Forked Thread: Love the Game vs. Hate the Greedy Characters

[roguerouge]

Of course, while I like the defense of 1e's system, I have to point out that making GP into XP is exactly like 3e: you buy higher level abilities with gold pieces. In 1e, it's levels and all that goes with them. In 3e, it's more diversified bonuses and abilities in different gradations. In both systems, the risk-reward system encourages entrepreneurial capitalist behavior, rather than the Robin Hood or decadent examples given.

 

[Obryn]

That was the best defense of the 1E xp system that I have ever heard. Congrats.

I can't take full credit for it, but thanks. I mean, I wrote that particular post, but lots of folks here and elsewhere needed to explain it to me at some point. When I was actively playing 1e/2e in the 80's and 90's, I thought XP-for-GP was completely ridiculous. I've only since come around, for 1e games.

Of course, while I like the defense of 1e's system, I have to point out that making GP into XP is exactly like 3e: you buy higher level abilities with gold pieces. In 1e, it's levels and all that goes with them. In 3e, it's more diversified bonuses and abilities in different gradations. In both systems, the risk-reward system encourages entrepreneurial capitalist behavior, rather than the Robin Hood or decadent examples given.

I definitely see what you're saying, but it's just a hair different. And I think the difference is a significant one.

Taking 3e as the example, there are many things you can only get with XP, and there are many things you can only get with GP. Wizards don't cast higher-level spells until they get more XP, and all the money in the world won't solve this. If you're a Fighter, you need to both keep up with your XP and with your magic items, otherwise you fall well behind the power curve. Characters in 3e and 4e will tend to hoard their gold, saving it up for their next item. There's nothing wrong with that - it's one of the core assumptions behind the wealth-by-level guidelines.

In 1e, once you get the loot to a safe location, you're done. You 'cash out' and get XP for your haul. You're not buying up magic items, generally, so really you've gotten all the direct character benefit you're going to get. You might need to hire some mercenaries, pay off your henchmen, tithe to your church, or put it towards a stronghold - but mostly, once you get the gold, you can hoard it or waste it at your leisure. There's no need to hoard it for a power boost.

-O

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Tale of the Twin Suns capitalizes on the idea that money doesn't necessarily mean having power.

I've seriously cut down on the Christmas Tree of magical equipment defining the character by replacing that with racial abilities that improve as you gain levels (my Bloodline Strength mechanic), the ability to gain Incarnum abilities (powers harnessed by utilizing ones soul (an no Incarnum in the Tale is nowhere near the same as Incarnum from MoI)) and more class abilities gained as one levels up.

I've also increased the cost to create magic items (x1.5), made the steel piece the standard and lowered the amount of wealth gained as one levels up). In the Tale, your racial, incarnum and class abilities define your character, not your magic items.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Wow am I in the minority!

Which isn't to say the christmas tree effect doesn't bother me a bit and I'd like to cut down on it. And for certain settings with lower magic, it'd be entirely inappropriate. But there was only a firm good or bad to chooe from, and overall, I like that money can buy rather significant power. While levels is the ultimate form of power (with "level checking" spells like Blasphemy ot painfully enforce this world order), gp is the main form of comparitive power between two similar characters of equal or near equal level. I like that people who are smart with their loot and how it's spent and strive to earn as much of it as possible do better for themselves.

I played for a while in an online community where everyone had many characters in all in the same kingdom, could freely switch between them, and time went by equal to real time (on the larger scale; one week = one week. 5 Hours real time in a dungeon might be 1 hour). When i joined, people were obsessed with levelling up as fast as possible to gain more power for their characters. I decided to take my xp at a slower rate and enjoy each stage of my PC's career, instead focusing solely on getting the most money possible for my level (the all-important "gp/xp" ratio). And...my characters fell behind in levels to others that were created at the same time. However...groups are put together based on a level range, and my PCs, due to exorbitant wealth, eventually became incredibly powerful relative to their dungeoning peers. Suddenly, the people who were happy to jump two levels in a month by doing lots of training and sparring (which gave no gp but ridiculous amounts of xp) were pretty upset at my inferior method of levelling.

[sblock]Part of my motivation wasn't just to be a power gamer but out of protest for the houserules they had. I tried to provide rational arguments on why it was stupid to have training rules that literally allowed PCs to gain hundreds (and by level ~9 over a thousand) of xp a week without having to do anything -- merely pick another PC and "train" with her for the week. But they wouldn't listen, so I attacked it in two ways. I had my casters run up fortunes with item creation and not care about levelling fast, and had a VoP character abuse the training rules with another VoP character (her boyfriend), literally gaining a level every month doing absolutely nothing. The casters were stronger than similar characters 3 levels above them, and the VoP characters caught up in level to others who had been around much longer w/o and real penalty for lack of gear. As for if it was successful in teaching them? Well, the training rules are still there, and i left. *sigh*[/sblock]

Even in a normal campaign this can apply. Take those item creation feats. Sell stuff off and craft every second of downtime you get. Sure, you'll fall back in level, but then you'll just get more xp back from the same fights compared to your peers. Eventually, you'll have so much wealth you're just plain better than someone of your ECL.

Some see this as a problem. I don't. Why? The DM controls your wealth access. Amount of downtime is entirely up to him. The enemies you face and loot they have? Up to him. Gaining power from wealth to me is just another form of system mastery*, and while I would like ot see PCs be less reliant on gear, I do like having such a function in the game and would find it rather boring if the only major way to gain power was levelling. The double axis makes things more interesting. Sure, he may be a level 12 aristocrat and you guys are level 16 PCs, but he has MILLIONS of gp in defenses, hirelings, traps, gear,and consummables. He will not be a push over. Frankly, I'm on the opposite of this issue from most. I would like to see MORE major methods of power growth besides levelling up and getting money.

*Yes, I admit it. I love, love love, love, love, LOVE system mastery! I know it's recently become a dirty word (err...two words) around these boards, but I can't help how I feel.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah can't say I like it either. Luckily I get around it by simply not having that much wealth or items to be passed around. A fair chunk of the time, the PCs won't have enough money to stay in a inn let alone buy magical goods (which is risky business usually anyways, no nice magical shops were talking going to the slums and bartering with the guy who sales magical trinkets made of stuff you don't want to know) for a fair amount of their career.

This is luckily pretty easy to do with that very easy house-rule of giving at certain level the various bonuses to the PCs.

 

[Starfox]

I answered bad, but that is not the whole truth.

D&D characters have always advanced along two independent axles - level and gear. In edition 1-2, magic items was basically the only way to differentiate two characters from each other. This was built so closely into the game that there was no way around it. On the other hand, with no market for magic items, the DM was God in this regard - he handed out what he felt like and nothing more.

In 3E (and 3.5) players gained control over this aspect of their characters, which was a very empowering experience but also made gold pieces an alternate form of xp. Many DMs hated this. 4E is back closer to 1 and 2 - players have a little control of their gear, but the DM has much more to say on the matter.

I have played in systems where items were merely another expression of experience points (HERO system is a good example). It is a design decision whether to take a wand of fireballs and risk losing it, or have the innate ability to throw fireballs. This approach is even more empowering. The problem is that monetary rewards lose all meaning.

Conan is often motivated by greed - that's why he does cool stuff like break into the Tower of the Elephant. Then he blows the money on wine and women. The problem is that players don't get to enjoy the wine and women, so their motivation to get gold is pretty weak unless the treasure has a tangible effect on their character. Back in 1 ED there was a rule that 1 gp = 1 xp. That rule was much maligned and too simplistic, especially if gold pieces also lets you get more gear. But it can be updated. A possible solution to the "lack of greed" problem is that 1 gp wasted gives 1 xp (on things like wine and women, or perhaps donated to charity if that's who you are).

 

[Wombat]

I think in terms of some of my favourite rip-roaring adventurers in this case.

Three Musketeers? Definitely advanced characters, often in trouble over money and equipment.

Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser? Money and equipment flow through their hands like water.

Lord of the Rings? Money? What's that?

So, no, I don't like linking the two.

 

[amethal]

(I only play 3rd edition, so this post relates to that.)

I like to play heroic characters, who aren't in it for the money. My characters are usually happy to rescue kidnapped princesses without expecting a reward for it.

As a result, they lag behind the wealth by level guidelines and if it is taken too far they become a drain on the rest of the party. That is not much fun for anyone.

My next character is going to have a Vow of Poverty

 

[Gimby]

I do agree that the concept of "wealth-by-level" is a very unfortunate one, leading to the kinds of difficulties people have already outlined.

The issue is again, one already stated, that D&D characters have traditionally advanced along lines of both wealth and gear. Given the claims that have already been made that 4e is "Not D&D" can you imagine the uproar if they took out that most iconic item, the +1 sword?

Going to an entirely internalised structure where characters advance only by level is an excellent alternative ruleset however, something suitable for an Unearthed Arcana style book (or maybe PHB2/DMG2)

 

[InVinoVeritas]

The only thing that really makes the wealth=power consideration ugly in my mind is the magic shop. Take away the magic shop, and wealth becomes a measure of worldly and social power, but not combat power.

Note that selling magic items isn't much of a problem. The real difficulty is in buying them.

It will drive spellcasters to take item creation feats in 3e, allowing for items to be bought, but that becomes more of a design choice and the metamagic spellcaster can gain more faster--item creation becomes the slow and steady route.