That said, a waterskin is 1gp, yes, but I'm not sure where the pint measurement comes from (I looked in the PHB, maybe I'm just missing it?). The waterskin is listed in the PHB as 4 lbs, which is pretty much the same weight as a half gallon of water (we can assume the skin itself has some weight, but it's negligible for our purposes), which is what the DSCS lists as the daily requirement for medium-sized Athasians.
In most communities, water is as strong a currency as coin. The city-states ration water to citizens by circulating ceramic pieces. Each token can be exchanged for a pint of water drawn from a city-controlled well. Ceramic pieces have a gold piece value and can be traded for an equivalent amount of goods or services within the issuing city. The equivalency does not extend beyond the city-state's region, however. Thus, travelers either trade these tokens for gold or invest them in survival days.
But I did miss the fact that the DSCG also said that Athasians have become acclimatized to their environment, and can survive on 2 1/2 gallons of water per day. 2 1/2 gallons is 20 pints, which would be 20 GP. I am going to treat that as a mistake, however, as in our real world we only need between 4-6 pints per day (coupled with food) to survive. 20 pints is well and above what people need in our real world...
Keep in mind that this is a ration, and a ration token is worth 1 gp, meaning that 1 gp is almost guaranteed to be an inflated price for a pint of water, and specifically one that heroes, for whatever reason, are not exactly restricted to.
Even if not, 4 gp for water, 0.5 gp for 1 day of rations, and 0.5 gp for "1 day" of clothes/balm/unguents isn't completely unreasonable.
2.5 gallons is what a large creature needs, the sentence before puts climatized Athasians at 0.5 gallons, or 4 pints. I made that mistake on my first read too.
This I missed...
Keep in mind that this is a ration, and a ration token is worth 1 gp, meaning that 1 gp is almost guaranteed to be an inflated price for a pint of water, and specifically one that heroes, for whatever reason, are not exactly restricted to.
This I don't agree with.
Even if not, 4 gp for water, 0.5 gp for 1 day of rations, and 0.5 gp for "1 day" of clothes/balm/unguents isn't completely unreasonable.
This I do. In fact, based on the prices in the PHB, 1 day of food in trail rations is exactly 0.5 gp.
My point was that the price for survival days has no basis in location and is the poster child for DM Prerogative, so if you want to bump up the price while in the city-states, then by all means you should do so.
You don't agree that rationing artificially inflates the price of goods? Or that PCs are hand-waved past it?
I do not agree that the PCs are hand-waved past it, or that the game assumes that they are. The cost of 1gp per pint IS its inflated price. As the same page that talks about that price notes, in areas where water is readily available the price of survival days drops significantly.
Where did we get "1 waterskin = 1 pint" from?
So 1g per 1 day of water, no?
Also, what is a ration token?
Wait... a 4lbs waterskin would be a half gallon of water, wouldn't it?
Where did we get "1 waterskin = 1 pint" from?
Nobody said a 4lb waterskin is a single pint. However, a single pint does cost 1 gp, or the equivalent ceramic coin, in the city states.
So 1g per 1 day of water, no?
No. A waterskin costs 1gp. An empty waterskin. The 1gp price is the price of the raw materials and labor used to craft the waterskin. In regular D&D water has no price (as it is usually common enough to be free). In Dark Sun a pint of water costs 1gp. You need 4 pints of water per day (assuming you are of medium size). You need 4gp worth of water per day, 5 silver pieces worth of food, and 5 silver pieces worth of ointments against the sun, for a total of 1 5gp survival day per day.
Also, what is a ration token?
It is a ceramic piece in the amount of 1gp issued by one of the city states.
You need 4 pints of water per day (assuming you are of large size).
Technically, PCs are not large.
You meant "human sized" or medium, right? Halflings would be small sized and require... 2-3 pints?
The quote you are using as the basis says that ceramics are circulated as currency. It also says that ceramics can be traded for a pint of water. But it does not say that a ceramic equals 1 gold, nor does it say a pint equals 1 gold.. in fact, it looks more like 1 ceramic (1 cp) = 1 pint of water... although it doesn't explicitely say that as nicely as I think it should have been written.
For comparison, looking at the Food, Drink, Services section of the DSCG, page 123, a pitcher of Broy (fermented kank nectar) is only 2 cp... so there is no way 3-4 pints of broy costs 2 cp and a pint of water costs 200 times that (1/2 cp per pint of broy, 100 cp or 1 gold per pint of water)... water is limited, it is rationed, but it isn't bank-breakingly expensive to acquire...
