Earered's page

Actually, in actual medieval times there was a profound limit on how much you could purchase with gold. The entire economy just didn't have enough fungibles in it to permit people to spend as much gold as it was possible to acquire.

The result was that many people took piles of gold and made it into hats or chairs and such.

-Frank

The quantity of gold was (and still is) roughly limited. Also the quantity of gold in all of versaille is roughly 10 pounds (it's plating, gold has properties similar to lead: soft and really heavy). Stockpiling of gold is the exception (and has more to do in keeping reserves).

Much like today, the quantity of gold represented a value way inferior to to what was available.

If you have 100 castle each valued 1gp, you only need 1gp to have trade of a castle happens daily (now if you want to sell 2 castle at the same time, you need 2gp).

Adventurers, of course, might feel differently, but that is because the game is not geared towards commerce so the option isn't really there.

May I nuance this? Internally, D&D might seems like it isn't geared toward commerce. Compared to other RPG, it is.

You can see it in the setting and supplement produced for it during its history.

Price list for every equipment that you don't need.
Freaking wages for commoner.
Birthright let PCs rules countries
Al-Qadim gives a focus on haggling (with good price, normal price and "the merchant has 8 starving children so you gs a ave him a bit more" price)
Dark-Sun gives bulk price, and merchant house description.
The FR setting provides the main production of each region (and a catalog has been published for it as a sourcebook).

Other RPG do not focus that much on commerce (except maybe fantasy warhammer?). Be it vampire, rokugan (2nd ed), shadowrun, star-wars d6.

Though, much like hit points defy logic, so do fixed price list and recommended amount of magical items. I think that a number of loopholes in the game are intentionally left, because patching them would remove some of the feel and easy GMing for a large segment of player choices (so let's see your character sheets: I've got a ranger, a paladin, a fighter with a sword and a fighter with a bow ....really had a group like that).

Well, just that there isn't any SRD class features that make it unlimited.

Another approach would be to make those class features magical and permanent (or permanent+can't be dispelled for X rounds) instead of instant.

But the game breaks if people can deterministically get magic items they need by trading in iron and gold after a certain point, because those things stop being a limited resource.

-Frank

If the new money is tied to the campaign world, what ensure that it is limited?

Err, if the non-standard interaction between markets is there to ensure that PC get shynies at an appropriate level through adventures. Why not simply use guidelines as to what items are appropriate for a given level?

If it requires the GM to pull adventures, it isn't different from the GM pulling adventures in a gp market (i.e. if the character wished the money to buy his shiny, the GM could pull an adventure to find the seller, couldn't he? And he could still let PCs farm larvae and other non-standard currencies). :-S

Gehena's hag herd soul, so they might have items too powerfull.
Daemon (Yugoloth) sell services, either it allows services to enter the wish market or Yugoloth are poor if they only get gold.

Now, motivation of NPC is the domain of the GM, so it's not really a problem. Though what is preventing PC from being a Yugoloth or a Hag? Or more probably, to take their trade, getting more (or less) wish wealth than they should for their level?

If there is a separated market, it probably needs (that the weak point) different valuation of items for those dealing in the wish trade, otherwise there wouldn't be trade. What's preventing PC from playing in this market?

A way to prevent this would be to add a third market. Basicaly ensuring that given a certain level PCs enter market wich allow them to trade items of their level. The number of markets would be limited by the range of playable level (I eyeball it to 5 for a granular market from +1-2 armors/weapons to +9-10 or 3 markets +1-3, 4-6, 7-9).

The remaining problem would compatibility with existing material:
Rokugan forbid looting and trade.
Adentures have premade treasure based on gp.
Dragonlance are made en masse and given for free to characters of too low level.

Side note, the availability of astronomicaly costly items/services at lower level to offer new possibilities of adventures is separated from this system, and existing material cover it (Feats for cohort and army in the DMG, for stronghold in the stronghold builder handbook, vessel in various books). Separated market would need to deal with it anyway, so that at lower level the rich PC doesn't outshine the poor PC for no reasons.

a general rule is not disproved by an uncommon exception.

Sophism is using illogical or confusing arguments in an attempt to deceive.

How is the first quote not illogical. Rephrased: something is true, when it's not true, it's still true.

Anyway, your idea to deal with magic items prices is still ok, but it's more geared toward game balance than suspension of disbelief. And as silly as it may seems, it's somehow more important in a fantasy world to keep this suspension of disbelief. Player can relate a big number of gp to wealth (while in many modern/sci-fi rpg settings, there not much fuzz about the idea that a car/plane whatever is a special pick in the game and not equivalent to wealth in the game).

Nothing wrong with that, though maybe you'd like to know that you weren't the first to think of something equivalent. In default D&D wealth is only one attribute (the equivalent amount of gp), in Spycraft (maybe d20 modern too) it's separated in several artificially isolated markets, plainly labeled as such, for game balance purpose: a wealth amount (vehicle, services, buildings), gear picks (items useful in fights), and contacts (resources useful in role play). Mechanically, it's equivalent to your system (minus the contact thingy).

