Lago's Kickass D&D-Book Marketing Strategy!

[Red_Rob]

Just have one of the abilities of a Fire character be a greater chance of inflicting Burning? Have the Fire guys abilities amplify or synergise with one of the abilities common to Fire weapons.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The point I think is that people want advancement somewhat like a plot directed animated adventure cartoon show. Like Sailor Moon or Avatar. And for those shows, you have a couple of upgrades a season, and your season has about 16 adventures in it (with some filler and some two parters thrown in). Upgrading a weapon more than once cheapens the weapon upgrade you got, which is why the Avatar gets one new Staff. That's good storytelling. In 4e D&D you are seriously supposed to get the "new staff music" six times, which is simply ridiculous.

I don't quite buy this.

The advancement rate is completely arbitrary and subjective. Repetitiveness is not. Regardless of how strong your characters get over a time period, people using the same tactic 100 times in a row is definitionally more repetitive (and thus more boring) than someone using it 10 times in a row. Few people will get tired of El Ravager announcing that he's readying his Hackmaster +12 for the first 10 times, but by the 100th time that number is a lot higher regardless of whether you became demigods in that time or didn't gain a single level.

If you claim that the repetitiveness is okay because, like a Garfield or Peanuts strip, the familiarity and comfort of using the same weapon for 100+ sessions outweighs this benefit that's one thing. But unless you're advocating for that effect specifically magical equipment should have expiration dates attached to them, since churning through new shit is more novel than using the same shit.

The rate at which you churn through weapons should not be tied to campaign milestones, it should be tied to the amount of screentime the weapon has had. A campaign that has a lot of filler like plotless dungeon crawls or high rates of random encounters needs people to go through their weapons faster than campaigns that have well-defined story arcs.



Also, I think that expiration dates should exist for magical items to eliminate the screen-stealing time someone gets for getting Hackmaster +12. I think it's fine for a player's equipment to steal the show for a session or three, but stealing the show for 10 weeks because of a lucky roll made three months ago is extremely unfair. The game should have a built-in self destruct method for magical equipment, because while rolling a Wand of Orcus at level 1 is fun as hell, it becomes repetitive and BORING for the player who did get the Wand of Orcus to always be the MVP for more than a few sessions because realistically no one is going to get an item that good any time in the future. So even if they do get good magical items they're still going to play second fiddle.

[Kaelik]

Lago that is dumb. How the fuck does having a Hackmaster +13 magically make readying it less boring then when it was a +12?

How the fuck did you decide that one person has a Hackmaster +12 when everyone else has +3.

The Hackmaster isn't stealing the show, and it's not any more boring to say "I hit it with sword" then it is to say "I hit it with a different sword."

[Lago PARANOIA]

Lago that is dumb. How the fuck does having a Hackmaster +13 magically make readying it less boring then when it was a +12?

Because people shouldn't have Hackmasters +12 and +13 in the first place. That shit is boring and you can't even really tell that someone has a Hackmaster +13 over a +12. If you read the previous page I argued specifically AGAINST having this kind of equipment.

Yes, if the only thing you change about magical equipment are the plusses then it won't really matter much to begin with. But if your choices are between having a Sword of Flame for 50 battles or having a Sword of Flame for 25 battles and a Sword of Illusion for the other 25 battles the first one is more repetitive. Whether that's an acceptable tradeoff for the comfort of one character having the flavor of a Flame Swordsman or for avoiding the stupidity of trading weapons too often is subjective, but the fact that it is more repetitive is not.

[Username17]

A magic weapon, or any magic item, is essentially an ability. An item that only provides numeric bonuses is boring and stupid - in precisely the same way as a strictly linear numeric bonus is boring and stupid.

Upgrading a magic weapon, or any magic item, is structurally equivalent to erasing and replacing one of your character's abilities. It is my opinion that 4e's authors substantially over estimated our desire to do that sort of thing. I genuinely don't want to replace 8 powers once each, to replace my weapon, shirt, and cape five times each, and to replace my bracers, boots, and belt twice each. That is too much replacement.

But going through and replacing all your major powers with bigger versions once each actually sounds OK. And similarly, once I have achieved a genuine interesting magic sword, I am wiling to replace it. Once.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

But going through and replacing all your major powers with bigger versions once each actually sounds OK.

