Hit with fridge logic after reading #677

[Firewind]

After re-reading #677 I saw something that seemed odd in the first panel. The Wizard's apprentice bought 500GP worth of rubies and haggled the price down to 400GP. Why is the master wizard then telling his apprentce to go back and by another 100GP worth of rubies? Surely she still has 500GP worth of rubies but she only had to pay 400GP for them. Surely with that logic a cleric wouldn't be able to use a diamond from say a Dragon's horde to raise a dead party member as he didn't pay anything so it couldn't possibally be worth 5000GP.

I know it's supposed to be a joke but it still bugged me a lot...

[Killer Angel]

I know it's supposed to be a joke but it still bugged me a lot...

Yes, it's a joke. Don't worry, not all the jokes are equally funny for everyone. :smallwink:

[Aris Katsaris]

Surely she still has 500GP worth of rubies but she only had to pay 400GP for them.

If she only had to pay 400GP for them, then by what definition of the words "worth" are you arguing that she has 500GP worth of them?

She has 400GP worth of rubies, given the current exchange rate she just helped establish with her haggling. She drove the price of rubies down.

And yes, it IS completely illogical, but the illogicality lies in the system, not in any plot-hole of the comic. What's completely illogical is that a spell would require a quantity of materials measured in gold pieces, rather than grams or libres or some other actually physical measure.

[Firewind]

That is why I said it was fridge logic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic) instead of a plot hole. I found nothing wrong with the comic and did find the joke funny. it was just one of those moments that name me think "Wait, what was that?"

[Trixie]

After re-reading #677 I saw something that seemed odd in the first panel. The Wizard's apprentice bought 500GP worth of rubies and haggled the price down to 400GP. Why is the master wizard then telling his apprentce to go back and by another 100GP worth of rubies? Surely she still has 500GP worth of rubies but she only had to pay 400GP for them. Surely with that logic a cleric wouldn't be able to use a diamond from say a Dragon's horde to raise a dead party member as he didn't pay anything so it couldn't possibally be worth 5000GP.

I know it's supposed to be a joke but it still bugged me a lot...

The D&D world assumes fixed rate of currency, with no inflation, thanks to it being based on bullion (gold coins).

Haggling like that only works when currency is fluid, like ours, or when market is imperfect and thus not self-correcting. In a story it can be, in game for expediency it is perfect.

By the way, I posted a way to abuse that in #677 thread.

[lonewolf23k]

Expensive Magical Components. The only time when haggling to raise the price works in the buyer's favor.

[Conuly]

These are (twins of) the same two who thought they could make money by selling potions for less than they cost to produce, remember? They ain't the brightest bulbs in the box, is all.

[Aldrakan]

The D&D world assumes fixed rate of currency, with no inflation, thanks to it being based on bullion (gold coins).

Haggling like that only works when currency is fluid, like ours, or when market is imperfect and thus not self-correcting. In a story it can be, in game for expediency it is perfect.

By the way, I posted a way to abuse that in #677 thread.

It should be pointed out that inflation and price variation still occurred when people used bullion. It's really just for player convenience, like having "credits" that remain constant in futuristic games.
Component value would get very confusing taken to its logical extent.

Even more nitpicky, bullion actually means silver and gold, not just gold. In fact silver was often used more than gold. Of course D&D does use silver too, just... adventurers don't care about that after a while.

[Starbuck_II]

Because in D&D, it does matter what you things are worth.

Yes, DMs can reinterpret the book, but the rules if you get 400 rubies (that should be worth 500), you only got 400 worth of rubies. Sad but true.

When you find stuff like treasure they are worth 500 if the DM leaves that many.

[ericgrau]

Nah, it's just a minor rules joke. The rules explain the value of gems needed in gp, because our heads would explode otherwise. She wouldn't actually need to go back to get another 100gp worth. Unless she overpaid and didn't get enough.

[Richard J.]

I just thought it was a joke about how dumb her master is, not that she actually made any mistakes. I mean, if it's a rules joke then it's not much of a joke at all if what's being said is an accurate depiction of the rule. That makes it not a joke at all right?

