Tabletop roleplaying games are, the majority of the time, about accomplishing something despite limited resources. Sure, there's a story with heroes (or anti-heroes, depending on your game), characters' individual plotlines, and plenty of other aspects, but, much non-game life, it typically boils down someone facing challenges using only what they have. It's no wonder so many adventuring parties are money-hungry, near lusting for coin or credits. That isn’t any real shock, though - if we go back to the original Dungeons & Dragons’ Men & Magic back in 1974, characters' experience was literally tied to the amount of treasure they were able to collect. When our tabletop games are originally rooted in that concept, can we really blame players for being money hungry? While experience generally isn’t directly tied to money any longer, and we’ve even slowly moved toward many games advancing player characters according to the development of their personal story, money

One popular thing in digital games, particularly in RPGs where items abound, are set bonuses. I have fond memories of playing Heroes of Might and Magic II as the undead, seeking out the Amulet of the Undertaker, Dead Man’s Boots, and Vampire’s Cowl to form them all together into the Cloak of the Undead King. My armies may fall, but now 30% would rise as skeletons to do my bidding! Who would rise to stop me?!?!? The power of the set bonuses isn’t strictly limited to fantasy games either. You’ll see set bonuses in games like Mega Man and Ratchet & Clank . As long as you’re including equipable items (or even just items) in your games, set bonuses can be included, no matter the genre. Why don’t we see that same thing in our tabletop games very often? This week, let's ponder that question and discuss the good, the bad, and the stupid of Set Bonuses. Strategy It's no secret that a lot of what has to do with tabletop games today is rooted in the history of strategy games. Incorp