Quote from: StormBringer;599235And you sure know how to make utterly unsupported claims then shit yourself when pressed for evidence, so shut your fucking cakehole with the bullshit 'the rules assume' and cite some page numbers or stop fucking posting.  


No one gives a shit what you think is implied.  You are a complete fucking moron.

I think I'll keep this handy reminder the next time implied comes a calling and you don't have a meltdown.

Quote from: Sommerjon;599316I think I'll keep this handy reminder the next time implied comes a calling and you don't have a meltdown.

Go ahead, if you think you have some kinda 'gotcha' brewing.  Saving for the future to look like an idiot is always a good idea.  Mostly because 'implied' has a context.  You know, not an absolute usage?

AD&D 2e DMG, p.83

Buying Magical Items

"As player characters earn more money and begin facing greater dangers, some of them will begin wondering where they can buy magical items. Using 20th-century, real-world economics, they will figure there must be stores that buy and sell such goods. Naturally they will want to find and patronize such stores. However, no magical stores exist.

Before the DM goes rushing off to create magical item shops, consider the player characters and their behavior. Just how often do player characters sell those potions and scrolls they find? Cash in a sword +1? Unload a horn of blasting or a ring of free action?

More often than not, player characters save such items. Certainly they don't give away one-use items. One can never have too many potions of healing or scrolls with extra spells. Sooner or later the character might run out. Already have a sword +1? Maybe a henchman or hireling could use such a weapon (and develop a greater respect for his master). Give up the only horn of blasting the party has? Not very likely at all.

It is reasonable to assume that if the player characters aren't giving up their goods neither are any non-player characters. And if adventurers aren't selling their finds, then there isn't enough trade in magical items to sustain such a business.

Even if the characters do occasionally sell a magical item, setting up a magic shop is not a good idea. Where is the sense of adventure in going into a store and buying a sword +1? Haggling over the price of a want? Player characters should feel like adventurers, not merchants or greengrocers.

Consider this as well: If a wizard of priest can buy any item he needs, why should he waste time attempting to make the item himself? Magical item research is an important role-playing element in the game, and opening a magic emporium kills it. There is a far different sense of pride on the player's part when using a wand his character has made, or found after perilous adventure, as opposed to one he just bought.

Finally, buying and trading magic presumes a large number of magical items in society. This lessens the DM's control over the whole business. Logically-minded players will point out the inconsistency of a well-stocked magic shop in a campaign otherwise sparse in such rewards."


A pretty strong recommendation to "just say no" to magic shops.
Reasons:
1) NPC behavior would be so strikingly different, and therefore hard to believe, if it behaved so contrarily to PC behavior regarding magic.
1 a) Expectations about PC relationship to henchmen and hirelings appear.
2) Changes game from "adventure!" to "commerce!"
3) Removes impetus for Create Item adventures.
4) DM loses setting control. Also makes adventuring less attractive.

Depending on my setting I agree or disagree with these arguments. However on the whole I find myself not using them because of especially argument #4. Power creep is a dangerous thing to verisimilitude and immersion as events rapidly spiral out of a logical sense of space. And since most players I've met have no interest role-playing in a world so fantastic as to be hallucinatory -- because people need relatable base points to make sense of their surroundings -- I don't usually find "JRPG magic shops in each town!" (and living with its ramifications) a fruitful inclusion.

Blackhand, I'm pretty sure the explicit references to Magic Shops are in Chainmail...

Quote from: Opaopajr;599358AD&D 2e DMG, p.83

Buying Magical Items

"2e Stuff"

Second Edition non-setting specific.  Just sayin'.

Quote from: Opaopajr;599358Reasons:
1) NPC behavior would be so strikingly different, and therefore hard to believe, if it behaved so contrarily to PC behavior regarding magic.
1 a) Expectations about PC relationship to henchmen and hirelings appear.
2) Changes game from "adventure!" to "commerce!"
3) Removes impetus for Create Item adventures.
4) DM loses setting control. Also makes adventuring less attractive.

1) PC behavior would be contrary to NPC behavior only if NPC's wouldn't sell magic.
2) So give them a sword.
3) Only if you can buy everything in the DMG.
4) Refer to 3.
5) Refer to 3.

Also, it should be noted that random treasure also takes setting control away from the DM.

If you have the money to buy ANY magic items at all, you obviously have experience and have been adventuring - and since it costs an arm and a leg, and none of the good stuff is really available unless it's a special deal (usually, if we use the shop in Greyhawk as a yardstick for top of the line magic shops), it puts great impetus on adventuring.

He's got a Staff of the Magi for sale, but wants 800,000 GP for it.  Better get busy.

