D&D 3E/3.5 3rd Edition Revisited - Better play with the power of hindsight?

[Thomas Shey]

But I don't accept that as given: See below.

The assumptions I'm making are:
1. The median income for characters of Nth level is N-squared gp per day. That applies to NPCs and NPC-class NPCs as well as to PCs and retired PCs. I drop the conceit that "1 gp is big money! Enough for an average 1st level NPC to live on for a week or more!"

I don't see any reason a PC has to follow that rule. That's at best a social construct, and PCs break those all the time. At a certain point luxury for luxury's sake is only what a subset of people who want money want; others happy to get enough and quit, and they can exceed what they'd make in mundane life as a PC relatively early.

Basically, I don't much care what the game theoretically tells you people of X level will want; it also tells you what various things cost, and you can cover pretty good ones much earlier and cheaper than those listed costs.

Now the "by the book" D&D background material tries to force the contradiction of D&D being simultaneously a Realm of Golden Glamor & Wealth and a Dung Age Place. If you really want to keep the second part, with its conceit of "1gp is enough for a 1st level peasant to live on for a week, 10 days, or even two weeks" then that calls for cutting my assumed figures by a factor of 10. And then yes, the wealth required to retire "rich" is cut down to something obtainable by a 5th level character with only a little more wealth grubbing than normal for 5th level adventuring.

And that's exactly my view.

But I find "1gp is a lot of wealth, in the mundane sense" to be an assumption that unnecessarily makes already-crazy D&D economics even more so. My judgment, my aesthetic sense - my taste, if you will - says to drop that assumption and so make things slightly less crazy.

That's your choice, but I'm talking about the listed prices, not what makes the economy make sense. The D&D economy has never made sense. As I said, I'm talking about what's already there.

 

[James Gasik]

We are talking about a game where you could buy a ladder and sell it as a pair of 10' poles to make a profit, right? I don't think a critical examination of how wealth works in 3.x is going to get anyone anywhere. The WBL rules exist as an attempt (not really a great one, sadly) to balance characters. It shouldn't be taken as representative of how actual wealth would function in-universe, because that way lies madness.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I don't see any reason a PC has to follow that rule. That's at best a social construct, and PCs break those all the time. At a certain point luxury for luxury's sake is only what a subset of people who want money want; others happy to get enough and quit, and they can exceed what they'd make in mundane life as a PC relatively early.

Basically, I don't much care what the game theoretically tells you people of X level will want; it also tells you what various things cost, and you can cover pretty good ones much earlier and cheaper than those listed costs.

Sure, a PC can always choose to spend only enough to live a modest or even an ascetic life. What they can't do is live that modest life while simultaneously claiming "I am living the life of a well-off member of the gentry; I am living the life of someone who is rich." At best, they can live a life of genteel poverty at that level of spending.

That's your choice, but I'm talking about the listed prices, not what makes the economy make sense. The D&D economy has never made sense. As I said, I'm talking about what's already there.

I look at the listed prices and conclude that living in modest comfort at those prices calls for an income of 1-3 gp per day, not 1-3 sp per day. If you want to set "can live comfortably at the listed prices" as representing someone unusually well off, or even outright rich, by the standards of the setting, rather than just living comfortably without being particularly well-off, then, well, that's your choice. You can force that interpretation on your game. But it isn't the only possible interpretation.

In particular, and getting back to my original point: Your interpretation is not the only reasonable standard by which to judge when an adventuring character can call himself rich and retire.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, a PC can always choose to spend only enough to live a modest or even an ascetic life. What they can't do is live that modest life while simultaneously claiming "I am living the life of a well-off member of the gentry; I am living the life of someone who is rich." At best, they can live a life of genteel poverty at that level of spending.

They're still rich as hell by the standard of most people in the setting. Millionaires are still pretty wealthy by most people's standards in our world even though they aren't billionaires and the latter wouldn't take them seriously.

I look at the listed prices and conclude that living in modest comfort at those prices calls for an income of 1-3 gp per day, not 1-3 sp per day. If you want to set "can live comfortably at the listed prices" as representing someone unusually well off, or even outright rich, by the standards of the setting, rather than just living comfortably without being particularly well-off, then, well, that's your choice. You can force that interpretation on your game. But it isn't the only possible interpretation.

The point is, I've seen characters that could live for several year even by your standard by the money they'd acquired by modest levels. It was even more common in the old days (the only reason 3e characters would have less was they had more that was relevant to their adventuring career to actually spend some of their money on).

 

[Voadam]

1. The median income for characters of Nth level is N-squared gp per day. That applies to NPCs and NPC-class NPCs as well as to PCs and retired PCs.

Is this a 3e DMG thing?

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Is this a 3e DMG thing?

No, it's a house-rule thing. 3e RAW implicitly assumes much lower incomes for NPCs.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

They're still rich as hell by the standard of most people in the setting. Millionaires are still pretty wealthy by most people's standards in our world even though they aren't billionaires and the latter wouldn't take them seriously.

Rich by the standard of most people in the settings you prefer. Those settings are not the only possible ones.

People living at the poverty line in the US are rich as hell by the standards of third- and fourth-world nations, or by 19th century standards. That doesn't make them rich in an absolute sense.

The point is, I've seen characters that could live for several year even by your standard by the money they'd acquired by modest levels. It was even more common in the old days (the only reason 3e characters would have less was they had more that was relevant to their adventuring career to actually spend some of their money on).

They can live comfortable lives for several years - that much we agree on. But we disagree about whether that level of wealth counts as "rich by any reasonable standard."

 

[Thomas Shey]

Rich by the standard of most people in the settings you prefer. Those settings are not the only possible ones.

Rich as hell by the standard of the price lists they provide. I'm not going to try and guess what every GM in the world changes those numbers to.

They can live comfortable lives for several years - that much we agree on. But we disagree about whether that level of wealth counts as "rich by any reasonable standard."

So you disagree. That doesn't change my position.