Taking magic items away from Player Characters

[Vorenus]

Hello, Adventurers!

I have observed that, generally speaking, the modern player of roleplaying games gets very upset if the DM/GM removes some/all of the character's magic items. (The same is true of removing some/all of non-magical gear, too, but that's not my focus here.) This can be a source of conflict because sometimes the plot requires a "depowering," so to speak, in order to tell a better story. This happens in fiction, too, but of course the characters in fiction don't usually get as upset about it. A perfect example is from the Dragonlance Chronicles. (I'm not going to give a spoiler warning for books that were published well over 30 years ago.) In the first volume of the Dragonlance Chronicles, the main protagonist, Tanis Half-Elven, receives a Legendary relic magic longsword. It is the sword of the long-dead Elven hero Kith-Kanan. The sword is named Wyrmslayer, and it is given to Tanis by none other than the undead Kith-Kanan himself! Within just a couple of chapters of getting that sword, Tanis uses it to defeat a giant abomination and also to intimidate an ancient red dragon! Truly a magnificent Legendary weapon! At the beginning of the second volume of the Chronicles, however, Tanis leaves Wyrmslayer with his companions when he is about to be taken prisoner--he doesn't want the weapon to fall into enemy hands. But then the party splits, and the person who is keeping Wyrmslayer safe heads off to parts unknown. For the rest of the Chronicles, Tanis never gets Wyrmslayer back again! Additionally, the character who took Wyrmslayer to keep it safe never uses it either! Poor Tanis, he has to go through almost the entire trilogy with no magical items at all. He had Wyrmslayer for about a third of one book, and then loses it for the next two books. (I'm aware that there is a gap-filling book that was published in the 2000s that fits between books 1 and 2, and presumably he has the sword for that book but I haven't read it, nor am I interested in reading it. My point stands for the actual main Chronicles: He has the Legendary Wyrmslayer for about a third of one book, meaning he has it for about a tenth of the entire trilogy.) Tanis, being a character in a book, doesn't complain to his DM about losing his magical item. He's too busy "roleplaying" and trying to overcome the many challenges his DM throws at him.

Which brings me back to the modern gamer. Sometimes the plot really does require that a character not have access to certain magical items, Legendary or otherwise, to keep it interesting. Yet, modern RPG players scream bloody murder if you take away their favorite toys. I've tried talking to players about this, but only rarely has a player agreed that it is for the good of the story. I hasten to add that this is not a problem I have faced with my current group of players.

So my question for everyone is: Is there a better way to handle it? As I said, just talking to the players doesn't seem to work that well in this instance, as it seems they are often very focused on their characters' favorite toys. It is almost like the magic item is a part of the character, rather than merely equipment the character happens to have. Some (many?) players seem to envision their characters as, for example, the "fighter with the awesome sword" or "ranger with the Cloak of Elvenkind" and etc. (This seems to be less of a problem for full spellcasters, because they already have all the magic within their own bodies and seem not to get as attached to most magic items. However, try to take away a Robe of the Archmage, for example, and watch the sparks fly!)

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Insights?

Thank you to everyone for reading and offering your insights.

--Vorenus

[darknite]

D&D is a game, not a novel.

That said, work with your players to see if there's a middle path that honors their characters' achievements and has a decent payoff for their sacrifice. You don't need to tell them what the payoff will be, but they should know that one is coming. And make it good, if you want to keep confidence with your players.

As a player I hate it when DMs just paper over my PC's hard-won achievements to further the 'story'. The story is about the players' characters and this kind of nerfing just smells of a DM who believes their story is more important. The best DMs have strategies that allow them to tell their story while incorporating the development of their PCs' roles.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hello, Adventurers!

If you want to write a book, or a short story, write a book or a short story. If you want to run a D&D game, then run a D&D game.

Note: the published adventures are a little bit rail roady due to being "public play" and a source of 'in world lore' for the base setting. No other campaigns need to do that.

If losing a magical litem happens as the result of a players choices and decisions, then the loss makes sense.

The story in a D&D campaign is supposed to be materially influenced by the choices and decisions the PCs make. If it isn't, first answer why it isn't.

If the DM removes magical items for *plot reasons*, I would be skeptical of the DM's motives and technique unless the whole table buys into it. (OoTA is a particularly egregious case of this being rail roady, as was one of the old AD&D 1e Slavers of the Undercity module (A1 - A4)).

[nickl_2000]

So my question for everyone is: Is there a better way to handle it? As I said, just talking to the players doesn't seem to work that well in this instance, as it seems they are often very focused on their characters' favorite toys. It is almost like the magic item is a part of the character, rather than merely equipment the character happens to have. Some (many?) players seem to envision their characters as, for example, the "fighter with the awesome sword" or "ranger with the Cloak of Elvenkind" and etc. (This seems to be less of a problem for full spellcasters, because they already have all the magic within their own bodies and seem not to get as attached to most magic items. However, try to take away a Robe of the Archmage, for example, and watch the sparks fly!)

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Insights?

Thank you to everyone for reading and offering your insights.

--Vorenus

Part of the problem with taking things away from a character is that the character may make some major decisions based on the items found. For example, I have a now retired Moon Druid who took levels in Ranger and MI (booming blade and other goodies) after getting a set of Gauntlet's of Ogre strength and wanting to mix it up close and personal in his caster form. If you as a DM were to take away those gauntlets you are minimizing those character choices I made and majorly nerfing the character.

If, thematically, you are wanting to do something like this. Where a PC has something extremely overpowered early on and they lose it for story reasons. Tell the player immediately offline that is is going to happen, that way there are no hurt feelings when it does. It can make for some cool RP situations since the player is prepared for it instead of hurt feelings. Also, since they know it is going to happen they aren't attached. Also, make sure it happens quickly in the campaign so that the extremely overpowered item doesn't make the other players jealous and the one person doesn't take the spotlight. By communicating it early on, you are still giving the player the ability to write their own PCs story while following your idea as a DM.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I have no problem with losing a magic item, unless:

It is important to the character (something that can be develop in a game like the dwarf that fall in love with his axe and stuff like this).

It is an important part of how the character work mechanically (some builds requires magic items and losing then is very painful to the player. I am fine with making the characters feel pain, not the players.)

In my first game I played we looted a very strong magic sword, we were level 3 and the sword was appropriate for level 10.
We fought rust monsters after three sessions.

[Haydensan]

To be fair, I'm a bit on the other side of the fence to the other replies.

Though there is a distinction I would like to make. The NPC's/villains/whatever can try and take an item from the players, but they should be able to do something about it. Resist in some way to prevent it being taken.

Maybe foreshadow the NPC too if it's an important item.

[FilthyLucre]

Hello, Adventurers!

I have observed that, generally speaking, the modern player of roleplaying games gets very upset if the DM/GM removes some/all of the character's magic items. (The same is true of removing some/all of non-magical gear, too, but that's not my focus here.) This can be a source of conflict because sometimes the plot requires a "depowering," so to speak, in order to tell a better story. This happens in fiction, too, but of course the characters in fiction don't usually get as upset about it. A perfect example is from the Dragonlance Chronicles. (I'm not going to give a spoiler warning for books that were published well over 30 years ago.) In the first volume of the Dragonlance Chronicles, the main protagonist, Tanis Half-Elven, receives a Legendary relic magic longsword. It is the sword of the long-dead Elven hero Kith-Kanan. The sword is named Wyrmslayer, and it is given to Tanis by none other than the undead Kith-Kanan himself! Within just a couple of chapters of getting that sword, Tanis uses it to defeat a giant abomination and also to intimidate an ancient red dragon! Truly a magnificent Legendary weapon! At the beginning of the second volume of the Chronicles, however, Tanis leaves Wyrmslayer with his companions when he is about to be taken prisoner--he doesn't want the weapon to fall into enemy hands. But then the party splits, and the person who is keeping Wyrmslayer safe heads off to parts unknown. For the rest of the Chronicles, Tanis never gets Wyrmslayer back again! Additionally, the character who took Wyrmslayer to keep it safe never uses it either! Poor Tanis, he has to go through almost the entire trilogy with no magical items at all. He had Wyrmslayer for about a third of one book, and then loses it for the next two books. (I'm aware that there is a gap-filling book that was published in the 2000s that fits between books 1 and 2, and presumably he has the sword for that book but I haven't read it, nor am I interested in reading it. My point stands for the actual main Chronicles: He has the Legendary Wyrmslayer for about a third of one book, meaning he has it for about a tenth of the entire trilogy.) Tanis, being a character in a book, doesn't complain to his DM about losing his magical item. He's too busy "roleplaying" and trying to overcome the many challenges his DM throws at him.

Which brings me back to the modern gamer. Sometimes the plot really does require that a character not have access to certain magical items, Legendary or otherwise, to keep it interesting. Yet, modern RPG players scream bloody murder if you take away their favorite toys. I've tried talking to players about this, but only rarely has a player agreed that it is for the good of the story. I hasten to add that this is not a problem I have faced with my current group of players.

So my question for everyone is: Is there a better way to handle it? As I said, just talking to the players doesn't seem to work that well in this instance, as it seems they are often very focused on their characters' favorite toys. It is almost like the magic item is a part of the character, rather than merely equipment the character happens to have. Some (many?) players seem to envision their characters as, for example, the "fighter with the awesome sword" or "ranger with the Cloak of Elvenkind" and etc. (This seems to be less of a problem for full spellcasters, because they already have all the magic within their own bodies and seem not to get as attached to most magic items. However, try to take away a Robe of the Archmage, for example, and watch the sparks fly!)

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Insights?

Thank you to everyone for reading and offering your insights.

--Vorenus

1.) Do not give your players something you don't want them to have and know that once you give them something you can never take it away.
2.) Never introduce an NPC to your game if you're not ok with him/her dying on the spot and for no reason other than your PCs are murderous.

As the DM you are in charge of the plot but you are not in charge of the "story" - that is exclusively the realm of PC agency.

[JellyPooga]

1.) Do not give your players something you don't want them to have and know that once you give them something you can never take it away.
2.) Never introduce an NPC to your game if you're not ok with him/her dying on the spot and for no reason other than your PCs are murderous.

As the DM you are in charge of the plot but you are not in charge of the "story" - that is exclusively the realm of PC agency.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope.

As GM, you have every right to give and take items, characters and story elements to suit the campaign. If a player wants to get stroppy about losing their favourite toy, ally or whatever, then they should expect to be told to grow up and get over it. In fact, it's about the time when players start feeling entitled and/or powerful that a GM should start thinking about taking them down a notch or two. After all, "easy street" is a boring story and increasingly powerful enemies or challenges are only one way to introduce struggle to the players choices.

If fighting orcs, for example, has become too easy but the rest of the campaign is all about fighting orcs, then making the orcs more powerful (better stats, different "breeds", Class levels, etc.) can feel forced and artificial, but making it so the players are not so powerful by taking away equipment or magic items, imposing a disease or exhaustion, traps that put them in the HP-danger-zone, imprisoning them, a curse, un/favourable terrain, superior observation/information gathering, or any other way to stop the PC's from operating at full capacity are all completely legitimate tools in the GM arsenal to level the playing field.

It's the GMs job to give the players a challenge. It's the PC's job to deal with those challenges using the resources they have available at that time. Sure, they might have been fully rested and well-equipped in the last adventure, but if this time around they're run ragged and ill-prepared, then that's a different story and just as fun provided you're not a snot-nosed, entitled brat who demands he gets everything his way or he's not going to play any more. Frankly, I'm happy to dismiss those players from my table.

[OgataiKhan]

Is there a better way to handle it?

Yes, one: don't take away magic items from players.

The objective of D&D is to have fun. Having and using magic items is fun. Having them taken away from you is the opposite of fun, that's how our brain works: losing 50€ hurts more than gaining 50€ makes you happy.

Moreover, taking away the players' magic items does not, ever, make for a better story. Magic items, as you said, become a part of our characters as much as our spells and class features. It's up to you as the DM to create a fun story, and if your story requires you to nerf the player characters, especially by stealing their stuff, create a better story.

[FilthyLucre]

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope.

As GM, you have every right to give and take items, characters and story elements to suit the campaign. If a player wants to get stroppy about losing their favourite toy, ally or whatever, then they should expect to be told to grow up and get over it. In fact, it's about the time when players start feeling entitled and/or powerful that a GM should start thinking about taking them down a notch or two. After all, "easy street" is a boring story and increasingly powerful enemies or challenges are only one way to introduce struggle to the players choices.

If fighting orcs, for example, has become too easy but the rest of the campaign is all about fighting orcs, then making the orcs more powerful (better stats, different "breeds", Class levels, etc.) can feel forced and artificial, but making it so the players are not so powerful by taking away equipment or magic items, imposing a disease or exhaustion, traps that put them in the HP-danger-zone, imprisoning them, a curse, un/favourable terrain, superior observation/information gathering, or any other way to stop the PC's from operating at full capacity are all completely legitimate tools in the GM arsenal to level the playing field.

It's the GMs job to give the players a challenge. It's the PC's job to deal with those challenges using the resources they have available at that time. Sure, they might have been fully rested and well-equipped in the last adventure, but if this time around they're run ragged and ill-prepared, then that's a different story and just as fun provided you're not a snot-nosed, entitled brat who demands he gets everything his way or he's not going to play any more. Frankly, I'm happy to dismiss those players from my table.

The OPs question is about taking away something from the PCs in service of the story. So what exactly does this rant have to do with anything? It doesn't even address the two points that I made.

[JellyPooga]

Yes, one: don't take away magic items from players.

The objective of D&D is to have fun. Having and using magic items is fun. Having them taken away from you is the opposite of fun, that's how our brain works: losing 50€ hurts more than gaining 50€ makes you happy.

Moreover, taking away the players' magic items does not, ever, make for a better story. Magic items, as you said, become a part of our characters as much as our spells and class features. It's up to you as the DM to create a fun story, and if your story requires you to nerf the player characters, especially by stealing their stuff, create a better story.

You (the player) are not your character. You have not had your magic items taken away, you character has. The fun of the game is not in having a powerful character, but in overcoming challenges. A more powerful character, whether that mean being a higher level or having magic items, allows your character to overcome harder and more diverse challenges, but that doesn't make less challenging encounters less fun (otherwise no-one would play low-level games, for instance). If by taking away something that makes your character powerful, the GM has the option of challenging the players with otherwise less poweful foes, then that isn't bad GMing but rather quite the opposite. It's an unimaginative and/or weak GM who bends to his players' every whim for fear of hurting their precious sensitivities.

A hero reliant on his magic sword to win the day is no hero at all...

[JellyPooga]

The OPs question is about taking away something from the PCs in service of the story. So what exactly does this rant have to do with anything? It doesn't even address the two points that I made.


.) Do not give your players something you don't want them to have and know that once you give them something you can never take it away.

As GM, you have every right to give and take items

I think that pretty much sums up addressing your first point and your second point is about NPCs, not magic items, soooooo...?

[FilthyLucre]

You (the player) are not your character. You have not had your magic items taken away, you character has. The fun of the game is not in having a powerful character, but in overcoming challenges. A more powerful character, whether that mean being a higher level or having magic items, allows your character to overcome harder and more diverse challenges, but that doesn't make less challenging encounters less fun (otherwise no-one would play low-level games, for instance). If by taking away something that makes your character powerful, the GM has the option of challenging the players with otherwise less poweful foes, then that isn't bad GMing but rather quite the opposite. It's an unimaginative and/or weak GM who bends to his players' every whim for fear of hurting their precious sensitivities.

A hero reliant on his magic sword to win the day is no hero at all...

You're entitled to your opinion on GM theory.

[Haydensan]

You (the player) are not your character. You have not had your magic items taken away, you character has. The fun of the game is not in having a powerful character, but in overcoming challenges. A more powerful character, whether that mean being a higher level or having magic items, allows your character to overcome harder and more diverse challenges, but that doesn't make less challenging encounters less fun (otherwise no-one would play low-level games, for instance). If by taking away something that makes your character powerful, the GM has the option of challenging the players with otherwise less poweful foes, then that isn't bad GMing but rather quite the opposite. It's an unimaginative and/or weak GM who bends to his players' every whim for fear of hurting their precious sensitivities.

A hero reliant on his magic sword to win the day is no hero at all...

In response to your last line of this: He IS a hero, but he is NOT a fun character.

I whole heartedly agree that the challenge is what makes it fun. If there's no resistance (or what resistance there is is trivial in the face of the characters) then there is little gratification in fufilling anything.

[stoutstien]

Hello, Adventurers!

I have observed that, generally speaking, the modern player of roleplaying games gets very upset if the DM/GM removes some/all of the character's magic items. (The same is true of removing some/all of non-magical gear, too, but that's not my focus here.) This can be a source of conflict because sometimes the plot requires a "depowering," so to speak, in order to tell a better story. This happens in fiction, too, but of course the characters in fiction don't usually get as upset about it. A perfect example is from the Dragonlance Chronicles. (I'm not going to give a spoiler warning for books that were published well over 30 years ago.) In the first volume of the Dragonlance Chronicles, the main protagonist, Tanis Half-Elven, receives a Legendary relic magic longsword. It is the sword of the long-dead Elven hero Kith-Kanan. The sword is named Wyrmslayer, and it is given to Tanis by none other than the undead Kith-Kanan himself! Within just a couple of chapters of getting that sword, Tanis uses it to defeat a giant abomination and also to intimidate an ancient red dragon! Truly a magnificent Legendary weapon! At the beginning of the second volume of the Chronicles, however, Tanis leaves Wyrmslayer with his companions when he is about to be taken prisoner--he doesn't want the weapon to fall into enemy hands. But then the party splits, and the person who is keeping Wyrmslayer safe heads off to parts unknown. For the rest of the Chronicles, Tanis never gets Wyrmslayer back again! Additionally, the character who took Wyrmslayer to keep it safe never uses it either! Poor Tanis, he has to go through almost the entire trilogy with no magical items at all. He had Wyrmslayer for about a third of one book, and then loses it for the next two books. (I'm aware that there is a gap-filling book that was published in the 2000s that fits between books 1 and 2, and presumably he has the sword for that book but I haven't read it, nor am I interested in reading it. My point stands for the actual main Chronicles: He has the Legendary Wyrmslayer for about a third of one book, meaning he has it for about a tenth of the entire trilogy.) Tanis, being a character in a book, doesn't complain to his DM about losing his magical item. He's too busy "roleplaying" and trying to overcome the many challenges his DM throws at him.

Which brings me back to the modern gamer. Sometimes the plot really does require that a character not have access to certain magical items, Legendary or otherwise, to keep it interesting. Yet, modern RPG players scream bloody murder if you take away their favorite toys. I've tried talking to players about this, but only rarely has a player agreed that it is for the good of the story. I hasten to add that this is not a problem I have faced with my current group of players.

So my question for everyone is: Is there a better way to handle it? As I said, just talking to the players doesn't seem to work that well in this instance, as it seems they are often very focused on their characters' favorite toys. It is almost like the magic item is a part of the character, rather than merely equipment the character happens to have. Some (many?) players seem to envision their characters as, for example, the "fighter with the awesome sword" or "ranger with the Cloak of Elvenkind" and etc. (This seems to be less of a problem for full spellcasters, because they already have all the magic within their own bodies and seem not to get as attached to most magic items. However, try to take away a Robe of the Archmage, for example, and watch the sparks fly!)

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Insights?

Thank you to everyone for reading and offering your insights.

--Vorenus

I don't think you will find the answer to this on line. Player's reactions to loss of magic items vary greatly from individual to individual. Good example of differently people can play the same game.
Personally I don't hand out many magical items and I don't use items with static bonuses to AC, saves, attacks, or stats because I don't fell like they add anything to the game.

[darknite]

You (the player) are not your character. You have not had your magic items taken away, you character has.

That's like saying it's not you having to pay $2000 for landing on a hotel at Boardwalk in Monopoly, it's the Top Hat you're pushing around the table that does.


The fun of the game is not in having a powerful character, but in overcoming challenges. A more powerful character, whether that mean being a higher level or having magic items, allows your character to overcome harder and more diverse challenges, but that doesn't make less challenging encounters less fun (otherwise no-one would play low-level games, for instance). If by taking away something that makes your character powerful, the GM has the option of challenging the players with otherwise less poweful foes, then that isn't bad GMing but rather quite the opposite. It's an unimaginative and/or weak GM who bends to his players' every whim for fear of hurting their precious sensitivities.

I'm up for making the game challenging, you betcha. But you need to respect your player and not belittle them. Using DM-fiat to create challenge is a thing, but you want to be very careful with it. The players want to trust the DM but if they see the DM is bending the rules to their advantage too much without (in their mind) good cause, you quickly become a DM no one wants to play with.


