Magic Mart and Why.

[scadgrad]

At times, handwaving is good for your piece of mind and good for the game group. I try not to let it bother me any more than the nonsensical "gamey" fact that a group of characters will have 13.5 "encounters" before they advance to the next level. So Frodo and the lads need to hit up on 13.5 various critters, threats, traps, haunts & whatnot before they can level up at Bree, where they can then trade/sell their loot and each get a prized Cloak of Resist +1 which just happens to fall under the town gp limit if they all manage to roll 75% or less. Seriously, think about how many damned fights your groups get into during their epic journey from Sandpoint to wherever it is they're going. It's just part of the game and you shouldn't focus too much on making a simulationist game out of level-based RPG.

As long as the overall story is good, cool things happen and fun is had, don't let the gamist stuff get in the way. Best practices seems to be using the settlement rules from the Gamemastery guide with a 75% of items that fall under the settlement gp limit. For items above that limit, you can simply roll the dice and find out what's there.

[LazarX]

Aelryinth wrote:

Literacy was the requirement of nobles and professionals. Merchants are actually the biggest drivers of it, because they want to be able to keep track of what they buy and sell...and to lie to the tax collectors, who need to be able to read those records to collect their fair share.

In short, people who could not read and write were barbarians and common laborers.

Not really the requirement of Nobles. They had their scribes and advisors who would read and comprehend complicated legal documents such as a betrothal agreement, frequently a monk that would be hired from a monastery long-term for such a purpose. The monk's services could in fact be part of the payment made by a monastery in order to keep their lands.

Basically the Middle Ages Feudal system had three classe of people.

1. Those who labored.... basically your serf farmers who were bound to the land, and while not slaves, could not leave a domain without their lord's blessing. They did the grunt work of farming the bulk of produce which would go to the reigning lord or vassal. They were essentially the bedrock of which this economic system rested.

2. Those who fought. In this case those who would lead armies, either professional, or levied conscripts. These were your noble families, each of which would trace it's ancestry to a barbarian warlord who actually succeeded in building a fiefdom of his own. They collected levies which would take the form of crops, and when needed peasant conscripts. This wasn't as often done as one might think as a peasant who's been drafted into your army, becomes someone you have to feed, as opposed to someone growing crops that you'd collect. At the top of this class, is your King who in paper owns all of the land in the kingdom and parcels it out to his vassals, who fulfill set obligations, such as answering calls to war when needed, and taxes.

3. Those who thought. Mainly the domain of the Church, who conducted services almost exclusively in Latin. (which hardly anyone outside the Church could understand) They provided services which I mentioned above, as it was the monasteries that preserved most of the knowledge from the old pre-Dark age days of empire.

It would be the development of towns that existed outside this hierarchy and a growing merchant class which would ultimately knock this system on it's side. In this area you had merchants. And because Usury was considered a high sin, the financing of loans would be delegated to a class of people that were considered dammed to Hell anyway... i.e. Jews. So much of what we would look at as "midieval" history is actually that of societies in a long period of post-feudal transition.

[Adamantine Dragon]

LazarX, that's an excellent summary of the situation in the feudal middle ages system.

I do think you should add:

4. Those who trade. As you point out, the growth (in size and influence) of the merchant class throughout the middle ages is the driving force behind the renaissance. And the merchant class was a distinct economic category separate from the ones you've listed, I think.

[Captain Wacky]

Mindset is also an issue most people seem to be forgetting. People tend to fear what they don't understand. I doubt anyone other than casters themselves understand magic, even to a limited degree. Most people’s worlds tend to be significantly more cosmopolitan about things than they should be. Our world is filled with racism, bigotry and intolerance. And we only have other humans. Anyone else not allow Teiflings because most would actually be killed at birth by their mother or another family member? "Her child has horns! KILL HER SHE'S A WHITCH!!".

Commoners in that time period are uneducated at best and most would shy away from magic items because they do strange things. Let alone buy or sell them. And that’s when you start seeing shops, when the commoners can afford and will buy such things. There has yet to be an industrial revolution. And most of my commoners don’t make enough money to want to invest in an item they have little to no use for anyways.

How much is an ever burning torch? 50gp? Most of my commoners will never SEE gold let alone buy something with it. You can either have a torch that will never go out… or a new barn… 5.000 cp will buy a lot of supplies as 90+% of people in that period were farmers.

[mkenner]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I think there is some lack of understanding of my "hyper-awesome sword of awesomeness" example.

My point is that people seem to think that a GM can overcome the ever-escalating Christmas tree effect with some brilliant expository effort where they can ramp up the players' appreciation of receipt of a magic item through brilliant narration.

I'm a GM who runs games of pathfinder, hiding what's basically an exercise in mathematics and probability behind a veneer of description and interaction is what I do.

Quote:

If you are playing the game the way the developers expect you to be playing the game, by level 9 or 10 your players will have each received somewhere in the range of 15-20 magic items.

You have to pick and choose your battles. Making every last ring, potion and charm bracelet feel awesome is probably unsustainable. I try to focus on one or two key items for each player, the fighter's sword, wizard staff, etc. The rest can just be replaceable tech.

Quote:

Roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of those will be "brilliant narrative descriptions" of items that are intended to replace EXISTING items that had previously been "brilliantly narratively described" but are now obsolete and pointless.

And yet there are still lines of people going around the block everytime Apple brings out an iPhone 5 where people queue to replace their iPhone 4. People just have to get that iPhone the day it's released because they're so excited about their hyper awesome phone of awesomeness. (Yes, I think this is silly in the real world, but none the less it shows the point. Call it an iPhone +4 and an iPhone +5 and apple's marketing branch can teach you something about D&D).

Quote:

This is precisely why people complain that magic items can't be "rare and precious" in the default application of the rules. Because you can't call something "rare and precious" when they rain down like acorns from the oak trees.

There might be a million +3 swords in the world, but there's only one +3 sword inscribed with the commandments of Abadar in fine varisian script running the length of the blade that was formerly the royal executioner's blade until the rebellion's leader used it to cut off the tyrant king's head in front of the PCs. That's still rare and precious because there's only one of those in the world.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Captain, it is a common assumption by PF and D&D players that the game world is comparable to middle ages earth.

But the actual rules don't support that notion. The rules create and describe a unique culture that accepts magic much as we today accept technology. It has been demonstrated many times on these boards that a typical commoner could make and save enough gold over time to purchase minor magic items if you follow the rules for professions such as blacksmith, farmer, etc.

In a very real way in the PF world there HAS been a revolution, but not a technological one. The revolution was a magical one.

My own campaign world takes this to further logical destinations. The richest city in my campaign world operates in many ways very much like the richest cities in our own world, but with magic taking the place of technology. It is only the poorest parts of the world that would be comparable to our middle ages, much as that is actually true of the real world.

It is true that a typical farmer might not buy an everburning torch. But they most certainly would balance the value of a stone-avoiding plow against a new barn. Especially since that plow could provide them with enough profit to buy a new barn eventually and have both.

[Adamantine Dragon]

mkenner, LOL, if you want to compare "rare and precious magic items" with iPhones, you'll find me in violent agreement with you.

[mkenner]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Captain, it is a common assumption by PF and D&D players that the game world is comparable to middle ages earth.

But the actual rules don't support that notion. The rules create and describe a unique culture that accepts magic much as we today accept technology. It has been demonstrated many times on these boards that a typical commoner could make and save enough gold over time to purchase minor magic items if you follow the rules for professions such as blacksmith, farmer, etc.

This is true, you have to work very hard going against the way the game is designed to make the world comparable to middle ages earth. It can be done, but it really needs you to design everything from the ground up to support this idea. (Or just a lot of handwaving).

[master_marshmallow]

I can see it now, in game rich snobby NPC hipsters arguing over what is cooler, their Ring of Protection or the conformists Amulet of Natural Armor.

Then you have the true hipsters, walking around with Bracers of Armor.

[Captain Wacky]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

In a very real way in the PF world there HAS been a revolution, but not a technological one. The revolution was a magical one.

And that is the point I'm driving at. Magic = Technology. Making it common enough for everyone that it might as well be technology? Crystal Ball Telecommunication systems? Golem factories? A sword spewing forge? It devalues and demystifies magic... which is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. Why not play a modern game at that point?

I played Ebberon for a little while, It didn't feel like a fantasy game to me. I might has well have gone to sprint and picked up the lastest crystal ball, because my old one doesn't have the new features.

[SeeleyOne]

The Magic = Technology concept is why I have considered dropping enchantment and Spellcasting costs to 10%. I have to sit down and compare the numbers, but it does make the wide scale magic market more viable. It does not make it more special, but it still can be. I go to a gun store and figure that the situation there is analogous to a magic item shop. Same goes for a computer store.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Magic in the place of technology does not mean that magic is the same thing as technology. There's an interesting intellectual exercise that you can pursue to contemplate what a society would look like if the PF rules were the real physical laws of the universe. The end result will be different for every individual who takes that journey, but in my case I did not come up with a world where there were golem factories.

The difference in general for me was what systems refer to as "scalability." Making magic items can't be automated. It can be made more efficient, but my world doesn't have magic factories in large part because it's not technology, it's magic. You can't just stamp out magic wand components and then assemble them by the thousands on an assembly line.

However, magic is pretty good at duplicating or even superseding some of what technology does for us. Lighting up cities after dark. Bringing fresh water and removing waste. Providing mass transit. Providing entertainment. Making food cheap. Distributing food.

For a society to gain great quality of life and productivity enhancement does not mean every home ends up with dozens of powerful magic items. It means the magic items perform the critical social needs that allow a society to be more productive.

I think the result is a fascinating world where wonders abound, but magic is still not something that has become so commonplace that people are tossing their magical doodads in the trash.

Just my $.02

[LazarX]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LazarX, that's an excellent summary of the situation in the feudal middle ages system.

I do think you should add:

4. Those who trade. As you point out, the growth (in size and influence) of the merchant class throughout the middle ages is the driving force behind the renaissance. And the merchant class was a distinct economic category separate from the ones you've listed, I think.

I didn't list them as number 4 because in actuality, they were a major reason that the feudal system ultimately broke down. That was the main issue with townsmen, they simply did not fit into the feudal structure and were in ways, a defiance of it. The major difference was that the feudal system mainly operated on a trade of obligations and barter as opposed to money. Land was the currency of feudal lords and the kings had total control over it.

Money and the growing industry of loan finance brought a whole new dynamic into the mix.

[SeeleyOne]

Oh yeah I remember reading about that in 10th grade, the nobles were threatened by wealthy merchants. Haves versus have nots, technology increasing productivity, etc. of course that was in 1991 so it may be inaccurate

[thejeff]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Master, one of them, yes. The other, I think, is the ever escalating divide in power between casting and martial classes.

The irony is that the first problem (christmas tree) was almost certainly created as a way to address the second problem (martials don't get any cool toys).

I understand that, and I've stopped fighting it. If a rules system comes out that my group wants to play that does provide that "rare and precious" feel to magic items, I'll probably move to it. For now we'll keep on treating magic items as the commodity they are expected to be in default Pathfinder rules.

It's also a solution to the problem of "What do the characters do with all this cash?"

And the christmas tree effect is now part of the reason martials can't get cool toys. They need to channel their WBL into gear to boost the numbers instead. A Cloak of the Bat is a much cooler toy than a Cloak of Resistance, but you need the Resistance.
Before 3.0, with expected gear less codified and less opportunity to buy/make items, you would make the best use you could of what you got. Which meant you were more likely to get/keep the cooler but not as often useful stuff.

