Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9332725" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Mind you, the existence of the wargames (and Braunsteins, FKS, etc.) that inspired D&D in the first place suggests that people find tracking funds and properties and the like can be a form of entertainment.However, knowing that most D&D players (particularly after a certain point) weren't coming straight from wargaming, I think that depends on whether Gary thought people were going to regularly run the strongholds, or if it was just an explanation for what your character was doing in their retirement.Certainly the addition of level 7+ spells and high-level planar adventures suggests that Gary and the future devs were aware that many people weren't exclusively retiring or playing king & commander at name level.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You stated that Gold was worthless in BX and AD&D, and that giving a use to gp after you acquired it was the reason for training costs as a common house rule.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Reynard stated that they were not a house rule in AD&D.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You made statements that, while interesting and most being true*, are not germane to whether the rules were listed in AD&D, and thus not house rules. *re: 1E being the one where everything was optional: 1e is perhaps the only edition where it's actually stated that you ought to follow all the rules. That no one did is true, but not specific to 1E.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Reynard pointed out that optionality does not change that the rules were there in the books, with the purpose of creating a use for the gp acquired.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You stated, without apparent evidence other than they did not agree with you, that Reynard must not have looked into the rules.</li> </ol>Also, outside of the ordinal count:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At no point did you clarify that you were talking about some other training rules other than the published rules as the house rules; nor why the initial house rules do not count as a use for gold.</li> </ul>Your end conclusion regarding Reynard is not supported by what was stated in-thread. You two are clearly having different conversations. They saw you make the statement that gold had no use and that training rules were a house rule, and perfectly reasonably pointed out that training rules for purpose as use for money were in fact in the book. You seem to be trying having a discussion about successfully implemented rules. That's perfectly fine and reasonable, but then suggesting someone must have done or not done something because they are having the factual words-in-book discussion is, at best, misreading the discussion. A simple, 'Right, sorry, let me clarify... among well-thought-through rules that people actually used, AD&D had no uses for gold, and thus many house rules for training (based on the existing rules, or made up from whole cloth) were implemented.' would have solved this completely.Regarding whether Gary looked at the math, that's a difficult call.  The AD&D rules are clearly not as well playtested as the oD&D rules were. However, it's entirely possible (and not entirely out of character) for him to have deliberately made it such that you could not meet the requirements by straightforward action. He was all about hard decisions, and there are plenty of other examples of 'you're not going to win this by playing fair' kind of moments in the game rules.Maybe it was intended that one should have to borrow funds, or agree to services rendered in exchange for training (there are rules for that in the training rules as well), or selling ones' precious magic items ... or just plain have to waste a bunch of earned XP while you acquire additional GP to reach the training costs for the level-up you've otherwise already earned.I have to agree, mind you, about how this works when the rubber meets the road. Especially looking at the multiplier for behavior. A thief, for instance, can get a poor rating for either boldly engaging in combat or for being cautious, leaving a very tenuous middle ground in which for them to work.</blockquote>

Verification