Buying magic items vs. finding magic items

[Janx]

Which is yet another example of the fact that you can pretty easily make any economic scenario you want be plausible, something that you keep trying to disprove in what's apparently a bout of One True Way-ism. That's the real lunacy.

The difference is, a GM who INSISTS that it is IMPOSSIBLE to BUY or SELL a magic item is defying Economics, which really are common sense, once you take a year of college Economics classes (Macro and Micro).

When Danny or I say "magic item economy" we are not talking about it like the Financial Times or Wall Street Journal uses the word Economy (usually involving big $$$).

We are simply stating that:
Man has infinite wants and finite means
Man is seeking to maximize his Happiness level
Supply is the amount of something in the world
The less Supply there is, the higher price it commands
Demand is the desire others have for something
The more Demand there is, the higher price it commands
The actual price of something is where Supply and Demand meet on a graph (both Supply and Demand form lines when charted for all quantities, that creates an X).

From that perspective, economics is really an aspect of Psychology. How do masses of people behave in a measurable way (money spent). the author behind Freakonomics takes that idea to a new level, using the tools of Economics to study non-money behaviors.

In that light, Economics affects everything. Oxygen. Right now, there is a lot of demand for Oxygen. However, the Supply of it is plentiful (it's in the air around you). If I drop your car into the river, you'd pay me quite handsomely for the filled Scuba tank I happen to have. The Supply of Oxygen became scarce, even though the Demand remained the same. therefore, the price rises.

This is why we say it is impossible for there NOT to be a magic item economy. People want it. It doesn't matter if the sword +1 cost 2436GP. Somebody will pay for it, just as somebody will overpay for a Launch Day PS4 empty box on E-Bay. Because somebody will choose to spend their money unwisely on a single item, and somebody else will figure out how to take advantage of the extreme demand (by selling the empty box and taking advantage of vague description*).

*This really did happen with the PS2 launch, somebody sold an empty PS2 box, and worded it carefully as such. Somebody else rushed and bought it thinking it contained a PS2.

What is more logical is to constrain the SIZE of the magical economy. It can easily be justified that it is hard to find who is selling a magic item, connecting buyer to seller. You have to know the right person, it's rare to happen. In the same vein, it is totally possible for me to find a new Sword +2, and no longer need my Sword +1 and decide to sell it.

I can sell it for whatever I think I can get for it and the market is willing to bear. Since I didn't pay for the Sword +1 (found it in a dungeon), I don't have an emotional attachment to 2436GP that the DMG says it cost to make. If I really need the money, and the local economy can only swing 500GP and beer, then I just might take that.

A GM who denies that possibility is implausibly restricting his game. So we're not arguing for One True Wayism. We're trying to get folks to avoid a One Wrong Wayism.

 

[Umbran]

I've never really studied economics, so I can't tell if the disconnect is just that I don't understand the definitions; but the difference that I see is that someone selling magic items would have to be akin to an international arms dealer and manufacturer.

Why would they have to be like an international arms dealer and manufacturer? Are there sure to be similar regulations on magic weapons in the fictional world, and (more importantly, I expect) do they have to be working in such volumes?

Why are they not more like, say an antique dealer? Or a fine rug merchant? Folks who have smaller number of high-value items that aren't particularly regulated across borders?

 

[Nytmare]

Why would they have to be like an international arms dealer and manufacturer? Are there sure to be similar regulations on magic weapons in the fictional world, and (more importantly, I expect) do they have to be working in such volumes?

My response was in regards to the circular line of logic where magic sword shops had to exist because Kings want to buy one for every soldier and mage guilds were building magic weapon factories to meet the now obvious demand. I'm seeing a situation like that as a direct mirror of a modern day government and a defense contractor. If a situation like that existed, I would expect that King to place the same "only us" limitations on the magic sword factory, so that the "only in it for a buck" mages weren't arming the King's enemies.

My arguments against magic shops are not against people being able to buy and sell magic items. They're against including a well stocked, clapboard, magic item corner store in every single town the PCs wander through because "people want to buy magic items" while ignoring things like "who in that town is normally able to buy magic items" and "where did this person get them", "how did he afford them", and "how does he protect them from being stolen."

Is the base setting one where everybody is running around with character levels? I had always assumed that it was one where the people running around with the need for, and means to purchase the arsenals were really rare.

 

[Umbran]

Supply is the amount of something in the world
The less Supply there is, the higher price it commands
Demand is the desire others have for something
The more Demand there is, the higher price it commands
The actual price of something is where Supply and Demand meet on a graph (both Supply and Demand form lines when charted for all quantities, that creates an X).

I hope, on a gaming board, it is okay if I get picky and pedantic on models and math. But that's not what supply and demand curves are. In fact, what you seem to be doing is describing the Demand curve twice. Please allow me to correct you.

Imagine a graph. On one axis (typically the X-axis) is Quantity, the number of units of an item. On the other axis (typically the Y-axis) is the price at which each unit sells.

