4e excerpt - Economics

[Jerthanis]

I keep seeing this faulty argument come up. I'm pretty close to writing a fallacy for it.

When was it decided that fallacies could be invented so easily? The list of formal fallacies is fairly robust, so either you're going to be copying one that already exists, or you should reexamine the argument.



With that said, that's not even what I was referring to. I was comparing video game realism to DnD realism. When I'm playing a video game, I might know that the BBEG is really the Good King all along, but I can't do a thing about it except progress through the railroaded story and dungeons, level up, and get to the end where I finally fight him. If I'm playing DnD, I have the option of taking charge, coming up with my own plan, and executing it. And aside from a few RPGs, if I want to do anything other than talk to an NPC in a safe zone, tough noogies for me.

I have no idea where this concept is coming from. When I play D&D4th, I'm not going to abide by rails any more than I do today. Where has it been implied in the preview material that Players aren't allowed to follow plots not outlined by the DM? Where does it say that players are not allowed to do unexpected things to change plots, or take charge?

I have to assume that you're getting the "Videogame railroad mentality in the rules" dispute from the Treasure Tables and suggested resale value in the preview, since this is a thread discussing the preview... So I really must point you to the bottom of the preview which gives you some guidelines for adjusting the rates to make it more or less appealing to buy and sell magic items in your world. It seems like 4th edition is trying its very darnedest to create a system full of helpful tools for a DM to create his own story with, but with the leeway to let them make the adjustments necessary for their own game. I can't imagine what more you could want from a game system.



Indeed. More power to Blizzards of the Coast on that goal. Unfortunately, I don't believe DnD is breaking out of the 'kill things and take their stuff' style it has created for itself.

Oh, excuse me, I guess 1st edition didn't have any random treasure generation tables then. I guess the fact that Clay Golems in Final Fantasy 1 cast Haste on themselves and Stone Golems cast Slow on the party came from nowhere. I guess the designers of Warcraft never played out scenarios of Orcs versus Humans in their basements with polyhedral dice, inspiring them to make something like it.

No, wouldn't it make more sense if D&D were not like a videogame... but that videogames were like D&D?



Yes, please, simplify the rules as much as possible. But don't simplify them to a point where you break verisimilitude.

Verisimilitude is a difficult to capture element, and one which I believe hinges on the DM to manage. I don't believe any rulebook ever written will be able to make a world seem real on its own. And really, there are enough armchair economists in the world that literally no matter what you write about economy, there will be someone who disagrees with its realism. Heck, if you hired a professional economic consultant to write the setting's economy chapter you'd still have people talking about how unrealistic it was.

Really, it just seems to me that (at least from remembering my time with good old 2nd edition) older editions weren't really better at presenting a realistically developed ruleset, it was just better at coming up with eloquent ways of saying, "The DM makes it up"... because that's what the Magic Item Economy chapter was in 2nd edition. And people who enjoy the realistic approach played with DMs who provided a realistic game. Me? I jumped out a lot of glass windows in medieval bars in 2nd edition.

[ShadowSiege]

I keep seeing this faulty argument come up. I'm pretty close to writing a fallacy for it.

Just because our world does not have things in it like fairies and magic, doesn't mean that it's not possible for the DM to create a world with these things in them that still feels realistic.

Realism:
1. An inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism.
2. The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form.

What you are talking about believability/verisimilitude (a word I've grown increasingly annoyed with as a result of these boards).


With that said, that's not even what I was referring to. I was comparing video game realism to DnD realism. When I'm playing a video game, I might know that the BBEG is really the Good King all along, but I can't do a thing about it except progress through the railroaded story and dungeons, level up, and get to the end where I finally fight him. If I'm playing DnD, I have the option of taking charge, coming up with my own plan, and executing it. And aside from a few RPGs, if I want to do anything other than talk to an NPC in a safe zone, tough noogies for me.

Then you should have indicated that that is what you meant. That's a limitation of the medium. As Starsinger has said, video games are (in the cases of RPGs to remain relevant), played against the computer. The computer only has so many options. And the developers only have so much time and funding. They can cram their game full of lots of things, such as in the case of Oblivion, but in the end there is still a finite number of objectives to be accomplished, enemies to overcome, NPCs to make your bestest buddy and hear them talk about how they ran into yet another damned mudcrab. D&D has no such limitations as there is a living brain behind the entirety of the scenario. If the rules set is created such that that brain can focus more on roleplaying the NPCs but also is a result of cribbing from game design choices similar to video games, then good. Nowhere in the previews has it shown that NPCs will behave in an unbelievable fashion or that DMs will railroad the PCs more than in the past.


Indeed. More power to Blizzards of the Coast on that goal. Unfortunately, I don't believe DnD is breaking out of the 'kill things and take their stuff' style it has created for itself.

Argument ad nauseum. Just because you say DnD is becoming more like a video game does not make it so. Also, a bit of appeal to spite, whether it be directed at Blizzard, Wizards, or both.


Yes, please, simplify the rules as much as possible. But don't simplify them to a point where you break verisimilitude.

There's that word again. Merchants buying low and selling high to make a profit is breaking of the suspension of disbelief? Because, I thought it was one of the bases of the economy. This bit actually is realistic. Rutee has already covered all of the business in this case, quite adeptly.

