PDA

View Full Version : Macroeconomics in a D&D-like world



CalamaroJoe
2011-03-31, 04:00 AM
Threads on economics in D&D, and on how much the different prices are broken, are quite common. In my group this is not a big issue, we can go with the slight degree of verisimilitude that RAW have: the PC pay the listed price, get all the treasure they can find, and so on.
So, let's suppose for the sake of discussion that the sytem is in equilibrium :smallwink:

What will happen when an individual or group pours in the world great amounts of money of extraordinary origin? I suppose that this can change the prices and the politics (merchants, guilds, ...) quite a lot.
Maybe the Playgrounders more expert in economics can tell me.

Autolykos
2011-03-31, 05:02 AM
Actually, it's rather simple: If you have more money for the same amount of goods, you have inflation.
Note that this only decreases the value for the goods the PCs found. If that dragon hoard mainly consisted of gold coins, a gold coin might only be worth maybe 5 silver (or only 2). Also, it's important to know that D&Ds Economy is not very well connected. So, rather than a small inflation in the whole world, you'll have HUGE inflation in the city the PCs decide to bring their gold - which causes a lot of people to "lose" their savings. So PCs bringing lots of gold to a city might actually be less than welcome.
If you want a quick-and-easy formula:
Let G be the amount of gold in the city before the PCs arrived and H the amount of gold in the dragon hoard the PCs found. Then the actual value of a gp in the city would be G/(G+H) gp. However, it might take the inhabitants some time to realize this, giving the PCs time to buy stuff for the old prices.
Also, prices set by law might not be uncommon in medieval societies (especially for things like bread, to prevent civil unrest). So you can expect, in this example, the baker's guild to be quite mad at the PCs...
EDIT: Another thing to keep in mind are the ruler's reactions. If he has a well-stocked treasury, he'll probably try everything to keep you from leaving any gold in his city. If he has debts to the merchants guild, he might like what you're doing, but the merchants will be not amused. In any case, the PCs are messing with the people who practically own the city - which is rarely a good idea.
Disclaimer: I don't have a degree in economics and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-31, 02:18 PM
What will happen when an individual or group pours in the world great amounts of money of extraordinary origin? I suppose that this can change the prices and the politics (merchants, guilds, ...) quite a lot.
Maybe the Playgrounders more expert in economics can tell me.
The first thing to ask is what does "pouring money" into a system means.
If the PCs are simply buying goods and services, then eventually you run out of available goods and services. People don't have huge stockpiles of goods when everything is handmade and there is a finite amount of time for people to devote to services. Barring magical assistance (e.g. fast transport, instant fabrication) the PCs will run out of things to buy before they run out of money.

The effect on the local economy depends a lot on how quickly the money can be dispersed. If it is "dumped" into closed economy, you get rapid inflation - everyone has more gold and fewer things, so things are dearer and gold is devalued. Otherwise, while you will get local price spikes they will decrease as the gold is used to buy things from faraway lands. Again, with magical assistance all the "excess" gold will be converted into goods & services purchased from afar - no problem.

Additionally, if the PCs dump the gold onto wealthy people (e.g. wizards, kings) they may simply sock it away in a vault rather than spend it. It can be very hard to "scale up" consumption in a medieval environment so it will make more sense to let it sit in a vault until you need it.
In truth, the key to running a "realistic" economy is to focus on scarcity. Neither goods nor time and limitless and every individual (and collection of individuals) only has so much on hand at any given time. Things which are not scarce are not valuable which makes them irrelevant to the creation of an economic system. A related fact is that things are only "scarce" if they are in demand; you always have "enough" of things you don't need. Demand is what drives trade, so it is best to construct economies in which goods flow to where they are demanded.

The actual impact of PCs on any given economy is likely to be minimal. At most they buy up all the loose goods available and still have money lying around. Any money they throw into a community will either be traded for useful goods and services or sat on until said goods & services become available or needed.

Terumitsu
2011-03-31, 02:22 PM
If one thinks about it for a moment, though, there are charts in the DMG which limit how much one can buy/sell in a certain sized community. This in and of itself would suggest the upper limits of how much gold can move around said community without causing major economic disruptions. The larger the community, the more gold.

Yora
2011-03-31, 02:27 PM
While you experience a short time inflation within the city, it's not as if the people are going to keep all the shiny coins within the city walls. Inside the city, you now have to pay 1 gold coin for a bread.
But in the nearby villages, they will still give you a lot more for that same gold coin, so you'll probably see a masive rise in imports of now extremely cheap luxury goods and other crafted items.
But nobody will want to buy things from the city now with those prices in place, and the people in the city will very soon run out of money. You probably end up with a huge spike in inflation which will then go back down to a level slightly above what it was before.
Since you're paying in gold, and gold is accepted as money everywhere, that amount of additional gold will eventually spread over all the world, in a more or less even way.

gbprime
2011-03-31, 02:34 PM
If one thinks about it for a moment, though, there are charts in the DMG which limit how much one can buy/sell in a certain sized community. This in and of itself would suggest the upper limits of how much gold can move around said community without causing major economic disruptions. The larger the community, the more gold.

Just something I thought should be said.

This is exactly the guideline I use. The PC's can only dump that much into a given location before something happens to supply or prices. It resets slowly, but over the scope of campaign time, they will often tap a town out for a long time. After that point, it's up to me as the DM what happens, but they generally get less for their money until they move on (very true for buying goods, less true for buying services).

This also means that at high levels, the PC's easily have the means to top out the economy of pretty much any city they go to. But for high level characters, going to many cities or exotic ones like the City of Brass is an option that allows them to keep spending with a touch of realism.

TheCountAlucard
2011-03-31, 02:55 PM
This thread is in major need of the Economicon. :smallfrown:

gbprime
2011-03-31, 03:03 PM
This thread is in major need of the Economicon. :smallfrown:

Remember, as a DM it doesn't have to be perfect. It's good enough that there is an appropriate economic impact in the first place. After all, your players only care about how much they can sell the +2 sword for, whether the local wizard is selling spells and what his price is, and if they can find a set of Adamantine lockpicks.

So don't over-think it. :smallbiggrin:

jseah
2011-03-31, 04:21 PM
After all, your players only care about how much they can sell the +2 sword for, whether the local wizard is selling spells and what his price is, and if they can find a set of Adamantine lockpicks.

So don't over-think it. :smallbiggrin:
You'd be surprised.

I've ran a game where the players immediately worked out the broader repercussions of a specific new magical item I inserted into the game world. (That some NPCs had built, and were planning to build more)

Specifically, it was a giant flywheel that kept spinning and was used to drive a few cotton mills. At the point they met it, it was still a test project and didn't do anything strange (besides breaking often and generating a number of miniquests)

Although I did give them a hint in the way it was presented (as a plot point), but they did work out that a price crash in textiles was about to happen and ALOT of weavers were going to be out of a job.

EDIT:
Then again, it was also a game where a PC was a full-time merchant who had his own private cargo ship and another PC was a journeyman blacksmith. I think another was a shady businessman out for a quick buck, being used by nobles to attempt establishing a cotton monopoly.

So it was not a normal game. Spent alot of time making craft(blacksmith) checks and gather information.

MickJay
2011-03-31, 07:19 PM
Specifically, it was a giant flywheel that kept spinning and was used to drive a few cotton mills. At the point they met it, it was still a test project and didn't do anything strange (besides breaking often and generating a number of miniquests)

Although I did give them a hint in the way it was presented (as a plot point), but they did work out that a price crash in textiles was about to happen and ALOT of weavers were going to be out of a job.

That's not exactly surprising, since that's pretty much what happened during the industrial evolution - except that here you have magic instead of steam power. The next logical step is to have a crowd of weavers trying to break the wheel and lynch its creator, and possibly some socialists turning up. :smalltongue:

ffone
2011-04-01, 02:51 AM
Baldur's Gate II had a subplot about this - a merchant band of a few djinnis set up tent by a small city, apparently buying up a lot of stuff with gold, and the human NPC citizens are complaining about the gp inflation.

Interestingly, the game actually had 'illiquidity' built into its shopkeeping system: if you sold off a lot of one type of treasure, the gp you'd get for selling more decreases. Although IIRC it was rather primitive; binary based on whether you'd sold off any of Item X at all.

The solution, of course, was to hoard items and then sell off all your items of type X at once. Which in real economics is probably the *worst* way to mitigate illiquidity - like why rich guys try to slowly buy or sell a bunch of one stock. But at least they tried.

CalamaroJoe
2011-04-01, 04:25 AM
Thanks everybody for the insights. I was thinking something along the lines of inflation, bat you all explained it very well.


The first thing to ask is what does "pouring money" into a system means.

For my campaign it's a Bad Guy that attract followers and gains services paying high amounts of money that he obtained (as expected :smallwink:) by macical means.
It's a try to mess up a bit with things, disregarding the guidelines for base wealth and standard trasures and change a bit the champaign world. Maybe I can call it "increase the CR with the use of money".

Yora
2011-04-01, 05:11 AM
Macroeconomics in D&D are like toilets in Star Trek. It has to be somewhere, but there's no need to have it come up in the interaction between GM and players.

