Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Metafictional 07-24-07, 06:57 PM	In a recent post I found myself ranting about the "Wealth by level" metagame concept. To ensure balance, you must try to not let your characters exceed their Wealth by level. However, I have noticed that doing this is very difficult; characters can often dream up ways to make more cash. Several skills are designed to do this, such as Craft, Sleight of Hand (picking pockets), Profession, and my group's new personal favorite, Forgery (teach me to have merchants use Letters of Credit!). Several spells exist that can override the wealth by level guidelines, properly used. (Heck, the Polymorph series of spells violates the ECL guidelines, which is why they get nerfed so much!). And I've found that the random treasure tables often add more wealth to the game than they should, requiring me to constantly monitor my rolls, and go back to make changes, for something that's supposed to help me devise treasures quickly. Further, my group has this tendency to have their characters actually ROLEPLAY how they divvy up treasure. Taking their cue from WoW Guild raiding, they simply divvy treasure based on how it would make the party more effective. This can mean that the Barbarian in my group gets priority on all weapons, armor, and things that increase her damage output and survivability. As a result, the Barbarian of my group now has much more wealth than she should have, based on her level, since, to my surprise, in the last adventure, she got not only a new sword, but new armor AND Wings of Flying, all based on my player's deciding, in character, that it would make her more useful in her role. Unless I specifically tailor items as best I can, so they will go to the intended player, I can't see any way to avoid this. Which a lot of people on these forums have told me, is bad. It destroys the roleplaying aspect of the game, I am told, to have characters just find the perfect item for their use. "Hey look guys, an enchanted Spiked Chain! What are the odds!" I can agree with this, it does destroy the game's verisimilitude if treasure hoards look like this. However, enforcing the wealth by level guidelines has forced me to do this, since the random tables often kick out items exceeding the wealth my characters should have, and unless I do tailor the items, there's no telling who will become the new owner. I haven't discussed this with my group because I can't see how they are doing anything wrong, this is legitimate play, and I happen to like how they actually do work as a team (my past groups were much more selfish, and it made things harder as a result). I'm starting to think that Level by Wealth is a Myth. If other DM's have any tricks or solutions to the problem that don't involve screwing over players arbitrarily, I would certainly love to hear them.
weasel0 07-24-07, 07:29 PM	You can also kinda look and see what the total wealth of the party should be and cap them there. They can divy up the treasure however they wish amongst themselves but still don't get more than avg per person. Happened to us with a wizard we had in one campain. He had 3/4 of all party wealth in his headband of Int. Completly legitimately. He made items for the rest of us for 3/4 price of market and put his profit into his headband. We weren't happy though when we went to make new characters and found that our starting gear was reduced to crap because of it though. But run the same tricks on them. Have clerics gold lifted. Use dominate on the barb. Sooner or later it'll remove gold. Have officials track the party down and jailed/stripped of possesions and unable to reclaim most of them as the fine. Removal of pick pockets hands(reduces forgery ablilties too). Real actions=Real consequeces--good or ill Or the real fix... don't use random tables.
Mock26 07-24-07, 08:29 PM	Too much wealth does not automatically equate to unbalancing the game. Just remember that guidelines are just that, guidelines. The wealth only really unbalances the game when they use it to buy unbalancing items. Just because a magic item is listed as costing a certain amount of GP in the DMG does not automatically mean that that is what it would cost to purchase or that it is even avaialable to purchase. Yes, having more money makes it easier for characters to make magic items, but you don't have to let them make some or all magic items. You can limit what items can be created. You can have a generally magic poor world. You can even have a world where the ability to create magic items has been lost and now all magic items are highly prized, are hoarded, and when sold, they sell for 10-100x the cost listed.
Elessar 07-24-07, 10:30 PM	It's my understanding that the wealth by level guideline is based on the average amount of gold that character has in fixed assets. It's okay for your characters to get more gold by their own active ingenuity. But step the game up to meet this level of thinking. Most peoples' games don't include that type of entrepreneurial depth, but then again, most DMs don't charge the characters with taxes, tithes, living expenses, theft, bribes, legal expenses, etc.. If you sat down and thought, you could come up with just as many ideas for expenditures that the PCs might need so that they can't opt to pour their newfound wealth into assets like magic items. Also, I see very little wrong inherently to giving out magic items that are custom tailored to PCs who don't have any yet (in certain games, at least). Or if they are content to load all the items on to one character, I also see no problem with that. If they complain that their individual characters don't have enough wealth for their level, say "That's right, because you gave it all to Joe Barbarian over there." Also, you know, you can always just hold out on treasure for a while until they increase in level. The treasure tables list how much treasure should be given out per encounter, but it doesn't say how many encounters there should be each level that come with no treasure (against enemies with "Treasure: None" ) If wealth per level gets really out of control, you can just have your characters start an undead story arc or something where treasure is scarce.
Neutronium_Dragon 07-25-07, 04:31 AM	Most of the money-making skills won't make that much from a PC's standpoint. Craft will get you a few gold a week at most - that's hardly anything, especially if the characters aren't 1st level anymore. The only one that might produce more would be Forgery, but if the characters are planning a heist that significant, it's probably an adventure in its own right, with the payoff as the treasure. The treasure tables will generate more wealth per level, but two things to remember: One is that not every encounter should have a treasure. The encounter lists at a given level will throw a range of things at a party if you actually start using random rolls, and many of those are treasureless. Some will have more or less than usual, depending on their creature entry. The other is that even once that's factored in, the PCs will get about 10% more than they should because it's assumed that that extra 10% is going towards expended resources - daily expenses, potions and scrolls, hiring services, and other costs of adventuring.
queenfange 07-25-07, 10:42 AM	Wow, I always have the opposite problem: PCs that are way too poor. Maybe a few of the things I do could help you balance out your problem... 1) Upkeep. Players need to eat at least twice a day (preferrably 3 times) or else they suffer damage (in my campaign, ability damage) that can only be fixed by eating. If the PCs are in a nicer area or want something besides mashed turnips, meals can be 3-10+ silver each. If PCs enjoy roleplaying, they may be willing to splurge much more on Deep Dwarven Whiskey or seasonal white dragon steaks. 2) Give them items that they can't use. If they're fighting a blackguard, he'll probably have at least one item that relates to his alignment, such as a wand of magic circle against good. It won't do much use for the PCs, and they have to sell it for half price. Some items NPCs have the characters might not be able to use it all because they are either linked to the item (like a magical tattoo) or they use them in combat (drinking the cure serious wounds potion). 3) Entertainment. The PCs tip the nice bard at the tavern, go see an opera, or hire an escort as arm-candy for the fancy ball. If dealing with nobles, merchants, or powerful officials they need to impress, they may have to take them to the fanciest eateries and theater shows to gain their favor. 4) Bribes. Again, for dealing with the high and mighty the PCs need to get on the good side of. I hope at least a bit of that helps. P.S. All that said, congrats to your players. They are certainly being effective, and it's fortunate that they work together, not selfishly. Good for them!
mvincent 07-25-07, 12:53 PM	I'm starting to think that Level by Wealth is a Myth.This topic might be more appropriate for "What's a DM to Do?" rather than "DM Rules Counseling". That said, all my long campaigns have followed wealth by level guidelines without much effort. Also, most published adventures seem to follow the wealth by level guidelines. However, it's assumed that players will be selling a decent portion of the loot for 1/2 price (because they don't have a use for it), and using some expendable items. Also, they should generally not be keeping the gear of dead (and buried) party members.
Some_call_me_Tim 07-25-07, 01:58 PM	The only one that might produce more would be Forgery, but if the characters are planning a heist that significant, it's probably an adventure in its own right, with the payoff as the treasure.And also very likely to attract the wraith of the merchant's guild and the local authorities if it large enough to actually worry you about wealth per level. Remember if the PCs can do it, so can a multitude of NPCs. Something such as a letter of credit would always be checked thoroughly considering its value. I would imagine that the merchant's guild would either employ clerics or have access to spells such as zone of truth and discern lies to protect their members from fraud. They would also have mundane clerks with max ranks and probably skill focus (forgery) as well. In my campaign world, if the PCs tried this they would be taken to local temple of the God of Commerce where the altar has a hallow spell with discern lies tied to it. If they passed then they might free up some of the credit on the spot, with the rest waiting for verification. Just like a modern bank putting a hold on funds you deposit via check. The party might be able to get away with a small forgery here and there but forgery is exactly a blank check either. Eventually, the forgery will be detected and depending on the amount swindled (and from whom) considerable resources might be sent to recover it. As Dragon said, it can be an adventure all its own with good plot hooks but no need to let its abuse ruin your campaign either. As for wealth per level being out of whack there are lots of critters with little to no treasure, make sure you have enough encounters with them. Too many encounters with NPCs will either skew the treasure curve or result in under-equipped NPCs. Equip NPC with consumable items that increase their effectiveness but won't become a permanent problem. Ditch your reliance on random table generation. They are good for the occasional random encounter but you shouldn't build adventures around it. Another thing to consider is how that wealth is spent. If a lot of the wealth is tied up in consumables or specific use items (such as folding boat, dimensional shackles, sustaining spoons) don't worry about it. It becomes a problem when they exceed the wealth by level curve and have it tied up in one or two major items they use in every encounter. The one thing you don't mention in your post is that if they are walking all over appropriate challenges because they have too much stuff. If the amount of magic and gold they have exceeds what they should have but it hasn't affected game balance then all is good. Remember, a third level character with a million gold pieces in the bank or tied up in a bunch of wondrous items that all almost never get used doesn't affect game balance.
wrecan 07-25-07, 02:12 PM	characters can often dream up ways to make more cash. Several skills are designed to do this, such as Craft, Sleight of Hand (picking pockets), Profession, and my group's new personal favorite, Forgery (teach me to have merchants use Letters of Credit!). 1) Craft and Profession can't make more that a few gold a week! After 1st level, these skills should never be game-breaking, unless players are taking 20 years between adventures. 2) Sleight of Hand lets you take on small object from one person on a DC of 20, also opposed by the person's Spot check. Anybody with enough wealth to make sleight of hand worthwhile will have a decent spot check (not to mention that if done in public, everyone in line of sight gets a spot check!) Also, the "small object" may not be valuable. Also, most people don't have pockets, but belt pouches that are attached to the belt. Trying to cut the purse or untie the cord should involve serious penalties. 3) Forging?! That's essentially counterfeiting money. The State is going to hire diviners. And the thieves' guild is going to be looking into anybody suspicious and new. Plus, won't the merchant who bought the bad coins going to remember who sold it to them?! (In my campaigns, all money is imprinted with an Arcane Mark) Several spells exist that can override the wealth by level guidelines, properly used. Like what? Other than wish, miracle and gate (ninth level spell), the only money breaking spell of which I can think is wall of iron and maybe wall of stone. But these spells don't garner nearly as much money as a sorcerer with the ability to cast it should care. And I've found that the random treasure tables often add more wealth to the game than they should, requiring me to constantly monitor my rolls, and go back to make changes, for something that's supposed to help me devise treasures quickly. It's not supposed to be that quick! As a result, the Barbarian of my group now has much more wealth than she should have, based on her level, since, to my surprise, in the last adventure, she got not only a new sword, but new armor AND Wings of Flying, all based on my player's deciding, in character, that it would make her more useful in her role. [EDITED OUT FOR INAPPROPRIATENESS. MEA MAXIMA CULPA!] Treasure should be sold for cash if nobody wants to buy it from the group. The players then use their share to buy items that make them more effective. I haven't discussed this with my group because I can't see how they are doing anything wrong I do. They should charge the barbarian for the items. If the barbarian can't afford it, sell some of the stuff so everybody can improve. If other DM's have any tricks or solutions to the problem that don't involve screwing over players arbitrarily, I would certainly love to hear them. Talk to them. Explain how they are acting unwisely. They should continue to cooperate, but they should strive for fairness to all people.
Some_call_me_Tim 07-25-07, 05:52 PM	Then your players are idiots. Treasure should be sold for cash if nobody wants to buy it from the group. The players then use their share to buy items that make them more effective.:blink: I was hoping to find a smiley after that comment. You can't be serious. Can you? The CN me, me, me attitude is all to prevalent in real-life, I sure don't want to sit down at table with friends to play a game where everyone is just looking out for themselves.
mvincent 07-25-07, 06:16 PM	:blink: I was hoping to find a smiley after that comment. You can't be serious. Can you?While wrecan's method is common practice, I agree that it is astonishing that he would refer to your players as 'idiots'. The fact that your party is willing to sacrifice a bit in order to be more optimal is commendable. That is true tactical thinking, and allows them all to be more effective (and level faster) than other groups. Being a team player is not 'idiotic'. What this possibly says about Wrecan need not be said.
wrecan 07-25-07, 06:24 PM	I apologize for using the word "idiotic". That was uncalled for. I do think that they are using very bad tactics with respect to treasure distribution. :blink: I was hoping to find a smiley after that comment. You can't be serious. Can you? The CN me, me, me attitude is all to prevalent in real-life, I sure don't want to sit down at table with friends to play a game where everyone is just looking out for themselves. How did you get that from what I wrote? I am talking about fairness. If you get 20,000 gp of treasure and one character gets 14,000 gp worth and three people get 2,000 each, how is that fair? And making one character more effective at the expense of others is not efficient. Is it better to have one character fighting as the equivalent of a 8th level character. due to being overtreasured, while the other 3 fight as if they were 4th level, due to being undertreasured, or is it better when everybody plays at 5th level, appropriately treasured? I think it better when everybody plays on equal footing. As it stands, the three undertreasured PCs should be a liability. Balanced encounters should be placing the other PCs in constant mortal peril because they aren't equipped (literally) to handle them. Now the over-equipped barbarian has to split her attention protecting her vulnerable companions. She can't be in three places at once. Are the enemies taking advantage of this glaring weakness in the party? Why not? This is exactly why pooling the treasure in one PC is a very very bad idea. The others are going to be exposed. It is in everybody's interest to make sure treasure is distributed equally (roughly). That's not selfishness. That's the epitome of teamwork. You need to explain this to the party. They are not acting smartly. What works in WoW is not appropriate for D&D.
Mock26 07-25-07, 06:39 PM	Then your players are idiots. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Mock26/howrude2.jpg Treasure should be sold for cash if nobody wants to buy it from the group. The players then use their share to buy items that make them more effective.What is true for you and your group is only true for you and your group. Just because someone does something differently doesn't mean that they are idiots. It only means that they do something differently. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to divide up treasure. While one group may prefer to do it one way, another group is not "wrong" for doing it another way.
mvincent 07-25-07, 06:42 PM	Is it better to have one character fighting as the equivalent of a 8th level character. due to being overtreasured, while the other 3 fight as if they were 4th level, due to being undertreasured, or is it better when everybody plays at 5th levelMathematically, the former would be more optimal. An 8th level plus three 4th level opponent's would have an encounter level of 10. Conversely, four 5th level opponent's would have an encounter level of 9. Such sacrifices of one's own personal power often can often lead to strong, coordinated, trusting teams. Example: Clerics and wizards frequently discover (for example) that they can actually level faster* by spending XP to create gear for the rest of their party. These spellcasters also often find that they are more optimal when using their spells to buff the rest of their party (instead of focusing on their own uberness). * That is to say: they do not level faster than the rest of their party, but the whole party (including them) levels faster than similar groups that don't do such.
mvincent 07-25-07, 06:44 PM	[IMG]What an incredibly idiotic and narrow-minded statement! Wrecan apologized for using that term (before you posted), but your post seemed both ironic and hypocritical. Was it intended as such?
Mock26 07-25-07, 06:48 PM	Wrecan already apologized (before you posted), but your post seemed both ironic and hypocritical. Was it intended as such? He posted his apology while I was in the process of writing my post (it took me quite a few minutes to submit my post due to other concerns at the time). I edited my post as soon as I saw wrecan's apology.
