Fantasy Economies: How closely should we examine them?

[Vondy]

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

 

This' date=' however, presupposes that magic which can enable flight is both scarce and valuable. With that in mind, and assuming we're not using Handwavium, how is it that those capable of such feats, or even such learning, are nameless adventurers, and are not drafted into the military of their nations? [/quote']

 

That right there may be your answer.

 

Unless the world is filled with army-busting magic-users who can simply refuse the summons, keeping a low profile may be what keeps you free rather than being a non-consensual "servant of the crown."

[Ragitsu]

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

 

Biz-ump.

[Christopher]

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

 

A common criticism of most fantasy settings is that the economy is either not very well defined' date=' or can easily be broken by Precious Resource X or Magic Spell Y.[/quote']

First, the spell has to exists/be possible.

Then it must be learnable/researchable.

Then it must be easy to cast (no limits, not going for LTE, not requiring equally expensive resources).

And finally you have to survive the gold-traders sending assasins after you for making gold (and they might not evne be after the formula, just your head).

 

More than enough way for the GM to throw rocks into the way.

[Laundry Knight]

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

 

Like said else where, economics is a tricky thing. If I deal with it all, I apply broad brush strokes. If I want a lot high magic that would almost be in parity with modern technology, then I raise the standard of living appropriately. If I don't want to portray a modern standard of living, I limit the amount of magic available in the campaign. Note: The presence of money would have a much lower effect on the standard of living than the availability of technology or it analogous replacement in magic. It doesn't how much or how little money you have if there isn't anything to buy, anyway.

[Christopher]

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

 

If I want a lot high magic that would almost be in parity with modern technology' date=' then I raise the standard of living appropriately.[/quote']

How about goign a step further and say taht:

a) magic can't produce rare metals (put compound materials with special abilities)

Magic needs rare metals to work.

So like our current technology, magic is limited by Raw-Material Avalible.

[Markdoc]

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

 

If one assumes that the laws of magic in your world conform to the point system of Hero' date=' and mages can have any effect they pay points for, then yes, your economy is going to be all handwavium. Mages will be able to conjure gold (and anything else) out of thin air and there is no such thing as economics anymore. There certainly would be no currency.[/quote']

 

Actually Hero deals with that nicely: transformations are not permanent. In my game at least, a mage who paid his way with faked gold (and there are always a few) is only a few steps ahead of getting a sharp item somewhere quite sensitive. And why bother? If you're mage, there are probably lots of ways to earn a living that provides status and wealth, but don't involve counterfeiting. If you are powerful mage, why bother with counterfeiting (or the local economy) at all? What could you buy that you couldn't make yourself? Such people are unlikely to try and wreck the local economy churning out items for local sale ...

 

In our real history' date=' the feudal dark ages were rife with a poverty we can scarce imagine. 99 out of 100 people lived in absolute squalor, barely able to feed themselves. It was a prosperous kingdom where a peasant farmer family could produce enough to feed itself and one other family. The fantasy worlds we create tend to be vastly more prosperous than this, rivaling periods seldom seen in our own history. My assumption has always been that the effect of magic upon the economy is similar in it's economic effect to that of technology in our world, and that is the source of the greater prosperity.[/quote']

 

Actually that wasn't our real history - at least not in western Europe - it's the history invented by Victorian writers who wanted to emphasis the fall of the Glory that was Rome and the slow climb back up the Glory that was Victorian England. In reality, through the Dark Ages, Europeans were breeding at an enormous rate, spreading out across the fertile northern part of the continent like army ants and building farms, towns and cities at an equally frantic rate. You only need to look at the enormous works in stone that started going up in that period, at the explosion of new settlements and at the international roads pushed through mountains to carry vast herds of cattle to the teeming cities with their inexhaustible greed for meat, and you start to realise that the whole "dark ages thing" is tosh. By the early medieval period, for example, Denmark had trade roads and ferries running from what is now German territory to carry cattle by the thousands to Copenhagen. Starving peasants a) don't have thousands of cattle (if they did they wouldn't be starving) and if there were starving people nearby, they wouldn't drive them 400 km and pay for two long ferry crossings to sell them.

 

That said, I agree that magic would certainly improve the lot - of at least some people, and probably of the people as a whole. Even things that at first look small (better maps, swift exchange of information, minor weather spells) could make a huge difference

 

I do not allow transform effects and such except in extremely specific and well justified circumstances. This most specifically includes excluding the transmutation of metals such as gold. Gold remains the ideal barter mechanism (money) because it is both rare and impervious to magics and forgery (among other things).

