Why I don't like Wealth by Level guidelines

[Umbran]

HOWEVER, the less the players are allowed to set the acceptable challenge level (i.e., the more the GM determines what they will do) the more important such guidelines become.

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.

3e and 4e have tossed that aside, so that players aren't generally going to be able to knowingly set the acceptable challenge level, because they usually don't know the power of a critter before they engage. When I say, "It is an orc," it could be a 1 hit die orc, or it could be an orc with 15 fighter levels.

Either way, though:

If the players are going to set the acceptable challenge level, they can only do so with information from the GM. The GM has to know what the relative power level is between the party and the encounter to be able to communicate it, and the guidelines help with that.

If the players aren't going to set the challenge level, then the GM does, and again, the guidelines help with that.

I don't see a case there where the guidelines are somehow less than extremely useful to the GM.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

3e and 4e have tossed that aside, so that players aren't generally going to be able to knowingly set the acceptable challenge level, because they usually don't know the power of a critter before they engage. When I say, "It is an orc," it could be a 1 hit die orc, or it could be an orc with 15 fighter levels.

This I agree with.

The GM has to know what the relative power level is between the party and the encounter to be able to communicate it, and the guidelines help with that.

This I do not. The rules, coupled with experience, are pretty good teachers, IMHO and IME.

The only problem with guidelines is when, as has certainly happened, they become de facto rules. Threads too numerous to mention, on this site and others, demonstrate that this can, and does, happen.


RC

 

[Wik]

You realize, that at least in d20, those wealth by level guidelines are not entitlements don't you?

They are guidelines for starting equipment for making characters who start at that level, not for characters who have had years of adventuring experience starting at level one.

I think you misread the original post. Those WbL guidelines are often considered "entitlements" by players, and they become a straitjacket for many GMs. I know this all too well, because I felt I was in that straitjacket when I played 3e. And the current treasure packet system is even worse - it is probably my biggest beef with the 4e rules.

In other words, if a character reaches level five he does not automatically get all that gold or items. They do get it if they start at level five.

In other words, if the GM doesn't follow the guidelines, one of two things happen:

1) You'd be better off making a new character at level 5, because your current level 5 character is "undertreasured". In fact, this is a good option even if your current character is close to his expected wealth... because when you make your new character, you can customize your gear to fit your new character!
2) You make a character that is now under-equipped to the rest of the group, and unable to swing at the same level as everyone else. Which means that when you die, the rest of the group gets your gear.... meaning they have even more wealth than you do the next time you create a PC.

In other words you are not guaranteed to get that +5 weapon at level 25 unless you started at level 25.

So, if I want that +5 weapon, I better make a new PC when I hit level 25. To hell with that guy I've been playing for two or more years. I want my holy avenger!

They are also a way to help the DM to determine what personal items an NPC could have as well.

Which is fine. The problem is, that 5th level aristocrat should probably have a lot of money, and not much in the way of items. That 5th level warrior should probably have a lot less. Those rules, as written, don't differentiate. These guidelines work great as guidelines.... but they are often taken as an extension of the rules, and that creates problems.

The guildelines were written with the highest of intentions, but they backfired and were considered by MANY to be de facto rules. This is a common complaint among adventure writers - if they don't follow the WbL guidelines, they don't get printed, or if they do get printed, the first complaint fired against them is that they don't follow the "rules".

Which leads to every 5th level dungeon having the same degree of treasure. And all those fun items getting dumped by players who need to fill their big six slots with boring items to stay in the "monster curve".

Because let's face it, a player who's had more experience from level 1 is more than likely to have more money that the level guidelines, and possibly even better stuff that's worth more that the level guidelines.

Not true, at least in my experiences with D&D. The only way this happens is if the GM is giving out awards in line with his players' "wish lists", and only that, or if the PCs are always selling gear to buy their dream items, and are clever with their acquisition and retention of treasure.

