Final thoughts on the adventure record section. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Final thoughts on the adventure record section. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
paigeoliver
02-02-06, 02:53 AM This section has irked me since I started running modules and started realizing how it ACTUALLY worked.

Consequently, at the end of the adventure instead of
receiving a list of items to keep, you earn gold pieces. You
are probably thinking to yourself, “But, dang it, I wanted
that +1 chain shirt, not gold.” Well, in a way, you are
getting it.

It doesn't truly describe the part where that chain shirt is automatically sold back for half value. Nor does it describe the part where the value of the item is divided equally amongst 6 players, even if it is 4 or 5 people playing.

So in a way, you aren't getting it. In a way you are selling it for half the cost, and then having to come up with the other half of the cost yourself.

There also isn't much mention about the fact that very oftentimes the enemies will be loaded down with all this powerful valuable equipment, making them far more powerful than they should be, but the PCs won't get any credit for capturing said item, since the first encounter maxed out the "gold cap" even after listing everything half price.

No mention also of how certain things in the modules will inexplicably simply say "no loot" on them.

So here is a suggestion, and it is a shocker. Why not have the writers have to follow the same rules as the player's? Apparently I can't bring back more than 650 GP from the mission because of the cap, but the writer can sure throw 90,000 GP worth of magical equipment against the players.
Simpi
02-02-06, 09:20 AM So here is a suggestion, and it is a shocker. Why not have the writers have to follow the same rules as the player's? Apparently I can't bring back more than 650 GP from the mission because of the cap, but the writer can sure throw 90,000 GP worth of magical equipment against the players.

Many authors already follow this, me included. I see no point in equipping NPCs anywhere close to allowed amount in DMG as it just angers the players when they cannot get more than a fraction of the equipment for themselves.

There is also the fact that going thousands over the gold cap means that there is no financial risk in death, so that's why I tone down the treasure and try avoid going over the cap too much, so that character death is actual loss and risk of permanent death for lack of money instead of dentist visit.

I know some people don't like the fact, but I don't really care about their opinions. Also, this rule suggestion would not belong to LGCS, it would belong to LG writers guidelines.

S.H, the guy from Naerie

P.S: I've yet to see any author actually using an item worth 90000gp against players. I saw one 50000gp plot item (not used against PCs though, so nothing wrong in that) in a metaregional which would most likely end up being destroyed in said module.
Elfen_Archangel
02-02-06, 09:29 AM There was a recent regional module where a monk had a belt worth 200k. I believe it was the Belt of Magnificence +6 from the Mini's Handbook. This was at APL 12, and was one of 11 magic items he had on him.

Matthew Schad
redgamer
02-02-06, 09:59 AM I think it is a good thing that most authors don't feel they are constrained by the gold cap. Fights just arn't exciting when ever NPC has to use Scale Mail because plate is too expensive or every wizard has to leave his spell book at home because that is too expensive. The gold cap an abstraction and a needed one. What we don't need is an increased feeling that any humonoid enemy is far easier than any other type of enemy. With crit monkeys, trippers, grapplers and other focused character many parties have one person who can completely dominate an encounter with only medium humonoids. Take away their equipment and the situation becomes even worse.

One way to keep mods more in line with the gold cap is to make it harder to loot. Are the PCs really carrying all 12 of those suits of adamantine full plates. It really makes more sense if the players thing of it as taking one back and getting their 1300gp that way rather than trying to stuff all of them in their backpack. Yes, I know this doesn't always work.
theliel
02-02-06, 10:48 AM I think it is a good thing that most authors don't feel they are constrained by the gold cap. Fights just arn't exciting when ever NPC has to use Scale Mail because plate is too expensive or every wizard has to leave his spell book at home because that is too expensive. The gold cap an abstraction and a needed one. What we don't need is an increased feeling that any humonoid enemy is far easier than any other type of enemy. With crit monkeys, trippers, grapplers and other focused character many parties have one person who can completely dominate an encounter with only medium humonoids. Take away their equipment and the situation becomes even worse.

One way to keep mods more in line with the gold cap is to make it harder to loot. Are the PCs really carrying all 12 of those suits of adamantine full plates. It really makes more sense if the players thing of it as taking one back and getting their 1300gp that way rather than trying to stuff all of them in their backpack. Yes, I know this doesn't always work.

That's ok, the Grand March beat you too it. Instead of twinked out uber magic items, the PC's were facing people with expensive material component spells and disposable magic items that are consumed just before the fight. about 80k at apl 6 or so.

the problem I find is that (some) authors have twinked out the NPCs to the max with equipment combinations that no sane GM would EVER even THINK of allowing the pc's to come close to secure in the knowledge that unlike a home game the phat leete lewt that the NPC was using to pwnz the characters with will never actually make it into the campign.

Back on topic...prolly should be re-written but i can't think of a good way to phrase it.
crimsonsky
02-02-06, 12:26 PM Many authors already follow this, me included. I see no point in equipping NPCs anywhere close to allowed amount in DMG as it just angers the players when they cannot get more than a fraction of the equipment for themselves.

As an author, I tend to follow that table as closely as possible. It's the equipment value at which NPCs should ideally be balanced for their CR. Give them less stuff, and they might be too underpowered.

The abuse comes in when authors are allowed to use up 50% of that in consumables that somehow the NPCs know to use just before their scene with the PCs. 15-20% consumables is a decent guideline, but it's up to the module editor to determine where the line is crossed.
solbergb
02-02-06, 01:33 PM As an author, I adhered strictly to the NPC table (and because it was a minimission, stayed to core LGCS access too, I guess the NPC's got unlucky on their AR's).

