Abstract wealth

[Raleel]

So, I’m reading through the abstract wealth rules, and I like them. But it’s driving a few questions  

• So, if you fail at a status roll to buy something of (for example) Average cost, does this mean that you don't even get to try to buy something that is Expensive? I assume the situation when you get to make another roll is pretty abstract (different area of setting, bargaining, etc), but do you even get to try on other Average things?
• How do you handle multiple single items at item values just below their wealth level? 
• I am considering making an "item" called "lifestyle" which has a monthly upkeep. Essentially, a second (or third or whatever) Status skill that is a separate identity and money pool. Anyone done anything like this?

I think I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around the abstraction. 

[KPhan2121]

On 10/17/2021 at 7:48 AM, Raleel said:

So, I’m reading through the abstract wealth rules, and I like them. But it’s driving a few questions  

• So, if you fail at a status roll to buy something of (for example) Average cost, does this mean that you don't even get to try to buy something that is Expensive? I assume the situation when you get to make another roll is pretty abstract (different area of setting, bargaining, etc), but do you even get to try on other Average things?
• How do you handle multiple single items at item values just below their wealth level? 
• I am considering making an "item" called "lifestyle" which has a monthly upkeep. Essentially, a second (or third or whatever) Status skill that is a separate identity and money pool. Anyone done anything like this?

I think I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around the abstraction. 

Its all outlined in pg 239 in the BGB

For your first question, I would probably keep a "narrative first" way of doing things and keep it all in one roll. If you fail a Status Roll at a seller, then you don't buy anything in that store until something changes narratively. Either you haggle or promise to do something for the items.

For your second question, if the item is only one value level below then you get a single item or a small set. I would say that the multiple item should be enough for one person. Like say if you want to buy bullets for a gun, then you just enough to fill up your chest rig or bandolier and no one else's. If the item is two value levels below, then its basically as much as you need for what you're going to do with them.

As for lifestyle, I think its already implied into the wealth system. Its in the wealth level box in pg 238. Like if you're destitute, its an adventure on its own to find rent money for that month, but you wouldn't need to give a shit about that it you're poor or above.

[Raleel]

On 10/18/2021 at 10:30 PM, KPhan2121 said:

Its all outlined in pg 239 in the BGB

For your first question, I would probably keep a "narrative first" way of doing things and keep it all in one roll. If you fail a Status Roll at a seller, then you don't buy anything in that store until something changes narratively. Either you haggle or promise to do something for the items.

For your second question, if the item is only one value level below then you get a single item or a small set. I would say that the multiple item should be enough for one person. Like say if you want to buy bullets for a gun, then you just enough to fill up your chest rig or bandolier and no one else's. If the item is two value levels below, then its basically as much as you need for what you're going to do with them.

As for lifestyle, I think its already implied into the wealth system. Its in the wealth level box in pg 238. Like if you're destitute, its an adventure on its own to find rent money for that month, but you wouldn't need to give a shit about that it you're poor or above.

Yea, I read the rules. I’m sort of having a hard time grokking it. I’m envisioning a situation at my table where

• player wants to buy item requiring a standard roll
• player fails roll, character stays in store
• player tries to buy different item requiring a difficult roll and wonders why he can’t just reroll on the first item

or

• player wants an item requiring a roll, gets it, stays in store
• player wants a different item at the same item value, gets it
• player wonders why he can buy two different items of the same item value and not two of the same item

I’m having a hard time with the item level (implying transactions you roll against) and multiple interactions in a short time frame.

For the lifestyle, the game is partially about the struggle of getting ahead in the lifestyle. The wealth system doesn’t provide anything that indicates a monthly upkeep, and no clear way for the wealth of a character to go down. Thus, the lifestyle upkeep is about forcing a roll to see if you’ve overextended yourself this month. 

