Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
On character wealth an d game balance
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 7085690" data-attributes="member: 32740"><p>Thread crap? No, just a different perspective than yours.</p><p></p><p>Didn't I say that? I believe I did say that. I was trying to say that by putting IME and IMO in there more than should have needed to be. Guess I just need to do that at the end of every sentence next time.</p><p></p><p>In any case, except for where my conclusion actually differs from yours about how to <em>approach </em>that it looks like we're in agreement.</p><p></p><p>And my experience differs, as I indicated. And I didn't say it doesn't have an impact on play. What I was saying, if I may rephrase, is that detailed economics are not necessary for the game to run, and run well. Players don't need a working model of economics. They mostly just need answers to, "Where can I sell this?" "Where can I buy that?" and "Is there more for my PC to do with money than just buy more gear?" You don't need real economics to come up with those answers. As I noted, that is problematic for some - that when you look below the surface it doesn't work. The point is that for THE GAME to work you don't need economic rules under the surface that do more than superficially give the appearance of an economy for the players.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Or an OPPORTUNITY...</p><p></p><p>And the DM simply making up an answer out of thin air that doesn't conform to a viable economic model won't work? Seems to me that the game has ground on through several editions over 40 years doing exactly that.</p><p></p><p>It's been 40 years for me - not that seniority means a thing here - and it demonstrated to me that pulling numbers out of thin air when players need those answers works just fine.</p><p></p><p>I would say "important aspect of play" is rather too strong a characterization. IF a PC reached the appropriate level (and most didn't and still don't under 1E if one can put any stock in forum polls which is about the only source of data on 1E gameplay these days), and IF they chose to establish a stronghold/temple/whatever then, yes, the PC could collect taxes that varied by the PC's class. And unless the PC rapidly grew that stronghold into a serious city-state or nation-state those taxes are hardly critical to the PC. At that point a fighter would be spending, what? 25,000gp or better to advance to their next level? If he somehow <em>instantly </em>grew his stronghold to a population of 10,000 paying 7 sp each then the 3500 gp he'd take in from taxes isn't chicken feed - but if that fighter lord goes adventuring he'd be bringing home better profit than that (one would hope), and the taxes would be quite sweet icing on that cake. If the PC actually "retires" at that point with his instant-10,000 population stronghold then 3500gp per month is some pretty serious partying funds. And again, the economic explanation of HOW the peasants produce that cash is hardly needed for the game to continue on. The PC gets the tax money and the game rolls forward.</p><p></p><p>And the DM can't simply answer "Yes" or "No" without a mathematically functional game economy in place to establish that the DM has the power and privilege of just making it up?</p><p></p><p>"Yes. You can collect 1sp more per month per peasant if you spend 1000 gold."</p><p>"No. The 7sp per month listed for fighters collecting taxes from their stronghold citizens is to be considered optimum and peasants would be quite satisfied with that. MAYBE the peasants will accept a raise in taxes, depending on how you actually decide to improve their lot. Tell me what you actually do, then we'll try it and see how the peasants react..."</p><p></p><p>See? That's not difficult to do is it? And still no economic model needed.</p><p></p><p>How is that ridiculous? Haven't you been talking about how badly it works AS an economic simulation? And doesn't that extend at least back across your 30 years of experience with the game? And if Gygax DID intend it to be a viable economic simulation then that is something I'd be quite happy to learn more about. Got any references for how he <em>intended </em>the economy to work other than by DM fiat glossing over any actual details?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree - although even for 3E that level of "building in" is still completely superficial. 3E's take on it has a few more numbers, but is no more viable as a working economic model than 1E ever was. I don't have a 3.5 DMG but 3.0 is going to be the same. In the just over a staggering <em>half page</em> on the topic of "Economics" it even answers the core question of the thread - how much does a peasant earn? </p><p>That's mostly a section dealing with simple coinage though (and notes that PC's - and those they interact with - are going to deal mostly in gold). But following sections include all of two paragraphs on taxes, one on moneychangers and two on supply and demand. Mostly it comes down to, "These are elements of economics. Use these as a DM to effectively MIMIC something that looks like an economy." Combined with limits on community cash and selling power a DM then has tools to demonstrate to PC's that they can't dump too much loot into a small community and will have to spread it around. No rules about what happens when they DO drain an entire community of its funds limit. That's left for the DM to adjudicate when and if it's deemed necessary to do so. The interaction the PC's have with the economy has been satisfied and the players are typically content to move on. If the DM wants the situation to be a bigger issue they can make it so, but rules for it aren't needed. Certainly not unless players want to fully manipulate the economy rather than just interact with it on a general consumer level. Even if they do that, if the DM UNDERSTANDS something of economics they can continue to have the game world behave as if there WERE a viable structure to it beyond PC's usual superficial interaction. Actually having that underlying structure still isn't needed.</p><p></p><p>Again, if any DM really wants that working economy for whatever reasons then good luck with that. Really. We should all game on and be happy. But I think my point is still valid - you don't need a demonstrably working economy and the game has always managed without it, sufficing with the mere appearance of one for most purposes. Maybe it managed VERY BADLY at times, but that doesn't mean the game need grind to a halt without it either.</p><p></p><p>Why would think I'm bent out of shape about this? I'm not. I am not upset that you want an economic model for D&D. I don't insist that everyone else toe MY line - although I would suggest that it seems YOU do. Do what you like. PLEASE. Be the Adam Smith of D&D and many happy returns. I simply have the shocking gall to believe that SOME people might be interested to have it pointed out that <em>their</em> game can run just fine without detailed economics.</p><p></p><p>It's been enough for ME to handwave these things for decades without railroading.</p><p></p><p>Yes. And?</p><p></p><p>I'll just quote this part and leave it here.</p><p></p><p>And does...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 7085690, member: 32740"] Thread crap? No, just a different perspective than yours. Didn't I say that? I believe I did say that. I was trying to say that by putting IME and IMO in there more than should have needed to be. Guess I just need to do that at the end of every sentence next time. In any case, except for where my conclusion actually differs from yours about how to [I]approach [/I]that it looks like we're in agreement. And my experience differs, as I indicated. And I didn't say it doesn't have an impact on play. What I was saying, if I may rephrase, is that detailed economics are not necessary for the game to run, and run well. Players don't need a working model of economics. They mostly just need answers to, "Where can I sell this?" "Where can I buy that?" and "Is there more for my PC to do with money than just buy more gear?" You don't need real economics to come up with those answers. As I noted, that is problematic for some - that when you look below the surface it doesn't work. The point is that for THE GAME to work you don't need economic rules under the surface that do more than superficially give the appearance of an economy for the players. Or an OPPORTUNITY... And the DM simply making up an answer out of thin air that doesn't conform to a viable economic model won't work? Seems to me that the game has ground on through several editions over 40 years doing exactly that. It's been 40 years for me - not that seniority means a thing here - and it demonstrated to me that pulling numbers out of thin air when players need those answers works just fine. I would say "important aspect of play" is rather too strong a characterization. IF a PC reached the appropriate level (and most didn't and still don't under 1E if one can put any stock in forum polls which is about the only source of data on 1E gameplay these days), and IF they chose to establish a stronghold/temple/whatever then, yes, the PC could collect taxes that varied by the PC's class. And unless the PC rapidly grew that stronghold into a serious city-state or nation-state those taxes are hardly critical to the PC. At that point a fighter would be spending, what? 25,000gp or better to advance to their next level? If he somehow [I]instantly [/I]grew his stronghold to a population of 10,000 paying 7 sp each then the 3500 gp he'd take in from taxes isn't chicken feed - but if that fighter lord goes adventuring he'd be bringing home better profit than that (one would hope), and the taxes would be quite sweet icing on that cake. If the PC actually "retires" at that point with his instant-10,000 population stronghold then 3500gp per month is some pretty serious partying funds. And again, the economic explanation of HOW the peasants produce that cash is hardly needed for the game to continue on. The PC gets the tax money and the game rolls forward. And the DM can't simply answer "Yes" or "No" without a mathematically functional game economy in place to establish that the DM has the power and privilege of just making it up? "Yes. You can collect 1sp more per month per peasant if you spend 1000 gold." "No. The 7sp per month listed for fighters collecting taxes from their stronghold citizens is to be considered optimum and peasants would be quite satisfied with that. MAYBE the peasants will accept a raise in taxes, depending on how you actually decide to improve their lot. Tell me what you actually do, then we'll try it and see how the peasants react..." See? That's not difficult to do is it? And still no economic model needed. How is that ridiculous? Haven't you been talking about how badly it works AS an economic simulation? And doesn't that extend at least back across your 30 years of experience with the game? And if Gygax DID intend it to be a viable economic simulation then that is something I'd be quite happy to learn more about. Got any references for how he [I]intended [/I]the economy to work other than by DM fiat glossing over any actual details? I agree - although even for 3E that level of "building in" is still completely superficial. 3E's take on it has a few more numbers, but is no more viable as a working economic model than 1E ever was. I don't have a 3.5 DMG but 3.0 is going to be the same. In the just over a staggering [I]half page[/I] on the topic of "Economics" it even answers the core question of the thread - how much does a peasant earn? That's mostly a section dealing with simple coinage though (and notes that PC's - and those they interact with - are going to deal mostly in gold). But following sections include all of two paragraphs on taxes, one on moneychangers and two on supply and demand. Mostly it comes down to, "These are elements of economics. Use these as a DM to effectively MIMIC something that looks like an economy." Combined with limits on community cash and selling power a DM then has tools to demonstrate to PC's that they can't dump too much loot into a small community and will have to spread it around. No rules about what happens when they DO drain an entire community of its funds limit. That's left for the DM to adjudicate when and if it's deemed necessary to do so. The interaction the PC's have with the economy has been satisfied and the players are typically content to move on. If the DM wants the situation to be a bigger issue they can make it so, but rules for it aren't needed. Certainly not unless players want to fully manipulate the economy rather than just interact with it on a general consumer level. Even if they do that, if the DM UNDERSTANDS something of economics they can continue to have the game world behave as if there WERE a viable structure to it beyond PC's usual superficial interaction. Actually having that underlying structure still isn't needed. Again, if any DM really wants that working economy for whatever reasons then good luck with that. Really. We should all game on and be happy. But I think my point is still valid - you don't need a demonstrably working economy and the game has always managed without it, sufficing with the mere appearance of one for most purposes. Maybe it managed VERY BADLY at times, but that doesn't mean the game need grind to a halt without it either. Why would think I'm bent out of shape about this? I'm not. I am not upset that you want an economic model for D&D. I don't insist that everyone else toe MY line - although I would suggest that it seems YOU do. Do what you like. PLEASE. Be the Adam Smith of D&D and many happy returns. I simply have the shocking gall to believe that SOME people might be interested to have it pointed out that [I]their[/I] game can run just fine without detailed economics. It's been enough for ME to handwave these things for decades without railroading. Yes. And? I'll just quote this part and leave it here. And does... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
On character wealth an d game balance
Top