Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 159
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Since there were real life Pacific islands with economies based on bird crap half a century I wouldn't scoff at a guano economy.
    It's not just pacific islands. Peru had an economy based on bat guano for a while - they had a lot of caves, bat guano was a really good source for nitrates used in gunpowder (and other explosives), and Peru wasn't particularly wealthy at the time. So, bat guano was harvested at a mass scale, though it dwindled to some extent as Peru got wealthier, and basically vanished once the Haber Process was developed.

    Quote Originally Posted by jedipotter View Post
    1. Using spell components is a great way to balance spells. If you play a more Old School style game. In the New Way, it is a waste of time as the players will just overcome it and the DM will just let them. You get a couple of blank sheets of paper, and have the player write down everything they have in the pouch. Keep track of sizes and weights and how much is in the bag. Don't have magic marts with all the components, have the spellcaster search for some of them. And it's even better if the adventure takes place miles from the nearest store(the whole idea of shops and stores everywhere is so video game).
    It's a needlessly complicated way to balance spells that sucks down a huge amount of playing time. If one wants to focus on it it works just fine, but it's hardly necessary. There are other ways that work just as well for similar effects, from just powering down the spells, to geographic restrictions (a mage might get all of their wind spells from the power of the sea breeze, which means that they are going to suck something awful on an inland mountain - the easiest way to handle this would be to actually sort spells by terrain), to

    As for shops and stores everywhere - I have never seen that assumed in any game. The closest I've seen is games that specifically take place in cities, wherein getting to a shop is generally pretty easy. Your depiction of the New Way doesn't even vaguely resemble any game I've ever seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by jedipotter View Post
    2. A simple, blanket rule for creation spells: it is not as good as the real thing. You could make it something like 50% as good. It is fine for an emergency, but not for long term use. Have it look and feel fake...maybe occasionally give off whisps of smoke. Have a 50% chance that they fail when used for anything.
    This is a pretty nice house rule. Another way would be to incorporate the spells into the economy, or restrict what spells can do. An example I've liked is with a fairly restrictive magic system - there's transmutation of materials, and that's it. You can take something and change what material it is made of. The actual shape doesn't change at all, so worked goods are still valuable - though magic is useful in worked goods, as it's much easier to shape, say, clay into a particular shape then turn it into bronze than it is to just shape bronze.

    That said - the simplest method where you aren't specifically focusing on the meticulous tracking of items (and there are other things that games can focus on and still be good) is to simply pare down the spells and get rid of those that are particularly powerful. Then the rest of the economy can just be stolen from ACKS wholesale.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    More accurate to say: You can't cheat and play a broken spellcaster. Is it a bad thing to drop spellcasters down to like Teir 3? I don't think so....
    Wow, so now the Wizard is a cheater for picking Wizard? Seriously? I'm so glad I don't play in your campaign, it's begining to look like you're the classic Advisarial DM who views his players as his opponents.

    As for dropping casters down a tier, there's far better ways to do it then trying to 'weaponize' what was meant to be Fluff against them. The Material components of spells are largely there for flavor, it has almost nothing to do with the spells actual power, and trying to balance the spells by them is just so scattershot and random.
    Last edited by Thanatosia; 2014-06-08 at 05:53 PM.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    If your goal is to drop wizards to tier 3 messing with spell components is not gonna do it most non valuable material components could be acquired so trivially and stock piled that any limitations would break suspension of disbelief so wait all the bull are bald? There arnt any spider web in the whole city? No bakers in the city no how to cook a tart even one that tastes bad?

    A single feat negates the whole thing and it punishes player regardless of whether they are breaking the game or not.
    You make fire ball impossible to cast becuase apparently there are no bat anywhere nearby despite them living on basically every continent and being one of the most widely distributed mammals of the real world living in forest, field, cave and more. he can just use explosive rune shenanigans for basically the same effect at much greater raw power.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by jedipotter View Post
    Well the question was not ''what if the player asked the rest of the group to help his character find some needed things. '' It was what if the whole group was bored waiting around for the one player.

    I do punish people for being problem players.
    So if the group is okay with a brief detour to hunt bat guano, so are you?

    Quote Originally Posted by jedipotter View Post
    More accurate to say: You can't cheat and play a broken spellcaster. Is it a bad thing to drop spellcasters down to like Teir 3? I don't think so....
    My wizard has taken eschew material components. What spell can he potentially not cast now?

