4e economics -- where do they get this stuff?


4th Edition

101 to 150 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Jal Dorak wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


I think a lot of what we're seeing is people upset that a change was made to something they're familiar with, regardless of whether or not that change was done for a good reason. I very much doubt that someone new to the game of D&D would look at the pricing of armor and immediately think to themselves: "50 gold pieces for plate armor? What a steal! And how unrealistic, I might add!"

Someone who reads fantasy literature and enjoys reading about medieval history and fantasy would probably say exactly that.

Think to the scene in Brannagh's "Henry V" - who was wearing plate mail? Only the rich French nobles, even Henry was only wearing a breastplate. For me, that is one of the images of what plate mail means in fantasy. If leather armor is 25 gp, and plate is 50 gp, if Henry V is building an army, have half the soldiers but everyone in full plate.

You're right, someone in that situation could view it that way.

Which, unfortunately, is possibly a good deal of the older players of the game - which explains the disenfranchisement.

Joking: HAHA! I tricked you! Anyone who studies medieval history knows full-plate wasn't invented until much later! ;) That's why I used the "fantasy" caveat.

Now that was just mean of you. ;p


Tatterdemalion wrote:
Actually, this thread isn't supposed to be about creating a realistic economic system -- it's supposed to be about the near-complete abandonment of believable economics.
Scott Betts wrote:
That ship sailed editions ago. D&D economics haven't been believable in...well, ever.

What if plate armor cost 5 gp, and leather armor cost 50 gp? Would you continue to so stridently defend their decisions? Your arguments consistently imply that the designers have no responsibility of any sort to make these details believable.

Scarab Sages

Scott Betts wrote:


Oh, no, you're absolutely able to put the equipment on. There is a nonproficiency penalty in the form of a -2 penalty to attack rolls and your Reflex defense, which usually prevents it from being a worthwhile pursuit (all classes make attack rolls now, so this hinders everyone).

Well, depending on the AC bonus of full-plate, I might consider that very much worthwhile for an army of non-heroic warriors given the cost.


Tatterdemalion wrote:
...My problem is that the designers have consistently trimmed material that doesn't directly impact combat -- at every opportunity, and sometimes eliminated it entirely.
Scott Betts wrote:
I don't think that's an entirely honest statement. Skill challenges reflect a very acute desire to make non-combat skills meaningful and engaging, for instance. Awarding experience for completing quest objectives also follows that same vein. And combat has been trimmed too - there are no longer entirely separate mechanics for trips, disarms, bull rushes, sunders, grapples and overruns. Most of these have been reduced to easy-to-understand powers where they haven't simply been streamlined (see: grabbing).

Fair enough. My accusations on this point were probably excessive and a bit ill-considered.

But I might point out there is a difference between being wrong and being dishonest :/


erian_7 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I don't think it's presumptive at all, at least certainly not for 4th Edition. The designers have been very open about why they made the decisions they did for the new edition of the game, and I was simply reiterating those statements. Their intent with 4th Edition is not any big secret.

If you were limiting your position simply to 4e, I'd have no difficulty. When you brought in every edition of D&D for the past 30 years, that's most definitely presumptive

Scott Betts wrote:
Well, my first suggestion would be to try and take the game less seriously and be content to roll with the changes, especially the minor ones. If you're looking for things to be disappointed with in any game, 4th Edition or not, you'll find them. But this is a game. It is supposed to facilitate fun.
The difficulty here is that people have fun in myriad ways. I've gamed with a lawyer that had fun with legal/political aspects of the game and never cared about slaying anything, for instance. I can handle that in skill challenges, and have since the Non-Weapon Proficiency first graced the pages of my OD&D rules. When the change in an edition "breaks" the way players have fun, that's a problem. Approaching that problem from a position of openness to finding solutions rather than "grin and bear it" is going to win a lot more points, I believe.

I can see where you're coming from, but I view claims of someone's fun being "broken" by the edition change with some skepticism. Going into 4th Edition with an attitude of "This is exciting, and a chance to explore something new," is the best way to handle it, in my opinion. A lot of my views on people's reactions to 4th Edition have been based on defending it in other discussions. I've found that a lot of people's complaints have been founded in a misunderstanding of either design, intent or playability, and that they're far more open to the change once it's been explained to them. There is also a certain level of nostalgia that needs to be overcome, but I can certainly understand that too.

If none of this works for you, though, coming up with an alternative solution is probably the best way to go if you think that you can make the system work for you.

