d20 Modern Wealth problem?

[nsruf]

I think the DCs are supposed to reflect availability as well as price. Thus the pistol gets a high DC because you need a license to own one.

I don't agree. That's what the license rules are for. I really think they just inflated weapon purchase DC to 15 so you can't buy an arbitrary amount of them if you are wealthy. But I dislike the overall consequences. I mean, how does a large organization, e.g. the army handle it? "Well, with our wealth, we can either buy 10 pistols or 10 tanks, it will set us back the same!"

 

[Gez]

What I liked with the license rule was that, for example, getting a driver license take only one day. Even supposing the character don't need to take driving lessons, that's a bit fast.

 

[D-rock]

I came up with a house rule that if you had a wealth score that was 10 above a item with a purchase DC of 15 or above that it didn't reduce your wealth. That way a billionaire could buy all the cars he wanted, although you still need to use common sense. As far as availability of an item in a certain area I just raise the license requirement if its more restricted and raise the purchase DC if it is harder to get.

 

[MGibster]

Sorry for high- jacking, but a lot of my Modern games (not necessarily d20) are taking place in the US.

How hard is it to get a license for the following?

1) Automatic pistol/ Revolver
2) Semi automatic shotgun
3) Submachine gun
4) Assault rifle (M16, AK 47, etc)

I would be grateful for answers!

In the United States in varies from state to state and sometimes from city to city. The following answers are generally correct througout the United States.

1. You do not need a permit or a license to own a revolver or a semi-automatic pistol. You do need a permit to carry one in public.

2. You do not need a permit or a license to own a semi-automatic shotgun. Many people use them for duck hunting.

3. Owning a fully automatic weapon in the United States requires a Class III license. This requires a lot of paperwork and I believe that law enforcement can search your home on occasion without a warrent. (I might be mistaken about that last part.)

4. If you're talking about a fully automatic weapon see #3. If you're talking about a semi-automatic rifle you are not required to have a license to own one.

As I said this varies depending on where you are in the United States. Owning a pistol in New York City involves jumping through more hoops then owning one in Dallas, Texas.

Marc

 

[Saeviomagy]

D-rock - I believe that the '-1 wealth DC' rule was introduced to stop abuses of the system which occur in every other abstract wealth system that I've seen. Namely that the players can become capable of buying infinite amounts of ludicrously large items (like... zeppelins for instance). Much much better to put some nominal restriction on it.

If you really want guns to be cheap... make them cheap. Could someone in the know from the US possibly post template purchase DC's for various gun types? (ie pistol, rifle, AR etc) Then we can adjust the DC for the various models on our own (based off the differences already within the categories).

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Wealth System Thoughts

The wealth system is obviously not going to be perfect. It does not adequatly reflect buying very expensive items. However, it does solve very minor book keeping problems. In D&D, I like to have my characters have the following miscelaneous equipment:

- A Shovel
- A Weeks rations
- A pouch of broken glass
- Soap
- Paper
- Ink
- A Roll of Twine
- A Hammer
- Some Nails
- a Pry Bar

All of those items cost very little (less then 1 gold, often less then 1 silver). Some have limited uses (you eventually run out of soap and twine). Keeping track of those items is a pain in the rectal cavity. The D20 Modern Wealth system nicely removes that minor book keeping. However, it suffers a bit with reference to large items, but the core mechanic is sound.

Now, I would suggest that Monetary rewards work like the Profession check vs Wealth increase for going up a level. Roll a few dice (Not nececarily d20's), and throw in a modifier, and increase the wealth score accordingly. Let each player roll that increase for them selves. For results that fall FAR below the characters wealth score, dont increase the wealth at all.

Example:
The players recover a breifcase full of cash. Lets assign it a value of 5d4 'WEALTH'. Let the players divide it themselves.

- They could give them selves one die each.
- They could roll and divide by number of players
- They could give it to one player.
- They could set it aside as party funds (a party wealth score).

At 1d4 each, they will probably each get a +1 wealth increase. Dividing it by number of players will probably end up doing the same.

If they give it to one player who has a Wealth of 10, and they roll 15 on the dice, the players wealth score could go from 10 to 12 (+1 for rolling higher then 10, and +1 for the 5 points that 15 exceeds ten by).

If they set up a party treasury, then the treasury would have a 15 vs Wealth zero for a final total of 4 (+1 for beating zero, +3 for 15/3).

As for charcters sharing wealth, you could use a similar mechanic to the profession check mechanic. If you have a wealth of 18 and your friend has wealth 7, you could do the following. 18 is greater then 7, and 18 -7 is 11. That means you boost your friend to 10, and lower your self to 15 (18-3 for 3 point increase to friends wealth). Or you can use any arbitrary math formula you find satisfying.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Mistwell]

Re: Wealth System Thoughts

The wealth system is obviously not going to be perfect. It does not adequatly reflect buying very expensive items. The D20 Modern Wealth system nicely removes that minor book keeping. However, it suffers a bit with reference to large items, but the core mechanic is sound.

