D&D 5E Magic Items, Gold, and 5e!

[Campbell]

I think what some of us want is for the spending of gold not to be mere color, but have a demonstrable impact on the play space. That can be social leverage, impacting the setting perhaps through donating it to a cause, etc. It just has to actually impact our fictional positioning in a way that can be felt in play. Pendragon is a really good example of a game that makes money matter without being about +1s.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think what some of us want is for the spending of gold not to be mere color, but have a demonstrable impact on the play space. That can be social leverage, impacting the setting perhaps through donating it to a cause, etc. It just has to actually impact our fictional positioning in a way that can be felt in play. Pendragon is a really good example of a game that makes money matter without being about +1s.

More specifically the above is very much what I meant. This why PbtA GMing principles very much inform my running of D&D.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's not what he said. The hedonist was just one possible character that might have reason to spend money on something other than stopping Tiamat.

He did literally say that a character who didn’t have anything to spend a huge pile of gold on is a “pure player avatar.” Right here:

If the so-called "character" has a pile of gold but nothing to spend it on, there's nothing there but a pure player-avatar, no role being played.

Sure. A cold logic PC like Spock, or an obsessed PC like the punisher who doesn't do anything outside of his narrow focus. I'm sure there are some others, but most PCs are going to care about more than just Tiamat coming to destroy things.

Ok. The commonality of characters so motivated isn’t really what concerns me.

 

[see]

I find the notion that a character who would rather the world they live in not be dominated by an evil dragon-god must necessarily be a hedonist, and at that, a hedonist who is driven to indulge in hedonism vis a vis spending money pretty absurd.

If you don't understand the difference between one example and an exhaustive list, I don't imagine there's any way we can communicate.

Well first of all, I can easily imagine a fully-realized character not caring to spend money on things that don’t have direct practical use in adventuring.

I do not understand how anyone can simultaneously imagine a hyper-obsessive monomaniac and call that hyper-obsessive monomaniac a "fully-realized character".

But moreover, even playing a “pure player avatar” is still roleplaying. Roleplaying is simply the act of imagining being someone else and/or in some other circumstance, and making decisions as you imagine you would do as that person and/or in those circumstances. Which you absolutely can do with a “pure player avatar.”

I don't believe that.

I believe that, if you are, in fact, engaging in "the act of imagining being someone else and/or in some other circumstance, and making decisions as you imagine you would do as that person and/or in those circumstances", you will find uses for gold other than "direct practical use in adventuring".

(If people want to complain that 5e does not support spending gold on non-adventuring ends, that's a completely different discussion that I'm perfectly willing to nod along with.)

Of course it doesn’t need to be addressed. But many people want it to be addressed, which is reason enough to discuss on the internet how one might address it.

The problem is "addressing it" by having gold translate into "direct practical use in adventuring" immediately undercuts every character who isn't a hyper-obsessed monomaniac.

There's a certain number of stories in the tension of "If you spend all your gold on an orphanage/books/harem/army/whatever, you can't afford the magic items that you need to adventure", but the game being structured to punish the cleric of Ilmater who spends any gold on orphans instead of upgrading a weapon was one of the big design mistakes of 3e.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the other thread about RPG win conditions has bearing here. If I'm playing a Cleric of Ilmater and alleviating suffering is a large part of who I am and what I do, then spending money on a hospital to heal the sick and help the poor isn't secondary to my character. Were I to just toss aside a large part of what my character stands for and only spend money on what stops Tiamat, my enjoyment of the game would be less, and even if we stopped Tiamat, the victory(enjoyment of the game) would be tarnished. I think PCs should be true to themselves as well as to whatever mission they are on.

Some characters’ pragmatism may outweigh their altruism, and even a deeply altruistic character might reason that donating their money to a hospital won’t matter if that hospital gets destroyed by dragons, and so opts to spend their money on ending the threat first, and then maybe donates what they can once the threat is resolved (and the adventure is over). And a huge part of the fun of roleplaying, at least for me, is getting to make those kinds of decisions. That’s how you find out what a character is really made of; when they have to choose between mutually exclusive desires, which one they opt to go with reveals a lot about them.

And it’s also perfectly fine if you wouldn’t want to play the character who sacrifices their ideals as an individual for the good of the mission. Just like it’s perfectly fine for other players to want to do so.

 

[Maxperson]

He did literally say that a character who didn’t have anything to spend a huge pile of gold on is a “pure player avatar.” Right here:

Okay, but this is what you quoted.

"Okay, let's consider the adventure path hook "Save the world from being dominated by Tiamat manifest". There is a fairly obvious question about this hook - why does the character care enough to go on the adventure rather than stay home, disappointing his wants-to-play-D&D player? Because pretty much any answer to why a character cares about that translates into a use for gold. The character might be an altruist who cares about suffering (and so would spend gold on relieving suffering), or a hedonist who thinks that a Tiamat-dominated world would be less fun for him (and so would spend gold on hedonism), or whatever, but it's incredibly difficult to come up with an actual character that has no use for gold, but enough motive to actually adventure."

