Tiers as Treasure

I think this idea is a lot better than how things are currently handled. I'm not even saying it's a bad idea.

Mostly I'm just curious if there would be a way to implement the idea in a way where the DM isn't necessarily needed. If I somehow manage to luck out and fight my way into conquering a castle at a time when the DM does not want me to have one, do I still get it or do I get "sorry, the slot for that isn't available at this level"? It may just be that I'd have to see how it works in play, and maybe I'd change my mind.

I think what I'm trying to say (and doing a terrible job at saying) is that I'd like a system in which what my character gets is more able to grow organically and naturally from the choices I make in-game rather than the default assumption being some manner of 'treasure slots' as has been the case in the past two editions of the game. I think I'm starting to veer off topic. I need to figure out a better way of expressing what I'm trying to say, but -in my mind- that issue has something of a connection to this one. I'll have to give it some more thought.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mostly I'm just curious if there would be a way to implement the idea in a way where the DM isn't necessarily needed. If I somehow manage to luck out and fight my way into conquering a castle at a time when the DM does not want me to have one, do I still get it or do I get "sorry, the slot for that isn't available at this level"? It may just be that I'd have to see how it works in play, and maybe I'd change my mind.

I think this part would naturally be more social contract -- what was agreed before play starts or at some critical junction -- than related to what happens in game, necessarily.

If everyone agreed that the "become a major land owner" option was on the table, then you get that kind of organic growth. If you win a castle in play, you get it. Don't make the effort, no castle for you! The tier is in play, but not automatic.

If everyone agreed that at some point the story was switching to being major land owners, then you get the castle whether you earn it in play or not. If you haven't earned it in play by the time the group is ready to do that, your long-lost uncle the duke vouches for you and gets you that barony. The tier switch is automatic to change focus.

If everyone agreed that the characters would keep fighting monsters and going on adventures, you may have possession of the castle in play after winning it, but as far as the event in game, this is mere color. You don't manipulate events using it, and you don't much get jerked around by being responsible for it, either. Or maybe having won the castle away from bandits, your retore it to its rightful owner--because you are just that kind of hero. The tier isn't in play, even though the subject matter supposedly associated with the tier is in play.
 

I think this part would naturally be more social contract -- what was agreed before play starts or at some critical junction -- than related to what happens in game, necessarily.

If everyone agreed that the "become a major land owner" option was on the table, then you get that kind of organic growth. If you win a castle in play, you get it. Don't make the effort, no castle for you! The tier is in play, but not automatic.

If everyone agreed that at some point the story was switching to being major land owners, then you get the castle whether you earn it in play or not. If you haven't earned it in play by the time the group is ready to do that, your long-lost uncle the duke vouches for you and gets you that barony. The tier switch is automatic to change focus.

If everyone agreed that the characters would keep fighting monsters and going on adventures, you may have possession of the castle in play after winning it, but as far as the event in game, this is mere color. You don't manipulate events using it, and you don't much get jerked around by being responsible for it, either. Or maybe having won the castle away from bandits, your retore it to its rightful owner--because you are just that kind of hero. The tier isn't in play, even though the subject matter supposedly associated with the tier is in play.

I'd like to see a system where being a land owner (or whatever) could be more than mere color without clashing with my ability to adventure. I'm hoping the flatter power curve will cause differing levels of wealth to matter less. While I'm aware wealth will always afford opportunities for better equipment, my wish -and why I want less of a vertical game- is so that there's less potential to break the game's assumptions about what items my character should have. If I'm rich, that should help, but shouldn't mean I have +10 items when I'm not supposed to. On the same token, if I make poor decision and end up broke, that should hinder me, but not to the point where my character is incapable of participating in the game.

My hope is for more of my character's ability to be derived from the character, and far less of it be derived from equipment and vertical progression. That way I don't have to worry about my wealth as a lord disrupting the assumptions of the game like I've seen happen in previous 3E games I was a part of, and neither does the game need to take the 4E road of so many things outside of dungeon delving mere color so that everyone remains on the same page when it comes to items and combat.

I'd like for D&D to re-evaluate what the concept of 'level' means with 5th Edition. I'd like a less linear experience. Some of the ideas in this thread seem to give me that, and I like it. It's hard for me to fully take in how everything would work out in play without seeing how the rest off the system looks though.
 

Somewhat off-topic and a double post, but I was reading a different thread, and I feel as though my thoughts on it might help to give a little context to what I've said here, and shed some light on what I want out of D&D 5E.

