Quick fixes to improve 4e playability

[Draco_Argentum]

So you want Exalted's system? Applies to everyone and difficulty depends on the target. They get bonuses to ignore things that go against their beliefs and can spend willpower to just ignore stuff.

If Exalted didn't give you one points pool for combat and non-combat options and if less stuff was mind control it would be really good.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

Honestly I found what you typed to be one of the msot retarded things I've read. You were talking about roleplaying as though it was about taking the leadership feat instead of actually playing out your character and talking to NPCs. You want rules that exist solely so that you don't have to roleplay.

You complain that 4E allows no roleplaying because it forces you to talk to NPCs to get them to do stuff for you and won't let you replace all your interactions with a roll of the dice. That is by far the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time, and makes zero sense.

Yes, that is stupid. If the negotiation system worked correctly, it would be fair and non-game breaking, but still stupid.

Are you aware that a lot of abilities in the game such as 'you are part of the teleportation guild' or 'you get a staffed tower' (from Tome and Blood/Sword and Fist respectively) are there as time-savers? It's to avoid a situation where players spend hours at the table getting together a circus or convincing the guild leaders to let them in.

Yeah, sometimes it can be fun and a good adventure, but there are a LOT of characters out there in speculative fiction who call up a or lead a group of people or throw together a mob without giving a care. It's unreasonable to expect people to grind the game to a halt to do something like that every single time. Sometimes no one gives a fuck about what you had to go through to assemble the Legion of Doom because everyone else would rather have them wreck shit. Sometimes people don't want you to spend 25 minutes in every city your team visits trying to get in good with the thieves' guild. That's why they hand out abilities that are simple as 'you get in good with thieves' guilds for the rest of your career'.

[Username17]

If Exalted didn't give you one points pool for combat and non-combat options and if less stuff was mind control it would be really good.

I went through 1st edition Exalted and was unimpressed by the rules many years back. I haven't been able to even bring myself to read 2nd edition Exalted because the giant flaming piece of bullshit creationist propaganda they have on it makes me want to set it on fire before I get to the first camel toe picture.

What does the Exalted rule system do that is salvageable?

-Username17

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

I haven't been able to even bring myself to read 2nd edition Exalted because the giant flaming piece of bullshit creationist propaganda they have on it makes me want to set it on fire before I get to the first camel toe picture.

You should've held out a little bit longer, Frank. You get to see a hot blood-knight's partially-obscured NIPPLE and it is awesome.

I think what Draco was referring to was that influencing NPCs in that game was done by two ways. There was the D&D way of unnatural influence, which made NPCs do ridiculous (even for this genre) stuff like skin their own children and make musical instruments from the bones and was done by D&D's equivalent of charm/domination spells.

On the flipside are 'natural' motivations, which are done by nonmagical skills like 'leadership' and 'diplomacy', which crosschecked a request against an NPC's core motivations and assigned appropriate penalties and bonuses. They could also arbitrarily cockblock you if you asked them to do things like skin their own children and make musical instruments from the bones.

In case you didn't realize it yet, the latter option was complete ass but it does prevent Tom Sawyer from convincing the orcs to whitewash the city walls.

[RandomCasualty2]

Are you aware that a lot of abilities in the game such as 'you are part of the teleportation guild' or 'you get a staffed tower' (from Tome and Blood/Sword and Fist respectively) are there as time-savers? It's to avoid a situation where players spend hours at the table getting together a circus or convincing the guild leaders to let them in.

Well honestly, I have problems with this kind of crap. For a number of reasons:

First, I consider them roleplaying stuff and generally they shouldn't be abilities. Hiring mundane soldiers should be something you do with gold, not something you spend a feat or class ability on. Because really, those soldiers don't go on adventures with you, so they're just part of your backstory. The fact that you return to your own castle instead of some rented inn room is just a feature of your backstory and part of becoming higher level. You shouldn't have to pay anything for it.

Second, if they're important abilities about getting allies, then you should really have to treat those allies right, and they shouldn't be obligated to follow you. While it should be easy to get mundane soldiers, if you don't pay them, they leave. The main thing that bothers me about 3.5 companion abilities is that they grant you effectively slave labor.

Yeah, sometimes it can be fun and a good adventure, but there are a LOT of characters out there in speculative fiction who call up a or lead a group of people or throw together a mob without giving a care.

