Magic Items and the Exploration Pillar

[Tiktakkat]

As a note, early adventures were chock full of magic items... B2 has something like 70 magic items in the hands of bad guys or as findable treasure, with only 15 of those being single-use consumables (potions, scrolls with only 1 spell). And this doesn't include stuff just dripping from people in the keep itself, including low-level guards.

This and then some.
A lot of old-timers (of which I am one) have conveniently subjective memories when it comes to the raw amount of magic items that were present in the early adventures, and not merely the ones converted from tournament rounds, that they try to use as a club against later iterations. Despite the "guidelines" in the DMG1E, adventures routinely featured enough magic treasure to outfit a party of 8 with 3 henchmen and 2 hirelings each, which was good because that many people would be needed to haul away the mundane loot.


As for the original question, for me it comes down to what you want the players exploring, not to mention what the players want to explore, with the system requirements modifying it.
Clearly making identification easier takes away that element of challenge, but is it an element that you want or need, and can the system support it?

As above, with magical gear hardwired into character power by level, requiring identification actively works against the rules system itself, and quickly becomes an excuse to hamper players. This is going to be made worse based on the length of the adventuring "day". Basic D20 with 4 and done it is not that much of an issue. Modified D20 reverting to enough encounters to level and maybe more before resting, which is quite common in PF1, is quite a bit different.

On an individual campaign basis, are the magic items and their backstories that relevant that players should be required to go through another step to employ them? Are they that powerful to justify it?
Weapons of Legacy required significant effort above and beyond a mere identify spell to use such an item. Would every player enjoy that for a simple sword that does not scale, never mind a potion that is used and gone?

Between the two, the raw resource requirement should also be considered. How many 100 gp pearls for identify are readily available? How much of the wealth gained per level is required to identify everything? Does an artificer's monocle (which converts a detect magic into an identify) become a default wealth tax?

Perhaps that suggests a variable system, with common items being identifiable with a mere skill check or detect magic, more specialized items requiring several or more difficult skill checks and something not-quite-as-expensive as an identify, and really unique, campaign items requiring mini-games to unlock, all with a focus on what game the DM wants to run and the players want to play and how friendly the core rules are to such a plan.

[Drakevarg]

So I ask again: Why should games push players having a close relationship with their equipment? What is it about that specific trope that makes it essential for all characters?

Nothing is essential for ALL characters. I just think it should be presented as an equally-valid option to the loot train, rather than an obscure optional niche mechanic.

[Satinavian]

Between the two, the raw resource requirement should also be considered. How many 100 gp pearls for identify are readily available? How much of the wealth gained per level is required to identify everything? Does an artificer's monocle (which converts a detect magic into an identify) become a default wealth tax?

Oh, yes. I remember 3.x games where pearls and magic markets where not guaranteed and players simply stopped looting unlabeled potions because they would not waste a pearl on them or use them without identification.
And i know that once artificer's monocle appeared in print pretty much every group bought or crafted it as soon as possible.

[Silly Name]

Identifying magic items per se isn't technically part of the exploration pillar. However, it can definitely enhanche it. It can help build up a mystery and then give answers: why was this item here? Who put it there?

The main trouble D&D encounters when dealing with the question of "how do I learn what this thing does?" is that it often tries to give an universal answer. Identifying a +1 sword uses the same process as identifying a holy avenger, which I feel is somewhat wrong.

"Common" magic items should be easy to identify, or at least provide enough context clues about their intended purposes and origins that players can correctly guess. I color-coded potions in my 3.5 games, so eventually over the course of a campaign players learnt that "sanguine red" is for cure wounds, "light blue with white streaks" is for haste, "bright yellow and fizzling" is a oil of magic weapon, etc. It made the players feel smart and like they were learning about the world.

Another aid was doing away with "random loot", or at least random loot generated on the spot. If you're in a wizard's abandoned laboratory, you aren't going to find a +3 breastplate of fire resistance unless there's a reason for the wizard to have made that item, in which case it's likely that by looking around the laboratory you can find information on why the wizard made it, and thus learn about its magical properties...

Stuff like a holy avenger should demand specific conditions to reveal its true properties - this is already somewhat present in the rules for the holy avenger specifically, in that its full power is accesible only by paladins. However, anyone can learn that that sword is a holy avenger. I feel that undersells how special such items are: in my ideal campaign, a holy avenger would look like any other sword until it's drawn by a righteous paladin in need, shining with divine light and revealing its full glory.

So, how do you make finding and identifying magic items fun and part of the exploration side of the game?

1. No magic marts. This is a rule in all my games: you can't buy magic items except in rare occasions or at incredibly great cost from specific individuals. Only exception is potions of cure wounds, which can be made by any apothecary/alchemist (albeit usually in limited quantities).

