Weapon Styles, Basket Weaving, and Concept Obsolesence

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:43 am

If a magic item is not specially created and placed by the GM then it's just numbers with the "Magic" tag - nothing special, nothing important. No reason it cannot be traded, sold or reforged.

If it cannot be reforged or traded then it should be so important that the GM creates it by hand. And if he does that, he better does it while keeping in mind what his players like.

A GM who creates an artifact axe while knowing his players hate axes is as dumb and unfit to DM as a DM who creates an adventure in the frozen north knowing his players hate to adventure there.

So, yeah, that means that a GM better know what his players find cool and stylish, and what they loathe, before he tries to force some shit they hate on them just ebcause he thinks that's cool.

That's about as sad as the father buying a model railway for his son, who doesn't want it, instead of the model car the kid wants, just because dear daddy thinks it's fun and he never had one as a kid.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:48 am

And before someone comes up with lore and traction and all: It doesn't matter what the DMG calls an artifact, if it's something the players do not find cool you (the GM) either change it into something that is seen as cool before you introduce it in game, or you don't use it.

It's the same as when you cook for your friends: If you insists in making dishes you know they don't like you're just an ass.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:49 am

Fuchs wrote:A GM who creates an artifact axe while knowing his players hate axes is as dumb and unfit to DM as a DM who creates an adventure in the frozen north knowing his players hate to adventure there.

Indeed, when my players play 4 Wizards, that goes back in time and completely erases all physical weapons from existence.

The very idea that a party of people who don't use axes could come across some kind of dwarf or orc, or something, that uses an axe, is fucking ludicrous.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:53 am

Kaelik wrote:
Fuchs wrote:A GM who creates an artifact axe while knowing his players hate axes is as dumb and unfit to DM as a DM who creates an adventure in the frozen north knowing his players hate to adventure there.
Indeed, when my players play 4 Wizards, that goes back in time and completely erases all physical weapons from existence.

The very idea that a party of people who don't use axes could come across some kind of dwarf or orc, or something, that uses an axe, is fucking ludicrous.

We're talking about artifacts. Plot devices. Stuff placed by the DM, not random stuff no one gives a shit about. Of course your four wizard party doesn't get all weapons erased - but the artifacts they actually find and can loot should be stuff they can and want to use.

Again: Why would you DM an adventure in the north, knowing your players hate it? Do you cook broccoli as well when you invite your friends over, despite knowing they hate it?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:39 pm

Fuchs wrote:Again: Why would you DM an adventure in the north, knowing your players hate it? Do you cook broccoli as well when you invite your friends over, despite knowing they hate it?

Nice strawman. With 3-6 players in addition to the DM, it is entirely likely that one person disliking something coincides with a supermajority of the people at the table liking it.

Again and still: one person's desires do not override the democratic will of the table. If one player wants the story to go in one direction or another that is still just one player's vote. There are between 2 and 5 other player votes and the DM's vote (whose value ranges from "tie-breaker" to "veto" depending on the group).

You just aren't that important or interesting. Other peoples' contributions also matter. One player asking to go to the jungle does not override two players asking to go on undersea adventures instead.

-Username17

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:59 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Fuchs wrote:Again: Why would you DM an adventure in the north, knowing your players hate it? Do you cook broccoli as well when you invite your friends over, despite knowing they hate it?
Nice strawman. With 3-6 players in addition to the DM, it is entirely likely that one person disliking something coincides with a supermajority of the people at the table liking it.

Again and still: one person's desires do not override the democratic will of the table. If one player wants the story to go in one direction or another that is still just one player's vote. There are between 2 and 5 other player votes and the DM's vote (whose value ranges from "tie-breaker" to "veto" depending on the group).

You just aren't that important or interesting. Other peoples' contributions also matter. One player asking to go to the jungle does not override two players asking to go on undersea adventures instead.

-Username17

In every functional group you have compromises. "Ok, we'll go to the jungle this time, then we go underwater". If it's always "Majority rules, fuck off" then the player who gets overruled all the time will leave and find a group he has fun with.

So, your example is wrong since in a working group, people don't ride all over the minorities. If your game is not fun for all involved, something is wrong - and either the game changes, or the players change.

