What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[Gx1080]

The biggest shinys still aren't made by players, so you still look like a collection of scavenged stuff.

The difference is that is better and more shiny stuff.

[Chamomile]

If you're in a post-apocalypse, sure, maybe. Most fantasy settings aren't set in a post-apocalypse, though.

[Winnah]

The collpase of an ancient, elightened empire is a fairly common staple within the fantasy genre.

So is piecemeal equipment.

[tussock]

Most fantasy settings aren't set in a post-apocalypse, though.

Shwa? The Forgotten Realms is post-post-post-apocalypse, and then some. Greyhawk had a couple during it's 20-year run. Dragonlance is into the 5th age. Mystara has big deserts because old immortal wars killed everything there, not to mention reforming entire continents. Outside D&D? Yeh, just about all of them. What fantasy settings are you reading? The Bible? Apocalypse after apocalypse.


Anyhoo, all disagreement seems to be sorted. Well done all. Those who want to carry the same ancestral Diasho from level 4-20, they need to pay some character cost for an automated level-appropriate sword, be it forging skill, sword-that-grows, or in-game wrangling over delayed upgrades.

I think such characters will cost the player the handy story aid that carrying the Orc King's Axe into battle for 3-4 levels provides, but that's their choice at that point. They want to tell a story about awakening their family Daisho, and aren't outshining the guy who's keeping the history alive by using that history to kill things? Fine.

People just want to find awesome Katanas all the time no matter what? Not going to happen. All good.

[Chamomile]

-snip-

That's not what "post-apocalypse" means. Post-apocalypse does not mean that at some point in the past an apocalypse happened. It means that the apocalypse happened so recently that we are still in the Mad Max warlords stage. It means that there are probably people still alive who remember the apocalypse happening. In most D&D settings, the weapons from before any given apocalypse are either so vanishingly rare that you almost never get them as random drops anyway, at which point they're basically artifacts, or else making something of equal or greater quality is totally doable in the modern times anyways.

EDIT: Also, I'm not really familiar with Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, or Mystara, but most of the things Dragonlance calls an apocalypse aren't, really. When order is restored next Tuesday, that's not an apocalypse that's just a disaster.

[PhoneLobster]

Way to add nothing remotely sane, relevant or useful to an already stupid thread.

[Maj]

Prak, that Batman was fucking awesome.

[MGuy]

Scavenger is a really low-level concept (outside of post-apocalyptic settings, anyway). It's the sign of someone who can't afford anything else but what he strips from his enemies. Even in a post-apocalyptic setting, you're going to evolve past that eventually, once you become the warlords of the wasteland and you have people to gather up the best of the relics for you without a single bit of effort on your part.

What's stunning to me is that Frank doesn't even really care about single weapon users so long as they aren't harmful to the group at large, but can't seem to then make the connection that forcing single weapon users to take spotlight away from the rest of the group's objectives in order to preserve their idiom is an objective systemic flaw.

Its not surprising. In fact I'm very very sure Frank knows exactly how weak his argument is. The fact that he HAS to insist that he's just against it "when it becomes a problem" is evidence of this. I take you back to what I said earlier:

Fuch's position is that players who primarily use a certain weapon get that weapon upgraded as appropriate so that they may continue having a level appropriate weapon at each tier of play with the weapon they want to use. He does not care how this is done as long as it happens. If people choose to do it in a stupid way, he is probably fine with that, but him not caring about the method does not make him wrong. Someone could use a method that makes it more believable or you could not do it depending on how much the people at your table care about verisimilitude but I believe that he is not particularly saying that it MUST be done in the most nonsensical way possible just that if it happens in a nonsensical fashion he may not care.

Frank claimed he was against Fuchs insisting that ridiculous drops happen all the time. Anyone even trying to read the thread would know this is not what is being argued yet.In fact people have pointed this out. However, its the only thing Frank is standing on right now. The "role protection" thing is something extra that also requires a certain set of circumstances in order to be true. Saying something can be bad if it gets in the way of game play is absolutely meaningless because it can applied as a catch all argument to just about anything you can do at the game table.

[Swordslinger]

Weapon choice is an aesthetic choice that should be made by players. There is absolutely no reason for aesthetic and choices [deep or not] about what a player's character does, acts, decides to wear should be decided by someone or something who is not that player.

