Profession / Merchant / CM

[Shen [he/him]]

Professions in draft 4 only Grant 1 silver, or 1 CM of choice, max 10 / LP

Merchant(2) in draft 4, gives 3 CM, with the option to gain up to 5 more at a cost of 2 Silver each.

CM have a treasure Policy of 20 (2 silver)

Toolkits, in their emulation of Workshops have a 5g, and 25cm (also valued at 2s each instead if 1s) making their cost 10g (same as workshops)

However this create disparity because CM now have 3 different locations and 2 different values.

I as a Profession having character value CM at 1s, but TP values it at 2s. Merchant can make a degree if sense as it is "retail cost at market". Toolkits have the TP of 10g, despite that most consider them to be 7.5g. Because until now CM has been consistently 1s, as it was a replacement to the 1s per crafting level needed.

In crafting, this creates disparity because I can spend 1CM (TP 2s) and make 1 cure 5 potion, which is TP: 1s (I think). So either, it is more TP efficient to not drop CM, and drop raw production instead. Or, craftspeople are overpaying for their crafts because 1 Herb is 2s, but still only makes 1 Cure 5, which is a 1s value 2 silver (common) retail. But if 2silver is the expected "retail" of 1CM, this then raises all productions "retail" price because we spending double what's required to make them. 9CM for cure 45, 1s each is 9s for the potion (the cost, and frequently 18s retail) if it takes 9CM to make them (a 18s cost) brewers need to "charge" 2+ gold to make a profit to stay in the potion business. And who is going to pay 2+g for a single cure 45?


I don't know how or why CM got updated to 2silver in some places but 1 silver in other places. But 2Silver per CM is double what it used to be and will drive out any desire to do l/use production or be artisan or artisan adjacent characters. As it is literally "costing more" to make than what you sell and that math never balance out because our characters down deal in the bulk of hundreds or thousands of crafted material.


Ideal & simplest Concepts...
> Merchant and TP of CM should reduce to 1 silver as it was in previous versions.


If kept at 2s, then Profession should be updated to give 2 CM per level or 1 silver per level (10silver... or 20cm) or to give 2silver or 1 CM (20sillver or 10cm)

If kept at 2silver, then when expending CM to craft adventuring gear, you should gain 2s worth of production.
Cure 5s used to (still does,)cost 5copper, increasing that cost to 2silver(for thr crafter or for TP) for the same cure 5 i can't imagine is the intention that everyone is excited for. But the notion that with 1 Herb I can make 4 cure 5 as they have equivalent TP value.... this places a lot more incentive for crafters to have and use CM because they aren't "loosing value" because the materials cost more than the stuff they make with them.


All in all, there seems to be some disparity between the value of Profession Level, value of silver, value of CM, and value of production. Then how all that relates to TP.

 

[tieran]

CM have a treasure Policy of 20 (2 silver)

This is incorrect.

TP is not a player facing document, so I cannot provide you with the accurate value, but this error does impact the rest of your math in a substantial fashion.

 

[Shen [he/him]]

This is incorrect.

TP is not a player facing document, so I cannot provide you with the accurate value, but this error does impact the rest of your math in a substantial fashion.

Valid so I will attempt to explain the situation to see how you can provide insight into that situation which created this discussion.

Workshops cost 10g, but no longer exist. The running concept is that Toolkits will replace Workshops.

The basic single craft toolkit costs 5g and 25CM.

This past Chicago, we had several single craft toolkits drop from Mods. As a production, PCs/Players know it has value and it has value as treasure and "split". So, we either need to sell it for coin and use coin as split, or know its value to use that value as the split. (Which was largely not possible as no 5-10player mod was dropping 5+ gold per person treasure)

So, toolkits cost to make 5g and 25 CM.
Profession, dictates the cost of CM at 1 Silver. So a toolkit costs 7.5g to create.

Merchant 2, dictates the cost of CM at 2 silver. So a toolkit costs 10g to create. (Which seems the most likely as workshops cost 10g).

Both of these statements can't be correct... ultimately it's value and worth is what someone is willing to pay for it. So if a mod drops a Toolkit and other things... that toolkit is "part if the treasure" and in a world of fairness we want to divide that treasure as equally as we can among the participants.

