What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[Username17]

In D&D land, you're expected to upgrade your magic weapon every three levels. We can argue that is too often, but whatever. In D&D land, that's the scenario. In a six person party, one would expect everyone to have something they want to do. If everyone suggests a sidequest, and then every single sidequest is performed, then one of those side quests will still be performed last. If player 6 wants to go for a Shadow Katana, by the time five other side quests are performed... he won't even want the Shadow Katana anymore. He'll have gone up in level and the +2 katana of his dreams several levels ago won't even be worth picking up. He'll want a different item. Like a Doom Blade or some shit.

Which means that if your request is to go for a weapon that is level appropriate now, and you end up with your request being last in line, then you will never go get that thing. Because you'll have a different, higher level quest to request when your turn comes up.

So Fuchs, shut the fuck up about how people take turns doing side quests. We know that. That has absolutely fuck all to do with you ever getting a Shadow Katana. If your request goes to the back of the line, it will never be completed in a D&D format. You will have some later request that may well be completed, but that one will be obsolete before it comes up. In the meantime: enjoy your flaming ax and shut the fuck up.

In a game where power levels continue to rise over time at anything approaching the rate that they do in D&D, any side quest that isn't performed immediately expires. With as many as six players at the table, it is rationally impossible for every player to have the quest requests filled without updating them to higher level replacement quests later on.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

You can pack some sidequests into the main quest, easily done. Or twist them together with other side quests - the shadow katana NPC can also have a cloak of the bat, for example. And you can, of course, adjust the reward anyway so it is relevant by the time it is looted/rewarded. Not that a side quest has to be long anyway.

Seems to me you are obsessed with not letting players have fun, even though it's so easily done by a half-competent DM.

Not that many players have a problem in the first place with the bad guy dropping a katana or rapier if a player likes those, instead of an axe. Most people don't play the game like you apparently do, with a total disregard to the wishes of the other players.

[hogarth]

In D&D land, you're expected to upgrade your magic weapon every three levels. We can argue that is too often, but whatever. In D&D land, that's the scenario. In a six person party, one would expect everyone to have something they want to do. If everyone suggests a sidequest, and then every single sidequest is performed, then one of those side quests will still be performed last.[etc.]

Frank, I don't get how you can sound so dead set against side quests to get specific weapons when the campaign example you gave us had a side quest to get a specific weapon (e.g. a fancy shortbow).

[Username17]

You can pack some sidequests into the main quest, easily done. Or twist them together with other side quests - the shadow katana NPC can also have a cloak of the bat, for example. And you can, of course, adjust the reward anyway so it is relevant by the time it is looted/rewarded.

And now we're full circle, and back on topic.

Yes, the DM can declare that the choices made by players don't matter. Yes, he can declare that every player's side quest ideas magically get completed without any effort or questing on their part. And some players may even think they want that - but that won't make anyone happy. Noone tells the story of the time the DM handed out a pity magic item that had no business being where it was just to make a player stop whining - at least, not in any positive way.

Sports and prizes aren't fun because everyone wins. They are fun because you might win. The moment you tell everyone that they are going to get what they want no matter what they do, you've demotivated everyone. There is no reason to try anymore, because the DM has told you explicitly that you'll get exactly the same "rewards" even if you don't try. That is bullshit. Your entire suggestion of how to play the game - indeed any game - is bullshit.

Everyone likes candy, but if you give people equal candy rewards for failure as you do for success, people are not going to be as happy. The people who succeeded will feel that their success is being insulted, and the people who failed will feel patronized. Equal and identical outcomes regardless of choices or performance is deeply insulting, and there is no reason to play a game like that.

Even the Danish - the most communist people that have existed in the modern world - do not believe that everyone should get exactly the same rewards no matter what they do. If you go left, you get the stuff that was to the left. If you go right, you get the stuff that was to the right. If you find out that you're getting Heisenberg's Encounter, where you get the same thing if you go left or right, there is no longer any motivation to make that decision.