Baldur's Gate II had a subplot about this - a merchant band of a few djinnis set up tent by a small city, apparently buying up a lot of stuff with gold, and the human NPC citizens are complaining about the gp inflation.
I think the merchants complained about being pushed out of the market because the djinns sold at dumping prices.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-01, 01:09 PM
For my campaign it's a Bad Guy that attract followers and gains services paying high amounts of money that he obtained (as expected :smallwink:) by macical means.
It's a try to mess up a bit with things, disregarding the guidelines for base wealth and standard trasures and change a bit the champaign world. Maybe I can call it "increase the CR with the use of money".
Well... have fun with that, I guess. Again, overpaying for services does not instantly result in inflation unless you overpay enough that the global supply of money is significantly increased.

If your BBEG is hanging around in one area printing money then you should expect a lot of people to congregate there. Folks looking for high wages and merchants seeking new business opportunities are sure to travel to any person who is doling out the big bucks. If he's traveling around then he's unlikely to produce significant inflation anywhere.

gbprime
2011-04-01, 01:10 PM
Macroeconomics in D&D are like toilets in Star Trek. It has to be somewhere, but there's no need to have it come up in the interaction between GM and players.

Now THAT is a quote! :smallamused:

Ravens_cry
2011-04-01, 02:10 PM
Yes, but what if you want to play the Heroic Merchant archetype? Bringing home caholds full of silks and spices, travelling across desolate deserts inhabited only by ghosts and bandits? What of the ancient art of haggling? Kind of hard to do when by the default things are the same price everywhere. Sure, the DMG describes how prices fluctuate when adventurers plunk masses of gold onto the market, but it doesn't really give any tools for adjudicating this. This is something I have often wanted to try in, say, an Arabian Nights style campaign.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-01, 04:15 PM
Yes, but what if you want to play the Heroic Merchant archetype? Bringing home caholds full of silks and spices, travelling across desolate deserts inhabited only by ghosts and bandits? What of the ancient art of haggling? Kind of hard to do when by the default things are the same price everywhere. Sure, the DMG describes how prices fluctuate when adventurers plunk masses of gold onto the market, but it doesn't really give any tools for adjudicating this. This is something I have often wanted to try in, say, an Arabian Nights style campaign.
I'd suggest playing Burning Wheel instead. D&D isn't the best system for everything :smalltongue:

Or you can abstract the "merchant" part by having quests that involve trading wood for sheep across the Forbidden Zone. You don't need to focus on the actual profit & reinvestment from those quests; just wear your laurels and look for the next hook.

Yora
2011-04-01, 04:18 PM
Now THAT is a quote! :smallamused:

I got a series of enigmatic PMs about slash fiction for it that I never got explained. :smalleek:

Knaight
2011-04-01, 04:35 PM
I'd suggest playing Burning Wheel instead.
You seem to do this often. I approve.

jseah
2011-04-01, 04:37 PM
That's not exactly surprising, since that's pretty much what happened during the industrial evolution - except that here you have magic instead of steam power. The next logical step is to have a crowd of weavers trying to break the wheel and lynch its creator, and possibly some socialists turning up. :smalltongue:
Well, I essentially was going to have them deal with a riot. (especially once wheat farmers swapped to cotton to meet demand) Them solving the problem would require alot of politicking and some intuitive understanding of macroeconomics.
And yes, it was very obvious to anyone who knows even a little bit of history.

But I was responding to a claim that players don't think about the world too much. They do think about the world.

As a player, I tend to think too much about the wider setting that I lose focus on the immediate combat needs of my character.

Ravens_cry
2011-04-02, 08:34 AM
I'd suggest playing Burning Wheel instead. D&D isn't the best system for everything :smalltongue:
No, buit this is a fairly common fantasy archytype, at least in myth and legend.


Or you can abstract the "merchant" part by having quests that involve trading wood for sheep across the Forbidden Zone. You don't need to focus on the actual profit & reinvestment from those quests; just wear your laurels and look for the next hook.
I guess, but I also want this to be a source of income for this charachter. I don't want to just say "I'm a merchant!" I want my charachter to be a merchant, the haggling and everything.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-02, 02:10 PM
No, buit this is a fairly common fantasy archytype, at least in myth and legend.
My point still stands.

D&D is very good for Heroic Fantasy that involves entering dungeons and slaying dragons. It does less well for Fantasy stories that involve high court intrigue, realistic depictions of trade, and the intricacies of basket-weaving. Admittedly, Burning Wheel doesn't do so well with those kinds of Simulationism but it certainly does it better than any edition of D&D.

Ravens_cry
2011-04-03, 04:08 AM
Here's the kicker. I don't play Burning Wheel. None of the group I play in plays Burning Wheel. A system, even if I learned, I couldn't play because I have no one to play with is unfortunately not the solution to my problem. There probably is no solution within those constraints, I am just saying I wish there was, think there should be, and am just grousing about such. I have heard it is good system, especially on Fear the Boot podcasts, but unfortunately, I do not play it and have no one to play it with if I did.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-03, 12:22 PM
Here's the kicker. I don't play Burning Wheel. None of the group I play in plays Burning Wheel. A system, even if I learned, I couldn't play because I have no one to play with is unfortunately not the solution to my problem. There probably is no solution within those constraints, I am just saying I wish there was, think there should be, and am just grousing about such. I have heard it is good system, especially on Fear the Boot podcasts, but unfortunately, I do not play it and have no one to play it with if I did.
Have you tried:

(1) Buying a copy of Burning Wheel and learning the rules?
(2) Introducing your friends to Burning Wheel and teaching them the rules?

I mean, this is how I always introduced my friends to new systems - and, in turn, was introduced to new systems. Someone would pick up a new gaming book, read it over, and run a one-shot or short-run campaign with it. If it was fun, maybe someone else would run another one. If not, then we'd go back to playing whatever we're playing.

And this was back in the day when you could only find new game systems in brick 'n mortar stores. Now you can order right over the Internet - and even get detailed reviews on various RPGs without having to pick them up.

IMHO, there is no reason to bind yourself to a single system. There are so many systems out there and they're good for different types of game. The rules are generally easy to learn and variety is the spice of life.

So yeah. Perhaps learning and disseminating a new system is the best solution for this problem.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-04, 01:05 PM
I have a question, and I hope I can get it here...

My friend has created a campaign, and we were wondering about how the economics would work in it.

The world consists of seven cities and the surrounding landscape is covered in demons. Not literally, but if one exits the confines of the city, the likelihood of encountering randomly appearing demon hordes increases exponentially the farther away you go.
One city is the magic city. They believe magic is the answer to everything.
The other city is a divine city. They cite the demons as the displeasure of the gods and see religion as an answer.
The warrior city is filled with warriors and mercs and the best fighters.
There is a thieves city controlled by the Guild.
There is a technologically advanced city that sees technology as the answer.
A merchant city where commerce is of utmost importance.
There is finally a mining city.

My theory:
Everyone exports and imports in order to make money. For example:
The fighter's city has the best training schools for warriors, and trains the so-inclined from other cities. They also export mercenaries and guards as the other cities need them.
It has been known for VERY WELL-PREPARED ARMIES to march from one city to another with significant losses.
For weapons, they import metal from the mining city and divine and/or arcane magic from wizard and cleric cities. From there, they can export those final magic weapons to anyone who needs them.

It works the other way around too.

Within the cities, there are different ways the cities avoid being scammed by the others, particularly the merchants.
For example, in the magic city...
A merchant from the merchant city arrives.
He pays for teleportation inside, and is taxed for it.
He purchases goods, and pays taxes for it.
The goods he buys are magical, and so he is taxed again.
Unfortunately, 'laws' forbid the teleportation of wooden objects and storage materials in order to avoid corrupting the delicate corridors of magic, so he has to buy transportation. That isn't taxed-forests are practically nonexistent, so wood is rare, and taxing it would be ungodly unfair.
So, the merchant loads up his wagons, and prepares to leave.
Finally, there is a visible fare and tax for taking wood and magical items outside of the city.
The merchant isn't mad though-he knows he can make a 200% profit selling these in any other city, and additional 50% in his home city for brining merchandise and capital back there.
Everyone is happy.

So. I think it could work.
My second theory is a little more iffy.
I think inevitably, war between these cities would become a norm and a final cycle of decay that would lead to the end.

For example, the thieves city will be unable to keep preying on itself, and so it would have to begin establishing work in the other cities, from intelligence to actual pickpocketing. And if one is already in the place to spy upon the head wizards, one may as well simply take the city, and hold it anyways.
The fighter city already has the arms, and would actually benefit from a war economy. Same with the mining city. And every city would buy soldiers and mercs from the war city, which could field its own army.
The wizards and the clerics would benefit from having utter control over all arcane and/or divine artefacts over which they claim domain. And the cleric city has the whole 'mandate of heaven' thing going for them.
The tech city is a little iffy... I'm thinking they'd be a lesser factor, similar to the fighter and mining cities.

So in short, what happens when the market consists of seven distinct and separate monopolies that all do trade with one another? Is open warfare the final binding economic option?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-04, 01:30 PM
Everyone exports and imports in order to make money.
This is incorrect.

People trade to get needed goods and services. Money is a convenient way to purchase these goods & services from others.

Detailed Analysis
What you have here are seven cities with no visible means of support. If the surrounding landscape is filled with demons there cannot be farmers or herders and therefore no significant food production. Cities are generally poor locations for farming (limited space, dense human pollution) so everyone should be on the verge of starvation.

