What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[A Man In Black]

Wikipedia entry on fictional precedent. stuff about Casey Jones

Yeah. I was asking about implementation, not looking for you to justify it.

Casey Jones isn't any of those conceptual things, to boot. Besides how the hockey stick and mask are memorable, he's not a famous sports star in any incarnation so he's not really allowed the aegis of celebrity to justify brutality or vigilantism. (In most incarnations he's a crazy sports fan; in the films, he's a washed-up pro hockey player.)

You could get a lot of mileage out of an ex-sports-star turned vigilante, but that would work just as well with a hockey enforcer who wears his pads and helmet as a superhero outfit and fights with his fists (and elbows and shoulders, etc.) In fact, that's how hockey enforcers fight, they don't haul off and whack people with hockey sticks. Hell, outside of the US/Canada a rugby/football outfit would do just as well, too; just make him look like Vinnie Jones. The hockey stick is emblematic but hardly necessary to the character.

That one is easy. stuff

When I ask someone specifically to clarify their own argument because I am having trouble understanding it, you explaining their argument for them is not helpful. This thread is a hayloft, and it makes the thread exceedingly difficult to follow.

[Username17]

That one is easy. stuff

When I ask someone specifically to clarify their own argument because I am having trouble understanding it, you explaining their argument for them is not helpful. This thread is a hayloft, and it makes the thread exceedingly difficult to follow.

Fair enough. I thought you were actually soliciting positions from different people rather than just the one person. I was not explaining DSM's position, but my own. My bad.

-Username17

[A Man In Black]

Fair enough. I thought you were actually soliciting positions from different people rather than just the one person. I was not explaining DSM's position, but my own. My bad.

Okay, I misunderstood. That one's on me, sorry about that. So, with that in mind, let's go back to that post?

That one is easy. A fifth edition sourcebook would be made under the assumption that the new character class would be playable in D&D campaigns, meaning that the assumed campaign setting would be something like Greyhawk (3e), Eberron (3.5), or Nentir Vale (4e) or whatever the 5th edition campaign setting is. Thus the assumption is that the number of katanas you will find in your travels is zero.

Greyhawk is made almost entirely of anachronisms taped together, Eberron has samurai hobgoblins, Forgotten Realms has an entire Japan expy continent, and presumably a book with a samurai class is going to come at the same time as some sort of weeaboo setting content.

Also, I just picked samurai arbitrarily. (I don't actually seriously care about samurai or katanas, I just wanted an example where nobody would nitpick about "Well why doesn't your character use such-and-such other weapon?") Does it change if the game is set in a fantasy Edo period Japan? Does the argument change significantly if I choose swashbucklers and rapiers/sabres/shortswords? Why or why not?

That you start with a katana which may or may not be mechanically different from a bastard sword, but probably isn't

Are you suggesting that it would not be allowed to cut through other, clearly inferior swords?

one of the following holds:

So it's redesign the game to get rid of swords of swording (#1), have an ability to have or make a katana (#1, #3, #4), or just politely ask the GM and hope for the best (#2, #5). Hrm.

[Fuchs]

The point is that the game should allow people to have a chosen weapon. There are tons of ways to achieve that - some even Frank might like - so a compromise is possible with just about everyone other than the crazy "NOOOOO! You should have to pick another weapon when the dice say so" crowd.

[Fuchs]

You can even reflavor a "can forge his own katana with level-appropriate stats" class ability into "knows a master smith who owes him or his family so much that he will forge him a level-appropriate rapier when needed", which should satisfy just about everyone but Lago.

[A Man In Black]

The point is that the game should allow people to have a chosen weapon.

The game should, or the GM should? It's the difference between a Signature Weapon class feature/feat/etc. and the GM being nice and putting a katana/rapier/dire flail for you in every Christmas pile.

the crazy "NOOOOO! You should have to pick another weapon when the dice say so" crowd.