The only thing the players get to contribute to the story are their choices. Their choices have to matter! That is the bottom line and the one thing that cannot be negotiated away in any quest for "fairness" or "fun".

-Username17

[Username17]

In D&D land, you're expected to upgrade your magic weapon every three levels. We can argue that is too often, but whatever. In D&D land, that's the scenario. In a six person party, one would expect everyone to have something they want to do. If everyone suggests a sidequest, and then every single sidequest is performed, then one of those side quests will still be performed last.[etc.]

Frank, I don't get how you can sound so dead set against side quests to get specific weapons when the campaign example you gave us had a side quest to get a specific weapon (e.g. a fancy shortbow).

Sometimes it works. But sometimes it does not. There were several levels where the character in question did not get a bow upgrade, and had to rely on the fact that mounted archers in 3e do crazy fuck tonnes of damage with lower tier equipment. He waited until there was a break in the action and asked to go get the shortbow and the other players agreed. But there were no shortbow upgrades to be found when they were fighting the demons - because the demons are big and don't have shortbows.

If you have a narrow list of weaponry you can use, you have to accept that you won't get your weapon upgrades "on time" all the time. As indeed, he did. He accepted that and worked around it. If his choice of weapon had been something that was obscure (like a katana in the Eastern Eropean setting the game started in), then getting weapon upgrades on time would have been laughable. There were usually five people at that table, and individual players weren't in a position to demand personal sidequests very often. Players did get to do things they wanted to do specifically, but they had to wait their turn to get their sidequests going. If someone had needed to spend all their sidequests on weapon upgrades because they refused to use the weapons they found in the area they were in, that would have resulted in them getting few weapon upgrades and having a shallow personal story.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

You can pack some sidequests into the main quest, easily done.

Unfortunately, as you may have noticed by Frank thoroughly strawmanning and pissing himself over that as "no choices ever matter WAAAAAH!" Frank does not actually permit that option.

Because characters getting things that are useful to them while doing the things that are most important to their story NEVER EVER happens, oh no. That would just be... wrong or something.

Not in the insane clown universe Frank is constructing to support his "Dire Flails And I Walk" strawman.

[Fuchs]

The only thing the players get to contribute to the story are their choices. Their choices have to matter! That is the bottom line and the one thing that cannot be negotiated away in any quest for "fairness" or "fun".

-Username17

You keep sprouting nonsense about players acting like retards or socisopaths when they get what they want, and would be happier when they don't get what they want, and instead get some random shit.

But, Frank, my choice is: I want to play a character that uses a rapier (Let's say a bard going for a few prestige classes that will lead to having level 9 sorcerer spells at higher levels). Does that matter or not?

You can easily substitute some of the fucking axes you fantasize over for rapiers. I don't care what kind of rapiers they are. But my choice is not to fucking use axes.

Will you respect that, or tell me "doesn't matter what you do, you'll use axes or get stuck with your shitty masterwork rapier"?

If my choices don't matter unless they are "do what Frank want you to do and use an axe and shut up" then I don't really see how I am contributing to any story here.

[Fuchs]

Sports and prizes aren't fun because everyone wins. They are fun because you might win. The moment you tell everyone that they are going to get what they want no matter what they do, you've demotivated everyone. There is no reason to try anymore, because the DM has told you explicitly that you'll get exactly the same "rewards" even if you don't try. That is bullshit. Your entire suggestion of how to play the game - indeed any game - is bullshit.

In your fantasy land, maybe. Once you tell me I have a 1% chance to play a rapier-wielding swashbuckler in your campaign, I walk. I don't play a game where I can't "win", i.e. play a character I like, at all unless I win the lottery.

Edit: That assumes a swashbuckler is appropriate as a starting character and fits the setting. We're not talking "I want to play a swashbuckler in the barbarian horde campaign", we're talking "I want to play a swashbuckler in teh city campaign you plan. Am I assured I will not get stuck using battleaxes and flails as weapons past level 2?" If the answer is "you have to be lucky to get a magic rapier" I walk. If the answer is "Since you'd not be happy if you got the rapiers anyway" I flip the asshole idiot the bird before walking.

