Fantasy RP economics

[Simon Smith]

I was thinking about the problems caused by having mega-rich characters
transplanted into an otherwise unaltered medieval setting. As an example,
take the computer RPG NeverWinter Nights, which is a pretty faithful
implementation of the D&D 3rd Edition game engine.

In this, characters pick up tens, hundreds, and eventually thousands of gold
pieces worth of loot, then go back to a village or town - or city - and sell
those goodies to a merchant. Then they buy new goodies from the merchant,
who will frequently have three pairs of bracers +3 at a price of 12,000
gold, a +4 flaming sowrd for 27,000 and so on. And yet, supposedly in the
same setting there are peasants with but a few copper coins of loot at any
one time, and, we can infer, an annual income on the order of a couple of
gold pieces.

This is obviously preposterous. Very soon the world would be populated with
a cadre of merchants all as rich as Bill Gates, and only adventurers would
be able to afford to buy anything. Which means adventuring would become a
major industry in its own right. Which means agriculture would suffer. Which
means ultimately the adventurers would have to employ people to farm, build,
etc. Which means paying them wages, which need to be higher than what that
particular person could earn by adventuring. Which means adventuring is
proportionally less profitable. Eventually the economy would re-stabilise at
a drastically new level. Would anyone care to speculate what things would be
like at that point?


And as an alternative take on the same problem, if we took the existence of
medieval peasants and other poor people as given, how would you adjust the
economic benefits of adventuring such that it is still a worthwhile living
for a tiny minority of characters (i.e. the PCs and a few others),
while at the same time ensuring that merchants do not routinely carry
hundreds of thousands of gold pieces worth of stock?


I have used NWN/D&D as my example - even though I don't play either - but
the same issues apply to Glorantha and most other fantasy settings as well.
Googling, surprisingly, did not turn up any direct discussion of this issue,
although there were some thoughts on fantasy military units by Brett Evill
and Kevin Hardwick. They were some years ago. I could have missed the right
articles, of course; I Googled for fantasy + economy in r.g.f.a. only. I
haven't cross-posted to dnd because, well, from the experience of Decemeber
and last month, the signal is pretty strong, but the noise level is quite
high as well, and I'm more interesed in general answers than DnD-specific.
DnD is a good test case, though, because the way it is usually played -
especially in the NWN game - showcases this economic problem very clearly.



Simon Smith

[Mr. M.J. Lush]

Post by Simon Smith
I was thinking about the problems caused by having mega-rich characters
transplanted into an otherwise unaltered medieval setting. As an example,
take the computer RPG NeverWinter Nights, which is a pretty faithful
implementation of the D&D 3rd Edition game engine.
In this, characters pick up tens, hundreds, and eventually thousands of gold
pieces worth of loot, then go back to a village or town - or city - and sell
those goodies to a merchant. Then they buy new goodies from the merchant,
who will frequently have three pairs of bracers +3 at a price of 12,000
gold, a +4 flaming sowrd for 27,000 and so on. And yet, supposedly in the
same setting there are peasants with but a few copper coins of loot at any
one time, and, we can infer, an annual income on the order of a couple of
gold pieces.

I don't think you have quite made you case.

It is obviously preposterous that someone could pay $200,000 for a car
when most people don't make that much in ten years (there are people
don't make that much in a hundred years).

What proportion of the population are 'adventurers'? What proportion
of these adventurers hit the big time? What proportion of real people
become millionaires?(1) How real many billionaires are there?(2)

Are there proportionally more millionaires than there are
adventurers? A while ago I worked out that ~4% of the D&Dland
population have significant levels (ie level 1 for a PC class or
level 2 for a NPC class as _everyone_ is a 1st lvl something!-)
I would suggest only a few of these will ever consider blowing
27,000gp on a sword (though many will dream about it)

If there are really really rich people services will spring up to
take their money, the peasants live in a totally different economy