Well, except for the Arcane and Divine cities. They can, presumably, create food & water somehow. And probably other raw materials as well. These two are self-sufficient producers of the one thing everyone else needs; therefore they have tremendous power.

Also, these two cities are effectively immune to attack from any of the other cities. If mundane armies walking the Wasteland are ensured to get hit by demon raids then any army sent to take down these cities is going to get chewed up on the way there. This gives the defenders an inherent advantage in addition to those granted by fortifications. As a corollary, note that the Arcane City (with teleportation) has a significant military advantage in its ability to deliver forces across the Wastelands without exposure to demonic predations.

Now, self-sufficient civilizations don't need to do trade, so they aren't likely to do so except for luxuries. The one city that might trade is Technology City because a sufficiently advanced technological city might be able to be self-sufficient for food & water. However, technology always needs raw materials to function, which means they are going to need something from somewhere to maintain their status. Their natural ally is the Mining City - but since the mines are so valuable (to someone), Mining City is a natural target for attack. Technology City is likely to annex Mining City rather than risk it falling into enemy hands.
As a result, you have a power hierarchy as follows:

(1) Arcane City : self-sufficient, significant military advantage. They could rule the world - but why bother?

(2) Divine City : self-sufficient. As long as they don't piss off Arcane City too bad, they're fine.

(3) Technology City : if sufficiently advanced, almost self-sufficient. Still needs resources to come from somewhere, though.

(4) Mining City : at the very least, they produce something somebody needs. However, likely to be taken over by Technology City (out of need) or Arcane City (for the lulz).

(5) Thief City : If Thief City is good enough at stealing magic/technology, they can be self-sufficient. However, they are likely to raise the ire of more powerful civilizations. Risky.

(6) Warrior City : They suck, but at least they can kill merchants and take their stuff. Unlikely to be sustainable as a city, but at least they're better off than...

(7) Merchant City : They can't fight, they can't steal, and nobody needs them. At best they can be a "neutral place" Thieves and Warriors to hang out.

* * * *
TLDR : nobody has a reason to trade and trade is really dangerous. There is no inter-city economy.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-04, 01:42 PM
What you have here are seven cities with no visible means of support. If the surrounding landscape is filled with demons there cannot be farmers or herders and therefore no significant food production.
Oh sorry, I forgot to mention populations have been reduced.
The arcane city is practically empty considering its size, with stretches of housing converted to farming spaces and places for animals.
And the military city, with a population in the millions is even more empty relatively.
Each city can produce its own food.

The way we figured is that the skills, rather than the goods would be what's traded.

But now that you mention it, it seems unlikely the merchants would be even allowed to exist.
:smallwink:

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-04, 02:03 PM
Oh sorry, I forgot to mention populations have been reduced.
The arcane city is practically empty considering its size, with stretches of housing converted to farming spaces and places for animals.
And the military city, with a population in the millions is even more empty relatively.
Each city can produce its own food.

The way we figured is that the skills, rather than the goods would be what's traded.

But now that you mention it, it seems unlikely the merchants would be even allowed to exist.
:smallwink:
So... why would anyone trade? How do these limited-population cities fend off the demons? :smallconfused:

* * * *
OK, we're getting ahead of ourselves. Here's what you need to answer before trying to set up a "realistic" economy:

(1) How do these people survive? Is there anything they need to survive that they lack?
In this case we have food, water, and Defense Against Demons ("DAD"). It looks like all the cities operate on a closed economy in terms of food & water, so we're good here. In terms of DAD, I have to assume that the cities themselves are inherently protected against Demons somehow; otherwise there is no way that small populations could secure a large fortification against limitless demon armies.

(2) If a people need something to survive and don't have it, why do they live where they are?
In a normal economy, this is because they can produce something that someone else wants - and will pay to get it. People live on dangerous frontiers where they need to import all their food, water and tools because those frontiers are filled with valuable goods that are non-existent elsewhere. By figuring this out now, you can start figuring out who is producing valuable things and who else would need them.

In your world, everywhere is a "dangerous frontier." There is absolutely no reason for people to live in the middle of a demonic wasteland in order to be subsistence farmers. Now, if the whole world is a demonic wasteland then people can only afford to live places where they're safe from demons - which is why I assumed the cities were inherently safe for some reason.

(3) What do these people produce really well? Who else would like to have it?
Once you move beyond a bare subsistence economy, you start looking at "luxuries" - goods not essential to survival, but nice to have. Tools, fine clothes, even military might can fit the bill. When you produce something much better than other people do, you have something known as a Comparative Advantage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage); Comparative Advantage is what drives trade in all goods, but particularly for non-essential goods. Nobody goes to war over fine clothing; people do fight and die to secure the things they need to survive.

In your world, you have a lot of "nice things" but they're things that nobody needs; or more accurately, some people have all the "nice things" and other people don't. Your Magic & Technology people don't want warriors or thieves, and they certainly don't need merchants. Technology City does want Resources (from Mining City) but everyone knows that. Why would they leave Mining City to govern itself when that might mean that Warriors or Thieves would take it over so that they'd have some leverage in the world? Better to just take it over yourself.

Once you answer these questions, you can start figuring out how the economy is supposed to work. As it is, there is no reason for an inter-city economy to exist at all in your world.

EDIT: OK, for kicks here's a nice outline for building this world. It probably contradicts stuff you've thought up already (but haven't communicated) but this will set up the skeleton for a "realistic" world with all seven cities.

The most powerful nation in the world is Kadabrah, a combine of Arcane City and Warrior City. As noted, Arcane City has a tremendous advantage in the Wasteland but lacks a population. Warrior City has quite an advantage in manpower but can't use it on anyone without suffering attacks from Demons. Here's a neat nexus of interest - Arcane City has power, but not enough men to use it; Warrior City has plenty of men, but no spare power. Warrior City therefore pledges itself to be a Slave City for Arcane City and thus form the nation of Kadabrah. Arcane City serves as the government and directs the external affairs of the nation; Warrior City has domestic autonomy but fights wherever Arcane City directs (and teleports them). To this end, they act mostly as slavers and breed domestic slaves to make Arcane City life more luxurious. Nobody else likes Kadabrah much, and everyone fears them.

The second most powerful nation is The League of Science. It started out as an alliance between Tech City and Mining City in which Tech City provided technology in exchange for resources from Mining City. They had a pact of mutual defense in the face of the threat of Kadabrah and it is only due to the superior weapons technology of Tech City that these two cities survived for any period of time. Over time, these cities were approached by Thief City that offered their service as spies and saboteurs in exchange for the technology and protection of Tech City. Thus was The League formed and, after one particularly violent conflict between The League and the aggressors of Kadabrah, the two nations reached terms of peace and established the treaty city of Merchant City where people of all nations are allowed to mingle without fear of war. Merchant City thus became a nexus of trade and intrigue - which was better than their previous life of being a favored slaving target of Kadabrah.

The third power is Divine City. They are as powerful as Arcane City was on its own, but lacked the offensive abilities to expand. Additionally, their rigid code makes them unpalatable allies for either Kadabrah (whose slavery and magic is abhorrent) or The League (whose allies are... suspect) so they stand alone in the Wasteland. Singularly powerful but unable to do anything with it.
In this setting most of the action takes place in Treaty City (formerly Merchant City) where magic and technology would mix (thanks to agents of Thief City) and needs of intrigue result in all sorts of deals being made.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-04, 02:13 PM
Once you answer these questions, you can start figuring out how the economy is supposed to work. As it is, there is no reason for an inter-city economy to exist at all in your world.
Okay, that all makes a lot of sense.
So, what's needed?
Based on what you've said, something has to be taken away from the individual cities to make them more dependent...
But we don't want them to lose their distinct 'feels'.

And, each city's foundation is warded so the demons can't appear or enter without specific wards to cancel them. So, the wizards can cast summoning spells within the cities if they're prepared. Outside the city limits its a free for all.

Would adding smaller communities or cities change anything? Liek there are the major cities, with individual smaller nation states claiming allegiance to them? They would have varying needs to be supplied and in some cases things they could offer.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-04, 02:28 PM
Would adding smaller communities or cities change anything? Liek there are the major cities, with individual smaller nation states claiming allegiance to them? They would have varying needs to be supplied and in some cases things they could offer.
Smaller communities should just get eaten by demons. You've already established that the big, safe cities are underpopulated - why would you want to live anywhere else?

Either you can use the setting I cooked up in the edit to my previous post (which I encourage) or you're going to need to make the world less-threatening. As long as trade is ridiculously dangerous, nobody is going to expend the resources to do it.

An easy fix is to introduce Precursors (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Precursors) who set up Gateways that connect all the cities that come with Guardians that prevent "violent men" from traveling through them. Now trade is easy but war is still hard; people will trade whatever random luxuries the cities produce because they can. In fact, if you make the Merchant City the hub of the portal network (i.e. each City has a portal to Merchant City and the Guardians prevent anyone from doing violence in it) then you can still have your Merchant City.