 

I have no such rule, have always had devious players and haven't had a problem. The one time I had a mage try to buy his way with transformed gold, he was glad to only escape with a brief period of enforced servitude

 

Magic items while not exactly rare' date=' are not common place, as someone had to give up 'life force' (character points) to create the item. There is in the world however the practice of paying people for the surrender of a small portion of their life force to be used in the creation of permanent effects or items. People are very well paid for that, as it is not something anyone would do lightly or often. But the desperate might on occasion be willing to surrender some of their strength (or whatever) if it means getting out from under large debts or such. So a wealthy city 'might' have permanent lights in special places, but most of the city would still be dark or torch lit.[/quote']

 

This, on the other hand, is exactly what I do. It varies from area to area, though. In some regions, some people sell their life force, just as you outline, on others it is taken from them and in yet others, the community holds annual festivals and random people in the crowd lose an Xp. They know what is going on, but it's a communal sacrifice to provide Mana to the magic circles the local Druids use as holy places and batteries to power large scale rituals. When the nomads come raiding in from the desert, and the local Druid raises an animated stone giant to go out and pulp some nomad butt, the locals consider some small loss of life force a pretty fair exchange

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

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

 

How about goign a step further and say taht:

a) magic can't produce rare metals (put compound materials with special abilities)

Magic needs rare metals to work.

So like our current technology, magic is limited by Raw-Material Avalible.

 

As a GM, or a player that kind of fiat suggest to me that the GM hasn't thought his economy or magic systems through.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ragitsu]

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

 

Actually Hero deals with that nicely: transformations are not permanent. In my game at least' date=' a mage who paid his way with faked gold (and there are always a few) is only a few steps ahead of getting a sharp item somewhere quite sensitive.[/quote']

 

That's why you have a summon do the purchasing from afar .

[Steve]

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

 

That's why you have a summon do the purchasing from afar .

 

I might have missed this in the thread, but if you have a character with Summon, why not just use that one ability as a money-making method? If a wizard is capable of summoning something useful and not dangerous, that seems to be a good way to earn coin.

[Ragitsu]

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

 

I might have missed this in the thread' date=' but if you have a character with Summon, why not just use that one ability as a money-making method? If a wizard is capable of summoning something useful and not dangerous, that seems to be a good way to earn coin.[/quote']

 

A sentient/sapient summon might not necessarily be permanent, and/or you get a different individual each time you summon (such as with succubi).

[Steve]

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

 

A sentient/sapient summon might not necessarily be permanent' date=' and/or you get a different individual each time you summon (such as with succubi).[/quote']

 

Understood. I wasn't meaning it as a permanent sale, but more a rentable product. Imagine being able to Summon tireless labor for temporary jobs. If there are no material component costs, simply an act of willpower and skill with magic, Summoners could be a cottage industry.

 

They could also make great couriers. Summon a courier entity, task them to deliver an item or message, and they vanish away again when done with their delivery. If they have special powers to track down a target and movement powers like teleport, they could be done very quickly.

 

Of course, I do realize that there are also more... prurient uses for being able to Summon temporary beings. If they only last for a short time, like an hour, it's not a problem. If a wizard can summon beings that look like succubi but won't drain your life force to nothing, there are individual who would likely pay good money for the experience.

[Christopher]

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

 

Of course' date=' I do realize that there are also more... prurient uses for being able to Summon temporary beings. If they only last for a short time, like an hour, it's not a problem. If a wizard can summon beings that look like succubi but won't drain your life force to nothing, there are individual who would likely pay good money for the experience.[/quote']

I think you can work out a form of engagement where they are not allowed to use thier enegry drain, with the "Service" Mechanic.

 

Of course there is a problem of capacity. And you have to be able to actually get serives (reliably). And survive the wrath of that creature (succubi are a lot more powerfull and harder to controll than celestial Badgers).

[Laundry Knight]

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

 

Actually, I am going through a similar exercise in the Supers campaign I am developing as I consider what the effects of decades of alien invasions and super scientists would have on the social and technological landscape of "modern" Earth, and I am envisioning a world that is advanced in regard to available manufacturing capacities but slightly retarded regarding style and outlook. In other words, they would be slightly more advanced in technology and slightly more old fashioned in culture with the idea that things would change so fast that most Earthlings would hold onto some ideas with an increased passion. I want a culture similar that is some where between the 30s and 50s minus the institutionalized racism.

