Talk:Dungeonomicon (3.5e Sourcebook)/Economicon

Is that stuff about DeBeers true? --T G Geko 20:43, 6 June 2009 (MDT)

Depending on who you talk to. -- Jota 12:24, 7 June 2009 (MDT)

Balance

This is over anilization[sic] in my opinion. Unrealistic world unrealistic economy. You keep on going with your 600 page Campaign worlds and I'll keep winging it and having fun without overcomplication. --Owen

It's true. Unrealistic world unrealistic economy. Magic users in the PHB get a hefty sum for selling their services for spellcasting. It also mentions other professions. These professions mentioned are better than those in the PHB in all regards. Warfare can be anything. Historically warfare has probably done everything. Dead bodies littered around with armor will drive down the price of raw metals. Taking slaves will create non-autonomy for slave masters to a degree and reorient society. Besieging will create food problems. There are constants, but blaming then on broad warfare it too broad. I don't know where these gems are (save those of a few spells' material components). Living locations do have a set gold piece value they will have altogether (DMG). This means a number of things including a barter economy to some degree, powerful creatures do not determine wealth distribution, professions exist (not just adventuring as it is mentioned), and that populations are indeed autonomous. What this autonomy will do, of course, is like warfare. --Green Dragon 19:47, 10 August 2011 (MDT)

Problem: Better than the PHB was sort of the -point-. The profession rules here are a patch for those who are unsatisfied with the PHB rules which, let's face it, were made to make adventuring seem like a good idea and just wouldn't come up with PCs that often. In general, this is -a- take on D&D economies and trying to make them make some coherent sense. So your issues with it are...what? That it actually attempts to fix what it perceives as problems by proposing alternatives and replacements? --173.245.50.158 22:03, 10 August 2011 (MDT)

I agree with the IP, the tag is wholly unnecessary, and rather silly. There's so little actual crunch in this article -- are you trying to say that the 90% of the article which merely attempts to break down real-world and fantasy economics is overpowered? How does one assign a power rating to an essay? In addition, if everything on this site has to be lesser than or equal to the PHB in power (even the essays), how is one to fix a perceived problem with the PHB? Is every fighter fix automatically overpowered? Lastly, even if all of the above were true, the gold piece amounts we are talking about are so insignificantly small to a PC (master smith has 10x the wage of the next highest one, and his monthly wage is equivalent to the treasure gained from 1 EL 1 encounter), to even have an impact on game balance at all, unless you are playing some sort of treasure-deprived, low-level NPC campaign, in which case, the PHB rules are pretty much thrown out the window anyway. JazzMan 14:33, 11 August 2011 (MDT)

This does not negate the problem. If this is not to be used in supplement to the PHB then that needs to be mentioned. "Make some coherent sense" is not rewrite possibilities. The problems of this do not necessarily come from the PHB. This is a construction. If you are asking if I added the improving, reviewing, and removing articles templates in themselves; I did not. Each point is an individual point to be dealt with relating to balance. The other is not done. --Green Dragon 16:06, 11 August 2011 (MDT)

This does not negate the problem. If this is not to be used in supplement to the PHB then that needs to be mentioned.

As mentioned above, this statement is simply not true. This page is a sub-page of Dungeonomicon (3.5e Sourcebook) (the link is clearly and permanently fixed at the top of the page), which clearly explains that this page's purpose is not to provide content "balanced" with the PHB. I will also state again, that even if this were supposed to be balanced with the PHB (and to reiterate: they are not), this is not really all that unbalanced. The vast minority of the page is actually "crunch", and it's not significantly different than the PHB.

"Make some coherent sense" is not rewrite possibilities.

This sentence itself makes no sense.

The problems of this do not necessarily come from the PHB. This is a construction.

What is the "this" here?

If you are asking if I added the improving, reviewing, and removing articles templates in themselves; I did not.

I'm not sure how this is relevant. You were, the one who added the template to this page, which is what we are discussing. It also doesn't happen to be true; it looks like you created {{wording}}, {{stub}}, {{wikify}}, Category:Formatting Issues, Category:Needs Balance, Category:Stub, and Category:Wording Issues. You did not create {{needsbalance}}, if that's what you are trying to say here.

