The Gaming Den

Voss wrote:It is a wishlist, not a list of terrorist demands.

Prove it.

The only version of D&D that actually works with a Wishlist system is 4th edition. And within the context of 4th edition they are terrorist demands. The demand is that you get a +2 Lightning Glaive and the threat is that if you don't get it your character isn't going to work at all and the whole party is going to be held back by the fact that you aren't level appropriate until you get that one thing.

Name a system that has an item wishlist where the list isn't a list of terrorist demands. It doesn't even have to be a Fantasy Heartbreaker. Just name one game that actually works like that.

-Username17

FATE? Or the DFRPG, at any rate, but I think magic items count as class features, basically.

zugschef wrote:Can't you also have fun in obtaining something for which you've waited or worked for for a long time? I mean random treasure which isn't just vendor trash is great, but why can't it be great to work towards a specific goal, in this case a specific item?

little secret, the game world is made for the PCs, not the player. the PCs don't know about +10 resounding-flaming-tongue-returning [insert weapon type here]. if the PCs do know about this, there is too much metagame or munchkining going on.

as Frank said, FINDING something you can use gives off that sense of release and endorphins. there is no real accomplishment to be had in buying something, cause ANYONE with enough money could buy it.

every fucking goblin wont be carrying a +10 resounding-flaming-tongue-returning [insert weapon type here] just because you want one. when it does. it loses its special snowflakeness. it becomes just like the common longsword is now... vender trash.

Fred: Well we found another +10 resounding-flaming-tongue-returning [insert weapon type here]. Hey Bob, think you could mark that off your wishlist now so maybe we can find some normal swords so we don't have to try carrying all these back to sell, cause its getting annoying and we already killed that one family at the inn when our room collapsed on them and had to buy the inn and hire guards and use it as our vault. there is a reason we don't just take every weapon with us even though blacksmiths could use the metal and make it into anything else.

something you "want" gets into child territory. the waiting on christmas morning.

something you "worked for" anyone can have if they have to right amount of money, cause work is often measure over time in money.

also the concept of "i want my magic rapier cause my character focus is so narrow i want to be able to add nothing to the game for others and only care about myself" really shows a lack of understanding the game.

i ask this to wishlisters: how do you know WHAT you will NEED in the game such that you make out a wishlsit anyway? does the DM have to make the later game have somewhere your wishlisted magic item is shown as the spotlight item used in some battle?

seriously how do you know what you will need later in order to make a christmas list to ask Santa DM for the toys you want?

shadzar wrote:little secret, the game world is made for the PCs, not the player. the PCs don't know about +10 resounding-flaming-tongue-returning [insert weapon type here]. if the PCs do know about this, there is too much metagame or munchkining going on.

I disagree. If there is such a weapon, than it should have impacted the game world. It should be an item of legend. The PCs should be aware of it just like everyone on these threads is aware of Excalibur and probably Masamune - and probably Sting and Glamdring.

Powerful weapons develop powerful legends.

In an immersive environment, the PCs (not the players) would be aware of the myths and legends that they grew up hearing, and there's nothing strange about them seeking out an item of legend.

This is no different than Conquistadors searching for El Dorado or the Foutain of Youth - if people think there's something that even just might exist and it can be useful to them, there are people that will quest for it.

vagrant wrote:FATE? Or the DFRPG, at any rate, but I think magic items count as class features, basically.

Well that's just it: in FATE you don't have a magic item wishlist. You spend narrative control points to place magic items your character can use. It's a form of item economy, not a wishlist. The wishlist is literally just the system where you tell the MC what items you want and then you get pissed off if the items you expected aren't the items you get.

Any system where the player directly writes the item into the story through narrative control abilities is by definition not a "wishlist". And whether those narrative control abilities are abstracted market forces ("I want to purchase a Lightning Glaive with my astral pearls") or literal authorial control ("I spend a FATE point to have the Winkie guardsmen have a Lightning Glaive"), it's still not giving your list of terrorist demands to the MC in order to justify getting pissed off at some point in the future if your demands aren't met.

-Username17

Which do you think is better? I do get a rush when I find that super-duper awesome item I wanted, and annoyed when I kill my 500th orc and find yet more everburning torches or some shit.

FATE, obviously, doesn't have the whole 'You find Masamune in a chest!' sort of thing, but how do you replicate that same endorphin rush of finding Masamune in a chest without having either wishlists or sucking the GMs cock?

vagrant wrote:how do you replicate that same endorphin rush of finding Masamune in a chest without having either wishlists or sucking the GMs cock?

