The Play's the Thing

John Lynch 106 wrote:

RicoTheBold wrote:

Some people just are more comfortable with Schrodinger's market, where the presence or absence of an item is only resolved when the market is observed. That's okay, too, and it's fair to characterize the mechanical operation as the skill check producing the item, even if the lore layered on top doesn't match.

That's not how PF1e worked. I personally think PF1e was correct in that they placed the responsibility of deciding whether or not something was there on the shoulders of the GM. They provided the GM with tools to determine whether it was there independent of the PCs. The PC would then need to find the item, perhaps even through a skill check. But the PC rolling a good diplomacy didn't suddenly make the item appear.

Whats the functional difference between a DM placing items and the PCs rolling skillchecks to find them versus a PC rolling a skillcheck to determine if there's an item available and then the DM determining what they are?

My agenda here is that I don't care about what mechanics/system we use at all, but I have players who do. I wouldn't have thought it would matter which of these two methodologies was used but am curious why it does. (Presuming I've understood your distinction correctly - if not could you clarify whats okay and what isnt in that mechanical way?)

I think I understand his position enough to take a crack at it, because it's not that different from mine.

Things I think John would say are okay:
- Predefined treasure tables - this is exactly what the town/shop/whatever has, no more and no less.
- Randomized treasure - treasure is potentially available, based on factors external to the players (like the 75% chance an item value "can be found with little effort" under a community's base item value in the PF1 core rulebook under purchasing magic items).
- Skill-gated treasure access - Take either a predefined treasure list or a randomized one, and have some items designated as not normally available for purchase. Add a skill check to see whether the character can get those items (by scrounging, convincing someone to part with an heirloom, talking the king into providing access to items from an armory, whatever). This is presumably implied by the previous rule as the items to be available with more than "little effort."

Things I think John would say are not okay:
- Only using a player skill to determine whether an item exists/is available - this absolutely brings with it the mechanic that a town might only have an item because a great wizard is shopping, which breaks verisimilitude.
- Describing the player's skill-gated roll as "creating" the item - The item was always there, and should have been considered that way beforehand. The GM shouldn't suddenly add it just because the players really wanted it.

Some quick thoughts on the distinction
And that's a perfectly valid and consistent position to have. Players only "create" items by crafting, whether doing it themselves or ordering something specific. I don't stick to the terminology quite so fervently, because mechanically, if a player asks for a ring of protection +2, which costs 4000 gold and therefore is potentially available in a small city, and I roll it up as available, then it's very much the Schrodinger's market I mentioned earlier.

This is partly because I'm lazy, and don't want to settle inventories in advance. I do the same thing for innkeepers and other miscellaneous NPCs that have no details until they're needed. If a character rolled a critical success on some check to learn about the market, I might very well add some extra layer to the market (maybe an eccentric collector or something) that I didn't plan to have in there. It sounds like John wouldn't necessarily do this, but it's a fine line that will vary by table. Some GMs just add a percentage chance and roll, as if to take the final decision out of their hands. To me, it's okay shorthand to say that the player request and skill check is ultimately responsible for the item being there, because it's literally true that the request triggered the resolution process, even if that's not the case from a lore perspective.

PF2 and access by rarity, downtime activities, and skill uses
One thing I like a lot about PF2's rarity system is that it conveniently provides the terminology and mechanics to describe some items as consistently available or consistently hard to find, even when the money is there. The playtest didn't have enough items, and many items were uncommon without a clear way to gain access, which was kind of a problematic combo at higher levels. I understand why, though, and actually appreciate that many of those items were rarity-gated based on how much hassle they could cause to an adventure - it seemed like a lot of those items gave flying, teleportation, alignment-based effects, ancestry-based effects, or added some potentially unbalancing effects like increasing spell slots. This makes it a lot easier to define those lines of availability, and say something like "uncommon items aren't generally available, and specifically items with flying are rare and not generally going to be available at all."

