So what's gold gonna be for?

[Nifft]

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.

Right.

I like the idea of having a single liquid currency of reward. (As opposed to XP, which are not liquid.)

What I'd really like would be a system that allows PCs to spend this liquid currency to do whatever gives them a happy: buy another masterwork sword to replace the one that got sundered last adventure (= buy spotlight time in combat), or buy a Writ of Immunity from the Duke (= buy spotlight time out-of-combat), or whatever. Hell, they can give the gold to orphans and thus buy some "saving grace" points to save their butts when they bite off more than they can chew.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kraydak]

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!"

*blink* *blink* *blink*

As far as I can tell, for you, if there is *any* mechanically rewarding use for gold, then the mechanically rewarding uses for gold become the only viable options. You feel than having restricted viable options is bad, and seem to be argueing that there should be no mechanically rewarding uses for gold. Note that bribery is mechanically rewarding...

If there is a mechanically rewarding use for money, players will find it and spend money on the best investments. Like the smart people their characters tend to be. The only way to avoid people spending their money wisely is to not let there be anything wise to spend the money on. Which, of course, means that no one has any use, at all, for money. At least taxes would be low... not that anyone would mind paying them with the useless cash.

 

[Nifft]

As far as I can tell, for you, if there is *any* mechanically rewarding use for gold, then the mechanically rewarding uses for gold become the only viable options.

I think he's saying that in 3.5e, the mechanical benefits are so good that it's irrational to spend gold on the common optimal choices, and that these choices are so common that they are assumed by monster and adventure designers.

That's what I'd say anyway.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Irda Ranger]

But presumably you play what you enjoy, be it a guy that blows his money on outer planar hookers or mead from Kords own festhall or on another +3 sword. You can play a fighter/sorcerer/wizard/monk, despite that combo stinking, and take a bunch of garbage feats like stealthy and athletics. You play the style you enjoy. Its an option, even if its "sub optimal".

Not really, because even if you ignore the CR system you still have intra-party balance to worry about. Non-spellcasters are hurt a lot worse by reduced equipage than spellcasters; so if you played a "low wealth" campaign you'd constantly be in the posistion of the Fighters and Rogues playing second fiddle to the Wizards and Clerics. Heck, you'd be in the position of having a Fighter with Leadership playing second fiddle to his own Cleric cohort, despite the level difference between them.

Ironically, the pleasure one feels at system mastery is part of what makes D&D -- or any other system -- addictive for some people.

I agree, but ...

If WotC is smart (and they are) there will still be some of this in 4e.

Er, I'm not sure that's possible. You either have to optimize, or you don't. I don't think you can have a system with "a little optimization", any more than you can be a little pregnant.

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."

Yes.

First, you must recognize that you simply can't cater to all tastes. The guys who want to play Hackmaster simply aren't going to be pleased with Vampire; unless you change it so drastically that the people who used to be playing Vampire abandon the game, because it's not fun for them any more.

Then, once you're realized that you simply can't cater to all tastes, you need to decide who you are going to cater to. Are you going to try to please the char-gen optimizers and feat number-crunchers, or are you going to cater to the people who want to roll up a character with minimum fuss or stress and "get to the fun part" - i.e., killing orcs.

Once you've made that decision, only then can you design your game, and just do the best job you can. When you come to a question about game design you just have to ask yourself "Which choice makes this game more fun for the people I have chosen to cater to."

Me, I'm definately in the "fast char gen, lots of in-game tactics and strategy" camp. I hate, with a passion, character build optimization. I hope 4e comes my way. I'll hardly be too upset about it though, as I'm having fun with Iron Heroes now and SWSE looks cool, and even if 4e is a flop for me, I bet there will be salvagable ideas in there.

But don't pretend that it's even possible for everyone to be happy with the answer to the question "What will gold be for", because the answer to that question will be so intrinsic to the game system that I don't think it will be possible to provide a way for playing both "kind of like 1e" and "kind of like 3e". One, or the other, or something new - but not all three.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I think he's saying that in 3.5e, the mechanical benefits are so good that it's irrational to spend gold on the common optimal choices, and that these choices are so common that they are assumed by monster and adventure designers.

