The Gaming Den

Fuchs wrote:

Blicero wrote:

Fuchs wrote: That makes no sense. If the treasure is random NPCs should have random treasure too. Why would dwarves get hammers and elves get swords while PCs can't pick their theme?

Crafting?

If you can craft the loot you want no one cares about random loot at all other than to finance your crafting.

Well, if crafting an item that is level appropriate for you is a nontrivial expenditure of time, but crafting items that are less-than-level-appropriate for you is a trivial expenditure of time, then minions can be easily equipped with whatever sorts of items match the BBEG's paradigm (because he has a guy who crafts them), but the BBEG and his closest cohorts use whatever the best (random) things they came across were. The BBEG may also have modeled his aesthetic after that item.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:

Fuchs wrote:

Blicero wrote:
Crafting?

If you can craft the loot you want no one cares about random loot at all other than to finance your crafting.

Well, if crafting an item that is level appropriate for you is a nontrivial expenditure of time, but crafting items that are less-than-level-appropriate for you is a trivial expenditure of time, then minions can be easily equipped with whatever sorts of items match the BBEG's paradigm (because he has a guy who crafts them), but the BBEG and his closest cohorts use whatever the best (random) things they came across were. The BBEG may also have modeled his aesthetic after that item.

If the elves and dwarves have not level appropriate loot then their loot does not matter.

Fuchs wrote:If the elves and dwarves have not level appropriate loot then their loot does not matter.

It's level appropriate for them, but they're lower level than the guy their boss has to make the stuff to outfit his minions.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:

Fuchs wrote:If the elves and dwarves have not level appropriate loot then their loot does not matter.

It's level appropriate for them, but they're lower level than the guy their boss has to make the stuff to outfit his minions.

Still doesn't explain why you can't have others make stuff for you then, if "minions" of your level get equipped you should be able to pay for the same stuff.

Wishlists (up to and including "I wish for a level appropriate sword") are bad design because they a psychologically less rewarding (because the player is given something rather than earning it). This wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that it is a strike against verisimilitude for the requests of a player OOC to directly influence in game events outside of their character. Also, the "level appropriate" request is irrelevant, since the MC doesn't choose which adventures the players go on (when they do, it's called railroading), and level appropriate adventures give level appropriate loot (which is reasonable from a real world perspective: more valuable resources have tougher security).

Ideally, when one writes up a campaign world, it includes places and/or methods of acquiring or making a wide enough spread of magic weapons such that if a player specifically wants a level appropriate khopesh, he need merely be able to find out which adventures are likely to contain them (by prescribed methods; for instance looking for rumors which will inform you that the southern hobgoblin tribes wield khopeshs, and their reputation suggests that raiding one of their camps would be a level appropriate adventure.

Random rolls are a way of maintaining fair treasure when you lack the time and/or motivation to map out a campaign world so completely. Variable ratio schedule reinforcement tends to give high steady responses, so it works out well in the stead of Place Everything, the most verisimilar option.

Fuchs wrote:

RadiantPhoenix wrote:

Fuchs wrote:If the elves and dwarves have not level appropriate loot then their loot does not matter.

It's level appropriate for them, but they're lower level than the guy their boss has to make the stuff to outfit his minions.

Still doesn't explain why you can't have others make stuff for you then, if "minions" of your level get equipped you should be able to pay for the same stuff.

You pay for the stuff by doing quests for someone who has a crafter of high enough level on their staff.

If crafting the weapons is a trivial enough amount of time that villains regularly equip their mook-level minions with magically crafted weapons of the same level as the PCs currently are, they're trivial enough to not require a full sidequest. In fact, if there's anyone of that level of strength or near it on your side concerning the main quest, it should be trivially easy to bargain for level-appropriate weapons of whatever type you want and even with whatever qualities you want as a quest reward for the main plot.

Regarding the ability to maintain one's signature weapon shtick, would an acceptable compromise be the MC making whatever weapons (or other tchochkies) the PCs select common among certain groups in the region?

