The Gaming Den

Fuchs wrote:

Drolyt wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:You just answered your own damn question. Fuchs just cited the fact that the authors of single author fiction determine what magic items the characters find in their travels as evidence of player narrative control over found magic items. But it's obviously not evidence of that, because of how D&D works.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. Fuchs obviously isn't making any sense, I wasn't defending his argument. Rather, I just think that one of your assumptions, that only the DM wears the author hat, doesn't have to work that way. If players want some control over what kind of items they get I think giving them metagame currency is a viable solution, or at the very least it is worlds better than mother-may-I mechanics like wishlists.

Wishlist, or "everyone gets X Tokens they can redeem to place an item of their choice per Level", works out the same - players get what they want, not what the random dice rolls say they should get.

The whole point is that some people cannot stand if players get to pick their character's looks and gear.

It's been clear for some time that some people here, prominent posters, have social issues which make them drivel about "hard-coded rules" being needed for gaming groups, all the while ignoring that even their precious hard-coded rules are only enforced as much as the gaming group in question allows. There is no court of law enforcing gaming rules on a group. If you have a problem with a rule, or a house rule, or a member of the group, you can't appeal to a higher authority and have them decide, you'll have to solve it with the rest of the group.

Well, I'm not sure your criticism of some of the other posters on here is entirely wrong, but for me it is also besides the point. Obviously most of the potential problems with wishlists won't occur in any half-decent gaming group, but I still think the fact that they are necessary is a strike against the game. As much as is possible the rules should just work, but it is a fact that in D&D the magic item system needs patching just to function at a basic level.

Let me put it another way: wishlists work fine as a patch, but they shouldn't be necessary. Still, they are just a symptom of the broader problem that is the magic item system.

Drolyt wrote:Let me put it another way: wishlists work fine as a patch, but they shouldn't be necessary. Still, they are just a symptom of the broader problem that is the magic item system.

That is true. The issue with rules shouldn't be confused with social issues though. Problems with players should not and cannot be solved with game mechanics. You cannot asshole-proof game mechanics, assholes will always look for and usually find ways to wreck a game. Out of game influence usually tops game mechanics anyway when they clash.

Or in other words: If your GM is favorising his girlfriend's character, then new game mechanics won't change that, he'll simply find other ways to do that.

Edit: To put it more clearly: A magic item system where you don't have to "suck DM cock" to get nice stuff will not prevent anyone from getting nicer stuff by sucking the GM's cock if your GM cannot treat everyone equally and fairly.

Fuchs wrote:Edit: To put it more clearly: A magic item system where you don't have to "suck DM cock" to get nice stuff will not prevent anyone from getting nicer stuff by sucking the GM's cock if your GM cannot treat everyone equally and fairly.

Sure, but it makes the GM's job easier if the system just works. There's also a difference between an actively hostile GM and one that is merely incompetent, it is the latter case where a solid system can really help.

Actually in both cases a good system helps.
While people like to pretend that assholes will always be assholes, that just is not true.
Put people in an environment that rewards you for being an asshole and punishes you for not being an asshole and you'll get more assholes. And vice versa.

- Edit: and people like to follow rules, thus if your rules say: suck the DM's rooster to get magic items, more people will actually require you do that, than if your rules don't including sucking on roosters at all.

Drolyt wrote:

Fuchs wrote:Edit: To put it more clearly: A magic item system where you don't have to "suck DM cock" to get nice stuff will not prevent anyone from getting nicer stuff by sucking the GM's cock if your GM cannot treat everyone equally and fairly.

Sure, but it makes the GM's job easier if the system just works. There's also a difference between an actively hostile GM and one that is merely incompetent, it is the latter case where a solid system can really help.

Obviously the point of having rules isn't to affect people who like breaking rules (duh). It's to give useful guidelines to people who honestly don't know what the best house rule would be off the top of their head. That's not necessarily "incompetence" either; it could be a matter of not having the time or inclination to playtest a bunch of different proposed solutions.

hogarth wrote:

Drolyt wrote:

Fuchs wrote:Edit: To put it more clearly: A magic item system where you don't have to "suck DM cock" to get nice stuff will not prevent anyone from getting nicer stuff by sucking the GM's cock if your GM cannot treat everyone equally and fairly.

Sure, but it makes the GM's job easier if the system just works. There's also a difference between an actively hostile GM and one that is merely incompetent, it is the latter case where a solid system can really help.

