D&D -> DFRPG: Gold to $

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by beaushinkle

Conclusion
1g -> 1$ holds up surprisingly well. It gives module writers some benchmarks to aim for and balance around with regards to buying power. If the author thinks that the adventure will run ~7 sessions (~3 points each), and then award ~5 bonus points at the end, and the adventure is aimed at 250-point characters? Endeavor to give out $24k in character wealth for 4 players. Think it'll run ~4 sessions (for a total of 17 points), and it's being published for 300-point characters? Amortize: 17/25 * 9000 * 4 = $24k.

This also gives us some sane by-session numbers to keep in mind as GMs. If your players do something unexpected for a session and you need to make up some loot for a party of 325-pointers, it's appropriate to give them 13000*3/25*4 = ~$6240 in wealth.

An alternate Character Points system
Finally, this lets us create AD&D treasure => character points systems if we'd like. Rather than rewarding character growth for exploring, roleplaying, avoiding traps, defeating monsters, or some hazy by-session metric, we can make it a function of current character points and treasure earned.

For instance! The above chart says that a 300 point (level 8) character ought to have $27k wealth, and that a 325 point (level 9) character ought to have #36k wealth. Thus, 5x 300 point characters would need to accumulate a total of 45k wealth before they reached 325 points. Diving by 25 yields means that every $1800 the party earns, each character gets a point.

Played a session and ya'll discovered $7200 worth of treasure? Everyone gets 4 character points. Now everyone knows what the goal is (earn treasure), and can align play behind that goal. The higher character power you get, the more treasure you need. Have a party of different character powers? This will serve as a catch up mechanic.

After seeing how this thread has drifted far afield I went back and really tried to figure out what I might have missed in the original post.


I figure my disconnect is with the assumption that loot is the major driver of an RPG, either in the acquisition or disposition phase.

I ran I smell a rat and didn't really pay any attention to loot that didn't get found. I had to go back and look at the adventure again, I didn't remember there being loot.
I took Mirror of the Fire Demon and used it as a jumping off point for a new story line introducing a "bad guy" in a years long campaign. I didn't look at or assess the loot at all. As I recall, I had removed or modified more than half of what I used, and added a chunk of my own stuff re: encounters/loot.
I don't have the Hall of Judgement, so I can't comment on that one.

Your point system tries to bring back something to GURPS that I have labored to remove from my RPG play, the idea that the pursuit of wealth equals development of character.

It wouldn't even begin to function in 95% of my 'one shot' type games, and 100% of my campaigns would have little to no progression. Can PCs with professions progress just by working, I mean they are making money?

The other point I would make re: RAW making something feel wrong to you... don't use it. Rule Zero.
You are not required to make a PC think a $10,000 book is only worth $80, your not even required to know the answer on the spot. I dunno, it sure looks expensive but you have never seen anything like it.

You know what your table likes, that should be your guiding answer. It would be a complete wrong answer for me, and I feel like most players I know would feel weird progressing based purely on the value of loot. I mean not even DFRPG is that simplistic.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by beaushinkle

In dripton's castle whiterock conversion, they used 1 gp = $1. I'm pretty sure this went on to influence Charles Saeger's gold conversions here.

Nope. My inspiration was from Peter Dell'Orto's conversions and from experience in play.

[beaushinkle]

After seeing how this thread has drifted far afield I went back and really tried to figure out what I might have missed in the original post.

Thanks for coming back to engage! Happy to talk about it :D

I figure my disconnect is with the assumption that loot is the major driver of an RPG, either in the acquisition or disposition phase.

I don't think loot is the driver of a RPG (RPGs are so much broader than D&D), and loot definitely isn't the driver of any versions of D&D after 3.0 and beyond: rather it's one of the two progression systems. I'm going to use historical D&D here because I hope we agree that's definitely the grandfather of GURPS DF and DFRPG.

In D&D Basic and Expert, loot was definitely the primary driver. Check out how folks used to earn XP.

Treasure that PCs bring back from an adventure is the primary means by which they gain XP—usually accounting for ¾ or more of the total XP earned.

Non-magical treasure: Characters gain 1 XP per 1 gold piece (gp) value of the treasure.

Magical treasure: Does not grant XP.

This system persisted in D&D2e (but was optional), but was eventually dropped in D&D3e and later versions. There's two main ways that a character can gain power.

1. They can level up
2. They can get better stuff (equipment, hirelings, etc)

The same progression systems also exists in virtually all MMORPGS on the market. The interesting part about making it so that the main way to get XP is to get treasure is that it solves two big game design problems at once:

1. How do we make it so that players have a choice about how to approach a dungeon?
2. How do we make sure that players have an appropriate amount of wealth for their level?

