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

From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_...>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:28:08 +0200


RR :

> Alex (and anyone else interested in the "wealth debates")
> Since we've had voices clamoring (okay, *two* voices clamoring) to end the
> discussion on the list, I'll be happy to defend my ideas privately, or
> simply drop it.

I'll answer this first, out of sequence, 'cos I think that RR is a great defender of the "Wealth is like any another ability: just use HPs, dummy!" approach.

More power to RR !!

I personally would love to discuss this with you privately Roderick. I'll send you a copy of my Wealth rules when they're done (80% finished).


_Adding_ abilities :

I'd like to backtrack here, somewhat.

My table method for adding abilities is fine for one of the approaches of increasing Wealth, and maybe in a couple of other instances, but I no longer believe it to be appropriate for Quest Challenges.

The current mechanism for QCs obviously * is * overgenerous though.

There's a case for using the enhancement rules (or, say, adding TN-10), but I think that the simplest solution might be : If the successful Challenger already has the ability that his opponent wagered, he simply adds a W to his target number.


(I'll try and make this my last ginormous response in this thread : BTW thanks guys, you've been very helpful and patient)


Wulf :

> > Question: Does Moonson, whose wealth is probably about 20W3,
> really
> > own no more than 82,000 lunars? With that huge, sprawling empire?
> > Surely he must have trouble equipping his cavalry with only 1024
> > horses...
>
> No, he, personally, has 82,000 lunars ready to hand.

I personally disagree with the 82,000 figure ... Anyway, let's use it in the example at hand.

> He can
> temporarily DOUBLE that for any large purchase,

Erm, no : he can double his Wealth _Ability_ according to the roolz...

This lets him come up with a maximum of circa 1.312.000 lunars at a pinch, to the permanent detriment of his Wealth ability. (Strangely enough, this mechanism is simulationistically quite good, despite appearances)

The notional value of his personal estate would be more in the region of 820.000 lunars-worth. Only small amounts of which actually existing as cash.

> > 4) Yes, there should be a table of what Hard Cash Wealth numbers
> mean
> > in concrete terms, in a particular culture.
>
> Done :-) Well, it suits me, barring a tweak or two...

I have a much better one. I'll put it in the files section.

My original table predartes Wulf's, especially the Money ratings, but this one corrects the TNs given in HW:RiG, setting them at more reasonable levels.

I'm not sure about * all * of the values, so please feel free to comment, publically or privately.

One note :

1 hog is worth 4, but 5.000 hogs wouldn't be worth 5W3 in normal circumstances : more like a Trotting Disaster Area 5W3.


Garreth (?) :

> So, then his wealth rating does not in fact reflect the real capacity
> to command the market held by this individual; if cavalry owned but
> not available for spending do not constitute wealth, then neither
> would cows, as a capital item. All this means is that Wealth only
> represents spending capital rather than invested cappital, which we
> are no longer measuring.

But surely everyone is * quite * aware that Wealth is the minority top-hatted control of our Means of Production !?

Arise Heortlingas ! Topple the boss-chieftains, and reclaim your own !!

Seriously, I don't think that HW Wealth rules should mention 'Kapital'. (Except I suppose in a ressurrected TotRM version of the Lunar Empire)

Wealth is quite simply a Hero's total sources of income, whether from his work, his assets, or his protector(s), or whatever.

> So then perhaps we need to start taking into account this characters
> allies and so forth to get a better idea of how wealthy they really
> are, whereupon we are right back were we started trying to add
> ratings to ratings. Or perhaps we need to give fixed assets a
> specific rtating, but that produces the same problem.

Ugh !


Garreth (?) :

> ... and if its a good year, and the yearling were frisky, the
> proportional value of a cow will drop, which implies that your table
> of wealth needs to be recalculated to take inflation and the like
> into account. Or perhaps, this valley is renowned for horse breeding
> and so the value of horses, on the basis of supply and demand, is
> lower, which would mean these people assess the wealth of others
> differently and negotiate accordingly, which implies you need to
> rewrite the table to reflect the locla market conditions... etc etc
> ad infinitum absurdam.

Certainly not !


Wulf :

> > A cow is CR15 not 20.
>
> Well, I was told that a cow had changed to 20, but I admit I can't
> find WHERE that was said

Careful : 20L >< Wealth 20

A cow is worth 20L and Wealth 15.


Pasi :

> > > 3) Yes, the amount of increase must depend on how many HP you
> > > spend.
> > > (Maybe there should be a Cementation rate, as well as the existing
> > > Related and Unrelated rates.)
> >
> > There already is, cement 1/10 the item's rating for 1 HP.
>
> That one is broke.