Scarab Sages

Tatterdemalion wrote:
Tatterdemalion wrote:
...My problem is that the designers have consistently trimmed material that doesn't directly impact combat -- at every opportunity, and sometimes eliminated it entirely.
Scott Betts wrote:
I don't think that's an entirely honest statement. Skill challenges reflect a very acute desire to make non-combat skills meaningful and engaging, for instance. Awarding experience for completing quest objectives also follows that same vein. And combat has been trimmed too - there are no longer entirely separate mechanics for trips, disarms, bull rushes, sunders, grapples and overruns. Most of these have been reduced to easy-to-understand powers where they haven't simply been streamlined (see: grabbing).

Fair enough. My accusations on this point were probably excessive and a bit ill-considered.

But I might point out there is a difference between being wrong and being dishonest :/

Yeah, clearly the designers wanted to cut things from every part of the D&D! ;)


Scott Betts wrote:
I can see where you're coming from, but I view claims of someone's fun being "broken" by the edition change with some skepticism. Going into 4th Edition with an attitude of "This is exciting, and a chance to explore something new," is the best way to handle it, in my opinion.

I think you're absolutely right, and I'm trying to do exactly that. At the same time, I like to periodically vent my frustration about elements that fail to accomodate the way me and my friends play the game.

Scott Betts wrote:
I've found that a lot of people's complaints have been founded in a misunderstanding of either design, intent or playability, and that they're far more open to the change once it's been explained to them. There is also a certain level of nostalgia that needs to be overcome, but I can certainly understand that too.

Again, I agree 100%. It's a big change, and a lot of us have been playing a certain way for 30 years or more. It can be hard :/

The Exchange

[threadjack] I don't normally post in this forum, but I have been reading about the "100 years war" and the post about "Henry V" made me realize how much Brannagh paid attention to the spirit of the play and the time in his film. The English wore less heavy armor, especially in the earlier decades of the war. Their strenght was in the longbow, digging into defensible positions, and knocking out the French cavalry before they reached the frontlines. They used guerilla and total war tactics more than chivalrous open combat. By the end of the war, the cannon came into its own. Full plate was useful for a really short ammount of time.[/threadjack]


Tatterdemalion wrote:
Tatterdemalion wrote:
Actually, this thread isn't supposed to be about creating a realistic economic system -- it's supposed to be about the near-complete abandonment of believable economics.
Scott Betts wrote:
That ship sailed editions ago. D&D economics haven't been believable in...well, ever.
What if plate armor cost 5 gp, and leather armor cost 50 gp? Would you continue to so stridently defend their decisions? Your arguments consistently imply that the designers have no responsibility of any sort to make these details believable.

I would be upset with them on the issue of game balance, assuming the 5gp plate armor was better protection than the 50gp leather armor, certainly.

If the leather armor were actually better than the plate armor, mechanically, I might be perplexed by the decision and certainly encouraged to change things around a little, but it wouldn't harm my enjoyment of the game itself. There is a threshold of believability where things get truly ridiculous. Perhaps for myself it's simply much, much further back than for you.

Scarab Sages

Zeugma wrote:
[threadjack] I don't normally post in this forum, but I have been reading about the "100 years war" and the post about "Henry V" made me realize how much Brannagh paid attention to the spirit of the play and the time in his film. The English wore less heavy armor, especially in the earlier decades of the war. Their strenght was in the longbow, digging into defensible positions, and knocking out the French cavalry before they reached the frontlines. They used guerilla and total war tactics more than chivalrous open combat. By the end of the war, the cannon came into its own. Full plate was useful for a really short ammount of time.[/threadjack]

Totally love that movie, a must for any film student, and hard to believe it was his first. So many great tropes. It works on so many levels: cinema, drama, history, theatre, literature - I love the sound of the longbow arrows hailing down on the French, possibly the most effective sound effect for archery on film.


Tatterdemalion wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I can see where you're coming from, but I view claims of someone's fun being "broken" by the edition change with some skepticism. Going into 4th Edition with an attitude of "This is exciting, and a chance to explore something new," is the best way to handle it, in my opinion.

I think you're absolutely right, and I'm trying to do exactly that. At the same time, I like to periodically vent my frustration about elements that fail to accomodate the way me and my friends play the game.

Scott Betts wrote:
I've found that a lot of people's complaints have been founded in a misunderstanding of either design, intent or playability, and that they're far more open to the change once it's been explained to them. There is also a certain level of nostalgia that needs to be overcome, but I can certainly understand that too.
Again, I agree 100%. It's a big change, and a lot of us have been playing a certain way for 30 years or more. It can be hard :/

To be honest, I think you'll find that, in time and once you've all had the chance to explore the new edition, that the way you've been playing for those 30 years is still 100% achievable in 4th Edition. I'd be interested to hear of any parts that you ended up feeling like you just couldn't reproduce at all under the new system.


