4E proposal: adopt LEB's rules on treasure and retirement - Page 6
+ Log in or register to post
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 54 of 54
  1. #51
    Mmmmmm - now that's a different beast altogether.

    One thing to keep in mind here on these boards is that DM, judge, PC, or whatever: unlike a normal game where there is a clearly defined "one" in charge and everyone else is playing by "one's" rules, here: there is not as much of a distinction. Just because one person feels another's items or tactics are filled with parmesan, that doesn't mean they have as much of a say in the matter. I mean, when you're running your own game, you set the rules: but at the same time, that's only 1 game. What's taboo at one virtual table may be fine at others, and honestly: we all have to respect that. There are common rules that we all have to follow, but when it comes to the more subjective details, it's not really fair to say one person knows better than another about how things should be run with a particular character.

    I can't seem to make words do today, but I think my point is in there.

  2. #52
    Oh, that's true. I can't say anyone can't combine the elements available in a way I am not a fan of, but I also don't have to give them all the pieces to the puzzle. I'm not saying I know more than anyone about how to run their PC, I'm saying the DM's shouldn't be handcuffed into treasure. I guess that's it. If we really don't want the DM's to have any say, we really should remove the distribution from their hands and give it to the PC's.

    i.e. if someone wants to build a feycharger (pre-errata'd) twinked out for 200 DPR, that's fine, but I don't have to give them the charging boosting items to pump it up to that level. Or if people want to build their own Radiant Mafia's here, again I can't say no, that's disallowed. But OTOH I also don't have to put 5 radiant weapons in the treasure distribution.

  3. #53
    Well, I don't think this completely handcuffs DMs, especially since you can always give gold instead of the item and I don't see why story-specific items need to count (as long as you can't leave the story with them), but I understand your concern. It is more limiting to DMs to the advantage of the PCs. And while I appreciate the sentiment that you don't want to contribute to the delinquency of a player, what if that character already had the combo up and rolling once they got to your game? I mean, you'd probably rule on it beforehand or encourage the player not to participate or something, but what if it was a combo you didn't know about and didn't realize you disliked before seeing it in action? Again, you're free to do what you want in your own games, but it seems like if the damn's going to burst anyway, standing in the way for a little while doesn't really solve the problem.

    All of this is sort of a side discussion I guess, and reflects more on philosophy than on rule systems. But on the other hand I think this rule change suggestion - moving to the parcel system - seems tied up more in philosophy than in rules. I mean, there's nothing inherently difficult or worse about either option (well, except for those who believe it would be a lot of work to change), but it seems to come down to personal philosophy: DM fiat vs. enforced fairness, and which is worth promoting possibly at the expense of the other. That's how I see this argument, anyway. And like all arguments based on opinion, I don't see anyone's side changing anytime soon.

  4. #54
    I'm late to the party on this one. Sorry about that. Also, looking at R1's spreadsheet, it looks like I am the problem on the wealth curve, since the two highest overpaid players are mine.

    Personally, I don't like the parcel system for adventure awards. For 5 players, over the course of gaining a level, only 4 of them get magic items, 1 of which has a vastly superior item to at least 2 of the players' equipment. It's just an unfair system in general, I think, and so I'm not really in favor of making it a hard standard in any way.

    For adventuring, I prefer to award all the players n+2 or n+3 items so that it's more fair, everyone gets a little something, and everyone has fun. As HMG put it, this should all be about fun for the players.

    EB, I understand how you feel it's easy for players to get left behind, but I think this is more a function of players getting added to groups where the player levels are higher/imbalanced. In those situations, I'm not convinced this system would help any.

+ Log in or register to post
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Proposal - LEW with Pathfinder Rules
    By renau1g in forum Pathfinder & Starfinder RPG Discussion, Rules, Houserules, & Homebrews
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: Tuesday, 20th April, 2010, 09:39 AM
  2. Proposal: New Option for Character Retirement
    By LadyLaw in forum Living 4th Edition
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: Tuesday, 9th March, 2010, 03:14 AM
  3. Confused by retirement rules! Help, please
    By Walking Dad in forum Living 4th Edition
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Monday, 24th August, 2009, 02:52 PM
  4. Alternate Treasure Rules
    By Andrew D. Gable in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR Gaming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, 5th March, 2004, 04:33 AM
  5. How do you use the Treasure Rules DMG? (Or How Do You Determine Treasure?)
    By dreaded_beast in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR Gaming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Wednesday, 4th February, 2004, 09:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts