The Sword of My Father and the moustache of Strum

[Elennsar]

It's been a LONG time since I read the Drizzt books, but I seem to recall that he upgraded his gear regularly enough. Aragorn had level-appropriate weapons (though to be fair, he was probably only level 6). Luke had the equivalent of a +1 Adamantine Bastard Sword that deflected blaster fire, and in the film Conan The Barbarian, Conan uses a magical sword that he found in a ruin throughout the majority of the film. These guys really weren't any slouches in the equipment department.

And interestingly enough, the "ancestral swords" that belong to Aragorn, Conan, and Luke all end up being destroyed, lost, or used to make new swords. At least amongst these characters, the common trope seems to be that these heroes are forced to forsake their father's weapons and must either find or create their own sword in order to make their way in the world. Aragon's busted sword is used to create an entirely new weapon, Conan actually sunders his father's sword in combat with Rexor towards the end of the film, and both of Anakin Skywalker's lightsabers end up falling into chasms, never to be seen again.

Narsil is just reforged - its not fundementally changed.

Conan - what of the books? Howard is canon, anything else is "Not...really."

More to the point, none of them are overly dependent -on- their equipment, which was the point I intended to make - yes, they do have pretty nice stuff, but its not necessary just to keep up with opponents of their level.

The problem is that if they start off with the weapon at the beginning of the campaign, it's going to need to be much, much weaker then a weapon that would be used at the highest levels of play. If the character finds his father's weapon later on in the campaign and is all magicked up, it can still be fairly competitive. But most GMs are not going to let a 1st level character start the game with a +2 Defending Bastard Sword. They may, however, be inclined to let the character magically upgrade a Masterwork Bastard Sword over the course of the campaign in some fashion.

Assuming for the sake of arguement that it isn't a matter of imbalance amongst the PCs - why the hell not?

No, really. High level items requiring being high level doesn't make sense at all here.

As for Drizzt: As I recall, he recieved a scimitar from Mooshie at some point before settling on Twinkle and Icingdeath (his originals having broken).

Not that this matters, I'm just observing while we're talking about the equipment he has.

[Leress]

Choosing to use a +2 defending sword (Dad's) over a +3 flaming sword (father's slayer) should not be the same thing as choosing to use a MW sword over a holy avenger in terms of "using a lesser weapon".

Solution: Sell +3 Flaming Sword, and upgrade +2 defending sword.

[Elennsar]

Solution: Make a game where characters do just fine without using the best equipment in the game instead of requiring it to not suck.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Solution: Make a game where characters do just fine without using the best equipment in the game instead of requiring it to not suck.

Have you considered perhaps using Shadowrun or perhaps the White Wolf system for your fantasy game? I don't believe that the magical items would be nearly as potent in these systems as they are in D&D.

[Leress]

Solution: Make a game where characters do just fine without using the best equipment in the game instead of requiring it to not suck.

In case of the +2 and +3 you wouldn't suck if you keep the +2. Especially since it is defending. You can also get Greater Magic weapon cast on it.

As to what I'm talking about: If you describe a game as about brave and bold heroes who do gallant deeds, you're likely to make people (who find that interesting) do heroes.

If you describe it as a game where Nice Guys Finish Last, even if you used the exact same rule system as the first game (let's say you're using some "generic" system like GURPS here), you'll depress that interest.

So it's not a system problem, but a presentation problem?

[Elennsar]

Have you considered perhaps using Shadowrun or perhaps the White Wolf system for your fantasy game? I don't believe that the magical items would be nearly as potent in these systems as they are in D&D.

Not using either of those for what I'm creating, and I don't care for either system (for various reasons) on their own either.

In case of the +2 and +3 you wouldn't suck if you keep the +2. Especially since it is defending. You can also get Greater Magic weapon cast on it.

What about "Not obsessed with having the most powerful item I can get in the game"?

Can I cast that on you, or will you always take the most powerful weapon you can get?

So it's not a system problem, but a presentation problem?

Its a problem with the system making it so that you are unable to keep up if you're not using the best items you can get and the presentation presenting something where there's no reason you should care about anything else because that's all they actually made.

http://www.enworld.org/Inzeladun/inzela ... citems.htm

I have had characters in my world even seek out mundane items that have been used by famed heroes in my world. One player really treasured a Two Handed sword used early in his career by the infamous Lord Komaaks Nagutsikatsenu, founder of Lamapacher, also known as The Doom Bringer. It had no magic, but he thought it was great all the same.

In standard (and to all appearance, TGD) D&D, that would be pointless.

[Leress]

No, because you can encourage people doing something without making it a mechanically superior choice or even mechanically even.

