Chap 5,6 & etc- alternative Cost/Maintanance denominations

[Cuchulainshound]

There's "doing some math", and then there's pointless torture. The one and only time I tried to run a full game online, I lost about 33% of the applicants because they just boggled at the fractions. Not that they couldn't all do it, but it just wasn't worth the effort for a significant minority.

Its much simpler to keep the GB large and just ignore small change. Paying attention to tiny costs like this is obsessing over a few petty costs while ignoring other, often far larger costs...

Ignore the smaller costs??? Man, I wanna play in a game run by YOU!

Please, no one is "ignoring" the larger costs, that's very pretty, but completely false. And those "petty costs", the 1/12 and 1/16, all add up into GB's and more GB's. And 23/24 is just as big a pain to track as 1/24.

Ignore the rules on upkeep if you want- I prefer to think of them as there for a reason.

While perhaps not the most articulate of reasons for keeping gold bars large, when I think of a gold bar, I think of a big chunk o'gold. Now, with 2,000 gold coins melted together, you can have a large bar that is quite satifying to imagine.

That would weigh about 40 lbs/17 kg ("50/lb"). While that's a nifty image in James Bond films, as irdeggman points out, it is not part of the BR world, as defined. Nor would "bullion transfers" be a likely part of Regency (exception- See Seizures.)

I feel that I need to point out again that a GB is not a piece (or pieces of) actual currency. It is not a "bar of gold". It never was in 2nd ed nor is it in the BRCS.

And yet, folk like the above, and far less astute, CONTINUE to think of it as such! Could it be because they are, in fact, called "bars"?

Maybe it's time to accept the fact of the matter, and not the (flawed) theory, and take this opportunity to address the issue in some constructive way that actually corrects this all-too-common misunderstanding.

There are endless examples of "simplifying" world concepts- groups that ignore material components, or encumbrance, or whatever - it's all up to the GM and gaming group as to how much "reality" they are worried about in their campaign. If they don't want to imagine oxen and wheat and quarries and lumber rights and so forth, a 2000 gp unit or a 100 gp unit won't change that, not one little bit.

A smaller, 2 lb bar (~100 gp) would still be impressive, and could actually be incorporated into the world, to be used cinematically in a number of ways. Call it an RP- one Regency Piece. While too large for normal transactions, it would be impressive when placed on a table. A chestful speaks of Regency level payments, something that "a caravan of cowhides" just doesn't. And, at a personal level, they'd be hard to spend without drawing attention.

If the GM wants to use them, there they are, ready and waiting. If they want to talk herds of warhorses or wagons of copper ore, that's fine too.

Meanwhile, the players and the GM will be spending less time in obscure and loathesome remedial math excercises, and more time being creative.

Bottom line-
Do you want the new edition of the game to be "user friendly", or remain unnecessarily complex? The only difference seems to be inertia.