Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

[Old Man]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

That could be a cop-out which discourages world builders from integrating a believable economy into their setting.

 

I think believability is in the eye of the beholder, for one thing, and people are also going to differ in the degree to which they care. Dungeon crawls rarely make economic or any other kind of sense but for many people that's okay. The same goes for fantasy fiction, where even some of the more popular settings don't make a whole lot of economic sense either--Middle-Earth, for starters, IMO, as well as a bunch of others where the setting and map are more of an afterthought.

 

That said, I'm with you in that I would prefer a setting at least address economics at a high level so we don't have players asking difficult questions or attempting to profit from using real economic principles in a setting that has obvious exploitable economic holes.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

Yeah, and thrill of market values aside, a solid economy has adventure potential in that it can lead to upper class intrigue or players trying to set up funding for their castle/ship/dimensional travel rod/etc.

[Markdoc]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

Yeah' date=' and thrill of market values aside, a solid economy has adventure potential in that it can lead to upper class intrigue or players trying to set up funding for their castle/ship/dimensional travel rod/etc.[/quote']

 

I actually ran a 2-year story arc where the PCs were enforcers in a trade war between merchant houses. Might not sound as dramatic as "Kill the giant dragon" but it got the players worked up enough that when they finally got their hands on the man responsible for all their troubles (and indirectly for the death of one PC), they flayed him alive, nailed him to a raft and then set him adrift at sea ... and they were generally good guys! :0

 

cheers, Mark

[Manic Typist]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

I'd love to see your notes for that campaign....

[teh bunneh]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

I ran a D&D game in which I deliberately created an unrealistic setting. There was a massive city of over a million inhabitants, with a great expanse of nothingness on one side and endless desert on the other. The phrase "The same place as the food comes from" became commonplace in the game, when a player questioned the logic of ... well, anything.

 

Q: "Where the heck does a city this size, with no farmland to speak of, get its food?"

A: "Shut up. It's not important. Roll initiative.

 

[Ragitsu]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

Q: "Where the heck does a city this size, with no farmland to speak of, get its food?"

A: "Shut up. It's not important. Roll initiative.

 

 

*thinks some more*

 

Roll a Fortitude Save, DC 20.

[Old Man]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

Q: "Where the heck does a city this size, with no farmland to speak of, get such great tasting sausage?"

 

A: "Speaking of which, has anyone seen Frank?"

[Ragitsu]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

"Speaking of which' date=' has anyone seen Frank?"[/quote']

 

"He was with Beans"

[The Weapon]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

About as much as any other aspect of the fantasy world, I'd say. For example:

 

- with all those long-lived races, why aren't there numerous characters of other races vastly more skilled and experienced than the humans?

 

- how can giants be that tall? Cube square law and all that

 

- what use are castles in a world with dragons and flying wizards?

 

- why do wizards waste so much time making magical weapons and armor they can't use?

 

In order:

- Maybe there are, but most members don't dedicate their lives to a particular skill that much. Those that can't maintain an extreme level of skill for more than a few years, maybe a decade before they get rusty. There are occasional exceptions which is where you get the good elvan or dwarven items from.

- No idea.

- Most armies don't have flying wizards or dragons, and those that don't want to seperate them from their main army so the enemy can concentrate attacks on them (the wizards in particular aren't too keen on this). BTW big creatures like dragons are why you have dungeons under your castle. So the enemy has to send in regular sized troops to winkle you out.

- What's easier, treking all over the enchanted forest bumbling into giant spiders, squidbears, etc. in the search for the mystic Mchguffin or spending a few months making a sword and getting a ranger to do it?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

In order:

- Maybe there are, but most members don't dedicate their lives to a particular skill that much. Those that can't maintain an extreme level of skill for more than a few years, maybe a decade before they get rusty. There are occasional exceptions which is where you get the good elvan or dwarven items from.

 

So highly lawful, dedicated Dwarves living near hostile tribes of other races for hundreds of years have fighting skills that they just let atrophy? Seems odd, somehow.

 

- No idea.

 

Agreed

 

- Most armies don't have flying wizards or dragons' date=' and those that don't want to seperate them from their main army so the enemy can concentrate attacks on them (the wizards in particular aren't too keen on this). BTW big creatures like dragons are why you have dungeons under your castle. So the enemy has to send in regular sized troops to winkle you out.[/quote']

 

So why don't they? Attacking from two flanks is a common military tactic - opening up another flank in the air seems like it would be pursued. It didn't take humans long to figure out horses would be useful in warfare, and they bred them. If there were flying mounts (not necessarily dragons - pegasi and hippogriffs can carry riders), why would the same not develop?

