Less Murder more Hobo, or Where's the Treasure? -Rant

[2D8HP]

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/DirtFarmerM_zpsf9mvc6ni.png What happen to treasure?

For me, proper D&D is about explorin' dungeons, encounterin' and runnin' from monsters and then lootin' the place.!

Not savin' the world!

There's too much Murder and not enough Hobo (maybe ' cause XP for is now for murder, not for gold) for my tastes.

All this "Saving the world" instead of trying to survive and prosper.

"Saving the world" seems an endless conga-line of combat with very little detail why, and there's "boss monsters" to fight for some reason.

But no treasure lately!

I like standard equipment instead of toiling away tryin' to budget the starting gold to optimize my PC's equipment, but it don't change!

Never get hardly any loot, and never get to where you can spend it anyway!

Meanwhile, other players rush into melee at first sight of most any critter, instead of tryin' to take their stuff without our PC's losin' HP!

All this murderin' without lootin' is like we're all supposed to be playin' 1e AD&D Paladins!

And why don't we track arrows, bolts, and rations?

This don't feel right!

I want to start in a tavern, loot a dungeon, try to avoid bandits that want to steal the stolen loot, and then spend the loot in the tavern just like the young Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser!

It's been too long!

I want my Dungeons & Dragons back dagnabbit!

http://i.imgur.com/l2YgKWJ.png

(Your welcome to tell me how wrong I am, but please someone truthfully tell me of recent adventures of loot grabbin' so I may feel less forlorn and lonely in my desires)

[G mayes]

Honestly, I think that method is a great way to play. Especially when you don't have the option for regular sessions. Different classes, off the cuff playing, maybe all you are is adventure guild members on a job. Leaves room to impact the world, but plays a little different.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm, in vain, trying to get my players to search the places they visit and loot all that nice stuff I'm putting there for them after they kill the original inhabitants.

I'm trying, also in vain, to get my GM to run a game where we would visit the dungeon to steal anything not nailed down (or at least the stuff with the best cost/weight/effort to pry the nails off ratio) instead of to take the next step on the road to stop the current incoming apocalypse (though, admittedly, apocalypses tend to disrupt the process of enjoying the loot).

So yes, I agree.

I just want to play proper murderhobo for once.

[Unoriginal]

I think that your DM's style doesn't fit yours, simple as that.

If you want a "let's grab loot" adventure, Forge of Fury is basically this

[Kane0]

(Your welcome to tell me how wrong I am, but please someone truthfully tell me of recent adventures of loot grabbin' so I may feel less forlorn and lonely in my desires)

Your opinion is valid, I dare you to disagree!

The mini-campaign i'm currently DMing is a series of 5 dungeon crawls only loosely tied together with some sort of plot.
Part 1: Bad guy druid attacks mining town then flees into the mana mines when the guard puts up more resistance than anticipated. PCs are paid by mayor to descend into the mana mines and resolve the problem however they see fit, getting to keep any valuables they find along the way
Part 2: Party is encouraged to raid nearby druid barrows, to find out WTF is going on and make some profit. Afterwards an optional gauntlet to become knighted by the local lord.
Part 3: Bad guy druids are besieging a castle, party sneaks in to loot the place before the druids do, plus maybe save some innocents or whatever.
Part 4: Party treks through nasty swamp evading bad guy druids hunting them down for some of the priceless relics loot they have taken over the last two chapters, passing through the dens of several dangerous critters along the way. Maybe even an ancient temple they fall into or something.
Part 5: Party stumbles upon hidden bad guy druid stronghold, ideal opportunity disrupt their plans and make off with even more priceless relics loot.

Unfortunately there's no dragons sitting on piles of coin this time around but i'm definitely going for the classic vibe. We're up to Chapter III next saturday and the guys are having a blast being able to relax a bit with a more 'beer & pretzels' mentality, tracking ammo rather than allegiances.

Edit: The most satisfying feeling I've had as a DM over the last few sessions is not witnessing the players rejoyce at overcoming the challenges I throw at them or the brilliant plays they devise to extricate themselves from their own missteps, it has been seeing the anguish on their faces when they realize they simply cannot make off with everything they have found and must leave something behind. Their opinion of mules at this point in time has never been higher.

[Davrix]

That's how you enjoy Dnd and that's perfectly fine. Other people prefer it this way now and its something the old guard either has to adapt to if they want to play games or they need to start new games and try to bring people into that style of play BUT respect the idea they still might now want to play that way and once again you have to adapt or the only Dnd you will be playing is a very boring one.

The fact is this was the kind of response many had with 4th ed and between that other things the edition tanked hard. 5th is much more popular and appeals to many more people. Not everyone loves it though and some people will always have there favorite edition they want to keep playing. Personally mine is 4th ed because I loved that system they came up with. But that's me and my players moved on to 5th so i had to as well. Your style of play falls into that and personally I don't like keeping track of arrows or food rations unless I need to. its silly and seems like to much bookkeeping to me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I started a game that was going to be all about exploring and looting a demon-and-undead infested ruined city. No major plot in mind, no apocalyptic villains. Turns out my players had other plans.

They made allies of a set of not-so-crazy undead, gathered a bunch of outside groups (including some that were previously at odds), and are working to retake the whole city and purge the demons from it.

:shrug:

[Sigreid]

Well, if you're the player, when the people beg for your help against calamity X, say no thanks and tell the DM you want to find a nice bunch of goblins to rob instead.

[Smitty Wesson]

I think that your DM's style doesn't fit yours, simple as that.

If you want a "let's grab loot" adventure, Forge of Fury is basically this

And for that matter, Against the Giants has a nonstop supply of oversized pockets to pick.

[Armored Walrus]

Go post this in the Finding Players forum and see if you can find a DM to run that for you ;)

[mephnick]

[RANT] http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/DirtFarmerM_zpsf9mvc6ni.png What happen to treasure?

For me, proper D&D is about explorin' dungeons, encounterin' and runnin' from monsters and then lootin' the place.!


Preach, brother. Leave the grand plots to Hollywood and literature. I'm here to kick ass and get rich.

[Pex]

It's a DM overreaction. They were so upset about the plethora of magic items of 3E and 4E that when 5E was created such that a PC did not absolutely need any one particular magic item to function well at any level (which is a good thing), they concluded that magic items should not exist at all. Because magic item shops are not presumed, they concluded magic items should not exist at all. Because Bounded Accuracy means a +1 is significant, they concluded magic items should not exist at all. Since magic items do not exist at all, they concluded there's no point to giving out treasure.