Obviously the point of having rules isn't to affect people who like breaking rules (duh). It's to give useful guidelines to people who honestly don't know what the best house rule would be off the top of their head. That's not necessarily "incompetence" either; it could be a matter of not having the time or inclination to playtest a bunch of different proposed solutions.

Incompetent might not have been the right word.

ishy wrote:Put people in an environment that rewards you for being an asshole and punishes you for not being an asshole and you'll get more assholes. And vice versa.

But the enviroment of a gaming group is not the game setting or the game mechanics, but the group. And the rewards and punishments in that enviroment are not the result of the rules, but of the actions and reactions of the people involved - though they might use the rules as a tool, at times.

ishy wrote:- Edit: and people like to follow rules, thus if your rules say: suck the DM's rooster to get magic items, more people will actually require you do that, than if your rules don't including sucking on roosters at all.

No rules actually say that - it's the result of common behaviour. There's generally a tendency to be nice to people who can do nice things for you in return, and a GM, no matter the rules, is a prime target for such behaviour.

And usually there's nothing wrong with being nice to someone spending the time and work to run a game, unless it results in unfair treatment of players.

Wow, Fuchs is explicitly anti-rules that prevent cock sucking because he thinks getting his cock sucked is the natural and right result of being GM.

Fuchs wrote:

ishy wrote:Put people in an environment that rewards you for being an asshole and punishes you for not being an asshole and you'll get more assholes. And vice versa.

But the enviroment of a gaming group is not the game setting or the game mechanics, but the group. And the rewards and punishments in that enviroment are not the result of the rules, but of the actions and reactions of the people involved - though they might use the rules as a tool, at times.

You've spent a lot of text avoiding the question and failing to actually challenge the point being made. I could challenge you to explain why wishlists are flat-out better than any of the various not-wishlist systems proposed, but instead I will choose the one closest to your apparent desires - that of Puppy Points.

I won't even challenge you to show how wishlists are less damaging than players spending Puppy Points to cause the items they want to appear when they want them to, because that's a subjective question.

Fuchs, explain to me how the system of a player spending X narrative control points to gain a level N*X item is damaging to the game as you see it. Not even "more damaging to the game than the known consequences of an informal wishlist", just damaging in the slightest. Evade the question and go on ignore.

Omegonthesane wrote:

Fuchs wrote:

ishy wrote:Put people in an environment that rewards you for being an asshole and punishes you for not being an asshole and you'll get more assholes. And vice versa.

But the enviroment of a gaming group is not the game setting or the game mechanics, but the group. And the rewards and punishments in that enviroment are not the result of the rules, but of the actions and reactions of the people involved - though they might use the rules as a tool, at times.

You've spent a lot of text avoiding the question and failing to actually challenge the point being made. I could challenge you to explain why wishlists are flat-out better than any of the various not-wishlist systems proposed, but instead I will choose the one closest to your apparent desires - that of Puppy Points.

I won't even challenge you to show how wishlists are less damaging than players spending Puppy Points to cause the items they want to appear when they want them to, because that's a subjective question.

Fuchs, explain to me how the system of a player spending X narrative control points to gain a level N*X item is damaging to the game as you see it. Not even "more damaging to the game than the known consequences of an informal wishlist", just damaging in the slightest. Evade the question and go on ignore.

It's not damaging at all. As you may recall I even brought up exactly this mechanic earlier in the thread:

Fuchs wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:The entire premise of this thread is that a "wish list" is distinct from "purchasing things" or "crafting things" or in any other way using in-character abilities to acquire or attempt to acquire specific items. And that it is also distinct from using player (rather than character) abilities to affect the narrative and place items you want your character to acquire.

If all that a wishlist needs for you to stop freaking out is some feeble pretext of having codified rules.... here are some rules:

Each player gets to wish/place items worth X per level. X can be a set amount of gold if you're using WBL, or a set amount of "+" / bonuses. There may be an upper limit of "Y" that can be spent on any single item.

The important point is that players get what they want. How you dress that up is just cosmetics in my opinion since I think that anything a plain wishlist wouldn't get me but a puppy Point System would, the GM could already veto, ban, or - if that's not in the rules - destroy in game using the normal game mechanics ("It was stolen/lost at sea/etc.").

The GM controls so much of the typical campaign (pick Level of NPCs & Monsters, choose enviroment, decide on plans and motivation of NPCs, etc.) and usually has a screen to hide his rolls, that, in my opinion, his power is not held in check by game mechanics, but only by social dynamics.

