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

[Charlaquin]

Oh, and to jgsugden, who’s post I got a notification about but cannot see any more, apparently because you blocked me after posting it:

Dude. Why would anyone need to assume anything when you write everything you believe in these lengthy posts?

Don’t ask me. I’m being quite clear and thorough, yet people seem to be coming to incorrect conclusions about my taste in RPGs. Probably because they recognize that I think game mechanics are important and then assume I’m some kind of powergamer who only cares about mechanics, instead of actually engaging with the things I actually say, which are based on a desire for a game whose story and mechanics work in concert with each other.

 

[Maxperson]

Lol. You must not be very familiar with statistics.

Something that is "statistically" significant is only significant in that narrow definition, which may or may not be generally significant to any individual. It also has no place in this discussion as what you are describing is not "statistical significance," but rather normal significance which is subjective. I knew you would try to bring that up as some sort of proof.

We’re working from different definitions of the word here. You’re talking about the quality of being worthy of attention. That’s subjective. I’m talking about the objective impact something has. Bill Gates may not consider $1,000 worthy of his attention, but it has exactly the same purchasing power in is hands as it does in mine. Your friends may not care that at 5th level their martial characters gain an extra attack and their casters get access to 3rd level spells. But their characters are capable of more whether they care or not.

Right. I'm working from the definition of significant. You seem to mean something else and are using significant. It would help if you used the right term.

Your friends may not care that their character’s can take more damage, deal more damage, cast different spells, and succeed 5% more often at trained checks, but they can. You may not be interested in playing races other than humans, elves, and half-elves, but something about the races you do want to play is appealing to you in a way that those other races are not.

Yes, but so what. None of the stuff we aren't interested in has any significance.

So how do you determine how much gold it’s going to take to successfully bribe the guards into letting you in? If there’s a specific minimum amount that the guards will accept, that’s a game mechanic. If you allow the players to adjust that minimum amount by their actions, that’s a game mechanic. You’ve actually created a situation here where it is mechanically beneficial to save all of your wealth for bribes instead of spending it on things like building castles or fixing hometowns or whatever. Unless you allow characters with better lifestyles to be able to bribe guards more easily. Rhar’s Be another mechanic, and would you look at that, you’ve got the beginnings of a (very rudimentary) economy subsystem. And, as I’ve been saying all along, it was you who did that work, instead of the designer’s at WotC.

Things do not have to be mechanical in order to be significant. I have not created a mechanic, since there is no set rule or formula for success and failure. You keep trying to bring significance back to mechanics only, and that's simply not going to work, except for you and others like you. There can be no universal version of what is significant and what is not, because each person will have their own ideas about which mechanics and non-mechanics are significant.

If counting coppers that you can’t spend on anything with mechanical impact is so important to you, knock yourself out, no one is stopping you. But it’s not neeeded to play the game. To say otherwise is to “One True Way” the people who don’t care about tracking coinage. People are perfectly free to play the game with or without coin tracking, but if individual coins don’t matter to the rules, then please don’t waste wordcount in the rulebook on coin values and exchange rates.

You do realize that here is no given rule that exists in D&D that is needed to play the game. All of it can be changed and/or removed and you can still play the game. If you are going to try and define significant as "needed to play the game," then nothing in D&D is significant.

Mechanics and roleplaying are not dichotomous. Treating them as zero sum values like this is nonsense, because game mechanics do not prevent roleplaying and roleplaying does not diminish game mechanics.

Color me curious, but what else is there besides mechanics and roleplay when it comes to playing a PC? And you can quit with the Strawmen. I never claimed that mechanics prevented roleplaying or vise versa. I said that I prefer roleplying over mechanics. When I make a decision about something, mechanics take a back seat, which makes them less important to me. To the tune of about 60/40. Some people prefer mechanics more than roleplaying and would go the other direction. I'm not making a value judgment about which is better. I'm simply stating what is significant to me.

See, when I say “game mechanics,” you seem to hear “combat-related stat boosts.” That is not what the term means and it is not what I am using the term to mean.

