This is retreading old ground, but it’s ground worth
retreading, for my own sake if nobody else’s. What is the purpose of gold in
D&D? Or – to put it a different way – why was gold so important in early
editions of the game?
In the average good Fifth Edition campaign – motivated players,
talented and committed DM – my experience is that gold serves, at best, two
functions (at least after the first level or two): buying magical items and
plate armour, and, under the influence of Matt Colville, building strongholds.
Yet in some published 5e adventures, there is almost excessive gold – for what
purpose? And in others, none at all – and so what if the players do want to
build a stronghold? This betrays the inconsistent design philosophy of 5e – is
it a game about fantasy worlds, or fantasy storylines? (You may not know what I
mean by that, but we’ll get back to it.)
I’m going to consider a few uses of gold in early editions,
and then seek to draw out the deeper purpose of gold in those editions.
This is going to lead to a discussion of how Located-Based Games/Campaigns
work, and how I run my 5th Edition game in a way that emphasizes
gold and locations.
Various Purposes of Gold
Gold-as-XP
Perhaps most (in)famously, early editions – particularly
OD&D, 1st Edition, and the Basic versions – rewarded XP on the
basis of gold retrieved from the dungeon. This is easy to decry (Gary even
answers complaints in the 1st Edition DMG!), but I’ve long thought
the abstraction makes more sense than it people sometimes say: the XP reward is not for the
loot per se, but the proof of puissance in excavating it. If you were able to take
such treasure against such great challenges, then you must be mightier and
wiser than before. Combat XP (in 1e, but especially in Basic) isn’t
considerable – so loot retrieved is the measure of success. The deeper you
delve and the more dangers you defeat, the mightier you become. This isn’t,
however, a way of spending gold, but earning it – gold matters, but achieving
this goal just leaves you with, well, gold. What is it spent upon? Well:
Hirelings and
Henchmen
The henchmen who are closest to your character will want
their cut, and your hirelings will need their pay (and if you’ve brought 3
henchmen and 10 hirelings to the dungeon, that’s plenty of money).
Sages, Hired
Spellcasters, and Research
In 1st Edition, at least, if you want to know
something obscure or complex – an enemy’s weakness, a way of creating a new
spell, and so forth – you had to spend time and money on it, either by hiring
someone, or doing the work yourself. You need gold for either, to one degree or
another. (You need time, too, but that’s a different resource for a different
post).
Specialist Equipment
and Magical Items
Though the very earliest editions think less in terms of “you
can go and buy a magic item on every street corner”, such a thing may be
possible, and certainly the enchantment of such items, or the creation of
magical scrolls, can be paid for. Specialist equipment, too – as per the
example of plate armour above, but more exotic things, too – needs gold.
Training
In 1e, as you hit higher levels, you need to spend time and
money training, rather than automatically levelling up. To really hone your
skills, you need the right equipment and perhaps the right trainers, or if you
are Magic-User or Cleric, the right environs and magical or miraculous
resources for study. All that costs gold.
Strongholds and
Armies
The most obvious gold sink is the stronghold, costing 10s of
thousands of gold to build, staff, and so forth. Your castellan will need soldiers,
equipment, and even siege equipment to defend your holdings; your sage will
need a tower library; your Pegasus will need a special aviary-stable. All these
things must be paid for.
Tax
A suggestion from the 1e DMG – if you have so much money,
you bet your suzerain wants some.
Is this economy unnecessary?
Now of course, if you don’t want strongholds, or research
costs, or hirelings, or whatever, then gold has little monetary use. That's largely true in newer editions of the game. If you
want players to advance via achieving official story goals, then it has little
heuristic use for XP. Take it as a given that if this is your angle, then the
purpose of gold in your game is fairly null.
But why do multiple editions of the game include a fairly
detailed system which requires gaining gold, and then gives multiple ways
in-game – many of them valuable and important, if not essential – of spending
it? Is it just a weird emphasis on realism? Or perhaps a personal obsession
with gold that has bled over into the game?
When you consider the original format of the Lake Geneva
game run by Gary Gygax – and the dynamic of most early adventure modules, from
the mid 70s to the mid 80s – the real reasons become more apparent.
The Adventurers go into the Dungeon. They are called 1st
Level Adventurers at first because they descend to the 1st Level of
the Dungeon. Why have they gone there? Because they are rapscallions and
rogues, or idle dreamers seeking glory, or mages looking for resources so they
can research spells, or perhaps even princely exiles seeking resources to
reclaim their own. Dungeons – ruined castles, temples full of strange
animal-men, crashed spaceships (well, just that one time) – are full of
portable goods to make your dreams come true. The Adventurer descends so he
might ascend, and become as mighty a man as the Baron, or as famous a wizard as
the Archmage. Resources are needed.