Quote from: StormBringer;598765Depends on which version.  The earlier versions were actually pretty slim on the magic items, regardless of what the modules had in them.  Proper treasure placement using guidelines in the DMG and MM would lead to magic being on the rare side more than abundant.

Oh, man. The "Placement of Magic Items" section of the 1E DMG is one of the greatest middle-fingers ever given to a fanbase in the history of anything, ever: "Some of you made the mistake of using what I wrote in D&D. You stupid, stupid fuckers. Your campaigns are little more than a joke, something that better DMs jape and ridicule. You should know better than to actually use anything I wrote. I barely even know how to design a game. I'm probably drunk as I'm writing this now."

And he writes that in a system for which the treasure types received, at most, a -5% adjustment for the occurrence of magic items. And the treasure for common monsters like goblins was actually bumped up to include magic items whereas it hadn't included magic items in OD&D.

Quote from: StormBringer;598784You forgot to add in all the 0% for Types J, K, L, M, N, O, P and Q.  It is closer to 25% on average to find a single magic item.  Every four adventures, then, the entire party can be expected to find one magic item.  Hardly overwhelming, and that assumes the party defeats one creature with each Treasure Type in those four adventures.

Wow. That is possibly one of the worst butcherings of statistics I have ever seen. If we rule out the 10% chance for a treasure map instead of a magic item (although the average magic item return from a treasure map is generally high using the tables in the DMG) and the PCs actually did receive one treasure of each type, their expected treasure haul would be:

30% chance of 3 = 0.9 items
10% chance of 1 = 0.1 items
10% chance of 2 = 0.2 items
15% chance of 3 = 0.45 items
25% chance of 4 = 1 item
30% chance of 5 = 1.5 items
35% chance of 5 = 1.75 items
15% chance of 6 = 0.9 items
15% chance of 1 = .15
40% chance of 2d4 = 2 items
50% chance of 1d4 = 1.25 items
70% chance of 6 = 4.2 items
85% chance of 12 = 10.2 items
60% chance of 2 = 1.2 items
50% chance of 3 = 1.5 items

Which would be a grand total of 27.3 items on average, not a 25% chance of 1 item as you claim.

Of course, this entire analysis is facile because the treasure system in AD&D isn't designed to work around the ridiculous distribution of treasure you suggest. It isn't even designed to work with the "kill 1 monster of this type and get its treasure type" in many cases.

QuoteThe vast majority of creatures encountered will have Treasure Types J-Q, and another percentage in addition will have Treasure Type Nil.

This doesn't appear to be true. Here's a breakdown of AD&D monsters by treasure type. Although you'll find many of the most common foes in the J-R* treasure range, you'll notice that most of those also appear in other treasure types which yield magic items.

(*R also has a nil chance for magical treasure.)

QuoteAt 1st through maybe 4th or 5th level, you will be generally fighting humanoid/goblinoid types...

Unless you pursue them into a lair. Which, of course, is the focus of most low level adventures. In which case you'll find that most of them are treasure type A, B, C, or D. The expected return, therefore, is at least 26 times higher than the "1 item every 4 adventures" that you claim.

If you use the Random Dungeon Generator from the DMG, on the other hand, magic becomes even more frequent: 2% chance per empty treasure room of 1 item; in rooms with monsters and treasure you get 22.5% chance of 1 item and a 1.5% chance of 2 items. The empty room stuff is mostly irrelevant in terms of statistical occurrence, but you would expect to find 1 magic item every 4 encounters, not once per every 4 adventures.

Quote from: Haffrung;599186This wasn't in 1979; Sargent wrote this in 1995. And he wasn't some freelancer with a peculiar take on magic in D&D; Sargent was a TSR employee and the principal author of Greyhawk material at the time.

This is unsurprising. 2E is actually the one edition of the game which specifically sought to eliminate the magic item shop: Every other edition of the game has listed GP values for the items. And only 2E has a section explicitly telling the DM not to have magic item shops.

Um, the random dungeon generator gives a 3/1300 chance of finding a magic item in an empty room.

EDIT: Sorry Justin, I didn't see "empty treasure room", which would be 5% of the rooms, with a 3% chance of magic items per empty treasure room. So 3/2000 rooms in a random dungeon are empty but have magic items.


With a monster the chance is 3/5 x ( two chances of 3/100) of finding a magic item. I'm going to bed so I'm not going to work out the probability of that occurring.

Regardless, random treasure does include a fair amount of magic items. But with my randomly generated by the book treasure hordes in my D&D megadungeon game, the players tended to have a few magic items but weren't dripping with them.