Why do they have to be bigger versions? Why can't someone's magical sword just fucken break down after X amount of time and they don't get an equivalent replacement? If you got a sufficiently badass weapon really early in the game, such as rolling for Excalibur at level 2, then you might never get a weapon better than that for the rest of the game.

And similarly, once I have achieved a genuine interesting magic sword, I am wiling to replace it. Once.

Then what do you do if someone rolls a Wand of Orcus at level 2? Do you just let them be the MVP for the rest of the campaign regardless of what the rest of the party does?

Regardless, I view the replacement issue like forcing preteen boys to take a shower. It's not for the benefit of them, it's for the benefit of the other players at the table. Dave might be happy going 'Readying my Hackmaster +12!' for the rest of his life, but Bob and Brian are going to get sick of hearing that for awhile. Because while Dave has to deal with the hassle of rewriting his character sheet if he wants to upgrade, the other players have to deal with the repetitiveness.

But by the same token, Dave and Brian also get sick of Bob listening to him saying 'I waste it with my crossbow!' for the 1000th time, even if Bob doesn't. Bob and Dave get tired of Brian going 'Fireballs coming online!'.

So while the individual players might be sad at the fact that they have to give up their favorite toys, the other players get the relief of not having to hear the same shit over and over. The player ends up sad, but the group ends up happy. And when it comes time for someone ELSE to have to replace their power, the previously-gypped player gets to reap the benefit of hearing new shit now. It's the circle of life.



The next edition should aim for a less manic replacement cycle than what 3E/4E did because the magical items will be more interesting (and thus we won't be bored by them for a longer amount of time), but players should definitely upgrade their equipment more than once if they're in it for the long haul.

4E's constant equipment replacement schedule was annoying, but it wasn't character breaking. Yeah, having to replace your sword every third fight wouldn't allow you to get fame as a certain kind of swordsman or fighting style, but there reaches a point where your story with the weapon is finished and it should move on. Fighting the same array of monsters with the same set of powers over and over again is boring. Few people would put up with having to hear 'the ogre mage casts a magic missile!' -- why should they have to put up with that from their teammates more than the necessary amount of time?

[Username17]

Why do they have to be bigger versions? Why can't someone's magical sword just fucken break down after X amount of time and they don't get an equivalent replacement?

Because that's a shitty idea that doesn't work in RPGs.

You can sell that kind of resource management in single author fiction because you decide ahead of times what the dramatic points where it is time to use up one of the three times the Ragna Blade can ever be invoked are going to be. You can use that kind of resource management in a fixed length game such as a computer game or a board game - because players can rationally decide what the break points are. But in an open ended game with constantly increasing threat? No fucking way! It just ends up like 2nd Edition AD&D: no one ends up using their scrolls or wands of cold, because tomorrow is always harder and it's always time to save. Fuck. That.

Then what do you do if someone rolls a Wand of Orcus at level 2? Do you just let them be the MVP for the rest of the campaign regardless of what the rest of the party does?

Yes.

Look, there is nothing you can ever do to "make it up to" the rest of the team that Fred got a power item that they did not. You can punish Fred's character by having him targeted by demon lords and raped to death, but that doesn't actually address the injustice in any way. All it does is create different, additional hurt feelings.

The best you can do with actual game changers like the Wand of Orcus is to make their powers such that the party inherently shuffles them around. You can do that by having it be a good multi-tool, such that different characters are using it at different times. Or you can even have some sort of artifact corruption deally, where the PCs hand the thing around like a hot potato to avoid dissolving into a chaos spawn.

Simply taking them away from the party at some point either encourages hoarding (in which case it's just like the artifacts don't exist), or hurt feelings. Or both.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

It just ends up like 2nd Edition AD&D: no one ends up using their scrolls or wands of cold, because tomorrow is always harder and it's always time to save. Fuck. That.

Simply taking them away from the party at some point either encourages hoarding (in which case it's just like the artifacts don't exist), or hurt feelings. Or both.

Or you could just put a time limit on the item before it poofs and teleports away. Or crumbles. Or the magic fades away. Or the magical item commits egoistic suicide, depleting the item. That way people know ahead of time that they're just renting the item and they might as well get the most out of it before it's gone.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Look, there is nothing you can ever do to "make it up to" the rest of the team that Fred got a power item that they did not.

