What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[Swordslinger]

If the players can't make decisions that have consequences, there is no reason for them to be at the table. If they decide to not complete a quest, it is deeply insulting for that quest to get completed for them. It means that retroactively there was no decision point when the players were deciding whether to do the quest or not. All roads lead to Railroad Town apparently.

At that point you might as well just not have treasure at all and consider equipment to be a class ability.

The point of treasure is it's something you can find, but don't have to find. If specific treasure becomes some kind of entitlement, then it defeats the entire purpose.

[DSMatticus]

And when that happens, every choice I've made in the entire campaign retroactively becomes meaningless. Finding the way through the maze becomes a non-accomplishment, since apparently the exit was always going to be the tenth door. Rescuing the mayor becomes meaningless, because apparently as a plot important NPC he was actually going to be fine whether we stormed the lizard camp or not. And so on.

Now that's just too much exaggeration. I like random item drops and want magic items to be less wishlisty, and definitely less ye olde magic shoppe-y, but invalidating one sort of decision does not imply all decisions are meaningless.

Essentially you are saying: If I decide that Jeremy doesn't get a magical sword by cockblocking the side quest, Jeremy cannot get another magic sword in the next adventure, or my decision to screw him over was meaningless. And that's not having consequences, that's just being an asshole.

And that's not what Frank's saying either. God damn you people. Bitch at eachother right or don't do it at all. Frank is actually saying that you can research to find specific magic items that exist in the campaign world, and go do things to get those specific items. And then the group democratically decides whether or not they want to do the things to get that item, because dragging three people along to do what one wants to do is 75% unfun. You may as well whine about being cockblocked when the other three players decide, "we want to go left!" and you say "I want to go right!"

But the quests you actually go on have an in-world context and that decides what you get from them, and that means that the orc warchief has a weapon that is thematic to him, not to one of your party members, and that makes him and his weapon awesomer as opposed to, "oh, lookie what the DM laid out for me." But if you turn down "the quest for the sword" to go do another quest which happens to contain a sword, that sword doesn't disappear because some other sword got rejected. You just got lucky and now you have a different sword.

Frank is actually arguing some level of world persistence, or at least apparent world persistence, and wanting to make magic items rare and special. And that means that you won't find an awesome sword in an armory rack collecting dust because that is not a cool place for an awesome sword and it makes for bad stories and you won't get excited about acquiring that sword. That's when treasure becomes an afterthought. And it's also not exciting when the villain happens to be using something perfect for you instead of just something interesting, because at that point it feels less about his story and more about him being a speedbump on your way to a new +1.

Now, 3.5 is a bad base for this, because it requires you to run super-fast on the magic item treadmill to not suck, so your character is walking around like a giant magic armory and probably can't even remember half the shit he has until he looks at his character sheet. It's hard to get excited about magic items when they have no lifespan and they are the flavor of the week.

[Username17]

And when that happens, every choice I've made in the entire campaign retroactively becomes meaningless. Finding the way through the maze becomes a non-accomplishment, since apparently the exit was always going to be the tenth door. Rescuing the mayor becomes meaningless, because apparently as a plot important NPC he was actually going to be fine whether we stormed the lizard camp or not. And so on.

Now that's just too much exaggeration. I like random item drops and want magic items to be less wishlisty, and definitely less ye olde magic shoppe-y, but invalidating one sort of decision does not imply all decisions are meaningless.

No. It's not exaggeration and it's not hyperbole. If the DM offers the party a quest, and the party turns it down, and the DM gives out the offered quest reward anyway, that's game over. The choices made in the game officially and explicitly do not matter any more. I would seriously be less offended if the DM just took his pants down and took a giant shit in the middle of the table.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Including a non-specific upgrade that a player will enjoy every now and then because it fits with their "theme" (and for no better out of game motivation than simply because they will be happy to have it!) need not stretch credulity any more than not giving the players exactly what they want every single time they stumble across some treasure means you're being an unreasonable prick.