2. No random loot. Everything is there for a reason - treasure tables are useful, but they need to be used to pregenerate the items you'll find, so that you have time to come up with a reason as to why that item is there.

3. Clues! From the looks of the item, to hints and descriptions lying around where you found it, to straight-up tales from locals ("they say that the wizard who used to live in that tower could summons spirits of fire from a brazier..."), players ought to feel like they're figuring things out themselves, instead of rolling dice or just casting a spell to ask the DM what this shield is.

4. If players just don't manage to solve the puzzle, do let them research their magic items during downtime. Libraries, laboratories, temples and schools is where they have to spend time, and perhaps resources and money, to analyse an item in a more "academic" manner, but it shouldn't be the default answer.

[Bohandas]

If you want to match fantasy fiction it shouldn't be "no magic marts", it should be "no permanent magic marts". In the stories, that store is just suddenly there one day, and the next week it's gone. A little bit like Halloween Adventure. But unlike Halloween Adventure, nobody remembers the store having been there after it leaves, and if the characters go back to the lot it was on it will appear to have been abandoned for years.

EDIT:
Or "no magic marts" with the qualification that they should be magical pop-up stores instead

[Silly Name]

If you want to match fantasy fiction it shouldn't be "no magic marts", it should be "no permanent magic marts". In the stories, that store is just suddenly there one day, and the next week it's gone. A little bit like Halloween Adventure. But unlike Halloween Adventure, nobody remembers the store having been there after it leaves, and if the characters go back to the lot it was on it will appear to have been abandoned for years.

EDIT:
Or "no magic marts" with the qualification that they should be magical pop-up stores instead

Oh, I've definitely done the "mysterious shop run by a mysterious seller that then disappears" thing a couple of times! For example, once in a 5e game an Autognome Monk went into one such shop and said he wanted to become stronger, so the old guy running the shop told them to drink a certain potion... And the monk woke up a few hours later in a completely empty shop looking like nobody had been there in years, a pair of Guantlets of Ogre Power melded to their arms (in reality, the character could have removed the attunement whenever he wanted, but it would have been described as painfully removing the inserts). The "payment", unknown to everyone, was that the Guantlets were enchanted so that the mage (secretely a villain) could scry on the party through them.

But when people talk about "the magic-mart", the assumption is that it is stable, easily accesible and doesn't pull such tricks: you get what you paid for.

[gbaji]

Serious question: why are you bringing up the GM’s perspective wrt Exploration / Discovery, if, as you claim, the GM lacks an Exploration component to their play?

Maybe I'm confused about what you were trying to say, but it sounded like KorvinStarmast listed a set of determinations from the GM POV that involve item/environment creation steps that the players then explore. You called that a "boring snoozefest" and listed a set of "how" questions you wanted players to make that were fun and part of exploration. Ok. Great. But that seems like you're focusing entirely on the player side and ignoring that the GM has to first create the things that players explore, and that this involves answering questions like "who, what, when, where, and why", just as KorvinStarmast indicated.

I was just pointing this out. Those other questions have to be answered too, or there's nothing to explore. I brought it up because you seemed to be over-focusing on one aspect of the issue at hand. Yes, you do have to consider how players may deal with anything you put into your game, but that's not part of your own "exploration" as the GM. You aren't making those decisions. You're planning content and perhaps speculating what may happen (and at the least making sure there are ways for the PCs to deal with said content), but that should be the extent of that process.

I’ll take this bit as agreement with my point, but add that my enjoyment as GM is in not knowing what path the PCs will take, not knowing ahead of time how they will resolve a scenario.

I absolutely agree. But (again unless I just completely misread what you wrote), you seemed to be saying that the GM should focus on the "hows" of player actions instead of the who/what/when/where/why of "things in the world that I created" (ie: the GMing process). The danger as a GM of getting too far into the "how" question is that you may start scripting things, which leads to railroading when the players don't follow the script, which leads to hate, then anger, then the dark side (or maybe I got those out of order).

And for the record, while there is enjoyment in seeing how my players decide to approach or solve (or hilariously fail to solve) something in my world, it's not really the same enjoyment as true exploration. It's why I said "unfortunately" in my earlier post. As the GM you don't really get to explore anything. Even if it's written just ahead of the players and in response to their own actions, you're still "writing" and "creating" the content. It's why I enjoy immensely when I get to play as a player instead of as a GM. I get to sit back and enjoy someone else's content, when I don't know what's around the corner, and don't get to decide that either. I get to "explore" the unknown. That's very fun. And it's something you don't get as a GM.

While you still get surprises as a GM, they are never the result of your own choices and actions and then seeing what happened, but always the players directing that process. You already know what exists in the room/town/wherever. You know what the PCs have on their sheets. You know the game rules. The only thing you don't know is what strange thought processes are bouncing around inside the player's heads. And that's not really the same as exploration IMO.