A Rekindled Glimmer of Hope

[ExploderWizard]

But unless it's the only treasure in the imaginary world, won't there be treasure to be found in the next bit of content that the PC's explore?

SKIP TREASURE!!!!

Of course there is more treasure-and it will all be mine as well!!!!!

In an exploration focused game, just finding out whats there is as fun as the loot gained. The primary adventuring reason is to explore these places and recover wealth from them thus gaining fame and fortune. Skipping the majority of areas to explore is very counterproductive.

 

[pemerton]

SKIP TREASURE!!!!

Of course there is more treasure-and it will all be mine as well!!!!!

In an exploration focused game, just finding out whats there is as fun as the loot gained. The primary adventuring reason is to explore these places and recover wealth from them thus gaining fame and fortune. Skipping the majority of areas to explore is very counterproductive.

I can see how it is counterproductive from the point of view of getting to learn every inch of the campaign world.

I don't quite see how it is counterproductive in terms of character advancement, however, unless it is the case that skipping some content will reduce the ration of XP earned per (real world) time spent playing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I can see how it is counterproductive from the point of view of getting to learn every inch of the campaign world.

I don't quite see how it is counterproductive in terms of character advancement, however, unless it is the case that skipping some content will reduce the ration of XP earned per (real world) time spent playing.

In terms of character advancement everything depends on the volume of treasure relative to the difficulty, danger, and time spent obtaining it, which is why fighting (especially wandering monsters) is rarely a good return for time and resources expended, but required to get a payday in some cases.

 

[Sunseeker]

I suppose its a matter of campaign style preferences. In the old days, bypassing whole areas meant bypassing TREASURE which was the main source of XP. In a goals oriented sort of campaign where the mission is to stop the bad guy, then going straight to the end and achieving mission objectives is not only acceptable, its smart play.

Perhaps, but have you ever seen a comic book or adventure story where it was actually possible to just go straight to the bad guy?

Generally speaking, they have to get past the grunts, fight the second lieutenant, disable the alarm system, break into the badguys chambers, avoid being seduced by his hot assistant(who then usually goes and sides with the good guys). Then they finally get to the bad guy, who they fight for a little while before he unleashes his doomsday plot(if he hasn't already) which when causes the party to split up while some of them try to disable the device and others continue fighting the bad guy(who now usually gets away because the remaining heroes aren't enough to beat him).

That aside, even heroes have to gain experience before they fight. Wolverine and Cyclops may be tough enough to fight Juggernaut, but the new trainees aren't going to have those skills. This is usually done by helping out on lesser missions or doing training.

In any case avoiding the encounter entirely is generally not beneficial, as you won't get the required skills and experience. HOWEVER, if players come up with a creative way to avoid the encounter(such as scaling a cliff to avoid a goblin warren up the road), that IMO rewards them with at least the experience of having actually accomplished the encounter.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Perhaps, but have you ever seen a comic book or adventure story where it was actually possible to just go straight to the bad guy?

Generally speaking, they have to get past the grunts, fight the second lieutenant, disable the alarm system, break into the badguys chambers, avoid being seduced by his hot assistant(who then usually goes and sides with the good guys). Then they finally get to the bad guy, who they fight for a little while before he unleashes his doomsday plot(if he hasn't already) which when causes the party to split up while some of them try to disable the device and others continue fighting the bad guy(who now usually gets away because the remaining heroes aren't enough to beat him).

That aside, even heroes have to gain experience before they fight. Wolverine and Cyclops may be tough enough to fight Juggernaut, but the new trainees aren't going to have those skills. This is usually done by helping out on lesser missions or doing training.

In any case avoiding the encounter entirely is generally not beneficial, as you won't get the required skills and experience. HOWEVER, if players come up with a creative way to avoid the encounter(such as scaling a cliff to avoid a goblin warren up the road), that IMO rewards them with at least the experience of having actually accomplished the encounter.

Everything is relative to the goals of play, what is rewarded, and the desires of the participants. What is XP awarded for? Do the players want to model a certain kind of fiction or just play to maximize the in-game rewards?

