Excerpt: Economies [merged]

[Psikus]

The problem is this: What happens when the PCs find an inventive way to sell EVERY magic item you give them for 100% of its value. All magic items in 4e of the same level have the same cost. Now, since we aren't punishing them by lowering the amount of gold or items we are giving them, then they now have 5 times the amount of gold the game expects them to have.

I think even that extreme example (those PCs should be REALLY inventive) could be balanced without having to take any money from the players. Just say that while managing to sell items at full value, the PCs have driven the local magic merchant off business. Or encouraged him to move elsewhere. This way, the cost of getting access of all that gold is make it more difficult, or even impossible, to use it to buy (high level) magic stuff. Since they can still craft as normal, they'll end up with a lot of magic items _up to their level_.

As long as you restrict the level of items the players have access to, the system shouldn't break. Having every possible slot filled with gear of the same level might be stronger than average, but not so much.

 

[Fenes]

My D&D game just runs so much more smoothly since we ditched wealth. The PCs are expected to be able to afford a certain lifestyle (player chosen, although subject to changes from consequences within the campaign, and PC explanations can range from "has an allowance from rich daddy" to "Gets a stipend from the church" or "Has a fiefdom granted by the king" or "sustains his lifestyle by gambling/performing/swindling/stealing" etc.) and all that goes with it. Anything important (magic item, special bribe/gift, etc.) is played out, like a sort of skill challenge to use the çe term, or as an entire adventure. I didn't read D20 modern, but I think their wealth levels mechanic work similarly.

The system means I don't have to worry about appropriate wealth per level, or how much a magic item is worth, or how much the PCs can sell treasure for. And the PCs do not have to count every gold coin, and know that as long as something is reasonable and balanced, they can get it, either directly as part of their lifestyle, or through an adventure or challenge - and they know that the DM is ok with it, and won't take it away later for ooc reasons, or he'd have vetoed it before.

It's really surprising how much simpler the game runs if one ditches all the coin counting in favor of rough, broad categories such as "rich" or "poor" or "decently well-off".

 

[Steely Dan]

I'm guessing you didn't spend your college years with an article from Different Worlds magazine

There was a magazine based off of that show?!

 

[Noinarap]

The advocates of "Karmic Treasure Theory" might be a little hasty.

(Some folks said earlier that doing something extra in a quest for an extra reward was pointless, since you will lose the reward from another future treasure. This was dubbed "Karmic Treasure Theory.")

It's pretty clear from the article that the treasure guidelines are still, well, guidelines. A DM might throw in some items that the party doesn't want. Those items will be sold or DE'd, lowering their value significantly. Healing potions could be overused, forcing the party to burn through gold faster. A PC might retrain his weapon powers/feats frequently, necessitating more transactions (which will always be at a net loss).

These factors and others- as well as quest successes and failures- will push PC gold a little above or below the suggested values. Some variation should be expected, and so we should expect supererogatory performance to be as rewarding as ever. The treasure parcels are a nice way to maintain the balance of power, but they are not a straitjacket.

 

[AZRogue]

My D&D game just runs so much more smoothly since we ditched wealth. The PCs are expected to be able to afford a certain lifestyle (player chosen, although subject to changes from consequences within the campaign, and PC explanations can range from "has an allowance from rich daddy" to "Gets a stipend from the church" or "Has a fiefdom granted by the king" or "sustains his lifestyle by gambling/performing/swindling/stealing" etc.) and all that goes with it. Anything important (magic item, special bribe/gift, etc.) is played out, like a sort of skill challenge to use the çe term, or as an entire adventure. I didn't read D20 modern, but I think their wealth levels mechanic work similarly.

The system means I don't have to worry about appropriate wealth per level, or how much a magic item is worth, or how much the PCs can sell treasure for. And the PCs do not have to count every gold coin, and know that as long as something is reasonable and balanced, they can get it, either directly as part of their lifestyle, or through an adventure or challenge - and they know that the DM is ok with it, and won't take it away later for ooc reasons, or he'd have vetoed it before.

It's really surprising how much simpler the game runs if one ditches all the coin counting in favor of rough, broad categories such as "rich" or "poor" or "decently well-off".

I've done that before. It works pretty well. I have a few players who like counting their coins, so I don't always do it, but I have to say that it works.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

...

(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.

There is a difference between a travelling merchant which happens to be there and a merchant who resides in town. One makes sense, one does not... figure out which...

