PDA

View Full Version : Wealth system for domain level income/expenses



irdeggman
09-29-2006, 04:59 PM
As brought up in a different thread let's have some discussion on possible use of the d20 Modern Wealth system for handling domain level income/expenses.

Attached is the SRD from d20 Modern covering wealth for reference.

irdeggman
09-29-2006, 05:07 PM
Oops here is the attachment.

ploesch
09-29-2006, 06:43 PM
I think I've only played in games with wealth systems a few times. So I am not incredibly familiar with them, and we all know a humans natural response to the unfamiliar. So I will try to avoid a kneejerk response.

I read the document, and obviously, there would need to be major adjustments for our purposes.

It definetely abstracts things, and that is good, but it would be a complete change in mindset. GB costs for actions would need to be abstacted, and the whole system would have to support stacking away money to create a war chest. Would Maintenence and treasuries be eliminated? Or would you roll for every asset?

I need to think about this allot more, and maybe hear others thoughts on the matter.

Cuchulainshound
09-29-2006, 07:23 PM
Without having read it (I will, but not at work- ahem), I am still willing to make this observation.

One of the "pitfalls" of BR is approaching it like a self-contained strategy game, that, like Risk or Diplomacy, you can go head to head.

And while this can be fun and good, I have felt for a long time that the BR policital mechanics are better suited (and were designed) as a "backdrop" to Role Playing at a regency level, not as a paper version of lead miniatures battles, where RP was a spin-off.

That said, I think that abstracting the money would de-emphasize the military aspect, and re-emphasize the RP. It would matter less whether the realm accountants say you could afford to build a monument and a new road and another galleon, and (hopefully) move attention back to the Character goals and storylines behind doing those things.

Whether or not that can be achieved elegantly, and without high potential for abuse (as is the case in many "wealth/economics" systems), is another matter.

(But, admittedly, a lot of gamers really enjoy that "combat accounting" aspect of the game. Meh.)

irdeggman
09-29-2006, 09:02 PM
Some things that crossed my mind. . .

Using the wealth system would reinsert a randomness to the system that was taken out in the playtest. This is not necessarily a good thing, but it is in an Official WotC d20 product (i.e., d20 Modern) so that is not a huge stretch.

Basically every season a regent would make a wealth check to determine their wealth - similar to a domain attitude check.

Modifiers to this roll would be based on privince rating and income generating holdings and trade routes (specifics to be worked out).

Assets would have a purchase DC which would require a wealth check to succeed on. Adjustments can be made to subtract from wealth based on the relative "cost" of the asset. {similar to the d20 Modern ssytem}

Adjustments to the wealth check can be made based on the total number (and wealth "value") of the assets a regent currently owns. {This would be akin to the maintenance costs but would also factor in when attempting to muster a lot of troops in a short time since this adjustment would be made after each unit was mustered thus tweaking the wealth check modifiers for purchase}.

We could add in a system that increases and decreases the regent's wealth based on the result of his seasonal wealth check. {The d20 Modern system has an increase being possible every level but no decrease from the wealth check per level}.

Just some quick thoughts that hit me.

Again this entire system can involve more dice rolling and randomness which may or may not be a real concern.

ploesch
09-29-2006, 09:24 PM
One stumbling stone. How would you "Save-Up" for expensive undertakings. Lets say you have a Province 7/0 and you want to take it from a Fortification 6 to 7. Normally, you would save up until you had the money. But you can't really do that with a wealth system.

Another thing, with a wealth system there isn't any risk in trying to accomplish something unless it is far outside your wealth rating. So, let's say I have a large Domain and I want to rule a province from 3 to 4. Under the current system I spend the money up front,a nd may fail. With a Wealth system, it doesn't cost me anything, assuming my Domain is large enough that ruling one province isn't outside my wealth level. So I risk nothing by attempting to rule a domain every turn, or even all my domains every turn. While with the GB system there is a tangible cost, a cost that could have gone to a larger treasury, or more troops. No cost with everything to gain including additional wealth next season.

DanMcSorley
09-29-2006, 09:48 PM
On 9/29/06, ploesch <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> One stumbling stone. How would you "Save-Up" for expensive undertakings. Lets
> say you have a Province 7/0 and you want to take it from a Fortification 6 to 7.
> Normally, you would save up until you had the money. But you can`t really do that
> with a wealth system.

