Blowing up magic items, yes or no?

[Tsyr]

Yes and no. Where's the fun if there's no risk? If the fighter is secure in knowing that his sword will never be destroyed, he begins to take it for granted, and that's when it becomes mundane. In my games, there's no such thing as an unnamed +5 weapon. Or +4, or +3. They all have long histories too. But then again, there is a risk of loss too.

You know, I hear this time and time again. It always boils down to "if the players aren't reminded the DM can kill them or take away their goodies at any moment, they won't have fun for long". Sorry. That's not correct. Is it for some people? Sure. Is it for everyone? No. Most of my players would rather be involved in an epic story where -gasp- they have a reasonable shot of living to see the end of it than play a tactical wargame... thats what we have Warhammer for, when we want that.

And for the record, there is no such thing as a +1 sword with no name in my world.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Player gets a sword.

Player spends a year real-time with said sword... upgrading it as needed, etc... becomes attached to the sword. The blade becomes an extension of his will. Player is in the roleplaying "groove".

DM destroyes players sword.

I don't know about your players, but for mine, it would be a LONG time before they were willing to actualy care about a weapon after that happened.

Part of it is that I'm not a competative DM, I suppose. I don't see myself as being out to "defeat" the players... if they die, they die, sure, but my GOAL is not to kill them unless they can thwart me. My goal is to ensure they have a good time. As such, I will do what I must to see that they DO have a good time. And if the entails not breaking something they treasure? So be it. If the means NOT taking ever given opertunity to hurt the PCs? Well shucks, I guess I'll let them have some fun rather than trash them.

I don't see myself as competing with the players either. I don't take every opportunity to hurt them. But I think a challenging game where luck plays a part (as it should when dice are involved, but that's my opinion) is the most fun for everyone, DM included.

As for players who get upset when those same dice don't go their way...I don't allow them in my group. Yes, it seems harsh, but I had to deal with quite enough of that in high school...some of it from myself! These days, I have zero tolerance for 35-year-old players who throw tantrums, scatter the miniatures, storm out of the room, argue...in short, "get upset" because something "bad" happened to them in the game. They get a "Dear John" e-mail and they're kicked to the curb.

To sum up, I think any tactics supported by the rules are valid and fair. The onus is on players to role-play how their characters react to what happens to them...not just to role-play when they like what's happening to them. In a game of dice, bad things will happen. That's the way the odds are. Deal with it in a mature fashion. The thing that bothered me most about the original post was the game-stopping tantrum. I'm not convinced that that was the DM's "fault."

 

[Hakkenshi]

You know, I hear this time and time again. It always boils down to "if the players aren't reminded the DM can kill them or take away their goodies at any moment, they won't have fun for long". Sorry. That's not correct. Is it for some people? Sure. Is it for everyone? No. Most of my players would rather be involved in an epic story where -gasp- they have a reasonable shot of living to see the end of it than play a tactical wargame... thats what we have Warhammer for, when we want that.

I don't suppose you realize the irony of saying that blasting a fighter's weapon instead of the fighter himself lowers his odds of living through to the end of the campaign.

The spell in question was Disintegrate. No resurrections IMC. The player ought to be GLAD I'm dusting his weapon. Most players think I'm going too easy on them if I do this. In the game where the Cornugon took apart the Arcane Archer's bow, the player told me after the game that I shouldn't be so easy on him. He was expecting to be rent into tiny bits. He only lost a bow. That's a healthy attitude.

And it's not the DM that kills the players. It's the fact that the characters go adventuring. I mean, they are taking life-threatening risks, here. If there's never a threat to the character's life, what's he adventuring for? Assassins will never dare approach him because he's not allowed to die, they can't target his loved ones because he might come after them and be hurt...I mean, geez, do you run the Carebear campaign??? D&D is centered on combat! The stories are vehicles for heroic stories involving some sort of conflict. But without risk, the players feel guided by an invisible that protects them. That's almost worse than having über-powerful NPCs always save their asses.

 

[Tsyr]

To sum up, I think any tactics supported by the rules are valid and fair.

Now, this I have to disagree with. Valid? Yes. FAIR? No. Fair is what you make of it... you can do some TERRIBLY unfair stuff that is, technicly, all within the rules.

And Hakkenshi: I sorta meant my last post to be an "in general" type of thing, not aimed at you, or even specificly this thread... just in general.

 

[Hakkenshi]

Ah, then you'll forgive me if I thought it was in response to my post, since you quoted me

 

[Tsyr]

Ah, then you'll forgive me if I thought it was in response to my post, since you quoted me

Yeah... but I mostly just did that so that you would know what the heck I was talking about... blabbering randomly doesn't add much to my image, ya know?

 

[Dragonblade]

The point of the game is to have fun. If its fun for you for your characters survival to be in question with every die roll then more power to you.

