D&D 5E Why I think gold should have less uses in 5e, not more.

[Willie the Duck]

I always thought the presence of strongholds in D&D was a strange holdover from it's tactical wargaming roots. I mean, players play D&D to get away from thier real life responsibilities of property, home, work, etc. Why would they want to recreate that in their fantasy game!? Irresponsible adventurers forever!

Mind you, the existence of the wargames (and Braunsteins, FKS, etc.) that inspired D&D in the first place suggests that people find tracking funds and properties and the like can be a form of entertainment.

However, knowing that most D&D players (particularly after a certain point) weren't coming straight from wargaming, I think that depends on whether Gary thought people were going to regularly run the strongholds, or if it was just an explanation for what your character was doing in their retirement.

Certainly the addition of level 7+ spells and high-level planar adventures suggests that Gary and the future devs were aware that many people weren't exclusively retiring or playing king & commander at name level.

See, I don't think that's really true. Because in B/X and AD&D, gold is pretty useless.
...
That's why training costs were a common house rule. It gave you something to spend all those cubic yards of metal discs on.

In AD&D training costs weren't a house rule.

The 2e AD&D DMG explicitly lists Training as an optional rule in Chapter 8. B/X has no rules at all for training, let alone training costs, and BECMI's "Training" refers to it's own Weapon Mastery system. Similarly OD&D had no training costs; the only limitation that I can recall was that you had to level up between adventures.

There are training costs in the 1e AD&D DMG! However, in 1e AD&D everything was an optional rule. After all, weapon speed, weapon vs armor type, and multi-attack's effect on initiative segments weren't presented as optional rules, either, but I never saw anybody use them longer than one or two sessions. A.D.D.I.C.T. is quite deservedly a joke to most people.

All rules in all editions are optional. That doesn't change the fact that training costs were baked into AD&D as a use for gold and set high in order to motivate treasure hunting.

That's just it, though. It doesn't really do that. I feel like you haven't actually looked at just how silly the math is. I don't think Gary did.

1. You stated that Gold was worthless in BX and AD&D, and that giving a use to gp after you acquired it was the reason for training costs as a common house rule.
2. Reynard stated that they were not a house rule in AD&D.
3. You made statements that, while interesting and most being true*, are not germane to whether the rules were listed in AD&D, and thus not house rules. *re: 1E being the one where everything was optional: 1e is perhaps the only edition where it's actually stated that you ought to follow all the rules. That no one did is true, but not specific to 1E.
4. Reynard pointed out that optionality does not change that the rules were there in the books, with the purpose of creating a use for the gp acquired.
5. You stated, without apparent evidence other than they did not agree with you, that Reynard must not have looked into the rules.

Also, outside of the ordinal count:

• At no point did you clarify that you were talking about some other training rules other than the published rules as the house rules; nor why the initial house rules do not count as a use for gold.

Your end conclusion regarding Reynard is not supported by what was stated in-thread. You two are clearly having different conversations. They saw you make the statement that gold had no use and that training rules were a house rule, and perfectly reasonably pointed out that training rules for purpose as use for money were in fact in the book. You seem to be trying having a discussion about successfully implemented rules. That's perfectly fine and reasonable, but then suggesting someone must have done or not done something because they are having the factual words-in-book discussion is, at best, misreading the discussion. A simple, 'Right, sorry, let me clarify... among well-thought-through rules that people actually used, AD&D had no uses for gold, and thus many house rules for training (based on the existing rules, or made up from whole cloth) were implemented.' would have solved this completely.

Regarding whether Gary looked at the math, that's a difficult call. The AD&D rules are clearly not as well playtested as the oD&D rules were. However, it's entirely possible (and not entirely out of character) for him to have deliberately made it such that you could not meet the requirements by straightforward action. He was all about hard decisions, and there are plenty of other examples of 'you're not going to win this by playing fair' kind of moments in the game rules.

Maybe it was intended that one should have to borrow funds, or agree to services rendered in exchange for training (there are rules for that in the training rules as well), or selling ones' precious magic items ... or just plain have to waste a bunch of earned XP while you acquire additional GP to reach the training costs for the level-up you've otherwise already earned.

