Why I don't like Wealth by Level guidelines

[MichaelSomething]

Spoonfed answers lead to blind acceptance of them as truth barring experience or knowledge to the contrary.

I think the expectation of what an rpg should provide has changed drastically over the years. The role of published material has likewise undergone a shift in perceived utility even as the actual content remains largely the same.

Some time ago, the rulebooks were rather clear that ALL information in them was of a guideline variety. Having to point out specific content as guideline vs hard rules is a shift in presentation all by itself.

Part of the issue here is that rpgs have been expected to perform "out of the box" much like other types of games. Players pressed for time want everything laid out by the numbers. This makes a game simpler to master but not really easier to learn.

The gaining of experience at playing rpgs is part of the fun, not a barrier to entry. Unless of course you find yourself in an environment that features "performance standards" and requires system mastery to fully enjoy playing. Honestly, its crap like that that provides more of a barrier to entry than anything else.

In our earliest days of play we didn't use the rules "correctly" and there were so few of them that large parts of the game were just made up as we went along- as intended.

The experience of having so little rules structure wasn't a barrier at all. In fact, the lack of structure strengthened us as players and DMs.

Do more comprehensive rules really provide more guidance? If the answer is yes my next question is guidance on what? Following the very rules that seek to provide......something?

Quick question: What do you think of WOTC's explanations of how to run Skill Challenges?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Ah, but the truth about the inherent bonus system in 4e is that they are still the Wealth by Level guidelines just with a different coat of paint. You still gain a +1 bonus to hit, damage and the 4 defenses within every 5 level section. You could have the same effect if you dropped +1 per 5 levels modifiers from magic items and gave monsters a -1 modifier per 5 levels to hit, damage and their 4 defense and maybe -1 hp per level for every 5 levels.

Actually the 4e inherent bonuses allow you to almost totally dump any semblance of wealth by level. They fill the big 3, and that's basically the only area that's ever an issue in terms of expected norms. Everything else is optional extras.

And the big difference between what you propose and the inherent bonus system is that with inherent bonuses you can still hand out items way beyond the curve. You need some extra rules in your version if you want to give an extra-special +4 magic sword to the party.

OD&D, 1e, and 2e were a little peculiar, in that monsters had generally set stats. If the players identified an orc, or a red dragon of a particular size, and they knew the monster books, they had a pretty solid idea of what they were dealing with. If the GM didn't obfuscate that information, the players could pick the acceptable challenge level, by walking away from things that were tougher than they wanted to take on.

Monsters had set stats except for the most important stat of all, hitpoints. If the players identified a red dragon, it could have anywhere from 10 - 100hp (that might not be correct, but a swing in hitpoints by a factor of 10 isn't uncommon).

Personally I think what is much, much more useful that "wealth by level" guidelines are "here's the basic assumptions we made when we designed monsters".

The fact that you expect each character to have magic items that give them +1/5 levels to defenses, attacks and damage is a good guideline.

Saying that means they should have a magic item of level +1, one of level and one of level -1 is stupid: you didn't balance around having a flying carpet, a bottle of smoke and a bag of tricks.

Devolving that further into a bundle of cash is even worse.

Giving X gp of treasure per 10 encounters AND saying "we expect +1/5 levels" is pretty much the worst of all - because it leads to the issues we have now where people will dump cool and interesting magic items to get their +x/tier sword, +x/tier armor and +x/tier amulet, because that's what they believe is needed to be competitive, and the developers have agreed.

The solution - pay close attention to the bonuses your characters have, and ignore wealth. Give as much or as little as you want and restrict the acquisition of +X items, making sure they line up with the expectations.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Well, let me sound a dissenting note. As a DM, I like wealth by level quidelines.

1. It frees me from the need to select and place treasure. I can just tell the players: You have gained a level. You now have X gp to spend on new equipment (or alternatively, in 4E: You get a new magic item of level A and B gp to spend on new equipment).

Huh... I wonder do your players sound or feel excited to choose their magic items when they reach a new level or do they have the benign disinterest of someone whose doing there weekly grocery shopping?

