The Gaming Den

Gx1080 wrote:Again, what happens if I use a pre-made module that says that X group uses Y weapon?

Just answer this one.

If X group using Y weapon doesn't serve the needs, the history or the fun of your party, then you change it. If X group using Y weapon doesn't matter much, you keep it. This is one of the reasons you read pre-built modules before you run them.

FrankTrollman wrote:Holy shit Fuchs, I know you play Shadowrun. Someone attempts to buy a piece of gear, so they make Etiquette checks to track it down. They fucking fail the roll and they fucking don't get the item. That is how it fucking works. What the fucking hell?

Sooner or later they will get the piece since they'll make the test. That's how it fucking works.

Or do you want to tell me they can't repeat the test once they failed it once? And never, ever can buy that assault rifle? What the fucking hell?

FrankTrollman wrote:Chargen happens before the game starts, so if someone spends an extra couple of hours dithering on Tuesday, we're in serious "who gives a fuck?" territory.

That's an argument, but it's really only an argument for WoF. Deciding where to move in combat is not something I've ever seen cause decision paralysis*, and magic items are created/placed ahead of time during game prep.

Also, going by the OP, decision paralysis is supposedly one of many factors that make randomization superior to player choice. Sure seems like those other factors would favor random ability/class selection.


NOTE: I'm not talking about using zones instead of a grid, but specifically randomized targetting/movement ala Tides of Battle.

@DM

Dude, part of having an interesting world that feels like something else besides an speedbump to player progression is that players have to adapt to it instead of the other way around.

Ice9 wrote:NOTE: I'm not talking about using zones instead of a grid, but specifically randomized targetting/movement ala Tides of Battle.

NOTE:I am still determined to hi-jack Franks naming on that stupid idea of his to call it "Where The Fuck Are We?" instead, since it's a much more representative name AND has a highly appropriate dated pop-culture reference thrown in.

Gx1080 wrote:@DM

Dude, part of having an interesting world that feels like something else besides an speedbump to player progression is that players have to adapt to it instead of the other way around.

To a point. In quite a few games I've participated in, if what the characters do has no effect on the game world, then the players start to ask what the point is and lose interest.

The best games I've been in do both, not one or the other.

If "adapting to the world" means not even being able to decide what to wear and what to use with your character it goes far too far. That's getting too close to "playing" a visual novel.

DSMatticus wrote:Basically, you have a bunch of cool mental tricks that take all those options and whittle them down to very few options by completely ignoring 90% of everything there, and it's probably the same 90% nearly all the time. Which is desirable for shopping,

Robin D Laws, page 8 wrote: Roleplaying is fantasy shopping for guys

XKCD wrote: Q.E.D. , Bitches

PhoneLobster wrote: I mean how ARE you supposed to deal with the, suddenly desperately important 'Dire flail drops, Frank Walks" situation using Franks own preferred methodology?

I recommend trying large quantities of booze.

"sometimes too many choices confuse people"; "people don't like being confused"; "sometimes people either won't be honest or actually don't know what they really want" ; "people have to use heuristics to eliminate large numbers of choices instead of carefully weighing each one when they make decisions; consequentially those choices aren't always optimal and are sometimes downright poor"

Those are all true, if somewhat trivial.

However, when those statements are used as premises leading to the conclusion "therefore game designers should try to replace those heuristics with some other mechanism", I have to wonder just where in the argument I blacked out, because there's a big gap missing from such an argument.

Fuchs wrote:Having people sue swords

All rise.

We are now hearing the case of Ragnar the Red v. Bastard Sword. I call to stand my first witness, the Great Axe, for questioning.

Koumei wrote:

Fuchs wrote:Having people sue swords

All rise.

We are now hearing the case of Ragnar the Red v. Bastard Sword. I call to stand my first witness, the Great Axe, for questioning.

Yeah, it's a typo. Should be "use".

Koumei wrote:We are now hearing the case of Ragnar the Red v. Bastard Sword.

"That's the sword right there, your honor! That's the one that cut off my arm!"

Fuchs wrote:Yeah, it's a typo. Should be "use".

Overruled.

Now, Great Axe, you claim that on the night of the sixteenth of September this year, you were just walking in the park when you saw the alleged offence, is that correct?

With intelligent weapons (and the "dancing" enchantment) that could actually happen.

Fuchs wrote:With intelligent weapons (and the "dancing" enchantment) that could actually happen.

I find the idea of a belligerent, drunk, intelligent dancing sword on trial entirely too amusing.

Well it is a bastard sword.

The sword's parentage is of no relevance to this case.

hogarth wrote: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.

I'm only nitpicking here, but someone has the be the guy who gets the Frostbrand, or the Sword of Speed, or the Moonblade. Like with belts of giant strength, there's almost never enough good swords to go around in AD&D/2e. Upside for high-end randomised item drops: #1 gets one good thing of one type (giant strength), #2 gets a different good type (extra attack), and #3 can have something else good (flight, head-bombs, etc). Character differentiation.

Downside: at some point one PC will suddenly have the best gear. Then later on some other PC will have the best gear. And so on, not that bad in the long run. If needs be you can even share the best stuff in the short term (though sharing is a bit crap).

Upside: Responds to past game events and shared experience. You get that belt somewhere from some dude who hit you really hard, hopefully not a dart-master.

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

Potion miscibility parties, FTW. I find that randomly breaking them all now and then makes the players remember to use them up, use an old BD&D rule for dispel magic that nukes them all. Find a potion, use a potion, soonish.