Personally, I don't like using such blunt instruments to create worlds, but YMMV :smallsmile:

Tvtyrant
2011-04-04, 02:30 PM
If you dumped a gigantic amount of gold into a region that way the region would be very low on resources from temporarily overvaluing the gold and would be forced to quickly spend most of it to restore resource equilibrium, which would drain resources from the surrounding area but because of the wide interaction area would drain less resources than the immediate dump. The net result of this would be that merchants selling to the now resource depleted area would become extremely wealthy and the area would probably become a city in short order. Examples of this can be seen in early modern spain where the gold and silver influx originally made the cities very wealthy but also resource scarce because all goods were bought by those with gold. The populations of the cities involved with the mineral wealth sky rocketed and then plummeted as the gold ended up being used to pay off loans to Genoa and stopped flowing through the city.

There were also massive inflation problems that only really became problems once the gold supply dwindled and goods remained high priced.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-04, 02:34 PM
Smaller communities should just get eaten by demons. You've already established that the big, safe cities are underpopulated - why would you want to live anywhere else?
Damn, good point. Even if those villages had the same wardings, moving to another city would still be better...


Either you can use the setting I cooked up in the edit to my previous post (which I encourage) or you're going to need to make the world less-threatening. As long as trade is ridiculously dangerous, nobody is going to expend the resources to do it.

An easy fix is to introduce Precursors who set up Gateways that connect all the cities that come with Guardians that prevent "violent men" from traveling through them. Now trade is easy but war is still hard; people will trade whatever random luxuries the cities produce because they can. In fact, if you make the Merchant City the hub of the portal network (i.e. each City has a portal to Merchant City and the Guardians prevent anyone from doing violence in it) then you can still have your Merchant City.

Personally, I don't like using such blunt instruments to create worlds, but YMMV


EDIT: OK, for kicks here's a nice outline for building this world. It probably contradicts stuff you've thought up already (but haven't communicated) but this will set up the skeleton for a "realistic" world with all seven cities.
Okay, NOW, I see the EDIT. :smalltongue:
Thanks a lot!
I'll look over all of these in turn, and if this thread is still breathing, post my edits here afterward to get some more feedback.
:smallsmile:

jseah
2011-04-04, 02:35 PM
I think they HAVE to lose some of their 'feel'. Completely specialized cities are basically impossible unless a teleportation network can handle trading most of the output of each city. In which case, they are more like one city rather than 7.

Thief and Merchant city are most problematic in that regard. Technology really needs a rework or your setting does.
Thief in particular has no reason to exist.

Merchant city could be redone as a manufacturing hub or something. Textiles, spices, ceramics, arts. Imports from mining city, exports to everyone.

Technology might cover arts, education and capital goods. You really need to be post-industrial revolution for this to make sense.

The military city could quite easily work as a self-contained and self-sufficient city with an agressive bent. That's fine, and between the various cities, they act as an unpredictable wildcard beholden to no one.
Trade with these guys would be shaky and difficult.

Mining city will need to cover low-level refining but otherwise is fine. Lots of heavy industry, refining iron sheets and processing crude oil or something like that. Some kind of agricultural unique product would be useful as well, like silk or coffee.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-04, 02:38 PM
Thief in particular has no reason to exist.
Oh, we were just thinking a 'normal city' with a ruling monarchy or whatever, where the thieves actually rule.


Technology might cover arts, education and capital goods. You really need to be post-industrial revolution for this to make sense.

For the technology city, they produce the masterwork stuff.
The mining city produces ores, using equipment they got from the technology city...
And then the technology city produces the actual 'stuff'.
Sure the warrior city can make swords, but the technology city will make the masterwork stuff.
Their weapons, clothes and generally everything mundane is better.



I think they HAVE to lose some of their 'feel'. Completely specialized cities are basically impossible unless a teleportation network can handle trading most of the output of each city. In which case, they are more like one city rather than 7.
Now that I think about it, having each city defined by what it "does" is kinda contrived.
Perhaps an actual 'culture' would be far better.
:smalltongue:

jseah
2011-04-04, 02:49 PM
For the technology city, they produce the masterwork stuff.
The mining city produces ores, using equipment they got from the technology city...
And then the technology city produces the actual 'stuff'.
Sure the warrior city can make swords, but the technology city will make the masterwork stuff.
Their weapons, clothes and generally everything mundane is better.
This is problematic.

Ore -> Iron + Tools -> More Tools

If you're still at that level of technology, there is not enough of a gap to sustain a city whose main trade is making tools.
You only get that when big complex tools are needed to make parts of other big complex tools that build things you want.
(eg. Ore + Refining Factory -> Iron + Processing Factory -> Steel + Manufactory -> Machine Parts -> More Manufactory, Refining Factory, Processing Factory)
And there needs to be a BIG difference between using tools vs factories for the existence of factories to make sense.


Masterwork tools is a mere +2 (in 3.5). Not enough to justify the existence of an entire city over.
If it's magic tools, I would think Arcane city would become your technology city.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-04, 03:05 PM
Masterwork tools is a mere +2 (in 3.5). Not enough to justify the existence of an entire city over.
If it's magic tools, I would think Arcane city would become your technology city.
Yeah, but what about the additional costs and the skill needed to mass produce without fear of failure?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-04, 03:05 PM
Now that I think about it, having each city defined by what it "does" is kinda contrived.
Perhaps an actual 'culture' would be far better.
:smalltongue:
It's not the worst way to world-build. The trick is you need to figure out what kind of "culture" results in cities that are known as "the X city."

A good example of a Thief City is Antiva City (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Antiva) from Dragon Age.
It's a rich region which thrives on the trade of luxury goods. However, it lacks a standing army of any sort in part due to a the chaotic nature of its rule - the infighting amongst the Merchant Princes is so great that no central state lasts long enough. However, wealthy princes can afford to keep (and create) highly-trained assassins about and, over time, "assassins" become the de facto rulers of the nation. After all, it's a cohesive Guild that has the greatest military power in the region - yet it relies on a certain amount of stability to ensure that enough trade goes on to fund their lifestyle.
I mean, Antiva City can't exist in your world, but you can construct a reasonable Thief City if you work at it. That said, try to move away from the Patchwork Map (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PatchworkMap) approach to world-building. As you can see, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny too well :smalltongue:

EDIT: Regarding technology - in D&D, Magic does it better. You simply don't need that high a technology base to ensure Masterwork Tools - and Fabricate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fabricate.htm)-assisted creation is far superior to mundane production. By which I mean it takes 1 round per 10 cubic feet rather than 1 week, minimum. 3.5 Crafting sucks :smallyuk:

Also, you don't have "mass production" when your cities are mostly empty areas sustained by minimal agriculture; you need things like Steam Engines and large populations to actually take advantage of Economies of Scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale).

This is why I assume the League of Science has access to at least Steampunk Technology. A city of craftsmen is only slightly more useful than a city of merchants in your setting - they produce something not necessary to survival and cannot survive on their own. However, if they have access to Flying Machines and Firearms then their ability to equip men with better weapons than Kadabrah can becomes relevant (and the foundation for a nation).

Lord Vukodlak
2011-04-04, 05:03 PM
I came up with an idea of separating the game into two currencies.

Mundane which amounts to the standard copper, silver, gold and platinum and you use it to pay for mundane items.

Then you have Chrysm the magical currency, Magic items, spellbook ink and the like are not priced on gp but in cm[Chrysm measures) So the market price for a +1 Longsword would be 2,000cm and 315gp. Chrysm is also the primary raw material in the construction of magic items

There IS no conversion period, You can't trade Chrysm for gold or vice a versa. Now what this means is that magical items no not automatically equal wealth.

Ravens_cry
2011-04-04, 05:12 PM
It may be the primary means, but some mundane materials are still needed just by the description of the magic items. You're going to need some conversion to pay for this.

jseah
2011-04-04, 05:15 PM
You cannot avoid a conversion. Economics exists to provide a conversion.

To a lord with a peasant army, 100 longswords (not even masterwork) is worth more than a single +1 longsword.

A plucky adventurer would be able to make a tidy profit running a trading caravan carrying the 100 longswords for 2000cm. (100x15=1500)

Lord Vukodlak
2011-04-04, 05:41 PM
It may be the primary means, but some mundane materials are still needed just by the description of the magic items. You're going to need some conversion to pay for this.

And the mundane costs are paid with mundane gold, Did I not explain how a +1 longsword would cost 2,000cm and 350gp?

No conversion is necessary



To a lord with a peasant army, 100 longswords (not even masterwork) is worth more than a single +1 longsword.

But only if the local lord actually needs those weapons, and if he has someone on hand to make a magic weapon he might have someone on hand to magically fabricate weapons.


You cannot avoid a conversion. Economics exists to provide a conversion.
Sure I can avoid conversion by not allowing you to convert gold to chrysm or vice a versa. Yeah its unrealistic but so is the rest of D&D economics.

Adventures carry the wealth of large towns on there back and there is suppose to be an economic system in place for trading those items? with gold as the base currency?

One issue with D&D is the gigantic gap between the costs of the mundane and magical, I presume the reason that gap exists is to PC's go adventure instead of robbing caravans. Most of a PC's wealth is going to come from trading magic items, so why not simply eliminate gold from the magical equation.

It also makes the grunts the PC's crush over there career more realistic, why is that fighter with the +1 weapon and armor fighting you for a little gold instead of selling that loot and living comfortably for the rest of there life.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-04, 06:03 PM
Sure I can avoid conversion by not allowing you to convert gold to chrysm or vice a versa. Yeah its unrealistic but so is the rest of D&D economics.
Ha, I thought you were here for realistic economics!

