What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[DSMatticus]

So um... yeah. Those are Robin Hood variants made by the actual British people, whose folk hero Robin Hood actually is. So I think we can safely take any claims that Robin Hood stops being Robin Hood if he has a magic melee weapon that drives the plot forward or uses an ax as being false.

And here's Robin Hood using his penis. Obviously, because the name is still Robin Hood, it must mean this interpretation is as true to the concept as any other.

Yes. Robin Hood is also a terrible example of a character with an iconic weapon. Google images, Robin Hood, images with a bow: 50 out of the first 84 I looked at. Same image selection, any other weapon: 4/84. Robin Hood has such a weapon versatile image that an entire 7% of images of him using weapons aren't bows.

Frank, stop fucking saying Robin Hood doesn't mean bow. Just because there are variations on a story with different iconism does not actually make all the existing iconism disappear. It's barely even fucking diluted it. There exist some Robin Hood stories that do not prominently feature archery. Congratulations. There exist some Robin Hood stories that are about boning ladies.

And this is before we even get into the simple idea that Robin Hood the archer and Robin Hood the axemaster and Robin Hood the guy with the magic sword are different stories; pointing out that stories other than "Robin Hood the archer" exist does not tell us "Robin Hood the archer" is a bad story we shouldn't be able to tell. It doesn't even refute the idea (as Chamomile is pointing out) that archery is a fitting choice for Robin Hood's story.

Seriously. All you have shown is that you can build more than one character and more than one story around someone named Robin Hood. That completely fails to explain why my Robin Hood story has to be the one where for levels 1-3 I use the bow, 4-6 I use the axe, and 7-10 I use the magic sword because loot drops. It fails to explain why the story where Robin Hood uses the bow his entire career is bad storytelling, or the one where he uses the axe his entire career is bad storytelling (which seems to be what Lago's proposing, but not you as far as I know).

[Lago PARANOIA]

pointing out that stories other than "Robin Hood the archer" exist does not tell us "Robin Hood the archer" is a bad story we shouldn't be able to tell.

Now, here's the tricky question: how do you know that it is a story that you should, as a game designer, should be supporting?

And don't give me that 'live and let live' crap. Almost every game designer thinks that 'and then the party found an iPhone with a mysterious Internet connection' should not be a story you should be telling in D&D even though it's barely a footnote in a d20 Modern game. Just because a type of story can be supported doesn't mean that it should. There's no objective standard for this thing, but we do have a hazy feel about what creates good stories and what creates bad ones. The story about someone's love for killing orcs may or may not be a good story but we decided to keep it in the game. The story about how Thorina the barbarian will never be as strong as her brother because she's female may or may not be a good story but we decided not to include it in the default experience. Just because our evidence or feelings are ultimately subjective doesn't mean we can't get somewhere.

So. Make your case, DSMatticus. Frank and I gave quite a lot of reasons why 'bows and bows alone' or 'katanas and katanas alone' should not be in the game. What's your thoughts on those? Want me to post them again?

It fails to explain why the story where Robin Hood uses the bow his entire career is bad storytelling, or the one where he uses the axe his entire career is bad storytelling (which seems to be what Lago's proposing, but not you as far as I know).

Err, what?

Robin Hood using an axe his entire career is not necessarily bad storytelling. Robin hood using a bow his entire career is not necessarily bad storytelling.

What's bad storytelling is when Robin Hoods-to-be insist that their stories have to prominently feature archery or axery or whatever in it before they're even made. It's okay for Gawain, once he has his enchanted girdle, to bring it up in stories but it's not okay for him to A.) build his character around the assumption that he would get a girdle B.) sacrifice character development in order to feature the girdle more heavily or C.) refuse to use anything but his girdle from now on no matter how appropriate it would otherwise be.

Robin Hood getting a Yoichi Bow and using that from now on because nothing better ever falls into his hands is not bad storytelling. Robin Hood being so paralyzed at the thought of using anything but a bow and arrow is.

[MGuy]

how do you know that it is a story that you should, as a game designer, should be supporting?

Being "an archer" is something that is quite common in fiction. [Hawkeye, Robin hood, Green Archer, etc] And if that right there isn't enough to convince you that "archer" isn't standard enough to be supported (just as mage, knight, etc is) then I really really don't know what you would consider appropriate. And cellphones in a fantasy setting is a MAJOR step away from having "archery" in a fantasy setting so I don't even know what you are on to even bring that up.


Secondly you and Frank have done what's amounted to jack shit to defend your position and this is more true for you than Frank. Your entire argument is based around you not wanting someone to use primarily one weapon over others. You have thus far not provided a single argument other than the fact that you don't like it and suspect no one likes it because people don't know what they like, as back up for this claim. You admit that someone using a particular weapon as their primary attack option isn't necessarily bad story telling but continue arguing this STUPID STUPID point as if it is and has been decided to be that.