Tatterdemalion wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I can see where you're coming from, but I view claims of someone's fun being "broken" by the edition change with some skepticism. Going into 4th Edition with an attitude of "This is exciting, and a chance to explore something new," is the best way to handle it, in my opinion.
I think you're absolutely right, and I'm trying to do exactly that. At the same time, I like to periodically vent my frustration about elements that fail to accomodate the way me and my friends play the game.

I suppose that's probably healthy. 4th Edition is a pretty flexible system and gives the DM a lot of tools to work with. If at first blush something doesn't appear to work the way your group prefers it, take a look at the DM's toolbox and see if there isn't some way of incorporating it in there.

I think it's very likely that I enjoy story-driven games just as much as you. We're both on the Paizo boards, and we know they produce some of the highest-quality storylines for role-playing games out there. I like them so much, in fact, that I'm actively converting Rise of the Runelords to 4th Edition so that my players have the chance to experience it. For whatever we might disagree on, we probably have a lot more in common than not in terms of ideal sort of role-playing game.

Scarab Sages

Scott Betts wrote:
Tatterdemalion wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I can see where you're coming from, but I view claims of someone's fun being "broken" by the edition change with some skepticism. Going into 4th Edition with an attitude of "This is exciting, and a chance to explore something new," is the best way to handle it, in my opinion.
I think you're absolutely right, and I'm trying to do exactly that. At the same time, I like to periodically vent my frustration about elements that fail to accomodate the way me and my friends play the game.

I suppose that's probably healthy. 4th Edition is a pretty flexible system and gives the DM a lot of tools to work with. If at first blush something doesn't appear to work the way your group prefers it, take a look at the DM's toolbox and see if there isn't some way of incorporating it in there.

I think it's very likely that I enjoy story-driven games just as much as you. We're both on the Paizo boards, and we know they produce some of the highest-quality storylines for role-playing games out there. I like them so much, in fact, that I'm actively converting Rise of the Runelords to 4th Edition so that my players have the chance to experience it. For whatever we might disagree on, we probably have a lot more in common than not in terms of ideal sort of role-playing game.

No fair! What happened to the old Scott we all knew and loved! You've changed. ;)


Jal Dorak wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Tatterdemalion wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I can see where you're coming from, but I view claims of someone's fun being "broken" by the edition change with some skepticism. Going into 4th Edition with an attitude of "This is exciting, and a chance to explore something new," is the best way to handle it, in my opinion.
I think you're absolutely right, and I'm trying to do exactly that. At the same time, I like to periodically vent my frustration about elements that fail to accomodate the way me and my friends play the game.

I suppose that's probably healthy. 4th Edition is a pretty flexible system and gives the DM a lot of tools to work with. If at first blush something doesn't appear to work the way your group prefers it, take a look at the DM's toolbox and see if there isn't some way of incorporating it in there.

I think it's very likely that I enjoy story-driven games just as much as you. We're both on the Paizo boards, and we know they produce some of the highest-quality storylines for role-playing games out there. I like them so much, in fact, that I'm actively converting Rise of the Runelords to 4th Edition so that my players have the chance to experience it. For whatever we might disagree on, we probably have a lot more in common than not in terms of ideal sort of role-playing game.

No fair! What happened to the old Scott we all knew and loved! You've changed. ;)

I'd rather think that the real me had simply received concealment from moving 3 squares each round dodging everyone else's argument. ;p

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Scott Betts wrote:


To be honest, I think you'll find that, in time and once you've all had the chance to explore the new edition, that the way you've been playing for those 30 years is still 100% achievable in 4th Edition. I'd be interested to hear of any parts that you ended up feeling like you just couldn't reproduce at all under the new system.

Being able to change my cleric's spell load-out to deal with an upcoming challenge comes to mind. As does being able to use more than one magic item in a day at level 8, without seeking out extra combats to mystically allow them to function.

The mechanics are part of the play experience, and they were pretty much thrown away in 4th.


Russ Taylor wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


To be honest, I think you'll find that, in time and once you've all had the chance to explore the new edition, that the way you've been playing for those 30 years is still 100% achievable in 4th Edition. I'd be interested to hear of any parts that you ended up feeling like you just couldn't reproduce at all under the new system.
Being able to change my cleric's spell load-out to deal with an upcoming challenge comes to mind.

How about instead looking at it from the perspective of changing your tactics to deal with an upcoming challenge, since Clerics no longer need to pick from a list of spells each morning? 4th Edition focuses much less on pre-encounter preparation (though it's still there) and much more on being able to adapt to the encounter itself. Teamwork, positioning and strategy receive a lot more emphasis than they used to.

Russ Taylor wrote:
As does being able to use more than one magic item in a day at level 8, without seeking out extra combats to mystically allow them to function.

