Arguments in favor of magic item wishlists.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:03 pm

Fuchs wrote:Yeah, the characters do. But the authors don't randomly roll as far as I know. They decide what the characters find, and how they look. And in that aspect, a player is like a co-author - they create their character, and shape them.

If you don't even give a player the right to define their own character's looks and style then you have control issues.

And that's a Point in wish list's favor: It allows players to emulate the Fantasy genre and play what they want, not what the dice say they should play.

There are limits to this, and it's the extreme that causes me to advocate restrictions on wish lists. If the character goes through an adventure against the frost giant jarl and his Army of Winter, they shouldn't come home with a flame katana. If they wanted that that badly, they should have leveraged their player agency by choosing to go to the Burning Daimyo for adventure; and if that is unacceptable, then that is an example of control issues.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:03 pm

Fuchs wrote:Yeah, the characters do. But the authors don't randomly roll as far as I know. They decide what the characters find, and how they look. And in that aspect, a player is like a co-author - they create their character, and shape them.

Uh... the author of a single author fiction is wearing his MC hat, and not his PC hat when he determines arbitrarily what items the protagonist(s) find. He is only wearing his PC hat when the characters decide among themselves who gets what.

Harry Potter didn't decide to find an invisibility cloak, and Harry Potter's player didn't decide that either. That was decided by Rowling acting as a DM. It's literally an arbitrary christmas gift from the main DMPC Dumbledore. Harry Potter's player gets to decide what to do with it, up to and including letting Ron or Luna use it, from that point on.

-Username17

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:29 pm

Not to mention it's an Artifact Cloak that is key to the entire story arc. That's like saying Bilbo Baggins chose to find the one ring. And not, The DM said, "you find a ring of invisibility" That's going to become the focal point of an entire campaign later.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:48 pm

virgil wrote:If the character goes through an adventure against the frost giant jarl and his Army of Winter, they shouldn't come home with a flame katana. If they wanted that that badly, they should have leveraged their player agency by choosing to go to the Burning Daimyo for adventure; and if that is unacceptable, then that is an example of control issues.

I'm curious why not? I could easily see it as having been taken by the army to be destroyed ASAP, but the character just got there before they could do that. Maybe it's magic was suppressed in the presence of the frost giant (because lol magic) making it little more than a +1 weapon in his horde, and upon his defeat it regained it's powers. Maybe he keeps it around to torture insubordinates, or to train them in how to fight against it or what to be wary of. Maybe as a trophy from the last foolish adventurer who thought such a puny weapon could prevale against a frost giant and as a warning to those who would oppose him. I can see lots of reason for it to be there.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:12 pm

Uh, it is a demonstrated fact that random item drops result in Rainbow Pimp Gear. MMOs have been introducing mechanics to permit people to have their numbers go up without changing their sprite because the other way of doing things made players look ludicrous.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:21 pm

virgil wrote:There are limits to this, and it's the extreme that causes me to advocate restrictions on wish lists. If the character goes through an adventure against the frost giant jarl and his Army of Winter, they shouldn't come home with a flame katana. If they wanted that that badly, they should have leveraged their player agency by choosing to go to the Burning Daimyo for adventure; and if that is unacceptable, then that is an example of control issues.

There's no damn reason at all why the Army of Winter wouldn't have a burning katana somewhere. Could be brought home as a trophy by a mercenary giant, taken as loot from an adventurer, smuggled in to assassinate a jarl and placed in the treasure room since, and so on.

If adventurers can accumulate all sorts of stuff then so can others - especially those who frequently deal with adventurers, be it peaceful or hostile.

Case in point, when I ran a campaign in the City of Brass, some elite guards and assassins of the Sultan had frost weapons, since those worked very well for killing other efreeti, such as the rebel Efreeti resisting the Sultan.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:22 pm

Previn wrote:
virgil wrote:If the character goes through an adventure against the frost giant jarl and his Army of Winter, they shouldn't come home with a flame katana. If they wanted that that badly, they should have leveraged their player agency by choosing to go to the Burning Daimyo for adventure; and if that is unacceptable, then that is an example of control issues.
I'm curious why not? I could easily see it as having been taken by the army to be destroyed ASAP, but the character just got there before they could do that. Maybe it's magic was suppressed in the presence of the frost giant (because lol magic) making it little more than a +1 weapon in his horde, and upon his defeat it regained it's powers. Maybe he keeps it around to torture insubordinates, or to train them in how to fight against it or what to be wary of. Maybe as a trophy from the last foolish adventurer who thought such a puny weapon could prevale against a frost giant and as a warning to those who would oppose him. I can see lots of reason for it to be there.

