Poll regarding magic items

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon May 25, 2009 5:05 pm

When reading magic items, do you prefer full item descriptions, such as what it is made of, who crafted it, and tidbits of history, or do you just want the name and what it does? Does it bother you when items are named after a NPC who may not exist within your own game world, such as XXXX's Axe of Execution, preferring it simply is called "Axe of Execution?"

Trying to get an idea of what might be the suggested method for my upcoming project which will have quite a few new magic items in it... and, if it can be done quicker without having to write out full descriptions, then it can also be produced quicker (and saves a lot of room, thereby reducing cost.)
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Mon May 25, 2009 5:09 pm

I like a bot of history. Something like in the 1e DMG is a good thing. It's great stuff to prime the imagination and fill in some things in your world that may be missing.

I know my original world from my AD&D games borrowed some from the descrips in the 1e DMG.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

cinderblock · Post by **cinderblock** » Mon May 25, 2009 5:21 pm

I'm with JG. A little goes a long way. I can either run with the background given and expand it if necessary or toss it out if I don't care for it while with long item histories you feel a little stuck. Not saying you can't do the same thing but it feels like I just paid for an item with several pages (if many items are in the book) I will never use. And not too much statisical info either otherwise it reads like stereo instructions.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon May 25, 2009 5:49 pm

As far as "history" of an item, I don't know. I don't necessarily need Kilgore's Pick Axe of Mighty Impaling and a history of that item, like it's unique. I'm fine with a Sword +2, because I can either make up the history of the item, if need be, or I can leave it a sword +2 - sometimes magic items don't have or need lengthy descriptions. Now, if we're talking full descriptions like others have said from the 1st Edition DMG, that's a different story...I like their fully detailed approach. Artifacts are ones to be left for detail descriptions, but even then, if it doesn't suit my campaign, the descriptions won't make it in my game, as written.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Relaxo · Post by **Relaxo** » Mon May 25, 2009 6:00 pm

Same with me, a tad of history, easily dumped or expanded.

A skeleton upon which to add the meat.

More than just, "it does blah blah blah"

Perhaps at the beginning of the chapter, add an example to show how it can be expanded upon to plant the seeds but leave it open to the individual CK. If each item has a 200 word graf of it's rich detailed history since the dawn of creation, that's usually too much and wasted space.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Mon May 25, 2009 6:18 pm

I voted 'yes' but really, it depends on the nature of the product. If these are a handful of items in an adventure module for instance, I'd say 'no' to 'little' history.

If the product is dedicated to magic items and other associated things, I'd say develop a history but don't tie it down to much as to make it difficult to insert in one's campaign setting. I suppose that's common sense and there's always an exception but mentioning 'long lost cities' or a figure from 'ages past' is always cool and provides additional seeds that a GM can use to spring off more material.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Plaag · Post by **Plaag** » Mon May 25, 2009 6:35 pm

I do like the way Earthdawn did there magic items, course over the years I've tended to give each item some character even if its a makers mark for the more common +1 weapons, etc. So a little history works, just a name and powers not so much.

ShaneG.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon May 25, 2009 8:53 pm

I like what it is made of and a name of the crafter, maybe, upon occasion, a little bit more than that.

Those 3E books that gave those big histories on Rings, Swords, etc...? Waaaay too much.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Mon May 25, 2009 9:44 pm

If an item is named after Mordenkanen or somebody who doesnt exist in our dimension we're playing on then the name simply gets changed (to Merlin or Thulsa Doom or somebody)

Other times items like the Necronomicon that everyone knows the history of spice the game up pretty well.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:44 pm

If it is in a collection of magic items like M&T, then I can do without any history. If it is a unique item and part of a module/setting and is tied to the campaign then some history is a good thing.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:15 am

OK. Here is something I was considering including, and probably still will, just to show the type of thing I was thinking of when starting the poll:
Padded Armor of a Padfoot: Originally crafted for an aristocrat turned aspiring rogue, padded armor of a padfoot is a thiefs boon, for it endows the wearer with great agility and coordination, boosting latent talent and providing such where there is none. The silk strands are supple and dark, seemingly clinging to the flesh beneath, making a rather striking image. But, the real magic is in the abilities bestowed: if one does not naturally possess any class ability of the rogue class, the armor grants it at 1st level of use, never to improve; if, however, one does have such skills, they are amplified, effectively gaining a +1 level to each such trait in either case, Dexterity is considered Prime for resolution of roguish abilities only, even if it would not be otherwise. Nearly every suit of this armor is emblazoned with the symbol of one thief guild or another, to which the wearer had better be able to prove allegiance, or death is the usual result even rivals do not let armor of this kind slip through, though they may simply wish to claim it as their own.

