beyond recognition. Or that he changes the way powers/abilities/rules work after you based your character around that concept. If I don't like something about a power or class or whatever, I simply ban it from the game--but I never change the mechanics of anything unless I run it by the players and the majority agrees.
If there are no checks at the table (in the mind of the DM), the problem is not the abstraction of DM fiat, but the concrete DM at the table. And if gaming sessions are interrupted by lots of time in chambers deliberating, that is going to be a major detraction from the story, in my book. I like stories that flow, not crawl, and sometimes, I want them to fly.
I admit that I fail to understand, "The story telling power structure can exist, it just does not belong during the session at the table." You could have authors, for example, telling a story according to the consensus method, but 1) it would be impossible for such authors to significantly be surprised, 2) if they fail to reach consensus, game over, 3) it would not be any version of the world's most popular role-playing game that I am familiar with. There may be other games worth playing, but I don't know how to play them and therefore I will not speak to them.
You are right - money talks, and the king, local bandit lord or whomever is the local power authority has the money. And if not that, then he would have the head of the guy creating and selling the arms. And if you have the weapons (as a PC) you need to be prepared to have to hand that over in a time of need for the kingdom. Cause that is closer to reality even in a "magical" kingdom where +1 swords grow on trees.
Many of the scenarios you describe Viletta are if the PC are in a good, optimal setting, with some standing with the local lord, etc. And even then they wouldn't always fly. Scarcity means no items or 300-400% inflation, even if you are a good guy doing the favors. The situation goes further south if you are less than LG in a supporting society. Sure a thief can steal from his comrades, or from someone rich, but that too catches up with you. Unless the magic items spawn like in a video game there will be scarcity. And with that all the problems that follow, wealth by level table be damned.
But you're supposed to run it RAW or risk being called a jack-booter/killer DM, even if the rules make no sense.
Oi. You talk of scarcity and inflation like it matters. Basic rule of economics; there's always scarcity. That's why things have value. That's why even the least of magic swords costs more than twenty slaves. Market price means market price. It means the purchase price on the market. Doesn't matter if there's scarcity or markup. Market means market. If the default is a 300% markup, then a +1 sword is 2000g after markup.
Consider this. Which would the kingdom rather have, a single +3 sword that only one person could use, or enough money to buy and possibly twenty ogre slaves as shock troops (possibly only ten if they're broken in, but still), at standard slave prices?
Then, there's the robbery. Why in the world, in times of need, would the kingdom ever insist on taking the hero's sword? I should think, if they have a badass hero right there, they'd be asking said hero to use said sword to end that pesky 'time of need' thing. "Oh, The Man will just rob the players anyways," isn't exactly a sign of good DMing, or even sanity on The Man's part.
And the economic rules aren't supposed to make sense. D&D isn't a fantasy kingdom simulator. It's about heroic fantasy and adventure. The economy has never made sense; it's just there to service the adventure, which the game is all about. If you start thinking of D&D as a domain management game, you're as far off base as if you were trying to use Call of Cthulhu for a dungeon crawl, or Shadowrun for a Conan game. "That's not realistic," does not invalidate a rule or even make it a bad rule. We're talking about a world where orcs and fairies can make viable offspring that can create fireballs by flinging bat poo. If you can swallow all that, but can't suspend disbelief for buying swords... I just don't know what to say to you.
But the players all have to realize that they have to cede a great deal of authority and trust to the DM for him to act both as the antagonist and the impartial referee. He also has to do more work to manage the game, pushing and pulling where necessary, bringing scenes that are played out to a close, and being the final word on application of the rules.
Everyone's creative input matters, but not equally. That's one of the social contracts between the game master and the player.
And the DM has to realize that this authority and trust is not hers by right, that it's not open license to trounce all over the players and force her agenda to the exclusion of all others.
With great power comes great responsibility. That the trust is necessary does not excuse its abuse, and that the trust was given does not mean it can't be taken away just as quickly.
All too often, the notion that this trust is the DM's by divine right, that the DM can, by definition, do no wrong, and that any time the player objects, or anything goes wrong at all, it's the player's fault, no matter what the DM's doing, and the player's vision doesn't matter.
Also, he who does not share the work has no right to gripe about it. Seriously, is it so rare to let the players actually pitch in and help out? My DM had me statting out enemies all the time. We all made and ran NPCs. If a DM doesn't ask or even let the players assist, she has no right to complain about the workload.
I DM. I'm quite good at it. It really isn't a whole heck of a lot of work.
Right up there with 'Fallacy'.
I think it was pretty relevant, it puts a huge hole in the side of your argument.
"People from a totally different, unrelated world would totally flip at things they'd never even imagined," doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It truly is irrelevant, as a fantasy world is a fantasy world. It's not simply dropping a magic overlay on top of medieval Europe.
And as for the 'money talks', well try walking around in feudal Japan with a katana and a wakizashi pimping out your belt... you would be pretty much executed - and thats IF you managed to get one (and you probably wouldn't unless it was stolen)
If you had that kinda money, you'd BE the Duke.
