Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5456235" data-attributes="member: 27160">AbdulAlhazred, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, because what you want out of D&amp;D items seems totally at odds to what I want out of them.&nbsp; I see D&amp;D 4E as primarily designed to be a &quot;players face challenges through their characters and struggle to overcome them&quot; game.&nbsp; This gives issues with elements that are controlled by the DM but are part of the players' toolkit, not part of the challenge.&nbsp; You apparently want the game to be something else.A few parting responses:My (second) option of retained constraints contained a condition.&nbsp; If you take away the condition, it no longer applies, clearly.It's not about a &quot;hypothetical bad DM&quot; - it's a structural fault caused by a dissonance with the basic structure of the game.&nbsp; Having a player &quot;toolkit&quot; that is developing in-game be under the almost total control of the DM, whose main focus should be on creating balanced, engaging challenges is a core clash of aims.&nbsp; Any DM is going to have confused objectives with that scheme.Try abandoning the read of &quot;all the way to labelling them artifacts&quot;.&nbsp; The way I read the new 'artifact' category is that it is no longer the &quot;uber-item&quot; slot - it is any item that is more a part of the scenario in play than it is a character element/tool.&nbsp; The 'pushing horn' (was that the 'Horn of Blasting'?) you cite would fit here well, in my view, if it was meant to be a neat solution/aid in one specific situation/scenario as a one-off effect.&nbsp; It doesn't have to be super-powerful to be an artifact - and I think that is a brilliant addition to the game and an excellent way to differentiate &quot;items as player toolkit&quot; from &quot;items as story/scenario gimmicks&quot;.I really don't think it matters if the characters make (or 'craft') things, buy things or find things - the key discriminator is whether the selection and acquisition of those items is in the control of the players or in the control of the DM.&nbsp; My view is that anything that is part of the attributes/resources/tools that the players have (through the vehicle their characters) to overcome challenges should be under the players' control*.&nbsp; Anything that forms a part of the challenges the players must overcome and the scenario in which they encounter them should be controlled by the DM.&nbsp; Crossing or mixing these will lead to confused objectives and invite conflicting interests.* Within the boundaries established collaboratively at the game start for the campaign, to be more fully correct.I really meant the ground rules used by the game designers and developers in WotC.&nbsp; An understanding of what items are for, what they can do and what they should not be allowed to do is needed - and I see no sign of it in the spread of design so far published.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5456235, member: 27160"] [B]AbdulAlhazred[/B], I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, because what you want out of D&D items seems totally at odds to what I want out of them. I see D&D 4E as primarily designed to be a "players face challenges through their characters and struggle to overcome them" game. This gives issues with elements that are controlled by the DM but are part of the players' toolkit, not part of the challenge. You apparently want the game to be something else. A few parting responses: My (second) option of retained constraints contained a condition. If you take away the condition, it no longer applies, clearly. It's not about a "hypothetical bad DM" - it's a structural fault caused by a dissonance with the basic structure of the game. Having a player "toolkit" that is developing in-game be under the almost total control of the DM, whose main focus should be on creating balanced, engaging challenges is a core clash of aims. Any DM is going to have confused objectives with that scheme. Try abandoning the read of "[B][I]all the way[/I][/B] to labelling them artifacts". The way I read the new 'artifact' category is that it is no longer the "uber-item" slot - it is [B][I]any[/I][/B] item that is more a part of the scenario in play than it is a character element/tool. The 'pushing horn' (was that the 'Horn of Blasting'?) you cite would fit here well, in my view, if it was meant to be a neat solution/aid in one specific situation/scenario as a one-off effect. It doesn't have to be super-powerful to be an artifact - and I think that is a brilliant addition to the game and an excellent way to differentiate "items as player toolkit" from "items as story/scenario gimmicks". I really don't think it matters if the characters make (or 'craft') things, buy things or find things - the key discriminator is whether the selection and acquisition of those items is in the control of the players or in the control of the DM. My view is that anything that is part of the attributes/resources/tools that the players have (through the vehicle their characters) to overcome challenges should be under the players' control*. Anything that forms a part of the challenges the players must overcome and the scenario in which they encounter them should be controlled by the DM. Crossing or mixing these will lead to confused objectives and invite conflicting interests. * Within the boundaries established collaboratively at the game start for the campaign, to be more fully correct. I really meant the ground rules used by the game designers and developers in WotC. An understanding of what items are for, what they can do and what they should not be allowed to do is needed - and I see no sign of it in the spread of design so far published. [/QUOTE]

Verification