A hero reliant on his magic sword to win the day is no hero at all...

Can we extend that to include why does a fighter even need a sword? I mean, a real heroic fighter would use a dagger. Seems easy enough.

[GorogIrongut]

I tend to agree with Jelly. I regularly remind my players that if they seek after magic items... then so does everyone else. People who are bigger and stronger than they are make a fantastic nemesis for your party. They swoop in, take what they want, mock your players mercilessly and leave after giving them a bloodied nose.

Not only does this remove the magic item. It gives them someone to fixate on over the long term. Players LOVE loot and magic items. But what players want the most is revenge; brutal and relentless revenge. It gives them purpose. And when they ultimately succeed, the satisfaction is manifold greater.

So yes, feel free to take whatever you want as a DM. All you have to do is to realistically shift the blame for the theft from yourself on to the target of your choice. Salt the rest of the adventure liberally with your target as if rubbing their nose in it. Then give them the means to finally succeed. Let them get devious. Let them revel in their revenge. Let them vent their spleen.

By doing so, everyone wins.

[JellyPooga]

That's like saying it's not you having to pay $2000 for landing on a hotel at Boardwalk in Monopoly, it's the Top Hat you're pushing around the table that does.

The difference is that you don't get to experience what the Top Hat is actually spending that money on; Monopoly isn't a roleplaying game. D&D is and as such has different criteria of what's fun and a different element of player/character involvement.


I'm up for making the game challenging, you betcha. But you need to respect your player and not belittle them. Using DM-fiat to create challenge is a thing, but you want to be very careful with it. The players want to trust the DM but if they see the DM is bending the rules to their advantage too much without (in their mind) good cause, you quickly become a DM no one wants to play with.

Oh don't get me wrong; a good GM is considrate of every tool he has available. Just because there's an ancient red dragon in your game world doesn't mean you use it to beat down your 1st level players on the slightest whim. For the same reason, you don't give and take better equipment, allies or opportunities at random or vindictively.


Can we extend that to include why does a fighter even need a sword? I mean, a real heroic fighter would use a dagger. Seems easy enough.

Unarmoured Barabarians might ask the same question of a full-plate Fighter. Taken to a further extreme, who's the more heroic; the Barbarian used to using minimal equipment or the Fighter facing the same challenges using the same equipment despite being at a significant disadvantage? If the challenge makes the hero, the greater the challenge, the greater the hero and as such, the hero operating at a disadvantage (for whatever reason) is the greater hero (and being the big damn hero is fun!).

[DMThac0]

Don't play a novel, play D&D

Dragonlance Novels, the books the OP refers to, are literally D&D games put into novel format.

That argument is also moot if you look at the whole of the example. Tanis gave up his sword, the DM didn't take it from him. The player chose to give up the sword and it was never recovered by the player.

---

Don't give players something you don't want them to have.

The DM is not saying that he doesn't want the players to have them, he's saying that there may be a case to remove the items from the player(s) for a reason. Plot driven loss is extremely powerful and can be used to great effect. Losing the NPC you're trying to save because of a story beat is perfectly acceptable, losing a +1 sword is grounds for calling the DM out for being bad/mean/unfun? That is a double standard that has been set forth and is bad form on the players.

---

You can't take away something you gave the players.

Anti-magic Field, Rust Monsters, Sphere of Annihilation. Three items off the top of my head that are built into the game that provide means, and provide tools for, the removal of items from the players. If you weren't allowed to take things away from the players then the game would not create a precedence that you could.

---

OP:

Do whatever you want in your game. Give toys to your players and have the antagonist steal them away. Have situations occur where the players have to choose between the magic trinket or saving a life. Anything you want that fits the plot line you're running, it's your game.

The only word of caution I have when it comes to this type of approach is that there should be a greater reward at the end. We'll say they have to give up their brand new +1 Short Sword to accomplish their task. When the task is accomplished, or soon after, they should get that sword back and a little more. Perhaps they get a different sword that has another property. Perhaps they get a few spell scrolls, or a couple potions in addition to recovering their weapon. It's a reward for the risk they took, Tanis may have lost Wyrmslayer, but what did he get in return?

[darknite]

The difference is that you don't get to experience what the Top Hat is actually spending that money on; Monopoly isn't a roleplaying game. D&D is and as such has different criteria of what's fun and a different element of player/character involvement.

But the concept is similar. Playing a game is extending yourself to the environment of the game. Just like it stings you personally to lose $2000 bucks landing on Boardwalk, it stings you personally to have your character disenfranchised by a 'I know better' DM.

As I mentioned above, I'm not against pruning PCs when it's obvious they're causing a problem in the game. I just make sure I discuss it with the players and get their buy in. If they're cool with it, okay. If not, well, I'm the DM and challenges can escalate to accommodate the situation.

For example, I created a situation where a player was challenged by an NPC to obtain a powerful object, on the basis that it was an important icon of a noble house. The player was free to accept the challenge (a solo competition that was VERY tough) and if they won they got something cool. If they didn't accept, there were also consequences. It was a very memorable event. The message is ... Bake these actions into the game, don't capriciously YOINK magic items.

[FilthyLucre]

So, I didn't really want to get involved with this because I don't really care that much but I'm bored so I'm just going to explain why this is a terrible idea in general - maybe it works for your group and your players but it is not advice I would ever give to fledgling DMs and here is why:

After defeating the evil red dragon that had been harassing the country side the fighter finds a powerful sword. The fighter (and more importantly the player) is excited to have this new cool tool to use. For some contrived reason though your railroady story requires that the PC loses the sword at some point. So, one night, thieves sneak into camp and try and steal the sword. Except the fighter kills them all - they fail. Then a stronger group of assassins roll along... and the fighter kills them too. So then you decide that an ultra DMPC Marty Sue sneaks into camp and steals it and the PCs and Fighter have no chance of stopping it or thwarting it. Now your game is officially DM vs. PC. THIS is why you never give PCs something you don't want them to have and why you CANT take it back arbitrarily. Either you don't actually know if the PC will ever organically part with the item, whether he loses it or someone steals it OR you just DM fiat steal it away in which case your player will feel cheated because something happened that he COULD NOT interact with.

This is DM 101 stuff.

[denthor]

Give them a beat down knock unconscious not dead. Loot the bodies and leave them alive. Have a good NPC revive them with a heal check over several days so the trail is cold.

[GorogIrongut]

I run a sandbox world and my players understand that I don't pull punches. While in a hidden catacomb they managed, through incredible ingenuity, to find a legendary level dwarven hammer while at level 5. Such items are very sought after... and not just by characters of pure heart.

They started off not using it and keeping it hidden because once people knew it was 'refound', they would be the target of any and everyone interested in it. The game got tactical very quick... because they had the Dnd equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction, but the moment they used it they'd have a bullseye on their foreheads.


This wasn't DM vs Party. It was simply a realistic extrapolation of how a world would react. When they finally did reveal the item, that's when the campaign kicked up into high gear as they rapidly gained enemies and allies. And yes, for a period the hammer was stolen. They didn't cry. They just got even.

[Tharkun]

Your example from that book was obviously a plot sword that was part of a session 0 backstory. That said, characters make choices about permanent magic items that affect their history. Destroying one or two items is cool but make it count and germane to the story. Or steal it and use that Big Magic Item Energy to drive the plot forward and have the party work to get it back (successful or not).

[FilthyLucre]

I run a sandbox world and my players understand that I don't pull punches. While in a hidden catacomb they managed, through incredible ingenuity, to find a legendary level dwarven hammer while at level 5. Such items are very sought after... and not just by characters of pure heart.

They started off not using it and keeping it hidden because once people knew it was 'refound', they would be the target of any and everyone interested in it. The game got tactical very quick... because they had the Dnd equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction, but the moment they used it they'd have a bullseye on their foreheads.


This wasn't DM vs Party. It was simply a realistic extrapolation of how a world would react. When they finally did reveal the item, that's when the campaign kicked up into high gear as they rapidly gained enemies and allies. And yes, for a period the hammer was stolen. They didn't cry. They just got even.

Cool - so it worked... this time. But the whole point is you don't know that - unless you force it by DM fiat.

[nickl_2000]

I run a sandbox world and my players understand that I don't pull punches. While in a hidden catacomb they managed, through incredible ingenuity, to find a legendary level dwarven hammer while at level 5. Such items are very sought after... and not just by characters of pure heart.

They started off not using it and keeping it hidden because once people knew it was 'refound', they would be the target of any and everyone interested in it. The game got tactical very quick... because they had the Dnd equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction, but the moment they used it they'd have a bullseye on their foreheads.


This wasn't DM vs Party. It was simply a realistic extrapolation of how a world would react. When they finally did reveal the item, that's when the campaign kicked up into high gear as they rapidly gained enemies and allies. And yes, for a period the hammer was stolen. They didn't cry. They just got even.

But this is a case where, from the beginning, there was a clear understanding that the weapon could and probably will go away. If the players know this and buy into the concept its very, very different then taking something away after 4 session where there isn't that clear understanding.

That is where out of game conversations need to be had, where the DM says "Look I screwed up and gave you something way to powerful and it is taking away my fun and the fun away from other people. Is there a way that we can find an in game reason for it to disappear and I will give you this instead and/or let you re-build the decisions you made based on this weapon?" That turns something from "how dare you take something away from my character", to "alright, that's cool we are all human and want to have fun."

[OgataiKhan]

You (the player) are not your character. You have not had your magic items taken away, you character has. The fun of the game is not in having a powerful character, but in overcoming challenges. A more powerful character, whether that mean being a higher level or having magic items, allows your character to overcome harder and more diverse challenges, but that doesn't make less challenging encounters less fun (otherwise no-one would play low-level games, for instance). If by taking away something that makes your character powerful, the GM has the option of challenging the players with otherwise less poweful foes, then that isn't bad GMing but rather quite the opposite. It's an unimaginative and/or weak GM who bends to his players' every whim for fear of hurting their precious sensitivities.

A hero reliant on his magic sword to win the day is no hero at all...

I'm glad you told me what the fun of the game is, I would have never understood it without you.

Or, perhaps, you do not get to decide what the fun of the game is for others.
Having your character grow in power is fun for me and for many others, while having your character become weaker reverses the character's growth and makes him uninteresting.

Finally, the fact that you speak of a DM being "weak" and "bending to the players whims" is ridiculous. Do you not understand that D&D is not "The DM against the players" but a collaborative game in which the objective is to have fun?
If you as the DM are doing something that takes fun away from the players then yes, you are a bad DM, because you are failing your duty of letting the other players have fun, and it is the players who decide what is fun for them, not the DM.
DMs who stick to their guns with no regard for their players' fun quickly find themselves playerless.

[JellyPooga]

I think it's important to make the distinction between arbitrarily just taking away magic items (or any other kind of penalty) and doing it for a good reason.

I suspect many of those arguing against taking away items have been burnt by the former and as such have a bad taste left over from it. That doesn't mean it can't be done well.

To take FilthyLucre's example of a GM who ends up using an unbeatable MartySue to confiscate items; this is clearly an example of a GM trying to put the players on a rail. That's an example of a different problem, unrelated to the question of confiscating items; it only uses that scenario as a medium. The problem of that particular GM could be highlighted using many different scenarios.

Compare this to a scenario in which a player is tasked with giving up his worldly possessions in order to complete his quest. Yes, the player can choose to fail the quest and keep his gear, but the end result is the same; even down to the railroads. Then, upon completion of the quest, if that player either regains his gear, or acquires new gear of equivalent (or greater) power, then what was the problem? Imagine the player who throws his toys out the pram upon starting that quest; who's the problem? The player who lacked the foresight to trust his GM to run an entertaining game, or the GM who just presented a style of play outside the norm?

Let's go back to the "MartySue Thieves" scenario. The mistake made in that scenario isn't trying to confiscate the items, but rather that the method used to do so was flawed. If the GM had a scenario in mind that involved the players being under-equipped, then making the players under-equipped should involve that scenario somehow and should not be dependent on chancing the dice any more than talking to the old guy in the corner of the tavern should depend on succeeding on a dice roll to persuade him to give you the quest. A better method in the thieves scenario might have been to drug the players in the tavern (DC:Nope...because, you know, plot) and have them wake up at the mercy of those thieves, OR perhaps to have the quest be to disguise themselves to infiltrate the thieves guild, meaning they can't take/use their best gear, OR locate the scenario in a town/city that has strict laws on weapons or magic, OR any other number of examples where the choice is not the players to make IF they want to pursue the quest.

If the players don't want to do the quest that's their choice, but also their loss. If the players really want to recover gear that has been confiscated or destroyed, then the GM can facilitate it as a side-quest or as part of the main plot (if it wasn't already) and that shouldn't be a problem any more than the time it takes for the player to ask the question without throwing a hissy-fit complaining about being nerfed or the GM being a railroading [expletive].

[JellyPooga]

DMs who stick to their guns with no regard for their players' fun quickly find themselves playerless.

And players that religiously stick to their guns and don't trust their GM to facilitate a fun game will soon find themselves looking for a new GM.

[OgataiKhan]

And players that religiously stick to their guns and don't trust their GM to facilitate a fun game will soon find themselves looking for a new GM.

My point is that you do not know what is fun for your players unless you ask them. That plotline involving magic item loss that you think will be glorious? Your players might hate it. It is the DM's duty to adapt to the players and to what they like, not the other way around.

[JellyPooga]

My point is that you do not know what is fun for your players unless you ask them. That plotline involving magic item loss that you think will be glorious? Your players might hate it. It is the DM's duty to adapt to the players and to what they like, not the other way around.

And my point is that until you play that campaign, you have no idea if you'll enjoy it or not. Trust must go both ways and if a player won't trust their GM, then they're probably not going to enjoy the game regardless of what that GM does, unless they're pandered to like a computer gamer using cheat-codes.

edit: Further, it is absolutely the players job to compromise and adapt to their GMs playstyle just as much as the opposite is true.

[Frozenstep]

As a new DM, one thing I've always been careful about is the difference in mediums compared to stories I've read. Different mediums have different strengths, and the way certain elements work in one medium may not translate well to another. Heck, elements between different genres may not translate well even in the same medium, and there are so many different kind of DnD games that you can't make blanket judgements.

For the DnD games where a big draw is the feeling of progression, power fantasy, etc, losing a magic item is definitely a downer moment. That doesn't need to be a bad thing overall, it's part of the ups and downs that go into a story and also a useful consequence for certain player actions. However, those downer moments occurring as a consequence of player action helps drive the feeling of player agency. That you were the ones who tried to fight that dragon, but the plan was flawed and you lost someone and all the gear they were carrying. Or maybe you just gave an awesome sword to a friend so they could go free their nation while you take care of something else.

If the DM just does their DM thing and takes the magic item without much player choice or input, well you've got a problem unless your players are completely fine with the DM telling their story and not making too many of the big choices, or at least feeling like that. With player approval it can be good as well, but I still find it a bit of a clumsy translation of the plot element. I'm not a huge fan of that just because of how obvious it makes it that I'm trying to drive a plot a certain way.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Here’s the big questions.
Will they get them back? If the answer is yes they’ll probably be fine with it. Once
If the answer is no, then you have an issue.

[Reevh]

You (the player) are not your character. You have not had your magic items taken away, you character has. The fun of the game is not in having a powerful character, but in overcoming challenges. A more powerful character, whether that mean being a higher level or having magic items, allows your character to overcome harder and more diverse challenges, but that doesn't make less challenging encounters less fun (otherwise no-one would play low-level games, for instance). If by taking away something that makes your character powerful, the GM has the option of challenging the players with otherwise less poweful foes, then that isn't bad GMing but rather quite the opposite. It's an unimaginative and/or weak GM who bends to his players' every whim for fear of hurting their precious sensitivities.

A hero reliant on his magic sword to win the day is no hero at all...

So I personally wouldn't be overly hurt by having my magic item taken away, but I know lots of people who would, even if they wouldn't make a thing out of it. We have been trained by a lifetime that our goal should be to progress forwards. Having something that you feel you've earned (even if in reality that was always at the whim of the DM anyway) taken away from you feels like moving backwards, which for many people feels bad. Really bad. It frustrates them, and causes them to have less fun. This is even more true if it's an item that the player has built their character around. I have a friend right now who is a barbarian who just received some handwraps of the eel (+1d6 to unarmed strikes). He wants to take the tavern brawler feat and build his character around this item. If it were taken away from him, I think he'd be justifiably frustrated.

My line? I would be fine with the DM taking a magic item from me, but I'd be a lot more annoyed if they de-leveled my character and I lost the ability to use class features I'd been using for a long time (unless it was a temporary scenario or something). Though, again, I trust my DM to try to make it fun for me. If I didn't know my DM well and trust his DMing? I might feel more frustrated. But everyone's got a different line, and there are a lot of people who would be upset to feel like their character was regressing, not progressing.

[GlenSmash!]

Games don't have plots. They have a conversation. The DM presents the scenario, the players decide what their characters' do, uncertainty is resolved possibly with dice roles, and the DM narrates the result.

With that in mind I think of it this way: Presumably the player that was playing Tanis chose not to fight, but instead be taken prisoner and chose to give up the magic sword. That was the player's approach to this scenario. Had the player not decided to do that things would have happened differently, thinking of this as a game mind you.

So if you want to go this route, present a scenario to a player where their character would have good reason to give up said magic item (ideally multiple good reasons), and then watch what the Player decides to do and act accordingly.

Do not get focused on "Plot" or the player doing the "Wrong" thing. That's a recipe for a bad game.

[Deadfire182]

I feel like this (and a whole host of these DM vs PC problems) can be solved by talking it out with your players outside of the game. And I don't just mean saying "Hey, I'm going to take away your magic items for story purposes, trust me you'll love it." Instead, talk it out with your PC's and see if they're alright with it, maybe assure them that everything will probably work out in the end. Because the thing that sucks the most is when you get a super radical magic item that you can't wait to test out, and 2 sessions later, it's taken away form you without warning. Taking away/giving up power can make for some really cool plotlines, like maybe you have to hide from creatures you were once slaughtering with ease because they now have the advantage over you, just MAKE SURE YOUR PLAYERS ARE OKAY WITH IS FIRST! And if they aren't, I'm sure you can think of something that doesn't involve repeatedly hitting something with a big stick until it dies. How about a moral dilemma? Or maybe a puzzle you can't brute force your way through? There's a DM there for a reason, and it's not just to sit there and look pretty.

[KorvinStarmast]

I said in post number three of this thread:

If losing a magical litem happens as the result of a players choices and decisions, then the loss makes sense. After a bit of feedback, you offered a similar take ...
I think it's important to make the distinction between arbitrarily just taking away magic items (or any other kind of penalty) and doing it for a good reason.
{Snip extended exposition} I may have been too terse, and you may have been too wordy, but I think the same general idea is that such a loss needs to make narrative sense within the context of the game's / campaign's progress based on PC decisions.

Your first few posts did not reflect that, which I think is why you got the push back that you did.

As a new DM, one thing I've always been careful about is the difference in mediums compared to stories I've read. Different mediums have different strengths, and the way certain elements work in one medium may not translate well to another.

For the DnD games where a big draw is the feeling of progression, power fantasy, etc, losing a magic item is definitely a downer moment. That doesn't need to be a bad thing overall, it's part of the ups and downs that go into a story and also a useful consequence for certain player actions. However, those downer moments occurring as a consequence of player action helps drive the feeling of player agency.
If the DM just does their DM thing and takes the magic item without much player choice or input, well you've got a problem unless your players are completely fine with the DM telling their story and not making too many of the big choices, or at least feeling like that. Nice way to present the same rough idea. +1.

Games don't have plots. They have a conversation. The DM presents the scenario, the players decide what their characters' do, uncertainty is resolved possible with dice roles, and the DM narrates the result. Also a nicely presented post.

[unusualsuspect]

So it was mentioned in the OP (or an early response from the OP) that just talking to the players is for some reason not an option.

...Why not?

In the campaign I played in most recently, our lvl 7 party of wizards got our hands on a charged Tome of Clear Thought. Instead of killing each other over it (as the BBEG hoped it would - it was a 'gift' from him), we let fate decide, and my character ended up with possession.

The DM talked to me in a private chat about it, and made it clear he didn't intend for anyone to actually succeed in using the book before it was stolen back by the BBEG (it having not served his intended purpose, and being borrowed besides).

