Characters without Bling

[Psion]

I'm starting to feel that the game is getting overwhelmed by character concepts that involve having new, special, unique, etc special abilities, aka "kewl powrz".

I'm finding I really prefer my characters without all the bling.

In my vernacular, bling = items. Not powers.

I appreciate that characters have been getting named, significant powers. Makes the characters themselves important. Which is a good thing.

 

[VirgilCaine]

In my vernacular, bling = items. Not powers.

Think I found your problem.

 

[Cyberzombie]

I have to agree with Psion. Bling = stuff, not innate powers. These thread does not talk about what I thought it would at all.

In answer to the question asked -- no, I have no problem with kewl powers. I wish all the classes had them at every level.

As for the question I thought this would be about -- is 3e D&D too fixatated on magic items -- I'd say hell yeah. In 1e & 2e you just took whatever random items you got from the adventures and you were happy. In 3e you obsess over maximizing what items you have in every item slot. I liked it much better the old way.

 

[Goblyn]

I have to agree with Psion. Bling = stuff, not innate powers. These thread does not talk about what I thought it would at all.

In answer to the question asked -- no, I have no problem with kewl powers. I wish all the classes had them at every level.

As for the question I thought this would be about -- is 3e D&D too fixatated on magic items -- I'd say hell yeah. In 1e & 2e you just took whatever random items you got from the adventures and you were happy. In 3e you obsess over maximizing what items you have in every item slot. I liked it much better the old way.

I'm with Psion and Cyberzombie. Bling = items, not abilities. Abilities would be ... mojo, I suppose.

brainstorm. Going with that, we can call skills moxie; then a dnd character is a mess of mojo, moxie, and bling.

 

[JoeBlank]

It really depends on the campaign. But I have never been a fan of the "cool powers" mindset.

PCs are defined by what the actually do in the game, not by what the have the ability to do. In a good campaign, I find myself thinking about the actions my character has taken, and about future plans. Sometimes this has little to do with what the character sheet says the PC can do.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

It really depends on the campaign. But I have never been a fan of the "cool powers" mindset.

PCs are defined by what the actually do in the game, not by what the have the ability to do. In a good campaign, I find myself thinking about the actions my character has taken, and about future plans. Sometimes this has little to do with what the character sheet says the PC can do.

I'd have to agree, but most often, what a character does is pulls out his magical (whatever) and use it to kill the bad guys. And if he doesn't have one, then he doesn't do very much.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I definitely prefer a simpler is better approach, as do most of my players.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Going with that, we can call skills moxie; then a dnd character is a mess of mojo, moxie, and bling.

Yeah, I'll take a large mojo with extra moxie and a sprinkling of bling.

Bling = Items to me btw.

I don't see a lot of characters loading up on items just for the min/max of it. Everyone likes to get a goodie now and then but it usually fits the concept.

 

[Kroax]

Add another who thinks bling = items.

In response to the OP, I think it's all about personal preference and the campaign. In a way it's a bit like comparing Braveheart and X-men. In Braveheart they're cool for what they do, but in X-men they're cool because of what they do with their powers. And I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about Wolverine using his regeneration too much. But if William Wallace started to shoot lightning bolts from his arse I probably wouldn't have liked that movie as much.

 

[Baron Opal]

No, no. It's pees lightning and farts thunder.

If you're going to spread propaganda, do it properly.

( )