What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I think the point is that Frank and Lago don't consider, "uses a level-appropriate scythe, but doesn't have a class feature that provides that level-appropriate scythe," to be an acceptable protected character trait; I'm pretty sure they do have some things that they do consider acceptable protected character traits, but I can't come up with an example offhand.

[Username17]

Although a substantial number of people are arguing for characters who are not literally static, but merely static with respect to initially imagined character progression.

Static in their progression. Right. I do not pretend to know what that even means, but I wish you and Lago the best of luck in finding new gaming groups.

Static in their progression means that they have an idea for how they want their character to grow, and that nothing that actually happens in the game will change that. It's where a lot of gaming is going, and it is fucking terrible. It's basically 4e: you make your 30 level "build" and don't deviate from it no matter where you "go" or what you "do" in the game. It's explicitly what Fuchs tells us must be supported at the risk of otherwise being a shitty control freak DM who has no business being at the table.

It's a movement that is coming from both the game players end and the game design end: the idea that acquisitive advancement isn't "fair" enough so that it should be schedulized and normalized and put completely under the control of the player. And it's a bad movement that makes games boring and makes hearing about games boring. 3e was in many ways a better game than AD&D, but 3e gaming stories are actually fundamentally less interesting to talk about. And 4e gaming stories are less interesting still.

And for all your repeated thread crapping, that is seriously making me consider going to every single one of the threads you participate in and churn up space by whining about how you're over thinking shit and there is no need to talk about shit and I don't understand what you're talking about - the fact remains that there are a bunch of people on this thread who are explicitly advocating exactly the trend that Lago and I are complaining about. Which should probably tell you that this trend does not exist in our minds.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

I think the point is that Frank and Lago don't consider, "uses a level-appropriate scythe, but doesn't have a class feature that provides that level-appropriate scythe," to be an acceptable protected character trait; I'm pretty sure they do have some things that they do consider acceptable protected character traits, but I can't come up with an example offhand.

This is the point. There are obviously traits which you are allowed to declare which are basically immutable. So the fact that you are declaring things about your character that are basically immutable is not sufficient. Any discussion about why equipment loadout cannot be immutable cannot be "immutable is bad." So if I'm not flipping my coin for gender, why am I following your random tables for character progression?

Now Frank has a valid point; sitting down and identifying your exact character growth from 1 to forever is bullshit and unfun. But on the flipside, not being able to say anything at all about your future advancement is also bullshit and unfun. So the answer is not, "let's see, you decided to put a magic frost sword in your loot spot for level 4; so, here you go," and it's not "to the random loot tables to see what you'll be using this time!"

Being able to define an enduring aesthetic for a character is a perfectly valid thing to want to do. And yes, weapons are a part of an aesthetic, because stories are full of cultural cliches and symbolism. Barbarians use greataxes because barbarians use greataxes. When the barbarian is presented with a rapier that is purely mechanically superior to his greataxe, no one's going to be happy. Scythes mean death and that's cliche as hell and it works; pretending it doesn't is just dumb.

But yeah, Frank and Lago have correctly identified a pretty serious problem; 3.5 (and most games) encourage making character growth decisions as early as possible. Prereqs/ability synergies/multiclassing systems see to this. If you don't plan, your character will be significantly weaker. And that's dumb. But forcing random loot doesn't actually change this, it just makes it harder to predict those decisions. Randomness will not get you organic growth. If you want organic growth, you have to:
1) Break the prereq system. If an ability is level appropriate, you can just have it. You don't need to take seven other useless abilities first that you couldn't have had without seven levels of planning and locking you into the build.
2) Abilities are an island unto themself. Firemages do not get +50% damage to fire abilities, because that means everyone who takes a fire ability without that is a chump, and then you throw in a few more abilities like that and taking one fire ability and collecting its synergies is your entire character for 4-5 levels.
3) Whatever level you are, whatever you want to do, the ability you get is level appropriate for the level you actually are, not the starting ability for whatever you decided you wanted to do.
4) Later choices do not obsolete previous ones. If you spent the first 5 levels of your career hacking apart people with a scythe, and the DM drops a wicked awesome greatsword in front of you, picking it up doesn't make your scythe abilities from level 1-5 useless. Presumably, because they weren't actually scythe abilities, they were just abilities that you performed with a scythe, and now you will perform them with a greatsword and everything continues.

