Mechanics that disappoint you in every conceivable manner

[Dean]

That's not true. There are lots of items that give you interesting abilities that don't increase the level your character should be counted as or give you abilities required to beat level appropriate threats. A Bag of Holding, a Portable Hole, The Orb of Storms, The Rod of Security, a Ring of X-ray Vision, Immovable Rods, The Lyre of Building, Candles of Truth, the Medallion of Thoughts. There's lots of magic items that don't increase your killing power or let you deal with upgrading enemy tactics like flight and incorporeality but do offer you cool magical powers. Power you don't need but would want.

[ACOS]

First of all, I want that the player don't need anything, be it a helm of underwater action or a +1 sword. If they are supposed to fight incorporeal creatures, they should have class abilities allowing that. The whole game should be functional and balanced without any magic item.

It occurs to me that, in this type of system, as soon as you introduce magic items, you've just upended you game. If it's functional and balanced without any magic items, then adding magic items will necessarily break that.

[Drolyt]

First of all, I want that the player don't need anything, be it a helm of underwater action or a +1 sword. If they are supposed to fight incorporeal creatures, they should have class abilities allowing that. The whole game should be functional and balanced without any magic item.

You do realize that limits the stories that can be told, right? I mean, having to get a special item to complete an adventure is a pretty classic trope. You can argue that that is hard to do well in an RPG, but it is still a trade off.

That's not true. There are lots of items that give you interesting abilities that don't increase the level your character should be counted as or give you abilities required to beat level appropriate threats. A Bag of Holding, a Portable Hole, The Orb of Storms, The Rod of Security, a Ring of X-ray Vision, Immovable Rods, The Lyre of Building, Candles of Truth, the Medallion of Thoughts. There's lots of magic items that don't increase your killing power or let you deal with upgrading enemy tactics like flight and incorporeality but do offer you cool magical powers. Power you don't need but would want.

Yet each of those would allow you to complete adventures you otherwise couldn't, which amounts to the same thing. TTRPGs are not Diablo, a Ring of X-Ray Vision or a Rod of Security can easily be much more useful than a +whatever sword.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Aside from the fact that I can see some very obvious combat applications of some of those items like the Bag of Holding and Ring of X-Ray Vision, I'm curious as to why you constructed your hypothesis in that way.

Let's look at the Medallion of Thoughts for a second. If you use a Medallion of Thoughts during a grand ball to find out who the traitor in the king's circle is and use this knowledge to thwart the planned Nighttime Castle Raid, that derails the expected plot and makes the battle 'easier' more thoroughly than a +10 longsword ever could.

So how come the Medallion of Thoughts gets exempt from the consideration but the +10 longsword doesn't?

[Lago PARANOIA]

It occurs to me that, in this type of system, as soon as you introduce magic items, you've just upended you game. If it's functional and balanced without any magic items, then adding magic items will necessarily break that.

Not necessarily. If you have additional magical items the game just runs on easy mode until everyone gets bored of it and seek greater challenges. But there's nothing stopping you from having your 20th level characters pick on 0-level orcs and kobolds until you get bored and seek greater challenges, either.

[ACOS]

@ deanruel87
Adding additional simple functionality, while not necessarily game-breaking, does indeed let you do things above and beyond what your base character expectations would allow. If the game assumes itself to be functional and balanced without magic items, then it further assumes that characters will be running around with abilities that are from their base non-magic-item resources.

Throwing in even the most benign of magic items allows for Limit Breaks. If the game assumes that you are able to interact with the game in x# of ways effectively, and you're interacting in (x+y)# of ways, the game is no longer balanced or functional around a "sans magic items" paradigm.

[ACOS]

It occurs to me that, in this type of system, as soon as you introduce magic items, you've just upended you game. If it's functional and balanced without any magic items, then adding magic items will necessarily break that.

Not necessarily. If you have additional magical items the game just runs on easy mode until everyone gets bored of it and seek greater challenges. But there's nothing stopping you from having your 20th level characters pick on 0-level orcs and kobolds until you get bored and seek greater challenges, either.

So your point is moot?

[Cyberzombie]

Personally I'd like to see the game balanced with no magical items, just because I feel like that does less fighter hosing than the alternative. Once you assume magical items, now everyone can make excuses about how the fighter can compete if he has a giant laundry list of required magic items. The problem is that mages will always be able to get around the requirement for boots of flying, eyes of see invisibility and lots of other magical crap you need for high level play.

I feel like you push the game designer in the right direction by telling them not to assume magical items.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You get more magical gewgaw, you do what you were currently doing better, and you can either enjoy the game at its now-easy pace or take on new challenges. Moreover, this phenomenon is both obvious and controllable by the players and the DM.

