Expanded monetary system

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome (and could
attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The quickest solution is
to convert some of it to platinum, but that quickly cheapens what you would
think was a rare metal. Even adamantine and mithral don't translate well into
higher "denominations" -- 50 pieces of each to the pound translates to something
like 2 or 5 gold each, if I remember correctly.

"Gem pieces" might work better, but since gems vary so much in quality, one best
use close to the minimum value given for the specific gem (so that the resulting
gem pieces can be more common for that type) and consider these "gem pieces" to
be made somewhat like a bi-metallic coin with the gem set into a metal or
ceramic 'coin'.

Some examples:

1 obsidian piece: equivalent to 5 gp

1 carnelian piece: equivalent to 20 gp

1 amethyst piece: equivalent to 50 gp

1 (yellow) topaz piece: equivalent to 200 gp

1 emerald piece: equivalent to 500 gp

1 blue diamond piece: equivalent to 2,000 gp

Other 'denominations' can be imagined of course; the prices are all drawn from
the DMG (p 55).

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
60 answers Last reply
More about expanded monetary system
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:698k41tvl0daj0pu27fh3va3t0n7pq2pqc@4ax.com...
    > Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome (and
    could

    Err... I always thought it was standard practice for the characters to have
    a treasure dumping ground for DM's to plunder when the story slows down...
    *shrug* I mean, what good does giving them all sorts of gold do when you
    just turn around and make it *ppffftt* EASY for them to deal with???

    I solve the problem in the exact opposite way. All treasure is given out in
    copper pieces. ;)

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matthias wrote:
    > Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome
    (and could
    > attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The quickest
    solution is
    > to convert some of it to platinum, but that quickly cheapens what you
    would
    > think was a rare metal. Even adamantine and mithral don't translate
    well into
    > higher "denominations" -- 50 pieces of each to the pound translates
    to something
    > like 2 or 5 gold each, if I remember correctly.

    What about introducing paper money, or some kind of bearer note. As
    long as they still have the gold to back them paper with the promise of
    gold should be as good as gold. If you trust the issuer that is.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    I bet you guys wait until 10th level before they get their first magic
    item too, that is, if you give magic items that aren't cursed in some
    way.

    Oh, I'm sorry, the players' characters don't even get to reach 6th
    level, never mind 10th. My mistake.

    Gerald Katz
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matthias wrote:
    > Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome
    (and could
    > attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The quickest
    solution is
    [snip high-value coin types]

    We are talking about large amounts of cash, which in any reasonable
    medieval economy should be an unusual occurrence (salaries on payday,
    unspent collected taxes, large payments to people who don't want goods
    or services instead).
    Wealthy people tend to
    a) invest in all kinds of ventures
    b) buy land, which directly increases power and cannot be stolen
    c) buy "useful" things including food, art and entertainment; money is
    not useful.
    On the other hand, money and valuables on people tends to be
    a) stolen
    b) robbed (including taxes and tributes)
    c) left behind or jettisoned in an emergency
    so careful characters don't want to carry everything they have with
    them; concentrating wealth with the suggested coins just increases
    risk.

    Only some dragons and other abnormal characters (e.g. Scrooge McDuck)
    are likely to want a hoard of coins; they have nothing to buy and no
    reason to move their treasure. Tolkien's Hobbit describes a sensible
    way to deal with this situation: the dwarves move to the Lonely
    Mountain (so they don't need to transport the bulk of Smaug's treasure,
    only to make an inventory), many people carry away their small share,
    and individual characters care about special treasures like the mithril
    coat or the Arkenstone, not coins.

    While high-value coins could have their uses and the suggested types
    are quite good, I think most treasures should contain relatively little
    money: it is more realistic and other problems (including, as pointed
    out by others, counting coins) are reduced.

    Lorenzo Gatti
    gatti@dsdata.it
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matthias wrote:
    > Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome
    (and could
    > attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The quickest
    solution is
    > to convert some of it to platinum, but that quickly cheapens what you
    would
    > think was a rare metal. Even adamantine and mithral don't translate
    well into
    > higher "denominations" -- 50 pieces of each to the pound translates
    to something
    > like 2 or 5 gold each, if I remember correctly.
    >

    Solve it by giving them a portable hole.

    > "Gem pieces" might work better, but since gems vary so much in
    quality, one best
    > use close to the minimum value given for the specific gem (so that
    the resulting
    > gem pieces can be more common for that type) and consider these "gem
    pieces" to
    > be made somewhat like a bi-metallic coin with the gem set into a
    metal or
    > ceramic 'coin'.
    >
    > Some examples:
    >
    > 1 obsidian piece: equivalent to 5 gp
    >
    > 1 carnelian piece: equivalent to 20 gp
    >
    > 1 amethyst piece: equivalent to 50 gp
    >
    > 1 (yellow) topaz piece: equivalent to 200 gp
    >
    > 1 emerald piece: equivalent to 500 gp
    >
    > 1 blue diamond piece: equivalent to 2,000 gp
    >
    > Other 'denominations' can be imagined of course; the prices are all
    drawn from
    > the DMG (p 55).
    >
    > --
    >
    > Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)
    >
    > "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect
    philosophers to
    > do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers
    usually *know*
    > when they're out of their depth."
    > -Jeff Heikkinen
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Goslin wrote:
    > "Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:698k41tvl0daj0pu27fh3va3t0n7pq2pqc@4ax.com...
    > > Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get
    cumbersome (and
    > could
    >
    > Err... I always thought it was standard practice for the characters
    to have
    > a treasure dumping ground for DM's to plunder when the story slows
    down...
    > *shrug* I mean, what good does giving them all sorts of gold do
    when you
    > just turn around and make it *ppffftt* EASY for them to deal with???
    >

    Or making it portable. Thing is, it might be interesting to see how
    the PCs would transport a dragon's hoard of tens of thousands of coins,
    hundreds of gems, and many works of art. At the least, the power
    vacuum would draw some very interesting types of NPCs wanting a piece
    of the action.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, pesterfield@river-valley.net hastily
    scrawled:
    >
    >Matthias wrote:
    >> Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome
    >(and could
    >> attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The quickest
    >solution is
    >> to convert some of it to platinum, but that quickly cheapens what you
    >would
    >> think was a rare metal. Even adamantine and mithral don't translate
    >well into
    >> higher "denominations" -- 50 pieces of each to the pound translates
    >to something
    >> like 2 or 5 gold each, if I remember correctly.
    >
    >What about introducing paper money, or some kind of bearer note. As
    >long as they still have the gold to back them paper with the promise of
    >gold should be as good as gold. If you trust the issuer that is.

    Why should you have to trust the issuer in a world filled with magic?
    I've been giving some thought to doing this IMC through scrolls.

    What level do you think a Create Gold Pieces spell should be? What if
    there were a material component requirement equal to the amount of
    gold pieces in value? It might seem redundant at first, "You mean I
    need to destroy 100 gold pieces just so I can make 100 gold pieces?",
    but this would be a great spell for money changers. Of course,
    there'd be the Create Copper/Silver/Platinum Pieces variations as
    well.

