What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[hyzmarca]

Yeah, that can work fine, but he doesn't have power armor, he's got a Superman suit, which means he now has a cape. Or maybe he picked up a Spider-Man suit and, paint job or no, he's now wearing a mask and has the webs on the arms. And what's he going to do about the web shooters? Or literally any other weapon or power he picks up that isn't an actual gun that shoots bullets (or something else lethal, like lasers or knives or other guns or whatever)?

But Superman and Spiderman don't get any powers from their costumes. Getting a Superman suit just means that you're going to go around looking like a dork, unlike power armor which actually provides you with protection and cool abilities.

I think you've lost the thread of this metaphor completely. The idea here is that being required to change your aesthetic at random is stupid. We already know that it makes no mechanical difference whether you end up with a fire sword or a fire axe, the argument is over whether having your character aesthetic determined randomly is a good thing or not. So for the purpose of argument we are assuming that things important to a character's aesthetic actually make a difference to their powers, even though that almost never happens outside of roleplaying games.

And here I thought that the metaphor was that Superman should wear a skull shirt instead of his normal costume because he knows that the Punisher is going to kill him and loot his corpse.

Anyway, there are always going to be situations where your clothing selection will be limited. You're not going to wear a silk gown on you're adventure to find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Beaufort sea even if your aesthetic is sexy silk-clad super-spy. Likewise, you're arctic lawman isn't going to wear a fur parka during his trip to Morocco to fight the Nazis with Matahari.

DSM: you agree that people don't have the power to narratively decide when the monsters are going to attack, hurt, or kill their character because it is a game, yes? OK: how do you feel about Fuchs' assertion that the player should be able to narratively decide what objects that monsters have in their backpacks?

Less than stellar. (With both his original assertion and the exaggerations of it that have since followed. This thread is full of gross exaggerations from everybody.) I agree with you that the world should have drops that are relevant to the stories that are happening, not to the player's needs. For the same reason I think players should be able to make meaningful decisions about their own personal equipment loadout. Thematics are cool. When the big bad is using a weapon that is appropriate to his thing, it makes him more interesting than if he is using a weapon that is the character's next +1. Now, you can have overlap (the big bad's weapon is appropriate to him and it is the character's next +1) but forcing that scenario all the time really is limiting the types of stories you can tell in a bad way.

Other solutions I also find less than satisfying, like "big bad had the perfect weapon for you sitting in his armory, even though it was so awesome it really should have been employed in an effort to kill you," or "there always happens to be a lackey with the perfect thing for everyone" or "ye olde magic shop," or "transmute X into Y." I don't like them because they make magic items less exciting, and I want magic items to be exciting.

This conversation is really about a lot of conflicting drives in the underlying game:
1) Magic items are an important part of vertical growth.
2) Magic items are interesting.
3) Magic items have wiiiide disparities in power over the character's progression.
4) The world maintains some versimilitude, instead of looking handcrafted to the PC's.
5) PC's can decide certain things about their character for no reason other than rule of cool/player agency/whatever you want to call it.

You want to jettison 5, because that lets you hold 4 and some of the others. Fuchs wants to jettison 4, because that lets him hold 5 and some of the others. I personally want to jettison 1 or 3. If the sword of fire gives you some swordy fire abilities in line with your level, but doesn't make you any better at swording, characters can say fuck you to the sword of fire to keep a scythe in their hands and not be significantly punished. And if magic items are tighter grouped in their range of powers, then passing up the sword of better fire for the scythe of fire you already have doesn't hurt as much. I want to be a ____master in a world with verisimilitude. And that's totally possible if you turn off the magic item treadmill somehow.

This I agree with. I'll go further to say that it's useful and interesting to hand out horizontal advancement rather than vertical. I don't want the PCs trading their rings of water-breathing for rings of +1 to attack (especially since the next adventure is going to be underwater). Equipment that gives minor bonuses to existing abilities is far less interesting than equipment that grants entirely new abilities. But so long as those +1s are necessary and/or advantageous PCs are going to go for them to the exclusion of interesting things.

