D&D 5E 5E's "Missed Opportunities?"

Zapp, It seems to me that the only system that would make you happy is one that is detailed and accurate to a level that just isn't even possible.

Take a look at any of the major economic models and formulas used in the real-world. Every single one of them has flaws, problems, and situations that just don't work. Now try and make a set of formulas for a fantasy world that already has huge economic inconsistencies AND a thousand ways to interpret everything in the world.

It can't be done. Therefore, why not use something as flawed as rarity to determine rough price ranges and then leave it up to each DM to decide how they want to handle it?

I mean from a business decision, nothing WotC could produce (or anyone else) could ever actually "be right" so why waste time on something that will just split the community?

Lanefan said:

But it stops being a one-off situation the moment a party gets back from the field with some magic loot and wants an equitable way of dividing it such that everyone gets about an even-value share*. Now you need values for each item; relative for item-to-item comparison purposes and absolute for equalizing for someone who takes no items.

Click to expand...

I dunno. At our table, the party loaded up the cleric with every possible magical protection item early on in our campaign. I thought for sure they would spread those items out among the squishy arcane casters, but they saw higher value in making their healer very hard to damage. They also wanted to pool gold so the paladin could afford plate armor. In the two years of running our bi-weekly game I haven't experienced these "moments" you refer to above where you claim everyone needs to have an "even-value" share of loot and magic items.

Lanefan said:

This assumes player-side access to the price list in your game...

Click to expand...

I think it's wishful thinking if one believes that no one except the DM at a table will ever see the list. For instance, there are players at our table that DM for other games. They would absolutely see such a list if it were published by WotC. A good player will play their character, however, as if they haven't seen the list (or Monster Manual, or DMG, or whatever).

Lanefan said:

For a one-off here-and-now situation you're quite right: just bang out a price and get on with it.

But it stops being a one-off situation the moment a party gets back from the field with some magic loot and wants an equitable way of dividing it such that everyone gets about an even-value share*. Now you need values for each item; relative for item-to-item comparison purposes and absolute for equalizing for someone who takes no items.

* - as in, you get the better item but less cash while I get the lower-grade item but more cash, and how much cash does Fred get if he doesn't claim any items at all?

Click to expand...

So...I find this particular argument particularly unpersuasive. In fact, the opposite: I'm now even more convinced that price lists are a bad idea.

I sort of...sort of...get why a DM would want price lists to determine what NPCs would pay/accept for magic items. As I expressed above, I'd rather improvise myself. But, ok, some DMs just want to look up a number. Fair enough.

But if we are talking about transactions between players...which is what loot division is...then we already have a perfect market: items are worth exactly what a player is willing to pay for it. Players can effectively bid what they're willing to pay the rest of the party (either from their share of the current stash, from their own savings, or from future loot).

Let's look at two scenarios where fixed prices can go horribly wrong:

1. More than one player is willing to pay far more than the book value. Only one player gets it, for what he thinks is a bargain, and the other player(s) feel cheated because they were forced to take their share of a price they thought was too low.

2. No player is willing to pay the book value for the item. Now nobody takes the magic item...which might be cool and useful...because nobody is willing to sacrifice that much treasure. Presumably the party finds a buyer for the item and divides up the gold and uses it to...buy an item they want instead? Yay! Magic Marts! (Or World of Warcraft. Take your pick. Maybe these new rules should allow us to disenchant unwanted magic items into shards and essences, which are the ingredients for new magic items...)

This assumes player-side access to the price list in your game...

Click to expand...

Umm...yeah. So does the scenario you just offered, where they use the prices to divide up treasure.

Anyway, you don't think many/most players would run out and buy a new official book of magic items? (Yet another reason to prefer a 3rd party, unofficial price list.)

You might be surprised that my preference to low magic campaigns very much aligns with yours.

Elfcrusher said:

And for chrissake it's SO EASY to make up a price on the fly that works in your own campaign. The DM will know about how much or does not want more magic items in the game. THEN JUST MAKE UP A PRICE. Price it high if you want the player(s) to have to sacrifice or work toward it; price it low if you want them to have it.

The only thing a price list could accomplish in that scenario is to give the player grounds for arguing with the DM. "Oh, come on, that's 3 times the official price for a +1 sword!!!!"