Each point is an individual point to be dealt with relating to balance. The other is not done.

I have no idea what "each point" means. Nor do I know to which "other" you are referring. JazzMan 19:57, 12 August 2011 (MDT)

Except at the very front of the Dungeonomicon: "This is the third installment of our series exploring portions of the D&D experience that don't work at all, began with the Tome of Necromancy and continued with the Tome of Fiends. This work focuses on the most central of perplexing legacies: The Dungeon. We know you love Dungeons, but you probably have more than a little difficulty justifying them to yourself or to other players of the game." It's part of the series. You know, they actually say it quite clearly. That was the point of the Tomes--to analyze bits of D&D that don't really work and provide some patches for those parts, or at least a starting point for discussion for people who have also spotted a few wrinkles in D&D. Now, if you don't agree with this essay on D&D Economics, feel free to write your own--but who are you to demand changes to it? Are you going to demand changes to the "Honor" section in Races of War because it presents a cynical idea of honor (I.e, it's just social acceptability and therefore not good or bad on its own?) which most people don't agree with because we all hear 'honor' as a good thing? --173.245.50.158 22:52, 11 August 2011 (MDT)

I find myself agreeing with those who oppose the tag. The 'balance' tag, as I understand and apply it, should only be used in relation to the setting or power-level of the campaign the subject is intended for. In cases where, say, a class does not specify, the default value for this is the PHB. In this case, however, this is not a supplement to the PHB, nor is it undefined in regards to it's intended setting/power-level; The intended campaign is the same campaign that all the tome series follow: A revised version of D&D 3.5e. In a way, this is a variant. It is meant to be different, and it is meant to be greater than that of what the PHB allows. If we start assigning Balance tags to this, then we need to reconsider the policy on allowing variant rules onto the wiki without immediately calling them over- or under-powered due to the fact that they change the rules of the game in comparison to the PHB, and therefore disrupt balance, even if that was the point. We could probably also do the same for a number of books on the main page, as all of them at one point or another potentially change and upset the balance of the PHB.

If necessary, perhaps we should make a template for the creations of Frank and K; A disclaimer, of sorts, that alerts users to the fact that this is custom content: Almost a "revision" of D&D, itself, and not just a supplement, given the scope of the changes that all the Tome articles make. It's not just a class, and it's certainly not just a few races, here and there. These are large dynamics, as well. A set of sourcebooks that aim to correct the perceived mistakes of 3.5e.

Would that not suffice? The balance would not be questionable, as the rules would be balanced according to the new revision that Frank and K aim to create, but we can still warn new or less knowledgeable users that this is non-official WotC content that changes large portions of the game dynamics, and each part is a single fraction of the greater whole. Jwguy 06:48, 12 August 2011 (MDT)

While I appreciate Green Dragon's willingness to commit to the premise that this is essentially a large-scale variant, interpreted from his last edit (I presume. If I am wrong, I'll redact if necessary), I think the 'Needs Balance' tag could stand to be replaced with something more appropriate. Something similar to the following:

This page is part of a large scale revision of D&D 3.5e

This page is part of an ongoing process to attempt to address perceived flaws with the official 3.5e system, and may conflict with the traditional rules and standards listed in the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and other official rulebooks and supplements. Because of this, be aware that this and associated pages are part of a non-official revision. Please refer to "Place a link here to refer to a central source regarding the theory on Frank and K's works" for more information on this revision.

I believe it could probably be done better, presentation-wise, but I believe something like this would address all the necessary points to both protect new users from confusing this with the official standards, but also not question the balance of a unique set of variants/revision. Any thoughts? Jwguy 12:25, 12 August 2011 (MDT)

I personally think the template is unnecessary, but if it's the only way GD will take away the balance template, then let's go for it. Just put it at the bottom of the page. JazzMan 19:57, 12 August 2011 (MDT)

It seems to me that the original comment was about an over-complication of the rules, and not a balance issue at all. Nothing presented here is particularly "unbalanced", as nothing here directly relates to in-game mechanics. Everything presented here strikes me as a behind-the-screen method for approximating economies in game.