No. I hear mechanics. Not all magic items are about combat, nor are stats all about combat. Nor were those two examples anything other than a few examples.

I do not devalue roleplaying. Roleplaying is the most important part of the game to me. But I like roleplaying choices to have weight. Mechanics can and do enhance roleplaying, by assigning risk and reward to your choices. Making it a game, as opposed to just a story. I enjoy telling stories, but I enjoy it more when there is an element of challenge. When there are rules that guide the storytelling rather than leaving it freeform. When it’s a roleplaying GAME as opposed to just roleplaying.

The game has never been freeform. Nor has it ever had a mechanic for everything. If you want some sort of gold mechanic, you're going to have to create one. For me, the trivially simple ability to just use gold for whatever my PCs want to pursue with it is sufficient. I don't need the game list out every possible way gold can be spent.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right. I'm working from the definition of significant. You seem to mean something else and are using significant. It would help if you used the right term.

English words have multiple definitions. The one you are using here is only one of them. “sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy“ is indeed one thing “significant” can mean. Statistical significance is another, which is why I brought it up. Another is “having a particular meaning; indicative of something.”

Yes, but so what. None of the stuff we aren't interested in has any significance.

They all have particular meaning within the the game rules, so they do indeed meet the definition of significant.

Things do not have to be mechanical in order to be significant.

Sure. They need to be mechanical to have particular meaning within the game’s rules system. Now can we please leave this pedantry aside and focus on the actual discussion of gold’s use in the game?

I have not created a mechanic, since there is no set rule or formula for success and failure.

Really? Then kindly tell me how you determine whether or not the bribe succeeds or fails without a formula. I’ll wait.

You keep trying to bring significance back to mechanics only, and that's simply not going to work, except for you and others like you. There can be no universal version of what is significant and what is not, because each person will have their own ideas about which mechanics and non-mechanics are significant.

Fine. What word would you like me to use to mean “signifying* something within the rules system,” oh great and wise master of semantics?

*wow, would look at that shared Latin root

You do realize that here is no given rule that exists in D&D that is needed to play the game. All of it can be changed and/or removed and you can still play the game. If you are going to try and define significant as "needed to play the game," then nothing in D&D is significant.

Are we really going down this route? You really want to Ship of Theseus the D&D ruleset? Because the community’s reaction to 4e is pretty clear evidence that there are rules that make something D&D and rules that make something “not D&D.” No, there is no individual rule that is needed to play D&D. But there are rules that are essential to the subsystems which comprise D&D as a game system, and there are rules that are not. Counting coins is in the latter category.

Color me curious, but what else is there besides mechanics and roleplay when it comes to playing a PC? And you can quit with the Strawmen. I never claimed that mechanics prevented roleplaying or vise versa. I said that I prefer roleplying over mechanics. When I make a decision about something, mechanics take a back seat, which makes them less important to me. To the tune of about 60/40. Some people prefer mechanics more than roleplaying and would go the other direction. I'm not making a value judgment about which is better. I'm simply stating what is significant to me.

The way you are presenting mechanics and roleplay here is fundamentally incompatible with my view of them. You set them up as two separate components of playing a character. You talk about your decision making process as being influenced portionally by each discrete element totaling 100%. Whereas I would say that roleplaying is a thing you do, and mechanics gamify the act of roleplaying. My decisions when playing D&D aren’t influenced fractionally by roleplaying and fractionally by mechanics in a zero-sum way, where each percent I’m influenced by one is a percent I’m not influenced by the other. It’s 100% roleplaying and 100% by mechanics. They are each an inseparable part of the other, because D&D is a roleplaying game.

No. I hear mechanics. Not all magic items are about combat, nor are stats all about combat. Nor were those two examples anything other than a few examples.

Interesting, because your comment that kicked off this argument was, “I've never once heard anyone complain about there's no reason for money because there's now way to buy something that makes you empirically better at your job. "What's the point of winning the lottery if it can't increase my chances of winning a fight against muggers?" The implication there certainly seems to be that you think lack of combat mechanics is the reason some people find gold to not be useful in D&D.