Build and Fortify are long-term actions, and you spend money piecemeal
until they are complete. You don`t actually have to save up until you
can afford it all at once, and a wealth system would cover the
piecemeal expenditures.

For something that is too expensive for your current wealth score, but
you could theoretically save up and afford it (say, ruling a province
from 5 to 6, if you don`t actually have 6 GB on hand, you could save
up over time to get that much money), a wealth system doesn`t allow
that kind of fiddly resource management. You can either easily afford
something (and your wealth score doesn`t drop at all), afford it with
effort (and your wealth score drops after you buy it), or not afford
it at all.

The only way to "save up" with a wealth score is to increase your
wealth score with income. However, most small amounts of income don`t
increase your wealth score, just as small amounts of expense don`t
reduce it.

I think stuff you would normally have to "save up" to do would be
covered by the "afford it with effort" option. You can do it, but
your wealth score is subsequently reduced until it recovers on its own
later, because you expended a lot of resources doing that action.

I`ve done a wealth system with BR before, but it was VERY coarsely
grained (from 0 to 5, with the anuirean empire at its height rating a
6), and focused much more on the personal actions of the regent than
domain maintenance and fiddling. Like, at wealth 0 you have a small,
poor kingdom with basically only the personal wealth of the regent to
work with. At wealth 3, you have a mid-sized domain like roesone or
alamie, which can support a couple of units of soldiers consistently,
undertake a building project, and maintain a small court. At 5 you
have the Avanil or Muden wealth level, with a large military,
integrated economy with the support of guilds and law, has a lavish
court, a good-sized standing army, can build a large project quickly
or many projects simultaneously, and so on.

I`ve also played d20 modern, and my experience there is that players
are always trying to come up with ways to game the system. Like, I
have a wealth score of 10. Buying a single widget costs 1, so I can
easily do that, indefinitely even. But buying a thousand of them
costs 20. So I buy 2000 of them, since I can buy them indefinitely
one at a time, and then sell them all to raise my wealth!

Basically, a GM has to disallow that kind of fiddly wealth
manipulation by fiat. But that kind of wealth manipulation is what
players of Birthright EXPECT to be able to do, because they always
could before; ie, I save up 1 GB per season for a year, and then I can
rule my province up.

So we have to either revise wholesale the entire domain system to go
with the wealth system, or else leave it alone. I would say leave it
alone by default, and offer a domain wealth system as an option
elsewhere. A lot of the fun for many players is managing their domain
like a resource-type boardgame.

--
Daniel McSorley

Cuchulainshound
10-01-2006, 12:02 AM
The prospect of rolling badly, and not being able to afford "much of anything", while a neighbor of equal "wealth", rolling well, repeatedly, suddenly and unexpectedly has thrice the assetts you do, is not one I would want to be subjected to. Nor vice versa- I find it awkward to have a huge advantage by pure luck.

Sigmund
10-01-2006, 05:13 AM
How would this affect the cost of casting realm spells? Also, how would Alchemy be handled?

DanMcSorley
10-01-2006, 03:30 PM
On 10/1/06, Sigmund <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> How would this affect the cost of casting realm spells?
> Also, how would Alchemy be handled?

I imagine they would have a DC necessary to cast them, same as any
other expense.

Alchemy would be handled like any other income. Did you read the d20
modern rules for a wealth score?

--
Daniel McSorley

DanMcSorley
10-01-2006, 03:30 PM
On 9/30/06, Cuchulainshound <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> The prospect of rolling badly, and not being able to
> afford "much of anything", while a neighbor of
> equal "wealth", rolling well, repeatedly, suddenly and
> unexpectedly has thrice the assetts you do, is not one I
> would want to be subjected to. Nor vice versa- I find it
> awkward to have a huge advantage by pure luck.

Are you referring to a wealth system here, or to the random income
charts? It`s hard to tell from that paragraph.

--
Daniel McSorley

irdeggman
10-01-2006, 05:30 PM
Alchemy could be handled in a number of different ways.

First off the GB cost (from the present system) would be converted to a wealth DC check {again number would need to be determined}.

Then the spell could be cast.

The ways the results could be dealt with are at least twofold.

One option is to have it increase the regents's wealth score. {I'm not real found of this one since wealth is supposed to be a reflection of continous income - but it could be done}

The other option is to have the result of the spell give a bonus to the next wealth check roll. {I would lean towards this one since it is more of a reflection of the temporary income increase gained by the spell.}

I am pretty sure there are other ways it could be done.

