The Gaming Den

I have been thinking about artifacts recently, with regards to their implementation in games.

Most of them are utter crap.

Large blocks of text are dedicated to detailing their history. This is frequently used by DMs to give them an excuse to cock-slap you with plot-NPCs or even the item itself; giving more importance to the state of the item than the players and their actions.

Their stats are pretty much wholly independent of any actual game, and very commonly a set of abilities that actually break the wealth-by-level guidelines for any game; meaning that in a balanced game, whoever gets it is overpowered. Other times, the negative side-effects of artifacts (the ones that do have it) can do more harm than good, and ultimately serve as a curse rather than a boon; which brings us back to the player being donkey-punched by the DM in the name of plot.

Now, in theory, the stats could actually be balanced for the game in its use. But this is largely by accident, because the numbers are static and designed independent of the varied abilities of players & campaigns. When the DM just tweaks the stats, we reenter Oberoni-land and can argue against giving 'generic' stats for any artifact. The rare few artifacts that do give advice on how to put them into a game are crap too; usually consisting of "stick it in the treasure chest and hilarity ensues".

Also, when they are used, they tend to be singular in their presence, meaning no other artifacts are moving about the party. This creates a form of overpoweredness in storyline importance, which can leave the other players resentful of the spotlight hogging. This isn't something that happens all the time though, and is usually indicative of the item being more important than the players.

I don't terribly understand why people want artifacts to do this. For numerical balance, an artifact doesn't actually need to be any different from any other magic item aside for plot significance; such as being the last Dragonball or cultural treasure or any number of excuses to throw level-appropriate opponents at the party.

Man, I wish I remembered why I was ranting about this. My computer restarted itself and I got distracted doing something else, now my train of thought is lost.

Artifacts are characters, so like any NPC they will get some screen time.

Well, I think that everyone forgets that each of the members of of Fellowship of the Ring had an Artifact, and instead only remembers the One Ring.

-Crissa

all of them? i can only recall aragorn, gandalf, and maybe legolas. the rest had magic items, if that.

i like it when artifacts have powers no normal magic item has. it's also fine if they have absurd numbers of diffrent types of effects.

Okay, actually Legolas and Gimli didn't have artifacts, and neither did the hobbits, but the hobbits also weren't covered in magic or asked to go in the first place.

-Crissa

What are you talking about? Practically anything magical in LotR is an artifact. The Barrow-swords? Totally artifacts.

The trick to artifacts is something we've talked about before- they need to always be level-appropriate. (Or their presence raises the level the characters play at to something appropriate. See: demon-killing saint's bone swords.)
I like to think of artifacts having been built with a specific purpose in mind. So AruckDanig Fal, the Adamantine-shafted spear with a head of pure silver made by the ancient dwarven smiths of the lost fortress, is always a level-appropriate weapon. But when the players finally face Danig the Ever-Cruel, it explodes into devil-killing awesomeness.

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is that all (major) magic items should really be artifacts. It's just that the players don't have to hunt down Danig the Ever-Cruel if they don't want to. And then AruckDanig will only ever be a cool magic spear. It would probably be okay for trinkets like ghost goggles or everful bottles to escape this rule.
Of course, the flaming sword might be a mass-produced weapon for some mook. But that seems awfully un-cool.

Not all magic items need be named and with history. Many casters in stories have piles of minor or even major magic items that have a history which consists of "was in the underwear drawer". Fairy tales, while not alone, are particularly known for this.

The term itself is charged now, likely due to D&D's handling. Artifact generally evokes the word MacGuffin, and in that regard they're not required to even have powers, let alone potentially game-breaking ones. If you mean for 'artifact' to equal 'character', then flavour text gives an item artifact status, and that potentially cheapens the term to not mean anything anymore.

My opinion on how an artifact should be defined:

Unique There may be multiple flaming swords, but there's only one holy, flaming burst scimitar named Ruby Crescent. It might, theoretically, be possible to replicate an artifact, but doing so should be a huge investment of time and energy.

Age and History An artifact should be old enough that heroes of yore either used it or quested for it. It should have its own history, which can be researched and used to glean information. It should have a name and/or title.

Powerful It doesn't have to be game-breaking, but an artifact should be useful at most levels of play. Note that it can be very useful in specific situations and less useful in others.

Contacts People know about this thing. If you mention the puzzle box of Dalhambar to a sage, he should go white and stammer about how he has to go now. Artifacts should be semi-famous. They do not exist in a vaccuum; if you've got one, you can absolutely count on numerous people wanting to take it away from you for various purposes.

Quirky Artifacts can break the rules. Maybe it has a downside, but the power it offers makes it worth it. Maybe it grants an ability that no other feat or magic item grants. Maybe you have to cut yourself with your artifact sword - inflicting X damage per day - or it won't work for you. Maybe your artifact staff slowly grants you reptillian features, due to its dragonish creation.

Talisman wrote:My opinion on how an artifact should be defined:

Unique There may be multiple flaming swords, but there's only one holy, flaming burst scimitar named Ruby Crescent. It might, theoretically, be possible to replicate an artifact, but doing so should be a huge investment of time and energy.

Age and History An artifact should be old enough that heroes of yore either used it or quested for it. It should have its own history, which can be researched and used to glean information. It should have a name and/or title.

Powerful It doesn't have to be game-breaking, but an artifact should be useful at most levels of play. Note that it can be very useful in specific situations and less useful in others.

Contacts People know about this thing. If you mention the puzzle box of Dalhambar to a sage, he should go white and stammer about how he has to go now. Artifacts should be semi-famous. They do not exist in a vaccuum; if you've got one, you can absolutely count on numerous people wanting to take it away from you for various purposes.

Quirky Artifacts can break the rules. Maybe it has a downside, but the power it offers makes it worth it. Maybe it grants an ability that no other feat or magic item grants. Maybe you have to cut yourself with your artifact sword - inflicting X damage per day - or it won't work for you. Maybe your artifact staff slowly grants you reptillian features, due to its dragonish creation.

Fair enough. I've seen lists of minor artifacts that were things you wouldn't mind having for your character, but I think the main complaint is the recommended approach to handling them in a game sucks. Virg has a point about them completely throwing off the wealth-by-level guidelines and possibly drawing resentment from the rest of the party.

Hm. I suppose the easiest cop-out to avoid the jealousy is to be democratic about it, and arrange things so sooner or later everyone gets an artifact that's useful to them. And possibly have the greater abilities be unlocked at higher character levels.

In my mind, the ideal artifact would be something like the Weapons of Legacy concept that WotC is apparently in love with, except it wouldn't suck.

You know, unique, with a history, famous, crazy powerful, and maybe, maybe a minor downside. Except not to the extent that it was pushed (making you a puling, gutless freak with a moderately useful weapon).