I can imagine how the conversation will go:
PC: Oh King, I have a dragon's hoard of gold. May I purchase some of your Chrysm with it?

King: No

PC: But why not? Surely you have no current need for such a large bounty and your kingdom has just been ravaged by the dragon we just slew. Do you not need money to rebuild?

King: Why yes, I do. If you give it to me, I will make your Lords!

PC: Actually, we'd just like the Chrysm.

King: No.

PC: Huh. So you have something we value, and we have something you value, and you will not trade one for the other?

King: No.

PC: OK then.

(PC leaves, recruits an army, storms the castle)

King: But... why?

PC: I went to your soldiers and your people and told them you refused to part with your shiny rocks in return for money that was needed to rebuild the kingdom. I then offered to pay them money to back me in a coup so that I could get at those shiny rocks. The good news is that the coup was bloodless.

(PC murders the King)

PC: Well, mostly bloodless :smallamused:
It's really not a good idea. People are used to the idea that things of value can be traded for other things of value - it's in part the basis of civilization. By and large attempts to segregate "magic item currency" from "mundane currency" fail because this idea is so ingrained in us. Additionally, "useful" magic item currency like your Chrysm tends to not work as a currency because the supply would get used up. This is why things like gold coins are used as currency: they're remarkable resistant to decay and they don't have much of a use aside from being pretty.

Lord Vukodlak
2011-04-04, 06:46 PM
Ha, I thought you were here for realistic economics!

I can imagine how the conversation will go:
PC: Oh King, I have a dragon's hoard of gold. May I purchase some of your Chrysm with it?

King: No

PC: But why not? Surely you have no current need for such a large bounty and your kingdom has just been ravaged by the dragon we just slew. Do you not need money to rebuild?

King: Why yes, I do. If you give it to me, I will make your Lords!

PC: Actually, we'd just like the Chrysm.

King: No.

PC: Huh. So you have something we value, and we have something you value, and you will not trade one for the other?

King: No.

PC: OK then.

(PC leaves, recruits an army, storms the castle)

King: But... why?

PC: I went to your soldiers and your people and told them you refused to part with your shiny rocks in return for money that was needed to rebuild the kingdom. I then offered to pay them money to back me in a coup so that I could get at those shiny rocks. The good news is that the coup was bloodless.

(PC murders the King)

PC: Well, mostly bloodless :smallamused:
It's really not a good idea. People are used to the idea that things of value can be traded for other things of value - it's in part the basis of civilization. By and large attempts to segregate "magic item currency" from "mundane currency" fail because this idea is so ingrained in us. Additionally, "useful" magic item currency like your Chrysm tends to not work as a currency because the supply would get used up. This is why things like gold coins are used as currency: they're remarkable resistant to decay and they don't have much of a use aside from being pretty.

Actually here's how your story goes, the King then pays a bunch of wizards in chrysm and they annihilate your army. Or the army is crushed by a platoon of golems. Or the King gives the PC's chrysm as reward for slaying the dragon, given the value of chrysm one would probably adjust a dragon's hoard to contain raw chrysm in place of many of the gems.

The vast majority of the PC's wealth come from selling magic items, More often then not, the PC's will be wanting to convert magic items into gold not the other way around.

Here's the current problem D&D faces but it just gets ignored, PC's will crush countless grunts who had enough money in there minor magical gear to retire in comfort. A mid level NPC or PC is incredibly wealthy because the gap between magic items and mundane is so huge.

If magic items don't automatically equal wealth than the reason the elite warrior still fights for gold is because he can't sell his shield and retire.

Paying for magic items with the materials used to make them makes perfect sense, if you run out of the raw materials there won't be anymore magic items. If we had a magic rock in real life that could he shaped into almost any item we'd probably use it as currency.

Keep in mind through that historically, it was the norm for goods to be traded directly for goods. Two chickens for a goat etc. Currency evolved for convenience. But given the value of magic items its more convenient to trade in magical goods for magical goods then lug around a several thousand coins in your magic bag.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-04, 07:07 PM
Actually here's how your story goes, the King then pays a bunch of wizards in chrysm and they annihilate your army. Or the army is crushed by a platoon of golems. Or the King gives the PC's chrysm as reward for slaying the dragon.
But you see the point of the scenario, no?

OK, I guess not. The point was that people trade goods that they don't want for goods that they do want. That's how people are.

If your concern is people selling magic items then it is better to simply point out that magic items are a dangerous thing to traffic in. The only people who want them are powerful and violent individuals; most items cost at least as much money as the maintenance of a keep for a year. It's dumb to assume that many people - if anyone - would be willing to traffic in these items.

Lord Vukodlak
2011-04-04, 07:14 PM
But you see the point of the scenario, no?

OK, I guess not. The point was that people trade goods that they don't want for goods that they do want. That's how people are.

If your concern is people selling magic items then it is better to simply point out that magic items are a dangerous thing to traffic in. The only people who want them are powerful and violent individuals; most items cost at least as much money as the maintenance of a keep for a year. It's dumb to assume that many people - if anyone - would be willing to traffic in these items.

The concern is that fairly quickly a few minor magic items are enough to retire on, as you said a minor magic item can pay the upkeep on a small fortress for months. A PC or NPC can't really have that oh so simple motivation of gold past low-level.

Fixing the gap between magic items and mundane is to complicated and would require to much of a redesign, but giving magic items there own currency is simple.

Simply not having ANY trade in magic items has its own problems, it is in fact much worse as the game depends on the ability to sell stuff you don't want to acquire stuff you do.

You say that trading in magical items would be dangerous? well what meaning does gold have then? Magic would be a far better protection you can equip your guards and pay them a living wage. Have a wizard on retainer who needs chrysm to scribe spells and create other items. Magic can solve all your mundane needs, someone with a large stock pile of chrysm would have very little need for gold.

And from a national stand point who ever controlled the supply of chrysm would control the region.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-04, 07:21 PM
The concern is that fairly quickly a few minor magic items are enough to retire on, and that just doesn't work.
Simply not having ANY trade in magic items has its own problems, it is in fact much worse as the game depends on the ability to sell stuff you don't want to acquire stuff you do.
I see your point, but I don't think a separate currency is the answer. If one wants to control a certain substance, they don't invent a separate currency.
Inevitably, exchanges will be made.

"I have a magic wand!"
"I don't have any chrysm, but I got a whole lot of gold coins!"
"Well, I don't really need the chyrsm. Aaaaaaaand, I am kinda hungry..."
"They're shiny!"
"Sold!"
"Fair deal!"

Perhaps laws and an authority in place to control the exchange of magical items is a better way?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-04, 07:23 PM
The concern is that fairly quickly a few minor magic items are enough to retire on, and that just doesn't work.
Simply not having ANY trade in magic items has its own problems, it is in fact much worse as the game depends on the ability to sell stuff you don't want to acquire stuff you do.
Who said there aren't any magic items? I just said there's nobody in the business of buying and selling them.

People make magic items for their own use or due to pride; sometimes their users die and their items are stolen by someone else for their use. Or perhaps the odd magic sword is traded for something valuable - a princess's hand in marriage, or to settle a family's debt. There's nothing destroying these items so they tend to accumulate.

Lord Vukodlak
2011-04-04, 07:26 PM
Who said there aren't any magic items? I just said there's nobody in the business of buying and selling them.

No one said there aren't any magic items, I said the games design depends on trading magic items you don't want for ones you do.


I see your point, but I don't think a separate currency is the answer. If one wants to control a certain substance, they don't invent a separate currency.
Inevitably, exchanges will be made.

"I have a magic wand!"
"I don't have any chrysm, but I got a whole lot of gold coins!"
"Well, I don't really need the chyrsm. Aaaaaaaand, I am kinda hungry..."
"They're shiny!"
"Sold!"
"Fair deal!"

Perhaps laws and an authority in place to control the exchange of magical items is a better way?

And from selling that wand of cure light wounds your fed for a year(or more depending on the quality of your meals), which brings us back to the gap.

One could say eliminate the gap by say cutting the price of magic items by 5 and adjusting the mundane treasure accordingly. But asking people to do that math, and then you'd probably have to adjust the cost of masterwork weapons and armor and maybe several material components, rewriting the economic system like that is a lot of work.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-04, 07:32 PM
No one said there aren't any magic items, I said the games design depends on trading magic items you don't want for ones you do.
Well hell, then just trade then! I thought your concern was people selling magic items for large chunks of money and then retiring on the proceeds :smalltongue:

Ideally, you'll make this "trading partner" some being that can afford to being in the magic item trade. Additionally, make him someone who is willing to accept gold from magic items or to trade directly for magic items.

Lord Vukodlak
2011-04-04, 07:41 PM
You've missed my point.


Well hell, then just trade then! I thought your concern was people selling magic items for large chunks of money and then retiring on the proceeds :smalltongue:

That was the basic concern, you can't have a PC whose motivation is gold past level 10, even by level 8 he could have enough to retire on. The gap is simply to huge and removing the go between is the simplest way to remove the gap.

I had a player who was a true roleplayer his character acted based on the character's personality and he was disappointed when he realized his 9th level character had enough magic items to retire on.