Random treasure rolls that drop loot above and beyond the standard economy.

vagrant wrote:Which do you think is better? I do get a rush when I find that super-duper awesome item I wanted, and annoyed when I kill my 500th orc and find yet more everburning torches or some shit.

FATE, obviously, doesn't have the whole 'You find Masamune in a chest!' sort of thing, but how do you replicate that same endorphin rush of finding Masamune in a chest without having either wishlists or sucking the GMs cock?

Under a FATE-esque thing, presumably there are going to be things you'd like to have that aren't quite awesome enough that it's worth cooking a narrative control point to rig the RNG for them. Finding those from the treasure drop table will presumably make you happy.

But random treasure drops leads to the issue of wanting a wishlist, if for some reason my concept was rapier-dude but all the RNG gave me were mauls or something. Or is it that I simply want conflicting design goals in a single system?

vagrant wrote:Which do you think is better?

Random items, fungible markets, and narrative currency are like my children, I love them all!

More seriously, playing a system where you can not get the items you want is more exciting. But the drawback is that sometimes you don't get the items you want. When that happens, it is best to have the blame fall on a blue d20 (or whatever), rather than an actual person (such as the DM). Systems where you always get the item you want, always give you the item you want. And that's cool, but the excitement factor is lower. Also you have verisimilitude issues to worry about, depending on what your explanation for always getting the thing you want happens to be.

There's totally place in the world for systems where you buy the items you want from a big marketplace, and can thus always get the specific items you want for a cost. There's also totally place in the world for systems where you randomly find whatever happens to be there and have to make do. But there's no place in the world for a "system" where you tell the MC what you want to find and then he decides whether or not to give it to you depending on how he's feeling at the moment. That would be like using "DM Whim" instead of rolling dice to determine the results of your saving throws.

-Username17

You mean 5e? Having watched the results of Mearls, erm, playtest...

A good GM will have an understanding of what his players want (without explicitly being told). He will consider those desires when designing unique items - perhaps even giving the player something BETTER than what they thought they wanted.

But not every GM is a good GM.

Players should have the ability to get items that they want (craft them/purchase them/quest for them) without the GM necessarily having to do anything - but they shouldn't have to DEMAND the GM give it to them.

Gift Registries for PCs is a bad idea (I only want treasure from this list).

I'd love to find a GM that's a mind-reader. All the best GMs I've had (and taken pointers from) used things like communication and talking, not 'have an understanding of what his players want without explicitly being told'. Actually, fuck having that guy as GM, I want him on my corporate team. Man's a hustler.

Ancient History wrote:Well, an addendum on that: AD&D was a failed system in part because it strongly pushed/supported a random encounter/loot drop system to support a style of off-the-cuff play which was rather mathematically intensive /and/ unintuitive.

you mean the fact the game world exists as a living entity itself just like the PCs, and didnt revolve around them and made specifically for them? That is what a TTRPG is about. players accessing a new world and doing things in it to see what changes they can make to that world.

what you seem to want is a static world which is designed for you to know what is coming next and places only exist because you want to play. this sounds like a board game to me.

so you want to play a board game, not a TTRPG right?

shadzar wrote:as Frank said, FINDING something you can use gives off that sense of release and endorphins. there is no real accomplishment to be had in buying something, cause ANYONE with enough money could buy it.

Since when can't you combine finding and buying? If you've bought everything you've ever needed at Wallmart and never had to look for stuff, you're a pretty sad guy.

I guess the issue here is that if you have random drops that might not cover the stuff players need, that is bad for the characters and the game as a whole. So think that there needs to be a differentiation between a wantlist and a shopping list. A want list is "gee wow this is cool/powerful", a shopping list is a list of crap your PC needs to keep up - monks and amulets of natural armor, that sort of thing. The former is a bit dickish to impose on the MC, the latter can be taken care of by providing a means for exchanging unwanted gear and other character resources for wanted/upgraded gear appropriate to the character's level.

deaddmwalking wrote:

shadzar wrote:little secret, the game world is made for the PCs, not the player. the PCs don't know about +10 resounding-flaming-tongue-returning [insert weapon type here]. if the PCs do know about this, there is too much metagame or munchkining going on.

I disagree. If there is such a weapon, than it should have impacted the game world. It should be an item of legend. The PCs should be aware of it just like everyone on these threads is aware of Excalibur and probably Masamune - and probably Sting and Glamdring.

Powerful weapons develop powerful legends.

