D&D (2024) Should 1D&D introduce silver standard for prices?

[Reynard]

I mean, they could since money isn't worth anything anyway...

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not gonna happen.

 

[Gorck]

Right now we have classic, 1GP=10SP=100CP,

but prices of those metals are not in that range,

if we go to 1GP=100SP=10,000CP we would come pretty close to real prices for those metals.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded quote, since every campaign setting I've ever played in has used that 1gp = 10sp = 100cp ratio (Electrum? Never heard of it).

Maybe you think it's more equivalent to 1gp = 100sp = 10,000cp in the real world, but I don't know anybody who plays D&D using the Planet Earth campaign setting.

 

[RuinousPowers]

The way that D&D encourages the accumulation of wealth we need more larger denominations.

 

[Yaarel]

Right now we have classic, 1GP=10SP=100CP,

but prices of those metals are not in that range,

An other poll about the D&D economy preferred the two following values:

1 gold piece = $100
1 silver piece = $10
1 copper piece = $1
(38.7% of voters)

Alternatively:
1 gold piece = $10
1 silver piece = $1
1 copper piece = 10¢
(32.3% of voters)

Together, these two options represent 71% of the voters. The value of a gold piece is something like $100. Or precisely that depending on the standard size of the gold coin or gold armlet.

Heh, I hate to deal with pennies in reallife, and certainly dont want to deal with it fantasy! So, I myself strongly prefer the exchange rate of 1 copper piece = $1.

Additionally:
1 mithril piece = $1000

(For me, platinum feels too modern. Mithril is magically awesome. For mythological accuracy, adamantine − the ancient adamas − resembles a transparent sapphire crystal, and is actually an indestructable gem. Adamantine crystallizes irreversibly into a specific shape.)

Gold is ten times the value of silver: can happen. It can happen in certain premodern economies and in modern economies. Similarly, silver to copper. It is plausible. The round numbers are convenient. A gold piece is a $100 bill, a copper piece is a $1 bill. Use whichever bills make sense.



The point is, players can use todays reallife economy. For an actual realistic economy. If in realife, a high-quality handcrafted suit of full plate armor costs $3000, then it in gamesetting it costs 300 silver pieces or 30 gold pieces.

Money depends on the regional setting. But typically. The D&D economy is a magic economy. It isnt a medieval economy. The gamesetting uses magitech (magical technology) where we today use hitech to produce goods and services.

D&D players can participate in a realistic economy. How much money would you pay in reallife for a Potion of Healing? That is the price it costs in D&D in gold pieces. Depending on the setting, a Potion of Healing might be cutting-edge medical research, in which case it might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or it might be more like a routine over-the-counter medication, in which case the Potions are $1 each. Either way, players can understand exactly why the item costs what it does. It is a realistic economy.

 

[Clint_L]

I just ignore money when it comes to encumbrance because the weight of a bunch of gold isn't really adding anything interesting to the story (like, maybe it could be a fun story beat once, but it's hardly something I want to deal with regularly). Anyway, that solves the problem - in my world players basically have the means to keep their gold and we just hand-wave it. It's just numbers on the character sheet. I guess if I had to deal with a massive dragon hoard we would make it a story beat, but those kinds of encounters aren't really my thing so it's not an issue.

I think this approach is pretty common, since one of the first options on a character sheet on DnDBeyond is to toggle off gold adding to encumbrance.

 

[Shiroiken]

I think it would be better, making it more useful for keeping lower coins valuable longer (as it stands, most players stop caring about silver within a few levels, and they never care about copper). However, such a change would require a completely new edition, as it wouldn't be backwards compatible.

Unrelated Rant
I personally detest the metric monetary system D&D has used since 3E, but I understand why it's popular. It just feels unrealistic that four of the five valued metals just happen to occur in a linear proportion. The old setup was more complicated (10 CP = 1 SP, 20 SP = 2 EP = 1 GP, 5 GP = 1 PP), but felt more realistic. Whenever an American complains about it being complicated, I point out that every day they deal with a similar system with minimal difficulty (5 "cp" = 1 "sp", 2 "sp" = 1 "ep", 5 "sp" = 1 "gp", 4 "gp" = 1 "pp").