The thing is that D&D isn't about mobs really. It's adventurers versus monsters. Most of the time, mobs and followers are just backstory. You don't take them with you, and if you do that them with you, it bogs the game to unplayably slow levels.

So having a mob really isn't a class ability in any sense. It's just background flavor, since most sane DMs are going to just groan when you roll armloads of dice praying for natural 20s with your level 1-2 mob of garbage.

Sometimes no one gives a fuck about what you had to go through to assemble the Legion of Doom because everyone else would rather have them wreck shit.

For nameless red shirts, sure nobody cares where they came from. So long as you had the time to assemble them and it's assumed you've paid them some trivial amount, we don't want to go into it. But the real important members of a legion of doom in D&D isn't the mooks, it's the big guys. And if you want to recruit a new named NPC to your legion, that's something that should be roleplayed out. When magneto and apocalypse make an alliance, that's something important that gets its own scene.

Sometimes people don't want you to spend 25 minutes in every city your team visits trying to get in good with the thieves' guild. That's why they hand out abilities that are simple as 'you get in good with thieves' guilds for the rest of your career'.

well, I'd certainly want to roleplay out the meeting with the head of the guild. It would probably be something like:

Roll streetwise. On a success, they are able to find a contact to arrange a meeting wtih the guildmaster. After that, it's a roleplaying scene to try to gain the guildmaster's trust and work out what you want from the guild.

If the guy is just trying to buy lockpicks or fence stolen goods, and doesn't really want the guild to do anything for him, then you can probably abstract that into a roll. But not always. Sometimes you may want to have something happen, like the fence tries to double cross him or something similar.

I think what Draco was referring to was that influencing NPCs in that game was done by two ways. There was the D&D way of unnatural influence, which made NPCs do ridiculous (even for this genre) stuff like skin their own children and make musical instruments from the bones and was done by D&D's equivalent of charm/domination spells.

On the flipside are 'natural' motivations, which are done by nonmagical skills like 'leadership' and 'diplomacy', which crosschecked a request against an NPC's core motivations and assigned appropriate penalties and bonuses. They could also arbitrarily cockblock you if you asked them to do things like skin their own children and make musical instruments from the bones.

Natural motivations are fine, but there's going to be a lot of DM ad hoc rulings when you start factoring that in, as it's very hard to mechanically stat out an NPCs interests and factor them into the social system.

I mean I have yet to see a social system that wasn't either magic teaparty with dice or something that totally broke the game.

It's one reason that I generally support not having a system at all. I have yet to see one that actually works as a system.

[Draco_Argentum]

I went through 1st edition Exalted and was unimpressed by the rules many years back. I haven't been able to even bring myself to read 2nd edition Exalted because the giant flaming piece of bullshit creationist propaganda they have on it makes me want to set it on fire before I get to the first camel toe picture.

The what now? It doesn't resemble any form of creationism I know of. Mostly on the grounds that there is one type of creationism, the tools who are really Christian Fundamentalists but are lying about it because they lost in court when they tried to make schools put God in science class.

Rules wise none is directly portable to d20. The idea of there being actual social stats is worthwhile. I also like the motivation mechanic. Write down something like "overthrow the ruler of [nation]" or "prevent orcs from being granted citizenship". You can avoid being convinced to act against this easily. You're also allowed to spend willpower to blackball anything you really don't want your character doing.

So, heres the gist
1) Stats for it.
2) Pick one thing that is your character's goal, you are hard to convince to not follow it. The advantage here is that its one goal, not having a discussion every time about what the character really cares about enough to deserve a bonus. Still going to be a discussion about which actions violate it but I figure thats unavoidable.
3) A small reserve of blackball points for when you don't want your character duped/seduced etc.

Now it will require everyone to act in good faith. But so does the magical tea party that RC espouses. What having mechanics instead of china does is allow a resolution between to sensible proposals. If the group want to try be dicks it'll fail, but so will a tea party.

[Ice9]

First, I consider them roleplaying stuff and generally they shouldn't be abilities.

Just because something can be accomplished by roleplaying, doesn't mean there can't be rules for it. I mean, combat could be accomplished just by roleplaying too, but we seem to have quite a few rules attached to it.

