tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post3022784648368272914..comments2024-03-19T03:02:38.228-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: Treasure in RuneQuest and D&DJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-58411259109168821912010-05-03T20:41:43.735-04:002010-05-03T20:41:43.735-04:00It's important to note that many games' at...<i>It's important to note that many games' attempts to be as little like D&D as possible are more about marketing, branding, consumer perception and other decidedly un-fun business-y stuff.<br /><br />I firmly believe that classes, levels, hit points and many other conventions originated in D&D are legitimately better mechanics that give all editions of D&D a competitive advantage.<br /><br /><br /><br />Often this comes from purposely avoiding better mechanics (like classes and levels) and other times through going after a different genre, like sci-fi.<br /><br />The reason being that D&D has proven such a "killer app" that attempting to say "we're a better game than D&D" or convincing the consumer of that anyway, has always proven to be a non-starter.</i><br /><br />***<br /><br />While there is a basis for some of this, in large measure it is not correct. Point by point:<br /><br />1. At least for Metagaming’s Melee and subsequent TFT games, they were motivated by a desire to deal with D&D’s shortcomings, at least as Steve Jackson perceived them to be (in large measure I agree with his views, BTW) – and not the marketing stuff you bring up. I don’t have it in front of me, but I believe this motivation was mentioned in the designer’s notes to Melee in an early issue of Space Gamer.<br /><br />2. You can firmly believe all you want, but it amounts to nothing more than a strongly held opinion rather than objective fact. Hit points, in particular, are a very poor mechanic, creating as many problems as they solve. And while I do not object to classes and levels, I hardly think they are the greatest way to handle character definition and development. There is certainly no objective basis for claiming they are “the best.”<br /><br />3. Had Metagaming not been run by an over-emotional twit (i.e. Howard Thompson, the Evil One) than the TFT RPG rules would have continued to provide significant competition to the bloated D&D/AD&D system. Indeed, had the full up rules set been released on schedule (i.e. in 1978 timeframe) before the AD&D DMG came out, TFT might well have stolen a good chunk of the D&D market share, perhaps even beating it out altogether. This last is speculation, but I base it on the following facts:<br /><br />(a) In spite of Metagaming company’s small size relative to TSR, the TFT system was, according to some survey’s, second only to D&D in terms of popularity. And this in spite of the fact that the TFT “DMG” (i.e. In the Labyrinth) wasn’t released until mid-1980, a full year after the AD&D DMG came out.<br /><br />(b) The TFT rules set was objectively superior, being overall much better written and easier to learn and play. Not that the system was without flaws, but what flaws there were could be fairly easily corrected. The flaws in D&D/AD&D require vastly more effort and experience to correct.<br /><br />(c) TFT was much less expensive than D&D/AD&D, coming in at about half or less the price for comparable products. (On the other hand, you get what you pay for – certainly the AD&D hardbounds were much more durable than the paper covers of TFT)<br /><br />(d) TFT was also a much more flexible rules set than D&D/AD&D. Though intended for a quasi-Mediaeval setting like D&D, the TFT rules could much more easily accommodate other genres (modern, sci-fi, etc.) than D&D ever could. The later GURPS system (based partly on TFT) took this to its fullest. Had Metagaming not gone under, they would have been releasing various supplements/worldbooks (this was mentioned in Interplay, and would have included a Superheroes and Wild West supplements, among others)<br /><br />In sum, D&D had (and still has, really) quite a few significant problems. Mechanically, many of the rules are just futzy and poorly reasoned (even when the basic mechanic is, in fact, viable). As a result, at least some early systems arose as a result of trying to find a better set of rules than D&D, and not, as alleged, because of simple marketing gimmicks.Angantyrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583089145943203408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-34546682722239371442010-04-30T17:57:50.884-04:002010-04-30T17:57:50.884-04:00Red:
yep, Enchant Weapon is a 4th level spell in 1...Red:<br /><i>yep, Enchant Weapon is a 4th level spell in 1E, and lasts 5 rounds per level for the one weapon (or two projectiles) touched.</i><br /><br />That explains it. I always played multi-classed T/MUs or F/T/MUs, so my character never reached the elevated heights of 7th-level as a wizard. I'd forgotten that spell ever existed. :DAnthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01254215329246851683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-79471919229600758812010-04-30T17:47:10.058-04:002010-04-30T17:47:10.058-04:00coldstream: yep, Enchant Weapon is a 4th level spe...coldstream: yep, Enchant Weapon is a 4th level spell in 1E, and lasts 5 rounds per level for the one weapon (or two projectiles) touched.<br />Interestingly, the spell makes the weapon magical 'equivalent to a +1 weapon' but has no bonuses.<br /><br />Note that 7th level is also the level at which a wizard can make potions. So an oil that imparts this property to a weapon could be a replacement for the ubiquitous '+1 swords' commodity items. I find that replacing those generic +1s with single use items works. They're actually treated like treasure, hoarded and used only by considered choice.redbeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04600098550347299095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-23582907903273853052010-04-30T17:33:30.884-04:002010-04-30T17:33:30.884-04:00Anthony:
