Artifacts

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Here's something for discussion: In the old days, the
typical artifact (if any artifact can be considered typical)
has 'side effects' - disabilities that came with owning
such a powerful artifact. One of my characters, a ranger,
killed normal plants by touch for years (and had to be
quite careful) after an encounter with the Ring of Gaxx.

I've been noticing that this aspect of artifacts seems to
be fading - many artifacts I have seen in various sources
don't seem to have a disadvantage or side-effect. Do
people think that losing this aspect is a good thing or
a bad thing?

For the sake of full disclosure: In my standard campaign,
artifacts have *nasty* disads - not enough to make them
not worth having, but definitely enough to cause the party
to treat them with respect. My high-level party has
two artifacts accessible, and isn't currently using either of
them. One of them, a longsword named Edge, they have
in a safe place with a Drawmij's instant summons set up,
so the party can get it in emergencies but doesn't have
to worry about it on a day-to-day basis. You see, Edge
cuts just about anything ... the enemy, the scabbard you
try to place it in, the floor when you drop it, your leg if
it swings badly as you walk along ... The only safe way
to carry it is in your hands, and even then you have to
make a dexterity ability check each hour to not risk cutting
yourself. (And please don't roll a 1 when wearing it unless
you've got a ring of regeneration on. Yes, the party got
one for just that reason.)

The other one, they haven't yet figured out (identifying
artifacts can be rather tricky). They know it's a ring of
protection +6 and resistance +6. Until they find someone
who can legend lore it, they haven't yet dared use it! It's
sitting unused in the portable hole.

Maybe I overdid their previous experiences with artifact's
disads? *evil grin*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hmmm yes but...

Surely there is an element of "accident" to explain the creation of
artifacts in the 1st edition - contact with/influence with some
universe changing event or being (i.e. that uber Lichwithout a hand or
eye bloke)

This introduces the weirdness in some of the side effects etc. Also -
it makes for good plot development - and remember that artifacts should
not sprinkle campaigns like potions of healing.

For instance I can't imagine the story of Elric being as interesting
without the dynamic of the swords vile influnce, its power and Elric's
"addiction" to it...It was never just a +"a lot" sword. And it was
"intended" for him

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Abner Mintz wrote:
> Here's something for discussion: In the old days, the
> typical artifact (if any artifact can be considered typical)
> has 'side effects' - disabilities that came with owning
> such a powerful artifact. One of my characters, a ranger,
> killed normal plants by touch for years (and had to be
> quite careful) after an encounter with the Ring of Gaxx.
>
> I've been noticing that this aspect of artifacts seems to
> be fading - many artifacts I have seen in various sources
> don't seem to have a disadvantage or side-effect. Do
> people think that losing this aspect is a good thing or
> a bad thing?

A good thing. Oh, if you have a disadvantage that makes DESIGN sense
-- the One Ring didn't HAVE disadvantages from its CREATOR'S point of
view -- that's fine, but an artifact of Good being used by someone
worthy shouldn't have ANY disadvantages. If you're powerful enough to
make an artifact, you shouldn't be so incompetent as to make one that
by accident shrinks the user every couple of times he uses a power, or
turns him random colors, or any of the idiotic things that used to
show up in the old artifacts.

Most of my artifacts only have negative effects on people who have no
business using them.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Murf" <rob_murfin@hotmail.com> writes:

>Hmmm yes but...

>Surely there is an element of "accident" to explain the creation of
>artifacts in the 1st edition - contact with/influence with some
>universe changing event or being (i.e. that uber Lichwithout a hand or
>eye bloke)

Or a head!

--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ got my mojo properly adjusted

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Abner Mintz wrote:
> Here's something for discussion: In the old days, the
> typical artifact (if any artifact can be considered typical)
> has 'side effects' - disabilities that came with owning
> such a powerful artifact.
>
> I've been noticing that this aspect of artifacts seems to
> be fading - many artifacts I have seen in various sources
> don't seem to have a disadvantage or side-effect. Do
> people think that losing this aspect is a good thing or
> a bad thing?