Isn't it more likely that this is just a joke about yet another dumb wizard, especially considering the taunts used on V? :smallfrown:

[The Dark Fiddler]

I just thought it was a joke about how dumb her master is, not that she actually made any mistakes. I mean, if it's a rules joke then it's not much of a joke at all if what's being said is an accurate depiction of the rule. That makes it not a joke at all right?

Isn't it more likely that this is just a joke about yet another dumb wizard, especially considering the taunts used on V? :smallfrown:

No, because making fun of something in an accurate way can still be a joke.

Like the late night comedians do to the politics and such.

[Porthos]

The Fridge Logic isn't with the strip, but with DnD itself.

That was the entire point of the joke, you know. :smallwink:

=====

Mind you, one could make a strong argument that for Divine Spells, it's Fridge Brilliance. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeBrilliance)

Why?

Because in the case of divine spells one can (and indeed many designers do) make the argument that gp material components repesent a form of sacrifice that lets the gods (or whatever you are tapping for your power) know that you are willing to give up something important to you in exchange for divine intervention.

So if someone is intentionally skimping on diamonds (to pick a random example), the gods could say, "Err. no. You're not really giving me a real sign of your sacrifice. Go out and spend 5000 gps of diamonds or use diamonds that you found that you could get 5000 gps for. You cheapskate."

However for arcane spells, I'll agree that there really isn't an equivalent excuse. :smalltongue:

[Trixie]

It should be pointed out that inflation and price variation still occurred when people used bullion. It's really just for player convenience, like having "credits" that remain constant in futuristic games.
Component value would get very confusing taken to its logical extent.

Only when you could artificially introduce more into your economy (I.E. by looting Indians) or your technology/trade surpassess everyone else's to such a point there is huge precious metal inflow into your country. Inflation from mining was almost insignificant.


Even more nitpicky, bullion actually means silver and gold, not just gold. In fact silver was often used more than gold. Of course D&D does use silver too, just... adventurers don't care about that after a while.

Yes, it does. Sure, people used silver standard as well, or both standards, but since silver was far more readily available and was constantly losing value (compared to gold) - more and more countries dropped it, and by XX century gold standard was in use almost as the only true "standard" of international trade. Silver was degraded to simple "base" metal and coins were valued in their face value instead.

Of course, this process doesn't happen in D&D as well :smalltongue:


Nah, it's just a minor rules joke. The rules explain the value of gems needed in gp, because our heads would explode otherwise. She wouldn't actually need to go back to get another 100gp worth. Unless she overpaid and didn't get enough.

So, simply saying "50 grams of rubies" is too confusing for countries with Imperial systems? :smallconfused:

[Roderick_BR]

Yes, it's a joke on literal interpretation of the rules. Is all.
If this were how the game actually worked, a cleric wouldn't be able to rise back a companion with diamonds he found in some random treasure chests, because it was free (0 gold), and therefore useless.
Or, unable to find enough diamonds, but with enough cash, he could just tell the shopkeeper "fine, I'll buy that old diamond ring for 5,000 gp, so it still works for me."

[Thanatosia]

Setting aside the 'its just a joke' and taking the even seriously for a moment - Even the most strictly literal interpretation of the rules would be hard pressed to define one exchange at a 100g lower then the normal exchange rate as suddenly devaluing the worth of the rubies by 100g. The price paid for the rubies and how much the Rubies are worth are two entirely different values, and changing one does not directly change the other. The Spell calls for 500g worth of rubies, not rubies that you spent 500g on. You could get 500g worth of rubies by finding them on the ground and paying nothing for them, and they would still work.

[Harr]

Setting aside the 'its just a joke' and taking the even seriously for a moment - Even the most strictly literal interpretation of the rules would be hard pressed to define one exchange at a 100g lower then the normal exchange rate as suddenly devaluing the worth of the rubies by 100g. The price paid for the rubies and how much the Rubies are worth are two entirely different values, and changing one does not directly change the other. The Spell calls for 500g worth of rubies, not rubies that you spent 500g on. You could get 500g worth of rubies by finding them on the ground and paying nothing for them, and they would still work.

