|
|
Post by Starbeard on Aug 30, 2014 4:10:39 GMT -6
After wandering off to another city, however, they learn that gold there is severely undervalued and exchanges with silver at a rate of 1:6, instead of 1:10. An interesting thought experiment... Your scenario affords a wonderful opportunity for geographical arbitrage---a PC could literally make money from nothing. Call the city with the 1:6 exchange rate "G" for the Lost City of Gold. Call the city with the 1:10 exchange rate "S" for Silver City. The PC starts in "S" and borrows 30sp and agrees to pay it back in a month as the equivalent in gold (3gp) plus 10% (or 3sp) interest. He then travels to "G" and trades 24sp for 4gp at 6:1 keeping the remaining 6sp to pay interest and fees; he has to pay a 10% money changing fee (2.4sp, rounding up to 3sp). He returns to "S" and repays the 3gp principal plus the 3sp interest he owes. Tallying things up so far: 4gp gold
6sp silver
-3gp principal
-3sp interest
-3sp money changing fee
-----
1gp profitIf we can travel from "S" to "G" instantaneously and cost-free via magic then we're done calculating. Otherwise, we need to factor in time and travel costs. We assumed 1 month of interest payments, meaning we'd have to get there and back inside of 1 month, otherwise we need to adjust the calculations. We also need to figure out how much it costs to travel from "S" to "G" and back again. That will depend on the weight of the coins we're carrying. Then we can do the final calculations for the profit, which will be a function of the size of the trade we're doing. There are several risks. First, unless we're traveling back and forth instantaneously via magic, then the two trades are not executed simultaneously; that results in "execution risk." The interval in between the two trades allows exchange rates to change, e.g., we may get to "G" and discover rates have gone from 1:6 to 1:15, in which case we're screwed. There's also the risk that we'll be robbed by bandits during transit; hiring security increases our costs and lowers our profits. In the long run, once a large enough volume of these trades gets done, the exchange rates will equalize in "S" and "G" and the arbitrage opportunity will disappear. This is the Law of Once Price (LOP) reasserting itself. What the equilibrium exchange rate turns out to be in the end depends mainly on how much gold and silver were in each of "G" and "S" to begin with, assuming these amounts don't change by much due to mining or an influx/departure of these metals from/to other trading partners. This is a pretty astute observation, I hadn't considered the effects of magical teleportation between exchange centres, only that of 'caravan' travel. If reliable and effectively instantaneous travel between centres were available, then the exchange rates would even out to a median quite quickly, unless—as you point out—there is a base quantity of each type of material available across the board.
Without putting too much thought into it, this makes me think of a fantasy stock market, of sorts. Banks or some other guilded organisations would likely monopolise monetary exchange between places, but since there is a relatively stable quantity of goods to exchange (sans the slow inflation caused by mining of new resources), those goods are rendered as valuable as the equity stake placed on the institution which holds that stock. The value of gold to silver between cities (or even guilds) would thus fluctuate over time as equity shifted.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheObligatorySQL on Aug 30, 2014 16:17:45 GMT -6
Just my 2 cp (or gp for this thread): I like the gold standard for it's simplicity. In the real world, would you buy something marked with a price tag of 300 pennies? I wouldn't. 3 dollars is easier to deal with. The same principle can apply to the D&D gold standard. It's much easier to price and buy something worth 3gp than 300cp. As for the denominations, I like it for the fact that, as a DM, I can make it more difficult for the players to deal with their hard-earned gains, especially when combined with the 10:1 coin-to-pound encumbrance rate. Example Coin Pile MathGold (1d6x100): Result 3 (300gp) d10 (as percent) of gold as silver: 5 (50% = 300gp > 150gp, 1,500sp) d10 (as percent) of silver as copper: 1 (10% = 1,500sp > 1,350sp, 750cp) Total coin (150gp + 1,350sp + 750cp) = 2,250 coins (225 pounds) Unless they prepared ahead of time by bringing chests, lots of bags, magical transporters, etc., how is a small party of adventurers going to transport 225 pounds of coins through dungeon halls and corridors, possibly even up and down multiple levels of stairs, ladders, chutes, and elevators (depending on how they got there) to their safe-haven? And that's not including the weapons, armor, equipment, and other things they have to carry (like bodies of fallen or unconscious comrades)? That's for them to figure out  |
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Aug 31, 2014 7:49:41 GMT -6
