How do we make economics that do not limit character concepts?

[darkrose50]

I am working on a system for doing so, but would like some ideas before posting it here.

The short bit . . .

4E D&D does not have fun economics as it severely limits economic character concepts. I am not suggesting that we need realistic economics. We do not need realistic economics to have fun economics. Fun economics would allow me to create a character that interacts with the economy in a meaningful manor (a treasure-hunter, a con-man, a thief-in-the-night, a merchant, a craftsman, or a wealthy-brat). Just as we have characters that interact in combat in a meaningful manor, we should have characters that interact with the economy in a meaningful manor. I am by no means suggesting that economics need to be that complicated, just possible, well thought out, and meaningful.

The long bit . . .

D&D has combat rules, they are not realistic, and they are fun. It is the intent of Wizards of the Coast to make the combat rules internally consistent, and fun. The second printing should clean up any wording mistakes folks point out (I hope).

Wizards of the Coast failed horribly to create fun economics . . . they limit, and ruin character concepts. 4E D&D is a communist idealistic economy where everyone of an equal level is equally wealthy. I do not want to play in an idealistic communist setting. The setting described in the core book is certainly not a communist idealistic setting.

The economic system in 4E D&D boils down to seven cornerstones (I could have missed some):

First Cornerstone: Gold is a thinly veiled euphuism for equipment points (expressly magical item and ritual points), that may be frittered away on goods and services not equipment or ritual related.
o Once you spend trade value on anything not a art object that trade value either vanishes, or depreciates 80%.
o If you spend trade value on non-equipment, than you are less powerful.

Second Cornerstone: 4E D&D has a golden button you press for treasure when you level up. Everyone gets to press this golden button. This golden button is the only way to get gold.
o Parcels are this treasure button.
o Skill challenges draw from these parcels.
o One can not circumvent parcels with skill challenges.
o Scheming, personal skill, personal ability, and personal effort will not earn a character more trade value (all trade value obtained is intended to be split evenly with the party).

Third Cornerstone: Gold equals magical items equals power.
o One cannot earn money without earning power.
o One cannot be wealthy without being powerful.

Fourth Cornerstone: Wealth is dictated solely though level.
o Financial competence, or success, is dictated by level.
o Every character of equal level is equally financially competent, or successful.

Fifth Cornerstone: Though shat not be capable of purchasing magical items higher than character level +4 (I need to find this quote, I hope I am not misremembering).
o Characters can not sell there stuff, and buy a magical item that is 4 levels higher than they are.
o The only way to gain gold is though a parcel intended to be split evenly among a party

Sixth Cornerstone: Dungeon masters should think about giving characters what they want when they push the golden button, and if the dungeon master does not, than the player characters will not be able to trade for the items they want because of some reason not explained in the core books (I bet it is linked to the fifth cornerstone).
o If a player character uses a magical old fashioned shaving blade as a weapon (or something odd), then when that character wants to upgrade he fights some evil jerk who also uses a magical old fashioned shaving blade that happens to be the one he always wanted, until the next time he needs to upgrade.
o If the DM thinks handing out multiple magical old fashioned shaving blades is a bit odd, then the players get screwed out of level appropriate gear as magical items sell for 20% there crafting cost. The player who wants to upgrade his signature old fashioned shaving blade weapon needs to collect five or more equal level items in order to do so (or have a group willing to let him or her get all the gold in stay of magical loot that was placed “organically”).

Seventh Cornerstone: When buying magical items a player character pays 110% to 140% of the crafting value. When selling magical items a player character gets 20% of its crafting value (I bet it is linked to the fifth cornerstone).
o A player character is incapable of figuring out any economic process where he or she would be able to get more than 20% of the crafting cost for a magical item.
o 80% of the trade value locked in a magical item is gone once sold. See the first cornerstone if you think skill challenges would solve this.

One character cannot be, may not be, more financially competent than the next of equal level. You may not play a treasure-hunter, con-man, thief-in-the-night, merchant, craftsman, wealthy-brat, or have any concept that involves wealth, and be able to interact with the economy in any meaningful manor. Wealth is by level. Financial competence is by level. Financial success is by level. Those who want to be able to play a character who is interested in monetary gain are out of luck. Those wishing for economics beyond the golden button, are in the cold.

One does not need to create any sort of realism (that mirrors our reality) to include a well thought out, and fun economic rule set. Such a rule set would not hinder background choices, and character concepts that include interaction with the economy in a meaningful manor.