God save me from that.

Click to expand...

I do not need magical item comparisons to have a problem like that...players are smart enough to compare the cost of potions and arcana services to armour and other equipment...and then some of the logic breaks down.

DM Dave1 said:

I dunno. At our table, the party loaded up the cleric with every possible magical protection item early on in our campaign. I thought for sure they would spread those items out among the squishy arcane casters, but they saw higher value in making their healer very hard to damage. They also wanted to pool gold so the paladin could afford plate armor.

Click to expand...

But did those items belong to their wearers or to the party as a whole?

Assigning party-owned items to one character or another, with the party-as-a-whole retaining ownership, is quite different than a character claiming those items as her own possessions.

In the two years of running our bi-weekly game I haven't experienced these "moments" you refer to above where you claim everyone needs to have an "even-value" share of loot and magic items.

Click to expand...

It's a constant here and has been since forever.

Perhaps also relevant is that characters tend to come and go quite a bit in our parties, so when it comes to "party-owned items" figuring out who has shares in what a few adventures down the road becomes a serious PITA.

Normally, after each adventure (or even during an adventure if the opportunity presents) the treasury items are evaluated, then claimed based on value, with anything unclaimed being sold off for cash. Everyone ends up with a value-equal share. About the only time an item gets carried forward into the next treasury as a "party item" is if nobody can afford to claim it but it's just too good to let go.

The only time our crew tried something different - in this case split the non-magic evenly but go through the items like a draft; each person picks an item until everyone has one, then repeat until there's no items left - the result was a disaster: one player meta-drafted for value only and then sold the items, resulting in a massive wealth imbalance within the party after just a couple of treasuries. Never again.

I think it's wishful thinking if one believes that no one except the DM at a table will ever see the list. For instance, there are players at our table that DM for other games. They would absolutely see such a list if it were published by WotC. A good player will play their character, however, as if they haven't seen the list (or Monster Manual, or DMG, or whatever).

Click to expand...

Yes, but my expectation would be that any such official list would have a great big "guidelines only" tag on it and that the DM would be encouraged to change it up, if only to prevent just this.

Elfcrusher said:

So...I find this particular argument particularly unpersuasive. In fact, the opposite: I'm now even more convinced that price lists are a bad idea.

I sort of...sort of...get why a DM would want price lists to determine what NPCs would pay/accept for magic items. As I expressed above, I'd rather improvise myself. But, ok, some DMs just want to look up a number. Fair enough.

But if we are talking about transactions between players...which is what loot division is...then we already have a perfect market: items are worth exactly what a player is willing to pay for it. Players can effectively bid what they're willing to pay the rest of the party (either from their share of the current stash, from their own savings, or from future loot).

Let's look at two scenarios where fixed prices can go horribly wrong:

1. More than one player is willing to pay far more than the book value. Only one player gets it, for what he thinks is a bargain, and the other player(s) feel cheated because they were forced to take their share of a price they thought was too low.

2. No player is willing to pay the book value for the item. Now nobody takes the magic item...which might be cool and useful...because nobody is willing to sacrifice that much treasure. Presumably the party finds a buyer for the item and divides up the gold and uses it to...buy an item they want instead? Yay! Magic Marts! (Or World of Warcraft. Take your pick. Maybe these new rules should allow us to disenchant unwanted magic items into shards and essences, which are the ingredients for new magic items...)

Click to expand...

To the bolded bit: assuming they can find whatever item it is they're looking for. No guarantee of that whatsoever.

As for most of the rest of what you say here: the fixed price list promotes simplicity. I categorically refuse to DM a Game of Economics, which is what an auction-based system would immediately become. Hence the value is what it is, period. If two or more PCs claim the same item the usual resolution is to dice off for it, though sometimes there's a bit of negotiation involved as well. If nobody claims an item it gets sold off with the proceeds getting plowed into the treasury pot and shared out.

The exception, as I noted in the post above, is when something's just too good to give up but nobody can afford to claim it. In these cases it'll sometimes get carried forward as a party item into the next treasury, with the known problem here being one of knowing who's actually got a share in it once half the party's turned over a few adventures hence.

Umm...yeah. So does the scenario you just offered, where they use the prices to divide up treasure.

