The delvers in my Felltower campaign have been fairly hit and miss with loot. Sessions with a lot of loot, sessions with moderate amounts of loot, and numbers without any loot.
Still, characters have generally steadily climbed up the XP ranks as the required loot hadn't really been that high, often by some combination of moderate loot, sold equipment and magic items, and so on. So much so that I recall someone specially saying something about "farming orcs for XP" - going to fight and kill orcs because, hey, every 4th or 5th one has a good-quality broadsword, that's $240 each one, plus the rest have a mix of axes ($16), spears ($16), bows ($40-80), and armor, plus some actual coinage on each one.
That's an implicit criticism of the lack of look in Felltower and the associated areas. I decided to give it a look from this side of the screen.
When I first launched the campaign I didn't put in enough loot. I went through and added more, and then did another pass or so to add more. I created loot tables that reflect how much cash value a given pile of loot should have - you can see them in DF21.
From my side of the screen, in order of total value:
- jewelry/gems/coinage (all saleable at 100% of stated value in my game, everything else is subject to the usual rules.)
- magic items
- luxuries (tapestries, furniture, paintings, wine, etc.)
- weapons and armor
- scrap & monster body parts
I think one of my players can probably run numbers on what the PCs actually took home. I am curious if it matches the above.
For so many delves, it's been more like this:
- sold magic items
- weapons and armor
- scrap & monster body parts
- coinage
- luxuries
So much so that my players tend to look at plain furnishings, wall decorations, random geological formations, wandering monster body parts*, etc. as loot. If I put a box of hardtack somewhere, I sure as heck better know how much it weighs, how big it is, and how valuable it is as the players will likely have their delvers haul it back as loot.
Part of this post is me wondering what I see on my side vs. the players see on their side. The other part is to reiterate that Felltower isn't really designed as a stingy game. It's a lethal game. If you try to play it to avoid the danger, yeah, it'll be stingy as the real loot is protected by monsters, traps, and concealment. But I will say there is a lot of it where I did place it. A while back we had a discussion of how I distribute the treasure out, and in general the players liked the way it's spread (or actually not spread) throughout the dungeon.
It's just that I see the coins and jewelry as the bulk of the value, the magic items next (assuming you sell them), luxuries next, and then everything else tapers off from there down to minimal value. It seems like the delvers perceive it as magic items, weapons and armor, etc. and then coinage and luxuries down at the bottom. I think that can color the organization of delves, too - if you think the money is in broadswords and helmets, selling off magic items you don't need, and monster bits with a sprinkling of loot, what kind of things are you going to aim for? You're going to look for fights - and refuse to avoid them if they even have a chance at loot - instead of focusing purely on finding the big raw loot payoffs. Even trying to find gold and silver with Seek Earth only results in the closest, not the biggest, so you're no more likely to find the 100,000 coin hoard than the 1 sp some guy has tucked in his boot for luck.
I'll have to sit down and think more on how I can make the game more find-the-treasure centric and less realize-the-value-of-your-kills centric.
* Even of monsters not considered valueable. We've been through this so many times I made up rules for it. Yes, you can see deer bits and cups of ooze or whatever but if a choice body part of a rare monster is only $100-200, you're not going to get more than piddling pocket change. It's why you are delving and not killing squirrels to sell the tails to Mepps.
"I'll have to sit down and think more on how I can make the game more find-the-treasure centric and less realize-the-value-of-your-kills centric."
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's going to be possible unless there is a lot of loot hidden behind 'secret doors' that they are just not finding, and there is a sure means to identify this 'fact'. Otherwise, the 'easy to find but harder to get' loot* is, well, //easier to find//.
.* I.E. guarded by known killable monsters.
I mean from the 'reading the play' side of the screen, if the Players spend 6 hours beating their heads against a door puzzle they fail to crack, that is significantly less valuable than 6 hours fighting orcs. Even if that '6 hours' is spread out into "an hour fiddling with statues here and an hour fiddling there". Until the 'statue fiddling' pays off, that is all 'wasted effort' (Pretty sure the statues did pay off though). Eventually that sort effort might begin to feel like 'sunk cost' instead of 'play that leads to rewards'.
It's a tough row to hoe, so I tend to avoid 'puzzle doors' or 'plot gates' as much as I can in 'lootcentric' games. I mean secret doors, etc, sure, but I let teh dice solve those mysteries instead of forcing the Players to pixel hunt.
I think you're missing my aim here. My aim is to figure out what will make people *seek treasure* instead of *seeking fights with things that carry saleable weapons or can be sold for bits.*
DeleteIn other words, the game seems to be sliding towards hunting monsters and hoping for weapon-armed foes and away from finding loot. For example - the last few sessions? They're hunting trolls. Why trolls? Because trolls are evil, and trolls often have treasure. And then when they found something interesting (a strange, mist-shrouded area) they left and went looking for trolls. High on their list of things to do include: kill the cloakers, kill the behir, kill more orcs, kill the oozes, kill trolls . . . and open a few doors. It's a sandbox, but they've focused on clearing the surface of the sandbox over finding the treasure buried in the sandbox, to extend the metaphor a bit.