The game has never been freeform. Nor has it ever had a mechanic for everything. If you want some sort of gold mechanic, you're going to have to create one. For me, the trivially simple ability to just use gold for whatever my PCs want to pursue with it is sufficient. I don't need the game list out every possible way gold can be spent.

Yes, I am aware that I have to make up a gold economy system myself if I want one in D&D. That is quite literally the thing I have been saying this entire time. If you want gold to matter (read: to signify something with particular meaning within the mechanical system of rules known as Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition), you have to do the work to make it matter yourself, because it doesn’t in the rules as written.

 

[Shasarak]

Well, yes, transitioning from gold not being needed for anything to gold being needed for things is naturally going to mean you have to pay for more things. That’s kind of the point.

I think that neatly sums it up for me.

 

[5ekyu]

Even if one refuses to look beyond the baaic mechanics, using gold to buy diamonds and make donations of significant size to temples of like minds so as to be as assured of raise or rezz as possible (for you or even allies) seems like a worthwhile investment.

 

[Maxperson]

English words have multiple definitions. The one you are using here is only one of them. “sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy“ is indeed one thing “significant” can mean. Statistical significance is another, which is why I brought it up. Another is “having a particular meaning; indicative of something.”

Statistical significance simply does not apply, though. You can't shove a definition that isn't relevant into the mix.

Here is the definition you are trying to kludge through, "Statistically significant is the likelihood that a relationship between two or more variables is caused by something other than chance."

That isn't meaningful in a comparison of mechanics and non-mechanics.

They all have particular meaning within the the game rules, so they do indeed meet the definition of significant.

To you. If you would just admit that these statements of yours only apply to you, my objections would go away.

Sure. They need to be mechanical to have particular meaning within the game’s rules system.

Prove that claim. For my part, I see that the rules system includes non-mechanics that have great meaning.

Really? Then kindly tell me how you determine whether or not the bribe succeeds or fails without a formula. I’ll wait.

There's only ever a roll if the outcome is uncertain. The DM can decide yes or no without a formula. That's part of the rules.

Are we really going down this route? You really want to Ship of Theseus the D&D ruleset? Because the community’s reaction to 4e is pretty clear evidence that there are rules that make something D&D and rules that make something “not D&D.” No, there is no individual rule that is needed to play D&D. But there are rules that are essential to the subsystems which comprise D&D as a game system, and there are rules that are not. Counting coins is in the latter category.

The bolded portion means that the part after it really isn't true. If a rule were essential, it would be needed to play D&D.

The way you are presenting mechanics and roleplay here is fundamentally incompatible with my view of them. You set them up as two separate components of playing a character. You talk about your decision making process as being influenced portionally by each discrete element totaling 100%. Whereas I would say that roleplaying is a thing you do, and mechanics gamify the act of roleplaying. My decisions when playing D&D aren’t influenced fractionally by roleplaying and fractionally by mechanics in a zero-sum way, where each percent I’m influenced by one is a percent I’m not influenced by the other. It’s 100% roleplaying and 100% by mechanics. They are each an inseparable part of the other, because D&D is a roleplaying game.

I'm not separating anything. I'm telling you how much weight of importance I give to each category. Some people prefer mechanics more than roleplay. I prefer roleplay more than mechanics. Yet others prefer an equal balance. That isn't a separation. It's just telling you where my focus is.

Interesting, because your comment that kicked off this argument was, “I've never once heard anyone complain about there's no reason for money because there's now way to buy something that makes you empirically better at your job. "What's the point of winning the lottery if it can't increase my chances of winning a fight against muggers?" The implication there certainly seems to be that you think lack of combat mechanics is the reason some people find gold to not be useful in D&D.

That wasn't my comment.

Yes, I am aware that I have to make up a gold economy system myself if I want one in D&D. That is quite literally the thing I have been saying this entire time. If you want gold to matter (read: to signify something with particular meaning within the mechanical system of rules known as Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition), you have to do the work to make it matter yourself, because it doesn’t in the rules as written.

No. If YOU want gold to matter, YOU have to do the work to make it matter yourself. I don't have to do any work, because it already matters in the rules as written. The Downtime Activities section consists of rules that are written and covers much of what I have been saying. You play the game differently than I do, and that difference has created this problem for you.