What's bad storytelling is when Robin Hoods-to-be insist that their stories have to prominently feature archery or axery or whatever in it before they're even made. It's okay for Gawain, once he has his enchanted girdle, to bring it up in stories but it's not okay for him to A.) build his character around the assumption that he would get a girdle B.) sacrifice character development in order to feature the girdle more heavily or C.) refuse to use anything but his girdle from now on no matter how appropriate it would otherwise be.

A) What if he starts out with a girdle and assumes he will be able to use mentioned girle to the end without punishment?
B) what character development is lost if using the girdle is his primary schtick?
C) No one is arguing this. If you're a Sword Master no one is saying you can't wear armor. No one is saying you can't use a potion. No one is saying you can't pick up a bow.

Seriously your opinion can be used as a catch all blanket argument against a player deciding to do anything at all ever.

Robin Hood [deciding to use Diplomacy] and using that from now on because nothing better ever falls into his hands is not bad storytelling. Robin Hood being so paralyzed at the thought of using anything but [Diplomacy] is.

This is not an argument for anything ESPECIALLY since no one is saying everyone should use only one thing throughout their careers no matter the situation. No one is saying a sword Master will never touch a spear, attempt diplomacy, or by god THINK their way out of a situation using something that doesn't involve a sword swing. What people are arguing for is that the sword Master be able to reliably use his sword to resolve most of his problems (mostly fighting) as would be appropriate for his character and if you can't give a reason for why this is necessarily bad for the character than you do not have a point.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You know, I saw your previous post on this thread MGuy and decided not to respond to it, but since you persist on this fallacious argument style:

Secondly you and Frank have done what's amounted to jack shit to defend your position and this is more true for you than Frank. Your entire argument is based around you not wanting someone to use primarily one weapon over others. You have thus far not provided a single argument other than the fact that you don't like it and suspect no one likes it because people don't know what they like, as back up for this claim.

That is just simply not true. Here are all of the previous arguments on this thread, arguments which you chose to ignore so you can push your lazy and ignorant narrative of 'Frank and Lago are asserting things without supporting them'.


http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=52 ... &start=475

[*]I talked about the symbolism of weapon choice on the previous page. While people talk about the history and strength of the symbolism as if that should justify it, to me that's a problem in of itself. It's a symbol and a pretty strong one in the context of TTRPGs. Holding a giant battleaxe stereotypes your character in the eyes of the owner and observers in a way that a dragon tattoo on your face or chainmail bikini or smoking a stogie does not; hence why I'm pretty neutral on people declaring an immutable wardrobe aesthetic as long as that wardrobe does not include the weapon. As mentioned before a lot of people, especially beginners, confuse the symbolism of their character with the structure of their character. I'm pretty horrified to hear serious suggestions that The Punisher would cease to be The Punisher if he traded in his skull shirt and trenchcoat for a pair of camouflage or tactical armor; this implies that the plot and characterization of his stories would be markedly different if someone had decided in the 80s to swap around his looks. But that's not what makes The Punisher and obsessing over that crap leads to bullshit stories, which hurts roleplaying.

[*]A weapon aesthetic is an immutable character trait. Someone who believes that their kung fu is the best and is happy to show you is not immutable; they can be humbled and learn their lesson, they can go up the spiral staircase of hubris (which may or may not result in comeuppance, see Toph Bei Fong), they can suffer a humiliating defeat in which they incorporate never-before used styles into their routine, etc.. A weapon aesthetic by contrast is something that does not change. You either use katanas and katanas alone or you don't. Immutable character traits are bad for roleplaying because it keeps creating the same stories when it comes up and never gives people a chance to think outside the box.

[*]A weapon aesthetic is a passive character trait. Not 100% passive but more like 98-99% passive. You might be able to tell a story about how you used katanas and katanas alone, but the trait in of itself does not generate plots, include other people, or share in the storytelling burden. Jango Fett's armor looks cool and helped him barely win a fight against Obi Wan, but when the combat music isn't playing what does it do for him? Han Solo's boldness, even when not in an action scene, is a character trait that drives him to do things like take several thousand-to-one odds and try to cheat crime lords. Passive character traits are bad for roleplaying because they encourage the writer or owner not to advance or affect the plot when they're pontificated upon.

