Weapon Styles, Basket Weaving, and Concept Obsolesence

[andreww]

like i said, settings are NOT the default of the AD&D game, and do NOT define the game, just their own setting.

I notice that you are ignoring the existence of the manual of the Planes. Released for 1e in 1987 with extensive information on travelling to the inner and outer planes, how you survived there, who or what you might meet and the sorts of adventures you might have there.

You can dislike planar travel as much as you want but denying it was a real and regular part of play is simply delusional on your part. Yes lots of people didnt use the planes but plenty of people did or we wouldnt have quite as much material for it. There was clearly a demand and TSR filled it.

[Ice9]

at those higher levels, in order to do such things the PCs should MAKE THEIR OWN FUCKING GEAR FOR THE SPECIALIZED TASKS THEY WISH TO ACCOMPLISH!

Of course, how could I not see it? Letting people modify the items they get would destroy the flavor. But if they totally ignore those items and just use home-made stuff, then the flavor is preserved! Brilliant!

[shadzar]

1. modules are accessories, NOT the game.

Your anecdote is no more viable than my anecdote. we certainly engaged in a lot of planar hopping adventures back in 1E. Reitiring characters was uncommon and planar travel was fairly frequent. The DMG supported that as an option and Manual of the Planes expanded on it. Hell, MM1 and MM2 were full of high level threats out on the Planes just waiting to be used as major adversaries for higher level groups.

The Known Planes of Existence, as described in the PHB, offer nearly endless possibilities for AD&D play, although some of these new realms will no longer be fantasy as found in sword & sorcery or myth but verge on that of science fiction, horror, or jsut about anything else desired.

so unless you want to leave fantasy sword & sorcery or myth... no need to even look at them, and MANY didnt.

I like how you bolded the although but ignored the some. Planar travel and planar adventures can very easily be found firmly in the sword and sorvery genre especially when that genre stretches from world bound Conan to planet travelling John Carter of Mars to regularly planar travelling Elric and other Eternal Champion stories.

MotP... there you go again trying to justify a claim about AD&D by using a supplement. MotP was not used by all.. say it with me:

"MotP was NOT used by everyone."

do you understand now.. it as a supplement. of course the MM's had extra-planr creatures,because there was spells that brought them into being. it didnt mean you had to go off and fight modrons or Asmodai.

they had dinosaurs also, how often did you fight a brontosaurus or allasaurus?

"select to end of line", only selects to end of line....so blame phpBB2 and its textarea as part of the posting.php from field.

not everyone wanted Elric, or Carter style games.

again, presence as an OPTION, doesnt mean default use in play, such as with implied in later editions like 4th.

3rd did not have planar travel by default in the core game...only after adding options to it did it, like 1st have planar travel.

so the entire point of it for acquiring weapons is still MOOT, since 3.x you can make your own damn ones at 3rd level as a wizard. you dont need to buy or loot ANY.

THAT is the default function of 3rd/3.5 edition. MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN WEAPONS! as it is available to ALL levels, wherein planar travel is NOT.

it should also tell you the expected power of weapons...o every 3 levels you should be expected to have another +1...and you can make it yourself.

[shadzar]

where people used planar currency to buy things. Or has that been redacted from the history books now?

Astral Diamonds, 4th edition.

[shadzar]

like i said, settings are NOT the default of the AD&D game, and do NOT define the game, just their own setting.

I notice that you are ignoring the existence of the manual of the Planes. Released for 1e in 1987

no not ignoring it, but ignoring its viability to say ANYTHING about 1st edition, considering MM was released in '77, PHB '78, DMG '79...only a decade AFTER AD&D was released did MotP come into existence, and only 2 years before 2nd edition came out.

not to mention MotP came out 2 years AFTER Gary was fired...

the ONLY core book not MM/PHB/DMG that is considered is what people call 1.5 UA. otherwise the core books are MM/PHB/DMG. therein lies the game, anything else is extraneous supplement. MotP is basically in the same class of book as WSG and DSG, to finish off the trifecta.

[shadzar]

at those higher levels, in order to do such things the PCs should MAKE THEIR OWN FUCKING GEAR FOR THE SPECIALIZED TASKS THEY WISH TO ACCOMPLISH!

