What's tactics got to do, got to do with it.

[Ariosto]

But you could be considered an expert on your campaign setting. So the imaginary dogs in your campaign world could very well have all of the attributes you describe (and the resemblance to real-life is a bonus). Specifically, for example, you could say that it takes a move action to issue a command to a dog each round. In any case, by houseruling according to the "facts" that you give for your campaign, the problem is solved without having to resort to punishing the players.

Yes, talking together to get on the same page with assumptions is the main thing!

In Empire of the Petal Throne, there are neither horses on the roads nor stars in the sky -- and that's just the tip of the iceberg of differences from expectations if one were simply to bill it as "a D&D game".

 

[Ariosto]

"Over the years" might more aptly be "over the months", but I'll stick by my impression that it is probably not a simple "cash and carry, plug and play" solution to grab the leashes of so many war dogs.

 

[billd91]

The important thing that you seem to be missing here is that *you're already using the tactic* if the DM is attempting to attrit it. In the meantime, since it is such a powerful tactic (which is the premise of the example) the PCs are already accumulating successes (and gold!) and somehow what you suggest puts this genie back in the bottle?

I'm not disputing the usefulness of an army of dogs, under some circumstances as my post up the thread show. But armies of anything have ripple effects, particularly when it comes to replacing (or feeding) the units within that army. Press all the readily available dogs into service and you need to go further afield, for a higher cost, to replace them.

Yea, hence having to buy them for money. GOLD takes a while to dig up and refine. Coins take a while to strike. This is what I mean by being overly narrow in your economic theorizing - you're only applying these principles to one side of the problem in order to support a forgone conclusion. The price of a war dog already assumes all of these factors.

Yes, coins take a while to mine, refine, mint... but once that's done the coin can be transfered a virtually unlimited number of times. Dogs, when used as meat shields get used up. Use them a lot and they get used up fast, demand exceeds supply, price goes up.

And how many war-dogs are to be found in a 5-mile radius? And what relevant is the number 5? Why wouldn't the PCs follow sensible lines of distribution like everyone else does, instead of bumbling around and knocking on doors at random? There are people who have a financial interest in hooking you up with the things you want to buy. It's only the fact that ALL of those people are controlled by the DM that seems to apply here.

Why not 5 miles? Could be more. Radius used as an example. Doesn't matter if it's 5 miles or 500, depending on the scale of the operation, the resouces within that radius could be stretched or depleted driving up the price. Even with a network of traders, the price for a sustained operation is higher than buying one or two dogs from the local huntsman for a limited purpose.

But shifts to what? Dogs have been domesticated IRL for tens of thousands of years. A vanilla sort of DnD setting would IMO be reasonably set that dogs had been bred to the level of their usefulness. Yes, if it takes all this work and training and such to make a war dog available, then it's not worth 25 gp. Suddenly suggesting that dogs are worth 250 gp (or even unavailable) once the players start making use of them is not simulationist - and so I don't see the use in given simulationist explanations for this ruling.

Shifts in distribution of dogs. You're the one who says that shifts will occur, I'm just saying they'll take time and raise the price. And, yes, it is simulationist to drive the price up and have temporary shortages that keep things from the market. Unless you're simulating modern distribution networks and even then stuff ends up on backorder.

The same reason that there are apples to buy even though apples have been consumed by NPCs in the past.

Because monsters, hoards of treasure, and dangerous ruins to explore grow on trees seasonally?

Given the mechanical advantages that are assumed to be at the heart of the problem, this doesn't really seem to fit the circumstances. The vanilla DnD setting probably has armies and bunches of people with weapons - which would suggest that military technology is not some niche only of interest to adventurers.

Which adds to the competition to get some of the resources the PCs are trying to get their hands on. And the competition may have political power too. Buying up all the dogs to run roughshod over the local humanoids may work for a while, but if you keep buying them, the king might decide to institute controls so that his own sources of them don't sell just to the PCs and still have stock for the kingdom.

