Arguments in favor of magic item wishlists.

[Bihlbo]

Each item order would have force behind it because it would be made during the cooperative worldbuilding stage with metagame currency....

Cooperative world building steps take time, and that is time you aren't spending telling stories of adventure. Cooperative world building steps with accounting to do can potentially take a lot of time.

I get the impression you assume that "wish/place" means the following happens at the table:

GM - "Before you enter the dungeon, does anyone have a magic item they'd like to place?"
Me - "I want this dagger with a bleeding property."

It could just as easily be handled the following way:

GM - "Good job, you killed the undulating tentacled she-cats."
Me - "As I look through the weapons I draw out one of those nasty kryss knifes they kept sticking me with." (I hand the GM the info card on the item I want to get) "I say, 'The cuts from this blade won't stop seeping blood. I think I can make use of this.'"

That's "placed" but doesn't involve cooperative worldbuilding in anything more than the most nominal sense.


Also, did you really use "object permanence" to refer to an object that has never been seen, heard, touched, smelled or sensed in any way? I'm not sure if that's meta, stupid, or just a really poor put-down. I guess I don't have a sense of object permanence, because I kinda thought that fartlaser-proof shield I used when I was on the top bunk back when I was 6 stopped existing after I no longer needed it to protect me from my little brother. Man, I must have some serious baggage.

[shadzar]

Tuckers players fought the kobolds at level 1. When they got to higher levels, they went deeper into the dungeon, but they would still have to fight the kobolds on the first tier of the dungeon every fucking time they passed through it, to and from their standard level appropriate adventures.

it is called a war of attrition. in reality the players could NEVER win unless the kobolds gave up. the kobold numbers are unlimited. it is as you say that type of exercise, but also a Kobyashi-Maru. it can also show how the concept of NEEDING upgrade gear has ZERO meaning as the things required to fight kobolds on level 1 are still the same ones needed to fight those on level 50. you don't have to upgrade anything to keep fighting, you just have to survive long enough and be able to win against an unlimited number of foes where some have not fought yet so are not tired after fighting but you are. the dungeon resets itself EVERY time you leave, and possibly gets smarter like the game Reginald Fortnoy. it learns as you play it. no number of magic items can beat it, because unless the DM lets you, you can't beat it.

it is the unwinnable scenario.

[shadzar]

Consider this: In the RA Salvatore Drizzt books, if my memory serves, there is an adventuring party that gets treasure. I use this as an example because it is fairly popular and it is a story influenced by D&D.

Drizzt the ranger-fighter dude specializes in scimitars and finds some magic scimitars. Like Ice Scimitars and Defender Scimitars. Earlier he got a wondrous figurine panther as an animal companion. It sounds like Drizzt might have submitted in some kind of wish list.

no it doesn't it is called plot and author writing a novel, NOW someone playing a game. thus why i made the conclusion that people wanting to play these narrow character concepts are wanting to write their own personal mini-novella for their character rather than playing a game. games dont play how books read.Drizzt is RA's pet character concept and has GREATER importance than the game itself.

stop trying to make Drizzt-clones and your own story for them, and play the game!

[Whipstitch]

I know it's hard to tell from the way most of us post but you don't actually get any gold stars for being obtuse here.

[shadzar]

guess your entire idea of WBL and wishlists got fucked there huh?

Not at all. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say, are you suggesting it was a good thing that AD&D didn't offer encounter guidelines?

i ahve no idea what you are talking about here. "encounter guidelines", are you playing a board game? HeroQuest has things sit and wait until people reach them. Rogue has a random dungeon each time you paly it.

D&D is a Rogue-like. the world changes in the absence of the PCs. it existed before them, so it HAD to change in their absence. the PCs are the "living" characters of the players, well the world is the living character of the DM. "encounter guidelines" seems to suggest that things only appear in this world because PCs exist in that part of it now.

i really dont get that concept in an RPG, though i can easily see it in a board game. Boardwalk is always there waiting for you in Monopoly. Start and HOME is always there in Parchissi/Trouble/Sorry/Candyland/etc

what you need to fight the next thing you meet, depends really on what you meet. things wont always be the same place like in Diablo, Zelda, Mario Bros, Contra, Tiger Heli, etc. so how do you know exactly what you are going to need if you don't know what is coming next?

i already explained above why items don't matter in Tucker's Kobolds, but it you think a magic item is needed to fight a kobold at any level, you got more problems than these forums can help you with.