The first problem is really apparent in later versions of D&D. Consider: you walk into a room, and you see a demon guarding a treasure chest. You can (for example)

(1) try to sneak by the demon to grab the treasure
(2) kill the demon and take the treasure
(3) negotiate with the demon to give you the treasure

Later versions of D&D make option (2) optimal in almost all circumstances; killing the demon awards XP, sneaking by it and negotiating with it doesn't. If you "miss the fight" with the demon, you might be level 5 at some point in the future in a tough fight when you could have been level 6. You should "farm" the demon for XP.

Have similar situations crop up a hundred times across a hundred tables and before you realize it, players are always turning to fighting without being consciously aware of why it's happening.

But, if the main way to get XP is just by getting the treasure itself, then (1), (2), and (3) are all equally rewarding. The players are free to pick the one they think has the best chance of success, or is the most fun at the table, rather than feeling shackled by XP optimization.

At the same time, games like D&D also provide extensive bestiaries and encounter recommendations. Those recommendations will be incorrect if your parties do not have an appropriate amount of wealth, which is baked into the math. As in, if your 6th level adventurers are still in starting equipment, then all of the book's recommendations for challenges will be too difficult. A GM trying to run a pre-written adventure will have to rebalance all of the encounters, since those were also balanced/playtested (hopefully) against characters with appropriate amounts of wealth.

Similarly, if you give your 6th level adventurers too much gear, then the book's recommendations for challenges will be too easy. The same thing happens with the encounters in pre-written adventures as above.

So, in order for a module writer to create a balanced encounter, they need to be able to make assumptions about character power (which decomposes into character level/build and wealth). Balanced encounters are important because those are the only ones where characters have actual agency in combat. As in, in a well-balanced encounter, if the players make poor decisions, the encounter will tend toward going poorly and they might lose many resources or risk death. If the players make mediocre decisions, the encounter will tend toward going okay, and they might lose a few resources. If the players make good decisions, the encounter will tend toward going well, and they might lose resources if they're unlucky. If the players make great decisions, the encounter will tend toward going great and the players lose very little.

In unbalanced encounters, the odds are overwhelming for one side. If the players are way too powerful, then even if they make poor decisions, they still win without losing resources, just like if they make great decisions; ie their decisions didn't affect the outcome. If the monsters are way too powerful then even if the players make great decisions, the players are still getting crushed, same as if they made poor decisions, so the quality of their decisions didn't matter.

There's a whole school of thought that disregards attempts at balancing encounters; instead believing that encounters are what they are and ought to follow the fiction ("how many orcs would be here realisitically?") vs following good game design. This turns the pre-encounter into a puzzle, where solving the puzzle incorrectly leads to an unbalanced encounter where you're probably getting wrecked. This is fun sometimes, but doesn't fully solve the problem; you'd still like to be able to sometimes include an intentionally balanced encounter, and if you lack the tools to do so (because you can't make assumptions about character power or character wealth), that's a problem.

So!

Rewarding players for treasure gives them freedom and lets GMs and module writers make better assumptions about character strength, which leads to higher quality modules.

These aren't the only way to solve the problems: using milestone leveling (the GM just decides when folks level up; like at some dramatic moment), or session-based leveling (everyone always levels up after 4 sessions) both solve the freedom problem I was talking about.

Making sure that players have appropriate amounts of wealth can be alternatively described the way that you mentioned you do it: keep track of how much wealth they have, and if they have too much, decrease how much they're getting in the future until they have the right amount again. The wealth-by-level tables in D&D and Pathfinder2e help GMs do exactly this.

For instance, if you notice that your 8th level PF2e character have 2000g each instead of 1,100g, you can cool the jets a bit; they have wealth appropriate for ~10th level characters. But, if they only have 450g each, you can make the next dungeon especially juicy.

As mentioned, I don't like playing this way because it removes player agency. I want to make sure that the dungeons I create have a more-than-appropriate amount of loot if they make good decisions, an appropriate amount of loot if they make mediocre decisions, and a less-than-appropriate amount of loot if they make bad decisions. If they find themselves at level 5 and are over-looted, it's because they've been engaging well with the at-table descriptions and really searching the rooms. If they are under-looted, it's because they made poor decisions, either the party wasn't well-balanced at character creation or they ignored clues to loot.

If the GM manages how much loot the party has, then the opposite happens. When the party isn't well-balanced and they ignore clues to loot, the GM fills the next dungeon with extra loot to compensate. When the party is well-balance and they follow the clues to loot, the GM makes the next dungeon sparse. No matter what, the players end up with the amount of loot the GM has pre-ordained for them to have (within a rough band).