[Zeropoint]

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

 

and/or you get a different individual each time you summon (such as with succubi).

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Ragitsu]

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

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

I do?

[Zeropoint]

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

 

I do?

 

Well, in the context of the quote, you seemed to be mentioning some potential problems with Summons; I could easily have misread you. I was just thinking that some people would LIKE having a different hot demon babe every time, although I suppose it's equally true that some people wouldn't. I don't have enough experience to be able to comment on the relative appeal of new and interesting lovers vs. multiple encounters with a familiar lover.

[Ragitsu]

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

 

Well' date=' in the context of the quote, you seemed to be mentioning some potential problems with Summons; I could easily have misread you. I was just thinking that some people would LIKE having a different hot demon babe every time, although I suppose it's equally true that some people wouldn't. I don't have enough experience to be able to comment on the relative appeal of new and interesting lovers vs. multiple encounters with a familiar lover.[/quote']

 

For the purposes of deceiving a merchant, having a different summon appear each time you need one, is ideal.

[Zeropoint]

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

 

For the purposes of deceiving a merchant, having a different summon appear each time you need one, is ideal.

 

"Heeeyyy . . . . aren't you the same "slave" that vanished on me those six OTHER times?"

[omnius]

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

 

In regards to the original post, I tend to shy away from magicks like transformation and summoning just to avoid clashes with basic economies... but then I prefer a low magic type setting anyway with very definate magical laws. I guess for me I think magic should have a "scientific" basis, where a character can only effect/affect that which he/she has a knowledgable understanding of. (ew, i think i just ended that sentence with a preposition!) Whether that knowledge is purely observational or practicle only affects the range or scope of an ability or effect of a spell. And those with inaccurate knowledge usually end up fried in one way or another.

I suppose it all just comes down to personal taste. I think someone earlier said something about not many people wanting to play in an economically real and brutish medival setting... I'm one of those weird few I guess.

[CrosshairCollie]

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

 

(ew' date=' i think i just ended that sentence with a preposition!) [/quote']

 

Apropos of nothing, ending sentences with prepositions is not actually a grammatical faux pas.

 

I admit, I tend to sweep a lot of the details of economics under the rug in most games. I want to have a game that reminds one of an action/adventure movie ... we never saw Indiana Jones filing his income tax returns or trying to go through customs, because it's pretty dull. Like most genres, there are certain elements that make no actual sense, but the genre has to function like that or the whole thing falls apart. Things like Superman's secret identity, or 'bad guys never attack while the giant robots are combining'. 'People don't use magic to wreck the economy (unless it's a villain plot the PCs are intended to stop)' is one of them.

[omnius]

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

 

I think economics gets a pretty bad rap from people in general, no one really wants to spend time (especially while gaming) thinking about how markets work and how they're influenced by governments or in the case of a fantasy game, how they are influenced by magic, gobs of gold, and piles of jewels. Dispite the common quote of referring to economics as the "dismal" science, I find it to be intriguing and far reaching and with dynamic consequences even for a fantasy setting. When you boil it all down, economics is really just markets and markets are just two or more people involved in mutually benificial exchanges. Sure, both (or everyone) is trying to get the upper hand in the deal, but both (or more) people want what the other is offering so some deal is likely to be struck and it will likely be to the benifit of both (or more) people.

 

Plus, I'm not really sure how badly magic can destroy an economy. If food can be created out of thin air, sure farmers, cooks, and the like will need to find skills that will serve their current situation better, but beyond that? It's like when any technology creates efficiencies in a system, it has ripple effects outward (loss of jobs, fewer labor requirements, etc), it also expands the market for that particular product, usually by decreasing the price bringing those who earn less into that products market. I think magic would act in many ways, like advancing technology... which is why I always define my magic systems thoroughly so that I (as GM) can regulate how the fantasy society develops and toward what direction.