Of course, how could I not see it? Letting people modify the items they get would destroy the flavor. But if they totally ignore those items and just use home-made stuff, then the flavor is preserved! Brilliant!

you dont relaly have room to bitch you didnt get the right weapon in treasure, when you can sooooo easily make you own damn weapons.

making your own destroys no flavor, since under the concept being stressed, you arent changing an existing weapon to a new form, but making a new one itself.

also provisions are in place to upgrade a magic item under 3.x with the same rules.

to make a +1 longsword into a +2 vorpal longsword, the cost is that of the +2 and vorpal enhancement, minus the +1 enhancement already there.

really no excuse what so fucking ever to complain about anything found in treasure.

adding NEW enhancements to existing items (magical or non) i dont think ANYONE has disputed in this thread, it was the fact of changing the items form, or transferring the enhancement to another item that shit is hitting the fan.

[Username17]

And maybe I would stop treating your complains against Fuch's stuff as a response to my posts if you stopped referring to everything you don't like interchangeably.

You incredible piece of shit. You responded to something I addressed to and about Fuchs by name. There are four separate arrows in the katana fetishist's quiver, and only Fuchs has so far announced that all of them should be used. Read Fuchs' actual fucking fucked up arguments before you chastise me for conflating them. You're the one who said that no one had advocated something that they had in fact actually advocated, so you're just wrong. And a piece of shit. And about one more post of bullshit before you go on ignore like Chamomile did.

Do not make Heisenberg's Argument. Stake out a position and fucking defend that position. If someone is responding to one of the more than a dozen other people participating in this fucking conversation, do not jump in and announce that they are strawmanning just because they are responding to a position that isn't yours. News flash: if someone is talking about a different person's position, it is incredibly fucking likely that the position being attacked differs from your own in some key way.

Now as it happens, Fuchs has advocated wishlists and reforging and sidequests and auction houses and DM fiat item upgrades if any of those methods fail. All of them. At the same time. So if you think I am strawmanning the katanaist position even slightly: no, i am not. Fuchs really seriously advocated giving players their exact wishlist items exactly on schedule using any excuse at all and if no excuse presented itself to retcon one in and have the desired items show up on schedule with no ergo hoc explanation at all. That's not a strawman, that's Fuchs' actual position. And if you feel that is fucking stupid, you should possibly be yelling at Fuchs, and not at me.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

And I've yet to see any compelling argument why letting players have what they want is bad. Other than the stupid shitty line about "if they always get what they want, eventually, then they are not happy when they don't get what they want right away, so we better don't get them anything they want, unless the dice say so".

I don't really get why you think people react like that - apart maybe from a small amount of douchebags, who are still numbering less than the small amount of DMs who masturbate to their own creation so much they cannot allow players to pick their character's appearance.

The average player is happy to get what they want. And a good DM gives the players what they want. Eventually, in some cases. But it takes a truly asshole GM to randomly roll up their treasure and forbid them from swapping the shit out for stuff they want.

[Username17]

Now that said, I think that there should be a mechanic where players can submit a list of possible treasure drops that the DM randomly rolls up.

Not because I think it will improve gameplay, because it won't, but because it improves sales. Players trying to manipulate the treasure spread by not buying certain books (to decrease the chance of rolling something they don't want) reduces sales. But this is one of those points when what's good for business isn't what's good for games, like sexy artwork or alignment debates.

From a purely marketing standpoint, I can see the appeal. People will not want Magic Item Vault 3 if they can't actually get the items from it in-game. That doesn't change the fact that wishlists are very poisonous to the game or the fact that auction houses drain all the fun out of everything.

A decent compromise would be to have every item entry have a Research DC, a Sidequest Level, and a forge cost measured in magic gems or dragon shards or something. That way, players could open your new book with wiz magic items, find one they really like, and then go hunting for it in character.

Note that this still does not save the katana fetishist as a character. Just because you put down a Research DC and a sidequest level for a Shadow Katana doesn't mean that you'll actually make that test or that the other players will be willing to accompany you on a 10th level sidequest for a Shadow Katana when they all have other shit that they would like to be doing.