And that's because having rules for things has actual benefits, that you don't get with "just roleplay it". The most important one being - things can be accomplishable without the DM just giving them to you. Take a situation like combat. As DM, I don't want to just declare "you win / you lose", I want there to be an actual system there so I can throw a challenge at the party without the outcome being predetermined. That doesn't just apply to combat, though. I don't want to just arbitrarily decide if a situation is diplomatically resolvable or not - I want to give the players a chance to do so, and see what happens.

Can this be destructive to a prepared plot? Maybe, but it can also be constructive to a new one. By taking an ability like "has minions", or "in the wayfarer's guild", the player is emphasizing the story directions they're interested in. By having abilities to reshape the game world, they can contribute to the shaping of the plot. Sure, you can do that stuff directly, ala FATE, but in-character world shaping is a good way as well, and a lot better than just being "along for the ride".

Another benefit is planning. If everything is DM fiat, then the players can't really plan anything on their own. If you have an actual class ability to do something, then you can use that ability as part of a plan, figure out how to combine it creatively, and so forth. If you might have an ability when the DM feels like it, you can't really plan anything around that.

And finally, there's aspiration and gratification. Having a concrete ability to conjure a tower, or have minions, or fight an army, is something that you can aspire to, and enjoy having once you've achieved it. "Sometime at higher level, the DM might let me have minions", is not something to look forward to the same way.

So yeah, I consider them roleplaying stuff, and they should be abilities.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Second, if they're important abilities about getting allies, then you should really have to treat those allies right, and they shouldn't be obligated to follow you. While it should be easy to get mundane soldiers, if you don't pay them, they leave. The main thing that bothers me about 3.5 companion abilities is that they grant you effectively slave labor.

Well, they actually do give you some negative effects for having a reputation for aloofness or cruelty. Furthermore, attracting cohorts and followers is more difficult if your mistreatment has caused the death of previous followers/cohorts. The system does have its flaws, like the fact that you can reach a high enough level that a -2 penalty to your leadership score doesn't reduce your maximum number of followers (which would cause followers to leave) and the fact that killing multiple followers doesn't grant cumulative penalties (unlike dead cohorts).

The thing is that D&D isn't about mobs really. It's adventurers versus monsters. Most of the time, mobs and followers are just backstory. You don't take them with you, and if you do that them with you, it bogs the game to unplayably slow levels.

So having a mob really isn't a class ability in any sense. It's just background flavor, since most sane DMs are going to just groan when you roll armloads of dice praying for natural 20s with your level 1-2 mob of garbage.

But it's pretty easy to speed up gameplay in this situation. If everybody in the mob has to roll a natural 20, just divide the mob size by 20 and assume that's how many hits the mooks get.

Natural motivations are fine, but there's going to be a lot of DM ad hoc rulings when you start factoring that in, as it's very hard to mechanically stat out an NPCs interests and factor them into the social system.

I mean I have yet to see a social system that wasn't either magic teaparty with dice or something that totally broke the game.

It's one reason that I generally support not having a system at all. I have yet to see one that actually works as a system.

I can't believe we're still having arguments about why you need some sort of social mechanics as imperfect as they are, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. If a 98-pound weakling can play a mighty barbarian, and knowledge skills allow people who aren't sagacious in RL to be sagely wizards, then backward dorks who can't talk to girls to save their lives (that is, 90% of the D&D fanbase) should be able to play silver-tongued bards in game. Having no system really isn't a viable option.

Another thing is that the false dichotomies seem to be piling up on this board lately. You act like the choice is between no die rolls and no face-to-face roleplaying. In reality, using social mechanics doesn't preclude roleplaying at all. Instead of simply rolling a Diplomacy check and determining the result, you could first have the player act out how their character plans to convince the character to grant them a favor or whatever. Then you roll the Diplomacy check, possibly with a bonus or penalty based on what the player said (not how they said it, since the goal is to allow backward dorks to play above their natural glibness). Really, it's not that hard to incorporate both.

[RandomCasualty2]

Well, they actually do give you some negative effects for having a reputation for aloofness or cruelty. Furthermore, attracting cohorts and followers is more difficult if your mistreatment has caused the death of previous followers/cohorts. The system does have its flaws, like the fact that you can reach a high enough level that a -2 penalty to your leadership score doesn't reduce your maximum number of followers (which would cause followers to leave) and the fact that killing multiple followers doesn't grant cumulative penalties (unlike dead cohorts).

