freak'in wealth system

[DMScott]

I hope you'll excuse me if a statement that reads "the system only breaks down if you actually try to use it" doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

See, I could understand that statement if any of the examples you've come up with had anything to do with trying to use the wealth system. But so far as I can tell, you're only looking at bums finding sacks of cash and buying sandwiches, and in all honesty nothing remotely similar to that has come up in any game session of any game I've ever played.

Let me try again. The bum can now buy an infinite number of sandwhiches. Now. Today. All day.

No, he can't. The way the wealth system works is the player tells the GM what he wants to buy, the GM works out how long it takes and sets the purchase DC. If Hobo Joe's player says "I want to buy an infinite number of sandwiches", then the GM notes that it takes an infinite amount of time to find a seller and the required purchase DC is infinite.

It just seems like the GM is hobbled, in that he can't offer one-time bonuses. That that suitcase full of cash, or any other windfall represents a permanent change.

Er, no. A character's wealth goes down as they make various wealth checks - at least, it does in games that I've played, where characters do things like buy airline tickets/cars/guns/rare and ancient tomes/false documents/etc., I don't know about games where all they buy is sandwiches. A change in wealth bonus is no more permanent than a change in gold piece balance on a typical D&D character.

appreciate the incredibly juvinille argument that the only alterantive is to track ever dollar and every credit exchange. That's lazy thinking at it's worst.

So let me get this straight - you toss out examples that make it clear you've never so much as cracked open the d20 Modern book, and then you get huffy when I address my answer to your obviously limited knowledge? Well, pardon me then. If you've got another abstract system that you like better for simulating bums purchasing sandwiches in your action-packed d20 Homeless game, then more power to you. All I was doing was noting how the d20 Modern wealth system worked to somebody who clearly had no knowledge of it, and pointing out the reason why an abstract system was used.

Eh. I'll trouble you no further.

You make the unwarranted assumption that you've been any trouble to begin with. Good luck with d20 Homeless.

 

[Morgenstern]

Ok, I'll bite once more, because I find the time component interesting. And people have such interesting language for not addressing arguments they don't like (that's a joke - move on, really). Let's back up, render this abstract again, and see if I have missed something. I have cracked a d20M, back when it came out, read through it, and shelved it, so I am saying yes, I'm so rusty as to be totally ignorant, and asked questions, doing so before building an example based on the answers I got here. Forget the bum. Lets go back to the original question of the thread.

I was told, that yes, finding some money makes a character's wealth rating go up permanently. Are we on agreement on this point?

And, that having had their wealth go up, certain items that would have previously cause a permanent decrease in wealth rating could now be purchased without having that decrease occur. Especially if the character was fairly poor beforehand. Is that correct?

My understanding was that if such items are below a fixed threshold and less than their wealth rating, they could buy them without impacting their weath. Is this right? Without regard to how many they buy. Is that correct?

Now I'm told that while "infinite" low value purchasing is obviously not true, and concede that that is poor phrasing on my part, but such purchases can be made as often as time permits?

Maybe it was the scale of the initial scenario, but it doesn't bother anyone from a play perspective that a normal college student could find 2,000$ dollars, and based on that one time bump become able to buy 500 different 20$ items the same day, and still have the permanent benefit to show for it the next day? Or am I completely off base in thinking that's whats been described by the rules?

To try to stay on point here, is there anything in the game that gives temporary wealth bonuses? Does a lucky character who finds a suitcase full of 200k in small bills have the option to splurge and just but a 200k car, or is he locked into taking the +X bump, hoping he can buy that car with a good roll, and losing 1 point off his modified score afterwards? Are character's basically obliged to be finacially sound at all times, taking a windfall like that and banking it in some fashion before trying to spend it?

 

[Morgenstern]

If he takes the money and only uses it on sandwiches, then yes, the assumption is that he's sufficiently prudent to maintain that level of wealth by whatever means, whether that be investment or a series of part-time jobs or some other method. The details of doing so are abstract, since the game isn't generally played as "d20 Rags to Riches". If the bum doesn't have the discipline to maintain his level of wealth, then he's probably not just going to use the money on sandwiches anyway.

So you are saying yes, he can buy as many sandwichs as he wants, time permiting. The same day as he found the hundred bucks. "Sandwiches", in this case being any generic item that was prior to finding the money, expensive enough to drop his meager wealth by a point. Maybe some shirts. or shoes. other little minor stuff less than his adjusted wealth score.

On the surface, I agree, a sandwhich seems reasonable after finding a finite amount of money. Even two or three sandwiches and a new shirt besides. With enough left over to do so again for the next few days. I even follow that somehow that couple of bills becomes a self-sustaining engine which lifts the unfortunate up a peg. I guess what puzzles me is the system appears to have nothing built in to say that "at some point you really should batch together your 99 value meals you bought for all your buds, and treat that 100$ bucks as gone now". It's a loophole I thought would be closed by now. Because variations on it where apparent the first time I picked up the book.

