More realistic D&D Economy?

[Gavinfoxx]

The problem with the Kingmaker based rules in Pathfinder's Ultimate Campaign is that it pretty much pretend magic doesn't exist.

See this thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...ngdom-building

And ANY rules that will remove the possibility of the tippyverse and similar situations would have to look at the possibilities of problem spells on a spell by spell and magic item by magic item basis.

Look at my post scarcity handbook:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...Je09i8KWw/edit

Do you take into account every single one of those magic items and every single one of those spells I mention?

[Boci]

The ''work'' is worth it. To have characters run out of components adds great fun, and even more balance, to the game. When the spellcaster can't use half a dozen spells as they can't get the components, they have to use other spells or even just think their way out of things. It suddenly makes spells with no material components or easy ones very common, and other spells very rare.

So you've done the work, for each of your campaign settings?

Also, is it "worth it" for the non-spellcastying players, who now have to be bored to tears when the wizards plays the half hour shopping escapade whenever they are in a settlement?

[Mellack]

The ''work'' is worth it. To have characters run out of components adds great fun, and even more balance, to the game. When the spellcaster can't use half a dozen spells as they can't get the components, they have to use other spells or even just think their way out of things. It suddenly makes spells with no material components or easy ones very common, and other spells very rare.

And sure they can take Eschew Components. Though note the house rule that says ''monster parts all have a value of greater then one gold''. And fix a couple of the other material components that have ''no cost''.

Sounds like a lot of hassle and boring shopping to me. I would probably just say "Here's 100gp, get me whatever is available." If you went to the work of deciding everything already, you can do the work of keeping track of it all.

[jedipotter]

So you've done the work, for each of your campaign settings?

Also, is it "worth it" for the non-spellcastying players, who now have to be bored to tears when the wizards plays the half hour shopping escapade whenever they are in a settlement?

It is more like one long never ending campaign in my way, as it is always the same world. I don't start from scratch each time.

You forgot the Old School part. In modern games, the whole group would be bored as the spellcasters loked for mushrooms, and the DM-player rolled over and let this happen.

It is not this way in Old School:
Problem spellcaster player-"I want to stop and look for a cave with bats in it''
DM-"So you want to stop and derail the game to look for bats?"
Problem spellcaster player-"I need bat guano! Yes!"
DM-"Ok, you have chosen not to play the game with the other players. Your character goes and looks for caves or whatever. Please turn your chair around or leave the house. You have chosen not to play with the group. Ok, everyone else that is still playing.....the map shows an 'X' near the edge of the Far Forest..."

See Problem spellcaster player did not disrupt the game or make anyone bored.

[Telok]

So you've done the work, for each of your campaign settings?

Also, is it "worth it" for the non-spellcastying players, who now have to be bored to tears when the wizards plays the half hour shopping escapade whenever they are in a settlement?

It's not really that bad. I've done it back in the day before 3rd ed.

What happens is the player look at his spells, decides what he needs, and asks the DM if it's available in town/shop/area. The DM thinks for a minute about what should be available (or what he wants available, plot hook: who has been buying all the pearls in town and why?) and perhaps rolls some dice. The player then buys however much he wants, can afford, or the seller has available.

It takes about five minutes, ten at the outside, if most of your party is spellcasters (not uncommon in 3.5) they can pool resources and shopping lists. Most of what the DM needs to know is the price of the various components. If you don't want to actually go through the spells lists and price everything, and you don't, you just say the base price for most components is 5 per silver and they weigh 15 items to the pound.

On the plus side it prevents casters from having infinite dragon scales, darts, quicklime, and water in a small bag.

[Anlashok]

It is more like one long never ending campaign in my way, as it is always the same world. I don't start from scratch each time.

You forgot the Old School part. In modern games, the whole group would be bored as the spellcasters loked for mushrooms, and the DM-player rolled over and let this happen.

It is not this way in Old School:
Problem spellcaster player-"I want to stop and look for a cave with bats in it''
DM-"So you want to stop and derail the game to look for bats?"
Problem spellcaster player-"I need bat guano! Yes!"
DM-"Ok, you have chosen not to play the game with the other players. Your character goes and looks for caves or whatever. Please turn your chair around or leave the house. You have chosen not to play with the group. Ok, everyone else that is still playing.....the map shows an 'X' near the edge of the Far Forest..."

See Problem spellcaster player did not disrupt the game or make anyone bored.

So you deny the spellcaster access to his materials, and then when he tries to go find them himself you kick him out of the game?

