Losing items or death?

[badger3k]

Here's yet another interesting link to another game systems discussion. It is (yet another) "discussion" on a little spell that has a fairly good chance of taking magic items away from characters (MK's Disjunction is the spell, for those familiar with it). The latest argument I caught is here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=262294&perpage=30&pagenumber=1

(warning - they can get "attitudinal" at times - I haven't gone more than a few pages, but I can see the sparks starting to fly already.)

Looking at this thread, the attitude of some seems to be that if you lose items, it's worse than dying. Not only does it make the present battle harder, but it will take time to rebuild/regain the goods you lost. Now, the spell doesn't destroy the item (IIRC), just makes it non-magical. So you still have weapons and armor, but they may not be magical.

OK. If you have a complete ignoramous or killer-GM, I can see a problem. If you have whiney players, I can see a problem (the "Its my favorite sword, I named it and everything!" type). I think, that while most players would be ticked off, they would still be able to play. The GM should continue the adventure with this in mind (ie - if he doesn't modify the scenario to take the losses into account, he's not doing his job). Granted, in D&D there does seem to be a large "DM vs Players" attitude, at least among the more vocal posters, so this may not be a problem to the majority of people.

To me, having a whole party killed (assuming you don't have ressurections that work like ATMs, as in some games) is a lot worse than losing a magic item. Granted, my campaigns have generally not been item-centered. A lot of times, players lose items or have them destroyed. In my FH game, the players are just starting to get some magic, and because of the system, it's not such a game breaker as in D&D (although it is not that bad there, despite people's perceptions - I did a few analyses on stuff like spell defenses). What I mean there, in FH, a sword that is +2 OCV can still be effective the life of a character, but in D&D, it's lousy once you hit mid level, and totally useless (basically) at high levels - to survive, you pretty much need magic items. I won't even go into the "epic" - that has many many problems (I think that is the general consensus of most players).

I think the Hero system handles this problem better (at least, it leaves it to the individual GM, more or less).

My questions to others here are -

1) Which is worse, characters losing items or their lives?

2) Along the same lines - are spells/effects like this common or rare - is there a chance of characters losing items on a regular basis or no?

Just curious to see what people here do (or would do if the situation occured).

[Rage]

1) depends, usually I would say lives, but if a character has payed for a item pts wise (like say a magical pair of gloves which give them greater ability to climb) and they perminantly loose it I say thats pretty low (unless the points are given back somehow laa laa laa, or it was a very big roleplaying thing and not just some stupid little spell). And with DnD the weapons are tied with the Character, it is assumed that a level 12 fighter will have around 6-10 magical items including armour and weapons, The bad guys are written assuming that fact. So to destroy all of a DnD characaters stuff is to effectivley drop him a level or two in effectiveness at least.

2. In my game they are rare, I have had only a few characters permenantly loose paid points stuff the first two occasions both had to do with roleplay (the first guy snapped his magic pike in half to use the pieces in a ceremony which destroyed the ghoul lord, the second time a character gave away his enchanted amulet to his lady love. The third time a character brought the limitation durable on his focus making it breakable, It broke in a bar fight.) However characters loosing stuff for being blatently gormless, but I often give them a chance to get it back, if they don't succed by by birdy.

So what I am saying is spells like that aren't that common, spells that have an effect like polarising all metal objects do happen, and any object that can be breakable may break.

[Kraven Kor]

In HERO, I'd ask one question: Did they buy it independent or not?

If it is not independent, I would treat any "destruction" of a magic item as a suppress. The character would be unable to use the item(s) until I deemed they had taken enough time aside (during downtime) to repair / replace the item.

If they bought it independent, *poof-tinkle-tinkle* is the line the comes to mind.

[tgrandjean]

1) It depends on the game. In D&D cash-on-hand is the operating limit. If the can afford a Raise Dead spell or a Resurrection, replacing the items is probably the most difficult option.

2) In the case of item destruction, it really depends on the GM. Take an item like the wizards spellbook. One Fireball in the wrong place and it can result in a major problem.

Weighing in on D&D again, IMO item destruction is a tactic that the DM should absolutely use; primarily for balance issues (i.e. getting the players to spend gold is good), plot issues (my sword Neverkill has been destroyed; it's time for a quest to reforge/replace my weapon of choice), and general bad-assedness (i.e. OMG! He did what?!)

In Hero, I concur with Kraven Kor.

[badger3k]

Good points. I had assumed that the items would be heroic scale - items were not paid with character points. I forgot that others may play differently (d'oh).

Most items that I have in my campaign are independant, and either won as treasure or bought with gold. If they paid points, then my standard method is to get them back to the character somehow - probably though an adventure. In my games, items that break or get lost are not uncommon.

In my D&D campaign, the wizard character (multiclassed) took a swim, with gear. Her spelbook was not waterproof or protected. Lost it. Of course, there were other casters, and she did rebuild her book (with some unique spells I placed in the game). So, it worked out in the long run, and the added challenge made it more interesting (and they did have fun).

[Markdoc]

Depends on the game. In my game, magical items regularly get lost/stolen/broken. They're treasure: easy come/easy go.

