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

[Charlaquin]

Okay, but nothing matters unless the DM makes it matter. The DM comes up with or allows every mechanic in the game. It doesn't matter if it's written down or in the DM's head, it's still not going to matter unless the DM makes it matter.

But the DM doesn’t have to do any work to make Initiative matter. They can do work to change how it functions, but they can also just use the function already provided in the book.

I'm not sure there really is a word that fits. It seems that you just prefer that codify as much as possible, which runs contrary to the design intent of 5e.

Not so. I prefer that there be codified rules and subsystems only where the depth added by the rule or system is significant compared to the complexity of the rule or system. That’s why I say, if the route one wants to go down is for there to be no codified economic subsystem, that’s fine, but then why track individual coins? That’s unneeded complexity at that point.

There are millions, and probably billions of things and combinations of things that can occur in a game that aren't written is rules in the game. The DM currentl has to make all of them matter if/when they come up. Do you want all of them written down by WotC in the rulebook? If not, why does how to come up with gold spending on a temple warrant a rule, but where how to come up with whether or not an NPC knows and will answer the PCs doesn't warrant a rule?

Because the latter involves so many variables that it would require an absurd amount of complex rules to even begin to attempt to codify it, and the result would not be a system with any more depth than simply letting the DM use their best judgment. As compared to an economy subsystem, where the depth added by giving mechanical consequence to the things one can purchase with gold adds a great deal of depth for minimal added complexity.

And to cut off any potential quibbling about what the words “depth” and “complexity” mean, then here. Watch this:

https://youtu.be/jVL4st0blGU

That’s what I’m using those words to mean.

EDIT: Oh, hey, the video even uses the term “meaningful choices” and gets into what makes a choice meaningful or not in a game design sense! Awesome, two birds, one stone. Damn, I love Extra Credits!

 

[Hriston]

The inventor(s) of the original game made gold a prominent game-element because they imagined an instance of play part of the premise of which was the creation of heroic tales featuring veritable mountains of gold for the taking.

Since house-rules for bribes and other offerings of inducement that might make wealth relevant to game-play have been asked about, I use a house-rule that sets a minimum inducement value that must be offered for a creature to consider certain requests. For example, if a bribe is required, the minimum inducement value is equal to the minimum coin-value of a treasure hoard for the creature's CR. Doubling that amount gives you +2 on any CHA check required to gain the creature's cooperation, and tripling the amount gives you +3.

 

[Satyrn]

The inventor(s) of the original game made gold a prominent game-element because they imagined an instance of play part of the premise of which was the creation of heroic tales featuring veritable mountains of gold for the taking.

Since house-rules for bribes and other offerings of inducement that might make wealth relevant to game-play have been asked about, I use a house-rule that sets a minimum inducement value that must be offered for a creature to consider certain requests. For example, if a bribe is required, the minimum inducement value is equal to the minimum coin-value of a treasure hoard for the creature's CR. Doubling that amount gives you +2 on any CHA check required to gain the creature's cooperation, and tripling the amount gives you +3.

Is there something else I could base that on instead of CR? What you got would work for my guard NPCs and other grunts, but the various bureaucrats, aristocrats and nobles are generally weakling civilians with a CR of 0.

 

[Hriston]

Is there something else I could base that on instead of CR? What you got would work for my guard NPCs and other grunts, but the various bureaucrats, aristocrats and nobles are generally weakling civilians with a CR of 0.

I gauged it to roughly equal a month's wages for a skilled hireling, so you could base it on the magistrate's salary. But really it's whatever their price is, depending on how loyal they are to whomever you're asking them to betray.

 

[Satyrn]

I gauged it to roughly equal a month's wages for a skilled hireling, so you could base it on the magistrate's salary. But really it's whatever their price is, depending on how loyal they are to whomever you're asking them to betray.

A month's salary (or a month's living expenses) sounds like the perfect starting point. I must remember that the next time it comes up. Thank you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Since house-rules for bribes and other offerings of inducement that might make wealth relevant to game-play have been asked about, I use a house-rule that sets a minimum inducement value that must be offered for a creature to consider certain requests. For example, if a bribe is required, the minimum inducement value is equal to the minimum coin-value of a treasure hoard for the creature's CR. Doubling that amount gives you +2 on any CHA check required to gain the creature's cooperation, and tripling the amount gives you +3.

Oh, cool!

 

[Maxperson]

But the DM doesn’t have to do any work to make Initiative matter. They can do work to change how it functions, but they can also just use the function already provided in the book.

I understand that. That's why I said, "Comes up with OR ALLOWS."

Not so. I prefer that there be codified rules and subsystems only where the depth added by the rule or system is significant compared to the complexity of the rule or system. That’s why I say, if the route one wants to go down is for there to be no codified economic subsystem, that’s fine, but then why track individual coins? That’s unneeded complexity at that point.

