PDA

View Full Version : Destroying their stuff...



KaussH
2020-12-01, 03:16 PM
So outside of games where equipment is paid for with points ( and as such has its own rules) where do you stand on destroying a charicters stuff. Arrmor, weapons, magic items, horse, ect.

Back in the day, AoE attacks targeted stuff on a failed save. One good fireball and your nude wizard needs new material components. That rust monster turned the knight into a squire in a few rounds.
But some players and Gms feel that once you get it, you can never have it broken or taken.

Views?

I am a limited taker. I am fine busting up some stuff, but i try and keep it low key. That said i do have dnd items with the homebrew tag fragile just to risk breakage.

Xervous
2020-12-01, 03:33 PM
In games where you pay points for gear I think M&M3 has the right of it on all fronts. Gear is a way to get a power boost at a cheaper character point cost, but it’s more vulnerable to disruption. Note that this is generally only important stuff when it’s relevant to the narrative. If everyone leans equally upon gear they should be pressured equally (assuming the case of gear being discounted power access). An equal amount can easily be 0 all around.

Something being lost or broken in a believable way, when the expectations are in place to allow such a campaign is fine. Your bow breaking because you used it X times or rolled a 1 is a massive deviation from expected norms in most systems. The latter stuff is tedious and frustrating, something players will go out of their way to avoid interacting with if it is not all encompassing. And if it’s all encompassing you probably got everyone to agree that yes, you’re playing Dark Heresy or (gritty or simulationist system of choice) or what have you.

And even then M&M has the right of it. Purchased gear doesn’t disappear forever, unless you’re giving a refund (assuming the system is budgeting character points in a fair way that doesn’t brush on RP enticement or RNG death/ascension spirals).

Batcathat
2020-12-01, 03:35 PM
I have the same basic philosophy about stuff being lost/destroyed as I do about characters dying. I don't go out of my way to do it but if the players/characters are faced with the consequences of their actions or just pure bad luck, I don't go out of my way to stop it either. There have been exceptions, of course, but not that many.

Granted, most of the games I've played in and/or GM:ed haven't been the kind with extremely important items, so losing something has usually been more of an annoyance than a catastrophe.

I like to think I'm fine with the same principle when I'm a player. I still remember a post-apocalyptic game maybe 15-20 years ago when my character was very invested in building his own car from scratch and while I was pretty upset about losing it to a mook with a rocket launcher, I blamed myself rather than the GM. (Maybe driving the thing during an attack on the big bad's heavily fortified base wasn't the smartest idea? :smallsigh: )

Democratus
2020-12-01, 03:37 PM
I enjoy games where stuff can be destroyed (OSE/OSR) or lost (Torchbearer).

It's especially fun when a character is very attached to said stuff. Because then it becomes a whole story arc and the character must work through the process of this loss.

Point-based games (M&M, Champions, etc.) tend to deal with it in such a way as to make sure your spent character creation points aren't lost. Which makes sense.

MoiMagnus
2020-12-01, 03:55 PM
IMO, as long as it's clear at session 0, both are fine. Being overly paranoiac with having backups leads to a feeling of frustration if you learn that backup would have conveniently appeared for you in case of need. Being careless and not trying to anticipate anything leads to a feeling of betrayal if you learn that you should have planed for backups all along. [And I personally feel like the latter case is order of magnitude worst than the former.]

In the end, it depends what kind of game you want to play.

The questions are:

(1) What do you want to guaranty to everyone? There is a minimum you consider to be necessary to enjoy the full experience of playing. You're usually guaranteed a PC (so you get a reroll if it dies, when death is even allowed), and most tables I know even guaranty you a PC of same level as the other PCs. It follows the question: how much of the PC's equipment is guaranteed (either protected, or get "rerolled" if it somehow get destroyed), and how much is not?

(2) How much stress/stakes do you want? "100% positive games where nothing can go wrong" can be boring for some. At the contrary, it can be what some are expecting from their free time.

Keltest
2020-12-01, 04:00 PM
In general im of the "its fair game as long as they have warning" camp. If theyre going to fight an ancient red dragon, they better be prepared for their stuff to be at risk if they get killed by its breath weapon. Ancient dragonfire is one of the things that can maybe destroy powerful magic stuff, after all. It would be a little silly if that only applied when convenient for the party.

I also dont have it be guaranteed. You drop something into Mount Doom, and its gone, but a direct hit from Smaug isnt going to necessarily end all of your equipment even if it does end you.

zarionofarabel
2020-12-01, 04:08 PM
Rust Monster for the win! Nothing scares players like a Rust Monster because it will wreck their stuff. Even dragons and giants and the Tarrasque isn't feared like a Rust Monster!

Also, I got no problem destroying a PCs gear when I am GM. And as a player having my gear destroyed is something I am okay with.

Quertus
2020-12-01, 04:28 PM
I guess… it depends.

How much does the group care about game balance? How much does destroying stuff wreck game balance? If "a lot" and "3e", don't destroy items.

How much does the group care about realism? Versimilitude? The rules? What do *those* have to say about this? RAW only Versimilitudist in 2e gets submersed in lava? Yeah, there's gonna be item saving throws.

In my original homebrew D&D world, magical items are "made of sterner stuff", and most were all but impossible to destroy *accidentally*. Worlds where rust monsters and Divinations are a thing, but such destructive species *haven't* been hunted to extinction? Hurts suspension of disbelief. So I probably lean a bit towards "not". But my players can certainly attest that I've destroyed items aplenty nonetheless.

Pex
2020-12-01, 04:47 PM
It is not logical, but players tend to care more about losing their stuff than their own character's death. I can theorize why.

It is taken as a given that there's an inherent risk in adventuring of character death. Without that risk there's no fun. There's still a risk in failure of a mission, but there's always vengeance or trying again. Character death has a finality to it. There is closure. Also, with everything being kosher your character won't die every session, and the game's intent is it won't at all by campaign end. It can happen but not guaranteed to happen nor supposed to happen. Character death is sad but not a tragedy.

A character's stuff, on the other hand, is a measurement of accomplishment. It takes real world time and energy playing the game. Accomplishing goals is fun, but accumulating stuff is something you earn. You've done these deeds and get to enjoy the spoils. Losing the stuff is a great sense of loss. It's an attack against the time and effort the player spent to get it. In addition, even when Honest True the DM is playing fairly without malice it can feel like the DM is yanking chains. No stuff exists without the DM's permission. The DM gave the player their stuff, and now he's taking it away. "Here, enjoy. Sike! Just kidding. You can't have it."

With character death you can just make a new character. With loss of stuff you cannot just get new stuff. You have to take time and effort to earn it again.

Batcathat
2020-12-01, 04:49 PM
Worlds where rust monsters and Divinations are a thing, but such destructive species *haven't* been hunted to extinction? Hurts suspension of disbelief.

I don't know about that. In the real world we still have species that spread disease, kill livestock or sometimes even humans and most of the ones we've hunted to extinction seems to have been mostly by accident. Not that some determined people can't have cleared specific areas of rust monsters and whatnot but totally wiping something out seems like it would be pretty rare, even with magic.

Darth Credence
2020-12-01, 05:43 PM
As to destroying stuff:
One of my players had their horse killed just last Saturday. They rode it into battle, the Orog took it out. Made complete sense to all of us. As to other items, if there was a reason, then yeah, things would get destroyed, but I'm not going to track damage to items. Ropes have been cut, gaming sets have been destroyed when players were caught cheating, and so on, but I don't think it is really likely that someone's magic sword is going to be destroyed.

As to rust monsters not being eliminated:
There are people in my campaign world that breed rust monsters. Both because I have made the secretions into a worthwhile thing to have (I treat it as an oxidizer, so it can help make flames really hot), and because some people use them as guard creatures.

Spiderswims
2020-12-01, 06:31 PM
I destroy the PCs stuff all the time as a normal part of the game. PCs will also have their stuff damaged, stolen or lost too.

I do encounter a lot of players that insist that all of their stuff is untouchable and must stay with the PC no matter what. I don't agree.

Nearly any player that disagrees will say I "target stuff", but really that is only because of the shock they feel when once in like five hours it happens to them.

