Ending TNE Work Stoppage

[Ice9]

I've seen the "number pulled out of the DM's ass" argument, but I feel it's somewhat missing the point - everything is a number pulled out of the DM's ass.

The monsters you fight? Their level? The spells and bonuses they have? How many there are? What treasure they were carrying? All ultimately pulled from the DM's ass. But that doesn't mean everything is, or should be, completely arbitary.

Like combat encounters, skill DCs may be pulled out of the DM's ass initially, but once created they have a non-arbitrary existance, and can be something to plan for and a goal to defeat.


So the DM decided that climbing a waterfall has a high enough DC you can't succeed with your current bonus. That's not the same as impossible - you can enlist help, you can get better equipment, you can find spells that help, you can come back later when you're able to handle it ... there's a lot more possibilities than a binary possible/impossible choice.

And that DC becomes part of the world. With the knowledge of how difficult it is, characters can plan to use/avoid routes that involve waterfalls based on whether they can handle them. They can determine that the top of a waterfall would be a good fortified position to hold off an attack from non-flying creatures. They can do a lot more than just have or not have the "Awesome Climber" trait.


While not every skill needs the same level of detail, I think it'd be a mistake to assume that skills are purely for background flavor.

[JonSetanta]

I've come across that same issue PL mentioned, of having a DM arbitrarily whip out a difficulty number to beat without any relation to RNG or fairness.

It's a problem of DM, rather than system, really.

However, a solution would be to provide a suggested range for difficulties and bonuses much like how 4e has a small chart with the typical DCs and damage output at each level.

DMs would be free to bullshit, but unless they want to ruin a game through outright Mad Hatter behavior, they would limit the numeric whim within humble range of PC ability.

[PhoneLobster]

I've seen the "number pulled out of the DM's ass" argument, but I feel it's somewhat missing the point - everything is a number pulled out of the DM's ass.

No, no it isn't.

If you want say, to pull a ridiculous monster AC out of your ass you are breaking guidelines and effectively have to pull an entire monster and or magic assy AC item or something out of your ass.

And there are alternatives to pulling it out your ass. Need a flying monster, you have dozens of them, and their ACs are NOT pulled out of your ass.

Now a roll of boating skill vs jagged in a storm with one hand tied behind your back? That is usually explicitly given as a direct roll vs a number the GM pulls out his ass. If you are LUCKY you get very brief and incomplete guidelines.

Saying that's the same as all numbers in the game is like saying that character generation is the players just pulling all their attributes out their ass.

[Neeeek]

But you know, personally I'd STILL rather having Navigate in the "rocky coast" scenario just mean you get to avoid the attribute check vs bullshit number out the GMs ass that an unskilled character would make and you just get to succeed because you have Navigate written in the "whatever" section of your sheet.

Frankly, I almost want "As a GM, you should try to fit the PCs' noncombat skills into the plot whenever reasonable" written directly into the rules.

Maybe it's just how I run games. I don't usually plan anything resembling an adventure so much as prepare to deal with the expected results of the players trying to advance their goal.

[baduin]

I think it'd be fine to have a certain number of slots, with a few options for those who need less/more:

1) Slots that are left empty can be filled later by in-game activity, and it takes a lot less in-game time/effort to fill an empty slot than to develop an extra slot.

2) There are multiple skill levels, for those that want to specialize. Doesn't have to be many, maybe just Skilled/Master/Legendary.
And it doesn't have to apply to every single skill either.

3) There should be a "Jack of all Trades" type skill for people who want to be skilled at more things than they have slots. Gives a benefit better than not having a skill at all, but not as good as having it for real.


I also don't think it's necessary to make skills 100% "fluff only". They shouldn't have a huge effect compared to full abilities, but it's not going to break the whole system if they provide a moderate boost in some situations.
...

Calling skills "fluff" is not quite right. We should start with considering what "level" means: level is an approximate measure of combat ability. Creatures of the same level should be on average on equal footing when engaged in combat, or any combat related ability. Abilities which are tied to level should include also any powers which make it possible to win without fighting (eg advanced diplomacy and mental dominiation) or to gain important advantage in combat (any scrying-teleporting abilities,)

On the other hand we have non-combat abilites, which don't have direct influence on combat. Here belong eg all crafting abilities, knowledge, survival, "normal" diplomacy (knowledge how to speak in formal setting without offending anyone or making fool of oneself - but this doesn't allow you to actually persuade anyone), all artistic and performance abilites and most professions.

