Proposal: Let Players Sell Stuff to Other Players

elecgraystone · Mar 3, 2010

Kalidrev said:
Not to mention the simple fact is that people are always going to try to "buy up". If I'm a 2nd level character with 200gp and someone were selling their level 5 item at 1/5th value... well look at that, it's 200gp. I normally should not have been able to buy said 1000gp item, but now, by buying from another player, I have a 5th level item over anyone who did not also get that same deal.

Kalidrev said:
I personally think we should switch over to the LEB parcel method

Lets look at the above situation once taking into account the LED parcel method. A 2nd level character buys that 5th level item. They just filled their level + 4 item slot. If they'd gotten an item last adventure they would expect to get nothing in one of their future adventures (they filled in a slot). If they didn't, then they are on track. However, they are still within the allowable items thay can have (level +4).

It's pretty much the exact same situation here. A 5th level sword on a 2nd isn't out of place and even on adventures you sometimes have some playeres with more or less items than others. I don't see that as unfair or unbalanced.

As far as additional work for the checkers, it shouldn't be much. You put a link to the transaction just like you did when you got an item in an adventure. Both players would have to add the link but again it isn't any different than the adventure link.

ryryguy, the easiest thing to do is implement the LED parcel method. This solves everything and there are already people that want to switch to it anyway. Quite simply, you can only fill in one of your parcels so at best you could get something level +4 but that means that in the future you aren't going to be getting that item level +4 in an adventure.

ryryguy · Mar 3, 2010

Even within the LEB parcel method, the seller of the item is getting "free gold" and the buyer is losing gold. Does this have to be adjusted also in the awarding of gold parcels? Yet more work for DMs and checkers.

Still not seeing what would be gained by allowing this...

renau1g · Mar 3, 2010

elec, if the player got their regular parcel items then used their gold earned (say time gold) to buy this item they wouldn't be using their parceled item, but rather gaining a n+4 item instead (or if they used their parcel to gain n gold they converted that into n+4)

elecgraystone · Mar 3, 2010

renau1g said:
elec, if the player got their regular parcel items then used their gold earned (say time gold) to buy this item they wouldn't be using their parceled item, but rather gaining a n+4 item instead (or if they used their parcel to gain n gold they converted that into n+4)

Why? It seems to me they swapped gold earned for a parcel. If they replaced thier n gold for n+4 I also don't understand the issue. You replace n with n+4 on their parcel list. Am I missing something?

ryryguy said:
Even within the LEB parcel method, the seller of the item is getting "free gold" and the buyer is losing gold.)

???

The seller lost a parcel and gained gold. So? Isn't that what happens anyway when you sell an item?

The buyer lost gold and gained a parcel? Isn't that what always happens when you buy an item?

ryryguy said:
more work for DMs and checkers.

???

How?

Selling to a player vs selling to a merchant = same work on the sellers side as far as checking.

Buying from a player vs buying from a merchant = same work on buying side as far as checking.

In both cases you have check a link to item vs link to transaction = only one linked required to check. If you have some adjustment to make in rewards, you also have to do the same in both. Seems like the same amount of work. Again I'm stumped. If you can tell me what that I'm missing, please do.

renau1g · Mar 3, 2010

elecgraystone said:
Why? It seems to me they swapped gold earned for a parcel. If they replaced thier n gold for n+4 I also don't understand the issue. You replace n with n+4 on their parcel list. Am I missing something?

Ah, but that's not what they did. Say they earned n gold in their adventure with their DM. They finish said adventure and return to tavern/Daunton. Mr PC is like man I'd like to buy an item with my gold (equivalent to their current level amount, let's say 2) so they are looking around and think "hmmm maybe I'll buy a vicious axe" but then see the bazaar and ol' Murphy Tang (I'll use him as example) is selling his old Lifedrinker sword +1. The PC takes his gold and then buys the level 5 item (worth 1000 gp) from Murphy for 200 gold. *Bam* player still has his level+4 parcel on his wish list as he earned a level n gold from adventuring. Unless the judge scrutinizes the transaction and previous adventure to ensure that the player is now required to modify his parcel chosen (which wouldn't be fair as he was awarded n gold, just managed to snag a really good deal) then the player still has their n+4 reward to be secured AND acquired a lvl 5 item for less than a level 1 item costs with gold leftover for some potions or possibly another lvl 5 item...