The idea here is that the RNG high is more valuable than having signature weapons in the game, partially because the RNG high is good for the game, partially because signature weapons are somehow damaging to the game, I think.

I do not actually agree with this position but when you argue against it in such a profoundly stupid way I kind of want to agree with it.

[Fuchs]

The point is that the game should allow people to have a chosen weapon.

The game should, or the GM should? It's the difference between a Signature Weapon class feature/feat/etc. and the GM being nice and putting a katana/rapier/dire flail for you in every Christmas pile.

I told several times - I do not care how it is done. Not at all. But if someone wants to play a swashbuckelr using a rapier, then he should be able to. Not sneered at and told to grow up and become a real roleplayer, and make another character who uses an axe if he finds it.

the crazy "NOOOOO! You should have to pick another weapon when the dice say so" crowd.

The idea here is that the RNG high is more valuable than having signature weapons in the game, partially because the RNG high is good for the game, partially because signature weapons are somehow damaging to the game, I think.

I do not actually agree with this position but when you argue against it in such a profoundly stupid way I kind of want to agree with it.

There is no reason, none at all, why signature weapons would damage the mechanics of the game. Whatever a looted weapon can add a signature weapon can add as well, mechanically. So all that is left is crazy ranting, or elitist "play the game like id do, or you're doing it wrong".

[A Man In Black]

I told several times - I do not care how it is done. Not at all. But if someone wants to play a swashbuckelr using a rapier, then he should be able to. Not sneered at and told to grow up and become a real roleplayer, and make another character who uses an axe if he finds it.

Should he be able to at a cost? Should he be able to demand this, or is it merely a reasonable expectation but one that may or may not fit into every game?

Or is this the sort of thing a player should have absolute agency over?

There is no reason, none at all, why signature weapons would damage the mechanics of the game. Whatever a looted weapon can add a signature weapon can add as well, mechanically. So all that is left is crazy ranting, or elitist "play the game like id do, or you're doing it wrong".

Except that your argument is also elitist "play the game like I do, or you're doing it wrong." Allowing some players to dictate part of their toolset is incompatible with a game where your toolset is composed of the crap you find laying on the ground, because sometimes the crap on the ground is a shiny that gives you an RNG high.

Trying to fit them into the same game calls attention to the fact that the GM will always put their thumb on the RNG roulette wheel anyway.

And ultimately that's why Frank's and Lago's random drop argument isn't convincing me. I don't think the RNG high is worth including in D&D. I think that players are going to take out their frustrating with RNG droughts on the GM, and that's unnecessary friction. I also think that the RNG buzz isn't an effective tool for keeping people interested in a game over the long term without a whole Christmas tree full of crap and that is a bookkeeping nightmare. I also think that making any sort of significant sacrifices to try any capitalize on the RNG buzz in tabletop RPGs is pointless now, because anyone can buy a copy of of Torchlight for about $10.

But most importantly, most GMs are just going to fucking cheat and give the players what they think the players want anyway. Even if Lago is right about how the droughts counterintuitively make the plums that much sweeter (and I actually agree with this), the players won't get that (see: every MMO forum in the history of MMOs) and the GMs won't get that so they're just going to de facto houserule the system so that there aren't any droughts, just like everyone used to do in AD&D.

I don't really think anyone made a terribly convincing case that signature weapons are really so fucking important that they're worth protecting either, to be quite honest, though.

[Fuchs]

I told several times - I do not care how it is done. Not at all. But if someone wants to play a swashbuckelr using a rapier, then he should be able to. Not sneered at and told to grow up and become a real roleplayer, and make another character who uses an axe if he finds it.

Should he be able to at a cost? Should he be able to demand this, or is it merely a reasonable expectation but one that may or may not fit into every game?

Or is this the sort of thing a player should have absolute agency over?

It should be treated like any other character choice - class, race, background, motivation. Sometimes the GM has good reasons not to allow something, but the general assumption should be that having signature weapons is as ok as having signature spells or playing an elf.

