Arguments in favor of magic item wishlists.

[virgil]

WTF!? I am loathe to speak his name, but this is Elennsar-level behavior here.

[Omegonthesane]

WTF!? I am loathe to speak his name, but this is Elennsar-level behavior here.

I'm still amused that Elennsar's stupidity made his name immortal on the forum despite me never having been around for its origins.

I'm also slightly disturbed that, thanks to having originally signed up to post an ill-informed, probaby-terrible homebrew MT fix somewhere other than GITP before I grew the balls to start posting, my account is barely younger than shadzar's.

[shadzar]

Or that time when my luck with random items just left me with a pile of numbers and I wanted something quirky and weird.

not ignoring the rest and can accept the themed items from a certain minor standpoint...but then why could you not apply the same to this?

i will make some assumptions that dont all agree with each other then ask a question or two.

you make a personality bible before you even begin to play. this is violate by your fiery theme example.

you make a character concept so flat and one-dimensional that it cannot be adapted during play. again fiery theme example violates this.

you are married to a weapon type. seems most plausible. then you assign a personality based solely on the weapon used i guess.

why couldn't you use the fiery theme example and take those random items to turn it INTO a theme? this is similar to what i asked DDMW before, why can the personality not develop through play? or better still, why does the items even really enter into the personality? (DDMW responded with a sledgehammer being more interesting than a normal hammer. though i don't see how since they are both held weapons with possibly minor pluses to attacks and damage ranges offered of the bludgeoning style.)

[shadzar]

So... If you please... Explain how wishlists are patches for inadequate rules?

In D&D, you need a magic weapon to strike many enemies. In many versions, you need a cloak of protection in order to not die to level appropriate enemies. You legitimately need items that you don't necessarily get.

The wishlist in that case isn't the act of telling the other players that you want to adventure in the Bane Mires. It's asking the MC to include specific items that you fucking need. If a character needs an item, there should be some sort of actual rule that fucking gives them out. That the wishlist is a requirement in 4e D&D is a failure of the rules.

-Username17

i would say it is more a failure of the author of the DMG, since they clearly didn't explain to the DM that X creature requires a magic item, so only a fool would FORCE the PCs to fight that without having given them a chance to get one. (not exactly the magical rapier with a ruby studded handle that they dream their pet character concept to have, but just something called "magical" that can do damage to the monster.)

thus wishlist are an excuse for bad explanations to DMs in the DM and a failure as an author to write said advice in the DMG for the DM to understand; thus a designer had to make a rule and mechanic for it to cover the authors ass and poor writing skills and overall job failure. likely a failure of the DMG editor as well.

[shadzar]

Because everything you described ought to be provided for in the rules without having to beg Mister Cavern. You want a fire item set? You should be able to spend a feat on that, or craft points, or quest points or something. The rules should provide.

do you read every adventure ahead of time to approve all parts for your DM? Why do you have a DM?


doesnt the DM create the world and its societies so if a fire-theme society exists, shouldn't you easily be able to join it if you are so inclined to want a fire theme as the basis of your character?

these "themes" are infestations from fucking video games that are NOT the purpose of D&D or TTRPGs. or they belong in the "Magic: the Gathering as a D&D setting" thread. or just keep them to your personal weird ass games, and let other people be free of such nonsense.

[Wiseman]

So... If you please... Explain how wishlists are patches for inadequate rules?

In D&D, you need a magic weapon to strike many enemies. In many versions, you need a cloak of protection in order to not die to level appropriate enemies. You legitimately need items that you don't necessarily get.

The wishlist in that case isn't the act of telling the other players that you want to adventure in the Bane Mires. It's asking the MC to include specific items that you fucking need. If a character needs an item, there should be some sort of actual rule that fucking gives them out. That the wishlist is a requirement in 4e D&D is a failure of the rules.

-Username17

There is this chart darkmaster showed me a while back. Would a magic item wishlist work better as a concept if it wasn't about numbers? The players would get numbers straight as they leveled up and magic items would just be extra toppings.

http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/New_Level- ... nt_Rule%29

Because everything you described ought to be provided for in the rules without having to beg Mister Cavern. You want a fire item set? You should be able to spend a feat on that, or craft points, or quest points or something. The rules should provide.

do you read every adventure ahead of time to approve all parts for your DM? Why do you have a DM?


doesnt the DM create the world and its societies so if a fire-theme society exists, shouldn't you easily be able to join it if you are so inclined to want a fire theme as the basis of your character?

these "themes" are infestations from fucking video games that are NOT the purpose of D&D or TTRPGs. or they belong in the "Magic: the Gathering as a D&D setting" thread. or just keep them to your personal weird ass games, and let other people be free of such nonsense.

