Balance vs. Fun

[Username17]

Items are not the only way, and not even the best way, to leave marks on your character. Relations to NPCs are one option to leave marks on a character (and the game world): Founding or joining an order or other organization, adopting an orphan, or a village, helping the true heir back on his throne - or taking the throne for oneself. Or simply creating through play an actual character history, which one can refer to in game, and of which songs are written by (N)PC Bards.

Sure. People play Vampire: the Masquerade, and they are not wrong to do so. That game basically doesn't have "items" - your magic is internal and powered by your own blood. But you still want and need to have the game leave an unexpected mark on your character. If you're going to have special magical equipment in your game at all, why wouldn't it be in that category?

Or to put it another way: column A is things your character can do because that's how you spent your points and you are entitled to do that. Column B is things your character can do because you went on some adventure somewhere and now you can contingently do that thing. Your character is a Wizard, and he has a Crystal Orb. Why not have the Crystal Orb grated powers fall into Column B? Or rather, if you aren't going to put the Crystal Orb powers into Column B, why include the Crystal Orb at all?

-Username17

[Starmaker]

Items are not the only way, and not even the best way, to leave marks on your character (...)

And that's why when the adventure ends, one character gets Excalibur and all the plot baggage that comes with it, another is crowned Empress, a third one creates a demiplane and a forth wins the office of High Commander of the Knights of Awesome. And everyone gets laid. That's how you avoid handing out 4 Excaliburs at once.

[Fuchs]

Or to put it another way: column A is things your character can do because that's how you spent your points and you are entitled to do that. Column B is things your character can do because you went on some adventure somewhere and now you can contingently do that thing. Your character is a Wizard, and he has a Crystal Orb. Why not have the Crystal Orb grated powers fall into Column B? Or rather, if you aren't going to put the Crystal Orb powers into Column B, why include the Crystal Orb at all?

-Username17

Because for some players, having that magical item makes the game more fun - even if they feel entitled to it, and even if it's no surprise for them. It's not the main reason, nor the defining aspect of their character, but for them having a sword of flame and founding the fire knight order is more fun than having a mundane sword and founding the fire knight order. Even or especially if they designed the sword themselves and handed the wishlist to the GM.

[RobbyPants]

And now we come to the three characters whose names I actually have to look up because I don't remember them: the Ranger, Cavalier, and Monk. Their powers weren't worth mentioning because their artifacts didn't seemingly do anything. And what were they? A Magic Bow, a Magic Shield, and a Magic Staff. The staff was the most interesting, because I think it could extend or something, making it almost as interesting as one of Presto's minor conjurations. And that's an important thing to remember: enhancement bonuses by themselves don't count when you think about what makes a character awesome.

IIRC, the bow did some other things like entangle monsters. Also, other than Presto, it was about the only way to really deal with stuff at range, and it was often used against the environment as well. I think the shield occasionally had some actual abjuration-type orbs or something, but I could be mistaken. Of course, the shield was also used by the douchiest character, so I tend to block those parts out.

But I do agree with you that bonuses alone would suck on an item. It has to do something to be memorable or cool.

[RandomCasualty2]

To be honest MMO's are decent at the item game, as is Diablo 2.

I can't actually think of a game that does items better than Guild Wars or Diablo 2, each on the extreme end of the spectrum.

Honestly I think Diablo 2 did items horribly. They were exactly just "the sword that does slightly more damage" crap that everyone hates about 4E. I mean you know exactly how Diablo 2 is going to work, because there's one scheme to the entire game, you kill things with raw DPS.

And that's not exciting at all. In fact, it's just a grind to keep you going to the next item.

[Thymos]

Honestly I think Diablo 2 did items horribly. They were exactly just "the sword that does slightly more damage" crap that everyone hates about 4E. I mean you know exactly how Diablo 2 is going to work, because there's one scheme to the entire game, you kill things with raw DPS.

They also did some things right. The endless amount of items you got made finding the good ones feel really special, it was really hard. Even still the ones that felt special only felt that way for a little while.