A mod of 4 people I was in dropped an inscriptionist toolkit. No one else could use it, and it held no value to them. But it was also not fair to them that I pay 1g to make it mine. So like most production, I should pay its cost the same way we do other production and superior equipment.
(Which while my personal example cause it happened to me - this same occurrence happened several times throughout the 3day)

So the math in which dictates one skill is correct and the other should have x adjustment or vice versa.

The TP information is just "the correct math"... but isnt required for the discssion. it does not change that one of these skills needs to be updated to reflect the same information as the other skill. As they place two different values to CM and CM is the only measuring stick for the cost of superior equipment.

 

[tieran]

it does not change that one of these skills needs to be updated to reflect the same information as the other skill. As they place two different values to CM and CM is the only measuring stick for the cost of superior equipment.

I completely disagree that they need to match up. They are two different mechanisms, with two different costs, to obtain something.

If you wanted to eat food, you could start a garden and grow your own ingredients to make a meal, go to a grocery store and buy them, or order something at or from a restaurant. They all have different costs associated with them, but they all get you fed.

If you want CM, you can hope to find them as treasure, buy profession, buy merchant, or buy a crafting skill and recycle already made items. All of these things get you CM at the end, but all have different real costs and opportunity costs associated with them.

As to paying 1 gold for a toolkit to buy it out of a module treasure share, if the opinion of the people involved is that the exchange is fair, then it is, but that’s entirely an in game issue that should be resolved in game.

 

[Shen [he/him]]

Sadly I don't think a discussion of fairness among -players- should be resolved by -characters- it promotes toxicity both deliberate & accidental.

When discussing that fairness, it was achieved in 1.3 & 2.0 - production had a simple black & white *minimum* cost. Cure 5 was 5 copper to create and thus its "cost" was 5 copper, and societal standard more often than not that retail was often double the cost to create a thing. Then economics come into play.

We have removed that system and replaced it with ambiguity & dynamic applications. I love the dynamics - there is no "one way" or "one correct way" to venture a life through the crafting system. Characters can manipulate the economy due to surplus, supply, demand. These are in game dynamics achieved through role play and not part of my question/concern.

Role play can not make a base minimum agreed upon by all. Because we reach that mutual agreement by clear and consistent rules. and thus each chapter approaches as much as possible from the same rules and similar expectation.

Recycling is irrelevant, I didn't list it for a reason. It generates CM & production has a consistent minimum cost across all productions. Design worked really hard to make all that math fair out of game so no professions was unbalanced in CM, skill level, or IG base minimum financial impact.

Recycling a cure 5, gives 1 CM
Creating a cure 5, costs 1 CM

This is equal and not the question or concern.

Profession gives 1 silver or 1 CM per level to a max of 10 per LP. Profession "my profession" is an XP spent skill in which your character is so good at something, someone is willing to pay you for your ability in that skill.Thus, Profession dictates that 1CM:1Silver.

Merchant 2 gives up to 5 CM at the cost of 2 silver each. How much you are willing to pay at market for the thing you need. Thus, Merchant dictates that 1CM:2Silver.

So, my profession sold at market is only worth 1:1 but when buying the exact same thing, it's worth 1:2.

Now, every superior equipment quill costs the exact same amount to create, as measure by CM. if you wish to assign a coin cost, because say your an Artisan and a ritual caster needs them, and you need to make sure you charge at least the minimum amount to cover your costs of Creation. And then once you know that minimum cost; IG RP & Economics decide future decisions. Awesome. /highfive.

The issue is that this artisan can not assign a mutually agreed upon, known fortanis wide, value to 1 CM because the rule book provides two different values for 1CM. I can provide a CM value to a Spell Shield. A Spellshield is 5CM.

As a merchant, the rule book provides definition (a).

As a Professional, the rule book proficed definition (b).

I had the book quoted to me by a player to tell me that I was wrong and that 'x' is the value of CM, and since the other rule was more expensive, it wasn't accurate, reasonable or fair. So they "choose" to follow the rule as written in 'x' section.

Not a discussion IC. Not hyperbole... A discussion OOC that the book says x and the book is correct.