He talked to me to help make it clear that it wasn't personal, and wasn't intended to ruin fun. I had figured it would happen anyway, and while my character certainly tried to use it before it was stolen back, we simply didn't have the time needed to make it happen, and I didn't do anything beyond what my character would have normally done to secure it. It was stolen back, and I neither raged nor cried about it, which was significantly helped by the fact that my DM communicated with me about the whole affair.

So, again... why can't you just talk to the player(s) about it?

[DMThac0]

So, from what I've gathered after reading these posts is that the DM needs to script each and every magical item that the players will come across. By doing this there is a specific moment and specific item that the players will get so that no mistakes will be made.

If that is not done, and magical items are acquired by any form of randomness (even player agency), there is little recourse to it but letting the players keep what they found. The DM is required to allow the player to choose to get rid of it. Talking to the player and letting them know that the item was a mistake is not a guarantee that the player will agree to relinquish the item, at which point the DM cannot remove the item.

This would also imply that the DM cannot use any in game mechanic to remove the item from the player as well. If the DM uses an in game mechanic, such as Dispel Magic, Sphere of Annihilation, a pit of acid (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/12/02/how-would-one-destroy-a-magical-item/), or any other means, then they are committing a violation.

---
There are reasons to use in game effects, narrative, and simply talking to the players as means to remove magical items from the party. All of those options are valid and should be used. If the DM made a mistake and didn't understand what they'd given to the players, a conversation is the best way to resolve the issue. If the DM gave them a magical item that they need for a plot device, then using the narrative to remove the item is well within reason. If the players don't consider their actions and drop a magical item into a pool of lava, then the item is probably going to be destroyed, it's following the game's mechanics.

D&D is, today, based on telling a communal narrative, overcoming obstacles, and surmounting the challenges that the game presents. The idea that the BBEG shows up, incapacitates the party, and takes back the magical item they've stolen from him, is bad form for the DM is absurd. It makes perfect sense, the world, the narrative, and the BBEG are simply acting as they should. The idea that the party could lose their precious magical items is part of the reason magical items are so revered. There is nothing wrong with using this kind of thing in a game.

The problem arises when it's the DM using it against the players. The moment the DM is using this type of thing to be antagonistic, to combat the players, or/and to simply be power hungry, then there's a problem.

[Gryndle]

D&D is a game, not a novel.

That said, work with your players to see if there's a middle path that honors their characters' achievements and has a decent payoff for their sacrifice. You don't need to tell them what the payoff will be, but they should know that one is coming. And make it good, if you want to keep confidence with your players.

As a player I hate it when DMs just paper over my PC's hard-won achievements to further the 'story'. The story is about the players' characters and this kind of nerfing just smells of a DM who believes their story is more important. The best DMs have strategies that allow them to tell their story while incorporating the development of their PCs' roles.

agreed.

As a DM, my first step in this is simply this -don't hand out magic items that I cant handle.

Secondly, don't try to tell a story by yourself; you either wind up railroading the players, or the players likely blow your carefully crafted plans all to pieces.

Its a cooperative game, kinda like one-line story telling. Typically the DM sets the ball rolling (with the story) hook, and they should have the necessary plot points in mind, and hopefully the players, as individuals or as a group pick up that ball and roll with it, putting their own spin on it. The DM may have had a vision of how the story would go, but at the end looking back, hopefully you can see where the players were authors of the story as well.
I have also enjoyed playing in games where the players actually initiate the campaign plot or goals via their character's ambitions or goals and the DM is somewhat reactive to that, using the player input to craft the adventures.

But the games ive been in where the DM is telling "HIS STORY" and the players are just along for the ride......not fun experiences at all, and typically games that eventually devolved into shouting matches and never lasted very long.

[Tawmis]

Which brings me back to the modern gamer. Sometimes the plot really does require that a character not have access to certain magical items, Legendary or otherwise, to keep it interesting. Yet, modern RPG players scream bloody murder if you take away their favorite toys. I've tried talking to players about this, but only rarely has a player agreed that it is for the good of the story. I hasten to add that this is not a problem I have faced with my current group of players.
So my question for everyone is: Is there a better way to handle it? As I said, just talking to the players doesn't seem to work that well in this instance, as it seems they are often very focused on their characters' favorite toys. It is almost like the magic item is a part of the character, rather than merely equipment the character happens to have. Some (many?) players seem to envision their characters as, for example, the "fighter with the awesome sword" or "ranger with the Cloak of Elvenkind" and etc. (This seems to be less of a problem for full spellcasters, because they already have all the magic within their own bodies and seem not to get as attached to most magic items. However, try to take away a Robe of the Archmage, for example, and watch the sparks fly!)
Any thoughts? Suggestions? Insights?
Thank you to everyone for reading and offering your insights.
--Vorenus

So, I posted somewhere on this section of the forum; about a pair of Clerics who were following good gods, and while Neutral, were doing things that their gods would from upon. For example, the party stumbles into a town (Spire's Edge) that has been decimated by a recent Dragon (and Kobold) attack. The party makes their rounds to find out what information they can; and one of the places they stop at in this small town is the Church - which happens to be dedicate to the Goddess of Life (for which one of the Clerics follows). I explain that the Church is in utter ruins but the surviving patrons and priests are trying to piece together what they can; and that the town suffered great financial loss (by the raiding kobolds who were more interested in theft than murder). This was a big hint that, "Hey Cleric, you have like 600 gold on you, why not donate some to the Church to help rebuild a Church to the goddess YOU worship?" Cleric missed the queue. They do a few missions for this town (clear out a neighboring mine that they use for resources; go defeat a hag that's tampering with the woods where this town gets its lumber) and each time they return, I emphasized the town is doing better, but still in financial constraints and that people gather at the Church to seek advice from their goddess. Now, this whole time, the Paladin (who follows a goddess of 'pleasure' is full on roleplaying, donating money to the local 'ladies of the night' and engaging in those activities and paying them handsomely).

So I decide to have some fun with it. During the ceremony where they are burying the guards who perished in the mines; an ominous storm rolls in... and even odder... it's not rain that seems to be coming down... but blood... and then... lightning... red lightning (think Stranger Things)...

Suddenly a visage of Orcus appears and says, "Collect their souls!" (Because in my homebrew demons attempt to capture souls as they ascend into "Heaven" for the war between Heaven and Hell kind of thing; but "Heaven" is a battlefield, similar to what you might think of Vikings and Asgard and that whole bit). Now pop in some pretty trivial demon types (the ones that look like a mess of of flesh in Tome, name is escaping me) - the Clerics and the Paladins must now make a WIS save. For the two Clerics, the DC was 15 (since they were not doing jack crap to support their goddess), for the Paladin it was a DC of 12. The idea being since they'd (the clerics) had not been doing much to support their goddess; their connection was weaker; while the Paladin had a good rapport with his goddess). Suddenly the Clerics were mostly without power (they could attempt to re-save every 3 rounds) and had to rely on weapons. I let them know this is because of their weak connection to their goddess; and they both immediately knew what they'd done wrong.

So I was able to yank the Clerics' spells from them, when they failed the save - and every time they succeeded; they'd need to make another save in 3 rounds, or lose the connection again, due to Orcus' interference.

Thankfully the players did not cry that it wasn't fair; because I had hinted, plenty of times, to remind them that they power comes from their connection to their goddess.

[TyGuy]

It is almost like the magic item is a part of the character, rather than merely equipment the character happens to have.
Probably because levels and gear are the two main ways a character progresses in an RPG...

[Pex]

No magic item exists without the DM's permission. If you can't handle a PC having it don't put it in the campaign. Players complaining about taking away magic items is not about depowering. It's about devaluing their accomplishments. They spent real world time and energy playing the game, earning XP, and being rewarded with treasure. Taking away that treasure is the DM taking away what they earned.

In the case where the DM Honest True made a mistake in putting a magic item in the game that's ruining it then talk to the player out of game explaining the problem because it's an out of game problem. Replace the item by fiat in cooperation with the player for something he likes. However, make sure it is an Honest True mistake and not the DM resenting the player did something clever with it making a difficult encounter easy.

[FaerieGodfather]

You (the player) are not your character. You have not had your magic items taken away, you character has.

Likewise, my response to my player character having their priceless magical items stolen is to get pissed off and call the DM a hack. My response to my own personal magical items being stolen would be to cut a number of peoples' throats. If you want to put the offense into its proper perspective, kindly also put the response into its.

I find the OP's assertion that "modern gamers" are uniquely opposed to this universally reviled practice. I'm not exactly old-school myself, but I never sat at a gaming table in the Nineties, playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, where a DM just arbitrarily stripping the party of major magical items would not have resulted in someone else running the game.

[JellyPooga]

Likewise, my response to my player character having their priceless magical items stolen is to get pissed off and call the DM a hack. My response to my own personal magical items being stolen would be to cut a number of peoples' throats. If you want to put the offense into its proper perspective, kindly also put the response into its.

Remember that we're not talking solely about theft. Many methods of confiscating items have been talked about in this thread, from actual theft, to willing sacrifice, to outright destruction of the items in question. Not all methods of losing an item are going to allow for revenge, even if your character wanted it in the first place, (or indeed, can identify the source of the loss). Having said that, I'll stick by my previous point; roleplaying isn't necessarily about having a character that constantly grows in power; many of the most exciting scenarios in my experience playing have been those where the odds seem insurmountable, many of the best roleplaying moments have been when something goes right (or wrong!) because some item or piece of information was missing, rather than present. Sure, growing in power is fun, but so is losing it! The challenge of overcoming hardship "despite" can be just as fun as doing the same "because". Hell, an entire Adventure League module imposed a massive disadvantage on many characters (the Death Curse, I believe it was called; not too familiar with AL myself) and I'm fairly sure thousands of people played and enjoyed those games played under that disadvantage. I said it before; used properly, loss of items is just another tool in the GM's arsenal to create challenges for the players. Getting personally upset about it is just...bizarre to me; it's a game and the development of a character is in how they behave based on the adventures they go on, both successful and not, through gain and loss.


I find the OP's assertion that "modern gamers" are uniquely opposed to this universally reviled practice. I'm not exactly old-school myself, but I never sat at a gaming table in the Nineties, playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, where a DM just arbitrarily stripping the party of major magical items would not have resulted in someone else running the game.

Please also remember that we're not talking about arbitrary confiscation. I think we can all agree that an arbitrary loss is a douche move, but that isn't what is being discussed here.

[Zuras]

I said it before; used properly, loss of items is just another tool in the GM's arsenal to create challenges for the players. Getting personally upset about it is just...bizarre to me; it's a game and the development of a character is in how they behave based on the adventures they go on, both successful and not, through gain and loss.



I gotta say, that’s really outside of my experience with D&D players. In my experience, the first time a thief steals ANYTHING from a party member, there is at least a 25% chance that the party completely forgets the plot and focuses on finding and murdering every single member of every single thieves’ guild in your campaign world.

The whole point of being a mighty Barbarian or cunning Rogue is that you don’t have to put up with people stealing your lunch money.

[FilthyLucre]

These competing view points can be boiled down to:

1.) It's the GM's story and he can (and should) do whatever it takes so that his story unfolds the way he wants it to unfold

OR

2.) It's the GM's job to facilitate and participate in the game, knowing that he doesn't actually have ultimate control

[Haydensan]

These competing view points can be boiled down to:

1.) It's the GM's story and he can (and should) do whatever it takes so that his story unfolds the way he wants it to unfold

OR

2.) It's the GM's job to facilitate and participate in the game, knowing that he doesn't actually have ultimate control

As someone who is not opposed to the world reacting in a way where the party might be under threat of losing things, I think the first point is a bit extreme.

If you go with the intention of giving the players something just to take it away thats a bit of a douche move. Though if the world and characters in it are setup before hand, it might just be the right call if you were to RP the world and characters in it in a manner where it/they want to take/destroy/get-rid-of-in-some-way an item the party has.

But I dont think it should just be taken away by dm-fiat, it should be a possibilty not a certainty if it comes to it.

[LaserFace]

Break stuff
Steal stuff
Depower stuff
Ruin everything

It's all about how you do it. If the Fighter has a cool legendary sword, and you're gonna smash it, do it in a really cool way. Maybe in a pitched battle with a Dark Knight or something. Maybe after the fight, the Fighter will want to rebuild his broken legendary sword. Why not? Let him have a path to do that. Or maybe he can take the Dark Knight's sword, which clearly has its own properties. Maybe it's even cursed, and this leads to another arc altogether.

I think it also helps if you know your players won't feel useless without a highly specific item in their arsenal. Make the game more about their choices than whatever crap they're lugging around, that stuff is for flavor and isn't a substitute for actual adventure.

[JellyPooga]

I gotta say, that’s really outside of my experience with D&D players. In my experience, the first time a thief steals ANYTHING from a party member, there is at least a 25% chance that the party completely forgets the plot and focuses on finding and murdering every single member of every single thieves’ guild in your campaign world.

The whole point of being a mighty Barbarian or cunning Rogue is that you don’t have to put up with people stealing your lunch money.

And that is fine. In-character. A character taking a loss personally and going hell-for-leather to exact revenge is something you are well within your remit as a player to do. What I don't understand is those players that take the loss as a slight against themselves; it's not, it's a challenge to overcome, a problem to solve, a vendetta to resolve, a grudge to hold. In-character. And that can be fun.

It's the same as a recurring villain; the bad guy got away and now the players have the choice of whether to hunt them down or wait for them to resurface, at their choice. I doubt many players take it as personally when their victory is robbed by the bad guy escaping when they think he's cornered; it's just another part of the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

The whole point of being a mighty Barbarian or cunning Rogue is that you don’t have to put up with people stealing your lunch money. Yeah, that's a part of it.

[Solunaris]

And that is fine. In-character. A character taking a loss personally and going hell-for-leather to exact revenge is something you are well within your remit as a player to do. What I don't understand is those players that take the loss as a slight against themselves; it's not, it's a challenge to overcome, a problem to solve, a vendetta to resolve, a grudge to hold. In-character. And that can be fun.

It's the same as a recurring villain; the bad guy got away and now the players have the choice of whether to hunt them down or wait for them to resurface, at their choice. I doubt many players take it as personally when their victory is robbed by the bad guy escaping when they think he's cornered; it's just another part of the game.

I think the primary difference is the idea of "that is my stuff." I'd wager that most people treat the things they write down on their character sheet as not only their character's possessions but also their possessions; I know I tend to do so. When players talk about the cool things their characters do, do they frame it as "Man, it was so cool when my character jumped on that dragon's back and suplex'd it 200 feet to the ground" or do they frame is as "Man, it was so cool when I jumped on that dragon's back and suplex'd it 200 feet to the ground" ?

I know that as a player I tend to the latter rather than the former so when my character's stuff is stolen in game it feels like my stuff has been stolen. Now, I never hold it against the DM but it doesn't feel good; especially if it isn't a result of my actions but because the DM decided to take my toys. In the case of the OP, the DM seems to need to remove a powerful magical item for the plot but framed it as himself removing it and not the plot doing so. As you have stated, a DM has tons of options for removing something like this but no matter how they go about it the player is gonna be upset (in this specific case).

To actually answer the OP here and drawing on my experience as a DM; don't remove the item. Create a story that requires the item to be sacrificed to given up. But don't force the player to actually sacrifice it and be sure to plan for if they choose not to. I don't know the specifics of your story but you seem to have a very solid fantasy background so I'm sure you could come up with something more than "BBEG shows up and casts disintegrate."

[Zuras]

It's the same as a recurring villain; the bad guy got away and now the players have the choice of whether to hunt them down or wait for them to resurface, at their choice. I doubt many players take it as personally when their victory is robbed by the bad guy escaping when they think he's cornered; it's just another part of the game.


Again, we clearly have different players. Mine actually love it when the villain does something clever to escape, but only if they understand the rules mechanics of it or saw the McGuffin used previously. They most definitely would feel robbed if the BBEG gets away using a previously unseen power.

[GlenSmash!]

Probably because levels and gear are the two main ways a character progresses in an RPG...

I pretty much only play non-casters. Getting a magic weapon is pretty core to the fantasy I want to emulate by playing D&D. Bilbo finding sting in the Troll cave, or Perrin forging Mah'alleinir or something similar.

That said, I'm open to playing the guy who tosses the ring into the fire as long as it is my choice, not a pre-scripted event from the DM that I have no say in.

[JellyPooga]

Again, we clearly have different players. Mine actually love it when the villain does something clever to escape, but only if they understand the rules mechanics of it or saw the McGuffin used previously. They most definitely would feel robbed if the BBEG gets away using a previously unseen power.

If that's the case, then surely you'll never pull that kind of stunt; there has to be a 1st time for it and that 1st time will be unexpected and cause upset. Pulling a fast one is acceptable under the right circumstances; if your players always know what's coming, there's no surprises and while not everyone likes surprises, they can be a lot of fun.

[FilthyLucre]

As someone who is not opposed to the world reacting in a way where the party might be under threat of losing things, I think the first point is a bit extreme.

If you go with the intention of giving the players something just to take it away thats a bit of a douche move. Though if the world and characters in it are setup before hand, it might just be the right call if you were to RP the world and characters in it in a manner where it/they want to take/destroy/get-rid-of-in-some-way an item the party has.

But I dont think it should just be taken away by dm-fiat, it should be a possibilty not a certainty if it comes to it.

I don't mean to sound arrogant but either people don't understand the point I'm making or I'm not explaining it well. This is a process/methodology question - not an ethical question - that has everything to with the law of unintended consequences. Even in a sandbox game, with gritty simulationist realism, in a "world where people react logically" if you give PCs a powerful magic item there is a very real chance that you cannot take it away from them WITHOUT resorting to DM-fiat, which includes simply introducing an unbeatably good or powerful NPC to gank the item away.

Sure, you MIGHT be able to but I would never introduce an element into my game that could completely destabilize it - much the way a lawyer never asks a question on cross examination they don't already know the answer to - because if they do (ask a question they don't know the answer to) they don't know what is going to happen.

[Zuras]

If that's the case, then surely you'll never pull that kind of stunt; there has to be a 1st time for it and that 1st time will be unexpected and cause upset. Pulling a fast one is acceptable under the right circumstances; if your players always know what's coming, there's no surprises and while not everyone likes surprises, they can be a lot of fun.


They like surprises, but it can’t be a Deus ex Machina surprise. I agree It’s hard to do without custom rules for anything besides spellcasters, though. You can do a lot to save an NPC with Contingency.

[SLOTHRPG95]

For those saying it's okay to take a powerful magic item as part of a purely DM-planned story beat (as opposed to player-DM cooperation, or player being super stupid about keeping their stuff safe), would you feel the same about a Wizard's spellbook? Or would that be beyond the pale? And just to preemptively silence a potential objection to this parallel, note that a Wizard isn't totally defenseless/useless without their spellbook. They can still quash lesser challenges with cantrips, and might even be able to find a temporary (lesser) replacement by favors, bribery, or force.

[GorogIrongut]

I don't mean to sound arrogant but either people don't understand the point I'm making or I'm not explaining it well. This is a process/methodology question - not an ethical question - that has everything to with the law of unintended consequences. Even in a sandbox game, with gritty simulationist realism, in a "world where people react logically" if you give PCs a powerful magic item there is a very real chance that you cannot take it away from them WITHOUT resorting to DM-fiat, which includes simply introducing an unbeatably good or powerful NPC to gank the item away.

Not that I want to sound arrogant either but in a sandbox world... even without gritty simulationist realism, it's not difficult to accomplish. I've had multiple groups of players, who enjoyed completely different playstyles (including non sandbox) and not one of them has complained when items, objects disappear. Because you use elements of the world seamlessly to make the story believable while still enabling them to make decisions and act within the plot matrix.

Yes, of course people will be pissed if Elminster appears in a puff of smoke and robs the party, leaving them with no more solace than a promise that their magic items will be used to finally seal Vecna away for good. That's crappy story telling. Tell a better story. One that will draw the players in. Make it good enough and they'll actually ask you to steal the item because they know the story will then be dialed up to 11.

I would posit that a lot of the reason why people may have a problem with the thought of items being stolen... is because, in their experience, they've not had a lot of DM's that they trusted. Once you get a DM that you know will take care of your characters and tell the kind of story at the same time that makes your soul shine... you'll go to Hell and back for that DM.

[FilthyLucre]

Not that I want to sound arrogant either but in a sandbox world... even without gritty simulationist realism, it's not difficult to accomplish. I've had multiple groups of players, who enjoyed completely different playstyles (including non sandbox) and not one of them has complained when items, objects disappear. Because you use elements of the world seamlessly to make the story believable while still enabling them to make decisions and act within the plot matrix.