When the two economy's meet this happens:-

<http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=122>

(1) apparently about 7% of the US population are millionaires
50% of these are retired most made their money on the stock market
<http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/16/pf/millionaire_households/>

(2) The US has 269 billionaires out of a population of 293 million
http://www.aneki.com/billionaires.html

[Beowulf Bolt]

Post by Mr. M.J. Lush

Post by Simon Smith
I was thinking about the problems caused by having mega-rich
characters transplanted into an otherwise unaltered medieval setting.
As an example, take the computer RPG NeverWinter Nights, which is a
pretty faithful implementation of the D&D 3rd Edition game engine.
In this, characters pick up tens, hundreds, and eventually thousands
of gold pieces worth of loot, then go back to a village or town - or
city - and sell those goodies to a merchant. Then they buy new
goodies from the merchant, who will frequently have three pairs of
bracers +3 at a price of 12,000 gold, a +4 flaming sowrd for 27,000
and so on. And yet, supposedly in the same setting there are peasants
with but a few copper coins of loot at any one time, and, we can
infer, an annual income on the order of a couple of gold pieces.

I don't think you have quite made you case.
It is obviously preposterous that someone could pay $200,000 for a car
when most people don't make that much in ten years (there are people
don't make that much in a hundred years).

The order of magnitude difference brought up by Simon is more on the
order of *10,000* to 1, rather than the 10 to one you discuss. Think of
a $20,000,000 car, rather than a $200,000 one and you are closer to the
mark.

Moreover, Simon discusses the ability to buy these luxury items - like
the $20,000,000 car - from stock that these merchants have *on hand*.
Where do the merchants get the funds for these items? Moreover, who
supplies them with them? Why doesn't the populace band together to kill
such merchants to quickly gain the thousand-man-years of income they'd
earn for poking in the mud? How much must the merchant pay his
bodyguards to keep them from getting tempted themselves? What is the
effect of this on the local economy, when you can get away with charging
the bodyguards of the local merchant 100x what you can charge everyone
else?

The simple answer is that Simon is right: most D&Desque economies are
broken. Not necessarily in the fact that adventurers are rich, but in
the necessary support structure to enable them to use said riches.

Your stats regarding the US economy ignore the fact that the US
demonstrates far more of a continuum between the ultra-rich and the
destitute than simplistic approaches to pseudo-mediaeval societies
typically do. Regardless how rare billionares are.

Post by Mr. M.J. Lush
When the two economy's meet this happens:-

ObPedant: 'economies', not 'economy's'.

Post by Mr. M.J. Lush
http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=122

Ya know that comic is making fun of the joke economics in most games,
not proposing a plausible response. (F'rinstance now that certain prices
have been inflated out of sight, how will the locals be able to afford
them?)

See also http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=135

Biff

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Beowulf Bolt

Post by Simon Smith
I was thinking about the problems caused by having mega-rich
characters transplanted into an otherwise unaltered medieval
setting. As an example, take the computer RPG NeverWinter Nights,
which is a pretty faithful implementation of the D&D 3rd Edition
game engine.

It's not all that faithful, and the economic system is one of the least
faithful parts.

Post by Beowulf Bolt

Post by Simon Smith
In this, characters pick up tens, hundreds, and eventually thousands
of gold pieces worth of loot, then go back to a village or town - or
city - and sell those goodies to a merchant.

Not in a D&D village according to the DMG, he wouldn't. That's a
simplification the computer game makes for easier play. You want to
unload a ton of stuff in real D&D, you gotta go to a big city where the
wealth is.

Likewise, your bit about peasants with only a few copper coins is bunk.
The standard wage for a D&D peasant is a gold piece a day. Again, don't
get the videogame confused with the tabletop RPG.

Post by Beowulf Bolt
The order of magnitude difference brought up by Simon is more on the
order of *10,000* to 1, rather than the 10 to one you [Mr M.J. Lush]
discuss. Think of a $20,000,000 car, rather than a $200,000 one and
you are closer to the mark.

