The Gaming Den

Prak_Anima wrote:As far as insecticide goes, a community aided by a grotto of druids actually doesn't really need it. A group of druids can just go in, cast Animal Trance over the crops, and then use Wild Empathy on the fascinated pests to convince them to move somewhere less invasive, possibly even having a specific area as a "pest preserve." If that fails to take care of things, the druids can just send in insectivores to eat the bugs, maybe some cats to eat any rodents. Being able to talk to and easily influence animals would actually be remarkably helpful for farming. For weeds, you're pretty much relegated to manual weeding, or use of animals that eat only the undesired plants (or convinced to do so).

Well this doesn't work so well if the 3.x distinction between "animal" and "vermin" is in place.

But in the real world, plants already do something like this:

http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_det ... so?id=4546
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/featplants/

Typically I consider giant bug like things to be vermin, while completely mundane, normal sized insects and such are animals.

Prak_Anima wrote:Typically I consider giant bug like things to be vermin, while completely mundane, normal sized insects and such are animals.

I think part of the distinction is supposed to be the 0 Int score.

I am fleshing out a human nation in my D&D game where there are two general classes of people, nobility and peasants. Public education is mandatory, since the nobles want to identify people with good intelligence scores and train them up as wizards. Noble families compete to adopt as many new arcanists as possible, and people born into the families without magical potential are shunned.

Key points:
- The nobles want the peasants to like them, so newly adopted mages don't rock the boat in an attempt to upset the social order.
- There are lots of monsters around, the descendants of a great army that invaded the nation on religious grounds. They hate the humans, and have survived several attempts at genocide.
- Most magic wielded by this nation's arcanists involves classic blasty effects or magical architecture with warding effects. Summoning or creation magic is almost nonexistant, but there are a few war golems.

What kind of economy is likely to develop in a social order like this? Population density is likely to be fairly high, since more spread equals more area to defend.
EDIT: I'm considering having big arcologies linked via roads to farming and mineral extraction operations, but am not particularly attached to the idea right now. It is possible that there is some degree of conspiracy between the leadership of the humans and monsters, but that hasn't been examined in depth either.
EDIT 2: Rivalries between noble families are definitely possible as well. I could see talent-poaching similar to the way corps treat scientists in Shadowrun.

In Pathfinder's Golarion, the PCs have dug up some valuable magical items and met with a shadowrun-style fixer to arrange for a meeting with prospective buyers. The buyers will offer to exchange some of their own items, plus possibly some currency or trade goods.

What is a reasonable price for the fixer to ask from the participants in this pseudo-auction? I figure she'll want a few hundred gold-pieces up front to make sure no riff-raff creep in, the understanding that she can ask for a couple minor favors or pieces of valuable information from the people she's dealing with, and some kind of cut from buyers who actually close a deal.

Say you've got a priest offering some nice spell scrolls, magical weapons and armor (worth several thousand GP each), and a few thousand GP in gems. The total offer is worth over 10,000 GP. What should the fixer ask for in exchange for arranging the transaction, assuming it goes through?

so maybe the magic users are the nobility IE the nation is a mageocracy the way you described the setting intelligence doesn't seem to be very hereditary or the nobles would just keep the magic and education to themselves instead you power in magic would seem to determine your rank in the nobility or at the very least high ranking mages would eventually want to become nobles in exchange for there services. this way younger mages get the crap job of fighting monsters and if they live long enough they can become rich nobles. this would also keep new mages who might still be attached to the peasantry from being to much of a problem considering they could easily be sent on a suicide mission if it looks like the money and power are not enough to gain their loyalty

So I'm wondering... what would make a fantasy sovereign be able to claim that it was actually issuing money? Like, if you were some high-level wizard who wanted to play SimCity, what would be the steps that you needed to take before what you issued you could credibly claim as money? Not universal barter, not promisary notes, not scrip, but actual fucking money?

1) Take over the world city state
2) Issue a general recall of the coinage
3) Remint said coinage and circulate
4) Declare said coinage is the coin of the realm, and failure to use it comes under penalty of scorpion pit

Point 4 can be a little weaker than that. Declaring that those who hold debts are obligated to take your currency in exchange for those debts is much easier. It sets a value for the currency just as well, but avoids issues where someone who wants to trade in his car for a truck is obligated to accept a giant pile of cash and then go try and find a truck himself (without his car, for that matter).

