TheRPGSite

Again, this is something we hear a lot about; and certainly there's something very cool about creating a sword or wand or whatever that has a storied history and special unique powers... but do you want EVERY item to be that way? Do you feel like there should never just be a +1 sword?

RPGPundit

Not every magic item needs to have unique powers. However, in systems creating magic items is prohibitively expensive; in those systems they ought to be correspondingly rare.
For example, in AD&D that +1 sword you mention requires a permanency spell and thus the services of a high level magic-user, as well as exorbitant materials and craftsmanship. It seems to me nobody would create a magic sword unless he had a damned good reason. (Luckily, the existence of monsters which can only be hit by magic weapons provides a damned good reason). So there really ought to be some story behind each magic item, even if the players never bother to learn it.
Personally, I've always been partial to the "Weapon-of-choice +1, +2 v. dragons, giants, triclavians, what-have-you."

I feel unique histories are important, but unique abilities are not. Of course I've generally given magic items in most games that grow with the wielder. It is why High Valor has that as a potential feature.

I feel storied items give more flavor to the world. Of course in some cases (Pathfinder) it gets pretty silly when you can cook up magic items like they were baked goods with the right feats.

Quote from: RPGPundit;641094Again, this is something we hear a lot about; and certainly there's something very cool about creating a sword or wand or whatever that has a storied history and special unique powers... but do you want EVERY item to be that way? Do you feel like there should never just be a +1 sword?

RPGPundit

Now that is highly dependant on setting. In a low-magic world, every magic item is special and permanent ones are unique. In a high-magic world, consummable ones like potions are considered common or ordinary (scrolls would depend on the spells written therin) while permanent magic items would still be considered at least special.

Seriously, I thought 2e's Complete Fighter's Handbook got this right ages ago.

Fine weapons give you either +1 atk or +1 dmg.

Exquisite weapons give you both +1 atk and +1 dmg.

Boom, there's your ever-present generic +1 sword.

Since magic requires the best materials to work with (like spell books, scrolls, potions, etc.), assume Exquisite weapons are an essential base material for enchanting weapons.

Boom, there's your explanation for the ever-present +1 magical sword. Each one is enchanted with Mending (to always use on itself to stay ever sharp?). Or at least enchanted with Nystul's Mystical Aura (just because wizards can be dicks and didn't want to be bothered by a kingdom's armament commission).

Other than that, yeah, keep magic magical. 4e's initial offering really sucked the life out of magical items, a feat I thought impossible. I hear Mordekainen's Emporium helped alleviate that, but a little late into the game's life.

Not all magical items have to be unique but items ubiquitous enough to be considered standard "gear" fail at being truly magical items.

An item that can be created fairly easily and can be found for sale in shops loses the "magical" property fairly fast, regardless of the actual properties of the item. The effect of this on a campaign means that only unique artifact level items actually feel like magic items.

Quote from: Silverlion;641114I feel unique histories are important, but unique abilities are not.

This.  I'll make a +1 sword look special or give it some brief history, but it doesn't have to go beyond that, really.

I've always wanted to devise a system that would make a weapon gain attributes based on the wielder's actions.  E.g. if Blarg the Fighter makes his name by slaying 200 goblins and turning back the invasion of Pleasantvale single-handedly, the sword he used gets a +1 to-hit and double damage vs. goblins or inspires fear in them or something.  I've never come up with a wieldy set of mechanics that would allow that, and have settled on GM fiat to determine such things.

For things like +1 weapons I like to invent some sort of fairly standard but expensive enchantment, a Rune Of Valor or somesuch, that weapons can be branded with, or else a magical metal or alloy that requires enchanting to forge properly. So not every single thing will have a body of lore attached.

Broadly, every permanent item should be a unique artefact, however weak its powers may be.

However, I am fine with PCs and NPCs having the ability, via a spell, to create a standard sort of expendable magical trinket - scroll, potion etc.

Quote from: KenHR;641145I've always wanted to devise a system that would make a weapon gain attributes based on the wielder's actions.  E.g. if Blarg the Fighter makes his name by slaying 200 goblins and turning back the invasion of Pleasantvale single-handedly, the sword he used gets a +1 to-hit and double damage vs. goblins or inspires fear in them or something.  I've never come up with a wieldy set of mechanics that would allow that, and have settled on GM fiat to determine such things.

Thats a really neat idea, kind of like how artifacts get thier powers on the Warehouse 13 show. Ordinary objects gaining thier powers from extaordinary acts done by the people who possess them. :)

Quote from: KenHR;641145I've always wanted to devise a system that would make a weapon gain attributes based on the wielder's actions.  E.g. if Blarg the Fighter makes his name by slaying 200 goblins and turning back the invasion of Pleasantvale single-handedly, the sword he used gets a +1 to-hit and double damage vs. goblins or inspires fear in them or something.  I've never come up with a wieldy set of mechanics that would allow that, and have settled on GM fiat to determine such things.

That's been done already, and pretty well too. The name of the game escapes me at the moment, I want to say Earthdawn?

Ah yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthdawn#Magic_in_Earthdawn)

QuoteOne of the most innovative ideas in Earthdawn is how magical items work. At first, most magical items work exactly like a mundane item of the same type. As a character searches for information about the item's history, performs certain tasks relating to that history, and spends legend points to activate the item, he unlocks some of the magic in the item. As the character learns more about the item and its history, he can unlock more and more power within the item.

Each magical item, therefore, is unique by virtue of its history and the scope of its powers. For example, one magical broadsword may have only 4 magical ranks and only increases the damage of the blade. On the other hand the legendary sword Purifier, has 10 magical ranks and grants its wielder numerous powers.

Generally speaking I prefer to keep magical items rare or unique, there are +1 and +2 weapons/tools out there but they gain these bonuses by virtue of their quality and craftsmanship, not due to magic. Having common magical items makes them unmagical in a way. Mundane would be a better description.

To the OP: yes, sort of. Magic items should feel magical. Wizards don't just enchant swords and leave them lying around. Players need not have the complete 1000 year story of Moonwrath, The Orc-Skewerer, force-fed down their throats the minute they pick up the sword. But having a backstory (however vague) to some magic items, particularly those that spellcasters don't usually craft and/or enchant for their own use, sounds reasonable to me.

Quote from: KenHR;641145I've always wanted to devise a system that make a weapon gain attributes based on the wielder's actions.  E.g. if Blarg the Fighter makes his name by slaying 200 goblins and turning back the invasion of Pleasantvale single-handedly, the sword he used gets a +1 to-hit and double damage vs. goblins or inspires fear in them or something.  I've never come up with a wieldy set of mechanics that would allow that, and have settled on GM fiat to determine such things.

I like the idea and I'd probably allow a weapon to "level up" into legendary status along with its owner, maybe a la 3.0e Weapons of Legacy. This would make losing or breaking a weapon a huge deal. I love it.

Quote from: The Traveller;641187That's been done already, and pretty well too. The name of the game escapes me at the moment, I want to say Earthdawn?

But I wanted a wieldy ruleset.  ED was really cool with that stuff, but honestly the systems gave me a headache.

I prefer uniqueness more in my magic items than my monsters. However, it works best when said magic items are on the rarer side of the spectrum - otherwise you're making a lot of work for yourself and your character sheet. Likewise, making monsters unique only really works in a setting where monster numbers are on the rarer side of the spectrum.

For example, i'd like to see someone try to create a mega-dungeon where every critter is unique.

The answer to this question is conditional on the level of magic ascribed to a setting.  In a no-magic to low-magic setting, then, yes, all magic should be spectacular and unique.  However, in a high-magic setting, then, no, the vast majority of your magic items should mundane and vanilla.

Unlike with monsters, I do like all my magic items to be unique, primarily because I usually run low-magic campaigns. I agree with a lot of other posters, though, that this makes less sense as the magic-level of the world around the players increases. With Ptolus, for example, I haven't bothered trying to make every item unique, either descriptively or mechanically.

I tend to treat magical items as fungible goods with a thriving market.  Magic items can feel pretty generic.  I'm happy with a +1 sword, boots of speed, and a potion of healing.

If the players are curious about the backstory of a sword they picked up battling the Pomarj slavers, they can investigate it.  Maybe the sword's mark indicates the wizard-smith in Rel Deven.  Word on the Rel Deven street is the wizard-smith sells all his swords to a particular arms supplier who sends quarterly shipments to Blue.