[tzor]

I remain unconvinced and wish to re-assert my contention that the actual point is "Frank and Lago don't get to game much anymore and so keep posting abstract theory arguments."

No, no, Josh, that's Tzor, get with the program.

Actually I know this father/son (the son is actually just graduated from college) who are into Ren-faire stuff. The son had a 4E group that was breaking up a little as they part ways post coillege. I might be gaming with him next year. I am also looking to tag along with them on the big event in NY this year.

[Chamomile]

And here I thought that the metaphor was that Superman should wear a skull shirt instead of his normal costume because he knows that the Punisher is going to kill him and loot his corpse.

No, it's that the Punisher should be able to find a level-appropriate costume and weapon fitting for his idiom regardless of who he's been killing.

Anyway, there are always going to be situations where your clothing selection will be limited. You're not going to wear a silk gown on you're adventure to find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Beaufort sea even if your aesthetic is sexy silk-clad super-spy. Likewise, you're arctic lawman isn't going to wear a fur parka during his trip to Morocco to fight the Nazis with Matahari.

First, there's probably not (and shouldn't be, unless wearing environmentally appropriate clothes somehow adds to the game mechanically) a built-in mechanical reason stopping you, it would just be kind of dumb. Second, in both cases you'll probably be back in your usual get-up within, like, three adventures.

[Red_Rob]

Anecdote - a week or so after reading this thread was our son's birthday. Most years we have simply bought him things he has mentioned he liked in the preceding weeks, however this year we let him make a list of things he might want. Every other year when we asked him how he liked his presents he has been ecstatic, however this year his first response was "I didn't get everything off my list."

Regarding weapon fetishization, through the various Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Combat School class abilities and feats it has been an assumed part of D&D since 1st edition. Lago and Frank, how would you go about reducing this in an ongoing campaign using 3.5/Tome? Simply let the feats apply to any weapon used?

[Gx1080]

@Chamomile

You still have to backup your statement of "D&D shoudn't be about murder hobos". I can backup mine at saying that part of making magic items mystical and cool, which IS a stated WotC goal for D&D 5th edition, is that they cannot be expected by the players.

And I can point to the post above.

Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and the like is a trap choice on a game where loot isn't expected. I would get rid of it or let them apply to any weapon used. But then, D&D Feats are a mess, so that's a deeper problem.

[hyzmarca]

And here I thought that the metaphor was that Superman should wear a skull shirt instead of his normal costume because he knows that the Punisher is going to kill him and loot his corpse.

No, it's that the Punisher should be able to find a level-appropriate costume and weapon fitting for his idiom regardless of who he's been killing.

The thing is, the Punisher's idiom isn't skull shirt. It's street-level murderous vigilante. Put him in anything above street level and there is literally nothing level-appropriate that you can give him without breaking his idiom.

First, there's probably not (and shouldn't be, unless wearing environmentally appropriate clothes somehow adds to the game mechanically) a built-in mechanical reason stopping you, it would just be kind of dumb. Second, in both cases you'll probably be back in your usual get-up within, like, three adventures.

No one is suggesting that you have to use Morag the Ork King's Axe forever. It's just something you pick up for long enough to chop Dark Lord Ustios's head in twain because the guy has DR 1000/The Ork King's Axe or whatever.

[Chamomile]

The thing is, the Punisher's idiom isn't skull shirt.

It is now. It's become iconic of the character.

No one is suggesting that you have to use Morag the Ork King's Axe forever. It's just something you pick up for long enough to chop Dark Lord Ustios's head in twain because the guy has DR 1000/The Ork King's Axe or whatever.

No, what's being suggested is that you pick it up for about ten adventures and then you replace it with another randomly generated item. I wouldn't have a problem with using a different weapon for one adventure because it served an actual purpose in the narrative, but that's not what we're talking about.

[A Man In Black]

I seriously don't know what's going on in this thread any more, but...