It's different, sure, but no different than a string of lucky greataxe criticals killing the Psycho Rangers off (along with the associated plotline) much sooner than the DM had expected. But what sense is that upending or breaking the game?

[Drolyt]

@ deanruel87
Adding additional simple functionality, while not necessarily game-breaking, does indeed let you do things above and beyond what your base character expectations would allow. If the game assumes itself to be functional and balanced without magic items, then it further assumes that characters will be running around with abilities that are from their base non-magic-item resources.

Throwing in even the most benign of magic items allows for Limit Breaks. If the game assumes that you are able to interact with the game in x# of ways effectively, and you're interacting in (x+y)# of ways, the game is no longer balanced or functional around a "sans magic items" paradigm.

So a character with a full suite of level appropriate magic items can handle tougher challenges than those without. I don't see the problem with that. I more or less agree that characters should be able to function sans magic items in a D&D-like game, which in 3.5 they can only even sort of do if they have spells, but obviously they should be facing challenges of a slightly lower CR.

The idea that you could have interesting and useful magic items without affecting a party's ability to overcome challenges is ludicrous, but the idea that the game should function in a low magic setting is completely reasonable.

[Red_Rob]

Honestly, if Magic Items were rarer they could simply make you overpowered against some challenges without overpowering all challenges, and that would probably be the best of both worlds. If getting a Fire sword meant you can breeze past Ice enemies, without meaningfully impacting your ability to defeat other challenges, then people would feel like their Magic Items were cool and special without them simply making the whole game a cakewalk.

[ACOS]

@ Lago & Drolyt:
All that you are describing is a conscious decision to engage in a particular gaming style. And in the middle of it, you tenuously suggest a shift of the baseline point at which the arms race begins. Nothing's changed.

Honestly, if Magic Items were rarer [...] then people would feel like their Magic Items were cool and special without them simply making the whole game a cakewalk.

I guess you're looking for a middle ground between "christmas tree" and "magic-item desert". Basically, "you are only ever allowed 2-3 magic items at a time".
But as has been described earlier/elsewhere, in a game like D&D (for instance), there's not enough shinies to keep players interested. You have to completely retrain people's expectations. And then there's the problems involved with maintaining that scarcity level.

[Drolyt]

@ Lago & Drolyt:
All that you are describing is a conscious decision to engage in a particular gaming style. And in the middle of it, you tenuously suggest a shift of the baseline point at which the arms race begins. Nothing's changed.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm fine with the idea that magic items make you stronger, but the problem with games like D&D that assume you have a certain amount of magic items is that the math tends to fall apart without them (or if you have the wrong amount). It makes much better sense to first balance gameplay without magic items and then work on the magic item system.

[ACOS]

So, presumably, any character can plug-'n'-play, sans any magic items, and function just fine within the games expectations. Right?
All you've done is eliminate the bottom end, i.e., fail characters that fail because poverty. The top end is unaffected - perhaps even compounded- , and you've functionally eliminated conceptual play space.

I understand the motivation. I respect the motivation. I even agree with the intended underlying goal.
It is, however, a flawed premise.

[Lago PARANOIA]

All you've done is eliminate the bottom end, i.e., fail characters that fail because poverty. The top end is unaffected - perhaps even compounded- , and you've functionally eliminated conceptual play space.

No shit? Well, I have news for you: you can always add more orcs, trolls, purple worms, beholders, and ancient dragons if the party finds a challenge too easy. Adjusting difficulty upwards due to the existence of black swans -- like having seven PCs in the party or a string of good treasure rolls -- is so easy that most books don't discuss it at length.

But adjusting difficulty downwards is a lot harder to achieve for reasons that I can go into if you like. Balancing your game around assumptions that you as the game designer have a lot of control over (for example, the class and level system) while assuming black swans that are emergent in-game and can go either way will be under worst-case scenarios (for example, the treasure payout system, where the worst case scenario is that you get nothing) is just eminently sensible.

[Dean]

The reason +10 Swords count as leveling you up and Medallion's of thought don't is because the word "level" is being used. When you have a "level" that is a statement about the threats you are able to handle. If a character with a +10 sword is suddenly able to beat threats higher than his level then he would be, as Kaelik said, essentially just a higher level character. The Medallion of Thoughts doesn't level you up because there is no level at which finding a traitorous vizier is something you are or are not expected to be able to do. If there was an Encounterous Manual which listed The Grand Ball as an encounter a 6th level character was supposed to beat then the Medallion of Thoughts might level you up but that doesn't exist. There is no level at which building structures or making rain or seeing through ladies clothing is considered the bar for passing. As such it's just a cool power which can and hopefully should come up in adventures and help the players solve problems in ways they couldn't without it but it certainly doesn't make the character a higher leveled character. Level is a statement with meaning and that meaning does apply towards +10 swords and does not apply towards the kind of items I listed. This is why I defended the claim that items could offer interesting abilities that did not level up the character.

