Does anyone do non-overpowered anymore?

[Numion]

then they tangle with BBEG. who is level 12 or so. no one has ever heard of him. and he has even more junk...

If television series, comics and books get away with this, it's good enough for my campaign

Or do you also have trouble with the fact that when one adventurer leaves the group (for death or whatever reason), another one with roughly the same level of competence joins the group shortly? Very unplausible.

 

[Psion]

I actually prefer a somewhat lower than average amount of magic items in a campaign, but it seems many DM's on these boards are missing the forest for the trees.

What do you base this observation on? Or is this just the classic conceit that if someone doesn't play the same way you do, they must be clueless and uninformed.

 

[Remathilis]

This thread got me started thinking about something that's been bothering me for a while. Looking through these threads one would tink the point of D&D is A) Making sure each PC is balanced with other PC's and the world at large B) Making sure PC's don't get too powerful , or C) Smacking down PC's. All of these are wrong. It's a game. The point is to have fun. Why can't most of you grasp this simple conept?
The reason most people don't play underpowered campaigns is that it's more fun to have your 10th level fighter get through an encounter with some fire giants with 2hp that have your 10th level commoner and his friends get smacked down by the same group of low-level goblin warriors for the 10th time. I hope your players know about your plans in advace. If a DM told me we had to start with NPC classes, I would start looking for a different DM.

You summed up my point elequently.

The original posters attitude with "high powered fighters" and "PC classes fast track to power" implies D&D is unbalanced at its most basic core. Go back to Diaglo's time ::Timewarp:: You'll see fighters where much more powerful than common "0-level" warriors. Clerics could heal, wizards shot magic, and thieves (when they finally came around) could do things other classes could dream of. ("You can open locks?") PCs have ALWAYS stood head and shoulders above thier race and kind. Even without magic shoppes or invisible wizards, they were grander, more important that every other un-named Tom, Dick, and Harry that the DM provided because THEY WERE PLAYED BY THE OTHER PLAYERS IN A GAME! We don't expect Buffy to be just another high-school student, Luke to be just a farm-boy, Aragorn to be just another hunter, or Jack Sparrow to be just a common pirate, we want them to be larger, chosen by fate, backed by the gods, humble in origin, not in ability. None of those characters are "mundane", each are larger than their peers in terms of grander and ability. If the PCs are the focus of your story (and if they aren't, why are you PLAYING with them?), why shouldn't they be afforded the same rights and liberties of the very heroes that the game attempts to emulate?

Keep the PC power levels in check, but dangit let them be heroes, not scared cow-herders.

 

[Shazman]

What do you base this observation on? Or is this just the classic conceit that if someone doesn't play the same way you do, they must be clueless and uninformed.

Let me clarify what I'm trying to say. It doesn't matter if your playing a low-level campaign with NPC classes or an munckiny epic level campaign. The point is to have fun. D&D is a game and games are supposed to be fun. I see a lot of DM's that seem to foster the "it's me against the PC's" attitude to an extent that would make most games frustrating and boring. Instead of asking yourself "How much can I nerf the PC's before my player's revolt?", they should be asking "Am I and my players having fun?". If the answer is no, you might want to re-evaluate how you are running your game. If dogbrain's players are okay with his low-powered campaign, more power to him. I just hope he's not forcing it on them because he is under the assumption that competent equals overpowered.

 

[diaglo]

Or do you also have trouble with the fact that when one adventurer leaves the group (for death or whatever reason), another one with roughly the same level of competence joins the group shortly? Very unplausible.

ever new player character starts at the same level. 1st. whether at the beginning of the campaign or 10 years into it.

but i referee the ultimate D&D. Original D&D(1974) the only true game. All the other editions are just a poor imitation of the real thing.

but you knew that.

 

[Psion]

Let me clarify what I'm trying to say. (snip)

Ah, gotcha.

I guess that's half the reason I am an argumentative cur. People come out and complain incessantly about things I see work week after week, and I'm like "huh..."

 

[Numion]

ever new player character starts at the same level. 1st. whether at the beginning of the campaign or 10 years into it.

Is there some reason why the group would even take a green adventurer with them, at tenth level?

Original D&D(1974) the only true game. All the other editions are just a poor imitation of the real thing.

but you knew that.

I didn't and still don't, because it isn't true. But I did know you were going to say it

 

[Bendris Noulg]

...the assumption that competent equals overpowered.

The issue to me, as to whether a game I'm in is overpowered or not, is if the PCs abilities and aptitudes (Skills, Feats and Ability Scores) are overshadowed by the presence of an ever-growing magic item list. For instance, we can look at the four characters indicated earlier as examples of "heroic" characters the game attempts to emulate.

Luke Skywalker: The Force is potent, truly without limitations. However, there are lines that should not be crossed else one steps into "the Dark Side". Equipment wise, he had one Light Saber, which, while also potent, is not the be-all of armaments.

Aragorn: A magic blade that likely can't be translated into D&D terms very well. Beyond that, it was his specialized training as a Ranger (Herbalism, Healing, Woodslore, etc.) that got them through most of their travels.

Jack Sparrow: Wit, charm and cunning. That's it.

Buffy: Alright, I don't follow the series, and only caught the end of the movie, so I'm not all that familiar with it. However, it does seem that she is also the opposite of a D&D "hero" in that she, as "The" Slayer, is a unique individual and thus not likely to produce an "adventurer's economy".

I think you can see what I'm getting at here; D&D no longer even pretends to emulate such characters or adventures, but rather assumes that every character requires an ever-expanding pile of magic items dumped on top of it, a pile that quickly over-shadows any measure of competance that the character may actually have in a growing morass of bonuses from outside sources.

I want my character to shine for the deeds that got him his treasure, not for the treasures that do the deeds for him.

 

[Numion]

The issue to me, as to whether a game I'm in is overpowered or not, is if the PCs abilities and aptitudes (Skills, Feats and Ability Scores) are overshadowed by the presence of an ever-growing magic item list.

What do Skills, Feats, Ability Scores and Magic Items have in common?

They're all just pieces of text on your character sheet.

Thats how I look at it. What you do as a player makes them all to come alive, in your mind. The whole package. I don't separate my character from his items in my mind. I'm the one who named the bow and did all the great deeds with it!

Now you'll think that this somehow takes away from roleplaying, really immersing myself into the character. Believe me, if there are some obstacles to immersing myself into the mind of 126 year old, 110 lbs, pointy eared, Corellon-worshipping ELF, believe me, it ain't the magic bow or cape on his back!!!

It's something else.

EDIT: (like my 25 vs. 126 years, 200 vs. 110 lbs, non-pointy vs. pointy, atheist vs. cleric, human vs. elf)

 

[diaglo]

I want my character to shine for the deeds that got him his treasure, not for the treasures that do the deeds for him.

welcome back.

how's everything?