Wednesday, February 3, 2021

Gems & Jewellery Headaches

I was just discussing an impromptu survey of D&D players through twitter and social media, answering the question, "What would you like to see on an equipment table that isn't usually there?"  The reply came back overwhelmingly, jewellery.

Okay, so this is an enormous headache.  There are several resources in the original DMG that have plagued me since I began running the game ... and since I'm deep into equipment, now's a good time to talk about them.  Let me reproduce the relevant sections of pp.25-26 first, then a piece of p.219:




Wow, did I waste a lot of time with these tables!

While we can handwave ourselves through gaming by randomly rolling a goblet, arbitrarily determining that it's made of gold, with gems, and that it's worth 5,000 g.p., there are considerable issues with this system.  Given that the average roll for jewellery is 2,910 g.p., that's awfully high for any party less than 6th level; it doesn't tell us what gems the goblet has, so these have to be assigned.  The table doesn't tell us how much of the value is gold and how much is gems, or what gems there are or how many.  Yes, we can arbitrarily assign these things, but if we're left having to arbitrarily assign most of the details, how are we aided by having the dice assign one detail and an outrageous total g.p.?  Why is it more than six times as likely to find jewellery worth more than 1,000 g.p. than pieces of that amount and less?

Yet in my infancy I used this table for more than a decade, willfully rolling the amounts and then arbitrarily adjusting them as needed, until finally I grew up and recognized that it was easier to assign every detail and screw the die rolling.  Which I hated.  But then I built a trading system and pricing table that would allow me to exactly define the cost of the gold by weight, the cost of the 18 amber gems set into it, using specific gravity to define the weight vs. the size of the gems and the cup, etcetera.

Not that this helped me one damn bit.

Start with the variety of gems shown.  Gygax includes 54 varieties of gemstone.  My pricing system has 65, counting all the varieties I've stumbled across that are worth including.  Each has a unique value, as they come from places scattered across the globe, which for my system defines the price of the gem based on its relative type (ornamental, fancy, semi-precious, lesser precious and greater precious).  On top of this, because my system isn't random, gems come in 8 general sizes:  pea, marble, cherry, almond, walnut, plum, peach and apple, each size corresponding to the number of cubic inches associated with an object the size of a pea, marble, cherry and so on.  If you're interested:
  • pea-sized: 0.016 cub.in.
  • marble-sized: 0.061 cub.in.
  • cherry-sized: 0.251 cub.in.
  • almond-sized: 0.655 cub.in.
  • walnut-sized: 1.031 cub.in.
  • plum-sized: 2.015 cub.in.
  • peach-sized: 3.936 cub.in.
  • apple-sized: 8.646 cub.in.

The comparative objects were picked to offer familiarity of proportion, and the cubic inches determined by researching the number of cubic inches in a pea, standard marble, cherry and so on.  It's difficult to picture a diamond weighing 56 carats; quick, tell me what that is on the list above.  That's an awfully big diamond.  The Hope Diamond is 45.52 carats.  A diamond is 3,510 carats per cubic inch.  A diamond that's 56 carats would be the size of a pea.  That's all.  An almond-sized diamond, the sort that's often depicted in the movies, such as the one in Titanic, would be 2,317 carats, 2/3rds as large as the biggest UNCUT diamond that's ever been found, the Cullinan diamond.  Cut diamonds are never that big.

But forget the digression.  For a fantasy game, we can easily propose a diamond as large as a walnut.  Poof, one exists.  The bigger issue is that the varying sizes of gemstone means that not only are we picking the type and the number to go on our goblet, we're picking the size too.  Not to mention that we're also free to decide if the gold is 14K, 18K or 24K, each deciding the amount of actual gold in the metal—though if we want to use the cup, 24K is too soft.

Very well, if we want four types of gems in our cup, for colour you understand, and large and small sizes, and 14 carat gold, we'll still need a volume of gold for the goblet itself.  A 6 inch tall glass goblet weighs half a pound, or 0.23 kg.  However, glass has a specific gravity of 2.8 grams/cub.cm; 14K gold is much denser than that, so our goblet weighs 2.48 lbs.  Of course, that's arbitrary too: what about a goblet 7 inches high, or 8 inches?  What about a wider goblet, or one where the gold is thicker?  Are we going to built tables for that?

