I've encountered Gygax's maxims before, yes. He actually wrote in his book that the players in a game had no right to know the rules of said game, and they just needed to trust the DM to make all the calls. I find the idea to be utter horseshit. We know, in everyday life, what the rules are. At least, in a physical sense. We know what we can do, we know what we can't, and we generally have a decent idea of what we might be able to do if we push. We know our training, we know the physical laws of our world. We know our strengths and weaknesses as people, and how that sets us up in the wider world. If we take a given action in a given situation, we're generally going to know how it'll go.
Or if not, once we do it once we'll know because the world is consistent (people and their lunacy notwithstanding) and the same action in the same situation produces the same result. That's how life is.
Telling players "you have no clue how anything works and nothing will ever work the same way twice, just throw shit at the wall and see if you get lucky enough to pure-chance your way to the end" is a great recipe for never getting past session 2. If the player cannot trust the information they're given or the actions they can take, why bother? Just roll percentile to see if you end up saving the dragon from the evil princess in the end and be done with it. You're clearly not playing a game, since games have rules, consistency, and the ability to exercise skill to make better decisions.
Or, to put it short: Gygax can suck eggs, his method blows ass.
The real problem with a crafting system is that a crafting system that's actually setting plausible will amount to "If you start crafting an item when the campaign starts, by the time it ends you might be half way done". At which point there's no reason to include it because PCs will never use it.
Look. Crafting is generally about two things, depending on if you're crafting consumables or permanent items.
Consumables? The crafter wants to use their skills to be prepared, to lay in supplies and know they're more likely to succeed due to proper planning and preparation.
Permanent items? The player wants to express their creativity, and quite possibly engage in some fun game design to make their character unique.
DMs, as a general meme/"rule", ******* hate both objectives. To hear The Internet DM tell it, letting players do the legwork and prepare for a difficult encounter ahead of time is cheating, they didn't earn that win if they didn't take it on in the most dangerous least effective, and least intelligent way possible.
And the second fork of crafting, where a player wants to create something cool and unique to them? The most egregious cheating of all. After all, everybody knows players just want nothing but powergaming nonsense. They couldn't possibly assemble trinkets, treasures and trophies of their time with the party into an interesting memento, possibly with minor magical effects drawn from/similar to the Magical Quirks table in the DMG. Why let players be creative and work on getting more invested in their characters and the story they've told together? That's just absolutely not fair, being creative is the DM's sole prerogative!
Yeesh.
Just unclench, trust your players to want to help you make a fun game together with all your friends, and figure out some cool way to let the preppers prep and the creatives be creative.
Ex. to make Sword of flames = Tool proficiency (blacksmithing) + weapon/metal + magic components + key element for a creature type that have fire attacks. This also give more usefulness to tool proficiency.
You basically just described the system in xanathar's.
Close but not the same, what im asking is a more described pieces on materials and components with a more define tables that will save a lot of trouble for the DMs and make it easier for players.
Ex. to make Sword of flames = Tool proficiency (blacksmithing) + weapon/metal + magic components + key element for a creature type that have fire attacks. This also give more usefulness to tool proficiency.
You basically just described the system in xanathar's.
Close but not the same, what im asking is a more described pieces on materials and components with a more define tables that will save a lot of trouble for the DMs and make it easier for players.
Agreed. That’s what WotC needs to do to make crafting better. A detailed list of components and materials needed for magic items and other stuff.
Just unclench, trust your players to want to help you make a fun game together with all your friends, and figure out some cool way to let the preppers prep and the creatives be creative.
My core problem is: I don't want an adventure game to turn into "PCs begging for downtime so they can do crafting". I'd be okay with something like "every level, you may craft a consumable item. Every three levels, you may craft a permanent item".
Just unclench, trust your players to want to help you make a fun game together with all your friends, and figure out some cool way to let the preppers prep and the creatives be creative.
My core problem is: I don't want an adventure game to turn into "PCs begging for downtime so they can do crafting". I'd be okay with something like "every level, you may craft a consumable item. Every three levels, you may craft a permanent item".
D&D isnt just about what you, the DM wants, its about what both the players and the DM want out of a game. And just because you dont want it doesnt mean there shouldnt be a system in place. You can just choose not to use it.
The OTHER thing, Gwar, is that not everybody vibes on the loosey-goosey, no-rules, make-it-up-as-you-go style, where nothing is consistent, chaos is the only constant, and you never have the faintest foggiest idea what your character is and is not capable of. Knowing what you can do, what you can't do, and what you might be able to do if you roll well is a critical foundation of making effective decisions in a game, and the fewer hard rules there are the less you get to know those things. A certain degree of improvisational flex is excellent and a necessity for the game - but so is a skeleton firm enough to allow players to improvise with confidence.
its not about loosey goosey, its about learning what type of rules and systems your players need and when to bend them. And how to adapt or incorporate things on the fly. I wasn't implying to just make up stuff at all times. There is no way you can have marketable table top game that covers every possibility players/gms can come up with. The GM has to either follow a very on the rails module, or they need to learn how to build, create, adapt, or improvise things that make sense with the system.
The thing I was replying to was the concept that in order to be a good rpg, DMs shouldn't have to improvise or create. And I disagree, they are good DMs because they learn how to do those things. For some groups, crafting is bad, and should be avoided or handwaved, for other groups it might be an important focus. The strength of the TTRPG system is that humans are involved in the process, and can adapt.
Ex. to make Sword of flames = Tool proficiency (blacksmithing) + weapon/metal + magic components + key element for a creature type that have fire attacks. This also give more usefulness to tool proficiency.
You basically just described the system in xanathar's.
Close but not the same, what im asking is a more described pieces on materials and components with a more define tables that will save a lot of trouble for the DMs and make it easier for players.
