So what's gold gonna be for?

[A'koss]

(all of this is seperate from the issue of a gold<->item market, which helps preserve realism and provides actual value to gold. without such a market, gold *would* become utterly meaningless at high levels, even in a game without magic items, but with DnD's power structure)

Funny, 1st and 2nd edition D&D seemed to do just fine without having a magic item market. And all you need to do is read this thread if you're looking for suggestions on what to do with that hard earned gold other than spending it on magic.

I agree that removing magic entirely from the market isn't very realistic, but if you limit it to only low level magic (mid level and & high level magic is too rare to be available) - then that frees up higher level PCs to spend their larger sums elsewhere (eg. towards long-term goals that add something to the campaign).

 

[Cbas_10]

I agree that it comes down to play preferences, or "styles", but 3E definitely did not support my preferred style, where the players play "characters" who have a long history and a worked out personality. I am not saying full immersion role play by any stretch of the imagination, but to have characters that own lands, that have a keep or even a castle or temple, who hold titles of nobility, and where owning and have these titles have an impact on what the character does and does not do.

Like my son plays a Paladin, has a 100 square miles of prime land. He even has several mines (lucky friggin percentile rolls), and has built a Castle and fortified town over a 5 year period. He has gone aon "recruiting" campaigns where he entices people to move to his lands, because he needs more bodies to work the land to its fullest potential.

There is a party member who plays a Druid (my Daughters). The druid and the paladin works together to make sure the land doesn't become overworked and ruined.

The Ranger (my other son), before he died, was helping develop the animal husbandry aspects, to make sure lands weren't over hunted, and even the herd animals were cultivated at the most balanced rate possible.

Whats their motivations? Money. Creating the best living conditions possible for their people and even their live stock. Not to mention the prestige they now have among the nobility. Plus enemies.

So they have many things to spend money on. Roads, Dovecoats, mills, fortifications, soldiers, churches and temples, recruiting new citizens, helping them set up homes, farms, and businesses.

So they not only go into "adventures" and slay demon princes (just finished DCC 18 last night) but they also take on the challenges of cultivating their lands, protecting their citizens, and dealing with jealous nobles who hate them for their successes, and so vividly illustrating their failures to properly manage their lands to the Empress.

Thats the kind of game I like to run. I couldn't do it in 3E. Not only because of the gold issues, but they would level so fast that they were powerful enough to just take the kingdom for themselves and eliminate all opposition easily.

So this is another reason why 3E isn't my "cup of tea", and is something I hope is taken into consideration with 4E.

Not that I am worried. I'm very happy with Castles and Crusades, so if 4E still doesn't do it right for me, I'll just steal what I like from 4E and keep on gaming the way I like.

That sounds like an awesome game! However, I totally disagree with your statement that it cannot be run under 3E rules. I've run games of a similar theme, and I've played in some.

The question that I think comes down to here is: what do we want D&D to be?

As a poster earlier pointed out, D&D is a wargame. If you try to take the combat out of D&D, and run say, a social game, it falls apart. So how flexible should the system be to facilitate other types of campaigns?

I think the threat of a game system trying to accommodate too many options is possible. There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with saying "This system is built for this, and if you want a different kind of game, there are systems structured to handle it much better." For instance, if you want a real gritty, "combat is DEADLY" type game, then GURPs is more appropriate - if you want a game built on Pulp and Cinematics, where your character leap out of the shower and dispatch a room full of storm trooper mooks and not get scratched, Spirit of the Century is your best bet.

Am I saying that D&D should stay a wargame? No. I game online, and the emphasis on five foot steps and placement is a real headache. And the lack of dynamic social situations, the lack of a system to handle Favors and Contacts, and so on, is really disappointing. If the system were more flexible, it would be Real Nice. I don't think that D&D should try to work for every desire, but a more flexible system would be ideal, imho.

The D&D minis game is a wargame. Dungeons and Dragons, however, really is a role-playing game. I would be an idiot if I ignored the fact that it is a game heavily leaning towards the combat side of things, but there is a ton of room for genuine role-playing, micro-managed castles, court intrigues, and more. As for a game falling apart if you take out the combat and go all-social? That could be true...and it could be true that a game would fall apart if you take all of the social or micro-managing. It totally depends on your group. And it demonstrates that D&D (so far...) is a very versatile game. It is just a framework for DMs and players to build upon.

