I think the problem with any rpg economies is that people spend the minimum on everything and nothing on actual quality of life for their characters.
On the one hand, getting money is tough and slow outside of adventuring, and in adventuring the amounts are completely dependent on the DM.
On the other hand, characters don't send a portion of their earning to a family back home, 30-40% on housing, 10-20% on food, etc.-- everything is functionally for luxury goods.
I accept there's no income tax etc., but the economy is fundamentally skewed towards having disposable income, and what they have is an arbitrary amount. Lifestyle prices are there (2gp/day for comfortable, 4gp/day for wealthy), but they are never imposed, and (importantly) it's never a challenge not to provide for yourself and any dependants (not that PCs typically have dependants.)
Living costs money, and people want to have comfort if they can afford it. D&D sidesteps all of that. No one has families they give 30-80% of their earnings to, and even those who will pay to have a comfortable life, will happily spend all their time with someone whose life is squalid because they spend all their cash on ink to craft scrolls (don't get me started on those who suggest their character writes scrolls on horseback and during all downtime).
I know D&D doesn't stand for Debt and Downpayments, but strengthening the purchasing power of the gp can only be meaningful if it's not just shopping. At the same time, anything beyond "shopping" starts to feel not-fun. There are games that make paying off debt a big part of the motivation to adventure (Classic Traveller), and many games that don't introduce economies at all. The sticking point comes when (a) there is an absolutely arbitrary amount of cash available, (b) there are no ongoing financial obligations, and (c) things to purchase are all job-oriented success tools. It's really easier just to handwave money at that point.
I can think of lots of ways to incentivise making a minimum payment towards lifestyle (e.g. anyone who lives below a modest lifestyle functionally lives with a level or exhaustion), but modeling systemic societal imbalances to any degree is going to garner resentment.
(To be clear: I'm not down on there being better and more varied stuff available. But greater diversity of luxury adventuring goods, without solving the amounts of cash avaialble and the lack of ongoing finaincial commitments to family and society risks exacerbating the problem.)
On the one hand, getting money is tough and slow outside of adventuring, and in adventuring the amounts are completely dependent on the DM.
On the other hand, characters don't send a portion of their earning to a family back home, 30-40% on housing, 10-20% on food, etc.-- everything is functionally for luxury goods.
I accept there's no income tax etc., but the economy is fundamentally skewed towards having disposable income, and what they have is an arbitrary amount. Lifestyle prices are there (2gp/day for comfortable, 4gp/day for wealthy), but they are never imposed, and (importantly) it's never a challenge not to provide for yourself and any dependants (not that PCs typically have dependants.)
Living costs money, and people want to have comfort if they can afford it. D&D sidesteps all of that. No one has families they give 30-80% of their earnings to, and even those who will pay to have a comfortable life, will happily spend all their time with someone whose life is squalid because they spend all their cash on ink to craft scrolls (don't get me started on those who suggest their character writes scrolls on horseback and during all downtime).
I know D&D doesn't stand for Debt and Downpayments, but strengthening the purchasing power of the gp can only be meaningful if it's not just shopping. At the same time, anything beyond "shopping" starts to feel not-fun. There are games that make paying off debt a big part of the motivation to adventure (Classic Traveller), and many games that don't introduce economies at all. The sticking point comes when (a) there is an absolutely arbitrary amount of cash available, (b) there are no ongoing financial obligations, and (c) things to purchase are all job-oriented success tools. It's really easier just to handwave money at that point.
I can think of lots of ways to incentivise making a minimum payment towards lifestyle (e.g. anyone who lives below a modest lifestyle functionally lives with a level or exhaustion), but modeling systemic societal imbalances to any degree is going to garner resentment.
(To be clear: I'm not down on there being better and more varied stuff available. But greater diversity of luxury adventuring goods, without solving the amounts of cash avaialble and the lack of ongoing finaincial commitments to family and society risks exacerbating the problem.)