[*]A weapon aesthetic is a selfish character trait. Dungeons and Dragons is a cooperative roleplaying game, meaning several people at the table. While not everyone will enjoy the same things - making it important to give people discrete chunks of screentime - it's on the whole better for people to do things that everyone will enjoy or at least will include everyone so they get a chance to. Probably the biggest reason why we hate self-insertion Mary Sues is because they steal too much of the spotlight when we wanted to hear about what the other characters were doing. So when a character is indulging in their trait of virulent racism it at least has the chance to involve another character. When a character is a CMOT Dibbler type and is constantly trying to pull low-level scams on their party members and/or include them in shady business ventures. If a character is a horny bastard they can at least flirt with the other party members and get a response. Someone whose major character trait is a weapon aesthetic does not involve other characters! There's the chance that two weapon fetishists can do something like compare weapons but chances are most players don't care about it. When Tordek goes 'I'm gonna go to the red light district and get me some booze and whores, who's in?' that can get other people involved. When Krusk goes 'I'm going to go to the local adventure's guild and show off my axe after getting it sharpened at the blacksmith', who does that involve besides people who were already going to do those things?

The flip-side of selfish character traits is that because it doesn't involve other people it reduces the precious opportunities they can get to practice their craft. When the Scarlet Pimpernel (a roleplaying noob) gets in over his head trying to flirt with Catwoman (whose player is experienced at roleplaying and is a thespian) he can at least pick up some tips on how to improve or at least come away with a good story that he was in but wasn't able to generate on his own. When the Scarlet Pimpernel declares that he was in the middle of the cutscene that involved him shopping for epees and then spent 16 straight hours shadow-fencing... so what?

And on the page before that:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=52 ... &start=450

[*]"Has a katana" is not a high level character concept or even a medium level concept. Including that as part of the character profoundly limits the potential progression of the character.

[*]While having the ability to forge katanas exists, that isn't intrinsically part of the katana fetishist character concept and without katana forging, a katana fetishist pretty much requires item wishlisting and item wishlisting is incredibly bad for the game.

[*]If you don't have your weapons auto-upgrade, you're spending quests or resources or both in order to... stay exactly the same. But with bigger numbers. So you're going to the other players asking them to chip in party resources or vote for your favorite sidequest with the result being no change at all from a story or descriptive standpoint.

[*]Claiming katana fetishism as a character trait (as opposed to simply having a katana as starting equipment) is characterization that does absolutely nothing for the character's storytelling impetus now, adds no additional storytelling options in the future, and eliminates potential future story paths.

[*]The katana fetishist will be disappointed if they acquire the Sword of Kas or the Ax of the Dwarven Lords, making them a petulant brat.

[*]The amount of mental space people can devote to a roleplaying exercise is limited. The amount of time that someone has to advance a certain roleplaying concept is also limited. Despite what Wolverine has told us, there's only so much you can add or pontificate to a character and thus a story. Past a certain point, you just have to select on a certain number of character aspects and abandon everything else.

[*]Weapon aesthetics are unique as opposed to that of a family, clothing, vehicles, etc.. in that it captures players' attention a lot more. For god's sake there's a trope on this. Having a weapon aesthetic as a character trait pushes out other traits.

I mean, seriously, when you post shit like that or shit like this:

You admit that someone using a particular weapon as their primary attack option isn't necessarily bad story telling but continue arguing this STUPID STUPID point as if it is and has been decided to be that.

Why am I supposed to believe that if I respond to any of your posts you're not just going to make shit up and respond to the imaginary Lago in your head? I mean the quotes and stuff are in place but you're clearly not seeing what's in them.

Your post wasn't complete bullshit even though it only covered ground already gone over in this thread. But I'm not even going to bother to respond to you until you get your act together and fix yourself.

[DSMatticus]

Now, here's the tricky question: how do you know that it is a story that you should, as a game designer, should be supporting?

Lago, are you not familiar with your own position in this very thread? You are asserting that "random loot drops" > "PC-chosen equipment." That is the thing you have actually argued. That is a claim which needs substantiating before anyone gives a shit.

Now, it turns out that the vast majority of fantasy characters use the same exact weapon, or weapon type, almost their entire career. For fuck's sake, Frank's example of non-archer Robin Hood's was to pick an axemaster and a dude with a specific magic sword. So not only is your claim waiting for substantiating, it's actually super fucking non-intuitive. Because your operating premise is that "our fantasy game should explicitly not include the majority of fantasy stories we actually like to tell." Now you can build a game like that, e.g. Kobolds Ate My Baby, which features a very, very, very limited subset of fantasy stories that for the most part no one was even remotely interested in outside of the game.

But all of that's kind of irrelevant, because you're here to tell us why "random loot drops" are in fact superior to "PC-chosen equipment."

Frank and I gave quite a lot of reasons why 'bows and bows alone' or 'katanas and katanas alone' should not be in the game. What's your thoughts on those? Want me to post them again?