Would that be something that is either inferior, meaningless, or trivial?

Encouraging people to do something because it is fun and interesting to play heroes or whatever?

I can do that all by my self I don't need a system to tell me that playing a hero is interesting.

No sign anyone wants a game to even mention the concept. No, the best it can do is make it a no brainer to be a good donkey and eat the carrots.

What an unattractive game.

You know your whole extreme example is plain annoying. Really no one is saying that and yet for some reason you come up with this.

There are several points in which someone offers you money in order to do something.

You can haggle/hold out for more money, or accept their offer.

I would sincerely hope that if the game was converted to pencil and paper that people would not say "I always haggled/held out." and claiming to be playing good and (at least somewhat) selfless/generous characters at the same time.

After all, there would really only be minor consequences for doing so if any most of the time - and having more money lets you get better stuff and such.

Well all the choices should be available to the player and let them decide. More choice over what I can do for me is a better game.

I have had characters in my world even seek out mundane items that have been used by famed heroes in my world. One player really treasured a Two Handed sword used early in his career by the infamous Lord Komaaks Nagutsikatsenu, founder of Lamapacher, also known as The Doom Bringer. It had no magic, but he thought it was great all the same.

In standard (and to all appearance, TGD) D&D, that would be pointless.

Yes it would be pointless in standard D&D, but since that is a homebrew lower magic setting it is perfectly fine. That is why there are homebrew adjustments to the system. What you link to doesn't even prove your point. It actually shows one of the solutions Partheon said. As have you read the Tome stickied at the top of the page about the varies economies and their interaction with the world?

[zeruslord]

In Conan, nobody really gives a damn about any particular weapon, at least not long-term. In LotR, all magic or special weapons have a history and/or a name. The hobbits are carrying daggers forged by the men of Arnor to fight the Witch-King of Angmar and buried in the barrow of an ancient king. Gandalf's sword, Glamdring, was forged for the king of Gondolin, the most awesome elven city evar, and was lost for thousands of years until it was discovered in the cave owned by the trolls in the Hobbit.

That link is to a guy who has basically houseruled magic items out of the game. Also, has anybody tried to write a serious novel set in a high magic world?

[Elennsar]

Would that be something that is either inferior, meaningless, or trivial?

I don't know about you, but I'd consider playing a character using his father's +2 defending sword to be a lot more meaningful than if it was a +5/+5 enhancement sword that he happened to find.

And the game should, if I'm supposed to care about such things, make it so I can get by with the +2 defending sword. Not make it so that I get a better sword that way or bonuses in other areas to make up for not using the best sword.

"Vow of Chastity: +X vs. enchantment spells." without the fluff being cool and interesting and appealing is not nearly as appealing as a game where taking such a vow is part of playing a more interesting character.

I can do that all by my self I don't need a system to tell me that playing a hero is interesting.

Then why do you need the system to say that it is also the optimal choice in order to do it?

You know your whole extreme example is plain annoying. Really no one is saying that and yet for some reason you come up with this.

Everyone is saying that the only way the game can actually encourage/discourage a behavior is by rewarding the behavior and making characters who do it better off or by punishing the behavior and making them worse off (respectively).

That's why. Because instead of encouraging people to do something for being fun and interesting, you set things up so that people should do something because it is better mechanically.

If you want to play a hero, play a hero. If you don't want to play a hero, then why should the system say "you'll get +2 to all saves if you do."?

Yes it would be pointless in standard D&D, but since that is a homebrew lower magic setting it is perfectly fine. That is why there are homebrew adjustments to the system. What you link to doesn't even prove your point. It actually shows one of the solutions Partheon said. As have you read the Tome stickied at the top of the page about the varies economies and their interaction with the world?

Which one? The one where instead of making D&D a game about actual heroic adventurers the tomes are for keeping the fact its about people who break into other people's houses to take their stuff?

The tomes do a lot of valuable things. None of them involve giving any reason to care about something other than getting your bonuses.

Also: http://www.enworld.org/Inzeladun/inzela ... indill.htm and http://www.enworld.org/Inzeladun/inzela ... imhelm.htm(to show two distinctly different characters) is not the product of "everyone is just low magic".

There are epic magic items in Inzeladun. There are people who would seek out a mundane sword because it is cool and awesome.

In LotR, all magic or special weapons have a history and/or a name. The hobbits are carrying daggers forged by the men of Arnor to fight the Witch-King of Angmar and buried in the barrow of an ancient king. Gandalf's sword, Glamdring, was forged for the king of Gondolin, the most awesome elven city evar, and was lost for thousands of years until it was discovered in the cave owned by the trolls in the Hobbit.