Well, I no longer have copies of the 1st...Anthony:<br /><br />Well, I no longer have copies of the 1st edition rulebooks handy, hopefully someone will, but both Labyrinth Lord AEC and OSRIC have "Enchant Arms/Weapon" spells which do exactly what we were talking about, so I'm pretty sure they were basing those off of the original AD&D spell. I think the AD&D spell also went by "Enchant Weapon" or "Enchant Sword" or some such.<br /><br />Interestingly, both the LL and OSRIC spells are Level 4 spells, which a magic-user wouldn't get until they reached Level 7. I would assume the AD&D version would be the same. It puts this spell on the same level as things like Ice Storm, Wall of Fire, Dimension Door and the Polymorphs. Powerful and important spells.<br /><br />This might give us some insight as to how uncommon or rare "real" magic weapons were supposed to be at some point in AD&D. Otherwise why would this spell be necessary at all? I can't think of too many campaigns from my youth where you didn't have a true +1 weapon by level 7.Coldstreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16140235342917611032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-1425956172523409422010-04-30T11:26:32.505-04:002010-04-30T11:26:32.505-04:00Coldstream:
Wasn't there a Magic Sword spell ...Coldstream:<br /><br /><i>Wasn't there a Magic Sword spell (or some similar name) in 1st Edition AD&D that enchanted weapons to do exactly that? It made your weapon a +1 longsword to allow you to hit otherwise weapon resistant creatures but had none of the other bonuses that comes with magic weapons (to hit bonus/damage bonus)?</i><br /><br />Was there? If so, I missed it completely. (Which wouldn't be surprising.) Maybe it was in a later supplement or magazine article?<br /><br />Security word: "gunha," a Hill Giant war cry.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01254215329246851683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-40256078419218132762010-04-30T02:35:31.616-04:002010-04-30T02:35:31.616-04:00<<>>
Wasn't there a Magic Sword s...<<>><br /><br />Wasn't there a Magic Sword spell (or some similar name) in 1st Edition AD&D that enchanted weapons to do exactly that? It made your weapon a +1 longsword to allow you to hit otherwise weapon resistant creatures but had none of the other bonuses that comes with magic weapons (to hit bonus/damage bonus)?<br /><br />I seem to recall that spell existing, and, at the time with my youthful campaigns being what they were, not seeing the point of the spell because "Real" magic weapons were incredibly common. <br /><br />Now, I can see the point of the spell in a campaign where a true +1 sword might only be a once-in-a-lifetime sort of find, or at least uncommon enough to make running across a wraith or something a real hazard.Coldstreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16140235342917611032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-8318100474738936222010-04-29T21:30:08.602-04:002010-04-29T21:30:08.602-04:00"You cut me to the quick! :)"
Have a sw..."You cut me to the quick! :)"<br /><br />Have a swig from my <i>jug of healing</i> as recompense. :)Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-59096292623120779632010-04-29T20:05:48.690-04:002010-04-29T20:05:48.690-04:00I've always thought there was one type of low-...I've always thought there was one type of low-level magic sword missing: a magic sword that had no adds to-hit or to-damage, but still allowed you to hit creatures vulnerable only to magic weapons.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01254215329246851683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-8401391885517224542010-04-29T19:24:54.795-04:002010-04-29T19:24:54.795-04:00Like many of the other commenters, I have also hou...Like many of the other commenters, I have also house-ruled that most + # swords are simply well-crafted and not actually magical. Borrowing a page from <a href="http://www.philotomy.com/#magic_swords" rel="nofollow">Philotomy</a>, in my campaign ALL truly magical swords are not only unique but possess intelligence and alignment. Many magical swords are able to communicate. Even touching a sword of the wrong alignment can cause damage. The swords often confer magical powers on their wielder and may dominate them (a la Stormbringer). It *is* trickier to keep track of, but I just treat the unique sword as another NPC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-69458099917503202862010-04-29T16:44:12.935-04:002010-04-29T16:44:12.935-04:00It seems very clear to this reader that Gygax had ...