Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Agback" data-source="post: 245847" data-attributes="member: 5328">Re: what about equity?Okay, let's think this through. What do retailers do when their stock isn't shifting? They cut their mark-up. They hold clearance sales.What is a spell-caster going to do when he finds that he is only selling a tiny proportion of the spells he has available? Won't he cut his price to compete for business? And won't his competitors match his price cut? And won't the number of spell-casting paid for increase as the price goes down?What is the equilibrium? That depends on the number of spellcasters in the market. But if there is more than a handful, and unless there is a cartel, the equilibrium will come either at the point where any further price cut will eliminate all profit or where a further price cut cannot increase volume (ie. at the point where spellcasters sell off all their slots.)Yes, provided that they undertake the efforts that are necessary to get in touch with their customers (which basically means keeping in contact with a broker). But you must be aware that I have completely re-worked the cost tables for my campaign, and that money is much, much scarcer in my worlds than in those consistent with the PHB and DMG.I don't expect you to follow my lead, but be aware that by sticking with PHB prices you are implying a world with a grossly inconsistent economy.That's why I considered the True Resurrection as a method of calculating the lower bound on danger money, but also calculated the higher value that you get from assuming the use of Raise Dead instead.I agree, which is why I think there is a problem in the 3E rules for the cost of spellcasting services.Presumably he does it the same way as when he is setting the price for casting a spell or creating an item that requires that he expend experience points.If they provide their own equipment, they ought to get more pay than naked rivals. But in practice PCs in my campaigns rarely work for hire.Not at all. NPCs are no more likely than PCs to engage for 'hire' in activities that will tend to cost more than they bring in.When a plumber calls at my house he charges me a fee that covers his insurance costs, amortisation of his truck and tools etc., as well as his wages. It isn't itemised in the bill, but the price I pay covers insurance premiums, fuel, and amortisation as well as wages. If it didn't, plumbers would go broke. Now a plumber's insurance premiums include a component that is proportional to the value of his truck and tools, and I pay (through his service fee) a contribution proportional to that value and the probability that they will be lost, stolen, or damaged while he is working for me.Nope. When you ask a cleric to go off on a day's adventuring you are asking him not only to cast off all his spells, but also to give up the opportunity to read, prepare sermons, preach bring comfort to the sick, carry out non-spell-based services, discharge duties, perform chores, and take part in any other use of his time. Clerics can do more in a day than just cast off their spells.I don't agree that the assumption is faulty. It seems to me (and I am an economist by profession) as though the equilibrium in the market for spell effects must be that price that clears the market. The short-run supply curve for spell effects under D&D is a vertical line at the number of slots per day the spellcasters in the business get to discharge. (Ie. supply of spell effects is perfectly inelastic in the short run.) And the competitive equilibrium is the price at which the demand curve intersects that vertical line.If you want to assert that the market doesn't clear, that a substantial proportion of the spell effects available are not used, you have to assume some sort of price restraint or output restraint, which is imposing a strong assumption on the world. By far the most usual thing we find is that an unregulated market will clear. It is not (IMPO) a faulty assumption to make that the market for spell effects is like any other.If the cleric can trust the party not to get wiped out, not to be bankrupted, and not to cheat him, and if the party is less risk-averse than the cleric, yes. Otherwise count on paying up front.That is effectively what I do whenever I buy an item with a warranty or free service. The price of the item includes the expected cost of parts and labour used in performing the scheduled services and any repairs under warranty. My car, fridge, dishwasher, cooktop, oven, TV, computer, VCR, stereo, lawnmower, mixing machine, food processor, and doubtless several other items came at prices that were set by people who figured "I may have to use components and pay labour servicing this puppy for the first year, or repairing it if it breaks down under warranty. I'd better make sure that my mark-up will cover the expected cost."Regards,Agback</blockquote>

Verification