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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herpes Cineplex" data-source="post: 1746370" data-attributes="member: 16936">Even if you stick obsessively closely to the wealth-by-level guidelines, there's a lot of wiggle room in CRs.  So I think you're seriously overstating things when you say it's more a game balance issue than preference...and by "seriously overstating," I mean you're almost entirely wrong. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />You can run a great, balanced, fun game where the PCs have ridiculous amounts of cash and items.  You can run a great, balanced, fun game where the PCs are barely able to put together the money for torches and food.  You can run a great, balanced, fun game where the PCs have precisely the level of wealth recommended by the DMG and not one copper more or less.  And the only thing that'll be equally true about all of those games is that they will require the GM to put in a lot of work and forethought to make sure that the "balanced" part actually happens.  Yes, even the "by-the-book" game.The thing is, the "fun" part ends up having a lot to do with player expectations and preferences.  It sounds like your players are expecting that their PCs would have more resources available to them, and feel that they would prefer playing a game where struggling under a budget isn't a huge factor.  (And man, having just sent off bill payments today, I can TOTALLY understand that.)  There's a lot of good fun to be had in playing powerful and competent characters, after all; poor, disadvantaged, and struggling characters don't necessarily make for a superior game or better roleplaying.  Maybe your players would simply prefer to try out all the cool, fun, interesting spells and items in the game?Also, I think Spatula's got a good point when he suggests that maybe the players don't trust you to maintain the "balanced" part.  Even if you can do it, that won't count for anything if the players don't believe that you will.  The best you can do if that's the case is to try and prove to them that their fears are groundless, and hope to win their trust.It won't help if they genuinely just want to play a less restrictive game, but at least it might get them to stop using potential problems with game balance as an excuse.--because they really don't need an excuse; that's a good enough reason on its ownryan</blockquote>

Verification