Metafictional 07-25-07, 06:49 PM	Well, that's great, I appreciate the advice so far, but one thing I wanted to stress was solutions that directly worked against the players. Cost of living: I simply use the rules for maintenance; since they adventure a lot, my players don't really need an extravagant lifestyle. Taxes: I assume are included in the above; besides they wander too much for a tax collector to really get at them. Now if they had a permanent residence, I could zing them. In fact, I've been urging them to get a base of operations for awhile now. Maybe tossing a Daern's Instant Fortress in their next haul will do the trick... No Treasure Monsters: I do use a few of these, but generally, there's only three ways to get PC's to fight something like this. 1) it's between them and something they want. 2) it randomly attacks them. 3) someone has put a bounty out on killing the nuisance creature. I am very sparing on 2, since in my campaign, I often give my players the opportunity to get advance information about possible encounters. If a Dire Jabberwock suddendly attacks, the characters with Knowledge and Gather Information are going to be very cross if nobody had ever heard of Dire Jabberwocks being in the area. So I can surprise them, but I need to be consistent with the explanations. It's a tacit agreement between myself and my players; if they are entering terra incognita, I let them know it. Skills to make money: these do a lot more than you'd think. Consider that a daily craft check comes up with it's result x the DC in copper pieces. At 9th level, our Barbarian has a Craft: Weaponsmith check of 14, 16 with masterwork tools. If she gets access to a forge, and attempts to make, say, an exotic weapon, with a roll of 10, she comes up with 520 cp of work per day. That's 5 gold, 2 silver. That's a pair of bolas, 25 shuriken, and in 3-5 days she could easily make a spiked chain. And she gets 2/3 of the item cost as profit, so if she could make two spiked chains a week (assuming there is a market for spiked chains), that's 33+ gold easily made. More than a handful of gold coins. I don't presume my characters adventure every freaking day, and that some time does occur between adventures. Time for characters to train, level up, make magical items, gather information, or make money. Another character of mine has the Skill Profession: Merchant. He uses this to hawk off any strange or unusual items the party finds that they wish to offload. I assume, that in addition to the standard 50% sale cost, any money he makes on his weekly check (I assume it takes at least a week to sell everything) is how much extra gold he's managed to haggle out of would-be buyers. (This seems to be consistent with the Profession rules, and as the PHB lacks rules for haggling, I allow it. I've heard of a use of Diplomacy that can do this, but to my mind, Merchant is a viable Profession). At 10th-level, his Skill check is 14. Half his skill check result each week is extra gold in the pocket. Last game session, he rolled an 18 on his check, so he earned an extra 25 gold. One of my Rogues preys on wealthy merchants with a rather scary Sleight of Hand check. He uses his Gather Information skill to help him target careless and wealthy merchants; while I can trip him up from time to time, basically anyone known to be careful or cautious he avoids. He also takes the time to check in with local thieves, to make sure there are no "guild rules", or people he shouldn't be robbing from. He can usually make off with a hefty coin purse, and he generally earns about as much money as the other characters. As for the letters of credit scenario, yes, I fully realize there are magical protections from Forgery. However, if these are standard, then Forgery would be useless as a skill. Also, my players are fairly smart; they handled such a letter, obviously, slyly cast an Arcane Sight when it was around and apparently were quick to note I didn't mention it having an aura (I thought about a bait-and-switch with Nystul's Undetectable Aura, but let it slide; I didn't think about it before, so I let them have their day). They'd watched merchants handle these things before, and saw nothing magical going on. I assume the letter would be checked eventually, but as I'd secretly rolled the Forgery result and it was quite good, I didn't feel like cheating the players for having a good idea, or investing in a Skill. They took enough precautions to where I decided to let them get away with it...this time. While they're off adventuring, I'll have NPC's ruin the con for them, by taking less precautions, forcing the merchants guilds to up their security. I figured if Frank Abagnale can steal money for years with Forgery, my players could get away with it at least once! Most of the above methods (not going to get into spells just yet, although I in addition to the Wall spells, there are also fun spells such as Fabricate to be considered) do indeed make a small amount of money per week, however, it does start to add up. I don't see any reason to adjust the treasure they'd find normally just because they got smart and found ways to make extra cash. I realize this could be a mistake, but if the players find more wealth when they're not trying to find other ways to make money, than when they do, that would destroy a lot of the fun of the game. As for the random treasure tables, note I'm not just including magic items there, most of which have such bloated prices there's no way you could ever sell one. When I hear about people selling +1 Unholy Long Swords for half price, I have to ask two questions. 1) who can afford this, really? Half the market price for this weapon is over 9k gold! 2) who would buy this? And would you really want to sell an unholy weapon? So this is my problem, I need to consider before ever making a treasure, how much money it can really have, and how easily the players will be able to offload the things they don't want, while balancing the value of the items they want to keep. One of the above posters mentioned over-wealth is ok if it doesn't unbalance the game. So far, I don't think my game is out of balance, but since the most frequent piece of advice I see given to people who have lost control of their games is to adhere to "Wealth by Level", I decided to keep a closer eye on it. And that is a very very common bit of advice! So obviously, a lot of people think it does matter. So I'm looking for ways to balance things without punishing my players for using their brains, skills, and abilities in a role-playing game. Saying "Ooh, you bad, you use Forgery to steal money, I'm going to unload tons of spells, magic items, and NPC's designed to foil you to make you feel stupid!" just doesn't sound like fun. Finally, to the poster who said my players are idiots. I will wisely NOT tell them you said that, since a few of them do frequent these boards, and I don't believe in doing anything to promote or perpetuate silly flame wars. Yes, you are right, they could, by themselves, come up with a system to balance the treasure if they chose. They decided their characters would be friends, and act like friends, and not worry about such selfishness. Mind you, as I said, part of this comes from WoW-Raid mentality, where in order to succeed, Guilds often do gear up certain individuals at the expense of others. I don't know if that has a place in DnD, but since DnD is a game about cooperation and teamwork to overcome adversity, and I've already played in one too many games where everyone is a selfish jerk, I'm not about to scold this group for working together!
wrecan 07-25-07, 07:12 PM	Mathematically, the former would be more optimal. An 8th level plus three 4th level opponent's would have an encounter level of 10. Conversely, four 5th level opponent's would have an encounter level of 9. Only if your look at the PCs as antagonists. Four NPCs would be a bigger challenge because it is assumed the PCs are going to kill or otherwise defeat all four. So the fact that the 3 fourth level characters fall first is on little consequence to the CR system. But to the PCs, the fact that the three undertreasured character will be killed, even if the barbarian survives is important to the PCs. That's why you can't evaluate PCs as if they were CR creatures. An overtreasured character with undertreasured companions should be a liability. The intelligent creatures involved should be avoiding the heavily geared individual and picking off those that will appear to be lackeys. And they should be able to succeed more often than when going up against four equally treasured characters. Such sacrifices of one's own personal power often can often lead to strong, coordinated, trusting teams. Example: Clerics and wizards frequently discover (for example) that they can actually level faster* by spending XP to create gear for the rest of their party. These spellcasters also often find that they are more optimal when using their spells to buff the rest of their party (instead of focusing on their own uberness). * That is to say: they do not level faster than the rest of their party, but the whole party (including them) levels faster than similar groups that don't do such. That may be, but those characters are likely to be creating just as much treasure for themselves. Their item creation feats work best when it serve to increase the value of everybody's treasure, rather than the treasure of only a few. Likewise, I have noticed that Scribe Scroll works best when the wizard uses it to find scrolsl that will be used to buff their companions. That, too, is teamwork. I don't think it is wise to allow an unbalanced situation to remain in a party. But if the party chooses imbalance, then I say, so be it. I would not change the treasure distribution or come up with extraneous rules like taxes or cost of living to make up for it (notwithstanding that thsi will tend to punish the overtreasured characters even more, thus increasing the imbalance).
wrecan 07-25-07, 07:13 PM	He posted his apology while I was in the process of writing my post (it took me quite a few minutes to submit my post due to other concerns at the time). I edited my post as soon as I saw wrecan's apology. Um... did you edit it to remove the Jar Jar photo? "cause it's still there in my browser.
Mock26 07-25-07, 07:26 PM	Um... did you edit it to remove the Jar Jar photo? "cause it's still there in my browser. I did not edit it to remove the photo. I edited it to remove my "idiotic and narrow-minded" comment.
mvincent 07-25-07, 07:33 PM	I did not edit it to remove the photo. I edited it to remove my "idiotic and narrow-minded" comment.The Jar-Jar photo was the more offensive of the two ;)
wrecan 07-25-07, 07:34 PM	Skills to make money: these do a lot more than you'd think. Consider that a daily craft check comes up with it's result x the DC in copper pieces. At 9th level, our Barbarian has a Craft: Weaponsmith check of 14, 16 with masterwork tools. If she gets access to a forge, and attempts to make, say, an exotic weapon, with a roll of 10, she comes up with 520 cp of work per day. That's 5 gold, 2 silver. That's a pair of bolas, 25 shuriken, and in 3-5 days she could easily make a spiked chain. And she gets 2/3 of the item cost as profit, so if she could make two spiked chains a week (assuming there is a market for spiked chains), that's 33+ gold easily made. But you said she's 9th level right? That extra 33 gp a week shouldn't have any appreciable effect on their wealth. Even assuming they take a year off, it's 1,700 gp, just a little more than the equivalent of beating a single encounter of EL5. Another character of mine has the Skill Profession: Merchant. Again, a year's worth of merchanting (at your estimated 25 gp/week) shouldn't earn him much more than the value of fighting one EL4 creature (1300 gp)! One of my Rogues preys on wealthy merchants with a rather scary Sleight of Hand check. Merchants should have protections commensurate with their wealth. What defenses do these guys have? The CR tables don't go out the window just because the PCs are in an urban environment. If the "mark" has, say 2000 gp of treasure, he should have defenses sufficient to make him am encounter of EL6, such as keen-eyed bodyguards and a magical defense or two. He also takes the time to check in with local thieves, to make sure there are no "guild rules", or people he shouldn't be robbing from. Shouldn't the guild rules be "you need to pay us your cut of anything you steal, and you have to join the guild and you have to pay regular dues." A guild is usually the equivalent of a gang. Think of it this way -- do you think your local street gang would ever be okay with some guy selling drugs in their territory? Why should the thieves' guild ever be okay with a non-member stealing from people in theirs? And joining a guild is generally not compatible with an adventuring lifestyle. First off, the guild is going to want him around to do jobs for them and "But I'm going to a dungeon" isn't really going to placate them. Second, the guild is going to get interested in his parties wealth (no honor among thieves and all that). He can usually make off with a hefty coin purse, and he generally earns about as much money as the other characters. So about 1500-2000 gp per year? Why is this a problem? As for the letters of credit scenario, yes, I fully realize there are magical protections from Forgery. However, if these are standard, then Forgery would be useless as a skill. Just because it cannot be used for counterfeiting does not mean it's useless. Lots of documents are not going to get arcane marks. Here's some examples: 1) Forging a love letter to create a political scandal. 2) Forging an ancient treasure map to sell to gullible low-level adventurers 3) Forging an inventory list for a fictional ship to bilk potential investors. The problem is that these are risky uses of Forgery because it attracts the attention of the law very quickly and also embroils the Forger in all sorts of scenarios, which is great for characters who want to engage in urban campaigns. Not so great for the adventurer who needs a place to sell loot between dungeons. as I'd secretly rolled the Forgery result and it was quite good, I didn't feel like cheating the players for having a good idea, or investing in a Skill. I think this is the crux of the problem (assuming that this is a problem). Treasure in any form is treasure. NPC mechants should have no fewer defenses against theft than NPCs dungeon-dwelling monsters. The merchants should not be ignorant of magic in a D&D world. They need to adjust their practices to accommodate it. Think of it this way. You said there's a thieves' guild. Wouldn't one of those clever thieves have come up with the letter of credit scheme? Wouldn't they have already made their money on it? Wouldn't the merchants get wise to the scam and come up with a protection from it? Never let the same trick work more than once. As soon as it happens, they should be ready. I figured if Frank Abagnale can steal money for years with Forgery, my players could get away with it at least once! Frank Abagnale didn't have to worry about magic. He was just dealing with 1960's technology. I don't see any reason to adjust the treasure they'd find normally just because they got smart and found ways to make extra cash. Well, the problem is that you're giving them a lot of benefits. You don't send untreasured monsters against the,. And you use the random treasure tables, which presume that some encounters are going to be untreasured. And you don't adjust for income gathered through extended Profession and Craft checks. That's what's adding up. When I hear about people selling +1 Unholy Long Swords for half price, I have to ask two questions. 1) who can afford this, really? Half the market price for this weapon is over 9k gold! Merchants who specialize selling stuff to adventurers. 2) who would buy this? And would you really want to sell an unholy weapon? Good-aligned churches who are going to destroy it and thus deny evil a weapon, or are going to convert it into a holy weapon. So I'm looking for ways to balance things without punishing my players for using their brains, skills, and abilities in a role-playing game. Saying "Ooh, you bad, you use Forgery to steal money, I'm going to unload tons of spells, magic items, and NPC's designed to foil you to make you feel stupid!" just doesn't sound like fun. Well, actually, I only suggested a zero-level spell. It seems like a pretty basic precaution for a merchant to take to protect thousands of gold pieces. After all, hiring a wizard to cast it only costs 5 gp or so. I imagine the local wizards' guild probably offers that as a service. Finally, to the poster who said my players are idiots. I apologized. I'll apologize to them if you like. They decided their characters would be friends, and act like friends, and not worry about such selfishness. And I explained that sharing treasure evenly is a sign of teamwork, not selfishness.