Okay, now if actual medieval Europe is irrelevant, imagine how irrelevant it is to invoke feudal Japan.
Also, the kinds of money we're talking about? Adventuring yields the funds to administrate an entire kingdom, to make major, massive purchases on an equally massive scale.
That 750g for a wand of Magic Missile? Yeah, hiring an archer's only two silver a day. For those kinds of prices, you could hire fifty archers for a couple months, and the wand really isn't even more dangerous than a bow anyways, not a whole lot of firepower on a campaign; comparing it to a nuke would be like comparing a light breeze to a tornado. But fifty archers? That's something I want to be able to bring to my side. It'll dish out a lot more hurt to the kinds of things that army's liable to be facing off against anyways.
And really? D&D's a game about adventurers, designed to accommodate adventurers. All this stuff you're spouting about it being unrealistic is like saying, in Call of Cthulhu, that it's unrealistic for the universe to still exist with the great old ones around, so you're just going to start with the human race being completely extinct, and then you're going to sit around playing absolutely nothing because there's nothing left to be a PC in the first place.
So if Duke Dundernuts has less gold to flick about than a lowbie party of adventurers, and hes basically the richest guy for a long way, why would shops in his Duchy have any magic items for sale, given that basically no one could afford to buy them, and there's every chance that Duke Dundernuts might send his brute squad down to the shop and seize the goods?
Dude, it doesn't have to be shops at all. If the duke's coffers are running low, he can sell the magic items to those adventurers with lots and lots of shinies because he really needs the money to pay his armies.
Actualy that was MY argument, and the one that VV moved to afterward.
And the topic of Magic Items came up based on commentary earlier that there seems to be a notion that the PC's have a set shopping list they can reasonably expect to rock up and purchase ("I'm level 5 now, so I'm entitled to X item as its codified in the rules!").
The game system doesn't have a mechanic to deal with this situation, and therefore something as obvious and as critical as gearing up is either 'unchecked access' per the RAW, or subject to GM fiat.
First off, my argument was that you can buy magic items. And yes, as the rules lay out, you can buy pretty much any item magic you want, provided you have the money.
The words you keep shoving in my mouth without cause (and despite repeated correction) is that this has to mean Ye Olde Magick Shoppe of Everything.
The players can buy pretty much whatever the Hell they want, so long as they can afford it and so long as they search far enough. Where they have to go and what they have to do to buy it is secondary to the fact that they can buy it, possibly provided they travel to enough sufficiently large cities or shady undergrounds or make a stop with the neogi to pick up some ogre slaves for barter or whatever.
The only point where the two of you disagree is how fine-grained PCs' control of the exact items should be. This is mentioned nowhere in the RAW, and additionally fruitless and utterly irrelevant to the thread.
Actually, it is covered. 'Pretty much anything below Value X' is within the rules, set for each city size, with... I believe it was a 75% chance.
Equal as human beings -- so far we agree. What all that may be supposed to entail is another matter. Equal beings can exercise different roles with vast power differentials in a context, and the game is such a context. If those unequal powers are directed to the good of the game, to the good of all the players (including the GM), which I take to be experiencing collaborative story-telling by the creative input of all gathered in their use of the mechanics of the game, then the focus is not on power. But when the GM or one or more of the other players become focused on power, and the game is twisted to satisfy someone's desire to exert power over others at the table, then one has the matrix in which most of the fears about fiat in this thread, and those about minmaxing players as well, have deadly substance. Of course the DM's judgment trumps anything from the player's side: not by inherent worth, or even artistic worth, but by the necessities of the structures of power that make the game possible, while not being the point of the game. If an entailment of equality eliminates those basic, necessary structures, then we must choose between that vision of freedom and the possibility of having a game.
You miss the point.
It's not one of who wields power, that the DM should not have greater authority, or anything like that. It's that the DM is not superior to anyone else at the table, and must acknowledge this in exercising authority as DM. With great power comes great responsibility. A DM who cannot acknowledge that they can be extremely wrong in their application of power is not fit to be DM. A DM who believes that, because they are DM, everything they do is by necessity right is not fit to be DM, A DM who thinks that every player who disagrees with them is wrong by definition is not fit to be DM.
But even judges have rules they must follow, rights of those they pass judgement on. And that judge is driven by certain underlying beliefs and standards set by society. In addition judges take time to deliberate on their rulings. No sentance is given directly after the trial. Arguments are heard, including the input of the person to be ruled on. Do you expect the same to happen at the table?
I agree. The DM must retain his credibility. He must define the rules ahead of time and stick by them for both the PCs and the NPCs. That is not to say that the DM can't ever waver (in fact the ability to change one's mind is a sign of great intelligence). What I'm agreeing with is a more-or-less stable rules platform that your players can feel safe to stand on. A DM that changes the rules mid-stream to his own benefit will quickly lose credibility. Of course, this is different from making swift judgments. Sometimes a judgment must be made to keep the game moving. In these cases, the judgment is made and then revisited after the game if there's still a question.
