D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
I know I was really disappointed in how 4e 'fixed' the economy for all levels of D&D. They went to a totally gamist view on it to make it work. It destroyed my perception of a 'Fantasy' economy. I did not like it. Nor did my players. Looking at the Adventurer's Vault, especially alchemical items, it seemed beyond belief the 'prices' of these items, even for a fantasy economy. It was actually maddening to me. The fix they had was balanced unto itself without regard to the perception of how a fantasy economy should operate.
Lately I have been reading and playing Moldvay/Cook D&D/LL, and really like the encumbrance rules. It was the idea it is not only the weight of an item, but its bulk and hindrance on movement all wrapped into the encumbrance values of items. A very gamist solution to the problem of carry crap in a game.
I have had an epiphany on the new 4e economy. The gp value of items does no represent the true value of the item, rather it is the monetary value, rarity in the market, ease of manufacture, and marketability all wrapped into a value. I have totally changed my perception on what the gp represents in 4e. It is not a monetary value. It is an abstract value of all the above. I am now calling them 'wealth points' instead of gp, and using the system 'as-is'.
For me, this change in perception really helped me. I offer it to you if it helps in your perception.
__________________ "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see
your good works and give glory to your Father
who is in heaven." - Matthew 5:16 - One of Gary Gygax's favorite bible verses.
When D&D -doesn't- have a gamist approach to wealth and the economy, please let me know. D&D3e had a truly gamist approach and wrapped it in simulationist mumbo jumbo which wasn't actually realistic. D&D4e just sits down and admits what it is.
It's an attempt to tell a story, not an attempt to rationalise 'gamism' (which is actually narrativism) with handwaving the way 1e, 2e, and 3e have all attempted to do. 4e finally sits down and says:
"You know what, find a storyline reason why your character can get what he wants because frankly, that's what's going to happen anyways. So don't hide behind economics (that don't work like economics) and treasure tables, because dungeon-based economies are not realistic when it comes to the economy a kingdom. Instead, accept the fact that most players don't know anything about how an economy really works, and instead tell a damn story.
"Every rule here is for telling a story. If your story requires a simulation of a world economy, and that's fun for you and your players, then go ahead and do it. You don't need an rpg book to do that. If you do, you're probably not knowledgable enough in the field to notice if it was accurate, so no book is really going to help you either."
"You know what, find a storyline reason why your character can get what he wants because frankly, that's what's going to happen anyways. So don't hide behind economics (that don't work like economics) and treasure tables, because dungeon-based economies are not realistic when it comes to the economy a kingdom. Instead, accept the fact that most players don't know anything about how an economy really works, and instead tell a damn story.
"Every rule here is for telling a story. If your story requires a simulation of a world economy, and that's fun for you and your players, then go ahead and do it. You don't need an rpg book to do that. If you do, you're probably not knowledgable enough in the field to notice if it was accurate, so no book is really going to help you either."
The gp value of items does no represent the true value of the item, rather it is the monetary value, rarity in the market, ease of manufacture, and marketability all wrapped into a value.
Supply and Demand. Yes...this is how economists think of value.
I have had an epiphany on the new 4e economy. The gp value of items does no represent the true value of the item, rather it is the monetary value, rarity in the market, ease of manufacture, and marketability all wrapped into a value. I have totally changed my perception on what the gp represents in 4e. It is not a monetary value. It is an abstract value of all the above. I am now calling them 'wealth points' instead of gp, and using the system 'as-is'.
For me, this change in perception really helped me. I offer it to you if it helps in your perception.
Please don't read this as snarky, it's not intended to be. I'm just pointing out what I see as flaws in your statements, nothing personal.
"Rarity in the market, ease of manufacture, and marketability" - that's what actually comprise the monetary value of an item in the real world economy (ie - that thing that you want 4e's economy to approximate). That is the definition of value in an economy, it isn't just what it the raw materials cost to produce the item. Raw material cost + time and skill required to manufacture + rarity + demand = a price in a 'real' economy. I'm not exactly sure what you are thinking 'price' and 'value' are determined by.
I just find it interesting that what is essentially being said is, "the given market prices in 4e represent the market prices of these items," and then the suggestion to rename gp to 'wealth points'. Gold pieces are currency, and currency is a standard of wealth. So basically all you've suggested is giving gold pieces a fancy name. Please, if I'm missing something, point it out, because that seems a little convoluted.