• Does this make the job of the DM more mathematical, and perhaps more boring? Very probably.
• Is the extra effort worth it? Not in my opinion (which doesn't matter in determining balance).
• Will material presented here make your character stronger or weaker if they are transported into another game, or make one character stronger than others in the same game? Definitely not.

At the end of the day, the last question is the only one that matters when determining balance. I'd support removing the template, without altering the page at all. --Badger 20:36, 12 August 2011 (MDT)

Yes, this will be moved to be a transformational variant rule. I should have looked more into what this is. I only looked at this page (although enough in fact).

"Make some coherent sense" is not rewrite possibilities. relates to reality in a broad sense. Certain societal givens are understandable in various ways, and changing them to impossibilities is a problem with balance.

"This" is this talk page's related page. "Main Page" should have been grammatically used (wikipedia), however I prefer to reserve that for the Main Page.

My usage of "[T]emplates in themselves" relates to redundancy in reasoning.

"[E]ach point is mentioned on the template. So "[w]arfare ... problems" is a point.

Honor does not relate to this page and I have no comment here.

Balance is not the concern here because of what this is a supplement of. As I mentioned above "[c]ertain societal givens are understandable in various ways, and changing them to impossibilities is a problem with balance."

"[N]othing here directly relates to in-game mechanics. Everything presented here strikes me as a behind-the-screen method for approximating economies in game." Yes. This is my question. The economy mentioned here is flawed. Will this affect game? Yes, I believe so. This is why {{needsbalance}} is here.

If you would not mind elaborating on how the bullets above are supported (with text from this page) then {{needsbalance}} may be removed. I just don't understand how they are supported. They even appear to be contradictions to me. --Green Dragon 21:01, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

Did you seriously just say "Certain societal givens are understandable in various ways, and changing them to impossibilities is a problem with balance"? Dude, you've gotta be kidding me. Are you suggesting that the notion that very expensive items are bought, not with gold coins, but with favors, promises, and magic is more Earth-shattering than dragons, animated dead, and powerful wizards? --Badger 00:47, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

No. For example that warfare does not necessarily make shortages. Were a squadron garrisoned in a town to destroy a heavily armored army there would actually be a surplus. Does this make sense? --Green Dragon 12:17, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

You're aware that if a squadron garrisoned in a town destroyed a heavily armored army there would be a shortage in the nation from whence the army came. Suddenly they are short an entire army worth of supplies. --Badger 15:24, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

Right. However they would also no longer need to get paid, eat, and more. It's very varied so shortages may be a byproduct of war however they do not have to be. As such saying weapons are expensive because of war is not true and would hurt a game.

For example were players to assassinate key figures disrupting peace negotiations they would not necessarily be able to get discounted prices for the magic weapons they wanted. --Green Dragon 16:06, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

This article is a logical, and historically accurate potential explanation for why prices in D&D are so high. It's not telling you to charge more, and it's not giving a formula to recalculate costs. Nowhere does it suggest that killing peace negotiators would create discounts. The article in question doesn't even allude to the potential that you could get a discount. I don't understand where you've gotten that idea. Most importantly, this article doesn't give any mechanical "crunch" to that notion. It is, as Jazzman said, an essay of explanation. It can't be unbalanced, as the essay has ZERO mechanical influence on the game, it merely tries to suggest why things are the way they are. That's right. In that particular section it's not even fixing anything, it's just rationalizing the numbers in the PHB. It could just as easily say "Weapons are expensive because fairy ghosts turn nice weapons into noodles unless they feel the MSRP is high enough to please Keleros, lord of the fairy ghosts". Would that be unbalanced? No, it's be a silly reason, but it wouldn't hurt the balance of the game. --Badger 19:41, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