[Username17]

I get the impression you assume that "wish/place" means the following happens at the table:

GM - "Before you enter the dungeon, does anyone have a magic item they'd like to place?"
Me - "I want this dagger with a bleeding property."

It could just as easily be handled the following way:

GM - "Good job, you killed the undulating tentacled she-cats."
Me - "As I look through the weapons I draw out one of those nasty kryss knifes they kept sticking me with." (I hand the GM the info card on the item I want to get) "I say, 'The cuts from this blade won't stop seeping blood. I think I can make use of this.'"

That's "placed" but doesn't involve cooperative worldbuilding in anything more than the most nominal sense.

My assumption was that when Fuchs said:

Each player gets to wish/place items worth X per level. X can be a set amount of gold if you're using WBL, or a set amount of "+" / bonuses. There may be an upper limit of "Y" that can be spent on any single item.

That he was talking about placing them in the world and then the players would have to actually kick open treasure chests to get them. You are correct, that it's ambiguous as stated (as completely half assed and half mocking suggestions tend to be), and could potentially involve the players placing them directly into their characters' hands like they were in a cartoon.

Also, did you really use "object permanence" to refer to an object that has never been seen, heard, touched, smelled or sensed in any way?

Yes I did. If you place an item into the dragon's treasure pile, then you presumably remember that you did that once the treasure pile is actually acquired. So there's no thrill of discovery, since it's structurally equivalent to your catalog shopping order arriving rather than actually finding new and unknown things.

-Username17

[shadzar]

Grek's Ideal System:

If you're doing it like that, wouldn't it be simpler to skip the looting process altogether?

I don't want to get rid of looting. I like looting. Getting piles of random crazy treasure is fun. Having the GM walk you through the dragon's hoard, describing how the beast's blood stains coins minted by empires centuries dead and how the torchlight glitters of the fist-sized rubies in the idol's eyes makes me happy in a way that "You get +1 wealth point." does not. And I want to keep that wealth and be able to say that my new throne that I stole from the King of the Low Kingdoms is now adorned with a ruby I looted from an ancient temple, and that my sword has a hilt of opal-studded gold. And I also want to be able to smugly say that I refused the worldly goods in the temple, unwilling to sully my spirit with avarice and that I adventure only for the greater good. And I want to laugh when we find erotic tapestries of bugbears in the Hobgoblin Palace that the party refuses to loot because they're gross. I want different levels of wealth to be different motifs, not different power levels.

Having money turn directly into mechanical power means selling off things that are opulent and fancy for things that are inexpensive but equally effective. It means prying the opals off your cutlass to save up toward a new +1 on your codpiece. It means not having swimming pools full of cash. The materialistic consumerism of it kills the fantasy of wealth for me, and that fantasy (along with fantasies of power and freedom) is one of the reasons why I enjoy tabletop games in the first place.

In order to prevent this, mechanical power has to be completely and entirely separate from in character monetary value. Introducing a separate meta-game currency to spend on mechanical power that's independent of in character wealth does this, and having wealth points that you trade in for power does not.

i cant believe i read, and then AGREE with something Grek posted....

[shadzar]

If you need a magic sword to stay on the RNG, that's bad.

If you need 'magic sword' at some point, that's not so bad.

i will add this one:

if you need a magic sword just because you want THAT specific magic sword for your character concept, then piss off.

[shadzar]

Each item order would have force behind it because it would be made during the cooperative worldbuilding stage with metagame currency....

Cooperative world building steps take time, and that is time you aren't spending telling stories of adventure. Cooperative world building steps with accounting to do can potentially take a lot of time.

I get the impression you assume that "wish/place" means the following happens at the table:

GM - "Before you enter the dungeon, does anyone have a magic item they'd like to place?"
Me - "I want this dagger with a bleeding property."

It could just as easily be handled the following way:

GM - "Good job, you killed the undulating tentacled she-cats."
Me - "As I look through the weapons I draw out one of those nasty kryss knifes they kept sticking me with." (I hand the GM the info card on the item I want to get) "I say, 'The cuts from this blade won't stop seeping blood. I think I can make use of this.'"

That's "placed" but doesn't involve cooperative worldbuilding in anything more than the most nominal sense.

im not Frank, but i see no difference in these, except the DM doesn't ask for a wishlist item the "place" in the treasure, the player just decides what treasure is there. there is no lesser of these two evils you present. i call both players out to be Munchkins.