    I think it'd make a nice 0-level spell. This'd make the cost a solid
    25gp (plus the value of the "money"). Just fine for significant
    quantities of coin.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Symbol wrote:
    > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1112176823.465014.46660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > >
    > > Matthias wrote:
    > > > Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get
    cumbersome
    > > (and could
    > > > attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The
    quickest
    > > solution is
    > > > to convert some of it to platinum, but that quickly cheapens what
    you
    > > would
    > > > think was a rare metal. Even adamantine and mithral don't
    translate
    > > well into
    > > > higher "denominations" -- 50 pieces of each to the pound
    translates
    > > to something
    > > > like 2 or 5 gold each, if I remember correctly.
    > > >
    > >
    > > Solve it by giving them a portable hole.
    >
    > [snip multiple trailing lines and OP's sig]
    >
    > Dumbass.

    You're obsessed with me. It's so *damn obvious.* Now wipe my semen
    off your chin.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matthias wrote:
    > On 30 Mar 2005 02:00:23 -0800, "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com>
    wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >Matthias wrote:
    > >> Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get
    cumbersome
    > >(and could
    > >> attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The quickest
    > >solution is
    > >> to convert some of it to platinum, but that quickly cheapens what
    you
    > >would
    > >> think was a rare metal. Even adamantine and mithral don't
    translate
    > >well into
    > >> higher "denominations" -- 50 pieces of each to the pound
    translates
    > >to something
    > >> like 2 or 5 gold each, if I remember correctly.
    > >>
    > >
    > >Solve it by giving them a portable hole.
    >
    > Or rust monster groupies. :)
    >

    Heh. Now those beasties will piss players off. I had one accuse me of
    "cheating" because I used it and it ruined his brand new bastard sword.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:698k41tvl0daj0pu27fh3va3t0n7pq2pqc@4ax.com...
    > Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome
    (and could
    > attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The quickest
    solution is
    > to convert some of it to platinum, but that quickly cheapens what you
    would
    > think was a rare metal. Even adamantine and mithral don't translate well
    into
    > higher "denominations" -- 50 pieces of each to the pound translates to
    something
    > like 2 or 5 gold each, if I remember correctly.
    >
    > "Gem pieces" might work better, but since gems vary so much in quality,
    one best
    > use close to the minimum value given for the specific gem (so that the
    resulting
    > gem pieces can be more common for that type) and consider these "gem
    pieces" to
    > be made somewhat like a bi-metallic coin with the gem set into a metal
    or
    > ceramic 'coin'.
    >
    > Some examples:
    >
    > 1 obsidian piece: equivalent to 5 gp
    >
    > 1 carnelian piece: equivalent to 20 gp
    >
    > 1 amethyst piece: equivalent to 50 gp
    >
    > 1 (yellow) topaz piece: equivalent to 200 gp
    >
    > 1 emerald piece: equivalent to 500 gp
    >
    > 1 blue diamond piece: equivalent to 2,000 gp
    >
    > Other 'denominations' can be imagined of course; the prices are all
    drawn from
    > the DMG (p 55).

    How many people in the game world are supposed to be walking round with
    more than a few gold pieces in their pocket? Is there, therefore, a
    reasonable demand for higher currency forms?

    More often than not I suspect the answer to these questions would be no.
    If the setting is different then either the relative value of gold should
    be different or more practical solutions to high finance (like banking,
    real estate or business investment and paper replacements) would be
    developed. Alternatively a magical approach along the lines of Ed's
    suggestion could work for large scale transfers of funds. I suggest you
    look into the Roman aristocracies methods of holding and dealing with vast
    wealth.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 30 Mar 2005 02:00:23 -0800, "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >Matthias wrote:
    >> Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome
    >(and could
    >> attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The quickest
    >solution is
    >> to convert some of it to platinum, but that quickly cheapens what you
    >would
    >> think was a rare metal. Even adamantine and mithral don't translate
    >well into
    >> higher "denominations" -- 50 pieces of each to the pound translates
    >to something
    >> like 2 or 5 gold each, if I remember correctly.
    >>
    >
    >Solve it by giving them a portable hole.

    Or rust monster groupies. :)

    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1112176823.465014.46660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Matthias wrote:
    > > Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome
    > (and could
    > > attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The quickest
    > solution is
    > > to convert some of it to platinum, but that quickly cheapens what you
    > would
    > > think was a rare metal. Even adamantine and mithral don't translate
    > well into
    > > higher "denominations" -- 50 pieces of each to the pound translates
    > to something
    > > like 2 or 5 gold each, if I remember correctly.
    > >
    >
    > Solve it by giving them a portable hole.

    [snip multiple trailing lines and OP's sig]

    Dumbass.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    I believe that money, especially in the Medieval Ages was effective when
    gold, because it had the same standard value everywhere. This reduced the
    problem of noting the value of other materials. The conversion (from gold,
    to obsidian, let's say) factor changed in places, in other words. If there
    was no conversion factor, this problem was eliminated. As well as this, gold
    had value not by the number of coins, but as a mass. Perhaps a small point,
    yet it makes the campaign a bit more detailed, therefore real. Of course,
    banks were introduced later on, so eventually, the need for gold and silver
    was eliminated.
    T.H.


    "Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:698k41tvl0daj0pu27fh3va3t0n7pq2pqc@4ax.com...
    > Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome (and
    > could
    > attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The quickest
    > solution is
    > to convert some of it to platinum, but that quickly cheapens what you
    > would
    > think was a rare metal. Even adamantine and mithral don't translate well
    > into
    > higher "denominations" -- 50 pieces of each to the pound translates to
    > something
    > like 2 or 5 gold each, if I remember correctly.
    >
    > "Gem pieces" might work better, but since gems vary so much in quality,
    > one best
    > use close to the minimum value given for the specific gem (so that the
    > resulting
    > gem pieces can be more common for that type) and consider these "gem
    > pieces" to
    > be made somewhat like a bi-metallic coin with the gem set into a metal or
    > ceramic 'coin'.
    >
    > Some examples:
    >
    > 1 obsidian piece: equivalent to 5 gp
    >
    > 1 carnelian piece: equivalent to 20 gp
    >
    > 1 amethyst piece: equivalent to 50 gp
    >
    > 1 (yellow) topaz piece: equivalent to 200 gp
    >
    > 1 emerald piece: equivalent to 500 gp
    >
    > 1 blue diamond piece: equivalent to 2,000 gp
    >
    > Other 'denominations' can be imagined of course; the prices are all drawn
    > from
    > the DMG (p 55).
    >
    > --
    >
    > Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)
    >
    > "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect
    > philosophers to
    > do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually
    > *know*
    > when they're out of their depth."
    > -Jeff Heikkinen
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Hadsil wrote:
    > I bet you guys wait until 10th level before they get their first
    magic
    > item too, that is, if you give magic items that aren't cursed in some
    > way.
    >
    > Oh, I'm sorry, the players' characters don't even get to reach 6th
    > level, never mind 10th. My mistake.

    Ehh?

    I've done the same thing in other systems.

    Plenty of "real" loot, but the completely unguarded 1' deep pile
    of copper covering the floor of a 10' by 10' room was the second
    valuable thing on the 1st level in one dungeon I designed (they
    never found number one). The characters looked at it, the players
    figured out roughly what it was worth (it is about 25 metric
    tonnes) realized that they had no transprotation magic, and left.

    But they all thought it was a good joke.

    Interestingly the copper was valuable enough in that system
    that they COULD have carried out a substantial sum of money, it
    just didn't seem worth it to them under the circumstances.
    (IIRC one of them even threw in the copper he was carrying
    already, somehow it just didn't seem worth it anymore...)

