What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[Chamomile]

hyperbole [haɪˈpɜːbəlɪ]
n
(Literature / Rhetoric) a deliberate exaggeration used for effect.
[from Greek: from hyper- + bolē a throw, from ballein to throw]
hyperbolism n

Maybe if you people would stop using hyperbole in every third goddamn post we wouldn't have these kinds of problems.

The same reason why Happy, who wants 'new shirts and jeans' for Christmas, will probably end up more satisfied than Biff, who specifically wants a red Tommy Hilfiger shirt with faded Levi's jeans.

Yeah, and Bob the Fighter wants swords, but doesn't particularly care if it's a lava sword or a frost sword or whatever. So what's your point?

[Seerow]

Maybe if you people would stop using hyperbole in every third goddamn post we wouldn't have these kinds of problems.

Hyperboles are fine until they support somebody else's point. Then they become stupid and you shouldn't use them.

[Nihilistic_Impact]

I have a question, now in all this discussion a lot is being said about dire flails and magic katanas.

What I would like to know is what is it exactly that people are having an issue with? Is it requesting a certain weapon type, whether in general(swords) or in particular(katana)? Or is it with a player requesting a specific magic weapon of a certain type?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Yeah, and Bob the Fighter wants swords, but doesn't particularly care if it's a lava sword or a frost sword or whatever. So what's your point?

1.) Because 'wants swords' is an obfuscatory statement. Bob the Fighter may want swords but also may want any weapon. He may want swords but only in a collecting fashion. He may want swords because the best mechanical benefit items in the game are swords. He may want swords because his character is tactically crippled without them. He may want swords in the same fashion as wanting all of his gear to be skull themed or all of his mounts to be green. All of these people need to be dealt with (or not) in different ways.

2.) Wants swords is actually a pretty specific desire. Unless your gameplay is specifically supposed to revolve around swords like in Bleach, saying that 'I'm happy with anything as long as it's a sword' is pretty much like going 'I'm happy with any equipment as long as it gives acid resistance 3'. Sperging out that much about swords in a game where they don't make that much of a tactical difference is just fucking weird. Which leads right to the next point.

3.) Most importantly, the point I was trying to make to Fuchs is that if someone who has broader desires than someone who wants specific desires that doesn't mean that the group or DM is somehow in confederacy against them if the guy who has broader desires ends up being happier.

If you want shrimp gumbo but your friend just wants shrimp (whether breaded, sauteed, boiled, grilled, diced, mashed into cream with imitation crab, whatever) it's really skeevy and spoiled of you to think that your friend is being benefited unnecessarily. Out of that list of quests Frank gave, I'd generically be happy to do any of them but the katana fetch quest. And if we did do all of those but not the katana fetch quest the katana fetishist is a huge prick for insinuating that I'm enjoying myself at his expense because I always get to do what I want but he never gets what he wants. If your desires are so incredibly specific that you can only enjoy yourself if there's a katana at the end of the tunnel then that kind of thing needs to be automatic or you need make peace with you not enjoying yourself unless you get to do exactly what you want.

[Maj]

Hyperboles are fine until they support somebody else's point.

Hyperbole and analogy are not the same thing, though they seem to be being conflated in this thread. The fact that people are trying to semantically negotiate analogies by using them hyperbolically is stupid.

The analogy of going out to eat with a vegetarian friend to a restaurant that doesn't serve vegetarian food was perfectly obvious. The fact that it has become an accusation that someone is literally saying KFC can't exist is neither amusing nor interesting to read.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I, personally, at this moment, believe this:
1: Needing treasure in order to be at all level appropriate (e.g., "if you don't find a magic weapon, you're not going to be able to hurt your enemies.") is weaksauce.
2: Provided you do not actually need any particular item (see #1), a sufficiently large table of non-palette-swap, non-strictly-superior items generates more interesting results than specific requests
3: Therefore, treasure should be random, and using the treasure you find should be incentivised.

Magic item crafting is acceptable, IMO. Reforging or casually vendoring functional magic items is not. Players who don't run organizations (which would give them something to do with their old stuff) should seriously keep hoards of treasure stashed away like dragons.

[Lago PARANOIA]

What I would like to know is what is it exactly that people are having an issue with? Is it requesting a certain weapon type, whether in general(swords) or in particular(katana)? Or is it with a player requesting a specific magic weapon of a certain type?

To me there's no real functional difference between 'weapon type' and 'magical item property'. A +2 flaming katana and a +2 flaming dire flail is about as different as a +2 flaming katana and a +2 shocking katana. So if you believe in the premise that you shouldn't rely on making the weapon that drops be a flaming or shocking katana, then there shouldn't be an exception made for a flaming katana or dire flail.

