Ditching gold: D&D 5e Wealth attribute

I’ve been tempted to create a Wealth attribute, determined as you would any other attribute. Note that this is not for people who are entirely happy with counting imaginary coins and being nice and exact with their fictional game shopping.

You’d roll Wealth to buy things. The cheaper and more common, the lower the DC.

Treasure can lower the difficulty to buy something. The greater the treasure, the lower the DC gets (the treasure gets expended, though). A palace, galleon or rare artefact would be priceless for typical PCs without treasure, high rank in the nobility or whatever.

A good Persuasion or Haggling check could give you Advantage (or certain in-game issues, like rarity, guild exclusivity, racial or nation tensions could give you disadvantage).

Other factors

  • Titles or rank (game rewards) can rise Wealth. Loss of face or in-game bad things can reduce it.
  • You could deliberately reduce Wealth to lower the DC of a to-buy roll.
  • The attribute bonus of your Wealth value reflects the quality of your living expenses in town.

I haven’t really thought this through, nor play-tested it, but I would like to.

Featured image by D.A. Trampier

Trilobites

Here is an old article that I never published for Koru. It focuses on an optional humanoid race evolved from Trilobites (which are the most numerous wild animal on Island World.

Even though it’s a bit rough, and likely will change a lot when the final book goes it, it’s worth checking out!

The Trilobite folk are bipedal humanoids who share an ancestry with the most common arthropods on Koru. While there are three varieties, each with some major distinctions, they all a set of hard, segmented plates going down from the top of their heads down their backs and along their short tails. While they have lost most of their ancestors’  many limbs they have kept the ability to roll up into a hard, armored ball for defence and mobility.

Trilobite_spines

There are three “types” of Trilobite-folk. All three are Amphibious, have Natural Armor (of varying degrees) and can roll up into an Armor Ball.

1. Deep: these are the ones who most resemble their ancestors: they are shorter than other humanoids (roughly 3 to 4 feet tall) and have four sets of limbs. They can assume a bipedal stance by standing on two sets of “legs”. Their insect-like hands are completely unable to use tools or weapons designed for human hands, but their hard chitinous armor allows them to naturally replicate just about any basic tool. Their Natural Armor is the toughest (Plate Armor). A choice for players who wish to be very non-human and alien.

2. Tidal: Their Natural Armor holds the middle ground in terms of hardness (Chain Mail). A choice for players who wish to be unique but still relate-able to near-humans, like Dwarves, Gnomes or Halflings.

3. Shallow: the most human-like of this folk. Their dorsal armor is slimmer and more flexible, allowing them greater mobility at the cost of less protection. While they still possess two sets of arms, the lower pair are almost completely vestigial: too small and weak to perform any arduous tasks beyond lifting small objects. Their faces are almost completely human except for their segmented irises and their mouths which, while closed, look small, but while opened completely split open the lower halves of their faces into long mandibles and maxilla “fingers”. Their hands, are slimmer and more flexible, allowing them to use human tools. Their Natural Armor is the least hard (Leather Armor). A good choice for players wanting to be very nearly human but visually different with minor differences to set themselves apart, like Elves, Half-Elves or Half-Orcs.

People of the Tides

As with the slow movement of the moons and tides, these people have profound ideologies around peaceful and deliberate lives. They rarely act hastily or without some deliberation beforehand.

Plate-VII-Ordovician-Trilobites

Stats

Labyrinth Lord (or OSR game of choice)

As Dwarves, except replace their racial abilities with the following:

Their unique physique prevents them from being able to use weapons, armor or tools made for human use. However their limbs function perfectly for most tools needed for hammering, cutting, digging or scraping (they do not need tools for most tasks).

Armored Shell: Trilobites have a natural AC of 5 from the tough shells on their backs.

Amphibious: Trilobites can breathe equally well underwater as above land. However prolonged exposure to a dry environment will have consequences on their health. Reduce each of their saving throws by 1 for each entire day spent away from a body of water large enough for them to be fully immersed.

