Does anyone do non-overpowered anymore?

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, I don't agree. How do you see clerics then? Basically it's never them that's doing the really useful things, in the way you seem to mean. It's the clerics god, just channeled through him. Outside power, just like magic items.

Nadda. Gaining and retaining that power generally requires upholding some form of oath or behavior given to the source of power, sometimes even when such is detrimental to the character and his allies.

That's why your example of jumping vs. boots of Big Jump is bad, IMO. When you have those boots, other things about the game are supposed to be challenging than jumping over ditches.

I didn't say it was a ditch. And tell me, what's the point of having 23 Ranks of Jump if not to make tremendous leaps. Of course, you could argue that, with the boots, you could make even more tremendous jumps, but then, what's the point if something else is supposed to be the challenge?

At least I wouldn't want my 20th level char to get kicks from such trivial stuff. That enhances the main drive in playing D&D - advancing your character. If ditches are supposed to be challenging at all levels, and feel like accomplishments 1st thru 20th level something is wrong. Magic items are a part of the process, making the characters themselves more heroic, by allowing them to rise from menial problems to the bigger stuff.

Again, though, this is where the line is crossed. By "rising above" these menial problems, the game no longer feels like it has any (real) grit to it. It's kinda like comparing the blood-stained, mud-caked Arthur at the end of Excalibur to the pretty-boy looks of Beast Master or Hercules.

By all means, bring on more grit in a game with heroes I can relate to.

If that bigger stuff is not for you, feel free to limit the whole game to 9th or so level. Which has been thoroughly deemed a good thing in this thread

But why must it be so? This logic indicates that, because I don't like a game with lots of magic items, I am now limited in how far I can take my character's natural abilities. This defeats the purpose since focusing on the character's abilities is the reason for removing the necessity of X gp worth of magic items per Character Level.

 

[Remathilis]

Magical treasure aside (and not the focus of my diatribe, I just wanted to say that heroes are not commoners), I think you can balance magic without resorting to denial.

Using media (literature, TV, Movies) to determine POSSESSION of items is always a one-sided fight. Heck, the D&D movie itself had a limit of magical items and effects (hmm; magic rope, two dragon orbs, A magic map, a quicksand trap rug, dust of teleportation, and the +1 sword of greater artifact destruction). However, this is (and will be) little compared to a D&D character because (wait for it), D&D is a game based on the principle of killing things and taking their stuff. While D&D emulates mythic and modern heroes, it doesn't forget that its based on the principle of slay-and-aquire. Reward for hardship. The dungeon. To play in other ways (more in line with traditional stories discussed above) is fine, but to say the core concept of slay-and-aquire is flawed is to deny D&D its most basic premise.

PS: Our buddies in Middle Earth weren't shy on magic either; elven cloaks, magical blades (sting, Narsil), the light of Esildor, elven rope, wizard staves, entdraught, plantiirs, the RING, etc.
Also, the writers commentary on the Pirates of the Caribbean DVD discuss the magical "supernatural" elements of both the Pearl (and its magic fog) and the compass. Go figure.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Magical treasure aside (and not the focus of my diatribe, I just wanted to say that heroes are not commoners), I think you can balance magic without resorting to denial.

Denial is such an ugly word, and definately out of context. For instance, if I ran a game where the PCs had approximately 1/4 of the standard amount of gold and magic but presented NPCs better decked out (i.e., with their standard amount of gold and magic) and presented monsters within the game at their as-published CR even though the characters are going to be greatly challenged to the point of a PC slaughter-fest, then I am creating a condition of denial; "I have denied the characters what they need to succeed."

Rather, this is a matter of removing the necessity of so much magic and thus reducing the desire for it; no sense of being denied magic is felt by the players as the game being played continues to be fair, fun, and challenging without it.

Using media (literature, TV, Movies) to determine POSSESSION of items is always a one-sided fight.

Not really. Each of the earlier editions of the game often used fictional and historical figures to better describe the purpose of various mechanics. All 3E has done is drop the examples and pushed the power-level to nearly obscene levels, such that it barely resembles the sword-and-sorcery genre anymore.

Heck, the D&D movie itself had a limit of magical items and effects (hmm; magic rope, two dragon orbs, A magic map, a quicksand trap rug, dust of teleportation, and the +1 sword of greater artifact destruction).

Actually, I find the D&D movie to be lacking in a number of things... Namely, D&D.

However, this is (and will be) little compared to a D&D character because (wait for it), D&D is a game based on the principle of killing things and taking their stuff. While D&D emulates mythic and modern heroes, it doesn't forget that its based on the principle of slay-and-aquire. Reward for hardship. The dungeon. To play in other ways (more in line with traditional stories discussed above) is fine, but to say the core concept of slay-and-aquire is flawed is to deny D&D its most basic premise.

I'm not saying that slay-and-acquire isn't the "most basic premise" of D&D; What I'm saying is that institutionalizing what "default" D&D is, slapping a catch-phrase like "balance" onto it, and then using it to justify itself is flawed.