A little thought exercise: given the proper cost for materials, supply & demand of the skill needed to manufacture, and supply & demand for finished product, any currency amount is plausible as the cost for an item. The only reason people say that the pricing scheme of RPGs aren't accurate is because they don't line up with their assumptions as to the values of those three (or 5, depending on your perspective) things. For example, the alchemical items you spoke of: if you assume that no one wants them, alchemists (skilled labour) are all over the place (flooding the market with alchemical items), and materials are cheap, the 'price' for those items will be low. Conversely, if alchemists are very rare (low supply), and materials are very expensive, then the price skyrockets. Any price is plausible if your assumptions go in the right direction. If, all of a sudden, EVERYONE ON THE PLANET NEEDS A TOWEL NOW!!! (caps to emphasize the urgency of the demand ), and they cannot wait until tomorrow, the price of towels will skyrocket. If demand stays that far above supply, the price will stay high, until demand goes down or supply catches up. Simple econ, people
Exactly. Any price is possible. A lot of the variables are not explained by the book. Depending on what those variables are, the economy could be correct...or close to correct.
On the other hand a "truly" realistic economy ends up with weapons that do 1d4 damage with a prof bonus of +2 costing 1.2 million gold pieces because they are made of a material that is nearly impossible to come by. While such an item is utterly useless for the characters in the game. Meanwhile, they can acquire items that let them do super extraordinary things for 10 gp because of how few people in the world want them and have the money to afford them.
__________________ Majoru Oakheart
Secret Attorney of the Guidelines for the <Sorry, you didn't make the DC 20 Perception check, and you don't have another minor action to try again. Next time try finding an Elf to stand nearby you.>
Personally I think +1 magic weapons/armor/etc should be worth a lot more than 360gp, because adventurers never get their hands on one by the treasure tables, and enchanting one requires a level too high for a simple +1 weapon to be useful compared to a +1 with a property, or a +2.
I swear, one of these days I will make a character that collects +1 magic items due to this rarity.
It's a marble. Just a glass marble. People bid $4,350 on it. Guy didn't sell it. He wants $9,000 for it. Realistic? You betcha. Stuff like this goes on every day.
That's the thing with the people who cry foul with D&D's supposed economic system, about how the buying or selling prices aren't realistic. Almost without exception, they think they know what they are talking about, but they do not. Almost without exception they just focus on how hard or expensive an item is to make, and totally ignore the stuff like how much do other people actually want to buy the thing, or how much do other people want to buy the thing from you.
Now, you can say that in general D&D does not have a working economic model and you'd be right. BUT, once you point at a specific item and a specific price, and say "that item in specific is unrealistic with that price", you've fallen off the boat. The item can easily have that price, or whatever price and still be totally realistic. It just has to be rarer and in more demand that the cheaper ones.
Similarly... if you say "It's unrealistic that I can't sell this item above 20% of what i got it from", bam, once again you fell off the boat. Who said anybody anywhere was looking to buy that item from you? Especially when they've got a well-known, dependable, reputable local magic store owner to buy from? And so on, and so forth... these types of complaints are always in the head of whoever makes them.
Anyway, to the OP, I'm glad you found a way to reconcile it so that you can enjoy it. That's what it's all about.
The Economy -- Problem for Me is Market for Created Items
The pricing in the DND economy does not bother me. Generally, as a DM I control balance through controlling supply rather than price.
The problem I am having with the 4e economy is the price to make versus the price to sell. (I'm sorry if I'm going over ground beat to death elsewhere in a thread.)
The cost to make a magic item using the enchant item ritual is exactly the same as its market price. So, whether I make it or buy it, it costs the same. I can accept that, except there is no way someone going to make items and sell them for the cost of manufacture.
Similarly, a player can make their own mundane weapons and armor, for exactly the cost of buying it. So, if I go buy a forge, tools, etc., I can make my own sword and it will cost me the same as buying it, and I've also paid for all the overhead and equipment to manufacture it.
I understand this is for play balance, so PC's don't sit around making money buy through the unheroic practice of being merchants or manufacturers, but it just does not make any sense.
How to NPC's do it? Presumably, they have advantages PC's don't that allow them to reduce the cost of production: sunk cost of equipment needed to manufacture items (that anvil has probably been in the family for years), locals-discount supply agreements, longer time available to make items (allowing the work to be done when convenient/down-time), etc. However, it still does not look like it would balance out.
I have not been able to mentally build a concept that I can use to justify this to my players.
Grain Into Gold is THE essential product to pick up if you're a worldbuilder and want to fix the issue. I've already posted an Excel sheet on the cost of armor and weapons, and included how to "graduate" the items to better materials (resulting in +1 to +6) for low magic campaigns.
D&D has never had a functional economy, at least not where adventurers were concerned. It's always been a negative sum game. Monsters go out and plunder wealth from the countryside, heros kill the monsters, take thier plunedered loot, sell it to make magic items, etc...