[Captain Wacky]

If wonders abound, they cease to be wonderous. I can see the anchient mage city of *whatever* having wonders that do mundane things, like removing waste and bringing in fresh water. That would be the crown jewel of magedom. Or a high level wizards tower. But filling a world with it, it becomes just a thing that people have. I don't see a city bus or my TV as particularly wonderous, do you? No one does, because it's common. Unless you live in the boonies.

Fireworks draw a crowd because setting fire to the sky isn't something that happens all the time. It's neat once a year, but seeing it everyday, would anyone go after a few days?

I can see the allure of having magic take the place of technology, it has a differant feel to it. But to me, magic or technology, a bus is a bus.

[dkonen]

I notice one has mentioned the: "If you want magic rare and precious-you can certainly run it that way."

I do agree with making items memorable, but depending on the game and the setting, it can be taxing on the DM. However, I believe there was a supplement/book-possibly 3.x that gave a random table of magic item descriptors to make items seem more unique (I hesitate to guess DMG2).

Your +1 sword could have guilding, a pommel shaped like a bird in flight, small diamond chips in the crossguard shaped like a constellation, it could emit a soft hum, a gentle glow, feel lighter in your hands, etc etc.

You can even put a history or an entire plot behind it- the +1 sword could be the blade of inheritance of the lost Murkhar Kings, who ruled two thousand years ago, and denotes the bearer as a member of the royal line. Then put in a lost cult that searches for the heir, with rebels who seek to kill the bearer.

Just because it's only a +1 doesn't make it unimportant and insignificant. It's actually only limited by your imagination.

Yes, if you reuse descriptors your players will roll their eyes. However it will be exactly the same if you apply it to NPCs.

I mean after the fifth or sixth-"mysterious figure wrapped in shadow" -your players will start to wonder if they're being run through the game by a broken record.

Items can be made special, it's up to you to provide the importance and relevance (if you're not willing to run a game with modified loot distribution). That's why you're the DM.

[thejeff]

dkonen wrote:

I notice one has mentioned the: "If you want magic rare and precious-you can certainly run it that way."

I do agree with making items memorable, but depending on the game and the setting, it can be taxing on the DM. However, I believe there was a supplement/book-possibly 3.x that gave a random table of magic item descriptors to make items seem more unique (I hesitate to guess DMG2).

Your +1 sword could have guilding, a pommel shaped like a bird in flight, small diamond chips in the crossguard shaped like a constellation, it could emit a soft hum, a gentle glow, feel lighter in your hands, etc etc.

You can even put a history or an entire plot behind it- the +1 sword could be the blade of inheritance of the lost Murkhar Kings, who ruled two thousand years ago, and denotes the bearer as a member of the royal line. Then put in a lost cult that searches for the heir, with rebels who seek to kill the bearer.

Just because it's only a +1 doesn't make it unimportant and insignificant. It's actually only limited by your imagination.

Yes, if you reuse descriptors your players will roll their eyes. However it will be exactly the same if you apply it to NPCs.

I mean after the fifth or sixth-"mysterious figure wrapped in shadow" -your players will start to wonder if they're being run through the game by a broken record.

Items can be made special, it's up to you to provide the importance and relevance (if you're not willing to run a game with modified loot distribution). That's why you're the DM.

And none of it really matters, because they'll still sell it off when they get enough cash for better sword. And you can't really make entire plot arcs around every magic item. The ratio of plot arcs to items is too low.

The +1 sword being the "blade of inheritance of the lost Murkhar Kings" works fine when you get it, but 5-6 levels later when you're now wielding a +2 Corrosive weapon and someone asks you about it, it's going to be "Was that one I sold off to get better armor? Or did I give it to a cohort? No, wait. I think it's still somewhere in the bag of holding."

[dkonen]

Thejeff-that is entirely based on your players.

If your players don't care about anything but stats-well you're *not* going to instill wonder in them. At that point, it's already a losing proposition.

Also the lost blade-well it would suck if they sold it, because they may still get killed for having it and then having lost it. Or for selling it (heresy!) or for being thought they still had it and being tortured until they reveal it's location.

Would kinda suck if they sold it and couldn't remember to whom them, no?

If your players are all about the numbers they're not going to care how rare and wondrous you want magic to be.

If they only get a +1 sword at twentieth level-the response isn't going to be "oh golly gee whiz!A magic sword!"

The response at about 10th will be "Seriously? We *still* don't even have a +1? Talk about tightwad DM."

Noone can change your player's attitudes about magic unless they're willing to change already. If they're the type to look at magic as stats, no matter how you present it, nothing you do to your game will change that, reducing availability won't make it more awesome, it'll just make you look cheap and tightfisted.

[thejeff]

dkonen wrote:

Thejeff-that is entirely based on your players.

If your players don't care about anything but stats-well you're *not* going to instill wonder in them. At that point, it's already a losing proposition.

Also the lost blade-well it would suck if they sold it, because they may still get killed for having it and then having lost it. Or for selling it (heresy!) or for being thought they still had it and being tortured until they reveal it's location.

Would kinda suck if they sold it and couldn't remember to whom them, no?

If your players are all about the numbers they're not going to care how rare and wondrous you want magic to be.

If they only get a +1 sword at twentieth level-the response isn't going to be "oh golly gee whiz!A magic sword!"

The response at about 10th will be "Seriously? We *still* don't even have a +1? Talk about tightwad DM."

Noone can change your player's attitudes about magic unless they're willing to change already. If they're the type to look at magic as stats, no matter how you present it, nothing you do to your game will change that, reducing availability won't make it more awesome, it'll just make you look cheap and tightfisted.

Sure, if you're seriously reducing availability then you can keep the +1 items cool and viable throughout the game, but as others have said you're going to have to do a lot of rebalancing to make the game work at high levels.

I thought you were talking about making magic items cool and memorable within the default guidelines, just by adding descriptions and history. Which doesn't work because in the default game you go through too many of them.

