Characters defined by "their stuff"

[Snoweel]

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...

OH YEAH?!?!?!?

YUO AND WHO'S ARMEY?!?!?!?!?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't have a problem with magic items per se. Heck, I very much advocate the sale of such.

The problem I have is that magic items are part of the power of the character, but they don't seem to be part of the character...when you can buy a magic sword, or find a magic ring on a dead goblin, that's something that is magical and special, but not something that is part of your CHARACTER'S might, y'know? It's just fortuitous chance, luck, or your daddy's will. At best, it's a Bond-style Q-lab giving you the wand, boots, or cloak you may need to complete the quest (indeed, that's a good rationale for player treasure), but they're still just doo-dads, and come the next adventure, they're not so much around anymore.

And then you have the other extreme of truly legendary weapons that should be pretty well unique to the charcter. Excalibur, et al...these are special things that not everyone gets to wield, that you can't buy at a shop, that are special rewards for special ceremonies and part of the campaign and plot in a way that's independant of their +x value.

Giving them some powers at the cost of some treasure still lets me give out stuff for them (just gotta lessen the powers' might is all), while allowing them the same abilities, just inherent to the character, and not have to be found, or bought, or bestowed. Especially when they're so tailored to the character.

Having them integral to the character helps me avoid that little leap of logic, and still lets me give them magic items....it just means that if the plot doesn't call for a treasure hoard, I can still give them power for doing whatever they do, without worrying about them falling behind.

 

[hong]

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.

Perhaps you should have paid attention.

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.

It's kinda fun, though.

 

[hong]

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.

Ah, so your gaming style was as much of an exception to the rule back then, as now? That's... interesting.

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,

I don't remember any such thing.

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.

Bendy, you have to realise that "balance" is not an inherent part of a character concept. A character concept is something that exists ingame. If I am an archer, I shoot things. If I'm the only shooty-type guy in the party, people will call me "the archer", whether I have a +5 bow of superduperness or not.

Balance, however, is a metagame concept. I can play a wussy diplomat just fine, it just won't be very useful in the bloodsoaked dungeon crawl that is a stereotypical D&D adventure. That doesn't stop people calling me "the diplomat", or "the faceman", or even "the wimp" if it comes to that. Do not confuse metagame knowledge with ingame knowledge. All 3E has done, vice previous editions, is to make balance front-and-centre as a rules consideration.

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.

Think of it as character building.


Hong "now bend over" Ooi

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Two points:

1. This reminds me of a debate I got into with a friend about magic items in the Lord of The Rings movies. I insisted that all their stuff was magic, he insisted that it wasn't. It was fun, I just kept pointing out stuff that they would have likely picked up to enhance their abilities, had this been a game of D&D (the skill enhancers on the Elf's boots, for example).

Sure, Gimli may not have the ultimate axe of godslaying, but it's pretty easy to see it as an item of surpassing quality, quantified in D&D terms as magical. And face it, just about every hero out there has neat stuff. As I recall, Roland's (From the song of roland) sword is pretty neat, and gets its own little passage. Heck, his squire's sword is pretty neat. Sigfried gets a whole lot of cool stuff too (a cloak of invisibility off the bat, and I think a girdle of strength), despite the fact that his skin is hard as horn, and he's allready ridiculously strong and skilled. Heck, even Don Quixote (in his own mind) has really awesome gear. Neat stuff

2. For me, the problems are when:
The items tricks are greater than the character's tricks.
The characters recycle items almost as fast as they get them.

To combat this, give items additional abilities, bonuses and capibilities that are only unlocked after proper expierementation and use (ie: leveling). I've also made the process of enhancing an item to bring out more of it's natural potency easier than forging an item from scratch.

So, am I the only person who had a player get all sentimental when it came time to retire a beloved item? (this was before the enchanting tweak)

 

[Snoweel]

This reminds me of a debate I got into with a friend about magic items in the Lord of The Rings movies. I insisted that all their stuff was magic, he insisted that it wasn't.

I'm with you.

To combat this, give items additional abilities, bonuses and capibilities that are only unlocked after proper expierementation and use (ie: leveling).

I'm with you on this one as well.

IMO, every magical longsword should be +1 in the hands of a 4th level character and +5 for a 17th level character. Problem solved, as far as disposable magic items goes.

Anyway, my beef with magic items is the same as my beef with spells and magic abilities.

I don't like magic to be evident to the common man, whether flaming burst weapon property or that godawful blink spell.

