Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="XavTango" data-source="post: 4406916" data-attributes="member: 70043">I don't think there is anything wrong with players wanting to immerse themselves into the economic part of the world in addition to doing all the bad guy smashing they find time for. In an old group of mine a Necromancer with deep pockets was influencing an election in a metropolis to get someone he wanted elected in order to benefit the Necromancer's up and coming town in which he and his fellow players were the ruling council. They each had their areas of expertise and developed cohesive and cerebral laws about taxes, trade revenue, tariffs, etc. They still spent a majority of their time adventuring, leaving the town in the hands of well-trusted lackeys, and returned to see if their plans were reaching fruition or needed further tweaking or bribery or assassination, whatever.In that instance the local, regional, and world economy had a definite place and I, as GM, needed to really be on top of my game to keep both aspects of gaming fun and challenging. It now is one of the most memorable games ever because of the level of depth the campaign had.I understand 4e is going for a very simplistic abstract model, and in some ways I can agree with it, but certainly they could have sat around and come up with some rules that don't ruin the 4e multiverse so characters can interact in the ways I described above.If power = wealth = level then there can never again be the 1st level Duke, with lots of wealth, trying to get the characters to do something for him. He neither has the resources to pay them, nor the ass-kicking ability to threaten them. The best he can do is beg them which could work with a group of bored or altruistic types.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="XavTango, post: 4406916, member: 70043"] I don't think there is anything wrong with players wanting to immerse themselves into the economic part of the world in addition to doing all the bad guy smashing they find time for. In an old group of mine a Necromancer with deep pockets was influencing an election in a metropolis to get someone he wanted elected in order to benefit the Necromancer's up and coming town in which he and his fellow players were the ruling council. They each had their areas of expertise and developed cohesive and cerebral laws about taxes, trade revenue, tariffs, etc. They still spent a majority of their time adventuring, leaving the town in the hands of well-trusted lackeys, and returned to see if their plans were reaching fruition or needed further tweaking or bribery or assassination, whatever. In that instance the local, regional, and world economy had a definite place and I, as GM, needed to really be on top of my game to keep both aspects of gaming fun and challenging. It now is one of the most memorable games ever because of the level of depth the campaign had. I understand 4e is going for a very simplistic abstract model, and in some ways I can agree with it, but certainly they could have sat around and come up with some rules that don't ruin the 4e multiverse so characters can interact in the ways I described above. If power = wealth = level then there can never again be the 1st level Duke, with lots of wealth, trying to get the characters to do something for him. He neither has the resources to pay them, nor the ass-kicking ability to threaten them. The best he can do is beg them which could work with a group of bored or altruistic types. [/QUOTE]

Verification