What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[Username17]

Thanks, that sounds a lot less like actual "and now we roll on the AD&D treasure chart!" than previous hyperbole seemed to imply.

The point was that the move to 3e's "you get a wealth level and then buy bonus crap from the store" was a step backwards from the AD&D treasure chart. The incentives the 3e system created, especially at mid level all pointed towards things that are not fun. The thing where interesting rider effects have a "cost" which encourages you to liquidate them and get boring items is not fun. The thing where the DM is encouraged to bend heaven and earth to stop you from cashing in on the proceeds of whatever tricks you discover to get some gold is not fun. The thing where it encourages you to build in expectations for specific magic items at specific points in your future career so that your character does not grow organically with their adventures is not fun. And so on.

AD&D's treasure system had huge problems. But the fix would be to have more interactive tables and specific fudge factor points on those tables to adapt the treasure to make more sense with the world - not to replace them with a boring mail order catalog and a magic item credit card. And certainly not with 4e's horrendous "Mother May I?" wishlist minigame. I'm not saying that AD&D's treasure charts were sensible or well done, I'm saying that what they were replaced with in 3e and 4e are crimes against humanity.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

and if all else fails they can say "I want X", research it, then go and get it with some kind of appropriate adventure.

I wasn't following all that closely. But I'm pretty sure Frank claimed that side quests for gear were flat out impossibly, undoable and bad-wrong.

Edit: and then he said that making gear players said they want available in the "main quest" was also undoable, impossible and bad-wrong.

I mean that's some pretty awesome hyperbole he painted himself with back in the weapon/treasure thread for someone whining on about clown suits.

So you kind of do want to advertise having "roles" (or power sources or whatever), even though it's just so you can break lists down

While Frank has always been a fan of ludicrous lists of randomly catagorized fluff that would make an obsessive compulsive blush (just like to be honest, most RPG rules design enthusiasts), you know, when he actually does anything practical, back in the giant WoF thread he and Lago actually told us once again that NO you were NOT permitted to use decision trees, it wouldn't work, it's impossible, it's impractical, can't be done, and we were all stupid to suggest it.

So if decision trees are once again fashionable... what changed?

[ModelCitizen]

Essentials is a good example of not giving people what they want and also not giving people what would make them happy. You tell them that they are going to get 5 classes to choose from, but then they want to play a Striker and their only choices are Thief and Ranger. I suggest actually looking at Essentials before you start ranting about why it didn't take hold.

I said 4rries, who are by definition existing 4e players. We're not talking about anyone who would evaluate HoFL/HoFK as the starting point for a new game, we're talking about people who looked at it as class supplement.

Your example was to take all the classes in 4ePHB1, subdivide them, and pretend you had more content. If all the content in PHB1 were republished as Essentials material that's exactly what it would be. Instead of a Warlock class that could choose some fey powers and some star powers there would be a Feylock that could only pick fey powers (or got them preselected) and a Starlock that could only pick star powers. Shit like that is the reason Essentials didn't go over well.

Maybe you meant advertise Feylock and Starlock as different classes but otherwise leave them completely unchanged, except that that would be giving people the same number of choices but organized better and you already said you didn't want that.

[Fuchs]

and if all else fails they can say "I want X", research it, then go and get it with some kind of appropriate adventure.

I wasn't following all that closely. But I'm pretty sure Frank claimed that side quests for gear were flat out impossibly, undoable and bad-wrong.

Edit: and then he said that making gear players said they want available in the "main quest" was also undoable, impossible and bad-wrong.

I mean that's some pretty awesome hyperbole he painted himself with back in the weapon/treasure thread for someone whining on about clown suits.

His main point was that if the players decided to say "fuck of, swordsman, we won't do the side quest for you" then it would be bad DMing if the DM then made a wanted sword drop in the main quest. Cause you know player decisions, even if they are "come on, le's fuck over Ralf, we hate him and his character" should be respected to the point of not helping players that are screwed by them.

[hogarth]

Thanks, that sounds a lot less like actual "and now we roll on the AD&D treasure chart!" than previous hyperbole seemed to imply.