In an immersive environment, the PCs (not the players) would be aware of the myths and legends that they grew up hearing, and there's nothing strange about them seeking out an item of legend.

This is no different than Conquistadors searching for El Dorado or the Foutain of Youth - if people think there's something that even just might exist and it can be useful to them, there are people that will quest for it.

What did Frodo know of the One Ring? What did he know of Narusil(sp)?

guess what these are not items that Frodo/Bilbo wished for, nor did Aragorn. in both cases these were things thrust upon them because they would NEED them.

Sure Aragorn could have asked the sword to have been reforged some 60 years prior, but he didnt. and he knew of its existence and meaning.

just because an item of legend exists, it doesn't mean every Tom Dick and Harry wants it, nor does it mean they need it.

who was served by Bilbo finding the One Ring? Bilbo? Frodo? The DMs world itself? seems to me only the game world prospered from Bilbo's finding the ring. Bilbo and Frodo got fucked by it. the One Ring was the MOST legendary of items, but not many sought it.

so even IF an item is legendary and well heard if it doesn't mean everyone should want it or seek it. nor does something being legendary mean everyone has heard of it.

you might be assigning legendary status to this since i gave it a +10, but i gave it a +10 not as saying it to be an artifact, but to further the idea of Munchkinism inherent to the wishlsit concept.
___________________________________
the problem with all these though that you and i are mentioning is that they are fucking artifacts! you can't put Heward's Organ, or the Hand/Eye of Vecna on a fucking wishlist you dolt!

the problem is some people think those are things that should be on a wishlsit. ONE and only one person can use an artifact, it is NOT an item that someone should find as a random drop like the +10 whatever i mentioned. going on a quest for the Holy Grail, is for the adventure and glory, NOT because ONE single player wishes to possess the grail as a personal item.

what happens when you find the grail and peace washes over the land? game end, make new characters.

was that the objective you had for playing, a grail quest? well that is a good adventure to be had for sure, but not a Level 4 item to appear on a wishlsit, unless you are planning to end your game at level 4.

vagrant wrote:I'd love to find a GM that's a mind-reader. All the best GMs I've had (and taken pointers from) used things like communication and talking, not 'have an understanding of what his players want without explicitly being told'. Actually, fuck having that guy as GM, I want him on my corporate team. Man's a hustler.

You don't have to be a mind-reader to know what your players want. Maybe to guess that they specifically want a FlameTongue rather than a FrostBrand, but usually we're just talkinag about 'cool weapon that makes them more effective'.

If you don't know what your players are using and what would make a 'happy improvement', I'd say you're not paying attention to the character creation and apparent motivations.

For example - if your player is playing with the sword bequeathed by their father (whom they're seeking to revenge) ala Inigo Montoya, the DM should probably realize that replacing their weapon with a new one won't make the player happy. But working out a way to 'upgrade' it (increasing it's connection to the ancestral spirit as you get closer to achieving your revenge) is a way to give the player what he wants without him having to specifically describe it.

As far as 'communication' - we're all guilty of this. We want people to know what we want from them without having to ask. There's a big difference from someone offering you a blowjob and asking for one - they both might end the same way, but one is much more enjoyable than the other. Expecting people to read your mind about your NEEDS isn't a long-term winning strategy - but it can mostly work for WANTS.

And a good DM should have no problem recognizing NEEDS. If a PC is always getting knocked unconscious because everybody hits him on every attack, it's pretty clear that he NEEDS something that reduces the number of times he gets hit... Or at least, I think it should be.

vagrant wrote:Which do you think is better?

i think it is better to find something that will help me in some way later, than something that twinks my character concept.

1. i don't make a character concept that includes item acquisition. i make a character concept that is a personality and personal world view goals, and one that fits with the party of other PCs.

2. i dont want a DM to erase the moneylender from this village because i need a turkey vulture liver for a spell component, i want to be able to go hunt a turkey culture, or send the fighter to do it since the spell will be of use to him when it saves his ass and helps accomplish the PARTY GOAL.

i don't know, nor do i want to know what the DM is throwing at me, even if i know by heart every ability of every monster in the MM. i want to take what my character has at hand in the world, and see how far i can go in this world to doing whatever i deem the goal of the PC i am playing. i dont play a Drizzt-clone because i want to be a Drizzt-clone.

