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


4th Edition

201 to 207 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
CPEvilref wrote:
Please show me the rules in 3.x for roleplaying buying a keep.

3.5? Not so much. There actually was the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook in 3.0, though.


Kvantum wrote:
CPEvilref wrote:
Please show me the rules in 3.x for roleplaying buying a keep.
3.5? Not so much. There actually was the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook in 3.0, though.

And is a splat book. 4th Edition has been out for two months. In the future we may see splat book additions that incorporate things like this if the interest is strong enough. But it wasn't in the original release of 3rd Edition, just like it isn't in the first set of 4th Edition books.

Scarab Sages

CPEvilref wrote:
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.

There is a bit of confusion with my language. What I meant was that the bulk of the medieval era (before around the 15th-16th century) there was not much in the way of full-plate. I did not mean to imply full-plate was not present at Agincourt.

Besides, museum pieces are usually ceremonial armor and not battle plate.


Dread wrote:

You know, somehow I knew you'd go here. *shakes head*

I take it you havent played any earlier editions of D&D? If you had you wouldn't ask this, for sprinkled throughout the entire history of the game are many such rules...to include the original complete books that had these rules extensively...and a TSR produced book on building keeps.

Before you show your ignorance you should do some research.

and as ive mentioned before.....maybe you dont play that way...but Im absolutley sure many of us have!

Ooh, nice try, weak but nice.

A) I've been playing D&D since '84, take a guess on whether I've played any earlier editions.

B) Now, you've not actually answered my points. You've attempted to insult me (weakly) but not actually answered them.

Scarab Sages

Fake Healer wrote:

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!!!

Arms and Equipment goes into even more detail.

I based my entire Red Hand of Doom campaign on the concept of a drought in the Elsir Vale that provoked the hobgoblins into unifying to raid the vale, and also creating a shortage of supplies and a new threat (inclement weather).


Kevin Mack wrote:


The fact that there are rules covering cost and what buildings you can buy make it a lot easier than if there was nothing whatsoever covering the purchasing of buildings.

I absolutely agree, it does make it easier. And if this part of the thread had been 'economics are better in 3e' or '3e better supports an economic-based game', then I'd be refuting anyone who said otherwise.

But it's not. My posts are in response to the assertions in this thread that 4e has nothing and 3e had loads. Which is untrue and unsupported.

So to reiterate, neither edition has core rules support for a socio-political game or an economic-based game because that's not what either game was designed to do and it's disengenous to find fault with 4e's core rules on this basis without also finding fault with 3e's core rules.

I entirely understand people who don't like the new edition (e.g. 4e is even worse at doing a gritty game than 3e, but neither edition compares to Harn or Artesia, or normal mortals Exalted or...), but that doesn't mean they should feel free to post untruths and not get called, or their opinions as facts, or yet more rot about '4e is a computer game' etc.

PS For an example of a game that really supports economics and simulationism, you should check out Harn.

Liberty's Edge

CPEvilref I could supply example after example If I wanted to take the time, to substantiate my OPINIONS...but after all they are, after all merely my opinions...just as your expressions are merely your opinions.

but quite frankly, you bore me with your posts. None of which do more than try to say you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

This more than anything keeps me from playing 4e. I never see any folks who support 4e ever ever do more than this kind of discussion.

The closest to presenting close to non-confrontational arguments, and I do use close, because even he slips sometimes, is Scott Betts...who seems to want to discuss things at times.

A confrontational approach to a discussion is never the way to get your point across, and only makes me want to stay far far away from gaming with anyone who remotely resembles someone such as you.

Please take this as its meant...not a personal attack, but an honest attempt to point out you are not accomplishing your goal (bring more players to 4e)...unless your goal is drive players away from it..then you are truly doing what you want.

Also as a point...To say that low fantasy in a game can be played if you leave out certain classes is a ridiculous argument. I can play low fantasy in 3.5 with all the classes...

Scarab Sages

Kylian wrote:

What's with all the arguing over an aspect of the game that - to be honest - really isn't all that important?

Let's remind ourselves that this is a game where in its previous incarnation (3.5E), you can essentially initiate an infinitely profitable business by buying cows en masse and transmuting them to salt to resell back at the market. Alternatively, if you wish to stay within the core rules, you can just spend your waking hours conjuring walls of iron or stone for your legions of contractor smiths and architects.

Each playgroup is different. Some might require a more "realistic" gaming experience in order to have fun. Some couldn't care less and would be enjoying themselves all the more for it.

One thing I've noticed though - pretty much across all groups and all games. Imbalance is never fun.

It's interesting that your dismission of 3rd Ed. pricing as unrealistic depends on magical means (I've seen this argument before, mostly from Frank Trollman).

D&D takes a medieval system and layers magic on top of things. Yes, magic breaks the system. But without magic, the world still needs to function in a way similar to our own.

Arguing that the ability to turn cows into salt to make a profit is illogical, because eventually there will be no demand for salt, and you will use up all the cows. A few powerful people might take issue with your character doing that.


Dread wrote:

CPEvilref I could supply example after example If I wanted to take the time, to substantiate my OPINIONS...but after all they are, after all merely my opinions...just as your expressions are merely your opinions.

but quite frankly, you bore me with your posts. None of which do more than try to say you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

This more than anything keeps me from playing 4e. I never see any folks who support 4e ever ever do more than this kind of discussion.