Non-combat abilities shouldn't be "fluff" in the sense that they can be ignored, replaced by hand-waving, left without precise guidelines etc. The rules should be as precise as possible, with a special emphasis on the establishing the correct Difficulty Class for different tasks.

On the other hand, non-combat abilites cannot be in any way tied to the character level - this follows directly from the definition of the level, which measures only the combat ability. Since one of the main aims of an RPG is creating a plausible world, which seems to exist beyond the combat, the non-combat abilites should be constructed in such a way as to increase the plausibility of the world. In other words, they should be acquired exactly like skills are acquired in normal life: by training, learning, or by doing. Real people don't have any fixed number of slots for different skills. Their skills are limited by their talents (ability scores), their opportunities, persistence in learning and time used to learn.

Non-combat skills should be acquired in the same way. Each class starts with some default skills, there are additional skills from profession or cultural background. The DM can give or take some skills based on the history of the character. Later, skills are acquired in play or in the down-time. For example, a character born in the desert will be generally not able to swim, but can learn to swim on a basic level simply by living some time near a lake. Higher levels of such an ability - lets call them proficient, advanced and master should required progressively more time, training, money and minimum ability scores. DM should also be able to simply give skills based on their use in adventure or downtime. Any character who is sailing on a ship for some time should be able to get basic level of use rope simply by telling DM that he is learning it. Any character adventuring in the caves or on planes should get basic level of relevant knowledge after the first adventure.

Such a system has many benefits: if, for some reason, your character has started with skills wholly useless in the current situation, you will be handicapped in the beginning, but will able to gain basic level of competence in the newly needed skills quite quickly. This also gets rid of the balance problem: each character will be able to gain as many skills as they feel necessary, if they want to invest enough time and money into it.

Finally, since such skills can be used only outiside of combat, they don't make any character worse in the combat sub-game. If you want to roleplay a lazy drunkard, he will have much less skills than his friends, but will fight just as well.

Finally, there is a special cases: non-combat skills which can be used in combat. This generally happens when the combat takes place in some special environment. If you are commanding a sea-battle, you need Sailing. The solution would be to require simply a basic level of skill (which can be gained fairly easily) to participate, and beyond that base the combat effectiveness on level, not on the rating in the skill. So, you need Sailing to command a ship. But a higher level fighter with basic level in Sailing will win over the first level master of Sailing- but only in combat. The Sailing master would be able to better manage in a storm, but fight much worse than an inexeperienced sailor of high level.

[Draco_Argentum]

I'm fine with combat minigame stats being paid for from a pool separate from 'fluff' or 'noncombat'.

But, I don't want 4e where combat is the only thing which is a statted minigame.

-Crissa

I'm pretty sure we're overruling RC and making talking statted. Theres was a big discussion about making chases statted too. From the looks of it its not a question of only statting combat, its a question of what exactly gets stats.

I'd be against anything sharing the combat ability pool and its most likely best of every minigame has its own pool. Some things can just be background selections and having up to four of those sounds fine. These get no mechanics, "I'm a baker" lets you bake cakes, no dice need to be rolled. Anything which isn't combat or a background needs actual mechanics developed.

We need to select what areas will get developed into minigames. Promoting something to a minigame increases its importance to both the setting and the gameplay. Vehicle combat skills and abilities for example would define that as something that happens in the setting frequently. It would mean its not handwaved as off camera action, its a scene on its own.

[baduin]

/double post/

[MartinHarper]

It's most likely best if every minigame has its own pool.

Suppose the non-combat minigames are:
* chasing
* talking
* navigating
* merchanting

Do players pick feats, powers, and roles for each minigame? Do I make a Human Fighter, who is a:
* Sprinter in the chase minigame
* Intimidater in the talk minigame
* Spotter in the navigation minigame
* Roadie in the merchant minigame
?

[Calibron]

Merchanting can be a subset of Talking, and Navigating should be widened into "Traveling" with subcategorizations as needed. Chasing is good. Let's see...Talking is an important world altering power(and deserves at least its own thread), Chasing is mostly just a subset of the Combat minigame(though with fairly significant differences in the rules), Traveling covers everything from surviving in other planes, to negotiating the electrified checkerboard floor of a dungeon, to getting past the river of lava, to navigating a ship in a storm.

Aside from, obviously, combat, is there anything else that needs to be covered? There's making things, of course; everything from cities, to golems, to magic swords, to snare traps, to oxcarts, but is that something we want an entirely separate minigame for? Or do we handle it more like a less stupid version of 3.5 item creation and mostly ignore the actual process? Or do we even handwave it away almost entirely and merely set guidelines for what a level X character is capable of crafting with enough time and resources? I think I could get into a item creaton subsystem, but I don't know how we could possibly make it very fun, and I haven't clue one how to keep the entire party engaged while someone participates in building their dream home.

