Characters defined by "their stuff"

[Quickbeam]

PC's always want more and better "stuff", and to a great degree many players do define their characters by the equipment and gear they possess. However, I believe the array of feats, spells and special class abilities available to PC's go a long way to offsetting the need for "stuff" if applied wisely within the game mechanics.

It is a sad commentary that some players fear the loss of items more than that of their character's very life...but as others have noted, that can be fixed pretty easily if you wish your campaign to run along different lines.

 

[Deadguy]

Very good point Wally, and one I was about ready to state, but you beat me to the punch. Yes, while some mythological characters were identified by a powerful artifact, they were not walking piles of magical gadgets like D&D characters. And I think that is what most folks who don't like the characters=items problem object to. Magic items should be something special and valuable, not something that is ASSUMED to be possessed by characters. D&D doesn't have any mythological or legendary flavor to it now (although its based on them), but instead has carved out its own genre of magic-happy looters and pillagers. In that sense, the rules encourage PCs to gather as many magic items as quickly as they can, while neglecting the personality of the character himself. Its become much more about the cool powerups a character can get and much less about how the character fits into and interacts with the world.

This point really deserves answering, Gothmog, and the answer is... something Eric's Grandma wouldn't allow, so I am forced to say "Tosh, Sir, absolute tosh!"

Every edition of D&D, indeed every RPG I have encountered over the years, has risked being about 'kewl powerz'! It's in the hands of the players and the DM as to what is the focus of the campaign. If they want the game to focus around garnering powers then it will, irrespective of the rules. If they want character development and backstory to be more important, it will be so. Of course, in practise, it will vary even within a group as to how much effort each individual will put into that element that you regard as the most important ("how the character fits into and interacts with the world").

I don't find that D&D Third Edition has changed that balance at all, save perhaps that it has made quantification of powers easier. But you are under some very strange misapprehension, Gothmog, if you think that players/DMs who normally are interested in character development suddenly become less so under Third Ed. Groups will continue to play this game the way they play all the other ones they play also.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't necessarily think that D&D characters are about their things. Their things certainly play a part in defining their capabilities, etc but the characters are the ones who wield them. In a by the book game, destroying their things may reduce the characters' capabilities more than death but that's a function of the hit point/save or die/resurrection mechanic in D&D rather than the fact that items are important. If a character "is" their +12 hackmaster then that's a consequence of the game or the player's take on the game being entirely focussed on combat power.

That said, as to the piles of magic items comment, I think there actually is a fair amount of precedent for it in fantasy literature and legend. In the Lord of the Rings, for instance, Frodo had the following items that would probably be classified as magical in D&D: his sword from the barrow downs (broken at the ford or Rivendell), Sting, the mithril coat, the phial of Galadriel, the elven cloak (with a special brooch), and Lembas. That's a fair pile of magical gear. Pippin had his sword from the barrow, his elven cloak (with a special brooch), some lembas, the lasting effects of the waters of the Ents, and the helmet, armor, and shield of the guard of Gondor (and, given the description, they'd probably all be magic in D&D with the possible exception of the brooch).

In Beowulf, Beowulf used several swords (and broke most of them) all of which had their own names and histories and reputations for special virtue. If I recall correctly, his shield, dagger, and mail coat had their own histories too and might well be classified as magical in D&D.

Achilles was a walking pile of magic himself. Not only was he dipped in the River Styx, his armor, shield, helmet, etc all had their own histories and special tales of their forging. (And, IIRC, Ajax and Ullysses had a rather nasty spat about who got to keep his armor after he died--now isn't that classic D&D right there?)

In the Bible, the size, weight, and material of Goliath's sword, spear, helmet, shield, and armor are all described--with corresponding implications about their expected effectiveness. While they were not magical IRL, it would be entirely reasonable for a Testament style translation of Goliath into D&D terms to give them magical properties. (And, translating the text into D&D terms, it wouldn't be distorting the message of the passage too much to say that the favor of GOD makes more of a difference to the outcome of a fight than +5 scale mail, a +3 tower shield, a helm of heavy fortification, a Large +5 longspear of wounding (monkey gripped, of course), a +3 keen large shortsword, and the fact that his player bamboozled the DM into letting him play a half-ogre with a base strength of 18--Goliath and his fearsome reputation was as much about his stats and equipment as any D&D character).