And then there's this, which is not much more than a bold-faced lie. You have given zero compelling reasons for why it has to be removed. You started bitching "it's a trope! And some tropes are bad! So obviously this is just terrible for the game!" And that's a whole lot of fallacious shit. You probably think you had some good arguments along the way, but they were stupid and we've told you why and now you are handwavingly referring to them as though they weren't ass.

You made a claim. Substantiate it. Bitching abut how much you hate tropes does not do that.

[Maj]

Now, here's the tricky question: how do you know that it is a story that you should, as a game designer, should be supporting?

Isn't D&D a medieval fantasy game? As in, it's supposed to be Middle Ages style with magic?

Because if it is, you have to support characters with iconic weapons. Iron forging back in the day was so laborious and expensive that people who had iron weapons treasured them by giving them names and even (if they could) putting relics in their hilts. Legendary figures have legendary weapons - Durendal, Joyeuse, Tizona, Curtana, Colada, Grus, Lobera, and Legbiter.

The real question should be, if you're designing a medieval fantasy game, why should you encourage equipment upgrades through random weapon drops? This question especially holds true if you want magical stuff to seem awesome - switching from one weapon to another should create a character conflict (read: story fodder), not seem like changing your underwear.

[Winnah]

You're getting into chicken and egg territory.

Is a weapon legendary because of it's wielder, or is the wielder legendary because of the weapon?

You can find examples of both in literature, but in an RPG, the weapon should be subsiduary to the character, at best. Unless of course, you want to play a magic weapon.

[jadagul]

No, I think in some ways Maj is asking the right question.

Frank has been arguing that if you're looting weapons all over the place, your character can't really have an iconic weapon. Maj is arguing that if you want iconic weapons, you can't have looting. They're not actually disagreeing, really.

On some level the whole point is a truism: if King Arthur tosses away Excalibur because he found a better sword after killing a dragon, then 1) that's stupid and 2) Excalibur isn't really his iconic signature weapon any more. Frank's been pushing this further, to argue that if you want a world with versimilitude and also looting you can't have an iconic weapon type, unless possibly the type is something so common that you know you're going to see it.

But yeah. There's nothing wrong with telling stories about a guy with an iconic weapon. And there's nothing wrong with telling stories about murder hobos. They just don't work well under the same ruleset.

[Maj]

You're getting into chicken and egg territory.

Is a weapon legendary because of it's wielder, or is the wielder legendary because of the weapon?

Irrelevant, actually (though I would argue that we know about those weapons because their wielders became relevant to history, not the other way around).

My point was that iron weapons, back in the day, were extremely expensive and treasured by those who wielded them. We don't know the story of John the Doe and his sword, Unknown, but history was such that he probably existed. If you try to make a RPG that is [loosely] based on a historical time period, then the system should support characters who would [loosely] belong to that time.

[MGuy]

Lago. Exactly what part of your argument have I missed? Every quote you have from yourself is of you whining that if someone uses one weapon over others it promotes a style of play you merely don't like and wish everyone else to not like without you giving me or anyone else a reason to not like it. Please, for those as lazy and as thick as I, please list the parts of your argument that is not exactly that. The only part of anything you posted that isn't that is where you cast th weapon as something small/passive. I responded to this as well by asking you if its such a small ability (negligible) than why the fuck do I care if someone uses it? The reason you can't respond to this question is because th only answer you even fucking have is "Because I dont like it".

[Winnah]

I don't hold that my point was irrelevant. Frodo's adventure meets an abrubt end without the protection of a magic ring. In some stories, Arthur would have remained a stableboy had he not claimed a magic sword. Aladdin remains a street rat without the assistance of the genie of the lamp.

All of these examples have one thing in common. The item is found at the beginning of the story. It really does not matter if Frodo pulls the sword from the stone, or Aladdin wears the One Ring because the specific character actually has less importance to the plot than the power the item they are holding.

Meaningless if you want to play a historical game. In a fantasy game, magical items need to be handled carefully, lest the character becomes overshadowed by their shiny new toy (and the subsequent desire to find more shiny new toys). This problem becomes more pronounced when certain character types require shiny new toys in order to remain relevant within a campaign.

"Has magical item" as a class feature is probably the only sensible idea I have seen that comes close to addressing this problem.

[Username17]

Being "an archer" is something that is quite common in fiction. [Hawkeye, Robin hood, Green Archer, etc] And if that right there isn't enough to convince you that "archer" isn't standard enough to be supported (just as mage, knight, etc is) then I really really don't know what you would consider appropriate.

