D&D General Games Economies

[AlViking]

I disagree. The world and the economy can have a huge impact on the game if the GM and the players want it to. It depends on why you're playing. I play to create and/or explore a world with verisimilitude, where things work like the real world unless good reason is shown otherwise.

Beyond "This is a trade city because it's on a river that opens into the ocean" or "Being close to the dwarven mines, this city is a distribution point trading finely made goods and refined ore for consumables the dwarves don't have" how often does it matter? Much like I think about climate on a broad basis but I don't attempt to model daily weather patterns, a little bit goes a long way when describing local economies.

 

[Zaukrie]

I've never understood this. The DM controls how much money there is, and what things cost. This is a table issue, imo. It's much different that other aspects of the game, as it's pretty independent of all the other rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

What if the GM minds the fact that gold is valueless?

Then they should create more practical things to spend gold on, obviously.

If the GM and the designer put some work in and are honest about NPC behavior, it absolutely can be more if an economy then you're saying.

These are the words of someone who has a layman’s understanding of economics. The reality, however, is that an actual economy is an extremely complex beast, which cannot be practically simulated in a system where there is no actual scarcity. Again, you can create an illusion of market forces that’s convincing enough from a player’s perspective, but to actually model an economy would be much more involved than an RPG is equipped to handle. Even if you could, I don’t think the benefits would be worth a fraction of the effort it would take to do so, compared to simply creating an illusory impression of market forces.

 

[GrimCo]

When it comes to game economy, oWoD has most sense. You have your Resource background. Each dot represents mix of lifestyle and income. It also gives solid estimate of what things you can just buy, what you probably can buy if you save and get creative and what you outright can't buy. Then there is Wealth merit that is kind of safeguard, it means you have enough money safely invested and your Resources can't drop (without very good story reason).

D&D on the other hand, well, I stopped pretending it makes any sense long time ago. And, for some campaigns, i just hand waive it all together, especially if they start at tier 2. I just assume they have enough money for normal expenses. I removes money as a motive. Also, it stops players from taking anything not bolted down and selling it. I had players buy adamantium crowbars so they can pry remove adamantium bolts (which they also took) so they can take statues from palace.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Beyond "This is a trade city because it's on a river that opens into the ocean" or "Being close to the dwarven mines, this city is a distribution point trading finely made goods and refined ore for consumables the dwarves don't have" how often does it matter? Much like I think about climate on a broad basis but I don't attempt to model daily weather patterns, a little bit goes a long way when describing local economies.

And you can absolutely do that, and it will be satisfactory for a lot of people (more than enough for some I suspect), but it's not the only reasonable option, and there's nothing wrong with wanting more granularity.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then they should create more practical things to spend gold on, obviously.

These are the words of someone who has a layman’s understanding of economics. The reality, however, is that an actual economy is an extremely complex beast, which cannot be practically simulated in a system where there is no actual scarcity. Again, you can create an illusion of market forces that’s convincing enough from a player’s perspective, but to actually model an economy would be much more involved than an RPG is equipped to handle. Even if you could, I don’t think the benefits would be worth a fraction of the effort it would take to do so, compared to simply creating an illusory impression of market forces.

Are you an economist? How can you be so sure a reasonable economic simulation is so impossible that we all just shouldn't bother in our own games?

 

[Micah Sweet]

When it comes to game economy, oWoD has most sense. You have your Resource background. Each dot represents mix of lifestyle and income. It also gives solid estimate of what things you can just buy, what you probably can buy if you save and get creative and what you outright can't buy. Then there is Wealth merit that is kind of safeguard, it means you have enough money safely invested and your Resources can't drop (without very good story reason).

D&D on the other hand, well, I stopped pretending it makes any sense long time ago. And, for some campaigns, i just hand waive it all together, especially if they start at tier 2. I just assume they have enough money for normal expenses. I removes money as a motive. Also, it stops players from taking anything not bolted down and selling it. I had players buy adamantium crowbars so they can pry remove adamantium bolts (which they also took) so they can take statues from palace.

Where would even find adamantium prybars?

 

[Stalker0]

and are +1 weapons or armor really that magical?

actually +1 weapons and armor are very magical, its +2/+3 weapons that are less so.

With that +1, you weapons that are immune to the normal wear and tear or weapons, can cut through any resistant materials, and can resize to fit the user!

The +2/+3 bonus on top really doesn't do all that much in comparison except for the most specialized of soldiers (aka PCs) where every edge matters.

 

[AlViking]

Are you an economist? How can you be so sure a reasonable economic simulation is so impossible that we all just shouldn't bother in our own games?

Are you an economist with a minor in medieval studies or similar? It doesn't matter to me what you do in your game, but more granularity doesn't necessarily mean more accuracy. Especially when you start throwing in things like other species, magic and a hundred other things that D&D assumes is normal. I do attempt to look at the world the characters inhabit and have it make sense from the character's perspective I guess I just don't know what value details add to the game. I'd be curious what difference it makes for you and your table.

 

[Distracted DM]

I've never understood this. The DM controls how much money there is, and what things cost. This is a table issue, imo. It's much different that other aspects of the game, as it's pretty independent of all the other rules.

I think it's the same as any other rule that the DM wants to change. They can, but players have assumptions because the base prices are in the core book.
Regarding how much money there is, they can change that, but they're again disregarding the base rules (in this case, amount of treasure handed out in the DMG or adventure).

So if people think there's a better way, of course they're going to want the core rules to adopt it.. so it's in the book by default, without it having to be changed.

All that being said, I find that strongholds are an excellent gold-sink. Players are usually into it if they grant mechanical benefits (see A5E, or MCDM's Stronghold & Followers).