The whole point of giving people randomly generated, unexpected power items is to give them a day in the spotlight and a whiff of power. That's fun but fair, because it works out because people know that they will get their spotlight in the long-run themselves. But if someone gets a gamechanger that will ensure that they always get the spotlight that's unfair and decidedly unfun. No one gives a shit that Bob got a new randomly generated crossbow or that Brian got a cool wand, the Hackmaster +12 is still better than them. Their spotlight, spotlight which they would normally have, gets robbed from them and will continue to get stolen from them unless THEY roll Hackmaster +12s or (more likely) a new campaign starts.

If your solution to this is to go 'whoops, looks like the rest of the story is going to be about how awesome Dave's sword is rather than how awesome the team's powers are' then Hackmasters +12 and Wands of Orcus shouldn't exist in the damn game at all.

[Kaelik]

Lago, your official position is that Dave and Bob care more about what John does with his character than what they do with their character.

That is a dumb idea. You personally may be a controlling asshole who hates what other people do with their characters, and want's to prevent them from being able to do what they want, but 95% of people don't care if John says "I ready my Hackmaster" or "I ready my slightly different sword because Lago is an asshole and threatened to murder me if I used my Hackmaster."

They only care what their character does.

[MGuy]

Lago, your official position is that Dave and Bob care more about what John does with his character than what they do with their character.

That is a dumb idea. You personally may be a controlling asshole who hates what other people do with their characters, and want's to prevent them from being able to do what they want, but 95% of people don't care if John says "I ready my Hackmaster" or "I ready my slightly different sword because Lago is an asshole and threatened to murder me if I used my Hackmaster."

They only care what their character does.

This is not true. If this were true why would anyone care about game balance? Why would anyone care what a wizard can do as long as their fighter can fight. If one guy gets decidedly better than everyone else, even if its done at random, people will care. They will expect that they will get a similar boost. Possibly not in the same area but a boost of equal or almost equal value. I don't actually play much and when I do its one of the more rules light systems but when I do run dnd or Saga edition people care about whether they get a boost in their schtick when or near someone gets theirs.

[Kaelik]

This is not true. If this were true why would anyone care about game balance? Why would anyone care what a wizard can do as long as their fighter can fight. If one guy gets decidedly better than everyone else, even if its done at random, people will care. They will expect that they will get a similar boost. Possibly not in the same area but a boost of equal or almost equal value. I don't actually play much and when I do its one of the more rules light systems but when I do run dnd or Saga edition people care about whether they get a boost in their schtick when or near someone gets theirs.

People care about game balance because it affects what things their character can do. If other people instantly destroy everything you don't get to fight anything.

But that's not Lago's position, as much as he tries to use only the Wand of Orcus as an example.

His actual position is that if some guy decides to be a Fire Swordsman, and is exactly as powerful as every other character, and chooses to say "I cut him with my burning sword." that people will get mad at him for using a burning sword all the time, that they will be so happy when his fire sword burns out, and he has to use an Ice Sword, even though his nickname is "Burninator," that they will be so fucking happy about this that in return, when they are told they can no longer cast Acidballs, and instead have to start casting Fireballs, even though their name is "Meltinator"

Because Lago is insane, and thinks that I care what someone calls their attack more than I care about playing the character I want.

[Crissa]

Because balance and fluff are different.

When the wizard flattens all enemies and Bob doesn't get to waste 'em with his crossbow anymore, then Bob starts getting annoyed. That's balance.

Why would the wizard care if Bob is using the same crossbow or not, if he's still adding his 25% to the foursome?

As far as I can tell, Lago is just saying that +12s aren't as interesting as the difference between a fire sword and an ice sword. Personally, I think we need to choose ahead of time whether there will be monty haul items, and whether or what single-type characters like the Burninator should be able to burn Fire Elementals.

It's not like we're going to end up with a single module we're playing over and over again where we defeat the fire lord and so the fire mage is just going to suck vs the ice mage.

-Crissa

[MGuy]

This is not true. If this were true why would anyone care about game balance? Why would anyone care what a wizard can do as long as their fighter can fight. If one guy gets decidedly better than everyone else, even if its done at random, people will care. They will expect that they will get a similar boost. Possibly not in the same area but a boost of equal or almost equal value. I don't actually play much and when I do its one of the more rules light systems but when I do run dnd or Saga edition people care about whether they get a boost in their schtick when or near someone gets theirs.