<i>It seems very clear to this reader that Gygax had in mind some reasonable correlation between treasure and "its guardians", albeit not a nonsensical one. (Early in that section he does say "All monsters would not and should not possess treasure!")</i><br /><br>You're probably right, but the game as written doesn't really get this point across well and the system itself works against it. Plus, as you note, there's also the assumption that many monsters won't have treasure at all and that some treasures will be left unguarded, lying around to be found by clever adventurers.<br /><br />All that aside, you're correct: Gygax did see some kind of connection between difficulty of obtaining a treasure and its value to the characters. I personally think that's nonsensical but I can't deny that Gary intended it.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-72088721439703690422010-04-29T16:41:06.746-04:002010-04-29T16:41:06.746-04:00I'd say "too much work!". Sounds a l...<i>I'd say "too much work!". Sounds a lot like the road that late-era games take, transforming "Fighter Level 1" into multi-page starting backstories...</i><br /><br>You cut me to the quick! :)<br /><br />Believe me, I am sympathetic to this complaint; it's a very valid one. I simply find, in play, that <i>D&D</i> magic items are frequently a little too bland for my tastes these days. I'd like to make them a bit more interesting, exotic, and even dangerous. As written, they're too trite and "technological."James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-53519402406715823012010-04-29T16:38:33.381-04:002010-04-29T16:38:33.381-04:00I'm curious what, in your opinion, some of tho...<i>I'm curious what, in your opinion, some of those problems might be...</i><br /><br>The biggest issue is that there's little guidance given on what each treasure type represents. You can more or less figure it out by looking at them and decide that this type is appropriate for this kind of monster, but it's never really drawn out. <br /><br />That and the differences between some of the types is a mite small to justify there being as many as there are.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-61165018448287481802010-04-29T10:54:01.560-04:002010-04-29T10:54:01.560-04:00I quite like the Bard's Tale and its take on m...I quite like the Bard's Tale and its take on magic items.<br /><br />+1 items are Mithril, +2 are Admantite and +3 are Diamond.<br /><br />Anything better, or more unusual, than that, is named, e.g. Kael's Axe.<br /><br />I haven't implemented much of this in my own campaign world but it's there ready for when the players find some more generic magic items, which as I use a treasure deck, could be at any point in the near future.<br /><br />What I have done to date, though, is a mishmash of different ideas and systems. Some magic items can be levelled up and have their own sheets that I hand out containing elaborate histories of the item in question, but these are rare. Many are named and have unique properties attached to them, not quite as rare. And some are just plain old +1, and it's these I'll be switching to the Bard's Tale CRPG system for.. no more +1 finds; they'll be finding mithril from now on, as it's just cooler.Pete Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03438651595079082035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-60099495583051198902010-04-29T03:01:28.568-04:002010-04-29T03:01:28.568-04:00It might be piling on, but I've come to a simi...It might be piling on, but I've come to a similar solution to magic items becoming generic as FrDave and others have posted.<br />In <a href="http://redbeardsravings.blogspot.com/2010/04/not-another-1-sword.html" rel="nofollow">"Not Another +1 Sword"</a> I discuss my naturalistic and mechanical reasons for increasing the frequency of expendable magic and decreasing permanent magic. Following up with <a href="http://redbeardsravings.blogspot.com/2010/04/not-1-swords.html" rel="nofollow">"Not +1 Swords"</a>, I show how I've tried to make the lower power magical items remain unique through their history and qualities.redbeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04600098550347299095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-41280528172123407842010-04-29T00:22:08.017-04:002010-04-29T00:22:08.017-04:00The thing I really liked about RQ was the treasure...The thing I really liked about RQ was the treasure->training economy. I felt like it gave a much better reason for the PCs to always be seeking money (especially since I had abandoned D&D's XP for GP).<br /><br />Sometimes I miss being able to give out more D&D style magic items, and I did occasionally hand out something special. I never actually used anything from Plunder (or if anything, no more than one or two items).<br /><br />The lack of magic swords definitely creates a different vibe.<br /><br />Power crystals were a neat way to power up PCs (since everyone is a spell caster), either to provide a power battery, or to put spirits into.<br /><br />FrankFrankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15855679156477779666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-63865662364170197492010-04-28T19:41:09.444-04:002010-04-28T19:41:09.444-04:00I find (AD&D) that I'd rather give some un...I find (AD&D) that I'd rather give some uniqueness through description and "fluff" than make every magic item unique--it's honestly just too much bookkeeping to remember how each is supposed to be different. Again a reason for AD&D: a standardization house rules that lets you save your DMing energy for the situations of the game itself instead of houseruling every last thing.