Arguments in favor of magic item wishlists.

[shadzar]

D&D is a Rogue-like.

I think we have hit on the root of your problems.

no you found the root of YOUR problems and many like you.

-wargames you play and then its over
-need something to give reason to keep playing and care about the game more...
-campaign, you play several battles that are connected with the surviving pieces from the previous battles
-still not fulfilling. need something to make me care about the survivors.
-game where you play only one person and try to keep them alive rather than armchair general?

BRILLIANT! wait do we now have a 1v1 battle?

-need something to let the playing going in more than combat
-play together instead of against each other to keep EACH OTHER alive to survive to the next part.

modern RPG born.

probably more than that went into it and maybe a different mindset. Ask Dave Arneson about that. oops, too late! (no offense Dave!)

it is really funny when you say Rogue is a D&D-like, cause that means Rogue actually works FROM D&D concept... an adventure.

Rogue gave you no wishlist.

I can only talk of D&D, as I don't know these other systems. my V:tM days are 20 years ago, as were my Rifts days. No need or reason to look back at them cause they weren't any fun then they wont be now either.

nor have i seen a 'wishlist' mentioned for anything else outside of D&D or children's games.

i see no reason for a wishlist outside of kids who are as close to ADD as possible to keep them interested, because adults are mature enough to find something interesting from the game other than making a pet Drizzt-clone.

[PhoneLobster]

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.

Your iconic and inspirational ability on that list is "attack first in combat", presumably WITH that item (so it synergises with dudes who are good with swords) but even if it's with ANY item/ability... it synergises with builds that deal lots of damage in a single attack and does not synergise with those that deal less damage in a single attack. It ALSO synergises with characters with a low defense if they ever expect to have an opportunity to take something down before their low defense can be exploited.

It is infact a sufficiently notable ability it is most likely virtually a MUST have for any character build that specializes in big attacks ahead of defense.

You cannot avoid this sort of thing. Your list of abilities is NOT a list of class/character build independent items.

Your fast healing sword is good for builds with a high defence or damage reduction and low damage output as they can heal the minimal damage they take and prolong combat while they plink away at things.

Your critical hit status sword is good for builds that have increased crit chances, or just make more attacks.

Your protection against energy sword is good for a blast nuker who uses that energy or for parties with a nuker who uses that energy.

Your transforming sword works best for someone who has abilities that are synergistic with more than one "situational weapon bonus". And worst for someone who DOESN'T.

Your vampiric sword is best for a build that can consistently hit and deal damage, especially if they have a sufficient HP buffer and any reasonable certainty that their build specialising in reliable large damage will match or out damage their opponents.

Your rock sword is a poorly defined utility power so who knows what it does but the equivalent 3.x edition adamantium sword worked better with certain builds for breaking furniture, was useless to classes that didn't use weapons, and was a flat power up vs rock monsters.

The free life every X kills sword is of greatest value in a character that is good at killing lots of things with swords.

And the retribution on surprise sword is of little value to a character with high perceptions and a highly desirable option on a character with low perception.

Also... for fucks sake, they are all still swords and almost all of them at least implicitly suggest they would require you be able to use them AS swords for their benefits. Which means they ALL benefit sword dudes directly as power ups while being largely worthless to hammer dudes and swordless wizardry dudes. This is almost the definition of class/theme item dependency you are NOT moving away from just by removing +1 thru +5 swords.

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'. In all honesty, while this took about 10 minutes and I'm sure I could do more with more time, each of those seems to offer some utility to the point that I don't know which one I'd prefer MOST.

You clearly haven't put the required time into it then. Because the preferences by build synergy are many and obvious. These ARE flat power ups, and often measurable at that, for the right builds.

I don't give a shit about it not being "more numbers", because, well actually it IS more numbers because you can measure the impacts and vampiric swords especially totally fucking are number machines, but anyway, "pretending to not be numbers" aside these are items that matter in the right hands and THAT means you need to PUT THEM IN THE RIGHT HANDS. If you don't give out items or if you give out the WRONG items the characters WILL be weaker than if you do. If you do... you are leaning towards mechanics that either cater directly to player agency or account for what player would want or need regardless of requests, both of which defy Lago's "specifics of what I hate about wish lists" from the OP.

[PhoneLobster]

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.

Oh I agree with that too, but it's really a separate problem to dealing with the fact that useful items matter by definition. And useful swords matter most to sword guy by definition.

