D&D 5E What's the point of gold?

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's really too bad. It was never mine to give. Table-top roleplaying is such an amazing, and niche, hobby. Fracturing it over playstyle just seems so silly to me. You'd think that a game all about using your imagination would engender a playerbase that could accept that there is more than one way to play the game. Anyway, I really do hope that you get an Unearthed Arcana article with what you need sooner rather than later. I realize that my preferred method was catered to more by this edition than yours may have been, but I would never tell you or anyone else that you were playing wrong. That's my biggest pet peeve around here, people insisting that they're way is the only way. I know it's got a psychological term, where people fight tooth and nail for their thing because they have to validate it, and therefore their choices.

Happy gaming to you, Sir.

I don't see a lot of "you're doing it wrong" around here. I do see a lot of people desperate for other people to tell them they're doing it right and then getting upset when it doesn't happen--but that's not the same thing.

 

[Wicht]

But, again, how do you, itinerant mercenary vagabond with few or no ties to the city you happen to be staying in, get invited to a "magic auction"? Wouldn't that sort of thing be restricted to the very upper levels of society? And wouldn't advertising that you were trying to sell one of these very high priced pieces put you smack dab on the radar for every thief out there to come knocking?

It's not terribly unreasonable that magic items might not be fungible on a practical level. Sure, magic items might be bought and sold in some very specialized sections of society, but, how exactly do you insinuate your PC into that society?

There's no inherent reason for magic items to be a commodity. They can be, sure. But, not necessarily so.

Some points - firstly, while low level PCs might not get invited to such auctions, in most campaigns, by the time the PCs are high level, they very likely would be exactly the sort of person who would be invited - they have money, connections and desire at that point, all of which make them ideal. If you have secret magic-item auctions going on somewhere in your world then you must consider the possibility of your players wanting to be a part of it in some fashion when they learn of it.

As for players selling items, sure advertising you have a magic item for sale would attract thieves. Why not? But why assume the thieves are successful 100% of the time rather than merely a fun diversion for the players? And would not such advertising attract buyers also. I suspect if you tell your players their advertising attracts lots of thieves but nobody ever wants to buy off of them, they are going to start having serious doubts about the verisimilitude of your world.

The point remains that, if the DM does not want magic items bought and sold in his game world, there is no inherent reason for magic items to be a commodity, until the players make it a commodity. But it is only common sense to realize that if the players have free-will, which they do, they themselves have the ability to make magic a commodity and the wise DM is prepared for this eventuality and the prepared DM is wiser for doing so.

 

[Wicht]

How is anything in the world given value?

How much for a +3 sword? How much do you want it? We're talking a very rare item, not the crap you find in goblin hoards, the stuff liches guard. Making a new one is a legendary task. Yet, it gives you a 15 percent advantage on hits and nearly a 1/3 bonus on damage. What's it worth to you? How about a million? 50,000? Do I hear 60,000? Will you take a well-worn copper? How about your first born? Will you trade this staff of fire for it?

The issue isn't that nobody buys and sells, it's that it's such a rare and personal experience that it is impossible to set a definite price. The DMG sets some guidelines, but as any collector with a price guide knows, those prices are not a guarantee on investment.

So you sell magic the same way you sell anything rare: haggle, trade, auction, and hope you get the better end of the deal.

Yeah - I'm not sure that you are quite grasping what I am saying. You are actually setting yourself up for a different sort of problem - too much gold.

The players get the magic items for free. You then, as DM, create a situation in which said item is incredibly valuable. The average player is going to think that they should be able to then sell that item they got for free for copious amounts of gold and jewels. You are free to say no, but doing so over and over again is going to create a certain discordance in your game world between your world-theory and your behavior.

 

[Wicht]

Isn't there a fallacy for this? Taking something to an extreme in an attempt to show that the original argument was incorrect. I really need to learn these some day.

Its called reductio ad absurdum and its not a fallacy, its a technique of argumentation.

Is it really easier to say no?

I think it is.

"No."

