Someone said:
No. By "making a mess out of craft time creation" etc I mean calculating it becomes more difficult, not that it fluctuates, as I actually say in my post. You were, IMO, the one suggesting that given how XP and time is tied to gold coins,
They are. That's what the rules say.
you can´t change gold coin value without kicking In Game Cosmic Order in the balls. Imagine what would happen if the party´s wizard convinces the king to make gold coins ten times heavier! He would make items for 1/10th of the XP cost!
Indeed. So the logical thing to believe is that D&D worlds have the physics medieval people believed the world to have. In pre-Franciscan economic theory, a fixed amount of gold always had the same objective value. This is clearly the way to read D&D rules if you don't want the above to happen. If one used Aristotelian physics, if each GP contained ten times as much gold, it would be worth 10gp because value is objective.
See: if you make value subjective, all the calculations go haywire, as you yourself point out. If value is objective, everything works smoothly.
All you are doing by illustrating that the calculations no longer conform to the RAW the moment you introduce inflation is agreeing with me.
There are other approaches, one of them is Imp´s one: supposing that inflation and such things exist but you don´t care about them and instead dedicate your valuable free time to more constructive things, like making your player character´s lives miserable.
Yes. But a few posts ago, you were arguing that you valued self-consistency in D&D worlds. Now you are taking the opposite position, which is fine. But, as I said above, this thread is premised on D&D being self-consistent, on the idea that rules of the game are the physics of the universe.
Also, "X it´s dificult to calculate" doesn´t make Y true by default, as we agree. At least you changed your position from this:
These difficult calculations to which you refer would entail changing all the listed values for magic items in the DMG and all the listed values for spell material components in the PHB and revising the process for making masterwork items. In other words, it would involve changing the rules.
This thread is about what the world would look like if you didn't rewrite any of the rules to accommodate a particular objective.
Now, it´s just a matter of DM´s work, not that if you play D&D your worlds must have Aristotelian economics.
Indeed. As you say above, handwaving inconsistencies and rewriting the rules are both options available to the DM. The reason these options are off the radar screen for the purposes of this discussion is the discussion's premise.
D&D rules support a whole lot of crazy things. For example, there´s no way to break a bone or lose a limb in a fight.
Indeed. This suggests that the physics of D&D are the same as those of the Diehard movies or other popular action movies in which broken limbs never happen, in which heroes can get bloody and chewed-up but are always either (a) totally ready to fight, (b) unconscious or (c) dead. Broken limbs are never mentioned in my games for precisely this reason. It damages the self-consistency of the world if things can happen to NPCs that cannot physically happen to the characters. Does that mean I ever declare broken limbs don't happen? Of course not. They just never happen and never get mentioned.
Horses have a 10 ft x 10 ft face.
The 10' x 10' face does not equal a 10' x' 10' area.
There are other things. People can turn invisible and throw fireballs. Dragons the size of a tower can fly. There are people as strong as a giant.
Indeed. So, once again, the logical inference to draw is that Aristotelian physics are true. Aristotelian physics can explain these things whereas Newtonian physics cannot. The reasonable inference to draw is that Aristotelian physics are true and Newtonian physics, false.
All you are doing by making these arguments is reinforcing my basic point. The physics of our world cannot possibly be true in a self-consistent D&D world. The premise of this thread is: "How would D&D politics be different, given that the laws of cause and effect are different in D&D worlds?" If you don't think this is a legitimate or constructive question to ask, we will continue talking at cross purposes.
Actually, they support even more things: people can walk and speak, things normally fall downwards.
Every model of physics supports these things. The fact that these things are true is not indicative of anything.
Now, we can make a ludicrousness scale, starting with Real Life physics and finishing with Fat Horse realities. The trick is where to draw the line on that scale and decide where the game designers intended to make all D&D world as it is, and where they just make the ruling that way because it was just easier or more balanced.
I'm not interested in the motives of the designers. I don't really care whether D&D developed the set of physical laws it has intentionally or unintentionally. My interest is in D&D worlds being self-consistent and thinking through the implications of this. You appear not to be interested in doing these things. Unfortunately, that's what this thread is about.
And, IMO, falling damage is linear because... well, imagine what if not. What do you want, a formula with G, player character sphericity and air viscosity?
Again, who cares why it is this way?The fact that it is this way just makes it easier for me to import Aristotle whole-cloth rather than trying to cobble together a physical theory that explains the natural world in D&D by myself.
And not all settigns adscribe to the 4 elements cosmology (which are a matter of flavor more than rules)
Setting books can change all kinds of things. My point is that the elementals statted in the RAW and the default settings and premises of the RAW are based on the 4-element theory.
Your argument seems to be "It is possible to modify D&D so that the physics are not Aristotelian." You will get no argument from me there.