If the GM hands out interesting magic items that don't fit one of the big six slots (Amulets of Protection/Natural Armour, Rings of Protection, Magic Weapon, Magic Shield, Magic Armour, and Belts/Girdles), then PCs fall behind on the curve. In other words, if you give out a lot of magic carpets, decanters of endless water, cubic gates, ioun stones, figurines of wondrous power, and the like, and less +X items, your players will fall behind.

And in those cases, the new guys, who got to choose their own stuff, are going to come out a helluva lot better. I've seen this happen many, MANY times. In one 3e adventure path I ran, at around 6th level all of the PCs except one were swapped out, partially so the players could cherry-pick their new items.

I'm sure there are playstyles that can ignore this in actual play, and if you've found yourself in one of those playstyles, you're a lucky guy. Unfortunately, not everyone finds themselves in that boat, and WbL guidelines can reward all sorts of play that is really not conducive to long-term, immersive ("simulationist" style) campaign play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

These guidelines work great as guidelines.... but they are often taken as an extension of the rules, and that creates problems.

Truth!

In another thread, there is a poster who has taken some guidelines found in the 1e DMG and defined them as "the mechanics" to "prove" that NPCs are mechanically different from PCs, despite the existence of other guidelines that say different.

Even when someone writes "These are only guidelines" repeatedly, throughout the text of said guidelines, there are those who will mistake them for mechanics (i.e., rules).

I think game designers do need to offer guidelines that mesh well with expected play paradigms, but they need to be mindful of how those guidelines are going to be perceived. I.e., there is a reason why those old TSR books keep saying "BUT CHECK WITH YOUR DM FIRST!" (or words to that effect), and sometimes that still isn't enough.


RC

 

[Umbran]

The rules, coupled with experience, are pretty good teachers, IMHO and IME.

Right. And until they've gotten all that experience, we don't really care how things go for them? Last time I checked (two threads over, I think), the steep learning curve was generally considered a barrier to entry. If you really want to maintain or increase that barrier... well, let's just say I don't consider that a very user-friendly stance for a publisher to take.

The only problem with guidelines is when, as has certainly happened, they become de facto rules.

Who is writing these games - game designers or babysitters? Someone might get the wrong idea, so nobody gets to have the information? One time, I saw a person tear a page out of a rulebook and eat it. Do now we need to put, "Warning, choking hazard!" on every page too?

These aren't issues of national security, or something, where the best answer to the potential misuse of information may be to keep things secret and opaque. The best response to potential misuse of information is not withholding that information - it is education about how to use the information wisely! The truth will set you free, and all that.

 

[Wik]

I think game designers do need to offer guidelines that mesh well with expected play paradigms, but they need to be mindful of how those guidelines are going to be perceived. I.e., there is a reason why those old TSR books keep saying "BUT CHECK WITH YOUR DM FIRST!" (or words to that effect), and sometimes that still isn't enough.
RC

I agree fully. I think taking up a bit of page space with fairly constant reminders to check with your DM, or "these are only recommendations" or something to that effect is a great idea for the game, because it helps divorce players from "onetruewayism" that sometimes creeps into later editions/games (it's not just D&D that suffers from this).

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Right. And until they've gotten all that experience, we don't really care how things go for them? Last time I checked (two threads over, I think), the steep learning curve was generally considered a barrier to entry. If you really want to maintain or increase that barrier... well, let's just say I don't consider that a very user-friendly stance for a publisher to take.

If they only rely on the guidelines they have very little chance to learn and grow. If the come to believe increasing WbL is how it should be they lose out on a lot of design space. In fact 2 alternative WbL guidelines (stationary WbL and decreasing WbL) are better suited for certain types of campaigns.

If I was doing a Conquistadors vs the Aztecs or Romans vs the Celts campaign, Stationary WbL could work better to represent the Spaniards' and Romans' better equipment (they would have +2 equipment IMO) verses the Aztecs and Celts very basic (+0) equipment.