Then we have Guthwine (Eomer's sword), which has a name but there's no sign it has any special powers. Same with Theoden's sword.

Boromir's isn't even named (though it may have a name, we don't learn one).

People manage to do quite well without using the best weapons in the setting.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Have you considered perhaps using Shadowrun or perhaps the White Wolf system for your fantasy game? I don't believe that the magical items would be nearly as potent in these systems as they are in D&D.

Not using either of those for what I'm creating, and I don't care for either system (for various reasons) on their own either.

Then you're either going to have to house-rule something or create a whole new system. *shrug*

[violence in the media]

"Vow of Chastity: +X vs. enchantment spells." without the fluff being cool and interesting and appealing is not nearly as appealing as a game where taking such a vow is part of playing a more interesting character.

Ok, so you take a vow of chastity. Assuming it was just an RP thing you did, what's the problem with leaving it at that? You don't need to get +X to anything for that.

Everyone is saying that the only way the game can actually encourage/discourage a behavior is by rewarding the behavior and making characters who do it better off or by punishing the behavior and making them worse off (respectively).

People are saying that because it's human fucking nature. You give people incentives for doing things you want them to do, and penalize them for doing shit you don't want. You're literally arguing against the foundations of our legal, economic, and political systems.

That's why. Because instead of encouraging people to do something for being fun and interesting, you set things up so that people should do something because it is better mechanically.

If you want to play a hero, play a hero. If you don't want to play a hero, then why should the system say "you'll get +2 to all saves if you do."?

If you want more people to play "heroes" other than the ones who would do so naturally, you are going to have to give incentives. Otherwise, you probably have to deal with that fact that some people are not going to play adventuring heroes, instead opting for rakes, scoundrels, and opportunists.

[Leress]

I don't know about you, but I'd consider playing a character using his father's +2 defending sword to be a lot more meaningful than if it was a +5/+5 enhancement sword that he happened to find.

This was response on the mechanical meaning of the choice.

And the game should, if I'm supposed to care about such things, make it so I can get by with the +2 defending sword. Not make it so that I get a better sword that way or bonuses in other areas to make up for not using the best sword.

You can't take away all bonuses and make the adjustments in the system to do so.

"Vow of Chastity: +X vs. enchantment spells." without the fluff being cool and interesting and appealing is not nearly as appealing as a game where taking such a vow is part of playing a more interesting character.

That is your problem.

Then why do you need the system to say that it is also the optimal choice in order to do it?

Because I want to be the best at what I choose to do.

Everyone is saying that the only way the game can actually encourage/discourage a behavior is by rewarding the behavior and making characters who do it better off or by punishing the behavior and making them worse off (respectively).

Not everyone is saying that, stop lying or start reading. There have been several who said that you can make it mechanically even. You could do many solutions to the "stache" problem

• Use disguise self
• Bluff and say you are the bearded lady

Seriously that is just a couple. It called thinking out side the box. Just because your character has pride doesn't mean the team has to suffer.

That's why. Because instead of encouraging people to do something for being fun and interesting, you set things up so that people should do something because it is better mechanically.

If you want to play a hero, play a hero. If you don't want to play a hero, then why should the system say "you'll get +2 to all saves if you do."?

Now no one is saying that D20 is the bee's knees but it was made for rewarding system mastery so you really have a couple of choices

• Changed the system
• Change systems

Actually many discussions on this board show that many don't want that and what more freedom and making many more concepts viable.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Which one? The one where instead of making D&D a game about actual heroic adventurers the tomes are for keeping the fact its about people who break into other people's houses to take their stuff?

Why is using the best equipment available or seeking better equipment "not heroic"? And are you playing with a bunch of Rogues? It sounds like breaking and entering is their racket.

People manage to do quite well without using the best weapons in the setting.

And in LOTR, the magic is so low-powered that most magical weapons aren't much better then a Masterwork Weapon. It's like if you were in a Forgotten Realms campaign where the best magical weapon you could ever wield was a +2 sword that glowed under certain circumstances.

[Elennsar]

This was response on the mechanical meaning of the choice.

That is your problem.

And it is a problem with the game when I'm supposed to consider having such a character when the game doesn't encourage me to think that its worth taking such a dumb restriction (speaking as a fairly asexual person) because the character would think it is meaningful and important when the game.

Seriously, in D&D, you could say your character is an eunuch, and it would be less meaningful than saying your character is a redhead.

Since being redhaired is more recognizable.

Because I want to be the best at what I choose to do.

So you want to be optimal more than you want to be heroic. Fine.