Sounds like stripping the creativity out it. Because, no matter how many times you write, here are some examples for how to do it, people will read, this is the one and only RAW way to make a flame tongue sword. It says you can use red dragon scales, will become, you can only use red dragon scales. And, if you start putting tables in the DMG, you end up cutting out any ingredients that come from creatures published after the DMG.
And, do you really need a table to tell you which creatures use fire? Or can fly? Or really anything else you might want to lay on a magic item? It’s not hard to find an appropriate monster. Hint, search the word fire in dndbeyond and filter by monsters. It is not a good use of finite space in the DMG.
And from a metagame standpoint, it seems like a hassle for me as a DM. If I, as a DM know a player really wants a flame tongue, and I think, why not, I can just give them one. Jumping through a bunch of extra hoops for one player — which then becomes jumping through them for everyone — seems like it just slows down the actual narrative. It’s not like a video game where the quest giver will stand there patiently while you go gathering ingredients and forging better gear. Unless you contrive some reason for the bad guy to go on vacation for a few weeks. Or turn the actual act of forging the sword as something you can knock out in a long rest.
Ex. to make Sword of flames = Tool proficiency (blacksmithing) + weapon/metal + magic components + key element for a creature type that have fire attacks. This also give more usefulness to tool proficiency.
You basically just described the system in xanathar's.
Close but not the same, what im asking is a more described pieces on materials and components with a more define tables that will save a lot of trouble for the DMs and make it easier for players.
Agreed. That’s what WotC needs to do to make crafting better. A detailed list of components and materials needed for magic items and other stuff.
thats not really something that would make it better, it makes it unusable/workable for many campaigns. The baseline rules are the ones that should be the same for most tables. Detailed lists are something the DM should create, or maybe have third party publishers do
Just unclench, trust your players to want to help you make a fun game together with all your friends, and figure out some cool way to let the preppers prep and the creatives be creative.
My core problem is: I don't want an adventure game to turn into "PCs begging for downtime so they can do crafting". I'd be okay with something like "every level, you may craft a consumable item. Every three levels, you may craft a permanent item".
uh, as someone said, its about what everyone wants. That said, you are correct that the design of crafting, and to an extent bastions, is in opposition to the general game flow. They are both too dependent on tracking time passing, when most games don't even engage with time like that.
I think its fine to have downtime activities, but players should also be able to actively pursue things, and, get things done while adventuring. I think exp should be another option for progressing certain things. The rules for crafting were kind of crazy to me, the time in workweeks was far beyond the time to level. Like 10 work weeks for 1 rare item. 70days, in 70days, adventures are likely to go from level 1-13.
Unless the campaign is designed to be short bursts of adventures with long waiting periods, crafting would never be relevant, as they designed it. The assumption is mostly that they designed crafting to not be viable for most games. Bastions, while it does allow adventurers to get things done while adventuring, still line up very poorly with active adventuring campaigns. (better than old crafting though)
Consumables? The crafter wants to use their skills to be prepared, to lay in supplies and know they're more likely to succeed due to proper planning and preparation.
Permanent items? The player wants to express their creativity, and quite possibly engage in some fun game design to make their character unique.
DMs, as a general meme/"rule", ******* hate both objectives. To hear The Internet DM tell it, letting players do the legwork and prepare for a difficult encounter ahead of time is cheating, they didn't earn that win if they didn't take it on in the most dangerous least effective, and least intelligent way possible.
And the second fork of crafting, where a player wants to create something cool and unique to them? The most egregious cheating of all. After all, everybody knows players just want nothing but powergaming nonsense. They couldn't possibly assemble trinkets, treasures and trophies of their time with the party into an interesting memento, possibly with minor magical effects drawn from/similar to the Magical Quirks table in the DMG. Why let players be creative and work on getting more invested in their characters and the story they've told together? That's just absolutely not fair, being creative is the DM's sole prerogative!
I don't mind crafting as long as the players express some thinking that makes sense. No, you're not going to be able to cook up a potion of invisibility from the wyvern venom!
I had once told a player that the components to a magical summoning horn were a bull-demon horn, 5 feet of leather from a beast killed with thunder magic, and an indestructible mouthpiece. The irony of ironies was that in the adventure they were running there was in fact an indestructible mouthpiece which I didn't know was there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Ex. to make Sword of flames = Tool proficiency (blacksmithing) + weapon/metal + magic components + key element for a creature type that have fire attacks. This also give more usefulness to tool proficiency.
You basically just described the system in xanathar's.
Close but not the same, what im asking is a more described pieces on materials and components with a more define tables that will save a lot of trouble for the DMs and make it easier for players.
Sounds like stripping the creativity out it. Because, no matter how many times you write, here are some examples for how to do it, people will read, this is the one and only RAW way to make a flame tongue sword. It says you can use red dragon scales, will become, you can only use red dragon scales. And, if you start putting tables in the DMG, you end up cutting out any ingredients that come from creatures published after the DMG.
And, do you really need a table to tell you which creatures use fire? Or can fly? Or really anything else you might want to lay on a magic item? It’s not hard to find an appropriate monster. Hint, search the word fire in dndbeyond and filter by monsters. It is not a good use of finite space in the DMG.
And from a metagame standpoint, it seems like a hassle for me as a DM. If I, as a DM know a player really wants a flame tongue, and I think, why not, I can just give them one. Jumping through a bunch of extra hoops for one player — which then becomes jumping through them for everyone — seems like it just slows down the actual narrative. It’s not like a video game where the quest giver will stand there patiently while you go gathering ingredients and forging better gear. Unless you contrive some reason for the bad guy to go on vacation for a few weeks. Or turn the actual act of forging the sword as something you can knock out in a long rest.
Maybe i did not came across right but what u mention is exactly what i meant when i said for a flame sword u need to kill a fire monster NOT you need a specific monster, what i want is basic guidelines as everything in the game u can homebrew but having some basic help a lot for ppl with no creativity and still want to be DM and cant handle creating a world, a story, and stuff to please the players at the same time.