False God
2020-12-01, 08:19 PM
I tend to hand out very little gear, and the majority of it is usually a McGuffin of some kind. So destroying it doesn't serve me or them. Mundane things the party can pick up in the next town? Yeah I destroy that all the time. But if its something the player or, even better, the character values, I'm more interested in stealing it. No real gain IME from destroying valuable objects.

LordCdrMilitant
2020-12-01, 08:49 PM
So outside of games where equipment is paid for with points ( and as such has its own rules) where do you stand on destroying a charicters stuff. Arrmor, weapons, magic items, horse, ect.

Back in the day, AoE attacks targeted stuff on a failed save. One good fireball and your nude wizard needs new material components. That rust monster turned the knight into a squire in a few rounds.
But some players and Gms feel that once you get it, you can never have it broken or taken.

Views?

I am a limited taker. I am fine busting up some stuff, but i try and keep it low key. That said i do have dnd items with the homebrew tag fragile just to risk breakage.

It depends on the item and the circumstance. It is implicitly assumed that if the party is capable of performing the regular maintenance required to keep their equipment serviceable, so under normal conditions then things won't break or be destroyed.

However, having equipment damaged or destroyed as a result of improper use, or deliberate and logical effort on the part of the foe, are both things that can happen.

It is also important to keep in mind what will happen OOC as the result of equipment destruction. If you break the wizard's focus or cleric's holy symbol, the deployment is essentially over for them and they have no further contribution until they return to town to have a new one made. A fighter having a sword broken is less bad, since they just pick up another one from a dead guy. This doesn't mean that a holy symbol is indestructible, but I might not destroy it by my own effort if my player isn't doing anything irresponsible with it.

Quertus
2020-12-01, 09:38 PM
I don't know about that. In the real world we still have species that spread disease, kill livestock or sometimes even humans and most of the ones we've hunted to extinction seems to have been mostly by accident. Not that some determined people can't have cleared specific areas of rust monsters and whatnot but totally wiping something out seems like it would be pretty rare, even with magic.


As to rust monsters not being eliminated:
There are people in my campaign world that breed rust monsters. Both because I have made the secretions into a worthwhile thing to have (I treat it as an oxidizer, so it can help make flames really hot), and because some people use them as guard creatures.

Right, so… the premise is that these are RAW rust monsters, and that powerful beings possessed of adequate Divinations (such as your standard adventuring party) view them as a detriment, and want them dead. Normal rust monsters don't survive a monk, let alone scry and fry extermination attempts.

It depends on the history of the world, how many mid to high level adventurers have come before, etc, but… I've rarely met a table that encountered a rust monster and then wanted the species to continue existing. Heck, even many of the monsters have good reason to kill rust monsters on sight - either to protect their weaponry, their treasure, or their ecological niche.

If mosquitos were the size of rust monsters, still defenseless (or, well, offense-less), and nearly every animal wanted them dead, how long do you think that they'd last?

gijoemike
2020-12-01, 11:03 PM
Let's talk D&D, specifically 3.X. But other d20 systems do this too.

D20 has this terrible design where Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Shield Focus are a thing. One must spend character generation points (feats) to enable being slightly better with only X class of items. Then in d20 you spend a variable pool of points that frequently change. Money in this case, to buy specific tools that fit the feats. Sometimes this is a ton of money.

D&D also has items that give class functions. So destroying that item actually turns off part of the character.

Does the GM only break an item when the magic sword is sundered? No, they are turning off character abilities until a new item of class X is obtained. Maybe the character had a backup?

M&M does this right because you get replacements after the session/mission. That isn't a guarantee in most d20 systems.

Sunder, rust monsters, acid pits exist for a reason. Destroying stuff and just stuff is fine. But turning off character generation points isn't much fun.

KaussH
2020-12-01, 11:29 PM
If you break the wizard's focus or cleric's holy symbol, the deployment is essentially over for them and they have no further contribution until they return to town to have a new one made. A fighter having a sword broken is less bad, since they just pick up another one from a dead guy. This doesn't mean that a holy symbol is indestructible, but I might not destroy it by my own effort if my player isn't doing anything irresponsible with it.

See, i dont see the charicter as useless if they cant do their "tag" thing for a bit. Yes it would suck if for a whole campaign they were without, but everyone should have value outside just their tag ability.
That said, replacement or back up stuff is good idea. The fighter goes to their 2nd weapon, the wizard gets material components, the cleric, well, bashes things?

KaussH
2020-12-01, 11:36 PM
Let's talk D&D, specifically 3.X. But other d20 systems do this too.

D20 has this terrible design where Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Shield Focus are a thing. One must spend character generation points (feats) to enable being slightly better with only X class of items. Then in d20 you spend a variable pool of points that frequently change. Money in this case, to buy specific tools that fit the feats. Sometimes this is a ton of money.

D&D also has items that give class functions. So destroying that item actually turns off part of the character.

Does the GM only break an item when the magic sword is sundered? No, they are turning off character abilities until a new item of class X is obtained. Maybe the character had a backup?

M&M does this right because you get replacements after the session/mission. That isn't a guarantee in most d20 systems.

Sunder, rust monsters, acid pits exist for a reason. Destroying stuff and just stuff is fine. But turning off character generation points isn't much fun.

See, i see feats and profs and specialization as a bit of a gamble. Much like the magi who only takes fire spells, you are trading flexibility for focus. As part of that deal you rock at something. But sometimes it should also suck that you over focused.

Satinavian
2020-12-02, 02:26 AM
I don't give players any guarantee and am willing to destroy stuff if it is not bought via build points (those special items and companions usually get extra protection rules wise anyway).

But i still don't target stuff. There is little to gain from destroyed stuff. If it is easily replacable, it gets replaced, if not, it is just annoying until it gets replaced and if it is especcially valuable, it only disturbs intra party balance when destroyed.

Pex
2020-12-02, 02:42 AM
As a personal matter, if I lose something I care about by the normal consenquences of gameplay I'll feel sad but get over it. If the DM deliberately targeted it for his jollies then that's the DM being adversarial. It may or may not be a substitute for trying to kill off a PC, but it's still hostile gaming I don't stand for - more so if the DM likes to boast about it to his players, peers, strangers at a convention, or in interent forums.

Batcathat
2020-12-02, 03:10 AM
Right, so… the premise is that these are RAW rust monsters, and that powerful beings possessed of adequate Divinations (such as your standard adventuring party) view them as a detriment, and want them dead. Normal rust monsters don't survive a monk, let alone scry and fry extermination attempts.

It depends on the history of the world, how many mid to high level adventurers have come before, etc, but… I've rarely met a table that encountered a rust monster and then wanted the species to continue existing. Heck, even many of the monsters have good reason to kill rust monsters on sight - either to protect their weaponry, their treasure, or their ecological niche.

If mosquitos were the size of rust monsters, still defenseless (or, well, offense-less), and nearly every animal wanted them dead, how long do you think that they'd last?

I don't doubt they'd be killed and driven out of populated areas and places that see a lot of adventurers for whatever reason but it's a pretty big leap from that to total extinction (especially since most fantasy worlds have a ton of scarcely populated wilderness). I'm not saying it's impossible, but neither do I think it's any kind of certainty.


See, i dont see the charicter as useless if they cant do their "tag" thing for a bit. Yes it would suck if for a whole campaign they were without, but everyone should have value outside just their tag ability.

I agree. Aside from common sense dictating not putting all your eggs in the same basket, I personally think it can be an interesting experience. I've always had a soft spot for the classic "hero loses their super powers/equipment/magic/whatever for a while" and usually enjoy the near-mandatory video game levels where you have to manage without your equipment. It's obviously not in everyone's taste but that's true of pretty much anything.

Mastikator
2020-12-02, 06:56 AM
It depends on the game economy balance, if the game is designed for resources to be destroyed and recreated/regained constantly then destroying objects is fine. If it's based on pure accumulation then you're upsetting the game balance.

In a homebrew game that I run all items, equipment, vehicles, etc will always degrade over time. You can extend the lifetime of an item with maintenance but that requires that the PC puts skill points into being able to do that, or hire an NPC who can, and often replacement parts are needed: it costs money and it costs time. And importantly: the more expensive it is to buy, the more expensive/hard it is to maintain. You can buy longer lasting items but they're exponentially more expensive.