We're far from "all about the numbers", but we're also not willing to cripple ourselves by sticking to the first item that comes our way, even it does have a cool story. Besides, shouldn't the replacement also come with a cool description and history?

Actually my preference for such things is to have items that reveal more powers over time. So that Blade of the Murkhar Kings could seem to be a +1 sword when the PC first finds it (and thus level appropriate), but by the time you've learned a few of its secrets (and gone up a few levels) it could be the +2 Guardian sword. (And still be level appropriate.)

[Chengar Qordath]

thejeff wrote:

Sure, if you're seriously reducing availability then you can keep the +1 items cool and viable throughout the game, but as others have said you're going to have to do a lot of rebalancing to make the game work at high levels.

I thought you were talking about making magic items cool and memorable within the default guidelines, just by adding descriptions and history. Which doesn't work because in the default game you go through too many of them.

We're far from "all about the numbers", but we're also not willing to cripple ourselves by sticking to the first item that comes our way, even it does have a cool story. Besides, shouldn't the replacement also come with a cool description and history?

Actually my preference for such things is to have items that reveal more powers over time. So that Blade of the Murkhar Kings could seem to be a +1 sword when the PC first finds it (and thus level appropriate), but by the time you've learned a few of its secrets (and gone up a few levels) it could be the +2 Guardian sword. (And still be level appropriate.)

I have to agree that with the way Pathfinder works with the magic item treadmill, you just can't expect players to stay attached to a single specific item unless it grows in power over time. Love it or hate it, the entire game system is built around the idea that characters get more and stronger magic items as they go up in levels. The only ways to make absolutely certain players keep a specific item are to have it grow in power with them so it keeps up with what they can purchase/find, or to heavily restrict item availability (which requires a lot of mucking about with the rest of the game system).

The simple truth is, Pathfinder is a game system where your ability to do just about anything is dictated by your numbers. Even the best combat tactics won't work if you don't have good enough attack bonuses to hit or high enough AC and saves to survive. The best roleplayers are still going to have to roll diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive, and if they don't have the numbers they're going to lose.

[R_Chance]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

I have to agree that with the way Pathfinder works with the magic item treadmill, you just can't expect players to stay attached to a single specific item unless it grows in power over time. Love it or hate it, the entire game system is built around the idea that characters get more and stronger magic items as they go up in levels. The only ways to make absolutely certain players keep a specific item are to have it grow in power with them so it keeps up with what they can purchase/find, or to heavily restrict item availability (which requires a lot of mucking about with the rest of the game system).

The simple truth is, Pathfinder is a game system where your ability to do just about anything is dictated by your numbers. Even the best combat tactics won't work if you don't have good enough attack bonuses to hit or high enough AC and saves to survive. The best roleplayers are still going to have to roll diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive, and if they don't have the numbers they're going to lose.

No. The problem is players have been trained to assume they should win every encounter. If you have a realistic appraisal of your power and know when to run vs. when to fight you can survive. It doesn't matter whether you are a buck naked prison escapee or a powerhouse with every item slot filled. You have to know where you are relative to your opponents. Then you run, fight, negotiate etc. as the balance of power dictates. Too many players are used to encounters structured so that the party is going to win unless they screw up tactically. Too few think over their options before combat is joined. My 2 cp of course, ymmv.

[Chengar Qordath]

R_Chance wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

I have to agree that with the way Pathfinder works with the magic item treadmill, you just can't expect players to stay attached to a single specific item unless it grows in power over time. Love it or hate it, the entire game system is built around the idea that characters get more and stronger magic items as they go up in levels. The only ways to make absolutely certain players keep a specific item are to have it grow in power with them so it keeps up with what they can purchase/find, or to heavily restrict item availability (which requires a lot of mucking about with the rest of the game system).

The simple truth is, Pathfinder is a game system where your ability to do just about anything is dictated by your numbers. Even the best combat tactics won't work if you don't have good enough attack bonuses to hit or high enough AC and saves to survive. The best roleplayers are still going to have to roll diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive, and if they don't have the numbers they're going to lose.

No. The problem is players have been trained to assume they should win every encounter. If you have a realistic appraisal of your power and know when to run vs. when to fight you can survive. It doesn't matter whether you are a buck naked prison escapee or a powerhouse with every item slot filled. You have to know where you are relative to your opponents. Then you run, fight, negotiate etc. as the balance of power dictates. Too many players are used to encounters structured so that the party is going to win unless they screw up tactically. Too few think over their options before combat is joined. My 2 cp of course, ymmv.

I really don't see how your post has anything to do with mine, or refutes the fact that the game runs on math.

[thejeff]

R_Chance wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

I have to agree that with the way Pathfinder works with the magic item treadmill, you just can't expect players to stay attached to a single specific item unless it grows in power over time. Love it or hate it, the entire game system is built around the idea that characters get more and stronger magic items as they go up in levels. The only ways to make absolutely certain players keep a specific item are to have it grow in power with them so it keeps up with what they can purchase/find, or to heavily restrict item availability (which requires a lot of mucking about with the rest of the game system).

The simple truth is, Pathfinder is a game system where your ability to do just about anything is dictated by your numbers. Even the best combat tactics won't work if you don't have good enough attack bonuses to hit or high enough AC and saves to survive. The best roleplayers are still going to have to roll diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive, and if they don't have the numbers they're going to lose.

No. The problem is players have been trained to assume they should win every encounter. If you have a realistic appraisal of your power and know when to run vs. when to fight you can survive. It doesn't matter whether you are a buck naked prison escapee or a powerhouse with every item slot filled. You have to know where you are relative to your opponents. Then you run, fight, negotiate etc. as the balance of power dictates. Too many players are used to encounters structured so that the party is going to win unless they screw up tactically. Too few think over their options before combat is joined. My 2 cp of course, ymmv.