I've seen several threads here and elsewhere talk about adventure based designed versus encounter based design. Which do I prefer? Which do I think is better? My answer is neither.

What I want is a game that says, "here is the world; the story is what you make of it." I want that to be as independent as possible from concepts such as 'encounters', 'adventures', 'levels', and etc. I want an experience which feels as though it grows more from the in-game action than from ooc concepts. I have no illusions about D&D not being a game. I know it is one, and I accept that sacrifices often need to be made in the name of fun and/or playability. I'm ok with that, but -as much as possible- I want to feel as though the entity of 'DM' and/or the entity of game mechanics aren't really there. I want to be able to escape into my mind; into a different reality for a little while.

I do feel that the encounter guidelines from 4th Edition were great; I hands down feel the encounter design ideals from 4E were better than 3E. I still feel there should be some guidelines which detail how many monsters should be a challenge for a certain number of players. However, I want those guidelines to be just that -guidelines. I don't want the assumptions of the game to be that every encounter of level X should contain quantity Y of monster points, and every PC should have equipment Z to be relevant in that encounter. I want to be able to place things into the game world which I feel make sense in the game world. While I can openly defy the guidelines set in place in the prior two editions, doing so often violates both the expectations of the game, the play styles encouraged by the system, and the expectations of most D&D players I have gamed with.

I've seen a lot of quotes from Tolkien and various other authors tossed about during recent discussions, and I'll return to Tolkien myself. One of my favorite fantasy scenes is the battle with Smaug. He was incredibly powerful, but he was still not impossible to defeat, and he was still not entirely invincible to what D&D might call lower level heroes. It simply took a lot of people to challenge him, and some secret knowledge about a weakness to easily kill him.

I want my D&D experience to be a little more like that. Yes, an ancient dragon more than likely will mop the floor with a bunch of peasants, and he might even be able to challenge a platoon of well armed men, but he's still not entirely impossible to defeat. The 'level 1' mooks are still capable of hitting and dealing damage; it might not be enough to really do much of anything to the ancient dragon, but it should still be possible for their efforts to matter.

The other thing that scene shows is how to incorporate non-combat skills into combat. A battle which was extremely difficult (the odds might even say virtually impossible) was made manageable by gaining some information. I think being able to make an arcana check or a religion check or knowledge: dragons check or whatever you want to call it and gain useful tangible information which can be used is a good thing. It helps me to feel as though the various parts of the game are sewn together more tightly. Also, as someone who likes to have a broader experience during play, I don't feel as though picking up feats which boost my skills are crap in comparison to Weapon Expertise because I'm give the impression that the game supports more than one way to succeed.

So, how does this tie into my previous comments? Well, as said, I want everything to feel more connected. If the party is facing a tough foe, I'd like to be able to call upon an ally or a sidekick (if need be) to help engage the world. On the other hand, if I am struggling, yes, that should make things harder for me, but it should not make things impossible for me. If my 20th level fighter breaks his sword -or if I'm too broke to afford one because my kingdom was recently hit with plague and I used personal resources to help my people, I don't want that to make me useless. I want to feel like I am engaging the world more so than engaging the game system. That is my hope for 5th Edition.
 


Yora said:
Hasn't this been part of the game for 40 years under the name "gaining a level"?

Sure, but that's the big problem, here. Folks want to be able to gain levels without having to change the way they conceive of their setting and characters. Folks would also like to conceive of their setting and characters in different ways irrespective of level.
 

I'd like for D&D to re-evaluate what the concept of 'level' means with 5th Edition. I'd like a less linear experience.

A less linear experience requires flattening the math, something 5e is apparently doing. Examples of this include CP2020, WEG SW, Elric, etc... In all these systems your hit points are static, your AC is pretty static, and your damage ranges are relatively static.
We could borrow from WEG the idea of combat scales and push that into the tiers where attacks against higher tier enemies are gimped {d6 damage capped at 5} and attacks against lower tiers are brutal {d6 damage minimum of 2}
.. but I digress.

Each of these games allow the new guy to jump right in with the veteran. My WEG Bounty hunter with 5 years of game time could adventure with a newly built character. Yes, I would have alot more options and be alot more reliable in combat {14 dice in blaster will do that..!}

So, perhaps with flatter math, smaller sets of levels, and other changes we might be able to have a 1st level PC running along with a 10th level one.

Related note, I was thinking that using tiers as treasure automatically creates an E6 style option without all the house ruling.
 

Remove ads

Top