Post
by Hrothgar Bloodaxe » Tue Sep 20, 2022 2:51 pm
I see a lot of great comments here, thank you everyone!
Here are my thoughts/responses to much of what has been said:
1. This is perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind (and informs the comments below): there is not an issue with the number of available shops, overall. There are plenty of open shops. But they are in such remote/low-traffic areas, that they are not really commercially viable. A number of the people on this thread have affirmed this, and I agree as well.
As I see it, the real issue is that the current mechanics make it so that the best shop locations are often populated by terrible shops/absentee owners, with no consideration with how this affects settlements or the broader community.
2. I *don't* think it's a good idea to restrict shop bidding, if you already own one. The reason being, for most people, the only real option to own a shop, is to own one in a distant/bad location (see point #1 above). The number of bids on shops in good/high-traffic areas is so high, that you're unlikely to actually win one. I am currently in this situation myself - I RP a merchant, but my shop is not in a good spot. I have bid on at least 20 other (better) locations, and still have not won one.
So, if it was the case that I could not bid while owning a shop, you essentially put people in a situation of never being able to own a shop in order to participate in a lottery that they have a 5% or less chance of winning, which just seems like a terrible idea. Me holding a shop in a bad location, is not preventing others from owning shops....the shop across from me is constantly vacant/being sold/changing hands....people just don't want it / abandon it the first chance they get to "upgrade."
In other words, it's not an issue of "total number of shops available issue," which is what the restriction on bidding while owning is trying to address...basically that's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
3. I think the suggestion of having really high rent is potentially problematic although I think that this really depends on the details (i.e. rent rates for specific shops). Specifically, if your shop is in a "bad area," having a high rent is just punitive. Even if you have a good shop, with good items, and fair prices....you simply won't have customers, and a player can't really do much about this. I can say this as someone who has a shop, advertises inventory/prices on signs in the nearby high-traffic area, sells sought-after items at market / below market price (i.e. popular arcane scrolls, LMB, True Sight, etc., Rings of Hiding with +1 CON, for 70k), and makes very little money.
That being said, if rent is well calibrated to a specific location, I could see this working....I'm just concerned that it will be almost impossible to balance this properly, especially given that some stores sell really cool stuff, that's not necessarily hugely profitable for the owner.
4. To all the responses of "Increasing prices will push away low-level players." I don't think that's necessarily the case.
A) You can have different prices, for shops. You can still keep some cheap shops open. And obviously in places like Skal, you can leave things as they are. And, per point #3, there will still be plenty of "starter shops" in remote areas, that will likely be available.
B) I would argue that not all shops should necessarily be open to all players starting out. Not everything needs to be open to everyone. There are tons of estates, guildhalls, and other properties that are not affordable to low level players, nor, quite frankly, should they be. I think there's something to be said for having shops/properties that are targeted towards new/low-level players, but also having shops/quarters that are targeted for more established/high-level players. Making things accessible to new/low-lever players is important, I agree. But so is providing for the more established/long-term characters, who are usually the most active in their RP and contributions to the community. It's a balance, and it doesn't need to be one or the other - both can happen simultaneously; that's what's great about pricing; it can be adjusted from location to location.
C) [Allowing a new/inexperienced player to purchase a prime location they're not able/prepared to adequately manage, isn't giving them some sort of meaningful opportunity. I.e., allowing an inexperienced/low-level player, to own a shop in the middle of Cordor, isn't actually helping that player. They won't be able to stock it with items people want to purchase, so it won't get business, and it will likely either fold, or simply remain in limbo without generating any revenue for that person, or the settlement. This is currently what's taking place (either that, or high-level players who are just negligent). And while exceptions to this are certainly possible, I think basing rules on exceptional cases is generally not a great idea.
5. I think the "settlement control over core shops" is a great idea. I think this could feed into politics well, in the same way that estates/landed gentry could. I would even suggest perhaps exploring a similar mechanic, of like "Captain of Industry" or something, that connects prominent shops with political implications. This wouldn't be for all shops, but for a select few. This would help ensure that settlements have control over their own commerce, while also promoting RP and community engagement.
6. However, point #5 doesn't address the significant number of "non-settlement" shops. This is where again, I think having higher bids comes in. Having high rents, doesn't make sense in areas that will never see much traffic. What you want to cut down on, is the number of people bidding casually / without really intending to get a specific location.
As I see it, the core problem is that there's a distribution issue - shops in prime locations are not accessible to the players best able to make use of them, which negatively impacts the community overall. I don't think there's necessarily one perfect solution; I imagine a number of the ideas mentioned could be used in conjunction to improve things overall.
I think whatever "egalitarian benefit" is gained by allowing a handful of inexperienced/absentee shop owners in these places, is vastly outweighed by the far greater number of players in the community who are no longer able to find what they need at reasonable prices, or settlements that can't even manage their own commerce effectively.
Allowing bad shops to become so prevalent as they have currently doesn't help anyone - it doesn't help new players / inexperienced shop owners, it doesn't help settlements, and it doesn't help the vast majority of players who *don't* own shops, and simply wish to have access to a properly functioning marketplace.
Of course, optional horse death RP is a possibility.