Abstract Wealth Systems - yes or no?

[Mercule]

Heh. I once did a small write-up on abstracting equipment in minor ways (adventurer's packs, supplementary income, ignore incidental expenses) entitled "I'm an adventurer, not an accountant!"

Considering I don't even like the abstraction of the wizard's component pouch, I doubt I'd use that supplement.

 

[Drowbane]

I like it in a modern setting (like d20 Modern or Shadowrun) but wouldn't use it in a D&D game. I am much too 'old school' for that.

Abstract wealth is fine for d20 Mundane...

but Shadowrun never had such a system.... you have so much nuyen dependant on how you placed your 5 attributes (Stats, Wealth, Race, Magic... and?)

Then again, I haven't looked at the latest edition... so maybe that changed.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

the feasability and playability of a wealth system depends on what wealth actually means in a specific setting. If it is based on land owned and crops grown it is tricky to walk around with enough to buy a suit of armor. If the values of metals aren't set then 1,000 gp doesn't mean all that much in and of itself any more then wealth rating 10 means something.

 

[Aaron L]

Abstract wealth systems are icky and make me feel dirty.

 

[Ethernaut]

So, what are your thoughts on this? Do you prefer abstract wealth systems or not? And if so, why?

It entirely depends on what I'm running. IMHO, an abstract wealth system is the best system for games where the aquisition of wealth plays only a minor role in the story and most monetary transaction happen off screen. And I generally prefer it in modern games where keeping track of wealth can be a real headache.

For a D&D-style game, however, the traditional approach is the only way to go.

 

[Laslo Tremaine]

My group has decided to try out True20 as written.

To do so, I am converting Return to the Keep on the Borderlands.

So far it's been working quite well. I find that the abstracted wealth system does a great job of deemphasizing the nickle and dime aspect of D&D ("ooh look, this kobold has 14cp!"), and puts more emphasis on kicking butt and interacting with NPCs.

One interesting thing is that one character decided to create a noble character (I think he is the 5th son of a Duke). In doing so, he took the wealth feat twice and now has a wealth stat of +17 or so (which is pretty darn rich). I think it has changed the game in an interesting way. He gets to stay in the nicer inns and generally lord himself over the other players, money-wise, but he still needs them for healing and support. It's a character dynamic that wouldn't ever really show up in straight D&D.

Edited for spelling...

 

[The_Universe]

I tend to think abstract wealth is more realistic, particularly in modern games. On the other hand, it's generally less fun. Loot is part of advancement, and removing the possibility of treasure in the D&D sense, at the very least, effects the mood of the game.

 

[Nomad4life]

I’ve played with both systems, and found that it doesn’t really make much difference which system we use; in both cases the players more or less get the starting gear they need, and the adventure moves forward. Of course, this may simply be because of our style of gaming; where all the really “good stuff” comes from the spoils of the adventure, or from social connections made in RP anyway.

Traditional “get lots of stuff” players will probably not enjoy a wealth system, because “+3 wealth” just isn’t as… Exiting as snatching up all those glittering gold coins and counting them one by one.

“Just get on with the game” players will probably be happier using the wealth system, as wealth to them is only a means to accomplish some specific end- not the final score.

In any case, True20 is my preferred gaming system, and I do sometimes wish there were some way to “convert” a wealth score into concrete funds. That way I could jump back and forth between the two systems as needed.