Weapon Styles, Basket Weaving, and Concept Obsolesence

[Gx1080]

"That's why I'd give every item that level of depth and history - but I'd only pick items I am reasonably sure the players will like."

Problem is, that's usually not possible, because "items that players will like" is a huge variant and a campaign setting is something more permanent. Also, let's say that I, as a DM, want to run a pre-made module. Now what?

"If you can't pick the look of your character then your game is a pile of outdate, festering shit. "

Bawwww, I can't play my weaboo samurai on a Medieval Setting ;-;

[Fuchs]

But regardless, there are two inescapable truths that make magic item systems feel shitty:

• Items are only "good" in relation to items that are not. For anything to feel special or desirable, trash drops are required.

The "trash drops" should be mundane treasures. By having a lot of magic items considered trash drops you make all magic items feel less special since simply being magical by itself is not special at all in that system.

If the goal is to have people appreciate magic items, then aiming for never dropping trash magic items in the first place by picking carefully what will be used is better. As a safety measure, allowing people to trade the magic axe for a magic sword will take the sting of looting an axe no one wants away.

[*] When items are placed by the MC, any unfairness between the items that different players receive will feel like it is something unfair that the MC is doing to the players.[/list]

As opposed to the unfairness of the DM picking what adventure they play tonight, and picking the enemies they face - and their gear. Random tables won't help there, especially if they are culturally weighted.

Rolling for stats was fair too, but if you were the one with the "I guess you can be a fighter... I think" set next to the "Oh, nice, a double 18 and nothing below 10" set then as fair as it was, it was still not fun for you.

Making sure everyone gets stuff they like is more important than making sure everyone has the same chance to get stuff they like.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Nice hyperbole. Picking your character's armor and weapon and clothes is what any sensible game allows. Just look at MMOGs.

Dark Sun doesn't let you just deck your character out in platemail whenever you feel like it. Cotton is just flat-out not going to be available in Rokugan. Iron bucklers ain't happening in Beowulf. If you want nonmagical purple dye in Conan's Adventurers that's a sidequest in its own. Your artificer character concept requires you to wear a pair of bitching leather goggles? Bitch, we're playing Incan Empires, glass hasn't even been invented here yet. You want a waterproof sea lion cloak while playing Al Qadim? Fuck you.

The campaign puts limits on what weapons, armor, and fashion is available. Overriding that and declaring that you're using a Sephiroth katana even though the campaign is about you and King Arthur's knights questing for the Holy Grail is you wearing a clown suit. If the DM and other players don't object, fine, but the game designers are under no obligation to support every stupid clown suit concept that comes into your head.

We're not talking laser guns in middle earth, we're talking "that stuff is in game, you said so, we encountered it, I even have mundane versions of it, why can't I have some magic versions?"

Because the game doesn't have magical item fungibility. You try to melt down or transmute the Golden Axe, you just get a pile of nonmagical slag. Those are the new rules. What now, brown cow? You going to complain that my campaign setting doesn't have New World vegetables or silk yet either?

And your only answer is "because I don't like you picking what you want, since you don't know what you like, you're too dumb to know better."

I gave you several reasons several times in this thread already. Do you want me to repeat them to you again? And if I do, are you just going to continue to lie directly to my face about something I can disprove just one thread page back?

[Fuchs]

You gave shitty reasons, which all boil down to "I think by allowing you to pick swords as your favorite weapon you will be locked in an obsolete swordmaster concept, even though I am too dumb to understand that you're actually playing a caster that simply uses swords when he needs to hit something with a weapon, or a ninja-rogue that can master shadows, so I need you to break from your habit." An arrogant, stupid and useless stance.

Will you finally admit that simply having a preferred weapon doesn't mean one is playing a DMF?

[Fuchs]

We're not talking laser guns in middle earth, we're talking "that stuff is in game, you said so, we encountered it, I even have mundane versions of it, why can't I have some magic versions?"

Because the game doesn't have magical item fungibility. You try to melt down or transmute the Golden Axe, you just get a pile of nonmagical slag. Those are the new rules. What now, brown cow? You going to complain that my campaign setting doesn't have New World vegetables or silk yet either?