And I do notice that the players give me the evil eye when I tell them they have to pay for someplace to sleep and something to eat, sleeping on the street and eating garbage will cost them something more precious than money.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-02, 07:01 AM
Destruction of fictional things is trivial and players who complain about it ought to be sat infront of a computer and made to play NetHack, Ancient Domains of Mystery, old Diablo etc. untill their eyes bleed or they learn the lesson that losing your game stuff is something you either learn to prevent or deal with, and it's on you.

There is only one genuine and good reason to not do destructible items: reducing book keeping. But this is more an incentive to make an efficient system for book keeping, because destructible items allow for and facilitate a lot of more game than their absence.

Everything else is just people rationalizing their fundamentally irrational loss aversion. :smalltongue:

Faily
2020-12-02, 07:22 AM
I generally prefer not to deal with "item damage" or the like. I find it disrupts the flow of the game when players need to stop and go over their lists of inventory and gear to check what is gone, still there, or barely functional. Hence my loathing for spells like Disjunction in 3.5/Pathfinder.

I don't mind games that can handle item damage efficiently and in a way that contributes to the scenario. Like in FFG Star Wars, effects in combat can lead to damaging the weapon you're wielding (or even completely destroy it), but the game creators already accounted for that in the rules and I find it doesn't disrupt the flow of the game - mostly because it is usually only one item (targeting an item wielded by the opponent) and the rules are already there so people know that it can happen.

Xervous
2020-12-02, 07:35 AM
For those GMs who like to break stuff, do your games make note of this in the session 0 disclaimer?

FrogInATopHat
2020-12-02, 08:09 AM
For those GMs who like to break stuff, do your games make note of this in the session 0 disclaimer?

Why?

It's not a house-rule that things can be destroyed. It's covered in various aspects of RAW.

JellyPooga
2020-12-02, 08:18 AM
Arbitrary or heavy-handed destruction of gear is a douche move for a GM. I once played a game where our GM hit us with a Disjunction on all our gear for walking through a door; no warning, no justification (that we were aware of or given), just a "Bam, your best stuff just broke now". It was a douche move, but not because he broke our gear, but because it was out of nowhere and we weren't given the option to avoid it or mitigate it. It was the lack of agency.

Gear, like any other aspect of play, is just a thing and just like how it can be ok to limit the avenues of decision for the Players (no, it's nkt railroading unless done badly), it's also ok to remove their gear...BUT it has to be done right.
- Intentionally break the law and I get arrested? Yeah, I expect my gear to be confiscated.
- I wander through a part of town known for its pickpockets? Well, maybe more fool me when I realise my prize dagger is missing.
- Wandering through a forest and get hit by a random meteorite that smashes my heirloom shield for no rhyme or reason? Yeah, you better believe I'm complaining about that one.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-02, 09:00 AM
For those GMs who like to break stuff, do your games make note of this in the session 0 disclaimer?

No, because 1) it's a triviality, everybody understands things can break, 2) I neither use nor need an entire session to go over basic rules, players either read the rules on their own time or accept that I'll explain them as the game gpes on and 3) the game art
for the games I hold involves people losing fingers and limbs, if someone is worried about their stuff, they have skewed priorities.

Darth Credence
2020-12-02, 09:55 AM
Right, so… the premise is that these are RAW rust monsters, and that powerful beings possessed of adequate Divinations (such as your standard adventuring party) view them as a detriment, and want them dead. Normal rust monsters don't survive a monk, let alone scry and fry extermination attempts.

It depends on the history of the world, how many mid to high level adventurers have come before, etc, but… I've rarely met a table that encountered a rust monster and then wanted the species to continue existing. Heck, even many of the monsters have good reason to kill rust monsters on sight - either to protect their weaponry, their treasure, or their ecological niche.

If mosquitos were the size of rust monsters, still defenseless (or, well, offense-less), and nearly every animal wanted them dead, how long do you think that they'd last?

If there are groups that don't use metal that can rust, but they are opposed by groups that do, why wouldn't they want to breed rust monsters? A tribe of goblins that uses leather armor and clubs or weapons made from obsidian has very little to fear from rust monsters, but the rust monsters would make a decent defense against a low level group that are coming to wipe out the tribe. Sure, the players at your table don't want rust monsters to exist, but have you ever had a table decide that they are going to dedicate the time to eliminate the species? If none of your tables have ever wanted to do that, what makes you think that any other party of adventurers is going to decide to dedicate their time to doing such a thing?

KaussH
2020-12-02, 10:11 AM
For those GMs who like to break stuff, do your games make note of this in the session 0 disclaimer?

Likes to break stuff is an odd way to put it. This isnt an gm vs players kind of thing. Stuff can be broken in most systems (almost all) .
So no reason to put it in seasson 0. Now if i house rule magic items break diffrently (explode, melt, ect) thats worth a mention. But saying " your clothing is flammable " seems odd as a session 0.

MoiMagnus
2020-12-02, 10:21 AM
No, because 1) it's a triviality, everybody understands things can break, 2) I neither use nor need an entire session to go over basic rules, players either read the rules on their own time or accept that I'll explain them as the game gpes on and 3) the game art
for the games I hold involves people losing fingers and limbs, if someone is worried about their stuff, they have skewed priorities.

1) You are provably wrong. A significant number of players do not and assume by default it will not be the case.
2) Session 0 does not always refer to a full session, the moment when you talk about peoples saying "wanna join my campaign, it will be D&D" is a very short session 0 (where you do not directly tackle the issue of breakable equipment, for the obvious reason that you only said one sentence).
3) Peoples have skewed priorities, because that's a game, and in a game you are free to pick and chose your priorities in ways that would not make sense in real life. The goal of a game is to have fun, so if you have what you call "irrational loss aversion" in another post, why would you want to go through the pain of going against it during your hobby hours?

Xervous
2020-12-02, 11:22 AM
Likes to break stuff is an odd way to put it. This isnt an gm vs players kind of thing. Stuff can be broken in most systems (almost all) .
So no reason to put it in seasson 0. Now if i house rule magic items break diffrently (explode, melt, ect) thats worth a mention. But saying " your clothing is flammable " seems odd as a session 0.

It’s more a question of what circumstances can lead items to break or be lost. Throwing a sword into a vat of metal etching acid as an intentional player act will obviously destroy it and no player would be surprised.

An enemy throwing the player, sword and all into the acid will have varying outcomes based on the system. If getting splashed with acid threatened your gear in the same mechanical manner as immersion and this sort of interaction was standard across other things such as a heavy flamer igniting clothing then great. If the immersion eats gear but a splash doesn’t... there’s a mote of GM wanting to break gear by pushing the player in.

Then there’s disarming the player and tossing the sword in, straight up targeted item destruction.

A comes as no surprise to the player since it’s what they sought out and expect. B is expected as per the rules just like health damage (assuming the consistent GM). C is just breaking their toys in front of them in a targeted fashion and is the sole candidate that will bring about sudden arms races among the three. It’s going to be a big factor in how the players interact with the world, best give them the info from the start.


A - the players
B - the system
C - the GM

Vahnavoi
2020-12-02, 11:49 AM
1) You are provably wrong. A significant number of players do not and assume by default it will not be the case.

Not what I mean. They understand things can break because they live in a world where this is trivial truth. It takes a single sentence or a single image to make them apply that expectation to a game.

People who assume things don't break in a game don't lack this understanding. They are bringing in a game convention from other games.


2) Session 0 does not always refer to a full session, the moment when you talk about peoples saying "wanna join my campaign, it will be D&D" is a very short session 0 (where you do not directly tackle the issue of breakable equipment, for the obvious reason that you only said one sentence).

I prefer to call game set-up "game set-up". Session 0 is useless piece of jargon if that's all it means.


3) Peoples have skewed priorities, because that's a game, and in a game you are free to pick and chose your priorities in ways that would not make sense in real life. The goal of a game is to have fun, so if you have what you call "irrational loss aversion" in another post, why would you want to go through the pain of going against it during your hobby hours?

Because life's better and the game more fun if you can let go of your irrational loss aversion, duh. :smalltongue: Inability to do that in the context of a hobby game that has little to no consequences outside itself, leads to what is known as being a sore loser in pretty much every other hobby sport and game.

Though the real point was that the person worrying about their character's stuff instead of their character's physical integrity has skewed priorities for the game - they have not understood relative value of these things within the game rules. Imagine someone losing a game of Chess because their efforts to protect their Queen from capture directly leads to their King being check-mated. Or, even better, imagine someone forfeiting a game of Chess because their Queen is captured, despite being able to win the game with their remaining pieces. It's the same deal.

