But, on the other hand, per adventure and one adventure per level - At level 10, you'd have a wealth bonus of +85?
Please tell me I'm missing something, because this sounds totally insane.
Instead, you could start assigning cash (like, "You find a suitcase with $200 in it) and then convert the 200 bucks to a purchase DC (using the table in the Gamemastering chapter), and have them effectively sell it to increase their wealth. That way, if they hoard their money the little boosts they get from the rewards won't have any effect on their bonus. It'll encourage them to actually buy things so that they lose wealth and actually gain a benefit from the rewards they are receiving.
Works in my bounty hunting group. The criminals have a purchase DC attached. :D
Has anyone made one?
I'm thinking just convert everything to money. There's already a wealth to purchase DC table, as you referenced; all that's needed is a wealth-by-level table - Trying to make a 20th-level Tough/Dreadnought to test out the system.
Has anyone made one?
Credit cards alone makes cash systems in Modern RPGs a bookkeeping nightmare, let alone every other aspect of modern economics. d20 Accounting doesn't sound like a very fun game at all, so thus the abstract wealth system.
Personally, what I do is treat quick-cash rewards (like a briefcase of money) like one-use items that provide a bonus on a wealth check. Quick-cash rewards that provide a greater bonus than +1 can have their bonus split up between multiple rolls, but each "use" takes away from its total bonus.
For example: A briefcase of cash would provide the party with a total +5 bonus to a wealth check. Instead of using that +5 all at once, they can make 5 purchases with a +1 bonus, or one purchase with a +3 bonus and another with a +2 bonus, or split that +5 up in any number of ways until the bonus used totals 0, then all the cash in the briefcase has been used up. Uh... Get what I mean?
Credit cards alone makes cash systems in Modern RPGs a bookkeeping nightmare, let alone every other aspect of modern economics. d20 Accounting doesn't sound like a very fun game at all, so thus the abstract wealth system.
It's nice to know that term has lived on
.Likewise, '5000 credits' would be a perfectly acceptable abstraction in D20 Future; '5000 monetary resources (MR)' would work for D20 Modern.
Medieval accounting was no less complicated than modern accounting.
PC: "I can't afford that gun, but I would like to take out a personal loan."
Hence the need for an abstract wealth system.
Yes, debt, debter's prison and borrowing are solely modern concepts.
In D&D, you borrow the gold with the stipulation that you pay it back, perhaps with interest. Everything is easily calculated, though.
In d20M, loans have complicated terms, interest rates, compounding issues, and require recurring repayments rather than lump-sum repayment. Do you want to spend your time addressing these financial issues, or would you rather play d20M?
The obvious response: "You're being nit-picky. Just say the bank gives you X and you repay 2X. That's close enough." Ah, but now you agree that modern finance is indeed complicated enough to merit some simplification. The question is just where should the simplification occur. Well, you could patch loans, as above, which works until the PC wants to purchase stock. So you houserule stock purchases just in time for another PC to ask about applying for a credit card. Rather than houserule each of these individual situations, it seems better to abstract them all into a single value (the Wealth Score) which represents your total buying power.
In D&D, 'Gold Pieces' is a gross over-simplification of an economy that included debts, duties, obligations, oaths, alliances and fueds owed and owing, involving dozens or even hundreds of people, going back generations.
In D20 Modern, 'Monetary Resources' is a perfectly acceptable gross over-simplification.
Step out of your forest and realize it's not the only one with trees.
You seem to be missing something rather large.
In D&D, 'Gold Pieces' is a gross over-simplification of an economy that included debts, duties, obligations, oaths, alliances and fueds owed and owing, involving dozens or even hundreds of people, going back generations.
In D20 Modern, 'Monetary Resources' is a perfectly acceptable gross over-simplification.
Step out of your forest and realize it's not the only one with trees.
1. The attitude isn't really necessary.
2. As far as I am aware, gold pieces are intended only to model PC wealth, not kingdom wealth (i.e. you wouldn't say Greyhawk has 100 million gold pieces). Many of the examples you provide (debts, duties, etc.) are lower-level workings of the economy that are presumed to be taking care of themselves when you, as DM, present a stable, industrious kingdom.
The fact still remains, however, that, at the level of the individual player, modern finances are significantly more complicated than medieval finances. Think of the typical insignificant expenses we tend to ignore in a D&D game. Food, clothing, weapon maintenance, etc. The list might be somewhat long, but is surely dwarfed by the list of modern expenses we might imagine (rent, insurance, internet service, cable tv, on and on). These costs aren't insignificant, but they are tedious and in no way fun, and so a heavier abstraction is required in d20M than in D&D.