So the key mechanic mentioned above – Gold-as-XP – is vital
because it creates a virtuous feedback loop based on the game’s premise. The
players explore, and are rewarded for exploring. The game is about the
locations – the world, and the challenges therein. The world is explored, and
the players benefit from it. The mechanic for encouraging this exploration is
that as areas are explored or cleared, and treasure removed (including
fiendishly hidden treasures of unimaginable worth – requiring real skill to
find!), characters become more mighty.
Now the typical critical response to this, in my experience,
is this: “Well, yes, and that may be very fun for those who want it; I do not.
That’s a very barebones and unexciting thing, surely? Go down, solve puzzles –
I can barely do the Beginner Sudoku! – and haul out treasure. Where’s the
story? Where’s the wonder?”
Well, oh critic – and you are a generous and gentle critic, because I hear
some fellows call such a game “outmoded” or “primitive” on top of the rest –
the answer is simple: the world should be full of wonder, and full of potential
stories. This is evidenced by both the glory days of Basic, 1st
Edition, and the best 3rd Party material from that era, and the best
of the Old School Renaissance. There are dozens of modules where the basic
assumption is Gold-as-XP, and the settings are funkier, stranger, more
exciting, more pregnant with story and fascinating interplay, than any Wizards 5e adventure (and a couple of those are even good, to be clear!).
Is this accidental? Is this a strange mismatch – the setting
is great, but the mechanics are primitive or really intended for a different
sort of game? No. The key thing to realize is what Gold-as-XP (and equivalents –
I’ll discuss that below) incentivises, and what Story/Combat XP incentivises.
Story-Based and Location-Based Games
Put it this way: if the DM exclusively awards XP (or
Milestones - *shudders*) based on achieving goals in the Story, or for killing
monsters, what will players do? They will seek to achieve the goals the DM
sets, or kill the monsters they come into contact with. The typical “official”
5e format mixes the two, with Story XP and Monster XP, though plainly the
Milestone is the preferred advancement system (this explains why sometimes
Wizards adventures don’t seem to have enough XP to advance characters – they weren’t
playtested like that so no-one noticed). Milestones and Story XP reward doing
things the DM tells you are worth doing; monster XP, where it is the dominant
type of XP, rewards you for killing things.
What won’t happen in such a game? Well, of course, a good
version of such a game may be more flexible than that sounds, but essentially,
such a game will often inculcate two forms of negative player behaviour: (1) passivity
and a lack of initiative, and (2) an assumption that combat is really the main
part of the game (even if other parts of the game exist, too). Monsters exist
to be killed – usually in fair, balanced fights, because otherwise it’d be too
hard to get XP. (Ironically, Story XP/Milestoning does mitigate this somewhat,
by removing the reward – but equally, if players feel too passive or unable to
really affect the direction of the game, Murder Hoboism becomes much more
likely. Story XP is also, I think, harder to calculate, but that’s a different
discussion.)
What sort of behaviour is incentivised by Gold-as-XP? Well,
not killing monsters, generally – though there might be some XP there, the
objective is to get the loot. So what do you with monsters? Avoid them,
negotiate with them, or – if necessary – coming up with an insane plan to trap
or kill the horde you definitely can’t beat in a fair fight but have to get
past. The monsters are an obstacle, not the objective.
Again, “the DM’s Story” is much less important. The players
go places they hear have gold; that, of course, is something the DM locates,
but note the difference. The emphasis is on a location the DM creates,
not a story. Locations are much, much more amenable to player agency than pre-written
stories – such stories have beats, big moments, and endgames. Even a talented,
flexible DM must retain some strong guiderails to ensure the players enjoy the
product on offer. (Indeed, it would be a bad DM who incentivised the pursuit of
a plotline and then made it half-impossible to really follow.) Locations exist
to be wrecked, rebuilt, reformed – with new factions in charge, perhaps
including the player characters.
This form of location-based game does not need to revolve
around one dungeon (the so-called “megadungeon”). It can certainly be a
city-state, or even a world – there can be many dungeons, and “dungeons” (bank
vaults, Prince’s Palaces, merchant Jammers in the Phlogiston, inter-connected
wilderness areas, and so forth). The breadth of the world is up to the DM –
and, bluntly, it will require more work than most pre-written, story-driven
adventures.