The closest to presenting close to non-confrontational arguments, and I do use close, because even he slips sometimes, is Scott Betts...who seems to want to discuss things at times.

A confrontational approach to a discussion is never the way to get your point across, and only makes me want to stay far far away from gaming with anyone who remotely resembles someone such as you.

Please take this as its meant...not a personal attack, but an honest attempt to point out you are not accomplishing your goal (bring more players to 4e)...unless your goal is drive players away from it..then you are truly doing what you want.

Also as a point...To say that low fantasy in a game can be played if you leave out certain classes is a ridiculous argument. I can play low fantasy in 3.5 with all the classes...

Firstly you're stating your opinions as facts. What I've been doing is challenging those opinions and asking you to substantiate them. I'm fine with you not being willing to do so, but don't expect that just because you say something it makes it so. Nor that that means your opinions can't be countered, or your factual statements should go unchallenged simply because you say them.

Secondly if you're not used to having your statements and opinions challenged then I have no idea what professional experience you have. It's expected at management level in every company I've worked for, and in both my degrees.

And my goal in this thread has not been to bring more people to 4e, it's been to counter unsupported statements about the game which are untrue. If all you'd done is say 'I don't think X because Y' then I might have said 'I disagree because of Z'. But you've not done that, you've made declarative statements of fact which I've asked you to support (and which you haven't done, in fact you've specifically said 'I could but I won't'.

And 3.5 with a wizard/cleric/druid is definitely not low fantasy as typically seen in fantasy publishing, but maybe you have a different opinion of what low fantasy is.


Dread wrote:

CPEvilref I could supply example after example If I wanted to take the time, to substantiate my OPINIONS...but after all they are, after all merely my opinions...just as your expressions are merely your opinions.

but quite frankly, you bore me with your posts. None of which do more than try to say you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

This more than anything keeps me from playing 4e. I never see any folks who support 4e ever ever do more than this kind of discussion.

The closest to presenting close to non-confrontational arguments, and I do use close, because even he slips sometimes, is Scott Betts...who seems to want to discuss things at times.

A confrontational approach to a discussion is never the way to get your point across, and only makes me want to stay far far away from gaming with anyone who remotely resembles someone such as you.

Please take this as its meant...not a personal attack, but an honest attempt to point out you are not accomplishing your goal (bring more players to 4e)...unless your goal is drive players away from it..then you are truly doing what you want.

Also as a point...To say that low fantasy in a game can be played if you leave out certain classes is a ridiculous argument. I can play low fantasy in 3.5 with all the classes...

While I appreciate the half-compliment, CPEvilref has absolutely supported his arguments with fact. He has done far more than say "I'm right, you're wrong, end of story." He's been extremely eloquent in defending 4th Edition from attacks that have been baseless.

Dread, opinions are opinions, yes. But some opinions are supported by the facts and some opinions are not supported by the facts. Despite what 3rd-grade teachers often say, all opinions are not created equal. CPEvilref has done an admirable job of justifying his observations, and has asked you to do the same in a manner that I don't consider unnecessarily confrontational at all.


Jal Dorak wrote:


Arguing that the ability to turn cows into salt to make a profit is illogical, because eventually there will be no demand for salt.

Ok, I tried not to go here, but I don't seem to have a choice.

(1) It is impossible to affect demand by changing the supply. End of story. You can affect quantity demanded, but the two are NOT the same.

(2) You seem to be arguing you cannot affect the equilibrium price of a commodity because if you change the supply too much you'll lower the equilibrium price. Huh?

Edit: Full Disclosure: I had micro(101)->macro (102)->global econ development (301), plus a few survey finance and accounting courses. I am not an economist. If someone out there is and wants to argue that any version of D&D has ever managed to approximate a functioning economy, please speak up.

Scarab Sages

bugleyman wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:


Arguing that the ability to turn cows into salt to make a profit is illogical, because eventually there will be no demand for salt.

Ok, I tried not to go here, but I don't seem to have a choice.

(1) It is impossible to affect demand by changing the supply. End of story. You can affect quantity demanded, but the two are NOT the same.

(2) You seem to be arguing you cannot affect the equilibrium price of a commodity because if you change the supply too much you'll lower the equilibrium price. Huh?

I miswrote. No, you cannot affect demand with supply. Everyone will always need salt. But you can exceed demand. Then your wizard is sitting on a mound of salt that is selling at the same rate and price (going by RAW) as the salt from the mines.

What I'm arguing is that you make a minimal profit on a small quantity of salt, after that all the money you spent on cows is wasted.

Liberty's Edge

CPEvilref and Scott Betts, If this was a debate or this was a place I might benefit from pulling out my extensive library of previous D&D material and taking the time to rebutt your arguments...I would do so.

It is not. Nor is it enjoyable to get into arguments on a discussion board where we all (or most of us anyway) share a common ground of liking role playing games.