Incredibly easy, actually. But it does seem to help if you practice. I suggest getting a puppy or having children if you really need to work on your technique.

Every day we see stories on the DM boards about players pushing for what they want because it's in the books and DMs frustrated because players wanted something outside of the scope of the campaign and feeling like they were justified simply because it's in the book. I'd say the opposite is true. It's easier to say "yes". Especially when you are given control of what is behind yes. "Yes you can buy that sword, it costs X" is so much easier to say than "No, the cost of that sword 3x book price because of the game style I'm running."

I am not sure of why one is harder or easier than the other. I do both myself depending on my current desires for the flow of the game as DM. But, removing possibilities is always easier than creating rules for unplanned possibilities, because creation is always harder than destruction. And slower. If someone else will do the work for me, I appreciate it normally.

Well, we definitely approach the game differently. I would think the NPCs would be more apt to re-invest into their merchant empire or fund their army for the next year or so rather than buying a single nifty sword that cuts a bit better than a regular sword.

I suspect actually that most megomaniacal rulers would opt for option C - doing both. But never underestimate the power of selfishness in powerful and wealthy men in providing for themselves rather than the for the good of those under them. It has shaped many a path in history. Consider for example Saddam Hussein's palaces. He could have used that money to better equip his soldiers. But instead he built somewhere between 80 and 100 palaces for himself. Are you really telling me that such a man, if given an opportunity to buy a gun that would always hit would not spend whatever necessary to get it for himself, regardless of what he might have better spent it on.

 

[Ahrimon]

I agree with all of the above but I wanted to comment on the bold. I run a sandbox, and so I don't tailor adventures to characters. Instead I try to put in situations such that a folding boat will occasionally be useful, regardless of whether or not the PCs in question currently have a boat. I put in opportunities to negotiate with bad guys, and to sneak around, and bribe the opposition, and use illusions. I'm still a fairly new DM, but my hope is that if my guys ever have a chance to acquire a folding boat, they will think, "Hey, that might come in handy the next time we are fleeing across a river. Also, sure would have been nice to have when the Slaad was getting away last week month." Maybe they will acquire it (or keep it, if it was something they found) and maybe they won't, but either way it will be an exercise of player agency.

I see it as a DM's duty to provide interesting things for all characters to do, and that includes characters that haven't been created yet.

(Coincidentally, before this thread came up, I had already put an 8000-year-old folding boat with a ridiculously long name full of vowels, Vauan'il'ikki'iaun or something, into the treasure hoard of the Death Slaad that they're currently intent on fighting next session. Who knows if they will ever find it or not.)

I wasn't really referring to tailoring entire adventures, but tweaking the world behind the scenes for a situation or two. Say the group happens to explore some underground caverns down the road. You might not have planned for an underground river running through it. But slap one in and now the character with the boat gets a moment to shine since everyone can now safely cross. They'll never know that had he not had that boat that river would never had been there and the player gets to feel great about how he contributed.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't see a lot of "you're doing it wrong" around here. I do see a lot of people desperate for other people to tell them they're doing it right and then getting upset when it doesn't happen--but that's not the same thing.

Oh, let me assure you there a dozens of posters that jump at the chance to tell me and others why the current DMG rules are so much better than what I need, and how bad, wrong (but not fun) my playing style is.

Instead of simply accepting that 1) lots of people played 3e in a style where gold isn't spent on downtime activities, and 2) this play style is plain unsupported by 5th edition.

Regards,
CapnZapp

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Oh, let me assure you there a dozens of posters that jump at the chance to tell me and others why the current DMG rules are so much better than what I need, and how bad, wrong (but not fun) my playing style is.

Well, maybe. But I know for a fact that you've read things into my comments that aren't actually there, so I'm inclined to think you may be a defensive in the way you read other posters' comments as well. I do know that I haven't seen a lot of "badwrongfun" accusations myself.

this play style is plain unsupported by 5th edition.

I do agree that 5E isn't for everyone, and there are playstyles that it doesn't support well or perhaps even at all.