Armor Ball: Trilobites may roll up into a tough ball. This form makes them nearly invulnerable (Armor class of 4) and their movement speed of 150′(50′). However they cannot perform any actions except rolling around and smashing into things (attack as a war hammer, dealing 1d6 damage).

Dungeon World

Coming soon

trilobites_fossil

Failing fairly

There are a lot of articles out there about how Referees (DMs, GMs etc…) handle failure in roleplaying games. I’d like to think that mine is a bit different and provides something new.

This is not some “white room” theory: this is from my 15 years of accumulated experience as a Referee. It has served me well.

I’ll dive right in and tell you what my ideology is. While it is applicable to any game, it is mostly useful for games with more “swingy” mechanics, such as a D20.

Note: if you are the type of player who feels that immersion is very, very important, then this article is not for you. Also, this isn’t a rigorous methodology or checklist that I use every time I assess a dice roll. It’s a bunch of general guidelines, most of which a lot of people do anyway.

In my opinion you should only call for a dice roll:

  1. …if there’s a chance of failure
  2. …if failure will be interesting
  3. …if you understand the intent
  4. …if you know the consequences
  5. …if you can contextualize

Read up on these items below:

1. …if there’s a chance of failure

Some would say that there’s always a chance of failure. But if a very competent character is attempting a rather mundane task and there are no obvious complications then why bother? Just say that they can do it.

This can keep things moving and improve pacing. It also makes PCs appear more competent.

Unless the scene is a battle or other intense conflict, I usually hand wave a lot of mundane tasks, especially if the difficulty rating is “easy”.

560d99136b150

2. …if failure will be interesting

What makes failure interesting? If it adds further complications or increases the tension in some way. This isn’t always easy to explain. Let’s try this: if the consequences of failure are “nothing happens”, then screw it.

It’s like the old beginner mistake: making the players keep rolling until they actually succeed. Why slow things down or stagnate the flow?

Unless there’s the PC is chasing someone, fleeing from someone, trying to escape a hazard (eg., rising lake of lava), being shot at or is in a big hurry, I won’t bother have them roll.

Alternatively, make them roll to see how well they did the task. No matter what they roll, they’ll succeed; the result will dictate how well (a “failure” means that it just took them longer, there’s a flaw, they missed something, something external goes wrong etc…).

banana peel

 

3. …if you understand the intent

This may be super obvious, but the idea is that if the player wants to perform a task, and you, the Referee, are not entirely sure what their intentions are… ask them. Find out why they’re attempting this task. Sometimes this little bit of clarification can go a long way and avoid misunderstanding or worse: frustration.

Making intent clear will also aid you in coming up with the consequences of failure.

Analogy

The PCs were having a tense debate with an underworld contact in a cramped secret room surrounded by goons. One player suddenly said that he wanted his character to pull out his weapon and smack it down on the table. Everyone was confused and started making assumptions about his intent. Did he want to start a fight? Was he trying to intimidate the NPCs?

The Referee called for an Intimidation check because she assumed that he was trying to bully the NPCs into doing what he wanted. He failed his roll and the NPCs all drew their weapons, ready for a fight. The player then explained that while this was going on, the party thief could resume her task of pick-pocketing the guards because he was providing a distraction. But that wasn’t what the Referee thought was going on (she would have called for a different skill check and might have described a different outcome on a pass or fail). Had intent been made obvious, the scene would have ended very differently.

0ee84ca2bd57e655e741b8c6b6e995ef

4. …if you know the consequences

This is also possibly immersion breaking to some play styles.

When a player wants their PC to perform a task, and intent is obvious, try to figure out the consequences of failure before they roll.

You could even explain it to the player out loud. I try to give them a couple (2-3) of possible outcomes. This might be difficult to do in the heat of the moment, but I think that it is worth it. That way there are fewer nasty surprises and the player can change their mind and try something else if it sounds like the risk isn’t worth it.

This is easier to do if you know what their intentions are.

Analogy

A player wanted to gaze into a crystal ball in the dungeon of a mummy lord. I asked her why she was looking into it and what she was hoping to find. She told me that her PC was looking for clues about where the mummy hid his treasure horde, to see what his evil plans were or otherwise a clue on how to defeat him.