Now, when we think of Frodo, Pippin, Beowulf, Achilles, or Goliath, we don't reduce them to their things do we? Similarly, D&D characters, despite the piles of magic items they end up using need not be reduced to their things either. Even if their capabilities are heavily influenced by their possessions, that doesn't mean that their possessions define them.

 

[FireLance]

Every edition of D&D, indeed every RPG I have encountered over the years, has risked being about 'kewl powerz'!

I think Deadguy has hit the nail on the head. Part (and for some groups, most or all) of gaming has to do with the improvement of the character, whether it comes in the form of feats, skills, class abilities, spells, contacts, social status, rank, wealth, or equipment.

If you don't want power tied to objects, or a myriad of objects, you can get around it (without too much adjustment to character power relative to challenges appropriate to their level) by giving them alternative "power-ups". Some examples include: level-dependent AC bonuses, level-dependent weapon bonuses (so that *any* weapon the character picks up and uses gets an enhancement bonus to hit and damage), ability score bonuses not linked to items (as suggested by Kamikaze Midget), etc. Perhaps these could even be linked to the philosophy the character espouses: a barbarian following the Path of Fire could give any weapon he wields the flaming or flaming burst quality, for example, or a rogue following the Path of Shadow could gain the ability of self-concealment (as a Cloak of Displacement). If you have the Book of Exalted Deeds, the Vow of Poverty feat is one extreme example of how this could be done.

 

[Deadguy]

A good example, FireLance, of the sort of game you envisage is Earthdawn. Like D&D it has a level system, though advancement is more open-ended. But its heroes, the Adepts, are autpmatically considered magical. As such their Talents (somewhere between Skills and Feats in nature) allow them access to powers that in D&D would come from magic items normally. For example, the Archer Adept has the power to cause his arrows to flame, inflicting much more damage. The Warrior Adept can run in the air, to attack foes from above. It would be no problem to emulate such abilties in a D&D game, thus reducing the need for magic items. You could either go for the approach that gives classes access to 'supernatural' powers as they level (by Feat or class ability). Or you can allow, as some others have described, the PCs to invest XP in buying supernatural abilities equivalent to magic items.

Interestingly, even in Earthdawn there's still a niche for magic items. These come in three flavours. Firstly there are actual crafted items, like magical suits of armour, created by the setting's magicians (though there's scant information as to how it's done). Secondly, there are the Items of Legend, weapons and tools used by heroes of the past, and imbued with powers related to their heroic exploits (so if the legenedary hero Torgak was famed for slaying a dragon with his Axe, then that Axe might have powers related to defeating dragons and overcoming their inherent powers). Thirdly, and most interestingly, it is possible for an Adept's own possessions to become magical in nature, tied to his own legendary exploits! This last is the one most worthy of emulation, since it ties together legendary action and legendary equipment. It also encourages players to stick with equipment, since in time it becomes worked into their own legends, and might take on magical properties of its own. If the Swordmaster wields his blue-steel sword, which he Names Blue Lightning, through many notable battles, it's not surprising when one day the blade does indeed become lightning!

Still, withall, FireLance is right that players like 'stuff'. It comes in many forms, from suits of armour to grants of land and titles. It's our way of measuring success. You might say it's a reflection of our materialistic society, but it does resonate strongly through almost all role-players I have met and gamed with.

 

[Ylis]

I, for one, don't take to "collecting" magic items, and don't have any of my characters defined by them. In fact, most of my characters are more defined if, say they are normal, un-itemed human fighters than the Elven ranger with 200 pounds of magical fluff. Items, to me, tend to distract from the actual character personality and drive it to be something it might not normally be (for instance, if you have that ring of protection +92 and your character started off as a bashful, cowardly bard do you really think s/he will stay as such?). Only my magic-using characters tend to really like their items...

 

[Epametheus]

Characters being defined by their stuff depends a lot on the character's classes and what the player's like.

Fighters are almost totally dependent upon their stuff. Paladins and rangers are somewhat less dependent. A proper spellcaster -- cleric, wizard, druid, whatever -- is nearly as dangerous without stuff as he would be with stuff, and so really isn't equipment-dependent at all.