    Quote Originally Posted by jedipotter View Post
    Well, it is not stupid at all. It works like this....not bats around, then no one is casting fireball. Simple. Easy. It is a great way of avoiding the ''everyone in the world knows the same twelve spells'' problem.
    So you have a list of all components and where they can and cannot be bought (can I see this list) as well as a list of what spells are not cast in a certain area because there is no necessary component there and no trade for it? (Can I see this lis

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    The DM is simply playing an NPC - the god - like any other; that's a big part of the DM's job.
    No. When I have a 20th level wizard RAW legally teleport in, curse and geas your character, teleport out before you can react, I am not simply "playing an NPC" I am doing so in a manner that deliberatly screws over your character.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    Sure, but it doesn't require a detailed break down as you suggested; simply a statement that that's how this DM's campaign works. Players will be able to predict most of the details from common sense or work them out from exploring the possibilities in-game. Which is good because then the DM can introduce the exceptions as part of game play and adventure plots etc.
    No, it doesn't work that way. If Boccop, the neutral god of magic, has decided that evil and good cannot use magic, that has sweeping effects on the game that need to be discussed during character creation. This is not a minor detail, it is a setting defining attitude, it cannot simply "reveal" itself as the game plot advances.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    Yes. I think those were the assumptions.
    Assumptions that are not necessary correct, and even if they were I addressed why it still wouldn't be a big deal.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2014

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    No. When I have a 20th level wizard RAW legally teleport in, curse and geas your character, teleport out before you can react, I am not simply "playing an NPC" I am doing so in a manner that deliberatly screws over your character.
    Depends on the context. To take the example of gods: if your 20th level wizard is about to defile the temple of a deity, there's no obvious reason why that deity can not send a servant to teleport in, curse and geas you and teleport out again before you can react.

    Now, whether the same god can do the same thing if you are about to defile some other deity's temple is a different issue but, as I hinted before, by the time the characters are at 20th level the players will have had lots of time to figure out, or at least closely estimate, how this sort of thing works without a 20 page hand-out or whatever you're imagining.

    I do agree that it's not something you can introduce mid-campaign, but it can be there from the start without any need to explain the details.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    I do agree that it's not something you can introduce mid-campaign, but it can be there from the start without any need to explain the details.
    Again, no. Divine intervention is not something you can just casually mention, it needs parameters.

    Very few players are going to see "Occasionally deities will directly step into the material realm to prevent our counteract actions that harm their followers, establishments or portfolios" as a good piece of setting lore, and a lot will translate it as "Occasionally I will use DM fiat to make stuff happen I want it to", and you can hardly blame them.

    Now compare that to: "Occasionally deities will directly step into the material realm to prevent our counteract actions that harm their followers, establishments or portfolios. Here are a brief list of the more commonly known incidents when a deity has interviewed, including the cause, who they interviewed against and what the result was" and now you have a legit piece of setting lore that players can actually understand and prepare for.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    Depends on the context. To take the example of gods: if your 20th level wizard is about to defile the temple of a deity, there's no obvious reason why that deity can not
    The most common interpretation is that the deity cannot/will not to that to prevent another deity from pulling something similar on one of their followers.
    Last edited by Boci; 2014-06-11 at 12:16 PM.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Larkas's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    To make a subsystem even faintly resembling a simplified economic system, you'd have to take into account spells. And I'm not talking about simply seeing what they can do, I mean actively changing and restricting it, and how easily you can access them. (I won't even go into the spell component debate here.)

    I'd probably restrict "level up spells" for wizards, maybe making them follow (probably much harder) spell research rules for those spells - or simply finding scrolls to scribe in their spellbooks. This has one advantage: I'd be able to restrict the wizard to the spells I want to see cast but not completely shut him out from all the others. With this, I could direct the player towards more "setting-friendly" spells. (Of course, this doesn't mean I wouldn't reserve myself the right to outright ban some spells, but this is a balance consideration, not an economics one). It might also be a good idea to tweak a few spells ("hmmm, this spell can be cast no problem, but it needs this costly focus in this setting", for example). Of course, all these changes would have to be informed to the player when he's choosing new spells to learn at the latest, though it might make things easier to ask the player to inform you which spells s/he's thinking of learning on level up beforehand so you can tell him what's changed and what's available.

    Tweaking full divine casters might also be a good idea. Taking a page from the Archivist, maybe the Cleric will need a prayerbook, and the Druid some kind of runic staff. Mind, this isn't to introduce these casters to the risk of losing their spells: they could just as well need only to inscribe these spells as a mantra in their respective media and not need to reference them when preparing. It's just a way to say "you need to find or research this prayer before casting it".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    "Magic can't be used to short-circuit the economy." As a consequence of this idea:

    Food created with create food is bland and tasteless. It satisfies hunger and is nutritious, but you won't ever get any joy out of eating it.

    Anything that would normally require Craft checks will still require such checks; the spell simply side-steps the time required.

    Anything created that has a theoretical permanent duration instead has a duration measured in days to weeks (I secretly roll two DC 10 caster level checks for the caster. If both succeed, I multiply the margins of success together for duration in days; if one succeed, I treat that margin of success as the duration in days; if both fail, duration is one day).

    Anything created or transmutated must either conserve or consume weight, volume, and value. You can't turn lead into gold, unless you turn it into a much smaller amount of gold that is worth the same or less than the original amount of lead.

    As regards mining, you may be surprised to learn that the 1e DMG had detailed rules for mines.
    I agree with most everything here, except for the transmutation part. I'm not so sure how I'd do it, but maybe something along these lines might make sense:

    - You need a specific "philosopher's stone" for each and every kind of transmutation. Want to turn lead into gold? Nice, you'll need this stone as a focus. Want to turn copper into gold? Too bad, you'll have to find another one.

    - These stones (they don't even have to be actual stones, it's just an example) must be extremely rare and expensive (if they're available in any market at all). They also can't be replicated by mortal magic (yes, including Wish).

