TNE: Treasure as Social Power

[CatharzGodfoot]

Star Wars, most of the Dune series, anything by william gibson, LoTR, thieve's world, judge dredd, nearly all of those have characters that have a small selection of items; and use about 2 of those items at most in any one scene or combat.

Yeah, but those guys get a free ride on the MacGuffin railroad. If you sum up the items that they use over the course of a story, it might be quite more. That said, things like the disposable armored hovercraft in Neuromancer (or Mona Lisa Overdrive?) can be fun too.

Also, K, it's good to see you back.

Indeed.

[Ganbare Gincun]

You could limit buying and purchasing to some scale of actions or timeline... Because you totally could buy limitless Desert Eagles by buying and selling them... Assuming you find people to buy them with. That's how day trading works.

If you're in a Red State or know where to find some Birthers/Teabaggers, you should be able to unload all of the guns and ammo you can get your hands on with relative ease.

[K]

Ok then what would be the standard? What would be the guiding line for what abilities/bonuses/defenses/etc that would be level appropriate for a given character at at a given level? How would the system allow for character customization (Say they want more of "this" here and more of "that" there)

Its pretty easy to design a standard if you know what you are doing. It starts like this:

1. Write up a number of sample characters, and what they should look like at set levels.

2. Write up a number of sample encounters for those characters to solo and to defeat as a group, and run those characters through those encounters.

3. If someone is too awesome or sucks too badly, redesign until they don't.


Now, this means that you are arbitrarily setting the bar at some point. Some people want 5th level to mean "fights bears and probably loses" and some people want it to mean "destroy tribes of giants led by a lich". When those two people argue, neither is right.

We all know that customization is awesome, but you need characters to be good at the things they should be able to do for their level. Hopefully, you give people enough options that they can be better at some of the things for their level, and less good at others, but still able to do what they need to do.

So where do magic items fit in?

"Nowhere" is the answer. Characters need to be able do level-appropriate things, so you SHOULD NOT be able to disarm a fighter as an auto-win because he should be more than his sword. Would Conan lose a fight because he dropped his sword?

So the bar for magic items needs to be low. Fire Plate that makes you resistant or even immune to fire is fine because fire is not going to show up in most or even a few of your adventures, but a Fire Wand that shoots blasts of fire as powerful as your most powerful attack is a terrible idea.

"But what if you pay class features for it?", you ask? Well, you just made an unplayable character. Someone gets a rust monster to eat your Fire Wand or tosses acid on it or just pulls it from your hand and you've become an unplayable character. This is why Disarming in 4e is a super-special trick of one class. If everyone had it, everyone would realize that tying all of your abilities to whether you had the correct kind of weapon in your hand is just insane. The basic logic of this extends to a character's dependence on magic items.

I mean, we want characters to use improvised weapons, or pick up weapons from enemies fallen in battle. We want them to put on enemy armor so they can sneak around the castle. We want them to grab the villain's life-draining dagger and stab him with it. We want the heroes to take trophies from fallen enemies and dragon hordes.

The essential problem is that if you want these things, then you can't have characters need these items to function; otherwise, to get characters what they need you have to build elaborate and unbalanced economies or anti-immersive point-buy systems of various flavors.

So those are the basic ideas. We'll see if we can kludge together a system out of that.

[MGuy]

So the swordsman who picks up a wooden stick is able to cut through steel? I like the idea. I will say I'd prefer that a character be able to be a bit better than other characters of his level if he carries "The Sword of Bad Guy Bum Fuckery" because even conan had something going for him in every one of his stories (even if it was just his ever present chest armor)

[Heath Robinson]

A person who can deal fire damage instead of slashing damage at will is a mite more powerful because he can attack weak points for massive damage. The extra power is not significant most of the time, and so it doesn't really factor into balance considerations all that much.

[virgil]

I'm not really sold on the idea of a swordsman not being gear dependent to the point of not needing a sword in order to be completely up to par. I'm fine with magic swords being something you can take or leave with. But to not be at a disadvantage and just can't work up the desire to actually backpedal a few steps to try to get a sword back in your hands, while your foe actually tries to keep you from getting it?

[Heath Robinson]

Because Balsa, who can also do this.

Okay, so perhaps it shouldn't be "you're as good without gear as with", but making swordsmen suck without a sword cuts out scenes we'd like to see. The whole unarmed-to-armed schtick basically doesn't occur when you're not allowed to do something worthwhile at your level without your gear.