Lush's estimate is good enough for actual D&D games, even if NWN is more
extreme. And his example is applicable to the pseudo-medieval setting,
based on the medieval prices of good warhorses (which were the six-
figure cars of the day).

Post by Beowulf Bolt
The simple answer is that Simon is right ....

The simple answer is that Simon didn't do his homework.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

I seem to have experienced an extremely realistic hallucination in which
Bradd W. Szonye said...

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Likewise, your bit about peasants with only a few copper coins is bunk.
The standard wage for a D&D peasant is a gold piece a day.

That's for a skilled artisan, actually. For a peasant it's a silver
piece a day.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Likewise, your bit about peasants with only a few copper coins is bunk.
The standard wage for a D&D peasant is a gold piece a day.

That's for a skilled artisan, actually. For a peasant it's a silver
piece a day.

Oops, mea culpa. I usually use a non-standard coinage system, and I
confused myself. (Doesn't make much difference, though, given the other
issues pointed out by Kevin and I.)

[Simon Smith]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Beowulf Bolt

Post by Simon Smith
I was thinking about the problems caused by having mega-rich
characters transplanted into an otherwise unaltered medieval setting.

<snip DnD-specific points>

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Beowulf Bolt
The simple answer is that Simon is right ....

The simple answer is that Simon didn't do his homework.

... And the /correct/ answer is that I was using DnD and NWN for purposes of
/illustration/. My ballpark figures could be out by a factor of ten; if the
exact values mattered, I could have looked them up. As they're irrelevant to
my core point, I didn't. Were I interested solely in the DnD solution to the
problem I have illustrated, I would have posted to r.g.f.dnd. Please, I
don't want anyone getting hung up on the specific economics of DnD/NWN and
nothing else when considering this problem. Similar economic distortions
would occur in RQII if you were to use the treasure factor tables, RQIII to
a lesser degree, Ars Magica and so on. Annoyingly I haven't seen Michael's
original post yet.

I'll add my own tuppence worth later on.

[Simon Smith]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Beowulf Bolt

Post by Simon Smith
I was thinking about the problems caused by having mega-rich
characters transplanted into an otherwise unaltered medieval setting.

<snip DnD-specific points>

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Beowulf Bolt
The simple answer is that Simon is right ....

The simple answer is that Simon didn't do his homework.

... And the /correct/ answer is that I was using DnD and NWN for purposes of
/illustration/. My ballpark figures could be out by a factor of ten; if the
exact values mattered, I could have looked them up. As they're irrelevant to
my core point, I didn't. Were I interested solely in the DnD solution to the
problem I have illustrated, I would have posted to r.g.f.dnd. Please, I
don't want anyone getting hung up on the specific economics of DnD/NWN and
nothing else when considering this problem. Similar economic distortions
would occur in RQII if you were to use the treasure factor tables, RQIII to
a lesser degree, possibly Ars Magica, GURPS, if the GM permitted it, and so
on. Annoyingly I haven't seen Michael's original post yet.

I'll add my own tuppence worth later on.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Simon Smith

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Simon Smith
I was thinking about the problems caused by having mega-rich
characters transplanted into an otherwise unaltered medieval
setting.

The simple answer is that Simon didn't do his homework.

... And the /correct/ answer is that I was using DnD and NWN for
purposes of /illustration/. My ballpark figures could be out by a
factor of ten ....

Your "illustration" was lousy. NWN does not have an "otherwise unaltered
medieval setting," and D&D played by-the-book does not exhibit most of
the issues you raised. In the future, you might want to stick to what
you know.

Furthermore, your kneejerk reaction shows some ignorance of wealth
distribution in the medieval period, as Kevin Lowe pointed out.
Essentially, you were comparing two that you just don't understand well
enough to make a reasonable comparison.

Next time, stick to what you know, or do your homework.