You seem to be out of touch with what the majority of players want.

EDIT:

WTF!? I am loathe to speak his name, but this is Elennsar-level behavior here.

I'm still amused that Elennsar's stupidity made his name immortal on the forum despite me never having been around for its origins.

I'm also slightly disturbed that, thanks to having originally signed up to post an ill-informed, probaby-terrible homebrew MT fix somewhere other than GITP before I grew the balls to start posting, my account is barely younger than shadzar's.

Who is Elennsar?

[Saxony]

Maybe this is a new argument in this thread:

Magic item wishlists are good because they allow for arbitration in who gets what magic items. Arbitration is required in DnD because people cannot be expected to have the ability or desire to balance among themselves or against the difficulty/power level of the campaign. Both the DM and players should have input in who gets what magic items. That way the players are satisfied and we can get the hopefully knowledgeable and impartial (effective and benevolent) arbitration from the DM.

Yes, I know the perfect ideal game would not need arbitration for balancing player to player and player vs. world, but there is no perfect game. And in any case, even if there was a perfectly balanced game at all levels and in all situations, there would still be regular people house ruling it, not reading it fully, or just deciding not to play it that way, et cetera.

Thus we need patch fixes which must be implemented on the individiual gaming group scale. That requires arbitration.

Does this cause problems? Sure. I won't dignify some of the more anti-social preferences brought up in this thread, but there are still quite a number of new problems. Asshole DMs. Players who don't know what items they need and are too prideful to admit that and ask for help/study for more system mastery. Recalcitrant players in general. Hell, anti-social preferences and non-social preferences are one of the major problems needing this arbitration. (Again, hopefully the DM will not be one of those people and will be able to arbitrate effectively even given players with the average nerd's social skills.)

But those problems really can't be designed away. Mean-spirited and/or ineffective DMs or players will always exist even if the game was perfect. Allowing a combination of DM arbitration and player input to decide magic items.... in a game already overflowing in exactly those things is not a bad thing in small doses where needed.

[Username17]

Would a magic item wishlist work better as a concept if it wasn't about numbers?

No.

The only reason the "wishlist" is even vaguely acceptable is as a shitty kludge for covering the numbers that don't work in the game as printed. Your character needs to have an artifact sword and the rules don't provide him an artifact sword, so you tell the MC that you'd really like an artifact sword to show up soon, and hopefully the MC provides one. That is fucked. That's super fucked. But it's slightly better than being in that exact situation and not telling the MC that you'd really like the artifact sword your character needs and hoping the MC figures it out on its own.

It's all about the numbers. It's all about the fact that the numbers do not fucking work. The Fighter has to have "secret class feature: Artifact Sword", and the player has to whine to the MC about character ineffectiveness until the MC patches the game by invoking it. If it "wasn't about the numbers", it wouldn't be necessary and then it would be shitty and anti-immersive without providing a needed patch to the game.

-Username17

[Wiseman]

Would a magic item wishlist work better as a concept if it wasn't about numbers?

No.

The only reason the "wishlist" is even vaguely acceptable is as a shitty kludge for covering the numbers that don't work in the game as printed. Your character needs to have an artifact sword and the rules don't provide him an artifact sword, so you tell the MC that you'd really like an artifact sword to show up soon, and hopefully the MC provides one. That is fucked. That's super fucked. But it's slightly better than being in that exact situation and not telling the MC that you'd really like the artifact sword your character needs and hoping the MC figures it out on its own.

It's all about the numbers. It's all about the fact that the numbers do not fucking work. The Fighter has to have "secret class feature: Artifact Sword", and the player has to whine to the MC about character ineffectiveness until the MC patches the game by invoking it. If it "wasn't about the numbers", it wouldn't be necessary and then it would be shitty and anti-immersive without providing a needed patch to the game.

-Username17

So those numbers on the chart aren't enough? Or something else handling the numbers is a bad idea?

[Drolyt]

Who is Elennsar?

No idea, but if he was half as entertaining as shadzar I'm sad he's gone.

[PhoneLobster]

Actually in both cases a good system helps.
While people like to pretend that assholes will always be assholes, that just is not true.