    This way, you have an extremely high fixed cost along with a mild variable cost. You should eventually be able to turn up some profit, but not so soon.

    If you want to further limit things, you can say that each stone is only good for a fixed amount of transmuted matter (say, 100 lbs. of gold), going completely inert after it has been used up. This way, you can fine tune how much the stone can affect the economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shinken View Post
    Sorry, I was wrong. I was assuming it meant the same as its cognate in Portuguese.
    Sorry, I'm Brazilian and an economist. The meaning is exactly the same in Portuguese.
    Quote Originally Posted by cerin616 View Post
    I just like to think that Smaug's "cry of pain" was "OH GOD, MY PRETTY! YOU HIT MY RIGHT IN THE PRETTY."
    Metal Perfection - a template for creatures born on Mirrodin.
    True Ferocity - a simple fix for Orcs and Half-Orcs.
    Monastic Magus - a spiritual successor to the Unarmed Swordsage.
    Pathfinder-ish Synthesist - a simple fix making Synthesist Summoners follow polymorph rules.
    Sword & Sorcery for Sneaky Scoundrels - rogue archetypes/fixes that aim to turn the rogue into a warrior/caster.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2014

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    And the most important question:

    Is the effort required to answer those and adapt the rules and playstyle accordingly worth it? Answer: probably not. This is D&D, you can sleep off a dagger wound, very few wounds bleed (its an enchantment, despite the fact that mundane weapon on earth have caused bleeding without magic for many centuries). Creatures can just be scaled up, the economy makes no sense at all. Ect, ect.

    Even if you do fix the component pouch, you are still left with the problem that they are kinda stupid. Wanna talk realism? Cool. What are the material component for a fireball to a tribal sorcerer who grew up on an island where bats are not native? Or are bats native everywhere?

    If material components bothers you, give spellcasters eschew material component, or rework them to have a more universal version (all abjuration spells, all fire spells). If you want to balance casters, introduce proper house rules.

    Don't try and balance them under the guise of realistic spell components, and certainly don't kick a player out of the game when they try and work within these restrictions (which is another point, reguardless of whether or not a wizard can find bat guano, kicking them out for trying is being heavy handed to put it mildly).
    If a region doesn't have metal, the fighter can't have plate armor (save things like ironwood) or greatswords. If a region doesn't have bats, the spellcasters can't cast fireball. How is that anything but fair, consistent, and rational?

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Banned
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by VoxRationis View Post
    If a region doesn't have metal, the fighter can't have plate armor (save things like ironwood) or greatswords. If a region doesn't have bats, the spellcasters can't cast fireball. How is that anything but fair, consistent, and rational?
    Sounds good to me.

    3E is the worst for making the whole world ''bland and the same''. Going by the rules, every place in the whole world, is rules-wise, exactly like every other place in the world. It is bad enough for things like ''the spell component pouch has tentacles, seaweed, or a live insect'' even if the caster is say in the desert or arctic. It is lots worse when ''the spell component pouch has a humanoid brain or an oni eyelash''.

    And it is only worse for the dreaded optimizers. They will demand the ''best'' weapons in the book and try and quote some words and say ''if it is in the book I can have it''. Even though it makes no sense for a barbarian from a stone age tribe to have a steel greatsword (but the optimizer must have that weapon to do the most damage...er, that is ''have fun'').


    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    So if the group is okay with a brief detour to hunt bat guano, so are you?
    Yes. Though few groups of mine have bent over backwards for the spellcaster. They won't side track the game to look for stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    My wizard has taken eschew material components. What spell can he potentially not cast now?
    All the spells with material components with a cost, plus all creature parts and any component I house rule as being worth more then a gold coin.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    So you have a list of all components and where they can and cannot be bought (can I see this list) as well as a list of what spells are not cast in a certain area because there is no necessary component there and no trade for it? (Can I see this list)
    Of course. It is easy enough to make. But I'm not going to post it...it is secret. A player or two might see it....
    Last edited by jedipotter; 2014-06-11 at 02:32 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2014

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    Again, no. Divine intervention is not something you can just casually mention, it needs parameters.
    Well, if you mean "written rules" I don't agree. If you mean "some sort of logic", then I agree.

    Very few players are going to see "Occasionally deities will directly step into the material realm to prevent our counteract actions that harm their followers, establishments or portfolios" as a good piece of setting lore,
    I really don't see the problem; that's what gods do in mythology all the time.

    and a lot will translate it as "Occasionally I will use DM fiat to make stuff happen I want it to", and you can hardly blame them.
    If you have a fear of DM fiat then you need a new DM you can trust. The DM's job is to give you entertaining obstacles to overcome, not dump on you for no in-game reason.

    Now compare that to: "Occasionally deities will directly step into the material realm to prevent our counteract actions that harm their followers, establishments or portfolios. Here are a brief list of the more commonly known incidents when a deity has interviewed, including the cause, who they interviewed against and what the result was" and now you have a legit piece of setting lore that players can actually understand and prepare for.
    That's clunky and un-needed hinting by the DM. I can't imagine any reason that new characters would need to have that signposted unless you were starting them at high level with new (to the campaign) players, in which case it's fair enough.