In summation 4E D&D clearly states wealth is by level, financial competence is by level, and financial success is by level. The only way to get wealth is to level up. This ruins character concepts involving wealth, and is rather deplorable. In my opinion first you need to separate wealth from level from power. Having a “better” game economy does not . . . in any way . . . no way at all . . . equal to having a “realistic” economy mirroring our own. We are playing D&D . . . with D&D combat . . . we are not shooting for realism. Having a fun economy does however equal having an economy where character concepts involving wealth are possible. Wealth is a huge driving force of many personalities. The current rules neuter those personalities. The 4E D&D economic rules are a sad, sad thing. A “better” economy would be one where character choices involving economics would be valid.

 

[ulrikbb]

Fifth Cornerstone: Though shat not be capable of purchasing magical items higher than character level +4 (I need to find this quote, I hope I am not misremembering).

I think that the DMG says that players should not be able to purchase items that are above their level at all. The powerful items are supposed to be found on adventures, making them the most rewarding part of the game.

In any case - has not the fact that money equals power always been the case in D&D?

I've only DM'ed one session with my 4E group so far, but I have been thinking of implementing an economy on the side, because I want the party to build a temple or headquarters, but I do not want them to spend their hard earned adventuring cash on it. Instead, I'll just let their temple generate a certain amount of money every session, and let them decide what they want to do with it. Obviously, I won't let them purchase gear for their temple's money, and I don't think they will want to do that themselves.

If anyone has had any 4E economy thoughts outside the world of equipment purchases, I'd be interested in hearing them out too.

 

[jelmore]

Fourth Cornerstone: Wealth is dictated solely though level.
o Financial competence, or success, is dictated by level.
o Every character of equal level is equally financially competent, or successful.

Off-topic, but this part reminded me of:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0158.html

 

[chronoplasm]

This reminds me of a game that I've been creating called Townsfolk, but one of its concepts may be helpful here.
Classes in Townsfolk are divided up into four roles:

Runners (scout for new materials and transport goods resources from point A to B.)
Collectors (when materials are found, collectors are sent in to extract them.)
Processors (processors refine raw materials to make goods.)
Maintainers (make sure that the process runs as smoothly as possible.)

The classes in Townsfolk are:

Runners
Sailors
Traders
Trailblazers
Hunters
Collectors
Fishers
Miners
Farmers
Butchers
Processors
Brewers
Metalworkers
Carpenters
Crafters
Maintainers
Guards
Bankers
Doctors
Shephards

Perhaps in addition to Race and Class, players may also choose a Trade.

The Runner classes are ideal for adventurers. Materials and goods have to get from point A to point B, right? This is complicated by the fact that the path is teeming with monsters. For this reason, caravans need to be escorted by strong, daring young men and women who know how to fight.
This seems like it would work well in the Points of Light Setting.
Players must fight through the wilderness seeking out towns to sell their wares so that they can bring back money and supplies to their home town. Sometimes they might have to cut time by taking short cuts through derilect old 'dungeons'. Perhaps as trailblazers the adventurers must clear out the monsters and old hazards to use these massive underground roads as trade routes.

The Collectors classes would also be good for a group of adventurers. The surveyors have returned to town after finding a vein of tin in yonder mountains. The adventurers must follow the directions to get the vein where they must extract the ores. Their job is complicated however by the presence of monsters.

 

[generalhenry]

you know what sucks?

sitting around while one character hyjacks the table playing with the economy.

The 4E economy prevents that and gets the party back in the dungeon working as a group ASAP.

The exponential curve takes care of the rest.

it doesn't take long before mundane goods are trivially priced and any given character can define how rich they act.

 

[Appleseeth]

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment darkrose, but the problem comes in solving the economy issue. The adventure "marketplace" is wrapped pretty tightly into the game. They even say to use one or more of the treasure parcels as the adventure hook, not adding any more gold to the pile seperatly.

So far I'm fine with the game economy as it is, as long as my players don't want to do anything "real" with it, it works. I did manage to figure out why they left out Craft, Profession and Perform: because they didn't want PCs to "make" money.

I'm just gonna try keeping my players occupied with adventures and hopefully the economy problem can be ignored.

 

[jelmore]

Back to the topic:

Much of what you say is correct, if you play a game that is set within the intended design of 4th Edition: one of heroic adventurers fighting cool cinematic battles or overcoming cunning skill challenges. Stepping too far outside of that is going to require some effort on the part of the DM.

If you want to play an evil party, you're going to have to work up new Channel Divinity feats for Orcus or Vecna, and maybe look at re-flavoring the (now "anti-") paladin's powers. If you want to play a game where PCs are merchants or crafters or landed nobles, don't be surprised that there's no fighter utility powers or paragon tier feats that work well with that.