It also sounds substantially like what Fuchs is describing (e.g. shortbow guy is allowed to get a shortbow by selling off non-shortbow items), so I have no idea why Frank is spazzing out trying to claim that he's the anti-fun anti-Christ.

[Username17]

Thanks, that sounds a lot less like actual "and now we roll on the AD&D treasure chart!" than previous hyperbole seemed to imply.

It also sounds substantially like what Fuchs is describing (e.g. shortbow guy is allowed to get a shortbow by selling off non-shortbow items), so I have no idea why Frank is spazzing out trying to claim that he's the anti-fun anti-Christ.

Fuchs differs from me on two major points, one on the side quests and one on the trade.

For the side quest option, I require that the players actually do the sidequest if they want the item. If they research an item and the players decide to not undertake the quest to go get it, then the players don't get it. Fuchs on the other hand, explicitly says that if the players don't decide to go get the item, he has the item miraculously drop during whatever adventure the PCs actually end up going on. That's a game breaker for me. That is literally an incentive for players to refuse to go on any side quests offered by any of the other players, since apparently you get the rewards with zero effort if one player advocates doing a side quest and it gets voted down. Fuck. That.

For the barter option, I require players to actually barter for actual things that actually are wherever they happen to be. And if they decide to rob peddlers or steal from shops they can do that too. If they want items that aren't where they are, they can try to find someone who has them, see side quests. Fuchs prefers to use the WoW Auction House model, where anything you have converts to gold and gold converts to anything you could want with a wave of the invisible hand. That's a game breaker for me too, since it means that where you are and what you are doing means absolutely nothing and people end up caring not one whit for whatever the things they find do and only for what they are worth.

It's not that I disagree that questing for items should be possible or that people should trade items for other items, it's that I think things should be enough actual effort that what you actually have actually matters. Which Fuchs vehemently disagrees with. And that's why he posts 2 or 3 times in a row shouting that what people want is all that matters. Peoples desire to have a frosting bastard sword is so important to cater to that verisimilitude and democracy have to be set on fire to accommodate them. This opinion literally offends me. That level of entitlement is actually enraging to me as a person, whichever side of the MC's screen I am on.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

No, I said I don't care if they barter, trade, or sell for gold and buy items, as long as they get the item they want. I don't care if it's auction house style, or whatever else. I also don't care if they get the sword as a reward from their god after reaching Level X, or if their family sword starts leveling with them, or if they forge their owns word.

That's my fundamental disconnect with you, Frank: If a player wants a sword to have fun, he'll get a sword in my games. (ditto for other items/weapons).

As far as "effort" goes: If players get loot I think it should be loot they like, for having gone through the effort of completing whatever quest it was.

Fuck democracy if it means people have no fun in a game, this is not politics, this is a social activity, and if I can make it so people can have their cake - not going on sidequest X - and eat it too - the player gets a sword, through drop or trade after the main quest - I'd be an asshole to refuse to do it. If however a player can only have fun if he fucks up other player's fun then that's not a player I'll cater to. A player who refuses to go on a side quest for others, and then complains if the side quests are worked into the main quests is obviously just out to fuck the rest.

As a DM I can always find a reason to have a certain piece of loot drop somewhere that doesn't hurt verisimilitude - unless people really have a hard on for random treasure, and are miffed that they encountered more bastard swords that should be statistically likely.

Not that anyone but an utter asshole would be offended if the executor of the sultan of the efreeti actually has a frostbrand and not a flaming scimitar just because one player wants a frostbrand; after all, it also makes damn good sense for an executor of primarily fire creatures to use a cold weapon. It would also make good sense to have him have an acid spiked chain or scourge, claiming this would make the executions more cruel, which the Sultan likes. Or a lightning glaive, which they use to push the condemned into pits of ravenous beasts.

As a DM I have so much control over the game world I can easily drop what I want and justify it. And so can anyone else.

[shadzar]

I'm not saying that AD&D's treasure charts were sensible or well done, I'm saying that what they were replaced with in 3e and 4e are crimes against humanity.

