What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Can you buy that loot from other players in Eve? If yes, then it's not random loot only. It's "You can buy loot with money you get from selling loot". Which runs counter to Franks "You cannot buy anything, RANDOM LOOT ONLY!!!" vision.

Only sometimes; nowhere near reliably enough to get any sort of wishlist.
"I want to get an officer item, any officer item!" was something you could do for a gargantuan sum of money;
"I want to get an officer armor thermal hardener," would not be something you could always do;
"I want Vizan's Modified Armor Thermal Hardener," would require you to either:

• Go out to where Vizan hangs out (which is almost certainly a very, very dangerous place; on the order of, "if you don't have hundreds of other players protecting you, you will almost certainly get killed), and search that area for him for literal days of playing until he shows up and you find him before anyone else does. Then, you have to kill him and hope it survives the destruction of his ship. If it doesn't, you're back to step 1.
• Put up a sufficiently large reward that someone else will go through all of that for you.

As far as the other points go: We are talking loot here. Just because you hate the loot system doesn't mean you only care about the loot system. You can like a game's combat and quest system, and still hate the loot system.

Well, if the loot system isn't fun, that only detracts from the game if objection four (items are needed) comes up.

People have different ideas of what is a cool and interesting item. Some even in MMOGs won't care for the lightning axe since it looks butt-ugly. But they'll love the flaming mace. Or the helmet that will allow you to cast a weak illusionary pet. With random drops they might never get what they think is cool.

From your description, the illusionary pet thing is the only one of those that's actually more than just a 'numbers item' in the context of a TTRPG. A TTRPG that wants to keep people interested using items will need hundreds or thousands of different items at least as interesting as that.

Needed stuff is just that - needed. If you want to play a warrior you need warrior stuff. If it never drops you are boned. That's not "Perceived as neccessary", that's actual need to play your role. "You looted two one-handed swords, go DPS!" won't cut it if you want to be a tank - and even less if your guild wants you to tank, and you have all the tank gear but a good shield.

Well, first of all, I think that, in a well-designed TTRPG, you wouldn't actually need the items from the random drops in order to function, they would just be cool things you might get to do in addition to whatever your character class does, or that make you perform above and beyond what you need to do.

Second, in D&D, loot is a party resource, so finding a perfect set of items for [X] doesn't mean you are going to be doing that, it means that someone is probably going to be doing that. Or maybe everyone is, if you find enough.

Third, I don't think that DPS and Tank are appropriate TTRPG roles.

[Fuchs]

As far as the other points go: We are talking loot here. Just because you hate the loot system doesn't mean you only care about the loot system. You can like a game's combat and quest system, and still hate the loot system.

Well, if the loot system isn't fun, that only detracts from the game if objection four (items are needed) comes up.

Incorrect. If I lose out on random loot and others luck out that detracts from the game. The game is less fun than it could be. If I spot a fun item but have no reliable way to get it, then that makes the game less fun - and might push me to pick a game where I don't have to pray to the dice to have as much fun as possible.

People have different ideas of what is a cool and interesting item. Some even in MMOGs won't care for the lightning axe since it looks butt-ugly. But they'll love the flaming mace. Or the helmet that will allow you to cast a weak illusionary pet. With random drops they might never get what they think is cool.

From your description, the illusionary pet thing is the only one of those that's actually more than just a 'numbers item' in the context of a TTRPG. A TTRPG that wants to keep people interested using items will need hundreds or thousands of different items at least as interesting as that.

Again, people have different tastes. What is cool for one is not cool for another. Random loot means the odds of you getting something cool are smaller than when the GM knows what you like.

Needed stuff is just that - needed. If you want to play a warrior you need warrior stuff. If it never drops you are boned. That's not "Perceived as neccessary", that's actual need to play your role. "You looted two one-handed swords, go DPS!" won't cut it if you want to be a tank - and even less if your guild wants you to tank, and you have all the tank gear but a good shield.

Well, first of all, I think that, in a well-designed TTRPG, you wouldn't actually need the items from the random drops in order to function, they would just be cool things you might get to do in addition to whatever your character class does, or that make you perform above and beyond what you need to do.

Second, in D&D, loot is a party resource, so finding a perfect set of items for [X] doesn't mean you are going to be doing that, it means that someone is probably going to be doing that. Or maybe everyone is, if you find enough.

Third, I don't think that DPS and Tank are appropriate TTRPG roles.

If you don't need the items to play the game and to have fun then they don't really matter that much anyway, so why bother trying to make them special by crippling all other item acquisition methods? Or why try to ban someone from picking what he thinks is a cool item, if the item is just a small bonus?

