| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many times on these board GM's have said they restrict magic items/spells/fests, or they dislike pre-planned builds because it takes away from the "sense of wonder" or immersion, or it makes the player(not the character) excited about the new shiny thing*. As a player I could care less, and I have never seen a player say this restriction(s)does anything to keep them "in the game" mentally.
*The shiny new thing is really just a common magic item that has been made more difficult to obtain than it normally would be otherwise.
So I ask do you players really like it better?
PS:Note this statements are often made as general statements so I can only assume the writers of such statements think the majority of players would enjoy the game better if this was the standard.
I prefer games without many magic items, but it's not due to any sense of wonder (I've found way too many magic items over the years for them to hold much mystery any more). It's more a narrative preference - the fantasy novels I read have the heroes with maybe one or two magical items, not dripping with lots of magical loot they regularly upgrade as they get richer. I'd like to play characters like those heroes from fantasy novels.
I prefer games without many magic items, but it's not due to any sense of wonder (I've found way too many magic items over the years for them to hold much mystery any more). It's more a narrative preference - the fantasy novels I read have the heroes with maybe one or two magical items, not dripping with lots of magical loot they regularly upgrade as they get richer. I'd like to play characters like those heroes from fantasy novels.
off-topic:
Do your games normally stop below level 8 or do you have custom rules to increase power without relying on items?| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When we played pathfinder (not so much anymore) we always died around 5th level (I think we made 7th in one campaign). The necessity for magical items is a big part of why I dont like PF as a player - if we were to return to it, I'd implement the equivalent to the inherent bonuses system from 4E.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Story-wise I prefer heroes that are 90% skill/style, 10% gear, over the 50/50 tendency in PF. I'm still working on rules to make the Big Six mostly obsolete.
As a player I don't really like it if the GM is giving way too little or way too much magic items. It feels good to have to make an effort to gain the good stuff (don't be too generous), but if all the magic item does is improve mechanics, don't expect slack-jawed awe. If we actually NEED those better stats just to stay in the race, don't even expect me to be all that grateful.
Now, a magic item that does something interesting, that's different. I've had a few;
* A dagger made from the tooth of Cerberus, the "unique" hound guarding the underworld. I never quite figured out what it did, but it seemed much more effective against spirits and undead. I don't think it did additional damage, and it certainly didn't have regular enhancement bonuses, but it was definitely Special.
* We found a magical gem that could trap souls. As we were fighting enemies that had machines to catch souls and manipulate and reincarnate them into clones, this was pretty heady stuff. I used it to trap the soul of the Evil Buddha Rakasha so that he couldn't be reincarnated. We made a 2-inch thick lead box to carry it around in until we could safely deal with it. Another time I used the gem to store the soul of a PC who died in that evil land, so the bad guys wouldn't get his soul. Carried it around until we reached a friendly temple to send him to a nicer afterlife.
* At some point a PC rolled a '1', confirm '1', confirm '1', confirm '1' on a to-hit, causing his weapon to become cursed. I was eventually able to remove the curse. In the same way a 20/20/20/20 made an orc's axe magical. (Ouch.)
* We, the primitive steppe nomads, bumped into an Indian empire run by a crossover between Immortel and the bad guys from Stargate. We captured some staves that shot bolts of fire/light, and several PCs spent a lot of time trying to become proficient with those.
* We heard about the orc-general Stonefist, who was one of their three generals. Many adventured later we defeated him in a hard-fought battle and took from him a glove that transformed your hand into a stone fist when worn (giving that hand Str 18 but also clenching it into a fist that hit for 1d8 bludgeoning).
There weren't nearly as many magic items in that campaign as in a typical PF campaign, but magic items weren't "required", and the ones we found were all special. That DID cause a sense of wonder.
I've played all sorts of Role playing games starting with D&D (before 1st Edition) in the early 1980s. I remember playing 1st ED at the local pizza store and we would get all sorts of made up magic items and it was great when we would draw what those things looked like. We did the same thing in 2nd ED and got all kinds of things. There were a few GMs that tried to describe things, but mostly we got things and we enjoyed it.
I remember in 3.5 my rogue with his two short swords wasn't doing well so the DM got him a pair of enchanted swords that had Undeath to Undead and Holy on them. The character could now sneak attack undead.
Finally, in Pathfinder, we finished Second Darkness. We got lots of things we needed to complete our tasks.