I'm having a hard time understanding what Green Dragon is trying to say, but I don't think my arguments would be much different than what I have already said. However, I do know enough economic theory to understand where you are coming from with the surplus/deficit argument as it applies to war. However, I believe you has fallen for a common error, called the Broken Window Fallacy. Destruction of property never results in an increase of wealth. Otherwise you could go around breaking windows in order to stimulate the economy (the window-maker get's paid to fix the window, who now has money to pay the baker who now has money to pay the tailor, etc; the only problem is that original money to pay for the window came out of someone's profits). The arguments here are whether war causes shortages of weapons. Let's talk through this example: if an armory gets destroyed, there's now a shortage of weapons. The fact that the country now doesn't have to pay their army does not increase the supply of weapons. Assuming they don't get taken over, though, it does significantly increase the demand for weapons. Higher demand with smaller supply means no commoner can afford a longsword on farmer's wages. JazzMan 17:53, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

If [w]ar is the default position of every major economy in the world, and that means that weapons have an immediate, and desperate, clientele. then removing that clientele would (through this economy) drive down the prices. Ergo players could get discounted prices for the magic weapons they wanted.

I understand that parts of this have no game mechanics written. Are they implied? I assumed so, ergo {{needsbalance}} is here.

Okay, I am no economy expert. Elaborating on [d]estruction of property 'never' results in an increase of wealth., I would like to say that it was a correlation to recycling nowadays. Does it make money? Are recycled goods cheaper? They sure are if one does not need to modify it (reusing containers). Do I really know the answer? No. I do know, however, that if soldiers do not need to get paid (and had no function like keeping order/collecting taxes) there will be a surplus.

I am not saying that war can only make surplus. I'm just saying it is very varied. --Green Dragon 18:51, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

If any mechanics are implied, it's the mechanics that make the game exactly what it is. This article doesn't set out to set the prices for weapons, only to explain why they are what they are. Longswords still cost 15gp, masterwork is still a 300gp upgrade, and full plate is still out of reach for character creation. It doesn't set those prices, it explains them. And as such, this article has no impact on game balance, because nothing about the game is changed.

As for the economics: when you recycle, nothing of economic value is destroyed, it is created. Recycling changes that valueless piece of trash (a glass bottle) into a something with value (source material for more recycled glass). So that analogy doesn't apply to what we are talking about.

Here's where you go astray on the "surplus" argument: say country A destroys the armory for country B. The supply of weapons goes down. Period. Even if country B now has a budget surplus (which I will argue in a minute that they, in fact, probably won't), the supply and demand economics of just weapons causes weapon prices to go up. End of story.

Now what about the "surplus"? If, in fact, when country B's armory is destroyed they simply surrender and fire all their soldiers (which is a rather silly scenario, don't you think?), then yes, you will no longer have to pay their salaries. But now you've got soldiers out of work. Instant unemployment. And you've also just surrendered to another country. Can you name a time in history when the loser of a war got an instant boost in their economy? And this is negating the fact that the author of this article argues that war is neverending. If country A and country B are at eternal peace between each other and the surrounding countries and roaming monsters, the entire economic system put forth in this article breaks down anyway. You'd now need an entirely new argument as to why weapons cost so much (and it would probably go along the lines of: since there is so little need for weapons, they are a rarely found and therefore expensive item).

You also forget that someone had to pay for all those weapons in the first place. Most likely, the king had to pay out of his treasury, or worse, borrow from the nobles, in order to afford all that armor and weapons. Not to mention the cost of the soldiers in the first place. If the king suddenly doesn't have to pay for his soldiers any more, he's still got to pay back all that debt, or pay back into his treasury; both of which shrink the money supply (in a gold-based economy) thereby depressing the economy and causing... shortages!

Lastly, I've said it before and I still stand by it: even if you are right, and war really does cause surpluses... that doesn't make this article "unbalanced". JazzMan 09:05, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

I stepped away from this conversation for a while, though it would appear that I missed quite a lot. While I am more interested in simply getting all the ugly business aside, hence going for the middle-ground with the other template, I find myself agreeing with Jazzman and Badger regarding the question of 'balance', itself. Since my solution has failed, I suppose I'll go ahead and get waist-deep in it.