Not relevant at all. This is just the sandbox variant of "The GM can adjust the difficulty to compensate."

[Shadowdweller]

Frankly, it's easy enough to maintain the specialness of magic items with even a minimal introduction of creativity. One doesn't have to continuously find replacements, for example. Instead: The PCs find a gem said to enhance the power of item X. Or a (one-use) incantation said to do the same. Or a legend about how to awaken further powers. Or a specially constructed piece (such as a hilt). An item might even simply absorb power as a consequence of some magic event or cosmically significant deed.

The rewards are simple to manage - there are set gold piece values associated with the difference in enhancements.

[R_Chance]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

I really don't see how your post has anything to do with mine, or refutes the fact that the game runs on math.

"No" was probably the wrong way to start that post. Yes, the game has math. My point is the players have to know it (which I didn't make clear). And learn to adjust their tactics accordingly. The two points I was making are: 1. Too many players assume they will win every encounter because they are the players. And go blindly in assuming they are the heroes (and winners). 2. You can play without every item slot optimally filled if you take that into account and adjust as needed. Whether it is simply circumstance or a different campaign setting (i.e. low magic). I don't see the math as the problem. Player's not knowing "the odds" based on their current character / situation is a problem.

[R_Chance]

thejeff wrote:

Not relevant at all. This is just the sandbox variant of "The GM can adjust the difficulty to compensate."

It isn't up to the GM to adjust difficulty in a sandbox. It's up to the players to know the level of difficulty, their own capabilities and adjust as needed. To put it simply, go where the odds of survival are good (given risk vs. reward). Stay out of situations that are too hard for your characters. A well run sandbox lets players know, if they pay attention, just how dangerous a given area / encounter is. If they go in and find out they shouldn't have, they better know when to cut and run.

[thejeff]

R_Chance wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Not relevant at all. This is just the sandbox variant of "The GM can adjust the difficulty to compensate."

It isn't up to the GM to adjust difficulty in a sandbox. It's up to the players to know the level of difficulty, their own capabilities and adjust as needed. To put it simply, go where the odds of survival are good (given risk vs. reward). Stay out of situations that are too hard for your characters. A well run sandbox lets players know, if they pay attention, just how dangerous a given area / encounter is. If they go in and find out they shouldn't have, they better know when to cut and run.

But that's the point. The players are doing it instead of the GM, but it's the same thing.

And you can cope with low magic items in the same exact way in a non-sandbox game: It's make the encounters easier instead of look for easier encounters, but that's not a real difference. It's probably easier for the GM to adjust, since he knows more about the relative strengths then the characters do.

And it's still harder to do without the expected magic. Your "solution" doesn't address the balance within the party as the casters still get all the tricks and the martials are even more limited to hitting things. Some enemies aren't much harder. Others jump drastically in difficulty. If it gets harder for the GM to balance encounters how can it be easier for players working with even less information?
And with less magic items, you'll also likely have more trouble running away. Or at least even more reliant on the casters to pull you out.

And that's all assuming you want to play a sandbox game anyway.

[R_Chance]

thejeff wrote:

R_Chance wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Not relevant at all. This is just the sandbox variant of "The GM can adjust the difficulty to compensate."

It isn't up to the GM to adjust difficulty in a sandbox. It's up to the players to know the level of difficulty, their own capabilities and adjust as needed. To put it simply, go where the odds of survival are good (given risk vs. reward). Stay out of situations that are too hard for your characters. A well run sandbox lets players know, if they pay attention, just how dangerous a given area / encounter is. If they go in and find out they shouldn't have, they better know when to cut and run.

But that's the point. The players are doing it instead of the GM, but it's the same thing.

I don't see it that way. There is a difference between the GM adjusting the game on the fly in the players favor or pre-adjusting it for them and the players using their wits to make good decisions and survive.

thejeff wrote:

And you can cope with low magic items in the same exact way in a non-sandbox game: It's make the encounters easier instead of look for easier encounters, but that's not a real difference. It's probably easier for the GM to adjust, since he knows more about the relative strengths then the characters do.

In a non-sandbox game with a linear storyline the encounters are pre-built for the players or in any event adjusted ahead of time for the specific party. The GM is the one to do it in this case. It's on him. In a sandbox game it's on the players to make the decisions; to determine the odds. I run a sandbox and prefer to play in them as well. To each their own on that.

thejeff wrote:

And it's still harder to do without the expected magic. Your "solution" doesn't address the balance within the party as the casters still get all the tricks and the martials are even more limited to hitting things. Some enemies aren't much harder. Others jump drastically in difficulty. If it gets harder for the GM to balance encounters how can it be easier for players working with even less information?
And with less magic items, you'll also likely have more trouble running away. Or at least even more reliant on the casters to pull you out.

And that's all assuming you want to play a sandbox game anyway.

It wasn't a "solution", just an observation. Players can make choices that allow their party to survive if they, roughly, know the relative balance of power. Balance within the party was never a major point in the game anyway, was it? Is any other player "balanced" against a high level caster (except another high level caster)? The casters may eventually end up as the big guns, but they typically need non-casters at times no matter how "uber" they are. The question to me is, is the party viable? Can they operate and survive? My own experience indicates players develop their judgment about what they can and can't face individually and as a group. You present a fairly survivable environment for them at low level and as they go up they will begin making choices and developing a sense for risk and move on to more dangerous areas when ready. They just have to know their limits.

As for running away, the first method involves the mark one foot. Well, feet actually. You need two. Tactics and equipment (i.e. burning oil, caltrops, etc.) can help. Magic comes later. By the time they have spells like Teleport they should need it less. Hopefully.

And you mentioned sandboxes first :)

[wraithstrike]

mkenner wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

So everyone in your gameworld can [can't?] read or write? How do they have buildings and other things? Even the guy building, not even the architect has to be able to read.

