Buying magic items vs. finding magic items

[Alzrius]

Pretty much it does. I'll spell it out: near everything existing in the world has a market associated with it, even poisons, trash and nuclear waste. I can go to Mexico City and buy mosquito eggs to eat. Herring sperm- at least at one point in time- was the primary source of ingredients used to make the drug AZT. Given time, if something exists, there will be some kind of commerce associated with it. The Pinto was just an example.

Which is a nice theory, but if you can't ever find anyone who agrees with the market value you find in something, then the practical impact of that value is nil. It's a theory that never becomes a reality, and so Otis the farmer can't ever sell that robe, no matter that someone somewhere might want to buy it.

And

And

No, that doesn't jibe with the definition of "plausible." If the only person who believes what is being said (the GM), then the audience does not find it plausible.

Yes, that's the very definition of plausible, since the players also agree with it (hence why they're the players).

You're asking us to believe that a fundamental rule of economics is being globally violated throughout your campaign world. It is incumbent upon you to make it believable. You have not.

Incorrect. It's more correct to say that the theory of economics you've laid down is still technically true, but is facing such mitigating factors that it has no practical application in this particular area, due to whatever reasons the GM has laid down. That satisfies the burden of proof, unless you can raise some cogent objections to the reasons that the GM has given; to date, you have failed to do so.

Illegality is insufficient. Rarity- even uniqueness- is insufficient.

Incorrect, as stated before. If you can't find a buyer, then your item has no practical value (insofar as monetary worth is concerned), regardless of its theoretical market value.

Even before the advent of computers, steam engines and the rise of gunpowder, fortunes were being made finding, transporting & selling incredibly rare things all over Africa and the Eurasian landmass. There was even trade in magic items and religious artifacts.

Note the lack of factors preventing those things from being marketed. Add such preventative factors, and that won't be the case any more.

Some of that trade was pure fraud (as in, the seller was knowingly making false claims about the nature and origins ofwhat he was selling), but nonetheless, there was a thriving trade in everything from love potions to relics of the saints to pieces of the One True Cross. And actually, that fraud, in a very real sense, helped build the market. It satisfied the demand that wasn't being met by the "real" stuff.

That's a nice historical context that doesn't apply to a world with magic, monsters, and interventionist deities.

(And that's all without having people capable of scanning the world and teleporting themselves and others to go get them.)

And that's another presumption about what magic is available, how easy it is to use, etc. If you can make presumptions in favor of how you think the game world should operate, why can other people not make presumptions the opposite way?

Fair point conceded.

Thank you kindly.

If there is only one legend of a magic robe being told in an area, and its about a cursed robe, yeah. If there are any positive legends, eventually, you'll find a buyer.

(FWIW, I haven't seen that movie. )

The positive legend alone won't be enough, but that's beside the point. If we can see a situation where selling something isn't possible due to a certain set of circumstances, that's pretty much what I'm talking about in a nutshell.

And on a side-note, I wouldn't go see the movie just for that. It really wasn't that good.

See above. There was a thriving real world trade in magic items that didn't even exist. Much easier for one to arise when there are magic items that actually work.

How easy something is is presumptive. See below for more on this.

What practical reasons have you presented?

You mean leaving aside the aforementioned saga of Otis the farmer? There were also the examples based on unaffordable pricing, though I'll admit that those were based on the idea of market prices being absolute. Or the idea that people simply don't want an item(s) enough (e.g. negative legends) to render such sales impractical for the immediate area (how far that extends is also up to the GM).

This is without even getting into so many other ideas that are fairly easy to come up with. An Island of Terror in Ravenloft that has no foreign trade, and no spellcasters that can make magic items. A city-state in Dark Sun, where all magic items are contraband that are confiscated for the sorcerer-king and his templars. The list goes on and on.

None of these violate the idea of economic principles you keep restating; they simply point out that local conditions (and how "local" those are can vary from a town to a world, or beyond) can suppress actual activity in that sector to virtually nil, for any amount of time.

Again, your assertions that something is plausible does not make it so.

It doesn't make it not so, either. Plausibility is subjective to each individual.

