The Gaming Den

In the source material, or at least some of it, there's a sense that a character will stick with such things.

Characters will do things for reasons that have nothing to do with any practical effect - for instance, wielding the sword of their father because that sword was passed down to them, or refusing to shave the moustache out of sheer pride (I'm not sure what sense of the word is most appropriate here).

In games, having that attitude is either actively mocked - by making it so that those things are useless and meaningless (actively detrimental), or rewarded - as in, you're better off wielding your father's sword because it is a better sword, or you get a Do Better On Some Roll point if you refuse to shave.

But it doesn't seem that someone uses their father's sword because they can't find a better weapon. There's a certain amount of irrational emotion-based decision making at work - but games seem to want to make that either not so irrational after all or just plain stupid, as said.

Now, if you don't really care about whether or not your character is using his father's sword or not - sure, you wouldn't mind that, but you don't think its particularly cool, I'd appreciate it if you'd just note it and leave it there. Its perfectly legitimate - not all or even most characters should care. But some will.

For those who do think that is cool, what do we do?

There's something disappointing in how roleplaying games don't do justice to it being "meaningful" in the sense the character feels it honors his father's spirit or whatever. That ought to be encouraged and praised, not either penalized or given large bonuses.

Any other thoughts?

My personal choice is divorcing the bonuses from the item and making all 'required' increases to rolls be gained by level. But this is a tricky proposition and doesn't really change much of anything mechanically. You still have X bonus, you just don't have to change your flavor of the week. Also requires you to do it for EVERY magic item that gives a bonus or else you get monster stacking ridiculousness.

If it doesn't give a bonus or penalty to something then what do you want it to do?

Would it be out of line for it to generate unique quests or options or something? Though those things can be usurped by other party members.

Would it be OK if doing your thing let you automagically keep pace with whatever the game expected you to be doing with that trait?

Personally, I'd like it to be something that the character cares about.

I mean, seriously. Does it make any visible difference to what the character can/can't do for him to be using his father's sword? Does his life revolve around it?

No. But he does prefer using it, for instance.

I'm not sure how many unqiue quests and options you can really generate (I'd like to see what you're thinking of before commenting aye or nay) from something that's just "the sword you father wielded before you".

As for keeping pace: That sounds a lot like giving bonuses - maybe not bonuses bigger than anything else, but it winds up with "You need a +5 bludgeoning weapon? Conveniently, your ancestral sword is a +5 bludgeoning weapon for purposes of this fight."

It seems like you want to actively penalize players who want their character to use his father's sword. If everybody else gets a bonus and you don't, you are behind by as much as if no one got a bonus but you took a penalty the size of the normal bonus. If you refuse to keep the Father's Sword option mechanically balanced with the Frostmourne option, then you are penalizing characters for doing what you want them to do. Otherwise, this is a pure roleplaying distinction that you just write into your flavor text for whoever.

If a player's choices keep her character from 'keeping pace', she must by necessity 'fall behind'. Unless every other player decides to have a similarly sub-par character, there will be within party balance problems.


So you have a choice:
(1) Characters who choose to stick with their old gear fall behind.
(2) Characters' old gear keeps up.
(3) Characters never acquire gear better than that which they started with.

This isn't a straw man or false trichotomy. As usual, Elsannar, it's simply not possible to meet all of the goals you have for both fluff and mechanics at the same time.

I've got nothing at the moment for unique quests or options. However, I wasn't imagining that the ancestral sword becomes bludgeoning--just that it becomes +5 at the appropriate level.

Otherwise, I don't really know what you're looking for. There's nothing stopping you from doing what you say and just choosing to use your father's sword or uncle's moustache or whatever. Are you upset that more players don't do such a thing?

I'm trying to figure out how to comment on this in a helpful way, but it sounds to me like someone insisting on building everything with a single tool, despite having multitudes of better tools for different tasks. You can't effectively cut lumber with a belt sander, for example, even if it was your granddad's.

It seems like you want to actively penalize players who want their character to use his father's sword. If everybody else gets a bonus and you don't, you are behind by as much as if no one got a bonus but you took a penalty the size of the normal bonus.