Once again, this is why Frank used the color adjective, because it ends up becoming a damn game of picking apart the examples rather than the bloody point they go on about. Sure, we can have fire swords in the Army of Winter because of vulnerabilities; but what about slime swords, tridents of fish command, and portable holes? If you keep going the route of everything you want being in their trash bin because you don't want stuff you'd normally find, then story is being overly stretched for the sake of the player being passive-aggressive....

Defeat the Black Knight - Trophy room has a rainbow feather cloak
Douse the Burning Daimyo - A merchant caravan rewards you with a wood gauntlet for saving them
Topple the Sanguine Temple - One vampires carried a Wondrous Figurine of Gelatinous Cube as memento
Et fvcking cetera

If this is SOP, then the players are saying they don't care about the story or what role they play in them; they are making the character they drew in their notebook before the campaign started. It doesn't matter whether the entire campaign took place off the shores of the Silt Sea, or traveled across the Silk Road and into the Frozen North, or in the streets of Waterdeep during a mind flayer incursion. This is what your character looks like after one of those campaigns

What's the point in making decisions of where to adventure if you're going to ignore everything that happens and advance completely parallel to the events of the story?

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:46 pm

virgil wrote:
Previn wrote:
virgil wrote:If the character goes through an adventure against the frost giant jarl and his Army of Winter, they shouldn't come home with a flame katana. If they wanted that that badly, they should have leveraged their player agency by choosing to go to the Burning Daimyo for adventure; and if that is unacceptable, then that is an example of control issues.
I'm curious why not? I could easily see it as having been taken by the army to be destroyed ASAP, but the character just got there before they could do that. Maybe it's magic was suppressed in the presence of the frost giant (because lol magic) making it little more than a +1 weapon in his horde, and upon his defeat it regained it's powers. Maybe he keeps it around to torture insubordinates, or to train them in how to fight against it or what to be wary of. Maybe as a trophy from the last foolish adventurer who thought such a puny weapon could prevale against a frost giant and as a warning to those who would oppose him. I can see lots of reason for it to be there.
Once again, this is why Frank used the color adjective, because it ends up becoming a damn game of picking apart the examples rather than the bloody point they go on about. Sure, we can have fire swords in the Army of Winter because of vulnerabilities; but what about slime swords, tridents of fish command, and portable holes? If you keep going the route of everything you want being in their trash bin because you don't want stuff you'd normally find, then story is being overly stretched for the sake of the player being passive-aggressive....
Defeat the Black Knight - Trophy room has a rainbow feather cloak
Douse the Burning Daimyo - A merchant caravan rewards you with a wood gauntlet for saving them
Topple the Sanguine Temple - One vampires carried a Wondrous Figurine of Gelatinous Cube as memento
Et fvcking cetera
If this is SOP, then the players are saying they don't care about the story or what role they play in them; they are making the character they drew in their notebook before the campaign started. It doesn't matter whether the entire campaign took place off the shores of the Silt Sea, or traveled across the Silk Road and into the Frozen North, or in the streets of Waterdeep during a mind flayer incursion. This is what your character looks like after one of those campaigns

What's the point in making decisions of where to adventure if you're going to ignore everything that happens and advance completely parallel to the events of the story?

This all the way. I had thought your argument was related to whether or not a player HAS to pick up whatever they find (which would make sense) but I cannot follow if your argument is that players shouldn't have to take use any of their in game agency to get the special items they want. If you're going to argue that players get to be co authors then you already have that. As long as the GM isn't railroading them they have the option to use their agency to do whatever it is they want. If they want a flame katana what reason is there for them not to go to where flame katanas are likely to be? Why should they be given the specific katana that they want if they are unwilling to do the bare minimum amount of work there is to simply have their characters perform some action to make it happen?

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:55 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Harry Potter didn't decide to find an invisibility cloak, and Harry Potter's player didn't decide that either. That was decided by Rowling acting as a DM. It's literally an arbitrary christmas gift from the main DMPC Dumbledore. Harry Potter's player gets to decide what to do with it, up to and including letting Ron or Luna use it, from that point on.

