So what's gold gonna be for?

[Crazy Jerome]

The visceral reaction that a peasant in folklore has when standing before a big mound of gold (or holding a leprechaun, or commanding a genie, or any of the equivalents) has been one of extreme avarice. Now granted, the outcomes are not always pleasant because many of these stories are morality tales of some sort (no one wants commoners to get all uppity). But IMO the reaction of people to huge mounds of gold is a consequence of reality, and the reality is that money makes things better across the board in all ways. Regardless of what a lord would want his serfs to believe.

So if players don't see money as potentially fulfilling any of their desires (proportional to the amount of course) then money loses the effect that it has in the real world. Part of the problem IMO is that ale in DnD doesn't taste like anything to the player.

No, I am not happy with the current "Christmas Tree" situation in 3E. I would like power levels to be less dependant on gadgets. But if I my players can't find anything to do with gold that appeals to them, I can't expect them to value gold much.

Who said anything about the player not being able to find anything to do with gold that appeals to them? Unless, of course, all the things that one can do with gold are inherentlly uninteresting, then it is OK if the player opts out. He isn't substantially, mechanically impaired in his adventuring. He simply won't have the option of hiring a legion of research assistants on the Ghoul King's Tomb or whatever his buddy the merchant does. He also won't have to spend effort guarding his wealth.

I submit that the outcomes of a lot of those fables are unpleasant for a heck of a lot more reasons than keeping peasants in their place. Witness, for just one example, the poor track record of modern lottery winners managing to not wreck their personal lives. Great wealth is very handy for people that know how to handle it. In other hands, money can, and has, made things a great deal worse, across the board sometimes, and sometimes in very narrow but meaningful ways.

And if the players don't care for any of the ways that wealth really works, then why bother giving them a ton of wealth so that they can stand around greedily for 5 minutes before converting it into magic items (or a stronghold or whatever). Just ask them what they want, and give them that.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes, that's how it works in 3.5e. And it's bad.

-- N

I agree. But I'm also responding to your suggestion that gold ought to be used, among other things, to bribe extraplanar entities. Gold is already used to bribe extraplanar entities, and that's bad.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Of course, if you play in a game where there is no plot to hack, per se, I can see the appeal of using gold to transform your character into a human-shaped Abrams tank. The question is "should the rules assume that is the dominant mode of play?"

A better question is, "should the rules assume a dominant mode of play?" Or perhaps "should there be a set of dominant modes of play that the rules assume and support better than others." I'd answer no to the first, and yes to the second. I think that there are probably a few major categories into which we could frame most of the play styles in this thread, and then robustly support them. That's better than supporting one play style, or supporting none with wishy-washy game mechanics.

Perhaps the ability to choose how gold functions might be a good approach. If you want to allow players to buy mechanical advantage, you use option 1. If you want players to buy ale and whores, option 2, etc. Flesh them out in the DMG, and set out the mechanical changes that need to occur to support each style. Of course, a system that supports mechanical advantages as well as ale and whores without changing anything would be preferred.

 

[Nifft]

Of course, if you play in a game where there is no plot to hack, per se, I can see the appeal of using gold to transform your character into a human-shaped Abrams tank. The question is "should the rules assume that is the dominant mode of play?"

IMHO, hell no.

I think wealth should be able to let you do things more often, but not harder or better -- Pearl of Power gets the thumbs up, Headband of Intellect gets the boot.

Healing is probably fine. A bonus to damage (above a certain very low point) is bad. Buying the ability to do your thing more often is cool. Buying the ability to do your thing better must have limits.

I feel gold should be able to buy you convenience, not raw power. So items that enhance your out-of-combat stuff might be okay, depending on the particulars.

Equipment costs gold, and good equipment should be better -- but there should be hard, tight limits to how much better your equipment can make you perform. A rich fop with all the bling in the world shouldn't be able to best a true master swordsman with a half-decent blade.

These are my opinions, but feel free to take them home and share with your whole family.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

I agree. But I'm also responding to your suggestion that gold ought to be used, among other things, to bribe extraplanar entities. Gold is already used to bribe extraplanar entities, and that's bad.

Context, context, context!

I was responding to the assertion: "bribes are only useful on Lawful Evil planes".

My point was that right now all alignments want money.

As above, so below.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

This is a bit of a gloss, though, because really what the PC's gold would buy is narrative influence for the player. That's why I've been calling this Plot Hacks rather than just bribes.

Yeah, but gold shouldn't be the only way to get narrative influence.

Pcs at say, 12th level, are superhuman. They have a lot of abilities at their fingertips. They should be able to have influence simply by saying 'Hey, Noble dude, do this for me, and I'll do this for you by using my amazing PC abilities'. PCs shouldn't be chumps in the gameworld until they can get some $$ to get attention. Shouldn't the PCs also have Reputation and Renown, and that effect the game? If Hercules said "Hey everybody, drink Fartworth Wine!" there would be a line out the door for Fartworth wine.