I'm not actually so much worried about cruelty as muhc as the fact that you don't have to pay your followers. There are a lot of warlords and such in fantasy that are total dicks to their underlings, but apparently they pay pretty well, because they keep their followers under them.

Unfortunately 3.5 shit doesn't work that way. Your cohorts and men should expect some of the spoils from a battle, I mean that's just the way it works. If a bunch of soldiers help you attack village X, even if your'e a total dick, they may follow you so long as you let them pillage and rape to their heart's content.

But it's pretty easy to speed up gameplay in this situation. If everybody in the mob has to roll a natural 20, just divide the mob size by 20 and assume that's how many hits the mooks get.

The rpoblem is that it's not quite that easy. Mainly because you probably don't have 20 guys on the board at any time, your'e going to have fractins of 20. Dungeon corridors, with all their twists and turns make this a total pain in the ass.

Now, it's not unbalanced by any means, it's actually just so trivial that it's a big waste of your time.

I can't believe we're still having arguments about why you need some sort of social mechanics as imperfect as they are, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. If a 98-pound weakling can play a mighty barbarian, and knowledge skills allow people who aren't sagacious in RL to be sagely wizards, then backward dorks who can't talk to girls to save their lives (that is, 90% of the D&D fanbase) should be able to play silver-tongued bards in game. Having no system really isn't a viable option.

People tell me this, but really, I've played 2nd edition and 1st edition, where there is no social system at all. I've played 3E too and basically tore out the social system, since it's broken. That's like many years of gaming I've played without a social system. The world didn't implode, people didn't stop roleplaying. The game just worked.

In fact, as a PC, it always annoyed me when the DM asked for social checks instead of having me say shit.

Another thing is that the false dichotomies seem to be piling up on this board lately. You act like the choice is between no die rolls and no face-to-face roleplaying. In reality, using social mechanics doesn't preclude roleplaying at all. Instead of simply rolling a Diplomacy check and determining the result, you could first have the player act out how their character plans to convince the character to grant them a favor or whatever. Then you roll the Diplomacy check, possibly with a bonus or penalty based on what the player said (not how they said it, since the goal is to allow backward dorks to play above their natural glibness). Really, it's not that hard to incorporate both.

Well like I said, I'm still waiting to see a social system that isn't broken and isn't based on magic teaparty. Also I'd like a system that doesn't totally dominate roleplaying and applies equally to PCs and NPCs.

You say it isn't hard but thus far I have yet to see one.

The problem with social stuff is that sometimes you care more about how it's said, and other tmes you care more about what is said. A seduction or intimidation attempt may well determine more on how well you say something rather than what you say. A logical discussion or diplomatic offer should generally involve what you're saying and not how you're saying it. You can try to sugar coat your offer some, but offering a piece of string for a castle is still a piece of string for a castle and anybody with half a brain should automatically cause that to fail.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Well like I said, I'm still waiting to see a social system that isn't broken and isn't based on magic teaparty. Also I'd like a system that doesn't totally dominate roleplaying and applies equally to PCs and NPCs.

Sorcerer has a simple one.
Burning Wheel has a complicated one.
Weapons of the Gods has a complicated one.

Also, demanding that player vs DM social interaction have a meaningful effect on PC vs NPC social interaction is very much like demanding that player vs DM boffer combat have a meaningful effect on PC vs NPC physical combat.

[MartinHarper]

You can try to sugar coat your offer some, but offering a piece of string for a castle is still a piece of string for a castle and anybody with half a brain should automatically cause that to fail.

Real-life con-artists do some pretty impressive stuff, and they'd be level 5 or so. I've no problem with a group of level 5 PCs selling a castle they don't possess for a piece of string that is actually a priceless artifact bowstring.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I'm not actually so much worried about cruelty as muhc as the fact that you don't have to pay your followers. There are a lot of warlords and such in fantasy that are total dicks to their underlings, but apparently they pay pretty well, because they keep their followers under them.

Unfortunately 3.5 shit doesn't work that way. Your cohorts and men should expect some of the spoils from a battle, I mean that's just the way it works. If a bunch of soldiers help you attack village X, even if your'e a total dick, they may follow you so long as you let them pillage and rape to their heart's content.

I have to agree that they didn't bother with the kinds of detailed rules for follower treatment that they had in previous editions. It's like they decided that since it's a feat instead of a feature for most of the classes, they didn't have to sweat the details.

