So what's gold gonna be for?

[WyzardWhately]

Incidentally, magic items are also a part of treasure hordes. So, if you can't purchase them, it's not like you'll never see them. You'll just have to go out and get them the old-fashioned way.

 

[Kraydak]

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.

Money spent on adventuring gear is an investment. The more powerful you are, the more loot you can get. Unwary adventurers accumulate enemies, so adventuring gear is also insurance. Adventurers handle adequate amounts of treasure that at high levels, a comfortable lifestyle (if you aren't Mordekainen's Mansioning it) is merely a rounding error in the accounting.

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...

DnD (all editions), WoW, Everquest, Diablo, EQ2 etc... all fall into the category of powerups-through-loot. They all dominated their market and were only replaced by another game who also followed the same design. The situation is less clear in non open-ended games (later FFs, for example), but those games provided an incentive for playing: win the game. In an open-ended game you need something else. The dominant design has been loot. Other designs work, but they end up as comparatively niche products.

 

[Li Shenron]

I dunno. What do you guys think?

I think that the fact that we are now forced to think how to make money useful, is a good thing

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

We try to, but that also feels like gaming homework. We've been trying to strike a balance. I brought it up to mainly point out how that style of play is vanishing aside from a few old timers.

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 "+."

Those options are largely fluff. Fancy clothes, a mansion, etc. The only appeal to a certain type of player, and those options existed under the 3.5 economy, where if you wanted to blow your gold on fancy pants, you could. Removing the practical aspect of buying magic items DOES enforce a certain play style.

Its like removing any decent feats from the game because the guys who like the crappy +2/+2 type feats dont want to be underpowered for their choices.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Incidentally, magic items are also a part of treasure hordes. So, if you can't purchase them, it's not like you'll never see them. You'll just have to go out and get them the old-fashioned way.

Actually you'll go on an adventure. One guy gets a shiny new toy. The rest get useless coins.

And you thought dividing loot was tough now? Imagine when the best you can hope for is an owlbear omelet while the other guy is sporting his helmet of laser beam eyes.

 

[Nifft]

Its like removing any decent feats from the game because the guys who like the crappy +2/+2 type feats dont want to be underpowered for their choices.

I agree in principle, but not in characterization.

IMHO there is a difference between feats and magic items: there are lots of good feats and only a few that are too good. You can pick several "good" feats and still have some "feat budget" left over. (There are builds which require all of your feats, but they're not required to be competitive.)

With magic items, the ones that are too good eat up almost all of your budget. If you have gold left over, you should save it, to later upgrade one of your major items.

So with feats, IMHO the answer is to get rid of the stinky ones, reduce the power of the too-strong few, and call it a day.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kraydak]

I agree in principle, but not in characterization.

IMHO there is a difference between feats and magic items: there are lots of good feats and only a few that are too good. You can pick several "good" feats and still have some "feat budget" left over. (There are builds which require all of your feats, but they're not required to be competitive.)

With magic items, the ones that are too good eat up almost all of your budget. If you have gold left over, you should save it, to later upgrade one of your major items.

So with feats, IMHO the answer is to get rid of the stinky ones, reduce the power of the too-strong few, and call it a day.

Cheers, -- N

Actually, having good magic items is actually ideal. The 3e christmas tree only really comes into play when, at lvl 10 or so, it becomes worth it to blow 2k gp on an item, ANY item to go into your empty slots. Reducing the number of slots and increasing the non-slotted penalty would result in PCs with fewer, but more cherished and signature, items.

Removing the wealth<->magic exchange rates results in all sort of wonkiness. A system where gold and the magic currency (stones of jordan?) were completely seperate would be somewhat interesting though. Mundane treasure would become largely useless, which in turn would mean that taxes (mundane!) become insignificant. This would results in high level people setting up "governments" designed provide the important people (high level people) with creature comforts. 24/7, neutral ground galas, whose cost doesn't matter because gold and power are disconnected. War as a replacement of gladiator combat. Imagine a gilded age on steroids. A gilded age without the possibility of revolt. A gilded age where the little people are completely meaningless. Hmmm......

 

[Cbas_10]

Originally Posted by howandwhy99
It also means power, influence, bribery, titles, land, organizations, armies, navies, sages, universities, cathedrals, kingships, and all that money can do for you as in our world.


So in other words, frills that don't help you when you're an adventurer.

Speaking of not wanting to have a game that forces you to play in a certain manner....I'd have to toss my cookies out of extreme boredom if I was forced to play or run a game where the only motivation of any of my characters was, ".....umm....Adventure!!" Then again, the same would have to be said for a game where we were only doing this in order to build castles and raise armies.

This is a role-playing game, not simply an adventure game. We should be able to have characters with any number of motivating influences - not only a simple lust for adventuring (what the heck IS that, anyway?). One person may want to become famous for being the dragonslayer; one may want to find and sell lost treasures to save up for a castle; one may want to embark on missions that open lines of promoting his religion.....and on and on.

In any case, money is a simple fact of life, and has more purpose than any one individual use. Even in a rpg's setting, money has multiple uses. For players who need some sort of mechanical benefit to spending money instead of as a means of adding to the character in a non-mechanical, storyline sense....there should be some sort of mechanic. There were a lot of examples in 3E aside from magic items: equipment bonuses, circumstance bonuses, transportation, back-up plans, hiring spellcasters, and so much more. For players who want more than numbers and stats and a game beyond the maps & character sheets, there should be support there, too.

There will be cases of one player wanting the castle and others wanting to get back to the dungeon....but that is in now way the fault of the game or its rules. Those are playing styles and issues that need to be resolved as fellow players & friends.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

wealth and magic

In 3E, its virtually pointlist from a wargaming perspective to spend your money on anything but magic items. And so we end up with the 'christmas tree effect' -- the adventurer loaded up with thousands of GP in gear who doesn't own a home.

But if you get rid of the ability to buy magic items, you lose a lot of versimillitude -- something so generally useful, in a realistic world, will generally be part of the economy.

What about this: instead of changing magic items, change the rules so that mundane things (temples, homes, castles) have an in-combat effect.

For example, what if being the high priest/founder of a temple confers extra spells to a cleric?

What if having a wizard's sanctum or laboratory helps a wizard in a similar way? Like in Ars Magica, for example.

I would make social skills like Diplomacy heavily influenceable by gold spent to benefit the local area. I suppose that, to make this work, you need a reputation mechanic.

Just a thought.

Ken

 

[Rechan]

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.

And I agree.

I generally despise the notion that you can walk into a shop and buy a holy avenger. I've always used the Wealth rules as guidelines as to what magical items PCs of that level "can have" by what they "can afford". Or that your fighter has to have those gauntlets or that belt of giant strength just to compete, in higher levels. The Big Six is something I dislike, too.

And I hate that the only option in 3X is combat optimization. If you're playing an intrigue game, or a more thief-style campaign, that +3 flaming burst sword isn't important to you and in 3X your money is now not useful. A hat of disguise, cloak of the arachnid and a few Bond-like trinkets are all you need, and then you have this surplus of cash. The system of "Bribes and Bling for loot" works for a more RP centric game.

But, I also don't think that 4e the only difference between a rich character and a poor one is that one has bling and bribes and the other doesn't.

My thinking here is that the paladin should be able to take his share of the loot and go to the high priest of his church and say "Here, Oh Hirophant, lay my sword in the tomb of the saints so that it will be endowed with the Good enhancement, and in exchange here is my donation to the church" or the equivalent. Or whatever Weapons of Legacy mechanism that means GP sacrifice = Enchantment.