D&D 5E In fifth-edition D&D, what is gold for?

[Ilbranteloth]

Not without trawling - it was about 6 months ago if I remember rightly, and showed Homebrew as #1 at something like 40%+ and Forgotten Realms as second.

Here? Or at WotC? What was the sample size? There are a lot of potential issues with surveys, which can also provide valuable information. But if it was an Enworld survey, for example, this group seems to skew a bit more toward enthusiast where I'd expect more homebrew. For example, the regular 5e and DNDNext Reddits seems to have a much larger number of newer players/DMs popping in for questions and a high percentage of people playing the APs. Of course, the opposite occurs on the UnearthedArcana Reddit, where you expect a large percentage of homebrew.

I'd be wary of leaning too much on such a survey, particularly when compared to the actual sales of the APs which are very impressive.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I don't think the APs are targeted at beginners. The Starter Set is far more angled in this direction. The sandboxy elements of the latest AP and the difficulty of the start of RoT AP seem to indicate they are for the more experienced.

On the one hand, WoTC claimed this edition is to give the GM the tools to do it their way, and they made this very clear as a design goal. Bearing this in mind, aren't the APs merely one iteration of the possibilities encompassed in the rules, and not the 'one true way'?

Is it consistent to simultaneously have a game designed to be as flexible as a GM might need, that claims magical items and rare and special and then regard the APs as the 'only' way to play?

I would argue that such a conclusion is not supported by what WoTC have themselves said and done. I think the APs are demonstrably one way to doing things, not the only way, and that WoTC don't have only one interpretation of how their game should be played - that flies in the face of what they have previously claimed.

I think the APs are designed for the more casual player, among others. They are a "plug-and-play" solution that starts with the Basic Rules/Starter Set/Core Books. They are a self-contained "campaign" in a similar vein to the older module series (A-series, GDQ-series). Although they are set in a certain region of a certain world, you don't really need to go beyond that if you don't want to.

APs certainly aren't the only way to play, but they present a certain style of play. Each AP has tried to show a different approach to DMing to some degree, or a different design approach so there's a little variation, but it's all within the same general approach. But as the only approach published by WotC they have an air of being the "official" way to play. The announcement of Tales from the Yawning Portal may present an alternative to the AP-style adventure, and also might give a little more info on settings other than the Realms, although obviously the "home base" is in the Realms.

 

[Caliburn101]

I think this is the root of why I don't agree with what you were saying.

I have seen complaints phrased as universal truths - which is what anyone saying things like "good rogues don't use bows" or "No one wears medium armor" are doing - but I have not seen anyone claiming that a complaint does not apply to anyone at all. Rather, I've seen, and even made, statements along the lines of "the thing you phrased as applying to everyone does not actually apply to everyone." Often those statements are even accompanied by attempts to point out whatever the person not having the problem might be doing differently from the person having the problem, in a genuine effort to help alleviate the problem.

Indeed!

There is, to coin a phrase "a huge problem" with people making broad sweeping claims about there being general problems with 5th Edition, expressing these as universal truths everyone should recognise as valid, and then, when called on it, rapidly redefining their position as merely their personal opinion and therefore not open to criticism or contra argument.

If you do in fact have a personal opinion, a general 'I think you are wrong...' or ' That's not a problem...' is as has been discussed, not ok under the forum rules.

If you express an opinion which encompasses the entire issue at hand in a sweeping generalisation, you should not try to shut down those who disagree with you, as you are not expressing a simply personal problem , you are attempting to dictate the terms of the discussion and invalidate any contrary opinions in advance.

If this technique is subsequently used to shoot others down, that is not cool.

 

[Caliburn101]

Here? Or at WotC? What was the sample size? There are a lot of potential issues with surveys, which can also provide valuable information. But if it was an Enworld survey, for example, this group seems to skew a bit more toward enthusiast where I'd expect more homebrew. For example, the regular 5e and DNDNext Reddits seems to have a much larger number of newer players/DMs popping in for questions and a high percentage of people playing the APs. Of course, the opposite occurs on the UnearthedArcana Reddit, where you expect a large percentage of homebrew.

I'd be wary of leaning too much on such a survey, particularly when compared to the actual sales of the APs which are very impressive.

I was responding to a personal opinion without any evidence base whatsoever, so at least my response had some, however snapshot it might have been.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Have we discussed drowning enemies in molten gold yet?

 

[Caliburn101]

Have we discussed drowning enemies in molten gold yet?

Warning: Doesn't work on Red Dragons...

 

[CapnZapp]

But do the equally small but vocal group of posters starting threads really want to fix the issue?

There never seems to be much practical discussion on these threads. Just complaints and comments that WotC needs to fix things because house rules are somehow unacceptable, and any posts that attempt to fix the issue are ignored in favour of more arguing and debating.

I have zero problems with posters posting actual houserule suggestions.

I have large problems with posters posting posts to the effect of
- there is no problem
- running as intended
- wotc has changed direction
- you can fix it yourself you know

Why? Because that does not bring me any closer to a resolution. Just accepting a deficiency (or worse, apologizing for WotC's inability to provide official support) gets me nowhere.

So the difference is: "have you tried adding X to Y, or have you tried replacing M with N" is constructive.

Merely repeating the truism "don't complain, WotC doesn't prevent you from fixing it" isn't. Don't just say "you can houserule". I already know this. Stop telling us things everybody already know. Say what specific houserule you suggest.

Saying things like "you don't need X, you just need to play differently" or "you can always make up Y on the fly" are thoroughly unwelcome. These posts question the very premise of the thread. In my opinion, such posters should be moderated harshly, since all they do is add to the acrimonity of the forum.