[RadiantPhoenix]

Okay, I have a question: what if we change the comparison slightly.

What if we are making the following comparison:
"Zero State": There is no treasure. Mundane items can be bought, anything better than that is 100% impossible to get unless a PC has an explicit character ability that can provide that item.

Which of the following variant rules adds more to the "Zero State"?

• Random Treasure
• Wishlist Treasure
• Some mix of the two

[MGuy]

Mix of the two is probably what people are arguing for right now. I don't think anyone is clambering for one or the other extremes.

[virgil]

I use a mix of the two. It's weighted random most of the time (chart without scythes in Hammerdin Peaks), but a wishlist is used as a seed for questing zones and sidequests.

Example, a PC wants an awesome flail. For just plain 'awesome flails', I'll straight up tell him that the gnolls in the Scavenged Plains predominantly wield flails, and there will be level-appropriate encounters there. If he wants to know what he's getting, a few descriptions will tell him of specific, known ones in the setting, and roughly where they are. If he wants a +3 flaming flail, this is either crafting or tailored sidequest territory (shorter than a full-fledged adventure) to be presented to the party as an option.

If there are multiple wishlists involved, then I will likely place the sidequest of one in an area that drops the other; the Gnashing Gnoll with his burning flail has taken residence in Hammerdin Peaks with his giant minions.

In my personal experience, my players only had wishlists when the plot hit a lull, and could afford to be picky about where they went. They cared more about the events and their responses to such during the active points. They routinely remember the loot they didn't plan on getting more often than the loot they asked for. I gave loot essentially that fit the plot they were entering (the equipment that the rogue gish would normally wear), which was sufficiently varied because I used varied opponents.

[Username17]

In my personal experience, my players only had wishlists when the plot hit a lull, and could afford to be picky about where they went. They cared more about the events and their responses to such during the active points. They routinely remember the loot they didn't plan on getting more often than the loot they asked for. I gave loot essentially that fit the plot they were entering (the equipment that the rogue gish would normally wear), which was sufficiently varied because I used varied opponents.

Uh... using potentially available loot as one of the determining factors to choose whether to take one quest or another is not a wishlist. That is an in-character choice based on in-character information. The player is not asking the MC to change the contents of treasure piles.

So the way your description reads is that sometimes players would undergo sidequests for equipment upgrades when more interesting quests weren't available. Which is probably to be expected, since the quest for more money is one of the less interesting quests available to D&D characters. But the wishlist system does not seem to have been used at all.

-Username17

[nbqq]

Now stop shit posting and get with the fucking program. This thread is about refuting the proposition of Fuchs and Maj and other mouth breathers that if they ask for and receive everything they want that they will be happier than if they actually have to rely on effort and luck to get rewards.

This thread is about Lago's fantasy of being a misunderstood genius, and your fantasy of being a reasonable guy that people would actually want to talk to.

[...You Lost Me]

You're talking with Maj. She's a friendly person and all, but it's really important for you to understand that she actually doesn't play by "rules" and is pretty shaky on the whole "game" part of "role playing game". It's time to drag up the actual past. Not nine posts ago, but nine years ago. It's time once again to go back to Why Monks.

This is both you being an asshole and you being unintelligent.

"HURR DURR MAJ NEVER CHANGES OPINYUN SHE IS TEH DUMBS BECAUSE LOOK AT THIS! LOLOL WOMEN."

... is pretty much what your acid-filled, penis-waving post was about. You have performed ad hominem to its finest degree about one of the people on this board who's actually bright enough to mediate her opinion.

Ignored.

[Stubbazubba]

Okay, I have a question: what if we change the comparison slightly.

What if we are making the following comparison:
"Zero State": There is no treasure. Mundane items can be bought, anything better than that is 100% impossible to get unless a PC has an explicit character ability that can provide that item.

Which of the following variant rules adds more to the "Zero State"?

• Random Treasure
• Wishlist Treasure
• Some mix of the two

Mix of the two: Simply have an after-market where enchantments can be transferred from item to item. Enchantments cannot be exchanged for other enchantments, but it lets you take your Lightning Dagger, strip the lightning from the dagger, and paste it onto your greataxe, giving you a Lightning Greataxe. This should cost money, but not a punitive amount, and only be possible in town (or with a sufficiently high UMD score or a certain crafting feat, or a class feature, or however). You have to be X powerful to unbind and rebind an X powerful enchantment so that iconic McGuffins are above the reach of all but the most powerful PCs (or the kinds of craftsmen who cater to the most powerful PCs). That way no world's verisimilitude is broken, characters have the option of maintaining aesthetic without being forced to spend important character upgrade resources on it, there is no resentment over loot drops, and everyone pretty much wins.