I also still remember tal rasha's set, immortal kings, enigma, breath of the dying, bone snap, buriza kan do, ring of jordan, ravenfrost, etc. etc. etc. from that game which is more than I remember from any other videogame.

[K]

Don't you see how this is bad? The last thing people want is to be forced to use some "DM insert" item.

Of course I do. Don't you see how this is Good? Getting something new an unexpected is like unwrapping a birthday present from a friend. If you don't know what sword your character will use, it becomes a game in itself to find out.

Not really.

It's not unexpected if one of the basic premises of your game is "and at some point you get an artifact that kicks you up to the next tier". You totally plan for that, and then you get to be excited or bummed when the artifact lotto comes up for you.

I mean, random items are fine when you are playing Talisman and your character lasts one session and someone is supposed to win and everyone else is supposed to lose, but it doesn't work for pRPGs.

People don't like the DM changing their character. Its just that simple. They do like the opportunity to change their character. They like the chance to pick up the Serpent King's staff and suddenly have that be their shtick, but they don't want to suddenly be the Black Venom Staff guy just because it was the only artifact that dropped.

I mean, seriously? When has DM-mandated flavor changes to your character ever been good? Or even random flavor changes?

[Username17]

I mean, seriously? When has DM-mandated flavor changes to your character ever been good? Or even random flavor changes?

Since forever. Crissa becoming a hopping vampire. Good or bad for the memorability of that story?

-Username17

[MGuy]

I have to agree with Frank on this one. In my last campaign I had a simple fighter/rogue/etc gain what was almost half demon hood because he picked up an evil sword. At random times he'd attack random people or his teammates just by wielding it. Everyone who participated remembers both the Sword's (was Intelligent) and his character's name.

[K]

I mean, seriously? When has DM-mandated flavor changes to your character ever been good? Or even random flavor changes?

Since forever. Crissa becoming a hopping vampire. Good or bad for the memorability of that story?

-Username17

She had a choice, and that is the difference. She could have rolled up a new character since we were playing in a "no-Resurrection" environment. Becoming a vampire was totally her choice. That's the difference between giving people opportunities that can make the game more memorable and taking the power from the characters and ruining the game for people

Under your model, players HAVE to use the artifacts you give them or else fail the party since the next tier of monsters are going to be tossed at them. DM-mandated power-ups are a cage with gold bars.

I mean, I have yet to hear players saying "you know, I have too much choice with this character. Please take it away from me."

I mean, I love cursed artifacts as much as the next guy. Having Iuchiban AND Fu Leng talking in my head was wicked fun, but the time did come when I destroyed both items for the sake of going back to my original concept.

[RandomCasualty2]

She had a choice, and that is the difference. She could have rolled up a new character since we were playing in a "no-Resurrection" environment.

Huh? Can't you always just decide to make a new character?

[K]

She had a choice, and that is the difference. She could have rolled up a new character since we were playing in a "no-Resurrection" environment.

Huh? Can't you always just decide to make a new character?

Sure. It's just that people get attached to their characters and tend to need a pretty decent reason to roll up a new character.

I was just pointing out that Resurrection was not an option. Her character was coming back as a vampire, or not coming back at all.

[RandomCasualty2]

Sure. It's just that people get attached to their characters and tend to need a pretty decent reason to roll up a new character.

I was just pointing out that Resurrection was not an option. Her character was coming back as a vampire, or not coming back at all.

Wait, now I'm confused.

You said that she had a choice because she could always roll up a new character. Yet, it seems that in this case it was basically more DM strong arming than in the case of magic items.

In Crissa's choice it was basically "Be a vampire or don't play this character at all". If the DM hands you Excalibur and you choose not to use it, at least you still get to keep your character.

Yet somehow you were saying Crissa's situation was okay, but giving someone Excalibur wasn't.

[K]

Sure. It's just that people get attached to their characters and tend to need a pretty decent reason to roll up a new character.

I was just pointing out that Resurrection was not an option. Her character was coming back as a vampire, or not coming back at all.

Wait, now I'm confused.

You said that she had a choice because she could always roll up a new character. Yet, it seems that in this case it was basically more DM strong arming than in the case of magic items.