I gave them the consumables they'd reasonably have, given their motivation, goal, training and intelligence. Most of them didn't get used in actual play, although the scroll of haste and potions of remove blindness came up from time to time.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
paigeoliver 02-02-06, 02:53 AM	This section has irked me since I started running modules and started realizing how it ACTUALLY worked. Consequently, at the end of the adventure instead of receiving a list of items to keep, you earn gold pieces. You are probably thinking to yourself, “But, dang it, I wanted that +1 chain shirt, not gold.” Well, in a way, you are getting it. It doesn't truly describe the part where that chain shirt is automatically sold back for half value. Nor does it describe the part where the value of the item is divided equally amongst 6 players, even if it is 4 or 5 people playing. So in a way, you aren't getting it. In a way you are selling it for half the cost, and then having to come up with the other half of the cost yourself. There also isn't much mention about the fact that very oftentimes the enemies will be loaded down with all this powerful valuable equipment, making them far more powerful than they should be, but the PCs won't get any credit for capturing said item, since the first encounter maxed out the "gold cap" even after listing everything half price. No mention also of how certain things in the modules will inexplicably simply say "no loot" on them. So here is a suggestion, and it is a shocker. Why not have the writers have to follow the same rules as the player's? Apparently I can't bring back more than 650 GP from the mission because of the cap, but the writer can sure throw 90,000 GP worth of magical equipment against the players.
Simpi 02-02-06, 09:20 AM	So here is a suggestion, and it is a shocker. Why not have the writers have to follow the same rules as the player's? Apparently I can't bring back more than 650 GP from the mission because of the cap, but the writer can sure throw 90,000 GP worth of magical equipment against the players. Many authors already follow this, me included. I see no point in equipping NPCs anywhere close to allowed amount in DMG as it just angers the players when they cannot get more than a fraction of the equipment for themselves. There is also the fact that going thousands over the gold cap means that there is no financial risk in death, so that's why I tone down the treasure and try avoid going over the cap too much, so that character death is actual loss and risk of permanent death for lack of money instead of dentist visit. I know some people don't like the fact, but I don't really care about their opinions. Also, this rule suggestion would not belong to LGCS, it would belong to LG writers guidelines. S.H, the guy from Naerie P.S: I've yet to see any author actually using an item worth 90000gp against players. I saw one 50000gp plot item (not used against PCs though, so nothing wrong in that) in a metaregional which would most likely end up being destroyed in said module.
Elfen_Archangel 02-02-06, 09:29 AM	There was a recent regional module where a monk had a belt worth 200k. I believe it was the Belt of Magnificence +6 from the Mini's Handbook. This was at APL 12, and was one of 11 magic items he had on him. Matthew Schad
redgamer 02-02-06, 09:59 AM	I think it is a good thing that most authors don't feel they are constrained by the gold cap. Fights just arn't exciting when ever NPC has to use Scale Mail because plate is too expensive or every wizard has to leave his spell book at home because that is too expensive. The gold cap an abstraction and a needed one. What we don't need is an increased feeling that any humonoid enemy is far easier than any other type of enemy. With crit monkeys, trippers, grapplers and other focused character many parties have one person who can completely dominate an encounter with only medium humonoids. Take away their equipment and the situation becomes even worse. One way to keep mods more in line with the gold cap is to make it harder to loot. Are the PCs really carrying all 12 of those suits of adamantine full plates. It really makes more sense if the players thing of it as taking one back and getting their 1300gp that way rather than trying to stuff all of them in their backpack. Yes, I know this doesn't always work.
theliel 02-02-06, 10:48 AM	I think it is a good thing that most authors don't feel they are constrained by the gold cap. Fights just arn't exciting when ever NPC has to use Scale Mail because plate is too expensive or every wizard has to leave his spell book at home because that is too expensive. The gold cap an abstraction and a needed one. What we don't need is an increased feeling that any humonoid enemy is far easier than any other type of enemy. With crit monkeys, trippers, grapplers and other focused character many parties have one person who can completely dominate an encounter with only medium humonoids. Take away their equipment and the situation becomes even worse. One way to keep mods more in line with the gold cap is to make it harder to loot. Are the PCs really carrying all 12 of those suits of adamantine full plates. It really makes more sense if the players thing of it as taking one back and getting their 1300gp that way rather than trying to stuff all of them in their backpack. Yes, I know this doesn't always work. That's ok, the Grand March beat you too it. Instead of twinked out uber magic items, the PC's were facing people with expensive material component spells and disposable magic items that are consumed just before the fight. about 80k at apl 6 or so. the problem I find is that (some) authors have twinked out the NPCs to the max with equipment combinations that no sane GM would EVER even THINK of allowing the pc's to come close to secure in the knowledge that unlike a home game the phat leete lewt that the NPC was using to pwnz the characters with will never actually make it into the campign. Back on topic...prolly should be re-written but i can't think of a good way to phrase it.
crimsonsky 02-02-06, 12:26 PM	Many authors already follow this, me included. I see no point in equipping NPCs anywhere close to allowed amount in DMG as it just angers the players when they cannot get more than a fraction of the equipment for themselves. As an author, I tend to follow that table as closely as possible. It's the equipment value at which NPCs should ideally be balanced for their CR. Give them less stuff, and they might be too underpowered. The abuse comes in when authors are allowed to use up 50% of that in consumables that somehow the NPCs know to use just before their scene with the PCs. 15-20% consumables is a decent guideline, but it's up to the module editor to determine where the line is crossed.
solbergb 02-02-06, 01:33 PM	As an author, I adhered strictly to the NPC table (and because it was a minimission, stayed to core LGCS access too, I guess the NPC's got unlucky on their AR's). I gave them the consumables they'd reasonably have, given their motivation, goal, training and intelligence. Most of them didn't get used in actual play, although the scroll of haste and potions of remove blindness came up from time to time.