At some point when magic turns into mundane tech, yes, there's no point to individualize them. Unless it is somehow remarkable, my TV remote and latest Rx miracle in my medicine cabinet won't rise to the level of unique, nor it should. Basically anything that is famous/infamous should be unique.

Now mundane high tech things being individualized is a different story. I could very much get behind Lusty Bob's Obscene Gag TV Remote, or Grandma Moses' First Paint Set (both being neither the only versions of such items in existence, let alone imbued, but being at least memorable). But goodness knows that if every last one of those mundane things were individualized it'd be farcical, let alone a bookkeeping headache.

I don't necessarily want every magic item to be unique, but lately I've thought that every magic item should have some kind of drawback. Magic swords that must taste blood or lose some powers. Scrolls with geases placed on them. Etc. Even the least magic items should be worth concern, and the more powerful ones should be perilous to own and use.

Quote from: RPGPundit;641094Again, this is something we hear a lot about; and certainly there's something very cool about creating a sword or wand or whatever that has a storied history and special unique powers... but do you want EVERY item to be that way? Do you feel like there should never just be a +1 sword?

In my D&D campaigns there is generally a layer of "mage-touched" stuff which is as common as anything else of moderate expense. Most +1 swords fall into that category. Potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables definitely fall into it. And for that not to be true, you'd really have to muck around with the default setting that emerges when you use the treasure tables and published modules for each edition.

IOW: In D&D, +1 swords are standard gear. Pretending that isn't true without actually changing the ubiquity of +1 swords in the campaign world is just kidding yourself.

Anything more powerful than that is generally "unique" in some way. But it may be unique in the same way that every NPC walking down the street is "unique": If you look at it closely enough or interact with it often enough, it will develop a rich history, a customized description, and possibly even a specific personality. If all you do is pick it up and sell it, then you'll never know.

I dislike "a sword +1. It's ..uhm, shiny!"

I'm fond of using high-quality equipment. This is the stuff available in good shops, provided the PC's can afford it.

Actual magical weapons are few and far between. I try to give them a backstory, and make them interesting and worthwhile.

Quote from: KenHR;641199But I wanted a wieldy ruleset.  ED was really cool with that stuff, but honestly the systems gave me a headache.

It's not very good alright but the magical items are one place where it shines. There are three major kinds, first are stock magical items, healing potions and the like, second are blood magic, where you take a permanent hit point penalty to fuel them, both bleh and standard issue.

Named items are where things get interesting.

I pulled this from a different site, as it's a pretty good description.

QuoteBilbo, Thorin and Company find a bunch of treasure in the trolls' cave. A bunch of that treasure is just loot—food, nondescript gold, old weapons, etc.—perhaps valuable (or not), but nothing special.

But they also found two very valuable swords. These swords stood out immediately as different, Gandalf could tell they were important—but could not specifically tell how. So they kept them. Nothing special is done with the swords (in Earthdawn, nothing special could be done with them). Later, in Rivendell, Elrond was able to help them put names and histories to the swords: Glamdring and Orcrist. "They were forged in Gondolin for the Goblin Wars…"

Thorin and Gandalf now know the True Names and at least one of the Key Knowledges of those swords! They weave them into their own Patterns. (Thorin says, "May it soon cleave goblins once again!" as he weaves the thread and spends the legend points…) The swords are now part of their personal stories ("…and so, wielding Orcrist, Thorin Oakenshield did go into the Misty Mountains…") and they are now part of the swords' stories ("…Orcrist was finally discovered against by Thorin Oakenshield, who…"). And now the swords can do cool stuff: they do more damage (burning brightly in battle), and Gandalf uses Glamdring to cut iron chains like butter!

And now the swords get a little plot device protection, too, since they've invested experience points into them; isn't it lucky that Gandalf is so quickly able to save both blades from the goblins? The GM isn't so cruel as to divest his players of a key part of their character in a planned encounter. Though Thorin still loses his blade to the wood-elves; I suppose the GM figured that since they were dumb enough to leave the path after being warned, they deserved what they got. They could have tried to get the blade back during their escape, but decided against it. (And after death, Thorin does get Orcrist back, so they're still part of each others' stories.)

Now, let's go back to Bilbo. Bilbo got a Gondolin-blade, too, but it wasn't Named, so all it could do is what all Gondolin blades do: glow in the presence of goblins. This is a minor magical effect, not Thread magic; in Earthdawn, you can buy magic cloaks that repel moisture, magic crystals that glow in the dark, magic self-heating hot pots… all sorts of minor tricks.

But here's another way a Thread Item can be created. Orcrist and Glamdring were forged with True Names, but Bilbo's weapon wasn't, it was just a long knife. But Bilbo fights off a giant spider in the dark—his first battle, for all he knows his blade's first battle, possibly the first time any Shire hobbit has fought a giant spider at all. Bilbo feels a stronger person after the fight (experience points!) and he declares, "I will give you a Name: And I shall call you Sting!") He then goes on to a legendary battle with the Mirkwood spiders, where Sting gleams brightly like it's enjoying itself.

(If Bilbo Baggins had been an Earthdawn character, he would have then cheerfully taken the pedapalps of the slain spiders as Treasure, to resell to the elves for more legend points.)

Later, Sting is passed on to Frodo the Ring-Bearer, where as it journeys into Mordor and back, it is used to blood Shelob. (Another spider! Sort of.) More legends, more power. All this is the sort of stuff that would be Key Knowledges for Sting, and gives you ideas for what the different levels of power would be. (I'd say that Sting, at its full level of power, would have a much higher damage rating, an effect where its light dazzles and confuses its foes, and a bonus against spiders and spider-like entities and their webs.)

There are those who will Name everything they own, just in case, but let's face it: they aren't going to do anything legendary with that stuff. It's not going to matter. You gotta make a legend for the Name to matter—and if you don't Name your legendary item, someone else will when they retell the story. (Which is why there are a bunch of items with names like "Torm's Axe" or "the Sword of Roger.")

Now in Earthdawn terms, the One Ring is obviously trouble from the start, because Bilbo is able to use it to do something BIG—turn invisible—without knowing anything about it, not even its Name. No wonder Gandalf gets worried! The Ring is doing things by itself; is a Horror at work? Dun dun dun!

Well worth yoinking and a really easy concept to put into other systems if you want to keep magic feeling magical. The downside of course, if one would call it that, is that magical items take a bit of effort to put together, no more hoards of artifacts rolled from a random table. It's a really old idea, I'm surprised it hasn't seen more use.

Hm, I have to find that copy in storage that I never returned to Dan.  It's not a bad idea to reread and see if there is anything worth yoinking for my homebrew set, even if it's just a few concepts (though I could probably just run with that description you provided).  While I have no problem with fiat in my games (and I don't think my players do), I really like having mechanics on which to fall back.

Quote from: KenHR;641415Hm, I have to find that copy in storage that I never returned to Dan.  It's not a bad idea to reread and see if there is anything worth yoinking for my homebrew set, even if it's just a few concepts (though I could probably just run with that description you provided).  While I have no problem with fiat in my games (and I don't think my players do), I really like having mechanics on which to fall back.

I've stolen the idea of leveling items for many games after I played Earthdawn. I think it nicely solves the problem of magic item bloat when a player can upgrade their existing stuff by leveling it up, unlocking powers and doing quests related to the item.

Quote from: RPGPundit;641094Again, this is something we hear a lot about; and certainly there's something very cool about creating a sword or wand or whatever that has a storied history and special unique powers... but do you want EVERY item to be that way? Do you feel like there should never just be a +1 sword?

When playing a D&D-alike I certainly prefer magic to be unique. But then I never understood the purpose of weak magic items anyway. Presumably as you level up and your opponents get stronger, your chance to hit is roughly the same -- opposition scales with you. If that's the case, a +4 sword should have the same power at level 3 as level 30. So what the heck, give away something awesome and see it in action all campaign. See it acquire a name and a history. And maybe get augmented en route (since damage doesn't scale the same way as hit/miss in these games).

Quote from: Ratman_tf;641419I've stolen the idea of leveling items for many games after I played Earthdawn. I think it nicely solves the problem of magic item bloat when a player can upgrade their existing stuff by leveling it up, unlocking powers and doing quests related to the item.