    It was more than enough to buy a good sized castle, they actually
    considered fortifying the entrance, and bringing in work crews
    to try to get it all out. Going to deeper levels and getting
    the more valuable/portable stuff was what they finally settled
    on.

    I wouldn't do it in a more serious game (WHY would there be
    millions of coppers in one place), but in a game with a humor
    element it is a fine thing to do.

    DougL
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

    > Why should you have to trust the issuer in a world filled with magic?
    > I've been giving some thought to doing this IMC through scrolls.

    I've had a campaign where the locally dominant LN church ran a
    banking system, and bearer notes were an allowable service.

    IIRC at least one opponent paid his ransom by personal check, the
    PC's accepted it, went home, and told the church to transfer the
    funds (paying the usual fees for magical verification of ID and
    truthfulness on this sort of transaction at that size).

    70 GP and you got a detect magic (to make sure you weren't doing
    anything tricky), a detect thoughts (to make sure you voluntarily
    failed all your will saves), and a zone of truth. In theory detect
    thoughts should be enough, but this requires that the person
    actually think about the truthfulness of his statements and not
    be pathological so they used all three. If anything slipped past
    that (there is magic that will make someone falsely think
    something is true) you still had the once weekly gate or commune
    to check for other problems so it was all reasonably safe.

    DougL
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Goslin wrote:
    > "Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:698k41tvl0daj0pu27fh3va3t0n7pq2pqc@4ax.com...
    >
    >>Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome (and
    >
    > could
    >
    > Err... I always thought it was standard practice for the characters to have
    > a treasure dumping ground for DM's to plunder when the story slows down...
    > *shrug* I mean, what good does giving them all sorts of gold do when you
    > just turn around and make it *ppffftt* EASY for them to deal with???
    >
    > I solve the problem in the exact opposite way. All treasure is given out in
    > copper pieces. ;)
    >

    I gave my players 70,000 copper pieces last week. They were trying to
    work out how to carry it all in their single bag of holding and packs.
    Then some bright spark actually worked out how much it was worth. So
    they left 1400lbs of copper sitting on the beach.

    Oh well.

    Craig
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Craig" <taiwancraig@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:d2dc1d$4p2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
    > I gave my players 70,000 copper pieces last week. They were trying to
    > work out how to carry it all in their single bag of holding and packs.
    > Then some bright spark actually worked out how much it was worth. So
    > they left 1400lbs of copper sitting on the beach.

    Yeah, I did pretty much the same thing recently. I converted a portion of a
    giant lair's treasure into copper(about 100K!) and they just left it there.
    We have a new(er) player in our group who wasn't terribly familiar with the
    money and weight and all that, and she was initially wondering why the party
    would leave it there.

    They *DID*, however, cart out the 70K in silver I left for them, after
    gathering up some well paid sherpas from a nearby village. Even after
    almost incomprehensible quanitities stolen from them by said sherpas, they
    had like 60K left. Needless to say, the party carried the gold and platinum
    personally.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Goslin wrote:
    > "Craig" <taiwancraig@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
    > news:d2dc1d$4p2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
    >
    >>I gave my players 70,000 copper pieces last week. They were trying to
    >>work out how to carry it all in their single bag of holding and packs.
    >>Then some bright spark actually worked out how much it was worth. So
    >>they left 1400lbs of copper sitting on the beach.
    >
    >
    > Yeah, I did pretty much the same thing recently. I converted a portion of a
    > giant lair's treasure into copper(about 100K!) and they just left it there.
    > We have a new(er) player in our group who wasn't terribly familiar with the
    > money and weight and all that, and she was initially wondering why the party
    > would leave it there.
    >
    > They *DID*, however, cart out the 70K in silver I left for them, after
    > gathering up some well paid sherpas from a nearby village. Even after
    > almost incomprehensible quanitities stolen from them by said sherpas, they
    > had like 60K left. Needless to say, the party carried the gold and platinum
    > personally.
    >

    I always wonder how long it takes all these adventurers to sort their
    coins into nice neat piles.

    "Ok guys. So here we have a pile of 13300 gold pieces. Over there is
    12000 copper. And we found 6000 silver which we piled up over there.
    And in the middle there is the gems."

    Since that's what I used to do for a living (ex-banker) I don't envy
    them at all.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Craig" <taiwancraig@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:d2dhg9$fdd$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
    > I always wonder how long it takes all these adventurers to sort their
    > coins into nice neat piles.
    >
    > "Ok guys. So here we have a pile of 13300 gold pieces. Over there is
    > 12000 copper. And we found 6000 silver which we piled up over there.
    > And in the middle there is the gems."

    In my case, the 70K silver was in many giant sized and weight and strength
    sacks. The copper was just chucked in a room. The DM knew how much was
    there, the PC's didn't even bother to count it("How much" "a lot..." "like
    too much to bother with?" "Like over 50K, under 500K" *pause**figure out
    how much in gold*..."Forget it...")

    The silver, on the other hand, was neatly bundled for their carrying
    attempts(pretty amusing at first). They ended up buying gobs of sacks,
    redistributing the silver and hiring sherpa-types from a local village to
    carry it the short distance to a nearby river for stacking on a ferry to
    their home base. Basically the majority of the last load mysteriously
    vanished as the villagers realized that it was their last trek to the giant
    lair to gather the stuff. ;)

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Craig" <taiwancraig@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:d2dhg9$fdd$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
    > Jeff Goslin wrote:
    >> "Craig" <taiwancraig@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
    >> news:d2dc1d$4p2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
    >>
    >>>I gave my players 70,000 copper pieces last week. They were trying to
    >>>work out how to carry it all in their single bag of holding and packs.
    >>>Then some bright spark actually worked out how much it was worth. So
    >>>they left 1400lbs of copper sitting on the beach.
    >>
    >>
    >> Yeah, I did pretty much the same thing recently. I converted a portion
    >> of a
    >> giant lair's treasure into copper(about 100K!) and they just left it
    >> there.
    >> We have a new(er) player in our group who wasn't terribly familiar with
    >> the
    >> money and weight and all that, and she was initially wondering why the
    >> party
    >> would leave it there.
    >>
    >> They *DID*, however, cart out the 70K in silver I left for them, after
    >> gathering up some well paid sherpas from a nearby village. Even after
    >> almost incomprehensible quanitities stolen from them by said sherpas,
    >> they
    >> had like 60K left. Needless to say, the party carried the gold and
    >> platinum
    >> personally.
    >>
    >
    > I always wonder how long it takes all these adventurers to sort their
    > coins into nice neat piles.
    >
    > "Ok guys. So here we have a pile of 13300 gold pieces. Over there is 12000
    > copper. And we found 6000 silver which we piled up over there. And in the
    > middle there is the gems."
    >
    > Since that's what I used to do for a living (ex-banker) I don't envy them
    > at all.
    >

    Hack Master has the 1st level spell "Merge Coin Pile" which converts all
    coins in the area of effect into neat piles of coins of equivalent value.

    Handy really.

    Will Dowie
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    > Hack Master has the 1st level spell "Merge Coin Pile" which converts all
    > coins in the area of effect into neat piles of coins of equivalent value.
    >
    > Handy really.
    >
    > Will Dowie
    >
    >

    A character in my current game designed a spell called "Sanderkuipers'
    Sorting Fingers." Sort of like a mini-version of Evard's Black Tentacles,
    but all it could do was extract all of the objects from an area that matched
    some criteria. Great for removing all of the copper from a hoard for easy
    disposal.