 

[dafrca]

I don't understand; why does it have to be all or nothing? Why does it always seem to be buying magic items vs. finding magic items?

Couldn't there be a market for some levels of magic while others just are too rare to have a market?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which is a nice theory, but if you can't ever find anyone who agrees with the market value you find in something, then the practical impact of that value is nil. It's a theory that never becomes a reality, and so Otis the farmer can't ever sell that robe, no matter that someone somewhere might want to buy it.

Just because Otis doesn't know the robe is magical, it does not follow that he cannot sell the robe. It just means he can't sell it for the price of a magical robe. That is the "information" part of the equations that form the market. When imperfect information is had on either or both sides, price can vary wildly from expected market value.

An acquaintance of mine is one of those lucky individuals who bought a Picasso at a yard sale for @$5- it is currently on "permanent loan" to the local library (he couldn't afford to insure it in his house). Until he actually paid someone to appraise it, both he and the seller had imperfect information- they both thought it was not authentic, and so, it sold at a greatly discounted price.

Yes, that's the very definition of plausible, since the players also agree with it (hence why they're the players).

If your players actually agree that it is plausible, then you're good.

Incorrect. It's more correct to say that the theory of economics you've laid down is still technically true, but is facing such mitigating factors that it has no practical application in this particular area, due to whatever reasons the GM has laid down. That satisfies the burden of proof, unless you can raise some cogent objections to the reasons that the GM has given; to date, you have failed to do so.

Sorry, but you are the one making the extraordinary claim, and as such, the burden is yours. As yet, I've seen no mitigating factors that lay down a believable justification to kill meaningful trade in arcana.

Incorrect, as stated before. If you can't find a buyer, then your item has no practical value (insofar as monetary worth is concerned), regardless of its theoretical market value.

I'm 100% correct: talking from the historical economic perspective, there is no item so rare or so illegal that a market for it has been extinguished, to date. Even the most tightly controlled substances in our world- weapons grade uranium, bioweapons, etc.- have gone missing, sometimes in ton-sized amounts...even allowing for clerical errors, you cn bet there is someone out there who paid money to acquire those substances.

Finding a buyer is simply not the Herculean task you make it out to be. Finding a buyer willing to pay your price may be difficult, or even impossible, but that does not end the story unless you are absolutely unwilling to bargain for anything less.

And even your unwillingness to bargain only removes YOU from the active market: unless all who own a good that is economically equivalent, the buyer will ultimately be satisfied elsewhere.

Note the lack of factors preventing those things from being marketed. Add such preventative factors, and that won't be the case any more.

What are you talking about? What I listed makes trade easier.

That's a nice historical context that doesn't apply to a world with magic, monsters, and interventionist deities.

Of those three, the only thing that could 100% globally prevent trade in magic would be the latter. (Unless, of course, you mean that said interventionist deities a using magic to do so, in which case the first and last are functionally identical.)

And that's another presumption about what magic is available, how easy it is to use, etc. If you can make presumptions in favor of how you think the game world should operate, why can other people not make presumptions the opposite way?

The only presumption I'm making is that we're all talking about D&D RAW/RAI. Scrying and Teleporting just makes it easier for such trade to happen. Eliminating scrying and teleporting just gets us back to a world where commerce is about on a medieval level...which historically had active trade in things beloved to be magical on some way.

The positive legend alone won't be enough, but that's beside the point.

Actually, according to studies of both consumer psychology and gambling psychology, it is. Humans are TERRIBLE as risk/reward assessment. Given a blind choice between a good option and a bad option, or walking away, a very large percentage will opt to take a chance.

How easy something is is presumptive.

All I'm presuming is average D&D.

You mean leaving aside the aforementioned saga of Otis the farmer? There were also the examples based on unaffordable pricing, though I'll admit that those were based on the idea of market prices being absolute. Or the idea that people simply don't want an item(s) enough (e.g. negative legends) to render such sales impractical for the immediate area (how far that extends is also up to the GM).

Otis merely can't get full value for the magic robe- he can still sell it. And that next owner may recognize it for or learn what it is.