Keltest
2020-12-02, 11:59 AM
Last session, the players were fighting some Ancient Red Dragons. I told them right at the start of the session "ok, if you get killed by their dragon fire, be prepared for your items to make a saving throw against being destroyed, because Dragon's Fire is one of the things that can destroy even some artifacts."

And none of them went "What?! Youve never mentioned the possibility of our items being destroyed before!" or anything like that, they just acknowledged the reminder and went about the fight, going "oh crap" any time the dragon's breath weapon recharged.

Whether its player triggered or not, i think most people will be perfectly understanding if, in some circumstance where items are logically at risk for whatever reason, you overtly invoke that risk.

gijoemike
2020-12-02, 12:40 PM
See, i see feats and profs and specialization as a bit of a gamble. Much like the magi who only takes fire spells, you are trading flexibility for focus. As part of that deal you rock at something. But sometimes it should also suck that you over focused.

But a wizards spells aren't character creation points. Those are pure gold and can be easily reclaimed. Or the wizard can just spend a nearly free resource to obtain more spells that aren't fire. Also, that choice is clearly player agency. Unless feat retraining is on the board that feat is locked forever. If it is a feat chain it could take weeks in character to fix.

When destruction is targeting character points in an indirect way, it is a problem. Perhaps of game design instead of the actual action of destroying something. Take Diablo 1. Loss of items was constant but one could regain similar items and effects. At no point was there an effect that permanently took away health point. Even cursed items were temporary.


Imagine if an attack broke the fire wizards ability to cast fireball. This isn't just I step out of the antimagic zone scenario. Imagine a spell thief hits the wizard but the effect lasts months instead of rounds. Would the wizard's player get upset? I would think so. "Dude, casting fireball is my thing! What gives?"

A fighter that has a feat chain in swords gets upset when he loses access to swords. It doesn't matter he now has an AXE. S/he was sword guy. Now they are weaker than everyone until some point later where they can be sword guy again.

A Cleric's who's magic was taken away is not useful as a character in the party or as a tool to have fun with. The PC becomes a drag. AKA fighter with fewer feats and even less BAB.


It isn't the item they are upset about. It is character points, abilities, powers that suddenly dont work for an extended period of time.

flond
2020-12-02, 12:45 PM
Not what I mean. They understand things can break because they live in a world where this is trivial truth. It takes a single sentence or a single image to make them apply that expectation to a game.

People who assume things don't break in a game don't lack this understanding. They are bringing in a game convention from other games.



I prefer to call game set-up "game set-up". Session 0 is useless piece of jargon if that's all it means.



Because life's better and the game more fun if you can let go of your irrational loss aversion, duh. :smalltongue: Inability to do that in the context of a hobby game that has little to no consequences outside itself, leads to what is known as being a sore loser in pretty much every other hobby sport and game.

Though the real point was that the person worrying about their character's stuff instead of their character's physical integrity has skewed priorities for the game - they have not understood relative value of these things within the game rules. Imagine someone losing a game of Chess because their efforts to protect their Queen from capture directly leads to their King being check-mated. Or, even better, imagine someone forfeiting a game of Chess because their Queen is captured, despite being able to win the game with their remaining pieces. It's the same deal.

Eh, depends on the game to be honest.
I can for sure think of games where losing a leg is shorter term and less impactful than losing your magic items. And we can all I think, think of games where death==get a new playing piece, but loss of power==be useless.

FrogInATopHat
2020-12-02, 12:48 PM
Imagine if an attack broke the fire wizards ability to cast fireball...

A Cleric's who's magic was taken away...

Spellbooks and holy symbols are just as legitimate as targets as weapons are and there are means for all players to avoid being hamstrung by bad luck in these situations, regardless of class.

If players don't prepare for the loss of these things, that's on the player.

Swords (for example) are, almost literally, available on every second or third corpse.

I don't go out of my way to target players vulnerable items, but I don't see how it's on me to coddle players who don't prepare for things that are legitimately possible by RAW and RAI, or to specifically announce every instance of RAW that I folllow at the table. The rulebooks do that for me unless I specifically state otherwise.

Satinavian
2020-12-02, 01:00 PM
Though the real point was that the person worrying about their character's stuff instead of their character's physical integrity has skewed priorities for the game - they have not understood relative value of these things within the game rules. Imagine someone losing a game of Chess because their efforts to protect their Queen from capture directly leads to their King being check-mated. Or, even better, imagine someone forfeiting a game of Chess because their Queen is captured, despite being able to win the game with their remaining pieces. It's the same deal.There are a lot of games where lost limbs are easier to replace than important equipment. Regeneration magic, cloned tissue, cybernetics...

Many other games don't have mutilation rules so it won't happen anyway unless it is a ruling. And people could and very well complain about such rulings.

KaussH
2020-12-02, 01:06 PM
But a wizards spells aren't character creation points. Those are pure gold and can be easily reclaimed. Or the wizard can just spend a nearly free resource to obtain more spells that aren't fire. Also, that choice is clearly player agency. Unless feat retraining is on the board that feat is locked forever. If it is a feat chain it could take weeks in character to fix.

When destruction is targeting character points in an indirect way, it is a problem. Perhaps of game design instead of the actual action of destroying something. Take Diablo 1. Loss of items was constant but one could regain similar items and effects. At no point was there an effect that permanently took away health point. Even cursed items were temporary.


Imagine if an attack broke the fire wizards ability to cast fireball. This isn't just I step out of the antimagic zone scenario. Imagine a spell thief hits the wizard but the effect lasts months instead of rounds. Would the wizard's player get upset? I would think so. "Dude, casting fireball is my thing! What gives?"

A fighter that has a feat chain in swords gets upset when he loses access to swords. It doesn't matter he now has an AXE. S/he was sword guy. Now they are weaker than everyone until some point later where they can be sword guy again.

A Cleric's who's magic was taken away is not useful as a character in the party or as a tool to have fun with. The PC becomes a drag. AKA fighter with fewer feats and even less BAB.


It isn't the item they are upset about. It is character points, abilities, powers that suddenly dont work for an extended period of time.

Itis still not taking the feat away. It is just removing the focus till a replacement happens. And since you can buy weapons, its also pure gold. ( heck, it should be easier to buy weapons than spells anyway. )
But if you took a super narrow feat chain in one weapon type, you chose to make your pc super focused at the risk of having times without the weapon.

So in your view a cleric is no more than a magic box to use, and useless outside of that?
Parties and pcs do not have to be at the top of the game every moment. Spells should fail, gambits crash around them, forced to fight that villian with a dagger and a hope. Not all the time, but super focus in anything has a flip side of its loss/lack of usefullness at some time.

KaussH
2020-12-02, 01:14 PM
There are a lot of games where lost limbs are easier to replace than important equipment. Regeneration magic, cloned tissue, cybernetics...

Many other games don't have mutilation rules so it won't happen anyway unless it is a ruling. And people could and very well complain about such rulings.

In almost every game i have played, if you have the money/contacts/skills to replace limbs, you can replace most equipment very easily as well.

Satinavian
2020-12-02, 01:29 PM
So i guess you haven't played a lot of Shadowrun so far ?

KaussH
2020-12-02, 01:41 PM
So i guess you haven't played a lot of Shadowrun so far ?

I have in fact chummer. And a replacement part post start, and/or a decent docwagon contract cost more than most guns, axes, ect. Even with some add ons and mods.
If you have to do a ditch and dive to dump your stuff to stay intact, it tends to be cheaper than a new left arm.

KaussH
2020-12-02, 01:52 PM
I have in fact chummer. And a replacement part post start, and/or a decent docwagon contract cost more than most guns, axes, ect. Even with some add ons and mods.
If you have to do a ditch and dive to dump your stuff to stay intact, it tends to be cheaper than a new left arm.

In fact, when i used to run shadowrun, i would blow up charicters cars, drones, (rarely) decks. Had them break weapons, toss them for this or that reason (even fast bribes) ect. That game can be a meat grinder when things go wrong.

Satinavian
2020-12-02, 01:53 PM
Guns are cheap. Compare it to an upgraded cyberdeck. Or heavily modified combat drones/vehicles. Basic replacement limbs tend to be way cheaper than most of the bioware upgrades and those are basically standard equippment with corresponsing prices.

