3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[The Shaman]

Now, since no one else is making sunrods, why wouldn't I stop for a year and crank out sunrods at 1000% profit?

Because it's blatant metagaming, perhaps?

 

[Hussar]

???

Hrm, I have a skill which allows me to craft sunrods - alchemy. The DM has not changed the rules for this skill to my knowledge. I ask the DM if this skill has been altered and, just for the sake of arguement, let's assume it hasn't.

So, my character has the skill and ability to craft an item of incredible utility, that no one else is making available, but, if I use that skill to make money, then I'm metagaming.

How does that work?

Sorry, but if a person has an ability to do something that no one else can do and that thing is valuable to other people, he's going to make a killing doing it. That's not metagaming, that's pretty basic economics.

Wizzie: Hrm. I'm pretty poor right now, so I guess I should get out there and make a bit of money. Let's see, I can tag along with these guys and try to see what fortune I can make, or I can take this nifty little trinket that I know how to make, crank out a bunch of them and make ten times as much money as these poor schlobs are ever going to make. I think I have a better idea. Hey, big fighter dude, I want hire you as my bodyguard. You other two, you'll be delivery boys, and I'll pay you 50 gp each per day.

Rest of party: No way! Forget that. We don't want easy money. We want to go into terrible danger to earn a pittance. Come on, forget all that wealth, let's go mug orcs for coppers.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just as a question, what is your reason for cutting xp in half?

Cutting XP in half performs two major functions.

(1) It slows character progression.

(a) The core rules assume (essentially) that a character can go from 1st level to 10th level or higher within the course of a single game year. If this was the case, then there should be a lot more high-level adventurers out there than there are in most core-assumption campaigns. To me, this is more ridiculous than the cleric taking a year off to make torches for profit.

(b) Also, the rate of progression in RAW D&D prevents players from truly understanding/utilizing the abilities they have before they have a whole new slew of powers to learn. Slowing things down allows PCs to better understand the strengths and limitations of their characters. On this subject, I recently ran WLD using full XP progression. At first, as the PCs gained levels quickly, they were pretty happy. Eventually, however, the players themselves began to agree that the slower rate of progression was better for them.​

(2) It lowers the amount of magic available in the campaign.

Call it "low magic item" if you like, but fewer XP means fewer magic items crafted means less magic available. PCs have to rely upon their characters more and their characters' stuff less. To me, this is a good thing.

As for the cleric sitting on his duff and cranking out continual flames:

(a) Hasn't happened yet. The players, surprisingly, are more interested in adventuring than commerce. Oddly enough, though, I have had players want their PCs to go fishing with the intent of selling the fish for profit. Go figure.

(b) Perhaps you missed the part where I said "I am using a setting that, by WotC standards, is definately low-magic and low-wealth" (emphasis mine). Good luck finding the people willing and able to pay for your continual flames at 1000% profit. Could you make a profit? Yes. Could you make the profit you are implying? No.

(c) IMC, clerics gain their spells from gods, and are most often part of organized hierarchies that might have something to say about their activities. In other words, how much of the profit you make is yours, and how much belongs to the Church? Divine spellcasting is not considered to be your own ability. You have a liege/vassal relationship with your god(s).

(d) You also apparently missed the part where I said, "Some spellcasters in the past have caused problems that cause people to look down upon them." Genetically modified foods may (or may not) be perfectly safe, but that doesn't mean that everyone is comfortable with the idea. Now, remove the easy transfer of ideas that the modern era creates and add the fact that the genetically modified foods have, in the past, gotten up and eaten the farmers. Continual flame may be perfectly safe (and even without changing the RAW, it may not be if after a time the flames attract fire elementals, for example, or ethereal filchers), but how do you convince your target market of that fact? Show that you aren't burned by the flames? You're a spellcaster, though, and only the gods know what powers you might have.....!​

YMMV, of course, but I find that the core assumptions give rise to far worse logical inconsistencies. For example, if the standard XP and wealth progression is used, where is all the money coming from? Shouldn't epic characters be a dime a dozen? Why haven't they wiped out all the low-level monsters long, long ago? Or at the very least, consigned them to zoos or private reserves?

Etc., etc.


RC


EDIT: I should have mentioned the Guild System. You're going to need that fighter bodyguard.

I also should have mentioned that I view this as a perfectly valid idea, and I would be happy to let the PCs try it. If they work out the kinks and make a ton of cash, good for them. The game isn't, for me, about preventing the PCs from coming up with good ideas.

RC

 

[The Shaman]

That's not metagaming, that's pretty basic economics.

Yes, unless your group set out to play Sunrods and Speculators, it is metagaming.

Did you sit down at the table to play a fantasy adventure game, or to figure out ways to break the game-world's economic system?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

From an in-game perpective...the guys who make a lot of money producing and selling lamp oil, tar torches and candles.

On another angle, I could see plenty of adventures arising just from that priest trying to stay out of the grasp of several guilds and shady organizations, who want to keep him producing that stuff...for them only.

Not to speak of the inquisitors of his own church, who have a few pointed questions about why he started selling the magics that were so far only used to lighten the sacred temples without the need for oil or candles.