    Peter
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Tomas Hatala <thatala@telus.net> wrote:
    > I believe that money, especially in the Medieval Ages was effective when
    > gold, because it had the same standard value everywhere ....

    FYI, that was a silver standard, not a gold standard.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matthias wrote:
    > Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome
    > (and could attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The
    > quickest solution is to convert some of it to platinum --

    In my experience, most characters quickly convert it to magic items.
    When they're saving up, they convert it to gems or find a safe place to
    store all the gold. Mostly it's a non-issue.

    > Some examples:
    >
    > 1 obsidian piece: equivalent to 5 gp
    > 1 carnelian piece: equivalent to 20 gp
    > 1 amethyst piece: equivalent to 50 gp
    > 1 (yellow) topaz piece: equivalent to 200 gp
    > 1 emerald piece: equivalent to 500 gp
    > 1 blue diamond piece: equivalent to 2,000 gp

    Too silly. Who would actually set up a "currency" system like this? Note
    that converting wealth to gems /is/ sensible; it's just the attempt to
    make it a formal currency system that's silly.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 30 Mar 2005 05:00:03 -0800, "Rum Ranger" <hayes13@fadmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >Symbol wrote:
    >> "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
    >> > Solve it by giving them a portable hole.
    >>
    >> [snip multiple trailing lines and OP's sig]
    >>
    >> Dumbass.
    >
    >You're obsessed with me. It's so *damn obvious.* Now wipe my semen
    >off your chin.

    Pwn3d!

    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:43:53 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
    wrote:

    >Matthias wrote:
    >> Characters lugging around thousands of gold pieces can get cumbersome
    >> (and could attract way too much attention in seedy urban areas). The
    >> quickest solution is to convert some of it to platinum --
    >
    >In my experience, most characters quickly convert it to magic items.
    >When they're saving up, they convert it to gems or find a safe place to
    >store all the gold. Mostly it's a non-issue.
    >
    >> Some examples:
    >>
    >> 1 obsidian piece: equivalent to 5 gp
    >> 1 carnelian piece: equivalent to 20 gp
    >> 1 amethyst piece: equivalent to 50 gp
    >> 1 (yellow) topaz piece: equivalent to 200 gp
    >> 1 emerald piece: equivalent to 500 gp
    >> 1 blue diamond piece: equivalent to 2,000 gp
    >
    >Too silly. Who would actually set up a "currency" system like this? Note
    >that converting wealth to gems /is/ sensible; it's just the attempt to
    >make it a formal currency system that's silly.

    If you don't like it, don't use it ...

    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd wrote:
    >> Too silly. Who would actually set up a "currency" system like this?
    >> Note that converting wealth to gems /is/ sensible; it's just the
    >> attempt to make it a formal currency system that's silly.

    Matthias wrote:
    > If you don't like it, don't use it ...

    If you don't like criticism, don't use Usenet.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, DougL hastily scrawled:
    >Plenty of "real" loot, but the completely unguarded 1' deep pile
    >of copper covering the floor of a 10' by 10' room was the second
    >valuable thing on the 1st level in one dungeon I designed (they
    >never found number one). The characters looked at it, the players
    >figured out roughly what it was worth (it is about 25 metric
    >tonnes) realized that they had no transprotation magic, and left.
    >
    >But they all thought it was a good joke.
    >
    >Interestingly the copper was valuable enough in that system
    >that they COULD have carried out a substantial sum of money, it
    >just didn't seem worth it to them under the circumstances.
    >(IIRC one of them even threw in the copper he was carrying
    >already, somehow it just didn't seem worth it anymore...)
    >
    >It was more than enough to buy a good sized castle, they actually
    >considered fortifying the entrance, and bringing in work crews
    >to try to get it all out. Going to deeper levels and getting
    >the more valuable/portable stuff was what they finally settled
    >on.

    Which is odd. If they were torn between both paths, then the obvious
    course would be to fortify the entrance, bring in the work crews and
    send in hired swords to bring the loot out.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Matthias hastily scrawled:
    >
    >It could be that gold is a metal (possibly one of many) that can't be replicated
    >by magic, thus ensuring its usefulness as currency. The same rationale they use
    >for "latinum" in the Star Trek: Deep Space 9 series.

    DS9 has magic?


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Bradd W. Szonye hastily scrawled:
    >Bradd wrote:
    >>> Too silly. Who would actually set up a "currency" system like this?
    >>> Note that converting wealth to gems /is/ sensible; it's just the
    >>> attempt to make it a formal currency system that's silly.
    >
    >Matthias wrote:
    >> If you don't like it, don't use it ...
    >
    >If you don't like criticism, don't use Usenet.

    If youse use use, youse use Usenet.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:51:33 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
    wrote:

    >Bradd wrote:
    >>> Too silly. Who would actually set up a "currency" system like this?
    >>> Note that converting wealth to gems /is/ sensible; it's just the
    >>> attempt to make it a formal currency system that's silly.
    >
    >Matthias wrote:
    >> If you don't like it, don't use it ...
    >
    >If you don't like criticism, don't use Usenet.

    If you don't like "silliness", don't read Usenet messages.

    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Craig wrote:
    > I gave my players 70,000 copper pieces last week. They were trying to
    > work out how to carry it all in their single bag of holding and packs.
    > Then some bright spark actually worked out how much it was worth. So
    > they left 1400lbs of copper sitting on the beach.
    >
    > Oh well.
    >
    > Craig

    I remember reading an old module, The Savage Coast. In it is a lost
    city with an inner wall with two gated entrances. If the party notices,
    the gates are pure copper (highly corroded on the outside, but pure
    copper on the inside). Now, to figure out how to get the 2,000lb copper
    gates back to the boat...oh, they were worth about 200gp each I believe.
    hehehe

    Alex
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Craig wrote:
    > I gave my players 70,000 copper pieces last week. They were trying to
    > work out how to carry it all in their single bag of holding and packs.
    > Then some bright spark actually worked out how much it was worth. So
    > they left 1400lbs of copper sitting on the beach.
    >
    > Oh well.
    >
    > Craig

    With the exchange rates in D&D, I think it is pretty obvious that it is
    never worth your while to loot such a hoard. I don't know any party
    that would bother unless they were very very poor and 1st or 2nd level.
    But then they wouldn't have the means to pull away more than a
    fraction of the coin.

    A much more interesting dilema is when the party is presented with a
    pile of 70,000sp. Silver is worth 10x copper, but still very little
    based on its weight. I think it is very close to the value/weight
    cutoff for most groups that they would expend a LOT of thought on
    whether and how to take such a treasure. The copper won't take longer
    than a few seconds for the group to agree to abandon it. The silver, on
    the other hand, might get the party to arguing for five or ten minutes.

    Alex
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    > Yes, but the more I think about it, the more it disrupts my SOD that
    > no wizards anywhere in all of D&Dland history have researched just
    > such a spell.

    I don't think so. If it were researched, I think you'd find it a
    prohibitively high level spell. Transmutation spells that create
    minerals and metals are very short duration and fairly high level.
    /Major Creation/ at 5th level only makes precious metals last 20
    min/level. To transform existing material, /Polymorph Any Object/ can
    do it permenantly but that's an 8th level spell. I know of no other
    spells that can create or alter minerals the way you want, but based on
    these examples, you'd be looking at a rather inconvenient spell that few
    people could cast.