Remember I did caution that this would not be an easy system to develop since anything that had a GB cost or income associated with it in the present rules would need some kind of wealth check DC (for expenses) or modifier (for income).

It also requires people to radically change the way they think about buying things and generating income. It is, however, an "officially" recognized d20 system from WotC.

I would not, however, recommned using it as a variant system since it would require substantially more than a paragraph or two of text to implement (more like 5-10 pages of charts and text, think that every unit table and domain action table would need to be "modified" in order to work this. It could however be done via something akin to a Birthright version of Unearthed Arcana - something that contains nothing but variants and options but yet is a separate document.

Birthright-L
10-01-2006, 08:25 PM
I think he`s commenting on the degree of randomness possible with a
single roll of a d20 as a determining factor the the task of affording
a given assett or action. If so, then I tend to agree. High
Abstraction = Good, High Randomness = Bad.

Also, some people find it just weird to pick up a d20 and say, "Okay
I`ll roll to afford that."



On 10/1/06, Daniel McSorley <mcsorley.1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/06, Cuchulainshound <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> > The prospect of rolling badly, and not being able to
> > afford "much of anything", while a neighbor of
> > equal "wealth", rolling well, repeatedly, suddenly and
> > unexpectedly has thrice the assetts you do, is not one I
> > would want to be subjected to. Nor vice versa- I find it
> > awkward to have a huge advantage by pure luck.
>
> Are you referring to a wealth system here, or to the random income
> charts? It`s hard to tell from that paragraph.
>
> --
> Daniel McSorley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
ROLL THE DICE: Dedicated to the exploration of ideas and concepts in
Game Design and Theory.
http://lordrahvin.wordpress.com

DanMcSorley
10-01-2006, 09:18 PM
On 10/1/06, Lord Rahvin <lordrahvin@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think he`s commenting on the degree of randomness possible with a
> single roll of a d20 as a determining factor the the task of affording
> a given assett or action. If so, then I tend to agree. High
> Abstraction = Good, High Randomness = Bad.

Ah, I see. Well, like many other d20 checks, the modern wealth check
allows taking 10. So it`s only random if you`re trying to afford
something beyond your reach

IE, if your wealth is +2 and you`re trying to buy something which is
DC 8, take 10, you get a 12, and automatically buy it. If you`re
trying to buy something which is DC 13, you will need to roll or else
take 20 (which takes longer, and represents shopping around to get the
best deal, or something similar).

> Also, some people find it just weird to pick up a d20 and say,
> "Okay I`ll roll to afford that."

People had the same complaint when d20 modern came out. It was
because they didn`t understand the system. Your wealth bonus doesn`t
represent cash on hand or anything like that. It represents your
general level of affluence and credit, as for a complex modern
monetary system. It`s not random whether an average middle-class
person can afford to buy lunch. That kind of day-to-day expense is
well under his wealth bonus, and never needs to be tracked at all.

What is semi-randomized (only semi, because of taking 10 and 20) in
the wealth system is whether you can afford or get financing for
expensive things, like a car, house, or highly expensive piece of
equipment. If you`re trying to do it quickly, you roll, and may or
may not get it immediately. Take your time and take 10, and if it`s
something that`s closely within your means, you get it. Take your
time, shop around, and take 20, and if you could in any way afford it
at all, you get it. Takes the randomness right out.

And after you buy something which has a higher DC than your wealth
bonus, your wealth goes down, because more of your wealth is tied up
in affording this new stuff (a house payment or car payment, for
example).

Nobles and kings were among the first people in history to operate
with this kind of complex financing system- the king rarely had to
immediately, directly pay for something, he just promised to pay for
it, and that promise was backed by the wealth of his kingdom. In that
respect, a wealth system is very appropriate for the birthright domain
system.

In another respect, that it doesn`t allow bean-counting resource
management which many people enjoy as part of the domain mini-game, a
wealth system isn`t appropriate for birthright at all.