I believe the Free City of Tyr now allows each citizen 1 hand carried container of water for free each day... it doesn't say how much the 2nd container of water costs, but it can't be more than 1-3 cps (ceramics or coppers) or else people could not afford to live in the cities.
I know they made a lot of changes to Athas when the updated it for 4th edition, but I don't think making water the most expensive thing in the city was their intention...
The argument that 5 gold for a Survival Day is 4 gold water, 5 silver food, 5 silver sunbalm, although actually a pretty compelling break down, is probably not exactly true... they talk about Survival Days including appropriate clothes, probably also includes items to carry such water and foods, and probably takes into account repair kits, first aid supplies, as well as sunblock, etc.
I totally agree that the cost of a Survival Day is meant to vary depending on location, necessity, etc.. in a city like Raam, with chaos ruling, it might be hard to get the items together and warlords might control the ability of people to leave the city while if your PCs are only making day treks out of large towns or living near a forest, then maybe 5 gold is pricey and they only have to pay 2 or 3 gold for the equipment.
It is possible I am having a hard time adjusting from 2nd edition Dark Sun where townfolk earned like a fraction of a copper piece (ceramic pieces or bits) each week and expecting them to shell out 1 gold for water was close to a 1/2 years salary for many poor folk of Athas, and it does seem like they have made "gold, or at least gold equivalents" more common in this edition, but have to believe that a pint of water or 4 pints if that is what a medium sized creature needs, is not costing 1 gold per day (even tokens aside) because that is financially impossible for most of the population of Athas.
But, I guess, it is only my opinion as there isn't a chart in any of the DS books so far for 4th editon (which seems odd).. =p
Josh
Ceramic coins can have any denomination in Dark Sun (according to DSCS4), Athas essentially has a gold standard system with ceramic coins with certain denominations printed on them, arguably redeemable from its printed city-state for that amount of actual gold.
Each ceramic coin is supposed to be back up with proper amounts of hard (metal) currancy held in a city-states treasury. Again, this works like a modern gold-standard economy, with each city-state being a seperate country.
Theoreticly, this means a "1 gold piece value ceramic piece" (think of a $100 bill) printed in one city, is worth 1gp in any city. However, if all the other city-states decided one's was only worth 1/10th of its printed value... they could theoreticly economicly ruin that city-state, causing merchant families to make a "run on banks" in that city and chaos would ensue.
So! Figuring A) The 6 remaining sorcerer-kings probably couldn't agree on anything, and B) no sorcerer-king likes chaos. A "1 gold piece value ceramic piece" is worth 1gp in all the city states, and to anyone who spends a lot of time in them.
Outside of that, you'll want cold, hard, metal "cash".
With gold being more common in 4E, 1g per pint still seems a bit stiff to me, but is more reasonable than it would have been in 2E, due to 1g being a year or two of work, but now maybe a few days (interpeters clearly make 1sp/day)?
I would bet the rate would be closer to 1 to 5sp = 0.5 Gallons because few people could afford 1gp/day of water.
For example, does a mekilot (huge creature) only require 1 survival day or 20? (Since a typical survival day has 1/2 a gallon of water and huge creatures need 10 gallons of water/day. (0.5x20 = 10)
There is also this passage on Pg199 to consider:
"Selling Survival Days: In the desert, survival
days are valuable enough to be sold or traded at their
normal value (5 gp each). Indeed, an explorer dying
of thirst would likely pay a king’s ransom for a single
survival day. Where people are near sources of water
and food, however, they can obtain supplies for far
less than 5 gp per day’s worth. In those areas,
survival days aren’t easy to sell."
This passage states that though Survival Days hold a value of 5gps in the desert, unlike other items which normally sell at the standard D&D 20%, people (Characters) in places "near sources of water and food" (Cities) can purchase Survival Days for "far less" than 5gp, and may not even be able to sell the ones they already have. This indicates that the value of Survival Days can vary dramatically.
This extreme variability also questions further Cyber-Dave's assumption that 1 pint of water = 1gp, because the 5gp price of Survival Days is based on their value in the desert, not in cities. If the cost of Survival Days drops to "far less" than 5gps, and far less to nearly unsellable definitely implies that a Survival Day could easily be less than half cost, then what becomes of Cyber-Dave's cost breakdown in terms of water when a SD is worth 2-3gps, or even 4gps? No matter how you cut it up a pint of water cannot equal a gold piece in a city.
