# Rules for selling gems?



## blalien (Jun 21, 2009)

So we have four types of gems: 100gp, 500gp, 1000gp, and 5000gp gems.  But are we really supposed to believe that a few isolated settlements separated by expanses full of hideous monsters have a standardized system for dealing with the value of gemstones?  Although the PHB doesn't explicitly say, I am assuming that Streetwise is the skill used for appraising and haggling.  Are there explicit rules somewhere for determining how much you can sell a gemstore for in a given city?


----------



## Regicide (Jun 21, 2009)

blalien said:


> So we have four types of gems: 100gp, 500gp, 1000gp, and 5000gp gems.  ...   Are there explicit rules somewhere for determining how much you can sell a gemstore for in a given city?




  Yes.  The gems sell for 100gp, 500gp, 1000gp and 5000gp respectively.  If they didn't then they wouldn't be 100gp... etc. gems.

If it helps, picture the 5000GP gem as the size of a basketball and worth enough to buy half the planet, but you're getting totally jacked and only getting 5000GP.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 21, 2009)

I don't really know what you want but yes we are supposed to believe that.


----------



## blalien (Jun 21, 2009)

Alright, thanks.  I'm going to make my own house rules for haggling.


----------



## Nytmare (Jun 21, 2009)

Perhaps the house rule you are looking for is: 

Gems range in value from a few dozen to several thousand gold pieces.  

Instead of having to roll on a bunch of charts, keeping a running list of how much each gem is worth / how much each PC thinks that the gem is worth / how much each NPC is willing to pay for each gem, and having to work through a 5+ step program of offers and counter offers every time the players want to convert a gem into loose change, you instead assume that over the course of a player character's lifetime, the gems that they deal with will average out into roughly 100, 500, 1000, or 5000 gold denominations.

Down with accounting!


----------



## eriktheguy (Jun 22, 2009)

Nytmare said:


> Perhaps the house rule you are looking for is:
> 
> Gems range in value from a few dozen to several thousand gold pieces.
> 
> ...




YesandNo

The new rules for gems are probably better, and definitely simpler. Most characters want to sell the art/gem treasure they find and be done with it. Also, forcing them to make a check they aren't trained in to get the most out of the treasure is no fun.
If the characters want to role-play to haggle, I support GM in his decision. I don't suggest building a system though. For example, I would avoid 'you sell the gem for (base value +/- some % based on skill check). The system can get out of hand when the players start to buy/sell gems for obscene profits, or at higher levels get too much gold from each treasury. It's essentially giving your party a static buff to treasure each level for taking a skill, and doesn't serve to enhance the game. Time spent bartering in the market can be interesting, for character/plot building, but for the most part gems sell at base value, done.
If on the other hand, a character remembers and NPC in town who really likes pearls or knows that the dwarves in the nearby mountain covet rubies, it's your job to reward them. Play out an encounter with the NPC(s) involved, you could incorporate skill checks, role-playing, experience points and adventure hooks here.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 22, 2009)

If you want to make up rules for haggling, you can, or...you can go another route and do something like:

"Searching the chest, you find a large blue stone, which seems to glow with an inner beauty, but a feeling of woeful sadness seeps into your heart as you look upon it."

Might be more interesting to set up an adventure than just have a bunch of dice rolled.


----------



## Nail (Jun 22, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Might be more interesting to set up an adventure than just have a bunch of dice rolled.



....but some people just love to roll dice!

If you try to build a "haggling system", you've got some hurdles:
The game is balanced with certain loot values in mind.  Depending on your system, you might end up giving the PCs too much gold, or too little.


PCs skill checks go up each level....why would the merchant checks also go up?  If you set a fixed DC, the PCs will eventually be able to blow that DC away.


Haggling takes time => Game time.  Do you want to spend precious game time haggling over the price of gems each session?  Really?  *Every* time the PCs get gems?


Some players really don't like haggling.  Are you going to penalize them for not having the same kind of fun-quotient the DM has?  Before you invest time & energy in this, poll your players.


A haggling system isn't any more believable than the gold peice system too, if you think about it.  Why should the gold peices you find in the dragon's hoard be the same size and weight as those in current circulation, etc.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 22, 2009)

The PCs did haggle.  Those are the prices they haggled the gems to sell for.