Neither or both.
To counter Sea Wasp's idea that "if you're competent enough to create
artefacts, you should be competent enough to make them right," here are
some ideas:

The Nuclear Power Plant (ObOwner) of Cherno Byl. The probability of the
side effect occuring is so small that the creator thinks it's worth it.
If the artefact makes you roll percentile and destroys the world on a
roll of 00, I bet a lot of people would still use it.

The Petrol Burning Car of General Motors. The side effect might be so
small that you don't care about it until you use the artefact several
thousand times. If your artefact shoots 100d6 fireballs but slowly
extinguishes the Elemental Plane of Fire, many people would still use
it.

The Windows 98 of Bill Gates. It might cost another million gp and 100k
XP to get all the bugs out, or you need it right now, 'cause the
wielder of the Staff of Linux is cominagetcha.

IMO, artefacts are NOT just bigger magic items. They're plot devices,
and as such do whatever you need them to do. If YOU, the DM, need an
artefact that does have a disadvantage, it will have that disadvantage.
Even if it does not make perfect sense by design.
Exercise common sense, but keep your flair for the dramatic.

After all, nothing is perfect. Just look at that Positive Energy
Elemental that looks like a one-armed snake and animates chairs on you.

Silveraxe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
> A good thing. Oh, if you have a disadvantage that makes DESIGN sense
> -- the One Ring didn't HAVE disadvantages from its CREATOR'S point of
> view -- that's fine, but an artifact of Good being used by someone
> worthy shouldn't have ANY disadvantages. If you're powerful enough to
> make an artifact, you shouldn't be so incompetent as to make one that
> by accident shrinks the user every couple of times he uses a power, or
> turns him random colors, or any of the idiotic things that used to
> show up in the old artifacts.

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing - I don't generally have
*random* disads, they all make design sense - but I'm not so sure
on the 'disads being a sign of incompetence' thing. It seems to me
that many disads are a side effect of the steps necessary to get
artifact-level power out of a magic item. For instance, one of those
artifacts I mentioned - Edge, the sword that cuts through everything -
is dangerous to the user precisely because it *does* cut through
everything. It's not a random disad like shrinking a few inches every
couple of time you use it, it's a sensible disad like accidentally
lopping off a few inches if you roll a 1 when wielding it. Ow. Better
have that ring of regeneration on ... This isn't incompetence, it's
just the cost of having a sword that's *that* sharp. Accidents that
normally do nothing or have a trivial effect instead cut most of
the way through a leg.

Other disadvantages make sense if you know the history of an item,
but appear random otherwise. For instance, that ring I mentioned ...
the ring of protection +6 and resistance +6 that the party hasn't yet
used because they haven't had the opportunity to find out its history
- is called the Ring of Honest Madness. It was made by an outraged
archmage who found out that her rogue lover was cheating on her.
He had managed to bluff her many times, but finally she figured out
the truth ... and decided to do something about it. She prevented it
to him as a protective item, not mentioning the disad: any time the
wearer says anything that isn't literally true, he must roll a bluff
attempt with a +20 bonus and then make a will save against that DC;
if he fails, he believes what he said is literally true and acts
accordingly. Thus, the wearer accumulates delusions over time,
eventually becoming effectively insane. The delusions cannot be
removed while the ring is worn; if the ring is off, the delusions can
be removed with Remove Curse, but will all return as soon as that
particular wearer again puts on the ring. (One wearer's delusions
have no effect on another wearer; you're only responsible for your
own crop.) Anyone who Legend Lores the ring will not find that
to be a *random* disad. And if you know about the disad, it's
a manageable one ... you just have to be very, very careful what
you say!

It's just my rule of thumb that almost every artifact has such
a disad, whether from the inherent design of the item or some
*sensible* quirk of its design process.

Ask my party about what happened when someone shattered
the Al-Kabar Lens, which had the effect of multiplying the
effect of any spell cast through it by x10 ... Or when someone
used all 22 remaining charges of the Staff of Ultimate Negation
in a retributive strike on another artifact. *evil grin*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 03:10:00 GMT, abnermintz@earthlink.net (Abner
Mintz) wrote:

>Here's something for discussion: In the old days, the
> typical artifact (if any artifact can be considered typical)
> has 'side effects' - disabilities that came with owning
> such a powerful artifact. One of my characters, a ranger,
> killed normal plants by touch for years (and had to be
> quite careful) after an encounter with the Ring of Gaxx.
>
>I've been noticing that this aspect of artifacts seems to
> be fading - many artifacts I have seen in various sources
> don't seem to have a disadvantage or side-effect. Do
> people think that losing this aspect is a good thing or
> a bad thing?