Also, ninja'd. Curse you Jerthanis! Also, stop breaking my suspension of disbelief by jumping out glass windows in medieval bars! How dare you abide by the Rule of Cool! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool?from=Main.TheRuleofCool)

[horseboy]

Secondly, it's possible that Wyatt was speaking imprecisely, and that your enemies may be carrying +1 weapons which aren't worth anything to you as weapons - but that these won't be considered part of their "treasure", and the default assumption will be that you'll leave them behind, rather than feeling obliged to loot every last copper from an enemy and sell off any items to bring you up to your WBL. I like that idea, too. It seems a lot more, well, dignified, and heroic too, and in keeping with fantasy themes for PCs to occasionally take items of conspicuous power or worth from their enemies and use them than to strip-mine every dungeon and its inhabitants and sell the gleanings just so they can afford their next batch of ammo.Feeling obligated? No, feeling like greedy bastiches, yes.
But as I said, the current teaser om economics, as presented in 4.0, does not seem to be well thought out. After all, they are *effectivley* cheating a group of people who go around and kill things for a living.Well, this is brought to you by the same people that brought us the ladder is cheaper than 2 10' poles people.
And in case you didn't quite understand it, that first example was a joke. Sigil was serious, though.There is no Sigil, only ZOOL!
You know, whoever invents the magical equivalent of E-bay or Craig's List in the DnD world will be rich beyond her wildest dreams. Just taking like a 1% cut will be enough.Kinda like Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog.
You didn't get what the huge supply means, right? Abundant supply means lowered prices. With abundant supply, a 300% price markup is gross, except in very few, hypothetical cases.Tell that to Games Workshop.

Y'all can go ahead and be Party A if you want. Me, I'd rather be Party B and rake in even more cash.After all, party B has MC on farm. Sorry, couldn't resist the shot.:smallwink:
I like video games too. More than a lot. But I play a video game to mindlessly hack n slash my way through dungeons and build the most overpowered character I can imagine. I play DnD to create realistic and interesting scenarios for my friends and I to experience. I don't like the two to mix.Wow, are you playing the wrong game system. If you were talking about, watzit, Sword of the Sun, or whatever, you know the one that makes Rolemaster look like TWERPS. Can't remember the name, and I've been up 24 hours, so brain not making with the smart making right now. But you're talking about D&D, the people that brought us the owlbear and the killer house cat.

[RukiTanuki]

The article's certainly provoking a lot of thought for me, specifically about how much detail I want to put into an economy that won't be immediately thwarted by my player's Fridge Logic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic).

Some of my first draft ideas:
* Everyday merchants (the guys who sell vital household items to the villages and worry about mundane bandits) probably don't deal in magic items regularly. If pressed, they may be able to accept an item and see if they can sell it in the city. They probably wouldn't buy it for a significant portion of its value (how well can they appraise it? How easily are they fooled?) and would probably take great care to hide the item on the trip back, nervous the whole way. A regular merchant who knows the seller well might give an advance on the item, and come back with the remaining proceeds minus his fee.

* A merchant who travels and specializes in magic items... well, that's a very hazardous business. I can't imagine a person getting into that field without precautions. (Most of the "why don't we kill the merchant" questions have been asked since the first appearance of Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe, really.) I myself wouldn't get into the field with a) personal defenses, b) a method to lock items away from would-be bandits, c) backup plans for the above, d) associates would want revenge for hurting their business. In short, I'd treat it as a high-risk, high-reward field, and the people who successfully work that field take it very seriously. (The one thing I would not do would be to impose a magic shop monopoly. No reason to do that.)

* Players who want to get into the magic-trading business will be permitted to do so insomuch as I allow them to get into any business of trade. I'll try to bring a good set of rules and judgment calls into the game; I'll ensure they face the same difficulties their competition faces (finding the right buyer for a good item, finding ANY buyer for a bad item, not getting fleeced), spend a realistic amount of time on the task, and provide interesting hooks as a result of their actions. ("Jack Parsnip's been looking for one of those, but he headed off to the frontier last week to hunt. Come to think of it, he's running a few days late...")

In short, I'll try to portray the markup as a realistic side effect of high-risk trading. If players feel they'd have fun getting involved, I'll try to integrate the gameplay into it, in effect making the players artifact hunters. Conversely, the trader offers them enormous convenience, and I have players that may very well be willing to make that trade as long as they feel I won't shortchange them for it in the long run. (Or they may keep ahold of more magic items. I guess we'll see, won't we?)

EDIT: too much 'would' on the brain.

[Artanis]

Because PCs usually have stuff to do besides worry about things like selling unphat lewt?
Pretty much, yeah. The short version is that a merchant would have to be stupid to buy low-level loot, and the adventurers know this, and thus would be stupid to try to sell it. The long version is:


Say you're a merchant who sells level 10(ish) items. Your suppliers sell you (usually blood-soaked) level 10 items, and you sell stuff to level 10 adventurers.

So if a group of adventurers comes up to you wanting you to sell you some level 5 items. It may SEEM like saying "no" would lose you money...until you look at what would be involved with saying "yes". You as a merchant can't just turn around and sell the level 5 items because all your customers are level 10, and thus don't want those level 5 items any more than they guys you bought it from do. So you have to find some level 5 adventurers or merchants who sell level 5 items to sell the low-level stuff to. But those guys won't have the money or inclination to buy your usual stuff. So long story short, if you as a merchant buy level 5 items off of level 10 adventurers, you then have to spend time and effort going around selling level 5 items instead of level 10 items, which loses you money. Thus, you say that no, you won't buy them.

Adventurers know this. They know that their usual item-merchant won't buy those level 5 items. So THEY now have the choice between leaving the items laying around or else hauling them back and spending time, effort, and probably money to find somebody who will buy them for what would be a mere pittance at that level. That's time and effort that could be spent getting even MORE money by raiding some other dungeon.



If I was risking my life everyday to even go into these places to find unphat lewts, I'd be taking every copper piece I could back with me.
You aren't going into those places to find "unphat lewts", you're going in there to find the good stuff. The "unphat lewts" just happen to be scattered around as well.

Look at it this way. Say you go to a five-star restaurant and order a four-course meal. At the end of it, you look at the floor and see some crumbs. Would YOU get on your hands and knees and start licking the crumbs off the floor to get those precious, precious calories, or would you say "screw it" and go pay the check?

Because the quoted statement basically implies that yes, you would start licking up those crumbs.

To an adventurer, an item that's well below their level is just crumbs. Big, heavy, ichor-splattered crumbs that aren't worth it.

[Vazzaroth]

I don't know exactly what the conversation is about, but I have to say I have never heard of a party NOT taking a magic item they find. Masterwork? They might leave that behind. But a magic item? Never.

