Low Magic Campaigns?

[Raven Crowking]

I think we have a problem with definitions here.

Probably.

If you're going to design a game why not assume a baseline price for everything, then people can come in and apply whatever modifiers they want.

In terms of game design, I would say that this is often a must. In some games, though, an "if it makes sense you can have it" approach works just as well.

Maybe not - but those things are specific to time and place

That's where I think this breaks down. Can you please example me a price that is not specific to time and place?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you mean, That doesn't seem like an efficient market with perfect competition to me, and you're right, but most markets are far from efficient and far from perfectively competitive, particularly outside the modern, developed, capitalist world.

With very few buyers and/or sellers, with lots of information asymmetry, and with local lords and guilds meddling left and right, a market bears very little resemblance to what one learns about in Econ 101 or experiences in modern America.

Well said.

 

[Celebrim]

Take a typical medieval fair, and explain to me how it is that the king just didn't send his troops in and confiscate all the goods being sold, which could sum up to 20,000 gp.

Because the town had petitioned the local lord for the right to annually hold a faire on such and such day, and the petition had been granted probably with an exchange of funds involved. So the King doesn't come in and confiscate everything, firstly, because he probably doesn't have the troops to force the local lord to do anything, and secondly because if he's involved with the deal at all he's already had his cut.

But frankly, if we are running typical medieval fairs rather than having Wal-Magic and hand waving where all this stuff comes from then we are rather far from whats not called the 'default' D&D setting.

 

[Imp]

Also because the kings steal from the county fairs with their tax collectors, getting a consistent income instead of a one-time windfall. I don't assume the king is out to get the adventurers, by the way, in these scenarios. The way kings work more often than not is they protect you but they very much want to know where exactly you got the money from. It's the cults, thieves, and psychos who are out for the one big score.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Who said anything about fair-mindedness? I'm only finding that 20% of what I say is even remotely recognizable when I hear it back again. It, of course, is possible that having 20,000 gp might get you robbed, but you guys say that as if it's a universal and constant situation - with no consequences for the robber-baron.

Have you ever read A Tale of Two Cities?

How much risk you are willing to undergo is very dependent upon where you begin and what the reward is.

Take a typical medieval fair, and explain to me how it is that the king just didn't send his troops in and confiscate all the goods being sold, which could sum up to 20,000 gp. Where is the middle class medieval housewife buying her pepper? - since as soon as the ship comes rolling into port apparently a gang of royal troops converges on the ship and kills the captain and siezes the goods.

I'm not at all certain that the middle class medieval housewife can afford pepper.

That said, the King and the nobility have obligations (which they undertake with a varying degree of seriousness) and are not at all monolithic in terms of their power. Did kings and emporers sack cities they supposedly had dominion over? They assuredly did. But they also understood that sending your standing armies to point A means that your enemies at points B, C, and D don't have to worry about said armies for a while -- a fact that was as true then as it is now.

And why would a high level entity want 20,000 gp? Apparently there's nothing much you can do with it. Wizards will refuse to make magic items. In fact, anyone weaker than yourself will never trade anything for it because, apparently, he'll simply get ambushed and killed for it as soon as he leaves the transaction.

I think you missed the part about NPCs gifting PCs with magic items, because the good will of the PCs is worth more than the gold. It would be far more likely that the first mercantile arrangement the PCs have with a magic item is selling it to a local lord -- not for money, but for the right to tax, charge toll, or have a certain monopoly within his jurisdiction. Eventually, these things are worth more than the gold.

Later on, when they have established themselves, they can give these sorts of gifts without fear of being robbed. Instead of the MagicMart, you have a series of personal relationships that include fealty, treachery, and politics -- in short, circumstances for adventure.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

he's already had his cut.

Exacty.

The Godfather explains all.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Also because the kings steal from the county fairs with their tax collectors, getting a consistent income instead of a one-time windfall. I don't assume the king is out to get the adventurers, by the way, in these scenarios. The way kings work more often than not is they protect you but they very much want to know where exactly you got the money from. It's the cults, thieves, and psychos who are out for the one big score.