It works on a lot of levels, giving the PCs reasons to go adventuring, tying magical items to a PC's history, among other things. One area I'd be wary of though, in Earthdawn there's an assumption that everyone is magical to some extent, this means even non magic using PCs can create magical items (as far as I'm aware), which could lead to problems in terms of magical proliferation.

The lower level Earthdawn magical items I would call non-magical but exceptional - water resistant cloaks, glowing crystals, lembas bread and so on. They still go for a pretty penny and are rare, not prone to mass production for one reason or another, but they do obey the laws of physics.

Linked to this is deciding what powers to grant if new items are being created, I use a broad general table with four ranks based on the amount of 'xp' players are willing to invest, linked to their recent deeds. This helps by providing guidelines for the GM and prevents everything becoming a +1 sword of machine gun.

Alternately you could just say that magical items need special circumstances to create and take it out of the hands of nonmagical characters.

A decent list of sample ED magical items can be found here (http://earthdawn.dragonpaw.org/nexus/) to give people an idea of the mechanic.

I like the random magic item charts from the Diablo II book for AD&D. It was certainly cool having completely unique items.

In 4e, I leveled items more than I gave out new ones. It made more sense than throwing away a +1 sword when you found a +2 sword.

In my OD&D games, I tailor magic items to make them more interesting, often having items have 2-3 functions that have to be discovered. Also, the more powerful the item, the more likely its developed intelligence or at least, the ability to affect the wearer in some way.

Isn't Earthdawn getting a Savage Worlds conversion soon?
(Simpler than the default rules afterall.)

I'm playing in an Earthdawn game now, its funny is that this is the first time I've ever played it.

I don't like 'generic magic items'.  We've reduced the number of magical items in our games by a significant degree compared to published modules (any edition).  We have no 'simple +1' type items.  At the most basic level, all items do something, so it might be possible to find a pretty basic 'flaming sword' which you can make add fire damage to your attacks and count as magical for any purposes that require it - but it won't be +1 attack/damage because it's magical.  

This is important to us on another level...  The math of the game.  In D&D where you have swords up to +5, it's not hard to run into a situation where you need a certain bonus in order to hit often enough to be effective.  By taking away those numbers from the item itself and leaving it with the character instead, it's much easier to make sure 'the math works' for your game.

Don't want to keep banging on about Redwald, but the magic items are presented in the form of folk or fairy tales (in the appendices) and most of them have powers based on setting details rather than rules (or fluff/crunch).

In my next standard B/X game I'm thinking of junking the whole +1 sword in favour of glyphs, runes, fetishes that can be attached to any weapon or armour so players can pick weapons based on aesthetic preference rather than optimization, but still upgrade with the glyphs, etc. I also like the idea of the weapons powering up based on what's done with them that was mentioned above.

For me depends on the game.

D&D has generic old magic items but that in no way keeps me from having unique and special Items thatm ay or may not have unique powers, sometimes itis just the history that makes it unique. It is not an either or thing for me.

In some games with magic, I didn't have any magic items. I ran a game where every player made a character who used magic (what they built) and there was a way to create magic items available to the players, but no one bothered. They were happy with a few high quality items and their own magic abilities. I liked that game cause I didn't have to give out tons of money either, Hell the adventurer's had to get jobs to make some money on the side to pay for everyday things. They scavanged money from the bad guys but not like the bad guys were rich or carried tons with them.

It depends on the defualt levels of magic in the world and how much realism I inject into them.

If we are talking about D&D, all I care about is they go back to the pre-4E way of handling magic items.

I try to make a number of items unique, whether they're magical or not. Mostly it's a simple matter of a name and/or a brief description:

Sword +1 ("Jotunfang"): ivory handle, blade glows in the dark

Mace: cast from one piece of hard, white, lightweight metal (titanium alloy) -weighs 3# instead of 5#

Leather armor: rhino hide -AC7

Riding horse ("Sapphire"): blue roan mare, very fast (+3 MV) -worth up to 1000 g.p.

Detailed back stories are best left to artifacts and relics.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;641419I've stolen the idea of leveling items for many games after I played Earthdawn. I think it nicely solves the problem of magic item bloat when a player can upgrade their existing stuff by leveling it up, unlocking powers and doing quests related to the item.

Earthdawn has an amazingly interesting magic system. It's full of stuff that can inspire you for campaigns with other systems.

I wish there was a decent set of upgradable magic items for d20... I don't like magic items as commodities, even though D&D pretty much assumes that as default. Both Midnight and ED have good ideas for magic items, IMHO.

I'm a big Earthdawn fan, so obviously I love how the game and setting treats magic items there. We've always expanded more on the types of generic magic items you can get that don't require threads woven to them, and have incorporated the ideas behind thread items into other systems (with very varying degrees of success).

A fantastic material or technique that can create +1 weapons.
Systems for creating potions, salves and similar as a magic skill.

All other items unique.

Found items to be rolled like AD&D artifacts.
No lists of items with a "you got a horn of blasting and a wand of wonder".

More like roll for category of item. Then roll level of power. Then roll a number of effects it has and try to link them all together.

Player constructed items to have features that you learn as you level and you need to acquire rare and unique items for along the lines of sympathetic magic.

This blog post at Disoriented Ranger (http://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2013/04/personal-magic-weapons.html) shows how magic weapons reflect their users' histories in Midgard.  Cool timing on the post.

I like the simplicity of this approach a whole lot.  I'd probably mess with it a bit more if I were to ever systematize my approach, but it's a cool starting point.

As far as I'm concerned, having every magic item be unique and special ironically tends to make them less unique and less special.  

RPGPundit

I don't think it's the uniqueness of the items - its the ubiquity.  

400 'unique' items may seem pretty 'bland', just like 400 'generic' items (but probably less so).

But 400 'unique' items will feel more bland than 380 generic items and 20 'unique' items.

I dunno, Warehouse 13 ran for 58 episodes, each one with a unique 'magical' item at the centre of the plot (often more than one), I found it riveting. Unique magical items really bring a special flavour and depth to a game.

Quote from: RPGPundit;643011As far as I'm concerned, having every magic item be unique and special ironically tends to make them less unique and less special.  

RPGPundit

I have to agree with the folks above me.  This is catchy and quotable and all, but I'm just not seeing it as an issue.

If you are used to +1 swords and healing potions, then having a spear that's +1, +3 versus undead that lights on fire when you say its name, is going to be a very big deal.

But if every Jack Ranger has a sword with a name and 2000 year old history and unique powers then that makes the discovering of one far less interesting.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;644217If you are used to +1 swords and healing potions, then having a spear that's +1, +3 versus undead that lights on fire when you say its name, is going to be a very big deal.

But if every Jack Ranger has a sword with a name and 2000 year old history and unique powers then that makes the discovering of one far less interesting.

RPGPundit

I agree - that is why if all magic items have to be unique, the magic items in general ought to be unique and rare possessions.

Just like fashion, if everything screams for attention, then you get a clownish obnoxious mess. For some things to stand out, others need to recede into the background. Color and pattern could be analogous to history and complexity respectively, which might be a helpful comparison for item design.

As a spectrum, I think a lot of generic +weapon and heal potion frustration is how much color is sacrificed for rapidly providing a simple pattern. You can do solid or muted pattern without being stuck in black/white. Similarly, just because something has intense color doesn't mean it has to be an overly complex pattern (lengthy item history does not need high mechanical complexity).

I think the TSR DMG recommendations of potion diversity, akin to its recommendation to spellbooks, is a good start. But I think more discussion could be provided for new GMs why such things work and how it might help get what they want.

It's not really practical to have thousands of magical items done up like Earthdawn anyway, you'd need TSR peak level resources at a minimum. This doesn't seem like stuff you can roll up on a random table, it's too thematically linked for each item.

No, but on the other hand, I don't think there should be "standard issue" magic items.

I think there are three different "good" ways to handle things:

1. Magic items are relatively common (just how common can vary by the campaign), and most of them are low-powered and generic.  Rare "special" magic items are a major find, therefore.

2. Magic items are relatively rare (just how rare can vary by the campaign); off the few they are, gaining even a low-powered magic item is a significant find; and obtaining a "special" magic item with additional powers is a huge deal.

3. Magic items are incredibly rare; finding any magic item at all will be an amazing thing, and therefore said item even if it is very low-powered by baseline D&D standard will be a significant item with a name and history.

