I don't think playing for story and adventure and desiring to have some things that help define your character are mutually exclusive. Both can coexist

In terms of items, there are plenty of examples of literary characters being defined by their items, or their items having a prominent place in their story:
1) Green Lantern
2) King Arthur
3) Elric
4) Bilbo Baggins
5) Ash
6) All the D&D Cartoon characters

John

No, the two are not mutually exclusive. And yes, there are many instances of characters being strongly identified by their equipment. But for each of those characters, the moment that they gained that item was *the* defining moment of that character. The item existed to serve the story of the character. And while items of such significance surely exist in Arcanis (items like Precision) such items are rarely, if ever, going to be given out as treasure in a module.

We're talking about typical adventure rewards. They will come. Making them generic so that everyone can have one if they want one waters them down. The fact that they are rare makes them desirable. But they're not a necessity. And any methodology of making them available to PCs will only please a portion of the player base. So while I certainly don't want to stifle anyone's discussion, I think that arguing for a change of the rules is a never-ending battle that can only lead to more troubles. I don't think the reward is worth the effort, so-to-speak.

Scott

John,

I wholeheartedly disagree.

1) Green Lantern - comic book character - irrelevant to this discussion
2) King Arthur - Exclaibur was a symbol. Arthur was not defined by the sword. The quest for the Holy Grail, his betrayal by Lancelot, his battle with Mordred and Morgana had nothing to do with Excalibur.
3) Elric - Elric was a fascinating character without Stormbringer. In fact, Elric put the black sword away for at least one, if not two novels and he was just as compelling.
4) Bilbo Baggins - Again - the item was a plot device. Bilbo was not defined by the ring.
5) Ash - I have no idea who this is.
6) All the D&D Cartoon characters - the only one I agree with, but as I've said before: this isn't D&D.

I think that you're last examples is illustrative of the issue I see as the crux of all this - anytime anyone plays a fantasy game that isn't D&D, everyone wants to take parts of what they like about D&D ad force it into said game.

I agree with Scott - I don't think there's a problem to fix and attempting to do so will just alienate others and probably not make the ones complaining not very satisfied anyway.

"Shop smart! Shop S-Mart!"

"Hail to the King, baby."

You gotta know this Ash. Lord knows 1/2 of our cheesy lines in games we've played/you've ran back in the day have come from him, Henry

Hello Eddie,

John Bellando said, "literary characters", so I didn't put that together with Ash from Evil Dead movies.

I guess in theory he could also be referring to Ash from Pokemon, who is kind of defined by what he carries around rather than who and what he is

Don't make us hunt you down and lynch you ...

hehe

I was using a bit of a generality. I've since learned my lesson, Henry.

John

John.

No need to get upset.

It's really not that big of a deal.

... no love here for the green lantern ...





What do you say when you think multiple people are saying smart things? I don't know that this is a problem that needs solving. But I do believe reflecting on how items are currently distributed is a thought worthy of reflecting on.

Wilcoxon makes a fair point. As it stands the only way to get "the good stuff" is a hit and miss proposition of going through modules. You can loose out in treasure distribution because everyone wants the same item. Or if you play more than one character, you run the risk of playing a mod "with the wrong character. Worrying about either of these things does not make you

And if your PCs have zero items and but your buddy's PC has three, then I can see that you might feel there is a fairness issue.

Then again I agree completely with Deadzone. And I don't want to see a large increase in the number of magic items distributed. And I don't want to see a big change to the campaign guidelines.

Still.

I think its a false dichotomy to suggest that we have to either leave things untouched as they are or make some big change to the rules of handing out (more?) items. And even if we can't please everybody, I still think we should strive to please a wider slice of our players.

While thinking about how the campaign handles magic items it might be worth thinking about other ways for people to gain magic items besides loot at the end of a module. I did not like the idea of an Online Marketplace, but broadly speaking I think Cody was thinking on the right track. I thought an in module Marketplace make be a cool opportunity...though it doesn't seem to resonate with many people on this list. Collecting (and eventually cashing in) Favors from someone like Master Elebac could be another idea. Regardless I would like to encourage people (and authors) to think about additional/different ways to put items out there.