See, this is a problem I have with game design here - there's no room on the Den for anything that isn't 100%.

Either you're at the highest possible bonus you can get for something, or you're actively gimping yourself because you're a moron/loser/don't get math/masochistic/whatever.

Otherwise, this is a pure roleplaying distinction that you just write into your flavor text for whoever.

Which winds up meaning "Who cares?" Who cares about a bunch of flavor text you'll read exactly once if that's all that it is?

Personally, I think having Frostmourne as something PCs can expect to (as opposed to it being possible but unlikely) ruins the entire concept of having such background stuff - having everyone and their mother be using "above average" stuff rapidly means that "average" is what is supposedly exceptional.

And while its an entirely seperate discussion on how exceptional the PCs "should" be, it should not be damned as useless not to use the biggest sword or whatever you can....that just leaves the game made up of winners and losers.

Not what I signed up for when I got into roleplaying games.

This isn't a straw man or false trichotomy. As usual, Elsannar, it's simply not possible to meet all of the goals you have for both fluff and mechanics at the same time.

The point is, there may BE better swords out there, but its not like you reach 3rd level and you get a +1 sword because that's the "right time" to get one.

That makes having better than average (+/-0 from your raw modifiers) a given - which kind of defeats the idea that most people use average stuff unless you want to heavily emphasis that the PCs are far removed from "most".

For other reasons, that's not desirable.

So you might be able to get better gear - and you could certainly try, but it wouldn't be necessary.

Otherwise, I don't really know what you're looking for. There's nothing stopping you from doing what you say and just choosing to use your father's sword or uncle's moustache or whatever. Are you upset that more players don't do such a thing?

I'm upset that the game makes it so that unless you use a +5 sword, not only are you weaker than someone who does, but you're weaker than necessary to deal with the stuff you're facing.

I'm upset that the game makes doing something that is meaningful to your character but not efficient is both discouraged by mechanics and not encouraged in fluff - you don't do (whatever it is) because you lose your powers if you do it, not because your character has taken an oath and beleives that oaths are Serious Business.

If +5 (or +1 even) swords were rare and special artifacts that only a few people (which may or may not include the PCs) ever found, then having the SoMF be merely masterwork wouldn't be nearly so bad in terms of balance. You could get a better sword, but its not something you would definately get barring clinging obsessively to your old one.

"An oath is an oath precisely because it cannot be removed!" is a lot cooler than "If I do that, I'll lose my paladin powers, and be even suckier than I am already."

In a level-based system, the best way to handle the father's sword thing is just to let the ancestral weapon upgrade itself to keep pace with expected badassery. The assumption is that at the beginning it has more power than the PC is skilled enough to tap, and at the end the player's own deeds have outstripped their ancestors', and it's now a reflection of their own awesomeness.

In a non-level-based system, that sort of thing is less of an issue.

On the moustache subject, nobody gives a care about the actual moustache. It's just hair. The dramatic concern is always about what the moustache represents - traditions, hopes & dreams, etc. In a system which recognizes those sorts of things as having weight, related behavior will presumably also have some weight.

In a non-level-based system, that sort of thing is less of an issue.

Out of curiosity, and ignoring "DR (X)/+5" appearing, is there any reason why it makes sense for level 20 characters to get +5 weapons? Shouldn't they be hitting (as a matter of skill and such vs. skill and such) just as often?

Damage, maybe, is an issue.

In a system which recognizes those sorts of things as having weight, related behavior will presumably also have some weight.

The problem is, for Strum specifically, it is a tradition that holding true to isn't benefiting him - it may be what kind of life he wants to lead, and he'd be disappointed in himself if he failed it, but that gets into pyschology, not cultural factors.

And representing "disappointed in himself" is more difficult, in a "hard" sense, than "despised by your peers".

You can't represent "disappointed in himself" at all. That's Strum's player's decision.

Are you trying to represent Strum failing to maintain his mustache mechanically?

You can't represent "disappointed in himself" at all. That's Strum's player's decision.