I express my opinions because they are my opinions. You express yours and imply that you have backed up your opinions with facts, that are easily disproved...such as

You say there is no ecology of monsters in D&D prior to 4e, yet in 3.5's monster manual they (WotC) had a paragraph on the likely placement and how they fit into the milieu. Prior to 3.5 They had Dragon Articles on Ecology of the 'insert monster name here'. In numerous company splat books (company being WotC) there was article after article on the hows and whys of those monsters....

Yet with a few pen strokes WotC made a good many of that null and void by either changing the the campaign worlds (spellplague), changing the monsters (Unicorn) or changing the backgrounds (most humanoid races)

You say there were no previous mentions of building and running keeps and temples and other socio-political possibilities...yet we have already shown that thought was wrong too.

You say there was economical basis for D&D, and we have already shown you this is wrong.

Yes its a fantasy world and many of the possibilites suspend belief from the real world. That doesnt change the fact that it is mentioned.

My disagreement comes from the confrontational manner in which you approach this. To try and pick every single post apart as if there was something to win here, makes me scratch my head at your purpose.

It doesnt seem like you are a friendly gamer, more like you just want to WIN. This is what I typically find with folks who seem to be drawn to 4e.

This is a sterotype: "We like the game, and you are wrong and we will prove it if you dont. All of the reasons you dont like it are wrong. Your basis for not liking it is wrong. The reason you play 3.5 instead of 4e is wrong..and we will go to great lengths to prove to you that why you play role playing games is wrong."

If I am wrong...Then I have been so for 33 years of gaming, and I am quite happy to remain wrong.

The Exchange

Scott Betts wrote:
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.

Frankly we might as well have gone with Medieval Prices

Gallon, Weak Ale (1d.)
Gallon ,Strong Ale (1&1/2d.)
Gallon, Foreign Wine (3d.)
Average Meal (2&1/2d.)

Field Labourers Daily Wages (4d.)

Chicken (1d.)
Goshawk (1200d.)
Cow (185d.)
Ox (260d.)
Sheep (25d.)
Riding Horse (720d.)
Warhorse (4320d.)

240d.=20s=1pound

The Exchange

CPEvilref wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:


3.5 Player's Handbook 112 has some trade goods. Additional books were put out to help flesh out the bare-bones ideals such as the 3.0 Arms and Equipment Guide. Sure there isn't a real system for adjusting the economy of an area or game but I really don't think that is a feasible requirement on a game system. If I make metal inaccessible in a certain town due to outside sources how would any system be able to tell me what a metal spoon would be worth? Or a sword? Heck the sword could go for 5000gp if I wanted it to. Darksun is a good example of a campaign that utilizes alternate economic systems.

Which is exactly my point. There are no core rules for it in 3.x.....

I never once said there are no core rules for this stuff in 3.X, I said their wasn't many. They tossed the ideas in the core rules and later fleshed it out with suppliment books. Don't toss words into my mouth so you can prove your point.

The Exchange

Dread wrote:
CPEvilref wrote:
Dread wrote:
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.
In what possible way does being heroic, or not being heroic decide whether you are 'roll playing' or 'role playing'. This is one of the most ludicrous assertions I've seen on these boards. And by now I've seen a lot of them thrown out with the prevalent lack of basic reasoning skills often displayed on the 4e board.
please, when quoting me...dont take it out of context.

Wow, at least he isn't making words come out of your mouth.

The Exchange

Scott Betts wrote:
Kvantum wrote:
CPEvilref wrote:
Please show me the rules in 3.x for roleplaying buying a keep.
3.5? Not so much. There actually was the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook in 3.0, though.
And is a splat book. 4th Edition has been out for two months. In the future we may see splat book additions that incorporate things like this if the interest is strong enough. But it wasn't in the original release of 3rd Edition, just like it isn't in the first set of 4th Edition books.

So what does a keep cost in 4E? In 3.5 I can find that in the core.

Liberty's Edge

CPEvilref wrote:
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.

well, 1415 was also considered renaissance, not midaeval, but, you know...

The Exchange

bugleyman wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:


Arguing that the ability to turn cows into salt to make a profit is illogical, because eventually there will be no demand for salt.

Ok, I tried not to go here, but I don't seem to have a choice.

(1) It is impossible to affect demand by changing the supply. End of story. You can affect quantity demanded, but the two are NOT the same.

Actually you can affect demand by changing the supply.

1.You can make the raw materials available outside the initial supply-demand nexus thus bypassing the existing trade structures.

or

2. You remove the item from availability (Hoard/Destroy) thus causing a run on what little is left.

"Burn their Fields! The Baron wants these bastards to riot in the streets for food." Torches were carried along the edge of the field by runners.


Dread wrote:


My disagreement comes from the confrontational manner in which you approach this. To try and pick every single post apart as if there was something to win here, makes me scratch my head at your purpose.

Obviously you would rather practice intellectual dishonesty and use strawman logical fallacies as you are unable to actually suport your statements or make a coherent argument when challenged to do so.

Your post is full of untruths and makes claims to things which are factually untrue, while also repeatedly misrepresenting the original points or questions.

As an example:

I asked where in the 3.0 core rules there were rules for the running of a temple.

You are now claiming that I said there was no previous mention of running a temple.

I asked where in the core rules there were _rules_ for socio political games.

You are now claiming that I said there was no previous mention of socio political possibilities.