MY drow character that wields two swords existed before i even read a Drizzt novel or played in an underdark campaign. it was a dark-elf from Blackmoor who was ambidextrous so had a sword for each hand depending on which he needed to draw like a gunfighter. not that he intended to use both swords at the same time, but could always use the free hand to get to a sword to use it. being a fighter/mage he attempted to be an assassin or mercenary druther. his motivation was not bound by some nonsense made by Salvatore, nor do my wizards try to be Rincewind, Elminster nor Raistlin. *SHADZAR the dark-elf had one goal: MONEY.

*Shadzar: Shadow + Czar (Shadow King) he worked in the shadows, not bound by the underdark. he didn't care what in the fuck he used, but would pick up anything if need be to do what it took to reach his goal. penalty for using a non-sword weapon.. who gives a shit. winning then because a greater obstacle, but also a greater reward. IF he found an axe and had a penalty to use it, and this axe happened to be something needed or helpful later to fight some BBEG, then like the honey badger, he didn't give a shit. he would use it when he needed to. like Conan. any weapon is a better weapon than NO weapon.

and let us ALL remember, "better" is a subjective term. personal tastes are not objectionably quantifiable.

really even hated having my dark-elf converted to a drow often by DMs, but fuck it. he wasnt bound by the underdark shit anyway. he was jsut a dark skinned elf from a more barbaric lifestyle.

deaddmwalking wrote:A good GM will have an understanding of what his players want (without explicitly being told). He will consider those desires when designing unique items - perhaps even giving the player something BETTER than what they thought they wanted.

But not every GM is a good GM.

Players should have the ability to get items that they want (craft them/purchase them/quest for them) without the GM necessarily having to do anything - but they shouldn't have to DEMAND the GM give it to them.

Gift Registries for PCs is a bad idea (I only want treasure from this list).

i find this concept as both wrong and right.

RIGHT in that a good DM gives them a fun game.

WRONG in that a good DM is required to give the players the twink/toon they have always dreamed of.

the DMs job is to present a game to be played, not a swap-meet of magic items.

shadzar wrote:

deaddmwalking wrote:

shadzar wrote:little secret, the game world is made for the PCs, not the player. the PCs don't know about +10 resounding-flaming-tongue-returning [insert weapon type here]. if the PCs do know about this, there is too much metagame or munchkining going on.

I disagree. If there is such a weapon, than it should have impacted the game world. It should be an item of legend. The PCs should be aware of it just like everyone on these threads is aware of Excalibur and probably Masamune - and probably Sting and Glamdring.

Powerful weapons develop powerful legends.

In an immersive environment, the PCs (not the players) would be aware of the myths and legends that they grew up hearing, and there's nothing strange about them seeking out an item of legend.

This is no different than Conquistadors searching for El Dorado or the Foutain of Youth - if people think there's something that even just might exist and it can be useful to them, there are people that will quest for it.

What did Frodo know of the One Ring? What did he know of Narusil(sp)?

Frodo didn't know anything about the One Ring. He also wasn't an adventurer, nor did he make a conscious choice to seek out an vanquish evil. But people who do know about 'special items' helped out all the Hobbits at several points. Tom Bombadil made sure they were outfitted with barrow-wight blades; Galadriel gave them unique gifts that helped with their journey.

But plenty of people did seek out 'powerful weapons'. Boromir, remember, wanted to take the ring back to Gondor and use it against the Enemy. And certainly the ring had a known history. The 'backstory' of Isildur and how he cut it from Sauron's hand; the power of Sauron contained within - this was revealed through the narrative and was was known to the 'educated' characters - and even the less educated but adventurous characters had some knowledge of not only what the ring was, but how it could be used. Of course, in the story, the Ring does have a downside (possibly always serving Sauron) so using it as a weapon wouldn't have made sense.

But in plenty of D&D games, acquiring the +10 Sword of Munchkinism so you can slay the Balor of Impending Doom makes sense.

shadzar wrote: guess what these are not items that Frodo/Bilbo wished for, nor did Aragorn. in both cases these were things thrust upon them because they would NEED them.

Sure Aragorn could have asked the sword to have been reforged some 60 years prior, but he didnt. and he knew of its existence and meaning.

just because an item of legend exists, it doesn't mean every Tom Dick and Harry wants it, nor does it mean they need it.

who was served by Bilbo finding the One Ring? Bilbo? Frodo? The DMs world itself? seems to me only the game world prospered from Bilbo's finding the ring. Bilbo and Frodo got fucked by it. the One Ring was the MOST legendary of items, but not many sought it.