My experience is that the bloom comes off of the rose pretty quick. While it's all well and good to go 'give them what they want as long as the illusion of choice and success isn't shattered' the illusion can get shattered pretty easily and after that it's really hard to repair. Adjucating for success or enjoyment should only be done when the gaming group is literally on the line. As in, someone is about to leave forever to go to an out-of-state college and you have to wrap this campaign up this weekend or forever leave it an open question. Not because someone wants their Flail of Lords to come in sword form.

It is not bad to get a flaming axe - it is bad not to get a sword to use if that is the weapon you want.

???

Are you saying that it ruins the play experience less to get a Sword of Omens when you wanted a Material Blade then to get a Sword of Omens when you wanted an Axe of Omens?

So if decision trees are once again fashionable... what changed?

Decision trees aren't always bad. For broad choices like class selection decision trees work out admirably and efficiently. For narrow choices like combat actions they bloom so quickly that any advantage of using them gets lost. If a 4E paladin was surrounded by two ogre with an enemy controller outside of range, with six meaningfully different powers to choose from that can bloom to about 12 to 14 reasonable options (excluding bullshit like shooting up at the sky and hope they hit an invisible stalker at the ceiling) once you count the branches they must evaluate. With twenty powers that can shoot up to well over 40 which, branching decision path or no, becomes unworkable.

That's why I reject them for a game in which you're supposed to use a broad variety of tactics and have a broad variety of actions. If you're playing a game with a simplified combat engine like Shadowrun or Dragonstrike or Mutants and Masterminds strict decision trees like you'd get with an At-Will system is the way to go. For games like D&D where we consider it an insult when wizards only have up ten unique powers maximum to choose we need to shorten the branching process even further, which is where Rage Meter or WoF comes into play.

But again if people are not being overwhelmed by their decisions you can give it to them all at once. If they're being overwhelmed by their decisions but a good portion of them are options they'd normally barely consider breaking it up with a branching process works just ducky. If they're still being overwhelmed you need to break it up even further.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Now that's just too much exaggeration. I like random item drops and want magic items to be less wishlisty, and definitely less ye olde magic shoppe-y, but invalidating one sort of decision does not imply all decisions are meaningless.

The only reason why I'm less intransigent on that point than Frank is because I think that magical items are a meaningless thing to wank over so invalidating my decision is like declaring that 11 years ago my vegetarian ranger ate bacon and eggs because he was so damn hungry. That's definitely not a cool thing to do at all but if that was the only transgression I'd have to weigh that against how much malice was in that decision, how quickly I could find another group, and how badly would my reputation be tarnished if I left the group over that.

But that's getting into 'wash your boss's car and babysit his kids for a week if you want that promotion' territory. In a just world it shouldn't have to be done at all, but social realities dictate you having to grin and bear it. Of course the problem with that kind of thing is that it's rarely an isolated incident. The kind of player who will hold up a game because they wanted an Axe instead of Sword of Omens or the kind of DM who shows that kind of preferential favoritism to a player is probably suspect in a lot of other ways. Even if they really aren't, going down that road never leads anywhere good. One day they're demanding an Axe of Omens, the next day they're demanding that it comes with a leather handle and they want their princess contact to have large boobs and be Asian.

[Josh_Kablack]

Certainly, my own experience is that people are usually able to handle casting from a D&D magic user's list of prepared spells (where it is analogous to the drinks on the table where you ultimately get everything no matter what your choice is at the moment)
-Username17

This is definitely the booze talking, but I'm not following much beyond "Frank and Lago don't get to game much anymore and so keep posting more and more abstract theory arguments."

Yeah, sure I'll buy that people reach a point of more choices than they can handle.

Yeah, sure, I'll buy that when you slice that thinner, there's a point where adding just one more choice to a game system can be a negative.

Despite how easy it is to counter-argue with reductio ab absurdum, ( "OMG, I can turn to face any of 360 degrees worth of directions, that's so many more than six that I'll never be able to make up my mind and walk anywhere!" ) my own personal observations and experience seem to indicate that there's at least some truth to those assertions.

I'm pretty skeptical that you can pinpoint just where any such point lies with any degree of precision, or that it's even the same point for most gamers or even the same exact gamer for different types of choices.