I would strongly suggest you take down your misrepresentation on my position but acceptable standards don't apply round here so I doubt you will.

Suffice to say you've shown yet one more example of why Paizo's boards are fast attracting the reputationt hey have on other forums.


Fake Healer wrote:
CPEvilref wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:


3.5 Player's Handbook 112 has some trade goods. Additional books were put out to help flesh out the bare-bones ideals such as the 3.0 Arms and Equipment Guide. Sure there isn't a real system for adjusting the economy of an area or game but I really don't think that is a feasible requirement on a game system. If I make metal inaccessible in a certain town due to outside sources how would any system be able to tell me what a metal spoon would be worth? Or a sword? Heck the sword could go for 5000gp if I wanted it to. Darksun is a good example of a campaign that utilizes alternate economic systems.

Which is exactly my point. There are no core rules for it in 3.x.....
I never once said there are no core rules for this stuff in 3.X, I said their wasn't many. They tossed the ideas in the core rules and later fleshed it out with suppliment books. Don't toss words into my mouth so you can prove your point.

See the point repeatedly made that prices do not equal rules. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I didn't say 'you said X'. I said 'which is exactly my point'. Then went on to develop further. It's an elementary logical constructed argument.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
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.

you do realize that those podcasts and blogs are a BIG reason a lot of us grognards are so ticked off at WotC, right? as in, it isn't any LESS arrogant coming from them than it is from you...


yellowdingo wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:


Arguing that the ability to turn cows into salt to make a profit is illogical, because eventually there will be no demand for salt.

Ok, I tried not to go here, but I don't seem to have a choice.

(1) It is impossible to affect demand by changing the supply. End of story. You can affect quantity demanded, but the two are NOT the same.

Actually you can affect demand by changing the supply.

1.You can make the raw materials available outside the initial supply-demand nexus thus bypassing the existing trade structures.

or

2. You remove the item from availability (Hoard/Destroy) thus causing a run on what little is left.

"Burn their Fields! The Baron wants these bastards to riot in the streets for food." Torches were carried along the edge of the field by runners.

Neither of your examples involve changing demand. They involve changing the supply, which affects quantity demanded. Unless you mean that in the case of hoarding people are willing to pay more because of perceived scarcity? That would change demand, so you may have a point there, but it assumes a level of communications that I'm not sure existed.

But in fairness, that isn't his point. His point was, you can't make endless money by selling salt. But you don't have to; you can make lots of money, and push down the equilibrium price. The supply is fundamentally altered, hence assumptions based on real-world economies do not apply. Magic changes the whole game in a way that is EXTREMELY hard to predict. Hell, we can't even get very well-trained economists to agree on exactly what is happening in the real, observable world. I have yet to see an edition of D&D that even tried. You can only get "close enough" for a given group of players. For some, 3.5 was "close enough." For others, 4E will still be "close enough." But it is somewhat misleading to claim that 3.5 supported economics simulation while 4E does not.

And with that, I am retiring from armchair economics (at least in this thread). :D


Hmmm. Round about now is where either the smurf legions or the great big arcanton come smurshing in, given some of the personal attacks flying around here.
But just ignore me.
I'm the Runelord of Divination, after all, and what do I know....

Edit:
Gah! Smurfette. If only I had foreseen that.


bugleyman wrote:

But in fairness, that isn't his point. His point was, you can't make endless money by selling salt. But you don't have to; you can make lots of money, and push down the equilibrium price. The supply side is fundamentally altered, hence assumptions based on real-world economies do not apply. Magic changes the whole game in a way that is EXTREMELY hard to predict; I have yet to see an edition of D&D that even tried.

There've been a few articles and supplements that try to extrapolate the effect magic would have on warfare, transportation, communication and the law. But on the whole I think they've largely been facades that paper over the broader issues (e.g. castles are useless against high level casters or huge numbers of monsters).

It's one of those things that's far easier to hand wave away because probing too deeply into 'what would it really be like' leads to headaches.

It would be interesting to see some of the transhumanist sociologists and scientists who theorise over the effects of potential advances take a look at D&D and what changes would happen as a result of D&D-level and preponderance of magic on a medieval/renaissance world.

Liberty's Edge

CPEvilref wrote:
Dread wrote:


My disagreement comes from the confrontational manner in which you approach this. To try and pick every single post apart as if there was something to win here, makes me scratch my head at your purpose.

Obviously you would rather practice intellectual dishonesty and use strawman logical fallacies as you are unable to actually suport your statements or make a coherent argument when challenged to do so.

Your post is full of untruths and makes claims to things which are factually untrue, while also repeatedly misrepresenting the original points or questions.

As an example:

I asked where in the 3.0 core rules there were rules for the running of a temple.

You are now claiming that I said there was no previous mention of running a temple.

I asked where in the core rules there were _rules_ for socio political games.

You are now claiming that I said there was no previous mention of socio political possibilities.

I would strongly suggest you take down your misrepresentation on my position but acceptable standards don't apply round here so I doubt you will.

Suffice to say you've shown yet one more example of why Paizo's boards are fast attracting the reputationt hey have on other forums.