For instance, if there's a thread "5E needs more knitting rules". It's completely natural for such a thread to include arguments why WotC should publish "The Utterly Complete Guide to Knitting for Fighters, Wizards and everyone else" so we don't have to make up our own houserules.

The one thing such a thread does not need is posts to the effects of
- there is no problem
- running as intended
- wotc has changed direction
- you can fix it yourself you know

If that's what you feel; it's much better, more considerate, and much more to the point, to start a separate thread called "Why Fighters Don't Need to Knit" or something, where you can discuss with likeminded without coming across as derailing, trolling or similar in the first thread.

I sincerely hope ENWOrld will start experimenting with "plus threads" where we can finally report posts that aren't posted in the spirit of the OP.

Of course, other people are free to start such threads as well. The question is: will they?

After all, there exists a group that won't benefit from such a moderation change is the group of posters that seldom contribute anything themselves but mostly visit to post in other people's threads, and then mostly only to argue against the premise of those threads. (This would be a very good thing )

As a closing remark: From my perspective, the fact we are now undeniably discussing something else than the problem of D&D supplying gold but providing only downtime options for spending it, means someone has successfully derailed the thread. I emphatically wish this was considered bad form, and something moderators would act upon if reported.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I was responding to a personal opinion without any evidence base whatsoever, so at least my response had some, however snapshot it might have been.

There's a difference between a personal opinion and personal experience, which is what I was basing my personal opinion on.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Because the two claims aren't symmetric. The statement "x is a problem" is a limited claim relating to the speaker's experience--it's true so long as the speaker (or anyone else) finds x problematic. The contrasting claim "x isn't a problem" is a sweeping claim relating to the experience of everyone else--it's false if even a single person finds x problematic.

However, how do you view the claim "X is a problem with the entire system, not just my table" contrasted with the claim "I've not had an issue with X, so it doesn't seem to be a system issue. Here are some suggestions to fix X at your table." Would you regard that as an acceptable response, or should the responder be reported to the moderator?

Of course, if only a single person finds x problematic, it's highly likely that x isn't worth fixing. And depending on the costs of solving x, it might not be worth fixing even if its widely considered problematic. There can also be plenty of debate regarding the best solution for x. Consider the following analogy:

Let's say you're having a problem with your neighbors being too loud. You go to a city council meeting to request that your community enact a noise ordinance. Person A stands up to oppose your request, stating that they don't think that a noise ordinance is the best way to address your problem because <reasons>. Person B stands up to oppose your request, stating they think the costs of imposing a noise ordinance are too high to justify fixing the problem. Person C stands up to oppose your request, stating that their neighbors aren't too loud. Person D stands up to oppose your request, stating that loud neighbors aren't a problem.

By definition, you're the only one qualified to say whether your neighbors' volume is a problem--whether or not something is a problem is a judgment call that every individual has the right to make for themselves.

I feel that the analogy breaks down a little because a noise ordinance is a generally positive thing for the entire neighbourhood, which portrays the people saying "I actually quite like X" in a hostile light. Its more analogous to people playing a type of music that you don't like.
. . . And so you go to the city council meeting to complain about this problem you're having, request a music ordinance and to demand an apology from the radio station.
Person C stands up to oppose your ordinance because they quite like that music.
Person E suggests that you talk to your neighbours rather than demand a community-wide ordinance. Person F relates their experiences when they had a similar issue - what seemed to work and what didn't to fix it.
Person D is still being a git. However which of the others do you regard as being hostile and attacking you?

By definition, you're the only one qualified to say whether your neighbors' music is a problem--whether or not something is a problem is a judgment call that every individual has the right to make for themselves.

Indeed. But someone stating that that music isn't a problem for them is merely also making that judgement call that they, as an individual have the right to make for themselves. They aren't invalidating your opinion or prioritising their opinion over yours. They have merely offered their own opposing opinion. Since the community-wide ordinance would restrict the sort of music that they enjoy, don't they have the right to oppose it?

 

[Jester David]

Why? Because that does not bring me any closer to a resolution. Just accepting a deficiency (or worse, apologizing for WotC's inability to provide official support) gets me nowhere.

True. But neither does just posting complaints. There needs to be a first step, a request for house rules and willingness to look fro other solutions elsewhere. The initial post can't be a complaining rant ending in a request for a fix. The request for help can't be a postscript or implied. It needs to be the topic statement.

Merely repeating the truism "don't complain, WotC doesn't prevent you from fixing it" isn't. Don't just say "you can houserule". I already know this. Stop telling us things everybody already know. Say what specific houserule you suggest.

It goes both ways. You need to respond to the potential house rules and give feedback. Offer suggestions and give a starting point.

For example, I directky asked you what help you needed with magic item shops, since you said that was giving you problems and not easy. Then wrote about how I did magic item shops in my game. No response.
I gave an example to Tony Vargus about how you could incorporate item magical powers into character's builds via some form of economy, and that comment died because this is an argument thread.

As a closing remark: From my perspective, the fact we are now undeniably discussing something else than the problem of D&D supplying gold but providing only downtime options for spending it, means someone has successfully derailed the thread. I emphatically wish this was considered bad form, and something moderators would act upon if reported.

This thread was never about providing a fix or house rules. From your first post it was a rant thread. You posted a complaint, said the linked blog offered fixes, but then didn't list them or quote.
No one replied to this thread to be helpful. It wasn't that kind of thread. It was presented as a discussion thread... so we discussed.