 

[5ekyu]

Statistical significance simply does not apply, though. You can't shove a definition that isn't relevant into the mix.

Here is the definition you are trying to kludge through, "Statistically significant is the likelihood that a relationship between two or more variables is caused by something other than chance."

That isn't meaningful in a comparison of mechanics and non-mechanics.



To you. If you would just admit that these statements of yours only apply to you, my objections would go away.



Prove that claim. For my part, I see that the rules system includes non-mechanics that have great meaning.



There's only ever a roll if the outcome is uncertain. The DM can decide yes or no without a formula. That's part of the rules.



The bolded portion means that the part after it really isn't true. If a rule were essential, it would be needed to play D&D.




I'm not separating anything. I'm telling you how much weight of importance I give to each category. Some people prefer mechanics more than roleplay. I prefer roleplay more than mechanics. Yet others prefer an equal balance. That isn't a separation. It's just telling you where my focus is.



That wasn't my comment.


No. If YOU want gold to matter, YOU have to do the work to make it matter yourself. I don't have to do any work, because it already matters in the rules as written. The Downtime Activities section consists of rules that are written and covers much of what I have been saying. You play the game differently than I do, and that difference has created this problem for you.

Regarding this...

"There's only ever a roll if the outcome is uncertain. The DM can decide yes or no without a formula. That's part of the rules."

The key thing about 5e (not unique to 5e) is that there will not usually be a formula but instead a guideline and a circumstance. These are used by the GM to set the difficulties not variables for a formula of all things.

For bribery, it would depend on so msny factors its hard to see a formula thats not this way and manageable.

How satisfied is the mark with their circumstance? Hoe afriad is the mark of punishment?
Is the mark vulnerable to this approach due to moral failing, ill treatment, poor pay or other unexpected need (many or all could be alteady known, discovered or even setup by the PCs?)
What is the nature of the act? Does it break some other code of the mark to break this or align with one?
What social or economic strata are we working at?


Many of these add to the basic DC determination and the amount of the bribe and nature of the approach may allow advantage or disad - but where that value is will vary with all the factors above.

Example - enough to make a significant improvement (rebuild the burned out barn or fine marble headstone for dead son) for a one time risky act is minimum. But, an amount able to make that improvement and more (also buy neighboring parcel, get family moved to safer richer land or raise/rezz the dead son) boosts to advantage.

Thats the strength of the guidelines and choice over gazillions of set DC approach. Fewer formulas, more interactions that matter.

 

[Charlaquin]

Statistical significance simply does not apply, though. You can't shove a definition that isn't relevant into the mix.

Here is the definition you are trying to kludge through, "Statistically significant is the likelihood that a relationship between two or more variables is caused by something other than chance."

That isn't meaningful in a comparison of mechanics and non-mechanics.

Statistical significance is not the definition I’m using here, it’s just a random third example of a definition of significant, one that is also objective. The one I am using here is”having a particular meaning; indicative of something.” Like I said.

To you. If you would just admit that these statements of yours only apply to you, my objections would go away.

I will gladly “admit” that the rules are not worthy of attention for everyone. I’ve never claimed otherwise. But it makes no sense to claim that the rules are only indicative of something to some people. They are either indicative or they are not, it is an objective quality.

Prove that claim. For my part, I see that the rules system includes non-mechanics that have great meaning.

“Non-mechanical elements don’t have a particular meaning within the system of game mechanics” is not a positive claim, the burden of proof is not on me. I also don’t think it’s particularly outlandish to claim that things that aren’t mechanics don’t have meaning within systems of mechanics. It may or may not have meaning to you personally, but that’s not what I’m talking about. Again, tell me what word you want me to use instead of “significant” to mean, “means something in terms of the rules system” and I’ll gladly use it instead, because I’m getting pretty sick of this bickering over semantics.

There's only ever a roll if the outcome is uncertain. The DM can decide yes or no without a formula. That's part of the rules.