Not entirely a bad thing in my view. At least, getting rid of random
bullcrap is a good thing. Now it seems reasonable to me that if you
try to use some kind of superpowerful artifact created for a god or
godlike being that you might, for example find it burning your hand
off unless you take special precautions because the fire god who owned
it didn't have to worry about getting burned, and that would be fine.

But cursing people with a brown thumb even after they stop using it?
I'm not fond of that.

>
>For the sake of full disclosure: In my standard campaign,
> artifacts have *nasty* disads - not enough to make them
> not worth having, but definitely enough to cause the party
> to treat them with respect. My high-level party has
> two artifacts accessible, and isn't currently using either of
> them. One of them, a longsword named Edge, they have
> in a safe place with a Drawmij's instant summons set up,
> so the party can get it in emergencies but doesn't have
> to worry about it on a day-to-day basis. You see, Edge
> cuts just about anything ... the enemy, the scabbard you
> try to place it in,

What, doesn't it have a hilt?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Abner Mintz wrote:
>> My high-level party has
> > two artifacts accessible, and isn't currently using either of
> > them. One of them, a longsword named Edge, they have
> > in a safe place with a Drawmij's instant summons set up,
> > so the party can get it in emergencies but doesn't have
> > to worry about it on a day-to-day basis. You see, Edge
> > cuts just about anything ... the enemy, the scabbard you
> > try to place it in,

David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> What, doesn't it have a hilt?

Oh, it has a hilt, which is the only part by which it can be
safely carried - but it seems to have an uncanny tendency
to slice everything else if you aren't paying attention to it
every second, and no-one can keep their attention on it
constantly. People holding it find that they start waving
it around during conversations, or swinging it idly when they
walk ... And of course during combats, a natural 1 can
result in a nasty slice.

Still, something that can cut through Walls of Force is
definitely useful enough not to abandon outright.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <4224751B.1030605@sgeobviousinc.com>,
Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:

> Abner Mintz wrote:
> > Here's something for discussion: In the old days, the
> > typical artifact (if any artifact can be considered typical)
> > has 'side effects' - disabilities that came with owning
> > such a powerful artifact. One of my characters, a ranger,
> > killed normal plants by touch for years (and had to be
> > quite careful) after an encounter with the Ring of Gaxx.
> >
> > I've been noticing that this aspect of artifacts seems to
> > be fading - many artifacts I have seen in various sources
> > don't seem to have a disadvantage or side-effect. Do
> > people think that losing this aspect is a good thing or
> > a bad thing?
>
> A good thing. Oh, if you have a disadvantage that makes DESIGN sense
> -- the One Ring didn't HAVE disadvantages from its CREATOR'S point of
> view -- that's fine, but an artifact of Good being used by someone
> worthy shouldn't have ANY disadvantages. If you're powerful enough to
> make an artifact, you shouldn't be so incompetent as to make one that
> by accident shrinks the user every couple of times he uses a power, or
> turns him random colors, or any of the idiotic things that used to
> show up in the old artifacts.

To be fair to Gygax, some of the 1e artifacts had good excuses. Others
did not.

> Most of my artifacts only have negative effects on people who have no
> business using them.

Artifacts that have negative effects on bystanders and the local
environment are good too, if the PCs are not total psychopaths.

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <4224FD04.9010007@sgeobviousinc.com>,
Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>Murf wrote:
>>
>> This introduces the weirdness in some of the side effects etc. Also -
>> it makes for good plot development - and remember that artifacts should
>> not sprinkle campaigns like potions of healing.
>
> And why not? If the PCs are playing on a high-power level...