I personally don`t enjoy the bean-counting part of the game, and have
used a wealth system in the past. Other people like it, and I would
imagine they are more common than people like me. Being able to point
at a number and say "my kingdom is THIS rich" is fun.
--
Daniel McSorley

Birthright-L
10-02-2006, 04:36 AM
"People had the same complaint when d20 modern came out. It was
because they didn`t understand the system. Your wealth bonus doesn`t
represent cash on hand or anything like that. It represents your
general level of affluence and credit, as for a complex modern
monetary system. It`s not random whether an average middle-class
person can afford to buy lunch. That kind of day-to-day expense is
well under his wealth bonus, and never needs to be tracked at all."
----

I`m not relying on the rest of your post, because you`ve helped to
clarify your position and I don`t disagree with any particular point.
You have some very good points in there.

However, the above paragraph needs a comment: I hate it when someone
assumes that the only reason I don`t like a mechanic, is because I
don`t understand it. I understand it just fine. I`m in favor of a
system of abstraction for wealth at the domain level -- I said as much
already. But I don`t like the effect of the d20modern wealth system
does IN PLAY as a dialogue and resolution between players. I said
this; please don`t turn around my argument into a completely different
argument. Just because I disagree with the mechanic, doesn`t make me
ignorant of the way it works or why.

kgauck
10-02-2006, 05:19 AM
Also, some people find it just weird to pick up a d20 and say, "Okay
I`ll roll to afford that."

Is this really so different from the descriptions we get for using the Diplomacy skill during negotiations for a 10% price break or addition of a similar extra, like fabricating your arms on a shield? We may frequently forgo this kind of haggeling since money is not so scarce for most characters and its just not worth the time invested (especially since most DM's will apply some competataive Will role). But is it actually wierd to consult a d20 during a purchase?

As Dan has said, most purchases have no recourse to dice because our realm is assumed to afford them. I can certainly see rolling a Diplomacy check to get a price break on major purchases, so is it really so wierd?

irdeggman
10-02-2006, 09:47 AM
It should also be noted that you don't need to roll a wealth check unless the purchase DC is less than 1 + your current wealth bonus. This is not an attack roll nor a saving throw, so a natural 1 is not an automatic failure nor is a natural 20 an automatic success.

You only need to roll (for which you can take 10 or 20 as has been pointed out) when attempting to purchase something that is beyond your means (i.e., greater than 1 + your current wealth bonus). So what you would do is find ways to increase your current wealth bonus (even if only temporary) so that the "check" is automatic.

DanMcSorley
10-02-2006, 12:21 PM
On 10/2/06, Lord Rahvin <lordrahvin@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, the above paragraph needs a comment: I hate it when someone
> assumes that the only reason I don`t like a mechanic, is because I
> don`t understand it. I understand it just fine. I`m in favor of a
> system of abstraction for wealth at the domain level -- I said as much
> already. But I don`t like the effect of the d20modern wealth system
> does IN PLAY as a dialogue and resolution between players. I said
> this; please don`t turn around my argument into a completely different
> argument. Just because I disagree with the mechanic, doesn`t make me
> ignorant of the way it works or why.

I was basing that statement more on my experience with d20 modern
players (who bitch about the wealth system constantly; on enworld at
any given time there are a couple of "I want to replace the wealth
system" threads running) than on your statement. I just kinda used
your post as a launching-off point. I didn`t mean to malign you, but
it certainly came across that way, and I`m sorry.

--
Daniel McSorley

Sigmund
10-02-2006, 06:21 PM
On 10/1/06, Sigmund <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> How would this affect the cost of casting realm spells?
> Also, how would Alchemy be handled?

I imagine they would have a DC necessary to cast them, same as any
other expense.

Alchemy would be handled like any other income. Did you read the d20
modern rules for a wealth score?

--
Daniel McSorley

No, don't have d20 Modern ATM. True20 uses a wealth system though, but I imagine it's different somewhat. I don't really like the wealth system, so I won't be using it no matter what. My players like counting coins :) and so do I.

Sigmund
10-02-2006, 06:25 PM
It could however be done via something akin to a Birthright version of Unearthed Arcana - something that contains nothing but variants and options but yet is a separate document.

I really like this idea.

I have always thought that the reason d20 Modern (and True20 for that matter) uses a wealth system is because the game can be used for many different genres/time periods and so presenting a more detailed economic system to try and fit all of them would be completely unrealistic. Since BR doesn't suffer that condition, I'm curious as to why ya'all feel it needs a different economic system. I don't remember having many difficulties with the system is it was originally presented, and I don't understand why it wouldn't translate almost directly over to 3.5. What am I missing?