If you set up character advancement so people can grow organically without sucking, they will. But forcing people to listen to an RNG for part of their growth isn't actually a solution to the problem that's being discussed here. Or if it is, it's such a shitty solution I'd rather have planned advancement and let the plot be variable; whether I've been using a scythe for 10 levels or picked up a greatsword at 6, I'm still making choices about whether to go adventuring in Wobbogobbia or Blahsterston and that is more meaningful and fun than having a quarterstaff shoved in my hands.

[Fuchs]

If you set up character advancement so people can grow organically without sucking, they will. But forcing people to listen to an RNG for part of their growth isn't actually a solution to the problem that's being discussed here. Or if it is, it's such a shitty solution I'd rather have planned advancement and let the plot be variable; whether I've been using a scythe for 10 levels or picked up a greatsword at 6, I'm still making choices about whether to go adventuring in Wobbogobbia or Blahsterston and that is more meaningful and fun than having a quarterstaff shoved in my hands.

That's it. Frank and Lago don't get that you can and usually will have lots of fun adventures even with people who don't change weapons. I mean, honestly - listening to someone tell you how his character switched weapons after he looted a nice axe is not exactly what normal people think of character growth or an engaging storyline. Frank and Lago may differ of course, but normal people want to hear about a character changing, not weapon switching. About people growing, romance, politics, solving issues with family, defeating old enemies and menaces, forging alliances, and stuff.

Not how they found an axe and now use it since it's so much better than a sword. That's the kind of story we file under "let me tell you about my level 40 paladin assassin".

Weapon choice is, story wise, not as important as to hurt the game if it's fixed early on.

[PhoneLobster]

Now Frank has a valid point; sitting down and identifying your exact character growth from 1 to forever is bullshit and unfun.

The problem is though that it is merely a distracting strawman.

"I like swords", "I'm Gonna wear red!", "I wanna be like Zorro!".

Those are not precisely the same thing as plotting your character growth from 1 to forever and having precise custom mail order items arrive at specific scheduled points.

Ultimately the position Frank and Lago have been attacking with screaming furious strawmen for, what is it 19 million pages now? has been...

Player 1 : Ooh, I wanna be a sword guy, you'll make sure there are like, cool swords for me right?
GM : No problemo bro!
Lago : WTF! He doesn't know what he wants, don't give him swords, give him random Dire Fucking Flails!
Frank : Yeah do that, but if a Dire Flail drops I fucking walk!
Player 1 : Er... wont random tables drop dire fl...
Frank : IF A DIRE FLAIL DROPS I WALK! Also, YOU WANT TO PLOT YOUR CHARACTER AND NEVER EVER CHANGE!
Player 1 : I didn...
Lago and Frank : Wargle Bargle!

Speaking of which have we ever even HAD an explanation of how the Dire Flail and I Walk even interacts with the randomize demands yet? I've been waiting on that one for a while.

Though now I'm more pressingly interested in what sort of character descriptive fluff is "Good Enough" for Lago. Which also hasn't been answered. And would certainly inform on the whole "what descriptive choices DO we (apparently) not know we want to be restricted to?" issue.

[Username17]

Now Frank has a valid point; sitting down and identifying your exact character growth from 1 to forever is bullshit and unfun. But on the flipside, not being able to say anything at all about your future advancement is also bullshit and unfun. So the answer is not, "let's see, you decided to put a magic frost sword in your loot spot for level 4; so, here you go," and it's not "to the random loot tables to see what you'll be using this time!"

Actually, random treasure tables are the answer. The two extremes are not "you decide what your loot is" and "random treasure drops". Random treasure drops is the middle ground. The other extreme from "player chooses what treasure his character finds" is "the DM chooses what items the player will use". And the latter is unfair. Which is a separate problem from being boring, but also bad. The middle ground is that you get some number of random items and get to choose from amongst them. That's both fair and interesting. The perfect middle ground between player catalog shopping and MC dick waving.