Unaffordability doesn't kill a market or prevent one from forming, because prices are variable.

(The legends thing was addressed above.)

This is without even getting into so many other ideas that are fairly easy to come up with. An Island of Terror in Ravenloft that has no foreign trade, and no spellcasters that can make magic items. A city-state in Dark Sun, where all magic items are contraband that are confiscated for the sorcerer-king and his templars. The list goes on and on.

None of these violate the idea of economic principles you keep restating; they simply point out that local conditions (and how "local" those are can vary from a town to a world, or beyond) can suppress actual activity in that sector to virtually nil, for any amount of time.

Ravenloft cuts off a lot of things via a big "Magic makes it so!". I'll grant that one- it's equivalent to why a dragon can fly.

DarkSun's assumptions just means the trade in magic goes underground, it doesn't eliminate it.

 

[Alzrius]

Just because Otis doesn't know the robe is magical, it does not follow that he cannot sell the robe. It just means he can't sell it for the price of a magical robe. That is the "information" part of the equations that form the market. When imperfect information is had on either or both sides, price can vary wildly from expected market value.

Which effectively takes it out of the realm of this particular discussion, since if it's being sold as a non-magical robe in a market for non-magical robes, then it is - insofar as the discussion of its economic marketability is concerned - not magical.

An acquaintance of mine is one of those lucky individuals who bought a Picasso at a yard sale for @$5- it is currently on "permanent loan" to the local library (he couldn't afford to insure it in his house). Until he actually paid someone to appraise it, both he and the seller had imperfect information- they both thought it was not authentic, and so, it sold at a greatly discounted price.

That's adding a new layer to the aforementioned dynamic of Otis though, since he's not going to find someone to appraise it, nor will he be able to sell it in the only market that he can feasibly interact with.

If your players actually agree that it is plausible, then you're good.

One should hope that your GM is good at GMing.

Sorry, but you are the one making the extraordinary claim, and as such, the burden is yours. As yet, I've seen no mitigating factors that lay down a believable justification to kill meaningful trade in arcana.

Incorrect. I've already satisfied the burden of explanation, which means that you need to show why it wouldn't be plausible. You have yet to accomplish this, since there's no real claim you can make that goes beyond "well it doesn't sound plausible to me," which shows nothing other than that people have different opinions.

I'm 100% correct: talking from the historical economic perspective, there is no item so rare or so illegal that a market for it has been extinguished, to date. Even the most tightly controlled substances in our world- weapons grade uranium, bioweapons, etc.- have gone missing, sometimes in ton-sized amounts...even allowing for clerical errors, you cn bet there is someone out there who paid money to acquire those substances.

This makes the fairly large presumption that just because something is true in real-world history, then it must follow in a fantasy world. Therein lies your error.

Finding a buyer is simply not the Herculean task you make it out to be. Finding a buyer willing to pay your price may be difficult, or even impossible, but that does not end the story unless you are absolutely unwilling to bargain for anything less.

Once you admit that it's impossible, that does by definition end the story, at least until you have some reason for changing the baseline assumption for why it's impossible (which can be anything from "going somewhere else" to "overthrowing the gods").

And even your unwillingness to bargain only removes YOU from the active market: unless all who own a good that is economically equivalent, the buyer will ultimately be satisfied elsewhere.

If they can't get elsewhere, they won't be satisfied (presuming that somewhere else even offers satisfaction).

What are you talking about? What I listed makes trade easier.

Which is sort of the point - the example you listed works because it has no preventative factors that stop it from working. If you add a plausible reason that such trade wouldn't have worked, then the example falls apart. That's the joy of a fantasy world - you can add such preventative measures as you like, and they're easy to explain.

Of those three, the only thing that could 100% globally prevent trade in magic would be the latter. (Unless, of course, you mean that said interventionist deities a using magic to do so, in which case the first and last are functionally identical.)

You still focus on the idea that all such trade has to be stopped world-wide. It's entirely possible to depress trade to a near-total degree (e.g. 99.99%, for those fluke transactions that are so minimal as to not be anything but unique occurrences) in areas that are smaller (or larger) than a world.