As for what u say if a DM dont wanna have a HASSLE letting the player going through HOOPs to FEEL like his class features (Artificer) are useful or using the damn mechanics for crafting in the game and simply give the Item, then i ask of you what are the mechanics for crafting for in the Core books also NOT everyone just wanna GIVE AWAY STUFF.
All I ask is simple stuff that let the world feel more complete without having to HOMEBREW almost every other hole in the Rule books as not everyone is in a Rushed adventure to save the world and never have down time. Some players just wanna enjoy the Travels not the destination.
So, I don't know if I count as a good, bad or indifferent DM in the wider scheme of things, but my players like what I do.
I like "light crunch" and "medium body" -- so I don't want the Granola of RPGs, I want the sweetened oat and corn stuff. Not even gonna pretend otherwise.
Crunch is the detail and complexity of rules,
Body is the detail and complexity of "lore".
Collectively, we also like math rocks and the dice of destiny. So everything needs to have a roll.
We actually play downtime to a degree. We have role playing for the boring stuff that is usually "behind the black", because they wanted it and they enjoy it, but I also don't need to be begged for downtime; if they decide to leave the dungeon and go to town, they leave the dungeon, go to town, do the stuff, and come back.
So, the key there is playstyle -- my games are player driven. I sorta expect them to want to spend the time to collect the special stuff to create the Lance of Passion so they can end the BBEG once and for all because no one else bothered to do so the 36 times previously that the BBEG rose up from their own ashes.
A lot of games are story driven. A huge chunk of games are DM driven.
imo, those two have the problem of they have to try and predict player actions. I gave up trying to predict player actions (and predictive modeling of people's actions is what I do for a living) because inevitably when trying to do so you are going to drift away from core to edge cases since most folks don't give consideration to probability and "there is always that one".
There is a whole field of social psychology about that, lol.
But worse is that they have to predict player actions within a constrained environment (typically a written module) that essentially ends options like "leave the dungeon" for many. It is, really, the logical conclusion of those approaches, so it isn't a fault, merely a problem, and it helps to reduce the variables, but it does nothing to effect edge cases, and so that is where the focus will shift for them -- and edge cases are edge cases because they are rare.
But what happens when you have edge cases that are shifting the curve -- for example, some popular YTuber has a channel and does a whole ting about some crazy wild stunt they were able to pull off they tell a good story and it goes viral amon the player base?
That's the "OMG< if we put in rules about this or that, this will happen." So, typically, to minimize edge cases, you have to design to reduce them -- that predicting the player actions" thing.
So, using the existing rules, you have this:
Goal = Material + Time + Special + Proficiency. The roll is against a DC of usually the rarity of the item in question.
Xanathar's updates this a bit, giving a little more detail to the Material and the Special.
in games with a lot of magical items, Rarity is sorta ignored, making it pretty useless, because rarity as written is meant to indicate not only frequency of availability but also challenge in creating. It is zero crunch, no body.
5e generally goes for the Corn flakes degree of crunch -- it's there at the start, but it gets soggy if there's too much around it, lol.
They also go the almost intangible Body route -- and when they do give things some body, they do it with FR as their basis (the default setting, because Body is deeply tied to setting lore).
So, for over half of all the DMs out there, if the rules introduce too much body, they get grumpy. A List of what comprises Material and Special has to be made based on the idea of what is most likely (highest probability) to be present in at least 80% of games and are the most popular options (the common design goal baseline).
As we are talking about what *could* be in a crafting system, it is important we recognize that design goal -- what are the most popular options, including among folks who don't want crafting in the game (who are *right now* a minority voice, though this has not always been the case and will not always be the case, because it is a factor of popularity).
I am of the general thinking that they want to do a crafting system that is about Corn Flake level of crunch, and very light Body. So they'll make it as generic as they can and rely on underlying core tools -- so if they did come up with a list of parts for monsters, they wouldn't assign a gold value to it and they would use the classification of monsters system.
So, this Special is an organ from a CR 12 creature of the Aberration type. Combine that special with a Material that has this Property and this Rarity. Use this amount of TIme based on this DC.
And, because they want to keep it simple, those things would be probably not longer than 10 or 15 items each, meant to give DMs an idea of how to create their own tables for such that are more Body heavy.
Because they probably are not going to use the PF style thing -- first and foremost, it is a PF thing,and there is politics there, and just, yeah, no. To them, not cool.
They generally cannot use the Video Game style, which really is built around the notion of "gather all ye goods and mash them together to make ye a mightier weapon". The reason for this is that a detailed list of materials is going to have to turn to Lore, and that would alienate a lot of folks, even if they wanted to use one, because people are still lazy nd if there is a list, they will use it, and if it doesn't work for their world, then they will skip over it.
And that isn't even thinking about weirdos like me who basically stripped all the inspiration from between 1920 and 1980 out of their game. They literally cannot effectively do Body for me, I am an edge case because all the sources don't "fit". So don't think I am speaking from my experience.
I have neither hostility nor welcome to crafting. I have "does it make the game more fun?". My players think it does, and a few of them want it so they can create the +25 godslayer spear, even if it takes them 60 years to make it. Others want it so they can have an income for when they are not out adventuring. Others want it because they like the idea of being able to tinker with stuff and I don't have an Artificer class (they are very unpopular in our group, and that's 6 DMs of which two are mechanical engineers, lol).
Yes, edge case, but also, that's within the curve for the majority of expectations. And what they want is for me to have an idea of what critters they will need for their Special and what materials are available. Which, in my case, will likely be something I do on the fly for the Special, or use an existing material (because I do have a list of materials).
So, for me, I think they need to increase the level of Crunch, but not Body.
A lot of the comments so far speak to Body, not Crunch. Hell, a lot of the comments basically say to use a system like the existing one, just phrased differently.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think its fine to have downtime activities, but players should also be able to actively pursue things, and, get things done while adventuring. I think exp should be another option for progressing certain things. The rules for crafting were kind of crazy to me, the time in workweeks was far beyond the time to level.
