Some Disjointed Rambling about D&D Economics

The other day I ran across this post and this post, both concerning economics in fantasy RPGs. Realistic economics in a d20 fantasy setting is something I've struggled with for years. Some people would argue that it's not worth the effort due to the assumptions built into the game (and I can't say I completely disagree).

The Rampant Games blog article makes some valid points and basically says that the RAW don't account for scarcity, which Economics 101 tells us is the basis for economic systems to begin with. But he also points out that a detailed economic system is not something he'd appreciate or notice as a player, which I think is something that holds true for most players.

The intricate economic system that Scott describes at the Shrapnel Games post sounds great but ultimately, rather useless. His final solution is basically the same sort of thing that I do - use the existing system from the books but add some enhancements (though I'm actually not even doing that at the moment). I've found that with those sorts of details in regards to D&D that "good enough" is, well, good enough.

I've tried various things in the past. My most recent system, which was handled by an Excel spreadsheet, incorporated available quantities, rarity factors (i.e.; if you wanted X you couldn't find it for Y gp but it was available for 3*Y gp), timing, legality, etc. All that amounted to was a lot of extra work that bored the players in my old group. Granted, most of the people in that group had pretty much given up on tabletop after becoming hardcore WoW players, but even with the other players I have now and have had in the past, they wouldn't have cared much for it either. Heck, it's not something I'd enjoy as a player.

Elsewhere, S John Ross and others have said something that should be obvious but bears repeating. If you're going to add something to your game that involves more work or calculations or whatever, make sure it adds to the value (i.e.; fun) of the game. If it doesn't then you really need to ask yourself why you're putting it in. A complex economic system is definitely something that needs to be reviewed. Unless the game is centered around caravans and mercantilism, then what's really added by making sure that the price of axes reflects the shortage of wood in the neighboring duchy or forcing PCs to constantly visit the moneychanger when they visit a new city? Exceptions are one thing ("swords are now 10x the cost due to the orc raids on the iron mines to the west"), but they aren't a constant - they're there to enhance the gameplay experience and perhaps provide adventure hooks.

I would argue, though, that using the RAW system isn't that unrealistic. In the real world, the more rare something is, generally the more expensive it is, if there's demand for it. That's definitely an oversimplification (it ignores a multitude of other factors) but for most people, that's good enough. Another advantage is that the RAW really only requires one variable to be maintained: how much gold you put into the campaign. That's useful as I've found over the years that some players will do their utmost to exploit the subsystems of your game, whether built-in or tacked-on. The more variables you have in your system, the easier it is for them to find a way to break it to their advantage.