You're able to use more than one magic item a day at level 8, regardless of combats. I can wear a +1 suit of armor, wield a +1 weapon, wear a +1 necklace and have a shield with a daily power. I get the benefits of all of their properties. The only restriction is on the number of the items' daily powers I can make use of. Some items have powers that aren't daily, too.

Scarab Sages

Scott Betts wrote:


You're able to use more than one magic item a day at level 8, regardless of combats. I can wear a +1 suit of armor, wield a +1 weapon, wear a +1 necklace and have a shield with a daily power. I get the benefits of all of their properties. The only restriction is on the number of the items' daily powers I can make use of. Some items have powers that aren't daily, too.

Slightly off-topic again, one of my fondest memories was the party of Ogre PCs fighting 4 Mummy Lords, bullrushing them into a spiked pit trap, and then chucking down an entire necklace of fireballs on top of them. Classic, but completely against the 4th Edition rules by my reckoning.


Jal Dorak wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


You're able to use more than one magic item a day at level 8, regardless of combats. I can wear a +1 suit of armor, wield a +1 weapon, wear a +1 necklace and have a shield with a daily power. I get the benefits of all of their properties. The only restriction is on the number of the items' daily powers I can make use of. Some items have powers that aren't daily, too.
Slightly off-topic again, one of my fondest memories was the party of Ogre PCs fighting 4 Mummy Lords, bullrushing them into a spiked pit trap, and then chucking down an entire necklace of fireballs on top of them. Classic, but completely against the 4th Edition rules by my reckoning.

Hahaha that's fantastic. The necklace of fireballs isn't in 4th Edition yet, but you're right, it would probably be a daily power item. It's worth noting that, by RAW, a necklace of fireballs needs to be used one bead at a time. You can achieve a similar effect by having the party Wizard rain down Scorching Bursts on the mummy lords once they land in the pit (presumably while taunting them mercilessly).

Scarab Sages

Scott Betts wrote:


Hahaha that's fantastic. The necklace of fireballs isn't in 4th Edition yet, but you're right, it would probably be a daily power item. It's worth noting that, by RAW, a necklace of fireballs needs to be used one bead at a time. You can achieve a similar effect by having the party Wizard rain down Scorching Bursts on the mummy lords once they land in the pit (presumably while taunting them mercilessly).

Per the item description "If the necklace is being worn or carried by a character who fails her saving throw against a magical fire attack, the item must make a saving throw as well (with a save bonus of +7). If the necklace fails to save, all its remaining spheres detonate simultaneously, often with regrettable consequences for the wearer."

Since the item was unattended at the time, the single bead detonated as normal, but then chain reaction on all the remaining ones as it failed its saving throw required for unattended magic items.


Jal Dorak wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


Hahaha that's fantastic. The necklace of fireballs isn't in 4th Edition yet, but you're right, it would probably be a daily power item. It's worth noting that, by RAW, a necklace of fireballs needs to be used one bead at a time. You can achieve a similar effect by having the party Wizard rain down Scorching Bursts on the mummy lords once they land in the pit (presumably while taunting them mercilessly).

Per the item description "If the necklace is being worn or carried by a character who fails her saving throw against a magical fire attack, the item must make a saving throw as well (with a save bonus of +7). If the necklace fails to save, all its remaining spheres detonate simultaneously, often with regrettable consequences for the wearer."

Since the item was unattended at the time, the single bead detonated as normal, but then chain reaction on all the remaining ones as it failed its saving throw required for unattended magic items.

Ahhhh, I see how that works. Smart cookies, your players.

The Exchange

I suppose what terrifies us all is that the Plate (2xLeather, used to be 3xLeather) is freely sold by that Armorer in the tiny village the PCs begin in.

NIFTY NEW RULE REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF GOODS
(ITEM COST / POPULATION OF COMMUNITY) x ITEM QUALITY% = PRICE TO BE PAID

Anyone care to knock up a new 4E price list?


yellowdingo wrote:

I suppose what terrifies us all is that the Plate (2xLeather, used to be 3xLeather) is freely sold by that Armorer in the tiny village the PCs begin in.

NIFTY NEW RULE REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF GOODS
(ITEM COST / POPULATION OF COMMUNITY) x ITEM QUALITY% = PRICE TO BE PAID

Anyone care to knock up a new 4E price list?

A pitcher of finest ale in a city of 5,000 now costs four one-thousandths of a copper piece. Everyone's a cheap date in the big city.

Er, actually, now that I look at it, did you mean that the value of the percentage should be the coefficient? Or the percentage itself? If it's the former, a pitcher of ale is now four-tenths of a copper piece.


D&D will never be realistic until it includes a coinage list for each country in each fantasy world, a weights and measures system for calculating worth of metal vs worth in coin (as the coins will actually be watered down), a peasant will never afford leather armour (he will steal it or be given it to use by his liege lord).