As long as the artifact is liked by one player, then that's ok - it'll be used. But you'd have to be a really shitty GM to create an artifact no one of your players likes. You probably have to work on that to get it that wrong.

So, yeah, if your playing with people who don't care what you want and have fun with, then get the fuck out, you're not gonna have fun.

If you DM for a group and manage to make adventures in locations they hate, filled with treasure they hate, then I wonder why they are gaming with you.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:21 pm

Welcome to Tautology Club. I get to be president because I get to be president. If you define items that matter and are important as being untransferable, then you have by definition defined every single item whose enchantment you can transfer as one which is unimportant and does not matter. Wherever you draw the line, that's the line where magic items can start to be interesting or important.

Uh here you are YET AGAIN saying that players will have artifacts, and insinuating that artifacts are the only interesting items they'll ever find.

Here's a hint, a magic item doesn't need to be in X shape to be interesting. The only reason the shape of the item matters is for the player caring about how he looks while using it. The magic item doesn't have to have world defining history behind it for the players to be interested in it. It just has to have properties that are fun and interesting to use.

I'm going repeat for like the 5th fucking time in this topic that artifacts aren't something that players are supposed to expect or get regularly. An artifact showing up even in a high level campaign is usually a once in a campaign, adventure defining experience.

Which makes this:

Actually, you're the one who is advocating clown suits. You're doing it in two ways.

First, as you'll recall from your original tirade about clown suits with bonnets and ragged trousers, that getup was defined by the top tier equipment. Since the people fapping to reforging as a solution are in fact not suggesting that it be applied to top tier equipment, that particular "clown suit" issue is completely unaffected. You are coming up with a way for peoples' outfits to remain completely static until they get top tier gear, at which point they go 100% clown suit.

Complete fucking bullshit. Because you are insinuating by top levels the characters are decked out in 100% Artifacts. Which is fucking insane. You are literally taking the word artifact, and subbing in "Any high quality gear" and pretending like the two are equivalent. They are not. In 10 years of D&D I have seen the Axe of Dwarven Lords once. I have never seen the Sword of Kas, or any of Vecna's various body parts. I've come across the deck of many things once or twice, because that's a fun one DMs like to throw in to fuck with their players. Maybe one or two others I'm not remembering right this second, but definitely never more than one at a time.

And interestingly enough? This is what D&D says is the norm. If you're playing some game where every piece of gear a player has by the time they hit level 20 is an artifact, you are playing a completely different game from everybody else. So while yes, in such a campaign where you have artifacts raining on you like candy everyone will walk around in a clown suit, in 99.99% of games this does not happen!

As for other players not liking the double axe and thinking you look like a clown wearing it, they can fuck off. I don't care if my buddy the rogue walks around in a jester's outfit, whether it's magical or not, because that's HIS aesthetic. Just like I don't mind the trophy hunter who doesn't bother to get any sort of matching gear and just takes one random piece from every enemy he kills to incorporate into his gear, and looks absolutely ridiculous for doing so. What I care about is that it was their choice to look like that, just like I care if I have a choice to define what my character looks like.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:26 pm

One could also consider that it's not the magic items that need to be interesting and special, but what you do with them.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:29 pm

Fuchs wrote:We're talking about artifacts. Plot devices. Stuff placed by the DM, not random stuff no one gives a shit about.

If you don't give a shit about it why the hell are you complaining?

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:40 pm

Kaelik wrote:Indeed, when my players play 4 Wizards, that goes back in time and completely erases all physical weapons from existence.

The very idea that a party of people who don't use axes could come across some kind of dwarf or orc, or something, that uses an axe, is fucking ludicrous.

Funny, I thought the ludicrous part was the idea that a party of 4 wizards are supposed to cream themselves over a pile of magical axes. They're magic items, right? And all magic items are awesome to everyone!!!1!!

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:44 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:
Fuchs wrote:We're talking about artifacts. Plot devices. Stuff placed by the DM, not random stuff no one gives a shit about.
If you don't give a shit about it why the hell are you complaining?

Cause my point is that the magic items you roll up randomly should be easily customizable so you can adjust them - through trade, reforging or selling and buying - to your preferred style for your character. Those magic items do not deserve to be plot-protected and treated as some special snowflake drop we should be glad for the GM to grace us with.