[Beowulf Bolt]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Simon Smith

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Simon Smith
I was thinking about the problems caused by having mega-rich
characters transplanted into an otherwise unaltered medieval setting.

The simple answer is that Simon didn't do his homework.

... And the /correct/ answer is that I was using DnD and NWN for
purposes of /illustration/. My ballpark figures could be out by a
factor of ten ....

Your "illustration" was lousy. NWN does not have an "otherwise
unaltered medieval setting," and D&D played by-the-book does not
exhibit most of the issues you raised.

Maybe not in *your* games, but you might not want to be so quick to
make blanket statements like that, Bradd. I have played in more-or-less
by-the-book campaigns where every character would rival the de Medici's
for wealth. (Then too, I have played games at the opposite extreme.)

Much like the combat system, D&D does not attempt to model a
*realistic* mediaeval economy (why would it?), nor demonstrate a
realistic cross-section of the goods and services that one could have
expected to find in one particular place and time in the middle ages.
It offers a melange of equipment - with a particular eye towards what an
unhistoric 'adventurer' would require - and with no regard towards the
effects of the local industry/conditions would have upon prices and
availability. One need look no further than the cross-section of
weapons and armour easily available for sale as listed in the DMG to
know this.

(You'll probably quibble - quite correctly - that this is not then an
implementation of an "otherwise unaltered medieval setting", but such
would be to completely miss the point of Simon's original post.)

Modelling a realistic economy - mediaeval or otherwise - was simply
not a particular priority for either D&D's designers, nor that of most
systems (the closest attempt to such that I have encountered would be
that in Pendragon).

Thus your sallying forth armed and armoured to tilt in defense of your
favoured system is - while eminently predictable - terribly pathetic.
As were your unwarranted personal attacks on Simon.

Biff

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Beowulf Bolt

[Simon's] "illustration" was lousy. NWN does not have an "otherwise
unaltered medieval setting," and D&D played by-the-book does not
exhibit most of the issues [he] raised.

Maybe not in *your* games, but you might not want to be so quick to
make blanket statements like that, Bradd.

Not just in my games, but in any game that follows the DMG's guidelines
for community wealth and equipment availability.

Post by Beowulf Bolt
I have played in more-or-less by-the-book campaigns where every
character would rival the de Medici's for wealth.

Which is no big deal in itself. Simon complained about PCs who can dump
all that wealth and power up even in tiny communities, and that goes
directly against the DMG guidelines. Are you claiming that it's silly to
spend large sums of money in a big, wealthy city? If not, your objection
here is pointless.

Post by Beowulf Bolt
Much like the combat system, D&D does not attempt to model a
*realistic* mediaeval economy (why would it?) ....

While true, it doesn't suffer from the specific flaws that Simon raised.
If his point was merely to complain about RPG economics in general, all
I can say is "So what?" Looking for sophisticated economic models in
fantasy adventure games is just silly.

Now, even in a swords & sorcery game, you might reasonably expect /some/
economic realism, like not being able to buy magic swords in every
little village. That complaint is more reasonable, but D&D already
addresses it. Again, he simply didn't do his homework, which makes him
look foolish.

Post by Beowulf Bolt
It offers a melange of equipment - with a particular eye towards what
an unhistoric 'adventurer' would require - and with no regard towards
the effects of the local industry/conditions would have upon prices
and availability.

That simply isn't true. The game handles it in an abstract, very simple
way, but it does address this.

Post by Beowulf Bolt
One need look no further than the cross-section of weapons and armour
easily available for sale as listed in the DMG to know this.

I see that you didn't do your homework either. If you /did/ look
further, you'd see that the rules go beyond simple equipment lists.

Post by Beowulf Bolt
Modelling a realistic economy - mediaeval or otherwise - was simply
not a particular priority for either D&D's designers ....

Nor should it be. Like I said, if that's his complaint, he's just being
silly.

Post by Beowulf Bolt
Thus your sallying forth armed and armoured to tilt in defense of your
favoured system is - while eminently predictable - terribly pathetic.
As were your unwarranted personal attacks on Simon.

Unwarranted? You two are telling blatant falsehoods about the game in a
weak attempt to prop up a silly argument. Responding with a fuck-off is
entirely reasonable.

[Beowulf Bolt]

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
[Most snipped as I don't have an interest in slogging through another
war with you over the 'realism' of D&D. I don't agree with you -
particularly when you accuse me or Simon of 'not doing our homework'
(hell, I've only been GMing D&D for 20 years now; what the hell do I
know), but I don't have the time or energy to fight about it.]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Beowulf Bolt
Modelling a realistic economy - mediaeval or otherwise - was simply
not a particular priority for either D&D's designers ....

Nor should it be. Like I said, if that's his complaint, he's just
being silly.

Why is this "being silly"? Just because it isn't of priority to *you*
doesn't mean that it cannot be one for others. I note that there are a
few guides available to help a person increase the economic
verisimilitude of a campaign;


http://www.rpgnow.com/product_reviews_info.php?mid=406&reviews_id=4066&

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_reviews_info.php?mid=406&reviews_id=5047&

Thus the subject is of general enough interest as to warrant
discussion, particularly as there is little enough discussion in this
forum as it is.

If you don't want to discuss the subject, keeping your nose out of it
or posting polite corrections to the worst *factual* inaccuracies
(rather than the opinions you mistake for facts) is vastly preferable to
the "fuck-off" responses that are your wont whenever it appears that any
criticism is leveled at the Almighty D&D.

Biff

[Bradd W. Szonye]

I don't agree with you - particularly when you accuse me or Simon of
'not doing our homework' (hell, I've only been GMing D&D for 20 years
now; what the hell do I know) ....

What's your excuse then?

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Beowulf Bolt
Modelling a realistic economy - mediaeval or otherwise - was simply
not a particular priority for either D&D's designers ....

Nor should it be. Like I said, if that's his complaint, he's just
being silly.

Why is this "being silly"?

Because it's not that kind of game. Duh. That's not how it was written,
not how it was marketed, not how it's played, something it's never been.
Complaining that D&D has a naive economic model is like complaining that
chess has lousy graphics.

[Simon Smith]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Simon Smith

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Simon Smith
I was thinking about the problems caused by having mega-rich
characters transplanted into an otherwise unaltered medieval setting.

The simple answer is that Simon didn't do his homework.

... And the /correct/ answer is that I was using DnD and NWN for
purposes of /illustration/. My ballpark figures could be out by a
factor of ten ....

Your "illustration" was lousy. NWN does not have an "otherwise unaltered
medieval setting," and D&D played by-the-book does not exhibit most of
the issues you raised. In the future, you might want to stick to what
you know.
Furthermore, your kneejerk reaction shows some ignorance of wealth
distribution in the medieval period, as Kevin Lowe pointed out.
Essentially, you were comparing two that you just don't understand well
enough to make a reasonable comparison.
Next time, stick to what you know, or do your homework.

I would characterise this post as a 'pre-flame'. That is to say, while not
a flame itself, it is quite provocative enough to that a full-blooded flame
is a probable response. It is certainly the most offensive post that has
ever been directed at me. (OK, so I've had a sheltered life, obviously.)
Nevertheless, please will you refrain from doing this. We /are/ all idiots;
this is Usenet. Pointing out the idiocy of other Usenetters is a Sisyphean
labour; you will never get to the end of it.