The thing is, the Punisher's idiom isn't skull shirt. It's street-level murderous vigilante. Put him in anything above street level and there is literally nothing level-appropriate that you can give him without breaking his idiom.

He fights monsters. Notably, gunning down a castle full of giant monsters with a gatling gun, while flying on the back of a fire-breathing dragon. And it's fucking awesome.

[RadiantPhoenix]

The thing is, the Punisher's idiom isn't skull shirt.

It is now. It's become iconic of the character.

It sounds more like an identifying characteristic than a description of what the character actually does.

[jadagul]

DSM: you agree that people don't have the power to narratively decide when the monsters are going to attack, hurt, or kill their character because it is a game, yes? OK: how do you feel about Fuchs' assertion that the player should be able to narratively decide what objects that monsters have in their backpacks?

Less than stellar. (With both his original assertion and the exaggerations of it that have since followed. This thread is full of gross exaggerations from everybody.) I agree with you that the world should have drops that are relevant to the stories that are happening, not to the player's needs. For the same reason I think players should be able to make meaningful decisions about their own personal equipment loadout. Thematics are cool. When the big bad is using a weapon that is appropriate to his thing, it makes him more interesting than if he is using a weapon that is the character's next +1. Now, you can have overlap (the big bad's weapon is appropriate to him and it is the character's next +1) but forcing that scenario all the time really is limiting the types of stories you can tell in a bad way.

Other solutions I also find less than satisfying, like "big bad had the perfect weapon for you sitting in his armory, even though it was so awesome it really should have been employed in an effort to kill you," or "there always happens to be a lackey with the perfect thing for everyone" or "ye olde magic shop," or "transmute X into Y." I don't like them because they make magic items less exciting, and I want magic items to be exciting.

This conversation is really about a lot of conflicting drives in the underlying game:
1) Magic items are an important part of vertical growth.
2) Magic items are interesting.
3) Magic items have wiiiide disparities in power over the character's progression.
4) The world maintains some versimilitude, instead of looking handcrafted to the PC's.
5) PC's can decide certain things about their character for no reason other than rule of cool/player agency/whatever you want to call it.

You want to jettison 5, because that lets you hold 4 and some of the others. Fuchs wants to jettison 4, because that lets him hold 5 and some of the others. I personally want to jettison 1 or 3. If the sword of fire gives you some swordy fire abilities in line with your level, but doesn't make you any better at swording, characters can say fuck you to the sword of fire to keep a scythe in their hands and not be significantly punished. And if magic items are tighter grouped in their range of powers, then passing up the sword of better fire for the scythe of fire you already have doesn't hurt as much. I want to be a ____master in a world with verisimilitude. And that's totally possible if you turn off the magic item treadmill somehow.

This I agree with. I'll go further to say that it's useful and interesting to hand out horizontal advancement rather than vertical. I don't want the PCs trading their rings of water-breathing for rings of +1 to attack (especially since the next adventure is going to be underwater). Equipment that gives minor bonuses to existing abilities is far less interesting than equipment that grants entirely new abilities. But so long as those +1s are necessary and/or advantageous PCs are going to go for them to the exclusion of interesting things.

For what it's worth, I got the distinct impression that Frank and Lago also want to jettison 1 and/or 3, and that this fact has been forgotten in the ensuing firefight. So yeah, if it's really that important that your guy carries a scythe, he just hangs on to his scythe and passes on the more powerful sword he just found.

And honestly, I think there's interesting characterization potential in the samurai who insists on using a katana because of the the cultural symbolic power it has even when he's offered a more powerful but less symbolic weapon. You can do a fun pragmatism vs code of honor thing there. But that only works if he's actually passing up on power, and hanging onto his old katana because that's the one he got from the emperor and he wants to maintain that tie rather than tossing it aside for a +1 to hit.

[Fuchs]

Having a roleplay tax is a bad idea.

[Chamomile]

The thing is, the Punisher's idiom isn't skull shirt.

It is now. It's become iconic of the character.