If it's not hand-picked and placed by the GM it's just numbers and options.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:01 pm

hogarth wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Indeed, when my players play 4 Wizards, that goes back in time and completely erases all physical weapons from existence.

The very idea that a party of people who don't use axes could come across some kind of dwarf or orc, or something, that uses an axe, is fucking ludicrous.
Funny, I thought the ludicrous part was the idea that a party of 4 wizards are supposed to cream themselves over a pile of magical axes. They're magic items, right? And all magic items are awesome to everyone!!!1!!

That is pretty ludicrous. Among Fuchs' heisenbergian arguments is the idea that if a group of wizards goes and beats up some orcs or dwarves or something that have magical axes, that they should get as much benefit, and indeed the same type of benefit as had they fought an enemy necromancer or illusionist.

According to Fuchs, regardless of what the opposition is or what they are depicted as using during the actual battle, that "through trade, reforging or selling and buying" the players should end up in exactly the same place equipment wise. That our team of wizards will end up with the same assortment of headbands of intellect, cloaks of resistance, and metamagic rods whether today's opposition was Drow mages, Goblin berserkers, or griffins.

And yeah, the idea is ludicrous. And while he trumpets it as a way to keep players happy, it's completely disempowering, and removes all joy from the acquisition of loot.

-Username17

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:33 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
hogarth wrote: Funny, I thought the ludicrous part was the idea that a party of 4 wizards are supposed to cream themselves over a pile of magical axes. They're magic items, right? And all magic items are awesome to everyone!!!1!!
That is pretty ludicrous. Among Fuchs' heisenbergian arguments is the idea that if a group of wizards goes and beats up some orcs or dwarves or something that have magical axes, that they should get as much benefit, and indeed the same type of benefit as had they fought an enemy necromancer or illusionist.

According to Fuchs, regardless of what the opposition is or what they are depicted as using during the actual battle, that "through trade, reforging or selling and buying" the players should end up in exactly the same place equipment wise. That our team of wizards will end up with the same assortment of headbands of intellect, cloaks of resistance, and metamagic rods whether today's opposition was Drow mages, Goblin berserkers, or griffins.

So in your D&D campaign, what is the non-ludicrous thing for a party of 4 wizards to do with a bunch of magical axes, if "trade, reforging or selling and buying" is out? Just give them away, count it as zero treasure and move on?

Desdan_Mervolam · Post by **Desdan_Mervolam** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:02 pm

It occurs to me that perhaps I am approaching this argument from the wrong angle.

This is a game where a person can study really hard, and as a result of adventuring become a half-dragon. It's also a game where you can fight with a sword for all your life, and then decdide "Fuck it, I'm gonna go learn magic" or "Pelor saved my life so from now on I'm gonna dedicate myself to the glory of his name" and become a cleric. You can seek out a legendary wizened master on top of a mountain and have him teach you mystic secrets of the universe and become a monk, or go into the woods and live off squirrels and bluebirds until you become a ranger or barbarian. And yes, it's a game where you can fight with a sword for years on end only to find a really cool axe and decide that you're an axe-guy now. All of these are entirely valid character choices (Whether they're mechanically advisable is not relevant to this discussion, thank you very much)

But major character changes like this must be the choice of the player. If a DM forces a change on to a player's character, that DM is being a dick, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if that change is "You have to take Cleric levels now" or "You are an axe-guy now", it's a dick move, because now the DM is dictating the character's advancement and not the player.

And once again, yes: The DM is the one doing this. Because the DM decided to put an axe there, and not a longsword. A table and some dice may have suggested he put the axe there, but he's the one deciding it was going to be an axe.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:29 pm

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:It occurs to me that perhaps I am approaching this argument from the wrong angle.

This is a game where a person can study really hard, and as a result of adventuring become a half-dragon. It's also a game where you can fight with a sword for all your life, and then decdide "Fuck it, I'm gonna go learn magic" or "Pelor saved my life so from now on I'm gonna dedicate myself to the glory of his name" and become a cleric. You can seek out a legendary wizened master on top of a mountain and have him teach you mystic secrets of the universe and become a monk, or go into the woods and live off squirrels and bluebirds until you become a ranger or barbarian. And yes, it's a game where you can fight with a sword for years on end only to find a really cool axe and decide that you're an axe-guy now. All of these are entirely valid character choices (Whether they're mechanically advisable is not relevant to this discussion, thank you very much)

But major character changes like this must be the choice of the player. If a DM forces a change on to a player's character, that DM is being a dick, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if that change is "You have to take Cleric levels now" or "You are an axe-guy now", it's a dick move, because now the DM is dictating the character's advancement and not the player.