That just means that no one will (or those who would otherwise will be mocked for) decide that he's disappointed.

Its not encouraged in either fluff or mechanics. And it can hurt you. Remind me what the reason I picked to play a character with that quirk again was?

Oh wait, its because I wanted to play someone with that quirk. Which will rapidly be called "stupid".

Are you trying to represent Strum failing to maintain his mustache mechanically?

More like the reason Strum refused to shave it off when he and Tanis and the others were trying to disguise themselves as women.

I'm kind of irked at the idea that it would be a no brainer to have him shave it unless he gets a penalty for that (or a bonus for keeping it) - it certainly isn't for Strum.

Elennsar wrote:

This isn't a straw man or false trichotomy. As usual, Elsannar, it's simply not possible to meet all of the goals you have for both fluff and mechanics at the same time.

The point is, there may BE better swords out there, but its not like you reach 3rd level and you get a +1 sword because that's the "right time" to get one.

That makes having better than average (+/-0 from your raw modifiers) a given - which kind of defeats the idea that most people use average stuff unless you want to heavily emphasis that the PCs are far removed from "most".

For other reasons, that's not desirable.

So you might be able to get better gear - and you could certainly try, but it wouldn't be necessary.

Would the game be balanced for a character that has better gear, or one who doesn't? Or would the game simply not be balanced?

You could certainly have a system where 'has a better magic sword' is a level-based ability, such that if you have a better sword you're balanced as being higher level. Then they guys who don't have better swords would have to have something else to be considered of equivalent level.

Elennsar wrote: If +5 (or +1 even) swords were rare and special artifacts that only a few people (which may or may not include the PCs) ever found, then having the SoMF be merely masterwork wouldn't be nearly so bad in terms of balance. You could get a better sword, but its not something you would definately get barring clinging obsessively to your old one.

How "rare" and "special" artifacts are is purely flavor text. You (or your enemies) either have one or you don't. If you make the rarity mechanical (as 2e would), then 1% of all games have an obscenely overpowered character and in 99% of games your artifacts might as well not exist.

In the first case, the sword of my father being merely masterwork sucks because your friend overshadows you with her holy avenger every single combat. In the second case, the "masterwork" sword of my father isn't any worse than your friend's sword because your friend's sword is also merely a masterwork blade.

You could certainly have a system where 'has a better magic sword' is a level-based ability, such that if you have a better sword you're balanced as being higher level. Then they guys who don't have better swords would have to have something else to be considered of equivalent level.

Or maybe the game could actually make it so that not having the highest possible bonus was still capable of contributing so that you could have someone with a +1 and someone without it and they'd be able to take on roughly the same challenges.

How "rare" and "special" artifacts are is purely flavor text. You (or your enemies) either have one or you don't. If you make the rarity mechanical (as 2e would), then 1% of all games have an obscenely overpowered character and in 99% of games your artifacts might as well not exist.

So something that the PCs don't discover might as well not exist to begin with?

What a limited setting. A real imagination shackler.

Having a +2 sword in a game where the SoMF is a masterwork blade does not make the guy with a +2 win every single fight with ease.

A full out holy avenger might, but that kind of sword in the above would overshadow anything else.

I think its down to the basic level system: a level X character should have numbers in the range A-B for the things they're good at. However, if a level X character has numbers smaller then A then they are not a level X character.

If a character decides to use their father's sword and due to this ends up having numbers smaller than A then using the father's sword is like having negative levels. As in, to the character it is like having a cursed sword. If continuing to use your father's sword is a curse then you will be bringing down the party by using it: most parties wouldn't leave a party member cursed if they could remove it.

Elennsar wrote:There's something disappointing in how roleplaying games don't do justice to it being "meaningful" in the sense the character feels it honors his father's spirit or whatever. That ought to be encouraged and praised, not either penalized or given large bonuses.

Lets try an example. Your father was a level 8 Fighter and had a +2 Flaming Longsword as a weapon. When you got to level 8 you found your fathers killer and took back your father's sword. However, now you are level 14 and your father's sword is still a +2 Flaming Longsword and your party has just found a +5 Adamantine longsword.