Yes, of course people will be pissed if Elminster appears in a puff of smoke and robs the party, leaving them with no more solace than a promise that their magic items will be used to finally seal Vecna away for good. That's crappy story telling. Tell a better story. One that will draw the players in. Make it good enough and they'll actually ask you to steal the item because they know the story will then be dialed up to 11.

I would posit that a lot of the reason why people may have a problem with the thought of items being stolen... is because, in their experience, they've not had a lot of DM's that they trusted. Once you get a DM that you know will take care of your characters and tell the kind of story at the same time that makes your soul shine... you'll go to Hell and back for that DM.

So do you agree or disagree that once you give PCs a powerful magic item you may never be able to get it back and it might destabilize the entire game? Because that's what we're talking about. Because "Just So" stories and anecdotes about what is possible is not relevant to giving general advice to DMs.

[Sigreid]

Speaking for myself, if you decide it's part of your plot that your bad guy is going to try to take or destroy my magic items, and it doesn't happen by fiat, ok. No problem. Come at me bro!

If, however, you just decide it's gone because it matches your story, then I dont want to play anymore. Not because I lost the item. Because I now know things are just going to happen and what I do doesn't really matter.

[Bardon]

Personally, if the GM's plot is more important than the player's choices, then it's no longer a game. If the GM considers himself the director of a movie and the players are his actors (as the OP's description reads to me) then while others might enjoy it, that's not the game for me.

If I screw up/make a choice/decide to sacrifice something in-game that's great.

If the GM says "My story won't work if you have X" that's pretty much the same as "My story won't work if you do X" and that's just a railroad, IMHO.

[furby076]

Hello, Adventurers!

(I'm not going to give a spoiler warning for books that were published well over 30 years ago.)

You absolutely should. in fact, go back and edit it in. for 3 reasons
1) you thought about it enough that you mentioned it, so somewhere you believe you should. {scrubbed}
2) some people may not have read the books, and may want to - quit frankly, the clip of the story adds no value to your question. a 30 year old book may be a new book for someone. heck, i read it 30 years ago, forgot this scene and if i were to rereard it - well, you spoiled it
3) its simple to add a spoiler warning...simpler than writing a sentence justifying why you whouldnt


Now, back to your quandry: Death is a part of the game, and so is having your crap stolen/destroyed. It's sad when this happens, but it may give the player(s) a plothook for a sidequest....or maybe the player wants to try a new item (e.g., paladin is tired of his flametongue longsword, but isn't gonna dump it so he can try mundane spears...with this, you can eventually give him a spear of something fun...and make it an upgrade)

A good game evokes emotions, and those emotions can be: Happiness, sadness, heroism, fear, gain and loss.

If you are making the players lose items, make sure its 1) plausible, and 2 )memorable (beyond the fact they just lost cool stuff). Also, make no promises "don't worry i am gonna outfit you like you just stumbled into the vault that kept the genie lamp from aladdin". Let them feel the stress of the situation, because thats part of the game. If they hem/haw, take a break from the game (get some food, bio break, or even a hug out session). Do not let them keep complaining out of game once you resume play. If they character had particular attachment (family heirloom) their character can be sad, but at some point just say "ok, lets just assume your character is going to cry into his pillow each night, and move on with the game"

EDIT: Oh and for crying out loud, don't talk to them about it in advance. You will ruin the surprise (even if its a sad/angry one) and obviously they will say "no". Heck, if i ask my 3 year old daughter if she minds that i dont give her ice cream, she will also say "no". Just rip the bandaid off and continue with play. No warning....just weave it correctly into your story plot and make it memorable

[furby076]

That's like saying it's not you having to pay $2000 for landing on a hotel at Boardwalk in Monopoly, it's the Top Hat you're pushing around the table that does.

In my entire life of playing Monopoly, I never paid any money, let alone $2000 for landing on a property. Maybe, because it's a game....your monopoly play may vary. Likewise, D&D is a game too, and if my pc loses an important item - it sux. i decide if i want to move on or get it back...but never harass the dm.


I feel like this (and a whole host of these DM vs PC problems) can be solved by talking it out with your players outside of the game. And I don't just mean saying "Hey, I'm going to take away your magic items for story purposes, trust me you'll love it." Instead, talk it out with your PC's and see if they're alright with it, maybe assure them that everything will probably work out in the end. Because the thing that sucks the most is when you get a super radical magic item that you can't wait to test out, and 2 sessions later, it's taken away form you without warning. Taking away/giving up power can make for some really cool plotlines, like maybe you have to hide from creatures you were once slaughtering with ease because they now have the advantage over you, just MAKE SURE YOUR PLAYERS ARE OKAY WITH IS FIRST! And if they aren't, I'm sure you can think of something that doesn't involve repeatedly hitting something with a big stick until it dies. How about a moral dilemma? Or maybe a puzzle you can't brute force your way through? There's a DM there for a reason, and it's not just to sit there and look pretty.


And what if they aren't ok with it? So don't take the item away? If the playeres are not OK with PC death (most arent) should the DM also never kill the PCs? Anything else? Maybe give them god mode, like in some video games? Come on man. Grow a pair and play the game.

And no, you don't tell them you are gonig to do it...that is totally unnatural and railroady. You just find an interesting way to do it. PCs level, die, get raised..their items can do the same


No magic item exists without the DM's permission. If you can't handle a PC having it don't put it in the campaign. Players complaining about taking away magic items is not about depowering. It's about devaluing their accomplishments. They spent real world time and energy playing the game, earning XP, and being rewarded with treasure. Taking away that treasure is the DM taking away what they earned.

Nope. Taking away a reward does NOT devalue their accomplishments. The accomplishment was getting the reward. Now the next accomplishment is to keep it. Losing it doesn't negate the 1st acomplishment, it just means you didn't succeed in the latter accomplsihment.

Also, the players and GM spent real world time and energy crafting and playing the game. The game allows for earning and losing gear, levels, rewards, etc. It's all part of the game. Before you retort, consider this: If there is no risk, why are you playing this game? What kind of game do you want? An everybody is a winner and gets a trophy, nobody loses game?

NOTE: I was in a 10 year campaign where my paladin had his fahers sword (also a paladin) stolen from him. He got it back, only to have it shattered by a BBEG. It then got reforged...only to eventually shatter as it was revealed to have a demon that granted "paladin" powers to my player (and his father before him) while subtely manipulating them to do his evil will.... This all happened between level 4 to 8...then for 2 levels my character was running around with an adamantium greatsword (not even magical, and this was pathfinder)....until my character found a holy avenger that was ridiculosly OP (it grew with the player). At no point did I know what the DM was planning. At no point did I know I would get something better. But, other than the shock of it (i think i threatened my DM with vegetables...he is anti vegetables), it was memorable scenario (until this day...about 10 years later) and fun and motivating

So to all you players who are like "OMG, don't you dare take what i have earned. It's mine, forever and ever and ever...my precious"....get over it. Its a game. Go down the path less travelled and see what happens. With the exception of AL (i have no idea what they do here when stuff gets destroyed), most DMs are friends with the players and want everyone to have a good time. Help the DM make a fun story (and make it fun for the DM who spends a LOT of time coming up with the game), and just roll with it.

[Deadfire182]

And what if they aren't ok with it? So don't take the item away? If the players are not OK with PC death (most arent) should the DM also never kill the PCs? Anything else? Maybe give them god mode, like in some video games? Come on man. Grow a pair and play the game.

And no, you don't tell them you are gonig to do it...that is totally unnatural and railroady. You just find an interesting way to do it. PCs level, die, get raised..their items can do the same



I see where you're coming from, and while you are being a prick about it, you have a point. There is fun and memories to be had from difficult experiences, and taking away items can be a part of that. I guess I just have knee jerk reactions to this type of stuff because I had a terrible DM my first time playing the game, and I don't want other new players to have the same experience. One thing I would like to point out, though is:


If the players are not OK with PC death (most aren't) should the DM also never kill the PCs?

No, the DM should never kill their players. I know this is most likely a misread word, do correct me if that is the case, but the DM should absolutely never kill the player. The evil Lich overlord is perfectly alright killing a player, as are the player's own stupid decisions, but the DM should never go "You know what, I think my goal is to kill Jimmy today" D&D is meant to be a collaberative experience between the DM and all the players at the table, and a DM vs PC attitude really negates that. /rant

[SLOTHRPG95]

No, the DM should never kill their players. I know this is most likely a misread word, do correct me if that is the case, but the DM should absolutely never kill the player. The evil Lich overlord is perfectly alright killing a player, as are the player's own stupid decisions, but the DM should never go "You know what, I think my goal is to kill Jimmy today" D&D is meant to be a collaberative experience between the DM and all the players at the table, and a DM vs PC attitude really negates that. /rant

I think this is a really good distinction to make. I often run high-leathality campaigns, and I warn my players (those who haven't played with me before). But I also tell them, "I don't like it when your character dies. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not trying to kill any characters. But it's a dangerous world with dangerous enemies, and I have to play them realistically, and some of them are smart and powerful and very much want to kill the PCs because of their meddling in BBEG schemes/having something they need/generally being heroes." And that seems to work for most people. To be honest, I've had a character die, and I was more upset than the player. I got really invested in how that player was developing their character, and it saddened me that the character's story had come to an end. But I didn't fiat the character into having passed his last death save, and I don't think the player would've liked it if I had. It breaks verisimilitude.

How does this apply to OP? Sure, there's plenty of things that might lead your players to losing their valuable magical items, up to and including theft by stronger parties who want the shiny toys. But don't do it because you as a DM want to. Do it because that's what the NPC would do, were this all real. Oh, and I'm the last one to say that you should only play with the kid gloves on, but do be upfront about what kind of campaign you run.

[Pex]

NOTE: I was in a 10 year campaign where my paladin had his fahers sword (also a paladin) stolen from him. He got it back, only to have it shattered by a BBEG. It then got reforged...only to eventually shatter as it was revealed to have a demon that granted "paladin" powers to my player (and his father before him) while subtely manipulating them to do his evil will.... This all happened between level 4 to 8...then for 2 levels my character was running around with an adamantium greatsword (not even magical, and this was pathfinder)....until my character found a holy avenger that was ridiculosly OP (it grew with the player). At no point did I know what the DM was planning. At no point did I know I would get something better. But, other than the shock of it (i think i threatened my DM with vegetables...he is anti vegetables), it was memorable scenario (until this day...about 10 years later) and fun and motivating

So to all you players who are like "OMG, don't you dare take what i have earned. It's mine, forever and ever and ever...my precious"....get over it. Its a game. Go down the path less travelled and see what happens. With the exception of AL (i have no idea what they do here when stuff gets destroyed), most DMs are friends with the players and want everyone to have a good time. Help the DM make a fun story (and make it fun for the DM who spends a LOT of time coming up with the game), and just roll with it.

If anytime the players get something it can be taken away then they never really got anything. The DM is yanking their chains. There is no victory to be had. A DM who gives then takes away is a DM playing against his players, not with them.

[BarneyBent]

I just took a magic item away from a player. It was to power the plot, I immediately replaced it with something almost as good, and the act will give him something even better very soon (ran out of time to get to it that session). I still feel bad. :/

[Arathryth]

I think this is a really good distinction to make. I often run high-leathality campaigns, and I warn my players (those who haven't played with me before). But I also tell them, "I don't like it when your character dies. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not trying to kill any characters. But it's a dangerous world with dangerous enemies, and I have to play them realistically, and some of them are smart and powerful and very much want to kill the PCs because of their meddling in BBEG schemes/having something they need/generally being heroes." And that seems to work for most people. To be honest, I've had a character die, and I was more upset than the player. I got really invested in how that player was developing their character, and it saddened me that the character's story had come to an end. But I didn't fiat the character into having passed his last death save, and I don't think the player would've liked it if I had. It breaks verisimilitude.

How does this apply to OP? Sure, there's plenty of things that might lead your players to losing their valuable magical items, up to and including theft by stronger parties who want the shiny toys. But don't do it because you as a DM want to. Do it because that's what the NPC would do, were this all real. Oh, and I'm the last one to say that you should only play with the kid gloves on, but do be upfront about what kind of campaign you run.

I agree with you completely. And to continue with that train of thought applied to the OP, there is a difference between the DM deciding that a player shouldn't have an item and throwing enemies at them with the sole purpose of stealing it, and a greedy local Thieve's Guild that sees the PC using the item, deciding to steal it. The first example sets up a DM vs PC scenario, the second is a realistic "environment" vs PC scenario. Personally I would prefer to play a game where the DM presents me with challenges to overcome, rather than removing my agency to make the story play out the way they want it to.

[Tanarii]

Used to be a time back in AD&D when your magic items (and conventional ones) all had to make saves too. AD&D page 80 had a table for the values.



I find the OP's assertion that "modern gamers" are uniquely opposed to this universally reviled practice. I'm not exactly old-school myself, but I never sat at a gaming table in the Nineties, playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, where a DM just arbitrarily stripping the party of major magical items would not have resulted in someone else running the game.Either you weren't playing AD&D or you weren't using all the rules. That wasn't that uncommon.

Or possibly you were playing AD&D 2nd edition, given your reference to the nineties.

[chainer1216]

This is a game, not a book.

If im playing a fighter at a level where 90% of our enemies have resistance to nonmagical attacks im now usless and wont be wasting my valuable and extremely limited free time playing with that DM anymore.

[GorogIrongut]

So do you agree or disagree that once you give PCs a powerful magic item you may never be able to get it back and it might destabilize the entire game? Because that's what we're talking about. Because "Just So" stories and anecdotes about what is possible is not relevant to giving general advice to DMs.

I resoundingly disagree.

And I'm sorry you don't like my anecdotes and general advice. Next time I comment I'll be sure to reference several double blind, randomized control studies into how to play Dnd (just for clarification, that was intended as tongue in cheek and not sarcasm despite your attempt to dismiss everything that I said).

[Tanarii]

Also worth noting that Wyrmslayer wasn't just a magic item. It was one of (many) mcguffin-level special magic items in the Dragonlance setting. The setting is full of special magic items that aren't generic D&D magic items designed to be handed out like candy.

That makes them more valuable individually, but makes them also very much "take this, but be aware this is temporary" items, if your players are the kind that need it spelled out in advance so that they won't throw a fit when they can't hold on to it later.

[Randomthom]

Losing a magic item can be ok in the following circumstances;

1. Upgrade, nobody minds losing a good sword for a better one.
2. Temporary, if it is clear that the loss is temporary it can create a fun challenge or even significant story arc to retrieve it.
3. Organic, either by an unfortunate rules-collision (e.g. anti-magic field & rust monster) or by player choice (left items unattended while a known thief was at-large).
4. Something else cool. This is a bit like upgrade but can take a few different forms. Perhaps powerful magic items were needed to be consumed by a ritual to progress the story but some sort of boon could be given in return...
5. Personal story arc, think Thor being unworthy of Mjolnir (or when Hela destroys it) or Luke losing his lightsaber (and hand). People feel special when their story is taking centre-stage, often so-much-so that they won't mind losing a magic item (provided it doesn't feel completely arbitrary) as they will both feel like there is more to the story (chance to regain/improve). Thor got Stormbreaker eventually & got Mjolnir back

There's loads of ways both in-game and out to handle this, I think the key thing is why.

Out of game reasons usually require out-of-game solutions. Item is too powerful, explain you made a mistake and you need to dial it back a little (or a lot).
In-game reasons usually require in-game solutions. Player wasn't ever supposed to get their hands on that crystal ball at low lvl? Have the Wizard they stole it from track them down, hand them a beatdown (or even credit them for their ingenuity but demand it back).

[Gryndle]

Taking away a player's magic items is often just a bad idea. And in my experience, should never be done by DM fiat. No hand waiving them away just because it fits the story, that is a great way to make your players feel cheated.

That said, I have been in games where an item was stolen or taken and it didn't feel so rail-roady or like the player was being picked on. But they were played out. The dwarf fighter who spent the night "partying" with the wrong "lady" only to wake up to his precious dwarven thrower war hammer and a pouch of coins missing. That worked in story and was totally plausible. And it led to a short but exciting arc of hunting her down, then tracking the hammer through various fences until it was in the possession of a crime lord and taking him down. There have been a few other instances where taking items have worked well, but they were all plausible, all followed the game rules, and all led to other adventures that either had the possibility of regaining the stolen items, or eventually in attaining suitable replacements.

In every instance I have personally witnessed where the DM (and typically a not very experienced one) has stated your items are just gone and no there is no possibility of getting them back (without plausible game rules, such as item breakage ala failed item saves in early AD&D or sundering) that has led to player backlash.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, "you wake up and thieves have stolen you stuff" usually doesn't go over well. Nor does overwhelming powerful enemies attacking the PCs out of the blue, knocking them out, and stealong their stuff. Or capturing them for that matter.

If the players get into a situation themselves. Although nowadays its always a good idea to establish the campaign assumes their decisions can and will have ramifications. Usually I say that in reference to permadeath, but permaloss of items isn't a bad idea to establish too.

[Mitsu]

This is a game, not a novel. You play WITH other people, your needs are no above their needs or your fun above their fun, nor your word is the ultimate law. You are part of the game. You have greatest power, but also greatest responsibility as DM, as it's thanks to you that those players have fun and spend their time well.

I would never ever take away magic items from my players, at least not all of them. And even if I took one, I would make it so that they can get it back.

But first of all if you know (it's not hard to know this) that your players would get upset, angry or feel betrayed/cheated etc. if you took away their magic items- don't do it.

This is a game where 4-5 or more people meet to have fun. If you'd make players not have fun on purpose - you failed as DM.

For example I would be mad as player if you took my hard-earned magic items permanently from me. When I would find out that they are lost permanently - I would probably just quit playing with you. You can call it crying or anything else, but truth is it's just not respecting your players characters progression and earned rewards.

I can't think of any story that would need that to happen, unless they next story arc is to get that magic item back. One, maybe two. Back.

But not all of them and definitely never permanently.

I feel as DM it would be d-move towards my players.

[Pyramid Pug]

Two stories about my current character, one about the gear, another about his powers, the power one happening shortly after the gear one.

-My character is a cleric, lost his powers due to a in game crisis of faith entirely of my own doing. Spent a few sessions powerless 'till through my roleplay and my actions, he found faith again and regained the blessings of his god. It was hella fun and I absolutely enjoyed that. Was organic too, it just happened spontaneously, as my DM couldn't predict the actions my character took before the crisis or during it. He thought "Ya know.. this seems like an interesting development, let's roll with that".

-The gear. Was at the culmination of a gruelling arc including going to a shadow plane and getting dragon breathed to the face TWICE. We managed to escape, return to the material plane, finished the main quest, managed to get some rest and spend our hard earned resources on upgrading our gear (among others I had finally gotten a plate mail). That night we were celebrating with the quest givers with a feast and our DM drugged the party. He didn't asked me to make a medicine or perception check to spot the poison (which I'm proficient with and when asked he shrugged and said "you didn't say you were looking for it), he denied my dwarven resistance to poisons, he denied me casting lesser restoration which I had prepared. The last thing we saw was a familiar NPC and we woke up a month later, in chains, in our breeches, beaten, bruised, literally p*ssed upon and accused of crimes we hadn't commited (again I might add).

At the end of the session our DM was grinning and said "Wasn't it FUN?! Betcha ya guys weren't expecting that NPC still be alive!"

We just stared at out DM in disbelief. "No it wasn't freaking fun! We interacted with that NPC for two sessions FIVE years ago and he had died at the end of the 2nd session at the hands of his sister, we don't even remember his generic name, and we lost our gear over this?!"

We enjoy character progression, not freaking regression and gear is every bit part of that as character levels or powers, but what left us salty and quite aggravatted (and we still are), was that he denied us character agency. He didn't give us any clue that something was off, didn't call for any rolls, didn't use passive checks, ignored character traits abilities and powers, he railroad us into it for the sake of a plot twist we quite frankly couldn't care less about.

Again:

-Got two shotted by Yetis: "Yo Pug you sure you okay with meat shielding them? Yeh it's fine, he needs 20 to hit me!" (DM proceeds to roll 2 crits in a row). Overconfidence is a fast and hilarious killer, laughed for days after that.

-Got dragon-breathed to the face twice: Dragon was stalking us, I was the only one to fail the stealth check, lured it away from the party, cast death ward on myself and took it like a champ. Survived the first blast, played possum, dragon wasn't convinced, blasted again, Death ward kicked in, continued to play possum, dragon was satisfied and flew away. DM liked the quick thinking and it was quite a proud moment of mine.