Although that may be partially due to:
A) PCs with magic items being killed and lost in the dungeon
B) Magic item rich hordes being protected by BAD ASS TPK monsters.

Quote from: Planet Algol;599425EDIT: Sorry Justin, I didn't see "empty treasure room", which would be 5% of the rooms, with a 3% chance of magic items per empty treasure room. So 3/2000 rooms in a random dungeon are empty but have magic items.

No problem. I almost made the opposite mistake when trying to calculate treasure-per-room. And then realized, as you did, that the odds of finding a magic item in an empty room is small enough that it's not really worth worrying about.

QuoteWith a monster the chance is 3/5 x ( two chances of 3/100) of finding a magic item. I'm going to bed so I'm not going to work out the probability of that occurring.

I almost made this mistake, too. The second column of table V.G actually says "Take two rolls on the 'Without Monster' Table, add 10% to the total of each roll" (emphasis added).

So you'd actually get a magic item on a roll of 88-00 (not 98-00).

Which I just realized means I did make a mistake because I calculated the odds as being 12% per roll when it's actually 13% per roll. Doh.

So it's actually a 24.3% of finding one magic item and a 1.7% chance of finding two magic items. Still works out to roughly one magic item for every four encounters. And about 1 in 5 will have a non-consumable magic item.

Given typical play at my OD&D table, I'd be expecting a group to find 1-2 non-consumable magic items per session if I used these stocking guidelines.

Quote from: Blackhand;599390Second Edition non-setting specific.  Just sayin'.

It's also just a recommendation, not holy writ.

Thus the point of me putting it up. It's asking of the GM to think critically about their setting. Some things that seem small end up having critical ramifications. And that's why there's caution being advised.

Quote from: Blackhand;5993901) PC behavior would be contrary to NPC behavior only if NPC's wouldn't sell magic.
2) So give them a sword.
3) Only if you can buy everything in the DMG.
4) Refer to 3.
5) Refer to 3.

A rather circular answer.

To justify this perception you must establish that "people's behavior" would find magic items so plentiful as to find selling them not a big decision. This is determined by GM setting, which explicitly goes back to "setting decisions have consequences." Most people might think "simple problem, simple solution," however these recommendations are asking one to think through these supposedly simple solutions.

Second edition DMG notes that you'd need to have excess supply to warrant such easy commerce. Otherwise a tighter supply would leave people behaving quite reservedly about their magic items, and thus obviate easy commerce. Further, to accept high supply for easy commerce thus means you are now playing an entire setting closer to a Monty Haul style. And as Monty Haul style magic items distribution deal with power issues later -- thus warranting a cautionary section in the DMG as well -- the DMG asks the GM to think very carefully about the magic shop decision.

Because to add a magic shop invites these questions of setting consistency and potential challenges to its control.

Quote from: Blackhand;599390Also, it should be noted that random treasure also takes setting control away from the DM.

That comment sounds to me that you are unfamiliar with how treasure tables work in practice. You are free to take upon the ratios the DMG provides wholesale. But the GM makes the judgment call every step of the way. Yes, even accepting unchanged those ratios wholesale is a GM setting decision.

Besides the GM altering the treasure classes themselves, monsters generally have more than one treasure class in the MM, which in turn can be randomly selected or further tailored to a GM's current need in a locale. This means a GM is responsible for distribution of quality, quantity, and kind of treasures beforehand. A treasure table at the end is merely a stochastic decision tool after the GM has determined the setting relevant treasures.

You can only say you are giving treasure tables setting control if you as a GM deliberate abdicate your job here. It's a valid choice as any, but still is a GM choice. i.e. Perhaps you receive a module and decide to run it cold and unaltered, but be aware incongruent things will happen.

However, just like not all temperate forests will have ALL temperate forest creatures in the MM, as too would any creature or lair have any or all treasure listed on tables. What goes into the Random Table is in complete GM setting control. To say otherwise seems to miss the point of what sort of tool the Random Table is, and I'm going to assume you don't really mean that.

Quote from: Blackhand;599390If you have the money to buy ANY magic items at all, you obviously have experience and have been adventuring - and since it costs an arm and a leg, and none of the good stuff is really available unless it's a special deal (usually, if we use the shop in Greyhawk as a yardstick for top of the line magic shops), it puts great impetus on adventuring.

He's got a Staff of the Magi for sale, but wants 800,000 GP for it.  Better get busy.

I don't know how this is relevant to anything, as there are people who are born or fall into wealth and power all the time. Our world is not some utopian meritocracy, and it'd be laughably alien to my players if I ran any setting as one. Sometimes there will be people who just are given fortune and can end up buying their problems away.

In fact, that's one of the other 2e DMG recommendations: to pay attention to the potential of abuse inherent in great wealth or noble privilege.

