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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well now, we're getting into the micromanaging element. Yes, as a DM I can rule yes or no on any given item, but realistically, how often does a DM claim you (assuming you have coin and are some area with reasonable trade*) you can't buy plate armor? Heavy Crossbows? A boat (near a body of water)? 200 feet of rope? All of these things are just as susceptible to market flux, but few DMs I've ever seen care about supply and demand of goods.

TBH, but for the "Monty Haul" years, that kind of treatment of scarcity has been the norm over my gaming career.

As I mentioned above, when in RttToEE, My PC was unable to have a masterwork dire pick made. Rarer than plate armor, yes, but not exceedingly rare.

The same guy GMing RIFTS had the party constantly scrounging for ammo, and we really didn't have much in the way of transportation.

In HERO, a different GM (in a different city & group) made it virtually impossible for the party to hire agents to take on the agents of evil organizations, so we were almost always outnumbered when we encountered groups like Viper (that game's version of Cobra).

Again, the GAME ITSELF doesn't take these things into account.

...because it is left to the DM to decide whether he'd like to do so.

Personally, I don't expect a game to handle every eventuality or possibility. In the 100+ systems I've owned! I've yet to see one that does. In fact, I can't think of one offhand that handled things like rules for natural disasters (except maybe plagues), strikes, embargoes, derivative effects of war, oligarchs playing chicken with the economy, and so forth. Their rules are almost solely focused on actions at the PC level. All that other stuff is glossed over if addressed at all.

And yet, they can make the play environment richer and more challenging. They can even make for great plot hooks for adventures or story arcs.

 

[Derren]

T
My point is that 5e's approach is far saner than 3e/4e's, but requires more DM judgement call.

I hardly call it sane that the default assumption is that all knowledge about magic item crafting has been lost and that is absolutely impossible to create them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A setting with draconian legal restrictions on production of enchanted items probably also has restrictions on who is allowed to own weaponry. Bulletproof vests were mentioned up thread. You wind up in a campaign where either 1.) PCs are outlaws routinely violating ownership laws already (Shadowrun! and all that implies) or 2.) PCs are law enforcement personnel with the legal right to access restricted gear.

It's hard for me to imagine a middle ground wherein magic items are easily produced yet unavailable AND YET freelance wizard PCs are allowed to learn Fireball and you can freely buy plate armor.

I didn't say that arcanists were necessarily unhindered by laws.

While most campaigns followed the default assumptions, some settings did have limitations of spellcasters including magical potions & peace bonds that prevented/hindered arcane casting. Sometimes, it was just laws backed up with force of arms- get caught casting an arcane spell without permission, you may find the SWAT* team barreling though your bedroom door at the inn.







* Special Wizardry and Tactics

 

[Celtavian]

Well, I've been part of one group that has had a game active since 1985 or so (going from 1Ed to 2Ed to 3.x), @2/3 of which's members have joined a second, larger group around 1998-99. And in that time, it has alway been- regardless of campaign, regardless of system- DM sets the table, players decide whether to eat or not.

Meaning that the DM runs the campaign he wants with the rules he wants, and the players play in the games they want. We've had campaigns run where one or more player sat out the entire run- some, more than a year. Because we're adults, we can handle it. It isn't personal if nobody wants to play the game you like, nor if everyone but you is playing in a game you don't. There are no hostages: nobody is forcing anyone to run or play a game they don't like.

We've had campaigns that only the GM wanted to run that didn't get run, so something else by someBODY else got run instead. (And most of the guys in the group HAVE run games for the group.)

Only half of the big group played in the year+ long 4Ed group. A similar number tried my Mutants & Masterminds game that lasted 4 months. Another guy's 3.5 game lasted @6 sessions. Nobody was interested in my fantasy campaign set in the worlds of the M:tG game after I revealed I'd be using HERO.

No game has had 100% participation.

If nobody has an active game/campaign idea people want to play, out come the boardgames like Arkham Asylum. Or poker. Or movie night. Or a dinner party.

Your experience and mine clearly differ.

No. You just proved what I said. Players can decide not to play. You just stated exactly how it works at my table. When a DM runs a game a player doesn't like, they leave. Difference is we are so tight a group that we don't allow a single DM to decide everything and we like everyone to play. So we talk it out and come to a consensus. That often means no one decides the rules, so we end up using the rules as provided save for the extreme cheese. Problem was that the magic item system in previous editions along with all the stackable bonuses and the like made for a very cheesy, hard to run game. You ever design high level NPCs using the rules in Pathfinder? I've designed a group of eight fully fleshed out NPCs, all 18th level plus. I've done this more than once in that system. What a pain in the behind with all the magic items needed to make the encounter challenging.

We try to keep all our campaigns in connected world with the same rules so that a character in one campaign can run with a character in another campaign, making rules consistency important.