-Lost my powers: Was entirely my doing, in tune with the story, was my finest roleplay to date, had tons of fun, because at no point was me or my character denied agency. I had no gear and no powers, was a prisioner, but I cared for a sick prisioner, gathered info about the prison, gathered medicinal herbs during an outing and at the end when the prisioner was dying and I had exhausted all my physical options, I prayed for intercession for the prisioner even tho I had no powers, and my god answered. Was pretty cool.


But the gear part? We've been DnD'ing for 20 years and been friends for longer, he's a great DM, but that crap was the worst. Nothing has left me and my party as crossed as that stunt he pulled. Worth to note that our gear, mainly our weapons, are very important character wise. My warhammer was (somehow) crafted with the soul of my departed wife and shows signs of sentience (one of the reasons I never used any other weapon since the beginning), and my barbarian mate battle axe was crafted by my character for his coming of age (he's my character's adopted son).

It's not even about the mechanics, I only use my warhammer when I don't have anything better to do spell wise (like if I'm pacing myself for the day ahead), it's about character agency!

When I was powerless, I was having fun because I had agency both before and during. When I lost my gear it sucked because I was denied agency every step of the process despite my character having everything needed to resist the situation.

The only thing that left me was .. well.. scarred.. my reaction was , well if my DM is so cavalier about removing and denying character skills, backgrounds and gear, then I better prepare characters he'll have a harder time messing with, 'cause that's somethin' I don't enjoy. Suddenly entire classes I found interesting and wanted to play were off the table and I started considering classes I didn't find fun simply because it was harder for him to justify removing stuff. We simply went into an antagonistic, adversarial mode with someone we've been having fun with for 20 years now.

[Pelle]

When I was powerless, I was having fun because I had agency both before and during. When I lost my gear it sucked because I was denied agency every step of the process despite my character having everything needed to resist the situation.


Anecdotes aside, can you think of any situations where gear is taken away while player agency is retained?

It seems like it's the denial of agency most people have a problem with, not really the loss of gear. Taking gear away has a high potential of being unfun, so it really depends on the players expectations and how it's done. As long as players are making an informed decision where they know losing gear is a potential consequence, I personally see no problem with it, although it doesn't necessarily make the game better.

[DMThac0]

To say that a PC cannot have their items taken from them without having a discussion before hand, without getting their consent, or otherwise letting them know what is going to happen, is a double standard that needs to be stopped.

There is a saying that every DM I've ever met uses: "Whatever the PCs can do, the NPCs can as well".

This is understood by the DMs and players both, and it is accepted by both sides. However, when it comes to the DM stealing/destroying items the PCs possess, then that rule goes out the window. The DM can't do that because "dm fiat", "DM vs Player", the DM is bad, mean, unfun, and all the other complaints made in this thread.

This is a double standard that needs to be stopped.


****** Yes, there are DMs who may be mean about it, there may be DMs who are "character killers", but those DMs need to be dealt with, not the act. *********

[FilthyLucre]

To say that a PC cannot have their items taken from them without having a discussion before hand, without getting their consent, or otherwise letting them know what is going to happen, is a double standard that needs to be stopped.

There is a saying that every DM I've ever met uses: "Whatever the PCs can do, the NPCs can as well".

This is understood by the DMs and players both, and it is accepted by both sides. However, when it comes to the DM stealing/destroying items the PCs possess, then that rule goes out the window. The DM can't do that because "dm fiat", "DM vs Player", the DM is bad, mean, unfun, and all the other complaints made in this thread.

This is a double standard that needs to be stopped.


****** Yes, there are DMs who may be mean about it, there may be DMs who are "character killers", but those DMs need to be dealt with, not the act. *********

The issue is that when you apply the corollary, the NPCs can't do what the PCs can't do, you can never be sure that you can actually remove an item from some one.

[DMThac0]

The issue is that when you apply the corollary, the NPCs can't do what the PCs can't do, you can never be sure that you can actually remove an item from some one.

I don't see how there's no parallel. If the PCs try to steal or destroy an item the villain has, there is a chance of success or failure. The same holds true for the villain trying to take or destroy an item of the PCs. If the DM is using the same tools as the PCs then there is a similar chance of failure and success. An NPC or PC can use stealth, magic, even social manipulation, there is no difference, there's nothing a PC can do that an NPC cannot.

If the DM says that the item is destroyed/stolen and there is no chance of the PCs stopping it, then the DM is in the wrong, not the act.

[FilthyLucre]

I don't see how there's no parallel. If the PCs try to steal or destroy an item the villain has, there is a chance of success or failure. The same holds true for the villain trying to take or destroy an item of the PCs. If the DM is using the same tools as the PCs then there is a similar chance of failure and success. An NPC or PC can use stealth, magic, even social manipulation, there is no difference, there's nothing a PC can do that an NPC cannot.

Exactly - so if you give a PC a powerful magic item that can destabilize your game you should not give it to them. The point is you should be very careful what you allow your players to access.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't see how there's no parallel. If the PCs try to steal or destroy an item the villain has, there is a chance of success or failure. The same holds true for the villain trying to take or destroy an item of the PCs. If the DM is using the same tools as the PCs then there is a similar chance of failure and success. An NPC or PC can use stealth, magic, even social manipulation, there is no difference, there's nothing a PC can do that an NPC cannot.

Why did you fail to bold this? It is a critical piece of your position on this.

The same holds true for the villain trying to take or destroy an item of the PCs. If the DM is using the same tools as the PCs then there is a similar chance of failure and success. The DM playing fair like thise means that the items don't just "get taken away" as the OP originally presented this problem.

This goes along with the whole "if it makes narrative sense and is a result of PC actions/choices" in terms of "it happens during play."

[FilthyLucre]

Why did you fail to bold this? It is a critical piece of your position on this.
The DM playing fair like thise means that the items don't just "get taken away" as the OP originally presented this problem.

This goes along with the whole "if it makes narrative sense and is a result of PC actions/choices" in terms of "it happens during play."

Exactly - why is this such a struggle for people??

[Pyramid Pug]

Anecdotes aside, can you think of any situations where gear is taken away while player agency is retained?

It seems like it's the denial of agency most people have a problem with, not really the loss of gear. Taking gear away has a high potential of being unfun, so it really depends on the players expectations and how it's done. As long as players are making an informed decision where they know losing gear is a potential consequence, I personally see no problem with it, although it doesn't necessarily make the game better.

Well DnD is entirely anecdotes, it's all about the players and DMs experiences after all. That aside.. well imagine we have to infiltrate a place were weapons aren't allowed (this happened in our campaign), we came up with a plan in which we brought dupe weapons to leave at the place and found a way to miniaturise weapons so we could bring them. However since it only worked on non-magical weapons, we had it set on some spare weapons and we left our regular weaponry aside for that mission.

Most ways I can think of, involve the players coming up with plans themselves that require them to ditch their gear. Maybe an innocent can only defend itself if it has X McGuffin the party has, maybe a portal can only be sealed if struck with X magic weapon the group has, but it shatters if it does, and then the players decide wether to go through it or find some other way. So as long as the decision comes from the player and not some hamfisted railroad or being confronted with an Hobson choice.

I mean imagine you're a wizard and your DM negates or denies every skill, spell or plan you do and forces you to lose your spellbook. A fighter or a barbarian can still reasonably find a weapon but you're just some dood with a 1d6 hit point and that ain't fun. But if the wizard itself came up with the self-sacrificing idea of say.. offer its book as a tribute to the gods of magic and knowledge in order to gain passage to whatever the party needs to go (and perhaps gain the blessings of said gods in future events), then the wizard player (and the party) will find the temporary loss of power more palatable.

In my case I had no idea if I would ever regain my clericness, but my DM liked my roleplay so much that at the end of it I regained it (and again, the whole thing was of my doing, not my DM forcing me to anything).

[Pex]

One of the worst things I've experienced DMs do is for when the party needs to enter an establishment they have to give up their weapons for security to get them back later, allegedly. It's bad enough when it's just regular weapons. When the party has magic weapons forget it. The players will argue, in character mostly but not forever. I have seen players refuse to enter the establishment and go somewhere else not giving a Hoover the current adventure arc requires entering the place or at least facilitate it. I've done it myself once which meant not participating in an encounter, and it turned out no one got their weapons back at the end. I was playing a druid and the weapon I refused to give up was my magical staff, a staff of healing 2E game.

You will only get a warrior's magic weapon from his cold dead hands.

[DMThac0]

One of the worst things I've experienced DMs do is for when the party needs to enter an establishment they have to give up their weapons for security to get them back later, allegedly. It's bad enough when it's just regular weapons. When the party has magic weapons forget it. The players will argue, in character mostly but not forever. I have seen players refuse to enter the establishment and go somewhere else not giving a Hoover the current adventure arc requires entering the place or at least facilitate it. I've done it myself once which meant not participating in an encounter, and it turned out no one got their weapons back at the end. I was playing a druid and the weapon I refused to give up was my magical staff, a staff of healing 2E game.

You will only get a warrior's magic weapon from his cold dead hands.

How is that the worst thing to happen? You made a choice, the party made a choice, and the DM resolved those choices. Player agency was maintained the whole time.

You anticipated that the weapons would be lost, you chose not to go in. I'd be willing to guess that you explained your decision so the party was aware of your inhibition. They chose to go in and relinquish their weapons anyhow. They fought a battle because of their choice, you missed out because of your choice. The party lost their weapons because of their choice, and you retained your weapon because of your choice. Everything happened because of decisions you all made, how is that bad?

[Deadfire182]

To say that a PC cannot have their items taken from them without having a discussion before hand, without getting their consent, or otherwise letting them know what is going to happen, is a double standard that needs to be stopped.

There is a saying that every DM I've ever met uses: "Whatever the PCs can do, the NPCs can as well".

This is understood by the DMs and players both, and it is accepted by both sides. However, when it comes to the DM stealing/destroying items the PCs possess, then that rule goes out the window. The DM can't do that because "dm fiat", "DM vs Player", the DM is bad, mean, unfun, and all the other complaints made in this thread.



This isn't a very good comparison to make. Sure, PC's and NPC's generally do the same thing, but this is something where you've gotta think out of game as well. Is the DM going to care if his NPC gets their Mace of Fear taken away? The NPC might be furious, but the DM will be fine. He could make him have a sword that does 20d20 damage that is permanently attached to his body if he wanted to, through a God's divine blessing or just finding it randomly on the street. Now, lets say you take away the Paladin PC's Mace of Fear. Are they going to be a little disheartened? Absolutely, because they spent time and effort playing in this game to acquire it, and it shows their accomplishments ("Remember when we killed that evil cleric and I took his mace as a trophy?"). As I've mentioned before, you can take away players hard earned stuff without warning, but they may get a bit angry at you. To avoid this, maybe just ask outside the game if it's okay to do for the story you want to tell, or if that offends you so much, set the player's expectations at session 0 that you may, in fact, take their gear away for whatever reason.

[DMThac0]

This isn't a very good comparison to make. Sure, PC's and NPC's generally do the same thing, but this is something where you've gotta think out of game as well. Is the DM going to care if his NPC gets their Mace of Fear taken away? The NPC might be furious, but the DM will be fine. He could make him have a sword that does 20d20 damage that is permanently attached to his body if he wanted to, through a God's divine blessing or just finding it randomly on the street. Now, lets say you take away the Paladin PC's Mace of Fear. Are they going to be a little disheartened? Absolutely, because they spent time and effort playing in this game to acquire it, and it shows their accomplishments ("Remember when we killed that evil cleric and I took his mace as a trophy?"). As I've mentioned before, you can take away players hard earned stuff without warning, but they may get a bit angry at you. To avoid this, maybe just ask outside the game if it's okay to do for the story you want to tell, or if that offends you so much, set the player's expectations at session 0 that you may, in fact, take their gear away for whatever reason.

No one likes having their spell caster to be neutered by an anti-magic field losing their ability to contribute to the game. Does the DM have to address the situation before the game starts so the spell caster is ok with it? No, we just let the players figure out how to solve the problem.

No one likes losing either, but we don't talk about a combat outside of the game and say "You guys are going to fight, I might roll high and kill you, is that ok?". That is just part of the game that we accept.

Yea, no one like losing their stuff, that's understood and perfectly natural. However, it's a problem that must be solved and part of the game that needs to be accepted.

The players will be upset but the DM doesn't care. To think that the DM cares less about the game they're playing is faulty. The DM has poured his/her heart and soul into running a game that is enjoyable by everyone. The players come in and steal/destroy the item the DM needs to further the plot, now the DM has to completely re-write what's going on. That's gotta be upsetting to the DM, but no one stops the game to ask the DM if it's ok to do it. The DM just has to accept it and figure out how solve the problem.

Then you have the argument that if the players might lose something they have to be told about it and/or the DM is not allowed to. It's a double standard. Anything the players can do, the DM can as well.

The NPC is mad, the DM is not. You're right, so the DM must play the NPC, and the world, to that effect. That NPC, their minions, their superior, or even the random cat burglar who found out that the Paladin has a Mace of Fear, will all have reason to want it. So the DM plays out the desires, motives, and means by which those NPCs will use to acquire that item. This has nothing to do with how the DM feels, it has everything to do with continuing with a coherent narrative. It may result in the Paladin losing their new toy, or it may result in the NPC(s) being killed, arrested, or otherwise stopped. As long as the DM uses the same tools that are available to the PCs, then there's no foul. The player just has to accept it and figure out how to solve the problem.

[Tanarii]

There is a saying that every DM I've ever met uses: "Whatever the PCs can do, the NPCs can as well".

But this explicitly is not the case in 5e. Monsters (including NPcs) use different stat blocks from pCs.

It's also generally not true on a game philosophy level. The DM is given far more freedom to act and design than the players. So the DM must be be aware of where rhe players and the DM them self want to place certain lines. Basically, you have to set certain expectations ... but also not assume everyone is like you.

For example, the OP clearly understands that most modern players feel entitled to their Character's life, XP, and stuff. They will assume that stuff is a right, and get mighty upset if they are robbed of it unjustly!

So if you're going to play with some old school assumptions, like you have to earn your XP, stuff, right to keep your stuff, and character's survival ... well best to make that clear in a modern RPG environment.

But you're also going to have to assure them you won't use the imbalance of power to be a d-hole killer DM while you're at it. So you'll have to establish some internal, and possibly explained, lines. Because at its core, there's no rule that whatever the PCs can do, the NPCs can too. That's just recipe for a sudden unexplained TPK.

[DMThac0]

But this explicitly is not the case in 5e. Monsters (including NPcs) use different stat blocks from pCs.


I'm going to assume that the blue still means sarcasm.


It's also generally not true on a game philosophy level. The DM is given far more freedom to act and design than the players. So the DM must be be aware of where rhe players and the DM them self want to place certain lines. Basically, you have to set certain expectations ... but also not assume everyone is like you.

Expectation: The players are going to do whatever is necessary to accomplish their goals.
Expectation: The villains are going to do whatever is necessary to accomplish their goals.

Anything else is simply challenge, tactics, strategy, and using the tools available.
The players are capable of pooling their resources to accomplish their goals.
The DM is capable of using the resources at the NPCs have available.


For example, the OP clearly understands that most modern players feel entitled to their Character's life, XP, and stuff. They will assume that stuff is a right, and get mighty upset if they are robbed of it unjustly!

So if you're going to play with some old school assumptions, like you have to earn your XP, stuff, right to keep your stuff, and character's survival ... well best to make that clear in a modern RPG environment.

Entitlement does not equal the right to something. It's not an assumption that you have to work for something and work to keep it, it's a reality.


But you're also going to have to assure them you won't use the imbalance of power to be a d-hole killer DM while you're at it. So you'll have to establish some internal, and possibly explained, lines.

That assurance is part of the social contract that we enter when we play the game. It is maintained by continuing to play fairly and within the same confines as the players. It creates a trust that the decisions you make, as DM, are not simply to screw your players over. Even in the event of lost items or character death, if that trust has been built and maintained, the players will understand that there is good reason for the decisions made.


Because at its core, there's no rule that whatever the PCs can do, the NPCs can too. That's just recipe for a sudden unexplained TPK.

Sure, there may not be an explicit "The DM can do anything the PCs can do" written in the books but it's tough pill to swallow that they can't. If the DM can use anything in any of the books, then he/she can do anything the players can.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I'm going to assume that the blue still means sarcasm.



Expectation: The players are going to do whatever is necessary to accomplish their goals.
Expectation: The villains are going to do whatever is necessary to accomplish their goals.

Anything else is simply challenge, tactics, strategy, and using the tools available.
The players are capable of pooling their resources to accomplish their goals.
The DM is capable of using the resources at the NPCs have available.



Entitlement does not equal the right to something. It's not an assumption that you have to work for something and work to keep it, it's a reality.



That assurance is part of the social contract that we enter when we play the game. It is maintained by continuing to play fairly and within the same confines as the players. It creates a trust that the decisions you make, as DM, are not simply to screw your players over. Even in the event of lost items or character death, if that trust has been built and maintained, the players will understand that there is good reason for the decisions made.



Sure, there may not be an explicit "The DM can do anything the PCs can do" written in the books but it's tough pill to swallow that they can't. If the DM can use anything in any of the books, then he/she can do anything the players can.

Yeah, entitlement can indeed equal the right to something. In the sense that, if you are entitled to something, you have a right to said thing. That's kind of the definition. Unless you mean to say the players are being entitled, which is a different kettle of fish. But yeah, they're definitely being entitled! Back in my day, we had permanent level loss, and we liked it! If you couldn't hold on to your precious levels, you just needed to learn that that's how the world works. /s

There have always been mechanics that exist, that might even make sense to exist in a given world, but which are (usually) just plain unfun. And this is, ultimately, a game. Most people think that it's a good thing there's no longer save-or-die, or level drain, or mandatory Constitution loss even if you make your resurrection roll, or a spell that can nuke all the magic out of your gear. Sure, some people liked some of these mechanics, and if you want to bring them back for your table, go ahead. But for most people, they simply weren't fun. They were needlessly punishing. And for a lot of people, yes the same could be said of rust monsters, or other things that specifically target your gear. So that's food for thought, when you're talking about taking away a character's magic item. You might think it'd be fun if you were a player, but lots of people won't. And if they don't think it's fun, that's not them being entitled if the complain or even leave the table, that's them wanting to have fun while they spend time and energy playing a game with their friends.

[Tanarii]

Actually being entitled and feeling entitled are potentially two different things. Or they're potentially not. That's why the phrase has a negative spin nowadays.

I was trying to use it as both at the same time in this case. :smallamused: Same with earning stuff. It's useful both in a straight and sarcastic way, depending on each persons views on the matter.

But the modern gaming environment definitely has a bias towards feeling entitled, considered an actual right, nothing negative about it. And earning stuff being derogatory, as are many old school mechanics (as above) being so much fun (or just non-sarcastic "unfun").

Many of these mechanics had a purpose at the time, and their removal is directly responsible for things lots of people complain about in modern D&D, and yet they still won't see the connection. Eventually other solutions are found instead. For example, gear never possibly breaking (removal of item saving throws) resulted in a gear upgrade treadmill. That's mostly been handled in 5e.

But for a mechanic that hasn't ever been replaced, and example is we've never gotten back to undead being genuinely terrifying to players. Not characters, players themselves. Because that'd be unfun.

[Pex]

How is that the worst thing to happen? You made a choice, the party made a choice, and the DM resolved those choices. Player agency was maintained the whole time.

You anticipated that the weapons would be lost, you chose not to go in. I'd be willing to guess that you explained your decision so the party was aware of your inhibition. They chose to go in and relinquish their weapons anyhow. They fought a battle because of their choice, you missed out because of your choice. The party lost their weapons because of their choice, and you retained your weapon because of your choice. Everything happened because of decisions you all made, how is that bad?

Because the DM can then make the illusion it's the players' fault when they don't get the weapon back or fail to succeed at something or makes things easier because they refuse to enter the establishment. The players didn't make the condition. The DM did. The DM is trying to take away the party's stuff by fiat and make the players complicit in doing so.

[furby076]

I see where you're coming from, and while you are being a prick about it,


AM NOT~D



No, the DM should never kill their players. I know this is most likely a misread word, do correct me if that is the case, but the DM should absolutely never kill the player. The evil Lich overlord is perfectly alright killing a player, as are the player's own stupid decisions, but the DM should never go "You know what, I think my goal is to kill Jimmy today" D&D is meant to be a collaberative experience between the DM and all the players at the table, and a DM vs PC attitude really negates that. /rant

Per a 1980s article i read, people who play DND are more than likely to become satanic and homicidal.
PC = player's character, not players


If anytime the players get something it can be taken away then they never really got anything. The DM is yanking their chains. There is no victory to be had. A DM who gives then takes away is a DM playing against his players, not with them.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Characters can gain and lose things in this game, their lives, their stuff, their fame, etc. If those things are not on the line, then we are playing god mode, and those kinds of video games lose my interst (and many others) very fast.


