D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Kobold Boots]

If you play Merchants & Smugglers, then yes, by all means set the price accordingly.

Meanwhile, I am playing Dungeons & Dragons, and to me it is entirely uncontroversial that prices are based on the adventurer's needs and wants.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Hi Capn -

I agree wholeheartedly that the game world from the perspective of the table action revolves around the players and since the game serves their enjoyment and the DMs, that pricing would be influenced by the only folks actively interacting with the economy on a regular basis at the table.

I also think that in every one of my groups there's been at least one person and sometimes up to half of the table, that has managed their expectations for pricing around what they've paid previously or against what the price "in my city" is as opposed to what's in the rulebook. Most are looking to see if they can get a price break on the published prices when they ask, but all will note how much something costs and will bring it up the next time that they want to buy something. "A +2 widget of bagging groceries cost X, why does a +1 widget of foobar cost more?"

Because the published price list is not what's desired in the first place, I see no reason to have one.
Because I'm going to have to deal with these sorts of discussions when selling magic is allowed, I'd rather not do it at all.
But if I'm going to need to sell magic because of the setting, I want to have my pricing have rational explanations consistent with the overall setting's economy. Additionally, if magic is available to the players, then I'm going to let their adversaries buy it too, and if those adversaries have more wealth (because killing them to take their stuff may be a point of the game) then they're going to hate it when they get TPK'd if they are stupid about it.

For what it's worth, I'm aware the the above common sense only applies if you come to the problem with a certain feeling about "reality in gaming". Those of us that were "Dungeon Masters" before the "DM as a facilitator/enabler" movement may have a harder time letting go of the simulationist stuff. In my case I've left a lot of my "prod everything with a 10' pole first or you die" mentality behind; but the economy causes too many problems to allow it to exist solely as a player enabler.

Be well
KB

 

[Guest 6801328]

For what it's worth, I'm aware the the above common sense only applies if you come to the problem with a certain feeling about "reality in gaming". Those of us that were "Dungeon Masters" before the "DM as a facilitator/enabler" movement may have a harder time letting go of the simulationist stuff. In my case I've left a lot of my "prod everything with a 10' pole first or you die" mentality behind; but the economy causes too many problems to allow it to exist solely as a player enabler.

I'm not one of those people who worry about "reality in gaming"...I'm perfectly happy to describe a village that fits with the narrative, and if somebody wants to complain about how this village couldn't possibly survive economically because of factors A, B, and C I don't really care.

But an argument that gets presented repeatedly in favor of price lists is realism. There have been many posts arguing why there would be a surplus of magic items (e.g., all those adventurers looting dungeons) and why there would therefore be a reasonably predictable/stable market.

But if you're going to completely ignore "real realism" by assuming that only adventurers buy magic items, and thus the pricing is based only on the utility to adventurers, then clearly realism isn't actually the goal. It's cherry-picking realism to support a desired outcome.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That's an interesting point. And it really gets to a slightly related issue.

Most economists would tell you that straight-up cash (not gift cards, which can present their own issues) are the best gift, because it allows the recipient to choose how to best maximize the value of the gift. This was an idea, IIRC, that was presented in Scroogenomics and has currency with some people (and does make make sense with certain theories of economics).

Call this the "granny giving you an ugly sweater" theory. And it is certainly true in many cases.

On the other hand, straight-up cash provides great utility, but often, little joy. This is because, depending on what you are measuring, traditional gift giving increases other forms of utility. And because people aren't completely rational utility-maximizing machines.

Giving gifts (as opposed to straight-up cash) is often, but not always, something that brings joy to the giver. It is also something that increases social bonds in a way that cash doesn't. There's also two other categories of gifts that are hard to measure- those that the giver wants the person to have (but the person doesn't know), and those that the person wants, but would never normally purchase.

For the first category, think of a book or music or media ... or, for kids, perhaps a bike? The recipient isn't aware of it (or can't ride a bike yet), but the giver wants the recipient to expand their horizons.

For the second category, maybe there is something that the person really likes (a piece of tech, some amazing chocolate, or something else) that the person wants, but wouldn't spend their own money on as a "luxury." Again, by classical economics, this doesn't make sense (if the person really wanted it, they'd spend their own money on it), but we all know people like this.

Anyway, there's a ton of terrible gifts out there. But almost every thing I've treasured in life has been a gift as well; because I'm not completely rational, because I can appreciate the thought that went into it, and because, on occasion, it has expanded my horizons.

Again, this speaks to a difference in approach to gaming. There is nothing wrong with viewing character advancement as something that is completely player-driven, including magic items. On the other hand, as I wrote before, my best memories are those of getting serendipitous magic items that took my character in directions I never anticipated. Sometimes you get granny's ugly sweater, sometimes your friend gets you the book of your new favorite author. There's no wrong- just preferences.

Excellent post.

Without going too far into it, I would also point out that in the argument about cash vs. gifts, the magic shop proponents use the example of kids appreciating the cash more than the gifts, not adults. And that may very well be true.

