Fashion Police

[Jenred]

The clothing/perception of wealth issue will not be settled unless the staff make some distinction in cost between silk and linen, gems and stones, rich and poor commodities, etc.

Generally speaking, with no regards to inflationary aspects of each city-state, supply, demand, etc:
Dyed linen and sandcloth are the same price as undyed silk.
Cotton is more expensive than linen.
Rough sandcloth is more expensive than regular sandcloth.
Armor is more expensive than silk.
Silk items have better sdescs.
Pretty stones are cheaper than uglier ones.
Wine is cheaper than water.
Ale is more expensive than hard alcohol.
Nice apartments are cheaper than tenement rooms.
Alot of practical items that PCs would wear are more expensive than their fancy counterparts, etc.

So if the intent, by way of the documentation and apparently alot of players in this thread, is that silk shouldn't be worn by commoners (as much) it should be reflected in the game world in terms of pricing and availability.

[Nyr]

There already is a distinction in cost between silk and linen, gems and stones, rich and poor commodities.  Can you be more specific?

[Patuk]

Ten years ago, templars/nobles would occasionally PK you for a wrong word, or a hint of disrespect.

Are we sure this actually ever happened or was it myth and hyperbole that, even then, was used to instill newbies with proper fear of authority?

I recall we definitely had some mean templars back then, but mostly because they roleplayed menace extremely well.  I've never actually seen a "That one over there didn't bow.  Kill him." or the like ever.

This did happen, back in the day when nobles would sit in the Gaj like it was the Trader's, because the Trader's had no PCs. Eventually the Gaj got alot of echoes to really up the level of disgustingness there, and alot of the nobles stopped hanging out there so much.

I'd pay an arm and a leg for the sanctuary to be upped in its poshness echoes and the Tooth to be toned down.

[Nyr]

Actually, that list you provided is a little weird, so I can't tell if you're saying it should be a certain way, or is a certain way.

dyed linen and dyed sandcloth vs undyed silk -- not sure if you're saying undyed silk should cost more than dyed linen and sandcloth
cotton more expensive than linen -- can't tell what you're advocating here
rough sandcloth more expensive than regular sandcloth -- can't tell what you're advocating here
armor vs silk -- depends on the armor, depends on the silk, really too vague to tell here
silk items have better sdescs -- for the most part, they do.  If they don't, idea it and we can review it
pretty stones are cheaper than uglier ones -- aren't, shouldn't be; bug it and we can assess it
wine is cheaper than water -- isn't, and probably shouldn't be in those cases where one finds that to be the case; bug it and we can compare proportions
ale is more expensive than hard alcohol -- isn't, and probably shouldn't be in those cases where one finds that to be the case; bug it and we can compare proportions
nice apartments are cheaper than tenement rooms -- isn't, shouldn't be, no need to bug because we fixed this years ago
practical items more expensive than fancy counterparts -- shouldn't be; bug it

For the most part the gameworld is already set up this way.  If you think something is out of kilter, bug it.  It takes a bit longer to get around to those things, but we've made a point of fixing things that weigh less than their component parts for no apparent reason, crafted items that cost less than what the materials cost, etc.  Things are by no means perfect, but they aren't nearly as bad as you indicate from what I can tell.

[HavokBlue]

Actually, that list you provided is a little weird, so I can't tell if you're saying it should be a certain way, or is a certain way.

dyed linen and dyed sandcloth vs undyed silk -- not sure if you're saying undyed silk should cost more than dyed linen and sandcloth
cotton more expensive than linen -- can't tell what you're advocating here
rough sandcloth more expensive than regular sandcloth -- can't tell what you're advocating here
armor vs silk -- depends on the armor, depends on the silk, really too vague to tell here
silk items have better sdescs -- for the most part, they do.  If they don't, idea it and we can review it
pretty stones are cheaper than uglier ones -- aren't, shouldn't be; bug it and we can assess it
wine is cheaper than water -- isn't, and probably shouldn't be in those cases where one finds that to be the case; bug it and we can compare proportions
ale is more expensive than hard alcohol -- isn't, and probably shouldn't be in those cases where one finds that to be the case; bug it and we can compare proportions
nice apartments are cheaper than tenement rooms -- isn't, shouldn't be, no need to bug because we fixed this years ago
practical items more expensive than fancy counterparts -- shouldn't be; bug it

For the most part the gameworld is already set up this way.  If you think something is out of kilter, bug it.  It takes a bit longer to get around to those things, but we've made a point of fixing things that weigh less than their component parts for no apparent reason, crafted items that cost less than what the materials cost, etc.  Things are by no means perfect, but they aren't nearly as bad as you indicate from what I can tell.

