One of the last things we think about when designing a game is the economy of the fictional world. It might be important to know how much wealth a starting character will receive, but the impact of wealth itself on a game is rarely given much thought.
Wealth is a mechanical and background element of game-play. It’s like the grease that keeps the engine running smoothly, but which no one wants to touch and looks kind of icky. For some games, wealth can be a major concern. After all, power is a number one priority among many players and wealth is just another form of power. Many people view game wealth as a means to an end. While you might spend the bulk of your time on cool character professions, and maybe a small portion on cool character equipment, how much thought do you have to give to wealth in your game systems? Usually, not a whole lot. The reason for this is that we most often strike a fine ratio of wealth out of habit. We don’t have to think about it a whole lot because we already know approximately what we want to achieve with wealth in our game systems. The thing is, we’re not trying to create ho-hum game systems. We want to create brilliant and unique game systems. When we try to do this, we have to carefully examine everything in the game—including wealth.
The first thing I like to check for is the importance of wealth in a game system. Is the wealth too important to the game, or not important enough? Can I achieve anything in the game with enough money, or could I be richer than the Pharaohs and still killed by the average 0-level zombie? The three basic approaches I’ve seen are: wealth being all-important, wealth being irrelevant, and wealth being mostly ignored. Out of the three, I like the ‘mostly ignored’ one the best. When wealth is given too much status in a game, it can quickly deteriorate into a game of numbers rather than a game of heroic role-playing. On the other hand, wealth being irrelevant is actually worse. In a game where wealth is purposefully downplayed, you end up with some kind of pseudo-reality in which everything seems to have the properties of a children’s cartoon. “Oh, Mr. Rabbit, you have ten billion rubies? That’s nice.” “Yes, Mr. Fox. May I trade them for one of your muffins?” “Mr. Rabbit, I’d have to say ‘no’ because rubies clutter up my garden.” I actually think a game world with no wealth in any form would be quite brilliant. Trying to pull it off is something so outrageous, that I haven’t even dared it myself. I’ve attempted some pretty crazy things, mind you, but not that. I can easily imagine a setting where wealth was of secondary or even tertiary importance, but to have a game where there is no form of wealth whatsoever seems to be begging for trouble. From experience, I can safely say my players would attempt to hoard all ‘valuables’ even in a world where there is no such thing as ‘valuables’.
Lastly, we have wealth which is mostly glossed over. This seems to be the norm. Everyone realizes wealth should be a part of the game, so there’s the customary hat doffed in the form of a few gold and silver coins lying about a table somewhere in the book probably right beside the freaking huge equipment section. In games where wealth is of more importance, there might be long lists of the fabulous treasures which may be procured by wily adventurers. In general, only the best RPGs pay attention to the finer points of wealth. They carefully consider the impact of wealth on game-play. What may be purchased, how much, what the effect will be on the economy, and the impact that wealth can make on the game.
In a fantasy system, you usually have magic items thrown into the bargain which makes things even trickier. While most GMs wouldn’t care that Bob has a huge pile of gold, you can bet your +5 sword that they’ll care if he’s buying a ton of potions and wands which let him melt all their carefully planned adventure plots. Given that money can buy just about anything, most game systems assume that you can buy at least the more common magic items. The price is the tricky part. Everyone has a different idea of what ‘lots’ of money is. Especially so in a game filled with dragons, magic, other dimensions, and parties which frequently stay at levels 1-5 alongside those who loot Mt. Olympus on the weekends. That’s another thing going for fantasy games. While money is a vague term, a gold bar is pretty solid. A credit could be a lot of money, or a little bit, but a diamond is a pretty sure bet. Most players feel pretty sure of where they stand when they get a diamond. If you make your magic items too cheap, some players may buy a hoard. If you make them too expensive, you could end up with some ridiculously inflated economics at work in your game system. “50 healing potions, did you say? That’ll be 15 billion gold coins plus tax, sir. Shall I order a load of wagons and dwarves to hall that for you, sir?”