    The most common interpretation is that the deity cannot/will not to that to prevent another deity from pulling something similar on one of their followers.
    Notice that I didn't suggest it happened to them while walking down the street. See my comment about trusting the DM.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    Well, if you mean "written rules" I don't agree. If you mean "some sort of logic", then I agree.
    What is the difference in your mind between the two?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    I really don't see the problem; that's what gods do in mythology all the time.
    Just because it happened in mythology doesn't mean its good for a D&D game. They are two entirely separate mediums.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    If you have a fear of DM fiat then you need a new DM you can trust. The DM's job is to give you entertaining obstacles to overcome, not dump on you for no in-game reason.
    Right, and the setting lore you are proposing sounds like the latter, not the former. If the DM needs divine intervention to give the PCs interesting obstacles, they may want to re-examine their planning method.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    That's clunky and un-needed hinting by the DM. I can't imagine any reason that new characters would need to have that signposted unless you were starting them at high level with new (to the campaign) players, in which case it's fair enough.
    Because my PC, even if they are low leveled, is a part of the world and this is lore of the world? I imagine most people in ancient Greece knew not to mock the gods for example, because they had a mythology that stated that such events could lead to the gods intervening.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    Notice that I didn't suggest it happened to them while walking down the street. See my comment about trusting the DM.
    That changes nothing. A LG deity still may not want to intervene to save one of their temples if that means a CE deity can then do the same to prevent a paladin cleaning their temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by jedipotter View Post
    Yes. Though few groups of mine have bent over backwards for the spellcaster. They won't side track the game to look for stuff.
    Would they allow a ranger out of arrows to craft some new ones?

    Quote Originally Posted by jedipotter View Post
    Of course. It is easy enough to make. But I'm not going to post it...it is secret. A player or two might see it....
    Can you PM it to me? You're saying its a great system, and I agree. Its the work required that I'm doubtful about. If I can see a complete system I could judge how long it would take for me to do it well.

    Quote Originally Posted by VoxRationis View Post
    If a region doesn't have metal, the fighter can't have plate armor (save things like ironwood) or greatswords. If a region doesn't have bats, the spellcasters can't cast fireball. How is that anything but fair, consistent, and rational?
    Sounds great. Now all you need is the hours of work that are left assigning this attitude to your campaign world. Remember to take trading into account, so some wizards may have bat poop despite having npo native bats because they trade for it.
    Last edited by Boci; 2014-06-11 at 04:18 PM.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by jedipotter View Post
    Well the question was not ''what if the player asked the rest of the group to help his character find some needed things. '' It was what if the whole group was bored waiting around for the one player.

    I do punish people for being problem players.
    Saying "hey, can I take 30 seconds of RL time/3 hours of in-game time to go gather components" is being a problem player? Seriously?

    More accurate to say: You can't cheat and play a broken spellcaster. Is it a bad thing to drop spellcasters down to like Teir 3? I don't think so....
    I swear, the number of times I've seen arguments like this... you know what, I'm proposing a new fallacy, right here and now. Call it Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use. When you do:
    • The disruptive munchkin ignores it, argues it, or forces the rest of the group to suffer through it. His power remains the same, and he gets more annoying to play with.
    • The inappropriate powergamer figures out how to circumvent the restriction. His power remains the same.
    • The reasonable player either figures out how to circumvent the restriction (rendering it moot), avoids the class (turning it into a ban) or suffers through it. His power remains the same and/or his enjoyment goes down.
    • The new player avoids the class or suffers through it. His enjoyment goes down.

    Notice how the problem players feel the least impact?

    And yeah, you can yell and fiat at your players all you want to stop them from "cheating" the system, but that only works if you have a reasonable group to start with-- ie, one that's not going to disrupt the game through munchkinry.
    Last edited by Grod_The_Giant; 2015-01-12 at 11:06 PM.

    STaRS (and STaRS Lite)
    A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system, by me. Now officially released!

    Grod's Guide to Greatness
    A big book of player options for 5e, by me

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2014

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    Sounds great. Now all you need is the hours of work that are left assigning this attitude to your campaign world. Remember to take trading into account, so some wizards may have bat poop despite having npo native bats because they trade for it.
    If one doesn't feel like putting effort into one's campaign settings, that's one's own business. But it's not that difficult to deal with this line of thought. I dare to assume that a DM has an idea of where all the "warm marshes" are in their setting. A rakshasa is listed as living in a warm marsh, and only in a warm marsh. So if the only warm marshes are thousands of miles from Genericsvale, the odds of finding a rakshasa eyelash are pretty low, even if the GP limit for Genericsvale easily accommodates a spell component pouch. A DM who puts a little more effort into their campaign settings than that probably knows that rakshasas only live in a specific region, and that the equatorial marshes a continent over are not a source of rakshasa eyelashes.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by VoxRationis View Post
    If one doesn't feel like putting effort into one's campaign settings, that's one's own business. But it's not that difficult to deal with this line of thought. I dare to assume that a DM has an idea of where all the "warm marshes" are in their setting. A rakshasa is listed as living in a warm marsh, and only in a warm marsh. So if the only warm marshes are thousands of miles from Genericsvale, the odds of finding a rakshasa eyelash are pretty low, even if the GP limit for Genericsvale easily accommodates a spell component pouch. A DM who puts a little more effort into their campaign settings than that probably knows that rakshasas only live in a specific region, and that the equatorial marshes a continent over are not a source of rakshasa eyelashes.
    How close do you need to be to a marsh to have rakshasa eyelashes? 10 miles? 100 miles? Your saying such a system would is "not that difficult" and only requires "a little more effort". Well put your money where your mouth is. Don't just do one component at a time, take the "little effort" and apply it to them all.