Some_call_me_Tim 07-25-07, 07:37 PM	How did you get that from what I wrote?Well after using a loaded word like 'idiotic....' I took it to mean "screw the party, I want mine."I am talking about fairness. If you get 20,000 gp of treasure and one character gets 14,000 gp worth and three people get 2,000 each, how is that fair?I never said it was completely fair. While you might get short changed three times out of four that fourth time makes up for it. I've been a table's where instead of thinking of the party's best interest they were thinking merely of each characters best interest. "Sorry, Mr. Paladin, but you don't have enough to buy the Holy Avenger from the party, so we are just gonna sell it and then when you save up enough gold you can buy it back at twice what we sold it for." While it might be more fair to each individual party member, it weakens the party. As far as making the most effective party it would be better to unselfishly give the Holy Avenger to the Mr. Paladin; knowing when your mage finds that Robe of Archmagi he will return the favor. I'm hoping that most people are lucky enough to have access to player groups where they can see who is the obvious choice to employ that new magic item and recognize when they have had more than their fair share of loot. We actually had the opposite problem in the last group I played with. No one wanted to be seen as greedy so some items sat on the table until someone finally said "I'm giving the ring of protection +3 to the mage as he didn't get anything else." And making one character more effective at the expense of others is not efficient.What you aren't seeing is that your method reduces the effectiveness of the entire party as they spend gold to recover items that the party sold but they could have used--that's not very efficient either. I will grant that this method does depend on class specific magic items eventually 'evening-out' which might require the DM to track and even to make some adjustments. I (as a player) actually kept track of every one of the player's wealth to keep an eye on it. I played a rogue (with lots of UMD) so I actually had a large amount of wealth but didn't use it very often but rather used it when I was the only to be able to activate the item. The cleric had the second highest total because we wanted to make sure he didn't have to skimp on healing to protect 'his' wealth. But no character was very far behind because those that got less magic got more gold. We typically gave a double share if you took no magic items and those that got a major magic item often eschewed any gold for that adventure. I think it better when everybody plays on equal footing.I agree if one character is much better equipped it does put the others at risk and will likely also lessen their enjoyment as they play a supporting character to the 'real' hero. I just think selling everything for gold and then buying it back doesn't make sense either. I play in Living Greyhawk and that is basically how the economy is handled. While it is inherently more fair, I definitely don't think it is better. I've seen too many hard feelings over who should provide the healing consumables, the healer or the healee. Or that wand of fireballs the mage uses, he's helping the party why should it come out of just his pocket. This type of economy really restricts the use of consumables as no one wants to be behind the wealth curve. It is in everybody's interest to make sure treasure is distributed equally (roughly). That's not selfishness. That's the epitome of teamwork.I have no problem making sure everyone has a fair share but not at the cost of selling items that the party could be using. What works in WoW is not appropriate for D&D.True, that is why you shouldn't use totally random treasure generation as it could result in very uneven treasure distribution. Even still over time it should even out, if you get a second randomly-generated Holy Avenger, sell it and buy that mage in the apprentice robes a Robe of the Archmagi.
mvincent 07-25-07, 07:44 PM	the fact that the three undertreasured character will be killed, even if the barbarian survives is important to the PCs.Ideally, their tactics would take advantage of their strengths and minimize there weaknesses. Again, I am very tactically minded, and I generally prefer to load up one character if the loot is suitable for them. I can agree that say, four +1 swords are better than one +2 sword, but that is not what we are talking about. Loading a single character up with complimentary items can serve as an excellent force multiplier. Simple example: if you get +1 ring of protection, a +1 sword and boots of speed, giving them all to the same character means that the +1 sword will be the most optimally used (i.e. more often, and for longer). The underpowered characters aren't that much more vulnerable (as only one would get the +1 ring of protection anyway), but they can always keep out of the battle more easily (and the hp system should allows for some warning before death). If anything, they should be safer with this method, as the barbarian will likely get most of the attention.
wrecan 07-25-07, 07:46 PM	I never said it was completely fair. While you might get short changed three times out of four that fourth time makes up for it. Except that the OP indicated there is no "fourth time". The barbarian has more than the others and that doesn't seem like it's going to change. While it might be more fair to each individual party member, it weakens the party. In that case, the paladin keeps it but foregoes future treasure until everything is even again. But to simply divvy stuff up based on how the haphazard treasure benefits individuals, without considering how unbalancing the group has its own problem is not conducive to teamwork. the obvious choice to employ that new magic item and recognize when they have had more than their fair share of loot. Apparently, this group isn't recognizing it, or it's not really all that unbalanced, in which case it's not a problem. What you aren't seeing is that your method reduces the effectiveness of the entire party as they spend gold to recover items that the party sold but they could have used--that's not very efficient either. There are ways around it. The point is that the party should consider how to be fair. It appears that this party is not considering fairness at all by loading the barbarian up with items. As I said, if it's not unbalanced then it's not a problem. but being unbalanced is a major problem in D&D where so many rules assume a party on roughly even footing. I just think selling everything for gold and then buying it back doesn't make sense either. Well, that was an overstatement. I didn't think it was necessary to go into the whole "borrow against future treasure" option. I was trying to just address the OP's party's immediate problem which appeared to be that they didn't consider the problems of being unbalanced at all. I've seen too many hard feelings over who should provide the healing consumables, the healer or the healee. In most parties I've seen, healing is a pool bought out of communal treasure. Which only works when people work together as a team and think about what the party needs.
wrecan 07-25-07, 07:48 PM	Ideally, their tactics would take advantage of their strengths and minimize there weaknesses. Again, I am very tactically minded, and I generally prefer to load up one character if the loot is suitable for them. I'm a strategist too, and from a DM's perspective, loading the items on one character us a huge hole to be exploited by smart observant antagonists. When a disproportionate level of resources is loaded on one character, the strategy becomes divide and conquer. When it's more even, that strategy doesn't work nearly as well.
mvincent 07-25-07, 08:00 PM	loading the items on one character us a huge hole to be exploited by smart observant antagonists. When a disproportionate level of resources is loaded on one character, the strategy becomes divide and conquer.How so? Focusing on the loaded character means that you are using your attacks on the highest AC opponent (meaning their protective gear is getting maximum use). Focusing on the under-loaded character means that you aren't really knocking out much of a force multiplier (and again, the hp system should allow the under-powered PC a chance to retreat before actually being dead)
wrecan 07-25-07, 08:32 PM	How so? Focusing on the loaded character means that you are using your attacks on the highest AC opponent (meaning their protective gear is getting maximum use). I wrote divide and conquer. Force the overloaded character to be separated from the others. Don't concentrate your attack on him. Just make it so he needs a few rounds to regroup with the party. Depending on the party level, web and wall spells will work for that purpose, or possibly well placed traps. Then concentrate your attacks on the undertreasured guys. If you, as a villain, have an EL appropriately matched for the party's APL, you should be able to clean up pretty quickly. Then you retreat (taking the bodies if possible), heal yourself, and go after the now all-alone overtreasured individual. This tactic won't work as well against an evenly treasured party because any separated group of PCs should be able to hold off the attacks for a few rounds until the companions return. The tactic really only works if, by separating out the undertresured group, they are overly vulnerable.
Metafictional 07-25-07, 09:28 PM	Apology more than accepted, with a counter-apology, as I wrote my post while you were apologizing. I agree that the tables are probably not meant to be used often; I no longer bother to use them. It does occasionally mean that a treasure will have a large item that has a cost that cannot be split evenly, however, I feel that's ok because obviously not every treasure has 5 different magic items of equal power/cost. I've decided that as long as the combined wealth of the party does not exceed the guidelines by over 50% I'm doing ok. Obviously magic items somewhat skew the Wealth/Power comparism; is a 28 k magic item better than 28 k of lesser items? The answer is, probably not. Since items are not actually costed based on their contribution to the character, but their contribution per item, it's a tricky balance to maintain. A Ring of Protection +1 and an Amulet of Natural Armor +1 are obviously cheaper by far than an Amulet of Natural Armor +2, despite having the same general effect; ie, +2 AC. This means wealth is an indicator of power, but not a good one, since multiple cheap items may have a greater effect than one expensive item. While it may not appear that my group comes up with a great deal of extra gold, and you are right about what they could expect to make in a year, I have noticed the impact overall. I'm not worried about it, so much, as I was worried that it upset the wealth by level guidelines. While your suggestions to keep wealth under control are good, I wish that the DMG had more of these. For example, saying the treasure tables are designed with the idea that not all encounters have treasure is all well and good, but I don't recall the DMG or MM giving guidelines of what kinds of monsters to use. I always thought it was based on the campaign. If your adventuring in an area with lots of kobolds, then you should fight kobolds, and they should produce kobold-type treasure. If you're adventuring in an area with dire wolves, they should produce wolf-type treasure; ie, whatever you can poach from their kills or bodies. Yes, you can mix it up, maybe the kobolds have a pet dire bear, and maybe there's a werewolf leading the dire wolves. But I don't recall any statements in the DMG saying "now remember, if more than x percentage of encounters produce treasure, you must reduce the treasure amounts accordingly". Not saying there aren't any, I just don't remember seeing anything like that. Arcane Mark on money. Well I do have a problem with that. A Sorcerer cannot cast more than 6 Arcane Marks per day. He could use higher-level spell slots to cast more, but he should charge more (if I'm using a 3rd-level slot to cast Arcane Mark, buddy, I'm charging you for Fireball prices!). A Wand of Arcane Mark would still be a fairly hefty cost, and it would only mark 50 bills. What's worse here is the effect on the economy when each bill or letter of credit has the same cost to prepare that has nothing to do with the value of the bill itself as currency! It's like having a nickle that's worth more than 5 cents to make; this will have a long term effect on the economy. And how many bills or letters are needed to keep an economy going? If Sorcerer is only cranking out 6 Arcane Marks a day, even at 0-level spell cost, that's only 6 transactions he's accounting for. You'd need Wizards to create "Mass Arcane Mark", a higher-level spell that costs more (but hopefully will crank out more transactions). Of course the other problem is, if you say an Arcane Mark is like a magical fingerprint, unique to the caster, that means every caster must register their unique Arcane Mark with the government, so a merchant can compare the arcane mark to his list. And eventually, Wizards will realize the economy of the land is based on their ability to crank out spells. Which means they can gain vast power by denial of service, or arbitrarily raise the prices for their spells. Not to mention the idea of casting Dispel effects or anti-magic to devalue large amounts of currency on the sly (but Erase already presents these problems). Sorry to go on a tangent, but it occured to me that magical methods to protect one's money are actually LESS reliable than 1960's technology, by the magic available in the core books. Merchants who specialize in selling 18 k unholy swords to adventurers, or churches that will spend 18 k to destroy such items (as opposed to sending out zealous paladins to "acquire" the dangerous weapons of evil, or preaching that selling an evil weapon for greedy purposes is, in itself an act of evil)? Come on, let's be reasonable! No economy could survive if there's people running around dropping 18 k every time they walk into town. I don't believe players are intended to sell magical items. Compared to the value of normal services, magical items are grossly inflated in price, and beyond the reach of all but the highest-level characters in a campaign. (If you want to apply wealth-by-level to NPC's, which I believe is a core rule?). Especially if the economy is based on the idea that magical items, which do not wear or tear, can only be sold for half of market price. Imagine this: Merty the Mystical Merchant creates a +3 Sword. He sells it to Joe Barbarian for 18 k. Some time later, Joe Barbarian finds a +4 Sword, and goes to Merty to sell back his old one. No matter how much or little time has elapsed, the sword nets him 9 k. Merty has 9k in the pocket, and his sword back, which he then sells to Terry Ranger for another 18 k... The prices for objects in our world is based on cost to manufacture, cost to sell, demand, and supply/availability. If your local magic item vendor is like Wirt or Gheed from the Diabloverse, they should be rolling in thousands upon thousands of gold pieces. Who the heck is making all this hard currency, anyways?! Well that's my latest rant about wealth. I realize it's "just a game", but the DMG makes a lot of statements about injecting the illusion of reality (verisimilitude) into your game, and there are no answers for these questions that make any kind of logical sense. Wealth by Level: It's a Myth, and you can't balance the power level of your game upon it.
Downtym 07-25-07, 10:02 PM	In a recent post I found myself ranting about the "Wealth by level" metagame concept. Actually, Wealth by level is not a metagame concept. If you look at the MM and work the monster stats backwards for a number of different CR's, you'll find that they often assume a certain type of possession (Such as a +X weapon or +X armor) into their to-hits and AC. Further, if you begin examining the monsters closer, their ability saves begin to correlate to certain stat boosting items (The base stat assumption seems to be something between the elite state array and the normal stat array). So, I would not say that Wealth by Level is a metagame concept. There's definitely some assumptions hardcoded into the system with respect to character wealth and available items.
Metafictional 07-25-07, 10:16 PM	I see it as being a metagame concept because it's something that's outside of the world in the game, that influences the game. IE; you should make sure the party is very close to X amount of wealth in order to have appropriately balanced encounters. It's a roleplaying game, nothing stops the players from saying "hey, let's keep beating on these Trolls and get all their loot" other than you, as the DM, urging them to move on to bigger prey, or causing the supply of loot (and Trolls) to dwindle. You're right that it is part of the game's system, and it's presented as a rule, but it's not a mechanic (roll x to accomplish y). In fact, since wealth does not = power (one can become very powerful with many cheap items, even more so than someone who has fewer, stronger items very easily within the wealth guidelines) in a direct fashion, but is more of an approximation of your potential power, this is a very abstract concept to balance the balance of a game upon.
Marcus Majarra 07-25-07, 11:57 PM	If random treasure is a problematic issue for you, Metafictional, I recommend you purchase or borrow a copy of the Magic Item Compendium for two things: 1) The section on Item Levels, starting on MIC226. The MIC has done a wonderful thing in the concept of Item Levels. Basically, these levels are an indicator of the typical level at which any given item should be made available for PCs, based on the item's market price. MIC226 has a table of the market price ranges according to Item Level (for IL 1/2 through 30th). 2) Appendix 2: Random Treasure, starting on MIC265. This appendix provides new sets of tables for randomly generated treasure. These tables provide random rewards for challenges of CR1 through CR20, with appropriate item rewards for the CR. These tools will allow you to design random or non-random treasure in a more balanced fashion consistently.
Metafictional 07-26-07, 04:39 AM	Yay, another book to buy. Well that's at least a possible step in the right direction. Thanks Marcus.
wrecan 07-26-07, 06:51 AM	For example, saying the treasure tables are designed with the idea that not all encounters have treasure is all well and good, but I don't recall the DMG or MM giving guidelines of what kinds of monsters to use. I'm pretty sure they tell you to mix it up. Some monsters offerno treasure. Some offer double or even treble treasure. Most offer standard. The assumption is that you mix it up to keep your players properly treasured. Arcane Mark on money. Well I do have a problem with that. A Sorcerer cannot cast more than 6 Arcane Marks per day. He could use higher-level spell slots to cast more, but he should charge more (if I'm using a 3rd-level slot to cast Arcane Mark, buddy, I'm charging you for Fireball prices!). A Wand of Arcane Mark would still be a fairly hefty cost, and it would only mark 50 bills. The solution is pretty elementary. Each mint should have a staff wizard or sorcerer with Craft Wondrous Item that creates a Magic Mint that casts a continuous Arcane Mark effect on every coin that goies through it. The cost of this item, pursuant to basic magic item creation charts, is a mere 1000 gp (500 gp if you used the "fixed architecture rules from the Stronghold Builders Guide) and lasts forever. The staff wizard's arcane mark is unique and uncopiable and that mark would appear on all coins of the realm. At that point, the mint merely needs to distribute descriptions of the mark to all markets in the realm. 1000 gp is a paltry ivestment to prevent counterfeiting. Individual wizard guilds in each community should have an item that offers the same service for 5 gp a shot, which is only a little more expensive than buying your own sealing ring. The guild will make its money back in merely 200 uses. That's a no-brainer for them. It's like having a nickle that's worth more than 5 cents to make; this will have a long term effect on the economy. Documents worth less than 5 g wouldn't get stamped. Those are the ones a rogue could forge. Of course the other problem is, if you say an Arcane Mark is like a magical fingerprint, unique to the caster, that means every caster must register their unique Arcane Mark with the government, so a merchant can compare the arcane mark to his list. Why? The government has a cort wizard that everyone in the realm can recognize. Each community will have a wizard's guild with a unique mark. It's like a corporate logo. And eventually, Wizards will realize the economy of the land is based on their ability to crank out spells. Which means they can gain vast power by denial of service, or arbitrarily raise the prices for their spells. Competition among wizards should keep that down. Not to mention the idea of casting Dispel effects or anti-magic to devalue large amounts of currency on the sly Why would anybody want to devalue valuable currency? Sure, if you've got a lot of Luddites running around, that's a problem, but those same Luddites could run around melting gold pieces into useless slag. Such maroeconomic terrorism seems unlikely. After all, do we have a lot of people defacing currency in the modern age for no reason? magical methods to protect one's money are actually LESS reliable than 1960's technology, by the magic available in the core books. How so? Arcane mark cannot be counterfeited. At all. It's a cheap perpetual source of security. Merchants who specialize in selling 18 k unholy swords to adventurers, or churches that will spend 18 k to destroy such items (as opposed to sending out zealous paladins to "acquire" the dangerous weapons of evil, or preaching that selling an evil weapon for greedy purposes is, in itself an act of evil)? Well, if it bugs you that much, consider an unholy sword to be worthless to your party. That's what I do. I assume the party is gong to destroy evil and I don't count it as a part of treasure. I assumed your world had less scrpulous merchants. No economy could survive if there's people running around dropping 18 k every time they walk into town. Um... the DMG has community wealth guidelines. Your characters should not be able to sell a 18K item in anything smaller than a city. I don't believe players are intended to sell magical items. But the DMG has rules for it. And community wealth guidelines. How could it not be intended? Who the heck is making all this hard currency, anyways?! The governent, just like in the real world.