I want my equipment list in pfennigs and hacksilver bands!


Scott Betts wrote:
To be honest, I think you'll find that, in time and once you've all had the chance to explore the new edition, that the way you've been playing for those 30 years is still 100% achievable in 4th Edition. I'd be interested to hear of any parts that you ended up feeling like you just couldn't reproduce at all under the new system.
  • I can't play a mind flayer as a PC anymore -- there is no longer any structure to support that in a balanced way
  • The rules are gone for henchmen & hirelings
  • Vancian magic (of which I'm not a fan, but many are)
  • I can't have a PC start as a regular guy and grow into the role of mighty hero -- 1st level characters are already there
There's more. And please don't say I can add them myself -- we're talking about 4e, not about how I can fix it.

I'm not saying 4e is a bad game -- I think just the opposite. But I have little patience for the claim that it does all the same things, only better.


Scott Betts wrote:
I'd be interested to hear of any parts that you ended up feeling like you just couldn't reproduce at all under the new system.
Russ Taylor wrote:
Being able to change my cleric's spell load-out to deal with an upcoming challenge comes to mind.
Scott Betts wrote:
How about instead looking at it from the perspective of changing your tactics to deal with an upcoming challenge, since Clerics no longer need to pick from a list of spells each morning?

See, that's not fair.

Russ answered you question, and it's a fair thing for him to miss. You suggested 4e can do everything previous editions can -- when it fails to do so, you can't counter with claims that the new way is better.

4e is not better for everyone. Please do not suggest it is (we have WotC's advertising doing enough of that).

Sovereign Court

Scot Bets wrote:
DMs should be actively discouraging players from trying to mess with the game's monetary system in any way, and if it becomes a problem the DM's job is to take the player aside and make it clear that everyone is there to adventure, not sit in town while someone tries to squeeze a few gold out of the market.

You're a novice. Please quit insulting others.

Liberty's Edge

Scott- Your arguments are not having the effect you would wish. You are trying to invalidate over 30 years of gaming that WE HAVE DONE. It isnt 'revisionist history' when we actually did play those types of games.

The primary issue here is Your games have revolved around High Fantasy, and so to you 4e is just an expansion on that view...

for a lot of us, D&D used to support a Low Fantasy type of genre as well, where the farmer became the hero. Yes the economics of D&D was a bit of a reach, but a DM could, with some extrapolation, come to grips with it. I know I did for many many moons...now if all you've ever played is 3.0 or 3.5 then you would have a point that the economics were suppressed even further. But, as many of us used our economics models from earlier editions...which could be used because the whole system hadn't been turned on its ear...It could still be done.

With 4e the whole system has changed and is now more of a Diablo world than anything else...where you go dungeoning, cast your return portal...rest recharge, and jump back in where you were.

The economics is non-existent, the world ecology is non-existent, the socio-political elements are non-existent....this is why the forgotten realms was nuked the way it was in favor of the points of light type campaign...

because someone, somewhere, decided that it wasn't fun to try and play a make believe game in a make believe world, and try to make believe it was real....

well for some of us, that is where the fun lies.

could that be why we dont care for 4e?

We, who like our game worlds to have some semblance of reality mixed with the fantasy elements.....dont want to JUST BE HEROIC....we want the role playing to be as important as the roll playing.

Dread


Jal Dorak wrote:

Joking: HAHA! I tricked you! Anyone who studies medieval history knows full-plate wasn't invented until much later! ;) That's why I used the "fantasy" caveat.

Agincourt was 1415, you might want to actually go to a museum and look at armour from the period as you're going to find that you're very, very wrong about the commonality of plate at the time.


Firstly hardened leather is expensive now and easily found for around half the cost of plate now.

Sure, you can use D&D to do a heavy simulationist game and worry about the players making 4 silver per barrel of beer. However D&D in general sucks at simulationism, there are a lot of better games at doing it, and very few games that 'beat' D&D at its strengths.

PS Even in The Enemy Within the barge was sunk...

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

houstonderek wrote:

the last serious campaign i ran started out with adventuring, and morphed into the players having "real" responsibilities, playing politics, manipulating economies for world shaping reasons, all within the context of a d&d game. and it was FUN.

there are as many different styles as there are gaming groups, frankly, and if they want to use the mechanics of d&d as the backdrop for their gaming experience, so be it. and, if someone has a problem with the way 4e does things, maybe the 4e people should just have a little understanding that the new edition does turn a lot of 34 years of D&D style.
Scott Betts replied and wrote:


I think it's safe to say that, as D&D games go, yours is a unique case. It simply does not make sense to create an entire economics system to satisfy the wants of a handful of groups who have chosen to step away from the focus of the Dungeons & Dragons game and towards a more simulationist playstyle when it would detract from the experience of many, many more gaming groups who play D&D in a more traditional manner.