Finally, all this is entirely academic.  This one goblet of this one size and material, with this one collection of gems, is just ONE POSSIBLE object of an infinite combination of various things a jeweller, lapidary or metalsmith might make.  Any list of jewellery created for an equipment list (which is where we started), couldn't possibly account for all the jewellery possibilities a character may wish to advantage.  Suppose, for arguments sake, we want to take each object on the jewellery and items list described: 35 items.  We make each object in copper, pewter, silver, gold and white gold.  We're up to 170 items.  Let's say we make versions with gems and without gems: 340 now.  And let's say we make versions with gems of the five orders: ornamental, fancy and so on.  That's 1,700 jewellery items ... and in toto, only six of those are "earrings."  That's it.  You want a ring, you have six choices.

In fact, we could easily fill a splatbook (well, it wouldn't be "easy," it would be brain-crushing repetitive work, but ignore that) with all the types of jewellery a player might buy, with 3 columns of 30-50 items (some would need more than one line) over 200 pages, with 24,000 items, and players still wouldn't feel they had enough choice.  What, there's no silver tiara here encrusted with black coral?  THIS BOOK IS SHIT!

As such, jewellery lists don't exist because it's a hole that produces no value.

Ideally, I'd like to build a list the players could use to make their own jewellery.  A sort of plug-and-play arrangement.  And still it is sort of arbitrary to do this in a universal equipment list, such as the poster, we might as well say the jewellery is a gold tiara "with gems" worth 1800 g.p. and have done with it.  Realistically, for most game worlds, jewellery will always be known by its price tag and not its substance, which is sad, don't you think?  I prefer a system that defines the object completely, and leave the players to wonder how valuable it really is, like a sort of D&D road show.  Knowing the price tag ruins that experience.

Pity.

16 comments:

  1. Since I use Classic D&D, jewelry gets a value between 300 and 1800gp (3d6 x100) so most jewelry items are around 1000gp. That, to me, is reasonable enough.

    I tend to roll first, then think of what sort of item it might be. When I'm feeling creative, I get things like "gold inlaid griffon leather dagger scabbard of Elven design." When I'm not creative, we get "silver necklace." And I've found that the more description that I give the items, the more players want to keep them, rather than just sell them in town for coin. So I try to get as creative as possible when assigning jewelry to treasure hoards.

    And while I'd also love a more comprehensive and detailed system for design and pricing of items like you describe, I find that just adding some color regardless of value works well for my players.

    I never thought of adding jewelry to the equipment tables. Players have never asked for that. I've had a few request jewelry to be made for them to make their coins more portable or for aesthetics, and I've just eyeballed price ranges for items in the books as a guide to pricing them. Since I don't have detailed trade tables like you use, it's the best I can do at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's funny. I did the exact same thing until my trade tables, which didn't exist until 2005/06, so that for 25 years I also added colour and discovered that players grew attached to things they could more closely experience.

    But you know that phrase, "works well for my players," is a trap. I'm sure it does. But innovation and creation opens up a whole new world that neither you nor your players will contemplate without going there first. The video games we played in the '80s "worked well" for us, as did the ones in the '90s and the '00s. But they keep making new video games and the experience keeps changing into something more profound and unexpected. Our reaching for larger ideas promotes larger responses, and soon enough what "worked well" two years ago now seems half-baked and inadequate. Players will adapt to a new system and will say, "Wow, I can't believe we used to do it that way for so long."

    I can't believe I used to spend six hours at a stretch playing Jumpman. What was wrong with me? I decided one day I would play until I reached a score of 1,000,000 ... because there were only six digit spaces. Broke the game. Took me, I think, 18 hrs?

    ReplyDelete
  3. True, I do need to keep upping my game.

    Does your sage abilities system factor into pricing in your campaign? Is a piece of jewelry created by a master worth more than that created by a journeyman or apprentice jeweler? I'm sure that would put an extra wrinkle in trying to assign a master price list, or even just pricing ranges.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Compare this page: https://wiki.alexissmolensk.com/index.php/Glaze_(sage_study)

    This has four levels of workmanship: ornament, object of art, thing of beauty and masterpiece.

    My upgraded equipment list (not done yet) has ordinary, fine quality, highly crafted, excellent work, brilliant work and masterwork. These two systems fit together, but I haven't specified how yet and I won't for the present. I'm playing with different ideas that may increase the number of equipment list variations.

    In either case, yes, the same object that's ordinary vs. fine quality will have a difference in price. As you move up the scale, the price increases, so that excellent work is 12 times as valuable as ordinary and a masterwork is 64 times as valuable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What if, instead, the jewelry equipment list described the possible options and a way to find the value of any combination thereof?