I didn’t say without a roll. I said without a formula. If there is a number about be which the guard will accept and below which the guard won’t accept, that’s a formula. A basic formula, but a formula. If that number can be changed by player actions, that’s a more complex formula. If the outcome relies on a randomly generated number (a dice roll), that’s a more complex formula. But the simple if/then statement if gold offered is >=#, then bribe is accepted is a formula all on its own. That’s a game mechanic. Not all game mechanics involve dice and modifiers.

The bolded portion means that the part after it really isn't true. If a rule were essential, it would be needed to play D&D.

No individual rule is essential to play D&D, but some individual rules are essential to the function of subsystems of rules, and certain subsystems of rules are essential to the identity of D&D. As evidenced by the overal community reactions to 4e. Some critical mass of different rules made it “not real D&D” to a significant portion of the fans. Likewise, if you changed or removed every individual rule in D&D, you’d have a very hard time trying to make a case that what you’re playing is D&D.

I'm not separating anything. I'm telling you how much weight of importance I give to each category. Some people prefer mechanics more than roleplay. I prefer roleplay more than mechanics. Yet others prefer an equal balance. That isn't a separation. It's just telling you where my focus is.

The way your are talking about them as two things, one of which you might have a preference for over the other, is where our views of roleplaying and mechanics fundamentally diverges. In my view, one can’t “prefer the mechanics over the roleplay” as there is no distinction. It’s a roleplaying game, engaging with its mechanics is an act of roleplaying. One could perhaps prefer the mechanics over the narrative, but roleplaying is making decisions as you imagine you might in the role you are playing, which is precisely what an RPG’s mechanics exist to facilitate.

That wasn't my comment.

Oh, my bad. I apologize for misconstruing your argument.

No. If YOU want gold to matter, YOU have to do the work to make it matter yourself. I don't have to do any work, because it already matters in the rules as written.

*sigh* I was using the general form of the word “you.”

You know, it’s realky a pain having to word my posts like I’m writing a technical manual instead of speaking conversationally. I’ll use “one” instead of the general form of “you” if you insist, but this conversation would go a lot more smoothly if you just used an iota of contextual interpretation.

The Downtime Activities section consists of rules that are written and covers much of what I have been saying. You play the game differently than I do, and that difference has created this problem for you.

It really doesn’t though, for reasons I have already discussed - they are trivially inexpensive (which I know is a problem that can be fixed by distributing less gold, but a. that’s work on my part to adjust and b. It’s only half the problem) and they offer no benefits or consequences with mechanical impact (which I know I could make up, but again, that’s more work on my part.) So, again, we comeback to, “if ONE wants gold to have a use that has relevance within the system of mechanics known as D&D 5e, ONE has to do the work to make it so themselves.” This is not a condemnation of anyone’s playbstyle preferences. If you don’t mind that the uses for gold are purely narrative, that’s absolutely fine. Great, even. Enjoy the game catering to your preferences. Please don’t tell ME I’m wrong for lamenting that I don’t have anything I consider worth spending gold on.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

[MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION], I have the precise same issues with 5e's lack of (for me) meaningful gp spending. Luckily, [MENTION=6688526]Blacky the Blackball[/MENTION] has created a free supplement that puts a price on magic items, based on the treasure tables in the DMG. The supplement even allows you to play gold-as-xp!

He has also converted the domain and mass combat rules from the old companion set, for even more ways to spend gold with mechanical effect.

Check it out: https://gurbintrollgames.wordpress.com/blackballs-treasure-2/

 

[Sadras]

[MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION], I have the precise same issues with 5e's lack of (for me) meaningful gp spending. Luckily, [MENTION=6688526]Blacky the Blackball[/MENTION] has created a free supplement that puts a price on magic items, based on the treasure tables in the DMG. The supplement even allows you to play gold-as-xp!

He has also converted the domain and mass combat rules from the old companion set, for even more ways to spend gold with mechanical effect.

Check it out: https://gurbintrollgames.wordpress.com/blackballs-treasure-2/

Thank for this. I have only quickly perused the PDF but it seems very useful and well thought out. I do like that he appears to explain his reason for the costing of each item in the last chapter.