Cyber-Dave's argument rest in part on that the Ceramic Piece or Token equals 1 gold piece as a definitive cost for water. However the above passage clearly states that the proximity of food and water dramatically reduces the cost of a Survival Day, which water is the key ingredient of. Since cities fit this description of being near food and water, and those tokens are only currency within cities, I've shown by using a Survival Day as a common reference point, and referring to the above passage, that it is not possible for water to be 1gp per pint in Cities. Since it is not possible for a pint of water to be 1gp in a city the authors could not have meant otherwise. It is possible that a water Token could have a street value of 1gp during time of strict rationing, but that would only be the value of the token, not the value of water in general, like scalping a ticket for a concert.
So, Cyber-Dave, how do you reconcile this?
Posted in "Dark Sun Economy out of whack"
There is also this passage on Pg199 to consider:"Selling Survival Days: In the desert, survival
days are valuable enough to be sold or traded at their
normal value (5 gp each). Indeed, an explorer dying
of thirst would likely pay a king’s ransom for a single
survival day. Where people are near sources of water
and food, however, they can obtain supplies for far
less than 5 gp per day’s worth. In those areas,
survival days aren’t easy to sell."
This passage states that though Survival Days hold a value of 5gps in the desert, unlike other items which normally sell at the standard D&D 20%, people (Characters) in places "near sources of water and food" (Cities) can purchase Survival Days for "far less" than 5gp, and may not even be able to sell the ones they already have. This indicates that the value of Survival Days can vary dramatically.
It does indicate that the value of survival days can vary dramatically. It does not, despite your assertions, indicate that the value of survivals days varies dramatically, from 5gp, near the city states. That is you twisting the written word out of context again, and choosing to willfully misread the text. The very paragraph that we have been discussing says:
In most communities, water is as strong a currency as coin. The city-states ration water to citizens by circulating ceramic pieces. Each token can be exchanged for a pint of water drawn from a city-controlled well. Ceramic pieces have a gold piece value and can be traded for an equivalent amount of goods or services within the issuing city.
Whatever this says about exact values, it explicitly contradicts your assertion that the components of value in a survival day, such as water, are not valued in the city states. They are so valuable in the city states that they are as good as coins (whatever the exact value of those coins might be). You don't say that sort of thing when you are talking about (allegorical) pennies. The text makes it very obvious that water, thematically, is very valuable in the city states. It doesn't suddenly become the near worthless, hard to get rid of, commodity that you are making it out to be. The city states are not nearly as water rich as you are claiming.
Additionally, simple logic makes it obvious that the price of "5gp per survival day" is the price a player buys it for in the city. Out in the deserts there are no stores. You can't stop by your local bush and pick up a survival day for coins. The point of listing a gp value of a survival day for players is so that they know how much they have to pay for survival days in the city before they embark on travels. Out in the wilderness the price of a survival day varies. In the desert, far away from any source of survival, it could skyrocket to a king's ransom (if you find the right buyer). In a water and food rich location, such as the forest ridge, it has little to no value. Which is irrelevant to using water to back your currency, as your currency is used as currency in the city, and will continue to be valued by anyone who ever visits the city (or knows lots of people who do), as that person will require the goods that the coin represents while in the city.
This extreme variability also questions further Cyber-Dave's assumption that 1 pint of water = 1gp, because the 5gp price of Survival Days is based on their value in the desert, not in cities. If the cost of Survival Days drops to "far less" than 5gps, and far less to nearly unsellable definitely implies that a Survival Day could easily be less than half cost, then what becomes of Cyber-Dave's cost breakdown in terms of water when a SD is worth 2-3gps, or even 4gps? No matter how you cut it up a pint of water cannot equal a gold piece in a city.
Except, as noted, it is bologna to say that survival days are worth "far less" than a 5gp value in the cities. Survival days are worth exactly 5gp in the cities. That is how much a player must pay to purchase a survival day in the cities.
Cyber-Dave's argument rest in part on that the Ceramic Piece or Token equals 1 gold piece as a definitive cost for water. However the above passage clearly states that the proximity of food and water dramatically reduces the cost of a Survival Day, which water is the key ingredient of. Since cities fit this description of being near food and water, and those tokens are only currency within cities, I've shown by using a Survival Day as a common reference point, and referring to the above passage, that it is not possible for water to be 1gp per pint in Cities.