Shadowrunner often have lots of stuff that is way pricier than replacement limbs and also way harder to get due to being heavily restricted.

Xervous
2020-12-02, 01:53 PM
So i guess you haven't played a lot of Shadowrun so far ?

I view it as something of an expectation that most external gear in Shadowrun is disposable (and if you’re getting shot at things probably went wrong). You don’t take the Ares Alpha along to the high profile Aztechnology highjacking, you bring at most a shop modded AK that you can throw to the wayside without regret. But again that’s an expectation that should be conveyed to players that aren’t fully read in on the system and setting.

Drones get exploded (in harms way), decks get bricked (again harms way), guns (lacking slings!) get dropped out of Tbirds, but it’s something contrived that messes with the sam’s wires without foreshadowing.

Spiderswims
2020-12-02, 05:04 PM
For those GMs who like to break stuff, do your games make note of this in the session 0 disclaimer?

No, can't see any reason why to do so. The game has rules for breaking stuff, it's not like it's some wild, crazy house rule.


t because it was out of nowhere and we weren't given the option to avoid it or mitigate it. It was the lack of agency.

I don't agree. This is the slippery slope of anything the GM might do in the game the players won't like so then the GM should do nothing to keep the players happy. This leads to the game play that is things only happen to the characters if the players choose to allow it to happen.

JellyPooga
2020-12-02, 06:11 PM
I don't agree. This is the slippery slope of anything the GM might do in the game the players won't like so then the GM should do nothing to keep the players happy. This leads to the game play that is things only happen to the characters if the players choose to allow it to happen.

The point I was trying to make is that GMs absolutely can make decisions that might seem harsh or arbitrary (e.g. destroying gear or forcing a plot point through)...but only so long as it is either well/reasonably explained (e.g. "you lost your gear because you were taken prisoner") or because the Players had a hand in the decision to do so (e.g. Players: "We walk through Pickpocket-town", GM: "You know it's full of pickpockets, right?" Player: "Sure", GM: "Ok, your funeral. Roll Perception..."). Unnecessarily draconian, arbitrary or poorly justified decisions are always a bad move on the GMs part (e.g. my GM that Disjunction'd us because he, I much later discovered, simply wanted to knock us down a peg; no in-game justification, just a random, unprecedented nerf that wasn't discussed with, justified or telegraphed to the players in any way).

Gear confiscation is just another tool in the GMs box, to use (or not) at their discretion. Like any tool though, in the wrong hands it can absolutely wreak havoc on a game and everyones enjoyment of it. It's unfortunate that many overly adversarial GMs use gear destruction as their weapon of choice, making it harder for good GMs to use the same tool to good effect.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-03, 05:26 AM
Eh, depends on the game to be honest.

Well duh. Yet lot of the players who complain about losing stuff, complain about it in context of games where losing your stuff is established part of the game rules. If they assume items can't be destroyed, they are silently relying on a game convention that isn't actually supported by the game.

Player who are honest about it depending on the game tend to not assume, and they tend to not complain when shown item destruction is part of the game.


I can for sure think of games where losing a leg is shorter term and less impactful than losing your magic items. And we can all I think, think of games where death==get a new playing piece, but loss of power==be useless.

Sure, but when it comes to tabletop RPGs, this situation arises from silly game conventions. In this case, the silly convention being that if your character dies, you get a new one of equivalent play power and equipment for free, but if you just lose your equipment, it's paradoxically harder to get just the equipment.

You'd think that if there are equivalent characters with equivalent gear available for hire in the same area, it'd be easy to just rent the gear. And on the opposite end, if the gear is hard to get, there probably shouldn't be available people just hanging around either.

Furthermore, a lot of the time the "useless" character isn't useless, they're only weaker in comparison.This is why old school D&D, most OSR games and on the computer side roguelikes just make you start from scratch if you die, no freebies. Players are less likely to deem their experienced character useless after losing stuff when the comparison point is a fresh level 1 character.

Xervous
2020-12-03, 07:53 AM
No, can't see any reason why to do so. The game has rules for breaking stuff, it's not like it's some wild, crazy house rule.


It’s not about it being a house rule or anything of that sort. Much like “I as a GM am running this game as a hex crawl” there is “I as a GM like to break player gear”. Note the very specific phrasing. This isn’t letting players intentionally break gear, it isn’t mechanics incidentally breaking gear, it’s the GM going out of their way to cause gear to be lost.

If gear is liable to be targeted with any degree of frequency I’d prefer to know that in advance. I won’t knowingly show up to an intrigue campaign with an honest soldier who lacks stealth and social graces. I won’t unload a multi page backstory for the kick in the door campaign with the peacock jouster and the kid wielding (holding on for dear life to) a flying sword twice his height. If gear loss is to be emphasized and actively pursued by the GM I’d like to be playing that game from the first session, not figure out if I brought the right sort of character after the fact.

MoiMagnus
2020-12-03, 08:22 AM
Well duh. Yet lot of the players who complain about losing stuff, complain about it in context of games where losing your stuff is established part of the game rules.

It is wrong to assume that players joining a "D&D table" come to play a game that follow the D&D rules.
Most "D&D tables" don't actually play the same game, and the answer to "should you lose stuff" depends on what this game is.

With strict enough definitions, I've never ever seen a D&D game being played in my life.

And in my limited experience, "D&D tables" where losing stuff is actually part of the "rules in practice" are a very small minority. (And the number of tables that have PCs of different levels from each others a negligible number.)

Democratus
2020-12-03, 09:56 AM
It is wrong to assume that players joining a "D&D table" come to play a game that follow the D&D rules.
Most "D&D tables" don't actually play the same game, and the answer to "should you lose stuff" depends on what this game is.

With strict enough definitions, I've never ever seen a D&D game being played in my life.

And in my limited experience, "D&D tables" where losing stuff is actually part of the "rules in practice" are a very small minority. (And the number of tables that have PCs of different levels from each others a negligible number.)

I think this is true for most non-OS and non-OSR tables. Newer rule sets are generally more complex.

When the OSR tables I play at bring out LotFP or OSE - it is always strictly 'by the book'. And everyone knows it.

You fail a save against a fireball? Time to start checking what equipment is destroyed. :smallcool:

farothel
2020-12-03, 10:12 AM
In games I played it hasn't happened all that often, unless there were specific reasons for it. For instance in Pathfinder 2E, if you use shield block, you can destroy your shield. It's explicitly put in the rules, so we use it as such. The same for lances on a charge. Those are situations where we all expect it. We also expect players to have certain back-ups with them without it being explicitly stated (for instance an archer has a few back-up bowstrings with him/her).

Besides those, I don't think we've ever done much of targeting equipment, mostly to keep the bookkeeping down and probably also just laziness on the part of the players and GM to actually go after the equipment. Even then, I often take back-up items with me for certain things. Like if I play a cleric and I upgrade from a wooden to silver holy symbol, I keep the other one (often explained as 'it has sentimental value') somewhere safe as back-up.

As GM myself, I've not gone after equipment specifically, unless in the above reasons (and for instance, in a Star Trek game if the players go in space combat with their ship, it can of course get damaged).

Sapphire Guard
2020-12-03, 10:37 AM
It depends.I wouldn't let things break on just standard attacks, but 'your weapon breaks' is an acceptable side effect of a crit fail. However, if this is the only demon slaying sword in the setting and losing it it breaks your campaign, that's pretty unfair.

If the players get arrested, they're not going to be allowed to keep their gear. If someone has to swim a wide river, they might have to give up their heavy armour or tower shield.

The more valuable the item, the harder it should be to lose. If for some reason the item is something the campaign villains are after, that may be an exception, but they should have chance to get it back.

Just your standard common sense really. Actions have logical consequences, as long as they're not cheap or unfair.

Xervous
2020-12-03, 10:49 AM
but 'your weapon breaks' is an acceptable side effect of a crit fail.

Do we get fancy things like decapitating crits that demoralize all targets near the victim? What’s the dice system at work here? Crit fails can work, I’ve just rarely seen them implemented well

Quertus
2020-12-03, 11:31 AM
In 3e, destroying holy symbols and spell component pouches isn't the same as destroying weapons and armor.