-Username17

Actually the cloak was not a gift from Dumbledore, but it was owned by Harry's father.
When Harry created his character he wrote down: my father owns a totally rad invisibility cloak. And in turn the DM had to give it to him.

Then the DM ran out of ideas and invented a shitty story around the wishlist item.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:57 pm

MGuy wrote:
virgil wrote:Verbal diarrhea
This all the way. I had thought your argument was related to whether or not a player HAS to pick up whatever they find (which would make sense) but I cannot follow if your argument is that players shouldn't have to take use any of their in game agency to get the special items they want. If you're going to argue that players get to be co authors then you already have that. As long as the GM isn't railroading them they have the option to use their agency to do whatever it is they want. If they want a flame katana what reason is there for them not to go to where flame katanas are likely to be? Why should they be given the specific katana that they want if they are unwilling to do the bare minimum amount of work there is to simply have their characters perform some action to make it happen?

Precisely. I am arguing against the extreme use of wish lists, where player agency is directly spent on loot tables instead of the adventure/story that creates the loot table. Both have the same end result, but one makes for a better story.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:02 pm

ishy wrote:Actually the cloak was not a gift from Dumbledore, but it was owned by Harry's father.

Ugh. My cousin is a huge Harry Potter fan, and you are full of shit. While it was Harry's father's cloak, Harry's father had given it to Dumbledore, and then Dumbledore gave it to Harry. We all know that literally all of the backstory of that piece of shit was made up later, but the original entrance seriously is just that the DMPC gives it to Harry for a christmas present.

-Username17

violence in the media · Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:04 pm

name_here wrote:Uh, it is a demonstrated fact that random item drops result in Rainbow Pimp Gear. MMOs have been introducing mechanics to permit people to have their numbers go up without changing their sprite because the other way of doing things made players look ludicrous.

On the other end of the spectrum*, there are mods for Fallout 3+ that let you make your power armor look like Max Max style biker leathers (or give your leathers power armor stats, whatever). While that's an acceptable accommodation for single player situations, it is wholly bullshit when you are interacting with other people that might be making decisions on their dealings with you on the basis of whether or not you're wearing power armor or wielding Narsil.

Your power armor can be any color you want. It can have a smiley face or a skull painted on it. It cannot be made out of cured animal hide, have 1/10th the normal encumbrance, and make your ass look fabulous.

*edit for clarity: We're talking about the same thing, but I'm presenting why being able to re-skin everything to exactly what you want can be retarded.

Wiseman · Post by **Wiseman** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:20 pm

violence in the media wrote:
name_here wrote:Uh, it is a demonstrated fact that random item drops result in Rainbow Pimp Gear. MMOs have been introducing mechanics to permit people to have their numbers go up without changing their sprite because the other way of doing things made players look ludicrous.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are mods for Fallout 3+ that let you make your power armor look like Max Max style biker leathers (or give your leathers power armor stats, whatever). While that's an acceptable accommodation for single player situations, it is wholly bullshit when you are interacting with other people that might be making decisions on their dealings with you on the basis of whether or not you're wearing power armor or wielding Narsil.

Your power armor can be any color you want. It can have a smiley face or a skull painted on it. It cannot be made out of cured animal hide, have 1/10th the normal encumbrance, and make your ass look fabulous.

Can't this just be solved with prestidigitation? It can recolor items. And it's a Zero level spell that lasts for an hour each casting...

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:31 pm

Hrm, thinking a little more about the NFL-Draft Salary Cap Item system, the part that's interesting when I'm awake and sober is not the drafting and trading - but the fact that it's a salary based system at all

The D&D economy looks very very different if you have to pay each of your items wages to keep using them (weapon maintenance costs, ritual components, handwavium for game balance). With that sort of upkeep cost it becomes important for PCs to balance magic item and GP gain, large mundane treasures can be useful incentives and it makes sense why powerful kings and liches buried their excess magic swag instead of using all of it.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:21 pm

virgil wrote:Stuff

virgil, I'm not understanding your point. I don't know what SOP is or stands for, so that might be part of it.

I still have no idea why the DM placing 'color item' at a location somehow completely derails the game when 'color item' could have been the result of random loot there anyways. I don't see a reason why players/DMs working with a wishlist would have to distort a story either. In fact I could see an argument for it keeping railroad plots/storys on the rails but not having the player traps off to 'color land' to find 'color item.'