And that problem can extend to NPC's didn't V point out in an early strip the futility of the bandit's operation based on the gap between magic items and mundane.

By eliminating the gap in the value of magic items and mundane, the motivation of wealth once again becomes viable for both PC's and NPC's.
Plus when you can't spend your gold on magic items your free to spend it on roleplaying applications.

Build that castle as a sign of your wealth, letting the PC's rule a country isn't really a concern when they can't convert the lands wealth into magic items.

I was in a group once where we were getting way more treasure then we should have been, so we decided to build a town we sunk tens of thousands of gold pieces into building a town. We couldn't do that on a balanced treasure budget.
But if magic items don't automatically equal wealth, and gold can't be easily turned into magical gear. You can have a balanced party invest in such roleplaying projects.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-04, 07:50 PM
And from selling that wand of cure light wounds your fed for a year(or more depending on the quality of your meals), which brings us back to the gap.
Yes...
But you read my example only to skip my suggestion.
If you've noticed how finding a few magic items can changes a character's life, then its reasonable to assumeother characters will have too.
Magic items will become coveted.
And naturally, coveted items will be controlled.
Yes, potentially, one can sell magic items and live comfortably after a few good sells.
One can also do a countless number of illegal things and live comfortably-but the placement of an authority and laws to stop makes it less prominent.

So sure, you found a wand of cure light wounds, but is it really worth selling it and getting a huge pile of cash if those Black Mages will just take it, take your gold, and the person you sold it to, imprison you both for the rest of your life for not turning it in?
Perhaps magic items have to be registered upon discovery, and exchanges are regulated. Unregistered items are punishable by death.
PCs entering large town have to declare their items, or face having them confiscated or being imprisoned.

If you treat magic items the way we treat weapons, poisonous snakes and illegal drugs today, perhaps the economy would be more realistic?

Lord Vukodlak
2011-04-04, 07:55 PM
Yes...
But you read my example only to skip my suggestion.
If you've noticed how finding a few magic items can changes a character's life, then its reasonable to assumeother characters will have too.
Magic items will become coveted.
And naturally, coveted items will be controlled.
Yes, potentially, one can sell magic items and live comfortably after a few good sells.
One can also do a countless number of illegal things and live comfortably-but the placement of an authority and laws to stop makes it less prominent.

So sure, you found a wand of cure light wounds, but is it really worth selling it and getting a huge pile of cash if those Black Mages will just take it, take your gold, and the person you sold it to, imprison you both for the rest of your life for not turning it in?
Perhaps magic items have to be registered upon discovery, and exchanges are regulated. Unregistered items are punishable by death.
PCs entering large town have to declare their items, or face having them confiscated or being imprisoned.

If you treat magic items the way we treat weapons, poisonous snakes and illegal drugs today, perhaps the economy would be more realistic?

Now you see, that is just to complicated, that kind of regulator system would make me pull my hair out. It also just means my campaign will be the PCs eliminating it as they are certainly free to pick a path.

It be easier to say "The gods of magic say so" then create a trade
commission that would dwarf all governments in power.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-04, 08:00 PM
Now you see, that is just to complicated, that kind of regulator system would make me pull my hair out. It also just means my campaign will be the PCs eliminating it as they are certainly free to pick a path.

It be easier to say "The gods of magic say so" then create a trade
commission that would dwarf all governments in power.

:smallconfused:
I thought we were looking for realism rather than convenience.
And it doesn't even take that much effort.

Wizards hoard magic items.

It's that simple.

Lord Vukodlak
2011-04-04, 08:05 PM
:smallconfused:
I thought we were looking for realism rather than convenience.
And it doesn't even take that much effort.

Wizards hoard magic items.

It's that simple.

What you described wasn't so simple,
and I'm not looking for some realism in economic structure, as it won't happen in a fantasy game. It doesn't always happen in real life!.

Its about the realism and why do people continue working when they've acquired ten thousand gold or more in magical gear, it about being able to invest in grand roleplaying side projects that won't drain you of the gear you need to survive.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-04, 08:29 PM
But if magic items don't automatically equal wealth, and gold can't be easily turned into magical gear. You can have a balanced party invest in such roleplaying projects.
So... why not go with the method I suggested? Or go with the 4e approach?

All I'm saying is that the Chrysm idea is going to seem universally silly to your Players and there are less silly ways to go about it. And I say silly because the concept of people sitting on valuable stuff and refusing to exchange it for gold "because I say so" is just that.

jseah
2011-04-04, 08:32 PM
^Lord Vukodlak:
Not sure what you mean. You cannot restrict a gold -> chrysm trade (or a chrysm -> gold trade).
At least not if NPCs are supposed to act like actual people.

If one PC is willing to trade a castle for a +3 sword, and the other PC will trade his sword for the castle, will you block that?
Can you even block that? At least without destroying the game.

(My players pay alot of attention to the game world, since they expect consistency out of me; my campaigns also tend to rely on paying attention to the game world.
Shenanigans on the level of "NPCs will refuse to trade chrysm for gold at incredibly favourable rates" will get me impeached as DM)

And if PCs can do it, why will NPCs not? You need to answer that. TheOasysMaster gave one that could plausibly work (if slightly unbelievable)

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-04, 08:34 PM
What you described wasn't so simple,
So creating an entire separate currency, where everyone 'magically' doesn't try to do what is natural and make exchanges when convenient is simpler?
Simply because the DM says so?
I guess it is simpler...
...but its a bad, cheap kind of simple that players will chafe at.

I'm sure in my way, the player characters will chafe at having their magical items they nearly got killed recovering claimed by some upstart wizard. But that's what roleplaying is about isn't? PCs will find ways to cheat the system and exploit it to their own ends the best way they can? just like in real life with criminals who smuggle drugs, steal cars and engage in human trafficking. All of them are highly profitable, but laws and authorities keep 'em in check.
Relatively, no effort. A realistic and relateable model is readily available.


and I'm not looking for some realism in economic structure, as it won't happen in a fantasy game.
Then why are you here? And why not? We've been discussing ways in which economics does and can and suggesting ways to make them better.



Its about the realism and why do people continue working when they've acquired ten thousand gold or more in magical gear, it about being able to invest in grand roleplaying side projects that won't drain you of the gear you need to survive.
BILLIONS of people survive without automatic weapons, poached tiger skins and piles of crack cocaine.
They're not magic items, but, they're profitable things to have and sell.
Millions of criminals have them.
And they STILL do what they do.
If I find an automatic weapon, I'm not gonna sell it. I'm going to turn it in.
The average peasant might risk keeping a magic item, but it IS a risk. The adventurer is in a better position than any peasant... But still.
Even if adventurers were to flood the market with their items and take all the money, why would they retire? There's always more to be had. And there's always someone willing to take it from them.
Sure, your PCs can buy a whole town...
...but what happens when some young black dragon thinks he's smart and strong enough to be just the one to take it from them? Maybe they beat the black dragon.
Of course, they might then have to deal with his mother...



TheOasysMaster gave one that could plausibly work (if slightly unbelievable) Thanks, I think. What's unbelievable about it? :smalleek:

jseah
2011-04-04, 09:07 PM
Thanks, I think. What's unbelievable about it? :smalleek:
That any organization short of a god directly influencing the world could have any ability to dictate and enforce a sweeping policy like that.

Any spellcaster with an easy feat can make potions or wands. Any wizard can make scrolls. NPC spellcasters are not that rare (at least if you go by DMG)
Tracking them all down is practically impossible and a feat on the level of gun control in the present day.

I could believe it if one city state had it. But the organization required to enforce it over even a middle-sized country (say between UK to France) is pretty large.
Large governments required to support this implies large population and good communications and infrastructure.
You don't have a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting anymore if nation-states start appearing.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-04, 09:51 PM
Ah, okay. I see.
Right, that's true.
It couldn't be a perfect system for sure.

Lord Vukodlak
2011-04-04, 10:40 PM
What is so difficult about dispelling ones disbelief in this regard?
The PC's carry the wealth of nations on there back(as do many NPC's). There are no rules for magic item availability beyond gp limit in a community. You sell magic items at one half the market value, and yet always have to purchase them at market value.

Oasys the PC's would only chafe if you effect there ability to trade magic items for magic items. As I said before the vast majority of a player's wealth is measured in magic items. If you don't need gold to buy magic items, then a PC has little reason to convert magic items to gold.

PC's will still get gold to cover mundane costs as a suit of magical fullplate still has a 1,650gp mundane component, and treasure often includes gems and artwork.


^Lord Vukodlak:
Not sure what you mean. You cannot restrict a gold -> chrysm trade (or a chrysm -> gold trade).
At least not if NPCs are supposed to act like actual people.

If the NPC's acted like regular people there'd be very few for the PC's to encounter. The price gap between magic items and mundane is simply to huge for any realistic economics but was necessary for game balance.

Considering the volume that several thousand gold would take up even in a extradimesional bag, its reasonable that PC's even under the standard system are trading magic items for magic items, you just track the value in gold because its easier then writing down three +2 Longswords, and six second level wands. But carrying those items uses up less space then coins would.

Here's some food for thought, buying a lot of magic items with gold is like buying a smartphone with quarters. Or selling a smartphone for quarters. No body does that the coinage is just to much. There aren't even enough coins for that to be done on a large scale. Its why paper money was invented, but that wouldn't work in D&D with out hefty magical protection to prevent forgery. (not to mention how fragile paper money would be).