Players get heartbroken, but hey, life is pain, as the Dread Pirate Wesley wisely said.

However in some games (especially dnd) a subset of players define their characters by the neat items the GM was stupid enough to give them. So it's not: "I have this great thief character called called Daedaloth, who once looted an entire castle by himself...blah,blah, blah". It's "I have this great cleric called Fred, who has a mace of disruption that removes levels on a roll of 18 or higher and he has a girdle of giant strength and cloak of displacement, and...blah blah blah".

Take away the items from a character like that, and you have essentially killed the character - he was only ever a life-support system for his magic items anyway.

cheers, Mark

[trechriron]

... he was only ever a life-support system for his magic items anyway.

cheers, Mark

That is hilarious. :snicker:

I agree with Markdoc on this idea. Although, I have met players who do not appreciate character death at all AND expect to keep their magic items at all times. Games quickly die when ALL a player cares about is their character to the exclusion of all others, the story, or even reason. It cripples the story if you can’t enter loss, conflict, or drama into the game and these players tend to tantrum at the slightest hint of injury, loss, or challenge. They go bye-bye. Video games are a perfect medium for them, they can get pissed at the AI and restart over and over until it is just “perfect” and I don’t’ have to deal with the tantrums.

I agree with Kraven Kor in that if the items are Independent, you should not be wily nilly destroying them. Even excessive suppress stuff could really be a bummer, but that is really a style/story issue. Now how to do this story-wise gets hairy for me. I would personally require all magic items to be Independent so I don't have to worry too much about it. IF the player really wants a personal magic item that is not Independent, I would require a good back-story for the item to help describe it's survival from theft, destruction, and litigation as stronger magic or fate. I need some causality as to why the stinking thing survived the spell, ship wreck, etc.

If magic items are more common I would not feel as bad about having one destroyed, un-enchanted, etc. In a game where magic items are rare, I would not make it so easy to destroy them.

[Hugh Neilson]

Now how to do this story-wise gets hairy for me. I would personally require all magic items to be Independent so I don't have to worry too much about it. IF the player really wants a personal magic item that is not Independent, I would require a good back-story for the item to help describe it's survival from theft, destruction, and litigation as stronger magic or fate. I need some causality as to why the stinking thing survived the spell, ship wreck, etc.

I think players need to create that backstory if they want such items. For me, the best explanation is often that the character himself knows how to create such an item, and only needs time to replace it (just like Defender would need time to rebuild his powered armor), or that he has a contact who owes him for some past benefit and will re-enchant an item for him should the need arise. That means it can be destroyed, but it's not too tough to replace.

[Doug McCrae]

Thor without his hammer would kind of suck. I'm not sure he'd even be Thor any more.

[Hugh Neilson]

Thor without his hammer would kind of suck. I'm not sure he'd even be Thor any more.

In fairness, it's not like "hero defined with item(s)" is without strong fantasy precedents.

Imagine Elric without Stormbringer?

Arthur with no Excalibur?

Take Spellbreaker (name IIRC??) away from Vlad Taltos?

Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser named their weapons, and they weren't even magical.

Of course, magic in many of these stories tended to be rare in the extreme, so it's not like there's likely another +2 sword with the next group of trolls, either.

[badger3k]

In fairness, it's not like "hero defined with item(s)" is without strong fantasy precedents.

Imagine Elric without Stormbringer?

Arthur with no Excalibur?

Take Spellbreaker (name IIRC??) away from Vlad Taltos?

Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser named their weapons, and they weren't even magical.

Of course, magic in many of these stories tended to be rare in the extreme, so it's not like there's likely another +2 sword with the next group of trolls, either.

It all depends on what defines the character. Conan never had any spectacular magic item like that, because his schtick was human strength and spirit. He lost items all the time. Arthur was a combination - he is well known for Excalibur, but he was also known for his character. Elric without Stormbringer is pretty weak physically, so he is more well known for his weapon (at least to me, I like Moorcock, but am not a real big fan of his work).

It all depends on how the character is designed and develops. Most characters don't start out with magic weapons, but so many players do end up developing and identifying their characters with items that I personally think they suffer for it. This is based on the style of play I'm familiar with - items are lost or broken all the times, so you tend not to get attached to items. Superheroes are a whole different game, with different rules, so I am focusing on fantasy here. Like I said, if players made stuff with their own points, I'd modify the situation as appropriate.

Part of the attitude I see among D&D players (well, some of them, since I'm one too) is that if you lose items, you will be behind the power curve, operating at a reduced level and unable to meet the (supposedly) appropriate challenges and rewards for your level. The argument of having a 19th level character with magic items appropriate to a 17th level character are funny to me. So what. It's a challenge. If the GM can't modify the game to reflect this fact, then there's a bigger problem than losing an item. There also seems to be a belief that the guidelines on challenge ratings and encounter level are set in stone.

Perhaps my expereinces with Hero and other systems have spoiled me. Here we have to rely on our own judgement more than premade tables. Even older versions of D&D did not have quite so many guidelines on balancing encounters,etc (unless in 2ed - never played it), so maybe this is more of a 3e-construct issue than a game-wide issue.