Marcus Majarra 07-26-07, 12:24 PM	Yay, another book to buy. Well that's at least a possible step in the right direction. Thanks Marcus. You're welcome.
Metafictional 07-26-07, 04:09 PM	Ah, but the government can only make so much money. Oh they can make limitless amounts, but the more money that is in circulation, the less valuable the money becomes. So if one Merchant has, after selling a +3 sword, 18,000 gp, that's a lot of wealth, don't you think? If the magical merchant routinely buys and sells magic items at this level of profit, the amount of available free cash drops significantly, and wrecks the economy. This is why I came up with the idea of the merchant's guilds using vouchers and letters of credit in the first place, so as to create "virtual money" that could be exchanged for services, rather than tie up all the ready currency. Nice idea with the magic item that cranks out Arcane Marks, btw. Very neat solution. Of course, one of the problems with the game is that there are large hoards of wealth out there for the taking; one dragon's hoard alone should crash economies. It's traditional for DnD games (and the fantasy genre in general), but I've often wondered how this works. It has nothing to do with my original topic at this point, I have a bad habit of overthinking things. Logically though, I could see monarchs making the trade of magical items illegal, just because of their economic impact.
wrecan 07-26-07, 04:37 PM	So if one Merchant has, after selling a +3 sword, 18,000 gp, that's a lot of wealth, don't you think? Not according to the community rules. Organizations can have hundreds of thousands of gold pieces at their disposal. An 18,000 gp item is something that can be purchased or sold in a medium sized city. If the magical merchant routinely buys and sells magic items at this level of profit, the amount of available free cash drops significantly, and wrecks the economy. Who is talking about "routinely"? How many unholy sworsds do you have floating about? The community wealth levels in the DMG aren't all that complicated. A merchant is going to buy that +1 unholy sword for 9,157 gp and resell it (either to an evil NPC or to a good church who tries to reclaim these things). But, yeah, that's going to make the economy a little low on liquidity for a bit. The rules accommodate that. This is why I came up with the idea of the merchant's guilds using vouchers and letters of credit in the first place, so as to create "virtual money" that could be exchanged for services, rather than tie up all the ready currency. First of all, I don't see how this prevents flooding the world with money. You've merely created a private system of paper money. This is basic credit and it should also destabilize the money supply. This is one reason 16th century monarchies used to require people to be chartered by the crown before they go around giving away credit. Second, if people are walking around with pieces of paper worth tens of thousands of gold pieces, why don't they treat them as the valuable commodity they are. A merchant carrying a 2,000 ruby in his pocket is going to pay a nice fee for some security. Shouldn't he treat his 2,000 gp letter of credit with the same care? Nice idea with the magic item that cranks out Arcane Marks, btw. Thanks! Of course, one of the problems with the game is that there are large hoards of wealth out there for the taking; one dragon's hoard alone should crash economies. It's traditional for DnD games (and the fantasy genre in general), but I've often wondered how this works. D&D assumes huge economies with millions of gold pieces floating around. Sure, a 15th level adventurer might have accumulated enough wealth to buy a small town. What of it? Anything he really needs can only be found in a metropolis, and in a metropolis, he may be one of the most experienced folks around, but he's far form the only one. Regdar's Repository has a few threads floating around about how D&D economy works. One looks at the lifestyle of Commoners to see if they can survive on a Profession check. One looks at the economics of nobility. So far, the consensus is that the economics of the world holds up fairly well, considering that's not what D&D is really supposed to be about. It has nothing to do with my original topic at this point, I have a bad habit of overthinking things. Welcome to the club!! :) Logically though, I could see monarchs making the trade of magical items illegal, just because of their economic impact. They could, but that doesn't solve the problem, which is adventurers running around with tens of thousands of gp in their pockets. If you prevent them from buying magic items, they'll still spend the items on something, and it could be hiring a few thousand mercenaries to depose you and install a king who will let them buy magic items! At any rate, if you follow the wealth-by-level tables and the community generation charts, no economies should be breaking.
meabolex 07-26-07, 05:42 PM	Not on topic to rules discussion (move thread please kind mods!), but about this: You're acting as if your players have one-upped you by figuring out all these clever ways to exploit the world to get more cash. But this is completely false! The PCs are actually doing you a tremendous benefit: they're providing easy adventure hooks! For instance, the use of the forgery skill to make letters of credit is an excellent use of the skill. However, you're assuming that using a forgery will have no consequences. It can be found as a fake at a later time by a high-powered NPC -- which would mean either the PCs would get hunted *or* the PCs would be "requested" to work as a forger for some illicit crime group. I say "requested" because they could blackmail the PCs using the forgery. See, there's a ton of directions this could go. There are always consequences for actions -- maybe not now, maybe not soon, but eventually their exploits will come back to help or harm the players.
Khaim 07-27-07, 11:00 AM	I would agree with the majority here and say that it's not really that big of a problem. However, it does allow you to use a oft-overlooked rule: sundering! The players typically shy away from such tactics because it reduces the loot they get, and DMs avoid it because players hate having their stuff destroyed. But if you think the players have too much stuff, go ahead! Break the barbarians greatsword (or whatever). The party should have enough money to buy him a replacement, but it'll cost them. Another option is to start giving them less treasure from encounters, or no treasure at all. Finally, you can just start throwing higher-EL encounters at them; combined with less treasure, they'll come back into line with the WBL tables.
Metafictional 07-27-07, 12:17 PM	A few people have said this is in the wrong place; isn't wealth by level a game rule?
Downtym 07-27-07, 12:20 PM	I see it as being a metagame concept because it's something that's outside of the world in the game, that influences the game. IE; you should make sure the party is very close to X amount of wealth in order to have appropriately balanced encounters. I've never understood this particularly point of view on metagaming. What you're essentially arguing is the view that players should play their characters as ignorant of the underlying mechanics of their world. The player of a 17th level character has to pretend that on some level he really doesn't understand how the world works ("I stab people. Apparently I'm pretty good at it. I guess.") because it would be metagaming if they act on any presumption of the mathematical operations of the universe they inhabit. This is opposed to what I would call metagaming which is playing the game through exterior factors - such as noticing that your DM almost always uses or never uses a particular type of monster, class, feat, spell, item, etc. and then playing to that assumption ("That can't be a real troll, it has to be a spellcaster polymorph'd into a troll. Bob (The GM) never uses trolls in the game because he thinks they're dumb. So, obviously I should dispel the troll. Haha! I was right!"). It's a roleplaying game, nothing stops the players from saying "hey, let's keep beating on these Trolls and get all their loot" other than you, as the DM, urging them to move on to bigger prey, or causing the supply of loot (and Trolls) to dwindle. Nothing stops them from wandering aimless in a desert either. Nothing stops them from sitting down and refusing to move. I think it's less useful to talk about the game this way than it is to talk about what compels them forward. If your players really are just hanging around killing trolls all day long to get loot, then I would suggest they may have the perception that they are poor compared to where they should be. Or, the story which does not involve trolls or is beyond the trolls is not compelling at all. Or, they are getting bored and would rather just beat on some trolls for a while. Or, they see the trolls as especially easy combat targets and may be tired of extremely hard combats. I'm not entirely sure what the point of this statement is, unless you're trying to argue that players can just stand around and "farm" trolls all day long until they reach or exceed the wealth cap for their level and thus begin to move beyond where they should be on the wealth chart. To which I would ask, why did you present the players with the opportunity to kill and loot trolls if you didn't expect them to take that opportunity and exploit it? Gamers are fairly simple creatures. If you put a tribe of gnolls with gear, gold, and xp's within arm's reach and the party finds them easy pickings, then they will pick the tribe of gnolls clean before moving on to their next goal. Why? Honestly because they can and probably because they expect that's what the GM wanted. After all, why would there be a gnoll tribe there if we aren't supposed to kill them and loot them? (This would be another example of metagame thinking, however it is easy to rationalize the destruction of a gnoll tribe in-character as well) You're right that it is part of the game's system, and it's presented as a rule, but it's not a mechanic (roll x to accomplish y). Wealth is a mechanic in D&D just like it is in Monopoly. It's a looser mechanic than "Roll 2d6, move that many spaces" but it is still a part of the universe of game mechanics. In fact, since wealth does not = power (one can become very powerful with many cheap items, even more so than someone who has fewer, stronger items very easily within the wealth guidelines) in a direct fashion, but is more of an approximation of your potential power, this is a very abstract concept to balance the balance of a game upon. Wealth can and does tip a lot of games out of whack. Give a first level fighter 100,000 gold and he will become an impossibly significant threat. Also, I find your statement that "wealth does not equal power" to be funny when the example you cite is that one can be more powerful "with many cheap items" versus someone who has "fewer stronger items". Yes, well, if the total cost of the many cheap items is equal to the total cost of the fewer stronger items, then you're merely talking about maximizing utility within the spectrum of choices. You're not actually talking about wealth equating to power. In fact, to have many cheap items, you have to have some measure of wealth. Further it should be true that many cheap items in addition to a few strong items should be more powerful than either of the two options you give. So, one could argue that wealth does influence power. I would argue that in D&D, like in my RPG's, wealth may not equate completely to power, but it's a good indicator of the amount of possible threat posed by a target. Now, you are correct that wealth is a fairly abstract concept on which to balance power. A level 15 character with 100,000 gp's worth of backpacks is obviously not going to be as powerful as a level 15 character with 100,000 gp's worth of useful magical equipment. But, once again, we're talking utility of choice. And this is what makes wealth much more fuzzy than merely rolling dice to determine the outcome of an action. The GM has to be cautious about wealth allocation and observe the party's accumulation and use of wealth in order to prevent the game from becoming too easy or overwhelming for the characters.
eamon 07-27-07, 01:17 PM	A few people have said this is in the wrong place; isn't wealth by level a game rule? Game-ruley enough for me anyhow ;-).
Marcus Majarra 07-27-07, 01:24 PM	A few people have said this is in the wrong place; isn't wealth by level a game rule? IMHO, people might think the topic should fit in another forum (most likely the House Rules or What's a DM to do? forums) because your main argument isn't about how a rule works. The purpose of this forum is to provide counsel with respect to written rules. This forum is mostly here for objective purposes. The issues of the perceived realism of community wealth or abuses of the Forgery skill by players have little to do with the mechanics of the rules. The most objective rules-oriented point you brought up, in my opinion, was about how the random generation of treasure, according to the DMG, had a tendency to provide your players with rewards that would set their wealth per level beyond the norm for characters of their level. This is an important failure in the DMG rules, and it's made obvious by the Item Levels and new random treasure tables of the MIC. Rather than divvy up magic items into three very broad categories (Minor, Medium, and Major) that each encompass items priced in inconsistent market price ranges, the MIC not only classifies both mundane and magic treasure into 31 categories, but also provides a guideline as to at which level it'd be normal for your players to receive such treasure. In fact, it also provides rules for replacing higher-priced items with lower-priced ones, in order to favor game balance. With respect to this point, we can easily provide rules counseling. For advice on dealing with the Forgery skill, you'd find more appropriate counsel in the What's a DM to do? forum. If you feel the community wealth rules are inappropriate or unrealistic (insofar as to this creating a problem), you might want to check out the House Rules forum.
Mock26 07-28-07, 12:16 AM	Wealth can and does tip a lot of games out of whack. Give a first level fighter 100,000 gold and he will become an impossibly significant threat. That fighter would only become an impossibly significant threat if the DM allowed him to purchase extremely powerful magic items.
wrecan 07-28-07, 10:12 AM	Sure, all that means is you are keeping to the wealth charts be rendering the wealth over the guidelines to be unusable. Thee's no functional difference between having 100 gp on the one hand and on the other hand having 100,000 gp, but only being allowed to spend 100 gp of it.
Thurbane 07-29-07, 02:40 AM	...
Thurbane 07-29-07, 02:42 AM	The only real problem with the Welath by Level guideline is that many people, DM and player alike, forget that they are, well, guidelines.
Marcus Majarra 07-29-07, 10:23 PM	The only real problem with the Welath by Level guideline is that many people, DM and player alike, forget that they are, well, guidelines. And these guidelines should be supported, as they take into account the expected equipment of a character of a certain level with respect to the rating of challenges this character will be faced with.
Mock26 07-29-07, 10:48 PM	And these guidelines should be supported, as they take into account the expected equipment of a character of a certain level with respect to the rating of challenges this character will be faced with. That is only true if you are running a "typical" D&D world. Make it a magic heavy world where everything magical is for sale, cheap, and then the guidelines are pretty much worthless. Make it a magic poor world where everything magical is hoarded and sells for 100x the normal cost, and then the guidelines are pretty much worthless. The guidelines, as they are presented, should only be supported if they mesh well with a particular DM's world. But, there are a lot of situations where they could be unbalancing or useless. And, in those situations, they shouldn't be supported. A good DM, however, doesn't need a table to tell him how much wealth to give to the group. He will know how much wealth is too much and how much is too little for his group, and he will adjst accordingly.
Thurbane 07-29-07, 10:55 PM	And these guidelines should be supported, as they take into account the expected equipment of a character of a certain level with respect to the rating of challenges this character will be faced with. Supported? Quite possibly. Slavishly devoted to? Nope. The WBL/CR/ECL system is a fine tool, but if held as gospel, it chains the hands of both the DM and the players. I'm not going to get into an edition-wars debate, but earlier incarnations trusted DM and players to find a balance using experience and common sense. In my 20 or so years of pre-3E gaming, I very rarely had a DM who threw grossly unbalanced encounters our way - and if they did, we had the common sense to parley, retreat or surrender. Your experiences may differ *shrug*
Mock26 07-29-07, 11:04 PM	Supported? Quite possibly. Slavishly devoted to? Nope. The WBL/CR/ECL system is a fine tool, but if held as gospel, it chains the hands of both the DM and the players. I'm not going to get into an edition-wars debate, but earlier incarnations trusted DM and players to find a balance using experience and common sense. In my 20 or so years of pre-3E gaming, I very rarely had a DM who threw grossly unbalanced encounters our way - and if they did, we had the common sense to parley, retreat or surrender. Your experiences may differ *shrug* Seriously quoted for truth!
Marcus Majarra 07-29-07, 11:12 PM	That is only true if you are running a "typical" D&D world. Make it a magic heavy world where everything magical is for sale, cheap, and then the guidelines are pretty much worthless. Make it a magic poor world where everything magical is hoarded and sells for 100x the normal cost, and then the guidelines are pretty much worthless. The guidelines, as they are presented, should only be supported if they mesh well with a particular DM's world. But, there are a lot of situations where they could be unbalancing or useless. And, in those situations, they shouldn't be supported. A good DM, however, doesn't need a table to tell him how much wealth to give to the group. He will know how much wealth is too much and how much is too little for his group, and he will adjst accordingly. You should take note that these guidelines don't take into account the level of magic present in the game. These guidelines are based on equipping characters to meet appropriate challenges. Modifying the expected wealth per level means adjusting challenge ratings as well. Supported? Quite possibly. Slavishly devoted to? Nope. Of course one shouldn't be slavishly devoted to meeting those guidelines. However, staying with 30% of the established guidelines is a good means to insure game balance, with respect to CR.
Mock26 07-29-07, 11:46 PM	You should take note that these guidelines don't take into account the level of magic present in the game. These guidelines are based on equipping characters to meet appropriate challenges. Modifying the expected wealth per level means adjusting challenge ratings as well. I am aware that the guidelines don't take take into account the level of magic present in the game. That is why I stated, "That is only true if you are running a "typical" D&D world." Even in a typical world, though, a good DM does not need some chart to tell him how much wealth his group should have.