I just ignore money when it comes to encumbrance because the weight of a bunch of gold isn't really adding anything interesting to the story (like, maybe it could be a fun story beat once, but it's hardly something I want to deal with regularly). Anyway, that solves the problem - in my world players basically have the means to keep their gold and we just hand-wave it. It's just numbers on the character sheet. I guess if I had to deal with a massive dragon hoard we would make it a story beat, but those kinds of encounters aren't really my thing so it's not an issue.

I think this approach is pretty common, since one of the first options on a character sheet on DnDBeyond is to toggle off gold adding to encumbrance.

Obviously you've never carried a lot of coins! It's pretty cumbersome, and while it might not help the "story," trying to bring home loot can be a story in itself.

 

[the Jester]

Right now we have classic, 1GP=10SP=100CP,

but prices of those metals are not in that range,

if we go to 1GP=100SP=10,000CP we would come pretty close to real prices for those metals.

What does the real world price for precious metals have to do with D&D?

also it would make CP and SP meaningful in campaigns, right now SP is maybe used at 1st level, and CP in next to unheard of.

Depends on how the DM distributes treasure.

also it would make transporting large amount of wealth more easier.

A couple of things here. First, you appear to be taking it as given that this is a good thing; and second, you appear to be taking it as given that 1. People pay attention to how much treasure weighs and how hard it is to carry, which seems to be frequently overlooked, and 2. Bags of holding and similar items aren't trivial to find, buy, make, or make a workable substitute for, which seems to be pretty frequently the case, at least in published adventures.

Fullplate costing 15GP is more manageable transaction than 1500GP, carrying around 30lb of gold is a hassle. 15 coins still can fin inside a pocket.

Again- is this a bad thing? If full plate is supposed to be hard to obtain at low levels, it seems like it taking 30 lbs of coins is in line with that.

I can hardly imagine a blacksmith having chests full of gold after a busy day

It takes far more than a day to craft full plate.

then platinum can be made as some magic crafted metal that can hold magical essence for enchanting and have 1PP=100GP.
Platinum would only be used as magical currency or royal exchange.

common person would never see a platinum coin in a life probably, and only occasionally see a gold coin.

If you want this to be the case, you don't need to change the value of anything except labor. Making the daily wage of an untrained hireling 1 cp and a trained hireling 2 cp seems to solve this one without any extra fiddling.

Until 5e's explicit valuation of labor came into play, I used to define the value of 1 gp as "enough money to feed a peasant (poorly) for a year". Make that explicit and you really establish the value of money in game. I feel like all the rest of the revaluation you're doing is a solution in search of a problem, but it's a matter of taste- if you like it, feel free. But I'm not a fan of imposing this kind of revaluation on other peoples' campaigns.

 

[Yaarel]

I prefer magic be magic.

It is impossible to commoditize magic items, because the user must establish a personal relationship with the magic item. The magic of the item can refuse to cooperate. The attunement with a magic item is part of this relationship.

Generally, items are extensions of the intentions, personalities, and agendas of their creator.

I dont want to see money buy magic items, because then the items stop being magical. One might as well order the items online from an Amazon. It would feel nonmagical.



On the other hand, I dont mind "consumable" items being purchasable. Things like holy water, sunrods, alchemical goods, and so on, seem like things that a magitech economy can produce reliably via rituals.

So where a magic item is more like a "person". A consumable item is more like goods and services − more standardized, less personalized.

 

[Clint_L]

I think it would be better, making it more useful for keeping lower coins valuable longer (as it stands, most players stop caring about silver within a few levels, and they never care about copper). However, such a change would require a completely new edition, as it wouldn't be backwards compatible.

Unrelated Rant
I personally detest the metric monetary system D&D has used since 3E, but I understand why it's popular. It just feels unrealistic that four of the five valued metals just happen to occur in a linear proportion. The old setup was more complicated (10 CP = 1 SP, 20 SP = 2 EP = 1 GP, 5 GP = 1 PP), but felt more realistic. Whenever an American complains about it being complicated, I point out that every day they deal with a similar system with minimal difficulty (5 "cp" = 1 "sp", 2 "sp" = 1 "ep", 5 "sp" = 1 "gp", 4 "gp" = 1 "pp").


Obviously you've never carried a lot of coins! It's pretty cumbersome, and while it might not help the "story," trying to bring home loot can be a story in itself.

I understand that it would be heavy, and that might be an interesting story. Once. But constantly worrying about the weight of money? No thanks.