[KPhan2121]

On 10/21/2021 at 3:20 AM, Raleel said:

Yea, I read the rules. I’m sort of having a hard time grokking it. I’m envisioning a situation at my table where

• player wants to buy item requiring a standard roll
• player fails roll, character stays in store
• player tries to buy different item requiring a difficult roll and wonders why he can’t just reroll on the first item

or

• player wants an item requiring a roll, gets it, stays in store
• player wants a different item at the same item value, gets it
• player wonders why he can buy two different items of the same item value and not two of the same item

I would make it all one roll. So a player goes into a store and wants to buy a set of items. An item that is that is one value level above their wealth level and an item two value levels above. Depending on the roll, the player character might get everything they want, only some of it or none at all. To get both items, the player will need to roll against their status and roll low enough to under 1/2 of their rating. If the player succeeds on their status roll, but is over 1/2 of their rating they will only get the item that is one value level above.

On 10/21/2021 at 3:20 AM, Raleel said:

I’m having a hard time with the item level (implying transactions you roll against) and multiple interactions in a short time frame.

I think the thing that is causing this is that you're interpreting Status wrong, Status is not a money skill. Its a measure of your reputation in society. It enables you to use your personal clout to gain access to items above your wealth level. So if you fail a status roll, its not so much that you don't have the money to buy an expensive item. Its more that the seller doesn't know you or trust you enough to accept an IOU from you.

The purpose of the wealth rules is to move the game away form counting coins and keep the focus on the more exciting stuff. If a player wants to buy something within their means, they can just have it and we can avoid the inevitable 30 minute haggling session trying to take a gold coin off the cost of a longsword.

[Raleel]

Thank you for your response and patience. Your last paragraphs turned on a bit of a light there, and now I need to consider if it’s appropriate for what I want to do. I would really like it to be, but I need to consider some things and be able to explain it to my players too. 
 

in addition! I think I do want a money skill as well, because being paid in reputation might be a little weird, and I really don’t want to make price lists. 

Edited October 24, 2021 by Raleel
Additional things to say.

[soltakss]

The abstract wealth rules work OK if you always have abstract wealth. As soon as you introduce money into the equation they can fall apart.

The way I use it, very generally is:

• If the item that you want to buy is two Wealth Levels below your own Wealth level then you can buy it without a roll.
• If the item that you want to buy is of the same Wealth level, or one level below, then you need to make a Wealth roll to buy it.
• If the item is of a higher Wealth Level then you have to make a Difficult roll to buy it, unless you have mitigating circumstances.
• Buying a lot of things at your Wealth Level might temporarily reduce your Wealth Level, as might buying something higher than your Wealth Level

It is a narrative thing and does not really suit games where you need to keep track of your wealth.

[Raleel]

I suppose you could also just adjust the difficulty of the roll, or make multiple items cost more and treat as one item. I am perhaps somewhat concerned with gaming the system. 
 

temp reductions were a thing I had considered. Perhaps I will do that. Roll wealth, success reduces your skill. It renews at some point due to a career, etc. 

[soltakss]

1 minute ago, Raleel said:

I am perhaps somewhat concerned with gaming the system. 

If you are concerned about someone gaming the system then you are thinking in too concrete terms.

It is much better to think in terms of "What can a millionaire buy?" or "What can a hobo buy?".

Apply a sniff test if you want, so that someone buying lots of expensive stuff hits a limit on their credit, or gets a big credit line that forces their wealth to go down slightly.

[Raleel]

7 minutes ago, soltakss said:

If you are concerned about someone gaming the system then you are thinking in too concrete terms.

It is much better to think in terms of "What can a millionaire buy?" or "What can a hobo buy?".

Apply a sniff test if you want, so that someone buying lots of expensive stuff hits a limit on their credit, or gets a big credit line that forces their wealth to go down slightly.

I have no doubt I’m thinking in too concrete terms.
 

Communicating it to my players might be a bit of a thing. There will be some cognitive dissonance as they try and buy stuff. I have a concern there will be “I buy a gun” and that will be reasonable, and then “I buy a gun” happens shortly there after in an attempt to feel out the boundaries and make it more concrete. it might not even be an intentional attempt to circumvent, and instead just be something they didn’t think of and wonder why they can’t just do it. I am concerned provoke the sort of planned buying of things (you roll for the gun, you roll for the car, etc) that would burden the flow of the game. 
 

as for “what can an X buy?” I think “what can I buy with my finances?” And think I can buy a car outright, but there are impacts, and those are not reflected. Thus I am thinking about reductions now, and different pools of wealth 

[soltakss]

2 hours ago, Raleel said:

Communicating it to my players might be a bit of a thing. There will be some cognitive dissonance as they try and buy stuff.

