Using magic to make money

[Janx]

..snip..
Usually, you'll want the attempt to backfire in some way, ideally leading them back to continue their adventuring career.

Why?

It seems that a majority of the responses on this thread indicate the GM would favor having the PC fail in such an endeavor and would manipulate things toward that end.

Per comments made by SandBox GM's, the idea that a GM "wants" an outcome or even manipulates to get to an outcome is undesirable behavior.

I'm not a sandbox GM.

While I would prefer that the entire party be onboard with whatever undertaking they try to do (thus one PC should not be wasting their time on his stupid scheme), ultimately, my job is to make whatever they want to do be entertaining and challenging.

So, I see a red flag when I hear what sounds like GM's saying they will make the PC's scheme fail.

That's not literally what anybody said. But I see hints of it in nearly every response.

I don't recall if BG was driving the OT to that point. But we should find it interesting that our response is to not prefer PCs making money from magic. As opposed to making money between adventurers making swords, or owning a trading company.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm not a sandbox GM.

Not infrequently, a sandbox still has a tone and/or intended focus of play. In some of these, a certain amount of financial play might fit. In such, I'd be fine with some such tricks, even during play time.

However, if the point of the sandbox is more about fighting hazards and blowing the money in taverns, mercantile instincts aren't really any more welcome than the bard trying to make the game primarily about doing concerts in the park.

Likewise, if the game is focused on a certain amount of financial play, then there has to be a challenge to that part of it. Finding a weasel play in the letter of a particular spell isn't challenging in the game, but outside of it. And it rather begs the question in a sandbox of why that character is the first one to considr it. So you either want to houserule the ability or put in some of those blocks that would naturally evolve.

 

[Lord Crimson]

I'd lean more in Janx's direction. If your players really want to play that game, why would you be in such a hurry to shut them down?

Sure, the GM needs to have fun, too, but part of being a GM is trying to run a game that is fun for your players. I don't mean for this to be taken as "the iron will of the Players matters more than the GM", but instead as "a good GM will often find a way to use the grist from the Players to build a more interesting game for everyone."

 

[Janx]

Not infrequently, a sandbox still has a tone and/or intended focus of play. In some of these, a certain amount of financial play might fit. In such, I'd be fine with some such tricks, even during play time.

That's all I'm asking GMs to reconsider.

However, if the point of the sandbox is more about fighting hazards and blowing the money in taverns,

I suspect a campaign may start with one theme I chose, and the players agreed to, but I expect it to drift as I adapt to how my players approach it and their PCs evolve.

mercantile instincts aren't really any more welcome than the bard trying to make the game primarily about doing concerts in the park.

then why is the Bard in the party, or in the rulebook? That was rhetorical. I don't want to run Bardic Idol game.

Likewise, if the game is focused on a certain amount of financial play, then there has to be a challenge to that part of it. Finding a weasel play in the letter of a particular spell isn't challenging in the game, but outside of it. And it rather begs the question in a sandbox of why that character is the first one to considr it. So you either want to houserule the ability or put in some of those blocks that would naturally evolve.

Abusing a game glitch is a different problem. I expect any GM to shut down rule abuse, because it unbalances the game. it might be, that the response I noted here is a knee jerk reaction to the assumption that this thread was about rule abuse.

In any game, there's the challenge of are the PCs ideas really new, or have they been done before. Technically, the guy who wrote the setting material is responsible for defining what has been invented before. If he didn't write it, it can be argued that it didn't happen. Thus, the PCs do get to be inventors. If this stuff truly was thought of before, then the world should have evidence of these ideas, and thus would be apparent to the PC/player before they open their mouth.

If the world does not have any evidence of these ideas, and the player decides to act on it and the GM blocks it, the GM has committed a fault. For an idea to be as good as the PC thinks it is AND the world to be prepared for it, then the world should exist in a state that makes that apparent. Continual Light lamps as permitted, certified and taxed by the Continual Light Commision should be seen in every home and business establishment.

