Spheres of Exchange

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Kromm

To answer the "Have you played . . .?" part: Yes. The players (all the players) grew very frustrated with it very quickly, and asked the GM to use $, call it "silver" or whatever, and be done with it. The complex trade scheme might have been welcome in a campaign focused on mercantile activities, but the focus was on fighting and spells and such, with the economic system appearing as cultural background color. That was annoying (understandably so, I think) to people who had signed up for Adventures in Saving the World or at least Adventures in Hacking and Slashing, not Adventures in Economic Anthropology or even Adventures In Shopping.

Aw, that's a shame. Still in the rare situation that there isn't even one minority player who likes something, what can you do.

One thing that occurs to me is that it's fairly common for there to be magic item and mundane spheres. In a situation like older editions of D&D where the PCs will rapidly gain enough currency to live comfortably forever and further coin only helps them run a realm or recharge items and magic item creation is supposed to be strongly limited by requirements for obscure reagents that need adventuring to acquire there is a real tendency to never want to sell a magic item for gold and instead either horde it, trade it for another item or trade it for loyalty of a follower.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Aw, that's a shame.

It's the kind of shame that transformed me from a GM who did world-building in advance – with calendars, currency systems, lists of cultures and languages, maps, notable personages, etc. – to an ad-lib GM who throws down a rough idea and starts the game, and then develops only the topics, areas, and cultures in which the players show an interest. My experience is that players will like what they like, so it's best to play to their interests. There are players interested in trade and economics out there; I've had at least one. However, there are far more players whose idea of a good game is fighting, over-the-top heroics, and/or racking up personal power.

[Anders]

So it is said that if you know your players and know yourself, you can GM a hundred campaigns without a single disappointment.

All GMing is based on deception. Hence, when we are have to improvise, we must seem prepared; when using railroads we must appear laissez-faire; when we are desperate, we must make the player believe we are confident; when our world is a Potemkin village, we must make them believe there is careful world-building.

[ericthered]

Know thy audience!

I think the idea can work if used in moderation and as a plot element rather than a standing rule that gets in the way. The example above, where pigs and knives are one sphere but yams and pots are another, would be a royal pain -- There is no intuition about what you need for what and you need all forms of money for all activities. A more workable example would be mystic artifacts vs. mundane cash: mystic artifacts belong in families, and its taboo to sell them for any amount of money -- but exchanging them for an artifact that you find more useful is fine. This would highlight the importance of artifacts and make them even more desired by players. Quests to get such items become more important. And normal day to day life is not effected. I could also see land as its own sphere.

Of course, in most any campaign modern players want to play in, there should be an option of a black market or illicitly using wealth to cross the boundaries: a rich man could hire someone to steal mystic artifacts for him.

Ninja'd before I even post!

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I think the idea can work if used in moderation and as a plot element rather than a standing rule that gets in the way. The example above, where pigs and knives are one sphere but yams and pots are another, would be a royal pain -- There is no intuition about what you need for what and you need all forms of money for all activities.

It may not intuitive at first, but you rapidly develop an intuition for these things. Most players will already put knives in a different mental category than yams. If someone is separated from his goods and companions and asks them to toss up the important goods they will normally be off-put if the sack they toss up is full of yams and doesn't include any weapons or tools. Pigs are generally less relevant to PCs but it's not hard to understand that wealth generators like livestock are more prestigious than consumable goods.

Originally Posted by ericthered

Of course, in most any campaign modern players want to play in, there should be an option of a black market or illicitly using wealth to cross the boundaries: a rich man could hire someone to steal mystic artifacts for him.

Historically this is difficult, with these societies rarely being large enough for black markets to function well.

I'm not sure about player interest either. PCs interacting with black markets isn't that common surely? In my experience the bother is rarely seen as reasonable for cost savings and PCs are at least as likely to just try to steal something as buy it in a black market.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Know thy audience!

I think the idea can work if used in moderation and as a plot element rather than a standing rule that gets in the way. The example above, where pigs and knives are one sphere but yams and pots are another, would be a royal pain -- There is no intuition about what you need for what and you need all forms of money for all activities. A more workable example would be mystic artifacts vs. mundane cash: mystic artifacts belong in families, and its taboo to sell them for any amount of money -- but exchanging them for an artifact that you find more useful is fine. This would highlight the importance of artifacts and make them even more desired by players. Quests to get such items become more important. And normal day to day life is not effected. I could also see land as its own sphere.

Actually, I can give you examples from TL8 that you probably deal with pretty intuitively:
There's the sphere of generic monetary transactions, which is probably the most flexible and universal.
Dating expenses can only be dealt with in a limited manner of ways. It's generally acceptable that this sphere will involve some exchanges of flowers and chocolate, paying for going to restaurants or cooking food for your date at home (but not generally buying pre-cooked food to bring it home!), maybe helping with homework or some other tutoring. But you generally can't fast-draw a debit card and just make a monetary transaction! (Except when actually paying for sex, but that is not this sphere of exchange!)
Then there's the family economy exchange sphere, where you usually negotiate some arrangement to exchange e.g. more housework for paying a larger fraction of CoL.
Then there's the family activities sphere, which is not the same as above. E.g. birthday presents tend to be exchanged for birthday presents at the other time of the year, and do not follow the exchange rations of standard mercantile transactions. And helping someone cook a banquet will generally be exchanged for helping someone move, at another time, but again, not for a monetary cheque. And borrowing money seems to be acceptable among friends or acquaintances, but much more carefully done among families.

Yet you handle all that with adjustments appropriate for your CF.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Most players will already put knives in a different mental category than yams.

PCs interacting with black markets isn't that common surely?

It's orders of magnitude more common than PCs caring – at all – about yams or any other item not useful for doing exciting adventure stuff (ammo, armor, climbing gear, espionage tech, explosives, weapons, etc.). When I enforce social norms, the first thing players do is try to circumvent those that restrict gear by having their characters seek illegal deadliness – be that explosives, guns, or poisons – on the black market. Whereas food items are just "rations, x meals" and kept generic; nobody would really care whether yams or livestock were behind the curtain.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Sindri

PCs interacting with black markets isn't that common surely? In my experience the bother is rarely seen as reasonable for cost savings and PCs are at least as likely to just try to steal something as buy it in a black market.

Depends on the setting. A recent example came up in a Madness Dossier campaign. We needed an assault rifle in contemporary Baghdad, the Project didn't have one available, stealing one would have created far more complications than buying one on the black market, and there didn't seem to be a legitimate market.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It's orders of magnitude more common than PCs caring – at all – about yams or any other item not useful for doing exciting adventure stuff (ammo, armor, climbing gear, espionage tech, explosives, weapons, etc.). When I enforce social norms, the first thing players do is try to circumvent those that restrict gear by having their characters seek illegal deadliness – be that explosives, guns, or poisons – on the black market. Whereas food items are just "rations, x meals" and kept generic; nobody would really care whether yams or livestock were behind the curtain.

Even in a setting with spheres of exchange the degree that the PCs care about yams is probably commensurate with the necessity of them caring about yams. They come back from an adventure and pick up some yams to replace used rations and trade some to replace used rope. If it isn't an economic campaign they don't need to care, they could just convert generic low-value-supplies dollars into the specific goods they need. It might still be perceived as unnecessarily annoying of course.

Certainly social norms are a speed bump rather than an actual impediment. I guess in my experience players rarely want to spend time tracking down black markets and to make themselves and their purchases known to criminals and so on if there is any kind of alternative.

Originally Posted by johndallman

Depends on the setting. A recent example came up in a Madness Dossier campaign. We needed an assault rifle in contemporary Baghdad, the Project didn't have one available, stealing one would have created far more complications than buying one on the black market, and there didn't seem to be a legitimate market.

Well obviously it will happen sometimes. I just personally wouldn't assume a black market in any setting that is interesting to PCs.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Actually, I can give you examples from TL8 that you probably deal with pretty intuitively:

These examples actually bring up the fact that in most campaigns, spheres of exchange are, after a fashion, already in play. If Bob the Wizard has the McGuffin of Domination, chances are pretty good he's not going to sell it for money - rather, he will require a significant service, or some other artifact in exchange.

That said, the idea of a setting where certain classes of items cannot be bought, but must be traded within the class (or granted as rewards), is intriguing. You often see this in fiction where there are irreproducible, powerful artifacts, but something where an upper tier of items/objects fit this role would be interesting. Magic items seem a clear option, and there may be certain Status-limited items that would fit as well. I think a setting where, for example, magic items can be found, earned, gifted, or traded, but never purchased or sold, could be interesting. I suspect players would tolerate - hopefully enjoy - something like this, wherein the problem occurs when it's overdone - common items shouldn't be in different spheres from other common items, because being able to buy your rations with coin but needing appropriate barter for rope, candles, and weaponry would be annoying. Items that require special barter of some sort should themselves be special - magic items, rare gems, possibly even certain classes of custom work.