Aria Silverhands said:
Which is why the D&D books should be more ambiguous about creating a default "D&D". It creates too many perceptions that this is the way things should be and will always be when players read the book. The economics article could have easily said something like,"If the DM allows it, magic items can be sold for 20% of their base value. Blah blah blah..."
Instead, it starts off with the presumption that every DM is going to allow magic items to be sold for X amount of value and then decides, well unless the DM says otherwise.
You are right about the effects. However, I would prefer to play a game rather than a shell of a game.
I like to know if I like a game or not before I start playing it. There's a lot of ADVANTAGES to having a shared, default "D&D" both as a shared history and shared assumptions. It means I can show up to any D&D game and know what the rules are without having to learn a large set of house rules. I know that if I make a character, it will be accepted by the DM because I already know it makes sense in the game. It allows a world-wide campaign like Living Greyhawk of Living Forgotten Realms to function by allowing people to show up to a convention or gamesday and sit down and play with no explanation given on what is different about THIS D&D.
Given the above example that you gave, if you as a DM said "Sure, you can sell all your items for 20% as per the books." then everything goes smoothly.
If the books on the other hand said "Some DMs will allow selling of items, they will set the amount you will be given each time you sell an item, so ask them. Others will not allow selling of items. If you want to know what to do with an item once you no longer need it, consult with your DM. He'll explain how it works in his game." then it requires each and every person playing D&D to have a conversation with their DM about which version of the rules they are using and the details of their game. And I could see a 5 minute long explanation of the magic item economy being given out by some DMs(heck, I could see a 2 hour long explanation being given). And that's just ONE rule. If you write the entire book that way, you need to sit down for a good hour or 2 to learn which rules this game is using EACH time you play with a different DM.
Having the assumptions in makes the game easy for new people to learn, easier to switch DMs, makes the game go quicker in actual play(when some of these issues tend to come up). It also provides a shared experience. That way, when players of D&D gather on message boards or at conventions or at local gaming stores and they tell stories about their games(which they always do), there isn't a disconnect.
I know I once had a guy come up to me and tell me that he was playing a 1st edition game and in it, their group killed 200 Balors in a row, in one combat before taking on Asmodeus and killing him. They barely took damage and they were only 17th level. I was amazed as I couldn't see ANY way this was possible without dying horribly.
He explained that they all had swords that whenever they'd hit with them would do 20d6 fireballs centered on themselves but their own party was immune to them. When they crit it would do 40d6 fireballs, automatically kill their target and restore the entire party to full hitpoints. Their DM also didn't like spells being limited, so they could cast as many as they wanted.
That's when I realized...no way they were actually playing D&D, at least, not the D&D I knew. It was difficult to relate to that game of D&D. Rare as it is to meet other people who even play the game at all, it sucks to meet someone and realize that you can't even really talk about the game together.