I think if all this was played out with low treasure, I would be playing more Champions rather than D&D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many times on these board GM's have said they restrict magic items/spells/fests, or they dislike pre-planned builds because it takes away from the "sense of wonder" or immersion, or it makes the player(not the character) excited about the new shiny thing*. As a player I could care less, and I have never seen a player say this restriction(s)does anything to keep them "in the game" mentally.
*The shiny new thing is really just a common magic item that has been made more difficult to obtain than it normally would be otherwise.
So I ask do you players really like it better?
PS:Note this statements are often made as general statements so I can only assume the writers of such statements think the majority of players would enjoy the game better if this was the standard.
I honestly have considered this, and while I admit to somewhat emotionally being drawn to the idea of "Special" magic items, I have found that in pathfinder magic items are definitely required as levels increase unless some house rule set is used to adjust for their lack.
After thinking long and hard I came to realize that there were only three reasons that I disliked lots of magic items, one as a GM and two as a player.
1.)[GM]: I found myself wishing to use magic items as story elements and realized as I ran more games that allowing a character in my game to be that story element was oftentimes more immersive for both the player and myself than the specific magic item I had originally thought of.
I realized that this all tied to my wish to evoke a great story from my games and it has taught me that the gestalt of working with my players to create a collaborative story has led, at least in my case, to better stories.
2.)[Player] Bookkeeping. I hated having a pile of different items and having to reconfigure my character sheet every time an item was Stole/Sundered/Dispelled/Disjunctioned/Suppressed. I also hated the "Uhmm, I know I have an item for this one sec let me check my sheet."
I know this is no inherently different from sorting spells and memorizing or acquiring what is wanted for a wizard, which I enjoy, however it is a peeve of mine and I assume after some thought that it ties into my third idea.
3.)[Player]: Character empowerment. I enjoy the idea of my character being special rather than the idea of my equipment being special. I would rather be a wizard so puissant that his every spell crackles with a hint of the archmage he will some day be, than have an item that amplifies my normal power. Both of these would of course be a +1 caster level effect but one is inherent while the other is derived from an outside source.
There are several concepts I can think of where an outside source would be totally fine and even quite fun.
a.) Artificier: A steampunk/artifact/technomage/weird-tech engineer that derives their power from the fact that their intelligence/creativity/Spark lets them create wondrous objects to use and enjoy.
b.) Inheritor: A simple person who inherits a great destiny to wield a magic sword/ wear a set of ancient armor/ be the bearer of an item of power.
These and others I can see as valid concepts, however I would argue that most concepts are derived from great internal ability/power that grows as the character does and that a plentitude of items feels "Bolted-on".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tl;dr: In short I do find myself as a player and as a GM preferring games with a smaller amount of magic items, however not because of any enhancement of a sense of wonder but simply because of my own preference for inherent over external power.
I do admit that shopping and crafting can be fun, however I usually only enjoy shopping/crafting for items that are active such as a staff or a wondrous item that can be used to perform a specific effect not tied to numerical bonuses.
All of the "Big Six" items with their numerical bonuses I would personally prefer as inherent selectable powers rather than items.
These are of course just my opinions on such and in no way intend to accuse anyone of badwrongfun.
I think I agree heavily with Covent. I really don't like the reliance that characters have on magic items, especially mundanes; if it were up to me, much of what we see in enchanted items would be things characters can just do because they're awesome. Magic items would be limited to a select few Ultimates that exist not because they're necessary to survive but because the heroes of our story are the consummate bad asses who are capable of wielding them.
The problem is that that isn't Pathfinder and it requires extensive house ruling to get that out of Pathfinder's system.
. . . So I ask do you players really like it better? . . . .
It really depends on the storyteller. I've played 2nd edition games where there was almost no magic for several levels and finally getting a +1 weapon was pretty nifty while I've also played Monty Hall games in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder that have been a whole lot of fun.
I have come to realize it relies on expectation. If I expect something and its not there I am disappointed. If I don't expect something there and it is, I get kind of giggly.
As to having a character build from 1 to 20 even if I never get there, it saves time as I level and it helps me to achieve the kind of character I want to have. I only consider an 'organic' character in a d20 setting if the storyteller is open to retraining. I might be odd that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I prefer internal power also, but after 10+ years I still would not equate rare with special. I would just see it as the Mcguffin I need/desire to defeat the next challenge.
Personally I prefer internal power also, but after 10+ years I still would not equate rare with special. I would just see it as the Mcguffin I need/desire to defeat the next challenge.
Fair enough. I agree rare =/= special either, and I've had friends that have raved about Iron Heroes in the past.