Yes there is, because this aesthetic choice isn't made at character creation but as made as a result of what he's done in game. The choice of if the cloak you found in the dungeon is not yours alone, but part of a cooperative story. If you found a red cloak with a ruby clasp in the dungeon, you have found a red cloak with a ruby clasp. You can't go and change that to a black cloak with an onyx just because you think it'd fit your character better.

Also weapon choice is a minor, inconsequential thing. This being true there is no reason to not allow a character to continue on with the aesthetic if that's what the player wants.

Frank gave plenty of reasons why it was bad for the game, you have given nothing but some player's rights argument where you think PCs should be able to dictate shit they find.

[Maj]

If you found a red cloak with a ruby clasp in the dungeon, you have found a red cloak with a ruby clasp. You can't go and change that to a black cloak with an onyx just because you think it'd fit your character better.

This is actually SOP in our games. We had too many players unhappy with the patchwork character look. One player had even gone so far as to trade an item he'd found for the exact same item at ye olde magick shoppe so he could get it in a different color.

At that point, the DM just said fuck it. If magic crap resizes itself to fit its new wearer, it recolors/styles itself, too.

All parties were happy with that. Players got to keep track of how their characters looked, and the DM didn't have to pay attention/listen to the aesthetic requests. Surprisingly, it also helped the roleplaying front... Sort of like wearing a costume for a play, I guess. The players got more into their characters which led to fewer distractions at the gaming table, and it gave the DM more plot hooks and fodder.

[MGuy]

Weapon choice is an aesthetic choice that should be made by players. There is absolutely no reason for aesthetic and choices [deep or not] about what a player's character does, acts, decides to wear should be decided by someone or something who is not that player.

Yes there is, because this aesthetic choice isn't made at character creation but as made as a result of what he's done in game. The choice of if the cloak you found in the dungeon is not yours alone, but part of a cooperative story. If you found a red cloak with a ruby clasp in the dungeon, you have found a red cloak with a ruby clasp. You can't go and change that to a black cloak with an onyx just because you think it'd fit your character better.

Also weapon choice is a minor, inconsequential thing. This being true there is no reason to not allow a character to continue on with the aesthetic if that's what the player wants.

Frank gave plenty of reasons why it was bad for the game, you have given nothing but some player's rights argument where you think PCs should be able to dictate shit they find.

Firstly you're wrong on at least three counts. When a person makes their character at character creation THEY are the ones who choose what their character is using and what he's wearing. Claiming people can't make aesthetic choices at character creation is exactly wrong. Second its the player's choice whether or not they don't just go and get the cloak dyed another color. I've had various character get armor and clothing restitched to fit them. 3rd even if they don't do that then they can simply make the aesthetic choice to not wear the damn cloak.

Next please do list what reasons Frank has listed to not allow a person to just select what kind of weapon they use until the end of the game. But before you do make sure that none of his reasons:

1: Have anything to do with "wishlist" or any statement that include or imply that players choose everything they find.

2: Don't invent specific circumstances that make it so that letting the players' request this single particular piece of gear ridiculous.

3: Don't go off on some tangent about the concept being shallow, boring, too low level, or something similar.

The reason for these conditions is that:
1: We're talking about just one piece of gear not outfitting your entire character in whatever. This is one piece of equipment that only has to be replaced once in a while and only if (as in Frank's case) you don't let them upgrade it in another sensible fashion.

2: Because inventing specific ridiculous circumstances that are not necessary to achieve the given result is not a solid argument against allowing it.

3: Arguments about taste are meaningless.

[RadiantPhoenix]

So you assume automatically when a character actually cares what he looks like he wants to go for something drastically out of setting, rather than just wanting something appropriate in setting that isn't a collection of random garbage?

When a player is generically upset about what their character's stuff looks like, but isn't willing to play a character that can provide stuff the player wouldn't be upset about, then I would initially assume that that player has a preconceived notion of what they character want the character to be that has nothing to do with the setting. In an actual game, I would ask more questions and attempt to find out more before I acted on that assumption, though.

Also, why do you assume that the best items a character finds are going to be:

• Individually ugly (as implied by the use of the word garbage)
• Tiny pieces, rather than full articles of clothing (e.g.: 'a single pauldron' or 'a shoe' vs 'a suit of armor' or 'a cloak')

Scavenger is a really low-level concept (outside of post-apocalyptic settings, anyway). It's the sign of someone who can't afford anything else but what he strips from his enemies.

