Players Whining that they Should be able to Buy Magic Items

[Mallus]

Picasso's are bought and sold. Perhaps you have heard of places like Sotheby's and Christie's? I can find a listing of Van Gogh's up for auction right now.

Could you have done that as easily 100 years ago? How about 400? 1000? While few people's games strive for the kind of historical simulation someone like fusangite advocates, I think equally few run games that are pure 21st Western capitalist technocracies in Medieval drag...

The simple economic truth is that items are more likely to hit the market the more valuable they are, there is just that much more incentive to make a pile of money by selling them.

But any civil society developed enough to have that kind of market economy is also going to have laws restricting the sale of goods that represent a massive threat to its stability. When you're talking magic the correct analogy is the arms trade. Often in WMD's. Try to buy a nuke, or surplus smallox cultures... while it may be remotely possible, such an endeavor requires more than a pile of cash...

And if you want to continue the art anology... there's a tremendous amount of art that isn'
t for sale. The instituations that hold it don't put it on the market...

 

[Storm Raven]

Explain "basic human nature", referencing all human cultures on Earth over time and a number of fantasy worlds (your choice).

People want to have wealth. It's that simple.

You can quibble over the volume of wealth an individual wants, or how much they are willing to do to get it, but people want wealth (or more accurately, the things wealth represents: food, shelter, security, and so on).

In any given population, a substantial number of people will want lots of wealth. That's generally why people invent things, go on dangerous journeys to strange lands looking for spices, gold, and other rare commodities, and otherwise do things they might not otherwise do. It is out of this desire to acquire wealth that a market arises: people want things, and to become wealthy, others will try to get it for them in exchange for those things they value.

To avoid a market economy arising in a campaign, you must posit a human nature in which humans do not desire wealth (as in, do not desire to secure food, shelter, security and so on), changing the basic nature of humanity into something so unrecognizable that you cannot reasonably call them "human" any more.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Explain "basic human nature", referencing all human cultures on Earth over time and a number of fantasy worlds (your choice).

Starting with the easy ones, eh?

 

[Storm Raven]

Could you have done that as easily 100 years ago? How about 400? 1000? While few people's games strive for the kind of historical simulation someone like fusangite advocates, I think equally few run games that are pure 21st Western capitalist technocracies in Medieval drag...

Probably easier. The di Medici's purchased huge volumes of art on a regular basis, and are resonsible for the mere existence of a substantial chunk of Italian renaissance art being produced (as a result of their financing). Prior to the romanticization of the past that has taken place in the modern era, these sorts of things were regularly traded.

But any civil society developed enough to have that kind of market economy is also going to have laws restricting the sale of goods that represent a massive threat to its stability. When you're talking magic the correct analogy is the arms trade. Often in WMD's. Try to buy a nuke, or surplus smallox cultures... while it may be remotely possible, such an endeavor requires more than a pile of cash...

Where do most adventurers operate? Is it a vanue more like the United States and Canada? Or more like Somalia? Do you fully comprehend just how much ordinance is available for sale in most of the Third World?

And if you want to continue the art anology... there's a tremendous amount of art that isn't for sale. The instituations that hold it don't put it on the market...

A substantial portion art that is in institutions is privately held, so the institution couldn't sell it if they wanted. Contact the private owner and you may get a different response.

 

[Mallus]

To avoid a market economy arising in a campaign, you must posit a human nature in which humans do not desire wealth (as in, do not desire to secure food, shelter, security and so on), changing the basic nature of humanity into something so unrecognizable that you cannot reasonably call them "human" any more.

I don't think this debate is over the presence of market forces in a given setting, just how they manifest themselves... you seem to be saying market forces trump every other force operating in a society, all the time. Or am I really misreading you?

 

[Numion]

But any civil society developed enough to have that kind of market economy is also going to have laws restricting the sale of goods that represent a massive threat to its stability. When you're talking magic the correct analogy is the arms trade. Often in WMD's. Try to buy a nuke, or surplus smallox cultures... while it may be remotely possible, such an endeavor requires more than a pile of cash...

Wouldn't that kind of thinking require that all wizards and sorcerers be banned and / or closely monitored too? Because a spellcaster packs much more punch than magic items, aren't they more dangerous than magic items you labeled as equal to WMDs?

And of course, your analogy only holds for doomsday device magics, i.e. artifact level stuff. +3 sword is not a threat to stability. It's equal to non-masterwork sword wielded by a stronger person. Do strong persons cause instability? Why should they be banned or restricted from sale?

 

[Mallus]

Probably easier. The di Medici's purchased huge volumes of art on a regular basis, and are resonsible for the mere existence of a substantial chunk of Italian renaissance art being produced (as a result of their financing).

I should have specified I was responding to your statement about 'checking the price of a Van Gogh right now'. The point I was trying to make involved the ease and speed of a transaction. I'm assuming a certain amount of convenience is implied in this discussion of the the magic item trade... most adventurers don't want to wait a year to close the deal on their enchanted gizmo...

Where do most adventurers operate? Is it a vanue more like the United States and Canada? Or more like Somalia? Do you fully comprehend just how much ordinance is available for sale in most of the Third World?

I do. But again, there's also an implied level of safety in this argument. I'm assuming that a setting where the item trade is as dangerous as arms dealing in failed state like Somalia would be as palatable to some gamers as a setting where the trade didn't exist at all... The end result's the same; they can't easily acquire the items they can theoretically afford. Put another way, there are costs for items applied that go beyond what it says in the DMG...

A substantial portion art that is in institutions is privately held, so the institution couldn't sell it if they wanted. Contact the private owner and you may get a different response.

Sure. I was only pointing out that some objects periodically exist outside market forces (for a period of time).

 

[mmadsen]

To avoid a market economy arising in a campaign, you must posit a human nature in which humans do not desire wealth (as in, do not desire to secure food, shelter, security and so on), changing the basic nature of humanity into something so unrecognizable that you cannot reasonably call them "human" any more.

Hardly. To avoid a market economy, you simply need to remove the Rule of Law and Property Rights. Then "transactions" are no longer mutually beneficial "win-win" trades but theft, annexation, tribute, extortion, etc.

 

[Mallus]

Wouldn't that kind of thinking require that all wizards and sorcerers be banned and / or closely monitored too?

That's one possibility, sure. Another is development of a wizard culture that operates in secret, below the authorities radar (except those employed by the authorities) and avoids doing things like selling destructive items to any fool with some money. Another possibility is that the magic-users operate freely, and the resulting societies are so volatile than they frequently collapse, trashing the rule of law and easy, open markets...

And of course, your analogy only holds for doomsday device magics, i.e. artifact level stuff. +3 sword is not a threat to stability.

A swords a terrible example. Try wands of fireball. How much of the countryside can you torch with a few of those and the will to use them?

 

[Gundark]

I had problems with this as well, the players just assumed that being able to purchase a true ressurection (or any sort of magic) was just a matter of finding someone (3.0, not 3.5). I think video games are to blame somewhat for this mentality, diabolo, baluder's gate, champions of norath, etc. You get the loot sell the loot buy the better loot, etc.