True story: not only are there numerous important Robin Hood stories where he uses a melee weapon and not a bow, but those stories came first.

In modern portrayals, the character of Robin Hood cannot be separated from his longbow. In a prevailing view, this weapon, so easy to make and yet so impressive in its killing power even against a well-armored foe, is a wonderfully symbolic tool for this legendary representative of the lower classes who fought against his oppressive superiors for basic freedoms. That neither the medieval Robin Hood nor the medieval longbow match their current description is of little consequence to modern interpreters, but to historians attempting to date the origins and settings of the legend, both should be important.

Robin Hood even having a bow is a later invention. The first stories of Robin Hood involve him robbing from the rich with a sword or an ax.

And it's important to wrap your mind around this from the standpoint of the actual discussion. Because Robin Hood is actually an example not only of a character who acquired and used a great many different weapons, but also one for whom the weapon of choice is documented to have been changed by the circumstances of later adventures. Exactly the thing people arguing against Lago and myself say should not happen.

Robin Hood had new adventures and not only acquired a bow, but the bow became his favorite weapon. That is an example of the character getting new items dynamically in adventures and then abandoning old equipment layouts. Again and still: if you're arguing that a player should be allowed to demand that their character miraculously find the same type of weapon over and over again such that they keep the same weapon after every weapon upgrade, you really don't want to move the conversation to Robin Fucking Hood.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

Robin Hood could make his bow. He did not have to find or loot it.

In this case the player decided to pick bows as his wepaon of choice.

Not to mention that these days, if someone wants to play Robin Hood he almost always means "I want to be an archer!".

Also, can we stop focusing on fucking loot drops? There are other ways to get magic items, from buying to making them, to having a class feature that enchants them, to rewards from your diety and what.

Why do you (Frank) fixate so much on having all magic items be loot rewards? Why do you think it makes sense that all magic is found, never made?

[MGuy]

Frank, I don't care what version of Robinhood had him using something other than a bow. I don't know that Robinhood. Its not the Robinhood I enjoy or am even talking about and I'd assume its not the Robinhood most of the people bringing him up are talking about either. You see your point is moot that he had other shit if no one knows/thinks about it. Because they're not thinking about that side of him that means that they enjoy him for what they know of him and what people know is that he was an archer. Even in the case where you think the Robinhood who found his bow later and had it be his favorite weapon from then on does not defeat any argument posted here about whether or not a character who uses X weapon primarily throughout his career can be interesting or not. He used primarily X weapon before he got the bow so that made him an X user until he got Y weapon and had many more adventures using primarily weapon Y. Now either X and Y mean something to you for this character or they don't either way this example disproves nothing.

In fact, you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument because if you look at it one way, where what weapon someone is using is important enough to argue over then weapon selection should be a choice you give to your players because it is obviously so important a character trait that it warrants heated discussion. If you DON'T think what weapon someone uses is important then who gives a fuck? What weapon someone uses is either important or not and if its an important part of the character player should have say so.

I'm guessing you're arguing more about loot dropping more than anything else which would be another "who gives a fuck" kind of thing. Personally I like loot drops to be relevant to what's going on and consistent with the setting. If that shit don't fly at other tables I don't care. I've never played a character who's primary "thing" was a weapon anyway though I've had people I've played with and run for have it be their primary thing and I can tell you of all the things that have discomforted me at a game THAT sure as hell has never been one of them. It certainly isn't worth the pile of words that have been dumped on this subject. Assuming a Sword Master only thinks about swords when it comes to weapon drops that does not mystically eliminate other drops from ever occurring. Maybe the interesting items that drop aren't even weapons. None of this minor shit stops the character or story from being interesting.

[K]

At first I thought this argument was about different kinds of player agency, but I've decided it's actually about character evolution.

Comic book and fairy tale and mythic characters don't actually evolve because then they'd be lost as eternal characters whose stories can be retold over and over with slight variations.

DnD and novel characters do evolve, but eventually their story ends and it never gets retold.

Once you accept that DnD characters must evolve by finding more powerful magic items or by adopting new themes of some higher tier of power, the restriction to the lower-power concept is unnecessary because it's not worth the cost.

This is how we get Power-armored Batman. The character evolves, so the flavor of using batarangs becomes obsolete.

Since DnD characters are expected to evolve, they can't have signature weapons simply because that moderately hurts the story for a very small pay-off in terms of character since it becomes a very small part of the character.

I mean, a high-level samurai should probably be tossing down winds that knock entire ranks of enemies down and it doesn't matter if the thing that does it is a sword or a fan in the terms of positive character contribution, but it does matter if you have to twist the story to make one or the other appear to fit a single guy's samurai concept.