One line on the graph is Supply. This line answers the question, "For a given price per unit, how many units is the supplier willing/able to produce?" Generally speaking, the higher the price per unit, the more units the supplier will want to provide - largely because they'll be getting a higher profit per unit. The Supply curve generally slopes upwards.

Another line on the graph is Demand. This line answers the question, "For a given price per unit, how many units is the market willing/able to buy?" Generally speaking, the lower the price per unit, the more units the market will want to buy. Duh. The Demand curve generally slopes downward.

Where the two lines cross (IF they cross) you find the optimum quantity to produce and price to sell - maximizing profit and minimizing waste.

This is why we say it is impossible for there NOT to be a magic item economy.

It is *unlikely* for there to not be an economy, but not impossible. As I noted above, the Supply and Demand curves do not *have* to cross. For example, it may be that the basic costs of production exceed the market's ability to pay. For example, if it cost a million dollars per pound to lift satellites into orbit, not even governments would pay the price, and there would be no market for the service.

This does not mean that a sale cannot be made - what it means is that each and every production and sale would be a one-off, rather than a statistically predictable thing. The supply and demand curves are large-scale, statistical things, and it falls apart when the number of sales is low enough that you cannot perform valid statistics.

 

[Umbran]

My response was in regards to the circular line of logic where magic sword shops had to exist because Kings want to buy one for every soldier and mage guilds were building magic weapon factories to meet the now obvious demand.

I think you have (perhaps inadvertantly) created a straw man there - in the classic sense of you have overstated the arguments of others, and are trying to knock down the overstatement, rather than what they actually said.

My arguments against magic shops are not against people being able to buy and sell magic items. They're against including a well stocked, clapboard, magic item corner store in every single town the PCs wander through because "people want to buy magic items" while ignoring things like "who in that town is normally able to buy magic items" and "where did this person get them", "how did he afford them", and "how does he protect them from being stolen."

Note that "there will be an economy" does not say that there are well-stocked, clapboard, magic item corner stores in every single town. That is very much an overstatement.

This is why I brought up the rug merchant analogy - there's a market for fine Persian rugs. Not so large a market that the stores are like Starbucks. You may have to go to the nearest larger city. And the selection is not such that you can get exactly what pattern you want. But, you can, in fact, regularly get such a rug if you want it and have significant cash. There is an economy for it.

 

[Alzrius]

The difference is, a GM who INSISTS that it is IMPOSSIBLE to BUY or SELL a magic item is defying Economics, which really are common sense, once you take a year of college Economics classes (Macro and Micro).

The problem here is that this runs against the fixed-cost nature of magic items. Because their value is set as an absolute, it means that economic conditions can be such that they're effectively priced out of the market. That largely eliminates most of the train of thought you were following.

What is more logical is to constrain the SIZE of the magical economy. It can easily be justified that it is hard to find who is selling a magic item, connecting buyer to seller. You have to know the right person, it's rare to happen. In the same vein, it is totally possible for me to find a new Sword +2, and no longer need my Sword +1 and decide to sell it.

If you're talking about eventually having enough money to finance the cost of someone else creating and selling you a magic item, then sure, that's possible that you can track someone down who can do that and offer them enough gold pieces to make it worth their while. However, in a situation where no one else can afford to do that, that does not an economy make.

I can sell it for whatever I think I can get for it and the market is willing to bear. Since I didn't pay for the Sword +1 (found it in a dungeon), I don't have an emotional attachment to 2436GP that the DMG says it cost to make. If I really need the money, and the local economy can only swing 500GP and beer, then I just might take that.

Except that you're splitting the difference between how the game rules work and actual economic practices to find in your favor, here. You can sell a magic item for one-half of its (absolute) market price value - no more and no less - unless you have some skill or ability to modify that.

Now, you can say that that's a fairly nonsensical restriction of the game rules, and you'd be right, but if you want to throw that out then it's going to start something of a logical chain reaction that requires dispensing with most of the market price and creation cost rules for magic items (if not most items altogether) and require reworking, perhaps radically, the nature (implicit though it be) of the economy in a "typical" d20 game setting.

A GM who denies that possibility is implausibly restricting his game. So we're not arguing for One True Wayism. We're trying to get folks to avoid a One Wrong Wayism.

Saying that someone else's game is objectively being done "wrong" is One True Wayism. The only necessary logical foundations are what the GM and players agree to that lets them have fun. The rest is just an intellectual exercise.

 

[Umbran]

The problem here is that this runs against the fixed-cost nature of magic items. Because their value is set as an absolute, it means that economic conditions can be such that they're effectively priced out of the market.

Technically, their minimum price is set as an absolute. "Value" is a subjective thing, that may only be tangentially related to its price.

That largely eliminates most of the train of thought you were following.

Yes, but not that there's a stock of similarly priced (and even more expensive) items that are expected to be in the world - your full plate mail is about the same price as a basic magic sword, and is orders of magnitude over the cost of many scrolls and potions, which start down around 12 GP. If you want to say the economics don't allow for a magic market, there probably ought to be a number of other things for which there is no market.