 

- What's easier' date=' treking all over the enchanted forest bumbling into giant spiders, squidbears, etc. in the search for the mystic Mchguffin or spending a few months making a sword and getting a ranger to do it?[/quote']

 

What's easier, a long, prolonged seige of a castle or spending a few months developing a Mass Fly spell so you can send a battalion of flying archers up to deal with the defenders? IOW, this answer directly contradicts the one above it.

 

At the end of the day, the answers are the same as the economics questions - don't peel back the curtain, just enjoy the ride. Digging too deep into some real world issues generates some pretty strange discoveries too!

[The Weapon]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

I think magic tricks should definitely figure in: but you also need to think about how you want to apply them. Magic-users generally require both a decent amount of XP to be terribly useful and also - if they are being terribly useful - are going to require decent feeding' date=' housing, pay, etc. So it's unlikely that a pack of goat-herders will have powerful mage or that a wizard will spend his time making sure the local peasants get good crops: his time is almost certainly worth more than 4 cartloads of potatoes. If it [b']does[/b] happen in game, that even modest villages will have a goodwife or hedge wizard who can mess with the weather, cure ills and mend wounds, then by definition that GM has decided that his game is a high magic one, where pretty much everything will be affected by magic.

 

Not a bad thing, just a different kind of game.

 

I'd expect that to have a major effect on economics (and more than economics): such a world wouldn't resemble medieval Europe much, if at all. And the logical consequences extend in all directions: any mage powerful enough to mend a dagger wound is theoretically powerful enough to stop aging or conjure his food out of the air ... or send a message across the country faster than the fastest physical message system.

 

In my current game, for example, I deliberately limited magic so that it can be powerful - but it's hard to use in combat and hard to make long-lasting magics. So mages co-exist alongside armies of soldiers, and trade carries on much as it would in a medieval world - with some exceptions. For example, the Lord of the Thorn, has a magic map that shows all ships in his domain. He has little trouble with pirates or smugglers ...

 

cheers, Mark

 

Of course it's possible that these sorts of economically useful magics are common, but that mages who spend their time learning these skills don't learn PC-type skills. So the party mage is more useful to the party, but less useful to the average village than the average mage. Or magic can do these things but there's some sort of cost that wizards are reluctant to pay (sacrifice, years off your life, etc).

 

I have to agree that common low-cost abilities of the type most fantasy games have would change the society completely. Empires would be bigger with easier communication and transport. Preservation spells could end famine by keeping years of grain ready for bad years (during which the owners of the grain silos get to own a lot of peasants). Since local famines would be unknown (just move the food) if a famine came it would have to be huge. Castles would be much less useful as the best warriors fully "buffed" by best wizards wouldn't find walls all that difficult to get over. Since they can move fast you don't need that many of them to keep your vassals in line. But if your small elite group of castle-crackers gets ambushed (say a basilisk in the wine barrel, or something equally treacherous) the kingdom could go from strong to overstretched pretty quickly. Could get really ugly. And what about the dozens of sons the centuries old rulers have. Are they all just going to wait the thousand years or so it takes daddy to die? Or will they be more - proactive? Sounds like a good for a group of expendable assets, I mean heroic adventurers.

[The Weapon]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

Of course' date=' Mages won't spend the time. How about Priests? It would be quite natural for a Priest to Heal and perhaps help out the weather, crop yields etc. They would do it for "free" as that would promote their god(ess) and encourage regular worship. Now not all gods are concerned about the same things, but you would probably find the gods that cover the concerns of farmers near the farmers, the gods that are about mercantilism near markets etc. I think it's easy to forget or dismiss divine Magics. I am sure that the gods would want to show their worshippers that Gods are worthy of being followed.[/quote']

 

Of course the priests do it for free. Of course they may not get around to blessing your farm if you haven't regularly attended services or donated.

[Clonus]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

I have to agree that common low-cost abilities of the type most fantasy games have would change the society completely. Empires would be bigger with easier communication and transport.

 

Don't neglect the other variables. For example in a D&D style universe you can have a vast sweeping Romanesque empire...but at any moment an invading army can appear anywhere inside your borders. A secure frontier is impossible when there are populations of hundreds of millions of hostile burrowing entities and planar rifts created by demonic hordes, not to mention the monsters that just seem to spontaneously appear everywhere thanks to the jerk gods. The main purpose of creating a large empire is obviated by the sheer impossibility of securing large areas with minimal troop presence. City states make a heck of a lot more sense than empires, no matter how good your communication might be.