Do you have artifact creation rules in your campaign? If so, care to share
them?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> In article <4224FD04.9010007@sgeobviousinc.com>,
> Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>>Murf wrote:
>>
>>>This introduces the weirdness in some of the side effects etc. Also -
>>>it makes for good plot development - and remember that artifacts should
>>>not sprinkle campaigns like potions of healing.
>>
>> And why not? If the PCs are playing on a high-power level...
>
>
> Do you have artifact creation rules in your campaign? If so, care to share
> them?

Artifacts are unique. If a player wants to make something of that
high power, they have to come up with the methodology and
justification. Usually, though not always, they need the assistance of
some being that knows about making things at that level -- a god, the
mysterious mage Khoros, etc. The basic process can be derived from the
procedures for making an equivalent type of item on a lesser scale --
that is, if you want to make the Sword of the Seven Dragons, you would
probably start from the basic procedures to make any magical sword and
then go from there. (you don't HAVE to, as there are other ways, but
that's the most obvious).

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I never liked the random disadvantages much, but I feel items of that
power rightly require disadvantages. Otherwise, once obtained, the
over-powerful item will constantly be used, and nothing will prevent
that character/party from becoming all-powerful in your campaign world.
The disadvantages should make some sense relative to the function of
the artifact. No, disadvantages do not come from incompetent creators.
That might be true of regular magic items, but with artifacts the
reason is that a non-divine object cannot entirely contain that level of
power without "leaks". Putting that much magical power into a device
tends to have side-effects that mere mortals and people with consciences
would consider detrimental. And then there's the idea that if such a
powerful being went to the trouble to put that much of its essence into
a tool, it wants to make sure that tool is only used in the way the
creator desires. So disadvantages are the way the immortal ensures that
the mortal using his tool doesn't go off and use the artifact for
personal missions it wasn't meant for. Finally, there is the "power
corrupts" aspect. By the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely"
which suggests an artifact may have personality affecting aspects due to
the fact that it is a concentration of unimaginable power at the
disposal of a mere mortal.

I generally have a disadvantage or two to all artifacts, but they are
reasonable and logical based on the creator, purpose, and powers of the
device. Not having any disadvantage would be disasterous to campaign
balance. Giving an artifact to a PC is like giving a major magic item
such as a staff of power or a vorpal sword to a commoner. The power
goes to their heads and the PC just like the commoner just doesn't
understand moderation or proper use of the new-found power. I expect
the commoner would go seek revenge on first his enemies, then those that
wronged him, then anyone who slights him, and probably loses control and
just starts destroying things for the thrill of it since he can. The
same is likely of a PC with artifact-level powers and no restraints.

Alex

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Elven Cat Of Nine Lives

The legendary Elven Cat returns to D&D in 3.5 as a means for a very
special artifact. The proverbial 9 lives of the cat can be transferred
to a creature. Take the heart of the cat, chop it up, and mix it with
a potion of Cure Light Wounds. Drinking this, the imbiber receives an
enchantment that cannot be dispelled. Should he be killed, he receives
the benefit of True Resurrection one minute later. If surrounding
conditions are fatal, such as engulfed by a pool of lava, the creature
is resurrected in the nearest non-fatal location. The creature is also
immune to any effect that would entrap or annihilate his soul to
prevent the resurrection. The catch: once all the lives are used up,
the creature can never be brought back to life by any means, nor can
the creature be brought back by other means, including a True
Resurrection Spell, in the interim to prolong "using up" a life.

GM eyes only:

The *true* catch: The creature never realizes that the elven cat's
original life counts as that cat's first life, thus there are only 8
lives left. Optional: The imbiber's current life counts as one of his
lives, thus there are really only 7 lives left.

Inpsired by a "Tales From The Crypt" episode.

Gerald Katz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alex Johnson wrote:
> I never liked the random disadvantages much, but I feel items of that
> power rightly require disadvantages. Otherwise, once obtained, the
> over-powerful item will constantly be used, and nothing will prevent
> that character/party from becoming all-powerful in your campaign world.

As this does not, in fact, happen in my game, and I have had many PCs
in the past 25+years get artifacts without such disadvantages, you are
clearly wrong.



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

abnermintz@earthlink.net (Abner Mintz) wrote in
news:1gsprrx.f4c3a31unqx1iN%abnermintz@earthlink.net:

> them. One of them, a longsword named Edge, they have
>

[neat disads for super-sharp sword snipped]

I like that very much--not just a random collection
of effects from table V and VI (or whatever they
were) but a natural consequence of the artifact's
special ability. Indeed, you'd need a special
justification for the sword *not* to have that
disadvantage, imho.