[Lago PARANOIA]

There is no level at which building structures or making rain or seeing through ladies clothing is considered the bar for passing.

Why not? Why do we assign a value to things like fly or planar travel but not to making rain or building structures? If you're going to say 'because stuff in the former group can be evaluated in terms of winning combat, but not the latter' you're getting the cart before the horse; why do we care at all about evaluating expected competence in combat for our TTRPG?

[Wiseman]

Because combat is the primary thing the PCs are going to be focused on.

[Dean]

Right. It isn't necessarily true that combat is the bar by which PC's are measured but that's the way it is. Even if there were level guidelines for social abilities then maybe the Medallion of Thoughts would level you up but whatever the guidelines for levels were there would always be abilities that magic items could grant that would be outside the parameters of what is used to determine level.

[ACOS]

First, I'd like to move to genericize "magic items" to "Specialty Gear™", as the issue arises in every game where equipment is important.
There is no real difference between D&D's "+5 sword" and WoD's "5-resource-dots/restricted-distribution rifle".

@ Lago
The amount of difficulty involved with downsizing challenges is debatable. What is not debatable is the fact that no matter what your baseline is for Specialty Gear requirements, players are still going to attempt to play pokemon with your equipment list - which is still going to cause the same problems that already exist, and MCs are still going to have to handle it the same way they already do.

Point being, there's not enough benefit (marginal as it is) to warrant the effort involved in reprogramming an entire population of hobbyists.


@ deanruel87
Giving a character extra utility and more options is a form of leveling up. No matter how dinky the benefit is, more is more. Unless you're saying that the added benefit isn't worth noting - in which case why bother having them in the first place?
Just because it's not a Combat Item doesn't mean that it can't be used in some way to increase combat effectiveness.
Do not underestimate the ingenuity an effectiveness of players who are of a mind to extract every last drop of utility out of an option. Much frustration has been had by MCs that have said "well, it's just a <thing>, what could they possibly do with it?".

[MGuy]

I think I agree with Deanrule on this one. If 'more options' mean you're supposed to be a higher level character then buying more things off the basic equipment list should make you a higher level character, but it doesn't. For example having a rope and grappling hook helps you with the 'climb out of the pit' minigame but you can effectively play the game without one. Same goes for many magic items. Having a quiver that gives you an infinite amount of arrows is good and all but you certainly don't need it and while you're better off having one than not it doesn't necessarily enable you to handle higher level challenges.

[Kaelik]

I think I agree with Deanrule on this one. If 'more options' mean you're supposed to be a higher level character then buying more things off the basic equipment list should make you a higher level character, but it doesn't. For example having a rope and grappling hook helps you with the 'climb out of the pit' minigame but you can effectively play the game without one. Same goes for many magic items. Having a quiver that gives you an infinite amount of arrows is good and all but you certainly don't need it and while you're better off having one than not it doesn't necessarily enable you to handle higher level challenges.

Being able to overcome more challenges and harder challenges both make you a higher level character. There is no level 10 challenge that no level 9 character could ever beat, so the difference is clearly one of number of challenges that can be beaten to at least a degree.

However, once again, It is an obvious dichotomy.

If your characters can already complete all of the challenges 100% of the time but barely at whatever level without any magic items, then:

1) They can complete challenges they otherwise couldn't at their current level, in which case they are higher level.

2) They can't complete any new challenges, in which case the items are shit and no one cares about them.

That is fundamentally what follows from a claim to have a game balanced around no items, so long as your game is balanced around the concept of players succeeding like D&D and Shadowrun and basically 99% of RPGs.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The amount of difficulty involved with downsizing challenges is debatable.

No, it's much more difficult to scale challenges downwards than upwards.

1.) Having an encounter that's too hard is more problematic gameplay-wise than having an encounter that's too easy. If an encounter is too easy then a DM can steadily ramp up the pace until they're comfortable with the party's capabilities. If an encounter is too hard and they're forced to experiment downwards, either iterative probability will kill off a party before their time or they're forced to rapidly ratchet down the challenge and scale upwards later. However, this runs into problem number two:

2.) Players feel patronized by encounters that are easier than they're supposed to be. No one tells stories about how their party consisting of two monks and a 3rd-level sorcerer pwned a bunch of screamers and kobolds TWFing daggers. They may tell stories about how they pwned a bunch of patrolling orcs from their tree forts, but if you have convenient scenery and discarded magical equipment to even out the tactical situation you run the risk of breaking the fourth wall. In fact if the players are familiar with rules or other campaigns, they'll think that the DM is taking pity on them and is insulting them by bending the rules and encounter guidelines in their favor. Very few people whine about the DM scaling encounters upwards for a party that punches above their weight class.