Everyone likes candy, but if you give people equal candy rewards for failure as you do for success, people are not going to be as happy. The people who succeeded will feel that their success is being insulted, and the people who failed will feel patronized. Equal and identical outcomes regardless of choices or performance is deeply insulting, and there is no reason to play a game like that.

Newsflash, Frank: When I go to a restaurant, I don't randomly order a dish, I order what I want to eat. If the restaurant doesn't offer me the dish, but says I might get lucky and get it maybe, I pick another restaurant. Same for a cinema - if I can't watch the movie I want, I pick another theatre.
It's not a fucking competition to play the character you want, it's the baseline. That you cannot understand how normal people pick their entertainment is sad.

If the group succeeds in an adventure then they should get stuff they like, not random shit. Otherwise their success does not matter as much as it should, since all they get are random dice rolls.

[Fuchs]

To clarify:

Success is not "getting lucky in the random roll after you defeated the dragon". Success is getting to loot the dragon hoard in the first place. Assuring people that they get nice stuff after they win an adventure is not rewarding them "equal candy for success or failure" - it simply means rewarding them with actual rewards instead of the chance (slim in many cases) to get an actual reward and not some trash consolation prize.

[shadzar]

Everyone likes candy, but if you give people equal candy rewards for failure as you do for success, people are not going to be as happy. The people who succeeded will feel that their success is being insulted, and the people who failed will feel patronized. Equal and identical outcomes regardless of choices or performance is deeply insulting, and there is no reason to play a game like that.

Newsflash, Frank: When I go to a restaurant, I don't randomly order a dish, I order what I want to eat. If the restaurant doesn't offer me the dish, but says I might get lucky and get it maybe, I pick another restaurant. Same for a cinema - if I can't watch the movie I want, I pick another theatre.

completely missing the thing Frank is talking about such as the "no child left behind" so every elementary school kid passes each year, and devole into money again.

all your examples are places that exist to serve you in exchange for money.

D&D is not a place to go, and the DM is NOT there to serve you. this is what you constantly fail to understand. the DM is not an employee os someplace that needs your business to keep going. thanks to 3rd there are PLENTY of people to play all over the world.

look at the two different things, you are talking about places that cost money, and Frank is talking about gifts. he is talking about participation awards rather than achievement awards.

participation awards is some hippy commune crap that everyone needs to feel special and loved...but not everyone wants some participation award...they want the achievement awards that show they did something not just showed up.

you giving swag to everyone that comes through the door to play isnt as meaningful as the winner of the tournament...to borrow form conventions. the door swag is only special to those who couldnt attend, but being D&D they get door swag at their own games, so your mini-con doesnt mean anything to them.

if your players talk excitedly about the katana they found because you gave it to them it is NOT the same as Frank's group talking about the katana they earned through play and overcoming obstacles. your group has a hollow and empty victory because it was given to them like Frank's candy example. Frank's players however earned the katana and it is a symbol of their actual accomplishments, not just an award for participation.

your katana is a gift...nothing special, and nothing in D&D stated the DM should give gifts tot he players or their PCs, prion to 4th. D&D states that the treasure is a REWARD. Even if an NPC gives the PCs something a a gift...it was a reward for something they did during play, not a gift from the DM or a gift from the designers via some WBL mechanic.

[Falgund]

Newsflash, Frank: When I go to a restaurant, I don't randomly order a dish, I order what I want to eat. If the restaurant doesn't offer me the dish, but says I might get lucky and get it maybe, I pick another restaurant. Same for a cinema - if I can't watch the movie I want, I pick another theatre.

When you go alone yes, but we are talking about playing with other people. And if everybody except you want to watch another movie, either you accept to go watch the other movie, or you slam the door and leave the group.
And if you stay with the group and go watch their movie, don't expect that the theatre will insert your movie during the commercials.