There is a key difference between each of the following:

1. Can't find/get anything except what he strips from his enemies
2. Can't find/get anything except what he strips from his enemies or finds in his travels
3. Can't find/get anything better than what he strips from his enemies or finds in his travels
4. Can't find/get much that is better than what he strips from his enemies or finds in his travels

I'm advocating that characters with an explicit ability that grants them things be #4, and characters without be #3; i.e. normally, you can just go out and just get stuff during downtime, but it won't be as good as what you find. If you're a character who can make stuff, then you can just sit down and make stuff during downtime, and you can get some things that are better than the loot you find.

What's stunning to me is that Frank doesn't even really care about single weapon users so long as they aren't harmful to the group at large, but can't seem to then make the connection that forcing single weapon users to take spotlight away from the rest of the group's objectives in order to preserve their idiom is an objective systemic flaw.

Variation is the key to continued entertainment, and in the absence of a full set of creative players (counting Mister Cavern as a player here), the key to sufficient variation is randomness.

Single-weapon characters inherently reduce variation. You can vary other things instead, but each component of the single-weapon character as argued here limits what you can vary more and more. To start:

• The player won't accept the character using a different weapon, because if the player will accept it they aren't playing a single-weapon character.
• The player won't accept the character doing things that eclipse weapons, lest their weapon be rendered meaningless.

If you have a paradigm in which higher level characters have better weapons, then the single-weapon guy must be able to provide their weapon upgrades, and this ability must be explicit. If they do not have such an ability, then even supporting the concept requires severe restrictions on items as a method of variation, because a campaign without high-level swords precludes the sword-user.

I don't actually object (much) to someone else playing a character who uses a single weapon, as long as it doesn't warp the whole game to suit it. If your single-weapon character doesn't have an explicit ability to grant themselves that weapon, then they do warp the entire game to suit their whim.

Random treasure and single-weapon characters can coexist if and only if the single-weapon-user gets the things they need outside of the normal treasure system that most people use.

notably, also not a clown suit:
http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com ... fcf4f3.jpg

In the context of a pseudo-mideval-european fantasy kitchen sink? Perhaps not. In a modern setting? That's a clown suit.

[Swordslinger]

Next please do list what reasons Frank has listed to not allow a person to just select what kind of weapon they use until the end of the game. But before you do make sure that none of his reasons:

1: Have anything to do with "wishlist" or any statement that include or imply that players choose everything they find.

2: Don't invent specific circumstances that make it so that letting the players' request this single particular piece of gear ridiculous.

Wait what? If players are requesting any gear at all, you're talking about a wishlist. A wishlist doesn't mean PCs pick everything they find, but it does mean that they request certain items and the DM can either provide the gear now or provide it later. Which as Frank said, is a perfect recipe for resenting your DM. Once you start with a wishlist, the PC now feels entitled to the item and the DM can either give it immediately or withhold it a while.

And I don't want to hear some semantic bullshit about how it's not a wishlist because it's only one item or some crap like that. Whether your christmas list contains one item or several is irrelevant. The point is that the DM is expected to be Santa Claus and get you what you want.

As for his reasons, he put some of them in bullet points in his previous post on the top of page 30.

3: Arguments about taste are meaningless.

The pro-wishlist argument is entirely one of catering to player taste. If we agree that arguments about taste are meaningless, then the desire to wield a rapier simply because the player thinks it's cooler than an axe are meaningless and should be ignored.

Playing with wishlists however causes detrimental effects to the player/DM relationship, strains verisimilitude, and reduces the number of stories you can tell.

[PhoneLobster]

A wishlist doesn't mean PCs pick everything they find, but it does mean that they request certain items and the DM can either provide the gear now or provide it later. Which as Frank said, is a perfect recipe for resenting your DM. Once you start with a wishlist, the PC now feels entitled to the item and the DM can either give it immediately or withhold it a while.

Nice how you completely warped the concept of wish list mid paragraph. It somewhat suggests the much of the argument, among other things, is going right over your head.

Also, the wish list "resentment psychology" angle, requires an actual specific finite list in order to even be applicable. And a relatively small one at that. You really DO have to mail order your specific item advancement or something very close to it in order to fall under that rather limited critique. Which is WHY you just morphed "you don't need anything specific" to "one specific item" in your urgent attack on all these "wish lists" no one is asking for just then.

