Silly economics of DnD

[drnuncheon]

not all peasants have opportunities

I didn't. I said that skill points reflect opportunity. It is important not to blur the lines between the DnD peasant (who has skill points) and the medieval peasant (who is, by and large, unskilled).

there are not unlimited jobs

In real life, no. In DnD, yes: and highly lucrative ones if you have ranks in Craft or Profession.

Sure, whatever. The people in your world can have fun going to the Skill-O-Matic vending machines.

You're starting from premises that don't make any sense - that your average peasant is going to magically bhe able to get Craft and Profession skills from nowhere, that there is an infinite amount of work for members of any particular Craft, and similar nonsense - and then you turn around and say "See? the system doesn't make sense!"

Garbage in, garbage out.

I don't mind if people say the economics of D&D is "broken", but at least do it based on the faults of the system, not the faults of your own assumptions. For now, I don't feel like going around in circles anymore.

J

 

[jester47]

I think we need to take a different approach to economics.

Some thoughts about medieval economics:

We don't understand enough about how economic systems work to even understand our own. Understanding an alien sytem that we are missing huge ammounts of information about is an even greater challenge. Trying to comprehend an economy that is just as chaotic but has the unknown aspects of magic in it is most likely impossible to reconstruct with any sort of realism.

So, instead of trying to revalue equipment prices to fit an inherintly flawed model, why dont we use a system of relative value instead? That is rate each item on how it relates to everything else. The standard is the gold piece.

first use a $ to represent the relative value. Each $ represents a magnitude of ten. So if somthing costs 10-99gp it is $$, 100-999gp it is $$$. For things valued in sp use -$ and things valued in cp use --$.

Now every area has a "cost index." This is a number determined by the DM that gives him a ballpark area to price somthing. It can only range from 1.0 to 9.99~ The further away you get from the centers of production the higher the index gets.

So here is an example using our friend the 10ft chain. (I have revalued it to 3gp)

first we look at the chain... its relative value is $.
The local index is say 4.5. So when a character goes to get a chain the local merchant asks 45 silver. The player thinking that that might be too much haggles it down to 32 silver.

Another example, index is 2.3 (near a large city) and a player is looking to buy a suit of breast plate armor ($$$). so the bidding starts at 2300 sp. The player can haggle it to whatever price he wants. If he was in a place far from civilisation, the index would indicate that the armor was worth more maybe 850. So say he buys breastplate for 300 and travels to the far reaches of the world, there he retires and decides to lead a life of peace. His armor is now worth twice as much as when he bought it.

This system does two things, first it keeps costs relative. Most of us would agree that a grappling hook and a chest are both in the 1-9.999 gp range. And we would all agree that a masterwork blade could be sold for 999 gp or 100gp depending on where it was sold and who was selling it. Second it lets us create the illusion of different economies and situations. The poor village cant afford to buy five longswords for 250gp but they probably would go for 50gp. Conversely a player is not going to buy a longsword for 99gp unless it is very unique (but not masterwork). Then again he might if the salesman is really really good.

Obviously it can be abused, but I think it works better than saying that an item is a set price everywhere you go.

Aaron.

 

[Dragonblade]

Ok, my bad about the ruby. I don't use material components in my game so that completely slipped my mind.

However, a 21st level Epic wizard with the Ignore Material feat could create continual flame torches and it would cost them nothing! There's a lot of profit to be arealized there for a wizard who doesn't mind spending a prt of his day cranking out magic torches that last forever.

And where does this notion come from that a D&D world would have an agrarian society? There is no logical basis to support this premise.

Furthermore, assuming that the D&D world is agrarian, with most of the society at a medieval European level, there would be MORE of a drive for people to join the clergy or become wizards, not less.

To know the god you worship is not only real, but to be able to perform real magic from that god would be an incredible thing! People would line up to join the church.

The same with mages. What person wouldn't want to be able to fly or cast a fireball? Or simply be attracted to the prestige and power that a wizard holds?

Again, the notion that wizards or clerics would be miserly with their power is unrealistic and illogical. Sure some would try to maintain some sort of elitist position, but most would not. It would not be economically feasible for them to do so.

To attract worshippers, the church would be forced to offer ready access to clerical magic and open the seminary to all who qualify.

Likewise, those wizards that created universities of magic would find their power and ability to conduct research would grow with their student body. Likewise, the hermit mage would be rendered obsolete. Unable to match the wealth, power, and spell knowledge of their colleagues who serve as faculty at such an institution, they would quickly disappear.

 

[Corinth]

This doesn't jive with the reality of similiar situations as they happened in history. Knowledge is power, and the spread of knowledge is the dilution of that power. Nevermind that most of the people just can't take the chances required to learn to use magic, either because they can't be spared from the farms or because they don't have the Intellegence/Wisdom to make it worthwhile for the teachers to bother. (And no, it's not worth it to train someone who can't do better than 0th or 1st level spells; 10 or 11 is what most folks have in those scores; they're better off on the farm working with their tools as they always have.)

