Parcel Distribution: Missed Parcels & Creative Income

[hayek]

I look at it this way though. In the grand scheme of things all DMs are doing something like what you call the 'narrativist' approach. In other words you look at the PCs and what they have and you look at the adventure you want to run, and you figure out how to make sure the PCs have the resources they require to have fun in that adventure. Likewise if the PCs somehow come up with some ridiculous amount of treasure somehow the DM cuts back or even figures out a way to make them dispose of it. So I think it is basically a question of how it seems to the players. The thing to keep in mind is everything in DM-land is smoke and mirrors. Until it shows up in play nothing is cast in stone and the players rarely, if ever, really get much of a glimpse of how the DM came up with any given story element.

I agree most people will have some narrativist tendencies, rpg's are usually about telling stories. Nonetheless, the idea behind a simulationist game is that even though the players don't see the background of how something came to be, the dm plans it out and sticks to it as though it were 'real'. He handcuffs himself beforehand so that everything he does to the players is a fair fight. I don't enjoy playing that way myself, but that's how you get GMforPowerGamers's examples of a level 1 character pickpocketing 7,000gp, and the DM laughing at the players for leaving treasure behind. The dm can do that because it's 'fair' if the world is planned out beforehand and the dm sticks to it.

I'll admit that this style of game rarely works out because the players have no way of knowing if the dm is being honest and fair. But if a group is into it, I think its how you make d&d a competitive game of the players vs. the dm, rather than cooperative storytelling. Not my cup of tea, but some people enjoy it.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I agree most people will have some narrativist tendencies, rpg's are usually about telling stories.

The DM may view it that way, but I can assure you that many players do not. There is nothing wrong with the Storyteller style, but it is far from ubiquitous.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think all players logically think that actions have consequences. From the player perspective that is how rewards work. Heck it is how the whole game works, it makes no real sense otherwise (unless you are basically purely telling stories and I'd argue those people aren't likely playing D&D). From the DM's perspective though it is all about narrative control of the story. Even if that is at its most basic level of managing PC resource availability and challenge difficulty there is still that dichotomy. Thus the 'curtain' behind which the 'smoke and mirrors' takes place. The DM is providing the players with their sense of action and consequence while at the same time arranging things such that the story always goes on.

In a TRULY simulationist game the DM would have to decide what all the consequences of things are ahead of time and if the PCs don't accomplish the right things then the story just ends entirely. The bad guys take over the world, etc. The whole campaign can dead end with a hopeless situation (unless of course it is arranged to start with that the PCs can't lose, but then there's really not much of a challenge).

For both of these reasons there are really no true sandbox type simulationist campaigns. There are ones that can often operate at that level, but it is really a matter of granularity. In SOME degree the DM is always back there pulling strings and making the world come out in a way that is fun and adequately challenging.

And Yeah, I've seen DMs that don't get that. Their campaigns are eventually doomed to crash and burn though. Either they grind the players into the dust or things get out of hand and go Monty. No human can realistically build a campaign whole cloth ahead of time that will work on 'autopilot'.

 

[hayek]

I don't mean to derail the post into the fine details of what does and does not consist of a simulationist vs. narrativist game...

My point was just that that distinction should really drive the answer to the OP's original question. I see the treasure question as just one of many things that will come up in a game that are all dealt with in a similar manner based on the DM's (or group's) feelings about simulation vs. narration.

A simulationist wants to keep the world logic consistent, so a PC that somehow sneaks into the king's vault must be rewarded with hordes of treasure, even though it's inconsistent with what the story says the appropriate amount of treasure is. A narrativist will break the world logic to bend things in some way so that a PC does not receive a ludicrously overpowered reward, even though according to the rules of the world they should. Thus, the simulationist embraces the 'consequence' of the PC's action, while the narrativist removes the 'consequence'.

Conversely, the party might choose to be noble and refuse the promised payment of 2,000gp from the village mayor for slaying the bandits. A simulationist will say, well, you've made your choice and there's no reason for gold to fall out of the sky for you, so you will be under-rewarded this level as a consequence of your actions. A narrativist will come up with some other way to get the party the appropriate loot, thus taking away the 'consequence' of the party's decision.