No, I am going to tell your shitty face that you're an idiot for forcefeeding us your magical flail instead of dropping stuff we want. I'll tell the other players that a DM that is unable to pick gear we like as loot is a bad DM, and offer to DM myself, showing them how to make the game more fun.

[Ice9]

Because the game doesn't have magical item fungibility. You try to melt down or transmute the Golden Axe, you just get a pile of nonmagical slag. Those are the new rules. What now, brown cow? You going to complain that my campaign setting doesn't have New World vegetables or silk yet either?

You keep saying that, like it's the actual rules for a game that exists. What game are we talking about here? Not D&D, certainly. I mean, yes, depending on the version and campaign, you may or may not be able to directly transmute items, but what in what version can you not even sell or trade them? (And if you're A-OK with selling/trading stuff, many of your comments on this thread make no damn sense).

If what you're saying is "the rules should be constructed so that you must use exactly the items the DM gives you", then that's one thing. Not a thing I agree with, but whatever.

But trying to act like "that's the way things have always worked, and obviously should work", bullshit. I'll be over here, playing my 3E, hell, playing my Tome 3E with its wish economy that has apparently become retroactively bad.

[Whipstitch]

No, I am going to tell your shitty face that you're an idiot for forcefeeding us your magical flail instead of dropping stuff we want. I'll tell the other players that a DM that is unable to pick gear we like as loot is a bad DM, and offer to DM myself, showing them how to make the game more fun.

And I would secretly be kinda bummed because a lot of the fun I had with D&D died when I stopped having weird random shit to play around with and come up with uses for.

[Fuchs]

No, I am going to tell your shitty face that you're an idiot for forcefeeding us your magical flail instead of dropping stuff we want. I'll tell the other players that a DM that is unable to pick gear we like as loot is a bad DM, and offer to DM myself, showing them how to make the game more fun.

And I would secretly be kinda bummed because a lot of the fun I had with D&D died when I stopped having weird random shit to play around with and come up with uses for.

I can roll up random stuff if a player likes that, no sweat. I simply don't see the need to drop random stuff on people who want something specific. Or to drop only random stuff.

The goal is to make players happy. In my current D&D campaign we have one player character with a sword that levels with him, allowing the player to freely pick the powers it has. Another character has a sword that is made up of shards of an artifact, gaining powers each time a new shard is recovered, the powers decided by the GM. Finding shards is a side quest that spans years. And one player character collects various magic weapons, and uses what he likes or fits a situation.

As a GM we control what treasure is dropped and how. No reason not to make sure that the players are happy, no matter what they prefer.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You gave shitty reasons, which all boil down to "I think by allowing you to pick swords as your favorite weapon you will be locked in an obsolete swordmaster concept, even though I am too dumb to understand that you're actually playing a caster that simply uses swords when he needs to hit something with a weapon, or a ninja-rogue that can master shadows, so I need you to break from your habit." An arrogant, stupid and useless stance.

Okay:

1.) That's not 'no reason', so your original statement was still wrong.

2.) That's not the only reason I gave you, so even if you did refute this argument your previous post still uses a classic strawman tactic.

3.) I have no idea what was with the counter-argument you did deign worthy to respond to. I mean, really:

you're actually playing a caster that simply uses swords when he needs to hit something with a weapon

So why swords specifically? Even if the caster just wants a backup weapon, why is he derping out if it doesn't come in sword form? If he's all 'dude, I primarily use blasts and summons but for the 10% of the time I want to use a backup weapon it's still a sword', that's still sword fetishism. In fact it's extra stupid because his backup weapon doesn't even effect his primary schtick; the monk and rogue were (very very vaguely) flavor changed from going from dagger to sap, so why is the wizard making this demand other than fetishism?

or a ninja-rogue that can master shadows,

That's just a plain old non sequitur you used to pad your argument, so I'm ignoring it.

Will you finally admit that simply having a preferred weapon doesn't mean one is playing a DMF?

No.

Or rather, from a strict literal interpretation, that is true but if I said that someone with your poor reading comprehension would just read what they wanted to. So I have to make this long ass disclaimer. Now that I have your attention:

Having a preferred weapon feeds into the DMF problem because it retards the player's realization that 'hey, I don't have any level appropriate schticks' because they're focused on the 'oooh, shiny katana'. But weapon fetishism still hurts characters who aren't DMF. Like the 4E D&D Swordmages or Seekers. So no, while weapon fetishism doesn't cause the DMF problem it aggravates it and fucks up otherwise level-appropriate concepts when it gets put into the game.