If you want to have 1st-level PCs with the monetary resources of 21st-level PCs, then don't use the frameworks that grant XP to provide those riches. (Or do, but just handwave the XP away.) If you want to create "markets" and track what items or staples your PCs can farm/mine/purchase/resell, go right ahead; it's not my idea of stimulating roleplaying, but to each their own.

 

[chronoplasm]

You know what had really epic battles? Dune. What was Dune about? A bunch of people fighting over this stuff called Spice.
The thing about Spice though is that it came from these big worm monsters. The sandworms made the job of collecting Spice quite hazardous but you couldn't just kill them off because without the sandworms there was no spice.

What if the economy of D&D revolves around combat? That is, players fight monsters in order to collect a precious resource. The dungeons are enclosures in which monsters are kept, bred, and butchered.
What if armies fight and die everyday for control of these precious dungeons. A group of adventurers may very well have to fight off an invading hoard trying to take their dungeon, or maybe the adventurers must invade and conquer somebody else's dungeon?

 

[Anthony Jackson]

If you want to decouple wealth and power, you really only have three choices:

1) Magic Items don't give power. This pretty much implies that magic items don't exist.
2) Magic Items can't be meaningfully bought and sold. If you want a magic item, you find it.
3) Magic Items can be bought and sold, but there are severe limitations to how many and how strong items you can use. At that point, as long as you have enough money to reach your limit, any additional cash doesn't do much for your personal power.

 

[jelmore]

I'm sorry, but the more I read this over, the more problems I'm having with it.

Wizards of the Coast failed horribly to create fun economics . . . they limit, and ruin character concepts. 4E D&D is a communist idealistic economy where everyone of an equal level is equally wealthy. I do not want to play in an idealistic communist setting. The setting described in the core book is certainly not a communist idealistic setting.

With such an obviously subjective assertion right at the top, I almost don't want to continue. Wizards of the Coast did not "fail" to create fun economics, because WotC did not intend to provide fun economics; at least, not of the type you seem to want. And I won't touch the "communist idealistic setting" thing; adventure design is not the same thing as gameworld economy.

First Cornerstone: Gold is a thinly veiled euphuism for equipment points (expressly magical item and ritual points), that may be frittered away on goods and services not equipment or ritual related.
o Once you spend trade value on anything not a art object that trade value either vanishes, or depreciates 80%.
o If you spend trade value on non-equipment, than you are less powerful.

So making sub-optimal choices is not part of "fun economics", and there cannot be any constructive use for a PC's money other than to get new gear? You cannot bribe a corrupt official, make a donation to a local temple, or buy the guys in the tavern a round of ale?

Second Cornerstone: 4E D&D has a golden button you press for treasure when you level up. Everyone gets to press this golden button. This golden button is the only way to get gold.
o Parcels are this treasure button.
o Skill challenges draw from these parcels.
o One can not circumvent parcels with skill challenges.
o Scheming, personal skill, personal ability, and personal effort will not earn a character more trade value (all trade value obtained is intended to be split evenly with the party).

You are confusing adventure design guidelines with immutable laws of reality. The parcel system is intended to make sure that players are given the opportunity to acquire treasure that relates both to the challenge of obtaining it and the level of the PCs. You are also seeing restrictions where none exist; nothing mandates that parcels are the only way to make money.

Third Cornerstone: Gold equals magical items equals power.
o One cannot earn money without earning power.
o One cannot be wealthy without being powerful.

It is entirely possible for characters to earn money without earning power, and wealthy characters can have less power (in terms of combat effectiveness, which is what more equipment is geared towards); nothing forces PCs to trade their items or spend their gold on newer gear, especially if they don't intend to advance in level (which you seem to want to be possible).

Fourth Cornerstone: Wealth is dictated solely though level.
o Financial competence, or success, is dictated by level.
o Every character of equal level is equally financially competent, or successful.

This conflicts with your earlier assertion that PCs that spend "trade value" on non-equipment are less powerful. If I donate my gold to orphanage or throw it in the ocean, I'm not "financially competent" or "successful", at least by the metric you seem to use...

Fifth Cornerstone: Though shat not be capable of purchasing magical items higher than character level +4 (I need to find this quote, I hope I am not misremembering).
o Characters can not sell there stuff, and buy a magical item that is 4 levels higher than they are.
o The only way to gain gold is though a parcel intended to be split evenly among a party

You are misremembering; the PHB specifically states, on page 223: "There’s no restriction on using or acquiring items based on their level, except that you can’t use the Enchant Magic Item ritual (page 304) to create an item above your level." The level + 4 four guideline comes from the adventure design guidelines; nothing in the rules prevents a DM from giving a party of 1st-level PCs three level 9 items each (other than a sense of game balance).

