So what's gold gonna be for?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well, the bottom line isn't just that you're sub-optimal, it's that being sub-optimal gets you, and perhaps your party, killed. That's the problem with magic item dependency. If you don't toe the line, you die.

Sorry, I edited my post later. I understand that is somewhat of an issue with 3e. But if 4e reduces the net influence of items, then I dont see a reason to prohibit people from buying/trading items.

 

[gizmo33]

"The system rewards players who learn how to optimize". That's a horrible design. The system shouldn't be littered with sucky options as newbie traps.

I agree. The 1st level character whose player hasn't played before and the one whose player is a 30 year veteran of DnD are both 1st level characters. Why would it make sense that one character would know what combat options to take and the other wouldn't. IMO that's an inappopriate use of player knowledge to affect a character. Some players really like this metagame aspect of maximal builds, I don't. IMO it makes no sense that Conan wouldn't know the optimal skill choices to make because of his battlefield experience. I just can expect my players to have that same kind of intelligence. After all, they're not the warrior-king, their character is. Some metagaming IMO is ok because it keeps the players involved, but too much IMO is undesireable.

 

[Mallus]

Tales of Wyre handled this by changing the definition of dungeon. There was a lot of planar politics and such, but also regular battles over who got to control what section of the multiverse, which involved lots of heightened, maximized sonic fireballs.

Sep's a genius at D&D (or outside of D&D, for that matter). The nice folks at WoTC could learn a lot from him.

 

[Nifft]

So where did I lose the thread?

Oy vey, I wish we had those jump-back links on quotes like they do on the WotC boards.

Does it matter? If so, I'll dig up the whole chain, but you're rekindling the fiery part of a discussion that ended agreeably for both parties.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Just as long as that isn't the only viable option for GP.

And as long as say, spending your money on a keep doesn't cripple you when you y'know, try to defend it from a dragon.

Peasant: "Well if only you had bought a +2 Icy Burst with that money you spent to get us plumbing!"

Yeah, exactly.

My preference would be to design around a low assumed wealth, then allow a few very strictly limited bonuses to enhance combat prowess -- so you can feel good about investing in it, but you aren't forced to do so if you'd rather get bonuses elsewhere.

I've got some ideas on how to do this, but they're not ready for public viewing just yet.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mallus]

The AD&D rules did this but IMO not well.

It didn't say they handled it well. I was merely pointing to the fact that the rules acknowledged a change in the timbre of play at name level.

The other problem is that the game is essentially about 4 people doing stuff as a team. If one is the Pope and the other is the Guildmaster of Assassins, you can't really play the game anymore.

Of course you can. Like I said before, it all a matter of execution. I argue it's at that point the game gets most interesting, since the players have a more invested in their characters and the setting. The adventures tend to write themselves.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Oy vey, I wish we had those jump-back links on quotes like they do on the WotC boards.

Does it matter? If so, I'll dig up the whole chain, but you're rekindling the fiery part of a discussion that ended agreeably for both parties.

Cheers, -- N

Ehh, never mind. My point, and apparently yours, is that a single way to use gold sucks because it forces the campaign into directions that might not be desirable for everyone. I'm starting to think that "what you can do with money" is a keystone concept around which a large part of the game revolves. By changing it, you change the game, and so you really have to know what you're doing in order to avoid trading one forced style of play for another.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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 said "effort", not time. If you have something valuable, then you have to spend money, time, something keeping it safe. Some people would prefer to spend their effort elsewhere.

As for the rest, if the only thing the players are interested in buying is direct power, and you cater to that, then yes, you will get some version of the "Christmas Tree" effect. I think that players will have more fun if they can be weaned off of such. Or alternately, if everyone agrees they don't want to change that, then it is not as if adding the "Christmas Tree" effect back in to my kind of design is all that difficult: You got gold. Instead of buying the hints to the Ghoul King's Tomb, you bought a magic sword from a merchant. You pay the money, you get the sword--no complications. Anything that appears to be a complication but isn't is just "color" added to pretend that the player isn't buying a magic sword outright.

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.

Such studies are necessarily spotty at this time. However, there have been some long-term followups of lotteries in particular geographic areas where it was shown that money was certainly no impediment to screwing up a life. I believe some slices approach 70% to 80% massive screwup. Who knows, those particular individuals could have been on a downward spiral already? If Bill Gates picked 10 people at random today, and gave them $5,000,000 each, would you expect 7 of them, by 2012, to have blown most of the money, estranged most friends and family, picked up addictions, etc? I know I wouldn't, but it happens surprisingly frequently with lotteries.

But my larger point is that the fables weren't only saying that money was this great problem that should be avoided. Obviously, the desperately poor peasant comes out ahead even if all he manages during the rollercoaster ride is upgrading his cottage and gaining some livestock. (And not many in this topic have been talking about the desperately poor climbing out of subsistence level into something slightly better, which is really a different game issue altogether.) Acquiring great wealth suddenly is a huge change, that attracts attention. All huge changes that attract attention are problems in the real world and a D&D world.

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).

I was saying that if you had a game where the players were always going to turn gold into a magic sword, you'd do better to cut out the middleman, and just let them find the magic sword. Or if you don't want them to tell you what they want, let them find or earn a favor from a wizard that will make them the magic sword. If wealth can be turned directly into power, then you will get the "Christmas Tree" effect, unless you highly limit wealth. It's all color. It's functionally no different than if they had found the sword.

 

[Nifft]

1) The game assumes you're optimized. If you don't x magic item by level y, you are going to get your clock cleaned.

Yep yep yep.

Over-specialization is another thing that needs to go.

SW Saga style "general competency" is a good solution to both, IMHO.

2) The system is built so that newbies choose stupid feats and learn from their mistakes. Toughness is not meant to be balanced. Monte Cook basically said when they were designing 3e, the intention was that "The system rewards players who learn how to optimize". That's a horrible design. The system shouldn't be littered with sucky options as newbie traps.

Ironically, the pleasure one feels at system mastery is part of what makes D&D -- or any other system -- addictive for some people. If WotC is smart (and they are) there will still be some of this in 4e. Hopefully it will be less necessary, and less powerful in absolute terms, but no less fun to exploit explore.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mallus]

Not really. Boardrooms and Bureaucrats never really sold many copies.

Are you sure about that?

I'd assume most D&D players actually want their character to go on adventures rather than manage hirelings.

I assume most D&D players want challenges to overcome. I also assume they prefer the nature of those challenges to change as they rise in level. Or they can mine treasure out of the monster-infested ground until they're demigods, if that works for them.

All I'm saying is that the game has traditionally supported a change in the nature of play at "name level", to something more like a builder sim. Oddly, it's one of the D&D traditions I like the most.