 

[Agback]

Electrum is a compound of silver and gold which was actually used throughout history in coinage.

Not "throughout history".

Electrum is a naturally-occuring alloy of gold and silver in a variable ratio. The first coins known to history were minted out of electrum in the kingdom of Lydia in the sixth century BC. Electrum was quickly replaced as a mintage metal when efficient means of separating it into gold and silver were invented.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Chrisling]

It is really ridiculous how little labor is valued compared to its products. For an example that actually happened in a game I played, our party (with way too much deus ex machina help) beat a dragon in its lair and used the (lower than usual amount, for a dragon) treasure to buy an entire country. We then paid off that countries' debts, and lowered taxes enough that all the citizens able to move to our new country would do so. To top it all off, we threw a huge festival to let everyone know how great our new country was. And we still had enough in the bank to finance the country for years without charging any taxes.

This sort of thing <i>actually happens</i>, sorta. Not with dragons, of course. But for a loooooong time the Roman economy was propped up with Egyptian plunder, for instance, and after successful military campaigns it happened repeatedly that, y'know, the monarch would give a general tax amnesty for a period of time, with national celebrations, games and the like. Nothing quite like, say, sacking Tyre or Damascus to give a monarch more money than even they can spend easily.

 

[seasong]

Anyway, take a look at my thesis on all this in the EVERYDAY LIFE work when it hits, and then have at me

Deal!

 

[Storm Raven]

Ok, my bad about the ruby. I don't use material components in my game so that completely slipped my mind.

Well, that does change a lot of things. Many spells that are limited by cost will become much more attractive. Does everyone cas stoneskin a lot in your game?

However, a 21st level Epic wizard with the Ignore Material feat could create continual flame torches and it would cost them nothing! There's a lot of profit to be arealized there for a wizard who doesn't mind spending a prt of his day cranking out magic torches that last forever.

(a) How many 21st level Wizards are there in a given campaign world? I'm guessing not many.

(b) Don't you think they have better things to do with their time than casting continual flame on a regular basis? Especially since lower level casters can do it as well (albeit with a component cost that to an epic wizard is probably trivial)?

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Deal!

Thanks, seasong

Any critical discussion is useful, especially when some of the material is relatively new and untested. The main thesis I suggest in the work is that the effect of the ecclesiastical communities in the developed states will be salubrious. Such states will in large measure be prosperous and the people well off in regards health and nutrition, even material possessions.

There are all the variables at play, of coure, as mitigated by the deities of the pantheon of a given state, and the acts of their material servants.

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Al]

You're starting from premises that don't make any sense - that your average peasant is going to magically bhe able to get Craft and Profession skills from nowhere, that there is an infinite amount of work for members of any particular Craft, and similar nonsense - and then you turn around and say "See? the system doesn't make sense!"

No. I'm starting from the premise of skill points. Since there is obviously a misunderstanding, I'll attempt to clarify my position.

1. A peasant has, on average, 12 skill points.
2. He therefore has 12 skill points 'worth' of skills.
3. Given that he has to use the 12 skill points, we have to ask ourselves which it is most likely that he will have skill points in. I have discussed the other possible skills that he would have them in, and it is fair to assume that he puts some skills into Craft and/or Profession.
4. Thus, he has Craft/Profession skills.

The problem is not in the assigning of the skill points, but in the assumption that there are skill points to assign. I will freely admit that the average medieval peasant did not have 'skill points': an accurate model would give him far fewer than twelve (and make him illiterate, but that's another topic). The problem is not the 'automagic' assignment of skills, but the 'automagic' having of skills (and literacy) which I believe to be inaccurate.

Of course, even if the peasant doesn't have Craft skills, then his default nets him more than five times his usual wage, even using improvised tools. Why would he not therefore do this?

Though, if this still doesn't convince you, I hold to my unassailable point that even 'skilled' professions do not get their dues in the DMG. The cook earns 1 sp, and since Profession [Cook] can't be used untrained, it is the minimum that (s)he has one skill point in it. Given a seven-day week (most likely for cooks) and taking the Profession earnings guide, the only way to vaguely reconcile the two would mean she has an average check result of between 1 and 2. Unless the typical cook has a Wisdom of 1 and is furthered cursed with a -4 to skills, taking 10 will yield more than a check result of 2.

I know that the PHB figures are 'guidelines' to PCs, but is it really right/accurate that PCs should earn manifold that of an NPC for exactly the same job. Of course not. However, since the equipment lists are presumably made in mind to the low DMG wages, the better way of reconciling the two may be to divide the Craft/Profession earnings by five. Or times the DMG wages by five, if you prefer. But clearly at the current the two are irreconcilable.