And I agree on 6 hours spent figuring out a puzzle door. They have the answer to that one, but haven't figured out how to implement it. I fully expect some of the players to complain and be genuinely angry when they solve it, but they actually haven't done the thing that solves the thing. Some things they think are puzzles are not, and some things they don't think of as puzzles are.
Anyway, it's a weird combo of "we can sell looted equipment and body parts of the dead for 4 xp each so let's kill stuff!" and risk avoidance ala "Those three dragons we know of are rich but dangerous, so let's never go there." It's why, I think, the treasure placed vs. treasure perceived is skewed, and it acts as a feedback loop.
"I think you're missing my aim here. My aim is to figure out what will make people *seek treasure* instead of *seeking fights with things that carry saleable weapons or can be sold for bits.*"
DeleteHold up. You say "treasure" and "loot" frequently as though they are interchangeable, but I suspect there is a deeply root desire (or implicit statement) that they not be.
So you want the PCs seeking treasure, but reward 'treasure' and 'loot' identically.
To me, "loot" means "anything the adventures drag home" and "treasure" means "things that only have value as fungible goods". So swords, armor, magic items, food, etc, are //loot//; while coins, gems, etc, are //treasure//.
Maybe you need to weight one over the other as for how far they count towards exp?
"In other words, the game seems to be sliding towards hunting monsters and hoping for weapon-armed foes and away from finding loot."
I think that's because that's easier to find and also tends to be a known quantity/foreseeable problem. Like, trolls? They know what dangers trolls present. Myst shrouded isle? Could be anything from "nothing, waste of time"* to "Dragon and TPK" hiding in that mist.
.* See also "could be another puzzle door" or "very specific key we don't have door". While yes, those can then be 'set up for for later'... look personally I hate puzzle doors. I have no idea how your Players have stuck with them for so long. As a Player, after one hour of bloodying my forehead on a puzzle door I write it off and begin pushing the group to move on and ignore it henceforth. Because it's not something my PC can deal with via skill use and it's clearly exceeded my capacity to solve/care about as a Player. More time invested is a waste. Now if we figure something out later, sure we can return to it, but then, once again, "1 hour, no more". Play time is a limited resource.
"It's a sandbox, but they've focused on clearing the surface of the sandbox over finding the treasure buried in the sandbox, to extend the metaphor a bit."
I'm sure you've directly asked them why. What was the answer? Or was it one of those... meandering no one is really sure 'group mass decision' things that has sort of evolved rather then being directed by a few "caution over risk" Players?
"Anyway, it's a weird combo of "we can sell looted equipment and body parts of the dead for 4 xp each so let's kill stuff!" and risk avoidance ala "Those three dragons we know of are rich but dangerous, so let's never go there." It's why, I think, the treasure placed vs. treasure perceived is skewed, and it acts as a feedback loop."
After a few TPKs I wouldn't find the behavior weird at all. Can't build up to having the powerful delvers to take on the deeper levels if you're constantly making a new scrub every few (even 10, 20, or 50) games.
I think part of the problem is, even if you have a couple (or three) power PCs, the rest are scrubs and will fold in a tough fight. So they've been trying to build up the group, build up resources, build up capacity so the combat is less "risky but high reward" and more "doable with care and high reward" before they try to beard another dragon/Lord of Spite/Mungo in it's lair.
A lot to unpack there, and I don't have to do it. But I will quickly say:
Delete- untangling where loot comes from will be a lot of complexity, and probably just make for even weirder decisions about what to keep and what to sell ("Keep them, you never know when we'll need 23 suits of orc-sized leather armor and 11 throwing axes.")
- cautious play, and emphasizing risk-minimization over risk-taking has been standard with this group for a while. Go look at Cold Fens 1-5 for an example of how not to kill a group of bandits.
- this is the exact same group, plus more xp, more money, more magic items, and more resources, than beat the Lord of Spite. Waiting until you can turn "risky but high reward" into "doable with care and high reward" is not a strategy. It's a way of avoiding taking risk. It just pretends to be a strategy.
Terrible typo - I don't have *time* to do it. Gah.
DeleteSome of it may be inherent in the campaign premise. None of the characters are craving that one big score that would enable becoming king, retiring with a farm, or getting married. The goal of continuing to do more of what they have done favors a bureaucratic mindset.
ReplyDeleteCould be true! I just think the bureaucracy is mis-focusing, from my side of the screen's perspective.
Delete