What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[Username17]

If you want to disarm people ever in your life, you are not going to use a rapier. 3e D&D simply does not support that archetype. If you want to disarm people, you need a chain. There may or may not be one or more handles on that chain.

-Username17

[shadzar]

i find a vorpal sword or sword of sharpness is good for disarming people....disleging them too.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The first two are shitty rules fucking you over and the last one is real life fucking you over. There's not much you can do about real life issues, but you can sure as hell fix or work around the shitty rules.

No, you can't, but pretending like the unpredictability of life doesn't count for its random factor of you not getting what you want is a folly.

Games last for a finite number of sessions. No one can give an exact number, but as the number of sessions goes up the probability of a game not lasting that long goes up. That should be trivially obvious. So that said, even if a certain drop is guaranteed after X number of sessions it's not in any way clear that it's a more assured way of getting what you want than having a scheme where you have a chance of getting what you want. If you require 15 sessions as a starting 3rd level character to force what you want to drop then the probability of getting it is never if the game doesn't last that long. If you have a 5% chance of getting what you want per session then your odds are way better.

And you know what's really weird, hogarth? You can adjust the random drop number so it has an equal or even more generous payoff than the 'guaranteed per X sessions' drop.

Lago and Frank somehow don't understand that if you offer a starting character type "swashbuckler", then that's a trap option if they are not assured to get appropriate weapons during the campaign.

Depends on how you define swashbuckler. Which is dependent on the game and campaign setting. A Pirates of the Carribean swashbuckler is different from an Errol Flynn swashbuckler. If I was making a swashbuckler for the first I wouldn't define swashbuckler as 'uses a rapier and small shield' because swashbucklers for that campaign setting use pistols, fired crustacean spines, whips, bombs, and flaming torches.

They simply have no answer for the question why it is ok for loot to be level-appropriate, but oh so bad if the level appropriate loot also is liked by the players.

Because this is a blatant strawman and equivocation on your part? 'also liked by the players' is a meaningless statement. A player in a Conan the Barbarian campaign might really really want and enjoy a rocket launcher, if I say 'hard cheese' is it really that big of a crime to deny him?

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.

No, it doesn't hurt the narrative to have a katana instead of a sword, but it hurts the narrative for someone to demand that the story pay special attention to the fact that he has a katana instead of a sword. There's mechanical evidence for this (see the myriad of Why Fighters Can't Have Nice Things threads) and as we can see from your posts ample fluff evidence.

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.

Why is that? What's wrong with me saying that a starting character can be a disposed king of a great kingdom but he can't actually currently be the king of said kingdom and within the parameters of the campaign he's not going to get his position back unless popular vote happens at the table?

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.

Yes, it is a personal attack and it is pretty much my opinion, but it was also extremely relevant to my point.

People who are allowed to build their characters around concepts like weapons create shallow and cliched characters. It's bad for mechanics (again, see 4E swordmages) and also bad for roleplaying. I implicitly challenged you to describe your character in a way that wouldn't confirm my theory that weapon-wanking characters are a leech and burden on the storytelling responsibility but you were unable to even meet that basic challenge. If I told you to describe your character without referring to a fighting style or weapon I'd probably get something more interesting and juicier for generating stories.

[Chamomile]

No, it doesn't hurt the narrative to have a katana instead of a sword, but it hurts the narrative for someone to demand that the story pay special attention to the fact that he has a katana instead of a sword.

If you think you can encourage roleplay by outlawing something, you're an idiot. Forcing characters to switch up their weapons just changes their one-note character from "has a sword" to "is an elf." And don't go ranting about all the stories you can tell about elves, because wielding a sword implies just as much and has just as many potential stories. But poor roleplayers don't play off of what something implies, they aren't even aware of the cultural impact of their character aesthetic. They just play off that one note over and over again. The solution to the guy who won't shut up about his katana? Tell him to shut up about his katana. Taking it away from him will not suddenly make him into a good roleplayer. You could literally get the exact same result by convincing him to try a character who wields hammers instead.