I have to agree, mind you, about how this works when the rubber meets the road. Especially looking at the multiplier for behavior. A thief, for instance, can get a poor rating for either boldly engaging in combat or for being cautious, leaving a very tenuous middle ground in which for them to work.

 

[Lanefan]

There are training costs in the 1e AD&D DMG! However, in 1e AD&D everything was an optional rule. After all, weapon speed, weapon vs armor type, and multi-attack's effect on initiative segments weren't presented as optional rules, either, but I never saw anybody use them longer than one or two sessions. A.D.D.I.C.T. is quite deservedly a joke to most people.

My experience with 1e AD&D training was that it worked exactly like demihuman level limits. At the start of the campaign, the DM would staunchly insist the training rules would be enforced. Then, as soon as they actually came up in play, they would be relaxed. The DM would know you were several sessions from getting back to town and the PCs had nowhere near the somewhat absurd 1,500 gp per level required of each PC. They know they don't have 6,000-10,000 gp in the entire module for the 1st-level PCs to reach 2nd level alone (several of whom are multiclass and need to train twice). Then the DM knows that the module is supposed to take the PCs to 3rd or 4th level... and their napkin math says they're now somewhere around 35,000 gp short for a party of 4-5. Suddenly "training costs" end up not being very important at all, and you can just level up between sessions.

We've kept training costs all along, though not using Gygax's inane roleplay-judgment system to set them. If you don't train, you can still advance but much more slowly; training keeps you on the "fast track".

I don't think buying magic items subverts the setting. I think it subverts the game itself, but not because of loss of wonder.

When the players or PCs want to accomplish something, the answer should essentially always be, "go on an adventure." That's the core game loop of D&D. Go on an adventure, find dungeons, kill or bypass the monsters and traps, and take the treasures you find as reward. As much as possible, the mechanics and elements of the game should funnel the players back into that core game loop. And, yes the goals of the adventure should sometimes or even often reflect the goals that the players want to achieve.

Critically, this is what the DMG should be telling new DMs.

Buying a magic item should only be possible when the alternatives to going out and finding it through adventure are worse than the adventure that is being blocked by not having the item.

Random items coming available for purchase or trade makes sense; as does allowing the PCs to sell or trade away items they don't need and-or can't use. (I should note I always operate on the assumption that the PCs are not the only adventurers in the setting and that other parties out there are finding-dumping-hoarding magic as well)

But the key piece is random. If what you're specifically looking for doesn't happen to be available right now, tough.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Mind you, the existence of the wargames (and Braunsteins, FKS, etc.) that inspired D&D in the first place suggests that people find tracking funds and properties and the like can be a form of entertainment.

Sure, I’m aware aware some people like that stuff, there are plenty of games that are nothing but management. It’s just that none of my little group do (and three of us work in management).

 

[Reynard]

@Bacon Bits I really don't understand your argument.

1E characters needed to acquire a bunch of gold to to level. In order to level they needed XP. The majority of XP comes from gold. Therefore, the system works as intended: it drives characters to go into dungeons looking for gold so they can gain XP, then drains them of that gold so they can level,which reincentivises them to go deeper to get more gold. Whether the numbers are precisely balanced is up for debate (but probably not; Gygax wasn't really a "math guy") but the system did what it set out to do. Of course it broke down if you didn't require training to level, or gold didn't give XP, or if you were too stingy or too liberal with gold, or any number of deviations from the assumed relationship between gold, xp, and training.

One interesting way of doing things, leaning in to the 3.x item creation system, might be allow gold to be used for XP as a training cost OR used to create items. That is, you get to choose between gaining a level and upgrading your gear. Itwould require some precise balancing but might make for an interesting variant.

 

[Lanefan]

That's just it, though. It doesn't really do that. I feel like you haven't actually looked at just how silly the math is. I don't think Gary did.

If you play it straight, it doesn't just make gold mandatory for progression. It makes a lot of gold mandatory for progression. It makes gold functionally replace XP for the first 6 levels of the game. It's not a siphon for gold that would otherwise be there. It's a schedule. The costs are so high that they block and dictate advancement. At low level when you're less likely to have the XP earned pro-rated, it's often higher than the XP schedule.