You make the typical disagreeable arguments to everything.....my mother used to chastise me when I was 10 for this type of argueing...its called "Splitting hairs". Instead of realizing that in the 3.0 complete Divine expansion (the name escapes me now)...they had rules for running a temple and further in 3.5's complete divine they also had those rules. Furthermore lets look at just the core DM's guide...

3.5 DMG pages 131-132 the rolls of characters in the world around them (an example of soicio-political)

3.5 DMG page 133 War and other calamities (socio-political reference to how to handle war.)

3.5 DMG pages 137-139...the socio-political aspect of communities

3.5 DMG pages 139-140....economics

3.5 DMG page 140....socio-political systems

3.5 DMG page 144....socio-cultural aspects

3.5 DMG page 106....leadership ability and its ramifications...

You mention you've played D&D for quite some time...so you know full well everything you've asked about is and has been already addressed in previous editions...yet you pretend ignorance and say they havent been expressed in a certain book...to split hairs.

The fact I dont care enough to pull book after book after book out to point out your silliness means I dont care enough about winning this disagreement...which you obviously do.

Go enjoy 4e....but without me. Thank you very much for your extensive argumentative contribution to this topic...which by the way was about the lack of economics in 4e.

(a topic which your attacks on previous editions and me hasnt changed)


Dread wrote:


You make the typical disagreeable arguments to everything.....my mother used to chastise me when I was 10 for this type of argueing...its called "Splitting hairs". Instead of realizing that in the 3.0 complete Divine expansion (the name escapes me now)...they had rules for running a temple and further in 3.5's complete divine they also had those rules. Furthermore lets look at just the core DM's guide...

3.5 DMG pages 131-132 the rolls of characters in the world around them (an example of soicio-political)

3.5 DMG page 133 War and other calamities (socio-political reference to how to handle war.)

3.5 DMG pages 137-139...the socio-political aspect of communities

3.5 DMG pages 139-140....economics

3.5 DMG page 140....socio-political...

You did see the word 'rules' there, didn't you? I mean, it's only been the point of this entire discussion.

Show me where, just once, I said 'D&D has never mentioned socio-political aspects of a game'. I haven't, I said rules. I (and Scott) have also repeatedly been asking where in the core rulebooks these rules are, as otherwise you're comparing a game line to hundreds of books to one with three. Ergo, again, you misrepresent my point. It's called a strawman. Google it.

BTW, other than saying that 3.x is bad at doing low fantasy, and bad at doing simulationism I've not once attacked 3.x. And I challenge you to find where I've once said it's a bad game. So, once again, stop misrepresenting my opinion because you're not actually able to answer any of the points.

EDIT: I don't care about 'winning' the argument. I'm irritated at your intellectual dishonesty and repeated strawmans but at this point I'm done. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be unable or unwilling to actually defend your original assertions or retract the misrepresentations you've made ever since. And that you're unable to have a truthful and logical discussion for whatever reason.


(edited, spelling & grammar)
As far as I can see, 3.5 had token support for economics, in the core rules, if prices for wages of tradesmen & artisans, trade goods, etc, can be regarded as 'token support'.
There were no details in the 3.5 core rules remotely resembling a real world university level economics course.
4th Edition has been reported as having, by comparison with 3.5, less 'token support' for economics in the core rules so far.
As Wizards of the Coast have been saying since Summer 2007, it is going to take them years to print the complete core rules for 4th Edition. Whether or not 4th Edition core rules will ever 'support' economics in a similar, greater depth, or lesser depth than 3.5 core rules is pretty much moot at this point, and will be until 4th Edition has been 'finished' by Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro and they have moved the D&D (trademark) juggernaut onto another 'edition'.

As to whether or not plate should 'realistically' (by fantasy standards) cost twice the price of leather?; maybe it's the leather which is relatively expensive in 4th edition.
If it's a 'points of light' setting, would you like to be trying to keep a herd of cattle (whose hides can be turned into leather armour) with bandits, monsters, and evil NPCs prowling the countryside day & night?
The possibilities of dangers intruding into an underground iron mine unless you break into a beholder hive or some other part of the underdark (if such things still exist in 4E) may be considerably less.

Liberty's Edge

cpevilref wrote:

So, once again, stop misrepresenting my opinion because you're not actually able to answer any of the points.

EDIT: I don't care about 'winning' the argument. I'm irritated at your intellectual dishonesty and repeated strawmans but at this point I'm done. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be unable or unwilling to actually defend your original assertions or retract the misrepresentations you've made ever since. And that you're unable to have a truthful and logical discussion for whatever reason.

its statements like this that make me not want to have so called 'intellectual discussions' with you.

truthful? So you infer I'm a liar?...intellectual dishonesty?..once again you cast apsursions on my character?

As I mentioned It is not unwilling or unable...but lack of caring to prove my self worth to someone as arrogant as you.

I enjoy playing a role playing game and having discussions that have more merit than 'You are wrong because I say so...prove you are right or you are wrong'

Dude grow up.

Since when did gaming become an effort.

You don't know me from adam, yet you can make personal assumptions about me.

You have your right for your opinion..and I have right for mine. simple.


houstonderek wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
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.
you do realize that those podcasts and blogs are a BIG reason a lot of us grognards are so ticked off at WotC, right? as in, it isn't any LESS arrogant coming from them than it is from you...