People tell me this, but really, I've played 2nd edition and 1st edition, where there is no social system at all. I've played 3E too and basically tore out the social system, since it's broken. That's like many years of gaming I've played without a social system. The world didn't implode, people didn't stop roleplaying. The game just worked.

In fact, as a PC, it always annoyed me when the DM asked for social checks instead of having me say shit.

Actually, I'm pretty sure every edition of D&D (except possibly the White Box) had a rudimentary system of reaction checks modified by Charisma. It wasn't sophisticated and there were no skills involved, but it was there. Furthermore, of course the game works if you're not the backward math geek who wants to play a bard. If that never happened in your group, your approach probably went over well.

Well like I said, I'm still waiting to see a social system that isn't broken and isn't based on magic teaparty. Also I'd like a system that doesn't totally dominate roleplaying and applies equally to PCs and NPCs.

You say it isn't hard but thus far I have yet to see one.

I was saying it wasn't hard to mix die rolls with face-to-face roleplaying. I wasn't talking about the ease or difficulty of designing a system.

The problem with social stuff is that sometimes you care more about how it's said, and other tmes you care more about what is said. A seduction or intimidation attempt may well determine more on how well you say something rather than what you say. A logical discussion or diplomatic offer should generally involve what you're saying and not how you're saying it. You can try to sugar coat your offer some, but offering a piece of string for a castle is still a piece of string for a castle and anybody with half a brain should automatically cause that to fail.

The hybrid approach I was talking about splits this up to where the face-to-face roleplaying represents what is said and the die roll represents how well it is said. You don't have to swing a sword in person to demonstrate your character's skill in combat, so you shouldn't have to be silver-tongued in person to play a character who is that way in the game world.

And again, your willingness to throw out an entire mechanical framework because of the most extreme example given still mystifies me. I mean, I would have done some things differently than Giant. I would have kept the NPC attitudes, since they're simple and everybody's used to them, instead of making up a whole new set of bonuses and penalties to replace them. But I'm not going to dismiss the entire system because of that one thing.

Furthermore, I'm not sure trading a castle for string is a good example of a pure diplomacy check. Presumably, such an attempt would also involve a Bluff check to convince the target that the string is more valuable than it appears (like, perhaps that it's actually a piece of a legendary hero's bowstring).

[RandomCasualty2]

The hybrid approach I was talking about splits this up to where the face-to-face roleplaying represents what is said and the die roll represents how well it is said. You don't have to swing a sword in person to demonstrate your character's skill in combat, so you shouldn't have to be silver-tongued in person to play a character who is that way in the game world.

It's the same age old argument of challenging players versus challenging characters. If you just say that roleplaying is a skill that people need to know to be good at social encounters I don't really see a problem.

But then I tend to be one of those player challenge DMs. I will commonly give my PCs riddles and puzzles that the players have to solve, not the characters. While certain abilities may help them do so, they can't just say "I make an intelligence check to get the right answer."

That's just boring in my mind. And the same is true of "I make a diplomacy check so I can win the scene."

That's just not the sort of gaming I enjoy, and most of my players would agree.

And again, your willingness to throw out an entire mechanical framework because of the most extreme example given still mystifies me.

It's more than just the extreme example. Even something more mundane like being able to talk down a merchant to 50% price. I'm not sure if that's an ability I even want in my game, because it's incredibly potent and has no inherent risk, so you can try it anytime you want.

Furthermore, I'm not sure trading a castle for string is a good example of a pure diplomacy check. Presumably, such an attempt would also involve a Bluff check to convince the target that the string is more valuable than it appears (like, perhaps that it's actually a piece of a legendary hero's bowstring).

You're talking about an elaborate scam here that's going to take way more than just a few checks. If you're going to give an entire castle for a piece of string, you're going to want more than someone's word on it. You are going to want your wizards (or at least a reputable wizard) to check it out and make sure that this magic string actually has real power. NOw if the PCs can get a great ruse going to fool all those things, then sure maybe they can do it. But a bluff check and a diplomacy check alone? Not a chance.

[Username17]

It's more than just the extreme example. Even something more mundane like being able to talk down a merchant to 50% price. I'm not sure if that's an ability I even want in my game, because it's incredibly potent and has no inherent risk, so you can try it anytime you want.

