D&D 5E Money in D&D Next?

[am181d]

I fully agree. Most items should cost coppers, high value weapons silvers. A single gold coin should be valuable and most persons will never poses one.

Can anyone explain why this is desirable beyond the pure aesthetics? Is this a matter of historical authenticity? Trying to stave off inflation? Or is there a more subtle point I'm missing? (This is a serious question. I know some folks feel strongly about this, but I don't quite understand the issue.)

 

[TerraDave]

Can anyone explain why this is desirable beyond the pure aesthetics? Is this a matter of historical authenticity? Trying to stave off inflation? Or is there a more subtle point I'm missing? (This is a serious question. I know some folks feel strongly about this, but I don't quite understand the issue.)

D&D went to an inflated gold standard way back when as a way of sucking up all that gold players get....(it was based on a gold mining camp, where a shovel might cost 50 times more then normal)

One problem it causes, besides making it hard to, say, use historical data or references (and they exist) is that it make copper and silver sort of useless. You have two coin types...and don't get much out of them. And you end up, say, "astral diamonds" as a result.

 

[howandwhy99]

TerraDave's right. The early stuff was supposedly based on borderland pricing. Everything was overpriced, but quick access to life risking, treasure seeking adventure was readily available too. Cities were had lower priced items, but pretty much only offered very low paying jobs for anything the PCs were trained to do. There you might be paid in coinage lower than copper.

Currency type ultimately is setting specific anyways. Know your value amounts, but you can trade ducks for donkeys if you wish.

 

[Li Shenron]

Back in the old days PCs acquired money for XP and to eventually build strongholds/temples/etc. In the more recent editions PCs acquire money to but magic items. With magic items and dominions in optional rules modules what will/should D&D Next have for PCs to spend money on by default?

It should have no default beyond a general list of prices for the equipment in the core book(s), and even that I'm not sure if it's really needed.

The usual prices for magic items make no sense in the context of a realistic world economy (which of course, if it was realistic it would probably have no magic...) but also there isn't a way to really model a fantasy world economy, so all prices for magic in 3e are based on metagaming design, i.e. balance the powers of such magic items against each other and create a level-based progression in the strength of a PC's equipment.

But if 5e does not want to force a default about how many (and how powerful) magic items you are suppose to give to the PCs in your game in order not to screw up different gaming groups' playstyles, then it probably needs to stay away from defining wealth defaults completely.

Anyway, it's very hard to balance the "value" between something meant to be used during an adventure (e.g. a magic sword) and something meant to be used between adventures (e.g. a castle).

 

[FireLance]

Back in the old days PCs acquired money for XP and to eventually build strongholds/temples/etc. In the more recent editions PCs acquire money to but magic items. With magic items and dominions in optional rules modules what will/should D&D Next have for PCs to spend money on by default?

I think 5e should not assume that the PCs will acquire any treasure at all, and hence, things to spend money on should be in an optional module.

 

[mlund]

Can anyone explain why this is desirable beyond the pure aesthetics? Is this a matter of historical authenticity? Trying to stave off inflation? Or is there a more subtle point I'm missing? (This is a serious question. I know some folks feel strongly about this, but I don't quite understand the issue.)

While the aesthetics are nice, the real issue is one of mechanical viability. Mike opened up quite a can of worms when he threw back towards AD&D's strongholds and followers system as a model for high-level play mechanics. Instead of a strict linear progression of personal dungeon-crashing abilities, high-level characters are looking at a less steep progression of monster-crushing power and more development into their influence over the wider world. This requires logistics that are heavily dependent on economics.

It isn't that you need super-detailed exchange rates, but when you start dealing with players raising armies, guilds, or trade networks and they are building towers, keeps, or towns then you at least need more separation between the economic tiers of goods and services than the "gold-rush boom-town gold standard" really provides.

Some editions of D&D had higher-level players routinely expected to find, craft, or buy items that's market price was set at something equivalent to the cost of an entire city. Others set prices on land and construction that were laughable as the entire gross domestic product of all the citizens in the kingdom couldn't pay to build the king's castle or the city's walls in a hundred years. Even worse, they set wage rates to a point where peasants either shouldn't be able to feed themselves or all should have been able to afford chain mail and long swords by the end of their first year farming.

These all tend to stem from the same problem of ignoring the lower tiers of currency, goods, and services. In a system were you expect peasants to deal in coppers, merchants in silvers, and nobles in gold a lot of these these problems diminish with minimal attention vs. systems where you can't buy a burlap sack of a loaf of bread without dropping gold coins.

- Marty Lund

 

[Li Shenron]

While the aesthetics are nice, the real issue is one of mechanical viability. Mike opened up quite a can of worms when he threw back towards AD&D's strongholds and followers system as a model for high-level play mechanics. Instead of a strict linear progression of personal dungeon-crashing abilities, high-level characters are looking at a less steep progression of monster-crushing power and more development into their influence over the wider world. This requires logistics that are heavily dependent on economics.

