oh just… this is why full plate is so expensive in 5e - it’s for game balance rather than for the realistic fidelity of the setting.
Another example of the economics here are the rules governing how much income an artisan (such as a blacksmith) makes per day, compared against how long it takes to make a suit of full plate, and how much it costs. Even with the updated guidelines that an artisan “makes” 1gp per day, that means a suit of full plate is about five years worth of income, and many stores in big cities have sets just on the shelf.
These rules are a little complex, because the “take home pay” of labourers and artisans in the rules is after living expenses, and a blacksmith has to maintain rent on their forge, as well as purchase raw materials, but even factoring all that stuff in, the cost of full plate just doesn’t make economic sense in the context of the world, the high price is there because it increases one of your stats permanently - and to boot, it’s a stat that comes up constantly in play. A single point of AC is more powerful than a single point of almost any other stat in the game, with the exception of your class’ primary stat or your proficiency bonus.
Indeed. I think you are thinking it the wrong way. If it doesnt make sense in the economic aspect, do you know where it does make sense ? The gameplay aspect. The best armors of the game should be behind dungeons or paywalls to guarantee a level 1 or 2 doesnt go straight to it.
It doesnt make sense when you think of it as anything but a game. And its still a game. Its why in RE games you constantly find ammo and helpful items where there is no in universe reason to have them there at all.
Just like treasures in dungeons. How long would a world need to exist to have every dungeon ramsacked by elite warriors and mages ? A few years top. And most worlds are older, so it makes no sense to still have dungeons and loot in them does it ?
But its fun. Its a game and its fun to go and explore a fresh dungeon even if its very existence doesnt make sense in universe.
Yeah. But if you start to think of it as part of a real world economy concept its not the same game anymore. But would you really prefer realistic conditions ? I mean maybe, everyone is different. But I dont think it would be fun for me personnally
There’s always been a bit of a tug-of-war between making a good mechanical game, and making a good storytelling environment.
If your aim is to tell stories, having consistent, intuitive worldbuilding helps a lot - it’s easier to immerse yourself in a world and tell better stories in a world if the internal rules of that world make consistent sense. The further you stray from this, the more barriers you erect to storytelling.
When you get heavily into storytelling/roleplaying within a fictional world, there’s always an element that involves exploring the aspects of that world and expanding its boundaries, asking questions like “what if?” - a poorly constructed world that doesn’t have consistent worldbuilding will collapse if you push too hard at the edges, whereas a world with consistent rules and systems will yield new ground to explore new narratives.
If your aim is to provide a balanced mechanical gaming experience, then it’s important to focus on game mechanics and balance a lot, in order to make everything fair, and to build a game that’s interesting to explore from a mechanical perspective. You want your rules to exist in a state where every element has a purpose, and they work together. You want anything that costs resources or investment to yield rewards that are in proportion to the cost you put into them, so mechanical choices are interesting and result in many different approaches.
For a game like DnD, it’s often the case that these two design goals are in conflict. Making an economy that’s balanced around the mechanical power of different magic items results in an economy where adventurers are earning tens of thousands of gold pieces for an adventure, and regular artisans are earning one gold piece per day. If the blacksmith has an income of one gold piece per day, how can it afford to buy an unneeded item from the party for hundreds, or even thousands of gold? where did that money come from?
So the question in your design is… where is that balance point? at what point does narrative consistency have to yield to mechanical balance, and at what point does mechanical balance yield to narrative consistency? - for most designers and for most tables, this is going to be personal preference, and the answers are different. You might find if one of these two principles “feels wrong” for you, it’s worth tweaking the world, or the systems or the economy to make a game that works better for your group.
I think 5e is unfortunate in that the specific systems of DnD bring these two halves of roleplaying into conflict shockingly often. A huge amount of DnD exists as vestiges and inhereted setting from older editions - to the extent where large portions of the game mechanics exist as they do because as a result of historical technical debt - there are aspects of 5e’s mechanical design and worldbuilding that fail to satisfy either design principle, doing both badly because they felt they had to… (e.g. why is “Fireball” just so much mechanically stronger than all comparably levelled damage spells? That’s not serving any mechanical or narrative design principle, it’s just inherited from older versions.)
For something like… “the cost of plate armour” I really think WotC dropped the ball though - the reason the “mechanical design goal” and the “narrative design goal” are at odds is purely a result of the values they assigned to some items in the PHB, and those numbers propagating through the rest of the design, because mechanical purchases and treasure values have to make comparative sense.
Original core doesn’t define gold values for magic items, and it doesn’t provide recommended treasure packages or income curves (older editions provided these things to help DMs figure out how much treasure to give.) - the only real things that have defined gold costs are “starting gold”, “living expenses” and “mundane adventuring gear”
So you could, for example, simply divide the value of every item in the “adventuring gear” table by 10, and keep the costs of living, and the incomes of NPCs the same. This wouldn’t make any significant difference to gameplay - you’d just give out 10% of the money… but it’d bring the economy of adventuring more in line with the economy of the rest of the world, and allow players to operate with numbers that’d “make sense” when contextualized against the rest of the setting. In essence, it’d be a net zero mechanical change, but a significant narrative improvement.