[Bihlbo]

stop trying to make Drizzt-clones and your own story for them, and play the game!

As often as you say this, it should just be your signature. Never mind that it has literally nothing to do with the post to which you were replying, or that in the light of the last 20 years of fiction Drizzt measures very low on the list of cool characters anyone would want to emulate. Just replace that four year-old signature with this phrase so when we read your misapplication of it again, it's not in a post.

That way I can just see that and think, "Haha! He thinks anyone cares who Drizzt is! What a wacky old geezer. Moving on."

[shadzar]

stop trying to make Drizzt-clones and your own story for them, and play the game!

As often as you say this, it should just be your signature.

it is...

"Play the game, not the rules."

Never mind that it has literally nothing to do with the post to which you were replying

oh it didnt?

Consider this: In the RA Salvatore Drizzt books, if my memory serves, there is an adventuring party that gets treasure. I use this as an example because it is fairly popular and it is a story influenced by D&D.

Drizzt the ranger-fighter dude specializes in scimitars and finds some magic scimitars. Like Ice Scimitars and Defender Scimitars. Earlier he got a wondrous figurine panther as an animal companion. It sounds like Drizzt might have submitted in some kind of wish list.

nope, that has nothing to do with Drizzt at all does it?

[infected slut princess]

no it doesn't it is called plot and author writing a novel, NOW someone playing a game. thus why i made the conclusion that people wanting to play these narrow character concepts are wanting to write their own personal mini-novella for their character rather than playing a game. games dont play how books read.Drizzt is RA's pet character concept and has GREATER importance than the game itself.

stop trying to make Drizzt-clones and your own story for them, and play the game!

You kind of missed my point. Which does not surprise me.

Anyway... right or wrong, people read shitty books like that (or other fantasy books) and then some of them get motivated to play D&D or maybe another fantasy game. Why? Because they want to create stories. Those stories are always influenced by the fantasy literature they have read and enjoyed. There is not actually anything bad about that as such.

The game system, the rules, should support the creation of stories people want.

It's not just about "playing a game." Well, it is, but the game is a _means_, and the _end_ is the creation of stories. People who want to play a game as the end in itself could just do battle arena combat with no story. Some people actually do that. But most players instead go for the full story experience. Because that is basically the USP of RPGs.

[Bihlbo]

Shadzar, you wouldn't be such an ignorant troll if you'd learn some basic reading comprehension.

For example I say, "Concerning prices, let's look at Taco Bell. They price their drink at $1.99. That is an example of how a company can price something just under the whole dollar amount to trick people into thinking something seems cheaper than it really is."

Am I:
1. using a well-known example to make a point about pricing?
2. arguing that I want to be Taco Bell, and anything you say that contradicts me prevents me from being Taco Bell?


Aaaaaaand, you're a troll.

[NineInchNall]

The entire premise of this thread is that a "wish list" is distinct from "purchasing things" or "crafting things" or in any other way using in-character abilities to acquire or attempt to acquire specific items. And that it is also distinct from using player (rather than character) abilities to affect the narrative and place items you want your character to acquire.

I'm a little confused. What exactly is the (substantive) difference between using player abilities to affect item placement and using "wish lists"? I mean ...

[*]Johnny spends 10 Destiny/Fate/Puppies to make it so a particular magic weapon &armor pair shows up in the near future.
[*]Jenny spends two minutes writing up a list of items that she would like to see show up in the near future.

Is the important thing just the degree to which the GM is obligated to make the specific items appear?

[Omegonthesane]

The entire premise of this thread is that a "wish list" is distinct from "purchasing things" or "crafting things" or in any other way using in-character abilities to acquire or attempt to acquire specific items. And that it is also distinct from using player (rather than character) abilities to affect the narrative and place items you want your character to acquire.

I'm a little confused. What exactly is the (substantive) difference between using player abilities to affect item placement and using "wish lists"? I mean ...

[*]Johnny spends 10 Destiny/Fate/Puppies to make it so a particular magic weapon &armor pair shows up in the near future.
[*]Jenny spends two minutes writing up a list of items that she would like to see show up in the near future.

Is the important thing just the degree to which the GM is obligated to make the specific items appear?

Johnny's Puppies Points are a part of the game system; Jenny's invoice for a blowjob is not. That's actually a fairly deep structural difference - it means you are invoking game mechanics rather than GM pity to get your shit.