I don't agree. If you get rid of coins then you need to have an entirely new purchase system. One that allows you to buy things like swords and such, still allows you to run out of money, goes up when you find treasure in some trackable manner, and so on. The new system would end up being more more complex than the current system, just getting to the same place. Never mind adding in all the other possible things to spend coins on.

The current system is simple. It's basic math, and the DM just comes up with prices for the misc. stuff the PCs want to do that isn't covered. The current depth is tremendous. Players can choose to spend money on huge numbers of different things. It would add unneeded complexity if it tried to codify all the things you could think of to spend gold on, that aren't common expenditures like weapons and armor, though.

 

[Charlaquin]

I understand that. That's why I said, "Comes up with OR ALLOWS."

Not much of a counter-argument, then.

I don't agree. If you get rid of coins then you need to have an entirely new purchase system. One that allows you to buy things like swords and such, still allows you to run out of money, goes up when you find treasure in some trackable manner, and so on.

Why, though? None of the things you can spend money on have any mechanics to them, apart from like... Slightly better armor, which you can pretty much afford after your first treasure horde, if you haven't already found something better by then. If the benefits of the stuff you can buy with gold are entirely narrative, why not make the gold you purchase it narrative as well?

The new system would end up being more more complex than the current system, just getting to the same place. Never mind adding in all the other possible things to spend coins on.

The idea is not to create a new system for wealth, but to de-systematize wealth entirely.

The current system is simple. It's basic math, and the DM just comes up with prices for the misc. stuff the PCs want to do that isn't covered.

Agreed.

The current depth is tremendous.

And here is where we disagree.

Players can choose to spend money on huge numbers of different things.

But not things that create more opportunities for meaningful choices.

It would add unneeded complexity if it tried to codify all the things you could think of to spend gold on, that aren't common expenditures like weapons and armor, though.

The goal is not to codify any and all things one could possibly think of to spend gold on. The goal is to give mechanical benefits to
the things there are already prices for. I've given examples earlier in the thread, as has Sadras. This would greatly increase the (mechanical) depth of the gold economy without significantly increasing its complexity.

 

[Maxperson]

Not much of a counter-argument, then.

Not everything has to be a counter.

Why, though? None of the things you can spend money on have any mechanics to them, apart from like... Slightly better armor, which you can pretty much afford after your first treasure horde, if you haven't already found something better by then. If the benefits of the stuff you can buy with gold are entirely narrative, why not make the gold you purchase it narrative as well?

Just about everything in the PHB has mechanics to them. All armor. All weapons. And most equipment. For the rest, like castle building and such, those also have mechanics associated with them and are not purely narrative. Castles come with people to upkeep. Those people are mechanical. Probably a private army with which to mechanically beat the pulp out of neighbors with. And more. Just because the effects are not necessarily directly mechanical, does not make them entirely narrative.

The idea is not to create a new system for wealth, but to de-systematize wealth entirely.

More than 30 years of gaming and I've never met a person who wanted this to happen. I doubt it will fly, but if you like it, make it happen in your game.

And here is where we disagree.

There are thousands of meaningful ways for me to spend gold. That's depth.

But not things that create more opportunities for meaningful choices.

Yes, those too. Creating a castle comes with many choices associated with it that can shape the campaign into different directions. The same with many large expenditures. Choices abound.

The goal is not to codify any and all things one could possibly think of to spend gold on. The goal is to give mechanical benefits to
the things there are already prices for. I've given examples earlier in the thread, as has Sadras. This would greatly increase the (mechanical) depth of the gold economy without significantly increasing its complexity.

Why limit yourself to mechanics, though? Mechanics are narrow and, quite frankly, weak. They have to be in order to be balanced against everything else. The non-mechanical power and influence that comes with a castle, or influence with a church when you build a temple, etc., far outstrips mechanics for usefulness.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not everything has to be a counter.




Just about everything in the PHB has mechanics to them. All armor. All weapons. And most equipment. For the rest, like castle building and such, those also have mechanics associated with them and are not purely narrative. Castles come with people to upkeep. Those people are mechanical. Probably a private army with which to mechanically beat the pulp out of neighbors with. And more. Just because the effects are not necessarily directly mechanical, does not make them entirely narrative.



More than 30 years of gaming and I've never met a person who wanted this to happen. I doubt it will fly, but if you like it, make it happen in your game.



There are thousands of meaningful ways for me to spend gold. That's depth.



Yes, those too. Creating a castle comes with many choices associated with it that can shape the campaign into different directions. The same with many large expenditures. Choices abound.

Why limit yourself to mechanics, though? Mechanics are narrow and, quite frankly, weak. They have to be in order to be balanced against everything else. The non-mechanical power and influence that comes with a castle, or influence with a church when you build a temple, etc., far outstrips mechanics for usefulness.

We’re just never going to find common ground here.