Okay, so, Combat, Talking, Traveling, Chasing, Crafting...I think that's it.

[Crissa]

Why is Merchant part of Talking, but Crafting, which is part of Merchanting, not part of Talking?

-Crissa

[CatharzGodfoot]

Anyway, there are really only a couple of “places” in a 3x4 room that actually matter. If you are blocking a door, that matters. If you are on top of a table or chair, that matters. And finally, if you are inside the reach of a hostile axeman, that's important as well. But frankly, most of the places you could be in a room don't actually matter. Rooms are pretty small, and getting to the door is mostly a question of initiative more than physical distance unless someone is actually in the doorway with a hammer.

So failing being one of the lucky guys who is actually in an important location one's self, the only thing that is actually important is what kind of range you are at from people you are physically fighting. And furthermore, if that range is longer than the reach of the arm + weapon of either participant, that doesn't matter either. People will move around a lot during combat. And while 0-10 feet is probably a bit extreme, it is a simple point of fact that any foot work you do while outside the reach of an enemy sword is essentially unopposed.

Opposed vs. Unopposed Movement
An important idea of freeform position is that people who are close enough to threaten you “matter” in terms of where you want to go and people who don't, well, don't. If someone has a sword and you want to run over and hug them, there's a good meter of steel that gets to have a say in whether or not that happens. But if you're out of that reach you can move left or right, and that's pretty much that.

The length between two combatants only needs to be kept track of if it is the extreme range of one attacker or the other or closer than that. Once it's in there, characters who are in-range have an ability to “oppose” movement attempts by the other guy. Movement itself can be “careful” or “heedless” (probably some things in between that as well). If you move “carefully” you try to get an opening to move in, which allows the movement opposition to potentially stop your movement. If you move “heedlessly” you just frickin move, and the opposition gets to smack you in the face on the way in. And of course, when unopposed movement happens, you just pick where you want to be.

Interception
Another important idea is one of “intercepting” – that is that some people want to close to a relative distance where the lengths of swords matter and other people don't. Simple turns make this exceedingly easy. After all, it is difficult to imagine a turn length so short in duration that one could not cover tha entire length and breadth of a 4m or even 8m room in a “combat round” so anyone who goes last in the initiative count is always going to be able to charge into any person still in the room with no possibility of failure with a battle mat being used. That's unfortunate, because it creates a need for people to have weird lateral movement rules to pull the kinds of side stepping that we all know are possible.

Interception comes in the form of chasing and circling. In chasing, one character or the other is trying to get to a specific place. In a circling maneuver, one character is trying to get to combat range and the other is trying to avoid it while still remaining in the area. The difference is not only in the outcome, but in whether speed or reaction is primary.

We probably want to do this in a way which can be solved in polynomial time, or at least quickly by a human in the common cases.

A character's location should probably be fixed relative to one single "important location". It's probably another character or a 'choke point'/hazard. More abstract references that include multiple characters can be used, such as 'within sight' or 'within hearing range', but those will have fewer mechanical effects. A character can also simply 'keep her distance' from all other relevant characters.

Area effects can be targeted by two things: chains of relation and geographical restriction. If Bob is adjacent to Smee, Smee is adjacent to Tab, Tab is adjacent to Wick, Wick is adjacent to Bob, and Flan is adjacent to Wick, you could have an area attack that can center on Wick and hit Wick, Tab, Flan, and Bob, or you could center on Bob and hit Bob, Smee, and Wick. An effect larger by one 'degree of separation' targeting Wick would hit everyone.
The geographical restriction aspect would mean that if everyone was in a small room, it would hit everyone no matter what. Otherwise we give the benefit of doubt unless everyone is surrounding one person.

As far as single-target combat goes, the whole 'intercepting/circling/guarding/Run away!' thing works fine when restricting to a single focus.

[Username17]

It can mostly be determined by having people occupy locations, threaten locations, and move around. Honestly if you aren't currently King of the Hill or currently fencing with someone who is, I don't even care.

-Username17

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Area effects can be targeted by two things: chains of relation and geographical restriction. If Bob is adjacent to Smee, Smee is adjacent to Tab, Tab is adjacent to Wick, Wick is adjacent to Bob, and Flan is adjacent to Wick, you could have an area attack that can center on Wick and hit Wick, Tab, Flan, and Bob, or you could center on Bob and hit Bob, Smee, and Wick. An effect larger by one 'degree of separation' targeting Wick would hit everyone.

