Using magic to make money

[Kaodi]

" Get rich quick " is going to be somewhat dependent on circumstances in any case. I mean, if a DM complains, " There is no way I am going to allow such get rich quick schemes! " in some cases, a player could justifiably point out, " Dude, I started this character at level 1 and it has taken 8 levels and 2 years to get here! "

 

[Jhaelen]

I do challenge the thinking behind "not letting it work".

Well, the OP asked about D&D and in D&D it's basically a no go. You really only have two choices:
- it works without problems; everyone lives happily everafter; the campaign ends.
- it doesn't work at all or works for a while then causes problems. This allows the campaign to continue and actually be about things D&D (i.e. Dungeons and Dragons!) is about.

Making money in and of itself can be part of D&D. E.g. in 2e Dark Sun there was a trader class. But that's completely different from a money-making eldritch machine. It slightly broadens the focus of the game to include economics but it doesn't entirely replace the focus, i.e. since you have to travel with caravans around the desert anyway, why not make some money while you're at it?

Now if we're talking about other rpgs which can have an entirely different focus, then it's definitely an option. E.g. in Ars Magica using magic to make money is covered by the Code of Hermes. It's almost a given that someone will eventually try to circumvent the Code in some way; it may even be the focus of the campaign.

Maybe I'm only having problems with the idea of letting it work in D&D because I don't think D&D would be a great choice for this kind of campaign.
For me, using D&D as the rpg system for a campaign is a conscious decision because the kind of campaign I have in mind works well within D&D's scope.
We don't default to D&D as _the_ rpg system that must be used for everything since it clearly sucks big time to simulate a campaign of 'Merchants and Moneylenders'.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

An excellent example of why DMs should feel free to ruthlessly squash "get rich quick" schemes with some sort of in-game judgement call on laws, economies, taxes, etc. etc without the "bad DM" thing lingering over their head. The book economies aren't made for "gaming" - whether the economics of a spell or just the simple book pricing for goods and services. DMs shouldn't feel bad for proactively nipping this stuff in the bud, unless as mentioned, the group as a whole has decided they want to play this way.

Furthermore, I would hope players wanting to do this type of campaign ask the DM about it ahead of time, so at least they can be prepared.

And if the DM doesn't want to run that type of campaign, that's fine too.

I heard about a Warhammer campaign that did this, but the business was a plot point intended to draw PCs into more standard adventuring. "Who burned down the business" and so forth. Even in standard DnD, a new business is a magnet for organized crime figures. Start statting up the thieves' guild.

 

[Janx]

Well, the OP asked about D&D and in D&D it's basically a no go. You really only have two choices:
- it works without problems; everyone lives happily everafter; the campaign ends.

this could be true of everything the PCs do. Slay the dragon, and everyone lives happily everafter; the campaign ends.

I think this statement is meaningless. all successful D&D quests end this way. And the next time the PCs play again, the GM reveals that time went by, a new problem has developed, and the game continues.

- it doesn't work at all or works for a while then causes problems. This allows the campaign to continue and actually be about things D&D (i.e. Dungeons and Dragons!) is about.

There's some other thread on what D&D is "about". I have no idea what's in it. I do know, I don't generally do Dungeons or Dragons in my D&D and even less frequently at the same time.

Making money in and of itself can be part of D&D. E.g. in 2e Dark Sun there was a trader class. But that's completely different from a money-making eldritch machine. It slightly broadens the focus of the game to include economics but it doesn't entirely replace the focus, i.e. since you have to travel with caravans around the desert anyway, why not make some money while you're at it?

making money has always been the goal of D&D (kill monsters and take their stuff with stuff being "money or money equivalent".

Now if we're talking about other rpgs which can have an entirely different focus, then it's definitely an option. E.g. in Ars Magica using magic to make money is covered by the Code of Hermes. It's almost a given that someone will eventually try to circumvent the Code in some way; it may even be the focus of the campaign.

Maybe I'm only having problems with the idea of letting it work in D&D because I don't think D&D would be a great choice for this kind of campaign.
For me, using D&D as the rpg system for a campaign is a conscious decision because the kind of campaign I have in mind works well within D&D's scope.
We don't default to D&D as _the_ rpg system that must be used for everything since it clearly sucks big time to simulate a campaign of 'Merchants and Moneylenders'.

Me and my peeps only play D&D. We use D&D for everything. Sure, I have other games on my shelf. But nobody wants to play them. This is why D&D sells, and why its a fallacy that "you should use a different system for that". Because, right or wrong, the majority of the market just keeps using D&D.

Besides, I could probably just ask Celebrim for some house rules to better model economics. He probably has some, and they're probably well thought out.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

making money has always been the goal of D&D (kill monsters and take their stuff with stuff being "money or money equivalent".

I disagree. The money is a plot point, nothing more, at least until 3.x. At that point, money became used to boost your PC (and if you didn't spend it on items, you were playing a different kind of D&D).

