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

[Lanefan]

That's a way to fix one of the issues, but not the other where you could sell your boots of striding and springing and retire on the proceeds.

The latter, to me, isn't an issue. After a few lucrative adventures, adventurers always have the option of retiring and living well off the proceeds; and that they choose to keep adventuring is an intentional choice.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

You can also just make exchange between the two inefficient. Players are a lot less likely to spend plot funds on character build funds activities if they only get 3:4 value for doing so.

That depends on the relative value of character build stuff vs plot stuff.

Someone who faces starvation due to insufficient food funds will use clothing funds to pay for the food needed to survive and work, even if forced to exchange clothing funds at an unfavorable rate and even when there are downsides to going ill-clad.

Likewise if players feel that their characters are facing power starvation, they'll spend social & plot funds to pay for the personal character boosts needed to survive and succeed, even if forced to exchange plot & social funds at an unfavorable rate and even when there are downsides to being impoverished on the plot & social side.

Or, if there is an opportunity to do so, people will 'cheat.' They'll use clothing funds to buy edible clothing in order to stave off food-starvation, or they'll use social & plot funds to buy those social things that somehow also boost their builds, in order to ward off power-starvation. Put another way, imposing punishments may give people incentives to obey the rules, but it also can give them incentives to find ways to break the rules and then evade the punishments. Especially when obeying the rule is also seen as a punishment.

Starve the players and their characters, and the players (and their characters) will act like they're starving. If you want to starve players and PCs, and then try to make them act as if they aren't starving - I don't think that can be done.

 

[Willie the Duck]

That depends on the relative value of character build stuff vs plot stuff.

Spoiler: spoilered for size

Someone who faces starvation due to insufficient food funds will use clothing funds to pay for the food needed to survive and work, even if forced to exchange clothing funds at an unfavorable rate and even when there are downsides to going ill-clad.

Likewise if players feel that their characters are facing power starvation, they'll spend social & plot funds to pay for the personal character boosts needed to survive and succeed, even if forced to exchange plot & social funds at an unfavorable rate and even when there are downsides to being impoverished on the plot & social side.

Or, if there is an opportunity to do so, people will 'cheat.' They'll use clothing funds to buy edible clothing in order to stave off food-starvation, or they'll use social & plot funds to buy those social things that somehow also boost their builds, in order to ward off power-starvation. Put another way, imposing punishments may give people incentives to obey the rules, but it also can give them incentives to find ways to break the rules and then evade the punishments. Especially when obeying the rule is also seen as a punishment.

Starve the players and their characters, and the players (and their characters) will act like they're starving. If you want to starve players and PCs, and then try to make them act as if they aren't starving - I don't think that can be done.

There is always that risk. Players* tend to want to turn any in-game resource into a component of the primary game loop of interest. However, almost as compelling a tendency as that seems to be a desire to find efficiencies. Making the GP <--> maGicP exchange rate inefficient somehow** is telling the player they are 'wasting money' compared to using it for plot effects, and that's at least a feasible way to inhibit such activity.
*developers too, if the slow shift in 2nd edition towards NWPs that acted as combat boosts are any indication.
**let's say a component of it is social cachet among mage guilds or the like, and some 'adventurer' trying to come in and buy into the club with mere money is just-so-gauche (and the mage facilitating it for mere money is basically selling their good name for rent money).

The primary goal I have with this is give a reason not to convert cash meant for boats and bribes and bling into magic item (and similar) without the verisimilitude-threatening situation of two currencies that cannot be interchanged. Because, as you allude to, people will do so. Invisible Suns had two currencies -- one for real-world items like clothes and cars and another for ensorcelled items of various kinds -- and it seemed ridiculously artificial

 

[Warpiglet-7]

In my experience, if gold does not have a use in the game part of the game (mechanics) players very quickly stop caring about it. Which is fine if you are saving the world or reaching for other goals, but kills treasure hunting dead.

100%

When it was tied to leveling, we were gold hungry madmen. “Think of the experience!” Is something I uttered! We loved a trove more than we do now exponentially.

I care little for gold now in comparison. If we could not buy expensive armor or an occasional something, it would
Be further cheapened.

Though I have not problem if ask unlocks events and experiences…

 

[Shardstone]

Logically, in a setting where common and uncommon magic items exist, it makes sense for noble families to use their wealth on any magic items they can find.

 

[Staffan]

Logically, in a setting where common and uncommon magic items exist, it makes sense for noble families to use their wealth on any magic items they can find.

Depends on how expensive they are.

While it's not the exact same situation, I am reminded of a quote from the 2e Dark Sun setting. In Dark Sun, metal things are, relatively speaking, 100 times as expensive as in other settings. So it was explained that a sorcerer-king could either get a few suits of plate armor for their personal guard, or build a substantial expansion of the city walls.

 

[Reynard]

Logically, in a setting where common and uncommon magic items exist, it makes sense for noble families to use their wealth on any magic items they can find.

I agree in principal, but what this actually amounts to will vary based on what magic items are in the world.

In some campaigns, magic items are mostly relics of the past (forged by the elves of the dawn time, or whatever). In this case, acquisition of those items is more in line with status symbols by possessing unique or rare things.

In a world where magic items are currently being constructed but are difficult and expensive to make, it looks more like commissioning artists to create something unique as a status symbol.

Only in world's like Eberron where magic is both ubiquitous and commercial would you get nobles outfitting their retinues with items, or filling their houses with magic commodes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree in principal, but what this actually amounts to will vary based on what magic items are in the world.

In some campaigns, magic items are mostly relics of the past (forged by the elves of the dawn time, or whatever). In this case, acquisition of those items is more in line with status symbols by possessing unique or rare things.

In a world where magic items are currently being constructed but are difficult and expensive to make, it looks more like commissioning artists to create something unique as a status symbol.

Only in world's like Eberron where magic is both ubiquitous and commercial would you get nobles outfitting their retinues with items, or filling their houses with magic commodes.

But in all those cases, nobles spend gold for magic items (for whatever reason), so logically there ought to be a market for them.