They're wrong, but that's what they do. It's not a 5E problem. 5E does not and has never forbid magic items. It does encourage having less magic items than a typical 3E or 4E character would have, but it's enough to be 2E level. 2E PCs had a fair share of magic items. 5E does not fall apart into an unplayable mess because PCs have permanent magic items that affect combat. 5E does not fall apart into an unplayable mess because PCs have permanent magic items that give a +1 or even +2 or +3. The +2 and +3 are for high level play.

If your DM does not give out permanent magic items, talk to him. If your DM does not give out permanent magic items that affect combat, talk to him. If your DM does not give out significant coinage for treasure appropriate to the danger you faced, talk to him. If he still refuses and you're bothered by that, get a new DM.

[ad_hoc]

TftYP is a good collection of adventures for your tastes.

[Dyndrilliac]

So, in a our current homebrew campaign which takes place in the Forgotten Realms setting, my party kicked our murderhobo game up to 11 with what is essentially a small-scale orc genocide. We were scouting the wilderness with our sneaky party members and discovered a massive orc war camp in a valley where they had constructed crude makeshift fencing to protect from attacks. We waited until nightfall, took out the sentries on watch, and then split the party. One group barricaded the entry way we first stumbled upon, and the other group circled around to the other side of the valley and did the same on the other side. We then, in a coordinated effort, covered the fencing with as much oil and animal fat as we could and set fire to it in a distributed manner spread out as much as possible. We set as many fires as possible before the orcs realized what was happening. Meanwhile, our shadow monk infiltrated the camp and sabotaged the orc's water basins with flasks of oil to stop them from being able to effectively put out the fires. We fired arrows and threw javelins at orcs who were trying desperately to flee by attempting to climb over the burning barricades.

Every orc that didn't get burned alive died of smoke inhalation. By the time dawn arrived, we had about a hundred charred orc corpses lying around a now barren valley that had previously been teeming with plant life. We then proceeded to loot the camp of gold and other metallic treasure that survived the inferno.

[DeadMech]

Why not both? Dead villains who were trying to end the world are the best people to steal from. No one cares that you did it and the world still exists for you to throw lavish parties in. Also they tend to have nice stuff.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why not both? Dead villains who were trying to end the world are the best people to steal from. No one cares that you did it and the world still exists for you to throw lavish parties in. Also they tend to have nice stuff. Not in my brother's world. We just had a fight with 8 orcs (two of them archers) with our level 2 group. (Deadly encounter; the DMG math is OK on this one. ). We won, though one of our party fell during the fight, and numerous were wounded. (Healing to restore our dwarf). Loot: 30 coppers, 10 silver, two long bows in good condition, some arrows, and a few of the great axes are in good enough condition if we think we can sell them somewhere. (We are caravan guards, so we can load all of that stuff onto one of the wagons). Whether or not we can get much money from the loot (half PHB price at best) we are still being careful with our few gold pieces.

Old school feel, to be sure.

[Unoriginal]

Not in my brother's world. We just had a fight with 8 orcs (two of them archers) with our level 2 group. (Deadly encounter; the DMG math is OK on this one. ). We won, though one of our party fell during the fight, and numerous were wounded. (Healing to restore our dwarf). Loot: 30 coppers, 10 silver, two long bows in good condition, some arrows, and a few of the great axes are in good enough condition if we think we can sell them somewhere. (We are caravan guards, so we can load all of that stuff onto one of the wagons). Whether or not we can get much money from the loot (half PHB price at best) we are still being careful with our few gold pieces.

Old school feel, to be sure.

I doubt those 8 orcs were trying to end the world, though.

Though who know, maybe they were working on developing a bigger board with a nail in it, and eventually they were going to make a board with a nail in it so big it would destroy everyone.

[Chaosmancer]

In my case, I've got a lot of young players and they just aren't interested in loot and treasure as much. Oh sure, it's a nice bonus to get a few hundred gold for your troubles and maybe a few magical weapons, but they can get that expeirence anywhere really.

They want me to tell an interesting story and create challenges for them to overcome.

It is really a table by table experience. Recently, in the game I'm playing online, we're doing a barely connected series of combats. We've kind of stopped caring about treasure because we are on an island outside of time and space and there are zero markets anywhere (why are people carrying around piles of gold then? No idea). But despite not looting as much recently we're still keeping close track of every copper we have, and I've always been the guy who writes out every item he's carrying just in case.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In my case, I've got a lot of young players and they just aren't interested in loot and treasure as much. Oh sure, it's a nice bonus to get a few hundred gold for your troubles and maybe a few magical weapons, but they can get that expeirence anywhere really.

They want me to tell an interesting story and create challenges for them to overcome.


This is my experience--they routinely choose the diplomatic route (even if that was never planned to be an option) or play with trickery. The only murdering that goes on is people who show themselves beyond help:

* the cult engaging in human sacrifice and forced cannibalism
* the druid/scientist with a dragon fetish who was working on a way to forcibly convert captured women into dragonborn-esque (except with bigger boobs) harem dwellers (the party was a couple girls. They murdered him with extreme prejudice).
* etc.

And loot, per se, is not a draw. They care about things they can use, but mostly want to experience a world. To be able to change things. To portray a character in a fantastic setting. Theme is more important than anything for most of them, and power is of minimal importance.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Have you ever seen a room my party hasn't looted? I didn't think so...I even take the candlesticks bruh. No tellin' when they'll be needed.

We move through the world like a great devourer, leaving behind empty cubes of space with various color palettes.

[KorvinStarmast]

I doubt those 8 orcs were trying to end the world, though. Tier 1 adventures are not intended to be world saving. We are more or less "apprentice" adventurers. (The dwarf is now level 3, Champion). What they were trying to do (the whole orcish presence in this valley) was defile a temple of a good deity by spilling innocent blood (two teenagers they'd kidnapped, one male and one female). That encounter and one other we had put them on the run ... or at least slowed their efforts.

My response was mostly to " Also they tend to have nice stuff." The orcs didn't have nice stuff, but we may get a little profit from that pair of encounters.

[Unoriginal]

Tier 1 adventures are not intended to be world saving. We are more or less "apprentice" adventurers. (The dwarf is now level 3, Champion). What they were trying to do (the whole orcish presence in this valley) was defile a temple of a good deity by spilling innocent blood (two teenagers they'd kidnapped, one male and one female). That encounter and one other we had put them on the run ... or at least slowed their efforts.

My response was mostly to " Also they tend to have nice stuff." The orcs didn't have nice stuff, but we may get a little profit from that pair of encounters.