Marcus Majarra 07-30-07, 12:16 AM	I am aware that the guidelines don't take take into account the level of magic present in the game. That is why I stated, "That is only true if you are running a "typical" D&D world." Even in a typical world, though, a good DM does not need some chart to tell him how much wealth his group should have. If not with the chart, then how does a good DM gauge how his players' characters are ready to face an encounter of any given challenge rating? The thing is, wealth by level complements the benefits a PC receives from his effective character level in providing a scale for assigning challenges and encounters to that PC. Here is an example. An umber hulk will be a challenge that will consume about 20% of a 7th-level party's daily resources, based on the expected wealth of a 7th-level party. I know this because DMG50 indicates that challenging encounters (those of equal EL and party level) will take about this much effort. If an adventuring party is ill-equipped for their level (for better or worse), the encounter against the same umber hulk might prove more or less challenging, invariably of the actual party. Whether or not the level of magic is such that rewards will generate a party of adequate wealth has no impact on the dynamics of the wealth vs. CR mechanics. Lowering the wealth level means increasing the CRs as a whole; increasing wealth means lowering the CRs as a whole. This is why these guidelines are important and shouldn't be dismissed unless you're feeling comfortable with re-engineering CRs or are taking into account the genuine difficulty of the encounters.
Mock26 07-30-07, 12:30 AM	If not with the chart, then how does a good DM gauge how his players' characters are ready to face an encounter of any given challenge rating? The thing is, wealth by level complements the benefits a PC receives from his effective character level in providing a scale for assigning challenges and encounters to that PC. Here is an example. An umber hulk will be a challenge that will consume about 20% of a 7th-level party's daily resources, based on the expected wealth of a 7th-level party. I know this because DMG50 indicates that challenging encounters (those of equal EL and party level) will take about this much effort. If an adventuring party is ill-equipped for their level (for better or worse), the encounter against the same umber hulk might prove more or less challenging, invariably of the actual party. Whether or not the level of magic is such that rewards will generate a party of adequate wealth has no impact on the dynamics of the wealth vs. CR mechanics. Lowering the wealth level means increasing the CRs as a whole; increasing wealth means lowering the CRs as a whole. This is why these guidelines are important and shouldn't be dismissed unless you're feeling comfortable with re-engineering CRs or are taking into account the genuine difficulty of the encounters. What good does it do the DM to know that each player has 3,430 gp, 6,498 sp, 12,056 cp, and 5 pp? Will they feed 686 gp, 1,299.6 sp, 2411.2 sp, and 1 pp to the umber hulk? No, they won't. Yes, I understand that with wealth you can purchase or create magic items, but it is more important to know what items the group has rather than what they could possibly buy or make. And a good DM will know if the party is capable of handling an umber hulk because he will know what magic items, spells, and various bonuses and special abilities that the group has.
Thurbane 07-30-07, 04:31 AM	Imagine when good old Bilbo encountered Smaug... "Hmm, that is a BIG dragon, but I guess the DM wouldn't have me encounter it unless I could win! Chaaarge!" :D
wrecan 07-30-07, 08:23 AM	Imagine when good old Bilbo encountered Smaug... "Hmm, that is a BIG dragon, but I guess the DM wouldn't have me encounter it unless I could win! Chaaarge!" :D Then he'd deserve to die, since the CR isn't intended to match one-on-one combat (especially with a rogue), but whether the challenge can be overcome. Also, Bilbo should have said, "Hmmm... I assume Smaug is an appropriate challenge for me and my party. But since the dwarves are still barrelling down the river, this encounter is likely "Overwhelming." I best trad carefully." Which he did. :)
wrecan 07-30-07, 08:25 AM	Supported? Quite possibly. Slavishly devoted to? Nope. This is the Rules Discussion forum, so the presumption is that typical campaigns are here. If you want to discuss house rules or variant campaigns, the What's a DM to DO? and Unearthed Arcana fora are right down the hall.
Marcus Majarra 07-30-07, 09:41 AM	Yes, I understand that with wealth you can purchase or create magic items, but it is more important to know what items the group has rather than what they could possibly buy or make. And a good DM will know if the party is capable of handling an umber hulk because he will know what magic items, spells, and various bonuses and special abilities that the group has. I can argue that a good DM doesn't need to bother with knowing what abilities, bonuses, and items his party has access to with respect to selecting appropriate challenges because wealth-per-level and CRs are already fine-tuned with respect to one another. The idea you're presenting of a good DM requires a lot of work on his part; much more than what he'd need, given the tools he has access to.
Downtym 07-30-07, 11:03 AM	That fighter would only become an impossibly significant threat if the DM allowed him to purchase extremely powerful magic items. Yes, well, if your DM doesn't allow you to buy anything at all, then I can see how wealth is essentially a negated mechanic. Of course, if your DM never allows you to fight anything either, then I guess we can safely ignore BAB and AC. However, for most people that play the game, a large pool of wealth is quickly invested in what the more common-folk would call "Toys".
Downtym 07-30-07, 11:10 AM	That is only true if you are running a "typical" D&D world. Make it a magic heavy world where everything magical is for sale, cheap, and then the guidelines are pretty much worthless. Make it a magic poor world where everything magical is hoarded and sells for 100x the normal cost, and then the guidelines are pretty much worthless. The guidelines, as they are presented, should only be supported if they mesh well with a particular DM's world. But, there are a lot of situations where they could be unbalancing or useless. And, in those situations, they shouldn't be supported.. Okay, when we talk about the rules as presented, it's a fairly simple assumption that we are talking the rules as presented in the context they are presented. You start talking about magic rich, magic poor, no magic, alternative classes, eliminating skills, etc. then you have "gone off the reservation" as far as the rules are concerned. I would suggest, and I don't think this is unfair, that once you go down that particular road then you are on your own with respect to how well this rule or that rule meshes with your game. At which point, a discussion of the universality of the mechanics is more appropriate ("Does X work for all instances of a game?") versus the current discussion which is more of the order of "X doesn't work for any instance of a game!" A good DM, however, doesn't need a table to tell him how much wealth to give to the group. He will know how much wealth is too much and how much is too little for his group, and he will adjst accordingly. I would like to meet this "Good DM", he sounds like an amazing guy. He's always able to divine player desires, make invigorating stories, keep combat fast and fresh, prevent players from ruining the game for each other, never makes a poor ruling, and is able to reverse engineer the entire game so that he fully understands the nuances and associations between the various rules and mechanics. I bet him and the "Reasonable Person" have some awesome conversations. A Good DM, the Resonable Person, and the campaign wrecking munchkin are all racing towards a 100 dollar bill. Who gets to it first? The campaign wrecking munchkin, you know why? Because the others are figments of your imagination.
Downtym 07-30-07, 11:15 AM	Imagine when good old Bilbo encountered Smaug... "Hmm, that is a BIG dragon, but I guess the DM wouldn't have me encounter it unless I could win! Chaaarge!" :D Bilbo: "I'm glad I have this artifact which makes me invisible and acts in such a way as to negate any challenge."
Mock26 07-30-07, 01:49 PM	I can argue that a good DM doesn't need to bother with knowing what abilities, bonuses, and items his party has access to with respect to selecting appropriate challenges because wealth-per-level and CRs are already fine-tuned with respect to one another. The idea you're presenting of a good DM requires a lot of work on his part; much more than what he'd need, given the tools he has access to. If a DM doesn't know what his group is capable of then the CR system is pretty much worthless.
Mock26 07-30-07, 01:56 PM	I would like to meet this "Good DM", he sounds like an amazing guy. He's always able to divine player desires, make invigorating stories, keep combat fast and fresh, prevent players from ruining the game for each other, never makes a poor ruling, and is able to reverse engineer the entire game so that he fully understands the nuances and associations between the various rules and mechanics. I bet him and the "Reasonable Person" have some awesome conversations. A Good DM, the Resonable Person, and the campaign wrecking munchkin are all racing towards a 100 dollar bill. Who gets to it first? The campaign wrecking munchkin, you know why? Because the others are figments of your imagination. So, you are saying that it is impossible for a DM to be anything but the DM-equivalent of a munchkin player? You're saying that there isn't a single person out there who plays D&D who isn't, for all intents and purposes, a self-centered brat who is concerned only with is own personal enjoyment and doesn't give care at all about the enjoyment of his fellow players? If so, that is truly sad and pathetic and I pity you. Also, if so, you should probably quit playing D&D and go play Pokemon or some similar children's game.
Toki_Wartooth 07-30-07, 02:17 PM	I bet him and the "Reasonable Person" have some awesome conversations.That would imply that I was talking to myself; )
wrecan 07-30-07, 02:20 PM	So, you are saying that it is impossible for a DM to be anything but the DM-equivalent of a munchkin player? I don't necessarily agree with Downtym's assessment of the CR system, but nothing in his post made me think he' thinks DMs are munchkinnish. All he's saying is that what you're advocating requires a DM to be preternaturally omniscient with regard to their players' desires. The CR system is a tool to help find foes PCs can handle without overwhelming. The treasure system is built in to accomodate the CRs. Is it perfect? Hardly. Is it a lot more work balancing encounters without its guidance? Absolutely. Really, Mock. i don't think the personal attacks were necessary, or even responsive to what downtym wrote.
Toki_Wartooth 07-30-07, 02:29 PM	So, you are saying that it is impossible for a DM to be anything but the DM-equivalent of a munchkin player? You're saying that there isn't a single person out there who plays D&D who isn't, for all intents and purposes, a self-centered brat who is concerned only with is own personal enjoyment and doesn't give care at all about the enjoyment of his fellow players?.I don't believe Downtyme said that at all. I believe you possibly misunderstood him, as everything I read in his post seemed perfectly reasonable (and even amusing). I believe it was insightful in alluding to the fact that most people believe themselves to be a reasonable person and/or a good DM (especially the ones that aren't). that is truly sad and pathetic and I pity you. Also, if so, you should probably quit playing D&D and go play Pokemon or some similar children's game.Even if Downtyme had said what you seemed to have interpreted, there is no call for such inflammatory statements (even though such do put the discussion in perspective, in a way that you did not intend).
Marcus Majarra 07-30-07, 03:21 PM	If a DM doesn't know what his group is capable of then the CR system is pretty much worthless. Very true. However, you need to keep in mind that wealth-per-level is an indicator of what his group is capable of. The DM doesn't need to know the minute details of what the group can do; if his group is equipped appropriate to its level, the DM can reasonably predict an encounter's outcome just by comparing the encounter level to the party level. This is one of the main reasons wealth-per-level exists and should be supported.
crashlogic 07-30-07, 03:42 PM	In fact, a good DM develops an instinct as to what the party can do, and develops a feel for balancing the encounters against the party. Also, A good DM controls the infusion of magic Items into the game, and controls the sale of those Items within the game, So the DM has control over what items the players have. Thus in a good campaign wealth by level is unnecessary as applied to the PCS, but is a very useful tool when applied to NPC's. This results in the PCS being better equipped and wealthier, on the whole, than NPCs, but that is logical with the feel of the game. PC's by being PC's, are extraordinary. Frankly I use the random treasure tables out of the DMG, and have very little problem with the results. Given the gold piece limit in the average town, its very hard to sell Items, so at best they can be traded in exchange for things like raing the dead. Some Items however, are more useful to the PCS than others, and much of this depends on the flavor of the campaign, which is far outside the flavor of the rules to control. For Example, in my current campaign, the PCs have been, and will continue to fight a larger number of dragons than is typical. A dragon at the the Party's CR is sledom an easy encounter, and often the dragons CR is one or two levels higher than the parties level. In this sort of a worl, a party needs more firepower. I just balance this by giving the non-draconinc creatures better armour, weapons and hit points. Ultimately its easy to balance a game by modifying the oppoenents than it is to try and rope in the PCs.
Marcus Majarra 07-30-07, 03:57 PM	In fact, a good DM develops an instinct as to what the party can do, and develops a feel for balancing the encounters against the party. Also, A good DM controls the infusion of magic Items into the game, and controls the sale of those Items within the game, So the DM has control over what items the players have. Thus in a good campaign wealth by level is unnecessary as applied to the PCS, but is a very useful tool when applied to NPC's. And on what exactly does the good DM base his infusion of wealth to his PCs? Truth be told, there's no such thing as instinct in this field. You either have a good idea of what your group is capable of, or you don't. This is what wealth-per-level and CR are there for. You state that wealth-per-level is unnecessary because the DM controls the influx of wealth, but the DM must have some idea of how much wealth he's letting in. That's where wealth-per-level kicks in, directly or not. I believe a good DM will realize that these tools are there for a reason and use them, rather than invest far too much effort into knowing the minute details of his group.
Downtym 07-30-07, 04:03 PM	So, you are saying that it is impossible for a DM to be anything but the DM-equivalent of a munchkin player? You're saying that there isn't a single person out there who plays D&D who isn't, for all intents and purposes, a self-centered brat who is concerned only with is own personal enjoyment and doesn't give care at all about the enjoyment of his fellow players? If so, that is truly sad and pathetic and I pity you. Also, if so, you should probably quit playing D&D and go play Pokemon or some similar children's game. What I'm saying is that the perception of the Good DM is a figment of the collective imagination. It's an ideal towards which to strive, but it does not exist insofar as reality is concerned. And people seem quick to brush off legitimate criticism or concern by citing this Supermensch DM and pointing to how he runs his show. I think that merely saying, "Oh, well, obviously a Good DM would do it this way..." is disingenuous - unless you're citing yourself and believe yourself to be a Good DM.