The time requirements for crafting are totally reasonable from a worldbuilding perspective. They're just ... not useful to most PCs.
Ex. to make Sword of flames = Tool proficiency (blacksmithing) + weapon/metal + magic components + key element for a creature type that have fire attacks. This also give more usefulness to tool proficiency.
You basically just described the system in xanathar's.
Close but not the same, what im asking is a more described pieces on materials and components with a more define tables that will save a lot of trouble for the DMs and make it easier for players.
Agreed. That’s what WotC needs to do to make crafting better. A detailed list of components and materials needed for magic items and other stuff.
thats not really something that would make it better, it makes it unusable/workable for many campaigns. The baseline rules are the ones that should be the same for most tables. Detailed lists are something the DM should create, or maybe have third party publishers do
Just unclench, trust your players to want to help you make a fun game together with all your friends, and figure out some cool way to let the preppers prep and the creatives be creative.
My core problem is: I don't want an adventure game to turn into "PCs begging for downtime so they can do crafting". I'd be okay with something like "every level, you may craft a consumable item. Every three levels, you may craft a permanent item".
uh, as someone said, its about what everyone wants. That said, you are correct that the design of crafting, and to an extent bastions, is in opposition to the general game flow. They are both too dependent on tracking time passing, when most games don't even engage with time like that.
I think its fine to have downtime activities, but players should also be able to actively pursue things, and, get things done while adventuring. I think exp should be another option for progressing certain things. The rules for crafting were kind of crazy to me, the time in workweeks was far beyond the time to level. Like 10 work weeks for 1 rare item. 70days, in 70days, adventures are likely to go from level 1-13.
Unless the campaign is designed to be short bursts of adventures with long waiting periods, crafting would never be relevant, as they designed it. The assumption is mostly that they designed crafting to not be viable for most games. Bastions, while it does allow adventurers to get things done while adventuring, still line up very poorly with active adventuring campaigns. (better than old crafting though)
WotC should at least give examples of components from creatures that will fit the magic item for crafting. Like 2 or 3 examples each magic item.
For example the component for an Elemental Gem is essence from an elemental or a Staff of the Python could be a heart of Giant Constrictor Snake.
But what would be good for a Spell-Wrought Tattoo? Or even a +1 magic weapon or armor?
So, I don't know if I count as a good, bad or indifferent DM in the wider scheme of things, but my players like what I do.
I like "light crunch" and "medium body" -- so I don't want the Granola of RPGs, I want the sweetened oat and corn stuff. Not even gonna pretend otherwise.
Crunch is the detail and complexity of rules,
Body is the detail and complexity of "lore".
Collectively, we also like math rocks and the dice of destiny. So everything needs to have a roll.
We actually play downtime to a degree. We have role playing for the boring stuff that is usually "behind the black", because they wanted it and they enjoy it, but I also don't need to be begged for downtime; if they decide to leave the dungeon and go to town, they leave the dungeon, go to town, do the stuff, and come back.
So, the key there is playstyle -- my games are player driven. I sorta expect them to want to spend the time to collect the special stuff to create the Lance of Passion so they can end the BBEG once and for all because no one else bothered to do so the 36 times previously that the BBEG rose up from their own ashes.
A lot of games are story driven. A huge chunk of games are DM driven.
imo, those two have the problem of they have to try and predict player actions. I gave up trying to predict player actions (and predictive modeling of people's actions is what I do for a living) because inevitably when trying to do so you are going to drift away from core to edge cases since most folks don't give consideration to probability and "there is always that one".
There is a whole field of social psychology about that, lol.
But worse is that they have to predict player actions within a constrained environment (typically a written module) that essentially ends options like "leave the dungeon" for many. It is, really, the logical conclusion of those approaches, so it isn't a fault, merely a problem, and it helps to reduce the variables, but it does nothing to effect edge cases, and so that is where the focus will shift for them -- and edge cases are edge cases because they are rare.
But what happens when you have edge cases that are shifting the curve -- for example, some popular YTuber has a channel and does a whole ting about some crazy wild stunt they were able to pull off they tell a good story and it goes viral amon the player base?
That's the "OMG< if we put in rules about this or that, this will happen." So, typically, to minimize edge cases, you have to design to reduce them -- that predicting the player actions" thing.
So, using the existing rules, you have this:
Goal = Material + Time + Special + Proficiency. The roll is against a DC of usually the rarity of the item in question.
Xanathar's updates this a bit, giving a little more detail to the Material and the Special.
in games with a lot of magical items, Rarity is sorta ignored, making it pretty useless, because rarity as written is meant to indicate not only frequency of availability but also challenge in creating. It is zero crunch, no body.
5e generally goes for the Corn flakes degree of crunch -- it's there at the start, but it gets soggy if there's too much around it, lol.
They also go the almost intangible Body route -- and when they do give things some body, they do it with FR as their basis (the default setting, because Body is deeply tied to setting lore).
So, for over half of all the DMs out there, if the rules introduce too much body, they get grumpy. A List of what comprises Material and Special has to be made based on the idea of what is most likely (highest probability) to be present in at least 80% of games and are the most popular options (the common design goal baseline).
As we are talking about what *could* be in a crafting system, it is important we recognize that design goal -- what are the most popular options, including among folks who don't want crafting in the game (who are *right now* a minority voice, though this has not always been the case and will not always be the case, because it is a factor of popularity).
I am of the general thinking that they want to do a crafting system that is about Corn Flake level of crunch, and very light Body. So they'll make it as generic as they can and rely on underlying core tools -- so if they did come up with a list of parts for monsters, they wouldn't assign a gold value to it and they would use the classification of monsters system.
So, this Special is an organ from a CR 12 creature of the Aberration type. Combine that special with a Material that has this Property and this Rarity. Use this amount of TIme based on this DC.