For example, in my campaign, I decided to allow a player to have a swarm as an animal companion. I thought it was an interesting concept and would add to the game rather than detract from it. I developed a template for this creature to be added to the standard Animal Companion progression (with a power level about equal to the companions that already exist). During a recent game, the player wanted to cast a buff on his swarm. Another player pointed out that he couldn't target the swarm. I decided, during that combat not to allow the action. Later, we discussed it briefly and I decided it would weaken the creature too much since I'd balanced the template without that factor in mind.
There was little complaint and no argument. The player is appreciative that I try to bend the rules for them to play the concept they want and they understand that with that comes some in-game funkiness that might happen from time to time. Not a big deal.
I'm not a big fan of a GM with a binder full of "house rules"; I've noticed that GMs with more home brew stuff tend to screw players over more than people who just run the game as is. The reason seems to be that games that rely on too many house rules sometimes only make sense to the GM. I hate showing up at a game and discovering that everything is at the total mercy and whim of the GM, who is running something not even recognizable as the game you thought you were playing. As a GM myself I tend to stick with the rules as much as possible (though I don't slow down the game to look stuff up every 5 min); but to me the rules are there to protect the players and keep things as fair as possible for all parties concerned. But if a house rule is needed then it's best that the group as a whole should decide if it's needed or wanted.I don't mind the big binder in principle. When I see one I am curious as to WHY it exists, and often doubt the need for it. But I am usually willing to give the DM a chance to sell me on it. In the end if the DM and his binder runs a fun game, then I deal with the binder. If not, then maybe we should have a talk.
love,
malkav
Honestly, a big binder is not a bad thing.
As a GM that has a big binder for my games, I'll tell you what's in it. Maps of the game world. Notes on the plot (and sub-plots that may or may not come up), notes on what to do if they go A->B->C or what to do if they derail things and go from A->@->Pi. Printouts of what items are in various dungeons, various encounters, for sale in various towns. Notes on the world, towns they might encounter, interesting people in those towns, and various other things a GM might need (BBEG stat printouts, etc).
Also in there is a couple of pages of house rules.
You miss the point.
It's not one of who wields power, that the DM should not have greater authority, or anything like that. It's that the DM is not superior to anyone else at the table, and must acknowledge this in exercising authority as DM. With great power comes great responsibility. A DM who cannot acknowledge that they can be extremely wrong in their application of power is not fit to be DM. A DM who believes that, because they are DM, everything they do is by necessity right is not fit to be DM, A DM who thinks that every player who disagrees with them is wrong by definition is not fit to be DM.
Perhaps I miss the point you wanted me to hit, but I am confident I hit the one at which I was aiming. I am not aiming at "might makes right." I am aiming at "might makes game." I've played some imperfect games, but they were possible because someone was acting as DM. An example: my DM was allowing my character to voice the decisions of a party at one point because said character had financed the undertaking, gathered intelligence about it, and recruited some of the other participants. I was being very careful about the direction that I was sending the party, because I was trying to pick up on clues about our environment. Both the DM and at least one other party member became confused about what I said and put the party at a different location. I had a list of reasons based on my intentions and my attempts to carefully communicate that we had taken way X instead of way Y. The DM, for whatever reasons, wrongly ruled we had taken way Y. I'm sure he had his reasons for it, those reasons were wrong. Now I could continue to press for a correction, and even refuse to accept the DM's ruling, but it would make play impossible. The game was otherwise an excellent game, but as a player I had to go with DM's decision. Now the place to try to help him be a better DM (or if I had been in the wrong, to make me a better player) would have been away from the table. But what I come to the table for is story, and the structure for that has to be at the table, as far as I am able to see.
When I ran an Ars Magica campaign, I had about 2 pages of house rules, numbered I think from 1 to about 15. An example was "A PC Magus cannot have both the Silent Magic & Subtle Magic Virtues" or "This saga use's Mark's Ablative Parma rules - see attached".
I always had a copy on hand and I also provided the players a copy in their saga binder - free to refresh their memories at any time. I think if it is approached this way, any number of house rules is acceptable, since the players have access to it.
It's the big binder of house rules residing in the DM's brain alone that causes problems.
and it is nowhere near where I want it to be (especially the atlas).
Honestly, a big binder is not a bad thing.
Um, chief... the complaint wasn't against big binders. It was against big binders of houserules. My big binder of stat blocks isn't (well... wasn't; lost the damned thing) a big binder of houserules.
Though I'm of the school that a big binder of houserules isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there's a laundry list of qualifiers that gets tacked onto 'isn't necessarily.'