It is interesting to note that the examples of Epic characters given at the beginning of the Epic Level Handbook were, themselves, not so Epic in D&D terms. Heck, it mentions Conan, and this is a guy that, quite often, was usually reduced to nothing but a loin clothe and a sword.

And sometimes not even these...

PS: Our buddies in Middle Earth weren't shy on magic either; elven cloaks, magical blades (sting, Narsil), the light of Esildor, elven rope, wizard staves, entdraught, plantiirs, the RING, etc.

Ah, yes... But look at the context in which these things are presented within the story. Each one of these elements is a mystical, wondrous, fantastical thing that, due to the Elves withdrawal from the world, are becoming rarer and rarer. Some day, in fact, these things will be no more in the land of mortals. So, yes, these items are there in the story, but it certainly doesn't have any comparison to the blase manner in which magic items and character power is treated in 3E.

Also, the writers commentary on the Pirates of the Caribbean DVD discuss the magical "supernatural" elements of both the Pearl (and its magic fog) and the compass. Go figure.

Afraid I didn't see that part, I'm afraid. Will have to borrow it again from my neighbors (just got a replacement DVD player, so I don't have all those skips, bumps and stall-outs anymore).

 

[nopantsyet]

Rather, this is a matter of removing the necessity of so much magic and thus reducing the desire for it; no sense of being denied magic is felt by the players as the game being played continues to be fair, fun, and challenging without it.

That's more to the point than most of what's been said so far. I think there's a large semantic component to this debate. At some point it really doesn't matter whether Aaragorn was lvl 2 with a masterwork sword, lvl 8 with a +2 sword or level 20 with a +5 sword. Because an Uruk Hai is going to be more or less powerful in proportion.

I think it has little to do with the rules and alot to do with the setting and flavor. Just because it's in the books doesn't mean it's in my world. And within any given world there are variations. I've run very low-power, where there the players were lvl 4 before they even saw a spell cast, and they were level 8 when they got their first magic item. But I also run high-power games sometimes. For me, the decision of power is a natural outgrowth from the setting itself.

My current game is set in a city modeled after the Renaissance Italian city-states. So the view of magic is very different from the standard rules. It's still there, and still potent, but it has a different role. The more enlightened society regulates magic. Scientific and magical though bleed into one another. So do religious and occult. There are theosophists and hermetics, astrologers and alchemists. And all of them touch on the magical to some degree. But true magic--as all are sources of power in any society--is guarded, and restricted to elite circles.

Is it high-power or low-power? It's both. They're still at lvl 1, so it's still moot. However, I plan on there being both high- and low-power aspects of the game. Keep the magic magical. That's what I'm going for. Sometimes it has to be underpowered and unreliable. But sometimes it should also be powerful and incredible.

 

[Psion]

And now, I raise this thread from the dead to conclude a point that I made 2 1/2 years ago, having just watched the sequel to the movie I was using to make my point earlier.

Regarding Jack Sparrow's compass:

It doesn't augment his ability to do anything.

(talking talking talking)

I think you are missing my point. I'm not saying we should assume that his compass is magic (though it wouldn't bother me.) I am saying that if we were to make films of our RPG settings, after we cropped everything down to the details you would see on a screen, it wouldn't talk about it, and as they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It turns out, in fact, it's pretty hard to deny that the compass is magic given the take in Pirates II: Dead Man's Chest.

 

[Desdichado]

Well the writers of PotC have obviously upped the magic level since the first film. Bunch of monty haulers, they are.

 

[Psion]

And obviously, the two comedy releif sailors are gamers at heart, debating the pronounciation of "Kraken" like it was "bullette" or "drow".

 

[Desdichado]

I still maintain that at least one of that pair of writers has to be a gamer. This latest movie really, really made that pop out with all kinds of little things that had me going, "hmmmm..." That scene you're talking about was certainly one of them.

 

[Agent Oracle]

I've worked out how to break players out of power gaming.

Start at first level

In the duration of that first level, challenge them with several puzzles and fights that take advantage of skills they are lacking in (the fighter with no ranks in climb on a steep slope, the rogue with no ranks in Escape artist in the grip of a choker, everybody puzzled mindless by a non-combat encounter that took several of their skills to perform and yeilded only minor treasure)

End result: At 2nd level... none of my players have max ranks in any skill. Power gamers, not yet broken, but significantly bent.

Frankly, I think this thread is turning into another "There's no wonder to D&D anymore" thread. Old fogies. I'm here to remind you, the wonder of D&D is in it's presentation, not in it's table of contents. You can still make players gawk in wonderment if you are artful about it.

Remember, this is a game of narratives. Good narratives can inspire wonder in the truly ordinary. A prime example is Shadowfax. "king of horses" etc. His description was such that we players are still arguing about him. In the book, he never did anything more amazing that come when called and run really, really far. It's enough.

 

[Hussar]

well, it is nice to know that the whole "3e is teh suxxors" schtick isn't new. This poor pony is looking pretty ragged from the beatings. Compare this thread to the Rust Monster thread and you'll see not much has changed. (Doesn't help that I read the two right after eachother.)