This is a nice reading. Thank you for taking the time to share it with us.
The funny, very funny thing in retrospect, is that I’m not sure if I’m well placed to answer that. Not only have my previous campaigns been using a magical moving merchand call Xoblub, but in the campaign that I’ve been heading for more than 2 years now, there is no money. They can find shinies, they certainly find items, but their tribe has a magical weapon, armor and item shop that is there to trade away and get rewards from their objectives. And since there is no civilisation to speak of, no money. It’s Barter Town.
Last games, the players actually managed, as they say in John Wick, “an impossible task”. After 4 encounters draining their resources away and no rest, they found a Lich wanting to rob the store from ALL of it. Meaning if they didn’t somehow stopped it, they wouldn’t be able to trade away or get rewards anymore.
They did it. They fucking did it.
There was even a harry potter moment, where a player used a magical item to reverse Power Word Kill on the Lich itself and was saved because of that.
Fucking amazing.
Sorry, I got taken over. But all this to say, like you said, it’s all about what you want in your games and for your players.
Both as a DM and player, I’m into the generous type. I like magical items, and money, and means to buy magical shit. It’s fun. Gold becomes a secondary XP meter that they can orient to a certain point. And if they are more challenging, then you get to use the 7 undead units I got to try in that last adventure.
So, I quite literally have an economy of magical items. And honor. And reputation. Making the numbers and economy behind it VERY fluctuent.
So fluctuent that, you know what their master will give them for saving the magical store and tens of citizens ? Any magical item. Anything. If it were a normal economy and world it might shatter from it, but mine ? Well, I’ll tell you later. I don’t know yet what they will pick :)
But yeah. Once this one is done, I might try a more down to earth campaign with lower starting point. See how it is when it’s more survival-esq.
I often think about the fact that AC is intentionally so hard to increase but sometimes gold is necessary like a paladin (or good loot, but it’s often expected that they’ll save for plate), while a monk can increase theirs just by leveling.
I don’t really have any AC critiques over this, but I have issues with gold and exactly how much should be given out. I now know that to earn 1500 gp is about a level 6 thing, but I don’t know why, or even where I learnt it, I could easily be off by levels due to giving out the wrong loot, or a PC who roleplays spending their gold is mechanically harmed compared to a player with similar vices from another class. I’m not even sure how I’d handle this differently, except the more I learn 5e, the more scared I get of gold and time.
5e’s balance point puts a massive premium on AC - it’s very expensive to improve AC.
… okay ? What does this says about anything ?
oh just… this is why full plate is so expensive in 5e - it’s for game balance rather than for the realistic fidelity of the setting.
Another example of the economics here are the rules governing how much income an artisan (such as a blacksmith) makes per day, compared against how long it takes to make a suit of full plate, and how much it costs. Even with the updated guidelines that an artisan “makes” 1gp per day, that means a suit of full plate is about five years worth of income, and many stores in big cities have sets just on the shelf.
These rules are a little complex, because the “take home pay” of labourers and artisans in the rules is after living expenses, and a blacksmith has to maintain rent on their forge, as well as purchase raw materials, but even factoring all that stuff in, the cost of full plate just doesn’t make economic sense in the context of the world, the high price is there because it increases one of your stats permanently - and to boot, it’s a stat that comes up constantly in play. A single point of AC is more powerful than a single point of almost any other stat in the game, with the exception of your class’ primary stat or your proficiency bonus.
Indeed. I think you are thinking it the wrong way. If it doesnt make sense in the economic aspect, do you know where it does make sense ? The gameplay aspect. The best armors of the game should be behind dungeons or paywalls to guarantee a level 1 or 2 doesnt go straight to it.
It doesnt make sense when you think of it as anything but a game. And its still a game. Its why in RE games you constantly find ammo and helpful items where there is no in universe reason to have them there at all.
Just like treasures in dungeons. How long would a world need to exist to have every dungeon ramsacked by elite warriors and mages ? A few years top. And most worlds are older, so it makes no sense to still have dungeons and loot in them does it ?
But its fun. Its a game and its fun to go and explore a fresh dungeon even if its very existence doesnt make sense in universe.
That’s what I said. It’s a game balance consideration.
Yeah. But if you start to think of it as part of a real world economy concept its not the same game anymore. But would you really prefer realistic conditions ? I mean maybe, everyone is different. But I dont think it would be fun for me personnally
There’s always been a bit of a tug-of-war between making a good mechanical game, and making a good storytelling environment.
If your aim is to tell stories, having consistent, intuitive worldbuilding helps a lot - it’s easier to immerse yourself in a world and tell better stories in a world if the internal rules of that world make consistent sense. The further you stray from this, the more barriers you erect to storytelling.
When you get heavily into storytelling/roleplaying within a fictional world, there’s always an element that involves exploring the aspects of that world and expanding its boundaries, asking questions like “what if?” - a poorly constructed world that doesn’t have consistent worldbuilding will collapse if you push too hard at the edges, whereas a world with consistent rules and systems will yield new ground to explore new narratives.