The point is that the DM is expected to be Santa Claus and get you what you want.

You seem to be coming to this thread with a new, separate, and stupid agenda about "player entitlement". Go read my good GMing FAQ thread and have a whine THERE because THAT (apparently) is where such stupidity belongs.

Because unfortunately there is no argument on this thread that the GM shouldn't be Santa Claus. Frank and Lago want the GM to be Santa Claus. The people who disagree with Frank and Lago want the GM to be Santa Claus. The only disagreement we have here is what cool present selection methodology Santa Claus should use.

Really. The whole argument is between "Santa should bring us at least SOME stuff we ACTUALLY want" and "Santa should just bring us totally random stuff because we are too dumb to know what we want". That's it. Entirely. If you are going from the angle "Fuck this whole Santa Claus thing" you are on your crazy ass lonesome.

Playing with wishlists however causes detrimental effects to the player/DM relationship, strains verisimilitude, and reduces the number of stories you can tell.

Oh really?

Ignoring the massive wishlist strawman's nine hundredth zombie reanimation, How?

Care to actually explain how Versimilitude, that incredibly flexible thing we have little or no issue with normally is so heavily strained by "Swords for the Sword guys Bro?". Care to actually explain how the player and DM will get along less well by communicating what they want from the game and trying to deliver it to each other? Care to explain how better organization between the players telling a story leads to less ability to tell stories?

Because those would be some pretty remarkable explanations.

[Chamomile]

Scavenger is a really low-level concept (outside of post-apocalyptic settings, anyway). It's the sign of someone who can't afford anything else but what he strips from his enemies.

There is a key difference between each of the following:

1. Can't find/get anything except what he strips from his enemies
2. Can't find/get anything except what he strips from his enemies or finds in his travels
3. Can't find/get anything better than what he strips from his enemies or finds in his travels
4. Can't find/get much that is better than what he strips from his enemies or finds in his travels

I'm advocating that characters with an explicit ability that grants them things be #4, and characters without be #3

Why would you advocate for that when it is demonstrably harmful to the game and narrative?

[RadiantPhoenix]

Why would you advocate for that when it is demonstrably harmful to the game and narrative?

Demonstrate it.

[hyzmarca]

Care to actually explain how Versimilitude, that incredibly flexible thing we have little or no issue with normally is so heavily strained by "Swords for the Sword guys Bro?". Care to actually explain how the player and DM will get along less well by communicating what they want from the game and trying to deliver it to each other? Care to explain how better organization between the players telling a story leads to less ability to tell stories?

Because those would be some pretty remarkable explanations.

The Versimilitude issue comes from the endless progression of slightly better katanas (or broadswords, or crossbows, or laser pistols, or robot arms) at regular intervals.

It's the Chrono Trigger problem. Robo can't use a sword or a club (and, indeed, doesn't have animations for either) so the shops and chests in 65 million years BC has slightly better robots arms for him. Never mind the fact that robots won't be invited for millions of years and there is absolutely no plot relevant reason.

[Chamomile]

Why would you advocate for that when it is demonstrably harmful to the game and narrative?

Demonstrate it.

See absolutely any of the arguments made for or against single weapon users. Forcing single-weapon users to distract from the narrative in order to maintain their idiom is an objective system flaw.

[Seerow]

Missed this earlier

How, exactly, have you come this far and not realized that wealth by level is, itself, a bad thing?

FWIW I realize WBL is a terrible thing. But the point of that statement wasn't that the balance was good, but rather that in 3.5 someone picking up a class feature for "Gain level appropriate weapon" is not getting as a class feature the ability to choose what his weapon is. He's getting extra power in the form of an extra magic item. Similarly crafters aren't paying for the ability to choose their magic items, they're paying resources to effectively double their wealth.

In a system where you aren't getting that sort of benefit, then crafting or getting a specific magic item shouldn't cost significant resources, if any.

[Prak]

So... still no comment on characters having the ability to attune their items to them, and invest, say, a part of their spirit into an item to change it from The Maul of the Earth King, to a sword that does the same stuff but Earl, the group's fighter, doesn't need to worry about weapon proficiency?


