RE: Wealth

From: Andrew Dawson <asmpd_at_...>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 21:04:59 -0500


Okay, I made one really stupid mistake and left out a word:

At 01:08 AM 11/09/2000 +0000, Phil Hibbs wrote:
>>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.

The mistake is that sentence 2 should read as follows: I also suggest using the shorthand +1 per 10 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.

Either way. In this example, the difference is only a point.

>>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.

One horse is 5w. I augment 5w with the other three horses. Using the 1/10 shortcut, the other three horses augment the "loot rating" of the single horse by either 6 (5w/10=2, 2x3=6) or 7 (5wx3=15w3, 15w3/10=7). The final result of first horse plus augment is either 11w or 12w.

Then I augment Wealth with this new "loot rating", which is 3 either way using the 1/10 shortcut. So, a character with a Common Wealth rating (15) can augment it to 18 by selling four riding horses (and spending the 1 HP to cement, if desired).

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

Hopefully the sentence above makes this clearer.

>>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.

I'm not arguing against your method or your reasoning and I'm not arguing against rules that act as you describe in the above paragraph; I'm just providing an alternative viewpoint. (I also run GURPS without using character points to create characters; it's just my viewpoint.) I tend to readily toss out rules without requiring them to be broken. I also don't tolerate "munchkinism" in my home games.

Thanks,
Andy

Powered by hypermail