Yes, the orcs facing tier 1 adventurers didn't have nice stuff, but DeadMech said: "Dead villains who were trying to end the world are the best people to steal from. [...] Also they tend to have nice stuff."

So the "they" in "they tend to have nice stuff" applied to villains who were trying to end the world, before dying.

DeadMech was saying that facing world-threatening bad guys payed better, as justification why someone interested in loot would face them.

My point was that since that small group of orcs weren't world-ending threats, they didn't fit the criteria that was being discussed.


On the topic of making profit out of this encounter: you should see if there is any priest of that good deity (or even another good deity) in the next community you reach. If you manage to convince them that your story is true, you could get additional reward. Stopping the defilement of a temple dedicated to a good deity is serious business, after all.

[Laserlight]

In our two groups, the 20-30 year olds generally don't loot much, although a couple of them will collect skulls or such as trophies. The 45 yo does loot. I'm 55 (and started with AD&D); I generally make sure the party loots, although I personally usually focus on magic items, plus letters maps, and other information.
Caveat: telling two INT6 characters to "loot aggressively" didn't turn out well when they ran into a trapped chest. A crowbar is not always an adequate substitute for a lockpick.

[Kane0]

A crowbar is not always an adequate substitute for a lockpick.

You're doing it wrong. If application of force does not result in the desired effect, you have not used enough force.

[Temperjoke]

I think some of the problem is that DMs don't let things build. Whether it's because they're worried about availability, or conflicting schedules, all sessions tend to be plot-relevant as opposed to the occasional side trip loot crawl, just because they're worried about not having everybody available during more important sessions.

[War_lord]

Most of the people who were into simplistic "kill monsters to get loot, which you then sell to get better weapons to kill bigger monsters to get better loot to kill bigger monsters" crowd moved onto Computer Games which do that loop far better then any human DM could.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Most of the people who were into simplistic "kill monsters to get loot, which you then sell to get better weapons to kill bigger monsters to get better loot to kill bigger monsters" crowd moved onto Computer Games which do that loop far better then any human DM could.

And with much better graphics. I don't do loot runs because I don't have players that want to do them. Simple as that.

[Luccan]

For a lot of people (nowadays, at least) "get loot" isn't a big draw for long term gaming. Even as a collection of short adventures and one shots with varied characters and levels, I can easily see myself growing bored with simply dungeon diving for the sake of cash. Even if I'm playing a loot-driven mercenary, I don't want that to be the only focus of the game. I'd guess a lot of people feel similarly (though I'll note it always brings me pain when a party has the time and doesn't loot enemies. Or when DMs don't plan on PCs looting the bad guys for some reason).

[Kane0]

Mayhap runing around endlessly for money hits a bit too close to home for the average player, who would be playing for the sense of fantasy.

[Pelle]

I don't really understand the link between Save the World games and murder. In the last long Save the World game I ran, the players were very good at avoiding combat. It's impossible to save the world if you are dead, so why risk combat unnecessarily?

To accomodate our irregular sessions and big player crowd with uneven participation, I suggested to run a megadungeon game next time. Fixed home base, only characters of players present, exploring where they want and returning home at the end of the session. The response was "why should our characters care to do that, just to get loot??"

[JAL_1138]

Seconding the suggestion to check out Tales from the Yawning Portal, which updates a bunch of old adventures. (Alas, it doesn't always do it well; TftYP Tomb of Horrors is one of the laziest updates I've seen.)

Also, if you're interested in Lankhmar, might I suggest switching up from D&D altogether? Savage Worlds has a pretty solid set of well-regarded, licensed Lankhmar supplements. Savage Worlds is not a perfect system by any means (the weapons and armor list has given our group enough headaches we're working on replacing it entirely), but it's a pretty darn solid system for the most part, and isn't particularly more complex than D&D (less so in a lot of ways). It also handles your preferred character types you mentioned in another thread pretty well--a nonmagical fightery thiefy Fafhrd-and-the-Grey-Mouser or Erroll Flynn type character can be really powerful in the system, and magic has enough risk and limitations (arguably possibly too many limitstions) that spellcasters don't run roughshod over everything else.

[GlenSmash!]

TftYP is a good collection of adventures for your tastes.

True.

Heck even LMoP works for this for me.

[Contrast]

I remember a thread not too long ago where someone complained how games these days were all filled with no nonsense mercenaries and how they yearned for the old days when people would just play righteous heroes.


Speaking personally I'm playing a character in adventurers league who just got to level 3. I realised that there's basically nothing I now want to buy with this character other than a bajillion healing potions. Does somewhat take the enjoyment out of looting.

This is AL of course which tends to be more focused on 'get your head down and complete the adventure in the alloteed time'. In a regular game there's always stuff to spend your gold on assuming you have a halfway decent DM.

[mephnick]

I remember a thread not too long ago where someone complained how games these days were all filled with no nonsense mercenaries and how they yearned for the old days when people would just play righteous heroes.

Why not both? I miss the old days where good-natured people saved townsfolk from the evil in the forest..and got rich at the same time. I guess it all depends on how old an individual's "old days" are. :smallwink:



Speaking personally I'm playing a character in adventurers league who just got to level 3. I realised that there's basically nothing I now want to buy with this character other than a bajillion healing potions. Does somewhat take the enjoyment out of looting.

Back in the day the idea was to survive to the point where you could stop adventuring and retire to a keep with an army (whatever your character's version of castle/retirement was) and then you'd make a new character and try again. Gygax and Co. never wanted to extend the advancement to 20 and thought people fighting gods to save the world was stupid. They only did it because of how many dumb letters they got from players wondering how to treat advancement past 10. Their answer for years was "why would you want to go past level 10? Retire and make a new character, idiots."

It's quite different now a days and the ultra-powered nature, more narrative style and advancement to 20 of modern D&D has really killed the "see what happens, see if you survive, get rich and live happy." type of game. I think that's what the "no buying magic items, here's some castles to look at" stuff in the PHB is trying to get back to.

[noob]

Step 1: employ the workers who build castles
Step 2: now you sell the castles and since they are the only high level gold dump in the campaigns where the gms are allergic to magic items then you gain tons of gold
Step 3: use that gold to build castles on each square kilometer of the world for yourself
Step 4: fill each of those castles with soldiers with bows and arrows.
Congratulations you are the master of the world.
Is it an already existing campaign concept?

[2D8HP]

Thanks guys, lovin' the tales


Step 1: employ the workers who build castles
Step 2: now you sell the castles and since they are the only high level gold dump in the campaigns where the gms are allergic to magic items then you gain tons of gold
Step 3: use that gold to build castles on each square kilometer of the world for yourself
Step 4: fill each of those castles with soldiers with bows and arrows.
Congratulations you are the master of the world.
Is it an already existing campaign concept?


