Season 8 will switch to the Organized Play rules presented in XGTE

[MiraMels]

But again that's not what would happen given the XGE rules!

You generate LOTS of treasure points, many more than you would need to save up in order to purchase that tier IV "upgrade" on day one.

The difference would be minimal.

Character A purchases +1 plate, then maybe a dozen various items... then +3 plate at 18th level.

Character B purchases +1 plate, then maybe eleven various items... then +3 plate at 17th level.

Spot the difference?

And no, the important difference isn't the exact timing of the +3 plate. The important difference is that character A was saddled with cluttery administration of what each deposit goes to... while character B doesn't need to do any of that.

Both still have the ability to upgrade from +1 to +3 right away without passing +2. Though none of them are defined by it, since they both likely have plenty other items in the meanwhile. Even if player B "abuses" the system by saving all his treasure points... it nets him... maybe ten levels of gaining no new item for no advantage.

Maybe - just maybe - he can then splurge to buy table H and I items for every tier IV level... but where's the harm in that? And to do so he had to spend almost his entire career with no fun items!

Look I completely understand the natural inclination to simply assume a rule is there for a reason. If WotC makes us write down each deposit and what item it's for, they must have identified something undesirable to avoid! Right?

Well, to me those XGE rules seems to solve a problem that just isn't there, creating needless and wasteful book-keeping chores for no reason and very little gain. But I'm prepared to be corrected. ENWorlders, what am I missing here?

Hopefully the AL admin team won't blindly add it unchanged, and if they do add it, that they explain to people like me why.

It's my understanding that you can't bank treasure points like that, you have to spend them as you get them on tier-appropriate gear.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's my understanding that you can't bank treasure points like that, you have to spend them as you get them on tier-appropriate gear.

Could it be you need to read the thread from the beginning?

You can bank treasure points, only you need to "deposit" them for a specific item.

We're talking about how this requirement adds cumbersome book-keeping while changing very little in practice.

I'm arguing they could let players simply bank their treasure points. You can still only buy a single item each time you gain treasure points.

What would change? Apart from saving you from having to take notes on your deposits, I mean.

The main difference would be that you would be able to buy stuff from your new tier right away, instead of having to wait for approximately one level.

But who decided it was a good idea to effectively make tier III start at level 12 instead of level 11? What does that accomplish?

If you can offer some real reasons why you shouldn't be able to bank points, other than "it's what XGE says" I mean, I'm all ears.

 

[AriochQ]

Or...

Allow player to bank their treasure points, BUT

They can only buy items at the end of an adventure off the lists specified in the adventure. Give certain items a steep discount for that adventure as an incentive to purchase.

For example, you may be able to buy off Lists A through C during a tier 1, but a certain adventure would offer +1 Battleaxe at half cost.

 

[Pauper]

Adding mundane book-keeping such as expense tracking would be horrible. We don't need that in the D&D game, there's already the IRL game for that.

I find this curious, as the main method for ensuring continuity of play in a shared-world organized play environment depends on "mundane book-keeping". You track story awards, you track XP, you track renown, you track magic items.

The updated system changes a few specific things being tracked, but it doesn't eliminate the need to track things -- that's basically what an OP campaign *is*.

There's nothing inherently abusive in an magic item economy, but since I'm not talking about it in the context of organized play, let's drop the subject in this subforum.

I'll disagree with you, based on the fact that the core game explicitly argues that there is no such thing as a magic item economy -- remember that the DMG includes nothing about buying or selling magic items. You're right, though -- that's an entirely different argument not relevant to the topic at hand.

You may be fine with a tournament where nine out of ten players sport the same dozen items over and over, but that would be horribly boring to me.

You seem to think that modifying the cost of items would lead to a larger 'spread' of items in use. I think all it would do is change the list of the 'same dozen items' from the purely powerful ones to the ones that are the most powerful for the listed cost. That's not an improvement, IMO.

Not to mention how any attempt at roleplaying and characterization would be actively penalized: "so you want a Trident of Fish Command? Sure, you just need to be prepared for everybody else having a +1 weapon while you don't. That's just a cost you have to suck up."

You don't need a magic item economy to do that -- in fact, it's really easy to do that in the existing system, as the items that roleplayers want tend not to be the items 'in demand' by the optimizers, so the roleplayer tends to be the only one putting in a request for the item at the end of the adventure. The only real issue is if an item is desirable to both camps, which means, as constituted, that item is going to be ubiquitous under the new system, which I assumed you didn't want.

Besides, the "collect them all" mentality would disappear if any adventure can yield any loot, and there is no specialness to having played a particular adventure. "Oh, she's sporting Efreeti Chain, that must mean she's played through the City of Brass series of modules...".

I suspect certain treasures will always only be available via certain adventures, like Epics and Opens, specifically to keep those adventures 'special'. If you can't get something cool that nobody else has (whether it's useful or not), then why bother playing in the special adventures?

Look I completely understand the natural inclination to simply assume a rule is there for a reason. If WotC makes us write down each deposit and what item it's for, they must have identified something undesirable to avoid! Right?

To me, it's not about avoiding a specific scenario, but creating a 'blockchain' of events that can be reviewed by DMs to confirm that the character is following the campaign's rules. That's the real value of the "cluttery administration" you seem to find pointless.