And I don't say they should play the game like I do - you can have a "I use what drops" character and a signature weapon wielder in the same game easily.

[A Man In Black]

It should be treated like any other character choice - class, race, background, motivation.

So basically, absolute agency. Kay.

And I don't say they should play the game like I do - you can have a "I use what drops" character and a signature weapon wielder in the same game easily.

You can, but either the RNG guy gets his shit on a schedule and it's completely obvious and cheapens any high he gets from his rewards, or he doesn't, and he resents the signature weapon dude's reliable rewards. Unless you mean that the signature weapon guy just asks for his random drops to be his particular weapon, then fine but only in a game where his particular weapon is logical or common; it may strain credulity for multiple treasure caches to have a dire flail. It's reconcilable in some cases, but it causes a great deal of strain in many others.

Look. They conflict. They are conflicting goals in the abstract. That is fucking okay. There are lots of kludgey patches you can use to make them sort of work at the same time in a subset of cases, but they aren't going to work that well together in general. The fact that they've worked decently in your own games is largely due to the fact that 3e's own item system is itself a hopeless muddle of kludged patches on top of kludged patches.

If you're going to turn 3e's item muddle into something more refined, you're going to have to set some clear goals. Lago set "items should come from the RNG!" as a goal, and Frank likes it, or maybe the other way around. (I think it's stupid, but whatever.) Either way, it's a primary goal that's incompatible with making putting signature weapons under absolute player agency.

They aren't doing this to be arrogant or elitist or because they're fucking crazy, they're doing it because they're setting goals for a new, clear, alternative system to replace 3e's unsatisfying muddled kludgey trainwreck compromise. Suggesting that you can make signature weapons work at the same time as RNG glee is a muddled kludgey compromise.

[Fuchs]

It should be treated like any other character choice - class, race, background, motivation.

So basically, absolute agency. Kay.

Not exactly. Every GM has the right to veto characters at the start of a campaign. If you're playing an all-elven campaign at the high forest court then your orc and duergar will likely be banned. Usually people compromise and agree on campaign parameters as a group.

And I don't say they should play the game like I do - you can have a "I use what drops" character and a signature weapon wielder in the same game easily.

You can, but either the RNG guy gets his shit on a schedule and it's completely obvious and cheapens any high he gets from his rewards, or he doesn't, and he resents the signature weapon dude's reliable rewards. Unless you mean that the signature weapon guy just asks for his random drops to be his particular weapon, then fine but only in a game where his particular weapon is logical or common; it may strain credulity for multiple treasure caches to have a dire flail. It's reconcilable in some cases, but it causes a great deal of strain in many others.

3E is based on the assumption that PCs get the shit they need, so even the RNG guy would get his stuff on schedule anyway, or buy it. In that you don't really need a kludgey muddled compromise in 3E, you have magic mart and item creation rules, so no matter what, you'll get the weapons and stuff you need/want playing by the rules.

Changing this so you only make the RNG fan happy, but drive away those who don't like to play loot lottery (those who want to make their own stuff, those who like to trade and sell magic stuff, those who want to keep their signature weapon, among others) is a bad idea.

The range fetishist is a hard case to pelase since anyone who doesn't play like he does is an obstacle. Letting him hold the entire game ransom just so he can get his cheap kicks is unfair. If he cannot be happy playing the RNG while others don't, then he has a problem, not the rest.

[Fuchs]

I have to add (restate actually) that I find the whole idea of making required magic items "special" stupid anyway. MMOGs took that idea and ground it to death. Anything that a character needs needs to be acquired reliably and therefore cannot be special like a win in the lottery.

If you want to make magic items special by making them random you need to make them also unneeded for a character's shtick. Which usually means weapons can't be among them.

[A Man In Black]

Not exactly. Every GM has the right to veto characters at the start of a campaign. If you're playing an all-elven campaign at the high forest court then your orc and duergar will likely be banned. Usually people compromise and agree on campaign parameters as a group.