Arguing for fully randomized loot or wishlists while this option still stands almost entirely unchallenged is absolute stupidity. Both extremes are deeply flawed in comparison.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Mix of the two: Simply have an after-market where enchantments can be transferred from item to item.

Fuck no! I would rather have mage-mart!

[Stubbazubba]

Mix of the two: Simply have an after-market where enchantments can be transferred from item to item.

Fuck no! I would rather have mage-mart!

I don't understand the appeal of Mage-mart. First off, in-universe you have to explain that there are merchants of some kind who have a wealth of magical items available and are for some reason willing to trade you whatever you want for whatever it is you have. Even assuming that they're charging just for the service of the trade (and thus actually profiting), if they have so many magic weapons and armor, why aren't they outfitting armies and taking over kingdoms and worlds themselves? It's a rather clunky bit of fluff.

Beyond that, it lets you trade horizontal upgrades for vertical upgrades, which exacerbates the 'tunnel vision' problem of character advancement. I will concede that this is not a universally accepted position, and there are arguments to be made either for or against the ability to trade horizontal progression for vertical.

But in the context of this argument, being able to change whatever enchantment you have, or even just a large lump of currency, into whatever enchantment you want is much more than an aesthetic change, and so the same arguments do not apply as well. If a player who gets a Frost Axe holds the game ransom because he wants to be able to switch it for a +(n+1) Axe where n is the bonus his current axe has, then that is a problem, because assuming the GM consents to a mage-mart, that will create power disparity between players, and introduce additional power creep that has to be accounted for, which makes the people who would otherwise be OK with horizontal progress basket-weavers who are unable to keep up with those who seek more pluses with all their souls. So the influence of allowing a magic mart or anything which allows you to trade horizontal progress for vertical progress is an entirely different issue than what this thread is dealing with, which has considerably more mechanical and gameplay consequences than the purely aesthetic option of transferring given enchantments from one medium to another.

Because of said consequences, mage mart is clearly an unacceptable fix for the situation being addressed here. But there has not been any reasons put forth as to why an enchantment transfer would ever be a problem that isn't addressed by my system idea.

[Kaelik]

LOLOL WOMEN."

Why the horrid fuck do you have to accuse people of being sexist when they are not?

No seriously, aside from stupid character assassination, why the fuck would you say this?

Does Frank make fun of Maj's gaming beliefs differently than he does Phone Lobster's? Than Tzor/Doom/PR's political beliefs?

Then why in the same hell fuck do you have to make this about gender Crissa?

[virgil]

Uh... using potentially available loot as one of the determining factors to choose whether to take one quest or another is not a wishlist. That is an in-character choice based on in-character information. The player is not asking the MC to change the contents of treasure piles.

So the way your description reads is that sometimes players would undergo sidequests for equipment upgrades when more interesting quests weren't available. Which is probably to be expected, since the quest for more money is one of the less interesting quests available to D&D characters. But the wishlist system does not seem to have been used at all.

It's a wishlist system on the meta-level, in that the items or the quests for them didn't exist until I created them at request. But yeah, by your def'n, it's probably not a wish-list.

I did have a couple items that changed in nature to better fit the desires of the player, but they were explicitly items of such a nature; such as demon gods torn of will and memories and soul, bodies shaped into semi-morphic objects (locks into one form once bonded) waiting for a Will for direction, and would obviously scale with level (greater Will able to tap into more of its nature).

[...You Lost Me]

LOLOL WOMEN."

Why the horrid fuck do you have to accuse people of being sexist when they are not?

No seriously, aside from stupid character assassination, why the fuck would you say this?

Does Frank make fun of Maj's gaming beliefs differently than he does Phone Lobster's? Than Tzor/Doom/PR's political beliefs?

Then why in the same hell fuck do you have to make this about gender Crissa?

Stop shoving your dick in my mouth. I added something on there because I'm mean. I would have said "LOLOL PL BUTTHURT" if it were PL or "LOLOL DRAWS TEH STOOPID PICTURES" if it were Koumei, because I was calling Frank an asshole, and the sentence needed a bit more "go fuck yourself" than I already had in it. Try reading the rest of it instead of skimming for things to fellate over--you might notice that "LOLOL WOMEN" is completely unrelated to the rest of the post.

Now please continue complaining about stupid strawmen that are related to the thread instead of trying to jizz over everything comes your way. Please?

