Intense_Interest
First Post
How can a person can argue that a 20% trade-in value is unacceptable yet a 50% trade-in-value is perfectly fine is beyond me. I make this statement because it betrays a faulty, irrational logic in the sense of Verismilitude, Aesthetics, and Narrative Control.
Therefore, if it is held that the gamist abstraction of 20% is somehow more or less "realistic" than the gamist abstraction of 50%, then what is really being argued here is that there is either a specific value or a set spectrum somewhere between or within the interviening 30% that is the One True Location of Verismilitude. Now while I can't personally attest that there isn't a "one true location of verismilitude" for a certain object when compared in comparitive comodity value, I can attest that a gamist abstraction in and of itself is not a "realistic" method.
First of all, we must consider whether any single dichotomy is desireable. Now, beyond the solipist argument that the adventuring group's pleasure is its own determinant, one must question the implied purpose of Adventuring- Killing Things and Taking Their Stuff. Both positions support a certain dichotomy, in that Killing things is hampered by spending time Scavenging, yet Taking Their Stuff implies that Leaving Treasure is antithetical.
However, if one is to believe that there is an exchange to be found, wherein the Treasure is a worth a certain value vs. Time spent Not Killing, then the reduction of reward on investment- when implied also within the reward system itself- will incentivize adventurers towards a more efficient spending of time. This is used by considering the granularity of value between certain rare, high-priority items (Magic Items) vs common, low-priority items (Clothes, Furnature).
Therfore, to make Treasure Treasure, one must incentivise the choice of things that are novel, worthy, and unique (and therefore valuble) over that which is droll, middling, and happenstance (therefore non-valuble). The group itself is the one that determines where it places itself in the spectrum of Scavange and Leave, but it is a stronger choice when built into the reward system.
Let me clairify the statement by noting that this is not an argument that the player has zero imput into his own action. We have agreed already that a hard-and-fast trade-in-value is a gamist construct, but we must also understand that the game itself is designed with a Narrative input- in that the Game Master can alter the reward based on the input of the player.
What this means when applied to the concept of Narrative Control is two-fold: first, that the true assumed value of the reward is contained within the 30% gap and to be outside the true assumed value is an insult to the player, and secondly that the value of the narrative exchange is hampered when set to a level that is lowerthan 50%.
To the first, allow me to suggest that implying that the value of a non-real object has a certain "intrinsic" value, not also determined by the GM's Narrative input (+5 Longswords? Common! +2 shields? Rare! Reason? <GM's Choice of Narrative>!) is hogwash.
To the Second, we must consider the three methods of reward within the game system: Levels and Treasure, with their granular counterparts XP and GP, along with Narrative accomplishment, wherin you earn control of the narrative (information to lead you on a quest, control over aspects of the narrative, affirmation of personal role choice)
Now, with a trade-in-value placed around 50%, the ratio of effect when drifting up or down in basis points is linear. However, when one places the trade-in-value at a further point from the mean, such as 20%, the worth of a 1000 Basis point shift is dramatically exponential; 50% to 150%, as in the example. This allows the GM to have a stronger narrative control in the game, as a smaller shift in basis points can have a greater effect without strongly wonking-out the reward.
When the GM is allowed a greater control of the narrative in this way, he can use it as a method to either lead the adventurers towards XP (e.g. Kill the Merchant, Compelte Quest for the Merchant) or towards GP (i.e. As Reward for a Quest, or Problem Solving) or also as a narrative accomplishment: in that one might have a trade in information through the shift in reward, or that the reward might be altered by the player's narrative control, or a choice between certain rewards as a way to affirm a role choice (i.e. selling to a friend for cheap instead of an enemy at profit).
For all, respectively, a trade-in-value that has a greater factor of narrative control- not specifically 20% but in that spectrum of numbers- is preferred.
1. Verismilitude
Strict trade-in-value numbers are already known that this is a "gamist" abstraction: A hard-and-fast approximation of what can be seen as an average return on investment, one that dilutes the "carry cost, protection cost, finding buyer cost, haggle ability" into an extremely rough estimate so as to support the background math of the system.
