So what's gold gonna be for?

[Rechan]

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

No, I see what you're doing there is basically taxing characters for going where they have to go in the adventure. "You want to follow this adventure? Fine, you're going to lose money for it."

I intentionally do not make my PCs count their rations or their arrows unless the intention of the plot is to starve them or make them have "Survival Horror Ammo Syndrom". Resource accounting is too tedious for me to worry about taxes and tariffs. To me it's like saying "You either let me know your PC is periodically going to the bathroom, or I will start making con checks to see when you soil your armor and get diseases."

 

[Treebore]

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.

I agree that it comes down to play preferences, or "styles", but 3E definitely did not support my preferred style, where the players play "characters" who have a long history and a worked out personality. I am not saying full immersion role play by any stretch of the imagination, but to have characters that own lands, that have a keep or even a castle or temple, who hold titles of nobility, and where owning and have these titles have an impact on what the character does and does not do.

Like my son plays a Paladin, has a 100 square miles of prime land. He even has several mines (lucky friggin percentile rolls), and has built a Castle and fortified town over a 5 year period. He has gone aon "recruiting" campaigns where he entices people to move to his lands, because he needs more bodies to work the land to its fullest potential.

There is a party member who plays a Druid (my Daughters). The druid and the paladin works together to make sure the land doesn't become overworked and ruined.

The Ranger (my other son), before he died, was helping develop the animal husbandry aspects, to make sure lands weren't over hunted, and even the herd animals were cultivated at the most balanced rate possible.

Whats their motivations? Money. Creating the best living conditions possible for their people and even their live stock. Not to mention the prestige they now have among the nobility. Plus enemies.

So they have many things to spend money on. Roads, Dovecoats, mills, fortifications, soldiers, churches and temples, recruiting new citizens, helping them set up homes, farms, and businesses.

So they not only go into "adventures" and slay demon princes (just finished DCC 18 last night) but they also take on the challenges of cultivating their lands, protecting their citizens, and dealing with jealous nobles who hate them for their successes, and so vividly illustrating their failures to properly manage their lands to the Empress.

Thats the kind of game I like to run. I couldn't do it in 3E. Not only because of the gold issues, but they would level so fast that they were powerful enough to just take the kingdom for themselves and eliminate all opposition easily.

So this is another reason why 3E isn't my "cup of tea", and is something I hope is taken into consideration with 4E.

Not that I am worried. I'm very happy with Castles and Crusades, so if 4E still doesn't do it right for me, I'll just steal what I like from 4E and keep on gaming the way I like.

 

[Rechan]

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.

Or rather, that there are some magical items that are necessary.

Prime example being spellcasters and ability boosters. By high levels, they must have those ability boosting items. Enemy saving bonuses inflate higher than DCs, and unless they spend all of their feats on pumping up DCs, the ability booster items are a way to handle it.

It becomes an arms race between PCs' magical items and enemies To Hit/AC/Saves.

Let me illustrate this.

1) A 20th level fighter with a masterwork sword and masterwork plate.

2) A 20th level fighter with a Cloak of the Monteback, Boots of Striding and Springing, a necklace of fireballs and a glove of storing.

3) A 20th levle fighter with a +5 vorpal sword, +5 Platemail, a belt of giant strength and an amulet of natural armor +5.

Fighter 2 has more options and variety than fighter 1, allowing for varied tactics. But Fighter 2 is no less better at hitting than fighter 1.

But fighter 3 is vastly more effective in combat than 1 or 2. Fighter 3 is what the system expects him to be - it's built anticipating Fighter 3, rather than 1 or 2.

This should not be.

 

[Nifft]

Or rather, that there are some magical items that are necessary. (...)
This should not be.

Very much agree. I call this freedom to suck, but it boils down to the same thing.

My preference would be to ditch the flat bonus gear, keep the cool items, and also allow expenditures for non-magical solutions to challenges (e.g. bribes).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

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.

The question that I think comes down to here is: what do we want D&D to be?

As a poster earlier pointed out, D&D is a wargame. If you try to take the combat out of D&D, and run say, a social game, it falls apart. So how flexible should the system be to facilitate other types of campaigns?

I think the threat of a game system trying to accommodate too many options is possible. There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with saying "This system is built for this, and if you want a different kind of game, there are systems structured to handle it much better." For instance, if you want a real gritty, "combat is DEADLY" type game, then GURPs is more appropriate - if you want a game built on Pulp and Cinematics, where your character leap out of the shower and dispatch a room full of storm trooper mooks and not get scratched, Spirit of the Century is your best bet.

Am I saying that D&D should stay a wargame? No. I game online, and the emphasis on five foot steps and placement is a real headache. And the lack of dynamic social situations, the lack of a system to handle Favors and Contacts, and so on, is really disappointing. If the system were more flexible, it would be Real Nice. I don't think that D&D should try to work for every desire, but a more flexible system would be ideal, imho.

 

[Lanefan]

The question that I think comes down to here is: what do we want D&D to be?

Flexible enough to handle different styles of play...styles in this case defined by how characters/parties spend their wealth.

As a poster earlier pointed out, D&D is a wargame. If you try to take the combat out of D&D, and run say, a social game, it falls apart. So how flexible should the system be to facilitate other types of campaigns?

