Reason for Edit
I changed back the following edit:
1 gp = 10 sp = 50 cp = 2 ep = 1/5 pp (meaning 5 gp = 1 Platinum Piece) source: page 34 3rd ed. Dec 1979 "the blue book"
For the following reasons:
- The 3rd ed. "blue book" might (I don't have access to it) be stating that 1 Electrum Piece = 50 Cooper Pieces.
- My entry was factually correct (1 gp = 10 sp = 100 cp) in the Moldvay edition
IF the blue book entry is indeed correct, please ADD it to the entry without removing the other one; both would be correct for their respective editions.
Any discussion, keep it in the Talk Page.
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 13:11, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Will you take care of adding the Holmes "blue book" edition information?
````My-13th-B-Day
- I don't have that particular edition, so I cannot confirm the veracity of the information. --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 21:38, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
What proof do you need from me, to confirm the veracity? I will fax/email photocopies/scans of the D&D set I have owned for the last 32 years, if need be, to any email address you request! ````My-13th-B-Day
- Take it easy: it's not that I'm doubting your word; my doubts are with the interpretation of what is notoriously ambiguous writing. There is no need for faxing, just type exactly what it says. For example, 4th ed. pp. B47 states:
The value of each type of coin, and the rate of exchange between the coins, is as follows:
- 10 copper pieces (cp) = 1 silver piece
- 10 silver pieces (sp) = 1 gold piece
- 2 electrum pieces (ep) = 1 gold piece
- 5 gold pieces (gp) = 1 platinum piece (pp)
- 100 cp = 10 sp = 2 ep = 1 gp = 1/5 pp
I want to make sure that there is indeed a difference between editions and that it is not a misinterpretation of something like "50 cp = 1 ep".
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 14:27, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your diplomatic words, but there is no confusion! Please believe me, or allow me to prove my data with a photocopy!
Please help me understand the difference between my original edit, and your need to "make sure?"
Nothing has changed, since this edit string started. Please restore my original edit, with your LATER Basic version information as line two.
````My-13th-B-Day
I'll tell you what: I'll repost it, BUT you type up the data requested and post it here. Works for you?
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 13:09, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
I just confirmed it and removed the ref pending citation. So Holmes valued the silver piece at 5 cp... who knew? Funny thing is, even Holmes OD&D players had to look that one up!
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 23:54, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the "ref pending," and all the time you have spent on this topic. But, I would have been glad to prove my data with any proof you requested (and therefore no need to bother anyone else)! Please set a standard and people will meet it! Lastly, please correctly re-do my edit. The correct page is 34, in the Holmes edition, not page 33. 71.202.243.168 07:18, October 17, 2012 (UTC)My-13th-B-Day
- I got two people confirming the data: one cited page 33, the other page 34. For completeness' sake, I modified the ref to "page 33-4".
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 13:56, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
Why do you believe the person saying page 33? Why do you not believe me? WHAT PROOF DO YOU NEED FROM ME??????????????
WHAT PROOF DO YOU NEED FROM ME?????????????? WHAT PROOF DO YOU NEED FROM ME?????????????? WHAT PROOF DO YOU NEED FROM ME?????????????? 71.202.243.168 02:07, October 19, 2012 (UTC)My-13TH-B-Day
Is a single page number so absolutely important to you? That you are posting like this?
There, I simply removed the "-4" from the "33-4" reference. There was absolutely no need to vandalize the page with the posted disaster.
As to what I was looking for:
BASE TREASURE VALUES
Coins:
5 copper pieces equols I silver piece
l0 silver pieces equols I gold piece
2 electrum pieces equols I gold piece
5 gold pieces equols I plotinum piece
or:50CP: IOSP - 2EP: I GP: l/sPP
That was it. I thought it was amply clear what I wanted. There was no need to post everything else AND it would have given you the opportunity to clean it up so that the "a" is an "a" and not an "o" and "1" is not an "I".
Now, to explain myself: I have THREE sources; you are one and the other two are as reliable and sincere as you: YOU say "page 33", one of them says "page 34" and the third says "page 33-34". Since all three are equally reliable and sincere, which one should I arbitrarily pick over the other two? The reference to "page 33-34" seems the most logical because, A) it includes both other possibilities and B) it is obviously a reference to the SECTION which contains the relevant data. Keeping this in mind, the POSSIBILITY that SOME of the data may not be included if either page is excluded demands that the 33-34 reference be selected as the most accurate and inclusive.
However, if this is so upsetting to you, to the point where you rant that I am somehow being unfair or unreasonable, then, by all means, there is the change; two characters have been removed from the reference. Hopefully this will bring happiness and balance to the world.
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 12:51, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
I’m sorry. I’m horrible. I will not bother you again. ````My-13th-D-Bay