Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Endgame]

Doesn't the question of balance belong in the hands of the QMs, though? That way, Rogues can gain gold from quests that don't primarly feature humanoids - quests like hunting trips, the fields of glory, etc.

[Pyrovisionary]

So if we do have a banking system. Everyone, I'm watching you. Mwahaha hahaha ahahaha hahaha

Ha.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Pyrovisionary

[Palathadric]

Doesn't the question of balance belong in the hands of the QMs, though? That way, Rogues can gain gold from quests that don't primarly feature humanoids - quests like hunting trips, the fields of glory, etc.

But I thought the idea was that we don't particularly want them stealing gold from random animals. Their has to be some sense in what kind of people are chugging around gold as Sandy mentioned, I believe in the Quest Master's Lounge, but don't quote me on that.

I think it makes sense to say Humanoid and certain other creatures like trolls, etc. Besides, I think the "Enemies that drop gold" would make it even easier for QMs to "punish" rogues as you could have anyone, not drop gold. I think common sense or QM discretion, with other's bringing things up when necessary, makes the most sense. For instance, if the humanoid only rule applied, maybe you'd want a beggar who doesn't have gold on him, or something. But again, this ruling doesn't affect me much as I haven't hosted yet, and I don't play and don't think I plan to play a gold-gaining class...

We could rely on the honor system like we have this whole time. We don't need a full time bank clerk, we just need to depend on everyone playing fair, and everyone keeping an eye on everyone else. It's no different than how we've run the game so far with gold income, purchases, etc.

I actually think a banking system is a really good idea for capping how much one person (Rogues especially) can earn.

I think it would be perfectly fine if we were to have a banking system to just run on the "Honour System" as JimB, said, it works fine when I play Monopoly as no one really wants to be the banker. I don't know if a bank is particularly necessary though. Besides, if Rogues have excess money when on a quest, they could always ask a party member to keep it for safe-keeping for a small percentage instead of letting it go to waste.

[Brickdoctor]

On the other hand, even with the Humanoid rule, QMs can still just make Humanoid one of the other types of an enemy or have fewer Humanoid enemies, depending on whether or not they want Rogues to carry more Gold.

[Scorpiox]

On the other hand, even with the Humanoid rule, QMs can still just make Humanoid one of the other types of an enemy or have fewer Humanoid enemies, depending on whether or not they want Rogues to carry more Gold.

I think it'd be a stretch to limit the number of people in a quest simply to avoid gold-making. I doubt many QMs would go that far.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

And I think that's where the common sense clause would work. It's common sense a beggar doesn't have money. The Humanoid rule wouldn't make sense, as the beggar is a human, but shouldn't have money. I think it comes down to either Common Sense or Endgame's 2nd proposal. The banking system is neat, but just wouldn't solve the problem of rogues making too much,

Though if we do have a bank, are there depositing fees and taxes?

[Palathadric]

And Savings Accounts to make the rich richer?

A vote against Common Sense is a vote against common sense.

[JimBee]

On the other hand, even with the Humanoid rule, QMs can still just make Humanoid one of the other types of an enemy or have fewer Humanoid enemies, depending on whether or not they want Rogues to carry more Gold.

That would require altering the story and quest itself entirely. Just do what makes sense. No need to include more or less humanoids on account of Rogues, just do what you would've done without the rule.

[TheBoyWonder]

I think a bank would work. Each person with a limit of 2000 gold on their person, and they can store unlimited in their bank. Anything over either gets lost or has to be given to another party member. It wouldn't be too hard, and all you need is a decent head for Maths, as it'd only be addition or subtraction. If this does get implemented, I d be happy to help.

[Endgame]

That would require altering the story and quest itself entirely. Just do what makes sense. No need to include more or less humanoids on account of Rogues, just do what you would've done without the rule.

Pretty much the reason why I prefer the idea of "only enemies with gold can be mugged" - it gives far more control to the QM to balance for without having to severely offer the storylines to accomodate a player character. If the Humanoid rule was in place for 48, Galen would've earned about 400 gold, not 5,000.

But I thought the idea was that we don't particularly want them stealing gold from random animals.

No, the core of this debate is finding a way to lower the Rogue's income to a more reasonable level in a kore reasonable way. Plenty of things in Heroica make no sense at all.

[Brickdoctor]

I do like the common sense rule; it does make the most sense, after all. I think it would just be hard to consistently enforce in a way that everyone feels is fair and as such won't delay a quest discussing it.