    Also, Europeans traded for pepper in China and India in the Renaissance era. Pretty sure that was more than 1,000 miles.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    dascarletm's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Saying "hey, can I take 30 seconds of RL time/3 hours of in-game time to go gather components" is being a problem player? Seriously?


    I swear, the number of times I've seen arguments like this... you know what, I'm proposing a new fallacy, right here and now. Call it Grod's Fallacy: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use. When you do:
    • The disruptive munchkin ignores it, argues it, or forces the rest of the group to suffer through it. His power remains the same, and he gets more annoying to play with.
    • The inappropriate powergamer figures out how to circumvent the restriction. His power remains the same.
    • The reasonable player either figures out how to circumvent the restriction (rendering it mood), avoids the class (turning it into a ban) or suffers through it. His power remains the same and/or his enjoyment goes down.
    • The new player avoids the class or suffers through it. His enjoyment goes down.

    Notice how the problem players feel the least impact?

    And yeah, you can yell and fiat at your players all you want to stop them from "cheating" the system, but that only works if you have a reasonable group to start with-- ie, one that's not going to disrupt the game through munchkinry.
    I back this fallacy with my full support. I'm glad someone finally put it out there.
    Dascarletm, Spinner of Rudiplorked Tales, and Purveyor of Puns
    Thanks to Artman77 for the avatar!
    Extended Signature

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2014

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    What is the difference in your mind between the two?
    Written rules can not cope with the complexities of a role-played situation like this. A DM can handle it easily using the context of situation, characters, and the specific actions, not to mention their personal design for their campaign.

    Just because it happened in mythology doesn't mean its good for a D&D game. They are two entirely separate mediums.
    They're different media but D&D is largely based on mythology - elves, magic, gods that exist, magic swords and so on. And many campaigns have Thor or Zeus running around in them.

    Right, and the setting lore you are proposing sounds like the latter, not the former. If the DM needs divine intervention to give the PCs interesting obstacles, they may want to re-examine their planning method.
    Well, context is everything. Are you suggesting that a character directly attacking the main temple of a deity should be surprised that they get a direct intervention against them? Are you suggesting that the deity's worshippers would not expect it and probably even openly warn of it? I feel that you're saying that gods must only be played one way, and a very gamey way at that.

    Because my PC, even if they are low leveled, is a part of the world and this is lore of the world? I imagine most people in ancient Greece knew not to mock the gods for example, because they had a mythology that stated that such events could lead to the gods intervening.
    Yes, exactly, and the players know that too. What's the point in giving them a hand out about stuff they already know. If the game is predicated on the existence of deities then the implication is that those deities may act in their own interests and the players will know lots and lots of stories about that already.

    That changes nothing. A LG deity still may not want to intervene to save one of their temples if that means a CE deity can then do the same to prevent a paladin cleaning their temple.
    "May". Again, this is my point - finding out how the balance of power between deities and clerics in game is much more interesting than slapping down a load of text for the players to read.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    Written rules can not cope with the complexities of a role-played situation like this. A DM can handle it easily using the context of situation, characters, and the specific actions, not to mention their personal design for their campaign.
    I agree. So why are you so against a logic being worked out for the DM to operate by? It doesn't have to be written rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    They're different media but D&D is largely based on mythology
    That a game is based off mythology means very little. There are more differences then there are similarities. "The chosen one" for example is classic trope of mythology that may not work so well in a D&D game because its a group game. It still can, but it needs more care. You cannot just slap something from mythology into a D&D game and expect it to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    Well, context is everything. Are you suggesting that a character directly attacking the main temple of a deity should be surprised that they get a direct intervention against them? Are you suggesting that the deity's worshippers would not expect it and probably even openly warn of it? I feel that you're saying that gods must only be played one way, and a very gamey way at that.
    I saying dieties shouldn't be played. They work best as passive characters, unless you start at an obscenely high level, because, well they are gods. If they can influence the material world, what are the PCs needed for? The thing that stops a diety's temple from being defiled should be the followers of the diety, not the diety themselves.