If I was doing a war campaign where the PCs' side is expected to take heavy loses over the campaign, decreasing WbL could effectively model the lose of resources as the war dragged on.

Who is writing these games - game designers or babysitters? Someone might get the wrong idea, so nobody gets to have the information? One time, I saw a person tear a page out of a rulebook and eat it. Do now we need to put, "Warning, choking hazard!" on every page too?

No one is saying that, but I should probably make it clearer. The best thing for designers to do is to do the same, make it clearer that WbL is guidelines and not expected treasure by level which is how its been taken often.

These aren't issues of national security, or something, where the best answer to the potential misuse of information may be to keep things secret and opaque. The best response to potential misuse of information is not withholding that information - it is education about how to use the information wisely! The truth will set you free, and all that.

The problem is that the current generation of designers, GMs and players have been badly educated by the previous generation, and we are only just now starting to realize that various problems in our education exist. Would we be discussing things like 3.Xs Fighter/Wizard power disparity if we had been better educated about high-level Fighter/Wizard balance in 1e and 2e?

 

[MerricB]

One of the interesting things to consider is what effect having a 10-12th level character with *no* magic items does in each edition, compared to having the standard (expected) items.

In AD&D, you're possibly talking about a 3 to 6 point swing to AC, and a 3-point swing in to-hit chances and damage, plus the possibility that there are certain monsters you can't damage (immunity to non-magical weapons).

In 3E, the swing in AC is far more noticeable: you could well be talking about a 10 point variance (gloves of Dex, magic armour, magic shield, ring of protection); the attack and damage bonuses are less swingy and are closer to AD&D. (about 3 points). There are also monsters you are much less effective against (damage reduction vs non-magical weapons).

In 4E, you're back to AD&D levels of variance to AC, attack bonuses and damage bonuses. I don't think there are any non-magical weapon resistant monsters, but I might be wrong. In fact, with the lack of AC-affecting magic shields, AC drops to a 3 point swing level, although damage might be a couple of points higher due to bracers. (Of course, AD&D has Ogre and Giant-Strength items, which could be pretty important).

The other point of difference is that 4E weapons are far more significant when critical hits occur... but for the most part, that doesn't happen *that* often.

Of course, the underlying mathematics and power curves of each edition are quite different.

Cheers!

 

[S'mon]

IME the 3e wealth by level chart works great for creating new higher level PCs - as long as the current PCs have well over listed wealth by level. In fact the more over they are, the better, because the more magic they have, the less the power disparity between the Wizard/Cleric/Druid power combo and the poor old non-casters.

4e has far less need of wealth by level, and is a far more robust system IME. 4e PCs are balanced between classes at any level of magic gear. If the 4e PCs are under-equipped they can still have fun fighting lower level monsters; XP advancement will be a bit slower but not vastly so. If over-equipped they can fight higher level monsters, and since 4e monster power scales *faster* than monster XP awards (unlike 1e-2e), they may not advance much faster at all; fights give more XP but may well take longer to play. And wealth within an order of magnitude makes little difference in 4e anyway.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Who is writing these games - game designers or babysitters? Someone might get the wrong idea, so nobody gets to have the information?

Can you explain to me how "Provide full information" becomes "Babysit" or "Provide no information"? Because the full information is making damn sure that guidelines are guidelines. And making sure that it is very clear that those guidelines need not be followed.

Making sure that people understand guidelines are only that; that they can be broken, folded, spindled, or mutilated....this isn't some issue of national security, or something, where the best answer to the potential poor violation of guidelines may be to make that they are guidelines more opaque - it is education about how to use the information wisely! Right?!?

In other words, I think game designers do need to offer guidelines that mesh well with expected play paradigms, but they need to be mindful of how those guidelines are going to be perceived. I.e., there is a reason why those old TSR books keep saying "BUT CHECK WITH YOUR DM FIRST!" (or words to that effect), and sometimes that still isn't enough.

Sound familiar?


RC