Re: HW as a concept, and _Adding_ abilities, wealth and wells

From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_...>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:19:03 +0200


Stephen :

> I'd like to stick my oar in on behalf of the using HP to buy up the
> wealth ability, like other abilities. For one thing it keeps the
> mechanics within the game more streamlined.

But Wealth, unlike other abilities, can be lowered by Narrator fiat / campaign events / disasters.

Normal HP cementing rules for Wealth would seem both unrealistic and too expensive for the player.

> ... even more of a hole in the
> "if I raid 20 cows how much does my wealth increase if I cement it with one
> HP" argument...

No, because the Narrator always has the "You wake up one morning and see 20 dead cows in a field" option.

> I don't think the game needs to simulate the wealth too closely - it would
> only encourage some players to empire build and try to use economics to
> achieve things that their more expensive skills could not.

Right : I'm actually working on a re-write of Wealth that I'm going to submit to Issaries that helps avoid such pit-falls.

And isn't simulationist in purpose.

> If a player says that he has raided four cows and wants to know how much
> that increases his wealth a simple answer is "how many HP do you want to
> spend?"

Broken IMO. In extreme cases (Wealth 6 ; Wealth 5W3) a question like that is obviously the wrong answer... :-)

OTOH there's certainly a case for simply ignoring what all of this might mean in real terms, as being totally and irremediably dull.


Alex :

> > If you spend HP to increase your close combat then there is nothing
> > opposing that progress beyond physical capabilities. With your wealth
> > the general economy tends to restrain your growth...that is what would
> > be missing from the buy with HP idea
>
> Precisely.

Narrators and Wealth numbers in written scenarios are there to oppose cancrous Wealth increases. Player Heroes shouldn't get a Platinum Card / 00 License to Buy. This isn't Cosmo Magazine RPG ...

> If his wealth is already 10W4, and he wants +4 out of it (I think I
> was doubling the +3 number, for some odd reason), then those had better
> be Calves of Gold.

Calves of Gold Card.

> OK, to get back to my other, more moderate example: in this circumstance,
> would the game-world narrative justify _any_ increase in Wealth for
> 1HP? (As opposed to for 2HP, which he can do for any reason, however
> slight, or indeed for none.)

IMO yes, because Wealth isn't permanent, unlike other abilities in HW. What good your rich field of oats and your herd of prime cattle halfway into the Battle of Iceland ?


Wulf :

> Everyone else, I have uploaded a Wealth table in PDF format to the
> Yahoo Groups files area. The sole factor not already in the rules is
> the idea of +5 per doubling.

I'm glad that you support my ideas ! Thanks !!


RR :

> So what
> that he already has 4,000 head (he's got a spread south of the Rio
> Bullflood), he has intentionally gone about increasing his wealth. Perhaps
> these *were* calves of gold, or he is showing the world that he's still "got
> it" when it comes to grabbing cattle and his neighbors and creditors know
> that he *can* raise the money if he needs to.

I like this idea : very pleasing.

> The player can spend his HP anyway he wants, but as a narrator you do have
> the right/obligation to question/discuss a player's HP expenditure - "+4
> wealth for four cows? No way bub, +1 at best, and you save 9 HP".

I certainly wouldn't want to overduly hinder a Hero's ambition to become wealthiest guy in the tula, but I probably would expect him to actually go out and amass huge amounts of actual Wealth (especially new sources of income) before letting him do so. Extra bonuses for mythic / magic stuff like Ferdinand the Bull, of course.

4 cows doesn't cut it IMO. Except for Ferdinand. Natch.

> If the animal is special to the
> player, let him cement it as an item (or follower, or patron, or
> dependent...) "Fine Breeding Bull 12" for 1 HP. Mundane cows in a herd are
> liable to be run off by raiders as an everyday occurance, but "Ferdinand the
> Bull 12w2" will become the object of heroic quests.

A great idea !


Joerg :

> A week or so ago I made a stab at the game-world side for urban (and
> necessarily also rural) Heortling economics on the HW list. I yield to
> you that an increase in wealth will be followed by an increase in
> influence, but still the quantity hasn't been made clear.

That's easy at least : rich characters can augment their political skills with their Wealth.


Oliver :

> Okay, I'll bite-why RQ2 and not RQ3?
>
> Just curious.

Hm : now that I've actually done the work, my assumption was wrong.