    Frequent divine intervention has never made a D&D game better in my experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    Yes, exactly, and the players know that too. What's the point in giving them a hand out about stuff they already know.
    The players don't know that, because every DM employs setting lore different. Unless its a pre-published setting, you're gona want to clarify things with your players.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    "May". Again, this is my point - finding out how the balance of power between deities and clerics in game is much more interesting than slapping down a load of text for the players to read.
    I never said the DM should explain the exact balance, but they should list well known examples, because they are well known. Just like (if its plot relevant) they should tell me the basic details about famous historical battles, then I can find out the details in game, but if its a famous battle, you should tell me upfront who fought who, who lost, some other details.
    Last edited by Boci; 2014-06-12 at 03:19 PM.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2014

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    I agree. So why are you so against a logic being worked out for the DM to operate by?
    I guess I just don't believe that it can be done. The DM can handle logic just fine for their game; others may make suggestions but there's a poor effort:utility reward in getting detailed.

    You cannot just slap something from mythology into a D&D game and expect it to work.
    True, but there are certain things that are "normal", dragons and gods being two of them IMO. They just work more or less as expected.

    If they can influence the material world, what are the PCs needed for?
    If they can't then what are the gods for? :) I'm not advocating that the gods should take a frequent direct action, but that some things are "asking for it".

    Frequent divine intervention has never made a D&D game better in my experience.
    I agree.

    The players don't know that, because every DM employs setting lore different. Unless its a pre-published setting, you're gona want to clarify things with your players.
    Well, I think it must be a difference in players. I know that if I have a major temple to Thoth in a city the people I play with will not enter it with the intent of burning all the books without any fear that Thoth himself will make a direct response. It can be done, and the deity can be prevented from doing so but the methods for achieving that are not public knowledge - they're not even clerical knowledge until you get to very high level. But, in any case, players generally assume that if the gods are real then you have to be careful about what you do in their strongholds.

    I never said the DM should explain the exact balance, but they should list well known examples, because they are well known. Just like (if its plot relevant) they should tell me the basic details about famous historical battles, then I can find out the details in game, but if its a famous battle, you should tell me upfront who fought who, who lost, some other details.
    Well, "plot relevant" isn't something I worry about, so maybe that's another reason we don't quite see eye-to-eye on this. If the players' actions are heading in that direction then I assume that they'll find out what they need to know in-game. If they're were careful players in that sense, they'd not have reached high enough level to worry about how to neutralize gods in their main temples anyway.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    I guess I just don't believe that it can be done. The DM can handle logic just fine for their game; others may make suggestions but there's a poor effort:utility reward in getting detailed.
    I don't understand what you mean here.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    True, but there are certain things that are "normal", dragons and gods being two of them IMO. They just work more or less as expected.
    Can you name an official setting with a precedent for the kind of divine intervention you are talking about? (Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, Dark Sun?)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    If they can't then what are the gods for? :)
    Granting spells, legitimizing philosophies and giving epic level characters someone to interact with. And setting lore.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    Well, I think it must be a difference in players. I know that if I have a major temple to Thoth in a city the people I play with will not enter it with the intent of burning all the books without any fear that Thoth himself will make a direct response. It can be done, and the deity can be prevented from doing so but the methods for achieving that are not public knowledge - they're not even clerical knowledge until you get to very high level. But, in any case, players generally assume that if the gods are real then you have to be careful about what you do in their strongholds.
    Again, if this is so obvious, can you name an official setting with a precedent for this kind of divine intervention? (Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, Dark Sun?)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    Well, "plot relevant" isn't something I worry about, so maybe that's another reason we don't quite see eye-to-eye on this. If the players' actions are heading in that direction then I assume that they'll find out what they need to know in-game. If they're were careful players in that sense, they'd not have reached high enough level to worry about how to neutralize gods in their main temples anyway.
    But doesn't it hinder roleplay to not be told stuff about the setting your character would know? Not every little detail, but then divine intervention generally isn't little.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PersonMan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Duitsland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    Any reasonably intelligent merchant will note that the wizard ALWAYS has enough gold and never sells anything to acquire more gold, and can logically conclude that he has an infinite (or effectively so) supply of gold, and so would adjust his prices accordingly.
    I go to a pawn shop run by a reasonably intelligent person, and buy a few things. I return regularly, buying a few more each time. I always have enough money to do so.

    By your logic, the logical response is for the prices to shoot upwards each time I go there, because I obviously have an infinite supply of money, based on the fact that I spend some without an obvious source of income.

    If, in reality, I'm just a guy from another part of the country who travels to this region in the off season of my work (I come to this region during my vacation, for example), then this man has screwed himself over because by upping his prices massively to account for my infinite money that I don't have, he's lost me as a customer.

    Unless people gaining infinite gold happens regularly, then the logical conclusions are more like:

    -This guy is obviously a noble from a different region.
    -This guy has obviously inherited a significant amount of money.
    -This guy earns a lot of money via not super obvious means; he could work from home as an artist for a wealthy patron, for example.

    Eventually, as those get crossed off, criminal activities or similar are the logical conclusion. "He has infinite gold, because he doesn't sell things to me or come begging" is not a logical conclusion, unless people gaining infinite gold is a normal thing or people always buy/sell everything to the same person and put their lack of wealth on display regularly.

    ---

    Regarding gods: In a lot of settings, gods are relatively inactive on the mortal planes. If your setting has gods that do something more than once every thousand years, then it changes things, as does frequent divine communication and such.

