The Sword of My Father and the moustache of Strum

[Elennsar]

So, you can't seperate roleplayers from powergamers. It just doesn't work. One of the best RPers I've ever met was very keen on getting an item that is perfect for her character, because it synergized with her character's abilities and helped make them more effective.

You can and should seperate people who will seek power for their characters whether or not it would make sense or not from people who will say "No, my character would regard this as more important."

Because if your father's spirit was disgraced/tormented by using the sword of his slayer, and you care about your father's spirit, then even if the sword was better and even if you would never in your entire adventuring career have anything where "father's spirit is in pain" mechanically hinders you, it would be wrong.

Now, if it was "use father's sword to honor him" vs. something else which would be better for that, that makes sense.

But insisting that you have to be insane or moronic to not use the most powerful item possible is stupid unless you want to say that all people are insane or moronic to some degree.

There's nothing wrong with wanting good stuff, but there's a lot wrong with placing "having good stuff" as the top priority regardless of any other considerations.

So if you would rather have a +5 sword of ultimate doom then do something your character would consider more important than being powerful, then either your character really doesn't care about that and you should have said so, or you're a powergamer to begin with.

I would prefer to have the "sword of the character's father" or whatever be something that is at least useful enough that it would be as good as, if by some misfortune it was lost, "a sword" I could pick up most places.

I would not want to have the game make it so that I get Real Ultimate Power for using it just because it is the SoMF. Maybe my character's father did have one of the most powerful swords available, maybe not.

Belated:

Then just say it's now a magic sword that just scales to be appropriate. The pluses are a metagame concept for the rules. There done and done. Just like in the tome rules.

No, NOT done and NOT done. Why can it not be a perfectly good sword without being at the highest level of bonus that the character could possibly get?

You can have a sword that does perfectly fucking fine at less-than-the-best-possible, or you can make the game a hypercompetitive game where no one has any reason other than being insane and/or stupid to care about anything that doesn't have mechanical consequences.

A game where the only reason to compose poetry (IC) is that you (ICly) lose something mechanically if you don't is an extraordinarily shallow "roleplaying" game.

Picking poetry as something that I'd hope at least some character concepts care about whether or not being able to write good sonnets is as potent as being able to outfight three men while using your offhand.

[Leress]

There's nothing wrong with wanting good stuff, but there's a lot wrong with placing "having good stuff" as the top priority regardless of any other considerations.

The two examples that you say this too don't apply with this quote. They are not putting it above all other considerations. They are making the concept the best it can.

You keep on making exggrerations about if you don't have every plus then you are stupid and/or insane. No one is saying that.

No, NOT done and NOT done. Why can it not be a perfectly good sword without being at the highest level of bonus that the character could possibly get?

Why does that matter at all if it is your father's sword? It still the same damn sword. You moved the number away from dumping money into it and made more room to describe the sword it self. When you move the numbers over or away then everyone is on the same field numbers wise and can have fun with having different abilities.

I will say this again. Some people will keep the sword, some won't. Some won't give two shits about it being their father's sword. People can do anything they damn well want. Getting bent out shape because no one wants to play the character the way you want to be played is just plain ignorant. Some people would keep the sword even if it wasn't masterwork.

I would prefer to have the "sword of the character's father" or whatever be something that is at least useful enough that it would be as good as, if by some misfortune it was lost, "a sword" I could pick up most places.

Yet you don't like the idea of auto scaling which would do just that.

[Elennsar]

The two examples that you say this too don't apply with this quote. They are not putting it above all other considerations. They are making the concept the best it can.

You keep on making exggrerations about if you don't have every plus then you are stupid and/or insane. No one is saying that.

No one is interested in using something without every plus unless they get something else for it, either. No sign whatsoever.

Why does that matter at all if it is your father's sword? It still the same damn sword. You moved the number away from dumping money into it and made more room to describe the sword it self. When you move the numbers over or away then everyone is on the same field numbers wise and can have fun with having different abilities.

Because it is not solving the problem of "it is your father's sword, that matters, doesn't it?" at all. It is saying that is nice fluff to have but not so nice that you'll actually keep it over something which is more useful if you were given a choice.

