Monte Cook Back to Work

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:29 am

Metagame concerns. I'll put it this way.

OD&D and AD&D gold was worth tracking. Gold = XP. Wealth equated to power pure and simple.

3.5 and 4e took a different approach. WBL/treasure parcels. Treasure increased the effectiveness of your character. For some class types, treasure was required in order to function past a certain point in the game. It was worth tracking how much loot you had obtained simply because it could be spent on consumable items or even decent permenant items assuming you could find a merchant or craft them yourself.

Redifining the reward system for magical items probably means you should redefine the system for mundane wealth.

Is it worth tracking if it has no mechanical value? Would an abstract wealth system like d20 modern be more appropriate? Should wealth even have a mechanical function, such as boosting XP?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:35 am

Winnah wrote: Is it worth tracking if it has no mechanical value? Would an abstract wealth system like d20 modern be more appropriate? Should wealth even have a mechanical function, such as boosting XP?

True story: back when I played AD&D, most groups I played with did not give out XP for GP. We still tracked gold. It's how to keep score. You use it to buy your tower when you retire, and that's how your character gets on the high score list.

-Username17

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:41 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: True story: back when I played AD&D, most groups I played with did not give out XP for GP. We still tracked gold. It's how to keep score. You use it to buy your tower when you retire, and that's how your character gets on the high score list.

Same here. Gold, and trophy magic weapons to mount on the wall since no one would use them.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:07 pm

Thoughts on wealth system: This is one of the best ideas that d20 Modern had even if it was implemented in a stupid way. It's fast, it saves space, and lets people either be spendthrifts or money blowers depending on the needs of the plot.

On the other hand, there ARE groups out there who love counting every gold piece that comes their way. Like Scrooge McDuck, they will fight tooth and nail and giggle with glee at the thought of adding a few dozen coins to their pile of hundreds of thousands. An abstract wealth system would probably not satisfy these people.

Krusk · Post by **Krusk** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:02 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:An abstract wealth system would probably not satisfy these people.

I had a post on how to have cake and eat it, but then realized I'm like Mr. McDuck. My big hurdle with d20 modern and other similar abstract systems is the idea that I can buy infinate cans of coke, but never afford a single 12 pack.

There is always something cheap, I want infinate of that I can get, but something expensive I want 1 of I can't afford. In a system where I track each income and expense, I can save for the 1 item and get it. I can also get a reasonable ammount of the thing I wanted infinate of.

The only "limiter" I can think of is to say "This month you can buy 11 cans of coke" but in that system I am just tracking [purchases] instead of dollars and really thats the same thing.

Can anyone help me out with this?

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:30 pm

What we do is assume that all mundane/cheap stuff is free, special purchases are done at GM's discretion (or through an adventure).

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:04 pm

I had always thought of the WBL system in 3.5 as a somewhat effective solution even if wealth and magic items themselves needed work. Is there something mechanically abhorrent in the WBL system itself that I'm missing?

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:12 pm

Previn wrote:I had always thought of the WBL system in 3.5 as a somewhat effective solution even if wealth and magic items themselves needed work. Is there something mechanically abhorrent in the WBL system itself that I'm missing?

The part where, unless the DM does things to encourage otherwise, you're continually encouraged to pinch every penny for that next +1, sleep in your tent outside the city because it's cheaper, strip the facing stones off the pyramids for a few gp, and sack and pillage every town you come across just to get a little bit ahead.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:20 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:
Previn wrote:I had always thought of the WBL system in 3.5 as a somewhat effective solution even if wealth and magic items themselves needed work. Is there something mechanically abhorrent in the WBL system itself that I'm missing?
The part where, unless the DM does things to encourage otherwise, you're continually encouraged to pinch every penny for that next +1, sleep in your tent outside the city because it's cheaper, strip the facing stones off the pyramids for a few gp, and sack and pillage every town you come across just to get a little bit ahead.