See what I mean? So without the bazaar said player could have purchased a lvl 2 item. With the bazaar they could buy 2 lvl 5 items and still have 120 gp left over. Something's not right with that.

ryryguy · Mar 3, 2010

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. But the buyer is buying the item for less than the 100% he'd need to pay an NPC merchant, and the seller is selling the item for more than the 20% he'd get from an NPC merchant, right? If so, this transaction is breaking the expectations of the system. Both players end up with more gold than the system expects.

If it's up to DMs to fix this by adjusting future gold rewards, then yes that is more work for DMs. And that still brings us back to the question, what exactly are we gaining from this?

If this is not what you're envisioning, maybe you can spell it out more explicitly with a concrete example.

elecgraystone · Mar 4, 2010

renau1g said:
See what I mean? So without the bazaar said player could have purchased a lvl 2 item. With the bazaar they could buy 2 lvl 5 items and still have 120 gp left over. Something's not right with that.

I think I sort of understand what you are saying but what I'm saying that anything out of book range should should be used to replace parcels, not in addition to them. It shouldn't be 'n+4 reward to be secured AND acquired a lvl 5 item' it should be the player spent X amount of money to get his parcel early.

So am I to understand that in the parcel system, bought items aren't figured into it? I admit I only have an overview of the system, with the nuts and bolts over my head.

ryryguy said:
If so, this transaction is breaking the expectations of the system. Both players end up with more gold than the system expects.

If it's up to DMs to fix this by adjusting future gold rewards, then yes that is more work for DMs. And that still brings us back to the question, what exactly are we gaining from this?

This is what I don't understand. My selling or buying an item requires the dm to adjust my future gold/item rewards. How does altering the amount of the transaction change that fact? A 'fix' is needed one way or the other right? I'm a bit confused on why it'd be extra work.

Quite honestly I'm in favor of allowing an item swap with retraining and not an auction house. That takes out the seller and doesn't allow the swapper to gain power. However it seems to me that there is something in the parcel system and the review system that I don't understand. I'm not arguing for the auction house so much as trying to figure our your stated objections and reasons.

ryryguy · Mar 5, 2010

elecgraystone said:
This is what I don't understand. My selling or buying an item requires the dm to adjust my future gold/item rewards. How does altering the amount of the transaction change that fact? A 'fix' is needed one way or the other right? I'm a bit confused on why it'd be extra work.

You mean, if they sell at 20% or buy at 100% from an NPC vendor? No, in that case the dm doesn't have to change future gold rewards. Transactions at 20%/100% are part of the system. It is assumed that you are spending some/most of the gold you get from parcels on items at full price, and selling obsolete items at 1/5th price. That doesn't affect the other parcels you get at all.

If transactions were occurring that weren't at 20%/100%, and DMs were expected to adjust rewards to compensate for those transactions, that's what would be extra work. (And if DMs didn't compensate for those transactions, players would end up with too much gold - that's why I say they are "broken".)

elecgraystone · Mar 5, 2010

The game is balanced so that a character has items level -1, level and level +1 and money = level-1. So you're telling me that if I sell one of my items that's not off?

5th level character expected to have 4480gp wealth
I sell off my level +1 item, I now have 3040 wealth, 1440 gp behind. How DOESN'T the GM have to fix that.

Even if we go with the parcels, a 5th level sells his level+4 parcel and in return gets a level-1 parcel. How can that possibly work out? He lost 5 levels worth of parcel. I can't see how you can ever sell anything with parcels working this way. You just end up farther and farther behind if the GM doesn't adjust. I hope I always get what's on my wish list...

EDIT: let me show you the math on how much selling can throw things off. Lets look at that character above at 6th level. He got parcels at character levels 1,2,3,4,5 at item levels 0,1,2,3,4. Adding those number up the character should have 25 levels worth of items. However the above character only has 20 levels of items (the 4 changed into a -1). He's a ful 20% behind expected. To my that seems like an issue and something worthy of a GM fix.

evilbob · Mar 5, 2010

It's worth pointing out again that at every 5 levels, this issue basically takes care of itself. Item price levels jump tremendously, so that a level 11 character getting an extra level 4 or even 7 item doesn't really change anything. It just isn't worth that much.

I would be wary of arguing that the game is only balanced when certain items of certain levels are picked up by players: as others have said, in practical terms these are just guidelines. I think it more likely that it is expected that some players would jump above the loot guidelines occasionally, and that others would fall below, but ultimately - over many levels - it would basically even out. To the penny? No. But it would be close enough.

What this board seems more concerned with is player vs. player wealth, and the idea that someone could effectively "game" a selling system to pull ahead of other players. Is this true? Possibly. Is it likely? No. Will it take care of itself over 5 levels? I think so.