Problems with the Economic System in D&D Ⅱ

Introduction

I previously wrote about issues I found with the Dungeons & Dragons economic system in the post titled “Problems with the Economic System in D&D”, and not surprisingly, I’ve pondered quite a bit on the subject. After writing an article on the Canned Blog, “D&D: Konvertering av prislister Ⅲ”, and coming back here to check what I previously had written on the subject, I was a bit surprised to read what I wrote at the end of the article; I quote:

… to make the economic system work well, two changes have to be done. First of all, there has to be only one system, not two as it is now (one for Joe Commoner and another for the heroes). Secondly, the whole economic system has to be rethought and redesigned from the bottom up. This would cause the sums found by the adventurers to be something completely different, and the rare Gold Crown (the monetary unit in my system which I’ve set to 240 silver pence) would truly get a unique status.

Do I still hold to that idea? I’ll hereby provide a translation on my Canned Blog-post on price lists, and see whether I still agree with my previous thoughts.

---

Edit: I found a few errors; some were minor, some were horrendous. I have corrected these now. My apologies.

Mr. K.

---

Translation of “D&D: Konvertering av prislister Ⅲ”:

Presentation of the Problem

(…) I’ve been pondering a lot about money and economy in the D&D-world, and it is no secret that I find it broken the way it workds. I’ve completed my first attempts in making a change in a positive direction, by introducing my 1–20–240-system, which greatly alleviates the problems. I am, though, still not pleased, and will in the ensuing text try to work my way through what is needed to get the economy to work in a satisfactory way.

How the D&D-system works

Previous posts on the subject (external site, Norwegian):
• D&D: Konvertering av prislister [Ⅰ], in which I posted the completed price convertion table.
• D&D: Konvertering av prislister Ⅱ, in which I addressed the problem of 4% price aberrancy.

The key to values in D&D is the equation 1 XP = 1 GP. The entire purpose is for the game to parallel the players’ material wealth to the players’ skills. In other words, as long as one has a key paralleling the players’ values to how many experience points they are earning, one can strictly speaking do whatever changes one desires, without it having any negative effect on the game. The question arising, is how to change the values into getting a believable economy. To answer that question, one has to know which economy is actually in the world of Dungeons & Dragons.

Everyday Objects

PHB 3.5 presents the economy in a way clearly showing misconceptions of how the economic situation actually was. On page 112 (chapter 7: Equipment) the following can be read:

Adventurers are in the small group of people who regularly buy things with coins. Members of the peasantry trade mostly in goods, bartering for what they need and paying taxes in grain and cheese. Members of the nobility trade mostly in legal rights, such as the rights to a mine, a port, or farmland, or they trade in gold bars, measuring gold by the pound rather than by the coin.

Considering how late in time the game is set, this clearly is wrong. Already early in the high middle ages people were starting leaning towards trading with money, because the manor lords preferred their taxes and fees payed in money, thus allowing them to acquire luxury objects; there is a limit to how much butter or cheese one can eat while being a travelling salesman of luxury goods. I can, however, agree slightly more to them paying in gold bullion (this being a fantasy world); equivalently one would pay with silver marks in mediaeval Europe. Trading in rights is also good thinking, so that is something worthy of keeping. Further, the book states:

The most prevalent coin among commoners is the silver piece (sp). A gold piece is worth 10 silver pieces. A silver piece buys a laborer’s work for a day, a common lamp, or a poor meal of bread, baked turnips, onions, and water.

Here one can see them having as a starting point the normal European economy, most likely focused on England (the turnip hinting to this), as it was from the early High Middle Ages. I have a whole bachelor’s thesis addressing the English economy in the early Middle Ages, which can be read by anyone interested by e-mailing me. If one then, further inspects the prices, peculiarities start surfacing. Take a normal armour, which you would expect found in these times of peasant armies, which – when considering, is the time in which this game of clockpunk is attempting to take place – costs 10 GP, i.e. 100 silver pence. In addition, there is the buckler costing 150 pence, and a padded armour at 50 pence. A regular peasant was in other words expected to have armament at hands worth 300 silver pence, which, depending on level of salary, is between four and ten months’ wage. It is to say the least, absurd.

If one takes a look at the fantastic Medieval Price List, a similar armament can be found there, and one can see what it actually cost in those days. I quote:

Item	Price	Date	Source	Page
Armor in a merchant's house (leather?)	5s	1285-1290	[3]	206
Cheap sword (peasant's)	6d	1340s	[3]	174

[3] Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages, Christopher Dyer, Cambridge University Press, 1989.

With a leather armour worth 5 shillings (equalling 60 pence) and a sword worth sixpence, the cost has been greatly reduced. By using the same levels of pricing as in PHB, one can imagine a padded armour to cost 2 s 6 d (2 shillings 6 pence), i.e. 2 SC 6 sp. From this follows that a sword should be priced considerably higher. It is in the book set to equal that of the leather armour, 10 GP, but we can see that it in fact costs a fourth of what a leather armour actually wouldcost. It is tempting to say that when a leather armour costs 5 SC, a padded armour should be half the price (2 SC 6 sp) and a buckler should be half that more (7 SC 6 sp), but it seems it can be hard to make price calculations thusly.

