D&D 5E What's the point of gold?

Charlaquin · Nov 12, 2018

Maxperson said:
It still wouldn't be a railroad unless a player tried to do something and was told no. The defining feature of a railroad is a player being unable to do something he wants to do for no other reason than the DM doesn't want it to happen.

Then we have a distinction without difference here. The situations you would describe as a railroad are the ones where I would say a railroad becomes a problem.

Maxperson said:
Whether it's to your taste or not, they exist in D&D. Combat being the major guilty party. Skill challenges being another. Those are set up to require a lot of die rolling to complete the task at hand. General roleplaying between say the DM and a king would not be one of those, even thought here may be the occasional roll for things that are uncertain.

I’d still call combat “the minimum number of rolls necessary to resolve uncertainty,” it’s just that the mechanics surround combat necessitates more rolls to resolve uncertainty.

Maxperson said:
Whereas my preference is that players choose things like lifestyles based on what their character's concept and desires, rather than just "What mechanical goodies can I get out of this."

Player: Well, I was going to pay for the aristocratic lifestyle for my PC who enjoys being a pampered noble and can't stand the squalor of those beneath him, but since I don't know what I will get out of it mechanically, I'm just going to pay for a squalid lifestyle.

That sort of thing doesn't cut it for me as a player or DM. I feel that choices should be made with roleplaying in mind first, and mechanics second.

You can’t stop players from making decisions based on the mechanical benefits they’ll get for them. You can shame them for it, you can kick them out of your game for it, but you can’t stop them from doing it. This is why I prefer that the mechanics be set up in such a way as to reduce dissonance between what the character wants and what the player wants.

Maxperson said:
You were also challenging how great of a minority or majority it was, so I brought up that in 1e and 2e it was a very small minority, 3e and 4e over regulated it to the point where this wasn't really a problem, and 5e went back to 1e and now you are hearing about it more. That makes the over regulation of 3e and 4e the culprit. They spoiled people by spelling out the mechanics in detail, and when we go back to 5e where players have to think about how they want to spend gold again, people are complaining.

Eh, I disagree, but we’ve drifted so far from the topic here, I don’t see it really mattering. Suffice it to say, if a significant number of people now desire more hard coded mechanical options, I think that is a valid desire, whether or not 3e and 4e were the reason they realized they wanted such options.

Maxperson said:
As for whether it should be treated as a general problem, it's not a general problem unless it generally occurs to those who play the game. Since it still only occurs to a minority, and possibly still a small minority, it's not a general problem.

The phenomenon that most things you can spend gold on have no mechanical benefits occurs to all players, whether they consider it to be a problem or not.

Maxperson said:
WotC has limited space for new mechanics, and I would rather see that space taken up by new classes, paths, feats, etc. that will be useful to a greater number of people than gold spending mechanics would.

That’s reasonable. I feel differently, but I have no fundamental objection to this argument.

Maxperson said:
Sure. We can talk about it. Offer up solutions, and so on, but you've made it clear that it's not talking about it that you want to do. You've said repeatedly that the only solution you are really interested in is official mechanics in a WotC release,

What? When have I said that?

Maxperson said:
rejecting the solutions offered to you by people in this thread. That sort of limitation on your part is not conducive to a conversation about a problem and how to fix it, so I'm not detracting from anything with my statements.

The solutions offered have consisted of “talk to your DM” and “DM’s guild has some stuff you could use.” Which doesn’t really engage with the issue, but rather attempts to shut down the conversation by sidestepping the issue or shunting it off to someone else to discuss. I would prefer an actual discussion of ways to mechanically incentivize gold spending, not a token “figure it out with your group” or “use third party.”

Maxperson · Nov 13, 2018

lowkey13 said:
So one thing I've been thinking about for a while .... is this. There is a certain, reflective, symmetry between the "gold" threads and the "warlord" threads (if you remember those!).

Think about it this way-

If you are one of those players that stayed with OSR/BECMI/1e/2e, or had been playing retroclones, and are playing 5e, you are most likely going to be reasonably happy with it. If you have specific complaints, you are going to alter 5e and/or use older material to fill in gaps. If 5e isn't too your liking, then you go back (to 1e, to retroclone, to whatever) instead of complaining. You don't have any particular vested interest in the "latest greatest" edition, but you're reasonably happy that it is familiar (as compared to 3e/4e).

OTOH, it seems like there was a bit of a dispute between 3e and 4e players. It is my understanding that, for many of them, this dispute get rather heated. So, when you people are discussing their need to have "official" WoTC support for something*, it means something more to them. It is akin to approval.

And this is just a pet theory of mine; people that want the Warlord, I have noticed, want the Warlord (of course). But more importantly, they want what the class represents- almost a benediction from WoTC that all of their time spent defending their favored edition wasn't in vain, and that WoTC has their back with the new edition. Big tent, and all of that.