Anyway, you don't think many/most players would run out and buy a new official book of magic items? (Yet another reason to prefer a 3rd party, unofficial price list.)

Click to expand...

Can't speak to your game but here, no they wouldn't.

And this goes back to my theory that the best distribution method for such a price list would be as an editable computer program such that DMs could tweak and delete and add such that no two lists would be the same.

Sadras said:

I do not need magical item comparisons to have a problem like that...players are smart enough to compare the cost of potions and arcana services to armour and other equipment...and then some of the logic breaks down.

Click to expand...

I scratched my head over the meaning of this for a bit, and think I figured it out.

What I meant was "Oh, come on, that +1 sword is three times more than it is supposed to be according to the official price list."

I believe you thought I was comparing prices of apples and oranges. E.g., "Oh, come on, for the price of that (horse/map/champagne) I could buy three +1 swords."

Is that what happened?

Lanefan said:

To the bolded bit: assuming they can find whatever item it is they're looking for. No guarantee of that whatsoever.

As for most of the rest of what you say here: the fixed price list promotes simplicity. I categorically refuse to DM a Game of Economics, which is what an auction-based system would immediately become.

Click to expand...

Wait...what? How are you "DMing a Game of Economics" if you say, "You guys sort it out while I get some more pizza" and your players make deals over who gets which magic item for how much? Or are we both completely missing what the other is saying?

(It's possible I'm completely misunderstanding you. I've never once played in a game where the gold piece value of an item was factored into loot distribution. It's always been a matter of who wants it, who will get the most value, and who hasn't gotten something in a while. I've never seen an argument.)

Can't speak to your game but here, no they wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Then how do they know what the official value is? Do they ask you?

And this goes back to my theory that the best distribution method for such a price list would be as an editable computer program such that DMs could tweak and delete and add such that no two lists would be the same.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a 3rd party tool to me.

Elfcrusher said:

Wait...what? How are you "DMing a Game of Economics" if you say, "You guys sort it out while I get some more pizza" and your players make deals over who gets which magic item for how much? Or are we both completely missing what the other is saying?

Click to expand...

Possibly the latter.

The Game of Economics wouldn't be the sort-it-out-among-yourselves part, it'd be what would inevitably come right after; when the characters who scored a deal (i.e. buy low) take those items out and try to sell them on the street for more (i.e. sell high).

The sort-it-out-among-yourselves part would - given our crew - most likely just end up in a roaring PvP argument that I'd have to step in and referee anyway. In fact that's why we went to the equal-value division method many years ago, to stop (or at least cut down on) the arguments by making it as transparent and fair as we could.

(It's possible I'm completely misunderstanding you. I've never once played in a game where the gold piece value of an item was factored into loot distribution. It's always been a matter of who wants it, who will get the most value, and who hasn't gotten something in a while. I've never seen an argument.)

Click to expand...

I've never played in a game where it wasn't factored in. The draft-choice example I gave earlier was from a game I DMed, and I was dealing with the fallout from that ghastly experiment for about five years.

As for "a matter of who wants it"? Everybody wants it. Sure some PCs might get better use out of a given item than others would, but the others would just sell the item and bank the cash. Claiming-to-value puts a fairly hard lid on this, as you can't (successfully) claim what you can't afford unless you can convince another PC to float you a loan or go halfsies with you or whatever.

Without this, in a game such as yours I could just have my PC claim all the items; and then anything the rest of the PCs can't talk me out of is mine. I end up stinkin' rich...or dead if they gang up and kill me...and you-as-DM end up with a serious wealth imbalance within the party.

Then how do they know what the official value is? Do they ask you?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Sounds like a 3rd party tool to me.

Click to expand...

Probably, but the good Capn is right in one thing: 3rd-party material by and large doesn't get nearly the exposure that official WotC material gets - which is unfortunate, as sometimes the 3pp stuff is better - and doesn't and can't be included in AL play and the like, for thems as does such.

Lan-"'greed, for lack of a better word, is good' - Wall Street"-efan

Lanefan said:

Everybody wants it. Sure some PCs might get better use out of a given item than others would, but the others would just sell the item and bank the cash.

Click to expand...

I'm beginning to suspect our D&D experiences don't even remotely resemble each others', which might explain why we have such different opinions about this.