Scott, just to pipe up: he's not unique. I've played in that kind of campaign, and it was a blast. AD&D had an entire campaign setting ("Birthright") set up to exploit that kind of play.

I think it's fair to say that both "sides" of this disagreement would concede that D&D has allowed for wheeling and dealing (the 1st Edition DMG is rreplete with instructions about how to screw over players , er, place realistic roadblocks in the party's way. Anybody remember the suggestions for bribing Treglish Mul?)

4th Edition is stream-lined. There are things PC's could do in previous editions --things the Design Team considers "not fun"-- that are much harder to do in 4th Edition, because they "get in the way" of the activities the designers wanted to emphasize.

I suspect that a sizable part of whether you like 4th Edition comes down to whether you agree with the Design Team's assessment of which parts are the fun parts of the game.


I know a fella in Amn who will sell you plate for 3x the amount of leather, if that's your thing.

The Exchange

OK.

4.0: Not interested in economics. Go look at the price tables in your old Basic Red Book. There's a tradition in play here. They had some whack to them also.

3.5: Interested in economics. Interested in political systems. Interested in causality. Go look at the AD&D DMG for some 1.0 action. There's precedent here also.

The source code is hereby irreconciably split. D&D is now two games walking separate paths, like it was back in the 80s. The major difference is one company is no longer steward of both.

Enjoy each game for what it is.


The Last Rogue wrote:
I know a fella in Amn who will sell you plate for 3x the amount of leather, if that's your thing.

It'll probably make me feel better :P

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
tadkil wrote:

OK.

4.0: Not interested in economics. Go look at the price tables in your old Basic Red Book. There's a tradition here in play. They had some whack to them also.

3.5: Interested in economics. Interested in political systems. Interested in causality. Go look at the AD&D DMG for some 1.0 action. There's precedent here also.

The source code is hereby irreconcilably split. D&D is now two games walking separate paths, like it was back in the 80s. The major difference is one company is no longer steward of both.

Enjoy each game for what it is.

I might add the operative word comparatively in front of your 3.5 descriptions. 3.5 is hardly an accurate model for medieval life, just closer to it than 4e.


teknomancer wrote:

As an owner of the 4e Core box set, and modules #H-1, H-2, I completely agree. Indeed, it seems as if they've "candified" the entire game to a point where it no longer even *feels* like a real D&D game.

As to how much WOtC cares-look at what they've done to Forgotten Realms-Spellplague!

Demented & Maliciously plotting the doom of PC's since 1978.
teknomancer

I agree that 4.0 no longer has DnD atmosphere or "feeling" at all, It's a vanilla video game on paper. Existing only to please the masses. The reason is because of all that money from video gamers that Hasbro is missing out on because you know, Times they are a Changing! People can't be bothered anymore by things that don't go boom. Oh and don't forget that modern trendy new gamers are influenced by not only video games but by anime and movies where power creep has left them unimpressed by regular RPG's on paper. Sword +4 Oh hummm, where's that blasting chi balls power and flying around and stuff. Well you get the idea right?

Liberty's Edge

houstonderek wrote:


the last serious campaign i ran started out with adventuring, and morphed into the players having "real" responsibilities, playing politics, manipulating economies for world shaping reasons, all within the context of a d&d game. and it was FUN. players would call me at all hours with plots to manipulate the price of rantian wheat to undermine the commish territorial ambitions on henecia. or plots to discredit the scion of a particular noble house to ice a planned wedding that would strengthen the alliance between two noble houses who were rivals to the pc's family.
Scott Betts wrote:
I think it's safe to say that, as D&D games go, yours is a unique case. It simply does not make sense to create an entire economics system to satisfy the wants of a handful of groups who have chosen to step away from the focus of the Dungeons & Dragons game and towards a more simulationist playstyle when it would detract from the experience of many, many more gaming groups who play D&D in a more traditional manner.

I think it's safe to say that you're utterly incorrect on that Scott. Over my 20+ years I've seen other or have had my own characters buy shipping companies to impose trade embargoes, found false religions for societal manipulation, entertainment & profit (I'm rather proud of that one), marry for political advantage, manage & manipulate their agricultural commodities to gain power, open their own businesses (both legitimate and as a front for their start up thieves guild), and many, may other examples, both honest and shady.

This is spread out over many different people and many different game groups. As far as I'm concerned, political role-playing is just as much a part of traditional D&D as hunting Dragons. Hell, I've hunted dragons for political reasons rather than glory or cash.

The players of this game cover a wide spread, and I think that 4e ignores the political and monetary based segment of that constituency at it's own peril.