No, I am going to tell your shitty face that you're an idiot for forcefeeding us your magical flail instead of dropping stuff we want. I'll tell the other players that a DM that is unable to pick gear we like as loot is a bad DM, and offer to DM myself, showing them how to make the game more fun.

So I'm a shitty DM for not dropping magical cotton shirts, magical leather jackets, magical tower shields, magical beer steins, magical Red Mage tricorn hats, or anything that comes in purple when I'm running a campaign of Rokugan or writing the campaign setting book for it even though those are standard fantasy crap? Gee, I feel so bad about 'forcing' a hat with bull horns on it instead of elk horns like you wanted because there aren't any fucking elk in this part of the world.

You keep saying that, like it's the actual rules for a game that exists. What game are we talking about here?

Let me break this down for you.

Okay, see, my reply was making fun of that point of view because 'game flavor' is totally arbitrary. I can just flat out state that horses and stirrups don't exist but muskets do. So when talking about games in abstract it's useless to go 'but one thing works like this, why doesn't a similar thing work like this' because similar thing is a construction specific to the game it's in. In 3E D&D we can see a very strong connection between mundane and magical items so you can derive certain expectations from one by examining the other. For example, it's plain to see that you can have adamantium mundane axes AND adamantium artifact axes.

But in Shadowrun the connection between mundane and magical items is much more weak and even non-existence. There's masterwork guns in that game but no such thing as magical guns. So in the discussion of fictional games (which includes what D&D should look like because it isn't invented yet) you can't generalize from the particular. I mean assuming that Fictional D&D will have some things in common with previous editions isn't a bad one, but since things do change and change big anyone can just put the kibosh on any such assumptions as long as we're talking about fictional D&D.

As a GM we control what treasure is dropped and how. No reason not to make sure that the players are happy, no matter what they prefer.

You act like what people say that they want and what will make them happy are the same thing or are even in the same ballpark. While it's true in enough cases not to be outright false, it's nowhere near as axiomatic as you think.

[Fuchs]

So why swords specifically? Even if the caster just wants a backup weapon, why is he derping out if it doesn't come in sword form? If he's all 'dude, I primarily use blasts and summons but for the 10% of the time I want to use a backup weapon it's still a sword', that's still sword fetishism. In fact it's extra stupid because his backup weapon doesn't even effect his primary schtick; the monk and rogue were (very very vaguely) flavor changed from going from dagger to sap, so why is the wizard making this demand other than fetishism?

or a ninja-rogue that can master shadows,

That's just a plain old non sequitur you used to pad your argument, so I'm ignoring it.

No, it's another example of a character concept that is not "can't do anything but hit people" but which prefers swords for aestetic reasons.

Of course you can't allow that. You cannot allow people to pick the weapons they want to use. And why? because you fear they migth create DMFs.

Hey, dumbass, people want to use swords because they find swords cool, or they want to sue axes because the find axes cool. That's a perfectly valid reason for a game decision. As others pointed out, for a number of people aestetics are a big part of playing RPGs. That you cannot understand that is sad, given your pretensions of game design.

Will you finally admit that simply having a preferred

weapon doesn't mean one is playing a DMF?

No.

Or rather, from a strict literal interpretation, that is true but if I said that someone with your poor reading comprehension would just read what they wanted to. So I have to make this long ass disclaimer. Now that I have your attention:

Having a preferred weapon feeds into the DMF problem because it retards the player's realization that 'hey, I don't have any level appropriate schticks' because they're focused on the 'oooh, shiny katana'. But weapon fetishism still hurts characters who aren't DMF. Like the 4E D&D Swordmages or Seekers. So no, while weapon fetishism doesn't cause the DMF problem it aggravates it and fucks up otherwise level-appropriate concepts when it gets put into the game.

Utterly wrong. You simply state stuff without any proof, other than your irrational fear. And its even worse since you could simply give them swords or what they want, no one is hurt by that.

You are acting like an idiot who is told "hey, for dessert, I want chocolate icecream, and you go off "NOOOOO! You're a chcocolate fetishist, I will have to forcefully convert you to random flavors, so you learn to like this!" even though they already know they prefer chocolate - at least today.