You can't cockblock the PCs that a certain avenue is closed because of taxes, laws and guilds if you don't show the world working in an obvious way that these things already are in place.

 

[anest1s]

I can't see anything wrong with it.

As a DM I have to add a difficulty factor, but thats all. If a player thinks of something creative and fun, why would I stop it?

Considering that the game is about having fun, if a group stops adventuring and starts doing irrelevant things, the problem probably is that your adventures aren't good enough


And what about non-spellcasters who get money in non-adventuring ways? Do they get bonus exp or something?

 

[CuRoi]

You can't cockblock the PCs that a certain avenue is closed because of taxes, laws and guilds if you don't show the world working in an obvious way that these things already are in place.

Really? So conversely: So maybe the local shopkeeper just knows the local tax laws, supply and demand and his trade. But the minute he takes up a sword and decides to be an adventurer, it would be poor form for the DM to have him stumble into REAL danger outside the little world of a shopkeeper that he lives in?

Anyway, playing "merchants and peddlers" was boring compared to actually risking life and limb for treasure, greatness, etc. etc. I'm sure some groups would love to do that, but mine in particular, when I decided to take them up on their financial plans and create a game with challenges of a more entrepreneurial nature, were convinced to do otherwise. Despite magic use it was going to take time and investment capital. two things they did not want to part with.

Is that necessarily a case of the DM ruining their fun? Not sure, it could be interpreted that way I suppose. However, I wouldn't just have the Dragon's die of old age at the little shopkeeper's feet and give him free treasure because he was previously ignorant of such dangers (though I'm starting to think that makes a great start to an adventure....). I see no reason why the party shouldn't be challenged in some financial scheme as well risking their own fortunes as it were. This regardless whether their PCs were formerly introduced to the local laws and regulations regarding said acitivties.

 

[Lord Crimson]

Really? So conversely: So maybe the local shopkeeper just knows the local tax laws, supply and demand and his trade. But the minute he takes up a sword and decides to be an adventurer, it would be poor form for the DM to have him stumble into REAL danger outside the little world of a shopkeeper that he lives in?

Maybe you read Janx's post differently than I did, but I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

It doesn't matter what the shopkeeper "knows". It's what his player knows. And a player knows that "outside the city there are dragons and orcs" - unless the GM gave evidence to believe otherwise (either in the pre-game write-up or by dint of actual things he's shown in games - say the roads being well patrolled and everyone talking about how lovely it is that they haven't seen a monster in 1200 years).

What Janx is arguing is that, if the game is largely taking place in a town populated mostly by farmers and a poor border-lord and you've never mentioned a Wizard's Guild and a system for taxing magic items before, it's kind of a "not-nice" thing to whip out from nowhere when your players decide to do something you don't like just to smack them down.

 

[CuRoi]

By the way - the same previously mentioned group went on to open an Inn. However, they waited until AFTER one of the players picked up the Leadership feat and also hired an inkeeper to help oversee the place. And yes, they had to follow all the laws, licensing etc. but much more of it could be in the background and not the centerpiece of the game.

It was barely breaking even for a long time - then they discovered a curse on the place from a previous owner. So yes, I "meanie" DMed them and turned their business into a plot hook prior to the possiblity of it becoming a financial success. But now instead of it just being some sort of automatically successful enterprise they rake in cash from, it's got history and character. All because I decided to futz with their "plans" like a mean DM

 

[CuRoi]

Maybe you read Janx's post differently than I did, but I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

No, I think I get where he's coming from. It's the same from a character or player perspective.

You are saying the shopkeeper's players in the Merchants and Peddlers game should -assume- there are big bad monsters outside the city walls even though the DM is glossing that fact because it isn't what that particular game is about. Then perhaps the players in a DnD game should also assume their game world, full of towns, varying economies, shops of all manner have some sort of functioning economy with taxes, laws and such which the DM also glosses because the game is not entirely about that. And, presumably their characters don't involve themselves with it to a large extent.

