Magic Items, where are they??..multiple attacks ???

[SirKicley]

It raised a good question, though: why can't Roger give his sword to Paul when he finds a better one? I usually try to find a good, plot-driven reason, but hopefully such occurences remain rare.

Because it's not of narrative importance to Paul so he doesn't get the bonuses until he invests in it.

Every improvement spent on an item is a signal to the GM from the player "hey, GM, this item is important to me", and it becomes more and more part of the narrative and the PC.

In a similar way, consider two hobbits - Frendel and Garfield. Frendel's player described him as being slight of build and only 2'7" in height. Garfield is slightly larger, described as being 3'1" by his player. Garfield has the "Small Folk" virtue and therefore has the Small trait whereas Frendel doesn't have this trait and yet he's shorter then his companion. In other words, Garfield's player has invested in making the stature of his character so its narratively important and therefore has mechanical element attached to it.

I see many of the improvements to weapons and armour in the same light.

Exactly! And even in our world today: people have a favorite cue stick or bowling ball or do better in one race car vs another - as these have been designed specifically to cater to that persons slight bio-physical differences. A fighter pilot has his own plane - because he becomes one with every minor idiosyncrasy of that plane that he accounts for. Even the slightest difference in calibration of anything is noticed. And in another plane, he is not as comfortable or familiar and can be the difference of life or death.

Or....you can just use our D&D explanation when asked: fk it - it's magic!

Robert

[Mim]

I've been mulling over the points raised on this thread about somehow increasing a player-hero's cultural reward, & if any of you use these ideas, please let us know how they work. I hadn't considered this before & I'll be curious about how it balances your game, as I tend to err on the side of caution. Thanks!

[Beran]

" Though I do not feel that magical items should be crafted by PCs."

I think we are on same page here. Because that is pretty much the way the system is wired (at least from the POV of many on the forum, anyway) a PC puts a new Reward on a weapon, so it is written into the story that the PC somehow has crafted a brand new weapon to cover the improvement. Going on this assumption a PC will be able to outfit their own armies by the time they retire from adventuring.

The Reward system should have been regulated to qualities that effect the player directly, not the weapons (or items they carry.)

[Yusei]

Because it's not of narrative importance to Paul so he doesn't get the bonuses until he invests in it.

Sure, but that's very meta. I usually try to find an in-game reason. Sometimes it's easy (I can see why an Azalnurbizar axe would only give its bonus to dwarves), sometimes it's not (King's blade or Bearded axe should work for anyone).

[Rich H]

Because it's not of narrative importance to Paul so he doesn't get the bonuses until he invests in it.

Sure, but that's very meta. I usually try to find an in-game reason. Sometimes it's easy (I can see why an Azalnurbizar axe would only give its bonus to dwarves), sometimes it's not (King's blade or Bearded axe should work for anyone).

To be honest, I don't think being 'meta' is all it's cracked up to be much of the time and a subset of gamers focus on it far too much in my opinion especially in a game like TOR.

[SirKicley]

Because it's not of narrative importance to Paul so he doesn't get the bonuses until he invests in it.

Sure, but that's very meta. I usually try to find an in-game reason. Sometimes it's easy (I can see why an Azalnurbizar axe would only give its bonus to dwarves), sometimes it's not (King's blade or Bearded axe should work for anyone).

To be honest, I don't think being 'meta' is all it's cracked up to be much of the time and a subset of gamers focus on it far too much in my opinion especially in a game like TOR.

I agree. IMO, players need to agree to eschew logic for the purpose of aesthetic roleplaying. It's an interactive RPG - not a video game.

Suspend disbelief, for the sake of embracing a larger picture, and most will find that they enjoy it more in the end. It's about the role their character is in and what is important to them. That's the ROLE part of "Role-Playing Game"

The "in-game" part of it is that it (the rewarded item in this case) is important to that character (as important as say their dog) and wouldn't just give it to another character just to get around a rule of them having not earned it yet.

The spirit of the game should hold more sway IMO.
Robert

[Yusei]

Suspend disbelief, for the sake of embracing a larger picture, and most will find that they enjoy it more in the end.

We suspend disbelief all the time while playing, but still try to provide believable situations when possible. My players agree to play my adventures, but I still try to fit the characters' motives. Also, when I'm a player, when I want to do something that my character has no reason to do, I try to give the GM options to push my character a bit, but playing out of character would not feel right.

