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

[darkrose50]

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.

I think the economic rules are sad, and pathetic. I am not trying to defend them in any way. The economic rules failed horribly (from a gamist, and simulationist standpoint). From a simulationist stanpoint they failed by restricting any concept that involves being good at making money. A 3 charisma 0 diplomacy character is just as good at buying and selling as a 20 charisma +15 diplomacy character. From a gamist standpoint there is not a stable wealth by level model (different groups gain magical items in dramatically different ways . . . this will screw up things like RPGA tournaments).

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?

Anything from spending trade value on a pint of ale to a fully decked out fortress would decrease the power of the player character. Being a cheap hermit living in the forest eating worms will make you more powerful than living it up like Conan. Once trade value is used, it is gone forever (unless it was spent on an art object for 100% retention, or magical item for 20% retention).

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.

Parcels are the only way to make money in the rules as written. One cannot simply say house rule it to cover up flaws in rules design. I pay for rules that do not need house ruling in order to play someone who likes wealth (pretty damn common personality trait).

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).

Trade value is equipment points intended to be used on either magical items, or rituals. Spending trade value on anything else will lower your power, as trade value earned is finite.

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...

The games economics are horribly designed. The only way to gain trade value is to level up, and if you spend your finite trade value on anything but magical items or rituals, than your power suffers.

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).

Introducing such an item breaks the parcel rules / guidelines. This sentence reads to me as a treasure specific “it is okay to make a house-rule” example. I know I can house rule stuff.

I remember reading a quote from a preview where it was mentioned that a character would not be able to sell his or her gear and buy a magical item higher than 4-level than the character level.

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.

Doing so would not be following the rules as written. The intent of this post is to brainstorm for ideas on how to come up with economic rules with more verisimilitude (appearance of being real), and more fun.

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.

Treasure is finite in the rules as written. Pointing out that one can house rule something is not an excuse for having bad rules.

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?

I was trying for a ridicules example. Replace magical shaving blade with whatever you want. The point stands. There are two ways to get stuff “a wish-list”, and “suck-it-up this is what you get”. The wish-list route gains more power, than the suck-it-up route. We do not have a reason for this in the rules as written. I can only guess why this is so. This makes creating professional adventures harder than it should have been (RPGA tournament adventures for example).

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?

The purchase price of a permanent magic item depends on its level, as shown on the table below. The purchase price of a consumable item (such as a potion or elixir) is much lower than the price of a permanent item of the same level. The sale price of a magic item (the amount a PC gets from either selling or disenchanting an item) is one-fifth of the purchase price.

Prices shown are the base market price for items. The actual cost to purchase a magic item depends on supply and demand and might be 10 to 40 percent more than the base market price.

Second paragraph, third sentence: “When characters have magic items to sell, a traveling merchant is in town – or soon will be – to take it off their hands”

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.

I specifically explicitly wrote I was not going for real world anything. Again you say just house rule it. One can houserule anything. I did not pay money for a game with bad rules so I could house rule them. House ruling is not a defense for bad rules.

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 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").

A player character should be able to get more than 20% of the crafting value of a magical item given enough time, the right skills, the right attributes, and the right connections. One could use an agent, or go to an auction house to sell an item. In the rules as written the only way to sell an item is to a traveling merchant for 20% of its crafting cost.

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"?

Earning money outside of the parcel system, or by merit of skill, planning, time, and effort is interacting with the economy in a meaningful manor. I am working on a system where money and power is separated.

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.

A treasure hunter worth his grit would not sell his or her treasure for 20% of the crafting cost. Doing so is ambivalent at best, and incompetent at worst. I would certainly call anyone selling a house at 20% of its peer reviewed apprised value an idiot. He or she would figure out a way to sell the treasure for more (agents, auction houses, word of mouth).

Thieves-in-the-night or con-men can not, should not earn more treasure than anyone else as the parcel system is intended to be divided among the party.

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.

I hope for a book someday from WotC.

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.