But when it comes back around to the booze, I feel compelled to point out that I am both not dead due to alcohol poisoning and one of the older posters on this forum, and from those two facts alone it should be blindingly obvious that I do not in the course of a game session (or likely the entire campaign) get to drink everything in that picture. Frank - you're a doctor, you want to explain what happens to someone who consumes something like the 7.5 liters of 80+ proof liquor contained in the bottles in that picture (and that's not counting the softer stuff such as sake, soju and the chocolate girly booze ) in the course of a single game session?

Even figguring that the game goes as long as most campaigns I've been involved in, ten sessions means I'm still swilling 0.75 liter per session - and at 80 proof, even with my way-too-high bodyweight and slightly above-average alcohol tolerance, that still pushes me past "drunk" and into "falling down and puking" and flirting with "maybe we oughtta call an ambulence"

Drunk though I may be, I simply cannot plausibly drink all of that during the course of the game - which means there are options on the table that do not get chosen during the course of the game.

I can state with certainty, that knowing this does not reduce my happiness.



Furthermore, the argument that such contentment results from knowing that I will likely eventually get to consume all of those, even if it isn't in the course of this game doesn't hold much water with me. Here's why: when I go to the nearest PA LCB State Store, I really do not care if they've added yet more flavor of infused vodka or yet more colors of Mad Dog or yet another brand of top-shelf champagne to their shelves - increasing the options there is irrelevant to my purchasing satisfaction. If, however they stopped carrying Sake or one of my favorite mid-range blush wines or Old Crow or one of my other standards, the elimination of that option would render me less happy. If they added a new nutty / coffee / chocolate liquor or high-proof fruity schnapps, that might either increase or decrease my enthusiasm, depending how closely such a product aligned with my tastes and how closely the price tag aligned with my available funds ( good and inside price range = more happy, good and above price range = less happy, bad = don't care ). The only additional choice that I can say for certain would make me unhappy to have to make is if they dug up a forgotten case of Rohol - which I would want to buy as a collector's item, but have learnt the hard way to never ever drink - so I know I would regret either wasting money on booze I won't drink, or I would regret missing the opportunity to buy something rare and downright unbelievable.

So in the "Josh at the liquor store" scenario, my likely satisfaction and chance to avoid buyer's remorse can be increased or decreased by both adding or subtracting options, but overall has very little to do with the raw number of choices, and is instead tied to the addition or elimination of some pretty particular choices. And if you want to argue that, I, as a person either do not know, or am not being honest about my desires and likely happiness in such a scenario, I would like to refer you back to Exhibit A as an illustration of my prior experience in purchasing items from PA LCB State Stores. If you're seriously making the case that I've been doing it wrong for these past 17 years, you are more than welcome to come on over and school me under the table - but until then, your arguments are about as credible to me as those of the Temperance League.

[DSMatticus]

The choices made in the game officially and explicitly do not matter any more.

No, that particular choice (or type of choice) doesn't matter. And if you want to be pissed about that choice not mattering, go ahead and for the most part I'd agree. But that does not imply in anyway that every choice you could possibly make ever in the game is exactly as railroaded as the magic item selection is. A DM can definitely railroad what magic items you get and do absolutely nothing to railroad who you choose to kill with them, for example, and choosing to side with X over Y can be a pretty critical plot point that changes the entire game.

[Aryxbez]

I also believe the whole adding a side-quest into a main adventure thing, is done so an idea doesn't go to waste. Sort of like how, if a game only lasts such a short time, may as well spend it the players getting some sentiment of what was wanted eh? I would think it to suck, to be questing for something, but not only for the game to end prematurely as most do, but not even get to enjoy completing a character goal of wielding that item.

What I mean goes to waste, is if the idea a side-quest (which reward be this item) gets passed, never to be done, that weapon/item never to be retrieved, forever out of that PC's reach far as this campaign goes, then it probably would just be easier to implement it into the main adventure, provided it has context, makes sense and so forth. Not saying to make it a common practice for everything else in the game, could just be a one time thing for each PC, that PC in particular, or maybe in fairness, now a common practice done in adventures known by the group.