I'm OK with simplifying the administration process so that DMs don't have to take up the first half-hour of a convention slot reviewing suspicious character logs, but if you eliminate the administration completely then you're effectively eliminating the Organized part of the Organized Play program.

--
Pauper

 

[CapnZapp]

I find this curious, as the main method for ensuring continuity of play in a shared-world organized play environment depends on "mundane book-keeping". You track story awards, you track XP, you track renown, you track magic items.

The updated system changes a few specific things being tracked, but it doesn't eliminate the need to track things -- that's basically what an OP campaign *is*.

Let me rephrase to make it easy for you:

Is less bookkeeping better or worse than more bookkeeping?

Is bookkeeping its own reward, or should we strive to abolish bookkeeping made only for its own sake?

The reason you got this simplification is I am having a hard time reading you as anything else than the argument "since we already have some bookkeeping, what does it hurt to have some more, even if it makes no sense?".

In other words, I can't see that you're justifying or defending the actual deposit mechanism. You're merely saying "had there not already been any bookkeeping you might have had a point, but now it doesn't matter".

You're welcome to prove me wrong.

 

[CapnZapp]

You seem to think that modifying the cost of items would lead to a larger 'spread' of items in use. I think all it would do is change the list of the 'same dozen items' from the purely powerful ones to the ones that are the most powerful for the listed cost. That's not an improvement, IMO.

Hey, hey, let's back up for a sec.

The existing system, for all its flaws, make player characters feature a wide variety of magic items.

To me, that's a huge plus and something worth keeping.

In contrast, the XGE system seems to result in a very narrow non-variety of items, since you have only so many purchase points, and each time you go for a "atmosphere" item the oppotunity cost is large: not getting a generally useful item.

The question isn't "who in their right mind would choose an X over an Y?"

The question is "why should those who prefer X have to pay the huge cost of not getting an Y?"

---

That said, I remain convinced that out of all possible pricing systems, the rarity-based treasure tables of the DMG comes close to being the worst.

If nothing else, I sincerely hope the AL admins are aware of the Sane magic prices document, and uses it to make sure an item costing upwards of two hundred times as much as another item doesn't end up on the same table (as is the case for the DMG treasure tables).

This can be done entirely behind the scenes, and no actual gold values need be revealed to the community. (Indeed, all that matters is tier categorization and treasure point cost)

Do note: I do realize AL might not go for a by-the-book XGE implementation, and I assume you do too. So to an extent, this is a theoretical question. Thank you.

 

[Pauper]

The reason you got this simplification is I am having a hard time reading you as anything else than the argument "since we already have some bookkeeping, what does it hurt to have some more, even if it makes no sense?".

Try this:

I'm OK with simplifying the administration process so that DMs don't have to take up the first half-hour of a convention slot reviewing suspicious character logs, but if you eliminate the administration completely then you're effectively eliminating the Organized part of the Organized Play program.

If you're going to have a deposit program, you need to track enough information so that a DM can easily review the data and decide whether the character achieved those deposits legally or via error/fraud/what-have-you. This isn't "bookkeeping for its own sake", it's "bookkeeping to confirm that everyone is playing by the same set of rules", or, put another way, "the way you run an Organized Play campaign".

(As an aside, I don't like the idea of a deposit system, but if the campaign has already decided to move in that direction, then my opinion on that is pretty much pointless -- if we're going to have a system, let's have a system that can be easily tracked, not one that can be easily gamed.)

--
Pauper

 

[Pauper]

The existing system, for all its flaws, make player characters feature a wide variety of magic items.

To me, that's a huge plus and something worth keeping.

It's worth noting that part of the reason this is so is that player choice is largely taken out of the equation -- the only factors under the player's control when it comes to getting a magic item is 'is the item I want in the adventure we're about to play' and 'am I likely to get the item once the adventure is over'. And even the latter point isn't completely under the player's control.

Part of the problem in adding player choice comes from the old saw, "When people are free to do what they want, they usually copy each other."

In contrast, the XGE system seems to result in a very narrow non-variety of items, since you have only so many purchase points, and each time you go for a "atmosphere" item the oppotunity cost is large: not getting a generally useful item.

And this is why -- people get a pre-determined idea of what items are 'useful' or 'not useful' based on what other people say and want, not what happens in the game.

Once you begin with the premise that some items are 'good' and others 'not good', then you end up with a limited palette of chosen items, generally the ones people agree are 'good'. What you don't get is someone who picked up a Wind Fan back in adventure 3 and suddenly in adventure 14 realize they can use it to prevent 100 points of damage to the party, saving the adventure and giving everyone a story they can tell at other tables for years.

But I'm getting off-topic here -- it pretty much seems that everybody wants an OP campaign where you could film five different tables, and each table does exactly the same things, casts exactly the same spells, and takes exactly the same treasures at the end as each other table.

I find that dull, but it doesn't seem like anybody cares what I think anymore.

--
Pauper

 

[jasper]

https://twitter.com/Onnatryx/status/951970560493285376

Since my firewall says twitter is naughty. page 173 Character Advancement Check points. It took me a hour to find the page last night.

 

[Eltab]

Is bookkeeping its own reward, or should we strive to abolish bookkeeping made only for its own sake?

The reason 'bookkeeping' is a career, is because of all the people who get headaches when they have to work with numbers or keep track of something (especially something that can move).

A few rare souls - of whom I am one - actually LIKE it.