D&D (2024) Uncommon items - actually common?

[Micah Sweet]

So is there actually any existing game which has the sort of economic complexity that people here pine for?

My personal favorite is an OSR game called ACKS, based originally on the B/X rules. It has an excellent and very well-detailed economic system. But there's no reason something similar couldn't be done in a 5e-based system like Level Up, which is already better suited for that kind of expansion than D&D 5e.

 

[tetrasodium]

So is there actually any existing game which has the sort of economic complexity that people here pine for?

Like this (don't overlook the quoted post)?

The mechanics actively resist the GM's ability to make that happen through the creation of a tradegood/commodity list of costly spells that is shared among spells.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My personal favorite is an OSR game called ACKS, based originally on the B/X rules. It has an excellent and very well-detailed economic system. But there's no reason something similar couldn't be done in a 5e-based system like Level Up, which is already better suited for that kind of expansion than D&D 5e.

I think this is the sort of thing that would make most sense as some sort of addon sourcebook. Third party probably.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Like this (don't overlook the quoted post)?

The mechanics actively resist the GM's ability to make that happen through the creation of a tradegood/commodity list of costly spells that is shared among spells.

The thing is why I don't think it is good idea to have varying prices for spell components in the base game, is that it is ultimately a balancing mechanic. It might be realistic that some things would be cheaper on Eberron than on Athas, or vice versa, but that would wreck the balance. So by not giving the exact amounts, you can still assume that the ruby dust for example is cheaper per ounce on Eberron than on Athas, but in a Dark Sun game they just use a larger amount of it. Granted, if you have some sort of setting hopping in the campaign then this would get weird, but I don't think that is such a common thing.

 

[tetrasodium]

The thing is why I don't think it is good idea to have varying prices for spell components in th base game, is that it is ultimately a balancing mechanic.

Going to swing back to that because the rest of this is relevant to that why.

It might be realistic that some things would be cheaper on Eberron than Athas, or vice versa, but that would wreck the balance. So by not giving the exact amounts, you can still assume that the ruby dust for example is cheaper per ounce on Eberron than on Athas, but in a Dark Sun game they just use a larger amount of it. Granted, if you have some sort of setting hopping in the campaign then this would get weird, but I don't think that is such a common thing.

No... only the player can & not in a way that impacts actual play like a shared trade good/commodity style list would allow the GM to adjust accordingly in price or specific items fitting the setting & campaign.

The thing is why I don't think it is good idea to have varying prices for spell components in the base game,

It's not about that overly simplified "varying prices for spell components", that is a possible side effect/secondary component of the desired change. Currently they are often presented as a tradegood/commodity but do so in a way that prevents the GM from leveraging such a setup for positive gameplay results. Having the spells drawing from a GM side list would allow the GM to make use of that list as a subjectively desirable form of treasure that players should logically be excited about, but they fail to provide a relevant commodity/trade good list for spells to share & the spells don't share anything in a manner the GM could do the legwork on creating such a list without first rewriting the spell side first.

If I give the players 100 pounds of pepper silk or saffron it presents an immediate "oh those are on the trade goods list" & players can look to see those are all worth sizable amounts of coin for lower tiered parties, but it fails to keep up with higher tiers and the natural language created commodity using spells can not be converted over to a higher priced commodity list because they are too varied uselessly tiered★ & already have players thinking they can 1:1 gold or gems over to the relevant gem dust as at least one poster has strongly pushed as the obvious truth.

★ ie ruby dust is used by a second & 7th level spell, diamond dust & each type of individual gem is all over the place, others use bones worth x instead of bones and [valuable thing], etc

 

[Maxperson]

Didn't we talk about how diamonds and diamond dust probably don't have the same value?

The bolded is the critical part there. Supply and demand for spellcasting components can reasonably make up that potential difference in value if you want it to. If you ignore that for other reasons, then you are opting out of one reasonable explanation for another.

What is in the core books is sufficient to support a reasonable conclusion that results in the gem and powdered versions being the same value.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No... only the player can & not in a way that impacts actual play like a shared trade good/commodity style list would allow the GM to adjust accordingly in price or specific items fitting the setting & campaign.

Of course the GM can do this. As the amount of ruby dust is not specified, they can say the 50gps worth is four ounces on Eberron and a pound on Athas.

It's not about that overly simplified "varying prices for spell components", that is a possible side effect/secondary component of the desired change. Currently they are often presented as a tradegood/commodity but do so in a way that prevents the GM from leveraging such a setup for positive gameplay results. Having the spells drawing from a GM side list would allow the GM to make use of that list as a subjectively desirable form of treasure that players should logically be excited about, but they fail to provide a relevant commodity/trade good list for spells to share & the spells don't share anything in a manner the GM could do the legwork on creating such a list without first rewriting the spell side first.

If I give the players 100 pounds of pepper silk or saffron it presents an immediate "oh those are on the trade goods list" & players can look to see those are all worth sizable amounts of coin for lower tiered parties, but it fails to keep up with higher tiers and the natural language created commodity using spells can not be converted over to a higher priced commodity list because they are too varied uselessly tiered★ & already have players thinking they can 1:1 gold or gems over to the relevant gem dust as at least one poster has strongly pushed as the obvious truth.

★ ie ruby dust is used by a second & 7th level spell, diamond dust & each type of individual gem is all over the place, others use bones worth x instead of bones and [valuable thing], etc

I don't understand any of this. I literally do not understand what these "positive gameplay results" you want are.

 

[Maxperson]

I can, but having a game designer do the back end work to make the economy work consistently is pretty nice too. I've seen it in other D&D-style games.

The designers did the work and gave you something sufficiently good. You can either take that reasonable method(supply and demand for spellcasting components) or opt to change it to something else on your own. They don't owe you several reasonable options so that you can choose one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think this is the sort of thing that would make most sense as some sort of addon sourcebook. Third party probably.

I wouldn't expect to see it from WotC, certainly. But I don't rely on them for much of anything at this point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The bolded is the critical part there. Supply and demand for spellcasting components can reasonably make up that potential difference in value if you want it to. If you ignore that for other reasons, then you are opting out of one reasonable explanation for another.

What is in the core books is sufficient to support a reasonable conclusion that results in the gem and powdered versions being the same value.

Except it's out off-kilter to reality. Since anybgrms found can be reduced to dust no matter what quality they started out in, and since all diamond dust (for example) is just as effective as a spell component, the added use of gem dust in magical studies doesn't change its value vis a vis whole gems.