[Fuchs]

Newsflash, Frank: When I go to a restaurant, I don't randomly order a dish, I order what I want to eat. If the restaurant doesn't offer me the dish, but says I might get lucky and get it maybe, I pick another restaurant. Same for a cinema - if I can't watch the movie I want, I pick another theatre.

When you go alone yes, but we are talking about playing with other people. And if everybody except you want to watch another movie, either you accept to go watch the other movie, or you slam the door and leave the group.
And if you stay with the group and go watch their movie, don't expect that the theatre will insert your movie during the commercials.

If we go out together we pick a movie everyone wants to watch, and eat where everyone can eat what they want. We don't go to Bob's Barbecue if all they offer is meat and we have a vegetarian with us, only assholes do that.

As I keep telling: in normal, working groups people don't fuck other players over and keep them from having fun. If someone plays a swashbuckler no sane player makes a fuss if more magic rapiers drop than should be dropping according to random luck. And the occasional side quest is also not spurned.

Only assholes accept a character and then work together to fuck the player over, or complain when the swashbuckler gets a new magic rapier every 3 levels.

I certainly don't throw a fit when one of my friends and players wants to use axes instead of swords - I simply adjust the enemies and their loot, and off we go. Nothing is harmed by giving the player what he wants.

[violence in the media]

This feels relevant to the conversation. Like it's the ideal result of getting strange magical loot that normally never makes it into a build.

edit to add: I just thought of this, but when every PC has their own specific weapon, it starts to feel like some computer RPGs. All Swords go to the Fighter, all Axes go to the Ranger, and the Ninja uses the Darts or Shuriken. You don't get to mix and match by giving the Death's Head Darts to the Ranger, so each drop becomes a specific gift for a specific character and the evaluation heuristics become much shallower. Is this Axe we found just now better than the Axe the Ranger is already using is as deep as the comparison gets.

[Fuchs]

The ideal result, yes. But the common result is that people get fed up with never getting stuff they want, and get sick of having to change their character concvepts to adjust to the random loot rolled by the DM, or become ineffective.

[RobbyPants]

In D&D land, you're expected to upgrade your magic weapon every three levels. We can argue that is too often, but whatever. In D&D land, that's the scenario. In a six person party, one would expect everyone to have something they want to do. If everyone suggests a sidequest, and then every single sidequest is performed, then one of those side quests will still be performed last. If player 6 wants to go for a Shadow Katana, by the time five other side quests are performed... he won't even want the Shadow Katana anymore. He'll have gone up in level and the +2 katana of his dreams several levels ago won't even be worth picking up. He'll want a different item. Like a Doom Blade or some shit.

Which means that if your request is to go for a weapon that is level appropriate now, and you end up with your request being last in line, then you will never go get that thing. Because you'll have a different, higher level quest to request when your turn comes up.

If the group has gone up several levels during the first five side quests, why not have the evil samurai drop a Doom Blade instead of a Shadow Katana on the sixth quest?

It makes sense that if the PCs have been able to gain levels over a period of time, that the evil samurai could have gained levels, too.

[Fuchs]

If the group has gone up several levels during the first five side quests, why not have the evil samurai drop a Doom Blade instead of a Shadow Katana on the sixth quest?

I don't know why not. Frank doesn't seem to have a problem with level appropriate weapons dropping when needed, only with level appropriate weapons of a certain type dropping, instead of random shit.

Why it's not bad to make sure +3 weapons are looted when the players need them, but it's bad to make sure a +3 long sword is among them since one of the players likes long swords is also weird.

Looks like randomness is only ok if it means people can't get weapons they like, but it's not ok if it could mean that at level 12 you still have only a +1 weapon since all loot rolls went that way.

[Falgund]

If we go out together we pick a movie everyone wants to watch, and eat where everyone can eat what they want. We don't go to Bob's Barbecue if all they offer is meat and we have a vegetarian with us, only assholes do that.