I just took a magic item away from a player. It was to power the plot, I immediately replaced it with something almost as good, and the act will give him something even better very soon (ran out of time to get to it that session). I still feel bad. :/

Really? i would have made the player sweat it for a few sessions at least. Have him go to the local sword smith and requisition a mundane sword - cause the smith is not good enough to make a spear, which the character specializes in. Or worse, the wizard hands him a dagger "make sure to give that back when you are done". Stress in the game can equal fun too.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Actually being entitled and feeling entitled are potentially two different things. Or they're potentially not. That's why the phrase has a negative spin nowadays.

I was trying to use it as both at the same time in this case. :smallamused: Same with earning stuff. It's useful both in a straight and sarcastic way, depending on each persons views on the matter.

But the modern gaming environment definitely has a bias towards feeling entitled, considered an actual right, nothing negative about it. And earning stuff being derogatory, as are many old school mechanics (as above) being so much fun (or just non-sarcastic "unfun").

Many of these mechanics had a purpose at the time, and their removal is directly responsible for things lots of people complain about in modern D&D, and yet they still won't see the connection. Eventually other solutions are found instead. For example, gear never possibly breaking (removal of item saving throws) resulted in a gear upgrade treadmill. That's mostly been handled in 5e.

But for a mechanic that hasn't ever been replaced, and example is we've never gotten back to undead being genuinely terrifying to players. Not characters, players themselves. Because that'd be unfun.

Magic item rarity is an older mechanic, born again in this edition. And it's a mechanic I happen to like, not only because it makes magic swords and the like feel more special, but also because it helps mitigate exactly that problem of a gear upgrade treadmill. I'm no longer worrying about saving enough WBL to upgrade all my pluses on my gear to keep my to-hit and AC and saves on par with the curve, while also trying to pick up a well-equipped magical utility belt. I start with a longsword, and then after some time adventuring and several levels gained, I find some magic sword, maybe just a +1 sword. Then maybe I find a Frost Brand six levels later, but I don't feel like I need it to keep up (although it is nice). At which point I keep my +1 sword as backup, or I give it to a party member, or (more likely) to an allied NPC. Not exactly a treadmill.

Also, neither here nor there, but I use 'brewed undead in this edition precisely for this reason. Ghouls are still scary to low-level characters, since they'll often have a decent chance of paralyzing them for basically all of combat, and paralysis is a scary condition. Wights aren't as scary any more, but I don't find bringing back level drain to be an ideal solution. Same with Shadows/Wraiths/etc. no longer lowering your stats. For those, I tend to find that giving them the power of possession, curses, or the like tends to render them once more terrifying. Wights and Vampires can grant levels of exhaustion, which is terrifying in its own right, and potentially fatal, but barring death it's still not permanent debilitation of your character.

[GreyBlack]

Hello, Adventurers!

I have observed that, generally speaking, the modern player of roleplaying games gets very upset if the DM/GM removes some/all of the character's magic items. (The same is true of removing some/all of non-magical gear, too, but that's not my focus here.) This can be a source of conflict because sometimes the plot requires a "depowering," so to speak, in order to tell a better story. This happens in fiction, too, but of course the characters in fiction don't usually get as upset about it. A perfect example is from the Dragonlance Chronicles. (I'm not going to give a spoiler warning for books that were published well over 30 years ago.) In the first volume of the Dragonlance Chronicles, the main protagonist, Tanis Half-Elven, receives a Legendary relic magic longsword. It is the sword of the long-dead Elven hero Kith-Kanan. The sword is named Wyrmslayer, and it is given to Tanis by none other than the undead Kith-Kanan himself! Within just a couple of chapters of getting that sword, Tanis uses it to defeat a giant abomination and also to intimidate an ancient red dragon! Truly a magnificent Legendary weapon! At the beginning of the second volume of the Chronicles, however, Tanis leaves Wyrmslayer with his companions when he is about to be taken prisoner--he doesn't want the weapon to fall into enemy hands. But then the party splits, and the person who is keeping Wyrmslayer safe heads off to parts unknown. For the rest of the Chronicles, Tanis never gets Wyrmslayer back again! Additionally, the character who took Wyrmslayer to keep it safe never uses it either! Poor Tanis, he has to go through almost the entire trilogy with no magical items at all. He had Wyrmslayer for about a third of one book, and then loses it for the next two books. (I'm aware that there is a gap-filling book that was published in the 2000s that fits between books 1 and 2, and presumably he has the sword for that book but I haven't read it, nor am I interested in reading it. My point stands for the actual main Chronicles: He has the Legendary Wyrmslayer for about a third of one book, meaning he has it for about a tenth of the entire trilogy.) Tanis, being a character in a book, doesn't complain to his DM about losing his magical item. He's too busy "roleplaying" and trying to overcome the many challenges his DM throws at him.

Which brings me back to the modern gamer. Sometimes the plot really does require that a character not have access to certain magical items, Legendary or otherwise, to keep it interesting. Yet, modern RPG players scream bloody murder if you take away their favorite toys. I've tried talking to players about this, but only rarely has a player agreed that it is for the good of the story. I hasten to add that this is not a problem I have faced with my current group of players.

So my question for everyone is: Is there a better way to handle it? As I said, just talking to the players doesn't seem to work that well in this instance, as it seems they are often very focused on their characters' favorite toys. It is almost like the magic item is a part of the character, rather than merely equipment the character happens to have. Some (many?) players seem to envision their characters as, for example, the "fighter with the awesome sword" or "ranger with the Cloak of Elvenkind" and etc. (This seems to be less of a problem for full spellcasters, because they already have all the magic within their own bodies and seem not to get as attached to most magic items. However, try to take away a Robe of the Archmage, for example, and watch the sparks fly!)

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Insights?

Thank you to everyone for reading and offering your insights.

--Vorenus

"Modern" players?! Methinks thou dost not know the games of ye olden tymes.

Gamers have _never_ liked getting their toys taken away. Ever. In the history of D&D that I've played since Second Edition, I have never once seen a player willingly give up a magic item without a fight. They feel like their character has _earned_ that item, and people are more likely to allow their character to die in some ridiculousness than to allow their stuff to get stolen.

If you find this happening frequently, first consider the power level of items in your game; you may be giving out items a bit too freely. After that, consider speaking to the player about maybe not necessarily giving up the loot but nerfing some of the stuff about it that makes it OP. Failing all that... just increase the difficulty of the encounters. Beyond that, it's all good. Just enjoy the dumb.

[Pex]

I couldn't disagree with you more. Characters can gain and lose things in this game, their lives, their stuff, their fame, etc. If those things are not on the line, then we are playing god mode, and those kinds of video games lose my interst (and many others) very fast.



There are plenty of ways to engage the players taking risks without yanking their chains to tremble upon the might of DM power.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Actually being entitled and feeling entitled are potentially two different things. Or they're potentially not. That's why the phrase has a negative spin nowadays.

I was trying to use it as both at the same time in this case. :smallamused: Same with earning stuff. It's useful both in a straight and sarcastic way, depending on each persons views on the matter.

But the modern gaming environment definitely has a bias towards feeling entitled, considered an actual right, nothing negative about it. And earning stuff being derogatory, as are many old school mechanics (as above) being so much fun (or just non-sarcastic "unfun").

Many of these mechanics had a purpose at the time, and their removal is directly responsible for things lots of people complain about in modern D&D, and yet they still won't see the connection. Eventually other solutions are found instead. For example, gear never possibly breaking (removal of item saving throws) resulted in a gear upgrade treadmill. That's mostly been handled in 5e.

But for a mechanic that hasn't ever been replaced, and example is we've never gotten back to undead being genuinely terrifying to players. Not characters, players themselves. Because that'd be unfun.
I still remember the first time my I got hit with permanent level drain. Ogre Fighter named Devant, 18 (98)Strength, Taladas setting. He absolutely hated wights and by extension any Undead after that. Especially the incorporeal type.

Also, a custom critical miss table mixed with a slightly malformed D20 that rolled 1s far too often meant he managed to break almost every weapon he touched. Including the cursed sword that shattered, exploded, and knocked out the Giant he was fighting in the final battle.

Good times.

Seriously. No sarcasm.

But I also had good times in 3.5. And 5e has largely been good times. Last session ended with my dying Cleric having been stuffed into a bag of holding, so that the Monk could run my body out easier. Just to find our way out blocked and our group in serious danger of a TPK.

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses. Best to appreciate what each system does well instead of regretting what was lost.

But more on topic, there have also been the games that have been more frustration than fun. Those games had a DM who had a story to tell, and saw the PCs as a vehicle to advance his plot.

Give me a DM who knows the difference between creating a campaign vs making a plot any day.

[chainer1216]

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses. Best to appreciate what each system does well instead of regretting what was lost.


Like balace-wise being extremely biased towards spellcasters so when a noncaster loses a magic item they are even more unfavorable?

[Mitsu]

No one likes having their spell caster to be neutered by an anti-magic field losing their ability to contribute to the game. Does the DM have to address the situation before the game starts so the spell caster is ok with it? No, we just let the players figure out how to solve the problem.


That is very bad example. Spell caster does not lose his ability to casting permanently.

If you take away party Fighter Flame Tongue Greatsword you just permanently got rid of:

1. His ability to ignore non-magic weapons resistances
2. 2d6 extra fire damage from one attack, which totall probably equals to nerfing his potential damage per turn by 6d6 to even 12d6.

So if you want better example:

Let's take away 2 slots from Wizard. Permanently. Let's say it's some magical curse and done, can't get it back. That is more likely.

Magic Items are very strong, rare and loved things in DnD.

Anyone would rush to get it back. So ok, DM may take magic item - by some successful Sleight of Hands and Stealth rolls of NPC thief, by taking it from downed player, ok.

But players need to be able to get it back.

If I were a Fighter and my magic Flame Tongue was taken from me, I would ignore everything and rush to get it back. If I heard "no, it's lost totally, you can't go back for it", I would be mad and I don't care about story reasons. In my book that is **** move.

[Tanarii]

Like balace-wise being extremely biased towards spellcasters so when a noncaster loses a magic item they are even more unfavorable?
When items were destructible (AD&D), the system wasn't biased towards spellcasters. Or archers for that matter. The system became biased towards spellcasters because it was unfun for spellcasters to always cast after physical attackers, and automatically lose their spells if they were hit by those physical attackers. It was unfun for a 10th level magic user to have to spend 6.5 hrs, and a 15th ~16 hrs, and a 20th 27 hrs, to reload all their spells, never mind that those levels were only ever reached by skipping straight to them. Speaking of which, it was unfun for it to take so many sessions to level up. It was unfun for ranged attacks to be randomly distributed among all allies and enemies in the melee.

Most modern D&D complaints are directly caused by removing rules deemed to be unfun, and a suitable solution not yet having been found.

[DMThac0]

Well, from all the feedback I've been seeing:

Magic items are special items in D&D that you cannot, as DM, do anything which might cause the player to lose this item unless explicitly given permission by the Player after explaining the plot, character arc, and/or mistake that has caused you, as DM, to make this decision.

---

D&D is supposed to happen in a living world, a world with struggles, risk, challenges, and all the glory that comes from overcoming them.

The idea that the players cannot suffer the loss of personal effects is absurd, as I have said. However, the good thing is, I play with my group and you play with yours. Do what you do.

[Sigreid]

Well, from all the feedback I've been seeing:

Magic items are special items in D&D that you cannot, as DM, do anything which might cause the player to lose this item unless explicitly given permission by the Player after explaining the plot, character arc, and/or mistake that has caused you, as DM, to make this decision.

---

D&D is supposed to happen in a living world, a world with struggles, risk, challenges, and all the glory that comes from overcoming them.

The idea that the players cannot suffer the loss of personal effects is absurd, as I have said. However, the good thing is, I play with my group and you play with yours. Do what you do.

There was some of that, but most of what I saw boiled down to if forces at work in the world manage to remove the item from the character in a logical in world way (stolen by a thief with good rolls, destroyed when targeted by an attack, blackmailed out of it, whatever) it may be a bit of a bummer but is ok. If the DM just straight up says it's gone, with no in world force having to in some way over come the player to get it, that makes the game seem pointless since it tells us that the DM is straight up going to decide what happens and we dont really have a meaningful part in it.

[Master O'Laughs]

I think the DM can take away magic items without any prior discussion with the players under certain circumstances:

- At session 0, the tone is set that things break and people steal valuable objects
- the player(s) did something tremendously dumb that put them in a bad situation
- the player(s) have the opportunity to get the item back if they so choose.

This isn't all at once but more so if any of these some up in the game it lends itself to the item being taken.

I also hold to the notion the DM forcing the situation (i.e. veiled DM fiat like a rogue steals the item with no opposed rolls) can lead to a loss of trust of the players.

If an all too powerful item is acquired by the party by accident (BBEG is defeated through excellent tactics/clever thinking by the party) the party should get to experience life with that item for a little bit as a reward but if it will create a space where it is difficult for the DM to balance the game around them, it is not a bad thing to discuss the challenges the DM is facing and ask if he could remove the item.

(that last bit isn't worded well or best description but my brain is farting now)

[Pex]

When items were destructible (AD&D), the system wasn't biased towards spellcasters. Or archers for that matter. The system became biased towards spellcasters because it was unfun for spellcasters to always cast after physical attackers, and automatically lose their spells if they were hit by those physical attackers. It was unfun for a 10th level magic user to have to spend 6.5 hrs, and a 15th ~16 hrs, and a 20th 27 hrs, to reload all their spells, never mind that those levels were only ever reached by skipping straight to them. Speaking of which, it was unfun for it to take so many sessions to level up. It was unfun for ranged attacks to be randomly distributed among all allies and enemies in the melee.

Most modern D&D complaints are directly caused by removing rules deemed to be unfun, and a suitable solution not yet having been found.

If you did mean to be sarcastic I wouldn't be. I support removing what is unfun for all classes. Spellcasters are allowed that courtesy. Taking away what's unfun does not equal no restrictions, but there's nothing wrong with removing what's unfun to playing a spellcaster. If warriors need to catch up so be it. I think 5E did a good job there in addition to adding in restrictions for spellcasters. I'm not completely happy with those restrictions but they aren't unfun, so I get over it. It's not a necessity to put unfun things back.

[DMThac0]

I support removing what is unfun for all classes.

The idea of what is unfun is subjective.

Some people find Long Rests unfun and use gritty realism.
Some people find Gnomes unfun and remove them from their games.
Some people find the normal Stealth rules unfun and use Facing and Flanking.

You find the idea of losing items unfun, so be it, that's your opinion. I don't see a problem with it, I see a new challenge to overcome.

There is nothing wrong with the possibility of players losing items. There is a problem with DMs choosing to remove items for personal, vindictive, or power-hungry reasons.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Some people find Gnomes unfun and remove them from their games.

Ah yes, the dreaded Gnome, scourge of fun.

Sillyness aside, I could never understand all the Gnome hate going around.

[DMThac0]

Ah yes, the dreaded Gnome, scourge of fun.

Sillyness aside, I could never understand all the Gnome hate going around.

I have to admit I've perpetuated Gnome hate in part due to the two Tinker Gnomes my players have run into. They're the epitome of slapstick humor, fantastic failures that happen to suck anyone near into the calamity.

[Pex]

The idea of what is unfun is subjective.

Some people find Long Rests unfun and use gritty realism.
Some people find Gnomes unfun and remove them from their games.
Some people find the normal Stealth rules unfun and use Facing and Flanking.

You find the idea of losing items unfun, so be it, that's your opinion. I don't see a problem with it, I see a new challenge to overcome.

There is nothing wrong with the possibility of players losing items. There is a problem with DMs choosing to remove items for personal, vindictive, or power-hungry reasons.

Those tend to be the reasons DMs do it when it’s done.

[GlenSmash!]

There was some of that, but most of what I saw boiled down to if forces at work in the world manage to remove the item from the character in a logical in world way (stolen by a thief with good rolls, destroyed when targeted by an attack, blackmailed out of it, whatever) it may be a bit of a bummer but is ok. If the DM just straight up says it's gone, with no in world force having to in some way over come the player to get it, that makes the game seem pointless since it tells us that the DM is straight up going to decide what happens and we dont really have a meaningful part in it.

This sums up my thoughts too. Well said.

[Bardon]

The idea of what is unfun is subjective.

Some people find Long Rests unfun and use gritty realism.
Some people find Gnomes unfun and remove them from their games.
Some people find the normal Stealth rules unfun and use Facing and Flanking.

You find the idea of losing items unfun, so be it, that's your opinion. I don't see a problem with it, I see a new challenge to overcome.

There is nothing wrong with the possibility of players losing items. There is a problem with DMs choosing to remove items for personal, vindictive, or power-hungry reasons.

And the OP was all about the GM wanting to remove the item(s) for a personal reason: His plot wouldn't go the way he wants it to. "Sometimes the plot really does require that a character not have access to certain magical items, Legendary or otherwise, to keep it interesting." Interesting in HIS viewpoint. He seems to have forgotten that DnD is a co-operative game, not a novel being acted out. The GM's carefully choreographed plot should never be the driving force for what the players can or cannot do, or it's just a railroad.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I have to admit I've perpetuated Gnome hate in part due to the two Tinker Gnomes my players have run into. They're the epitome of slapstick humor, fantastic failures that happen to suck anyone near into the calamity.

This reminds me of when we had to go into Mount Nevermind in a Dragonlance campaign several years back. Good times. Don't pull any levers, nor push any buttons, without proper safety gear. But I can see how some people might not like the "mad scientist" trope for Gnomes, nor the "small trickster" that both they and halflings often end up being in campaigns that similarly feature edgy, misunderstood drow/tieflings, violent alcoholic dwarves, and stick-in-ass-yes-it's-a-racial-feature-actually elves.

[Tanarii]

If warriors need to catch up so be it. I think 5E did a good job there in addition to adding in restrictions for spellcasters.
My point was that 3e, the ultimate casters reign supreme D&D edition, was that way because caster checks and balances were removed and nothing replaced them.

4e actually did the best job of boosting martials and toning down casters, and it in a way that made martials fun and exciting. But 5e has managed to be much better balanced than 3e, by de powering in some areas and adding brand new checks and balances in others.

[Vorenus]

Hello, Adventurers!

Wow, what a lot of responses to read through! Excellent! I did not expect this much interest in my question, and I appreciate that everyone has taken some time to read and post. I posted the original post a few days ago but then I got completely wrapped around the axle with work and grad school and I haven't had time to post again since then. I want to thank everyone who took the time to read and comment. There have been a lot of good ideas presented in this thread and I appreciate it.

That said, I do think there have been a few shots taken at me that were unwarranted. It's probably because I did a poor job explaining things in the original post, but it seems that a few posters have assumed ill intent on my part as the DM, which is not the case. I of course want my players to have a good time. I of course recognize that it is a game, not a book--that was what I was trying to demonstrate with my example from a book and then I contrasted it with the difference between a book and a game. It appears I did a poor job articulating that, but c'est la vie.

Also, I want to re-emphasize that this is not a problem I have had with my current group (something I stated explicitly in my first post)--this was more of a repeating theme I have seen lots of times with different groups, but thus far not my current group. I always try to talk to my players and work with them towards crafting a collaborative narrative. I don't railroad, so those of you who accused me of that I think that was an inaccurate criticism--again, probably because I didn't articulate it that well in the first post (although perhaps some people brought unfair impressions and assumptions with them, but again c'est la vie). Also, not that it matters, generally speaking when we're talking about problematic magic items it is not usually a weapon that we're talking about. If you look at a different thread I started, it was about when it is too soon to give Legendary magic items to my players, and you will see that I want to do that so that the characters can enjoy playing with their new shiny toys.