<br /><br />At one point I was part of a fun thread on Dragonsfoot (2-3 years ago? 4?) about the assumptions of the AD&D world. One, I think, is that the world used to be a lot more magical than it is now. The sacrifices needed to make magic items by the rules are pretty great, far too much for most to bother except for immediate use (and then generally scrolls and potions are going to come first and most often). But "at some point," the nature or science of magic made it much easier. I think it's up to your campaign to decide (or not) why this was so. But at any rate, it seems to be part of the assumption of the game, which is why so many daggers and long swords +1 are out there floating around. I have no problem with that or with saving the real special stuff for the much rarer, more special items (like the ranger in my group has an intelligent frostbrand shortsword that he named Gary after using a wish (!) to change its alignment from LE to NG. Gary knows much.Michael (in NYC)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07812962280866467016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-67221056915240574072010-04-28T17:14:08.177-04:002010-04-28T17:14:08.177-04:00>>it's clear to anyone who reads his rul...>>it's clear to anyone who reads his rulebook that it's very idiosyncratic in places and is sometimes out of sync with the rest D&D.<br /><br />I claim that this statement can be made with regard to any early D&D book, and arguably for any D&D book across any and all editions. I suspect there's a whole discussion to be had around the reasons for this and the early development of the game. (To that end, if you could point to resources for parties interested in these questions, I'd be grateful.)<br /><br />At any rate, I'll give you next the 1e DMG pages 92: "Any treasure possessed by weak, low-level monsters will be trifling compared to what numbers of stronger monsters might guard." Later on the same page: "In more inaccessible regions there will be stronger monsters - whether due to numbers or individual prowess is immaterial. These creatures will have more treasure, at least those with any at all."<br /><br />It seems very clear to this reader that Gygax had in mind some reasonable correlation between treasure and "its guardians", albeit not a nonsensical one. (Early in that section he does say "All monsters would not and should not possess treasure!")Michael Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994557942003895872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-75278760515284712482010-04-28T16:59:58.359-04:002010-04-28T16:59:58.359-04:00My DMG still has the pencilled in numbers represen...My DMG still has the pencilled in numbers representing the total number of each item in the game world. In some cases this was unlimited (brooms of flying - every coven has a few) but others were much more limited. There were two rings of regeneration and only 1 each of the different dragonslayers (red, green etc).<br /><br />Sometimes I used internal logic (like the dragonslayer swords) but mostly I used the value of the item as sa guide to its rarity. I may even have had a simple division factor for most of the items.<br /><br />If a "used up" item was rolled, then there was simply nothing.<br /><br />I think the low-level swords and armour should be pretty unlimited under the guise of simply being well-made rather than truly magical but each to their own.Nagorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04934827653905274555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-88845881535988984952010-04-28T15:38:48.836-04:002010-04-28T15:38:48.836-04:00James: "...no more sword +1 but instead The S...James: "...no more sword +1 but instead The Sword of Sir Evad FilzArn (which might well confer only a +1 bonus but has a history attached to it)."<br /><br />I'd say "too much work!". Sounds a lot like the road that late-era games take, transforming "Fighter Level 1" into multi-page starting backstories...<br /><br />For example, for my recent "Corsairs of Medero" game, I sat down and rolled up a whole bunch of pirate ship index-cards I could grab at random later on. See Vol-2 p. 5: Each has a Ftr8-9 captain, a few Ftr5-6 lieutenants, several F4 mates -- each with 3x5%/level chance for items. Not too bad by the book, but if I'd committed to making a "story" for each of the dozens of items rolled up... wow!Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-82786344381128867612010-04-28T14:54:04.887-04:002010-04-28T14:54:04.887-04:00Skeletons have no treasure type FWIW, but the larg...<i>Skeletons have no treasure type FWIW, but the larger point remains.