Do we really even want to bother with AoEs in an abstract position. Since the only thing that usually matters is how many combatants are hit, you could just limit spells' targets to a number of combatants and specify that no two of them can be more than y distance from each other. If you want the flavor of something "exploding," you can just say that your "fireball seed" went to some point between the targets and then divides into multiple "fire missiles" that shoot toward the individual targets.

[virgil]

Gridless Combat

As it has been stated before, using squares or other forms of grid-based combat provides a nice tactical element. However, roleplaying exists outside miniatures. If you want to play online or even without miniatures (due to space, laziness, or money), then abstractions will result in one fashion or another.

Here is an attempt to codify some abstractions, doing away with the need for an intricate map of the environment.

Ranges & Zones
There exist several ranges that can be used to describe the distance between two points of interest, such as the Iridium Coin and Appendix Steve.

• Melee Range: This is the range where melee attacks can be made.
  Close Range: This is the range that can be crossed with a round of movement, and many rooms are in this range. If just outside of Melee Range with something, you're within Close Range. As a general rule, you can be as far as 40' away and remain in Close Range.
  Medium Range: Barring open fields and aggressively large chambers, this is as large as many encounters get. Medium Range is roughly up to roughly 120'.
  Long Range: This is the range where archers cackle with all the time they've been given until they get a sword in the face. Long Range can include distances up to ~360'.

Rooms can be designed readily by mapping relative distances between various points of interest, which act as a limit to your own distance. For instance, a good sized room where opposite doors are within Close Range means that anybody within the room is incapable of being farther than Close Range from anything else in that room.

These ranges are not all inclusive. A Troll can be Melee Range of Tordek the Fighter, Tordek can be in Melee Range of Sancho, and yet Sancho can remain outside Melee Range with Tordek.

Movement
One no longer keeps track of exact distances, but the approximate distances. This means movement is no longer an exact measurement, but an abstracted action of varying difficulty.

Changing distances requires a basic movement check, which may or may not be opposed, and the difficulty varies with the alteration.

• Melee to Melee: This only works when there are more than two people in Melee Range. You either add or remove yourself from Melee Range with someone, while remaining in Melee Range with another participant.
  Close to Melee: The obvious technique where you move from across the room to get within reach of something. The reverse, Melee to Close, requires virtually no effort unless opposed.
  Close to Close/Medium: This is either for moving to a different Close Range zone within Medium Range, or just putting yourself at Medium Range from any number of targets (and its reverse). The effort here is more substantial, and the movement check is more difficult.
  Medium to Long: Repeat of the Close to Close zone changing, only with a more difficult movement check.

Movement Check
The movement check uses a bonus based on your movement speed and how much effort you put towards getting from point to point.

There is a base DC to perform the various movements, failure to meet the DC gives you a bonus on further checks which doesn't dissappear over time unless you actively move away from the destination between attempts.

The real methods enter when your movement involves being within Melee Range (entering, leaving, or circumventing) of someone who disagrees with your decision, creating an opposed check. If the stationary one exceeds the mover's check, then he gets an AoO (the mover still moves unless stopped by this AoO if he beats the DC as well). Superior reach gives a bonus to opposed movement checks to verify/prevent AoOs.

Final Words
The exact resolution and numbers to acheive the goals above are undecided, but this should give the gist of what I was envisioning. It's also really hard for me to seperate something akin to a Venn diagram when it comes to the movement ranges.

[Draco_Argentum]

Why is Merchant part of Talking, but Crafting, which is part of Merchanting, not part of Talking?

Crafting being part of merchanting is an assumption on your part.

The idea is to limit the number of minigames/mechanics. Selling and buying clearly involves talking so it doesn't need rules of its own. Crafting doesn't need any talking so it either gets a minigame or is a background ability. I'm thinking background ability since involving the whole group in any specific crafting scene is going to be hard to make interesting.

virgil, that sounds pretty workable. The section on mapping relative distance could do with an expansion. Also some examples for the final writeup and guidelines for how many mobs+PCs+terrain features is a manageable baseline.

[Calibron]

Why is Merchant part of Talking, but Crafting, which is part of Merchanting, not part of Talking?