The only presumption I'm making is that we're all talking about D&D RAW/RAI.

Which is a large part of your error right there. Every game world is unique, mostly because the GMs make them unique. That's the crux of what I've been talking about this entire time. If part of that uniqueness is that magic items are not commodities, that's just as valid as any other aspect of a campaign setting.

Scrying and Teleporting just makes it easier for such trade to happen. Eliminating scrying and teleporting just gets us back to a world where commerce is about on a medieval level...which historically had active trade in things beloved to be magical on some way.

Or, instead of just removing things that abet trade, you can add things that inhibit it.

Actually, according to studies of both consumer psychology and gambling psychology, it is. Humans are TERRIBLE as risk/reward assessment. Given a blind choice between a good option and a bad option, or walking away, a very large percentage will opt to take a chance.

Which, again, is a nice bit of real world information that is largely checked at the door when sitting down to run a game world where the NPCs do what the GM and the dice want them to do. If he says that the people of that particular country are exceptionally backward and superstitious about something, then they are.

All I'm presuming is average D&D.

See above; I'm presuming a GM that's creating a campaign where magic items aren't commodities, and saying that there's nothing inherently flawed with that.

Otis merely can't get full value for the magic robe- he can still sell it. And that next owner may recognize it for or learn what it is.

Unaffordability doesn't kill a market or prevent one from forming, because prices are variable.

(The legends thing was addressed above.)

The fact that you're not dealing with the item being magic in any tangible aspect was also dealt with above; this doesn't invalidate the premise of magic items not being for sale to any measurable degree as a market force.

Ravenloft cuts off a lot of things via a big "Magic makes it so!". I'll grant that one- it's equivalent to why a dragon can fly.

Right, which is sort of the point. Any aspect of the game world can be "because X makes it so."

DarkSun's assumptions just means the trade in magic goes underground, it doesn't eliminate it.

Or it does eliminate it, because the controlling forces are actually that good at controlling them.

 

[SkidAce]

I may never have an obvious way to buy a magic item in a campaign world, but I will never say it is impossible to buy a magic item in that world.

This is cosmic truth! Well said.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which effectively takes it out of the realm of this particular discussion, since if it's being sold as a non-magical robe in a market for non-magical robes, then it is - insofar as the discussion of its economic marketability is concerned - not magical.

Only if you further assume it never leaves the area in which no one is sophisticated enough to ID it and nobody that educated ever enters that area.

That also assumes no legends are associated with the item. That may be true of a Robe of Protection +1, but if it was something inherently powerful or associated with a notable Mage who was lost in the battleground upon which Otis plants his fields, that may not be the case.

That's adding a new layer to the aforementioned dynamic of Otis though, since he's not going to find someone to appraise it, nor will he be able to sell it in the only market that he can feasibly interact with.

Not really. See above.

Incorrect. I've already satisfied the burden of explanation, which means that you need to show why it wouldn't be plausible. You have yet to accomplish this, since there's no real claim you can make that goes beyond "well it doesn't sound plausible to me," which shows nothing other than that people have different opinions.

Interventionist gods or a tightly bonded campaign setting like Ravenloft throw enough magic at the situation that I granted they could possibly warp or break those rules of economics, but beyond that, you really haven't met the burden of proof.

This makes the fairly large presumption that just because something is true in real-world history, then it must follow in a fantasy world. Therein lies your error.

Fair point.

However, you are asserting that your game world is so different that a basic law of economics operates differently from any observable example.

When this happens with a dragon, we have "It's magic" to fall back on. But for the Interventionist gods and Ravenloft which use the same loophole, everything else falls short.

Once you admit that it's impossible, that does by definition end the story, at least until you have some reason for changing the baseline assumption for why it's impossible (which can be anything from "going somewhere else" to "overthrowing the gods").

If they can't get elsewhere, they won't be satisfied (presuming that somewhere else even offers satisfaction).

Unless your item is unique or every other being with the same item sets the identical bottom-line price, a buyer will be able to find what he wants elsewhere. The market still exists & functions; only one single seller has removed himself from the market.