Now I have additional problems with people demanding a certain weapon type to drop but that comes from a gameplay problem unique to D&D which I discussed in the thread this one spawned from. So unlike Frank while I'm kind of 'meh' on people declaring that they're cutting out chunks of Iron Man's armor to make it a platemail bikini and painting it gunmetal, I'm against people trying to turn a dire flail into a katana. That way likes the 4E Swordmage and I'm sure none of us want that.

[shadzar]

I have a question, now in all this discussion a lot is being said about dire flails and magic katanas.

What I would like to know is what is it exactly that people are having an issue with? Is it requesting a certain weapon type, whether in general(swords) or in particular(katana)? Or is it with a player requesting a specific magic weapon of a certain type?

for myself it is this:

through request or want the player expects the DM to cater to that want for some reason because it is owed to the player.

some people are claiming it is the DMs responsibility to jsut give something the players want to the players as a treasure found for defeating an encounter either of combat or other nature.

these people have ways to make the things themselves, have options of going on a quest with the rest of the party, etc...but expect the DM to jsut give whatever item to them rather than make an effort into getting it themselves.

in the case of a side-quest to go hunt the item where it might be found the people think the DM should award the item if the majority of the players vote against going on the quest. so since the party doesnt want to go search for Player X's special item, the DM should just give it to Player X anyway.

also from the previous threads on this a problem is not only the player thinks they are owed such, but think their character is so limited to having and using on this item X because it is an aesthetic or design choice of their character, rather than seeing weapons or such as tools, and at times you dont always have the tool you would like in a game about overcoming obstacles, but having to make due with a different tool is about overcoming obstacles in and of itself.

3.x WBL didnt work and caused problems with "player entitlement" thinking any of such things were things the players got to choose for themselves, and 4th only furthers the problem.

so int he interest of some, it comes down to is the character more important to be able to play with your perfect pet character, or is the DM making a world people want to play in and makes sense for ALL players more important than that single player addicted to a specific weapon?

[Chamomile]

He may want swords in the same fashion as wanting all of his gear to be skull themed or all of his mounts to be green.

This one is the point that everyone knows we're talking about, so I don't see why you bothered listing the rest.

2.) Wants swords is actually a pretty specific desire. Unless your gameplay is specifically supposed to revolve around swords like in Bleach, saying that 'I'm happy with anything as long as it's a sword' is pretty much like going 'I'm happy with any equipment as long as it gives acid resistance 3'

Um, no. No, it isn't. Acid resistance 3 is a specific mechanical ability. "Is a sword" is a trivial mechanical ability. If literally everything was in sword form, it would make no difference to your mechanics. On the other hand, acid resistance isn't really a defining character aesthetic, whereas sword-wielding is. Some people care about character aesthetics more than you, why are you going so far out of your way just to ruin their day?

If your desires are so incredibly specific that you can only enjoy yourself if there's a katana at the end of the tunnel

That's not the kind of player we're talking about. The kind of player we're talking about is one who can only enjoy himself (or, at least, will enjoy himself much less) if his character is wielding a katana while doing whatever. So if there are six side quests on the table and you all agree to take every single one except the one that lets a specific player have fun with the rest of the game, there is something critically wrong with your group dynamic.

[Lago PARANOIA]

On the other hand, acid resistance isn't really a defining character aesthetic, whereas sword-wielding is.

What a stunning lack of imagination. So if my character likes to go around naked in the cold, cold resistance 3 isn't a defining character aesthetic? If my magical item gives me stealth + 2, which allows me to break the barrier of 'can sneak up on average people like Batman at will' that's not a character aesthetic?

Declaring that 'this hunk of sword has 1 feet more of metal than another' is such a weaksauce aesthetic that when you set the bar that low it lets in a bunch of other crap. Acid Resistance 3 doesn't seem like one of them because there aren't a lot of situations in which Acid Resistance comes up. But if Radiation Resistance 3 on my belt allows me to walk through the apocalyptic wastelands with smooth skin and a full set of teeth, how is that not a defining character aesthetic as much or even more as 'is a sword'.

The kind of player we're talking about is one who can only enjoy himself (or, at least, will enjoy himself much less) if his character is wielding a katana while doing whatever.

Yeah, and that person is a picky sperglord and has my naked scorn. How would you feel about someone who said that they could only enjoy a D&D game if they got to play someone with angel wings? Or if all of their clothes were silk? Or if all of their contacts had to be busty Asian women? That's exactly how it feels like to me. Having it is okay. Wanting it is okay. Getting it is okay. Being unable to go without it is feeble and contemptible.