In general, I try to aim for a story that would be believable even from an observer point of view. I don't think that makes it more "video-game like", quite the contrary.

The "in-game" part of it is that it (the rewarded item in this case) is important to that character (as important as say their dog) and wouldn't just give it to another character just to get around a rule of them having not earned it yet.

"To get around a rule" is not "in-game". Aragorn not giving up Narsil because it is his heirloom is a good reason. On the other hand, not all rewards have the same sentimental value, and not all characters care about heirloom and sentiments against practicality. To avoid saying "you can't give the weapon because it is against the rules", I try to provide believable reasons. The players are fine with that, they don't want to cheat or get around the rules, but they enjoy not having to be out of character.

[Rich H]

Because it's not of narrative importance to Paul so he doesn't get the bonuses until he invests in it.

Sure, but that's very meta. I usually try to find an in-game reason. Sometimes it's easy (I can see why an Azalnurbizar axe would only give its bonus to dwarves), sometimes it's not (King's blade or Bearded axe should work for anyone).

To be honest, I don't think being 'meta' is all it's cracked up to be much of the time and a subset of gamers focus on it far too much in my opinion especially in a game like TOR.

Just realised that I really wanted to say the exact opposite to what I posted... I think far too many players focus on logical explanations for things rather than narrative ones which isn't really congruent to many of the game design philosophies in TOR. So in my game I wouldn't stop another player from using someone else's sword that they'd enhanced with Rewards but they wouldn't get those benefits as they haven't paid for them so it isn't of narrative or game importance to them like it is to the other player and their character. I'd maybe allow that to be circumvented in appropriate story specific situations, and perhaps at the cost of spending a Hope point.

[SirKicley]

Just realised that I really wanted to say the exact opposite to what I posted... I think far too many players focus on logical explanations for things rather than narrative ones which isn't really congruent to many of the game design philosophies in TOR. So in my game I wouldn't stop another player from using someone else's sword that they'd enhanced with Rewards but they wouldn't get those benefits as they haven't paid for them so it isn't of narrative or game importance to them like it is to the other player and their character. I'd maybe allow that to be circumvented in appropriate story specific situations, and perhaps at the cost of spending a Hope point.

And I interpreted what what you said as what you meant and iterated here. Regardless I agree with your stand on this.

[SirKicley]

"To get around a rule" is not "in-game". Aragorn not giving up Narsil because it is his heirloom is a good reason. On the other hand, not all rewards have the same sentimental value, and not all characters care about heirloom and sentiments against practicality. To avoid saying "you can't give the weapon because it is against the rules", I try to provide believable reasons. The players are fine with that, they don't want to cheat or get around the rules, but they enjoy not having to be out of character.

I see what you're saying here, and I get it and I agree.

I try the same (to give an in-game reasoning); but sometimes the rules exist for balance of play, and sometimes and in-game explanation is a hard-sell. In such cases, those are the times I referred to that players just have to learn to go with flow and accept that it is what it is.

That being said, I think Rich made a valid point for the case of one player "borrowing" a reward weapon from another. They can use it - but it just doesn't provide the same benefit. Relate this back to the favorite cue stick, bowling ball, fighter jet analogy I made above.

As for the item not being "that sentimental" to a person - I have to disagree. If a character spends his hard-earned XP on raising his Valor and selecting a "weapon reward", he is saying to the LM - "THIS is very important to me." He could have increased his hope. He could have opted for some magical spell or a talking raven, or ability to roll two feat dice in certain circumstances. But instead he selected the ability to inflict greater wounds on his foes. This was important to him.

What my previous posts speak to - is that many times player select aspects of characters (especially in D20 games) for min/max reasons - a feat or second character class, prestige class - for reasons to power game or whatever - instead of selecting something that makes a whole lot more sense for their character's story. While I don't disparage them for this - as it is their way of enjoying the game - what I was trying to convey was that "HOPEFULLY" (and this gets back to Rich's Meta being overrated) in selecting a reward for TOR, the player creates an IN-GAME reason for WHY this is so important to them - and not just a meta-gamey min/max increase that can nonchalantly be discarded or passed on to another. Personally - as a LM - I would be disappointed in a player that just said "Meh - I know it's a special bow passed down from my ancestors but really it's only a way to do more wounds.....here, you can have it!"

Hopefully this comes across and makes sense better than my last post on the issue.
Robert