> > > Wealth was treated as a special case for "cementing"
> > > in 1st ed. I'm suggesting not doing so.
> >
> > If you're saying it's in principle impossible to "cement" wealth at
> > all, that's rather making it a special case in the other direction.
> > (Making an example of it?)
>
> 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.
You wrongly assume that the standard HW system of "1 HP for related, 2 for not" has been targeted. Not so.
The "sophisticated" rules cover Price Lists and Loot, not Wealth.
> > > 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.
NOT if the players care about the issue, which seems to be the basic conceptual
hurdle that you're failing to jump. You don't care about dealing with Loot or
other similar things : fine. Other people do, or at least some of us. The fact
that HW's vagueness is a good thing from your personal POV doesn't magically
turn
it into something that should be accepted by one and all as the best thing
since
sliced bread.
> > > In each case, the system is not modelling the world;
> >
> > This is a distinction you're created from this thread, that has very
> > little to do with the actual substance of the issue.
>
> It is in fact the central issue.
Nope. The central issue of the Thread is that the abstract mechanisms of HW
deal
poorly (from a strict mathematical POV) with the actual scales of the RPG's
core
mathematical design. Whether or not these mathematical constructs accurately
depict game-world realities or not is a * side * issue, but an important one
given that the TNs, Price Lists, and enhancement rules presented in the game
can
do much to help or hinder willful suspension of disbelief in those of us who
(unlike you) care about these things.
> > 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.
>
> 1 HP of wealth can be acquired permanently for 1 HP. The "narrative
> pretext" for this change is not important to the system.
Unimportant to the system, sure, but certain narrative events can surely do
wonders for a character's Income. Are you suggesting (to borrow a clich�) that
the brave Hero who marries the King's only daughter, meanwhile plundering the
evil dragon's treasure, * shouldn't * be any Wealthier than his HP expenditure
suggests ? That Narrators * shouldn't * be able to hand out whatever Wealth
gains
they like for 1 HP cost ?
Are you in fact suggesting that the story should obey the rules and not vice-versa ?
<tongue_in_cheek>
Gah ! Simulationist !!!
</tongue_in_cheek>
> > 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.
>
> Too bad: such rules appear implicitly in every RPG to date, becuase
> they all have currency systems.
But Gloranthan currency actually obeys bartering laws, not the strictly capitalist ones that "supply and demand" suggests.
> HW, at least, is a much better
> approach than most.
The basic approach of HW is _definitely_ superior.
> > A "front-line" ability as it were.
>
> Why? Do I sense an implicit economic theory here?
Yes.
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail