Players Whining that they Should be able to Buy Magic Items

[Storm Raven]

I don't think that how long it takes is a minor detail. I don't think that whether the transaction goes through or not is a minor detail. I don't think that having to travel hundreds of miles to buy or sell is a minor detail.

The mechanics of the market are a minor detail. Especially since you can pay someone else to do these things for you. You may not be able to go buy something, but you can hire an agent to do it for you.

If your established-but-inefficient market is the arms market in Somalia or Afghanistan, I don't think it's just an issue of pecuniary transaction costs. The non-pecuniary costs are substantial -- and full of dramatic potential.

Yes, they are. But they are likely to be the conditions that prevail through most of any campaign that seeks to reflect anything resembling the world of the middle ages. Life was violent, short, and chaotic. I don't see buying and selling weaponry in Somalia today as anything substatially different from most areas that adventurers spend their entire careers in.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Really? How easy do you suppose it would have been to purchase a noble title in Charlemagne's world? Or in a Norse kingdom? Especially in the Norse world, where coins were pounded into ornaments because there was so much gold and nothing to spend it on. If someone showed up in 9th century Denmark with a bunch of gold and tried to buy a title with it, here's what might have happened: he would have been beaten or executed for insulting the local king by trying to bribe him; then his money would have been taken and turned into jewelry to commemorate the occasion of his execution.

From about the 16th century forward in England, people could purchase minor titles for cash but the whole reason feudalism arose was because the power of the sword trumped both money and civil authority.

So, no. For most of history one could not purchase an aristocratic title at all. Look at India today, for goodness sake. Tell me: can people purchase membership in the brahmin or ksatriyah castes? There are billionaires in India who are still untouchables; why? Because caste, like feudal titles for most of history, cannot be bought.

Umm, the Norse Kings did sell titles. You could pay off just about anything with gold, including murder, Norse kings were greedy buggers!

Do not take my word for it, look it up. Start with the Norse King of Dublin Olaf Sandle if you want a place to begin. (Name is translated, I do not remember the original off hand, but ca. AD 1000.)

In England - again, look up Scutage - if you had the money to be a knight then you were a knight and had to ride in the crusades or pay for someone to go in your stead.

No real bearing on Magic items, but...

The Auld Grump

 

[Storm Raven]

Yes, and I believe that Position A (no magic market at all) is a straw man, an exaggeration of the point held by the "no magic market" side of this argument.

Of course, Position A is exactly the position that National Acrobat (and a few others) have staked out. Which makes your arguments less than compelling on this score.

 

[mmadsen]

Are you arguing that someone with this sort of financial investment and debt load wouldn't be out trying to make that money back?

I've never argued against the profit motive; I've only argued that we wouldn't necessarily see an efficient, modern, commodity market.

 

[mmadsen]

The mechanics of the market are a minor detail. Especially since you can pay someone else to do these things for you. You may not be able to go buy something, but you can hire an agent to do it for you.

"Here's 50,000 gp. Bring back a +5 longsword." You don't see anything that might go awry there? Any "minor details" that might need looking after?

Yes, they are. But they are likely to be the conditions that prevail through most of any campaign that seeks to reflect anything resembling the world of the middle ages. Life was violent, short, and chaotic. I don't see buying and selling weaponry in Somalia today as anything substatially different from most areas that adventurers spend their entire careers in.

So, would you send $1M in cash to Somalia to buy a surface-to-air missile and just assume that the transaction would go fine?

 

[Storm Raven]

I've never argued against the profit motive; I've only argued that we wouldn't necessarily see an efficient, modern, commodity market.

No one has argued that we would. What has been argued is that you'd see auction houses, merchants that deal in mid to high end trade, individuals accepting commsissions, and so on for most permanent items and a relatively bustling market in lower cost one use items such as scrolls and potions.

By comparison, look at printers in the 17th Century. They were considered skilled in a relatively arcane trade. They were typically apprenticed for several years, after which if they went into business for themselves they had to acquire very expensive equipment to ply their trade. And most of them would have likely been thrilled if they could have gotten anything like 50% profit on their expenses, let alone 100%.

 

[Storm Raven]

"Here's 50,000 gp. Bring back a +5 longsword." You don't see anything that might go awry there? Any "minor details" that might need looking after?

If I were dealing with a reputable dealer, probably not. There are people who specialize in working out such transactions. There always have been. And their stock in trade is their reputation, which would be ruined if they fleeced their clients. And those types of dealers usually make it a practice to let people know where they can be found (since that's how they get clients).

So, would you send $1M in cash to Somalia to buy a surface-to-air missile and just assume that the transaction would go fine?

If I had $1M and needed a surface to air missile, I could likely get one much closer and easier (and cheaper) than sending someone to Somalia. But assuming I did, and used an arms dealer with a good reputation, I'd be pretty confident it would go well. His reputation relies upon him getting more clients like me, and there aren't many of us. Screwing me means his business dies almost immediately. Reputation is important in business.

 

[National Acrobat]

Thanks

Thanks guys, pretty intense thread that has given me a lot to digest and think about.

Interesting sets of opinions.

And yes, there are no magic marts in my campaign setting, which is a homebrew that I have used for 20+ years.

My players gain their magic loot from treasure hoards, npc's they've defeated, that sort of thing.

They recieve enough monetary treasure to make items, but they would have to pool their collective shares to buy many things.