Removing the +1s just means sword guy needs a vampiric flame sword to be viable and doesn't need a vampiric flame sword +X to be viable.

[quote='Shadzar"]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." [/quote]
I know. I shouldn't. But. Er. Shadzar, you have that almost exactly backwards.

I am critical of that strategy. I do NOT like making all items generic and worthless and moving all the abilities onto class levels and bullshit. I want items to matter. I want the sword of hacking to do SOMETHING. I just acknowledge that they will matter the moment they DO give ANY ability you care about, and will matter in a way that matters more to SOME character builds than others.

That acknowledgement of an unavoidable association between, well, items you care about and... items you care about getting... means I strongly suggest mechanics that allow players to get the items that matter to their characters. Somehow, someway, it has to happen.

[MGuy]

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'.

This is pretty much how magic items should be in the first place. No one really cares about getting another +1 on their sword as much as they care about the fact that they can wave it around to create fire/ice/smoke/blur etc. And honestly the game is better if the magic items just did shit like that. a magic item that can replace a limb. An intelligent magic item that has senses the owner doesn't. A magic item that can 'detect/identify/eat' magic. These are the interesting things magic items should be doing instead of being absolutely necessary just to keep on the RNG.

[Drolyt]

no you found the root of YOUR problems and many like you.

Right, I've been playing D&D "wrong" for the past decade. Really, I wish I could help you see that not everyone wants the same things out of D&D and TTRPGs that you do, and that there is nothing wrong with that. There isn't anything wrong with the way you want to play either. I thnk maybe what might be confusing you is that here on the Gamin Den people often talk about "bad" mechanics, but those mechanics are only bad in reference to some goal. Some mechanics are bad for all reasonable goals in TTRPG design, but some are only bad for the particular goals of a given game.

Oh I agree with that too, but it's really a separate problem to dealing with the fact that useful items matter by definition. And useful swords matter most to sword guy by definition.

Oh, obviously. I mean, there are some magic items that, while useful, don't improve your combat ability or only do so slightly, but a magic sword sure as hell doesn't fall into that category.

[Omegonthesane]

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?

This has already been explained by people better at it than I, but fuck it, I'll have a shot.

A wish list is a set of informal requests unbound by any form of mechanic. If the DM treats one player's set of requests differently to another's, in any respect, for any reason, he faces accusations of favouritism - even if it's obvious that such is necessary, such as when one person asked for a masterwork dagger and another for the +7 blessed rustproof Excalibur.

A player's reserve of Puppy points has been integrated into the game by the designer, and items have been priced accordingly. It is formally defined in a way that wishlists are not, and that formal definition means that the DM does not risk favouritism when adjudicating it. It's a lot easier to not grant a +7 blessed rustproof Excalibur because it costs more Puppy Points than the party has between them than with a long-winded speech about how it's horrifically overpowered, and the latter is guaranteed to make the person in question resent their DM.

[tussock]

You can totally build a game where characters do not need magic items to win, and that game can have magic items that characters will want to use, and those items do not have to have synergy with character build options either way. Those things are all completely orthogonal.

But a fucking fighter WANTS ...

What people want, and what they will actually enjoy, are often different things. Neediness being unappealing and so not a thing people wish to display. Ideally, what a fighting WANTS is almost nothing, because what xe NEEDS comes with the class.

OTOH, items that work obviously better with certain classes do make item division a bit easier (though there's always a few horror stories there too).

"Single use fucking wands of death" is a contrived, and ultimately lame "classic example". No one wants those. WTF?

All examples are contrived, that's what that word means. "Classic" is indeed a synonym for "lame" with the kids these days. So ... well spotted. People not wanting things, but being happy to use them anyway? Holy crap, it's like my example of thing was an example of thing I was exemplifying.

Your contrived and unlikely scenario kinda needs some work there.

Not writing a complete RPG, just pointing out some theoretical flaws in your rather absolutist proposition.

(snip: you arguing with someone else)

And I'm sorry, but magic swords are in. You can argue about the specifics, and you can argue about the terribleness of the +1 sword and the more terribleness of the +1 thru +5 sword, but ultimately SOME form of magic sword that matters to guys who hit things with swords IS in and you cannot and should not avoid it.

I totally don't mind +5 swords, as long as the Fighter doesn't actually need to find them to play the game, so that if some troll breaks his sword, or the DM/RNG is otherwise not cooperating just now, xe's still a useful character.