And it's a super elegant way to gate off some of those items by skill check. Gather information, lore skills, etc. Or through role-play; just build connections, get "a guy who knows a guy" and maybe you can find that lovely cloak of the bat, or one of those neat gnome flickmaces. There's probably a side-argument we could have here about what skills could potentially be used to appraise something...but let's not.

I'm also interested in how the crafting downtime rules actually shake out. The playtest adventures weren't necessarily well-suited toward them, and no one crafted anything in my games (not counting the one alchemist attempt before the update removing resonance).

Additional context on how I run magic item markets - not to everyone's taste
Although personally, I tend to adjust the PF1 market rules from baseline, where "must-have" items should be easily accessible because the demand is so regularly there for adventurers, and the only rational way to interpret the PF1 economy past low levels is through the lens of magic items, because they're easier to trade than castles or money. (A staff of charming, the cheapest staff in the game, weighs 5 lbs. and is worth 35.2 lbs. of platinum). I figure the built-in assumption of half sell value for party members already represents the disparity between the risk of a merchant buying an item that won't resell (and/or having to sell it to a richer merchant in a larger city) and the player's more specific requirements. If you hit a metropolis in one of my games, you're likely to have way more than 4d4 medium magic items available for purchase, and the baseline for the 75% is probably going to be higher than 16,000 gp, which doesn't even cover a ring of protection +3.

Basically, I try to make it feel more like an active, trade-driven economy. It's a lot like the used car market, except the players are much less likely to find a really good deal (great price on exactly what they want) or a really bad one (cursed item). Gather information or using identify magic checks or something all seem like valid ways to get a better chance at finding what you're looking for, if it exists.

Removed some posts. Edition warring is not okay and ironic edition warring is also not okay.

Removed some posts. Edition warring is not okay and ironic edition warring is also not okay.

I didn't think mentioning my personal dislike for an edition would be considered "Edition warring" but that's cool. Lesson learned I guess.

IT's weird how it's never the posts I think is going to be that gets taken down.

RicoTheBold wrote:

Some people just are more comfortable with Schrodinger's market, where the presence or absence of an item is only resolved when the market is observed. That's okay, too, and it's fair to characterize the mechanical operation as the skill check producing the item, even if the lore layered on top doesn't match.

That's not how PF1e worked. I personally think PF1e was correct in that they placed the responsibility of deciding whether or not something was there on the shoulders of the GM. They provided the GM with tools to determine whether it was there independent of the PCs. The PC would then need to find the item, perhaps even through a skill check. But the PC rolling a good diplomacy didn't suddenly make the item appear.

Technically, that IS how PF1 worked; I'm surprised no one has pointed this out.

Base Value: The base value of a settlement is used to determine what magic items may easily be purchased there. There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale in the settlement with little effort.

Unless the GM plans to roll for every possible item in existence beforehand, the only logical way to adjudicate this rule is to make the 75% roll when the player asks if they can find the specific item - meaning whether or not the item exists is not determined until the player tries to find it.

Whether the GM plans it ahead of time or generates it during play, the PC’s dimplomacy modifier (whether it is +23 or -1) has zero impact on whether the item is available. Therefore it’s existence is independent of the PCs.

So technically it isn’t how PF1e works.

I think the argument for either side is pretty clear now so I don’t intend to continue pursue this conversation. If you really want a response from me, PM me.

I’m doing this as an effort to avoid getting bogged down in arguments for days on end.

That's not possible. It wouldn't even exist unless a PC was there looking for it, by those rules and the logical extension thereof. Unless the GM is literally rolling for every single possible item ahead of time, regardless of whether any PC ever even visits that shop, its existence remains in a state of flux even by PF1 rules until looked for by a PC.

That's not possible. It wouldn't even exist unless a PC was there looking for it, by those rules and the logical extension thereof. Unless the GM is literally rolling for every single possible item ahead of time, regardless of whether any PC ever even visits that shop, its existence remains in a state of flux even by PF1 rules until looked for by a PC.

I understand your point and I cannot make my point any clearer. So I suggest we simply agree to disagree.