Hint: Players, especially those who have a bit of experience, know what they want and like for a given character.

No, I am going to tell your shitty face that you're an idiot for forcefeeding us your magical flail instead of dropping stuff we want. I'll tell the other players that a DM that is unable to pick gear we like as loot is a bad DM, and offer to DM myself, showing them how to make the game more fun.

So I'm a shitty DM for not dropping magical cotton shirts, magical leather jackets, magical tower shields, magical beer steins, magical Red Mage tricorn hats, or anything that comes in purple when I'm running a campaign of Rokugan or writing the campaign setting book for it even though those are standard fantasy crap? Gee, I feel so bad about 'forcing' a hat with bull horns on it instead of elk horns like you wanted because there aren't any fucking elk in this part of the world.

No, learn to read: You are a shitty DM for not dropping magical stuff you allowed into the campaign already for your player. If you have katanas in your game, then magic katanas should be allowed for your players.

Trying to make it as if people ask for laser guns when all they want is a magic version of a weapon they got at level 1 is not arguing honestly.

As a GM we control what treasure is dropped and how. No reason not to make sure that the players are happy, no matter what they prefer.

You act like what people say that they want and what will make them happy are the same thing or are even in the same ballpark. While it's true in enough cases not to be outright false, it's nowhere near as axiomatic as you think.

Acting as if you knew better what your players want is arrogant. Since you are wrong, it's even worse.

People want to play characters that look cool. If you cannot offer that to them you're an idiot. If you claim they actually don't want that if they were smarter you're an arrogant idiot.

[Username17]

Fuchs' position is so extreme and ultimately player disempowering that it is actually impossible to make a straw man of it. He is seriously saying that players should get exactly the same treasure regardless of what choices they make and whether they succeed or fail, and that if he can't think of an in-world reason for that to happen, then the swag just falls off a shelf for no reason. Exactly on schedule, every time.

That position is so ridiculous you can't even make fun of it. He's really saying that player choices should not affect character outcomes in a role playing game. Really.

-Username17

[A Man In Black]

That position is so ridiculous you can't even make fun of it. He's really saying that player choices should not affect character outcomes in a role playing game. Really.

Not quite. He's saying that character choices should not affect character outcomes, and that the players should choose what they want their characters to have and get it.

[Fuchs]

I am saying that players should be the ones to determine the look of their characters, including weapons.

In other words: The decision of a player to have his character use swords instead of other weapons should be reflected in game, not inversed by a control-freak DM who wants him to use axes instead.

And that position is not as extreme as that - just about every MMOG allows that customization, through appearance tabs and trade systems, and guaranteed rewards, or ways to transfer stats.

Like it or not - but a modern tabletop RPG has to offer a similar aesthetic freedom with regards to characters. You look rather stupid trying to sell a PnP game to MMOG-experienced players while explaining that no, even though it's all in the head and imagination, they are not allwoed to design the look of their character as they want to.

Unless of course you are targetting the grognards as your audience.

[Fuchs]

Fuchs' position is so extreme and ultimately player disempowering that it is actually impossible to make a straw man of it. He is seriously saying that players should get exactly the same treasure regardless of what choices they make and whether they succeed or fail, and that if he can't think of an in-world reason for that to happen, then the swag just falls off a shelf for no reason. Exactly on schedule, every time.

I am saying that player decisions should matter. That's not disempowering player decisions - that's empowering them to the point of choosing what items their characters get.

Success or failure is another matter - if they do not beat the dragon they don't get the hoard, of course. But what loot they get should be interesting and liked by the players.

[Lago PARANOIA]

because you fear they migth create DMFs.

What do you mean might? They DID create DMFs. 3E and 4E D&D has countless examples of concepts that had no reason to hang around in DMF tier but ended up anyway doing so because of stupid weapon fetishism. I have actual examples to draw from, examples you conveniently ignored. Care to explain why this wouldn't happen again?

Hey, dumbass, people want to use swords because they find swords cool, or they want to sue axes because the find axes cool.

People also want to use muskets, metal full plate, hats with elk horns, cotton shirts, things dyed purple, and otterskin cloaks because they think those things are cool. Should I just drop that shit into Rokugan campaign anyway?