Why is that? What's wrong with me saying that a starting character can be a disposed king of a great kingdom but he can't actually currently be the king of said kingdom and within the parameters of the campaign he's not going to get his position back unless popular vote happens at the table?

Because you just said the setting doesn't support silk clothes. The setting either does or does not support silk clothing. If it does, than having a character wear silk clothing all the time is reasonable. If it does not, than having a character wear silk clothes at char gen isn't reasonable.

People who are allowed to build their characters around concepts like weapons create shallow and cliched characters.

Erm. No. People in general create shallow and cliched characters.

I implicitly challenged you to describe your character in a way that wouldn't confirm my theory that weapon-wanking characters are a leech and burden on the storytelling responsibility but you were unable to even meet that basic challenge.

Hobbes is a relentless and determined killer. The foundation of his personality is the fear he evokes in others. Above everything else, he enjoys killing things. Not necessarily fighting, just the act of snuffing out life. If you gave him a sword instead, none of this would change, but now his character aesthetic is dissonant with his actual character, and if you knew anything about characterization you'd know that this is a huge problem. His personality was built around the concept of wielding a scythe, and it is as strong a personality as you can expect from a character slapped together in an afternoon for a D&D game.

Bugger, I can't think of a single character I've written, the vast majority of whom were not RPG characters, who weren't effectively symbolized by their weapon of choice. Who would have their character image heavily damage by being forced to pick up something radically different from their paradigm.

Ashen of Dark Wood Circus? He carried thirteen hidden throwing knives and later picked up a sword-cane. These two weapons have one thing in common: They're made to be concealed. And that's a powerful part of Ashen's character. On the surface, he's wearing delicate white gloves and a top hat. But he's one of the most deadly characters in the story. Even if Ashen were pulled up to high-level power, the point where he's pulling space-time anomalies out of his hat, causing earthquakes by tapping the ground with his cane, and playing poker with a Deck of Many Things, he would still look wrong with a longsword, or a glaive, or a great axe, even though he long passed the point where it makes half a difference. Because he's still the man who fires off a friendly witticism just before slitting your friend's throat, who talks his way into your house so he can set it on fire, who can sell poisoned ice to a polar bear and who'll skip straight to knifing the unruly customer if he can't. Ashen is a more powerful character than the vast majority of D&D games ever see, and the weapons he carries are a powerful part of his aesthetic. They say something about him.

Angel's been transposed into multiple different settings. She almost always carries a longsword or an AK-47, depending on genre. Because those are the most common and effective killing tools of their respective eras, and because they are designed solely for the purpose of extinguishing human life. They are symbols of the wars that she's resigned herself to. She's only five feet tall, so the weapon always seems a bit oversized in her hands, particularly since she is very often extremely young. The child soldier of Cantria has more responsibilities than even a fully grown adult should be expected to take on, and it shows. Smaller weapons, daggers and even short swords, would ruin this aesthetic, and any weapon that does not serve as a universal symbol of the warrior class breaks her character aesthetic.

These aren't Shakespeare, but they are powerful characters. People like them, and they are far beyond the capabilities of the average D&D player. And their weapons are part of that character. You change them, and you damage the character. Period.

[Josh_Kablack]

Oh oh yay! we're talking about why our characters wield various weapons. That's a much better topic, here's mine:

Well, uh Crystal, in the same game as Hobbes wields a pair of swords for mechanical reasons and vague piraticalness. She's also highly random and flaky enough that in-character she just wouldn't consider changing weapons without some pretty direct in-game encouragement. It's not that the swords are symbolic, they're just what she's using and she'd rather fret about closet space and looking good to scrying than finding new weapons.