I get the internal/external distinction. That's actually one of the reason I've cribbed a few of the Evil Lincoln/Kirthfinder/Christmas Tree fixes for home games. Your character internalizes the necessary expected magic for the setting and it leaves items with varied effects rather than flat bonuses.
But I have been part of games where limits added to the game and games where limits made it less fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind magical items. When I'm loaded out, I feel like a badass. It's kinda like being a space marine loaded up with power armor and every kind of gun, grenade, and knife. Just because my +1 sword and +1 axe aren't unique doesn't mean I don't like them or aren't attached to them.
Besides even with the big six system, there are ways to have special magical items. Bladebound magus for example gives you a special, talking sword. I loved finding new ways to use that. One example, I found out my teammate was a Kitsune before everyone else did because she revealed herself when she thought only one other person was looking but my sword was there and it saw. When I had to disguise myself as the page of a noble (our sorcerer) and we got attacked, I just teleported my sword from our hideout right into my hand and it was awesome.
In my current campaign, my GM is giving everyone a special item one at a time. Our under-performing rogue got a +1 undead bane bow to use against an empire of necromancers. The bard got a nymph's favor which, besides being an awesome RP scene, boosts her bardic performance. Both are pretty special to the characters despite one being really rare and the other being pretty easily purchased. If you want your characters to appreciate a magical item, then give them a reason to care. Buying a +1 sword means less than defeated the ghost of the sword's owner in single combat.
|
I have in the past tried to severely limit magical items and sometimes it can just be a pain in the tuchas. It's harder to balance certain encounters and the players feel under-equipped.
My current philosophy (which actually works pretty well) is the idea of "Magical PCs in a mundane world". I start from the premise that the PCs are special people, who naturally attract magic and mystery to them, while the rest of the world remains relatively low-magic.
This means that there are no "magic shops" for trading in items and that friendly wizards/clerics are almost nonexistent, but by tailoring treasure awards to the PCs I have kept things on an even keel.
In my game I replace the 'bonuses' you normally get from magic items as inherent bonuses you choose from as you level up. There is no +2 longswords in my world. So far even into high levels game balance seems to hold up.
And instead of those generic magic items, I dive through magic item books, (or i make them up) for magic items specifically tailored for the characters or the story. My hope is for things to become signature magic items that do more then just add power.
Personally I prefer internal power also, but after 10+ years I still would not equate rare with special. I would just see it as the Mcguffin I need/desire to defeat the next challenge.
For what its worth, I actually despise the treadmill and necessary artifacts and I don't see much wonder in them.
I don't get much of a 'sense of wonder' out of anything in the book, so it doesn't kill it for me to go looking through it or plan something out. I really enjoy when I slay a mythical beast and get rewarded for saying "I'm going to make this thing my new cloak!" or when I find a magical item and the GM gives me a story behind it. I really like the feeling I got something new and interesting instead of something to help me kill the next thing or keep up. Pathfinder tends to work against that kind of thing though.
My "sense of wonder/immersion" doesn't shatter because +1 longswords are plentiful. What completely destroys it for me are characters who are all out power and nothing but numbers on paper/character sheet website. Magic marts don't destroy a narrative that the GM is trying to bring to life for us, but Mr Cheese who scoured the internet to squeeze out as much power to destroy everything with a look brings me completely out of it and just makes me want to quit.
I stayed away from the Character Optimization boards on Wizards of the Coast's message boards, and I try to stay away from the Advice boards on Paizo's message boards. That is what obliterates any immersion, which is playing with anyone who visits those boards. I read books, watch shows and movies, where the heroes/main characters don't steamroll everything in their path, and I try to emulate that with my characters. I "build" off a theme that isn't "Mr Cheese" and big numbers.
So no, having Mrs McGillicuddy the 13th level wizard opening up a shop to sell items of magical power doesn't break any immersion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . .
I stayed away from the Character Optimization boards on Wizards of the Coast's message boards, and I try to stay away from the Advice boards on Paizo's message boards. That is what obliterates any immersion, which is playing with anyone who visits those boards. I read books, watch shows and movies, where the heroes/main characters don't steamroll everything in their path, and I try to emulate that with my characters. I "build" off a theme that isn't "Mr Cheese" and big numbers. . . .
In those books and movies, are any of the characters ever described as 'talented' or 'gifted' or a 'prodigy' or 'good at what they do'? Maybe they have ability synergy. That is optimization.
To be fair, most murder-hobo games should break immersion. Those guys are called bandits.
Personally I prefer internal power also, but after 10+ years I still would not equate rare with special. I would just see it as the Mcguffin I need/desire to defeat the next challenge.For what its worth, I actually despise the treadmill and necessary artifacts and I don't see much wonder in them.