2. It cuts down on a potential source of player-DM conflict. Not that I personally need it for my group, but wealth-by-level guidelines are a neutral and objective way to answer the question: How much treasure should a PC have? While wealth-by-level guidelines have been criticized for fuelling the players' sense of entitlement, the flip side of the coin is that they also serve to moderate player expectations. Low-level players don't expect to find a +5 holy avenger on an adventure, and they will likely not be bothering the DM to give them one - at least for a few levels.

Through out all the editions I've played (OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.X & 4th), I have never met a player (even one as young as six) without the implicit understanding that a +5 holy avenger was a high level item that required first going through items with bonuses of +1, +2, +3 and +4 and then doing some great deed before getting one. The how fast they expect to go through the bonuses and the deed itself varied, but they all expected to earn it somehow if they were going to get it.

3. I'm not in the business of rewarding my players. We are friends and equals. When I DM, I'm in charge of running the game and making sure that everyone has an enjoyable time, but I don't dole out rewards (or punishments) like a parent, teacher or supervisor.

Do you give out the same amount of xp when the PCs run from a fight as when they win one? If so, what are the possible reasons for players to ever take risks?

4. It helps manintain the balance between the PCs, and between the PCs and challenges. If I ensure that characters of level X have the standard wealth that the game assumes, that is one less factor that I have to take into account when deciding what would be a suitable challenge. And characters with equal amounts of wealth are more likely to be able to contribute equally in most situations. I consider both these things to be plus points.

WbL guidelines don't actually do that. I even explained what was wrong with this line of reasoning in a previous post, and that one was talking about creature design.

5. At the end of the day, guidelines are only guidelines. I can break them if I want - and I do from time to time. I just need to be a bit more careful when I do so. And as for influencing DMs one way or another, well, DMs who want to ignore the guidelines will, whether or not they are given explicit permission. DMs who always want to follow the guidelines will, even if they are given explicit permission not to. And the DMs who will only ignore the guidelines if they are given explicit permission to - how many people like that really exist, anyway?

Quiet a lot actually, I've known several GMs and players who won't do various things unless you give them proof that they can and then they get very flexible.

 

[Lanefan]

And the DMs who will only ignore the guidelines if they are given explicit permission to - how many people like that really exist, anyway?

A scary, scary number.

It's sad, really.

Lanefan

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Actually the 4e inherent bonuses allow you to almost totally dump any semblance of wealth by level. They fill the big 3, and that's basically the only area that's ever an issue in terms of expected norms. Everything else is optional extras.

So are you saying that the 4e Inherent bonus system can handle a 1st level fighter having the inherent bonuses of Vorpal or a Warlock have access to the traits and daily powers of 3 different rods simultaneously? Because I don't think 4e can handle that.

And the big difference between what you propose and the inherent bonus system is that with inherent bonuses you can still hand out items way beyond the curve. You need some extra rules in your version if you want to give an extra-special +4 magic sword to the party.

I never said anything like that. In the post you quoted, I just pointed out that you can get the same effect as assigning inherent bonuses to PCs by decreasing monsters by the same ratio that inherent and magic item bonuses increase with level.

As for the the effect of a +4 bonus to hit? that is easy to figure out. If you are expecting to hit 50% of the time on a roll of a d20 each +1 bonus increases average damage by 10% and that decreases the time fighting the opponent to 1/1.1 or 90.90% repeating. For a +4 weapon this means that an opponent takes ~70% of the time it normally does to kill.

 

[FireLance]

Huh... I wonder do your players sound or feel excited to choose their magic items when they reach a new level or do they have the benign disinterest of someone whose doing there weekly grocery shopping?

Speaking only for myself, there is a certain level of excitement, or at least, of anticipation. It's kind of like buying yourself a new gizmo or a new computer game - you look forward to using it. It's not as humdrum as weekly shopping - perhaps about the same level as a regular, anticipated treat.

Through out all the editions I've played (OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.X & 4th), I have never met a player (even one as young as six) without the implicit understanding that a +5 holy avenger was a high level item that required first going through items with bonuses of +1, +2, +3 and +4 and then doing some great deed before getting one. The how fast they expect to go through the bonuses and the deed itself varied, but they all expected to earn it somehow if they were going to get it.

Well, if all players are as reasonable as that, we shouldn't have the other problem of complaining about too little treasure, either.