I am taking it on trust that you are not actively seeking to get involved in
a flame war; r.g.f.a is a pretty poor forum for that sort of thing. To
become the most feared flame artist in this forum is about as impressive
an achievement as being the fastest gun in Bognor Regis. I don't doubt you
could hold your own in a flame war if it ever 'became necessary'; I would
prefer that it never 'becomes necessary' on any of the newsgroups I
frequent. I would be glad to provide tips on how to phrase yourself in a
less, ahem, incendiary manner, if you want them. Presumably you're here
because your primary interest is RPGs, not flame wars. Oh, and I don't want
anyone else to get into a flame war on my behalf either - I can look after
myself too, thank you. :-)

As far as my example being lousy, well, in one way it seems to have worked
perfectly, because it does seem that everyone understands what I was getting
at even if they disagree with me. OTOH if the ensuing debate become fixated
solely on the pros and cons of DnD without regard to any other system then
that will rather dilute its success.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Simon Smith
I would characterise this post as a 'pre-flame'. That is to say, while
not a flame itself, it is quite provocative enough to that a
full-blooded flame is a probable response ....

You said something provocative and untrue about a popular game. Are you
really surprised that somebody flamed back?

Post by Simon Smith
Nevertheless, please will you refrain from doing this.

Please refrain from making stupidly provocative and untrue claims.

Post by Simon Smith
I am taking it on trust that you are not actively seeking to get
involved in a flame war; r.g.f.a is a pretty poor forum for that sort
of thing.

You're joking, right?

Post by Simon Smith
OTOH if the ensuing debate become fixated solely on the pros and cons
of DnD without regard to any other system then that will rather dilute
its success.

Failure was inevitable as soon as you used a stupid and provocative
example to prop up your claim.

[Simon Smith]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Beowulf Bolt

Post by Simon Smith
I was thinking about the problems caused by having mega-rich
characters transplanted into an otherwise unaltered medieval setting.

<snip DnD-specific points>

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Beowulf Bolt
The simple answer is that Simon is right ....

The simple answer is that Simon didn't do his homework.

... And the /correct/ answer is that I was using DnD and NWN for purposes of
/illustration/. My ballpark figures could be out by a factor of ten; if the
exact values mattered, I could have looked them up. As they're irrelevant to
my core point, I didn't. Were I interested solely in the DnD solution to the
problem I have illustrated, I would have posted to r.g.f.dnd. Please, I
don't want anyone getting hung up on the specific economics of DnD/NWN and
nothing else when considering this problem. Similar economic distortions
would occur in RQII if you were to use the treasure factor tables, RQIII to
a lesser degree, possibly Ars Magica, GURPS, if the GM permitted it, and so
on. Annoyingly I haven't seen Michael's original post yet.

I'll add my own tuppence worth later on.

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by Simon Smith
I was thinking about the problems caused by having mega-rich characters
transplanted into an otherwise unaltered medieval setting. As an example,
take the computer RPG NeverWinter Nights, which is a pretty faithful
implementation of the D&D 3rd Edition game engine.
In this, characters pick up tens, hundreds, and eventually thousands of gold
pieces worth of loot, then go back to a village or town - or city - and sell
those goodies to a merchant. Then they buy new goodies from the merchant,
who will frequently have three pairs of bracers +3 at a price of 12,000
gold, a +4 flaming sowrd for 27,000 and so on. And yet, supposedly in the
same setting there are peasants with but a few copper coins of loot at any
one time, and, we can infer, an annual income on the order of a couple of
gold pieces.

If you read about the lifestyles and possessions of late medieval/early
Renaissance plutocrats like the Borgias, they really did have staggering
amounts of wealth to throw around.

Even today, magnates like the Packers in Australia can and do blow many
times the average person's lifetime earnings at a casino in a single day.

Since in DnD average NPC wealth is tied to level (with exceptions of
course, it's just a general rule) the way the economy works is that
wealth is disproportionately in the hands of personally powerful
individuals - the people in a position to make and/or collect these
expensive weapons and devices.

