So what's gold gonna be for?

[Nifft]

I just don't see it working out that way on a fourth of the planes, let alone all. Especially when, at levels where you can access the planes, you're teleporting everywhere, you don't need roads.

You need roads if the master of the divinely morphic media thinks you do. You need portals to get to other layers. You need roads and signs (and perhaps even a tout) if you're looking for a place you haven't seen yet.

And you're forgetting the fact that Lawful good PCs might not want to give any money to evil. That's letting evil benefit from you by giving them Your money that they can further their evil with. I'd definitely kick a Paladin's alignment in the sack if he just said "Here Mr Evil Fiend, take this money and go away."

Nope, I'm just not counting on him being Lawful Stupid to the point that he forgets his options. You certainly can fight your way through all the Hells -- but it may not be the best use of your time.

And my impression from the planar ally spell is that the GP represents an offering appropriate to the being summoned. I do not believe that all planar entities have use for a shiny metal from the material plane. The same reason why scribing scrolls cost GP to make - you're not just throwing gold at the paper and it evaporates, you have to buy special, magically treated inks and appropriate paper etc etc. It's material.

I'm sure you have a point here. Could you clarify it? "Expensive offering appropriate to the being" is not outside the definition of "bribe", let alone "donation" or "tribute".

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

You need roads if the master of the divinely morphic media thinks you do. You need portals to get to other layers. You need roads and signs (and perhaps even a tout) if you're looking for a place you haven't seen yet.

In your campaign, sure. But we're not talking about how Niffft runs the planes.

Nope, I'm just not counting on him being Lawful Stupid to the point that he forgets his options. You certainly can fight your way through all the Hells -- but it may not be the best use of your time.

Thanks for calling me lawful stupid, Nifft.

I'm sure you have a point here. Could you clarify it? "Expensive offering appropriate to the being" is not outside the definition of "bribe", let alone "donation" or "tribute".

Because you said all outsiders care about gold? Just dragging sacks of shiny earth metal through the planes Doesn't Cut It.

 

[Nifft]

And unless there's a specific sidebar under "Shadowfell Toll road" or "Feywild Taxes", or "Elemental Chaos Tarrif", I don't see it playing out that way, Niffft.

Ah, there's no rule books yet, but there's already someone telling me how the planes must work by citing them.

Do I need to explain how tolls & tariffs might work in a Points of Light setting? I'll do so upon request.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

Ah, there's no rule books yet, but there's already someone telling me how the planes must work by citing them.

Let me know where I said "THIS IS HOW IT WILL BE" and you have to run it that way. But you seem to be implying that the planes Must be ran your way.

Do I need to explain how tolls & tariffs might work in a Points of Light setting? I'll do so upon request.

It appears you're willing to do condescension without request.

 

[WyzardWhately]

I have one player who is really into that sort of political/empire building stuff. The other 4 are bored to tears when he goes shopping for drapes and spends hours poring over militia statistics, and just want to get back to kicking ass, solving mysteries and well... adventuring. I try and accommodate him somewhat, but adventuring is why I play and run D&D... not to simulate a turn based strategy game (which video games do better anyways). I suspect they are hardly alone. Taking away practical benefits of wealth crams this style down everyone's throats.

You should maybe have a chat with your player, and tell him to just send you an email between games rather than eat up session time with it. I think that you're overstating the case if you say it 'crams a certain playstile down everyone's throats.' It is much, much easier for an individual DM to create different motivations (saving the world, anyone?) for PCs than for an individual DM to extricate the "GP==Magic Items==Character's ability to stand up to encounters of a given CR" problem of 3E. Making gold less important doesn't cram anything down anyone's throat - it opens up options other than buying the next "+."

 

[Nifft]

In your campaign, sure. But we're not talking about how Niffft runs the planes.

We're talking about how a DM can make wealth useful without allowing PCs to buy the magic items that have been the default purchases in 3.0e and 3.5e. I'm just using my campaign as an example.

Thanks for calling me lawful stupid, Nifft.

The irony: this is the one sentence where you've spelled my handle correctly.

But yes. If you're in Hell voluntarily, and you have a goal which requires your attention, and you disregard that goal to endanger yourself and others because you don't want to pay a toll only because the toll-keeper is evil, then I'd say your action is lawful stupid. Unless you object to all tolls (and always resort to combat in place of paying), in which case your action would be chaotic stupid.

Because you said all outsiders care about gold? Just dragging sacks of shiny earth metal through the planes Doesn't Cut It.

*sigh* Gold = wealth. Did I really need to spell that out for you? If so, please go back and mentally substitute "wealth, as instantiated in an appropriate form, including (but not limited to) liquid assets" for "gold".