Just my 2 cp (or gp for this thread): I like the gold standard for it's simplicity. In the real world, would you buy something marked with a price tag of 300 pennies? I wouldn't. 3 dollars is easier to deal with. The same principle can apply to the D&D gold standard. It's much easier to price and buy something worth 3gp than 300cp. I think you're missing the point. For many people, the issue is not whether the prices in the equipment list should be given in gp, sp or cp, but rather that the prices are entirely out of whack. Now, some people might call this a matter of "historical realism", others a matter of "aesthetics", "credibility" or "suspension of disbelief", but the fundamental point remains that many DMs and players just can't accept that (using the ODnD list) 20 arrows or a bud of garlic cost 5 gold pieces while a 10' pole or a 50' coil of hemp rope costs one. Because it's just silly, and completely shreds the whole concept of "this is fabulously valuable", which is the raison d'être for the gold coin. Consequently, most of the time I see the issue addressed, it goes hand in hand with actually reducing the prices in one way or another. So, contrarily to what you imply in your post, the real question isn't "Should this item be listed as 3gp or 300cp?" The real question, more often than not, is "Should this item be listed as 3gp or 3cp?Or, to put it in other words, imagine there were regular arguments about the price list in Papers and Paychecks, the late XXth century roleplaying game. The arguments wouldn't be centred on whether the price of a pint of beer should be listed as 400 USD or 40000 cents. They'd be centred on why the hell a pint of beer costs 400 USD in the game rather than 4 dollars. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Nov 4, 2014 11:01:11 GMT -6
The arguments wouldn't be centred on whether the price of a pint of beer should be listed as 400 USD or 40000 cents. They'd be centred on why the hell a pint of beer costs 400 USD in the game rather than 4 dollars. Because it's fancy European beer, pissed out by a rare mountain lion found only in the Swiss Alps... and we Americans would pay anything for that! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 13:46:39 GMT -6
I have never had a problem with the Gold Standard at all and I would echo coffee on most things. I have looked at the silver standard on different occasions and have always decided that it would be more work than I had time for and that the players might not want to buy in given that we play once per month.
If I were going to change the whole thing, what I would currently be likely to do is this:
1 Platinum piece equals 1000 Gold Pieces
1 Gold Piece equals 1000 Silver Pieces
1 Silver Piece equals 20 Copper or Brass or Bronze Pieces
I might also add some other metals. This would make silver the standard, coppper/brass/bronze worth having and Gold very rare, and Platinum extremely rare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Nov 6, 2014 14:29:47 GMT -6
back then when I was a Young DM , I house ruled electrum out of the treasure table, for I deemed it too "anachronistical" (I figured that a metal that mentioned electricity in some way or another couldn't be worth of a medieval campaign).
It's very later that I found out that it was the contrary: electrum is one of the oldest metals used for coinage, but platinum wasn't known by europeans before the 16th century and wasn't identified as a precious metal before the 18th.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 15:02:39 GMT -6
back then when I was a Young DM , I house ruled electrum out of the treasure table, for I deemed it too "anachronistical" (I figured that a metal that mentioned electricity in some way or another couldn't be worth of a medieval campaign). It's very later that I found out that it was the contrary: electrum is one of the oldest metals used for coinage, but platinum wasn't known by europeans before the 16th century and wasn't identified as a precious metal before the 18th. Yeah, I actually knew of electrum before OD&D, but as to anachronisms for the most part I don't worry about them when there is a good in game explanation, I figure a world with dwarves whose focus is precious and/or rare metals and who are master metalworkers beyond any other race, would have access to pretty much any metal that exists. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Nov 6, 2014 18:30:36 GMT -6
I'll preface this by saying “it's your world, do whatever you want!”...
But... I really don't think there's a major issue with the “gold standard”. Simply imagine a world where gold is easy enough to mine, but not common, and it's cherished by enough of the “important people” that it becomes the primary unit of currency.
However, copper and silver are easy to come by, and are prevalent in jewellry.
Sooooo...everything is a “gold standard”, but typically bartered in silver by the middle class, copper by the lower class, and gold by the upper class (and those dammed rich adventurers!).
As a side note, I like to change “lesser” metals into equivalent jewellry if I'm feeling generous with the players...
|
|
|
|
Post by distortedhumor on Dec 16, 2016 21:59:31 GMT -6
I think also one thing to be concidered is just how common coins are in general. are most workers paid in coin, or is there a system of debts, favors, and so on.
If it a system of debts and favors, the coins that the party brings back might have massive impacts on that village as suddenly that gold coin they spent flies around town as people start paying off each other. If coins are the normal payment, this will be much less the case.
As for inflation, I have had short time shocks to the cost of goods if the party spends a lot of cash, but it will revert to local prices as money leaves the area vie caravans.