It sounds more like an identifying characteristic than a description of what the character actually does.

It is. Identifying characteristics are important. Once again, there is absolutely no debate about this anywhere in the world outside of this thread.

[RadiantPhoenix]

It sounds more like an identifying characteristic than a description of what the character actually does.

It is. Identifying characteristics are important. Once again, there is absolutely no debate about this anywhere in the world outside of this thread.

The problem with a sword or other weapon as an identifying characteristic is that people don't settle for just having the sword, they want to actually use it. There's no reason you have to not have the heirloom masterwork rapier you received from your grandfather at level 2, even when you're at 20th level, it's just that actually using it as a weapon at that level is (usually) a bad idea.

[Chamomile]

It sounds more like an identifying characteristic than a description of what the character actually does.

It is. Identifying characteristics are important. Once again, there is absolutely no debate about this anywhere in the world outside of this thread.

The problem with a sword or other weapon as an identifying characteristic is that people don't settle for just having the sword, they want to actually use it. There's no reason you have to not have the heirloom masterwork rapier you received from your grandfather at level 2, even when you're at 20th level, it's just that actually using it as a weapon at that level is (usually) a bad idea.

Um. Yes? And? Genre-appropriate characters typically use their iconic weapons, they don't just carry them around for publicity photos.

[Fuchs]

It sounds more like an identifying characteristic than a description of what the character actually does.

It is. Identifying characteristics are important. Once again, there is absolutely no debate about this anywhere in the world outside of this thread.

The problem with a sword or other weapon as an identifying characteristic is that people don't settle for just having the sword, they want to actually use it. There's no reason you have to not have the heirloom masterwork rapier you received from your grandfather at level 2, even when you're at 20th level, it's just that actually using it as a weapon at that level is (usually) a bad idea.

Getting upgrades for it solves that problem. Hire a mage to enchant it. Or transfer the enchantment from the stupid direflail you found to the rapier.

The "magic items need to be special, can't trade or make them" ideology is a problem.

[RadiantPhoenix]

The problem with a sword or other weapon as an identifying characteristic is that people don't settle for just having the sword, they want to actually use it. There's no reason you have to not have the heirloom masterwork rapier you received from your grandfather at level 2, even when you're at 20th level, it's just that actually using it as a weapon at that level is (usually) a bad idea.

Um. Yes? And? Genre-appropriate characters typically use their iconic weapons, they don't just carry them around for publicity photos.

And at that point, unlike the Punisher's skull motif, it's not just an identifying characteristic, it's also one of the character's 'powers', so the comparison to the Punisher's skull shirt isn't valid.

[Username17]

The Punisher wears a black shirt with a skull on it. When he gets an armor upgrade, he paints a skull on that too. And that is fine.

But what team katana is advocating is that he never get any armor upgrade that isn't a shirt. And that's stupid. Frank Castle in Iron Man Armor and Frank Castle in Venom Symbiont are things that happen because he gets upgrades that are not shirts.

-Username17

[souran]

The Punisher wears a black shirt with a skull on it. When he gets an armor upgrade, he paints a skull on that too. And that is fine.

But what team katana is advocating is that he never get any armor upgrade that isn't a shirt. And that's stupid. Frank Castle in Iron Man Armor and Frank Castle in Venom Symbiont are things that happen because he gets upgrades that are not shirts.

-Username17

But wait, did he get the venom symbiote or the iron man armor because thats what his foes were using or did he get them because of author fiat?

[Username17]

The Punisher wears a black shirt with a skull on it. When he gets an armor upgrade, he paints a skull on that too. And that is fine.

But what team katana is advocating is that he never get any armor upgrade that isn't a shirt. And that's stupid. Frank Castle in Iron Man Armor and Frank Castle in Venom Symbiont are things that happen because he gets upgrades that are not shirts.

-Username17

But wait, did he get the venom symbiote or the iron man armor because thats what his foes were using or did he get them because of author fiat?

Can I buy pot from you?