Parcels are not intended to be split 100% evenly among a party; sets of parcels specifically have one fewer item than there are party members, but the idea is that over the course of several levels, five characters will end up with four items of varying (but appropriate) level. And again, there's nothing saying that you can't give characters treasure through non-parcel means.

Sixth Cornerstone: Dungeon masters should think about giving characters what they want when they push the golden button, and if the dungeon master does not, than the player characters will not be able to trade for the items they want because of some reason not explained in the core books

Again, you seem to confuse adventure design guidelines with immutable laws of reality. Nothing prevents the players from trading items other then DM fiat. I've played in a 3.5 campaign where the DM decided that all trade was done in silver instead of gold, but never bothered to change the prices for any of the items -- in essence he decided that all items cost 10x the usual listed amount. The last session we played in, we were offered the princely sum of 350 silver to track down and recover a caravan of stolen goodds; we literally laughed at the offer.

If a player character uses a magical old fashioned shaving blade as a weapon (or something odd), then when that character wants to upgrade he fights some evil jerk who also uses a magical old fashioned shaving blade that happens to be the one he always wanted, until the next time he needs to upgrade.

If the DM thinks handing out multiple magical old fashioned shaving blades is a bit odd, then the players get screwed out of level appropriate gear as magical items sell for 20% there crafting cost. The player who wants to upgrade his signature old fashioned shaving blade weapon needs to collect five or more equal level items in order to do so (or have a group willing to let him or her get all the gold in stay of magical loot that was placed “organically”).

I can't argue with a straw-man. You seem to fault the system for not supporting an unusual character concept (a magical shaving blade?), and also express surprise that the DM might have to contrive instances to support that character concept. As for the party sharing their wealth, RPGs are a collaborative endeavor, both between the DM and the players and among the players themselves. Are you advocating for a system that rewards PCs that are selfish or greedy? Maybe the party's leader should start charging for their healing effects?

Seventh Cornerstone: When buying magical items a player character pays 110% to 140% of the crafting value. When selling magical items a player character gets 20% of its crafting value

I'm not sure where you get your numbers from; in RAW, the cost of crafting an item is the same as purchasing an item. Where does 110-140% come from?

A player character is incapable of figuring out any economic process where he or she would be able to get more than 20% of the crafting cost for a magical item.

Repeat after me: RPGs are not real-world models. The players are perfectly capable of figuring out "economic processes" (whatever that means) that would net them more than 20% of the trade value, but doing anything other than selling/disenchanting their stuff for 20% of the purchase price is going to require help from the DM; the same goes for anything in the game the players want to do, really.

80% of the trade value locked in a magical item is gone once sold. See the first cornerstone if you think skill challenges would solve this

So your "fun economics" apparently ignores depreciation? If I buy a high-end PC for a gaming rig now, I don't get to magically trade it in in a few years for the current high-end PC. You will never find any merchant that buys things for the same price as they sell them (which is implied by "losing 80% of your trade value").

One does not need to create any sort of realism (that mirrors our reality) to include a well thought out, and fun economic rule set. Such a rule set would not hinder background choices, and character concepts that include interaction with the economy in a meaningful manor.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "interacting with the economy". What does being a "wealthy brat" or a "thief in the night" have to do with a gameworld's economy? How would you propose to balance a "wealthy brat" that presumably has greater access to wealth and resources than the rest of the party, or does your party become comprised of "haves" and "have-nots"? In that case, what motivation do I have for playing one of the "have-nots"?

Treasure hunters, thieves-in-the-night, and con men are reasonably doable within the existing 4E system; I would argue that the main thrust of D&D is to be a treasure hunter, either killing things and taking their stuff or exploring ancient ruins/temples/civilizations and taking their stuff.

Craftsmen and merchants are not doable, and that's pretty much by design. 4E is meant to be about heroic adventurers fighting cinematic battles and overcoming clever skill challenges; the more you stray from the paradigm, the more you're going to take it upon yourself to fill in the blanks.

If you want to provide guidelines for calculating the cost of goods sold for craftsmen, or overhead (laborers, caravans, and storage don't come for free, you know) for merchants, more power to you. If you want to create and maintain markets where players can buy shuffle stuff from place to place, be my guest; it just doesn't sound like a game I'd be much interested in playing.

(With that said, I am interested in seeing the system you plan to offer; just because I may find fault with some of your assertions or conclusions doesn't mean that I think you don't have a good idea...)