That sounds like utterly awful DMing and still doesn't manage to make anything more balanced.

[AuraTwilight]

It is more like one long never ending campaign in my way, as it is always the same world. I don't start from scratch each time.

You forgot the Old School part. In modern games, the whole group would be bored as the spellcasters loked for mushrooms, and the DM-player rolled over and let this happen.

It is not this way in Old School:
Problem spellcaster player-"I want to stop and look for a cave with bats in it''
DM-"So you want to stop and derail the game to look for bats?"
Problem spellcaster player-"I need bat guano! Yes!"
DM-"Ok, you have chosen not to play the game with the other players. Your character goes and looks for caves or whatever. Please turn your chair around or leave the house. You have chosen not to play with the group. Ok, everyone else that is still playing.....the map shows an 'X' near the edge of the Far Forest..."

See Problem spellcaster player did not disrupt the game or make anyone bored.

The more I read your anecdotes of how you solve problems as a GM the more I wonder why anyone plays with you. You essentially doomed that player from character creation because their only choices are going without their only class feature or dying.

[Boci]

It is more like one long never ending campaign in my way, as it is always the same world. I don't start from scratch each time.

You forgot the Old School part. In modern games, the whole group would be bored as the spellcasters loked for mushrooms, and the DM-player rolled over and let this happen.

It is not this way in Old School:
Problem spellcaster player-"I want to stop and look for a cave with bats in it''
DM-"So you want to stop and derail the game to look for bats?"
Problem spellcaster player-"I need bat guano! Yes!"
DM-"Ok, you have chosen not to play the game with the other players. Your character goes and looks for caves or whatever. Please turn your chair around or leave the house. You have chosen not to play with the group. Ok, everyone else that is still playing.....the map shows an 'X' near the edge of the Far Forest..."

See Problem spellcaster player did not disrupt the game or make anyone bored.

Yeah, that's a totally appropriate response. Not "Okay, DC: 15 survival check, are you asking any other players to help?"

This isn't the caster not playing with the other players, this is the caster playing under the rules you put forth, and you punishing them for trying to intelligently interact with these rules rather than nerf themselves as you intended.

It's not really that bad. I've done it back in the day before 3rd ed.

What happens is the player look at his spells, decides what he needs, and asks the DM if it's available in town/shop/area. The DM thinks for a minute about what should be available (or what he wants available, plot hook: who has been buying all the pearls in town and why?) and perhaps rolls some dice. The player then buys however much he wants, can afford, or the seller has available.

Except as other people said in this thread, sometimes it was skipped because its a PITA. Or you have a GM like jedi, who has a different intention with such a rule.

[pwykersotz]

The more I read your anecdotes of how you solve problems as a GM the more I wonder why anyone plays with you. You essentially doomed that player from character creation because their only choices are going without their only class feature or dying.

So you deny the spellcaster access to his materials, and then when he tries to go find them himself you kick him out of the game?

That sounds like utterly awful DMing and still doesn't manage to make anything more balanced.

I was introduced to D&D by a GM like jedipotter. It is awesome when done right. The immersion and the adventure feels incredibly satisfying. Abstracting away the minutiae leaves a world feeling empty and uninteresting by comparison. The accusation of 'denying' a player his class feature falls utterly flat if you even consider the paradigm.

The adventure he's talking about is one where a warrior must fight with a broken sword after the demonic follower of the dark prince shattered it. His pride and honor are such that he will not let the creature take away what is rightfully his, and so he fights on with the weapon anyway until he can get it reforged.

Roleplay can go as deep as you want it to, and not having an appreciation for it does not make someone who does 'bad' at the game.

[Boci]

I was introduced to D&D by a GM like jedipotter. It is awesome when done right.

And is "you cannot buy it and if you try to look for it I will kick you from the game" doing it right?

The adventure he's talking about is one where a warrior must fight with a broken sword after the demonic follower of the dark prince shattered it. His pride and honor are such that he will not let the creature take away what is rightfully his, and so he fights on with the weapon anyway until he can get it reforged.

Nothing old-school only about that. "Your weapon is broken, you can fight with it as an improvised weapon". There no reason that is unique to jedi's kind of games. PCs still don't like letting evil doers go.

[Anlashok]

Roleplay can go as deep as you want it to, and not having an appreciation for it does not make someone who does 'bad' at the game.

And someone not liking tedious bookkeeping does not mean they "don't have an appreciation for roleplaying". It seems kind of silly to throw out a complaint like that AND try to insult someone in the same fashion in the same sentence.

