Wealth Limitations: Realistic?

[SirAlexanderCourt]

Do people consider limitations on wealth at the higher levels to be realistic?

A person with that much power seems more like a god than a human being.

It also seems like a person at that level could simply loot whatever he wanted, perhaps by establishing some sort of government and forcing the people to pay tribute.

In a world where looting is the primary method by which people become wealthy, it seems much more realistic to have wealth determined by how much power you have.

In the case of high-level characters, this would be as much as they can loot which would be quite a lot. (Much more than the WBL limits.)

Even on the earth, kings in the past who had nowhere near the power which high level characters have were richer.

 

[Dandu]

Another reason why the D&D economy fails.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Do people consider limitations on wealth at the higher levels to be realistic?

Honestly I would say forget trying for "realism" and try for verisimilitude, because the latter tends to end far better than trying for 'realism.' Remember this is D&D not HARN. To assist you I will attach a segment from a much longer document on another forum several years ago. It's honestly the best conceptualization of how D&D economies work I've ever seen.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

higher levels

...

realistic?

Um, D&D?

A person with that much power seems more like a god than a human being.

Yes, yes it does. 'Cause it's D&D.

It also seems like a person at that level could simply loot whatever he wanted, perhaps by establishing some sort of government and forcing the people to pay tribute.

Sure would be possible vs. the commoners, but you've got monsters, deities and other high level NPCs to keep things interesting.

In a world where looting is the primary method by which people become wealthy, it seems much more realistic to have wealth determined by how much power you have.

um, yes, which is why higher level characters have more money.

In the case of high-level characters, this would be as much as they can loot which would be quite a lot. (Much more than the WBL limits.)

See, when you say "loot", do you mean raiding the pesants? Who make a yealry income in copper pieces? Because you'll make waaaay more money "looting" the dragon's cave, the Goblin's mine, the Mindflayer's tower, and so on, and so on.

Even on the earth, kings in the past who had nowhere near the power which high level characters have were richer.

In earth, we don't have reality-breaking magic, or giant, city-destroying monsters to keep these high level, powerful characters from being more occupied from bullying villagers for their copper pieces.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Do people consider limitations on wealth at the higher levels to be realistic?

I don't consider anything about high level D&D to be realistic.

A person with that much power seems more like a god than a human being.

I tend to think of them more like superheroes. It's one the reason that high level evil campaigns are really hard to pull off - the PCs, given their nature, have too much power to not be lording it over anyone and everyone they can.

It also seems like a person at that level could simply loot whatever he wanted, perhaps by establishing some sort of government and forcing the people to pay tribute.

In a world where looting is the primary method by which people become wealthy, it seems much more realistic to have wealth determined by how much power you have.

In the case of high-level characters, this would be as much as they can loot which would be quite a lot. (Much more than the WBL limits.)

Sure - they are powerful enough to bully lower level threats as much as they want almost with impunity. The real money, though, comes from taking on bigger threats (really what is going to net you more - 2000 orcs with 1d8 gp each or 1 huge ancient red dragon and its 500 year old hoard?)

Even on the earth, kings in the past who had nowhere near the power which high level characters have were richer.

Well no - in real life there is no magic or hit points or anything like that. One person is just as easily killed as any other. However when powerful kings have 1000's of people who are willing to die for them to live "power" becomes a much different commodity than " I have 200 hit points and a 37 AC". Comparing D&D to real life in terms of how personally powerful a person is is next to useless, imo.

 

[Greenfield]

Okay, so you're an arch-mage and you've installed yourself as the new King of Thesium, having disposed of the previous ruler and all viable heirs.

Now you want to get rich by taxing the kingdom and demanding tribute from neighboring lands as the price for peace.

What happens? Along come a bunch of adventurer types intent on restoring the "True heir" to the throne. And suddenly you realize that you've become a cliche, exactly the sort of big-bad that you used to trounce when you were younger.

Okay, so cliche's aside, you'll find that the World Builder's Guide puts an implicit limit on the wealth you can accumulate. Each city and town under your control only has/produces so much wealth, and trying to take more than that from them just doesn't work.

In fact, it's entirely possible that you'll spend more of your own wealth trying to maintain your position than the entire kingdom can raise in taxes or tribute, and this trend will continue year after year.

Why? Why you ask? Because the kingdom's full of NPCs, and NPCs run on a completely different economic level than you do. You spend more on a new suit than they do on a month's rent. Your evening meal costs more than the average family of four spends eating for a week.

You see, somebody else has already looted the countryside. Several sombodys, in fact. The Orc tribes, the bandits on the border, that pesky swamp dragon, etc. Where did you think critters like those came by their listed treasure types, after all?

So what do you do? You can't go running off to personally squash every petty annoyance that pops up, after all. Your reign isn't so secure that you can leave for days or weeks at a time and expect to find the throne still waiting for you when you return.

I know! You'll arrange for some adventurers to go handle these messes. That will solve everything!

<cue music... "It's the circle of liiiife!...">

 

[Dandu]

Now you want to get rich by taxing the kingdom and demanding tribute from neighboring lands as the price for peace.

What in the Nine Hells of Baator do you need money for if you're an Archmage?

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

This concept reminds me of the classic Conan stories. He starts off alone, and after his many adventures, becomes King.

Than get's bored. And discouraged. And frustrated. And annoyed.

Any one day, essentially says "Screw it", and walks away from his kingdom. Because being a solo adventurer is more rewarding, freedom and less work than ruling over the people.