Blowing up magic items, yes or no?

[Vaxalon]

Do events have to be in the PC's favor in order for the player to have fun?

If so, why do people watch sad movies?

The fact is, defeat, especially at the beginning of a story, can be an excellent motivator.

 

[hong]

Then Arthur must have made rolled higher on the opposed attack roll for Sunder. I'm not claiming that heroes of folklore and mythology have nothing to do with D&D heroes--obviously, that folklore and fiction is what spawned the very idea of the valiant fantastic warrior. But D&D is also a strategy game of rules and numbers. I'd rather challenge my players than coddle them. If the villain can hurt the PC by hurting his "stuff," then by Eris he'll bloody well do it.

Well, I think we have a disagreement on which are the more important aspects of D&D. I take the view that in the end, D&D is about the good guys winning, and the bad guys losing. I expect that when my players go up against the grand high foozle, they're going to kick his butt.

The _important_ thing, to me, is that they kick his butt with style. That basically means the foozle should present them with a significant challenge, but not an unfair one, nor should it resort to cheap tactics (unless I have a cunning plan in mind). For example, someone mentioned the big evil dragon who sunders the hero's dragonbane sword, because it's the major threat. That strikes me as a cheap tactic. The purpose of the sword is to slay dragons, and presumably the hero who uses it intends to do exactly that. I think it's entirely appropriate that the hero should get to use the sword for its intended purpose, even it isn't in the dragon's best interests.

I guess I just don't see D&D as being driven primarily by tactical considerations -- not even D&D combat. But then I think I have a reputation among these parts as a pansy DM.

Yes, it sounds good, but what does that really mean?

Don't ask these silly questions. It's obvious. *cough*

 

[Tsyr]

Do events have to be in the PC's favor in order for the player to have fun?

If so, why do people watch sad movies?

The fact is, defeat, especially at the beginning of a story, can be an excellent motivator.

Story driven defeat, to encourage the players to fight on, is one thing. Sundering a weapon in a fight of no major importance (to the overall storyline) is not the same thing.

 

[Tsyr]

Hong... I get the feeling we are in the same boat, what with being termed "pansy DMs"... Our thoughts seem to be almost identical in that regard.

 

[Hakkenshi]

Yes, those snap judgements about DMing style are getting a bit irritating, if I may say so.

And if a character who chooses to adventure experiences no loss, no disappointment, no unexpected tragedies, he's basically a bunch of numbers put together. Which in turn makes his items a bunch of written-down bonuses.

hong, I think what was meant was that "signature items", if they are powerful enough, cannot be sundered since they have higher pluses than lesser items, and are thus immune to them. Of course, Disintegrate is different, and perhaps I should have mentioned earlier, that I'd much rather Sunder an item than Disintegrate it, since the latter is so much more permanent (although not to an imaginative DM). And no, even then, I would NOT Sunder a weapon in an unimportant fight. The Cornugon that nuked the archer's bow had been stupidly released by the party, and that was one consequence

An issue of Dragon DID in fact cover leveling up items without needing magical ability or feats. I think it's the one with the Justicar prestige class, it may help you hunt it down. FYI, the system is very much like the samurai weapon upgrades.

 

[Dragonblade]

I didn't mean to direct my comments at anyone in particular so, I'll apologize if I have offended.

But all too often I hear players get flamed in absentia who aren't here to defend their actions in the game.

We seem to get a lot of DM's who all seem to be incredibly snide and condescending regarding the concept of a player *gasp* actually daring to be upset at the DM's infallibility.

Its all "he's a whiner!" or "he's a munchkin!" or comments like, "Well, any player gets uppity in my game and he's beholder bait!"

I never see anyone stick up for the player and it drives me nuts! The players don't exist for the gratification of the DM's ego. But to listen to some DM's rant about and take pride in their heavy handedness you wouldn't know it.

Having been on both sides of the screen, I believe it is the players that are the key to the game. The DM should have fun and should enforce the rules of his game. But ultimately, the campaign world exists for the PC's to stand on while they adventure.

And the bottem line is that everyone should be able to have fun, players and DM's.

 

[Dragonblade]

I salute you both, hong and Tsyr!!

Far from being pansy DM's, you are the best kind of DM. You know what the game is truly about.

 

[Tom Cashel]

For example, someone mentioned the big evil dragon who sunders the hero's dragonbane sword, because it's the major threat. That strikes me as a cheap tactic. The purpose of the sword is to slay dragons, and presumably the hero who uses it intends to do exactly that. I think it's entirely appropriate that the hero should get to use the sword for its intended purpose, even it isn't in the dragon's best interests.

I don't see it as cheap...I see it as the pragmatic action of a dragon that isn't a stooge to be slain, but rather an NPC creature with desires and motivations of its own. I believe Sunder is based on an opposed attack roll. If the Dragonbane sword is as good as it's supposed to be, the dragon won't be likely to break it.

But then again, in a game of dice, it might happen. And then (*gasp*) players might have to think up a plan instead of following the rote script of 1. find dragonbane sword, 2. go to dragon's lair, 3. slay dragon.

I agree that D&D is supposed to be fun...for everyone, including the DM. It's no fun for me if I know how it ends before we start playing. In my opinion, that's what White Wolf games are for, and I enjoy them quite a bit. In D&D, dice play a large part in determining the outcome. I don't want my players to fail, and I don't set out to dismantle them or their gear, but a predetermined victory just isn't fun for me. Yes, I expect them to win...that's why I use the CR/EL system...but I say once more: in a game of DICE anything can happen.

I do want my games to tell a story as well (my Story Hour should be proof of that)...I just want the writing to be collaborative rather than coming up with the whole thing before my players even sit down at the table.

 

[Tsyr]

Now, strangely Tom, I'm exactly the oposite there... In my White Wolf games, the players are far more likely to deviate from any plan I had, and are far more likely to fail.

 

[hong]

And if a character who chooses to adventure experiences no loss, no disappointment, no unexpected tragedies, he's basically a bunch of numbers put together. Which in turn makes his items a bunch of written-down bonuses.

Well, I don't think anyone's really advocating that characters shouldn't experience any losses or disappointments. I've lost a few characters that I've played, and I didn't throw tantrums. IIRC, Tsyr also posted a pretty impressive episode in his campaign where one of his PCs stuffed up majorly when summoning a demon, and levelled an entire stronghold in search of vengeance. However, I think that there are more meaningful ways to accomplish this than just attacking items.

An issue of Dragon DID in fact cover leveling up items without needing magical ability or feats. I think it's the one with the Justicar prestige class, it may help you hunt it down. FYI, the system is very much like the samurai weapon upgrades.

It the article you're thinking of is the same as the one I'm thinking of, it's in Dragon 289, the OA issue. There are rules for this sort of stuff in various places.