It is not enough to force people to accept payment in your new currency for debts. You also need to create debts that can be paid in this fashion. The usual stepping stone here is taxation, where you simply announce that everyone in your world/country/city state has debts to the state every year to pay for all these cool roads/armies/ports/notstabbingyouintheface that the government delivers. Then you announce that that debt can be paid in your currency, and suddenly everyone wants to get their hands on those coins/notes/shells/whatever. But if you were a merchant republic or something and already had a scam whereby people regularly had significant debts to "the state", then you wouldn't even need to do that.

But basically, step one is getting people to accept that they have debts they need to pay. Step two is getting people to accept that their debts can be paid in this money you are introducing. After that, it's all self reinforcing.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA wrote:So I'm wondering... what would make a fantasy sovereign be able to claim that it was actually issuing money? Like, if you were some high-level wizard who wanted to play SimCity, what would be the steps that you needed to take before what you issued you could credibly claim as money? Not universal barter, not promisary notes, not scrip, but actual fucking money?

You're drawing a distinction without a difference. Money is just a medium of exchange, do promissory notes and scrip are money.

If you mean fiat currency, then nothing is stopping you from issuing it whenever you want; it's just a question of adoption, which will happen when people consistently want things that you have, and they know you will take £agos in exchange.

edit: "not stabbing them" is a thing you have that many people want.

Fiat monies only have intrinsic value to the institutions that issue them.

The Elf king may be able to issue fiat money from his treasury and have this form of currency gain acceptance within his own kingdom, by mandating that taxes in Elfland be paid in elfbucks.

The Elf king is going to have a more difficult time convincing the Dorf king that elfbucks are an acceptable alternative to gold, grain or livestock, and that Dorf traders should be prepared to accept elfbucks in lieu of goods that do have some actual intrinsic value.

Having the elfbuck gain universal recognition is not a fast or easy process.

Winnah wrote:Fiat monies only have intrinsic value to the institutions that issue them.

The Elf king may be able to issue fiat money from his treasury and have this form of currency gain acceptance within his own kingdom, by mandating that taxes in Elfland be paid in elfbucks.

The Elf king is going to have a more difficult time convincing the Dorf king that elfbucks are an acceptable alternative to gold, grain or livestock, and that Dorf traders should be prepared to accept elfbucks in lieu of goods that do have some actual intrinsic value.

Having the elfbuck gain universal recognition is not a fast or easy process.

At a certain point though it becomes reinforcing though. Look at our world: Over the last 100 years the US Dollar has become a defacto international trading currency. Probably mainly because all oil exchanges in the world are US Dollar based (Every time Iran starts talking about starting a Euro-based oil exchange the US gets the bombers ready to fly interestingly enough).

The US dollar is important enough that if it's value ever disappeared overnight, not many people would make out particularly well, and in all reality it'd probably throw the world economy into chaos. While the value of the dollar can fluctuate, it's demise would be a very, very Bad Thing for everyone. Thus there's a global interest in making sure our economy doesn't explode on itself in short order.

So if Elfbucks have been around long enough, and are issued by a strong enough family, and say corner the market on magical items- Elfbucks are the *only* thing people accept for magical items, the inertia of the need for that currency will give it stability.

The definition of insanity is where you do the same thing and expect different results, right?

Fiat currency has resulted in the devaluation and collapse of every economy that instituted it. That is not an exaggeration.

Fiat currency in the modern world requires constant moderation and regulation to prevent the monetary system from imploding. Take a look at US history. The US dollar might appear to have a long and stable history, but only in the dreams of patriots. The US dollar that is in circulation today is not the US dollar that was in circulation 100 years ago. You're comparing 2 different currency systems and assuming they are the same. It has moved from silver standard to gold standard and some other reserves and standards I can't be bothered to read up on, into it's current form. They are all different currencies that share the same name.

If the US dollar was to disappear, I doubt it would be a Bad Thing for everyone. A bad thing in the short term certainly. A very bad thing for the US. Potentially a bad thing for everyone if your crazy fucking government decides the demise of their economy justifies WW3 and firing nukes off in random directions. The rest of the world will simply move onto a new international reserve currency.

Winnah wrote:Fiat currency has resulted in the devaluation and collapse of every economy that instituted it. That is not an exaggeration.

That is literally the stupidest thing that anyone has ever said about economics. It's vying for stupidest thing anyone has said about anything. Devaluation and collapse has happened eventually to every single economic system that doesn't currently exist. By definition. Some of these have taken a very long time to collapse, and those collapses were often caused by external factors, but it literally goes without saying that every system that is no longer in place has eventually collapsed.

In the world today, literally 100% of all nations use fiat currency. No other system still survives on any kind of scale. Other forms of currency, from physical shells to contracts marking ownership of ox hides to notes promising land or gold on redemption are always and in all ways devalued and collapsed. Holding them in the present day provides no value at all save as a collection of history.

Thus it is true, if rather silly and pointless, to say that all non-fiat currencies have eventually been devalued and collapsed. That is a pointless observation, but is "not an exaggeration". The fiat currencies are still going strong, with 182 still in use and totally not collapsed today. This puts fiat currency infinity times ahead of all non-fiat forms of currency. Because 182 surviving out of however the fuck many have ever been circulated is still and always infinity times better odds than zero out of some positive number of non-fiat currency circulation attempts.

-Username17

Catch me up. In 18 pages has anyone found a purpose for this discussion at all?

I mean, I read through FT's original posts and a couple of pages, but no one ever said why anyone should care. Is this just practice for later, more effective or necessary fault-finding? Is this to win an argument with someone who actually thought the opposite (I'm not sure that's possible, I mean this is probably the most obvious bunch of "duh" I've read in a while)? Has anyone even touched on solutions to the problem or how this information should change the way GMs handle fantasy rpgs? Or is this whole discussion just for the lulz?

Winnah wrote: Fiat currency has resulted in the devaluation and collapse of every economy that instituted it. That is not an exaggeration.

There are plenty in existence that use it and haven't collapsed. Are you saying that they haven't collapsed yet?

It looks like you're saying two things:

1) In the past, some fiat currency economies collapsed, and

2) The economies that collapsed in the past have collapsed.


So, it looks like you start with a fairly simple observation and back it with a tautology. What you need is a point to prove that existing fiat currency economies that haven't collapsed will collapse in the future, and you haven't done that.


Edit:
I left my tab open long enough to miss the next two posts. Holy crap!

Devaluation is a reduction in the value of currency. Intentional or competitive devaluation is where the policy of a country deliberately devalues it own currency in relation to foreign currency, in order to boost it's own economy by stimulating domestic productivity and disincentivising the consumption of imported goods.

Combine that with fiat currency, which has no fixed value by any objective standard, and you end up with events like the Great Depression, which saw countries actively competing to export their high unemployment levels, or in more recent times, the post GFC currency war.

Economic collapse refers to a severe economic depression or a breakdown in normal commerce. The number of countries that have experienced a sovereign default in the last 50 years alone is staggering. These nations deliberately defaulted on debts in their own currency. They engineed their own devaluation in reponse to a number of pressures, external and self inflicted.

So yes, I stand by what I said. Fiat money is not bad, nor am I suggesting that a fixed reserve currency is better. I am just saying it is not sustainable and that history happens to agree with me.

Winnah wrote:So yes, I stand by what I said. Fiat money is not bad, nor am I suggesting that a fixed reserve currency is better. I am just saying it is not sustainable and that history happens to agree with me.

Countries are not sustainable and history happens to agree with me. The United States is one of the oldest countries 'alive' today; and there are people alive today that are the great grandsons of soldiers from the American Revolution.

Winnah wrote:Devaluation is a reduction in the value of currency. Intentional or competitive devaluation is where the policy of a country deliberately devalues it own currency in relation to foreign currency, in order to boost it's own economy by stimulating domestic productivity and disincentivising the consumption of imported goods.

Combine that with fiat currency, which has no fixed value by any objective standard, and you end up with events like the Great Depression, which saw countries actively competing to export their high unemployment levels, or in more recent times, the post GFC currency war.