In the Champs '58 game, Director Clarion carries a Colt 1911. This one is symbolic and meaningful on multiple levels. Firstly, it was the standard military sidearm for the era, and he has a military background. Secondly, this is a game world with the occasional bulletproof superhuman in it, and this guy with no real powers who sees himself as a major defender of America only carries a single .45 pistol without additional ammo - that's because it's not his job to shoot things, it's his job to make sure the needed assets are in place before the shooting starts, and having only 7 shots helps him keep that in mind better than requisitioning heavy ordnance would. Thirdly, it's a game about exposing the secret conspiracies that have shaped the history of the game world - and those conspiracies are heavily modeled on real-world people and events, so it's a safe bet that the MC of that game, with his gunsmithing background has secret meta-history around John Moses Browning

In the prior "Helix Arc" Champs game, Tension was a telekinetic, who very pointedly had a power framework that let him use "whatever was handy" as a various types of attacks. This reflected his young and unstable personality and his total disregard for property damage and inability to focus on any one thing for long. Man he was fun to play in fights - as his available attacks would change based on the map.

Then before that there was Andras in Dragon_Child's Sharn Watch game. He wielded a hammer, because he was a white mage and I had a kickin' mini with a giant violent looking hammer, which provided great ironic contrast to his usual tactical role of healer and his personality of thoughtful and less trigger happy than everyone else in the entire Watch. He hit all of like twice in the entire game with that hammer, and it's not like I didn't sub in Tuxedo Mask as an alternate hammerless mini for two sessions, but the hammer still made a statement.

[hogarth]

No, you can't, but pretending like the unpredictability of life doesn't count for its random factor of you not getting what you want is a folly.

Who's claiming that?

And you know what's really weird, hogarth? You can adjust the random drop number so it has an equal or even more generous payoff than the 'guaranteed per X sessions' drop.

Indeed. So at what point does it become "BAWWWW NON-RANDOM = BADWRONGFUN!!!"? When the chance of getting something you like is 90% over the course of the campaign? 99%? 99.9%?

[Desdan_Mervolam]

I love how people are making the argument that removing from the table decisions a player has already made will make a player create a more interesting and workable character. As if that makes any sense at all.

[Username17]

I love how people are making the argument that removing from the table decisions a player has already made will make a player create a more interesting and workable character. As if that makes any sense at all.

Of course it makes sense. If you have a defined trait that cannot be influenced by the story, you have defined something that you cannot tell stories about. If you define a trait with starting point and allow the story to change it, then you have something that you can tell stories about.

So a guy walks in with a katana. Eventually he starts using the Ax of Terror instead. That's a story. Alternately: guy walks in with a katana, is still using a katana. That is not a fucking story.

Asking a player to define character traits that determine how they change is a list of story seeds. Having a player write up a list of immovable facts that are impervious to the story is just a set of limitations on what stories can be told. If a player character is "looking for his sister" or "currently wielding his father's warhammer" those are places the story can start. If the player character "is always going to be using a morning star" that's just a list of places the story can't go.

Stories only happen because shit changes. If the player defines things that cannot change, that's literally less stories that can happen than if the player had no input at the table at all.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

I love how people are making the argument that removing from the table decisions a player has already made will make a player create a more interesting and workable character. As if that makes any sense at all.

Of course it makes sense. If you have a defined trait that cannot be influenced by the story, you have defined something that you cannot tell stories about. If you define a trait with starting point and allow the story to change it, then you have something that you can tell stories about.

So a guy walks in with a katana. Eventually he starts using the Ax of Terror instead. That's a story. Alternately: guy walks in with a katana, is still using a katana. That is not a fucking story.
-Username17

That's stupid drivel. A guy killing stuff with an axe switching to a katan is only a relevant change if the decision to pick one over the other actually matters. And that's only the case if the decision to pick an axe in the first place mattered.

If weapon choice is not a defining character trait then a weapon change does not matter at all with regards to the story.

So, what is it?

And even so, some things are things that will not change, and the game is not worse for it. Without something solid, a story is not too appealing. If everything about a character is up to be changed at the whim of the GM, then that's not a good game.

And that a player is be able to say "hey that's not gonna change about my character" is also clear - or do you really want to play their characters for them, telling them that after butchering the kobold hive they now have to feel remorse and atone?

[Chamomile]

No, you'd roll on the remorse chart, which is different because Frank subscribes to the same philosophy of fairness as Christopher Nolan's Two Face.

[Josh_Kablack]

I'm really not getting the part on how you can only tell stories about characters like Batman and Mr. Fantastic who use wildly different weapons all the time, but can't tell stories about characters like Thor, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and Captain America - who have distinctive signature weapons. Last I checked there were comics full of stories about all of these characters.