Wrong analogy, the vegetarian is like the fighter: he does not eat meat (use magic), but he still drinks milk (use bows) and eats different kinds of vegetals (different melee weapons).
The swordmaster is the guy who is allergic to everything except wheat. And this guy usually can't find what he needs in restaurants, so he cooks his own food (forge its own weapons).

[Fuchs]

If we go out together we pick a movie everyone wants to watch, and eat where everyone can eat what they want. We don't go to Bob's Barbecue if all they offer is meat and we have a vegetarian with us, only assholes do that.

Wrong analogy, the vegetarian is like the fighter: he does not eat meat (use magic), but he still drinks milk (use bows) and eats different kinds of vegetals (different melee weapons).
The swordmaster is the guy who is allergic to everything except wheat. And this guy usually can't find what he needs in restaurants, so he cooks his own food (forge its own weapons).

Wrong analogy. It's a guy that loves beef. He could find that in any restaurant serving meat, it's just that some nutcase demands that the meat served has to randomly chosen, and beef only comes up 1% of the time. But fear not, if you go to the diner forever you will eat beef someday!

The DM can, without harming anyone, drop wanted loot instead of random shit.

[Seerow]

There appears to be a disconnect between those people wanting to follow some kind of advancement formula and those that want a more 'organic' path of development for their characters.

I for one think it would be hilarious to see those who want players to have no say in loot also having no say in other character advancement stuff. Imagine if the DM based on how the players role played decided what their never levelup would be in, or what feats/spells they got.

Where did I say this? Right, I didn't. Do me a favour and leave the hyperbole to politicians and media commentators.

You said the problem comes down to people who want to follow a formula vs people who want organic development. The point of the post was to show how silly organic development is when it is chosen by the DM and not the players. Which is what the entire fucking argument in this thread boils down to.

Most of the people I play with don't plan out 20 levels of advancement. Those that do are aspie freaks that miss the point of the game. There is a big difference between a player that shapes their character according to events in the game and those few people that plan every aspect of advancement before the game even starts.

Often, the player will have some general kind of idea for what he wants at the start of the game, this does not mean plan out everything for the entire 20 levels you will be playing, but it does typically mean knowing "You know I'd like to get in to that class eventually" or "I want to multiclass to ___". Even if they don't plan anything from the start, by the time they levelup, they have a good idea of what they want for that level. (As an aside in 3.5 not having any idea of what you're shooting for ahead of time at all is pretty bad, because of all the prerequisites floating everywhere that means if you don't plan at least a few levels ahead you won't actually be able to do what you want).

And of course, this ignores the fact that regardless of if the player knows where he wants to go or not, the comparison is to the DM deciding (either actively due to roleplaying, or via random rolls) what the character does. Because that is pretty much the direct analogy to the organic advancement in terms of loot.

I swear, it's like they are trying to force a square peg in a round hole. They're the type of players that crack the shits if their wizard memorises Charm Person and they don't encounter any humanoids in an adventure. Their selfish self entitlement is a fucking pain to deal with as a DM. Half of these assholes don't even think about other players fun at the table. It's "me, me, me!" all the fucking time.

This analogy isn't actually analogous to anything being discussed. And you accuse me of strawmanning. Hi Kettle.

You mean you don't enforce prestige class requirements in your game? Good for you. Even something with a 'fluff' requirement like assassin does not require any significant deviation in a game. I've had a player start their own assassin guild speciically to pick up the prestige class. The fact that murdering creatures for money is something adventurers do anyway is not exactly something that requires a special side quest. Fuck, most groups can meet the requirements before they get the skills to qualify, without the DM spoonfeeding them.

No, any fluff requirement my games tend to handwave away. Because not every assassin is a part of a guild. Then there's other prestige classes out there with even stupider fluff requirements, or classes that by fluff belong to an organization that the DM may not want to exist in his game world, but doesn't mind the class itself.

Try playing an actual campaign with real people. Then play another campaign with another group of people. Do that a few times. Once you have some experience dealing with a range of players, you might have a better understanding what you are talking about.

This flawed argument keeps coming up in this thread. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically assumed to not actually play D&D or has only ever played in one group, or something stupid like that. Because clearly whatever subset of people you've played with better represents the majority than whatever subset of people anyone else has played with, anybody who disagrees with you on how a game runs is clearly doing it wrong.

I mean if you genuinely believe this bullshit, there's not a whole lot more to say.

[Winnah]

Where did I say this? Right, I didn't. Do me a favour and leave the hyperbole to politicians and media commentators.

You said the problem comes down to people who want to follow a formula vs people who want organic development. The point of the post was to show how silly organic development is when it is chosen by the DM and not the players. Which is what the entire fucking argument in this thread boils down to.

hyperbole [haɪˈpɜːbəlɪ]
n
(Literature / Rhetoric) a deliberate exaggeration used for effect.
[from Greek: from hyper- + bolē a throw, from ballein to throw]
hyperbolism n

Often, the player will have some general kind of idea for what he wants at the start of the game, this does not mean plan out everything for the entire 20 levels you will be playing, but it does typically mean knowing "You know I'd like to get in to that class eventually" or "I want to multiclass to ___". Even if they don't plan anything from the start, by the time they levelup, they have a good idea of what they want for that level. (As an aside in 3.5 not having any idea of what you're shooting for ahead of time at all is pretty bad, because of all the prerequisites floating everywhere that means if you don't plan at least a few levels ahead you won't actually be able to do what you want).

The best times I have had with RPG's was when people played their characters true to concept. CO is essentially masturbation as far as I am concerned. A system that forces CO and system mastery on players is a waste of fucking time for a cooperative game. Especially when the learning curve is steep enough to deter prospective players.

And of course, this ignores the fact that regardless of if the player knows where he wants to go or not, the comparison is to the DM deciding (either actively due to roleplaying, or via random rolls) what the character does. Because that is pretty much the direct analogy to the organic advancement in terms of loot.

That simply does not parse. The player always has a choice. Even if the DM determines what items come the players way, the player still has a choice. It's not a very good choice, but it is a choice nontheless.

And yes, I have played games where my character left loot lying around because I thought it was lame.

I swear, it's like they are trying to force a square peg in a round hole. They're the type of players that crack the shits if their wizard memorises Charm Person and they don't encounter any humanoids in an adventure. Their selfish self entitlement is a fucking pain to deal with as a DM. Half of these assholes don't even think about other players fun at the table. It's "me, me, me!" all the fucking time.

This analogy isn't actually analogous to anything being discussed. And you accuse me of strawmanning. Hi Kettle.

I was talking about my experiences with aspie freaks that want to crunch numbers instead of play the fucking game. I use analogies, but personal accounts and opinions are something else entirely.

Do you even know what a strawman is?

No, any fluff requirement my games tend to handwave away. Because not every assassin is a part of a guild. Then there's other prestige classes out there with even stupider fluff requirements, or classes that by fluff belong to an organization that the DM may not want to exist in his game world, but doesn't mind the class itself.

So you homebrew. Good for you. Give examples of difficult prestige class requirements.

Also, not all D&D 3.5 assassins are members of the assassin prestige class. The prestige class 'fluff' explains this if you bothered to read it.

This flawed argument keeps coming up in this thread. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically assumed to not actually play D&D or has only ever played in one group, or something stupid like that. Because clearly whatever subset of people you've played with better represents the majority than whatever subset of people anyone else has played with, anybody who disagrees with you on how a game runs is clearly doing it wrong.

I mean if you genuinely believe this bullshit, there's not a whole lot more to say.

I've run games for friends, for my old local comic book store, for the local gaming store, at community centres and conventions. I simply don't have time to cater to the entitlement issues of every random fuck that sits down at my table. While most gamers are considerate and thoughtful of others, there are a significant minority of players that ruin games with their selfish expectations.