Is this the sort of situation you are talking about? Continuing to use the father's sword, even though it isn't the best option, because it is your father's? In this case it is like the character is cursed: they have 3 less attack bonus and go through DR less often.

You seem to be saying that you should leave it as it is: the player gets enough self-fulfilment from roleplaying the character continuing to honour his father.

---

Elennsar wrote:Out of curiosity, and ignoring "DR (X)/+5" appearing, is there any reason why it makes sense for level 20 characters to get +5 weapons? Shouldn't they be hitting (as a matter of skill and such vs. skill and such) just as often?

I have no idea whatsoever what you mean. Do you mean that they should be hitting just as often with +1 weapons as +5 weapons? As in, someone with a relative +4 bonus should hit just as often as someone without?

You seem to be saying that you should leave it as it is: the player gets enough self-fulfilment from roleplaying the character continuing to honour his father.

I'd consider that a very good thing - and more importantly, I'd consider the game having "When you get to level 8 you find your fathers killer and took back your father's sword." much cooler than the game having "You are level 14...and your party has just found a +5 Adamantine longsword."

Treating it as a "curse" to not have the biggest possible bonus makes for extremely limited characters - either they're masters or losers.

I like, for instance, having a more well rounded character (in M&M, where I have +5 for base attack/defense...game is PL 6) than if I put +6 in both, even if it would be in some ways more effective to go for +6/+6. I don't like the idea that makes me "underpowered" - that kind of campaign would be either boring or frustrating or both.

I have no idea whatsoever what you mean. Do you mean that they should be hitting just as often with +1 weapons as +5 weapons? As in, someone with a relative +4 bonus should hit just as often as someone without?

Phrased as a question, hopefully clearer:
Is there any reason that you should need a +5 sword to do the same things relative to your opponents at level 20 that you could do at level 4 with a +1 sword?

Having a bigger sword be "necessary" as you gain levels doesn't make sense...you still get a +5% bonus to hit with the +1 sword, why do you need a +25% bonus now? Did your attack drop or something?

Elennsar wrote:

You could certainly have a system where 'has a better magic sword' is a level-based ability, such that if you have a better sword you're balanced as being higher level. Then they guys who don't have better swords would have to have something else to be considered of equivalent level.

Or maybe the game could actually make it so that not having the highest possible bonus was still capable of contributing so that you could have someone with a +1 and someone without it and they'd be able to take on roughly the same challenges.

Yeah, you do that by making +1 to a roll insignificant.

Elennsar wrote:

How "rare" and "special" artifacts are is purely flavor text. You (or your enemies) either have one or you don't. If you make the rarity mechanical (as 2e would), then 1% of all games have an obscenely overpowered character and in 99% of games your artifacts might as well not exist.

So something that the PCs don't discover might as well not exist to begin with?

What a limited setting. A real imagination shackler.

Well, that's every setting ever. Making up stories that the players never hear about might be fun for you, but it doesn't actually improve the game.

Having a +2 sword in a game where the SoMF is a masterwork blade does not make the guy with a +2 win every single fight with ease.

You do that by making the +2 from the special sword insignificant.


[Edit]
The fundamental problem the TSoMF in D&D is that it's a bad choice. Unless your father's sword was forged by a god, a sword forged by a god is going to be more exciting.

Your hypothetical character picks up a sword, discovers that it's way better than what she's using, and the tosses it aside. That's an intentionally suboptimal choice, just like bow hunting when you could use a rifle. If you encourage that behavior, to some extent you have to make all choices meaningless.

A less neurotic character wouldn't toss aside her father's sword (after all, it's a treasured heirloom), but she wouldn't take a knife to a gunfight just because the knife belonged to her grandmother.
[/Edit]

I don't understand how you can say 'But finding Excalibur isn't cool, because he has a sword that's lesser.'

So, choose a path that you like. Either allow him to upgrade his father's sword via level attachment or don't hand out bonuses based upon weapon.

It's really a simple solution. And yes, the game is so designed that characters are expected to have a +n by a certain level, although you can change that based upon encounters.

