Powerstones and Intrinsic Value

[D10]

Originally Posted by Bruno

If you prefer a more economics-minded approach to things, I suggest not using "value" at all, as it's a purely ephemeral concept. Come up with something based on physical properties - perhaps going right back to the original "Must be an opal, reserve capacity is based on weight in carats".

I didnt knew that in 4e capacity was no longer based on carats

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by D10

I didnt knew that in 4e capacity was no longer based on carats

It's not. It's purely based on "intrinsic value" - if you don't meet the intrinsic value threshold for the capacity, the energy required quadruples. Gems are referenced as a convenient small-size store of value.

[D10]

Originally Posted by Bruno

It's not. It's purely based on "intrinsic value" - if you don't meet the intrinsic value threshold for the capacity, the energy required quadruples. Gems are referenced as a convenient small-size store of value.

Well then its completely arbitrary I assume ?

Because if you dont have any sort of guideline (such as the carats) it comes down to GM arbitrary decision on every single stone in the gameworld.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by D10

Well then its completely arbitrary I assume ?

Because if you dont have any sort of guideline (such as the carats) it comes down to GM arbitrary decision on every single stone in the gameworld.

Fundementally, the price of anything, anywhere, is completely arbitrary. There's some theoretical floors on the price of things depending on the price of things (including labor) required to produce them, which of course in turn depends on the price of the things required to produce THOSE and all the way down the stack of turtles. That's the 0 profit margin price - but even then, it's purely theoretical and depends on that entire chain of requisites also being priced purely at their 0 profit margin price.

Things can be charged any amount over that price, and if the market will bear the markup, well, it does. And things can be charged any amount under that price down to 0 for various reasons (loss leaders and other promotions, clearing out old stock that's preventing more profitable stock from being supplied, or somehow evading paying for one of the prerequisites are the usual reasons).

Economics is complex, but whether it's the GM or a very long chain of human beings charging for stuff, the price is fundementally arbitrary.

That's why gamebooks have price lists - for people who find that thought horrendous :) Dungeon Fantasy 8 has prices for various gems, although I'd note that they're the sort of (arbitrary) prices that are suitable for Dungeon Fantasy games and not for rigorous historical or economic simulations. I'm pretty sure Low Tech or Low Tech 3 has some notes, although it may be vaguely abstracted under luxuries.

Gem prices are especially prone to arbitrary pricing because they are basically just pretty rocks for most of human history. They don't even have significant industrial uses until the last hundred years or so, and industry is perfectly happy to use the "flawed" and synthetic gems.

[Bruno]

If you mean what's the rule in Magic, that's the rule referenced in the original post of this thread - which is yes, fundementally an arbitrary formula to determine the value required for a given capacity of Powerstone. It's descended from the formula to calcuate the value of an opal of sufficient carats from earlier editions of Magic, but frankly that formula was fairly arbitrary too.

[William]

Personally, I prefer artificial Powerstones, with the value of the underlying material being a measure not of rarity but of labor involved in making them: a common stone intricately carved with a complex labyrinth, a minutely detailed porcelain egg, the original of a unique poem commissioned from a master poet, handwritten and laminated.

[Whitewings]

Perhaps the simplest solution would be to replace "intrinsic value" with "list price at time of purchase." I say "list price" because many game settings include haggling, and penalizing mages for being good bargainers, or rewarding them for being bad ones, irritates me. "At time of purchase" also covers the question of depreciation and appreciation (antiques, for example).

[fifiste]

^
I think list price before purchase/haggling/looting/robbery would be more precise, if you mean what I think you mean. (In which case I do agree with you)You know indicating that the fact that you haggled off 50% or did a "five finger discount" doesn't meant that now the power-stone will be 50% less potent or totally useless.

For the intrinsic value to have any meaning then it must mean what the playbook/GM says that this item has. You could maybe better visualize it like this - the intrinsic value should not be a dollar value per se, it is just a numerical designation to show how much power you can store into this given gem.
Fore example gemstone type P can store 50 PP, according to formula 10^2*P+$40*P =V, it's intrinsic value is 27,000, but you can of course buy it for higher price, haggle it down or even find/steal/rob one for no cash at all. Take it more like it has power metric V of 27,000 units :D, that in the game world a very common price for such stone is 27,000 is just really convenient :D.

Otherwise things get funny. I remember a good Order of The Stick comic where an apprentice brags that he haggled material components down from 1000$ to 750$, and his master gets angry and says they need exactly 1000$ worth of material components and he should go back to shop. :D

It also made me think on the following business -
"What you took it from the dragons hoard, so it's worthless.
Now give it to me and I can sell it to you for let's say 5000$ that's a pretty good power stone material then.
You know actually I can sell you some pebbles at pretty much any price you want :P"

[ericthered]

I think what is really being said is that the materials should be setting adjusted to cost that much. If gems the size of your fist are common, well, they shouldn't make good powerstones. If metal is extremely rare, why not use it? At some point we should remember that G:magic is supposed to be generic.