Which is sort of the point - the example you listed works because it has no preventative factors that stop it from working. If you add a plausible reason that such trade wouldn't have worked, then the example falls apart. That's the joy of a fantasy world - you can add such preventative measures as you like, and they're easy to explain.

Again, beyond omnipresent interfering magic barring the sale of magic, you don't have a believable preventative factor.

You still focus on the idea that all such trade has to be stopped world-wide. It's entirely possible to depress trade to a near-total degree (e.g. 99.99%, for those fluke transactions that are so minimal as to not be anything but unique occurrences) in areas that are smaller (or larger) than a world.

Name a single thing in this world that is freely sold in most places that is not part of a thriving black market where it's sale is suppressed.

Which is a large part of your error right there. Every game world is unique, mostly because the GMs make them unique. That's the crux of what I've been talking about this entire time. If part of that uniqueness is that magic items are not commodities, that's just as valid as any other aspect of a campaign setting.

To make something not a "commodity", by definition, you have to make it valueless. At best, the only valueless magic items are the cursed ones. (And I can see real reasons for people to pay money for a lot of different cursed items...)

Or, instead of just removing things that abet trade, you can add things that inhibit it.

What things?

Which, again, is a nice bit of real world information that is largely checked at the door when sitting down to run a game world where the NPCs do what the GM and the dice want them to do. If he says that the people of that particular country are exceptionally backward and superstitious about something, then they are.

So now you're changing basic psych too? And ignoring that gamblers are among the most superstitious subclass of persons out there?

Superstition has NEVER hindered the sale of arcana- usually, it enhances it.

See above; I'm presuming a GM that's creating a campaign where magic items aren't commodities, and saying that there's nothing inherently flawed with that.

Except that there IS something inherently flawed with that. See above.

The fact that you're not dealing with the item being magic in any tangible aspect was also dealt with above; this doesn't invalidate the premise of magic items not being for sale to any measurable degree as a market force.

I did deal with it: the longer the item stays in the market, the odds of it being recognized as magical continue to increase. (Asymptotically- there is never a guarantee that an item will be IDed.)

Right, which is sort of the point. Any aspect of the game world can be "because X makes it so."

The only reason why "X makes it so" when X = magic is because magic is the ultimate rule breaking bit of Handwavium. If X =/= magic, then X has a much more problematic task of "making it so" and still making sense.

Or it does eliminate it, because the controlling forces are actually that good at controlling them.

That would require perfect information and projection of power, which the rulers of DarkSun don't actually have.

 

[Alzrius]

Only if you further assume it never leaves the area in which no one is sophisticated enough to ID it and nobody that educated ever enters that area.

Neither of which are implausible assumptions (particular since that degree of "sophistication" to identify it would likely require some spellcasting ability), particularly if looked at only during a particular snapshot (e.g. "the present"). There's no requirement that either of these things be present (to say nothing of the fact that even if both of these things are true, that doesn't mean that such a person would ever have cause to identify the item anyway).

That also assumes no legends are associated with the item. That may be true of a Robe of Protection +1, but if it was something inherently powerful or associated with a notable Mage who was lost in the battleground upon which Otis plants his fields, that may not be the case.

Or it might not have any particular (positive) legends associated with it. You've already acknowledged that this could possibly be the case, which sort of proves my point - that there are some assumptions that can be reasonably made that would defeat a magic item having marketability for its magical nature/properties.

Not really. See above.

Indeed it does; see above.

Interventionist gods or a tightly bonded campaign setting like Ravenloft throw enough magic at the situation that I granted they could possibly warp or break those rules of economics, but beyond that, you really haven't met the burden of proof.

That does meet the larger burden of proof - I'm demonstrating that the burden of proof can be easily met by imagining anything that's specifically designed to meet it.

Fair point.

However, you are asserting that your game world is so different that a basic law of economics operates differently from any observable example.

When this happens with a dragon, we have "It's magic" to fall back on. But for the Interventionist gods and Ravenloft which use the same loophole, everything else falls short.