I will say this again. Some people will keep the sword, some won't. Some won't give two shits about it being their father's sword. People can do anything they damn well want. Getting bent out shape because no one wants to play the character the way you want to be played is just plain ignorant. Some people would keep the sword even if it wasn't masterwork.

And making the game so that you are told that it is irrelevant whether or not it is your father's sword and that you should be concerned with whether or not it keeps up with other swords and anything else is after ensuring that is not a good thing.

Having individual players decide "Nah, not important enough." is fine. Having the game be written so that its irrelevant is not fine.

Yet you don't like the idea of auto scaling which would do just that.

Because it wouldn't do just that. It says that you can rely on having a +X weapon, not that having a weapon that is less than +X is fine.

Big difference.

[Leress]

No one is interested in using something without every plus unless they get something else for it, either. No sign whatsoever.

What part of the phrase "suck it up" don't you understand? Some people will just understand that they don't have that plus and not care an continue on their merry way playing the.

Because it is not solving the problem of "it is your father's sword, that matters, doesn't it?" at all. It is saying that is nice fluff to have but not so nice that you'll actually keep it over something which is more useful if you were given a choice.

Saying that your father is rotting in hell from you not using it is fluff too. Some people will care some won't. Telling the player they should feel bad for doing it has nothing to do with how good the sword was at all.

And making the game so that you are told that it is irrelevant whether or not it is your father's sword and that you should be concerned with whether or not it keeps up with other swords and anything else is after ensuring that is not a good thing.

How would you codify that into the rules of the game? Seriously, the game can't tell you what is important to you personally. It doesn't control the emotions of the player.

Because it wouldn't do just that. It says that you can rely on having a +X weapon, not that having a weapon that is less than +X is fine.

Big difference.

Why would it really matter if it wasn't level appropriate? The sword isn't automatically cooler if it does or doesn't have all the pluses on it. It's the same damn sword. So you might as well just have it meet the expected level for weaponry pluses so you can just start playing the game. Characters can't see the pluses, players do. So either can just make it scale so no one really has to worry about it or take them out all together and adjust the rest of the game to fit.

The mechanics are for resolution of conflicts and tests. They shouldn't factor in emotional attachment of items in them.

[Orion]

Elennsar: I'm not of the opinion that inbalance in power between character builds is unacceptable. For two reasons:

1st: Designers are human, they will make mistakes, the game is put together piece by piece and not always perfectly reconciled, etc. Some builds will end up stronger no matter what you do. That's before you get into house rules, or just campaigns with different challenge breakdowns.

2nd: Most games will for verisimilitude have to allow options to happen during gameplay that are not among the "supported" options. Your game might be balanced around people using weapons, but it's probably *legal* for the warrior to drop his sword and try to punch his opponent out. I'm fine with that being underpowered.

That said, each of these imbalances can and should be mitigated. The first is mitigated by avoiding introducing *deliberate* imbalances. There will be unforseeable imbalances in the product no matter what, so it's only *more* important to plug any known holes.

Second, look at what types of actions you expect people to want to take in the genre and try to support as many as possible? If you're playing a gritty cops & robbers game, dropping your gun probably should make you ineffective. If you're playing a Gun Fu martial arts game, it probably shouldn't weaken you dramatically, and in some situations (like when activating a rage ability) might even be optimal.

In this case, if you *know* some players will want ancestral weapons, why *wouldn't* you make sure it was as balanced as possible?

[Elennsar]

What part of the phrase "suck it up" don't you understand? Some people will just understand that they don't have that plus and not care an continue on their merry way playing the.

Where are those people in this thread?

LARPing?

Saying that your father is rotting in hell from you not using it is fluff too. Some people will care some won't. Telling the player they should feel bad for doing it has nothing to do with how good the sword was at all.

And the point is, that stuff is being treated as not worth emphasising at all.

How would you codify that into the rules of the game? Seriously, the game can't tell you what is important to you personally. It doesn't control the emotions of the player.

The game can tell you that this sort of thing actually matters to good characters (good or neutral?) - evil ones presumably don't care if their parents are suffering any more than anyone else.