I'm at least a little sympathetic to someone who always wants to play a ninja or a fire mage or an elf or someone with super strength or incredibly lucky because that level of obsession can generate some interesting (if repetitive) stories if the person really keeps at it. What the hell story were you going to tell with a katana that you weren't going to with a dire flail? I seriously do not want to indulge their katana fetishism because, among other things, every time they open their damn fool mouth about katanas it's a repetitive and uncreative waste of time. If someone is not guaranteed a katana then they'll be forced to think of something else to roleplay on. Or at least they'll shut the fuck up and let people with actually interesting obsessions to have have a turn. I don't mind hearing about the exotic animal breeder or the psion or the mercenary-out-for-revenge talking about the biggest things on their mind, but specific weapons? It's a good thing we pried that shit out of their hands.

So if there are six side quests on the table and you all agree to take every single one except the one that lets a specific player have fun with the rest of the game, there is something critically wrong with your group dynamic.

Uh, no.

Voting to do what people want isn't a zero-sum game. I may personally want to do a side-quest where we solve the mystery of who murdered the king, but it's not like I suddenly fail to enjoy myself if we go on the 'let's build our own castle' or the 'let's fight slavers' or 'let's broker a peace between the dwarves and orcs' or 'lets smuggle food, drugs, and propaganda into the Evil City' sidequests. I might like my suggestion the most but I'm not going to suddenly find the game un-fun if instead of proving that the vizier initiated a naked power grab we go forging diplomatic pacts and fighting warbands to carve out a piece of land for our own.

If the other four PCs consistently vote to do each others' sidequests but katana guy never gets his sidequest done, then you know what? He has a sucky idea and goal and should just get the fuck over it. If no one in a five-person band votes to go to the Vegan restaurant (the only place the Vegan can really enjoy himself) after going to Chinese, Pizza, BBQ, Ethiopian, Seafood, Thai, and Mexican restaurants they're not obligated to follow his desires. Nor does it mean that they're in some sort of conspiracy to deny him of his desires. It might just mean that Vegan guy has overly specific desires that no one wants.

[Chamomile]

So if my character likes to go around naked in the cold, cold resistance 3 isn't a defining character aesthetic?

Only if you're in a campaign setting where being in the cold is actually going to happen a lot, in which case cold resistance is probably something everyone is going to want.

If my magical item gives me stealth + 2, which allows me to break the barrier of 'can sneak up on average people like Batman at will' that's not a character aesthetic?

Sure it is, but stealth is something you can get from totally normal character abilities. Where exactly the barrier is depends on the system.

Declaring that 'this hunk of sword has 1 feet more of metal than another' is such a weaksauce aesthetic that when you set the bar that low it lets in a bunch of other crap.

Are you grasping the point of cultural weight? That in terms of aesthetic, yes, having one edge on your blade instead of two seriously does suggest a dramatically different character archetype? You know jack about character design if you do not grasp this principle.

How would you feel about someone who said that they could only enjoy a D&D game if they got to play someone with angel wings? Or if all of their clothes were silk? Or if all of their contacts had to be busty Asian women?

...Those all sound good to me, assuming all else is equal mechanically speaking. If those angel wings require that the character be able to fly at level one, that's a problem. If the character plans to use his silk clothes to gain Diplomacy bonuses or to sell them for extra starting cash, that's a problem. If they want to have all their contacts be busty Asian women in a setting where Asians are vanishingly rare in the first place, that's a problem. But if he just wants to have purely aesthetic angel wings and can come up with a reasonable explanation as to how they got grafted onto him, if he just wants to tack on a note that says "also, it is silk" to the regular clothes every adventurer is assumed to have, if we're in a mixed race or predominantly Asian setting in the first place and his character is the type to pursue busty female contacts anyway...Who cares?

I'm at least a little sympathetic to someone who always wants to play a ninja or a fire mage or an elf or someone with super strength or incredibly lucky because that level of obsession can generate some interesting (if repetitive) stories if the person really keeps at it.

Oh, thank god, you are at least a little sympathetic to people who want to play a role in a roleplaying game.

What the hell story were you going to tell with a katana that you weren't going to with a dire flail?

You are not allowed to talk to me about telling stories until you can understand why a story about honor and fealty will have more punch with a katana-wielding protagonist than with a dire flail unless the author is extremely skilled, which the average D&D player won't be. Any decent author is going to put some thought into what kind of weapon a character wields, because that says a lot about them.

If someone is not guaranteed a katana then they'll be forced to think of something else to roleplay on.

Players are not idiots and do not appreciate being treated as such. I have a character right now named Hobbes. Hobbes wields a scythe. His whole look was actually built around being a scythe samurai, because X4 crits practically at-will is awesome. And if Koumei tried to force me to permanently swap out that scythe for another weapon, she'd better have a damn good reason for it, because that scythe is a powerful and effective symbol of who Hobbes is, a vengeful and relentless killer.