But the DM is supposed to adjust the treasure you get (or don't) under 3.5 to keep you on track with the WBL, so dropping money sleeping in Inns, or not looting everything that's not nailed down shouldn't be a detriment to you?

Or is adjusting treasure handed out not considered a part of that?

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:29 pm

I think it's supposed to work that way, but there's always that feeling in the back of your head going, "what if he's not paying attention?"

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:33 pm

Wealth by level is wealth by level. NOT Wealth forever. There's no reason (and in fact is extremely undesirable) for a DM to make sure you're at the WBL limits at all points in the game. So assuming that you want plussed magical swords more than you want to stay at a luxurious inn, you're delaying the acquisition and crafting of loot. You'll get reimbursed eventually later, but for the next 1-12 encounters you won't have that magical sword until the DM drops a wealth-bomb large enough for you to get it.

Since no one wants to be caught with their pants down and losing out on a magical sword 5 encounters before they were guaranteed to have it they act like ninjas with their money anyway.

Red_Rob · Post by **Red_Rob** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:35 pm

So when you figure out that the fluff description of the last temple of Orcus included "seven 10' tall black onyx statues" and using the material cost in the DMG managed to work out they were worth 50,000gp each, the next three adventures mysteriously include no treasure?

There's a section in the tomes about why WBL is a bad idea, mainly because it is tied into the idea of wealth = power. This only incentivises players to find ways to break the economy. The D&D economy is fragile enough without players being offered rewards if they can think of ways to short circuit it

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:01 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:So assuming that you want plussed magical swords more than you want to stay at a luxurious inn, you're delaying the acquisition and crafting of loot. You'll get reimbursed eventually later, but for the next 1-12 encounters you won't have that magical sword until the DM drops a wealth-bomb large enough for you to get it.

Well, as you point out, you can get reimbursed in the next encounter, but I really don't think that staying in inns, even luxurious ones is going to put a significant dent in your wealth unless you're really cutting things into bankers and dungeons. A stay at a good in for the night, with a Banquet for 5 people and 2 bottles of fine wine runs 80 gp a night.

That certainly could cut into your magic equipment if you did it every night, but I'm not sure I buy that as getting any but the most anal-retentive or ass-holeish players to sleep outside the city in tents.

Red_Rob wrote:So when you figure out that the fluff description of the last temple of Orcus included "seven 10' tall black onyx statues" and using the material cost in the DMG managed to work out they were worth 50,000gp each, the next three adventures mysteriously include no treasure?

I suppose that would depend on if the players could salvage them in some form, or if they even cared about the gold value at the point where they could easily move them. I could see a lot of different ways to work that in (or out) of the player's hands without it going directly to one extreme or the other.

I think really though, that goes back to wealth/items themselves not being workable in D&D, not so much with the WBL itself being a bad idea?

There's a section in the tomes about why WBL is a bad idea, mainly because it is tied into the idea of wealth = power. This only incentivises players to find ways to break the economy. The D&D economy is fragile enough without players being offered rewards if they can think of ways to short circuit it

Are you referring to the Wish economy or something else from Tomes? I admit I am not entirely up to speed with the Tomes, so a pointer would be helpful.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:21 pm

Previn wrote: Well, as you point out, you can get reimbursed in the next encounter,

No. You don't know if you're going to get reimbursed next encounter, unless you're right at the edge. That's the point. And you can't blame a DM being a Gygaxian asshole on this either; a lot of groups prefer to give PCs their wealth payout in one big lump sum at the end of a series of encounters.

WBL also produces the opposite problem as I'm sure you've just noticed. If a group is at the edge then it's an incentive to go hog-wild with temporary use items and then get immediately reimbursed next go round. This makes things impossible to balance because the player tendency is to fail conservative and not use Megalixiers even when 3 of the 5 party members are down and out so groups who do employ this strategy are going to be way overpowered.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:23 pm

Previn wrote:
Are you referring to the Wish economy or something else from Tomes? I admit I am not entirely up to speed with the Tomes, so a pointer would be helpful.