DanMcSorley
10-02-2006, 06:51 PM
On 10/2/06, Sigmund <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> No, don`t have d20 Modern ATM. True20 uses a wealth system though, but I imagine it`s
> different somewhat. I don`t really like the wealth system, so I won`t be using it no matter
> what. My players like counting coins :) and so do I.

Somebody posted a link earlier in this thread to the d20 modern SRD,
which includes the wealth rules. But I`m pretty sure the true20
wealth system is the same thing.

--
Daniel McSorley

irdeggman
10-02-2006, 08:19 PM
I really like this idea.

I have always thought that the reason d20 Modern (and True20 for that matter) uses a wealth system is because the game can be used for many different genres/time periods and so presenting a more detailed economic system to try and fit all of them would be completely unrealistic. Since BR doesn't suffer that condition, I'm curious as to why ya'all feel it needs a different economic system. I don't remember having many difficulties with the system is it was originally presented, and I don't understand why it wouldn't translate almost directly over to 3.5. What am I missing?

IIRC it was started because people were complaining about the complex "math" and bookkeeping involved in the BRCS currently. One thing that popped up as an alternate was the wealth system from d20 Modern. It is math and bookkeeping simple when compared to pretty much any system that "counts coins".

The one thing I wanted to maintain was the "difference" between domain level economics and personal level economics -they really are supposed to be "different" and if the 2 systems are too similar then people will invariably start to mix the two, IMO.

The wealth system may not be the ideal solution, nor may it end up being "the" solution but it is definitely something that is "outside the box" of normal thinking and is OGC (something else that needs to be considered in all of this, IMO).

Sigmund
10-02-2006, 09:54 PM
IIRC it was started because people were complaining about the complex "math" and bookkeeping involved in the BRCS currently. One thing that popped up as an alternate was the wealth system from d20 Modern. It is math and bookkeeping simple when compared to pretty much any system that "counts coins".

The one thing I wanted to maintain was the "difference" between domain level economics and personal level economics -they really are supposed to be "different" and if the 2 systems are too similar then people will invariably start to mix the two, IMO.

The wealth system may not be the ideal solution, nor may it end up being "the" solution but it is definitely something that is "outside the box" of normal thinking and is OGC (something else that needs to be considered in all of this, IMO).


Ah, I understand I guess. I think I'm once again I'm missing out on relating to these troubles because we did vastly more adventuring with BR than "wargaming" (as we called the domain level game, not meant to be derogatory at all), so I don't remember domain level economics being all that complicated. Could be my memory though ;) . Hell, we used to mix the heck outa domain and adventuring level economics. When one of our players did play the regent (William of Osoerde after we laid the smack down on Rainech), he used to spend great amounts of his treasure gained adventuring on his domain (not that he got all that much compared to today's treasure-hauling standards :) ).

Personally, I've always thought the wealth system was more complicated than just using coinage, but that's probably because it's much easier for me to visualise and relate to a coinage system than it is a more abstract wealth system.

Using the wealth system would mean abstracting every spell that requires a gp cost, every potential magic item that might be created in the game, every item, every henchman/hireling (including services and spells cast by npcs), and all the BR specific stuff too. Big job, I'd suggest it being part of a separate options document as it would seem to me to need to be a pretty extensive change.

Seems to me it would just be easier to simplify the current BR economic system. I assume that means domain level maintenance and stuff. Just looking at the table, it seems to me that instead of breaking up the GB it might be easier to visualise and/or keep track of by breaking up the time increments instead. For example, a wooden bridge can cost 1 GB every 4 seasons, instead of 1/4 GB every season. So, every spring, once the snows have melted, the Lord can pay his craftsmen to maintain the bridge for the next year. A ferry could just cost 1 GB per year. Maybe, just disregard the maintenance cost of the ferry and say that the ferryman charges for it's use and that money goes towards maintenance. Fortifications could cost 1 GB per 2 levels (province), or per 3 levels (holding). Highways could use one or two "levels" of cost, depending on how difficult the terrain is to traverse. "Hard" could be (swamp, tundra, glacier, mountain, desert) and cost a GB every 2 seasons, or 2 GB per year, and "Easy" could be (plains, steppe, scrub, forest, hills) and cost 1 GB per year. And so on. I would just simplifiy it, get rid of the fractions every Domain turn or for each level.