Now, I would suggest that Monetary rewards work like the Profession check vs Wealth increase for going up a level. Roll a few dice (Not nececarily d20's), and throw in a modifier, and increase the wealth score accordingly. Let each player roll that increase for them selves. For results that fall FAR below the characters wealth score, dont increase the wealth at all.

Example:
The players recover a breifcase full of cash. Lets assign it a value of 5d4 'WEALTH'. Let the players divide it themselves.

- They could give them selves one die each.
- They could roll and divide by number of players
- They could give it to one player.
- They could set it aside as party funds (a party wealth score).

At 1d4 each, they will probably each get a +1 wealth increase. Dividing it by number of players will probably end up doing the same.

If they give it to one player who has a Wealth of 10, and they roll 15 on the dice, the players wealth score could go from 10 to 12 (+1 for rolling higher then 10, and +1 for the 5 points that 15 exceeds ten by).

If they set up a party treasury, then the treasury would have a 15 vs Wealth zero for a final total of 4 (+1 for beating zero, +3 for 15/3).

As for charcters sharing wealth, you could use a similar mechanic to the profession check mechanic. If you have a wealth of 18 and your friend has wealth 7, you could do the following. 18 is greater then 7, and 18 -7 is 11. That means you boost your friend to 10, and lower your self to 15 (18-3 for 3 point increase to friends wealth). Or you can use any arbitrary math formula you find satisfying.

END COMMUNICATION

Sigh. What part of this isn't clear: "Page 92: When a team of characters gains a wealth award, they should split it among themselves as evenly as possible"

Why exactly do you think that the system does not work for expensive items? In my opinion, it works very well for expensive items.

Nor should you allow PCs to transfer wealth between each other. Wealth is not gold pieces. It is not only cash. It represents all sorts of things such as credit, debt, income, cash flow, labor hours, savings, interest rates, and other things. Some of these things cannot be transferred to someone else. You cannot make someone elses credit rating better by giving them your credit rating. You cannot increase a persons cash flow if your wealth is in a variable revenue stream. There are also serious transaction costs, and harms from having too much credit for your income level. Simply put, you cannot, and should not, transfer welath between PCs. And just as Charles Ryan said above, you also cannot just sell your equipment to another PC for more or less than it is worth either (representing again the concept that wealth is not transferrable between PCs).

The best you can do is have the player with the highest wealth buy things for other players and loan it to them. But even then, you cannot just give all wealth rewards found in adventures to that player with the highest wealth. The rule is pretty clear on Page 92 - you split it evenly.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

You miss the point

It is not an issue of wether some part of the rules regarding wealth in the D20 Modern book are clear or not. Besides, what the players should do, and what the players will do are two entirely different things. You are right that wealth should be divided evenly where possible. However, dividing wealth evenly is not as easy as you make it sound (more on that later).

First, I will clairify my complaint regarding expensive items. The Wealth DC applied to all purchasable items is meant to represent a combination of the items actual cost and how hard the object is to obtain. This is not too hard to understand. The one awkward thing that got my attention was the purchase DC for a house.

A small house has a purchase DC of 30, which according to the table on page 204 is about 35 000. This is a bit low, until you read that the DC only represents the down payment, and that the rest of the payments replace rent. This is also ok. Paying in installments is common for large purchaes. But Cars are nearly as expensive as houses. This only makes sense if you are paying for the car in full, all at once. Why then can you buy a house in installments, but have to buy cars outright?

The wealth system is great for reducing wealth due to big purchases, but it lacks a uniform way to buy expensive objects in installments. It also lacks a way to represent chronic tax evasion or ways for characters who maintian bank accounts but sleep in their cars and have no fixed address.

Back to even division of wealth.

Another problem is how do you split a +4 wealth award evenly among 5 players who have wealth scores of 10, 15, 18, 26, and 6? The wealth system does not scale linearly. The table on page 204 lists 1.2 million at 42 and 2 million at 44. Granted, those are purchase DCs, not wealth scores. But its obvious that a wealth score of 25 is much greater then a wealth score of 20 when you consider how hard it is for a character to actually acheive a wealth score of 25 just by leveling up.

If there was a decent and consistent system for paying in installments and handling other persistant costs, then I suppose the house problem would not matter. I would not see any real problem other then the "Rich buys and Poor Sells" trick that is described by Geoff Watson, and the wealth difference problem I posed. My suggestion to apply the wealth bonuses the same way you do with the level up profession check accounts for the even division of wealth problem reasonably well.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Mistwell]

Re: You miss the point

First, I will clairify my complaint regarding expensive items. The Wealth DC applied to all purchasable items is meant to represent a combination of the items actual cost and how hard the object is to obtain. This is not too hard to understand. The one awkward thing that got my attention was the purchase DC for a house. A small house has a purchase DC of 30, which according to the table on page 204 is about 35 000. This is a bit low, until you read that the DC only represents the down payment, and that the rest of the payments replace rent. This is also ok. Paying in installments is common for large purchaes. But Cars are nearly as expensive as houses. This only makes sense if you are paying for the car in full, all at once. Why then can you buy a house in installments, but have to buy cars outright?

Rent is assumed to be in your character, even at a Wealth score of 0. It is replaced by the house montly payments.

A car and car payments are not assumed to be in your character. You take public transportation, borrow someones vehicle, get a ride places, etc..., when you start the game. Therefore the entire value of the car, payments and all, are in the cost of buying a car.

The wealth system is great for reducing wealth due to big purchases, but it lacks a uniform way to buy expensive objects in installments. It also lacks a way to represent chronic tax evasion or ways for characters who maintian bank accounts but sleep in their cars and have no fixed address.

It has a uniform way of dealing with installments. You are just confusing the built-in rent payments with the rest of the installment system, even though rent payments is the only known exception to the rule that installments are assumed in the initial price of any purchase (which is the case in real life, with interest representing the lost opportunity cost of having the money up front).

Of course there is no chronic tax evasion - it is assumed the cost of avoiding taxes is eventually made up for by being caught, or having to spend differently on slightly more expensive things or paying for accountants etc...Did you REALLY want THAT level of realism in your game, accounting for taxes?

You are right, homelessness is not assumed in the rules. You really think that was a "flaw" worthy of a house-rule for your game?

Again, I see nothing wrong with the wealth system for expensive items. It works almost perfectly.

Back to even division of wealth.

Another problem is how do you split a +4 wealth award evenly among 5 players who have wealth scores of 10, 15, 18, 26, and 6? The wealth system does not scale linearly. The table on page 204 lists 1.2 million at 42 and 2 million at 44. Granted, those are purchase DCs, not wealth scores. But its obvious that a wealth score of 25 is much greater then a wealth score of 20 when you consider how hard it is for a character to actually acheive a wealth score of 25 just by leveling up.

Much like real life, it is easier to make money if you have money. You split the wealth as evenly as possible between the players (and you can keep track of fractions if you feel the need). The player with a naturally higher wealth score is just in a better position to take advantage of the new wealth than the player with the lower wealth score.

If there was a decent and consistent system for paying in installments and handling other persistant costs, then I suppose the house problem would not matter. I would not see any real problem other then the "Rich buys and Poor Sells" trick that is described by Geoff Watson, and the wealth difference problem I posed. My suggestion to apply the wealth bonuses the same way you do with the level up profession check accounts for the even division of wealth problem reasonably well.

Again, there is a consistent way of handling installments, you are just frustrated by the single exception of rent being built into the wealth system to begin with. Nor do I see the "problem" you are trying to correct for. I honestly think your house rule is going to result in mucking up the wealth system in your game, and you will find your players will not enjoy things as much. But more power to you for trying - let us know how it goes.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Hehe. We really seem to have a bit of a disagreement going here, Mistwell. No problem. Lets debate this a bit further and see where it goes.

First, I admit that I am not pointing out common occurances within the game. I am merely saying that the system appears to break down at the extreemes. Every RPG system tends to do that. The problem with such things happening in the wealth system is that such things are more readily exploited.

Your also saying, unless I am mistaken, the wealth system accounts for installment payments by reducing the wealth score. Or to state it another way, the reduction in wealth resulting from large purchases represents paying the instalments. No problem there either.

What I dont like is that purchasing a house works much differently then buying any other very expensive item. Special circumstance exceptions to rules always cause problems. I have no problem that the bulk of food and lodging costs are not tracked. I actually like that a great deal. What I dont like is that some things are lumped into that category that I do not think should be. I have always hated special case rule exceptions, and I see the house vs car thing as one of those problems.

The only reason I want a way to account for persistent expenses is so that a character can then choose to free up some of their wealth by opting to not pay their bills, or by changing their living situation (moving to a lower rent apartment) rather then having to resort to selling things. Its not that I wish to track homelessness and tax paying and feel a need to fix that with a house rule. Its that the current system does not account well for what I think are valid player choices (opting to pay less or no rent to reduce fixed expenses).

Even so, I do not actually have a solution for that problem, and it is minor enough that I dont see a huge need to fix it or change it. I just feel like complaining a bit to see what others think about it. You say that you see no problem because the system works ALMOST perfectly. I agree. Its almost perfect, and most of my ranting is about that minor bit.

I do find the division of wealth to be a bit of a problem. The wealth system does not progress linearly, and I truly dislike that a +2 increase to wealth split between two players with wildly different wealth scores could end up giving one player the equivalent of +$100 and another player +$2000. This is especially troublesome when the reward is meant to be similar to giving someone +$500. I disagree with your solution since it boils down to advice to simply ignore what I see as being a real problem. Your correct when you say it takes money, but that only applies to investments, and I fail to see how it applies to a fixed monetary reward split between individuals.

In the greater scheme of things, much of this wealth problem does not really matter anyway. It would only become an issue in a long running campaign, and in my Modern + Cthulhu hybrid game, a player is likely to be dead or insane long before it becomes an issue.

END COMMUNICATION