No, you have not shown this. The text of the DSCS clearly shows that water does have great value in the city-states, despite your attempt to misread the text as saying otherwise. The text does not state that the city states are the water rich locations in which survival days, and water, have little value. Such water rich locations would be places like the forest ridge, the lake pit, or a scantly populated oasis in the desert (whose population, thus, does not tax the oasis's water resources). While one does not need survival days to mechanically avoid making sun sickness checks in the city states, a player purchases survival days for 5gp in the city states. Which fits with a "water token" being a "1gp ceramic coin," because a survival day can be broken down into 4gp worth of water, 5sp worth of food, and 5sp worth of odds and ends needed, each day, to survive in the desert.
It does indicate that the value of survival days can vary dramatically. It does not, despite your assertions, indicate that the value of survivals days varies dramatically, from 5gp, near the city states. That is you twisting the written word out of context again, and choosing to willfully misread the text.
It says "Where people are near sources of water and food, however, they can obtain supplies for far less than 5 gp per day’s worth." How does that not mean a dramatic difference? It states that the price of survival days are FAR LESS near sources of water. Any city-state in Athas is near a major source of water. At least enough to supply it's large population and have vast tracks of agricultural land beyond it's walls to feed that populace as well.
CP = Copper piece.
Ceramic pieces are issued in copper, silver, & gold denominations, in the same way that the US Mint issues $1, $5, & $10 paper bills.
And a survival day is worth 5gp.
What did I miss?
You've brought up a lot of points to defend the '1gp=1 pint water' argument, but your arguments, while supporting your position, do not exclude the idea that 1gp might =/= 1 pint water. It all comes down to what we the readers interpret from the passage in the book.
Now, to clarify, I respect and agree with the idea that the writers are competent, talented, professional individuals. I do not, however, think they are infallible. I also think that those of us who have participated in this discussion(including myself, as I have followed it, even when unable to satisfactorily state my position, but not including other lurkers, whose existence I have no proof of) have long since put more man-hours into thinking about these few sentences than the authors did when writing them. I do not think it impossible, or even unlikely that the sentences are ambiguous, or even misleading(accidentally).
I think no conclusion will be made to this argument. You will continue to hold your ground in the face of any opposition. This is why I was silent for a time. I do think, though, that others read this, and that our exchange of ideas will be of interest to them(yes, I'm self-important).
I leave it to you, dreamernaut, furiousgreg, and cyber-dave, to argue, and in doing so bring to light many ideas and passages that would otherwise not be brought up.
I might argue more if I get my ire up.
It could happen.
Certainly, Cyber-Dave!
It means what it says.
I asked you to keep something in mind. Specifically, I asked you to keep in mind that a sentence just prior to the sentence in question, within the paragraph in question, already states, "In most communities, water is as strong a currency as coin," and then goes on to specify that the communities it is talking about are city-states. Your entire answer amounted to the statement that water has some abstract value that is as valuable as coinage. But the first sentence of this paragraph already notes that. The point of additional sentences in the paragraph is to further specify details, to give additional information. What additional information does the sentence in question give beyond the fact that water has some abstract value that is equivalent to the other currencies in the game?
Now my turn:
can you please explain to me how it is thematic to Dark Sun to not have water be the primary expense within any given survival day?
Can you please explain to me how a pint of water == 1 GP is the only thing that would satisfy this as a criteria? Please have your answer take into account the fact that the same book you're relying on as an authority tells us that water has no fixed value, it depends on the relative scarcity of the area.
I am pretty sure the book actually does not say that about water specifically; it says that about survival days specifically. Thing is though, it is reasonable to infer that water varies in value based on location as well. So, let us pretend that the book does say it explicitly. But the book gives us enough information to infer that ceramic coinage varies in value based on location too. There is an exchange rate of 5% on ceramic coins, and the book explicitly notes that metal coinage is valued because, unlike ceramic coinage, it can not drastically change in value. If both water and ceramic coins, that represent water, can change in value based on location, everything still aligns logically. What is more, it is not that one pint of water is worth 1gp, but that one pint of water from a city drawn well is worth 1 gp in that city. And it does make sense that that value stays somewhat fixed (baring a change in the city state's water situation). If you have a real pint of water on you, then its value will vary depending on your location. But it makes a lot of sense that in city-state X the cost of drawing a pint of water from the well has a fixed price of 1gp. Thus, when city-state X mints a ceramic coin that can be used to draw a pint of water from that well, that ceramic coin has a fixed price of 1gp, at least in that city state. As you travel that ceramic piece's value will very based on how often your counterpart in the process of exchange travels to, or knows someone who travels to, city-state X, and thus could make use of a ceramic coin that has a fixed value of 1gp in city-state X.