Makes +5 swords all the better to find, eh.

...PS and don't go giving me "oh but what if you roll loot FIRST! Then that one Bikini Gun Elf was wearing a tuxedo and using a battle axe ALL ALONG!" that is STILL generally bad.

I can be, yes. You can roll per-dungeon-level, per-adventure, or per-region treasure and allocate it in moderately sensible places, and accept that some treasures will still be lying around in the open because no one local can use them or even hide them. Treasure first per-fight at least lets them use the things they can use, even if the things the giant ants can't use just has to be lying at the back of the room for some reason you haven't come up with yet (they're on a corpse that's been picked clean by the ants, or whatever).

Which is me agreeing with you, and extending the argument anyway.

...PPS aaaand don't go giving me "well then the tables will have elaborate series of contextual limitations that ensure that the black sheep Bikini Gun Elf gets a crossbow and a one piece instead!" because at that point you've effectively designed a monstrous contraption both more complex and less effective than arbitrary GM selection.

Oh, fuck no, dude. That would indeed be horrible. I mean, the Bikini Gun Elf's treasure allotment note should be that they have guns and bikinis and less random shit as a result, which is a sensible thing somewhat related to the horrible thing you rightly didn't like there.

Which is to say, monsters should totally have the things they have, and if that's a lot they might need less other things just for good measure.

[Username17]

Which is to say, monsters should totally have the things they have, and if that's a lot they might need less other things just for good measure.

You know, I used to think this was self evident and universally believed. But then 4th edition D&D came along and I found out you have to actually tell people that or they start having enemies do WoW drops.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

What people want, and what they will actually enjoy, are often different things.

I think we can be VERY safe in saying that people playing D&D both want AND will actually enjoy cool magic swords. You can argue about how to alot them and wether you want special abilities ahead of pluses. But we are SAFE in saying people, especially the ones playing "fighter" or "sword guy" want and will enjoy cool magic swords in their D&D game.

How the hell you think you can get away with "they don't know what they want!" in response to people wanting to actually get cool magic swords in D&D I have no god damn idea.

People not wanting things, but being happy to use them anyway?

You think players are happy to use single use single use character independent unique instant death wands better than they are. You really think that? Are you sure you haven't got your example backwards and THIS is the example of someone (you) wanting something that ultimately you and your players wouldn't enjoy. Because you are describing a terribad joke item that undermines characters and their roles in ways that make players feel really bad about the game.

Not writing a complete RPG, just pointing out some theoretical flaws in your rather absolutist proposition.

I'm not holding an absolutist position in relation to there being some minority of items which are (only mostly) "orthogonal" to character power. My fucking clear position had you paid attention is that you cannot build a functioning D&D item system entirely out of them. You MUST have magic swords, they WILL have an important impact. No amount of magical picnic baskets will disprove that.

You need to explain how the hell to make a whole, functioning, satisfactory system out of nothing but magical picnic baskets for it to undermine my position on the importance of magic swords to D&D players and how you can't make a working magic item system out of nothing but magic picnic baskets.

All your swords would need to be made out of magic picnic basket mechanics. It isn't going to work. It won't even come CLOSE to working. You can't even start writing that system. It's not going to happen.

[Drolyt]

Which is to say, monsters should totally have the things they have, and if that's a lot they might need less other things just for good measure.

You know, I used to think this was self evident and universally believed. But then 4th edition D&D came along and I found out you have to actually tell people that or they start having enemies do WoW drops.

-Username17

Do people really do that though? I mean, I know the 4e rules actually say to do that because the 4e designers were insane, but I've never experienced that out in the real world. Although I have seen shit like "the balor's vorpal sword was a part of him or something and vanished when he died" more often than I would like, so maybe WoW drops is just the natural result of shitty DMing.

[Fuchs]

I really wonder why some people think that GMs are so shitty that they cannot be trusted (hence, "DM pity" remarks) but are so perfect that they know better what players enjoy than the players themselves.

[Username17]

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?

Let's take a step back from literal items for the moment and go to our default example for pulling something right out of your ass: Bears. It is possible to have an in-character ability where your character announces that they are going to summon a bear, and then *poof* Bear. It is also possible to have an explicit metagame ability to be joined by a bear, such as Leadership or a Druid's Animal Companion. The character has no way of knowing specifically that they are going to meet a bear that will then form a bond of trust and friendship and follow him around, but the player does because it is fucking written down as a metagame ability that is going to happen.

