The thing is, the loot system as it is *is* set up quite a lot like the MMORPGs I've played. Last time I played Champions there were quests that didn't give rewards, long raids that gave you nothing, and long stretches where you were using underleveled items. That's sort of how D:OS is working right now. In fact, I'd argue that the randomness and frequency and importance of loot drops in D:OS makes it loot-centric by its very nature, in the same vein as Diablo, albeit without the grind.
Well, the mold is WoW when it comes to what I am talking about as eventually all games seem to be crushed by its ridiculous design focus, though EQ suffered the same problem even before WoW was released.
As I said, I am not saying loot should be non-existent, but it isn't the driving point of an RPG. Sure, Diablo, it is the focus, but then Diablo really isn't an RPG as much as it is Gauntlet with some stats. Diablo is almost entirely about the loot. While the Divinity games use random loot generation as a tool, it was the entire focus of design for a game like Diablo. You ground the dungeons over and over to see all the different loot you could get.
D:OS isn't about the loot, it is about the mechanics of play, the story, the interaction.
There's a lot of middle ground here, and this thread is a lot of people coming at the issue with varying degrees of extremism. I agree that a loot system that caters exactly to the player's every need is ultimately unrewarding. I also think that the loot system as it is is very flawed. There's an ideological middle ground somewhere here that I think we could find that would be satisfying to most players.
There is no middle ground on some issues. Either loot is tailored to the party, or it is not. That is the main argument here. Drop rates, etc.. are arguments used to generate support for their position, but it is not their suggestions, tailored loot is.
Actually, in my experience GMs either don't use the loot systems present in the manuals, made up classless item, or make sure that there's an item or two the character can actually use available for purchase. I've never had a GM who neglected players on the principle of chance.
That is an example outside of the scope of the games play and design. I am not saying it is wrong, but using an outlier as a means to establish a trend isn't a very sound argument.