I explained that they needed to make a save to resist the evil soul-sucking powers. If they failed, they would be mesmerized and see something that would really shake them up. On a really bad roll they might get noticed by a lost soul who will try to possess or devour them (this wasn’t a huge surprise at this point because the party could see ghostly faces in the crystal).

tumblr_nrcvrn1c8q1rtas0ho1_1280

5. …if you can contextualize

Okay so the PC failed their dice roll. What happens? How bad are the consequences?

To me, this depends on the skills/abilities of the character. If they’re really competent at this sort of task, then I’m more forgiving of a failed roll. Conversely, if another character who is less skilled fails at the same task, it is far worse for them if they fail.

This is the meat of this article and it’s especially useful for D20 games: make failure different for different characters depending on their skills.

This tends to make players happy because it acknowledges their character’s talents and abilities. A competent character will fail more gracefully than one who isn’t.

Analogy

Two characters are driving cars in a high speed chase scene. One of them is a professional race car driver (very skilled). The other is a rural person who is barely competent (poorly skilled). They both fail their drive checks by the same degree (on a D20 roll, they both rolled a 1).

Failure for the more skilled character: they lose control over their vehicle and it spins around and comes to a stop (perhaps knocking over a few garbage cans). They’ve lost some time and are inconvenienced.

Failure for the less skilled character: they mis-judge their control over the vehicle and crash, their vehicle rolls over and catches fire.

natural_20_dnd_04

Bonus: think about who f***ed up!

This varies from system to system, but the basic assumption is that a character’s skill is tested against an opposing force or passive difficulty. The player must must randomly determine if their character’s skills are good enough to overcome external challenges.

Ever since I started playing most Referees have interpreted a failure or a miss (in combat) as the PC making a mistake, messing up or missing their target (example: they miscalculated, they fumbled and dropped their tool, or their sword swing went wild and whooshed in the air). It’s never because of external forces: it’s always been the character’s fault (example: the information in the book was actually false, the lock had extra security measures in place, the opponent parried the blow).

The thing about combat is especially frustrating to me in games like D&D where a being’s defensive ability is abstracted a little into a passive defence value (not an opposed combat roll). Armor Class (AC) means that you’re harder to hit because of your Dexterity and your actual armor. When an opponent misses their attack roll (can’t beat your AC) it doesn’t necessarily mean that their attack went wild like an inept buffoon: it meant that the attack was dodged or it glanced off of some chain mail.

I play these games for fun escapism: to pretend to be someone who is, if not remarkable, more competent than the real me. I feel disappointed when the luck of the dice makes my character seem inept, unskilled, clumsy or even stupid.

High skill and ability doesn’t mean that you’re only good when you succeed: it means that you can recover well from a failure.

A skilled person, when they’ve made a mistake or if their solution didn’t work, will adjust their strategy or approach and try again. An unskilled person will just give up (or fail so disastrously bad that they just can’t try again).

To be clear, the other option is still valid (sometimes people just mess up: OOPS). My issue is when it happens all of the time. Every time. In a fantasy game about escapism and heroics.

A matter of tone

Many Gamers, especially Referees, enjoy a good critical fumble chart. I’d argue that they’re great in very grim-dark and/or comical campaigns. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, for example, is perfect for this sort of thing. Also 0-level Funnel games like Dungeon Crawl Classics.

But I don’t think that it matches the tone of every game or campaign out there. Would you see James Bond, Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Wolverine slip on a banana peel and chop their own leg off in a serious rendition of their genres?

The same applies to misses. In a super hero game in a very clean, PG campaign world where the PCs are better than the rest of humanity, failure shouldn’t be horribly gory or over-the-top slapstick. I mean, not really, unless everyone wants that.

Keep the tone in mind when you narrate a failure.

Conclusion

So that’s basically it. I think that point #5 is the most widely useful to all Referees out there, especially in games like D&D. Try it out and I’m sure that your players will be happier, even when they fail.