Moreover, we have to consider the implications of the treasure guidelines. That treasure must come from somewhere, right? Is *every* haul the adventurers make from a horde that's been locked away for generations? If not, then that wealth must first come from society at large. That implies that money is out there. If you choose to deviate from those guidelines in your own world, that's fine. But bog-standard D&D has a whole lot of wealth floating around for characters to pick up, which argues against magic items being priced out of the market.

So, certainly, you can construct a world in which there is no market for things, sure. But the core rules mean you have to take some effort to make "no market" seem particularly plausible. It risks becoming a plot hole.

 

[Derren]

The problem here is that this runs against the fixed-cost nature of magic items.

Magic items do not have a fixed cost. They have a fixed cost to produce, but their market value fluctuates like any other good.
The town is currently hosting a tournament with lots of nobles and adventurers with deep pockets attending? The price for magical weapon and armor go up.

You scavanged some magical weapons from a battlefield and are now trying to sell them in a war ravaged city like a lot of other people, too? The price of them go down, even below the production cost.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The problem here is that this runs against the fixed-cost nature of magic items. Because their value is set as an absolute, it means that economic conditions can be such that they're effectively priced out of the market. That largely eliminates most of the train of thought you were following.

If it helps, think of the price in the books as an average price, or perhaps as a MSRP. Maybe as a DIY price.

But don't treat it as the one true price for Item X, everywhere, everywhen.

 

[Alzrius]

Technically, their minimum price is set as an absolute. "Value" is a subjective thing, that may only be tangentially related to its price.

Again, that's true, but that's not how it works if we look at the rules unto themselves; setting price fluctuations based on market conditions is a house rule.

Yes, but not that there's a stock of similarly priced (and even more expensive) items that are expected to be in the world - your full plate mail is about the same price as a basic magic sword, and is orders of magnitude over the cost of many scrolls and potions, which start down around 12 GP. If you want to say the economics don't allow for a magic market, there probably ought to be a number of other things for which there is no market.

The difference is that those items don't require special class abilities (e.g. spellcasting), specific spells, and item creation feats to make. You just have to make a Craft check (potentially even untrained, for the cheaper non-magical items).

Now, that's a question of availability rather than price, but the two aren't mutually exclusive, since the d20 rules don't (in the SRD) talk about class distributions in the general population - and even where they do in the 3.X DMG, there's nothing indicative of the spells/feats taken by those spellcasting classes.

Moreover, we have to consider the implications of the treasure guidelines. That treasure must come from somewhere, right? Is *every* haul the adventurers make from a horde that's been locked away for generations? If not, then that wealth must first come from society at large. That implies that money is out there. If you choose to deviate from those guidelines in your own world, that's fine. But bog-standard D&D has a whole lot of wealth floating around for characters to pick up, which argues against magic items being priced out of the market.

This isn't setting any kind of standard, though. You seem to be implying that monsters with treasure hoards are somehow indicative of wealthy societies (that are presumably contemporary, and nearby), which isn't necessarily so. Not to mention that there can be valuable natural materials (e.g. uncut gemstones) or, as you noted, lost treasures that haven't been seen for quite some time.

In other words the "guidelines" that you say this deviates from are an interpretation of what's in the books, rather than being what's in the books themselves. Monsters with treasure (which is, unto itself, out of the market, since the monsters aren't spending it) doesn't imply or equate a magic item economy.

So, certainly, you can construct a world in which there is no market for things, sure. But the core rules mean you have to take some effort to make "no market" seem particularly plausible. It risks becoming a plot hole.

Leaving aside that you have to make some effort to make any campaign world seem plausible, I don't see this as being more of a plot hole than anything else in D&D.

Magic items do not have a fixed cost. They have a fixed cost to produce, but their market value fluctuates like any other good.
The town is currently hosting a tournament with lots of nobles and adventurers with deep pockets attending? The price for magical weapon and armor go up.

You scavanged some magical weapons from a battlefield and are now trying to sell them in a war ravaged city like a lot of other people, too? The price of them go down, even below the production cost.

If it helps, think of the price in the books as an average price, or perhaps as a MSRP. Maybe as a DIY price.

But don't treat it as the one true price for Item X, everywhere, everywhen.

Again, I think that's a logical way of interpreting the rules as written, but it is still an interpretation. "Bog standard" D&D doesn't adjust prices for market conditions.

EDIT: I wanted to reiterate my fundamental point here, which seems like it's being lost amidst the discussion of the intricacies (or lack thereof) of the d20 economy.

Simply put, I disagree with the notion that the nature of d20 magic items (in their price and cost/method of creation) necessitate a magic item economy, unto themselves. Moreover, I believe that there are reasonable (and I suspect that this word is where the disagreements are arising) methods for constructing a plausible (another point of contention, no doubt) economy for your campaign that doesn't lend itself to the buying and selling of magic items as commodities.