Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9107658" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I'm pretty sure the gold issue is something folks have complained about for quite a while. One of the very, very few criticisms that were acceptable back in the early days of 5e--mostly because it's kind of a humblebrag, if we're being honest. &quot;Look at all this money that I have nothing I can do with...&quot;Is that really a thing people are even asking for? But overall yes, if you can only hold (say) your Strength score in total items, and some items are extra heavy and &quot;cost&quot; two(/three/etc.) &quot;slots,&quot; then yes, that would be a simpler, faster system, and thus &quot;easier&quot; by some definitions.Would it lead to better, more interesting gameplay? That's by far the more important question--and extremely difficult to answer without serious testing. Like most non-obvious questions regarding game design and balance.I'm really not that sure that it does. What is the key benefit that it provides? Because I find that most inventory management systems work, at a very high level, in the same way: avoid letting the bad thing happen. That tends to result in uninteresting, even frustrating gameplay.It is, in general, better to have a system which rewards good play, rather than one which exclusively punishes bad play, no rewards for playing well. I have yet to see an &quot;encumbrance&quot; or other inventory-management system which rewards effective play in any way. That's a pretty serious drag on it as an interesting and useful component of a game's design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9107658, member: 6790260"] I'm pretty sure the gold issue is something folks have complained about for quite a while. One of the very, very few criticisms that were acceptable back in the early days of 5e--mostly because it's kind of a humblebrag, if we're being honest. "Look at all this [I]money[/I] that I have [I]nothing I can do with...[/I]" Is that really a thing people are even asking for? But overall yes, if you can only hold (say) your Strength score in total items, and some items are extra heavy and "cost" two(/three/etc.) "slots," then yes, that would be a simpler, faster system, and thus "easier" by some definitions. [I]Would it lead to better, more interesting gameplay?[/I] That's by far the more important question--and extremely difficult to answer without serious testing. Like most non-obvious questions regarding game design and balance. I'm really not that sure that it does. What is the key benefit that it provides? Because I find that most inventory management systems work, at a very high level, in the same way: [I]avoid letting the bad thing happen[/I]. That tends to result in uninteresting, even frustrating gameplay. It is, in general, better to have a system which rewards good play, rather than one which exclusively punishes bad play, no rewards for playing well. I have yet to see an "encumbrance" or other inventory-management system which rewards effective play in any way. That's a pretty serious drag on it as an interesting and useful component of a game's design. [/QUOTE]

Verification