[Fuchs]

Are you saying that it ruins the play experience less to get a Sword of Omens when you wanted a Material Blade then to get a Sword of Omens when you wanted an Axe of Omens?

What I have been saying is that if a player wants a better magic sword than what he has, he won't be happy to get a magic axe, but will usually be happy to get a better magic sword.

Frank and you insist that every player wants a very specific magic sword, and will bitch and whine if he doesn't get it right away.

What I am saying is: if the player wants swords, not axes, then damn, give him swords, not axes, and adjust your stupid NPCs if needed. If the group doesn't want to go quest for the frostbrand, add some other magic sword to where they are going so the player that wants swords can get some loot he likes.

And I also say that verisimiltude is not hurt by adding one weapon to an otherwise themed foe. Sure, the brotherhood of flaming axes is known for their flaming axes, but maybe one of them found a +4 lighting glaive once, and uses it in favor of the axes since it's better? Or it's a trophy they recently took from another foe.

It's not as if NPCs are going around and destroying all loot they dislike.

[Fuchs]

The choices made in the game officially and explicitly do not matter any more.

No, that particular choice (or type of choice) doesn't matter. And if you want to be pissed about that choice not mattering, go ahead and for the most part I'd agree. But that does not imply in anyway that every choice you could possibly make ever in the game is exactly as railroaded as the magic item selection is. A DM can definitely railroad what magic items you get and do absolutely nothing to railroad who you choose to kill with them, for example, and choosing to side with X over Y can be a pretty critical plot point that changes the entire game.

Exactly. The DM dropping the frostbrand he talked about as loot in the armory is rather blunt and clumsy. The DM giving the wizard bodyguard an acid sword that's betetr than what the party has is simply DMing, and making sure the treasure is a) wanted and b) useful.

[DSMatticus]

Despite how easy it is to counter-argue with reductio ab absurdum, ( "OMG, I can turn to face any of 360 degrees worth of directions, that's so many more than six that I'll never be able to make up my mind and walk anywhere!" )

Proposing choices people don't make is a meaningless counter-argument. How you actually "walk anywhere" is you pick a destination and follow a fairly rigid path with one or two choices iterated a bunch of times (should I turn here or next block?), which is a perfect example of the theory because most people don't freeze up at every corner they bump into unless they don't know their environment.

If someone ever bothered to pick between the 360 degrees they could face, that'd be quite a daunting decision for them. But they don't actually ever even attempt to make that decision, so it works. And if they did, they'd probably just slap on a heuristic like "face something interesting and relevant," and then they'd just decide between a handful of interesting and relevant points.

The only thing this establishes is that there are ways to avoid overloading people with options by structuring the problem correctly, and that's the entire point of what Frank and Lago are saying so that's actually really consistent.

I feel compelled to point out that I am both not dead due to alcohol poisoning and one of the older posters on this forum, and from those two facts alone it should be blindingly obvious that I do not in the course of a game session (or likely the entire campaign) get to drink everything in that picture

This is probably just a fault of human perception. The number of experiences you can have is finite, but parts of you don't quite realize that. Selection doesn't feel like exclusion, because those bottles aren't going anywhere when you select something else. The fact that it takes a long time to get around to all of them just isn't face-slappingly obvious.

Round-by-round D&D combat, where actions matter and are a squandered resource when you make a bad selection, you notice. Preparing spells, similarly, expends some resource and when you make a bad selection, you notice. But people rarely notice their long-term time as a resource and so the pressure is off.

I really do not care if they've added yet more flavor of infused vodka or yet more colors of Mad Dog or yet another brand of top-shelf champagne to their shelves - increasing the options there is irrelevant to my purchasing satisfaction. If, however they stopped carrying Sake or one of my favorite mid-range blush wines or Old Crow or one of my other standards, the elimination of that option would render me less happy.

That's also fairly consistent. 'Favorite' means you're using heuristics. You also list a lot of specific things, which means you go in there looking for specific things and you are willingly narrowing your choices right off the bat. Then price gets thrown in...