[horseboy]

In short, I'll try to portray the markup as a realistic side effect of high-risk trading. If players feel they'd have fun getting involved, I'll try to integrate the gameplay into it, in effect making the players artifact hunters. Conversely, the trader offers them enormous convenience, and I have players that may very well be willing to make that trade as long as they feel I won't shortchange them for it in the long run. (Or they may keep ahold of more magic items. I guess we'll see, won't we?)Well, one of the things that getting over looked is that not all things would have said 300% mark up. When we get to see the 4th edition magic item market take a look at it and decide what things should be common and what things would be rare, and what restricted in your game world. If it's a high magic setting, then things like CLW pots can be very common, as feasibly they could be made with ginseng, honey and aloe vera juice harvested under a certain lunar phase. Easy squeezie. However, if it's a lower magic setting and requires troll blood, well, there's going to be a higher mark up because it's harder to get. Magic flaming weapons of whoop-ass are going to be expensive mainly because "The Powers That Be" don't want weapons of whoop-ass in everybody's hands. It's entirely possible that a good portion of that 300% is actually taxes, titling and registration.


Say you're a merchant who sells level 10(ish) items. Your suppliers sell you (usually blood-soaked) level 10 items, and you sell stuff to level 10 adventurers.
Problem 1: Level 10 would have to have an actual in-game meaning for this to apply.
Problem 2: There has to be enough "Level 10" people for there to be a big enough market that also serving the "Level 5" people isn't feasible. Which would be like a video gaming store only carrying games for one console, you just don't see it.
Problem 3: That just, in general, WAY to metagamey for many's taste.

[Cuddly]

Huh, just had my first real "D&D is turning into WoW" moment.



I had an immediate bad reaction to this. I hope I'm being unfair. The NPC has an item "not because he needs it" - well, sure I might give an NPC an item with the intent that it be captured and used by a player rather than because the nature of the NPC demands he have the item, but I'll still give some thought as to why he has it and make sure it's something that he has a use for himself. "The characters don’t find magic items that are beneath their notice" - fair enough if they're altering the magic item economy to make hoarding items too low-level for you to use for later sale a waste of time, but how are they to "not find" these items?

Yeah, I noticed that immediately too, and didn't like it.

[Jack Zander]

Because the quoted statement basically implies that yes, you would start licking up those crumbs.

No it doesn't because that's just gross. A better example would be paying for your check and then walking across the street to McDonald's where they are giving away free fries and you don't take any because they are "beneath your notice."

[Indon]

Because PCs usually have stuff to do besides worry about things like selling unphat lewt?

A PC with no need of a +1 item could dust (disenchant) a +1 item and just carry around the money. Even if it were very inefficient, that stuff would add up.

Edit: In fact, the ability to convert magical items into convenient, essentially liquid money, means that unless the ritual for conversion is _extremely_ inconvenient, as in it costs experience or something crazy like that, that there is no magical item beneath their notice. If they aren't going to use it, that just makes it fodder for potentially improving what they have.

I'm probably going to largely or just completely scrap this system in every 4E game I run (keeping select aspects of the disenchanting system for two specific environments). Luckily, since treasure isn't as important as it used to be, I'm more free to get rid of a treasure system I think is bad (Probably just give my players a treasure threshold - not even abstract, just "This the bonus you get to everything so that I don't have to bother giving you equipment to keep the system balanced"). So it works out surprisingly well.

As for an actual economics system, I think there's no chance anything of the kind'll exist in 4'th edition. I'm going to need to cobble one together with houserules, borrowed rules from 3'rd edition, and duct tape, no doubt... That's what I was hoping for from this article from the name, but, eh. Expecting too much.

[Cuddly]

D&D is moving even farther from simulationism. I wonder how this gamist approach will play out.

[Norsesmithy]

A PC with no need of a +1 item could dust (disenchant) a +1 item and just carry around the money. Even if it were very inefficient, that stuff would add up.

Edit: In fact, the ability to convert magical items into convenient, essentially liquid money, means that unless the ritual for conversion is _extremely_ inconvenient, as in it costs experience or something crazy like that, that there is no magical item beneath their notice. If they aren't going to use it, that just makes it fodder for potentially improving what they have.

The preview did mention that the Ritual to disenchant magic items would be made less popular than selling magic items (even at grossly reduced cost) because of the expensive nature of the material components consumed in the ritual.

[Indon]

The preview did mention that the Ritual to disenchant magic items would be made less popular than selling magic items (even at grossly reduced cost) because of the expensive nature of the material components consumed in the ritual.

That seems like failure waiting to happen, regardless of what the precise cost of the component is.

If the price isn't very much, then fodder magic items of a certain quality or higher will be beneficial to dust.

If the price is very high, then the ritual isn't even likely to be used, at least until a certain level, at which point all magic items of that quality or higher would be beneficial to dust.

If the price scales at a percentage, then if it's profitable to dust anything you aren't taking with you anyway, so why not dust as much junk as you can to pull the extra profit?

Not seeing how this will turn out well.

[Jack Zander]

I presented my players with 20,000 copper pieces found in a room at level 9. Not only was it a pain in the butt to drag out, but it only amounted to 200 gp, which, at that level, is major "unphat lewts."

Nothing goes unnoticed by real life players. Fake 4th edition characters maybe, but not believable characters.

[Jayngfet]

I like it.

Must ...resist ...urge ...to ...update.

[horseboy]

I presented my players with 20,000 copper pieces found in a room at level 9. Not only was it a pain in the butt to drag out, but it only amounted to 200 gp, which, at that level, is major "unphat lewts."

Nothing goes unnoticed by real life players. Fake 4th edition characters maybe, but not believable characters.VERY true. Hell, they'll take it out of spite. I know we did when after being attacked in the middle of town by a dragon, tracked it back to it's lair and were confronted with 120,000 tin. Oh, we took the tin, then we dragged the GM out side and beat him with kendo sticks after that.