But by giving the items places in the world you manage to avoid making the items feel like they are meaningless catalog entries or mass produced models that come in custom colors. It's enough to keep most players happy with the stuff they have without causing players to feel sufficiently entitled that the items lose their capacity to bring joy. Getting a Doom Blade is still an achievement.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

Note that this still does not save the katana fetishist as a character. Just because you put down a Research DC and a sidequest level for a Shadow Katana doesn't mean that you'll actually make that test or that the other players will be willing to accompany you on a 10th level sidequest for a Shadow Katana when they all have other shit that they would like to be doing.

But by giving the items places in the world you manage to avoid making the items feel like they are meaningless catalog entries or mass produced models that come in custom colors. It's enough to keep most players happy with the stuff they have without causing players to feel sufficiently entitled that the items lose their capacity to bring joy. Getting a Doom Blade is still an achievement.

-Username17

Do you have any idea how normal people play such games? It works like this: You help me with my side quest, I help you with yours. That works in MMOGs, and it works in table top as well - at least in normal, working groups. Please do not use assholes who will sideline other players, uncaring of whether those have fun or not, and douchebags who keep playing even after getting sidelined, as your baseline.

Your entire idea that there's no guarantee that the other players will go on your side quest is totally wrong, friends and gaming groups, evne MMOG guilds, do not work like you claim.

And you also are wrong about magic items: The less they conform to a player's wishes, the less of an attachment he has to them. That's just human nature: Stuff I don't really want I am more willing to get rid of than stuff I really like.

And finally, players are entitled to have fun in a game. If they are not having fun, you are doing it wrong. And for a big part of the current generation, having fun means playing the character they want, including its gear and looks.

You are out of touch with reality, Frank.

Edit: And for the achievement argument: Most players nowadays do not think getting lucky with random tables is an achievement. It just means they tried enough times to get the drop, like in an MMOG. Playing the loot lottery is about as smart as playing the real lottery. A game should not simply place so much on simple luck. As MMOGs show again - faced with random loot lottery, or quests that guarantee a certain loot, people will do the quests, and trade for the random drops.

Edit 2: And if they do get lucky, and a nice item drops randomly, at least as often as not it becomes trade bait since out there is another item the player wants more.

[Username17]

Fuchs, how many fucking sidequests do you think a 6 person team goes on during a campaign?

If it's less than 18, then guaranteeing your magic katana, your nightmare katana, and your artifact katana is not possible.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

Fuchs, how many fucking sidequests do you think a 6 person team goes on during a campaign?

If it's less than 18, then guaranteeing your magic katana, your nightmare katana, and your artifact katana is not possible.

-Username17

That depends on how long those side quests are, and how long the campaign goes on. Though if the campaign is short then you won't need too many item upgrades anyway. But if we reach artifact levels, then yes, 18 side quests are easily done.

Also, as you know I advocate placing items into the main quests anyway. Of those 6, many will get their loot from the main quest if the GM is on the ball and knows what his players want, item wise.

And, to return the question to you: How many items that a player wants do you think you can get in a "random loot only" campaign? How big is the chance that I play the entire campaign, and never get a magic sword I want? If it's anthing like a real random lottery without having weighted tables, odds are I'll never even get a magic katana, much less an artifact. Or a rapier.

[violence in the media]

Do you have any idea how normal people play such games? It works like this: You help me with my side quest, I help you with yours. That works in MMOGs, and it works in table top as well - at least in normal, working groups. Please do not use assholes who will sideline other players, uncaring of whether those have fun or not, and douchebags who keep playing even after getting sidelined, as your baseline.

Your entire idea that there's no guarantee that the other players will go on your side quest is totally wrong, friends and gaming groups, evne MMOG guilds, do not work like you claim.

I can't support this statement. I've certainly never experienced this sort of harmony in play with any regularity. My experience has been quite the opposite, with people antagonizing each other and being generally dysfunctional. A lot of it is the general hassling that friends give each other, but, with groups that play together often, you're discounting the fact that Katherine the player is possibly going to oppose Jen's the player sidequest on the basis that she got her way last time, and the game ended before the group got around to what Katherine wanted to do. So fuck Jen's fire katana sidequest.

All that said, I like the idea of some magic items (run of the mill, non-artifacts) having required forms or shapes. Just like you can't put certain properties on certain weapons, I don't think you should be able to get Helm of Brilliance effects out of a nondescript headband or bandit mask, for example.

