Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="HoboGod" data-source="post: 5715323" data-attributes="member: 90920">Okay, this post borders on the inflammatory. This thread is not about how well I can or cannot run a game. I'm offering a variant to the treasure table that links treasure directly to experience gained. I welcome comments regarding whether or not this is implementable or should be implemented. I am simply stating my reasons for the structure of this variant and openly offering alternatives to people that would want to use this variant differently. Do not, in any way, make assumptions about how I run my games and the limit of my DMing capabilities.I agree. I've DM'd games where I've had to throw the DMG out the window. I've DM'd evil games where my players could steal anything they needed and could potentially have infinite magic items. I've also DM'd a game where my party had an army of fire giants to back them up wherever they go. In both cases, I still found challenges for them and I still made the game fun. However, this variant I'm suggesting isn't for the games where rules are fluid and avant garde, this variant is for purists who can afford to pay great attention to the tables in the DMG and wish to use it as a guideline without spending all their free time comparing notes and tables.Simply put, my variant is not a variant at all, it's how the DMG suggests you as a DM should award treasure. DMG says that reaching A amount of experience requires having B encounters which average C ECL each and then give D amount of treasure for a C ECL encounter B number of times. There is direct correlation between experience and treasure, my table is the math behind that correlation which reduces it to a 1-to-1 ratio.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="HoboGod, post: 5715323, member: 90920"] Okay, this post borders on the inflammatory. This thread is not about how well I can or cannot run a game. I'm offering a variant to the treasure table that links treasure directly to experience gained. I welcome comments regarding whether or not this is implementable or should be implemented. I am simply stating my reasons for the structure of this variant and openly offering alternatives to people that would want to use this variant differently. Do not, in any way, make assumptions about how I run my games and the limit of my DMing capabilities. I agree. I've DM'd games where I've had to throw the DMG out the window. I've DM'd evil games where my players could steal anything they needed and could potentially have infinite magic items. I've also DM'd a game where my party had an army of fire giants to back them up wherever they go. In both cases, I still found challenges for them and I still made the game fun. However, this variant I'm suggesting isn't for the games where rules are fluid and avant garde, this variant is for purists who can afford to pay great attention to the tables in the DMG and wish to use it as a guideline without spending all their free time comparing notes and tables. Simply put, my variant is not a variant at all, it's how the DMG suggests you as a DM should award treasure. DMG says that reaching A amount of experience requires having B encounters which average C ECL each and then give D amount of treasure for a C ECL encounter B number of times. There is direct correlation between experience and treasure, my table is the math behind that correlation which reduces it to a 1-to-1 ratio. [/QUOTE]

Verification