[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Magic Item creation: Notes D thru H. What? What???

Did I respond to you?  Sorry about that -- I thought I was replying to DMG (who I think is the guy that was originally talking about status).

For me "status" is really more about "reputation," and that's not something that translates very easily into game terms -- I base it more on roleplaying and events in the campaign, and it can have both positive and negative benefits depending on the nature of the reputation and who (or what) you're interacting with.  I've read GURPS' rules on reputation, and they are so convoluted for a reason; it's hard to quantify and then come up with an easy rule to reflect how it all comes together when dealing with different kinds of people in different types of situations.  Honestly, this is one of those situations where D&D's "alignment" system actually works "better" (i.e., it's simpler).  What we really need to do is come up with something that isn't quite as confining as "alignment" but works in just as simple a way.

A reputation as a great sorcerer might be both a good thing and a bad thing, and just because one is a great sorcerer doesn't mean he or she actually has a reputation for making great magic items.  After all, you gotta admit that Sauron made some pretty kick-ass magical items, but his reputation wasn't such that anyone was likely to ask him to whip a ring of invisibility for them!  It wasn't really what he was known for...

Then too, as you point out below -- what if the reputation is pure hype?  It wouldn't be the first time that a merchant or a company of them (read "Wizard's Guild") tried to convince people that their product was better than any other version based on less than truth in advertising.

From: Peter von Kleinsmid <pvk@oz.net>
To: tft@brainiac.com
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Magic Item creation: Notes D thru H. What? What???

I think you were thinking that someone's previous post about status
was from me.

I myself would think that yes status would be a separate social
status/market status not necessarily determined by attributes or
spells. Especially, as you say, not before they've actually used
their IQ to make things and established a status by their actions.

Though once they have done that, if higher IQ leads to better items
(as in our house rules) then that might (or might not) lead to higher
status. The DX would be a big factor too, especially in games where
the GM doesn't have all strong wizards have DX 14+ just because
"everyone competent can & should get their DX up". But I would think
it would be (more realistic and interesting if) based on actual
results rather than a straight formula based on knowing actual
attribute values, which I like not to do for immersion/logic reasons.

I'd expect different wizards to charge different rates for their
time, but as you wrote in the bit I quoted, I agree that it might not
be a multiplying factor to cost, but likely instead to be a higher
cost per effort spent. And if a wizard is so good they tend to make
items faster (through more interesting enchantment rules, or just
making their rolls more often), I'd tend to expect that might cost
more rather than less, or be a combination where maybe it is based on
the time actually taken, but the rate is higher because the time
tends to be shorter than others (and because the resulting item may
be better). In the real world, various types of contracts and pricing
trade-offs exist for example for engineering work (e.g. some charge
based on time & materials, while others are a fixed amount). Again,
cost & quality vs. time and risk, where any of those might be
somewhat unknown and based on reputation.

Another thing that happens in the real world a lot is people charging
a lot as if they were better than competitors even when they're not,
or vice versa.


At 10:31 PM 11/14/2016, Jeffrey Vandine wrote:
>"Status," then, equals IQ?  That was something you didn't make clear
>at all.  I assumed "status" was something earned somehow in your campaign.
>From: Peter von Kleinsmid <pvk@oz.net>
>To: tft@brainiac.com
>Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 5:31 PM
>Subject: Re: Magic Item creation: Notes D thru H. What? What???
>At 03:09 PM 11/4/2016, Jeffrey Vandine wrote:
> >Hmm.  I can see the status of the magician in question figuring into
> >the base price -- that makes absolute sense; when you hire the very
> >best, you PAY for the very best.  But I'm not sure I'd agree with
> >factoring that in as a changing cost factor like this.  It's almost
> >like you're saying the guy's status goes up based on the magic item
> >he has yet to create.  Now AFTER he creates, I could see something
> >like that applying ("Wow! You got Heironymous the Truly Active to
> >create your +5 Magical periapt?  Remember the job he did on that
> >Ring of Wishes?  Amazing!"), but BEFORE doing it?  Not so sure I
> >follow that logic.
> >
> >Not saying you're wrong, just saying it doesn't seem logical to
> >me.  But thanks for explaining it.  That helped.
>When we added magic item breakdown rules, the IQ of the creator was
>the base reliability of the item, so it did matter who created it.
>Even if it didn't, it would make some sense that it would cost more
>for more competent creators (for the failure checks) and important
>people (because their time is worth more because they could be doing
>other things).
>As for the underlying item costs going up by the rate of risk of
>rolling 18, it seems pretty clear that's about an 18 destroying the
>underlying item.
>It seemed pretty clear to us too that these costs were the minimum
>costs, and that actual prices would tend to be higher because a
>Wizard's Guild that can create magic items would tend to have more
>demand than it could supply, as well as many competing demands, needs
>and interests for the attentions of powerful wizards, which get more
>and more extreme the more powerful the person you're talking about.
>As for using a Charm, I would tend to think that a Charm should not
>apply to rolls that represent two entire weeks of work.
>Post to the entire list by writing to
>Unsubscribe by mailing to
><mailto:majordomo@brainiac.com>majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
>"unsubscribe tft"


Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"