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

[kennew142]

I like the economy article. I've always favored having merchants pay less than 50% market value for magic items. I use the used book store method for determining what you can get for an item. If a merchant can sell an item for X gp, he will give you 1/2 X gp in trade or 1/4 X gp in coin. The assumption was that the merchant might have to hold onto an item for a long time before he can sell it, so he has to keep his profit margins high. 1/5 market value is only a little less than the 1/4 I was giving.

I have allowed (and will continue to allow) good merchanting skills (probably Diplomacy in 4e) to provide a bonus to the percentage the party can get from an item, and a discount on what they want to purchase.

I've never been too concerned with how much money the characters have, since I limit the access to magic item merchants. Usually I determine what each merchant has available. The characters interact with the NPCs to find out what's available where. I also change the stock available between visits to simulate the merchant selling some items and acquiring others.

At first I hated the concept of residuum, but then I realized that it was just the name I hated. I liked the idea of disenchanting magic items when I first saw it in the artificer class. I'll just change the name. I can't decide on numina or mana, but it will probably be one of those.

 

[frankthedm]

20% resale rate is awesome from a cheapskate DM perspective. I assumed players would get 50% resale or re-enchant.

 

[Hussar]

Can't say that I care all that much either way.

D&D as an economic sim is an exercise in futility in any edition.

 

[FireLance]

No game can get the economy right because nobody understands how the economy in the real world works in the first place. (Trust me, I'm an economist. )

All a game system can come up with are rules for the PCs to interact with the economy. If a DM wants to change the default rate at which the PCs are assumed to be losing resources (by changing the rates at which the PC sell their used magic items, for example), he will just have to change the rate at which the PCs gain resources (from finding treasure and other rewards, for example), or be prepared for other aspects of the game to change (how difficult or easy the PCs will find a standard encounter, for example).

 

[pawsplay]

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.)

I think he is simply referring to the restricted set of answers, none of which are, "Good heavens, what have the 4e team been huffing, that they want to hurl 4e back into the Dark Ages of adversarial DMing?"

 

[MichaelSomething]

My main concerns are balance and flexability. The Parcel system seems to require a bit of work to change for party sizes different from 5. What if I have a 3 or 7 person party? How should I change the treasure?

I also read a large part of thread discussing the article. It seems to be filled with people saying that they hate it. I wonder what type of system would make them happy? What exactly do they want out of the system?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think the issue with the poll being biased is that it opens up with "4e fixed the economy. You agree, right?"

And yeah, that's...REALLY biased, to say the last.

I voted second option because "4e's economy methods are worse" wasn't available.

 

[Orius]

Agree, sort of. I don't know if it's right, but it looks like a good idea on paper.

Of course, it could also be horribly broken.

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.

Too many players think buying and selling stuff is like the modern retail world, and expect unchanging prices. Having the possibility of fluctuating values isn't bad because it opens an opportunity for haggling, and for role-playing if the players actually want to take the time to hunt down buyers.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I agree taht 3E's economy is broken, but the except is not enough to tell me about 4E's at all. What do common goods cost, like meals, simple tools and everyday items? Is there still a huge, gold-rush era gap between what common people survive on and what adventuers leave in the gutter becasue it is too much bother to carry?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I voted option 3.

The important thing for me is whether I know if and how I can sell my loot, and what I can buy. But that's not really an economy system. 4E gives me the answers to the questions I really care for, and that is enough to me, so I could have picked 1,too.