Just my .02 coppers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 13:25:41 GMT -6
I once spent 3 or 4 years making a comprehensive price list based off 14th century England and used pence, shillings, and pounds.
I've gone back to the 100% standard OD&D system because it's just plain easier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 16:58:49 GMT -6
Holy thread necromancy Batman! Well, this is my - more or less universal - coinage and price system. Notably, everything higher than a "Blade" is a theoretical/paper only currency. That we elaborated things in such a way has several reasons: - Farmers in my games are mostly not all poor, but more like English yeomen; free citizens that have a considerable influence on a de-urbanized economy.
- My players like to trade, and to run their respective businesses in a very elaborated fashion.
- The Dwarves in my games are uber-rich, and we essentially needed to establish two economical systems, along the way: One that the Dwarves used, and one that the humans (mostly second-class citizens to the Dwarves) would use.
...All that said, while the creation of this list was a really immersive exercise, I prefer simpler approaches. EDIT: Yay, I can shrink the table using (spoiler) tags!  |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 17, 2016 19:25:46 GMT -6
I prefer to look at gp like HP. Which is to say, as an abstraction. Worrying about inflation would not be fun for me or my players. Like gronan, making things more complicated does not always equal fun. I tend to strip things down and make things more and more simple as I continue to play. Right now I do g:s:c as 1:2:4. Thanks for bringing the thread back up!
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Dec 17, 2016 20:37:07 GMT -6
Something else to consider: The equipment list in M&M is for adventurers. It generally doesn't include mundane day-to-day items such as tavern fare, plain wool/linen clothing, farming tools, etc. These items cost less than a g.p. and so are normally purchased with copper and silver. If you want to make silver and copper more "valuable" to players, just convert more of your gold coins in treasure to silver and copper - keeping it at a ratio of 100:10:1 (or whatever) to match closely the conversion rate in your campaign. Also, when characters are purchasing from the local yokels, perhaps they would prefer to be paid in copper and silver since it's their "standard".
Anyway, a couple more celestrium farthings to add to the conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 18, 2016 12:26:50 GMT -6
I read you. Even still, here, "mundane day-to-day," and, for me, even upkeep of weapons and armor are all abstracted by "character upkeep." Because of this, I make it 10% XP accrued rather than 1%. But the point is to keep it abstract. Neither I nor most players have fun "shopping" for groceries in fantasy land when the Tomb of Unknown Treasures and Death is waiting to be explored right around the corner.
Not trying to be a stinker. But it seems to me there is a reason why some things are abstracted while others are not. For me and the folks I play with, D&D is a game of exploration, problem / puzzle solving, and fighting the battles you can't avoid using thoughtful tactics. Everything else supports those three things or provides the necessary (but abstracted) "realism" to feel like it is not just fantasy but "medieval" and a possibly "real" world other than our own.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Dec 18, 2016 21:07:00 GMT -6
Neither I nor most players have fun "shopping" for groceries in fantasy land when the Tomb of Unknown Treasures and Death is waiting to be explored right around the corner.  Yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on May 10, 2017 18:50:59 GMT -6
I don't think it's all about "realism" per se. Rather, it's about a system where two-thirds of the coins in any "treasure" horde are inferior to scrip. That's simply bizarre. I agree on this being the crux of the problem. If gold is the standard way to measure XP and the standard way to count money, then the silver piece has little value and the copper piece just takes up space. Imagine in the real world if you have a jar of pennies and want to buy something from the store -- huge bother. Copper pieces are a trap! They lower the movement speed of greedy players (doubling or quadrupling the number of wandering monster checks they have to take) while hardly getting them any xp! |
|
EdOWar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 315
|
Post by EdOWar on May 11, 2017 11:28:27 GMT -6
I agree on this being the crux of the problem. If gold is the standard way to measure XP and the standard way to count money, then the silver piece has little value and the copper piece just takes up space. Imagine in the real world if you have a jar of pennies and want to buy something from the store -- huge bother. Copper pieces are a trap! They lower the movement speed of greedy players (doubling or quadrupling the number of wandering monster checks they have to take) while hardly getting them any xp! This is one of the things I love about this forum. Even after years of reading up on OD&D here (and other places), I still learn new things. It never occurred to me before to consider copper and silver as a kind of trap for greedy players, but that's exactly what it is (whether or not that was Gary and Dave's intention). I'll have to keep this in mind next time I'm thinking about monkeying around with OD&D's economy. |
|
flightcommander
Level 6 Magician
"I become drunk as circumstances dictate."
