D&D 4E Game Economics: 4E Finally Got It Right

[CleverNickName]

So it's been a couple of days since the scoop about the 4E rewards and economy came out. There is a massive, 600+ post thread discussing it here, so I assume that everyone has had plenty of time to formulate their opinions on the topic. I'm curious about how everyone is feeling.

"4E finally got game economics right." Vote according to how much (or how little) you agree with that statement.

 

[keterys]

I really won't know until I get a chance to play, so I'm not voting. I definitely like the parcels and suggested levels, et al of magic item handouts.

I'm definitely okay with the 'nerfing' of magic item selling and buying, but I'm tentative on the final values - 20% may be low enough it causes grief, and people charging over 100% may cause grief. Also, for prepared modules with certain DMs, RPGA, etc, I have some concerns about treasure handling and distribution.

So... call me generally pleased with the article, but unwilling to commit to it 'running right'.

 

[CleverNickName]

For me, I voted for the third option. Game economics aren't terribly difficult to adjust on the fly...in fact, tweaking them is often necessary. Not every country has the same economic health and means, for example. There are more important (and more unbalancing) things to worry about in a game.

 

[jaelis]

I'll wait to see the full rules before making up my mind.

 

[That One Guy]

I've always made up my ingame mechanics based on how wealthy the city/region the PCs are in. I'll probably still roll that way, so I voted that such things do not concern me.

 

[Kraydak]

Option 5: 4e breaks the economy more than 3e did.

Annoying biased polls.

 

[Cadfan]

I voted "does not concern me."

It does concern me, technically, but only so long as the rules work. If I want a game about buying and selling commodities, I have a closet full of beautiful eurogames. And if my PCs absolutely insist on making salesmanship a big part of the campaign, I'll accomodate the way I always do- ad libbing. But in the meantime, the economy rules get the job done, and that's all that I care about.

 

[CleverNickName]

Annoying biased polls.

I'm sorry that you feel the poll is biased. (If you are implying that the poll is biased in favor of 4E, you might be the first person to ever suggest that I am a 4E fan. I'm skeptical at best.) The poll is worded the way it is because I am trying to mix up the format a bit. My polls here are all starting to look alike.

For the record, I do not care for the 4E game economics. I didn't care for the 3.x economics either. I prefer the BECM system, where magic items were not bought or sold except to other adventurers...and that is probably the most "broken" economy you can find.

I'm still leaning toward Pathfinder, in case it matters.

 

[keterys]

I do wonder if people would have complained as much if magic items simply weren't bought and sold in the rules, and you had to barter completely (instead of the whole 20% thing, which basically just says 'If you sell your +2 longsword to a merchant, you can buy a +1 battleaxe instead') - but, I don't want to embroil this thread in more discussion when we've got that fantastic other thread so I'll stop

 

[Kzach]

I dictate the setting's economy based on what feel I want for the game and do what I can to justify that in the rules rather than the rules dictating what my setting will be like.

Having said that, it has always been a problem in previous editions that simple things like Light spells could radically alter a society. Maybe these changes will work to create a more believable world. But then, either way, you always had to 'switch off' that higher brain function and dumb yourself down to play D&D