Buildings and writing are not necessarily correlated. I'm no archaeologist but I don't believe there's any evidence of a written language at Dhar Tichitt despite their use of stone buildings. To the best of my knowledge many of the great civilizations in West Africa lacked any written script until islamic traders introduced Arabic.

With only clerics and wizards able to read and write, the written word may be seen as sacred within that setting. Something used only by those willing to deal with dangerous mystical forces.

...Sorry for that unrelated digression. Now if you'll excuse me I have to run off and write a West-african based area of my campaign world with a culture built around the sacred use of written language.

I am sure there was written language, and I am sure that those with professions could read and write even in civilizations where the common man could not. There is no civilization with buildings where writing is as rare in your world. I am not saying it is bad wrong fun, but is far from realistic. Just accept it.

[mkenner]

wraithstrike wrote:

mkenner wrote:

Buildings and writing are not necessarily correlated. I'm no archaeologist but I don't believe there's any evidence of a written language at Dhar Tichitt despite their use of stone buildings. To the best of my knowledge many of the great civilizations in West Africa lacked any written script until islamic traders introduced Arabic.

I am sure there was written language, and I am sure that those with professions could read and write even in civilizations where the common man could not.

Firstly, it's not my world. That was someone else's campaign setting that I was just discussing.

Secondly, "You're sure there was written language"? Do you know something about the history of west africa that I don't? Because (so far as I'm aware, and I'm not an expert so take it with a grain of salt) no evidence of a written language has ever been discovered amongst the people of Dhat Tichitt until the introduction of arabic well after they started building stone buildings.

Quote:

There is no civilization with buildings where writing is as rare in your world. I am not saying it is bad wrong fun, but is far from realistic. Just accept it.

I've just quoted an actual historical place that had buildings but no writing. (Dhar Tichitt). If I'm wrong and you know some archeological dig or study that showed the existence of a written language there then feel free to correct me but otherwise I'm not sure I have any grounds to "just accept it".

[thejeff]

R_Chance wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Not relevant at all. This is just the sandbox variant of "The GM can adjust the difficulty to compensate."

I don't see it that way. There is a difference between the GM adjusting the game on the fly in the players favor or pre-adjusting it for them and the players using their wits to make good decisions and survive.

Of course there's a difference, but the difference isn't really relevant to "low magic".

It boils down to "The solution is to fight weaker enemies."
Which is true, but not as trivial as it seems.

Quote:

And you mentioned sandboxes first :)

I used the word first, after you described it.

[Captain Wacky]

wraithstrike wrote:

Captain Wacky wrote:

I don't use Magic Marts. Magic in my games isn't common enough for that. When you use Magic Marts you turn magic into technology and remove mystique and wonder of magic and make it mundane. My limit to this is churches will grant healing potions and wizard schools wil sell low level scrolls. You can have an item made, but it has to be commissoned.

Buying and selling magic items can be done through other NPC adventuring groups if they have something they can't use or don't want. This is usually done through word of mouth as every class but wizards and clerics are illiterate.

I also don't use the WBL, you get what you get in the game.

Is that how YOU feel or did your players tell you it feels that way? I never really cared about magic items as anything other than tools to get the job done.

So everyone in your gameworld can read or write? How do they have buildings and other things? Even the guy building, not even the architect has to be able to read.

We've discussed it some. Some players don't care either way and the others tend to agree, but we're a bit older in our views.

"tools to get the job done" is that how your players feel as well?

No, for the most part they can't. literacy wasn't common even among nobles for a very long time. Just because the class doesn't start with literacy doesn't mean they can buy it. They don't really need it. I'm just clearing up my statement bacause your response is a bit confusing... are you arguing for or against my stance on literacy?

[Captain Wacky]

Literacy isn't all but unheard of. But few Knights, Nobles, Commoners and the like need it as a skill. Sages and Scribes did the reading and writing for a very long time, not because nobles were too busy to write their own letter, but because they didn't know how. It wasn't like in the movies where everyone was literate except the farmers. Wizards and Clerics are highly educated pleople in an uneducated world. They went to school, most nobles had tutors but literacy was rarely part of the cariculum. They were too busy learning how to run a government, developing martial skills, tactics and other things.

When I make an architect as an NPC he/she is always literate. But my PCs are not architects. I wasn't saying no one in the world outside of wizards and clerics are literate. But as for PC classes, Only Wizards and Clerics start off with literacy. Everyone else is more than welcome to purchase it with skill points.

This is all of course dependant on the culture, but I'm assuming classic fantasy is the subject.

[rgrove0172]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Captain, it is a common assumption by PF and D&D players that the game world is comparable to middle ages earth.

But the actual rules don't support that notion. The rules create and describe a unique culture that accepts magic much as we today accept technology. It has been demonstrated many times on these boards that a typical commoner could make and save enough gold over time to purchase minor magic items if you follow the rules for professions such as blacksmith, farmer, etc.

In a very real way in the PF world there HAS been a revolution, but not a technological one. The revolution was a magical one.

My own campaign world takes this to further logical destinations. The richest city in my campaign world operates in many ways very much like the richest cities in our own world, but with magic taking the place of technology. It is only the poorest parts of the world that would be comparable to our middle ages, much as that is actually true of the real world.

It is true that a typical farmer might not buy an everburning torch. But they most certainly would balance the value of a stone-avoiding plow against a new barn. Especially since that plow could provide them with enough profit to buy a new barn eventually and have both.

If I had to run a campaign where magic was this mundane... well I wouldnt. Magic without wonder is boring as a story element.

[spalding]

If wonder only comes to you when it's rare I think you haven't seen enough of the world to judge wonder.

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

rgrove0172 wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Captain, it is a common assumption by PF and D&D players that the game world is comparable to middle ages earth.

But the actual rules don't support that notion. The rules create and describe a unique culture that accepts magic much as we today accept technology. It has been demonstrated many times on these boards that a typical commoner could make and save enough gold over time to purchase minor magic items if you follow the rules for professions such as blacksmith, farmer, etc.