I will attempt to encapsulate my philosophy as a GM/DM: The game is a game, not a book, not real life--a game. And it is a collaborative game--the players and the GM/DM are working together to craft the story. I have more than once informed my players that the first rule of the game is "Everybody at the table should be having fun." If one of the players is getting in the way of other players having fun, that's a problem that I work with that player to fix. If the DM is doing something that is getting in the way of other players having fun, that's also a problem that needs to be addressed. But, and this is an important point that I think some of the posters above did not embrace, the DM needs to be having fun, too! I work full-time and am in grad school part-time; I am very, very, very busy! If the DM is not having fun (in this case, me), then the DM is probably not going to keep putting in the time and effort required to craft good adventures, and may just drop the game entirely--and then everybody loses. Thus, if something that one or more players are doing is getting in the way of the DM having fun, then the DM has just as much of a right as the players to work out a solution. And if there is a magic item that is getting in the way of the DM having fun, or, far more likely, getting in the way of other players having fun, then that item may need to go. This is part of what I was getting at when I referred to items might need to go for plot reasons or story reasons. I should have been more clear with that. Generally speaking, it is more important to make sure magic items don't overshadow other players not the DM. The DM can always call in an ancient red dragon or whatever within the reasonable limitations of the plot structure, but other players (generally) don't have those kinds of options. So if one character is a super-powered juggernaut, that can make the whole experience a lot less fun for the players of the less-powerful characters who may feel completely overshadowed by the character with the magical doodad of wonderfulness that minimizes or even negates the contributions of one or more other players.

Oh, and one more thing: I'm amused by how many people jumped all over the word "modern" from my first post. I think maybe I touched a nerve with that one, but that was not my intent. When I referred to "modern" I wasn't saying anything like "gamers in the 1970s or 1980s didn't act this way." Just modern as in modern. Anyway, I was amused by the reaction to that word, and

Finally, one person called me a jerk for not including a spoiler warning for a book that was published in 1985. That's silly. There has to be a statute of limitations on spoiler warnings. If a book that was published 34 years ago requires spoiler warnings, where do we stop? The Lord of the Rings trilogy has been around for seventy years--is that too soon? Is it okay to spoil The Epic of Gilgamesh or Roland and the Dark Tower or Le Morte d'Arthur or Beowulf? I would say that any popular work that has been out for more than a couple of years should not require a spoiler warning. But that's a bit off topic--if I can be accused of being off topic when responding to someone calling me a jerk for asking a question about how to help my players have a more enjoyable experience--ah, the bitter irony of the internet.

So other than the personal attacks against me that were unwarranted, especially completely misreading the intent of my original question which included ensuring that the players are having a better experience, I do appreciate that everyone took the time to read and respond.

I look forward to any further insights you may have.

--Vorenus

[Sigreid]

Yeah, that clarification pretty much changes everything. Your first post made it sound like you wanted to yank a magic item away with no chance of avoiding it because DRAMA.

Now it sounds like what's happening was you gave out a magic item that is now dominating your game. I won't lie, I've found myself in this situation, and I'm not immune to it happening again. What I do in this situation is I do talk to the party and say something like "Guys, I've noticed that x item seems to be dominating the game. Since I want the item to be about your characters and how awesome they are I need to either scale that item back or get rid of it for a while. Otherwise I think the game is going to get boring for all of us".

[furby076]

There are plenty of ways to engage the players taking risks without yanking their chains to tremble upon the might of DM power.

Yanking your chain is "your paladins sword is destroyed." letting the player gripe and be sad for a couple of minutes, and then saying "nah, just kidding".

Destroying the paladins sword, letting the player gripe for a couple of minutes, and then saying "alright, sorry you lost the cool item, but we gotta move on, the bbeg is about to take his 2nd attack and try to sever your head from your neck" is not yanking any chain.


That is very bad example. Spell caster does not lose his ability to casting permanently.

Neither does a fighter losing his magical weapon. He can still attack, with literally any other simple/martial weapon in the game



If you take away party Fighter Flame Tongue Greatsword you just permanently got rid of:

1. His ability to ignore non-magic weapons resistances
2. 2d6 extra fire damage from one attack, which totall probably equals to nerfing his potential damage per turn by 6d6 to even 12d6.

None of which removes his ability to fight. Just makes him less effective by removing supplemental power



So if you want better example:

Let's take away 2 slots from Wizard. Permanently. Let's say it's some magical curse and done, can't get it back. That is more likely.

Your analogy is terrible. Losing a magical weapon does not equal losing 2 spell slots pemenantly...because the fighter will eventually get a new weapon - probably very soon.
Losing 2 spell slots permenantly is like a fighter losing two abilities permenantly (e.g., action surge, 2nd attck, heavy armor proficiency). So if you want to do equal pain: Magic item does not equal class ability - not even remotely close.

Equal gimping of a spellcaster is to take away their material components and spell focus. Until they regain those, they are gimped pretty darn hard. That would be a better example. Acually, take away a wizards spell book is WORSE than taking away a fighters flame tongue. What's harder to replace, your custom spellbook or a magical sword?


Magic Items are very strong, rare and loved things in DnD.
Some magic items are very strog, some magic items are rare and some magic items are loved things


Anyone would rush to get it back. So ok, DM may take magic item - by some successful Sleight of Hands and Stealth rolls of NPC thief, by taking it from downed player, ok.
/
But players need to be able to get it back.

If I were a Fighter and my magic Flame Tongue was taken from me, I would ignore everything and rush to get it back. If I heard "no, it's lost totally, you can't go back for it", I would be mad and I don't care about story reasons. In my book that is **** move.

{scrubbed} There is a difference between NEED and WANT. Losing a flame tongue, and getting it back is a WANT unless the flame tongue is NEEDed to complete the questline.

But, awesome and in a sandbox environment, such as D&D, the fighter would have the option to do so. Maybe his team will even help him (most likely). However, if it's not part of the current adventure, while the fighter (and team) are off finding the flame tongue, the BBEG is continuing her plot to do whatever her plot is to do. Choices and natural consequence are THE beloved thing in D&D. It' what makes it a better game than video game RPGs.



The idea that the players cannot suffer the loss of personal effects is absurd, as I have said. However, the good thing is, I play with my group and you play with yours. Do what you do.

Silly you. You forgot that you also need to ask your players permissions if: They can be brought to 0 hp. Suffer any permenant ill effects (level, stat drain, losing limbs, losing fame, having coin stolen, or the mission failing). Also, you need to find out at what level the players should be given legendary items...wait, silly me, clearly that's within the first five minutes of session 0. Ask them to point to 5 items they want, from any source.


If the DM just straight up says it's gone, with no in world force having to in some way over come the player to get it, that makes the game seem pointless since it tells us that the DM is straight up going to decide what happens and we dont really have a meaningful part in it.

why can't the DM say "you wake up, your stuff is gone"? No rolls, nothing. That is perfectly legitimate. Passive perception is a thing. A spell could have been cast and the DM secretly rolled the saves for the players (i have and had dms do that). Sometimes things happen and you don't know why. Heck, that happens in the real world...you wake up one morning, you go to your car and it's not there. You have no idea why your car is not there. Could have been towed for illegal parking, stolen, or you got so drunk you parked it 2 blocks down the street and didn't even remember.


I think the DM can take away magic items without any prior discussion with the players under certain circumstances:

- At session 0, the tone is set that things break and people steal valuable objects
- the player(s) did something tremendously dumb that put them in a bad situation
- the player(s) have the opportunity to get the item back if they so choose.



Do I also need to state, at session 0, that PCs can die? What if I forgot a rule, and a year later the players said "but you didn't say that could happen in session 0"...do I not get to inact the action and have to retcon "oh, yea, my bad guys...we never did set the session 0 rule that if you slay the nobles wife, in front of the entire city, that he city will put a bounty on you...so, go on, murder hobo your hearts content"




Finally, one person called me a jerk for not including a spoiler warning for a book that was published in 1985. That's silly. There has to be a statute of limitations on spoiler warnings. If a book that was published 34 years ago requires spoiler warnings, where do we stop? The Lord of the Rings trilogy has been around for seventy years--is that too soon? Is it okay to spoil The Epic of Gilgamesh or Roland and the Dark Tower or Le Morte d'Arthur or Beowulf? I would say that any popular work that has been out for more than a couple of years should not require a spoiler warning. But that's a bit off topic--if I can be accused of being off topic when responding to someone calling me a jerk for asking a question about how to help my players have a more enjoyable experience--ah, the bitter irony of the internet.

{scrubbed} I didn't read Beowulf (ugh, old english version) until 12th grade highschool. I would have been annoyed if you decided to spoil the ending for me because you thought there is some "statute of limitations". It's just courtesy to put a spoiler alert, which most people on this forum do.

As for statute of limitations comment.... thats just plain dumb. You're smart enough to know why.

It also isn't off topic since you brought it up in your first post, which makes you the person who set the topic.

Lastly, I absolutely agree with removing items from the game, but think it should just be done through game play vs asking / telling the players you are going to do something like this. Cause the former is natural (even if annoying) while the latter is absolutely railroading (and even more annoying)

[Mitsu]

why can't the DM say "you wake up, your stuff is gone"? No rolls, nothing. That is perfectly legitimate. Passive perception is a thing. A spell could have been cast and the DM secretly rolled the saves for the players (i have and had dms do that). Sometimes things happen and you don't know why. Heck, that happens in the real world...you wake up one morning, you go to your car and it's not there. You have no idea why your car is not there. Could have been towed for illegal parking, stolen, or you got so drunk you parked it 2 blocks down the street and didn't even remember.

First of all, {scrubbed}

Second - the reason why DM can't just say "you wake up, your stuff is gone" is because:

1. Passive Perception is a thing, but I hope DM rolled first for enemies with their stealth + sleight of hands to steal from 4-5 people? Also I hope whoever tole EVERYTHING had some belt of giant strength to lift all that. And of course by some reason - no player was taking a watch?

2. If a spell is casted, DM should ask players to roll saves, not him rolling for them in secret. Why? Because there are mechanics that players have to boost their saves if they want by adding extra to roll or reroll or turn disadvantage to super advantage. Indomitable, Favored by the Gods, Inspiration, Lucky, magic item etc. player maybe would use that (it's his choice if he wants to use his resources or not, not DM) and succeed on that secret save? That is why if you want players to roll for save- tell them to roll for save. Also I hope that spell was Subtle or otherwise party Wizard, Sorc or Bard with Counterspell/Dispel Magic would have something to say.

Mechanics is for both sides. You require players to roll successes for things to happen to enemies - so follow your own rules and roll for enemies too.

[Nagog]

D&D is a game, not a novel.

That said, work with your players to see if there's a middle path that honors their characters' achievements and has a decent payoff for their sacrifice. You don't need to tell them what the payoff will be, but they should know that one is coming. And make it good, if you want to keep confidence with your players.

As a player I hate it when DMs just paper over my PC's hard-won achievements to further the 'story'. The story is about the players' characters and this kind of nerfing just smells of a DM who believes their story is more important. The best DMs have strategies that allow them to tell their story while incorporating the development of their PCs' roles.

While I agree there needs to be a payoff for doing such things, there are definitely times where removing a character's magic item enhances the fun for not only them but the party as a whole. For example, back when I played Pathfinder and was a relatively new DM, I made the mistake of allowing a player to have a spellbook with every possible Wizard spell in it (and being pathfinder, that was literally HUNDREDS of spells to prepare) called an Akhastic Reference (it accessed the Akhastic Record, the repository of all knowledge). After the first session, I could see this was a huge mistake, to the effect that I had an entire session of play devoted to nerfing it in canon by burning the Akhastic Record pretty much to the ground.


If you want to write a book, or a short story, write a book or a short story. If you want to run a D&D game, then run a D&D game.

Note: the published adventures are a little bit rail roady due to being "public play" and a source of 'in world lore' for the base setting. No other campaigns need to do that.

If losing a magical litem happens as the result of a players choices and decisions, then the loss makes sense.

The story in a D&D campaign is supposed to be materially influenced by the choices and decisions the PCs make. If it isn't, first answer why it isn't.

If the DM removes magical items for *plot reasons*, I would be skeptical of the DM's motives and technique unless the whole table buys into it. (OoTA is a particularly egregious case of this being rail roady, as was one of the old AD&D 1e Slavers of the Undercity module (A1 - A4)).

If you want to play a game, play a game. If you want to play a D&D game, play a D&D game. That said, you should keep in mind that D&D straddles the line between a game and a storytelling medium. While the DM has the majority of creative control in the way the story plays out, the players also have full control of their own characters. If either of them overstep those bounds and take power from the other, it lessens the fun for all parties.
However, when push comes to shove, the DM has the creative priority, as it is their world and their story that the player's character is experiencing. A modicum of trust is required between DM and Player, the DM trusting the Player to play fairly and facilitate the fun of the group, and the Player trusting the DM to create a story/atmosphere where everybody can have fun and enjoy their time together. Lack of trust or betrayal of that trust is what creates DMs who feel it's them vs. the players and Players who feel they have to outwit their DM. Neither of which end up having fun on a session-by-session basis.

So when it comes down to taking away a player's magic items, the question really boils down to how much do your players trust you?

[Sigreid]

why can't the DM say "you wake up, your stuff is gone"? No rolls, nothing. That is perfectly legitimate. Passive perception is a thing. A spell could have been cast and the DM secretly rolled the saves for the players (i have and had dms do that). Sometimes things happen and you don't know why. Heck, that happens in the real world...you wake up one morning, you go to your car and it's not there. You have no idea why your car is not there. Could have been towed for illegal parking, stolen, or you got so drunk you parked it 2 blocks down the street and didn't even remember.



We clearly disagree on this. To take things from my character/the group or do something to my character/the group, the opposition under DM direction still needs to overcome our precautions. Just deciding any precautions didn't work and there's nothing we can do about it (assuming precautions were taken) is bogus.

[ezekielraiden]

This is a bad idea for the exact same reason that it's bad writing to do this in a written work; video games are unfortunately especially prone to this.

A world where the past can be easily revoked solely to serve the status quo is a boring world. A world where the protagonist's (or player's) participation doesn't matter, because either they fail, or they succeed...and then have success taken away from them, putting them right back where they were. It isn't even a Red Queen's Race; no matter how fast you run, you'll never get anywhere, because every victory is one "interesting story" away from evaporating.

What's the point of playing in a game where your victories are hollow and your challenges are either impossible to stop or pointless to resist?

[furby076]

First of all, {scrubbed}

Second - the reason why DM can't just say "you wake up, your stuff is gone" is because:

1. Passive Perception is a thing, but I hope DM rolled first for enemies with their stealth + sleight of hands to steal from 4-5 people? Also I hope whoever tole EVERYTHING had some belt of giant strength to lift all that. And of course by some reason - no player was taking a watch?

I never said the DM didn't roll. Maybe the DM rolled, maybe the DM didn't roll. There is no way for me to know. Then again, when the DM just got 4 crits in a row (happened once), I trust the DM didn't lie, or if he did, it was for a reason.

As for the reasons why the person stole EVERYTHING, you assume everything and not choice items. You assume the person didn't have a portable hole or bag of holding or some other item/ability. You assume the person didn't poison the party at dinner with some sleep effect, or a spell, or a plethora of other reasons - none of which the part may be aware of.

Remember, while there are rules, they are also guidelines and the game allows DMs to shift the rules. For example, the game allows the DM to build NPCs by just picking powers/abilities to give them vs giving them classes.



2. If a spell is casted, DM should ask players to roll saves, not him rolling for them in secret. Why? Because there are mechanics that players have to boost their saves if they want by adding extra to roll or reroll or turn disadvantage to super advantage. Indomitable, Favored by the Gods, Inspiration, Lucky, magic item etc. player maybe would use that (it's his choice if he wants to use his resources or not, not DM) and succeed on that secret save? That is why if you want players to roll for save- tell them to roll for save. Also I hope that spell was Subtle or otherwise party Wizard, Sorc or Bard with Counterspell/Dispel Magic would have something to say.

Mechanics is for both sides. You require players to roll successes for things to happen to enemies - so follow your own rules and roll for enemies too.

*SHOULD* ask is not *REQUIRED* to ask. As for the mechanics, a DM *SHOULD* also know the abilities players have (e.g., luck). Again, the players are not entitled t all knowledge of the game. Sometimes things happen behind the scenes.

You can keep coming up with scenarios to counter this very hypothetical discussion, but that is absolutely pointless because 1) We are not, and will not, talk a specific scenario, 2) the DM has agency over the NPCs and 3) the DM has agency over the story. If you are not happy with a DM taking/destroying party treasure, you are free to quit that game and become your own DM or find a DM who will play by your rules.




We clearly disagree on this. To take things from my character/the group or do something to my character/the group, the opposition under DM direction still needs to overcome our precautions. Just deciding any precautions didn't work and there's nothing we can do about it (assuming precautions were taken) is bogus.

As I mentioned above, you do not always get to know what happens behind the scenes. You don't know if the DM considered your precautions or not. Tell me this, have you ever had a situation where the DM said something happens, and the party [member] said "but, we have XYZ defense", and the DM said "yes i know, but it didn't work. You don't know why" ? Did you bomb the game and tell the DM to retcon it or you would quit, or did you move on with the story - maybe trying to figure out that mystery, maybe forgetting about it and moving on, or somethng else? For a moment, stop considering if it is a magic item.

In the 10 year campaign I was in, there were many times the DM did stuff that we didnt know why/how. It just happened. He wouldn't tell us then, but would tell us in the future (typically when that arc was over and the secret no longer mattered). We may not have liked the result, but nobody likes when bad things happen to their PC. We moved on, got over it, enjoyed the game. If/when we found out what happened sometimes we were like "that's cool, sucks, but cool" and sometimes "that's BS" and on rare occassion "but you didn't consider XYZ"....but we always moved on....maybe because we enjoyed the story, and trusted the DM. If you have DM trust issues, you may need a new DM or need to become a DM if you can never trust a DM

[Sigreid]

I never said the DM didn't roll. Maybe the DM rolled, maybe the DM didn't roll. There is no way for me to know. Then again, when the DM just got 4 crits in a row (happened once), I trust the DM didn't lie, or if he did, it was for a reason.

As for the reasons why the person stole EVERYTHING, you assume everything and not choice items. You assume the person didn't have a portable hole or bag of holding or some other item/ability. You assume the person didn't poison the party at dinner with some sleep effect, or a spell, or a plethora of other reasons - none of which the part may be aware of.

Remember, while there are rules, they are also guidelines and the game allows DMs to shift the rules. For example, the game allows the DM to build NPCs by just picking powers/abilities to give them vs giving them classes.



*SHOULD* ask is not *REQUIRED* to ask. As for the mechanics, a DM *SHOULD* also know the abilities players have (e.g., luck). Again, the players are not entitled t all knowledge of the game. Sometimes things happen behind the scenes.

You can keep coming up with scenarios to counter this very hypothetical discussion, but that is absolutely pointless because 1) We are not, and will not, talk a specific scenario, 2) the DM has agency over the NPCs and 3) the DM has agency over the story. If you are not happy with a DM taking/destroying party treasure, you are free to quit that game and become your own DM or find a DM who will play by your rules.





As I mentioned above, you do not always get to know what happens behind the scenes. You don't know if the DM considered your precautions or not. Tell me this, have you ever had a situation where the DM said something happens, and the party [member] said "but, we have XYZ defense", and the DM said "yes i know, but it didn't work. You don't know why" ? Did you bomb the game and tell the DM to retcon it or you would quit, or did you move on with the story - maybe trying to figure out that mystery, maybe forgetting about it and moving on, or somethng else? For a moment, stop considering if it is a magic item.

In the 10 year campaign I was in, there were many times the DM did stuff that we didnt know why/how. It just happened. He wouldn't tell us then, but would tell us in the future (typically when that arc was over and the secret no longer mattered). We may not have liked the result, but nobody likes when bad things happen to their PC. We moved on, got over it, enjoyed the game. If/when we found out what happened sometimes we were like "that's cool, sucks, but cool" and sometimes "that's BS" and on rare occassion "but you didn't consider XYZ"....but we always moved on....maybe because we enjoyed the story, and trusted the DM. If you have DM trust issues, you may need a new DM or need to become a DM if you can never trust a DM

My table plays over Fantasy Grounds and all rolls are in the open. So, no. My table isn't big on DM fiat.

[KorvinStarmast]

Lack of trust or betrayal of that trust is what creates DMs who feel it's them vs. the players and Players who feel they have to outwit their DM. Neither of which end up having fun on a session-by-session basis.

So when it comes down to taking away a player's magic items, the question really boils down to how much do your players trust you? Yes, trust relationships at the table are entwined in how this all works out.

In the 10 year campaign I was in, there were many times the DM did stuff that we didnt know why/how. It just happened. He wouldn't tell us then, but would tell us in the future (typically when that arc was over and the secret no longer mattered). We may not have liked the result, but nobody likes when bad things happen to their PC. We moved on, got over it, enjoyed the game. If/when we found out what happened sometimes we were like "that's cool, sucks, but cool" and sometimes "that's BS" and on rare occassion "but you didn't consider XYZ"....but we always moved on....maybe because we enjoyed the story, and trusted the DM. If you have DM trust issues, you may need a new DM or need to become a DM if you can never trust a DM Yeah. If you trust your DM, a lot of the angst over this topic goes away.

