Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 2959563" data-attributes="member: 20239">Which is my point exactly.&nbsp; The game was operating on a different paradigm where gains were bigger and losses were more frequent.&nbsp; An experienced DM can easily balance those two things to keep the campaign on an even keel.I would agree that earlier editions have just as many problems with balancing treasure and party power as the current one, but the problems in earlier editions (and the current one) don't arise from the game system, but from the inexperience of players in handling the issue of treasure.&nbsp; Earlier editions handled this by making advice and techniques available for running a campaign with a certain paradigm (high reward + high attrition) whereas the current edition takes a different tack and regulates reward tightly.&nbsp; The point being that, yeah, if you take a slice from one and plug it into the other it's going to cause problems, but that doesn't mean either paradigm is unworkable in its own right.To tie this point at least nominally back into the original subject, let me just say that arscott's concerns are an excellent example of how non-linear dungeons can be a boon to play, especially in 3e D&amp;D.&nbsp; If you're worried about secret-doors that conceal treasure creating an imbalance of treasure in your game (either too much because the PCs find everything or too little because they don't find enough) a good answer is to simply change what the secret doors are hiding.&nbsp; In a non-linear dungeon a means of getting to your goal while circumventing potential hazards (which offer no monetary or goal-oriented benefit when overcome) is a reward in itself which doesn't add to the PC's monetary assets or equipment.&nbsp; If your secret doors conceal, not treasure, but secret passages that allow safe travel around hazardous parts of the dungeon; you've created a reward for PCs who are diligent enough to search them out, but without the risk of imbalancing the PCs wealth-by-level if they miss it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ourph, post: 2959563, member: 20239"] Which is my point exactly. The game was operating on a different paradigm where gains were bigger and losses were more frequent. An experienced DM can easily balance those two things to keep the campaign on an even keel. I would agree that earlier editions have just as many problems with balancing treasure and party power as the current one, but the problems in earlier editions (and the current one) don't arise from the game system, but from the inexperience of players in handling the issue of treasure. Earlier editions handled this by making advice and techniques available for running a campaign with a certain paradigm (high reward + high attrition) whereas the current edition takes a different tack and regulates reward tightly. The point being that, yeah, if you take a slice from one and plug it into the other it's going to cause problems, but that doesn't mean either paradigm is unworkable in its own right. To tie this point at least nominally back into the original subject, let me just say that arscott's concerns are an excellent example of how non-linear dungeons can be a boon to play, especially in 3e D&D. If you're worried about secret-doors that conceal treasure creating an imbalance of treasure in your game (either too much because the PCs find everything or too little because they don't find enough) a good answer is to simply change what the secret doors are hiding. In a non-linear dungeon a means of getting to your goal while circumventing potential hazards (which offer no monetary or goal-oriented benefit when overcome) is a reward in itself which doesn't add to the PC's monetary assets or equipment. If your secret doors conceal, not treasure, but secret passages that allow safe travel around hazardous parts of the dungeon; you've created a reward for PCs who are diligent enough to search them out, but without the risk of imbalancing the PCs wealth-by-level if they miss it. [/QUOTE]

Verification