Edit: It also damages verisimilitude to have guards holding weapons pointlessly. We also want the Monk to have a place.

To clarify, I mean suck as in "suck as much as a Monk in 3.5E" instead of "not doing level-appropriate stuff".

[MGuy]

I'm fine with the you're considerably weaker without a weapon dynamic. Otherwise it would be cheaper and easier just to never carry a weapon at all and makes sunder and disarm 100% useless. But I do think that a warrior shouldn't be useless without it.I've seen plenty of shows where a warrior had to punch, kick, and break people on their way to their weapon but were obviously less powerful without it.

[Just another user]

For people who really do want to play Scrooge McDuck characters where their planar adventurers will stop to pick copper pieces off of the street or will fight the dogs for a spot at an inn fireplace or recycle potion containers to fill with water from the Ganges... how do you accomodate them?

I think the best solution could be what Frank said, some trade in between wealth and prestige, if you want every last scrap of money you can dig in the wyern's guts for gems or whatever, but then it is more probable for people to consider you the 'local weirdo' rather than the 'local hero'.

[JonSetanta]

Unarmed combat basics should be default for warriors in RPGs.

They could then ditch it in favor of extra abilities elsewhere, such as dabbling in other ability paths or more armor, but the default weapon attack then punch/kick routine should be assumed.

[MGuy]

Maybe make it part of martial weapon proficiency. As long as you have martial weapon proficiency you can fight unarmed for lethal damage.

[User]

A workable abstract wealth system:

The wealth of each character is represented by an abstract wealth level (WL) (for example: 5).

All prices should also be represented as a wealth level (WL).

Characters may not purchase items greater than their wealth level. (Cost more money than they have)

If they purchase an item equal to their WL they have a 50% chance of losing 2 WLs, and a 50% chance of being reduced to WL 0.

If they purchase an item equal to their WL - 1 they have a 50% chance of losing 1 WL, a WL-2 item has a 25% chance of losing them 1 WL, a WL-3 item has a 10% chance, a WL-4 item has a 5% chance, and WL-5 or less items are essentialy "free" (no chance of dropping in wealth level)

Sales or windfalls are handled as follows:
If the WL is equal or greater than their WL+2 their WL becomes the WL of the amount. If it is equal to their WL+1 there is a 5% chance of their WL being adjusted by +2 and 95% of it being adjusted by +1. If it is equal to their WL they get a +1 bonus to their WL. If the amount is equal to their WL-1 there is a 50% chance of their WL increasing by 1 (and 50% chance of no adjustment), a WL-2 amount has a 25% chance of a +1 adjustment, a WL-3 has a 10% chance of a +1 adjustment, a WL-4 has a 5% chance of a +1 adjustment, and an amount of WL-5 or less does not adjust their WL at all.

Real world values:
Each WL represents a random distribution of prices (or savings) over an interval as follows:

Lower limit: 10*2^(level-1)
Upper limit: 10*(2^(level-1) + 2^level)
Average value: 10*2^level
Range (distance between lower & upper limit): 10*2^level

These values are designed for dollars; you can multiply all values by a scalar to make them work for other currencies without problems.

The ranges for each WL overlap, that is intended.

Yes, it is possible, but unlikely, to increase your WL by buying and selling the same thing repeatedly (it is just as likely to lose WL by buying and selling the same thing repeatedly). This seems unavoidable.

[MGuy]

@.@ at first glance this seems a bit complicated. I have a question or two that might seem obvious. I'm assuming Windfalls come from treasure found? How do you determine the WL of mentioned Windfall? How are particularly wealthy PCs handled (PCS born as nobles). How is combining the party's wealth handled? Conceivably the party can combine their wealth make a bunch of purchases below their combined WL but above their individual WL then use what they have to increase their personal WL, Rince and Repeat.

[User]

@.@ at first glance this seems a bit complicated. I have a question or two that might seem obvious. I'm assuming Windfalls come from treasure found?

Yeah, I was just using windfall to indicate any source of money, including a sale; everything works the same way.

How do you determine the WL of mentioned Windfall?

Well, I suppose you could express everything in WL terms, although that would be pretty boring. Otherwise I would say use the WL whose average is closest to the real world value of the treasure or whatever. (I have the formulas at the bottom).

How are particularly wealthy PCs handled (PCS born as nobles).