Perhaps I miss the point you wanted me to hit, but I am confident I hit the one at which I was aiming. I am not aiming at "might makes right." I am aiming at "might makes game." I've played some imperfect games, but they were possible because someone was acting as DM. An example: my DM was allowing my character to voice the decisions of a party at one point because said character had financed the undertaking, gathered intelligence about it, and recruited some of the other participants. I was being very careful about the direction that I was sending the party, because I was trying to pick up on clues about our environment. Both the DM and at least one other party member became confused about what I said and put the party at a different location. I had a list of reasons based on my intentions and my attempts to carefully communicate that we had taken way X instead of way Y. The DM, for whatever reasons, wrongly ruled we had taken way Y. I'm sure he had his reasons for it, those reasons were wrong. Now I could continue to press for a correction, and even refuse to accept the DM's ruling, but it would make play impossible. The game was otherwise an excellent game, but as a player I had to go with DM's decision. Now the place to try to help him be a better DM (or if I had been in the wrong, to make me a better player) would have been away from the table. But what I come to the table for is story, and the structure for that has to be at the table, as far as I am able to see.
The point you're trying to hit has nothing to do with the point I'm making.
"The DM can be wrong," is not the same as, "Players should throw a temper tantrum every time they disagree with the DM."
Being wrong is bad. A DM has to acknowledge this, and acknowledge that she can be wrong. She must endeavor to not be wrong. In order to not be wrong, she has to acknowledge when she is wrong, and then endeavor to stop doing that.
|
Honestly, a big binder is not a bad thing.
As a GM that has a big binder for my games, I'll tell you what's in it. Maps of the game world. Notes on the plot (and sub-plots that may or may not come up), notes on what to do if they go A->B->C or what to do if they derail things and go from A->@->Pi. Printouts of what items are in various dungeons, various encounters, for sale in various towns. Notes on the world, towns they might encounter, interesting people in those towns, and various other things a GM might need (BBEG stat printouts, etc).
Also in there is a couple of pages of house rules.
A big binder full of fluff is another scenario. The original post was about a binder of house rules. But in either case despite whatever first impression I might arrive at (if it is a DM I have never gamed with) I go in open minded and try and check out the changes and get into the story and have a good time. Other than an excuse to eat tater chips (which I don't let myself have at any other point in my week), having fun pretty high up on my list things I want to happen in a gaming session.
If a DM can rock out some fun with a big ol binder of house rules and another full of campaign setting (or alternatively one big binder with both) I say go for it. I guess What I was really trying to say in the previous post is when I see a lot of house rules I still try it out and see what comes of it. It may be a flavor of ice cream that I had been needing to try and just never had.
love,
malkav
The point you're trying to hit has nothing to do with the point I'm making.
"The DM can be wrong," is not the same as, "Players should throw a temper tantrum every time they disagree with the DM."Being wrong is bad. A DM has to acknowledge this, and acknowledge that she can be wrong. She must endeavor to not be wrong. In order to not be wrong, she has to acknowledge when she is wrong, and then endeavor to stop doing that.
First, you quoted me, I didn't quote you, so that's where "who had what point" will end.
You're now speaking to a part of the example in an exaggerated and inaccurate way instead of the point which it illustrates. Meanwhile, you acknowledge the reality of DM fiat in your insistence that it conform to certain standards of rightness, fairness, correctness, etc. My comments clearly made a place for dealing with the DM's mistakes -- I nowhere denied that DMs should become better DMs or better human beings. All of this persuades me that you are posting out of some place that is not conducive to caring about what others are saying, so I think I'm going to give up trying to clarify for you now.
|
... and I get that we're just sharing ideas at this point. I don't think anyone has been hostile so, let me add a couple more ideas...
The hidden imperceptible glue that weaves the gaming campaign together into an awesome cohesive whole, requires the judicious use of DM fiat. Great campaigns are not achieved through random roles or implementation of rules alone. DM Fiat is an essential tool in the gamemaster's belt. By contrast bad DMing is what most people are ascribing to fiat, but this is because implementation of fiat was poor. (I'm not trying to argue semantics.) DM's should never act superior to players, though they hold the powers of the gods themselves. The players should never act superior to the DM, for obvious reasons. The DM is not beholden to explain everything to players, neither in-game nor above board, but if some reason explicit or imagined does not exist there will be unrest at your table.
"With great power comes great responsibility"
> Use it wisely, keep it concealed. Use it sparingly, and when in use ensure your story somehow either supports it or at minimum eludes to its mystery as the unknown reason. As mentioned up-thread, the DM may disallow teleport from working in that trapped hallway, yet it is beneficial to a good game experience that hints of an anti-magic dead zone be foreshadowed prior to arrival in the hallway. And if not, players need to roll with it and not argue. DM says it doesn't work, and the players shouldn't be crybabies and have a sour night. It is what the DM says it is. No ruleset binds the Dungeonmaster, never has and never will. And, I do understand this because I have been a crybaby myself before. Done or perceived to be done too regularly, and everyone knows DM fiat will be the death knoll of the gaming group. Fun WILL sour - so do it right or facilitate the possibility of meaning for it.
"The proof is in the pudding."
