Silly economics of DnD
- Thread starter bramadan
- Start date
Humanophile
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Craft skills and peasant labour.
Well, they don't minmax out because if they did, why would they chose to be commoners in the first place? Little issue NPC's are supposed to be the people who don't make the most out of themselves. Why do some people work at McDonalds when they could be doctors or movie stars? Same issues.
Al said:
Well, they don't minmax out because if they did, why would they chose to be commoners in the first place? Little issue NPC's are supposed to be the people who don't make the most out of themselves. Why do some people work at McDonalds when they could be doctors or movie stars? Same issues.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Craft skills and peasant labour.
Granted. But the fact is that in the abstract metagaming world of DnD, the human commoner gets 12 skill points. He has to spend them on something. Chances are that he will more likely have them in Craft or Profession skills, even if he didn't go through the 'skill catalogue' and choose them. It's just more likely that he will have them.
Similar with Skill Focus. Again, he may not have chosen Skill Focus, but in the course of his life he will most probably end up with it. In the medieval world, nearly everyone took a profession (small p) and worked at it until they were too old and frail to continue. If you've been working 20 years at something, I'd say that justifies Skill Focus. And there are far more hard-working everyday folk than gifted runners. Or particularly tough people. Or people with incredible reflexes.
As for Joe the Untrained Bookbinder, this is in my Edit. Even if the skill point argument folds, the fact that the Craft skill is untrained means that most will still try their hand- the extra cash will be more than worth it. With reference to markets, I assume you're talking supply and demand. Using supply and demand analysis, you get a surplus in the market and the price plummets until only the trained can survive and make a living. But people WILL ONLY LEAVE THIS OCCUPATION WHEN THEY NO LONGER EARN MORE THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE (or at least until the wage disparity is seriously toned down).
Think about it this way:
You are Joe the Peasant.
You can: a) Work as a labourer for 1sp a day
OR b) Work as an untrained Craftsman for 7ish sp a day.
Which will you choose? Only when the price of untrained skilled labour becomes parallel with that of labourers will anyone actually go into the other profession. If you can multiply your wage by a factor of SEVEN with no training simply by changing jobs, then most will (caveat: a few may continue with tradition etc. but since most peasants are struggling to eat (see pp.1-3 of this thread) most will switch).
The three solutions are:
1) Craft skills can't be used untrained (this hits the skill point problem)
2) Reduce Craft skill wages
3) Increase labourer wages
Humanophile: Big difference. I'm talking untrained work here. These guys are getting a guaranteed sevenfold increase in their wages with no training (according to PHB rules). Burger flippers can't be doctors because they need training, and they don't get into medical school.
drnuncheon said:
Granted. But the fact is that in the abstract metagaming world of DnD, the human commoner gets 12 skill points. He has to spend them on something. Chances are that he will more likely have them in Craft or Profession skills, even if he didn't go through the 'skill catalogue' and choose them. It's just more likely that he will have them.
Similar with Skill Focus. Again, he may not have chosen Skill Focus, but in the course of his life he will most probably end up with it. In the medieval world, nearly everyone took a profession (small p) and worked at it until they were too old and frail to continue. If you've been working 20 years at something, I'd say that justifies Skill Focus. And there are far more hard-working everyday folk than gifted runners. Or particularly tough people. Or people with incredible reflexes.
As for Joe the Untrained Bookbinder, this is in my Edit. Even if the skill point argument folds, the fact that the Craft skill is untrained means that most will still try their hand- the extra cash will be more than worth it. With reference to markets, I assume you're talking supply and demand. Using supply and demand analysis, you get a surplus in the market and the price plummets until only the trained can survive and make a living. But people WILL ONLY LEAVE THIS OCCUPATION WHEN THEY NO LONGER EARN MORE THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE (or at least until the wage disparity is seriously toned down).
Think about it this way:
You are Joe the Peasant.
You can: a) Work as a labourer for 1sp a day
OR b) Work as an untrained Craftsman for 7ish sp a day.
Which will you choose? Only when the price of untrained skilled labour becomes parallel with that of labourers will anyone actually go into the other profession. If you can multiply your wage by a factor of SEVEN with no training simply by changing jobs, then most will (caveat: a few may continue with tradition etc. but since most peasants are struggling to eat (see pp.1-3 of this thread) most will switch).
The three solutions are:
1) Craft skills can't be used untrained (this hits the skill point problem)
2) Reduce Craft skill wages
3) Increase labourer wages
Humanophile: Big difference. I'm talking untrained work here. These guys are getting a guaranteed sevenfold increase in their wages with no training (according to PHB rules). Burger flippers can't be doctors because they need training, and they don't get into medical school.
Storminator
First Post
There's lots of talk of labor markets here, but D&D sort of assumes a lot of medieval economics, and free labor markets aren't among them.
Why doesn't Joe Peasant go into bookbinding? Because the bookbinders guild will break his knees, leaving him Joe the Beggar, pining for the day he could earn a silver.
Lots of guilds were based on not training others in their craft, not letting others sell goods made by that craft, and keeping prices high. If you fold those rules into the thinking, the disparity between unskilled labor and craftsmen is appropriate.
IMC, I have a pair of rogues posing as simple laborers. They had to take out a loan to buy basic equipment, and come payday, they will find they OWE money (want another loan? just to tide you over...) If this was their real lives instead of an adventure hook, they'd be well on their way to serfdom.