In Crissa's choice it was basically "Be a vampire or don't play this character at all". If the DM hands you Excalibur and you choose not to use it, at least you still get to keep your character.

Yet somehow you were saying Crissa's situation was okay, but giving someone Excalibur wasn't.

Ok, rather than explaining my explanations, here is what happened:

Crissa's Evasion-liscious Rogue missed like four Ref saves in a row and got killed by a trap. It was just one of those weird things where your stats and class abilities don't do what they are supposed to do.

So there we are in a no-Resurrection setting. She's dead. I pose the idea that I could use one of the cursed items from three adventures back to bring her back as a vampire (she wanted me to bring her back as a ghost, but I didn't want to blow a feat learning to make magic items and undead by Frank's houserules).

So her options were: dead character and roll up a new one, or vampire character. Her choice, and she picked vampire.

Handing someone Excalibur is the same as saying "if you don't use it, you've decided the party doesn't get to be powerful enough for the challenges the DM will throw at you." Its strong-arming either way, since your choices are "have the system not give you enough power to kill Demogorgon, or change your character and get to kill Demogorgon."

[RandomCasualty2]

Handing someone Excalibur is the same as saying "if you don't use it, you've decided the party doesn't get to be powerful enough for the challenged the DM will throw at you." Its strong-arming either way.

Not really. For one, I think Frank has been saying that magic items make the quest easier, they aren't required to make the quest winnable at all.

Second, you're not playing a module, so it's probably likely that the DM will tone down the encounters now that you've turned down Excalibur if he made them super difficult to challenge you.

[K]

Handing someone Excalibur is the same as saying "if you don't use it, you've decided the party doesn't get to be powerful enough for the challenged the DM will throw at you." Its strong-arming either way.

Not really. For one, I think Frank has been saying that magic items make the quest easier, they aren't required to make the quest winnable at all.

Second, you're not playing a module, so it's probably likely that the DM will tone down the encounters now that you've turned down Excalibur if he made them super difficult to challenge you.

Here is the model he is proposing:

And what that means is that you have to accept the idea that the game will become unbalanced in favor of the PCs. You have to balance the game as if they never get the Sword of Ruin and then set things up so that if they play to infinity they eventually will find it. And then they'll be overpowered until they retire their character.

Of course, there are things you can do for that too. You can throw some iconic overpowered enemies into the mix, such that when the PCs outgrow their econiche enough, they can go after Iuz or Demogorgon and have that be an accomplishment. An accomplishment which, very importantly, there is no guaranty that they will ever be able to do in any particular game.

This means that unless you accept Excalibur is your new sword, you'll never kill Demogorgon.

I think he assumes a game where you'll never get a chance to meet Demogorgon unless you are using Excalibur. Considering that he hates giant penis NPCs in the game, this seems to be contradictory.

Personally, I don't want to play a game where its mandatory for the DM to flavor my character for the win. I also don't want a game where the challenge has gone out of it because my PC is no longer well matched to the opposition because of my artifact.

Basically it fails on all the points it offers. Both situations where having the artifact or not having it causes a fail game.

I can accept a situation where you are 20th level and now you and your four closest friends can kill Demogorgon..... but not if the DM has to sprinkle changes to everyone's character for it to work.

I mean, this is a repeat of the whole "now we all draw from the Deck of Many Things and the campaign ends."

Ideally, I want a system where I can hate Demogorgon at 12th level and when I finally get to 20th the party can go school his ass. Games end for plenty of reasons, and I don't want one of those reasons to be "and now the DM broke the game."

[CatharzGodfoot]

I'm not sure what the value of forcing a player who has reached an ability saturation point to change is. Clearly, if she is tired of the abilities her character she will use new item X even if it's only as good as (rather than better than) her current magic item Y. If she is comfortable with her character's current ability set, she'll let somebody else use the item, sell it, or throw it in the vault.

As a DM, it hurts when you give a player the perfect item and she tosses it aside. It's like she's returning your Christmas present. But you know what? For whatever stupid reason you gave her the wrong present, and she didn't need another sweater. Deal with it, don't force her to use it.