>Who is coming back to the table week after week? How many arguments do you have? How awesome is the overall game experience for everyone (gamemaster and players)? This says a LOT about whether you're using DM Fiat correctly. [And, yes there is a right way and a wrong way, as this thread has proven through hundreds of examples.]
Examples:
DM Fiat used well: In my Pathfinder RPG game last night, I made the front door to The Come Back Inn magical. This means nobody, under any circumstance could leave if the proprietor was unhappy with them. THIS IS DM FIAT. This is also a good judicious use of fiat. Good, because I had a story surrounding this particular tavern and the obsidian portal in its basement. Yup, you guess it, it was Dave Arneson's own Blackmoor setting from 1976. The story last night revolved around exploring the tavern's mysteries. Although the party was extremely angry that an Iron Golem (awesome writeup in the Bestiary btw) kicked the crap out of them, they tried to keep their cool when talking with the proprietor. This shows 1) high trust 2) PCs who were immersed in the story 3) a fully functional game, as I do generally adjudicate and use full RAW.
I welcome any questions about this example.
DM Fiat used poorly: My character in another campaign was attacked by ninjas while sleeping in an otherwise well-fortified and magically warded wizards tower. My character was defenestrated and his lover slayn by the end of the first full combat round. Whoopse! I quit that campaign.
Again, the DM's job (players cover your ears) is to create the perception of nearly FULL player freedoms, and never raise your powerful hand just because you can. It is the art of temperance of DM power, and adherence to the rules that help create this illusion. And, frankly, the very best games leave ME as a player feeling like I made all the choices, all the rules were followed, and spontaneity occured. Great DMs will never admit how much effort and self-control they demonstrated to make that happen - instead we enjoy the quiet solitude of knowing the job was well done, and do not tip our hands because next week we will do the same.
Ahh VV, You know, being obtuse really isn't the high point of good argument.
So on one hand its a case of the manual says there's X percentage chance of them being able to buy whatever, yet the manual doesn't say anything about jumping through hoops, so is in essence simply a shopping catalogue.
First off, my argument was that you can buy magic items. And yes, as the rules lay out, you can buy pretty much any item magic you want, provided you have the money.
-Not "provided you have the money and have done the groundwork".
Actually, it is covered. 'Pretty much anything below Value X' is within the rules, set for each city size, with... I believe it was a 75% chance
-So in summary, if you have the money, you can simply buy whatever you want with a 75% chance of it being there...
Why? In a world full of Science!, Ye Olde Science! Shoppe exists, in myriad forms.
- but wait didn't you say that you never said that?
And for the benefit of MiB - this all boils down to the notion that the GM, at some point, is going to have to make the call about whether XYZ is available per the RAW, or whether common sense would come into play and the players may (unexpectedly) find that he is now demanding they jump through hoops.
This level of GM intervention would (likely) be viewed by the players as GM Fiat - "he didn't let us buy...", and needs to be thought about.
It serves as an illustration about when and why a GM should (as soon as practicable, preferably in advance) give the players a heads up to his arbitrary ruling.
The point you're trying to hit has nothing to do with the point I'm making.
- Because you don't actually make the point? You start of with a 'mine is the only logical view', and then become evasive when pinned on it - As per the example above... First it exists, then it doesn't.
|
|
lol, this is an exercise in futility at best.
Most of the anti-fiat/discretion crowd refuse to acknowledge anything which they think side-steps the rules, or ignores them all together. They have x due to the book listing said rule/table/etc. Well I, as DM also have x, on page 6 of the 3.5 DMG
"Adjudicating"
...That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that players don't rebel."
I don't see any difference between a big binder full of house rules and a big binder full of published rules (AKA a rulebook) as long as both are clear and available to all.
To a certain extent, Pathfinder IS a big binder of housrules for 3.5
Ahh VV, You know, being obtuse really isn't the high point of good argument. But wait, I think I quoted farther then I should have, and accidentally destroyed my own point! Let's see...
Why? In a world full of Science!, Ye Olde Science! Shoppe exists, in myriad forms.in myriad forms.in myriad forms.IN MYRIAD FORMS.Woops! I think I just lost to myself there!
Ahh professor Cirno...
Not only does it exist, but it exists in numerous (myriad) forms.
But apparently it doesn't exist.
So which is it?
Comprehension really is everything.
|
Not only does it exist, but it exists in numerous (myriad) forms.
But apparently it doesn't exist.So which is it?
Both. Because what 'Ye Olde Magic Shoppe' is is merely the PCs ability to track down magic items.
Which can be Magic-Mart, with its racks and racks of +1 swords in every designer color.
Or it can be the wizened old man who knows where the sword of a hero is entombed.
Or it can be Jimmy Slickskin, who knows a guy trying to move a piece of merch before the heat busts him with it.
|
|
Or it could be "NPC Merchant- naw, don't have it here. These guys have been fighting a war going on for 3 years now, pretty much any magic weapon is bought up and put to use on the front line. Last guy tried to run a secret auction selling a magic blade - got the price up pretty high between some of the nobles who serve under the Duke. Never saw him again once the Duke found out."