I have no idea, I'd leave that up to the specific game system. However each increase in WL represents roughly twice as much money, so even a +1 or +2 is pretty significant.

How is combining the party's wealth handled?

It's a double edged sword. On one hand, as you mentioned, you can buy more. However your total WL goes up less when you get treasure or sell items (you have to get way more to make a positive difference). So if you either keep the PC's wealth combined or separate consistently (both for purchases and for windfalls/sales) the system should work fine. But disallow combining and breaking apart their money as a way of gaming the system. To find the approximate WL after pooling the wealth of all the PC's combined, where their wealth levels are a, b, c, d, ... the resulting WL is lg(2^a+2^b + 2^c + ...) where lg is the base 2 logarithm - round as you see fit. (Because each additional WL is twice as much as the previous, as mentioned.)

[K]

User,

Congrats. You've either recreated or just cut and pasted D20 Modern's Wealth System (I'm not willing to actually compare them line by line to figure out which). We discussed earlier in the thread the numerous problems with it that make it unplayable.

So yeh, it's not like we don't have several models of wealth and treasure and years of playtesting about them. That's why I'm exploring different ideas.

[PhoneLobster]

Hey, I'll talk about it for a second. Because it has a fun exploit.

A workable abstract wealth system:

It's needlessly complex in it's various little "this percent of this at this point" moments. Why can't things just go up and down by one with less variable increments of complex natures?

But anyway heres the exploit I think I'll call it "Speculative Communism".

So I have a party of 4 characters. If the richest character has a WL of at least 6 (lets call it dead on 6 for this example) he can buy limitless WL 1 items.

The other characters with their WL < 6 can now sell those items until they make the rolls required to reach WL 6.

Thus making everyone as rich as the rich guy.

BUT THEN!

Everyone buys a WL 2 item! Then they sell it again.

If anyone falls below the other party members in WL then they sell gift items like they did in the first place to return to standard.

If anyone rises above the other party members in WL then they buy limitless gift items of their current WL-5 and everyone else sells them to catch up.

With four party members making the rolls the party only ever loses money on this gamble if all four party members lose money at the same time. A vanishingly small chance of happening. The party however GAINS money every time any one party member rolls an increase. It's a very secure investment.

The accounting is tedious and it takes forever but it IS limitless wealth for ALL party members. You can speed it up by buying relatively more expensive items, increasing risk of investment but not actually making the risk altogether THAT large. So you probably would do that, but whatever.

[Fuchs]

We pretty much dumped the whole wealth mechanics. PCs have access to all mundane stuff their lifestyle would grant them, which is mostly a result of arbitrary game decisions and achievements. Magical stuff and other special stuff - mostly plot related things, like the gift that will impress the king most - is roleplay-fodder, or simply handwaved as "you get it" if deemed needed or suitable (like commissioning some magical item that has not a big impact).

So, once the PCs become enobled after saving a province or kingdom, they can live like nobles, no questions asked. Some plot may deal with their income, or threaten their treasury, but that's a plot like "someone kidnapped your dear old nursemaid, so you better do something about it".

[JonSetanta]

So yeh, it's not like we don't have several models of wealth and treasure and years of playtesting about them. That's why I'm exploring different ideas.

My comment may have been lost in the shuffle earlier.

Ignoring d20 Modern for a moment, are abstracted check-based wealth systems a lost cause entirely?
Are there any advantages for them?

[Username17]

Ignoring d20 Modern for a moment, are abstracted check-based wealth systems a lost cause entirely?
Are there any advantages for them?

Pretty much. There's no reason to do things that way. The point of abstracted wealth is to allow us to "get on with the game" and not have to worry about small purchases or looting pocket change. By introducing a check, you actually make pocket change looting into something that you really worry about, because even a 1 in 20 chance of raising your wealth level really matters. And the dice rolling slows down the game.

For an abstractish system, what you'd want is a fairly narrow range of wealth gains and losses that would be treated exactly like they were linear and discrete monetary units while larger things are simply unobtainable and smaller ones are flat negligible. So for example, a character with more than one platinum piece would simply keep track of how many platinum pieces they had. The number of copper that they find and spend would simply be assumed to balance out somehow. This allows people to have "some copper" in the pockets of gnolls and to spend "some copper" on food and shelter in the city and not get all pissy about it.

But the addition of checks simply slow the process down and make stupid shit happen. There's no positive or desirable effects from the die rolling.

