Because only a Halfling could forge the one-ring in the first place

[hcobb]

The constraints of the system help drive the storytelling. Imagine the players shock when they meet Mark Twain and he disclaims ever writing that “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Or in TFT terms....

"Prince Thor, what a pleasant surprise. Is there something we can do for you?"

"Yes, it's about this hammer you sold me."

"Ah, Mjolnir. Is there something wrong with it?"

"Oh my hammer works perfectly. The problem came when I closely examined it."

"Oh?"

"I found some strange glyphs on it."

"Oh, those are just for good luck. Nothing to worry about."

"They didn't look dwarvish to me."

"It's the old style writing. Nothing to worry about."

"I found exactly the same markings on all the magic weapons you dwarves sold us."

"See, it's nothing to worry about."

"So I looked the symbols up in a book."

"Oh, you've learned literacy."

"I am a prince. And do you know what this writing says?"

"I'm not an expert."

"Made by goblins. All the magic items you've sold us were made by goblins."

[ecz]

as lazy GM I could easily create any day a universe where magic items are created following obscure rules (i.e. with no rules), and their makers can invent anything they want, allowing any kind of process or item, impossible to replicate for PCs for "lack of specific rules".

But a great part of the fun would fly away with my players that are accustomed to elite Roleplaying systems -like Runequest- where their quality design means that everyone, including GM and NPCs, follows strictly the same rules.

I fact I prefer a system that simulate something "plausible in a fantasy world" and is consistent.

Probably someone relatively new here or without 30+ years of GMing could disagree, but I firmly believe that most fun comes exactly from a "non lazy" approach by the GM and from a consistent set of rules working the same way for everyone. GURPS is another great example, I think.

In any case I see the reasons behid the change.
It's just a new and different kind of approach to magical object creation that prevents PCs from becoming "professional magic items makers" .

I see nothing wrong per se

[philreed]

Originally Posted by RobW

I like the idea of a world in which the inhabitants (ie PCs and NPCs) are all operating by the same rules, and then what happens are the unpredictable interactions between them all. ?

I prefer that GMs exercise control and make the game theirs, using which rules they prefer and understanding that story comes above rules. Always. Rules are guidelines; this isn't a simulation, it's a fantasy.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by philreed

I prefer that GMs exercise control and make the game theirs, using which rules they prefer and understanding that story comes above rules. Always. Rules are guidelines; this isn't a simulation, it's a fantasy.

Fine, we disagree.

But I honestly don't get your insistence that people play the way you prefer. e.g., "Period." "Always." I'm sure you can see that contributions like these are simply attempts to close off discussion.

"Rules are guidelines". Well again, I disagree and I would say, "Rules are rules, guidelines are guidelines". Now in fact, we probably don't disagree as much as that suggests, as I think in general RPGs are really sets of guidelines. But why try to close off attempts by interested people to discuss these things?

I get even less your dismissals inside forum threads in which people are interested in discussing aspects of the game rules. As I was asking before, where else can people discuss, in tremendous and in fact absurd detail, the details of a Fire spell, a disengage option, the XP system? Are you saying this is something that should not be happening? What are the forums for, if every answer is going to be, "play the way you prefer"?

Maybe you are imagining that these discussions are criticisms of the game system and that you need to intervene somehow? I don't think that is a correct understanding of the discussions.

[larsdangly]

I think it is important for a game to work in such a way that NPC's, monsters, etc. function under the same rules as player characters, whether they are 'on screen' (in a fight or something) or not (e.g., off creating items). I understand many people disagree, but my position is that players quickly and justifiably lose confidence in the GM and the campaign if they feel they are being cheated or punked, and presenting them with ordinary sorts of NPCs who can do things no PC can accomplish is one way GMs do this. But I don't accept that this is an example of such a problem. It is challenging but not impossible for a PC to learn and use Greater Magic Item creation. You just can't do it out of the box, or after a few months of messing around in dungeons. I'm fine with that; there should be things in the game that can only be reached with long effort. And this example provides a useful reason for magic items to be rare despite the fact that a person who can make them could, in principle, make quite a few. If it takes you 50 years to develop your skills to the point where you can make a greater magic item, you won't spread them around lightly, and there won't be much competition for what you can do.

[philreed]

Originally Posted by RobW

Maybe you are imagining that these discussions are criticisms of the game system and that you need to intervene somehow? I don't think that is a correct understanding of the discussions.

Criticisms? Not at all. These discussions merely frighten off those who have heard: "Hey, it's a light RPG." And then think: "I'll check it out."