Similarly, when I was 15 I think I would have preferred getting gold when I killed monsters and then being able to purchase the most optimal WTFPWN magic items that gold could buy. As an adult, however, I prefer the lottery of only getting what I find for treasure. And if sometimes I know my DM put that specific magic item there just for me...well, that kinda feels like Christmas.

 

[Kobold Boots]

But an argument that gets presented repeatedly in favor of price lists is realism. There have been many posts arguing why there would be a surplus of magic items (e.g., all those adventurers looting dungeons) and why there would therefore be a reasonably predictable/stable market.

I think you and I are generally on the same page in regards to what we'd prefer to be doing with our game time. I'll only reply directly to the above point because I've addressed it in a few spots already.

Any magic item that does not have an owner is a surplus magic item.
In a world where magic is a resource and feudalism exists there will be a pooling of surplus items wherever the feudal head is. (Honestly this isn't even arguable or hordes of gold and items wouldn't exist in the first place to be found by players)
If adventurers are finding items and they aren't usurping power for themselves then there's going to be some way for the nobles/head honchos to get their hands on the items.
Poof. No surplus.
Argument dead.

Now if you want to go selling things to the nobility as your way of justifying half of the magic shop theory then great. But that's a one way transaction, they're not selling stuff. They may grant an item to a follower as part of their investiture.

If you want to "buy" things, that really means that you're willing to find it, or take it from someone else. Now of course, you can scale the availability of magic to support the "every oven gets a turkey" approach but then it's time to ask, how ridiculously powerful the rulers are.. and that's where it breaks until the players themselves become the nobles.. which might be the point.

Thanks
KB

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not one of those people who worry about "reality in gaming"...I'm perfectly happy to describe a village that fits with the narrative, and if somebody wants to complain about how this village couldn't possibly survive economically because of factors A, B, and C I don't really care.

But an argument that gets presented repeatedly in favor of price lists is realism. There have been many posts arguing why there would be a surplus of magic items (e.g., all those adventurers looting dungeons) and why there would therefore be a reasonably predictable/stable market.

But if you're going to completely ignore "real realism" by assuming that only adventurers buy magic items, and thus the pricing is based only on the utility to adventurers, then clearly realism isn't actually the goal. It's cherry-picking realism to support a desired outcome.

Since I skipped probably a thousand posts, I'll simply say that yes, no realism is assumed. Not in my games anyhoo.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Guest 6801328]

If there were any moderation needed at all, I could see the "without constant moderation" as a possibility here, but there wasn't and usually isn't. And if there is, it rarely takes more than one instance of moderation as the behavior almost always stops.

The downside is that I can no longer see worthwhile posts from the individual who forced me to block them. I also can't respond to things they say in the discussion. The thing about forums like this is that you are never having a discussion with one person. This very side discussion is a prime example of that. I commented on what [MENTION=1727]kobold[/MENTION] Boots did when he blocked me. Someone responded to me(and everyone else in this thread). I responded to that person(and everyone else in this thread). [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] responded, because we were talking to him as well. That discussion went on for a while, and now you are involved.

If a person doesn't want to see my posts, fine. I have no problem with that and there should be a way for that to happen. Disallowing me to see and respond to their posts due to something that almost never happens anyway("almost constant moderation") is not a good reason.



That's a pain in the ass and doesn't allow me to respond. I'm trying to spy on them. I want to see their additions to the conversation and be able to respond to everyone in the thread if I desire.



I totally get that and people should be able to block those that they don't want to see. I should not be blocked from seeing that person though, ESPECIALLY with all of the mechanical problems that this site has with regard to that feature. It's not just that they have forced me to block them I also cannot go into a thread that they have started to discuss with others. I cannot use the links to go to posts when people quote me or give exp. They don't work when someone who has blocked me is in the thread, so if I want to see who gave exp/laugh to a post, I have to slog through the entire thread manually. I can't use the button to go back to the post I just quoted. That breaks, too.

And I don't think this would change if the person blocked could still see the posts of the person who blocked them. They would still not be having a back and forth that is disruptive.

Thread necromancy!
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], although I disagreed with you at the time that blocking == bullying in the general case, I'll acknowledge that it's a bit different when the blocker also started the thread, so that you can't continue to participate with others in the thread. I didn't quite understand that nuance when you wrote it the first time because it had never happened to me before.

Until now.

("Achievement Unlocked!")

It's especially ironic when it's the result of calling somebody out for bullying.

 

[Blue]

EDIT: D'oh, caught by a necro'd post!

Just move along.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thread necromancy!
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], although I disagreed with you at the time that blocking == bullying in the general case, I'll acknowledge that it's a bit different when the blocker also started the thread, so that you can't continue to participate with others in the thread. I didn't quite understand that nuance when you wrote it the first time because it had never happened to me before.

Until now.

("Achievement Unlocked!")

It's especially ironic when it's the result of calling somebody out for bullying.

Eh, they did it to me awhile back in largely the same circumstance. They really dislike being challenged.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Eh, they did it to me awhile back in largely the same circumstance. They really dislike being challenged.

It's actually the second time they've done it to me, for pretty much the same reason.