Weapon Styles, Basket Weaving, and Concept Obsolesence

[shadzar]

so, Frank, 3rd and 4th both brought out this MY CHARACTER "player entitlement" that made people think they deserve the exact treasure they want, and this is bad?

That actually hurts my brain. Short answer: no.

Long answer: there is absolutely nothing wrong with player entitlement. Players feel entitled to the two free spells their wizard gets per level because they are entitled to those two free spells. The issue is that player entitlement is 100% incompatible with acquisitive advancement. Things that players feel entitled to are things they feel are already theirs by right, so there is no accomplishment or mystery in acquiring them.

Funny you should mention spells, because for some reason people always thought their spells were rightfully theirs to pick and choose ANYTHING they wanted, rather than having to acquire them.

true, you get 2 or whatever your level say, but it doesnt mean they...well magically...become yours.

the old "% chance to learn spell" people thought was too "hard" and they deserved any spell they wanted to build with. this led to many hypothetical wizard v. fighter arguments.

it does seem that "player entitlement" does make people lose focus of the game in favor of painting up their playing piece, and forget WHY they have the playing piece to begin with. be it "rights" to weapons, magic items, spells, whores, etc.

to put simply...the adventure is lost. that which you call mystery and accomplishment as parts thereof.

i much prefer the PC gets a new tool, now figures out what to do with it, rather than wishlists for some netdeck myself.

[shadzar]

Only if you cling to the idea - outdated as it is - that every magic item needs to be a special snowflake

i would rather the items be special snowflakes over the players being them.

[tussock]

I find the sword of omens. I'm an axe dude. Can I...

Sell the Sword at the next town and buy an axe?
Barter the sword for an axe?
Give the sword to a dwarven lord to increase favor?

In each of these scenarios, does the axe have to be objectivley better/worse/the same as the sword?

Ahem. Sword of Omens says NO! Sword of omens says you're a sword of omens dude now (and should perhaps permanently respec your character build that way if the game allows such things as an axe guy who's crippled with swords).

Of course, D&D editions have gotten successively more stupid in regards to Fighters (and other classes) specialising themselves into a corner. The Wizard who can only do fire damage is also a stupid concept that would hurt the game and people want to play that as well, but the game doesn't let them.

It just lets Fighters become axe guys.

Part of sensible treasure allocation is fighters who are good with things like strange foreign weapons, maybe given a day or two to warm up to them. Like people are in the real world. The pointy end goes in the other man.

[Winnah]

Part of sensible treasure allocation is fighters who are good with things like strange foreign weapons, maybe given a day or two to warm up to them. Like people are in the real world. The pointy end goes in the other man.

No. In the real world, people that focus on a weapon tend to be very skilled with that weapon. Some skills may transfer to similar weapons or fighting styles, but this may not always be the case. Such as an Olympic fencer picking up Kali sticks and entering melee with 3 hammer wielding thugs and one dude with a spear. Some fighting methods will simply get you fucking murdered when used out of context, such as competitive grappling in a knife fight.

'Proficiency' and mastery are two very different things. Some people want to include this basic premise in a game, beyond level based mechanics, others do not want games attempting to reflect reality in any meaningful sense, other than basic assumptions about things like physics, social & civil engineering and politics.

[Chamomile]

Such as an Olympic fencer picking up Kali sticks and entering melee with 3 hammer wielding thugs and one dude with a spear.

An Olympic fencer attempting to do anything, anywhere that involves actually killing a fool is going to lose, unless his opponent has entered a gentleman's agreement not to violate the rules of fencing during the fight. Olympic fencers are a bad example of anyone who's trained to actually be effective in a fight in any way.

Also, over-specializing in a single weapon is realistically a bad idea. The assault rifle is generally a really useful weapon and balanced weapon and being better with it than with others is probably a good idea, but that doesn't mean that knowing how to use a machine gun, a shotgun, a sidearm, grenades, RPG launchers, a knife, etc. etc. aren't also really useful things that you should definitely spend time learning to use, even if at the expense of more assault rifle training. Swap out "assault rifle" for "longsword" and the situational weapons for longbow, lance, pike, mace, dagger, etc. etc. and you get the medieval version.