But I prefer to play in a game where my survival (or items) are not called into question with every die roll. Its more fun for me to concentrate on building empires or on saving the princess in a grander story sense then on the gritty details of making equipment saving throws.

Now, if a PC's legendary magic sword is sundered by the dark lord during the final duel between him and the PC culminating in months of play, then fine.

But destroying the same sword almost casually while the PC is exploring a routine dungeon is not acceptable to me. Nor is it "fun" for me.

And BS comments like: "if the player whines and can't handle my godly DM perogative in destroying his equipment, then he gets booted." is not only bad DMing, it shows as much or more a lack of maturity on the DM's part than on the so-called "whining" player's.

 

[Tsyr]

Well, technicly it _IS_ within a DMs rights to ask a player not to come anymore. I disagree with the reasoning, myself -that is, the logic that says if a player doesn't like his items being destroyed by non-important combat, he is a whiner and immature- it is still the DMs right to both think that way and act upon that thought.

 

[hong]

Hong, one of the big differences between story characters and D&D characters is the sheer amount of loot they carry around. If a character is quite attached to even a plain masterwork sword, I won't break it except in an epic battle, even if it would be the smartest thing for the bandits attacking the characters to do. However, when the player wants plot immunity for his super sword, plus his boots of flying, ring of resistance, belt of strength, goggles of darkvision, and hewards handy haversack full of +1 scavenged weapons, you go from dramatic to whiny and silly.

Fair enough. Although at the same time, I don't think the degree of attachment is going to be the same for _all_ the items that a character might have. For instance, if I was playing a fighter, I might consider my sword and shield, and maybe my armour, to be part of "me". No way is anyone going to get my sword without prying my cold, dead fingers off of it. However, my +5 ring of protection, +6 belt of Str, or +5 cloak of resistance aren't so central to my image of my character. They're useful, but in the end, they really are just tools. If the ring goes kaboom, or the cloak, that's unfortunate, but I won't get all knotted up because of it.

This will vary depending on what character I'm playing, naturally. If I was a sorc, I might be more attached to that +6 cloak of Cha than to my +1 dagger.

I'll go out on a limb here, and extrapolate _my_ feelings to what many players feel. I don't have any solid evidence for this, but from what I've seen, it's a reasonable assumption. At least for reasonable players, anyway.

And besides, in most fantasy settings, magic is rare enough that the signature weapons are pretty much immune to sundering, by D&D rules already in place.

I'm not sure what you mean?

So while I would like to see some means of creating a signature item that you can upgrade without needing a spellcaster and that becomes more or less part of your character, only breaking when he does, it shouldn't be a blanket benefit of being a PC. When you have enough magic, it does feel just like kewl stuff, and most of it is fully within the DM's right to bust up to make you hate the sunderer that much more.

Coincidentally, I have some rules for imbuing items that I've cooked up from various sources:

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/imbued_magic.htm

I'm not saying that _every_ magic item should have special significance. If that were the case, it would become meaningless. However, I do think that sundering isn't something that should happen without good reason; and "to keep players on their toes" doesn't strike me as a very good reason.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Now, this I have to disagree with. Valid? Yes. FAIR? No. Fair is what you make of it... you can do some TERRIBLY unfair stuff that is, technicly, all within the rules.

Okay, I'm not talking about min-maxing some deathtrap to "get" the players. I'm talking about the fact that attacking weapons and destruction of weapons is dealt with in detail in the 3E rules. As you say, "fair" is what you make of it, and my players consider me a fair and impartial DM.

The point of the game is to have fun. If its fun for you for your characters survival to be in question with every die roll then more power to you.

But I prefer to play in a game where my survival (or items) are not called into question with every die roll. Its more fun for me to concentrate on building empires or on saving the princess in a grander story sense then on the gritty details of making equipment saving throws.

True. The point of the game is to have fun. But you're going way overboard if you think that IMC the fate of the world hangs on "every die roll." There are important ones, and not so important ones. The point is that fate flows from the dice, not from DM fiat. IMC it is conceivable that bad luck and player mistakes will lead to the party being wiped out halfway to the goal. And that is okay, because achieving the goal is much more satisfying for us if real risk is involved (as Hakkenshi noted above).

And BS comments like: "if the player whines and can't handle my godly DM perogative in destroying his equipment, then he gets booted." is not only bad DMing, it shows as much or more a lack of maturity on the DM's part than on the so-called "whining" player's. [/B]

"BS...Godly DM prerogative...Bad DMing...lack of maturity"? Don't start flaming, Jack. You're making all kinds of assumptions, and frankly you're crossing the line into rudeness. There's no call for that. I never said anything about a "godly DM prerogative to destroy equipment." I was talking about a player who reacted badly whenever the dice went against them. Pull back on the reins, there, Dragonblade.