Downtym 07-30-07, 04:09 PM	I don't believe Downtyme said that at all. I believe you possibly misunderstood him, as everything I read in his post seemed perfectly reasonable (and even amusing). I believe it was insightful in alluding to the fact that most people believe themselves to be a reasonable person and/or a good DM (especially the ones that aren't). Even if Downtyme had said what you seemed to have interpreted, there is no call for such inflammatory statements (even though such do put the discussion in perspective, in a way that you did not intend). The only part of his post that offended me is he didn't respond to the Chasing Amy reference. =(
wrecan 07-30-07, 04:19 PM	The only part of his post that offended me is he didn't respond to the Chasing Amy reference. =( Well, now you made me feel stupid. I can't believe I missed that reference! I hope you're happy with yourself. :allalone:
Toki_Wartooth 07-30-07, 04:24 PM	I wrote divide and conquer. Force the overloaded character to be separated from the others. Don't concentrate your attack on him. Just make it so he needs a few rounds to regroup with the party. Depending on the party level, web and wall spells will work for that purpose, or possibly well placed traps. Then concentrate your attacks on the undertreasured guys.A few points: 1) Most opponent's are unlikely to have such options open to them 2) The powerful character might find it easier to return to his party (thanks to his gear) 3) The underpowered group is much more likely to retreat (because they can clearly see the danger) 4) The players might (legitimately) become annoyed if this tactic becomes commonplace 5) Metagame-wise, dividing a party is not recommended (slows down the game and can create bored players) I'm not trying to knock your idea; I was just curious. Like others, I can't figure out why you believe min-maxing a party is sub-optimal. Min-maxing is common enough in most other optimizations, and the math (and D&D's CR system) bears this out. Your tactical solution works possibly as a suggestion for the OP, but it doesn't really change the math (unless it is used in the majority of situations), nor the fact that the OP's group was likely being sensible when min-maxing their party.
wrecan 07-30-07, 04:37 PM	A few points: 1) Most opponent's are unlikely to have such options open to them I didn't say it would happen most often. I said it should happen with observant intelligent foes. And at some point, a party should be up against an intelligent observant foe. 2) The powerful character might find it easier to return to his party (thanks to his gear) Maybe. But all it takes for this to work is a few rounds of separation. The OP's barbarian seems equipped for combat. But pounding through a stone wall or ripping through a web will take some time, even for the overequipped barbarian of appropriate APL. 3) The underpowered group is much more likely to retreat (because they can clearly see the danger) The benefit of wall spells is they are as effective as cutting off retreat as they simultaneously separate the overtreasured player. 4) The players might (legitimately) become annoyed if this tactic becomes commonplace If the players don't change their treasure system after the first time it is tried, they ave nobody to complain about but themselves. The vulnerability should be apparent to most observant foes. So, until the vulnerability is fixed, yes, observant foes should be taking advantage of it all the time. 5) Metagame-wise, dividing a party is not recommended (slows down the game and can create bored players) I'm not sticking the barbarian on a side quest! The divide-and-conquer strategy doesn't even cause any players to leave the battle board. It just sticks a wall between the two. I'm not trying to knock your idea; I was just curious. I still can't figure out why you believe min-maxing a party is sub-optimal. Min-making an individual is fine because the other individuals are there ot pick up the slack. The fighter is lacking Intelligence? No problem. his buddy the Wizard is there ot back him up. Min-maxing a party doesn't have that corrective feature. If a party as a whole is vulnerable to a specific type of attack (here, divide-and-conquer) they aren't traveling with other parties to protect them from it. Your tactical solution works possibly as a suggestion for the OP, but it doesn't really change the math (unless it is used in the majority of situations), nor the fact that the OP's group was likely being sensible when min-maxing their party. If the party can be divided and conquered they weren't being sensible. They were giving themselves a huge vulnerability. If they refuse to correct for the vulnerability after it's been pointed out to them, I really don't know what they should expect, except that every villain who gets a chance to observe them should use it. It's like having a party of kobolds and wondering why everybody keeps trying to expose you to daylight. Either get some protection for the light or stop complaining that the villains are acting rationally.
crashlogic 07-30-07, 05:39 PM	And on what exactly does the good DM base his infusion of wealth to his PCs? Truth be told, there's no such thing as instinct in this field. You either have a good idea of what your group is capable of, or you don't. This is what wealth-per-level and CR are there for. You state that wealth-per-level is unnecessary because the DM controls the influx of wealth, but the DM must have some idea of how much wealth he's letting in. That's where wealth-per-level kicks in, directly or not. I believe a good DM will realize that these tools are there for a reason and use them, rather than invest far too much effort into knowing the minute details of his group. Well I think you are blending two concepts and my post only referred to wealth per level. I like the CR system, and I like the random treasure generation system. What I am suggesting is that the average wealth per level guidelines are more or less meaningless. That average party wealth has only minor bearing on the capabilities of the party, and that sometimes having extra magical item power helps the partry, despite adding significantly to the parties wealth. Now, after your initial howls, let me explain for those who did not hit their reply button without thinking: How wealthy a party is is meaningless on the battlefield. As other posters have noted, it is how the money is spent that counts. 100,000 gold peices in backpacks has no impact on the battlefield. Similarly a wand of fireballs is basically useless in a world were every creature is immune to fire. Ultimately as a DM you populate the world with magic Items, and you control the sale, availability and price of those items. Thus the control on game balance directly depends on your feel for what the party can do, and the inherent nature of of your campaign. A magic Item that cannot be sold due to the economics of the villages is useless. Not valuless, but useless. So when a DM does choose to roll the treasure randomly, and does not really care what items the group has (or like me, likes to see what the party does with random stuff), there is a good chance he will be giving the party items they cannot use, or sell. Similarly, if the PC's get a lot of treasure and want to go on a spending spree, you can simply limit the nature of the items availble in world. This is where the DM can have an instinctual feel of what magic items should be availble. Only the DM has any clue of what sorts of creatures the players are likely to face. Secondly, I have never found that being rich was a disincentive to adventure. PC's do not suddely stop adventuring because they made a million gold pieces (unless the player wants a new chatacter). So the simple fact that the party is rich does not mean the game is over. I aslo stated that the type of campaign would make a difference. The real impact of the wealth per level is about the magic Items. In a low magic world, magic items might be rare enough that they are impossible to purchase, and selling them really creates no benfit other than to fund characters role play situations (like building a castle.) In a world dominated by Dragons, the Players might need additional firepower to even have a shot at sruving an encounter appropriate to their level. (A cr-5 blue dragon, for example, can still drop a world of hurt on four fifth level PC's.) Thus a party spending time fighting Dragons and Draconic creatures with breath weapons, might benefit form cloaks of resistance +3 or +4, even though they are far out of line with what the typical 5th level party can afford. If the party is a bit over powered (as almost all parties are, given the character generation guidelines) then it is a simple matter of advancing creatures to account for some additional firepower on the part of the party. A very simple way I often use is to maximize the hitpoints of the creature, instead of taking averages, or, gasp, actually rolling hit dice. Ultimately the DM is the only person with control over the world, and he can use this control in many effective ways to balance the campaign. The wealth per level guidlines are just that, guidelines. They do, however, provide a good measureing stick of NPC wealth, which is very useful.
Mock26 07-30-07, 05:53 PM	And on what exactly does the good DM base his infusion of wealth to his PCs? Truth be told, there's no such thing as instinct in this field. You either have a good idea of what your group is capable of, or you don't. This is what wealth-per-level and CR are there for. You state that wealth-per-level is unnecessary because the DM controls the influx of wealth, but the DM must have some idea of how much wealth he's letting in. That's where wealth-per-level kicks in, directly or not. I believe a good DM will realize that these tools are there for a reason and use them, rather than invest far too much effort into knowing the minute details of his group. I just put in the amount of treasure that fits in with the rest of the adventure and fits in with what the group already has. How do I know how much is the right amount? I know because I am the DM. I am aware of the stats and abilities and everything else about the characters in my group. In fact, you could say that I know almost all the minute details of my group. And, I really don't do anything special. Yes, I have copies of all the character sheets and the players provide me with new ones every time they go up a level, but the only major changes that I make are to record new magic items, but that only takes, at most, 1 or 2 minutes for an entire 6+ hour session. There is no noticeable extra effort on my part. There is no major investment in time, unless you consider the 5 minutes or so I take before every adventure to glance over the character sheets to see if there were any major changes to be a major investment of time. But, I DM for these people every other week, for 6+ hours. I know what they are capable of in regards to power. I can look through any of the various tomes of monsters, read the description (and ignore the CR), and I just know how well or poorly the group would do against such a creature or creatures. How do I know? Because I am their DM. It is my job to know. Sure, it is often harder to know at lower levels or with new players and their characters, but it is very easy to simply glance at a character sheet, notice stats, BAB, special abilities, and magic items, and you can pretty much then glance quickly at a monster, read through the information, and just know if they can handle that monster. Maybe I'm different. Maybe its my 25+ years of D&D experience. Personally I don't think it is either of those. I just think that preparing suitably challenging encounters (and giving consumate amounts of wealth) is one of the easiest aspects of being a DM. Now, I do admit that the CR, EL and Wealth by Level guidelines could make the job of the DM easier, but I don't see any benefit of making an already easy task easier. ======================================== ================ As for my comments about a "good DM." I don't think that it is some sort of unattainable ideal goal or an excuse or that it doesn't exist insofar as reality is concerned. And I definitely don't think that it requires someone to be preternaturally omniscient with regard to their players' desires. Is being a "good DM" something we should all strive for? Yes. But, we should also all strive to be a "good human being." There is no ideal goal, except that we should simply all strive to do our best. I think that there are a LOT of good DM's out there. In fact, I think that the vast majority of DM's out there are good DM's. It they weren't then I think that most people would soon quit playing the game and it would have died out years ago, instead of continuing to thrive and grow after 30-some years. But, for some reason, it seems that there is a loud and vocal group of people who seem to think that all DM's are capricious, mean, unimaginative, incapable of being fair and impartial, and who are hell bent on being power-mad demigods of the gaming table whose only concern is destroying the characters and ensuring that the players have a horrible time. Again, if that were true, the game would have died out a long time ago. People just need to learn to give their DM's the benefit of the doubt. Just because the DM may do something different or do something that you don't like doesn't necessarily mean that he is doing it arbitrarily and with malicious intent.
Thurbane 07-31-07, 04:01 AM	This is the Rules Discussion forum, so the presumption is that typical campaigns are here. If you want to discuss house rules or variant campaigns, the What's a DM to DO? and Unearthed Arcana fora are right down the hall. Golly gee mister, thanks for helping this n00b see the error of his ways. :rolleyes: ...my point stands - the WBL guidelines are just that...guidelines. It says so, right there in the book. Notice that BAB, Saves, ability modifiers etc. don't share this classification. Draw from that what you will.
wrecan 07-31-07, 06:27 AM	Golly gee mister, thanks for helping this n00b see the error of his ways. :rolleyes: ...my point stands - the WBL guidelines are just that...guidelines. Nobody seems to be taking issue with that point, so it probably didn't need stating once. It certainly didn't need stating twice. As I wrote, this is the Rules Discussion Forum, so this is the forum where we discuss what's written in the book as if they were, oh, what's that word... rules. We on this board understand that the Wealth by Level Guidelines are guidelines. Your comment seems to be a general comment about hypothetical DMs found in the ether somewhere,which is more appropriate for discussions in the What's a DM to Do forum. So, yeah, your point stands. Because nobody is now or has ever in this thread been disagreeing with your point.
Thurbane 07-31-07, 08:09 AM	So, yeah, your point stands. Because nobody is now or has ever in this thread been disagreeing with your point. Good to know. ;)
Marcus Majarra 07-31-07, 12:52 PM	How wealthy a party is is meaningless on the battlefield. As other posters have noted, it is how the money is spent that counts. 100,000 gold peices in backpacks has no impact on the battlefield. Similarly a wand of fireballs is basically useless in a world were every creature is immune to fire. Of course, I was working under the assumption that the party wealth was spent in a reasonably intelligent fashion. If there's one thing wealth-per-level cannot account for, it's poor purchases/acquisitions. Ultimately as a DM you populate the world with magic Items, and you control the sale, availability and price of those items. Thus the control on game balance directly depends on your feel for what the party can do, and the inherent nature of of your campaign. A magic Item that cannot be sold due to the economics of the villages is useless. Not valuless, but useless. So when a DM does choose to roll the treasure randomly, and does not really care what items the group has (or like me, likes to see what the party does with random stuff), there is a good chance he will be giving the party items they cannot use, or sell. On this, I agree, using the DMG as a reference. However, the Magic Item Compendium revisited how random treasure is generated, and it now produces more consistent results throughout the party's entire career, even if you alwys roll treasure randomly. Furthermore, it's no surprise that expensive treasure will be useless in a poor community. If anything, finding expensive treasure should motivate the PCs to seek a community wealthy enough to want to trade for it. I aslo stated that the type of campaign would make a difference. The real impact of the wealth per level is about the magic Items. In a low magic world, magic items might be rare enough that they are impossible to purchase, and selling them really creates no benfit other than to fund characters role play situations (like building a castle.) In a world dominated by Dragons, the Players might need additional firepower to even have a shot at sruving an encounter appropriate to their level. (A cr-5 blue dragon, for example, can still drop a world of hurt on four fifth level PC's.) Thus a party spending time fighting Dragons and Draconic creatures with breath weapons, might benefit form cloaks of resistance +3 or +4, even though they are far out of line with what the typical 5th level party can afford. If the party is a bit over powered (as almost all parties are, given the character generation guidelines) then it is a simple matter of advancing creatures to account for some additional firepower on the part of the party. A very simple way I often use is to maximize the hitpoints of the creature, instead of taking averages, or, gasp, actually rolling hit dice. Ultimately the DM is the only person with control over the world, and he can use this control in many effective ways to balance the campaign. The wealth per level guidlines are just that, guidelines. They do, however, provide a good measureing stick of NPC wealth, which is very useful. I'm not arguing against this. What I'm saying is that wealth-per-level and game balance have absolutely nothing to do with the feel of the DM. The simple truth is that the system is designed to accommodate for challenges by awarding the PCs sufficient wealth so that they may acquire what they need to meet these challenges in a more-or-less predictable fashion. The DM is, naturally, free to change the amount of wealth he feeds into the game. However, he needs to take into account the impact this will have on the CR system. If the party is ill-equipped, it will not be able to meet challenges in a predictable fashion. What you would've otherwise expected to be an easy encounter will now be challenging, and a difficult encounter might become overwhelming. Tweaking the wealth-per-level forces the DM to take into consideration a lot more factors when designing his encounters. How do I know how much is the right amount? I know because I am the DM. This statement has no basis in any kind of logic. While you might think that you instinctively give rewards, the truth is that you have some basis for comparison besides the allmighty "I am the law!" claim. You might have a misconception about at which level you'd find it reasonable for PCs to have their first magic weapons, for example. But, I DM for these people every other week, for 6+ hours. I know what they are capable of in regards to power. I can look through any of the various tomes of monsters, read the description (and ignore the CR), and I just know how well or poorly the group would do against such a creature or creatures. And this is where your reasoning fails. It's no surprise that you dismiss the wealth-per-level guidelines; you also ignore the CR system. Both are interconnected. In a way, the mental process you use for monster selection is a form of railroading: you select your monsters based on your knowledge of precisely what the PCs can do. Thus, you end up selecting your monsters based on your expectations of the outcome, rather than simply supplying an adequate challenge, and let the players worry about the outcome. Maybe I'm different. Maybe its my 25+ years of D&D experience. Personally I don't think it is either of those. I just think that preparing suitably challenging encounters (and giving consumate amounts of wealth) is one of the easiest aspects of being a DM. Now, I do admit that the CR, EL and Wealth by Level guidelines could make the job of the DM easier, but I don't see any benefit of making an already easy task easier. Well, I can guarantee you that it most certainly isn't 25 years' worth of experience helping you. 3.5 D&D hasn't been around for 25 years. I'm surprised as to how you find monster selection to be easy. IMHO, it's far easier to look over monster-by-CR charts when trying to build an encounter and to see what I've got to work with at the desired challenge ratings.
Mock26 07-31-07, 01:41 PM	you select your monsters based on your knowledge of precisely what the PCs can do. Thus, you end up selecting your monsters based on your expectations of the outcome, rather than simply supplying an adequate challenge, and let the players worry about the outcome. Wow. I didn't know you were telepathic. I do NOT select monsters based precisely on what the PCs can do. I select the monsters based on the knowledge that they will be a challenge to the players and their characters. I never know exactly what my players will do, and sometimes what should be a challenging encounter is over in 1 or 2 rounds. Sometimes what should be an easy encounter eats them for lunch. There are a lot of variables, such as dice rolls and player actions, that can mess up any system of monster selection. Well, I can guarantee you that it most certainly isn't 25 years' worth of experience helping you. 3.5 D&D hasn't been around for 25 years. That is true that it 3.5 D&D hasn't been around for 25 years. But, D&D has been around for OVER 25 years. DM's didn't have CR in the days of 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D. They had to use their skill as DM's, their knowledge of the rules, and their knowledge of their players when creating fair yet challenging encounters. So, all those years of experience of creating fair yet challenging encounters has carried over into the current rules sets and allows be to not have to rely on monster-by-CR charts. I'm surprised as to how you find monster selection to be easy. IMHO, it's far easier to look over monster-by-CR charts when trying to build an encounter and to see what I've got to work with at the desired challenge ratings. Everyone's different. You find the charts easier. I find knowing the monsters and the characters easier.
mvincent 07-31-07, 02:09 PM	I didn't know you were telepathic."I knew you were going to say that" (from previous post) Maybe I'm different. Maybe its my 25+ years of D&D experience.I agree with you that your extensive experience with previous editions has likely influenced your viewpoint (same here: playin' since '78). I can't claim that is necessarily a good thing though. Everyone's different. You find the charts easier. I find knowing the monsters and the characters easier.While I typically try to avoid subjective discussions (that's why I try to stick to forums like "DM Rules Counseling"), here is my 2 cp: The rules are mostly for the players rather than the DM (who can do pretty much anything he wants anyway). Such rules and guidelines instill trust and order in a game where players could otherwise be powerless. When I'm a player, I appreciate the CR system as it means that even if the DM mis-judged in either direction, I'll still be suitable rewarded (and if he goes completely outside of the CR bounderies, I know that he likely shouldn't be DM'ing at all). It is a gamist tool, but then, D&D is primarily a gamist system. Thanks to the CR system, I could have a total noob run a reasonable game simply by following the rules. It's just one less thing for starting DM's (or DM's that aren't actually as good as they think) to mess up.