I do think a plain wishlist is better still since it's less work for the GM and usually causes less of a delay in game since the GM can approve and deal with balance problems beforehand, therefore reducing the amount of retcons and adjustments, and allows the GM to judge the power level better in advance as well, since he has the lists from all players and doesn't get surprised during the game. Since the GM picks the way an item is introduced, it also can be fitted better in an adventure or campaign.

Omegonthesane wrote:Fuchs, explain to me how the system of a player spending X narrative control points to gain a level N*X item is damaging to the game as you see it. Not even "more damaging to the game than the known consequences of an informal wishlist", just damaging in the slightest. Evade the question and go on ignore.

Because a critical part of the game is Fuchs getting his dick sucked, and that rule gets in the way of said dick sucking.

Fuchs wrote:

Omegonthesane wrote:Fuchs, explain to me how the system of a player spending X narrative control points to gain a level N*X item is damaging to the game as you see it. Not even "more damaging to the game than the known consequences of an informal wishlist", just damaging in the slightest. Evade the question and go on ignore.

It's not damaging at all. As you may recall I even brought up exactly this mechanic earlier in the thread:

You conceded a point. You get a cask of finest single-barrel malt cocks.

Fuchs wrote:The important point is that players get what they want. How you dress that up is just cosmetics in my opinion since I think that anything a plain wishlist wouldn't get me but a puppy Point System would, the GM could already veto, ban, or - if that's not in the rules - destroy in game using the normal game mechanics ("It was stolen/lost at sea/etc.").

The GM controls so much of the typical campaign (pick Level of NPCs & Monsters, choose enviroment, decide on plans and motivation of NPCs, etc.) and usually has a screen to hide his rolls, that, in my opinion, his power is not held in check by game mechanics, but only by social dynamics.

This is false. As has already been discussed, it is easier to spot GM abuses if the GM has to violate game rules to commit those abuses, and it is therefore more likely that social dynamics will kick in in retaliation against those abuses. It also implies the sole purpose of such mechanics is to rein in the MC, rather than to make his job simpler by reducing the number of things he has to personally adjudicate.

Fuchs wrote:I do think a plain wishlist is better still since it's less work for the GM and usually causes less of a delay in game since the GM can approve and deal with balance problems beforehand, therefore reducing the amount of retcons and adjustments,

I'm going to bold this: That, right there, isn't just false, it's literally and precisely the opposite of the truth. I don't mean that as hyperbole

Fuchsiverse: The GM's workload is somehow increased by having a list prepared by other people of what items roughly compare to what other items assuming that players who want them take them, and less delays happen in game if items haven't had their balance assessed before publication.
Reality: The GM's workload is reduced if there is a price list based on item power that the players can simply follow, rather than demanding on-the-spot evaluations of those items against other options actually taken and the opposition they are facing.

Fuchs wrote:and allows the GM to judge the power level better in advance as well, since he has the lists from all players and doesn't get surprised during the game. Since the GM picks the way an item is introduced, it also can be fitted better in an adventure or campaign.

None of this uniquely describes wishlists. None of this goes away if your list has to be paid for with fixed-rate Puppy Points instead of variable-rate blowjobs. The only part of the "wishlists" paradigm that causes any of this is the bit where you hand in your list before the game - and doing so destroys 90% of the chance for organic growth, as you are locked on an item treadmill regardless of game events.

The player should have the ability to change their mind within reason about what items they want. Demanding that you spend Puppy Points between sessions isn't any more unreasonable than demanding that Wizards or Clerics decide their S.O.P. spell preparation between sessions. For an example of how this worked in actual play, my Skype group's In Nomine games in all their forms have always had the understanding that if before a session you spend XP on an item, then by some GM-determined contrivance that item will be in your possession with all its powers ideally in the first half and in all cases by the end of that session. This means no delays required and no need for on-the-spot retcons, and none of it is unique to wishlisting.

Drolyt wrote:

Fuchs wrote:Wishlist, or "everyone gets X Tokens they can redeem to place an item of their choice per Level", works out the same - players get what they want, not what the random dice rolls say they should get.

The whole point is that some people cannot stand if players get to pick their character's looks and gear.