I guess the only thing I can add is the cost/benefit analysis of various themes on the story at different points in a character's evolution. I suppose in a game like 4e where characters never truly evolve the point is moot, but in 3.x it's a big fucking deal because catering to a theme makes for difficult storytelling.

It reminds me of the old psionics problem of getting a bunch of telepathic offenses and defenses and then needing the DM to send psionic monsters at you to justify the extra complication in your character.

Also, it ties into the issue where someone pays a lot to have fire immunity and then the DM feels obligated to toss in fire damage once in a while to make that a meaningful choice.

So I guess the questions are:

1. Is the DM required to make your choices meaningful, and/or

2. Is the pay-off of a theme worth the added difficulty in making that theme meaningful?

[Fuchs]

What is so difficult in letting people buy or craft their weapons, if it doesn't matter mechanically if they use a fan or a sword to "windcutter" enemies?

In 3.x you don't have much if any trouble catering to a theme since you have magic mart tables. Do the crafting rules make sense for magic mart? Maybe not, but if it doesn't make sense for mages to craft stuff, then it does not make sense for that stuff to drop as loot either.

If you want to have verisimilitude in your new game you have to answer a few questions if you want loot drops but not magic mart:

If you can't buy or craft magic items, then

who made the magic items you find as loot?

why aren't those items being made anymore?

why can't you trade your loot for other loot?

[MGuy]

If your choices aren't meaningful then why play the game? This is conversation is specifically about weaponry. The default assumption HAS to be that what weapon you're using is important somehow. If you start going off the rails and talking about "high level this and tossing mountains that" then you're getting away from the subject.

[RadiantPhoenix]

If your choices aren't meaningful then why play the game? This is conversation is specifically about weaponry. The default assumption HAS to be that what weapon you're using is important somehow. If you start going off the rails and talking about "high level this and tossing mountains that" then you're getting away from the subject.

This is untrue; what weapon a player is using isn't important; what's important is that the player obsesses over whatever weapon it is that they have / are using / would like to be using, and that we consider this to be a bad thing.


EDIT:

Frank, I don't care what version of Robinhood had him using something other than a bow. I don't know that Robinhood. Its not the Robinhood I enjoy or am even talking about and I'd assume its not the Robinhood most of the people bringing him up are talking about either. You see your point is moot that he had other shit if no one knows/thinks about it.

Oh fuck you.

Robin Hood is a character who changed his primary weapon, and you liked him better afterwards! That makes him an argument in favor of changing weapons!

[Fuchs]

Oh fuck you.

Robin Hood is a character who changed his primary weapon, and you liked him better afterwards! That makes him an argument in favor of changing weapons!

Robin Hood did not change his weapon after finding a random bow. He could make or buy his weapon easily. It's actually an argument for players chosing their weappons, and not relying on random chance.

[MGuy]

RP: 2 things. If you don't care about what weapon someone else is using then why have this discussion at all? If what weapon someone uses is important to them in a game about make believe what right do you have to come along and say that your version of make believe is any better or worse just because you don't feel the same way?

Second: I didn't KNOW Robinhood had another weapon before primarily using the bow. So as I fucking said I enjoyed the idea of Robinhood without even knowing that swording was his thing.

[Username17]

I didn't KNOW Robinhood had another weapon before primarily using the bow. So as I fucking said I enjoyed the idea of Robinhood without even knowing that swording was his thing.

And if the character had never tried out other combat techniques and weapon layouts for different stories, you'd have never known that anything other than swording was his thing. It would just be Sword Fight after Sword Fight after Sword Fight (sorry, I can only find that last one dubbed poorly into Spanish, Youtube is weird).

Robin Hood as a character grew up over hundreds of actual years with tellings and retellings of hundreds of stories. And some of them tried different stuff. And one of the things that they tried was giving Robin Hood different weapons. You can probably remember the Robin Hood vs. Little John quarterstaff fight, because that shit is awesome - but you probably can't remember any of the other adventures where Robin Hood runs around hitting people with a stick, because people don't tell those very often. You also don't hear that many retellings of Robin Hood's ax exploits or his dagger duel with Will Scarlet, but the Robin Hood Archery Competition is pretty mandatory for every Robin Hood version - again because that story is awesome.

But the bottom line is that Robin Hood lays a very good template for character growth. Characters get put in different situations and have different equipment available to them while they do it, and the result is that some of the stories are going to be cooler and others less cool than what would happen if you just plugged away with your initial concept, but in the long run you remember home runs and not base hits, so the overall experience is going to be much cooler.

And the end result is that Robin Hood is a better character with a bow - because he was allowed to evolve into a character with a bow. Because people like Fuchs were told to sit down and shut up when they said that the weapon the character started with was what they wanted and they did not want to try new things.