Doing exactly this sort of thing should be an option. At any rate player characters in a normal dungeon crawl game should have the option to not be ambivalent, or idiots about selling items for 20% of there crafting cost, and should be able to get more if so inclined.

(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...)

I will post it shortly.

 

[Cwheeler]

You raise some interesting points in your inital post (although I find your seemingly scathing referances to an 'idealistic communist setting'... bemusing. amongst other things, a communist setting would have the PC's ensuring that they distributed their wealth evenly amongst the townsfolk that they helped.)


[Thinking about it, I actually find the idea of a communist-themed setting quite... intruiguing. I'm thinking stalanist iconography in a fantasy world, massive statues of Working heroes and a strong sense of community and combined purpose, the heroes working in conjunction with the townsfolk to help them overcome obstacles and survive in the world arround them. I might even draw some imagry inspiration form the comic Superman: Red Son...]


Sidenote over!

Something that I'd like to see in D&D is a system that makes money less important, leaving that to the more RPing side of things. I would love to be able to run a character that never has any money, dringking and gambling away most of his 'winnnings'. The idea of an epic level character in rags sort of appeals to me in some way... It'd also be great to be able to have, in the same game, a character that plays as a mearchant prince, setting up trade deals and mingling with the social elite. This would create a varied and interesting game, and lead to and encourage some genuinley interesting social RPing (without forcing players to go intrigue-heavy...)


Another interesting possibility is a party, ala Cowboy Bebop, who never seem to have any money.



Unfortunatley, the current system of D&D doesn't encourage this type of play, because currency is reasonably engrained into the mechanics and balancing of the game, rather than just RPing.

[afterthought]:
Perhaps it would be possible to make an abstract wealth system that is seperate, or at least mostly seperate to the D&D treasure system. This system could allow people to invest in shops, open establisments, gamble, trade stocks, represent companies, open/funrish a temple, provide funds to orphans, etc... each diferent 'vocation'/method of using your wealth could give you different minor benefits, such as contacts, a skill bonus, a 'social utility power' (possibly several over the course of your career) or even a strange bit of knowedge/information.

For example: a merchant may be able to easily arrange for passage on a ship, an arristocrat might have the ability to pull rank, a con-man might be able to blackmail/extort someone, and a gambler could pull in some 'favours' from his friends/associates.

It should also be possible for people to dabble in diferent methods of spending your wealth... like multiclassing your profession.

Just some thoughts, but it could actuall work...

 

[Raven Swords]

I kind of see 4th edition as a giant board game with a story line you make up as you play.

The first thing I thought when I read the rules was that the equipment lists were so boring and very unbelievable (50g for full plate?). I was going to introduce a house ruled system to replace it, but then I read the rest of the book and decided it was one thing among many that I want to change..

 

[FungiMuncher]

I recall people discussing something called the 'Wish Economy' or 'Magic Item Economy.' These discussions were for an earlier edition of the game - I'll try to provide a link if I can.

It involved the DM maintaining a separate currency for magic items alone. Basically, anything under 15,000 gp value could be bought with gold, but anything over that amount needed this additional currency. That additional currency was anything the DM wanted it to be, but was always something fantastic and hard to acquire - souls, essences, whatever. This system allowed the DM to be generous with mundane gold, but able to control what magic items the PC acquired.

Perhaps this is the sort of distinction the game needs. With a mundane economy, house-ruling DMs can get creative without throwing everything else out of whack.

FM

 

[77IM]

In my opinion first you need to separate wealth from level from power.

Problem: Level = Power, and I think attempting to change that in any way will wreak havoc with game balance and lead to a lot of hurt feelings at the table.

Now, separating Wealth from Power is easy. Just say that in the setting, you can't buy magic items or material components; you have to find them by adventuring. Bam! Suddenly it's possible to have an incredibly wealthy character, gold-wise, who has no more magic items or ritual casting mojo than the ascetic hero who is always giving his treasure away to the poor. This seems like it would encourage the sort of role-playing-based decisions you are looking for.