Nevermind that I didn't say anything about roleplaying. I commented on jedipotter's scenario of threatening the wizard's player when he wants to find more supplies on his own.

That isn't the warrior fighting after his sword is broken, this is going out of your way to make sure said warrior can't get a new sword either.

[torrasque666]

And is "you cannot buy it and if you try to look for it I will kick you from the game" doing it right?

Depends on the situation. Using the bat guano example:

Are you in a location where caves might be? Are you in a location where the climate is such that bats might live there? If the answer to either of those is no, then you would have to leave the party to go looking. If both are met, such as in a cave/underground dungeon, or a temperate desert(as per the environment entry on "bat" in the MM) then make the check. Such a system would make a wizard more aware of his environment and very well might increase immersion. It would also make them have to weigh "how useful is this spell compared to the availability of the components?"

[Boci]

Depends on the situation. Using the bat guano example:

Are you in a location where caves might be? Are you in a location where the climate is such that bats might live there? If the answer to either of those is no, then you would have to leave the party to go looking. If both are met, such as in a cave/underground dungeon, or a temperate desert(as per the environment entry on "bat" in the MM) then make the check. Such a system would make a wizard more aware of his environment and very well might increase immersion. It would also make them have to weigh "how useful is this spell compared to the availability of the components?"

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).

[torrasque666]

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).

Well a tribal sorcerer wouldn't need guano as they scratch that, pathfinder knowledge leaking in.

For the tribal, maybe the just don't HAVE fireball or even know its a thing. Even if he can innately cast it, without trying to fling around some bat poop that he doesn't have access to, how does he know he can?

As for the kicking the player out, you DID see how they were insistent that they go off to find their materials right? Because then you are left with two options: Remove them from play for a bit so the character can wander off to get the hell they need, or suddenly split the game in two, switching between the caster and the party.

[Boci]

Well a tribal sorcerer wouldn't need guano as they scratch that, pathfinder knowledge leaking in.

For the tribal, maybe the just don't HAVE fireball or even know its a thing. Even if he can innately cast it, without trying to fling around some bat poop that he doesn't have access to, how does he know he can?

This is kinda what I mean. Individually tracking material components is just scratching the surface. You now have to decide which regions cannot cast spells because they don't have access to the material component required, in turn what spells can the PCs not cast because the material component does not exist in their region? Yay, more work. But at least we are fixing an incredibly narrow inoganicness of game, ignore the far more sweeping aspects like the HP system.

[As for the kicking the player out, you DID see how they were insistent that they go off to find their materials right? Because then you are left with two options: Remove them from play for a bit so the character can wander off to get the hell they need, or suddenly split the game in two, switching between the caster and the party.

Its down time isn't it? "Make a survival check, rest of the party, anyone doing anything in the couple of hours until the wizard comes back".

[torrasque666]

Its down time isn't it? "Make a survival check, rest of the party, anyone doing anything in the couple of hours until the wizard comes back".

Yes, because that totally won't get your party eaten when they decide to camp out in a dungeon with no safe shelter, and with a lack of any required material components, little to no magical shelter either.

[Boci]

Yes, because that totally won't get your party eaten when they decide to camp out in a dungeon with no safe shelter, and with a lack of any required material components, little to no magical shelter either.

So how does the party normally camp?

Just carry this logic over to another class. "Ranger, your bow string snapped. You cannot use it until its fixed" "Oh dear. Hey guys, just gona nip off and craft a bow string" "You selfish PC, get out"

[torrasque666]

So how does the party normally camp?

Just carry this logic over to another class. "Ranger, your bow string snapped. You cannot use it until its fixed" "Oh dear. Hey guys, just gona nip off and craft a bow string" "You selfish PC, get out"

I'm not saying that every dungeon is unsafe, but most are. Usually they have some sort of wandering monsters.

As for other classes, most martials carry a backup weapon. Or materials to repair their weapon(extra bow strings for example.)

[Tvtyrant]

I think I would have the casters literally burn up gold coins as spell components rather then make them go hunting for things like bat guano... And if you really did have a bat guano economy why hasn't someone set up parts harvesting farms and started selling the parts by now? Especially in places like Sigil.

[Boci]

I'm not saying that every dungeon is unsafe, but most are. Usually they have some sort of wandering monsters

And why is this a problem? Searching for bat guano should be done in acouple hours, why does the party suddenly need to camp? Plus if they did, its because the DM decided so, so why is the wizard to blame?

As for other classes, most martials carry a backup weapon. Or materials to repair their weapon(extra bow strings for example.)