Josh_Kablack wrote:"sometimes too many choices confuse people"; "people don't like being confused"; "sometimes people either won't be honest or actually don't know what they really want" ; "people have to use heuristics to eliminate large numbers of choices instead of carefully weighing each one when they make decisions; consequentially those choices aren't always optimal and are sometimes downright poor"

Those are all true, if somewhat trivial.

It's not just that over-abundant choices can promote option paralysis and poor play, it's that people are less satisfied even with perfectly optimal choices they make when there was too many options. Good choices that don't feel like good choices can feel the same as poor choices, which makes some people go crazy with wanting re-specs, option branching, and new characters.

However, when those statements are used as premises leading to the conclusion "therefore game designers should try to replace those heuristics with some other mechanism", I have to wonder just where in the argument I blacked out, because there's a big gap missing from such an argument.

Not replace: mirror some useful heuristics for chunking any massive choices within the rules, for the sake of those who don't have them in-built, or can't be bothered just now. Completely random item tables don't prevent anyone placing interesting and desirable specific items if they choose. Classes divided by role don't cost you any actual choices.

It's less disempowering to be told you have to play the Cleric if there's six mechanically different Cleric types to play, and better for the game than making Cleric into an uber-class that everyone should be playing. Not all about "removing choice", sometimes adding more choices, just paying attention to what sort of choices might benefit the game, using the sort of filters experts are already making use of.

DSMatticus wrote: No. The vast majority of items people actually want are found as random drops. There are 100% certain ways to get certain items, but most of the time it's a hunt for random shit and seeing how awesome the random shit you get is.

This is something that the players hate and which the Devs have been actively reducing. The main reason is that gear is reqired so people feel really annoyed when the boss drops that item noone wants for the 5th week running. This is also why WoW is a bad example and why random loot wouldn't work in 3e.

Koumei wrote:

Fuchs wrote:Yeah, it's a typo. Should be "use".

Overruled.

Now, Great Axe, you claim that on the night of the sixteenth of September this year, you were just walking in the park when you saw the alleged offence, is that correct?

That's right, your honor, hacked his sword arm clean off! Most blood I've ever seen in my life, and that's saying something.

Mr. Axe, is it true that you were never actually certified as a "Great" axe, and that the master weaponsmith who inspected you was quoted as saying "Pretty good, but I've seen better"?

Gx1080 wrote:@DM

Dude, part of having an interesting world that feels like something else besides an speedbump to player progression is that players have to adapt to it instead of the other way around.

So? What's that got to do with fuck? Before you put a party through an adventure, you make sure to read it, not only so you can know in advance what's going to happen, but also so that you know in advance if there's something really stupid there. If an otherwise good module included a scene where the party in full adventuring kit was knocked out and taken prisoner by a contingent of Thieves' Guild members comprised entirely of eight-year-old street urchin pickpockets wearing sackcloth and hurling rocks, you'd remove that scene and replace it with something that won't have the party flipping the table over in rage. Likewise, if an otherwise good module had really shitty treasure, you'd re-seed the treasure.

I know modules are intended to make the GM's life easier, but some shit just don't work, and has to be replaced. Doing this is probably still easier than throwing the whole thing out and writing your own adventure.

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:

Gx1080 wrote:@DM

Dude, part of having an interesting world that feels like something else besides an speedbump to player progression is that players have to adapt to it instead of the other way around.

So? What's that got to do with fuck? Before you put a party through an adventure, you make sure to read it, not only so you can know in advance what's going to happen, but also so that you know in advance if there's something really stupid there. If an otherwise good module included a scene where the party in full adventuring kit was knocked out and taken prisoner by a contingent of Thieves' Guild members comprised entirely of eight-year-old street urchin pickpockets wearing sackcloth and hurling rocks, you'd remove that scene and replace it with something that won't have the party flipping the table over in rage. Likewise, if an otherwise good module had really shitty treasure, you'd re-seed the treasure.

And now we're back to wishlists and favoritism. Treasure isn't going to be fair. No matter what you do, someone is going to get the short end of that stick. If the DM seeds the treasure deliberately, then they have directly caused that disparity. If it is unfair that the dire flail dropped too early, that is the DM screwing with the players who don't use dire flails. If it is unfair that the dire flail dropped too late, that is the DM screwing with the player who does use a dire flail.

Wishlists are a lemma with no solution. Anything the DM does or does not do results directly in player dissatisfaction that is directed (justifiably) right at the DM. That is why 4e magic item satisfaction is so incredibly low. Getting exactly what you wanted at the exact instant you wanted it is like getting a participation trophy in little league, and getting exactly what you wanted late or getting something even slightly different from what you wanted is directly and explicitly attributable to the DM fucking with you.

Once you as the DM reseed the treasure to better conform to the players' wishlists, you ceded the protection of impartiality for yourself and the joy of discovery for the players. You've changed your position irrevocably from a rampaging Santa Claus handing out marvelous wonders to being a greedy bureaucrat that has to be cajoled into stamping release forms on other peoples' property.

-Username17

Frank, get off the stupid train, and start to think.

Yes, treasure dropped by the DM won't be perfectly fair, someone will get the short end of the stick. But you know what? At least there was an effort to be fair, and the difference will be far less than with random rolls. You may have one less +1, or one worse AC. And the DM can react and rebalance things. With random rolls? One player might get an artifact, the other a bag of tricks.

I don't know what kind of sociopaths you play with, but me, and my friends, we trust the DM not to screw us over, and to try to be fair. We do not need some "protection of impartiality" by random rolls, since we'll all be worse off that way.

And if there's a mistake done, so what? The DM can correct it.

The idea that one needs random treasure to avoid players getting angry at the DM is really, really stupid.