[Fuchs]

I can't support this statement. I've certainly never experienced this sort of harmony in play with any regularity. My experience has been quite the opposite, with people antagonizing each other and being generally dysfunctional. A lot of it is the general hassling that friends give each other, but, with groups that play together often, you're discounting the fact that Katherine the player is possibly going to oppose Jen's the player sidequest on the basis that she got her way last time, and the game ended before the group got around to what Katherine wanted to do. So fuck Jen's fire katana sidequest.

If the campaigns end that fast then there's even less of a reason to use random drops, since the odds are even greater than neither Katherine nor Jen will get an item they want. But otherwise, "we did your side quest before, now it's my turn" is exactly how it works and is supposed to work.

[hyzmarca]

The problem with that position is that the type of magic the item has is just as important as it's shape in terms of aesthetics, perhaps more so.

Fine, but that's a separate issue. There's a number of ways you can deal with it, and they don't have to be the same ways you deal with the physical weapon type.

The solutions that that problem all boil down to one of two things: drop enchantments that match the PCs aesthetic or let the PCs make their own enchantments.

Both are acceptable and in both cases reforging is an unnecessary mechanic.


Really, I'm not opposed to reforging as fluff. If Trolog the Babyeating Demon kills King Arthur and takes his sword, he should totally be able to break Excalibur and turn it into the Babyeater's Axe, which grants magical bonuses depending on the number of infants you've killed and/or eaten, as one last giant fuck you to the late king. I just don't think it should be a standard mechanic.

I disagree with Frank about putting the stuff the player wants in the game. You don't need a sidequest to get the Axe of the Dwarven Lords. You just need to say that big bad Venger already did that sidequest while your were busy rescuing the thief's sister and he gave it to his minion, Holvin the Dwarf Slayer, who has been using it to murder Dwarves just for the sheer perversity of it, and you'll have to take out Holvin as part of the main plot anyway.

It's pretty easy to adjust character and item histories like that. It shouldn't be done so often that it destroys verisimilitude, but it's totally alright for Meriadoc to find the only weapon on the entire planet capable of harming the Witch King, which just happens to be a short sword (and he's a short sword user), in a cave that he has to travel through as part of the main quest.

It just shouldn't turn into Progress Quest, where you trade in your flaming longsword for a flaming longsword with a slightly bigger plus every session.

[hogarth]

And I've yet to see any compelling argument why letting players have what they want is bad. Other than the stupid shitty line about "if they always get what they want, eventually, then they are not happy when they don't get what they want right away, so we better don't get them anything they want, unless the dice say so".

Right. And furthermore, even if we accept Frank's premise, his great idea of giving random treasure (except when it isn't random, like axe-wielding dwarves -- I still haven't figured out whether he's really advocating random treasure or not) wouldn't fix the issue that people would be unhappy if they never got what they wanted and/or would be bored if they always got what they wanted. The unhappiness and/or boredom would just be randomly distributed instead.

[Ice9]

And you also are wrong about magic items: The less they conform to a player's wishes, the less of an attachment he has to them. That's just human nature: Stuff I don't really want I am more willing to get rid of than stuff I really like.

This is true. I think the "clown suit" supporters are envisioning some scenario where Stupid Katana Guy (TM) is going along being annoying until suddenly, he finds a magic hammer. His eyes are opened, and he breaks free from the boring world of katana-obsession to become a more interesting and rounded character.

Except that's not what happens, at all. If you give people items that they don't like the aesthetic of, and they feel compelled to use it anyway, they will do their damndest to pretend they aren't using it. The ugly armor will have a cloak worn over it. The skull crown will mysteriously be left out of any character descriptions. The +10 rubber chicken will be used in combat, but never referred to by name, and the guy will wear a sheathed sword which does get described, so as to imply that's what he's using.

So no, I don't think it's this amazing flavor that would be a shame to alter.

[Fuchs]

The idea that you have to suck a lot to be able to appreciate when you don't suck is a bad idea.

[Chamomile]

There's a word for doing stuff you don't like in order to get to the stuff you do like: Grind. Unless you can set up some insane Skinner Box shenanigans or you don't have any competition, it's going to lose you players.

