The Sword of My Father and the moustache of Strum

[Elennsar]

The point is also that having a sword that isn't your father's that is so slightly stronger that you could forget to note the modifier and it wouldn't matter doesn't make you value it more, it just means that you have a choice between a cool sword and an identically powerful uncool one.

Why would anyone not want the cool one?

I'd much rather have the situation where I could use the sword of my father's slayer but don't want to because that guy is a fucking father slaying dick (even if his sword is, objectively, stronger).

[zeruslord]

Well fine then. Do that.

[Elennsar]

That would be a lot easier in games that don't go "HAHAHAHAHAHAAHA. Sucker. A mere +2 flaming sword? You need at least a +4 firery doom sword to face 'level appropriate' opposition."

[zeruslord]

And you can't accept making your father's sword scale.

Have you ever thought about playing a system that matches the setting you want?

[Elennsar]

And you can't accept making your father's sword scale.

Because that just becomes "cool sword vs. uncool sword", not something where it is viable (just not as potent in terms of power) to take the sword of the dick who slew my father and have a smith melt it down to make horseshoes or something.

I don't want it to be pointless to use his "more powerful" sword. I want it to be possible without being an idiot to use the "mere" +2 flaming one.

Have you ever thought about playing a system that matches the setting you want?

Have you ever thought that I am interested in finding one?

[Parthenon]

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

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

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

My point was that this particular tSoMF has a relative -3 to hit. Compare this to the cursed item:

–2 Sword, Cursed: This longsword performs well against targets in practice, but when used against an opponent in combat, it causes its wielder to take a –2 penalty on attack rolls.

All damage dealt is also reduced by 2 points, but never below a minimum of 1 point of damage on any successful hit. After one week in a character’s possession, the sword always forces that character to employ it rather than another weapon. The sword’s owner automatically draws it and fights with it even when she meant to draw or ready some other weapon. The sword can be gotten rid of only by means of limited wish, wish, or miracle.

As a couple of examples:
Two level 4 fighters, one with a +1 longsword, one with a -2 cursed sword. The cursed sword has a relative -3 to attack and damage.
Two level 14 fighters, one with the +2 Flaming Longsword of his father, and the other with the +5 Adamantine longsword. tSoMF has a relative -3 to attack and a conditional -10 to damage.

Comparing the two, using tSoMF is similar in effect to using a cursed sword.


I'm not saying that a level 7 fighter should have a +17 to attack and if they have a +16 then they are shit.

However if you design the game such that level 6 fighters should do about 15 damage per round to a level 7 monster and a level 7 fighter should do about 25 damage per round to the same monster then if your level 7 fighter does 15 damage per round then they are shit.

Phrased differently, if your character is equal in effectiveness at it's main skills as a character of lower level then it is shit.

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

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

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

That makes more sense.

I don't think there's inherently anything inherent in the game to dictate this. You could just have Magic swords and non-Magic swords and reduce the ACs and Attack bonus of all monsters by their CR/4 or something like that.

However, since at the moment the game is 'balanced' to have +1 -> +5 weapons, +1 -> +5 armour and monsters AC increasing by 5 over the CRs then if you remove one part the rest won't work.

[Elennsar]

I'm not saying that a level 7 fighter should have a +17 to attack and if they have a +16 then they are shit.

However if you design the game such that level 6 fighters should do about 15 damage per round to a level 7 monster and a level 7 fighter should do about 25 damage per round to the same monster then if your level 7 fighter does 15 damage per round then they are shit.

Phrased differently, if your character is equal in effectiveness at it's main skills as a character of lower level then it is shit.

The problem is that it rapidly becomes when you encourage that kind of design/play: "A character who isn't optimized is shit.", whether you intend +16 to be shit or not.

However, since at the moment the game is 'balanced' to have +1 -> +5 weapons, +1 -> +5 armour and monsters AC increasing by 5 over the CRs then if you remove one part the rest won't work.

Since the game as written doesn't work particularly well to begin with, I'm not sure why this particular problem is more worrisome than anything else.

[Maj]

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

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

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

Is this another one of those threads where Elennsar asks a question, then leads the discussion into the realm of, "No. I don't like it/think so/want that/know what I actually want," "You need to ask me what I'm talking about," "I want to force people to roleplay by making an ineffectual mechanic [that inevitably results in discouraging roleplay]," and, "The design philosophy of Gaming Den posters sucks, so regardless of what is suggested, I'm going to discard it?"

Because it seems like that's what's happening - again.

And here's the answer:

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

[Voss]

Yes, Elennsar, you have finally divined how the system was designed. By design, characters who aren't optimized are shit. Well done. Now, either deal with it as is, or change it. Those are your options. Your options for changing it are:

-take bonuses away from items and stick them somewhere else.
-take bonuses away from items, don't stick them somewhere else, and hope the game doesn't implode.
-take bonuses away from items, and alter the living fuck out of every monster you intend to throw at the party, so the losses on both sides match up.
-auto-scale heirloom weapons.

[Elennsar]

That is only the best answer if you want to mechanically reward people for using their father's sword and you don't want to roleplay discarding a superior weapon for any reason whatsoever.

Same as having wanting to encourage people to "take risks" by making them safe.

I know what I want. What I want to know is why saying "so what if his sword is better? He killed my father. I'm not going to use his sword." is treated either as stupid or as actually more effective than picking up the guy's sword.

"If you want people to do it, give them big bonuses for doing it!" design is boring at best.

At worst, it is actively contrary to actually roleplaying someone who would do it for some reason that has nothing to do with the bonuses.