Problem is various options can alternatively enable assholes or enable the non-assholes or have conflicting effects.

If Frank declares "Dire Maces And I Walk!" an asshole GM if able will drop a Dire Mace immediately. A good GM if able will if able NOT drop one immediately.

But if you take it out of their hands you simultaneously prevent the asshole GM from dropping the Dire Mace (a good thing) but only SOME of the time, and prevent the good GM from not dropping the Dire Mace SOME of the time.

You haven't actually set up a change in your system that profits when it comes to fixing bad GMs and enabling good ones.

If people actually cared about the Dire Mace and I Walk scenario they would propose a rule that actively ALWAYS prevented a bad GM from dropping one, and never forced a good GM to drop one.

The fact that they don't indicates three things to me.
1) They can't think of a particularly good way to do that.
2) The ways that do that are heavy on player agency and they just hate player agency.
3) "Dire Maces and I walk!" was always a hysterical beat up lie on their part used to rabidly attack something without thought to the wider implications of what they were saying. Much like everything else Frank and Lago have said on this topic.

[Stinktopus]

All of this is why I just dump a ton of cash on my group and encourage them to craft what they want.

[NineInchNall]

Who is Elennsar?

No idea, but if he was half as entertaining as shadzar I'm sad he's gone.

This is Elennsar. Enjoy.

[vagrant]

Oh, he's an idiot who doesn't understand math. The more you know.

[Maj]

If a wishlist is actually all about begging the DM to use magic items in order to keep a character functional in the game, why is the term "wishlist" even being used? That's like saying that asking for the money to pay my rent because I lost my job is on my wishlist. No. It's not. It's on my list of things I need for basic survival. If that's actually an argument against wishlists, fuck it. That's just painting a word over another problem entirely for the sake of being able to scream about the word.

Because everything you described ought to be provided for in the rules without having to beg Mister Cavern. You want a fire item set? You should be able to spend a feat on that, or craft points, or quest points or something. The rules should provide.

No. This is one of the most unreasonable, un-executable, naive, ridiculous philosophies ever. It sounds nice at first, until you realize that people are involved here. People. You know... Those creatures that have to put "allergen alert: this food contains peanuts" labels on a canister of peanuts so people don't do stupid things? You cannot and will not EVER be able to anticipate the imaginations of every RPG player. It's a waste of time and effort to even try. It's also a reason why TTRPGs are superior to video games - so the human adjudicator can hear a player's request (I want a sword like Ivy from Soul Calibur) and nix it or make it happen.

Attempting to make the One Rule Set is an atrocious waste of good game designers. Many good ideas are paralyzed, overwhelmed, and ultimately lost by the human inability to be able to anticipate every scenario, and every desire, and every outcome (not even Scribblenauts can pull that shit off).

[Surgo]

Who is Elennsar?

No idea, but if he was half as entertaining as shadzar I'm sad he's gone.

Shadzar's a stopped clock. Elennsar doesn't even get that honor.

[Drolyt]

If a wishlist is actually all about begging the DM to use magic items in order to keep a character functional in the game, why is the term "wishlist" even being used? That's like saying that asking for the money to pay my rent because I lost my job is on my wishlist. No. It's not. It's on my list of things I need for basic survival. If that's actually an argument against wishlists, fuck it. That's just painting a word over another problem entirely for the sake of being able to scream about the word.

Because everything you described ought to be provided for in the rules without having to beg Mister Cavern. You want a fire item set? You should be able to spend a feat on that, or craft points, or quest points or something. The rules should provide.

No. This is one of the most unreasonable, un-executable, naive, ridiculous philosophies ever. It sounds nice at first, until you realize that people are involved here. People. You know... Those creatures that have to put "allergen alert: this food contains peanuts" labels on a canister of peanuts so people don't do stupid things? You cannot and will not EVER be able to anticipate the imaginations of every RPG player. It's a waste of time and effort to even try. It's also a reason why TTRPGs are superior to video games - so the human adjudicator can hear a player's request (I want a sword like Ivy from Soul Calibur) and nix it or make it happen.

Attempting to make the One Rule Set is an atrocious waste of good game designers. Many good ideas are paralyzed, overwhelmed, and ultimately lost by the human inability to be able to anticipate every scenario, and every desire, and every outcome (not even Scribblenauts can pull that shit off).