3e was more simulationist, in that the systems presented did allow someone to make skill rolls to earn money and thus make a living. In 4e, the system is just there to model adventuring, a PC, using the rules presented, can't make a living in any way other than killing monsters and taking thier stuff. That doesn't mean the world doesn't allow such things, just that the stystem doesn't bother to model it. You can make your world as economically realistic as you like, the rules just don't come into it.
The cost to make a magic item using the enchant item ritual is exactly the same as its market price.
Not true. Buying an item costs 10-40% more than the price in the PHB. PHB 224, and also DMG 155.
Quote:
How to NPC's do it?
For magic items, they charge more. For mundane items, they have less upkeep because they own their supplies and have underlings that let them do more faster.
Quote:
However, it still does not look like it would balance out.
Why not? Less cost = more profit. More profit without the desire to buy really expensive items = happy peasant.
Quote:
I have not been able to mentally build a concept that I can use to justify this to my players.
The Enchant an Item ritual states that the component cost = price of item, and the PHB also states that the price in the book is the base market price. I did overlook the part on pg 224 in the PHB where it says the price can be 10-40% above the base market price (so I appreciate the reference).
Nothing is cheaper than your own labor if you do not have a more productive use for it. So, if an adventurer can take 2 days off of adventuring while his friends are resting or doing research, she can make any weapon and enchant it with an effective labor cost of zero since she does not have to pay anyone for that labor. This is cheaper than the master smith paying an apprentice or journeyman, or doing it himself since the labor has to be added to the cost of components and materials. If I am doing for myself, there is no labor cost to be added in. Hence, the item should cost me less than market price to produce. The 3e economy recognized this through its skill system, and 4e does not (particularly for mundane items and masterwork materials).
Yes, some of my players are interested in the economics of item creation. Not all of them -- some have no interest in making stuff as it is not part of the game they enjoy. The ones that like to make magic items or the base items that will be enchanted are interested in the economics and why there is no difference in the market price and the manufacturing price.
It is not a huge issue, it is just discordant to their experience in how the world works. (I've had characters elect to invest their treasure with a merchant company to make more money, buy real estate, and such -- no reason characters have to pass up on the opportunity to invest in the game world. These investments have also generated campaign events -- what happened to my ship/cargo/caravan? -- and tied the characters more closely into the campaign since it meant more when the city was threatened since their investments were as at risk as the rest of the people who lived and worked there.)
The Enchant an Item ritual states that the component cost = price of item, and the PHB also states that the price in the book is the base market price. I did overlook the part on pg 224 in the PHB where it says the price can be 10-40% above the base market price (so I appreciate the reference).
Nothing is cheaper than your own labor if you do not have a more productive use for it. So, if an adventurer can take 2 days off of adventuring while his friends are resting or doing research, she can make any weapon and enchant it with an effective labor cost of zero since she does not have to pay anyone for that labor. This is cheaper than the master smith paying an apprentice or journeyman, or doing it himself since the labor has to be added to the cost of components and materials. If I am doing for myself, there is no labor cost to be added in. Hence, the item should cost me less than market price to produce. The 3e economy recognized this through its skill system, and 4e does not (particularly for mundane items and masterwork materials).
The item is costing you less, 10-40% less, because the "market price" and the "cost to create" aren't actually the same thing in 4e, despite the sentence that says they are. The "market price" is 10-40% higher than the "cost to create" which is erroneously referred to as the market price every now and then.
Quote:
Yes, some of my players are interested in the economics of item creation. Not all of them -- some have no interest in making stuff as it is not part of the game they enjoy. The ones that like to make magic items or the base items that will be enchanted are interested in the economics and why there is no difference in the market price and the manufacturing price.
Offer bonus XP for providing a believable explanation.
Quote:
It is not a huge issue, it is just discordant to their experience in how the world works. (I've had characters elect to invest their treasure with a merchant company to make more money, buy real estate, and such -- no reason characters have to pass up on the opportunity to invest in the game world. These investments have also generated campaign events -- what happened to my ship/cargo/caravan? -- and tied the characters more closely into the campaign since it meant more when the city was threatened since their investments were as at risk as the rest of the people who lived and worked there.)
If I'm reading the right things into this, it's exactly how I'd handle it if the players wanted to partake in a business venture: make the business a part of the campaign, and have it create adventures and/or side quests. The increased revenue from the business depends on how those side quests work out, and are accounted for as treasure parcels.
In other words: I wouldn't break the game's economic balance because there's an accountant in the group, I'd turn the desire for profit into a different brand of adventure.
), and they cannot wait until tomorrow, the price of towels will skyrocket. If demand stays that far above supply, the price will stay high, until demand goes down or supply catches up. Simple econ, people 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