Basically, you have a bunch of cool mental tricks that take all those options and whittle them down to very few options by completely ignoring 90% of everything there, and it's probably the same 90% nearly all the time. Which is desirable for shopping, because if you don't like X you shouldn't be deciding whether or not you want to buy X because you hate X and the answer will always be no. But in a TTRPG, having an ability you ignore nearly all the time is just wasted space, so falling into faulty heuristical traps like that do that would be bad. Or maybe we just have useless abilities, so our design was bad in that sense. (No, WoF is not the only solution to this, and this is not me taking a chance to say how great WoF is because I'm not Lago.)

[Lago PARANOIA]

I also believe the whole adding a side-quest into a main adventure thing, is done so an idea doesn't go to waste.

Really? I think that kind of thing really hurts the game. If one player wants to hunt down the Ravager cultists that torched their hometown but gets turned down, having said cultists be under the secret employ of the General-King Xanatos when you do the alternate mission of 'figure out the cause of the endless winter' is a blatant cockslap in the face.

There are ways to delicately do that of course. You can consult the players behind the scenes and forgo revealing the various plot twists. You can have all of the players submit plot points and an broad adventuring outline they democratically agreed upon like to go on with the possibility of plot twists. But once the party is all 'nah I don't wanna fight cultists' inserting them into the game afterwards to please one player is an insult. Even if it's just done as a quick reveal post-battle and has no further effect on the plot.

What I have been saying is that if a player wants a better magic sword than what he has, he won't be happy to get a magic axe, but will usually be happy to get a better magic sword.

Once again: Are you saying that the difference in player satisfaction between getting a Material Blade and a Sword of Omens is less than the difference between an Axe of Omens and a Sword of Omens?

And I also say that verisimiltude is not hurt by adding one weapon to an otherwise themed foe. Sure, the brotherhood of flaming axes is known for their flaming axes, but maybe one of them found a +4 lighting glaive once, and uses it in favor of the axes since it's better? Or it's a trophy they recently took from another foe.

Are you kidding me? If someone asked for a +4 Lightning Glaive and a team of Flaming Axe users happened to drop one despite the magical item compendium having hundreds of magical items, that wouldn't be a blatant example of authorial intrusion?

That's a perfect example of gameplay and metafiction taking a piss on story. Sure, it's not impossible for that to have happened, but it's a deus ex machina on par with Drizz't teleporting into the room bailing out your 1st level party with no build-up. That's not impossible to have happened either, but you know that no one is going to accept that as a plausible plot twist nor something that organically arose out of the story.

[Fuchs]

If your story is getting in the way of the players having fun, then fuck the story, write a novel instead.

You play a game to have fun, not to follow a fucking story on railroads. If you know your player wants glaives, add some glaives, don't gop all "but my creation would be ruined, ruined I say! if I would replace them flaming spear of my body guard leader with a glaive!!!"

As far as magic items go: If a player wants swords and not axes he'll be happier with swords. If you offer him the choice of an artifact axe or a masterwork sword you're just an asshole.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Once again: Are you saying that the difference in player satisfaction between getting a Material Blade and a Sword of Omens is less than the difference between an Axe of Omens and a Sword of Omens?

As far as maic items go: If a player wants swords and not axes he'll be happier with swords.

1.) You do realize that the whole point of this thread is that just because someone chose something doesn't mean that they'll be happier with it, right?

2.) Is the happiness they gain from getting swords and swords alone worth the damage it does to versimilitude and democracy and gameplay? You keep trying to frame this as a 'do you want five dollars or two dollars' decision, but it's not that simple.

[fectin]

How very Ayn Randish.

[Fuchs]

1.) You do realize that the whole point of this thread is that just because someone chose something doesn't mean that they'll be happier with it, right?

2.) Is the happiness they gain from getting swords and swords alone worth the damage it does to versimilitude and democracy and gameplay? You keep trying to frame this as a 'do you want five dollars or two dollars' decision, but it's not that simple.

And you are wrong. In games, people are happier if they get what they want. If they can play the character they want, and not some DM-built collection of random rolls.

