D&D 5E "Auction-style" magic shoppes

[TheCosmicKid]

You're preaching to the choir here when you say that such a rule is unenforceable, which is why I think it's such a bad idea.

But you're right - the 5e DMG seems to hint at more of a magic item economy than I'd realized, both on pages 129-130 and 135-6. So where did I see that there wasn't one at all? Something floated in playtest, maybe?

Lanefan

Deemphasizing the magic item economy was a major design goal in 5E. It may be you're thinking of that and just taking it to the extreme.

I DMed a party that did it this way once and it turned into a nightmare. One character always drafted the highest-value item on the list, no matter what it was, then would sell or barter it into what she really needed...and pocket the difference. She ended up stinking rich compared to the others in the party, leading to an imbalance it took years to correct.

This sort of situation is one of the reasons why the rules set sell prices so much lower than buy prices. She might have been further disincentivized by making the list of items available for sale short and highly volatile (much as CapnZapp is doing here), so she couldn't be certain whether she could find what she wanted. But fundamentally, given the world and economy you seem to have built, this sounds like perfectly logical behavior for an enterprising adventurer, and if her fellow adventurers have a problem with it, the onus is on them to work out a better system among themselves. Real-life pirates wrote up codes for the division of spoils, and presumably had to renegotiate them from time to time.

Also, a headache with items having lower sell prices than buy prices is that now every item has, in effect, two values - a low and a high. This can make equalizing treasury division very messy - is a claimed item given high value, or low value, or something in between?

Yet again, that seems like it's up to the characters to decide. Why should you as DM worry about it? Me, I just put the items in the dungeon. The PCs can share them, sell them, or kill each other over them -- it's an interesting story however it goes.

 

[CapnZapp]

I DMed a party that did it this way once and it turned into a nightmare. One character always drafted the highest-value item on the list, no matter what it was, then would sell or barter it into what she really needed...and pocket the difference. She ended up stinking rich compared to the others in the party, leading to an imbalance it took years to correct.

Let me assure you this has never been a problem for us.

That doesn't mean it can't be for you, only that please don't take it into account when evaluating my proposed system. In other words, base your evaluation on the assumption these kind of tendencies are either fixed or doesn't happen at all.

Also, a headache with items having lower sell prices than buy prices is that now every item has, in effect, two values - a low and a high. This can make equalizing treasury division very messy - is a claimed item given high value, or low value, or something in between? Every time an item is claimed, or a claim is dropped, everyone's share changes. It got so bad that I-as-DM eventually put my foot down and dictated (very artificially and arbitrarily) that the sell price and buy price of items would henceforth be the same (so, a single-value system), and that's still how I do it today.

Your system would maybe make this even worse, as an item might now potentially have many values. Ouch!

Lanefan

I truly am at a loss here.

I can't see where /in my proposal) you find lower sell prices than buy prices. Perhaps you're making assumptions that just aren't there...?

I suggest an item is always evaluated at half the list price. (As soon as you buy that +1 Longsword for 7200 gp, it is regarded as a 500 gp item for all purposes with no exceptions)

 

[CapnZapp]

One, nice work putting htis together. I don't agree with all the assumptions, but those are easy to change so that it works in a way I'm happy with (i.e. maybe rolling DIS on a d20 rather than a d12 etc).

Thanks.

That was actually my first thought: just as the intro price is d20 adv, the outro price is d20 disadv.

But in the end, that just means avg prices are many MANY times higher than the list prices. (They enter at Rating 13,5 and exit at Rating 8,5. Averagely speaking, of course. The variance is quite high. Translated, this pretty much means you need to pick up items as soon as you see them, which makes for especially high prices)

Of course, that might be just what you wanted

Two, I don't think the DM needs to worry so much about the players being concerned over division of spoils. Let's the players figure out how they want to do it. All the DM is doing is saying that prices are not fixed, the more you ask for something the less likely someone will buy it, the more you are willing to pay, the more likely you can get it. That's simple economics. No need to ever tell the players what the mechanic is behind the system!

Exactly. Just like how different WoW guilds handle "dragon points" differently, leave it up to the players.

Of course, as a good DM you might consider helping newbs out by an example system, but only if they can't make it work themselves.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Here's the multiplier expressed as a look-up table

I think you may have missed the second half of my proposal. If the table grows exponentially, and you express the demand for an item as a modifier to the rating rather than a "list price", then you don't even have to multiply: you can just move up and down the table. It's the magic of logarithms.

Try this one on for size. It's approximate to keep the numbers round, but grows about 20% at each step.

 1 ... 500 gp
 2 ... 600 gp
 3 ... 750 gp
 4 ... 875 gp
 5 ... 1,000 gp
 6 ... 1,200 gp
 7 ... 1,500 gp
 8 ... 1,750 gp
 9 ... 2,000 gp
10 ... 2,400 gp
11 ... 3,000 gp
12 ... 3,500 gp
13 ... 4,000 gp
14 ... 5,000 gp
15 ... 6,000 gp
16 ... 7,000 gp
17 ... 8,000 gp
18 ... 10,000 gp
19 ... 12,000 gp
20 ... 14,000 gp

If you give the longsword a +4 demand bonus, that means it will behave as though it's 20% more valuable than something with a +3 bonus, 50% more valuable than something with a +2 bonus, 75% more valuable than something with a +1 bonus, and twice as valuable as something with a +0 bonus.

