The real economic question as to, e.g., training costs in RQ or AD&D, is what else can the currency buy?

The piles of coin originated in D&D for two reasons:
A) Sheer effect, which may be weaker at extended length than in a single fairy tale.
B) Game challenge, as hundreds of pounds of loot are not as easily hauled off as a few ounces.

Quote from: Spike;637909I never claimed William and his lads were French, merely that they had a claim to Normandy.  

On the other hand, the article itself, or the exerpted portion of it, was extremely fascinating from the perspective of showing how a loot based shadow economy would work, with real world examples.  

I don't think there is a fine distinction to be made between loot made on the battlefield and loot gained in dungeon crawls, except for the potential political aspect, as battlefield loot was probably gained in direct service to the local lord, with all that implies.

We can essentially write off the comments about the losers in the loot game in the article for our purposes. One might suggest that in the battlefield loot senario, that looting's impact on the economy is roughly offset by the looting and ransoming done by the other side, but unless we are setting up Team Monster as a political entity opposed to, and regularly warring with, Team Civilization that doesn't really apply to our cause.

It is the examples of Sir John Falstof and Nunnery Castle that are indicative of what happens in a loot based shadow economy.  Only, we don't know much more of Falstof in the exerpt, other than he hit it big in the loot game.


The suggestion is that getting wealthy by looting is both legitimate and disruptive, a threat to the local lord's power. To reduce the threat the looter's social status is enshrined, making him a part of the power elite, and in return he spends his wealth freely on things like castles and men at arms in service to the local lord for the next legitimate war.


One thing that is under-discussed in conversations about the disruptive effects of an adventurer loot economy is what exactly are the demographics of success... or rather, how many failed, presumably killed, adventurers are their for every guy that makes it to fifth level (say), with a fat purse of gold?

The reason your average McDonalds guy doesn't go hunting drug dealers to escape his woeful existance is that it is extremely dangerous (coupled with the sad fact that, while he is actually doing a societal good, even if he were successful he himself would be jailed for murder and his wealth confisticated, adding a second significant risk factor...).

Ditto adventuring or going to war. THe chances of wild success don't have to be great to have an impact, but the chances of painful death, or even just miserable failure, are high enough to make it an unattractive option for MOST people.  Presumably too, most people are also at least partially shackled by social constraints, as our drug dealer hunters above.

I completely concur. This is exactly the historical model that applies, and it's very much what we tried to implement in ACKS. The notion that the existence of adventuring loot "breaks" the fantasy world and makes it totally unlike the real historical world is simply false.

Quote from: amacris;637917I completely concur. This is exactly the historical model that applies, and it's very much what we tried to implement in ACKS. The notion that the existence of adventuring loot "breaks" the fantasy world and makes it totally unlike the real historical world is simply false.

In traditional D&D, it does absolutely break the game - particularly in 3rd edition.  If wealth can be used to purchase magical items, they can multiply force much more powerfully than a castle or man-at-arms.  For example, purchasing an item that allows the bearer (along with items carried) to become incorporeal for a few minutes per day easily allows someone to walk into Fort Knox and steal ALL the treasure.  

It's no longer a question of how many orcs you can kill for 2d10 SP each; it's a question of what's stopping you from using this newfound power in the most abusive fashion (even against just 'the villains').  

The problem with most campaigns is that they never consider these ramifications until the PCs acquire said abusable item (or the wealth to purchase such an abusable item).  Suddenly every 'Fort Knox' type location includes 'walls of force' and guardians capable of dealing with incorporeal opponents, even if it was never a consideration before.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;637943In traditional D&D, it does absolutely break the game - particularly in 3rd edition.  If wealth can be used to purchase magical items, they can multiply force much more powerfully than a castle or man-at-arms.  For example, purchasing an item that allows the bearer (along with items carried) to become incorporeal for a few minutes per day easily allows someone to walk into Fort Knox and steal ALL the treasure.  

It's no longer a question of how many orcs you can kill for 2d10 SP each; it's a question of what's stopping you from using this newfound power in the most abusive fashion (even against just 'the villains').  

The problem with most campaigns is that they never consider these ramifications until the PCs acquire said abusable item (or the wealth to purchase such an abusable item).  Suddenly every 'Fort Knox' type location includes 'walls of force' and guardians capable of dealing with incorporeal opponents, even if it was never a consideration before.