    Gods can be anything from ways to explain the unexplainable (ranging from 'why does that mountain sometimes explode' to 'why do seasons happen' to 'why can that guy close a gaping wound by touching your shoulder') to some of the movers and shakers of a setting, who regularly shape the course of history.

    A lot of settings restrict divine activity for good reason - imagine if the patron deities of two regions or nations go to war with those regions/nations. Imagine if the deity of magic saw itself threatened by the rising deity of alchemists, and called for the destruction of all alchemical knowledge. Monarchies operating by divine right would experience occasional purges as the deity in question came down to the mortal world to keep some undesirables off the throne. Suddenly the world is defined far more by the whims and clash of deities than it is by mortals.

    It can work, but putting active deities into an otherwise 'normal' setting makes no sense. Everything will have repercussions.

    Making deities do things like protect their sanctuaries mean that temples will probably swell in size massively, becoming huge complexes where, depending on the deity and society, the rich/privileged or the common folk rush to whenever the city is under attack. Temples will probably serve other functions as well - if the throne room of King Rules In Deity X's Name is a temple of Deity X, then they're better protected and more open to Deity X's instructions.

    If I'm not told anything about stuff like this, but suddenly a deity curbstomps me because I did something they didn't like in their temple, I'm going to be confused and angry, just like how if I say "I take first watch" and get a reply of "you explode, because in this world taking first watch kills you if you didn't make the fire". It's something that changes the setting and should be well known, not assumed to be a standard assumption of players.
    Not Person_Man, don't thank me for things he did.

    Old-to-New table converter. Also not made by me.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2014

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    I don't understand what you mean here.
    It would take a huge effort to codify all "logical" rules for a role playing setting for little reward since the DM can do it on the fly with their intimate knowledge of their setting.

    Can you name an official setting with a precedent for the kind of divine intervention you are talking about? (Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, Dark Sun?)
    You're approaching the question as an institutionalised (late edition)D&D player. I'm talking about playing with people who are fantasy fans or even just normal people from work. They expect it to work that way because people know fantasy and mythology and real-world religious claims without having to be told some stuff about obscure (to them) fan-fic worlds.

    Granting spells, legitimizing philosophies and giving epic level characters someone to interact with. And setting lore.
    Well, that's very limiting IMO. They're basically just vending machines/punchbags. No real religion of any substance has ever taken that approach, especially the ones that tend to appear in D&D.

    But doesn't it hinder roleplay to not be told stuff about the setting your character would know? Not every little detail, but then divine intervention generally isn't little.
    I agree; I'm saying that divine intervention is something everyone expects unless they've been conditioned otherwise by years of playing in very artificial worlds like the ones you listed.

    I've literally never played with anyone that would be surprised that defiling a major temple runs the risk of their character simply being killed by a "bolt from the blue" (something that I would not actually do, but people kida expect it when you tell them the gods are real.

    I think that's the disconnect - as DM I'm saying "the gods are real" and as a jaded and experience player/DM you're saying "they're not real like an NPC cobbler is real; they're rule constructs"

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    It would take a huge effort to codify all "logical" rules for a role playing setting for little reward since the DM can do it on the fly with their intimate knowledge of their setting.

    You're approaching the question as an institutionalised (late edition)D&D player. I'm talking about playing with people who are fantasy fans or even just normal people from work. They expect it to work that way because people know fantasy and mythology and real-world religious claims without having to be told some stuff about obscure (to them) fan-fic worlds.

    Well, that's very limiting IMO. They're basically just vending machines/punchbags. No real religion of any substance has ever taken that approach, especially the ones that tend to appear in D&D.

    I agree; I'm saying that divine intervention is something everyone expects unless they've been conditioned otherwise by years of playing in very artificial worlds like the ones you listed.

    I've literally never played with anyone that would be surprised that defiling a major temple runs the risk of their character simply being killed by a "bolt from the blue" (something that I would not actually do, but people kida expect it when you tell them the gods are real.

    I think that's the disconnect - as DM I'm saying "the gods are real" and as a jaded and experience player/DM you're saying "they're not real like an NPC cobbler is real; they're rule constructs"
    On the contrary what deity has time to care about some temple defiler? That's what the help is for. Why bother expending actual effort defending a place that should, by rights, be crawling with clerics, paladins, and perhaps a favored soul or two?
    Most people see a half orc and and think barbarian warrior. Me on the other hand? I think secondary trap handler and magic item tester. Also I'm not allowed to trick the next level one wizard into starting a fist fight with a house cat no matter how annoying he is.
    Yes I know it's sarcasm. It's a joke. Pale green is for snarking
    Thread wins: 2

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    It would take a huge effort to codify all "logical" rules for a role playing setting for little reward since the DM can do it on the fly with their intimate knowledge of their setting.
    You don't have to codify all logic, but have a basic idea of how it works.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    You're approaching the question as an institutionalised (late edition)D&D player. I'm talking about playing with people who are fantasy fans or even just normal people from work. They expect it to work that way because people know fantasy and mythology and real-world religious claims without having to be told some stuff about obscure (to them) fan-fic worlds.
    Okay, I'll bite. What fantasy and mythology are you referring to? Greek mythology established that mocking the gods was a bad idea, but even then it wasn't an instantaneous consequence. Plus the weaver, the most famous example, she technically won, thus proving her claim right. Also LotR, another famous inspiration for D&D, has very little divine intervention (I don't know of any aside from possibly Gandalf being resurrected). Any other works you feel I've missed?