Posts: 387
|
Post by flightcommander on May 11, 2017 12:28:08 GMT -6
As a counter-example, I once boarded Caltrain here in SF along with a passenger who claimed to the conductor that he "only" had a $100 bill to pay his ~ $5 fare. The conductor, enraged, gave him his change in quarters. So, think about that the next time your adventurers want to pay for something with platinum pieces ... |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on May 28, 2017 22:19:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 29, 2017 4:26:02 GMT -6
Gold pieces are a trap. Given that 80% of treasure value (and XP) is in jewelry and gems with negligible encumbrance, players might improve their odds of success (certainly their movement rate!) by leaving all gold behind too. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 29, 2017 13:58:48 GMT -6
Gold pieces are a trap. Given that 80% of treasure value (and XP) is in jewelry and gems with negligible encumbrance, players might improve their odds of success (certainly their movement rate!) by leaving all gold behind too. Here is a good standard operating procedure for adventurers: 1. Do not encumber yourselves save in unusual circumstances. 2. Carry all the copper pieces you can without encumbering yourselves. 3. As you find it, replace copper with silver. 4. As you find it, replace silver with electrum. 5. As you find it, replace electrum with gold. 6. As you find it, replace gold with platinum. 7. As you find them, replace platinum with gems and jewelry. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 30, 2017 6:13:55 GMT -6
Mr. Anderson has a great post linked above.
This:
"The object of the game is to drag as much money out of the dungeon as possible."
is particularly insightful as well. I believe it's a earlier design for XP rewards. I don't limit myself to playing solely for gold pieces or coins. I imagine rewarding XP for treasure quickly gets out of hand when we realize how much we price everything in the game. But that objective is exactly what the game was based on per my reading of Dungeon!
One point: "coin" was perhaps the original measuring system in medieval Europe. Scales used coins to measure weight - though I remember echoes from countless older players telling me it was "mass". Anyways, there is a precedent for its use historically.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Jun 1, 2017 23:05:37 GMT -6
Thanks How and why 99
|
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jun 2, 2017 20:59:25 GMT -6
Another odd thing about coins in OD&D or pretty much any version of D&D is that they actually take up much less space than is commonly assumed. You can easily put 1000 pennies in a cigar box. Indeed, you can put 1000 quarters or probably even 1000 Eisenhower dollars in such a box.
A 6" by 9" by 4" box would fit 960 Eisenhower dollars, neatly stacked. The coins are 1.5 inches in diameter, meaning you could lay 24 in a single layer on the bottom (4 x 6). And they are .1 inch in thickness, meaning that a 4 inch stack would contain 40 coins. And 24 x 40 = 960. Mushing them around doesn't create that much more volume.
So, either the coins in D&D are HUGE, like small plates or whatever, or there's a lot of padding, empty space or worthless junk of one sort or another in those chests and trunks.
In addition, a cigar box of pennies or quarters or whatever is pretty heavy. An entire trunk would be immovable by natural means.
If we go by 10 silvers = 1 gold, then a box of silvers worth 1000 gp would actually take up less volume than, say, a smallish crown worth 1000 gp (though it would be much heavier).
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jun 3, 2017 5:34:46 GMT -6
We owe an austro-hungrian golden coin at home (a wedding present from elderly relatives). It weights 33 grams (about one troy ounce). A D&D gold coin is about 45 grams (ten coins to the pound), so a golden gygaxian crown would be one third bigger.   (now that I think of it I like "golden Gygax" as a name for my D&D money ...) |
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Jun 3, 2017 14:10:21 GMT -6
In B/X, coins were the size of an American half-dollar.
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jun 3, 2017 18:24:34 GMT -6
I think D&D coins are all a good deal thicker. "In OD&D, the coins expend you!" PS: It turns out " grain" is the oldest system of measuring mass. |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jun 4, 2017 6:08:00 GMT -6
The 100-crowns gold piece I showed is 2,15 mm thick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jun 4, 2017 6:19:55 GMT -6
 The British silver coin "Britannia" weights 32,45 g and has a diameter of 40 mm and is 3 mm thick. A 45,3 grams coin should then have a diameter of 47 mm. The only caveat is the purity of the metal. Most mediaval silver coins were mixed with copper or even lead, althogh I don' know if that would make them heavier or not. EDIT: after a little research, I found out that copper is lighter than silver. Bullion coins should be even bigger than 47 mm. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 4, 2017 6:49:42 GMT -6
I created some mock D&D coins and posted some photos back in 2009. |
|
Yeah.