Well, not so much "dragged" as "I think we need a smoke break, why don't you light to grill so we can start getting burgers ready? Bring your helmet."

[Rutee]

Fake fourth edition players? Does everyone you've ever met stop and pick up a penny every time they see one?

[Sir_Dr_D]

Its not that the 4E characters don't notice those items. Its just that those items are of so little value, that there is no reason to roleplay it. It would be boring and add little. It is like going to the bathroom. You don't need to know when your characters do that. You can simply assume your characters pick up some of those items and sell them for their daily living costs. (that's one interpretation at any rate.) But it is of no consequence to the game or your charcter, so why should you or the dm worry about it?

[horseboy]

Because one of the Universal Rules of being a GM is to never underestimate Player Greed.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Fake fourth edition players? Does everyone you've ever met stop and pick up a penny every time they see one?I do, and so do a good chunk of my friends.

[Rutee]

I do, and so do a good chunk of my friends.

I said /everyone/ for a reason. I happen to pick up small change and collect it (It's bought a game before). That doesn't mean everyone does, especially not since it's fake money anyway.

[horseboy]

I don't know. I've had parties carry around 30 man weeks worth of iron rations before. Not because they were going anywhere, not because they bought it, but because they looted down to that level. It didn't resale enough to make it worth selling, so they just carried around 210# of groceries because they "earned" it and by God it was going to get used or go bad in their possession.

[Rutee]

Yeah, but anyone who's played nethack knows there's never enough rations.. :smallbiggrin:

[Jack Zander]

My point still stands that if you're going into a dungeon to loot stuff, and you risking your lives everyday to do so, you're bringing back everything that isn't bolted down (and a few things that are).

Just because Bill Gates is rich doesn't mean he's not going to pick up a 20 dollar bill.

[Citizen Joe]

Bill Gates might pick up the 20 bucks, but he won't pick up that CD of windows 3.0

[Jack Zander]

Bill Gates might pick up the 20 bucks, but he won't pick up that CD of windows 3.0

Neither would I.

EDIT: Wait, now you're saying it's okay for PCs to find chump change, but not magic items which are worth more than chump change (sold or broken down)?

[Citizen Joe]

OK here's the situation... Some guy just got a new couch. He took his old couch and stuck it out on the curb with a six pack of beer and a $5 bill for the trash guy to take it away. You walk up and see the bill, the six pack and the couch. Assuming it is moderately good beer, that rates the 'value' of the items highest to lowest at couch, beer, bill. Now, just walking by, the immediate usefulness would probably rate: bill, beer, couch. You could use the bill for anything. There is little point in selling the beer, but you could consume it yourself. The couch though is a pain to move and you've already got one at home.

[Yahzi]

Try going to a little villiage in the middle of Cornwall and see how much you get offered for your genuine Rolex, you'd be lucky to make 10%.
Not if you go to the Rolex salesman.

The problem is that magic items don't generally lose their value, and they are very, very valuable.

The markup on a candy bar is 100%. The grocery store buys it for 25 cents and sells it to you for 50 cents before it goes bad. Even convenience stores only mark it up to a dollar (x4, as opposed to the 20% to 140% spread suggested by the WotC article, which is x7).

On the other hand, you know what the mark-up on a million dollar jet aircraft engine is? 2-3%. Or a house? (The WotC guys have bought and sold houses, surely?) Less than 10%. Between closing costs and agents fees, you can sell a house for only 10% off of its "real" value. And there are few things in life more controlled by personal taste than buying a house.

On the other hand, a +1 sword is obviously and immediately useful to everyone, even if most people don't really need one or can't afford one.

I don't think the problem is that WotC doesn't understand basic economics; I think the problem is that they don't care. They don't see any particular reason why fundamental economics should have anything to do with their game.


a buyer, whom is almost bound to be a bloodthirsty adventurer.
And not generally used to paying for the stuff he takes. Honestly, all magic item merchants have to be adventurers themselves. Nothing else even makes the slightest bit of sense.



Remove Disease is a 3rd level spell. That means AT LEAST level 5 caster. It would also cost at least 150 gp a shot.
Another place where D&D economics implodes in a cloud of silliness.

It costs a priest a 3rd level slot to cast that spell. He has one of those every single day. That means by the end of the day, the priest wants to sell his cure disease for a copper penny, because it will be a copper penny more than he would have otherwise made that day.

Now he could hold out and not cast that day's spell at all, so as to keep the market price up. But any priest who can walk past a dying child and not cure it because he wants to maintain a price point level is not Good.

So what happens with the Good priests is that they cast Remove Disease every single day - on whoever in their flock needs it the most. If a rich, powerful stranger comes to town and wants a RD spell, he can a) join the religion, live in the community, and wait his turn, or b) pay so much money the priest can feed 3 poor families for a year.

The idea that RD costs 150 for an adventurer makes sense. The idea that that price controls how often the spell gets cast for NPCs does not make sense.

As usual, D&D imposes a mechanic to control the player's experience without even for a second considering how it affects the world the characters live in.

[Krrth]

The sad part is, I know people who would take the couch just because. Some people will take anything. When I moved into my new home, my wife and I piled all the old stuff that we didn't want on the curb, either because it was old or because it was broken. People took it. Even the broken furniture that was missing pieces.

[Dervag]

I presented my players with 20,000 copper pieces found in a room at level 9. Not only was it a pain in the butt to drag out, but it only amounted to 200 gp, which, at that level, is major "unphat lewts."

Nothing goes unnoticed by real life players. Fake 4th edition characters maybe, but not believable characters.I myself have played in parties at level 9 in earlier editions where we did disdain to carry away the copper pieces. Part of that was because our DM keeps track of weight restrictions, and in the older edition 20000 copper pieces would literally weigh a ton. We didn't have a wagon train handy.

Carrying away the jewelry and magic items just made more sense.

However, I agree that almost any magic item should be worth carrying away for the party, if only to suck the mana out of it or whatever.