So if you play a good character, it is one of the things to keep in mind, like how one of the things to keep in mind about Bushido is being courteous.

So you might as well just have it meet the expected level for weaponry pluses so you can just start playing the game. Characters can't see the pluses, players do. So either can just make it scale so no one really has to worry about it or take them out all together and adjust the rest of the game to fit.

Or make a game where scaling is unnecessary because having better-than-average (+/-0) stuff is not necessary to start playing the game and you can do just fine and not be underpowered because you didn't get a +X.

That doesn't require eliminating better quality stuff, however.

The mechanics are for resolution of conflicts and tests. They shouldn't factor in emotional attachment of items in them.

Then the mechanics should be a distinct and distant second to the roleplaying consideration of emotional attachment if that emotional attachment is something the character cares about.

That said, each of these imbalances can and should be mitigated. The first is mitigated by avoiding introducing *deliberate* imbalances. There will be unforseeable imbalances in the product no matter what, so it's only *more* important to plug any known holes.

Second, look at what types of actions you expect people to want to take in the genre and try to support as many as possible? If you're playing a gritty cops & robbers game, dropping your gun probably should make you ineffective. If you're playing a Gun Fu martial arts game, it probably shouldn't weaken you dramatically, and in some situations (like when activating a rage ability) might even be optimal.

In this case, if you *know* some players will want ancestral weapons, why *wouldn't* you make sure it was as balanced as possible?

The thing is, I'm fine and happy with it being balanced with any other equally readily available weapon.

I'm not fine with eliminating better quality stuff entirely.

If you're interested in using daddy's sword, then most swords you can get your grubby little hands on should be as good (bad?) or worse. That should not mean that Excalibur does not exist or that it can only be wielded by Arthur anyway.

That should not mean that the sword of your father's slayer is also no better.

There are reasons to do things other than it being mechanically the best option.

A character might well think they have a chance of talking things through peacefully if they approach unarmed, even if in a given situation they don't (in other similar situations they should, at least some amount of the time - we're assuming people make mistakes, not are delusional).

[violence in the media]

No one is interested in using something without every plus unless they get something else for it, either. No sign whatsoever.

So what? That can only benefit the people who would do such a thing anyways. Also, many people get to be more deliberate and rational in a game than they do in real life. There is time and access to information that isn't always available in real life. If you can see that you're going to be making an inferior choice, by whatever metric you choose to use, why would you do it?

Come to think of it, that's all you're doing. You're changing the measurement criteria from "more effective" to "honors father." Choosing to honor your character's father is the important criteria and, as such, you're not going to do something "obviously stupid" like not using or desecrating your father's sword.

Because it is not solving the problem of "it is your father's sword, that matters, doesn't it?" at all. It is saying that is nice fluff to have but not so nice that you'll actually keep it over something which is more useful if you were given a choice.

If that's the player's choice, so be it. If that's what most players choose, so be it. You're arguing against what price that people sell their character's ideals for. You wouldn't trade dad's +2 sword for a +3 sword, OK. What would you trade that old relic for?

And making the game so that you are told that it is irrelevant whether or not it is your father's sword and that you should be concerned with whether or not it keeps up with other swords and anything else is after ensuring that is not a good thing.

Having individual players decide "Nah, not important enough." is fine. Having the game be written so that its irrelevant is not fine.

Why shouldn't superior equipment generate superior results? There is some point where better gear is going to be the edge needed. Nobody playing pro golf uses off the rack clubs after all.

[Elennsar]

So what? That can only benefit the people who would do such a thing anyways. Also, many people get to be more deliberate and rational in a game than they do in real life. There is time and access to information that isn't always available in real life. If you can see that you're going to be making an inferior choice, by whatever metric you choose to use, why would you do it?

Last time I checked, while the players may be given five minutes to decide what to do, the characters might have only ten seconds.

In other words, the characters don't get the time and information the players do often, so the players should not be treating the situation as if their characters do.

If that's the player's choice, so be it. If that's what most players choose, so be it. You're arguing against what price that people sell their character's ideals for. You wouldn't trade dad's +2 sword for a +3 sword, OK. What would you trade that old relic for?