    There is also the DM convenience factor. If the party has to transform
    wealth from one for to another there are transaction inefficiencies,
    taxes, and all manner of way to reduce their wealth in the process. No
    money changer works for free. Jewlers won't give you full value for a
    random shiny stone you bring in (there isn't a certification system in
    D&D for diamonds). And it's just plain hard to find a buyer on no
    notice for three magic two-handed swords so you can give the seller of
    the +4 guantlets of ogre power the coin he asked for.

    Alex
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Alex Johnson" <compuwiz@psualum.com> wrote in message
    news:d2h15g$mdh$1@news01.intel.com...
    > Craig wrote:
    >> I gave my players 70,000 copper pieces last week. They were trying to
    >> work out how to carry it all in their single bag of holding and packs.
    >> Then some bright spark actually worked out how much it was worth. So they
    >> left 1400lbs of copper sitting on the beach.
    >>
    >> Oh well.
    >>
    >> Craig

    In my Hack Master campaign all of the characters are still first level and
    poor. After a random encounter I decided to give them the treasure mainly in
    copper pieces (around 8000). In Hack Master (which is basically 1st edition
    AD&D) that's 800 lbs. of copper. The players knew they were close to
    leveling and were going to need money to train, so they spent like 1/2 an
    hour of game time figuring out what to do with this mass of copper pieces.
    They finally decide to buy some empty barrels and bury them around the
    countryside some containg coin and some not to deter any thieves.

    >
    Will Dowie
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Alex Johnson hastily scrawled:
    >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    >> Yes, but the more I think about it, the more it disrupts my SOD that
    >> no wizards anywhere in all of D&Dland history have researched just
    >> such a spell.
    >
    >I don't think so. If it were researched, I think you'd find it a
    >prohibitively high level spell. Transmutation spells that create
    >minerals and metals are very short duration and fairly high level.
    >/Major Creation/ at 5th level only makes precious metals last 20
    >min/level. To transform existing material, /Polymorph Any Object/ can
    >do it permenantly but that's an 8th level spell. I know of no other
    >spells that can create or alter minerals the way you want, but based on
    >these examples, you'd be looking at a rather inconvenient spell that few
    >people could cast.

    It seems like you missed the material component cost in my suggestion.
    It would require you to "destroy" 100gp in order to "create" 100gp.
    The spell doesn't *really* do anything, it's only useful in a magic
    item.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Alex Johnson <compuwiz@psualum.com> wrote:
    > Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    >> Yes, but the more I think about it, the more it disrupts my SOD that
    >> no wizards anywhere in all of D&Dland history have researched just
    >> such a spell.
    >
    > There is also the DM convenience factor. If the party has to
    > transform wealth from one for to another there are transaction
    > inefficiencies, taxes, and all manner of way to reduce their wealth in
    > the process. No money changer works for free.

    "You wish an aurum scroll? Certainly, for how much? Ah, very well.
    You're aware that there is a two in twenty service fee, plus the
    materials cost? Very good. 22025 crowns please, and the scroll will be
    delivered to you tomorrow."

    > Jewlers won't give you full value for a random shiny stone you bring
    > in (there isn't a certification system in D&D for diamonds). And it's
    > just plain hard to find a buyer on no notice for three magic
    > two-handed swords so you can give the seller of the +4 guantlets of
    > ogre power the coin he asked for.

    As it should be.

    I'm usually willing to gloss over that with the half-price rules. You
    take a hit in order to make a quick sale, *if* you're in a place that
    can afford the goods.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
    keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Matthias hastily scrawled:
    >
    >Yeah ... replicators and transporters are basically the same technology, but
    >transporters are much more precise in order to reproduce the quantum states of
    >the atoms that make up sentient life forms so you're the same at the end of the
    >beaming as you were before. Replicators are only good enough to reproduce dead
    >organic matter, but they are much more common. Transporters need a special
    >compartment and a crewman monitoring each transportation. Replicators can
    >function pretty much autonomously.

    So, to be completely fair, there's no *real* reason this "latinum"
    can't be replicated. You'd just need a replicator with a special
    compartment and a crewman monitoring.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    news:crfs41pptckq4v40u24hihtgabjc34cpf0@4ax.com...
    > No, it goes further than that. There have been many substances mentioned
    on
    > the show that the replicator could not do. The exact nature of latinum is
    > pretty vague, except that it is a semi-viscous translucent silver liquid.
    I
    > don't think anyone would use a replicate-able material as the basis of a
    > currency system, given the technology available.

    I'm not a trekkie or anything, so maybe you could enlighten me. Under what
    circumstances would something be NON-transportable/replicatable?

    I mean, it seems to be quite a complicated procedure to transport human
    beings, one would think that replicating pretty much ANYTHING would be a
    prerequisite for such technology to operate safely and effectively. It just
    seems to me that they have full control over matter rearrangement, over
    energy rearrangement, and the interaction of the two. Unless there's some
    part of physics they are basing this on that is NOT a part of the physics we
    understand at the moment, it seems to be sort of locked up.

    Like I said, though, i'm no trekkie. I know it's fiction and all that, but
    the fans of star trek seem fairly interested in making sure their world is
    fairly "plausible", at least as plausible as science fiction can ever be, so
    they have an explanation that makes some degree of sense, I'm sure.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 02:22:55 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

    >"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    >news:crfs41pptckq4v40u24hihtgabjc34cpf0@4ax.com...
    >> No, it goes further than that. There have been many substances mentioned
    >on
    >> the show that the replicator could not do. The exact nature of latinum is
    >> pretty vague, except that it is a semi-viscous translucent silver liquid.
    >I
    >> don't think anyone would use a replicate-able material as the basis of a
    >> currency system, given the technology available.
    >
    >I'm not a trekkie or anything, so maybe you could enlighten me. Under what
    >circumstances would something be NON-transportable/replicatable?

    It would be because the molecular or atomic configuration of the substance is
    strange enough that the emitters that cause the subatomic particles to coalesce
    out of the energy beams, simply can't avoid interfering with one another. When
    you try to replicate latinum or one of these other 'forbidden' substances, the
    replicator always ends up replicating some other material with a composition
    similar to latinum.


    >I mean, it seems to be quite a complicated procedure to transport human
    >beings, one would think that replicating pretty much ANYTHING would be a
    >prerequisite for such technology to operate safely and effectively. It just
    >seems to me that they have full control over matter rearrangement, over
    >energy rearrangement, and the interaction of the two. Unless there's some
    >part of physics they are basing this on that is NOT a part of the physics we
    >understand at the moment, it seems to be sort of locked up.

    As long as the human being doesn't have latinum as part of his physiology, he
    can come through just fine. Transporting a human being requires a lot more
    information to be stored in order to reproduce them at the other end. There's
    much, much less room for transcription errors in replication. If you wanted to
    replicate pure diamond, you afford to get a few missing carbon bonds and even a
    few non-carbon atoms in the substance. With a human being, if you fail to
    replicate the DNA of just one cell precisely, then you've caused genetic damage
    and maybe created some mutation. The transporter has to get it right with each
    of the trillions of cells of the human body. I have no doubt there's built-in
    error correction, where if a particular atoms is mis-replicated or doesn't
    reappear at all, the transporter is able to go back and redo it.