Sometimes a sentence simply elaborates on or better explains an introductory sentence. The first sentence tells you this, the next sentence says in more detail how it works. Some people call that kind of redundancy bad writing, but I find it makes for easier reading. Bad writing would be to say all that when what you mean is "a pint of water drawn from the city's wells is worth 1 gp." or "...is worth a token that is worth 1 gp". That would be horrible writing. If they meant that they would say so in plain and simple English, and not leave it up for Cyber-Dave to infer by reading between the lines and asking why else would it be written this way if there's not a cryptic but meant to be inferred value hidden there?
what is more, it is not that one pint of water is worth 1gp, but that one pint of water from a city drawn well is worth 1 gp in that city. And it does make sense that that value stays somewhat fixed (baring a change in the city state's water situation). If you have a real pint of water on you, then its value will vary depending on your location. But it makes a lot of sense that in city-state X the cost of drawing a pint of water from the well has a fixed price of 1gp. Thus, when city-state X mints a ceramic coin that can be used to draw a pint of water from that well, that ceramic coin has a fixed price of 1gp, at least in that city state.
That doesn't make any sense, economically. By doing that the city-state has pegged their interchangeable ceramic water token... worth 1 pint of water... as being exactly 1 GP, which means that water is also pegged as being worth 1 GP. Economically. The value of other sources of water will be affected by this, because the tokens are fungible. In a place where the real value of water is higher than 1 GP, the city is bleeding money with its water ration... where the real value of water is lower than 1 GP, tokens will stop being accepted by merchants for their full value because their real worth...a pint of water... has lowered. If the value of gold is pegged to these things at a 1:1 rate, then we can no longer say that 1 GP is worth the same in every city.
A currency speculator would make a fortune off any city state stupid enough to do this. Let me break it down for you: in the City-state of Lessuckington, water is more plentiful and thus cheaper. But the ceramic tokens are still worth 1 GP, so people horde them and buy their water in other ways. Somebody comes into town and says, "I'll buy those from you!" for slightly more than the real price of water, and people unload them. When he's got a ton of them, he trades them in for gold coins. It might take a high volume to make any money, depending on what the margins are, but if the system works the way you're describing, it would be possible.
In the city-state of Morsuckington, water is worth more than 1 GP per pint, but the city for some reason is giving out ceramic pieces that it will exchange for 1 GP and saying "this is worth a pint of water." It's operating at a loss. By your thinking, the City-States with the least water are the most generous. Obviously every city-state has to make sure its citizens have the bare minimum water to keep functioning so it's not like they could be stingy, but to peg their currency this way would be counterproductive.
So what makes more sense? A pint of water is worth one ceramic ration token, which is worth an amount of GP that will vary from place to place, matching the local price of water. The exact exchange rate will never need to come up in most campaigns, because PCs won't normally be counting their water tokens and cashing them in for money. If they're that destitute and desperate, the answer is "Just enough to get the [inexpensive but important thing that the story demands they get]."
But like I said, we will have to agree to disagree. It sounds like neither of us are going to see eye to eye until a designer says, "this is how it is," and we are both forced to say, "ok then." I PMed WotC Rodney. We will see if he gets back to me with a response.
Your statement that it doesn't make any sense, economically, ignores the fact that there is a powerful tyrant there to control just how much water can be distributed. Even if the city-state has excess water, that doesn't mean that the population will be given access to that excess. The excess can be used to allow the top tiers of power to live a more lavish lifestyle, while the amount actually available for trade is artificially controlled in order to keep up the value of the ceramic piece. Of course, the game doesn't go into such details, because the game is not really about economy.
But like I said, we will have to agree to disagree. It sounds like neither of us are going to see eye to eye until a designer says, "this is how it is," and we are both forced to say, "ok then." I PMed WotC Rodney. We will see if he gets back to me with a response.
Well although I agree that the city elite will take what they feel accustomed to, the SK has motivations an interests including and beyond this. The city-state's SK has riches in part to ensure a population that can be used as a battery to fuel it's metamorphosis into a being of ungodly power. If the SK's artificially inflate the price of water to high, they violate there own interest by killing off the populace in a way that does not benefit them.
It should also be mentioned that the Sk's have to possess an advantage that the wastes does not, which is relative comfort and security for at least a large minority. Otherwise the average free citizen would end up leaving the city-states to live in the wastes as adverse to living under harsh oppression and corruption, and starving (The chaos in Raam being an example of this) to death. They have had thousands of years to perfect a balance of oppression and placation to ensure they maintain an ample supply of people to serve as fodder to obtain greater personal power and to use as bodyshields against their foes.
