Why I don't like Wealth by Level guidelines

[Fifth Element]

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.

Indeed. There's absolutely no harm in providing the guidelines. "You'll figure it out" is crappy advice. Why should new players' play experience suffer, when you can give them a decent starting point?

If the guidelines are interpreted as being more than guidelines, that's a problem with the players and/or DM, not with the guidelines.

 

[the Jester]

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.

Whoa there Tex!! You're overlooking the impact of masterwork armor, which will typically add another +1 at this point.

 

[MerricB]

Whoa there Tex!! You're overlooking the impact of masterwork armor, which will typically add another +1 at this point.

You're right: at this level it's still not that big a swing.

It gets a lot bigger by 30th level, but AD&D wasn't really being played at those levels... or often even at 20th.

Cheers!

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not a fan of wealth-by-level guidelines mostly because both as player and DM I see character wealth as very transitory. Easy come, easy go. As a 5th-level Fighter I could get lucky and find a +4 Longsword in some adventure, and just as easily break the damn thing (and blow my own head off in the process) next time out in the field.

Wealth-by-level straitjackets that sort of thing; the expectation on both sides of the screen become that wealth levels will be much more controlled, but that bad things won't happen to said wealth once a PC has it. Boring.

As for adventure and-or opponent design, it's easy enough to only use what you know your party can handle and-or to tweak the opposition to suit. For example, if you're running a module where the BBEG has DR 20/+3 (or in 1e, can only be hit by +3 weapons or better) and the best weapons the party has are only +2, then dial back the BBEG to DR 20/+2. How hard is that?

... because when you make your new character, you can customize your gear to fit your new character!

You can???

You, sir, play in a different game than I do!

When coming in at higher than 1st level, your starting magic items (and overall wealth) should always be - with an eye to what the character can logically use and-or is proficient with - somewhat randomized, to reflect the in-game realities of not always finding what you want and of sometimes getting robbed or magic-nulled or just plain lucky or whatever.

Lan-"magic available to buy should be completely random in both amount and type"-efan

 

[Janx]

I'm not sure how merric got his estimation of AC in pre3e, i never saw guidelines for pc gear in 2e.

My sense of WbL was that it tried to benchmark monty haulism for the gm. Just like the 13.3333 encounters per level was a benchmark on how much xp to give out.

Without it, a gm had little guidance on if his PCs went up too fast or had too much gear.

Considering Gary was complaining about groups advancing too fast in The Strategic Review #7, its an apt problem.

Perhaps what gms really needed was not the WbL, but the average treasure value per level appropriate encounter.

Thus, a pc isnt entitled to 900gp by 2nd level, but the average cr1 will have 900/13 gold.

So if he seeks out meaningful encounters (or harder ones) he'll get the gold and xp to balance it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Indeed. There's absolutely no harm in providing the guidelines. "You'll figure it out" is crappy advice. Why should new players' play experience suffer, when you can give them a decent starting point?

If the guidelines are interpreted as being more than guidelines, that's a problem with the players and/or DM, not with the guidelines.

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?

 

[MerricB]

I'm not sure how merric got his estimation of AC in pre3e, i never saw guidelines for pc gear in 2e.

There's not much in the way of guidelines, but you can get a good feel for it from the adventures. Just looking at the original tournament characters for Descent into the Depths is a start (I happen to have that adventure with me). Character levels 7-12.

Items: primary weapons between +1 and +3, armour bonuses between +2 and +4 (+2 armour and +2 shield quite common).

Cheers!

 

[pemerton]

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.

This is probably true even if we drop your paranthetical gloss. For example, if the players get to decide what their PCs do, but the GM gets to set the DCs, then the GM (assuming s/he wants to assign the DCs deliberately rather than randomly) needs to have a sense of what DCs correlate to what level of PCs. Wealth-by-level guidelines (or their 4e variant, enhancement-bonus-by-level) help with this. (Though they're not the only way - eg the guidelines could instead offer advice on what sort of success chance the action resolution mechanics presume, but this would then require some statistical analysis which might be harder than just following wealth-by-level guidelines).

Treasure becomes Payment instead of Reward

I think this is the logical endpoint of wealth-by-level guidelines - because even when the guidelines are intended just as a guide to correlating DCs with PC abilities, the easiest way to apply the guide is to follow the guidelines (otherwise, as noted in the previous paragraph, some actual comparison of the PCs' numbers to the range of potential DCs has to become a part of encounter design).

In effect, magic items - or, at least, magic items that boost the statistical parts of a PC that are the basic contributors to the likelihood of success in an ecounter - become part of the character build rules.

(Not that I personally think this is a problem.)

 

[FireLance]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Diamond Cross]

Sigh. Everybody has to change everybody else's rules but nobody wants to change the rules they favor.

It's a bunch of hooey.