Mock26 07-31-07, 04:22 PM	Thanks to the CR system, I could have a total noob run a reasonable game simply by following the rules. It's just one less thing for starting DM's (or DM's that aren't actually as good as they think) to mess up. For the record, I've never stated that the Wealth by Level Guidelines or the CR system are bad. While I may not like them for my own games, that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the value that they have, especially for new DM's and players.
mvincent 07-31-07, 04:44 PM	that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the value that they have, especially for new DM's and players.Certainly. You seem like a reasonable person that understands that such tools can facilitate the creation of good DM's that don't need such tools. However (something you may not consider) is that a good DM might still use those tools even though he doesn't have to. Some reasons: 1) Consistency 2) Setting an example 3) Error proofing 4) Facilitate his job 5) To "play by the rules" 6) To promote trust etc. i.e. things which I often attribute to a "good DM". I mean, if we all just followed our own definitions of a "good DM", then we could likely all refer to ourselves as such. Here, RAW kinda (in a way) gives us their "definitions" on being a "good DM".
Mock26 07-31-07, 05:18 PM	Certainly. You seem like a reasonable person that understands that such tools can facilitate the creation of good DM's that don't need such tools. However (something you may not consider) is that a good DM might still use those tools even though he doesn't have to. Some reasons: 1) Consistency 2) Setting an example 3) Error proofing 4) Facilitate his job 5) To "play by the rules" 6) To promote trust etc. i.e. things which I often attribute to a "good DM". I mean, if we all just followed our own definitions of a "good DM", then we could likely all refer to ourselves as such. Here, RAW kinda (in a way) gives us their "definitions" on being a "good DM". Actually, I do recognize the value they can have for any DM. In my above post I was merely stating that that value is greatly increased for new DM's.
Marcus Majarra 07-31-07, 07:28 PM	That is true that it 3.5 D&D hasn't been around for 25 years. But, D&D has been around for OVER 25 years. DM's didn't have CR in the days of 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D. They had to use their skill as DM's, their knowledge of the rules, and their knowledge of their players when creating fair yet challenging encounters. So, all those years of experience of creating fair yet challenging encounters has carried over into the current rules sets and allows be to not have to rely on monster-by-CR charts. Very true. The older editions of the game were a pain to use in a consistent fashion, and if it weren't for concepts like CR, this edition would be too. After all, we're up to 5 Monster Manuals right now, plus a series of other books that are dedicated either totally (Fiend Folio) or in part (virtually every sourcebook) to monsters. As if this weren't enough, monsters can also be advanced in two ways. Knowing the monsters hardly seems like a feasible or worthwhile endeavour (unless you happen to like reading about monsters), which is why I find the CR system (and its relatives, including wealth-per-level) to be important. And I find this to be true both for new DMs and experienced DMs alike; no matter how much you've played the older editions of D&D, there's still plenty to learn about the monsters in this edition of the game that wasn't true for the older editions. It's also interesting to point out that detailed knowledge will indeed produce more reliable results than general knowledge, so it's only normal that knowing more details about a monster's abilities will help the design of encounters. However, this knowledge can be acquired on a need-to-know basis, giving more breadth to the DM with respect to designing the adventure.
Thurbane 08-01-07, 06:11 AM	At the risk of "missing the point" again, it is also completely possible for a DM to unintentionally slaughter the party while still well within WBL guidelines. For instance, he throws a group of spectres at a totally WBL party of the right level, who unfortuantely have a druid instead of a cleric, and no ghost touch weapons. WBL is no substitute for experience and common sense.
wrecan 08-01-07, 09:20 AM	WBL is no substitute for experience and common sense. Nor is it intended to be. It is a tool to use to judge the relative strength of a monster against a generic party. But the DM should also know the specific ways their party is stronger or weaker. I.e., a party with little ability against incorporeal creatures shouldn't be going up against wraiths, no matter the party's APL. Most DMs I know use CRs to narrow the monsters they are going to consider throwing at a party. Picking amongst the monsters in that range is done on an individualized basis. There are hundreds of monsters in D&D. No DM can keep track of all of them. Everyone needs a means of managing the volume. Some DMs do it by limiting sourcebooks. Some DMs do it by sticking to some favorite standbys they know well. Some use CR.
Marcus Majarra 08-01-07, 09:43 AM	At the risk of "missing the point" again, it is also completely possible for a DM to unintentionally slaughter the party while still well within WBL guidelines. For instance, he throws a group of spectres at a totally WBL party of the right level, who unfortuantely have a druid instead of a cleric, and no ghost touch weapons. WBL is no substitute for experience and common sense. I don't think this is the idea. WPL is designed to allow characters to go beyond just their racial and class abilities, in order to compensate for the narrow focus of their race and class. While it's impossible for a party to be ready to tackle on any encounter, regardless of wealth, WPL gives them sufficient margin to reasonably handle every encounter of an adequate CR. Perhaps the party might not have the resources to acquire ghost touch equipment to use against a spectre, but their magic weapons will still be useful, as will their spells (and scrolls/wands/etc.).
mvincent 08-01-07, 12:00 PM	At the risk of "missing the point" again, it is also completely possible for a DM to unintentionally slaughter the party while still well within WBL guidelines. For instance, he throws a group of spectres at a totally WBL party of the right level, who unfortuantely have a druid instead of a cleric, and no ghost touch weapons.Personal preference here: I personally would hate it if a DM was tailoring encounters to my party's abilities. Let the dice fall where they may. If my party cannot handle a suitable CR encounter, then that is our problem, not the DM's. We might have to retreat and come back better prepared (which I've had to do more than once against spectres), but at least we wouldn't feel like the the DM was "babying" us. That's up there with railroading, imho. (other players may be more ok with it, but I reckon most Gamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory#Gamist) and Simulationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory#Simulationist) gamers feel similarly, while Narrativists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory#Narrativist) might like such coddling ; )
crashlogic 08-01-07, 07:58 PM	Well, having been a DM for about 28 years, I can certainly say that "feel" and insticnt are certainly a huge part of the art of DMing. I like the CR system very much, but its not the whole story. Some monsters of a suitable cr are very much more powerful than others, and the party equipped to deal with those might eat others for lunch. But my core point is that every thing that is in the game is there because the DM allowed it to be there. Thus how much wealth a character has does not affect their ability to buy a magic item in one iota. If they want a magic Item, they must purchase it through the DM, and wealth by level is meaningless if the DM says they cannot purchase a particular item. Even if the Item comes up on a random treasure roll, the DM can still exclude the item. Thus the level of magical firepower in the hands of the players is totally up to the DM. And the DM can , and should develop a "feel" for his players and the party capabilities.
Marcus Majarra 08-02-07, 12:39 PM	Well, having been a DM for about 28 years, I can certainly say that "feel" and insticnt are certainly a huge part of the art of DMing. I like the CR system very much, but its not the whole story. Some monsters of a suitable cr are very much more powerful than others, and the party equipped to deal with those might eat others for lunch. But my core point is that every thing that is in the game is there because the DM allowed it to be there. Thus how much wealth a character has does not affect their ability to buy a magic item in one iota. If they want a magic Item, they must purchase it through the DM, and wealth by level is meaningless if the DM says they cannot purchase a particular item. Even if the Item comes up on a random treasure roll, the DM can still exclude the item. Thus the level of magical firepower in the hands of the players is totally up to the DM. And the DM can , and should develop a "feel" for his players and the party capabilities. Your statements might have been true for older editions, where encounter and treasure guidelines where practically inexistent, this kind of approach serves no practical purpose in this edition of the game. DMs no longer require the instinct you speak of; the system is balanced enough to work itself out without DM interference. How much wealth the party has inevitably regulates what they can and can't buy, before the DM even has a say to it. If you have 1,000 gp, you cannot buy a +1 weapon, whether your DM makes the weapon accessible to you or not. There's no practical reason to inhibit the acquisition of magic items unless: • You feel that certain items break game balance; these should be exception cases based on facts, and not impressions. • The level of magic in the campaign is abnormal. Be warned, though. Different levels of magic carry direct consequences on the party's ability to respond to challenges of different ratings, and this will literally screw up the entire system. All in all, WPL is an indicator of what a party can tackle, generally speaking. If a party specializes too much, then it's obvious that encounters that fall into the specialization categories will be easier; the opposite will also be true. In the end, it all balances out.
crashlogic 08-02-07, 01:12 PM	Ultimately the DM is not optional and the wealth by level guidlines are. If I, as a DM want the party to have +1 weapons they will have them. I can place them as treasure, or make them very cheap in a store. If the players want to unload a magic Item rolled as treasure, then I can say if the town can afford them or not, or even if somone in the town wants to buy it. Therefore the flow of wealth in and out of the party is entirely mine to control. You seem to miss this point utterly. Secondly, there is a huge lattitude within the CR. A boneclaw, at CR5 is a very different fight than a CR 5 Dragon. A party equipped to fight the bone claw might not need the firepower necessary to take down a dragon. So the CR is really only a very loose guidline. As a DM I populate the world, so intrinsically I know what mosters the characters are likely to face, and also what Items may have future plot consequences. I also have to listen to the players and sort out what Items they want, as its silly to give ancestral dwarven spear to a dwarf fighter who is focused in dawrven war axe. Well maybe not silly, as there may be compelling plot reasons, but really, being randomly denied a useable weapon because of a die roll on the treasure table will likely cost me a good player. Odd concept, that players might actually want items that benefit them, I know. So I roll some treasure, and the players have 20,000 GP when maybe the guildines say they should have five? Big deal. They still need to find a merchant to sell them stuff. If +2 swords are not available, but +1's are-well guess what, noone will have a +2 sword. So things like wealth by level GUIDELINES and CR make the job of DMing easier, but they don't make it less of an art. Or eliminate the need for feel and instinct. As a DM you are storyteller, not a random number generator-you'll be much better at it when you grasp this.
gojumamoru 08-02-07, 01:16 PM	Your statements might have been true for older editions, where encounter and treasure guidelines where practically inexistent, this kind of approach serves no practical purpose in this edition of the game. DMs no longer require the instinct you speak of; the system is balanced enough to work itself out without DM interference. How much wealth the party has inevitably regulates what they can and can't buy, before the DM even has a say to it. If you have 1,000 gp, you cannot buy a +1 weapon, whether your DM makes the weapon accessible to you or not. There's no practical reason to inhibit the acquisition of magic items unless: • You feel that certain items break game balance; these should be exception cases based on facts, and not impressions. • The level of magic in the campaign is abnormal. Be warned, though. Different levels of magic carry direct consequences on the party's ability to respond to challenges of different ratings, and this will literally screw up the entire system. All in all, WPL is an indicator of what a party can tackle, generally speaking. If a party specializes too much, then it's obvious that encounters that fall into the specialization categories will be easier; the opposite will also be true. In the end, it all balances out. So are you suggesting that the guidelines should be strictly followed? After having you DM to 20 games your players will know exactly how much you will give them at what level? Yes it will be different items each time but they will know that no matter what they do you will always give them the same level of wealth based on a suggestion in the dmg? The system may be balanced enough that we dont need to use old school DM intuition but if the system is too balanced it becomes predictable. Some games my players are dirt poor and in others they are filthy rich. Based on the game and how they choose to play not based on a table in a book.
mvincent 08-02-07, 01:36 PM	Ultimately the DM is not optional and the wealth by level guidlines are.Well... having a DM is not optional (as is having rules), but the choice of which DM (and which rules) to use is. the flow of wealth in and out of the party is entirely mine to control. The players might want some input on this as well. If their activeties had no impact on wealth, they may feel railroaded. being randomly denied a useable weapon because of a die roll on the treasure table will likely cost me a good player.You believe a *good* player will leave the game if not given (suspiciously) useable loot? The current norm in D&D is that players are expected to sell much of their loot in order to buy the equipment they desire. As a DM you are storytellerMany players prefer a neutral arbiter rather than a DM with a story to tell. Of course, the whole issue is entirely subjective... I'm just hoping to give you information on play styles in other groups. After all, some of the players you encounter are bound to feel similarly (just as I'm sure some of the players I've encountered had preferences similar to yours).
Marcus Majarra 08-02-07, 06:29 PM	Ultimately the DM is not optional and the wealth by level guidlines are. If I, as a DM want the party to have +1 weapons they will have them. I can place them as treasure, or make them very cheap in a store. If the players want to unload a magic Item rolled as treasure, then I can say if the town can afford them or not, or even if somone in the town wants to buy it. Therefore the flow of wealth in and out of the party is entirely mine to control. You seem to miss this point utterly. I don't miss the point. What you're describing is blatant railroading. It's turning your players into spectators, rather than participants. The DM can and will act as a regulator, but he must have some consistent guidelines upon which to regulate. Unless they're perfectly comfortable with the idea of being directed everywhere by the DM, there is simply no way to avoid player disappointment is the only reason you give them for ruling in one way or the other is: "because I'm the DM and I said so." Secondly, there is a huge lattitude within the CR. A boneclaw, at CR5 is a very different fight than a CR 5 Dragon. A party equipped to fight the bone claw might not need the firepower necessary to take down a dragon. So the CR is really only a very loose guidline. You're incorrect in claiming this. The only way the party would be faced with a drastically different challenge here is if they overspecialized, both in terms of party abilities and equipment. Well-rounded parties for both ability and equipment will face a similar encounter with either CR 5 creature. As a DM I populate the world, so intrinsically I know what mosters the characters are likely to face, and also what Items may have future plot consequences. I also have to listen to the players and sort out what Items they want, as its silly to give ancestral dwarven spear to a dwarf fighter who is focused in dawrven war axe. Well maybe not silly, as there may be compelling plot reasons, but really, being randomly denied a useable weapon because of a die roll on the treasure table will likely cost me a good player. Odd concept, that players might actually want items that benefit them, I know. And this is yet another way of bringing more railroading to the table. Random treasure is exactly that: random. It's treasure, the nature of which is completely unknown to the players before they acquire it. There's no reason why it should coincide with their exact needs, other than the fact that you want to railroad your PCs into getting them what they want. Honestly, if a dwarven axefighter is looking for a new waraxe, wouldn't it make more sense that he actually do some research into where he could find one such axe, and then quest to obtain it? In any case, as much as you might be in control of which monsters the party is going to face, you still need some way of determining whether an encounter will be appropriate or not. If you like knowing your PCs and your monsters by heart, then by all means do so. While it most certainly isn't wrong, it is arguably a waste of energy, seeing as the entire WPL + CR + XP systems are intertwined and designed in such a way that it's easy to regulate the party's growth without railroading. I argue that it's a waste of energy, because it's much simpler to create encounters within a smaller range of CRs than it is by considering the whole book. And by simply using the CRs as a guideline, you can expect the party wealth and party level to grow at the same pace suggested by the DMG. So I roll some treasure, and the players have 20,000 GP when maybe the guildines say they should have five? Big deal. They still need to find a merchant to sell them stuff. If +2 swords are not available, but +1's are-well guess what, noone will have a +2 sword. On this, you have scored a good point. The DMG random treasure generation system loses consistency pretty fast in that random treasure ceases to have a consistent value as the treasure gets bigger. This is why the Magic Item Compendium introduced item levels and completely revised the random generation charts to produce more consistent results. The scenario you're describing will never happen if you use the MIC guidelines. So things like wealth by level GUIDELINES and CR make the job of DMing easier, but they don't make it less of an art. Or eliminate the need for feel and instinct. As a DM you are storyteller, not a random number generator-you'll be much better at it when you grasp this. And I assure you, I've grasped this a long time ago. There is a need for feel and instinct, but it has nothing to do with the way you build your encounters, nor the guidelines that establish game balance. Feel and instinct have to do with how you drive the plot forward, how you set the mood, how you adapt to your players' decision. They have nothing to do with rules systems (except in rare occasions where rule conflict arises in the middle of the game and you need to make a quick decision). So are you suggesting that the guidelines should be strictly followed? After having you DM to 20 games your players will know exactly how much you will give them at what level? Yes it will be different items each time but they will know that no matter what they do you will always give them the same level of wealth based on a suggestion in the dmg? The system may be balanced enough that we dont need to use old school DM intuition but if the system is too balanced it becomes predictable. Some games my players are dirt poor and in others they are filthy rich. Based on the game and how they choose to play not based on a table in a book. While it's literally impossible to follow the guidelines strictly, I do indeed recommend that they be followed closely, insofar as the game must remain balanced. That's not to say that players should expect to have their exact amount of loot at every single moment of a campaign-there is most certainly room for the unexpected every now and then-the WPL should remain consistent with the DMG as a general rule. This will allow for the DM and players alike to participate in adequate encounters: 1) Because, by knowing the general effort a particular encounter will require, the DM can better impress the desired effect upon the players; 2) Because the players will have a better grasp of what they can do.
