So, as most people are aware, the D&D economy is pretty much based on adventurers, and is balanced against their level/power gains rather than "realism" (yes, I know, just a game, please don't pick on this statement; the attempt here is to add a bit more verisimilitude rather than an exact realism that cannot exist in the game).
I am currently running a game, and have been pacing gold in a manner that is more in tune with actual economic principles and realism, and it has produced a superior gaming experience (players are still wealthy, but not enough to buy whole cities or to get everything they want... and sometimes they choose to camp instead of stay at an inn to preserve gold). They pay more attention to equipment, activities, and to npc interactions, since all of these have actual game consequences (i.e. gold loss). But despite positive results, I don't have a hard and fast system, so treasure will be more difficult to hand out later, and players will start having difficulties when magic items come more into play.
So, what would people do to improve upon the D&D economy, what changes to the economic system have people made/seen that, what do you not like, what works well and what doesn't, etc.?
One thing I'd love to change about D&D economy is the rarity of scrolls or wands of 0 level spells. I love the idea of a world where a farmer in his field comes across a broken fence, whips out a wand of Mending, uses a few charges, then moves along.
For most of history, a reliable conversion ratio of silver to gold was 20 silver to one gold. This is also the ratio of shillings to pounds. Copper farthings were typically 1/12 of a silver coin.
For most of history prior to about 1400, nails - yes, the things you frame your house up with - took about two hour of prep work to get the forge ready for, and then came out at about 10-15 minutes of work for a skilled artisan to pull out. The concept of interchangeable parts didn't really exist.
A single sword would represent about three weeks worth of work in a medieval economy. There are ways where this can be batched up, but these techniques tended not to be used because there wasn't much demand for them.
Most people could cover about 30 miles per day on a good road; 99% of all people in the Middle Ages died within 50 miles of where they were born.
For every inland city resident, there needed to be about 10-12 farmers working in the field (10 in southern climates, 12 in colder northern ones. Coastal cities were comparatively wealthy; it took 7-8 fishermen per person living in the city to make it work. A farmer would reasonably make about
Disease was rampant in cities; people in cities lived an average of 35-40 years, people in the country lived a decade longer.
Social status meant more than wealth. Unless you picked the right parents, there were severe limits on how far you could go.
If I could find a group that would actually PLAY that way, I'd love it. Sadly, I can't.
Remember though that urban population made for an higher part of the total before the diffusion of feudalism, if you are playing in a setting where it could apply.
From wikipedia's "Classical demography" entry :
The population of Sicily is estimated to range from about 600,000 to 1 million in the 5th century BC. The island was urbanized, and its largest city alone, the city of Syracuse, having 125,000 inhabitants or about 12% to 20% of the total population living on the island. With the other 5 cities probably having populations of over 20,000, the total urban population could have reached 50% of the total population.
For Rome, the best guess is based on the number of recipients of the grain dole under Augustus, implying a population of around 800,000-1,200,000. Italy had numerous urban centres - over 400 are listed by the Elder Pliny - but the majority were small, with populations of just a few thousand. As many as 40% of the population may have lived in towns (25% if the city of Rome is excluded), on the face of it an astonishingly high level of urbanisation for a pre-industrial society. However, studies of later periods would not count the smallest centres as 'urban'; if only cities of 10,000+ are counted, Italy's level of urbanisation was a more realistic (but still impressive) 25% (11% excluding Rome).
AdAstraGames, you might try Harn its not an historical game but it has a very medieval feel to it with more hardship and less magic.
Sigurd
|
AdAstraGames, you might try Harn its not an historical game but it has a very medieval feel to it with more hardship and less magic.
Harn indeed has a very good economic model, and it is based on medieval prices. That being said, a broadsword in Harn is 155d (silver pieces), which translates to the equivalent cost of a longsword in D&D.
The biggest difference in Harn vs D&D is the silver/gold model. In Harn, a gold coin is truly rare, and is worth 240d. So, if you were to change D&D to a Harn-style model, simply reduce everything to a silver-based cost, and make gold coins worth 240 silver.
That means a +1 longsword would cost 10gp. :)
However, in Harn, longtime players strive to have armor that doesn't break, swords that don't bend, and magic items are rare rare rare ... so it's not that simple ... but a good place to look!
Oh, I know about Harn. And I could run this under nearly any game system (GURPS comes to mind). The problem is finding the players willing to put up with it, rather than the "OK, cool, I get a +3 Flaming Sword of Weasel Bleeding!" method of rewarding characters for kit. :)
Oh, I know about Harn. And I could run this under nearly any game system (GURPS comes to mind). The problem is finding the players willing to put up with it, rather than the "OK, cool, I get a +3 Flaming Sword of Weasel Bleeding!" method of rewarding characters for kit. :)
Since adding in more economic realism, my players have grumbled but also had more fun, and been better roleplayers. Go figure.
Any suggestions on how to implement/formalize economic changes in this manner? Aside from pointing at a whole other system/game world?
Since adding in more economic realism, my players have grumbled but also had more fun, and been better roleplayers. Go figure.
But it looks like you haven't had to deal with trying to sell magic items yet. That's the big issue with the D&D economy, not buying arrows or swords (IMO).
Oh, I know about Harn. And I could run this under nearly any game system (GURPS comes to mind). The problem is finding the players willing to put up with it, rather than the "OK, cool, I get a +3 Flaming Sword of Weasel Bleeding!" method of rewarding characters for kit. :)
Since adding in more economic realism, my players have grumbled but also had more fun, and been better roleplayers. Go figure.
Any suggestions on how to implement/formalize economic changes in this manner? Aside from pointing at a whole other system/game world?
I also like a more "realistic" economic model....well, at least more realistic feeling. Here's what I do:
Change prices in the PH (PCR) to silver. For most mundane items, just convert at the established ratio of gold/silver (1/10). So, a longsword is 150sp. The major exception is armor, being hideously overpriced compared to weapons. However changing the armor prices to silver (chainmail becomes 150sp instead of gold) doesn't quite give armor the respect it needs against weapons. I therefore, doubled armor prices, then changed them to silver (chainmail becomes 300sp). Now, there are a few big ticket items in mundanity that require judgment calls. Ships in particular, and in the DMG, fortifications. I change these to silver rather than convert at the exchange rate (i.e. simple house = 1000sp, huge castle = 1000000sp). Also, a heavy warhorse should probably cost about 800 to 1600 silvers in this model, but in the typically prosperous and horse friendly D&D setting, it works to set it at 400 to 800 silver.
Now, the big question is: what about magic? In my model, I simply changed the magic prices to silver (+1 enhancement for a weapon becomes 2000sp). However, I think I like a little less magic, so in the future I will double magic prices and change to silver (+1 enhancement for a weapon becomes 4000sp).
How much money the PCs have to start with is up to you, but just giving siver instead of gold is an interesting way to make them appreciate what they find.
Now all that's left is to divide the treasure values by ten, and you're good to go.
Cheers.