Of course, if an abstract system isn't your thing, then it's easy enough to chuck it and require players to track their cash and credit balances with banks, credit card companies, retail outlets, car leasing companies, insurance companies, etc. Nobody's forcing you to do it the easy way.

And here is where I take offense. Maybe you're joking. I miss that sometimes when there is no smiley. But it looks like you're suggesting it's d20M or nothing. That if an abstraction that appears to break down when given even a little shove isn't good enough, then one should abandon all abstraction. Abstract representations of real systems ARE my thing. The original series of calculations required to convert a standard prop of modern drama - the suitcase full of money - into a numerical value was a bit surprising. That players are tolerant of of loopholes you can drive a truckload of sandwiches through is sort of interesting too. You seem to agree the system fails, but feel that the circumstances are too exotic to worry about in the course of play. I'm good with that. But it's not suitable for my style of play.

Sorry for the confusion on that point.

 

[Morgenstern]

Actually, he can't - there's a certain amount of time involved in making each purchase. So if you want to buy an infinite number of sandwiches all at once, you need to add together the cost and buy them all at once. If you want to buy them one at a time, taking time for each one, then you use the individual purchase DC. In the bum's case, that time probably translates into panhandling enough money to get a sandwich.

Ok, dropping the inifine for a moment, suppose ordering a sandwich takes 5 minutes. The key here, was apprently you can have a situation where before picking up the money, buying one sanwich would have reduced his wealth rating, but after getting the money it doesn't. This situation is scalable, in the sense that a more wealthy (but still not tremndously well off) character might find a one time windfall that bumps his wealth rating up (based on what was said at the top of this thread), letting him purchase something now without losing a point of wealth that he wasn't able to before the find. So, back to the lunch counter. Within an hour or two, the character has now purchased more goods than the entire windfall was worth AND still has the wealth bonus to show for it? If the bum running in and out of the Subway as he see's people he knows is too low end, maybe its the college kid, a suitcase full of money, and a 5 hour shopping spree in a bicycle shop.

I'm not asking if it's common, or even entirely logical. I'm asking do the rules as currently presented allow it?

 

[Morgenstern]

Which is, I think, the point. If you think of one POSSIBLE scenario you might think it odd. "Well, if the bum buys a thousand sandwiches, his wealth will NEVER reduce!!" But does the bum buy only a thousand sandwiches, one a day, for eternity?

My concern with the system is that it would appear the defense offered for such quirks in the system is "yes, the character can do such a strange and seemingly nonsensical thing, but it's not important." Or that since the system is so abstract, ultimately the GM is entitled to handwave the quirks away. Such things tend to catch my eye, because I enjoy Murphy's Rules and similar analysis of my and my colleges' work.

Taxes and money laundering costs were brough up as a occuring completely automatically. It just seemed that there is no fuss - and so there is no choice either on the part of the players. The abstractions occur automatically *handwaving*. It's probably a function of the movies I watch, but when a couple of guys find a suitcase full of money, dealing with it IS the plot. More of a "What the *&^%*&$ are we gonna do with this?!?" scenario with them figuring out how to slip it into their income without the feds asking questions rather than a "Collect a +4 to your wealth rating - all that other stuff is abstract". Maybe the +4 (or +3 for the guy who already has some money) being computed is the GM calculating the prize of the adventure, and all those other tense moments are going to be the encounters?

What about the guy that doesn't wat to play it smart, who wants to squander the money now? Does it makes sense as a house rule that such a character can take a +8 for two months or so before he's blown through his cut?

 

[Morgenstern]

Eh. I'll trouble you no further.

Last one tonight, promise. At least until the next one .

I just wanted to clarify, this statment. Clearly, people are enjoying themselves with the game. There are obviously things it does right. Lord knows money in d20M is not the quirkiest thing people have wrangled over *cough*nonleathaldamage*cough*. If it's working for you, great. Fun IS the point. If you want to get down into the basement and pick it apart, please, show me around. It sounds like everyone here is content with it, so there's not a lot of point in trying to explore what may be faults with you, such as in preparation for a later edition or a supliment with expanded rules. My sense is it could be better, without going all the way back to the real world system being modeled. Figuring out how for me usually involves breaking it and examining the splintered ends. If you don't think it could possibly be better, then puttering in the basement isn't going to be very interesting, and I am wasting your bandwidth for no gain on anyone's part.

 

[Masada]

If you have a better system, by all means this is the perfect forum to post it.

The Wealth system isn't a rigid structure. If the PC's find a suitcase of money, the GM can absolutely run the PC's through the seedy underworld to find a Fence or something similar to make the cash usable. "Automatically" reducing the amount by 3 is the quick way if the GM wants to assume the PC's have some sort of back alley contact and get back to chasing down the bad guys.

From the sound of things you are a pretty descent GM. So I'm confused by many of your statements about how the system doesn't work when you've obviously found many ways to keep it flexible (and fun).

And about the Bum... the system is designed to allow for improving your ability to make money. It's really like a skill at the same time it's a reflection of cash flow. The system represents the concept of "ability to handle wealth" at a very high level. Details of individual cash awards and then individual purchases are fudged to allow the system to represnt a characters entire profolio and not just the one day he found a wallet and bought a sandwich. Because in the gaming scenario you don't care if your players buy sandwiches... nobody does. What the system is glossing over is that because the bum found the wallet, he could afford to take a bath. This made pan handling more effective, so his permanent ability to handle wealth improved. Again, because if this was a player Bum, the GM probably isn't going to focus on obtaining sandwiches for more than a few minutes. This applies to all trivial kit. It also applies on up to about anything up to DC 15.

By the time the PC's can buy DC 15 items "at will" they should be about 4th level and becoming real heroes. This is the fun part of the game. By this point as a GM I may not want to spend a couple of hours of game time working out how the players are going to afford to buy bullets. Quick and dirty is fine.

Individual purchases aren't the focus of the game. Truly exceptional kit items will be handed out by the GM.

For those still following the thread:

• Purchases take time, big purchases take hours--a player can't just buy 12 glocks "one day".
• Multiple items increase the one time Purchase DC by +2--so two glocks (17) now cost 19 and three cost 21, etc. (mind the hours of purchase time)
• Just because an item is listed, doesn't mean it's freely available
• Finding a suitcase of money can be problematic. In general reduce the value by 3 to represent the effort required to make the money "clean" OR roleplay the PC's finding a money laundering method (but it will probably still cut the cash by 3)
• The Wealth system is a "gross" representation of the Player's ability to obtain and use money, not a granular system of individual awards and purchases.
• The Wealth system is a guide to use to keep the game moving, not a reason to bypass interesting game play.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I have a problem with this system, but it's more of a player/GM problem than a rules m.

In a Future one-shot I ran, one character wanted a spaceship. I told him that his employer, the Galactic Concord, would give him a spaceship. I suggested a scout, he wanted a fast freighter, which has all of one Hit Dice more, so I said sure.

Then, knowing full well that I was giving him the ship, he took his Wealth score of 40 (semi-abuse of the Profession skill rules, but this was my fault for letting them start at 10th-level, and no he was not an Heir, since I banned that occupation) and bought a ship. It dropped his Wealth by about 10. The player didn't care that he just reduced his income and buying power by a huge amount. I think that's the equivalent of losing 75% of your income.

But it was worse in a Modern setting. "How much does a firearms license cost?" and other annoying questions abounded. I feared to ever have them run out of gas and have to go to a gas station...

 

[DMScott]

So you are saying yes, he can buy as many sandwichs as he wants, time permiting. The same day as he found the hundred bucks.

No. The way it works in an actual game where people are sitting around the table is the player says "I want to buy an infinite number of sandwiches", the GM says "OK, that takes an infinite amount of time and has an infinite purchase DC", and then the game moves on.

I guess what puzzles me is the system appears to have nothing built in to say that "at some point you really should batch together your 99 value meals you bought for all your buds, and treat that 100$ bucks as gone now".

This may well be a crushing blow for your d20 Homeless game. In a more traditional game, where the PCs as characters in the modern world have a somewhat more complex financial life than finding bags of cash and using it to buy sandwiches, it's just a post condition that gets lost in the abstraction. Any abstract system will have such holes, if you want a system with no holes at all then once again the solution is to track each character's finances in detail.

And here is where I take offense.

My heart bleeds for you, but again it is a completely valid response to what you claim is your problem: some details of financial transactions get lost in the abstraction. This is true of any abstraction, including whatever one you plan to use in d20 Homeless. The solution, if that's a game-breaking problem for you, is to remove the abstraction. I'm sorry to be the bearer of such sad news.

 

[tbug]

Are character's basically obliged to be finacially sound at all times, taking a windfall like that and banking it in some fashion before trying to spend it?

Characters aren't required to be financially sound. The rules give you the best-case scenario, and assume that you're managing your money in the most optimal fashion available to you. If a character doesn't do that then of course their wealth level can decrease by whatever rate is deemed appropriate for their lack of self-discipline. That's a role-playing call; the rules just provide the optimum scenario.