How do you handle treasure?

[HidesHisEyes]

In 5E even more than in previous editions treasure seems to be totally useless. That is, money is largely useless, and gems and jewellery and art objects that are worth money are useless by extension. What do you or your DM tend to do about this?

Today I ran a session without having had much time to prepare and I was largely ad-libbing a dungeon, and to mix things up a little I threw in a hidden box with treasure in it. I decided to use a DMG magic item table and they ended up getting a scroll. I can't see this working as a general solution in a dungeon-crawly campaign though, since magic items sort of need to be rare and special in 5E. But if the alternative is just gems and jewels then the players will quickly reach the point where a) using monetary rewards to provide motivation for quests won't work anymore and b) the players (they are new to D&D) will realise the treasure is useless.

At the moment I feel like I'm delaying the inevitable and am not sure what to do once it arrives. Any ideas?

[Eldamar]

In 5E even more than in previous editions treasure seems to be totally useless. That is, money is largely useless, and gems and jewellery and art objects that are worth money are useless by extension. What do you or your DM tend to do about this?

I don't call it useless and give my players options to use that money to accomplish their goals. I've never stopped and thought in any game "wow, this gold and crap is useless". My players and I think of uses for it to gain things we normally wouldn't be able to.

[Robvox]

I do believe that gold and gems are "worthless" in 5e. I have been DMing for over 30 years and the one big lesson I have learned about treasure is: BE STINGY.
Don't give out too much treasure.
Make downtime (time between adventures) expensive.
Make PCs pay for training (I don't like this one personally).

I usually make treasure hard to find and their lifestyles cost money. By letting too much coin pour into their hands you lose a prime motivator for adventure.

Other ideas are building and paying for the upkeep on a stronghold or something like that.

INFLATION. PCs bring thousands and thousands of GP into a small community and start a spending spree. Prices go up as GP are much easier to find in local economy now.....

There is plenty of ways to divest your PCs of their hard earned (?) coinage.

[HidesHisEyes]

I don't call it useless and give my players options to use that money to accomplish their goals. I've never stopped and thought in any game "wow, this gold and crap is useless". My players and I think of uses for it to gain things we normally wouldn't be able to.

What kind of thing?

[HidesHisEyes]

I do believe that gold and gems are "worthless" in 5e. I have been DMing for over 30 years and the one big lesson I have learned about treasure is: BE STINGY.
Don't give out too much treasure.
Make downtime (time between adventures) expensive.
Make PCs pay for training (I don't like this one personally).

I usually make treasure hard to find and their lifestyles cost money. By letting too much coin pour into their hands you lose a prime motivator for adventure.

Other ideas are building and paying for the upkeep on a stronghold or something like that.

INFLATION. PCs bring thousands and thousands of GP into a small community and start a spending spree. Prices go up as GP are much easier to find in local economy now.....

There is plenty of ways to divest your PCs of their hard earned (?) coinage.

Thanks. I like some of these ideas. One thing I struggle with is finding ways for them to spend their money that are actually meaningful in gameplay terms. Ive never given PCs a cost of living between adventures and, although I'm not opposed to the idea, it seems like it might just feel like an arbitrary "tax". Although it makes sense within the game world the players might not feel like they're getting anything for their money, since it wouldn't be anything they could use in actual gameplay.

I'm toying with the idea of NPC mages who charge lots of money to put enchantments on equipment.

[JackPhoenix]

Unlike previous editions, you can't turn gold directly into combat power. However, unlike previous editions, you don't have to to stay alive. Bribes gifts to improve relations with nobles, holdings, mercenaries, or just plain fancy and expensive booze and hookers... players no longer have to spend treasures on mandatory gear upgrades (but they possibly can, they just can't visit nearest branch of Ye Olde Magic Shoppe franchise to choose from standardized selection of items at standardized prices), and could invest into the roleplaying part of RPG.

As my bard would say, even if the wealth isn't a goal in itself, you can't have enough money, there's always something to use them on. Like poison, assassins, mercenaries and influence to get her own kingdom...

[Sigreid]

I guess I don't see the problem unless you're bent on being hobos:

1. You can possibly buy magic items, while there aren't shops you could contract with some merchants to locate and acquire a specific item for an absurd amount of money

2. Buying a nice home and maybe lands.

3. Building a network of contacts.

4. Acquiring a library of ancient lore to aid in your adventuring.

6. Hirelings.

7. Basically buying titles.

Just to name a few. And, of course if you want a magic emporium, go for it. Don't let us stop you.

[pwykersotz]

Thanks. I like some of these ideas. One thing I struggle with is finding ways for them to spend their money that are actually meaningful in gameplay terms. Ive never given PCs a cost of living between adventures and, although I'm not opposed to the idea, it seems like it might just feel like an arbitrary "tax". Although it makes sense within the game world the players might not feel like they're getting anything for their money, since it wouldn't be anything they could use in actual gameplay.

It only feels like a tax if it's perfunctory. If you take the time to let them enjoy their gratuitous wealth, it can be a real benefit. Money isn't for PC's after you have enough for full plate, it's to control NPC's. It's the glue between the adventuring world and the civilized world.

My players, when they attain vast wealth, tend to think about their goals and use the wealth to further them. The guy who wants a castle has a straight line to his goal. The guy who wants to find his father's killer might commission spies from the rogue's guild. The gal who is a holy paladin might make a donation to a church to have some time with a heirophant that could have some information. Nothing says preferential treatment like donations to the king. And of course good food, warm beds, and *ahem* company can all command a decent price.

This sort of thing might be a bit lost in a more hack & slash game though.

[Robvox]

Costs for spells is an excellent way to mitigate too much money in game.
Minor 1 use magic items (ie. healing potions and scrolls) is another.

PCs can be swindled, reducing in game coinage as well as providing an adventure hook (going to kick that thief's @$$).

[comk59]

Does your party have a rival group? Nothing motivated my players more than seeing their rivals look trim, respendant, and comfortable while they were caked in mud, blood, and wearing rags.

[MrStabby]

I think there should be two things, in addition to castles and "company" that can fix this.

1) Availability of consumables for purchase.
2) A need for consumables

For the first one, there are a lot of spells that have very expensive components. Some of these are one off expenses and some are a pay per casting affair. Both can be a valuable use of party coin.

Also make for sale consumable items like magic arrows or poisons for weapons. Make these potentially powerful and expensive. Have different things available in different shops, different cultures and different towns. If players don't know when they can restock on an item they may want to spend a lot of coin here.

Potions can also fit into this. Build others - potions of speed that grant the haste spell to the imbiber, potion of firebreathing that lets them make dragonborn type attacks and so on.



The second part is making these necessary. If you want the players to buy this stuff they need to need it. Ramp up the difficulty. Do not play gentle with the PCs. Make campaign death by not being able to afford to be properly equipped a real possibility.

[Contrast]

It only feels like a tax if it's perfunctory. If you take the time to let them enjoy their gratuitous wealth, it can be a real benefit. Money isn't for PC's after you have enough for full plate, it's to control NPC's. It's the glue between the adventuring world and the civilized world.

My players, when they attain vast wealth, tend to think about their goals and use the wealth to further them. The guy who wants a castle has a straight line to his goal. The guy who wants to find his father's killer might commission spies from the rogue's guild. The gal who is a holy paladin might make a donation to a church to have some time with a heirophant that could have some information. Nothing says preferential treatment like donations to the king. And of course good food, warm beds, and *ahem* company can all command a decent price.

This sort of thing might be a bit lost in a more hack & slash game though.

This is my answer. Give them something they want to spend their money on. I spend lots of money on things in real life and very few of those things are to help me be better at my job, which is what adventuring is to a PC.

Maybe they want to sponsor an orphanage after you let it be known that one of the monsters they took a few weeks to find left a number of children homeless and destitute. Maybe they want to commision some great works of art or sponsor a certain side in a policitical issue. Maybe they set up or hire a set of scholars to identify and research rare items they find and ruins they explore to preserve their history. Just remember to give people some benefits for their resource expenditure though - if the paladin gives tithe to their chirch there should be some upside (even if it is just more rapid advancement and respect within the church itself) otherwise it will be just as meaningless as if the pile of gold was still written on their character sheet.

Edit - my initial approach would just be to leave it up to the players, but if I noticed one player sitting on a lot of gold I would probably give them a reminded OOC that their character has a giant pile of gold and ask what they want to do with it. I would also keep in mind that 'I like having a giant pile of gold' is a perfectly acceptable answer :smallwink:

[WhiteEagle88]

This is my answer. Give them something they want to spend their money on. I spend lots of money on things in real life and very few of those things are to help me be better at my job, which is what adventuring is to a PC.

Maybe they want to sponsor an orphanage after you let it be known that one of the monsters they took a few weeks to find left a number of children homeless and destitute. Maybe they want to commision some great works of art or sponsor a certain side in a policitical issue. Maybe they set up or hire a set of scholars to identify and research rare items they find and ruins they explore to preserve their history. Just remember to give people some benefits for their resource expenditure though - if the paladin gives tithe to their chirch there should be some upside (even if it is just more rapid advancement and respect within the church itself) otherwise it will be just as meaningless as if the pile of gold was still written on their character sheet.

Edit - my initial approach would just be to leave it up to the players, but if I noticed one player sitting on a lot of gold I would probably give them a reminded OOC that their character has a giant pile of gold and ask what they want to do with it. I would also keep in mind that 'I like having a giant pile of gold' is a perfectly acceptable answer :smallwink:

Even having a giant pile of gold is a reason to spend some of their money, since they have to have a secure place to store that kind of scratch. I had a player that used a bunch of his gold to buy some land then had a massive vault constructed underground to store his important items in and serve as a secret base. Wasn't cheap, but by this point he had boatloads of gold and magical items to spare.