EDIT: Perhaps you should try reading Frank's post and seeing why it's so blatantly inane. Then you should maybe try and understand the concept of being an ass for emphasis; it's something I figured you and uber were familiar with.

[Winnah]

So are you opposed to personal attacks in general, or just against certain people?

Your assymetric response points to the latter

[Ice9]

Ok, I'll repeat this quote because I still don't understand how it jibes with anything you've said about weapons.

Moved over to D&Dland, spending character resources on crafting or even purchasing a venom dagger is not a wishlist. Using in character skills to locate or steal a venom dagger is not a wishlist either. Asking the MC player to player for a venom dagger to show up is a wishlist.

This would seem to say:
* Buying/trading items - Ok
* Crafting items - Ok
* Going on quests for items - Ok
* Asking the GM to insert the item for you - Bad
That seems like a reasonable position. Some groups may actually be fine with wishlists, but if you want full-on "impartial simulator/referee" mode, then they don't fit.

However, in regards to "desiring to use one type of weapon instead of another makes you a bad person", the following seem to be assumed:
* You can't craft items.
* You can't buy or trade items, or at least nothing you care about.
* Going on quests for items is inherently selfish because you are forcing the other players to do something they might not feel like.
And that's a completely different position. A ridiculous one, IMO.

So which is it? Or alternately, in what bizarro world are those the same thing?

[Maj]

Then why in the same hell fuck do you have to make this about gender Crissa?

Wait. You Lost Me is Crissa?

This is both you being an asshole and you being unintelligent.

From what was quoted of Frank's post, he's just judging a college student's ability to pass their calculus class on the results of third grade math tests. Do you not realize just how fabulously awesome that is?

[Fuchs]

I keep stating that inorder for random loot to work, you need to ban too much.

[Fuchs]

Then why in the same hell fuck do you have to make this about gender Crissa?

Wait. You Lost Me is Crissa?

This is both you being an asshole and you being unintelligent.

From what was quoted of Frank's post, he's just judging a college student's ability to pass their calculus class on the results of third grade math tests. Do you not realize just how fabulously awesome that is?

Yeah, I mean it's not as if we can change views and playstyles...

[jadagul]

Ice9: This conversation has gotten so confused that not only has everyone lost track of what everyone else is arguing, but half the people have lost track of what they themselves are arguing, which makes it really hard to follow.

As far as I can tell, Frank's position is something like this: Versimilitude is important, so we can't have item drops dictated by the plot instead of the world--thus we can't have players say "I'd like my next item drop to be a +3 Flail" with any expectation of getting it. And intra-group equity is important, which means that no player can have a quest he absolutely needs to go on--a character who won't be effective if he never visits the Plane of Water is right out, and so is a character who won't be effective unless he can hunt down someone with a +2 katana to replace his old katana.

The conclusion of this is that any character who needs a war maul to be effective needs some way of acquiring a war maul to be built into his character: he can't ask the DM to drop a new war maul when he needs one, and he also can't force the party to go off on a war-maul hunting side quest. So it's okay if he has a class feature keeping his war maul up to date, or if he has the class feature that he can craft war mauls. And if he thinks a dire flail would be really cool and he talks the party into hunting down the Frost Giant King who's known for his epic flail, he can do that. He just can't make a character who'd be screwed if the party says no, because the party has every right to say no.

The whole signature weapons fight is mostly a sideshow to this. Some people objected that all characters should have the ability to guarantee they always get the same weapon, for aesthetic/signature weapons reasons. So Frank argued that signature weapons are kind of silly and not something worth going out of your way to protect in the game. I think he's not willing to argue against them in a vacuum because he's okay with a character having a signature weapon--he just doesn't think that's important enough to violate the constraints about wishlisting, so he says anyone who wants a signature weapon needs to find some class feature to provide it.

(note this is different from Lago's position: he specifically thinks signature weapons are bad for the game, and I'm guessing that Frank would be okay with a well-written swordmaster class that includes a means of always having a level-appropriate sword, while Lago wouldn't).

[Fuchs]

The whole signature weapons fight is mostly a sideshow to this. Some people objected that all characters should have the ability to guarantee they always get the same weapon, for aesthetic/signature weapons reasons. So Frank argued that signature weapons are kind of silly and not something worth going out of your way to protect in the game. I think he's not willing to argue against them in a vacuum because he's okay with a character having a signature weapon--he just doesn't think that's important enough to violate the constraints about wishlisting, so he says anyone who wants a signature weapon needs to find some class feature to provide it.