[tussock]

"Markets and treasure selection" works very well if you treat magic items as that what they are in D&D 3E: Just another aspect of character builds like feats and spells.

The problem with 3e market items and WBL is that the items you're selling are the things no one should want to buy; and the things you buy with that money are the items no one else should want to sell. That's a bad thing.

OK, so you upgrade your old items or retcon it all to residuum, like 4e. Now, why do less optimal items exist in the first place? Who's making all that junk at a loss?

So you're left with items being basically a class feature that grows with the character. Which is crap. D&D is better than Champions, random rewards are good happy-drugs.


But if no one can trade items, nor upgrade them, there's bound to be a lot of suboptimal crap lying around the game world, just because it was useful in some weird corner case in the past and people haven't fought much over it since. If the PCs find it and then wander into that same weird corner case while carrying it, bonus. If the PCs never find a use for it, that's good too, as long as the idea of using it got to them for a bit.

Probably still some sort of a market will form, just not a highly fungible one. Quests seem fairly functional to me there: do stuff, get reward; give reward, get stuff done.

[Chamomile]

The problem with 3e market items and WBL is that the items you're selling are the things no one should want to buy; and the things you buy with that money are the items no one else should want to sell. That's a bad thing.

Only if the only people who acquire or produce magic items are also adventurers. There's no reason to fluff your world like this when you could just as easily have wizards who pay the bills by hammering out magic items they have no intention of using so they can hawk them off to dragon slayers who have nothing to spend their recently acquired hoard on. If you want those adventurers to buy castles with that hoard (and I certainly do), then you add in super-special magic currency to the dragon's hoard alongside all the regular gold and jewels, and only that magic currency can be used to buy magic items.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

The Wizard who can only do fire damage is also a stupid concept.

This is true. Specialist fire mages are an inherently stupid idea that could never be used effectively to create compelling characters and villians. An entire nation of specialist fire mages would be so colossal stupid that any setting that included it would fail on startup.

[Fuchs]

The problem with 3e market items and WBL is that the items you're selling are the things no one should want to buy; and the things you buy with that money are the items no one else should want to sell. That's a bad thing.

That's wrong. If something is not that desirable, then it's sold cheap. If it's highly valued it'll sell for lots. That's what the prices are for. Some items might be undervalued, some might be overvalued, but by and all the market works.

[Username17]

The problem with 3e market items and WBL is that the items you're selling are the things no one should want to buy; and the things you buy with that money are the items no one else should want to sell. That's a bad thing.

That's wrong. If something is not that desirable, then it's sold cheap. If it's highly valued it'll sell for lots. That's what the prices are for. Some items might be undervalued, some might be overvalued, but by and all the market works.

My suggestion would be to go search this site for "wbl" or read one of the extremely long threads about this very subject like this one. The number of people who will agree with your assertion that the 3e gold economy wasn't ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag is ludicrously small.

People hate wealth by level. And they are right to do so - because it sucks.

-Username17

[tussock]

OK: real weapons come down to being extremely aggressive while keeping the dangerous thing between you and your mortal enemy (and getting his dangerous thing out of the way, keeping him on the back foot, and don't over-balance). All the footwork, balance, and reach work is very similar, and not at all like Olympic fencing on account of the second dimension, myriad valid targets, and lethal forces (though Mr Fencer could likely outrun the lot of them).

Historical longsword techniques involve a lot of grappling, throws, staff-fighting, hooking, and close-dagger moves, same as all the other weapons. 'S nasty stuff.


Desdan: Airbender, quite, the "fire-mages" there do a lot more than fire damage, as I understand it.


Chamomile: More residuum, no thank you. Building items should be about quests too, otherwise your item-builders are just sitting on unguarded mountains of gold waiting to be ganked by people who will use that gold to have more powerful items built. Vicious circle, that one. Better not to sell off the tools of your own destruction.

[Fuchs]

My suggestion would be to go search this site for "wbl" or read one of the extremely long threads about this very subject like this one. The number of people who will agree with your assertion that the 3e gold economy wasn't ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag is ludicrously small.