And it really sucks if the only balancing factor against this is "Well there are also other 12th level NPCs who can do what you can do so just shut up and get back in the dungeon until you have gold".

Not to mention that a 10th level rogue PC with maxed Diplomacy, Bluff and Sense Motive should be able to be a mover and shaker, even if he's a poor SOB, simply because he's got the raw talent to get people to agree with him.

Look at the service prices for spellcasting. If, during down time, or to make a quick buck, the party sorcerer could walk into town x or city y with a cardboard sign that lists what spells they can cast, and shave off 10% from the service charge.

The only thing that could stop them from doing this is if one of the local spellcasters-for-hire gets pissed off that their prices are getting gouged. However, what happens if the local NPC spellcaster doesn't have the spells your PC does? Or if there's no local Druid? Or if there's no cleric in fifty miles that can cast Raise Dead?

 

[Mallus]

Yes, the choices that the DMs make affects the way that money is used in the game.

Typically, the DM is in charge of running the setting. Ergo, the DM controls the possible uses for wealth.

If every game session that I DMed involved me saying "ok, well, you spent your 100,000 gp on an army, they went out, raided a country, and brought back 300,000 gp. See you next week".

What you've just described is a problem with execution. A good DM could take that scenario and build a whole mid-to-high level campaign out of it. All it takes is a willing to conceive of an encounter as something other than a room full of monsters in some nightmarish underground bank.

Sure, there are ways to turn this sort of thing into a game I guess. Palace intrigue and such could become the focus of the game.

Yup.

But then "dungeon crawls" seem to be the lowest common denominator...

The basic problem with this is that dungeon crawls have a limited window of utility, ie, they work for few levels, then they start becoming silly. Well, sillier.

AD&D handled this by transitioning PC's from dungeon crawlers to generals/warlords, popes, and guildmasters, thus providing for a different set of challenges as characters leveled, something other than 'dig treasure out of the ground'.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Sure, there are ways to turn this sort of thing into a game I guess. Palace intrigue and such could become the focus of the game. But then "dungeon crawls" seem to be the lowest common denominator, so at least one of the players would probably be shouting at the others "look, I don't care about the machinations of your concubines this week, can't we go out and kill a dragon!?"

FWIW, I hate intrigue games. They bore me to tears. I don't run that kind of game. Large-scale political stuff, sure, but I can't stand keeping track of who said what to whom and who is going to betray whom and which member of court is plotting with which other member, etc. I get the impression that there are plenty of DMs and players who hate political games, dungeon crawls, deep roleplaying, or any other style. But the balance of what sort of adventures will be more or less difficult to run will to a certain extent depend on what you do with wealth. If wealth is basically only good for buying keeps, then you'd better like keep-focused games. This is exactly the problem with 3.x. You had better like outfitting your character with gear.

 

[gizmo33]

He also won't have to spend effort guarding his wealth.

Do rich people spend any time guarding their wealth? I figured they hired someone to do that for them. And then hired someone to watch that person. And then hired someone to watch the person watching that person.

IME if the PCs can spend their money on the stuff that appeals to them, then they won't take any interest in money. That might not be objectionable to some/most people, I don't know. What appeals to PCs IME is magic stuff that improves their power. If the magic items aren't available, then they'll hire soldiers (or ask why they can't). In any case, most all but the least aggressive players will find a way to turn gold into power, in which case we are back to some version of the "Christmas Tree" effect.

I submit that the outcomes of a lot of those fables are unpleasant for a heck of a lot more reasons than keeping peasants in their place. Witness, for just one example, the poor track record of modern lottery winners managing to not wreck their personal lives. Great wealth is very handy for people that know how to handle it. In other hands, money can, and has, made things a great deal worse, across the board sometimes, and sometimes in very narrow but meaningful ways.

Are you sure that the "lottery winner" stories aren't modern versions of the same fable? Many modern urban legends follow the same underlying themes as earlier mythology. I'm sure some lotter winners somewhere make a wreck of their lives, but then so do poor people. Does it happen with greater frequency? I suppose there would be a study somewhere.

In any case, I suspect that many of the realistic emotional or cultural issues that come with a sudden accumulation of wealth would be hard to enforce in a game for the same reason that it's hard to get players to enjoy the taste of DnD ale.

And if the players don't care for any of the ways that wealth really works, then why bother giving them a ton of wealth so that they can stand around greedily for 5 minutes before converting it into magic items (or a stronghold or whatever). Just ask them what they want, and give them that.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I don't "give" my players anything or ask them what they want. They find stuff in the "dungeon" and take it (or not).

 

[Nifft]

Yeah, but gold shouldn't be the only way to get narrative influence.

Who says it has to be? I've seen lots of suggestions for non-monetary rewards which boil down to plot hacks. I'm just saying that even as favors can be monetized, so can monies be narratized.

All I'm saying is that it's possible to keep the traditional "kill things, take stuff" mechanic for some games but use those rewards to fuel other play styles.

Cheers, -- N