Now if your answer is as good as I'm going to get from the Head of ARC, then it is what it is. I will just have to accept that ARC is creating/supporting/endorsing rules that deliberatly create OOG ambiguity and rules which contradict one another, promoting an inconsistent minimum expectation from one chapter/player to another...allowing players and chapters to pick and choose which part of the book is "correct" for the situation within their chapter. A thing I was led to believe 2.1 was attempting to specifically avoid and prevent. But if "address it in game, the books design is intentional" Is the best I'm going to get. Then that's cool too, we will see how things shake down once we've been live and final for a few months or a year and see how players and owners feel then.

 

[tieran]

I’m sorry you feel that there is an inconsistency in the different ways that PCs can obtain CM, but they are different ways, not to mention that you’re not factoring in the entirety of merchant in your value assigning math.

If you also feel that this very intentional difference between the two skills indicates the entire rulebook is ambiguous and creating a toxic environment, that is certainly an opinion you can hold, but you also don’t have the full picture, and have been advised what you’re missing and why you can’t have it.

I appreciate that it can be frustrating not knowing everything involved, but if any player takes that as an opportunity to spew toxicity that’s something that should be handled out of game. The in game negotiations over the costs and values of good ls and services is absolutely something that should be resolved in game, and doesn’t need to be propped up by out of game rules.

 

[Shen [he/him]]

I have not expressed problems that there is a difference in how characters obtain CM. I love that there is a variety of ways that players can get involved and have said as much.

1CM holds equal value to 1CM. Design did a great job here...
Superior equipment requires CM that has a value appropriate to what it is, and has an equal corresponding value to another productions' Superior Equipment which costs the same amount of CM. No matter how much i may dislike the bulk of superior equipment, thats my brain weesle and despite my dislikes - the value of CM:CM appears equal. So I'm not discussing the value of CM weighted against CM. The value of Ore, versus the value of Herbs is an In Game economics issue.

The entirety of merchant is not up for discussion because it is not relevant. I understand that 1 can get a free 8CM or less item per LP. I understand get 3 CM free. I understand that I can choose to purchase something in a small bulk at a flat discounted rate. These things are economical features of the skill which explain how it works and why. Merchant 2 however specifically allows you "to buy with coin" CM... not production, but CM.

Profession earns a character 1 silver or 1 CM. Profession assigns 1 CM is equal value to 1 silver. It is a skill which *also* specifically assigns the interaction of coin & CM. they're equally exchangeable so long as it is no more than 10 per LP

Merchant sells 1 CM at the cost of 2 Silver. Merchant assigns 1 CM a Value of 2 Silver.

This is two places in the book which directly allow a player to obtain CM, and they do so at an unequal value.

Resulting that if a character wishes to sell or purchase 1 CM from another character - the book has assigned CM two different values in two different locations. There is now no accurate mutually known and agreed upon "minimum" value. Econmics has no "minimum starting point". I can't say "well the fortanis standard is 'x' but in this Shard 'x' is quite rare so I charge more for it, lets reach an understanding (or the reverse). Where previously cure 5 had the same base creation cost in the North East, as it did in Seattle. Players meeting for the first time know that the basic shared rule is this costs 5copper to create and it costs 5copper to create no matter where your from. What you charge is a different matter, but this is its minimum value.

IG econimics is a big fantastic fun IG role play and all of our personal wars with "generate random" and the horror stories there in. The horror of generate random and its impact on economics was something I legit talked about with like 4 different people that past event. (Wisconsin generate random currently dislikes Penna, however is huge fan of adding Pena as random to scrolls... )


I have said nothing about "the entire rule book" that is either an error or an inaccurate assumption and I appologise if word choice cause that assumption. The entire rule book is not littered with contradictions. Creative players have found a few here and there and they have been resolved as "nope thats not what we meant, lets fix that". I'm not following the disconnect of how/why this is also not one of those situations.

While I can appreciate an unknown secret handshake that TP is not a player facing document. You have discounted it, given a reason, I accepted and said it wasnt required. That is not to say that TP doesn't provide a definitive and exact "correct" answer. A chapter must have the TP value of a CM because CM freely travels and is thus part of TP. I can accept that in public forums before Queen and country not explaining the salient details, but we all know it exists and provides an answer.

At the end of the day the TP of 1 CM matches one skill, or it matches the other, or it matches neither of them. No matter what that answer is, the "player facing document" is the core rule book. And the rule book provides two different values for the same object. The TP cost of that object is meaningles, unless used to "yes the book has a contradiction - the TP is this so this is how the book should read" which is why I turned to it for the answer.

