ideas that need to go away

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:42 am

icyshadowlord wrote:It wasn't broken only by magic items, but like I said...it's a story for another time. Also, I find it amusing that instead of staying on-topic, some people just love to jump at the chance to try and troll others. Edit: I can also see why you have a signature like that, Kaelik.

You shouldn't confuse trolling with condemnation. If I was doing it to get a rise, that might be trolling (I'm not even sure what trolling really is, but it probably requires at least that). That I think it's true and said it, is not itself trolling. You should be a better DM before complaining about magic items ruining your campaign like it's an actual problem, just like I would become a doctor before I started talking about problems with medical practices.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:52 am

I wasn't really complaining, and the players were generally satisfied with my campaign (thus proving that I am not as bad a DM as you might think) until the last encounter, which went wrong for completely unrelated reasons. The magic item issue was a problem that I did want to just complain about, even though it wasn't that big a problem.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:04 am

icyshadowlord wrote:and the players were generally satisfied with my campaign (thus proving that I am not as bad a DM as you might think)

That some people who we don't know, but by the Kaelik Corollary to Sturgeons Law are probably idiots liked something doesn't mean you are not a terrible person, and has nothing to do with your terrible personhood, which comes from complaining about something that isn't a problem, not from whether your game is actually shitty or not.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:07 am

...you are rather amusing, but you are only de-railing the thread by calling me terrible despite having no idea of me OR my group.

Actually, I think that the de-railing makes YOU the terrible person. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, KAELIK?! YOU SICK FUCK!!

But you can keep going on, because it's not like I'll start to care about your opinion any time soon. (And I could put you on Ignore anyway)

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:18 pm

Naw, you just gotta translate what Kaelik is saying. If he calls you a fucking idiot, that's like a neurotypical saying "Hi, how are you doing today, good sir?"

It's just how he communicates with people.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:21 pm

Fuchs wrote:What's wrong with wishlists?

it aint crhistmas, and the DM isnt your daddy.

the idea of a "wish"-list is a childish thing. adults have a "bucket"-list.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:12 pm

I wish list makes things less interesting. I get excited when we beat an encounter and get PHAT LOOT! But when I have a list of things that I know I'm going to get, the loot gathering becomes "Oh I got that +2 Wis item I was promised" instead of "Hey I just found a +2 Wis item!"

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:09 pm

Yeah, but I'd rather get the fancy sword I wanted, instead of the "cool" scythe I will hate.

Until my DM gets telepathic powers or prescience I'd go with wishlist over DM chosen treasure.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:13 pm

Fuchs wrote:Yeah, but I'd rather get the fancy sword I wanted, instead of the "cool" scythe I will hate.

Until my DM gets telepathic powers or prescience I'd go with wishlist over DM chosen treasure.

maybe what you WANT, isnt what you or the party NEEDS?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:20 pm

Fuchs wrote:Yeah, but I'd rather get the fancy sword I wanted, instead of the "cool" scythe I will hate.

But therein lies the paradox, doesn't it? I'd rather get a hand full of Exodia instead two Exodia pieces and the others search aiders, but if I always got a hand full of Exodia I'd find the game boring pretty quickly. So in order to enjoy the occasions where I had an Exodia hand I would need to have some suboptimal hands. But if the choices are between 'optimal' and 'suboptimal' how am I going to break out of the pattern of always choosing 'optimal'? I don't think anyone really goes 'I am going to forgo picking up a +4 frost bastard sword this level even though that's my top pick so I will enjoy the +5 frost bastard sword I later get more than if I had the choice of getting both'.

I strongly think that for people to get any excitement over the things they want, they have to get things that they'll use but don't exactly want. So while it's bad policy to give a +3 scythe to someone happily using a +3 rapier, it's not to give a +5 scythe to someone using a +3 rapier. If you always gave them (or let them pick) a +5 rapier the +5 rapier would be boring.

Of course since players are caught in a Prisoner's Dilemma and knowledge of DMs is imperfect (and also a target for blame), this is a really strong argument to make for the system to go to randomized treasure.

Obviously you'll have to fix some other things in the game. If I'm a mid-level 4E rogue with no expansion options I'm going to regard a +6 maul a trash drop even if I'm stuck using an outdated +2 dagger. But I think that weapon-type dependency should be thrown out of the game to begin with.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:20 pm

Fuchs wrote:Yeah, but I'd rather get the fancy sword I wanted, instead of the "cool" scythe I will hate.