I don't get much of a 'sense of wonder' out of anything in the book, so it doesn't kill it for me to go looking through it or plan something out. I really enjoy when I slay a mythical beast and get rewarded for saying "I'm going to make this thing my new cloak!" or when I find a magical item and the GM gives me a story behind it. I really like the feeling I got something new and interesting instead of something to help me kill the next thing or keep up. Pathfinder tends to work against that kind of thing though.
i agree with this, even in a low magic game, there is just no wonder in magical equipment, it is merely another part of the treadmill, one of my reasons for switching over to savage worlds, was because the treadmill was so annoying and it is one of the reasons i rarely play WoW. i would rather have a system of inherent bonuses that makes the character special, as a substitute for the big 10, then actually rely on the big 10.
the big 10 are
1. Magical Weapon or Easily Reliable way to deal decent damage on a consistent basis, such as a wand or reserve feat for a spellcaster. backups are required for different purposes, expect some people to require a golf bag of them
2. an item that provides an enhanced armor bonus, sometimes a shield bonus
3. an item that provides a resistance bonus to saving throws
4. an item that provides a deflection bonus to armor class
5. an item that provides a natural armor bonus to armor class
6. an item that provides an enhancement bonus to your primary offensive attributes, whether strength for fighters, or strength and charisma for paladins and oracles
7. an item that provides a bonus to dexterity, constitution and wisdom to boost surviviability,
8. a cheap and easily affordable low budget means to heal up to full health between fights, usually done with a wand of cure light wounds or in 3.5 a wand of lessor vigor
9. a means to remove common conditions from one's self, such as scrolls or material components to hand the party casters. includes diamonds for affording a raise and 2 restorations
10. a means to reliably boost damage with an uncommon option that applies in many scenarios for especially hard fights, whether smite, judgement, challenge, or an item that grants something similar such as a buff spell your class doesn't normally provide
I have no problem with people making their characters effective and not dragging the others down. I am more referring to those who go only for power and being able to one-shot anything within 4 CRs. Those who choose something because of the numbers/power. Why did your paladin take a level of lore/lunar oracle? Because it lets him dump Dex and use his Cha modifier in its place. No other reason.
Seeing combat end in a single round because a 9th level magus crit on a 15 with a shocking grasp spellstrike and dealt nearly 200 damage destroyed any sense of immersion or fun, and am only suffering through the campaign because the GM is a cool guy and I want to be able to finally hopefully finish an AP.
Seeing combat end in a single round because a 9th level magus crit on a 15 with a shocking grasp spellstrike and dealt nearly 200 damage destroyed any sense of immersion or fun, and am only suffering through the campaign because the GM is a cool guy and I want to be able to finally hopefully finish an AP.
So... What does this have to do with sense of wonder anyway?
Seeing combat end in a single round because a 9th level magus crit on a 15 with a shocking grasp spellstrike and dealt nearly 200 damage destroyed any sense of immersion or fun, and am only suffering through the campaign because the GM is a cool guy and I want to be able to finally hopefully finish an AP.So... What does this have to do with sense of wonder anyway?
From the first line of the OP: "sense of wonder" or immersion.
What you quoted destroys immersion when I play. It also destroys any "sense of wonder" when you know it will be over in the first round. "What's that thing called/do?" "Doesn't matter, it will be dead in 6 seconds".
I have no problem with people making their characters effective and not dragging the others down. I am more referring to those who go only for power and being able to one-shot anything within 4 CRs. Those who choose something because of the numbers/power. Why did your paladin take a level of lore/lunar oracle? Because it lets him dump Dex and use his Cha modifier in its place. No other reason.
Seeing combat end in a single round because a 9th level magus crit on a 15 with a shocking grasp spellstrike and dealt nearly 200 damage destroyed any sense of immersion or fun, and am only suffering through the campaign because the GM is a cool guy and I want to be able to finally hopefully finish an AP.
the magus could have been countered by anything that was resistant or immune to electricity, such as most outsiders, and the paladin whom dumped dex to use cha in it's place, can't hit a darn thing with a ranged weapon, and is likely relying on an external source of flight to combat flying foes.
shocking grasp deals 5d6 or 17.5 unless you blow lots of metamagic, where you can make it 9d6 at 9th level for a 2nd level slot, doubled to 18d6 which is only 63 before factoring the bonuses of attacking for double damage with a scimitar. unless this particular magus blew through a ton of metamagic and was nova-ing kinda thing, where then it was the nova, that mattered. like the WoW 3 minute mage, the 3 minute mage could solo anything in PVP by simply blowing through every spell with a 3 minute or lower cooldown, and simply waiting 3 minutes to recover. 3 minute mages could kill world elites, but they couldn't do a thing to dungeon bosses and the like, it was a style built specifically for dueling. with a trait tax, they could get a 94 point shocking grasp in that 2nd level slot, but they don't really have many 2nd level spells, and magi are like the poster child for nova.