And once again, yes: The DM is the one doing this. Because the DM decided to put an axe there, and not a longsword. A table and some dice may have suggested he put the axe there, but he's the one deciding it was going to be an axe.

So... if the player character loses an arm or gets bitten by a lycanthrope or in any other way gets affected in a permanent way by the opposition, that's the DM being a dick? Why do we even have adventures, if those adventures cannot affect our progress? Why don't we just write down the progression we want and then play Progress Quest?

-Username17

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:34 pm

This just in: Frank advocates limb loss rules because they make for a more unpredictable story.

Desdan_Mervolam · Post by **Desdan_Mervolam** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:34 pm

Neither of those conditions are anywhere near permanent, they last exactly as long as it takes to get to the nearest friendly temple. On the other hand, a guy who is handed an axe who doesn't want to wield an axe... is told to go pound sand because apparently the rest of the party doesn't want to help him go find a cool sword.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:42 pm

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:Neither of those conditions are anywhere near permanent, they last exactly as long as it takes to get to the nearest friendly temple. On the other hand, a guy who is handed an axe who doesn't want to wield an axe... is told to go pound sand because apparently the rest of the party doesn't want to help him go find a cool sword.

Wait... getting your limb hacked off is nowhere near permanent, but finding it advantageous to use a battle ax until something better comes along is?

That... doesn't make any fucking sense at all.

-Username17

Desdan_Mervolam · Post by **Desdan_Mervolam** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:51 pm

Because like you keep pointing out you ain't getting anything better any time soon. You keep arguing that sidequesting isn't an option because the rest of the party isn't likely to be interestd, and the DM certainly isn't cooperating.

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:06 pm

As much as I dislike Frank, he's right on this one.

@Fuchs

TTRPGs have to offer a different playing experience than MMOs, specially a different playing experience than World of Warcraft. And even on World of Warcraft, you wear the weapons and the armor of the enemies that you slay.

The biggest definition of the MMO experience is the gear grind. The way to change that is to make magical items unique and special, ala Monte Cook's take on the subject. Fungibility on any way, shape or form goes directly against that.

And for someone who defends the MMO way on what that it matters (gear grind), you sure are traumatized because your bunch of imaginary pixels had a case of Outland Clown Syndrome.

@Desdan Mervolam

Dude, if you want to control the way that your character looks all the time, play a superhero game. As I've said, the big definition of the Medieval Fantasy genre is killing dudes for their stuff, aka Murdering Hobo: The game. So you can pound sand.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:10 pm

Fuchs wrote:We're talking about artifacts. Plot devices. Stuff placed by the DM, not random stuff no one gives a shit about. Of course your four wizard party doesn't get all weapons erased - but the artifacts they actually find and can loot should be stuff they can and want to use.

Again: Why would you DM an adventure in the north, knowing your players hate it? Do you cook broccoli as well when you invite your friends over, despite knowing they hate it?

The statement applies just as much to artifacts. Why would a 4 wizard party magically turn all the artifacts in the world from swords and axes to staves? Why would having a party of 4 guys, all of whom don't use axes suddenly mean that the Dwarven King of Axelandia can't have an artifact, because it would be wrong for them to find an Axe artifact?

hogarth wrote:Funny, I thought the ludicrous part was the idea that a party of 4 wizards are supposed to cream themselves over a pile of magical axes. They're magic items, right? And all magic items are awesome to everyone!!!1!!

Protip: Try not to just assume you know what everyone else has to say about every subject based on nothing at all.

Can you find me advocating that Wizards should get excited over axes? No, of course not, because that was my first goddam post in the thread. So don't attribute stupid bullshit to me.

No, Wizards should not get excited when they find some axes. Because people should not get excited every time they find an item.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:11 pm

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:Because like you keep pointing out you ain't getting anything better any time soon. You keep arguing that sidequesting isn't an option because the rest of the party isn't likely to be interestd, and the DM certainly isn't cooperating.

