Galadorn

Re: Unfortunately ... I believe that Jesus Christ is worshipped by most conservatives - not a figment of people's imagination. LOL.

LOL.

It's better then a perjurer, liar and adulter.

Indeed, supply and demand.

Read my bit about that in the "Low Fantasy Anyone?" thread. Well, after 25 years of playing D&D, and 26 years of reading Tolkien, I think I know that! Just kidding with you. Honestly, to take Gygax and Arson's (sp?) side: You would think that dwarves, being magical beings, would be hardy against magical spells. On the spell-casting side; the non-magic-user aspect of dwarves ceased with the third edition. So did racial level limits. The world it is achaaaaaanging!

I'll quote myself to you and add the italics and underline for you. We were talking about turning lead into gold Phil, and whether the ability to do that is stylistically appropriate. I wonder if changing lead into gold has an affect on economics in a fantasy world? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Yes, but my point was not about economics, but about the magical ability to change lead into gold.

I would hardly classify Gandalf as being in the same category as Sauron, not in power level anyway. Putting Gandalf on the same power level with Sauron, would make the whole ring quest superfluous. But we can say that Sauron is not overwhelmingly powerful, otherwise Isildur would not have been able to battle Sauron with a magic sword. Of course we know that Gandalf bested the Balrog, but died in the process, so he was probably slightly more powerful then the Balrog. Actually, if you check the incidental mentions of magic, Gandalf talked about other invisibility rings in the Hobbit -who made these rings? Secondly, we can talk about the ringwraiths, and one being a sorcerorm the Witch-King of Angmar - who was a human being. This sorceror had the ability to manipulate the dagger splinter in Bilbo. So, while this comment about flashiness may seem true on the surface, dig deeper and you'll find more gold nuggets down there. And if you want to say that the ringwraith had his powers because of his supernatural nature, I would beg to differ, because Gandalf specifically mentions him being a power sorceror before he became a ringwraith. I found a great encyclopedia of Tolkien's works for anyone interested. http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm?http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/r/ringwraiths.html

I think the key ingredient to any quality power design is.. subtlety. If you can be subtle about a power, and give it a good rationale for existing, then most people will appreciate it. If you make a power available, like take-out at McDonalds, no one will appreciate it. Of course, the historical power for changing lead into gold is called Alchemy. This would definately be more acceptable, in terms of quality, for changing lead into gold. Of course you can always go with the razzle dazzle presto poof! effect. But somehow I dont think that's quality. And btw, Gandalf did have a flashy burning hands effect, when he killed two goblins in the Misty Mountains cave the Hobbit. And of course, in the Lord of the Rings he cast hold person on Aragorn and Legolas, and zapped the Ringwraith with a light blast. Tolkein's mastery was in playing these things down: he didn't go for flashy special effects.

Oh Tolkein, how great is your mastery - you didn't try to advocate the super-ridiculous in your books.

I wonder if, historically, kings paid for castles in coin? Sounds interesting, but I try to balance reality with fantasy. One of the most interesting contrasts I find effective in fantasy, is Tolkiens heros walking to Mordor, or riding natural mounts like horses - rather then riding dragons or hippogriffs. Of course he had the giant eagles, but there were not mounts per se, rather rescuers. This contrast between fantasy and reality in a story I find very interesting. I certainly don't like techno-magic, bleah. Letters of credit were based on the credibility of the instituition authoring the letter. Of course a great safety valve was that most people couldn't read, let alone write - so you basically had only nobles, their clerks and scholars who could even attempt to forge a letter. Ahhhhh, civil discussion without name-calling and negative inferences, never goes out of style.

It's not necessary to establish your credentials, but it's a whole other thing to try to be more then you are. Your choice, check the previous posts. Alot of posts did demonstrate learning, and criticize ignorance. And while Keith states hes not attacking, the tone of his posts speak for themselves, and his explicit comments: Case closed.

Giving specific prices is helpful. It helps those GMs determine a norm. Based on this norm they can see how their campaigns measure up to Medieval prices. Using this schematic, they can then get a general sense of what prices were in the Middle Ages. Then with this pattern of prices, they can project how money works in real worlds and project those monetary values onto fantasy worlds. This is the most simple way to figure out prices. If you don't agree, then fine - you can project a fantasy value on money if you want, but don't complain when people criticize your monetary system. Point is, stop trying to criticize those who have more knowledge, humility is knowing one's own educations true value. And this definition cuts both ways... I don't try to flout my education to my Ph.D. economist consultant friend, he knows more about economics then me. But then I don't put up with people who try to spout off about more then they know either. THATS arrogance, trying to be more then you are. Enough of this conversation, I can't deal with ego inflation anymore today.

That's your perception and perception is a very subjective dynamic. I'm trying to say that economic principles are universal, as long as your using basic psychology. Yes, you may add variables, but the basic principles would still apply. Example: Even though you have magic, maybe you allow the selling of magic in your world. Guess what, we still have the law of supply and demand - except in this case the product is magic. THAT'S my point. The PRINCIPLE of supply and demand still applies, even though the product has changed. How can we be sure about this? Try transcultural economics. Do the same economic theories and principles get taught in Japan as they do in the West? You bet your booty they do. So even in other dimensions the same economic theories and principles apply, even if lizard men are selling jaba fruit to the wookies. We still have a seller, a product and a consumer - it doesn't matter who or what are involved in the three factors, the same principles apply. I guess fantasy would be your principle when examining economics then? And I do mean fantasy. You still didn't dissprove my point, the same principles apply. Which is fine, as long as you use sound economic principles. That's fine, but please don't assert that your economic theories are true and would hold up under scrutiny if you're not trained in economics. I find people who want to assert their POV authoritatively, without any training in the subject area, arrogant in the extreme.

You could also say, learning economic theory, and studying the history of Medieval Monetary Systems, makes you better qualified to determine what factors would affect money valuation. Some people have fun roleplaying economic dynamics - such as guild trade wars in different cities. And these trade wars may lead to assassinations and subterfuge politically - such as the duke being done away with, since the dukes trade policy is effecting the profit margins of the leathermaker's guild, who are quite sore about it. Also, I believe, based on the content of posts to this thread, these people are a little more interested in monetary systems, then you are.

I agree, the monetary values are much to low for medieval monetary values. In the 18th century or so in England, they even got rid of the half-penny and farthing, because they were basically worthless. Keep your eye peeled at Digital Hero in the coming months, you may see an article that is very relevant and helpful.

O.K., if you want to create you own system, roll 3d6 and multiply by 100 dollars. That's the dollar value of your gold piece, then round down. I mean if this is the way you want to determine monetary value,then go right ahead. If you want a historically-based monetary system as a springboard for determining your campaigns monetary system, that's another story. If you want to run all economic variables for your campaign, determining supply and demand as a roleplaying event - then go right ahead. I have other elements of the campaign that are much more interesting to me right in my campaign - like magic.

See my response above. Averages (mean) have already been determined, if they are somewhat inexactly determinable. Nobles were a later developing currency in the Middle Ages (15th Century), so now we have inflation factors. O.K. mercenaries and nobles are somewhat the exception - an exception I think most FRPGers would know. And don't forget letters of credit - loose coin was available, but letters of credit were common from the 12th century onward, and before the 6th century (Roman period). So, I don't think nobles carried around all their gold on their person.

This is called supply. This is called availability, which is part of the supply schematic.

First of all, I'm not basing my prices on speculation. There are plenty of historical records - including receipts and merchant records - to determine the average price of fancy dress. I've used mutiple sources in determing the exact averages, based on these sources. Second of all, I'm work with a economist (Ph.D.) in my work as a marketing director. Both the economist and I have a fervent interest in Medieval History, and we have talked about this issue at length - including the guild system, feudalism, the emergence of mercantislim, villienage and other factors of economics. Third of all, if we're going to talk economic systems, you have to determine which economic system you are talking about: 1. Capitalism. 2. Command economy (socialism/communism/some feudalistic systems) 3. Mixed economy (feudalism proper (w/ freemanry)/some socialist systems). The above factors will determine the prices for such an item, including other factors: 1. Labor rates. 2. Titheage. 3. Tribute 4. Taxation. Fact is the real consumers in the feudal system were the nobles, and some clergy. Nobles were, by and large, the consumers of extremely fine garb. Keep in mind the some bishops were also nobles, as well - foreign as this concept is to the American mindset.

Actually, fancy dress cost a lot less. And as far as the cost of a nobleman's armor - that seems about right.

Re: Re: My bad It happens, believe me. Trying doing hermenutics (http://www.dictionary.com) with people who think they have graduate education, and don't. LOL. I think you spent all your points in EGO and forgot the Telepathy.

Re: My bad Yes Shinrin, no problem. I'm a professional writer, I tend to use the words very precisely. For those who are interested, here is a site I use for my dictionaries. http://www.dictionary.com You can bring up seven different dictionary's definitions of the same word, up at the same time.

I agree. I've been doing it for 20+ years as well, that's how I know you're experienced. And, you're welcome.

Yes indeed, venom toward unjust thoughts, not any individual. Well, I don't think that any adjustments need to be made in the system either. I think the problem is that certain GMs don't understand the system to begin with. I guess having played the hero system for so long, I'm taking all those discussion me and other hero system GM's had over many years. Exactly my point, I spoke so much about players because others were slanting everything toward GM's tastes. This should be wrote up before a campaign is even started, so that BOTH parties have an understanding what the house rules are - and there are no surprises. Nothing like using a spell you've used the same way for years, suddenly change it's special effect with no prior warning - and no plot or campaign reason for it. Exaaaaaaaaaactly, sounds like we have an experience GM here. I agree. No need for killing off characters and going beyond the bounds of the limitation. If you don't like the disad.s: 1. Tell the player you don't. 2. Talk about how you can change the disad.s or give other ones similar in taste. 3. And DON'T go off willy-nilly and kill their character because you have a problem expressing your opinions and feelings. 4. If the player is beligerent about it, NOW we have a problem.