This is why magical items should remain in DM books and PCs shouldn't be encouraged to see them. If you never knew the fancy sword existed, you wouldn't be upset you didn't get it.

There's way too much player entitlement these days.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:27 pm

In addition to randomized treasure drops, there should be some kind of salvage system. Basically, you should be able to convert any three +2 weapons into one of whatever +2 weapon you want, but not by selling them and using the funds to buy your preferred weapon. Instead, by breaking apart your +2 scythe, +2 axe, and +2 hammer, you salvage enough +2 Weaponium to make the +2 rapier you really want. You also need to be able to use the scythe, axe, or hammer in the meantime.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:33 pm

Swordslinger wrote:This is why magical items should remain in DM books and PCs shouldn't be encouraged to see them. If you never knew the fancy sword existed, you wouldn't be upset you didn't get it.

1.) A reward that the PCs don't know exists is effectively random to them even if the process is not. Unfortunately as you noted this requires deception on several parties' parts, since player awareness of the arbitration at any level spoils the surprise. It's an unsteady pact of treaties that uses incorrigibility to fake randomness and can fall apart at several points--i.e. one of the PCs DMs in another game so has to see the charts, one of the PCs buys the book as a gift for the DM but checks to make sure that the items are balanced, simple human curiousity, etc..

So instead of doing that why not just open up the black box so that people see what's going on but make the result random anyway?

2.) Knowing the range of rewards can be motivating in a 'stimulate the reptilian cortex' part of the brain. In terms of payout having a list of winning reels but not announcing the prizes for a particular combination (just that there's a range of payouts from 5 tokens to 10,000 and it's always randomized) is less motivating than having a discrete range where players know ahead of time that three cherries = 1000 tokens, 3 7s = 10000, 3 hearts = 5 tokens, etc.. This is even if the results are mathematically fair.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:48 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:So instead of doing that why not just open up the black box so that people see what's going on but make the result random anyway?

because for some the idea of DM fiat is so distasteful they cant get beyond it, even allowing for anything to be in the black box to be drawn randomly, they will think the DM is hidding or obscuring something from them..maybe not all magic items are on the list? maybe its only a bunch of swords? why isnt there a specific item in for each member of each class in the party so everyone gets what they need? HEY Bob got the item X and the same class as me, but I cant sue item Y, and that is what i got and Bob wont trade with me!

that is why they wanted wishlists, so the temper tantrums would stop, because D&D is about the DM babysitting the players and have to give them all they want or they will tell their parents the DM did bad things to them while babysitting them, and...blah blah rumble grumble....dfjfhg gkhj gohg

[/rant]

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:08 pm

Chamomile wrote:In addition to randomized treasure drops, there should be some kind of salvage system.

That just recreates the original problem on a smaller scale. You don't know when you'll get the +2 Rapier but you know that you'll get it within 1-3 more treasure hauls.

There shouldn't be any way for people to cash out suboptimal drops for optimal drops short of DM fiat or intraparty trading (because that's unavoidable sort of some heavy-handed mechanic like automatic item bonding or some shit) because then people will just fail conservative and expect to get the +2 Rapier at level 8 (when they get enough drops to force a convert) instead of level 7 (when +2 rapiers actually start dropping). There needs to be a chance to never get a +2 rapier in order for the +2 rapier to mean anything at all.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:08 pm

Ok, here's a question for those who say wishlists are badwrongfun.

Is it wrong to let your dm know that you'd really like to find something specific, and then just leaving it up to him?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:14 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:Ok, here's a question for those who say wishlists are badwrongfun.

Is it wrong to let your dm know that you'd really like to find something specific, and then just leaving it up to him?

you are trying to equate to badwrongfun, rather than what others view it as which is munchkinism.

munchkinism isnt badwrongfun, if everyone likes that. for those who dont, well the DM might just not like munchkins.

someone shouldnt make a character concept of wanting Weapon Y when they level up later in the game. that is a problem with character builds as opposed to character concepts.

if someone told me that as a DM, i would look at them and say: "that's nice."

i dont play, "hey i want the rod of lordly might game", nor would i run one.

player saying "i want" = problem player, as the DM isnt there for that one player.

also there is a problem i am sure i have mentioned elsewhere on this, that what the player wants, might not be useful for the rest of the game. a flametongue weapon when going into a fire demons nest....

shouild the DM give the flametongue that is wanted, or the icetongue he had planned and would actually be useful to the players and the group?

who is to blame if the treasure found as wanted, has no use tot he game? the DM for giving it, or the player for requesting it?