There is a contradiction between profession and merchant 2. They both have assigned a coin value to players and that value is different, and it shouldn't be. Regardless of what the TP system is, the TP is irrelevant. The two skills should assign the same coin value to CM.

This is how we make treasure loot splits fair. 2 spell shields equal 1 gold in materials (assuming 1silver per CM) or 1 spell shield equals 1 gold in materials (assuming 2silver per CM).

A bag of tools is 3CM. And if I ask you to make one for me, you are a seller and I am a buyer and you set the price and judge if your price is fair and worth it.

A treasure split is 1g per person, and for your split you get a bag of parts. Knowing that everyone else got more coin than you did, because with 1 gold you could make a bag of spar parts and have coin left over. Is that a discussion to resolve In game, Yes. Do we base in game decisions based on rules because the rules were exhaustively designed and tested for 2 years to attempt to be fair out of game as possible.... yes.

This past weekend, we had numerous superior equipment of which holds no inherent communal minimum expectation. They hold personal value and what one is willing to pay... no minimum expectation. So in an effort to be fair, one consults the rule book and it gave us two different answers.

ARC supporting that the book is "supposed" to give two different answers and that such is a feature not a bug - is a concern because it deliberately creates rules which contradict one another. Something we have tested and copy edited and have a whole documents team to make as reasonably sure possible, doesn't happen.

 

[tieran]

The two skills should assign the same coin value to CM.

We have a fundamental disagreement here.

ARC supporting that the book is "supposed" to give two different answers and that such is a feature not a bug - is a concern because it deliberately creates rules which contradict one another. Something we have tested and copy edited and have a whole documents team to make as reasonably sure possible, doesn't happen.

The difference in cost between a material you “earn” vs one you purchase, is intentional.

 

[tarsus]

Sadly I don't think a discussion of fairness among -players- should be resolved by -characters- it promotes toxicity both deliberate & accidental.

When discussing that fairness, it was achieved in 1.3 & 2.0 - production had a simple black & white *minimum* cost. Cure 5 was 5 copper to create and thus its "cost" was 5 copper, and societal standard more often than not that retail was often double the cost to create a thing. Then economics come into play.

We have removed that system and replaced it with ambiguity & dynamic applications. I love the dynamics - there is no "one way" or "one correct way" to venture a life through the crafting system. Characters can manipulate the economy due to surplus, supply, demand. These are in game dynamics achieved through role play and not part of my question/concern.

Role play can not make a base minimum agreed upon by all. Because we reach that mutual agreement by clear and consistent rules. and thus each chapter approaches as much as possible from the same rules and similar expectation.

Recycling is irrelevant, I didn't list it for a reason. It generates CM & production has a consistent minimum cost across all productions. Design worked really hard to make all that math fair out of game so no professions was unbalanced in CM, skill level, or IG base minimum financial impact.

Recycling a cure 5, gives 1 CM
Creating a cure 5, costs 1 CM

This is equal and not the question or concern.

Profession gives 1 silver or 1 CM per level to a max of 10 per LP. Profession "my profession" is an XP spent skill in which your character is so good at something, someone is willing to pay you for your ability in that skill.Thus, Profession dictates that 1CM:1Silver.

Merchant 2 gives up to 5 CM at the cost of 2 silver each. How much you are willing to pay at market for the thing you need. Thus, Merchant dictates that 1CM:2Silver.

So, my profession sold at market is only worth 1:1 but when buying the exact same thing, it's worth 1:2.

Now, every superior equipment quill costs the exact same amount to create, as measure by CM. if you wish to assign a coin cost, because say your an Artisan and a ritual caster needs them, and you need to make sure you charge at least the minimum amount to cover your costs of Creation. And then once you know that minimum cost; IG RP & Economics decide future decisions. Awesome. /highfive.

The issue is that this artisan can not assign a mutually agreed upon, known fortanis wide, value to 1 CM because the rule book provides two different values for 1CM. I can provide a CM value to a Spell Shield. A Spellshield is 5CM.

As a merchant, the rule book provides definition (a).

As a Professional, the rule book proficed definition (b).

