Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7593196" data-attributes="member: 6919838">My own views on a system designer attempt to provide a functional based item pricing and Zapps positions are somewhat highlighted by this and the proposal that such pricing be based on %of wealth, etc etc.There have been and still are tons of point buy systems out there in the RPG world where you have a resource you spend for power (what really utility is referencing here - how much good does it do me?)The more those systems get focused on and driven by the idea that everything can be "costed out" and that there can be a "right cost" the more bland, flavorless and dull those systems become because the inevitablecredult to saying "in our system we must have a costing system that works" is to limit your system to things that can fit that model - fewer and fewer exception - rtc.If you want to play resource-based "gold as BPV" style games, that's great but I myself am so very wonderfully glad that there are systems which did not take that into their core design. It's a myth, flat out myth, IMO (based on years with those systems)  that WotC could produce a working model of what Zapp wants, that would come close to satisfying that audience, that I could then ignore **because** in order for WotC to make it work even enough to get Zapp to maybe move from "it's full ass" to " its half-assed" would require them changing their system, limiting how "items are built (mechanically)" to make it work. So, the more free-form system they have now (whole system) would not exist. Classes would need to be structured to help standardize the features to help the new build-rules for items.No thank you.There are systems out there with literally decades of adjust and tweak to their point buy systems, with everything driven down and filed down by the grinder of "must fit our point buy" and they still wind up with systems where the "accuracy" of those prices vary so much from campaign yo campaign from setting to setting that it still boils down to one thing... one final reality...The value actually seen of an item is set in play *by the GM* in terms of the types of challenges and events and adversaries that create the "what do we need" demand of the supply and demand.Even in those really point driven systems, it comes down to "does the GM run a game that **shows** the players "The Price is Right" or not?"The tail ends up wagging the dog... the prices that we promised and built system to support drive or limit that setting, not the other way around.Do I dare to run an undead game with a **lot ** of skeletons? Does that mean my pricing of bludgeoning weapon vs slashing is wrong? Is it worth it to me to go back to all the bludgeoning vs slashing in the game and refocus them to support this setting with a ton of new house rules?Di I dare run a fire giant invasion? Or is it easier to run a rainbow giant invasion so that I dont have to re-figured all those costs?I am not talking "give a core that the GM can then alter" - that mirage being mentioned by Zapp - because that is a con. The systems change to meet the design goals and once "make point buy work" on the large scale of overall power ("utility") becomes a design goal that drives the cart.Me? I prefer a setting that works over a point buy system that forces my setting to go certain ways. I prefer for the utter illogic of a ring that adds an attunement slot being "priced" at one low cost for a 5th level character but at a higher price for a 20th **because** of utility or balance to not be a part of my game's system and built into its DNA so that to try and do differently means rewriting a core dedign.Sorry, that way lies madness and in my experience system after system after system have proved it. We dont need 5e deciding "hey, that's a rabbit hole we should jump down."But that's me.</blockquote>

Verification