That was the end goal at first:

1974 - Dungeons & Dragons Book 1: Men & Magic,
(Page 6)
"Fighting-Men:...
...Top-level fighters (Lords and above) who build castles are considered "Barons", and as such they invest in their holdings in order to increase their income (see the INVESTMENTS section of Book III). Base income for a Baron is a tax rate of 10 Gold Pieces/inhabitant of the barony/game year"

"Magic-Users: Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long hard road to the top, and to begin with they are very weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up."...

(Page 7)
"Clerics:...
....When reach the top level (Patriarch) they may opt to build their own stronghold, and when doing so receive help from "above." Thus, if they spend 100,000 Gold Pieces in castle construction, they may build a fortress of double that cost. Finally, "faithful" men will come to such a castle, being fanatically loyal, and they will serve at no cost. There will be from 10-60 heavy cavalry....

....Clerics with castles of their own will have control of a territory similar to the "Barony" of fighters, and they will receive "tithes" equal to 20 Gold Pieces/Inhabitant/year."


1974 - Dungeons & Dragons Book III: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures,
(Page 20)
CONSTRUCTION OF CASTLES AND STRONGHOLDS:
At any time a player/character wishes he may select a portion of land (or a city lot) upon which to build his castle, tower or whatever...
.....Surprises, intakings, sieges, and so on can take place

(Page 24)
BARONIES:
Another advantage accruing to those who build their strongholds...
...This populace will bring in annual tax revenue equal to..."

You get the gist, it hints that it becomes Chainmail combined with Monopoly.

Pendragon tried to do it again with the Nobles Book.

But I didn't know anyone who actually played the game that way, but my game circle mostly did a conga-line of first-level human Fighters into meat grinders, so for me high level really wasn't a "thing" back then!


I think that your DM's style doesn't fit yours, simple as that...


Perhaps....


...If you want a "let's grab loot" adventure, Forge of Fury is basically this


And for that matter, Against the Giants has a nonstop supply of oversized pockets to pick.


TftYP is a good collection of adventures for your tastes.


Seconding the suggestion to check out Tales from the Yawning Portal, which updates a bunch of old adventures. (Alas, it doesn't always do it well; TftYP Tomb of Horrors is one of the laziest updates I've seen.)

Also, if you're interested in Lankhmar, might I suggest switching up from D&D altogether? Savage Worlds has a pretty solid set of well-regarded, licensed Lankhmar supplements. .


...even LMoP works for this for me.


Thanks for the great suggestions, I own them all!

And I also have:

Into the Borderlands (http://goodman-games.com/store/product/original-adventures-reincarnated-1-into-the-borderlands/)

http://goodman-games.com/store/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/01/IntoTheBorderlandsCover-768x994.jpg

Which converts to 5e rules the first "module" I ever used; In Search of the Unknown, as well as the much beloved Keep on the Borderlands.


And truly the solution is "Stop all your bellyaching 2D8HP, get off your duff, dust off the DM's hat (a too small plastic horned 'Viking' helmet, with 'DUNGEON MASTER' written by magic marker on it) perch it on your head and show 'em how it's done!"

Unfortunately my 5e rules adjudication skills are abysmally...

"Your whinning again 2D8HP!"

Right.

Anyway, thanks to you all.

[noob]

So you are going to be the dm of a game like that in dnd 5e?
I have seen a bunch of 5e rules and it seems not completely brain breaking to adapt if you played dnd 3e.(but you might have not tried 3e)

[Chaosmancer]

Back in the day the idea was to survive to the point where you could stop adventuring and retire to a keep with an army (whatever your character's version of castle/retirement was) and then you'd make a new character and try again. Gygax and Co. never wanted to extend the advancement to 20 and thought people fighting gods to save the world was stupid. They only did it because of how many dumb letters they got from players wondering how to treat advancement past 10. Their answer for years was "why would you want to go past level 10? Retire and make a new character, idiots."

It's quite different now a days and the ultra-powered nature, more narrative style and advancement to 20 of modern D&D has really killed the "see what happens, see if you survive, get rich and live happy." type of game. I think that's what the "no buying magic items, here's some castles to look at" stuff in the PHB is trying to get back to.

One problem with the goal of "live long enough to be rich" is that merchants take almost zero risk.

Calculate how much gold a particular merchant gets paid by your party. Buying 4 healing kits and 6 potions? Account for costs being 50%, that merchant just made 160 gold.

And so, a player looking at "my only motivation is to make money and live" is going to turn to trade, where the rules of DnD allow for immense profits with no risk of life or limb.

Now, a DM faced with this will likely tie the shop into some adventures, but "there are safer options" is a big response to adventuring for the gold

[mephnick]

Now, a DM faced with this will likely tie the shop into some adventures, but "there are safer options" is a big response to adventuring for the gold

Sure, if you want to set up a trade network, supplier, learn math and toil away every single day. Or I could bash some monsters and make 2000g in one day and feast like a king for a year!

[War_lord]

Could you maybe try not insulting anyone who doesn't play the way you want them to. Preferring an old school style of play of fine, you do you. But I do have a problem with this attack, and it is an attack, that D&D play is either what you want or "monologuing in drawing rooms". That's an absurd dichotomy.

[2D8HP]

Could you maybe try not insulting anyone who doesn't play the way you want them to. Preferring an old school style of play of fine, you do you. But I do have a problem with this attack, and it is an attack, that D&D play is either what you want or "monologuing in drawing rooms". That's an absurd dichotomy.


Sorry War_lord

I'm feeling sad and lost, and I was thinking of a fairly recent checked out DM, and missing my old best friend who was my second DM ever, and is now gone.

Since it read like too much of an attack to you, it's edited out.

[Tanarii]

I've run keep in the borderlands in 5e fairly recently.

The players level too fast. They're fireballing caves by the time they get to the bugbears and gnolls.

Other than that, an old fashioned orc-hunt was a fun break for a group of youngish twenty-something players who were putzing a little aimlessly around a DM's make **** up on the fly "sandbox" in one game, and were trying to muddle through Castlevania Ravenloft in another. Ultimately they werent enough in to it for me to hunt down adaptions of X-series modules on the DMs guild website.

Although to be honest, ToA looks like it could stand in for Isle of Dread just fine.

[BW022]

2d8HP,

Play anyway you (and your players) like. However, keep in mind that the 5e rules simply don't make treasure much of a reward.