I think a lot of GMs and players are totally fine with that! Again, no such thing as wrongfun, it just isn't my jam.

And again, it's totally what I would do and recommend for short-session-count style games. The meaning of magic items and wealth (and characters) completely change when they're only going to be around for 2-8 hours total.

[beaushinkle]

You are not required to make a PC think a $10,000 book is only worth $80, your not even required to know the answer on the spot. I dunno, it sure looks expensive but you have never seen anything like it.

If this is circling back to the legwork comment; yeah, I get it. No where in the RAW do I have to say a $10,000 book is only $80; but it does say that the GM should lie about the value, and this does make sense. If the player asks how much they think the book is worth and I tell them they don't know, I haven't reduced the amount of work I have to do as the GM, I've actually just added book-keeping for myself. As in, multiple sessions later they're going to try to sell that book in town, and they're going to ask me how much they get for it. If i didn't write down what book they failed to identify, I might say "what book?", and the player might respond "the one I didn't know the value of..I think we found it in the library of that cult; it's the one with the blue cover?".

Here, the GM still has to make a decision about how much the book sells for, it's just they're making it sessions later instead of when the players found it. The players can't sell an item for $"i don't know", they have to sell it for something, so the GM eventually has to come up with a number. More reasonable lies are better than ridiculous lies, and less book-keeping is better than more book-keeping.

This is why I was talking about legwork. The module author can save the GM from this for every item by including a misidentified price for all the things that need to be identified. A GM writing their own campaign doesn't save any work; they either choose to improvise this during the session, or prepare the number in advance.

The difference between the module author and the GM in this case is that the author doing the work once reduces the overhead for however many GMs use the module. Hence, the idea that the module author is able to save the GM from legwork.

It's similar (but less extreme) to a module author providing an encounter with statted out creatures vs telling a GM "there will be a goblin encounter here; pick some appropriate amount and make up the stats". The author doing the legwork saves all of the GMs from doing the same, which is one of the core purposes of a module, in my opinion.

Finally, different folks interact with modules differently. A lot of the folks buying Paizo's modules, for example, aren't playing them, and are instead reading them as a mystery/adventure novel. Other folks use modules (like it appears you do) as an idea-spring board, mostly taking the content as a source of inspiration rather than something you want to run directly.

I want to be able to actually run the module they're selling me. As is. I've never seen a module attempt to advertise itself as being just an idea springboard, but for some vast majority of modules, this is the only way to use them. So when I criticize a module in the context of "this lacks something that would make it smoother for playing directly", that's where I'm coming from. Other folks, who aren't actually running the module, or analyzing it in that context might not care at all, but I do. I believe that's what's being sold, and that's how it should be evaluated. If we want to evaluate it on it's inspirational merit, or fictional/fun-to-read merit, I think that's a whole different matter; I'm talking purely about "running the module as written".

Nope. My inspiration was from Peter Dell'Orto's conversions and from experience in play.

Roger! Cool that they both (and you) arrived at the same place :D

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by bocephus

I ran I smell a rat and didn't really pay any attention to loot that didn't get found. I had to go back and look at the adventure again, I didn't remember there being loot.

The best loot my players found IIRC was the Marilith's (peshkali's) six scimitars. I think they were like $3000.

I can't remember offhand if the Marilith was written with scimitars originally or if that was my change to make it deadlier, but the point is, I don't remember much loot either. Two books worth about $900, plus a silver flask in a room my players never even entered.

One of my issues with the 1 gp = $1 standard is that it can seem a bit unrealistic when a dead enemy warrior has only $2d6 on his body. Evil warrior dude can't even afford a few good meals, let alone a replacement dagger! C'mon, really?

So there's a tension between what my intuition says is good for the game's pacing (1gp = $1 is fine) and what feels right for the game's realism (1gp = $10 seems plausible for evil warrior dude).

Gems and jewels are a similar case.

As I write this I am realizing that I could just use a different conversion rate for pocket change, and another for jewelry/gems, and keep the $1 rate as a fallback for stereotypical random treasure hoards with no logical reason to be there.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

One of my issues with the 1 gp = $1 standard is that it can seem a bit unrealistic when a dead enemy warrior has only $2d6 on his body. Evil warrior dude can't even afford a few good meals, let alone a replacement dagger! C'mon, really?

Really.