-snip-

And the rest of this is completely ignoring my point and acting as though katana-guy's sidequest is exactly the same as everyone else's sidequest. It's not. First off, all that it requires is that some villain have a katana, so it's very easily combined with other sidequests that other people want to do and I kind of have to question why your GM would be unwilling to do that if katana-wielders were supported in the first place. Second, katana-guy will enjoy all of the other sidequests so long as he has a level-appropriate katana. This makes him actually much, much easier to please than everyone else, because if you do his quest first, he will enjoy all of the other sidequests. If you do his quest not at all, he will still probably enjoy all of the other sidequests, actually, but he will not enjoy the next batch because his weapon is now out of date.

If your group has a choice between taking the sidequest that will make Bob happy for the entire game or explicitly avoiding that sidequest, your group is made up of dicks. And if your GM is presenting you with that choice in the first place, something's probably gone terribly wrong already.

[hogarth]

I probably should have put this one in the first post because it's probably the biggest disconnect in thinking.

[*] If you win or get the perfect result all of the time, the game is boring. For maximum happiness you have to voluntarily choose disappointment sometime.

I agree so far. But it does not follow that a game has to have the possibility of never getting what you want in order to be interesting. Take Frank's example of the dude with the shortbow. He had to wait longer than the rest of the party (that's the disappointing part), but he finally got to get his pimped-out shortbow (that's the happy ending).

[Gx1080]

You are not allowed to talk to me about telling stories until you can understand why a story about honor and fealty will have more punch with a katana-wielding protagonist than with a dire flail unless the author is extremely skilled, which the average D&D player won't be.

This is so retarded that it made my head hurt. So, the only one that can codes of honor and fealty is the weaboo samurai. Let's ignore all the examples of knigthly codes through history, or the entire deal fo Paladins, the only ones with honor and fealty are weaboo samurais.

[Chamomile]

This is so retarded that it made my head hurt. So, the only one that can codes of honor and fealty is the weaboo samurai. Let's ignore all the examples of knigthly codes through history, or the entire deal fo Paladins, the only ones with honor and fealty are weaboo samurais.

Read what I wrote again, and then see if you can find out where you went wrong.

[Ice9]

You know, there are a couple positions I can respect, whether they're my personal preference or not:

The World is Absolute
Fuck balance, fuck "narrative causality", and especially fuck "level appropriate" - the world is what it is. In this swamp are giant bugs, which are CR 6, and they will always be that level no matter when you face them. And they won't have treasure either, because bugs don't use equipment and their previous victims were just low-level fishermen. On that mountain is a recently dead dragon. If you go up there, you can have its horde with no battle at all, and yes, the horde has millions of gold pieces and several high-level items in it, even if you are level 1. In this tower are the moon mages. The masks they wear are artifact-strength for anyone with illusion magic, and totally useless to those without it.

The Right Item in the Right Place
People get items appropriate to their level, that they're happy with, and divided relatively evenly across the party. The swamp had a hidden cache of treasure in a hollow tree, the dragon's horde has already been mostly picked over when you get to it, and the moon mages had bodyguards equipped with magical armor and weapons. Does it strain probability? Maybe, but honestly so do a lot of things in a typical campaign.


What Frank seems to be advocating is some weird hybrid where the party conveniently gets the correct level of equipment (because ... look over there!), but the type of equipment needs to be either totally random / totally based on where you got it from (both have been claimed). Although I'm not sure how random he means by "random" - would it actually be ok if the party ended up getting entirely wizard-stuff (spellbooks, scrolls, wands, Int-boosters) and not a single magic weapon? Or is "random" just a code word for "god I hate people who use swords instead of axes"?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Jesus Christ, Chamomile, are you just unable to think abstractly?

I was not arguing for the merits of cold resistance or stealth. You're focusing on game specific details and acting like arguing the effect of it in individual games means that you can generalize from the particular. You do not get anywhere by going 'b-b-but weapon aesthetics still matter or that's not really an aesthetic!' The point I was getting at is that a property of weapons can change the way how you look. This can either be directly like weapon type (like swords, or more exotic stuff like having a Flamberge or a lightsaber) or indirectly like a property.

There is nothing special about a blade being double-sided that needs to be protected above something like, shit, being able to extend and retract or vibrate or glow. If you draw the picture of the character of the character they will be just as much changed from going to katana to axe as going from Regular Steel Axe to Axe Made of Ice. If you don't think that Axe Made of Ice should be protected as a character aesthetic, then why should double-sided katana?

But if he just wants to have purely aesthetic angel wings and can come up with a reasonable explanation as to how they got grafted onto him, if he just wants to tack on a note that says "also, it is silk" to the regular clothes every adventurer is assumed to have, if we're in a mixed race or predominantly Asian setting in the first place and his character is the type to pursue busty female contacts anyway...Who cares?