-Username17

[Stubbazubba]

There's a huge difference between Robin Hood deliberately choosing a new weapon/fighting-style and Robin Hood switching up his weapons every week because all of a sudden everything else is obsolete. The enemies Robin Hood fights do not evolve the way a D&D adventure does; the only real difference is numbers, which does not mandate a new weapon be used. As K pointed out, in a world where next month's enemies are impervious to today's weapons, then obviously a static weapon like a hunting bow, a batarang, or an M4 Carbine cannot reasonably be expected to be adequate next month. D&D stories, for better or worse, do not operate like those stories do.

However, there is yet to be a convincing argument made as to why the next tier of power in weapons must be chosen by either the DM or the dice, depending on whether you are Frank or Lago, respectively. Robin Hood may switch weapons, but he chooses which weapon to use, not the Sheriff of Nottingham. The entire point of the game is combat; you build a character specifically to do that one thing with a certain style, and the player should have some input into how their character fights, including what manner of pointy metal is in his hand. I'm all for PCs needing to pick up an alternative weapon occasionally, both to prove that 'Fighters' are masters of martial arts like they are in the movies, and also to give them the chance to evolve and decide, "Y'know, there's a lot of advantages to fighting with a longspear over dual-wielding short swords, I want to make use of them in the future," and voluntarily and organically evolve his character, and so there should be no penalty for using a different weapon. But forcing a long-term change (even if its just because the alternative is obsolescence) upon him is only going to breed resentment.

You have to have the best of both worlds; yes, weapon drops should be reasonable for the world, but the pc has every right to determine just how he fights the majority of his battles. Hence, the ability to choose what you wield without losing power is important; whether that's accomplished by removing all power progression from weapons and putting it into the character, or by making a power transfer possible, or by simply having Ye Olde Magic Shoppe, I don't care, it satisfies both of those criteria. Some of those may be better ideas than others, but to throw them all out in the name of "improving role-playing" is completely insane. We make choices about our characters because we want the illusion of satisfaction that comes from having my imaginary character a certain way because I paid for the bloody game, I deserve to have a say over something.

Kicking players in the balls in the name of 'making better stories' is sheer dickery, and nothing more than railroading. Actually, it's worse than normal railroading, because you're not even railroading plot details, you're railroading aesthetic in the vain hope that it'll indirectly influence plot details the way you want it to. If you have an unreasonable weapon fetishist or an unreasonable anything else, man up and deal with it, either by resolving the conflict like a human being or kicking him out/leaving the group yourself, don't try and hard-code player behaviors into the rule-set, it won't solve the problem, and I don't want to deal with all the unintended consequences.

[Fuchs]

Robin Hood did not have to randomly loot a bow to become an archer, he could acquire one by stealing it, or buying it, or making it. He only could becme an archer since Frank and his ilk were told to shut up, and let people pick their weapons.

[DSMatticus]

Frank; a retelling of a story with different features is not an evolution of that character. And furthermore, even showing that there is a character that evolves in some way does not show that that particular evolution is something that should be in every story. That there are multiple stories where Robin Hood uses different weapons? Does not matter. That one came first and the other didn't? Does not matter. That there are stories which contain Robin Hood using secondary weapons? Does not matter. That there might even be stories where Robin Hood didn't even have a primary weapon at all? Does not fucking matter.

There exist stories where Robin Hood has a primary weapon, and that weapon is a bow, and that is a powerful icon because as soon as we started talking about Robin Hood everyone here knew instantly we were talking about him because he is an iconic archer. That is case and point that a signature weapon or signature weapon type can be an important part of a character.

All of these other points are fucking distractions. They do not counter the assertion. If the argument is that having a signature weapon type or even signature specific weapon can make a good character/story, showing character/stories who do something else actually isn't a counter-point. You've shown that it is not necessary, but nobody ever claimed "only iconic weapons make good stories." And showing that there are other versions of an iconic character that are significantly less iconic also doesn't do shit. You haven't even shown that Robin Hood is a bad example of this, you've shown that there are versions of Robin Hood where he uses something other than bow, or that there are scenes where Robin Hood uses something othe than a bow. That doesn't counter the assertion, and it also doesn't throw any doubt on the idea that Robin Hood the archer is a story that actually exists and is a powerful icon and the most prominent one of all the Robin Hood stories.

I fucking reiterate: of the first 84 google images, 93% of the ones with weapons are bows. That's how prevalent the association actually is. Trying to argue that that association doesn't exist because "look, shiny distraction!" does not in fact exist is getting really annoying and really dumb. It's the same stupid shit you pulled with Jedi, trying to argue that they don't have a signature weapon because you can find scenes of them using something else.