Regardless of all the content that this section of the Dungeonomicon, and even the fact that Jazzman has provided a perfectly reasonable rationalization for it, above, the bare fact is that the content does not influence or alter anything, and therefore cannot be imbalanced. It just provides an explanation. You may claim the explanation is incorrect or correct, factual or silly, or any other number of things, but not balanced or imbalanced, by the simple, irrefutable virtue of it having no effect, whatsoever, on the game. An example being that you, as a GM, may decide that a particular city or town now has a surplus of weapons, as is one of the noted figures of debate, above. Whether you take a stance like this page and say it's because of a war and all the little intricacies involved, or because magical weapon-giving dragons decided to rain them down from a cloud, makes little difference in regards to the end result, mechanically (You'll probably end with some crazy stares your way, with the latter, though). Likewise, you could just as easily just do the opposite of everything this page says, it doesn't change anything. You're still going to be making decisions regarding economic events by the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide; All this article does is attempt to help you rationalize and flavor your decisions for the game.

There really is no other argument to make that wouldn't be superfluous, because that's the basic, bare fact, and balance isn't concerned with it. I recognize that you may disagree with the article or even just portions of it's explanation, Green Dragon, and that's not a bad thing. You're free to disregard it. A simple disagreement, however, does not warrant a balance tag, and neither does it present imbalance into the article. Jwguy 11:17, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

I said army which changes the entire situation greatly (of course it is varied and can go the other way as well).

Yes, this does change the game. A "Laborer 1SP" per week is very different from SRD:Spellcasting and Services's Hireling, untrained 1 sp per day. It's seven times (well, five probably) different. Does this change the game? Yes. Hiring workings (for example) is not the same.

Another example is that "20-80 – 4 GP/month" greatly exceeds (30 years of business) the maximum of a 40 GP limit in the town the same size (DMG pg. 137). --Green Dragon 11:07, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

My bad; my point still stands, though. No country that loses a war is going to have a surplus because they don't have soldiers to pay anymore. Period. I've already outlined how this works above; regardless this article has no impact on weapon prices and therefore the whole point about reviving your economy by losing a war is moot in a discussion about game balance.

I'm glad you noticed the one part that actually does change game balance. However change does not mean unbalanced. You can't simply argue "it's different from the DMG so it must be unbalanced". Look at it this way: the idea of the needsbalanced tag is to work to get the page back in balance, right? How would you do that, other than deleting the section entirely?

Where are you going with the 4 gp/month argument? If you run a business in a town of 20-80 population, you can earn no more than 4gp per month. The GP limit is the most expensive item you can find in that town. I'm not sure what the disconnect is, here. In the DMG, there isn't even an upper limit, so you could potentially have a business that earns 2,000,00gp/month selling items that are under the cap, without violating any rules -- that's certainly more imbalanced than this article. At any rate, if you noticed, I've already spoken to this point before: "the gold piece amounts we are talking about are so insignificantly small to a PC (master smith has 10x the wage of the next highest one, and his monthly wage is equivalent to the treasure gained from 1 EL 1 encounter), to even have an impact on game balance at all, unless you are playing some sort of treasure-deprived, low-level NPC campaign, in which case, the PHB rules are pretty much thrown out the window anyway." JazzMan 12:00, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

They will have a surplus if they do not reenlist personnel. In a sense, however, would a DM really not allow the players to assassinate opponents of peace to get cheaper magic weapons as per this economy? I would.

There are many examples. For example, why the dark ages? How do these relate? Campaigns use firearms, others use stone age equipment. Much more of this is mentioned in the DMG, so why is everything suddenly in the dark ages?

Or what does paper have to do with D&D? Some economies could trade in griffons for the creation of a cliff town which must trade with them (and loses many along the way). Some may use paper. Others may use the standard gp system. Can currency be expanded upon? I feel so.

Make creatures relate to creatures. What does their wealth distribution mean? Why do some have no reward? What does the DMG mean by its treasure tables?