PS
Why doesn't Joe Peasant go into bookbinding? Because the bookbinders guild will break his knees, leaving him Joe the Beggar, pining for the day he could earn a silver.
Lots of guilds were based on not training others in their craft, not letting others sell goods made by that craft, and keeping prices high. If you fold those rules into the thinking, the disparity between unskilled labor and craftsmen is appropriate.
IMC, I have a pair of rogues posing as simple laborers. They had to take out a loan to buy basic equipment, and come payday, they will find they OWE money (want another loan? just to tide you over...) If this was their real lives instead of an adventure hook, they'd be well on their way to serfdom.
PS
I used to be bothered by this quite a bit.
But, although there are some items which are out of line with my expectations of what costs should be, they are few and far between.
My real problem lies with the wages that various hirelings get. So, I multiplied all wages by 5 in my game.
I use a 1 CP = $1 ratio and compare costs to real world equivalents (i.e. a horse is not a horse, it's a car or motorcycle since it provides transportation).
When NPC wages get multiplied by 5, the 1 SP guy only gets paid $50 a day (with my ratio). But, $50 a day makes a lot more sense to me than $10 a day.
This guy only makes $10K a year, but he is at the bottom of the totem pole and had better have roommates.
The yearly equivalent wages then become:
$100,000 Alchemist
$15,000 Animal tender/groom
$50,000 Architect/engineer
$100,000 Barrister
$40,000 Clerk
$10,000 Cook
$40,000 Entertainer/performer
$10,000 Laborer
$60,000 Limner
$10,000 Maid
$30,000 Mason/craftsman
$20,000 Mercenary
$40,000 Mercenary horseman
$60,000 Mercenary Leader
$10,000 Porter
$200,000 Sage
$30,000 Scribe
$40,000 Smith
$30,000 Teamster
$20,000 Valet/lackey
Are these real accurate? Probably not. But, most of them are in the $20,000 to $40,000 wages that a lot of people make in the real world (in the U.S).
So, this makes sense for me and my players since all of us live in the U.S.
The day laborer is paid the worse, but at 5 SP per day, he can still go into a bar and afford an ale at 4 CP once or twice a day.
This has resolved most of my problems with it and at least made it such that your typical workers can afford to be seen in the tavern or inn without saying that item costs are 2 to 10 times greater for adventurers (i.e. they see the tourists coming syndrome where any smart adventurer would give a local a SP to go buy a backpack at 5 SP instead of the adventurer's 2 GP price). YMMV.
But, although there are some items which are out of line with my expectations of what costs should be, they are few and far between.
My real problem lies with the wages that various hirelings get. So, I multiplied all wages by 5 in my game.
I use a 1 CP = $1 ratio and compare costs to real world equivalents (i.e. a horse is not a horse, it's a car or motorcycle since it provides transportation).
When NPC wages get multiplied by 5, the 1 SP guy only gets paid $50 a day (with my ratio). But, $50 a day makes a lot more sense to me than $10 a day.
This guy only makes $10K a year, but he is at the bottom of the totem pole and had better have roommates.
The yearly equivalent wages then become:
$100,000 Alchemist
$15,000 Animal tender/groom
$50,000 Architect/engineer
$100,000 Barrister
$40,000 Clerk
$10,000 Cook
$40,000 Entertainer/performer
$10,000 Laborer
$60,000 Limner
$10,000 Maid
$30,000 Mason/craftsman
$20,000 Mercenary
$40,000 Mercenary horseman
$60,000 Mercenary Leader
$10,000 Porter
$200,000 Sage
$30,000 Scribe
$40,000 Smith
$30,000 Teamster
$20,000 Valet/lackey
Are these real accurate? Probably not. But, most of them are in the $20,000 to $40,000 wages that a lot of people make in the real world (in the U.S).
So, this makes sense for me and my players since all of us live in the U.S.
The day laborer is paid the worse, but at 5 SP per day, he can still go into a bar and afford an ale at 4 CP once or twice a day.
This has resolved most of my problems with it and at least made it such that your typical workers can afford to be seen in the tavern or inn without saying that item costs are 2 to 10 times greater for adventurers (i.e. they see the tourists coming syndrome where any smart adventurer would give a local a SP to go buy a backpack at 5 SP instead of the adventurer's 2 GP price). YMMV.
nameless said:
The thing that gets me is, where did all the hidden treasure in a dragons horde or dungeon basement come from? If it was put there for safekeeping, or storage, or whatever, why didn't the origionally owners do what the party does, and buy a country. To have a world where a signifigant portion of the economy involves killing things underground and coming back with valuable treasures, why are there even dungeons anymore?
Why didn't people realize long ago that protecting their ill gotten horde with some tunnels and monsters was a potentially stupid idea?
Why hasn't someone of high enough level just gone and cleaned out every single dungeon they can find? Why are their still dungeons suitible for 1st level partys when ther must be 1000s of low level parties running around boosting the economy?
It just is supposed to be fun, not neccessaraly make sense...
LostSoul
Adventurer
I think the best way to simulate an economy is to figure out how much food costs are (per day, week, month, whatever) for your average adult. Give your typical peasant (a farmer on a lord's land) a tiny bit more than this. A typical craftsman (a cobbler or potter) may make a slight bit more than a peasant. Lords make money off of thier peasants.
This way you don't have any middle-class.
This way you don't have any middle-class.
Similar Threads
