Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6119443" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Depends largely on the game, and on the character.  Nothing to buy?  Agreed - why track it.  But why have loas of treasure in the first place, then?  What use is it if there is nothing to buy - and why does it (or is it assumed to) motivate the PC's?  If it does not motivate them, why do they bother hauling it out - why not just leave it there if all it does is weigh you down?  I've played hoarders, and I've layed characters where the first thing to do after dividing up treaure is scratch it off as the character just spends it, much like many characters in recuring fantasy fiction who never have more than a few coins, however big that last haul was.  There again, I don't have a problem with a game that moves slowly through the module, provided the game itself is fun.  An extended session where we accomplish NOTHING AT ALL related to the module could be great fun based on whatever is distracting us from the module, and a session where we make huge module progress, but it's just a boring slog, is not a good session from where I sit.I don't think anyone has suggested anyone is "totally in the wrong".  And I see it's OK for you to use "many" or even "many, many" as a descriptor.  I'd also say there is a difference between "the journey is the most imortant thing", "the journey is an important aspect" or even "the journey is also significant" versus "the journey should just be skipped" or even "there can't possibly be anything relevant in the journey".I'd also suggest "setting is not important" cuts both ways.  If the setting is unimportant, how is it that whether the scene is set in (or just outside) the city, or in the heart of the desert, is determinative of its relevance or interest?  Well, as one of three words in the name (and I don't think & can be counted as an equal partner), I suspect we will always have Dungeons in Dungeons & Dragons.  But we can have campaigns without dragons, and campaigns without dungeons.  I've also seen a lot of different definitions of "Dungeon" over the years, right down to "indoors with more than one room = Dungeon"Agreed.I think there is a difference between "wandering monsters" (roll a 3, encounter 2d6 Orcs) and random encounters.  The latter are more fleshed out and more relevant to the game in progress.  One example might be roaming guard patrols with fixed numbers, or perhaps the Castle Priest who is always on the go unless specifically summoned.  But you don't kill, capture or befriend the Castle Priest, then have him randomly show up an hour later as a new Wanderer.Agreed.  I do, however, find it interesting when the posts about "those bad GM's" with whom "I tend to get shirty" get juxtaposed with an offended statement that "you aren't using your argument to prove how we are having badwrongfun".As to Maure Castle, its construction, over many generations, does not strike me as "crazy wizard creates a labyinth which has no apparent purpose other than creating wild challenges for adventurers".  I had a player in one game that seemed very "crazy wizard did it" centred wonder where all the crazy wizards who spend their lives making seemingly pointless permanent illusions come from.  Looking at the summary of Maure Castle, it seems the various components were constructed with specific purposes in mind, not including "confuse the adventurers and provide a Monster Menagarie habitat".  Contrast with the design of, say, White Plume Mountain or Tomb of Horrors.  And I say that as a fan of the former - but it's a clear "kill the monsters, take their stuff" old school dungeon crawl - why would anyone build it?  What previous use could those rooms have been put to?</blockquote>

Verification