Anyone importing 4E’s’Used gear sells for 1/5th if at all’ to other RPG systems?

[Wisdom Penalty]

Actually, yes. That IS how it is in 4e.

Um, no.

 

[justanobody]

Well you wrote it down incorrectly.

When characters have magic items to sell, a travelling merchant is in town - or will be soon - to take it off their hands.

Quoting things incorrectly and out of context? Anything to prove your 4E hate I guess.

Wow. I paraphrased so my handwriting fit the index card.

Thanks for the page numbers and full section so ALL can see it for themselves that have the book.

The point remains that the book says exactly what I said it does.

Merchants are just always around willing to buy things at 20% in 4th edition.

So how do you translate this to other editions/games that may not have these traveling merchants?

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

I called someone.

Ghostbusters?

You want the part I am talking about, then where you got that quote was the right section.

Turn back a page or two and read the section on Commerce my DM told me.

Then present the portion that resembles the quote I gave from my index card.

I think you mean p. 154. It states that PCs can't (usually) sell magical items in villages, but that a traveling merchant could be in town (or soon would be) to take higher end pieces of gear.

This is a nod, my little friends, to 4e's implied PoL setting.

Let me see if I can break this down: There isn't a 3e magical Wal Mart in town. There never will be. If you want to buy and trade magical items (and your DM is OK with that), then you most likely will be handling transactions with traveling merchants that specialize in such services.

Got it? Good. 'Cuz this whole line of absurdity was becoming somewhat boring, which is even worse.

WP

 

[delericho]

The point remains that the book says exactly what I said it does.

Merchants are just always around willing to buy things at 20% in 4th edition.

Look, I'm really not a fan of 4e (my group tried it and decided it's not for us), but that's absurd.

The passage you quoted is clearly intended as advice to the DM.

The thing is, the DM controls the environment of the game. When the PCs have items to sell, the DM can either rule that the means for them to do that are available (if he deigns to be helpful), or not (if he decides to be awkward). The DMG advocates that, barring a good reason to the contrary, the DM should "say yes", and enable the PCs in their chosen action. In this case, this means being able to sell the items, with the stated justification being that a travelling merchant 'just happens' to be in the area.

Surely that's not too much of a stretch.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

As for what I meant, I found 50% to be the "fairest" value to use since I decided I would prefer keeping price negotiation in the back ground rather than have my players slow the game down with doing it to get the most profit.

The fact that it slows the game down is what keeps my players from doing it. They, like me, would rather spend our time at the table adventuring.

20% would encourage players to want to barter/negotiate for better prices/profits. IF they have any sense of numbers. For example, when they go clear out that evil hidden temple defended by 25 clerics and fighters wearing Full plate mail and heavy steel shields. If they realize the value (1,000 GP each for the plate, and 25 GP for the shields in the game I use/run) that is 25,000 GP in Plate and 500 GP in shields. So if they have any brains they will realize 20% of that sucks, and 50% of that is much better, and 80 to 100% of that would be even better.

By that logic, why didn't they spend time trying to get 100% or more of the value in previous editions? I'll answer from my experience: Because those were the rules. And 50% has become the accepted norm over a long period of time. That's seems to be the crux of why 20% seems unfair. Purely metagame reasons IMO.

So I tell my players I give them 50% with no time spent role playing the negotiations, setting up a store, etc... Most of the time they accept the 50% just to allow the game to move on. If I offered 20% they will be far more likely to want to role play getting better prices.

Not IME. Just like I told my players 50% in the past, I've told them 20% now and they have no desire to spend any game time haggling for a better price any more than they did in the past. Both are artificial numbers. Both make people ask the question "If I have to pay full, why can't I sell for full" but in the end adventuring is commonly more enjoyable to players than haggling.

Most games I have run usually has at least one person who understood economics/retail well enough to do some smart things to maximize their return.

