Characters defined by "their stuff"

[Bendris Noulg]

Some DMs just need to admit that they only have fun when the characters are half-naked, wearing rags, groveling in the dirt for the chance to kill a kobold and find a copper piece and then can make a bone-knife out of the kobold's leg bone that is -6 to hit and does 1d2 damage, half strength bonus, with a 50% chance to shatter on impact. Because that is "challenging" - while for some reason, a magical sparing match at 15th level with a squad of sorcere/ogre mages is too "easy".

Well, I can only relate what's going on in my own game, but here goes...

36th Level PC. Magic Items: Circlet (+1 Will saves against Psionic Effects), 2 Katanas +3, 2 Daggers +2, 1 Dagger +4.

Non-magical items from the Kobold-bone barrel: 1 Army, currently numbering slightly less than 100,000 and on the rise.

Game Play Focus: Mercenary contracts, political intrigue, mass warfare, human evolution as a psionic race, the resurrection of an ancient empire 10,000 years fallen, ousting of an evil ice deity that has held the world in its grip since that fall, and the ultimate and undeniable Will of God. Most game play involves either political centers or the field of war.

Yes, we like low magic games because we find more fun in games where items are more than the "next upgrade". But you seem to have a better understanding of what you fear a low-magic game is rather than what they really are.

 

[Altalazar]

Well, I can only relate what's going on in my own game, but here goes...

36th Level PC. Magic Items: Circlet (+1 Will saves against Psionic Effects), 2 Katanas +3, 2 Daggers +2, 1 Dagger +4.

Non-magical items from the Kobold-bone barrel: 1 Army, currently numbering slightly less than 100,000 and on the rise.

Game Play Focus: Mercenary contracts, political intrigue, mass warfare, human evolution as a psionic race, the resurrection of an ancient empire 10,000 years fallen, ousting of an evil ice deity that has held the world in its grip since that fall, and the ultimate and undeniable Will of God. Most game play involves either political centers or the field of war.

Yes, we like low magic games because we find more fun in games where items are more than the "next upgrade". But you seem to have a better understanding of what you fear a low-magic game is rather than what they really are.

Actually, I prefer campaigns that involve world-changing and such, magic or not.

But what I described was based on many posts I've seen here over the years by DMs who complain about how things "just aren't fun" after players get spells over 2nd level in power and players get over 4th level - so that would also exclude your little scenario - they'd never have money for armies and would have been retired 10 years real time before reaching 36th level. Basically, low-magic has been a code-word for "low powered campaigns with no magic, little money, and where characters need to retire after reaching 4th level because then they start to get "too powerful." At least in my experience - as Hong has repeatedly pointed out, there are Dinosaurs who have trouble remembering when this topic was first discussed.

(Not that it is a reason NOT to talk about it - obviously, there is room for discussion or people wouldn't keep posting about it - and also one must allow for the fact that new people join the gaming and online community every day - and it really is new to them - who are we to stifle that just because we joined earlier?)

 

[Plane Sailing]

At least in my experience - as Hong has repeatedly pointed out, there are Dinosaurs who have trouble remembering when this topic was first discussed.

Why don't you keep your rude and snarky comments to yourself? I don't appreciate being called a dinosaur just because I want to discuss this issue *now*, as my campaign is reaching upper levels. I participated in such discussions before on the basis of theory and now I'm interested to discuss it on the basis of practice.

Hong commonly makes stupid inflammatory statements and is easy to just ignore, (it's almost expected of him) but basically attacking individuals or making fun of them is simply stupid.

 

[MerricB]

Achilles was completely invulnerable except for his heel, right ?

Does the legend explain why he needed super-duper armor, shield and helmet then ?

It's because of a combination of legends. His imperfect invulnerabilty is not true of all forms of the legend. There's an interesting article in pdf form on the matter here: http://www.ucpress.edu/scan/ca-e/142/burgess.142.pdf

Achilles in the Iliad in not invulnerable, thus he needs his better armours.

Cheers!

 

[Numion]

In my case, it's not that at all-- indeed, I like the characters having a lot of magic at their disposal, as long as they're casting spells. As long as they're making the magic, not wearing it.

You're a DM, right? You're making that distinction with magic items vs. spells. Are players making it too? From what I've seen, the problem of equating PCs with their items is most often aired by DMs.