It is not the problem in most campaigns, it is the problems in most systems.  You mention it yourself above.

It is a poorly thought out system, when you add in economics.

Long-time lurker's first post, fascinated by this thread's 'hands-on' approach to history

Quote from: deadDMwalking;637943In traditional D&D, it does absolutely break the game - particularly in 3rd edition.  If wealth can be used to purchase magical items, they can multiply force much more powerfully than a castle or man-at-arms.  For example, purchasing an item that allows the bearer (along with items carried) to become incorporeal for a few minutes per day easily allows someone to walk into Fort Knox and steal ALL the treasure.  

So the real economic problem seems not to be loot as such but magic power bought with loot (and the difficulty of assessing the ramifications of magic in an ancient/medieval setting.) Is there something in the DMG or other D&D books (could also be D20) about such ramifications? As in: how does magic change economy, power structures etc. Would lead to a different thread, I guess...

There already is a different thread about the eventual troubles with a magic shop and how TSR D&D repeatedly warned about them (in the DMG core of both 1e and 2e no less). If you can do a search for it you should be able to find it. Needless to say it's the structural problem of WotC D&D allowing such ideas without thinking them through, or giving appropriate caution to GMs about the likely consequences.

Oh, and welcome! We seem a gruff bunch, but we're all big softies after you've weathered a share of verbal abuse. Like sailors speaking instead of Victorian aunts.

Quote from: Riordan;638048So the real economic problem seems not to be loot as such but magic power bought with loot (and the difficulty of assessing the ramifications of magic in an ancient/medieval setting.) Is there something in the DMG or other D&D books (could also be D20) about such ramifications? As in: how does magic change economy, power structures etc. Would lead to a different thread, I guess...

Welcome to theRPGSite Riordan! There's a good thread about magical items here, do comment if you want, resurrecting ancient threads is positively encouraged around here.

On the whole I'm fairly comfortable with the economic effects of dungeons on fantasy economies, ie not much, although I initially thought otherwise.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;637943The problem with most campaigns is that they never consider these ramifications until the PCs acquire said abusable item (or the wealth to purchase such an abusable item).  Suddenly every 'Fort Knox' type location includes 'walls of force' and guardians capable of dealing with incorporeal opponents, even if it was never a consideration before.

There are alternatives other than escalating power/defense arms race. For one thing there is the power of divination along with the the fact that whatever one side can do the other side can do. Plus alongside of this is the power of the divine in the form of religions, churches, and clerics.

All this combines into a standoff where yes there is a lot of magic floating around that appears to make stealing easy, but the perpetrators are just as easily found out. And thieves have to not only consider their immediate target but the culture and the religions that they are part of which would definitely not condone lawlessness.

Remember in our own history security for the individual wealthy owner was likewise paltry compared to what a determined thief could bring to bear. Not just the traditional take it by stealth but also thief by looting and pillaging.

While there were bad times throughout history, by and large people managed to keep a hold of their wealth by the fact they have friends, family, and patrons that could bring similar force down on the thief.

The same with a society with magic readily available.  Even if defenses (magical or mundane) are poor compared to those of the thieves the fact that everybody exists in a society and a culture means that much of outright thievery would be checked by the fear of retribution.

In the end anybody can get away with anything ... once. It is the consequences that are a bitch.

Thanks for the welcome, the gruff sailor talk has not gone unnoticed. Strangely (or not), this is one of the more civil and mature rpg places I've seen - I blame free speech for that, and the Pundit's righteous anger.

(Although there ARE some victorian aunts and uncles here as well who seem not to be bothered at all by the legions of potty-mouthed unwashed harbour rabble around them. More Elizabethan than Victorian, perhaps.)

Thanks also for the link, that one's almost as educating.

Quote from: Opaopajr;638050There already is a different thread about the eventual troubles with a magic shop and how TSR D&D repeatedly warned about them (in the DMG core of both 1e and 2e no less). If you can do a search for it you should be able to find it. Needless to say it's the structural problem of WotC D&D allowing such ideas without thinking them through, or giving appropriate caution to GMs about the likely consequences.

Oh, and welcome! We seem a gruff bunch, but we're all big softies after you've weathered a share of verbal abuse. Like sailors speaking instead of Victorian aunts.