-Username17

[Prak]

Ok, so what's the deal with the "Dire Flail and I walk!" thing? Is it "I want a dire flail!" "Ok, here's a Dire Flail!" "That's it, I'm out!" thing, or what?

[Fuchs]

Random tables are not perfect. Perfect is when the player and the DM both have fun.

If the player has fun picking his gear, and the GM has fun not having to roll or pick gear for the player, that's perfect for that group.

Incidentally, story-wise, a quest to get the legendary katana for the samurai in the party is far more engaging and interesting to hear about than a random quest where a katana dropped randomly.

[Username17]

Ok, so what's the deal with the "Dire Flail and I walk!" thing? Is it "I want a dire flail!" "Ok, here's a Dire Flail!" "That's it, I'm out!" thing, or what?

It's typical PhoneLobster tangential hyperbolic tirades. I stopped reading PhoneLobster weeks ago, but since you're asking about it now, i assume he's still ranting about it.

The actual scenario where I said I would walk away from the game was as follows:

• Scenario: player A wanted an obscure weapon for his character's advancement.
• Player A then asked the MC for said obscure weapon to be findable.
• The MC then made the concession that this obscure weapon was in some specific place or in the possession of some specific monster or whatever, and offered the players the opportunity to go quest after it if they wanted.

OK? We're all on the same page here. I believe everyone is happy with the scenario so far. Some people would ask for a Gather Information or Knowledge History check to get the quest lead, some wouldn't. Whatever. Here's where the divergence is:

• Scenario Part II: the players now have a choice of what quest to pursue. One of the available options is to go after the item that Player A wants. In this hypothetical scenario, the players choose to not pursue that quest. Why they decide to do that isn't important at all. Maybe they decide to pursue a quest suggested by Player B, maybe they wanted to go straight for a continuation of whatever the last part of the main plot was, maybe they just don't even want Player A to have the obscure item in question because it sounds dumb to them. For the purposes of the scenario, it doesn't fucking matter why they chose to do something other than pursue the quest.

And here's where we differ. Fuchs explicitly and repeatedly said that at the point of Scenario Part II, the MC is required to have the obscure item drop in the treasure of whatever the thing the party actually decided to do instead of pursue Player A's quest. Yes, he really said that. I asked him repeatedly if his position was actually that extreme and he insisted under cross examination that it was.

And I would fucking leave the game over that. If the players decide to not complete a quest, having the MC tell you that the quest is completed by your actions regardless and none of your choices actually make any difference is deeply insulting. I have no idea what the fuck Phone Lobster is ranting about and don't care, but that was what it was originally about. Character choices are pretty much the only thing the player controls, so if the MC gives you stuff because you "wanted" it even after you made the decision to not get it in order to pursue some other goal, the player doesn't have anything at all. Your hard choices are no longer hard, or even choices at all.

Fuchs is and has been saying that things players "want" are actually more important than having the players be capable of making choices about their actions, and that is completely insane to me. If an MC broke the fourth wall like that, there is no way I could continue playing in that game.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

If I make the choice of playing a sword using character, that choice should be respected, not removed by random drops and the need to stay on the range.

Also, if Frank walks because another player gets a sword he wanted, then Frank wakling is a good thing. People who cannot compromise to the point of letting others have fun with a sword instead of an axe shouldn't be playing games with sane people.

[Prak]

Well, it's the player's duty to try to convince the group to go for the quest that gets them the item. I personally think it's the group's duty to go along with it, but that's just my personal craziness stemming from my view of group-member relations.

Yes, if the MC says "oh, hey look, the weapon you wanted is right there anyway!" that's dumb. On the other hand, I do think that the MC should be able to rework the campaign so that the storyline can lead to the weapon, or one similar (the idea that one character has a personal goal of tracking down the twelve stolen daggers that once belonged to his daimio, and finds that the one he had originally found a side quest to lead too but the group said "nah, no thanks," and then reworking things such that the BBEG has it in reality).

If a character has a personal goal of "Find Excalibur and lead a glorious army into battle," the group should try to support that, and the player whose goal that is should attempt to support the goals of their teammates.