Beyond about 5th in most campaigns, players don't need coin for any personal reason. They would have enough to purchase any mundane equipment (armor, weapons, potions, spells, etc.) which they need. Unless you are going to open up the magic shops... there is little which they will need. Even with magic shops open... its hard to have any significant benefits to players having most magical items due to bounded nature. Once you have a +1 weapon, you aren't going to struggle like crazy for a +2 weapon, considering you are hitting most monsters at will by 6th. Magical treasure is similarly limited and against by limits of the number of certain items.

Unless you add in-game reasons they need the treasure (they want to build castles, buy ships, massive bribes, etc.) then they won't need it for simple adventuring. And if you give them reasons for needing the money (run a business, fund a rebellion, buy an elvish artifact to return to the elves, etc.) then you are effectively running a "save the world" campaign and hoping they become so invested in the plot that they need the money to advance it.

Feel free to make treasure a bigger part of the game, but ultimately 5e rules make it somewhat moot. You can try for a low-treasure campaign, keep the levels low, etc. but that penalized martial classes.

Finally, I'm not sure why you feel you need to kill creatures for XP. 5e is based around encounters. You get the same XP if you talk, sneak, bluff, etc. your way around an encounter.

[Tanarii]

Unless you add in-game reasons they need the treasure (they want to build castles, buy ships, massive bribes, etc.) then they won't need it for simple adventuring. And if you give them reasons for needing the money (run a business, fund a rebellion, buy an elvish artifact to return to the elves, etc.) then you are effectively running a "save the world" campaign and hoping they become so invested in the plot that they need the money to advance it
Weird. In my experience, players want money for castles and troops because they want to conquer the world. Or at least carve out their own kingdoms. Not save it.

[lxion]

This reminds me of my first sessions. A party of three people who were used to playing video games. Every kill was looted and every time we asked how much XP we gathered. One of the players killed our hostage goblin while we were scouting, just to get the more XP. Although we had very much fun, it can make sessions more annoying. I try to minimize the looting as a DM, but when there's something worth stealing, I'll let my party know. If the party would ask me if they can go on a loot raid, I'd make something of it though.

[noob]

Normally with dnd 3e rules for experience capturing the goblin already did solve the encounter and so make you gain the xp(so killing it does not gives any extra)
(maybe dnd 5e is all about murdering innocent monsters to absorb their souls or something like that)

[JAL_1138]

Normally with dnd 3e rules for experience capturing the goblin already did solve the encounter and so make you gain the xp(so killing it does not gives any extra)
(maybe dnd 5e is all about murdering innocent monsters to absorb their souls or something like that)

Can't recall what the textual 5e rules are off the top of my head, but in more recent League modules they've generally tried to emphasize that "overcoming the encounter" can be done in ways that don't involve killing the opponent (or KO'ing them instead). Persuading them not to fight, capturing the opponent, or otherwise not fighting can count in most circumstances. They're not always consistent about it, though.

[Unoriginal]

Can't recall what the textual 5e rules are off the top of my head, but in more recent League modules they've generally tried to emphasize that "overcoming the encounter" can be done in ways that don't involve killing the opponent (or KO'ing them instead). Persuading them not to fight, capturing the opponent, or otherwise not fighting can count in most circumstances. They're not always consistent about it, though.

Can't see where they're not consistent, IMO, but maybe I've missed something.

5e doesn't require you to kill the monsters to get XP, it is, as you said, a reward for overcoming the encounter, not for having the biggest killcount.

Note that "avoiding the encounter" isn't the same thing as overcoming it. Sometime dodging the encounter entirely can give XPs, sometime not, depending on how you achieve it.

[noob]

Can't see where they're not consistent, IMO, but maybe I've missed something.

5e doesn't require you to kill the monsters to get XP, it is, as you said, a reward for overcoming the encounter, not for having the biggest killcount.

Note that "avoiding the encounter" isn't the same thing as overcoming it. Sometime dodging the encounter entirely can give XPs, sometime not, depending on how you achieve it.

I believe there was a whole "being aware of the problem you circumvent"
So if you go through walls with your adamentine axe because it is faster than going through doors without saying "and so I avoid all the thousand billion of wail of the banshee traps on each door" then you do not get the xp for those traps while if you go though the wall with your adamentine axe for avoiding the thousand billion of wail of the banshee traps on each door then you get the xp for circumventing.(yes it is silly that awareness of a trap makes you gain more xp for the same behavior)
So due to silliness with gms not wanting their traps to be avoided you must search for traps on the doors then dig the walls instead of saving time by digging walls directly.

[Knaight]

(Your welcome to tell me how wrong I am, but please someone truthfully tell me of recent adventures of loot grabbin' so I may feel less forlorn and lonely in my desires)

First things first - have you heard of a little game called Torchbearer? It's not D&D, but its very existence and recent publication is a pretty good indication that this style of game still exists.

As for recent adventures of loot grabbin', I do have a story (also not in D&D, but it totally could work there and I might port it at some point). A while back on this forum we had a thread about the idea of importing a metroidvania structure to a tabletop RPG. I decided to test it out, go against type a bit, and run a loot heavy dungeon crawl based around a set of item-gates. The players started out unarmed against club wielding goblins, then between looting significant items and weapon and armor off their enemies ended up in fantasy powered armor wielding magical artifacts while having drastically improved mobility*.

But let me back up to the beginning. The party were professional adventurers who took a mercenary contract from a dwarven city to deal with a mining castle in the sky which was harvesting their ore. They were then sent through a magical portal armed to the teeth, only to find that the sky castle had defenses against that, and instead dropped them off unarmed, unequipped, with only their clothing in what was now a goblin stronghold ringed by separate floating structures. There they got in a scrap with some goblins, won by the skin of their teeth with thrown rocks found in dilapidated parts of the castle. From there they cowed the goblins, slew their king, and discovered that the crown was an ancient enchanted item known as a float ring, granting access to the periphery. From there the party, using the goblin stronghold as their own home base having deposed the king proceeded a long mission of exploration, running afoul of various foes, thoroughly looting other old items (a magic extending bridge, a shrine that gave immunity to ambient heat, another shrine that transformed all metal objects into a fancy ceramic that allowed passage through the metal eating swarm, then the equipment of an ancient armory) that let them further explore, until eventually they were able to shut down the mining swarm.