I do, and so do a good chunk of my friends.Conversely, I don't, and I don't even bother to pick the pennies I drop up. Who do you think is leaving all those pennies lying around for you to pick up?:smallamused:

I don't think the rules will have any explicit mechanism for preventing the DM from placing what he feels is an appropriate amount of treasure in a given dungeon, including low level items and huge piles of copper pennies. Nor will it greatly disrupt the game balance to do so. Since you're already supposed to be designing 'packages' of treasure to hand out to the heroes in various adventures, just stick in low-level treasure. However, the low-level treasure is not required. And to be honest, I don't think it adds all that much to realism, because if we only put low-level treasure in places where it makes sense to find it specifically, we'll find a lot less of it anyway.

[Yahzi]

Like I said, that's a quarter of a million gold - for just 1000 castings of Remove Disease - that could be used for a lot of other stuff that is really, really important when a city has actual neighbors it has to worry about.
Few cities in real life or D&D have much worse to worry about than losing 1/3 of their population in a month or so.

As for understanding disease, the Greeks recognized the role of contagion, overcrowding, and sanitation in plagues. If they had been given access to Remove Disease, Athens would have won the Pelopenesian war.



When I moved into my new home, my wife and I piled all the old stuff that we didn't want on the curb, either because it was old or because it was broken. People took it. Even the broken furniture that was missing pieces.
For our large-item annual garbage collection day, I piled up broken pieces of concrete on my curb. My wife informed me that the garbage men would not take that. But you know what? They disappeared before the garbage truck got there.

Yes, somebody came by an collected my broken pieces of concrete.

!!!

[clericwithnogod]

but I haven't the inclination to check this out myself. I will not accept it as true until then[/I], so)
3: Amount and Substantiality of the work in question (You'd get off pretty well here, since it's only a fragment of the work)
4: Effect on Market Value (Reduces it through proliferation, albeit not by much).


Also straight from the US Copyright Office:

"The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable."

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

[Citizen Joe]

Few cities in real life or D&D have much worse to worry about than losing 1/3 of their population in a month or so.

As for understanding disease, the Greeks recognized the role of contagion, overcrowding, and sanitation in plagues. If they had been given access to Remove Disease, Athens would have won the Pelopenesian war.


There is another big problem. If you are presuming there are enough clerics available that can cast level 3 spells that you can mitigate a plague, then look at what they might be doing otherwise... Level 3 spells include create food and water as well as Continual Flame and Animate Dead. People suddenly don't have to work any more. Food and light is essentially free. Labor can be done by skeletons and zombies. The entire economy shatters.

[Rutee]

Also straight from the US Copyright Office:

"The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable."

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

And even games have limitted protection. Besides, if you'd noted in the original post, "Fair Use-able != protection under copyright law"

[Vazzaroth]

There is another big problem. If you are presuming there are enough clerics available that can cast level 3 spells that you can mitigate a plague, then look at what they might be doing otherwise... Level 3 spells include create food and water as well as Continual Flame and Animate Dead. People suddenly don't have to work any more. Food and light is essentially free. Labor can be done by skeletons and zombies. The entire economy shatters.

It shatters... or your describing Ebberon. Maybe not the undead part, but still.:smallcool:

[Citizen Joe]

Actually one of the countries in Eberron uses undead soldiers, so ya...

[Flickerdart]

Am I the only one who has a problem with the pretty picture? The face is, for example, so badly shaded it looks flat.

[Indon]

Fake fourth edition players? Does everyone you've ever met stop and pick up a penny every time they see one?

No, but my characters do.

[Citizen Joe]

I have more of a problem with the gold glowing. Gold doesn't normally glow so that was probably some radioactive waste that was locked up for safe keeping.

[Oslecamo]

I have more of a problem with the gold glowing. Gold doesn't normally glow so that was probably some radioactive waste that was locked up for safe keeping.

Didn't you get the memo? Everything is magic in 4e, and magic things tend to glow.

[Rutee]

No, but my characters do.

Every single one of them is Scrooge McDuck?

[Indon]

Every single one of them is Scrooge McDuck?

Hmm. Greedy adventurers who risk their lives on a daily basis as part of a motley, sometimes randomly assembled party of quirky individuals? (Assuming you're describing the Scrooge of Ducktales)

...no. Sometimes I play the party Donald... but he's greedy too. And the nephews wouldn't exactly turn down cash they could find, either.

When you risk your life for something, you're taking that something. Because you aren't about to risk your life for not getting loot, even if it does suck.

[Rutee]

Why are you risking your life for trinkets? You say "You'll take it you're risking your life for it". Why are you risking your life for trinkets, if your goal is money? Risk your life on the big stuff.

And if they're /all/ greedy, well, that's.. kinda boring. I have to ask why they're all so money-crazy. Sharing a trait among all your characters isn't usually a good thing, nor terribly interesting, and I can't imagine for the life of me why you'd pick /Greed/ unless you only cared about the money OOCly.

[Indon]

Why are you risking your life for trinkets? You say "You'll take it you're risking your life for it". Why are you risking your life for trinkets, if your goal is money? Risk your life on the big stuff.

Because you generally don't know all that you're going to get until everything in the area is already dead.

[Vazzaroth]

Simple fact: Players are greedy becasue they can be. 1000 copper pieces? "We gather them up" is the max amount of physical exertion it takes them. IRL, they would leave them, no one wants to spend time gathering pennyies. But if they could just snap their fingers and have the pennies, they would, which is bascialyl what PCs do. And not to mention that they bought that bag of holding, they want it to pay off. My player group has taken completly mundane, crudly made stone statues... the kind that make the DM go "You take what?", but stashing it in the bag of holding. We've taken Kitchen Pots. We've stolen barrels of wine to sell at an Inn later. We carried around about 50 pounds of ground-up bone dust we found because it had an "evil Aura". If the people you play with haven't figured out these staples of exploitation of the DnD ruleset... they are truely int he minority.

Now, if 4E says that the players have to count to 100 for each 10 mins it takes to gather things... THEN they might start leaving things behind. :smallwink: Maybe.