I think that last thing about practical items was referring to things like sheaths that would be relatively commonplace costing a lot more than most luxury items due to OOC factors.

[Jenred]

I was being intentionally vague, as to not reveal actual items, prices, and so on.
As far as a few of the other things:
I was saying undyed silk is the same price as dyed linen or sandcloth. -Andl if its supposed to be as expensive as dyed linen or sandcloth, wearing silk (white) will always be cheaper than wearing linen. So from a practical standpoint as a commoner, I'd wear cheap white silk over more expensive dyed linen. Thus creating a silk-illusion of wealth.
Rough sandcloth should be cheaper than quality sandcloth.
The amors, vague on purpose... but shell and leather is more expensive than wearing silk. Players are saying commoners should be restricted from silk. Well wearing even cheap armor is more expensive. Is the point I was making there. (i.e. They are saying that a player wearing more than a silk scarf and gloves, or whatever else, is an overdisplay of wealth. A low-end piece (piece being one, singular) of armor costs more than several pieces of silk clothing in some cases... why is there a discrimination against the silk and not the armor-wearer?) - If anything, the noble should be more perturbed by the wandering dunesman in full-sets of kryl/ankheg armor than the commoner in a silk dress.

I (just) bugged the water vs wine, at least the most prevalent example.
I'll bug the remaining things, as I run across them.
The apartment thing is not fixed, but I'll send a request about it.

[Desertman]

In my opinion the basic pricing of silk would be beyond the means of most commoners working for common pay for a merchant or noble house.

The thing is, independents make a lot more in the way of coins generally than pc's who work for a house.

Also, pc's who work for a house "usually" make additional coins in some way, thus allowing them to afford silks as well.

It's like IRL. I go to work, I get paid, I have one job that I do, and I live off that salary.

In Armageddon with the playerbase that isn't the case. A lot of people work for themselves because IC'ly they can make a lot more than they could living off of a merchant/noble house employee base salary. Also, a lot of house employees are also doing things on the side/getting bonuses/getting rewards above and beyond the base salary.

My point is, silk and most luxuries probably ARE priced so as to be out of the reach of "most" commoners who are working commoner jobs for commoner pay.

The majority of the playerbase isn't really doing that.

Not really a complaint, just more of an explanation/something to think about really. I've always attributed it to, "The pc's aren't vnpcs, we are like the heroes, that is why we stand out."

[Maso]

Noble stipends should be way way higher than they are. Most indie merchants probably have more money than most nobles. Give nobles more money. Hike up the price of silk and gems etc. Way more. Sorted.

[Barzalene]

I've always wanted to widen the gaps between the haves and the have nots. I also always thought that the haves should be the nobles, the gmh and their employees. That the have nots should be everyone else. But I don't really see how that could be made to happen at this point.

This is also a bigger discussion than fashion.

And finally, it's not like the game is broken. The game is alive and vibrant and most people seem pretty happy playing it. But it would still be nice if the economy fell more in line with the documentation.

[Marauder Moe]

Not that we shouldn't re-examine the game's "economy" from time to time, but I really don't think that you can police fashion through price alone.

[Jenred]

Not that we shouldn't re-examine the game's "economy" from time to time, but I really don't think that you can police fashion through price alone.

Thats where the issue diverged a little.
Originally it was proposed to police fashion through nobles/templars expressing some sort of contempt that "commoners" would imitate their styles, wear clothing unbecoming of their station, etc etc. The divergence was in the fact that when these things are actually generally cheap (and in my thread above, cheaper than even armor pieces), what should commoners be wearing?

So you can police it ICly, through nobles becoming perturbed; police it through item cost; and then maybe also availability. Instead of "many" available, limit the overall amount of silks sold, (I dont know, just a suggestion).

[Morrolan]

Maybe, in a "be the change" way, we should react more strongly IG to the way people dress. Compliment people's clothes if they're nice. Avoid people (more) when they're smelly of dirty. Make decisions based on in-game social markers: silk, house signs, etc.