Economic collapse refers to a severe economic depression or a breakdown in normal commerce. The number of countries that have experienced a sovereign default in the last 50 years alone is staggering. These nations deliberately defaulted on debts in their own currency. They engineed their own devaluation in reponse to a number of pressures, external and self inflicted.

So yes, I stand by what I said. Fiat money is not bad, nor am I suggesting that a fixed reserve currency is better. I am just saying it is not sustainable and that history happens to agree with me.

Jesus Christ you're terribad in your economic theories.

Guess what? ALL CURRENCIES DEVALUE OVER TIME. I print more money, I mine more fucking gold, I raise more chickens to trade for knives, I make more knives, I spend more of my day working for someone else in order to barter for something.

Currency/money is an abstraction of work done over a period of time. As productivity goes up, the time necessary to do X amount of work goes down. Thus, the unit representing it becomes less valuable. The march of technology, civilization, and humanity is one of inflation.

Winnah wrote:Devaluation is a reduction in the value of currency.

No. Devaluation is an official reduction in the value of a currency relative to other currencies. It's a thing that happens in response to trade pressures. You are conflating devaluation with inflation, which is a completely ridiculous thing to do.

Inflation is not the same as slow and inevitable collapse, because people using the currency are also using the currency. They put the currency in banks, they spend it, they get more of it over time. If you get raises periodically, and the money you have in the bank accumulates interest, what harm is inflation doing to you?

The Winnah wrote:Combine that with fiat currency, which has no fixed value by any objective standard, and you end up with events like the Great Depression, which saw countries actively competing to export their high unemployment levels, or in more recent times, the post GFC currency war.

You know this is completely wrong, right? Such that anti-trade policy was a thing that mattered at all in the face of the Great Depression, it was tariffs, not devaluation that was the culprit. The Smoot-Hawley act of 1930 was a tax increase on imported goods, not a reduction in the amount of Francs a Dollar could buy. The Great Depression was exacerbated by all the major countries trying to maintain a gold standard and keeping their currency strong, not by countries going to a fiat currency and letting their currencies get weaker.

Wikipedia wrote:The connection between leaving the gold standard as a strong predictor of that country's severity of its depression and the length of time in its recovery has been shown to be consistent for dozens of countries, predominantly in developing countries. This may explain why the experience and length of the depression differed between national economies.

Yes, countries that stayed on the Gold Standard longer had a longer and more severe depression. That's just historical fact. And it's the opposite of what you're saying, because the things you are saying are the opposite of true!

The Winnah wrote:Economic collapse refers to a severe economic depression or a breakdown in normal commerce. The number of countries that have experienced a sovereign default in the last 50 years alone is staggering. These nations deliberately defaulted on debts in their own currency.

This is probably stupider than the other things you said, which is impressive. No, a sovereign default is not the same as an economic collapse. A sovereign default is a renegotiation of some or all of a nation's outstanding loans. It may be bilateral or unilateral. It may come with an associated breakdown in normal commerce, but usually it does not.

Zimbabwe is indeed a country where the currency was devalued into nonexistence and commerce collapsed. But that is the exception. That is the only country in the world to experience anything like that in this century. Egypt had a debt restructure in 1984, but it was part of a deal to remove sanctions rather than to devalue the currency or shatter the economy.

You simply cannot equivocate a country refinancing or renegotiating debt structure terms with true periods of economic freefall. Doing so makes you look like a tinfoil hat crazy person.

The Winnah wrote:So yes, I stand by what I said. Fiat money is not bad, nor am I suggesting that a fixed reserve currency is better. I am just saying it is not sustainable and that history happens to agree with me.

The correct response to people calling you on your bullshit is not to double down on the insanity. As virgil pointed out, countries are temporary phenomenon. The oldest country in the world is the United Kingdom, which incorporated into the present day entity in 1707, fully 306 years ago. The second oldest currently incorporated country in the world is the United States of America, which incorporated in 1785 and is now 228 years old. That is a bump up from third place, which the US enjoyed until 2008, when the Kingdom of Nepal disincorporated for several months and the region was newly minted as the Republic of Nepal.

Clearly, saying that "nation states are unsustainable" makes you a crazy person. But what possible difference is there between that position and the equally insane position that fiat currencies aren't sustainable?

The Deutsche Mark no longer exists, but it didn't "collapse" or "fail", it was simply reincorporated as the Euro. There was a full trade in available from the old currency to the new, and no one who isn't a crazy person would say that the DM was somehow unsustainable or devalued or whatever just because a DM note isn't worth anything today.

-Username17

"No. Our village is over there."
"But it's all on fire."
"Yes. Yes it is."

I want to give you all of the internets for this reference, in large part because it is my favorite thing ever.

Guess what? ALL CURRENCIES DEVALUE OVER TIME. I print more money, I mine more fucking gold, I raise more chickens to trade for knives, I make more knives, I spend more of my day working for someone else in order to barter for something.

Currency/money is an abstraction of work done over a period of time. As productivity goes up, the time necessary to do X amount of work goes down. Thus, the unit representing it becomes less valuable. The march of technology, civilization, and humanity is one of inflation.

There are limitations on things. There is a limited amount of gold in the world and as it is mined it becomes significantly more difficult to extract until there is none left. Same deal with the steel required for knives, only now you require 2 different kinds of limited resources to be mined and specialised labour to create knives. Chickens have their own limitations. They are living things with a short lifespan and are subject to predation, disease and being eaten by a chicken farmer, as well as requiring space, care and nourishment. Even if they were immortal, there is a practical limit to how many you can stuff into a closet.

Fiat money does not have these limitations. The currency still represents labour; it represents a labour debt. When a country runs up a huge deficit in order to print more money, they are in effect gambling that there will be sufficient labour in the future to pay off that debt...at interest.

No. Devaluation is an official reduction in the value of a currency relative to other currencies. It's a thing that happens in response to trade pressures. You are conflating devaluation with inflation, which is a completely ridiculous thing to do.

Yes. Devaluation is a reduction in the value of a currency. In comparison to other currencies or commodities. Or other currencies that must be used to buy commodities.

Inflation is not the same as slow and inevitable collapse, because people using the currency are also using the currency. They put the currency in banks, they spend it, they get more of it over time. If you get raises periodically, and the money you have in the bank accumulates interest, what harm is inflation doing to you?

Small changes of inflation are something I don't pay much attention to. Large changes in inflation have a profound effect. The cost of certain goods and services increase, but I do not get an immediate and commensurate increase to salary. This has the effect of making my savings worth less, which may or may not be countered by interest rates at the bank. It may mean that I am disinclined to invest, as although I will be making more money, I will also be paying tax on those earnings, which due to inflation have less value. This has the effect of making my time and effort spent outside of my occupation, less valuable.

It can also have a profound cumulative effect on my superannuation, which may require me to work longer because the funds I have set aside for retirement are now worth less than they were. Granted, the effect on my super is not an issue now, but it will be when I am no longer capable of working.

You know this is completely wrong, right? Such that anti-trade policy was a thing that mattered at all in the face of the Great Depression, it was tariffs, not devaluation that was the culprit.

Tarrifs instituted to protect the local economies from foreign economies that could afford to export cheaply, due to a devaluation of their own economies.

Yes, countries that stayed on the Gold Standard longer had a longer and more severe depression. That's just historical fact. And it's the opposite of what you're saying, because the things you are saying are the opposite of true!

Wasn't there an executive order in the US that enabled the government to seize currency gold at a less than favourable exchange rate during this period? I'm sure that went over well and did wonders for the economy.

This is probably stupider than the other things you said, which is impressive. No, a sovereign default is not the same as an economic collapse. A sovereign default is a renegotiation of some or all of a nation's outstanding loans. It may be bilateral or unilateral. It may come with an associated breakdown in normal commerce, but usually it does not.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Insovency is not an issue because someone else can bail you out and take on the burdens of your debt? I though that was a temporary measure only. The problems with the economy have not gone away, just been delayed in addition to making it someone else's problem.

But what possible difference is there between that position and the equally insane position that fiat currencies aren't sustainable?

I'll let Roger take this one.

Winnah wrote:

But what possible difference is there between that position and the equally insane position that fiat currencies aren't sustainable?

I'll let Roger take this one.

Don't make me sit through a two minute youtube video under the pretense that it answers the question asked when it doesn't fucking answer the question that was asked.

When someone claims that non-fiat currency is not subject to severe inflation, it's time to stop listening