• A level 1 Fighter needs 1,500 gp and 2,000 XP gained to reach level 2.
• A level 2 Fighter needs 3,000 gp and 2,000 XP gained to reach level 3.
• A level 3 Fighter needs 4,500 gp and 4,000 XP gained to reach level 4.
• A level 4 Fighter needs 6,000 gp and 8,000 XP gained to reach level 5.

By 5th level, a Fighter needs to have a total of 16,000 XP. However, to reach that point, they would have had to spend 15,000 gp just in training. (For reference, that's more total wealth than 3e characters should have access to by that level.)

And if you look at the published adventure modules that Fighter probably went through to get to 5th level and see how much treasure they contain, you'll see that accruing 15000 g.p. over that span is child's play...provided the PCs are allowed to sell their excess magic.

Except... well, now there's a big problem, because you earn XP for gold. That means they should have gotten pretty close to 15,000 XP from gold alone. If the character has a Strength score of 15 or better -- which the 1e DMG strongly suggests they always should -- they would instead have 16,500 XP from the gold alone. That's before XP from monsters or magic items or anything else, never mind any gold that the PC could actually spend on supplies and equipment. And it's worse for Clerics and Thieves because they advance more quickly but their costs are the same.

Some of that - maybe a lot of it - would have been lost, however, as by RAW in 1e when you hit your bump point in xp you cannot gain further xp by any means until you train. So that 1st-level Fighter could have come back with 10000 g.p. in treasure but once she got to 2000 xp her advancement stops dead; the rest of those xp-for-gp are lost.

And to top it off, this is the cheapest it can be. If the DM decides you weren't playing your class or alignment well enough or if no trainer is available, you can be required to spend up to quadruple the costs.

One of 1e's dumber rules IMO.

But it gets worse because, as I mentioned, 1e AD&D is unique in this training cost requirement. It doesn't appear in other editions except as an optional rule. That means any module for 2e AD&D or Basic D&D shouldn't have this level of treasure. That means any Basic module, including the entirety of the B and X series, anything set in Mystara, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, or Planescape, nearly all of Ravenloft, and nearly all of Forgotten Realms should not have the gold required to pay for this training.

And yet many of them do, so clearly the designers didn't have much issue with PCs rolling in wealth.

That's why I'm saying I honestly don't believe anybody used this long enough for it to happen during play. The costs for a significant portion of play are completely outside the reality of gameplay, and it lasts until the PCs are mid-level.

If this is really how you say you played, then my question is: Why do your players put up with that much level drain? Because that's the only way I can imagine this kind of game working and not being constantly capped on XP.

We solved it by scrapping xp for gp, a long time before 2e did the same thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Gygax wasn't really a "math guy"

Wasn’t he an accountant?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

In AD&D training costs weren't a house rule.

Nothing sucks the wonder out of fantasy like buying magic items.

I'd argue playing D&D for 20+ years sucks the fantasy out of magic items. +1 swords are never going to feel cool again.

Taking magic out of the player's hands just so the DM can chase the dragon vicariously of that feeling of being 12 again is a folly. Our group frequently has kids in it, and let me tell you, they're drooling at the chance of getting the thousand gold to buy that displacer beast figurine of wondrous power in the magic shop window.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It also harms verisimilitude to my mind, because there are plenty of concrete, useful things that gold absolutely should be able to buy.

Magic items being one of them. Why are so many DM's so concerned with controlling their player's feelings and forcing their own idea of fun onto their players? It reminds me of making a kid sit down and consume a piece of media "for their own good".

Maybe just let them choose how to spend the reward?

 

[Reynard]

I'd argue playing D&D for 20+ years sucks the fantasy out of magic items. +1 swords are never going to feel cool again.

They never did. Who said anything about +1 swords?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

They never did. Who said anything about +1 swords?

Wands of magic missile, cloaks of protection, dancing scimitar. Take your pick. After this long for many of us magic in D&D is old hat. Buying them isnt the issue.

I will say I saw a lot of excitement in BG 3 over item mechanics like lightning charges, reverberation, arcane acuity, etc. because it incentivized combos and different builds. It offered another pillar of character customization. But you can only have that if some of it is in the player's hands.