Yes, since verisimilitude is not hurt even a bit by carefulyl dropping some swords among the loot. Anyone who says big bad evil axe guys would never have swords stashed in their loot no matter what is a lieing asshole.

Democracy? If people vote to ruin the fun of a player, then the group is beyond hope anyway.

Gameplay? Again, fuck off with your paranoid crazy theories. Having people sue swords instead of axes doens't hurt gameplay at all, outside the little crazy corner of your brain that insists this is hurting the game.

[PhoneLobster]

God damn you people. Bitch at eachother right or don't do it at all.

What amazes me is that many of the things I am seeing here aren't just "not bitching at the opponents right" but also not right... at all.

Look at Franks "OMG Dire Flail Drops and I Walk!" line.

DM Offers Dire Flail side Quest.
Players Say No.
Dire Flail Drops five minutes later in Main Quest.
Frank Walks.

You know what CAN generate that situation? Random Item Drops.

Does Frank NOT walk if there was a confirmed randomized element that allowed the dire flail to drop five minutes later? Really?

You know what you NEED in order to PREVENT that situation? Non-Randomized Item Drops. But Frank and Lago tell us they are bad things!

There is a distinct disconnect here, and a lot of things critics like Fuchs say are gonna sound crazy... because they are dealing with some real crazy arguments here.

I mean how ARE you supposed to deal with the, suddenly desperately important 'Dire flail drops, Frank Walks" situation using Franks own preferred methodology?

You want to talk about people making choices that don't make themselves happy. The "Randomized items or I walk" crowd seem to be a pretty damn good example.

[PhoneLobster]

Anyone who says big bad evil axe guys would never have swords stashed in their loot no matter what is a lieing asshole.

It doesn't matter even. Big bad evil axe guys can't even exist in Frank and Lagos "get what you get and like it" utopia. In order for them to exist there MUST be non-randomized loot drops, and non-randomized NPC gear, and axe related NPC/Character traits/perks. All of which run directly counter to their entire argument.

Basically if the lead characters are golf bag of whatever weapons they find guys... so are the opponents they face. Either that or someone is cheating the system in some REALLY nasty ways.

[Ice9]

Has this thread turned into pointless arguments about magic items too? I thought one cesspool of endless circular arguments and fruitless bickering was enough. Seriously, it's become apparent that people have significantly different views on the subject and are not going to change their minds. I suggest we let it die.


Not that the original thread topic is entirely cesspool-devoid itself, but I'm going to try and go back to it.
A: Why does this argument apply to ability choice in combat, movement in combat, and magic items, but not rolling ability scores in order?
B: If it does apply to rolling ability scores in order, how to you explain the fact that the majority of people don't do that any more? And have had decades to start doing it again but declined to?
C: If your answer is "everyone is wrong", then my reply is that I find consistent preference by many people for many years to be more convincing than your hypothetical theory.

[hogarth]

It is not bad to get a flaming axe - it is bad not to get a sword to use if that is the weapon you want. As long as you get what you want eventually, meaning while you still can use it, it's ok. If the Dm does not let swords drop he should allow trading axes for swords, or crafting your own, or any other way to get swords.

I object to the idea that every pc should be using whatever the dm deems fit to drop - by choice or roll.

Right -- and judging by Frank's example of a dude who wants to use a shortbow and gets to buy/sell/trade for i t, that's exactly what Frank thinks too. So I have no idea what the argument is about.

[shadzar]

If your story is getting in the way of the players having fun, then fuck the story, write a novel instead.

You play a game to have fun, not to follow a fucking story on railroads.

if you think magic item treasure is a railroad, then you have many problems and should just back away from RPGs all together.

[Fuchs]

It is not bad to get a flaming axe - it is bad not to get a sword to use if that is the weapon you want. As long as you get what you want eventually, meaning while you still can use it, it's ok. If the Dm does not let swords drop he should allow trading axes for swords, or crafting your own, or any other way to get swords.

I object to the idea that every pc should be using whatever the dm deems fit to drop - by choice or roll.