Nothing there says, "I find the notion that a character who would rather the world they live in not be dominated by an evil dragon-god must necessarily be a hedonist, and at that, a hedonist who is driven to indulge in hedonism vis a vis spending money pretty absurd."

What the quote above and the smaller quote you just provided to me are saying is that a well rounded character will have more motivations than just, "Must stop Tiamat!" He wasn't saying that a character who didn't want a world dominated by Tiamat must be a hedonist.

I also don't really understand the last part of your quote there. Of course a hedonist will use money to engage in hedonism. Money is a primary way to be able to engage in new experiences. Want to experience a fey originated drug with magically chaotic and enjoyable results? It will probably cost money. Want to experience a hunt for a rare white stag? Paying a local hunter to help guide you is a great way. Money gets experiences done.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you don't understand the difference between one example and an exhaustive list, I don't imagine there's any way we can communicate.

You said any character who wouldn’t spend a pile of gold on something not adventuring-related was a “pure player avatar.” I was merely rolling with your example to illustrate why I find the notion absurd.

I do not understand how anyone can simultaneously imagine a hyper-obsessive monomaniac and call that hyper-obsessive monomaniac a "fully-realized character".

Nor do I. I imagine instead a character who is not a hyper-obsessive monomaniac and still doesn’t, during the course of an adventure, find non-adventuring use for their money.

I don't believe that.

I believe that, if you are, in fact, engaging in "the act of imagining being someone else and/or in some other circumstance, and making decisions as you imagine you would do as that person and/or in those circumstances", you will find uses for gold other than "direct practical use in adventuring".

Well, I can tell you I have done so and not found uses for gold other than direct personal use in adventuring, so…

The problem is "addressing it" by having gold translate into "direct practical use in adventuring" immediately undercuts every character who isn't a hyper-obsessed monomaniac.

There's a certain number of stories in the tension of "If you spend all your gold on an orphanage/books/harem/army/whatever, you can't afford the magic items that you need to adventure", but the game being structured to punish the cleric of Ilmater who spends any gold on orphans instead of upgrading a weapon was one of the big design mistakes of 3e.

Call me crazy, but I think the choice to donate to orphans when they could instead be using that money to buy items that will be of direct personal use while adventuring is precisely what makes that decision meaningful. If there’s nothing worth spending money on that is of direct personal use while adventuring, then it doesn’t really matter what you spend your money on. You’re not making an impactful decision that reveals anything interesting about the character.

That said, I certainly don’t think going back to the 3e Magic item treadmill would be a good thing either and if that’s the impression you got from what I’ve been saying then I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood me.

 

[Amrûnril]

There are a lot of good suggestions here regarding ways for characters to spend money. I think its just as important, though, to consider the other half of the equation: an excess of gold can be avoided just as readily by reducing income as by adding expenses.

This can by done across the board if a group thinks it makes for better balance, but it can also be incorporated more organically as parties choose adventure hooks to pursue. Those motivated by money can choose quests promising monetary rewards (either from a patron or as expected loot), while those motivated by some other goal can pursue that goal over more lucrative alternatives.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay, but this is what you quoted.

Right, I’m gonna go ahead and hi light the relevant bit of the quote.

The character might be an altruist who cares about suffering (and so would spend gold on relieving suffering), or a hedonist who thinks that a Tiamat-dominated world would be less fun for him (and so would spend gold on hedonism),

The implication here is that
A. A character who is motivated to stop Tiamat out of self-interest is a hedonist, and
B. That such a character would necessarily spend gold on indulging their hedonism when there’s a Tiamat cult than needs to be stopped.

Maybe inference A is a bit of a reach, but inference B is definitely suggested by the quote, and is the part I took greater issue with.

I also don't really understand the last part of your quote there. Of course a hedonist will use money to engage in hedonism. Money is a primary way to be able to engage in new experiences. Want to experience a fey originated drug with magically chaotic and enjoyable results? It will probably cost money. Want to experience a hunt for a rare white stag? Paying a local hunter to help guide you is a great way. Money gets experiences done.

Sure, but it’s not the only way to indulge in hedonistic experience-seeking, and moreover it is not a particularly pertinent way to do so in the middle of trying to stop the Tiamat cult from taking over the world.

 

[Maxperson]

The implication here is that
A. A character who is motivated to stop Tiamat out of self-interest is a hedonist, and

You think a hedonist who thought his way of life was threatened by Tiamat would not try to stop her out of self-interest?

B. That such a character would necessarily spend gold on indulging their hedonism when there’s a Tiamat cult than needs to be stopped.

The character is a hedonist. "the ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life." Such a person would not stop being a hedonist just because Tiamat needed to be stopped. The character would do both, or that character isn't really a hedonist. Hedonism is the foundation of that person's life. It's not going away.

Sure, but it’s not the only way to indulge in hedonistic experience-seeking, and moreover it is not a particularly pertinent way to do so in the middle of trying to stop the Tiamat cult from taking over the world.

The claim wasn't that it was the only way. The claim was that a hedonist would spend money on hedonism, which is true. The character would ALSO engage in free experiences. He would do whatever was necessary.