Don't take what I said out of context like that. I already said earlier in the thread that wishlists are fine if no better alternative can be devised. Frank seems to disagree, but that is his prerogative. I had thought that the purpose of this thread was to find superior mechanical solutions to the problems in the D&D (and other games') magic item system, but it seems to have devolved into an idiotic discussion on the merits of rules in general.

Also, why are you trying to separate rules concerns from flavor concerns? With your fire item set example the problem isn't just one of ensuring that your character has the items that fit your concept but ensuring that those items give you appropriate abilities for your level. I have no idea why you are advocating that we put all that burden on the MC, who already has the most responsibilities of anyone at the table, instead of trying to find a mechanical solution. Remember, whenever you have a balanced, tested, and ready to use rule that means your group can go straight to having fun that much easier.

[Maj]

Don't take what I said out of context like that.

OK.

I had thought that the purpose of this thread was to find superior mechanical solutions to the problems in the D&D (and other games') magic item system

Nah. I'm pretty sure Lago was just bored.

With your fire item set example the problem isn't just one of ensuring that your character has the items that fit your concept but ensuring that those items give you appropriate abilities for your level.

Actually... I haven't cracked a D&D book in so long that I don't honestly remember if there are flaming items in D&D that aren't weapons (Everlasting Torch?). I was trying to use something that may or may not have mechanical effect because ultimately, it wasn't asking the DM for something I needed.

I have no idea why you are advocating that we put all that burden on the MC, who already has the most responsibilities of anyone at the table, instead of trying to find a mechanical solution.

Why do I tell my mom what gift it would be awesome to get for my birthday when she's already gone through the trouble of being pregnant, giving birth, raising me, helping me pay for school, throwing my wedding, etc, etc? Yeah, she does it because she loves me, but she also does it because - when given the opportunity to do something nice, she'd like it to be a deliberate action, rather than a random one that might be discarded.

People on this forum are extremely fond of calling D&D a collaborative storytelling game. That means to me that if I get inspired to tell a story with my character, then I need to be talking to the person in charge of guiding the collaboration (at the very minimum). It's the MCs job to make it all work - and that might mean that my idea doesn't happen because it just doesn't fly with the story. Or not.

I don't see it as a mechanical issue. I see it as a people-based issue. And thus, I don't see how any rule system is going to be able to handle it.

[shadzar]

You seem to be out of touch with what the majority of players want.

catering to the lowest common denominator yields 4th edition.

D&D should NEVER try to become a TTMMO.

if D&D isnt good enough to play by modern players, then for fucks sake, let it die in piece!

Maybe this is a new argument in this thread:

Magic item wishlists are good because they allow for arbitration in who gets what magic items.

no they don't they just serve to give the +'s to players with whatever aesthetic means their pet character concept demands as if they could always go to X square and find Boardwalk on the Monopoly board. it pretty much turns an RPG into a board game.

also magic items are still only a collection of stat modifiers so should NOT be needed in the first place except on the most basic of levels such as BD&D. X creature needs a magic item to be hurt, so ANY magic item will work against it or silver weapons.

the problem is that magic items are REQUIRED by the game as monsters approach becoming a Tarresque where +5 items are needed, you msut do 100 extra damage than would be needed to kill it and THEN a wish spell to prevent it from coming back, so it is actually dead!

needing a +1 to hit something is the case of needing just a magic item, but those that require a +2 to hurt, or a +3 is the problem that wishlists serve to correct in the game rather than just removing that shitty system of requiring greater +'s on weapons.

If a wishlist is actually all about begging the DM to use magic items in order to keep a character functional in the game, why is the term "wishlist" even being used?

ask WotC specifically Mike Mearls.

Attempting to make the One Rule Set is an atrocious waste of good game designers. Many good ideas are paralyzed, overwhelmed, and ultimately lost by the human inability to be able to anticipate every scenario, and every desire, and every outcome.

and here is what i hate about 3.x and other WotC editions that tries to hard code EVERYTHING in the game.

I have no idea why you are advocating that we put all that burden on the MC, who already has the most responsibilities of anyone at the table, instead of trying to find a mechanical solution.

Why do I tell my mom what gift it would be awesome to get for my birthday when she's already gone through the trouble of being pregnant, giving birth, raising me, helping me pay for school, throwing my wedding, etc, etc? Yeah, she does it because she loves me, but she also does it because - when given the opportunity to do something nice, she'd like it to be a deliberate action, rather than a random one that might be discarded.