"You have the wealth of a journalist, you can buy the kind of things that a journalist can buy". That might be enough for a lot of things.

2 hours ago, Raleel said:

I have a concern there will be “I buy a gun” and that will be reasonable, and then “I buy a gun” happens shortly there after in an attempt to feel out the boundaries and make it more concrete. it might not even be an intentional attempt to circumvent, and instead just be something they didn’t think of and wonder why they can’t just do it.

I don't think that actually happens in games with abstract wealth.

There are three outcomes:

1. You have enough wealth and can buy something
2. You don't have enough wealth and can't buy something
3. You have enough wealth to open up a credit line to buy something, but have to pay it back

Players could argue about the amount of wealth they have, but you as a GM can either say "Yes, that is fine", "No, you can't afford it", or "Maybe fat Jim can help you out".

2 hours ago, Raleel said:

as for “what can an X buy?” I think “what can I buy with my finances?” And think I can buy a car outright, but there are impacts, and those are not reflected. Thus I am thinking about reductions now, and different pools of wealth 

Different pools of wealth works fine. 

Several games do something similar. In HeroQuest, if you had a Millionaire keyword then you could just roll under it to buy things that millionaires could buy, similarly, if you had Hobo as a keyword then you probably couldn't buy a gun. 

It is just getting your mind around the mindset of not tracking every dollar.

[Questbird]

Systems like this work quite well for modern or sci-fi settings, or perhaps large medieval cities where goods themselves are not in short supply but maybe finance is, and where there are different 'classes' in society. Where goods are handcrafted, prized and bartered, society doesn't need 'wealth levels'.

Ray Turney's Fire and Sword (available on this site) has an abstract wealth system, and he has provided some excellent design notes about why he chose to use it:
 

Quote

 

Traditionally, FRP rules don't go into economics in detail. They basically present a price list for various items that characters might want. These lists are often very long, with prices for everything from flasks of wine, to magical artifacts. This has several problems.

First, keeping track of minor expenditures is an annoying bookkeeping task. In a novel, no one asks whether the hero can afford a beer. I did not want players in our game to have to have to take their attention away from the game and do bookkeeping every time a character spent some money. Second, many goods, like wine, come in varying degrees of quality. Almost all characters can afford a glass of wine, but it usually will not be the equivalent of a thirty year old bottle from a premium vintage.

So I created the abstract FTE system, on the model of the civil service in Czarist times. This defines the level below which expenses do not have to be tracked, provides for a small savings rate at the higher level, and provides a convenient way to define the quality of a good that comes in varying levels of quality. Forexample, and FTE 10 outfit will be better than an FTE 6 outfit, and proclaim the superior social status of its wearer.

So we {my co-GM and I} did this, and for a while did not give out any loot at all. The players got tired of this, since getting loot and spending it is sometimes central to the fun of a role playing game. So we gave out some loot, and provided a price list of major items to spend the loot on. This price list ignores wine, backpacks, and adventuring supplies, on the theory that all characters have enough money to pay for these. It covers things like armor, warhorses, war elephants, and magic items. These are the things players want their characters to have, but which the characters might reasonably be unable to afford. The price of these is therefore likely to create a dispute between the GM and the players, and the rules should provide a way to quickly resolve these disputes.

 

 

-- from Designer's Commentary on Fire and Sword, p.8

[svensson]

Early tabletop and ALL computer games have trained GM's and players to play the 'Artifacts and Accountants' game like the bell for Pavlov's dog. Players aren't happy until they've accounted for every copper piece and tent peg, in some way's they're worse than military quartermasters.

In RQG, the abstraction of wealth idea is to separate 'wealth' from 'gear', to put housing, herds, etc in a separate mental 'box' from the gear you actually adventure with. This also reinforces RQG's underlying theme of 'the adventurer in the community'. RQG adventurers don't have a fortress... they have a steading, with tenants, with families, with people who depend on them. Generally speaking, they're not supposed to be down-at-heel mercenary freebooters who raid a troll clan and disappear before the troll retaliation arrives. 'Adventures' have consequences and abstracting wealth, tying it down to clan and steading, keeps the adventurers available to stand responsible for those consequences.