If your aim is to provide a balanced mechanical gaming experience, then it’s important to focus on game mechanics and balance a lot, in order to make everything fair, and to build a game that’s interesting to explore from a mechanical perspective. You want your rules to exist in a state where every element has a purpose, and they work together. You want anything that costs resources or investment to yield rewards that are in proportion to the cost you put into them, so mechanical choices are interesting and result in many different approaches.
For a game like DnD, it’s often the case that these two design goals are in conflict. Making an economy that’s balanced around the mechanical power of different magic items results in an economy where adventurers are earning tens of thousands of gold pieces for an adventure, and regular artisans are earning one gold piece per day. If the blacksmith has an income of one gold piece per day, how can it afford to buy an unneeded item from the party for hundreds, or even thousands of gold? where did that money come from?
So the question in your design is… where is that balance point? at what point does narrative consistency have to yield to mechanical balance, and at what point does mechanical balance yield to narrative consistency? - for most designers and for most tables, this is going to be personal preference, and the answers are different. You might find if one of these two principles “feels wrong” for you, it’s worth tweaking the world, or the systems or the economy to make a game that works better for your group.
I think 5e is unfortunate in that the specific systems of DnD bring these two halves of roleplaying into conflict shockingly often. A huge amount of DnD exists as vestiges and inhereted setting from older editions - to the extent where large portions of the game mechanics exist as they do because as a result of historical technical debt - there are aspects of 5e’s mechanical design and worldbuilding that fail to satisfy either design principle, doing both badly because they felt they had to… (e.g. why is “Fireball” just so much mechanically stronger than all comparably levelled damage spells? That’s not serving any mechanical or narrative design principle, it’s just inherited from older versions.)
For something like… “the cost of plate armour” I really think WotC dropped the ball though - the reason the “mechanical design goal” and the “narrative design goal” are at odds is purely a result of the values they assigned to some items in the PHB, and those numbers propagating through the rest of the design, because mechanical purchases and treasure values have to make comparative sense.
Original core doesn’t define gold values for magic items, and it doesn’t provide recommended treasure packages or income curves (older editions provided these things to help DMs figure out how much treasure to give.) - the only real things that have defined gold costs are “starting gold”, “living expenses” and “mundane adventuring gear”
So you could, for example, simply divide the value of every item in the “adventuring gear” table by 10, and keep the costs of living, and the incomes of NPCs the same. This wouldn’t make any significant difference to gameplay - you’d just give out 10% of the money… but it’d bring the economy of adventuring more in line with the economy of the rest of the world, and allow players to operate with numbers that’d “make sense” when contextualized against the rest of the setting. In essence, it’d be a net zero mechanical change, but a significant narrative improvement.
This is a nice reading. Thank you for taking the time to share it with us.
The funny, very funny thing in retrospect, is that I’m not sure if I’m well placed to answer that. Not only have my previous campaigns been using a magical moving merchand call Xoblub, but in the campaign that I’ve been heading for more than 2 years now, there is no money. They can find shinies, they certainly find items, but their tribe has a magical weapon, armor and item shop that is there to trade away and get rewards from their objectives. And since there is no civilisation to speak of, no money. It’s Barter Town.
Last games, the players actually managed, as they say in John Wick, “an impossible task”. After 4 encounters draining their resources away and no rest, they found a Lich wanting to rob the store from ALL of it. Meaning if they didn’t somehow stopped it, they wouldn’t be able to trade away or get rewards anymore.
They did it. They fucking did it.
There was even a harry potter moment, where a player used a magical item to reverse Power Word Kill on the Lich itself and was saved because of that.
Fucking amazing.
Sorry, I got taken over. But all this to say, like you said, it’s all about what you want in your games and for your players.
Both as a DM and player, I’m into the generous type. I like magical items, and money, and means to buy magical shit. It’s fun. Gold becomes a secondary XP meter that they can orient to a certain point. And if they are more challenging, then you get to use the 7 undead units I got to try in that last adventure.
So, I quite literally have an economy of magical items. And honor. And reputation. Making the numbers and economy behind it VERY fluctuent.
So fluctuent that, you know what their master will give them for saving the magical store and tens of citizens ? Any magical item. Anything. If it were a normal economy and world it might shatter from it, but mine ? Well, I’ll tell you later. I don’t know yet what they will pick :)
But yeah. Once this one is done, I might try a more down to earth campaign with lower starting point. See how it is when it’s more survival-esq.
I often think about the fact that AC is intentionally so hard to increase but sometimes gold is necessary like a paladin (or good loot, but it’s often expected that they’ll save for plate), while a monk can increase theirs just by leveling.
I don’t really have any AC critiques over this, but I have issues with gold and exactly how much should be given out. I now know that to earn 1500 gp is about a level 6 thing, but I don’t know why, or even where I learnt it, I could easily be off by levels due to giving out the wrong loot, or a PC who roleplays spending their gold is mechanically harmed compared to a player with similar vices from another class. I’m not even sure how I’d handle this differently, except the more I learn 5e, the more scared I get of gold and time.