The Power of 5

[KarinsDad]

The interesting question might be: Why did the designers use the economy system as it is now? What was their reasoning for the scale? Is there something we're missing? Or did the designers just settle for the first system that proved to work in game?

It's apparent that thought was put into the 4E system.

For example, level 7 through 10 is 44% linearly better than each previous level. Then bam, when the + jumps from +1 to +2, a big step increase of 200+%. That is a good model (with regard to itself) because of the step increase in damage (on average) from a level 10 +1 special item to a level 11 +2 vanilla item.

What is not apparent is that it seems that the designers, when considering the issues that bugged people in previous versions, did not consider economy too much. The PHB costs are similar to before except for replacing a mug of ale with a flask of ale (simplicity). The cost of Plate was drastically lowered, just to make it easy for the Defender role to be filled with great AC early on (ease of play).

The considerations are for ease of play and simplicity, not verisimilitude.

Which is fine. Definitely the stated goals of the designers.

However, it does ignore one of the largest verisimilitude issues of the previous issues.


With respect to the x5 per + issue, I think this was just again simplicity. It's easy to remember. 20% re-sale is easy to remember.

And, one other aspect to it. When only going to level 20, each PC is only about 2x to 3x as wealthy as a 3E DND PC. In other words, the x5 per + rule allowed the designers to stay within one magnitude of 3E wealth rules (it's somewhat unfair to compare level 20 3E PCs with level 30 4E PCs). I think this is the #1 reason they pick the x5 per + rule. It kept money similar in curve to 3E.

But unfortunately, picking these values exacerbate the issues that economy has had all along in DND.

And, I also think the 44% increase is based solely on the x5 per + issue. Obviously, if they would have pick x3 for the scale, it would have been something like 25% per level instead.

 

[malraux]

Maybe in your campaigns there isn't a notional economy, but it is an issue for others (including myself and Karinsdad, for example).

In other words, this is apparently not the thread for you, since it is discussing an issue which is irrelevant to you.

Constructive discussion is great, but we don't want any "what's the point" posts, thanks.

It more of a questioning the method. If the concern is the overall economy, couldn't you just as easily inflate the wealth of the local communities instead of adjusting the wealth curve? It would seem to have the same effect.

edit: My point is that I don't see much of a difference.

KD's method shifts the wealth down slightly, and increases slightly less.

 

[RangerWickett]

Has anyone here seen "The Deadliest Catch"? Alaskan king crab fishing reported over 300 fatalities per 100,000 as of 2005, but people keep doing it because a week of work can earn you enough money for a year.

 

[KarinsDad]

It more of a questioning the method. If the concern is the overall economy, couldn't you just as easily inflate the wealth of the local communities instead of adjusting the wealth curve? It would seem to have the same effect.

edit: My point is that I don't see much of a difference.

Well since you first claimed that my system was just dividing by x, I suspect that at first, you either did not understand it, or you did not read it.


The fact that you still do not see a difference means that you aren't looking carefully, or are purposely being obtuse (or even trying to mislead people). For example, you posted a logarithmic chart which makes things look linear and can be misleading to others if they are not careful about what they are looking at. For example, the bottom two sections of the chart are white noise. It makes it look like the yellow line is close to the others, but the GP from 0 to 100 are a mere fraction of the wealth acquired at all levels and the two lines are far apart at each level.

And, the fact that the lines diverge on a logarithmic scale means that there is less Monty Haul at higher levels with the yellow line. By definition.

A logarithmic divergence means that it is not the same curve at all and increasing the local economy would not resolve the issues (or at least the issue I have with it).

So, you are again trying to make it seem linear (like your divide by x claim), but it is nothing of the sort.

KD's method shifts the wealth down slightly, and increases slightly less.

Except that it is not just a "shift" and is not just "slightly". Look at your own chart carefully.

Your chart illustrates how many levels higher the PCs have to be to have the same economic effect.

Look at the 1000 GP line. Level 2 PCs acquire that at that level in the core rules, level 8 PCs acquire that at that level in my system.

Look at the 10000 GP line. Level 10 PCs acquire that at that level in the core rules, level 18 PCs acquire that at that level in my system.

That's not a slight difference. And, the cumulative effect when adding up the total GP acquired from level 1 to level x is even more pronounced than your chart indicates.


Look at the attached thumbnails. All of the delta between the 1 to 10, 11 to 20, and 21 to 30 level charts here is the excess wealth the core system hands out.

 

[malraux]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but exponential data is best handled on a logarithmic graph. Its not an attempt to be deceptive, but to put the numbers into a form wherein differences can be seen. As to if they are the same curve, since they are both exponential growths, they certainly are the same class of curves. But whatever, apparently my contribution is not being constructive, so I'll bow out.

 

[Ulthwithian]

I for one am finding this conversation fascinating from many angles, so I would ask that you not bow out, Malraux.

It seems the concern is about the liquidity of wealth rather than wealth itself. Adventurers will always be wealthy, in the sense that their net worth is extremely high compared to almost any non-adventurer. But that wealth is all tied up in their gear. Therefore, the most straightforward answer is to only give liquid assets (i.e., money) to pay for recurring costs (e.g., food).

The reason that you have the 'poor adventurer' archetype is that the adventurer in question is not willing to liquidate his wealth. I can't speak to Conan, but as for the Dreaming Dark series, most of the characters could easily solve their wealth liquidity. One of them has an adamantine dagger that could feed him forever, if it were sold and the proceeds invested anywhere near wisely. Therefore, in no way can they be considered 'poor'. They choose to eat summoned food rather than have liquid assets ready to hand to deal with that issue because they value their nonliquid assets more than their liquid equivalent.

It seems fairly clear that the 4E designers put a price tag on magic items to facilitate the gaining of gear, and to allow economies to be in place for those who wish to do so. The reason characters receive liquid wealth is so that they can translate it into nonliquid assets of their choice, which is not the case with magic items they just 'find'. If the players in the game want their characters to take that wealth and then use it in an unintended fashion in the game, then there is a concern.

For myself, by training I am aware of this issues. I'm not that worried that much about them in game. I would be worried if someone tried to take out a loan to buy an inn using his magic sword as collateral. As an exit strategy in the game, that's fine. For an 'active adventurer', it makes very little sense in the genre.

 

[Blackeagle]

It seems the concern is about the liquidity of wealth rather than wealth itself. Adventurers will always be wealthy, in the sense that their net worth is extremely high compared to almost any non-adventurer. But that wealth is all tied up in their gear. Therefore, the most straightforward answer is to only give liquid assets (i.e., money) to pay for recurring costs (e.g., food).

Conan has been reduced to basically zero wealth at times, liquid or not. The characters in Seven Samurai and Samurai Champloo were reduced to nothing more than the clothes on their backs and (mundane) swords. If you want to go a little grittier, it's hard to keep track of how often major characters in are forced to flee with nothing but what they can carry.