And guess what. Bilbo didn't wish for Sting, but it wasn't exactly THRUST on him, nor did he get fucked by it. Gandalf didn't wish for Glamdring, but he found it and used it effectively. In a setting where magic is notoriously non-flashy, the 9 Walkers were pretty well loaded with magic or quasi-magical items.

shadzar wrote: so even IF an item is legendary and well heard if it doesn't mean everyone should want it or seek it. nor does something being legendary mean everyone has heard of it.

If an item is legendary, it of course makes sense that not everyone would want it or would seek it. Only people that could get some utility out of it would take it. Do you want $1 million dollars? I'd wager that on some level you think that would be pretty nice to have. But what if I gave it to you in $20 bills delivered to you while you were in a dark alley in a bad neighborhood. Would you still want it? Sometimes the fact that you want something still isn't enough - it could be dangerous to you. But if it's not; why wouldn't you want something that is of extreme utility to you?

Remember, most people aren't seeking one-on-one fights with elder gods. But for those few people who are, increasing their personal power (in the form of beneficial items) is absolutely and in-character decision - not the simple result of metagaming.

As for the rest, there's too much crazy for me to decipher. I don't play 4th edition, but I don't think Artifacts are what goes on Wish Lists.

zugschef wrote:

shadzar wrote:as Frank said, FINDING something you can use gives off that sense of release and endorphins. there is no real accomplishment to be had in buying something, cause ANYONE with enough money could buy it.

Since when can't you combine finding and buying? If you've bought everything you've ever needed at Wallmart and never had to look for stuff, you're a pretty sad guy.

are you really saying that finding a $100 bill floating around in a parking lot holds the same excitement and joy for you as finding a food item you were wanting at your grocer?

there is ZERO excitement in finding something you expect or know will be there. when you can buy it, so can someone else, so HOW does it make it special that YOU found it? are you saying magic swords are as common in your games as apples are at a roadside vendor beside an apple orchard?

sounds like the movie version of MAverick to me.

Coop, your security sucks, everybody's got a damn gun!

which means that Coop's guns were no longer special or unique since everyone else has them.

Ancient History wrote:I guess the issue here is that if you have random drops that might not cover the stuff players need, that is bad for the characters and the game as a whole. So think that there needs to be a differentiation between a wantlist and a shopping list. A want list is "gee wow this is cool/powerful", a shopping list is a list of crap your PC needs to keep up - monks and amulets of natural armor, that sort of thing. The former is a bit dickish to impose on the MC, the latter can be taken care of by providing a means for exchanging unwanted gear and other character resources for wanted/upgraded gear appropriate to the character's level.

then the game needs not have or be required to use something like WBL. the DM should decide what is needed such that HIS players can play in THEIR OWN game. trying to force everyone into a singular level progression with required amounts of power just because you are X level is where the problem lies since 3.0 came out.

magic items are only needed if you intend to fight monsters only able to be hit/damaged by magic items.

how well does WBL work in a more realistic fantasy low magic game? one with jsut the normal mythical creatures or tolkien-esque creatures or orcs, goblins, etc... common monsters? then throw in a few dragons for the games namesakes, meaning SOMEONE needs A magic item that will be in clsoe range, while the wizard attacks ALWAYS count as magic, as do the cleric attacks, IF you require magic items only to be able to hit a dtagon in that case?

shadzar wrote: are you really saying that finding a $100 bill floating around in a parking lot holds the same excitement and joy for you as finding a food item you were wanting at your grocer?

No - he was talking about having to actually go FINDING something. Like going to antique stores, or flea markets. You know, or even having to go to multiple stores trying to find a pair of jeans that don't make you look like a fat ass.

There are people that are addicted to shopping and it's not because they 'went shopping and found exactly what they expected to find exactly where they expected to find it'. Shopping can mean finding things that aren't easy - especially when you factor in 'bargain-hunting'.

Finding a $2000 suit on sale for $800 with a buy-one-get-one-free plus free slacks and two free sports coats is something that anyone with 'enough money' could get in on - but if you stumble into it, it could feel like winning a prize.

deaddmwalking wrote:

shadzar wrote: are you really saying that finding a $100 bill floating around in a parking lot holds the same excitement and joy for you as finding a food item you were wanting at your grocer?

No - he was talking about having to actually go FINDING something. Like going to antique stores, or flea markets. You know, or even having to go to multiple stores trying to find a pair of jeans that don't make you look like a fat ass.

THIS IS ALL JUST SHOPPING! D&D isn't a shopping game. HASBRO makes those games for young girls though. i think one of them is called Mall something.

D&D is a game about adventure. you aren't likely to pay Gollum to get the One Ring from him even if you do FIND it.