[The Weapon]

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

 

I think economics gets a pretty bad rap from people in general, no one really wants to spend time (especially while gaming) thinking about how markets work and how they're influenced by governments or in the case of a fantasy game, how they are influenced by magic, gobs of gold, and piles of jewels. Dispite the common quote of referring to economics as the "dismal" science, I find it to be intriguing and far reaching and with dynamic consequences even for a fantasy setting. When you boil it all down, economics is really just markets and markets are just two or more people involved in mutually benificial exchanges. Sure, both (or everyone) is trying to get the upper hand in the deal, but both (or more) people want what the other is offering so some deal is likely to be struck and it will likely be to the benifit of both (or more) people.

 

Plus, I'm not really sure how badly magic can destroy an economy. If food can be created out of thin air, sure farmers, cooks, and the like will need to find skills that will serve their current situation better, but beyond that? It's like when any technology creates efficiencies in a system, it has ripple effects outward (loss of jobs, fewer labor requirements, etc), it also expands the market for that particular product, usually by decreasing the price bringing those who earn less into that products market. I think magic would act in many ways, like advancing technology... which is why I always define my magic systems thoroughly so that I (as GM) can regulate how the fantasy society develops and toward what direction.

 

It's not that magic could destroy the economy as that it could radically change it. Consider healing magic that makes diseases more survivable. You no longer need to bear 10 children to have 2 survive and provide for you in your old age so you don't need to cripple a woman's productivity for several months every chance you get. Magic that increases land productivity can boost population density, producing economies of scale for producing more sophisticated goods. Anything that allows relatively large amounts of cheap long distance travel reduces famine impact. Few famines were Continent-wide or even country-wide, there would be reserves in the neighbouring duchy, but the costs of transportation was about the cost of grain per 100 miles or something like that. Similarly preservation magic that reduced losses per year from 10-25% at least to say 5% at most would significantly curtail the suffering in bad years.

 

A country that suffers few serious famines, has high population density, low infant/child mortality and other changes from standard medieval life would be very different from a standard medieval country. And the people who provide those benefits will be very powerful, whether they want to be or not.

 

 

BTW economics was called the "dismal science" because it implied that white anglo-saxons were basically the same as blacks and Irish. This Thomas Carlyle found horrible.

[omnius]

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

 

I'm not familiar with Thomas Carlyle. Was he dissappointed with economics because it gave rational proof that we (blacks, WASPS, and the irish) are indeed more alike than he desired? My late 1800's social comentary liturature knowledge is a bit non-existant. But your bit of trivia inspired me to check him out in wikipedia.

 

As wikipedia points out, Carlyle believed in a revolution of the spirit. I find if quite strange that people who believe that society needs to change, that somehow that manner of change must spring from what that specific individual believes. They, at once dispise the social structure, and at the same time want to enforce their own structure on the rest of us. Reformer, reform yourself... and leave the rest of us alone!

[omnius]

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

 

sorry about my little rant there... I got off track. But to your point Weapon,the; I think you and I are in agreement. Magic is, in some measure, like tech in our world. A new thingy or way of performing a function can radically effect a society and an economy but wont actually "wreck" it.

 

so how would a fantasy society or culture keep individuals in check who became ultra-powerful within the context of their particular region or whatever? An even more powerful police force? instilled mores and a concrete value structure? (or has this already been brought up--I was lazy and didn't read all 10pgs of posts).

[Christopher]

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

 

It's not that magic could destroy the economy as that it could radically change it. Consider healing magic that makes diseases more survivable. You no longer need to bear 10 children to have 2 survive and provide for you in your old age so you don't need to cripple a woman's productivity for several months every chance you get. Magic that increases land productivity can boost population density, producing economies of scale for producing more sophisticated goods. Anything that allows relatively large amounts of cheap long distance travel reduces famine impact. Few famines were Continent-wide or even country-wide, there would be reserves in the neighbouring duchy, but the costs of transportation was about the cost of grain per 100 miles or something like that. Similarly preservation magic that reduced losses per year from 10-25% at least to say 5% at most would significantly curtail the suffering in bad years.

 

A country that suffers few serious famines, has high population density, low infant/child mortality and other changes from standard medieval life would be very different from a standard medieval country. And the people who provide those benefits will be very powerful, whether they want to be or not.

That works out under exactly one asumption:

Magic is easier/more accesible than mudane means, so doing stuff with magic is better than the muggle way to deal with it.

 

If that isn't true, nothing will change. Some cultures with strong magic-culture might have lower prices on it, thus it would be more common. But the average farmer might not have the standing towards magic they have in the real world: The heard it exists, they have never seen it and atribute almost anything they don't understand to it.