And, because they want to keep it simple, those things would be probably not longer than 10 or 15 items each, meant to give DMs an idea of how to create their own tables for such that are more Body heavy.
Because they probably are not going to use the PF style thing -- first and foremost, it is a PF thing,and there is politics there, and just, yeah, no. To them, not cool.
They generally cannot use the Video Game style, which really is built around the notion of "gather all ye goods and mash them together to make ye a mightier weapon". The reason for this is that a detailed list of materials is going to have to turn to Lore, and that would alienate a lot of folks, even if they wanted to use one, because people are still lazy nd if there is a list, they will use it, and if it doesn't work for their world, then they will skip over it.
And that isn't even thinking about weirdos like me who basically stripped all the inspiration from between 1920 and 1980 out of their game. They literally cannot effectively do Body for me, I am an edge case because all the sources don't "fit". So don't think I am speaking from my experience.
I have neither hostility nor welcome to crafting. I have "does it make the game more fun?". My players think it does, and a few of them want it so they can create the +25 godslayer spear, even if it takes them 60 years to make it. Others want it so they can have an income for when they are not out adventuring. Others want it because they like the idea of being able to tinker with stuff and I don't have an Artificer class (they are very unpopular in our group, and that's 6 DMs of which two are mechanical engineers, lol).
Yes, edge case, but also, that's within the curve for the majority of expectations. And what they want is for me to have an idea of what critters they will need for their Special and what materials are available. Which, in my case, will likely be something I do on the fly for the Special, or use an existing material (because I do have a list of materials).
So, for me, I think they need to increase the level of Crunch, but not Body.
A lot of the comments so far speak to Body, not Crunch. Hell, a lot of the comments basically say to use a system like the existing one, just phrased differently.
First of all I agree to this.
My take is that we have seen a lot of "I dont want (that) in the book because I dont like it and it will do (this) to the game(example the Bastion system, saw a few saying they dont want it in the book cuz it will ruin game)" but we forget as a group that we need to add different pieces of things to make a whole. Keep in mind you dont need to use it all but will server the purpose for those who need it and for others to take ideas from it to make their own. The book itself says so these are guidelines, most of the rules are pretty much malleable. Also I want more option in the books that are more solid, cant have the whole book be something to home-brew I mean we are paying for something for those that do.
A lot of the comments so far speak to Body, not Crunch. Hell, a lot of the comments basically say to use a system like the existing one, just phrased differently.
Have you never played HERO games Fantasy HERO?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
How about we just make a whole new crafting system that does not involve the current magic items, something more in the lines of you can ONLY create the items we place in this list with this specific effects and here is a system for what is needed for it.
The Artificer's replicate item infusion tables could make a solid basis for crafting, better yet, add a "craftable" tag to items that players can make themselves so they don't necessarily need to consult the tables (though it'd still be nice to have them in an appendix as a reference for "here are the uncommon items you can make" etc.).
It definitely does make sense that some items are so rare, or unique even, that they can't simply be replicated without extra steps. Plus the tag/tables will make Artificer easier to implement whenever we eventually get it (since WotC seems determined to refuse to make it a foundational class).
But with a simplified "component matches rarity" system I think that could establish the right balance; you get an uncommon material with which you can make an uncommon weapon or piece of armour, so you lookup the uncommon craftable items table, or flick through magic items looking for uncommon, craftable entries, and pick the one you want to try and make. Spend whatever the required gold is, plus some downtime on the work, and you have that item at the end. With proficiency and/or good rolls you can lower some of the costs by doing it yourself (instead of having to pay someone else).
As long as crafting only takes maybe three or four steps in terms of complexity, even if one of those is "spend a total 24 hours of downtime on crafting" it keeps it nice and accesible, and leaves plenty of room for the DM to tweak things with more permissive or restrictive lists etc., extra hoops to jump through (finding a suitable smith) etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
A lot of the comments so far speak to Body, not Crunch. Hell, a lot of the comments basically say to use a system like the existing one, just phrased differently.
Have you never played HERO games Fantasy HERO?
not in many years, lol, but I recall when they started to take champions and turn it into the hero system. Was never a fan, but did some side jobs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Just unclench, trust your players to want to help you make a fun game together with all your friends, and figure out some cool way to let the preppers prep and the creatives be creative.
Sigh. So again, we're dealing with wildly different experiences (and perhaps approaches) with the game.
Because I've had the experience of players wanting to craft (or just outright purchase) both consumables and permanent type magic items not in the name of being prepared for one or a limited amount of specific encounters or scenarios, but to essentially be 100% for any and all encounters, and to always have the upper hand. And they can get pissy or whingey if combat goes against them, a monster displays a surprising or unexpected trait or attack, etc. As a DM, I've experienced crafting not as a creative or story-organic driven activity, but purely as a way to try and assure tactical superiority all the time, every time.
Which...no. As a DM, that's no fun. Hell, as a player, I find that deeply unfun. Reasonable preparedness and anticipation is one thing (and we can see it reflected in real world military special ops teams). Guaranteed tactical superiority in all situations means I've simply become an XP-dispensing machine, which....again, no thanks.
~~~
Back to the topic of Gygax's "You'll know the rules when I tell them to you!" weirdo approach to gaming: while I generally agree with you that EVERYONE at the table should know the rules at the outset, I can see the fun in not disclosing everything right away. Here's an example:
Both Matt Colville and Matt Mercer have used psionics in their games - and specifically, in ways that surprised the players. Creatures manifested psionic powers (which often mimic or mirror magical effects or spells) and the characters tried using standard tactics - counterspell, dispelmagic, etc. These don't work because psionics aren't magic in those games - at least, not magic in the same sense as a fireball spell or magical aura - and thus weren't affected. The players clearly didn't know this was possible until that encounter and had to become creative in dealing with the threat.