But it is also possible to simply add bears to your wishlist. That is: you tell the MC that you'd really like a bear to show up and start fighting along side your character. Now, obviously there are times that such a plea would be answered with a friendly bear, but equally obviously there will be times when it won't be. And you could also see that both the event where a player asks for a bear to show up and fight for them and one does and the event where their request is denied both have the capacity to annoy one or more players at the table and provoke grumblings of favoritism.

So anyone who says that wishlists are better or even as good as metagame abilities had better be able to tell me why simply asking the MC for a bear to show up and maul your opponents is anywhere close to being as good as actually having an Animal Companion class feature that explicitly gives you a friendly fucking bear.

Do people really do that though?

Yes. No one lets you Greyhawk enemy equipment in 4th edition. The wealth system simply cannot handle it.

-Username17

[Grek]

That would explain it then. I was understanding wishlists as an explicit part of the treasure rules, where each player is required to submit a list of things they want to the GM and where the GM is required to give out the things on the wish list as they become level appropriate, in the order they become appropriate. With no part where the GM says "No, you can't have one of those.", just "No, you can't have that yet."

[ScottS]

Do people really do that though?

If you're fighting alien monsters in the Infinite Caves of No-Humans-Anywhere, then it's already a stretch to have to place the insanely specific gear you find in 4e wishlists. "You kill it, and the +2 Warforged Shoulderbow you wanted falls out of the corpse" is only a few narrative babysteps away from "You kill it, and you find the Shoulderbow in the corner of its lair, because someone died there a while ago, or something."

[PhoneLobster]

I really wonder why some people think that GMs are so shitty that they cannot be trusted (hence, "DM pity" remarks) but are so perfect that they know better what players enjoy than the players themselves.

Lago and Frank have become "Elitist Authoritarians" when it comes to their game design philosophy.

They specifically have a top down authoritarian fantasy of game design. So the GM can be trusted to know what players want better than the players, BUT the GM cannot be trusted to know what players in the GMs own group want better than the game designer. Or more specifically Frank and Lago believe they themselves are the only ones who know what everyone else secretly wants and needs.

Note that any proposition of some sort of bottom up rule or mechanism is essentially dismissed with "well its a rule, but its probably terrible, let me talk more about a strawman I'm calling Wish Lists!". But top down, game designer taking choice and control away from anyone lower on the authoritarian totem pole?

People tell me I'm making an unfair association but everything, and I mean everything Frank and Lago go on about these days is WoF all over again, always removing choice from players at the table and putting it back in the game designers hands because a game designer with a random table knows better what the players want than anyone at the table at all. If you find it surprising that they have this attitude to loot drops, well remember they extended it to player character action choices so yeah...

This incredibly patronizing and deeply impractical theme is just all they talk about anymore. They aren't about making useful practical toolkits for players they are about enforcing the prevention of dreaded bad wrong fun in the peon classes who actually still play the damn games and as such cannot be trusted making their own decisions. It started with Frank's big freak out over how he wanted total control over available races in a D&D game, extended to his demands to select specific fictional anti-gravity types were "acceptable" to be in ANY game, his freak out over horsie centaurs instead of his own prefered lobster insect centaurs being allowed indoors, his freak out over WoF taking control of player action choices, his freak out over, yeah items last time round when he went on and on about how wanting to be a sword guy character was greedy bad game play and he would totally fucking storm out of a group if he saw a GM support that choice and so on...

EVERY FUCKING TIME.

[shadzar]

no you found the root of YOUR problems and many like you.

Right, I've been playing D&D "wrong" for the past decade.

i dont consider anything WotC has done to be D&D, so if that is all you hav played then yes you have been playing D&D wrong. Mars can put the PAYDAY candy bar logo on a turd, but it will not be a Payday candy bar. (see Caddyshack). their right to use the name D&D doesnt not grant them that everyone will agree they have used it correctly, only that they are the only ones legally allowed to use the name.

[shadzar]

Which is to say, monsters should totally have the things they have, and if that's a lot they might need less other things just for good measure.

You know, I used to think this was self evident and universally believed. But then 4th edition D&D came along and I found out you have to actually tell people that or they start having enemies do WoW drops.