Retail? Give me a break! That comment alone smacks of the MagicMart complaint that cropped up since the inception of 3E. 4E's default setting is PoL. Travelling merchants brave the wilds to sell their wares. Buyers are hard to find because only Heroes have the money and they are a rare breed. The "shinier" the stuff a merchant carries, the bigger a target. There is no real great correlary to the real world, except the fences that deal in the dangerous world of the modern day criminal. And fences in the real world don't pay 50%, in fact 20% may be a generous average.

So to try and avoid all this time role playing "Debits and Deficits" I just assume they do bargain and give them what would be the "average" with such an assumption.

They've played a game of chicken with you then and you've caved. Why would any smart player want to play "Debits and Defecits" instead of adventuring? And why would a PoL economy work like "Debits and Deficits?" Being a travelling merchant band in 4E could be a campaign all in its own.

Realistically, once you figure out a few realities of the "business" you will get closer to 100% of retail much more often than they would get as low as 50%, let alone 20%.

Yep, just find the neighborhood MagicMart. There's one on every corner!

So by just going with 50% your giving much closer to what "reality" will give them without role playing it. Hence why I worded things the way I did.

Modern safe realty. Walmart and mega-malls reality. Not a dangerous PoL world where monsters are everywhere and any MagicMart would be quickly looted by the nearest dragon to stock his hoard. "All these great magic items in one place? How did a Great Red Wyrm such as myself ever grow his hoard without MagicMart?!"

Now if you have a bunch of players who just don't care and don't grok the numbers game, then you can get away with 20%. Still, I feel guilty doing that, because I am in essence counting on them being "stupid", or to put it nicley, not knowing better.

"Stupid" = "Doesn't agree with Treebore?" Call me Stupid. Vyvyan Stupid Basterd at your service.

Plus when deciding how much their treasure is, I take the value of such equipment into account, so it isn't like they would get more. In fact I like it when I give them only 300 GP in coin, since they will get 12,500 GP from the plate mail being sold.

Then you haven't really changed anything, except to make it easier to decide to seel an item than to find a use for it. Exactly what I came to hate in 3E.

Which also makes much more sense to me. Evil Temples, Castles and other fortifications would have most of an NPC's wealth sunk into these structures. Either in beautifying them, equipping the henchmen with the best possible, buying procuring suitable monsters, etc... is where all the wealth will be. Comparatively very little will be in loose coin. IT will be in art, gold utensils, gold candelabra's, jewelry, magic items, armor, weapons, fine clothing, fine bedding, fine furniture, not coinage. Plus, the bigger the item is, the harder it is for someone to come in and steal. Especially a well guarded/patrolled location.

"Art, gold utensils, gold candelabra's, jewelry, fine clothing, fine bedding, fine furniture" = All sellable at full value. Because their value is only, well that they are valuable.

"Armor, weapons" = Sellable at 20% if allowed by the DM. (Which I do, because I agree that it should be sellable. The rules give the option at the DM discretion.)

You don't ever have to give out coinage if you don't desire.

 

[justanobody]

Look, I'm really not a fan of 4e (my group tried it and decided it's not for us), but that's absurd.

The passage you quoted is clearly intended as advice to the DM.

And when was this exact advice ever needed prior to 4th edition with its creation of only being able to sell things at 20% value?

Do you think the two are completely unconnected in their symbiosis within the system?

Game A: You can sell a magic item for 100% of its value, but have to hunt and find someone to sell it to that may or may not be around for the next few weeks/months/years of game time.

Game B: You can sell a magic item for only 20% of its value, but someone is always around willing to take it from you and give you the money.

Do you not see the thought process behind this concept and why the two are specifically intertwined with each other within the system.

Would you prefer:

Game C: You can sell a magic item for only 20% of its value, but have to hunt and find someone to sell it to that may or may not be around for the next few weeks/months/years of game time.

The worst of both worlds....

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Game A: You can sell a magic item for 100% of its value, but have to hunt and find someone to sell it to that may or may not be around for the next few weeks/months/years of game time.

Game B: You can sell a magic item for only 20% of its value, but someone is always around willing to take it from you and give you the money.

Game C: You can sell a magic item for only 20% of its value, but have to hunt and find someone to sell it to that may or may not be around for the next few weeks/months/years of game time.