Mock26 08-02-07, 07:18 PM	I don't miss the point. What you're describing is blatant railroading. It's turning your players into spectators, rather than participants. The DM can and will act as a regulator, but he must have some consistent guidelines upon which to regulate. Unless they're perfectly comfortable with the idea of being directed everywhere by the DM, there is simply no way to avoid player disappointment is the only reason you give them for ruling in one way or the other is: "because I'm the DM and I said so." So, the DM should only give out money and let the characters make the decision as to if and when they want to spend it on magical items? There really isn't much difference between a player saying, "I'm going to go buy myself a +1 soup spoon" and a DM saying, "I'm going to put a +1 soup spoon in that pile of treasure." There is nothing in the rules that states that treasure HAS to be random. And, it isn't railroading for the DM to design custom treasures for specific creatures. While I do like to occasionally roll up random magical items, I prefer to assign magic items to monsters and NPC's that fit in with those monsters and NPC's. That is not railroading. That is realistic DMing. Honestly, if a dwarven axefighter is looking for a new waraxe, wouldn't it make more sense that he actually do some research into where he could find one such axe, and then quest to obtain it?[quote] But what is wrong with putting in a magical waraxe into an adventure where a magical waraxe would not be out of place, such as with some orcs (who could have slaughtered some dwarves) or in the ruins of a dwarven city? And if the DM is aware of a player looking for a specific item, why is it so terribly wrong for him to make it possible for the character to find one on an adventure? So long as he isn't showing favortism to one or some of the characters I don't see what the big deal is about putting such magic items into the game. [QUOTE=Marcus Majarra;13284532]In any case, as much as you might be in control of which monsters the party is going to face, you still need some way of determining whether an encounter will be appropriate or not. If you like knowing your PCs and your monsters by heart, then by all means do so. While it most certainly isn't wrong, it is arguably a waste of energy, seeing as the entire WPL + CR + XP systems are intertwined and designed in such a way that it's easy to regulate the party's growth without railroading. I argue that it's a waste of energy, because it's much simpler to create encounters within a smaller range of CRs than it is by considering the whole book. And by simply using the CRs as a guideline, you can expect the party wealth and party level to grow at the same pace suggested by the DMG. What if one DM is able to do just as good of a job without the charts as a DM does with the charts, and they both spend the same amount of energy? Just because you are not able to effectively work without the WPL + CR + XP tables and charts doesn't mean that no one else can, either. While it might be a waste of energy for you it certainly isn't a waste of energy for some of us. And I assure you, I've grasped this a long time ago. There is a need for feel and instinct, but it has nothing to do with the way you build your encounters, nor the guidelines that establish game balance. Feel and instinct have to do with how you drive the plot forward, how you set the mood, how you adapt to your players' decision. They have nothing to do with rules systems (except in rare occasions where rule conflict arises in the middle of the game and you need to make a quick decision). Again, what is good or not good for you doesn't necessarily apply to others.
crashlogic 08-02-07, 08:14 PM	Well... having a DM is not optional (as is having rules), but the choice of which DM (and which rules) to use is. In fact wealth by level are guidelines. And yes, a DM does have control over what rules to use: much of what is contained in the splatbooks is optional, and also, a DM using a homegrown setting may not allow every feat or rule set forth in , say the FR setting. Most people pick a DM because that person can creat an enjoyable campaign. In this sense, every DM railroads, because frankly its more interesting to play in a campaign with a theme that is responsive to the actions and desire of the players than playing one where everything they players do is randomly rolled. The players might want some input on this as well. If their activeties had no impact on wealth, they may feel railroaded. Well here you get into the notion of the DM needign to be responsive to the players. I take this as obviouls, its their game too. But essentially the players look to a DM to provide them suitable treasure and encounters and such. This doesn't mean the players can't say "we want to go explore the western desert" it just means that as a DM I am an enabler. And DnD gets very boring if the players have so setbacks or challenges. Many players would simply ask for +5 weapons at level 1, to mach the six 18's they want for stats. Unfortunately, the DM has to master th art of shaping the world, without railroading the players. This does not mean, however, that every players immediate desires should be gratified. Part of what I mean when I talk about using "feel" and "instinct" is achiving this balance. Players do not, and should not, be at the mercy of random charts for everything. You believe a *good* player will leave the game if not given (suspiciously) useable loot? The current norm in D&D is that players are expected to sell much of their loot in order to buy the equipment they desire. No I beleive, for example, that a good player, who specializes in the greatsword, is done a huge disservice if he is contiually getting magical warhammers as magical treasure. Yes a player could go out a sell the warhammers and get a greatsword, but its much more fun and interesting to get a sword as a result of an encounter, or even a quest. As a DM, I look for statements that generate plot. A quest for a +2 weapon might occupy the whole party for a few sessions of roleplay, a lead to interesting enocunters and side quests. To me, and to most players I know over the age of 12, this is superior to going down to the magical K-mart and picking up what you need. Many players prefer a neutral arbiter rather than a DM with a story to tell. Mercifully I don't have to play with them. :) But seriously, evrey DM has a story to tell, because the game is a consesual story. The players obviously control thier characters, but they also expect a world to have logical consitency. It has been my experience that players are much more interested in worlds where the bad guys plot and have motives, and the players adventures string together a purpose. This is not railroading them, this is providing cogent logic to the world. To me, as a player, this is much more intersting than, kill a monster- gain a level. It would be like running modules with no connecting down time. Sure people might have that style of play. When I was twelve, all my players wanted to do was kill monsters and get treasure. I suppose it has its charm, but its not, in my mind an quality style of play. You could do that by playing DnD minatures and rolling on the random treasure table after every game. Again, the DM is not needed. As a DM you are more than just a referee-the logical consistency of the world hangs in your hand. The Players may be the stars of the consensual story, but its your job to build the set, do the lighting and let them shine. Ultimately plot does not mean script. Of course, the whole issue is entirely subjective... I'm just hoping to give you information on play styles in other groups. After all, some of the players you encounter are bound to feel similarly (just as I'm sure some of the players I've encountered had preferences similar to yours). Perhaps, but then I can be particular about who I play with too. But there is a big difference between role playing and roll playing, and there are far better games for roll playng than DnD. Form my perspective, the who kill stuff-get loot-sell loot-get-more stuff cycle is a byproduct of too much WoW and EQ. It may be your style of play, but that does not make it fun, nor does it make it mine.
mvincent 08-03-07, 12:06 AM	Mercifully I don't have to play with them. :).Yup there are far better games for roll playng than DnD.Actually, D&D is the definitive gamist system. It may be your style of play, but that does not make it fun, nor does it make it mine. Then we need not discuss it further.
runestar 08-03-07, 12:37 AM	No I beleive, for example, that a good player, who specializes in the greatsword, is done a huge disservice if he is contiually getting magical warhammers as magical treasure. As mentioned, it is all random. An occasional magic weapon which you can use might pop up, or it may not turn up at all. An evil cleric is likely to own an unholy weapon, even though that might make for poor treasure to a good-aligned party. Likewise, dragons aren't going to be exchanging their magical halberds for magical longswords just because the fighter coming to slay them happens to specialize in longswords. That is not to say that the fighter might not find a choice weapon once in a while, but in general, he should not count on it. If I go get one, then good for me. If not, hey, I am not losing any sleep over it.:)
Marcus Majarra 08-03-07, 10:22 AM	So, the DM should only give out money and let the characters make the decision as to if and when they want to spend it on magical items? There really isn't much difference between a player saying, "I'm going to go buy myself a +1 soup spoon" and a DM saying, "I'm going to put a +1 soup spoon in that pile of treasure." There is nothing in the rules that states that treasure HAS to be random. And, it isn't railroading for the DM to design custom treasures for specific creatures. While I do like to occasionally roll up random magical items, I prefer to assign magic items to monsters and NPC's that fit in with those monsters and NPC's. That is not railroading. That is realistic DMing. I wholeheartedly agree with you. In fact, when I design my encounters, especially with NPC opponents, I make sure that they can make a good use of at least half of their treasure. Of course, treasure doesn't have to be random for all encounters; this doesn't mean that no treasure should be random. Encountering a non-NPC creature in its lair will far more likely generate a more random treasure, from a logical point of view, since this treasure would be the result of other creatures' invading its territory, and it doesn't have much control over which creatures invade its home. Furthermore, there is a difference between giving your players the +1 longsword and having them trade for it: availability. It would be awfully convenient for everyone to always find what you need when you're far away from town. But what is wrong with putting in a magical waraxe into an adventure where a magical waraxe would not be out of place, such as with some orcs (who could have slaughtered some dwarves) or in the ruins of a dwarven city? And if the DM is aware of a player looking for a specific item, why is it so terribly wrong for him to make it possible for the character to find one on an adventure? So long as he isn't showing favortism to one or some of the characters I don't see what the big deal is about putting such magic items into the game. I agree with you. Treasure that makes sense with the encounter should be encouraged. However, this wasn't the stance crashlogic was promoting. He was merely stating that he gave his group what he wanted them to have, not that he made the treasure make sense. And while it's fine to have encounters with coherent treasure that the party actively desires, these should be exceptions, rather than the norm. As well, these encounters should fit in the context of the adventure. You're not going to dump an orc clan with said waraxe in the middle of nowhere just for the purpose of spoon-feeding your PCs the magic items they want. What if one DM is able to do just as good of a job without the charts as a DM does with the charts, and they both spend the same amount of energy? Just because you are not able to effectively work without the WPL + CR + XP tables and charts doesn't mean that no one else can, either. While it might be a waste of energy for you it certainly isn't a waste of energy for some of us. I'm not telling individual DMs to do exactly as I say. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't be encouraging to dump the written guidelines just because they don't use them and get along fine without them. Suggesting that the DM use his feel and instinct when dealing with treasure will be of little use to DMs who come and ask for help, since feel and instinct is unique to each individual. There are a lot of balance issues to consider, and it's a good thing to justify recommendations with facts that the DMs can verify on their own.
crashlogic 08-03-07, 02:59 PM	Yup Actually, D&D is the definitive gamist system. Then we need not discuss it further. Rolemaster and GURPS are far more gamist than D and D could ever hope to be. D n D miniatures is a better "gamist" system that straight D and D, and with the campaing system in place comes very close to the sort of game you are playing. I suppose I would say that Palladium would the the ultimate optimizers' system, though it is not as purely gamist. And of course Mordhiem or Warhammer skirmish aslo fit the "Gamist" bill better, as they are , in fact, games. Really though, if you want to be bob the fighter, and hand out with your freinds and roll some dice in random encounters in a random world, well any system would be fine. Although why not just stick with WoW? I mean you can chat online, kill monsters, sell treasure and never, ever, have to wory about the niceties of a cogent world, or character development. Computers make awesome neutral arbiters.
mvincent 08-03-07, 04:38 PM	Rolemaster and GURPS are far more gamist than D and D could ever hope to be.GURPS is actually the definitive simulationist system. See this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory).
crashlogic 08-03-07, 07:59 PM	GURPS is actually the definitive simulationist system. See this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory). Um you haven't played a lot of GUPRS have you? Gurps has a lot of source material for it, and does have complex mechanics, but ultimately the game is more about twinking the system to maximize your ability to waste the bad guys. Of course the trouble is that you can't really evaluate a game under GNS theory, but a gamer. And actually playing shows that even Gamist player play Vampire, or, gasp, LARP. Stormwind fallacy aside, a twink is a twink, and you will find them in what ever system is out there. GURPS as a practical matter, rewards twinks. Just as people who value storey can play Gurps (as long as they can get through the unending mechanics of storytelling. Ultimately though, they guys who hang out in EQ online killing stuff, and getting treasure, and killing more stuff, are really not being characters, and thus, they are not role playing. The same is true of people who play DnD without putting any character into the collection of statistics. They might be playing a game using the mechnaics of DnD, but they aren't role playing, and thus, IMHO, they are not playing DnD.
mvincent 08-03-07, 11:12 PM	Um you haven't played a lot of GUPRS have you?I have almost every GURPS book, and was considered the local "rules Guru" for editions 1 through 3. For many years I participated heavily in daily rules discussion on the sjgames forums, and I am the proud owner of the deluxe 4th edition rulebooks (signed by the authors). My personal (and fairly large) web-site devoted to my GURPS material is located here (http://www.geocities.com/geowars/gurps/).
crashlogic 08-04-07, 04:10 AM	I have almost every GURPS book, and was considered the local "rules Guru" for editions 1 through 3. For many years I participated heavily in daily rules discussion on the sjgames forums, and I am the proud owner of the deluxe 4th edition rulebooks (signed by the authors). My personal (and fairly large) web-site devoted to my GURPS material is located here (http://www.geocities.com/geowars/gurps/). And your players don't twink the system so as to get maximum firepower with a minimum effort to utterly destroy all opposition with literally ever possible iteration of every skill? You are lucky. GURPS is the dream of all twinkers. It takes thought and finesse to work the system. Don't get me wrong, I love GURPS. I mean where else can you combine napoleonics, space, ultratech, robots and voodoo to get a campaign? Its just that D-20 is much easier to run. As a player, however, I prefer GURPS. I am sure the other three GURPS players in California agree with me...:) Oh and O.G.R.E.s can't forget the ogres.
mvincent 08-04-07, 12:01 PM	And your players don't twink the system so as to get maximum firepower with a minimum effort to utterly destroy all opposition with literally ever possible iteration of every skill?No. I certainly did that though (and would help them do so), but ultimately it simply led to a well-rounded character. Once everyone was optimized equally, play was remarkably balanced. Regardless, the intent of GURPS is primarily simulationist. But this is off-track. D&D is known as the definitive gamist system. This is actually it's intent. Yes, you can certainly use it for other types of play (which I heartily recommend), but one should at least be aware of it's more traditional style (especially when discussing it here).
crashlogic 08-05-07, 11:51 PM	I don't think anyone could be more aware of its traditional style, at least not very many players. One of things about being older-you get to be one of the people who inveted the "traditional style." :)