So the reason you shouldn't be able to convert a +3 Longsword into gold is it could take months or years to find someone with that many coins. Now converting it to scrolls or lesser magic items is more doable. (and I recall the epic level handbook suggests high level characters would use scrolls as currency).

If you want a more realistic economic system you'll need to rewrite the entire pricing system for all items, and that sounds like an incredible headace to get four or five players to remember.

Ravens_cry
2011-04-04, 10:48 PM
And the mundane costs are paid with mundane gold, Did I not explain how a +1 longsword would cost 2,000cm and 350gp?

No conversion is necessary

Then it's not really a currency now is it, but supplies. It's like being paid partly in the wood you need to build a house when you build a house. I

Lord Vukodlak
2011-04-04, 10:49 PM
Then it's not really a currency now is it, but supplies. It's like being paid partly in the wood you need to build a house when you build a house. I

And the problem is? your still paying for the item and its still a currency even if it doubles as a raw material. If you buy a gold ring with gold coins its no different. Given how valuable magic items are, is it really that odd to pay for them in the raw materials necessary for enchanting.

Gold became valued as a currency because unlike goods, it doesn't degrade, it doesn't decay its long lasting. Magic items can endure just as well as gold. So they in fact make the perfect currency. Trading goods for goods was the norm in the middle ages. Currency was the rarity.

Ravens_cry
2011-04-04, 10:58 PM
And the problem is? your still paying for the item and its still a currency even if it doubles as a raw material. If you buy a gold ring with gold coins its no different.
Given how valuable magic items are, is it really that odd to pay for them in the raw materials necessary for enchanting.
YNo it isn't, but it doesn't prevent a conversion.
Well your claiming it wouldn't require a conversion, but where does this unobtainium come from? Harvested, mined or hunted, the people who gather it will want to be paid, and they won't want to be paid in what they gather.

MickJay
2011-04-05, 05:34 AM
That any organization short of a god directly influencing the world could have any ability to dictate and enforce a sweeping policy like that.

Any spellcaster with an easy feat can make potions or wands. Any wizard can make scrolls. NPC spellcasters are not that rare (at least if you go by DMG)
Tracking them all down is practically impossible and a feat on the level of gun control in the present day.

I could believe it if one city state had it. But the organization required to enforce it over even a middle-sized country (say between UK to France) is pretty large.
Large governments required to support this implies large population and good communications and infrastructure.
You don't have a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting anymore if nation-states start appearing.

Don't forget about magic. You start with a powerful mage who decides he wants to have a control over (or at least regulate making of) all the magic items. He goes to the next local most powerful mage's house and threatens to turn him into a frog if he doesn't cooperate. Then the two of them rally up even more guys like that, starting an organization, while developing scrying spells and items that would let them detect magic items (and creation of thereof). Most mages will comply, simply because the very existence of such an organization will mean a considerable increase in the prices of magic items on the market (more money for less effort). You say that tracking down all the mages is difficult, but that's what divination is for. Weak mages won't have effective ways of hiding themselves from magic, while the more powerful ones would be well known enough that they'd either have to confront the "guild", or flee. We're talking about a world where a single high level mage can keep an eye on a city, if not a whole region - and then can deal with most problems on his own. This organization could easily extend its influence over many countries, and only a similar organization would be capable of opposing it effectively.


YNo it isn't, but it doesn't prevent a conversion.
Well your claiming it wouldn't require a conversion, but where does this unobtainium come from? Harvested, mined or hunted, the people who gather it will want to be paid, and they won't want to be paid in what they gather.

That's a bit like saying that a miner working in a gold mine won't want to be paid in gold. As long as the "unobtanium" is accepted as currency/bartering good, what reason would anyone have not to take it as their wage?

Zen Master
2011-04-05, 06:16 AM
Well .... in reality, D&D accidentally invented a fix for their own faulty design: The Interplanar Money Sink.

It hardly even requires creative interpretation on the part of the GM. Pacts and trades with parties unknown and otherworldly is what drains the in-game economy of magic items, gold and other valuables found in dragonhoards and forgotten dungeons.

And what these trades bring into the world aren't things of a tradeable value - it takes the form of eternal life, or magical power, or allies, or the like.

Yora
2011-04-05, 07:25 AM
But then all the treasures still exist in hell somewhere. And what do the devils want with them, if not use them to buy stuff?

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-05, 08:33 AM
Spend them in endless war against Demons? :smalltongue:

jseah
2011-04-05, 08:44 AM
This organization could easily extend its influence over many countries, and only a similar organization would be capable of opposing it effectively.
You overestimate divination. Locate X is too short ranged, scrying can't find things you don't know exist.

Unless you allow CoP and Divination to work by RAW, but then you have other things to worry about.
Like wizards knowing EVERYTHING ever.
- Said deity only letting them know everything about where magic items are is said deity directly supporting the monopoly.


I'm not saying it can't work ever. But the number of wizards you need in on it is ridiculous.
A city state can have the law, that's believable. An entire country the size of UK or France? No way. Not without civilization having such an extensive reach that you lose your pseudo-medieval fantasy and start moving more into a modern day style of game of nation states.


That's a bit like saying that a miner working in a gold mine won't want to be paid in gold. As long as the "unobtanium" is accepted as currency/bartering good, what reason would anyone have not to take it as their wage?
But they will only accept chrysm if chrysm can be used to buy bread.
If for some reason chrysm will only buy magic items, the only people who will want chrysm is if they want magic items.

If chrysm is used as a second currency, then it just works like a full fledged currency and will have a proper exchange rate.

MickJay
2011-04-05, 11:35 AM
It doesn't even have to be a standard currency - as long as there's someone willing to buy chrysm (the word, incidentally, already exists, it's the name of a specially prepared oil used in certain church ceremonies).

Don't forget that there's nothing preventing the mages from researching their own spells, which could be highly specialized. And deities can be bribed - the guild might, for example, spread the cult of the deity that's helping them (and involve the divine magic users as well). What I'm arguing here is that while without magic such control would be almost impossible, with magic users on board, it would be fairly easy to impose.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-05, 11:51 AM
They [the mages] do not even need to do that much work.
1) Send out an announcement, "Magic items are dangerous. Turn them in, and you'll be fairly rewarded."
2) Mages reasonably and fairly ask for help from local authorities.
3) Fairly and reasonably reward anyone who complies.
4) Harshly make an example of the first transgressor.

Problem solved. System works. No need for chrysm.

jseah
2011-04-05, 01:54 PM
Problem solved. System works. No need for chrysm.
Such a system only works in the area the authority controls.

Such as a city state or a province containing the capital city of a major country.

Outside of that, you need liberal applications of magic.


The thing is, unlike guns and other currently controlled objects, magic items have uses far beyond mere weapons. Lots of people want them if they can get them.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-05, 02:10 PM
But then all the treasures still exist in hell somewhere. And what do the devils want with them, if not use them to buy stuff?
To eat, of course :smallamused:

Remember kids: exotic life forms are handy for solving all your plot holes :smallbiggrin:

Ravens_cry
2011-04-05, 06:36 PM
That's a bit like saying that a miner working in a gold mine won't want to be paid in gold. As long as the "unobtanium" is accepted as currency/bartering good, what reason would anyone have not to take it as their wage?
Because they can't use it to buy anything they could want besides magic items if there is no exchange. Gold does have an exchange rate.
If this lack of exchange is the law, you're going to have a black market spring up that will allow exchange, which decreases tax revenue due to being under the table.

Zen Master
2011-04-06, 09:19 AM
But then all the treasures still exist in hell somewhere.

Treasures in hell are, in a very real and absolute way, non-treasures for the very, very great majority of everyone, everywhere. It's not like a balor is going to pop to the prime material and go to the market after two dozen eggs, a pig and some herbs and spices - then expect to pay with a Nine Lives Stealer and two Pearls of Power.

And not just because you'd expect even demons to know that's way overpriced.

MickJay
2011-04-06, 09:27 AM
Because they can't use it to buy anything they could want besides magic items if there is no exchange. Gold does have an exchange rate.
If this lack of exchange is the law, you're going to have a black market spring up that will allow exchange, which decreases tax revenue due to being under the table.

I addressed part of the question in my earlier post. Here, however, you're assuming that there is no way of exchanging chrysm for anything else, which creates a problem: why would anyone even bother to obtain it in the first place, whether by hunting, mining or otherwise? You either:

1) have a way of exchanging it legally for other goods/currency (whether freely or while holding some sort of license or permit)

or

2) it's illegal to trade in it, in which case it's only available on black market (which means it can still be traded, presumably for gold, though illegally)

You do not end up with a situation where those supplying (illegal to trade) chrysm would end up being paid in it, since that itself would be illegal (not to mention pointless, since that stuff is a raw material for crafting, you don't send people to get it for you just to pay them with it - unless they can sell or use it, otherwise there'd be no-one interested in getting the stuff in the first place).

Ravens_cry
2011-04-06, 02:33 PM
I am only assuming this because non-transferability is Lord Vukodlak "solution" to D&D economic problems, and was doing my part to poke some holes in it.:smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-06, 03:35 PM
As a side issue - Currency is actually a very interesting issue in D&D in regards to creating realistic economies.

