No; the error was probably to try to give Wealth more "sophisticated" rules for cemewnting, instead of just using the standard system of spend 1 HP for related, 2 for not.
> And then he asks what the problem is...
>
> I dislike this because it exalts the "game mechanic" currency above
> (almost 'instead of') the game-world notion of the thing being
> measured.
Exactly so. And that is what makes HW so interesting, and why I bought it, and why I am so enamoured of it that I am converting other settings to it.
> (At this point people leap from the bushes to cry "simulationist!",
> conveniently ignoring the skads of "worse" simulationism all through
> the rules.)
The question you are asking is indeed simulationist. This is not a simultationist system. There is no "worse simulationism" in the rest of the rules becuase the rules make no claim to simulate anything. How can a system which relies on ambiguous references like "six cuts silk" or whatever it was - without the PLAYER even knowing what it was - possibly attempt to simulate anything?
>
>
> > Let me see if I can state your point:
> > Your point seems to be "We need to know exactly how much an
Wealth Rating
> > increase x Loot provides if cemented".
>
> Except without the "exactly", the "provides", or the "if
cemented". Or
And the answer is: as many as the HP you spend.
> > 3. Acquiring Loot (any amount) gives the player an reason to pay
a "related"
> > HP cost to increase his Wealth rating.
>
> Which clearly trivialises any consideration of how much it actually
> was, something you think the characters certainly, and the players
> intuitively, might care about...
Yes, but that is both deliberate and a Good Thing. I cannot express how happy I am to excape the unbearable counting of gold coins, silver coins, copper coins, platinum coins, electrum coins... That stuff is Not Fun, IMO, and worse it severely warps the nature of wealth in these socities. As I have mentioned before, the irony is that this abstract rating governed by hero points is arguably more realistic than more detail-determined systems.
> not in any way attempting to supplant "the narrator decides" in such
> cases. I'm suggesting a basis for _helping_ the narrator make such
> judgements on a vaguely consisent basis (if she feels in need of
What do you need more than the weregild ratings for the heortling economy?
Powered by hypermail