[Username17]

Wrong analogy. It's a guy that loves beef. He could find that in any restaurant serving meat, it's just that some nutcase demands that the meat served has to randomly chosen, and beef only comes up 1% of the time. But fear not, if you go to the diner forever you will eat beef someday!

Wow. That's fucking hilarious. That is the analogy you're going with?

As it happens, I ate at a restaurant that served meat and not beef today. No joke. It was a Lebanese place, and your meat choices are chicken and lamb. I went for falafel. My girlfriend had chicken. Point is: sometimes beef is not on the menu, and there are generally perfectly good reasons for that.

I mean seriously: you think that you go to a restaurant with your friends and can't get beef in your meal that this represents sociopathy on the part of the people around you? Paranoid much? Are Arabic restaurants out to "get" you? Are Indian restaurants part of the conspiracy? Is Colonel Sanders their leader?

Take a step back and consider how fucking ridiculous you look right now. You just literally said that it inconceivable for a fast food restaurant to be a KFC. We aren't even in my preference versus your preference territory right now: your position is now objectively insane.

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

In D&D land, you're expected to upgrade your magic weapon every three levels.

So you're talking 3rd ed, not 4th ed where you need another +1 to everything per 5 levels, nor 2e where magic swords were something only munchkin players got.

You're also talking fairly official and non cheesed 3e instead of something like Tome where magic weapons just have +1/3 level enhancement, nor upper mid level optimization where the wizard or cleric just accumulate pearls of power to cast Greater Magic Weapon on everybody's weapons, or similar exploits.


I'm okay with that frame of reference.

In D&D land, that's the scenario. In a six person party, one would expect everyone to have something they want to do. If everyone suggests a sidequest, and then every single sidequest is performed, then one of those side quests will still be performed last. If player 6 wants to go for a Shadow Katana, by the time five other side quests are performed... he won't even want the Shadow Katana anymore. He'll have gone up in level and the +2 katana of his dreams several levels ago won't even be worth picking up. He'll want a different item. Like a Doom Blade or some shit.

Counterpoint 1: In 3e official, non-cheesed it takes 4 person party 13.33333etc even CR encounters per level. (or the equivalent in somewhat lower / somewhat higher encounters )

If the MC ratchets the difficulty up by increasing the number of enemies 50% to match the six player party - that means there are 40 encounters before the PCs gain the 3 levels which render a weapon obsolete. If they don't there are even more.

So with each sidequest involving 5 or fewer encounters, that still leaves 10 or more mainquest encounters before the first weapon goes obsolete. That seems room for both to me, unless you're running tabletop diablo style, where you never leave initiative order and fight constantly. In my experience, sessions of 3e with more than 5 encounters in a single session are rather rare and tend to involve either a slate of arena fights with plain and open terrain and/or a number of non-combat encounters solved by diplomancy or disable device and/or game sessions of notably more than 4 hours.

Counterpoint 2: Schrondinger's Wepaon Upgrade does not have to be dishonest nor violate the setting.

For the sake of illustration, I'm assuming a game based loosely on Final Fantasy lore: Everybody knows that the Save the Queen is a very magical blade with some sort of defensive ability - and everybody knows it's way better than a mere Silver Sword or Mythral Blade, but everybody also knows it not as damaging as the wielder-possessing Masamune nor as overall powerful as the Excalibur. However until the PCs can get close enough to cast Identify and the like on the Save the Queen, they don't know if it is a +3 Defending Longsword, a +4 Defending Longsword, a Luck Blade, a Holy Avenger or a Unique Artifact - (because it has totally had different abilities in prior FF games, and been unique in some and non-unique in others).

Now when people suggest that the MC base which of those items it is on the level when the PCs actually get it ( via sidequest, mainquest or random roll of "specific weapon" drop" ), this seems to be where Frank is getting his knickers in a twist - because it means hat the game world is retroactively shaping itself to keep the PC abilities within the acceptable range of Wealth-by-level, and that can undermine the setting.