    Sometimes if there is lots of interference during a beaming-in operation at the
    point of origin, the transporter may not be able to correct for transcription
    errors, and eventually the process must be aborted or else the object or the
    person would appear severely damaged after replication. If even that emergency
    cutoff apparatus malfunctions, the transport will complete, and the original
    copy of the entity is destroyed and a faulty copy of the entity appears on the
    transporter pad, or else the faulty copy vaporizes or collapses into sludge
    after the confinement beam shuts off.

    You'll also note that transporters take longer to work on human beings, than
    ordinary replicators reproduce foodstuffs or other inanimate material. I don't
    think the mass of the object has a negligible effect; small children get beamed
    out as quickly and reappear as quickly as a tall adult. I figure every atom of a
    human being is being disassembled or replicated at the same time. It's just the
    amount of information that has to be processed. The effect you see where a
    person kind of 'fades' into view in the transporter is the person "flickering"
    in and out of existence as the transporter builds the body, detects
    transcription errors, vaporizes the body, then tries again until it gets it
    right. (Don't ask me why transporters cause people to fade out while they're
    beaming out, I haven't figured that out yet. <grin>)


    >Like I said, though, i'm no trekkie. I know it's fiction and all that, but
    >the fans of star trek seem fairly interested in making sure their world is
    >fairly "plausible", at least as plausible as science fiction can ever be, so
    >they have an explanation that makes some degree of sense, I'm sure.

    Plus, it's fun to try to "fill in the gaps".
    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    > Mere moments before death, Matthias hastily scrawled:
    >
    >>There is an abnormal amount of plothookium in the Star Trek universe, which is
    >>responsible for making some substances impossible to manufacture using
    >>replication. Whether it requires an impractically high amount of energy, a
    >>certain exotic base material, special environmental settings inside the
    >>replicator, or whether the chemical formula for replicating latinum is a
    >>tightly-guarded trade secret, it's just not doable.
    >
    > So it's magic?

    It's copyright! Ha!

    Replicators have built-in copy-protection that can't be removed.
    Brilliant, even works in times of dire need. Brilliant!

    --
    tussock

    Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 02:22:55 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
    scribed into the ether:

    >"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    >news:crfs41pptckq4v40u24hihtgabjc34cpf0@4ax.com...
    >> No, it goes further than that. There have been many substances mentioned
    >on
    >> the show that the replicator could not do. The exact nature of latinum is
    >> pretty vague, except that it is a semi-viscous translucent silver liquid.
    >I
    >> don't think anyone would use a replicate-able material as the basis of a
    >> currency system, given the technology available.
    >
    >I'm not a trekkie or anything, so maybe you could enlighten me. Under what
    >circumstances would something be NON-transportable/replicatable?

    Whenever the plot calls for it. The only inviolable restriction seems to be
    that you can't replicate life, but most other things are open to the whim
    of the writer (and precedent, although even that can get ignored from time
    to time).

    >I mean, it seems to be quite a complicated procedure to transport human
    >beings, one would think that replicating pretty much ANYTHING would be a
    >prerequisite for such technology to operate safely and effectively.

    The transporter and replicator operate on *similar* principles, but are not
    the same. Transporters do not disintegrate people and bring them back to
    life on the other side. People retain conciousness and awareness while
    being transported. Further, if it required being assembled, then you would
    be restricted to only transporting to specific locations that had an
    assembler.

    > It just
    >seems to me that they have full control over matter rearrangement, over
    >energy rearrangement, and the interaction of the two. Unless there's some
    >part of physics they are basing this on that is NOT a part of the physics we
    >understand at the moment, it seems to be sort of locked up.

    Well, of course they are. I remember seeing a show on just how feasible
    various star trek technologies were, and of course the transporter had a
    significant chunk of time alloted. One of the people they talked to said
    that in order to record the exact position of every subatomic particle
    (assuming they haven't found more of them in the next 400 years, a not
    unlikely possibility) on known computer technology would involve a stack
    of hard drives from the earth to the sun.
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:a0lt41pcp8q8hbl5tdopi7n1ash0lihsqd@4ax.com...
    > >I'm not a trekkie or anything, so maybe you could enlighten me. Under
    what
    > >circumstances would something be NON-transportable/replicatable?
    >
    > It would be because the molecular or atomic configuration of the substance
    is
    > strange enough that the emitters that cause the subatomic particles to
    coalesce
    > out of the energy beams, simply can't avoid interfering with one another.

    Yes, I understood that earlier, but what I was saying was that usually the
    trekkie guys have some psuedo-science explanation for WHY such things would
    happen. What is the property of "latinum" that interferes with these
    transporters?

    I mean, we know a LOT about the composition of earthly materials, and have
    found what we consider to be a mostly comprehensive list of the first X
    elements(103??, a few notable exceptions in the pattern aside), and even for
    the ones we don't have at the moment, we have a working model of how they
    would look and act and behave etc. I have to wonder how complicated a
    material could be that could not be replicated/transported in such a device,
    given that human flesh, let alone current brain status, would be hard enough
    to replicate/transport.

    On a side note, what is the provided (scifi) explanation for why a
    replicator can't simply replicate a human being(given enough time), but a
    transporter can disassemble and reassemble one theoretically perfectly?
    Couldn't you just make what amounted to a single station transporter and
    replicate people?

    > >Like I said, though, i'm no trekkie. I know it's fiction and all that,
    but
    > >the fans of star trek seem fairly interested in making sure their world
    is
    > >fairly "plausible", at least as plausible as science fiction can ever be,
    so
    > >they have an explanation that makes some degree of sense, I'm sure.
    >
    > Plus, it's fun to try to "fill in the gaps".

    I've noted that this is what they often try to do. Unfortunately, your
    explanation is probably incomplete or something, because you've only noted
    why problems would exist, not the explanations provided that supposedly
    solve those problems. I know it's all scifi stuff and all that, but often
    the trekkies will provide "explanations" to answer the obvious gaps. What
    you've done is describe the gaps, not tell me what the party line on filling
    those gaps is. Oh well, just curious anyways. I'm sure there's a website
    on this, I just don't really feel like doing pseudoresearch right now.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    news:ob0u41dntlskdf8ph6dic4fs50m6ldn2uj@4ax.com...
    > Well, of course they are. I remember seeing a show on just how feasible
    > various star trek technologies were, and of course the transporter had a
    > significant chunk of time alloted. One of the people they talked to said
    > that in order to record the exact position of every subatomic particle
    > (assuming they haven't found more of them in the next 400 years, a not
    > unlikely possibility) on known computer technology would involve a stack
    > of hard drives from the earth to the sun.

    Well, because of uncertainty, Heisenberg would probably be tempted to say
    the stack would be infinitely large. ;)

    I can only assume that precise atomic particle location is not a requirement
    of such things. Maybe it works like MPG compression or something. ;)

    Heck, think about it, instead of recreating the PRECISE flesh of a human
    body, maybe they have some "template fleshes" (template bones, eyes, hairs,
    blah blah) that are used to 99.99999% approximate the previous incarnation.
    At a certain level of precision, the inconsistency just wouldn't matter as
    much. And hey, just to make sure everyone can work on transporters, maybe
    you put all newborn babies through a transporter to "standardize their
    bodies", to make it easier to transport them(so you KNOW what kind of stuff
    you're going to be replicating).