[Pex]

As I mentioned above, you do not always get to know what happens behind the scenes. You don't know if the DM considered your precautions or not. Tell me this, have you ever had a situation where the DM said something happens, and the party [member] said "but, we have XYZ defense", and the DM said "yes i know, but it didn't work. You don't know why" ? Did you bomb the game and tell the DM to retcon it or you would quit, or did you move on with the story - maybe trying to figure out that mystery, maybe forgetting about it and moving on, or somethng else? For a moment, stop considering if it is a magic item.


When the DM does do that, the equivalent of "because I said so", I lose trust in him. When players' precautions don't work because of DM fiat until such time he can figure out an excuse then the DM is playing against his players. If I can't trust the DM there's no point in playing. This one incident by itself won't necessarily ruin the game, but the pattern is on notice. If the DM is one I've played with for a while and can trust implicitly where this is the first time it happened, I'm more confident there is a reasonable explanation and it's part of the adventure arc plot hook. If the pattern repeats itself continuously then I start thinking the DM is losing his touch.

[Nagog]

When the DM does do that, the equivalent of "because I said so", I lose trust in him. When players' precautions don't work because of DM fiat until such time he can figure out an excuse then the DM is playing against his players. If I can't trust the DM there's no point in playing. This one incident by itself won't necessarily ruin the game, but the pattern is on notice. If the DM is one I've played with for a while and can trust implicitly where this is the first time it happened, I'm more confident there is a reasonable explanation and it's part of the adventure arc plot hook. If the pattern repeats itself continuously then I start thinking the DM is losing his touch.

I agree, but I also disagree. There is a place in storytelling for mysteries and intrigue, but 9 times out of 10 it's pretty obvious when the mystery was there to begin with vs. when it was a plot hole the DM taped over with some backlog/retcon. The most obvious is right after the incident, if the DM just flat out says "X and Y are gone, you don't know why" and investigation warrants no clues or any potential leads or information. This is usually because at that moment, the DM also doesn't know what happened, so they don't know what clues you'd find. AS both a player and a DM, I feel there are 2 important requirements to warrant a situation where important equipment is taken from the PCs:
1. The loss makes sense narratively (i.e. the equipment is stolen, lost, or depowered externally) with a solution the PCs can persue
2. The loss opens possibilities for more fun and challenging situations. Fun is the key modifier here, as without gear everything is more challenging. The DM's job in this situation is to also make it fun to not have your Flame Tongue or your Immovable Rod.

[Tanarii]

and investigation warrants no clues or any potential leads or informationUnfortunately that's the most realistic way to run a theft scenario, unless they were in the wilderness or a secure home. And even in the case of the latter, any clues or potential leads or information may as well be useless, if it's located in a city or other populous area.

Of course, PCs tend to be willing to break heads to get their stuff back, which is ... frowned upon nowadays.

[Nagog]

Unfortunately that's the most realistic way to run a theft scenario, unless they were in the wilderness or a secure home. And even in the case of the latter, any clues or potential leads or information may as well be useless, if it's located in a city or other populous area.

Of course, PCs tend to be willing to break heads to get their stuff back, which is ... frowned upon nowadays.

I figure if the PCs are intent on getting their stuff back, a high enough Investigation roll will get them on track, and a solid case could be made for a Survival check as well. This pans out to a few possible situations, all of which involves the party losing something. They can spend time searching and tracking down their missing stuff, which will cost them time and potentially lose their current objective, they can split the party and lower the odds of either or both groups succeeding in their endeavors, or they can ignore it and move on, and hope the trail to find their stuff doesn't grow cold in their absence.

If the issue is with a magic item that is horribly unbalancing the game, simply destroy it. Player rolls a natural 1? Enemy rolls a natural 20? Both good excuses to have a game changer. Even if they keep the pieces of the destroyed item, repairing it to it's previous state may be impossible. The player loses some power, but it happened in Narrative, so they can hate the DM all they want but the dice rolled what the dice rolled. Just as a natural 20 has the potential to throw out a lot of the DM's plans, a natural 1 has the potential to throw off the player's plans in a big way.

[Tanarii]

I figure if the PCs are intent on getting their stuff back, a high enough Investigation roll will get them on track, and a solid case could be made for a Survival check as well.I agree that's best. I'm just saying that situations involving theft only work that way in the media.

OTOH that's also true for like 90%* of the non-creature detecting stuff Perception and Investigation tend to be used for in games, so it's probably a pedantic point. :smallbiggrin:

*meaning I'm guessing it's some large fraction.

[ezekielraiden]

As I mentioned above, you do not always get to know what happens behind the scenes. You don't know if the DM considered your precautions or not.
I shouldn't need to. The DM should never need to resort to "I work in ~~mysterious wayyyys~~!" to justify her actions. Doing so is evidence that I should not trust them, because they aren't willing to play by consistent rules. If the rules can be changed underneath my feet with no warning, no possibility of preparation, and no compensation, how am I playing a game anymore? How am I not just a puppet on the DM's strings, yanked hither and yon regardless of what I do or want? Trust is a two-way street. The DM does not get a free pass on ****head behavior any more than players do.


Tell me this, have you ever had a situation where the DM said something happens, and the party [member] said "but, we have XYZ defense", and the DM said "yes i know, but it didn't work. You don't know why" ?
Nope. Literally 100% of the time when something like that has happened, my DMs have maturely and patiently said something like, "hm, I hadn't thought of that. Alright." Sometimes they've asked for a little time to adapt, sometimes they've just rolled with it, but either way I can't think of a single instance in 15 years of gaming where the DM has just ~~mysteriously~~ no-saled every defense the players had. And I'm pretty sure I know the reason why they never did, too.


Did you bomb the game and tell the DM to retcon it or you would quit, or did you move on with the story - maybe trying to figure out that mystery, maybe forgetting about it and moving on, or somethng else? For a moment, stop considering if it is a magic item.
Forcing the party to confront your mysterious mystery is not good DM practice, and that doesn't change whether it's coercion by "I took away your toys" or some other reason. As above: trust is a two-way street, the DM is not off the hook for suspicious behavior and such behavior is how DMs *lose* the trust of their players.


In the 10 year campaign I was in, there were many times the DM did stuff that we didnt know why/how. It just happened. He wouldn't tell us then, but would tell us in the future (typically when that arc was over and the secret no longer mattered). We may not have liked the result, but nobody likes when bad things happen to their PC. We moved on, got over it, enjoyed the game. If/when we found out what happened sometimes we were like "that's cool, sucks, but cool" and sometimes "that's BS" and on rare occassion "but you didn't consider XYZ".
Without sarcasm, it's good that you have this level of trust and could enjoy some nice long gaming. A lot of people don't have access to such a deeply-rooted trust when they seek gaming. I haven't had any group last longer than about three years (always IRL issues, never bad feelings), so I've had to seek out new ones that I couldn't have prior trust in. New groups form constantly for players everywhere and it should take time to build trust of this nature...and it also should be possible to LOSE that trust. These acts are just that: stuff that loses player trust.


...but we always moved on....maybe because we enjoyed the story, and trusted the DM. If you have DM trust issues, you may need a new DM or need to become a DM if you can never trust a DM
Hey now, those are some pretty hefty assumptions of your own. There is a huge gap between "can never trust a DM" and "always trust the DM implicitly, no matter how suspicious or ridiculous their behavior." Trust is not just something the players give the DM. Trust must be earned, and it must be justified. Consider: you see a friend covered in blood, holding a knife, and bent over another person's dead body with obvious stab wounds, and hear them say, "I didn't do it, but I can't tell you what happened, you just have to trust me." With such serious and obvious evidence of wrongdoing, do you trust them? Would you trust even your best friend? Or let's make a less morally-charged example: you had some of your favorite cookies in the cabinet, but when you go to eat them, they're gone. You seek out your partner, who knows these are your absolute favorite cookies and that you bought them, and when you find them they have crumbs of those cookies on their shirt and hands, and they tell you, "I didn't eat your cookies, but I won't tell you what happened, you just have to trust me." Again this is someone you love and trust enough to *live* with...and I don't know a single person who wouldn't raise a stink about this at least a little, PARTICULARLY with the "don't trust your lying eyes, trust *me*" attitude of the response. The actions are deeply suspicious and strongly indicate, though do not guarantee, bad behavior. Reasonable people, even ones who otherwise trust and care for the actor in question, can be shocked, upset, and feel their trust has been abused when others do things like this.

So. You have asserted trust should always be given to effectively all DMs regardless of suspect actions on their part. That's a pretty bold claim. I feel I have shown your "well if you have trust issues" response is a non sequitur, as these kinds of acts are WHY one might develop trust issues with anyone. So: why should the DM get free rein to act as she pleases, while the players meekly and unquestioningly accept anything and everything done to them? Why should I trust, when evidence that I should *not* trust sits before me?

[sithlordnergal]

*SHOULD* ask is not *REQUIRED* to ask. As for the mechanics, a DM *SHOULD* also know the abilities players have (e.g., luck). Again, the players are not entitled t all knowledge of the game. Sometimes things happen behind the scenes.


As I mentioned above, you do not always get to know what happens behind the scenes. You don't know if the DM considered your precautions or not. Tell me this, have you ever had a situation where the DM said something happens, and the party [member] said "but, we have XYZ defense", and the DM said "yes i know, but it didn't work. You don't know why" ? Did you bomb the game and tell the DM to retcon it or you would quit, or did you move on with the story - maybe trying to figure out that mystery, maybe forgetting about it and moving on, or somethng else? For a moment, stop considering if it is a magic item.


No...you're kiiind of required to ask as a DM, otherwise several important CLASS abilities are unable to work. Off the top of my head:

- Portent

- Bardic Inspiration

- Natural Explorer

- Certain Channel Divinities from Clerics and Paladins

- The Druid has a few abilities

- Reaction spells, Counterspell being a big one

And that doesn't bring in Feats like Lucky or Alert. If the DM doesn't tell you what is going on, you cannot use those abilities and that makes those abilities worthless. It also lessens their value because now the player can't rely on their own class abilities. Doing that tells a player "Yeah, you have these abilities, but you get to use them when I want you to, so you won't get to use them when it really matters".

One of the HUGE DMing things that gets beaten over your head is this: Do NOT just ignore whatever plans the PCs come up with. I believe I saw this in a DMG from 3.5, but I may be remembered it wrong. The scenario they set forth was a group of PCs guarding an artifact that the story required to be stolen.

The suggestion was if the PCs make an impenetrable defense through spells, skills, and plans, DO NOT EVER ignore them, even if it means your precious story suffers. If the PCs are actively guarding a mcguffin, and you can't think of a way to steal it outside of "The NPC just steals it" in that moment, either don't steal it or make an attempt and fail to steal it. As a DM, your job is to plan for the scenario where you don't steal it.

I can assure you, if my DM pulled that sort of thing multiple times, I would find a new DM very quickly. Now, I'm fine with a DM taking stuff, I don't have an issue with that. My issue is if a DM decides that the only way to continue a thing is to ignore all the prep work a party does. That is the mark of an extremely lazy, or an inexperienced, DM. If its inexperience, then they can learn and do better. If it is laziness because they just have to take the item, then there is no excuse for that. They are a poor DM.


EDIT:

In response to the original post, you can take away Magic Items from players, but you need to do it carefully. When you hand out a magic item, especially items you realize need to be taken away, they're usually a reward for accomplishing something. Under no circumstances should you say "You wake up one day it is gone, you find no tracks or anything leading away". Not only will it likely make players feel resentful, but I know plenty of players that will stop whatever quest they are doing and go hunt down their stolen gear. They won't care if the world is ending, their focus is going to be on whatever stole it and nothing else.

If you absolutely have to get rid of an item, I'd suggest talking openly to the party. Tell them the item accidentally unbalanced the game in a way you didn't think it would, and be willing to compromise. Offer them a different item, most players are willing to compromise.

[Nagog]

No...you're kiiind of required to ask as a DM, otherwise several important CLASS abilities are unable to work. Off the top of my head:

- Portent

- Bardic Inspiration

- Natural Explorer

- Certain Channel Divinities from Clerics and Paladins

- The Druid has a few abilities

- Reaction spells, Counterspell being a big one

And that doesn't bring in Feats like Lucky or Alert. If the DM doesn't tell you what is going on, you cannot use those abilities and that makes those abilities worthless. It also lessens their value because now the player can't rely on their own class abilities. Doing that tells a player "Yeah, you have these abilities, but you get to use them when I want you to, so you won't get to use them when it really matters".


Other than the Alert feat or Alarm spell (with a sidenote of the Raven Queen Patron's familiar), most of these require the player to be conscious to activate, and Lucky would not apply because the player isn't actively rolling anything (Passive Perception is not rolled) and it only applies to your own rolls.
So while these abilities are great as a way to react to waking and finding your stuff gone, unless you have one of the three examples I opened with, they won't work while asleep.
Passive Perception was implemented specifically in order to prevent meta-gaming and using abilities like that. If your DM asks for a perception roll, and you roll low, your character doesn't see or otherwise sense anything wrong, so having them cast Shield or ready an attack or other such things is very much metagaming.

[GorogIrongut]

One of the HUGE DMing things that gets beaten over your head is this: Do NOT just ignore whatever plans the PCs come up with. I believe I saw this in a DMG from 3.5, but I may be remembered it wrong. The scenario they set forth was a group of PCs guarding an artifact that the story required to be stolen.

The suggestion was if the PCs make an impenetrable defense through spells, skills, and plans, DO NOT EVER ignore them, even if it means your precious story suffers. If the PCs are actively guarding a mcguffin, and you can't think of a way to steal it outside of "The NPC just steals it" in that moment, either don't steal it or make an attempt and fail to steal it. As a DM, your job is to plan for the scenario where you don't steal it.

I've been arguing for the Camp of DM's/Players who say that you can and should be able to steal things from your players. That said, I completely agree with everything you said here. I'm a firm believer that the first word in creating a campaign/world is VERISIMILITUDE. All the moving pieces have to work and make sense. If an NPC can do it to you, then the PC's can do it to the NPC. No one is exempt from being messed with.

But I've also argued that any DM with a sliver of imagination can still find a way of removing the item without breaking the above rules. More importantly I've also been arguing that any reasonable DM should be able to do this without seeming railroad'y.

As the DM, if you've made a suitably complex world, you have so many levers you can pull that you should be able to think of 20 ways to remove the item and they should each be realistic, clever and a launching point for your players, if they choose, to go wreak their vengeance.

[danzibr]

This is why I like to play characters which don’t rely on items.

In 3.5, Warforged Totemist with VoP. Ahhhhhh yeah.

But to actually answer your question... beyond talking to the player (which you indicated clearly doesn’t work), you could beef up the other party members, then beef up the encounters until the power level evens out.

[Pex]

This is why I like to play characters which don’t rely on items.

In 3.5, Warforged Totemist with VoP. Ahhhhhh yeah.

But to actually answer your question... beyond talking to the player (which you indicated clearly doesn’t work), you could beef up the other party members, then beef up the encounters until the power level evens out.

That's all fine and dandy for your taste, but I don't want to limit what characters I can play for fear of the DM screwing me over by fiat. I want to play the character I have fun with, not be at war with the DM between my build and what he declares happens.

[Nagog]

That's all fine and dandy for your taste, but I don't want to limit what characters I can play for fear of the DM screwing me over by fiat. I want to play the character I have fun with, not be at war with the DM between my build and what he declares happens.

Well then play with a DM that trusts you with magic items and you trust to provide said magic items. This doesn't seem like a problem with your build, playstyle, or character, rather a problem with the DM who's campaign you're playing in. if you take the items he gives and abuse them or they make a mistake and overscale the items they give you, they may revoke that item. If you don't like that, find a DM who doesn't mind if you're massively more powerful than your peers with the items he gives you.

[Tanarii]

This thread keeps popping up and it's making me seriously nostalgic for saving throws / damage for all items carried whenever the player fails a save. :smallamused:

[Nagog]

This thread keeps popping up and it's making me seriously nostalgic for saving throws / damage for all items carried whenever the player fails a save. :smallamused:

I mean... Nat 20s are magic. So are Nat 1s. So in my games, a natural 1 may result in the destruction/impairment of an important item. For example, our barbarian's Halberd was broken by a nat 1, so they started dual wielding the pieces as a hand axe and a quarterstaff until they got it fixed after the battle.

[Pex]

Well then play with a DM that trusts you with magic items and you trust to provide said magic items. This doesn't seem like a problem with your build, playstyle, or character, rather a problem with the DM who's campaign you're playing in. if you take the items he gives and abuse them or they make a mistake and overscale the items they give you, they may revoke that item. If you don't like that, find a DM who doesn't mind if you're massively more powerful than your peers with the items he gives you.

1) I already stated that if the DM made a mistake in handing out an item that's ruining the campaign to talk to the player to fix it.

2) If the DM is a jerk I quit. Been there done that. He'll show his true colors way before I even get a magic item.

[Nagog]

1) I already stated that if the DM made a mistake in handing out an item that's ruining the campaign to talk to the player to fix it.

2) If the DM is a jerk I quit. Been there done that. He'll show his true colors way before I even get a magic item.

Then there's your solution. In most situations I'll talk to the player before removing it. The only exceptions I'd make would be:

1. It's a temporary removal to make a skill check/other challenge actually challenging (For example, the party has an older styled Portable Hole, which instantly bypasses any locked doors, locked chests, and the like, and this challenge is exactly that kind and the Rogue would like to feel useful)
2. I know the player would throw a fit about it and become the kind of player who actively tries to destroy the campaign. I've only had this kind of experience once, and largely due to this player, I skipped a lot of content in that campaign to end it early as nobody was enjoying it anymore.

[BoringInfoGuy]

One of the problems in this thread is that many people are taking two fundamentally different but similar looking situations and behaving as is one solution needs to fit both.

Situation 1).

A magic item granted to a player has caused a serious problem in the game.

The DM wants to remove the item to solve the problem it is causing.

Situation 2)

The DM wants to make the players losing their magic items part of the story.


Situation 1 is simple, and follows the same advice as every other problem that comes up. Have a discussion about the problem. I’ve not seen any poster here object to the notion that a problem needs to be addressed or resolved.

Situation 2 is more complex. Why is the DM wanting to remove an item that is not causing a problem? How is the DM going about it? What options exist for the players to prevent the theft or retrieve the item after the fact?

There is plenty to discuss about this second situation. DMs can be learning that it’s not just what you do in the game that matters, but the means and methods you use to do it. Players who have felt burned by bad DM practices have an opportunity to see that better practices exist. Net benefit either way is to gain a wider perspective than before.

What absolutely does not help is to keep reinserting the “What about when the item is a problem?” situation into a conversation that has largely shifted to discussion the second. Different situation, different responses are appropriate.

Not that there can’t be any further discussion on problematic magic items and their removal. Just that if someone is talking about a DM removing a non problematic item, then bringing up the problem item situation is not a relevant factor.

As for the OP asking for advice. Talking with your players is the solution. But it would be better to say having a discussion. I say this because you already mentioned talking did not seem to work for you. You have given a couple of hints why it’s not working for you.

First, comparing your players to badly behaving children “Yet, modern RPG players scream bloody murder if you take away their favorite toys.“ is not going to go over well with your players. Yes, you probably never used that turn of phrase with your players. However, if that is your basic attitude, it is going to show through.

Second, how you respond to your players is also going to matter. While you should not have been called a jerk, dismissing the idea of using spoiler tags as “silly” does not show the best skills at considering the viewpoints of others.

Yes, DragonLance was written 30 years ago. But consider Citizen Kane. This movie came out in 1941. Does the fact that it came out a really long time ago justify spoiling the ending of what is generally considered one of the greatest - if not the greatest - movies of all time? No. The answer is no.

You only get to experience something for the first time once. Whether it is new or a classic should not be the main issue. Some things enter popular culture, and it becomes almost impossible for someone to watch “The Empire Strikes Back” or “Planet of the Apes” for the first time unspoiled. This is a shame, and not something to be dismissed as “Silly”. The trade off is that as part of popular culture, it becomes a point where people of very different backgrounds and situations can find common ground.

DragonLance is neither one of the greatest novels of all time nor is it an unavoidable part of popular culture. Including a spoiler warning is worth reconsidering instead of being dismissed as silly. (Still, as a response to a comment that got partially scrubbed, it was level headed.)

Sorry, target got away from me.

If talking with your players is not working, then perhaps the problem is HOW you are talking with them. Being level headed is good. Comparing your players to children throwing a fit and dismissing criticisms as silly is not.

Again, it’s not just what you do, but how you do it.