He's a character in a written work, everything he gets is author fiat. The nominal reason for supporting people in their desire to select specific equipment to find in their adventures is to support characters like Frank Castle. But the thing is that the actual Frank Castle, just like the actual Conan, the actual Zorro, the actual Darth Vader, and the actual every single fucking character brought up by the weapon fetishists since this fucking multi-thread argument started does not work that way.

All of these characters do in fact find and use equipment that is different from their "standard" during the course of their adventures. The mono-weapon character that the weapon fetishists are citing as evidence for being allowed to set the verisimilitude of the setting on fire does not exist!

-Username17

[Chamomile]

The problem with a sword or other weapon as an identifying characteristic is that people don't settle for just having the sword, they want to actually use it. There's no reason you have to not have the heirloom masterwork rapier you received from your grandfather at level 2, even when you're at 20th level, it's just that actually using it as a weapon at that level is (usually) a bad idea.

Um. Yes? And? Genre-appropriate characters typically use their iconic weapons, they don't just carry them around for publicity photos.

And at that point, unlike the Punisher's skull motif, it's not just an identifying characteristic, it's also one of the character's 'powers', so the comparison to the Punisher's skull shirt isn't valid.

Again, I think you've lost the point of the comparison entirely.

Character aesthetic is important to characterization. By forcing a character to trade weapons randomly, you're forcing him to switch up his aesthetic randomly. So yes, it's basically the same as having the Punisher upgrade to a randomly selected costume or power every month or so in order to remain competitive. The fact that the Punisher's costume doesn't normally grant him powers is not relevant, because we are discussing the idea of forcing random aesthetic changes and why that is bad for the narrative.

[Stubbazubba]

Did he get the Iron Man armor, then 4 weeks later the Venom symbiote, then 4 weeks later get his consciousness transferred into a Sentinel, then 4 weeks later become Captain Universe, having left behind his guns and murder hobo persona long ago, never to return? No, because then he is no longer recognizably the Punisher. When someone becomes Captain Universe, it's for a single story arc, then it's over with. Characters get rebooted all the time because they've drifted away from what the fans have come to expect from the character; Spider-Man went through the symbiote suit, the Ben Reilly suit, the Scarlet Spider-Man suit, and the Iron Spider-Man suit, etc., but always come back to what was familiar, because each one of the above takes the character in a different direction. They're great for temporary excursions, a change of pace, but each brings with it a variation on Spider-Man's character, and is thus not appropriate for his long-term aesthetic. Much worse would be if this aesthetic were determined by dice, and not the author in control of the character.

Frank, taking away a superhero's tights and giving him armor does seriously change the way they are viewed by the audience. Putting Batman in samurai armor is a pretty serious change to his character, and should not be determined by anyone but the player, not even your sacred dice.

Edit: Actually, for an even better example of what happens when you change someone's fighting style but keep the character behind the weapon the same, see Peter Parker's alter-egos Dusk, Ricochet, Prodigy, and Hornet. All Peter Parker, just not Spider-Man. Fighting style is still acrobatic punches to the face, with variations for stealth, flight, and stingers, but the theme of the aesthetic is what changes the character.

All of these characters do in fact find and use equipment that is different from their "standard" during the course of their adventures.

Temporarily, sure, of course, and that should be encouraged, but not as a permanent or even semi-permanent change to the character, not by DM/dice fiat, at least.

[souran]

He's a character in a written work, everything he gets is author fiat. The nominal reason for supporting people in their desire to select specific equipment to find in their adventures is to support characters like Frank Castle. But the thing is that the actual Frank Castle, just like the actual Conan, the actual Zorro, the actual Darth Vader, and the actual every single fucking character brought up by the weapon fetishists since this fucking multi-thread argument started does not work that way.


All of these characters do in fact find and use equipment that is different from their "standard" during the course of their adventures. The mono-weapon character that the weapon fetishists are citing as evidence for being allowed to set the verisimilitude of the setting on fire does not exist!

