|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 6:51AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2006
|
Something I haven't seen discussed is use of all of that treasure PCs tend to acquire in 5e. In old school editions, you needed to adventure and gain treasure to further your career. It cost money to level and henchmen and hirelings were an integral part of the game (and often seemed to live better than the PC's -  ). You also eventually had a castle or tower to maintain, magical research to perform (beyond just bulding magic items as in 3E), etc. I normally required upkeep costs per month as well which took care of standard spell componets, ammo for ranged weapons, standard fare at the inn, etc. so I didn't worry about the cost of every meal. With the return of magic items not being tied to your necessary progression (and hopefully not available for sale at your local bazaar beyond the odd scroll or potion), I'm hoping to see the return of some kind of economy that gives characters something to need money for.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 7:05AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Id like the need to acquire training before you gain a level. Though we have discussed it amongst our group, I'm about the only one that hates the auto level - mid adventure. I'm going to guess this minority I'm in is pretty small.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 7:47AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2003
|
Personally, I'm a fan of decoupling the magic item economy from the normal economy entirely. If GP can't buy magic, then particularly noble characters can turn down rewards or tithe their share of the treasure while scoundrels drown themselves in liquor and luxuries between adventures without either having to worry about how they're losing power by not saving up for the next magic item.
That said, I still like there being a magic item economy, because it gives the players some ability to select some of their own magic items and because I personally have fun seeing how I can best spend a budget on available magic items. Just keep it separate from what my character uses to buy his mansion and pay his servants so I don't feel like I'm forced to give up mechanical necessities to roleplay anyone other than a miser.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 7:58AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2007
|
Let's be clear in our terminology here. D&D does not have an economy, and it never has. An economy is a system of production and consumption, of labor, land and resource capital, and of the manufacturing, trade, distribution and consumption of goods by a population over a given area and time.
What D&D has is a reward system. That system is solely at the discretion of the DM, and always has been, and always will be. What form that reward takes and whether or not the players can convert one form into another is likewise completely arbitrary, and the DM can exercise as much or as little control over that process as he likes.
And all of that is exactly as it should be. There are some thing that should not be left in the DM's hands, and some that should. This is the latter.
-m4ki; one down, one to go "Retro is not new.
Retro-fit is not new."
--Seeker95,
on why I won't be playing DDN
| DDN Metrics (0-10) | enthusiasm: 1 | confidence in design: -3 | desire to play: 0 | Sticking with 4e?: Yep. | Better Options: IKRPG Mk II |
The Five Things D&D Next Absolutely Must Not Do:
Show
1. Imbalanced gameplay. Any and all characters must be able to contribute equally both in combat and out of combat at all levels of play. If the Fighters are linear and the Wizards quadratic, I walk.
2. Hardcore simulationist approach. D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. I'm weak and useless enough in real life; I play RPGs for a change of pace. If the only reason a rule exists is because "that's how it's supposed to be", I walk. I don't want a game that "simulates" real life, I want a game that simulates heroic fantasy.
3. Worshipping at false idols (AKA Sacred Cows). If the only reason a rule exists is "it's always been that way", I walk. Now to be clear, I have no problem with some things not changing; my issue is with retaining bad idea simply for the sake of nostalgia.
4. DM vs. players. If the game encourages "gotcha!" moments or treats the DM and players as enemies, adversaries, or problems to be overcome, I walk.
5. Rules for the sake of rules. The only thing I want rules for is the things I can't do sitting around a table with my friends. If the rules try to step on my ability to roleplay the character I want to roleplay, I walk. Furthermore, the rules serve to facilitate gameplay, not to simulate the world.
NOTE: Items in red have been violated.
Chris Perkins' DM Survival Tips:
Show
1. When in doubt, wing it.
2. Keep the story moving. Go with the flow.
3. Sometimes things make the best characters.
4. Always give players lots of things to do.
5. Wherever possible, say ‘yes.’
6. Cheating is largely unnecessary.
7. Don't be afraid to give the characters a fun new toy.
8. Don't get in the way of a good players exchange.
9. Avoid talking too much.
10. Save some details for later.
11. Be transparent.
12. Don't show all your cards.
Words to live by.
Quotes From People Smarter Than Me:
Show
"Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging..." -Foxface on Essentials
"Servicing a diverse fan base with an RPG ruleset - far from being the mandate for 'open design space' and a cavalier attitude towards balance - requires creating a system that /works/, with minimal fuss, for a wide variety of play styles, not just from one group to the next, but at the same table." -Tony_Vargas on design
"Mearls' and Cook's stated intent to produce an edition that fans of all previous editions (and Pathfinder) will like more than their current favourite edition is laudable. But it is also, IMO, completely unrealistic. It's like people who pray for world peace: I might share their overall aims, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to succeed. When they talk in vague terms about what they'd like to do in this new edition, I mostly find myself thinking 'hey, that sounds cool, assuming they can pull it off', but almost every time they've said something specific about actual mechanics, I've found myself wincing and shaking my head in disbelief and/or disgust, either straight away or after thinking about the obvious implications for half a minute." -Duskweaver on D&D Next
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 8:33AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
Well said, M4kitsu.