And the players could also say fuck that. Basically, you're saying that it's one of the basic, immutable parts of the character concept, and that the play should have free reign unless they're being obnoxious or otherwise disruptive, right?

3E is based on the assumption that PCs get the shit they need

Stop. You're not Swordslinger, stop acting like him. This isn't a discussion of 3e, except save in that it's that it's a discussion of how 3e's item system is a failure. It's a discussion of some sort of successor system to 3e. The 3e system of giving people presents on a loose schedule to keep them on the RNG is a kludge. It is an unsatisfying kludgey trainwreck compromise that I am pretty sure nobody in this forum likes. "3e does it this way" is not an argument for any sort of item system.

Changing this so you only make the RNG fan happy, but drive away those who don't like to play loot lottery (those who want to make their own stuff, those who like to trade and sell magic stuff, those who want to keep their signature weapon, among others) is a bad idea.

The range fetishist is a hard case to pelase since anyone who doesn't play like he does is an obstacle. Letting him hold the entire game ransom just so he can get his cheap kicks is unfair. If he cannot be happy playing the RNG while others don't, then he has a problem, not the rest.

I agree with most of this, although I am not sure how happy I am with "ranged fetishist" in the context of a game like D&D, to be honest. Even when people stay combat-relevant without needing drops to do it, I question where magic item crafting fits in, and I question the value of trying to scratch the Diablo part of people's brains when there's Diablo doing it a thousand times more efficiently.

[Fuchs]

Not exactly. Every GM has the right to veto characters at the start of a campaign. If you're playing an all-elven campaign at the high forest court then your orc and duergar will likely be banned. Usually people compromise and agree on campaign parameters as a group.

And the players could also say fuck that. Basically, you're saying that it's one of the basic, immutable parts of the character concept, and that the play should have free reign unless they're being obnoxious or otherwise disruptive, right?

They should have free reign as long as they don't harm the enjoyment of the others, including the GM. It's usually a compromise, and done smoothly within a typical gaming group. Those who don't fit in simply leave.

Stop. You're not Swordslinger, stop acting like him. This isn't a discussion of 3e, except save in that it's that it's a discussion of how 3e's item system is a failure. It's a discussion of some sort of successor system to 3e. The 3e system of giving people presents on a loose schedule to keep them on the RNG is a kludge. It is an unsatisfying kludgey trainwreck compromise that I am pretty sure nobody in this forum likes. "3e does it this way" is not an argument for any sort of item system.

What I am saying is that making magic items gear you can buy, sell and commission works. MMOGs show that. The problem with 3E's magic item system mainly relate to having gold increase character power, which can be dealt with without making magic items a non-tradeable commodity.

[Gx1080]

@Fuchs

Thing is, is a stated WotC goal to make magic items cool again, so you are pissing at the wind. Yes, that means that they don't have to be requiered and that they can't be just statsticks, but is possible.

Also, making TTRPGs to be less like MMOs is kinda of a must to sell the damn things.

@AMIB

You have good points, but "if the DM doesn't give players what they want he's an asshole" is just a knee-jerk reaction. Compromise can be reached. On the search to punish anybody who acts like a Gygaxian asshole, people often forget that the DM is a player too.

[Username17]

That one is easy. A fifth edition sourcebook would be made under the assumption that the new character class would be playable in D&D campaigns, meaning that the assumed campaign setting would be something like Greyhawk (3e), Eberron (3.5), or Nentir Vale (4e) or whatever the 5th edition campaign setting is. Thus the assumption is that the number of katanas you will find in your travels is zero.

Greyhawk is made almost entirely of anachronisms taped together, Eberron has samurai hobgoblins, Forgotten Realms has an entire Japan expy continent, and presumably a book with a samurai class is going to come at the same time as some sort of weeaboo setting content.

Sure. Also there are aliens with crashed spaceships and laser pistols to be had in Greyhawk. The number of katanas or laser pistols you could find is much larger than the number of weapons you will use over the lifetime of your character. But the number of weapons you expect to find is still zero.