So the guy that decides to play the katana samurai from a faraway land learns that the orcish tribes in this area use a sword very similar in style to his own due to the influence of ogre magi and other oni. Sure, it might be a little weird depending on the particular focus (the bugbears of Blackwood are the finest silk harvesters!), but the point is to accommodate it without turning the PC into some bizarre obscure item magnet, right? This way you avoid the situation where you're fighting longbow and spear users for 3 adventures and when the guy with the hooked hammer shows up and the rest of the party goes, "Oh, there's Bob's weapon upgrade."

Unless I'm missing the point and the aim really is to be the only whip-wielding, hair-shirt-wearing, self-flagellating psychic fanatic in the land. In that case, you better be prepared to provide yourself with your own shit.

Regarding the ability to maintain one's signature weapon shtick, would an acceptable compromise be the MC making whatever weapons (or other tchochkies) the PCs select common among certain groups in the region?

The other side calls this completely unacceptable because they have their entire world statted up straight from the get-go. So a PC making a weird weapon selection just means that they won't ever find that weapon.

Chamomile wrote:If crafting the weapons is a trivial enough amount of time that villains regularly equip their mook-level minions with magically crafted weapons of the same level as the PCs currently are, they're trivial enough to not require a full sidequest.

Well, that assumes the PCs are the same level as the mooks, and that the mooks don't actually have to work very hard, both of which sound like fairly big assumptions to me.

Seerow wrote:

Regarding the ability to maintain one's signature weapon shtick, would an acceptable compromise be the MC making whatever weapons (or other tchochkies) the PCs select common among certain groups in the region?

The other side calls this completely unacceptable because they have their entire world statted up straight from the get-go. So a PC making a weird weapon selection just means that they won't ever find that weapon.

Have they? My impression has been that they'll provide avenues for acquisition, but they're not going to just drop things in the PC's laps if they choose not to pursue them. That's not really an unreasonable position, is it?

I think the "random" aspect of treasure refers to anything that deviates from the base optimization of the group. You have groups where everyone will have an Anklet of Translocation and a Cloak of Resistance and a Belt of Healing because those are all good and useful and cheap. By extension, NPCs that equip as PCs do (albeit at lower wealth levels) will probably have very similar gear load-outs (unless we're going with the presumption that the PCs have collected all N of the Cloaks in the realm/world/existence, which seems odd for non-artifacts). Random magic means, at least to me, that most opponents aren't going to have whatever item trifecta the PCs have decided on as cool or effective or prudent. Sometimes they'll have a Horn of Valhalla, or a Folding Boat, or just a sack of gems and jewelry. Whatever the hell the MC rolled up. Point is, the opposition will probably have some things that the PCs would never seek out, craft, or purchase--and sometimes the PCs will be really happy or intrigued by the find. Other times, they'll just sell the Apparatus for a +5 weapon.

edit to add: This means that your classes and cultures can have their signature weapons (and you can go ahead and be the unusual half-orc katana wielding duelist) but that the people you fight probably won't have any specific thing you're looking for. If you want a new katana, you'll probably need to beg, buy, or steal one from the hobgoblin tribe that makes and uses them if the dice don't happen to drop one in the treasure pile of the dragon you've killed. If the player (or the party) is unwilling to do that, then those are the breaks.

Have they? My impression has been that they'll provide avenues for acquisition, but they're not going to just drop things in the PC's laps if they choose not to pursue them. That's not really an unreasonable position, is it?

The methods I've seen proposed from them are:

1) Spend a feat to get a level appropriate weapon. Congratulations you've now spent a feat to have the same benefit as the other guy who doesn't care what shape his weapon is. You have made yourself objectively worse.

2) Get a class feature to get a level appropriate weapon. This one is better, but depends largely on the class. And you have most likely locked yourself into this one class for your career. Given melee classes (the ones who care about the weapons) are the ones who benefit most from multiclassing, this is another painful option.


(remember for the above two, everyone hates wealth by level, so you can't balance these abilities by saying you have this weapon plus the same gear as everyone else. The weapon you get is part of the gear everyone gets)

3) You can try to get a sidequest to go find your weapon, but accept the fact that there is a strong chance you will never complete that sidequest, because the party is more interested in doing other things, and the target of that sidequest could never be coinciding with a sidequest somebody else wants to do, because that would hurt verisimilitude too much.

4) You can try to buy the weapon, but mage marts don't exist, so this usually takes you back to needing to do a sidequest.