The above is copyright 2009, Atomic Clock Enterprises [tm]. Author: Robert Doyel.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

SirClarence · Post by **SirClarence** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:34 am

I like magic items that come along with a full history, especially when they're items of an unusual kind. Not every +1 sword needs one, but those that are rare or even unique should always have one.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue May 26, 2009 8:18 am

serl - it looks like an interesting item, but it's going to take up an awful lot of space if you got a lot of magic items as...verbose...as this one. Don't get me wrong - if this is going into a supplement that will focus on these types of items (detailed magical items), then that's awesome. Or, if the tone of your whole supplment is this way (detailed and descriptive), then I would also say that's fine. And I'm just guessing but if the rest of the book reads like a typical RPG book, and the items all read like this, it may seem a little weird.

But even taking it by itself it seems a little too much of a narritive for my personal tastes....but that's me. If you're fine with it, that's all that matters, hoss. I wouldn't not buy a product because of it's lengthy magic item descriptions.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue May 26, 2009 10:42 am

I dig it Serl. Generic history gives the item some personality without making it campaign specific. A CK can plug it in as is.

Grey · Post by **Grey** » Tue May 26, 2009 11:05 am

Serl, I agree with DD, the example gives a nice 'feel' but is generalised enough to easily drop into an ongoing game (and may even spark a few ideas....)
D.

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Tue May 26, 2009 1:35 pm

Grey wrote:
Serl, I agree with DD, the example gives a nice 'feel' but is generalised enough to easily drop into an ongoing game (and may even spark a few ideas....)
D.

+1
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

Jynx · Post by **Jynx** » Tue May 26, 2009 2:19 pm

Serl... I like it but it depends in what prouct it ends up in.

Generally I like to see just 2 or 3 sentences for items in a module, but the item you described is not your typical +1 sword. It's certainly generic enough to be used in any campaign.

If, on the other hand, this were a collection of magical items put in a book that the CK can use as a resource, then what you've got there is fantastic! In fact what you can do if this were that type of resource is accompany the description with a suggestion of how it was made or used in the past - to hopefully inspire a CK to use it in an adventure somehow.

Now I wish my rogue had one... How much does it cost?

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue May 26, 2009 2:26 pm

10 Billion Dollars.

Jynx · Post by **Jynx** » Tue May 26, 2009 2:39 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
10 Billion Dollars.

What does that translate to into Gold Coins?

And did you say that with your little pinky finger touching the corner of your mouth?

Jyrdan Fairblade · Post by **Jyrdan Fairblade** » Tue May 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Most of the time, I like a fancy name and history to go with a magic item. It makes it more magical when it's not just numbers and flashy powers.

That being said, there's also a place for simple items - sometimes that magic item's history is going to be written by the PCs, as they carve their own legends.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:04 pm

The work in question covers a wide variety of magical things, in various ways. Spell components ("power components" which I have renamed in the work,) non-Vancian casting, artifacts (and their creations / powers), planes of existence (and demons / devils), monsters (shamans / witchdoctors, creation of golems, lich, and other undead), new classes (alchemist / necromancer and "true wizards" which are specialist casters in "common gaming language" which also means there are "spell schools" but are not called that), spell creation, uses of permanency and "unintended effects," and tons of new magic items (3 for everything listed in the PHB, none of which are "blah blah +1")... so, umm, it is not a module, and is more a supplement. I've left out some things being covered, simply because these should give an idea of the intended scope.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Greg Ellis · Post by **Greg Ellis** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:12 pm

serleran wrote:
OK. Here is something I was considering including, and probably still will, just to show the type of thing I was thinking of when starting the poll:
Padded Armor of a Padfoot: Originally crafted for an aristocrat turned aspiring rogue, padded armor of a padfoot is a thiefs boon, for it endows the wearer with great agility and coordination, boosting latent talent and providing such where there is none. The silk strands are supple and dark, seemingly clinging to the flesh beneath, making a rather striking image. But, the real magic is in the abilities bestowed: if one does not naturally possess any class ability of the rogue class, the armor grants it at 1st level of use, never to improve; if, however, one does have such skills, they are amplified, effectively gaining a +1 level to each such trait in either case, Dexterity is considered Prime for resolution of roguish abilities only, even if it would not be otherwise. Nearly every suit of this armor is emblazoned with the symbol of one thief guild or another, to which the wearer had better be able to prove allegiance, or death is the usual result even rivals do not let armor of this kind slip through, though they may simply wish to claim it as their own.