Highlights included an ambush by birdmen on a precarious set of floating rocks before the PCs got ahold of any bows, followed by a desperate retreat; the PCs baiting a trap for the birdmen to later finish them off which let them get their equipment and strike back; a massive fall broken by clever spellcasting, and my personal favorite, the shoving of an ancient war machine wielding an equally ancient and powerful magic sword off a precipice to the ground below, followed by about ten minutes of out of character joking about it being found by some random farmer below who considered it a gift from heaven, to be used as a later one shot.

All of this was maybe three months ago. I qualify that as recent, and I figure that three months for me is roughly equivalent to a week and a half for you. :smalltongue:

*It was aimed for being a one shot and ended up a quick three session game, which throws out the standard treasure progression standards built for much longer campaigns pretty thoroughly.

[Ignimortis]

(Your welcome to tell me how wrong I am, but please someone truthfully tell me of recent adventures of loot grabbin' so I may feel less forlorn and lonely in my desires)

While your opinion is valid and is probably indeed about right for those versions of D&D you've started with, most players I know are much less inclined to do something only because they want to get rich. The RPGs in the last, well, 30 years or so, have tried to tell stories of increasing complexity and grandeur (not necessarily scale, by the way). There are Baldur's Gates, Planescape: Torment (only one, sadly), Neverwinter Nights, Fallouts, Dragon Ages, Final Fantasies, etc, which use RPG mechanics to give a book-like plot some interactivity and weight.

And a story about "how we looted that one temple of the Spider-Lion-Headed God and then spent all of that money on booze and wenches" gets rather dull after you've seen it once or twice. Meanwhile, other plots (which don't have to involve saving the world) can be both very long (I've played in campaigns that lasted more than two years with games each Sat/Sun and even in one which had games every day and lasted for 2.5 years) and involved.

In addition, the new standard of TTRPGs assumes that you rarely lose a character, because basically that's one of the main characters in a book, not a soldier in a war. All of the above is supposed to lend to fleshed-out personalities and drives beyond "wanna get rich, can kill/sneak past stuff to get rich". I'm not saying the olden days didn't have that, but today that's considered the norm.

I've seen only one player who desired to actually have a kingdom and conquer some parts of the world. I can imagine several other players actually doing that, but only as means to a greater end, not the actual goal. And the majority just adventures because things are going on in the world, and someone needs to do something about them - starting with a bandit camp ruining the local baron's grasp on his lands and ending up going against god-slaying abominations intent on harvesting the souls of the living for power. That's how it goes, another day, another gold piece.

[mephnick]

In addition, the new standard of TTRPGs assumes that you rarely lose a character, because basically that's one of the main characters in a book, not a soldier in a war..


Modern player: Player agency at all costs! Unless it's going to impact me negatively, then it's your job to save me.

[JAL_1138]

Can't see where they're not consistent, IMO, but maybe I've missed something.



I mean Adventurers' League isn't always consistent with it in the way they write their modules. If memory serves there are a few modules where it's written in that if you don't fight Monster A, you don't get XP, or if you run Monster A off instead of killing it, you don't get full XP. Whereas other times you'd still get full XP if you talked a monster or other opponent out of fighting (e.g., made a deal with it, or what have you). NOTE: my memory is like a steel trap...it's been left out in the rain until it's seized up with rust and is missing several teeth. So I might be misremembering.

[Ignimortis]

Modern player: Player agency at all costs! Unless it's going to impact me negatively, then it's your job to save me.

I'm all for player agency - as long as it's logical and doesn't break the game. The game I currently run is rather sandboxy, but that also entails that if you're doing really dumb stuff, you might run into trouble that severely outlevels you. I hate encounters people HAVE to run from with a passion, as long as they're dropped on players without warning. If you passed three doors with "DANGER!" signs on them, and not the usual "well, dangerous to a normal person, not an adventurer", but literally descending into the local equivalent of Underdark alone as a level 3 spellcaster without a backup plan, then that character is probably too dumb to live, not heroic.

[Tanarii]

I believe there was a whole "being aware of the problem you circumvent"
So if you go through walls with your adamentine axe because it is faster than going through doors without saying "and so I avoid all the thousand billion of wail of the banshee traps on each door" then you do not get the xp for those traps while if you go though the wall with your adamentine axe for avoiding the thousand billion of wail of the banshee traps on each door then you get the xp for circumventing.(yes it is silly that awareness of a trap makes you gain more xp for the same behavior)
So due to silliness with gms not wanting their traps to be avoided you must search for traps on the doors then dig the walls instead of saving time by digging walls directly.
It's more that many encounters, if not circumvented, leave the problem to be dealt with later and don't change the situation in regards to any goals of the adventure. They encounter isn't really overcome, in many cases.

Personally that's why I'm not a huge fan of giving XP for 'overcoming' encounters with hostile creatures (specifically) in a non-final way, it can make it messy in determine what counts. Give XP for something else instead and incentivize it indirectly. Gold, "story" goals, completed missions/quests, whatever makes sense based on what you want to incentivize. Of course, if you want to directly incentivize bypassing encounters, as opposed to indirectly via other rewards, no reason not to.

Edit: having played gloomhaven a fair amount recently, it would be possible to play in a way where you tell the players the goal(s) in the beginning of each encounter that will reward XP.

[Mith]

I am musing over the idea of using Gold as main source ofXP with monsters contributing a fraction of XP. Perhaps a Guild style "spend gold on training for next level".

[2D8HP]

I am musing over the idea of using Gold as main source ofXP with monsters contributing a fraction of XP. Perhaps a Guild style "spend gold on training for next level".


Not in Oe or B/X, but in 1e AD&D there were rules that you needed to basically hire tutors to level up, which most everyone ignored, but they were there.

[Tanarii]

Not in Oe or B/X, but in 1e AD&D there were rules that you needed to basically hire tutors to level up, which most everyone ignored, but they were there.
Partly because for most classes it was impossible to have enough gold to level without wasting XP gained from the gold obtained to level.

Unless someone else paid the cost, of course. I remember reading somewhere those rules were primarily there to control PCs power-leveling other PCs or henchmen, by making it a more expensive proposition.

[Drascin]

Modern player: Player agency at all costs! Unless it's going to impact me negatively, then it's your job to save me.

Oh, no, most modern players are perfectly okay with negative consequences. It's just they seem to prefer negative consequences that can be played with, rather than ones that just involve "and your plot is done, now go make up a new one in order to be able to rejoin the game".

[Tanarii]

Oh, no, most modern players are perfectly okay with negative consequences. It's just they seem to prefer negative consequences that can be played with, rather than ones that just involve "and your plot is done, now go make up a new one in order to be able to rejoin the game".
Part of the problem is few players take the threat of anything other than loss of character, except possibly loss of magic items, as a serious threat. It's too easy to shrug it off as 'just a game' when it doesn't directly affect the character sheet.