----------



## blalien (Jun 22, 2009)

See, I don't want gems to be functionally identical to gold pieces.  It seems like, "You kill the dragon.  You find one million gold pieces," is too mundane.  "You kill the dragon.  You find one million gold pieces worth of gems and art.  You may sell them to the local jeweler at your convenience," isn't much of a step up.  On the other hand, "You find a sapphire that makes you yearn for your days living beside the ocean.  You find a ruby that contains a fiery rage, etc." is just flavor clutter.  I'm trying to find a way to stress that gems and art are _different_ from gold, without overburdening the players.  The best I've got so far was giving each nation a different currency, so the players need to hold on to their gems (or melt down their gold pieces) when they travel to different countries.  I would like to impose some sort of mechanical difference as well.

What I might do is require one skill challenge for their entire bulk of gems.  I'll also try eriktheguy's idea and have different cultures favor different gems.


----------



## Whimsical (Jun 22, 2009)

The thing is, you're supposed to buy things (magic items) with gems, not convert it to gold. Gems are currency. You give the seller a gem, and he gives you a magic item with some gold in change.


----------



## Tenniel (Jun 22, 2009)

blalien said:


> What I might do is require one skill challenge for their entire bulk of gems. I'll also try eriktheguy's idea and have different cultures favor different gems.




Skill challenge is a good way to go, as you can use an existing mechanic.  Doing it for bulk lots is also good.  Otherwise you have to keep track of every gem, with lots of communicating back and forth over "that carmine spinel as big as your fist".  Also a skill challenge lets more than one player get involved.

You could run the challenge and the put the number of successes and failures into some simple formula, e.g.:

Sell price=actual (secret) value * (20 + number of sucesses)/(20+number of failures)

or have a table of number of success vs number of failures with a  entry for each cell giving a factor to adjust sell price.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 22, 2009)

blalien said:


> See, I don't want gems to be functionally identical to gold pieces.




Well, what do you want then?  I'm a bit unclear on that.



> The best I've got so far was giving each nation a different currency, so the players need to hold on to their gems (or melt down their gold pieces) when they travel to different countries. I would like to impose some sort of mechanical difference as well.




You may want to look up the history of money then to see what examples appeal to you.  I would point out that your PCs wouldn't have to melt down their gold pieces, it might be much simpler to go to a money-changer instead.  

Depending on how detailed you want to go with your mechanical differences, you can set the value of the coins in a number of ways.  I recall seeing some method at one point, but I'm blanking on where.  It involved setting one value as the base, then having the other currencies moving up and down around it.
Not sure of the mechanics used.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 22, 2009)

I head Accountants & Attorneys the RPG has whole chapters devoted to this...

Seriously, I wouldn't bother. Gems are basically currency, and can be spent like money in places where you by things that are on their cost scale, like a big city.  If you come to a poor little thorp, they would probably stare in awe at a gold piece, perhaps even a silver piece, and quite likely not understand what a gem was. But then again, you could bye the whole thorp and everything in it for the value of a gem, so there is nothing there yo trade it for anyway.


----------



## Byronic (Jun 22, 2009)

Starfox said:


> I head Accountants & Attorneys the RPG has whole chapters devoted to this...
> 
> Seriously, I wouldn't bother. Gems are basically currency, and can be spent like money in places where you by things that are on their cost scale, like a big city.  If you come to a poor little thorp, they would probably stare in awe at a gold piece, perhaps even a silver piece, and quite likely not understand what a gem was. But then again, you could bye the whole thorp and everything in it for the value of a gem, so there is nothing there yo trade it for anyway.




I don't think that's correct according to RAW (in DnD 4th edition) While the thought might be nice for immersion it doesn't fit with the current economy. A pitcher of ale or a common meal at an inn costs 2 silver pieces. Now, even assuming that a poor little thorp has 1/4 of the price (which RAW says nothing about, but lets assume) then I think that the innkeeper will see quite a few gold pieces. Even 20 customers in a week (I assume he'll get more then that, even in a tiny thorp) would give him several gold pieces a week. Minimum. That's not counting any travellers going through his inn and staying the night.