You can feel offended and cheated and ticked off and thrown to the wayside all you want. But using the word "novice" as an insult (and yes, it wasn't you who used it) really doesn't have a place in this conversation, especially when used against arguments put forth by the people who make the game. Exercise a little civility, everyone.

Scarab Sages

bugleyman wrote:

But in fairness, that isn't his point. His point was, you can't make endless money by selling salt. But you don't have to; you can make lots of money, and push down the equilibrium price. The supply is fundamentally altered, hence assumptions based on real-world economies do not apply. Magic changes the whole game in a way that is EXTREMELY hard to predict. Hell, we can't even get very well-trained economists to agree on exactly what is happening in the real, observable world. I have yet to see an edition of D&D that even tried. You can only get "close enough" for a given group of players. For some, 3.5 was "close enough." For others, 4E will still be "close enough." But it is somewhat misleading to claim that 3.5 supported economics simulation while 4E does not.

Ah, good. I'm glad I was able to clarify my statements - we do agree after all, so I wanted to prevent an argument over nothing but wording. Heck, even high-level economists have trouble applying supply-and-demand to anything beyond a fairly competitive market (which magic by and far is not).

I don't necessarily want detailed realistic economic systems for my D&D games - but they are out there anyway. What Tat and myself were going for is that despite a lack of economic rules-systems in core editions (3 and 4), in 3rd Edition it is easier to layer a medieval economic model over the core rules. In 4th Edition, the prices are so radically altered from reality to balance that you have to reconfigure the core rules to accomodate economics (and again, this is apart from magic economy, this is mundane only).

Incidentally, yellowdingo, where did you come across the "Medieval Prices" in your earlier post? I am curious, I love looking at things like the Domesday Book.

Scarab Sages

Scott Betts wrote:

No, there really wasn't an economic model. At all. I don't know if you understand how economics works, but the absolute minimum for something to even be considered for being called an economic system is a fluctuating economy based on supply and demand. D&D has never had that. Because D&D isn't about economics. It's about epic adventure.

Actually in every edition except 4e, there has been an ever expanding economic clarifications, in 3.5. cities have a maximum GP value, and there is mention that if adventurers drop too much treasure in one location that it can destroy the local economy.

this is just one more reason I refuse to play 4e...

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
Exercise a little civility, everyone.

um, pot meet kettle much?


houstonderek wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Exercise a little civility, everyone.
um, pot meet kettle much?

And yet the kettle is still black, is it not?

Seriously, this thread has gone on for pages, when it boils down to this:

(1) No one can tell you the correct way to play your game. Whether you want to simulate economics, dragon-slaying, or vector calculus, whatever you find fun is the "right" way to play.

(2) D&D has never had more than a token level of "economics rules." Though 4E is probably a new low, there wasn't ever much there to begin with for someone with a good working knowledge of economics.

There is no prize for winning a message board thread. Or if there is, my checks all got lost in the mail. ;-)

Edit: darn it, I forgot I said I wasn't coming back.

Scarab Sages

bugleyman wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Exercise a little civility, everyone.
um, pot meet kettle much?

And yet the kettle is still black, is it not?

Seriously, this thread has gone on for pages, when it boils down to this:

(1) No one can tell you the correct way to play your game. Whether you want to simulate economics, dragon-slaying, or vector calculus, whatever you find fun is the "right" way to play.

(2) D&D has never had more than a token level of "economics rules." Though 4E is probably a new low, there wasn't ever much there to begin with for someone with a good working knowledge of economics.

There is no prize for winning a message board thread. Or if there is, my checks all got lost in the mail. ;-)

Edit: darn it, I forgot I said I wasn't coming back.

Your check was in the mail, but your return has forced a stop-payment.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Exercise a little civility, everyone.
um, pot meet kettle much?

And yet the kettle is still black, is it not?

Seriously, this thread has gone on for pages, when it boils down to this:

(1) No one can tell you the correct way to play your game. Whether you want to simulate economics, dragon-slaying, or vector calculus, whatever you find fun is the "right" way to play.

(2) D&D has never had more than a token level of "economics rules." Though 4E is probably a new low, there wasn't ever much there to begin with for someone with a good working knowledge of economics.

There is no prize for winning a message board thread. Or if there is, my checks all got lost in the mail. ;-)

Edit: darn it, I forgot I said I wasn't coming back.

amen to one, still think people are getting way too hung up on econ101 irl on part 2 though. the point is/was at least the earlier editions paid some lip service (however inaccurate or incomplete) to backround economics, whereas 4e just ignores it all together (not that it matters, the presence or absence makes no difference to gameplay one way or the other)


jeeze go away for a day and look what happens?...

while I don't confess to having read these reams of responses to the original poster here's the bottom line:

I'm right, you're wrong (unless you agree with me) and that's all there is to it. I don't care if you have the facts on your side, or that silly thing called "logic". I've never let them stop me and look where I am! *stands in the gutter* Yes, follow my path to debating victory and you too might one day have a gutter of your own to call home. *nods sagely*

If people failed to notice, this is my epic fail at bringing some humor into this thread.