The ideal is a mix of RQ2, RQ3 and HW values.

I assumed RQ2 because the numbers are lower, more palatable.


Christian :

> I was critisized f�r only submitting a table,that showed the whole
> ratings in a different context.

Hmmmm : 'twas the only thing that I personally _praised_ you for.

> The point to me was,that it makes
> assessing of ratings easier,because you have different categories on
> one glance side by side.So you can better compare and assess easier.I
> didn�t say I invented anything new.I wanted to show information in a
> more suitable and usefull way.For me,it makes assessing ratings
> easier.

I agree, and I have in fact reprised the idea for my own use.

> But I slowly understand that most people in this discussion want to
> know,how to add any form(in opposition to information,which is what I
> think,ratings are)and than convert it into a rating.

Same thing IMO.

> Allright,Wulf has done it-which is at least something constructive in
> opposition to critisizing everything and everybody and thus pulling
> this whole discussion on a personal level every time.
> I would really be happy if it worked,because it would surely make
> things a bit easier and faster.The method I suggested is indeed a lot
> more tricky and not very �precise".

Well, Wulf's table from my ideas is fairly good, but there are a few other Wealth meta-issues that such tables can't handle ; but that's OK. Well-placed advice to Narrators can ... :-)

> What you want is,that the wealthrating is linear.But three minimal
> wealthy persons (3x5) are not average wealthy,if they join
> forces.

Hmmm : close enough to _one_ averagely wealthy person (the first 20 places in the pseudo-log table are pretty flat), except that they have three bellies to fill ...

> Instead you might say,that their combined wealth is 6.

Closer to 13. Provided they could establish themselves as some kind of Stickpicker Band, as per HW2.

> How do you
> make up a resistance for a specific situation?You read the
> examples,compare and then assess the value that seems to be
> appropiate.

Exactly.


Garreth (?) :

> It models both in exactly the same way; I am objecting to a MORE
> determist method for wealth as a special case.

Wealth IS IMO a special case, as an easily and mundanely removable ability. "You wake up one morning to discover that all of your cows have vanished. Please remove 8 points of Wealth. What do you do ?"

> This is not a simulationist system. Any calculation you try to apply
> to on on simulationist, derivative principles is going to give you
> very strange numbers in short order. Every effort to date to apply
> mathematical operations to HW numbers, frex in calculatiing troop
> quantitites, have run into farm more difficulties than is justified
> by the results.

No, no, no.

Not a simulationist system, no.

No : HW does occasionally deal with linear quantities (45 cows and a bull !) that can be quite successfully _simulated_ using HW TNs.

Yes, troop quantities is a toughie, but no : HW is OTOH very successful in managing APs during extended contests, despite their self-evidently linear and deterministic nature..

> Why? The correct method, expenditure of HP's, has been explained
> more than once.

I disagree that the HP expenditure method is as correct as you suggest, and even more that it is the only method for correctly handling wealth issues in HW. It isn't.

Although I understand that it's the only one for you, and respect that.

YHWMV.
> The system does not trivialises them - it merely declines the futile
> attempt to mechanically model them

Erm, no, it attempts to do so (half-heartedly) and fails dismally.

> Fine - but recognise that this is a simulationist approach. You are
> trying to do physics - cause and effect in mechanically predictable
> manner. But the entire system qwuite clearly and obviously works on
> a different, dramatic, set of premises.

Untrue : contests are resolved using TNs, dice, etcetera in a mechanically very predictable manner. You are confusing the purpose of the system (narrativist) with its methods (watered-down simulationist).

> All I am saying is that to
> try to insert a Simulationist calculation into a Dramatist mechanic
> is a) pointless b) going to give funny results.

Well that's not _my_ goal : I'm aiming to improve the quality of the simulationism that * is * there, without ruining the narrativistic core of the game.

> > And if for some bizarre reason he says "12" (or indeed any at all,
> > if his wealth is anyready humungous), then you're saying the
> Narrator
> > should simply say "fine, that seems related, go ahead"? That's
>
> Exactly so. I would, anyway.

Fine ! But my proposed changes won't affect you, and needn't concern you. OTOH the mathematical incoherences of HW1 do annoy some of us in the quorum.

Once again, I fail entirely to see why HW shouldn't be a mathematically coherent narrativist game instead of a mathematically incoherent one.


Julian Lord

Powered by hypermail