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

[Simon Smith]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Simon Smith
I was thinking about the problems caused by having mega-rich characters
transplanted into an otherwise unaltered medieval setting. As an example,
take the computer RPG NeverWinter Nights, which is a pretty faithful
implementation of the D&D 3rd Edition game engine.
In this, characters pick up tens, hundreds, and eventually thousands of gold
pieces worth of loot, then go back to a village or town - or city - and sell
those goodies to a merchant. Then they buy new goodies from the merchant,
who will frequently have three pairs of bracers +3 at a price of 12,000
gold, a +4 flaming sowrd for 27,000 and so on. And yet, supposedly in the
same setting there are peasants with but a few copper coins of loot at any
one time, and, we can infer, an annual income on the order of a couple of
gold pieces.

If you read about the lifestyles and possessions of late medieval/early
Renaissance plutocrats like the Borgias, they really did have staggering
amounts of wealth to throw around.
Even today, magnates like the Packers in Australia can and do blow many
times the average person's lifetime earnings at a casino in a single day.
Since in DnD average NPC wealth is tied to level (with exceptions of
course, it's just a general rule) the way the economy works is that
wealth is disproportionately in the hands of personally powerful
individuals - the people in a position to make and/or collect these
expensive weapons and devices.

In DnD, though, that's half of a circular argument. When the game was
written, ownership of one shiny gold piece gave you one experience point.
Hence it was the ownership of wealth that directly translated into greater
temporal power. In later editions, the experience point system was put on a
more sensible basis, but the influence of that original precedent still
permeates the game.

Actually, I think DnD's way of doing things works very well - for the DnD
setting. Rich characters - such as kings and princes - tend also to be
powerful characters, which makes them good patrons or potent opposition.
That sits well with DnD's heroic fantasy tone. The adjustments to the
experience system later on gave GMs explicit licence to break with this
precedent if they so wished, while still allowing them to continue using it
where it suited them.

The presence of Borgias or Packers is not in itself a problem, but there is
no real reason why they chould be formidable combatants as well as filthy
rich. This is an issue that DnD took quite a while to address and correct. I
don't know where the two families you cite got their wealth, but it seems
to me that for the mega-rich people at that time it was often from land
ownership combined with the exploitation of the resources present on that
land. Mining, for example, or fishing or forestry, and trade. They seemed to
get their money from many many individually small enterprises - 100 pounds a
year here, 200 pounds a year there, 1000 pounds a year there, repeated
several hundred times. (And those are olde Englishe poundes, from back in
the days where money was worth something.) Those resources were then traded,
and then those goods were traded in turn, and after two or three iterations
the money started rolling in from all over. I would be glad to be corrected
on this impression if it's wrong.

What is an issue is the assumption that characters, having accumulated large
amounts of loot from adventuring, are able to sell /everything/ immediately
they get to a sufficiently large population centre. If I went to the
jeweler's in Whitton High Street with two years' wages worth in jewelery,
even if I could prove it was all legitimately obtained, I doubt he'd be able
to buy a tenth of it. Fifty pounds here, 200 there, no problem, but six
grand in one hit is a different ball game. I'd have to do Twickenham,
Hounslow, Kingston as well. Or else I could take my goods to auction, and I
would then have to pay auctioneer's fees, and if I set too high a reserve
price, the goods might not sell at all. A big hoard collected by one party
of adventurers could easily be enough to flood the market in a large city,
and it would take a significant amount of work to find all the jewelers,
negotiate with them and sell the goods. How many GMs bother working out how
much loot a given local economy can absorb? How many players would want to
do the leg-work necessary to get a good price? Not the characters
themselves - the players. Not many, I'll bet. In the absence of a GM
anal-retentive enough to calculate this sort of thing, what rules of thumb
does one use to ensure that characters get a reasonable amount for their
loot without bogging down the game? Having introduced a large influx of
wealth into a new setting, what do GMs do to reflect its effects? That's
what I'm interested in knowing.