In a very real way in the PF world there HAS been a revolution, but not a technological one. The revolution was a magical one.

My own campaign world takes this to further logical destinations. The richest city in my campaign world operates in many ways very much like the richest cities in our own world, but with magic taking the place of technology. It is only the poorest parts of the world that would be comparable to our middle ages, much as that is actually true of the real world.

It is true that a typical farmer might not buy an everburning torch. But they most certainly would balance the value of a stone-avoiding plow against a new barn. Especially since that plow could provide them with enough profit to buy a new barn eventually and have both.

If I had to run a campaign where magic was this mundane... well I wouldnt. Magic without wonder is boring as a story element.

clearly Pathfinder isn't the system for you. lets see the various things that make magic seem mundane

1. the fact that most magic items merely provide mundane static bonuses

2. the fact that these bonuses can be purchased with a 75% chance of success

3. the fact that full spellcasting classes exist as an option for player characters, whether wizards, sorcerers, druids, clerics, oracles or witches

4. that there are no restrictions on what classes can be used by which races

5. that 85% or more of the classes and over 90% of the stronger monsters have spell lists

6. the fact that most magic items are small and seperate

my general rule for making a campaign with a low magic feel

1. remove the 50% markup for adding additional powers to the same item
2. add the big 6 properties in groups to items with fitting and less mundane properties, don't count the flavor properties towards WBL and don't factor a cost.
3. make up fluff properties on the fly if you wish, a +2, Holy, keen, agile, Evil Outsider, Bane, Adamantine Saber with a permanent magic circle against evil effect that also provides it's wielder's allies with fast healing 2 called "St. Eclair" is far more interesting than a mere +2 Agile Wakazashi. i'd only count the +2 portion as important.
4. allow items to grow and unlock properties as the plot advances in ways you deem fit, maybe the sample "St. Eclair" after absorbing and purifying the blood of 6 slain powerful demons on a scarlet moon, increases to a +4 enhancement and the permanent magic circle evolves into a permanent holy aura with fast healing 4 instead of fast healing 2.

[Jaelithe]

Abraham spalding wrote:

If wonder only comes to you when it's rare I think you haven't seen enough of the world to judge wonder.

There's a reason "familiarity breeds contempt" is an axiom. The commonplace is often dismissed as unremarkable. Magic employed by many for the mundane would likely become, for the masses (and the players who've seen too much of it) just another energy source.

[spalding]

Yup and people make such mistakes daily -- doesn't mean they are right, just that they repeat the same mistake and don't understand.

[Adamantine Dragon]

rgrove0172 wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Captain, it is a common assumption by PF and D&D players that the game world is comparable to middle ages earth.

But the actual rules don't support that notion. The rules create and describe a unique culture that accepts magic much as we today accept technology. It has been demonstrated many times on these boards that a typical commoner could make and save enough gold over time to purchase minor magic items if you follow the rules for professions such as blacksmith, farmer, etc.

In a very real way in the PF world there HAS been a revolution, but not a technological one. The revolution was a magical one.

My own campaign world takes this to further logical destinations. The richest city in my campaign world operates in many ways very much like the richest cities in our own world, but with magic taking the place of technology. It is only the poorest parts of the world that would be comparable to our middle ages, much as that is actually true of the real world.

It is true that a typical farmer might not buy an everburning torch. But they most certainly would balance the value of a stone-avoiding plow against a new barn. Especially since that plow could provide them with enough profit to buy a new barn eventually and have both.

If I had to run a campaign where magic was this mundane... well I wouldnt. Magic without wonder is boring as a story element.

If i had to rely on "wondrous magic' to make my stories interesting.... well, I wouldn't. I'd hang up my GM hat since I clearly was no longer worthy of it.

[LazarX]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

rgrove0172 wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Captain, it is a common assumption by PF and D&D players that the game world is comparable to middle ages earth.

But the actual rules don't support that notion. The rules create and describe a unique culture that accepts magic much as we today accept technology. It has been demonstrated many times on these boards that a typical commoner could make and save enough gold over time to purchase minor magic items if you follow the rules for professions such as blacksmith, farmer, etc.

In a very real way in the PF world there HAS been a revolution, but not a technological one. The revolution was a magical one.

My own campaign world takes this to further logical destinations. The richest city in my campaign world operates in many ways very much like the richest cities in our own world, but with magic taking the place of technology. It is only the poorest parts of the world that would be comparable to our middle ages, much as that is actually true of the real world.

It is true that a typical farmer might not buy an everburning torch. But they most certainly would balance the value of a stone-avoiding plow against a new barn. Especially since that plow could provide them with enough profit to buy a new barn eventually and have both.

If I had to run a campaign where magic was this mundane... well I wouldnt. Magic without wonder is boring as a story element.

If i had to rely on "wondrous magic' to make my stories interesting.... well, I wouldn't. I'd hang up my GM hat since I clearly was no longer worthy of it.

That's not really the point.. magic so present that the average serf can afford an enchanted plow breaks many of the default assumptions of standard game worlds. You can certainly run things that way, but that's going to be a vastly different world than most players and DMs are used to, not neccessarily a better one, but easily a worse one if the implications are not followed all the way through.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Actually LazarX, magic items that can be purchased by the average FARMER is, and has been demonstrated to be, completely consistent with the rules.

Nobody mentioned "the average serf" until you did just now in a transparent attempt at exaggeration to try to make your point, which just demonstrates that exaggeration is required to do so.

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

rgrove0172 wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Captain, it is a common assumption by PF and D&D players that the game world is comparable to middle ages earth.

But the actual rules don't support that notion. The rules create and describe a unique culture that accepts magic much as we today accept technology. It has been demonstrated many times on these boards that a typical commoner could make and save enough gold over time to purchase minor magic items if you follow the rules for professions such as blacksmith, farmer, etc.

