New Podcast...

[JVisgaitis]

Really glad they answered my question on sacred cows. There was no predetermined list and they are just doing what they think works best and in playtesting seeing if its still D&D. That makes me very happy.

 

[mhensley]

1. They totally missed the point on the currency question. I'm pretty sure the guy was asking if D&D was moving to a more abstract wealth system, instead of accounting for coins. Based on their answer, the answer is 'No.'

Yep, they kinda missed what I was asking. Here's the full question I sent them-

Has any thought gone into revamping the monetary
system of D&D? I mean when is the last time anyone
cared about counting up all those copper and silver
pieces? Will D&D 4e show some innovation here and go
to just using gold pieces like most crpgs or to using
a wealth stat like some other rpgs?

 

[Andor]

But, thats TRUE. These things DON'T matter until the PCs step into the scene because the game follows THEM and their dramatic narrative, not Bob the Blacksmith's. Fourth Edition seems to REALLY be going into a mindset that "The world is more-or-less static until the PCs are involved" because, well, it's true. Even the act of hearing about far-off wars, political scandal, or other events that don't happen in the PCs view still involves the PCs (in the role of audience to such tales). So for as far as the game is concerned, the orc has been standing there guarding his pie diligently until the PCs come to attack, the blacksmith made that sword the moment the PC wanted to buy it, and the gold spent on it disappears as magically as it appeared in the orc's treasure chest. We only create the illusion of a living world by making things appear to move without PC involvement, but unless you randomly roll the weather for far off countries or prescript the kings agenda for the next 25 days, those events don't matter to the narrative of the PCs.

Dave's comment is that they haven't put much thought into the effect of dumping 1,000s of gold coins into a local economy, what a cleric selling healing would do to local apothecaries and surgeons, and what the REAL cost of an Elixir of Love would be (I guarantee much more than 150 gp) because that stuff doesn't matter to players who want to experience adventures, fight monsters, encounter rogues and scoundrels, solve mysteries, explore ruins, and kill things and take their stuff. The "real world" is nothing more than theater scenery for that.

As long as that scenery looks real enough to suspend disbelief for a world of magic, elves, and dragons, I'm fine with it. Anything more than that is just distracting me from the story my Players and I are telling...

I bolded the last paragragh, becuase that's what's important and true. Every detail in the world in important to the extent that it helps the players suspend disbelief. However the previous 2 paragraghs tell me that I would never be able to suspend disbelief in your campaign. The economics of 3.Xed are a stumbling block I cannot get over. (So is the videogame feel of a campaign where the bad guy's army stops marching just because the wizard decided to stay in town for a week and craft a wand.)

Look at it this way. Let's suppose that they build the economy of 4th ed such that an NPC with a craftskill can afford to live about like he should, and there are some basic guidelines for variable prices and trading goods and services in the DMG under optional rules. Now, How would that detract from your fun exactly? Because I have to tell you, it would add considerably to mine.

 

[Irda Ranger]

You track the wealth of every person in your campaign world?

No, and I've already said that I don't. There's also no need to account for every GP to follow economic trends. The distinction may be too fine for people who aren't in the industries to appreciate, but there are wide divides between economics, accounting and finance. Every complaint on this thread (none of which apply to me) seem to stem from playing in a game run by an accountant set on bringing his work to the game table.

The quoted post, if you read closely, is several questions.

I don't believe DMs when they say they keep track of NPC money and ...

No claim to do this. I have specifically disclaimed this.

... how PC spending affects the economy ... I think a most they just arbitrarily make things more expensive for the PCs.

It's these two points he would be wrong about, in my campaign. I make no claims about anyone else's campaign. I do keep track; and it is not arbitrary.

The most boring Star Wars game I've ever played in involved the GM going over the tariffs, taxes, loan repayment conditions, bribes to locals, and then finally splitting the income from a delivery to a world on the outer rim.

This would be boring, to either sit through this or to walk someone through this. Both for me and for the PC's. I've never done anything like this, and have no intention to.

But that doesn't mean I don't account for it in my head. This is easy for me. It's like calculating a tip, which most people can do fairly easily. Besides any natural inclinations or talents I may or may not have, I've spent the last ten years training myself to think this way in real life. I can't turn it off at the gaming table. I can spare the player's the details (and I do), but when I tell them that "gold is fairly worthless in this town", I have a very specific reason for saying that. One that makes sense to me. Whether you (as a PC) care to ask the reason, I care not.

I think we've stumbled across a new law akin to Godwin's:

The amount of fun derived from any given RPG session is inversely proportional to the amount of work the GM has put into the economics of the game world.

Hmm. Do you think this is true, or just want to poke fun at the guy who disagreed with you categorically? I can't tell without reading your body language.

To restate your "newly discovered" law though:

"The amount of fun derived from any given RPG session is inversely proportional to the amount of work the GM asks the players to do that doesn't involve stuff they already wanted to do."

It doesn't matter how much work I put into it (if much). What matters is how much stuff I put the players through they consider 'not fun.' Since I keep that to a minimum (as any good DM does), I have about 7 years of DM'ing experience under my belt. If my games weren't fun, they'd find other things to do / DM's to play with.