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:23 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote: 1.) A reward that the PCs don't know exists is effectively random to them even if the process is not. Unfortunately as you noted this requires deception on several parties' parts, since player awareness of the arbitration at any level spoils the surprise. It's an unsteady pact of treaties that uses incorrigibility to fake randomness and can fall apart at several points--i.e. one of the PCs DMs in another game so has to see the charts, one of the PCs buys the book as a gift for the DM but checks to make sure that the items are balanced, simple human curiousity, etc..

So instead of doing that why not just open up the black box so that people
see what's going on but make the result random anyway?

The only real problem with random is when magic items are necessary for survival in some way. Sometimes the party just needs that +2 sword to compete, it can be a +2 flaming sword or a +2 blessed blade, but it has to be some kind of +2 weapon.

Of course, you can fix that by writing out the need for bonus items entirely, something relatively easy to do in 4E (because you only have three types of bonus granting items, weapon, armor, amulet). 3E, that would be very tricky, due to the simple number of bonus and mandatory items you need. Stat bonuses, save bonuses, movement bonuses, attack bonuses, several types of AC bonuses, see invisibility item, etc.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:26 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote: Of course since players are caught in a Prisoner's Dilemma

Wat.

I know you mean the game theory one, not the literal one, but still, what?

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:07 pm

Well, I am not going to use a scythe, no matter how good it is, since I find it silly and don't want to play a scythe user. So, the range of things I am using is narrow.

Desdan_Mervolam · Post by **Desdan_Mervolam** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:28 pm

Swordslinger wrote: This is why magical items should remain in DM books and PCs shouldn't be encouraged to see them. If you never knew the fancy sword existed, you wouldn't be upset you didn't get it.

There's way too much player entitlement these days.

Dude, that's asinine. If you know magic items exists at all, then there's nothing logically preventing some of those items being swords. A player whose been exposed to the fantasy genre even passingly doesn't need an official gear list to pull the GM aside and say "Hey, it'd be really awesome if I could get a ring that turned me invisible."

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:42 pm

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:
Swordslinger wrote: This is why magical items should remain in DM books and PCs shouldn't be encouraged to see them. If you never knew the fancy sword existed, you wouldn't be upset you didn't get it.

There's way too much player entitlement these days.

Dude, that's asinine. If you know magic items exists at all, then there's nothing logically preventing some of those items being swords. A player whose been exposed to the fantasy genre even passingly doesn't need an official gear list to pull the GM aside and say "Hey, it'd be really awesome if I could get a ring that turned me invisible."

and thus the problems begin because that player thinks that rings exist in the game they are currently playing that can confer magical properties to the wearer.

the main thing being said is more to the point that seeing something in a book gives that player entitlement just like buying a splatbook makes the player think they are entitled to use something from it.

player entitlement at is core is because the player's want exceeds the PCs need.

and you would be wrong thinking that just anyone would come up with a ring of invisibility. i have seen people play after watching the hobbit and lord of the rings (rankin bass) that the thought of a ring of invisibility NEVER crossed their mind.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:33 am

Swordslinger wrote:This is why magical items should remain in DM books and PCs shouldn't be encouraged to see them. If you never knew the fancy sword existed, you wouldn't be upset you didn't get it.

There's way too much player entitlement these days.

It's not metagaming or entitlement to know that magic swords exist. Let's say I'm playing a swashbuckler that values subtlety and style. If I get a magic rapier that leaves no visible wounds or makes the blade blur so it's harder to dodge, that's great, I'm happy. If I get a magic greataxe that moans and spews boiling pus around when I swing it, I'm going to be disappointed, and I probably won't use it ... even if it was the only magic item I knew about. Just being magic doesn't make an item desirable, it has to actually do something you want.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:23 am

Ice9 wrote:
Swordslinger wrote:This is why magical items should remain in DM books and PCs shouldn't be encouraged to see them. If you never knew the fancy sword existed, you wouldn't be upset you didn't get it.

