Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jelmore" data-source="post: 4405730" data-attributes="member: 56412">I'm sorry, but the more I read this over, the more problems I'm having with it.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.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?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.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).                                                 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...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.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.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'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?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.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").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...)</blockquote>

Verification