[shadzar]

And you also are wrong about magic items: The less they conform to a player's wishes, the less of an attachment he has to them. That's just human nature: Stuff I don't really want I am more willing to get rid of than stuff I really like.

And finally, players are entitled to have fun in a game. If they are not having fun, you are doing it wrong. And for a big part of the current generation, having fun means playing the character they want, including its gear and looks.

1. that is how it should be. when you find a tool that does a job better than your last one, you SHOULD stop using the old one in lieu for the new tool.
FUCK! isnt that what people keep saying that 3rd is a better tool than 2nd for them, so they use 3rd instead of 2nd?

note that in the modern world, your 4th car has less attachment than your 1st. the 1st has sentimental value, just like your 1st magic item. THIS also is human nature.

2. then that is a problem with the current generation. it is why i have advocated that game design changes should work for the game itself, not because of new players.

so many times i have said the players 3rd brought in is the problem and reason 4th edition exists, and you are only serving to prove me CORRECT.

people should have a choice to play a TTRPG and an MMO. they shouldnt both work the same way or you remove the choice. congrats for being Generation X-box. but remember a generations change, you too will get left behind. a time will come when 3rd edition isnt the supported edition, and the way YOU like to do things form your MMO world doesnt exist anymore. OH wait! that time was FOUR FUCKING YEARS AGO!

D&D is the thing the boys played with or the cool butch girls. dress-up dolls, like Barbie, was the things the girls played with.

stop trying to turn D&D into a dress-up doll game. learn the difference between a tool and a toy, and put down your blackberry and iPhone toys, and learn some skills and how to use tools.

sorry schools were wrong when you went. they should NOT be passing every 1st and 2nd grader to make them feel "loved". they should fail them if they dont meet the requirements to be able to do the next grade level. likewise this everyone should be able to play, doesnt work for games either.

how is Stephen Hawkings working out as a forward for the Lakers for ya?

D&D doesnt need to change for Generation X-Box...they can have something else made FOR them.

[Username17]

The fact is that "wishlists and treasure parcels" is the standard treasure deployment system for 4th edition. When we say that it fails and how, we aren't stabbing wildly in the dark, we have hard data. We know that are most depressing predictions for how that would turn out actually turned out to be optimistic compared to the clusterfuck it actually was. The fact is also that "markets and treasure selection" was the standard treasure deployment system for 3rd edition, and we know that and how that failed too.

When you give out wishlists and treasure parcels, the results are actually very unfair. And worse yet, the results look and feel unfair because there is nothing to hide the inherent unfairness from people. How, you ask? It goes like this:

• Each level, each player gets a treasure parcel from their wishlist. Now, the order these items are handed out can be either in strict sequential turn order (which is incredibly boring and actually just frustrates whoever's turn it is for however long it takes for the next parcel to drop), or the order can be varied (which is demonstrably unfair).
• The marginal benefit that people get from magic items that they want is not equal. You want a shield upgrade and you want a ring of protection, but the difference between having a ring of protection and not having it is significantly larger than the difference between having an upgraded shield or your old shield. Even if you give people exactly what they want in the order that they want it and the values of all the items are perfectly balanced, the marginal benefit still isn't equal and that is what the players actually see. So if the treasures are seen as gifts to specific players, the fact that the marginal benefit won't be equal is going to make it feel like favoritism.
• There has never been an edition of D&D where magic item dependence was equal between classes. The Ranger needs two scimitars, the Fighter needs a single glaive. In the treasure parcel system, you can either account for that by giving more treasure to the characters who need more treasure (which is unfair), or you can give all players equal treasure, allowing the more treasure dependent characters to be stretched thinner (which is unfair).
• When you give out treasure from wishlists, you can either allow players to choose make model and color or not. If you do, then the sense of entitlement extends to make model and color and there is literally nowhere to go but Disappointment City. If you don't, then some players will get things that are closer fits for their ideal than others and it will feel unfair.

Once you introduce the wishlist, the pretense of impartiality is gone from the treasure system and the remaining unavoidable unfairnesses of it all are construed by players as personal insults. The fairer you try to make it, the more contrived it feels until every dragon's hoard has literally one magic item that each player nominated for placement ahead of time - and even that still isn't fair even if it is completely ridiculous and counter immersive.