Die rolls be damned - you can't get water out of rock, see something with a successful perception check if nothing exists, or buy items which just are not available due to other circumstances. It isn't to burn characters, it just is - there isn't a secret cache of items, or secret store to maintain wealth by level tables. Sometimes due to varying situations it makes more sense for certain things to be unavailable. The DM is more obligated to sustain the story/plot and the logic that goes with it vs. being obligated to a % die roll on a treasure table.
|
Well if you have the spells or ability to generate things from rocks then go wild. What the hell do you need a magic shoppe for?
Exactly!
See, I agree with you. As a GM when I design a market place, I also figure out exactly what items could be there and which ones will be there. I try to figure out which ones would be common place, and which ones are right out rare-if-non-existent. Just because something can exist doesn't mean that it does, though I don't want to start a philosophical argument over that because its entirely meta in RL. In D&D the GM can ajudicate that.
Laurefindel wrote: I don't see any difference between a big binder full of house rules and a big binder full of published rules (AKA a rulebook) as long as both are clear and available to all.
To a certain extent, Pathfinder IS a big binder of house rules for 3.5
LOL! And all these editions are house rules to the original little white box.
Well if you have the spells or ability to generate things from rocks then go wild. What the hell do you need a magic shoppe for?
I love these forums.
I once tried to solve a starvation problem by turning a certain amount of a rock wall into flesh with stone to flesh.
The DM ruled it was disgusting "wall-meat". No one ate it. Not even the troll rooming with me.
|
|
Well if you have the spells or ability to generate things from rocks then go wild. What the hell do you need a magic shoppe for?
I love these forums.
I once tried to solve a starvation problem by turning a certain amount of a rock wall into flesh with stone to flesh.
The DM ruled it was disgusting "wall-meat". No one ate it. Not even the troll rooming with me.
Wall-meat or Wal-meat, because the meat at Wal-Mart never looks that good to me.
Ahh professor Cirno...
Not only does it exist, but it exists in numerous (myriad) forms.
But apparently it doesn't exist.So which is it?
Comprehension really is everything.
That's entirely dependent on your definition of "Ye Olde Magick Shoppe."
If you define YOMS as any place where magic goods and services are sold, then yes, it does exist in myriad forms, whether it's commissioning a +2 sword from the master smith or gaining access to the tower of excessive magery's archives (for standard fees).
If you define YOMS as a single location that sells everything in the universe, then no, that place doesn't necessarily exist, and probably won't in most settings.
Transmute rock to mud.
Fun trick. Hit someone with Flesh to Stone. They're rock. Then, follow with Transmute Rock to Mud. They're technically alive, but they're mud. Next, Purify Food and Drink. The mud is now crisp, clean drinking water and the target, while technically alive, doesn't exist anymore. Now, drink up.
I once tried to solve a starvation problem by turning a certain amount of a rock wall into flesh with stone to flesh.
The DM ruled it was disgusting "wall-meat". No one ate it. Not even the troll rooming with me.
That's actually a major and viable tactic in Nethack, particularly for Healers. Cast Stone to Flesh on a boulder and it turns to a giant ball of meat. Alternately, smash the boulder with a pick or something, then cast Stone to Flesh, and you have a nice, big pile of meatballs at your disposal. Instant rations for a long, long time.
Ahh professor Cirno...
Not only does it exist, but it exists in numerous (myriad) forms.
But apparently it doesn't exist.So which is it?
Comprehension really is everything.
That's entirely dependent on your definition of "Ye Olde Magick Shoppe."
If you define YOMS as any place where magic goods and services are sold, then yes, it does exist in myriad forms, whether it's commissioning a +2 sword from the master smith or gaining access to the tower of excessive magery's archives (for standard fees).
If you define YOMS as a single location that sells everything in the universe, then no, that place doesn't necessarily exist, and probably won't in most settings.
Except VV there is no reason that the myriad of magic shops has to exist in a game world, except to fill out the portion of the rules that says you have a 75% chance to get magic items. And you can have many perfectly logical explinations for it not to exits, or for certain types of items to not exist, and for no one to be able to make it for you.
some examplesA. A country is at war. Every available hand is working on commissions for the army, and wont meet quota if they take time for you. The army confiscated any gear that would help it.
B. There are very few high level mages. Object rarity is based of caster level instead of cost, putting some cheap magic items as very rare, while other expensive ones relatively common. This makes a lot of sense for high level scrolls.
Caineach, I have a two-word answer to your mage rarity point.
Master Craftsman
It'll increase the potential pool of crafters, but still won't help too much at the higher levels. They still need to have plenty of skill ranks to sub in as those caster levels, plus it costs an extra feat to start crafting anyway.
Great for easily justifying an increase in the number of low-level weapons, armors, and wondrous items, though...
Caineach, I have a two-word answer to your mage rarity point.