In this case, I think there's value in not knowing specifically ahead of time that some creatures possess mental powers that can't be dispelled: it creates surprise, tension, and danger. Of course, trust is a huge part of this equation: the DM should have earned the trust from the players to use surprises like this so that they (the players) know that the DM isn't doing so in an unbalanced way that guarantees multiple deaths or a TPK. The DM should have, in session zero, given at least a summary warning that they'll encounter creatures with strange powers that don't work the way they might expect.
This is not at all the kind of adversarial, controlling behavior Gygax touted (and which I reject), of course. But there's a sliver of truth there: sometimes being surprised makes for a great game - but that surprise needs to be built on established trust and parameters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've encountered Gygax's maxims before, yes. He actually wrote in his book that the players in a game had no right to know the rules of said game, and they just needed to trust the DM to make all the calls. I find the idea to be utter horseshit. We know, in everyday life, what the rules are. At least, in a physical sense. We know what we can do, we know what we can't, and we generally have a decent idea of what we might be able to do if we push. We know our training, we know the physical laws of our world. We know our strengths and weaknesses as people, and how that sets us up in the wider world. If we take a given action in a given situation, we're generally going to know how it'll go.
Or if not, once we do it once we'll know because the world is consistent (people and their lunacy notwithstanding) and the same action in the same situation produces the same result. That's how life is.
Telling players "you have no clue how anything works and nothing will ever work the same way twice, just throw shit at the wall and see if you get lucky enough to pure-chance your way to the end" is a great recipe for never getting past session 2. If the player cannot trust the information they're given or the actions they can take, why bother? Just roll percentile to see if you end up saving the dragon from the evil princess in the end and be done with it. You're clearly not playing a game, since games have rules, consistency, and the ability to exercise skill to make better decisions.
Or, to put it short: Gygax can suck eggs, his method blows ass.
Please do not contact or message me.
The real problem with a crafting system is that a crafting system that's actually setting plausible will amount to "If you start crafting an item when the campaign starts, by the time it ends you might be half way done". At which point there's no reason to include it because PCs will never use it.
Look. Crafting is generally about two things, depending on if you're crafting consumables or permanent items.
Consumables? The crafter wants to use their skills to be prepared, to lay in supplies and know they're more likely to succeed due to proper planning and preparation.
Permanent items? The player wants to express their creativity, and quite possibly engage in some fun game design to make their character unique.
DMs, as a general meme/"rule", ******* hate both objectives. To hear The Internet DM tell it, letting players do the legwork and prepare for a difficult encounter ahead of time is cheating, they didn't earn that win if they didn't take it on in the most dangerous least effective, and least intelligent way possible.
And the second fork of crafting, where a player wants to create something cool and unique to them? The most egregious cheating of all. After all, everybody knows players just want nothing but powergaming nonsense. They couldn't possibly assemble trinkets, treasures and trophies of their time with the party into an interesting memento, possibly with minor magical effects drawn from/similar to the Magical Quirks table in the DMG. Why let players be creative and work on getting more invested in their characters and the story they've told together? That's just absolutely not fair, being creative is the DM's sole prerogative!
Yeesh.
Just unclench, trust your players to want to help you make a fun game together with all your friends, and figure out some cool way to let the preppers prep and the creatives be creative.
Please do not contact or message me.
Close but not the same, what im asking is a more described pieces on materials and components with a more define tables that will save a lot of trouble for the DMs and make it easier for players.
Agreed. That’s what WotC needs to do to make crafting better. A detailed list of components and materials needed for magic items and other stuff.
My core problem is: I don't want an adventure game to turn into "PCs begging for downtime so they can do crafting". I'd be okay with something like "every level, you may craft a consumable item. Every three levels, you may craft a permanent item".
D&D isnt just about what you, the DM wants, its about what both the players and the DM want out of a game. And just because you dont want it doesnt mean there shouldnt be a system in place. You can just choose not to use it.
its not about loosey goosey, its about learning what type of rules and systems your players need and when to bend them. And how to adapt or incorporate things on the fly. I wasn't implying to just make up stuff at all times. There is no way you can have marketable table top game that covers every possibility players/gms can come up with. The GM has to either follow a very on the rails module, or they need to learn how to build, create, adapt, or improvise things that make sense with the system.
The thing I was replying to was the concept that in order to be a good rpg, DMs shouldn't have to improvise or create. And I disagree, they are good DMs because they learn how to do those things. For some groups, crafting is bad, and should be avoided or handwaved, for other groups it might be an important focus. The strength of the TTRPG system is that humans are involved in the process, and can adapt.
Sounds like stripping the creativity out it. Because, no matter how many times you write, here are some examples for how to do it, people will read, this is the one and only RAW way to make a flame tongue sword. It says you can use red dragon scales, will become, you can only use red dragon scales.
And, if you start putting tables in the DMG, you end up cutting out any ingredients that come from creatures published after the DMG.
And, do you really need a table to tell you which creatures use fire? Or can fly? Or really anything else you might want to lay on a magic item? It’s not hard to find an appropriate monster. Hint, search the word fire in dndbeyond and filter by monsters. It is not a good use of finite space in the DMG.
And from a metagame standpoint, it seems like a hassle for me as a DM. If I, as a DM know a player really wants a flame tongue, and I think, why not, I can just give them one. Jumping through a bunch of extra hoops for one player — which then becomes jumping through them for everyone — seems like it just slows down the actual narrative. It’s not like a video game where the quest giver will stand there patiently while you go gathering ingredients and forging better gear. Unless you contrive some reason for the bad guy to go on vacation for a few weeks. Or turn the actual act of forging the sword as something you can knock out in a long rest.
thats not really something that would make it better, it makes it unusable/workable for many campaigns. The baseline rules are the ones that should be the same for most tables. Detailed lists are something the DM should create, or maybe have third party publishers do
uh, as someone said, its about what everyone wants. That said, you are correct that the design of crafting, and to an extent bastions, is in opposition to the general game flow. They are both too dependent on tracking time passing, when most games don't even engage with time like that.