Large influxes of wealth are a reliable DnD cliche - I did like Beowolf's
cartoon links on the subject - but it's hardly unique to that game.
RuneQuest has a setting with a Nordic feel - the cliche there is that all
the loot just gets converted into booze and drunk, so it's the brewers who
become fabulously wealthy. I have more of a problem assimilating large
influxes of wealth realistically into the RQ setting than I would in the DnD
setting, to be honest. Earthdawn can generate quite large sums too.
According to the rules, the going rate for buying training from first to
second circle is 200 silver. Buying training from seventh to eighth circle
costs 2000 silver. Fourteenth to fifteenth costs 20,000 silver. Fortunately
the designers toned down the cash requirements for advancement compared to
the experience points needed. Had they not done so, all the criticisms of
DnD really would be precisely true of Earthdawn.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Simon Smith
In DnD, though, that's half of a circular argument. When the game was
written, ownership of one shiny gold piece gave you one experience
point. Hence it was the ownership of wealth that directly translated
into greater temporal power. In later editions, the experience point
system was put on a more sensible basis, but the influence of that
original precedent still permeates the game.

Look, you're just showing off your ignorance again. Your paragraph is
loaded with untruths and half-truths. If you want a discussion that will
actually go somewhere productive, do your homework already, and quit
relying on false premises.

Post by Simon Smith
The presence of Borgias or Packers is not in itself a problem, but
there is no real reason why they should be formidable combatants as
well as filthy rich ....

Unless, of course, you're playing a fantasy adventure game. See, there's
this little thing where the players want to convert their spending power
into fantasy adventuring power.

Post by Simon Smith
What is an issue is the assumption that characters, having accumulated
large amounts of loot from adventuring, are able to sell /everything/
immediately they get to a sufficiently large population centre ....

What's wrong with that?

Post by Simon Smith
If I went to the jeweler's in Whitton High Street with two years'
wages worth in jewelery, even if I could prove it was all legitimately
obtained, I doubt he'd be able to buy a tenth of it.

There's more than one jeweler in the world, you know. Can't unload it
all in one place? Shop around. Just because the game doesn't force you
to play out the shopping in detail doesn't mean that its economic model
is broken.

Look, you're just piling on more strawmen in a feeble attempt to prop up
a lame argument.

[Beowulf Bolt]

How many GMs bother working out how much loot a given local economy
can absorb? How many players would want to do the leg-work necessary
to get a good price? Not the characters themselves - the players. Not
many, I'll bet. In the absence of a GM anal-retentive enough to
calculate this sort of thing, what rules of thumb does one use to
ensure that characters get a reasonable amount for their loot without
bogging down the game? Having introduced a large influx of wealth into
a new setting, what do GMs do to reflect its effects? That's what I'm
interested in knowing.

I've provided these links in a response to Bradd, but I'll do the same
here. You might be interested in perusing either of these manuals;

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_reviews_info.php?mid=406&reviews_id=4066&
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_reviews_info.php?mid=406&reviews_id=5047&

(Note the ampersand at the end of the URL; some newsreaders might not
recognize that as part of the URL.)

While I don't own either, I've perused a friend's copy of the Magical
Medieval Society book and was quite impressed. I'll probably grab a
copy of my own ere I run a pseudo-mediaeval campaign again.


(As per my own experiences with the problems you raise, I had a crash
course in one campaign where the party Thief decided it was more
profitable to exploit the setting loopholes in importation/exportation
of goods, falling back on most of his Appraisal and similar skills [and
stealing a huge sum of money from the group to finance his burgeoning
empire - a theft which the other players blamed on 'transparent GM
manipulation to rob them of their accumulated wealth']. This enterprise
almost derailed the campaign as more and more time and research was
spent to satisfy the secret sub-plotting of a single character.

Then too was the campaign where the party rigged a set of chariot
races to score a huge pile of cash, then had to flee the ancient
pseudo-roman equivalent of the mafia.... Good times....)

Biff

[Ross Winn]

welcome to the world of X/CRAWL