Dark Archive

Wow! I can't believe this topic is still being 'debated'!


Xithor wrote:


The players of this game cover a wide spread, and I think that 4e ignores the political and monetary based segment of that constituency at it's own peril.

3.5 has no rules in the core book to help with political games or economic warfare games. A GM can extrapolate on the latter, and entirely invent the former but there are no actual rules for doing it.

Therefore it's disingenous to level this accusation at 4e without accepting that is's something that has been a part of D&D in general.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Chris Mortika wrote:


Scott, just to pipe up: he's not unique. I've played in that kind of campaign, and it was a blast. AD&D had an entire campaign setting ("Birthright") set up to exploit that kind of play.

Add another to the "prefers rules that allow modeling real economic systems" camp. The descent into being just a game has really turned me off of 4thE - I like the world to make some amount of sense as a non-game entity.

But the big thing that has turned me off of 4E is the way 4E's designers and proponents think they know how we should play the game. There's not a "wrong" or "best" way to play. If people are having fun with 4E, good them. The fact that I'm not doesn't mean I'm playing it wrong.


Scott Betts wrote:
I think it's safe to say that, as D&D games go, yours is a unique case.

Nope x3. We had several games that involved that sort of stuff, including a memorable Spelljammer campaign that involved interplanetary shipping and a few 'guard the caravan' Al-Qadim games that got into mercantile matters. Our first Kara-Tur game got pretty political as well, and this was back in 1st edition, IIRC (perhaps 2nd? It's been a long time...). We did this sort of thing in Star Fleet Battles, even, making a huge campaign map and controlling territories that would give a certain amount of resources we could use to build new ships and stations, while negotiating with other players and NPC races to form (usually short-lived...) alliances and the like.

I personally don't care for business stuff or 'god games' or micro-management of resources, being about the least mercantile / materialistic / 'stuff-oriented' person in the world, but most of the gamers I've played with have enjoyed that sort of thing and I don't *dislike* that style of play, and can certainly enjoy when it gets all political and tense negotiations (and sabotage of the rivals, my favorite part!) come into play.

Obviously, my gaming friends were happy when games like Civilization came out, as those sorts of resource-management / empire-building games directly catered to their interests. Speaking of Civilization, I suspect that if people who liked that sort of thing were, as you say, unique, it probably wouldn't have sold more than one copy. :)

Sovereign Court

FabesMinis wrote:

D&D will never be realistic until it includes a coinage list for each country in each fantasy world, a weights and measures system for calculating worth of metal vs worth in coin (as the coins will actually be watered down), a peasant will never afford leather armour (he will steal it or be given it to use by his liege lord).

I want my equipment list in pfennigs and hacksilver bands!

Hey Fabes,

You might have seen this, but check out the Gygaxian weights and measures for gold and silver amounts in coinage and their value proportions in INSIDAE, by Cross, or LIVING FANTASY. Fantasic stuff for having an excellent handle on caclulating worth of metal vs. worth of coin (yes, Gygax spells out % true metal in the watered-down coin).

Best part for me.... I truly know the value of twenty bucks! That is, as a DM, once you know the value of your worlds main unit of exchange, its easy to adjudicate pricing of items based on 1)Country 2)Region 3)Market availability supply/demand 4)size of town 5)Item quality etc.

(Call me old school, but I take stong issue with the sensibility of stocking a small 4e hamlet with powerful magic items given a POL realm. That's just another reason that 4e is not the game I wish to play.)


Um....could this whole thread have been avoided by simply telling the OP to price the plate armor as he saw fit?

Example: "50 gp for plate....nah, too low. Better make it 500 gp plus 2d4 weeks wait time while the smith gets the fit right."

There, that wasn't so hard. House ruled in 15 sec. :)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
cannon fodder wrote:

Um....could this whole thread have been avoided by simply telling the OP to price the plate armor as he saw fit?

Example: "50 gp for plate....nah, too low. Better make it 500 gp plus 2d4 weeks wait time while the smith gets the fit right."

There, that wasn't so hard. House ruled in 15 sec. :)

Yes, of course. That's 95% of the problems most of us have with our games... but where's the fun in a quick and simple solution? :)


Pax Veritas wrote:
FabesMinis wrote:

D&D will never be realistic until it includes a coinage list for each country in each fantasy world, a weights and measures system for calculating worth of metal vs worth in coin (as the coins will actually be watered down), a peasant will never afford leather armour (he will steal it or be given it to use by his liege lord).

I want my equipment list in pfennigs and hacksilver bands!