If, in either case, the players want to play in the other "realm" (adventure or shopkeeping) they shouldn't hold it against the DM for adding more detail to said systems in order to make the game challenging. Nor should they be surprised if they find their characters are not suited for the challenges of the "other realm" if they did not plan for it. Perhaps Wizards, Rangers and such aren't best suited as entrepreneurs. Maybe they should have made Experts?

Is it a DM cop-out if the DM didn't sit everyone down and explain the taxation, business license and other laws at the start fo the campaign? I don't think so. Could a DM use this to ruthlessly squash players starting a business? I suppose so. But my earlier point was I don't think they would find it necessary with most adventuring parties. Most players would find sitting at a desk rolling "Quickbooks" skill checks pretty damn boring They want to get out and hit stuff and take the treasure from some hard working Bad Guy...

To tie back to the OP - Long term making money with magic should be just like any other business. Usually if a PC can do it a lot of other people have done it before you (unless your spells are wholly unique to the campaign world). Therefore turning it into a buisness model to make money should mean competition, business plans, marketing, adhereing to or avoiding laws and all the other things all those people with "money maker spell x" have tried and done before you. If your players want that to be the focus of their game, great, more power to them, though I HOPE (DM included) everyone agreed to it ahead of time.

Like the attempt at using a Cantrip to turn pigs ears to Bugbear ears - its a cantrip so unless its a low magic world LOTS of people have access to the spell. Chances are the gaurds have dealt with something like this before and just because the DM didn't explicitly tell players "cantrip concealed ears aren't allowed" doesn't mean he is a jerk if the citywatch applies some sort of test to determine authenticity after the ears are turned in. Even if the DM hadn't previously considered it himself. I agree, doing this for every innovative thing the players come up with is just poor DMing. However, in some cases it is just common sense.

 

[Janx]

By the way - the same previously mentioned group went on to open an Inn. However, they waited until AFTER one of the players picked up the Leadership feat and also hired an inkeeper to help oversee the place. And yes, they had to follow all the laws, licensing etc. but much more of it could be in the background and not the centerpiece of the game.

It was barely breaking even for a long time - then they discovered a curse on the place from a previous owner. So yes, I "meanie" DMed them and turned their business into a plot hook prior to the possiblity of it becoming a financial success. But now instead of it just being some sort of automatically successful enterprise they rake in cash from, it's got history and character. All because I decided to futz with their "plans" like a mean DM

as always, I divide whats what along different lines.

Inherently, whatever the PCs do is going to face challenges, or complications after initial success etc. To make the game interesting. it's the same thing authors do in fiction. Otherwise TrueBlood's plot would have sounded like "Sookie went to work. Served the town's new vampire some wine. Then she told off a rude customer. Then she went home and slept peacefully."

So adding some interesting complications to inn ownership is to give the players some stuff to do that they are personally invested in. That's good.

That's different from bringing in a ton of made up absolute barriers to succes for the player's new idea is what is bad GMing (at least by my reckoning).

Another variant of this, is when a player gets an idea (that's probably new to the GM as well), and the GM blocks success under the reason that it's already been done. If NPCs have cornered the market on Continual Light Lamps, my PC should be seeing them everywhere. If magical contrivances are somehow outlawed, that impacts the way people treat and talk about magic. Which the PC would know and the PC should see.

Judging by things Celebrim has described in the past. I have no doubt that in his campaign, the impact of odd inventions or various laws or taboos has been considered and is integrated into how he describes the area. The players KNOW they've entered a regions with lots of magic-tech. The players KNOW when the townsfolk are gunshy of magical scams because of an NPC that came through town last year.

Basically, I'm advising that based on the hint of subtext of "I wouldn't let them get away with it" that I heard, to be mindful of bad DMing pitfalls. to consider what you're really against, and whether it's your right to do so as GM.