[Lucius]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

Don't neglect the other variables. For example in a D&D style universe you can have a vast sweeping Romanesque empire...but at any moment an invading army can appear anywhere inside your borders. A secure frontier is impossible when there are populations of hundreds of millions of hostile burrowing entities and planar rifts created by demonic hordes. The main purpose of creating a large empire is obviated by the sheer impossibility of securing large areas with minimal troop presence. City states make a heck of a lot more sense than empires' date=' no matter how good your communication might be.[/quote']

 

I've often wondered why romanesque empires and pseudomedieval kingdoms are popular in fantasy and fantasy gaming, but not city states. I think a setting full of city states would make an excellent role playing setting.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Then again, I think a palindromedary reference makes an excellent tagline

[Manic Typist]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

So highly lawful' date=' dedicated Dwarves living near hostile tribes of other races for hundreds of years have fighting skills that they just let atrophy? Seems odd, somehow. [/quote']

 

Well, there's no reason to assume that the majority of the population is engaged in combating these tribes. After all, if you have a really old, skilled craftsman, you'll probably want the younger, less valuable dwarf out there risking his life. Plus, even skilled warriors die, often quite randomly. Furthermore, there might be an issue with what part of their life cycle is the physical prime and how long it lasts.

 

So why don't they? Attacking from two flanks is a common military tactic - opening up another flank in the air seems like it would be pursued. It didn't take humans long to figure out horses would be useful in warfare, and they bred them. If there were flying mounts (not necessarily dragons - pegasi and hippogriffs can carry riders), why would the same not develop?

 

Well, why don't they indeed? I would expect any intelligent force to have recognized these potential threats and acted to develop countermeasures accordingly. Of course, even still, that doesn't mean the castle would be obsolete; just that it would need some sort of addition or supporting base. Modern military bases still have fences even though there are air threats, and interior bases might not have much or even any anti-air power because frontier/border bases are supposed to take care of that.

 

What's easier, a long, prolonged seige of a castle or spending a few months developing a Mass Fly spell so you can send a battalion of flying archers up to deal with the defenders? IOW, this answer directly contradicts the one above it.

 

If one were to be developed then I'd expect it to be exploited like crazy (and in response, increasingly powerful Mass Dispel fields), but perhaps magic can't go that far? No living wizard could summon that kind of power, etc? So you have to spend years stockpiling hundreds or thousands of magic items to supply that ability, which places a great deal of emphasis on intelligence gathering to be aware of what type of weapons your neighbors are amassing and in what quantities, much like we have today.

 

 

Perhaps I should go back to developing my setting. I LIKE incorporating real world logic into fantasy. Some might complain that it has just become sci-fi, though, but I really don't agree.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

Perhaps I should go back to developing my setting.

Probably not in the same context, but I have been thinking this for a while now.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

Of course it's possible that these sorts of economically useful magics are common' date=' but that mages who spend their time learning these skills don't learn PC-type skills. So the party mage is more useful to the party, but less useful to the average village than the average mage. Or magic can do these things but there's some sort of cost that wizards are reluctant to pay (sacrifice, years off your life, etc). [/quote']

 

Something akin to this just came up in my campaign. Players got to a town that has suffered massive flooding, loss of crops, etc. The Shaman, with her nature and weather magic, asked if she could help with the flooding. As all her spells have concentration and/or END cost, I said "Sure. If you want to stand in this town for the rest of your life maintaining a weather control spell..."

 

[Manic Typist]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

Probably not in the same context' date=' but I have been thinking this for a while now.[/quote']

 

What other context could you be referring to?

[Nolgroth]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

What other context could you be referring to?

Not so worried about economics. Just worried about getting it to a playable state.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

Ah, me too, but I want it to make as much sense as possible without going nuts. So the most obvious logic holes? I'd like to avoid those.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

"It's not a bug -- it's a feature!" It's an art to turn the logic holes into a challenge for the players ...

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

"It's not a bug -- it's a feature!" It's an art to turn the logic holes into a challenge for the players ...

 

Indeed. Just saying "You know, that's a very good question," with a tone that implies that you know the answer, but you're not going to share it, works wonders.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

Indeed. Just saying "You know' date=' that's a very good question," with a tone that implies that you know the answer, but you're not going to share it, works wonders. [/quote']

 

You've done this often?

[Nolgroth]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

You've done this often?

What, you haven't?

[Vondy]

Re: Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

 

Of course the priests do it for free.

 

Is that a universal characteristic of every religion in every fantasy setting? I think its a rather broad assumption.

 

The Haleans from Harn come to mind. Sure, they might "do it" for free, but a ritual - especially a miracle - that's going to cost you!

 

The initiated will understand.