Yep. This. It's patently ridiculous to say that just because I paid 400g for 500g worth of rubies, that now they are "worth" 400g. It doesn't work like that. Ever. What I paid for something and what it's worth are two entirely different things, having nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Don't get me wrong, the joke itself is passable... but the people in this thread trying to justify it by pretending that anything and everything is worth whatever you paid for it, is what pushes the topic over the limit of absurdity.

[Aldrakan]

Only when you could artificially introduce more into your economy (E.G. by looting Indians) or your technology/trade surpassess everyone else's to such a point there is huge precious metal inflow into your country. Inflation from mining was almost insignificant.

Yes, although while the value of a coin might be more constant in more cases, the price of the goods would still vary by quantity and transport and transaction costs. A bullion standard doesn't justify static prices, for the same reason that prices don't change purely in response to inflation.


Yes, it does. Sure, people used silver standard as well, or both standards, but since silver was far more readily available and was constantly losing value (compared to gold) - more and more countries dropped it, and by XX century gold standard was in use almost as the only true "standard" of international trade. Silver was degraded to simple "base" metal and coins were valued in their face value instead.

Indeed. Though the generic medieval fantasy land era that D&D takes place in would significantly predate this change. If sort of translated. There's not really a problem with it, I was merely correcting the definition.

[Olorin Maia]

Yep. This. It's patently ridiculous to say that just because I paid 400g for 500g worth of rubies, that now they are "worth" 400g. It doesn't work like that. Ever. What I paid for something and what it's worth are two entirely different things, having nothing whatsoever to do with each other.


That's actually completely incorrect. Something is only worth what someone will pay; if I charge $4 million for a water bottle it doesn't make it worth $4 million dollars; if the water bottle, however, is sold for $20 dollars consistently, that is its new worth.

A clearer example is the stock market, when the price fluctuates only according to what people are willing to pay.


And I just realized that if you were talking about D&D then I am a moron and talking to myself, and you are free to ignore/laugh at me.


Side note: how do these rules actually work; would the apprentice have to go and get more, or was the master wrong?

[Porthos]

It doesn't work like that. Ever. What I paid for something and what it's worth are two entirely different things

Errrr... :smallconfused:

Generally speaking, at least when it comes to commodities, worth is defined as "what someone is willing to pay for it."

Why do you think gold fluctuates in value on the open market, for instance?

[JaxGaret]

Yep. This. It's patently ridiculous to say that just because I paid 400g for 500g worth of rubies, that now they are "worth" 400g. It doesn't work like that. Ever. What I paid for something and what it's worth are two entirely different things, having nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Not only are you wrong on the issue of worth not being defined by how much people are willing to pay for something, as the other posters have already stated - you are wrong for implying that "what it's worth" is some intrinsic value that an object contains, which is strictly absurd. All "worth" for objects is entirely subjective.

Also, bolding and italicizing does not a stronger argument make.

[Porthos]

Not only are you wrong on the issue of worth not being defined by how much people are willing to pay for something, as the other posters have already stated - you are wrong for implying that "what it's worth" is some intrinsic value that an object contains, which is strictly absurd. All "worth" for objects is entirely subjective.

Pretty much. :smallsmile:

Let's give a concrete example:

Let's say someone gets 500 dollars "worth" of rubies for only 400 dollars. Well, those rubies are only "worth" 500 dollars if someone else is willing to buy them for 500 dollars. Yes, for certain purposes (say insurance on wealth, or "total worth" estimates, et etc) you might be able to claim they are worth 500 dollars and get people to agree.

But if the ruby market crashes and now people are only willing to pay you 100 dollars for the amount of rubies you have, guess how much your rubies are now "worth".

Hint: It ain't 500 dollars. :smallwink:

Mind you, it's hideously more complicated than the above example really states. For instance there is the difference between Market Price and what one might be able to get from an Individual Buyer (tho unless one is dealing with a sucker, it's usually not that big of a difference). Then there is the difference between a Collective Market and an Individual (or small group of) Seller(s). Then there's differences in prices from Market to Market. Or Reselling Items at a Profit (known as Trading :smallwink:).

And that doesn't even get into the notion of Fluctuating Prices.

So let's go back to the 400/500 dollar thing. Yes, you might be able to score a pretty good deal there. But what happens when lots of people make the same bargin as you? Well, sooner or later (and in the cases of markets, it's usually sooner), the new agreed upon price will be 400 dollars. Why? Because only a sucker will buy something for 500 dollars at Seller X if he knows he can get it for 400 dollars from Seller Y.