So basically no matter how you try to go about it, you're stuck relying on RNG because every other option is unreliable or directly makes your character weaker.

I think the "random" aspect of treasure refers to anything that deviates from the base optimization of the group. You have groups where everyone will have an Anklet of Translocation and a Cloak of Resistance and a Belt of Healing because those are all good and useful and cheap. By extension, NPCs that equip as PCs do (albeit at lower wealth levels) will probably have very similar gear load-outs (unless we're going with the presumption that the PCs have collected all N of the Cloaks in the realm/world/existence, which seems odd for non-artifacts). Random magic means, at least to me, that most opponents aren't going to have whatever item trifecta the PCs have decided on as cool or effective or prudent. Sometimes they'll have a Horn of Valhalla, or a Folding Boat, or just a sack of gems and jewelry. Whatever the hell the MC rolled up. Point is, the opposition will probably have some things that the PCs would never seek out, craft, or purchase--and sometimes the PCs will be really happy or intrigued by the find. Other times, they'll just sell the Apparatus for a +5 weapon.

And this isn't something I've ever really argued against. Like I pointed out in my last post or two, you can have completely randomly rolled treasure and just fudge the weapon type when a weapon drops to something the players are actually interested in. If you're randomly rolling a +5 lightning quarterstaff when you don't have anyone using a quarterstaff, what does it hurt to make that quarterstaff a longsword instead? Nothing except it's not 100% random and that is bad to some people. If you rolled up a horn of valhalla or a folding boat, then that's great.

I mean hell, I actually recently got a new DM, and he asked me explicitly for a wish list. I gave him a couple of things I thought would be fitting for me, and then wrote "surprise me" below it. I don't mind having a lot of random shit, but when there's something that I think the character would benefit from having, it's really nice to be able to get it without gimping yourself, which is what the majority of the shitposting here has been about.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

MGuy wrote:The reason I think this is the case is because the second thing (wishlists) isn't something anyone is saying is "the" solution, just that its better than Frank/Lago's suggestion that having it be Random is better.

I think that Frank & Lago's suggestion is that the items an enemy drops should be the items an enemy has. An enemy wizard will have a spell book and a headband of intellect, even if the PCs are a sorcerer, a cleric, and a barbarian. When you defeat the kobold queen, you probably won't find that she was using a magic human-scale greatsword. Saughins probably won't be running around with bows and axes.

None of that is random. What it allows you to do, as a player, is raid the elves if you want a magic sword, the dwarves if you want a magic hammer, or the orcs if you want a magic axe. You can try to defeat a rival spiked chain master, knowing that her weapon is going to be great for you. You can capture a rival wizard's spellbook. You can decide to quest after Grummsh's spear rather than the Sword of Kas, because you're a spear user.

Then there's the gelatinous cube. Totally arbitrary treasure gives the DM a chance to try to give the players items that they'll really appreciate -- and they'll appreciate it more if they weren't expecting it in the first place. Sometimes you'll get things wrong, and the player will try to pawn your gift. Don't take it the wrong way; just try to do better next Christmas.

This is a valid thing to do. But so is letting a Sword Master continuously get swords in the numerous ways that exist that allow him to still primarily use swords. All Frank's suggestion does (that's Frank not Lago who wants shit to be completely random) does is establish there is another valid method of play that does not include letting a Sword Master get a Sword in a situation where there is no sword present. It barely ties into what anyone else is saying or what he claims he's disagreeing with. PL has been very vehement about pointing out the rest of the flaws in Frank's opening arguments. He's been spouting it for pages.

You know that if swords didn't have bonuses from +1 to +5, we never could have had this argument?

This whole issue of designing a solution to the problem of people getting level-appropriate gear revolves around the problem of gear being a critical element to a character's make-up and the designed obsolescence of that gear.

I wonder why addressing the symptom is so much preferred to addressing the cause? I mean, I personally have made more than a few bad design decisions trying to patch a flawed core mechanic as opposed to complete replacement.

For once, K says something intelligent.

One absolute requisite for "Magic Items being optional cool stuff" is that they cannot just be +X items, because:

a)We want to keep people on the RNG.
b)We want a somewhat equal shared screentime between characters.
c)+X items just aren't cool anymore. MMOs made sure fo that.