Oh and in response to my previous post. DnD 4e is influenced by digital gaming, in my experience past editions of pen&paper cared less for game balance and more for interesting stoylines than the present one does. The urge for game balance has arisen out of modern digital gaming in which players feel "jipped" for paying $20/month and find out that they chose a profession that is weaker than another. Rather than creating "rock-paper-scissors" gameplay there seems to be an urge to creat a style of gameplay best descriped as "different colored rocks".

I could care less your opinions of whether this is a good thing or a bad thing but please don't deny that the moddern cultural obsession with video games has had no impact on 4E D&D. This type of economy is an example. Yes it improves game flow and yes it may detract from realistic economics but I could care less either way. If I'm having fun then I'm having fun and who cares? Again if it bothers you, change it, if you like it as is, then keep it; but don't say that I'm wrong off-hand like that please.


Rhavin wrote:
jeeze go away for a day and look what happens?...

Hey, don't blame us! You can't go leaving little kids at the pool unattended... :P

Scarab Sages

Jal Dorak wrote:
CPEvilref wrote:
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.

There is a bit of confusion with my language. What I meant was that the bulk of the medieval era (before around the 15th-16th century) there was not much in the way of full-plate. I did not mean to imply full-plate was not present at Agincourt.

Besides, museum pieces are usually ceremonial armor and not battle plate.

Oddly enough, my friend called me not 1 hour after posting that and invited me to go to the museum with him tomorrow. Weird.


Look.

All of you are wrong. *I*, on the other hand, occupy the correct position in this discussion.

As soon as I figure out that position, I will let you all know.

Carry on.

Scarab Sages

Bear wrote:

Look.

All of you are wrong. *I*, on the other hand, occupy the correct position in this discussion.

As soon as I figure out that position, I will let you all know.

Carry on.

I've got a bone to pick with you, Dire Bear. You killed my brother's monk!

I know that makes no sense if you don't know me, but I don't care!


Jal Dorak wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Exercise a little civility, everyone.
um, pot meet kettle much?

And yet the kettle is still black, is it not?

Seriously, this thread has gone on for pages, when it boils down to this:

(1) No one can tell you the correct way to play your game. Whether you want to simulate economics, dragon-slaying, or vector calculus, whatever you find fun is the "right" way to play.

(2) D&D has never had more than a token level of "economics rules." Though 4E is probably a new low, there wasn't ever much there to begin with for someone with a good working knowledge of economics.

There is no prize for winning a message board thread. Or if there is, my checks all got lost in the mail. ;-)

Edit: darn it, I forgot I said I wasn't coming back.

Your check was in the mail, but your return has forced a stop-payment.

Damn it! ;-)


Jal Dorak wrote:


...but I would say it is disengenuous to pretend that the designers of 4th Edition made plate mail affordable for any other reason than that "it is cool, players want it soon, so let's make it affordable at 1st level". If you can provide another reason for them to do so, I stand corrected.

Because play balance is their top priority? Specifically to insure that the PCs could not really get their ACs out of certain ranges of AC until they were certain levels in order to insure that the monsters, especially the weaker monsters, could still hit them. Essentially, I suspect, that this is part of trying to get it so that Orcs and such remain something of a threat for more levels.

In any case I have a hard time getting all that worked up about this. In a world full of magic the aristocracy presumably buy magical armour if they want the really unique stuff and thats were the big hikes in prices are.

I'm going to echo those that say that one should be cautious about changing the prices in order to better reflect the real world. It appears to me that the price is pretty heavily hooked into play balance aspects of the game so this could well have significant repercussions on how the game plays. Not saying one should never change things in D&D to make them more realistic but my personal experience has been that it has a bad habit of biting one in the ass.

Maybe a better way would be to change the name of the offending armour and then add a new type of armour called Plate or Full Plate thats more expencive but maybe more in line with the play balance mechanics? I mean one is still probably playing with fire but its likely less disruptive to call the armour in 4E 'Bronze Plate' or 'Ring Mail' or something and then invent new better and more expencive armours then to just quadruple the price of the armour they have listed. That way one can justify things so that they fit with their sensibilities and hopefully not throw play balance too out of whack.


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.

During 2nd edition I found a price list based on the Austrian Empire in the 1600s. It was pretty interesting - glass items were available but they cost a fortune. The monetary system was full of interesting (and historically accurate) twists. I thought it was the cats pyjamas - but my players hated it.

My larger point is, that if your anything like my players, then its not really an authentic price list your looking for. I choose a highly civilized western European nation in a very late era (considering that usually we are playing in medieval fantasy) as the base for my price list and it still completely threw my players. If I had chosen a price list based on the Frankish Kingdom in AD 700 the disconnect between my price list and my players understanding of economics would have been far worse.

With this in mind I think its perfectly valid to reinterpret the price lists to better reflect something like game balance simply because the price lists have never had anything, really, to do with actual economics of the historical period. We've been pretty much using made up numbers from day one.

Now I'm not saying you shouldn't change anything at all for any reason. Changing things to suit your preferences is perfectly valid. Though its often bitten me in the butt when I've done it - but I'll be doing it again in 4E 'cause I need guns for my home brew. I'm just saying that, while what they have made is unrealistic, so was everything that had come before and, realism is in fact not a very good goal to strive for in this department - I've done it and it was not well received.