So any Samurai or Space Ranger class you make has to be made under the assumption that you will not get any new katanas or laser pistols. Because hey, worst case scenario, even most likely scenario: you fucking won't.

Also, I just picked samurai arbitrarily. (I don't actually seriously care about samurai or katanas, I just wanted an example where nobody would nitpick about "Well why doesn't your character use such-and-such other weapon?") Does it change if the game is set in a fantasy Edo period Japan? Does the argument change significantly if I choose swashbucklers and rapiers/sabres/shortswords? Why or why not?

It even changes if you are playing in Greyhawk and you happen to be a longsword enthusiast. Because while the worst case scenario is still that you won't get any new longswords, the chance of you not getting any new longswords over 10 levels is ridiculously low. If you're playing in Rokugan, you will get magic katanas. It may not be the best weapon the party ever gets, and indeed it probably won't be considering how stupid powerful some of the polearms are, but you will get at least one. And when you're in that situation, you can go ahead and give the character some sort of weapon fetish boost that lets them pull their weight when they have a +2 Katana and the weapon generalist is using the +3 Yari. Or whatever. AD&D actually worked like that: you knew that you were going to get longswords (or katanas if you were in Oriental Adventures), and the weapon specialists specialized in that (or in bows), and the Rangers got every magic weapon that wasn't a longsword (or katana for OA). It was a risk for payoff scenario, where you accepted a smaller (but still large) pool of the weapon drops but got a bigger boost for the ones you got. You would either be ahead of or behind the generalist depending on what weapons you actually found, but you'd always be playable.

But if you are using a weapon that is even a little bit rare, then you need to either accept that the chances are very high that you will jettison it in the first couple of levels for a flaming longspear or get weapon fetishist bonuses that are large enough to make keeping your starting equipment a valid life choice - and that pretty much means level scaling ancestral weapons or the equivalent.

Because the thing where you accept that there is no fucking reason for you to find weapon upgrades and then demand that the DM let you find weapon upgrades anyway is anti-immersive horse shit.

-Username17

[A Man In Black]

Sure. Also there are aliens with crashed spaceships and laser pistols to be had in Greyhawk. The number of katanas or laser pistols you could find is much larger than the number of weapons you will use over the lifetime of your character. But the number of weapons you expect to find is still zero.

So any Samurai or Space Ranger class you make has to be made under the assumption that you will not get any new katanas or laser pistols. Because hey, worst case scenario, even most likely scenario: you fucking won't.

Is there a reason you ignore all of the places where you totally would expect to adventure and find katanas in each of these settings to repeat yourself, then go "Oh yeah, you totally would expect to find katanas in Rokugan"?

Because the thing where you accept that there is no fucking reason for you to find weapon upgrades and then demand that the DM let you find weapon upgrades anyway is anti-immersive horse shit.

What about any version of D&D where you're not shaking magic item tables until something you want comes out? That's hardly the only solution to fixing 3e's mess of a magic item system. I was getting on Fuchs for not acknowledging that signature weapon and magic item presents are incompatible in a lot of key ways. But it's not like focusing on making magic item presents less shitty is the only way to fix 3e's kludgey muddle of a magic item system.

So, pick one of these two arguments. Are you more interested in arguing about why signature weapons suck, or why random magic presents are awesome? Because the two arguments have been tangled up for quite a while now.

On the search to punish anybody who acts like a Gygaxian asshole, people often forget that the DM is a player too.

The GM doesn't need punishment to do things that he thinks will make his friends happy. If you make a system that well-meaning GMs will corrupt, then it's just not a workable system.

Plus, all of the other reasons that I said trying to cram slot machine thrills into D&D is an antiquated idea. Video games do it better, it's a paperwork nightmare, and players will unfairly take out their frustration with the randomness on the game as a whole/the particular campaign/the GM (none of which are healthy for the hobby as a whole).

