D&D 5E Do We Really Need a Lot of Gold? (D&D 5th Edition)

[jgsugden]

...In my games, the PCs spend the bulk of their time adventuring and after a certain point they can't buy better equipment or a better lifestyle. That's when wealth just turns into a tedious bookkeeping chore.

Again, if this is the case, I can say from experience that you've left good film on the cutting room floor.

Your response basically boiled down to, "All we want to do is adventure. Social and exploration pillars are just ways to get us to more adventure." What I'm saying is that you can have a lot of fun with those other pillars if you engage in good storytelling techniques and engage your players.

Sending some hirelings to explore the ruins sounds like a pretty dull adventure from where I'm sitting.

That wasn't exactly what I was suggesting. Think of it more as assistance than replacement.

And this has been a part of D&D since before AD&D existed. Hirelings and followers were a huge part of the original editions of the game, with the assumption that the heroes, around 10th level, would become the leaders of large groups.

If you enjoy a good movie or book, there is more you can enjoy in a D&D game than the fighty fight fight.

 

[Maxperson]

Start buying ships. Never played an adventure where they didn’t sink regularly.

Seems like a poor investment, then. Better to start a gambling establishment betting on whether a particular ship will make it to its destination.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Start buying ships, but never get on them. Fill them with lumber and send them off to bring back spices (or whatever). Don't settle for being rich when you can become wealthy.

I want to play D&D, not Monopoly.

 

[jgsugden]

It's not enough.

The rules in 5e overwhelmingly support direct, active adventuring. Virtually every player-facing ability does this, and most of the DMG stuff as well. They include downtime rules, but no published adventure (with the possible exception of Dragondeep Water Heist) allows the PCs an opportunity to use them. The game talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Assuming people will make this stuff up if they care about it might be true, but it's also a design error.

Players would care about this stuff more if the text did.

That is a half fair criticism. The adventures should have a bit more to support the social and exploration side - but there is a reason they do not.

Unlike adventuring, social and exploration are more reactive to what the players introduce. And, the mechanics for these activities tend to require more flexibility. We have detailed rules for how fireball works. We do not have specific detailed rules for sliding down a 30 degree slope covered in gravel and catching a lip of the ledge, nor specific rules for how to adjust DCs to social interaction challenges based upon the myriad of influencing factors that might impact a negotiation. The DM has to be more responsive and dynamic for the social and exploration pillars because PCS can literally do anything. They need it in combat too (what does happen when a chandelier is brought down on your enemies?), but it is more important in exploration and social activities. The DMG, PHB, etc... give the DM the tools, the stock adventures give them a starting framework, but due to the nature of exploration and social interaction, the DM has to build those areas out themselves.

However, I do think there should be more training on these elements of the game available. WotC should have a DM University series that assists newer DMs with learning techniques that can help them. There are a few 3rd party options out there, but WotC should have one.

 

[Reynard]

I want to play D&D, not Monopoly.

Okay. then don't worry about it. Don't even loot the bodies. Just save the world. There's nothing wrong with that.

But if some folks are asking for what to do with all the gold, this thread is full of great suggestions that people are dismissing because "it's too much work."

 

[TwoSix]

I want to play D&D, not Monopoly.

I think the distinction in this thread is whether or not you see site-based exploration as the core of D&D. For a lot of people that's true, but I know several players who view it much more as a shared game of collection and description with occasional combat, more in line with an Animal Crossing or a Pokemon. (If it's not obvious, I'm saying that building a mercantile empire is a form of collection game play.)

There's a reason why collection and display activities are so prominent in almost every MMO, as an example.

 

[jgsugden]

Seriously, in 2021 we are going to pretend this is a thing?

No pretending. It is a real thing.

D&D is a role playing game. If you're only there for the fights, you're not playing the full game available to you. You can have fun doing so, but I have never seen any player actually at a table where I left the table believing that they would not have fun with a good game that covers the breadth of D&D available, and I've managed to hook almost all of my players into storylines that they really wanted to be involved in and resolve.

 

[Reynard]

I think the distinction in this thread is whether or not you see site-based exploration as the core of D&D. For a lot of people that's true, but I know several players who view it much more as a shared game of collection and description with occasional combat, more in line with an Animal Crossing or a Pokemon. (If it's not obvious, I'm saying that building a mercantile empire is a form of collection game play.)

There's a reason why collection and display activities are so prominent in almost every MMO, as an example.

The characters having some interaction with the world in which they live doesn't make it NOT a game about site based exploration. Bruce Wayne has all kinds of businesses and foundations and interests in Gotham City, but the majority of any Batman story is kicking crazy villains in the teeth. D&D is no different. Your actual table time is still likely to be dedicated to fighting monsters and such, even if you happen to have purchased a controlling interest in a shipping concern.

What that involvement with the rest of the world does is provide a two-fold benefit: a) it adds depth to the setting, and b) provides adventure hooks different than the usual cry for help or old man in the tavern.

 

[Reynard]

No pretending. It is a real thing.

D&D is a role playing game. If you're only there for the fights, you're not playing the full game available to you. You can have fun doing so, but I have never seen any player actually at a table where I left the table believing that they would not have fun with a good game that covers the breadth of D&D available, and I've managed to hook almost all of my players into storylines that they really wanted to be involved in and resolve.

Sure, but it doesn't have anything to do with people "treating it like WoW." There were casual players long before there were MMOs.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay. then don't worry about it. Don't even loot the bodies. Just save the world. There's nothing wrong with that.

Nah. Tired with saving the world. Been there done, that. Super fine with playing greedy mercenaries. (Probably with a heart of some alloy containing at least traces of gold, but still.)

But if some folks are asking for what to do with all the gold, this thread is full of great suggestions that people are dismissing because "it's too much work."

But you suggestion was about making even more money with the money we had no use for in the first place! If my mercenary can comfortably retire to run a shipping business there's no adventure!