3.) A lot of game effects at low level already are at the floor of the RNG. Which is understandable, because killer housecats is an acceptable tradeoff for orcs with single-digit hit points. Unfortunately, if a team of orcs and gnolls is too difficult for 1st or 2nd level PCs, what do you do then? And it's not as simple as just 'delete a few orcs' because the action economy doesn't scale linearly and of course the tactical setup might be changed entirely by the deletion of a few enemies.

Scaling downwards is difficult.

What is not debatable is the fact that no matter what your baseline is for Specialty Gear requirements, players are still going to attempt to play pokemon with your equipment list - which is still going to cause the same problems that already exist, and MCs are still going to have to handle it the same way they already do.

Same problems is a weaselly phrase. Both 3E and 4E D&D have a problem with gear assumptions and specialty gears and whatnot, but 3E D&D's problem is a kick in the groin while 4E D&D's is a kick in the throat.

Using 3E D&D for an example, if you further tighten the rules on the wealth by level guidelines and what players are supposed to have, then sure, you can fold in player power assumptions with equipment. But if you're using a system where a player isn't mostly guaranteed to have certain pluses or broad categories of equipment (like every edition of D&D except 3E, including 5E) then you need to fail conservative. Of course I also believe that players shouldn't expect to get any particular kind of magical doodads to begin with -- not even by dint of >95% probability like 1E, 2E, and 4E D&D have -- but that's another story.

[MGuy]

I think I agree with Deanrule on this one. If 'more options' mean you're supposed to be a higher level character then buying more things off the basic equipment list should make you a higher level character, but it doesn't. For example having a rope and grappling hook helps you with the 'climb out of the pit' minigame but you can effectively play the game without one. Same goes for many magic items. Having a quiver that gives you an infinite amount of arrows is good and all but you certainly don't need it and while you're better off having one than not it doesn't necessarily enable you to handle higher level challenges.

Being able to overcome more challenges and harder challenges both make you a higher level character. There is no level 10 challenge that no level 9 character could ever beat, so the difference is clearly one of number of challenges that can be beaten to at least a degree.

However, once again, It is an obvious dichotomy.

If your characters can already complete all of the challenges 100% of the time but barely at whatever level without any magic items, then:

1) They can complete challenges they otherwise couldn't at their current level, in which case they are higher level.

2) They can't complete any new challenges, in which case the items are shit and no one cares about them.

That is fundamentally what follows from a claim to have a game balanced around no items, so long as your game is balanced around the concept of players succeeding like D&D and Shadowrun and basically 99% of RPGs.

The wording makes it difficult for me to disagree with what you're saying. I would like to challenge the idea that being able to overcome more challenges, by itself, makes you a higher level character, but being a higher level character usually implies that you can do exactly that. I 'think' it might be a terminology problem after all because I certainly wouldn't think that a warrior with a rope and grappling hook is 'higher level' than another warrior that is exactly the same sans a rope and hook. Same thing goes for an archer with a quiver of infinite arrows when compared to a similar archer without. I think that perhaps 'level' may be too broad a term and is just evoking different thoughts on the subject. I do believe that items give utility, obviously, but when people use the words higher level, certainly when I do, something more significant is expected.

What's more I don't believe its as cut and dry as you claim it is. A character can indeed get an item that doesn't allow them to overcome 'new' challenges they couldn't before while not being a 'shit' item. Take for example the infinite arrows quiver. The archer still has all of whatever skills they have whether they get infinite arrows or not. So they aren't facing 'new' challenges and it still isn't a shit item because it is convenient to have. Another example would be a mage who can cast a spell to fly who gets a flight item just so they can save the slot/spell points.concentration/etc to get another spell instead. They aren't taking on new challenges because flying is a thing they can do themselves but it is convenient for them to not waste the spell slot, power points, etc to generate the effect themselves. You can swap that out for any number of effects as well.

[Cyberzombie]

The reason +10 Swords count as leveling you up and Medallion's of thought don't is because the word "level" is being used. When you have a "level" that is a statement about the threats you are able to handle. If a character with a +10 sword is suddenly able to beat threats higher than his level then he would be, as Kaelik said, essentially just a higher level character.

So the DM designs challenges for you as though you were 1-2 levels higher? I don't see the big problem with that. The players feel like badasses and the magical gear feels special as opposed to just part of the treadmill. It also helps when you want to have NPC adversaries in that you don't have to pretend that a 12th level NPC is close to a 12th level PC, because of the giant gear discrepancy.