That disconnect is in how much work the GM has to do for what's effectively the same result.

For example: Let's say there are 3 stores. At any given point they all sell A, two have a 75% chance to sell B, and 1 has a 50% chance to sell C. Without searching for the item you decide to buy C on day X, can you buy it? If you notice, there is no way to know if the item is available without searching.

Same thing happens with Shrodinger's cat, you know there is a chance the cat will die, but you dont know if it did until you check.

Same thing happens in PF1e. Until a player decides to look for an item, the GM doesn't have to worry about whether its available, just wether it can be.

**************
More philosophical version. If a tree falls in the forest what sound does it make?

**************
Again just to make sure, people can only know as much as they have search for, anything else is a mystery; and might aswell not exist, unless it has an immidiate effect on your surroundings.

No one cares or knows what items are being sold in the next town over unless they live in that town.

Personally, I never loved the 75% rule, but that's because most of my players don't inherently enjoy shopping. Finding out that you went through the chore of digging through all the magic items to see if any interest you only to find out that item isn't there and you need to reevaluate your purchase plan feels frustrating.

But I've also seen players who build stock market mechanics inside campaigns. For some folks, having a realistic market is more immersive than avoiding excessive book keeping.

Basing this on a real-market based economy, you should be able to hire someone to find your magic item for you.

Well, once you fail that 75% the players might want to hire a merchant that visits/has contacts in a bigger/different town to make sure the item arrives in a couple weeks/months. And they'd probably roll Diplomacy for that.

Well, once you fail that 75% the players might want to hire a merchant that visits/has contacts in a bigger/different town to make sure the item arrives in a couple weeks/months. And they'd probably roll Diplomacy for that.

Why roll diplomacy? If they're hiring a merchant to do the work, presumably they're going to pay that merchant.

To negotiate his fee? Maybe even not to pay him at all if they're able to convince him that helping them out is in his best interests? Maybe even just to convince him to work for a group of ragtag mercenaries that're probably gonna be dead or long gone in a few weeks and leave him stranded with an item he's got no other buyers for? I dunno, that's why the 'probably' is there.

Which skill is the hired merchant using to perform his contracted task to find this item? That’s right Diplomacy, probably using the Gather Information activity, but also potentially other uses of Diplomacy as well.

Why roll diplomacy? If they're hiring a merchant to do the work, presumably they're going to pay that merchant.

You’re really invested in this “Diplomacy has nothing to do with finding magic items” stance.

To negotiate his fee? Maybe even not to pay him at all if they're able to convince him that helping them out is in his best interests? Maybe even just to convince him to work for a group of ragtag mercenaries that're probably gonna be dead or long gone in a few weeks and leave him stranded with an item he's got no other buyers for? I dunno, that's why the 'probably' is there.

Eh. I always expect the PCs to haggle (and adjust appropriately). I've just never enjoyed it as a player myself. Although I've seen enough players do it to assume lots of people must enjoy that sort of RP.

I think that we can avoid this sort of ambiguity altogether by using a table to randomly generate items (based on rarity) every in-game month. The GM can still decide to not make this list available to players if they want, or make them roll to search for more rare items. Otherwise, the items are just there and players need only haggle.

I have to say, John, I'm glad we had that discussion in the F>F thread. It's a lot easier to understand where you are coming from and avoid getting into pointless arguments with you now that I know you are simply way farther over on the "narrativist vs simulationist" spectrum than I am. :)

I see it as a DM tool:

"Is this item available?"
(dice are rolled with character skill being a factor in outcome)
Result obtained.

In our game, if the result is "no" that stands for that session. You can try again next session. We use our imaginations to conjure the story that explains the outcomes of the dice.

A bit of a nonsequitor but... Just saw a Know Direction podcast wil Bulhman on ot. Mentions that they reworked conditions to be more intuitive and he explicitly stated they significantly reduced nested conditions. Super cool. I feel much more optimistic about PF2 now. Went ahead and preordered the rulebook as soon as I saw that video.