Whether or not it falls short is a matter of opinion, as using the "it's magic" reason can be indirectly applied rather than directly applied (e.g. there is no magic item industry because of X, which is because of Y, which is because of Z, which is because of "it's magic").

Unless your item is unique or every other being with the same item sets the identical bottom-line price, a buyer will be able to find what he wants elsewhere. The market still exists & functions; only one single seller has removed himself from the market.

Again, this ignores the host of practical barriers that can be thrown up to thwart this theoretical presumption. For example, the seller might not be able to get elsewhere to begin with.

Again, beyond omnipresent interfering magic barring the sale of magic, you don't have a believable preventative factor.

Incorrect. As previously noted, there can be a host of various factors (which need not be magical) working to make the practical production/purchase/sale of something unfeasible - at least in a certain time and place - which can have various fantastic reasons propping them up, either directly or indirectly.

Name a single thing in this world that is freely sold in most places that is not part of a thriving black market where it's sale is suppressed.

This question is improperly based on the premise that a real-world example (or lack thereof) somehow proves anything related to a game world. This is inherently fallacious reasoning.

To make something not a "commodity", by definition, you have to make it valueless. At best, the only valueless magic items are the cursed ones. (And I can see real reasons for people to pay money for a lot of different cursed items...)

If you can't sell something, then it's practical value is nil, regardless of its potential market value. Again, having sound theory is no good if it can't be actualized.

What things?

Any of the reasons I've previously listed, for example. A populace (of any size) that universally doesn't want said item, restrictions on foreign trade (from political to magical), an ability for authorities to confiscate those items without fail, etc.

So now you're changing basic psych too? And ignoring that gamblers are among the most superstitious subclass of persons out there?

So your answer to the GM saying that a small thorp of people are too superstitious to buy something magical is "you're wrong?" That you know what his NPCs would do better than he does? In that case, you're not talking about psychology, save for the psychology of being something of a control freak in someone else's game.

Superstition has NEVER hindered the sale of arcana- usually, it enhances it.

See above. Run your own character and let the GM run the NPCs.

Except that there IS something inherently flawed with that. See above.

No, there isn't. Such things are a matter of opinion, and as such can't be called inherently (that is, objectively) wrong.

I did deal with it: the longer the item stays in the market, the odds of it being recognized as magical continue to increase. (Asymptotically- there is never a guarantee that an item will be IDed.)

No, you didn't. You admit that there's no particular guarantee that the item will be identified as magical (since that requires special abilities, e.g. detect magic), and so until such a time does come - which you admit it might not - its magical nature remains, insofar as its economic marketability is concerned, a non-factor. In essence, you're relegating the item to non-magical status.

The only reason why "X makes it so" when X = magic is because magic is the ultimate rule breaking bit of Handwavium. If X =/= magic, then X has a much more problematic task of "making it so" and still making sense.

Leaving aside that X stands for anything fantastic (e.g. gods, monsters, etc.) and not just magic, magic is not "rule breaking" in any sense other than the fact that it means things don't have to conform to how they are in the real world. That said, it's not necessary to change things, even drastically, and still have them make sense. You can just shrink the time and place being looked at enough, and throw enough mitigating factors onto it, and it will be true (see Otis for more on this).

That would require perfect information and projection of power, which the rulers of DarkSun don't actually have.

Incorrect. It simply requires greater information and projection of power than the people defying them can defeat/resist/escape.

 

[Umbran]

Alzrius, Danny:

What, exactly, are each of you trying to accomplish at this point?

 

[Alzrius]

Alzrius, Danny:

What, exactly, are each of you trying to accomplish at this point?

Well, I'm trying to do my part to create a better world for all of the people living in it.

...or did you mean by participating in this thread, specifically?

 

[Umbran]

Well, I'm trying to do my part to create a better world for all of the people living in it.

...or did you mean by participating in this thread, specifically?

I meant in this thread, specifically. Though, to be honest, the answer you gave is probably good enough for my purposes.

You might want to consider if the way you are discussing this topic actually accomplishes what you're trying to accomplish. It is possible to get stuck in a rut in such discussions, and I thought I'd take the moment to bust you guys out of it if you had.