Me, I'm a big chicken; I find the disads to artifacts
so scary I generally don't use them. Of course that's
for 1E/2E ( & 4E ); I haven't yet run into artifacts
in 3E.

--
Dave Empey

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Sea Wasp wrote:
> Alex Johnson wrote:
>
>> I never liked the random disadvantages much, but I feel items of that
>> power rightly require disadvantages. Otherwise, once obtained, the
>> over-powerful item will constantly be used, and nothing will prevent
>> that character/party from becoming all-powerful in your campaign world.
>
>
> As this does not, in fact, happen in my game, and I have had many
> PCs in the past 25+years get artifacts without such disadvantages, you
> are clearly wrong.

Correction: I am clearly wrong /in your campaign/. I don't see your
limited statement as sufficient to declare I am entirely wrong.

But since it doesn't happen in your campaign, why don't you tell me why
your players don't get out of control with super-items in their
possession? Do you do something? Are they just really good players who
don't grab for power and rewards all the time? What's the deal?


Alex

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-F95F41.10385902032005@individual.net...

> Artifacts that have negative effects on bystanders and the local
> environment are good too, if the PCs are not total psychopaths.

That can work nicely. For example, if you had a healing artifact that took
the healing energy from surrounding plants, wildlife, etc.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Alex Johnson" <compuwiz@jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:d0777p$gc4$1@news01.intel.com...
>I never liked the random disadvantages much, but I feel items of that power
>rightly require disadvantages. Otherwise, once obtained, the over-powerful
>item will constantly be used, and nothing will prevent that character/party
>from becoming all-powerful in your campaign world.

....except, of course, appropriately powerful challenges.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Alex Johnson" <compuwiz@jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:d09od6$mfr$1@news01.intel.com...
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>> Alex Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> I never liked the random disadvantages much, but I feel items of that
>>> power rightly require disadvantages. Otherwise, once obtained, the
>>> over-powerful item will constantly be used, and nothing will prevent
>>> that character/party from becoming all-powerful in your campaign world.

>> As this does not, in fact, happen in my game, and I have had many PCs
>> in the past 25+years get artifacts without such disadvantages, you are
>> clearly wrong.

> Correction: I am clearly wrong /in your campaign/. I don't see your
> limited statement as sufficient to declare I am entirely wrong.

You are entirely wrong, unless you just decide that the PCs are all-powerful
by GM fiat. You could do the same thing with mundane magic items. There is
always a tougher challenge out there.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 08:38:45 -0500, Alex Johnson <compuwiz@jhu.edu>
wrote:

>Sea Wasp wrote:
>> Alex Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> I never liked the random disadvantages much, but I feel items of that
>>> power rightly require disadvantages. Otherwise, once obtained, the
>>> over-powerful item will constantly be used, and nothing will prevent
>>> that character/party from becoming all-powerful in your campaign world.
>>
>>
>> As this does not, in fact, happen in my game, and I have had many
>> PCs in the past 25+years get artifacts without such disadvantages, you
>> are clearly wrong.
>
>Correction: I am clearly wrong /in your campaign/. I don't see your
>limited statement as sufficient to declare I am entirely wrong.
>
>But since it doesn't happen in your campaign, why don't you tell me why
>your players don't get out of control with super-items in their
>possession? Do you do something? Are they just really good players who
>don't grab for power and rewards all the time? What's the deal?

Consideration 1: No matter how powerful an item is, that doesn't
matter if the power in question is irrelevant. You can't use
Oppenheimers Orb against an opponent standing 5 feet away from you.
In fact if you're a good guy you can't use it on one of your cities at
all. And the ability to control large swathes of plantlife isn't
going to do you much good in a desert.

Consideration 2: Even when you can make the super power relevant,
it's not like the GM can't oppose you with even greater powers. The
characters will never become all powerful if you don't want them to
be.