[Rutee]

Because you generally don't know all that you're going to get until everything in the area is already dead.

Maybe you should put your efforts into learning what's there before you kill it all then?

And again, why are all of your characters greedy, if not for the fact that you OOCly care about the money?

[Vazzaroth]

why are all of your characters greedy

3E is ALL about the items. A level one who is rich enough CAN kill a level 10+ with ease.

[Rutee]

Except that's only true from an OOC standpoint.. not that I mind particularly, but I want to disabuse this ridiculous notion that it's really the character who's greedy.

And honestly, barring cheese, that's a pretty grossly inaccurate statement anyway; Moreso come 4e, wherein level directly adds to quite a few attributes.

[Vazzaroth]

Except that's only true from an OOC standpoint.. not that I mind particularly, but I want to disabuse this ridiculous notion that it's really the character who's greedy.

Oh totally its OOC.

But the desire to make your character better is one of those traits thats inseparable from PC and Player. A player can always justify taking things. And like I posted awhile back, only particularly greedy PCs take crap like non-masterwork weapons.

Edit: Obviously, 4E is trying to fix this. And if you meant he fact that A level 1 could own... notice I said enough gold. As in enough for a level 20, maybe more. It seems that even in 4E this won't really happen, but in 3rd? Totally.

[EvilElitest]

The 5th-level NPC has a 6th-level item—not because he needs it, but because it’s one of the treasure parcels. The characters don’t find magic items that are beneath their notice—they won’t walk out of the drow enclave with a wheelbarrow full of +1 rapiers
What? i'm sorry, this is simply absurdly stupid on quite a few levels

1) Goblins moment, why would the NPCs have magic items they can't use. I mean look at the old DMG (2E) and its option on random encounters, it says a monster should only have stuff they would logically have
2) Ok, this is also frankly moronic, why wouldn't you tell the players about minor magical items. There a still plenty of things they can do with them. Sell them, give them to friends, trade them, collect them. IT is the player's choice, not the choice of the Dm. They should at least be able to find them. I mean, the drow's plus one rapiers might not help the PCs (through they might) but it still makes sense logically

Yet again, more and more like a video game, with the game almost out, i think my 9 month year old prediction seems to be a very good one

First, this excerpt from the srd that EVERYBODY always forgets:

Intelligent creatures that own useful, portable treasure (such as magic items) tend to carry and use these, leaving bulky items at home. Treasure can include coins, goods, and items.

Wich means the DMis suposed to roll the treasure before the battle,and if something usefull comes out that the monster could use during battle, then it will use it during battle.

However, as normal, players only read what they want to read. Nobody ever notices that rule, and then they blame Wotc for monsters don't using their own treasure,when it's their own fault that the monster isn't using the usefull parts of their treasure.

Now some even more specific monsters:

Erineyes gives automatically rope and a +1flaming composite longbow,plus treasure.

Balors give out automatically a+1 large vorpal longsword and a +1 flaming whip, providing you can disarm them before delivering the final blow,plus treasure.

Marilith's carry 1d4 magic weapons,wich comes in handy when you have 6 hands

Salamanders never have flamable treasure.

Actually, and yes the 200 odd people who do nothing but read each and every one of my posts (which is why i wear my tin foil hat you see) would notice i'm bringing this up a lot, but 2E DMG made it very clear that creatures should use their items logically. If your enemy is desperate, he drinks his potions and the Players don't get it. Wands will normaly already be missing charges


Ahh yes, the "Might makes Mine!" attitude every player seems to succumb to once in a while... 4e isn't going to magically make such an attitude appear, my players do it already.
but it does seem to encourage it, not that NPC exist to provide you loot, why not kill the tossers?




Heck, the first thing I would do as GM when the PCs decided to rob a NPC in a non-evil town is ask to see the character record sheets of all the players involved. Then I'd declare those characters to be NPCs, and offer to let the players roll up less asshat characters. The PCs are the good guys. The GM runs the bad guys. Look it up, it's in the rules of 3.5.

I don't think the PLayers being the good guys is a rule actualy

from
EE

[horseboy]

Why are you risking your life for trinkets? You say "You'll take it you're risking your life for it". Why are you risking your life for trinkets, if your goal is money? Risk your life on the big stuffBecause pound for pound "trinkets" are the most valuable thing there. It's a +1 long sword, it weighs 4#. The amount of gold it's worth weighs quite a bit more.

[Rutee]

Now, are we going to weigh value by weight, or value by itself? Because somehow, I don't think you motivate adventurers by saying "You could make less money, but have it weigh less, for equal risk, if you go to A, rather then B"

[Jack Zander]

Now, are we going to weigh value by weight, or value by itself? Because somehow, I don't think you motivate adventurers by saying "You could make less money, but have it weigh less, for equal risk, if you go to A, rather then B"

I don't think they are opting to grab the low level magic items in favor of the higher level ones. Their opting to grab it all.

[Rutee]

I'm saying they're idiots for going to a place that has weak magic items at all. And as a seperate note from Horseboy, if you're going to say every one of your characters is greedy, you're just looking to justify OOC behavior ICly.

[Jack Zander]

They aren't going after those low level magic items. They are in fact going after the big stuff. But when there is also low level stuff to be found sprinkled in with the "phat lewts," why can't they take the small stuff too.

When someone robs your house, they are looking to steal your credit cards, personal information, and expensive jewelry. That doesn't mean they aren't also going to grab any bills you've got lying around, or even inexpensive trinkets that they can pawn for an extra 20 dollars. If they are risking breaking into your house to steal stuff, they are going to make sure they didn't miss anything of value. Nothing is beneath their notice.

[EvilElitest]

Also low level magic items do have their own use. Arming your men for example
from
EE

[Rutee]

They aren't going after those low level magic items. They are in fact going after the big stuff. But when there is also low level stuff to be found sprinkled in with the "phat lewts," why can't they take the small stuff too.