Also very well said.

The King most often wants the adventurers on his side -- but only those adventurers that he knows not to be the cultists, thieves, and psychos. IOW, those adventurers who know to show due deference to the King and His Representatives.

 

[Remathilis]

A successful DUNGEONS & DRAGONS setting is neither an authentic portrayal of medieval history nor an exercise in logical extrapolation from a fantastic premise. Instead, think of it as a medieval-flavored game environment. Your players expect to play in a world resembling the Middle Ages, but with the harsh, brutal, depressing, and serious elements stripped out. They want to explore an idealized realm of virtuous kings, shining armor, colorful tournaments, towering castles, and fearsome dragons. The setting might have its dark and challenging corners, but overall it offers a positive, escapist vision of good against evil.

Historical accuracy should be ignored when it interferes with the game’s spirit of light-hearted fun. For example, out of respect for real-world beliefs, D&D includes only imaginary faiths. Few players want to explore a genuine medieval world view, in which issues of faith dominate all thought and culture.

Nor would a strictly realistic economic system provide much entertainment. The cartloads of gold adventurers constantly haul out of dungeons is a fun game element, not a logical one. Had such vast quantities of wealth turned up in the real medieval world, its social structure would have been overturned nearly overnight. Kings and nobles held power because they were the landowners in an agriculturally based economy. Realistically, they shouldn’t be in charge in a D&D world, but they are, because they’re integral to the fantasy. Escapism trumps literal logic.

Likewise, your basic D&D world is usually a kitchen sink, using the imagery not only of the Middle Ages but also from ancient cultures across thousands of years of history. Dark Ages barbarians rub shoulders with Japanese samurai and pseudo-Egyptian priests. It mixes the elves and dwarves of epic fantasy fiction with the mighty-thewed warriors of pulp magazine sword and sorcery. If you were writing a novel, you wouldn’t want to invent a world that was merely a collection of popular clichés about the medieval and ancient periods. You would want to either evoke one particular period in a fresh and surprising way, or create an exotic place and time entirely from scratch. In a game, though, clichés are useful. They act as a kind of shorthand, making it easier for you to describe your setting in a few simple phrases and images. Your players already like and understand them. Don’t let a misplaced sense of literary snobbery get in the way of a good time.

I hope that much raw text is ok, but its the BEST description of D&D as medieval-flavor but not medieval logic. Its the approach I like, enjoy, and employ. Later on in DMG2 there is a section on gender in the game that touches on the same subject. Escapism trumps reality.

 

[Imp]

Can I add that – by way of note-sharing or just general clarification – that I'm not real given to always roleplaying the webs of intrigue and fealty that come with the buying and selling of magic items and big treasures, but instead I work that stuff into the background, and reserve the right to use that sort of thing, even sometimes the player-robbing, as plot hooks? (There's no stronger plot hook than HE TOOK MAH GOLD!) Also, that one of the virtues of 3e that I like to exploit is that it's suited to episodic adventures in a way that the grind of 1e was not? And in that case, handwaving what PCs do with their money over a course of a couple months or years, instead of a course of days or weeks, makes for more plausible finessing? There's no reason to play this stuff out if it interferes with a story – but if you're doing a level 1 to 20 skyrocket in the course of three game months, that's pretty crazy stuff if you think about it, and it makes sense to come up with a suitably crazy way to make loot fungible. I'm always tempted to have PCs just sacrifice their stuff on an altar and poof comes the item from outer-plane-spirit types who have taken an interest in the extraordinary events the PCs must be dealing with for them to rise in power so metorically.

 

[gizmo33]

I'm not at all certain that the middle class medieval housewife can afford pepper.

Well then it would seem to me that it would be best not to have an opinion on it. Really, I don't think we're discussing this in good faith anymore. The arguments against what I'm saying seem to hang on generalities and innuendo. I've tried to make a case for what I consider common sense, and I've tried to provide specific examples. There's plenty of documentation for the price of pepper in Europe in the 13th century, equally there is documentation for wages. So there's no reason not to be certain. Then again, the Godfather is probably more entertaining. Oh well.