....

Of course all of this doesn't have much to do with the actual joke in the comic. But since when have we let little things like that stop us from debating things? :smalltongue:

[The Neoclassic]

Nah, it's just a minor rules joke. The rules explain the value of gems needed in gp, because our heads would explode otherwise. She wouldn't actually need to go back to get another 100gp worth. Unless she overpaid and didn't get enough.

Seconded. I think the whole system as far as gp components of spell components, while simple & usable, does again cause serious problems when you try to use a semi-realistic economy in D&D. Then again, this is by far the only unrealistic economy-related issue in D&D. :smallsigh:

[veti]

Side note: how do these rules actually work; would the apprentice have to go and get more, or was the master wrong?

That's the kind of question that sets good DMs apart from bad ones. A good DM will have a ready answer, one way or the other; a bad one will start a whole debate like this thread about it.

Doesn't really matter what the answer is, you can argue it either way - and either way you'll get abuses ("Okay, master, now if you give me 500GP for this ruby, I'll pay you back 100GP as your commission, then the gem itself is worth 500GP again...") - but it's the type of question that, if not nipped in the bud, can derail a session and, eventually, crash an entire economy...

[Aris Katsaris]

There'd be an easy way to explain the whole insanity of this -- if there existed a simple spell that transformed a set amount of rubies/diamonds/etc to a set amount of GP and vice-versa.

In that case prices might fluctuate for *other* materials, but not for these -- even if the value of the GP fluctuated for other commodities, the diamonds/rubies would fluctuate in an exactly identical manner -- same way that a dollar is always worth 100 cents.


What I paid for something and what it's worth are two entirely different things, having nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Your mistake isn't in your belief that the worth of the rubies remains static -- you're absolutely correct on that. it's in your belief that the worth of the GPs remains static.

As a currency, it's not worth anything except in how much commodities it allows you to buy -- and so the worth of the GPs fluctuates if you can buy more or less things with them.

[Spiky]

After re-reading #677 I saw something that seemed odd in the first panel. The Wizard's apprentice bought 500GP worth of rubies and haggled the price down to 400GP. Why is the master wizard then telling his apprentce to go back and by another 100GP worth of rubies? Surely she still has 500GP worth of rubies but she only had to pay 400GP for them. Surely with that logic a cleric wouldn't be able to use a diamond from say a Dragon's horde to raise a dead party member as he didn't pay anything so it couldn't possibally be worth 5000GP.

I know it's supposed to be a joke but it still bugged me a lot...

I find it pleasantly ironic that your post/thread is merely a detailed explanation of the joke you ask about. :smallbiggrin:

[dps]

The price paid for the rubies and how much the Rubies are worth are two entirely different values, and changing one does not directly change the other.

In the real world, things don't have any intrinsic economic value. All something is worth is what someone is willing to pay you for it, period.

[lio45]

That's actually completely incorrect. Something is only worth what someone will pay; if I charge $4 million for a water bottle it doesn't make it worth $4 million dollars; if the water bottle, however, is sold for $20 dollars consistently, that is its new worth.

A clearer example is the stock market, when the price fluctuates only according to what people are willing to pay.

No, he's completely correct.

Someone paying something for an item doesn't mean you can immediately define that as the item's actual value.

An item is worth what you can expect it to sell for in an open, normal market.

There will be transactions at extreme prices that don't reflect actual worth. They mustn't be considered to establish worth.

If a very rich individual dying of thirst in the desert is willing to buy a bottle of water for $4 million (which would be a smart buy for him given the context), it doesn't mean that the bottle is now "worth $4 million". Your parents give you a car for graduation, it doesn't mean the car is "worth nothing".

In the example that started this thread, if you manage to buy a bunch of rubies for 400 gp because you got an amazing deal from a guy who absolutely needs money right now and is willing to discount, those rubies can totally be "worth 500 gp". That's the price they should normally sell for and it's the price some average buyer will pay for such a bunch of rubies.

[lio45]

In the real world, things don't have any intrinsic economic value. All something is worth is what someone is willing to pay you for it, period.

"What someone is willing to pay" isn't a definition that works. The individual someone you happen to pick to define value can be willing to pay only a pittance, or can be dumb enough to offer way too much.

The definition of value is way broader and doesn't rely on only one individual but instead some kind of open market.

Value = "The amount (of money or goods or services) that is considered to be a fair equivalent for something else"

I assume you can see how "amount that is [generally] considered to be a fair equivalent [by a larger pool of people]" is different from "amount that [one particular] someone is willing to pay".

[pnewman]

Suppose the apprentice had asked for 500 GP's worth of rubies, the jewler had gotten her an ounce (or whatever) of rubies and then she had stolen them, or killed him and then stolen them?

Are they still 500 GP's worth of rubies even though she paid 0 GP for them?

If not than how could anyone ever cast a spell with components that they obtained in an encounter?

If they are still 500 GP's worth of rubies even though she paid 0 GP's for them than why aren't they still 500 GP's worth of rubies when she paid 400 GP's for them?

[Thanatosia]

In the real world, things don't have any intrinsic economic value. All something is worth is what someone is willing to pay you for it, period.
Not in the sense that they came into existance with a intrinsic value stamped onto it by some law of the universe (In our universe at least, in Ootsverse where D&D rules [possibly including price sheets] are physical laws of the cosmos then items having intrinsic value upon creation may be true), but in a society almost anything has a 'worth' that people skilled in appraisal can evaluate, and a single exchange or offer does not change what that worth is. The Intrinsic economic value is subject to what people are willing to pay for it, but the key word is people, plural, in this case talking on a much larger scale then what a single prospective buyer or seller can typicaly set.

In other words, one merchant selling rubies to one buyer for 400g, does not have any significant bearing on what they are 'worth'; and trying to extrapolate this single haggled exchange into meaning that everyone will suddenly start selling that quantity of rubies for 400g when they were '500g worth of rubies' before the negotiations occured is ridiculous.

[Avilan the Grey]

I just thought it was a joke about how dumb her master is, not that she actually made any mistakes. I mean, if it's a rules joke then it's not much of a joke at all if what's being said is an accurate depiction of the rule. That makes it not a joke at all right?

No, it's funny, because it's true.
(In D&D)

[Z-dan]

in my opinion, as a DM and if this question poppped up, I would say that there is a standard weight to money chart that is used across the world and would say this amount of grams is worth this amount of gold. In which case, a reputable seller would sell it at the price the chart says it should sell for- however the key to this context is that desert markets are well known for ripping people off which is why the whole concept of haggling is so prevalent. Therefore, if one of these merchants says these rubies are worth 500gp you can be damn well sure that they're not actually worth that much...

Though I will admit that the Giant probably didnt put this much thought into a two-line joke :smalltongue: Its just how I would deal with the scenario if someone in my game was playing the apprentice and I, as the DM, was playing the master and they questioned my logic.

[Aris Katsaris]

If they are still 500 GP's worth of rubies even though she paid 0 GP's for them than why aren't they still 500 GP's worth of rubies when she paid 400 GP's for them?

Because the latter's an agreed-upon price, and the former isn't. If the merchant agreed to part with the rubies for only 400GP then they're obviously not worth 500 GP to him -- they're worth to the merchant 400GP at the very most. Unless the merchant was just being charitable and decided to gift 100 GP to the buyer out of the goodness of his heart. We're not discussing such scenarios of sheer generosity, we consider scenarios in which the merchant is actually attempting to make a profit or atleast not lose money.

If the rubies were stolen however, then that says nothing about how much they were worth to the merchant, therefore it's irrelevant to our question.

[Avilan the Grey]

Because the latter's an agreed-upon price, and the former isn't. If the merchant agreed to part with the rubies for only 400GP then they're obviously not worth 500 GP to him -- they're worth to the merchant 400GP at the very most. Unless the merchant was just being charitable and decided to gift 100 GP to the buyer out of the goodness of his heart. We're not discussing such scenarios of sheer generosity, we consider scenarios in which the merchant is actually attempting to make a profit or atleast not lose money.

If the rubies were stolen however, then that says nothing about how much they were worth to the merchant, therefore it's irrelevant to our question.

I think this is the problem (duh): IRL there is no way to establish something's worth with 100% accuracy. In D&D there is such a thing as an exact value.
This should also mean, of course, that you can conclude that if the merchant sells something for 500Gp, the actual value is less, since the merchant did indeed pay less. Or should have, if he wanted a profit.

[Elthanir]

Expensive Magical Components. The only time when haggling to raise the price works in the buyer's favor.

Not really... you'd still have to pay just as much for the merch due to the requirements of the spell, but if you haggled to raise the price per ruby, you wind up with fewer rubies for your money.

[Thanatosia]

Expensive Magical Components. The only time when haggling to raise the price works in the buyer's favor.
Not really... you'd still have to pay just as much for the merch due to the requirements of the spell, but if you haggled to raise the price per ruby, you wind up with fewer rubies for your money.
Actualy, to play devils advocate for a sec and pretend that one exchange does set the 'Worth" of the gems in the eyes of the laws of spell Material Requirement fulfilment as some people in this thread seem to be arguing for, haggling the price up means you have to carry less weight in Rubies and increases the likelyhood of your vendor having more then 1 spell-cast worth of reagents in stock in case you need more then 1-casts worth (or you ever need to go back to restock) so it would be an advantage for the buyer to haggle upwards. Of course, a Paradox also exists in that the seller still has every reason to haggle the price upwards since the less rubies constitute 500g worth of rubies the more sells he can make, so pretty soon they'll both get to the point where a molecule of rubies is worth 500g, and every merchant who happens to have even a sliver of ruby in stock becomes rich every time casters come by in need of spell reagents.

[John Cribati]

Expensive Magical Components. The only time when haggling to raise the price works in the buyer's favor.
But then again, why pay 5000gp for a small diamond, for example, when you could pay the same for a bigass diamond?

[Aldrakan]

But then again, why pay 5000gp for a small diamond, for example, when you could pay the same for a bigass diamond?

Well it's only worth one spell no matter how big it is, and it'd be less convenient to carry around. A smaller one would be like concentrated laundry detergent. Not to mention that a giant diamond is harder to conceal and more attractive to thieves than a tiny one.

[sdream]

There'd be an easy way to explain the whole insanity of this -- if there existed a simple spell that transformed a set amount of rubies/diamonds/etc to a set amount of GP and vice-versa.

In that case prices might fluctuate for *other* materials, but not for these -- even if the value of the GP fluctuated for other commodities, the diamonds/rubies would fluctuate in an exactly identical manner -- same way that a dollar is always worth 100 cents.



Your mistake isn't in your belief that the worth of the rubies remains static -- you're absolutely correct on that. it's in your belief that the worth of the GPs remains static.

As a currency, it's not worth anything except in how much commodities it allows you to buy -- and so the worth of the GPs fluctuates if you can buy more or less things with them.

Yup. One word. Alchemy.

If there is a glut of one type of gem or metal on the market that reduces it's value, they just convert the excess to more valuable (read, more relatively in demand) jewels of metals following the alchemical ratios.

The gems are not specified, but anyone can tell from the PHB that 100 pounds of copper can be transmuted easily into 10 pounds of silver, and that 10 pounds of silver can be easily transmuted into 1 pound of gold. :)

[Zeful]

So, simply saying "50 grams of rubies" is too confusing for countries with Imperial systems? :smallconfused:

They actually have listed weights for regents of a couple of spells, but they tend to ruin it by placing costs directly afterward. One spell has a pound of silver worth I think, 500 gold or something. Gold coins are 50 to the pound so logically a 1 pound bar of gold should be 50 gold. Silver coins are 1/10 that price (while presumably the same weight, but it really doesn't matter), but 1 pound of silver is worth ten pounds of gold? Silver coins are more useful if you file them down into dust and sell that rather than use them for currency.

[Manachu Boy]

I missed the word 'logic' upon speed-reading this thread title. Ultimately I think the whole concept of being struck in the head by a refridgerator upon reading a webcomic is funnier than the actual definition of 'fridge logic'. ^_^

[Doug Lampert]

Not really... you'd still have to pay just as much for the merch due to the requirements of the spell, but if you haggled to raise the price per ruby, you wind up with fewer rubies for your money.

Just have the party rogue collect a commission for directing such an amazing sucker to this merchant.

Alternately, suppose you already have one component and then try the following. "So now that we've established that that single small, badly flawed, ruby is worth 500 GP since multiple spellcasters needing a ruby worth 500 GP will pay that much, how much is this larger, finer ruby that I got a week ago worth given that you can smash it into three smaller stones each beter than that one."

"Hmm, must be worth at least 1500 GP."

"Fine, I'll give it to you for half price, as is traditional for adventurers, and take 250 GP and that other ruby for this fine one."

Merchant considers: That stone is only actually worth 500 GP, but he's selling it for 250 GP + this 10 GP chip. "Friend you drive a hard bargain, it's a deal."

The component cost system breaks down unless you assume that the values have some intrinsic meaning beyond "what this wizard is willing to pay". In fact the DMG discussion of Gem and Jewlery values treats the sale and purchase price as being identical for such items (unlike most things where you sell for half value), and this really makes sense only for currency and common commodity goods, terms that don't really apply to gems in our world.

But if you treat gems as currency/commodity like in price structure then saying X GP worth of gems is in fact a specific amount, and a specific particular bargain can't change that amount. In any case if an apprentice wizard can haggle a merchant down to 400 GP it probably wasn't 500 GP worth of rubies in the first place.

[Prowl]

I'm not quite sure how this qualifies as "fridge logic", it's just a play on ways to interpret what a gp worth of something actually is.

This actually contradicts the strip where V volunteers to go to the Plane of Earth to get a diamond for Roy's ressurection. Either the value of the components is based on what is actually paid, or it is based on the fair market value, or on some other standard. The ressurection strip implies that it is fair market value, while this strip is fairly explicit that it is actual-gp-paid.

But who cares? It was a funny little aside, so leave it be.

[veti]

As an aside: gemstone weights should be given in carats, not grams. A gram is 5 carats, which is already a seriously large stone - in the case of a ruby, it might easily be worth $10,000 in our money.

A 50g ruby, if it's as high-quality as the ones we see in the strip, would be quite something. If you happen to find one, please send it to me and I'll get it properly valued for you...

[Acero]

its joke. get over it

[Zeful]

As an aside: gemstone weights should be given in carats, not grams. A gram is 5 carats, which is already a seriously large stone - in the case of a ruby, it might easily be worth $10,000 in our money.

A 50g ruby, if it's as high-quality as the ones we see in the strip, would be quite something. If you happen to find one, please send it to me and I'll get it properly valued for you...

Except I have no idea what a 1-5 carat stone looks like, so a universal weight is probably more easily understood, even if it's a little ridiculous.

[Avilan the Grey]

I have not read PHB or DMG in a long time, and never the 4e at all, but wasn't there a line somewhere that stated that "prices might vary depending on local conditions" or something like that? Or am I thinking of another game?

[Ozymandias9]

"What someone is willing to pay" isn't a definition that works. The individual someone you happen to pick to define value can be willing to pay only a pittance, or can be dumb enough to offer way too much.

Actually, its the only definition that works from a microeconomic standpoint. The maximum an individual is willing to pay for a good must become the definition of what that good is worth to them. If they expect to be able to sell it for more, then they will be willing to pay more.

What you're talking about is market price, which is kinda like "average worth", but not really. Market price would, however, be a less troubling option for components than worth.

[kpenguin]

"What someone is willing to pay" isn't a definition that works. The individual someone you happen to pick to define value can be willing to pay only a pittance, or can be dumb enough to offer way too much.

The definition of value is way broader and doesn't rely on only one individual but instead some kind of open market.

Value = "The amount (of money or goods or services) that is considered to be a fair equivalent for something else"

I assume you can see how "amount that is [generally] considered to be a fair equivalent [by a larger pool of people]" is different from "amount that [one particular] someone is willing to pay".

There is nothing to suggest that value is limited to only what is agreed upon by a large group.

Each individual will value each individual product differently or, by your definition, consider different amounts of money or goods or services to be fair equivalents to the product.

Taking a ruby, for example, one might take the value by how much effort was placed into producing it. Another might value it by satisfies needs and wants. In both systems, there will be disagreements on the exact amount of either labor or satisfaction.

If people were to not value things differently, trade would be rather redundant. We trade because we believe we value what we are receiving more than what we are getting. If it were the opposite, then we would not trade, and the values were the same, there would be no difference between trading or keeping what we already have.

If I buy a water bottle for two dollars, it is because I value having the water bottle more than I value having two dollars. If I sell a water bottle for two dollars, it is because I value having two dollars more than I value having the water bottle. There will be factors influencing my decision either way that tip the balance in either direction (whether I am thirsty, how immediate I want my thirst quenched, what else I can get for two dollars, how immediate I can get those other things, etc.)

If we describe value only by your understanding of it being the decision of a group, then we lose out on this understanding of how we act as individual economic actors.


its joke. get over it

If this discussion is causing you distress, than I advise you to read a different thread. Simply because you do not see the point in discussing seriously the implications of a joke does not mean that we feel similarly nor does it require you to demand that we "get over it"

[spectralphoenix]

The D&D rules are vague - the description simply says "100 gp worth of X" and leaves it at that. The assumption is generally that that means "A defined quantity of X that generally sells for 100 gp on the open market."

Now depending on how you read that, then sure, you can get strange results. The absurdity that results from certain interpretations of the rule is the entire point of the joke (and no, the Giant didn't invent that interpretation, people have been discussing that sort of thing on the WotC boards for ages.)

[Zeful]

I have not read PHB or DMG in a long time, and never the 4e at all, but wasn't there a line somewhere that stated that "prices might vary depending on local conditions" or something like that? Or am I thinking of another game?

Yes, but the examples it lists are transient. So the "local conditions" won't last forever, and everything falls back to the norm.

[Doug Lampert]

The D&D rules are vague - the description simply says "100 gp worth of X" and leaves it at that. The assumption is generally that that means "A defined quantity of X that generally sells for 100 gp on the open market."

And in fact Gems and Jewlery are defined in the DMG to have a fixed price which is the same for both sale and purchase, and you can sell one anywhere that it's below the GP limit (i.e. basically anywhere where someone has enough spare cash to buy it or where there's anything for sale as expensive or more expensive than it is).

D&D gems are treated as exactly the same as currency except with a different name and wierd denominations. Seriously.

In the rules talking about 500 GP of rubies is no more ambiguous than talking about 500 GP of GP. The problem is that this doesn't even come CLOSE to matching the real world where gems have a large difference in retail and wholesale and resale prices and where the value of a gem is open to some debate and varies over time.

[warrl]

There is nothing to suggest that value is limited to only what is agreed upon by a large group.
In fact, value CANNOT be limited to only what is agreed upon by a large group.

If it were so limited, there would be no trade.

You buy something because you value *it* more than you value the price being charged. On the other hand, the seller sells it because he values the price more than the item. If even the two of you agreed on the value of the item, either (a) one of you would refuse to take part in the transaction or (b) neither of you would have any reason to bother with the transaction.

[BloodSquirrel]

"What someone is willing to pay" isn't a definition that works. The individual someone you happen to pick to define value can be willing to pay only a pittance, or can be dumb enough to offer way too much.

The definition of value is way broader and doesn't rely on only one individual but instead some kind of open market.

Value = "The amount (of money or goods or services) that is considered to be a fair equivalent for something else"

I assume you can see how "amount that is [generally] considered to be a fair equivalent [by a larger pool of people]" is different from "amount that [one particular] someone is willing to pay".

Actually, that's not true. In economics, the value of something is considered to be variable from individual to individual. That's why we have demand curves- because there is no "amount that is generally considered to be a fair equivalent by a larger pool of people".

[Bibliomancer]

Actually, that's not true. In economics, the value of something is considered to be variable from individual to individual. That's why we have demand curves- because there is no "amount that is generally considered to be a fair equivalent by a larger pool of people".

Exactly. Also, since cost is what the market supports (ie the price at which the service can be provided profitably and still sold frequently enough to provide a decent amount of revenue), this implies that in areas where rubies aren't sold (like the wilderness) the value becomes dependent on the cost of transportation, thus making certain spells uncastable beyond a certain distance from urban areas.