Is explaining how the item got there an issue that suddenly destroys a story or campaign? I'd suspect it's be a minor foot note, or maybe a small red herring at best, or a non-issue where the players can just go 'probably such and such a reason but whatever... FLAME KATANA F Yeah!'

Are you trying to say that having a seemingly non-sensical item placement is an issue? Because that happens all the time with random loot tables (for good or ill).

Is it some other reason? Based on your response to MGuy, I think there might be issues about 'the player ha to work for their wishlist' which I can see as good or bad depending on the game. Again, halting your story to travel off to 'color land' for 'color item' would be the player working for their wishlist, but could be very disruptive to the game and the players as a whole.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:00 pm

SOP = Standard Operating Procedure

Please take note that my stance against extreme wish-list does not equate to advocacy for the status quo of completely random loot drops.

I do think an adventure with contextual & themed loot tables is a superior option. I do not argue for an extreme version where the minutae is decided independent of the players' desires; if you want a weapon from the Burning Daimyo, then it's going to be something you'd expect one of the ninja turtles to wield but with fire or smoke traits. That creates a varied list, and I can accept wish-listing with constraints like that.

If you demand that he wield a sylvan scimitar or have some wind daggers in the closet, then you're the one being disruptive. As a game designer, I do not feel at all obligated to cater to that level of selfishness. No, it's not a game-breaker at any particular point, but something that makes the game just a little bit less if it's common practice. If I had my druthers and made my own treasure distribution system, that is the kind of end-result I would avoid.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:27 pm

Fuchs wrote:
virgil wrote:
Fuchs wrote:Because you can't actually name those dozens of novels and movies where characters continually replace their gear randomly. Where they end up wearing patchwork armor.
Those characters do where what they find in their adventures. How many fantasy adventure novels and movies can you name where the protagonist thinks the Black Knight's sword should be melted down into a nice set of knives? How many times is the Robe of Eyes traded w/the neighboring wizard for a mithral breastplate during a short cutscene? I know Frank hasn't mentioned this, but I am; revolving door gear is a symptom of D&D's completely separate problems of gear not scaling with level and being a part of a fifteen-piece ensemble. It's also related to the fact that D&D posits a level of advancement VERY rare in fantasy adventure stories.
Yeah, the characters do. But the authors don't randomly roll as far as I know. They decide what the characters find, and how they look. And in that aspect, a player is like a co-author - they create their character, and shape them.

um, NO and yes, but mostly NO.

The author would be the DM. the player gets to decide if they keep and use the new item placed or continue to use their old trusty X.

that is the problem with wishlists. the player is NOT the one who plays the world, that is the DMs character. the DM shouldnt be telling you you cant play your rapier wielding swashbuckler, unless swashbuckler class is something you want and not allowed in the game. you can have the personality and ACT like a swashbuckler, whatever that is. The DM has no right to deny you the personality you want, yet they DO have the right to deny you ANY mechanics they want, this includes but it not limited to an upgraded and new magic rapier. you could just as easily use the magic cutlass or cestus or short world that was found.

this is a BIG problem i have with the fucking D&D swords.... do we need that much simulationism? does EVERY fucking pole-arm need to be in the game with different mechanics? a sword is a fucking sword. as long as it is one-handed then they all should function the same fucking way, especially if you are NOT using things like: weapon speed factor, piercing/slashing/bludgeoning, finite encumbrance rules (and you know the actual fucking weight or real world items).

the DM placed this sword that looks like the one Conan wields in the first movie, but a little different embellished and its magic. well that is what you found cause that is the minor-artifact that exists in the world. you don't get to call ir a rapier and change its shape, UNLESS that is a magical function of the sword. it might have meaning within the game world for it to be the shape it is.

HOPEFULLY the magic item isnt completely random even is using a table that says you get Magic Weapon X, and the DM chooses something from the "groups" of weapons that would make sense to be where that treasure is found. IE: a dragon doesn't have magical nunchuku if no fucking oriental warriors have ever visited or crossed the dragon before, or that don't even exist as a weapon in the current game world you are playing in.

the player is NOT an author in ANY way. they are a player. this is the problem with modern game design, again see MY thread on this subject. D&D is a game, not a story-telling tool, and should REMAIN that way. find or make for yourself a fantasy story-telling tool for your mini-novella of your pet character concept.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:42 pm

ishy wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Harry Potter didn't decide to find an invisibility cloak, and Harry Potter's player didn't decide that either. That was decided by Rowling acting as a DM. It's literally an arbitrary christmas gift from the main DMPC Dumbledore. Harry Potter's player gets to decide what to do with it, up to and including letting Ron or Luna use it, from that point on.