Of course, most people are not 100% simulationist or narrativist, so I don't mean to suggest a ludicrous, absolute choice must be made. I'm just trying to highlight what I think the crucial underpinnings of this discussion are. A lot of posts have referenced what different people do in their campaign, I'm trying to get at why they've made those choices.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

[MENTION=53760]hayek[/MENTION], sure, I agree. In fact I would say (I guess I did say) that NOBODY is purely running a simulation, it just isn't feasible. I think we diverge to a minor extent on the consequence thing in a game that is focused on story/narrative. If the rogue breaks into the king's vault and there's 2,000 gp in there for him to steal, then sure enough he can steal it. He'll be 2,000 gp richer as well. In fact I wouldn't see too much reason to even correct that as 2,000 gp is chump change. It may be a pretty nice bonus at 1st level, but in a couple levels the character will only be ahead of the other PCs by a tad due to the geometric increase in treasure size with level. The other PCs in the party are also likely to either want a piece of the loot or else they'll probably distribute any other treasure with said rogue getting last pick (simply for practical reasons, he's going to be fully equipped and not really need it).

Now, if it was 50,000 gp then the 'simulationist' DM IS going to have to do something about that money. The character is going to somehow not enjoy much value from it or it will prove to be just enough loot to deal with some threat that looms etc. Same in the more narrative style game, the character will probably have the loot in his hands, but he's not going to get to translate it into +4 weapons and such, unless for some reason that serves the story.

Typically in either case things happen like Rust Monsters, etc. In fact that was what the Rust Monster was for, being a thin veneer over DM fiat treasure removal.

Anyway, this is why I say at this level there really isn't much of a measurable difference. In any style of game the DM is there partly to keep things on track. He can't do his job and not deal with it somehow, regardless of how simulationist he may claim to be. The narrativist DM may just dock it from later treasure parcels and the simulationist one may send an endless stream of thieves to steal it all but it is equally explicitly DM fiat.

 

[LostSoul]

Here's my take.

If we assume that treasure is something that the players consider a reward - something that good choices should bring more of and poor choices should bring less of - then not allowing their choices to have an impact on how much treasure they get is railroading. If they miss a treasure parcel because of a bad choice, they have to suffer the consequences of it; if they pick up extra treasure because of good choices, they reap the rewards

If we assume that the players don't care about treasure - the choices they are interested in making don't have anything to do with getting more or less treasure - then rewarding/penalizing choices they don't want to make is going to clutter the game and bias play in a way that the players aren't interested in. You should give exactly what the treasure parcel system says, because that's what the game assumes they will have. If they miss a treasure parcel put one in later on, and if they earn some extra cash somehow subtract it from an existing parcel.

For example: The player is interested in playing a specific role. The choice in-game is either play the role or go against the role, get some cash, and become more powerful. This is a choice the player doesn't want to have to make. Suddenly "playing the role" - which is what he drove an hour for and decided to miss the hockey game in order to do - has an opportunity cost attached to it. (That role could superficially be tied to cash - "I want to play a roguish thief who's always penniless so he has to come up with crazy schemes to get money." A choice in game that creates the opportunity cost might be something like living as a merchant, a safe and boring life, making a load of money.)

 

[Prestidigitalis]

If they miss a treasure parcel because of a bad choice, they have to suffer the consequences of it; if they pick up extra treasure because of good choices, they reap the rewards

Sure, so long as the "bad choice" was a true bad choice, and not just "You were foolish enough to leave the dungeon when the only remaining opposition was a creature that was not nearly as tough as it looked, and against which your remaining powers and meager handful of hit points would have been more than adequate. It's a shame you are not omniscient."

 

[fba827]

there was something (I don't recall if it was an interview or something in the DMG) but basically, if a treasure parcel is missed, a DM should redistribute it in a later treasure find/horde.

Also (like a couple others mentioned above) you don't need to obsess over the exact written parcels. I mix and match them - maybe they find one large loot horde because it's a hideout, in which case there are several parcels (or parts thereof) there. Versus if the party is just picking off straglers who are far from their lairs and wouldn't carry around a lot of loot, well, all those stranglers might individually have a little that, when taken in total, amasses to one parcel.

but, yea, some plus and minus happens here and there. it isn't the end of the world. adjust as necessary as suited for your game's speed and play style choices.