The only campaigns I've ever played in that the DMs used 'realism' to modify costs of things only ever made them more expensive than the books indicate. Somehow nothing ever becomes less so (and inflation in these cases was never extended to starting gold, or treasure hordes.)

Good example of a DM with bad economics. If there were rampant inflation, the local Lord would be paying street sweepers in platinum pieces, and adventurers in jewels.

Not that you care. This is the kind of detail I might drop if a player asked, but otherwise wouldn't mention. I'd just keep track of it in my head until you needed to know it for valid roleplaying reasons.

Mr. Dragon: That will never do. Perhaps we can invest in Class Futures. I have it on good authority that Bards are likely to go on a run in the near future...

I guess that depends on what your option expires. You could lose your scales if the PHB2 comes out first.

Yep, they kinda missed what I was asking. Here's the full question I sent them

Ha!

And to get this back on topic, I guess they did answer your question - but through obliviousness, not through understanding. Maybe they'll read this though, and give the idea some thought. It's a good idea, in my book.

Really glad they answered my question on sacred cows. There was no predetermined list and they are just doing what they think works best and in playtesting seeing if its still D&D. That makes me very happy.

Totally agree. A process of discovery usually gets better results than a purely theoretical approach.

 

[Irda Ranger]

But, thats TRUE. These things DON'T matter until the PCs step into the scene because the game follows THEM and their dramatic narrative, not Bob the Blacksmith's. Fourth Edition seems to REALLY be going into a mindset that "The world is more-or-less static until the PCs are involved" because, well, it's true. Even the act of hearing about far-off wars, political scandal, or other events that don't happen in the PCs view still involves the PCs (in the role of audience to such tales). So for as far as the game is concerned, the orc has been standing there guarding his pie diligently until the PCs come to attack, the blacksmith made that sword the moment the PC wanted to buy it, and the gold spent on it disappears as magically as it appeared in the orc's treasure chest. We only create the illusion of a living world by making things appear to move without PC involvement, but unless you randomly roll the weather for far off countries or prescript the kings agenda for the next 25 days, those events don't matter to the narrative of the PCs.

Dave's comment is that they haven't put much thought into the effect of dumping 1,000s of gold coins into a local economy, what a cleric selling healing would do to local apothecaries and surgeons, and what the REAL cost of an Elixir of Love would be (I guarantee much more than 150 gp) because that stuff doesn't matter to players who want to experience adventures, fight monsters, encounter rogues and scoundrels, solve mysteries, explore ruins, and kill things and take their stuff. The "real world" is nothing more than theater scenery for that.

I disagree with everything in the above two paragraphs. Not one sentence or phrase.

When a tree falls in the woods, it makes a noise, whether you're there to hear it or not. The universe does not revolve around you. D&D world does not revolve around the PC's.

That's just how I roll.

As long as that scenery looks real enough to suspend disbelief for a world of magic, elves, and dragons, I'm fine with it. Anything more than that is just distracting me from the story my Players and I are telling...

Agreed. But you're scenery doesn't do it for me. I wouldn't be able to suspect disbelief.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

1. They totally missed the point on the currency question. I'm pretty sure the guy was asking if D&D was moving to a more abstract wealth system, instead of accounting for coins. Based on their answer, the answer is 'No.'

I am also worried that Dave Noonan thinks that money 'disappears' once the PC spends it, and that there's no such thing as a "D&D economy." It's hardly a main point, but I hope they give a little more thought to the 'economic' consequences to rules.

Eh, it just means that we get a 4E version of A Magical Medieval Society from Expeditious Retreat Press, complete with all the revisions and additions he's wanted to add to it over the years, and maybe even some of the appropriate-to-swipe parts of Silk Road.

 

[Glyfair]

When a tree falls in the woods, it makes a noise, whether you're there to hear it or not. The universe does not revolve around you. D&D world does not revolve around the PC's.

That's one style. Personally, I find that style, as a DM, to be very wasteful. Too much of your time is spent working on elements of the game that will have no effect on the game.

In my experience, GMs of that style tend to burn out much faster than other GMs. They get frustrated when all of their work on the campaign world goes unnoticed because it was irrelvant to the play. You may be an exception, but I've seen it happen on a lot of occasions.

I did some of that a long time ago. I've found that beyond a few large generalities, going more than 2 "degrees of separation" from the characters is a waste of energy. In fact, pretty often 1 degree will suffice.

 

[Hussar]

Glyfair - this jives with the conclusions I've come to as well. If the players do not need to know something, then, almost always, the DM doesn't need to know either.

I think this thread shows that if the designers wanted to go in a more simulationist direction, they would be running counter to a lot of gamers wishes.

 

[Hussar]

So unlimited resource blasting plus level 25 spells equals scaling back wizards...

Yes. Next question.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The amount of fun derived from any given RPG session is inversely proportional to the amount of work the GM has put into the economics of the game world.

Of course!

"Okay, I have enough money to buy that magic sword: 2315 gp"
"Good. Find something to occupy yourself for the next hour or so, I have to calculate the consequences this purchase has to the economy of this town, the province, the nation, the continent, the planet, and the solar system."