IRL, of we see people in battle-dress walking around, we don't generally cozy up to them. And here I'd distinguishing between wearing some practical leathers for hunting and wearing full silt-horror armor.

From another side, I think that laws and rules linking status-items with actual statuses would be a great addition.

A little (but not entirely) tongue in cheek:
>wear silk
You are now wanted!

P.S. Why do we always wear helms and such in lawful areas? That's a pet peeve of mine. Unless you're on duty as a soldier, it seems like an odd thing to do.

[Eurynomos]

Noble stipends should be way way higher than they are. Most indie merchants probably have more money than most nobles. Give nobles more money. Hike up the price of silk and gems etc. Way more. Sorted.

Noble stipends are not 'low' by any means. I'm not going to divulge 'what they are' but they are certainly 'more than enough'. As Delirium pointed out earlier, we also expect Nobles to fuel plots with their coins, not just expand their wardrobe (though they can, if they wish).

Nobles don't spend hours spam crafting and selling items to NPC's, because, whelp, they're Nobles. They fuel plots, not the economy.

[HavokBlue]

Commoners often look to nobility for examples in most aspects of life, and fashion is no exception. The styles of commoner clothing available, while simpler and cheaper, often imitate that of nobles.

[Marauder Moe]

Not that we shouldn't re-examine the game's "economy" from time to time, but I really don't think that you can police fashion through price alone.

Thats where the issue diverged a little.
Originally it was proposed to police fashion through nobles/templars expressing some sort of contempt that "commoners" would imitate their styles, wear clothing unbecoming of their station, etc etc. The divergence was in the fact that when these things are actually generally cheap (and in my thread above, cheaper than even armor pieces), what should commoners be wearing?

Not silk?

Again, it's not just about cost.  Look to some other RL cultures, like ancient Rome or China.  Purple and yellow (respectively) were reserved for nobility/royalty not because those colors were expensive (though they were a bit), but because they were significant of status.  Just apply that same philosophy to materials and we're set.

[Jenred]

Not that we shouldn't re-examine the game's "economy" from time to time, but I really don't think that you can police fashion through price alone.

Thats where the issue diverged a little.
Originally it was proposed to police fashion through nobles/templars expressing some sort of contempt that "commoners" would imitate their styles, wear clothing unbecoming of their station, etc etc. The divergence was in the fact that when these things are actually generally cheap (and in my thread above, cheaper than even armor pieces), what should commoners be wearing?

Not silk?

Again, it's not just about cost.  Look to some other RL cultures, like ancient Rome or China.  Purple and yellow (respectively) were reserved for nobility/royalty not because those colors were expensive (though they were a bit), but because they were significant of status.  Just apply that same philosophy to materials and we're set.

That is a bit different. It is about cost, and availability. It was not so in Ancient Rome or China that the reserved styles were available, everywhere, and people just didn't buy them. Purple and red, in Rome, were expensive. Its is as much about cost, as availability. Silk was rare in china (at fist) as it was specifically reserved for the nobility (read: not available at the market down the street). Silk was rare in the west due to availability/cost (it was all imported).

If something is going to be distinctive of a station, or class, in the game, it should be both rare and more expensive than alternatives /or/ enforced ICly. Kadius has no qualms selling silk to whoever can pay for it. If it should not be this way, they should be pressured by the nobles/templars.

Im all for a solution to this, and distinction in class and fashion. And think it should involve a mix of cost, availability, cultural role-play enforcement by nobles and the GMHs, etc etc.

[Marauder Moe]

I'm pretty sure that, for at least some eras, those colors were downright illegal for non-nobility/royalty to wear.

That said... we seem to have rambled into some sort of agreement... I think?  To be honest I'm having some trouble parsing your points as well.

[Red Ranger]

I'm pretty sure that, for at least some eras, those colors were downright illegal for non-nobility/royalty to wear.

That said... we seem to have rambled into some sort of agreement... I think?  To be honest I'm having some trouble parsing your points as well.

They were illegal. The relevant laws were called sumptuary laws.

[Jenred]

Zalanthas is not ancient rome. Commodities that were illegal or reserved were also limited in availability.
However at the same time, a form of a sumptuary tax exists in game. Find out IC.