This also holds true for positive consequences, of course. XP and magic items tend to be valued far more than saving the world.

[Mith]

Not in Oe or B/X, but in 1e AD&D there were rules that you needed to basically hire tutors to level up, which most everyone ignored, but they were there.

I understand why those rules were ignored, since we did Gold found to XP, no need to haul it back. However, with a smaller XP table, this can tie into a downtime system. The idea in my head is that a chronically poor PC can still grow in power, but one with money and time to train would grow faster.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Part of the problem is few players take the threat of anything other than loss of character, except possibly loss of magic items, as a serious threat. It's too easy to shrug it off as 'just a game' when it doesn't directly affect the character sheet.

This also holds true for positive consequences, of course. XP and magic items tend to be valued far more than saving the world.

That's backwards from my experience. My players are, and have always been, more interested in events, not things.

[Tanarii]

That's backwards from my experience. My players are, and have always been, more interested in events, not things.
They must be very young or very old.

[Drascin]

Part of the problem is few players take the threat of anything other than loss of character, except possibly loss of magic items, as a serious threat. It's too easy to shrug it off as 'just a game' when it doesn't directly affect the character sheet.

This also holds true for positive consequences, of course. XP and magic items tend to be valued far more than saving the world.

Curiously, my experience tends to be the opposite. When I GMed in a fairly lethal manner, nobody gave a **** about their characters. When I started literally giving my players partial plot armor, saving the world gained in priority, and people's arcs became a lot more interesting, and therefore suddenly people would jump in front of bullets for NPCs because, hell, THEY had plot armor but these NPCs they liked and this town they had grown fond of sure as heck didn't! And when they failed we could play out how the characters dealt with having screwed up, instead of just "welp, new character time".

[PhoenixPhyre]

They must be very young or very old.

A mix. But the important part is that they're not jaded. Most of them are new to the hobby.

Sure, they like stuff, and fighting. But given a choice, they'll take something with a world based goal over something that gets them rich. Make an alliance to clear out a city. Change the world. Etc. Money is a means to that end. And since personal power is needed, being a merchant doesn't cut it.

Edit: Drascin's point above is exactly in line with my experience. Because they don't fear dying, they're willing to care about the world.

[Tanarii]

Sure, they like stuff, and fighting. But given a choice, they'll take something with a world based goal over something that gets them rich. Make an alliance to clear out a city. Change the world. Etc. Money is a means to that end. And since personal power is needed, being a merchant doesn't cut it.

I guess I wasn't clear, because all of those are things I'd consider to "affect the character sheet". Money, alliances, political power.

I was thinking more of things like family losses, befriended NPCs dying, stuff that in the real world would be intensely personal and have a huge impact. In games they tend to have little impact, because there is more emotional distance and less attachment. The supposed attachment is, at best, just words in a backstory or motivation. It can be emulated is someone is a good actor, but it's rarely actually felt by the player.

Whereas anything that enhances power is usually keenly felt.

It's not universal, even for players that tend to that more strongly than others. A sudden loss of a PC NPC that the players have been interacting with repeatedly actually in-session will get almost anyone, because they've formed a real-time bond with them.

Edit: which, in the context of the original thing I responded to, really means I should have left what I was saying unsaid. :smallyuk: Negative consequences other than just dying certainly can be done well, in a way that players will notice them and get the feels. Which was the point most likely being made.

[ZorroGames]

In our two groups, the 20-30 year olds generally don't loot much, although a couple of them will collect skulls or such as trophies. The 45 yo does loot. I'm 55 (and started with AD&D); I generally make sure the party loots, although I personally usually focus on magic items, plus letters maps, and other information.
Caveat: telling two INT6 characters to "loot aggressively" didn't turn out well when they ran into a trapped chest. A crowbar is not always an adequate substitute for a lockpick.

Right, use a large Battlehammer anytime you can’t find a sledgehammer.

[ZorroGames]

Snip

Finally, I'm not sure why you feel you need to kill creatures for XP. 5e is based around encounters. You get the same XP if you talk, sneak, bluff, etc. your way around an encounter.

Would talk to the Conquest Paladin I had to endure? When I turned undead he went ballistic insisting we only got experience by killing monsters. I, who was contemporary to Gygax and had played 5e (his first game since 3.x he admitted) multiple times apparently knew nothing. He insisted I use Sacred Flame though I hit better and did more damage with my weapons plus it was not a spell I chose to use lightly (pun intended) with my characters background.

He did have a point though. The DM did not explicitly say he was wrong and after many an AL session where monsters die rather than flee I have not be seen DMs give credit for defeating monsters that were not killed (surrendered or fled.)

And if I had heard, “But that is what my character would do,” as a justification for browbeating other players into agreeing with his plans...

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess I wasn't clear, because all of those are things I'd consider to "affect the character sheet". Money, alliances, political power.

I was thinking more of things like family losses, befriended NPCs dying, stuff that in the real world would be intensely personal and have a huge impact. In games they tend to have little impact, because there is more emotional distance and less attachment. The supposed attachment is, at best, just words in a backstory or motivation. It can be emulated is someone is a good actor, but it's rarely actually felt by the player.

Whereas anything that enhances power is usually keenly felt.

It's not universal, even for players that tend to that more strongly than others. A sudden loss of a PC NPC that the players have been interacting with repeatedly actually in-session will get almost anyone, because they've formed a real-time bond with them.

Edit: which, in the context of the original thing I responded to, really means I should have left what I was saying unsaid. :smallyuk: Negative consequences other than just dying certainly can be done well, in a way that players will notice them and get the feels. Which was the point most likely being made.

Here's a list of the things that have most affected players in games recently:

* Coming across a goblin boss who was involved with some unwilling partners (euphemism alert). 3 groups ran through that scenario at different times without talking to each other--all decided to horribly mutilate him (two of them hung him from the ceiling by his guts IIRC). In that same dungeon there was a black dragon wyrmling (the boss)--all three talked to it and spent resources helping it get away, even healing its old wounds.

* A cult group committing human sacrifice and feeding the remains to the rest of the soon-to-be victims. I've never seen players so pissed off at a group. They delayed getting treasure to go make sure the group of survivors (after brutally murdering the cult, so brutally that I had to fade to black) back to safety and were willing to stop their quest (to explore a loot filled city) to make sure they found homes.