Consideration 3: Most "artifacts" aren't THAT powerful in the first
place.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> typed:

>Alex Johnson wrote:
>> I never liked the random disadvantages much, but I feel items of that
>> power rightly require disadvantages. Otherwise, once obtained, the
>> over-powerful item will constantly be used, and nothing will prevent
>> that character/party from becoming all-powerful in your campaign world.
>
> As this does not, in fact, happen in my game, and I have had many PCs
>in the past 25+years get artifacts without such disadvantages, you are
>clearly wrong.

That's because in your games, Galactus, Son Goku and Lina Inverse
would be considered wusses so the odd artifact doesn't make a jot of
difference.

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alex Johnson wrote:
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> Alex Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> I never liked the random disadvantages much, but I feel items of that
>>> power rightly require disadvantages. Otherwise, once obtained, the
>>> over-powerful item will constantly be used, and nothing will prevent
>>> that character/party from becoming all-powerful in your campaign world.
>>
>>
>>
>> As this does not, in fact, happen in my game, and I have had many
>> PCs in the past 25+years get artifacts without such disadvantages, you
>> are clearly wrong.
>
>
> Correction: I am clearly wrong /in your campaign/. I don't see your
> limited statement as sufficient to declare I am entirely wrong.

Based on your statement above: "NOTHING will prevent... in YOUR
campaign world", I'd say, yes, it's dead wrong, because you clearly
AREN'T talking about just your world, but clearly directing it towards
the entire group -- by implication, not just my campaign, but in ANY
campaign your assertion is that NOTHING will prevent the
character/party from becoming all-powerful.

>
> But since it doesn't happen in your campaign, why don't you tell me why
> your players don't get out of control with super-items in their
> possession? Do you do something? Are they just really good players who
> don't grab for power and rewards all the time? What's the deal?

Simple. Yes, they're good players. They play characters. Power is
used for whatever their goals are. And, of course, I'm more powerful
than they are, being God Almighty. So are many other things. If
they're very powerful, then eventually they run into appropriate
challenges. "If You Can Do It, They Can Too" is the only rule that
really matters, outside of "Make sure it's a fun game".

The players have had artifacts capable of literally rearranging the
landscape; that's how Avalanche Pass became Avalanche Gap, when
Tobimar Silverun, using the Rekka Yoroi, went up against one of the
Ma-Sho and underlings, and blew away the entire pass and the mountains
on either side.

Obviously, they were not "all-powerful". Unless the artifact you're
handing them IS "All-powerful", there's plenty left for them to do.
They'll just be playing in a bigger league than they were before.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jim Davies wrote:
> Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> typed:
>
>
>>Alex Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>I never liked the random disadvantages much, but I feel items of that
>>>power rightly require disadvantages. Otherwise, once obtained, the
>>>over-powerful item will constantly be used, and nothing will prevent
>>>that character/party from becoming all-powerful in your campaign world.
>>
>> As this does not, in fact, happen in my game, and I have had many PCs
>>in the past 25+years get artifacts without such disadvantages, you are
>>clearly wrong.
>
>
> That's because in your games, Galactus, Son Goku and Lina Inverse
> would be considered wusses so the odd artifact doesn't make a jot of
> difference.

There is NO game in which Goku is a wuss. Except when it comes to his
wife, but that's a separate issue.

Even in the current campaign, which is at a power level that makes my
players shudder in awe and is beyond anything I've ever run before,
the name "Son Goku" is not uttered lightly by the other side; they
really, REALLY hope he's dead now, because they do NOT want him coming
back.





--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Sea Wasp wrote:
> A good thing. Oh, if you have a disadvantage that makes DESIGN sense
> -- the One Ring didn't HAVE disadvantages from its CREATOR'S point of
> view -- that's fine, but an artifact of Good being used by someone
> worthy shouldn't have ANY disadvantages. If you're powerful enough to
> make an artifact, you shouldn't be so incompetent as to make one that by
> accident shrinks the user every couple of times he uses a power, or
> turns him random colors, or any of the idiotic things that used to show
> up in the old artifacts.

But those aren't accidents, they're intentional. The shrinking happened to
everyone else, but on him, since his race couldn't be changed, and the random
colours happened because the mage saw only in black and white.
--
"... to satisfy the honours and place, I had to leave her in silence ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))