    Plus as I said before, just because its in mythology doesn't mean its good in a game. Having a female cleric raped on the floor of her church by another god is straight out of Greek mythology for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    Well, that's very limiting IMO. They're basically just vending machines/punchbags. No real religion of any substance has ever taken that approach, especially the ones that tend to appear in D&D.
    I think that's a good thing. The world should be about mortals, not gods. If you want to ficus heavily on the gods either have all players be heavily religious or gods themselves. You don't need gods in the flesh to make a world interesting, and making an interesting world without gods in the flesh makes it more relocatable for the PCs.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    I agree; I'm saying that divine intervention is something everyone expects unless they've been conditioned otherwise by years of playing in very artificial worlds like the ones you listed.
    Err, no. The newer settings of D&D are less artificial than than previous ones. That's simply fact. There's nothing wrong with preferring them, but D&D settings have gotten less artificial overthe years, not more.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    I've literally never played with anyone that would be surprised that defiling a major temple runs the risk of their character simply being killed by a "bolt from the blue" (something that I would not actually do, but people kida expect it when you tell them the gods are real.
    So temple guards don't exist then I trust? Why would there be, if the god is going to personally guard each and every one.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    I think that's the disconnect - as DM I'm saying "the gods are real" and as a jaded and experience player/DM you're saying "they're not real like an NPC cobbler is real; they're rule constructs"
    No they exists, and you can interact with them directly, you just have to be very high level to do that.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    squiggit's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Southern Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1eGuy View Post
    I agree; I'm saying that divine intervention is something everyone expects unless they've been conditioned otherwise by years of playing in very artificial worlds like the ones you listed.
    I'd say that backwards. The idea of gods as a common and mundane force of nature is the part that feels artificial here.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    In regards to published setting with a lot of divine intervention planescape is the easy answer.
    Dragon lance has a lot of divine intervention. forgotten realms has some pretty active deities as well off and on

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by awa View Post
    In regards to published setting with a lot of divine intervention planescape is the easy answer.
    Dragon lance has a lot of divine intervention. forgotten realms has some pretty active deities as well off and on
    And was there a system or pattern to it?
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Troll in the Playground
     
    jiriku's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    I feel a bit tentative about jumping into a 5-page thread only having skimmed the posts, but what the heck, I'm bored and it's Saturday, let's do it.

    I have some suggestions based on my past 22 years of DMing experience. You may find them useful. Note that my perspective comes primarily from the storytelling school of roleplaying, rather than the simulationist school.

    First, making major overhauls to any aspect of 3.5 is a lot of work and potentially encounters resistance from players. I find that it's less work and I get less resistance if I ask my players "how would you do this?" and get their ideas and input. Sometimes one of them even gets excited and writes up a big chunk of the material for me, and all I have to do is edit it. That saves me a lot of time.

    In the vein of creating player agency, let me introduce the idea of Speaking Authoritatively and how that can apply to spell component pouches, item creation, and mining. Essentially, you create a game mechanic whereby players can use Knowledge and Profession skills to add canonical information to the setting. Then, at a later time, when the player asks "How can I double production at this mine?" or "What material do I need to craft a ring of regeneration?" You can respond with, "I don't know, you tell me." The player proposes an answer to his own question, you negotiate for something that seems reasonable to both of you, then the player makes a skill check to turn his idea into canonical material and permanently add it to the setting. If the player fails the roll, you adjust the answer to something that is somewhat less favorable for the player but still reasonable, and play continues. If illogical or contradictory situations arise, you simply resolve the contradiction by turning it into a plot twist or interesting adventure (or, if you can't think of anything cool, just admit that there's a problem and implementing an out-of-character fix to solve it).

    The Speak Authoritatively approach is nice because you can design the system in a piecemeal way, adding detail only when and where it's needed and putting a lot of the creative burden on your players. Additionally, you'll probably end up with a better system overall, because anything that one creative person can invent, six creative people working together can probable improve upon.
    Last edited by jiriku; 2014-06-14 at 08:25 PM.
    Subclasses for 5E: magus of blades, shadowcraft assassin, spellthief, void disciple
    Guides for 5E: Practical fiend-binding

    D&D Remix for 3.x: balanced base classes and feats, all in the authentic flavor of the originals. Most popular: monk and fighter.


  28. - Top - End - #118
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    And was there a system or pattern to it?
    not that I could see, in theory dragon lance had a balance thing going on but it got cheated all the time.

    personally I kinda assume there are something's you just shouldn't do. Pcs who steal from a god's alter should expect a curse unless they have some kind of special protection.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by awa View Post
    Pcs who steal from a god's alter should expect a curse unless they have some kind of special protection.
    With or without a save throw?
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default Re: More realistic D&D Economy?

    usually without. Getting rid of it should take a quest (unless that would interfere of the flow of the game to much in which case paying for some kind of cleansing should be enough)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •