The Gaming Den

Well

1.) High level treasure does exist, but it's not just gold. It's cool items, void stone, and millions of gold, because you can actually have that with the wish economy.

2.) I assume you're claiming that the only way to get high level items is through treasure. Which just is not true. So here's the thing, nothing's stopping you from making the items, and there’s nothing stopping you from buying the items. You just need to do it with high level currency. Void stone, souls, happiness, all your memories of spring mornings.

3.) See one and two.

Your solution to Greyhawking is dumb. The system may not be encouraging but, as we’re talking about TTRPG, fuck what the system is or is not encouraging. If it isn’t expressly forbidden it the players can and often will do it especially if they have a wizard to make it ever-so easy.

Yes, to my understanding the Wish Economy just means that past a certain point you start using a new kind of currency, allowing you to give out absurd amounts of gold for buying castles and ships and armies and etc. and less absurd amounts of bottled hope with which to buy a better stabbing stick.

wotmaniac wrote:
solutions:
1) adjust how magic items are made. first and foremost, you've got to do away with cost reducers (this is more than just the explicit ones -- this also includes fiddle-fucking with spell and caster levels). beyond that, you could maybe raise the xp for self-creation (which would probably necessitate the lowering the price of xp by a proportionate amount ... but that's probably its own discussion).
I also don't have a real problem with flea market or pawn shop type set-up for buying/selling magic items ... but whatever. you just gotta regulate that shit.
speaking of regulating that shit ... you have to decide at the start of the game the wealth/power level that you're prepared to deal with and stick to it.

2) this is the big one -- and nobody is going to like my answer to it.

The Oberoni Fallacy is not a solution to a game design problem. Note that for future reference.

1) Comprehensive crafting rules that don't suck.

this is the point I was trying to get at; I was just also trying to make a cursory attempt at envisioning how such a thing could be quantified.

We want people to do the thing you are banning in 2, because it's a viable aspect of characters that isn't disruptive unless you have a shitty economy.

and herein lies the quandary.
Do we need bullet-proof economy rules? I say no.
The basic concept of the game would indicate that the economy is something that should simply be some background window dressing. As such, bullet-proof economy rules are pointless -- you get what you need and move on; this is something that actually does belong relegated to MTP. After all, this is Dungeons & Dragons, not Dungeon & Logistics. If you have a compulsory need to scavenge the entire planet and everything on it, then you just might be missing the point and, thus, some perspective.
By contrast, however, I do understand and appreciate the visceral and aesthetic pleasure garnered from dragging home the ginormous dragon hoard. Alas, this is something that I'm still working on (and, as such, still don't have any solutions).

Conversely, knowing that the games basic assumptions don't include Greyhawking, why do people insist on trying to make it work? Seriously, have we become that starved for personal gratification? What's wrong with just saving the princess, grabbing the macguffin, and calling it a day? A story about asinine and meticulous wealth accumulation by the PCs is just flat boring.



BTW, I'm not trying to upset the apple cart -- this is just idle speculative musing.

darkmaster wrote:Your solution to Greyhawking is dumb. The system may not be encouraging but, as we’re talking about TTRPG, fuck what the system is or is not encouraging. If it isn’t expressly forbidden it the players can and often will do it especially if they have a wizard to make it ever-so easy.

Example Gratis: My DnD group recenty spent over two hours trying to steal a golden statue of a bull from a temple full of clerics without them noticing that the statue was missing.

You are not getting the point.

If my Necromancer finds a castle made of black Onyx, he wants the whole fucking castle, and that's cool.

It's not about bulletproof economy rules, those better those than not those, but instead about the issue that your solution is to say "Fuck you, I hate you."
to a legitimate game character. It's fine for greyhawking to be mtp thing, and fucking wish economy allows that, whereas not wish economying and being a dick doesn't.

wotmaniac wrote:knowing that the games basic assumptions don't include Greyhawking

How do you know that?