When someone robs your house, they are looking to steal your credit cards, personal information, and expensive jewelry. That doesn't mean they aren't also going to grab any bills you've got lying around, or even inexpensive trinkets that they can pawn for an extra 20 dollars. If they are risking breaking into your house to steal stuff, they are going to make sure they didn't miss anything of value. Nothing is beneath their notice.
Your analogy breaks down when one considers that adventurers take everything that isn't bolted down. This is more like showing up with a moving van, taking the furniture, the drapes, the cashmere carpet, the TV, the stereo, the desktop, and everything else.

Even if you just took the swords, you're likely looking at the thief taking 1 dollar bills, or nickels and dimes.

[EvilElitest]

Your analogy breaks down when one considers that adventurers take everything that isn't bolted down. This is more like showing up with a moving van, taking the furniture, the drapes, the cashmere carpet, the TV, the stereo, the desktop, and everything else.

Even if you just took the swords, you're likely looking at the thief taking 1 dollar bills, or nickels and dimes.

I fail to see why that would make having individual equipment a burden?
from
EE

[Yahzi]

There is another big problem. If you are presuming there are enough clerics available that can cast level 3 spells that you can mitigate a plague, then look at what they might be doing otherwise... Level 3 spells include create food and water as well as Continual Flame and Animate Dead. People suddenly don't have to work any more. Food and light is essentially free. Labor can be done by skeletons and zombies. The entire economy shatters.
Well, not shatters - Create Food is way too expensive to bother with, but ya on the Continual Flame: absolutely everybody who would own a lantern would own one of those instead. You can create in-game reasons why people don't use Undead for labor, although it does make a neat idea for the mining pits.

"Haha slave! You'll mine gold for the King until you die, and then, after you die, you'll mine some more!"

You have to feed 'em less and they don't steal. :smallbiggrin:

A far, far bigger impact is that Zone of Truth is a 2nd level spell. A 3rd level priest replaces CSI: Miami. Just round up all possible suspects and ask them.

As for economy breaking, Plant Growth is about as effective as modern fertilizer technology.

Now, my world takes all of this into account: so it's possible to build a world that does. But the world that WotC publishes doesn't seem to.



Also low level magic items do have their own use. Arming your men for example
Or just giving them away to hot chicks. :smallbiggrin:

I cannot honestly imagine any adventurer ever walking past any magic item, no matter how lame, and not picking it up. Heck, they'd probably have their Adventurer card revoked.

[horseboy]

I'm saying they're idiots for going to a place that has weak magic items at all. And as a seperate note from Horseboy, if you're going to say every one of your characters is greedy, you're just looking to justify OOC behavior ICly.Well, at running the risk of pulling an EE. In a RPG one does not "go to a place that has weak magic items". One "goes to a place that has weak magic items" in video games.
Oh, and it's not every one of my characters that's greedy, it's every on of my players. Every player, every game, every time. As I said before on this thread, never underestimate the power of player greed.

[Dervag]

Now, are we going to weigh value by weight, or value by itself? Because somehow, I don't think you motivate adventurers by saying "You could make less money, but have it weigh less, for equal risk, if you go to A, rather then B"We judge value by density- how much value in how convenient a package.

For instance, imagine you're an adventurer raiding a dungeon. You beat a terrible, ferocious demon who had three treasures: a magic sword worth about 50000 gold pieces, a magic dagger worth about 1000 gold pieces, and a 200 pound silver statue worth 1000 gold pieces.

Think like the adventurer. The magic sword is obviously of tremendous worth; you take it no question. But if you're high enough level to have won the battle at all, the other two treasures are far less valuable. Compared to the sword they're pocket change. Do you even bother to carry them?

200 pounds of silver is heavy. Even if you break the statue down into pieces and spread it out among a group of adventurers it's enough to slow you down and weaken you in a fight. Unless you're sure the area is secure, you won't bother to carry the 200 pound statue because it isn't worth the risk given that the return is so low compared to the magic sword.

But what about the dagger? The magic dagger is worth the same amount as the statue, but because it weighs so much less, it's a lot easier to carry. Even though it's below the threshhold of what you as an adventurer would call "really valuable treasure," it's convenient wealth in a form you can easily carry out with you.

Thus, the statue stays in the dungeon and the dagger does not, unless the adventurer is very confident that she can afford to carry the statue out without breaking anything or being easily killed while struggling with the statue.

The point is that some forms of low-cost treasure will be desirable and worthwhile to PCs, while others might or might not.


Your analogy breaks down when one considers that adventurers take everything that isn't bolted down. This is more like showing up with a moving van, taking the furniture, the drapes, the cashmere carpet, the TV, the stereo, the desktop, and everything else.Which would actually be very reasonable if they could break into your house, kill you, and be confident that no law enforcement would interfere as they looted your house. They get a LOT more money that way than they do by breaking in and looking for portable wealth.

Remember that smart PCs kill the occupants of a dungeon before they bother to steal anything that is actually nailed down- prying up the nails takes time. There will be exceptions, but such fools deserve whatever they get, as the enraged occupants sweep down on them while they are staggering under the weight of statuary and huge Santa sacks of coins.


Even if you just took the swords, you're likely looking at the thief taking 1 dollar bills, or nickels and dimes.If they found a small pile of loose change, they might very well stuff it in their pocket. It might not be a cost-effective use of their time, but it's hard to resist small, conveniently portable bits of wealth even if they're very small.

[Rutee]

We judge value by density- how much value in how convenient a package.

For instance, imagine you're an adventurer raiding a dungeon. You beat a terrible, ferocious demon who had three treasures: a magic sword worth about 50000 gold pieces, a magic dagger worth about 1000 gold pieces, and a 200 pound silver statue worth 1000 gold pieces.

Think like the adventurer. The magic sword is obviously of tremendous worth; you take it no question. But if you're high enough level to have won the battle at all, the other two treasures are far less valuable. Compared to the sword they're pocket change. Do you even bother to carry them?