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

The Auction System looks really fun and unique.

The only thing that I can think of suggesting is concerning the the shop Tier system. Having 10 shops - 1 tier I, 2 tier II, 3 tier III, and 4 tier IV - means that you will have to create 10 separate 'menus' and keep track of them independently for each individual shop that will be in individual locations. If each shop has 5 items on their menu, then that means you'll need to to roll and add to the spread sheet 50 items, plus about 5 more to have ready for when the items are sold/drop out. That feels like a Ton of prep work, especially for someone that isn't great with spreadsheets.

Have you considered "franchising" the shops by tier? so that all the tier IV shops are selling the same 'menu'. so if u go to shop A, and then to shop B, they're selling the exact same items, and when u buy them they get teleported to the shop. That way you only need to make one menu for each tier, and it makes it so you can add or subtract as many shops as you see fit without any repercussion. So if you decide that maybe it makes sense that a tier II shop would be in this new town, you can just plop it down on the spot without worrying about creating a new 'menu' or the ramifications of having 5 more tear II magical items in the world.

Also it'll completely prevent any City-Hopping-Shopping-Montages. It'll prevent the party from having to worry about going back to that city after every adventure because that one Player wants to see what the new price for that +1 Sword is now, or because they think they can afford it now. So instead of spending x days traveling back to the town, checking, and seeing its still too high, then spending x days to get back to where they were, you can just plop a shop in the town they are already in, so he can check up on the +1 sword.

Plus it'll really sell the feeling of items rotating and prices changing because every single time they find a tier III shop, they will see the different prices. If they find two new shops then they'll just see 10 new items, which just makes it feel like a regular Magic shop.

It's also less book keeping for the Players. They wont need to remember that "The +1 sword is in Tier VI shop in Waterdeep and not in Phlan. Phlan had the +1 axe, or was it the +1 spear and Phandelver had the +1 axe? let me check my notes." They just need to remember that a tier VI shop had it and there's tier IV shops in so-and-so cities.

You can also create two 'menus.' One can be a legitimate business and the other 'menu' can be a back market 'menu.' so you can have a "good" and "bad" set of magical items for sell.

The downside to system would be that it has a 'videogame' vibe to it. But if you can get past that it feels more streamlined and simple and requires less work upfront.

 

[Lanefan]

Deemphasizing the magic item economy was a major design goal in 5E. It may be you're thinking of that and just taking it to the extreme.

This sort of situation is one of the reasons why the rules set sell prices so much lower than buy prices.

Which opens up the problem of multi-valued items and their effects on treasury equalization. There's no win either way, I think.

She might have been further disincentivized by making the list of items available for sale short and highly volatile (much as CapnZapp is doing here), so she couldn't be certain whether she could find what she wanted.

My "shopping lists" are always random, and she had no guarantee...except when the item she really wanted was already in the party, either claimed by someone else or being sold for cash.

But fundamentally, given the world and economy you seem to have built, this sounds like perfectly logical behavior for an enterprising adventurer, and if her fellow adventurers have a problem with it, the onus is on them to work out a better system among themselves.

Oh, I absolutely agree. Problem was, it took something like three or four adventures for the rest of the party to clue in to what was happening, by which point the damage was done.

A new division method...or rather, a return to the same wealth-equalized division method we'd been using for years that they'd decided wasn't good enough...soon followed.

Yet again, that seems like it's up to the characters to decide. Why should you as DM worry about it?

It is up to the characters to decide, but I as DM still have to DM it, and referee the endless arguments.

Me, I just put the items in the dungeon. The PCs can share them, sell them, or kill each other over them -- it's an interesting story however it goes.

Ah, if only it were that simple.

I can't see where /in my proposal) you find lower sell prices than buy prices. Perhaps you're making assumptions that just aren't there...?

Stock market gambling, old friend...stock market gambling.

Scenario: party returns to a town they've been to several times before, and every time they're here they run a price check on available magic items.

Player: "Ms. DM, what's for sale in town at rock-bottom clearance prices? We'll check the same stuff we've been watching all along."
DM: <rattles off three or four items that have been on sale awhile, and whose asking price has dropped greatly over that time>
Player, after discussion with party: "Great! We'll buy the lot!" <some bookkeeping follows>
Player: "OK. Our next move, Ms. DM, is to take ship for (or teleport to) a faraway big town and there put all these items we just bought back on the market for their original way-high asking prices, and let them tick down until they're bought! We're gambling, you see, that they'll sell better there than they did here."
DM: <facepalm>

Lanefan

 

[Shiroiken]

Magic Item "Shops" have been a part of the game since 1E. While I'm no longer a fan, I think this is one of the best methods I've seen for 5E. I do have a couple of questions:

1) Do magic item shops ever gain more items? Presumably they have a rotating stock, since items are constantly getting sold off (otherwise, they'd be out of business). I might suggest a roll at the same time that you check for price reduction. The frequency might be based on the size of the shop, and the rarity of the new item.