I think the threat of a game system trying to accommodate too many options is possible. There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with saying "This system is built for this, and if you want a different kind of game, there are systems structured to handle it much better." For instance, if you want a real gritty, "combat is DEADLY" type game, then GURPs is more appropriate - if you want a game built on Pulp and Cinematics, where your character leap out of the shower and dispatch a room full of storm trooper mooks and not get scratched, Spirit of the Century is your best bet.

Older D+D can do all these. 3.x can as well provided the DM throws out the CR/EL tables and wealth-by-level guide and wings it.

Am I saying that D&D should stay a wargame? No. I game online, and the emphasis on five foot steps and placement is a real headache. And the lack of dynamic social situations, the lack of a system to handle Favors and Contacts, and so on, is really disappointing. If the system were more flexible, it would be Real Nice. I don't think that D&D should try to work for every desire, but a more flexible system would be ideal, imho.

Agreed.

What might help solve this, in any edition, is that DMs allow the game to give out a bit more wealth than the PCs really need, while at the same time severely limiting what magic is available outside of adventures (and in 3e, limiting PC magic-item creation ability as well). Over time, the PCs will slowly build up some spare cash, and they'll either hoard it or find something interesting to spend it on, be it bribes or a castle or whatever. This does require a somewhat radical departure from 3e core design thinking, mind you, and won't be for everyone...

Lanefan

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Oh God, no. Keep training as far away from my core rules as possible, thanks. Maybe--maybe--as a purely optional rule, fully labeled as such, buried somewhere in the DMG.

Under a sticker that says "removing this label will void your warranty".

 

[TwinBahamut]

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.

This is the exact problem. Throughout the character's careers, they are always investing in new equipment. Or rather, every character must invest, and no other options are available.

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.

I still disagree. First, WoW, Everquest, and Diablo are all a very limited sample of games, and should not be used to determine what is average for all kinds of games, since they are all similar to each other, and different from other games.

However, you yourself have pointed out that "winning the game" is an alternative incentive. I would claim that it is the primary incentive for RPGs, including D&D. Yes, I am claiming that it is possible to "beat D&D", or more specifically, to defeat a BBEG, save the kingdom/world/etc, and bring a campaign and story to a satisfying conclusion. I think far more D&D campaigns prioritize a long-running story, than merely have the characters running around on a loot hunt with no plot.

As a whole, I can name many counter-examples to your claim. There are many games, among both tabletop RPGs and videogame RPGs, in which loot is just a perk, rather than the goal. In fact, I can name many games which lack either money, or equipment, or both. HERO Champions and BESM both come to mind here, as well as D20 Modern (abstracts it and doesn't use it as a reward by the RAW), come to mind for tabletop games. There are many variations among videogames. Other than MUDs and MMORPGs, I can't think of a single computer/videogame RPG which doesn't have a central plot. Even open-ended games like Diablo have an ending.

 

[Rechan]

Older D+D can do all these. 3.x can as well provided the DM throws out the CR/EL tables and wealth-by-level guide and wings it.Agreed.

Of course it CAN. You can use a butcher knife to make a peanut butter sandwich, but it's not the intended purpose. You could run those games with D&D, it's just harder.

 

[Kraydak]

This is the exact problem. Throughout the character's careers, they are always investing in new equipment. Or rather, every character must invest, and no other options are available.

If you want your business to grow maximally, invest maximally. If you don't, don't. You can choose not to invest in magic items. It will hurt your adventuring power. I don't see the problem here... You will adventure against lower CR opponents, raising the GP/XP ratio and climb back up if your gear falls too far below spec.

The only decent alternative to having wealth/level guidelines is to not have any relevant gear. This isn't genre appropriate. It isn't an historically market dominating design philosophy.

I still disagree. First, WoW, Everquest, and Diablo are all a very limited sample of games, and should not be used to determine what is average for all kinds of games, since they are all similar to each other, and different from other games.

However, you yourself have pointed out that "winning the game" is an alternative incentive. I would claim that it is the primary incentive for RPGs, including D&D. Yes, I am claiming that it is possible to "beat D&D", or more specifically, to defeat a BBEG, save the kingdom/world/etc, and bring a campaign and story to a satisfying conclusion. I think far more D&D campaigns prioritize a long-running story, than merely have the characters running around on a loot hunt with no plot.

As a whole, I can name many counter-examples to your claim. There are many games, among both tabletop RPGs and videogame RPGs, in which loot is just a perk, rather than the goal. In fact, I can name many games which lack either money, or equipment, or both. HERO Champions and BESM both come to mind here, as well as D20 Modern (abstracts it and doesn't use it as a reward by the RAW), come to mind for tabletop games. There are many variations among videogames. Other than MUDs and MMORPGs, I can't think of a single computer/videogame RPG which doesn't have a central plot. Even open-ended games like Diablo have an ending.

There are non-loot centric open-ended RPGs out there. DnD crushes them beneath its +5 booted heel, market share wise. I'm pretty sure there are non loot-centric MMORPGs out there. WoW crushes them beneath its purple heel. I find the arguement that DnD should give up its loot-centric design to be absurd. It works. It dominates markets. What more does a game designer who wants his game to be a commercial success need?

(all of this is seperate from the issue of a gold<->item market, which helps preserve realism and provides actual value to gold. without such a market, gold *would* become utterly meaningless at high levels, even in a game without magic items, but with DnD's power structure)