A vote against Common Sense is a vote against common sense.

"In the following posts I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense: and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of personal stats, of Gold, and of character progression, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a hero, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present quest..."

[Palathadric]

No, the core of this debate is finding a way to lower the Rogue's income to a more reasonable level in a kore reasonable way. Plenty of things in Heroica make no sense at all.

That was the idea behind the humanoid only rule. I think Common Sense just makes the most sense. Why is it that I am the only one who can see.

Seriously, though, what can possibly be wrong with it?

That would require altering the story and quest itself entirely. Just do what makes sense. No need to include more or less humanoids on account of Rogues, just do what you would've done without the rule.

Precisely.

I do like the common sense rule; it does make the most sense, after all. I think it would just be hard to consistently enforce in a way that everyone feels is fair and as such won't delay a quest discussing it.

"In the following posts I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense: and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of personal stats, of Gold, and of character progression, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a hero, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present quest..."

Beautiful!

[TheBoyWonder]

It could have a ten percent withdrawal fee, which would make the more gold you have the more you will lose each withdrawal. This combined with a nerf would be brilliant.

[Endgame]

Because it isn't really a rule. It isn't a solid guideline - just a very blurred line between what is muggable and what isn't. It has far too much room for interpretation.

[Brickdoctor]

Beautiful!

I should add that I hope people get that reference. I'm not sure how well-known it is, either inside of or outside of the US.

It could have a ten percent withdrawal fee, which would make the more gold you have the more you will lose each withdrawal. This combined with a nerf would be brilliant.

No, that doesn't make sense. It penalizes the non-Rogues who have to carefully save up their Gold and prevent their Gold from being stolen by enemies, and it breaks the continuity of all Hall services being free for Heroes.

[TheBoyWonder]

Okay, let's remove the withdrawal fee. It would still work, even minus the fee.

[JimBee]

I should add that I hope people get that reference. I'm not sure how well-known it is, either inside of or outside of the US.

One could not miss it, O Brickdoctor The Learned.

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following posts are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure general favor.

No, that doesn't make sense. It penalizes the non-Rogues who have to carefully save up their Gold and prevent their Gold from being stolen by enemies, and it breaks the continuity of all Hall services being free for Heroes.

Agreed, I think the earning cap would be enough.

[TheBoyWonder]

Yeah, we should stick with an earning cap, but keep the Bank idea so we have a safe place to store gold between quests, just minus the fee. It could be run in one topic, like the embassy, with each character having a vault.

[Brickdoctor]

One could not miss it, O Brickdoctor The Learned.

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following posts are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure general favor.

Ah, good.

Agreed, I think the earning cap would be enough.

Indeed. Actually, the Bank concept could be a good thing...we already allow heroes to calculate their own purchases, so it's not as if there's an opportunity to cheat being added through the Bank concept. And it's something that QMs don't have to worry about calculating. (Other than checking to make sure the player hasn't exceeded the cap, which is simple enough.) Plus as I mentioned in my previous post, it actually helps the non-Rogues and Rogues as well, by giving them a place to save up Gold without it being stolen. (And it doesn't make all your Gold completely safe, because you'll still have to decide whether you want to take some to buy stuff in quests.) And we don't need another topic for it since we can just stick it in the stats.

[TheBoyWonder]

I would rather a topic to stop the stats topic getting anymore cluttered.

[Brickdoctor]

I would rather a topic to stop the stats topic getting anymore cluttered.

How is it cluttering the topic when we add one line to each profile?

[TheBoyWonder]

Just where some inventories are quite large or have multiple artifacts or effect weapons it can make posts rather large.

[Brickdoctor]

Just where some inventories are quite large or have multiple artifacts or effect weapons it can make posts rather large.

By adding one line? If, somehow, one line makes a profile that much harder to read, it can't be harder than having to go to another topic to check for the info instead.

[Scubacarrot]

I personally don't like the whole banking idea. If you're on a quest like 48 (which aren't the norm by any stretch, but it's possible such a colossus might one day surface once more), at one point, you're going to be stop being able to receive monetary rewards. It's also going to limit the cost of items being sold in quests, (which will lead to less evolution of items, less cool and unique items being specifically sold for high prices), since people will be effectively unable to save up a lot of gold to be able to possibly buy something really unique and cool while on a quest.

[TheBoyWonder]

Maybe I am just over thinking things. Sorry.