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

- where two currencies are in place, that it is possible to prevent all trading and exchange between the two

Of course, there are exceptions, but a general rule is not disproved by an uncommon exception. Thinking otherwise is known as a cherry picking fallacy.

What? the? hell? O_o

Treating science (economics) like grammar or spelling rules is know as sophism at best.

Do not try to pretend that you master logic when you don't. Doing otherwise and flooding using words to discredits other peoples points instead of logic is akin to b$~#~*%&ing.

edit: P.S. really liked your dungeonomicon, tome of fiends and your other works. Though on economics what your propose doesn't improve the game (add a new rule) and potentially breaks suspension of disbelief and fun (the opposite of the expected benefit of any rule) for some players and GM

Foreword, haven't played since a long time, though I plan to. Still undecided whether I'll use a mix of spycraft/mecha compendium/fields of blood/elements of magic mythic earth or pathfinder (I stayed with 3.0)

I'll prefer to use the term trade instead of economics. (Some things can break trade, nothing can break economics as it is the study of trade).

So to add oil on the fire (something else to the argument), when a spellcaster launch fabricate, he doesn't get something for nothing.

He did learn the spell, which took time, and took time to cast it.

Think writers (of RPG books for example): to attain their level they put work, when they write the book it doesn't cost them materially, though the PDF has some value. Now depending on the laws, the money they get might have been spent upfront (medieval) or for each copy (modern IP law).

The wizard fits perfectly in this model.

I think that irking points are the recommended amount of magical items based on level and fixed price list.

I don't want to break the recommended amount, because it's quite useful (I did apply strictly the treasure table in ADnD 2nd edition... with characters who attained level 12... gazillions of gems work of arts and +1 swords)

Players wants trinket, having a form of power level of items through gp and treasure table that fits the encounter level is a feature for the GM.

So how to deal with player who trade skills/items/whatever?

Why not give them XP?

You keep the standard items price list, including the one for magic items. You just change the spell for hire price list.

You had sellsword who got money for overcoming challenge by killing things, with standardized amount using treasure to compensate the meager offer, or no treasures and higher bid. Now you get sellspell.

What is missing is someone with the patience to produce a chart which ensure that the xp and money gained will fit the recommended level for a given amount of money. (and an easy formula for the spell price based on spell level and caster level for spell with variable elements). ;)

It keeps working with the various assumption made in previous adventures modules. i.e. no downtimes because the adventure is pushed on the players. And it doesn't penalize groups who choose a different path (having a ship builder, and the building of a ship as an integral part of the campaign).

NPC didn't gain xp, though if you want a rationale: mundane works does not give xp (so the forger doesn't necessarily improve), though if the character overcome challenge (or try to improve his trade), he gains levels.

It allows solo adventures for forger, thief and the like.

On trade. The fixed list is nice, but it exclude trade. If everything has the same price everywhere, there is no trade.

So, keep the fixed price list in the core book, and suggest that city or hamlet have a few different prices (for example, provides an hamlet with cheaper vegetable). It would gives the idea that there isn't an infinite buying or selling power, and that prices change without introducing bookeeping. It might be easier to justify that once every one has a +1 sword, the price of the +1 sword is 0.

The idea is to simply allows PCs to influence trade (better tax return if the monster are killed on the road, so the queen has a reason to hire adventurer). It's part of the game: having choices.

Now, whether gold is a good currency depends on it existing in finite amount. The game seems to assume it's the case, if needed require gold piece to be minted (and some weigh of gp doesn't has the same value for the same weight in gold). If the game introduce insane amount of gold from dragon hoards, just assume that some of it is transformed in statue or the like. (though, a platinum, or whatever currency in finite amount, at higher level would be useful).

Last if the low level king heir sell his castle to the adventuring party for their magic items, he won't stay alive long (nicely explain what kind of lame adventuring party died in a monster lair leaving magic items which should have allowed to kill the monster). If the party decide to sell their magic items for a castle, so be it (somewhere it means that the castle is a tools for overcoming their challenges).

There is certainly loopholes left (depending on the separation between wealth and gears, solution like Rokugan where items builds up or spycraft the big score might help), though, I think that this one allow to keep all spells, magic items and their price.

Results: just gives xp for gold if it's part of the overcoming of a challenge (found someone who wanted you to build a sword, steal the king crown).

P.S. I shouldn't try to write anything at 3 a.m.... Someone to tell me how this change wouldn't help solve the problem? (or if I completly missed the problem?)

Would it be incompatible with the set goals of Paizo to simplify grapple and unarmed combat rules using something like "Grappling for Beginners: How to Strike, Hold & Throw" ?

It's an alternative which has had some tests, so maybe it would reduce development "costs" (plus it's OGL)

(though the product is only available on a concurrent store ;)

The premise is: "why a whole subsystem, and especially a whole damage class for unarmed combat?"

(I'm guessing that unarmed damage exist in the game to simulate non-lethal bar fight, while it might have been the recovery/healing system which needed to be patched... maybe).