Hmm, that gives me a nice idea really. First we would have to adjust the economy. I don't mean the magic item economy, but the "Food Drink and Stay" economy. Divide all such prices by 10, gold becomes silver, silver becomes copper. Sure, your adventurers will never have to worry about paying for a meal again but... after the first goblin cave paying 2 silver or 2 copper for a meal doesn't make that much of a difference.

Your adventurers save the tiny village from destruction by goblinoids and spends their loot there. They go away and after 6 months or so they return by coincidence, and find a ruined village. Was it Orcs? no. Was it a Dragon? No. The adventurers simply broke the local economy. The innkeeper virtually owns the little village now, because he got the adventurers to pay RAW prices during their one week there. Some people got evicted. People started fights and riots because the economic balance of the town was destroyed. The innkeeper killed his wife (the nice one who made those cakes the adventurers liked) after a dispute about the money. 

It would be a fascinating lesson in the long term consequences of what you do.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 22, 2009)

I love the idea of gems being unique and flavorful, but it's sort of a pain to track. Is it worth the trouble? I think that depends on the feel of your game.

I usually tell people what sort of gems they find, and I particularly do if I want it to be relevant soon. For instance, if I know I have a trap coming up which requires crushed rubies to disarm, I'll tell the PCs that they find a gold goblet with four rubies on it, instead of a cache of generic gems. 

The whole "exchange rate" aspect of buy low-sell high (or vice versa in 4e!) doesn't appeal to me as part of the game, though. Too much bookkeeping for too little reward.


----------



## Tuft (Jun 22, 2009)

If you want to give coin economy and haggling a prominent part of your campaign, I can only recommend one thing:

Get hold of the Anime series "Spice and Wolf" (Spice and Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), using any means at your disposal!

It is a *very* good take on trade-as-adventure, high-stakes haggling, medieval economies, city tolls, city-to-city trade routes, and how things like varying coinage, trade agreements, and merchant house politics can be excellent plot-devices...


----------



## Regicide (Jun 22, 2009)

Tuft said:


> Get hold of the Anime series "Spice and Wolf" (Spice and Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), using any means at your disposal!




  I'd trade an apple for her.  BTW, she's naked for a lot of the first episode if that sort of thing turns you off.



blalien said:


> See, I don't want gems to be functionally identical to gold pieces.




  They weigh a lot less.  Although players can't be buggered to properly track encumbrance anyway.

  They're also much nicer to give to the barmaid as a "present" instead of a bunch of gold coins, that way she can pretend she isn't a whore.


----------



## eriktheguy (Jun 22, 2009)

So to summarize this thread (from my point of view)
- gems work like currency by RAW, but are lighter,universal currency, better for gifts/bribes
- requiring skill checks to sell gems is a no-no
- optionally allowing skill checks to sell gems is tedious and could be abused
- specific, valuable gems might be worth a lot to particular NPCs, and can create encounters and adventure hooks


----------



## N0Man (Jun 23, 2009)

eriktheguy said:


> So to summarize this thread (from my point of view)
> - gems work like currency by RAW, but are lighter,universal currency, better for gifts/bribes
> - requiring skill checks to sell gems is a no-no
> - optionally allowing skill checks to sell gems is tedious and could be abused
> - specific, valuable gems might be worth a lot to particular NPCs, and can create encounters and adventure hooks




I wouldn't say it's a no-no, just that it's not explicitly supported by RAW.  They made a conscious decision to treat gems just like currency for the sake of convenience.  A Haggling system can easily be turned into a variation of a trade skill, which 4E got rid of by default.  Adventurers are professional adventurers, it's what they do for a living.  However, as DM you can do what you want.

First of all, is this a kind of interaction your players want?  I was disappointed every time I found a gem as a player because I knew it meant tedious searching for a buyer and haggling on a price.  It wasn't fun to me, but it might be to someone else.  Honestly, if the players don't like that kind of thing, I'd just skip it.  As DM, you might feel that it's too gamist, but sometimes trying to make everything realistic can bog down a game and make simple things like shopping a real chore.