Fine, the ranger is out of arrows. Are they allowed to go off and craft some?

I think I would have the casters literally burn up gold coins as spell components rather then make them go hunting for things like bat guano... And if you really did have a bat guano economy why hasn't someone set up parts harvesting farms and started selling the parts by now? Especially in places like Sigil.

Because the stated intention of this houserule was balance, and to make the wizard run out of components because it can be fun, or at least the threat of it can be.

[Boci]

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 small smaller amount of gold that is worth the same or less than the original amount of lead.

Yes because gold and lead totally have universal intrinsic values. Does that mean I can turn 10lbs of iron into a gram of gold in Renaissance Europe, but 10lbs of iron into 10 tones of gold in European Renaissance time South America?

[Stella]

The problem with creating a realistic D&D economy is that D&D isn't realistic!

That, and the fact that economics isn't at all fun. Well, maybe it is to an economist, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that even most economists don't care to get bogged down in a sub-game of Monster parts and Moneychanging when they had hoped to play some D&D.

Nerf what needs to be nerfed, ban what needs to be banned, and tell your players that, no, they can't buy ladders all day long and sell two 10 foot poles for a profit. This really shouldn't be terribly hard to convey.

[Slithery D]

I think I would have the casters literally burn up gold coins as spell components rather then make them go hunting for things like bat guano...

Glenn Cook's Garrett, P.I. series has sorcery fueled (in never described ways) by silver, so the two biggest kingdoms fight a generations long war over the site with the biggest silver mines. I always thought that sort of thing could lead to a cool campaign setting.

[Boci]

It totally depends on the scope of the campaign setting. In the setting you mention, I would take the most disadvantageous exchange rate anywhere in the world the characters could reasonably expect to travel to.

And who updates the spell on the changing perceived value of metals?

[Boci]

Maybe oversimplified but to an extent it needs to be simplified.

It goes a bit beyond a simplification: it isn't realistic. Unless there is a supreme being imposing their will upon magic, there is no reason transmutation should ever take value into account, when changing one matter into another form. I agree it is needed, but all this demonstrates is that a "realistic" D&D economy is pretty much impossible.

[Anlashok]

The DM. If the DM is keeping track of how the price of literally everything is changing with the value of gold changes, adjusting a short spell series in the same pattern would be a snap.

Any campaign where the value of your "gold standard" fluctuates is one where the DM is doomed to a world of self-loathing and insanity as he tries to keep up with those fluctuations. D&D simplifies this intentionally. Maybe oversimplified but to an extent it needs to be simplified.

It's simplified because it's not a core part of any mechanic, but with this houserule you're making it one. This causes strange things like the amount of gold you are able to create varying on area... oh and does dumb things like increasing the amount of gold you create based on how much gold has already been created.

Also this thread is called "More realistic D&D economy". So talking about handwaving away core economic principles is going against the spirit of the thread.

Plus the general idea of a cosmic force's power being based on partially arbitrarily defined, artificial conceptualization of value just feels off.

[Anlashok]

D&D is definitely NOT an atheistic universe. It's kind of bizarre to try winning a D&D debate by claiming the non-existence of gods in the game.

More than a couple core settings are more or less aetheistic (dark sun, eberron, ravenloft), so not really.

Nevermind that Economic Theory is not one of Mystra's domains (and whether or not she has complete control over the weave isn't particularly well defined).

[Boci]

There is. Her name is Mystra. Or Boccob. Or any of a number of D&D gods of magic.

D&D is definitely NOT an atheistic universe. It's kind of bizarre to try winning a D&D debate by claiming the non-existence of gods in the game.

And yet people who oppose them can still cast magic. Same result: no singular or unified will over magic means magic will not have a universal value for a metal. Just because a god is the god of magic doesn't mean they control magic down to the tiniest detail, even if they could, they don't.

[Slipperychicken]

Wouldn't there just be spell component shops (or at least general stores which stock spell components), where our poor wizard could go and pick up some imported bat feces?

Besides, by 13th level (at the absolute latest), the Wizard can simply Greater Teleport over to his favorite bat-cave and harvest as much poo as he wants.

It might even be possible to cast Summon Monster 3 (that's the same level as Fireball!) for a dire bat, and then command it to defacate into a spell component pouch. And then this punishes the GM in return by making him think seriously about how much feces a 200lb dire bat could excrete in 30 seconds.

[torrasque666]

But what if the bat hasn't eaten anything. which as a summon it hasn't?