Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Expanded monetary system

Last response: in Video Games
Share
March 30, 2005 8:10:04 AM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 8:10:05 AM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 8:10:05 AM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 8:10:05 AM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 8:10:05 AM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 8:10:05 AM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 8:10:05 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 8:10:06 AM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 9:00:03 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 9:05:34 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 2:03:10 PM

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.
March 30, 2005 2:09:52 PM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 3:34:49 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 6:40:58 PM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 7:31:03 PM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 7:45:48 PM

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
March 30, 2005 9:04:49 PM

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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 9:04:50 PM

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

"Craig" <taiwancraig@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:D 2dc1d$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
March 30, 2005 10:38:05 PM

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Craig" <taiwancraig@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:D 2dc1d$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.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 10:38:06 PM

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

"Craig" <taiwancraig@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:D 2dhg9$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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 10:38:06 PM

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

"Craig" <taiwancraig@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:D 2dhg9$fdd$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> "Craig" <taiwancraig@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:D 2dc1d$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
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 10:38:07 PM

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
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 2:39:03 AM

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
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 2:43:53 AM

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
March 31, 2005 3:23:52 AM

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
March 31, 2005 3:25:33 AM

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
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 3:51:33 AM

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
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 5:08:49 AM

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
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 5:08:50 AM

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
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 5:08:51 AM

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
March 31, 2005 5:48:49 AM

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
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 1:19:17 PM

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
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 1:23:44 PM

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
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 1:34:49 PM

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
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 8:27:01 PM

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

"Alex Johnson" <compuwiz@psualum.com> wrote in message
news:D 2h15g$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
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 9:03:25 PM

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
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 4:05:50 AM

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
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 2:59:51 AM

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
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 6:22:55 AM

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
April 2, 2005 9:34:44 PM

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
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 12:30:13 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 12:37:52 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 7:40:01 AM

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
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 7:50:29 AM

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:o b0u41dntlskdf8ph6dic4fs50m6ldn2uj@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
April 3, 2005 9:38:41 PM

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
April 3, 2005 9:49:28 PM

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:o b0u41dntlskdf8ph6dic4fs50m6ldn2uj@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
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:25:36 PM

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
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 5:46:53 AM

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:o b0u41dntlskdf8ph6dic4fs50m6ldn2uj@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.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 9:32:44 PM

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...)
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 12:50:07 AM

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".
!