[Gx1080]

@AMIB

Decent point. Honestly, I'm fine with monsters having X, Y and Z items on them at all times, but I said that mostly to defuse the "if the monsters don't have loot explicitely tailored to the player's desires the DM is an asshole" vibe.

So, each monster has a table that says: "He drops this", and Magical Artifacts(on a system that DOESN'T need them to keep on the RNG) are hidden in Temples or on the hands of Chief Monsters.

[Username17]

Is there a reason you ignore all of the places where you totally would expect to adventure and find katanas in each of these settings to repeat yourself, then go "Oh yeah, you totally would expect to find katanas in Rokugan"?

Yes. Because while there are places you can go in Eberron that have katanas as available weapon drops, just as there are places in Greyhawk with laser pistols as available weapon drops, it is unreasonable to expect the other players will stay in those places exclusively or even go there at all. The other players want to take revenge on the Drow or go hunt Frost Giants or some shit, and while it is possible that they will agree to your suggestion to go fight shadow samurai, the class had better be designed to the much more likely standard that they won't.

Because the thing where you accept that there is no fucking reason for you to find weapon upgrades and then demand that the DM let you find weapon upgrades anyway is anti-immersive horse shit.

What about any version of D&D where you're not shaking magic item tables until something you want comes out? That's hardly the only solution to fixing 3e's mess of a magic item system. I was getting on Fuchs for not acknowledging that signature weapon and magic item presents are incompatible in a lot of key ways. But it's not like focusing on making magic item presents less shitty is the only way to fix 3e's kludgey muddle of a magic item system.

It doesn't matter if the weapons are placed or not. If a class requires that we miraculously find unlikely enough equipment that it breaks the fourth wall, then the class either underperforms or breaks the fourth wall. Both are unacceptable. How many dire flails can you find in the treasure troves of giant spiders before it strains suspension of disbelief? The moment that the found treasure gives the show away that the DM is coddling you it ends the game as a game. It's like if the DM rolls the die and you can clearly see it and he reports a different number. It doesn't matter whether he just saved your character from a crit or had your SoD retroactively not work on the BBEG, the fact that you just saw the DM break the rules to change the outcome ruins the game either way.

Demanding to find lots of copies of things that are supposed to be rare breaks the fourth wall. And that ruins the game.

So, pick one of these two arguments. Are you more interested in arguing about why signature weapons suck, or why random magic presents are awesome? Because the two arguments have been tangled up for quite a while now.

No. I'm making both arguments. Because both things are true. Actually, I am making several distinct arguments. Here's a short list:

• The player demanding that the character find things that are supposed to be rarely if ever found in the setting is wholly unreasonable. If they do find it, that breaks the fourth wall and destroys the verisimilitude of the game world.
• The fact that a character uses a particular weapon is not particularly interesting. While it can be supported in a non-verisimilitude destroying fashion (scaling weapons, specializing in ubiquitous weapons, personal item forging, or being in a setting that does not have weapon upgrades like the modern world), it still isn't particularly interesting. And it should never be allowed to substitute for a character's personality or life goals.
• Item wishlists are a very bad way of doing things. Because they destroy the verisimilitude of the setting and because they destroy the joy of discovery, and because they destroy the facade of impartiality of the MC leading to resentment.
• Character choices have to matter. If you don't do something, you don't get a pat on the back for having done it by the MC. Because that is patronizing and insulting.

Now, random items do work as a decent solution for some of those problems. But it's not really the core of any of my arguments.

-Username17

[A Man In Black]

Yes. Because while there are places you can go in Eberron that have katanas as available weapon drops, just as there are places in Greyhawk with laser pistols as available weapon drops, it is unreasonable to expect the other players will stay in those places exclusively or even go there at all. The other players want to take revenge on the Drow or go hunt Frost Giants or some shit, and while it is possible that they will agree to your suggestion to go fight shadow samurai, the class had better be designed to the much more likely standard that they won't.

