Jim Ward still doesnt get it.

[Nightfall]

Or one very powerful 8th level PC/9th level PC if there's only one survivor. (It can happen! )

 

[Buttercup]

Buttercup, that works out to roughly 30,000 gp worth of gear... enough to outfit 4 PCs between 4th and 5th level.

Exactly. It's a whole new dimension of Monty Haul, eh?

My 3rd level players (5 of them) have between them:
2000 gold
1 masterwork dagger
1 masterwork battleaxe
20 masterwork arrows
20 masterwork bolts

Yet they feel rich.

 

[jasamcarl]

I sit in this camp. I also have a bit of trouble with the assumptions 3e makes in relation to what treasure PC's have. It forces DM's who run treasure low games to jump through a few more hoops when designing encounters.

As oppossed to what? The complete lack of guidelines present in earlier editions?

 

[Hardhead]

As oppossed to what? The complete lack of guidelines present in earlier editions?

I think I know what he's saying, or at least I know what my complaint in that area is.

It'd be really nice if D&D was an equipment agnostic system. I'd like to see the game be completly balanced without any magic items whatsoever, so that a DM could run a magic heavy or light campaign, and as long as both sides had about the same amount of magic, it'd balance out.

 

[Turjan]

@Hardhead: In fact, this thread brought me to ask for a Low Magic Rulebook on the d20 Publishers' Board.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

Here's another example then. On pages 8-11 of Treasure Quests, which detail the village of Stret and it's tavern, *first level PCs* will find the following treasure:

50 gold
2000 gold
1 ruby worth 1000 gold
13 gold (x 6)
masterwork longsword
gemstones worth 1000 gold
a statuette worth 22,000 gold (Yes, that's the correct number of zeroes.)
+1 chainmail
+1 battleaxe
a chest worth 500 gold

There are *maybe* enough encounters/traps/other xp generating situations to net the party 250 xp each. This is totally over the top in my view.

Pull out a few old low-level 1e/2e modules. That's about par for the course.
Also, remember- they've gotta transport all that loot somehow... DM's who scream over six-figure treasure hordes typically forget that 156,000 sp is... well... a bit of a load, especially considering these coins are probably heavier than those most of us Americans are used to. (From what I've seen, the British seem to have a better grasp of how cumbersome large amounts of coinage can be)

All in all, I think it's fun to give my low-level PC's large hordes of coins. It gives them a leg up on setting up bases of operations, hiring mercenaries, funding research, buying their way into exclusive guilds- all the things that a low-level PC needs to do to prove their mettle to the world- and prove that they're ready for real challenges...

 

[Sulimo]

I think I know what he's saying, or at least I know what my complaint in that are is.

It'd be really nice if D&D was an equipment agnostic system. I'd like to see the game to be completly balanced without any magic items whatsoever, so that a DM could run a magic heavy or light campaign, and as long as both sides had about the same amount of magic, it'd balance out.

Thats exactly what I meant.

 

[Endur]

These "special abilities" are powerful, but not Monty Haul.

I've played Monty Haul games over twenty years ago. A Monty Haul game is when you sit down at the table, everyone is between 1st and 5th level, and half the people at the table have Artifacts out of the DMG (or artifacts that are more powerful than anything in the DMG).

The Special Abilities seem like something off the charts from Arduin Grimoire.

But, I agree, that while special abilities are fine, there should be some balance. i.e. The character that receives the +3 str or the innate sorceror abilities now counts as ECL +1 or ECL +2. From a party perspective, the best way to balance special abilities is to make sure everyone gets one.

Tom

From Slave Pits of the Goblin King, paraphrased:

The characters, during the course of this adventure, can gain abilities from the "essences" of dragons. Keeping in mind this adventure is billed as an adventure for 4-6 characters of 5-9th level, here are some examples of these essences. These are PERMANENT:

- Strength increases by three
- Constitution increases by three
- Immediately begin gaining spells per level as a sorcerer of your level -4
- Breath weapon. Damage scales with level, but character becomes immune to the type of damage the breath weapon inflicts as soon as he gets this ability.

<snip>

This is not healthy, or helpful to the game as a whole. When shoddy, inferior, poorly-thought out products are produced with a game system logo on them, one has a right to a minimum expectation of quality.

 

[Ranger REG]

AFAIC, aside from this discussion turning into a mild rant, Mr. Ward is not telling us his style of gameplay is superior, only that you should not be so quick to dismiss it. Keep an open mind. Don't knock it till you try it. If you don't like it then you don't like it.

If you want, help promote other styles of gameplay like your favorite, but at all cost do not take the low road and bash others for their preferences.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

It seems to me that we have two concurrent discussions going on, which is leading to some confusion. The questions are:

*Is "Monty Haul" gaming better/worse, acceptable/unacceptable, etc.?
*Are FFE's products faulty in some way?

Concerning the MH question, there's no objective right or wrong. If a group is having fun playing demi-gods or whatever, go for it. I wouldn't choose to do so (well, ok, I admit maybe for a one-shot adventure...), but others might. I have played in MH campaigns and campaigns where 2nd-level characters felt rich if they found 5 gold. Each has its own strengths and flaws. Jim Ward is just pointing out that there is nothing *intrinsically* wrong with MH gaming. The rules on treasure in the core books are guidelines, no more, no less.

Concerning FFE's products, we need to separate objective flaws (faulty mechanics, typos, inconsistencies within the product, errors, etc.) and subjective preferences.

Flaws are easy to document and most people will agree on them when they're pointed out. Now that 3E has been out for quite a while, there is no longer an excuse for publishers putting out products with a significant number of mistakes. Occasional mistakes, yes; a lot - definately no. If FFE's (or any other publisher's) products have these problems, then such criticism is fair.

Personal preferences are another matter entirely. If I read a review of a product which states that it's a great hackfest, but I'm looking for a deep roleplaying module, I look elsewhere. In the same manner, if a supplement is tied so closely to a particular campaign setting that it would be too much work for me to use it in my homebrew, I'll pass on it. In neither case is the product necessarily flawed - just not what I need at the moment. If someone reads that a particular FFE product has too much treasure, then the consumer has three choices:

1) buy it and run it as is
2) buy it and modify it
3) don't buy it

Guess what? Those are exactly the same choices we all make when buying *any* product for 3E. Stating that their products are somehow flawed because of disagreements on the amount of treasure available, or the number of monsters encountered, strikes me as an opinion, not a fact. Such criticisms should be stated as such, and not become a springboard for wholesale attacks on either the publisher or an individual.

Finally, a simple question of my own - why in the world has Jim Ward's musings caused such a passionate response? I thought DnD was just a game...