No. Our experiences don't differ. Group preferences may differ. But you are quite correct, DMs that want to have everything their way usually don't run the game very long in our group. We want everyone to have fun and participate as much as possible. Coming to a consensus on the type of game we like is important and made much easier when the rules are easy to run out of the box.

Here's the reality: it looks like more people felt like I felt. The magic item Christmas Tree model was extremely unpopular. I still remember trying out 4E. I liked their magic item reduction a lot. I'm sure WotC or a 3rd party will come out with some chart for those that want to buy and sell magic items a the local Magic Mart. That's not going to be core D&D, not even DMG optional D&D. It's something they worked very hard to eliminate from the game because of the annoying Magic Item Christmas Tree and Big Six from previous editions.

Just like you say, DM can do what they want in their game. It was completely unnecessary for them to provide the charts, since the magic item mart is a small minority view.

We can go back and forth with you saying, "DM can ban it" and me saying "DM can make it up." Both can work. The game designers have already decided that default is DM can make it up. Since that is my camp, I'm quite happy. You guys want a Magic Item Christmas Tree, Big Six, and Magic Marts, get them imaginations rolling.

 

[Remathilis]

I hardly call it sane that the default assumption is that all knowledge about magic item crafting has been lost and that is absolutely impossible to create them.

There is lots of "lost knowledge" in this world (Roman Concrete being one example) so the knowledge of how to impart permanent magic into an item isn't completely unfounded. That said, if I DO want magical crafting, I can add it in however I see fit (for example: no crafting items above rare rareness, or only giving formulas to certain items) which is better than it is to say "Well, Bob just took Craft Wondrous Item (or learned the Create Magic Item ritual), he now knows how to make most items in the game."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And bear in mind, there are two issues at work: PCs making whatever they want for themselves and NPCs crafting magical junk as a day job to sell. You've really solved neither. If the PC wants something and met the requirements in the rules, all your doing is yanking him around until he jumps through those hoops. If its an NPC, what does he care? His JOB is to make +1 swords! He is under no time constraints unless he's dead broke and starving. Either way, you've not fixed the "insert GP, get +1 sword" problem, you've at best delayed it, and at worst created a logistical nightmare of tracking steel, diamonds, mithral, and other crafting amounts, while attempting replicate a market economy which will ripple down the pipe. (Hey, Kendall Keep's smith said they were low on steel! Where are all these guards getting chain mail from? And why did Bluto buy his battle axe at normal PHB price?)

Anything that applies to PCs applies to NPCs.

Kendall Keep's smith may indeed be low on steel...for everyone who hasn't pre-purchased materials or isn't a guard with priority. If your right to produce weapons is granted by the crown, you best believe the crown's agents get priority on a bunch of things, including access to weapons and armor. To out it differently, he may not so much be "out", he may be telling you that you're at the hind end of the queue.

"Soldiers first" has been a practice through much of history. Even today, if you go on a military base, you will sometimes see signs that say that on-duty personnel have preference- IOW, they go to the front of the line to buy this and that while you wait. Time it wrong, and you may be s.o.l. for getting what you want, when you want as soldiers step in front of you...

Bluto? He got a sweetheart deal because the shopkeeper wanted to close up shop early, but needed just a little more cash to get something HE wanted...

 

[Celtavian]

But what if I don't want to make magic items rare? To me a magic item you can use is more magical than one you have to go through hoops to get but never actually use.

Then don't.

The default system is DM decides how much or little magic he wants. Defaults starts at zero. You can take that number as high as you want.

 

[Derren]

There is lots of "lost knowledge" in this world (Roman Concrete being one example) so the knowledge of how to impart permanent magic into an item isn't completely unfounded.

Knowledge became lost because it was not needed any more (yes, this also applies to roman concrete. The economical downfall of the west and the lack of interest in gigantic structures in the east caused the knowledge to slowly die out).
And why would people not craft magic items any more?

 

[Remathilis]

Knowledge became lost because it was not needed any more (yes, this also applies to roman concrete. The economical downfall of the west and the lack of interest in gigantic structures in the east caused the knowledge to slowly die out).
And why would people not craft magic items any more?

Ask [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] , he's come up with a dozen reasons why magic items couldn't be made.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No. You just proved what I said.

No, our experiences DO differ: "play" or "not play" are your options as a player because DM's don't design their campaign rules by committee.

The length of campaigns had ZERO to do with the DMs having it "all their way" with the rules and everything to do with things like players not liking the story arc or the system in question, DM fatigue, and real-world commitments.

For example, my M&M game died primarily because most of the players hated the lack of iterative attacks, especially when applied to weapons capable of automatic fire. I suspected they would, and had initially offered to run the game in HERO, but nobody wanted to learn to play HERO. C'est la vie.

And I doubt your group would run a game in which fully half of your group would not be participants.