...its the same with encounter design: a brownbear which happens to run amok when players are around having killed 2 people vs a bear which runs amok all the time having killed 1000 people...

the world is build around the players, not vice versa... at least in a a campaign which is fun to play and not to inflate the DMs ego... it can have a lot of static parts (no magic stores), but it has to be dynamic and adapt to player needs and wishes (travelling merchants which can be there when it fits into your story...)

 

[Lizard]

There is a difference between a travelling merchant which happens to be there and a merchant who resides in town. One makes sense, one does not... figure out which...

You missed the point of my post.

Mousferatu seemed to be asserting that, in 4e, magic items would be hard to dispose of, due to the lack of buyers.

The very excerpt we're discussing says that, by default, there will always be a buyer in the next town the PCs stumble across, no matter how small it is. Yes, the DM can change this, but the "expected" rule is that no matter where you are, some merchant will be there with the gold to take your items off your hands.

There were never explicit "magic item shops" in 3e, either, just a general notation to the effect magic items could be bought and sold relatively freely in large cities, based on the community wealth limits.

"Traveling merchant" is a "special effect". It could be a magic item shop. It could be an ancient artifact where you put a magic item in and gold coins come out. The point is, the expectation is that players will always be able to dump their unwanted shinies, and the default is for the DM to make this an easy task which occurs as a matter of simple note taking -- you say what magic items you want to get rid of, you get 1/5 their value in gold, on to the orc killing. If a DM wants to make the sale of a particular item a complex problem, that's up to him, but it's assumed that magic items are sold off-stage and easily according to a simple formula for value.

It's Wal-Magic in all but name.

 

[Voss]

Well, the economy still feels flimsy, the table error is yet another annoyance, and residuum is... rather silly. And the traveling merchants are outright ridiculous. 'The world is a dangerous place. I think I will load up on valuables and hit the road, *just in case* one of those rare bands of adventurers needs something obscure at the last minute'. *Stab, knife, rend* And the monsters now have more treasure.

So thats my first impression.

My second impression is, of course, that WotC should fire all their editors and hire competent ones. Its been a week of Just Too Many Cockups.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You missed the point of my post.

Mousferatu seemed to be asserting that, in 4e, magic items would be hard to dispose of, due to the lack of buyers.

The very excerpt we're discussing says that, by default, there will always be a buyer in the next town the PCs stumble across, no matter how small it is. Yes, the DM can change this, but the "expected" rule is that no matter where you are, some merchant will be there with the gold to take your items off your hands.

There were never explicit "magic item shops" in 3e, either, just a general notation to the effect magic items could be bought and sold relatively freely in large cities, based on the community wealth limits.

"Traveling merchant" is a "special effect". It could be a magic item shop. It could be an ancient artifact where you put a magic item in and gold coins come out. The point is, the expectation is that players will always be able to dump their unwanted shinies, and the default is for the DM to make this an easy task which occurs as a matter of simple note taking -- you say what magic items you want to get rid of, you get 1/5 their value in gold, on to the orc killing. If a DM wants to make the sale of a particular item a complex problem, that's up to him, but it's assumed that magic items are sold off-stage and easily according to a simple formula for value.

It's Wal-Magic in all but name.

Oh no, i didn´t miss your point... but you missed mine...

Maybe in 3.x there was no notion that magic shops existed, but many pc games which attracted players to 3rd edition had shops everywhere, and in FR shops were nearly expected (thayan enclaves + races of faerun racial magical items)

In 4e magical items are hard to dispose off, because there are no buyers is the deafault assumption in your game world, and the economy is build on that (1/5 market price)

that merchants happen to pass by where the adventurers are is just coincidence from your world´s point of view... And merchants with guards and high travel costs should even justify the 1/5 sell price...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well, the economy still feels flimsy, the table error is yet another annoyance, and residuum is... rather silly. And the traveling merchants are outright ridiculous. 'The world is a dangerous place. I think I will load up on valuables and hit the road, *just in case* one of those rare bands of adventurers needs something obscure at the last minute'. *Stab, knife, rend* And the monsters now have more treasure.

So thats my first impression.

this is why trade with magical items is soooo expensive that you need 1/5th buy price to be cost neutral and 140% sell price to make money...

My second impression is, of course, that WotC should fire all their editors and hire competent ones. Its been a week of Just Too Many Cockups.

i second this, however...