-Username17

i disagree. not with the part about 3.x's WBL nonsense, and 4th's wishlist nonsense, as they are total crap. AD&D treasure charts DID and DO make sense, and EVERYTHING can be better done, that is why you have a GM.

if you look at the treasure charts you see a pattern based on believability. stronger monsters often had better treasure and more treasure because it would be stronger people who would face them. the fresh off the turnip farm adventurer wasnt likely to go run up against a dragon. if he did odds are his equipment was eaten along with him or destroyed with him. dragons dont have caches of normal weapons because they melt in its fiery breathe. leather armor burns away....etc.

why would a dragon keep these things as they werent really a threat? they would collect things that were a threat to prevent people form using them against the dragon. everyone collects shiny objects so art objects, coins, jewels, etc would be found most likely in any treasure. the various types of coins again is based on who would be fighting these creatures and LOSE.

a creature with mountains of copper pieces means they are attacked by poor people that dont carry silver, gold, or other.

also the treasure tables are based on a specific level of magic in the world and some things being rarer than others. remember they are all based around Greyhawk, which would be generic magical fantasy like Merlin, etc; and not really high-magic worlds.

also remember this was when the DM created or decided the world, and THEN the players were given some sort of description about it and made characters FOR that world. the DM made a world for ANY type of character of the allowed types to fit and work, and treasure was placed because it was there, not because Player X had Character A that would win this treasure.

the bigger problem with today is it is all done backwards... the player makes a character and expects the world to be tailored to that character and FOR that character.

playing the game itself has taken a backseat to making a character.

3rd caused a bit of this problem, or rather furthered the stupid 2.5 ideals with character points by recreating those things as skills and feats. then 4th went overboard with it, not only with the treasure wishlists in part to correct 3.x WBL, but also with the everything is core mentality because every DM should be beholden to WotC doctrine that a player buying a book gives them a right to use information in that book.

correct me if i am wrong, but PrCs are a DMs tool, that was taken by players in 3.x, not unlike the Necromancer was a DM class in 2nd that the players took over. Necromancer was the first PrC in concept.

also the editions themselves putting the magic items IN the players books without properly telling the players, or doing the opposite and supporting in kind some idea that they players get to choose them; that the items are in the books to save the DM time having to give descriptions for them all since the "decks" products were ended, and newer DMs were just expected to be too lazy to put an item on an index card. but int he age of widespread computer use...you could have just scanned the page with the magic item and hand it to someone that gets it with treasure.

but unfortunately the WBL did damage with that as well.

and, Frank, you would, agree that the treasure should have reason for being in the possession of the opponent the PCs find it belonging to, right?

so that means that the sense in AD&D was that it was the DM making decisions for the world, as opposed to 3.x/4th where the players are trying to run the world and their characters.

which is why in all these types of threads i maintain that such players need not a DM, but a babysitter.

which reminds me i probably should change the baking soda pack i have in my deck of magical items, deck of priest spells, deck of magic spells, deck of encounters 1 & 2, etc.

[PhoneLobster]

For the side quest option, I require that the players actually do the sidequest if they want the item.

Except you know...

Fuchs, how many fucking sidequests do you think a 6 person team goes on during a campaign?

If it's less than 18, then guaranteeing your magic katana, your nightmare katana, and your artifact katana is not possible.

-Username17

Side quests are like... impossible or something. Frank should really just have a thread where he and Frank hash this out until they can agree on it.

But really Fuchs point is fairly simple.

Character advancement must happen, it happens regardless of what actual quests players go on. If character advancement includes any specific player choices, that has to actually happen. It's not just being an asshole or not, it, it's an unavoidable aspect of playing the game. Having character appropriate loot drop at some sort of appropriate rate is actually fucking unavoidable just like experience points or whatever you use are an unavoidable aspect of doing things.

Even in a world where players got their randomized crap and loved it WITHOUT giving a shit what it was, as Frank and Lago claim, going on a side quest or going on the main quest CANNOT have a meaningful impact on the drop rate of basic character advancement.

The only difference is whether you want a system where people can choose between "Guy with Sword' and "Guy with Spear" and have that mean dick. If it means something then there HAS to be a sword drop rate REGARDLESS of the specific adventures had, and that's actually functionally identical in practice to choosing "has either weapon whatever" as the only choice and the REQUIRED drop rate of "either weapon whatever" REGARDLESS of adventures had.