-Username17
Actually the cloak was not a gift from Dumbledore, but it was owned by Harry's father.
When Harry created his character he wrote down: my father owns a totally rad invisibility cloak. And in turn the DM had to give it to him.

Then the DM ran out of ideas and invented a shitty story around the wishlist item.

No it was a gift from Snape since he was in possession of the cloak which allowed him to watch Voldemort go into the Potter house after Lily had been killed. James left the cloak with Snape, Snape decided it was something that Harry should have from his father, thus Snape knew someone might be watching him and Quirrel talking in the hallway and grasped at thin air since he know at least ONE cloak of that nature existed in the school.

When Harry created his character, he wrote down Human Male, and EVERYTHING else was decided by the DM. He could not gift himself magic items, because magic was not something known to the Muggle world. Harry had ZERO knowledge to be able to figure out what items he might want as he didn't know the world until AFTER the NPC Hagrid met him and brought him to join the rest of the party (Ron and Hermione) to play.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:43 pm

As I said several pages ago, my real issue with the "wishlists strain credibility and coherence" argument is that it is not a unique flaw to wishlist systems:

Alternate options and alternate strains:

"Nobody sells Magic Items ever, you have to find them" -- strains any understanding of even basic economics more than giant firebreathing lizards who can fly strains basic understandings of physics. The whole system lasts 30 seconds until someone figures out that you can use gold to hire people to find magic items for you and/or do nasty things to the current owners of magic items.
Random Drops strain both the notion that you can use enemies' gear and the notion that the adversary who generated the random drop was tactically competent when they weren't using the gear
Wealth by level strains the notion that anyone can earn money by any means other than adventuring and allows any notion of real-world markets to break game balance in both directions at once.
Rely on MC pity -- isn't even a system, but in practice it inevitable runs smack dab into "why haven't a couple critters with "only hurt by +X or better weapons" conquered the town/duchy/world ?
All items are character abilities you pay character points for runs into the problems of charging players for finding cool things and doesn't let the MC use treasure hoards as effective incentives. This results in a game world where characters only go questing for treasures when they have excess character points around -- which is a world with very different motivations from the real world.
Only some items are character abilities you pay character points for, others you get for free runs into horrible game balance issues when a PC finds a free item that's as good as an item someone else paid points for. Okay, this isn't a believably issue - it merely results in resentment and jealousy, both of which are very plausible -- but probably not good at the metagame level

It's not that I don't see serious problems with wishlists - but I fail to see a massive degree difference in severity between the problems of wishlists and the problems of any other item drop system ever.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:45 pm

So he's my question.
If having the players write a list of the kinds of magic items they would like to see is unacceptable. What is the best way for a player to get to have the Ruby Slippers of Teleport home he really wants?

Are we really just rellying on the GM to be a good guy and pick out perfect magic items for his players? Or just random loot drops that they have to go and sell back home?

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:54 pm

virgil wrote: If the character goes through an adventure against the frost giant jarl and his Army of Winter, they shouldn't come home with a flame katana. If they wanted that that badly, they should have leveraged their player agency by choosing to go to the Burning Daimyo for adventure; and if that is unacceptable, then that is an example of control issues.

That's an interesting point.

In my case, I've gotten to the point where I have almost no tolerance for "side quests". I don't know if it's because my attention span is getting shorter as I get older, or because I've had too many bad experiences with GMs who suck at "winging it", or because I'm a closet "narrativist" (ugh), or because my gaming time is more limited than it used to be, but I'd rather see one plot run from beginning to end without too many digressions instead of running an episodic campaign. And in practice that means that I'm fairly tolerant about PCs getting whatever items they like by whatever handwavy means necessary (e.g. buying and selling at Magic-Mart, waiving the time needed to craft items, etc.) rather than the alternative of telling the players to suck it up.

sabs wrote:If having the players write a list of the kinds of magic items they would like to see is unacceptable. What is the best way for a player to get to have the Ruby Slippers of Teleport home he really wants?