No, how do you know that? Have you ever played an early D&D adventure, like say Temple of Elemental Evil? All they were were lists of rooms and monsters with the value of every fucking thing in the room noted down. How can you say the basic assumptions of D&D don't include Greyhawking?

Greyhawk was one of the earliest D&D settings. The term for stealing everything not bolted down, the unbolting that and stealing it, then shrinking the walls and stealing them comes from this campaign. What does that tell you about the basic assumptions of D&D?

Better to accept the reality and plan for it than try to pretend it doesn't happen.

K wrote:

wotmaniac wrote:
solutions:
1) adjust how magic items are made. first and foremost, you've got to do away with cost reducers (this is more than just the explicit ones -- this also includes fiddle-fucking with spell and caster levels). beyond that, you could maybe raise the xp for self-creation (which would probably necessitate the lowering the price of xp by a proportionate amount ... but that's probably its own discussion).
I also don't have a real problem with flea market or pawn shop type set-up for buying/selling magic items ... but whatever. you just gotta regulate that shit.
speaking of regulating that shit ... you have to decide at the start of the game the wealth/power level that you're prepared to deal with and stick to it.

2) this is the big one -- and nobody is going to like my answer to it.

The Oberoni Fallacy is not a solution to a game design problem. Note that for future reference.

But it's not Oberoni unless he finishes with "therefore the rules are fine as written."

Kaelik wrote: If my Necromancer finds a castle made of black Onyx, he wants the whole fucking castle, and that's cool.

I'm still not sure why there's an obsession with creating ridiculously "expensive" castles and massive treasure hoards only to make it valueless to compensate.

If you destroy the economy such that armor made of diamonds isn't impressing anyone anymore, then why not just make it out of steel in the first place?

Makes no sense to me.

Just do the sane thing and prohibit free wishes. If you use a wish, no matter how you use it (through djinn or through a ring or whatever), you have to pay the 5000 XP. Problem solved. Then just have a DM who is somewhat careful about what stuff he puts in his adventures.

A) castles made of onyx and diamond armor are fucking awesome. And it feels good to have that kind of stuff laying around.

B) the wish economy doesn't make that stuff worthless, it just makes it so that stuff can't be used on high levels stuff. Which means it can be used on awesome stuff like castles, armies, ships, ect.

As it is the game punishes people for trying to have cool things. I mean, magic swords are cool and all. But buying every peice of land in a kingdom so that you can take it from a king without having to draw your magic sword is awesome.

.

Swordslinger wrote:
If you destroy the economy such that armor made of diamonds isn't impressing anyone anymore, then why not just make it out of steel in the first place?

Makes no sense to me.

Armor made out of diamonds is awesome. Armor made out of steel is 1st level bullshit.

People feel a fundamental disconnect when they are summoning demons and killing dragons and their rewards come in amounts of gold that fit into a beer mug.

The fact that DnD doesn't even live up to the cover art is really sad. This is what we are told is happening:

What we get is this:

Swordslinger wrote:If you destroy the economy such that armor made of diamonds isn't impressing anyone anymore, then why not just make it out of steel in the first place?

Armor made of diamonds? I'm sure there is a joke there somewhere. Now where did I put that old 1E table of weapon type vs armor modifiers?

Armor from diamonds doesn't "destroy the economy" but only FUBARS the expected value of diamonds. (Which reallyt doesn't work well as armor and other than "oh look ... shiney" has limited applications to most people.) Supply and demand really does work under most bizzare magical circumstances; not often in the manner we would like, but it still manages to work.

tzor wrote: Armor from diamonds doesn't "destroy the economy" but only FUBARS the expected value of diamonds.

The problem is that the Wish economy says "diamonds are still highly valuable because LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA".

hogarth wrote:

tzor wrote: Armor from diamonds doesn't "destroy the economy" but only FUBARS the expected value of diamonds.

The problem is that the Wish economy says "diamonds are still highly valuable because LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA".

