Oh, wait, I retract this. One can still recoup the value of the gemstone in a quirked powerstone if selling it, so the table is correct in using the different values cited below. What isn't fair is simply stating arbitrarily that a quirked powerstone will sell for x% less the value listed, as the discount applies to both the gemstone and the labor, and the discount should really be on the labor alone. Otherwise, one could really probably make no money (and might lose money) in the Powerstone Sales career track.
Again, the math for a fair discount-- that is predicting what is economically viable-- might very well be beyond my ability, and certainly is beyond my will to pursue it. So, any thoughts or links on the subject that others have already come up with? Thanks! -vk ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: "The GURPSnet mailing list" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 7:22:08 PM Subject: Re: [gurps] Powerstone Values Um, call me slow, but I think the Powerstone Value table in G4e:Magic on page 20 is incorrect. Is this old news ? My observations: 1. The "adjusted" gemstone values used are based on the chance that a critical failure will destroy the subject gemstone. p(critical failure )=1-0.9815 . 2. The "adjusted" labor values listed are based on the "quirk-free" chance of spellcasting p(ordinary failure or worse)= 1-0.9547 . In "reality", to get a quirkless powerstone, one should use the (1-0.9547) number for computing adjusted gemstone value, as well . This inflates the value of quirk-l ess Powerstones substantially. This makes sense to me, because depending on the quirk, many Powerstones will go "unfinished"-- why waste time and energy? For Powerstones with quirks, I can imagine a far more complex formula based on the probability of quirks, but don't want to try and derive it. Instead, I am inclined to use the base gemstone value (unadjusted--> 10*C^2+40*C) as basis, add in the labor cost of the actual ST of the Powerstone, then devalue a percentage based on the nature of the quirk. Arbitrary, but easier and somewhat more fair. I discovered this when recalculating the tables based on the notion that Master Enchanter mages should be more than "Comfortable" wealth. Given the difficulty and prerequisites of the Enchant spell, and the prerequisites of many desirable spells for enchanted items, it seemed to me that even on Yrth, where magi are "common", that good enchanters that know specific spells would be far less than common, and, therefore, better paid. I even had the notion that the value of a particular enchantment would be proportional with the spell prerequisite count (as well as the total energy cost). But the math and table referencing gets tedious. Thoughts? -vk _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
