Excerpt: Economies [merged]

[drjones]

Idk, this whole economic debate seems rather pointless in my eyes.

Yes, yes, yes. But if you removed the pointless discussions I suppose this forum would implode from the sudden vacuum.

 

[Hussar]

I do like how in the same breath the People for Extravagant Markup suggest that trying to skirt the established merchants will simultaneously result in hordes of adventurers trying to steal their stuff, as well as hordes of assasins from Wallmart's secret underground lair.

No wonder there is such a markup on magic items, it all goes into the overhead of maintaining hordes of Ninja Death Squads to protect the items from armies of thieving Paladins.

... because that merchant has maybe one or two items, not an entire shop full of them and doesn't exactly spread it around that he has them except to certain people (like adventurers) that might be interested?

If you think 500% is extravagant mark up, you have never been shopping for antiques. Heck, a first appearance of Superman comic book is worth about 500 000 USD. That's considerably more than 500% mark up, even taking inflation into consideration. Yet, surprisingly enough, people aren't going around murdering comic book collectors.

Something to remember here is that the traveling merchant is a feature in Heroic tier. That means minor magic items only - +2 at best. In higher tiers, the merchants are going to have access to higher level goodies in order to sell their wares.

In other words, that dwarven peddler that travels around might have a +1 sword to sell you. That githyanki merchant you meet after you have made a pretty decent name for yourself, actually belongs to an arcane guild that uses ritual magic heavily to transport items. Then, once you begin treading on your path to epic greatness, that Lich contacts you with an offer because news of your incredible prowess has perked his interest.

 

[gizmo33]

I don't really think that is the best way to rephrase my argument, actually.

So you say. You talked about what a player "should" be doing, for example, and a bunch of other things that I tried to address. This strikes me as more posturing than argument given the lack of specifics.

It looks like you are just quoting other people you disagree with... I don't think you are even really addressing my point in a meaningful way. What you are saying I don't agree with at all.

Actually I didn't quote anyone but you. Those statements I made based on the story-based game were my own thoughts, and other than the joke about PCs turning into minions, I don't think they were too far from what seems to be the stated goals of the 4E design. The point that I was getting at was that the thought experiment of the "what-if" regarding PCs becoming merchants was pretty much explicitly contradicted by the stated design goals of 4E. For example - monsters (and by implication NPCs) and PCs don't have to play by the same rules.

If you have something to say about my point yourself, then please just say it yourself, in your own words. Don't just throw out your ideas of what "the 4E supporters" that you don't like would say. it just confuses the discussion and leads to misunderstandings and bad sentiments.

I would and I did. Since the design goals of 4E is an issue, there is a limit to which I can talk about my own thoughts completely out of context since I'm not an author of the game. Some of this comes down to what you mean by "4E supporters". The actual statements that I made, regarding the two different standards for PCs and NPCs, comes from the 4E designers themselves. So you're not wrong by calling those folks "4E supporters" but I think it has a misleading connotation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It isn't the DM's job to punish the players, but just like a child trying to stick their finger into an electrical socket because they're curious, sometimes players can be very short-sighted. The uber level 30 god-slaying sword (at level 10) that looks like fun today, may well ruin the campaign tomorrow. That's when the DM, like a responsible parent, has to respond with a firm NO. If your players don't need this kind of regulation, fantastic! Some, however, do.

There are adventures, where Players just find many many items, but: those items should necer be custom made or bought, rather given for story reasons. Also Encounters have to be balanced around those items... Maybe assign a part of the encounter to the item or add one extra monster which doesn´t give XP.
Monster stomping is fun only for a short time... but it is fun. So you should not completely forbid it...
20% as the basic price still seems a good baseline... but trading item vs item if it is logical seems ok.

 

[keterys]

I was thinking it's probably reasonable to add one additional sale option:

You commission the merchant to sell the item. You get absolutely nothing now, but the merchant will attempt to sell it and take a 20% commission when it does sell. You'll probably get 80% or even 100% for the item, but it will take months or years and there's a small chance it'll be lost/stolen.

Seems to cover the third option without requiring the PCs doing stupid stuff.

 

[FadedC]

I was thinking it's probably reasonable to add one additional sale option:

You commission the merchant to sell the item. You get absolutely nothing now, but the merchant will attempt to sell it and take a 20% commission when it does sell. You'll probably get 80% or even 100% for the item, but it will take months or years and there's a small chance it'll be lost/stolen.

Seems to cover the third option without requiring the PCs doing stupid stuff.