-Crissa

Because Crafting is very much not part of Merchanting, especially in a pseudo iron age/medieval world. The kind of crafting we are going to even care about will almost always involve things not meant to be sold, Ice Fortresses, Flesh Golems, Magic Pants, Masamune and Hatori Hanzo-style masterwork swords. If you've gotten to the point where you're actually mass-producing your product for public consumption then no one is going to care about the individual units; just roll for profit like in the Economicon business section and move on to something interesting.

Merchanting is about acquisition, transportation, protection, distribution, and price negotiation. If acquisition just happens to involve you making the product with your own two hands then fine, but that very often(probably in the vast majority of cases) won't be the case. So yeah, Merchanting is actually a combination of Travel and Talking, with a variable chance to also involve Combat and Chase, and possibly some Crafting at the very beginning.

I really wish I had something helpful to say about the combat positional system, but I'm pretty bad with making new systems from scratch; so just keep up the good work guys!

[Calibron]

And yes, Crafting could be a background ability in that you don't actually spend much or any spotlight time on it during the actual game, but I think we should definitely have clearly defined rules as to what you are capable of making and how it works when it's actually made.

[Ravengm]

I've seen a form of gridless movement before. It's in the Burning Wheel system, if anyone's ever heard of it. Combat is kind of interesting there, where you script movement and attacks in three "volleys" per round.

Of course, there's like 5 different reach categories for weapons, so melee distance depends on the length of your spear compared to the other guy's dagger.

[Crissa]

So you don't sell Hanzo swords to the lord? Or trade a Hanzo sword (or the ability to make one) for Talking?

Or Hanzo swords matter, but only to you, but they're also Fluff?

I think you need to make up your mind.

Either Merchanting is a minigame, in which being able it make the best cake in town is notable and salable, or it is not a game, and then the fact tat you have the best cake in town is not salable.

Even some combat traits - shoots really far, hacks really well - and Navigation - sees really well and know the territory - are salable. Crafting is either salable or not. But if you don't have a Merchanting minigame, you can't play Pirates!

-Crissa

[Neeeek]

The difference between Crafting and the other parts of Merchanting is the lack of elements in opposition involved with Crafting. Normally (as opposed to whatever contrived situation where you have to craft in the middle of a fight or whatever) Crafting can be resolved without input from other parties and with the absence of conflict, resolution is a fairly trivial matter.

The talking and transport parts, on the other hand, require interaction with outside forces that may hinder or help the Merchant, and these conflicts create a need for more involved resolution, since more than just the actor is directly concerned with and effecting the result.

Basically, there is a difference between interactions between a person and exclusively inanimate object and interactions between a person and other actors (and this includes things like "weather" and "tides". Not just people or even all NPCs). Writing the rules so this is recognized doesn't seem like a particularly odd decision.

[Calibron]

So you don't sell Hanzo swords to the lord?

If you have enough downtime then yeah you can spend it crafting cool stuff and selling it. But that's downtime, pretty much by definition not what happens when you're actually playing the game. If you spend your adventuring time sitting at home and crafting then something is wrong.

Or trade a Hanzo sword (or the ability to make one) for Talking?

This statement makes really very little sense to me. Do you mean you use your ability to get people awesome stuff in place of actually negotiating with them? If that's actually what you meant('cause you are the one person I know that can legitimately confuse me with an honest question), then yeah, to a point being able to bribe someone should be a positive thing when it comes to the Talking mini-game, but it shouldn't be able to replace it entirely.

Or Hanzo swords matter, but only to you, but they're also Fluff?

Being able to make your own level appropriate weapon is an actual ability that matters, as opposed to being able to bake really tasty pies, and no they're not fluff. Here's where I think you are confused, or refusing to understand me or, whatever, we need clearly defined rules as to what you can make and how that all works; however, to have an actual Crafting mini-game like the Combat or Talking mini-games may be unworkable on the grounds that you usually can't engage the whole party, or even more than one person, in any one crafting session, and that making a tabletop crafting mini-game that doesn't end up boring and/or ridiculous seeming will be extremely difficult; probably far more difficult than the enjoyment brought to the game would merit. I don't personally have a clue where to even start when it comes to making an engaging and interesting crafting mini-game for a table-top RPG. So I am of the opinion that we should mostly hand-wave the actual creation process while having strict guidelines with what you are able to make.

I think you need to make up your mind.

Condescending much? First of all, having everyone make up their minds asap stifles the initial creative process in this infant stage; what we need now are questions and various ideas to cover those questions, not snap decisions that will just lead to in-fighting and project delays. I'm sure some sort of majority consensus will be reached pretty quickly if we actually concentrate on the matters at hand, so there's no reason to demand I, or anyone else, give you their final answer RIGHT NAO!