Money & Monopolies is better played with a system that can handle that. I think DMs freak out about PCs making money because 1) It's not a whole lot of fun. 2) They're not businesspeople and don't know how much things cost 3) Depending on what the PCs do with the money, it can break game balance too. 4) Using Fabricate to create scads of money is pointless, if all you wanted to do was point out how "broken" the spell is.

Besides, I could probably just ask Celebrim for some house rules to better model economics. He probably has some, and they're probably well thought out.

I'm sure somewhere out there are house rules and products for that kind of econ management. But that just supports my previous point: players need to tell DMs if they're going to do this, as most DMs don't have such house rules/products available at the moment, and don't know where to get them either.

 

[Jhaelen]

Me and my peeps only play D&D. We use D&D for everything. Sure, I have other games on my shelf. But nobody wants to play them. This is why D&D sells, and why its a fallacy that "you should use a different system for that". Because, right or wrong, the majority of the market just keeps using D&D.

Well, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read here

But it definitely confirms my suspicion.

So, it's a fallacy that D&D isn't the best system for everything?

I guess, this is right opportunity for the saying: "if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

I hope not to crush your version of reality if I tell you that there are places where D&D is not the market-leading rpg, e.g. here in Germany. In fact it's well on its way to sink back into total obscurity since it no longer has a German publisher (while Pathfinder does - but that's an entirely different problem).

Besides, I could probably just ask Celebrim for some house rules to better model economics. He probably has some, and they're probably well thought out.

I bet he also developed an excellent technique to drive screws into walls using a hammer Have fun - I'm out!

 

[Janx]

Well, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read here

But it definitely confirms my suspicion.

So, it's a fallacy that D&D isn't the best system for everything?

I guess, this is right opportunity for the saying: "if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

I hope not to crush your version of reality if I tell you that there are places where D&D is not the market-leading rpg, e.g. here in Germany. In fact it's well on its way to sink back into total obscurity since it no longer has a German publisher (while Pathfinder does - but that's an entirely different problem).
I bet he also developed an excellent technique to drive screws into walls using a hammer Have fun - I'm out!

It's true D&D is a hammer.And it certainly isn't the best system for everything (or possibly anything).

But here on the forums, folks have more experience using other systems. However, in the real world (apparently only in the US), the majority of D&D players stick to D&D and won't consider using an alternative product.

Therefore, "you're using the wrong system" is not a useful response, despite being technically correct.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's true D&D is a hammer.And it certainly isn't the best system for everything (or possibly anything).

But here on the forums, folks have more experience using other systems. However, in the real world (apparently only in the US), the majority of D&D players stick to D&D and won't consider using an alternative product.

Therefore, "you're using the wrong system" is not a useful response, despite being technically correct.

This conforms to my experiences: most gamers seem to play 1-3 RPGs and that's it.

I got started with AD&D and Traveller- 'cause that's about all there was in 1977- and soon found Champions (HERO). And that was it for more than a decade. Now, 34 years after I was introduced to the hobby, I've played in over 100 different RPG systems, and have pared my personal collection down to a nice 50 or so.

But most of my fellow gamers over those years? Some form of D&D and a couple of others, and D&D was the preferred system of most. For those who were not D&Dphiles, their game was HERO, GURPS, RIFTS or WoD.

Even my current main group- together since 1998- has played D&D almost exclusively over all that time, interspersed with a 1 year RIFTS campaign and a 3 month M&M campaign. And getting some of those guys to play anything beyond D&D was akin to pulling teeth.

And part of that is the power of brand recognition. To many non-gamers, "D&D" is a synonym for the hobby. Its status as the First of many; its market penetration; it's pervasive spreading IP (the old cartoon, the movies, the novels)- all of that, and more gives it an advantage in attracting people to it that no other game has. That's just Marketing 101.

 

[BriarMonkey]

This conforms to my experiences: most gamers seem to play 1-3 RPGs and that's it. ...

Yep. Based on what I've seen, both when I was in the service (with a huge pool of gamers) and what I've seen on various boards since, I'd have to say that 1 to 3 seems about right.

But, I'll qualify that a wee bit by saying that those 1 to 3 are what gets played repeatedly, or consistantly. Many of my friends, and myself, have tried way more than 3 RPGs, but for campaigns and long term use - or "go to" games - there's only the couple.

 

[Janx]

IME, I started my gaming group with D&D in 1990. We played through HS and college, and 20 years later, that group is still playing D&D (3.x).

In college, my new friends played everything but D&D. I played a few games with them. One thing I observed, is NONE of them ever maintained a long running game. Each campaign that started, was lucky to get 3 sessions in.

One crackpot theory: the mentality that lead gamers to seek out system variety lacked the focus to stick to anything. Whereas, the mentality that kept the other group in one system, kept them playing together.

I am certain though, that the kind of people who frequent gaming forums are the same kind of people willing to collect and explore other games.

the kind of people who just play D&D aren't interested in any of that. The OGl didn't impact them, because they never bought a non-WotC add-on.

We've digressed from money making magic. But it's a pet peeve of mine to see the answer being "you're using the wrong system." because even though its right, that doesn't mean switching is a viable solution.