Re: Wealth

From: Andrew Dawson <asmpd_at_...>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 20:07:16 -0500

At 12:08 AM 11/09/2000 +0000, Phil Hibbs wrote:
>Rather than just converting loot to wealth at 1/10, why not use the
>augmentation rules? Roll the value of the item against the increase that is
>desired, and take the addition as the increase in wealth rating. If you want
>to get complicated, then you could augment the value of the item with a
>Bargaining ability before going for the Wealth rating augmentation.

I have a point to make about Wealth first, then I'll get back to augmenting Wealth with loot value.

Wealth for loot probably shouldn't add linearly. In other words, I shouldn't be able to trade 4 riding horses (5wx4=20w4) for a small stone castle (15w4) and expect some change back.

I recommend combining value of loot by augmenting the highest value item of loot with the values of the other items. I also suggest using the shorthand +1 per full levels of value augmenting house rule shortcut to avoid making this into a long die rolling ceremony.

Example: your 4 riding horses (5w_at_) are worth about 11w together using the quick 1/10 method (or 12w if you want to add the three augmenting horse values together to augment with 15w3).

Back to augmenting Wealth with loot value: I would use the shorthand method to do this too, so that Wealth 15 plus 4 riding horses yields Wealth 18. This is hopefully easy and it gets the accounting out of the way quickly.

Another thing: If you're just adding to your Wealth with 1 cow and you intend for the increase to be permanent, you will need to spend 1 HP to cement what is probably an increase of 1. In this case, I would just ask the Narrator if I could spend that 1 HP to raise Wealth with the in-game cost due to having acquired a cow.

>How do you justify a decrease? If you use my method of basic penalties being
>applied to the augmenting ability, then it could just mean that the cow
>can't be sold, and is devalued for some reason, or it could be applied to
>the Bargain ability if that was used. If using the standard rules, then it
>could be a loss of face, "Why would a supposedly wealthy person go around
>boasting about acquiring a single cow? Maybe if a cow is so valuable to him,
>he's not as wealthy as we thought."

I don't mind this explanation, but it seems to be justification after the fact rather than a reason to do things this way.

>This will have the effect that rich players will be generous with their
>spoils, as it isn't worth adding it to their wealth. I think that's a good
>thing, it may prompt them to think a little more about what to do with their

I also agree with this effect, but I think that I will use in-game reasons for the characters to be generous. Orlanthi, especially, will want to be generous in order to live up to Orlanth's ideals, in order to enhance relationships, etc.


Powered by hypermail