Again and still: this is not idle speculation or fear mongering, fourth edition actually works like this. And when 4rries aren't ranting at the unbelievers and are kvetching amongst themselves, this is what they complain about. The wishlist is a lemma with no satisfactory solution. Every possible iteration of it causes justified resentment.

As for "the Market", this is actually a 3rd edition D&D board for the most part. The fact that the Diablo II style item system of 3rd edition was basically a bad thing and needs a tremendous overhaul is hardly secret here. From people trading cottages for armor to people ditching interesting items for generically useful (but completely flavorless) bonuses, the capacity for the gold == power == gold system to completely drain the fun out of things is well established. I really should not have to go into that in any great detail.

-Username17

[shadzar]

so, Frank, 3rd and 4th both brought out this MY CHARACTER "player entitlement" that made people think they deserve the exact treasure they want, and this is bad?

i would agree with that if that was your point and that last post was addressed in response to mine...

[Username17]

so, Frank, 3rd and 4th both brought out this MY CHARACTER "player entitlement" that made people think they deserve the exact treasure they want, and this is bad?

That actually hurts my brain. Short answer: no.

Long answer: there is absolutely nothing wrong with player entitlement. Players feel entitled to the two free spells their wizard gets per level because they are entitled to those two free spells. The issue is that player entitlement is 100% incompatible with acquisitive advancement. Things that players feel entitled to are things they feel are already theirs by right, so there is no accomplishment or mystery in acquiring them. If you go full point-based or something, then the players will of course feel entitled to the things they bought with points. And there wouldn't be anything wrong with that. It just wouldn't be acquisitive advancement.

There is a separate kind of joy to be had from your character getting things from their environment and adventures. It's not fair, and that unfairness actually adds to the joy because it gives the player an asymmetric advantage that they can employ. And you can decide that you do or do not want that in your game, but when you smooth it out and put it on schedules and wishlists and shit you destroy that joy and you destroy the verisimilitude of the setting.

Thor doesn't pick up a gun because he is a Champions character and is bought with points. He lives in a world where items basically don't persist and no one ever loots bodies. That's fine, because no one is asking you to pretend that he gets his stuff and his powers from his actual adventures. If people were trying to get you to believe that, the way his equipment doesn't change would be incredibly insulting.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

The fact is that "wishlists and treasure parcels" is the standard treasure deployment system for 4th edition. When we say that it fails and how, we aren't stabbing wildly in the dark, we have hard data. We know that are most depressing predictions for how that would turn out actually turned out to be optimistic compared to the clusterfuck it actually was. The fact is also that "markets and treasure selection" was the standard treasure deployment system for 3rd edition, and we know that and how that failed too.

Only if you cling to the idea - outdated as it is - that every magic item needs to be a special snowflake the players should thank heaven for if they get it.

"Markets and treasure selection" works very well if you treat magic items as that what they are in D&D 3E: Just another aspect of character builds like feats and spells.

Why are you insisting that magic items should be anything more than that? You can always use artifacts as plot devices to have some "Non pure numbers" stuff, or add fluff background to the magic items the players keep (and sprinkle it with a few "leveling" mechanics too, if you want to break the upgrade curve; the "you killed a demon with the blade, it's now magical thanks to a boon from your god" idea from "The Wargod's Own" novel seems particularly interesting for such.)

[Fuchs]

There is a separate kind of joy to be had from your character getting things from their environment and adventures. It's not fair, and that unfairness actually adds to the joy because it gives the player an asymmetric advantage that they can employ. And you can decide that you do or do not want that in your game, but when you smooth it out and put it on schedules and wishlists and shit you destroy that joy and you destroy the verisimilitude of the setting.

No, the verisimilitude is not destroyed at all if you assume that magic items are traded, and comissioned - like in 3E.

And a joy that I can only have a few times in a campaign (when I luck out and get an item I want), while I receive disappointments several times while looting (when I get vendor trash or shit I'd not be caught dead using since it's so ugly or weird) is what drives me off MMOGs. Fuck that joy with a barbed epic club until it dies.

Asymmetric advantages a player enjoys means disadvantages he suffers when the random treasure roll doesn't go his way - and he'll suffer far more of the latter than the former.