Either Merchanting is a minigame, in which being able it make the best cake in town is notable and salable, or it is not a game, and then the fact tat you have the best cake in town is not salable.

Baking and selling delicious cakes or anything else relatively mundane should probably be handled with something simple like a profit roll as is described in the Economicon.

Even some combat traits - shoots really far, hacks really well - and Navigation - sees really well and know the territory - are salable. Crafting is either salable or not. But if you don't have a Merchanting minigame, you can't play Pirates!

-Crissa

When you sell your combat abilities that's called going on an adventure. And yeah you can totally play pirates, I'm not sure what Pirates! is, or even merchants on the seven seas without a separate Merchanting mini-game. You acquire goods, possibly via Talking(trading for them), Combat, or Crafting, you use Traveling to get them to a place you can sell them(or maybe you skip the Traveling part if you are already at an appropriate place), possibly using Combat to keep people from taking your trade goods from you or Chase if they run instead of fight, and then Talking again to sell them when you've gotten to the appropriate location. I don't see how have a separate

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I find it useful to divide RPG in-character activities into three broad categories: combat, interaction, and problem-solving. Combat is self-explanatory; interaction is basically all the talking stuff; and problem-solving consists of all those checks you make against fixed DCs (like jumping over a pit or recalling ancient knowledge).

Within this framework, it makes sense to have a combat minigame and an interaction minigame, but a problem-solving minigame is iffy. Since most PC commercial activities involve haggling over the price of something they're trying to buy or sell, it can pretty much be folded into the interaction minigame.

Now, the question of whether the best sword or cake in town is saleable doesn't really fall under "Merchanting" as much as Crafting. Since non-craftspeople are usually limited in their ability to help with crafting items, it's probably best not to have a Crafting minigame that is played by only one character at a time. Besides, it's rare for the crafting of an item to get a huge amount of screen time anyway. It's probably better to just say that a person trained in a particular craft can whip up regular examples of the craft in x amount of time. Maybe if you've devoted slots to becoming a master weaponsmith, you can make some kind of check to make a Hanzo sword in x amount of time, but involved mechanics for this kind of stuff is probably a bad idea.

[Draco_Argentum]

In every movie I've seen where a character forges a weapon its a... Montage! Sounds to me like something with quick mechanics.

Now selling awesome pies or Hanzo swords is a little different. For a start its not crafting. The rules for selling stuff need to be the same if you made the best pie ever or if you stabbed the world's greatest pastry chef in the face. Given that selling something is a lot like diplomacy it makes sense to fold it into the talking rules.

[Edit] Another point, being able to make a level appropriate sword is a lot like being able to stab someone in the face and take a level appropriate sword. Since we pretty much expect PCs to be able to loot corpses crafting your own gear is fluff unless its better than level appropriate. If it is then only you can be allowed to use it or one PC can spam leet gear and buff the whole group. ie, crafting gear good enough that its not fluff is a class ability paid for from your combat ability pool.

Crafting Quietus gives you a sweet sword with green flame effects and the ability to hurl those flames at foes as an attack. This is instead of taking a firebolt power and should be a little stronger because Quietus can be disarmed whereas a firebolt can't. [/Edit]

[Crissa]

The Keymaker.

The fact that you guys don't seem to understand that just being able to make a Hanzo sword is a salable ability, even if no swords are even made, depresses me.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

Either Merchanting is a minigame, in which being able it make the best cake in town is notable and salable, or it is not a game, and then the fact tat you have the best cake in town is not salable.

Even some combat traits - shoots really far, hacks really well - and Navigation - sees really well and know the territory - are salable. Crafting is either salable or not. But if you don't have a Merchanting minigame, you can't play Pirates!

I wouldn't want a merchanting minigame. There should be an ability called "Wealthy" that can grant you more money and some of it's flavor may be that you sell shit to get that money, but as far as rules to own a buisness and simulate it, no I don't want to do that.

As far as making money, I like the Conan d20 solution where basically if you get a lot of money above your level it's assumed that you just go and blow it on whores or gems or whatever. So you can still make money, but you've got to use that money on something trivial (meaning nonpower based), which may be an expensive home or maybe just some expensive meals or works of art.

If you want to actually keep that wealth and use it for adventuring, then you should have to take the wealthy advantage or feat or whatever, in which case you gain some wealth from that trait that you can use on extra equipment.

That lets people play Pirates, it just means that like most fantasy pirates you end up burying your treasure or wasting it frivalously.