[Username17]

Super special cloaks, rings, and hats are much better high powered items than swords, shields, or armors. Because more than one player could potentially use it. Then the players can decide amongst themselves who wants to be the guy who turns invisible or breathes fire.

But weirdly, I'm going to side with RC on this one: the "eat the coin or stay dead" choice given to Crissa was much starker than a "use the really awesome sword or don't" choice. If the first is even vaguely OK, the second is tits.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

I think that's really just personal preference. Some players like to let themselves get surprised, and roll with what comes up, or gets thrown out by the DM. Others prefer the most amount of control over their character, and would basically drop all items - or try to exchange them for an item they wanted - that do not fit their plan or vision.

Either way works.

[Grek]

They like the chance to pick up the Serpent King's staff and suddenly have that be their shtick, but they don't want to suddenly be the Black Venom Staff guy just because it was the only artifact that dropped.

Let's assume there are 4 players. This means there should be at least 5 prizes:
-A Swimming Pool Full of Gold (Which will then be spent Conan style on wine and wenches)
-The Gemstone Eye from the Idol (Which is cursed)
-The Hand of the Prince(ss) in Marriage (Who is very hot)
-The Serpent King's Temple (Which is to be rededicated to Pelor)
-The Black Venom Staff (Which is also cursed)

Everyone grabs a peice of loot of their choice. If someone wants the Black Vemon Staff, they get it. If they don't, they get one of the other 4 magic items. And none of the items give combat effects; they are basically giant pennies to collect and loose.

[Ice9]

And none of the items give combat effects; they are basically giant pennies to collect and loose.

I don't think I can agree here. For a number of players, an artifact whose effects are "It's shiny, and nobody else has one" is just not enough. And that includes me; if you want me to be impressed by the Nose Ring of Legend, it has to actually do something impressive, and something that will actually come into play repeatedly in the game, not just a "cutscene" of people going gazing in wonder.

Now while that doesn't necessarily include combat effects, its often appropriate to, and the "non-combat" effects are still going to be tactically/strategically useful. So it isn't going to be power-neutral, which is pretty much the point.

[kjdavies]

There's a whole separate problem, where a +1 relative bonus is in most cases too small to notice. There's a reason why Iron Armbands of Wang and similar items are available only in +2, +4, and +6.And that's because in a d20 world, +2 just feels a lot more noticeable than +1. So if you were going to keep enhancement bonuses on weapons at all (which I am not sure you should), then getting rid of the +1, +3, and +5 options (or the +2, +4, and +6 options) is something of a no-brainer. But beyond that, the levels at which you can possibly find a bigger sword should be much larger than the levels that you are actually expected to have the larger sword. The biggest sword should be very rare, but nonetheless potentially findable at first level. Because that would be "awesome" and make a good story.

As I understand it, Iron Armbands of Wang have bonuses of +2n (2, 4, 6) because that will always result in a change in ability score modifier. +1 will for half the population (those with an odd ability score), making them really cheap joy for those people, but more or less useless for people with even ability scores. An item giving +2 Strength will always result in a Strength modifier one point higher.

As for ditching enhancement bonuses, I did that years ago and never missed them. I reworked weapon qualities somewhat (you could add energy qualities more than once, for example -- 3d6 flaming longsword, sort of thing) to give a little more joy.

Keith

[RandomCasualty2]

Also one other thing, so long as you can buy magic items, they're never going to feel special in a way that people care about. It's just grinding up enough money to buy what you want.

The ability to buy/sell magic items was something that really screwed with the perception of magic items. Instead of being awesome rewards, they just became commonplace trade goods.

4E really brought this a step further, since you could literally generate any magic item you wanted in one hour. In fact, it took less time to enchant your magic weapon or armor than it did to actually forge it.

[A Man In Black]

As I understand it, Iron Armbands of Wang have bonuses of +2n (2, 4, 6) because that will always result in a change in ability score modifier.

Wrong game. Iron Armbands are a 4e item that adds +2/+4/+6 damage.

[Surgo]

When you guys talk about hopping vampires, are you referring to those really weird Chinese films?