The "bad" ways to do it would be where magic items are common as dirt and special items are pretty much likewise; or where magic items are relatively common and they're all special items.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;644541The "bad" ways to do it would be where magic items are common as dirt and special items are pretty much likewise; or where magic items are relatively common and they're all special items.

RPGPundit

If everybody's special, nobody is, to summarise.

Quote from: Rincewind1;644543If everybody's special, nobody is, to summarise.

Its oft said because its true.

RPGPundit

And if nobody's special, nobody's special.

If those are the only options, I'll take 'everyone's special' every time.

Quote from: RPGPundit;644541I think there are three different "good" ways to handle things:

1. Magic items are relatively common (just how common can vary by the campaign), and most of them are low-powered and generic.  Rare "special" magic items are a major find, therefore.

2. Magic items are relatively rare (just how rare can vary by the campaign); off the few they are, gaining even a low-powered magic item is a significant find; and obtaining a "special" magic item with additional powers is a huge deal.

3. Magic items are incredibly rare; finding any magic item at all will be an amazing thing, and therefore said item even if it is very low-powered by baseline D&D standard will be a significant item with a name and history.

The "bad" ways to do it would be where magic items are common as dirt and special items are pretty much likewise; or where magic items are relatively common and they're all special items.

RPGPundit

Don't forget the other option which is one of my favourites, low level magical items aren't magical at all, just of very high quality or the products of weird natural phenomena, and reasonably common yet valuable. It doesn't take away from the sense of wonder at all, rather adds to it I find, and sits a little more easily in the game world since you don't need magic factories. Real magic could be a lot less common.

Quote from: The Traveller;644983Don't forget the other option which is one of my favourites, low level magical items aren't magical at all, just of very high quality or the products of weird natural phenomena, and reasonably common yet valuable. It doesn't take away from the sense of wonder at all, rather adds to it I find, and sits a little more easily in the game world since you don't need magic factories. Real magic could be a lot less common.

Quoted for truth.

I don't really give a fuck if magical items are perceived to be "special."  I just like permanent-type items to have some sort of history, which affects what they can do and how they might be used.  But really it's the character that's made special by the item, not the item itself, which is a tool.

My players usually don't probe much beyond figuring out what the doo-dad will do, anyway, unless the history is of special interest to their character or important to whatever goal they're pursuing.  The histories are a rationalization of powers and world building feature.  I suspect most people would be the same way if they were in the same situation.

Why do magical items have to be any more special than finding a cache of AK-47s?  That's what a lot of them amount to in the end, anyway.

In a game where everyone is equipped with AK-47s, finding a cache is 'ho-hum' boring.  Now, in a game where everyone is using revolvers or muskets, finding an AK-47 is an appreciably bigger deal.  

Magical items deserve a little more 'wonder' - it makes the game more enjoyable, in my opinion.  

If magic items are rare, tend to last a long time (ie are permanent), and new items are created rarely or not at all, it stands to reason that any magical item found will have a history - just like an AK-47 recovered from Sadam's Palace.  How it got where it was; how it was used prior to finding by the party, etc are all interesting questions.  They might not come up during the game, but sparing a thought for them is worthwhile.

For example, the magical shortsword you find has a notch along the blade.  The players might wonder about that, but won't think it's important.  But the DM can think about it.

Later, a bard might tell the legend of Gatahgar the Ancient, a dragon who was functionally immortal, and had been blessed with total immunity to a weapon wielding by mortal hand.  The young hero Fenis went forth to fight the dragon anyways, holding in his hand a shortsword.  When the dragon attacked, he deflected the bite with the sword.  The blow knocked a shard from the blade, into the dragon's brain, instantly slaying him - it was the dragon's own action that killed him..  Now, the players might think that's pretty cool.  And suddenly they have to wonder about that dragon's hoard...

Quote from: deadDMwalking;645035In a game where everyone is equipped with AK-47s, finding a cache is 'ho-hum' boring.  Now, in a game where everyone is using revolvers or muskets, finding an AK-47 is an appreciably bigger deal.  

The cache of AK-47s example would be more like finding it in the course of your real life.  Sure, it's pretty awesome and quite the force multiplier, but still...tools, right?  The guns aren't special.  The people who have them are.

I pretty much nodded yes to most of the rest of your post.

I think the answer to this question largely depends on how you treat magic.

If anybody able to read or wave their arms around can pick up the rudimentary parts of magic - basically, if anybody can learn to cast spells - then magic weapons aren't that special. Enchanting is just an extension of a system of magic, so if your magic system makes magic ubiquitous, then magic items will be, as well.

The rarer, stranger, or more difficult magic in your setting is, the rarity and "unique-ness" of magic weapons should correlate to that. If magic is a pain in the ass to learn, with the PCs rarely ever coming across NPC mages, then ideally every magic item should have its own history and be unique in some fashion.

These two answers then lead to a sliding scale between the two extremes.

See for me its like this:

Regular Gear
Really Good Gear (+1 at most)
Magical Gear with story.


Now the last category, I found, works best when it IS special and rare. So I don't hand out a lot of magic items in D&D, at least not that are special. The difference is a potion, a scroll, an enchanted (+2) helmet, are cool and all, but have no story. Now the Helmet+the full armor has a story, and it will make an awesome +5 suit of armor when all the pieces are together.

Another thing that can increase specialness is not making everything a weapon or incredibly obvious tool (potion, item that casts light, etc.).

How about a jewel that emits a tune when exposed to direct sunlight?  How about a teacup that keeps its contents constantly warm?  The history of these may be interesting, but for the players to figure out what to do with them could be an even more interesting story.

Could they just sell them?  I suppose, but that's pretty boring.

Could they be presented as gifts to gain influence with a noble?  Once they've passed out of the players' hands, do they just vanish from the story, or do they still have relevance?  Maybe the musical jewel gets stolen.  Maybe the teacup stirs up jealousy in a rival lord, and he has the players followed to see what else they may find.

I think it's less the items themselves than style of play around them.



Another thing that I find annoying is that magic items generally seem to be nearly indestructible and are thus perfect.  Why can't it be dirty?  Or rusty?  Or with a piece missing?  Why can't it wear out or break?  Frankly, nullifying any of those issues is a useful an valued enchantment on its own (e.g. a sword that never dulls), never mind a standard +X.


This is all harder to make relevant if your world is magic heavy and adventures are combat focused.

Not every item had to be unique but investing creativity in this area usually pays good dividends.

Quote from: KenHR;645030I don't really give a fuck if magical items are perceived to be "special."  I just like permanent-type items to have some sort of history, which affects what they can do and how they might be used.  But really it's the character that's made special by the item, not the item itself, which is a tool.

My players usually don't probe much beyond figuring out what the doo-dad will do, anyway, unless the history is of special interest to their character or important to whatever goal they're pursuing.  The histories are a rationalization of powers and world building feature.  I suspect most people would be the same way if they were in the same situation.

Why do magical items have to be any more special than finding a cache of AK-47s?  That's what a lot of them amount to in the end, anyway.

Quote from: KenHR;645036The cache of AK-47s example would be more like finding it in the course of your real life.  Sure, it's pretty awesome and quite the force multiplier, but still...tools, right?  The guns aren't special.  The people who have them are.

I pretty much nodded yes to most of the rest of your post.

See, part of the problem is, that sometimes a tool isn't just a tool - it's all in the symbolism. The discussion in this thread in particular is between a division between magic items that are just tools for combat, indeed, and magic items that are much more, not because just they are magic items, but because they have an important history behind them. Of course, those items were usually made on a specific location, the story made up, and ever so often, they were Ship of Theseus paradox.

Some tools are more than tools, because of the history, that is made up or not, behind them. And I am talking real world examples here. The ceremonial sword of Polish Kings, Szczerbiec (Notched Blade) used for coronations since Władysław the Short, a king that united a fallen - apart state, was supposedly a sword that the first king of Poland, Bolesław the Brave, notched on the gates of Kiev, during it's conquest. Of course, from what we have learned, the blade was actually smithed for coronation of Władysław, but that was kind of it's magic -  the blade spoke of an old triumph against a potent foe, bringing promise of new, glorious wars, but it was also a reminder of the continuation of monarchy, which, back in the days, meant stability of the state (the bloodiest civil wars of the time were wars of succession). So, supposedly, any man crowned with using that sword, was sharing the legacy of the first king of Poland. A similar thing was in regard  to the throne, which was probably repaired a few times - and therefore, during partitions of Poland, both the sword and throne was taken (the throne infamously converted to a loo by Catherine the Second).

