Abstract Wealth Systems - yes or no?

[The Lemon Merchant]

In my PbP games I prefer the abstract Wealth system of d20 Modern. I personally think it makes things move much smoother, of course as GM I'm handling all the mechanics so tracking finances is just a hassle I don't want to deal with. I'm just now implementing it in my fantasy game (slowly converting from D&D to d20 Modern ruleset) so I'm not entirely certain how it will work, though I'm hopeful. Right off I can see some advantages, like not worrying about every little copper spent at the inn or purchasing generic adventuring supplies (oil, rations, rope, etc.).

As for the resulting generalization of a treasure hoard, I think this actually gives you more leeway. Often the parties I've GM'ed/Played have been solely concerned with the value of the hoard and not the contents. Now I just figure the value, assign a Wealth increase and then I can describe the contents as I please. Now individual party members can take that silver braclet out of the hoard and keep it, not worrying about it being "converted" to it's gold piece value for the good of the party.

 

[jgbrowning]

Why abstract what is easily understood? And then, if you're going to abstract, why include a table that says "This range of $s = this Wealth DC". Just cut out the abstraction and say "This many $s." Especially at the upper 40+.

I'd be more prone to abstract a wealth system that is hard to understand.... say a system that relies on the proper mixture of various items (chattel, shells, social standing) and that can be used to gain goods. In a system such as this it would be better to abstract than try to explain to characters that they need another 20 cowries , one more cow, and a bit more social standing before they can convince the master shamen to help them out.

joe b.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

No. D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff, so there should be a detailed system for "stuff."

Abstraction is for deemphasizing things you don't want to spend time on.

 

[drothgery]

Why abstract what is easily understood? And then, if you're going to abstract, why include a table that says "This range of $s = this Wealth DC". Just cut out the abstraction and say "This many $s." Especially at the upper 40+.

Because credit, financing, and investments aren't easily understood. This is mostly why I like the idea of abstract wealth systems for modern/future (and realistic late medeival/Renessaince and later) games, where complex financial instutions exist. In D&D, where the norm is for PCs to spend all their gold on magic equipment (and no one would think of getting a loan to get a suit of +5 armor), concrete wealth works. In a Modern setting, where you'd almost certainly take a loan to buy a car or a house (or a spaceship), I think abstract wealth works better.

 

[jdrakeh]

No. D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff, so there should be a detailed system for "stuff."

Abstraction is for deemphasizing things you don't want to spend time on.

That's an odd statement, given that the measure of a character's combat ability in D&D is abstracted into the Base Attack Bonus

 

[jgbrowning]

Because credit, financing, and investments aren't easily understood. This is mostly why I like the idea of abstract wealth systems for modern/future (and realistic late medeival/Renessaince and later) games, where complex financial instutions exist. In D&D, where the norm is for PCs to spend all their gold on magic equipment (and no one would think of getting a loan to get a suit of +5 armor), concrete wealth works. In a Modern setting, where you'd almost certainly take a loan to buy a car or a house (or a spaceship), I think abstract wealth works better.

I can see your point a bit but, getting a loan to get better equipment would be one of the first things any sensible person would do in a Modern world. To me, saving the complexity of financing at the expense of so much loss of realism/versimilitude/immersion is a waste.

Just say you've got this much cash, assets and debts and you can get X amount in loans based upon a single formula.

joe b.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

That's Wealth ...

Single formula.

+12 is Rich. Rich people have X amount in loans, assets, debt, investments, land mortgages, and cowrie shells. How much? Enough to buy DC 12 stuff without sweating. 200$ and less.

I'm relatively poor and tracking my own finances is a horrific headache of earth-shattering proportions. Credit cards, student loans in and out, job deposits, two different accounts, car, some small stocks.

I'm probably about Wealth +4. I can afford 20 dollars without getting in a sweat about where I'm going to find to pull it out.

As far as future goes ... yea, I much preferred Alternity for future stuff. As I said. There's no real balance there, because when you're dealing with purchases of that size, a component doesn't cost enough to honestly matter. So, really, the only design consideration for Future is putting the best stuff in there. Every ship and mech looks the same because, well, there's absolutely no reason for it not to. Not really Wealth's fault.

--fje

 

[Crothian]

It depends on the game. Some game wealth swystems are very good like many of White Wolf games. But for D&D I don't like it.

 

[Nebulous]

I agree with Crothian. Abstract Wealth for DnD isn't necessary, it's too cut clean and simple. I used the Grim Tales/d20 modern wealth model for Masks of Nylarhotep campaign and it worked well. So i like it, just depends on the game you're running.

 

[jgbrowning]

Nah, realized I don't really care that much.


joe b.