Sidequesting isn't a 100% option. Every single sidequest you offer is just that: an offering. It may or may not get taken up by the other players. It could be rejected outright or merely deferred. Getting deferred may result in it being irrelevant by the time it comes up for reassessment (who wants to quest for a +2 poison glaive when you're 10th level?).

The period in which the items you'd like to get your hands on are not available and you end up using something else could last any amount of time. The campaign could literally end before it bears fruit.

So while sidequesting is the best option for getting the stuff you want, you can't go on as if it will necessarily work. Because it very easily could not. So if your druid can't settle on a polar bear (at least for now), then you can't maintain the fiction that you're getting your animals from your adventure locations.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:41 pm

Desdan M wrote: But major character changes like this must be the choice of the player.

This is so fucking horseshit on so many levels.

1.) Since when is weapon styles like axes or swords a major character change? Even at a phase of the game when people tactically care about the difference between a glaive and a pike, it's a bullshit tiny part of his character. People would seriously be more put off by Robin Hood shaving his head and goatee and switching to black leather (while keeping the longbow) than Robin Hood keeping his iconic beard and outfit but switching to throwing daggers because his left hand was cursed. And people would be even more put off by him cheating on Maid Marian or taking bribes from the Sheriff of Nottingham to put up the appearance of rebelling without actually doing so. This kind of fetishism is STUPID because you're flipping out about something that makes such a tiny difference in the long run.

2.) All major changes to a character must be approved by the DM? Oh really now? I can name a ton of major changes to a character, made directly or indirectly, that a D&D DM can inflict that is more or less accepted. Such as deciding whether an ogre critical hitted you and you die unceremoniously in a ditch. Or whether your scrappy bunch of redshirt misfits gets massacred by the evil army. Or a DM deciding to have the evil overlord Charm Person your wife while you're off adventuring and convincing her to divorce you after divulging where your treasure is.

The idea that a player should have final say on every major change is a horseshit principle because no roleplaying game ever will let you do this. What every game does is allow you avenues of advancement where you have total or near-total control. Some games have different circles where your advancement is inviolate, so it is a legitimate question to ask where and where not a player to ask total control. Getting whiny about having the ability to unilaterally approve every major change is stupid.

3.) Going from principle number 2, there's simply a finite amount of control anyone can have over the game. Like it or not, a statement of 'a player should have control over every major change' has not only not been implemented in any real TTRPG but it's impossible to implement. If nothing else you're running up against the whims of democracy and if you don't like THAT you should be writing your own damn story by yourself. But even if you were able to wrangle it out it'd still lead to shitty stories.

People can only get a handle over so many things at once before they start to lose control of things. Having too many choices, especially ones that are really different and have major consequences, demotivates people in the long run. So the question really becomes 'given a finite amount of things you can give a player control over, what should be given to maximize play experience?'. In my opinion magical items (let alone magical item TYPE) is pretty damn far down the list. When you allow people to make such discrete choices about magical items you push something else off, there's no way around it. If you let players control the magical item minigame you have to eliminate the stronghold building minigame. Or the army leadership minigame. Or the contact minigame. Or the background building minigame.

Character description is not free. Has never been, has never will be. People just run up against a hard limit of what they can remember and what they will care about. But the gap between what you can describe or determine about a character and what will actually be fun is still pretty big. Hence why it's both desired and required for the DM and your fellow players to pick up the rest of the storytelling burden. And yes, sometimes this means things like you getting bitten by a werewolf or them telling you to ditch your shark animal companion or for you to stop dicking around in church politics because they're heading deep in the jungle or to resign your commission as general of the army. And if the more you elevate 'have a particular weapon type' the more likely it is that there won't be playspace for something that does matter.

Damocles · Post by **Damocles** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:48 pm

Throwing this out there. One of my characters in a campaign recently lost an arm.

He still uses a fucking sword

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:57 pm

hogarth wrote:Frank, it doesn't matter whether you state your preferences out loud in an official wishlist or not -- getting a +3 blowgun will always be more disappointing than getting a +3 longbow in D&D.

Actually I can think of a number of conditions where this is flat out not the case; it depends a lot on the specific edition and race / class combinations. I will grant you, they tend to be very rare, but they do exist.