Perhaps more interesting for this discussion are the are characters like Iron Man, who have a signature gizmo that changes a lot, but is always some form of a general type. Tony Stark is always in some form of Power Armor. It may be stealth armor, or outerspace armor, or hulkbuster armor, or jury-rigged armor built from junkyard parts, whatever - but it's never ever going to be a magic sword, because even though Iron Man was in the same Avengers that The Black Knight was, Tony Stark taking up a broadsword would run entirely contrary to the established character in a way that would be substantially more likely to be flat-out-dumb than any sort of meaningful character transition.

[Fuchs]

Yeah. Some people have a really weird view of what's a story if a character has no story despite beating evil conspiracies, restoring a true heir to his kingdom, and refounding an ancient order of knights just because he always had a sword and not an axe...

[Username17]

I'm really not getting the part on how you can only tell stories about characters like Batman and Mr. Fantastic who use wildly different weapons all the time, but can't tell stories about characters like Thor, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and Captain America - who have distinctive signature weapons. Last I checked there were comics full of stories about all of these characters.

Those characters all use other weapons as a result of stories sometimes. Wonder Woman uses a sword and a spear. Guy Gardner spent a period running around with a red ring, Captain America was shieldless and so on and so forth.

Wonder Woman comes into the game with a magic lasso. But during stories she may get other things, and that change represents a story that can be told. Characters who literally never change their weapons because the player is a whiny little bitch who throws a temper tantrum and refuses to have fun if you give him a fucking ax are bad for stories.

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

Those characters all use other weapons as a result of stories sometimes.

And most of those sometimes end with the character reverting back to their signature weapons at the end of that issue arc.

It was totally a big deal when Magneto pulled all the Mithral Adamant out of Wolverine, thereby declawing him - yet it wasn't long before he was running around sporting claws again - even though these were bone. And while it's true that Wolverine has also run around at times fighting ninjas off with a samurai sword in his japanese subplots and just using improvised weapons in retcon brawls - he always manages to revert back to the iconic claws that he had in his first comics appearance.

[Maj]

Characters who literally never change their weapons because the player is a whiny little bitch who throws a temper tantrum and refuses to have fun if you give him a fucking ax are bad for stories.

So are blondes and anyone else who refuses to change their hair color!



You know what's stupid? Despite the fact that their posts are downright scary and full of bullshit, I'm willing to lay money down on the proposition that people like Frank who are arguing against character-weapon-choice are actually skilled and creative enough to write a story and/or adventure about a character who wields a preferred weapon.

Because when it comes right down to it, defining a character solely by their weapon choice is ignoring all the thousands of other aspects that go into someone's character. And that's so one-dimensional, asinine, and boring that it's incompatible with the creativity used to spawn something like the Tomes.

[Josh_Kablack]

On a related tangent:
This film made it into the Library of Congress based on how it demonstrates that a character can remain recognizable despite major changes.

[Swordslinger]

I'm really not getting the part on how you can only tell stories about characters like Batman and Mr. Fantastic who use wildly different weapons all the time, but can't tell stories about characters like Thor, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and Captain America - who have distinctive signature weapons. Last I checked there were comics full of stories about all of these characters.

Comic books are a different genre than D&D. Comic book characters rarely actually grow or level up. Batman doesn't start shitty, he starts out as Batman and his power fluctuates to accommodate the story.

D&D characters just don't work that way. A 1st level character looks vastly different from a 10th level character or a 20th level character.

If you're talking about Champions or Mutants and Masterminds, then I can see the argument for characters with signature weapons, but in D&D, signature weapons has never been an assumption. Fantasy characters as a whole change weapons. The only time they stop changing weapons is if they reach the most powerful weapon in the setting.

[Username17]

You know what's stupid? Despite the fact that their posts are downright scary and full of bullshit, I'm willing to lay money down on the proposition that people like Frank who are arguing against character-weapon-choice are actually skilled and creative enough to write a story and/or adventure about a character who wields a preferred weapon.