It's been clear for some time that some people here, prominent posters, have social issues which make them drivel about "hard-coded rules" being needed for gaming groups, all the while ignoring that even their precious hard-coded rules are only enforced as much as the gaming group in question allows. There is no court of law enforcing gaming rules on a group. If you have a problem with a rule, or a house rule, or a member of the group, you can't appeal to a higher authority and have them decide, you'll have to solve it with the rest of the group.

Well, I'm not sure your criticism of some of the other posters on here is entirely wrong, but for me it is also besides the point. Obviously most of the potential problems with wishlists won't occur in any half-decent gaming group, but I still think the fact that they are necessary is a strike against the game. As much as is possible the rules should just work, but it is a fact that in D&D the magic item system needs patching just to function at a basic level.

Let me put it another way: wishlists work fine as a patch, but they shouldn't be necessary. Still, they are just a symptom of the broader problem that is the magic item system.

Wait a sec... Something just happened here and I need some clarification...

In my mind, wishlists are not patches for an inadequate rule set. I don't mention cool stuff it would be nice for my character to have to the DM (no, I don't write my wishlists down) because mechanically, there's a problem with my character. I mention it to the DM because my character could develop more of a personality because of X.

Like that one time when I got a random flaming sword and my character started developing a fiery reputation around the kingdom, so I asked the DM for other "flaming" items.

Or that time when my luck with random items just left me with a pile of numbers and I wanted something quirky and weird.

Pretty much the only time that my wishlist and the rules bump heads is when I want to keep my weapon, and thus need it to be upgradeable. But I don't think that's what's being discussed here.

So... If you please... Explain how wishlists are patches for inadequate rules? Because I continue to see them as solving people problems, not rule problems.

Fuchs wrote:

ishy wrote:Put people in an environment that rewards you for being an asshole and punishes you for not being an asshole and you'll get more assholes. And vice versa.

But the enviroment of a gaming group is not the game setting or the game mechanics, but the group. And the rewards and punishments in that enviroment are not the result of the rules, but of the actions and reactions of the people involved - though they might use the rules as a tool, at times.

No. You're wrong about that.
Would you say you'd approach a D&D game in the exact same way as you would a shadow run or a paranoia game or a <x game>?

Maj wrote:So... If you please... Explain how wishlists are patches for inadequate rules?

In D&D, you need a magic weapon to strike many enemies. In many versions, you need a cloak of protection in order to not die to level appropriate enemies. You legitimately need items that you don't necessarily get.

The wishlist in that case isn't the act of telling the other players that you want to adventure in the Bane Mires. It's asking the MC to include specific items that you fucking need. If a character needs an item, there should be some sort of actual rule that fucking gives them out. That the wishlist is a requirement in 4e D&D is a failure of the rules.

-Username17

Maj wrote:So... If you please... Explain how wishlists are patches for inadequate rules? Because I continue to see them as solving people problems, not rule problems.

Because everything you described ought to be provided for in the rules without having to beg Mister Cavern. You want a fire item set? You should be able to spend a feat on that, or craft points, or quest points or something. The rules should provide.

Drolyt wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: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.

Why? I mean, that is how D&D works, but a lot of games give player's some "author" powers, usually through something like "hero points". I see zero problem with a player spending a hero point to insert the item they want into the treasure pile.

Because "wishlists" is a product of 4th edition D&D that was bred from DM v Player attitude and helped by "player entitlement" of WBL pre4sent in 3rd edition.

So it has little to nothing to do with any other game. "wishlists" are not a problem and actually encouraged in games like Vampire LARP where it IS a storytelling game. D&D is NOT a storytelling game. Maybe there are other games whose focus is a storytelling toolset, but i dont know them, only that D&D clearly is not one, nor should it be made to be one.

YOU are free to use it for that, but not to try to force it to change to that for EVERYONE else. play YOUR game at YOUR house and introduce those elements to players and use them if they agree to them. For the rest, there is D&D.

Fuchs wrote:

zugschef wrote:

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.

And that's the problem - some egos cannot handle players having any say on the campaign. Delivering what players want is the hallmark of a good DM.

BULLSHIT, and wrong!

The hallmark of a good babysitter is keeping the kiddies from crying. The hallmark of a good DM is providing a WORKING game. that does not ALWAYS include pampering the players as you wish it does. Hoeps are that the game is fun and the type everyone wants including or limited the use of things like: "timed event", "NPC escort mission", and "rescue the damsel in distress", etc.

Sorry, not everyone agrees that your narrow focused character concept means that every DM owes you a magical rapier for your silly swashbuckler novel you want to use D&D to help you write.