I'm arguing against the idea that "The character's ideals" being sold is something that we should be okay with when dealing with characters who are supposed concerned with upholding those ideals.

The answer, incidently, is "The salvation of the world." or something similar.

Why shouldn't superior equipment generate superior results? There is some point where better gear is going to be the edge needed. Nobody playing pro golf uses off the rack clubs after all.

Why should it be necessary to use superior equipment to generate appropriate results?

Nothing wrong with superior equipment being better, but there is a lot wrong with it being necessary.

[Roy]

In which case upgrading makes you overpowered. Epic Fail is Epic.

[Elennsar]

No, it doesn't. It means you have an advantage who didn't upgrade, all other things being even.

Presumably, upgrading is not simply "I upgrade." - there's some cost, either of money, time, or some other resource, which may or may not be mechanically relevant ("your soul" doesn't exactly give you a penalty to stuff, but losing your soul is a pretty steep price).

[Leress]

Okay I think I see what you are saying now, El. Here is the thing level appropriate equipment means that it is standard for the level. You can't get better equipment at the level but this is the line minimum that you need to be standard. At the level were +3 is standard having a +2 is okay albeit substandard and you can get a +4 which is above standard.

Where are those people in this thread?

LARPing?

One is the person responding to this bloody quote with the guy with google avatar.

So if you play a good character, it is one of the things to keep in mind, like how one of the things to keep in mind about Bushido is being courteous.

The reason for not having a huge section on that is because people for a group generally have there own idea of what is good and that is usually done within the group. As I said before people will have an idea from the other sources.

Then the mechanics should be a distinct and distant second to the roleplaying consideration of emotional attachment if that emotional attachment is something the character cares about.

They are to, that person. Since this is a rule book that is main focus, the rules and mechanics.

[Elennsar]

Okay I think I see what you are saying now, El. Here is the thing level appropriate equipment means that it is standard for the level. You can't get better equipment at the level but this is the line minimum that you need to be standard. At the level were +3 is standard having a +2 is okay albeit substandard and you can get a +4 which is above standard.

And having "standard equipment" mean anything at any point that isn't +0 is demanding that people have better stuff just to keep up, which is not good.

Keeping up with other people who have it? Fine. That 16th level people need +4 swords? Not fine.

One is the person responding to this bloody quote with the guy with google avatar.

Then what's wrong with keeping the damn sword at +2 or whatever and not asking for one of six hundred ways to give it something else mechanically useful?

Why have it so you "must" upgrade it?

The reason for not having a huge section on that is because people for a group generally have there own idea of what is good and that is usually done within the group. As I said before people will have an idea from the other sources.

Apparently, it is not appropriate to mention in a game on samurai that this bushido thing is serious.

They are to, that person. Since this is a rule book that is main focus, the rules and mechanics.

I would hope that the PHB or Core Book or Whatever go into more than just that, because otherwise it isn't much of a rpg.

[violence in the media]

Last time I checked, while the players may be given five minutes to decide what to do, the characters might have only ten seconds.

In other words, the characters don't get the time and information the players do often, so the players should not be treating the situation as if their characters do.

That is an unacceptable and unenforceable attitude. The truth of the matter is that a player has X amount of time to think about what they're doing as the DM goes around the table. There's no way you can parse that time fairly.

I've long ago given up on the idea of an IC/OOC divide. It's too messy to sort out and police, and ultimately only benefits the very people you're trying to stop. Players can quote MM stats for creatures they've never seen before as far as I care. Hell, they can use the calculations for Aberrations and Celestials to guesstimate custom creatures if they want.

I'm arguing against the idea that "The character's ideals" being sold is something that we should be okay with when dealing with characters who are supposed concerned with upholding those ideals.

Okay with that? We should be fucking encouraging that at every opportunity. The only morals worth buying are those that are supposed to be being upheld. I'd argue that the more righteous the heroes in your game are supposed to be, the more explicit the rules of corruption, temptation, and loss of control you should have.

The answer, incidently, is "The salvation of the world." or something similar.

