Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 1930120" data-attributes="member: 7240">I'm not sure there is any "doing it" entailed in the absolute value system. My point was simply that if you play based on the rules in the book where prices never vary, it is easier than creating an economic simulation model. Aren't you in greater danger of exploitation/breakage with your proposed system by pegging item creation XP and spell costs to fluctuating prices? It seems problematic to me that the XP costs of a magic item could be reduced by glutting/flooding the market with certain materials.How does your physics hang together? How is magic explained/understood?I'm not making a statement about the conscious intent of the writers of D&D; I think certain things were not really thought-through when it comes to economics and the like. I just tend to build worlds/rules where the physics/social science are not on a collision course with the rules. I run games with absolute value to simplify things -- while your supply and demand model, as you point out above, presents horrendous complexity factoring in political, cultural and material concerns, my "play by the book" rule doesn't have to worry about any of those things. Things are worth what WOTC says they are worth all the time and it's backed up by a single coherent system of both hard and social sciences.I think this is where we see things differently. For me, realism comes from internal consistency not from similarity to real life. Your system, interesting as it is, is actually less internally consistent than a strict Aristotelian reading of the rules. The way that your economics provide realism is by making things more similar to the real world at the expense of internal consistency.  This kind of realism is very popular so I think some people will find your ideas useful but I think you should really re-examine whether your addition to the rules produces a more internally consistent economics for the game.</blockquote>

Verification