[Coffee_Dragon]

using monetary rewards to provide motivation for quests won't work anymore

Leaving only about fiftyeleven other types of possible character motivation?

[ad_hoc]

I think gold matches character power well.

In levels 1-4 it is very important for buying basic gear. Armour, healing potions, and transportation are all expensive. This is befitting the apprentice tier.

When the characters enter the next tier (5-10) tier they can start affording more. They can afford expensive services from NPCs and use their wealth for bribes, etc.

At 11+ any worthwhile quest will involve challenges so great that money is a bit silly. Characters at this point can afford land where they can hire NPCs to provide services such as research libraries or a sizable armed force. More likely at this point what they are dealing with is beyond money which makes sense.

The economy of 3.x didn't make any sense. In such a world where very powerful magic items were being bought, sold, and created the characters wouldn't be needed. More than that peasants wouldn't be needed. Who needs farmers when the local mage can create magic items that can create unlimited food. And so on.

[90sMusic]

In 5E even more than in previous editions treasure seems to be totally useless. That is, money is largely useless, and gems and jewellery and art objects that are worth money are useless by extension. What do you or your DM tend to do about this?

Today I ran a session without having had much time to prepare and I was largely ad-libbing a dungeon, and to mix things up a little I threw in a hidden box with treasure in it. I decided to use a DMG magic item table and they ended up getting a scroll. I can't see this working as a general solution in a dungeon-crawly campaign though, since magic items sort of need to be rare and special in 5E. But if the alternative is just gems and jewels then the players will quickly reach the point where a) using monetary rewards to provide motivation for quests won't work anymore and b) the players (they are new to D&D) will realise the treasure is useless.

At the moment I feel like I'm delaying the inevitable and am not sure what to do once it arrives. Any ideas?

Yeah gold is basically worthless. You can buy food with it that you need for your adventures and sometimes a horse and a night at the inn, but that's largely all it's good for by default.

One way to give it some value is to make some part of your quest need it. For instance, say you're searching for a bunch of relics and you find out one is kept by a rich merchant who keeps it in his collection of antiques, magical artifacts, and oddities. He wants 10,000 gold for it, so your party starts pooling their money and has to take on a few side quests to be able to afford it to avoid having to try to steal it from his heavily fortified and protected home.

Likewise, maybe your adventurers need some extra gold to book passage on a ship to another continent. Etc.

Some DMs add extra things to spend money on like using rules for building their own homes and keeps and such.

Personally, I played Pathfinder for the majority of my D&D career so it's hard for me to go from gold being a means of progression to gold being virtually useless, so I just gave a gold value to all the magic items in the game and let them buy the items from magical shops so gold becomes part of character progression again.

Alternatively, you could stop paying your party 500 gold pieces every time they kill a handful of bandits. Pay them more reasonable wages, give them just enough to live off of so they have to be careful how they spend their money or they might run out and not be able to afford a decent meal or a room at the inn. Maybe they have to all share the same room when they haven't had a well paying job in a while, etc. These amounts of money are far more realistic because some random merchant (or any citizen for that matter) isn't going to pay you the equivalent of 10 years or more of his wages for you to go perform some task.

[90sMusic]

I think gold matches character power well.

In levels 1-4 it is very important for buying basic gear. Armour, healing potions, and transportation are all expensive. This is befitting the apprentice tier.

When the characters enter the next tier (5-10) tier they can start affording more. They can afford expensive services from NPCs and use their wealth for bribes, etc.

At 11+ any worthwhile quest will involve challenges so great that money is a bit silly. Characters at this point can afford land where they can hire NPCs to provide services such as research libraries or a sizable armed force. More likely at this point what they are dealing with is beyond money which makes sense.

The economy of 3.x didn't make any sense. In such a world where very powerful magic items were being bought, sold, and created the characters wouldn't be needed. More than that peasants wouldn't be needed. Who needs farmers when the local mage can create magic items that can create unlimited food. And so on.

Peasants and so on wouldn't logically exist without some BS reason for it. Just like in Harry Potter, the magic folk arbitrarily decided to hide themselves from the rest of the world because otherwise they'd be in servitude to the superior folk who can use magic for things and utterly destroy non-magical economies by everlasting spells that can create a work force that doesn't eat, sleep, or need to get paid who can constantly perform various tasks.

It's why the stories with super-intelligent heroes or scientists that can do insanely complex and complicated things with !SCIENCE! but they never seem to find the time to solve any real world problems like, you know, cancer.

It's just easier to imagine how the world is (or in D&D's case, how the world WAS) as a general rule and then just make tweaks to it instead of trying to re-imagine what a world would actually be like if these people existed who would fundamentally change how human beings live and exist.

SO ultimately, I don't fault 3.**'s way of doing things.

For the most part. I mean once you create a magical trap that can cast Wish every time you step on it you can start to do some even crazier things but hey...

[Nicodiemus]

There is a cost of living mechanic built into the game. If you as a DM plan appropriate downtime between adventures that will suck up quite a bit of wealth. Many DMs ignore it, but then you end up undervaluing treasure. Hmmm, funny how that happens

[Knaight]

There is a cost of living mechanic built into the game. If you as a DM plan appropriate downtime between adventures that will suck up quite a bit of wealth. Many DMs ignore it, but then you end up undervaluing treasure. Hmmm, funny how that happens

So, yet more of the "the system doesn't have an issue, it's just even more incredibly finicky about the exact few types of games it works with than it looks like". This isn't convincing.

[Malifice]

What kind of thing?

Huh? Aside from a life of luxury, a harem of gorgeous women, fine clothes and wine, servants waiting on your every whim, a fortified keep to call your own and your own private army?

How about having the wealth to hire Assasins to deal with your enemies?

I mean seriously. What would you do with a few million bucks?

[Hrugner]

There's always something to spend money on. Spend some of the cash improving travel infrastructure and starting a militia to keep monsters out of places you like and facilitate trade. Spend all your money buying up everything of value in a town run by a corrupt noble to tank the value of gold and trash his influence, maybe even buy off his soldiers and servants. Hire researchers to develop new spells or technology. There's no limit really.

[Coffee_Dragon]

If lack of an explicit loot-power feedback loop makes a system overly restrictive, then I don't know which system isn't.

[HidesHisEyes]

Thanks for all the ideas everyone, really helpful.

They seem to boil down to:
1) consumables
2) quest requirements
3) making changes to the game world
4) fun RP stuff

Some thoughts.

1) Consumables. This is where my attention is drawn, probably because I've played a lot of computer RPGs. This seems like the most solid option for making money reliably a part of the gameplay. I'm glad to have been reminded that just enforcing the cost of spell components can go a long way towards making money count. Potions seem a good option too, as long as encounters are made accordingly more difficult. More mundane things like cost of living, rations and even ammunition have always put me off because they create paperwork, but maybe if money was a bigger part of the game the paperwork would feel worth it. I can also imagine the exhaustion mechanic could be put to use as a consequence of not spending enough on food/sleeping arrangements.

2) Quest requirements. I like this one too, and I am going to bear in mind that money could be a resource for PCs to get stuff done, which is something I've tended to overlook. I think it's a less reliable option than consumables simply because players are a crafty bunch who can usually find alternative ways of solving problems, but even then it could be cool to have money as a tempting option for some quests if it means the PCs have to choose between resolving a quest the easy way and, say, buying a cool potion.

3) Making changes to the game world, or to players' persistent resources. Bases, research facilities, militias and so on. This kind of stuff I've always liked the idea of but never got around to implementing because in two plus years of DMing on and off I've never actually run a game to beyond level 9 and these things seem like higher-level options. Definitely one to think about though.

4) Fun role-playing stuff. This is your hookers and gin and fancy but functionally identical apparel. This is the one I struggle with. I think I struggle with it because, while a lot of players seem to really like this kind of thing, I personally don't get much out of any role-playing actions if they don't have some kind of gameplay effect too. It's not that I don't care about RP or that I treat D&D as purely a hack'n'slash affair, but that I see the RP as very much taking play in a context of gameplay. To me, saying "I do this because it's what my character would do" seems rather meaningless if it doesn't affect the gameplay. That said, that is me speaking as a player and if I'm the DM then I'm not a player, so clearly I should just put these options on the table, so to speak, and the players can take them or leave them.

One thing all these ideas seem to suggest is that the money aspect of the game could really benefit from a clear delineation between "downtime" and "adventure time", something I've often thought the game in general could benefit from.

[Contrast]

3) Making changes to the game world, or to players' persistent resources. Bases, research facilities, militias and so on. This kind of stuff I've always liked the idea of but never got around to implementing because in two plus years of DMing on and off I've never actually run a game to beyond level 9 and these things seem like higher-level options. Definitely one to think about though.

4) Fun role-playing stuff. This is your hookers and gin and fancy but functionally identical apparel. This is the one I struggle with. I think I struggle with it because, while a lot of players seem to really like this kind of thing, I personally don't get much out of any role-playing actions if they don't have some kind of gameplay effect too. It's not that I don't care about RP or that I treat D&D as purely a hack'n'slash affair, but that I see the RP as very much taking play in a context of gameplay. To me, saying "I do this because it's what my character would do" seems rather meaningless if it doesn't affect the gameplay. That said, that is me speaking as a player and if I'm the DM then I'm not a player, so clearly I should just put these options on the table, so to speak, and the players can take them or leave them.

Bases and minions don't have to be high level things (though minions certainly should be considered carefully at lower levels to stop the PCs from just palming the quests/missions off). Nothing wrong with starting your players with a resource at their command. For comparison I've just finished playing in a campaign in a different system (Rogue Trader) in which your characters start out at rank 1 as fabulously wealthy space pirates in command of a space ship with a crew in the tens of thousands.