Do you give out the same amount of xp when the PCs run from a fight as when they win one? If so, what are the possible reasons for players to ever take risks?

It's actually a moot question since I don't give out XP. All the PCs just gain a level after every adventure. The PCs take risks because the players think it would be enjoyable, cool, what the PC would do (roleplaying), or because it is the only way the player can think of to achieve an in-game objective. Conversely, the PCs aren't enticed to get into fights that they don't need to in order to gain an XP award (unless the players simply enjoy the tactical challenge of winning fights, of course - I'm DMed for a number of such players in my time).

WbL guidelines don't actually do that. I even explained what was wrong with this line of reasoning in a previous post, and that one was talking about creature design.

I would argue that wealth by level guidelines do. Removing the assumed bonus from wealth by level simply imposes a different guideline: that the assumed wealth at each level is close to starting level. Under such a system, the "swing" in effectiveness between a character with mundane equipment and the best possible equipment should also be kept fairly small - six points (as in 4E) might be workable, but I personally would keep it to four, assuming a d20 used as a randomizer. If monsters are designed around the assumption that they will be fought with +2 equipment, then the character fighting them with mundane gear would be at an effective -2 penalty and the character fighting them with the best equipment would be at an effective +2 bonus. Enough, I think, to make the impact of the difference in equipment felt without making it either to difficult for one or too easy for the other. And I still think that wealth by level guidelines make it easier to ensure that each PC has roughly equivalent gear.

Quiet a lot actually, I've known several GMs and players who won't do various things unless you give them proof that they can and then they get very flexible.

Sigh. I don't know whether this is heartening or depressing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Quick question: What do you think of WOTC's explanations of how to run Skill Challenges?

Link them and I will give an opinion.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think a big part of the problem with D&D treasure guidelines is not the guidelines, or presentation of same, but the facts that those guidelines are trying to navigate. Equipment is scary important in some ways, and not very important at all in other ways. This will always cause trouble in a game, unless the group has a good handle on the issue.

It isn't always this obvious, but it is the classic great and powerful widget problem. If you have it, some problems are instantly solved. If you don't have it, some problems are not solvable (at least not in the usual fantasy heroic context). So the DM gets fairly good at both situationally limiting the item and also providing outs for when it is not handy.

Theoretically, D&D could get around this problem by having all magic--especially magic equipment--always and forever be of the nature that it gives alternate ways of solving problems, not superior ways. Of course, in practice and against the wall of expectations and traditions, that would be a tall order. Do that, though, and your equipment guidelines become easy.

 

[Mallus]

Obviously I'm not Firelance, but let me take a crack at a few of these...

Huh... I wonder do your players sound or feel excited to choose their magic items when they reach a new level or do they have the benign disinterest of someone whose doing there weekly grocery shopping?

Our group re-equips w/magic items when they level in a similar manner, and to be honest, equipping our PC's isn't thrilling. But you know what? It shouldn't be. Our campaign is all about the nutty exploits of our brazen and quite possibly certifiable PCs. It's not about our stuff (or the stuff we find). The focus is on the PC's abilities, personalities, and goals, such as they are.

Sure, sometimes we miss the joy of looting that was ever-present in earlier editions. But our campaign is filled with a great deal of other, non-looting activity --note that many great adventure stories are not actually focused on looting-- so it's not a big deal. Also, not everyone thinks the emphasis on gear in ye olde days of D&D is a good thing, where the question of "who is your character" was frequently less important than "what items do you have?"?

The how fast they expect to go through the bonuses and the deed itself varied, but they all expected to earn it somehow if they were going to get it.

You still earn magic items by playing the game. That hasn't changed.

If so, what are the possible reasons for players to ever take risks?

Because taking imaginary risks is fun. Playing out the taking if imaginary risks is fun. Isn't this why people play RPGs?

 

[Dedekind]

I use wealth by level guidelines in two ways:

1) I rarely start at first level. I use the wealth level to establish the baseline.
2) I double check that my PCs have appropriate levels of wealth. I may give out too much or (more likely) too little and I need to add a correction for that.

While I appreciate that the chart puts pressure on a DM to "keep up," my limited experience has found no cases where the players had unreasonable expectations.