Of course you can. There are an infinite number of stories you can tell about all kinds of stuff. And actually very few of them involve finding a new weapon or losing one you have. The point is that a player declaring veto on new weapons or losing current weapons is removing potential stories and adding nothing. That is a problem. The player has a limited amount of time to tell you about his character before you get bored and stop paying attention, and he is using this vital resource to tell you about stories that you won't tell instead of telling you about stories you could tell. That is fucked up.

Because when it comes right down to it, defining a character solely by their weapon choice is ignoring all the thousands of other aspects that go into someone's character. And that's so one-dimensional, asinine, and boring that it's incompatible with the creativity used to spawn something like the Tomes.

Exactly. That is a major problem with the katana fetishist character concept. It is boring and asinine. And it is incompatible with creative storytelling, and that is a major reason why I am against it.

Let's do a breakdown of some of the many ways in which "katana fetishist" is bad for the game:

• "Has a katana" is not a high level character concept or even a medium level concept. Including that as part of the character profoundly limits the potential progression of the character.
• While having the ability to forge katanas exists, that isn't intrinsically part of the katana fetishist character concept and without katana forging, a katana fetishist pretty much requires item wishlisting and item wishlisting is incredibly bad for the game.
• If you don't have your weapons auto-upgrade, you're spending quests or resources or both in order to... stay exactly the same. But with bigger numbers. So you're going to the other players asking them to chip in party resources or vote for your favorite sidequest with the result being no change at all from a story or descriptive standpoint.
• Claiming katana fetishism as a character trait (as opposed to simply having a katana as starting equipment) is characterization that does absolutely nothing for the character's storytelling impetus now, adds no additional storytelling options in the future, and eliminates potential future story paths.
• The katana fetishist will be disappointed if they acquire the Sword of Kas or the Ax of the Dwarven Lords, making them a petulant brat.

Against all of this, the katana fetishist says "But I wanna katana!" which makes them the rough equivalent of a four year old.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

You know what's stupid? Despite the fact that their posts are downright scary and full of bullshit, I'm willing to lay money down on the proposition that people like Frank who are arguing against character-weapon-choice are actually skilled and creative enough to write a story and/or adventure about a character who wields a preferred weapon.

Of course you can. There are an infinite number of stories you can tell about all kinds of stuff. And actually very few of them involve finding a new weapon or losing one you have. The point is that a player declaring veto on new weapons or losing current weapons is removing potential stories and adding nothing. That is a problem. The player has a limited amount of time to tell you about his character before you get bored and stop paying attention, and he is using this vital resource to tell you about stories that you won't tell instead of telling you about stories you could tell. That is fucked up.

Because when it comes right down to it, defining a character solely by their weapon choice is ignoring all the thousands of other aspects that go into someone's character. And that's so one-dimensional, asinine, and boring that it's incompatible with the creativity used to spawn something like the Tomes.

Exactly. That is a major problem with the katana fetishist character concept. It is boring and asinine. And it is incompatible with creative storytelling, and that is a major reason why I am against it.

Let's do a breakdown of some of the many ways in which "katana fetishist" is bad for the game:

• "Has a katana" is not a high level character concept or even a medium level concept. Including that as part of the character profoundly limits the potential progression of the character.
• While having the ability to forge katanas exists, that isn't intrinsically part of the katana fetishist character concept and without katana forging, a katana fetishist pretty much requires item wishlisting and item wishlisting is incredibly bad for the game.
• If you don't have your weapons auto-upgrade, you're spending quests or resources or both in order to... stay exactly the same. But with bigger numbers. So you're going to the other players asking them to chip in party resources or vote for your favorite sidequest with the result being no change at all from a story or descriptive standpoint.
• Claiming katana fetishism as a character trait (as opposed to simply having a katana as starting equipment) is characterization that does absolutely nothing for the character's storytelling impetus now, adds no additional storytelling options in the future, and eliminates potential future story paths.
• The katana fetishist will be disappointed if they acquire the Sword of Kas or the Ax of the Dwarven Lords, making them a petulant brat.