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 03:40:01 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

    >"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:a0lt41pcp8q8hbl5tdopi7n1ash0lihsqd@4ax.com...
    >> >I'm not a trekkie or anything, so maybe you could enlighten me. Under
    >what
    >> >circumstances would something be NON-transportable/replicatable?
    >>
    >> It would be because the molecular or atomic configuration of the substance
    >is
    >> strange enough that the emitters that cause the subatomic particles to
    >coalesce
    >> out of the energy beams, simply can't avoid interfering with one another.
    >
    >Yes, I understood that earlier, but what I was saying was that usually the
    >trekkie guys have some psuedo-science explanation for WHY such things would
    >happen. What is the property of "latinum" that interferes with these
    >transporters?
    >
    >I mean, we know a LOT about the composition of earthly materials, and have
    >found what we consider to be a mostly comprehensive list of the first X
    >elements(103??, a few notable exceptions in the pattern aside), and even for
    >the ones we don't have at the moment, we have a working model of how they
    >would look and act and behave etc. I have to wonder how complicated a
    >material could be that could not be replicated/transported in such a device,
    >given that human flesh, let alone current brain status, would be hard enough
    >to replicate/transport.


    While, I just told you what the property was that causes the interference. It's
    the molecular structure of the substance. (I don't think the audience is ever
    told whether it's an element or a compound, but for purposes of this thread we
    will go with the latter.)

    For the energy beams that create the subatomic particles, you have to have at
    least three beams of different energy wavelengths. The three beams intersect at
    a specific point in space. The type of subatomic particle created is determined
    by the strength and wavelength of energy used for each beam, much like the
    electron beams in a TV set reproduces all the colors of the spectrum by mixing
    various strengths of red, green, and blue light for each pixel.

    The molecular structure of latinum is a odd kind of knotted, four-dimensional
    shape that exists partly in in substance at all times, like a Klein bottle. The
    three electron beams of a replicator or transporter simple can't replicate
    four-dimensional matter. While the "visible" part of the latinum are easily
    reproduced, there is no known science for extending the beams into the fourth
    dimension with the precision required to manipulate matter. Warp drive allows
    starships to pass into substance but the margin of error for the movement of
    mass is on the order of hundreds of meters, rather than the order of picometers
    required by replicators. The laws of nature clearly permit the latinum molecule
    to 'twist' into the fourth dimension, so it is theoretically possible to
    replicate latinum and other four-dimensional compounds, but replication
    technology would have to be mated with much more highly developed space-warp
    technology to break this barrier.


    >On a side note, what is the provided (scifi) explanation for why a
    >replicator can't simply replicate a human being(given enough time), but a
    >transporter can disassemble and reassemble one theoretically perfectly?
    >Couldn't you just make what amounted to a single station transporter and
    >replicate people?

    To be honest, there isn't an explanation that I'm aware of, although the book
    "The Science of Star Trek" might hold the answer to that.

    I don't see why a society couldn't engage in cloning via replication, but if you
    think about it, even today cloning is considered unethical: if you turned one
    person into a set of identical twins, which is the "real" one, and which is the
    "copy"? Especially if the clone was identical in every respect, from age to
    scars to fingerprints to brainwave scan, how will anyone ever know which is
    which? Unless you tagged of them immediately after the cloning (like the method
    used in the movie The Sixth Day), it becomes less and less likely that the
    original individual can be determined, while (ironically) the twins will become
    less and less similar as they have different experiences and live out different
    lives.

    But even if you could keep track of the original, does the duplicate have the
    same position in society and the same assets and the same privileges as the
    original? Let's say we replicated a starship captain. Are both captains entitled
    or required to captain their ship? Do they take turns? What happens when the
    captain is up for a promotion? Would it be fair if the captain could literally
    do the work of two people and do a whole lot more, while everyone else is stuck
    with only one? If there can't be two captains, then who decides which one is
    supposed to resume the captain's former life, and who has to go and find some
    other life to lead? What happens to the extra in this case?

    There was a Star Tre: Next Generation episode that dealt with these questions,
    where Commander Riker (Johnathon Frakes) got split into two people accidentally
    many years before the episode took place. When the Enterprise-D crew encountered
    him, they were having to deal with some of the problems that having two Rikers
    posed. If memory serves, the alternate-Riker chose to go by their middle name
    Thomas. He eventually turned evil and went away to make trouble; a later episode
    had him show up again making trouble again, with the Rikers' father showing up
    and having to deal with the situation (not sure if that character actually was
    there for that episode though). In the final episode that the character appears,
    Thomas Riker is eventually rehabilitated and makes peace with his 'brother'.


    >> >Like I said, though, i'm no trekkie. I know it's fiction and all that,
    >but
    >> >the fans of star trek seem fairly interested in making sure their world
    >is
    >> >fairly "plausible", at least as plausible as science fiction can ever be,
    >so
    >> >they have an explanation that makes some degree of sense, I'm sure.
    >>
    >> Plus, it's fun to try to "fill in the gaps".
    >
    >I've noted that this is what they often try to do. Unfortunately, your
    >explanation is probably incomplete or something, because you've only noted
    >why problems would exist, not the explanations provided that supposedly
    >solve those problems. I know it's all scifi stuff and all that, but often
    >the trekkies will provide "explanations" to answer the obvious gaps. What
    >you've done is describe the gaps, not tell me what the party line on filling
    >those gaps is. Oh well, just curious anyways. I'm sure there's a website
    >on this, I just don't really feel like doing pseudoresearch right now.

    Well, I hope I've put forth a better rationaliz^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hexplanation
    for latin, replicators & transporters, and human beings, this time. :)

    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 03:50:29 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

    >"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    >news:ob0u41dntlskdf8ph6dic4fs50m6ldn2uj@4ax.com...
    >> Well, of course they are. I remember seeing a show on just how feasible
    >> various star trek technologies were, and of course the transporter had a
    >> significant chunk of time alloted. One of the people they talked to said
    >> that in order to record the exact position of every subatomic particle
    >> (assuming they haven't found more of them in the next 400 years, a not
    >> unlikely possibility) on known computer technology would involve a stack
    >> of hard drives from the earth to the sun.
    >
    >Well, because of uncertainty, Heisenberg would probably be tempted to say
    >the stack would be infinitely large. ;)
    >
    >I can only assume that precise atomic particle location is not a requirement
    >of such things. Maybe it works like MPG compression or something. ;)
    >
    >Heck, think about it, instead of recreating the PRECISE flesh of a human
    >body, maybe they have some "template fleshes" (template bones, eyes, hairs,
    >blah blah) that are used to 99.99999% approximate the previous incarnation.
    >At a certain level of precision, the inconsistency just wouldn't matter as
    >much. And hey, just to make sure everyone can work on transporters, maybe
    >you put all newborn babies through a transporter to "standardize their
    >bodies", to make it easier to transport them(so you KNOW what kind of stuff
    >you're going to be replicating).

    If I remember correctly, transporters and replicators are described as most
    definitely having to use data compression algorithms for any object with a
    complex structure like a living creature. Somewhere in memory the individual's
    DNA structure is stored (which is itself derived by "taking a vote" from all the
    cells of the body and picking the most common sequence that appears). It would
    be a definite way to perform error correction on all of a person's chromosomal
    structure.

    To be sure, transportation would erase all mutations from a living creature if
    only one copy of its DNA was stored in memory, although you wouldn't be able to
    cure genetic diseases without artificially manipulating the DNA code. It would
    be darn easy to do it once you found the genes and figured out what they
    /should/ look like. Ironically, you could bring evolution to a dead stop for
    that specific individual's descendants, by systemically eliminating all
    mutations that may have appeared over that individual's lifetime -- a mutation
    would have had to spread to more cells in the body than the number of cells
    containing the original DNA sequence, in order to win that "majority vote" for
    most popular sequence.