I certainly wouldn't see anything wrong with starting the PCs off as being in charge of a ship or inn or tract of land or whatever and letting the adventure go from there. Depending on how your setting works it may even make sense for the PCs to be the heads of the local watchmens guild (with the station as their 'base') or explorers/mercanary/adventurer guild. Puts them in a position of authority but limited resources so they still have to go out and do stuff themselves.

With regard to 4 - as the DM you are in control, if you don't have roleplay choices have consequences then they won't. If you do, then they will. Someone spends all their time and gold carousing etc - they get a reputation and get invited to illegal gambling rings and underground pit fights but more moralistic organisations turn their noses up and refuse to work with them or offer lesser rewards (this could of course be resolved by offering a generous to donation to the church - more money sinks). You character offers to fund research into the history of the area? Unknowingly, the cultists you're tracking down actually approach your agents thinking your research may have revealed the location of the artifact you're both looking for. Your character spends all their money on fancy looking gear? They have an easier time bluffing their way past guards but are also the target of thieves and pickpockets.

Just remember to try and create opporunities as much as you can rather than pitfalls - if your players get consistenly punished for spending their gold rather than hoarding it, they'll just go back to hoarding it.

[JellyPooga]

In 5E even more than in previous editions treasure seems to be totally useless.

Isn't having money and all that being fabulously wealthy entails the entire point of being your stereotypical "adventurer" what it's all about?

Sure you get the occasional "Indiana Jones" who does it for prestige, or "Sir Gawain" who does it to protect the weak, but for every Hero questing for a higher cause there's ten Mercenaries "in it to win it", make out like a bandit and retire on sufficient filthy lucre to live like a king. If they can score a title and kill, maim and rob their way into the nobility (like real nobles) all the better. Marrying the prince/princess and inheriting the kingdom is like the Holy Grail of adventuring.

Wealth is its own reward. You don't get money to be better at adventuring; you get money so you don't have to be some bum adventurer drifting from town to town living on the edge of society and risking your life on a daily basis on behalf of a bunch of scummy, ungrateful villagers and townsfolk.

[comk59]

Thanks for all the ideas everyone, really helpful.

They seem to boil down to:
1) consumables
2) quest requirements
3) making changes to the game world
4) fun RP stuff

Some thoughts.

1) Consumables. This is where my attention is drawn, probably because I've played a lot of computer RPGs. This seems like the most solid option for making money reliably a part of the gameplay. I'm glad to have been reminded that just enforcing the cost of spell components can go a long way towards making money count. Potions seem a good option too, as long as encounters are made accordingly more difficult. More mundane things like cost of living, rations and even ammunition have always put me off because they create paperwork, but maybe if money was a bigger part of the game the paperwork would feel worth it. I can also imagine the exhaustion mechanic could be put to use as a consequence of not spending enough on food/sleeping arrangements.

If consumables are what catch your eye, I might have a few ideas. In one of my settings I use a substance called Nuln Oil (thankfully none of my players play WHF, or buy citadel paints). It is sort of a multipurpose flebotinum, and can fuel airships and streetlamp systems and what have you. But to my players it has two very important uses. It is how you refill wand charges, and you can apply it directly to your weapon to make it magical for one minute. Nuln oil is very rare, because

A: It is harvested from Nulns, AKA magical sky whales that breach the stratosphere to fill their lungs with vacuum.
B: It is helpful to everyone, and so everyone wants it. What little isn't bought by shipping companies and the government is usually snapped up by Mercenary Guilds and refined into weapon oil, and they are loathe to give it to non-members.

This gives my players a very real commodity that they want and that actually affects game play. Several quest givers have offered Oil as a reward instead of gold, and my players immediately took them up on that offer. The players also have an Oil fund that the party contributes to.

Also, as a side note, having fast and reliable transportation (in the form of Airships) also gives the players something to spend money on.

[mephnick]

There is a cost of living mechanic built into the game.

Yeah and the highest cost of living is about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% of what you make a day at a decent level.

You basically have to force the players to buy keeps and palaces for the money to be worth anything, which of course doesn't fit every campaign style. I still allow the players to buy very expensive mechanical upgrades to a certain point and allow weapons and armor to be modified for a good price. Stuff like scavenging salamander blood to get a blacksmith to enhance your weapon with fire at a (high) cost. At some point saying "I go into town and buy a bunch of whores and ale." gets a bit stale even for the most dedicated role-players.

Edit: Also if we're going with the "wealth is it's own reward" thing, the players should be retiring well before 20th level unless you want the campaign to be kingdom management, which is really not the point of the system.

[Steel Mirror]

4) Fun role-playing stuff. This is your hookers and gin and fancy but functionally identical apparel. This is the one I struggle with. I think I struggle with it because, while a lot of players seem to really like this kind of thing, I personally don't get much out of any role-playing actions if they don't have some kind of gameplay effect too. It's not that I don't care about RP or that I treat D&D as purely a hack'n'slash affair, but that I see the RP as very much taking play in a context of gameplay. To me, saying "I do this because it's what my character would do" seems rather meaningless if it doesn't affect the gameplay. That said, that is me speaking as a player and if I'm the DM then I'm not a player, so clearly I should just put these options on the table, so to speak, and the players can take them or leave them.
Just because something doesn't have mechanical impact on your character sheet doesn't mean that it can't have very important gameplay ramifications at all. Take the example someone mentioned above, of the PC that adopts an orphanage and spends a bunch of their loot to improve the lives of children who live there. You could easily say that this improves people's opinions of that PC. People that they meet and interact with have sometimes heard of their philanthropy, and tend to give them better deals on equipment and give them their best alcohol and finest rooms. The religious order which runs the orphanage is especially grateful, and wherever the party goes the local church goes out of its way to provide magical healing and occasionally a few potions or other consumables.

Then, later in the campaign, a rampaging horde of murderbeasts is roaming the countryside, and the PCs can either rush to defend the local baron's castle or go into the countryside and protect a town which is threatened. The baron will reward them lavishly if they fight for him, but he has an army and fortifications and can probably hold them off for a while. The village on the other hand is defenseless, and though there won't be much of a reward for helping them and not as many people live there as at the castle, the orphanage is there too! Now you have a memorable decision where the stakes are made much more interesting by your players' investment and long standing relationship with the world.

Sure you didn't need to have them spend money to achieve it, you could have accomplished a similar thing in myriad other ways, but then you don't need to have your players buy magic items in 3.Path or whatnot either. But if you're looking for ways to make money fun, don't think that "mechanics" are the only way to achieve in-game relevance for your players' expenditures.

[pwykersotz]

You basically have to force the players to buy keeps and palaces for the money to be worth anything, which of course doesn't fit every campaign style. I still allow the players to buy very expensive mechanical upgrades to a certain point and allow weapons and armor to be modified for a good price. Stuff like scavenging salamander blood to get a blacksmith to enhance your weapon with fire at a (high) cost. At some point saying "I go into town and buy a bunch of whores and ale." gets a bit stale even for the most dedicated role-players.

Wealth is a tool that should be able to be creatively leveraged. I don't believe pitons have much of a mechanical write-up (I'm afb) but that doesn't mean you can't use them or that you have to have a campaign about scaling cliffs for them to be useful. Wealth doesn't have a mechanical track to upgrade personal power past an early point, but that doesn't make it worth nothing.

That said, I think the game benefits if you do introduce mechanical tracks for wealth. I'm okay with it being left out of the core game, but this is one of the things that splatbooks from previous editions shine in.

[HidesHisEyes]

Just because something doesn't have mechanical impact on your character sheet doesn't mean that it can't have very important gameplay ramifications at all. Take the example someone mentioned above, of the PC that adopts an orphanage and spends a bunch of their loot to improve the lives of children who live there. You could easily say that this improves people's opinions of that PC. People that they meet and interact with have sometimes heard of their philanthropy, and tend to give them better deals on equipment and give them their best alcohol and finest rooms. The religious order which runs the orphanage is especially grateful, and wherever the party goes the local church goes out of its way to provide magical healing and occasionally a few potions or other consumables.

Then, later in the campaign, a rampaging horde of murderbeasts is roaming the countryside, and the PCs can either rush to defend the local baron's castle or go into the countryside and protect a town which is threatened. The baron will reward them lavishly if they fight for him, but he has an army and fortifications and can probably hold them off for a while. The village on the other hand is defenseless, and though there won't be much of a reward for helping them and not as many people live there as at the castle, the orphanage is there too! Now you have a memorable decision where the stakes are made much more interesting by your players' investment and long standing relationship with the world.

Sure you didn't need to have them spend money to achieve it, you could have accomplished a similar thing in myriad other ways, but then you don't need to have your players buy magic items in 3.Path or whatnot either. But if you're looking for ways to make money fun, don't think that "mechanics" are the only way to achieve in-game relevance for your players' expenditures.

Yeah, totally in favour of that kind of thing. I don't think direct mechanical upgrades are the ONLY way to make money relevant, but I do think they're the only way to do it reliably and systematically. If you have, say, potions and temporary item enchantments available in most towns then the players will always have something to spend their cash on that will have a definite effect. My experience of the business of running a D&D campaign, of presenting the players with a setting and reacting to how they choose to interact with it and helping a story emerge, is that with the best will of the world it's difficult to make every choice meaningful. Maybe the players gambling their money away in the dodgiest part of town or donating it to the church will have an effect on the story, but maybe other quests will get in the way because of the shape of the story.

So for that reason I think making RP uses of money meaningful is something to bear in mind as you run a campaign, but I don't think it's enough on its own.