Master Craftsman
It'll increase the potential pool of crafters, but still won't help too much at the higher levels. They still need to have plenty of skill ranks to sub in as those caster levels, plus it costs an extra feat to start crafting anyway.
Great for easily justifying an increase in the number of low-level weapons, armors, and wondrous items, though...
They still have a level limmit. Unless you want lots of lvl 10+ commoners running arround, this is a problem. And you can't make spell completion items with Master Craftsman. Like I said, I like that excuse for scrolls.
I don't mind the big binder in principle. When I see one I am curious as to WHY it exists, and often doubt the need for it. But I am usually willing to give the DM a chance to sell me on it. In the end if the DM and his binder runs a fun game, then I deal with the binder. If not, then maybe we should have a talk.
Yeah, the binder doesn't bother me. If he's got a copy, that means I can get one and learn the house rules. In fact, I wouldn't call a binder of house rules 'DM Fiat' either. He's documenting the new rules so they can be handled in a consistent fashion rather than off the cuff and that's not what I'd call fiat. It's little different than deciding what supplements will or will not be included in the game along-side the core rules.
The DM ruled it was disgusting "wall-meat". No one ate it. Not even the troll rooming with me.
Otyugh Meat? :p
Except VV there is no reason that the myriad of magic shops has to exist in a game world, except to fill out the portion of the rules that says you have a 75% chance to get magic items. And you can have many perfectly logical explinations for it not to exits, or for certain types of items to not exist, and for no one to be able to make it for you.
some examplesA. A country is at war. Every available hand is working on commissions for the army, and wont meet quota if they take time for you. The army confiscated any gear that would help it.
B. There are very few high level mages. Object rarity is based of caster level instead of cost, putting some cheap magic items as very rare, while other expensive ones relatively common. This makes a lot of sense for high level scrolls.
A) Campaign specific exception to the general rules. No one is arguing that a specific campaign may not have restricted access to items. However, people being people, you are going to have trouble with this approach. Your players are going to get pissed when you confiscate the goodies they built up (by your game worlds internal logic, you as the GM have to confiscate their equipment if an army officer sees it, it's valuable to the army). This also means no one will create magic items unless it's for the army on contract, as no one wants their work stolen. Basically, you are creating a 'magic item free' world. And that's fine for a campaign, but you'll need to adjust just about every encounter to cut down on money and items. Money because it's useless to hand out 100,000gp at level 15 because they can't spend it on anything, all the magic items re gone. And items because they will just get stolen by the army. You'll also have to adjust CR's all over the place. It's all fine by campaign, but by base rules it's a huge binder full of house rules to cover it.
B) Again, perfectly reasonable from a campaign perspective, remember, you are homebrewing a campaign and setting house rules that apply to your campaign. These are RAW and not RAD (Rules as Designed), which means you will need to adjust a lot of things in your game, to accomodate this. No one is saying you can't, it's perfectly valid from a world building perspective, just that it will require a consistent set of house rules to handle it as the RAW assume the default D&D economy which includes YOMS based on city size.
EDIT: These are RAW and not RAD... Should read : These are not RAW AND RAD
|
|
A) Campaign specific exception to the general rules. No one is arguing that a specific campaign may not have restricted access to items. However, people being people, you are going to have trouble with this approach. Your players are going to get pissed when you confiscate the goodies they built up (by your game worlds internal logic, you as the GM have to confiscate their equipment if an army officer sees it, it's valuable to the army). This also means no one will create magic items unless it's for the army on contract, as no one wants their work stolen. Basically, you are creating a 'magic item free' world. And that's fine for a campaign, but you'll need to adjust just about every encounter to cut down on money and items. Money because it's useless to hand out 100,000gp at level 15 because they can't spend it on anything, all the magic items re gone. And items because they will just get stolen by the army. You'll also have to adjust CR's all over the place. It's all fine by campaign, but by base rules it's a huge binder full of house rules to cover it.
Doesn't have to change the entire set of rules, could apply to an area or a time. Plus I can think of a few things which could be done with the money - retaining higher level npcs, paying taxes, tributes for war, money paid top avoid actually fighting a war, building a tower, keep , castle, hiring/paying landed lords - you know, the sort of things that 15th level characters should be doing instead of trying to buy a unique +4 Sword of Thundersticking, or a Ring of Charop(advanced).
B) Again, perfectly reasonable from a campaign perspective, remember, you are homebrewing a campaign and setting house rules that apply to your campaign. These are RAW and not RAD (Rules as Designed), which means you will need to adjust a lot of things in your game, to accomodate this. No one is saying you can't, it's perfectly valid from a world building perspective, just that it will require a consistent set of house rules to handle it as the RAW assume the default D&D economy which includes YOMS based on city size.
EDIT: These are RAW and not RAD... Should read : These are not RAW AND RAD
You are right, and that is why 3.5 sucked (IMO of course). Sure there was the open ended advancement for players and creatures (not well thought out), plus the feat and DC system.Some good stuff as a basis for a game, but ultimately 3.5 wasn't very good setting up a game other that what wotc had as RAD. Some cool mechanics on the surface which attracted me as a DM, but after several plays riddled with which problems with spells, magic economy, balance, support for gaming philosophies besides what was the mighty but narrow vision of Wotc.
