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

[Fifth Element]

Why would a merchant who payed 50% accept a lowball offer, but a merchant who paid 20% not do so?

With the unstated lower limit of your actual cost, it has to do with the nature of the item and why you wound up paying 20% versus 50%.

 

[Oni]

The 20% rule has to be one of the dumbest bits of 4e.

Of course no rules set is going to get everything right, and it's easily ignorable so meh.

 

[Raven Crowking]

With the unstated lower limit of your actual cost, it has to do with the nature of the item and why you wound up paying 20% versus 50%.

That is a non-answer.


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The 20% rule has to be one of the dumbest bits of 4e.

Of course no rules set is going to get everything right, and it's easily ignorable so me.

Why is it any dumber than 50%? Each set of designers set up some baseline math. Wealth by level in 3E was based on 50%, WbL in 4E is based on 20% If you change the base assumption you have to deal with characters that are above or below the baseline or adjust treasure to match your change.

I had no problem with 50% in 3E and I have no problem with 20% in 4E. The 20% in 4E hasn't changed the behavior of my players, they now just receive less for what they sell.

[And before anyone jumps on me for changing my position - My above posts were the way I explain the rules.]

 

[Fifth Element]

That is a non-answer.

So is "I already answered that question."

Anyway, I realize it's a pretty subtle bit of business theory here, and probably has no place in a D&D game. So I'll let it go.

 

[Oni]

Why is it any dumber than 50%? Each set of designers set up some baseline math. Wealth by level in 3E was based on 50%, WbL in 4E is based on 20% If you change the base assumption you have to deal with characters that are above or below the baseline or adjust treasure to match your change.

I had no problem with 50% in 3E and I have no problem with 20% in 4E. The 20% in 4E hasn't changed the behavior of my players, they now just receive less for what they sell.

[And before anyone jumps on me for changing my position - My above posts were the way I explain the rules.]

Because it's such an artificially low number it irritates the hell out of me. It just jumps up and screams, "Hey I'm just here to control the players, any kind of logic be damned!" Sure some merchant who's going to turn around and sell it again isn't going to offer you the market price, but 20%?

I realize it's just a game and games have artificial rules. Normally that doesn't bug me, for some reason this one does. Is that rational? Maybe not, but it is the way I feel.

A PC can never make an item to sell because he'll lose money? Will other adventurer's readily offer up their treasure if I off them a whopping 30% of the market price? Why the hell should they pay full price for a used item? What if they decide to set up shop? Evidently "PC's are different" means they financially inept, are complete dupes, and would be penniless were it not for their ability to slaughter others and take their money.

[edit: BTW I never actually said anything about the 50% rule in my first post, that was your own words in my mouth. A 50% hard limit is also kind of dumb, but I suppose more palettable because it's at least a more realistic number. I'm of the school of thought that what a PC can earn from their ill gotten gains is largely up to their own ingenuity and not an arbitrary number in a book.]

 

[malraux]

There's a good reason for merchants to use 20% though. Its the efficiency of the Disenchant ritual. And arguably, residuum is what a merchant would generally want. Its harder to fake, as its concentrated magic, far more flexible in usage, portable, etc. Sure he could stock items unconverted, but then they sit around taking up shelf space, requiring more guards, more difficult travel, etc.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So is "I already answered that question."

Not if you can cut and paste that answer.

Anyway, I realize it's a pretty subtle bit of business theory here, and probably has no place in a D&D game. So I'll let it go.

I'd be interested in an example, though, even as a private email. You're a smart guy, and I'm curious. I'm not looking to argue; I really can't see the thought process here.

ravencrowking at hotmail dot com.


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

BTW I never actually said anything about the 50% rule in my first post, that was your own words in my mouth. A 50% hard limit is also kind of dumb, but I suppose more palettable because it's at least a more realistic number. I'm of the school of thought that what a PC can earn from their ill gotten gains is largely up to their own ingenuity and not an arbitrary number in a book.

You didn't state your preference before. So I assumed it was the 50% rule since that seems to have been around for a long time before 3E.

If you see my previous posts I agree with you. I stated that the 20% sale value was the zero-effort value. With some ingenuity (which could be presented as a Skill Challenge) or effort (which could be presented as a side adventure), someone could get more.

My players don't want to put forward the effort. They would rather get their quick buck and move on to more interesting endeavors, in their opinion.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

There's a good reason for merchants to use 20% though. Its the efficiency of the Disenchant ritual. And arguably, residuum is what a merchant would generally want. Its harder to fake, as its concentrated magic, far more flexible in usage, portable, etc. Sure he could stock items unconverted, but then they sit around taking up shelf space, requiring more guards, more difficult travel, etc.

Yes, and the 20%, as others have noted, is mathematically implemented to "work" in 4E. That doesn't make it a good baseline for other editions or better than 50% in 3E, which is what the OP was asking about.