Therefore, if it is held that the gamist abstraction of 20% is somehow more or less "realistic" than the gamist abstraction of 50%, then what is really being argued here is that there is either a specific value or a set spectrum somewhere between or within the interviening 30% that is the One True Location of Verismilitude. Now while I can't personally attest that there isn't a "one true location of verismilitude" for a certain object when compared in comparitive comodity value, I can attest that a gamist abstraction in and of itself is not a "realistic" method.
2. Aesthetics
There is also, however, the argument based in aesthetics: that to make Treasure Treasure one must choose within a dichotomy between the adventuring group that Scavenges the Battlefield for Items and the one that Leaves Treasure on the Ground.
First of all, we must consider whether any single dichotomy is desireable. Now, beyond the solipist argument that the adventuring group's pleasure is its own determinant, one must question the implied purpose of Adventuring- Killing Things and Taking Their Stuff. Both positions support a certain dichotomy, in that Killing things is hampered by spending time Scavenging, yet Taking Their Stuff implies that Leaving Treasure is antithetical.
However, if one is to believe that there is an exchange to be found, wherein the Treasure is a worth a certain value vs. Time spent Not Killing, then the reduction of reward on investment- when implied also within the reward system itself- will incentivize adventurers towards a more efficient spending of time. This is used by considering the granularity of value between certain rare, high-priority items (Magic Items) vs common, low-priority items (Clothes, Furnature).
Therfore, to make Treasure Treasure, one must incentivise the choice of things that are novel, worthy, and unique (and therefore valuble) over that which is droll, middling, and happenstance (therefore non-valuble). The group itself is the one that determines where it places itself in the spectrum of Scavange and Leave, but it is a stronger choice when built into the reward system.
3. Narrative Control
There is, finally, the argument that the difference between 20% and 50% of trade-in-value is harmful to a player's narritive control: wherein the player's implied action concerning his reward is impinged upon by the DM.
Let me clairify the statement by noting that this is not an argument that the player has zero imput into his own action. We have agreed already that a hard-and-fast trade-in-value is a gamist construct, but we must also understand that the game itself is designed with a Narrative input- in that the Game Master can alter the reward based on the input of the player.
What this means when applied to the concept of Narrative Control is two-fold: first, that the true assumed value of the reward is contained within the 30% gap and to be outside the true assumed value is an insult to the player, and secondly that the value of the narrative exchange is hampered when set to a level that is lowerthan 50%.
To the first, allow me to suggest that implying that the value of a non-real object has a certain "intrinsic" value, not also determined by the GM's Narrative input (+5 Longswords? Common! +2 shields? Rare! Reason? <GM's Choice of Narrative>!) is hogwash.
To the Second, we must consider the three methods of reward within the game system: Levels and Treasure, with their granular counterparts XP and GP, along with Narrative accomplishment, wherin you earn control of the narrative (information to lead you on a quest, control over aspects of the narrative, affirmation of personal role choice)
Now, with a trade-in-value placed around 50%, the ratio of effect when drifting up or down in basis points is linear. However, when one places the trade-in-value at a further point from the mean, such as 20%, the worth of a 1000 Basis point shift is dramatically exponential; 50% to 150%, as in the example. This allows the GM to have a stronger narrative control in the game, as a smaller shift in basis points can have a greater effect without strongly wonking-out the reward.
When the GM is allowed a greater control of the narrative in this way, he can use it as a method to either lead the adventurers towards XP (e.g. Kill the Merchant, Compelte Quest for the Merchant) or towards GP (i.e. As Reward for a Quest, or Problem Solving) or also as a narrative accomplishment: in that one might have a trade in information through the shift in reward, or that the reward might be altered by the player's narrative control, or a choice between certain rewards as a way to affirm a role choice (i.e. selling to a friend for cheap instead of an enemy at profit).
For all, respectively, a trade-in-value that has a greater factor of narrative control- not specifically 20% but in that spectrum of numbers- is preferred.