Those three things were noticed at least on the first 3 posts after Cook's original post on Magic Intems on the WotC site, which was at least 4 30+ page threads ago.

But then, this is just people discussing which school of roleplaying kung-fu is superior (signature weapons vs. no-signature weapons). And the usual Player vs. DM arguments that came up on every single TTRPG thread ever.

We still would have had a similar argument since the core argument from both Lago and Frank seems to be "I hate signature weapons", dressed up and disguised as something else though instead of personal preference.

There should be no more or less expectation of being able to choose your own class features as you level up than being able to choose you items. Items are a collective pool of abilities that nevertheless usually end up as individual property. Characters willshould also end up with class features that they don't directly choose, like 'Arctic Survival' after surviving in the Arctic or 'Touched by Cain' after being meeting Cain.

So the question is, how many of a character's abilities should be decided upon by the DM ('random' acquisition), how many should be decided by the player ('wish lists' & class lists), and how many should be decided collaboratively (sought-after artifacts, guild memberships).

K wrote:You know that if swords didn't have bonuses from +1 to +5, we never could have had this argument?

This whole issue of designing a solution to the problem of people getting level-appropriate gear revolves around the problem of gear being a critical element to a character's make-up and the designed obsolescence of that gear.

I wonder why addressing the symptom is so much preferred to addressing the cause? I mean, I personally have made more than a few bad design decisions trying to patch a flawed core mechanic as opposed to complete replacement.

This was brought up in the last thread, and got drowned out by Lago whining about how verticle advancement was needed to make a character more fun.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:There should be no more or less expectation of being able to choose your own class features as you level up than being able to choose you items.

I can't agree to that. A class feature is intrinsic to the character, an item is by definition extrinsic. As a player you should have more control over intrinsic factors and less control over extrinsic factors.

For example: as a player character you have skill points. You are 100% in control over how those are spent. As a party you find a Blood Mace. As a player character you have one vote in 3-6 over who gets the Blood Mace. Because the skill points are intrinsic and completely controlled by you and the Blood Mace is extrinsic and only partially controlled by you.

I really don't see how it is even possible to claim otherwise. People who say that they should have the same rights to their furniture as they do to their own bodies are weird beyond belief. You have more rights to yourself than to your stuff. There isn't any possible argument otherwise.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote: I really don't see how it is even possible to claim otherwise. People who say that they should have the same rights to their furniture as they do to their own bodies are weird beyond belief. You have more rights to yourself than to your stuff. There isn't any possible argument otherwise.

We aren't really talking about ownership. We're talking about a set of game rules. You really don't even have 'rights' to your own character; there are countless in-game behaviors that you can make an argument for having a right to that will get you and your character kicked very, very far out of the game. Using personal rights analogies as a basis for anything here is a little off. Roleplaying is more like a bunch of filthy communism where the group owns everything mandated through the power of the great DM, who can drop rocks on your PC. If you're lucky, your communist authoritorian overlords are not corrupt and you can all have a bunch of fun.

Also, "class feature" was a bad term for what Catharz is actually describing; he mentions "campaign features" that come about during play. So you have intrinsic features of your character that are both self-granted (class features) and externally-granted (campaign features), and you have extrinsic features of your character that are externally-granted (items). Some games/characters even have extrinsic features that are self-granted (Build Your Own Superhero games, D&D Samurai). The current D&D set-up is that your power depends heavily on class features and items. The rest barely even exist in D&D. When designing your character, you can only control one of those, and the other you are depending on the game to provide you with, or else you cannot be level appropriate.

So, does the fact that something is externally granted justify denying it to a PC if that causes them to not be level appropriate? Ignoring the single weapon user shit, suppose some PC has an item dependency (any item dependency, even a dependency as broad as "needs a melee weapon") that cannot be realistically fulfilled due to events in the campaign setting that arise during play. Is it justified to let that PC go obsolete? Is it justified to force the ultimatum on the player "new character or suck?" Or can you tweak the events in such a way that they fulfill the dependency? (As opposed to being foreseeable, like trying to be a Space Ranger in Greyhawk.)