My understanding was that this wasn't supposed to fix the economy so much as allow people to buy cool things with wealth without being punished. Neither system really makes sense, but one addresses the WBL/cool stuff issue.

hogarth wrote:

tzor wrote: Armor from diamonds doesn't "destroy the economy" but only FUBARS the expected value of diamonds.

The problem is that the Wish economy says "diamonds are still highly valuable because LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA".

The Wish economy says "diamonds are highly valuable, but there are things people won't sell you. They expect equivalent exchange in something equally valuable."

In many ways, the Wish economy is like wife-swapping. People who will not sell their wives for money are willing to swap wives.

Every time this thread pops up, I feel like people forget that planar currency is the raw component for high-end magic items in the Wish economy and gold is raw component for low-end ones.

K wrote:Every time this thread pops up, I feel like people forget that planar currency is the raw component for high-end magic items in the Wish economy and gold is raw component for low-end ones.

I blame your lack of comprehensive crafting system. It's all your fault, now go fix it.

I thought diamonds were highly valuable because they bring you back from the dead.

K wrote:

hogarth wrote:

tzor wrote: Armor from diamonds doesn't "destroy the economy" but only FUBARS the expected value of diamonds.

The problem is that the Wish economy says "diamonds are still highly valuable because LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA".

The Wish economy says "diamonds are highly valuable, but there are things people won't sell you. They expect equivalent exchange in something equally valuable."

I thought the idea was that in the Wish economy the only things that are really valuable are those things you can't simply wish for. Diamonds are valuable ... in that other economy below the Wish Economy, but not in the wish economy itself.

Wow so all this bitching about the wish economy is about the idea that you need an economy reset about half way through the game because of the players will otherwise spend every penny on enhancing their specialties and they will never round their characters out in any way?

Sure I buy that even though in order to work you have to have a downconvert method (unobtainium -> gold) but have to be absolutely tight fisted about allowing no up convert (or you are back to square 1). I don't mind this soution because I have discovered that I am really really gamist in mentality. However such a hard break with no conversion mechanism is hell on the simulationists.

Really this is all about the same issue which is that players need to have meaningful interactions with all the subelements of the game no matter what their starting point is and they shouldn't be able to "give up" sphere of action for the ability to dominate some other area.

Maybe I've just had a really weird and anomalous experience with this game.
In 17 years of playing, I have yet to see a group of players not use part of their resources on "character development" stuff (hence why I don't see this problem). Not just that, I've seen it done at every single level of play. Whether it be hiring body guards (for extended use -- not just one-off), raising armies, building/maintaining keeps, developing agriculture and other resources, building churches, etc., etc., etc., this kind of stuff has happened in every single game that I've ever been a part of.

What gives?

Of course, there does seem to be the issue of player-DM trust. If the DM has fostered the environment in which the players believe that they have no hope of survival/success without sinking every single copper piece in to the power of their equipment, then of course this is going to happen.
Once again, this seems to go back to the issue of setting expectations.

"What gives" is that the game punishes players for doing that. There's no advantage in buying a keep, or body guards, or any other flavorful stuff, and there's every advantage in not because then you can spend it on stuff that makes your character more powerful.

Plus, the entire game is built around the assumption that a character of level X has Y wealth. That doesn't mean gold, it means magic items and equipment. So unless your level 20 fighter has a +5 sword of anal intrusion they’ll be a severe disadvantage.

No, dick DMs punish players for doing that.

pretty much any "level-appropriate" encounter above level 10 has already been demonstrated as being trivially easy to overcome. so no, you don't have to max-out your gear.

Trivially easy for casters. Your fighters are already little bitches so immagine them without all their fancy weapons and armor. So maybe your right, if your party has a canny wizard in the group. Or they're all casters who've decided to take up the diffrent positions they could, which is to say, all of them.

I think wotmaniac has a point, but it basically requires a gentleman's agreement to play in such a way up front. I suppose a lot of part of the game can be fixed this way so long as everyone is on board.

It will also likely include a lot of DM-pity-artifact-swords for the fighter to shore up problems. This isn't so much of a "fix" as it is avoidance.