This is really basic stuff. Players sit down and invest THEIR time in the game. The game HAS character advancement and customization options which you earn pretty much in direct proportion to player time doing... whatever the fuck they do. The harsh reality is that while you CAN differentiate outcomes you can only do so slightly and can only do so using NON RANDOM METHODS ONLY between the "side" quest results and the "main" quest results. In the end it really ISN'T notably different in the ultimate outcome regardless of whether you use random loot or not it actually CAN'T be. Players spend time, characters advance as required by the system's goals, the end. And if you are rolling randomised items... then there is even LESS difference between going on the side quest or sticking on Frank's main railroad.

No really that's what we are looking at here.

Fuchs says "Swords are a thing you do." He says "You can go on a side quest to get your Sword". He says "If you don't, swords will have to basically turn up somehow anyway.".

Frank says "But side quests need to be different WAAAH!" then his solution is you go on a side quest... and get random loot, or you go on the main quest and get... random loot.

Fuchs is making a simple admission about what HAS to happen and what DOES happen in a functional RPG. It may not be pretty but it's the simple truth. Frank meanwhile is making unreasonable demands and claims that his own preferred solution is objectively WORSE at achieving.

[shadzar]

That's my fundamental disconnect with you, Frank: If a player wants a sword to have fun, he'll get a sword in my games. (ditto for other items/weapons).

they can in mine to, but theya re asked to leave and not return immediately, because a DM is not a babysitter, and i will direct them to a few daycares that may be better suited for their gaming needs.

if that one sword is all they are gaming for, then they have problems, or will later become a problem player.

you must run games for people under the age of 11..because the game was made for those 11 and up that aren't so infantile to let a weapon choice ruin their fun of the game, and understand that there is more to the game than just a weapon choice. it is a game about overcoming obstacles by using the tools provided.

either you run games for elementary school kids, or a bunch of rich kids that mommy and daddy buy them everything they hold their breath to get. either way sounds just like spoiled brats that dont see any value in working for something as you always spoon-feed them.

[tussock]

I played Basic and 2nd edition with arbitrary random no-trade magic items and spells. The items I ended up getting with various characters could not be planned for, and thus always required me to adapt to them, which was part of all my character concepts because it had to be.

And when I specialised in something dumb like a two-handed sword, I expected to be using non-magic weapons for a very long time, and maybe get a better cut of the other types of treasure because of that, like boots and belts.

You can't want specific magic items if the game doesn't give them to you. Well, you can, on account of you'll bitch forever about it if you don't and your DM has no spine, but you get what I mean.

I don't know what to tell you. I was in a 2E game where one melee character had a Girdle of Hill Giant Strength, another melee character had a pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, and the third melee character got squat.

If you had told Guy #3 that he can't want one of those specific magic items because of the rules of the game, he probably would have thought you were mentally retarded.

Assuming your lot weren't a bit special too, #1 has the belt and a sword, #2 has the gauntlets, armour, shield, and sword, and #3 has the best sword, the best armour, a nice ring, boots of asskicking, a cloak of the bat, super-heroism potions, and so on. Because you did get to sort that sort of thing out yourselves, eh.

So you're right, you can totally want what the other players get: but you did have a say in who got it, and there should have been a fair deal there.

Hopefully #3 was the guy with the best Strength anyway, thus being the last to get the non-stacking Strength magic. The Mage might even cast Strength on him, because it would still stack for him, but not the others.

Also: the belt of giant strength is crazy-awesome, and #1 was enjoying the fuck out of it by smashing everything to bits. The players I saw with one certainly did.

[tussock]

@Phonelobster: take a pill, dude.

Having character appropriate loot drop at some sort of appropriate rate is actually fucking unavoidable just like experience points or whatever you use are an unavoidable aspect of doing things.

See, true, but where you seem to take this, with the players planning out their sword-dude to level 20 before they start playing, and demanding his upgrades as the WBL decrees, regardless of what the PCs happen to be doing: that's destructive to the player's attachment to the game world and what their characters have done in it.