Right -- and judging by Frank's example of a dude who wants to use a shortbow and gets to buy/sell/trade for i t, that's exactly what Frank thinks too. So I have no idea what the argument is about.

Beats me, all I know is that giving players what they want is bad in lago/frank world.

[Swordslinger]

And you are wrong. In games, people are happier if they get what they want. If they can play the character they want, and not some DM-built collection of random rolls.

Maybe you're happier if you can get a scimitar for your Drizz't clone, but that doesn't apply to everyone.

Removing the thrill of discovering interesting stuff with the planned certainty of knowing exactly what kind of sword I'm getting is boring. I can definitely say that random treasure tables made things a lot more interesting. One of the few things about 2E that I miss (and there aren't many things) is having a chance to get random treasure. And sometimes you'd be low level and roll up some good really awesome stuff.

Then 3E and WBL came along doomed people to getting items of a specific fixed power level. Magic items were traded in at item shops and what you found didn't even matter anymore, it just went in the sell bin so you could get a bigger amulet of health or cloak of resistance.

Then 4E came along and replaced that with wishlists where you just told the DM what you wanted to find, and he was supposed to magically make it appear for you.

And no, I didn't find either of those made anyone happier, except people trying to make specific clone characters. 3E's magimart made things feel dull and generic. I want to wield a mysterious item of legend, not something that came off an assembly line and is little more than gold in a jar. I also don't want to tell the DM what kind of treasure I'm going to find. It's one thing to pursue a side quest to get a certain weapon, that's cool. It's another to just automatically put whatever I ask for in my way for no reason. That just feels cheap to me, like the DM giving me some kind of gift. What's 5E going to have, the D&D auction house where you can bribe the DM $20 for a vorpal blade?

[Username17]

Holy shit Fuchs, I know you play Shadowrun. Someone attempts to buy a piece of gear, so they make Etiquette checks to track it down. They fucking fail the roll and they fucking don't get the item. That is how it fucking works. What the fucking hell?


Anyway:

A: Why does this argument apply to ability choice in combat, movement in combat, and magic items, but not rolling ability scores in order?
B: If it does apply to rolling ability scores in order, how to you explain the fact that the majority of people don't do that any more? And have had decades to start doing it again but declined to?
C: If your answer is "everyone is wrong", then my reply is that I find consistent preference by many people for many years to be more convincing than your hypothetical theory.

Now first of all, rolling your stats in order has obvious advantages. Like for example: it is very fast. An OD&D character can be rolled up in two minutes or less, and a Champions character takes much longer to field. Creating characters in point-buy systems causes very real option paralysis. It takes some people hours or days to make a fucking character in modern systems.

Some of that can be helped via Chunking. An After Sundown character takes less time to produce than a Champions character does because the number of points you have to spend have already been divided between different categories. Some of that can be helped by keeping numbers manageable: an SR2 character that is based on spending 100 points comes out way faster and cleaner than an Eclipse Phase character that requires the spending of over one thousand.

But mostly it just doesn't matter that much. Chargen happens before the game starts, so if someone spends an extra couple of hours dithering on Tuesday, we're in serious "who gives a fuck?" territory. People "want" large numbers of choices and fiddly little options, and giving people what they want (or the appearance of what they want) is a good way to get them to the table in the first place.

In recent years the pendulum has swung too far. The thing where A Time of War is asking you to spend four digit numbers of points is fucking ridiculous. And the difficulties in adding new players or replacing dead characters cannot be overstated. But in general, an attractive but not especially satisfying character generation system that has lots of points of potential option paralysis and buyer's remorse is good at getting people to the table and causes most of its drawbacks in terms of periods of option paralysis away from the actual game session.

As people like Swordslinger love to point out: these sorts of time consuming and attractive chargen options are actually really terrible for NPCs, because the DM already has too much work to do for pre-game prep in making maps and plots and stuff. So while it's an understandable design choice, I'm pretty sure that it was taken too far in the last decade.

-Username17

[shadzar]

What's 5E going to have, the D&D auction house where you can bribe the DM $20 for a vorpal blade?

will be taking PbP sign-ups for 5th edition after this mode of treasure allocation is implemented.