At any rate, I know that isn't satisfactory or even advocated by most of my peers, but it's my way that I've always done it and it's worked for me for a long time and still does.

Like I said most of my players have no problem with this and actually enjoy it.

No one ever said a word about it until 3E came out. I was mainly just asking if anyone else had this problem with the advent of the 3E rules set, because that's when I had a pair of players start to tell me that the rules said they could, that's all.

Anyway, Nice discussion, I think I have plenty to digest now.

 

[Ourph]

Some things to consider i.e. the availability of purchasable magic.

1) Spellcasters or those benefiting from an item created by spellcasters are generally the only people capable of high speed communications and rapid travel in the D&D world.

2) Spellcasters are the only ones capable of creating the items we are talking about.

3) Spellcasters are much less dependent on magic items to achieve greater power as they go up in level than are other, non-spellcasting, classes (in other words, a 12th level Fighter with no magic items is at a significant disadvantage, compared to a 12th level spellcaster with no magic items).

Conclusion: Spellcasters monopoly on magic gives them a huge amount of power. It is greatly to the advantage of spellcasters to organize themselves and regulate the quantity and type of magic they produce and sell. It's good to limit quantity because that keeps the price artificially high. It's good to limit the type of items they produce because they can then assure that other (non-spellcasters) never achieve parity with them in terms of power. It is good to limit the use of communication magic because that ensures the spellcasters will not only decide who knows what, but also that they know things well before others. Therefore, an organized body of casters will limit the availability of magic items and powerful spells because it is in their own best interest to do so.

Corollary: The spellcasters who benefit most from this arrangement are high level casters. They are also the most capable of enforcing the arrangement. High level casters benefit the most because they are so much less dependent upon other (non-spellcasting) classes for their own survival and protection. Lower level casters might be tempted to create powerful items for other classes. They might want to do so for their companions in the hope that said items will increase their own overall chance of survival (a good assumption). They might want to create items for others in exchange for pay in the hopes that the increased wealth will bring them comforts and increase their overall chance of survival (again, a good assumption). High level spellcasters are much less likely to care about empowering their allies (they don't need more powerful allies, they can just create more of the ones they already have) or about making money (it's likely they already have tons of phat lewt). High level casters are the only ones who can create really powerful items. Therefore, an organized cabal of high level casters will refuse to produce really powerful items for most people, will use coercion, persuasion and bribery to force less powerful casters to adopt the same policy, will actively oppose other high level casters who refuse to cooperate and will most likely work to limit the amount of "found" magic treasure that finds its way into the hands of normal folk (either by buying up anything that becomes available for sale or by simply taking it, if they are less than scrupulous).

Result: Mr. Fighter can't buy or commission the +3 sword and +4 belt of strength he wants because spellcasters like the fact that he's dependent upon them casting Greater Magic Weapon and Bull's Strength to get the benefits of those magics. The only readily traded/purchased magic items will likely be low-powered items usable only by spellcasters (such as scrolls, wands, etc.). Even those items will likely be limited to containing innocuous spells such as Mage Armor, Sanctuary, Resist Elements and the like, because in addition to not trusting other classes, it's likely spellcasters will not trust each other greatly either. It only takes one time of selling someone a Wand of Fireballs and having him turn it on you, reducing your home/laboratory/shop to a pile of smoldering cinders to decide that maybe handing out WMDs to anyone who wants them isn't such a great idea. Even low level spells such as Charm Person are dangerous to spellcasters in the hands of others (anyone can fail a Saving Throw) and are not likely to be given out except to very trusted colleagues or people who are already capable of doing you harm anyway (such as a more powerful spellcaster in exchange for an item you want).

Of course, when people find out that spellcasters are hoarding all the neat-o magic stuff for themselves, there will be disgruntled individuals who speak out against the Wizards and their selfish ways, but that's what spells like Disintegrate and Mass Suggestion are for, right!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Taken out of order to improve discussion ...

The reasonable position is that there aren't Wiz Marts stocked with goods in every (or even any) town.

Agreed.

Yes, and I believe that Position A (no magic market at all) is a straw man, an exaggeration of the point held by the "no magic market" side of this argument.

...

I don't think that anyone has said that no one would ever, under any circumstances, sell any magic item, even under commission, even for a non-pecuniary price.

Not agreed. Some people have, in fact, argued exactly this point:

I'm old school, been playing DnD since 1979, and I have always been firm that players can't buy magic items. Without getting into the pros and cons of it, I never have and never will.

I have never and will probably never allow magical items to be bought. They have to be earned, and should be more special than a trip to the local magic shop would make them.

[In re: selling magical weapons and armor]
In my campaigns the players wouldn't be able to find buyers for that stuff, usually. The only reasonable place would be to a king or lord who would prompty integrate it into his military forces. Therefore, it would no longer be for sale.

I will never allow PCs to buy the magic items they want again. In the future, if they want something bad enough, then they will be forced to barter with temples, guilds or individual mages. Gold alone will not be enough to secure the item. They will need to do something for them in return.

Note he first mentions that he'll never, ever let PCs buy things - except they can buy them with things other than straight coinage, which can in turn be bought with coinage, etc.

Bit of an odd view to hold, but there you go ...

Anyway, there you go. The position that you claim is a straw man is in fact the position held by members of "the opposition" by their own words. Therefore, it isn't a strawman.