In a very real way in the PF world there HAS been a revolution, but not a technological one. The revolution was a magical one.

My own campaign world takes this to further logical destinations. The richest city in my campaign world operates in many ways very much like the richest cities in our own world, but with magic taking the place of technology. It is only the poorest parts of the world that would be comparable to our middle ages, much as that is actually true of the real world.

It is true that a typical farmer might not buy an everburning torch. But they most certainly would balance the value of a stone-avoiding plow against a new barn. Especially since that plow could provide them with enough profit to buy a new barn eventually and have both.

If I had to run a campaign where magic was this mundane... well I wouldnt. Magic without wonder is boring as a story element.

If i had to rely on "wondrous magic' to make my stories interesting.... well, I wouldn't. I'd hang up my GM hat since I clearly was no longer worthy of it.

i can agree with this

magic is to fantasy, what technology is to steampunk and cyberpunk. in other words, magic is simply another science that defies and rewrites the natural laws as we know it, just as many technological innovations have before.

Wondrous Magic is often a crutch for fantasy writers whom want to make their spellcasting protagonist stand out in the world. there are other ways to define a spellcaster besides the fact she casts spells.

maybe she is an illusionist and enchantress that uses sentient beings as little more than marionettes to do her bidding

maybe she is an elementalist whom channels the Phoenix to heal those around her

maybe she is a warrior priestess dedicated to a serpentine dragon revered as a local deity in her homeland and observes the customs of respecting the draconic way

maybe she is a diviner whom uses a combination of stealth, illusions and keen perception to work as a spy for the local prime minister

maybe she is a street urchin whom taps into her sylph heritage, which she boosted her control of through study and preparation, to cast weather themed spells that help her escape long enough to continue her minor yet irksome criminal duties she was driven into out of poverty

[Jaelithe]

Well, this has clearly become, "Never the twain shall meet," and the comments are getting a tad catty.

Once people start talking at rather than to each other, the discussion loses its appeal.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll see you in other threads. Enjoy your respective evenings.

[LazarX]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Actually LazarX, magic items that can be purchased by the average FARMER is, and has been demonstrated to be, completely consistent with the rules.

Nobody mentioned "the average serf" until you did just now in a transparent attempt at exaggeration to try to make your point, which just demonstrates that exaggeration is required to do so.

I don't get where you're going here. Most farmers ARE serfs, toiling for the noble lord who actually owns the land. Where are the rules that say a farmer can buy a magic item, when that item isn't defined by the rules at all. Most farmers given the basic subsistence level don't have hundreds or thousands of gold pieces to spend on enchanted equipment.

[Anzyr]

LazarX wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Actually LazarX, magic items that can be purchased by the average FARMER is, and has been demonstrated to be, completely consistent with the rules.

Nobody mentioned "the average serf" until you did just now in a transparent attempt at exaggeration to try to make your point, which just demonstrates that exaggeration is required to do so.

I don't get where you're going here. Most farmers ARE serfs, toiling for the noble lord who actually owns the land. Where are the rules that say a farmer can buy a magic item, when that item isn't defined by the rules at all. Most farmers given the basic subsistence level don't have hundreds or thousands of gold pieces to spend on enchanted equipment.

Serfs? Which published fantasy setting has those? I think you might be confusing history and fantasy...

[Adamantine Dragon]

Anzyr wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Actually LazarX, magic items that can be purchased by the average FARMER is, and has been demonstrated to be, completely consistent with the rules.

Nobody mentioned "the average serf" until you did just now in a transparent attempt at exaggeration to try to make your point, which just demonstrates that exaggeration is required to do so.

I don't get where you're going here. Most farmers ARE serfs, toiling for the noble lord who actually owns the land. Where are the rules that say a farmer can buy a magic item, when that item isn't defined by the rules at all. Most farmers given the basic subsistence level don't have hundreds or thousands of gold pieces to spend on enchanted equipment.

Serfs? Which published fantasy setting has those? I think you might be confusing history and fantasy...

I'd say he's confusing at least history and fantasy. Not to mention the difference between people who own farms and people who are hired or indentured to perform menial tasks for those who own farms.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Actually LazarX, magic items that can be purchased by the average FARMER is, and has been demonstrated to be, completely consistent with the rules.

Nobody mentioned "the average serf" until you did just now in a transparent attempt at exaggeration to try to make your point, which just demonstrates that exaggeration is required to do so.

I don't get where you're going here. Most farmers ARE serfs, toiling for the noble lord who actually owns the land.

I don't think that's true in the average gaming world. Certainly was in the real world, but most game worlds are generally nicer places to live - other than the monsters and demonic incursions and the like.

The idea that the majority of people are dirt poor farmers, bound to the land in a strict class based society, just isn't that compatible with all the free-spirited adventuring. If nothing else, in a world in which a peasant can wake up the magical blood sleeping in his veins, go off adventuring for a couple of months and come back strong enough to shake kingdoms, you might want to treat them just a little more kindly.

[LazarX]

Anzyr wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Actually LazarX, magic items that can be purchased by the average FARMER is, and has been demonstrated to be, completely consistent with the rules.

Nobody mentioned "the average serf" until you did just now in a transparent attempt at exaggeration to try to make your point, which just demonstrates that exaggeration is required to do so.

I don't get where you're going here. Most farmers ARE serfs, toiling for the noble lord who actually owns the land. Where are the rules that say a farmer can buy a magic item, when that item isn't defined by the rules at all. Most farmers given the basic subsistence level don't have hundreds or thousands of gold pieces to spend on enchanted equipment.

Serfs? Which published fantasy setting has those? I think you might be confusing history and fantasy...

I'm still not seeing numbers here. In a world where the average non-adventurer earns maybe a few silver a day, where do they get the funds for having magic items made? You do understand that adventurers generally are operating under a "gold rush" economy, not something that's actually representative of day to day life?