It's normal for fighter-types to have some sort of signature weapon, but easier for a single item to drastically change how a fighter-type works than it is for it to change how a spellcaster works. The single best example I've experienced of this was when an 7th level or so party got a pair of Wings of Flying as a random treasure item.

The party's main front-liner suddenly having unlimited flight changed battles pretty drastically; the fighter suddenly had the mobility to pretty much be wherever the heck on the battlefield that he wanted to be. The player actually had to miss a session before the party's other fighter (a mounted knight) could come out of the flying fighter's shadow.

That item has never been handed out again in that group's games.

 

[Gothmog]

This point really deserves answering, Gothmog, and the answer is... something Eric's Grandma wouldn't allow, so I am forced to say "Tosh, Sir, absolute tosh!"

Every edition of D&D, indeed every RPG I have encountered over the years, has risked being about 'kewl powerz'! It's in the hands of the players and the DM as to what is the focus of the campaign. If they want the game to focus around garnering powers then it will, irrespective of the rules. If they want character development and backstory to be more important, it will be so. Of course, in practise, it will vary even within a group as to how much effort each individual will put into that element that you regard as the most important ("how the character fits into and interacts with the world").

I don't find that D&D Third Edition has changed that balance at all, save perhaps that it has made quantification of powers easier. But you are under some very strange misapprehension, Gothmog, if you think that players/DMs who normally are interested in character development suddenly become less so under Third Ed. Groups will continue to play this game the way they play all the other ones they play also.

No offense was meant by my first post Deadguy. I used to think a lot like you do, but over the last few years I have seen gamers who used to be very good players turn into magic item and power crazy munchkins when playing 3E. These are guys I have played AD&D 1st and 2nd editions with, as well as CoC, Deadlands, Hero, and a homebrew system we made up, and they didn't do the extreme powergaming in those other systems. Don't get me wrong, I like 3E/3.5- its a definite improvement over previous editions and allows for more character customization via feats and skills than did previous editions. However, the assumption the system makes involving magic item levels and how important they are to the characters (that many players would rather die and be raised than losing their items) seems utterly ridiculous to me. When the character becomes disposable because the items aren't, there is a problem. Thats the point I was trying to make in my previous post. I know that each group has different dynamics, and I've managed to keep my current group from going the power-mad magic items are everything route, but this is a phenomenon I've really seen magnified since 3E. I'd love to see magic items take more of a backseat in 4E (a trend we've seen started in 3.5), and have each character be more defined by his abilites than the loot he's managed to pillage.

 

[micr0c0sm]

Iudc

This reminds me of a great story to hand to any power-hungry munchkin - The Intercontinental Union of Disgusting Characters. Its 50-120 pages i beleive all about powergaming but it has a storyline, (not just guidelines for the DM) and is fun to read. I printed it out while ago so if we can find this gem it can really change players minds... or give them new ideas for uber-powerful stuff

Has anyone else read it?

found a link IUDC

 

[Deadguy]

Re-reading my reply, Gothmog, does make me sound more angry than I actually meant it to be. It's just that I've heard the complaint too many times not to feel slightly annoyed, since it isn't my experience. But I can see how it might become so. And certainly I am more of a Gamist when I play D&D than, say, Earthdawn or Mage: the Sorcerers Crusade. I can't easily explain why, other than perhaps detailed rules encourage me to use that detail. It's not even that I really disagree with you that PCs need too many items to stay ahead of the curve.

More generally, D&D labours under the sacred cow of the power of high level Spellcasters, particularly Wizards. Their growth in power is exponential (getting both more slots and more powerful spells), and their top level abilities are very strong indeed. To compete with them we either need to accept magic items or we need to come to terms with a more fantastical feel for high level PCs all round, where combats run more like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The only other alternative (and actually the one I favour) is to rework the high level casters, so their power doesn't grow so sharply. In return they need to get more mileage from the spells they do have available to them. But that would really take a reworking of the rules on a par with the 2E -> 3E transition!

In the meantime, I can live with the standard approach (at least I have a baseline to compare with), whilst tweaking things somewhat.