Wow. You wouldn't give up your father's sword to save a lowly companion of yours? Knowing this attitude, would you begrudge your companions not sticking their necks out for your character?

Why should it be necessary to use superior equipment to generate appropriate results?

Nothing wrong with superior equipment being better, but there is a lot wrong with it being necessary.

Because at a certain level, it is necessary. Not using the best equipment available is just handing your opponent an advantage, however small it may actually be, that you could easily negate.

Tiger Woods (before his injuries) may have been able to beat every other golfer out there with a gnarled piece of hickory via his natural talents. But why give his opponents the edge in equipment by not using the same personalized, custom-designed gear that they were using? Michael Phelps is an amazingly fast swimmer, but he still shouldn't discard his suit or discount it's contributions when facing equal-level competitors.

[Maxus]

Because at a certain level, it is necessary. Not using the best equipment available is just handing your opponent an advantage, however small it may actually be, that you could easily negate.

I'm surprised that no one's really pointed out that as you level up and face bigger challenges, you pretty much *must* improve your gear.

Now, the way to dodge that is to play a game which is low-level and stays low-level....

Correction: The way to dodge that is to play a game where the PCs don't advance in level.

[Leress]

Then what's wrong with keeping the damn sword at +2 or whatever and not asking for one of six hundred ways to give it something else mechanically useful?

Why have it so you "must" upgrade it?

I gave that as one of the options that can be chosen. I also said that it's a minor setback but not that much of a big deal. I have given many choices that one could take.

Apparently, it is not appropriate to mention in a game on samurai that this bushido thing is serious.

Bushido is a code of conduct and has nothing to do with being good. Good is a lot more ambiguous and is a lot more flexible in it's interpretation. It is part of the fluff of the world. You can say Bushido is serious and have consequences as well.

I would hope that the PHB or Core Book or Whatever go into more than just that, because otherwise it isn't much of a rpg.

Main focus doesn't mean only focus.

[Elennsar]

Okay with that? We should be fucking encouraging that at every opportunity. The only morals worth buying are those that are supposed to be being upheld. I'd argue that the more righteous the heroes in your game are supposed to be, the more explicit the rules of corruption, temptation, and loss of control you should have.

And we should actually make people think that upholding those morals actually means something to those who care about such things whether or not it is mechanically advantageous.

A character who is supposed to be highly concerned with their morals should be able to just say "No. Fuck off." if they want to. The temper's job is to make them not want to.

Wow. You wouldn't give up your father's sword to save a lowly companion of yours? Knowing this attitude, would you begrudge your companions not sticking their necks out for your character?

Without having some reason to think the companion being saved is important? No. Ye Standarde Dungeon Crawl Mercenary Shadowrun Team "companion" is not worth hurting someone else who is more important for. A fellow Musketeer or whatever may be another story.

I'm not going to risk my father's spirit over your physical shell unless that shell matters to someone other than you.

Because at a certain level, it is necessary. Not using the best equipment available is just handing your opponent an advantage, however small it may actually be, that you could easily negate.

No, it isn't necessary. What it is is beneficial.

BIG difference.

I gave that as one of the options that can be chosen. I also said that it's a minor setback but not that much of a big deal. I have given many choices that one could take.

If its only a minor setback, why not just live with it and leave it alone?

Bushido is a code of conduct and has nothing to do with being good. Good is a lot more ambiguous and is a lot more flexible in it's interpretation. It is part of the fluff of the world. You can say Bushido is serious and have consequences as well.

It is only ambiguous to people who believe it is ambiguous (when those people write fiction, including games) and possibly so in our world (impossible to prove one way or another that I know of).

Either way, it should be treated as serious if it is meant to be serious in the same way your Strength score is treated as serious, whether or not it is as useful to be really good as really strong.

Main focus doesn't mean only focus.

In D&D, unfortunately, anything outside that is touched up so lightly that you have to make most of it up anyway.

[Roog]

Wow. You wouldn't give up your father's sword to save a lowly companion of yours? Knowing this attitude, would you begrudge your companions not sticking their necks out for your character?