[Rhyden]

Someone should make a fashionista soldier who goes around judging commoners' attire and jailing anyone dressing above their station.

[Malken]

I think this started when a certain group of gemmed 'gikers were running around in silks, filthy rich and 'running the show'. People bitched about it and some Templar PCs finally did something about it.

It stuck ever since. Wearing silks and 'showing off' is never a good idea in Allanak.

[Cutthroat]

Adjusting prices for things just delays the purchase without putting it out of reach. Restricting GMH shops from selling things to certain people can cause more trouble than it's worth when code cannot adequately determine if the buyer is "qualified". Lowering the amount of items in stock in a shop - that will probably get messed up by the code that sells items to vNPCs, especially with the server's long uptimes lately, making the items even rarer than intended.

Also, if PCs are displaying wealth that should be beyond their station, I think that can be played with by pretty much everyone, not just GMH and noble/templar characters (I think at least some of those characters already enforce cultural/societal norms to some extent... that's a big part of the reason why they are there, anyway). It's still IC for a typical character to brawl with them in the Gaj, mug them, make fun of them, etc.

[Narf]

Noble stipends should be way way higher than they are. Most indie merchants probably have more money than most nobles. Give nobles more money. Hike up the price of silk and gems etc. Way more. Sorted.

I often OOCly feel guilty taking money from nobles for anything.

[Nyr]

I had a chance to look at a few of these.  Some are related to the topic, some are a bit of a derail, but I'll cover them here since they were brought up here.

I was saying undyed silk is the same price as dyed linen or sandcloth. -Andl if its supposed to be as expensive as dyed linen or sandcloth, wearing silk (white) will always be cheaper than wearing linen. So from a practical standpoint as a commoner, I'd wear cheap white silk over more expensive dyed linen. Thus creating a silk-illusion of wealth.

Okay.  Well, I'm going to go ahead and tell you that this isn't true.  Undyed silk is not the same price as dyed linen or sandcloth.  I checked every shop that sold undyed silk.

Rough sandcloth should be cheaper than quality sandcloth.

Looks like it is.

The amors, vague on purpose... but shell and leather is more expensive than wearing silk. Players are saying commoners should be restricted from silk. Well wearing even cheap armor is more expensive. Is the point I was making there. (i.e. They are saying that a player wearing more than a silk scarf and gloves, or whatever else, is an overdisplay of wealth. A low-end piece (piece being one, singular) of armor costs more than several pieces of silk clothing in some cases... why is there a discrimination against the silk and not the armor-wearer?) - If anything, the noble should be more perturbed by the wandering dunesman in full-sets of kryl/ankheg armor than the commoner in a silk dress.

On the front end of this one, I just don't see it.  A full set of cheap armor is not more expensive than a full set of silk.  A full set of expensive armor might get more expensive, however.  There's a whole set of documents on materials and their subsequent markups for Salarris.

I (just) bugged the water vs wine, at least the most prevalent example.

I mentioned earlier that it might be a bug but it would depend on proportion.  In this case that is exactly true.  A relatively meager amount of water in a desert world costs a single coin more than a more generous amount of wine in a wineglass...at a bar...where they want to sell wine, have already sunk the 'sid into it, and wish to have it sold.  It's not as though you can sell water back to a bartender.  I don't think this is indicative of a game-wide problem, and I'm not sure this should be altered unless it is more confusing than not.

The apartment thing is not fixed, but I'll send a request about it.

Yep, nothing broken in what you mentioned from what I saw.  Hearsay isn't anything to base prices from.  We have a utility--we're able to actually see all of the apartments at once, who rents them, how many they have, what they cost, etc.  There may be a room you think should cost more (or less) here or there, but room size, quality of room, and quality of the lock is all already taken into account with apartments.

That's not to say we won't review that in the future for some other changes (we do have other things we want to do here), but we did a pretty extensive look at apartments about three years ago. 

At this time, all of those things look like either a matter of proportion and specificity (where at the margins in some pretty specific cases, you might see the results you are talking about here), or a matter of a single thing here or there having an issue (where typoing it/bugging it would be appropriate).  It does not appear to be a prevalent issue.

[Twilight]

And here I thought this thread would be about Fale templars.

Without the value skill, it is impossible to compare prices.  Too many factors for taxes, material, specific shop discount, etc., creating intentional imbalances between locations.