[Steel Mirror]

Yeah, totally in favour of that kind of thing. I don't think direct mechanical upgrades are the ONLY way to make money relevant, but I do think they're the only way to do it reliably and systematically. If you have, say, potions and temporary item enchantments available in most towns then the players will always have something to spend their cash on that will have a definite effect. My experience of the business of running a D&D campaign, of presenting the players with a setting and reacting to how they choose to interact with it and helping a story emerge, is that with the best will of the world it's difficult to make every choice meaningful. Maybe the players gambling their money away in the dodgiest part of town or donating it to the church will have an effect on the story, but maybe other quests will get in the way because of the shape of the story.

So for that reason I think making RP uses of money meaningful is something to bear in mind as you run a campaign, but I don't think it's enough on its own.
Yeah, that all sounds pretty tip top to me. And while I think there's tons you can do with story and player investment when it comes to money, I do think that giving players an occasional money sink in the form of a mad tinker who accepts huge fees to craft custom (but always slightly eccentric) magical items, or a weapons merchant with a "special room" in back for his most wealthy and discriminating customers, is a good thing.

Heck I even love the 3.P magic emporium mart from time to time. Though I do think they have the inverse problem of effectively penalizing players who want to use their money for RP, and so get behind the curve in terms of the constant loot treadmill of buying incremental upgrades to your cloak of resistance and magic daggers. But that's a discussion for a different thread. :smallsmile:

[HidesHisEyes]

Yeah, that all sounds pretty tip top to me. And while I think there's tons you can do with story and player investment when it comes to money, I do think that giving players an occasional money sink in the form of a mad tinker who accepts huge fees to craft custom (but always slightly eccentric) magical items, or a weapons merchant with a "special room" in back for his most wealthy and discriminating customers, is a good thing.

Heck I even love the 3.P magic emporium mart from time to time. Though I do think they have the inverse problem of effectively penalizing players who want to use their money for RP, and so get behind the curve in terms of the constant loot treadmill of buying incremental upgrades to your cloak of resistance and magic daggers. But that's a discussion for a different thread. :smallsmile:

If players are able to spend their money on equipment/consumable that they know will be useful, but are also on the lookout for opportunities to spend it in a RP way that could potentially be game-changing, that could create some interesting choices.

I'm not a big fan of the 3.x magic emporium thing, despite how I can imagine it negates the "useless treasure" problem with zero fuss, because I also think it banalises magic items. Compare Bilbo first stumbling upon Sting and discovering its ancient, inexplicable powers to the usual 3.x image of adventurers shopping for magic items with a big sack of gold. Eurgh.

[ruy343]

To take us down a completely different tangent, why not have a collection of random, less-useful magic items that you can pull out for just such an occasion? I have a google doc that I use, which has a bunch of wacky/moderately useful non-combat items that my players love - and whenever I need a random reward or something for that crazy old man on the corner to be selling, I've got them available to me.

Here's a link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xYAfU_RrjmIcoNjhaqcjgoU4g4atLSb9KW5KikTeErE/edit?usp=sharing) to my list. Also check these forums for other such lists.

[BW022]

At the moment I feel like I'm delaying the inevitable and am not sure what to do once it arrives. Any ideas?

Sure...

You are the DM. It is up to you to make it useful. You can make gold useful in a number of ways.

1. Limit the amount of it. The less players have, the most they need to consider it.

2. Enforce costs. Inn stays, stabling, access to the city, etc. cost money.

3. Require it for adventuring.
* Ships, horses, transportation, etc.
* Bribes
* Churches, guilds, plying trades, licenses, accessing a library, etc.
* Equipment wears out.
* Maps
* Spell casting services -- identify, cures, etc.

4. Put in specific encounters which will likely require spending gold.
* Someone selling information.
* An orphanage whose administrator ran off with their money.
* Getting a rare library tomb from a merchant
* The group needs to attend a fancy show (tickets, outfits, etc.)
* An huge Xorn who wants gems in return for allowing you into a cave complex.
* They need information from a gambler.
* Travel to unique places (ships, bridge tools, etc.)
* They need a spell cast by a church and it has an expensive component
If necessary, put them in time constraints such that paying is the likely option.

5. Have things for sale/trade. You don't have to have large magic shops, but... it is good to have unique items which PCs might want.
* A group of elves with some +1 arrows.
* A gnome ale merchant with a potions of healing -- which make you drunk.
* A druid willing to sell you a trained giant owl.
* A smith willing to sell a spear which crits on a 19 or 20
* A rare riding horse with near maximum hit points.
In large cities, consider having a few magical items available for sale.

6. Allow or setup players to develop bases, hobbies, skills, backgrounds, etc. This can include down-time.
* Players each get a 20% share in a failing inn. It needs a new floor, the staff needs to be paid, etc.
* A rogue player finds a poison making manual and gear. Encourage them to find and make various poisons.
* A druid find someone able to teach them how to make a breastplate out of giant ants shells. They need a facility, equipment, materials, helper, etc.
* A paladin is tasked with rebuilding a church destroyed in a fire.

7. Give unusual items. Wealth shouldn't always be obvious. They shouldn't automatically know the value of gems, paintings, tapestries, books, etc. Mystery makes items worth a lot more than just normal items.

8. Don't allow them to sell permanent magical items for lots of gold. Make these more likely to be trades.


However... at some point gold will decrease in value as PCs reach mid-levels (10+). Don't fight it. Go on and make minor magical items the new currency.

[Steel Mirror]

I would like to say that, in my opinion, gold (and any resource your characters gain through play) should really be used to open up opportunities, rather than being taken away as the precondition for just being able to continue in the game. So, for example, requiring that your PCs spend a significant portion of their income on food and lodging, or travel arrangements, or anything else that is mandatory doesn't sound like much fun to me. It sounds like taxes, and I get enough of that in real life.

There are games where doing that might make a little more sense, like a gritty survival game where having to decide between buying a few more bullets or buying enough food to make it through the week is part of the fun, but I'm assuming heroic fantasy here where your characters, their resources, and the consequences of their decisions are all larger than life.

I'm also just objecting to requiring that your PCs spend a noticeable chunk of their resources on maintenance. Asking them to chip in 3 gold a day when they are hauling back 10,000 from a dungeon at a time is not a big deal (so not a big deal that I don't even bother with it). And giving them the option to travel on an airship in the first class section surrounded by celebrities and partying every night versus travelling in steerage at 1% the price is also a different thing entirely, and that's an example of giving your players an actually fun way to spend money (if they want to!).

Basically, I think the GM shouldn't be looking for ways to drain their player's money away. He should be trying to present the players with options that they can spend their money on, and then trying to make the ramifications of those options fun enough that the PCs look forward to getting more money and doing it again (or trying out different options next time).

[Knaight]

I'm also just objecting to requiring that your PCs spend a noticeable chunk of their resources on maintenance. Asking them to chip in 3 gold a day when they are hauling back 10,000 from a dungeon at a time is not a big deal (so not a big deal that I don't even bother with it). And giving them the option to travel on an airship in the first class section surrounded by celebrities and partying every night versus travelling in steerage at 1% the price is also a different thing entirely, and that's an example of giving your players an actually fun way to spend money (if they want to!).

There's really a point where money tracking turns into "how many significant figures do you really need". Hauling back 10,000 from a dungeon means counting 3 a day is at best 5 sig figs and quite possibly 6. There's really no reason to bother.


I would like to say that, in my opinion, gold (and any resource your characters gain through play) should really be used to open up opportunities, rather than being taken away as the precondition for just being able to continue in the game. So, for example, requiring that your PCs spend a significant portion of their income on food and lodging, or travel arrangements, or anything else that is mandatory doesn't sound like much fun to me. It sounds like taxes, and I get enough of that in real life.
I'd agree with this. With that said, maintenance in optional degrees could be another usable mechanic. D&D 5e isn't super well positioned for them due to being comparatively modifier light (and that's largely a good thing), but there's still potentially room for mechanics where a certain amount of money is sunk into high end equipment maintenance, or social power, or a spy network on a routine basis and there's decisions to be made about how to budget for that.

With that said, it's the sort of thing that tends to work a lot better with games focused on any number of things that aren't adventuring parties, so there is that.

[HidesHisEyes]

I would like to say that, in my opinion, gold (and any resource your characters gain through play) should really be used to open up opportunities, rather than being taken away as the precondition for just being able to continue in the game. So, for example, requiring that your PCs spend a significant portion of their income on food and lodging, or travel arrangements, or anything else that is mandatory doesn't sound like much fun to me. It sounds like taxes, and I get enough of that in real life.

There are games where doing that might make a little more sense, like a gritty survival game where having to decide between buying a few more bullets or buying enough food to make it through the week is part of the fun, but I'm assuming heroic fantasy here where your characters, their resources, and the consequences of their decisions are all larger than life.

I'm also just objecting to requiring that your PCs spend a noticeable chunk of their resources on maintenance. Asking them to chip in 3 gold a day when they are hauling back 10,000 from a dungeon at a time is not a big deal (so not a big deal that I don't even bother with it). And giving them the option to travel on an airship in the first class section surrounded by celebrities and partying every night versus travelling in steerage at 1% the price is also a different thing entirely, and that's an example of giving your players an actually fun way to spend money (if they want to!).

Basically, I think the GM shouldn't be looking for ways to drain their player's money away. He should be trying to present the players with options that they can spend their money on, and then trying to make the ramifications of those options fun enough that the PCs look forward to getting more money and doing it again (or trying out different options next time).

I agree with all of this, but as it happens I've spoken to my players about the issue and they actually like the idea of having a cost of living and having to track their wealth, so we are going to try it and see how it pans out.

I will just go by the lifestyle costs in the book for downtime periods, then I am also adding alchemists' shops with potions for sale and runes that can be used to temporarily enchant equipment at a large cost, and finally I will look out for opportunities to spend money in the course of quests.