So some good strengths, but limited options for alternate styles of play.With PFRPG though it is BOTH RAW and RAD. Slower advancement, slower wealth per encounter/wealth by levels as a BUILT IN option of the system for the DM.
No more 13.3 encounters per level so you can get your guy to level 20 by the end of summer (and in the trash bin). Wotc RAW/RAD was laid out so players would be inspired to constantly make new decks (character builds) so you can toss out the old, and then used the new shiny in the new shiny book. That was their model, their focus - grind through the character levels so you can make a lot more characters =$$$. Necromancer saw this and came out with some rules in some of their earlier 3.0/3.5 material to slow down the pace, and the game designers (some of which worked on 3.0/3.5) also factored this into PFRPG. Because more than one person in the industry felt that hyper-advancement, hyper-loot, etc was not the only way to play. In fact it could be considered detrimental to the game as a whole.
So yeah, Paizo fixed one of the biggest flaws with 3.5. Funny thing I was already running a 50% less xp campaign when I felt all dirty and was using FIAT (oh noes) to run the games xp advancement at a slower than RAD. Ah well.
Auxmaulos, I think it's pretty much a clear case of religious debate.
Obviously you and I would be on the same page, however we'd probably die a thousand deaths in other peoples campaigns, and likewise they wouldn't like our take on things either.
This all comes down to DM/GM flavour and style, and how much he/she likes to dick about with the RAW/RAD/RAIntended... whatever.
Well if you have the spells or ability to generate things from rocks then go wild. What the hell do you need a magic shoppe for?
I love these forums.
I once tried to solve a starvation problem by turning a certain amount of a rock wall into flesh with stone to flesh.
The DM ruled it was disgusting "wall-meat". No one ate it. Not even the troll rooming with me.
+10 epic...
OK that makes this whole thread worth it. Make a Fort save to keep it down...LoL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to see so much civil discussion, aside from the few inflammatory remarks and reactions. [Edition wars deleted]
I'm all about keeping characters alive for the sake of the story, I dislike TPKs, though I won't stop a death or two.
I definitely roll stuff in secret, and I'm a house-rule fanatic. I actually stoped p[laying 2e, because my house-rules were too numerous. (Mostly tweaks and additions to add more and more to the game)
Magic shops Definitely I do have them (For common items), but I also dislike the throw cash at the magic item approach. As the weapons get beyond the +2 range, they should become more and more difficult to create...ingredient wise. Perhaps the wizard will need the ectoplasm from a ghost or wraith to create a ghost touch weapon. The branches from an ancient oak to create a +4 or +5 longbow. The players may not have to go for the items themselves, they could hire someone to go for them (This becomes worked into the "value" of the material required to create the item...no additional expenses.) For players, they might have to make a Knowledge (Arcana) roll to know what to use to create X item...it's not RAW, but it's definitely within the spirit of D&D.
My Opinions...YMMV
Please continue the discussions.
...That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that players don't rebel."
... and it is important to have the DM have the accepted ability to trump RAW, because you always get one player who's idea of RAW is to exploit every loophole he can find (a small example at the end of this thread).
Wall-meat or Wal-meat, because the meat at Wal-Mart never looks that good to me.
It's that hormone loaded meat in the USA. It always tastes funny to me when I visit, and I'm glad the EU banned it. On the other hand, if I was starving it'd probably taste divine.
The 3.0/3.5 XP pace is set so that a group of secondary-school-aged or college-aged players can finish a campaign from 1-20 in the space of a school year. Paizo wrote a new XP scale because the old XP scale isn't OGC.
Dayum!
Our 2ED campaign started at level 1 and went just about every weekend for about 4 odd years - max player level = 12.
Mind you, that's just the way that group liked it.
Well if you have the spells or ability to generate things from rocks then go wild. What the hell do you need a magic shoppe for?
I love these forums.
I once tried to solve a starvation problem by turning a certain amount of a rock wall into flesh with stone to flesh.
The DM ruled it was disgusting "wall-meat". No one ate it. Not even the troll rooming with me.
Geh, that just about turned my stomach. Who knows what's been around to mark it if it was in a dungeon.
Didn't Harlan Ellison write a neat story about a magic shop?
Finally, someone else who recognizes that Gary is God.Auxmaulos, I think it's pretty much a clear case of religious debate.
I heard the Gygax required players to make rolls just to have their characters wake up in the morning.
Oh and Dangerous Journeys was one of the worst RPGs I have ever read.He does deserve credit for getting the ball rolling though.
|
Finally, someone else who recognizes that Gary is God.Auxmaulos, I think it's pretty much a clear case of religious debate.
I heard the Gygax required players to make rolls just to have their characters wake up in the morning.
One never knows when one might die in their sleep. It seems only fair to make the game as close to like as possible.