Why gems? Gems are only among a number of things (historically at least) people in power have amassed. Talk about amassing wealth. The potential problems of an increase in war (from desire), thievery, defection, and more.

The magical trade should relate to spells. Otherwise there would be no related trade. There is not soul trade in every campaign. There is no concentration in every campaign. If those are equipment make them equipment.

To work this into balance I would make it more like a standard variant rule. Expand on SRD:Spellcasting and Services instead of making that seem non-existent and then doing the same thing again. --Green Dragon 12:30, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

Honestly, I'm not really sure what a lot you are saying has to do with anything about the article, but I don't think it really points to any of my arguments whatsoever. The gist of what I'm getting is that you don't like what's written because it's not all-encompassing. Well, it's not supposed to be, so I'm not really sure what the problem is. This is a chapter within a sourcebook; as GM, you can choose what to use and not use within any sourcebook, and sometimes systems don't match. I don't like the Book of Nine Swords, so I don't allow it in my campaign. If you don't like Dungeonomicon, then don't allow it in your campaign. But surpluses, dark ages, firearms, paper, griffons, creatures, gems, magical trade, and equipment, do not have to do with balance. Please explain what is overpowered -- not different, overpowered -- about these things. If you can not demonstrate a game-breaking attribute, then the needsbalance tag is not appropriate.

Otherwise, I'm getting tired of this. Since you are the only one who has any problems with this page, you might as well fix it unless you want the tag to stay up there forever. I'm tired of arguing about it. JazzMan 13:32, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

D&D mentions technology levels to play in. This does not address that (only from one to another as per history). Ergo the balance of the game is effected.

This is not all-encompassing; that's a large portion of what I am talking about. Does an economy have to be? Yes. If it is not, how can it function? Do things which exist just not exist? No. Ergo the balance of the game is effected.

Does this need to be fixed? No. I have put so many templates on so many articles and saying I should fix this because I put another template on another article is unrealistic. --Green Dragon 13:46, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

If it does not need to be fixed, then what's the template for? Also, I didn't intend to say you had to fix it, but that nobody else is going to because everyone else thinks it's balanced. If it needs "fixed" you are the only one in this discussion that knows how to do so. JazzMan 13:59, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

By no means do I consider this balanced. How does this work with technology (DMG pp. 144)?

An economy must function. A partial economy (a non fully encompassing) is not an economy. It undermines trade. --Green Dragon 16:50, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

You're totally right. This only applies for typical sword and sorcery-era D&D, and doesn't explain how economies would work in the stone age, or in the future. However, if you can think of a single, all-encompassing economic model that can function from the stone age to the future, I think your efforts are being wasted in D&D. You should be a member of the Federal Reserve, or some international banking system. Do you get what I'm saying? What you want is impossible. This is better than what WotC has put out, though, and it certainly isn't unbalanced. --Badger 17:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

Supply and demand? I think this still deserves {{needsbalance}} as things like "Please note that the following is negating the economy and negating the cost of labor (as mentioned above). For example supply and demand are not present. Situations may or may not result in something like this. Please consult your Dungeon Master. " needed to be added. --Green Dragon 18:06, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

I'm going to revert your edit, and put back the needsbalance template. It is my opinion that the article was better as written, with the needs balance template, than as it is now with the stub template. I suspect most people will agree with me. --Badger 18:15, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

Really? Because this is unusable how it was before. --Green Dragon 19:03, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

Are you suggesting that this page is unreadable? No one has yet suggested that this page is unreadable. I think the new edits you've made reduce the readability of the page. Moreover, I don't think all these links to "See Wealth in D&D on page 137" are necessary. Nowhere else do we have variant rules link to core rules they are trying to replace. I don't want to instantly revert again, but I would like you to better justify your reasoning for your changes. I don't think they improve much. --Badger 19:09, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

This is why discussions like this become a waste of my time. "Trying to replace"?! I thought many parts had no game changes! Oh, right, they do. They need to be explained see. Things in limbo are not balanced. How do they relate? How do they not? Now we know. Make sense? --Green Dragon 19:16, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