However, the main glitch when talking about social games is when people think there should be rules for social aspects. DMG II has a few basic rules for contacts, favors, organizations, and all that...but how effective can a set of rules be for something so abstract and variable as conversations, relationships, and such?

In any case, here, removing money from the game or restricting the ways that players can spend money would surely change the game into something no longer resembling a role-playing game.

 

[Rechan]

However, the main glitch when talking about social games is when people think there should be rules for social aspects. DMG II has a few basic rules for contacts, favors, organizations, and all that...but how effective can a set of rules be for something so abstract and variable as conversations, relationships, and such?

Other games have managed it.

For example, I can pick up Exalted right now and run a non-combat game between diplomats and spies. There are specific powers (called Charms) that relate specifically to dealing with bureaucracies and social situations.

For instance, one charm basically lets you look into someone's heart and know the one thing that they desire above all else; if you were going to bribe them, offer this and you will succeed. You would know that curing the minister's sick mother of her rare ailment would get the minister to do what you want, you now know it.

Further, here's a question: You go to the King, to convince him to not invade a country. Or to end a war. What's the CR of the situation? Is it the king's level? Doesn't the situation (war) raise the EL? How much? And once you get there to convince him, you... roll diplomacy. Even if you roll two diplomacies, that's... really not that exciting, is it? Social skills in D&D boils down to 'make a bluff vs sense motive check' or 'diplomacy/intimidate vs HD check'.

 

[Nifft]

For example, I can pick up Exalted right now and run a non-combat game between diplomats and spies. There are specific powers (called Charms) that relate specifically to dealing with bureaucracies and social situations.

I love Exalted.

I wonder if their Wealth Dot mechanic could be ported over to d20.

Did d20 Modern have this sort of system? Or Spycraft d20? Anyone?

Thanks, -- N

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I love Exalted.

So do I, but I'm not too hot on dice-pool mechanics and don't play that much.

I wonder if their Wealth Dot mechanic could be ported over to d20.
Thanks, -- N

Don't know about Spycraft, d20 Modern has a wealth system but not wealth dots like Exalted and it's kind of clunky. A Game of Thrones has a wealth dot system and in my opinion it's the best d20 wealth system I've seen yet for Fantasy purposes. (edit: it even resembles Exalted enough that I wonder if it isn't an indirect port.)

 

[Treacherous_B]

Gold should be broken into two pieces: Gold and "Gold".

Gold would be used for shininess factor (at the end of the dungeon is a chest filled with thousands of pieces of gold, and that sconce seems like it was put there -just- to make the spoils sparkle) and as something to hoard (for Dragons certainly, see the shininess factor, but also for PCs interested in funding large-scale projects like keeps all the way up to kingdoms). If the party isn't interested in hoarding, they could go from hoarding to whoring and have no gold to their names.

"Gold" would be the arbitrary point system used to indicate things such as what power-level of magic item a character of level X could be expected to have and have it not ruin game balance. In this sense the word could be anything, and "gold" would only really be there because it's what we've used in 3.x and is familiar.

As far as the good stuff goes (re: magic items), I'd much rather see a by-level improvement system that doesn't require money to work. Like...each level after 1st a character gets 2 "legacy points", and can choose to spend said points to improve an item they've been using. Saving the points leads to better "legacy items" further along in the character's career (the paladin wait until level 10 to spend any of them, spend 10 on his sword to make it his own Holy Avenger and the rest on his shield to compliment it, etc.).

 

[Cbas_10]

Other games have managed it.

For example, I can pick up Exalted right now and run a non-combat game between diplomats and spies. There are specific powers (called Charms) that relate specifically to dealing with bureaucracies and social situations.

For instance, one charm basically lets you look into someone's heart and know the one thing that they desire above all else; if you were going to bribe them, offer this and you will succeed. You would know that curing the minister's sick mother of her rare ailment would get the minister to do what you want, you now know it.

Ohhh...well, D&D has that right now. Spells and items can increase your ability scores or provide bonuses to skills. Other spells and items provide situational modifiers to social skills. Numerous examples are all over the game. However, the more recently printed a book is, the harder it becomes to find something that applies outside of combat.

Further, here's a question: You go to the King, to convince him to not invade a country. Or to end a war. What's the CR of the situation? Is it the king's level? Doesn't the situation (war) raise the EL? How much? And once you get there to convince him, you... roll diplomacy. Even if you roll two diplomacies, that's... really not that exciting, is it? Social skills in D&D boils down to 'make a bluff vs sense motive check' or 'diplomacy/intimidate vs HD check'.