That's what I'd say anyway.

Cheers, -- N

Correct. The game theorist in my agrees with you and he.

 

[Nifft]

Er, I'm not sure that's possible. You either have to optimize, or you don't. I don't think you can have a system with "a little optimization", any more than you can be a little pregnant.

Disagree. Even within D&D 3.5e, there are degrees of optimization.

As a counter example, I'd hold up Star Wars Saga Edition. It's a lot harder to make an ineffectual character by accident -- and probably harder to do so on purpose, too. People can contribute even if they are forced outside their specialized fields. Level matters more than equipment.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kraydak]

I think he's saying that in 3.5e, the mechanical benefits are so good that it's irrational to spend gold on the common optimal choices, and that these choices are so common that they are assumed by monster and adventure designers.

That's what I'd say anyway.

Cheers, -- N

To which I reply that if you drop your return on investment much from 3ed (removing the purchasing of magic items, mainly), then gold completely devalues. Because DnD power is personal rather than societal (high level people don't need armies, they are armies), people don't actually have anything to spend money on and so don't value it. Instead, high level people work with a currency based on the +1 longsword rather than the gold piece, the magic item market reforms etc...

If you remove useful magic items altogether, you lose one of the basic (and succesful) design principles of DnD.

The question of what is gold useful for is a good one, but given DnD's power structure, the answer becomes "buying power" or "nothing" very fast. Which is cool in its own right. A "colonialism on crack" DnD world with high level characters playing the part of westerners wandering around a world filled with local (but to the HLCs irrelevant) potentates. Without access to real power (levels) or wealth to which to bribe people with real power (magic items or gold to turn into items), the locals would be background while the HLCs duke it out over "natural resources" (adventuring sites). Watching players try to come up with some amusing use (there is no practical one) for a few 100k gp might be fun.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Are you going to try to please the char-gen optimizers and feat number-crunchers, or are you going to cater to the people who want to roll up a character with minimum fuss or stress and "get to the fun part" - i.e., killing orcs.

Or we could have a game where PCs are simple at the start, even providing package deals for players who want to avoid the small amount of initial char gen, but which increases in complexity as characters go up levels.

Y'know, like 3e D&D.

 

[Rechan]

As far as I can tell, for you, if there is *any* mechanically rewarding use for gold, then the mechanically rewarding uses for gold become the only viable options. You feel than having restricted viable options is bad, and seem to be argueing that there should be no mechanically rewarding uses for gold. Note that bribery is mechanically rewarding...

Um, what?

I have spent several pages railing against the Bribe/Bling-Only argument because I think that some mechanical benefit and some combat enhancement is good.

How did you miss "As long as it's not the only option, and as long as not spending it on combat enhancement gimps other PCs"?

 

[ruleslawyer]

Well, any genre except the ones in which gold is worth something. Given that gold being worth something might be important to some people, and may even impact verisimilitude ("So, we killed the dragon, took its horde, and now we can't spend it on anything but ale and whores? Are you nuts?"), I think that abandoning the concept of money entirely might not be the best idea.

My point was that the OPTION to run a game without needing to adhere to a particular standard distribution of wealth is an advantage of the removal of PC equipment dependency.

Well, that's great if you care about that type of stuff. But your Butt-Kicker archetype player isn't going to give a flumph's fart about building his own restaurant, or whatever..

If said "Butt-Kicker" is not interested in buying things, then why oh why does your Butt-Kicker archetype even give a rip about money? At the very least, he could use the money to hire mercenaries, if he wants some advantage in combat.

Amassing huge fortunes for the sake of increasing your ability to go out and amass huge fortunes isn't really a standard archetype of fantasy literature or movies, and it's not necessary to a well-functioning game engine. It also creates weird diseconomies. So why protest so much at the idea of PCs actually using money in game for purposes that have some verisimilitude?