For one, every competent caster has backups of those needful things (past a certain level, at least). And destroying the *pouch* doesn't necessarily destroy the *components*, which is all that the caster actually needs.

Second, once we hit the point where casters are not inconvenienced by an opponent wasting their turn destroying their 5gp "bonus HP" sack, the Fighter *is* inconvenienced by the loss of their weapon, as it really *should* be magical by now, to deal with creatures with DR, or who are incorporeal. This isn't just "pick one up off the next corpse".

Also… not many goblins carry large spiked chains. And even fewer oozes carry great axes. When fighting *monsters*, getting replacement gear isn't so trivial as some make it sound (although at least it's better than in earlier editions, where weapon proficiencies were individually tracked).


If there are groups that don't use metal that can rust, but they are opposed by groups that do, why wouldn't they want to breed rust monsters? A tribe of goblins that uses leather armor and clubs or weapons made from obsidian has very little to fear from rust monsters, but the rust monsters would make a decent defense against a low level group that are coming to wipe out the tribe. Sure, the players at your table don't want rust monsters to exist, but have you ever had a table decide that they are going to dedicate the time to eliminate the species? If none of your tables have ever wanted to do that, what makes you think that any other party of adventurers is going to decide to dedicate their time to doing such a thing?

Numerous groups *have* at least investigated the possibility of exterminating rust monsters, yeah. Some were too low level / in older editions, making it more difficult to pull off at the time, but yes, had there been an "epilogue", it certainly would have included their rust monster extermination crusades. So I think only 2 groups succeeded on their respective worlds during actual play.

As to the goblins… historically, goblins generally wield metal weapons and have coins among their loot - they have as much to lose as anyone else to the continued existence of rust monsters.

Now, some backwater tribe of goblins who never developed above Athas weapons tech, and who lack the concept of commerce? I mean, sure, should their metal-less selves somehow encounter and understand a rust monster, they might be clever enough to weaponize it against their more advanced foes. I'll buy that. But this won't protect rust monsters in the rest of the world from extinction, nor will they be able to safeguard their pets from a dedicated scry and fry team.

So I'm just not seeing the long-term viability here. Without serious protection (a god of rust monsters perhaps), creatures this obnoxious and hated, on worlds where high-level characters are a thing and have encountered them before? I'm just not seeing it working out for Rusty.

Glorthindel
2020-12-03, 11:59 AM
Like anything, its important to set expectations correctly. I am not necessarily saying you have to drop a big disclaimer in session 1, but more: be consistent. The first time a player finds out that items can be destroyed should not be at level 10 when the Paladin's Holy Avenger he picked up the previous session gets vapourised. That's crappy, and feels like you've just pulled the idea out your ass specifically to get rid of a troublesome item. Ideally you should be reinforcing that stuff from very early, when the stakes are low. The Wizard is trying to cross a stream, out of combat and in a low-stress situation, throw in a "that's brave, is your spellbook in a waterproof container?". Or, make a comment when the Rogue drops his crossbow in order to save on item interactions when swapping weapons. Do it early, do it in a situation where the item is likely to survive, but puts the players on notice that they need to be thinking about this stuff.

Spiderswims
2020-12-03, 12:14 PM
It’s not about it being a house rule or anything of that sort. Much like “I as a GM am running this game as a hex crawl” there is “I as a GM like to break player gear”. Note the very specific phrasing. This isn’t letting players intentionally break gear, it isn’t mechanics incidentally breaking gear, it’s the GM going out of their way to cause gear to be lost.

If gear is liable to be targeted with any degree of frequency I’d prefer to know that in advance. I won’t knowingly show up to an intrigue campaign with an honest soldier who lacks stealth and social graces. I won’t unload a multi page backstory for the kick in the door campaign with the peacock jouster and the kid wielding (holding on for dear life to) a flying sword twice his height. If gear loss is to be emphasized and actively pursued by the GM I’d like to be playing that game from the first session, not figure out if I brought the right sort of character after the fact.

So what would a general warning of "as GM I might use anything present in the official rules at any time" be enough warning? Or do you want a specific "unlike 'most' GM's you may have gamed with, in my game items might be damaged, lost, stole or destroyed in the course of game play."

Like are you saying you must be given enough information to hardcore metagame against it? So if your told about the possibility of item loss, you will amazingly make some sort of tattooed monk psi warrior natural attack monster character that just basically says "haha GM I have no items to loose"?

And even if you made the tattooed monk psi warrior natural attack monster character that specifically counters the GMs item loss game play style, how would you feel about the other, say thousand things, that might happen to your character in the course of game play, BUT they are things the GM did not specify 'might happen' during the game play? Like say poison use? When the kobolds 'suddenly' have poisoned weapons would you complain that the GM should have specificity mentioned that foes might use poison so you could have built an anti poison character? And realistically, how many anti GM style character features can you give any one character?




Like anything, its important to set expectations correctly. I am not necessarily saying you have to drop a big disclaimer in session 1, but more: be consistent. Do it early, do it in a situation where the item is likely to survive, but puts the players on notice that they need to be thinking about this stuff.

I do agree here. A typical character in any of my games might loose or have an item destroyed at any time: though likely sooner then later. A typical 10th level character that played through levels 1 to 9 over say at least a year real time would know item loss and destruction happens often enough to them.

Xervous
2020-12-03, 12:40 PM
Like are you saying you must be given enough information to hardcore metagame against it? So if your told about the possibility of item loss,

I’ll know well enough not to make/pursue a singular weapon of legendary power (see: fancy and wasteful in the service of thematics) as I’ve done for some casual games. Aware that it’s an inevitability I won’t opt for a character theme that leans heavily upon gear. Swords and armor? Sure, they’re simple, the character won’t depend on unique instances of them, and it won’t be hard to have substitutions readily available. If all that gets denied I probably opted in on the scene.

The holy saber of destiny and the cuirass of conniptions? I won’t devise a character who depends so heavily on specific gear pieces because that stylistic choice puts me at an unusual disadvantage that has the potential to cripple for untold sessions. Provided with knowledge I’ll be able to conclude that’s not a good character concept for the table and work out some other idea that has a good reason for existing in the world and going along with the party.

It’s not about beating the GM, it’s about skipping the “well my character is Krutzed for this party/setting, maybe I should reroll“

Darth Credence
2020-12-03, 03:25 PM
Numerous groups *have* at least investigated the possibility of exterminating rust monsters, yeah. Some were too low level / in older editions, making it more difficult to pull off at the time, but yes, had there been an "epilogue", it certainly would have included their rust monster extermination crusades. So I think only 2 groups succeeded on their respective worlds during actual play.

As to the goblins… historically, goblins generally wield metal weapons and have coins among their loot - they have as much to lose as anyone else to the continued existence of rust monsters.

Now, some backwater tribe of goblins who never developed above Athas weapons tech, and who lack the concept of commerce? I mean, sure, should their metal-less selves somehow encounter and understand a rust monster, they might be clever enough to weaponize it against their more advanced foes. I'll buy that. But this won't protect rust monsters in the rest of the world from extinction, nor will they be able to safeguard their pets from a dedicated scry and fry team.

So I'm just not seeing the long-term viability here. Without serious protection (a god of rust monsters perhaps), creatures this obnoxious and hated, on worlds where high-level characters are a thing and have encountered them before? I'm just not seeing it working out for Rusty.

Rust monsters wouldn't do anything to coins, unless your world uses iron coins for some reason. Non-magical ferrous metal is specified by the stat block. And what do you mean by "historically" for goblins? The current stat block has them using scimitars and short bows. Short bows certainly don't need any metal at all to work, and the arrow heads would likely be rock. The scimitars are not specified, and could be made from anything. I would doubt that goblins would be past the bronze age in capability, and bronze is notably non-ferrous and therefore would not be attacked by a rust monster. The picture of a goblin that goes along with the stat block has it wielding something other than a scimitar or short bow, so it clearly shows that goblins can wield different things, and clubs or other non metal items are, IMO, more likely for such a group than them having the ability to forge their own iron or steel weapons.
And if your players have actually decided to try to hunt rust monsters to extinction, then it might happen in your world, but you have some very unusual players.