Thanks for all the ideas, everyone!

[Sabeta]

I'm allowing my players to buy spells.
Cantrip: 250
Level 1: 500
Level 2: 750
Level 3: 1000

Purchasable spells are inferior to normal spells. Cantrips for example don't scale with level. Anything with a spell level requires at least a long rest rest to recharge, and every higher level takes more time. These purchasable spells come in the form of crystals, which can be used to enchant weapons. When that happens, the weapon gains three different attacks.
1) Normal Attack
2) Element imbued attack
3) Cast the spell.


Whenever they get higher in level I may do things like add splash damage to weapons using fireball, or let a sword of cold impose disadvantage. Basically, I'm letting my players buy magic items at what I think is a sane and rational level. I haven't decided how they'll +1 yet, but I'll let them buy it too.

Oh, and they only have access to Wizard Spell List for balancing reasons. I don't need everyone picking up Bless, Guidance, and Eldritch Blast. Minor Illusion is also special, in crystal form it can be made into a camera.

[Armored Walrus]

OP, saw your comment about lifestyle expenses being and arbitrary "tax" that gives the players nothing of value, skimmed through the rest of the thread and didn't see this answered, so I'll comment. Note that the lifestyle expense tables in the - DMG? - do state that the level of lifestyle chosen does have a tangible effect on the PCs. Living as a beggar will cause them to have contacts within the community of the poor, living as a noble will impart political power and connections, etc. It takes work by the DM to directly link the two, but it is at least mentioned in the rules.

My only experience with D&D outside of 5e was basic and AD&D, and our groups had the same problem in those. When we ended our high school campaign, each of us was carrying around millions of platinum pieces, and had never spent a penny of it on food, ammunition, improving or repairing weapons or armor, bribes, potions of healing, scrolls, writing spells in our spellbooks, etc. A DM has to enforce the resource sinks that are already written in the game if you want currency to remain relevant to your PCs. If you ignore encumbrance, ammunition rules, material components, used up torches, etc. and never have down time - it's hard to spend gold in a dungeon - then that stuff will accumulate and be perceived as having no value.

[Tanarii]

In 5E even more than in previous editions treasure seems to be totally useless. Only if your party is determined to be murderhobos.

If they're good & idealistic herohobos, then they'll find lots of good works they can do with all their loot. If they're ambitious murderlooters, they'll be spending money on land, castles/palaces, political advantage, or establishing trade networkers. Even if they're just selfish murderlooters, they'll settle down between murderlooting, and spend their loot on living a ridiculously extravagant lifestyle.

But if they're murdehoboing day in and day out and just want to sink their money in to being better at murdehoboing, then they're out of luck unless the DM sets up a magic mart.

Edit: it's worth noting that even at the most expensive lifestyle, a PC is only spending 300 gp/month. Any level 6+ adventurer can live for many months off of the 1 hoard they find per adventuring day, which is what the DMG recommends on average if you work out the numbers.

Otoh, each common soldier or warrior costs 60gp / month. Maintaining even a small force of 40 reavers for your 10000gp longboat is costing you 2400 gp/month.

[mephnick]

I don't think the group wanting to avoid turning the game into Kingdom Builder makes them murderhobos. It would be nice to have something else to spend gold on rather than forcing every single party higher than level 6 to buy keeps and warships. The system is designed around adventurers, not generals. If I wanted to play a game about armies, warships and castle maintenance accounting, I sure as hell wouldn't pick D&D.

[Kurt Kurageous]

If the local governance finds the party is wealthy, why wouldn't the elders come forward and ask for funds to pay for a monastery, addition to the castle, etc?

[Armored Walrus]

That's why ya gotta make sure you charge the prices for material components. Still, RAW, 5e doesn't have a lot else to spend money on, that's true, because of the lack of crafting rules and/or magic item purchases. So, yeah, takes some DM and/or player creativity to find a use for all that cash. On the other hand, just enforce encumbrance and you've just solved the problem. Found an ancient dragon's treasure horde? Congrats, you can carry away 1/100th of it unless you go to town and hire wagons and teamsters, letting eveyrone in the county know that all this gold is laying there, opening yourself up to opportunists, etc. Hmm, guess that still comes down to DM and/or player creativity. But then again, if neither your DM nor any of your players are creative, then it's not going to be a very interesting game no matter what the rules say you can do with your gold.

[Cybren]

It only feels like a tax if it's perfunctory. If you take the time to let them enjoy their gratuitous wealth, it can be a real benefit. Money isn't for PC's after you have enough for full plate, it's to control NPC's. It's the glue between the adventuring world and the civilized world.

My players, when they attain vast wealth, tend to think about their goals and use the wealth to further them. The guy who wants a castle has a straight line to his goal. The guy who wants to find his father's killer might commission spies from the rogue's guild. The gal who is a holy paladin might make a donation to a church to have some time with a heirophant that could have some information. Nothing says preferential treatment like donations to the king. And of course good food, warm beds, and *ahem* company can all command a decent price.

This sort of thing might be a bit lost in a more hack & slash game though.

We recovered a man sized statue of gold. I don't know if the DM expected us to get it out of the dungeon, but when we did I convinced everyone to give it to the monarchy. I think it's payed itself back in establishing trust with the crown

[IShouldntBehere]

It depends on the game. I'd say in general I have a trend of running low wealth games. Meaning relatively small amounts of loot and most stuff are things really only useful to the PCs. For example rather than finding a generic fire sword in a chest, a magical being might bless a player's weapon such that when he uses it gains the power of fire. This gives the player(s) the same level of overall power and sense of progression without injecting something that can easily be exchanged for large amounts of cash.

This is because I've found I dislike the tone many games seem to take on once every player has the income of a small kingdom or three. Which isn't to say I try to keep players starving, but income is kept to a level where a luxurious indulgence is just that. PCs are still wiping their mouths with a napkins, one-of-a-kind tapestries from lost dwarven kingdoms.

[Laserlight]

I would like to say that, in my opinion, gold (and any resource your characters gain through play) should really be used to open up opportunities, rather than being taken away as the precondition for just being able to continue in the game. So, for example, requiring that your PCs spend a significant portion of their income on food and lodging, or travel arrangements, or anything else that is mandatory doesn't sound like much fun to me. It sounds like taxes, and I get enough of that in real life.

Hear hear. I've asked my players what they want to see more of, and by some weird coincidence, not one has said "Gosh, I'd really like to spend more time worrying over my budget and wondering whether I'll have enough money, just like I do in real life!"

[Cybren]

Hear hear. I've asked my players what they want to see more of, and by some weird coincidence, not one has said "Gosh, I'd really like to spend more time worrying over my budget and wondering whether I'll have enough money, just like I do in real life!"

That's really a matter of campaign tone or player interest. I love that kind of gameplay, so I tend to volunteer to keep track of all the group expenses & assets. We just prepared for a journey and i spent like 1500GP filling up a bag of holding with provisions and survival supplies.

[IShouldntBehere]

That's really a matter of campaign tone or player interest. I love that kind of gameplay, so I tend to volunteer to keep track of all the group expenses & assets. We just prepared for a journey and i spent like 1500GP filling up a bag of holding with provisions and survival supplies.

Yeah. I've had a few games not at all centered on that sort of thing get player-driven into worry about managing minute of supplies & budget. Really you only need to look at video games and board games to realize this kind of thing has a lot of fans. From Oregon Trail to base management in X-COM there are a lot of games that have their bread in butter in expense management.

Honestly as D&D is a game about small teams heading into dangerous situations away from supplies & backup, it's honestly a decent fit for this kind of thing. Especially at low levels, or if you selectively snip out the few bits of magic that tend to magic away the more pressing concerns of exploration.

[Tanarii]

I don't think the group wanting to avoid turning the game into Kingdom Builder makes them murderhobos. It would be nice to have something else to spend gold on rather than forcing every single party higher than level 6 to buy keeps and warships. The system is designed around adventurers, not generals. If I wanted to play a game about armies, warships and castle maintenance accounting, I sure as hell wouldn't pick D&D.
What makes them murderhobos is killing things to take their loot, and not settling down.

If they were good, kind, honest, brave, whatever it is that makes you a hero, then even if they killed things and happened to pick up some loot along the way, then they'd want to do good things with the cash. So it wouldn't be useless even if they didn't settle down. They'd be herohobos.

If they killed things for their loot but settled down or got ambitious, then they wouldn't be hobos. They'd just be murderlooters, not murderhobos.

Otoh as I pointed out in my edit, there's a slight flaw in that second argument, which is that it only takes 300gp / month, or about 3600 gp / year, to live the top lifestyle. So even if you do settle down, but you don't do much else, then if you go on a hoard-producing adventure even every half a year, you'll soon be awash in spare gold.

Edit: OTOH it may be that the 300 gp/month is actually a murderhobo traveling around living in luxury tax, in which case it comes back to only murderhobos would find excess cash worthless. As opposed to buying something appropriate to their stature/level to settle down in.

[TurboGhast]

Generally, I add extra mechanical uses for money to my campaigns, but can see why people would want to avoid that solution.

Another way you could increase the meaningfulness of money is to inflate lategame rewards less. Money only becomes meaningless because item prices are fixed, yet the PCs get constantly increasing incomes. Slowing down that increase enough would prevent money from becoming a mechanical non-entity, while still showing progression in reward amounts.

[Corsair14]

I give a lot of gold to my players along with minor magic items. One of my players is a low intell barbarian who likes alcohol and hookers and has no problem burning through his share of the cash. I also gave him a daemon weapon that will grow in power as he levels so he is limited in picking up stuff.(its a jealous weapon that doesn't like other weapons so he drops them without knowing it) As for minor magic items I give them jewelry enchanted to stay clean and untarnished, rings of limited usefulness in most situations Ring of Water Breathing for example, and I charge a significant amount by the local hedge wizard to identify items which is even funnier when they find they are useless. Looking forward to when the barbarian gets around to trying to identify his sword. So far he would rather spend the money on hookers.