If I say that the campaign takes place in the fantasy Incan Empires where silk hasn't been invented yet, a player can decide to have their clothes be made of silk? If I'm running a campaign set in Camelot, can a player decide to be a ninja? If I'm running a campaign set during the historical War of the Roses, can a player have their royal contact be a fairy queen?

The game designers, GM, and players set the aesthetic space of the campaign. This means that a lot of concepts will just not exist. If the mechanics or fluff exclude a certain concept and the players don't want to bring it in, you're an asshole for declaring Fuck You, I'm A Dragon. Now, once you accept that what's so sacred about something as piddling as weapon shape?

Oh, thank god, you are at least a little sympathetic to people who want to play a role in a roleplaying game.

Oh, fuck you. I'm not sympathetic to people who want to play Space Rangers in a fantasy game, elves in a historical fiction game, or commoners in a world empire game.

Players are not idiots and do not appreciate being treated as such. I have a character right now named Hobbes. Hobbes wields a scythe. His whole look was actually built around being a scythe samurai, because X4 crits practically at-will is awesome. And if Koumei tried to force me to permanently swap out that scythe for another weapon, she'd better have a damn good reason for it, because that scythe is a powerful and effective symbol of who Hobbes is, a vengeful and relentless killer.

Oh God, you're actually serious. You designed a character around the use of a weapon on a stick. Jesus Christ this is like the most pathetically laughable concept for a character I've ever seen on these boards. This is like the perfect demonstration of why people should not be allowed to build characters around weapon.

I agree so far. But it does not follow that a game has to have the possibility of never getting what you want in order to be interesting. Take Frank's example of the dude with the shortbow. He had to wait longer than the rest of the party (that's the disappointing part), but he finally got to get his pimped-out shortbow (that's the happy ending).

Every game is going to have the possibility of not getting what you want. Even if the DM promises you the moon and makes his encounters a total cakewalk, there's still just the chance that the group just dies out before you get to the end of the adventure.

Obviously there's also the caveat that the more specific your demands are/the more it conflicts with other people the less chance you're going to get what you want. If you just want a powerful magical item you have a better chance of getting your dreams satisfied than wanting a powerful magical weapon. By the same token, if you specifically want flaming weapons or katanas there's a chance that even in a ten-session campaign you'll never get it.

[hogarth]

I agree so far. But it does not follow that a game has to have the possibility of never getting what you want in order to be interesting. Take Frank's example of the dude with the shortbow. He had to wait longer than the rest of the party (that's the disappointing part), but he finally got to get his pimped-out shortbow (that's the happy ending).

Every game is going to have the possibility of not getting what you want. Even if the DM promises you the moon and makes his encounters a total cakewalk, there's still just the chance that the group just dies out before you get to the end of the adventure.

So because your campaign might die out and fuck you over, there should be an additional possibility that bad luck fucks you over as well? That's about the worst argument I've seen in a while.

[Josh_Kablack]

Players are not idiots and do not appreciate being treated as such. I have a character right now named Hobbes. Hobbes wields a scythe. His whole look was actually built around being a scythe samurai, because X4 crits practically at-will is awesome. And if Koumei tried to force me to permanently swap out that scythe for another weapon, she'd better have a damn good reason for it, because that scythe is a powerful and effective symbol of who Hobbes is, a vengeful and relentless killer.

Thought experiment:

Let's assume that in the next session of that game, we find a Hammer of Thor in the loot. For this experiment, it's an artifact that's 20th level on its own and is therefore +7 to hit and damage, it's throwing & returning, ignores DR/hardness, adds +1d6 electric damage on each hit and strikes with the thundering property and lets the wielder use Whirlwind as a full round action some number of times per day. All this adds up to a total of "massively better bonuses and abilities than any, if not all of the other items found and acquired so far in the game"

Flavor-wise, it's the Hammer of Thor, so the wielder will be feared by giants, targeted by spawn of the world serpent and revered by berserkers from the north - all of which is largely out of idiom for Hobbes, but just maybe kind of justifiable as a change of tactics in order to fight his way back into power.

It's also a warhammer. which mechanically means it has the drawbacks that it's not an Ancestral Weapon, a pre-selected Combat School feat doesn't work with it, and it's not as good with Kiai! as the Scythe is.


With this in mind:

1. Who in the party gets it?
2. Why them?
3. Do you feel jealous if Hobbes doesn't get it?
4. Does your answer to #3 change depending on if Koumei placed it there intentionally or rolled it randomly on a treasure table?
5. Does your answer to #3 change if there will never be another item with similar bonuses acquired during the entire course of the game?


Because a whole lot of this thread seems to be very passionate argument over how you, as a player are going to answer questions #3-5 and whose experience the suggested experimental setup will ruin.

[PhoneLobster]

are you just unable to think abstractly?
...
If I say... silk hasn't been invented yet... a player can decide to have their clothes be made of silk? If I'm running a campaign set in Camelot, can a player decide to be a ninja?...