More important still, is what we can learn from this small example. The real cost of a leather armour is not as suggested by the book 100 sp, equalling 8 SC 4 sp, but only 5 SC, that is three fifths of the price suggested by the book. The armament above (a padded armour + a short sword) costs the peasant in other words just slightly more than two months’ worth of payment – or if he were among the better-waged, three weeks’ worth of pay – to acquire. (The buckler I could not find a price for, but the example still holds.)

Rich men’s items and magic

Splint armour:	200 gp	8 GC
Steel shield, heavy:	20 gp	16 SC
Lance, heavy, masterwork:	310 gp	12 GC  8 SC
Crossbow, light:	35 gp	1 GC  8 SC
Sum:	565 gp	22 GC 12 SC

It is quite clear as seen from the book that magic is believed to belong to a completely different class of people than those going to the market after church Sunday, even if one already by acquiring masterwork equipment is moving into a different, heavier class economically (a masterwork weapon costs 12 GC / 300 GP extra; an armour half that. A complete armour for a knight costs around £16 (“Total Armor owned by a knight; £16 6s 8d; 1374», ibīdem p. 76), and in DMG p. 120 we find a level 1 paladin to have splint armour, a heavy steel shield, a masterwork close combat weapon and a regular ranged weapon (e.g. heavy lance and crossbow); in D&D-prices this amounts to 565 GP or 23 GK 10 SC 10 sp.) Seven pounds is in fact not so bad considering what prices these were using, and especially not when considering how incredibly expensive it is to get something made as a masterwork item.

When on the other hand moving on to magic items, it becomes obvious that this is in a completely different league from ordinary people. A simple +1-improvement on a sword costs 2000 gp or 80 GK; that’s quite heavy. And we are talking about something you are expected to carry on level six. (Remember that a gold crown equals one pound (£1).) How can this be solved?

Preliminary Conclusion

It appears the prices of Dungeons & Dragons increase neither as a linear graph, nor as an exponential curve; quite the contrary, it seems as if there are at least two economies working alongside one another. Can this be defended in any way? I would postulate that it should and could be defended, but that an adjustment is required to make it work better. A possible solution is making magical items byable only with gold; silver is simply not a good enough payment for any mage to be interested in selling for it. With the updated treasure list I made my self – where gold pence are given out at 96%+ up to and including level 6, and gold crowns are given at 94%+ at level 7, 76%+ at 12^th–14^th level, and at 20^th level at 66%+ – gold is kept away from the players early in the game. If comparing this list to the price conversion table previously referred, and one takes a look at the cost of having magic cast, one sees one can change the price to caster level × price in gold pence in stead of silver crowns, and based on the rise in cost one gets, one could demand gold crowns from spells of level 3 and up.

In this way, one can have a mutual interaction between the economic system and the two economies in action in the fantastic world. My suggestion is as follows:

Every day objects
1. Any object with no special costs attached to it, such as a masterwork cost addition, and which can be expected to be bought at a market, is paid for with silver pence and if desired silver crowns, but the silver pence will be predominant.
2. The price lists should reflect this. This can easily be achieved by having an extra column giving an object a property value of 1, 2 or 3 (everyday-, expensive or magical object), and a function identifying this value and shows the price in the desired format.
Expensive objects
1. Any regular item not easily traded, such as masterwork equipment, gems, houses, ships, horses, cattle and so on, should have their values set in silver crowns and silver pence, or for very expensive items, in silver marks.
2. These items should in a table as stated above be set to category 2.
Magical objects
1. Any item with magical properties should require the magic component to be paid in gold.
• A +1 longsword costs 2315 GP; the magic bonus is 2000 of this. In the silver pence system this price should be stated as e.g. 80 GC 252 SC 6 sp, but not as e.g. 80 GC 252 gp 6 sp or 92 GC 148 sp. To be able to buy this, it should be required for the magical component to be paid in gold, either as 80 gold crowns or as 1600 gold pence.
• When ordering magic to be cast by a local mage, the prices for this should be stated as for example a product of spellcaster level × price in gold pence.

I have for a long time wondered whether I should leave the prices as they are. It is very tempting to divide them by 10, that is to make 1 XP equal 1 sp instead of equalling a D&D GP. The advantage of this is more easily approaching a realistic price for items. The disadvantage is losing the simple conversion rules one can use as of now. As an example, the cost for making magic items in the regular system is ¹⁄₂₅ experience points of what it costs in gold, while in the prevailing system (that is: the silver penny system I’ve discussed), the experience point cost is equal to the gold crown cost. An item costing 1000 GP to make, costs 40 XP in addition; in my system the same item costs40 GC (there are in other words 4 gold crowns per 100 gold pieces), and the experience point cost is the same number, 40 XP. Am I willing to relinquish this simplicity for more realism and a world where gold is even more special?

Mr. K.