And it was not just Poland, so to speak - the Scottish kings were crowned on the famous Stone of Scone, which was claimed by Edward the First as clear signal that Scotland is now subject to the English Crown - and it was placed nowhere else but Westminster Abbey, a place of coronation of kings of England. There was a rather famous incident in 1950, when Scottish nationalists stole the stone from the Abbey, and after it was returned, the Scone was supposedly given back in the 90s to Scotland. We may of course jest, but the power of symbolism is very, very strong. There was also the whole deal with crowns and coronation jewels - sending them to another King/Emperor was a clear sign of submitting yourself to his rule, and I'd wager that Cromwell melting down the jewels of England wasn't just looking for coin neither, but also trying to further symbolically break the monarchy.

And of course, there are also Damascus steel blades, which were the "magical items" of the day, and if a family was rich enough to buy one, it did usually pass from father to son, if possible, until it broke, if only as a sign of richness. Similar with other items, really - I have read a rather fabulous story of some form of Scottish clan blanket/tapestry, that said clan's son had in his WW2 airplane to give him luck. And one can bet that a sufficiently historical item was certainly thought to have mythical powers - hells, there were myths that touch of a king would cure you of disease (and it was even as late as XVII century that this myth was still alive - Charles the First was supposedly quite fond of it).

So, what's the point of my babbling? When a character picks up a "special" magical item, he's not just picking up a hammer of Better Slaying of Goblins, to use a notion from Warhammer - he is/ought to pick up a piece of history of the world, something that has a deep rooted symbolism for various people within it, and may lead to various people interacting with him in a completely different way - and not necessarily a good one. Heck, in a way, the history of the weapon may be more important that any properties of the blade itself - an Excalibur may be just a well - made sword, a Masterwork one to speak in DnD's terms, but having it would still brand one as true king of all Britons.

Quote from: Rincewind1;645109So, what's the point of my babbling? When a character picks up a "special" magical item, he's not just picking up a hammer of Better Slaying of Goblins, to use a notion from Warhammer - he is/ought to pick up a piece of history of the world, something that has a deep rooted symbolism for various people within it, and may lead to various people interacting with him in a completely different way - and not necessarily a good one. Heck, in a way, the history of the weapon may be more important that any properties of the blade itself - an Excalibur may be just a well - made sword, a Masterwork one to speak in DnD's terms, but having it would still brand one as true king of all Britons.

Yes, I've said I like to have history behind my magical items.  I'm not sure why you think otherwise.  See my first post in this thread.  

My point was really countering the "if every item is special, then none are" notion, and promptly got off track.

I don't give a fuck if magical items are "special," whatever Pundit was getting at with that little piece of pith.  I like my items to have history, and I don't think that makes them less special.  Sure, some items will have larger significance to the culture or whatnot.  I'm not arguing against that.

I'm just saying that I like my permanent magical items to be unique (again, my first post in the thread said this), and I don't care one bit about their "specialness" in that context.  If the +1 mace that emits light and hums when undead are around because it was used by a minor holy man 100 years ago isn't seen as "special" by my players because every item has a little backstory and unique elements like that, I don't give a fuck, is all I'm saying.

Quote from: KenHR;645212Yes, I've said I like to have history behind my magical items.  I'm not sure why you think otherwise.  See my first post in this thread.  

My point was really countering the "if every item is special, then none are" notion, and promptly got off track.

I don't give a fuck if magical items are "special," whatever Pundit was getting at with that little piece of pith.  I like my items to have history, and I don't think that makes them less special.  Sure, some items will have larger significance to the culture or whatnot.  I'm not arguing against that.

I'm just saying that I like my permanent magical items to be unique (again, my first post in the thread said this), and I don't care one bit about their "specialness" in that context.  If the +1 mace that emits light and hums when undead are around because it was used by a minor holy man 100 years ago isn't seen as "special" by my players because every item has a little backstory and unique elements like that, I don't give a fuck, is all I'm saying.

There's a difference between an item being special and having an unique backstory, and part of that is the point I made in my post. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Quote from: Rincewind1;645214There's a difference between an item being special and having an unique backstory, and part of that is the point I made in my post. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think we agree more than you think.  I'm probably just being muddled in making whatever point I'm trying to make.  I still haven't finished my coffee. :)

I guess in the end I'm looking at it from the standpoint of my players.  In actual play, grand symbolism and literary goodness (and I love that shit...I was an English major with one of my minors in Anthropology) doesn't usually have the impact it does in a good novel.  The items are there to be used, and my players tend to look at them in those terms.  Like finding a randart weapon in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup or something.

I like magical items that have weird appearances or side-effects. One of my old DMs was especially good at coming up with these sorts of things: a magical breastplate that turned your hair to chrome; an amulet of water-breathing in the form of a shrunken mermaid's head;  a cloak of protection that makes the user cast the shadow of a pit fiend, or leave bloody footprints as he walks. Items that were activated by cutting off one or your digits. They didn't have history, but they had strange, apparent effects. You got the sense of magic being dangerous, alien, and a little unwholesome.

That is related to my fashion analogy of history=color and mechanics=pattern. I guess you could add utility=fabric cut, to strain an analogy.

Often people design simple patterns then assume the result also should come with little to no color. A lot of drab colors everywhere ends up with a muddy palette. The same happens with utility, where it is straightforward, not tailored, and ultimately unimaginative. Bland tunic shape is bland: one can cut out utility into different interesting shapes.

Let me give examples of the analogy in action:

Basic "pattern" mechanic is +1 sword. History is about Neo Punic Wars. Utility is about goblins. Potentially boring, yes?

Dark color, drab tone, tight tailored cut -- No real history outside of being created during the Neo Punic Goblin Wars, likely a lieutenant's sword. A +1 sword that becomes +2 versus goblins.

Bright color, vibrant tone, bare midriff cut -- famed Sword of Umbrage, used by Flubbergart the First to establish his kingdom during the Neo Punic Goblin Wars, used to slay goblins throughout the ages. When rapidly bathed in water during a full moon becomes for one week a sacred +1 sword that hums whispers of impending death into the minds of nearby goblins.

Bright color, drab tone, shapeless cut. The legendary Excruciator sword used in the Neo Punic Goblin Wars, supposedly killed over a thousand goblins in one campaign. Just a +1 sword.

The components to magic item aesthetics can be broken down and analyzed just like anything else. And having such a structure helps give guidance to creating one's own material. To teach that to others in the DMG would be more beneficial than mere item generation chasing bumper sticker slogans of "everything must be unique!"

I still prefer mechanical hooks associated with the story behind magical items where possible, unless the story itself has power, as Rincewind was saying. Quite often nonmagical treasures have a long history of interesting owners, but all the PCs want to know about is the gold piece value rather than getting bogged down with details, and they're right, their characters probably wouldn't be interested in the minutae of a tapestry's provenance. Magic should be more connected somehow.

Quote from: Opaopajr;645346Let me give examples of the analogy in action:

That sounds really cool.

But... could you maybe expound on that a bit more? I kind of got the gist of what you were saying, but didn't quite follow it all the way.

Quote from: KenHR;645217I think we agree more than you think.  I'm probably just being muddled in making whatever point I'm trying to make.  I still haven't finished my coffee. :)

I guess in the end I'm looking at it from the standpoint of my players.  In actual play, grand symbolism and literary goodness (and I love that shit...I was an English major with one of my minors in Anthropology) doesn't usually have the impact it does in a good novel.  The items are there to be used, and my players tend to look at them in those terms.  Like finding a randart weapon in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup or something.

Well, can't trust the buggers to bring their own dice half of the time, what do you expect? Players, worst bloody sorts over the tables, am I right?

Jokes aside - I mostly agree on that, yeah. The good way to make player interested in history of the item is when it's either some rumour/foreshadowing that gets the player to look for it in the first place, or if NPCs start reacting to that weapon. Of course, not every +1 sword is worthy of such attentions, in my opinion at least. But perhaps with the right user, it will be someday.

It's a basic analogy to associate the breakdown of aesthetics into components. Any creative discipline has its theories, and core theories about the basic compositional elements are often the first taught to new students. A DMG is designed to give guidance for a new GM to create their own works, but just like any aesthetic discipline it helps to know the basics to then build your own.