Except that it was explicitly in the context of a book coming out with a samurai class, so it'd be paired with weeaboo setting content. Don't be willfully stupid. Of course samurai don't fit well into non-weeaboo game. They don't fit into a non-weeaboo-friendly game for a legion of reasons and the lack of katanas to loot is the least of those reasons. So can we agree that samurai are stupid in a non-samurai-appropriate setting and just accept that I meant to be talking about samurai-appropriate settings and that an argument about what constitutes a samurai-appropriate setting is a waste of our time?

Because I seriously don't care about weeaboo shit that much. I should have just said "swashbuckler".

It doesn't matter if the weapons are placed or not.

-editedit-

This has been a breakdown of communication. I am talking about a system where people get their gear from some source other than taking it from the still-warm corpses of their enemies, or alternately doing on a once-or-twice-per-slot-per-career basis. Not a Lago-style slot machine, not a 3e-style muddle, not a 4e-style letter-to-Santa system.

How would you implement signature weapons in such a system? What would you consider a player's reasonable expectations for signature weapons in such a system? Would you consider them desireable? Why or why not?

No. I'm making both arguments. Because both things are true.

Careful about conflating the arguments unhelpfully.

I agree that it's not practical to have a system with both slot machine payoffs and signature weapons. They are exclusive. Given that, any benefit of slot machine payoffs diminishes signature weapons, and any benefit of signature weapons diminishes slot machine payoffs.

However, it is perfectly possible to have a system with neither slot machine payoffs nor signature weapons, if they are both flawed. Given that, a flaw of slot machine payoffs does not argue for a system that includes signature weapons, and a flaw of signature weapons does not argue for a system with slot machine payoffs. Also, the flaw of slot machine payoffs and signature weapons both that they don't work with each other doesn't argue for one or the other, simply a system that only has one or the other with no preference for either.

[*] The player demanding that the character find things that are supposed to be rarely if ever found in the setting is wholly unreasonable. If they do find it, that breaks the fourth wall and destroys the verisimilitude of the game world.

This only argues that you have signature weapons or arm people from slot machine payoffs, not that one of the two is superior. If you don't (or only very rarely) get your gear from killing people, then it's not a problem to find a dire flail between zero to two times in your life if you are a dire flail specialist.

[*] The fact that a character uses a particular weapon is not particularly interesting. While it can be supported in a non-verisimilitude destroying fashion (scaling weapons, specializing in ubiquitous weapons, personal item forging, or being in a setting that does not have weapon upgrades like the modern world), it still isn't particularly interesting. And it should never be allowed to substitute for a character's personality or life goals.

It's not interesting because it's not interesting. Also, it shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of other things, in the face of all the people who are offering dozens of examples of how it doesn't get in the way of things and can actively help some people and how symbols do lead to implications for people who aren't shitheads who confuse symbols for structure.

Mileage is going to seriously vary on this one, granted, but c'mon, put some meat on this.

[*] Item wishlists are a very bad way of doing things. Because they destroy the verisimilitude of the setting and because they destroy the joy of discovery, and because they destroy the facade of impartiality of the MC leading to resentment.

Again, slot machine payoffs or signature weapons. But people are going to make wishlists whether you want it or not, and GMs are going to want to give people things on their wishlist, be that wishlist perceived or actual, for reasons ranging from outright demands to perceived pressure.

Where is this facade of impartiality coming from?

[*] Character choices have to matter. If you don't do something, you don't get a pat on the back for having done it by the MC. Because that is patronizing and insulting.

This is is yet another slot machine payoffs or signature weapons dilemma, (and I don't really recall you ever giving a satisfying explanation why the Lightning Axe couldn't have just been a Lightning Sword for the sword guy but I don't actually care about some hypothetical bullshit example). Yes. They don't work together. This isn't a separate argument, it's a supporting point for the same argument.

Now, random items do work as a decent solution for some of those problems.