* A boss who really didn't have anything, but had a dragon fetish. The lovely ladies of that group
** talked his subordinates into betraying him
** rescued a dragon he had captive (knowing that the dragon could do nothing for them)
** averted a hard choice by finding another way (long story, but they could have either freed a bound soul (who wanted to die), making one NPC happy, or killed the soul (which would also destroy an evil facility they were sent to stop), making him pissed. Neither way would have been better or worse for them--I just wanted to see what they chose. They instead chose to research a way to split the part of the soul (it was multiple squished into one) that wanted to die, leaving it behind. They then transferred the non-suicidal part to a new body. Thus, it was a win/win. All for no extra profit for them and a bunch of extra hassle).

* A gold dragon-turned-demon prince who was convinced he was going to create a Paradise for the just people after death (because there is no eternal afterlife in my setting) by making a world-altering mega-wish using an artifact. The party intentionally talked him into going to a pocket plane (to contain the damage if they had to fight), and talked him into an existential crisis. And were very very sad when the dice said that, as a result of that crisis, he couldn't hold together and went boom.

* A world-altering mega-wish--deciding what to wish for and who would make the wish took several sessions. Their end result was better and more fitting (and more connected to the people and the lore) than what I had initially planned. It involved the sacrifice of a party member, an NPC who had been with them since near the beginning and whom they had strongly bonded to back when it was useless. This was a super sad day for them, but they made that choice. I had another "costless" choice all set up for them, but they didn't like/didn't trust that NPC.

And a bunch more of these. I had a group say "no, we don't want to go loot that abandoned coin mint. We have enough money." When the fighter didn't even have plate yet. They wanted items that fit their theme, not that were particularly powerful. Heck, I had a character who, when offered a free 1/x spell (IIRC 3rd or lower), took create food and drink. Because his character grew up as a starving urchin. And no, we didn't track rations. After that character retired, the player wanted him to go around creating free food for starving people.

So money, power, fame, these things matter very little to most of my players. People matter. Getting to tweak the nose of that haughty paladin matters. Saving those people matters. Money, power, fame, those are just tools that they might use to interact with the NPCs and the world. They're not what they want. They continually shy away from dungeon crawls or heavy combat opportunities to talk to people. To discover new things/explore.

[Tanarii]

So money, power, fame, these things matter very little to most of my players. People matter. Getting to tweak the nose of that haughty paladin matters. Saving those people matters. Money, power, fame, those are just tools that they might use to interact with the NPCs and the world. They're not what they want. They continually shy away from dungeon crawls or heavy combat opportunities to talk to people. To discover new things/explore.
Sounds like you have very unusual players. Even for high schoolers.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sounds like you have very unusual players. Even for high schoolers.

Some are in high school, others are adults. I think it's important that they're not really known anything else. No other DMs who have broken them, no past editions. Many don't even play other RPGs much.

I don't start them with the rules. I simply ask what they want their characters to do, and we go from there, building as it goes. Means I handle much more of the mechanics, but they have freedom. There are no rails, because I don't have time to plan that far ahead. There's usually an initial goal, but that's mutable.

And since they see the traces left from groups before them, including retired PCs, now NPCs, they see that they too can make a difference. And that makes all the difference.

[Knaight]

Sounds like you have very unusual players. Even for high schoolers.

They sound like regular players to me - I suspect a lot of this is a matter of what is encouraged by the GM, and at least in the context of relatively new players who don't have a lot of habits from previous GMs this all sounds fairly typical.

[2D8HP]

Well I have to say, most of these tales of heroism sound pretty awesome as well.

You guys are having some impressive sounding games.

[GlenSmash!]

I think the ideal plot hook lures different characters with different motivations.

Like:

We have to save the rebellion!

No.

At least save the Princess!

No.

She's rich.

How rich?

Very.

Deal.

[2D8HP]

I think the ideal plot hook lures different characters with different motivations.

Like:

We have to save the rebellion!

No.

At least save the Princess!

No.

She's rich.

How rich?

Very.

Deal.


:cool:

From somewhere, Han Solo is smiling.

[Pex]

I think the ideal plot hook lures different characters with different motivations.

Like:

We have to save the rebellion!

No.

At least save the Princess!

No.

She's rich.

How rich?

Very.

Deal.

As the goblin PC of a previous campaign would say, "Being nice pays well!"

[PhoenixPhyre]

As the goblin PC of a previous campaign would say, "Being nice pays well!"

Certainly. My PCs, although they don't specifically desire wealth, usually end up rich.

I've had (different) groups end with:

* An arbitrarily large (as in, I didn't specify how much it was because it was enough and to spare) amount of gold.
* Multiple paintings that each are worth a small city's price, plus a connection to a drug-manufacturing network of obscene size.
* Same group--de facto control of the only portal network (Stargate style dial-a-portal, not teleport circle must-cast-spell style)
* Leadership of a nation, after leading a "communist" (their words, not mine) revolt.

Etc. And all were pretty nice people.

[Drascin]

I think the ideal plot hook lures different characters with different motivations.

Like:

We have to save the rebellion!

No.

At least save the Princess!

No.

She's rich.

How rich?

Very.

Deal.

It is very important to give your plothooks multiple dimensions to hook multiple characters, as well as tailor your plothooks to the specific party you have. Like, for example, for the party of the game I'm a player in right now, money would not really work. Out of six people in the party, four have zero care for money (a humble fighter out to prove herself and find about her dad, a nascent paladin that wants to be a super cool hero, a mystic that actively eschews the trappings of society, and an elven ranger that was quite literally raised by a pack of velociraptors and isn't too clear on the whole "money" thing yet), and a fifth mostly seems to want some because wizarding supplies are expensive. A ridiculous sum of money isn't going to tempt this bunch to much.

On the other hand, they're all largely nosy and willing to stick their heads into people's business, and most have a clear desire to stick up for the little guy, so throw us a mystery story with some blameless victims in the mix and we're probably going to be all sorts of there :smalltongue:.

[Enixon]

Curiously, my experience tends to be the opposite. When I GMed in a fairly lethal manner, nobody gave a **** about their characters.

This has been my experience as well, high lethality has always just made it certain that the players think of their characters as nothing more than game pieces, and really why should they do otherwise when the game itself is telling them one dead PC after another that they're expendable tokens?

It always struck me as odd how "old school" players I've talked to would so often call 3.x and later games "video gamey" as an insult, then in the next breath say how in "real D&D" you came with a stack of sheets becasue of how often you died and would say stuff like "don't bother naming them until level 4 before that who cares?" just stick another quarter in the slot.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please don't revive old threads. If a thread hasn't been posted to in the last 45 days, please leave it be and create a new thread.