And ultimately that's what you want. You want the student to know what it is they are copying and how to one day create their own. Some people need more structure and guidance on how to build up to works they admire (and some are just naturals, and others are just confident to develop their own style from the beginning. but those don't really need a DMG.)

What we've been discussing here as the winning elements of our favorite magic items are aesthetic categories. There is no formalized item creation theory to RPGs, so this is new territory for terms. However, other disciplines offer terms and design principles that can help shape our understanding. So for example system mechanical effect determines item usage; it determines if an item is glaring or subtle, big or small (in impact), complicated or simple. Not having a term in RPGs for that, but having one in another discipline, I can appropriate it through analogy to see how it suits this item element.

The leap of faith is testing how far another discipline's principles of an element can go. Eventually the analogy of RPG item mechanics to Fashion pattern will break. This is natural and expected. The usefulness is to see how much that term, and the theoretical ideas behind it, can help us think about item creation components and be a transmissible vehicle to others to think of the same.

There is a difference between "well crafted items" and magic items; unless you want to judge that a really well crafted sword not only does +1 to hit and damage but can also harm supernatural creatures; in which case, how is it really distinguishable from magic?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;645848There is a difference between "well crafted items" and magic items; unless you want to judge that a really well crafted sword not only does +1 to hit and damage but can also harm supernatural creatures; in which case, how is it really distinguishable from magic?

I don't really use a whole lot of "can't be harmed by normal weapons" monsters in my games, it gets messy way too quickly, especially when you have a group as imaginatively destructive as my own.

I mean sure it can't be harmed by normal weapons, how about dropping from the top of a castle wall, hanging, drowning, suffocating, having a bucket of acid thrown on it, lit on fire and horsedragged for thirty miles across jagged scree slopes, pulled apart between horses when on fire and on one memorable occasion having a largeish brothel dropped on it? Still unfazed? That's one hell of a monster, Rasputin should be taking notes!

If I have to use something with that advantage, I usually grade it on a sliding scale - werewolves for example take half damage from anything not made of silver, and regenerate damage from non silver weapons if they aren't killed outright. You would not believe how ungodly tough that makes them.

Other monsters might take a third or a quarter or even a fifth damage after their armour is figured into the picture, but they drop one grade for every +1 a truly magical weapon has. So monster invulnerability might run:
Grade 1: Take half damage
Grade 2: Take one third damage
Grade 3: Take a quarter damage
Grade 4: Take one fifth damage

But someone with a +2 magical sword versus a grade 3 monster will do half damage (3-2=1) instead of the quarter damage they were going to do otherwise. Sometimes as in the case of werewolves magic isn't even needed or sometimes won't be effective at all, but their 'kryptonite' will do the trick nicely (silver in this case). Herbs like wolfsbane being burned might also temporarily reduce or negate their resistance to damage, there are an infinite number of sneaky ways to work it.

Only very rarely are monsters truly immune to weapons and most damage, the incorporeal would usually be among them, such as possessing demons and other seriously nasty pieces of work.

Quote from: RPGPundit;645848There is a difference between "well crafted items" and magic items; unless you want to judge that a really well crafted sword not only does +1 to hit and damage but can also harm supernatural creatures; in which case, how is it really distinguishable from magic?

RPGPundit

That's a setting question. An important quetion, but ultimately one that may distract from discovering what it is about magical items that makes them feel magical. Perhaps the fiat judgment that only magical items can hurt X (magical?) creatures is part of the charm some enjoy from their items. For me, it is not as winning a feature, personally.

Quote from: RPGPundit;645848There is a difference between "well crafted items" and magic items; unless you want to judge that a really well crafted sword not only does +1 to hit and damage but can also harm supernatural creatures; in which case, how is it really distinguishable from magic?

RPGPundit

Well, Tolkien for one didn't see a difference.

Quote from: LibraryLass;645983Well, Tolkien for one didn't see a difference.

But there's other sources that do.

RPGPundit

Even in Tolkien, who was drawing heavily from typical Greek mythos of "the weapon is as magical as it's owner", there were strictly magical swords - What about those three ones from the Hobbit, that glow when goblins/danger* are nearby, and at least two of them are supposedly a bane of the goblinkind (though that might have been a goblin myth related to the users of those swords)? I mean, Sting* does make reappearance in Lord of the Rings. Mithrill is a magical metal as well.

*I read Hobbit ages ago, and I can't recall precisely.

Quote from: Rincewind1;646345Even in Tolkien, who was drawing heavily from typical Greek mythos of "the weapon is as magical as it's owner", there were strictly magical swords - What about those three ones from the Hobbit, that glow when goblins/danger* are nearby, and at least two of them are supposedly a bane of the goblinkind (though that might have been a goblin myth related to the users of those swords)? I mean, Sting* does make reappearance in Lord of the Rings. Mithrill is a magical metal as well.

*I read Hobbit ages ago, and I can't recall precisely.

Yes, I do believe you're right.

RPGPundit

Total necroposting.

But I've been dwelling on the idea of breaking down the aesthetic principles in RPG item design. Being uncharted territory, I've been borrowing from other disciplines and trying to work through analogy. I think I've come up with some useful terms we can share when we talk about this:

As I was thinking of cloth to make clothes, as GMs use imagination to create wondrous items, I tried to get terms from one discipline to roughly correspond. With this I try to give name to previously unlabeled categories:

Cloth into Clothes = made of Cut, Color, Pattern
  (haven't anything for Fabric or Weave yet)
Imagination into Wondrous Items = made of Mechanics, Manner, Means

Cut = Mechanics
As you would cut out the shape to create clothing article, similarly you look to mechanical components to fashion a useful item. Cut defines what is being made and how it is intended to be used. Similarly mechanics serves same function on items.

Color = Manner
The hue, tint, shade, and tone. How it attracts the eye and suggests its placement usage.
Manner would be the flavor that grounds the item to the setting. This can be item's history, physical looks, social response, etc.

Pattern = Means
Image pattern on cloth, like horizontal stripes or paisley. It is flavor, but it also has an effect on how the item is used through how it attracts the eye. This would be the connection of setting into mechanics. How to activate an object, or to use it contextually within a culture, or its setting impact impels the wielder, etc.

So Stormbringer, the classic sword from Moorcock, is a sword cut with crazy powerful mechanics. It's a traditional Drain Sword, where damage takes HP to give wielder HP, however with almost unmeasurable stats. Its color is a manner slathered in foreboding, evil legend, and foreshadowed apocalypse. But that is brought into Elric's present life by the sword's constant mental tug of dominance. This is the item's means insisting its setting pattern -- its manner affecting mechanics -- by slaying friends and foe alike in moments where it overpowers Elric.

I know there are more categories, and I likely missed something from here.
However, that's what I got so far. I wonder if its worth exploring 'fabric' and
'weave' because I know I must have left something out.

Since this thread has been dug up out of its hole... I'll have a bit of a rant.

At last night's 3.5 game I went off about this matter of magic items. How much I thought it sucked that they were not 'magical' in feel as well as mechanics.

Our group plays alternating campaigns of Earthdawn and D&D 3.5.
It's really striking to me how different the feel of the two are particularly because of the magic items.
In Earthdawn every powerful magic item we come across is an event, a bit of a mystery and potential to reveal some hidden bit of history, a story to hear and maybe continue... often with a set of increasingly difficult quests to complete before unlocking it's full power.
Magic is everywhere in Earthdawn and yet somehow, because of the nature of the named magic items, it continues to feel magical and mysterious.

Compare to that our 3.5 game. Which to me does not feel magical AT ALL.
Magical items are commodities to be used or sold, that's all. They seem familiar and predictable... like technology.
Also, any medium sized village (Hommlet) we come across seems to have a shopping mall ready to buy and sell whatever we need. It says 'cleric' on my character sheet but I feel like we're playing fur trappers/merchants... into the woods to get more hides then back to town to sell them or trade up for better ones.
Not exactly what I signed on for.
Of course, I do not think D&D HAS to be played that way, but according to my group that is the emergent form with D&D. They insist D&D is 'just like this' and they seem fine with it (it's a bit of a schism that my tastes in flavors of fantasy diverge widely from theirs).
They pointed out that the rule of thumb is that at 3rd/4th level we should all be decked out in +1 items. Somehow thinking that way just turns me right off, reminds me of the worse aspects of World of Warcraft ('what's your gear score?').