Probably This.

The most relevant bit was this:

Wealth By Level Has Got to Go.
This hurts a lot of people, but it's true. If you can turn a pile of silver into increases to your natural armor bonus, the setting is going to be destroyed. Quite literally, and with crowbars. Fantasy settings are filled with bridges made of opal and castles faced with blue ice that stay forever cold and stuff. This fantastic scenery is awesome, and it contributes to the feel of fantasy that should permeate the cooperative stories we tell within a D&D game. If player character power is determined by "wealth" in any directly measurable fashion, you can bank on PCs ripping all the expensive facing off the castles they conquer – and then we all lose.

See, it's pragmatic and even sort of reasonable to rip the marble off the Great Pyramid at Giza and use it to build fancy houses in Cairo. But for all the future generations, it sucks. There really is a correlation here: if we don't allow people to trade blocks of marble for extra spells per day and more powerfully magical swords, then people will leave our pyramids alone. Otherwise, future generations will look at another unfaced ziggurat and wonder what wonders the ancient battlefields possessed before vandals came and destroyed our fantasy world.

-Username17

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:39 pm

Previn wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:
Previn wrote:I had always thought of the WBL system in 3.5 as a somewhat effective solution even if wealth and magic items themselves needed work. Is there something mechanically abhorrent in the WBL system itself that I'm missing?
The part where, unless the DM does things to encourage otherwise, you're continually encouraged to pinch every penny for that next +1, sleep in your tent outside the city because it's cheaper, strip the facing stones off the pyramids for a few gp, and sack and pillage every town you come across just to get a little bit ahead.
But the DM is supposed to adjust the treasure you get (or don't) under 3.5 to keep you on track with the WBL, so dropping money sleeping in Inns, or not looting everything that's not nailed down shouldn't be a detriment to you?

Or is adjusting treasure handed out not considered a part of that?

WBL reads like items owned as it is a measure of power to equate to CR levels and such.

frankly, WBL makes no sense. it doesnt take into account or have an EBL...expenses by level, so that you can know what the WBL really should be.

not to mention it is a paycheck and the dungeon has hired the PCs and gives them a monthly salary.

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:10 pm

I'm a lazy fucker. I can't be bothered counting unless it is important. Besides, there are other metrics to guage the success of a character with, most of them mechanical in nature.

Each to their own.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:23 pm

Winnah wrote:Metagame concerns. I'll put it this way.

OD&D and AD&D gold was worth tracking. Gold = XP. Wealth equated to power pure and simple.

The more I consider it, the better GP=XP seems. This incentivizes people to want to get rich, even though gold can't be used to buy magic items.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:59 am

It might seem good, but it will only work when there are no "get infinite moneys" shenanigans. And unfortunately, D&D is full of those types of shenanigans.

Red_Rob · Post by **Red_Rob** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:02 am

FrankTrollman wrote:
Previn wrote:
Are you referring to the Wish economy or something else from Tomes? I admit I am not entirely up to speed with the Tomes, so a pointer would be helpful.
Probably This.

The most relevant bit was this:

Wealth By Level Has Got to Go.
This hurts a lot of people, but it's true. If you can turn a pile of silver into increases to your natural armor bonus, the setting is going to be destroyed. Quite literally, and with crowbars. Fantasy settings are filled with bridges made of opal and castles faced with blue ice that stay forever cold and stuff. This fantastic scenery is awesome, and it contributes to the feel of fantasy that should permeate the cooperative stories we tell within a D&D game. If player character power is determined by "wealth" in any directly measurable fashion, you can bank on PCs ripping all the expensive facing off the castles they conquer – and then we all lose.

See, it's pragmatic and even sort of reasonable to rip the marble off the Great Pyramid at Giza and use it to build fancy houses in Cairo. But for all the future generations, it sucks. There really is a correlation here: if we don't allow people to trade blocks of marble for extra spells per day and more powerfully magical swords, then people will leave our pyramids alone. Otherwise, future generations will look at another unfaced ziggurat and wonder what wonders the ancient battlefields possessed before vandals came and destroyed our fantasy world.