If I make the choice of playing a sword using character, that choice should be respected, not removed by random drops and the need to stay on the range.

Also, if Frank walks because another player gets a sword he wanted, then Frank wakling is a good thing. People who cannot compromise to the point of letting others have fun with a sword instead of an axe shouldn't be playing games with sane people.

that's... not what Frank said at all....

Look at it this way. The MC says "Behind one of these three doors, there's a slavering man eating tiger." And you and your party cast "Detect slavering man eating tiger, find that it's behind the door on the right, so you go through the door on the left and the MC says "Oh, guess there was a spell that foiled your detect, here's the tiger!"

That's ludicrous, and absurd, and the MC is an idiot.

[rampaging-poet]

Frank, what if Mister Cavern hasn't finished all the adventures yet? Unless [obscure weapon] is a unique artifact, crazy homebrew thing, or other item that just isn't on the treasure table at all, the presence of even one randomly-rolled item implies there is a non-zero chance that [obscure weapon] drops anyway.

If you, as MC, randomly rolled up a Shadow Katana just after the party decided to raid the Temple of the Frog People instead of tracking one down, do you keep that roll or veto it and try again?
If you're a player, the Dire Flail drops, and MC insists it's just what the dice came up with, do you still walk?

[Fuchs]

Especially since most of the weapon choice is player's choice people don't claim you have to find your exact speciafic sword, just a sword that's level appropriate.

So, your asshole group mates don't want to go to find a shadow katana, instead going on a random quest? Well, odds are you'll find a fire katana there, so your samurai can stay on the range. If that causes some of the bullying assholes to wlak, so much the better - cooperative games work far better without socially challenged ones who try to cut out other players because they don't wank to random tables as much as they do.

[hogarth]

Static in their progression means that they have an idea for how they want their character to grow, and that nothing that actually happens in the game will change that. It's where a lot of gaming is going, and it is fucking terrible.

Frank, did you tell the shortbow-using dude in your game "Your character is static and that is fucking terrible and you are a fucking terrible person"?

If not, why not?

[Username17]

Frank, what if Mister Cavern hasn't finished all the adventures yet? Unless [obscure weapon] is a unique artifact, crazy homebrew thing, or other item that just isn't on the treasure table at all, the presence of even one randomly-rolled item implies there is a non-zero chance that [obscure weapon] drops anyway.

What if the obscure item isn't obscure at all and is totally common and I wouldn't even notice if one dropped in one encounter or another? Gosh, I guess you could fucking redefine the situation until we aren't even having a meaningful conversation any more. Or you could go fuck yourself, I don't even care.

The discussion was that Player A wanted something that was specifically rare and obscure in the setting. They asked how they could get it and got an answer. After receiving the answer, they decided to not do that thing and by extension not get the item.

This isn't a fucking Monty Haul Problem. You know which door the car is behind already and for whatever reason have chosen to get the goat instead. Now Fuchs is demanding to get the carin addition, because he wants it. That is not acceptable. There is no way to frame that behavior so that it is acceptable.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

If you're a player, the Dire Flail drops, and MC insists it's just what the dice came up with, do you still walk?

...aaand that's basically the question that caused him to throw up his hands declare everyone else non-productive and start telling people how he has his fingers in his ears he can't hear them nyah nyah nyah.

The dire flail and he walks scenario is... interesting, especially since as explained to Frank endlessly he is pushing a pretty extreme strawman of the "Swords for my sword guy bro?" scenario. But all the more interesting because the actual mechanics Frank is pushing are more capable of generating that scenario than the non-randomised alternatives he is repeatedly attacking... with that scenario.

I mean if treasure is dropped by GM fiat and there are a range of cool swords for the bros and the GM can actually just choose to drop something appropriate the GM can in fact meet the basic demands of level appropriate play AND provide cool swords for the bros AND avoid dropping that one specific sword that makes Frank explode and yell "Dire Flails I Fucking Walk!".

But if treasure is random... there is absolutely no mechanism to deal with any of those things. The mechanics Frank is advocating actually CAN create the scenario Frank says is so bad he will actually throw a tantrum and walk from the table. Which is I think is possibly the very best example of the topic in this threads title we have seen in the entire thread. Not that Frank meant to do that...