Statements like that make your position muh less sympathetic to me.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

It's more than just the extreme example. Even something more mundane like being able to talk down a merchant to 50% price. I'm not sure if that's an ability I even want in my game, because it's incredibly potent and has no inherent risk, so you can try it anytime you want.

Statements like that make your position muh less sympathetic to me.

I figured it would, but honestly, do you really want some guy having an ability that lets him get crazy amounts of wealth? I mean if you can buy something for half and sell it for double, then you don't ever need to even leave town, you can just become a merchant and retire.

In a game where magic items cost gp, controlling wealth is necessary.

[Nihlin]

Well like I said, I'm still waiting to see a social system that isn't broken and isn't based on magic teaparty. Also I'd like a system that doesn't totally dominate roleplaying and applies equally to PCs and NPCs.

Sorcerer has a simple one.
Burning Wheel has a complicated one.
Weapons of the Gods has a complicated one.

Did you miss this post? Because these are all excellent examples.

[Quantumboost]

I figured it would, but honestly, do you really want some guy having an ability that lets him get crazy amounts of wealth? I mean if you can buy something for half and sell it for double, then you don't ever need to even leave town, you can just become a merchant and retire.

• Free Wishes – the following wishes have no XP cost:
  – Wealth: A character can wish for mundane wealth whose total value is 25,000 gp or less.
  – Magic Item: A character can wish for a magic item that costs 15,000 gp or less.

That aside, a mundane ability to effectively generate wealth isn't a problem if there is an appropriate drawback - and it could be as simple as "you spend a couple hours haggling over the price of supplies and get a 20% discount". If it takes time, and time is something the characters have a limited amount of (i.e. the big bad can only open the Portal of Infinite Doom 3 minutes after midnight on the new year), then it *does* cost them something to get that discount - and it's well established that you can spend time to get money (both in-game and in real life).

Remember, if you're an elven ninja who also is a skilled blacksmith, you can just spend a bunch of time making horseshoes and selling them at a profit to get moneys. Adventurers generally don't do that because the profit margins for time spent are much higher for stabbing manticores in the face.

[RandomCasualty2]

Well like I said, I'm still waiting to see a social system that isn't broken and isn't based on magic teaparty. Also I'd like a system that doesn't totally dominate roleplaying and applies equally to PCs and NPCs.

Sorcerer has a simple one.
Burning Wheel has a complicated one.
Weapons of the Gods has a complicated one.

Did you miss this post? Because these are all excellent examples.

Didn't miss it, just never played any of those RPGs, so I can't comment on what I think about any of them due to lack of familiarity.

[Username17]

It's more than just the extreme example. Even something more mundane like being able to talk down a merchant to 50% price. I'm not sure if that's an ability I even want in my game, because it's incredibly potent and has no inherent risk, so you can try it anytime you want.

Statements like that make your position muh less sympathetic to me.

I figured it would, but honestly, do you really want some guy having an ability that lets him get crazy amounts of wealth?

Yes. Because people can in fact actually do that by any of a number of means. If you put the thumb screws in and prevent people from getting rubes the size of a fist, not only are you killing my ability to tell satisfying Conan stories, but you are in fact ruining everything for everyone. At the point where you can't even tell realistic stories, your fantasy system can't really be expected to tell any stories at all.

In a game where magic items cost gp, controlling wealth is necessary.

Or access to the purchasable magic items does, or magic item tiers have to be set up, or reasonable limits on usable items have to be created, or whatever. You can't prevent people from accumulating wealth across the board if the game is to be in any sense immersive.

The moment you've decided that your fantasy system is so myopic that it cannot survive people buying low and selling high, all is lost. I mean fuck, the game is about people stealing shit - which means that they are literally paying nothing for it. Anything they get at all for their ravaging is infinite profit. If the game cannot survive people selling the ruby eyes of idols, it can't survive idols having ruby eyes, and I straight up don't want to play.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

The moment you've decided that your fantasy system is so myopic that it cannot survive people buying low and selling high, all is lost.

Well, that is rpetty much any system that gives power for wealth. I mean getting a lot of wealth is ok, but infinite wealth tricks are probably bad. You want your wealth tricks to ideally mix with an adventure.

