RE: Wealth

From: Phil Hibbs <phil_at_...>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:08:07 -0000


>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.

Absoultely spot on! I was wrong when I said that two cows were worth a commoner's house.

Any rule that adds abilities together is broken, including the wealth/10 conversion.

>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.

I agree on the shorthand, but I'm not sure about stacking them together.

>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).

I don't understand. A horse is 5w, /10=2.5, x4 = 10. Not 11w.

How do you calculate your automatic augment shortcut? What does "+1 per full levels of value" mean?

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

But the justification fits the rules, so what's the problem? Surely you should only disregard the rules if they *don't* make sense.

>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.

Sure, but if the rules can give a gentle shove in that direction, why not? I just like the fact that in this case, the rules *discourage* munchkin penny-pinching, traditional roleplayer flaws that are usually *encouraged* by the rules in most game systems.

Phil.

Powered by hypermail