200 pounds of silver is heavy. Even if you break the statue down into pieces and spread it out among a group of adventurers it's enough to slow you down and weaken you in a fight. Unless you're sure the area is secure, you won't bother to carry the 200 pound statue because it isn't worth the risk given that the return is so low compared to the magic sword.

But what about the dagger? The magic dagger is worth the same amount as the statue, but because it weighs so much less, it's a lot easier to carry. Even though it's below the threshhold of what you as an adventurer would call "really valuable treasure," it's convenient wealth in a form you can easily carry out with you.

Thus, the statue stays in the dungeon and the dagger does not, unless the adventurer is very confident that she can afford to carry the statue out without breaking anything or being easily killed while struggling with the statue.
I wasn't talking about statues, but about taking down someone who had hoard that was actually worth your time.


Which would actually be very reasonable if they could break into your house, kill you, and be confident that no law enforcement would interfere as they looted your house. They get a LOT more money that way than they do by breaking in and looking for portable wealth.
Depends on whether the PCs are feeling 'lazy' (Since they can effectively just magic the stuff away

Or have the /time/ to be lazy...


Remember that smart PCs kill the occupants of a dungeon before they bother to steal anything that is actually nailed down- prying up the nails takes time. There will be exceptions, but such fools deserve whatever they get, as the enraged occupants sweep down on them while they are staggering under the weight of statuary and huge Santa sacks of coins.
The other concern being that players have things more important then money to worry about.


If they found a small pile of loose change, they might very well stuff it in their pocket. It might not be a cost-effective use of their time, but it's hard to resist small, conveniently portable bits of wealth even if they're very small.

When it makes noise? Though all things considerred, it's robbery, so you're holding the inhabitants at gunpoint.

[Jack Zander]

I wasn't talking about statues, but about taking down someone who had hoard that was actually worth your time.

Hmm... Maybe I need to say it again.

You aren't looking for "unphat lewts." They just happen to be scattered in with the fat ones. But while you're there, you might as well take it all.

Unless you play 4th ed.

[Oslecamo]

So, let me see if I get this right.

Heros are crazy about power, to the point they'll try to slaughter each other simply because one of them turns to be 3.5% weaker/stronger than the guy next door in a given situation. And all is fine with this, because saving the world is secondary, what matters is that your character glows like a thousand suns and he shoots laser beams from his butt because he's so badass/awesome/daddy and mommy also had super powers.

BUT if the heros want to pick up pocket change they find along the way, they are evil sick bastards that are up to no good.

Money is power. Just like you don't win a battle just by using your strongest powers, you don't build your equipment from just the biggest treasures.

[Citizen Joe]

You know, this could all be solved by having minions come in and do the looting for you. As adventurers, you are the pointy end of the sword. Hopefully, you have some legitimate reason to break into the monster's house and slay him. That would imply some quest item. So you bust in, slay the demon, grab the princess and then... Then you have your clean up crew come in, loot it clear (where you get half the profits?). They then clean up the place and rent it out for other uses.

[Indon]

I wasn't talking about statues, but about taking down someone who had hoard that was actually worth your time.

What about the encounter right before you fight the dragon, where you fight the 20 +1 minion kobolds? Is that +1 an abstraction of the fact that each is carrying a thousand gold worth of junk, supposedly "beneath their notice" that can be stolen? Because if it is, it isn't abstract anymore. Your players will take it. 20,000 gold pieces of magic items, even sold at a fraction of that cost, is not beneath their notice.

[Dervag]

I wasn't talking about statues, but about taking down someone who had hoard that was actually worth your time.The demon totally has a hoard worth your time. To wit, the sword.

If you want to make the analogy a little more convincing, give him a pouch of jewels worth a few tens of thousands of gp as well.

The point remains that if we look at the possessions of D&D characters with any kind of versimilitude, a lot of D&D monsters and characters will have items in a wide range of prices. Some of them will not be very powerful or expensive. Some of the weak, cheap items are light and convenient enough that there's no good explanation for why the PCs wouldn't take them along with the big ticket items.

No, you don't go explicitly hunting for monsters who carry cheap items. Unless, of course, you need only a small amount of money and don't want to risk your life fighting giant ferocious demons or something. In general, you're right that adventurers will be looking for powerful monsters with powerful magic items that fetch high prices.

That doesn't mean they won't see items that fetch lower prices, or that those items should be completely ignored. After all, if you break into the Evil Overlord's palace, it stands to reason he has a strongbox full of coins to pay his Minions of Terror with. The coins may not be nearly as valuable as his magic items and his spellbooks and such. But they should be there, because it strains belief that you have a powerful evil overlord ruling an intimidated peasantry... who has no currency whatsoever within his keep.


Depends on whether the PCs are feeling 'lazy' (Since they can effectively just magic the stuff away

Or have the /time/ to be lazy...If the PCs have secured the dungeon, they have no reason not to take big heavy items of relatively low value. I mean, come on, it's a two hundred pound silver statue. Are you just going to leave it for the rats and the kobolds? I wouldn't.

However, there are good reasons why the PCs might not choose to take it away, because they aren't necessarily going to be able to "magic the stuff away." If the dungeon is clear, they can skip the part where they lug the statue out into the open and figure out how to carry it back, though it would be hilarious to DM that.

"Umm... guys? You do remember you passed three pit traps, two flights of stairs, and a creaky rope bridge to get down here, right?"


The other concern being that players have things more important then money to worry about.Yes, but that doesn't mean they won't pick up readily portable wealth in the course of their adventurers. Adventurers without funds are at a great disadvantage, after all. A lot of people like roleplaying adventurers who, in the true style of real-life adventuring characters like Francis Drake, are always keeping at least one eye on the bottom line.

Even when they say they're fighting for God, Queen, and Country.


When it makes noise? Though all things considerred, it's robbery, so you're holding the inhabitants at gunpoint.What I'm saying is that a very smart thief might simply grab one or two extremely valuable items and go. But even a very smart thief would have a hard time resisting a 10$ bill just lying there on the table for them to grab, even if they were worried about being discovered if they stayed in the house too long. Even a pile of quarters might be tempting.