Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Technik4" data-source="post: 499128" data-attributes="member: 7211">Ok, this is an all-encompassing issue, and it is basically part of the rules. I know you can Rule 0 it, I know it doesn't come up in some (hopefully most) of the games that are being played, and I know it is just a baseline.Here's the problem. The DMG fairly explicitly states that characters should have a certain amount of gold at each level to take on foes with what the rules gives as chances of victory.We'll pretend Im a munchkin. I've read this table over, as I've played many times and heard my dm refer to it. I know that to be fair, I should only abuse it so much so as not to arouse his suspicions, but this is metagaming at its finest.Why worry about anything? Use every disposable item at the first opportunity, it isn't your fault if later you need it and don't have it, because technically you aren't even correctly outfitted to be fighting whatever it is youre fighting. Thus, if a tpk happens, you arent to blame, its that silly dm. Naturally I see the flawed logic, but it seems the game is flawed as well.&nbsp; This kind of pre-metagaming thinking kills me. Or maybe its guilt that if one of my characters' swords gets sundered that I supply him with something to bring him &quot;up&quot; to where the other characters are. Or if I give out something &quot;extremely&quot; powerful I should give out something comprable to everyone else.I think an accompanying table should be there, showing the wealth the party &quot;should&quot; have,&nbsp; and it should be accounted for at the beginning of an &quot;adventure&quot;, not necessarily a single night. But too much planning is the bane of interesting games.A. Does anyone else have problems with this &quot;rule&quot;. B. If so, how do you deal with it?C. Has anyone tried to make a system based on the strength of the character rather than the strength of the character + their equipment equals their ability to deal with a given challenge (CR)?D. Am I just over-analyzing all of this?Technik</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Technik4, post: 499128, member: 7211"] Ok, this is an all-encompassing issue, and it is basically part of the rules. I know you can Rule 0 it, I know it doesn't come up in some (hopefully most) of the games that are being played, and I know it is just a baseline. Here's the problem. The DMG fairly explicitly states that characters should have a certain amount of gold at each level to take on foes with what the rules gives as chances of victory. We'll pretend Im a munchkin. I've read this table over, as I've played many times and heard my dm refer to it. I know that to be fair, I should only abuse it so much so as not to arouse his suspicions, but this is metagaming at its finest. Why worry about anything? Use every disposable item at the first opportunity, it isn't your fault if later you need it and don't have it, because technically you aren't even correctly outfitted to be fighting whatever it is youre fighting. Thus, if a tpk happens, you arent to blame, its that silly dm. Naturally I see the flawed logic, but it seems the game is flawed as well. This kind of pre-metagaming thinking kills me. Or maybe its guilt that if one of my characters' swords gets sundered that I supply him with something to bring him "up" to where the other characters are. Or if I give out something "extremely" powerful I should give out something comprable to everyone else. I think an accompanying table should be there, showing the wealth the party "should" have, and it should be accounted for at the beginning of an "adventure", not necessarily a single night. But too much planning is the bane of interesting games. A. Does anyone else have problems with this "rule". B. If so, how do you deal with it? C. Has anyone tried to make a system based on the strength of the character rather than the strength of the character + their equipment equals their ability to deal with a given challenge (CR)? D. Am I just over-analyzing all of this? Technik [/QUOTE]

Verification