DanMcSorley
10-02-2006, 10:16 PM
On 10/2/06, Sigmund <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> Using the wealth system would mean abstracting every spell that
> requires a gp cost, every potential magic item that might be
> created in the game, every item, every henchman/hireling
> (including services and spells cast by npcs), and all the BR
> specific stuff too. Big job, I`d suggest it being part of a separate
> options document as it would seem to me to need to be a pretty
> extensive change.

The wealth system being discussed is for domain level stuff, not
PC-level stuff. Those are two distinct systems, as evidenced by the
fact that you can`t even convert a GB directly into gp (or vice
versa), it takes a domain action to do that. You don`t have to have
PCs use a wealth score to use a wealth score at the domain level.

The idea would be that your realm has a wealth score, which you use
for domain-level activities that have normally been measured in GB.

--
Daniel McSorley

Sigmund
10-02-2006, 10:23 PM
On 10/2/06, Sigmund <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> Using the wealth system would mean abstracting every spell that
> requires a gp cost, every potential magic item that might be
> created in the game, every item, every henchman/hireling
> (including services and spells cast by npcs), and all the BR
> specific stuff too. Big job, I`d suggest it being part of a separate
> options document as it would seem to me to need to be a pretty
> extensive change.

The wealth system being discussed is for domain level stuff, not
PC-level stuff. Those are two distinct systems, as evidenced by the
fact that you can`t even convert a GB directly into gp (or vice
versa), it takes a domain action to do that. You don`t have to have
PCs use a wealth score to use a wealth score at the domain level.

The idea would be that your realm has a wealth score, which you use
for domain-level activities that have normally been measured in GB.

--
Daniel McSorley


Ah, ok. So then would one still be able to translate adventure level gps into a wealth score? There's more than one thread on the True20 forums trying to do just that and it seems very complicated, and it didn't seem to be just a direct translation. If the d20 Modern SRD has a conversion then perhaps I should download it.

I've always thought that 1 GB equaled 2000gp. Is that not accurate? I can understand that it takes a domain action to convert, but I always thought that was due to a moneychanger (or whatever) requiring time to collect that large of a pile of gold (or whatever).

ploesch
10-03-2006, 12:44 AM
Ah, ok. So then would one still be able to translate adventure level gps into a wealth score? There's more than one thread on the True20 forums trying to do just that and it seems very complicated, and it didn't seem to be just a direct translation. If the d20 Modern SRD has a conversion then perhaps I should download it.

I've always thought that 1 GB equaled 2000gp. Is that not accurate? I can understand that it takes a domain action to convert, but I always thought that was due to a moneychanger (or whatever) requiring time to collect that large of a pile of gold (or whatever).

Well 1GB ~~ 2000GP. A GB is actually Cattle, Grains and other possesions that are resources the crown/domain ruler owns. Their actual value is likely higher than the 2000GP, but if you need to sell it fast to get hard currency, then you get 2000GP per GB. The reverse is true also, since if you are converting personal wealth for use by the crown, your name goes a long way toward making better deals for yourself with the large summs of money. But that is all an abstraction, and can be interpretted many different ways.

The whole discussion started in another thread because a couple of us feel that the fractions used in maintenance are too cumbersome, and don't traslate well into spreadsheets,a nd so we felt it would be a good idea to explore other options, and a wealth system is one of them.

Sigmund
10-03-2006, 02:11 AM
Well 1GB ~~ 2000GP. A GB is actually Cattle, Grains and other possesions that are resources the crown/domain ruler owns. Their actual value is likely higher than the 2000GP, but if you need to sell it fast to get hard currency, then you get 2000GP per GB. The reverse is true also, since if you are converting personal wealth for use by the crown, your name goes a long way toward making better deals for yourself with the large summs of money. But that is all an abstraction, and can be interpretted many different ways.

The whole discussion started in another thread because a couple of us feel that the fractions used in maintenance are too cumbersome, and don't traslate well into spreadsheets,a nd so we felt it would be a good idea to explore other options, and a wealth system is one of them.

I figured the fractions I saw in the other discussion helped inspire this thread. I've never been a fan of the wealth system though, so I won't use it whether it becomes official or not. I'd rather just simplify in the manner I described in a previous post, and I'm hoping the official document doesn't switch to the wealth system either.