Your character isn't responding to the adventures and your winnings therein, being influenced by what has happened in the game, you're just running a meta-game advancement script. "Level 6.21, Sonic-Acid sword, now! Level 8.73, where the fuck is my Belt already?" IME, everyone ended up with all the same boring shit that way anyway.

It borders on, for me, "Congratulations, you're level 20, build complete, fuck off!" And I mean that in the nicest possible way. Candies and flowers. Pill taken.

[Fuchs]

Your character isn't responding to the adventures and your winnings therein, being influenced by what has happened in the game, you're just running a meta-game advancement script. "Level 6.21, Sonic-Acid sword, now! Level 8.73, where the fuck is my Belt already?" IME, everyone ended up with all the same boring shit that way anyway.

It borders on, for me, "Congratulations, you're level 20, build complete, fuck off!" And I mean that in the nicest possible way. Candies and flowers. Pill taken.

If you can be assured that you will get what you want, eventually, you are actually more likely to care about the world, and not about getting your gear. Otherwise you may be fixated on searching for the next sword of light, claiming you'll help the peasants once you are ready and geared for it.

If you have to make an effort to get the sword you want, well, odds are you'll make that effort, and even more of an effort if you believe the GM is trying to keep it from you. And that may lead to you ignoring events until you've gotten your sword.

It looks to me this is pure hyperbole. People generally don't demand to get X Sword at Y.XXXX level, they simply want stuff they have fun with at roughly approriate levels. Why wreck the game for the reasonable players in a weird attempt to curtail fringe cases?

[Koumei]

This opinion literally offends me. That level of entitlement is actually enraging to me as a person, whichever side of the MC's screen I am on.

You use the word "literally" there. Just checking, are you saying "If I want an icy rune-carved adamantine dire flail then one had better drop in my lap, it should be pink and the handle should be hollow to contain small snacks." would get more of a rise out of you in, say, a pub, than calling your mother a dirty whore?

...that is hilariously awesome.

[hogarth]

Assuming your lot weren't a bit special too, #1 has the belt and a sword, #2 has the gauntlets, armour, shield, and sword, and #3 has the best sword, the best armour, a nice ring, boots of asskicking, a cloak of the bat, super-heroism potions, and so on. Because you did get to sort that sort of thing out yourselves, eh.

In AD&D, swords and armor are bog-standard magic items, so we had tons of them. If Guy #3 has a +3 sword when everyone else has +2 swords, whoop de do. That's a +1 bonus to damage, compared to the +5 or +6 bonus to damage for having the gauntlets or belt vs. a 17 Strength (say). That's a very noticeable difference in a game where bonuses are fewer and farther between than 3E.

(Potions usually ended up forgotten in the bottom of someone's pack, I'm sorry to say.)

Also: the belt of giant strength is crazy-awesome, and #1 was enjoying the fuck out of it by smashing everything to bits. The players I saw with one certainly did.

Yes, they were awesome. My point is that, in a game like D&D where there really isn't a good substitute for certain items, it is certainly NOT irrational to want said items.

[Username17]

This opinion literally offends me. That level of entitlement is actually enraging to me as a person, whichever side of the MC's screen I am on.

You use the word "literally" there. Just checking, are you saying "If I want an icy rune-carved adamantine dire flail then one had better drop in my lap, it should be pink and the handle should be hollow to contain small snacks." would get more of a rise out of you in, say, a pub, than calling your mother a dirty whore?

...that is hilariously awesome.

I do actually mean literally. Example:

• Player 1: I want an icy rune carved dire flail.
  DM: OK, roll some dice or something.
  Player 1: Success!
  DM: OK, there is one in the Halls of Dread in the hands of the Gnollish Winter Court.
  Player 1: Let's Go!
  Other Players: (take vote) The Nays have it, we are not going to fight the Gnollish Winter Court right now.
  Player 1: But I want it!
  DM: Fine, there's one on the floor of the cave after you beat up the displacer beasts.
  Frank: {RAGE QUITS}

If the players can't make decisions that have consequences, there is no reason for them to be at the table. If they decide to not complete a quest, it is deeply insulting for that quest to get completed for them. It means that retroactively there was no decision point when the players were deciding whether to do the quest or not. All roads lead to Railroad Town apparently.

