proposal: adopt LEB's rules on treasure and retirement

[evilbob]

Again, r1, I'm glad you're an awesome DM. But for everyone else: there's parcels.

Does it suck when that level 5 item would be awesome but only a level 4 slot is available? Sure. But you know what sucks worse? Falling behind. And why ask that everyone who might be behind think about it and initiate conversations with potentially multiple different people and directly influence how game treasure is distributed when you can simply codify it instead? That's quite a reaching statement I know, but I guess what I mean is: why force confrontations when you can just make it easy?

To your responses, I say again: you give up flexibility to ensure that a level of fairness prevails outside of your realm of control.

 

[LadyLaw]

I've already voiced my opinion on this, but R1 said everything I was trying to say from the DM perspective better than I did by far.

From a player's point of view, I still prefer that we avoid parcels and give the DMs a little more of a free hand. Why? Because I think it keeps things flavored better. Becasue I enjoy the mystery. I like not knowing what's coming up. Do I have a wishlist on my characters? Sure, but it's broader (as R1 mentioned) and not based on what fits which parcels where. I would be quite bored if I always knew next time I'm going to find either 1000g or an L5 item (or whatever was appropriate).

Although it's true that once you've run through 5 parcels the system opens back up a little bit, the fact remains that as time goes on it's less anticipation. I'm playing a game where things happen to my character and she finds things that might or might not help her along the way. I don't want to write all that myself. If I did, then I wouldn't play. I'd just write a novel. Part of that I want to come from the DM and I certainly want any treasure awards to make sense with the story. I don't want to find a +2 Greataxe of Holy Wrath on the corpse of a zombie just because that was an item that fit into my parcel. A zombie would never have that item. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[evilbob]

All fair points, although I would say there's no reason a zombie would drop a +2 greataxe because of a parcel system: distribution of treasure, even known treasure, is not constrained any more by a parcel system than without. It's still up to the DM to make it fit, like any other detail.

And again, if you don't like it for your own PCs, then you don't have to come up with your own parcels. This does put the work back on the DM, and increase the chance of what r1 was saying (the 5th level item is great but he needs a 4th level slot), but it's entirely fine, too.

Basically, all other points are good, but my counterpoints are all the same as above.

 

[H.M.Gimlord]

After thinking more about it, I'd go even further and posit that both NOs have been more a rejection of wishlists than the parcel system.

Not really. I'm all for wishlists, just not for requiring that DMs hit every slot at just the right time.

However, the main issue here is that while it's fairly easy to go "off the map" with wishlists, it becomes extremely difficult with parcels.

Precisely my point. Off the map is where I wish DMs to be free to go sometimes.

I think the parcel system works more to constrain DMs than players...it's not really about keeping players from going overboard so much as making sure DMs don't leave someone behind (or go overboard).

I would prefer that DMs be constrained as little as possible. When was the last time we had a rogue DM? I mean, sure it happens, but things like that can be remedied by communication.

My suggestion for those who are quite a bit behind the expected wealth curve for their PC's would be to PM your DM for the game you're in and discuss it with him/her. Maybe I'm a Monty Haul DM, but I've always addressed any shortcomings in wealth for a PC in my adventure (Mal's Hadrak comes to mind) at the first opportunity

I would prefer to do it this way too. Sure, DMs aren't perfect, but only a minute few are real jerks.

I do like the parcel system in theory, but I'm less enamored with it in practice (no offense stonegod, please don't kill Vok).

Hear! Hear! (to both statements ).

 

[stonegod]

As this seems to be failing, I'd strongly suggest better guidelines for Expected PC wealth that the judges keep an eye on. The game requires certain plusses in the system that are not always given by the current system (eg, Hadrak, Incarnation). Leaving it soley to the Dm cannot work in a system where Dms switch regularly and all think they should given leeway.

We may wish to implement the inherent bonus system to help offset this.

 

[LadyLaw]

As I recall, the inherent bonus system was in effect and then got voted out in favor of a "free" feat at level 5 that can only be used on an expertise feat. This was done due to some new material (paragon paths, etc.) requiring that a character take certain expertise feats to use them.

Unless you're talking about something else and I'm confused, in which case, just ignore me.

 

[stonegod]

Unless you're talking about something else and I'm confused, in which case, just ignore me.

Not quite: That was the replacement of the Expertise attack bonus with a free Expertise feat at 5th. The inherent bonus system of the DMG2 gives effective enhancement bonuses to attack/damage and defenses at different levels; the to attack/damage bonus also acts like a magic weapon (so 1d6 crit damage).

 

[LadyLaw]

Ah. I haven't read DMG2, so I know nothing about that.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Arg! Hands off my treasure distributions!

That's all I have to say on the subject.

 

[dimsdale]

I agree with Mal on this one.

I like the diversity of dms in enworld. To me, treasure distribution is one of the traits that makes each unique.