TOPIC: Suggestion: GP on more items

GP has gotten more and more concentrated into fewer tokens over time.

While a condensed order from TD winds up roughly the same each year, individual treasure draws (and ten packs) wind up fluctuating more (and at least some of us seem to have near 0 luck when it comes to actually pulling GP from treasure).

I'd like to suggest that we spread the GP out more in a similar way to how common GP has been done lately. Put GP values on items at the Uncommon and Rare level that would otherwise turn into Planks/Silk/Stone. Lower individual GP values than we have been seeing lately, but keep the totals at each rarity the same. Maybe even drop the "just GP" items entirely in favor of making most (every?) item that could turn into those 3 trade goods also be worth GP.

In addition to spreading GP out more (making GP availability a bit more consistent), this would also likely lead to a more natural reduction in the glut of Planks/Silk/Stone without as much need for extreme recipes like this year's.

Fiddy wrote: Maybe even drop the "just GP" items entirely in favor of making most (every?) item that could turn into those 3 trade goods also be worth GP.

So is that a suggestion for some rares to be like: "Jeweled robes" or whatnot, that has both an AC to those who wear it but also perhaps "200 gp" value printed instead of being just another bit of MS fodder? Then have that spread out among half a dozen or more tokens rather than just one or two big 400-600gp tokens in the set?

You probably don’t need to confuse things by having 2 transmute options on the same token.

Look at the set contents after the final final version. “Hey, looks like we are heavy on plank this year! How about we make that charm of the pixie, a 100gp jeweled charm of the pixie”. This way, the charm still has the same in game use, but transmutes to gold bar instead of plank. It also means that year X doesn’t have a specific glut of plank / silk / whatever.

With this in place, you could drop the value of the 2 GP only tokens and compensate with the 100gp in game usable tokens. Again though, you don’t know how far to drop those 2 tokens until the end of the cycle.

Azzy wrote:

Fiddy wrote: Maybe even drop the "just GP" items entirely in favor of making most (every?) item that could turn into those 3 trade goods also be worth GP.

So is that a suggestion for some rares to be like: "Jeweled robes" or whatnot, that has both an AC to those who wear it but also perhaps "200 gp" value printed instead of being just another bit of MS fodder? Then have that spread out among half a dozen or more tokens rather than just one or two big 400-600gp tokens in the set?

That was my intent, yes

Fiddy wrote:

Azzy wrote:

Fiddy wrote: Maybe even drop the "just GP" items entirely in favor of making most (every?) item that could turn into those 3 trade goods also be worth GP.

So is that a suggestion for some rares to be like: "Jeweled robes" or whatnot, that has both an AC to those who wear it but also perhaps "200 gp" value printed instead of being just another bit of MS fodder? Then have that spread out among half a dozen or more tokens rather than just one or two big 400-600gp tokens in the set?

That was my intent, yes

With the transmute category now printed on the token this would be feasible (earlier it would be a nightmare).

One thing to be aware of is doing this will remove trade goods in general from the system.

For example, if you replace one "Rare Robes - MS" with "Golden Brocade Robes - 200 GP" you've removed around 6 Mystic Silk worth of items from an average 8k order.

Broadly I'm fine with that.

Due to some definitions this could get sticky - for example Aragonite is made up of "rare weapons and armor" - I would hate to see "Gilded Breastplate - 200 GP - +6 AC" exist because it's clearly armor, but would transmute to gold.



I would strenuously avoid having items that transmute to multiple transmute categories until someone puts for ward compelling arguments that such a change is beneficial to players and True Adventures.

Matthew Hayward wrote: Due to some definitions this could get sticky - for example Aragonite is made up of "rare weapons and armor" - I would hate to see "Gilded Breastplate - 200 GP - +6 AC" exist because it's clearly armor, but would transmute to gold.

I only suggest we do this to items that would go into Planks/Silk/Stones. The trade goods that come from armor and weapons are comparatively stable in my mind. Ink/Parchment/Munitions likewise don't seem to be good candidates to be GP alternatives. But any time we have a new slot or mystery token, they seem to wind up turning into Planks/Silk/Stone. And completion tokens (when not used for things like Reavers) also almost always wind up turning into those Planks/Silk/Stone.

I can see where Fiddy's coming from but I agree with Matthew, unless there's a compelling reason for Tokens to transmute into multiple Trade classifications I say let things be. Historically I think only Plank has been high on the supply side. Stone used to go for a buck and now it's in more demand, I could use some more myself whereas in years past I used to have a ton. Same for Silk, used to be pricier and harder to get but now it's like Plank. Easiest thing to still do is bump up the recipes if we feel there's a glut.

Rob F wrote: I can see where Fiddy's coming from but I agree with Matthew, unless there's a compelling reason for Tokens to transmute into multiple Trade classifications I say let things be. Historically I think only Plank has been high on the supply side. Stone used to go for a buck and now it's in more demand, I could use some more myself whereas in years past I used to have a ton. Same for Silk, used to be pricier and harder to get but now it's like Plank. Easiest thing to still do is bump up the recipes if we feel there's a glut.

Bumping the recipes has gotten rather extreme recently.

I would prefer that sets have a nearly fixed amount of TG and if it looks like there will be extra X, change one or more of the C tokens to a GP token.

Oh, too much silk in the final final tokens? Change the +2 cloak of resistance to the 100gp jeweled +2 cloak of resistance. In this case, the cloak no longer transmutes to silk, but to gold bar. The glut of silk in that set is fixed, players get a more steady supply of gold, everyone wins.

While I like the idea, and think it would balance the glut of trade goods, I also think it would drop the value of gold, unless we spread out the total gp amount.

I think it might be good for newbies though. I used this thing in my run, now it's worth 100 gp would go over far better than, "what do I do with gold?"

this year we had 1300gp spread out.

50gp in 1 common
250gp in 2 uncommon
1000gp in 2 rare

instead of that combo, perhaps something like:

2 x 25gp for common
2 x 75gp and 100gp for uncommon
2 x 200gp and 2 x 300gp for rare

the extra gp tokens would take the place of silk/plank/stone tokens.

perhaps some version of this would work.

Seems like the reason for the consolidation of gold into two slots at rare rather than three as it was is because more slots keep getting added. As more slots are available, making tokens for those slots makes sense.

That beads are Planks exacerbates the Plank Issue (TM, C, R).

But, anyway, spreading gold out at rare like it used to be doesn't bother me. Doing something like 100/50/50 at uncommon with the two 50s being equippable isn't likely to bother me - Wish Ring does sort of establish a precedent for equippable and gold valued. Or, if really want to keep uncommon at 250 total, 100/100/50 with the 50 being equppable.

But, increasing gold value total just seems unnecessary. Gold valuation is below it was five or so years ago. It may not be at an abolute nadir, but it's hardly difficult to acquire.

Ian Lee wrote: But, increasing gold value total just seems unnecessary. Gold valuation is below it was five or so years ago. It may not be at an abolute nadir, but it's hardly difficult to acquire.

I never suggested to increase the gold value total. And if that is how my wording came across, please let me know so I can fix my wording. I'm simply suggesting we spread it back out so it is (hopefully) a bit less hit or miss.