And I see echoes of that in the gold threads when people get defensive and get the hackles up, because it isn't about the gold, per se. Because there are a lot of resources to fix the problem (and we've been over that many, many times!). It's really about official approval of a certain kind of gaming. An official benediction for 3e. That's why, despite the many threads with a multitude of solutions and suggestions, it always goes back to a need to have WoTC put out an official book .... EVEN WHEN PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THAT IT WON'T BE WHAT THEY WANT.

Anyway, maybe that's it. That's my working theory. Then again, something a cigar is just a cigar.

*Outside of AL, of course.

I think for some things you are likely right. I don't think all desire for official support stems from a desire to have WotC validation. I often argue for official support with regard to classes, paths, and feats. The reason is not some sort of validation, but rather than WotC has a much more intimate knowledge of the design of their game than 3rd party folks, as well as more resources for testing. That means that I am far more likely to get balanced and thought out material from WotC than 3rd party folks. Now obviously WotC can't think of everything and every interaction, as the charop people are quick to demonstrate, but there will probably be fewer OP interactions.

Maxperson · Nov 13, 2018

Charlaquin said:
I’d still call combat “the minimum number of rolls necessary to resolve uncertainty,” it’s just that the mechanics surround combat necessitates more rolls to resolve uncertainty.

Regardless of how you want to paint it, there are times in the game where you have only a few rolls, if any, in an hour(simple roleplaying), and other times when that minimum is a very large clump of rolls(combat and skill challenges). Those are distinctly different types of game events.

You can’t stop players from making decisions based on the mechanical benefits they’ll get for them.

I never said I was going to stop them. What I'm saying is that I prefer the primary reason to be roleplay. Let's take an example from 3e. If I wanted to have a PC to be the best in the land at X skill, there were a variety of ways I could go about that mechanically. Maybe I take the skill focus feat. Maybe I take one of the myriad of feats, or more than one, where there are two different skills at a lower bonus. Maybe I seek out magical items and/or spells to augment. I can still make decisions based on mechanical benefits, but my roleplaying/character reasons are what drives my choices.

What I would speak to a player about is if their roleplay choice was to be an aristocrat, and they only payed upkeep equal to a squalid lifestyle(assuming they can afford to be an aristocrat). When the mechanic you choose it at direct odds with the roleplay, it creates a disruption.

The phenomenon that most things you can spend gold on have no mechanical benefits occurs to all players, whether they consider it to be a problem or not.

A few things.

First, they all have mechanical benefits, whether they are explicitly spelled out in the books or not. Second, if it's not a problem, it's not a problem, whether it occurs to all players or not. So it doesn't become a general problem just because YOU feel like it's a problem.

What? When have I said that?

I think I got you confused with Capnzapp. I see him talking about official all over the place now that I go back and look. Sorry about that.

The solutions offered have consisted of “talk to your DM” and “DM’s guild has some stuff you could use.” Which doesn’t really engage with the issue, but rather attempts to shut down the conversation by sidestepping the issue or shunting it off to someone else to discuss. I would prefer an actual discussion of ways to mechanically incentivize gold spending, not a token “figure it out with your group” or “use third party.”

It's not an attempt to shut down the conversation to offer you solutions to a problem that you are having. It's a desire to help you with your problem. What's the difference between saying that X product can help you, and typing up something that says X can help you? In both cases you are still getting some information that could help you out.

BookBarbarian · Nov 13, 2018

Ah this old thread.

I won't say that if you don't think the point of Gold is liqueur and whores you're having bad wrong fun but...

It turns out I can't finish that sentence.

MoonSong · Nov 14, 2018

lowkey13 said:
it seems like there was a bit of a dispute between 3e and 4e players.

A bit of an observation, the edition war was between 3e and 4e players, yet somehow the grognards won?

Maxperson said:
I think for some things you are likely right. I don't think all desire for official support stems from a desire to have WotC validation. I often argue for official support with regard to classes, paths, and feats. The reason is not some sort of validation, but rather than WotC has a much more intimate knowledge of the design of their game than 3rd party folks, as well as more resources for testing. That means that I am far more likely to get balanced and thought out material from WotC than 3rd party folks. Now obviously WotC can't think of everything and every interaction, as the charop people are quick to demonstrate, but there will probably be fewer OP interactions.

I think lowkey is up to something. Not exactly correct, but partially right for the wrong reasons at least. I mean I think that WotC is in the best position to give us a good quality list and stuff to make gold worth it, in the same way I think they can give us a good warlord. However there is some degree of truth to what lowkey says, at least to me. But the motivations are entirely wrong. Some validation from WotC would be indeed nice, but not because of pride. What WotC does shapes overall attitudes, and that makes a lot of difference when looking for players, or trying to sell a DM on an idea. Good luck trying to convince a DM to allow a Warlord, when the overall attitude is that they represent a poor and flawed playstyle -and that in top of the innate suspicion behind 3rd party stuff-, or that the Battlemaster is more than enough and anybody desiring more is a powergaming munchkin.