To start with, D&D coins are intensely unrealistic. They're never debased and coins from ancient empire are accepted 1:1 with contemporary coins. IRL, coins were frequently debased by con men and kings and dealing with debasement & counterfeiting were constant concerns. Of course, this is just one of those Acceptable Breaks From Reality which doesn't actually cause many problems - if your PCs start trying to debase their currency, you usually just slap the Player upside the head and move on :smalltongue:

However, some editions of D&D introduce parallel economies in which different items become the "coin of the realm." The Chrysm is but one example of this sort of thinking, and in truth the discussion regarding it could be applied to any other sort of novel currency. In part, contemporary D&D requires this sort of thinking due to the Magic Item Economy inherent in these editions. In TSR D&D you usually bought a keep and retired after cleaning out a dragon's lair; in WotC D&D you can use an entire hoard to pay for a single magic item. So there need to be a solution. Some have been tried:

(1) Epic Currency
"Epic Currency" refers to some unit of wealth which is spent like coin but worth so much money that only supremely wealthy (and therefore, powerful) entities trade in it. D&D4 uses "astral diamonds" in this regard, but it's been around since Tolkien and his mithral.

In general, this is a pretty silly idea. Anything "worth" that much money is effectively worthless in the mortal world - any merchant that accepted an astral diamond for the contents of his shop would have a hard time finding someone to make change for him. IMHO, this is one of the worst possible ways to deal with the problem, but it is attractive for its simplicity.

(2) Soul Tokens
"Soul Tokens" are objects that are actually worthless in the mortal world but are tremendously valuable items in some other realm. The archetypal Soul Token is the solidified soul of a mortal creature: something that no mortal has any use for, but something that Devils and other immortals highly value. The actual use of Soul Tokens is usually not specified, but it is assumed that they are consumed by the entities taking them for some reason.

Soul Tokens are a better solution than Epic Coin because they do have a real-world value - but only if you can reach the beings that want them. This means that while most mortal beings won't deal in them, they have real value in that the Beings will have established some base exchange rate (in coins you can use) with them - look at the D&D3.5 "Wish Economy" as an example.

One issue with this method is that there aren't going to be many Soul Tokens in the world. Presumably you can't "buy" them with mortal coin from any source (or the Beings would be doing that on their own) and anyone who gets their hands on them is going to want to spend them quickly for more power. Plus you need to figure out how they're made - and make sure that method isn't exploitable by your PCs. If Soul Tokens come from the literal souls of mortal beings, expect your PCs to begin righteous genocides to get enough Tokens for that sweet sword they've had their eye on.

Personally, I prefer the "Barter Economy:" there are certain raw materials that are costly to harvest and useful for adventurers to have. Stockpiles of these materials can therefore be bartered for goods & services from high-powered individuals. In my 4e campaign I treat Reagents as this sort of barter-good: by limiting the "free market" availability of Reagents in towns, Players treat then as being more valuable than gold. Thus, when someone offers them a relatively small amount of Reagents as payment for a service they jump at the chance.

Of course, you do run into the problem of these "buyers" being jumped by powerful adventurers but I resolve this by having the big reserves being bought up by powerful organizations - many of whom keep semi-retired adventurers on payroll to protect the stuff.

jseah
2011-04-06, 07:30 PM
In general, this is a pretty silly idea. Anything "worth" that much money is effectively worthless in the mortal world - any merchant that accepted an astral diamond for the contents of his shop would have a hard time finding someone to make change for him. IMHO, this is one of the worst possible ways to deal with the problem, but it is attractive for its simplicity.
Worth of any object is defined by what you can get in exchange for it.

While your astral diamond might trade with the efreets for a +5/+5 magic sword, no one in the real world has that much money or goods spare to trade you for those diamonds.

You might be able to comission a keep or fund a small war with it, however. But if you tried to sell it on the open market, the most you'ld get is a chest full of gold or something similar to that.

Therefore, the astral diamond, being an indivisible but very expensive chunk of stuff, is worth as much as you can get for it from one guy or body.
Which will change depending on who you talk to. A chest of gold from a merchant's guild might be the most they'll offer for the diamond and it's not enough to fund the war that you can persuade the king to start in exchange for the diamond.

But no, you say... we want a "simple" economics simulation and stuff cannot have strange inconsistent prices.
But that's exactly what you get when you have something very very expensive but also indivisible and thus has to be traded as a one lumpsum.

('You' does not refer to Oracle_Hunter, it's a general 'you')

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-06, 08:27 PM
Worth of any object is defined by what you can get in exchange for it.
This is the core point - but remember that people only trade for items that are valuable to them.

A chunk of material whose value is greater than everything in moderately-sized kingdom is not going to be accepted by anyone. Why? Because one you receive it, you can't trade it to anyone for anything. I mean, you might accept an Astral Diamond in exchange for a turnip just out of curiosity but there's no way you can think you'd be able to trade that Astral Diamond to anyone else for any real value.

That's the main problem here: trade is a two-way deal. The only people who'd accept Astral Diamonds are those who either use or know people who use it as a currency for some reason. Those people should be rare enough as it is - no mortal is going to give valuable goods or currency for it. Its sole use is amongst "high rollers" who have a completely independent currency system from the metal-based one that mortals use.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-06, 09:06 PM
I remember in the animaniacs cartoon movie, one of the warner brothers wished for 'two haypennies'. He used them them to buy EVERYTHING he could want. And then, the 'pennies circled the entire town, and eventually everyone had everything they wanted after it made enough rounds.
Makes me think of what would happen if a peasant found an astral diamond.
:smallsmile:

jseah
2011-04-06, 09:06 PM
Its sole use is amongst "high rollers" who have a completely independent currency system from the metal-based one that mortals use.
If the Astral Diamond is not something actually worth that amount of money through it's use, then it's worth only as much as people use it as a currency. Coz, it's just a shiny rock otherwise.
A VERY shiny rock, but still just a rock.


I was looking at it as if the Astral Diamond had uses that made it *worth* that much.
If an Astral Diamond could be used in a one-shot manner, like a consumable, but gave large bonuses, like giving all troops in a battle +1 to attack and damage. If it could be used in practically every area of a kingdom, but only once for a big effect, it'll be *really* expensive, but still retains it's indivisibility.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-07, 12:28 AM
I was looking at it as if the Astral Diamond had uses that made it *worth* that much.
If an Astral Diamond could be used in a one-shot manner, like a consumable, but gave large bonuses, like giving all troops in a battle +1 to attack and damage. If it could be used in practically every area of a kingdom, but only once for a big effect, it'll be *really* expensive, but still retains it's indivisibility.
Astral Diamonds are an "Epic Currency" type fix, not a "Soul Token" fix. They are simply extremely rare and thus valued in the thousands of GP according to the rules. They are a piece of currency much like Platinum coins - yet they are so valuable that nobody would ever use them.

My favored fix is to make AD a form of "raw residuum" which requires exotic refinement to extract. This makes AD more like "ore nuggets" in the Old West (USA) - obviously valuable objects, but ones which the average consumer simply cannot use for value. You trade these to the Big Boys and they pay you in coin you can use - and they then refine the AD into valuable Residuum. They serve much the same purpose as high quality gemstones in standard adventurer trade; albeit their value is so much higher that nobody can afford them.

MickJay
2011-04-07, 08:13 AM
I am only assuming this because non-transferability is Lord Vukodlak "solution" to D&D economic problems, and was doing my part to poke some holes in it.:smalltongue:

And that you did. :smalltongue:

jseah
2011-04-07, 09:02 AM
My favored fix is to make AD a form of "raw residuum" which requires exotic refinement to extract. This makes AD more like "ore nuggets" in the Old West (USA) - obviously valuable objects, but ones which the average consumer simply cannot use for value. You trade these to the Big Boys and they pay you in coin you can use - and they then refine the AD into valuable Residuum. They serve much the same purpose as high quality gemstones in standard adventurer trade; albeit their value is so much higher that nobody can afford them.
This. This is a good one.

And the "big boys" will want to pay in magic items made from the extracted residuum (with a premium) instead of gold since it's alot of gold they have to somehow get. It fits the adventurer demand for magic items as well.


That's of course assuming that the players aren't powerful enough to be the "big boys" themselves.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-07, 02:12 PM
That's of course assuming that the players aren't powerful enough to be the "big boys" themselves.
The nice thing here is that you make the extraction process long and boring so that only the dullest adventurers will bother with it. Also, make it require specialists so that no PC can actually take the time to learn the craft without giving up their adventuring career.

It's not just a matter of power - it's also a matter of time and effort.

Autolykos
2011-04-09, 02:50 AM
That's pretty much what Shadowrun does with Orichalkum. Even small quantities are slow and expensive to produce - a skilled alchemist needs months to produce just a few dozen grams, consumes expensive materials (about 10 kg of gold, among others) in the process and has a good chance of ruining the materials in the process. It's very useful when making magical artifacts (makes the process easier and lowers Karma cost to enchant/bind them IIRC) and any attempts to mass-produce it have miserably failed - so it's extremely valuable (in today's currency it would be about 10k$ per gram).
A later Sourcebook (Year Of The Comet, IIRC) introduces 'raw orichalcum' that can be mined in some places, but still needs to be refined manually - this is pretty much the same concept.