Over at Hooked Gamers, Captain Patch has up a rant about gold in RPGs. He’s talking about it in tabletop games, although much (if not all) of what he says could apply to the computer version as well.
He’s annoyed by the generic gold piece, which pays for everything, whereas in medieval times gold was rare. He ponders the ponderous weight of gold coins as players run around with “hundreds of thousands” of gold pieces in their backpacks.
I have to wonder what paper & pencil games he’s played where the PCs have such enormous wealth. That much cash is something you might expect in the horde of an ancient dragon.
In no P&P game I ever played did the DM hand out gold on such a lavish scale. Perhaps a beginner DM might make the error of “Monty Haul”, but smart ones usually learn the errors of that rather quickly.
Gold is nice, but goodies are better. Players want the Neat Items first, and those usually can’t be bought in stores. Of course, gold has its uses, and not just as experience points (something that I think was only in D&D). Still, the amounts that Patch mentions are really over the top.
Now when we come to the computer versions, we have a different story. Many games do throw gold at the player in amazing amounts, often with a huge variety of items (Titan Quest, anyone?). The problem there is usually having tons of gold and nothing much to buy with it.
It would seem from the article that Patch wants a more realistic econonmy in games. But would it be worthwhile? Would requiring players to count out copper and silver for purchases make the game fun?
Given that RPGs are so number/stats oriented to begin with, why make them even more so? Some systems already seem designed more for accountants than gamers as it is.
Of course, all this springs from the idea that the PCs are hauling around enough gold to retire (and if they have that much, why don’t they?). Since my experience in P&P has been very different, I have to say I think this rant is more blowing off steam than anything else.
What about you? Was it like that in the paper & pencil games you played (or still play)? Did the DM hand out so much gold to your group? Or was it restrained to a more reasonable level?
(P.S. This is only the first of a three-part series. Hmmm)
when he quotes a line out of a 1979 D&D dungeon manaul as a source of info he lost my interest.
evolve or die.
Yeah, 1st edition AD&D had xp for gp. It was kind of silly, but I was a young and inexperienced DM back then. :) It’s tough, at times, to gauge how much money to hand out. Lately, I find myself relying on published adventures (thank you Paizo), and they often have set rewards. Things can be changed, but often times important magic items are geared toward the baddies using them, and not easily replaceable with stuff the party playing would find useful. As long as the players are getting the items they need (and sometimes want) then hand out what is necessary I guess.
Computer games are an entirely different matter. Equipment gets purchased and/or upgraded so often, that more gold is required. At times, gold is used to counter the “randomness” of loot as well. Keep getting polearm drops on your dagger using character? No problem, here’s a truckload of cash to go buy the equivalent with. The systems are rarely balanced well, but as you pointed out, I’m not sure making them so would be all the interesting or beneficial. The designer can’t predict (perfectly) how much money a given player will need, so they often err on the side of too much. Not having enough, particularly if the game involves “cost of living” type of expenses, can ruin a game for anyone. Having truckloads of (useless) gold rarely ruins a game that has good gameplay and/or story. Designers are better off minimizing the impact of gold on the game overall I think, rather than trying to make a realistic system. As a player, I think that time could be spent working on better things. As a developer, the problem intrigues me, but I’m not sure how much time I would want to dedicate to such a system… and technically, you almost need a complete game to even begin implementing a truely balanced economy.
That’s why the coin of the realm in Frayed Knights is silver! :)
In defense of old-school D&D, though, the XP-for-gold principle was actually an early attempt at quest-based XP. And, if you look at the numbers, players really did get MORE XP from treasure than they should have gotten for killing monsters.
What’s funny is that so many people complain about D&D being only about generating a body count for XP, but many of the complainers were the ones who were playing it “wrong.”
Coyote, that was a silly way of doing things, though.
Still, what about your experiences in P&P play? Did the DM(s) hand out so much treasure?
Darkbridger, yeah, as I said, computer games are different. Avernum 5 went much the other way, making gold hard to come by and easy to spend.
I was often the DM. And… well, yeah, kinda. Though I did have players complain about how they got NO magic items in their first level dungeon.
But here’s the thing – and why I don’t call it a silly way of doing things (just kinda… prototypical). Look at some of those old modules, especially the REALLY old-school ones by Gygax and his compatriots. The monsters were often the least of your worries. The best treasure was often hidden, hard to find, and protected by vicious puzzles and traps as much as monsters.
And for the party that left no stone unturned, about half of the well-hidden secrets of the dungeon were things that would KILL YOU.
I took my players through part of the D20 version of Gary Gygax’s Necropolos, described as “Tomb of Horrors on Steroids” (the one I wrote the “official” prequel module for). They discovered that the most powerful spells were not Delayed Blast Fireballs or Power Word: Stuns, but divination spells. The best use of Disintegrate was not to wipe out enemy leaders, but to bypass traps. They began seeing patterns in everything to try and avoid the really, really lethal traps and puzzles.
So the gold-for-XP thing was really supposed to reward all those times the players had to risk lethal traps, noodle their way through horribly convoluted tricks and puzzles, solve riddles, roleplay negotiations, and so forth.
We still don’t have a good way for dealing with some of those more player-skill-intensive challenges in RPGs. 3rd edition was kind enough to provide guidelines for overcoming challenges based on dice rolls, but is pretty silent when it comes to forcing players to deal with a riddle or puzzle.
Currently playing LOTRO. The lowest coin is copper, then silver, then gold, then platium.
Each next higher denomination takes 1000 of the previous. So 1 plat = 1000 gold or 1,000,000 silver or 1,000,000,000 coppers.