Not everyone is saying that, stop lying or start reading. There have been several who said that you can make it mechanically even. You could do many solutions to the "stache" problem

That doesn't solve the problem. That just means that you get to choose between a sword you care about and a sword you don't, instead of choosing between a weaker sword you care about and a stronger sword that you don't.

Seriously that is just a couple. It called thinking out side the box. Just because your character has pride doesn't mean the team has to suffer.

Nor does it mean that the character being proud has to be discouraged by penalties and not encouraged in any way shape or form by anything else.

Actually many discussions on this board show that many don't want that and what more freedom and making many more concepts viable.

Which still means, in Denspeak, "as capable as possible".

Having a +2 defending sword be viable does not mean that it has to be as good as the best sword you can get or that it has to grant you bonuses to something other than slaying fools in order to be useful.

Why is using the best equipment available or seeking better equipment "not heroic"? And are you playing with a bunch of Rogues? It sounds like breaking and entering is their racket.

Seeking the best possible equipment and screwing anything else is not heroic.

"This is the sword of my father. I wield it to avenge hi - ooo, a +3 sword of defending -and- flaming? I'll use that instead."

As for a bunch of Rogues: That's the way D&D is designed to be played and none of the fluff seriously discourages it, it seems.

Go into a dungeon, fight monsters, get treasure, equip yourself better, find another dungeon, fight monsters, get treasure.

A halfway good GM can do better, but that's not an excuse for the system's wretched design.

And in LOTR, the magic is so low-powered that most magical weapons aren't much better then a Masterwork Weapon. It's like if you were in a Forgotten Realms campaign where the best magical weapon you could ever wield was a +2 sword that glowed under certain circumstances.

This is the same LotR where "Anduril rose and fell, gleaming with white fire."?

Now, I'm not sure if that has any impact besides visual or not.

[Leress]

El, you may want to read through those characters again that you link. They get all kinds of shit to compensate and have a shit ton of magical items.

The caster you linked is using epic spell-casting which is broken beyond belief. He also can only fail one of his epic spells on a 1.

All I see is two badasses and two examples that doesn't help you case in the slightest.

So you want to be optimal more than you want to be heroic. Fine.

Those are not mutually exclusive from each other. Just because I'm want to best that I can be doesn't make me less of a hero.

Which still means, in Denspeak, "as capable as possible".

Having a +2 defending sword be viable does not mean that it has to be as good as the best sword you can get or that it has to grant you bonuses to something other than slaying fools in order to be useful.

No one should be shot in the foot just because they choose an unorthodox method. You could also keep both swords. You don't have to use your father's sword to honor him. I've notice you have a very narrow view of many things and if it doesn't perfectly fit your vision it's somehow not "interesting"

Most of what I've seen from you is a vision problem, you say many contradicting statements, and if someone isn't fitting your vision they are not interesting. We can't help on how you feel. You said that many of our solutions are false and/or useless. Where are your solutions?

[Elennsar]

Leress: The point is that both of those exist in the same setting as the one who searched for a nonmagical sword.

So having magic items not be covering every PC and their brother does not mean that no one has magic items other than maybe one token item.

[Ganbare Gincun]

This is the same LotR where "Anduril rose and fell, gleaming with white fire."?

Now, I'm not sure if that has any impact besides visual or not.

It's probably just visual impact. But even if it wasn't, that would mean that the most powerful magical weapon in the world is probably - at best - a +2 Flaming Bastard Sword. And that's not very powerful compared to most high-end D&D weapons.

[Elennsar]

1) I'm not sure, but its entirely possible.

2) Not really. We don't really see much of Glamdring and Orcrist, but given that they've been lost for centuries and more and the "goblins" still fear them...


Regardless, the people who are not using magical weapons (Gimli and Eomer, for instance, to name two characters we see in the same fight as Aragorn - hard to compare say, Faramir's situation to what the Three Hunters are up to) seem to do just fine.

So assuming a game is supposed to represent something like LotR, the advantage of "magic weapon" is not a particularly large one - sure, its nice to have, but being a stout fighter has a lot more to do with how well you do and what you do then whether or not your weapon shines with the light of the sun and moon.

[Ganbare Gincun]

El, you may want to read through those characters again that you link. They get all kinds of shit to compensate and have a shit ton of magical items.

The caster you linked is using epic spell-casting which is broken beyond belief. He also can only fail one of his epic spells on a 1.

All I see is two badasses and two examples that doesn't help you case in the slightest.

You're going to need more then a Masterwork Bastard Sword to defeat "Grindrill The Overpowered". Like maybe EVA Unit 01. But I do have to wonder - where are his Suu levels?