People care about game balance because it affects what things their character can do. If other people instantly destroy everything you don't get to fight anything.

But that's not Lago's position, as much as he tries to use only the Wand of Orcus as an example.

His actual position is that if some guy decides to be a Fire Swordsman, and is exactly as powerful as every other character, and chooses to say "I cut him with my burning sword." that people will get mad at him for using a burning sword all the time, that they will be so happy when his fire sword burns out, and he has to use an Ice Sword, even though his nickname is "Burninator," that they will be so fucking happy about this that in return, when they are told they can no longer cast Acidballs, and instead have to start casting Fireballs, even though their name is "Meltinator"

Because Lago is insane, and thinks that I care what someone calls their attack more than I care about playing the character I want.

Well I can't speak for Lago but it seemed he was more saying that people will get mad at the fire swordsman if his Burninating is game winningly more impressive than the diplomancer's diplomancy or the thief's thieving, all because he randomed a "Sword of I burn everything" while the other two are stuck with a crown of minor influence and scarf of slightly lighter steps.

[Kaelik]

Well I can't speak for Lago but it seemed he was more saying that people will get mad at the fire swordsman if his Burninating is game winningly more impressive than the diplomancer's diplomancy or the thief's thieving, all because he randomed a "Sword of I burn everything" while the other two are stuck with a crown of minor influence and scarf of slightly lighter steps.

It seems to me he's a disingenuous bastard who hides behind too powerful items to justify his bullshit goal of not letting the burninator burn.

Look at his comments: "Why can't someone's magical sword just fucken break down after X amount of time and they don't get an equivalent replacement?"

"Dave might be happy going 'Readying my Hackmaster +12!' for the rest of his life, but Bob and Brian are going to get sick of hearing that for awhile. Because while Dave has to deal with the hassle of rewriting his character sheet if he wants to upgrade, the other players have to deal with the repetitiveness.

But by the same token, Dave and Brian also get sick of Bob listening to him saying 'I waste it with my crossbow!' for the 1000th time, even if Bob doesn't. Bob and Dave get tired of Brian going 'Fireballs coming online!'. "

Not "tired of being outshown" tired of hearing about it. Not tired of Fireballs blowing everyone away, tired of fireballs coming online.

He's just a bastard who wants items to blow up so that he doesn't have to deal with other people boring him by doing the same thing over again when he's bored of them being that type of character.

[PhoneLobster]

Or you could just put a time limit on the item

OK so Franks criticism is that time limits are ass and you "can't do dramatic time limits" on items and such.

I suggest you CAN do dramatic time limits by building into "time limited" items a "special action, and this item explodes" action that PLAYERS will want to activate.

If the Rod of Awesome has a power to do something even more awesome than normal, and something with a strong motivation for players to use (like say, saving their character's life at a critical moment) at the cost of expending the item, from time to time it will be used, and when it will be used WILL be a dramatic moment by definition, players will not be able to complain about having it taken from them because it was THEIR choice of action to use it, and GMs can try and manipulate it a bit by pushing the situation towards the use of that action.

Something similar I've been doing in the odd homebrew system lately is giving a similar "expend to save your life" power to items that are purely of plot importance. "Oops", you say, the critical evidence against the kings brother got hurled off the cliff instead of you. Dramatic timing of item expenditure manufactured quite nicely thank you.

Of course all that assumes that the non-expendable uses of the item are not completely bat shit better than everything else (which seems to be Franks current wank) and that the expendable use really is desirable to use (unlike say a life saver use in a regular D&D game where it would mostly be cheaper to just die and use an extra Resurrection after battle).

So even though in the end you CAN do dramatic timing of item expending really easily it still relies on a god damn SANE magic item system, none of this "I am level inappropriate from random item draws!" crap.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I know I posted my thoughts on this not too long ago, but still, all of this D&D Essentials talk leaves me wondering...

Why didn't TSR and 4E release their Boxed Sets for the edition right at the beginning of the edition's lifespan? No one likes latching on to a used fad. People might be willing to jump on the bandwagon for something popular, but TSR and 4E seemed to release these things when the popularity of the editions were waning.