Example: Last night we found an obelisk devoted to some ancient evil god (Tharizdun) and after destroying it we found a small gem that all the players but me recognized to be an 'ioun stone' (I'm not that familiar with modern D&D). I had my PC playing out a cautious approach to the thing but the warrior just picked it up and sent it spinning about her head. No big deal, no mystery, no caution despite it coming from inside an evil hunk of rock that had opened an eye and watched us.
Fucking bland, I thought.
Our Earthdawn games are NOT like that... same players, completely different approach.
Not that I want them to be the same... but I MUCH prefer magical items to seem special, as they do in Earthdawn.
Lamentations Of The Flame Princess has its thing with no lists of magic items or monsters and I'm quite a fan of that.

Anyway, I'm also reminded now that the ubiquitous 'ordinary' magic items were a big part of what had me looking elsewhere way back when D&D was the only RPG I knew.
The game doesn't have to be played that way, it's not the way I ran it, but it seemed increasingly to be the expectations of folks who played it and, apparently, still is.

I've sat at similar tables, Simlasa. So your rant is well received. It's also likely the reason why this topic exist, as WotC went back to the drawing board on what the hell went so wrong.

To break it down and relate it to my tangent it sounds like mechanics trumped all in WotC D&D. There was no attachment through setting, and certainly little effect from setting into mechanics. When you play video game RPG or CCG style, any item that has restricted bonuses, or complicated upkeep, due to "fluff" is just seen as inherently weaker. And in a world where there's Magic Mart, you throw that item away for a more utilitarian one.

But then that front loads all design into mechanics. And due to magic shop unrestricted access you retain this privileged state where all costs and limits are seen as negatives (and setting color as laughably disposable). At this point there is no design room left and you are stuck with rampant and soulless "power creep." It's no wonder magic items feel like cheap merchandise; their place in the setting has been cheapened by disconnect.

The only solution is to swat grubby hands away and restrict access. Players have been dipping in the cookie jar too long that they've spoiled their dinner. Now sick from sugar and finicky with regular fare they suffer dissatisfied from their overindulgence. WotC has the unenviable task to detox the spoiled.

Quote from: Opaopajr;682798I've sat at similar tables, Simlasa. So your rant is well received. It's also likely the reason why this topic exist, as WotC went back to the drawing board on what the hell went so wrong.

To break it down and relate it to my tangent it sounds like mechanics trumped all in WotC D&D. There was no attachment through setting, and certainly little effect from setting into mechanics. When you play video game RPG or CCG style, any item that has restricted bonuses, or complicated upkeep, due to "fluff" is just seen as inherently weaker. And in a world where there's Magic Mart, you throw that item away for a more utilitarian one.

But then that front loads all design into mechanics. And due to magic shop unrestricted access you retain this privileged state where all costs and limits are seen as negatives (and setting color as laughably disposable). At this point there is no design room left and you are stuck with rampant and soulless "power creep." It's no wonder magic items feel like cheap merchandise; their place in the setting has been cheapened by disconnect.

The only solution is to swat grubby hands away and restrict access. Player's have been dipping in the cookie jar too long that they've spoiled their dinner. Now sick from sugar and finicky with regular fare they suffer dissatisfied from their overindulgence. WotC has the unenviable task to detox the spoiled.

Part of the problem with D&D is that ultimately, even in older editions, magical items are part of character progression - especially important for classes without spells. WotC might've taken the problem to the extreme, but it wasn't without fault prior to that.

Part of the responsibility also lies on the GM, however. First time players get shafted major time by an evil artefact/evil spellcaster who was oh so helpful to do a ritual to bring their friend back to life, they'll be more careful next time.

I had a pretty funny situation where the player of Chosen One, the cleric, refused to donate his finger to a witch to bring his friend back to life....but he was alright with donating straps of skin from his back. Of course, it was all part of a plot by said witch to get a piece of his body, and build a fetish to "shut off" his powers, that she'd later grant to the Godhunters on his trail, as she was one of the few people on the planet (they knew the witch was absurdly powerful, that's what their MUs got from her aura) who were aware of the nature of events going on, and had a vested interest in killing the Chosen One, though she could not do so directly, as that'd put her at odds with her master.

Next time someone grabs an enchanted gemstone from a middle of an evil gods' obelisk? Go Smeagol on their arses. They open an encrusted chest in the Temple of God of Law? Well, we all saw Indiana Jones, haven't we.

Yeah, the idea of expected PC power level progression through magic items rings false to me. I don't do Set Encounters Per Day, nor match.com my PCs to an "appropriate" Challenge Rating encounters. So the idea of needing some magic items just to be functional at their level sounds like crazy talk to me.

The old DMGs even talked about implications of shifting magic availability, so talk of needed item amounts sounds weird. And wizards were severely crippled by very low access, as there were no new spells to learn by, only +1 spell per level. Fighters and others still fared well.

If you got any magic items, congrats, and hold on to them. But 'necessary to have' is not how I played, nor recommended by old DMGs. 'Anticipated to have' due to long term survival and experience, assuming you played from lvl 1 on up, yes. But the two are not the same.

Though the anecdote is very entertaining. :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;682806Yeah, the idea of expected PC power level progression through magic items rings false to me. I don't do Set Encounters Per Day, nor match.com my PCs to an "appropriate" Challenge Rating encounters. So the idea of needing some magic items just to be functional at their level sounds like crazy talk to me.

The old DMGs even talked about implications of shifting magic availability, so talk of needed item amounts sounds weird. And wizards were severely crippled by very low access, as there were no new spells to learn by, only +1 spell per level. Fighters and others still fared well.

If you got any magic items, congrats, and hold on to them. But 'necessary to have' is not how I played, nor recommended by old DMGs. 'Anticipated to have' due to long term survival and experience, assuming you played from lvl 1 on up, yes. But the two are not the same.

Though the anecdote is very entertaining. :)

I entirely agree that WotC had the problem and took it to the max, as the expression goes. But I've heard a lot of opinions, also from the older players, that this was often a part of assumed game (though I admit that perhaps indeed, it was not supported by advice - I don't see any clue for making magic items in OSRIC for example), even back then. After all - Old editions gave us such terms as Munchikin and Monty Hall, let's not "revision" that everyone played Fantasy Fucking Vietnam.

However - I also agree that in my game, though I treat magic as something that's actually generally common (lower power items, that is, as there are wizards and smiths who are simply capable of making a "+1 sword"), there were no "presumptions" about a warrior expecting +3 sword by level 10 - there was a very interesting bit actually, as I did "drop" a weapon that was obviously aimed for our Elven Warrior (a magical +1 sword of captain of Bandit's that taken over a village), but the party's Fighter/Assassin took the sword first...and the Elven Fighter was just cool with that, didn't even take F/A's offer to play dice for that sword, despite F/A using scimitars up to that point, and Elven Fighter having a sword specialisation - he just RP'ed a pretty laid back mercenary, with good team loyalty. I was quite frankly shocked, as usually players are like magpies. Generally though, I tend to make easy access to magical "consumables" (except scrolls), so that the Fighting Classes can do a bit of buffing of their own, and wizards of the setting have something to ply their trade to ;).

And thank you. It was a pretty huge shocker to the player while fighting one of the Godslayers (an elite unit of a Roman army dedicated to slaying gods and avatars of theirs, before they'd be a problem to Rome and Rome's clergy), a huge bulky Earth guy based on that son of Gaia from Hercules myths, his powers suddenly made a "zzzzp".

And since the other spellcaster of the team, a Magic User, was too busy bleeding to death after being struck by an amoebic assassin and demigod of Aphrodite, the party took a swift retreat, with their most loyal henchman and trainer taking "one for the team" to cover their retreat.

Quote from: Rincewind1;682807But I've heard a lot of opinions, also from the older players, that this was often a part of assumed game... even back then. After all - Old editions gave us such terms as Munchikin and Monty Hall, let's not "revision" that everyone played Fantasy Fucking Vietnam.

Yeah, I can attest to that, at least with the people I was exposed to.
The group I ran , we were all new to D&D, and magic items were very rare... I ran a very 'street level' game. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser was our common literary touchstone.