The Exchange

Kvantum wrote:
tadkil wrote:
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.

Absolutely true.


Scott Betts wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I'm having trouble understanding how make-believe price point A in a fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it is better than make-believe price point B in a different fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it. They're both equally arbitrary, except one also happens to follow game balance.

What I held off adding to my previous post, because I saw a long and dark road ahead, was that it is only mechanically balanced with regard to equipping for combat.

Like it or not, there is something resembling an economic system out there, with the prices of trade goods such as animal hides or bars of iron (or they will be released in some later product if they didn't make Core set I), and there will be players who will insist their right to use characters designed to exploit the economically unbalanced items.
No. There is no economic system in D&D. And no, there are no trade goods in the first core set. In fact, I doubt very much that an attempt will ever be made to create an economic system. The game developers have made it very clear that this is D&D, not Run-A-Fantasy-Trading-Cartel. The PCs are supposed to be out slaying dragons and saving maidens, not negotiating the latest price on their shipment of locally-grown apples. 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.

Lets look breifly at what styles of games this outlook would make impossible:

Pirates- A game where players are the crew/owners of a pirate vessal, attempting to living via 'perfectly lagitimate and legal business ventures.' You need values for trade goods and an understanding of where such items sell best to do this.

Games of noblity- Games set in the upper echelons of sociaty need prices of land, rates of taxation, rates of pay, costs of real estate and the price of throwing a mighty fine shindig, not to mention 101 other concerns.

Campaigning- If you want to muster a military force and march to war, you need details on food prices, logistics and what the spoils of war are likely to be.

Merchant houses- much the same as pirates but add the value of multiple ships and the running of plantations, all that good stuff.

All things i have either played in the past or would wish to play in the future.

You say that forth ed would discurrage you form becoming involved in such things. Personally, i'd rather it didnt. Also, i am not sure it logicially can. By level 10, PC's are vastly wealthy figures of national importance, in any game world with any degree of realism, they should be involved in such things as the powers that be of such a country scrable to keep them onside, after all, if a level 10 party really wants to take control of a country...no ones gunna be able to stop them.

No, the only weapon the noblity has is intrigue. To think that they wouldn't use it, is welll, kind of silly.


Scott Betts wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
The PCs are supposed to be out slaying dragons and saving maidens, not negotiating the latest price on their shipment of locally-grown apples.

i am SO glad you have made me see the light! wow, i had NO IDEA i wasn't playing d&d for THIRTY YEARS! thank you!

just out of curiosity, who, exactly, made you arbiter of how ALL PEOPLE should want to play d&d?

just asking...

Calm down. That kind of sarcasm is unacceptable from someone over thirty.

I was simply reiterating what the game's designers have said about their philosophy in creating 4th Edition. D&D's focus has always been on adventuring. Economics was always an afterthought, and was never executed well. On top of that, most players had no interest in playing the market when they could be going out and adventuring instead.

Now, if you are the sort of player who would rather stay in town working on those apple prices instead of playing the hero and adventuring, there are a number of games that aren't D&D that I could recommend to you. Just don't try going out and adventuring in them.

Not sure why it is unacceptable, i'd say it was actually a mainstay of english humour....are we brits suddenly unacceptable for some reason and didn't get told?

Can you provide evidence that most players are not interested playing with the economics of the game world to do things like run a business? Do you have data? whats your sample size ;)


Dread wrote:
Also as a point...To say that low fantasy in a game can be played if you leave out certain classes is a ridiculous argument. I can play low fantasy in 3.5 with all the classes...

I'm just curious how you play "low fantasy" with the Wizard and Sorcerer class in 3.5??


Look, it's not a question of whether the 4e economics are ridiculous, they are. They weren't hugely better in core on other editions (well, 3e made a decent stab at it, but still).

Here's the problem. Sure, if you don't care about that, don't care. Play Diablo on tabletop, that's a legitimate play style. But for the many people who want a substantive and realistic (yes yes, realistic plus magic and monsters, duh) world, it's a problem.

And by taking it and making it part of the game balance so explicitly - 20% magic item sale costs, etc - it's hard for someone who values simulation to change in this edition. It's like their total dependence on minis now. In 1e/2e, you could play an entire campaign without minis. In 3e, they started to be a lot more necessary, and in 3.5e real necessary. Now they're impossible to not use.

So the issue is that the choice has been removed, for those who like realistic game worlds, mini-less games, etc. 4e, more than previous editions, has its play style enforced to one specific vision of how it should be. It's a vision that many people don't like, and one that it's harder for them to change.

Telling people "you shouldn't value that in an RPG" is the exact same hubris that the 4e designers are committing, and it's no more likely to get anyone around here to listen to you.

Liberty's Edge

P1NBACK wrote:
Dread wrote:
Also as a point...To say that low fantasy in a game can be played if you leave out certain classes is a ridiculous argument. I can play low fantasy in 3.5 with all the classes...
I'm just curious how you play "low fantasy" with the Wizard and Sorcerer class in 3.5??

I didnt say low magic..but low fantasy.

Low Fantasy is more a survival based initially and then turns to the grit of adventuring without the impact of 'save the world'.

Many people mix the metaphors of Low Fantasy vs Low Magic.

201 to 207 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.