How about asking 'is it cool AND it doesn't come at some other fluff or gameplay cost' instead? You're just throwing out slanted appeals like 'why can't we just set taxes to zero? People like money'. If you're not going to look at the whole picture or worse REFUSE to do so then your arguments are empty and a waste of time.

Hint: Players, especially those who have a bit of experience, know what they want and like for a given character.

Oftentimes they don't. This is such bullshit in fact that I made a new thread about it. You can read it here.

No, learn to read: You are a shitty DM for not dropping magical stuff you allowed into the campaign already for your player. If you have katanas in your game, then magic katanas should be allowed for your players.

What are you, some kind of a retard?

1.) I am talking from a game designer perspective. When the game gets from my office to the DM's table it's a moot point because unless the DM rule zeroes it there's nothing for the game TO drop. Getting pissy at the DM at this point is you being a little bitch and you'd better make a damn good case why they should sod the rules for your personal desires.

2.) When the fuck did I allow magical katanas to drop? I mean, sure, some of the drops will come in sword form but just because some of the drops come in sword form doesn't mean implicitly or explicitly that all drops should or can come in sword form. As the game designer, I decided in the game design phase that you can't transform katanas into axes and made it a rule. So there's no rule saying that I must or even ought to such and such because there isn't a damn rule.

3.) I also allow castles, temples, airships, and dragons. Am I shitty DM that, just because such a thing exists in the campaign I don't drop a lease for one into a player's lap even though someone wanted one? Fuck that.

4.) Have you played ANY game other than 3rd Edition D&D before? Even if you haven't, are you just galactically incapable of seeing that a trope that happens in 3rd Edition D&D need not happen in other games, including future editions? That kind of 'katanas therefore magical katanas' crap is game-specific. Shadowrun has katanas in it. Shadowrun also has magical weapons in it. Shadowrun does not have magical katanas. If you ask for a magical katana the GM might put it in the game by Rule Zero but if he says no to your request then fuck you.

People want to play characters that look cool.

But people also want to play in a game where acquisitions are meaningful, where advancement has the feeling of versimilitude, and where mid-to-high level superpowers actually feel like mid-to-high level superpowers. These goals conflict and considering how puerile and laughable peoples' idea of 'cool' is (seriously, color-coordinate your outfits and use longswords for the rest of your life?) I remain completely unconvinced that this isn't a fool's tradeoff.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Not quite. He's saying that character choices should not affect character outcomes, and that the players should choose what they want their characters to have and get it.

Not making a choice or making a forced/suboptimal choice is still the same as making a choice. If inaction or suboptimal choices or irrelevant or even incorrect choices still lead you to the same outcome it means that your choice does not matter.

It's exactly the same as designing a card game where no matter how you arrange your hands or play down cards you're 100% guaranteed in the end the outcome that you want, like that old 'pick any number, do some math tricks, get 7' in the end saw. Believe it or not you have to have a chance of not getting an outcome you want in order for a choice to be meaningful. Writing a wishlist (and indeed, just the brainstorming of toys) to Santa is only exciting because you think that the letter and thought processes increases your chances of getting what you want.

[Fuchs]

People also want to use muskets, metal full plate, hats with elk horns, cotton shirts, things dyed purple, and otterskin cloaks because they think those things are cool. Should I just drop that shit into Rokugan campaign anyway?

I posted numerous times that this is not "laser guns in Medieval europe", but "magic versions of stuff you allowed into game". Which means the fluff cost is not there to begin with. Learn to read.

Hint: Players, especially those who have a bit of experience, know what they want and like for a given character.

Oftentimes they don't. This is such bullshit in fact that I made a new thread about it. You can read it here.

And you are still wrong, even in the new thread. Playing the loot lottery is as stupid as playing the real life lottery - the chances to get what you want if it's something exotic are near zero.

4.) Have you played ANY game other than 3rd Edition D&D before? Even if you haven't, are you just galactically incapable of seeing that a trope that happens in 3rd Edition D&D need not happen in other games, including future editions? That kind of 'katanas therefore magical katanas' crap is game-specific. Shadowrun has katanas in it. Shadowrun also has magical weapons in it. Shadowrun does not have magical katanas. If you ask for a magical katana the GM might put it in the game by Rule Zero but if he says no to your request then fuck you.

