So what's gold gonna be for?

[Reynard]

I don't even want to start the argument about what was or wasn't discussed much before the Internet. The Internet has facilitated the transmission of knowledge in ways that are significant far beyond this hobby.

Knowledge ain't the only thing, sadly.

1e D&D awarded XP primarily for killing monsters-- and for each gold piece found on a 1:1 basis! Call me crazy, but that's a pretty clear indicator of intent.

If you look at the ratio of XP for killing things vs taking their stuff, it becomes pretty apparent that the taking of stuff was far more important than the killing of things. Exploration in search of treasure -- gold and glory -- are at the heart of the game and it is something I think "story oriented" groups forget (I blame 2E). The killing of things is only one component of making the treasure worth getting, along with traps and puzzles and secrets.

But my point was this: describing D&D simply as, or only as, "killing things and taking their stuff" does a disservice to the game and its players.

 

[JDJblatherings]

For all intents and purposes THERE IS NO EMPIRE BUILDING ELEMENT TO D&D. Any castle lording/empire building element to D&D is peripheral to its core design. Very peripheral.

One line on the 9th level fighter's advancement table does not a Lord make. Two or three pages of castle construction costs does not a fiefdom make.

Your subjective experience with the game simply does not square with objective reality.

This is not an indictment of your playstyle.

There are a few folks for whom this element of the game is important. From time to time a designer will revisit the subject, and a publisher might "take a gamble" every now and then with a product solely dedicated to this playstyle.

Birthright was the most ambitious attempt to cater the design to this playstyle. I will let that speak for itself.

You point me to any evidence you have that D&D is about empire building, and I will give you 10-to-1 evidence that it is about dungeon delving.

That's what the vast preponderance of the rules are designed for, it's what the vast preponderance of the published material supports, and it's how the vast preponderance of players play the game.

It is simply not open to debate.

You should take some pride in the fact that you have transcended the game for 30 years. Games such as yours (and others here, apparently) that transcend the game are typically lauded as a testament to the DM, and for good reason: because it's recognized that the DM has managed to make something more of the game than the rules easily support.

But that is no reason to hold on to a romanticized notion of what the game was and is designed and marketed for.

No romanticized notion at all there were rules in original, 1st, 2nd and the boxed series that supported the notion that characters at "name level" would begin to act the part of lords. The description of the fighting men in "Men & Magic"spells all of this out right in the description of the class on the 6th page of the rules.

In various versions the rules told one how many followers turned up when they built a castle, stronghold, thieves guild, wizards tower or temple. In the DMG it spelled out how much and for how long one had to clear terriotry to claim it as their own. Darksun even had a different range of followers becasue it was so radically different from 2nd ed D&D, clearly thisbeing lord of their own domain at name level WAS part of the game.

It was spelled out in a diffrent and more deatiled manner in the D&D boxed lines of games ( which were also D&D last time I checked). They weren't peripheral rules they were the rules. As much as alignments and ability scores (heck they had more coverage then ability scores did under soem versions of the game).

I'd love to see some of this back in the core rules, in part becasue it expalins why the immensely wealthy folks coninute to risk their lives (and souls in some cases) and encourages PCs to become part of the campaign instead of simply rummaging about in it.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Any particular reason why you are quoting part of my post and responding to it out of context?

sheesh.

Sorry PlaneSailing-- no offense was intended. If there's a part of my post that seems like it should properly refer back to your larger post, I'll be happy to put it back in.

I was specifically referring to the fact that "core story" is a new concept to design. And to the best of my knowledge, there simply was no shared language for game design, at all, certainly pre-Internet and even largely persisting today.

If anything is out of context it is the last line of my post which wasn't at all directed at you. I should have made that clear.

 

[Lanefan]

For all intents and purposes THERE IS NO EMPIRE BUILDING ELEMENT TO D&D. Any castle lording/empire building element to D&D is peripheral to its core design. Very peripheral.

Birthright was the most ambitious attempt to cater the design to this playstyle. I will let that speak for itself.

Birthright's fate was sealed by its release timing...2e and the hobby in general was already in steep decline when BR came out (1995, according to the (c) date on mine) so no wonder it didn't sell: nobody cared. Whcih is a shame, because it's one of the few really good releases to come out of the whole 2e era as far as I'm concerned.

If it had come out in 1984 as an add-on for 1e things would be different; 1e *did* support empire-building and BR would have fit right in.

Lanefan

 

[Umbran]

For all intents and purposes THERE IS NO EMPIRE BUILDING ELEMENT TO D&D. Any castle lording/empire building element to D&D is peripheral to its core design. Very peripheral.

Would you say that for all intents and purposes, there is no social interaction element to D&D, because there are so few rules about it?

Well, then, I submit that the core story is actually casting spells - I think the PHB has more pages on spells and spellcasting than about melee combat, by far. Those sword-swinging fighters are an afterthought by comparison.

Yes, it is reductio ad absurdum - the point is that you are drawing a line based on your own sensibilities. You've decided how much rules-content is required to make something "the core story", in your own head. The interior of your head may be an interesting place, Wulf, but I'm not sure we should be taking it as a source of objective truths

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The interior of your head may be an interesting place, Wulf, but I'm not sure we should be taking it as a source of objective truths

How fortunate then that there's ample objective evidence to back me up.

Hundreds of products, thousands upon thousands of pages dedicated to dungeon delving. It's the core of the game.

It really isn't subjective to me.

I'm frankly baffled at the need to argue against this. Not simply baffled at the fact that anyone would try to argue it in light of the overwhelming evidence, but quite simply baffled at the need to argue it. I'm still not sure why the fact that D&D is designed to do one thing very well, followed by the equally obvious fact that many folks have demonstrated an artistry to take the game beyond its core function, is an affront to your sensibilities.

Anyway, there's no point picking fights with me. D&D is what it is, and 4e is going to be EVEN MORE of what it is.

(<-- Thinks that's a good thing.)

 

[GlassJaw]

Perhaps the word "story" in the phrase "core story" isn't the right one. Perhaps core "essence" is better.

But I wholeheartedly agree with Wulf. The essence of D&D, especially the design, is about killings things and taking their stuff. Of course there are other elements to D&D but that is what is always at the center. Everything else (social interaction, building castles, solving puzzles, etc) is a small satellite that orbits the core (killing things, taking stuff).

If it wasn't, you wouldn't need things like classes, levels, balance between classes, varying power of monsters, a variety of treasure and magic items, etc.

95+% of the rules are things to kill, ways to kill them, rewards you get after you kill things, and new abilities you learn when you kill enough things.

 

[Reynard]

Anyway, there's no point picking fights with me. D&D is what it is, and 4e is going to be EVEN MORE of what it is.

(<-- Thinks that's a good thing.)

Is it? I think it is going to be far more about combat, far more about instant gratification and far more about emulating far more financially successful gaming enterprises. Is it going to be "more D&D than D&D" -- I highly doubt it. When you start things off by turning a dungeon into a gauntlet-arena hybrid, you've undone D&D.

EDIT: Plus, it looks like the "taking their stuff" part is getting the shaft, too.

 

[Clavis]

So, how 'bout that gold. It's shiny and we like it. In real life, we'd use it to indulge in pleasures of the flesh, but D&D has consistently failed to deliver any reasonable simulation of THAT, so let's think of other stuff we could buy.

That's why 1st ED. characters needed to know whether they encountered a "common streetwalker" or an "expensive doxy"!

Higher level character need higher-priced whores to waste their money on! I've watched my player's PCs squander rubies and diamonds on prostitutes, and buy rounds of imported wine for the house in almost every tavern the could. Let them know that things like gold-plated armor exists (complete with ermine fur cape!), and I can testify that getting the players (at least male players) to waste their PC's money isn't difficult.

Players get a sense of success when they watch their characters go from paying 1 copper for a handjob from a half-orc in a rat-infested alleyway, to paying 1000s of gold pieces for a night with a famous elven courtesan.

I've actually seen PCs buy a brothel, and become Pimps!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Is it? I think it is going to be far more about combat, far more about instant gratification and far more about emulating far more financially successful gaming enterprises.

In fact, what has happened is that those far more financially successful gaming enterprises have done a better job of delivering on the core essence of D&D than D&D has done to date: Killing things, taking their stuff, powering up, repeat.

World of Warcraft-- let's stop beating around the bush-- has some built in advantages. The game is "easier to play" because all of the burdensome rules management is shifted to a computer. WoW doesn't suffer from "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" (arranging big Raids notwithstanding).

So the obvious goal for D&D design was to further streamline that core experience; but D&D has the added advantage of also supporting many different kinds of peripheral play styles that a computer simply can't do as well (if indeed at all).

So-- redesign D&D to deliver on its core experience as efficiently as possible, or abandon the core of D&D and try to reinvent it?

It's utterly preoposterous to think that WOTC should abandon D&D's core experience to a competitor, declare defeat, and instead retrofit the game to "retain" an insignificant minority of pissy grognards.