Make sure you find a solution that's fun for your group, whether it's following RAW or making up your own thing.  Having fun is more important than RAW or realism.

And who nows, maybe every emerald in the world just happens to naturally occur at the same value.     There's nothing to stop you from even changing up the values of the gems to the normal amount they would get in treasure, but I wouldn't really make them haggle to sell them or get them appraised.  Looting and appraising are parts Adventurer's skill set.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 23, 2009)

Haggling for gems kind of breaks down when you start dealing with astral diamonds. It's better to assume the treasure gems are a form of ingot (weighed and stamped by some merchant authority) rather than a work of art or an unrefined chunk of mineral.


----------



## eriktheguy (Jun 23, 2009)

N0Man said:


> I wouldn't say it's a no-no, just that it's not explicitly supported by RAW.  They made a conscious decision to treat gems just like currency for the sake of convenience.  A Haggling system can easily be turned into a variation of a trade skill, which 4E got rid of by default.  Adventurers are professional adventurers, it's what they do for a living.  However, as DM you can do what you want.
> 
> First of all, is this a kind of interaction your players want?  I was disappointed every time I found a gem as a player because I knew it meant tedious searching for a buyer and haggling on a price.  It wasn't fun to me, but it might be to someone else.  Honestly, if the players don't like that kind of thing, I'd just skip it.  As DM, you might feel that it's too gamist, but sometimes trying to make everything realistic can bog down a game and make simple things like shopping a real chore.
> 
> ...




I agree that certain players will enjoy haggling. But like your example some can really get bored of the tedious interactions that follow finding a cache of gems. For these systems I incorporate the 'no haggling for gems' rule. Further down my list I noted that special or rare gems could merit haggling etc. These are the things a DM would include if they knew one of the party members like this sort of thing. If you know one of your party members likes puzzles, you include a puzzle in the quest, but you don't make every combat/room a puzzle. If you know one party member likes haggling, you include some haggling encounters by throwing an interesting item into the treasure every now and then, but you don't make this a requirement for every gem. Most gems act as currency, and the exceptions act as encounters, skill challenges, and adventure hooks.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 23, 2009)

I think what Erik suggested is reasonable, if you have a player who wants that.

However, just beware of the common DM mistake of houseruling elements that you don't like as a DM because they don't feel right to you, and as a consequence increasing tedium and decreasing fun in your game.

I've seen way too many DM's try to add simulationist rules that really were frustrating and not fun at all, but had to be suffered through for the sake of the rest of the game and the DM's ego.


----------



## Nail (Jun 23, 2009)

N0Man said:


> ... just beware of the common DM mistake of houseruling elements that you don't like as a DM because they don't feel right to you, and as a consequence increasing tedium and decreasing fun in your game.



Truth.

FWIW, I wish players were a bit more forth-coming about what house-rules they think increase tedium.  Give the DM a (polite) heads-up, maybe via private email.


----------



## 77IM (Jun 23, 2009)

I impose gold-piece limits on most merchants, so the small village merchant won't buy the expensive gems.  For example, the party recently found an astral diamond, at 10th level.  But no one in the town will buy it from them, and it will be several levels before they find any place where they can cash it in for full value.  Besides, gold pieces hardly matter anyway -- it's ritual component scarcity and magic item availability that regulates the PC economy.

 -- 77IM


----------



## N0Man (Jun 23, 2009)

77IM said:


> I impose gold-piece limits on most merchants, so the small village merchant won't buy the expensive gems. For example, the party recently found an astral diamond, at 10th level. But no one in the town will buy it from them, and it will be several levels before they find any place where they can cash it in for full value. Besides, gold pieces hardly matter anyway -- it's ritual component scarcity and magic item availability that regulates the PC economy.




There are 2 comments I'd like to make on this.

First of all, this is the kind of thing I was warning about.  If your players feel that this adds something to the game, and they like this, then great, keep it up.  However, this is something that could very easily become tedious and frustrating to players.  Treasure that they can't spend isn't really treasure.  But again, this is something that seriously should be decided as a group, as it really is a houserule and could potentially have serious impact on fun.