And it's probably not only economics... does it even make sense to assess how "realistic" is the gp price of a castle, if then we totally ignore how much time it should take to build one?

I am afraid that the typical way to deal with purchases (and sales) in RPG is that of totally ignoring time. You have 50000gp and want a castle (or a +N sword of XYZ, for what matters)? POP! Here it is, take away. Want to sell your 100000gp shield of unbelievable power because you were so unlucky to find it in treasure when you're a TWFer? No problem, it takes as long as striking the entry on your PC sheet.

It's not that this is badwrongfun. It just that it really feels quite stupid to claim realism in prices and then assume perfect therefore unrealistic economy dynamics :/ If you enjoy realism or simulationism, this is a half-baked cake, and if you don't then why bother?

I reiterate that if a group doesn't want this high level of realism, then the only reason to have prices is to balance the relative power of equipment options and (if wanted) the overall power per level of each PC's equipment, but this latter should be a variable chosen by the gaming group, not a default like in 3ed!

Then the problem is that castles, non-adventuring hirelings, armies and any other stuff that cannot be used in adventures, simply cannot be measured in costs with the same scale as magic items, weapons & armor and other adventuring gear. How useful is a castle or an army is too much campaign-dependent. In a traditional dungeon crawl campaign, those things are useless, perhaps not even worth a single gp. OTOH in a campaign that features ruling over a kingdom, those things are important, but it doesn't make sense that they rely on you going personally into a dungeon to scavenge for treasure, when you probably can have money from your land and businesses.

 

[mlund]

And it's probably not only economics... does it even make sense to assess how "realistic" is the gp price of a castle, if then we totally ignore how much time it should take to build one?

Labor and time are part of economics. Much of the cost involved in a castle isn't the price of the stones and the timbers - it's the cost of transport, masonry, and carpentry.

I am afraid that the typical way to deal with purchases (and sales) in RPG is that of totally ignoring time.

I think it is less ignored and more left up to the table. If the players and DM want to go into depth, they certainly can. If they want to just move on, they can do that to. I think the "just move on" school of thought applies more to equipment, though ("Let's get back to the action!") and less to the acquisition of real-estate, armies, and influence. I mean, there's nothing wrong with acquiring those things just for trophies, but people interested in such things often want to put those toys to use - and that requires a meaningful context of which time is no small part.

And I think that a small improvement in the amount of attention paid to just the internal economics is necessary for both "keeping score" and providing a "meaningful context" to things that aren't just adventuring gear.

I think the exchange of rare magical items for currency is an independent problem. The value of a +3 Longsword varies so much from buyer to buyer that it's ridiculous to try to hash out a Holy Avenger's weight in castles. It's a far different matter, however, to figure out the rough expense of building a small keep or grand tavern in terms of what a laborer's man-hours cost.

- Marty Lund

 

[Derren]

And it's probably not only economics... does it even make sense to assess how "realistic" is the gp price of a castle, if then we totally ignore how much time it should take to build one?

I am afraid that the typical way to deal with purchases (and sales) in RPG is that of totally ignoring time. You have 50000gp and want a castle (or a +N sword of XYZ, for what matters)? POP! Here it is, take away. Want to sell your 100000gp shield of unbelievable power because you were so unlucky to find it in treasure when you're a TWFer? No problem, it takes as long as striking the entry on your PC sheet.

It's not that this is badwrongfun. It just that it really feels quite stupid to claim realism in prices and then assume perfect therefore unrealistic economy dynamics :/ If you enjoy realism or simulationism, this is a half-baked cake, and if you don't then why bother?

I reiterate that if a group doesn't want this high level of realism, then the only reason to have prices is to balance the relative power of equipment options and (if wanted) the overall power per level of each PC's equipment, but this latter should be a variable chosen by the gaming group, not a default like in 3ed!

Then the problem is that castles, non-adventuring hirelings, armies and any other stuff that cannot be used in adventures, simply cannot be measured in costs with the same scale as magic items, weapons & armor and other adventuring gear. How useful is a castle or an army is too much campaign-dependent. In a traditional dungeon crawl campaign, those things are useless, perhaps not even worth a single gp. OTOH in a campaign that features ruling over a kingdom, those things are important, but it doesn't make sense that they rely on you going personally into a dungeon to scavenge for treasure, when you probably can have money from your land and businesses.

Dungeon crawling should not be the default game style like you say here but a speciality like ruling a kingdom. Something some groups can do but not the core of the game.
And without realistic prices gold becomes rather useless as the PCs carry so much of them that they can buy practically everything not a magic weapon which cost more than the net worth of whole baronies.

 

[Blackwarder]

I'm a bit concerned about the fact that there wasn't any discussion about the economy of the game world.

I really like ACKS way of thinking about it:
Check out part one: http://www.autarch.co/blog/starting-ground-upliterally
And part two: http://www.autarch.co/blog/starting-ground-part-ii

There are a bunch of other interesting posts about the economy in the game over there, worth checking it out.

warder