I played 2E for ten years. and you know what? I don't know any DM that actually had random drops. If the fighter used a bastard sword and the thief a rapier, then we found far more bastard swords and rapiers than long swords. And people were happy.

People want to play characters that look cool.

But people also want to play in a game where acquisitions are meaningful, where advancement has the feeling of versimilitude, and where mid-to-high level superpowers actually feel like mid-to-high level superpowers. These goals conflict and considering how puerile and laughable peoples' idea of 'cool' is (seriously, color-coordinate your outfits and use longswords for the rest of your life?) I remain completely unconvinced that this isn't a fool's tradeoff.

If in a game where I can rule continents and create my own demiplane, battle demon lords and gods, I cannot pick swords instead of axes when it comes to weapons, then that hurts verisimilitude far more than allowing axes to transform into or get traded for swords.

Get it? Once we are talking high level, you are seriously arguing that we can storm hell itself, create our own planes, maybe our own races, but cannot change a magic sword into a magic axe, or find someone who will trade a magic axe for it?

Are you actually serious?

[Fuchs]

Believe it or not you have to have a chance of not getting an outcome you want in order for a choice to be meaningful. Writing a wishlist (and indeed, just the brainstorming of toys) to Santa is only exciting because you think that the letter and thought processes increases your chances of getting what you want.

Nope. When picking a character class, I cannot get a class I did not want to pick instead of the one I picked. And yet my choice is meaningful - game defining even.

(Unless of course we're talking 1E, you have to have to be this tall, stat-wise, to play that class, roll in order! stupidity. Am I to understand that you advocate that system as well, to make picking your class meaningful?)

[Username17]

That position is so ridiculous you can't even make fun of it. He's really saying that player choices should not affect character outcomes in a role playing game. Really.

Not quite. He's saying that character choices should not affect character outcomes, and that the players should choose what they want their characters to have and get it.

But if you always get what you want, then there is no mystery and no effect of any choice. It's completely disempowering. The adventures make no difference. You might as well be playing dressup dolls.

Playing dressup dolls alone, since the choices and inputs of the other players don't make any difference in Fuchs' world either.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

That position is so ridiculous you can't even make fun of it. He's really saying that player choices should not affect character outcomes in a role playing game. Really.

Not quite. He's saying that character choices should not affect character outcomes, and that the players should choose what they want their characters to have and get it.

But if you always get what you want, then there is no mystery and no effect of any choice. It's completely disempowering. The adventures make no difference. You might as well be playing dressup dolls.

Playing dressup dolls alone, since the choices and inputs of the other players don't make any difference in Fuchs' world either.

-Username17

Frank, you are aware that "getting the magic weapon you want" is not the same as "always succeding in every quest, always saving the princess, winning every fight, etc."? But if you manage to get loot, why should you suddenly have to play the lottery? You yourself called playing the lottery "a tax on stupidity", if I recall correctly. Why would anyone sane trust their character's look to a lottery?

The choices and input matter, but why should others decide what weapon I use? Why not let them pick my feats too? After all, with some training (house) rules, the GM could easily tell me I cannot pick the feat I want, or the class I want.

Why should picking the weapon a character uses and the clothes he wears be treated differently from picking the class he is, or the feats and spells he knows?

The "it hurts verisimilitude" argument works for those as well.

It's easy to add a class feature "gets a magic weapon at level X, Y and Z", which can be fluffed any way you want, for example - be it crafting it, or finding it, or getting it granted by a god. That way verisimilute is not hurt at all.

[Swordslinger]

About the only people I've ever seen take issue with changing their weapon is people who make clone characters.

If you're making a Drizz't clone, using two scimitars is absolutely essential to your concept. If you're making Sephiroth, then you need that over-sized no dachi. The moment you're playing King Arthur instead of "A knight" tends to be the defining factor in cementing down your weapon choice.

People that create more original concepts don't seem bothered by the idea that they may have to use a different weapon. Obviously there are cases where a PC has sunk feats into a given style, like weapon spec, and is forced mechanically to use a specific weapon because of the advantages he gets with it, but as a whole if it's a superior choice for the character to trade up to another weapon, he will.