Hmm. I had never even thought of applying a CR to role-playing situations. To me, that would seem like awarding XP to players for something that has little do do with the game itself. I would not find it fair that the better actor or more articulate speaker should be NEEDED to succeed in a situation. If we were playing in a LARP, that is different.

I read something about 4E placing CR or EL (or whatever it will be called now) on social encounters. I am genuinely curious to see how such a thing can be done. Off the top of my head, the only way I can see that happening is for the game to detail specific outcomes and maybe even specific choices during the conversation. I really really hope that the developers have a better imagination than I do in this aspect. I would imagine they do...which is why I am so curious.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Funny, 1st and 2nd edition D&D seemed to do just fine without having a magic item market. And all you need to do is read this thread if you're looking for suggestions on what to do with that hard earned gold other than spending it on magic.

I agree that removing magic entirely from the market isn't very realistic, but if you limit it to only low level magic (mid level and & high level magic is too rare to be available) - then that frees up higher level PCs to spend their larger sums elsewhere (eg. towards long-term goals that add something to the campaign).

Well, in 1st ed at least (unless I'm completely misremembering due to old age), one huge motivation for gold and magic items is that you got xp for 'em. The larger the horde, the better the xp take.

 

[Rechan]

Ohhh...well, D&D has that right now. Spells and items can increase your ability scores or provide bonuses to skills. Other spells and items provide situational modifiers to social skills. Numerous examples are all over the game. However, the more recently printed a book is, the harder it becomes to find something that applies outside of combat.

Just giving you a +10 to Diplomacy or +10 to Bluff isn't cutting it. Going back to it, as I said, social interaction comes down to Bluff vs Sense Motive and Diplomacy/Intimidate vs HD check.

Even if you put "Detect Thoughts" and "Zone of truth", there's still just not enough options, and not enough material to make a social game viable. It's like a car with square wheels. Sure, you can get where you're going by using d20 rules as written, but it's going to be a real hard trip.

Hmm. I had never even thought of applying a CR to role-playing situations. To me, that would seem like awarding XP to players for something that has little do do with the game itself.

Little to do with the game itself? Going back to the 'Convince the King not to invade/to broker a peace for war", that's a big part of a game. Or if they're trying to convince the baron to help them. Or to talk their way out of being eaten by a much more powerful monster. Or hell, I think that a high level paladin with a high enough diplomacy skill could get some enemies to convert.

I would not find it fair that the better actor or more articulate speaker should be NEEDED to succeed in a situation. If we were playing in a LARP, that is different.

That's not the case at all. This is a dice game after all, and so rolling is part of it. I would give a player a +1 modifier if he roleplayed it well, but that by no means is necessary.

 

[Rechan]

Gold should be broken into two pieces: Gold and "Gold".

Gold would be used for shininess factor (at the end of the dungeon is a chest filled with thousands of pieces of gold, and that sconce seems like it was put there -just- to make the spoils sparkle) and as something to hoard (for Dragons certainly, see the shininess factor, but also for PCs interested in funding large-scale projects like keeps all the way up to kingdoms). If the party isn't interested in hoarding, they could go from hoarding to whoring and have no gold to their names.

"Gold" would be the arbitrary point system used to indicate things such as what power-level of magic item a character of level X could be expected to have and have it not ruin game balance. In this sense the word could be anything, and "gold" would only really be there because it's what we've used in 3.x and is familiar.

As far as the good stuff goes (re: magic items), I'd much rather see a by-level improvement system that doesn't require money to work. Like...each level after 1st a character gets 2 "legacy points", and can choose to spend said points to improve an item they've been using. Saving the points leads to better "legacy items" further along in the character's career (the paladin wait until level 10 to spend any of them, spend 10 on his sword to make it his own Holy Avenger and the rest on his shield to compliment it, etc.).

I agree with this, a lot.

Wealth separate from magical items.

Among other things, it'd be nice if magical items were classified as something. Like say, 'Minor' would be a little magical trinket (Bag of holding, hat of disguise, slippers of spiderclimb). Then a major would be "Weapon, armor, other". As you level, your Minor is modified and so is your Major. So a 5th level PC might have 3 minor, 1 major (+1). A 10th level character might have 5 minor, 2 major (+2 each).

Your Minor magical items might increase in power or versatility. So instead of having a whole bunch of little things, you could have say, a Cloak of the Arachnid, Boots of Striding and Springing, and a Portable hole. Then a cloak of the montebank, etc etc.