DnD Economy

[painandgreed]

It really depends on the setting. In addition to Eberron, the Tarsisian Empire in the world of Ptolus (Praemal) issues letters of credit.

That doesn't matter. What matters is what is the unit of credit described in. Is the credit backed by a certain amount of comodity goods? Coinage? Or arbitrary unit of money backed by some power? You can issue letters of credit in any of the economies described by the OP.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That doesn't matter. What matters is what is the unit of credit described in. Is the credit backed by a certain amount of comodity goods? Coinage? Or arbitrary unit of money backed by some power? You can issue letters of credit in any of the economies described by the OP.

No, his definitions pretty clearly state that once money is an abstract concept, by his definition, they're in stage three.

A letter of credit is an abstraction of real world value.

You can take issue with his definitions if you like. I was merely pointing out that not all D&D worlds are stuck between stages 1 and 2, as was posited.

 

[Treebore]

First, this is a tangent from the WalMart thread, however please keep that discussion going on over there...and keep this thread on track. Thanks

This thread draws off a concept brought up by Jonny Nexus that needs, IMHO, more consideration. Here is the quote:



IMO the DnD world is halfway between stage 1 and stage 2. Drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, coin economy would work for items under 200gp. Items priced above that line would be in the barter system.

This arbitrary line would change the feel of most games, having heroes seek out master craftsmen and artificers to create legendary items, trading in whatever stuff they looted from the battlefield, etc...

If you were to adopt this view of the DnD Economy, where would you draw the line between Coin and Barter?

Does this view, in your opinion, better reflect the typical fantasy as represented in most popular fantasy novels?

Does this view, in your opinion, better cover the current oddities of the system wherein a 3rd level adventurer is richer than most landed nobles?

Thank you for your reasoned and 'non-buzzwordy' responses

I bought Expeditious Retreats Magical Medievel Societies: Western Europe and Silk Road books as well as Gary Gygax's Worldbuilder books. I have a realistic economy. As realistic as it can get with all the quirks thrown in by magic.

 

[painandgreed]

No, his definitions pretty clearly state that once money is an abstract concept, by his definition, they're in stage three.

A letter of credit is an abstraction of real world value.

You can take issue with his definitions if you like. I was merely pointing out that not all D&D worlds are stuck between stages 1 and 2, as was posited.

I have nothing to argue with his deginition, but your interpretation of them. Stage three happens when you have fiat currency where there is a difference between actual and exchange values not when you have cheques or letters or credit that are backed by actual commodities. That you accept a letter of credit is your trust in the person you are dealing with. Because people in a barter society form a three way deal where one persons cows are accepted by one brother who gives him a letter to give to another brother saying to pay the holder in a number of sheep, does not mean they have jumped to stage 3.

For that matter, I'd say that we are comfortably in stage two in any D&D game I've ever seen. I've never seen coinage not accepted in a D&D game as legal tender, and the trade goods list show in the PHB (pg 112) shows that coinage is only worth its base metal weight and is not token currency.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I have nothing to argue with his deginition, but your interpretation of them. Stage three happens when you have fiat currency where there is a difference between actual and exchange values not when you have cheques or letters or credit that are backed by actual commodities.

You really need to go re-read the original post. Your definition of stage three is not the same.

 

[JDJblatherings]

A coin is a token of value ...it is money.


The description for coins in this model is the description for money.

Maybe something more along the lines of-

Barter: I will swap you a valuable item I have that you need (food say) for a valuable item that you have that I need (some cloth say). The problem with a barter economy is that it isn't very liquid in that it relies of me finding someone who has what I need who also happens to need what I've got.

Metal: I will swap you a specific portion/quantity of a commonly recognized valuable item I have for a valuable item that you have so you may use it later in another transaction for something you may need. The problem with this system is a set of measuring devices is always required in transactions and purities of materials can vary widely.

Coin: I will swap you a commonly recognized valuable item that has had it's purity confirmed by the state for a valuable item that you have. The state has control over the purity of the materials in a coin so the value of coins differs greatly from state to state. Coins are trusted becasue the authorityy of the state backs the value in additon to the traditionaly recognized value of the materials in the coin.

Note: I will swap you certificate that guarantees a specific quanity of goods, metals or coins a valuable item that you have. This form of money is still tied to "real" goods controlled by the state (or other note giving body). Collecting those real goods can be tricky and one must trust the state actually has the quantity of goods it claims to have.
Notes can still be coins but the coins have values tied to the authority of the state and little to do with the value of the actual materials the coin is manufactured from. Changes in values of materials notes are tied to can impact the value of notes.

Credit: money no longer has a value fixed to a specific good or material but goods can be exchanged in a market that commonly recognize a specific kind(s) of credits (such as dollars, euros, etc..). The value of those credits can shift wildly with economic conditions but a powerful and stable state can reliably control the value of it's money.

 

[fusangite]

D&D starts collapsing like a house of cards if you bring in the laws of supply and demand because the item creation mechanics are pegged to XP values. Unless a GM wants to constantly adjust the XP:GP ratio for item creation, you have to assume that pre-modern theories of economics are true. When I run D&D, value is objective (ie. inheres in objects) and not subjective (ie. inheres in the subjectivity of those participating in an economic transaction). The item creation mechanic is just another way that I tend to find Aristotle more handy than Isaac Newton, Adam Smith and the other great thinkers of the Scientific Revolution when making guesses about how D&D worlds work.

EDIT: Ie. gold is always worth the same regardless of whether there is any anticipated future exchange value. See also the Craft skill.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

You really need to go re-read the original post. Your definition of stage three is not the same.

I disagree. As painandgreed said, it is about interpretation of the original definition. I think the key phrase is:

I have enough faith in the future of civilisation (i.e. the government and the rule of law) to believe that tomorrow I will be able to swap those bits of paper for some cloth.

The way I interpret this, and I believe the way painandgreed is also interpreting this is that the "Money Economy" is no longer tied directly to something tangible. The abstract tokens (paper money) are given value because some entity, usually the government, has decreed that they have value, rather than because each note represents a specific amount of something (gold, silver etc.) that the government has in reserve.

Credit - I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today - is not the same thing. Credit is nothing but a promise between you and a second party. You will exchange something with them in the future for something else now. It has no value on its own. A third party does not have to accept the value of that credit (Sorry, we don't take Discover), and the credit has no value whatsoever if the second party were to no longer exist (No, I don't have any gold, but I have a note from a dead man that says he will pay).

Barter has value because it is a direct exchange of goods.
Coin has value because it is a tangible commodity that has become accepted by most.
Money as described in the original definition has value because it has the backing of the government and the law.

 

[catsclaw227]

D&D starts collapsing like a house of cards if you bring in the laws of supply and demand because the item creation mechanics are pegged to XP values. Unless a GM wants to constantly adjust the XP:GP ratio for item creation, you have to assume that pre-modern theories of economics are true. When I run D&D, value is objective (ie. inheres in objects) and not subjective (ie. inheres in the subjectivity of those participating in an economic transaction). The item creation mechanic is just another way that I tend to find Aristotle more handy than Isaac Newton, Adam Smith and the other great thinkers of the Scientific Revolution when making guesses about how D&D worlds work.

Interesting. Can you expand on this?

 

[painandgreed]

D&D starts collapsing like a house of cards if you bring in the laws of supply and demand...

This pretty much goes for any RPG. Few, if any, RPGs, even modern ones, deal with supply and demand or other such factors in economies. They only provide a list of equipment with set prices. The only instance I can think of would be Traveller which has resell values for trade goods that are based on random die rolls modified for the planetary code.