I think its fine to have downtime activities, but players should also be able to actively pursue things, and, get things done while adventuring. I think exp should be another option for progressing certain things. The rules for crafting were kind of crazy to me, the time in workweeks was far beyond the time to level. Like 10 work weeks for 1 rare item. 70days, in 70days, adventures are likely to go from level 1-13.
Unless the campaign is designed to be short bursts of adventures with long waiting periods, crafting would never be relevant, as they designed it. The assumption is mostly that they designed crafting to not be viable for most games. Bastions, while it does allow adventurers to get things done while adventuring, still line up very poorly with active adventuring campaigns. (better than old crafting though)
I don't mind crafting as long as the players express some thinking that makes sense. No, you're not going to be able to cook up a potion of invisibility from the wyvern venom!
I had once told a player that the components to a magical summoning horn were a bull-demon horn, 5 feet of leather from a beast killed with thunder magic, and an indestructible mouthpiece. The irony of ironies was that in the adventure they were running there was in fact an indestructible mouthpiece which I didn't know was there.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Maybe i did not came across right but what u mention is exactly what i meant when i said for a flame sword u need to kill a fire monster NOT you need a specific monster, what i want is basic guidelines as everything in the game u can homebrew but having some basic help a lot for ppl with no creativity and still want to be DM and cant handle creating a world, a story, and stuff to please the players at the same time.
As for what u say if a DM dont wanna have a HASSLE letting the player going through HOOPs to FEEL like his class features (Artificer) are useful or using the damn mechanics for crafting in the game and simply give the Item, then i ask of you what are the mechanics for crafting for in the Core books also NOT everyone just wanna GIVE AWAY STUFF.
All I ask is simple stuff that let the world feel more complete without having to HOMEBREW almost every other hole in the Rule books as not everyone is in a Rushed adventure to save the world and never have down time. Some players just wanna enjoy the Travels not the destination.
So, I don't know if I count as a good, bad or indifferent DM in the wider scheme of things, but my players like what I do.
I like "light crunch" and "medium body" -- so I don't want the Granola of RPGs, I want the sweetened oat and corn stuff. Not even gonna pretend otherwise.
Collectively, we also like math rocks and the dice of destiny. So everything needs to have a roll.
We actually play downtime to a degree. We have role playing for the boring stuff that is usually "behind the black", because they wanted it and they enjoy it, but I also don't need to be begged for downtime; if they decide to leave the dungeon and go to town, they leave the dungeon, go to town, do the stuff, and come back.
So, the key there is playstyle -- my games are player driven. I sorta expect them to want to spend the time to collect the special stuff to create the Lance of Passion so they can end the BBEG once and for all because no one else bothered to do so the 36 times previously that the BBEG rose up from their own ashes.
A lot of games are story driven. A huge chunk of games are DM driven.
imo, those two have the problem of they have to try and predict player actions. I gave up trying to predict player actions (and predictive modeling of people's actions is what I do for a living) because inevitably when trying to do so you are going to drift away from core to edge cases since most folks don't give consideration to probability and "there is always that one".
There is a whole field of social psychology about that, lol.
But worse is that they have to predict player actions within a constrained environment (typically a written module) that essentially ends options like "leave the dungeon" for many. It is, really, the logical conclusion of those approaches, so it isn't a fault, merely a problem, and it helps to reduce the variables, but it does nothing to effect edge cases, and so that is where the focus will shift for them -- and edge cases are edge cases because they are rare.
But what happens when you have edge cases that are shifting the curve -- for example, some popular YTuber has a channel and does a whole ting about some crazy wild stunt they were able to pull off they tell a good story and it goes viral amon the player base?
That's the "OMG< if we put in rules about this or that, this will happen." So, typically, to minimize edge cases, you have to design to reduce them -- that predicting the player actions" thing.
So, using the existing rules, you have this:
Goal = Material + Time + Special + Proficiency. The roll is against a DC of usually the rarity of the item in question.
Xanathar's updates this a bit, giving a little more detail to the Material and the Special.
in games with a lot of magical items, Rarity is sorta ignored, making it pretty useless, because rarity as written is meant to indicate not only frequency of availability but also challenge in creating. It is zero crunch, no body.
5e generally goes for the Corn flakes degree of crunch -- it's there at the start, but it gets soggy if there's too much around it, lol.
They also go the almost intangible Body route -- and when they do give things some body, they do it with FR as their basis (the default setting, because Body is deeply tied to setting lore).
So, for over half of all the DMs out there, if the rules introduce too much body, they get grumpy. A List of what comprises Material and Special has to be made based on the idea of what is most likely (highest probability) to be present in at least 80% of games and are the most popular options (the common design goal baseline).
As we are talking about what *could* be in a crafting system, it is important we recognize that design goal -- what are the most popular options, including among folks who don't want crafting in the game (who are *right now* a minority voice, though this has not always been the case and will not always be the case, because it is a factor of popularity).
I am of the general thinking that they want to do a crafting system that is about Corn Flake level of crunch, and very light Body. So they'll make it as generic as they can and rely on underlying core tools -- so if they did come up with a list of parts for monsters, they wouldn't assign a gold value to it and they would use the classification of monsters system.
So, this Special is an organ from a CR 12 creature of the Aberration type. Combine that special with a Material that has this Property and this Rarity. Use this amount of TIme based on this DC.
And, because they want to keep it simple, those things would be probably not longer than 10 or 15 items each, meant to give DMs an idea of how to create their own tables for such that are more Body heavy.
Because they probably are not going to use the PF style thing -- first and foremost, it is a PF thing,and there is politics there, and just, yeah, no. To them, not cool.