Maxperson · Nov 14, 2018

MoonSong said:
I think lowkey is up to something.

I know he is. Those shifty gods of mischief are always up to something.

Not exactly correct, but partially right for the wrong reasons at least. I mean I think that WotC is in the best position to give us a good quality list and stuff to make gold worth it, in the same way I think they can give us a good warlord. However there is some degree of truth to what lowkey says, at least to me. But the motivations are entirely wrong. Some validation from WotC would be indeed nice, but not because of pride. What WotC does shapes overall attitudes, and that makes a lot of difference when looking for players, or trying to sell a DM on an idea. Good luck trying to convince a DM to allow a Warlord, when the overall attitude is that they represent a poor and flawed playstyle -and that in top of the innate suspicion behind 3rd party stuff-, or that the Battlemaster is more than enough and anybody desiring more is a powergaming munchkin.

I agree that it's often easier to sell the DM on official products. I've hit the "no third party" wall with DMs many times over the years.

Retreater · Nov 14, 2018

I think gold as a reward had its uses in previous editions. It was tied to XP in the first two editions. The next two editions had a magical item economy. Now in 5e it seems mostly a vestigial remnant of a bygone era. Sure, you can spend thousands of gold to build keeps and such, but that's not really the focus of the heroic action game that D&D provides.
After the first few levels, after characters have amassed their mundane gear, I think it's best to handwave gold and reward parties with magic items and awards that suit their characters' motivations, such as royal titles, the blessing of temples, and the thanks of the towns.

CapnZapp · Nov 14, 2018

Retreater said:
I think gold as a reward had its uses in previous editions. It was tied to XP in the first two editions. The next two editions had a magical item economy. Now in 5e it seems mostly a vestigial remnant of a bygone era. Sure, you can spend thousands of gold to build keeps and such, but that's not really the focus of the heroic action game that D&D provides.
After the first few levels, after characters have amassed their mundane gear, I think it's best to handwave gold and reward parties with magic items and awards that suit their characters' motivations, such as royal titles, the blessing of temples, and the thanks of the towns.

But why are you downplaying the genuine fun to be had by stepping into the magic shoppe with ten thousand shiny coins in hand?

Look at my Bazaars of Port Nyanzaru thread. Despite zero official support I spent weeks preparing those price lists, and it took the group an entire session to sort out who bought what.

They're still talking about that, and how satisfying it felt for them.

Now imagine if the official publisher wrote a book with robust support... How much easier it would become for DMs to set it up; how many more players that could finally experience what I consider a core part of the D&D experience

Then, imagine if WotC took the next step, and published an Advanced Monster Manual that was geared towards providing a challenge for groups consisting of player characters with feats, multiclassing, magic items and general minmaxing...

We're not all wide-eyed noobs that barely handles a few goblins, you know.

It is high time for WotC to take the game to the next level!

MoonSong · Nov 14, 2018

Maxperson said:
I know he is. Those shifty gods of mischief are always up to something.

I agree that it's often easier to sell the DM on official products. I've hit the "no third party" wall with DMs many times over the years.

It goes beyond that. Everything WootC does has consequences in attitudes. When the favored soul and the storm magic sorc came out, many DMs openned to homebrew and o make concessions for the sake of a character. Then hings died out a bit, but then when the Storm Magic was modified for publication DMs received a message "The favored soul is overpowered" and "the sorcerer is perfect" some even combined the two into "Sorcerer is OP" that was about the worst year to play a sorcerer, only after the divine soul and thw shadow magic sorcerer came out the attitudes shifted again. And it is the same with gold , the refusal to acknowledge the playstyle makes it hard to sell. If i try to put a system in place (be it by making one or implementing a third party, the players will dismiss it as something taken out of an mmo and think that I promote powergaming(I don't) . I don't think I could even dare to suggest it to a DM.

Derren · Nov 14, 2018

As I see it, the pointlessness of gold in 5E is just a symptom of a, in my eyes, much bigger problem.
It highlights the incredibly narrow focus on combat 5E has.

Wealth was important in all cultures during most, if not all of written history. It was the driving force for many people and shaped the world as it is now, yet 5E can't find a use for it.
That doesn't only mean spending money to get numerically better but all aspects where wealth would be an asset like in social or economical or even just day to day living are not represented in 5E. It is all about killing things in dungeons and thats it.
And it is not just the absence of any rule or guideline about using wealth, even when you invent some for your campaign when you give the players as much gold as they are supposedly to have anything you could come up with would be trivial as the PCs would be filthy rich and you would need to comically overcharge them for gold to be actually an issue.

Just look at other RPGs like Traveller, Shadowrun or Warhammer. Gold is important as it buys upgrades and all of those settings detail enough things besides combat that there are many uses for gold apart from it.

D&D 5E What's the point of gold?

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

BookBarbarian

Expert Long Rester

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Retreater

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin

Derren

Hero

Similar Threads