Voss: All of those options are basically saying "Make it necessary to take the most powerful option."

That, in a word, sucks.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I know what I want. What I want to know is why saying "so what if his sword is better? He killed my father. I'm not going to use his sword." is treated either as stupid or as actually more effective than picking up the guy's sword.

Because it is stupid. You want to roleplay a stupid character, and you want to have a game that encourages stupid roleplay in a non-mechanical fashion (that is, a way that is not part of the game system).

[Elennsar]

Because it is stupid. You want to roleplay a stupid character, and you want to have a game that encourages stupid roleplay in a non-mechanical fashion (that is, a way that is not part of the game system).

If the word for playing a character who actually has actual feelings and emotions and suspsicions and whatever is "a stupid character", then I wonder how many interesting characters wind up as morons.

Probably a fair number of them.

[CatharzGodfoot]

This gives me a great idea: How about the quality of equipment a character can use it limited by her intelligence score? Characters with lower intelligences are limited, after a point, to using their crappy old gear 'because it always worked fine before'.

[Elennsar]

Sounds like a great way to ensure that PCs are even more ubermensch then they were in the standard assumption you're using than before.

[violence in the media]

Emotions make people do stupid shit. That's why people admit that they do stupid, foolish things when in love, or enraged, or out of loyalty, or whatever.

The thing you're denying them is the psychological bonus that they may get for doing these things. In game mechanics, that can translate into +1s and +2s, or re-rolls, or other beneficial stuff.

And again, you simply cannot force the player to feel what the character does. It just cannot happen.

[Elennsar]

No one is suggesting that the player feel what the character does. I am suggesting that people actually fucking roleplay what the character does based on actual fucking feelings that the fucking character fucking has.

The thing you're denying them is the psychological bonus that they may get for doing these things. In game mechanics, that can translate into +1s and +2s, or re-rolls, or other beneficial stuff.

Or it can be translated as nothing because there isn't a tanigble beneficial bonus.

Giving someone +1 to all their rolls done for their True Love is kind of exagerated.

[Caedrus]

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

My thought is that items should add new powers rather than more numbers. Thus, the difference between an itemized character and one that goes jason bourne style and kills you with a towel is not a difference in numerical bonuses, like a difference in LEVEL is... but instead a difference in versatility, like a wizard who uses scrolls and staves vs one who doesn't. The wizard that isn't using staves casts spells that are just as powerful... but he just doesn't have those extra options on hand. Not only does this make between itemization less *required*... it also makes items cooler. Because new moves are cooler than +3 to saves. And better represent the items we all know and love from media *anyways.*

[Heath Robinson]

My suggestion? It's mandated that the GM fellates the person with the most awesome roleplaying. This satisfies Elennsar's criterion of "not mechnically rewarded, but still incentivised".

[ubernoob]

¿oʇ ɹǝʍsuɐ ǝɥʇ ʍouʞ ʎpɐǝɹlɐ noʎ suoıʇsǝnb oʇ spɐǝɹɥʇ ƃuıʞɐɯ dǝǝʞ noʎ op ʎɥʍ 'ɹɐsuuǝlǝ

[Grek]

IF players preforming sub-obtimal actions for roleplay reasons do not get bonuses to compensate, THAN preforming sub-obtimal actions for roleplay reasons makes the game more difficult.

[Crissa]

There's an umopepisdn UTF set? O-o

-Crissa

[Heath Robinson]

IF players preforming sub-obtimal actions for roleplay reasons do not get bonuses to compensate, THAN preforming sub-obtimal actions for roleplay reasons makes the game more difficult.

This problem is sufficiently averted when we bring fellating the best roleplayer to the table. Once we shift the focus from ingame success to sexual success the difficulty of the game is meaningless.

[Elennsar]

Ubernoob: What does that say in rightside up English?

Grek:

IF players preforming sub-obtimal actions for roleplay reasons do not get bonuses to compensate, THAN preforming sub-obtimal actions for roleplay reasons makes the game more difficult.

Since last time I checked, we were playing a role playing game, meaning that its about doing role playing - interesting people doing interesting things and so on - being more difficult is not unreasonable.

A game that claims to be about swashbuckling where you're unable to fight with your left hand "because otherwise it would be over too quickly" (without that meaning you're dooming yourself to being a loser) isn't doing justice to the genre any more than a game that claims to be about noble heroes who can't say "Yes, this is powerful, but it would be wrong to use it."

[ubernoob]

Ubernoob: What does that say in rightside up English?

˙llǝʍ sɐ sʇsod ɹno pɐǝɹ oʇ sǝʎǝ ɹnoʎ uıɐɹʇs oʇ ǝʌɐɥ plnoɥs noʎ os 'pɐǝɹ oʇ ssɐ ǝɥʇ uı uıɐd ɐ ǝɹɐ sʇsod ɹnoʎ ʇɐɥʇ sʎɐs ʇı

[Heath Robinson]

A game that claims to be about swashbuckling where you're unable to fight with your left hand "because otherwise it would be over too quickly" (without that meaning you're dooming yourself to being a loser) isn't doing justice to the genre any more than a game that claims to be about noble heroes who can't say "Yes, this is powerful, but it would be wrong to use it."

So you don't actually want an answer. You want us to recognise our evil game designer, game balancing ways and say "Oh, Elennsar, I'm so terribly sorry that I ever tried to make things fair for everyone. Please let me into your elite roleplaying club where everyone does everything according to their characterisation! I'll be good."

Finally, I can see the same page as you.