People on this forum are extremely fond of calling D&D a collaborative storytelling game. That means to me that if I get inspired to tell a story with my character, then I need to be talking to the person in charge of guiding the collaboration (at the very minimum). It's the MCs job to make it all work - and that might mean that my idea doesn't happen because it just doesn't fly with the story. Or not.

I don't see it as a mechanical issue. I see it as a people-based issue. And thus, I don't see how any rule system is going to be able to handle it.

funny but no, you mom isnt a DM, just a decent parent/human. however the game is NOT that which you speak, and there lies the problem. it wasnt made as a storytelling game, but as a way to do something other than READ stories written by other people so you could EXPERIENCE the adventure and thrill thereof. specifically you didnt have to get stuck with one persons story, like many of the "player entitlement" crowd sure make it seem like is their reason to game (their own personal mini-novella for their pet character concept, and all the other players and DM should be thankful to be able to take part in it).

@Droylt: DMs DM because they LIKE TO DM. this is why so MANY say they hate DMing 3rd because it is NOT FUN, BECAUSE of the mechanics. they don't DM to be the clown at a brithday party jsut there to make the guests smile for an hour or two. They intend to have some fun too. part of that is creating the world, part of that is placing something THEY think will be very useful and seeing how and IF the players even use it, or jsut fucking tear shit up by outsmarting a section in 5 minutes that took 5 hours to write up. then sadly, there are those DMs that NEED to try to kill the PCs at every turn to show superiority over th players and deny ANY type of useful item at all. this last case is in part what wishlist strive to fix, but fail because like ANY other mechanic those shit DMs can just not use it.

[Drolyt]

Who is Elennsar?

No idea, but if he was half as entertaining as shadzar I'm sad he's gone.

This is Elennsar. Enjoy.

That was disappointing really. As far as I can tell from that thread he was just an idiot who didn't understand basic math.

[virgil]

No idea, but if he was half as entertaining as shadzar I'm sad he's gone.

This is Elennsar. Enjoy.

That was disappointing really. As far as I can tell from that thread he was just an idiot who didn't understand basic math.

Part of the history was that in the span of five months, he had made over two thousand posts. While he was around, his presence was unavoidable and oppressive. He's the explicit reason for the ignore function.

[Lago PARANOIA]

That was disappointing really. As far as I can tell from that thread he was just an idiot who didn't understand basic math.

Being Elennsarian isn't just being an idiot. Specifically, it's:

A.) Wanting something that's explicitly contradictory.
B.) Acknowledging the contradiction.
C.) Still wanting it anyway.

Imagine if you were Achilles and you got the tortoise to agree to "that if all of (1)–(n) are true, then (Z) must be true" as an axiom. And then afterwards the tortoise still continued to refuse to accept Z as true after agreeing to this. Alternatively, you can just look at my current signature to get the essence.

That's what arguing with Elennsar was like. I mean, we've had actual honest-to-God racial fascists on these boards and they didn't even come as close to infuriating people here like that dude. That kind of behavior is specifically why he has that entry.

[Drolyt]

That was disappointing really. As far as I can tell from that thread he was just an idiot who didn't understand basic math.

Being Elennsarian isn't just being an idiot. Specifically, it's:

A.) Wanting something that's explicitly contradictory.
B.) Acknowledging the contradiction.
C.) Still wanting it anyway.

Imagine if you were Achilles and you got the tortoise to agree to "that if all of (1)–(n) are true, then (Z) must be true" as an axiom. And then afterwards the tortoise still continued to refuse to accept Z as true after agreeing to this. Alternatively, you can just look at my current signature to get the essence.

That's what arguing with Elennsar was like. I mean, we've had actual honest-to-God racial fascists on these boards and they didn't even come as close to infuriating people here like that dude. That kind of behavior is specifically why he has that entry.

That sounds infuriating actually. The difference with shadzar is I find his rants quite entertaining.

[name_here]

He just would not shut up. There were a number of threads with double-digit pagecounts that he had the majority of posts in, ranting about how the probability of three consecutive coinflips coming up heads was not 12.5%.

[Avoraciopoctules]

So, hypothetically, I'm running a game in an open setting with like 5 dungeons the PCs can pick from, and they pick the Shadow Temple. I'm like "dude's there's a lot of treasure in there. Sure, there are sneaking suits and bane daggers and so on, but there's plenty of rooms that'll basically be [Insert Treasure Here]. So, anything you'd be interested in your PCs finding? Magic figurines that turn into animals, flying carpets, skull-shaped shoulderpads? What do you want?"

Is this bad?