People hate wealth by level. And they are right to do so - because it sucks.

-Username17

It's still a magnitude better than random drops and MMOG style grind mechanics because at least you get the items you want.

Not to mention that a market for magic items can be had without tieing it to a wealth by level mechanic. It just means that you can trade in items, and get rid of the shitty axe you found and the GM thinks is too cool for words and get the pair of daggers you really want.

If you don't want people to live as hobos to save up for better swords, add some magic item bartering system, or simply make magic items bought and sold by an unique currency (souls, residium, whatever).

Or get rid of the whole gold counting and make it an abstract system, where magic items are in a whole different category compared to mundane luxury.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

My stance on this whole thing:

A game has to support at least the basic concepts that players will be playing, and "Specialist" is one of those concepts.

There's nothing saying that this means that a specialist axe-guy must never pick up a sword, just that he won't be as good with it. Just like Robin Hood is generally portrayed as a specialist bow-guy, who occasionally picks up an sword as needed.

He doesn't have to be directly applicable to all situations, because no character will, or should be.

There's nothing wrong with a DM placing specific treasure, either because it's something the enemies would look cool using or because it's something the PCs would look cool using.

A player who complains because he wanted a fiery sword instead of an icy sword is a bitch.

Any character concept lives and dies by the care and skill of the person developing it. A character with an awesome concept can be wasted just as surely as a character with a concept that might seem laughable on the face of it can turn out to be a really interesting character.

[Winnah]

An Olympic fencer attempting to do anything, anywhere that involves actually killing a fool is going to lose, unless his opponent has entered a gentleman's agreement not to violate the rules of fencing during the fight. Olympic fencers are a bad example of anyone who's trained to actually be effective in a fight in any way.

The same could be said of any kind of martial artist or sports weapon enthusiast. I would still rather face of against a fencer wielding a short stick than anything resembling a sharp fencing blade. The last thing I need is an inch of metal sticking into my eye.

Also, over-specializing in a single weapon is realistically a bad idea. The assault rifle is generally a really useful weapon and balanced weapon and being better with it than with others is probably a good idea, but that doesn't mean that knowing how to use a machine gun, a shotgun, a sidearm, grenades, RPG launchers, a knife, etc. etc. aren't also really useful things that you should definitely spend time learning to use, even if at the expense of more assault rifle training. Swap out "assault rifle" for "longsword" and the situational weapons for longbow, lance, pike, mace, dagger, etc. etc. and you get the medieval version.

I'm calling bullshit here. Realisticly, soldiers focused on a few weapons. I'm assuming this was the case for conscripted forces in the past. The army did not teach me how to use high explosives, a shotgun, RPG launchers, knife fighting, unarmed combat, gunnery or how to pilot combat aircraft.

Now some people may develop diverse combat skills, very few people do more than basic inductions and training in more than one discipline. Modern soldiers may learn how to use sidearms, but the majority of time is spent on the rifle range, except for those few specialists that focus on other combat roles. Those specialists are in the minority, most soldiers training in roles ancillary to combat, such as signals, logistics or engineering, for example. That does not leave them much time to become John Rambo.

[tussock]

Some items might be undervalued, some might be overvalued, but by and all the market works.

Say you're a fighter with a new +2 sword, after having spent 5 levels and a couple of close friend's lives on finding better than a +1. Some dude wanders up with a bunch of +1 swords and wants to swap them for your +2 sword. You say no. There is no number of +1 swords that make up for that hardship.

You're that same fighter, only rather than adventuring, you sell your three +1 swords and buy a +2 sword. Some dude wanders up with a bunch of +1 swords and wants to swap them for your +2 sword. You say no. But then who said yes to you in the first place?

You're that same fighter, later, you have a +3 sword now (many levels, many deaths), and a couple of +2's, and a bunch of +1's. Some dude wanders up with a bunch of +1 swords and wants to swap them for your +2 sword. You say no, as +1 swords literally hold no value to you, and your henchmen are using the +2's anyway.

You're the same guy with the +3 and such, some guy offers a mountain of gold for the +3. You say no. No one's selling better, you're not swapping hard-earned power for gold, that's offensive. You have a mountain of gold anyway, nothing useful to spend it on.



