> > pause) wealth. The idea that anyone in their right mind would allow
> > spending wealth to buy something would in and of itself increase
> your
> > wealth is so silly that I couldn't imagine _anyone_ considering this
> > as a "good narrative reason" for doing do, with or without a table
> of
> > "how much wealth might my Wealth represent".
>
> The pelts-for-beads example is exactly such a situation. As soon as
> the transaction has occurred, the wealth of both parties increases.
> Or at least, could do if they spend the HP.
Which has very little to do with the (rather vacuous) problem posed of the possibility of "manipulating" Wealth rules, _in a situation where your wealth is *not* being increased_. (in the game world).
Powered by hypermail