Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8594459" data-attributes="member: 93670">The 100gp starter quest mentioned is a good example, it's made even better by already having complaints that 100gp is insufficient in various editions when having enough gold actually mattered to the player characters rather than just a score ticker for the players to jot down.  It's simple & it can fit a lot of obvious examples into it that don't need much in the way of supporting detail to convey an example made for purposes of discussion.  If the players think that it's not enough pay for the escort that is  great because it means that there is a tangible reason they need more than 100gp & the gm can leverage that need to make some other better paying quest a more desirable choice for the players to take. That incentive & reward lever  does not work if gold stops having any meaning after upgrading starter gear like in modern d&d.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM: "<a href="https://www.enworld.org/goto/post?id=8593512" target="_blank">The merchant offers you 100 gold to guard him up to Waterdeep.</a> saying that it's a good payment for adventurers of your level of experience"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bob:"<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-has-d-d-changed-over-the-decades.686433/post-8593593" target="_blank">100 gp is not much more than spare change.</a>...  <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-has-d-d-changed-over-the-decades.686433/post-8593634" target="_blank">What are you on about? </a>" do better, I want to persuade....</li> </ul>[spoiler="20 minutes earlier at the table"]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM: "The mayor offers you [a level appropriate reward not worth arguing over that shall be called Xgp] to investigate & deal with the [monster problem described moments earlier]"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Alice: "You mentioned the mayor's office was lavish, I want to use my sleight of hand to steal the fancy lamp you described on the desk"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM: "You mean the desk the mayor is sitting at right now?"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">alice:"I rolled a 42 because he's flanked & that gives me advantage plus expertise because of my archetype thing"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM:"You know he's going to put 2&2 together when he notices the missing lamp right?"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Alice: "doesn't matter I'll be gone by then & think we can take him if not"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM:  *sighs & tells alice she steals the lamp so the game can move on</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bob: "I want to persuade him to up that from Xgp to Xgp and a +1 weapon for all of us"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM: "roll persuade"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">bob:"eight!"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM:"the mayor kinda sighs & gestures from the dust ring where his lamp was to alice's bag offering even less with Ygp & a charitable inclusion of one +1 weapon of his choice to deal with the monsters while saying 'really?... are you for real?'..." The GM can't simply have the mayor toss the group out because he or she still has the rest of the session to fill.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bob:"I draw my sword & restate the price  I asked for"... you know what action comes next, bob doesn't need to say it but the rest of the session & everything the GM planned is held hostage at this point</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM:"give me an intimidate check I guess..."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bob:"three!  do we roll initiative?" the GM can make up the rest of the session on the fly or give bob exactly what he wants</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">gm:"The mayor yells for the guards & you hear motion in the next room as you badly try to threaten him with a greatsword in his own office."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Everyone knows where this goes</li> </ul>[/spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM: The Merchant nods at you with a wide grin saying "Aye that might be true... but I hear the mayor done got himself & his guards involved in a massacre over [earlier monster problem] & figure there's some extenuating circumstances that make up the difference given that she just tried to sell me such a recognizable lamp"</li> </ul>In a system where gold remains meaningful throughout a character's advancement the GM can point out how some of those actions would impact future payouts or possibly result in fines that need to be paid when trying to spend that gold on needed things. More importantly other players at the table realize that & are going to create character development paths of story by speaking up to reign in alice & bob when those two start putting the current & future earnings of everyone else at risk.  If the players did decide to stay in town & deal with the [earlier monster problem] having no need for gold & such from the GM means that they don't really even need to make any effort to work around the problem they caused unless the gm resorts to using  <a href="https://keith-baker.com/ifaq-lawbreakers/" target="_blank">fiat to start inconveniencing them with fiat backed penalties</a>That player to player self policing is important because the GM doesn't need to constantly stop the game for a talk about murderhoboism yet again or whatever every time someone gets an idea that might be unlikely to play out as well as they first thought it might.   It's just not reasonable to expect the GM to choose between running a trainwreck created by a poor decision  & stopping the game to engage in a discussion about murderhoboism or whatever when the GM needs to go into that talk virtually unarmed but modern d&d is structured to put the GM in just that position.If that example isn't good for whatever reason there's another one below that touches on a completely different aspect of gameplay.Speaking of d&d centric players tending to have a parochial view of solving problems as if they are the ones who can't find other ways that is completely unrelated to the system is a bit off base.  Yes other systems with different mechanics different play loops different tools & different gameplay handle these kinds of problems differently & in the 5 generations of d&d garycon18 recording that got <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-has-d-d-changed-over-the-decades.686433/post-8573899" target="_blank">linked here</a> earlier Mearls mentions one at about 1:21:20 that 5e could have had.  That extended flaw mechanic he described would have been a mechanical paradigm shift that changes the types of tools available with some of the resulting changes that go with other systems rather than just eroding the ones that d&d has developed for d&d's gameplay style. Depending on what else was covered & & how extensive that possible rule was it would have just been an evolution of toolds available to the GM rather than erosion.Characters not needing anything doesn't only hurt the GM's power to influence the players either.  Patrons got a lot of fireworks when they were introduced to 5e in Rising & again when they were introduced to Tasha's, but they have been around since 3.5 ECS where they existed as organizations & such that could provide players with access to & funding for stuff their characters needed.  in 5e they still do the same but the characters  don't actually need anything from them & know that crossing the boss's interests is a no risk problem with nothing at stake the gm needs to solve by either inserting a different patron making the current one get over it or ending the campaign so players can start with new characters who once again need nothing from anyone or anything.I ran semiopen fate games at a nearby FLGS for much of 4e's lifespan so know well how systems with negotiated stakes & fiction work out, it's very much not like d&d.  Take that example with the mayor.  Instead of negotiating for gold they might be negotiating for something that puts an <a href="https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/types-aspects" target="_blank">aspect</a> on them on the city or even modifies an existing aspect somewhere. There's even a section in the rules about why exact prices shouldn't be used.  If those negotiations go in a way the players aren't happy with the GM in fate can simply make them spend a fate point to buy off a compel & be out of a fate point  they could use being awesome if they want to persist instead of using it to be awesome at something later.  If the players are persisting because they are trying to bank fare points with self compels  it's accepted that doing so might very well make the lives of their characters difficult & land them in hot water by design.</blockquote>

Verification