Secondly, in 4E, your usage of gems isn't really as intended.  When a gem is worth 100 gold, that shouldn't mean that the players should have to cash it in for gold first, and gold is the actual currency.  I believe what is intended is that you to treat that gem as equivalent of 100 gold in currency.  Maybe that's what you are doing, and I misunderstand, and you are only referring to the village's ability to make change.

If that's the case, I'd like to refer you to the earlier comment that treasure that the party can't spend isn't really treasure.  If it's going to be 2 levels before they can actually buy anything with the diamond (either directly or by converting it for gold), then it shouldn't really count as their treasure they've acquired yet, IMHO.


----------



## 77IM (Jun 23, 2009)

I agree that treasure that can't be used isn't really treasure.  The astral diamond is more of a hook -- it didn't count against their treasure for the dungeon where they found it (which was like an 8th-level dungeon, AD is way off the charts).  Instead, it will be a reward for them finding a place where they can cash it in (a journey which may involve a lot of hostile territory); it's an implicit quest to get them away from the podunk village where the campaign started.

 -- 77IM


----------



## eriktheguy (Jun 23, 2009)

77IM said:


> I agree that treasure that can't be used isn't really treasure.  The astral diamond is more of a hook -- it didn't count against their treasure for the dungeon where they found it (which was like an 8th-level dungeon, AD is way off the charts).  Instead, it will be a reward for them finding a place where they can cash it in (a journey which may involve a lot of hostile territory); it's an implicit quest to get them away from the podunk village where the campaign started.
> 
> -- 77IM



That's actually a really well used item, and of course you were right not to cost it against their treasure. Give them a trillion dollar bill and watch them squirm when no one has change.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 23, 2009)

Ok, well that isn't so bad then.  So if I understand you correctly, you've effectively given them a treasure parcel as a quest reward for a quest they haven't done yet, but can't spend until they've done the quest.  ;-)

What if they decide they really want something before then and buy something that is worth a fraction of what the Diamond is worth and eat the loss?

I like the general idea though.  I think I could see myself doing a variation of that with a valuable art object of a very specific style.  With some research, they might find out that some very wealth man is a collector of such an item.


----------



## 77IM (Jun 24, 2009)

N0Man said:


> What if they decide they really want something before then and buy something that is worth a fraction of what the Diamond is worth and eat the loss?



That's their choice.  Far be it from me to prevent the players from screwing themselves over.  ;}  In fact, if I offered them 7,500 residuum for the AD, they might take it, since they have basically exhausted the local reagent market.



N0Man said:


> I think I could see myself doing a variation of that with a valuable art object of a very specific style.  With some research, they might find out that some very wealth man is a collector of such an item.



I've done that too!  It's a great way to simplify the "haggling"/"selling" process into something easy for players to grasp and quick to resolve.  It's quick because you either manage to find a specific buyer and get the good price, or you don't and get the market price -- there's no temptation to keep making Diplomacy checks in an attempt to eke out that extra 5% profit.

 -- 77IM


----------



## N0Man (Jun 24, 2009)

77IM said:


> I've done that too!  It's a great way to simplify the "haggling"/"selling" process into something easy for players to grasp and quick to resolve.  It's quick because you either manage to find a specific buyer and get the good price, or you don't and get the market price -- there's no temptation to keep making Diplomacy checks in an attempt to eke out that extra 5% profit.




Actually, why dispense with the Diplomacy?  Maybe they can convince him to pay a higher price, but it might require them to use other skills or actions to convince him.  What I'm talking about is a skill challenge, where the reward would be a minor parcel as far as you are concerned, but it would be presented to the players as an increase in the buying price.  It could be in the form of helping him out with some other tasks, or maybe a skill challenge that isn't directly involving him but has indirect results which might have an impact on the price.

What do you think?


----------



## Coherent805 (Sep 12, 2010)

*This thread is pertinent to my interests*

Thread necromancy!  I am interested in this thread because I feel strongly that gems are not equivalent to currency.  In my game, the quick sale of a gem nets only 55 to 65% of it's final value, although that can be raised by haggling.

Think of it this way: if you offer goods or services in fantasy or the real world, are you likely to accept a slab of aluminum or an unrefined blob of platinum as payment?  How likely are you to accept a pretty rock that may or may not be a gem?  Are you, random merchant, a gemologist as well?

