The Crimson Binome
Hero
Out of curiosity, is this effect susceptible to being dispelled? Could you decide to spend your 20 lbs of gold, only to have it blinked away in six seconds?
I would stop risking my life, traipsing through dank caves and looking for monsters. For various reasons, some of which should be obvious at a meta-game level, this is not an option for the Player Characters.
Any game where the reward for success is to stop playing the game is poorly designed.
Out of curiosity, is this effect susceptible to being dispelled? Could you decide to spend your 20 lbs of gold, only to have it blinked away in six seconds?
1. At this stage my PC primary motivation is the investigation and thwarting of the cult.
I can imagine a lot of things, but unless the DM plays along i'll just end up with a highly delusional character. That is why i ask if the DMG has any tangible rules for wealth-political power accumulation. I wish we were playing a more free form campaign, but unfortunately we aren't.....
What i am asking is if there are actual mechanisms in the DMG for doing this. I have some of the 2E books around and in them i can find content that helps arbitrate the process (prices and wages of mercenaries i.e.). I don't have the DMG for 5E on the other hand (and as a player, it's probably a bad idea to have it anyways), hence the questionWhat are you talking about? Your DM wont let you purchase a small army, employ assassins, spellcasters or spies, or purchase a castle or other base of operations to disrupt the cults activities? All of which help you at what your character is singlemindedly focussed on doing.
It will, by helping buy a stealth bomberThink about it this way. If you (the person) wanted to take down some real world group of religious zealots bent on world domination, would having a billion dollars help you in your task?
Nope, my PC avoids organisations for now. His origin and his resent experiences have made him not just a sole survivor but a paranoid one to boot. This may change in the future though...Also, are you a cleric or paladin or member of an orginisation like the Harpers? Why arent you giving them money to help you thwart your nemesis, or to help them advance their goals?
It will sure help if there is a "bartering base". Like say, base price of goods. If iron and wood can have base prices, why not estates and mercenaries?Do you need some kind of meta 'power level' attached to this so you can get a 'tower of might +1?'
You and me both. Unfortunately when 1E and 2E were going strong, where i live DnD was as much stuff of myth as legends as actual unicorns and pegasi were. Even today adventuring groups for pen and paper are hard to find, even more so for 1E and 2E. I do have a great time reading the books i've found so far. If i ever get to GM a game, they would be a great source of inspiration.I kinda feel bad that you have never engaged in buying a tower or keep for yourself (replete with hirelings) and mapped it out etc. In AD&D and BECMI (once you hit the Companion rules) it was a major part of the fun of the game.
Actually, to my great and pleasant surprise my current group are a merry bunch and they do spend a lot of time in brothels and inns. They haggle about the prices, but that is not for me to judgeI get the feeling your PCs never devote time to socialising at the pub, flirting with attractive members of your target demographic, buying luxury items, donating to worthy charities, saving for the future etc (like real people do?) are are you still slumming it like a 1st level chump.
I can't speak of the others of course, as i am not entirely informed on their backgrounds. My PC surely had a family before the adventure started and it's possible his father Valas is still alive. Old and in hiding, but alive.I also get the feeling all your characters lack wives, children, brothers, sisters, a home and are pretty much murder hobos who only aquire wealth to get better at the murder bit, while remaining hobos.
I did this once! Way back in AD&D I had a LE necromancer warlock (read: witch kit) I managed to get pretty high level and ready to be retired from play. So I had him build a lavish manor (complete with attached stone wizard tower) in the middle of the woods outside of town, and populated it with undead servants and a few gargoyle sentries. He eventually became the local "boogeyman", his surrounding woods thought "haunted" by the locals.Man, when my Warlock gets the money Im buying a big creepy tower at the edge of town, replete with secret doors, death traps and captured monsters and my hired minions. There I shall practice my foul rites.
I'll map the sucker out too. Then I'll start to demand tribute from the local farmers.
Hopefully adventurers will hear about it and come to slay me so I can steal their magical items and loot.
*Wrings hands together and twirls moustache, laughing evilly*
Fair enough. The economy of D&D makes sense if you're meant to stop playing after you find your first hoard. While I have never played in such a campaign, I can imagine one where acquiring sufficient wealth to retire is a reasonable end goal. In the games I've played, characters would generally have earned that much after a dozen sessions or so, but were expected to keep on going for various reasons.So, chess and Go are poorly designed then?
Don't get me wrong, I like infinite games (where the reward for success is that you get to keep playing--like an arcade game) and D&D works pretty well as an infinite game. But there's nothing wrong with playing it as a finite game wherein eventually "you all live happily ever after" and move on to a new campaign.
Please. This is most certainly a criticism. Typing that it isn't doesn't negate using "two-dimensional characters" in the pejorative sense (and "murderhobos" is nothing but) or saying things like "I feel sorry for you". You've made it clear you don't think some players are playing 'the right way' and your disdain for those that don't is pretty clear (e.g., the Diablo crack). Condescension and "I pity the way you play" ARE criticisms.
Players (and DMs) that enjoy murderhobo games, or any variation that's a 'dealbreaker' for you, don't need you to set them free. Not everyone needs to be, or should be, persuaded to your way of thinking (all of your responses boil down to "here's how to play better and/or correctly"). And I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to convince someone what they want is wrong.
What they need is an understanding from the beginning what the rewards, in-game, for playing are going to be. Hey, maybe the players want a free-form game and the DM isn't capable/willing to oblige (It goes both ways. How many thousands of threads have there been about "OP PCs" because they creatively used their in-game rewards a way the DM didn't like?).
If @TheLoneRanger1979 sits down at a table and says "I don't care about keeps or titles, I want to play a game where I can buy magic items" and the DM says "No, you can't buy magic items. You're going to get gold you can use to buy keeps or titles because I find it exciting", neither style is wrong, nor is one superior to other. What it is is the beginning of a soon to be posted "Bad DM/Problem Player" thread.
Rewards and game style are the kind of details that should be discussed up front, session zero. If the way the majority wants to play is not your thing, you don't need to "kinda feel bad" for anyone or make snide little put downs like "tower of might +1", you just need to walk away from a game you won't enjoy and let them enjoy the game they want to play.
3. I can imagine a lot of things, but unless the DM plays along i'll just end up with a highly delusional character. That is why i ask if the DMG has any tangible rules for wealth-political power accumulation. I wish we were playing a more free form campaign, but unfortunately we aren't.....