Without having some reason to think the companion being saved is important? No. Ye Standarde Dungeon Crawl Mercenary Shadowrun Team "companion" is not worth hurting someone else who is more important for. A fellow Musketeer or whatever may be another story.

I'm not going to risk my father's spirit over your physical shell unless that shell matters to someone other than you.

Thats one of the most interesting things that you have said, and definitly an unusual sentiment.

Are you speaking from some assumed PoV there, or is that the way you generally feel? (since there appear to be some assumptions contained there such as that sacrificing the sword would risk your father's spirit)

[Leress]

Without having some reason to think the companion being saved is important? No. Ye Standarde Dungeon Crawl Mercenary Shadowrun Team "companion" is not worth hurting someone else who is more important for. A fellow Musketeer or whatever may be another story.

I'm not going to risk my father's spirit over your physical shell unless that shell matters to someone other than you.

...

Wow, you are not a team player.

If you pulled that in the Shadowrun group I play with your character would be either dead or wrapped as a gift to our opposition. That is just screwing the team up. No one leaves anyone out to dry unless they deserve it.

If its only a minor setback, why not just live with it and leave it alone?

I said that already learn to read what I post.

In D&D, unfortunately, anything outside that is touched up so lightly that you have to make most of it up anyway.

Oh noes they want me to use my imagination. The horror.

[Elennsar]

I'm surprised that no one's really pointed out that as you level up and face bigger challenges, you pretty much *must* improve your gear.

Now, the way to dodge that is to play a game which is low-level and stays low-level....

Correction: The way to dodge that is to play a game where the PCs don't advance in level.

Or play a game where you don't need better gear than you can get to begin with to face higher level challenges.

Thats one of the most interesting things that you have said, and definitly an unusual sentiment.

Are you speaking from some assumed PoV there, or is that the way you generally feel? (since there appear to be some assumptions contained there such as that sacrificing the sword would risk your father's spirit)

Other than the part on the sword risking my father's spirit, its a general feeling - I'm more concerned about my father than you. That's not to say I think you suck and if you die who gives a shit, but between having stronger feelings about my father than about you and not regarding dying as the (metaphorically speaking) end of the world...

Yeah. If you'd like a more through explaination of my thoughts on this, PM me - its not "Death, eh." or "Others, eh." by any means.

Wow, you are not a team player.

If you pulled that in the Shadowrun group I play with your character would be either dead or wrapped as a gift to our opposition. That is just screwing the team up. No one leaves anyone out to dry unless they deserve it.

Not wanting to hurt someone else more important for you does not mean I'm not a team player - if you're someone who is worth breaking necks for, I'm fine with breaking necks for you. Simply being a fellow adventurer does not make you one of those people.

I said that already learn to read what I post.

Which is not "Sure, I'd be fine with it." end of statement.

Oh noes they want me to use my imagination. The horror.

If I have to "use my imagination" to determine whether it is appropriate to bow to the Emperor or whether or not I need to get down on my knees and touch my head to the floor because the game doesn't tell me, and dealing with that sort of thing is supposed to come up, the game sucks.

The fluff of the game is as important as the mechanics. And a game book that fails to provide it in detail is failing to be worth my $30 (nevermind more than that).

[RandomCasualty2]

But how noticeable is enough to matter?

When it's noticeable amidst the RNG. If someone had a +26 and the other guy had a +27, in general, you're not going to know that unless you read their character sheet. When they're announcing totals for their d20 rolls, those totals are going to be very similar.

There's no magic number where that's going to happen, and it depends on a lot of things. Generally imbalance is less noticeable when two characters have different roles or use different styles.

But that's not even the point. Because we're talking about game design concepts, and ideally we should try to eliminate imbalances as much as we can. So building a game based on "Well it's imbalanced, but hopefully it's small enouh so they don't know it." is a bad idea. Better to just try to make it balanced from the start.

And "competitive" does not mean "as good as the very best character that could be made at that level by someone going over the system with a fine toothed comb for every possible advantage."

If your group has a hardcore powergamer, then absolutely it pretty much should be, because you may need to compete with such a character.

And if the world and what the DM is encouraged to do with it are only represented by the numbers, you either have complicated rules or a shallow world or both.