You just don't know its value by looking at it, any more than you'd know how much a slab of aluminum is worth, or any random weight and purity of _any_ precious metal or stone.

Gems are not currency any more than any raw materials are in the modern day.  People trust currency they know; this is why coins have pictures on them and counterfeiting is frowned upon, even in a metals based economy.  Gem assay is not a common or certain skill, and nobody wants to get burned by a fake gem.

The longer you take to sell a gem, and the more careful of who you try to sell it to, the better the relationship you have with that person, the more likely you are to get the stated value.

Of course, some institutions exist that _do_ have gemologists on staff, and they're much more likely to give you a better price due to their increased confidence in the real value of your pretty rocks.  Everybody else is taking a terrible risk, and will give you less in exchange because of that uncertainty.

So I'm with blalien!


P.S. I tend to give out too much treasure in my games, so it's not like my PC's are starving in the streets because of this.  It's just that it can be tricky to unload treasure sometimes when you're stuck in a strange land and nobody trusts you.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Sep 13, 2010)

N0Man said:


> First of all, is this a kind of interaction your players want? I was disappointed every time I found a gem as a player because I knew it meant tedious searching for a buyer and haggling on a price. It wasn't fun to me, but it might be to someone else. Honestly, if the players don't like that kind of thing, I'd just skip it.




I think this is the most important place to start addressing your question.  Haggling is not fun to me.  Whether we're stuck haggling over the gems we're selling, buying equipment, or how much we should make on a bounty, it always seems like a waste of time when I could be enjoying a meaningful story.

But other people I play with haggle at every turn.  Maybe they enjoy the banter or want to squeeze everything out of their money.  But regardless there is something they enjoy about haggling.

So you should find out what your players want before spending time on something they may dislike.


----------



## Dayte (Sep 13, 2010)

Nytmare said:


> Down with accounting!




But, but, but .... it's how I pay my bills.

Yea, 4e makes things simple. That doesn't mean a DM can't come up with a system to make it a little more "life-like" if that is what he and hopefully, his players want.

I'm sure it can also be simpler than what you proposed. Perhaps streetwise or dungeoneering (?) for appraisal. Diplomacy (or Intimidate?) to haggle.

To each group their own.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 13, 2010)

Coherent805 said:


> Thread necromancy!  I am interested in this thread because I feel strongly that gems are not equivalent to currency.  In my game, the quick sale of a gem nets only 55 to 65% of it's final value, although that can be raised by haggling.



Well, do you play 4e? If so, do you allow the 'Fluid Funds' ritual? 

At least for games set in Eberron it's a non-issue because of this ritual


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 14, 2010)

Dayte said:


> Yea, 4e makes things simple. That doesn't mean a DM can't come up with a system to make it a little more "life-like" if that is what he and hopefully, his players want.
> 
> I'm sure it can also be simpler than what you proposed. Perhaps streetwise or dungeoneering (?) for appraisal. Diplomacy (or Intimidate?) to haggle.
> 
> To each group their own.



Welcome to the boards!

For me, giving gems out as treasure has two purposes
 a> in games where wealth<>level  guidelines apply, gems are more portable and more historically correct ways of transporting large values of money.
 b> gems and art items come with built in plot hooks... specifically 'who do you sell it to'?

 I believe games in which the bargaining over gems sales is boring is due to the approach of 'you have a gem, meet a merchant, roll to see if you can get a good value from it' instead of 'you have a gem... time to find someone to trade it with for something you want/need, try to not attract attention of theives, perhaps play two bidders against each other, perhaps travel to a distant location ... then finally get down to bargaining over the price.' kind of approach.

Mechanically, I have gp limits based on the population of the town and I use a modified skill challenge framework for the group/PC to ferret out a potential buyer, determine the right approach, and then finally try to close the deal.

 The same goes for art, with the added issue of being charged with tomb-robbing or art-theft, and for magic items.. with the added issue of more attention from less than legal-minded folks.

 This allows me to bring into play minor nobles, guilds, and other NPCs within the town that are more than just a 'gem ATM' for 'Fluid Funds' {a disallowed ritual IMC...}


----------