Hm. Who is unable to think abstractly and getting caught up in bullshit details?

Or alternatively what I would have said is you are building a massive strawman made of silk katana ninjas and attempt what appears to be some sort of weird ass "Appeal to Weaboo Hate".

So lets point this out once again since you appear to be very very slow to get this through your thick head Lago.

No one is demanding items from outside the limits of the setting.

Even you and Frank give examples of there being NPCs who have selected non-random themed equipment like "Axes" or whatever.

Such themes exist in your setting a player attempts to subscribe to a selection of the themes you have appeared to offer. Possibly even with character resources like "Axe Guy" class levels.

This entire argument CAN be had with a situation where your setting and your system do NOT offer any Axe/Sword differentiation and we can have the same argument instead over "weapons" and "wizard junk", your demands about randomness and speshul snowflakeness and dire flails and you walk are just as terrible even if we GIVE you the free assumption that a system that genuinely doesn't differentiate between a spear and dagger is somehow a good thing to have.

And in the mean time people only ask for a ninja if ninjas are in the setting. Then they need to get ninja stuff, and if you made the offer but then pull a "Dire Flails and I Walk" on the prospective ninja, you have failed.

[Orion]

NPCs can have themed gear because they generally didn't get their gear by murder hoboing their way through the ruins of dozens of cultures. Most NPCs are going to have gear they made themselves, inherited, or purchased or commissioned from other members of their own culture. Or, even if they got their equipment from looting they probably looted only one dungeon and thus have a common cultural theme to their gear. If the NPCs in question are actually a rival adventuring party, they probably should be wearing clown shoes and using ridiculous mismatched weapons. In fact that tends to be the primary clue that you are dealing with adventurers.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So because your campaign might die out and fuck you over, there should be an additional possibility that bad luck fucks you over as well? That's about the worst argument I've seen in a while.

So what's the difference between not getting a +3 vorpal sword because it never showed up on the random treasure roll, not getting it because you never rolled the Market check to track it down, and not getting it because you didn't reach the right level before you could force it to drop?

Once the campaign is over, whether you didn't get what you want because probability didn't let you have it or you never reached a point where you could force a drop is meaningless. It's also meaningless to be all 'well, but if the campaign went on for eight more sessions I would've gotten that sword!' because a lot of treasure systems, like the one I support, you can get a +3 vorpal sword to drop at level one. So under which system were you more assured of a vorpal sword? I'd expect to see one drop in 1E D&D way before 3E D&D because most games I've had start at level one and never make it past session #20.

No one is demanding items from outside the limits of the setting.

This is a meaningless statement because the setting defines what's in its own limits. This includes things that are NPC exclusive. Laser guns exist in Greyhawk but you can't forge them. If you want to be guaranteed a laser gun then fuck you, the setting doesn't support PC-created laser guns even though laser guns exist and they were forged somewhere.

Such themes exist in your setting a player attempts to subscribe to a selection of the themes you have appeared to offer.

And just because something exists doesn't mean that it's available or should be available. For example: CEOs of MegaCorps exist in Shadowrun. You can talk to them and maybe even kill them. A lot of them even have stats and are perfectly able to be designed and simulated using just the core rules.

Even so, in the vast majority of campaigns 'CEO of a MegaCorp' is not an available player option without DM houseruling.

Then they need to get ninja stuff, and if you made the offer but then pull a "Dire Flails and I Walk" on the prospective ninja, you have failed.

So what if I told them (beforehand, preferably) that katanas don't exist in the setting but nunchucks with spikes on them do exist? That's why I said your previous statement was bunk.

[Josh_Kablack]

If I say that the campaign takes place in the fantasy Incan Empires where silk hasn't been invented yet, a player can decide to have their clothes be made of silk? If I'm running a campaign set in Camelot, can a player decide to be a ninja? If I'm running a campaign set during the historical War of the Roses, can a player have their royal contact be a fairy queen?

The answer there has got to be "sometimes" - if it's not, then we are at a point where our differences can only be solved by violence.

There are people who only play certain game systems in order to play certain character archetypes - sometimes because they stick to what they know other times because they are dying to try out a new character type/class/build in an actual game and this is finally their chance. Telling these people that their favorite character type is unavailable due to <reason> is a slap in the face to them and if you still want them in your game then you need other factors to pitch it to them as an activity they will enjoy spending time on.

Furthermore, there are game systems which require certain archetypes. If you are recruiting for a D&D game that is set in "historical earth", I'm pretty much assuming that history includes actual religious miracles of healing because D&D is an asstastic splatfest without clerical healing in combat (or just slightly longer than combat time). When you tell me that you're running D&D, but it's real history so there's no spellcasters available, I'm going tell you to fuck off and read a second game system before you suggest that I'd want to be any part of such stupidity.