Right, so it's on to trained griffons and cheaply priced magic items and all sorts of higher-level versions of the same problem. So the can IMO has just been kicked down the road - and it's arguable that even these short-term 'solutions' were all that plausible.

But this is already in evidence. PCs stock up on various resources all the time and the game expects it. Things like scrolls, potions, wands of fireball. But these specific things aren't considered problems. Or are you saying they are?

The problem I'm seeing is people using things in an unreasonable, unrealistic manner. Thus, I have no problem with using dogs to a certain extent. People have done the same for thousands of years throughout history. But over-relying on them in the super-dangerous fantasy environment where the dogs are fighting ogres, owlbears, or bulettes is a far cry from their historical uses, and they'll probably die in droves. They're not the best tactical tool for those jobs and their relative cost compared to benefit should rise if the PCs persist. The same would be true for over-relying on a wand of fireballs in during bar fights. The tool can be used, but it's not the right one. Here, the opportunity cost should probably be a trip to the gallows rather than the expenditure of more money obtaining scarcer dogs to throw away for less payoff.

 

[gizmo33]

Yes, coins take a while to mine, refine, mint... but once that's done the coin can be transfered a virtually unlimited number of times. Dogs, when used as meat shields get used up. Use them a lot and they get used up fast, demand exceeds supply, price goes up.

And people that hoard gold cause it's value to go up. AFAICT you are continuing to apply the same selective economic rationalizations to only part of the problem in order to produce a result that you want. This logic could just as well apply to buying arrows, but I strongly suspect that arrows will continue to cost the same amount in the game as dog prices rise. The reason being that arrows are appropriately statted for their cost.

If daggers were statted so that they cost 2 gp and did 100 points of damage, I suppose your approach would be to have the king start instituting controls on daggers. This is missing the source of the problem, and this is way I see your solution with dogs. If you make them 2+2 hit dice and have them biting through platemail for 2d4 damage, then why wonder at their sudden value?

 

[aboyd]

This logic could just as well apply to buying arrows, but I strongly suspect that arrows will continue to cost the same amount in the game as dog prices rise. The reason being that arrows are appropriately statted for their cost.

You know, gizmo33, I think I'm with you in concept -- that is, it's better for a DM to make a house rule that is up front, honest, and makes the price appropriate for the purchase.

Having said that, I think the debate has delved into specifics where it's too grey to get your point across. By that I mean that even if I agree with the foundation of your point, I also think it's entirely plausible and fair for a DM to say that "arrows are appropriately statted for their cost and typical use -- namely, many archers hunting or adventuring as is typical." And thus, there may be no arrow crisis or shortage until there is a war and the DM rules them to be scarce due to the military hoarding. Similarly, if a DM were to say "dogs are appropriately statted for their cost and typical use -- namely, as a poor-man's animal companion rather than as trap-triggers and cannon-fodder" then I'd hardly begrudge him that. The economy even in real life experiences this -- a product is released at a decent price-point for its intended use, and all is well until someone does something unexpected and undermines the business model.

Although it's a poor example, the first one that comes to mind is the CueCat from a few years ago. It apparently intended to make money by keeping a database of what each CueCat owner scanned & visited, and then selling that database (or access to it) to as many buyers as possible. But then it was discovered that you could hack the CueCat to read standard barcodes without even talking to the CueCat servers, and suddenly you had a free barcode reader. The CueCat business went to war against their customers, demanding that they only use the CueCat as intended. Their economic model was based upon expected use. When someone got inventive, the whole model went into a tailspin.

I say that's a bad example because there were other factors, such as the CueCat being a terrible idea in the first place. But that doesn't change the fact that the company did indeed launch a huge fight with its customers, and hyper-fear that their business model was undermined was a pretty big justification for it.

So back to dogs. If I go to the Humane Society today, right now, and want to adopt a dog, they've got 'em. Lots of 'em. But if I start running an illegal dog-fighting business in my basement, and I have to go back to the Humane Society to "adopt" another hundred dogs to replace all the dead dogs in my basement, well, I've ruined the economic model. People will ask questions, dogs will be "rationed" until they determine that I am a villain who is killing dogs for profit, etc. So if it can happen in the real world, I see no reason why an economic model can't be based upon expected behavior in the game world. And if a player finds an unexpectedly good use for something that is otherwise not in high demand, then I think it's OK for the DM to say that the economic model didn't fit this purchasing pattern and is collapsing.