Also, question that came to mind, is there any reason to not have "+X to Atk/Dam with [type of weapon]" not expanded to "+X to weapons with which you are proficient"? That would cut a lot of the "But I'm a longsword wielder!" shit just because suddenly it's not "But I'm optimized for longsword use!" but rather "Hey, sweet, I know how to use that!"

[PhoneLobster]

The Versimilitude issue comes from the endless progression of slightly better katanas (or broadswords, or crossbows, or laser pistols, or robot arms) at regular intervals.

That hasn't been an issue in very nearly every RPG since the dawn of time. So why precisely "verisimilitude" just broke on that one just this second will need a LOT more explaining than "Well items? Similar ones? Getting better? VERSIMILITUDE BROKEN GAME OVER MAN GAME OVER!". Cause if that WAS going to happen, even a bit, it would have happened already what with the VAST amount of use that particular one has seen.

It's the Chrono Trigger problem... fact that robots won't be invited for millions of years...

Remember that thing... a few posts back... about not inventing additional extreme and unlikely scenarios in order to "prove" that something doesn't work in you know, regular scenarios.

What you just described there is another case of the out of genre item. That has been a strawman since Frank started ranting about Aztecs with Katanas or whatever bad acid trip he was on.

But as a general rule if what you want to say about "Swords For the Sword Guys Bro!" involves launching Robots through a time tunnel into 65 million BC I think we can safely say it no longer has particular relevance to you know, Swords and Sword guys and other in Genre items. Nor indeed does it have altogether much relevance to well, ANYTHING interesting.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Forcing single-weapon users to distract from the narrative in order to maintain their idiom is an objective system flaw.

How does having an explicit class feature such as, "Sword of the Soul (Su): A Phantom Exorcist's soul has more than one part. At first level, one of these parts manifests as a weapon. It can take the form of any simple or martial weapon of the character's choice, but once chosen it does not change. This weapon grows in power as the Phantom Exorcist gains levels, as described below..." distract from the narrative?

How does not playing a single-weapon user distract from the narrative?

[Chamomile]

Forcing single-weapon users to distract from the narrative in order to maintain their idiom is an objective system flaw.

How does having an explicit class feature such as, "Sword of the Soul (Su): A Phantom Exorcist's soul has more than one part. At first level, one of these parts manifests as a weapon. It can take the form of any simple or martial weapon of the character's choice, but once chosen it does not change. This weapon grows in power as the Phantom Exorcist gains levels, as described below..." distract from the narrative?

Um. It doesn't. It allows a single-weapon user to maintain his idiom without taking up any screentime with sidequests or whatever.

How does not playing a single-weapon user distract from the narrative?

Some people want to play single-weapon users, and there's a lot of in-genre support from this going back to the distinctive weapons of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli. On top of this, a lot of weapons just do not work with certain character concepts, like the barbarian with the lightning dagger. Even if it's mechanically superior, it looks stupid. All of this ground has already been covered.

[Winnah]

I get it now. Players that want to focus one one specific weapon are obviously compensating for something. Why should they be penalised in an escapist fantasy as well as real life?

Give them their toy to play with and make sure it has an impractically large bonus.

[MGuy]

Well while I've been away PL has fine a fine job of summing up what I feel but more pointedly at Sword. You are once again wrong at the very start. However I don't need to rebut because PL hit the nail on the head. Your Santa analogy actually kills most of your point. When you write to Santa you don't tell him that you want "a toy" or "a game" or "some clothes". You tell him exactly what the fuck you want.Sure you might have edge cases where smaller kids are asking for "a bike" but generally there's something specific you want. Indicating you want your sword to be upgraded at appropriate times in the game is like requesting that there be times in the game where you actually get to put your Diplomacy skill to use. Its like expecting something in your character's background that is of any importance to come up (like his association with Dead Man's Hand) or something similar.

And second no one is arguing whether or not player tastes are good or bad. What people are saying is that its a game, cooperative storytelling, a character that belongs to the player. It is common fucking sense that if you're playing a TTRPG you should be aiming to make it fun. That should go without saying. If someone's "fun" comes in using a single weapon throughout the entire game making arguments based on the idea that it's shallow and boring are pointless. If the game is all about just letting the DM decide your fate so thoroughly that you're letting the DM decide what your character is fucking wearing that day, then you might as well not be playing the game.

So Sword, you still haven't done what I requested. Find an argument that Frank made that doesn't go against the three filters I laid out.