They also tend to spend a ton on healing potions and I weigh them down with stuff. My fights are very tough and its common for one or two of them to be on the ground by the end unless it was a purposely easy fight.

[HidesHisEyes]

What makes them murderhobos is killing things to take their loot, and not settling down.

If they were good, kind, honest, brave, whatever it is that makes you a hero, then even if they killed things and happened to pick up some loot along the way, then they'd want to do good things with the cash. So it wouldn't be useless even if they didn't settle down. They'd be herohobos.

If they killed things for their loot but settled down or got ambitious, then they wouldn't be hobos. They'd just be murderlooters, not murderhobos.

Otoh as I pointed out in my edit, there's a slight flaw in that second argument, which is that it only takes 300gp / month, or about 3600 gp / year, to live the top lifestyle. So even if you do settle down, but you don't do much else, then if you go on a hoard-producing adventure even every half a year, you'll soon be awash in spare gold.

Edit: OTOH it may be that the 300 gp/month is actually a murderhobo traveling around living in luxury tax, in which case it comes back to only murderhobos would find excess cash worthless. As opposed to buying something appropriate to their stature/level to settle down in.


Have to say I'm completely in agreement with Mephnick's comment. I've never really got the whole thing about raising armies and having a castle and whatnot. As Mephnick says, D&D doesn't seem geared towards that kind of thing at all.

As for the distinction you make between different types of PC, "herohobo" seems to be the default assumption for D&D characters as far as I can tell. Not the only thing it's possible to do with the game, but the default assumption. The problem I was drawing attention to with this thread was that, for such characters, those good things the herohobos should be able to do with the cash seem to be largely absent from the game's rules as written.

And again, the whole idea of "settling down" seems equally out of step with the assumptions of D&D as a game system. Perhaps settling down and paying a cost of living for a certain amount of time before the next adventure comes knocking.

[Tanarii]

Have to say I'm completely in agreement with Mephnick's comment. I've never really got the whole thing about raising armies and having a castle and whatnot. As Mephnick says, D&D doesn't seem geared towards that kind of thing at all.All editions of D&D have been aimed towards it as an end goal, although I admit that in oD&D, 1e, BECMI, 2e and 5e it's probably more explicit than in 3e or 4e. So I can see people that grew up on 3e, or especially 4e, thinking that D&D isn't geared towards it.


As for the distinction you make between different types of PC, "herohobo" seems to be the default assumption for D&D characters as far as I can tell. Not the only thing it's possible to do with the game, but the default assumption. The problem I was drawing attention to with this thread was that, for such characters, those good things the herohobos should be able to do with the cash seem to be largely absent from the game's rules as written.You want rules for charitable donations & tithing, founding orphanages, founding orders of knights to guide pilgrims to the holy lands, and other heroic helping of people in need that don't require giving up the hobo lifestyle?

[Asha Leu]

I've found that simply allowing players to purchase, commission and sell magic items (within reason) helps a lot with this. No, there aren't strict rules for item prices, but the rough price guides for item rarity generally avoids any serious balance issues, in my experience.

[Baptor]

In 5E even more than in previous editions treasure seems to be totally useless. That is, money is largely useless, and gems and jewellery and art objects that are worth money are useless by extension. What do you or your DM tend to do about this?

Today I ran a session without having had much time to prepare and I was largely ad-libbing a dungeon, and to mix things up a little I threw in a hidden box with treasure in it. I decided to use a DMG magic item table and they ended up getting a scroll. I can't see this working as a general solution in a dungeon-crawly campaign though, since magic items sort of need to be rare and special in 5E. But if the alternative is just gems and jewels then the players will quickly reach the point where a) using monetary rewards to provide motivation for quests won't work anymore and b) the players (they are new to D&D) will realise the treasure is useless.

At the moment I feel like I'm delaying the inevitable and am not sure what to do once it arrives. Any ideas?

This is a good question. There's no right or wrong answer. Here's where I am.

I've thrown out the DMG tables for gold and gems. It starts really stingy and then escalates exponentially until you have insane gold 17+. I just don't see the point other than buying out whole towns and cities. If that's your bag, great. Not for us.

I try to make my money a bit more like real life...if that even makes sense. Like in real life if you found $100 that would be a really cool day. It's not gonna change your life, but hey $100!

If you found $1000, well that could be something of a windfall. You might be able to pay off a small debt or make a nice purchase like a fancy T.V. or a really useful appliance like a washer or dryer.

If you found $10,000, that's a game changer. For most of us that's a significant portion of your yearly wages. You could buy a car or pay off a sizeable debt with this kind of cash.

If you found $100,000...that could be a life changer. For most of us that's 2-3 years of wages, perhaps even 4. You could pay of a small-moderate mortgage where I live with this kind of cash.

That said, a quest for a local problem might get you $100 worth, maybe $500 if they are really grateful for your help. If you go into the tomb and slay the skeleton knight, you might find $1000 or so worth of heirlooms and such there. A decent haul. Going higher, destroying the vampire of Caracal might net you $10-50k from his treasures. And of course the big haul, $100,000, would come from a dragon's hoard. If you dare.

Of course convert all dollars to gold pieces for fantasy flair. ;)

Its really hard in my games to accumulate more than 10-50k gold in my game. I try to create interesting and fun gold sinks like buying strongholds or hideouts, creating teleportation circles, and so forth. You'd be surprised how eager many players are to buy houses, own a fleet of ships, and so forth.

Occasionally, and this is very rare, a player will approach me about making a magic item. The items they come up with are never mechanically powerful, like a +3 sword, but instead are utility items. A player wants to be able to misty step 2/day, or have a healing ring, or something. I allow this, but require the player to go on a fetch quest for something rare like a fire flower or the blood of a nymph. Then I lay a gold tax on it, usually at least 10,000gp for anything substantial. Works pretty good.

But that's just me. YMMV.

[ad_hoc]

All editions of D&D have been aimed towards it as an end goal, although I admit that in oD&D, 1e, BECMI, 2e and 5e it's probably more explicit than in 3e or 4e. So I can see people that grew up on 3e, or especially 4e, thinking that D&D isn't geared towards it.


I agree.

I think a lot of the disconnect seems to be what the later levels mean.

When characters are level 11+ they aren't regular people anymore. They aren't even heroic people. They are beyond mundane concerns.

Trying to model an economy that can both accomodate such beings and commoners is foolish. The best you can do is allow them to hire those commoners and purchase large amounts of resources that those commoners have. You can purchase influence over large amounts of people. Those people no longer individually have things to offer you as you have outgrown them.

If you want the game to be more grounded than that you should probably stop at level 10.

[mephnick]

If you want the game to be more grounded than that you should probably stop at level 10.

To be honest I do set a level cap of 11 on my world, so you got me pegged.

[Tanarii]

If you want the game to be more grounded than that you should probably stop at level 10.
Interestingly, it's right after finding their first level 11-16 hoard the average PC can afford to build a small castle/keep, and each following hoard allows them to start maintaining a small offensive force of men-at-arms on top of it. 400 men-at-arms requires about 1 adventuring day / hoard per month, or you can stretch it further with a smaller force.

Btw, what's really fun is when players in different sessions hire different mercenary bands to fight on different sides of the same conflict. :smallamused:

[HidesHisEyes]

All editions of D&D have been aimed towards it as an end goal, although I admit that in oD&D, 1e, BECMI, 2e and 5e it's probably more explicit than in 3e or 4e. So I can see people that grew up on 3e, or especially 4e, thinking that D&D isn't geared towards it.

Sure enough I got in at 3E. It's an aspect of the game I've never had much inclination to engage with. For now with my level 3 players I will just be rather stingy with treasure and trial my own options for spending it, and see if we naturally veer towards bigger stuff as they hit higher levels. But if players and DM are all equally uninterested in playing Castle Manager 3000 I see no reason why the game should go in that direction if you don't keep showering them with more and more cash as they level up. Am I wrong about this?



You want rules for charitable donations & tithing, founding orphanages, founding orders of knights to guide pilgrims to the holy lands, and other heroic helping of people in need that don't require giving up the hobo lifestyle?

Ah, no, I didn't realise that's what you meant. I thought by good things you meant things that would help the heroes fight evil - I.e. potions and equipment upgrades and so on. These things I do think the game's rules are somewhat lacking in. Donations to orphanages and whatnot are grand but I don't think they provide a reliable systematic way of making money meaningful on the level of gameplay, as I mentioned earlier.

[Tanarii]

What you're talking about is exactly why the term MurderHobo was coined in the first place.

Historically, D&D handed out huge amounts of treasure because:
1) It was exciting to find huge hoards of dragon's treasure.
2) The designers assumed character surviving to 'name' level (about level 10) would settle down and retire from active adventuring on all that cash. And if post-adventuring gaming was desired, they'd involve moving over to mass-combat mini wargaming.

Then the west coast gamers didn't want to do that, and kept adventuring up to ridiculous levels. This was the rise of MurderHobos: They adventuring to kill things and steal their loot, with no actual reason so SPEND the loot, then complained there was nothing to spend their money on.

The designers were aware it was something of a problem eventually, so in AD&D they built in money sinks (training costs, henchmen maint costs, paying sages, developing magical items). Which players then promptly ignored that. So in 3e they went a different direction, the "video-gamey" direction: provide gear & loot upgrade pricing, and assume (to a degree) magic-marts.

Basically, the entire premise of being able to buy gear upgrades at magic marts is a result of murderhoboing: rolling things for loot and not having anything to do with it afterwards.