Bringing spices from the far east to sell at high prices in the west is a cool plot idea and lets you build an adventure all around the spice caravan. PCs get reward, everything works nicely. Having a guy who just walks from one jeweler to the next selling the same shit back and forth but for higher price isn't particularly exciting by any means and there's no adventuire to it, since he's just in the same city doing laps. It's just some guy exploiting an infinite wealth loop.

By the end of it you aren't left thinking of a cool adventure, you're just left thinking "Man those jewelers must be morons."

I'm not really against buying low and selling high, but what I am against is economic control. Once a character has the ability to sell sand to the saudis for a profit, then your economy is broken. The profit from an expenditure should almost always be proportional to the effort required to do it. A character may be able to eek out a small living selling gems for slightly more than their worth, but it shouldn't be the key to infinite wealth by any means.

I mean fuck, the game is about people stealing shit - which means that they are literally paying nothing for it. Anything they get at all for their ravaging is infinite profit. If the game cannot survive people selling the ruby eyes of idols, it can't survive idols having ruby eyes, and I straight up don't want to play.

Well they're risking their lives, and risking their lives is cool, because that's what the story is about.

Earning infinite cash off camera isn't so interesting, and tends to just make the game break down.

[RiotGearEpsilon]

Weapons of the Gods works on a simple basis: Social influence is used by handing out conditions that give rewards or penalties for behavior you want to reward or penalize. This can be used to boost your allies, penalize your foes, or manipulate people in to acting how you like. Additionally, it's much easier to warp and transform an existing influence in to an influence you want than to create a new influence - so emotions are more like weapons than status effects.

Furthermore, you can "discover" (create) "existing" (theoretical) influences in people by proposing an explanation for some pattern of behavior they already exhibit.

[Voss]

I'm not really against buying low and selling high, but what I am against is economic control.

I hate to point this out to you, mostly because it should be freaking obvious, but what you're talking about *is* economic control. You aren't against it, you're advocating economic control, in the form of 'you can't do that'. Where 'that' is apparently anything you don't dictate they can do.

The profit from an expenditure should almost always be proportional to the effort required to do it. A character may be able to eek out a small living selling gems for slightly more than their worth, but it shouldn't be the key to infinite wealth by any means.

There are some strangely dressed men from DeBeers that would like to have a word with you.

[Username17]

Any job has a tendency to pay some kind of wage over time. Unless your labor is seasonal, one can normally expect to work at it for some essentially unlimited time frame.

Farming, bar tending, and even working as a maid are all "infinite wealth" tricks by the extremely short sighted definition you have railed against. The idea that the world has to be so frickin chaotic that characters can't even repeat the same own time odd jobs is totally insane. How are the players supposed to have any kind of grounding in any kind of persistent world if they can't even expect the same scut work to even exist the next time they go to town?

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

Heh. "I spend the next 20 years working. How many Profession checks is that?"

EDIT:

Speak of the devil...

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1067450

Crafting shouldn't be profitable. This is a counter-intuitive point. In real life, businesses make money. However, businesses in adventure games should not. The same can also be said, by the way, of other skills (Perform and Profession, for example) and of magic item creation.

Allowing Crafts to be profitable (even if it is after some initial period of investment) forces the DM to either give out effectively unlimited amounts of money or to reign in his enterprising players at every turn. While some groups may not abuse in-game profit, it is an exploit that needs to be removed.

Why do I call profit an exploit? Because turning some gold into more gold is repeatable. Even if you can't make and sell the Sword of Awesomeness a second time, you can use your profits to open up a trading company, buy a title and collect taxes, hire an enchanter and sell the potions he makes, or any of a number of other schemes.

At best, activities like this should allow you to break even. If a PC is allowed to set up a business, you should allow him to perhaps make back the money he put in or to receive a rough equivalent in goods or favors over time. Any noticeable profit will result in a wealth advantage that can eventually break the game's assumptions about magic items at a given level. It's even worse when there is an imbalance within the group, such as when someone's character has twice as much awesome gear as someone else's.

There's so much fail in these three paragraphs that I want to burn something.

[Maxus]

Running a business can be an adventure. Especially in FantasyLandia where you have to clean the dire spiders out of the basement or stop people from muscling in on your turf. I'd prefer a system where, if the players wanted to play a game where one or all of them ran a business, they'd be encouraged to do so.

Anyway, those three paragraphs do indeed fail in 4e, where you can easily make an ungodly amount of profit by billing yourself as a merchant in magic items.