They generally cannot use the Video Game style, which really is built around the notion of "gather all ye goods and mash them together to make ye a mightier weapon". The reason for this is that a detailed list of materials is going to have to turn to Lore, and that would alienate a lot of folks, even if they wanted to use one, because people are still lazy nd if there is a list, they will use it, and if it doesn't work for their world, then they will skip over it.
And that isn't even thinking about weirdos like me who basically stripped all the inspiration from between 1920 and 1980 out of their game. They literally cannot effectively do Body for me, I am an edge case because all the sources don't "fit". So don't think I am speaking from my experience.
I have neither hostility nor welcome to crafting. I have "does it make the game more fun?". My players think it does, and a few of them want it so they can create the +25 godslayer spear, even if it takes them 60 years to make it. Others want it so they can have an income for when they are not out adventuring. Others want it because they like the idea of being able to tinker with stuff and I don't have an Artificer class (they are very unpopular in our group, and that's 6 DMs of which two are mechanical engineers, lol).
Yes, edge case, but also, that's within the curve for the majority of expectations. And what they want is for me to have an idea of what critters they will need for their Special and what materials are available. Which, in my case, will likely be something I do on the fly for the Special, or use an existing material (because I do have a list of materials).
So, for me, I think they need to increase the level of Crunch, but not Body.
A lot of the comments so far speak to Body, not Crunch. Hell, a lot of the comments basically say to use a system like the existing one, just phrased differently.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The time requirements for crafting are totally reasonable from a worldbuilding perspective. They're just ... not useful to most PCs.
WotC should at least give examples of components from creatures that will fit the magic item for crafting. Like 2 or 3 examples each magic item.
For example the component for an Elemental Gem is essence from an elemental or a Staff of the Python could be a heart of Giant Constrictor Snake.
But what would be good for a Spell-Wrought Tattoo? Or even a +1 magic weapon or armor?
First of all I agree to this.
My take is that we have seen a lot of "I dont want (that) in the book because I dont like it and it will do (this) to the game(example the Bastion system, saw a few saying they dont want it in the book cuz it will ruin game)" but we forget as a group that we need to add different pieces of things to make a whole. Keep in mind you dont need to use it all but will server the purpose for those who need it and for others to take ideas from it to make their own. The book itself says so these are guidelines, most of the rules are pretty much malleable. Also I want more option in the books that are more solid, cant have the whole book be something to home-brew I mean we are paying for something for those that do.
Have you never played HERO games Fantasy HERO?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The Artificer's replicate item infusion tables could make a solid basis for crafting, better yet, add a "craftable" tag to items that players can make themselves so they don't necessarily need to consult the tables (though it'd still be nice to have them in an appendix as a reference for "here are the uncommon items you can make" etc.).
It definitely does make sense that some items are so rare, or unique even, that they can't simply be replicated without extra steps. Plus the tag/tables will make Artificer easier to implement whenever we eventually get it (since WotC seems determined to refuse to make it a foundational class).
But with a simplified "component matches rarity" system I think that could establish the right balance; you get an uncommon material with which you can make an uncommon weapon or piece of armour, so you lookup the uncommon craftable items table, or flick through magic items looking for uncommon, craftable entries, and pick the one you want to try and make. Spend whatever the required gold is, plus some downtime on the work, and you have that item at the end. With proficiency and/or good rolls you can lower some of the costs by doing it yourself (instead of having to pay someone else).
As long as crafting only takes maybe three or four steps in terms of complexity, even if one of those is "spend a total 24 hours of downtime on crafting" it keeps it nice and accesible, and leaves plenty of room for the DM to tweak things with more permissive or restrictive lists etc., extra hoops to jump through (finding a suitable smith) etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
not in many years, lol, but I recall when they started to take champions and turn it into the hero system. Was never a fan, but did some side jobs.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Sigh. So again, we're dealing with wildly different experiences (and perhaps approaches) with the game.
Because I've had the experience of players wanting to craft (or just outright purchase) both consumables and permanent type magic items not in the name of being prepared for one or a limited amount of specific encounters or scenarios, but to essentially be 100% for any and all encounters, and to always have the upper hand. And they can get pissy or whingey if combat goes against them, a monster displays a surprising or unexpected trait or attack, etc. As a DM, I've experienced crafting not as a creative or story-organic driven activity, but purely as a way to try and assure tactical superiority all the time, every time.
Which...no. As a DM, that's no fun. Hell, as a player, I find that deeply unfun. Reasonable preparedness and anticipation is one thing (and we can see it reflected in real world military special ops teams). Guaranteed tactical superiority in all situations means I've simply become an XP-dispensing machine, which....again, no thanks.
~~~
Back to the topic of Gygax's "You'll know the rules when I tell them to you!" weirdo approach to gaming: while I generally agree with you that EVERYONE at the table should know the rules at the outset, I can see the fun in not disclosing everything right away. Here's an example:
Both Matt Colville and Matt Mercer have used psionics in their games - and specifically, in ways that surprised the players. Creatures manifested psionic powers (which often mimic or mirror magical effects or spells) and the characters tried using standard tactics - counterspell, dispel magic, etc. These don't work because psionics aren't magic in those games - at least, not magic in the same sense as a fireball spell or magical aura - and thus weren't affected. The players clearly didn't know this was possible until that encounter and had to become creative in dealing with the threat.
In this case, I think there's value in not knowing specifically ahead of time that some creatures possess mental powers that can't be dispelled: it creates surprise, tension, and danger. Of course, trust is a huge part of this equation: the DM should have earned the trust from the players to use surprises like this so that they (the players) know that the DM isn't doing so in an unbalanced way that guarantees multiple deaths or a TPK. The DM should have, in session zero, given at least a summary warning that they'll encounter creatures with strange powers that don't work the way they might expect.
This is not at all the kind of adversarial, controlling behavior Gygax touted (and which I reject), of course. But there's a sliver of truth there: sometimes being surprised makes for a great game - but that surprise needs to be built on established trust and parameters.