Again, I agree with your underlying concept that DMs should tackle these "too good to be true" tricks with forthrightness and honesty. However, this particular specific point of the debate (that dogs must be available for purchase because it's intended that dogs are available for purchase) is much too malleable to make a strong point. Even as a player who could get screwed out of buying a bunch of dogs, I can still see the DM's logic in limiting it. So, maybe a different tactic for making your point would be good?

 

[Krensky]

Not to very good effect is the assessment I recall from WRG rules, in which they were of a kind with scythed chariots and flaming pigs.

("Not very often" is a salient point here, and a lot of things were more common in the Inca Empire than in medieval Europe -- business ends of stone rather than metal being another example.)

I would prefer "elephant dominoes", but dungeons tend to lack the elbow room for that!

Wargame rules do not necessarily have anything to do with reality. A Roman Legion had a dog company, fighting dogs were a part of a medieval knight's equipment. The Conquistadors made extensive use of armored attack dogs as well.

 

[Krensky]

What?! Large formations? Could you cite one source for this? It doesn't hold up to a number of my immediate impressions. First is that I can't imagine a dog biting into armor. Secondly, as was pointed out, I don't think dogs can operate in "large formations" independant of a human handler. Thirdly, any mention of this has been noticably absent in any book I've ever read on warfare of the time period.

A Roman Legion included a company of masiffs in spiked collars and armor. They were trained for aggression and then starved before battle and released to break up formations. A number of poets, and Pliney the Elder discuss them. The Conquistadors employed dogs extensively.

 

[Hussar]

Thank you for the compliment. Gary ran the kind of game I caould only aspire to run, and if some small slice of my game mirrors his, I'm doing it right.

But it's hardly "screwing them over." It'simply setting the standard that we are playing D&D, not rules lawyering and loophole finding.

But, that's the problem. I'm not rules lawyering, anymore than using a longsword instead of a spoon is rules lawyering. The PHB says that dogs cost this much. The MM says that they have these stats.

Nowhere does it say anything about the dogs being monkey paw type purchases or whatnot.

I'm presuming that the player is actually acting in good faith. As is the DM. Both honestly believe what they are saying - the player honestly believes that trained attack dogs can be trained to be quiet, and the DM honestly believes that they can't.

Now, the only reason this is coming up is because the DM wants to stop a tactic that is cheesy.

To me, trying to solve the issue in game by either engaging in one upmanship tactics with the players, or screwing over the players by introducing elements that aren't there to begin with is a very bad DMing tactic. I'd much, much rather simply be up front with the players and try to come to some sort of consensus about what is acceptable at the table.

And if coming to some consensus is not possible here, then there are probably much larger issues than this one.

------

Edit - did a bit of google searching for Roman war dogs. It looks like Krensky has a point.

 

[Cadfan]

I just think that creating game balance by monkeying with item availability is a bad idea because the tool, item availability, is made to deal with concerns of realism instead of concerns with game balance. Its just the wrong tool for the job.

I understand why people defend it- its the ONLY tool for the job that doesn't involve admitting that there's a game imbalance. Its just not well suited for what its being used for, and we'd all be better off if the items in question weren't unbalanced.

 

[gizmo33]

Similarly, if a DM were to say "dogs are appropriately statted for their cost and typical use -- namely, as a poor-man's animal companion rather than as trap-triggers and cannon-fodder" then I'd hardly begrudge him that.

Firstly - yes, this has gotten into a gray area. But I'll give it another shot and hope for good things. The problem I have with this statement right away is that it basically misses 90% of the issue IMO. First of all, dogs were not historically "poor man's animal companions". Wiki them for any breed and you'll see examples of them being trained for specific functions.