If the party goes to study with the elves, you can choose to have them teach you Tracking, Archery, or Attuning Magic with Nature. If you want to learn Axe-Swinging or Pyromancy instead, the elves will be very upset with you.

You could certainly make a game where you had a massive selection of items (because of stores and pet crafters), but all of your class features were chosen by random roll (because of magical infusions, destiny, once-in-a-lifetime training opportunities, etc.). I maintain that it might be amusing.

DSMatticus wrote:So, does the fact that something is externally granted justify denying it to a PC if that causes them to not be level appropriate? Ignoring the single weapon user shit, suppose some PC has an item dependency (any item dependency, even a dependency as broad as "needs a melee weapon") that cannot be realistically fulfilled due to events in the campaign setting that arise during play. Is it justified to let that PC go obsolete? Is it justified to force the ultimatum on the player "new character or suck?" Or can you tweak the events in such a way that they fulfill the dependency? (As opposed to being foreseeable, like trying to be a Space Ranger in Greyhawk.)

This seems like it would require such a convoluted scenario in order to come to pass, and would probably be short-lived regardless, that I'm going to say it would be totally fine to have happen.

I mean, what's the point of item-(in)dependency if it's considered dirty pool should it ever come up?

K wrote:You know that if swords didn't have bonuses from +1 to +5, we never could have had this argument?

This whole issue of designing a solution to the problem of people getting level-appropriate gear revolves around the problem of gear being a critical element to a character's make-up and the designed obsolescence of that gear.

I wonder why addressing the symptom is so much preferred to addressing the cause? I mean, I personally have made more than a few bad design decisions trying to patch a flawed core mechanic as opposed to complete replacement.

Yes. Though you're not the first person to mention this.

FrankTrollman wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:There should be no more or less expectation of being able to choose your own class features as you level up than being able to choose you items.

I can't agree to that. A class feature is intrinsic to the character, an item is by definition extrinsic. As a player you should have more control over intrinsic factors and less control over extrinsic factors.

For example: as a player character you have skill points. You are 100% in control over how those are spent. As a party you find a Blood Mace. As a player character you have one vote in 3-6 over who gets the Blood Mace. Because the skill points are intrinsic and completely controlled by you and the Blood Mace is extrinsic and only partially controlled by you.

I really don't see how it is even possible to claim otherwise. People who say that they should have the same rights to their furniture as they do to their own bodies are weird beyond belief. You have more rights to yourself than to your stuff. There isn't any possible argument otherwise.

-Username17

Frank, a player should not have the choice of keeping her character from learning from her experiences. If she does an arctic exploration adventure, she shouldn't be able to choose to trade all of that geographical, ecological, and survival knowledge for research or arcane lore.

If the character wanted to increase research and arcane lore, she should have chosen to go on a dungeon crawl in the Great Library of Ilsensine or something.

That said, it's reasonable to allow PCs to both learn from their experiences (GM/collaboratively determined advancement) and assumed regular practice (player-determined advancement). If the character was studying her tomes and doing a bit of magic research during her downtime in the arctic (for example, while preparing spells), it would be totally reasonable for her to improve in all of the above skills.

violence wrote:This seems like it would require such a convoluted scenario in order to come to pass, and would probably be short-lived regardless, that I'm going to say it would be totally fine to have happen.

We are talking general case. Not specific case. Whether or not it requires a convoluted scenario depends entirely on the specifics of:
1) What is the item dependency?
2) What is the setting, and what items are frequent in it?
3) What quests are the players choosing to undertake, and how does that affect available items?

It's a really simple question. When verisimilitude and expectations of party appropriate power clash, which one wins?

Half of the arguments being thrown around here are about minimizing the damage to verisimilitude. And the other half are about players not being entitled to magic items. Which sounds like a crock of shit to me in any system where players depend on magic items to perform at expectation levels. You are entitled to be an equally contributing member of the party, and if that means items, items are an entitlement. Not specific items or reading off exact wishlists, but fulfilling your item dependencies.

violence wrote:I mean, what's the point of item-(in)dependency if it's considered dirty pool should it ever come up?

Because people like having shinies and the game has vertical magic items. Do you think "depends upon a magical weapon" was an intended potential drawback of every class but dedicated casters? Or do you think it was intended that they would have those magical weapons to use for the vast majority of challenges?