The End of Starting Gold

[Celebrim]

It seems like I've played several systems were Credit Rating was a thing.

Handling abstract wealth has in my experience proved just as complicated as handling tangible wealth. It works for a session or two if the PC but being fair about it quickly becomes hard. How much wealth can you deduct before your rating goes down? How much wealth can you add before it goes up? Suppose you earn some sum which is sizable but not sufficient to raise your credit score? Should you track that amount and to what purpose?

For example, suppose in a typical abstract system, I have a credit rating of 6 that entitles me to make up $1000 purchases for free, or up to $10000 dollar purchases with a chance my credit rating goes down. Suppose I then score $5000 in a high stakes game of poker. Should I track this money until it hits $10000 and gives me a chance of my credit rating hitting 7? Should I deduct new spending from the amount? Can I spend $5000 now and avoid making the credit rating test and the chance of losing a point of credit rating? And at what point do I now have two systems, one abstract and one concrete?

The answer turns out to be whenever you put a price on anything.

 

[delericho]

Handling abstract wealth has in my experience proved just as complicated as handling tangible wealth. It works for a session or two if the PC but being fair about it quickly becomes hard. How much wealth can you deduct before your rating goes down? How much wealth can you add before it goes up? Suppose you earn some sum which is sizable but not sufficient to raise your credit score? Should you track that amount and to what purpose?

...

The answer turns out to be whenever you put a price on anything.

Yeah, an abstract wealth system needs to be just that: abstract. That is, you don't put a price on anything - you don't make a purchase of $1,000 and you don't win $5,000 in a poker game.

Most such systems handle those purchases or wins with a 'windfall' mechanic of some form (or the negative equivalent), which allows the character to act at the next higher Wealth level for a period of time. And if the character gets a second windfall within that period, their Wealth moves up permanently.

 

[Jhaelen]

Even Ars Magica uses an abstract wealth system. Basically, your character's (social) background determines what kind of equipment she can start with. All equipment is divided into broad categories with the best armor, horses, and weapons being reserved for 'wealthy' or 'knight' characters.

The rules still give prices based on silver pieces, but these are mostly just relevant if your campaign revolves around trading, merchant houses, and the like, or if you want to keep a detailed track of a covenant's resources.

 

[Celebrim]

Yeah, an abstract wealth system needs to be just that: abstract. That is, you don't put a price on anything - you don't make a purchase of $1,000 and you don't win $5,000 in a poker game.

Yes, but this is just part of the problem of running them fairly. The systems depend on a lot of GM fiat and unsaid things. Out in the real world, price is always a real thing.

If I'm using a system of abstract wealth and the guy has wealth rating of whatever, I know as a GM that you can buy a pack of chewing gum without need to check for a temporary loss of credit rating because I know the chewing gum costs $1 and so should be trivial for anyone with any non-zero wealth rating whatsoever. But if he has wealth rating of just 1, then buying a bag of groceries for the week despite being no more than a string of such purchases put together might well call for a temporary shortfall. However, I also know that might not be true for wealth rating of 3. But how would we know that unless we define those things in some fashion and examine the prices of goods and compare them to the abstract lifestyle?

So prices are coming into the calculation, just not up front and out in the open.

Or in short, abstract wealth systems only work well when wealth and its consequences or acquisition of possessions isn't really a part of your story, but is rather just an occasional bit of color.

The closet I come to using abstract wealth is in urban campaigns I often have a daily 'cost of living' fee I deduct, which is abstractly offset if someone buys the PC's lunch or otherwise provides resources. Thus, there are times when I'll declare that though no funds have changed hands, the party can treat it as if they received a certain number of silver pieces in case I might forget that they received those resources in a later session when I deduct costs.

 

[delericho]

Yes, but this is just part of the problem of running them fairly. The systems depend on a lot of GM fiat and unsaid things. Out in the real world, price is always a real thing.

Aye, it's not perfect. But then, no system is.

 

[GMMichael]

No, but the rules can help. And given that they can help, and given that so little is lost by including a couple of sentences about starting gold, they should.

Sure, it doesn't take much to say: your class gets X gold. But on the player's side of things, I hate starting gold. First you have to find it or roll it. Then you have to look through at least two different tables (weapons and armor), drawing up shopping lists and determining which shopping list gives you the most bang for your buck. I'd much rather just go through equipment tables, where each item has an inherent benefit and drawback, and ask myself: would my character have this?

My first reason to use a Wealth attribute would be to get rid of petty cash accounting. I don't want to check my wallet every time I buy a turkey leg or an ale. The contents of my wallet are only interesting if 1) I'm out of cash or 2) my wallet is missing.

 

[delericho]

Sure, it doesn't take much to say: your class gets X gold. But on the player's side of things, I hate starting gold. First you have to find it or roll it. Then you have to look through at least two different tables (weapons and armor), drawing up shopping lists and determining which shopping list gives you the most bang for your buck. I'd much rather just go through equipment tables, where each item has an inherent benefit and drawback, and ask myself: would my character have this?

I'm okay with them adding a bit of text that says something like "or work with your DM to pick some suitable equipment" - more options are fine.

I'm just not okay with the game removing my preferred option because you don't like it.