Different DMs will do different things, and there's really no reason to believe that roleplaying your character will always make you more popular with the other NPCs. In some cases it may, in some cases it may not. For all you know, the character's father could have been known as a traitor and the character is fighting to restore his reputation, in which case carrying the sword actually hurts his reputation.

I'm reasonably sure that it would be possible to have a character who was stronger (as in higher Strength) than Lancelot. Or Zorro. Or Drizzt (Drizz't? I need to look this up). Or Aragorn.

When I say "stronger" I don't mean strength score, I mean power level at what they do. If you're making a warrior, then you want to be an effective warrior, and the other warriors in your PC group shouldn't be better than you. Some imbalances are impossible to avoid, but whenever possible, you should always try to have less imbalance.

Because my defintion of "punish" doesn't mean "anything that makes it inferior to anything".

Having +3 swords exist does not mean people using +2 swords are punished.

If you have access to +3 swords and you choose to take a +2 sword for RP purposes, then yes, you are being punished. Unless the game system is giving you something back.

[Roog]

Other than the part on the sword risking my father's spirit, its a general feeling - I'm more concerned about my father than you. That's not to say I think you suck and if you die who gives a shit, but between having stronger feelings about my father than about you and not regarding dying as the (metaphorically speaking) end of the world...

Not wanting to hurt someone else more important for you does not mean I'm not a team player...

In that case when you picked your father's sword as an example, you picked a pretty crappy example.

You seem to be saying that you consider your companion dying to be something not terribly important for - but loss of the sword to be something terribly important to your father.

The inital impression your example gave was that the character's father was dead, and that you wanted to honour his memory. But if thats not the situation that you are talking about, then it might be a good idea to tell us what situation you are talking about. Otherwise I am left with the impression that your character is deranged, and belives that in some way the sword now is his father (or else he is an arsehole who only cares about his stuff - but that does not make sense either, as he doesn't want better stuff).

[Leress]

Roog, El added the part about having it torment your father's soul.

I promptly ignored it because the discussion was within the context of D&D and El hasn't really explained why the father's soul is tormented.



Also anyone besides El like to poke holes in my position on this? I think maybe I am not giving a clear enough picture of what I am trying to say.

[Elennsar]

But that's not even the point. Because we're talking about game design concepts, and ideally we should try to eliminate imbalances as much as we can. So building a game based on "Well it's imbalanced, but hopefully it's small enouh so they don't know it." is a bad idea. Better to just try to make it balanced from the start.

Ideally we should also try to have there be times that a given thing is worth using over another thing - because "all weapons do 1d10 damage, period, and all characters have X AC, period." while probably more balanced is too boring.

So risking imbalance is probably inevitable.

If your group has a hardcore powergamer, then absolutely it pretty much should be, because you may need to compete with such a character.

Or talk to the powergamer and persaude them not to make a character who makes all the other characters weak and puny?

Different DMs will do different things, and there's really no reason to believe that roleplaying your character will always make you more popular with the other NPCs. In some cases it may, in some cases it may not. For all you know, the character's father could have been known as a traitor and the character is fighting to restore his reputation, in which case carrying the sword actually hurts his reputation.

Indeed. The point is, that sort of stuff should not always be mechanical - even if your father is known as a hero, that can work out as making life more difficult for you (people expect more from you).

When I say "stronger" I don't mean strength score, I mean power level at what they do. If you're making a warrior, then you want to be an effective warrior, and the other warriors in your PC group shouldn't be better than you. Some imbalances are impossible to avoid, but whenever possible, you should always try to have less imbalance.

I know. However, that's one area that several perfectly good warriors probably -could- have a higher score than they actually do at - but they don't.

If you have access to +3 swords and you choose to take a +2 sword for RP purposes, then yes, you are being punished. Unless the game system is giving you something back.

Then your definition of "punished" is so broad as to be meaningless. Any choice that isn't optimal is automatically poor.

That's not much use.

You seem to be saying that you consider your companion dying to be something not terribly important for - but loss of the sword to be something terribly important to your father.