Most lower items are sold at merchants in coppers. As you rise in level, level-equaled items are 1s50c. Eventually you are earning 1g300s items.
I am current level 22 out of 50. I am earning 1s10c items in loot. Outstanding items with bonuses are 10s and are few…but not rare.
Likewise, it is easy to spend coins for repairs, food(buffs), crafting supplies, etc. The sinks are about 50% of the loot rate.
It is all relative in games anyway. Whether you get rocks or coins for rewards depends on what they buy. So if a game doles out 1000s of coins per item, it costs 1000s of coins to repair and 10,000s to buy another one.
Keeping sinks rated to the supply equals a stable economy.
I also DM-ed for most of my friends/games. I would rather have a party that figured things out than one that ran straight through, swords/spells at the ready. I rewarded using their heads more than their brawn. I was never a Monty-Haul, Captain Bligh, Snidely Whiplash. More of a bevolent spirit that would throw a curve ball now and then…keep them on their toes. Every group had a 70% chance of survival. Dumb groups rarely survived. Bonus points/loot for role-playing their characters in-person!
Pizza, beer/soda, popcorn was on me!
Toodles,
Dolnor Numbwit
Missing the Old Days
Wow Coyote, remind me not to be in any of your groups; you run nasty stuff ;) But you’re right, the old modules were a bit heavy on killer dungeon stuff (I have the original TOH module and was glad I never had to be in that place!).
It just seems to me, though, that equating gold with x.p. is not the right way of doing the rewards. It’s just a quick and dirty way of gettting around having to think ;)
Dolnor, so true. We recall that in Fallout, bottle caps were used like money. Gold is easy to understand, and having just one medium of exchange makes life easier for everyone. LOTRO sounds a trifle complicated in that regard.
It just seems to me, though, that equating gold with x.p. is not the right way of doing the rewards. It’s just a quick and dirty way of gettting around having to think ;)
Maybe. But if gold rewards followed a forumula, it made it easier to have the XP reward follow the formula. Not that formulas were very set in 1E. :)
Oh, and the link is back up at Necromancer Games – if you wanted to see what kind of twisted, horrible, killer modules I create – here’s Set’s Daughters. It was a contest-winner for writing a prequel to Gary Gygax’s Necropolis. And yeah, Necropolis pretty much as nasty as Tomb of Horrors. But about 10x larger. Maybe not QUITE so arbitrary with the insta-death, as 3rd edition tends to drown on such things, but it’s still deadly and requires brains as much as good dice rolls.
Yeah Coyote, like I said, it’s a quick and dirty fix. Thanks for the links. I’ve downloaded your mod and will look at it later.
A critical missing factor in the gold/rewards equation is demand. There’s simply no competition for the rewards in a game so resource scarcity is non-existent, imagined, or artificial at best. Depending on which seems to drive how much gold you amass during your travels. Every player can collect polearms in their installation of the game and flood the market without impacting the price because there’s only one player demanding resources in the game. Just had a thought (it does happen on occasion). What about adding some AI adventurers to compete with the player for quests, rewards, glory, etc? Has that been done before? If so, I’ve never played the game.
I’ve frequently run campaigns in which players have a net worth in the millions of gold pieces. But they’ve never been carrying that around with them: It’s tied up in the value of their equipment. Or real estate. Or other investments.
Any argument about D&D that starts out with “this sucks because in the real world it wasn’t true” pretty much instantly causes me to tune out. So gold was rare in the Middle Ages, you say? Fascinating. But in the fantasy realm of Hyboria, gold is much more common. Magic makes mining easier and safer. The ancient Empire of the Alchemists have left a legacy of gold (and a paucity of lead) behind them. In ancient times the Dragon Wars spilled across the many dimensions, and the dragons of this world were victorious — carrying their spoils of gold from a hundred worlds back to their nesting grounds in this one.
Of course, this guy is also ranting about the 1979 DMG (which is like ranting about the gas mileage on a ’75 Pinto or the poor graphical quality of Deus Ex compared to Halo 3).
He also gets his rant wrong by claiming that gold pieces have no weight in AD&D… despite the fact that, in AD&D1 the encumbrance system was based entirely around the weight of gold coins. From the PHB1, pg. 102: “Weight is usually stated in gold pieces, 10 gold pieces equalling 1# (pound)…”
Oldschool, if I recall rightly, in Wizardry VII: Crusaders Of The Dark Savant, the DS had his agents out looking for the same map pieces you were, and sometimes got in ahead of you. However, I don’t recall ever meeting any of those “crusaders”.
And there’s something similar in Depths Of Peril, but as I haven’t played that, we’ll have to wait for Coyote to drop by and give us the scoop.
Overall, rival adventuring groups are rare in computer RPGs. Would make for some interesting situations, although I suspect the typical gamer would just try to kill them all at the first opportunity.
Justin, the answer to that remark is: “They didn’t have fireball-slinging mages and guys running around with magic swords in the real Middle Ages, either”.
Yep, Depths of Peril has rival adventuring groups, who will even go so far as to buy stuff from the merchants that you might have had your eye on… (or at least, that’s the explanation for it). AND they’ll offer to trade stuff with you and all that.
I suspect that there could be some “fudging” going on with the other factions, but I haven’t ever seen any evidence of that.
I *DID* run into the rival adventuring groups in Wiz 8. I thought it was a clever idea, but I didn’t think it was executed really well.
Frayed Knights has rival adventuring groups in it, but they are more story-based elements than actual AI-controlled rivals.