Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2882261" data-attributes="member: 7240">I'm actually quite tolerant of that, as long as it's based on some actual historical thinking...I think we are agreeing about geographic scale but I am inclined to think of D&D worlds as being more rural in character. Pre-industrial cities came into being largely due to trade. D&D economics are essentially Aristotelian in character in that value is objective (in that it inheres in physical objects themselves) as opposed to subjective or transactional. Goods are of a fixed value irrespective of supply or demand. This is so deeply embedded in the rules that if one tries to apply modern economic theory to D&D, it breaks. The relative values of metals is fixed; a ratio between XP and GP is mechanically enshrined in item creation; GP values of spell material components are fixed; etc. In much the way that Aristotelian thought slowed trade and economic development in the Middle Ages by essentially declaring profitable trade and money-lending forms of fraud, D&D economics would, I would like to suggest, even more dramatically discourage the development of market economies in favour of war booty, raiding and tribute collection because Aristotelian economics are not merely a weird theory but a physically-provable reality.Exactly. D&D politics would be all about suzerainty and not sovereignty. I think the Caroligian Empire of 780-880 is basically emblematic of the kind of national or imperial entities D&D is likely to produce. And I think the reaction would be the same as that of the Franks after the empire's collapse: make sure the guy I pay my taxes to can protect survive and protect me next time.</blockquote>

Verification