Wolfgang Baur Re: Copper Bits and Gleaming Hoards

[Mark CMG]

Adventure Builder - Copper Bits and Gleaming Hoards (Part 4 of 6) by Wolfgang Baur

From the player's perspective, there are just two reasons to risk character's life and limb: experience points and fat loot.

Thoughts?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think there are probably more players who will put their characters in peril for roleplaying reasons than that pithy quote concedes, but I think the majority of the time, he's probably right.

 

[Wik]

makes sense. I've been doing most of that for years. The only thing I hadn't really thought about were "plot coupons", and I personally disagree - I think, in a small amount, they're a lot of fun (after all, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks is STILL one of my favourite adventures!)

 

[Agamon]

I think he's just making a general statement, that, in regards to D&D, is often true. However, I doubt Mr. Baur is so niave to think that there aren't players that get a feeling of satisfaction from simply playing an altruistic hero, among other examples.

 

[Soel]

Yah, one of my favorites adventures was a "plot coupon" one similar to the Rod of Seven Parts. I think he was probably thinking along the lines of them being bad for multiple uses in a campaign.

 

[Gold Roger]

Sheesh, another example of poor frasing of a perfectly fine statement. Can we just asume he said something along the lines of "loot is an important part of the game" and discuss the actual article?

Not to be snarky, but I think the merits of that one sentence are of little importance to the actual article, so why concentrate on it?

I think the "plot coupons" part was only meant that such items make for poor treasure, not for poor adventure design.

There where some nice ideas in there (I liked the idea of a rare horse as treasure), though it wasn't exactly the illumination.

 

[Hussar]

I think he makes excellent points here.

I also like his idea of hiding items DC's - 10+APL. Sweet idea. And gathering up treasures isn't a bad idea either.

 

[Mark CMG]

This thread is meant for discussion of the whole article, of course. The first sentence sets the tone as the article (that's why it is quoted here) which is all about treasure and appealing to the baser instincts of the players. I'm sure if the article were about political intrigue he might be just as emphatic how important RPing is in the first sentence. However, it doesn't hurt to understand the mindset of a designer to get a fuller picture of the tact of his design and clearly Mr. Baur believes players are more about the phat lewt and XP than the RPGing encounters (to use the vernacular though Mr. Baur has, in part one, insisted on foregoing the common terminology in favor of calling them "talking" encounters). Nothing wrong with that, per se, as a design approach if it's his style when designing, but it helps when someone else is approaching his work to understand it as such. Those DMs who have groups that prefer RPing just need to approach his work with an eye toward making adjustments in that regard.

 

[Gold Roger]

This thread is meant for discussion of the whole article, of course. The first sentence sets the tone as the article (that's why it is quoted here) which is all about treasure and appealing to the baser instincts of the players. I'm sure if the article were about political intrigue he might be just as emphatic how important RPing is in the first sentence. However, it doesn't hurt to understand the mindset of a designer to get a fuller picture of the tact of his design and clearly Mr. Baur believes players are more about the phat lewt and XP than the RPGing encounters (to use the vernacular though Mr. Baur has, in part one, insisted on foregoing the common terminology in favor of calling them "talking" encounters). Nothing wrong with that, per se, as a design approach if it's his style when designing, but it helps when someone else is approaching his work to understand it as such. Those DMs who have groups that prefer RPing just need to approach his work with an eye toward making adjustments in that regard.

You see, I don't think that's a fair evaluation. The "common terminology" (one I always wasn't willing to share because of its bias) was changed beccause its bias, not to change the bias to fighting. And singling out this sentence as "setting the tone of the chapter", when he later also talks of nonmaterial rewards that are, as common terminology goes, are purely of roleplaying rewards as well as rewards that hinge on roleplaying (rewards like the horse that reward players for pure character choices like handle animal or apraise).

Note that I'm in no way associated with wotc or Mr Baur and even though some of my posts on this board may make me out as one, I'm no wotc fanboy that defends their every choice either (it's true that I find myself defending them quite a bit- I find them regularly attacked in a way I don't quite think is fair).

However, from the adventure building articles it would seem I share a great amount of positioning with Mr Baur and I find the idea that these are positions of "hack and slash"/"all about loot and xp" not represantative of this position.

I don't want to say that it's your intend (I can't know), but by highlighting this one sentence you influence both the focus of this discussion as well as the püerception of those that read the article from your given link with the preconceived highlighting of said quote. And I just don't think that's healthy for the discussion.

In my expirience the adventure builder articles have given a very balanced view of mechanical and nonmechanical gaming and some great ideas for blending the two. You are free to see this differently, but I'm sure you'd protested as well if I had posted the link, quoting a sentence more lending itself to the more characterisational gaming and a simple abigous discuss beneath it.

 

[Mark CMG]

You see, I don't think that's a fair evaluation. The "common terminology" (one I always wasn't willing to share because of its bias) was changed beccause its bias, not to change the bias to fighting. And singling out this sentence as "setting the tone of the chapter", when he later also talks of nonmaterial rewards that are, as common terminology goes, are purely of roleplaying rewards as well as rewards that hinge on roleplaying (rewards like the horse that reward players for pure character choices like handle animal or apraise).

Note that I'm in no way associated with wotc or Mr Baur and even though some of my posts on this board may make me out as one, I'm no wotc fanboy that defends their every choice either (it's true that I find myself defending them quite a bit- I find them regularly attacked in a way I don't quite think is fair).

However, from the adventure building articles it would seem I share a great amount of positioning with Mr Baur and I find the idea that these are positions of "hack and slash"/"all about loot and xp" not represantative of this position.

I don't want to say that it's your intend (I can't know), but by highlighting this one sentence you influence both the focus of this discussion as well as the püerception of those that read the article from your given link with the preconceived highlighting of said quote. And I just don't think that's healthy for the discussion.

In my expirience the adventure builder articles have given a very balanced view of mechanical and nonmechanical gaming and some great ideas for blending the two. You are free to see this differently, but I'm sure you'd protested as well if I had posted the link, quoting a sentence more lending itself to the more characterisational gaming and a simple abigous discuss beneath it.

See, I think he sets the tone with that sentence, precisely, so he *can* point up the unusual treasures as *different* in some way. Again, not necessarily a good or bad thing but it does seem to be his approach and I believe it is worth noting.