That's pretty much what I did in my 3.5 campaign when players didn't want to pay my sometimes overly marked down prices. They could leave the items with a friendly merchant, and after every adventure I would roll for the items to see if they sold. Gave them some extra gold but at a time cost.

It kind of made more sense in my campaign though where the players had gotten on the good side of a major trade guild they were fairly confident they could trust. I doubt they would hand their magic items over long term to random merchant.

I also often changed magic item sell prices dramatically based on how easy it would be to find a buyer. A +1 flaming long sword would easily sell for 50% or even 60%. But a +1 halfling sized defending quarterstaff you'd be lucky to get 10% for.

 

[keterys]

So, you can flex the values depending on how nice you want to be, but this whole discussion has prompted me to prepare one bit of canned dialogue for if this ever comes up in one of my games

'Well, there's a 40% government tax on the sale of magic items that I'm required to hand over for you. So I can either give you 200 now and I'll try to sell it - a nice sword like that, I should be able to move by winter, or by the summer fair at the latest. Of course, if we go to war they might try to seize it as a resource, but that's the risk, isn't it?

Alternatively, I'll take the sword on commission for you. I'll sell it when I'm able to, with a 20% commission. Assuming I can sell it for, say, 1000 or even 1200, that'll net you 400 to 480 gold. Will you be here in February or September, when I return to this town? If not, you can speak to the merchant's guild at Guri which will charge a minor 10g fee to draw the money once it's sold.

Also, I'll need your mark that I'm not responsible for bandit attack or theft. Said same merchant's guild authenticates my honesty as a merchant and you can check with the people in town that I've been honest in my dealings for the past decade, but the guild will offer an insurance policy on your item should you be concerned. The roads are usually pretty safe nowadays and as you can see I travel only in guarded caravans, but I have been hearing some ugly murmurings from those taking the southern roads about orcs. Hopefully another war isn't coming.'

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I was thinking it's probably reasonable to add one additional sale option:

You commission the merchant to sell the item. You get absolutely nothing now, but the merchant will attempt to sell it and take a 20% commission when it does sell. You'll probably get 80% or even 100% for the item, but it will take months or years and there's a small chance it'll be lost/stolen.

Seems to cover the third option without requiring the PCs doing stupid stuff.

This was my goal with adding the magical auctions in my world - it may take some time to sell an item, but you'll get closer to full price.

 

[DM_Blake]

I just don't get it.

I've read a bunch of this stuff about not letting players buy/sell magic items, or restricting it, placing limits, nerfing the whole idea.

Why?

In our world, you can buy a car. Drive it for a while. Then sell it to someone else. No restrictions, no limits, no nerfs.

Or buy a home. Or buy a computer. Or buy a pair of socks. And you can sell those things too. Or even give them away.

And, truth be told, in our world we have to worry about wear and tear. A 10 year old car won't be worth what it was worth brand new because it's old, worn out, breaking down.

But not so for magic items. Most of these little wonders are nearly indestructible. Sure, some have charges, and a depleted wand is not worth what a fully charged wand is worth. But for most of it, wear and tear is not a factor. No reason at all why a Ring of Regeneration won't sell today for the same amount it sold for a hundred years ago.

So, why should players face arbitrary restrictions on selling their items?

Sure, when they are in a backwater village, there isn't likely to be a buyer in the area with the kind of cash the players want. But later, when they visit the capitol city, there could be hundreds of buyers.

So where do the arbitrary limits come from?

And taking it a step farther, assuming we actually allow our players to sell their unwanted magic items, we must realize that other people are doing the same thing, too. Which creates a market. Which means when players want to buy magic items, there is a market. Which means restricting buying of items begins to seem arbitrary too.

So why all the uproar about buying and selling magic items, anyway?

Situationally, sure, some areas with small populations and little cash flow are definitely not good markets to buy and sell valuable items, whether it be gems, paintings, tapestries, or magic items. But in larger, more lucrative economies, there will definitely be markets for all of these things, including magic items.

Anything else doesn't make sense.

 

[keterys]

But later, when they visit the capitol city, there could be hundreds of buyers.

Really? I wonder how many buyers for Faberge eggs there are in, say, Hartford Connecticut - a city of 125k people, though metro is more like 1.25 million...

I figure Faberge eggs compare decently well to major magic items. Hartford is frankly probably too big of a city, but it was my first pick for a place that I thought of as a D&D sized city for population.

I'm not sure you could find 1 buyer at the normal price, nevermind hundreds.