Against all of this, the katana fetishist says "But I wanna katana!" which makes them the rough equivalent of a four year old.

-Username17

Friends usually don't try to feed their friends things they do not like - be it food or stories. The katana fan is telling you what kind of stories he doesn't want to hear. That's very important since it tells you what you don't need to spend time and effort on.

I really don't know what kind of games you run to be so out of touch with how people play.

It's pitiful how you cannot graps the idea that having a weapon of choice doesn't mean a character is just a weapon user.

And it's downright surreal to think that your idea of "use what weapon I want you to use" is somehow making the game better for players who don't want to use random weapons since they prefer a certain aesthetic.

[Maj]

Of course you can. There are an infinite number of stories you can tell about all kinds of stuff. And actually very few of them involve finding a new weapon or losing one you have. The point is that a player declaring veto on new weapons or losing current weapons is removing potential stories and adding nothing.

By that logic, making a decision on your character's gender is removing potential stories and adding nothing. Or making a decision about your character's race. Or place of birth. Or...

My God! Making a decision about playing a character is in itself a limitation!

<explosion>

Favorite color, favorite food, favorite animal, school, favorite hobby, hell... Most anime characters I've seen even have a blood type. All of these things make a character sheet turn into a character.

That is a problem. The player has a limited amount of time to tell you about his character before you get bored and stop paying attention, and he is using this vital resource to tell you about stories that you won't tell instead of telling you about stories you could tell. That is fucked up.

The problem isn't with the character's story. It's with the player's ability to explain it. Of the brief descriptions I read of various characters earlier in this thread, all of them could have been explained without reference to a specific weapon, but they used the weapon as part of the description because they were trying to justify making a character with a signature weapon, and because it's short.

Someone who wields a scythe, for example, could be explained as having a strong attraction to the portrayals of the incarnation of Death, even going so far as to display this association with replicas of Death's accoutrements.

No scythe necessary, but the fact that the character has one is explained, yet not directly referenced. You could also probably assume that this character might have a preference for the color black and hooded cloaks and not be too far off.

Exactly. That is a major problem with the katana fetishist character concept.

People posting in this thread could explain to you all day long every other aspect of their character in extensive detail, but you stop at the word "katana." Is this a test to see how long people keep responding to you before they just capitulate to your belligerence?

Comic books are a different genre than D&D.

You don't get to play the genre card because it doesn't apply.

People still read stuff like Homer, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, and Robert Heinlein because - through both time and genre - the characters still act like people. The stories are about the same stuff over and over and over again... And it's not swords.

Given the lists of plots outlined here, I'm having a difficult time telling exactly what kind of story can't be told with a character that wields one [kind of] weapon. It's now sounding more to me like a DM problem, not a player/character problem.

I really don't know what kind of games you run to be so out of touch with how people play.

He's not out of touch. He's just fucking off. He knows damned well what the point of this thread is, and he knows damned well that there's more to a character than the sword dick they swing. We just fell for it... Again.

[hogarth]

So a guy walks in with a katana. Eventually he starts using the Ax of Terror instead. That's a story. Alternately: guy walks in with a katana, is still using a katana. That is not a fucking story.

I certainly hope you told the dude in your campaign that kept using a shortbow that he was not in a fucking story. He probably didn't even realise that.

[hyzmarca]

And most of those sometimes end with the character reverting back to their signature weapons at the end of that issue arc.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

But when all you have is a hammer then all problems become nails. If your character who won't use a blade ever faces an enemy that cannot be bludgeoned to death then you've got a problem.

The items you collect are tools, you should use the right tools for the right job. Having a variety of tools sitting in your batcave drastically expands the types of encounters you can win, which drastically increases DM choice.

A game where character improvement always means the exact same thing with bigger numbers is a terrible grind. Grinds are bad.

By that logic, making a decision on your character's gender is removing potential stories and adding nothing. Or making a decision about your character's race. Or place of birth. Or...

Well yes, but that's why Girdles of Femininity/Masculinity exist. Also Polymorph Other and Polymorph Any Object.