2) How do the players sell unwanted magic items? If I have a +1 sword that's served me for most of the campaign, but then I find (or buy) a +3 sword, it's of little use anymore. Using your system, you might roll d12 with disadvantage (giving the equivalent of the minimum sell price), but I think that xd4, where x is based on rarity might work better.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think you may have missed the second half of my proposal. If the table grows exponentially, and you express the demand for an item as a modifier to the rating rather than a "list price", then you don't even have to multiply: you can just move up and down the table. It's the magic of logarithms.

I saw it, but I prefer to stick to the "science" of list prices (and the Sane ones at that).

And I would still have to convert the list price into a modifier.

So, since Calc handles all the work, it really isn't different either way.

One more thing (but this is more of a personal hangup than any substantive criticism): all items would slide on the same scale. At least with my set up prices would actually vary, so the same price tags don't repeat all the time (instead of 8,000 gp, 12,000 gp and 14,000 gp you might have 7200 gp, 11,700 gp and 15,050 gp)

---

Your system gels better with the original system, in that there really is no "real" price for the item. All "rare" items would start with the same modifier (or range of modifiers) for example.

PS. That completely loses all the work the Sane Crew has done to combat inexplicable things where a more powerful item is more common (and therefore much cheaper) than a less powerful item, even when they both do the exact same thing. If you're fine with the rarity system, that's not a big concern for you.

PPS. Thanks though for re-gearing my general idea into something directly compatible with the RAW

 

[CapnZapp]

Ah, if only it were that simple.

Stock market gambling, old friend...stock market gambling.

Scenario: party returns to a town they've been to several times before, and every time they're here they run a price check on available magic items.

Player: "Ms. DM, what's for sale in town at rock-bottom clearance prices? We'll check the same stuff we've been watching all along."
DM: <rattles off three or four items that have been on sale awhile, and whose asking price has dropped greatly over that time>
Player, after discussion with party: "Great! We'll buy the lot!" <some bookkeeping follows>
Player: "OK. Our next move, Ms. DM, is to take ship for (or teleport to) a faraway big town and there put all these items we just bought back on the market for their original way-high asking prices, and let them tick down until they're bought! We're gambling, you see, that they'll sell better there than they did here."
DM: <facepalm>

Lanefan

Sorry to be frank here, but it seems you needed to learn that lesson Lanefan. I really can't blame her...

Set the sell price (every price, really, except the purchase price) low enough so that is always lower than any purchasing price, and keep that unchanging for ever and ever, and all these shenanigans simply evaporate and you and the players can focus on adventure, not economics

 

[CapnZapp]

Magic Item "Shops" have been a part of the game since 1E. While I'm no longer a fan, I think this is one of the best methods I've seen for 5E. I do have a couple of questions:

1) Do magic item shops ever gain more items? Presumably they have a rotating stock, since items are constantly getting sold off (otherwise, they'd be out of business). I might suggest a roll at the same time that you check for price reduction. The frequency might be based on the size of the shop, and the rarity of the new item.

2) How do the players sell unwanted magic items? If I have a +1 sword that's served me for most of the campaign, but then I find (or buy) a +3 sword, it's of little use anymore. Using your system, you might roll d12 with disadvantage (giving the equivalent of the minimum sell price), but I think that xd4, where x is based on rarity might work better.

Thank you

1) Yes, the plan is that they gain more items. You could make it so they only gain more items when the players actually buy stuff from them, since this incentivizes them to actually rotate their gold instead of waiting for the Perfect Purchase, but I wouldn't make that an overt rule - I'd handle that invisibly behind the scenes and let the players themselves notice that the Shoppe they do business with gains a fresher stock than the others

The underlying ambition is for every character build (in the party at least) there should be a little something. Perhaps not at all times, but on occasion.

2) They sell any items at half the list price. Always, no bartering, no variance. It's like going to a money changing machine. You put in a Longsword +1 at the top, and 500 gold comes rattling out at the bottom.

In our 4E campaign that 50% figure was reduced to 20% or 33% (can't remember which) per the rules, which I would have kept here if it weren't for the tendency of this system to produce Asking Prices way higher than list price.

In other words: if I merely had the Shoppe offer a selection of the Sane Price List for sale, I would definitely stick to the lower sell percentage. Now I don't think I need to.

And, as I said, theoretically, the Shoppes don't actually hand out hard cold currency - they only buy items as part of a larger purchase: that +1 Longsword doesn't really mean a bag of gold, it means that the +2 Longsword just got 500 gp cheaper. In practical play, this rarely matters, and convenience wins out.