While player characters in fantasy games do find big caches of gold, this is still a pre-industrial economy. Most people in these economies seldom touched money. The dead enemy warrior was most likely paid in food. He almost assuredly could not afford to replace his dagger if it were broken, hence why most NPCs should have cheap weapons. Historic professional soldiers were almost never well-equipped.

Giving the dead enemy warrior $2d6 in pocket change is erring on the high side; my notes have his equivalent as having $1d6-1 in pocket change, which I think is generous, if anything. Daily cost of living is $20 for adventurers, half that for peasants. What's more likely: some schlep working for a bandit lord has about enough pocket change for a third of a day's expenses for a burgher or adventurer ($2d6), or he has enough for two days' ($2d6×10) expenses?

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

So there's a tension between what my intuition says is good for the game's pacing (1gp = $1 is fine) and what feels right for the game's realism (1gp = $10 seems plausible for evil warrior dude).

I am going to point you to Norðlondr Óvinabókin p. 33, which has a GM's Note informed by actual play:

Originally Posted by Norðlondr Óvinabókin, page 33

Low-skill bandits with pricey equipment may draw delvers seeking easy money, and with good reason. Cheap weapons and armor (Like New, Barely Used, Delvers to Grow, p. 37) limits the value of bandit hunting as a vocation, and fairly represents worn-down gear.

It's already easy for adventurers to make money by just killing random bandits and selling off their stuff. Giving them $2d6×10 in pocket change breaks both the game's assumptions and any realism, making it ludicrously easy to get rich off bandits.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Really.

While player characters in fantasy games do find big caches of gold, this is still a pre-industrial economy. Most people in these economies seldom touched money. The dead enemy warrior was most likely paid in food. He almost assuredly could not afford to replace his dagger if it were broken, hence why most NPCs should have cheap weapons. Historic professional soldiers were almost never well-equipped.

Giving the dead enemy warrior $2d6 in pocket change is erring on the high side; my notes have his equivalent as having $1d6-1 in pocket change, which I think is generous, if anything. Daily cost of living is $20 for adventurers, half that for peasants. What's more likely: some schlep working for a bandit lord has about enough pocket change for a third of a day's expenses for a burgher or adventurer ($2d6), or he has enough for two days' ($2d6×10) expenses?

I deliberately avoided picking bandits as an example in favor of a soldier (because yes, bandits are more likely to be poor). Anyway, DFRPG in many ways does function like an industrialized economy, as your own example points out: even the concept of a daily cost of living for peasants doesn't make sense in a medieval economy.

With the caveat in mind that I'm talking about an evil soldier, not a common bandit, and that in the words of Machiavelli "gold cannot always get you soldiers, but soldiers can always get you gold", I really do think it's more plausible for the soldier to have enough cash on him for two days' expenses than to have less than a peasant's daily expenses. (In a medieval economy he might just have the ability to demand food and lodging for free from peasants, but the DFRPG trope is that we're in a cash economy...)

I am going to point you to Norðlondr Óvinabókin p. 33, which has a GM's Note informed by actual play:

It's already easy for adventurers to make money by just killing random bandits and selling off their stuff. Giving them $2d6×10 in pocket change breaks both the game's assumptions and any realism, making it ludicrously easy to get rich off bandits.

This is the tension I mentioned. It's inherent to trying to make a game where PCs can kill hundreds of bad guys without acquiring the economic power of hundreds or even dozens of bad guys.

BTW I can't find any cost modifiers listed in Adventurers or Exploits for cheap weapons, but I suspect that the weapons and armor of most dead enemies are going to be worth more than their pocket change, even at a $10 conversion rate. Weapons and armor have utility, even when they're cheap. (Exceptions exist, such as the filthy stinking unsellable armor of the zombies in I Smell A Rat.)

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

I deliberately avoided picking bandits as an example in favor of a soldier (because yes, bandits are more likely to be poor). Anyway, DFRPG in many ways does function like an industrialized economy, as your own example points out: even the concept of a daily cost of living for peasants doesn't make sense in a medieval economy.

My own example does not point this out at all; please don't assign meaning to my words that we both know to be untrue. I made no claim that the peasant was paying cash for anything, and even said that he doesn't see money at all. Quoting from the GURPS Basic Set, which goes into more detail:

Originally Posted by GURPS Basic Set, p. B27

GURPS gives wealth and prices in “$” for convenience. The $ can stand for “dollars,” “credits,” “pennies,” or even units of barter. In a contemporary setting, $1 is a modern U.S. dollar. In other periods, $1 equates roughly with the amount of local currency needed to buy a loaf of bread or equivalent staple – not with historical U.S. dollars.

