Excerpt: Economies [merged]

[UngeheuerLich]

What? You IGNORED the rules and used your JUDGMENT?

I'm sorry. That's not possible in 3e. Only in 4e is the DM free to do this. In 3e, if you ignored any rules, WOTC ninjas came and killed you. The ability of a DM to be a DM was not present in 3e. The greatest innovation in 4e is the ability to ignore/alter the rules at whim. If you could already do that in 3e...well, what's the point of 4e, then?

Sheesh. Get with the program.

this is exactly the reason why 3rd edition is evil...

I used random treasure table, its fun to roll and i really hope there are still tables to generate random treasure...
...roll, decide if that treasure is fun, no? roll again!

regarding magic shops: not the existance of magic shops in 3.5 is the problem, but need for an abundance of magic shops and thus very high level people protecting those shops and creating items...

 

[Lizard]

Especially in a PoL setting like 4E assumes, I have no trouble believing that the PCs aren't going to be have an easy time just "running across" other people with both the money and the need for magic weapons. On occasion, perhaps--and the DM could even make an adventure out of it--but certainly not regularly enough to take into account in the standard rules.

But isn't the "Cough wandering merchants cough" rule in the excerpt a way of saying, in effect, "No matter where the PCs are, there will be someone to buy their items" -- as opposed to the 3e wealth limits/town size rules, which meant PCs couldn't sell their +4 sword in every hamlet they came across? I read those rules (or guidelines, or suggestions) in the excerpt as saying to DMs, "Don't you worry your pretty little heads about where the money comes from or goes to; if the PCs have loot to get rid of, Travelling Joe will be in the nearest village to take it off their hands."

When characters have magic items to sell, a traveling merchant is in town—or will be soon—to take it off their hands. The same applies to exotic mundane goods as well: No one in the village makes silk rope or has much use for it, but merchants making their way between major cities carry it all the time.

(Emphasis added)

This seems to directly contradict your assertion above.

Of course, a DM is always free to ignore the rules. At least in 4e. As we all know, it wasn't possible for a DM to ignore the rules in 3e.

 

[hong]

B I read those rules (or guidelines, or suggestions) in the excerpt as saying to DMs, "Don't you worry your pretty little heads about where the money comes from or goes to; if the PCs have loot to get rid of, Travelling Joe will be in the nearest village to take it off their hands."

Well, yes.

 

[AZRogue]

It's you saying "Nyeah nyeah, you're on my economic railroad, like it or not."

Actually, it's the game's economic railroad. The tracks were laid to keep the game as balanced as possible. You can, however, deviate from the wealth/economic guidelines as much as you want, but you should expect consequences in your game as your PCs become too powerful for monsters of their level and it gets more and more difficult to impress them with yet another +5 Holy Avenger. It's called a Montey Haul campaign.

It can be done and, honestly, I think all DMs do it a few times but the results are quite often undesirable--especially the players. AD&D was a real trial-by-fire for a lot of DMs when it came to learning how much treasure was "too much". It's great that they're continuing with the trend of giving guidelines to help new DMs avoid the common pitfalls of running a game.

 

[Lizard]

To be honest, that sounds like 2nd Ed snooze-fest material to me, I'm so glad this article wasn't about how much grain the sample town of Bunky sells a year and what their profit margin is or what have you.

I'm guessing you didn't spend your college years with an article from Different Worlds magazine which detailed acreage needed for population support, plotting out precisely how big the farmlands around each city in your campaign needed to be...

 

[hong]

I'm guessing you didn't spend your college years with an article from Different Worlds magazine which detailed acreage needed for population support, plotting out precisely how big the farmlands around each city in your campaign needed to be...

Wouldn't Playboy be better for that sort of thing?

 

[Lizard]

I certainly wasn't. To me, D&D economics IS loot. That's all the players will ever care about.

Players, sure. But what about us DMs? We've got worlds to build, dammit!

 

[Lizard]

Wouldn't Playboy be better for that sort of thing?

There were population density tables in Playboy? Damn, I really should have read the articles!

(Always preferred Penthouse. Made me wish I'd gone to a Small Midwestern College.)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Players, sure. But what about us DMs? We've got worlds to build, dammit!

My rule as of a long time ago was that if my players don't care then neither do I. Then again, I don't believe in doing work that I don't have to. I barely believe in doing work that I HAVE to. Heck, I'm at my real work avoiding doing it by reading and posting messages.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

"it's far more efficient to go on quests to kill monsters than to just roam the countryside killing monsters at random."

ZOMG DND4E IZ WOW!!!1!!one!!!!eleven!!!!