[PhoneLobster]

Or you could go fuck yourself, I don't even care.

Guys, since apparently we are doing the thing where I tell you to tell Frank something because he is pretending he can't hear me. Try rewording your enquire to "How does your randomized treasure mechanic ensure the car does not in fact turn up anyway?".

Since if you reword a single aspect of his Dire Flails tantrum you will immediately be unworthy of addressing because "Shadow Katana" changes everything even though Frank and Lago have attacked katanas endlessly and actually produced the Dire Flail example as a direct reference to their anti-katana fetishism...

[Fuchs]

This isn't a fucking Monty Haul Problem. You know which door the car is behind already and for whatever reason have chosen to get the goat instead. Now Fuchs is demanding to get the carin addition, because he wants it. That is not acceptable. There is no way to frame that behavior so that it is acceptable.

-Username17

Yes, behind door 3 is the shadow katana (and other loot). And Frank persuaded the group not to open it.

But behind door 2, which we open, is other loot (and a fire katana).

Get it?

Can you finally understand the difference between a specific magic katana, and a magic katana?

[Fuchs]

To reiterate:

If you allow a katana wielding character to start in your game, then you just made magic katanas "not ultra rare drops, but something you can and will loot". Otherwise you're an asshole.

If you don't go on the "Ancient keen shadow katana" quest you will still loot a magic katana of some type in some of the next adventures. Otherwise you're playing with an asshole DM.

If you don't want katanas in your game, you block them right away, you do not pull a bait and switch. That's an asshole way of DMing.

[Falgund]

If you allow a katana wielding character to start in your game, then you just made magic katanas "not ultra rare drops, but something you can and will loot". Otherwise you're an asshole.

If you don't want katanas in your game, you block them right away, you do not pull a bait and switch. That's an asshole way of DMing.

You know there is a another possibility: Allow katana as rare weapons but disallow "katana-only" characters. Does that make you an asshole ?

[Chamomile]

The idea of randomly generating characterization is the height of idiocy. I don't care if you're taking control away from my player and giving it to the dice instead of the GM, you're still taking control of my character away from me. If we've finally agreed that the idea universally held to be true by every moderately capable character designer in the world is true, specifically that having a strong character aesthetic (including weapons) helps to reinforce their characterization, then by saying that "static characters are boring" and proposing random loot tables as the solution, is it seriously being suggested that character growth should be determined by die roll and totally divorced from everything that is actually happening? So if my Barbarian rolls up a rapier, he is required to immediately and spontaneously "develop" into a graceful and refined swordsman regardless of whether or not that makes any kind of narrative sense?

[Fuchs]

If you allow a katana wielding character to start in your game, then you just made magic katanas "not ultra rare drops, but something you can and will loot". Otherwise you're an asshole.

If you don't want katanas in your game, you block them right away, you do not pull a bait and switch. That's an asshole way of DMing.

You know there is a another possibility: Allow katana as rare weapons but disallow "katana-only" characters. Does that make you an asshole ?

If you ban a player from playing a katana user, you shouldn't rub salt into his wounds by having NPCs use the swords.

[Falgund]

Katana user is not the same as katana-only, and you only ban katana-only characters. The character can still use a katana in case he found one.

[Gx1080]

FWIW, people on DikuMUDs and derivatives manage to create "stories" with random loot. And given that it was based on D&D...yeah.

Also, the "hurr roleplayan" argument for random loot is ridiculous. You don't want loot to be controlled by players beyond what monster decide to kill because you want to keep them hooked. Period, end of the story. And all DMs that I know would tell a player to fuck off if they said "but I want them to drop [Insert X weapon here]".

Is not about roleplaying, is about "world-building/using a pre-made world" being the job of the DM, because it adds consistency to the world and keeps players hooked.

[Fuchs]

Do you have to randomly roll too, to see if you get fireball for your mage who likes fire spells? If so, shitty game.

We're not in the 70s anymore, people these days expect more options to play than "murdering hobo that wears patchwork clothes and wields random weapons".