The Evil Wizard turning the Brave Knight into a Voluptuous Maiden using his magical powers is a common fantasy trope. At the end of the story the brave knight usually changes back, but not always.

By defining traits like race and gender as things the GM simply can't mess with, you pretty much block all the myriad of unwilling polymorph plots.

That's stupid drivel. A guy killing stuff with an axe switching to a katan is only a relevant change if the decision to pick one over the other actually matters. And that's only the case if the decision to pick an axe in the first place mattered.

Not necessarily. Just look at Kill Bill. The Bride's weapon choice isn't integral to her character but it is important to the story. In fact, she switches weapon when the tone of the story changes. Receiving the Hattori Hanzo sword is critically important to her character arc, but she could throw it away without changing significantly.

[A Man In Black]

By defining traits like race and gender as things the GM simply can't mess with, you pretty much block all the myriad of unwilling polymorph plots.

I have never, ever seen or heard of a group running one of those plot as anything but indulging a fantasy that made me slightly ill, so I'm okay with blocking off those sorts of plots.

That said, I don't even know what's going on in this thread any more.

[Fuchs]

A game where character improvement always means the exact same thing with bigger numbers is a terrible grind. Grinds are bad.

Not unless people have fun with the exact same thing. Or you vary the stuff the thing can do. Switching from a +1 lightning hammer to a +2 lightning sword is not really much of a change.

That's stupid drivel. A guy killing stuff with an axe switching to a katan is only a relevant change if the decision to pick one over the other actually matters. And that's only the case if the decision to pick an axe in the first place mattered.

Not necessarily. Just look at Kill Bill. The Bride's weapon choice isn't integral to her character but it is important to the story. In fact, she switches weapon when the tone of the story changes. Receiving the Hattori Hanzo sword is critically important to her character arc, but she could throw it away without changing significantly.

If picking a weapon is critically important for a character, shouldn't that be the player's choice?

[Josh_Kablack]

Well as tempting as it is to rebut by arguing that Marvel has more stories about Frog Thor than about Thor wielding anything which is not a hammer......

Instead, I'm going to look at a couple actual "katana fetishist" characters

1. Hiro Protagonist from Snow Crash. Dude carries an actual Japanese katana that his dad won in fight with a Japanese officer in ww2. This is an important plot point that comes up after he is challenged by a Japanese businessman about his right to wear such a blade. Not only does he fight and practice with this blade, but he wrote the swordfighting script for The Metaverse and has protocols in place that allow him to drop avatars through holes that shouldn't exist. In the novel, he doesn't solely fight with the katana, at one point getting into a notable gattling cannon duel. So it's not fair to categorize him as a character who "only" uses a katana, but the fact that he carries a katana is pretty damn relevant to the character, the history of the character and the fictional world he resides in. He carries business cards that say "Last of the freelance hackers and Greatest swordfighter in the world" instead of "half-Greek former pizza delivery driver", because the first two facts are more important to establishing the character than the second two.

2. Goemon Ishikawa XIII from the decades-long Lupin III series of manga and anime series. The author has admitted to including the character so the series would have someone more Japanese. The guy is not merely a samurai, but goes so far as to be a humorous parody of everything a samurai is, making him a great straight man and fearsome combatant. Of course he wields not merely a katana, but a specific katana with a japanese name and mystical cutting properties. Again, he doesn't exclusively fight with a katana, as he has been known to fight unarmed, or with swordlike objects in story arcs where he breaks his signature blade, but he always starts the next movie with Zantetsuken repaired and recovered. While you don't have to say "wields a katana",in those exact words it is quite literally impossible to describe this character without referencing notions of samurai.

3. Soul Calibur's Mitsuragi. He's another samurai, but his backstory is about pitting blade vs the encroachment of guns, and that drives him to enter the fighting game tournament. While it's easy to point to fighting game characters as "only use one weapon" due to the limited nature of game play. I wanted bring him up, because real-world cultural norms meant there was an entirely different character who had the same weapon, destined battle, and ending. So in this case, "wields a katana" was one of only three immutable traits about the character.

In all three of these cases, weapon choice is a key defining trait of the character.