(note this is different from Lago's position: he specifically thinks signature weapons are bad for the game, and I'm guessing that Frank would be okay with a well-written swordmaster class that includes a means of always having a level-appropriate sword, while Lago wouldn't).

But the whole idea of "random loot is good, it forces people to use different things" goes out of the window once you can pick what you want.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Mix of the two: Simply have an after-market where enchantments can be transferred from item to item.

Fuck no! I would rather have mage-mart!

I don't understand the appeal of Mage-mart.

It's not that I like Mage-mart, it's that I hate enchantment-transferral so much.

assuming the GM consents to a mage-mart, that will create power disparity between players

This is only true if one of the following is:

• Players fail to allocate 'stuff' as a party resource.
• One or more characters benefits so much more from items that it is the objectively more effective choice to max out their items at the expense of others.

[jadagul]

The whole signature weapons fight is mostly a sideshow to this. Some people objected that all characters should have the ability to guarantee they always get the same weapon, for aesthetic/signature weapons reasons. So Frank argued that signature weapons are kind of silly and not something worth going out of your way to protect in the game. I think he's not willing to argue against them in a vacuum because he's okay with a character having a signature weapon--he just doesn't think that's important enough to violate the constraints about wishlisting, so he says anyone who wants a signature weapon needs to find some class feature to provide it.

(note this is different from Lago's position: he specifically thinks signature weapons are bad for the game, and I'm guessing that Frank would be okay with a well-written swordmaster class that includes a means of always having a level-appropriate sword, while Lago wouldn't).

But the whole idea of "random loot is good, it forces people to use different things" goes out of the window once you can pick what you want.

Fuchs: yes, and they're different arguments. Part of the reason this thread is so confusing is that people are arguing about three or four different things at once.

I think that Frank is arguing that a combination of random and plot-determined loot drops is the best way to do loot drops. It's not necessarily the best way to allocate equipment. So he's okay with non-random ways of allocating equipment as long as they aren't loot drops per se.

Lago has a different position, where he's okay with being able to pick what you want as long as it isn't a weapon because he thinks the ability to pick a weapon is harmful to the game as a whole. But on the other thread he said he was totally in favor of people being able to craft their own armor and boots and wands and stuff if you could come up with a way of justifying it not applying to weapons. Or something like that--I was a little unclear.

[Gx1080]

@Radiant Phoenix

"One or more characters benefits so much more from items that it is the objectively more effective choice to max out their items at the expense of others."

The good old Fighter vs. Wizard dillema says that it happens very often.

To Chamolille's "hurr durr scavenger" strawman, well, if civilization were at it's finest, adventurers who go into dungeons wouldn't be neccesary, don't you think?

[Ice9]

Ice9: This conversation has gotten so confused that not only has everyone lost track of what everyone else is arguing, but half the people have lost track of what they themselves are arguing, which makes it really hard to follow.

True. This thread is in many ways a pit of fail, and I'm really not sure why I started reading it again. Blame boredom.

The conclusion of this is that any character who needs a war maul to be effective needs some way of acquiring a war maul to be built into his character: he can't ask the DM to drop a new war maul when he needs one, and he also can't force the party to go off on a war-maul hunting side quest. So it's okay if he has a class feature keeping his war maul up to date, or if he has the class feature that he can craft war mauls. And if he thinks a dire flail would be really cool and he talks the party into hunting down the Frost Giant King who's known for his epic flail, he can do that. He just can't make a character who'd be screwed if the party says no, because the party has every right to say no.

That's fine as far as it goes. Where it breaks down is the question of trading/buying items. In any game I've seen which has large amounts of random drops you can just fucking do that, and it isn't a big deal. So yeah, you can totally trade that inferno hammer for a venom dagger, and thus preferring daggers fails to cause problems.

Now sure, there are games where every magic item is special, so if you got a magic sword it's probably the only magic thing a lot of people have ever seen, and good luck trying to trade it or buy another one. But, those games do not have foes dropping random magic items like slot machines, much less enough for the apparently desirable lottery effect.

Incidentally, TGD in general has a hate-on for asking a fellow party member to do anything, even if it can be accomplished in literally five seconds of real time. Apparently, having to ask another player who has the relevant feat to enchant a war maul for you is utterly terrible, and phrases like "break out the kneepads and mouthwash" start getting mentioned. But in actual games, I have seen this effect ... never, 0% of the time.

TL;DR - I can understand "no wishlists, random drops only, final destination" as a valid style of play. But I see no good reason why it precludes having a favorite weapon.