There's way too much player entitlement these days.
It's not metagaming or entitlement to know that magic swords exist. Let's say I'm playing a swashbuckler that values subtlety and style. If I get a magic rapier that leaves no visible wounds or makes the blade blur so it's harder to dodge, that's great, I'm happy. If I get a magic greataxe that moans and spews boiling pus around when I swing it, I'm going to be disappointed, and I probably won't use it ... even if it was the only magic item I knew about. Just being magic doesn't make an item desirable, it has to actually do something you want.

but how often are you playing with yourself?

this player entitlement bit comes form the fact that that greatsword MUST be for the swashbuckler...but it isnt. that greatsword is for the group. have people forgotten there is a GROUP of PCs, that include the other players?

so when this treasure turns up the DM doesnt say:

"Hey Zorro the Gay Blade, here is your greatsword as part of the treasure."

what the DM does is list off the items found in a treasure, and from there the PCs decide what to do with it, take it or leave it even.

if Zoro the Gay Blade cannot get a rapier as treasure, then maybe you have to ask yourself, was there EVER any other swashbucklers around that used them for their to BE a magical one in this area, or did your want to play some out of the ordinary class, as opposed to society; cause the problem of you not being able to find one?

someone had to make a magical rapier for one to be found as treasure, and if nobody had ever used one, they how would anybody know one could be made, and why then would they make one for it to end up in this lovely pile of treasure the group must now SHARE.

Share is a key word here, because that is how treasure works, even if you have some contract that the thief gets X% for his burgling skills, while the wizard gets X+5% for his spells cast because the wizard must spend more for the benefit of the group on his components.

did Bilbo say, "damn i only got a little dagger while everyone else got a sword"? No, he was jsut happy to get some, and didnt even claim his full share.

did Bilbo join in saying the men of laketown shouldnt have any kind of wealth after losing their town to Smaug to secure it for the dwarves? No he offered some of his own, or tried to before he was forced to join in as part of the dwarves as per his contract, even though the wealth he earned per his contract was his to do as he sees fit.

so players wanting that thing for themselves need to think about the rest of the group and learn to share lest the fair no better than Thorin Oakenshield.

there are ways to distribute treasure that some dont think of, here is one often used by those i play with:

all treasure is pooled in some sort of extradimensional space and carried by an elected party member. costs of things like consumables be it arrows, or potions, or what have you are paid back to people. classes get to pick from useable items with no regards to value of this sword or that shield or the other cloak. after every character has a piece of equipment they go around again until not enough is had to go again. any REALLY good magical item that will be needed to continue on if given to the PC that can use it most. everything else is pooled into the BoH/whatever so that when it can be sold its values are added to the coinage and split up equally amongst those remaining alive.

of course expenses such as food and housing are taken from the party pool if group lodging is had, but special meals and such must come from personal treasure.

so dont think of this greataxe as intended for the swashbuckler, but as for the group, and it will get split somehow. just because it isnt the EXACT item you wanted, there should have been something for everyone...hell isnt that what 4th advises in an awkward way?

so if your DM isnt giving you things useful to the party at all and you are using standard enough classes that dont require exotic arms for treasure, then it isnt a problem that some wishlist will fix. you got other problems to worry about in that case.

but start a new thread related to treasure distribution and i will give some ideas there rather than totally derail this thread further, AFTER i watch fellowship of the ring....or at least until bilbo and frodo meet in rivendale..

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:52 am

Prak Anima wrote:Is it wrong to let your dm know that you'd really like to find something specific, and then just leaving it up to him?

For a game with a treasure advancement schedule as harried as D&D, yes. Because for the most part people don't know what they want. The DM, no matter how generous they are, has to hand out suboptimal treasure now and then. And of course you have basket weavers / powergamers / entitled assholes (on both sides) who disagree on what the optimal ratio of treasure is. It's better to just make the process random except for some rare instances.

fectin wrote:I know you mean the game theory one, not the literal one, but still, what?

I couldn't think of a better analogy. But basically what I'm getting at is that if a player maximizes their happiness by choosing some combination of suboptimal and optimal choices they're never going to actually do so because they're always going to pick 'optimal'. It actually makes people happier in the long run when they don't always get a +4 frost bastard sword but it's too much temptation to pick it.

Fuchs wrote:Well, I am not going to use a scythe, no matter how good it is, since I find it silly and don't want to play a scythe user. So, the range of things I am using is narrow.

Then give it to someone else in hopes of something better coming along. Or accept that's the price of basket-weaving.