Of course, gold and gems then lose a lot of their appeal. You still want people to feel excited about a treasure horde, and you want the millionaire to have something fun to spend money on. My suggestion is that wealth equates to non-adventuring power. For example, once you have enough gold, you can buy a castle, start hiring troops, financing expeditions, and then you get invited to the ball, etc.

-- 77IM

 

[Paul Strack]

In my house rules, I don't give out treasure parcels at all. I abstract the entire treasure collection process by simply letting the players pick and upgrade their magic items as they advance in levels, more or less following the guidelines for "Starting at a Higher Level" rule on DMG 143. I did something similar in 3E as well.

I treat any wealth-related activities as pure role-playing. The politically and economically oriented characters can adventure to gain status and property, but those can't be converted to better equipment. The characters that want to give their cash to the poor or blow it all on wine and women are not penalized by having worse equipment.

If someone had a character concept of a wealthy character that had better equipment than his comrades, I'd concoct a Feat to allow him to have better gear (say his best item is Level + 3 instead of Level + 1). That way the concept is still requires a trade-off.

 

[XavTango]

I don't think there is anything wrong with players wanting to immerse themselves into the economic part of the world in addition to doing all the bad guy smashing they find time for. In an old group of mine a Necromancer with deep pockets was influencing an election in a metropolis to get someone he wanted elected in order to benefit the Necromancer's up and coming town in which he and his fellow players were the ruling council. They each had their areas of expertise and developed cohesive and cerebral laws about taxes, trade revenue, tariffs, etc. They still spent a majority of their time adventuring, leaving the town in the hands of well-trusted lackeys, and returned to see if their plans were reaching fruition or needed further tweaking or bribery or assassination, whatever.

In that instance the local, regional, and world economy had a definite place and I, as GM, needed to really be on top of my game to keep both aspects of gaming fun and challenging. It now is one of the most memorable games ever because of the level of depth the campaign had.

I understand 4e is going for a very simplistic abstract model, and in some ways I can agree with it, but certainly they could have sat around and come up with some rules that don't ruin the 4e multiverse so characters can interact in the ways I described above.

If power = wealth = level then there can never again be the 1st level Duke, with lots of wealth, trying to get the characters to do something for him. He neither has the resources to pay them, nor the ass-kicking ability to threaten them. The best he can do is beg them which could work with a group of bored or altruistic types.

 

[chronoplasm]

I like that suggestion about magical currency, but I think I'd prefer it to run parallel to normal currency.
That is, with small amounts of magical currency, perhaps residuum, you can buy little trinkets like a toy goblin that dances and sings, basic magical items like implements for wizards, or familiars. It's large amounts of residuum that can buy you +X weapons and such.

Can anybody help me figure out gold to XP conversion? What is the monetary value of 1 XP?

 

[Paul Strack]

Can anybody help me figure out gold to XP conversion? What is the monetary value of 1 XP?

I tried to work this out myself, because my house rules in 3.5E were that characters always had equipment value equal to their XP total (which worked pretty well up to about level 10).

Unfortunately, the math doesn't work in 4E, because treasure and XP scale at different rates. Treasure value goes up five times every 5 levels, and XP rewards are doubled every 4 levels. There is no simple formula that equates gold and XP consistently from levels 1 to 30.

 

[chronoplasm]

I tried to work this out myself, because my house rules in 3.5E were that characters always had equipment value equal to their XP total (which worked pretty well up to about level 10).

Unfortunately, the math doesn't work in 4E, because treasure and XP scale at different rates. Treasure value goes up five times every 5 levels, and XP rewards are doubled every 4 levels. There is no simple formula that equates gold and XP consistently from levels 1 to 30.

Ah.
Can we figure out the conversion rate at level 1? I'm trying to work out a house rule of my own you see. At level 1 you choose two out of three (each option can be chosen twice):
Noble/Criminal
You start out with a certain amount of gold either inhereted from your family or stolen from other people's families.
Veteran/Street Rat
You start out with a certain amount of XP earned from living on the streets or from fighting wars.
Mage?/Destined?
You start out with a certain amount of residuum.

I need to figure out the appropriate ratios and amounts to give for each of these.