But the bottom line is that Robin Hood lays a very good template for character growth.

No. You are listing a bunch of different static Robin Hoods. Robin Hood did not grow from an archer into a daggermaster into an axemaster into having a magic sword. You gave us an example of a bunch of different Robin Hoods who do each of those things in a fairly static way a handful of times. This makes him a terrible template for character growth.

And the end result is that Robin Hood is a better character with a bow - because he was allowed to evolve into a character with a bow.

Robin Hood did not evolve into a character with a bow. Someone sat down and deliberately decided to put a bow in the hands of a character he called Robin Hood. They did not consult a random list of things to see what weapon Robin Hood should use for his next adventure. They just said, "he'll have a bow. Go!"

You are confusing many distinct stories by many distinct authors told at several distinct points in time about variations of the same character as randomized character growth, or character growth at all, and that is preposterous and stupid.

Furthermore, you are borderline lying here because the earliest recorded Robin Hood stories we've got have him being a badass archer. As far as we know, that was exactly the first primary weapon Robin Hood ever had. There's no reason to even think Robin Hood was anything before he was an archer and that archer wasn't the first choice as well as the most enduring. But either fucking way, Robin Hood the archer was without doubt a choice by some author, not a choice by a loot drop table.

[souran]

The problem with Frank's argument is that TTRPGs and D&D in particular don't support characters in the way that they need to in order to make Frank's character evolution actually work.

Frank can talk all he wants about early stories with Robinhood using a sword then a bow or whatever buts it doesn't matter because whatever weapon Robinhood is using nobody is fucking better than hm with it Robinhood is the best ARCHER in all of England. However, the display of Robinhoods prowess with a bow always preceeds a swrodfight with the Sheriff or John or somebody. And guess what, Robin wins that TOO. And even though little John is a god damn saint with a quaterstaff Robin kicks his ass with that weapon as well.

Guess what, you can't actually make a D&D character who is an excellent archer, swordman, english quaterstaff, dagger, and considering that in most tellings he is the early of lockely and he was a freaking crusader in Richard's army (therefore a KNIGHT) he presumably also knows how to use a lance and fight mounted.

Robin is a well rounded character who can do LOTS OF SHIT and most of the stuff he does he does better than anybody else he EVER meets.

D&D characters are actually more like will scarlet, little john, and Friar tuck. ONE stischk dudes who have LITTLE growth. Will scarlet is famous for daggers. There are some movies where they give him a sword...but when he is the center of attention its becuase of the daggers. Similarly Little John's scene is about quaterstaffs. Its not about axes.

Further, what NEVER happens in Robinhood is that the merry men find the lance of longenous and because that a better weapon than Robin's Bow of accuracy he switches over to become a spear guy.

Then because the bow of accuracy is still a freaking awesome weapon (just not as good as the lance) he gives that to Will Scarlet who totally drops his daggers deal because the bow is a definitive upgrade.

Then becuase Will's magic daggers mesh decent with Little John's two weapon fighting feats (he needed these to be combat effective with the quaterstaff) he takes those because it increases his average DPR.

Tuck takes John's staff of striking because he isn't really planning on smacking anybody in melee anyway but its still a direct upgrade and John can't wield the staff and wills dagger's at the same time so what the hell.

Maid Marion, the party's DM inserted NPC is given Tuck's tankard of striking because she doesn't have any real weapons at all and at least its something.

Thats the situation that Frank is saying is good for the game. Where random drops cause everybody to change there whole character.

However, even if you wanted this D&D doesn't support it.

When the party finds that the Salamander's dropped a +3 spear the trade down above doesn't usually happen (although it happens ALL the time in VIDEO GAMES which is hte only place were "use the best you find" actually occurs like frank and lago want)

Instead the fighter looks at the +3 spear and his +2 longsword and says "well fuck, with my weapon specilization feats, and other resouces sunk into being a sword and board dude that weapon isn't really an upgrade"

The barbarian or other character who uses two handed weapons says "well my +2 hooked great axe provides a bonus to my trip attacks and its actually a net loss of DPR because I have feats that apply to axes and not spears so I pass"

and then everybody else says "not on my proficiency list"

So then what is probably the best weapon for the party gets put in party storage because nobody can use it effectively. Or perhaps it becomes the backup weapon of an archer character or somebody who never enters melee.

So yes the game better fucking cater to the players. The players have to spend player currency on fighting abilities.

D&D says that if you want to be an archer AND you want to be an expert swordsman you are totally SOL. The expert swordsman and the archer are two different concepts and to actually be any good at either requires you spend a hefty amount of your character power.