Secondly, "trap-trigger" is not something that a creature needs to be statted for. I would think this would be obvious based on the very concept of what a trap is supposed to do. If not, I would ask the DM if he could stat my character so that he is NOT a trap trigger!

The problem with "trap triggers" and things like that is not that it's not realistic. (It's very realistic, as a canary would tell you if he could.) It's simply that the DM doesn't like it because it doesn't fit the genre. But the genre isn't realistic in this area either. A PC with 100,000 gp decides to buy magic armor and sword because a +something to hit and AC is worth more and a private army, not because of reality or even the game mechanics, but because of DM fiat. I'm not saying it's wrong for the DM to be this way, but I do think this sort of reasoning is applied inconsistently, and simulationist-minded players can often be understandably confused. "Am I supposed to solve puzzles in creative ways using the elements in the game, or am I suppose to guess at what the DM wants me to do, and do that?"

Although it's a poor example, the first one that comes to mind is the CueCat from a few years ago.

I don't really follow this example. The basic problem on the internet that I have all of the time is finding a rational basis to discuss the similarities and differences between two things. It's not uncommon to see something like "A baseball is JUST LIKE an orange!" In this case CueCat AFAICT is a niche product for a niche market in somewhat unique technology situation. A dog is a 25,000 year old companion of human beings. But then again maybe for purposes of this discussion CueCat and dogs (heh heh) are the same (and oranges for that matter). I don't know.

So back to dogs. If I go to the Humane Society today, right now, and want to adopt a dog, they've got 'em. Lots of 'em. But if I start running an illegal dog-fighting business in my basement, and I have to go back to the Humane Society to "adopt" another hundred dogs to replace all the dead dogs in my basement, well, I've ruined the economic model. People will ask questions, dogs will be "rationed" until they determine that I am a villain who is killing dogs for profit, etc.

In what ways does this fit the situation we're talking about? Does the DM have a humane society in his world? Does the DM have law-enforcement operating to *anywhere near* the capabilities of what you know IRL? It should raise a red flag to you that you use the terms "illegal" and "economic model" in the same paragraph. (My guess is that you are also a city-dweller. Your assumptions about the sources of dogs, and people's attitude about their treatment do not reflect what I've observed even in the rural US.)

I'll start with this: the "vanilla" DnD setting does not contain a strong and powerful police force. The reason is obvious if you consider how the PCs spend their time. Whether or not there is a "humane society" (say, a group of druids that objects to the use of dogs as meat shields) is somewhat outside of the situation. You can equally rule that dogs are allergic to dungeon mold and simply die when they go underground.

So if it can happen in the real world, I see no reason why an economic model can't be based upon expected behavior in the game world.

And equally if I can eat an orange IRL, then my character should be able to consume and derive sustenance from a baseball in the game. Obviously I'm not convinced that your analogies are good matches for the issue, but as you point out, this is a gray area.

And if a player finds an unexpectedly good use for something that is otherwise not in high demand, then I think it's OK for the DM to say that the economic model didn't fit this purchasing pattern and is collapsing.

As I discussed with another poster, if you want to establish a ceiling for how many dogs are in a give area, that's fine. First, I'm not sure if that ceiling really solves the problem, and that's a point I've been unsuccessful in really communicating. We're not talking about a million dogs, or even 100. My feeling (so far not substantiated) is that it would actually take far less of the pooches to actually cause the DM heartburn. I mean, how many traps are there really? Count up the traps in the tomb of horrors, and then tell me that there aren't that many dogs around. So IMO to accomplish what the PCs want, it's not like being described. It's much easier, and requires a much less plausible response on the part of the DM. In addition, PCs are much less housebound, and much more wealthy than you or I. The differences between your analogy and the situation IMO are substantial.

Even as a player who could get screwed out of buying a bunch of dogs, I can still see the DM's logic in limiting it. So, maybe a different tactic for making your point would be good?

The "respect for the players" issue was a big part of why I started with this, so since we agree on that, I should be content. Everything else is just the baseball-oranges situation, and if what I said isn't making the case I really don't know that I have anything else.