    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:v38051hpeb6nbsgtranclg69jrhk3dasnv@4ax.com...
    > While, I just told you what the property was that causes the interference.
    It's
    > the molecular structure of the substance. (I don't think the audience is
    ever
    > told whether it's an element or a compound, but for purposes of this
    thread we
    > will go with the latter.)

    Well, we understand most of what there is to know about molecular structure
    of "earthly compounds", and we just assume that any other elements/compounds
    that we haven't run into will be similar in structure and properties and
    adherence to what we know as natural laws(atomic bonding and so on).

    Usually if the star trek guys give some reason, it doesn't necessarily
    contradict known rules of the universe, per se. The warp drive, for
    example, as I understand it, uses some form of wormholing or something,
    which while not proven is theoretically possible. But we have a fairly
    clear conception of what elements and compounds consist of and how they
    interact and so on, and thus far, nothing has fallen outside the basic laws
    of chemistry in that regard, at least to my knowledge. Usually the star
    trek guys wouldn't go so obviously against conventions like that, from my
    experience. Maybe they just don't have a scifi-ey enough explanation
    thought up, but that seems unlikely, given the depth of fanaticism that most
    trekkies have.

    > For the energy beams that create the subatomic particles, you have to have
    at
    > least three beams of different energy wavelengths. The three beams
    intersect at
    > a specific point in space. The type of subatomic particle created is
    determined
    > by the strength and wavelength of energy used for each beam, much like the
    > electron beams in a TV set reproduces all the colors of the spectrum by
    mixing
    > various strengths of red, green, and blue light for each pixel.

    Err... I thought (in old TV's, maybe it's changed, I dunno) the electron gun
    fired at three separate colorized spots on the screen for every pixel,
    accentuating more red and less green and less blue or whatever the mix might
    happen to be. Oh well, I don't really know exactly how they work, so I'm
    probably wrong.

    It sounds like a creative theory, nonetheless.

    > The molecular structure of latinum is a odd kind of knotted,
    four-dimensional
    > shape that exists partly in in substance at all times, like a Klein
    bottle.

    The fourth dimension being ... time?

    > four-dimensional matter. While the "visible" part of the latinum are
    easily
    > reproduced, there is no known science for extending the beams into the
    fourth
    > dimension with the precision required to manipulate matter.

    I don't know if time travel is practically possible, but I suppose it's a
    valid explanation to say that we can't manipulate time, and therefore can't
    replicate anything that exists at different positions along the 4th
    dimension(time).

    > >On a side note, what is the provided (scifi) explanation for why a
    > >replicator can't simply replicate a human being(given enough time), but a
    > >transporter can disassemble and reassemble one theoretically perfectly?
    > >Couldn't you just make what amounted to a single station transporter and
    > >replicate people?
    >
    > I don't see why a society couldn't engage in cloning via replication, but
    if you
    > think about it, even today cloning is considered unethical:

    I honestly don't understand why. Personally, I would have no problem if
    there was a clone of me around, for like spare parts n stuff. If the
    religious people are right, the clone wouldn't have a soul, so it would more
    or less be a vegetable anyways, so why not, ya know? ;)

    BUT, if the religious folks are WRONG, and people can exist independantly of
    the will of the god they happen to believe in, then cloning would be
    "problematic" to say the least, for any of a variety of highly inflammatory
    reasons.

    > But even if you could keep track of the original, does the duplicate have
    the
    > same position in society and the same assets and the same privileges as
    the
    > original?

    That's one of the major problems, the creation of a sub-species for lack of
    better phrasing.

    > There was a Star Tre: Next Generation episode that dealt with these
    questions,
    > where Commander Riker (Johnathon Frakes) got split into two people
    accidentally
    > many years before the episode took place.

    That was such a stupid episode. ;)

    > posed. If memory serves, the alternate-Riker chose to go by their middle
    name
    > Thomas. He eventually turned evil and went away to make trouble; a later
    episode
    > had him show up again making trouble again, with the Rikers' father
    showing up
    > and having to deal with the situation (not sure if that character actually
    was
    > there for that episode though). In the final episode that the character
    appears,
    > Thomas Riker is eventually rehabilitated and makes peace with his
    'brother'.

    I guess I must have missed the "evil riker" episode, in the episode I saw,
    "bad riker/thomas" became used to living alone and not following orders,
    etc, and then they came back and found him like 10 years later or something,
    and he was just out of touch, not necessarily "evil" or anything. Was there
    another "double of riker" episode that I missed or just don't remember?

    > Well, I hope I've put forth a better
    rationaliz^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hexplanation
    > for latin, replicators & transporters, and human beings, this time. :)

    Good enough for me to go "*knowing smile* hehehe those keerazy trekkies!"
    ;)

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 03:50:29 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
    scribed into the ether:

    >"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    >news:ob0u41dntlskdf8ph6dic4fs50m6ldn2uj@4ax.com...
    >> Well, of course they are. I remember seeing a show on just how feasible
    >> various star trek technologies were, and of course the transporter had a
    >> significant chunk of time alloted. One of the people they talked to said
    >> that in order to record the exact position of every subatomic particle
    >> (assuming they haven't found more of them in the next 400 years, a not
    >> unlikely possibility) on known computer technology would involve a stack
    >> of hard drives from the earth to the sun.
    >
    >Well, because of uncertainty, Heisenberg would probably be tempted to say
    >the stack would be infinitely large. ;)

    Which is why they invented heisenberg compensators.

    >I can only assume that precise atomic particle location is not a requirement
    >of such things. Maybe it works like MPG compression or something. ;)

    I can't imagine how it wouldn't be. Even a slight difference in the
    position of an atom in a protein could cause it to react wierdly and
    possibly fatally. Look at mad cow.
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <7s2dndlwSrgn5s3fRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
    Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    >"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >> The molecular structure of latinum is a odd kind of knotted,
    >four-dimensional
    >> shape that exists partly in in substance at all times, like a Klein
    >bottle.
    >
    >The fourth dimension being ... time?

    A fourth spacial dimension.

    >> There was a Star Tre: Next Generation episode that dealt with these
    >questions,
    >> where Commander Riker (Johnathon Frakes) got split into two people
    >accidentally
    >> many years before the episode took place.
    >
    >That was such a stupid episode. ;)

    I kind of liked it. Although one gets tired of all the "transporter accident"
    plots.


    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 4 Apr 2005 17:32:44 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
    scribed into the ether:

    >In article <7s2dndlwSrgn5s3fRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
    >Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    >>"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>> The molecular structure of latinum is a odd kind of knotted,
    >>four-dimensional
    >>> shape that exists partly in in substance at all times, like a Klein
    >>bottle.
    >>
    >>The fourth dimension being ... time?
    >
    >A fourth spacial dimension.
    >
    >>> There was a Star Tre: Next Generation episode that dealt with these
    >>questions,
    >>> where Commander Riker (Johnathon Frakes) got split into two people
    >>accidentally
    >>> many years before the episode took place.
    >>
    >>That was such a stupid episode. ;)
    >
    >I kind of liked it. Although one gets tired of all the "transporter accident"
    >plots.

    Better that than "That them there Holodeck done got broke again".
Ask a new question

Read More

Gem Video Games