[HidesHisEyes]

What you're talking about is exactly why the term MurderHobo was coined in the first place.

Historically, D&D handed out huge amounts of treasure because:
1) It was exciting to find huge hoards of dragon's treasure.
2) The designers assumed character surviving to 'name' level (about level 10) would settle down and retire from active adventuring on all that cash. And if post-adventuring gaming was desired, they'd involve moving over to mass-combat mini wargaming.

Then the west coast gamers didn't want to do that, and kept adventuring up to ridiculous levels. This was the rise of MurderHobos: They adventuring to kill things and steal their loot, with no actual reason so SPEND the loot, then complained there was nothing to spend their money on.

The designers were aware it was something of a problem eventually, so in AD&D they built in money sinks (training costs, henchmen maint costs, paying sages, developing magical items). Which players then promptly ignored that. So in 3e they went a different direction, the "video-gamey" direction: provide gear & loot upgrade pricing, and assume (to a degree) magic-marts.

Basically, the entire premise of being able to buy gear upgrades at magic marts is a result of murderhoboing: rolling things for loot and not having anything to do with it afterwards.

That's really interesting. It seems this problem goes even deeper than I thought.

Assuming one considers it a problem (as I do) and doesn't want to solve it by a complete change of gameplay after level 10 (as I don't), do you think simply providing plenty of fun things to spend cash on within the format of the party-of-adventurers-go-on-quests style is enough to solve the problem? Assuming you also throw out the DMG's random treasure tables and continue being relatively stingy with treasure right up to level 20? A sort of bounded accuracy model for treasure and spending.

[Tanarii]

I think it depends why your PCs are adventuring and questing. If they're doing it for plot hooks, then yeah, that's fine provided the plot doesn't require money in some form or another. If they're doing it for personal power in the form of magical items, then you can either go the 3e/4e route and price magical items that can be bought with money. Or stay stingy with the money and have adventuring be the only way to get magical items. Either one.

As long as the players are all on board, then any route will work fine.

[Sabeta]

If you read AngryGMs rant on the subject, there's really no way to solve the problem of economy. 5e just wasnt built with that in mind. You can attempt to patch it by making buyable magic items, but that just delays when gold becomes useless. You can cut off their supply bit now there's less reward for their work, and even then.

Simply put, in order for gold to mean something you need a reason to spend it. Donating it to a church is not a reason. You may never revisit that church and so you've arbitrarily wasted money for a momentary glimpse of doing the right thing. It also makes sense for the PCs to hang on to enormous amounts of cash in case the heroes can put that towards saving the world.

Gold has value in an economy, but D&D doesn't even attempt to simulate an economy. It ends up meaningless fluff. This has nothing to do with murderhoboism, not Tanariis weird perception of it.

[Steel Mirror]

If you read AngryGMs rant on the subject, there's really no way to solve the problem of economy. 5e just wasnt built with that in mind. You can attempt to patch it by making buyable magic items, but that just delays when gold becomes useless. You can cut off their supply bit now there's less reward for their work, and even then.

Simply put, in order for gold to mean something you need a reason to spend it. Donating it to a church is not a reason. You may never revisit that church and so you've arbitrarily wasted money for a momentary glimpse of doing the right thing. It also makes sense for the PCs to hang on to enormous amounts of cash in case the heroes can put that towards saving the world.
I think you're making a lot of unstated assumptions about what a D&D game is about. I had a group that owned an airship from level 1. They were always strapped for cash, because the airship always needed repairs, or they'd just looted some new cannons and needed to hire some people to get them installed, or they were saving up to buy a privateer license from the crown so they could do their pirating thing and technically be following the law (at least, one nation's laws!). That game was a trial to find out what 5E was like at all levels, so it moved fast, got to level 17, and had an above average (far above average once they had captured a treasure ship) amount of loot. But they always wanted more money, and always had half a dozen things they could have spent it on.

And that game was never about 'saving the world', at most they were arguably saving a single nation, but even then it was mostly about profit. So while I get where you are coming from on what you might call the archetypal D&D game, there's no reason an archetypal game can't branch out and find meaningful ways for players to spend cash.


Simply put, in order for gold to mean something you need a reason to spend it. Donating it to a church is not a reason. You may never revisit that church and so you've arbitrarily wasted money for a momentary glimpse of doing the right thing. It also makes sense for the PCs to hang on to enormous amounts of cash in case the heroes can put that towards saving the world.
I agree with the first statement, but I'm not sure how you got from there to your conclusion. I'd say, simply put, in order for gold to mean something you need a reason to spend it. Therefore...give the players a reason to spend it! Problem solved, or so it seems to me.


Gold has value in an economy, but D&D doesn't even attempt to simulate an economy. It ends up meaningless fluff. This has nothing to do with murderhoboism, not Tanariis weird perception of it.
You don't need to simulate an economy (except in the broadest possible strokes) to spend money. It doesn't need to end up as meaningless fluff! Give your fluff some meaning (maybe even give it some crunch) and your players, even murderhobos, will love spending their money on it. I won't go into all the different ways to do it right here because this thread is full of all sorts of good ideas, but you can totally do it!

[Coffee_Dragon]

I had a group that owned an airship from level 1. They were always strapped for cash, because the airship always needed repairs, or they'd just looted some new cannons and needed to hire some people to get them installed, or they were saving up to buy a privateer license from the crown so they could do their pirating thing and technically be following the law (at least, one nation's laws!).

This sounds great. You haven't watched Cowboy Bebop by any chance? (For anyone who didn't, it's about a bunch of very capable bounty hunters who are always broke to the point of fighting over scraps of food; it's awesome. Great inspiration for counting-the-coppers role-playing and one of the very few anime series I've really liked.)

[Steel Mirror]

This sounds great. You haven't watched Cowboy Bebop by any chance? (For anyone who didn't, it's about a bunch of very capable bounty hunters who are always broke to the point of fighting over scraps of food; it's awesome. Great inspiration for counting-the-coppers role-playing and one of the very few anime series I've really liked.)
Saw it and loved it, it's definitely one of my all-time influences! That game ended up being more swashbuckling and high adventure than Bebop, but it was totally an inspiration.

[HidesHisEyes]

I think it depends why your PCs are adventuring and questing. If they're doing it for plot hooks, then yeah, that's fine provided the plot doesn't require money in some form or another. If they're doing it for personal power in the form of magical items, then you can either go the 3e/4e route and price magical items that can be bought with money. Or stay stingy with the money and have adventuring be the only way to get magical items. Either one.

As long as the players are all on board, then any route will work fine.

I'm in the tricky position of DMing for a group who are completely new to RPGs (tabletop or otherwise) and I don't think anyone at our table knows exactly what type of game they'd like to be playing. So my approach to treasure is very much a cautious experiment. The one thing we do seem to know is that none of us want money to be totally meaningless if we can help it. It may be that as the game goes on they get interested in the idea of castles and militias, which I wouldn't be thrilled about as it doesn't appeal to me - but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.


If you read AngryGMs rant on the subject, there's really no way to solve the problem of economy. 5e just wasnt built with that in mind. You can attempt to patch it by making buyable magic items, but that just delays when gold becomes useless. You can cut off their supply bit now there's less reward for their work, and even then.

Simply put, in order for gold to mean something you need a reason to spend it. Donating it to a church is not a reason. You may never revisit that church and so you've arbitrarily wasted money for a momentary glimpse of doing the right thing. It also makes sense for the PCs to hang on to enormous amounts of cash in case the heroes can put that towards saving the world.

Gold has value in an economy, but D&D doesn't even attempt to simulate an economy. It ends up meaningless fluff. This has nothing to do with murderhoboism, not Tanariis weird perception of it.

I think the reason Angry is so pessimistic about it is that he keeps the assumption that as PCs level up they get ever larger amounts of treasure, to the point where they're hauling back thousands of gold pieces' worth at the highest levels. That's why I mention bounded accuracy. BA keeps both modifiers and DCs relatively low throughout. The treasure equivalent would be keeping both loot and prices relatively low and aiming to make sure the things you spend the loot on - whether crunchy stuff or narrative stuff - don't go anywhere.


I can foresee this feeling sort of unsatisfying at higher levels when, for the types of enemies you're facing and the scope of the threats you're dealing with you naturally expect much bigger amounts of treasure. But if it [i]works[i] then maybe it's worth it. As I said it's all an experiment really.

[Tanarii]

If you read AngryGMs rant on the subject, there's really no way to solve the problem of economy. 5e just wasnt built with that in mind.
I love Angry, but he was completely wrong on that one. It's only a problem if you or your players insist on being Murderhobos, or some variant thereof.

But it's hardly surprising he thinks that way. He's a huge videogame player, and almost all CRPGs are based on the murderhobo philosophy that personal character improvement is only possible through (class) features or gear upgrades. Therefore if you don't spend cash on gear upgrades or to buy features (training), then it's useless.

Edit: Alternately you can just do what HidesHisEyes suggests and heavily reduce or eliminate cash rewards, if they can't actually be used for anything in your game.

[Vogonjeltz]

I do believe that gold and gems are "worthless" in 5e. I have been DMing for over 30 years and the one big lesson I have learned about treasure is: BE STINGY.
Don't give out too much treasure.
Make downtime (time between adventures) expensive.
Make PCs pay for training (I don't like this one personally).

I usually make treasure hard to find and their lifestyles cost money. By letting too much coin pour into their hands you lose a prime motivator for adventure.

Other ideas are building and paying for the upkeep on a stronghold or something like that.

INFLATION. PCs bring thousands and thousands of GP into a small community and start a spending spree. Prices go up as GP are much easier to find in local economy now.....