I'm all for high level heroes being covered in magical trinkets, but the only people who should ever know for sure are those with access to detect magic.

imo

 

[Numion]

>blink blink<

Old skool?

I might've chosen the wrong word here - I really meant you as gamers who've been at it for a long time, and thus are more mature than the general crowd.

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.

Yes, the items are an integral part of the characters raw power. However, the items don't define the character nowhere as much as his chosen specialization - class, archetype, how the character is played. A high-level archer in a "normal magic" (D&D normal, which for many is actually high magic) world, with the standard magic items, is just a really good archer. The same archer in a low-magic world with no special items is still a really good archer. That tells me that he wasn't after all defined by his items.

He was defined by his chosen archetype, which was archer.

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.

I presume you wish it wasn't so? I guess that boils down to taste. I like the current setup, and that really has nothing to with defining the characters.

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.

I guess that tells a lot about current gaming population. But lets be real here: was not just a tiny minority of adventures, even in the gygax era, such that the PCs had to prance around naked?

EDIT: Are you sure that the guys weren't just displaying disbelief that such a dreck of an adventure hook would actually make its way to the printers? IMO the "you're captured & naked" is about the worst adventure hook possible, that just reeks of lazy design. Maybe it's a good thing we've not seen them of late, except for that (admittedly) archaic maze of zayenne ..

Ah, so your gaming style was as much of an exception to the rule back then, as now? That's... interesting.

Maybe time has enhanced memories of 'ye olden days'. People might not think much of hongs signal-to-noise ratio, but it's high enough to keep reading his posts

 

[diaglo]

Ah, so your gaming style was as much of an exception to the rule back then, as now? That's... interesting.

*beats hong with a schtick*

i believe PS may be recalling some comments i made in the past.

I don't remember any such thing.

then you also won't remember the "relatives" rules in Booklet I of OD&D.

Balance, however, is a metagame concept.

and this is what i agreed with you at the start of this thread. iirc.

 

[Henry]

Let's lay rest to any personal hostilities and insults, ladies and gents. We can discuss this without attacking one another, please.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I might've chosen the wrong word here - I really meant you as gamers who've been at it for a long time, and thus are more mature than the general crowd.

And here I was thinking that I might add "OG" to the beginning of my screen name.

Yes, the items are an integral part of the characters raw power. However, the items don't define the character nowhere as much as his chosen specialization - class, archetype, how the character is played. A high-level archer in a "normal magic" (D&D normal, which for many is actually high magic) world, with the standard magic items, is just a really good archer. The same archer in a low-magic world with no special items is still a really good archer. That tells me that he wasn't after all defined by his items.

I don't question this. My question is if these concepts would have as much appeal (indeed, would the game have as much appeal) if the "stuff" wasn't part of the equation.

When a player says they have desire to play in a game with less items, then I'd say it's a safe bet that items are very much important to that player's definition of character concept. And you must admit, there is no shortage of such players.

EDIT: Are you sure that the guys weren't just displaying disbelief that such a dreck of an adventure hook would actually make its way to the printers? IMO the "you're captured & naked" is about the worst adventure hook possible, that just reeks of lazy design. Maybe it's a good thing we've not seen them of late, except for that (admittedly) archaic maze of zayenne...

Considering the adventure was the 4th of 4, with the "getting captured and becoming naked" part being at the end of part 3, I wouldn't call it the worst hook possible (although the "room floods with green gas until everyone fails their save" ending of part 3 was certainly lazy design, I'll give you that). And there are other classic examples of similar (anyone else find themselves in the Tomb of Horrors seperated from clothes and goods after a certain teleport-portal trap?).

I certainly wouldn't consider it (part 4) lazy, by any means, though, considering that the adventure provided various means of alternate equipment to be found or made from the materials on hand, methods of escaping were available after searching for some time, and other challenges tailored to the situation. What was important, however, was that the tools that most would expect to rely upon in most adventures (equipment, magic spells and items) simply weren't available and alternate methods had to be deviced (example: Swim part-way down a flooded tunnel, snag a couple of tubes from the tube-worms, return to the start of the tunnel, and turn the tubes into air-containers was the method required to replace water breathing in order to escape via the sea passage).

If anything, such an adventure should be more viable now than it was then thanks to 3E's Skill System, although having a Monk, Sorcerer, or Psion/PsyW in the party (even a Bard, to some extent) would drastically effect the way such an adventure would play out since they retain a high degree of magical power even if stripped of their equipment.