But once I went out into the world (college in the 80s) and started trying to find a group to play with people were festooned with magical whatnots and the expectation was very similar to what my friends have now. And like I said, they haven't played that way with other systems we've tried.
Except for one abortive dip into 4.0 this is the first D&D I've played with them... but they played through the various editions for years before I met them.

Again, I don't think it's the rules, not entirely... but it seems to be the style of play that a LOT of people expect when D&D is on the label.

Quote from: RPGPundit;641094Again, this is something we hear a lot about; and certainly there's something very cool about creating a sword or wand or whatever that has a storied history and special unique powers... but do you want EVERY item to be that way? Do you feel like there should never just be a +1 sword?

No.

The game I play has enchantment rules.  My gameworld's cities have a number of qualified enchanters, and they make their livings enchanting things.  Since the lower end enchantments are by far the easiest and cheapest to make, by the nature of the beast there are going to be a relative number of +1 Puissance weapons out there, which take less than a twentieth the time of (say) +2 Puissance, +2 Accuracy, Quick-Draw, Loyal Sword broadswords.  Since said +1 Puissance weapon takes 250 mage-days to enchant, and the ability to enchant in the first place isn't common among wizards, this isn't anything a lowly PC is going to buy off the rack.

But that being said, I see no reason why an item's "storied history" should have much of anything to do with its OOC system stats.  The legendary Dragon Crown of the Emperors of Vallia doesn't become legendary because of its stats; it's legendary because it's been worn by three thousand years' worth of monarchs.  No one knows the actual stats of the great warsword Eiliantë, borne on half a hundred battlefields by the renowned Princess Verella Elyanwe; it's famous because it's wielded by a great hero.  Does it actually cleave iron as if it were wood?  (Or is it the case, in truth, that the beautiful elven hero-princess has particularly florid and fanciful minstrels composing her tales?)

So, if you had to speak about that breakdown of what composes an interesting item, what elements would it comprise? Is it repeatable in some sort of formula, or an unknown something that we must stumble towards? Is this something teachable to new GMs, or dependent upon the ingenious imagination of those who have the touch?

And if it does retain composite elements, with knowable formulae to create equiivalently inspired items, how would you teach it?

Quote from: Rincewind1;682807I entirely agree that WotC had the problem and took it to the max, as the expression goes. But I've heard a lot of opinions, also from the older players, that this was often a part of assumed game (though I admit that perhaps indeed, it was not supported by advice - I don't see any clue for making magic items in OSRIC for example), even back then. After all - Old editions gave us such terms as Munchikin and Monty Hall, let's not "revision" that everyone played Fantasy Fucking Vietnam.

Indeed. We were pretty stingy with magic items in homebrew adventures, but if you ran TSR modules the PCs would accumulate massive amounts of magic items. In the magic-item draft at the end of a mid-level module each PC would typically end up with 2-3 potions/scrolls and 3-4 permanent magic items. By the end of a series of adventures like the A-series the magic item list for each PC ran to one column of lined paper.

And this was always the case. Remember those early Dragon magazine stories where the magic-user had a golf bag full of wands?

It wasn't WotC D&D that started handing out +1 swords and wands of magic missile like candy. They just commercialized the consequences and built it into the system.

Quote from: Haffrung;682971It wasn't WotC D&D that started handing out +1 swords and wands of magic missile like candy. They just commercialized the consequences and built it into the system.

And it wasn't just D&D.  My first campaign as a player was an Empire of the Petal Throne run in 1978, and we just got flooded with stuff.  So much so that we players -- sick and tired of scenarios being solved with our widgets instead of our wits -- got together and agreed to pick just three items apiece to keep, and throw away all of the rest.

Quote from: Opaopajr;682907So, if you had to speak about that breakdown of what composes an interesting item, what elements would it comprise? Is it repeatable in some sort of formula, or an unknown something that we must stumble towards? Is this something teachable to new GMs, or dependent upon the ingenious imagination of those who have the touch?

If I had to do it all over again, I'd eliminate any spell or ability that analyzed the particulars of a magical item, and make the result of any enchantment unpredictable.  The only way to figure out what something did would be empirical.  Enchantments become things of mystery only if they're mysterious, and if you can't know -- for certain -- everything about it.  Make it mechanistic, know for a certain fact that the bolts from a Staff of Reaming do 1d+2 crushing damage, that they have a range of 10 hexes, and that the Staff has 11 charges and 15 HT, then it's no more "wonderful" than 50' of hemp rope or five pounds of smoked cod.

So ditch Identify-type spells and let players figure it out from use? Obfuscation as a facet of item design? Interesting.

But how does that help new GMs create their own cool magical items for their setting? Just write a spread of mechanical abilities and then cover it up? Shape, history, affectations, and the like are unnecessary?

The process to communicate this design skill likely involves more. What else would you see that be?

Stuff like magic items becoming mundane is generally a problem when magic items become both expected and basically required for game balance, like in 3ed. "Character needs X+3, Y+2 and Z+2, and a McGuffin of Guffing to stay useful at level X" = problem. The items will definitely be nothing more than a bonus to this and that in such a game. Wich is one of the problems with 3e. A pity, too, since I think that the way say magic weapons are generated in 3e is pretty cool (but it looses a huge bunch of the cool factor when the player can just buy his PC the custom "Holy Cold Iron Greatsword+4 of Slaying Evil Outsiders" given sufficient gold. Now finding such an item after say beating a huge ancient dragon? That's cool.).

Now, some items can be pretty mundane, I have no problems with having potions and scrolls, say, be fairly commonplace. I have no problems with allowing PCs to create them or buy them from/create them with the aid of alchemists. Potions in particular - especially healing potions.

But I'd like to make stuff like weapons, armor etc somewhat unique. Not power vise mind, but I'd like for many of them to have some sort of history attached, maybe a name (even if said name is something along the lines of "the Golden Axe" or "the Hero Sword" - maybe particularily if the name's along these lines ;)). But even if said weapon isn't a Greatsword+4 of Demonslaying or something equally badass, they should have something about them, something to make them matter (wich they do after all in game). Maybe that dagger+1, +3 vs goblinoids was wielded by the region's first human hero - it's design is distinctly Bronze Age (or even Stone Age!), it's 8000 or so years old, and carrying it about makes the PC part of an ancient, even primeval heritage (and quite probably a looooong line of heroes who fight goblinoids...)...

But even less powerful stuff than said dagger could have some sort of story - a leather armor+1 could've been worn by some elf or dwarf or halfling fighter/thief of some reputation, frex, say, and/or could be made in the style of say a dwarven hall now abandoned for 450 years...

I like that kind of stuff.

A friend of mine over a few long term campaigns he ran, did a great job making magic weapons unique. Every single magic weapon in the setting, and there were not a bazillion of them, had a reason for existing.


For example, An elven pc fighter during the game wielding a spear died in battle after accidentally fumbling and killing a close friend. His spirit remained bound to the spear, and it became known as 'Friend Slayer' (It was a +2 spear but the history of it made it much cooler)

I still have a few character sheets from back in the 1E era. My highest level character, Sir Lord Ranger T'can (26th leve), fills a 3-ring binder. His magic item list fills two pages. Some are true 'named' items but most are just '+X sword' or 'unbreakable bowstring', that sort of thing. We used to have the ubiquitous 'golf bag of swords' because you couldn't make what you wanted you had to use what you found. It was silly and absurd but we didn't really question it. I far prefer the OGL stance of allowing PCs to make what they want.

Quote from: Opaopajr;683368But how does that help new GMs create their own cool magical items for their setting? Just write a spread of mechanical abilities and then cover it up? Shape, history, affectations, and the like are unnecessary?

What makes that different from the standard fashion RPGs handle enchanted items?

I only do unique and very rare magic items. Maybe one per adventure, and often not that. I just like my fantasy grittier.

Quote from: Ravenswing;684647What makes that different from the standard fashion RPGs handle enchanted items?

Because even with AD&D 1e DMG they went into lengthy discussions on the magical perception of magic items and why its important. They broke down that things should be different than the mundane and tailored to individual campaign, down to spell books, scrolls, and lowly heal potions. The advice explained the why about keeping magic items from being a regular commodity and how to infuse mystery.

Obviously somewhere along the road that discussion needs to be brought back. Somewhere even D&D editions lost sight of what made the magical magical. Otherwise we wouldn't be hearing of this conversation.

I'm figuring my DCC campaign will have a lot more unique items than in my standard D&D games.