In theory, you research who has that item -- a wicked witch, say -- then you track down the wicked witch and beat the shit out of her. At least, that's how it works if you have more tolerance for side quests than I do.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:02 pm

hogarth wrote:In my case, I've gotten to the point where I have almost no tolerance for "side quests". I don't know if it's because my attention span is getting shorter as I get older, or because I've had too many bad experiences with GMs who suck at "winging it", or because I'm a closet "narrativist" (ugh), or because my gaming time is more limited than it used to be, but I'd rather see one plot run from beginning to end without too many digressions instead of running an episodic campaign. And in practice that means that I'm fairly tolerant about PCs getting whatever items they like by whatever handwavy means necessary (e.g. buying and selling at Magic-Mart, waiving the time needed to craft items, etc.) rather than the alternative of telling the players to suck it up.

True side quests for the sole purpose of loot is one thing, and I can understand a low tolerance for them. You can also try to have several optional branch points in the primary campaign that lead to the same narrative destination in different ways (we can invade the Dark Lord through the Frozen Northlands, the Obsidian Plains of the Burning Daimyo, or by Limbo through the Chaos Gate).

In addition, wish-lists are a different category from other, appropriate means for player advocacy such as crafting and shopping; but those will understandably have their own constraints.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:04 pm

sabs wrote:So he's my question.
If having the players write a list of the kinds of magic items they would like to see is unacceptable.

1. What is the best way for a player to get to have the Ruby Slippers of Teleport home he really wants?

2. Are we really just rellying on the GM to be a good guy and pick out perfect magic items for his players?

3. Or just random loot drops that they have to go and sell back home?

this would depend on the game being played and its purpose. for D&D the answer would be thusly:

1. he doesn't. D&D isn't about creating your pet character concept nor telling your mini-novella. it is a game about taking the things you find and making do with them.

2. No. the DM is not responsible for babysitting a player and his pet character concept. D&D players have gotten spoiled with character "builds" in 3.x. the DM places the magic item the world has, or the players NEED or COULD USE to defeat things later. the flame-katana thing would or should have been found BEFORE fighting the frost giants as it can exploit a weakness they have, IF the intent of it was to prepare the players (railroad them) for the fight. it is then up to the player to decide if Van Helsing runs for the holy water fountain to shoot through with his crossbow at the vampire brides, or to try something else.

3. No. the DM should be putting magic items, not having EVERYTHING random, unless that is what the players and DM enjoy. but EVERYTHING shouldnt be allowed to be decided by the players, only their ACTIONS and HOW THEY PLAY their characters inform the DM as to what treasure they find to help them with. NOT some character concept of being Inigo Montoya, because the 6-fingered man, Count Tyrone Rugen, might not even exist in the adventure!

your entire list of things relies on the player having some right to a pet character concept, and that just doesn't belong in D&D. you can houserule that into anything you want to, but don't try to turn a game for everyone into what you want it to be that ONLY you will enjoy. this is why the default for D&D is random loot, because it makes the DM completely impartial. he can't play favoritism to any player or character or specifically screw over any player or character. this is the way it should be. then people that want to houserule in wishlists cause they dont understand D&D isnt for telling you mini-novella of your pet character can do so without infesting other people's games. likewise those that wish to have placed treasure for world feasibility and SoD protection, can do it that way.

NOTHING stop you from playing either of those two in the presence of random drops, but wishlist being incorporated into ALL fashion of the system with something such as WBL, denies the ability to play low-magic worlds or the like that include monsters that REQUIRE the WBL and high-magic possession to keep their CR.

zugschef · Post by **zugschef** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:15 pm

Josh_Kablack wrote:As I said several pages ago, my real issue with the "wishlists strain credibility and coherence" argument is that it is not a unique flaw to wishlist systems: [...]

I agree with you. But wishlists are somewhat more problematic because it either makes the mc an asshole or the players' bitch.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:37 pm

Josh wrote:Random Drops strain both the notion that you can use enemies' gear and the notion that the adversary who generated the random drop was tactically competent when they weren't using the gear

Does anyone seriously advocate random post hoc drops? I thought random treasure advocates advocated randomly generating the treasure before the battle, and if there was a Frost Orb or a Vampiric Blade, adjusting the encounter accordingly.

-Username17