> I'd also agree that in non-heortling cultures wealth might best be
> handled a little differently. However, amongst Heortlings as I read
> the background--and I may well have mis-interpreted it--there is
> almost no _private_ property. When you get more cows, your bloodline
> is wealthier. If everyone knows that most of their wealth is due to
> you, certainly they'll be more willing to make commitments when you
> ask, whereas for Bryggi bent-bow they may not.
I think this is true. Yet another factor "Wealth" fudges (you may be 'spending' your stead's communal property, that you just happen to have a big say in the disposition of (brawl with your brothers over the "most correct" interpretation of this theory abstracted away from in your "wealth test"...
> I don't think you can fit wealth to a neat exponential curve
Believe me, I'd settle for an extremely messy exponential curve. ;-)
> there is combination of factors at work, including total resources,
> how effectively those resources can be exploited, how well the
> results can be traded, and how willing your blood are to assign a
> fair part of the proceeds of all this to you.
Yes to all. And all the other fudge factors HW mentions already...
> For example, you are a half carl, and your blood has some minimal
> number of skinny cattle, and you bring home three fat new cows. Wow,
> big increase in wealth! Except that your family traditionally has
> limited grazing rights in the better pastures, because it never
> needed any, and cows like this can't be sent to forage in the hills,
> so you need to bribe, errr I mean gift, the chief into giving you
> some better grazing land. Oh, and your cousin is ready to be
> married, and with these cattle maybe she has a chance of marrying a
> full carl, so your grandmother's great grandchildren will be carls--
> lord knows the way your going you won't have kids--so maybe that is
> better than keeping them at all....and your wealth barely moves.
Yes, sure. But it'd be handy not to be _forced_ by the game-system to handwave furiously whether one wants to or not...
> On the other hand, you come from a wealthy bloodline, close to the
> chief. You are already a warrior of some repute, arms well clad in
> silver. You bring home three fat new cows. Your uncle decides that
> you are in fact the future for your kin, holds a feast and lets
> everybody know that you have his backing in all you do, and a favor
> to you is a favor to him. And your wealth goes up quite a bit.
>
> Those are just a pair of examples to show how the same influx of
> capital to two different wealth scores may not increase the lesser
> wealth by more than the greater wealth.
But one can contrive reversed circumstances also: you're a line of traditional carls, fallen on hard times. An increase in wealth (cows, increased crazing rights, blah) you're more than ready to "assimilate". OTOH, an already well-off carl stead may not have the "spare labour" to utilise such good fortune. The fudge factors can cut both ways, I don't buy them as a generic "to he that has let him be given more" principal".
> I think a series of rules of thumb from experienced narrators would
> be a more useful tool. I'm not an experienced narrator, but
> something along the lines of:
> -if it is less than half your wealth, it helps not at all (it is
> "pocket change")
> -if it is less than your wealth, and you make a succesful simple roll
> with an appropriate ability (know domestic animal for cows, or boast
> for the booty from a raid as examples) you can cement a point of
> wealth.
> -if it is more than your wealth, you can cement +1 or more wealth,
> depending on the narrators whim.
>
> (I'm not suggesting these should be the rules of thumb, rather
> something along these lines would seem useful by my lights)
Noted, but what I', wary of are such rules of thumb (or outright rules) being unrelated entirely to game-world quantities. I'd like to see a little more explicit support for "I have these 4 cows" as a starting point, as opposed to "wealth 12".
Powered by hypermail