You can't just blame wotC in quite so an offhand manner Monty Haul games have always been about and the TSRs modules are as much to blame for that as anyone.
All WotC did was deal with a possible real world outcome of what was inherent in the system already.
It doesn't really matter if 10,000 gp can buy you a wand of smacking stuff about or pay for an army of 3000 mercenaries to help you on the next dungeon delve. It still creates a power imbalance.
there are creative ways of dealing with the wealth, Xp for money you SPEND rather than find, although what you spend it on hits lots of RP issues if only forced carousing gets you XP then what about paladins, monks and the like.
D&D's favorites are training and spell research/components but if PCs routinuely walk out of dungeons with carts of magic treasure then it has to end up somewhere.

Oh and Riordan , welcome, though with a name like that you do sound suspiciously Irish.....

If WotC did not talk through the ramifications on why those would be disruptive ideas, assuming the GM is new to this process and being considerate about potential pitfalls for seemingly innocent decisions, then hell yes I can drop that criticism at WotCs doorstep.

A lot of old TSR modules warranting this complaint were RPGA tourney affairs, and a painful test of pixelbitching with a vomit of treasure to bother with its hoops. That's why I routinely have an extremely bad perception of modules. Mercifully those products are wholly optional, outside core, and not standard recommendation for new learners of the system.

However WotC does not go out of its way to explain the issues of such a generous economy design decision. Monty Haul is talked about, but then magic shop economy of scale is then mentioned without explaining any major pitfalls. In fact 4e works with the expectation of appropriate magic gear to keep up with the game's mob stat progression and the DMG recommends players to hand in wishlists.

The hell I can't wag my finger at WotC decisions. They've earned it.

Quote from: estar;638060There are alternatives other than escalating power/defense arms race. For one thing there is the power of divination along with the the fact that whatever one side can do the other side can do. Plus alongside of this is the power of the divine in the form of religions, churches, and clerics.

Absolutely, but that's not always easily done.  It absolutely makes sense for the DM to allow the 'theft' (or whatever) and then have the game world respond appropriately.  Too many DMs automatically respond 'you CAN'T DO THAT' and then make arbitrary judgements to prevent it.  But I can understand it from their perspective.  

Sometimes, if the PCs are REALLY good, they can come up with an 'unbeatable' plan.  Oceans 11 isn't THAT difficult with spells.  Obviously, if that's what the PCs find fun, I'd think the game should go that way, but I can understand why the DM might not want to run that kind of game.

But the worst response is to suddenly upgrade the rest of the world with hundreds of thousands of gold pieces worth of 'mass produced' equipment.

Is there even an (implied or spelled out) economy in Wotc/Paizo dnd?

What happens outside the dungeon/plot seems generally as fixed as what happens within, and that includes prices. There simply are no ramifications to be pondered if there is no living world outside of players' actions. Looting cannot overturn the local economy if there is none, just price lists and magical mall-marts. That may well have started in 2e (I got that impression from skimming through some borrowed books recently), but in 3e-as-played it's the norm, isn't it? (Please correct me if I'm way off.)

I have to confess that my own old school/sand box experience stems more from RQ = little loot, less coins, CoC = loot you don't want to have and coins that are, at the very least, cursed, and Vampire = it's the BLOOD bank you loot.

I've only just started a casual OD&D campaign, having a blast so far, though the B1 loot they took out wouldn't even wreck the puniest village economy. "Nice tapestry, sir. 'Bit mouldy on the edges, though. I'd trade you this saddle for it, if you add the broken elk trophy and the little gem that looks suspiciously like coloured glass."

I only encountered the strange concept of gold = xp after almost 30 years of roleplaying, and am, right now, completely in awe of it

2e talks about currency, how it is an abstraction, how the GM is expected to translate that into setting -- often with greater complexity and expected loss: differing coinage/cash objects, exchange rates, taxation, inflated prices in large cities, etc. It starts that conversation in PHB and gets more involved in DMG. It further gets into the differences for differing settings, like Dark Sun, Birthright, etc. Just like 1e, 2e talks about currency quite openly and asks the GM to pay attention to its design in the world.

Ah, makes sense that this is handled in depth in the 2e setting books - I mainly skimmed the rule boxes of the licensed german version. The company responsible for that version made a whole lot of separate boxes out of the DMG and PHB, and I must have overlooked the economical guidance stuff when skimming those.