I had the book quoted to me by a player to tell me that I was wrong and that 'x' is the value of CM, and since the other rule was more expensive, it wasn't accurate, reasonable or fair. So they "choose" to follow the rule as written in 'x' section.

Not a discussion IC. Not hyperbole... A discussion OOC that the book says x and the book is correct.

Now if your answer is as good as I'm going to get from the Head of ARC, then it is what it is. I will just have to accept that ARC is creating/supporting/endorsing rules that deliberatly create OOG ambiguity and rules which contradict one another, promoting an inconsistent minimum expectation from one chapter/player to another...allowing players and chapters to pick and choose which part of the book is "correct" for the situation within their chapter. A thing I was led to believe 2.1 was attempting to specifically avoid and prevent. But if "address it in game, the books design is intentional" Is the best I'm going to get. Then that's cool too, we will see how things shake down once we've been live and final for a few months or a year and see how players and owners feel then.

Take this for what it is, just my personal experience, but I've had no problems with valuing CM at 1S despite Merchant 2. Honestly, we've valued it locally for less than 1S in most loot splits. I played with merchant, profession, and at least 1 type of craft in all but one of my builds for 7 or 8 games since we've begun testing 2.1. I see Merchant 2 as paying a premium for specific materials that you may need immediately. (Remember, Merchant 3 makes you pay 3 silver per CM.) It's like an emergency purchase and the retailer you're buying from is gouging you because they know you need it. Profession can get it at normal value as they are directly working for it. Also, as you said, with Merchant 2 we get 3 for free so if you only buy 3 more, in reality, you're getting 1:1 value, it's only if you buy 2 more CM that it goes over 1s. Merchant seems to be the exception for both levels 2 and 3, not the rule.
.
I don't see any chapter to chapter discrepancies possible, because no player can go to logistics and sell CM directly for coin and the conversion rate of adventuring equipment to CM/Silver is standardized. Player to player discrepancies are possible, but that's something that will always happen in game.
.
On a side note, if we look at crafting, again we are getting stuff for "free." Pricing in general doesn't have to be a strict 1S:1CM because of that free 20 for the first batch. I have over a hundred globes and haven't had to pay a single copper like I would have had to before 2.1. I only pay extra CM when I do something like three batches in a logistics period or go over the 20. Is each slow globe really worth 1 silver to me? If I only do one batch per logistics, then no. I might value it at half a silver as I've literally paid nothing except 2 points of my tinkering build for 20 of them, leaving me 18 points for random tinkering abilities. If I do multiple batches, then yes because I'm having to put in resources now.
.
I understand it is a little different if you have a crafting build with 40+ in a single craft, but, good or bad, the new system encourages more players picking up smaller amounts of crafting. For example, it's more economical for a community to have 2 people with 20 tinkering than 1 person with 40 for the sole reason of doubling up on the initial batch. One person with 40 could get 20 slows free, but 2 people with 20 can get 40 slows free total. In general, a person that wants to go full crafting is better off branching into each trade so they can get 20 free in each craft for their first batch, a potential of 100 free CM/log. Now that may not be the flavor people want to play which is fine, but that would be the most efficient. In that case, with 100 free CM, are slows or cure 5s really worth 1S to them? Probably not especially since they are getting a bunch of abilties for leveling up their crafts.
.
Instead of oog book conversions, pricing is more than likely going to be dependent on how often CM drops at a specific chapter. CM is worth nothing if there is no one to craft something with them since you cannot sell them to logistics with Merchant. CM is worth little if there is abundantly more CM than players can buy batches for. It will be interesting to see how traveling merchants take advantage of this by buying CM cheaply in a chapter where crafting is less popular and selling it for a higher price at chapters with a lot of crafting. That is a good player discrepancy to have as it literally encourages trade routes between shards. I would be impressed if behind the scenes each chapter's TP included different ratios for CM types so that one chapter may get more ink while another gets more ore, but I doubt it lol. It would be a good way for chapters to coordinate with each other to encourage traveling though.

 

[Heinricht]

During the play test when merchant 2 was 3 free buy up to 7 at 1 silver each; I would buy them every time. Now with the change I will not buy CM at all. 1 CM for 2 silver is a no go. I'm interested to see what the data over the next year, now that things have settled, will be. If very few people buy CM at 2 silver each then maybe you will have your answer. . .