If the goal is to get people hooked on new D&D products, it makes more sense to release the Boxed Sets within a few months or so of the primary line of books. 4E is basically doing it all ass-backwards by discontinuing their old line of products and trying to hook people onto their new production because it alienates old fans to switch horses mid-stream.

That some people will get upset about having their old product not supported anymore seems obvious. It makes more sense to have two separate product lines and have them converge towards your master product line to avoid splitting the fanbase and also to maximize the amount of books you can sell. Because I can guarantee that since D&D Essentials is producing a line of books exclusively for their own product fewer people are going to pick up books from the pre-Essentials line.

[Orca]

I'd assume that in both cases the people in charge of marketing at first didn't like the idea, then later the marketing people were replaced for whatever reason and the new guys decided to try something else. I've seen stuff like this happen where I work (not in gaming).

[Username17]

Why didn't TSR and 4E release their Boxed Sets for the edition right at the beginning of the edition's lifespan?

AD&D was written over a period of four years or so. You couldn't release it all in a box all at once because the complete game did not exist to release. 4e's rules on release were extremely long, and a playable condensed version did not exist.

But you might ask, why would you make the 30 level untested rambling thing before releasing a short and sweet playable 3-5 level game? Well, the answer is partly hubris. But only partly. To be honest, you need to stake out some territory for expansion early or it probably won't exist. Look at what ended up happening with the 3e D&D Joke Book. The saving throws were so divergent by 20t level that they couldn't keep giving people save bonuses in the normal way and they had to resort to epic save bonuses and shit.

Now... I don't think 4e does that much better, since by the mid twenties the difference between your good defenses and your bad defenses is like 10 points. But that's another story. A story of them not playtesting anything past level 12 nor bothering to run basic calculations on things.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

3e D&D Joke Book? What's that?

[virgil]

Epic Level Handbook

[Danchild]

3e D&D Joke Book? What's that?

Just a guess, but I would say the epic level handbook.

Regarding items and powers. An observation that I have made is that players do not mind spamming the same type of power all of the time, providing that the power develops or evolves over time. For example the wizard that opened with charm person at first opportunity, would use dominate person later in their career. It becomes a bit of a signature move. Unfortunately, few such powers scale well or evolve in a meaningful sense over time. By thast I mean a higher save DC, longer duration or more damage. The power is mechanically better, but is not neccesarily more exiting to use.

This is even more exaggerated with magical items. Simply adding another +1 to a magical weapon is not really a meaningful upgrade in and of itself. The optimiser in me is no going to say no to another +1, but the storyteller in me is hard pressed to explain why it is better. Adding effects can be good, but can often lead to excessive management. Such as a shocking, flaming burst, keen, bodyfeeding falchion of speed.

That WoF system looks promising. At the very least, it will keep players engaged in combat.

[Starmaker]

3e D&D Joke Book? What's that?

It's Hot Outside	Sandstorm
It's Cold Outside	Frostburn
It's Wet Outside	Stormwrack
It's Crowded Outside	Cityscape
It's Not Outside	Dungeonscape
Races of Rabbit Fucking	Races of the Wild
Races of Short	Races of Stone
Tome of Wet Tissues: Book of 9 Papercuts Weeaboo Fightan Magic	Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords
Ghostbusters d20	Expanded Psionics Handbook
Complete Garbage	Complete Mage
Andy Hates Fighters	Complete Warrior
WTF Editing?!	Complete Divine
Complete Lack of Innovation	Complete Scoundrel
Ghostbusters II d20	Complete Psionic
Calamari Cooking!	Lords of Madness
Book of Vile Body Piercings	Book of Vile Darkness
Book of Exalted Furries	Book of Exalted Deeds
D&D Joke Book	Epic Level Handbook
Lute and Loot	Song & Silence
Skip Hates Sorcerers	Tome & Blood
Sticks and Stones	Masters of the Wild

Edit: re

Complete Warrior should be called Skip Hates Fighters

That's "Andy Hates Fighters", Skip doesn't even have CW in his list of credits.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Complete Warrior should be called Skip Hates Fighters and Complete Divine should be WTF Editing?!

Psionics Players Handbook should be called Ghostbusters d20, with Complete Psionics being called Ghostbusters 2 d20.

[RobbyPants]

Ghostbusters? For the ectoplasm?