[Ganbare Gincun]

Regardless, the people who are not using magical weapons (Gimli and Eomer, for instance, to name two characters we see in the same fight as Aragorn - hard to compare say, Faramir's situation to what the Three Hunters are up to) seem to do just fine.

Of course they do. They are using Masterwork Weapons that give them a +1 to hit, while Aragorn gets a +2 to hit and damage with Andúril. There's only a difference of +1 to hit and +2 to damage, so everyone's on more or less the same playing field.

Now if Aragorn had a +3 Flaming Burst Speed Keen Ghost Touch Adamantine Spiked Chain, that would be another matter altogether...

[Leress]

El, you may want to read through those characters again that you link. They get all kinds of shit to compensate and have a shit ton of magical items.

The caster you linked is using epic spell-casting which is broken beyond belief. He also can only fail one of his epic spells on a 1.

All I see is two badasses and two examples that doesn't help you case in the slightest.

You're going to need more then a Masterwork Bastard Sword to defeat "Grindrill The Overpowered". Like maybe EVA Unit 01. But I do have to wonder - where are his Suu levels?

Even with EVA Unit 01, Grindrill could easily penetrate your AT field since his wizard spells go through SR like a 60th level and his sorcerer ones like 31st.

My mistake El, it not low magic it more of hoard magic. People keep shit since it's rare. Since having magic items will get one killed over a +1 soup spoon of create food and water. Since you are more likely to find mundane items with trumped up histories of course you want those to since dragons and other more powerful people don't want that shit. It doesn't really do anything the more powerful people get the best toys and everyone else gets the scraps. They just move some numbers around.

[Elennsar]

You're going to need more then a Masterwork Bastard Sword to defeat "Grindrill The Overpowered". Like maybe EVA Unit 01. But I do have to wonder - where are his Suu levels?

I don't know, I think he outSuus the Suu as is. So I vote for the tactical nuke option.

No one should be shot in the foot just because they choose an unorthodox method. You could also keep both swords. You don't have to use your father's sword to honor him. I've notice you have a very narrow view of many things and if it doesn't perfectly fit your vision it's somehow not "interesting"

Most of what I've seen from you is a vision problem, you say many contradicting statements, and if someone isn't fitting your vision they are not interesting. We can't help on how you feel. You said that many of our solutions are false and/or useless. Where are your solutions?

No one should be treated as shooting themself in the foot because their method is not as good or better than an alternate method.

My solution: Actually fucking encourage people to play heroes. Show that as a fun and interesting thing that you'll enjoy doing.

Stop just selling mechanics, sell the fluff.

Which is more attractive:

Play fun, interesting characters doing fun, interesting things in a fun, interesting world.

Failure only serves to delay success, not prevent it.

Now if Aragorn had a +3 Flaming Burst Speed Keen Ghost Touch Adamantine Spiked Chain, that would be another matter altogether...

No kidding. That kind of stuff really doesn't fit any of Aragorn/Gawain/Drizzt (Luke...um, get back to me when we sort out what exactly lightsabers can do, 'kay?) to begin with though - even Drizzt, and FR never was noted as a low magic world that I know of.

[violence in the media]

No one should be treated as shooting themself in the foot because their method is not as good or better than an alternate method.

My solution: Actually fucking encourage people to play heroes. Show that as a fun and interesting thing that you'll enjoy doing.

Stop just selling mechanics, sell the fluff.

Which is more attractive:

Play fun, interesting characters doing fun, interesting things in a fun, interesting world.

Failure only serves to delay success, not prevent it.

Ok. How?

How are you going to get people to take the "cool" inferior choice when their buddy across the table is going to be a more effective character for not doing so?

Is it going to twist your panties if the other guy's character is more interesting than yours, because of how he roleplays, AND he's more powerful?

[Leress]

So your main problem is a fluff one. Because apparently by you if I train hard to be the best knight I can be, I am some how less of a hero than Joe the farmer for doing the same thing. You are really not shooting your self in the foot if you have a +2 sword in a +3 sword world. That is just a minor setback.

Most want to fix major power gaps within a level. So you can fix it on a level to level basis or you can go level-less and choose a different system.

[Elennsar]

My problem is a fluff and a mechanical one.

The game treats it you as having a +3 sword as a given so you are not only choosing less than the best sword you COULD get, you're substandard.

That's not appealing.

You are less of a hero when you refuse to take any risks that would put you in danger and only accept the quests where you have a 95% or something chance of survival.

Wanting to be as well prepared as possible? Fine. Not wanting to do something heroic because it isn't objectively superior?

Not fine.