Gold or Silver Standard?

[HeavenShallBurn]

And it won't matter one bit if the PCs are still carrying around x amount of silver instead of x amount of gold, doing what you propose.

The fighter gets 150 gp as average starting wealth in the current 3.x rules. Now, what you are proposing is to give him an average of 150 sp. But that 15 gp longsword now costs 15 sp. It does *nothing* to change the ability of PCs to lug around a silver mine with them, flood a town with cheap silver, and spend like a drunken sailor buying magic items (which are now priced in sp).

And you seem to fail to realize that aside from you no one here is trying to address that issue. They AREN'T trying to adjust the purchasing power of pc characters. They're trying to move the price points themselves to a level slightly less outrageous and more consistent with historical prices. And they want to do this so that they can raise the relative value of gold enough that when large quantities are found it will be impressive to players as a result of its improved purchasing power in the context of the setting.

 

[3catcircus]

And you seem to fail to realize that aside from you no one here is trying to address that issue. They AREN'T trying to adjust the purchasing power of pc characters. They're trying to move the price points themselves to a level slightly less outrageous and more consistent with historical prices. And they want to do this so that they can raise the relative value of gold enough that when large quantities are found it will be impressive to players as a result of its improved purchasing power in the context of the setting.

And what everyone else either fails to realize or willfully disregards is that moving the price point down while raising the relative value of coins isn't a silver standard. You'll note that JoeG's original post and poll *doesn't* address the idea of changing prices, only of making gold and platinum coins more valuable, which is what I've been discussing.

 

[Lackhand]

And what everyone else either fails to realize or willfully disregards is that moving the price point down while raising the relative value of coins isn't a silver standard. You'll note that JoeG's original post and poll *doesn't* address the idea of changing prices, only of making gold and platinum coins more valuable, which is what I've been discussing.

Either you're misinterpreting, um, everything...
... or one of the poll options (platinum) is completely impossible.

My guess is that we're trying to solve completely different things. I'd like to solve the fact that gold is the standard medium of exchange and thus mundane; I don't care too badly about portable liquid wealth, because it's an abstraction, and my characters are already fully laden with loot.
I'm attracted to silver coinage because it lets me posit an easily transfered, standard unit of wealth (for adventurers) above the level of the base coin that isn't platinum. This isn't platinum's fault; it's just not as cool as gold is for the purpose.
ninja edit: By easily transfered, by the way, I mean "not a gem or art object", not "dollar bill woo!"

You seem very dismissive of this point of view; am I just misreading you?

 

[3catcircus]

Either you're misinterpreting, um, everything...
... or one of the poll options (platinum) is completely impossible.

My guess is that we're trying to solve completely different things. I'd like to solve the fact that gold is the standard medium of exchange and thus mundane; I don't care too badly about portable liquid wealth, because it's an abstraction, and my characters are already fully laden with loot.
I'm attracted to silver coinage because it lets me posit an easily transfered, standard unit of wealth (for adventurers) above the level of the base coin that isn't platinum. This isn't platinum's fault; it's just not as cool as gold is for the purpose.
ninja edit: By easily transfered, by the way, I mean "not a gem or art object", not "dollar bill woo!"

You seem very dismissive of this point of view; am I just misreading you?

I'm not dismissive; I just don't think the intent of people who want to both raise the value of coins and lower the value of items at the same time is keeping to the original topic's intent. But, I might be wrong.

 

[TwinBahamut]

And what everyone else either fails to realize or willfully disregards is that moving the price point down while raising the relative value of coins isn't a silver standard. You'll note that JoeG's original post and poll *doesn't* address the idea of changing prices, only of making gold and platinum coins more valuable, which is what I've been discussing.

I would say willfully disregards, myself. After, Haven't I said multiple times in this thread already that the definition being used in this discussion for "silver standard" is not really the typical economic one that you are using?

As a whole, I think there are two things that people in this thread want to see changed about the economic system. First, people want a real reason for silver coins to be considered valuable and useful for PCs. Second, people want gold coins to be more rare and valuable than they are currently. where you need a wagon full of gold to buy even a mundane suit of armor or a cheap magic item. You can argue whether or not this is at all related to a "silver standard", but these points are what people want to see changed, so any discussion of whether this is related to a "silver standard" or not is actually quite irrelevant.

If you ask me, what I proposed concerning altering prices and changing the relative value of gold and silver is one solution to the actual concerns of people in this thread. I have never cared at all whether this was an actual "silver standard" or not.

 

[Zelster]

I think World of Warcraft has the right idea in the 100:1 exchange rate. 100 copper for 1 silver, and silver is the most that an average daily laborer could hope to earn. Reserve the gold and platinum currencies for the ultra-wealthy (such as adventurers) and base the economy on what regular peasants could expect to earn.

 

[Fenes]

Did anyone ever simply say "ok, the gold pieces are smaller than the silver pieces, so the material value evens out"?

And the whole discussion just reinforces my belief that taking exact amounts of money out of the game was a good one.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

And the whole discussion just reinforces my belief that taking exact amounts of money out of the game was a good one.

Where is this from? Should this be in a scoop, because I haven't heard that about 4e.

 

[Fenes]

Where is this from? Should this be in a scoop, because I haven't heard that about 4e.

It's a house rule in my campaign, loosely styled after the d20 modern system of wealth levels.

 

[Belgarath]

my main problem

I really dont care if an average everyday guy would need to spend no money in his wages for months to buy a sword. If that is the value they want to put on a sword in the game, that is fine.

Where i think the whole thing breaks down is that a laborer gets 1 sp a day. The poor meal will cost 1sp. Ok, that will feed just him and him alone. What about any family he has, or people that will depend on him to feed them. Even a laborer should be able to scrounge out enough money to be able to feed at least one other person.

Lets go back to the equivalent modern sytem. A minumum wage worker in the US will earn around $60-70 a day for a full days work. That would mean that one cheap meal, like say a McDonalds value meal, would cost around $70 dollars. Even in the poorer countries, it is my understanding that someone who works can at least feed a small family regularly.

A gallon of ale costing $200? A common meal being the around the same? A stay at a common inn being effectively $350 a night? That would mean that an artisan would be able to feed just himself if he ate a common meal everyday. It seems like what they are calling common, really isnt very common. It tends to be more high end from what i see.

And before anything is said, there is a thing called relative wealth. A dollar might not mean much to a US citizen, but it may mean food for days in a poorer culture. But that would only mean that instead of earning $70 a day, a laborer might earn $1. But consider, the meals would also change prices, being a 20 cents (or something like that) instead of $10.

Easiest answer as far as I am concerned is dont change the cost of the items, only change the wages. Make a laborers pay 20 sp/week or something along that lines. That lets him feed himself, one other person and also be able to occasionally buy necessities like new clothes or whatever