Hey Fabes,

You might have seen this, but check out the Gygaxian weights and measures for gold and silver amounts in coinage and their value proportions in INSIDAE, by Cross, or LIVING FANTASY. Fantasic stuff for having an excellent handle on caclulating worth of metal vs. worth of coin (yes, Gygax spells out % true metal in the watered-down coin).

Best part for me.... I truly know the value of twenty bucks! That is, as a DM, once you know the value of your worlds main unit of exchange, its easy to adjudicate pricing of items based on 1)Country 2)Region 3)Market availability supply/demand 4)size of town 5)Item quality etc.

(Call me old school, but I take stong issue with the sensibility of stocking a small 4e hamlet with powerful magic items given a POL realm. That's just another reason that 4e is not the game I wish to play.)

Aggh you had to tell me about this! Now I want it! *curses debts and low pay*

Liberty's Edge

CPEvilref wrote:


3.5 has no rules in the core book to help with political games or economic warfare games. A GM can extrapolate on the latter, and entirely invent the former but there are no actual rules for doing it.

Therefore it's disingenous to level this accusation at 4e without accepting that is's something that has been a part of D&D in general.

It at least has some commodities pricing, and the monsters aren't just a list of mechanics with basic instructions on how to operate them. We had something to work, albeit at a basic level.


Kvantum wrote:
cannon fodder wrote:

Um....could this whole thread have been avoided by simply telling the OP to price the plate armor as he saw fit?

Example: "50 gp for plate....nah, too low. Better make it 500 gp plus 2d4 weeks wait time while the smith gets the fit right."

There, that wasn't so hard. House ruled in 15 sec. :)

Yes, of course. That's 95% of the problems most of us have with our games... but where's the fun in a quick and simple solution? :)

...in that it's quick and simple? :P


Kvantum wrote:
Yes, of course. That's 95% of the problems most of us have with our games... but where's the fun in a quick and simple solution? :)

But what would we argue about if everybody just made a commonsense ruling whenever they saw something they didn't like and didn't bother to post to a messageboard about it?

Where's the DRAMA?


Preface: I'm not trying to insult anyone, and I hope I don't come across that way.

As for telling people what is "fun," yeah, I can see where that would rankle, and I see where the 4E design's obvious failure to even attempt to simulate economics rules is darn annoying.

But no version of D&D has ever had "economics rules" that approximate anything approaching an functioning economy. Nor is it possible to assign a $$ value to coins in D&D, since the industrial revolution (among many other things) has completely altered the value of manufactured goods relative to raw materials. In fact, the whole concept of fixed prices is a complete anachronism, as is the widespread use of coinage instead of barter. The point of all this is that the belief that older versions of the rules had better "economics rules," is simply demonstrably mistaken. I do agree that earlier designs *tried* for economic simulation, but the lack of knowledge necessary to perceive the earlier design's failures isn't evidence that those designs were successful. I'm sorry, but I just don't know a gentler way of putting that.

The Exchange

Just to point out....pages 139-140 of the 3.5 DMG is about economics. It gives no real formula for altering the baseline 'economy', but it does discuss coinage, taxes, moneychangers and supply and demand. I have seen and used in 3.5 the idea of supply and demand to increase rates for various items from metalwork to grain. It helps to build a better sense of realism in my games even if it isn't entirely accurate or infallible.
Some people have said that Economics isn't a part of D&D but for me and the many groups I have been in it has been, whether I was running or not.
The earlier editions had sections on adjusting the economy also.
Economics is also a great adventure hook.....WOW! A mug of ale costs how much in this town!!! Why?......Oh, so the giants have been raiding the fields and burning them afterward which has driven up the price of all grains. Maybe someone should take care of that....Oh wait, that's us!
Economics aren't perfect in D&D(10'pole/ladder thingy) but that doesn't discount the need to have a somewhat internally realistic economic system.

Also most of the buying/selling that NPCs do in small towns in D&D is supposed to be through trade. "I'll trade you 4 plump sows for a new plow." isn't an unlikely thing to assume happens.

BTW the section after Economics in the 3.5 DMG is regarding.......politics! DUM,DUM,DUM!!!


Pax Veritas wrote:
Scot Bets wrote:
DMs should be actively discouraging players from trying to mess with the game's monetary system in any way, and if it becomes a problem the DM's job is to take the player aside and make it clear that everyone is there to adventure, not sit in town while someone tries to squeeze a few gold out of the market.
You're a novice. Please quit insulting others.

I was offering my opinion, you're at your leisure to take it or leave it. Not only that, it's an opinion shared by the developers of 4th Edition - an opinion that they've explained in blog posts and in podcasts a number of times. Perhaps you're right. I've only been doing the DM thing for about thirteen years. I think you'd have a hard time justifying calling the guys who make D&D novices, though.

101 to 150 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 4e economics -- where do they get this stuff? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.