    I think you might be able to solve this as a math problem. To avoid having to price all the possible combinations one could instead find how each of the individual variables contribute to the value of the jewelry. In this way the end result would be a function to find the value of any piece of jewelry given its relevant parameters.

    A simple example of a function like this could for example be p = n * v * c where p is the value of a gem, n is the number of gems (ex. 3 gems), v is the volume of each gem (ex. 0.12 oz.) and c is a constant (fx. 2778 coins/oz). Filling in the example parameters gives:

    p = 3 * 0,12 oz. * 2778 coins/oz. = 1000 coins

    Given a function like this the jewelry equipment list would instead describe all the possible variables and their limits. Finding a function that gives good results for any combination can be a difficult problem, but it is possible to find (especially if it is set up as a system of equations for the computer to solve). You can play around with different parameters for such a function in excel by using the goal seek function under what-if-analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love the idea of encouraging the user to create their own jewelry. A real sense of ownership.

    Sebastian, wouldn't the value of the gem scale geometrically with the size? I don't know much about "real-world" gem pricing, but I would guess it's non-linear.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Shelby, I guess they would. Or exponentially maybe. It sounds like you think about it the same way I do. The given function was only meant to be a simple example, but my head was spinning with all kinds of functions and operators that might be used to tailor the end function to fit every kind of variable. For example, the use of a logarithmic function could accommodate ideas like diminishing returns for adding too many gems to a single object, or the price of each contribution could be scaled according to the place it was sold in. Anything seems possible.

    Complex math functions might not fit a fantasy equipment list that well though. The more I think about it, the more I think that the actual price of jewelry should not even be available to players, just like you wrote in the end of the post Alexis. When a function is found, it could be implemented into a calculator script/program to quickly appraise any piece of jewelry whenever the players take the object to a professional for appraisal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That seems to me to be the only solution that makes sense. Don't even bother trying to make a list, just set up parameters for determining ex post facto what a described piece is worth.

    If you used drop down tables you could probably "hand craft" a piece of jewelry to fit the desired gp value as well.

    It involves a decent amount of work, but if ever a system which provided value to jewelry besides it's gp/xp value was introduced it would be immensely useful. I would totally invest in some custom swag for Pandred if it gave me +1 Charisma for the day or something.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I see it as assigning a range of material volume for the selection of jewellery forms; followed by selection of materials, which can be mixed as a percentage: 60% ceramic, 40% gold. Then, depending on the jewellery form, a range of gem numbers that can be added, plus a range of total weight of gem. For example, a necklace could have MORE gems than earrings; and the number of gems would determine the total weight of gems guided by the total weight of materials the jewellery was made from.

    So, select jewellery form, select materials, select gems, size and number. Plug them into equation; have equation produce g.p. value.

    ReplyDelete
  10. For the POSTER; pick 10 jewellery forms; allow two or three materials, with cost per oz. of material listed; give absolute number of gems the jewellery can support; list a number of gems on the table. Let readers put together simple jewellery from that. Should be enough to show DMs how to expand the formula for their own games if they want.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would find that very useful, for one

    ReplyDelete
  12. I love those approaches to jewelry, that'd be great in some multi purpose generator (not necessarily random).

    ReplyDelete
  13. I've been tinkering with this and think I've found the source of my confusion. Alexis states "A diamond that's 56 carats would be the size of a pea." and try as I might I've been unable to work this through mathematically. Near as I can tall a 5.6c diamond might be the size of a pea. (https://www.diamdb.com/diamond/5.6ct-round-11.54x11.54x6.96/) That's .262 cubic centimeters. I've crossed referenced through several gem websites and it looks like he just omitted the decimal point? 56 carats would be a tad smaller than a cherry (to use your very helpful nomenclature.) And I'm coming up with 288 carats for that cubic inch diamond. (https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight).

    or are we talking cut vs uncut here? I'm lost

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yep. I seem to be the victim of a typo.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Followed your lead and think I finally came up with a spreadsheet that works for ME. Led to a lot of additional spreadsheet tinkering and my NTME trade system is taking off.

    https://dmsescritoire.blogspot.com/2021/11/in-which-we-find-gemstones.html

    Just an additional thanks for your hard work and willingness to show the way.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm very glad to hear that, Escritoire. I believe that you'll find it gives your world three dimensions in all sorts of ways.

    ReplyDelete

If you wish to leave a comment on this blog, contact alexiss1@telus.net with a direct message. Comments, agreed upon by reader and author, are published every Saturday.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.