Fuchs wrote:Never? "GM, I need to leave for my military service, I'll not be able to play for 17 weeks then. Can you find a way to explain why my character will not be doing anything? Maybe a cool cursed weapon or so, that I can get rid of when I am back?"

or the character just goes the fuck home to tend to his ailing mother for that time and rejoins the game when his tour is over, and either the mother is back to health or has passed, and the game continues without having to bribe the player with some magic item to come back to the game he was wanting to still play in anyway.

and after 17 months odds are his character is so fucking far behind in levels he should probably just start a new one, or just let someone else play the current one IF he wishes to continue on with that character in ANY affective way.

tussock wrote:Wealth by Level should be a minimum guideline for newly made high-level PCs and NPCs, and should be substantially lower than what actual PCs-from-level-1 end up with. Because the game should reward people who it rewards.

isn't this exactly what the purpose was? i ahve heard it used to mean so many things, like Frank's reason it is broken, but also like a simple tool like PrCs.

When i last actually read it, it seemed more like a creation tool, though through play WBL could be more or less depending on how you played in the game.

guess i need to borrow a book again to read it and find Frank's thread on here about it.

Four posts...

And you wonder why Shadzar complains about having no friends to play D&D with in his other thread?

Fuchs wrote:

tussock wrote:

• People do "sell" you magic items, but not for gold pieces or other mundane fungibles. You want a Staff of Power, dude with one wants a Celestial Dragon killed; go make a deal.

And that is different from "Mother may I" exactly how?

MMI is basically wishlists. you are asking the DM if you can have something specific.

crafting something yourself and knowing something exists and wishing for it are vastly different.

wishlist and your method has the player arbitrarily deciding that the dragon has X item just because the player wants it.

crafting means your player can create any damn thing they fucking want that the DM can agree on costs/time/functions cause players can come up with some interesting shit, thus where half the magic items in D&D even came from.

tussock wrote:

• Wealth by Level should be a minimum guideline for newly made high-level PCs and NPCs, and should be substantially lower than what actual PCs-from-level-1 end up with. Because the game should reward people who it rewards.

If you need to artificially limit new PCs just so they are not better off with regards to magic items than characters raised from Level 1, then your magic item system needs work.

have you never read a compliant about WBL anywhere before? how long have you been on these forums? do you have Frank Trollman on ignore?

also you fail to read. nobody said to make a new character joining an existing party was the ONLY thing. that is possible, but also is EVERYONE starting as a higher level than 1, and playing from say level 7 onward, so ALL characters are NEW characters.

Drolyt wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:You just answered your own damn question. Fuchs just cited the fact that the authors of single author fiction determine what magic items the characters find in their travels as evidence of player narrative control over found magic items. But it's obviously not evidence of that, because of how D&D works.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. Fuchs obviously isn't making any sense, I wasn't defending his argument. Rather, I just think that one of your assumptions, that only the DM wears the author hat, doesn't have to work that way. If players want some control over what kind of items they get I think giving them metagame currency is a viable solution, or at the very least it is worlds better than mother-may-I mechanics like wishlists.

AT YOUR TABLE, and FOR YOUR GAME, this is fine. However, dont try to force it into the rules for all like 3rd and 4th did with many things. feel free to share your methods with others as houserules online wherever you choose to do so. TGD has a special forum for such things "Its My Own Invention", where you can put items, builds, classes, rules changes, etc. i am sure MANY people here would read them.

Fuchs wrote:Edit: To put it more clearly: A magic item system where you don't have to "suck DM cock" to get nice stuff will not prevent anyone from getting nicer stuff by sucking the GM's cock if your GM cannot treat everyone equally and fairly.

you really want not a DM, but a sugar daddy, and you will likely be sucking his cock a lot more than your DMs.

your nice things include but are not limited to:

-every fucking thing your character comes into contact with int he game

why do you want a DM again? why are you playing D&D again? you just want to write a story about your character and how awesome it is. you dont need a DM or other players there to get in your way. you just need them there to boast and brag to.

Drolyt wrote:There's also a difference between an actively hostile GM and one that is merely incompetent, it is the latter case where a solid system can really help.

and a difference too in your fantasy world and a DM who doesn't serve just ONE player at the table, but has to make the game work for other people.

How many DMs do you hold as slaves at your house? Are you paying any of them wages or following OSHA standards and regulations if they are not slaves?