-Username17

Yeah, that was the bit.

Like much of the tomes, this really struck a chord with me. There's a reason the Tomes have spawned such a devoted following on these boards. They really do put down in (very eloquent) terms things you've been thinking for a long time but haven't quite known how to say. /gush

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:50 am

...You Lost Me wrote:It might seem good, but it will only work when there are no "get infinite moneys" shenanigans. And unfortunately, D&D is full of those types of shenanigans.

That's just loopholes that should be closed anyway. Whether you have purchasing magic items or GP=XP, you'd want to remove the infinite wealth cheese regardless.

As far as fortresses made of emeralds, they're magically created anyway, and it's a heck of a lot easier to just say that it's some spell that looks like emeralds, but actually isn't. The moment you break a piece of it off, it crumbles into worthless dust.

As far as gemstones being pried out of stone statues, you're absolutely supposed to do that crap as adventurers, so I see no reason why you'd ever want to discourage it.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:49 am

Or you can just say that if the PCs find a zillion emeralds or something, they go up in level as a result of that.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:24 am

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20111011

Then, however, you get the people who say that you can't play the game without a particular class. In older editions of the game, for example, having at least one cleric was a must. But there's a difference between making a class that is required and a class everyone's happy to have along. In fact, all classes should be designed from that point of view—not indispensible, but incredibly valuable when they are in their element.

Lastly, it might be worth taking a look at giving everyone more opportunities to aid their comrades. Not just with healing, but with actions and abilities that help others to do well. You could, for example, institute more generous "aid another" or cooperative action rules. Heroic characters might be able to step in and take damage for their endangered allies. You could, in fact, tailor a special option toward every class that gives them some unique way of helping their friends.

skill challenges and healing surges are now a legacy items for D&D

maybe it isnt about...

being the star

but sometimes you dont want to play a class that has to fuck with a bunch of shit and JUST was to kill shit. the fighter doesnt have to fuck with healing or worrying about anothers character sheet, with spells on his own...he just gets to fight stuff and relax while doing so.

more watering down of the classes any class abilities given to all.

why dont people think that the cleric was "being the star" when nobody else could do anything and the cleric was healing everyone so they could continue?

is that all WotC related retards be it designers or customers can think of that damage done = winning the game?

funny in an article about teamwork, it really offers nothing about it, but tries to pit players against players even more, or corrupt the game with those rules to trap players so as to prevent them from going competitive.

just play the fucking game with decent people, and if you dont like how the group play, find another fucking group.

the rules cant control the DM or make a bad DM a good one, nor can they control the players, to make them less munchkin powergaming competitive assholes that need a babysitter and a time-out when they dont get their magic rapier off their Santa Claus gear wishlist.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:32 am

Shadzar, did you read the article you linked at all? It was about how to encourage players to work together, and why maintaining clearly delineated roles is something important to the game. And neither healing surges or skill challenges were mentioned in the article at all.

I mean, I could understand criticizing the article for a whole lot of words saying nothing new, but the shit you read into the article is like the exact opposite of what he's actually saying so wtf?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:19 am

"aid another"...this is a construct of the skill challenge system, where no matter what is going on, EVERYONE must be able to contribute to it.

whether in the form of 3 passes before 5 fails or however skill challenges are SUPPOSED to work...it is going to be something akin to them.

healing surges exist so you are "happy to have a cleric along", but isn't "a class that is required".

it is right there in what i quoted...

working together is one thing, but when you look at the way Monte/Mearls has tried to add this to the game int he past, it is not an option, but rather it is FORCED on all players.

the fighter doesnt need to get in the way of the light while the thief is picking the lock on the door.

healing surges are a outright joke because they give humans inhuman regeneration at level 1, without the use of magic.

i read the article fully before even opening the "posting?mode=reply" script here, as well as read between the lines.