Willie the Duck
2020-12-03, 03:46 PM
Like anything, its important to set expectations correctly. I am not necessarily saying you have to drop a big disclaimer in session 1, but more: be consistent. The first time a player finds out that items can be destroyed should not be at level 10 when the Paladin's Holy Avenger he picked up the previous session gets vapourised. That's crappy, and feels like you've just pulled the idea out your ass specifically to get rid of a troublesome item. Ideally you should be reinforcing that stuff from very early, when the stakes are low. The Wizard is trying to cross a stream, out of combat and in a low-stress situation, throw in a "that's brave, is your spellbook in a waterproof container?". Or, make a comment when the Rogue drops his crossbow in order to save on item interactions when swapping weapons. Do it early, do it in a situation where the item is likely to survive, but puts the players on notice that they need to be thinking about this stuff.

This really is the long and short of it. As long as the Players and DM/GM both understand the actual boundaries of the game, then things should be fine. Most games are sufficiently open and expansive, that regardless of technical rules, there will be some level of group expectation or gentleperson's agreement about what is and isn't acceptable. The place where systematic communication has failed, and what you really don't want to have happen, is something happen and someone or another stare in utter disbelief, and then say something like, "I thought we weren't doing that." If you can avoid those situations, everyone will have a better play experience.


Views?
Once establishing expectations is accomplished, my view is that, overall, having effects which do remove gear is probably positive to the game... if the game is designed with that expectation in mind. I know Frank Mentzer talked about item saving throws as a design decision on Dragonsfoot back in the day. He said that Gary did it for two reasons-- 1) so that spells like fireball were double-edged swords --end the fight quick, but have a chance to make the reward for the fight disappear; and 2) slow the accumulation of character growth past the boundaries of where the game worked well --items come, items go, the net accumulation is small but meaningful as you go up in level, same reason for level-drain monsters*. Overall I think these things do work towards that goal, when done in moderation.
*whether either were good ideas/good implementations has long been debated.


It is not logical, but players tend to care more about losing their stuff than their own character's death. I can theorize why.

It is taken as a given that there's an inherent risk in adventuring of character death. Without that risk there's no fun. There's still a risk in failure of a mission, but there's always vengeance or trying again. Character death has a finality to it. There is closure. Also, with everything being kosher your character won't die every session, and the game's intent is it won't at all by campaign end. It can happen but not guaranteed to happen nor supposed to happen. Character death is sad but not a tragedy.

A character's stuff, on the other hand, is a measurement of accomplishment. It takes real world time and energy playing the game. Accomplishing goals is fun, but accumulating stuff is something you earn. You've done these deeds and get to enjoy the spoils. Losing the stuff is a great sense of loss. It's an attack against the time and effort the player spent to get it. In addition, even when Honest True the DM is playing fairly without malice it can feel like the DM is yanking chains. No stuff exists without the DM's permission. The DM gave the player their stuff, and now he's taking it away. "Here, enjoy. Sike! Just kidding. You can't have it."

With character death you can just make a new character. With loss of stuff you cannot just get new stuff. You have to take time and effort to earn it again.

I think the finality issue is a big part of it. If your character died (in a game where death is permanent), that's it, nothing more to say. With item destruction you have to keep playing the character, but without a functionality you previously had. I can see that latter feeling harder than the former.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-03, 03:46 PM
It is wrong to assume that players joining a "D&D table" come to play a game that follow the D&D rules.

Has it ever occurred to you that coming to a game expecting something completely different and continuing to play against the system you're using constitutes an user error? Like, purposefully changing the rules due to the one good reason I mentioned earlier is one thing, coming to a table expecting or assuming things are not like the explicit rules is another.


Most "D&D tables" don't actually play the same game, and the answer to "should you lose stuff" depends on what this game is.

On a technical level that has little relevance to what I'm saying, you're right. On a practical level, the basics of the system should stay the same even when themes and scenarios change, and those basics include rules for items getting stolen and ruined. It's not about "should", it's about "could".

KaussH
2020-12-03, 03:54 PM
I’ll know well enough not to make/pursue a singular weapon of legendary power (see: fancy and wasteful in the service of thematics) as I’ve done for some casual games. Aware that it’s an inevitability I won’t opt for a character theme that leans heavily upon gear. Swords and armor? Sure, they’re simple, the character won’t depend on unique instances of them, and it won’t be hard to have substitutions readily available. If all that gets denied I probably opted in on the scene.

The holy saber of destiny and the cuirass of conniptions? I won’t devise a character who depends so heavily on specific gear pieces because that stylistic choice puts me at an unusual disadvantage that has the potential to cripple for untold sessions. Provided with knowledge I’ll be able to conclude that’s not a good character concept for the table and work out some other idea that has a good reason for existing in the world and going along with the party.

It’s not about beating the GM, it’s about skipping the “well my character is Krutzed for this party/setting, maybe I should reroll“

So to be clear, in a magic items are untouchable game, you might make a whole build around an item. Gantlet of ogre power, headband of intellect, short sword of speed, ect.

But in an "items are just stuff" game you will make a more flexable charicter who does not have a " have to have this thing " to be cool build ?

skyth
2020-12-03, 05:31 PM
Just talking about games where you buy things with 'points' at character gen...Depends on the game.

With Champions (Hero system), you can buy a power with a focus limitation. That means it's cheaper, but you need the focus to use the power (Can mean a magic item like a magic ring, cloak, etc...but can also be a mundane item like a sword that gives you the hand kill attack power :) ). Downside of focuses is they can be taken away (How easy that is affects the discount). However, there is the underlying assumption that you get the focus back somewhat easily even if it's destroyed...Unless you buy it with the Independent limitation. I never use that ;)

Now, Mechwarrior you can start with a battlemech if you pay points, but as mechs can be destroyed/damaged and replaced...It's not as big of a deal if it gets destroyed.

Xervous
2020-12-04, 07:43 AM
So to be clear, in a magic items are untouchable game, you might make a whole build around an item. Gantlet of ogre power, headband of intellect, short sword of speed, ect.

But in an "items are just stuff" game you will make a more flexable charicter who does not have a " have to have this thing " to be cool build ?

Aspiring to a +1 adamantine template stacked bastard sword (yes I took EWP) with effort and love put into the role playing of obtaining and wielding a sword that may end up in legends or sacrificed in one great final act where no other sword lacking this idr 30? hardness and triple digit item health could jam the gears of mechanus for a few seconds to keep a portal from opening, trapping the big bad with us.

+ numbers don’t generally yield breakpoints in character functionality and I’ve GMed enough to know they’re mostly meaningless. The concept of losing such items is fine in theory, but if it’s not a logical consequence of the world that doesn’t feel overly forced we may have some problems. Disarm a sword off a cliff? Sure. My ring that I haven’t taken off in (long time period)? Short of the ring being a sentient item running away I only see that happening with player opt in or a grand contrivance (obviously not a relevant example for games that have common limb loss effects).

Though it has me wondering what example scenarios would lead to the loss of a headband or a gauntlet.

KaussH
2020-12-04, 10:33 AM
Though it has me wondering what example scenarios would lead to the loss of a headband or a gauntlet.

Off the top of my head. Stolen while you sleep, taken during capture or arrest, taken when your dead for a bit, dragonfire, disjunction, anti magic zones( not gone but useless), any powerful AoE with a failed save, disenchanter, rust monster, crit hit, ect ( now not all these may apply, but they are options that could get rid of things you wear. )

Satinavian
2020-12-04, 11:14 AM
Now, Mechwarrior you can start with a battlemech if you pay points, but as mechs can be destroyed/damaged and replaced...It's not as big of a deal if it gets destroyed.

That actually reminds me of a game where gear destruction was a problem.

You see, while in theory in Mechwarrior you can replace a mech, those are kinda rare and super expensive. And many years ago i had a Mechwarrior group and one player lost his mech with no replacement in sight. We didn't really find a good way forward at the time. Of course we would have tried to replace it as soon as possible. But we didn't have the money or someone selling one on the planet so at the very earliest it would have been possible after the current campaign.

Xervous
2020-12-04, 11:20 AM
Off the top of my head. Stolen while you sleep, taken during capture or arrest, taken when your dead for a bit, dragonfire, disjunction, anti magic zones( not gone but useless), any powerful AoE with a failed save, disenchanter, rust monster, crit hit, ect ( now not all these may apply, but they are options that could get rid of things you wear. )

Of all these the only ones that would strain verisimilitude at a glance are:

Disjunction (Dragonfire etc) where it’s not reasonable for near epic level magic to be flying around. A trap in an ancient lich’s sanctum? Sure. Random chest in small time cult hideout? Disjunctions don’t pop out of nowhere, there’s a story behind that unless it’s just a case of “haha items go poof”.