-Username17

I will assume WoW is like EQ in this case where the hill giant with a big sword and helmet only drops some giants blood vial and a few PPs and the word and helmet just disappear with the mob as it does?

if a kobold is carrying a sword and wearing bark armor, then the treasure is the sword and bark armor from that kobold. that is the only way it works. the kobold doesnt turn into a vial of kobold blood upon death! if you are hungry then the kobold flesh is also treasure, but i suggest lots of spices to flavor it and that your boot leather would be easier to chew.

[shadzar]

I really wonder why some people think that GMs are so shitty that they cannot be trusted (hence, "DM pity" remarks) but are so perfect that they know better what players enjoy than the players themselves.

because today the edition wars are second to the DM v player wars that rages on across editions.

also the player acting as a backseat driver is annoying as fuck. they only know the destination, not roads that will be taken to get there as they have never been before. so players DONT trust DMs because DMs know what is coming next, and the players only want to twink their character without regard for the actual game they are playing in. when the item they "want" is not something the will need or use in most cases.or the player is too focused on making some narrow character concept, they were never really a part of the game anyway they just want to design their Monty Python character to say they played it and in the game itself doesnt matter if Robyn the Minstrel is useful or not.

[virgil]

RANT

You are wrong. The part you are wrong about and why I leave as an exercise to the reader.

[Bihlbo]

if a kobold is carrying a sword and wearing bark armor, then the treasure is the sword and bark armor from that kobold. that is the only way it works. the kobold doesnt turn into a vial of kobold blood upon death! if you are hungry then the kobold flesh is also treasure, but i suggest lots of spices to flavor it and that your boot leather would be easier to chew.

What if none of what the kobold used to attack you is worth enough to care about, still usable after the fight, or capable of being used by someone in the party? I've always played with the assumption that the GM wasn't going to waste our time telling us all the ignorable minutia that we don't care about. Sure, the kobold may have bark armor, but the only reason anyone in an adventuring party might have for wanting to even know it exists is if they need kindling. And if the party has a reason to harvest kobold blood, then that kobold whose only possessions were bark armor and a stone club does literally turn into a vial of kobold blood and nothing more... not because I'm too lazy to detail his gear or because I'm giving players what they asked for, but because I'm not an obstinate neckbearded a-hole. I'm going to streamline the loot down to the stuff that doesn't make the players so bored that they'll reach for their phones until I'm done.

So I'm not necessarily telling you that your point was wrong, but being absolutist about it is counterproductive.

[Mistborn]

I notice that then discussions never seem to touch on player crafted items. If players have some ability to craft the items they absolutely need. It seems like you could totally have a system where you chose between using a stronger item that was randomly generated or crafting a weaker item that's tailored to your own personal abilities.

[shadzar]

if a kobold is carrying a sword and wearing bark armor, then the treasure is the sword and bark armor from that kobold. that is the only way it works. the kobold doesnt turn into a vial of kobold blood upon death! if you are hungry then the kobold flesh is also treasure, but i suggest lots of spices to flavor it and that your boot leather would be easier to chew.

What if none of what the kobold used to attack you is worth enough to care about, still usable after the fight, or capable of being used by someone in the party? I've always played with the assumption that the GM wasn't going to waste our time telling us all the ignorable minutia that we don't care about. Sure, the kobold may have bark armor, but the only reason anyone in an adventuring party might have for wanting to even know it exists is if they need kindling. And if the party has a reason to harvest kobold blood, then that kobold whose only possessions were bark armor and a stone club does literally turn into a vial of kobold blood and nothing more... not because I'm too lazy to detail his gear or because I'm giving players what they asked for, but because I'm not an obstinate neckbearded a-hole. I'm going to streamline the loot down to the stuff that doesn't make the players so bored that they'll reach for their phones until I'm done.

So I'm not necessarily telling you that your point was wrong, but being absolutist about it is counterproductive.

the point is that minutia you are talking about is STILL treasure, but never gets put on the WBL or treasure parcels accounting books. and if you DO need kindling and the kobold just disappears, then you are fucked by the DM for not letting you "Greyhawk" the kobold. haven't used that term in a while, had almost forgot it.

the point is, the thing you killed remains as does everything it has so it is treasure that MUST be counted somewhere right? how does all this stuff fit into WBL or even "treasure parcels"?

the funny thing about "vendor trash" is the VERY reason Greyhawking exists. EVERYTHING is treasure if it isn't nailed down, and half the stuff that is nailed down is too!

the value of something found is not solely based on a GP equivalent.