-Username17

[User]

For an abstractish system, what you'd want is a fairly narrow range of wealth gains and losses that would be treated exactly like they were linear and discrete monetary units while larger things are simply unobtainable and smaller ones are flat negligible. So for example, a character with more than one platinum piece would simply keep track of how many platinum pieces they had. The number of copper that they find and spend would simply be assumed to balance out somehow. This allows people to have "some copper" in the pockets of gnolls and to spend "some copper" on food and shelter in the city and not get all pissy about it.

If only some abstract system had this feature ... oh wait, the one I posted does. If you have 1 pp then purchases of less than 5sp are at WL-5, and thus effectively free, and ignored by the system.

[User]

A workable abstract wealth system without die rolling.

All terms are the same as the previous system, unless otherwise noted.

In addition to a wealth level a player also have a number of wealth points, ranging from 1 to 8, within that level.

When players get or lose money of significant amounts (with respect to their current wealth level) they gain or lose 1 or more wealth points. Add or subtract wealth points one at a time. If the player needs to add a wealth point and they have 8 wealth points their wealth level increases by 1 and their wealth points are reset to 2. Reduce the number of additional wealth points to be gained by half, rounding down.

For example: a player is at wealth level 4 with 6 wealth points and gains 4 wealth points. They add two of those points, raising their wealth points to 8, with 2 points remaining to be added. Their WL then goes up to 5 and their wealth points are set to 2. The remaining 2 wealth points to be added are halved, resulting in 1. This point is added, bringing their wealth points up to 3. The end result: they are WL 5 with 3 WPs.

Subtraction works similarly. When a player hits 0 WPs their WL is reduced by 1 and their WPs are set to 4. Any remaining WPs to be subtracted are doubled.

For example: a player is at WL 4 and has 3 WPs. They lose 4 WPs. The first 3 are subtracted, bringing them to 0 WPs. Their WL drops by 1 to 3 and their WPs are set to 4, and the remaining 1 point to be subtracted is doubled, to 2. These are then subtracted, bringing their WPs to 2. The end result: they are at WL 3 with 2 WPs.

Purchases and Sales/Windfalls

If they purchase an item equal to their WL they lose 4 WPs.

If they purchase an item equal to their WL - 1 they lose 2 WPs, a WL-2 item causes them to lose 1 WP, and WL-3 or less items are essentially "free" (no change in WPs).

Sales or windfalls are handled as follows:
If the WL is equal or greater than their WL+2 their WL becomes the WL of the amount and they have 4 WPs. If it is equal to their WL+1 they gain 8 WPs. If it is equal to their WL they gain 4 WPs. If the amount is equal to their WL-1 they gain 2 WPs, a WL-2 amount gains them 1 WP, and a WL-3 or less does not adjust their WPs at all.

Real world values:
As previous

Edit: tidied up the math

[Caedrus]

Radical Taoist and I were talking about a system like this. Basically, you'd have an abstracted system without tracking a precise number of coins nor having wealth rolls. Instead, you'd have a set number, or "wealth value." If you want anything with a cost below a certain value, it was more or less free. If you want anything above a certain value, it would lower your wealth value. If you wanted something above a certain even higher value, you just couldn't afford it. In a party, your wealth score could serve as a "contribution" to the group purchasing power.

Also, since the system was representing "your overall economic leverage" instead of some specific size of coinage, and the numbers were supposed to be pretty compact, you could easily just apply modifiers to it. RT intended to go a step further and add a sort of wealth condition track to it, such that you got temporary setbacks (or bonuses) that would scale back binging, represent economic conditions, or whatever.

[MGuy]

How were the wealth numbers set in this system? Was it ever finished?

[Caedrus]

How were the wealth numbers set in this system? Was it ever finished?

It has not been finished. But we intend to get back to it when either of us has more free time ^_^;;

[PhoneLobster]

A workable abstract wealth system without die rolling. 2

The entire party still has equal wealth to the wealthiest member through the same gift items strategy.

The system is incredibly punishing on purchases/losses vs sales/gains.

At first glance that is.

In reality you always buy as many of the most expensive free items you can before making any actual costly purchase. Then you sell your free items to return you to your former wealth level.

So in reality your WL never actually goes down from trading encounters. It only ever goes up from additional "windfalls" and while the earlier infinite wealth loophole doesn't exist the system is still broken for practical purposes.