Now, if somebody wants to come up with rules to simulate an in-game economy....they must be really desperate for immersion.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 9:05AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
Something I haven't seen discussed is use of all of that treasure PCs tend to acquire in 5e. In old school editions, you needed to adventure and gain treasure to further your career. It cost money to level and henchmen and hirelings were an integral part of the game (and often seemed to live better than the PC's - ).
Ah, all the wonderful things I houseruled out in previous editions.
Despite that, I sort of agree with you. Leveling cost is easy to ignore if you don't want it. But, I would want it to specifically be presented as an add-on, not the default setting, especially as it doesn't make all that much sense. How many WWII fighter pilots went out, killed five planes, then had to go back for more training before they could get better, killed five more planes, got more training, etc? Answer: none. It just didn't happen. In fact, just the opposite: if you got really good out in the field, you returned to teach new pilots. It might make some sense as part of attaining a Paragon Path/Prestige Class, but I feel that is better shown through roleplaying or a quest than a simple reduction in X numbers of GP.
You also eventually had a castle or tower to maintain, magical research to perform (beyond just bulding magic items as in 3E), etc.
This is more interesting, and I hope that there are guidelines for this presented by default in 5e. My favorite part of 2e was researching new spells. If brought back, this should also be expanded into researching new fighting styles, sword techniques, etc. Wizards shouldn't get all the cool toys.
I normally required upkeep costs per month as well which took care of standard spell componets, ammo for ranged weapons, standard fare at the inn, etc. so I didn't worry about the cost of every meal.
Here's 2 gp. Keep the change. Meanwhile, I'm going to dump out my bag of holding in my room and imitate Scrooge McDuck in his vault.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 9:30AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
You could completely remove the level system entirely - so that all xp is immediately tradable to purchase skills so your 5 planes shot down become irrelevant, You gain from each individual one. However one of the reasons why we have levels is because it's easier to update a character all at once, rather than disrupting gameplay to go though improving your character. This makes a lot more sense to do at a town, where you can get resources, for .. say the new shiny exotic weapon for your new chosen feat. Maybe the spell ingredients for your new spells.... ect ...ect. Stopping the game flow half way though a dungeon has just never appealed to me. Forcing characters towards the nearest town makes it more convenient for both player, DM alike. Requiring a teacher also makes sense for acquiring new techniques / spells. This also gives us an opportunity to spend wealth. Why have money in the game at all, unless you can spend it ? The more ways the better IMO. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 9:41AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
Stopping the game flow half way though a dungeon has just never appealed to me.
It's never appealed to me either, but sometimes you gotta eat, or sleep, or go to work. Personally, I've never experienced a dungeon-crawl with an uninterrupted flow for those reasons and more, and leveling has always occured in between sessions.
Forcing characters towards the nearest town makes it more convenient for both player, DM alike. Requiring a teacher also makes sense for acquiring new techniques / spells. This also gives us an opportunity to spend wealth. Why have money in the game at all, unless you can spend it ? The more ways the better IMO.
Why have money if it's assumed it will go to a tax later? Is it to punish those characters that spent all their money mid-level?
It seems pointless to me. "Here, have 100 gold. But, don't spend it as I'm going to take it away when you gain another 1000 XP."
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 9:52AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
0.o Yeah, that is totally the idea behind it. Force the PC's to role play buskin for 2 years to afford there training cost. Ohh wait, no .. I remember, I'm a DM, I can foresee this happening, n can make sure they can afford it via "reward" treasure.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 9:58AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
0.o Yeah, that is totally the idea behind it. Force the PC's to role play buskin for 2 years to afford there training cost. Ohh wait, no .. I remember, I'm a DM, I can foresee this happening, n can make sure they can afford it via "reward" treasure.
Then what's the point? "For completeing the adventure you receive 500 gp worth in training!"
If it happens regardless of player choice, then there's no point in creating a system for it. If it doesn't happen regardless of player choice, then you're setting them up to fail.
At first, I was agnostic as to this sytem. But the more I discuss it with you, the more I think the designers shouldn't waste time on it or add printing cost to the books for it.
Edit: Here's an alternative - You do not pay for levels. You get those automatically. Instead, you pay for alternate class features or to learn advanced feats. These things have powers equivalent to magic items of the same price range. Thus, players are not penalized for choosing to spend their money elsewhere. At the same time, though, you can have players choose to be equipment-based or training-based, or somewhere in between.
Now you have an interesting training system, because there's meaningful choice.
You might also have training be required for multiclassing. This could put a limit on how many level dips you take from your main class. Again, it's interesting because it gives meaningful choice.
"Pay X gold or your don't level" is not interesting, because there's no real alternative being offered.
|
|
|