EDIT: btw the designers themselves none the less have even stated DON"T,but if you must check out the Modern player's companion,its made the folks who made the game.
It's nice to know that term has lived on
at some point you'll get the credit for it...
1. The attitude isn't really necessary.
1. I didn't start it.
2. Once again, you vastly underestimate the complexity of the medieval economy, even on the scale of a simple peasant.
Why is abstraction right in one instance, but wrong in the other?
1. I didn't start it.
I didn't realize anything had been "started". I was under the impression you came here to discuss the wealth system, not to fight.
Yes, I did come here to discuss things. And then you condescended at me, so I condescended back.
I certainly didn't intend any malice in any of my posts. I apologize if I've upset you.
Summarizing our viewpoints: You say D&D's gold piece system is sufficient to model the intricacies of modern finance. I say further abstraction is necessary, and furthermore claim that the wealth score system accomplishes this at least tolerably.
My challenge to you: Using the gold piece system, construct an appropriate model for the use of a credit card in d20 Modern.
I propose that it cannot be done in a way that is simultaneously balanced and simple. Furthermore, even if you could accomplish this, the use of credit cards is only one facet of complex modern finances. You would be forced either to establish rulings for the various sources of modern income, or you must use a wealth system that sufficiently abstracts these concepts.
The Wealth System
Today's topic is the Wealth system in the d20 Modern game. I'll start by giving you a little insight into why the designers went with the system they did. Next, I'll talk a bit about how players try to cheat the system -- and why those techniques almost never work when the rules are applied properly. Finally, I'll answer a few questions that have come in about the Wealth system.
Why Not Cash?
Why on earth did we institute a Wealth system in the first place? What's wrong with good old cash? You've probably read the Why Not Just Track Money section on page 39 of the rulebook, but let me give you a bit more insight into that particular design decision.
I've played modern-setting games for close to twenty years, and a recent experience involving money in one of my favorite games -- the d20 Call of Cthulhu Game -- was pretty typical. My wife Tammie and I both rolled up new characters. We figured out how much starting money our characters had -- about $15,000 each, as it turned out. When it was time to purchase gear, I decided to buy a car for my character. After that, I was done. Other than a spare pair of socks or two, my character couldn't afford anything else. Tammie's character, who didn't buy a car, could afford two of just about everything else in the equipment chapter. It seemed that the choice was clear -- own a car and nothing else, or don't buy a car but have way more money than you could possibly need.
Here's an even uglier example. A few years back, I was playing a spy game with some friends, one of whom was a consummate min-maxer. This player, whom I'll call Jim (because that's his name), spent all his money on nifty gadgets. Once his cash reserves were gone, he turned to the GM and declared that he was buying more stuff with a credit card, and that he was getting a loan to buy a car. The GM pointed out that the rules didn't allow for credit; thus, he could spend only the money his character had at the time. "Why can't my smart, well-paid agent get a Visa card?" Jim asked. "I can get one in an hour, and I'm just a college student with no job." The GM replied that he could certainly expand the rules to accommodate Jim's request, but that if he had to come up with rules for car loans and Amex cards, he would darned well make rules for rent, electric bills, insurance payments, and every other modern financial obligation he could think of while he was at it. That settled the matter pretty quickly, but the fact that the game rules didn't let players access the advantages of modern finance was less than satisfying for everyone involved.
Let's face it: The modern world, with its easy credit and high degree of materialism, is very different from a medieval setting, in which characters can often carry everything they own on their backs. Hence, we created the Wealth system for the d20 Modern Roleplaying Game. In a world where a person's true net worth is virtually impossible to assess accurately (if it were easy, tax forms would be a whole lot simpler), this system provides a reasonable measure of a character's ability to buy stuff. As an added bonus, the Wealth system lets us dispense with all the unpleasantness of modern finance -- balancing the checkbook, paying the cell phone bill, keeping up on the rent, and so on.
rest of the article can be found here
That is not entirely correct; D&D's gp system is Accepted as a workable abstraction of what was actually a very complex system of exchange.
No, it is not practical to model a credit card using a 'gp' style system. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that if 'gp' can be used as an abstraction for the equally-complex medieval economy, then the same system can be used as an abstraction for our economy, with a simple switch of naming system.
Modeling does not come in there at any point, in the same way 'gp' does not model a medieval economic system.
I'm arguing that if 'gp' can be used as an abstraction for the equally-complex medieval economy, then the same system can be used as an abstraction for our economy, with a simple switch of naming system.
Modeling does not come in there at any point, in the same way 'gp' does not model a medieval economic system.
Modern economy is provably more complex than medieval economy in the following way: Any means of obtaining wealth in a medieval setting is still viable in a modern system. However, some means of obtaining wealth in a modern system are not viable in a medieval setting (e.g. stocks, credit cards, bank loans, etc.).
You insist that medieval finances are quite involved at the level of the player. Provide an example. I think you will find that either the example is not truly wealth by medieval standards unless it is roleplayed out to involve the actual transfer of gold or other valuables.
When I say "model", I do not mean a 100% accurate simulation. Rather, I mean a system that is easy to use at the table and maintains an acceptable amount of the things players are interested in (buying power) and abstracts the things they are not interested in (bills). The gold piece system cannot accomplish either task.
To model steady buying power with gp, you must have a continual influx of gp, and so must track this influx. The wealth score system accomplishes this by essentially saying "Your character lives a Wealth 18 lifestyle" and it is assumed that you can live comfortably at this level without any tracking of wealth.
To model the paying of dues with gp, you must deduct gp. There is no other way. With the wealth score system, your low-level expenses (those not exceeding your wealth score) are assumed to be taken care of. Again, no tracking of wealth except for the purchase of expensive items, which is assuredly the only time wealth should really matter.
However, to say that its as equally complex as modern economics is wholly false. There are many, many more aspects to modern finances than which existed during medival times (again, not saying medival economics were simple). Credit scores, for example, have a large impact on your borrowing ability. Constantly fluctuating stocks I'm not even going to get into because I'm not an economist, and credit cards have already been mentioned enough times I don't even have to bring it up. The d20 Modern wealth system may not be perfect, not by a longshot. Its so easy to break that more often than not it becomes completely redundant. But so far its the best representation of the sheer complexity of modern finances and (especially) credit that we've got.
Honestly, to me your argument provides more evidence to the benefit of using the Wealth system in D&D than it does using abstract money points in Modern. :P
Modern economics simply formalized things that already existed. Money may not be the best model for some things, but neither is the wealth rating. And money at least tracks what you actually have, rather than what you may have.
Do what you want. It's your game. You're the only one who is going to know what works in your group, and what doesn't.
Realize, though, that people here who have been playing this particular game since its inception are trying to give you the benefit of their experience. Over the years, many people have come to these boards saying how much they dislike the wealth system, and how they were going to do it differently. I don't recall any of them returning so say how much better their system worked over the wealth system, but I do recall others returning to say that trying something along the lines of cold hard cash became a nightmare.
Do with that as you will. But please quit becoming so adversarial when people try to explain their point of view to you.
Stocks? The modern world simply formalized something that already existed. Credit cards? Letters of credit. Bank loans? Banks are renaisaince, but borrowing and interest rates have existed for thousands of years.
Modern economics simply formalized things that already existed. Money may not be the best model for some things, but neither is the wealth rating. And money at least tracks what you actually have, rather than what you may have.
You're addressing the wrong issue. If your players want to borrow money in D&D, you general roleplay it out and forge some sort of NPC relationship which may serve to progress your story. I do not have any such relationship with anyone at Citibank. Borrowing in D&D should occur infrequently and hence be roleplayed. Borrowing (via credit) in d20 Modern could conceivably occur at every game session were it not for the built-in abstraction.
Whether or not the wealth system is the "best" way to accomplish this necessary abstraction is debatable, but as I and others have tried to demonstrate, it is superior to the gold piece system.
Do with that as you will. But please quit becoming so adversarial when people try to explain their point of view to you.
The first incident was triggered by misinterpretation of someone elses' tone.
I have scanned my last post and am not sure what prompted this, unless you take posting counter-examples to be adversarial.
I realize you are trying to give me the benefit of experience; however, 'the benefit of experience' is not a conclusive argument in and of itself.
Perhaps you are mistaking bluntness for rudeness?
And yes, the benefit of experience is not conclusive in and of itself. And as I said, only you know your group well enough to decide if your method will work. However, the contempt you seem to show when somebody does share their experience with you indicates that you're not going to even listen to what is said to you.
Which of course, tells me I'm wasting my time in trying to discuss anything with you.
Look, I was just posting my opinion. I saw no need for IMO or IIRC or a smiley, because I don't find opinions rude. I'm just disagreeing. The lack of IMO or IIRC or a smiley does not mean I'm saying 'You're wrong, stupid, and this is why' and should not be interpreted this way. I'm just posting my thoughts.
Not sure if this makes sense but maybe it does, and it could help.
The gold piece is an abstract representation of an economy, the same as my proposed 'Money' value.
But this argument isn't getting anywhere but frustration, so I'm dropping it.