And when that happens, every choice I've made in the entire campaign retroactively becomes meaningless. Finding the way through the maze becomes a non-accomplishment, since apparently the exit was always going to be the tenth door. Rescuing the mayor becomes meaningless, because apparently as a plot important NPC he was actually going to be fine whether we stormed the lizard camp or not. And so on.

People insult me and my parentage all the time. And that's annoying, but it's nowhere near as angering as having someone delete a story I worked on for 40 hours. Insulting my mother is just rudeness, retroactively invalidating my contributions to a role playing game is deleting my work.

-Username17

[shadzar]

Your character isn't responding to the adventures and your winnings therein, being influenced by what has happened in the game, you're just running a meta-game advancement script. "Level 6.21, Sonic-Acid sword, now! Level 8.73, where the fuck is my Belt already?" IME, everyone ended up with all the same boring shit that way anyway.

It borders on, for me, "Congratulations, you're level 20, build complete, fuck off!" And I mean that in the nicest possible way. Candies and flowers. Pill taken.

If you can be assured that you will get what you want, eventually, you are actually more likely to care about the world,

the problem is this all stems from this exactly...people dont care about the world their characters are in, they only care about their own character.

this is where the two sides differ. you, Fuchs, are playing the game jsut to play your pet character. other people are playing an insignificant character in the world, and trying to make that character be significant through actions. those actions dont always take the form of having the right tool for the right job but, like playing the game itself for the player, require improvising on the spot to overcome some obstacle to continue on.

you are not playing the game, but playing the character as if you are trying to write a story about you as the hero of the sotry. your character is a main character of the story for as long as it lives, but not the ONLNY character. there is a group of other people.

"player entitlement" devolves into being about "spotlight" issues where this singular player cannot put his wants for his character aside, for the needs of the game.

this is childish and self0centered. a character should have personal goals, but whent he player uses those character goals to try to take over the game form everyone else...they have gone beyond playing the game.

you have flat out said "to hell with democracy in gaming" because "it is all about me, my needs, my wants" effectively.

this is a bad player, and should NOT be "rewarded" for this bad behavior.

if a character doesnt care about the world it is supposed to be living in, then there is a problem with that character. at times this can be an interesting quirk to a story, but used often it doesnt even become cliche because it is disruptive long before it can reach clichehood.

your examples are also pitiful, especially in terms of a "hero":

"sorry i cant help you today. maybe in a few weeks after i get a new sword i will try then."

word should spread of this so-called hero to where NOBODY wants them and their career as an adventurer is put to an end because of there inaction and selfishness.

serious question: do all your games have every player playing an AD&D 1st edition cavalier?

that is what is sounds like they act. some arrogant pompous ass. Jack Black's Gulliver's Travels had one in it...the guy courting the princess. he thought he deserved something because his status or station in life, and where did he end up? this sounds like the type of characters you have, AND the type of players.

"you can't always get what you want, but you find sometimes, you get what you need."

if your players have no investment int he world their characters are playing in to begin with, you have greater problems than what treasure they are getting. you jsut have a munchkin game, and NOWHERE will they find a decent game or be welcome in one.

as you have expressed that outside of that DM you had, you didnt understand when a player didnt get what they wanted, because you also are a spoiled brat of gaming. your DM coddled you and didnt give YOU the chance to grow and learn as a person or a gamer to develop skills to be able to adapt, and thus why you are unable to adapt, and the players you have will have the same failings.

you have lived a sheltered gaming life, and need to learn about the real world.

[Fuchs]

This opinion literally offends me. That level of entitlement is actually enraging to me as a person, whichever side of the MC's screen I am on.

You use the word "literally" there. Just checking, are you saying "If I want an icy rune-carved adamantine dire flail then one had better drop in my lap, it should be pink and the handle should be hollow to contain small snacks." would get more of a rise out of you in, say, a pub, than calling your mother a dirty whore?

...that is hilariously awesome.