I found the page perfectly readable as it was. I think the proper way to adjust a page with contention is to suggest the actual changes you are going to make and why, instead of lopping of sections of text. Can we take this one section at a time or something? Your complaints for the most part are very general, and it's a lot harder to discuss it this way. JazzMan 20:23, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

Fix it how you want. I just don't want things in limbo (in game, what does that equate to?). I fixed that part. Want to add text back (which, somehow, needs a connotation– which I thought was impossible for that text but who knows), I could care less. Will it equate to {{needsbalance}} once again? It needs to be fixed. --Green Dragon 20:48, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

Well it's hard for me to fix it how I want when I didn't actually have any problem with it in the first place. You keep saying you don't care, but then at the same time keep having all these problems with the text. Unless you have something specific — going section by section would be helpful here — I'll take a look at it tomorrow and try to make some changes that might satisfy you, though again, I'm not really sure what the problem is here. But I'll do that tomorrow because my eyes are starting to go blurry... JazzMan 21:01, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

I fixed all the balance problems (pretty much– the supply and demand question remains but if enough slave labor, monopolies, and such things are present it should not be too much of a problem) which made this article such a problem originally (if you don't care about your games economy being in limbo then it should make little difference anyway because it was hardly changed). --Green Dragon 21:06, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

Balance

Under "Bad Money Driving out Good: The penalty of Paper" there are a few mistakes. First, shrinking the money supply does not produce negative GDP. Shrinking the money supply drives up the interest rate, which reduces demand, which causes a short run recession (reducing the GDP), but in the long run a recession (without intervention) leads to deflation, reducing prices, but holding at potential GDP. Secondly, it's easy to create a value in fiat paper currency. Allow it to be used for the payment of taxes. People always have to pay taxes, thus there will always be an incentive to accept currency. Other than that, this is an interesting exercise and I don't see why anyone's complaining. It's not like it's mandatory. -- The Orkish Economist

Validity

The roman's did not actually have a steam engine as claimed in this article, they had the prerequisite technologies. They never assembled them to actually make a steam rail engine. And it would have been immensely useful to them, not for saving labor but for more rapidly moving their army. Something that a massive amount of resources have been invested in. (their massive paved roads and rest and replenishment stations along them)--Taltamir 02:46, 8 August 2011 (MDT)

There was a few models for steam engines and such, and a few working prototypes. Not a steam rail engine, a metal ball that spun when steam heated in an enclosed basin passed through it. I think it was actually Greek, but, eh, there wasn't too much of a difference after a while. But, as pointed out, it didn't catch on. --173.245.50.158 10:28, 8 August 2011 (MDT)

It didn't catch on because all it did was spin a ball, it was too large and they didn't have a practical use for it. It's not that using anything but slaves was unthinkable, but that they didn't actually invent the train. --Taltamir 21:09, 8 August 2011 (MDT)

To clarify, when I said steam engine the first time I mean "steam locomotive engine", they had a "steam engine", technically, but not a practical engine or a locomotive design.--Taltamir 21:13, 8 August 2011 (MDT)

Oh, agreed. But they could have followed it up if they had the motivation to do so. Which they didn't. So the point stands. --173.245.50.158 00:39, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

This page isn't "abandoned", it was completed forever ago

There's no reason for this to be marked for deletion in a year. Apparently there's a complaint about it not being in a "playable" state, but I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean given there aren't any mechanics as part of it. As for the wish economy and how to handle various resources (raw chaos, souls etc), this has been covered by other supplements that seem to be missing from this wiki (it is available at another one here: https://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Tome_Magic_Items_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)/Obtaining_Magic_Items ). The wish economy is playable, and has been played in by many people - the basis of it is just that you have alternative resources with cool, thematic descriptions in place of gold, as gold does not function any more. In any case, there's no reason to consider this article incomplete or up for deletion. It's perfectly fine as-is. --Sunwitch (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2019 (MDT)