Sure, there are times when character concepts are so very very far from setting concepts that they should not be allowed and you should flat out tell the player sorry, "not in this game" - but you have to be willing to accept that such a player is justified in responding to that with "then I don't want to play in this game, see ya" and accept that the hard line may lose you that player.

But there are also other times when, compromises can be worked out, and you can convince the player who had his heart set on playing a SpecWiz to settle for playing the vaguely similar a Fire Mage in your "no vancian casting" setting, or the guy who wanted the Faerie Queen contact in your realistic historical campaign to settle for being viewed as mildly delusional when he tries to convince others of the fairies nobody else sees - I mean Don Quixote went around just seeing the world differently, and here in the real world, JRR Tolkien supposed believed in the prior existence of elves. Or the compromise can go the other way, and you as MC can relent in your hardline stance and decide that maybe there can be a SpecWiz or a couple fairies in the game world without ruining the setting.

There's a meme in my gaming group that The 13th Warrior, is a great example of "handling the problem player", since the one player just had to be an Arab Scholar in the Viking mercenary campaign.

[Winnah]

Maybe if you people would stop using hyperbole in every third goddamn post we wouldn't have these kinds of problems.

This from a LARPer that thinks a real sword to the face will only cause scratches. There is hyperbole and then there is delusion. Oh yeah, go fuck yourself.

[PhoneLobster]

If you want to be guaranteed a laser gun then fuck you, the setting doesn't support PC-created laser guns even though laser guns exist and they were forged somewhere.

And they can and do turn up almost anywhere in the hands of any NPCs or any loot hordes. No I don't care if they are more likely or even much more likely to turn up in SOME areas. Just because an item isn't craftable or isn't a starting level item doesn't make it immune to the demands of level advancement and character archetypes. It can turn up ANYWHERE you have not presented ANY mechanical way to even prevent it from turning up ANYWHERE so it CAN and WILL turn up ANYWHERE so it SHOULD turn up AS REQUIRED.

Mind you laser gun is a fucking stupid example that STILL stinks of your giant strawman made out of silk katana ninjas, because really it DOESN'T actually fit any standard character archtype of the setting it is NOT a mainstream character defining or staple required item, and tells us NOTHING about something as simple as swords and fucking axes.

And just because something exists doesn't mean that it's available or should be available. For example: CEOs of MegaCorps exist in Shadowrun.

Please stop using Shadowrun as examples of things all the fucking time. Especially when talking about D&D style mechanics.

Shadowrun is
A) A niche game for niche audiences, you won't sell anyone on D&D mechanics based on a Shadowrun sales pitch, hell you won't sell anyone in on mechanics for ANY RPG outside of Shadowrun itself based on a shadowrun sales pitch, well OK, maybe Cyberpunk, MAYBE!
B) Eccentric and different in it's play style, it isn't even a valid comparison
C) Kinda crap, no really, fucking cybernetic orcs and elves bullshit, pull the other one thats FAR worse than your Weaboo strawmen.
D) Not relevant to this particular discussion.

But anyway. You want to reserve SOME things for NPCs, apparently I mean I wouldn't, but whatever. Your example being essentially "being a minor god" is a poor example because that's basically just telling us if your expected PC level advancement range will cover the "god" territory or not. That has little to do with flavor and everything to do with advancement.

It does NOT help us draw conclusions about whether "I have an Axe" is an archetype or optional extra that players will not fucking punch you in the mouth for denying to them. No really "Oh, having an axe when you want it? That's an NPC only trait, sorry..." is generally not going to instill much faith in your system or your GMing style.

Just seriously step the fuck back from the keyword and try saying that aloud to yourself, as practice to see if you can manage it with a straight face for your players next time you run this "No Axes For You!" system...
"Having and using an Axe is an NPC only trait!"... if you found yourself punching yourself in your face, and I can only imagine you did because that is such a monumentally stupid demand, then your idea for an NPC only form of Axe distribution has failed the most basic "punch in the mouth" practical gaming test.

So what if I told them (beforehand, preferably) that katanas don't exist in the setting but nunchucks with spikes on them do exist?

Then Ninja With Spiked Nunchucks only is the character option you made available and the one we are talking about. And spiked nunchucks (lets say, Dire Flails) are available regularly as required OR ELSE. And indeed by (rather stupidly) chucking out the katana and the sai and the ninja stars and crap and having ONLY the nunchucks you just made your problem WORSE by making the Spiked Nunchucks delivery service a more important service that needs to deliver even more regularly.

You really are being stupidly thick about this. If katanas are RIGHT out they are RIGHT out. If they are a player option, and especially if they are a player option that has actively been selected for, then they go in the advancement schedule in the main quest come rain or high water.