On Edit. Think Machiavelli's The Prince with the iron fist in a velvet glove. The big difference is that it's Dark Sun so the velvet glove is torn, frayed and covered in gore.
But pegging water at exactly 1 GP per pint no matter what doesn't increase the SK's personal wealth. It just devalues gold, because everybody in the city-state has a 4 GP a day water habit.
That is a lie. At least one person in this thread has already said they agree with me.
When I reviewed the thread before making the statement there was no one else. snakefeather1 hadn't posted until several hours after my post so I could not have know his views. If I've missed anyone else please let me know.
And in the one other thread where this got brought up by me, I noted that the entire community does not agree with my interpretation. & ... I did note that the community was not in agreement about my interpretation.
Mia Culpa. You did in fact mention that, though it was only after you had made the initial assertion and when someone questioned your source. But fair enough. Oh, by the way you brought it up in at least two threads, Dark_Sun_economy_out_of_whack?, where you did mention the disagreement as I said above, and in Water Currency, where I can find no mention of the disagreement with your interpretation. To be fair no one asked you to cite your source and this thread was just getting started at the time.
We, in the context of this thread, includes me. We, in the context of this thread, includes snakefeather1. We, thus, do not accept. We do not agree. Do not claim that we do. To claim that we do is intellectually dishonest. To claim that an argument is true due to popular opinion is, likewise, a fallacy (and is thus intellectually dishonest).
When I began my previous post I was adding my opinion to AlexandraErin's statement "Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm with everybody else here: you're adding the word "equivalent" where it doesn't exist..."
Now it was my intention that we was in the same context as everybody else, in that I was referring to those of us on one side of the argument. I apologize if that was not clearer, I thought that quoting her post and beginning mine with "I concur..." would clearly show the connection, though in hindsight I'm not surprised you missed that. In any case we was to show that there was a consensus amongst the majority of the other posters on this thread that the interpretation of the sentence in question was as she and others have stated. You can can take comfort in that no slight or misrepresentation was intended.
And as I said, I don't care if you are convinced or not.
This is more troubling, because if you do not care whether I, or by extension others on this thread, are convinced, then what is the point? Why are you bothering at all? Are you as Dreamernaut asked earlier, trolling? I don't don't think so, I think you do care, but thats just my opinion. The rest of us do seem to find this topic at least interesting and seem to be open to counter arguments including yours. When I said I am open to being convinced, it was sincere, and I still am, but I was pointing out that your current argument was not yet convincing either to me or to, at the time, anyone else.
Moreover, until you create a more convincing and persuasive argument, I would ask that you do not state things as accepted facts. I would also ask that you don't engage in arguments from popularity, or make hypocritical requests.
I agree that arguments from popularity are weak, but how do we distinguish such arguments from say peer review? An argument from popularity is where an individual claims that a proposition is true because it is or has been widely believed. I don't think thats what I claimed, I was trying to say was that the majority of people involved in the discussion felt that the weight of the arguments presented points to a different conclusion than yours. Basically that the majority feels that their argument is well enough proved. However that does not mean that new information can't change that opinion, or even that they are entirely correct, only that this is the majority conclusion right now.
As for new arguments, I believe everything is on the table right now. At least I can't think of anything else, but we'll see maybe something will come up.
Might I suggest to any and all persons who read this post/thread and/or who engage in this manner of online discussion that perhaps your energies would be better spent were you to focus upon something just a tad more substantive? Say, Politics? Current events? History? Cultural critique? Philosophy? Science? -Any of these would probably be a better expenditure of your time as well as a more appropriate use of bandwidth.
...It's ok to not agree as having the last word is generally overrated, particularly on these forums. If you're on here, try to have fun, it is a GAME after all.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Might I suggest to any and all persons who read this post/thread and/or who engage in this manner of online discussion that perhaps your energies would be better spent were you to focus upon something just a tad more substantive? Say, Politics? Current events? History? Cultural critique? Philosophy? Science? -Any of these would probably be a better expenditure of your time as well as a more appropriate use of bandwidth.
...It's ok to not agree as having the last word is generally overrated, particularly on these forums. If you're on here, try to have fun, it is a GAME after all.
Tsk, Tsk.
How dare you imply that RPG's ain't serious business.
IMO it's not worth analyzing them in any great detail. They're an abstract "everything you need for a day" item. 5gp is not going to break the bank of even 1st level players. Especially if you're giving out SDs as treasure.