-Username17

Actually, you have yet to list a character who changes his weapon or athestic between adventures or stories.

Frank Castle has one offs where he gets iron man armor but Frank castle is not normally an iron man armor character. Similarly, Zorro's athetic is the whip and the sword. There are adventures and SCENES where he uses a pistol. However, at the start of the next adventure he is NEVER converted into a pistolero.


Hell even conan who is really the BEST argument you have for a character who uses whatever is around is never depected as keeping any of th axes, or gigantic bows or clubs or maces he finds. He ALWAYS starts the next story with a sword and if its a de camp story its always the same sword .


Yes there are lots of characters who will upgrade their weapons within the story. Indiana jones Iconic weapons are the whip and his pistol. However, he variously uses machine guns, his fits, german pistols, chair legs etc.

but dr. jones did not switch from his pistol to a sub machine gun as a permanent upgrade even though he kills nazi's with submachine guns all the time.

Vader is much more effective fighting luke with the force than with his sword in Empire. He smashes him with a bunch of boxes. However, when they fight again in return of the jedi vader doesn't have a bunch of storm troopers carrying around heavy crates behind him all the time.

You are correct that characters in stories utiize a lot more stuff than their "iconic" weapons. However, the very reason their equipment is iconic is because they usually (80%+) use the equipment we identify them with. The other times they are using other equipment either out of neccessity or as part of a disguse. However, its not very often that they aquire alternate weapons that they both hang on to and they change to accomdate. (Unless adapting to the weapon is symoblic or central to the story. Luke for instance goes from wielding mostly blasters when he is first introduced to not even carrying anything except the lightsaber by RoTJ)

Now rpgs are a little different in that due to player specilization they are actually much less likely than a character in a story to attempt to use alternate weaponry. Zorro doesn't normally carry a pistol becaues zorro is 1830's batman and guns are loud and slow. However, he can USE a pistol and does on multiple occasions in stories. However, in a D&D game a zorro type character is probably more likely to succeed by doing something crazy with his whip or charging into swording range than picking up a pistol right in front of him because its liklely that he doesn't have enough character options to be even remotely decent with a pistol and still do his primary stichk.

Similarly, you can't have an indiana jones fiticuffs scene in an rpg because your players are probalby better using their weapons to inflict non leathal damage than they are at playing punchout or smashing a chair over somebodies head.

Now the thing is in rpgs/dnd your argument is actually much stronger. If you find the axe of dwarven lords you adapt to it, you don't bitch that its not a sword. but a dm who lets a player take weapon proficiency rapier and then keeps only utlizing enemies with short swords is being an asshat too.

[Username17]

Batman doesn't use a Batarang until Detective Comics #31. Zorro gets his black costume in the 1920 film The Mark of Zorro. The Shadow gained his mind clouding magical training in the radio program. Characters do gain permanent upgrades from time to time.

And interestingly, the way this usually works for these long running characters is for some other writer to write something in, and then if it gains traction it stays. Like how Fairbanks put in the black costume and the actual author of the books thought it was cool enough that subsequent books have Zorro wearing the outfit.

Which is pretty closely approximate to the thing where the DM puts items in the world and then you can use them or not.

-Username17

[Stubbazubba]

Batman doesn't use a Batarang until Detective Comics #31.

A whopping 4 issues after he was introduced. That's maybe, like, the next session. OK, so your character bought some equipment you didn't use until session 2; that example is not making the point you want it to.

Mark of Zorro was released within a year of the Zorro's original tale, as well, hardly in the "middle" of his campaign.

[Username17]

Batman doesn't use a Batarang until Detective Comics #31.

A whopping 4 issues after he was introduced. That's maybe, like, the next session. OK, so your character bought some equipment you didn't use until session 2; that example is not making the point you want it to.

Mark of Zorro was released within a year of the Zorro's original tale, as well, hardly in the "middle" of his campaign.

That is, by definition, the fifth session. In the fifth session he gets some Batarangs, and just three years into the campaign he stops using a gun.

-Username17