I do actually mean literally. Example:

• Player 1: I want an icy rune carved dire flail.
  DM: OK, roll some dice or something.
  Player 1: Success!
  DM: OK, there is one in the Halls of Dread in the hands of the Gnollish Winter Court.
  Player 1: Let's Go!
  Other Players: (take vote) The Nays have it, we are not going to fight the Gnollish Winter Court right now.
  Player 1: But I want it!
  DM: Fine, there's one on the floor of the cave after you beat up the displacer beasts.
  Frank: {RAGE QUITS}

If the players can't make decisions that have consequences, there is no reason for them to be at the table. If they decide to not complete a quest, it is deeply insulting for that quest to get completed for them. It means that retroactively there was no decision point when the players were deciding whether to do the quest or not. All roads lead to Railroad Town apparently.

And when that happens, every choice I've made in the entire campaign retroactively becomes meaningless. Finding the way through the maze becomes a non-accomplishment, since apparently the exit was always going to be the tenth door. Rescuing the mayor becomes meaningless, because apparently as a plot important NPC he was actually going to be fine whether we stormed the lizard camp or not. And so on.

People insult me and my parentage all the time. And that's annoying, but it's nowhere near as angering as having someone delete a story I worked on for 40 hours. Insulting my mother is just rudeness, retroactively invalidating my contributions to a role playing game is deleting my work.

-Username17

You again delve deep deep into hyperbole. What usually happens is not your exchange, but something more ilke this:
Player 1: "Hey, I'd like a better magical claymore one of those days."
DM: "Oh, you can gather some information, and find out about legends of one such sword."
Group: "We don't have time to do a side quest right now"
Player 1:"Ah, yes, the whole save the world on a schedule thing. After this then?"
Group: "If this dungeon here sees the end of the Black Wizard, sure, if not I am sure we'll find some nice loot for you here as well. Minions of him are bound to have some good swords."
DM: "Hint taken."

I don't know anyone who's such an asshole that they ragequit when, after having successfully foiled a players attempt to get a frostbrand, the group loots a flaming burst long sword off the bad guy in their current quest.

Essentially you are saying: If I decide that Jeremy doesn't get a magical sword by cockblocking the side quest, Jeremy cannot get another magic sword in the next adventure, or my decision to screw him over was meaningless. And that's not having consequences, that's just being an asshole.

And yes, generally people don't want an icy rune carved dire flail, they simply want "a better version of what I am using now". Hearing of a frostbrand, not pursuing it, and finding a flaming burst keen long sword in the next loot occasion is a-ok for most players.

[Gx1080]

Ok, this argument is basically a bunch of guys screaming to each other.

@Fuchs

Some questions to understand your side.

If the DM said "those guys have Flaming Axes" and they get a Flaming Axe, that's bad because....?

Also, let's say that that's a pre-made campaign setting. Now what?

[Fuchs]

It is not bad to get a flaming axe - it is bad not to get a sword to use if that is the weapon you want. As long as you get what you want eventually, meaning while you still can use it, it's ok. If the Dm does not let swords drop he should allow trading axes for swords, or crafting your own, or any other way to get swords.

I object to the idea that every pc should be using whatever the dm deems fit to drop - by choice or roll.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

If the DM says "The Brotherhood of the Red Hand are known for using fiery axes" then most or all of them must be using fiery axes (The rest of them should be using, well, regular axes, probably. Maybe painted red). When you kill Brothers of the Red Hand who were using fiery axes, they have to drop fiery axes. Everyone should agree with this.

However, nobody but the DM decides what the Brotherhood of the Red Hand are known for using prior to them coming up in game. Provided no precedence for the Brotherhood of the Red Hand, the DM can easily decide they use frost-bows, acid chains, or that they are not thematically tied to any specific weapon.

[Leper]

If the DM says "The Brotherhood of the Red Hand are known for using fiery axes" then most or all of them must be using fiery axes (The rest of them should be using, well, regular axes, probably. Maybe painted red). When you kill Brothers of the Red Hand who were using fiery axes, they have to drop fiery axes. Everyone should agree with this.

However, nobody but the DM decides what the Brotherhood of the Red Hand are known for using prior to them coming up in game. Provided no precedence for the Brotherhood of the Red Hand, the DM can easily decide they use frost-bows, acid chains, or that they are not thematically tied to any specific weapon.