I wouldn't be too sure that players identify that way. I know I don't. I've noticed that IMEX players tend to rather define their characters by their deeds. Every time they tell about an old character (a bore sometimes, for sure), they don't start to recite the characters equipment list, but their accomplishments.

Now, I have a very limited sample size, as I only game with my group. But thats my experience. Characters aren't defined by the stuff, but by the deeds. Stuff is an integral part about the characters abilities, but most of the stuff only enhances the characters abilities, and doesn't create new abilities.

Thus IMO characters aren't defined by their stuff. If magic items severely altered chosen character archetypes, they would define the characters.

Archers with a load of items are still archers. Items don't turn a fighter to anything but a really good fighter. Thus they don't and can't define the characters, unless there's something really strange going on.

 

[Numion]

It reminds me of a perceptive comment made, I believe, by Numion some while ago about the unfortunate degree to which characters are defined by "their stuff" in D&D, and that sometimes a line of continuity is drawn through a PC's stuff rather than his life (especially if there isn't a raising from the dead but instead a new character who gets given the old characters stuff, which may happen in some cases!)

Not me, sorry. I actually completely oppose your reasoning

You must be thinking of the old skool gamers who've said that, like Gothmog, Bendris Noulg and arcady (I meant old skool with complete respect).

One of the bizarre side effects of this is that the stuff can become more important than the character. Death from 9th level onwards is a mere speedbump in the characters life (and from 17th level it isn't that since true resurrection applies no penalties at all), yet the spell Mordenkainens Disjunction has the ability to strip a party of its effectiveness and with no means of redress or recovery.

Yes, equipment is important for high-level PCs. But in no way does it define the character. In 3.0e character concept and archetype are more important than ever in D&D. Feats make sure that you're likely to improve in your chosen field and stay within it. A magic sword, no matter how powerful, isn't likely to turn an archer to a meleer, or a wizard to a fighter. That'd be wasting of all those feats and abilities they've spent to excel in their chosen field.

Items most of the time enhance the abilities the character has naturally. Archers become better archers, fighters become better fighters, etc. They do not define the characters purpose, chosen field, archetype, modus operandi (well, flight boots might do that ). In short, items don't define the character.

Now, they might be very important for a character to remain competitive, but that doesn't make the character any less important.

It seems a little strange to have a situation where it might be common for a player to be more concerned about his PC losing his stuff than losing his life!

That is a bit odd, indeed. Easily fixed though

 

[rounser]

More generally, D&D labours under the sacred cow of the power of high level Spellcasters, particularly Wizards.

Aren't we forgetting that one of the only reasons wizards seem so powerful is that they've got the meat shields up front taking the brunt of it on the nose? When they go down, TPK begins to loom as a very real possibility, although the wizard might teleport away before they get him.

Also, a random idea for a low magic campaign: What about disposing of the masterwork weapons rules, and houseruling that weapons and armour up to +2 or +3 are simply masterwork quality, not magical. It might help lessen the sheer proliferation of magic weaponry and armour lying around. Potential problem area: The create magic item feats become less useful, as does the spellcaster's ability in this area. On the other hand, as a big verisimilitude/campaign colour bonus, PCs might visit a famous master blacksmith ("the best in the kingdom") to buy a +2 greatsword, rather than Ye Olde Cheesey Magicke Shoppe.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It reminds me of a perceptive comment made, I believe, by Numion some while ago about the unfortunate degree to which characters are defined by "their stuff" in D&D, and that sometimes a line of continuity is drawn through a PC's stuff rather than his life (especially if there isn't a raising from the dead but instead a new character who gets given the old characters stuff, which may happen in some cases!)

You must be thinking of the old skool gamers who've said that, like Gothmog, Bendris Noulg and arcady (I meant old skool with complete respect).

>blink blink<

Old skool?

Wow... No disrespect taken, although this to some degree illustrates the shift in the game's paradigm. When I was first attracted to D&D, I was immediately fascinated with the countless possibilities the game presented. True that 1E was what it was, but I recognized its worth as a foundation to endless variations. Unfortunately, it took over a decade to find a group that saw the game as something more than, well, "breaking into homes and taking the stuff", as the anology goes. That this trend is once again the "base line" and that my view of the game would be considered "old skool" is kinda scary considering that it used to be called "revolutionary", "pioneering", and "hard core" and today's "break in/take loot" mentality was old skool.

(That make's you folks "retro", don't it? )

I must say also, though, taking Plane Sailing's comment into focus, while I don't ever recall mentioning hand-me-down magic items on these or any boards, I do recall the 1E character sheets having a "will" on them, which was often used by many players to ensure that their possessions were passed on to as-yet-unwritten characters (and worse, I've seen it used by said players to convince dim-witted GMs that said will should allow their 1st Level PCs to be walking around with Excalibur, Stormbringer, and what ever other dream-item was in the latest suppliment).

With all honesty, this "will" might have been on the 2E character sheets; we made our own character sheets by then and so I've never seen one.

Yes, equipment is important for high-level PCs. But in no way does it define the character. In 3.0e character concept and archetype are more important than ever in D&D. Feats make sure that you're likely to improve in your chosen field and stay within it. A magic sword, no matter how powerful, isn't likely to turn an archer to a meleer, or a wizard to a fighter. That'd be wasting of all those feats and abilities they've spent to excel in their chosen field.

Ah, but this leaves out a key factor: In the pursuit of what is called an "effective" character, these items and their exact powers are anticipated and integrated into the character design. The players know that at Level X you will have Y amount of gold and thus pre-plan their purchases/creations. In this regard, the items aren't strengthening the character concept so much as they are part of it, which is the nature of this particular view point.

And, as you pointed out, those items are part of the balance: Remove items, spellcasters are over powered; remove spellcasters, Monks and Rogues are overpowered, etc. etc. etc.

That is a bit odd, indeed. Easily fixed though

About a year ago, I met some younger gamers at a gaming shop, and we ended up talking in the mall's food court (haven't done that in years...). During the discussion, I ended up describing the 1E module In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords. Half of them couldn't believe that such a module could have possibly been written (mid-level PCs without any equipment?!), while the other half were immediately debating over whether the Sorcerer, Monk, or Psion would be the best choice for the adventure.

Honestly, I'm not sure which half scared me most.

 

[FireLance]

Also, a random idea for a low magic campaign: What about disposing of the masterwork weapons rules, and houseruling that weapons and armour up to +2 or +3 are simply masterwork quality, not magical. It might help lessen the sheer proliferation of magic weaponry and armour lying around. Potential problem area: The create magic item feats become less useful, as does the spellcaster's ability in this area. On the other hand, as a big verisimilitude/campaign colour bonus, PCs might visit a famous master blacksmith ("the best in the kingdom") to buy a +2 greatsword, rather than Ye Olde Cheesey Magicke Shoppe.

I'm not sure whether this is tongue-in-cheek.

Saying that weapons and armor get enhancement bonuses from crafting skill instead of magic does not really address the issue of character reliance on equipment. Instead of Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe, you'll just have the neighbourhood branch of War-Mart, purveyors of finely crafted weapons and armor. Instead of high-level wizards enslaved by sweatshops to mass-produce generic +n swords, you'll have high-level experts enslaved by sweatshops to do the same. In fact, it doesn't help anyone but the DM who wants to enhance his PCs' abilities, just not by *magic*, and thus comes up with another in-game explanation - craft skill, special materials, personal power, whatever. If one is cheddar, another is brie - just a different form of cheese.

 

[rounser]

Instead of Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe, you'll just have the neighbourhood branch of War-Mart, purveyors of finely crafted weapons and armor. Instead of high-level wizards enslaved by sweatshops to mass-produce generic +n swords, you'll have high-level experts enslaved by sweatshops to do the same.

I think you're thinking way too industrial era, there. From what I gather from my tenuous grasp of medieval history, blacksmiths were pretty rare, to the extent that villages and towns would go to great lengths to ensure that theirs wasn't poached. You can bet that the master armourer capable of meeting the DC required to create +3 plate would be in the employ of a king, and said armour probably wouldn't be for sale except in rare instances.

In fact, it doesn't help anyone but the DM who wants to enhance his PCs' abilities, just not by *magic*, and thus comes up with another in-game explanation - craft skill, special materials, personal power, whatever. If one is cheddar, another is brie - just a different form of cheese.

I disagree - making everything magical is cheese, whereas imbuing mundane items with real significance quality-wise is bootstrapping the system for an area where perhaps it harms suspension of disbelief. In the real world the quality of a mundane sword might range that far in difference - why not in the game?