However, my whole counterpoint is that it doesn't have to. Yeah, sure, okay, it's dishonest and maybe a tad insulting if the PCs find the Save the Queen in a box in a forgotten ruin inhabited by a high-level Marlobro only to have it mysteriously always turn into something level appropriate when they open that box. However, if the Save the Queen is instead the signature weapon of General Bianca - who is an adversary due to being honor bound to serve the usurper, then it's completely reasonable to assume that the Save the Queen is level-appropriate to whatever level she is when the PCs finally defeat her - for the simple reason that while the PCs are off rescuing Uncle Cid, wrangling chocobos and collecting Tonberries, General Bianca has been training, advancing and having the usurper's smiths enchant her weapon up to the maximum her funds and credit with the now-evil empire will allow. In the first setup, the sword should be static, and whatever was put into the box should come out of the box. In the second setup, an NPC is doing things off camera that result in a single weapon advancing over time, so the abilities of a sword changing over time fit into the game world.

And if there's a way to use Schrodinger's Looting, then it's completely okay for the sword which was a +2 when a particular PC first sought it to have become a +3 or better by the time that PC actually acquires it.

[Fuchs]

Take a step back and consider how fucking ridiculous you look right now. You just literally said that it inconceivable for a fast food restaurant to be a KFC. We aren't even in my preference versus your preference territory right now: your position is now objectively insane.

-Username17

Take a look back and consider how stupid and crazy you look. Youi ignore all points made, and focus on analogies.

Why is it ok that the party keeps finding level-appropriate loot when they need it (when they need better weapons), but it's not ok to find appropriate wanted loot? How "logical" is it that we can find +3 axes instead of +1 swords when we level up enough, but can't find +3 swords instead?

Why is it bad if the GM place stuff the party wnats?

Because you, totally crazy and stupid and insane, cling to "People are happier if they don't get what they want".

You still sprout drivel about "that's like getting candy for failing or succeeding"; and refuse to acknowledge that when you beat the dragon, you win. And when you win you deserve a real reward, something you like, not a fucking random roll.

Even if it's randomly chosen shit you're still trying to feed it to your players, and think they'll not see that you could have fed them something they like instead, being the all-powerful GM.

People are not that dumb, they know better.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Why is it bad if the GM place stuff the party wnats?

The same reason why Happy, who wants 'new shirts and jeans' for Christmas, will probably end up more satisfied than Biff, who specifically wants a red Tommy Hilfiger shirt with faded Levi's jeans. Both of them will still be satisfied when the presents turns out to be the Tommy Hilfiger/Levi jeans combo for each. But if the present turns out to be two sets of J.C. Crew black blouse and a pair of Lee-brand dark blue jeans Happy will still be satisfied and Biff will not.

Just because Happy enjoys his present doesn't mean that he specifically wanted those clothes. It also doesn't mean that Willy was favoring Happy and giving Biff the finger. It's pretty obvious that he would've been happy with any combination of shirt and jeans as long as they were nice. It'd be extra weird if Biff started resenting his brother under the justification of 'Happy got exactly what he wanted, so I should get what I want to!'. In fact Biff only ends up looking like an entitled cock.

Because you, totally crazy and stupid and insane, cling to "People are happier if they don't get what they want".

Yes, because as counter-intuitive as it seems it works exactly like that. If you got exactly the hand you wanted when you were playing Yu-Gi-Oh or if every attack roll you made in D&D was a hit or if every skill check you made succeeded the game would get pretty fucking boring pretty fast.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I probably should have put this one in the first post because it's probably the biggest disconnect in thinking.

[*] If you win or get the perfect result all of the time, the game is boring. For maximum happiness you have to voluntarily choose disappointment sometime. But if you salami slice the decision points the person will probably never willingly choose disappointment. They will always choose to succeed or get exactly what they want, the net result is that success becomes expected and taken for granted and the failures/disappointments that make success meaningful never happen.