The above is copyright 2009, Atomic Clock Enterprises [tm]. Author: Robert Doyel.

I would focus more on the appearance, form and function, rather than the history. Also, try to be a bit more generic - in this particular instance, you seem to be suggesting that there is only one suit of armor like this, that was made for one specific aristocrat. It seems more likely that many such suits might exist, and perhaps for reasons unknown.

I would write it up something like this:
Armor of the Padfoot: This padded armor is frequently dark in color, and made from expensive materials such as silk and linen. Most examples are prominently marked with the symbol of a thieves' guild. When worn, this lightweight armor grants AC ?? and allows a thief to perform his class abilities as if he were one level higher. Non-thieves who wear this armor gain the abilities of a 1st level thief.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:24 pm

*ding*

Very nice.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:29 pm

Quote:
you seem to be suggesting that there is only one suit of armor like this, that was made for one specific aristocrat. It seems more likely that many such suits might exist, and perhaps for reasons unknown.

No, I am suggesting the first suit was made for an aristocrat, sort of how the first holy avenger was made for a paladin, or whatever -- being first does not equate to being the only. Obviously with the remainder of the description, there is the implication that additional suits exist (or there could not be "nearly every suit" if there was but one in existence) ... but, how and why, well, that is purposefully vague.

But, the feedback is appreciated. I don't think your example is very evocative. It basically just says "this does that" which people have polled as not wanting (unless I have misread the responses.) However, you are right -- the "aristocrat" thing is simple to remove -- its like 7 words, and all are unnecessary.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:36 pm

The example that Greg Ellis provides is what I consider a basic description of a magic item. You can take a little history from the description, but it is easy to fit into any campaign. I think for the purposes of this poll, this description can added to slightly to form what is the 3rd choice.

Frankly, a product as you describe could fit into all of the poll categories. Why not have some items with tons of description, some with just a basic history, and some with no description beyond the mechanical abilities of the item? This would give such a product full use by many of those polled, and probably be even more useful to some CKs.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Plaag · Post by **Plaag** » Tue May 26, 2009 6:11 pm

I like the example you gave serleran. The history and even the description are fluff, one can take those abilities and apply it to leather armor, cloak, etc. As presented though it adds for those Judges a uniqueness to the item that can lead to further adventures or encounters regarding it. Those who want the crunch shall have it, and those who want the fluff get that to. A good balance.

ShaneG.

Jynx · Post by **Jynx** » Tue May 26, 2009 6:32 pm

I like both!

How about doing this way:

- The 1st paragrah is the basic crunch as Greg Ellis posted. Clean, quick and to the point.

- The 2nd paragraph has an 'optional' historical fact about the item(s)

If the product supplement is done in such a way to handle both situatoins, then you've got a winner.

just my 2 coppers...

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue May 26, 2009 7:13 pm

I voted "yes" because I like full description, but if history was included in that, then I probably should have voted for option #3. I like a little bit of extraneous information, but not a ton. GE's revision would be what I would go for, personally. But like Jynx said, it depends on the product. If it's in a module or "Core" rulebook, then I think serl's original description is a little too much for my personal tastes. If it's part of a collection of magic items or the like, then I think it would be great.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue May 26, 2009 7:18 pm

Jynx's idea I think is optimum.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Jynx · Post by **Jynx** » Tue May 26, 2009 8:45 pm

Also... even though I was joking earlier in this discussion about the cost, a recomended cost would be nice along with any other 'crunchy bits' but since some or most of that would be 'setting specific', I would leave it as simply optional to the reader.

If, of course, the page count is important, then cutting down on such extras would be wise I suppose.

Whatever it is, it's something that I would definately get!