He's also free to say the Brotherhood of the Red Hand have hired out mercenaries from the tribes of the Angry Blade and the Frosted Fist, or that perhaps the Brotherhood of the Angry Hand are not behind every fucking problem you're going to deal with for the next year of play, and that it's entirely possible that you just might face someone other than a few hundred guys with axes in that span of time--or even that in some treasure horde or trophy room they may have something stashed away from a previous conquest that you would be happy to use.

Including a non-specific upgrade that a player will enjoy every now and then because it fits with their "theme" (and for no better out of game motivation than simply because they will be happy to have it!) need not stretch credulity any more than not giving the players exactly what they want every single time they stumble across some treasure means you're being an unreasonable prick.

This thread would be a lot shorter if a few folks would stop tossing out straw men and perhaps acknowledge that there just might possibly be some middle ground instead of assuming some sort of "slippery slope" fallacy where bending even the merest hint one way or another automatically results in the most extremes of behavior.

[shadzar]

If the DM says "The Brotherhood of the Red Hand are known for using fiery axes" then most or all of them must be using fiery axes (The rest of them should be using, well, regular axes, probably. Maybe painted red). When you kill Brothers of the Red Hand who were using fiery axes, they have to drop fiery axes. Everyone should agree with this.

However, nobody but the DM decides what the Brotherhood of the Red Hand are known for using prior to them coming up in game. Provided no precedence for the Brotherhood of the Red Hand, the DM can easily decide they use frost-bows, acid chains, or that they are not thematically tied to any specific weapon.

sadly this is bad to Fuchs, because there are no sword drops. the right of the player overrides the right of the world.

so he should be able to trade these fiery axes in somewhere for fiery swords, even if it doesnt make sense that it can be done or should be done.

Fuchs: he look at this great fiery sword i now have!
Carl the Constable: where did you get that?
Fuchs: the Red Hand
CarL (to everyone in town and the news spreads further): the Red Hand have now begun using swords instead of axes.
Red Hand: Where is this fool that has besmirched our name and code!? Find and destroy him and everyone else near him!

(After several towns have been destroyed in the search for Fuchs while he was in a dungeon exploring....)

Fuchs: I sure could use something fresh to eat, lets find an inn.
Drunk at the tavern of the inn: THATS THE GUY! HE IS THE ONE FROM THE WANTED POSTER! THE ONE THAT CAUSE THE RED HAND TO DESTROY ALL OUR VILLAGES! KILL HIM AND TURN IN HIS BODY FOR THE REWARD!

see Fuchs doesnt understand the implications of just changing a magic item into another, and thinks it is only aesthetic. the axe being a symbol of the Red Hand is something he could not envision as the poor author he is.

all "loot drops" are just for the players, not to make sense to the world at all in his mind. so it is NOT allowed for the DM to design anything based on verisimilitude because that takes away from the player being able to be single-dimensional character devoted to only his preferred weapon.

[Gx1080]

Again, what happens if I use a pre-made module that says that X group uses Y weapon?

Just answer this one.

[shadzar]

Again, what happens if I use a pre-made module that says that X group uses Y weapon?

Just answer this one.

that is effectively what every DM does when they make an adventure...they make it for the adventure, not the party.

also SOME of those pre-made adventures started not as some money earning product, but as games that were played, and then the edges smoothed for printing. Gary didnt offer jsut the right thing to the PCs for treasure.

so if an adventure ever gets used twice, then it gets the same items in it. that is why most groups dont play the same adventure more than once.

Fuchs will not answer that question i am sure, because it goes against his premise that the adventure and DM exist for the players and the specific PCs he chooses. though NO game is made available to the public that is tailored to a specific set of adventurers.

even the pre-gens in some published adventures dont have gear that matches the adventurers unless they are following a novel like DL classics.

how many people use a trident? how popular is Wave as treasure outside of White Plume? how popular is White Plume?

in any event.. the players get what they find, but surely Fuchs would try to change Wave, Whelm and even Blackrazor combined into a single rapier for his own use.