And swapping katanas out of your setting and bringing in Spiked Nunchucks instead IS FUCKING MEANINGLESS. What the hell did you THINK it would do? Cause magical rainbows to shoot out and make all the bullshit you and Frank have been spewing about no one but you two knowing what everyone else secretly really wants make actual reasonable sense all of a sudden?

You could turn all of your weaponry options into different types of My Little Pony and it wouldn't make a but load of difference to the stupidity of your item rationing schemes. Which are so stupid they are stupid even with cosmetic name switches on the items rationed and aren't even god damn internally consistent with your demands and other schemes!

[Chamomile]

1. Who in the party gets it?
2. Why them?

Sparkles is our hammer wielder, so by default I'd punt it to her, because I'm not really familiar with everyone's builds (or, in some cases, even their classes) and they aren't here to make a case for themselves. Kuniko could benefit from the high to-hit as easily as Hobbes, and wouldn't miss the higher crit damage at all. Kuniko and Hobbes both get Whirlwind as a class feature (I think, did Kuniko level in Samurai or Fire Mage last time?), so it might be best to hand it off to someone who doesn't have that. Regardless, from both mechanical and narrative standpoints, Hobbes is pretty much the last person who would benefit from it.

3. Do you feel jealous if Hobbes doesn't get it?

Not really. That's an absurdly powerful artifact for our level and I assume it has some plot purpose for being dropped like that, so I'm more focused on why it would have dropped than the fact that it dropped at all. If we got six randomly generated artifacts and none of them made any sense for Hobbes, I'd be more irked.

4. Does your answer to #3 change depending on if Koumei placed it there intentionally or rolled it randomly on a treasure table?

Yes, a lot, because things like the Hammer of Thor dropping randomly at level six shouldn't happen at all. It isn't all that fun when it happens to me, because that doesn't mean I'm awesome and found out how to get an artifact, like, twelve levels ahead of schedule, it just means I'm really, really lucky this time. I think I'd prefer to exchange it for something level appropriate so Koumei could spend her time making a good game instead of figuring out how to balance encounters against one guy who has an artifact and five people who don't.

5. Does your answer to #3 change if there will never be another item with similar bonuses acquired during the entire course of the game?

It depends on the odds. If the odds are set up such that everyone is going to be getting artifacts around level 6 then firstly your game is terribly designed because the gap between the level 5 weapons and the level 6 weapons is way too big, but other than that I am marginally less irked, because the odds are something will turn up for me sooner or later. If the odds of that something being a scythe are, like, 1-in-10 (or worse), I'll be extremely irked, because Hobbes' whole tall, gaunt look and affably evil, punchclock serial killer shtick don't really work with the majority of weapons. Although now that I've thought about it a bit, an executioner's axe could also work with him.

There is nothing special about a blade being double-sided that needs to be protected above something like, shit, being able to extend and retract or vibrate or glow. If you draw the picture of the character of the character they will be just as much changed from going to katana to axe as going from Regular Steel Axe to Axe Made of Ice. If you don't think that Axe Made of Ice should be protected as a character aesthetic, then why should double-sided katana?

Because Axe Made of Ice has significant repercussions for the game mechanics. I mean, if you can find a way for your Axe Made of Fire to actually look like it's made of ice while still doing fire damage and not harming the narrative, I'm good with that, but I seriously can't think of a way that you could do that. Assuming you're in a setting that supports them in the first place (which is why this thread is about found treasure and not starting gear), having a katana instead of a longsword doesn't harm the narrative, and in fact significantly improves it if you're an oriental type.

If I say that the campaign takes place in the fantasy Incan Empires where silk hasn't been invented yet, a player can decide to have their clothes be made of silk? If I'm running a campaign set in Camelot, can a player decide to be a ninja? If I'm running a campaign set during the historical War of the Roses, can a player have their royal contact be a fairy queen?

No, none of those things could happen. And none of those things would have happened from the very start. Your character would not start with silk clothes and then have to abandon them as he leveled because all the new clothes were non-silk Incan things. He would just not have silk clothes from the word go. None of this has anything to do with what we're talking about, though, because we're talking about characters who started with one kind of thing (and thus archetypes who are clearly supported by the setting) and are then asked to switch to a different kind of thing because of die rolls.

You designed a character around the use of a weapon on a stick. Jesus Christ this is like the most pathetically laughable concept for a character I've ever seen on these boards. This is like the perfect demonstration of why people should not be allowed to build characters around weapon.

This, Denners, is called argumentum ad ridiculum. Note that it is distinct from poisoning the well, which is required by law in all Gaming Den posts, in that it does not add insults to an argument, but instead attempts to replace argument with insults altogether.

This from a LARPer

I am not a LARPer, and the rest of your post is idiotic for contextual reasons I don't care to go into here.