Story in Location-Based Campaigns
But, you might say: “Yes, the location may be wonderful and
weird, and I get the incentive mechanism, and I can see why some of that play
would be fun – I love talking to NPCs, and this stuff about building a
stronghold sounds good. But what about story? I like the sense of higher stakes,
of big issues players must deal with, and so forth.”
That’s quite a reasonable point – but again, a
location-based game can do that. It just frames the matter differently. There
are three general ways “Story” can be identified in such campaigns, on a
spectrum:
A.
The Fully
Emergent Story. Good examples: Castle Greyhawk itself from what we can tell,
Jaquays’ JG102 The Caverns of Thracia,
and Patrick Wetmore’s Anomalous
Subsurface Environment. There are factions in the location; there are
curios and toys and weird things; there are amazing places to explore. The
story is what happens when you throw a party into this tenuous equilibrium.
Now, even here there may be other moving pieces – in Anomalous Subsurface
Environment, other adventuring parties and outside factions also enter the
dungeon and begin to mess around, and events happen as time passes (though,
interestingly, time passes tracking when characters level.) The
epic story will consist of how you broached peace between two factions at war,
how you defeated your rivals, and how you barely escaped the hellish mock-city
of the Grubmen.
B.
The Unfolding
Mystery Story. Good examples: Patrick Stuart’s Silent Titans, Chris Kutalik’s Hill
Cantons (especially “Beet for the Beet God” in What Ho, Frog Demons), and arguably Gygax and Mentzer’s Temple of Elemental Evil (perhaps more
so in Gygax’s original tabletop game than in the final module). It may be that
the game starts with a mystery that engenders exploration – in Silent Titans, a band of mismatched
strays caught from across time and space end up in a bizarre version of Chester
and the Wirral, and don’t know why. Alternately,
it may be that events begin to spin out of control as the players progress on
their merry explorations. That’s certainly the case in Hill Cantons, where different actions ramp up (or occasionally calm
down) the Chaos Index (or Beet Infection Index, or even the Anti-Chaos Index).
Weird stuff happens – sometimes very bad weird stuff – as those indices move.
The strange, acid fantasy environment of the Cantons means that player actions
shape reality more than they intend; a mechanic models that. Or again, it may
be that the characters unearth some evil plot or strangeness whilst exploring –
such is the case in Temple of Elemental
Evil. The epic story emerges from the exploration of the mystery, one way
or another – the mystery and strangeness that emerges in the game from the
nature of the location.
C.
The Connected
Location Story. Good examples: Gygax’s GDQ1-7,
Carl Sargeant’s Night Below, what I
can make out of Tony Huso’s World of
Adummim homegame (I recommend his various published modules from that game,
incidentally). The basic principle here is that “someone” other than the
characters is acting to shape the world. They have a foe, whether they know it
or not. Now I’m on dangerous ground here – sometimes these stories have formal “plots”,
and sometimes they don’t. They can certainly be mistaken for a more typical
modern game, with connected setpieces. But there is a world of
difference between Gygax’s Giants and Underdark series, say, and the
assumptions in Lost Mines of Phandelver or
Out of the Abyss (both interesting 5e
adventures from Wizards). In GDQ
characters do travel between a number of Giant holdings, and thence into the
Underdark through a variety of locales – they uncover an evil plot, and because
the plot is happening in time, and not paused for the players, most characters
will desire to investigate it. The assumption is that the plot will be opposed –
but nothing in the material absolutely requires it, if the DM is willing to
develop the material. But assuming the characters try to stop the plot, they
still must explore a series of six (or seven, including the subpar Queen of the Spiders module) locations,
which are not setpieces waiting to happen, but emergent environments, where
beings live and work, with guard routines, secret ways in, potential allies
within, and so forth. Because XP will still come from gold with combat on the
side, and gold is still needed for all the purposes listed above (as GDQ is a 1e series), adventure play
itself will still be on the Gold-as-XP model – cunning, interaction,
exploration, strategy. Notably, Night
Below – a 2e adventure, in an era where raw combat or story XP had become
the standard – does reintroduce Gold-as-XP as an optional rule. The story, at any
rate, in this subtype, comes from the interaction of the characters with some
other active force – but, vitally, this force is to be dealt with in
traditional locations, not cinematic encounters.
You can see that these are all campaigns with story, though
of different types. Yet none of them, when you read them, seem very much like
most of the dungeons or evil bases or whatever in more modern modules. (All are
vastly more textured and open than even the best 4th Edition
location adventure, Madness at Gardmore
Abbey.) Why is this? I’ll look at that in my next post.