 

[The Shaman]

From an in-game perpective...the guys who make a lot of money producing and selling lamp oil, tar torches and candles.

On another angle, I could see plenty of adventures arising just from that priest trying to stay out of the grasp of several guilds and shady organizations, who want to keep him producing that stuff...for them only.

Not to speak of the inquisitors of his own church, who have a few pointed questions about why he started selling the magics that were so far only used to lighten the sacred temples without the need for oil or candles.

One point that seems to get missed in the discussion of magic's implications for the game-world is that "logic" is highly subjective when talking about cultural systems - "the market" is only one factor affecting the availability of goods and services in an economy, as Geron Raveneye alludes to here.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Rasyr,.. yes 'core assumptions' are being bandied about.. and we all know what assuming means.

However, show up at a basketball court. Get some folks together to play some 5 on 5 and take the position of outside guard. Spend all your time working inside at the hoop and when the rest of your team complains tell them its your style.

If I sit down at your DnD game, I will assume that certain things work the way the rules say they work. I will assume that a +9 ride skill and certain feats will be more than enough to make me a heroic mounted combat machine.
Then, in play, I learn that a quickmount manuever is impossible for my character to accomplish....meaning I cannot chase down the Expiditious Retreating BBG ? Eh?
My assumption that quickmount DC 20 is something my mounted focused character can do with about a 50% chance of success. This is based on the rules of the game.
Or that the Mage {Dex 10, no Ride skill } fights from horseback just as well as I can....?
Your style of not allowing quickmount, for whatever reason, makes me wonder why I bother spending points in Ride in the first place.
And for the record, I had a game that this very thing happened.

Players will get argumentative and throw rules in the DM's face when they had made decisions based on rules that have been changed/altered or completely ignored without thier knowledge.

Earlier editions did not suffer this as much because the ruleset was so full of holes, houseruling was expected. There was very little the player could assume when walking up to the table. This made moving from one game to the next difficult and sometimes impossible.
3x is a common ground where movement from game to game should be easy.

I have to agree with the CrowKings reasoning, my game started at 100% xp just to get them out of the early death levels, and has scaled back to 60% at 3rd level.. probably scale farther back as they hit 6th.

As to the economics... logic cannot really come into play. Recently had a chance to talk to one of my players about his Monk's goals. He mentioned starting a monestary in the local area.. to which I had to ask for him to change his mind. We had just finished a by the book module {core wealth level treasure award for 4 PC's split between 9} and he could have pulled off his 'long term' goal right there and then. Another character took Brew Potion and can spend a day to make a Cure Light potion..for a RAW cost of 1 xp and 50 gp... The only reason she did not retire an make potions for the rest of her life was that she would have to move to the cities to find clientele who could afford them... and RP considerations as she is hunting her fathers killers to bring them to justice.

Anyway.. I find myself agreeing with the comments on this thread.. from all parties. I think its more of a communication issue than anything else at this point Seems that some folks {myself included} are bringing our assumptions as to how this system is supposed to work to this thread!

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Anyway.. I find myself agreeing with the comments on this thread.. from all parties. I think its more of a communication issue than anything else at this point Seems that some folks {myself included} are bringing our assumptions as to how this system is supposed to work to this thread!

I actually think this is one of those discussions where most participants are actually on the same general paper about the topic at hand, and simply present their own, unique point of view. Quite nice to read, and to be part of.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, unless your group set out to play Sunrods and Speculators, it is metagaming.

Did you sit down at the table to play a fantasy adventure game, or to figure out ways to break the game-world's economic system?

While I agree with the others above that we are all generally on the same page, I really do have to disagree with this one. How is using a skill exactly as it is presented in the RAW metagaming? If I wanted to use Craft Alchemy to make gunpowder, then, fine and dandy, spank me hard for metagaming. But, in this case, I'm using a skill precisely as it is written in the RAW. The only thing I'm changing is the amount I would charge people.

My point isn't that the players should or will do this. My point is that this idea is perfectly valid and SOMEONE would obviously think of it. As soon as one person person figures this out, you have a cottage industry on the go. There's no reason someone wouldn't clue into this and start making money. The basic premise that particular items are not available doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless the method for creating those items change.

I would also point out that the original poster didn't mention any in game reasons for preventing a cleric or mage (not necessarily a PC, but any cleric or mage) from setting up shop and doing this. If there are reasons why they cannot do this, and those reasons are known, at least to the DM, that's fine. But, simply saying, "Well, no one would do this, because if they did it would screw up my campaign" is not a particularly well crafted house rule.

 

[Berandor]

Before I'll rejoin this discussion by reading the past two pages, here's a quote from "Heroes of Battle" that I find relevant to this thread:

On the topic of "Leader Feats" (p.96)

Since all leader feats include Leadership as a prerequisite, their presence in the game is subject to the DM's approval.

Thereby suggesting that all other new material is not subject to DM's approval, otherwise this sentence (in a sidebar, no less) should have been redundant. Heroes of Battle also features introductions to topics like "recognition points" with sentences such as "Chapter 2 included information for the DM about how to structure an adventure with recognition points. The actual rules are included here so players know how much points they get for certain actions" (not direct quote).

Those phrases can surely put some pressure on (especially newish) DMs.