[shadzar]

The game system, the rules, should support the creation of stories people want.

no, D&D shouldn't. you fail to understand D&D is NOT WoD old or new. you want a storyteller tool/game. D&D is an adventure game. see my thread for this very explanation of the difference.

those people coming from those books with those "wants" to play bedtime storytellers, came to the wrong game when they came to D&D. They should have gone to WoD and bitched at them to add the things it didnt have. WoD has Werewolf, Vampire, Mage, they could easily add the other fantasy elements to it and send it back in tome rather than be solely modern. it IS a storyteller game, the GM is even called an ST, Story Teller.

again, go see my thread explaining this and how THIS is exactly what killed D&D.

[Fuchs]

The entire premise of this thread is that a "wish list" is distinct from "purchasing things" or "crafting things" or in any other way using in-character abilities to acquire or attempt to acquire specific items. And that it is also distinct from using player (rather than character) abilities to affect the narrative and place items you want your character to acquire.

I'm a little confused. What exactly is the (substantive) difference between using player abilities to affect item placement and using "wish lists"? I mean ...

[*]Johnny spends 10 Destiny/Fate/Puppies to make it so a particular magic weapon &armor pair shows up in the near future.
[*]Jenny spends two minutes writing up a list of items that she would like to see show up in the near future.

Is the important thing just the degree to which the GM is obligated to make the specific items appear?

Johnny's Puppies Points are a part of the game system; Jenny's invoice for a blowjob is not. That's actually a fairly deep structural difference - it means you are invoking game mechanics rather than GM pity to get your shit.

Same thing in many, likely most groups. "DM pity", also known as "playing with friends, not assholes" in some circles, can also be used to introduce house rules that codify such mechanics as house rule, and usually the GM has a veto right for some items anyway, so there's no actual difference.

[Omegonthesane]

I'm a little confused. What exactly is the (substantive) difference between using player abilities to affect item placement and using "wish lists"? I mean ...

[*]Johnny spends 10 Destiny/Fate/Puppies to make it so a particular magic weapon &armor pair shows up in the near future.
[*]Jenny spends two minutes writing up a list of items that she would like to see show up in the near future.

Is the important thing just the degree to which the GM is obligated to make the specific items appear?

Johnny's Puppies Points are a part of the game system; Jenny's invoice for a blowjob is not. That's actually a fairly deep structural difference - it means you are invoking game mechanics rather than GM pity to get your shit.

Same thing in many, likely most groups. "DM pity", also known as "playing with friends, not assholes" in some circles, can also be used to introduce house rules that codify such mechanics as house rule, and usually the GM has a veto right for some items anyway, so there's no actual difference.

In the general case, there really is - even if you assume most people are nice and kind, when designing a game you must also assume most people have no idea what the fuck they're doing. Furthermore, if it is a game conceit that at any time a player could spend a Puppy Point to make their favourite loot retroactively part of a given pile of loot, you are going to design the world with that in mind.

Even among groups of friends, player resentment and DM favouritism - especially perceived, but occasionally actual - are things that can crop up and damage the group. Having a mechanical framework reduces the likelihood of actual or perceived DM favouritism, and means that players who don't actually have a firm enough concept to start out with a wish list can have their loot no later than when they've decided what they want and have an incoming parcel, with no GM-places-it-here-specially step. Even from a DM who you like as a friend - or more - there will be problems if there is no consistent means of evaluating an item request for overpoweredness or otherwise.

[shadzar]

Having a mechanical framework reduces the likelihood of actual or perceived DM favouritism,

this could also be said for playing publishes adventures, since YOUR DM didn't write them to have any way of playing favoritism, but it didnt stop players from complaining because they play crazy ass character concepts that don't fit the adventure as it was designed.

the bard existed in 1st/2nd editions, but how many magical music items were to be found in published adventures?

the common things were those which were the common things that everyday people would have used

-flails for thrashing wheat
-swords for fighting other people
-that one polearm that was used to prune trees or collect fruit from them
-hammers, a construction tool

any other common tool, would be what the MOST magic items would be made from because THOSE were the easiest things for MOST people to make.

someone with a specialist designed character was going to have it rougher to find "magic items" to fit their special needs.

[PhoneLobster]

Let me see if I can come up with 10 magic swords in 10 minutes that would be nice to have but wouldn't break the RNG:...
Yes - a sword needs to help you win fights if it's going to be 'useful', but the way it does it doesn't always have to be 'more numbers'.

Do you not understand that you are still writing swords that contribute directly to combat power in a manner that will synergise with character builds?

