NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6154825" data-attributes="member: 8461">I'm saying that this is a minor problem, and one that is easily solved with the same set of plausible presumptions that can be used to eliminate the magic item economy altogether.First, the idea of "nobody" having the money for expensive non-magical items is perhaps better expressed as "almost nobody." You will run into some characters who do have greater-than-average wealth, but it's easy to state that this is rare, perhaps fantastically so (e.g. the king in a kingdom of twenty thousand people).Secondly, the "implications throughout the campaign world" are overstated in how serious you make that sound. Those "implications" are another part of world-building. That's without even getting into the idea that that doesn't have to be true literally everywhere; free trade doesn't have to be the norm if you don't want it to be, for whatever reasons you can come up with.Finally, this isn't an issue because the there's another factor here, which I have REPEATEDLY (to use your method of emphasis) stated, that being that you can limit magic items to a much greater extent than expensive non-magic items by pointing out the much tighter restrictions on their prerequisites for creation.Oh, absolutely. For one thing, I'm shocked that you'd actually say "no cherry-picking." This entire thread is about cherry-picking, from selectively applying various bits of real economic theory to equally selective bits of game rules. Of course, that's paltry compared to the massive amount of cherry-picking that is the GM creating a custom game world that conforms to his personal vision, and what rationalizations are being selectively applied to prop up that vision, which is sort of my entire point.This is without even getting into the fact that "most likely" does not mean "absolutely," since......those population tables don't say anything about what (item creation) feats any resident spellcasters may or may not have.It's not at all implausible, since that presumes that any and all feats are just available to be selected like dishes at a buffet. If the GM decides that they need to be taught, or aren't available for anyone to take, or that they're not lucrative choices because the underlying ideas about how much money people have to spend don't support that as a viable choice, or any of a thousand other decisions, then no one will have them.Which is irrelevant, as that ignores my previous statement that "market economy" is being used as a shorthand for "some degree of a self-sustaining industry (e.g. engaging in that enterprise can make enough money to make a living off of for the people involved in producing/selling X type of goods/services)."I've said that before, and if I have to I'll say it [dramatic echo] REPEATEDLY [/dramatic echo].These constraints are part and parcel of every aspect of world building, and in this case the lack of an economic market for magic items doesn't seem to require any particularly greater set of constraints than any other broad decision for how things work in the game, as you can see from my answers.It's more correct to say that your focus on literal shops as buildings is a straw man, since I've stated multiple times now that I'm referring to the industry for magic item creation/sales as a whole. Now, the shop unto itself is a good representation of that, but it's simply a handy example of what we're trying to avoid. If you think that's the only thing being referred to, then you should probably go review the thread for a while until you have a better understanding of what's being discussed.Don't worry, it doesn't sound pedantic; it sounds mistaken. When I'm saying "there won't be a market," I'm saying that there won't be a (even partially) self-sustaining industry, not necessarily a physical store.</blockquote>

Verification