Similar systems require the players to spend money in order to maintain a certain social status, Traveller for example. It's very hard to call yourself a 'noble' if you only have one set of 'nice' clothes. And there's no point whatsoever in listing down every freaking undertunic you own.

Edited October 24, 2021 by svensson

[Raleel]

4 minutes ago, Questbird said:

Systems like this work quite well for modern or sci-fi settings, or perhaps large medieval cities where goods themselves are not in short supply but maybe finance is, and where there are different 'classes' in society. Where goods are handcrafted, prized and bartered, society doesn't need 'wealth levels'.

Ray Turney's Fire and Sword (available on this site) has an abstract wealth system, and he has provided some excellent design notes about why he chose to use it:
 

-- from Designer's Commentary on Fire and Sword, p.8

Ya this is specifically for a cyberpunk setting, so it should fit well into that mode. I may be over thinking this a lot. Your framing helps sort of change it for me. 
 

I will check out fire and sword. 

[Raleel]

4 hours ago, soltakss said:

I don't think that actually happens in games with abstract wealth.

There are three outcomes:

1. You have enough wealth and can buy something
2. You don't have enough wealth and can't buy something
3. You have enough wealth to open up a credit line to buy something, but have to pay it back

Players could argue about the amount of wealth they have, but you as a GM can either say "Yes, that is fine", "No, you can't afford it", or "Maybe fat Jim can help you out

Funny, this isn’t called out well in the wealth rules. If you go and buy equipment and you have to make a roll, and if you make it, you get it. It’s sort of hinted at in the status skill, but nothing in buying equipment. I see where you are going though. A successful status roll might now give you an obligation to someone (perhaps even measured with a percentile value). 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Raleel said:

Funny, this isn’t called out well in the wealth rules. If you go and buy equipment and you have to make a roll, and if you make it, you get it. It’s sort of hinted at in the status skill, but nothing in buying equipment. I see where you are going though. A successful status roll might now give you an obligation to someone (perhaps even measured with a percentile value). 

Yeah it doesn't really work all that well. The idea is to try and eliminate money from the game, but in the end it just sort of replaces money with a wealth roll, and that ends up being a bit too random for my tastes. 

[Raleel]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah it doesn't really work all that well. The idea is to try and eliminate money from the game, but in the end it just sort of replaces money with a wealth roll, and that ends up being a bit too random for my tastes. 

I can see the roll being a thing. mentally, I’m starting to put things above your status level as “you gotta get a loan” and it is working a little better mentally. I’m also kind of penciling in a notion I noticed with my own economics - there is a point when you gain another zero in the amount of money you are willing to spend without thinking about it much. So, cheap items are 1x, inexpensive items are 10x, average are 100x, expensive are 1000x, etc. it mostly works, though that top level seems a bit low.
 

the item values are all over the place. A pistol having the same value as a modern sedan? An axe being cheaper than a dagger? Tasers are quite inexpensive, and I can’t imagine in 2008 they were that much different. 

[Atgxtg]

13 hours ago, Raleel said:

I can see the roll being a thing. mentally, I’m starting to put things above your status level as “you gotta get a loan” and it is working a little better mentally. I’m also kind of penciling in a notion I noticed with my own economics - there is a point when you gain another zero in the amount of money you are willing to spend without thinking about it much. So, cheap items are 1x, inexpensive items are 10x, average are 100x, expensive are 1000x, etc. it mostly works, though that top level seems a bit low.
 

the item values are all over the place. A pistol having the same value as a modern sedan? An axe being cheaper than a dagger? Tasers are quite inexpensive, and I can’t imagine in 2008 they were that much different. 

The  the rule is really designed to eliminate the need to track money or worry about the price of things. That works, but only if everyone buys into (sorry for the pun) the concept and breaks away from the traditional RPG habit of collecting treasure and upgrading gear. If they don't buy into that, then it ends up being inferior to using money.