I notice that then discussions never seem to touch on player crafted items. If players have some ability to craft the items they absolutely need. It seems like you could totally have a system where you chose between using a stronger item that was randomly generated or crafting a weaker item that's tailored to your own personal abilities.

this is about wishlists.. found treasure. if you can craft items, you do NOT need a wishlist, just make the shit yourself. this is another reason WBL doesn't work, because hey you can make any damn thing you want, and unless it breaks the game your DM should allow you to make it if the rules exist with "rituals" and the residuum facotr and value prevent or attempt to prevent the WBL as designated in the treasure parcels, but it is a slap in the face to players that are supposed to be these superheros, yet too stupid to make their own gear. they are beneath Batman since they neither can make what they want and require the treasure parcels and wishlist, and cant for some unknown reason commission someone else to make it.

crafting magic items denies the function of WBL and "wishlists", and the reverse is also true that WBL and "wishlists" denies the ability to have crafting items.

[deaddmwalking]

"I mean if we even had a wheelbarrow, that would be something."

[Bihlbo]

BTW, "Greyhawking" for those not interested in looking it up like I did, is what it sounds like based on the context here. Loot all the things.

Unless I'm mistaken it's based on the idea that every item has a value, and the way to get rich is to be a party of Katamari Damacy-like powergamers, relying on the basic assumption that complicated, realistic economies are really hard to make for an rpg therefore every shop just buys everything you have. Like playing Skyrim with an unlimited carrying capacity. Greyhawking is a great example of metagaming wealth at the expense of roleplaying or making an attempt at realism, or as Shadzar would put it, "Playing your Drizzt clone instead of bartering a limitless griffon." Because you know, he didn't understand where he was or what had been said before he started typing.

the point is that minutia you are talking about is STILL treasure, but never gets put on the WBL or treasure parcels accounting books. and if you DO need kindling and the kobold just disappears, then you are fucked by the DM for not letting you "Greyhawk" the kobold.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you didn't get it, since you can't read. Shortcutting the looting of a kobold to a vial of kobold blood doesn't mean it disappears, just like breaking in a door doesn't mean the splinters and latch disappear - you just don't have a reason to describe them, where they landed, how big they are, and what you could surmise after studying the detritus. Don't bother with ignorable junk. I never implied that players who say, "Hey I need kindling," were going to just go without because, "Sorry, I already processed the corpse into kobold blood and whatever it had is gone because I'm hard-coded to make corpses disappear like in all video games." You seem to think this is not only inevitable, but somehow possible that a GM would do that.

Also, if the GM doesn't say, "Here's your treasure, it's 14 lbs. of primitive stuff kobolds think are pretty and can make in the dark with pebbles. You think it's worth about 3 coppers," he's doing you a favor, not screwing you over. IF you're using WBL then not including that makes more room for things that have a use or a value you care about. Since you probably aren't using WBL or loot parcels because they are really stupid, that's less stuff you have to carry. If you shove everything into Shadzar's pockets of "I don't pay attention to realistic stuff like mass" then it's still better to ignore it because the annoyance of bookeeping far outweighs the benefit of "looting the nails and the walls".

the point is, the thing you killed remains as does everything it has so it is treasure that MUST be counted somewhere right? how does all this stuff fit into WBL or even "treasure parcels"?

No, that's not right. It doesn't need to be generated, recorded, or counted, because it is as ignorable as the kobold's rotten upper 2nd molar and the .2 grams of fungus growing between its toes. If you're so new to D&D that you're using WBL as a limiting tool or 4e's parcels (because you haven't yet found out that they are bad) then this stuff "fits into WBL" by not being on the chart at all. If you don't have it then it's not your wealth.

Okay Shadzar, commence with the reply that tells me how dumb it is to make biscuits out of hair, or whatever nonsense that brain of yours thinks it just read.

[Kaelik]

BTW, "Greyhawking" for those not interested in looking it up like I did, is what it sounds like based on the context here. Loot all the things.

I am pretty sure that Greyhawking does not refer to looting all the vendor trash and selling it, but instead refers specifically to the act of looting your own corpse.

IE: You are a party of four level 10s and the assorted gear. One of you dies. A new character shows up with or without gear. In either case, the party or the new individual immediately loots the dead party member, thus having incredible wealths.