In a futuristic setting, it’s even more difficult to balance wealth correctly. Gone are your standards of wealth, gone are your localized economies which can run out of goods, gone are your pirate ships the players can hijack at sea—but then run aground on an island with a volcano which scares them so badly they’ll never set foot on it no matter what you do. The problem isn’t so much that money itself changes in futuristic societies, it’s just that wealth becomes more liquid and technology means that acquisitions can affect the game more. A player who buys a castle has created an interesting landmark in your campaign world. Perhaps he can defend it from some villain one day. Doubtless, there will be people on his land who can pester him with their trivial concerns about crops and pig diseases. A player who buys a battle-cruiser probably isn’t planning on staying in one spot and hosting garden parties. A player with a battle-cruiser means business. He’s going to take the fight to his enemies, plunder asteroids, and generally put the heat on all the space pirates within the sector. That’s another problem with wealth and technology. It’s reasonable to assume that a sci-fi character is no richer than a fantasy character to begin with. However, if that sci-fi character heads out into deep space he’ll probably meet people with space ships. Given the nature of player characters, he probably won’t agree with some of these people with space ships. Logic dictates that some of these space ships will be a lot nicer than his, and it’s reasonable to assume that he’ll steal one and use it to hi-jack a massive battleship.
There are, of course, solutions to all of these problems. Just as there will always be a player who wants to get his own Death Star, there will always be a game master who lets all the players know that large battleships must be registered with the interplanetary Navy. Also, the Navy doesn’t take kindly to ‘anyone’ getting their hands on military equipment. The players could join the Navy, but that’s kind of just asking for it. A good GM can have no ends of fun pulling rank on the players and sending them on obscure missions they must undertake no matter how little money or recognition they get for them.
Another concern is what can be bought with wealth. Wealth on its own has almost no purpose in a game system. If the players can only purchase what’s on the equipment list, you probably won’t have any worries, but you won’t have any players either. A good game system is more than the sum of its parts. The players will be highly creative, and the GM will be creating a real, and massive world. A world in which there is an economy and wealth has a value to some lesser or greater extent. Goods, services, and lands will be out there—it now only becomes a matter of price. If your game system recommends some guidelines, that’s a fine thing. I wouldn’t take it too far. Most good GMs can rough out something if they really need it. So long as you cover the basics, they’ll be happy. Thinking about what a player might like to spend his money on is a good way to figure out what you need to address. Players are a varied bunch, and they spend their money on many different things. Some logical choices are: equipment, weapons, magic items, bases, henchmen, and services. They’ll want the best gear money can buy. They’ll want the finest weapons and armors. If they can find some decent magic items to buy for reasonable prices, they’ll go for them. Once they have all the basics, they’ll want a secure base of operations and perhaps a few loyal men to cover their backs. If the players have an over-abundance of money and a willing GM, they might hire personal armies, massive groups of engineers to build them things, or even outrageous services by way of magic or advanced technology.
A good game system attempts to steer the GM into creating a more balanced game. A game where the players can feel wealthy, but not destroy the entire world. It’s fun to occasionally hit it rich and wreak havoc, but doing so on a daily basis can seriously ruin the game. Even a few minor rules hinting at such things can often be more than enough to send a good GM in the right direction. You’ll find these little guidelines all over the place in RPGs. Don’t give out too many magic items, hirelings cannot be hired if they’re of higher level than the group, you can purchase healing magic only if you do a quest, etc. I’d love a rule which said don’t give out too many magic items. I’d hate a rule that said my character can only have one good magic item ‘just because’.
Another trick is a tax on the party income. You can allow the more unbalanced elements of wealth into your system, but also put a continuous price tag on them. Henchmen come readily to mind. Most players wouldn’t hesitate to pay a few gold for permanent, loyal, men-at-arms. Those same players would think twice if each man they take on demands a share of the fabulous treasures the party is finding on a regular basis.
This could be a personal choice, but I also like wealth to be a bit overboard. We play games to have fun. Getting fabulous hoards of treasure is a lot of fun. I wouldn’t want to write a game system which is too stingy with money or too ‘realistic’. It might seem like a good idea, but will it really make the game more fun? Many people have argued over the years that a gold coin as a basic unit of currency is weird and unrealistic. I totally agree. However, gold coins give the perfect ‘over the top’ feel to game-play. Players love to run around slamming gold down at the bar and amazing all the villagers. Would they rather have only 5 ‘realistic’ copper coins to spend? It’s something worth thinking about.
So, the next time you’re writing in a tiny currency conversion table before the equipment chapter, ask yourself, “Am I considering the full impact of wealth on this game system?”
Wealth is a mechanical and background element of game-play. It’s like the grease that keeps the engine running smoothly, but which no one wants to touch and looks kind of icky. For some games, wealth can be a major concern. After all, power is a number one priority among many players and wealth is just another form of power. Many people view game wealth as a means to an end. While you might spend the bulk of your time on cool character professions, and maybe a small portion on cool character equipment, how much thought do you have to give to wealth in your game systems? Usually, not a whole lot. The reason for this is that we most often strike a fine ratio of wealth out of habit. We don’t have to think about it a whole lot because we already know approximately what we want to achieve with wealth in our game systems. The thing is, we’re not trying to create ho-hum game systems. We want to create brilliant and unique game systems. When we try to do this, we have to carefully examine everything in the game—including wealth.
The first thing I like to check for is the importance of wealth in a game system. Is the wealth too important to the game, or not important enough? Can I achieve anything in the game with enough money, or could I be richer than the Pharaohs and still killed by the average 0-level zombie? The three basic approaches I’ve seen are: wealth being all-important, wealth being irrelevant, and wealth being mostly ignored. Out of the three, I like the ‘mostly ignored’ one the best. When wealth is given too much status in a game, it can quickly deteriorate into a game of numbers rather than a game of heroic role-playing. On the other hand, wealth being irrelevant is actually worse. In a game where wealth is purposefully downplayed, you end up with some kind of pseudo-reality in which everything seems to have the properties of a children’s cartoon. “Oh, Mr. Rabbit, you have ten billion rubies? That’s nice.” “Yes, Mr. Fox. May I trade them for one of your muffins?” “Mr. Rabbit, I’d have to say ‘no’ because rubies clutter up my garden.” I actually think a game world with no wealth in any form would be quite brilliant. Trying to pull it off is something so outrageous, that I haven’t even dared it myself. I’ve attempted some pretty crazy things, mind you, but not that. I can easily imagine a setting where wealth was of secondary or even tertiary importance, but to have a game where there is no form of wealth whatsoever seems to be begging for trouble. From experience, I can safely say my players would attempt to hoard all ‘valuables’ even in a world where there is no such thing as ‘valuables’.
Lastly, we have wealth which is mostly glossed over. This seems to be the norm. Everyone realizes wealth should be a part of the game, so there’s the customary hat doffed in the form of a few gold and silver coins lying about a table somewhere in the book probably right beside the freaking huge equipment section. In games where wealth is of more importance, there might be long lists of the fabulous treasures which may be procured by wily adventurers. In general, only the best RPGs pay attention to the finer points of wealth. They carefully consider the impact of wealth on game-play. What may be purchased, how much, what the effect will be on the economy, and the impact that wealth can make on the game.
In a fantasy system, you usually have magic items thrown into the bargain which makes things even trickier. While most GMs wouldn’t care that Bob has a huge pile of gold, you can bet your +5 sword that they’ll care if he’s buying a ton of potions and wands which let him melt all their carefully planned adventure plots. Given that money can buy just about anything, most game systems assume that you can buy at least the more common magic items. The price is the tricky part. Everyone has a different idea of what ‘lots’ of money is. Especially so in a game filled with dragons, magic, other dimensions, and parties which frequently stay at levels 1-5 alongside those who loot Mt. Olympus on the weekends. That’s another thing going for fantasy games. While money is a vague term, a gold bar is pretty solid. A credit could be a lot of money, or a little bit, but a diamond is a pretty sure bet. Most players feel pretty sure of where they stand when they get a diamond. If you make your magic items too cheap, some players may buy a hoard. If you make them too expensive, you could end up with some ridiculously inflated economics at work in your game system. “50 healing potions, did you say? That’ll be 15 billion gold coins plus tax, sir. Shall I order a load of wagons and dwarves to hall that for you, sir?”
In a futuristic setting, it’s even more difficult to balance wealth correctly. Gone are your standards of wealth, gone are your localized economies which can run out of goods, gone are your pirate ships the players can hijack at sea—but then run aground on an island with a volcano which scares them so badly they’ll never set foot on it no matter what you do. The problem isn’t so much that money itself changes in futuristic societies, it’s just that wealth becomes more liquid and technology means that acquisitions can affect the game more. A player who buys a castle has created an interesting landmark in your campaign world. Perhaps he can defend it from some villain one day. Doubtless, there will be people on his land who can pester him with their trivial concerns about crops and pig diseases. A player who buys a battle-cruiser probably isn’t planning on staying in one spot and hosting garden parties. A player with a battle-cruiser means business. He’s going to take the fight to his enemies, plunder asteroids, and generally put the heat on all the space pirates within the sector. That’s another problem with wealth and technology. It’s reasonable to assume that a sci-fi character is no richer than a fantasy character to begin with. However, if that sci-fi character heads out into deep space he’ll probably meet people with space ships. Given the nature of player characters, he probably won’t agree with some of these people with space ships. Logic dictates that some of these space ships will be a lot nicer than his, and it’s reasonable to assume that he’ll steal one and use it to hi-jack a massive battleship.
There are, of course, solutions to all of these problems. Just as there will always be a player who wants to get his own Death Star, there will always be a game master who lets all the players know that large battleships must be registered with the interplanetary Navy. Also, the Navy doesn’t take kindly to ‘anyone’ getting their hands on military equipment. The players could join the Navy, but that’s kind of just asking for it. A good GM can have no ends of fun pulling rank on the players and sending them on obscure missions they must undertake no matter how little money or recognition they get for them.
Another concern is what can be bought with wealth. Wealth on its own has almost no purpose in a game system. If the players can only purchase what’s on the equipment list, you probably won’t have any worries, but you won’t have any players either. A good game system is more than the sum of its parts. The players will be highly creative, and the GM will be creating a real, and massive world. A world in which there is an economy and wealth has a value to some lesser or greater extent. Goods, services, and lands will be out there—it now only becomes a matter of price. If your game system recommends some guidelines, that’s a fine thing. I wouldn’t take it too far. Most good GMs can rough out something if they really need it. So long as you cover the basics, they’ll be happy. Thinking about what a player might like to spend his money on is a good way to figure out what you need to address. Players are a varied bunch, and they spend their money on many different things. Some logical choices are: equipment, weapons, magic items, bases, henchmen, and services. They’ll want the best gear money can buy. They’ll want the finest weapons and armors. If they can find some decent magic items to buy for reasonable prices, they’ll go for them. Once they have all the basics, they’ll want a secure base of operations and perhaps a few loyal men to cover their backs. If the players have an over-abundance of money and a willing GM, they might hire personal armies, massive groups of engineers to build them things, or even outrageous services by way of magic or advanced technology.
A good game system attempts to steer the GM into creating a more balanced game. A game where the players can feel wealthy, but not destroy the entire world. It’s fun to occasionally hit it rich and wreak havoc, but doing so on a daily basis can seriously ruin the game. Even a few minor rules hinting at such things can often be more than enough to send a good GM in the right direction. You’ll find these little guidelines all over the place in RPGs. Don’t give out too many magic items, hirelings cannot be hired if they’re of higher level than the group, you can purchase healing magic only if you do a quest, etc. I’d love a rule which said don’t give out too many magic items. I’d hate a rule that said my character can only have one good magic item ‘just because’.
Another trick is a tax on the party income. You can allow the more unbalanced elements of wealth into your system, but also put a continuous price tag on them. Henchmen come readily to mind. Most players wouldn’t hesitate to pay a few gold for permanent, loyal, men-at-arms. Those same players would think twice if each man they take on demands a share of the fabulous treasures the party is finding on a regular basis.
This could be a personal choice, but I also like wealth to be a bit overboard. We play games to have fun. Getting fabulous hoards of treasure is a lot of fun. I wouldn’t want to write a game system which is too stingy with money or too ‘realistic’. It might seem like a good idea, but will it really make the game more fun? Many people have argued over the years that a gold coin as a basic unit of currency is weird and unrealistic. I totally agree. However, gold coins give the perfect ‘over the top’ feel to game-play. Players love to run around slamming gold down at the bar and amazing all the villagers. Would they rather have only 5 ‘realistic’ copper coins to spend? It’s something worth thinking about.
So, the next time you’re writing in a tiny currency conversion table before the equipment chapter, ask yourself, “Am I considering the full impact of wealth on this game system?”