Theft? If it’s a thief that steals and exits stage left while the party is riding the coaster down to the right it may very well have turned to confetti while I slept. Introducing the thief is hopefully more interactions and intrigue I as a player can pursue. The mafia that’s central to the current dilemma the party is addressing stole my gauntlets and I’m not powerful enough to get back at the thief now? Ding! Long term player investment, planning and engagement on the path to revenge.

To summarize? If it’s something that makes sense in context either as a consequence or a development and/or adds RP/plot hooks then it’s fine. If it comes across forced and arbitrary it’s about as encouraging as cutting off my own hand on a nat 1. All of the other things are rules I’d be aware of in advance, having explicitly agreed to them by joining the table.

Spiderswims
2020-12-04, 12:57 PM
To summarize? If it’s something that makes sense in context either as a consequence or a development and/or adds RP/plot hooks then it’s fine. If it comes across forced and arbitrary it’s about as encouraging as cutting off my own hand on a nat 1. All of the other things are rules I’d be aware of in advance, having explicitly agreed to them by joining the table.

Except GMs and players will never agree on this. To a player what "makes sense" is that "nothing ever happens to my stuff". And they say things like "oh, ok, like once a year if we fight a god lich they can use one Disjunction or powerful effect on our stuff."

Really once the characters get past low level, there is plenty of powerful magic around to effect items. And magic is not the only way to do it.




Though it has me wondering what example scenarios would lead to the loss of a headband or a gauntlet.

The couple of mundane ones missing from the above list: disarm, grab, sunder, slight of hand, and things like lava and acid. And glue or webs. And a mechanical trap, like a vice.

Xervous
2020-12-04, 02:45 PM
Except GMs and players will never agree on this. To a player what "makes sense" is that "nothing ever happens to my stuff". And they say things like "oh, ok, like once a year if we fight a god lich they can use one Disjunction or powerful effect on our stuff."

Really once the characters get past low level, there is plenty of powerful magic around to effect items. And magic is not the only way to do it.



The couple of mundane ones missing from the above list: disarm, grab, sunder, slight of hand, and things like lava and acid. And glue or webs. And a mechanical trap, like a vice.

Well I’m not Sam Trawman and I’m not speaking for him. It’s not a one size fits all outlook but the key takeaway is getting expectations lined up.

Which wheels us back to frequent item destruction and truth in advertising with the pitch. I just want to know what game it is I’m making a commitment on. 3.5e D&D assumes some adherence to WBL, 4e is absolutely rigid on it, Shadowrun laughs at the concept of treadmilled wealth and much of anything being safe. Other systems put a character point cost/guarantee on important gear and handwave the rest. These are default assumptions and you can easily deviate from them the same as you could do low magic, magic mart, average/max/hackmaster hp on level up etc.

Spiderswims
2020-12-04, 03:00 PM
3.5e D&D assumes some adherence to WBL,

It's fine if you assume 3.5E has some sort of "adherence" to whatever you think WBL is......but whatever you think it's not in the rules.

So it's not the best idea to come to a game with some personal assumptions you might have. It's much better to assume that people might think something different then you think.

How would a GM, who does not think like you and might not assume the same things you do, know what you think? Some GM might read the WBL 'rules' and say "eh, some silly rules for character creation above 1st level", while you read them and then come up with some "massive rules framework between the lines".

So what is a GM to do?

Vahnavoi
2020-12-05, 05:56 AM
3.x's reliance on Wealth-by-level guidelines is exaggerated. This exaggeration exists because a subset of its players are invested in playing the character creation minigame in absence of a DM and the call this "Rules-As-Written", when the actual rules as written puts decisions like this in the hands of the DM. The rules as written don't assume rigid adherence to WBL, they assume the DM can read English and will adjust Challenge Ratings when deviating from the guideline.

It's similar to how people sometimes assume nice 4 balanced encounters per day in 3.x games... when that's actually just the average for given guidelines, and the actual guidelines tell to vary the opposition from considerably weaker to overpowering. The intended balance point of the game is not for every individual encounter to be balanced, nor are encounters always meant to be winnable or in player's favor.

denthor
2020-12-05, 01:47 PM
The books have matrix for repairs of magic items. So breaking things is valid. If you can find broken items you can break items.

Xervous
2020-12-07, 07:43 AM
So what is a GM to do?

Talk over expectations with prospective players beforehand? If I am to assume that at least one individual among myself and the GM is ignorant with regards to the system and/or how the GM wants to use it, how else do you resolve that? Starting play and bumbling into grave discrepancies is all well and good if the premise is that we’re learning a new system but if it metaphorically sells itself as horror but swiftly turns romcom I’m not even going to finish the season. Is it really too much to ask to have a discussion beforehand?

LordCdrMilitant
2020-12-07, 09:03 PM
See, i dont see the charicter as useless if they cant do their "tag" thing for a bit. Yes it would suck if for a whole campaign they were without, but everyone should have value outside just their tag ability.
That said, replacement or back up stuff is good idea. The fighter goes to their 2nd weapon, the wizard gets material components, the cleric, well, bashes things?

Personally, I don't consider functionality as per a really poorly optimized level 1 fighter to be considered "continuing to be functional". You're deadweight to the party, or worse since they're compelled to protect you when you have nothing to contribute in combat. You become the subject of an escort mission until you can replace the item in a friendly settlement.

I would be very cross if someone destroyed my casting focus without a solid reason what was in part driven by something I did. It's not just "can't do my main thing", like when I run out of spell slots and fall back onto cantrips [which is pretty close to being useless anyway after the first few levels], it's attacking with a penalty between -3 and -6 from your standard functionality for 1d6 damage. You are very literally useless in combat. It's basically like saying "I don't like your character, and I don't want you to play the game" [or more forgivingly "get on the railroad and shut up" if it's to remove an ability that might allow you to escape the train].



Basically, if an item is literally essential to functioning as a character and can't be replaced in the field, I won't destroy it unless you do something to it to do so [especially if it has no logical reason for being destroyed] I might have an enemy make a disarm to knock it out of your hand or something to make you scramble for it, but that's like any other status effect and you'll get it back at the end of the encounter.

Anything else though, is much more liable to be broken or stolen. Particularly items that are "nice to have" and have value for any character [like per se, an amulet of health] or that has a catastrophic effect on failure [like a necklace of fireballs]. I might also break an item like an ancestral sword for narrative value, but only if I have an idea that it's an event the player will take well.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-12-07, 10:49 PM
A thought I had, but have never tried:

What about defaulting to not breaking most equipment (plot items aside, those are fair targets), but letting players choose to sacrifice t equipment to turn a failure into a success or mitigate a really bad failure. Things like

Turning a bad crit (that would have KO'd the character) into a regular hit by breaking your shield.

Turning a miss into a hit (in a suitably dramatic moment) by breaking your sword.

Consuming a focus to have a spell land.

There would have to be limits to prevent scumming with throw away gear, but...

Vahnavoi
2020-12-08, 03:42 AM
Yes, you can turn equipment into consumables. It's tried and true game design in board and card games. Works best with slot or card based encumberance rules - encumberance being the limiting factor for how much crap you can have.

Satinavian
2020-12-08, 04:02 AM
A thought I had, but have never tried:

What about defaulting to not breaking most equipment (plot items aside, those are fair targets), but letting players choose to sacrifice t equipment to turn a failure into a success or mitigate a really bad failure. Things like

Turning a bad crit (that would have KO'd the character) into a regular hit by breaking your shield.

Turning a miss into a hit (in a suitably dramatic moment) by breaking your sword.

Consuming a focus to have a spell land.

There would have to be limits to prevent scumming with throw away gear, but...
The idea is nice.

But in practice, if the gear is actually important, situations where it would be worth sacrificing are extremely rare and it wouldn't come up.
You hardly ever get single points of failure in play. Because that is something better avoided by design. If failure really is unacceptable, it should never occur. If it can happen, you should be able to live with it and then you might be not willing to sacrifice your most prized possession to get rid of it.

You kinda can make that work in narrative games but then everyone is in it for the drama anyway.