-Crissa

Well, that's every setting ever. Making up stories that the players never hear about might be fun for you, but it doesn't actually improve the game.

Hearing that the Empress gave birth to twins is cool, even if you have nothing to do with the Empress.

Having things happen that the players never deal with is fun and interesting - a setting where if you don't discover X that it remains undiscovered really sucks.

You do that by making the +2 from the special sword insignificant.

How insignificant is insignificant? It presumably is better - but that doesn't mean that its so much better that it wins every time.

I don't understand how you can say 'But finding Excalibur isn't cool, because he has a sword that's lesser.'

Because that's not what I'm saying, I don't know how someone can say it either.

But if you have a cool sword, finding a more powerful sword should not automatically be "equally cool but more useful".

Excalibur can be cool without being able to make the air bleed or ignore the armor bonus (DR or AC, whatever) of full plate.

It's really a simple solution. And yes, the game is so designed that characters are expected to have a +n by a certain level, although you can change that based upon encounters.

Why though? What is the point of making it so that level 20 means a +5 sword just to win as often as level 4 and +1 swords?

Elennsar wrote:

Well, that's every setting ever. Making up stories that the players never hear about might be fun for you, but it doesn't actually improve the game.

Hearing that the Empress gave birth to twins is cool, even if you have nothing to do with the Empress.

Having things happen that the players never deal with is fun and interesting - a setting where if you don't discover X that it remains undiscovered really sucks.

If you hear about the queen's twins but never interact with them, there's no need to have them statted up. If you hear about artifacts but never encounter them, there's no reason to have them statted up.

You do that by making the +2 from the special sword insignificant.

How insignificant is insignificant? It presumably is better - but that doesn't mean that its so much better that it wins every time.

If you're using a D% to-hit, the +2 sword increases your to-hit by 2%. That's better, but I wouldn't call it significant assuming that a normal success rate is somewhere around 50%.


[Edit]

Elennsar wrote:But if you have a cool sword, finding a more powerful sword should not automatically be "equally cool but more useful".

Excalibur can be cool without being able to make the air bleed or ignore the armor bonus (DR or AC, whatever) of full plate.

This is the situation where you never get weapons better than what you started with. It's an option, but you should be honest about what you're doing.
[/Edit]

If you hear about the queen's twins but never interact with them, there's no need to have them statted up. If you hear about artifacts but never encounter them, there's no reason to have them statted up.

If there's a chance that you might interact with them - which does not have to mean as in "roll d%", it is worth it - above and beyond any other reasons.

If you're using a D% to-hit, the +2 sword increases your to-hit by 2%. That's better, but I wouldn't call it significant assuming that a normal success rate is somewhere around 50%.

That's insignificant to the point that you could forget to add it and it would rarely even matter.

That kind of ruins the idea that having a +2 sword is an advantage.

Also known as "so why go to any trouble to get one?"

This is the situation where you never get weapons better than what you started with. It's an option, but you should be honest about what you're doing.

No, its the "something can be cool and fun without being ++++++++."

And emphasising ++++++++ so strongly discourages using something that isn't equally ++++++++.

Elennsar wrote:

If you're using a D% to-hit, the +2 sword increases your to-hit by 2%. That's better, but I wouldn't call it significant assuming that a normal success rate is somewhere around 50%.

That's insignificant to the point that you could forget to add it and it would rarely even matter.

That kind of ruins the idea that having a +2 sword is an advantage.

Also known as "so why go to any trouble to get one?"

Normally at this point in the story, the narrator says "and then he was enlightened".

At this point, I'm pointing out that having a "superior' weapon be superior by so little that no one cares is a bad thing.

That doesn't encourage you to care about your father's sword one iota. It just says that you don't gain anything by doing something different.

Elennsar wrote:At this point, I'm pointing out that having a "superior' weapon be superior by so little that no one cares is a bad thing.

That doesn't encourage you to care about your father's sword one iota. It just says that you don't gain anything by doing something different.

You should care about your father's sword because it's your father's sword. Isn't that the point?