What market? I get that PCs want to trade their stack of +1's for a +10, but who's on the other end of that deal? Who's swapping the +10 for gold or a bunch of +1's? Hell, who's swapping their +1 for gold? You can't kill a spectre with gold.

So we get the item forge, which swaps +10 swords for collections of gold to spend on ale and whores. That money filters out to people who have spectre problems, and rather than paying an adventurer who's earned a +1 sword to deal with it, they buy a +1 sword for themselves and die trying, thus leaving +1 swords lying about dungeons all over the place that adventurers can earn. Or something.

But why don't the item-forge people just make themselves a magical pleasure palace, fortified by magic-immune Golems, and then not sell anyone the tools needed to destroy them? GM fiat? Hostile takeover by high-level adventurers?


Which kindof gets into magic not being quite the force multiplier that fossil fuels are. We're all 9th level these days thanks to the 24 full-time people-equivalents we burn in our day-to-day lives.

[Fuchs]

+2 to attack and damage is not really that much more powerful than +1 to attack and damage. Offer enough and it's a deal. That's how it works.

You don't really expect every mage to agree to not sell magic items so no one of them will get attacked ever? That's ludicrous.

As was pointed out, past a certain level you can leave the gold economy, and trade in high-level currency such as souls, or whatever currency you make up, stuff that's useful to fiends and mages.

All the gold in the world may not buy that +4 holy avenger, but the essence of fire, collected from the heart of the plane itself, might do it. Or something. Or you trade the +4 frostbrand you got from the last dungeon for it.

[tussock]

A game has to support at least the basic concepts that players will be playing, and "Specialist" is one of those concepts.

No. Players will play what the game supports or not play at all, and the game need not provide for concepts that are harmful to the experience (it just needs to be honest about that).

Just like Robin Hood is generally portrayed as a specialist bow-guy, who occasionally picks up an sword as needed.

Robin Hood kicked everyone's ass with everything. Friar Tuck with Friar Tuck's favoured weapon, the Sheriff with the Sheriff's favourite weapon, and so on. If he'd found a magical flaming axe that gave him giant strength, he'd have used it.

[Fuchs]

A game has to support at least the basic concepts that players will be playing, and "Specialist" is one of those concepts.

No. Players will play what the game supports or not play at all, and the game need not provide for concepts that are harmful to the experience (it just needs to be honest about that).

The concept "this character uses a sword when hitting stuff with a weapon, but that's not all he does by far" is not harmful to the experience.

On the other hand, the idea "no, you don't get to decide how your character looks and what he wields, that's randomly decided by loot" is harmful to the game experience.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

No. Players will play what the game supports or not play at all, and the game need not provide for concepts that are harmful to the experience (it just needs to be honest about that).

Oh, Really now?

You know, for all their talk about deep, rich storytelling experiences and personal horror, I've sure seen a whole lot of World of Darkness campaigns that centered around tracking down whatever nasty thing the coterie had been given open season on this week and tearing it to ragged chunks. This despite the fact that the writers of even combat-heavy games like Werewolf openly disdained hack and slash gaming and the fact that the Storyteller system is not terribly good when it comes to combat in the first place.

Gaming groups are going to play your game however they god-damned want to play it.

[tussock]

+2 to attack and damage is not really that much more powerful than +1 to attack and damage. Offer enough and it's a deal. That's how it works.

Right, so if you assume there's a market, there's a market. Great. Did you miss the bit where you have now agreed to surrender all your best items in exchange for things you can't use?

You don't really expect every mage to agree to not sell magic items so no one of them will get attacked ever? That's ludicrous.

I'm not sure what they want gold for when they can make magic items, especially when it involves selling powerful weapons to known murderers and thieves.

As was pointed out, past a certain level you can leave the gold economy, and trade in high-level currency such as souls, or whatever currency you make up, stuff that's useful to fiends and mages.

Naturally; but you can also leave the gold economy at the +1 stage, and not have any sort of common trade in magic items. Doing so has some benefits, including making player item collections a lot more eclectic.