When people talk about the problem of swords being necessary for character power that DOESN'T restrict itself to RNG and flat +1s. When they talk about removing abilities from swords and sticking them on characters to "solve" this issue that HAS to extend itself to abilities other than +1s.

Do you just flat out not get that an ability without a +1 can be a direct contribution to character power?

[Red_Rob]

I'm a little confused. What exactly is the (substantive) difference between using player abilities to affect item placement and using "wish lists"? I mean ...

[*]Johnny spends 10 Destiny/Fate/Puppies to make it so a particular magic weapon &armor pair shows up in the near future.
[*]Jenny spends two minutes writing up a list of items that she would like to see show up in the near future.

Is the important thing just the degree to which the GM is obligated to make the specific items appear?

Bascially, yes.

Presumably Johnny's Puppy points are part of the game system, and therefore spending his points is something the game designer thought about when designing the game. The points will relate to items that are approximately appropriate for his level, and will be suitable for the challenges he has bested. Most importantly of all, Jonny knows that he got those items because the rules of the game allowed him to, and he didn't get more or better items because he didn't have enough points. Jonny isn't butthurt that he didn't get a Vorpal Sword unless the game designer screwed up at some point.

Jenny on the other hand could be writing anything into her list. Any random or game destroying item could be scribbled down because "it looked like fun", and nothing guarantees that she hasn't asked for vastly better or worse items than the rest of the party. The DM is in a real bind here - either he gives everyone exactly what they asked for, or he looks like he's playing favourites. And even then the players have no knowledge of when or even if their favourite item is going to turn up - so the first person to get their shiny is going to look like the golden child until someone else gets theirs.

Wishlists are a recipe for disaster - the combination of DM fiat and lack of player knowledge about the process is tailor made to create bad feelings. With random items everyone understands that noone is to blame if you don't get your Frost Blade, and with player chosen items you know why you are getting what you got, but writing a letter to Santa and being the only boy with the wrong present at Christmas is the worst of all possible options.

[Grek]

I'm confused: How is a wishlist that the player writes with the expectation that they'll get the things on the list NOT a player ability to affect the narrative and place items? It's an ability, which a player has, and it changes the narrative to make the items on the list appear. Is it because you're not explicitly spending points during this step? Or because the GM is the one who decides where the item goes in the world?

[deaddmwalking]

Do you just flat out not get that an ability without a +1 can be a direct contribution to character power?

I absolutely do. But I also recognize that it is not the fact that magical items increase your power that is a problem. If magical items didn't do anything interesting, there would be no point to including them in the game.

To make them interesting and useful, they need to provide a benefit that is not related to specific class abilities and the magic item can't be a crutch to keep them on the RNG.

In that short list are abilities that any class could benefit from having (just like a bag of holding) but couldn't be required to have to stay relevant.

With enough flavor (which I skimped on, but I could add it pretty easily) most players would be happy with the 'cool factor' but wouldn't have to say 'I NEED this for my character concept to work'.

[Drolyt]

D&D is a Rogue-like.

I think we have hit on the root of your problems. Let us be clear here: D&D is the genesis of role-playing games. The entire genre began there. D&D is not a Rogue-like, Rogue is a D&D-like. World of Darkness is also a D&D-like. Or to sum up: your way of playing D&D is not the only right way to play or even the best way!.

More even than that, I wasn't aware we were only talking about D&D here. I thought we were talking about magic item systems in general, different systems might have different design goals.

Do you not understand that you are still writing swords that contribute directly to combat power in a manner that will synergise with character builds?

I don't know if he understands that, but I agree with him that items with actual abilities are better than statistic bonuses which either throw you off the RNG or are required in order to compete at a given level.

[shadzar]

Do you just flat out not get that an ability without a +1 can be a direct contribution to character power?

I absolutely do. But I also recognize that it is not the fact that magical items increase your power that is a problem. If magical items didn't do anything interesting, there would be no point to including them in the game.

i cant believe i am agreeing with PL...but he is saying exactly that. magic items have NO purpose in the game, OTHER than to increase character power. EVERYTHING a magic item does only increases character power. that is ALL they serve to do.

PL just says "fuck it! give the character power to the characters rather than having them embedded into some item you must have on hand. then the player has this power from now on. congrats you can breathe fire without needing a sword called 'flame-tongue' in order to do fire-based damage."

tell me ANYTHING a magic item does that does NOT increase character power?