</i><br /><br />Ha, yes, that will teach me to draw examples from a game I've barely played! But thank you for acknowledging the point, despite the fuzziness of the details, so that I don't look too silly! ;)thekelvingreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-50001556517786993112010-04-28T14:53:27.818-04:002010-04-28T14:53:27.818-04:00It also depends upon what your definition of magic...It also depends upon what your definition of magic items are. For example, in my games, which were high magic, weaponsmiths could make magic weapons, and are in fact the normal source of them. Meticulous craftmanship has it's own magic. Not that there were many smiths capable of forging +5 weapons in existence in the world, let alone ones holy enough to forge holy avengers, but there were enough to ensure that there was a small supply of "magic" weapons constantly available somewhere in the world.<br /><br />But these are all munition quality "magic" weapons. Not enough to be explicitly mentioned, although generally admired.<br /><br />The true magic weapons were the legendary ones that were named, that had histories and destinies. The artifact level magic weapons. <br /><br />[Which reminds me to recommend <i>Weapons of the Gods</i> on how to really handle the construction and implementation of magic weapons in a game.]<br /><br />So <i>Glamdring</i> wasn't just a +2 Longsword, +4 vs Orcs & Goblinkind, but rather an artifact level item of much greater power. It had a name.<br /><br /><i>D&D</i> always struck me as having this much greater level of magic, especially since I didn't consider the player character heroes to be anything remarkably special in the context of the campaign. In other words, while they were in the campaign, the campaign wasn't about them.<br /><br /><i>Runequest</i> on the other hand didn't really have that much in the way of magic items. Most treasure was exactly that: treasure. Clacks, and wheels, and lunars, with the possibility of jewellery. The real treasures, such as were presented in <i>Plunder</i> were worth far more than their weight in gold. Or were easily implementable, but came with horrible penalties (such as the infamous Dragonewt armour).<br /><br />The idea of D&D treasure was pervasive through a lot of the early hobby. But things soon changed. People started considering other things having equivalent worth, and so trade goods and artwork and the like started appearing in hoards. Just as treasure maps went from being actual maps, to journals, keys, and even paintings and mosaics showing what the ruins looked like when they were whole (very useful for working out where the Royal Mint used to be located, for example).Reverance Pavanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01217657347160811310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-34842679501732573902010-04-28T14:42:47.561-04:002010-04-28T14:42:47.561-04:00There certainly are problems with the treasure typ...<i>There certainly are problems with the treasure type system...</i><br /><br />I'm curious what, in your opinion, some of those problems might be...Axensmashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04143322676894548933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-38779028291330434182010-04-28T14:38:14.250-04:002010-04-28T14:38:14.250-04:00To be fair, I don't think Chaosium itself hype...<i>To be fair, I don't think Chaosium itself hyped RQ's differences as much as did its fans, which may well explain why -- in addition to its oddities -- I never got into RQ as much as I should have.</i><br /><br />I see that as a symptom of the same disease though. <br /><br />I think you could argue that the existence of RPG fans who WANT to identify themselves as "fans of something that's not D&D" is a heck of a good reason for companies to market their games that way. <br /><br />It's like the hipster kids who gravitate to Apple because it's different. <br /><br />Do games like Vampire market themselves that way to "create" (or attract) RPG fans who want something different? <br /><br />Or do the guys clearly looking for a different experience clue companies in that the opportunity exists?<br /><br />If I could answer these questions, I'd just play the stock market for a living ;)Vigilancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12302020918798504358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-66164373104975744012010-04-28T14:25:16.202-04:002010-04-28T14:25:16.202-04:00That said, I'm not sure D&D is entirely im...<i>That said, I'm not sure D&D is entirely immune to this problem, as it's still possible for skeletons to be carrying around bags of gold, and so on.</i><br /><br>Skeletons have no treasure type FWIW, but the larger point remains.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-62784766827464639572010-04-28T14:23:59.501-04:002010-04-28T14:23:59.501-04:00If you assume authorial infallibility with respect...<i>If you assume authorial infallibility with respect to the design the sure, but the intent seems clear.</i><br /><br>I guess, for me, the question is whether there are any other discussions of treasure types and their use that might shed more light on this question. I don't want to discount Holmes entirely, but it's clear to anyone who reads his rulebook that it's very idiosyncratic in places and is sometimes out of sync with the rest <i>D&D</i>. Though Gygax approved it, he was waist-deep in working on <i>AD&D</i> at the time and, by his own admission, didn't give it the attention it needed, which is why it includes stuff like the Dex-based initiative, roll-to-hit <i>magic missile</i> spells, and references to witches as a sub-class of MU, among other things.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.com