But what is important doesn't have to be the item. It can be the ability to inflict greater wounds. If we go back to what started this debate, I was saying that I allow players to transfer the ability from one reward to another one. Instead of having a damaging sword and a very light axe, for example, they can decide to obtain a very light and damaging axe, provided they get rid of the sword in some way.SirKicley wrote: 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.
It all depends on the character, and on the item, though. One of my PCs has a shield he inherited from his parents, and obviously he's not going to leave it behind or trade it for something "better". Another one has an armour that was given to her by a dying dwarf, but he was a stranger, and there is no real sentimental value there. Kind of like the difference between Sting when it was found by Bilbo (a good weapon) and Sting as a present to Frodo (sentimental value).
I see what you mean but, the way we play, not all rewards are family heirloom or stuff like that. They have stuff they care about, and they have stuff they found along the way, or that was given to them by powerful people. I like the diversity, and I don't want to abuse the heirloom trope nor the Elrond-upgraded-your-weapon trope."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
... Should learn not to post when I have a bad head!