If it was a choice between the sword being used to honor dad's memory and saving the life of a companion I care about, I would be willing to risk the sword (or even say "screw the sword") to save the life of someone I cared about.

However, if it is a choice between the sword being used to honor the memory of someone I care about and someone I don't care about - let's say its "Give us the sword or we hurt the mayor." - I don't care about the mayor that badly.

So if I feel that somehow it will hurt/upset my father to not use the sword more than it will hurt/upset me/my father/that which I believe is important to save the mayor, then fuck the mayor.

With spiked condoms.

Repeatedly.

So to clarify the situation:

I am a swordsman of some sort. Let's say a knight.

My father died at the hands of some asshole and I have vowed to avenge his death/rid the world of this blight/whatever.

To honor my father, I am using his sword.

There being better quality swords available is not as important.

And I would not, if I thought my father would suffer in some sense, use one simply to save the life of some random fellow adventurer I don't care about.

Now, someone I did care about, I'd seriously consider it - and if it was just a matter of honoring my father, I'd probably not use the sword unless I felt that it was particularly appropriate.

However, I don't want it to be the best sword I can get and I don't want it to be as bad as if it was the worst I could get.

Roog, El added the part about having it torment your father's soul.

I promptly ignored it because the discussion was within the context of D&D and El hasn't really explained why the father's soul is tormented.

Ignoring it really isn't a good way to get an explaination of it, nor does dad have to write in anguish over it (if I don't do it this way) for me to think this is a scenario the game should make it possible without making it super special awesome to do it.

[RandomCasualty2]

Ideally we should also try to have there be times that a given thing is worth using over another thing - because "all weapons do 1d10 damage, period, and all characters have X AC, period." while probably more balanced is too boring.

So risking imbalance is probably inevitable.

It's okay to have "times" when one thing is better. Polearms may suck in cramped spaces, and that's okay. But setting it up such that one thing is always inferior like +2 longsword versus +3 longsword is bad.

If there's no counterbalancing bonus to account for the penalty of using a weaker weapon, then it's a punishment.

Or talk to the powergamer and persaude them not to make a character who makes all the other characters weak and puny?

If you have to do that, then your rules set is pretty much fail.

Then your definition of "punished" is so broad as to be meaningless. Any choice that isn't optimal is automatically poor.

I'm not sure how it's meaningless. When you must choose to take a weapon that is in all respects inferior for RP purposes, then that's a punishment.

This isn't a hypothetical of "well maybe a lower damage dagger might be better than a sword sometimes because you can conceal it." This is a case of a weapon being inferior at everything, and provably so.

And that's absolutely a punishment. It's the equivalent of the DM saying, "You don't get any bonus from your weapon focus feat for roleplaying reasons... and no, you don't get another feat to replace it."

It's okay to say that the father's sword may be inferior, but the character has to get something somewhere else to compensate. One way of doing it may be to say that the father sword is free, and while it is weaker than what the character may have, he doesn't have to buy any magical sword, and thus has some extra money to spend elsewhere.

If the sword is weaker and you get nothing in return, then you are discouraging people from keeping their father's sword. And basically if someone does for RP purposes, they get screwed. Maybe not a lot, but they're still getting screwed.

[Elennsar]

It's okay to have "times" when one thing is better. Polearms may suck in cramped spaces, and that's okay. But setting it up such that one thing is always inferior like +2 longsword versus +3 longsword is bad.

If there's no counterbalancing bonus to account for the penalty of using a weaker weapon, then it's a punishment.

Not really. There are other things that matter other than the mechanical modifiers.

If you have to do that, then your rules set is pretty much fail.

What is "fail" is pretending you can create a rule set that he can't abuse.

It's okay to say that the father's sword may be inferior, but the character has to get something somewhere else to compensate. One way of doing it may be to say that the father sword is free, and while it is weaker than what the character may have, he doesn't have to buy any magical sword, and thus has some extra money to spend elsewhere.

If the sword is weaker and you get nothing in return, then you are discouraging people from keeping their father's sword. And basically if someone does for RP purposes, they get screwed. Maybe not a lot, but they're still getting screwed.

So all the things other than the mechanical effects and the cost are totally irrelevant.

What a boring game.