Let's add:

Game D: You can purchase whatever item you wish at the local store. In the unlikely event it's out of stock, you can expend memories of past exploits (i.e., experience points) to fashion said item.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Wow. I paraphrased so my handwriting fit the index card.

Thanks for the page numbers and full section so ALL can see it for themselves that have the book.

The point remains that the book says exactly what I said it does.

Merchants are just always around willing to buy things at 20% in 4th edition.

So how do you translate this to other editions/games that may not have these traveling merchants?

And then you presented your paraphrasing as the real deal to prove your point. The book doesn't say what you "quoted." It says that travelling merchants are necessary for trade in a PoL setting and are very common. So it is highly likely that one will already be in town or one will soon be in town.

I wouldn't translate 4E's 20% economy into any other game, but this thread has gone OT and into the path of stating that 20% is "stupid" even in the context of 4E.

If you are running 4E and your game deviates from the default setting then you will have to make choices about how this effects different aspects of the game. Lets take other 4E settings. Forgotten Realms from what I gather has been turned into a PoL setting via cataclysmic events. Will Eberron keep the 20% rule? Maybe, but then the designers of that campaign setting would need to explain why. (Disclaimer: I am not a avid reader of Eberron material, so I don't know if Eberron is already considered to be PoL. I don't think it is, but I'm no expert.)

 

[Fifth Element]

Game B: You can sell a magic item for only 20% of its value, but someone is always around willing to take it from you and give you the money.

Well, if game B also has the following advice, maybe it's not so bad. I'll quote it for you, since you apparently do not own a 4E DMG.

The game still works if you decide that magic items can't be bought and sold in your world. Characters can rely entirely on rituals to duplicate the economy of buying and selling without money changing hands.

Sounds more and more like these DMG quotes are advice to DMs, rather than the "the game must work this way" you seem to be peddling.

 

[delericho]

And when was this exact advice ever needed prior to 4th edition with its creation of only being able to sell things at 20% value?

There is a subgroup of DMs that have a long-standing tradition of being awkward about such things. They bog the game down for weeks as the party have to traipse around looking first for a sage to identify their hard-won loot, perform some mini-quest to persuade the sage to help them, then get a maddeningly vague answer, so spend yet more time, until they finally ascertain that it is, in fact, a long sword +1. Then they get to go through a whole other set of mini-quests to find a likely buyer, then more quests to find the items they want to buy in turn, and on and on it goes...

4e has therefore states and restates the "say yes" philosophy. Let the PCs identify the item quickly. Let them sell it, if they so choose. Let them buy the items they want instead, or take wish-lists and have them 'just happen' to find the perfect items down the line.

So, no, I don't think the statement about the availability of merchants is connected to the 20% asking price. I think it's connected to the 'say yes' philosophy of 4e.

Game A: You can sell a magic item for 100% of its value, but have to hunt and find someone to sell it to that may or may not be around for the next few weeks/months/years of game time.

Game B: You can sell a magic item for only 20% of its value, but someone is always around willing to take it from you and give you the money.

If 4e provided a mechanism for haggling to get more than the 20% indicated then I'd agree with this suggestion, but it does not. The Skill Challenge solution suggested in this thread would be a perfect way to handle this, but it is not discussed in the rules.

Would you prefer:

Game C: You can sell a magic item for only 20% of its value, but have to hunt and find someone to sell it to that may or may not be around for the next few weeks/months/years of game time.

No, I prefer:

Unless the DM has a good reason to be awkward about the disposal of loot, then a merchant 'just happens' to be on-hand to sell it to, so we can get back to actual adventuring. Whether we get to sell it at 20%, 50% or 100% of the list price, or have to engage in some form of haggling (whether role-play-based on roll-play based) is orthogonal to the discussion.

And, yes, I consider the 'say yes' philosophy of 4e to be one of the better pieces of advice in the game, although I tend to read it as "say 'yes, but...' or 'yes, and...', or say 'yes', unless..." There is no value to the DM being awkward about things just for the sake of being awkward.