Would you like me to put that one up as well?

Quote from: Opaopajr;599455To justify this perception you must establish that "people's behavior" would find magic items so plentiful as to find selling them not a big decision. This is determined by GM setting, which explicitly goes back to "setting decisions have consequences."

Yeah, and I'm using the City of Greyhawk and The Temple of Elemental Evil.

Quote from: Opaopajr;599455Second edition DMG notes that you'd need to have excess supply to warrant such easy commerce. Otherwise a tighter supply would leave people behaving quite reservedly about their magic items, and thus obviate easy commerce. Further, to accept high supply for easy commerce thus means you are now playing an entire setting closer to a Monty Haul style. And as Monty Haul style magic items distribution deal with power issues later -- thus warranting a cautionary section in the DMG as well -- the DMG asks the GM to think very carefully about the magic shop decision.

Because to add a magic shop invites these questions of setting consistency and potential challenges to its control.

Except when there is excess supply, and setting specific examples of such commerce.  Perhaps "basic" Greyhawk is what you'd consider "Monty Haul"?

Quote from: Opaopajr;599455That comment sounds to me that you are unfamiliar with how treasure tables work in practice.

You can only say you are giving treasure tables setting control if you as a GM deliberate abdicate your job here. It's a valid choice as any, but still is a GM choice. i.e. Perhaps you receive a module and decide to run it cold and unaltered, but be aware incongruent things will happen.

I've rolled my fair share of them, thanks.  Perhaps more than you, as I seem to regard them as less powerful than you.

So if you roll a great item, you basically don't give it to your players since that might do something to destabilize your game?  I've found that there's no item I can't give them that some other creature can't take away.

Mordenkainen's Disjunction?  How bout that?

You go on to talk about things I'm not sure are connected.  Forests and such.

Quote from: Opaopajr;599455In fact, that's one of the other 2e DMG recommendations: to pay attention to the potential of abuse inherent in great wealth or noble privilege.

Would you like me to put that one up as well?

Did you look at the stats on the temple that I linked to?

26,000+ GP in the first adventure.  +1 Plate Mail, buncha other stuff.  Is that Monty Haul?

I don't fucking think so.  

DM's who are really shitty would do well to curb their player's resources until they get a better grasp of what high level play should be.  Hell, until they realize what low level play should be, they should limit what their players have access to.

Yet that is the mark of novice or shitty DM's.

Quote from: StormBringer;599322Go ahead, if you think you have some kinda 'gotcha' brewing.  Saving for the future to look like an idiot is always a good idea.  Mostly because 'implied' has a context.  You know, not an absolute usage?

So you're saying implied is fine as long as you agree with the 'usage', otherwise it's meltdown time.
Good to know.

Quote from: Blackhand;599535Mordenkainen's Disjunction?  How bout that?

MD is not available in the core rules for all editions (it is definitely not in the PHB for either 1st or 4th edition).  It's also a terrible balancing mechanism in 3rd edition as it requires a will save.  Fighters and Rogues (who often rely on magic items to a fairly high degree) are likely to fail will saves that are easy for clerics (and, to a lesser extent, wizards).  So the characters who cast spells and can try and work around the suddent loss of magic items (magic vestment, greater magic weapon, casting fly directly) are the most likely to save.

It is also a ninth level spell.  It requires either a 17th level caster, one heck of an expensive trap or a scroll with a fairly low DC plus decent failure chances.  

Finally, by the time it comes into play (say levels 14+) the characters have already seen an awful lot of magic wealth.  If you put it into the game at lower levels, you really have to explain why it wasn't "Wail of the Bansee" instead (as dead characters yield all sorts of nifty loot).

Mage's Disjunction is actually on my list of poorly thought out spells, but that is another story.

Quote from: Sommerjon;599695So you're saying implied is fine as long as you agree with the 'usage', otherwise it's meltdown time.
Good to know.

Congratulations, you managed to almost exactly define 'context' and explain 'human nature' at the same time.  You have a keen grasp of the obvious.

Just because someone says something is 'implied', that doesn't mean everyone in the universe is required to agree with that.  It doesn't make it irrefutable fact just because someone uttered it, unless you are one of those 'opinions are inviolable' people.

'Implied' isn't some magic word that auto-wins every discussion.  It's just another form of argumentation.  I have a hard time believing you really needed this explained.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;599406Oh, man. The "Placement of Magic Items" section of the 1E DMG is one of the greatest middle-fingers ever given to a fanbase in the history of anything, ever...

I am not ignoring this nor conceding, just a bit busy lately to address the points.  A day or two and I should have something put together.