Spending your gold on non-combat stuff?

[Warmduscher]

Back in the good old AD&D days players frequently had more money then they could use, as the very sparse RAW made it nearly impossible to reasonably construct magic items and most GMs didn't allow you to just buy stuff that was beyond potions or simple wands IME.

But now the expected thing is that almost all loot and money goes into adventuring stuff, what got me thinking. I'm in a 3E campaign myself as a player and so far we too spent the serious money on better weapons/armor and misc items. But what about the stuff we used to spend massive amounts of money on in the old days?

Buying land and houses in the city, perhaps even strongholds, outfitting your own private armies in mid-level play? These were some great plot points for a bit of political play for our GM and we players felt that our characters really become a force to be reckoned in the world. That ate gold by the tenthousands of course, but damn it was fun to advance from a simple lvl1 nobody to the sort of noble that adventurers usually go to get quests themselves.

So, how would you react if a fellow player would try something like that? Would you go with it when in the classical PoL setting a player proposes to spend the loot on repairing the wrecked village wall instead of buying a bit of better magic for yourself? Or how would you react as GM to something like that?

 

[mac1504]

As a DM, I would certainly reward a good character for spending money on repairing the village wall after a bandit attack, for example. I have several players that used money and equipment as good will measures in role-playing encounters. The last character I played, a foppish noble who was always well-dressed, regularly spent money on new outfits and accessories.

 

[Paul Strack]

In my house rules, I abstract the whole treasure collection process and simply give players magic items appropriate to their level, following the "Starting At a Higher Level" suggestions for equipment on DMG 143. That eliminates the whole question of spending money on being combat effective: everyone gets the equipment they should have at their level, regardless. That would eliminate the player-pressure you are worrying about (plus a whole mess of bookkeeping).

I hand out other valuable items (titles, land, armies) as separate rewards, depending on the interest of the group and the type of adventures they went on. Most of my players are not into the political stuff. If I were to run a political game, I would cobble together a separate system to track the PCs success in the political arena and the power they hold there. In most pre-industrial societies, political power is more a function of status then monetary wealth anyway.

By the way, I did this back in 3E as well.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I looked at everlasting provisions awhile back, and sorta decided it'd be awesome to have 200 of 'em.

Exactly what I was going to use them for .. erm .. I have plans and they are devious.

 

[renau1g]

Well in 3e there was the strongholder builder guide (or some other similar title). My PC's are borderline obsessive about establishing their own fiefdom. They go out of their way to accumulate enough wealth to construct a keep, usually having to deal with a local noble to acquire the land (I guess in 4e it could be a skill challenge).

 

[renau1g]

I forgot that when the players are willing to do this sort of action I need to adjust the combat approriately (as anyone who looked at that book knows the absurd cost of many of the upgrades) to ensure they weren't overwhelmed as they were under equiped according to the DMG.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Well, one of the hook options in Fallcrest/ Kobold Hall (the intro setting in the DMG) is an Eladrin player with a title to a ruined manor. I went with this (the manor was. of course, Kobold Hall), and now my players have a chunk of land and an incentive to build a home base. So I expect some plots to revolve around this... they have already met the elves in the local woods, and discovered that ettercaps prey on the unwary there.

I'll either adjust the treasure found, or arrange for investments in the property to just about pay for themselves, so that the players are neither underequipped nor encouraged to sit around and learn masonry rather than adventure.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

Practically speaking, the details of how the PCs spend their cash has only minimal effect on power level, as long as the magic items they find are useful.

Over the course of 5 levels, a group of PCs is expected to replace 15 magic items (weapon/implement, armor, amulet). Over those same 5 levels, they are expected to find 20 items. Thus, there's not actually that much need to ever buy magic items. Even if you do, because of the rapid wealth curve, a character who spends only 50% of his money on adventuring stuff will still have as much adventuring stuff as a frugal character 2 levels lower.

 

[MortalPlague]

I plan to hand out land as a reward in my current campaign, and I can't wait to see where the characters take it. It would be simply awesome if they decided to construct a keep and hire retainers and guards; it's something we haven't done in any of our campaigns for a long time.

Financially, it should take a toll, but it shouldn't really impact adventuring. I would probably take the same approach as 'On Puget Sound' and adjust treasure or have the property offer up some financial benefit.

 

[icarusfallz]

Lands and titles are important in a lot of our games. In one of the last 3.5 games I was in (and ran, we switched off) the PCs started a coffee plantation in the Lake of Steam are of the Forgotten Realms. We imported beans from Maztica. Our characters were part of Her Majesty's Navy who routinely freed slaves, then gave them a choice: a free ride home plus 100 gp to rebuild, or to work our plantations in return for homes and a fare wage. Helped build our queen's little city state into a major power. I LOVE out of combat stuff.