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

With the caveat in mind that I'm talking about an evil soldier, not a common bandit, and that in the words of Machiavelli "gold cannot always get you soldiers, but soldiers can always get you gold", I really do think it's more plausible for the soldier to have enough cash on him for two days' expenses than to have less than a peasant's daily expenses. (In a medieval economy he might just have the ability to demand food and lodging for free from peasants, but the DFRPG trope is that we're in a cash economy...)

I don't consider the evil soldier to be much different from a common bandit. Soldiers didn't have good equipment either, even mercenaries, and more often died from disease and starvation than actual battle. They were expected to live off the land, which usually meant that both soldiers and the peasants in the lands where they were camped went hungry.

But even taking the evil knight, a mounted elite soldier with good gear … why the heck is he carrying coins into to battle, especially an amount able to buy lodging that he doesn't need for more than one night? That's absurd. You're adding evil as an adjective and assuming it increases wealth expectations.

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

This is the tension I mentioned. It's inherent to trying to make a game where PCs can kill hundreds of bad guys without acquiring the economic power of hundreds or even dozens of bad guys.

The tension is inherent in the 1 gp D&D=$1 GURPS equation, which is assumed in that note in the Norðlondr Óvinabókin. I know this because I first tried the idea that $1 GURPS was more like 50 gp D&D, based on translating the price of bread in D&D 3.5e. It does not work. Adding excessive wealth to common NPCs sidesteps that tension, readily increasing wealth for PCs.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

BTW I can't find any cost modifiers listed in Adventurers or Exploits for cheap weapons, but I suspect that the weapons and armor of most dead enemies are going to be worth more than their pocket change, even at a $10 conversion rate. Weapons and armor have utility, even when they're cheap. (Exceptions exist, such as the filthy stinking unsellable armor of the zombies in I Smell A Rat.)

I cut the page reference for concision while quoting. It's Like New, Barely Used, Delvers to Grow, p. 37.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

My own example does not point this out at all; please don't assign meaning to my words that we both know to be untrue.

I feel that your example does point this out, since you say "The dead enemy warrior was most likely paid in food. He almost assuredly could not afford to replace his dagger if it were broken, hence why most NPCs should have cheap weapons. Historic professional soldiers were almost never well-equipped.

Giving the dead enemy warrior $2d6 in pocket change is erring on the high side; my notes have his equivalent as having $1d6-1 in pocket change, which I think is generous, if anything. Daily cost of living is $20 for adventurers, half that for peasants."

If you don't think your example points it out, then I will point it out now: historically, peasants wouldn't pay cash for things. In DFRPG they do. DFRPG is not operating on the historical model. In DFRPG, a peasant expects to have a cash income of $10/day. (And it's not just peasants--other things like enchantment prices are also inherited from GURPS and its assumptions about the monthly cash income of master enchanters, as outlined in GURPS Magic.)

I made no claim that the peasant was paying cash for anything

I didn't say you did. I said your example shows that DFRPG is different from history. Please don't accuse me of accusing you of claiming things I never accused you of claiming. ;-)

Quoting from the GURPS Basic Set, which goes into more detail:

Valid point for GURPS, although I suspect most DFRPG GMs do not actually run things this way. Switching to a barter-and-debt economy in definitely one way to manage the wealth problem: give the town alchemist a $10,000 ornate sword and now he owes you free healing potions for quite a long time, at whatever production rate he can create them. It's definitely a valid solution, especially since whoever kills you can loot your body but not the alchemist's debt to you.

I don't consider the evil soldier to be much different from a common bandit. Soldiers didn't have good equipment either, even mercenaries, and more often died from disease and starvation than actual battle. They were expected to live off the land, which usually meant that both soldiers and the peasants in the lands where they were camped went hungry.

But even taking the evil knight, a mounted elite soldier with good gear … why the heck is he carrying coins into to battle, especially an amount able to buy lodging that he doesn't need for more than one night? That's absurd. You're adding evil as an adjective and assuming it increases wealth expectations.

No, I'm not. Quite the opposite. I'm assuming that secure value stores like banks are inaccessible enough that carrying your net worth around on your person is logical. A net worth of $50 + arms and armor makes enemy soldiers somewhere between Poor ($200) and Struggling ($500). As you can see, I'm assuming enemy soldiers to be poor, not rich. But if they were dead broke, I assume they would not stay so for long, because taking stuff from people richer than you is easy when even the peasants are richer than you are and you are part of an (evil) army.

==========================

Originally Posted by Rasputin

I cut the page reference for concision while quoting. It's Like New, Barely Used, Delvers to Grow, p. 37.

Ah. I don't own that book but thanks for the page reference.