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

We're talking about how a DM can make wealth useful without allowing PCs to buy the magic items that have been the default purchases in 3.0e and 3.5e. I'm just using my campaign as an example.

I don't see it that way. That's basically making Wealth a book keeping nightmare of "Move x miles, reduce y gold from your character sheet." If you want to ride the Raid the Demonwebs, pay the lady at the ticket counter. That's not what I call "Useful" to adventuring, I call that Accounting.

But yes. If you're in Hell voluntarily, and you have a goal which requires your attention, and you disregard that goal to endanger yourself and others because you don't want to pay a toll only because the toll-keeper is evil, then I'd say your action is lawful stupid. Unless you object to all tolls (and always resort to combat in place of paying), in which case your action would be chaotic stupid.

But yeah, I appreciate the continual insulting of my interpretation of the gameworld.

*sigh* Gold = wealth. Did I really need to spell that out for you? If so, please go back and mentally substitute "wealth, as instantiated in an appropriate form, including (but not limited to) liquid assets" for "gold".

Do you really need to be rude about it?

 

[WyzardWhately]

If Gold is built into the game as a Reward and a resource, and the characters have no use for that reward and resource, then they are impaired.

What happens to my warforged artificer (who doesn't want food or fancy clothes), whose sole reason for adventuring is so he has the cash to creating new and better magical items and research? I say that many "Classic Archemage style" wizards don't generally have lots of bling or fancy parties.

So building the wealth rules just for one campaign style, like it is now, imo is bad. Wealth = prestige is just gold = roleplaying enhancement. It's just as bad as 3e: wealth = combat enhancement.

In order of paragraphs.

1. A player being uninterested in some potential aspect of the game or campaign does not amount to impairment. This is a loaded word you are using inaccurately.

2. Then he's sure got something else to spend money on, so it's cool that he accounts that above 'bling.' You have replied that Nifft's comments are somehow issue-dodging because they're too narrow, but here you reply with, as near as I can tell, "But what about class X which needs gold for their class features?" My reply is that that class isn't even suspected to be core, and we won't see it for a good long time. I would also say that I still don't see the problem here. Now, there COULD BE a problem, if the GM was taking joy in his new cash =/= character power liberty to run a money-poor game, and some guy was playing a class designed on the assumption that wealth would be available...But this only again suggests to me that cash shouldn't be used as a balancing factor above the very lowest level. And, in that case, if the GM says "I'm running a low-treasure game," don't play an artificer and then complain.

3. It is not Just As Bad. People who are interested only in combat can ignore the roleplay elements, I've yet to meet D&D players who could ignore combat. In fact, I would submit they are playing the wrong game.

 

[Rechan]

A player being uninterested in some potential aspect of the game or campaign does not amount to impairment. This is a loaded word you are using inaccurately.

No, the issue is that you are suggesting a system in that the character is hurt by not being interested in an intrinsic aspect of the system itself. Just as a character in 3e would be severely impacted if they forgoed using magical items at all.

Then he's sure got something else to spend money on, so it's cool that he accounts that above 'bling.' You have replied that Nifft's comments are somehow issue-dodging because they're too narrow, but here you reply with, as near as I can tell, "But what about class X which needs gold for their class features?" My reply is that that class isn't even suspected to be core, and we won't see it for a good long time. I would also say that I still don't see the problem here. Now, there COULD BE a problem, if the GM was taking joy in his new cash =/= character power liberty to run a money-poor game, and some guy was playing a class designed on the assumption that wealth would be available...But this only again suggests to me that cash shouldn't be used as a balancing factor above the very lowest level. And, in that case, if the GM says "I'm running a low-treasure game," don't play an artificer and then complain.

Except that by this mechanism, all games are low-treasure if that treasure is useless to anything but being an elven Paris Hilton. I find it offensive and unhelpful to build a rules set that only facilitates one type of campaign or a few types of characters.

It's bad game design if the only use for gold is to build an awesome crib or grease some pockets.

3. It is not Just As Bad. People who are interested only in combat can ignore the roleplay elements, I've yet to meet D&D players who could ignore combat. In fact, I would submit they are playing the wrong game.

And I think sequestering wealth to purely a roleplaying device is a horrible idea, because it's completely useless to any campaign that isn't geared towards it.

Why are you against making wealth have multiple options, rather than only facilitate your campaign style?

 

[WyzardWhately]

No, the issue is that you are suggesting a system in that the character is hurt by not being interested in an intrinsic aspect of the system itself. Just as a character in 3e would be severely impacted if they forgoed using magical items at all.

You have not yet explained how having a character uninterested in wealth is hurting that character. I'm starting to wonder if you can.