You said that slot machine payoffs don't work with signature weapons three times, and that signature weapons are boring and shouldn't be allowed to interfere with interesting roleplay once. Ditching random items and improving/gearing up by taking people's shit would also solve all of these problems save the one about signature weapons posing some sort of obstacle to roleplay (and the passing comment about the joy of discovery, I suppose).

But it's not really the core of any of my arguments.

But fuck all that, I'd be more interested in the core of your arguments than whatever chaff you're going to throw up.

-edit- Shit, I understand where the breakdown in communication is. I replaced "Christmas presents" with "slot machine payoffs." I meant to explicitly refer to the rewards from a Lago-style what-the-loot-table-gives-you-is-what-you-get system, not a wishlist system. Is this any clearer?

[Red_Rob]

Don't be willfully stupid. Of course samurai don't fit well into non-weeaboo game. They don't fit into a non-weeaboo-friendly game for a legion of reasons and the lack of katanas to loot is the least of those reasons.

You are missing the point. The "exotic character from a faraway land" is a perfectly valid archetype, and no-one has an issue with a wandering Ronin travelling through Greyhawk. The problem comes when a Samurai has Weapon Specialization Katana, and no way to manufacture their own level appropriate gear in a game based on item acquisition from adventuring. This means the character has to either warp the game by having katanas mysteriously appear in loot piles, or drag the other players to faraway places every time they need a sword upgrade.
[editedduetoaboveedit:)]

I am talking about a system where people get their gear from some source other than taking it from the still-warm corpses of their enemies, or alternately doing on a once-or-twice-per-slot-per-career basis. Not a Lago-style slot machine, not a 3e-style muddle, not a 4e-style letter-to-Santa system.

You'll need to expand on this "system" some more before we can comment on it. Firstly, if each character is upgrading each slot 1-2 times, assuming around 8 slots, thats around 48 items you need to find for a 4 man party. That's still a fair amount of items you need to acquire from somewhere. Secondly, you have rejected receiving items either randomly, through DM choice or through player choice. How then are you proposing item upgrades are chosen?

[A Man In Black]

You are missing the point.

No, I get the point nicely. The samurai doesn't work in a game where get gets his crap from the still-warm bodies of his foes but does if he's willing to use some other weapons or can make his own katanas. The particular derail was about whether such-and-such settings had samurai at all for there to be exotic lands in the first-oh my god I do not actually care about this.

You'll need to expand on this "system" some more before we can comment on it. Firstly, if each character is upgrading each slot 1-2 times, assuming around 8 slots, thats around 48 items you need to find for a 4 man party. That's still a fair amount of items you need to acquire from somewhere. Secondly, you have rejected receiving items either randomly, through DM choice or through player choice. How then are you proposing item upgrades are chosen?

I'm not proposing any system. I was trying to discuss the subject of signature weapons in systems that didn't have specific mechanical quirks that shit on signature weapons from a great height. Can we just take it as written that this hypothetical system doesn't have some sort of uniquely specific mechanical conflict with someone wielding a glaive-guisarme their entire career and move on from there?

[Fuchs]

It does not matter where the gear comes from, as long as you can have a signature weapon. If random drops preclude a very common archetype then that system sucks.

[A Man In Black]

It does not matter where the gear comes from, as long as you can have a signature weapon. If random drops preclude a very common archetype then that system sucks.

Unless that archetype sucks more than the system.

I like pickles, and I like cranberry sauce, but I know if I try to combine them in one meal I will make myself nauseous. So I'll decide which of the two I prefer and which of the two goes better with the rest of the meal, then choose that one! Unless it turns out both pickles and cranberry sauce are gross, then the meal's fine without either.

[Fuchs]

Yeah, but Zorro, Punisher, Zoro, Darth Vader, Robin Hood etc. don't suck. A signature weapon wielder is a good common archetype, and if you want to sell a game to more than a few elitist "You need to be a good roleplayer and make something origional!" grognards you will have to offer people archetypes that are as common as those.