Not completely. I've been taking a good hard look at the Wealth numbers in HW1, and they're not * totally * broken.

Basically, HW assumes a 10% interest rate, and lets you invest cash for 1/10 Wealth gain. Although the handling of the pseudo-log TNs * is * poorly handled.

Far more importantly, it's a narrative game ; and for anyone who doesn't care about precise accuracy, this part of the system works just fine...

> So I use this equation to calculate weath / heropoints ratings
>
> <object wealth rating> / <player wealth rating> = wealth points per HP

That's pretty good actually.

I'm thinking of stealing it. May I ?


Garreth :

> > But Wealth, unlike other abilities, can be lowered by Narrator
> fiat /
> > campaign events / disasters.
>
> The people with whom you have relationships could die.
> the organisations with which you have relationships could be
> destroyed.

OK, the "unlike other abilities" part of that statement is incorrect.

The point is that any amount of Wealth can be gained by 1 HP, as can new allies or followers, for the same reason : they're not permanent attributes of the Hero but temporary ones.

But Pasi's contribution is interesting.

> > Normal HP cementing rules for Wealth would seem both unrealistic
> > and too expensive for the player.
>
> I suspect that this is at least partly deliberate, to move the focus
> away from "accumulating stuff".

I agree that it's deliberate, but for other reasons. Whatever.

> > Wealth is produced by farms, herds, mines, distilleries, thievery,
> beggary, and
> > other such sources of income. Pelts and beads hardly qualify IMO.
>
> OK. Neither parties wealth improves until they get back to the home
> culture. The wealth was "created" by the effort involved in finding
> a market in which such disparity exists and lugging your goods there
> and back. You made money through travel and hard work.

Which should be a feature of _a_ game of HW, and certainly not something to dump into the rules. I don't want HW books telling me about the laws (AKA modern economic * theories *) of supply and demand.

> But, all I really mean is that I'd allow this as a pretext for
> cementing a wealth point, and to demonstrate that there are in
> principle certain transactions in which you can spend petty cash and
> neverthless make a capital acquisition.

Yeah OK. I already cover that in my rules. So does HW1 actually.

Thanks for the confirmation.


David :

> > But Wealth, unlike other abilities, can be lowered by Narrator fiat /
> > campaign events / disasters.
>
> We've had other abilities (especially relationships) adjusted by
> Narrator fiat. Especially on a temporary basis (which I suspect many
> disasters would do to Wealth).

Yeah, but it's my gut feeling that Wealth is a more obvious candidate.

A "front-line" ability as it were.


Roderick :

> My Answer: Disassociate the "Wealth" ability from loot the hero has
> acquired.

And that's _exactly_ what I already have in my draft re-write for cash.

> My point being that nowhere else do we look at a hero's current ability
> rating and make a decision that it is "too high" to gain the benefit of the
> reduced HP cost.
> So why is wealth any different?

Because _some_ people want it so. Therefore it is. QED.

However, I certainly agree with you that the above should be the mainstream normal approach for Wealth rules. With little extra bits added on for people who want it differently.

> My thoughts on the matter:
> 1. Loot is tangible - you can describe the tons of Gold and Jewels, the fine
> animals, etc. Experience is intangible.
> 2. Most of us come to HW from Loot-based games, where the acquisition and
> spending of loot is an important feature (yes, RQ was a Loot-based game,
> very much so).
> 3. As 20th-21st Century capitalists we are constantly surrounded by a
> Loot-based society.

Yes indeed.

I'll put the L-word in my rules. Like it.


Alex :

> I'd be happy enough with a first-order approximation at "how _many_
> are those cows in the pasture..." (I sensed that Julian was giving
> up a hostage to fortune to the Revolting Conservative Tribesman when
> he framed his table in "coins"... "New-fangled decadent Dara Happan
> nonsense!")

1 cow = 1 wheel = Wealth 15
500 cows = 500 wheels = Wealth 20W2

Hmmmm : Maybe those Dara Happans are onto something ... ;-)


(can't remember who) :

> Yes, perhaps "Wealth" was the wrong word to use for the ability of "Getting
> stuff peacefully from others around you". Would it be better if we called it
> "Personal Worth" or "Influence"?

Not IMO. Wealth (=sources of income) and Loot work just fine for me.

Looks like we want Loot rules to complement the existing Wealth ones ? :-)


>phew!!<

Julian Lord

Powered by hypermail