I've found forcing limits to be really frustrating, but working with the players to be really rewarding.
I have no problems with the current system. Some GMs like to seed loot that they know will be used soon, like a Chekhov's gun, where the gun is a specific and narrow item that just happens to solve the next problem. Or they even make it so that the loot you find is required to open the next part of the adventure tree, like Legend of Zelda for the NES.
Both the McGuffin and the Chekhov's Gun are linear and take away player agency. I prefer Magic Mart and loose restrictions on player crafting to increase player agency. Give them Problem A, let the players figure out how they are going to solve it using whatever resources they have (I still follow treasure per encounter and WBL averages, so they can't get too crazy). Sometimes the players come up with Expected Solution A, which you prepared for, Possible solution B, which you have a plan for, but then sometimes they hit you with Solution C, which isn't quite what you expected but you can roll with it. Its when they come at you with Solution D, where they come at you from left field with something that technically legal for play but doesn't conform with the GMs expectations that causes problems.
If you shutdown Solution D, the player will often go into shutdown mode. This means their enjoyment goes down, they come up with less solutions on their own, you have to hand feed them plot hooks ect.
However given players often legitimate desire to optimize resources, it should not be unexpected that players will prioritize the "boring" incremental items over random situational stuff. So what I do is give that sort of stuff to the NPCs and let them use it. If I pull of its use in a memorable fashion, sometimes the players keep it to use themselves. Either because they see the value in it, or don't want to take financial loss of selling it. A few of my players are notorious trophy collectors, and a iconic item from a notable enemy screams trophy.
Which is where I have problems with solution D: I give random items out throughout the campaign, and more than once the perfect time to use them happens very late and suddenly a challenging encounter is trivialized because one of the PCs saved the item from level 3 that perfectly ruins the BBEG. One of my players actually saved some dust of dryness and obliterated one of the BBEGs key minions.
Dot.
But to answer: both, depending on the game and setting.
That said, magic items for random number bonuses are boring, so I'm often coming to just use Ahsiel's +1/3 level to everything rule (or having a good in-world reason to explain why it doesn't exist).
Restricting magic items tends to have an unfortunate effect on the game without some retooling; the core Pathfinder rules make assumptions about the presence of at least baseline (defined as items with nothing more than an enhancement bonus) magic items by certain levels. There are generally-used rules to get around this (often keying off concepts like the Monk's unarmed attacks being equivalent to enhancement bonuses or materials at a given level; you can also do what Dreamscarred Press did with the Soulknife in Ultimate Psionics. That class will never be without a level-appropriate magic weapon unless you start going crazy with null psionic or dead magic zones).
In general I find players like having magic doodads. If they aren't finding what they really want in treasure troves, I encourage them to stake claim to suboptimal items to get them to the next decent-sized town, where then selling the item(s) and using their personal funds will often let them craft the things they really want. At the end of the day, I never treat Pathfinder (or any other RPG) as a "players vs. GM" arrangement. I'm there to challenge them, but when boots hit the dirt at the end of the day, they're supposed to ultimately win. Some of them may die, but I can't recall honestly having a TPK in the last 20 years or so (though I've often come perilously close, and in a couple cases wound up having to use a fairly heavy-handed deus ex machina to salvage the campaign; sometimes the dice just aren't nice to the players).
Eh, you can do a lot by just lowering the party's effective APL as you go and being careful about using creatures with certain kinds of damage reduction. It isn't exactly easy, but it doesn't require extensive refactoring of the entire system.
I've always found it better to let the players self-limit. If you're running a Viking game, tell the players it's a Viking game. They'll probably make a bunch of barbarians and fighters and clerics and oracles of Thor and rangers and thuggish rogues and wyrd witches. If someone makes a gnome ninja, they'll come up with a damn good back story to justify it, and everyone will have more fun. If you limit class choices, you end up with players playing sub-par characters because they're not playing the kind of character they really want to play.
Also, if you don't put limits on the PCs, the players are challenged by trying to self-limit, as opposed to players trying to break the limits imposed by GM.