So what's gold gonna be for?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

And most adventures didn't sell well in the 3.0/3.5 era. Does that mean D&D players no longer went on adventures (ie, sales figures don't necessarily prove anything here). It's my experiences that D&D campaigns, regardless of edition, either moved away from straight dungeoncrawls as the PC's leveled, or they ended and the group started over.

Thats a poor conclusion. I've provided evidence that the empire builer campaign was a worse sdeller than OTHER types of campaigns. That books on stronghold building were worse sellers than books on character building. Heroes of Horror SOld better than Heroes of Battle. I'm providing evidence... outside of JUST my personal experience, that people arent very interested in running these sorts of games compared to standard dungeon crawls.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Here's where I've got a question for you both. Why? Why is the Butt-Kicker upgrading so he can kill more stuff? Why do Kraydak's "professional adventurers" adventure professionally - what are they after? I mean, nobody regularly puts themselves in highly-lethal situations regularly unless they're getting something they want out of it.

Power in and of itself.
Honestly, were I D&D, I wouldnt even dream of telling my Billy Butt Kicker to take a hike... that his dolla isnt welcome here. There just arent enough of Eddie Empire Builder or Freddy Fluff to float the game. D&D has historically been a game of avatar empowerment. Outside of forums, where everyone pulls on their frilly "RP'er than Thou" shirts, a huge portion of the games played revolve around kicking ass and taking names (and treasure).

Look at what books sell: character power up books. Oh, and a little something called the magic item compendium... chalk full of those things "real RP'ers" supposedly dont care about. While I'm sure many would drool over a book of fluff only feats like "Never have a bad hair day", I think WOTC should cater to their player base.

 

[Mallus]

I've provided evidence that the empire builer campaign was a worse sdeller than OTHER types of campaigns.

Purchasing != running.

I'm providing evidence... outside of JUST my personal experience, that people arent very interested in running these sorts of games compared to standard dungeon crawls.

Personal experience is nice when more external evidence is unreliable or contradictory. Where's your evidence that standard dungeon crawls are popular, in light the the overall poor sales of modules?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Purchasing != running.

Personal experience is nice when more external evidence is unreliable or contradictory. Where's your evidence that standard dungeon crawls are popular, in light the the overall poor sales of modules?

Ok, then by your bizarro logic, I guess people are just buying those other types of books, then sacraficing them to their little shrines to appease the divine gods of out-dated game styles, in the hope that their mills generate extra units of flour per month.

If you want to draw a conclusion from adventure sales, compare adventure sales where the topic is based around army management to dungeon crawl adventure sales. THEN you'd have some evidence. See what style sells better overall. Of course, you'd have to find some ... But I'm sure with the staggering demand for that play style you should be able to find plenty of exmaples eh?

I've provided both anecdotal and some measure of empircal evidence that keep building and bean counting "adventuring" isnt in favor. You've provided some anecdotal evidence. Umm... balls in your court chief, cuz by my count, our personal experiences pretty much counter one another.

 

[AllisterH]

Purchasing != running.


Personal experience is nice when more external evidence is unreliable or contradictory. Where's your evidence that standard dungeon crawls are popular, in light the the overall poor sales of modules?

Um, I think you're focusing on the wrond thing here Mallus.

Birthright was arguably the weakest selling campaign setting that TSR ever tried in the 2E era. Even spelljammer sold better apparently. Hell, did the BATTLESYSTEM have ANY fans back in the day?

I haven't seen the figures but I'm not surprised that Heroes of Battle sold worse than Heroes of Horror.

The thing is, WOTC/TSR has TRIED (and Birthright, I stand by its quality as I remember it) to get D&D players interested in Keep/Castle/Empire running but it just doesn't seem like people want it.

Just because people play and love RPGS like Baldur's Gate, doesn't mean they are going to be fans of games of the Masters of Orion genre (what _IS_ the name for that genre?).

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.
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?

Because not everyone cares about having a simulationist-friendly economy, and instead feel that buying a really kick-ass sword is lots of fun. Also, I'm not protesting it. I'm protesting the notion that the butt-kickers should be left in the cold. Remove magic item dependency with a scalpel, not an axe. If it can be arranged so that if you spend all your gold on magic items, you're not a total combat monster compared to the player who spent all his gold on an antique tea service, you don't have to remove mechanical advantages from the list of things gold is for.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Just because people play and love RPGS like Baldur's Gate, doesn't mean they are going to be fans of games of the Masters of Orion genre (what _IS_ the name for that genre?).

4x, I think...I forget what the Xs are, though. EXplore, EXterminate, EXpand, etc.

And, yes, running a D&D game like it's a game of Civ is not for everyone. (Apparently my DM, who changed the rules on us just as my guild network was about to take off...)

It's a pity that Birthright didn't sell that well, the materials were very well-done and it was a great world for adventuring.

Brad

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Sucks for you. Hope at least one of the players is enjoying it... or y'all should stop letting that dude GM!

(My players are a mix -- one wants to foment a revolution, one wants to be an officer in the army, one just wants to overland flight and meteor swarm the site from orbit, since it's the only way to be sure.)

Cheers, -- N

I'm kind of funny that way. When I play characters, I've been all those things, but I do them one at a time. I tend to make very genre-focused characters. When I'm nuking things from orbit, I don't want to think about talking to the rebel army or raising funds to support my trade syndicate. And vice versa.

 

[Mallus]

Um, I think you're focusing on the wrond thing here Mallus.

My point's gotten a little muddied, yes. I'll try and clean it up... I didn't intend to come off as a staunch defender of the Birthright setting, seeing as I never played it....

My position is that D&D campaigns typically either increase in scope as the PC's level, or they end. This increase in scope can include, but certainly isn't limited to, builder-sim elements, and this mode of play was supported to some degree as far back as 1e AD&D. Stated more generally, the PC's game more influence over the setting (which doesn't necessarily mean they start building flour mills willy-nilly...). And in these modes of play, a 'mundane' resource like gold becomes more important as the PC's level, because they have increased opportunity to purchase control/influence over the game environment.

You could just as easily say they're buying the plot (and not grain mills). Which is what I should have done in the first place.

edit: I should add, I'm not necessarily knocking '20 levels+ of dungeon crawls'/'pure power-up campaigns'. I've just never seen them work. Either the play imperatives/player goals shifted over time, or the campaign's narrative goal was met, or the game died.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Here's where I've got a question for you both. Why? Why is the Butt-Kicker upgrading so he can kill more stuff?

Because he's a butt-kicker. He's playing the game so he can kill stuff. That's the definition of the butt-kicker. Killing stuff is an end in itself. He keeps buying better gear so he can kill stronger enemies. Being more powerful is an end in itself. He is rewarded by getting a kick-ass sword, and then rewarded again by using that sword to kick butt.

Butt kickers like to level up, and they like to get new gear. It's a style of play, and one that 3.x supports very, very well. However, if we want 4E to support other styles, it should not just abandon this style in order to do so.

Why do Kraydak's "professional adventurers" adventure professionally - what are they after? I mean, nobody regularly puts themselves in highly-lethal situations regularly unless they're getting something they want out of it.

Yeah they do. What the heck do you think "extreme sports" is about? People jump out of airplanes in order to have jumped out of airplanes. They climb mountains in order to have climbed mountains. They jump motorcycles over flaming buses, sometimes. That people die doing these things only makes them more attractive. It's reasonable to think that a proportion of the adventurer population are in it for the adrenaline.