There is plenty of ways to divest your PCs of their hard earned (?) coinage.

I hate this inflation thinking; It deprives the players of the opportunity to enjoy their rewards as outlined in the Lifestyle options, or to put their lucre to good effect in spreading rumours or carrousing, etcetera.

You even noted, there are plenty enough things to spend loot on, and moreover, if there were inflation at the level you've expressed the consequences for anyone not adventuring would be extremely dire. If the Adventurers couldn't afford things, the peasants and locals couldn't either.

No, the result of a spending spree would simply be that the goods they bought would no longer be available, the price wouldn't rise because there's no reason for the merchants to think there was any more than one person who might afford that price...except they spent all their cash. The people they bought from would then spend 'that' money on nicer things than they could normally afford, or invest it into their business.

In terms of inns that might mean a bigger building that could accomodate more guests and improving furnishings to attract better business.
For a merchant it might be the opportunity to hire more assistants and take on more work/commissions.

What they would not do is raise their prices while providing the same goods/services as before, as nothing about their local situation has changed at all, so they would just see their business crater.


Thanks. I like some of these ideas. One thing I struggle with is finding ways for them to spend their money that are actually meaningful in gameplay terms. Ive never given PCs a cost of living between adventures and, although I'm not opposed to the idea, it seems like it might just feel like an arbitrary "tax". Although it makes sense within the game world the players might not feel like they're getting anything for their money, since it wouldn't be anything they could use in actual gameplay.

Lifestyle expenses are fairly explicit as hooks for new adventures of greater importance. Instead of hanging out in the local tavern hoping to hear about some peasants woes that they might offer some meagre rewards for, the adventurers can dress nicely enough and live well enough to get invited to a fancy gala and find out what the nobility are interested in and willing to pay for help with. (PHB 158)

That's the goal, to get well enough off to be involved in the intrigues of the rich and powerful.


I think gold matches character power well.

In levels 1-4 it is very important for buying basic gear. Armour, healing potions, and transportation are all expensive. This is befitting the apprentice tier.

When the characters enter the next tier (5-10) tier they can start affording more. They can afford expensive services from NPCs and use their wealth for bribes, etc.

At 11+ any worthwhile quest will involve challenges so great that money is a bit silly. Characters at this point can afford land where they can hire NPCs to provide services such as research libraries or a sizable armed force. More likely at this point what they are dealing with is beyond money which makes sense.

The economy of 3.x didn't make any sense. In such a world where very powerful magic items were being bought, sold, and created the characters wouldn't be needed. More than that peasants wouldn't be needed. Who needs farmers when the local mage can create magic items that can create unlimited food. And so on.

Let's put it into perspective:

To live at each level for a party of 4 on a monthly basis:

Wretched - Free (you are at serious risk of having all your fabulously valuable possessions stolen by thieves/greedy onlookers)
Squalid - 12gp (This is virtually as bad as Wretched)
Poor - 24gp (See above, also note you can't afford to maintain equipment at any of these 3 levels, so expect armor to go into disrepair)
Modest - 120gp
Comfortable - 240gp
Wealthy - 480gp
Aristocratic - 1200gp minimum, no upper limit.

At those rates a single horde might only be enough to maintain an Aristocratic lifestyle for two months of the year, you'd be living hand to mouth practically.


Asking them to chip in 3 gold a day when they are hauling back 10,000 from a dungeon at a time is not a big deal (so not a big deal that I don't even bother with it).

They won't be hauling back nearly that much until they're acquiring CR 11-16 hordes; and there's literally no limit on how much they might spend to get to the good life, but the bare minimum is 10 gold per day per player. At even the lowest rate, simply maintaining that lifestyle (and nothing else) would exhaust their means before even a single year was out.

And this is before we factor in the costs of maintaining a major character reward, like a Keep or a Castle. That'll increases the costs by 3000-12000 per month. They'd literally have to acquire 2+ hordes every month just to break even.

So if you really want to screw them, give them a Castle and make them responsible for its upkeep.

[Sabeta]

The takeaway from it is that God is another form of progression, just like Experience Points.

In any RPG Gold can be used one of two things.
1) Living, Services, etc
2) Nice Things

D&D does not do a good job of simulating the first requirement. I believe there have been numerous threads on the expected gold value a player may earn while adventuring and found that if any four villagers were sent off to become heroes they could reasonably be expected to keep their village alive forever. Which would completely destabilize a world, you send four people off, let them train to become level 1 (if you actually believe the nonsense that level 1 is somehow superhuman), and they spend their days barely risking their lives against kobolds or goblins in your area generating gold from nothing. (Log Horizon, how I love you for creating an in-universe reason for monsters to produce gold from nothing).

The second option is also not properly simulated in D&D, for obvious reasons. If you don't have a progression path made out of gear then there's no point. If you start letting your players buy and sell magic items then what's the point of dropping them magic items anymore. There are a couple of solutions to both problems. As you all have said, you can just hand wave gold, either by limiting it so much that every coin is spent on living or by simply waving it away and assume your players always earn enough for a modest living, and allow role-play for more extravagant lifestyles.

Side Note: @Tanarii: You're grossly misusing the word Murderhobo and it's kind of bothering me. Murderhobos are the type of player who treat the game like Skyrim. Murdering random town members because they might have good loot, taking what they want, and basically playing Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil or a very loosely defined Chaotic Good. A LG Paladin who crusades against evil in his church's name winds up with a lot of gold, and doesn't immediately fork it over to the church is not a Murderhobo. He's playing D&D as intended. It's not the individuals fault that there's literally no reason to dump gold off at a church or an orphanage or a ghetto aside from roleplay.

In a more realistic setting, players would have realistic progression paths of steadily increasing and better equipment. This would allow them to spend huge sums of gold in towns which you could then argue stimulates that towns economy. The Blacksmith has more money to buy coal and iron from the minors, coin to buy dinner at the grocer, and coin to buy his lovely husband something nice. Sure, the town will continue with or without adventureres, he can still sell nails and rivets to the wagon maker for example, but Adventuereres coming to town with fat wallets should ideally be a huge boon to people's economy.

Dumping gold at an orphanage gets you a one-liner about the orphans being happy and well-fed now. It changes nothing about the nature of the game. You could have completely removed gold from the equation and had your Wizard cast create food and you would have probably solved the problem for just as long.

I already mentioned my personal solution a page or two back. I've compartmentalized various magical features and allow my players to buy those features as weapon upgrades, with +1/2/3 upgrades being material upgrades. It's not a permanent solution, in fact by design the solution stops working at around level 11, but by that point I may introduce big-ticket items like an Airship for them to use, or require frequent use of teleportation circles which cost money to use.

TLDR: 5e really and truly has pointless gold.


That's the goal, to get well enough off to be involved in the intrigues of the rich and powerful.
My players told me unanimously that they want nothing to do with hoity toity rich types. Every single one of them is playing a modest character, such as a Monk, Ranger, and Paladin. They're all good people who would throw gold at anyone who asked for it. In fact, the Paladin almost didn't join the story guild because the guild charges gold to help people (which it needs to do to remain functional), claiming he would act alone out of selflessness.

[Vogonjeltz]

My players told me unanimously that they want nothing to do with hoity toity rich types. Every single one of them is playing a modest character, such as a Monk, Ranger, and Paladin. They're all good people who would throw gold at anyone who asked for it. In fact, the Paladin almost didn't join the story guild because the guild charges gold to help people (which it needs to do to remain functional), claiming he would act alone out of selflessness.

I guess if they don't want to get into the better quests.

[Baptor]

Here's a worthwhile question. In the popular fantasy adventure stories you can think of - Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, Sword of Shannara, Chronicles of Narnia, etc. - In how many of them does finding gold figure prominently? In how many of them is getting rich a serious concern? The only one off the top of my head is The Hobbit, and the big haul comes only at the end of the adventure. Even Bilbo - the adventurer we are meant to identify with - brings home only a modest haul of treasure compared to what they actually found.

I can't think of any serious fantasy-adventure story where the principal goal, or even a secondary goal, was to loot all the hordes and get filthy rich. I haven't read every book, so I'm sure there's an exception out there, but it certainly isn't the rule.

[Tanarii]

Here's a worthwhile question. In the popular fantasy adventure stories you can think of - Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, Sword of Shannara, Chronicles of Narnia, etc. - In how many of them does finding gold figure prominently?The Hobbit it's a central theme. Lord of the Rings is about several champions and rulers of their respective races, so a bunch of powerful, ambitious, and wealthy characters, with the exception of the hobbits. Wheel of Time, all of the three main characters become extremely wealthy lords, and this figures prominently as a plot tool in the story. Chronicles of Narnia, again, they end up rulers of the realm.

Sword of Shannara is the only one.

[Steel Mirror]

I can't think of any serious fantasy-adventure story where the principal goal, or even a secondary goal, was to loot all the hordes and get filthy rich. I haven't read every book, so I'm sure there's an exception out there, but it certainly isn't the rule.
It's not necessarily the rule, but having characters within the story be motivated by gold is entirely within the genre, especially if you consider the genre in question 'speculative fiction adventure'. Mistborn is a heist. Han Solo in Star Wars is the standard bearer for the scoundrel archetype. Firefly. Jack Sparrow. Indiana Jones. Haley in OotS.

A lot of these mercenary types end up landing somewhere further along in the "scoundrel/altruist" axis by the end of their stories, because that's a classic arc, and I suspect a lot of adventurers (though it doesn't need to be all of them) will walk a similar path over a campaign. And I see as many or more characters with inspiration from one of those stories as pure-hearted noble farmboys swept up into events beyond their control who just want to do right by the ol' hometown (or whatever your favorite hero type character is).

[Tanarii]

And let's not forget one of the iconic sources for D&D was Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser.