Blog Friday: Abstract away your wealth!

-

 

One of the staples of old school play is gold for XP. I don't use it myself, because I don't particularly like it. This dislike comes down to main issues: I don't like counting XP, and I don't like counting gold (or silver, copper, or any other currency). In this blog post, I behave much like a cooking blogger, ruminating a bit on my thoughts before presenting something gameable at the end. If you just want the game juice, skip to the section just before the bullet points.

In my mind, XP is by far the easiest of the two to get rid of in a satisfying way. Just level up whenever it makes sense, such as after looting the dungeon, slaying the dragon, saving the prince(ss), etc. or just throw levels out entirely and rely on diegetic advancement instead. 

Money however, has the problem that it is already entirely diegetic. The money is normally tracked as it exists in the world, not as some external game currency. Adventurers need money to spend on survival, buying trinkets, and getting into drunken trouble. It's just like real life! And just like in real life, I don't like the bean counting that comes with not being filthy rich (if any lottery winners out there want to fund my lavish lifestyle, please get in touch).

In real life though, I am fortunate enough to have a day job that pays the bills well enough that I don't need to think too hard about bean counting, as long as I remember not to fill my basket with steak and lobster when I get groceries. Money comes in, money goes out. How much? Only the bank knows, it's the circle of life etc. The magic of debit cards!

Adventurers, unlike me, usually don't have a regular paycheck coming in every month. That's why they subject themselves to the dangers of adventuring. However, I reckon that until funds start running low, they wouldn't track every coin. At least I tell myself that. And it's my game anyway, I can abstract away whatever I want.

One way of abstracting away the counting of coin is through wealth levels. His Majesty the Worm uses a sort of halfway solution, where you pay a flat "entry fee" for a given level of equipment, and then fill up your bag (literally) with anything from that level or below. The in-development Prismatic Wasteland (the game, not the blog, nor the guy/bird) allegedly uses some sort of wealth levels, but I wouldn't know as I haven't read it.

An interesting implementation of wealth levels outside the old school scene is in the modern big book game Hard Wired Island. Here characters have a wealth level. Ideally this is high enough to let them lead a stable life, but also acts as a source of drama and adventure when some calamity hits the bank account and the wealth level drops, suddenly making an adventure a necessary pre-requisite to cover rent (very end-stage capitalism). However, a key difference between this and traditional adventure elfgames is that the characters of Hard Wired Island  are members of a community - their adventures are about maintaining their own (and their friends') existence in the community, or the community's continued existence.

Elfgame characters are very often drifters or otherwise outsiders, bringing back treasure to finance their stay at the inn while they get patched up. Buying a house in town, when striking big on treasure, is often synonymous with retirement from the adventuring life. Very Bilbo Baggins.

How then, do we combine the nice and simple wealth level with the life of an elfgame adventurer, forever hunting for treasure until retirement? My answer is abstracted treasure levels!

Rather than counting out the specific monetary worth of treasures and the services they buy, abstract the value into discrete but broad levels. I present one such set of levels here, use them as is, riff on them, or ignore me completely and go back to your gold coins. Here are the levels:

  • Minor Treasure: Will pay for a week's stay at the inn, refilling basic rations and supplies, but nothing fancy and no new gear.
  • Medium Treasure: 
    • Will pay for a month's stay in good conditions, 
    • or an investment item for each adventurer in the party: a new sword, a piece of armor, or an expensive ingredient, plus a week's stay like a Minor treasure,
    • or the favour of a local level big-shot, e.g. the town mayor, guild master, etc.
  • Large Treasure:
    • You can live well and be the life of the party for a year, and be well supplied for your next adventure,
    • or an expensive item for each adventurer: a masterwork sword, magic tome, runeforged shield, etc.
    • or the favour of a significant figure or faction,
    • or funding a major project.
  •  Massive Treasure: You're rich as Croesus, you should buy a townhouse and retire if you've got any sense, because you won't need to work another day in your life. Alternatively, this is the funds to buy significant holdings and get into domain play, if that's your jam.

Of course, treasure comes in all shapes and sizes. A gemstone that fits in your hand could be worth a wheelbarrow full of gold coins. A wheelbarrow full of coins is much more troublesome to transport, but also much easier to spend when you get back to civilisation. With a singular item of great value, such as the aforementioned gemstone, you have to find someone willing and wealthy enough to buy it from you, someone who has something of equivalent value who wants to trade, or settle for not getting the full value of the item. A big city will usually offer merchant guilds who can buy most treasures, while they will be significantly harder to offload at full price in a small town.

A treasure of great value but small size is also a prime target for those who want to get rich quick, but don't fancy venturing into a dungeon. Be careful of who you tell about your treasures, or this might lead to a second adventure before you get to spend them.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Toppling the pillars of the OSR: against lethality

-
Image
  One of the accepted wisdoms in the OSR (as codified in e.g. the Principia Apocrypha ), as well at the NSR (as defined by Yochai Gal or Pandatheist) is that lethality is good, and a core component of OSR/NSR play, because it means that player choice has real consequence. I do not entirely disagree with this, but I also do not entirely agree. My opinion aligns more with Pandatheist's follow-up post , arguing that "consequential" would be a better term. Perhaps my brain is poisoned with modern "trad" ideology, but when playing longer campaigns rather than one-shots, I find that the characters tend to evolve beyond vehicle's for the players' problem solving, developing interesting quirks and personalities that it would be a shame to lose because of an unlucky dice-roll (because that is one OSR tenet I do still believe in - the sanctity of the dice result). A dramatic death because of calculated risk gone wrong, or a heroic last stand against an ogre whil...
Read more

A method for condensed worldbuilding

-
Image
  An important part of playing role-playing games is a shared understanding of the fictional world. A common assumption is that the game master knows everything there is to know about the world, and the players know some subset of this. Of course, what the players know, and what their characters know might not always fully overlap, which can cause issues in the game. What happens when my diplomat character wants to talk about the different empires he has visited in his travels, but I, the player have forgotten, or worse, haven't been told about them? A common way of countering this problem is shared worldbuilding on the fly, having the GM share their power of "just making something up" with the players. However, this may not always be a satisfactory solution. Sometimes it is just nice to have a shared foundation to build on from the start, not having to nail it together while we are actually in the middle of some other encounter. Having a pre-existing idea of the world ca...
Read more

Rules are a Safety Tool

-
Image
  I have recently been reading Fabula Ultima (more thoughts on that in a future post), and one thing that struck me is how often the rules text emphasises to not deviate from the rules-as-written unless everybody consents. This feels like a departure from the tabletop culture of allowing the GM to override the rules whenever it suits the game, or come up with their own house rules and expect the table to accept them. However, after further deliberation, it appears to me that this can be because the rules are a safety tool. Many people with more experience and knowledge and me have written about safety tools, so I will not go into deep detail here (see e.g. the TTRPG Safety Toolkit ), but one thing that seems generally true is that they only really work when everybody engages with them in good faith. They will not stop a problem player, who can easily ignore them, abuse them, or just generally cause an uncomfortable situation. What they are good for, is preventing those who want to...
Read more