 

[Salthorae]

Oh, let me assure you there a dozens of posters that jump at the chance to tell me and others why the current DMG rules are so much better than what I need, and how bad, wrong (but not fun) my playing style is.

Instead of simply accepting that 1) lots of people played 3e in a style where gold isn't spent on downtime activities, and 2) this play style is plain unsupported by 5th edition.

Regards,
CapnZapp

I do agree that 5E isn't for everyone, and there are playstyles that it doesn't support well or perhaps even at all.

I apologize if my comments were some of those you took that way CapnZapp. I'm very much a "to each their own game", I was just trying to defend against "gold is useless since you can't buy magic" posts. it's not, there is tons to do with it. If OTOH, all you want to do is buy magic and desire no downtime spending, and the DM isn't willing to put in the work to take the frame work from the 5e DMG to make a magic item economy in their world, then it probably is pointless. But within the base assumptions of 5e there are things to do with it outside of buying magic items.

I agree 5e isn't that game, I doubt we'll see a Magic Item Compendium, at least in the same detailed pricing format that we saw in 3.5

That said, if that is the game you want to play, there is nothing wrong with continuing playing d20 formats that totally do support that type of gaming, like 3.5 and Pathfinder. My weekly group almost entirely skipped 4e. We did a couple of games right back when it first came out, but after that, we hightailed it back to 3.5/Pathfinder because 4e didn't fit what we wanted to play. Maybe 6e will swing back the other way, or later in 5e, just as in later 2e they started trending in the direction that 3.x fully went with Magic Item Emporiums, etc.

5e on the other hand has felt like a breath of fresh role playing air to our group since the mid-playtests started. Hopefully that lasts for our group, and hopefully your gaming groups can either find a way to make magic item economies work for you guys or just agree to use a different d20 format that does until such time as either 5e puts out more comprehensive rules or another edition comes that does...

 

[Wicht]

It's a secret to me! What are the Big 6?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't know this.

 

[MoonSong]

So your saying that because 3e intruduced a new way of playing the game that we can never change the game? It must be the 3e way from here on out? Sorry, but I don't buy that. 5e is a broader game that supports more players and gives more freedom to the DM to run the game that they want. It goes back to the roots of the story game while keeping modern mechanics. I'll readily agree that it puts more work onto the DMs shoulders, but if that's what it takes to untie the DMs hands then I'll happily accept that burden.

Of course there isn't a single way, but I get the feeling many posters here are a little too eager to sweep it under the rug.

That's really too bad. It was never mine to give. Table-top roleplaying is such an amazing, and niche, hobby. Fracturing it over playstyle just seems so silly to me. You'd think that a game all about using your imagination would engender a playerbase that could accept that there is more than one way to play the game. Anyway, I really do hope that you get an Unearthed Arcana article with what you need sooner rather than later. I realize that my preferred method was catered to more by this edition than yours may have been, but I would never tell you or anyone else that you were playing wrong. That's my biggest pet peeve around here, people insisting that they're way is the only way. I know it's got a psychological term, where people fight tooth and nail for their thing because they have to validate it, and therefore their choices.

Happy gaming to you, Sir.

Good.

I am going to hazard a guess and say that you had practiced how to say, "no." Its a small word, but a lot of DMs seem to have not yet mastered the art.

I believe too many DMs just don't want to learn to say "yes", and everything else is to justify not learning.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't know this.

I didn't know either, but I learned it from posters trashing this playstyle.

I don't understand why more DMs aren't comfortable with winging it. Magic items aren't the make or break a character things that they were in the last few editions. Does it really matter if you only charge 10k gold instead of 20k or 20k instead of 10k? Adjust the game and move on.

It is not I don't want to wing it, I just feel like I wing it too much. I don't really need the numbers that much but what I need are the clear categories on how useful they are. I know I can safely adapt the prices to whatever treasure I'm giving away, but I need that equivalent items actually get equivalent prices so my players are on equal terms.

Edit: And while we are at it, how do you get your sig to show more than one line?