This "downside", where you have to stop Fighters specialising themselves into a corner to the point of not even carrying a fucking bow at high level, that's a good thing too.

[tussock]

Gaming groups are going to play your game however they god-damned want to play it.

White Wolf games support pointless combat just fine, there's a combat chapter and everything, combat stats on every character and NPC. Still can't bring your AD&D Thief into a Werewolf game and expect that to mean anything, on account of Werewolf not supporting that archetype. Eh.

[Username17]

Among its many flaws, the 3e system provides no incentive or even possible incentive for any magician to ever make anything bigger than a +1. The amount of money that you get for making +4 swords is exactly the same per day and per material input as what you get from making +1 swords. Bigger enhancements are simply riskier in that you lose more time and money if something interrupts the procedure. The actual wage you get is the same.

The 3e market is deeply absurd at every level, and when you scrutinize any particular part of it, you find that fractally it is every bit as stupid as the entire thing. But that's not even super important. It's a fantasy game and fantasy economies are almost always made of stupid. Powerful people making world changing artifacts for literally the same wage as apprentices in a glove factory is the least of the wallbangers you expect out of a fantasy economy.

The issue with the 3e economy is that it isn't fun and it encourages people to do things that are not fun. It costs you real bonuses to have your character bathe on a regular basis, and it gives you strong mechanical penalties for having magic items that "do stuff" rather than having the eclectic list of bonus gear that people of every level are expected to have. Meaning that it requires you to not only wear a clown suit, but a dirty clown suit at that.

The first time the DM feels compelled to stomp down on a player's cunning plan to haul away the giant copper pipes of the old steampunk empire or bring the pepper from the caravan the Orcs attacked to market "because they aren't high enough level to get that kind of wealth" - the game has begun punishing players for being proactive in the story. And that is fucked.

But again, this issue has come up like a million fucking times in the last ten fucking years, and if you seriously have a problem figuring out how and why the 3e magic market assumption is bad for storytelling, worldbuilding, verisimilitude, game balance, and character differentiation, you should probably start a new thread to discuss it. Because 3e is fucking old and this problem is now a dead horse and it is cluttering up this thread.

-Username17

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Werewolf is a game about spiritual corruption and body horror, mixed with eco-terrorism-presented-as-a-valid-philosophy. As you play the game you are supposed to reflect about how humans are bastards and how we really should be living in harmony with nature. You can play the game as a monster-of-the-week bloodbath where you fight Black Spiral Dancers, vampires and wyrm spirits all with no concern for what they do and how they got that way on a philosophical and existential level if you want, but you do so knowing that Mark Rein*Hagen hates you for missing the point of his game.

[Fuchs]

But again, this issue has come up like a million fucking times in the last ten fucking years, and if you seriously have a problem figuring out how and why the 3e magic market assumption is bad for storytelling, worldbuilding, verisimilitude, game balance, and character differentiation, you should probably start a new thread to discuss it. Because 3e is fucking old and this problem is now a dead horse and it is cluttering up this thread.

-Username17

Then again, the fucking stupidity of having to roll for random treasure, and how unhappy that shit makes people came up countless times in every damn MMOG. And before that it was known in 2E - or would have been known, if any DM actually would have used random treasure, and wouldn't have dropped a bastard sword for the bastard sword fighter, and a short sword for the thief.

Again: A game where you can't get your character to look how you want it is shit. Just look at how even MMOGs have learned that lesson - and they thrive on the "loot loot loot until you get lucky" mechanic you tout here.

[Username17]

My stance on this whole thing:

A game has to support at least the basic concepts that players will be playing, and "Specialist" is one of those concepts.

As has already been established, Robin Hood is a fucking terrible example because he literally does kick legendary ass with a staff, a sword, and a dagger. If Robin Hood got into a hammer fight, chances are extremely high that he would kick ass.

But let's go into your more general claim that "Specialists" should be supported. I'll grant the premise, but specialists in what? On a scale of "goblin to giant" the difference between one blade and another is bullshit small. Indeed, the question you should be asking from the standpoint of D&D is not whether you should allow someone to specialize in a particular kind of sword or even swords generally, but whether melee combat is too myopic of a thing to specialize in.

-Username17