[ecz]

Originally Posted by philreed

Criticisms? Not at all. These discussions merely frighten off those who have heard: "Hey, it's a light RPG." And then think: "I'll check it out."

I think that when the final rules will be ready and published and the elite crew of resident experts will start to answer any rule question in the dedicated thread - as promised - all discussion about rules, design philosophy and home made fix will cease.

Then I would finally discover for example if (according the rules) it's legal a Defend against a two hexes jab while not engaged, and if a figure casting a 5 ST spell suffers a -2DX the next turn.

until then I love to read about the problems that (could) arise during a game and the suggested unofficial solutions.

After all everyone here is a GM or a player.
Or not?

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by philreed

GMs and NPCs should ignore the rules. Period. Create whatever works for the story.

So instead of discussing what "rules" to use when a player's wizard sets another player's dwarf's beard on fire, we should ask "what works for the story" when that happens?

Seems to me the rules question has one or two pretty easy answers, but I really have no idea what the answer to the story question would be. For the wizard, I suppose it works if the dwarf has to run screaming for a trough of water, taking 4 damage per turn and being blinded by fire. For the dwarf, he'd like to be able to shake his head or don his helm to put it out, and to be able to proceed to settle the wizard's hash. (And I think version 2 should be the answer, because version 1 seems too deadly/unfair for an IQ 9 spell that costs 1 ST to cast.) But what's "the story" and what "works" for it, I have no idea.

Probably because after nearly 40 years of playing TFT and GURPS, I have always related to them as games with rules that are making some attempt to provide a useful framework of rules to allow a game to be played (even an adversarial one with no referee) where the results of actions have well-thought-out semi-predictable consequences that will remain interesting and self-consistent even after years playing in the same campaign.

RPG "stories" to me (and many other players who are into games like TFT & GURPS rather than story-games or story-oriented RPGs) are not game elements used to determine what happens during play, but re-tellings of things that happened during play of a game.

Solid sense-making rules for playing out a situation are how you get a game about the subject it says it's about.

To me, TFT & GURPS are the best games I know of for providing that kind of functional sense-making rules framework. (And the only ones that offer mapped tactical games that seem to me worth playing for their own sake. If the map and rules are all to be ignored because of some "story", I don't think I'd want to participate, nor buy or read rule sets that are to be ignored.)

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by ecz

... because any error in the creation process (not just a critical failure) forces the wizard to restart. Thus price doubled and also time doubled to evade orders. ...

Are you saying this was a house rule you added, or do you (mis-?)read the rule this way, or am I missing something. What I see is:

Each week that a wizard works, he must make his DX roll
once. This roll comes at the end of the week, and represents
a crucial stage of the work. If he misses the roll, no damage
is done, but the week’s work is lost. He does not have to start
over – unless he rolls an 18. An 18 ruins the entire spell, and
the wizard must start again from the beginning.

So it seems to me that a lowish DX is fine for an enchanter, and the DX for assistant enchanters is irrelevant, since only the main enchanter's DX is used.

And it seems to me that you just need a wizard with IQ 14, 18, or 20 and an item creation spell, access to a lab and apprentices etc. The extra wizards can have any DX. If the lead enchanter has DX 10, he'll take about twice as many weeks as listed and have a higher chance of rolling an 18, but he can certainly do it.

So the assistant enchanters could be ST 8 DX 8 and still count, or even lead an enchantment though it would take a while, so the minimums would be like:

Weapon/Armor enchantment, IQ 14, 30+ attribute total (for a human)
Lesser Enchantment, IQ 18, 34 points at minimum.
Greater Enchantment, IQ 20, 36 points at minimum (maybe less for someone suffering age/death losses)

Doesn't seem very prohibitive to me, even for combat-style wizards. e.g. a starting character at ST 8 DX 10 IQ 14 isn't a bad combat design (especially if you hire an NPC assistant to Aid their ST and/or DX) and could enchant magic weapons & armor.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Skarg

And it seems to me that you just need a wizard with IQ 14, 18, or 20 and an item creation spell, access to a lab and apprentices etc. The extra wizards can have any DX. If the lead enchanter has DX 10, he'll take about twice as many weeks as listed and have a higher chance of rolling an 18, but he can certainly do it.

If that is the usual method of magic item creation then the prices for all items ought to be doubled.

Just add to the errata sheet tucked into the box this disclaimer:

Page 150: Magic Item Creation Table: The listed prices are for a theoretical optimized process rarely if ever seen in actual practice. These are the prices the players can reasonably get when selling these items. When the players wish to purchase magic items the costs should be at least double the listed values, if the item (or a wizard who can make the item) can be found at all.