The only real question is if you want the rules to encourage or discourage people from making clones. On one hand, playing as Conan or Drizz't is what gets a lot of people into RPGs in the first place, and they tend to go with what they know. On the other hand, dynamic characters are often more interesting and fit the campaign world better.

[violence in the media]

I am saying that players should be the ones to determine the look of their characters, including weapons.

Whut? We are talking about a game with all sorts of ways to effect a hostile appearance change on people, right? Do you let players just shrug off illusions and transmutations they don't like that affect the appearance of their characters? Hell, you can use Bestow Curse to hit someone with a -6 to their Charisma and fluff it as covering them with hideous boils and weeping sores. Does the player just get to storm off in a huff because you ruined their character's "coolness" and dictated their appearance? Do they get to say, "No! My character is still pretty! I just stutter a lot instead and that gets in the way of my interpersonal skills!"

Drawing on the conversation about the alternate defeat conditions from one of the other threads, I'm guessing you've never had a low-level situation where a gang of thugs that unexpectedly won a fight scarred, branded, or prison tattooed a PC's face instead of killing them, have you?

[Fuchs]

I am saying that players should be the ones to determine the look of their characters, including weapons.

Whut? We are talking about a game with all sorts of ways to effect a hostile appearance change on people, right? Do you let players just shrug off illusions and transmutations they don't like that affect the appearance of their characters? Hell, you can use Bestow Curse to hit someone with a -6 to their Charisma and fluff it as covering them with hideous boils and weeping sores. Does the player just get to storm off in a huff because you ruined their character's "coolness" and dictated their appearance? Do they get to say, "No! My character is still pretty! I just stutter a lot instead and that gets in the way of my interpersonal skills!"

Drawing on the conversation about the alternate defeat conditions from one of the other threads, I'm guessing you've never had a low-level situation where a gang of thugs that unexpectedly won a fight scarred, branded, or prison tattooed a PC's face instead of killing them, have you?

Of course we have had that. But when the player is unhappy with that, he can easily work on getting rid of the curse, scar or brand. Clerics are good for such things.

It goes without saying that if a player is unhappy with their character's appearance, such a cure either came quickly, or the player changed characters.

After all playing a character you're not happy with is not fun, and we play games to have fun.

[Maj]

Fuchs' position is so extreme and ultimately player disempowering that it is actually impossible to make a straw man of it.

From what I'm reading, the people arguing against Fuchs are so masterful at turning what he's saying into something extreme, that they're no longer arguing against Fuchs anymore except semantically. It seems so absurd that I've decided this is really just a prank being pulled... You're just fuching with him now.

[shadzar]

If you can't pick the look of your character then your game is a pile of outdate, festering shit.

It's not the 70s anymore, people expect more control over their toons - and rightly so.

TTRPGs are NOT MMOs. learn it and like it, or leave TTRPGs.

you have MORE control over a TTRPG PC than an MMO anyway. you can climb any tree you want, you can go places that are beyond the edge of the zone.

you have your priorities in gaming wrong.

MMOs you get mostly JUST character looks, and then must follow all the scripts like an old DOS text-game. in TTRPGs, you have more freedom because there is no limit to the coding.

also YOU are the only one that sees your character in a TTRPG as there is a different graphics engine for EACH user...called your mind.

nobody gives a fuck what Ralph the Rapier wielding fop looks like. he is identified by what you do, and if gone missing, he is identified by his name. because his equipment could have been taken WHEN he went missing.

you REALLY need to learn the difference between an MMO and TTRPG, or join Bill Slavesik and Mike Mealrs in the wastes of stupid.

people DO want different things form TTRPGs an MMOs. YOU seem to want to try to turn TTRPGs into MMOs rather than learn what a TTRPG is and what it offers.

the reason MMOs took the name "toon" for a character wa because it looks as silly as a cartoon, and it has little to no value because most MMOs would be foolish to kill your character off that you are PAYING to play with for an extended amount of time. they want you to be able to keep that character longer so that your attachment to it will make you keep paying to play on their servers.

D&D you dont get what you want BECAUSE you arent paying for anything and have NO rights to anything unless you DM.

seriously, PLEASE, learn the difference between MMOs and TTRPGs; or admit that you are Mike Mearls.