So what's gold gonna be for?

[Rechan]

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

Because it hurts the story, takes away from the mechanics, and hurts fun for some people at the table?

 

[WyzardWhately]

Because it hurts the story, takes away from the mechanics, and hurts fun for some people at the table?

The first makes no sense, the last I have never, ever seen. If hoarding up all your money to spend on the next best magic item in order to stay competitive was a good story, I'd have read fantasy novels that featured it. The second, I simply disregard as neutral. I don't see what it 'takes away,' other than a system I find pernicious.

 

[Nifft]

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

Actually, that's my line. I'm presenting things you can do with wealth outside of combat, and you've been replying that combat enhancement is the only useful expenditure.

Note that in my game, the party (currently*) has lots of magical loot. It's not their only expense -- but it is their most boring expense.

Cheers, -- N

* (They've also lost lots of magical loot -- they get captured, their stuff goes away. They go on adventures, they get more stuff.)

 

[Nifft]

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.

If you define everything outside of combat as "not useful", then you've voluntarily restricted yourself to a particular subset of the game.

If you think choosing 260,000 gp worth of magic items is anything other than your dreaded Accounting, I wonder if you've ever seen high-level play.

The book-keeping is terribly tedious, and it only gets worse, because PCs are expected to get all that and more next level.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

Actually, that's my line. I'm presenting things you can do with wealth outside of combat, and you've been replying that combat enhancement is the only useful expenditure./QUOTE]
No. I'm not saying that it's the only option. I don't think it should be. I don't think it should be tied directly to the effectiveness of the PCs.

It should be optional. That's all I'm saying.

 

[A'koss]

The bottom line is that if you can buy whatever magic you like, then that is all money (in large sums) is ever good for from an adventurer's POV. I don't think it's a bad idea that low level magic could be availble to buy from large wizard guilds in major cities and the like, just keep the mid to high level stuff off the market (just too rare). Then as the PCs get into higher levels they'll start looking into doing other things with that money.

 

[A'koss]

I don't think it should be tied directly to the effectiveness of the PCs.

It should be optional. That's all I'm saying.

From what we've heard so far it looks like it will play a smaller role in the overall effectiveness of a PC, but it will still be enough that you still have to factor it in. If there are +6 Wands in the game then obviously there is a notable difference between having it and not. What I'm hoping for is that somewhere in the DMG there will be rules on how to make simple adjustments to your game to run it without magic items and maintain the overall standard of power.

 

[Nifft]

No. I'm not saying that it's the only option. I don't think it should be. I don't think it should be tied directly to the effectiveness of the PCs.

It should be optional. That's all I'm saying.

Okay, but here's the problem with that -- and it's the problem with wealth in general in 3.5e: it's too important.

PCs who have the optimal items for their level are much better at combat. It's really hard to balance encounters for a mixed group of PCs, some of whom do and some of whom don't spend their money optimally -- just as it would be hard to balance encounters for mixed levels too far apart.

So the general consensus has been that we should work to reduce magic items. Eliminate the Big Six, tone down the expendables, remove the necessity of flying by making sure everyone can climb & swim, etc.

This does mean technically removing options, but since the removed options were too good, what it really does is open up everything else. When there's no such thing as "optimal equipment", you're free to choose all the other items that weren't in the Big Six.

You're also free to spend your money on what I've been calling Plot Hacks (tm). I've got some system-independent ideas for those, since it's not a new idea -- maybe I'll write them up.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kraydak]

Past editions of DnD have been based on "kill them and take their stuff" with the "take their stuff" being between a large and the dominant portions of the PC's motivation. The success of this adventure-for-powerups design is obvious in the extent to which it dominates the market (RPGs/CRPGs). This means there needs to be powerups to adventure for. This means there needs to be widely available magic items, be they in treasure hoards or a market to be purchased with looted gold. Of course, if there are widely available magic items, there will be a market for them, although the currency may not be in gold (there will be a way to convert between the magic item economy and the mundane economy though).

Remember, if you can't spend gold on magic items, why can you spend gold at all? This isn't an idle question. For people to want gold, they need to be able to spend it on things they need. At high levels, this means magic items. Private armies? The low level people who are interested in gold are irrelevant before the power of high level characters. Castles? Without exotic (read magical) defenses, castles are useless at high level. If you can't spend gold on magic, you can't spend gold on relevant castles. Bribes? The only people you need to bribe are near or above your power level: if you can't spend money on magic items, then neither can they. They will have no use for gold, and therefore won't be bribable with it.

Even in 1ed with DMs who broke all hope of economic realism by vetoing magic item markets, you had the "christmas tree" syndrome. It is inherent to any lootable powerup system. The only way to cut back on the "christmas tree" syndrome without dropping the historically most successful design philosophy is by reducing the number of magic item slots (preventing people from dropping irrelevant amounts of cash on minor upgrades just to fill out their slots). Making gold irrelevant... is irrelevant to mitigating the problem.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Past editions of DnD have been based on "kill them and take their stuff" with the "take their stuff" being between a large and the dominant portions of the PC's motivation. The success of this adventure-for-powerups design is obvious in the extent to which it dominates the market (RPGs/CRPGs).

Actually, I disagree with this premise. I would claim that "take their stuff" is, at most, the motivation of a fraction of PC's, and that many consider wealth and the like to be a fun perk, rather than primary motivation. Also, for the characters who are motivated by wealth, it seems odd to me that people would constantly risk life and limb to get money, and yet never spend that money on anything enjoyable (like having a roof to sleep under), because they are too busy saving every last coin to get the next magic item. It seems illogical to me.

Also, the "adventure-for-powerups" concept is already handled well enough by experience gain. I also fail to see how it domintes the tabletop RPG and the videogame RPG markets...