In older editions avoiding encounters was great if that produced a higher treasure gain rate. If achieving goals is what awards the XP then seeking to reach them as effeciently as possible would be logical.

 

[GM Dave]

In my latest campaigns, I've tried to get away from the 'rob & loot' model.

I have trouble justifying the idea of breaking into the homes of even Orcs and Goblins and taking there stuff.

It just doesn't seem heroic.

I've been using NPC patrons to do most of the funding.

I've got some organizations that supply the players with items, I've got family connections that supply the players, I've got the players working at businesses to supply some of their daily needs.

A knight generally doesn't scramble around in the sewer for dropped change to afford his next armour or warhorse. It is part of the fealty duty of the knight's lord to make sure that he is armend and armoured.

The knight's duty is to be available to use the weapons provided to defend the kingdom.

 

[Quickleaf]

Does anyone else think Jeremy Crawford's quote indicates that the design team has moved away from siloing combat and non-combat abilities?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Does anyone else think Jeremy Crawford's quote indicates that the design team has moved away from siloing combat and non-combat abilities?

Yes. I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure if I'm alone in being appalled rather than excited by the blithe return to what we might call "serial balance." Rather than have reasonable balance, you have a theoretical 'eventually you'll have your time in the sun' approach. In AD&D, if you were a 1st level magic-user in a campaign that rarely ever hit 3rd level, the theoretical power you'd enjoy at 5th or 8th or 12th level didn't in any way 'balance' your 1-4 hit points or your randomly generated offensive spell being Affect Normal Fires instead of Sleep. In 3e, the fact that your fighter could perform just as well in the 8th combat of the day as the 1st didn't really matter when everyone was just nova'ing and retiring the Rope Trick to charge up.

Characters shining more at one moment than another isn't something you need to design into the game. It's inevitable. Sometimes a player will be on the ball or have hot dice or have just the right combo for the circumstance and he'll have a moment of awesome. There's no need to hamstring everyone else, or hamstring each class in some (or most) broad circumstances to 'balance' them being overwhelmingly good in a given one. Balancing an RPG doesn't give you a 'samey' one-note game, it gives you a varied gaming experience, because the very nature of RPGs puts a lot of variables into the equation.

 

[Sadras]

In my latest campaigns, I've tried to get away from the 'rob & loot' model.
I've been using NPC patrons to do most of the funding.

I've got some organizations that supply the players with items, I've got family connections that supply the players, I've got the players working at businesses to supply some of their daily needs.

We've done the exact the same. The Elf maiden comes from a respectable elven family and has gained the position of an elven advisor/ambassador witin the human town. Her duties also include keeping an eye on the deforestation by the local loggers. So she is already partly funded. The other characters is a member of the Town militia, so receives weekly wages.
While the Wizard works part time at the family bakery - in exchange to use some back kitchen space as a lab. He is trading in his roller pin for a wand and his recipe book for a spell book.
Furthermore he has petitioned the local Baron for their own Adventuring Guild - with licences to carry arms in the city and be allowed to cast magic (as it is generally forbidden, Threshold, Mystara) based on the recent services they have provided to the town and its merchants.
Meanwhile the Bard ensures that he gets work through gigs at various the inns, taverns and generally any festivities in and around the town.

The above had me going back to my older D&D editions for resources/info for to determine wage pay and general service costs. 5E definitely needs to incorporate all that information - like the old Expert/Companion books did.

 

[trancejeremy]

A knight generally doesn't scramble around in the sewer for dropped change to afford his next armour or warhorse. It is part of the fealty duty of the knight's lord to make sure that he is armend and armoured.

The knight's duty is to be available to use the weapons provided to defend the kingdom.

Isn't that the opposite of how knights actually worked? The King simply granted the knight a manor (or just land), which was what was supposed to pay for the knight and his revenue's expenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight's_fee

And if it happened to be a poor manor (or poorly run), the knight would have to resort to other means of getting money for his expenses.