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.

[kgauck]

Quoth Cuchulainshound:

> Please, no one is "ignoring" the larger costs

What penalty do you impose on incomes when the ruler takes an adventure action?

What do you charge for debt? Or do you run a game about government without debt?

What penalty to court costs do you impose when a PC marries? Has children?

Does war cost 10x what peace costs?

Court costs (household expences) vastly outweigh all other domestic expenses. War vastly outwieghs court costs. Prolonged wars create huge debts to be serviced.

But, I'm glad you're making sure to charge for ferry expences.

This is like attempting to play d20 Modern, ignoring the costs of vehicles, and medical care, but scrupulously attending to the costs of garden hose and athletic socks. Of course it would be absurd to players if they had unquestions access to helicopters, but a length of hose became a serious cost issue which consumed valuable game time. The problem is, no one has the faintest idea how medieval expenditure accounts might have looked so while the d20 Modern example is obviously absurd, a pre-modern situation is a mystery.

You are welcome to give reverence to the maintenance rules. They make no sense, and apparently strike you as torturously cumbersome, but to each his own. They don't seem to put players in interesting dilemas about spending, create role play opportunities, or seem to serve any function other than to create bookwork. But I am sure they are there for a reason too. I just have no idea what it is, and that's not because I'm entirely ignorant of what expences were like in pre-industrial societies. Alas it would be worth it if some game purpose could be offered in their defense, or magical conditions could justify their nature, or they created good opportunities for meaningful choices. But without these, I see no reason to pay them any attention. YMMV.

I will also point out that losing players because of book keeping is the DM's fault, not the game system's fault. People play games to make interesting choices and effect a game world, not to enage in arithmatical torture. Why inflict that on players when it can all be tracked simply and reliably in easy to use software? In charater advisors can present final financial information, answer querries about costs and benefits while keeping the mechanics in the hands of machines.

As a final note, I suggest you consider the possibilities of rounding numbers off. 23/24ths is just as easiy to run off to 1 as 1/24th is to 0.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

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"?

Or when you introduced the terms

"gold twentieth" and compared it to a currency type

or when you introduced the term "regency piece".

I think that the "tone" of using a concrete item for GB was set early on in the thread and people just followed along.

While I understand the issue with math and am not locked into any sort of non-decimal system of domain level economics - I do feel that there are other things to consider when looking at a conversion.

Several other gaming systems have already "taken" terms that could be used instead of GB. Build Points has been taken, I don't remeber what the term used in Fields of Blood is (I'll check my book later today) nor what the term used in the newly issed Conan book is either. This is another consideration- that other systems have already "taken" the term, and some are not OGL and attempting to "conscript" the same term for roughly the same usage would, IMO, definitiely violate their IP.

[irdeggman]

This is like attempting to play d20 Modern, ignoring the costs of vehicles, and medical care, but scrupulously attending to the costs of garden hose and athletic socks. Of course it would be absurd to players if they had unquestions access to helicopters, but a length of hose became a serious cost issue which consumed valuable game time. The problem is, no one has the faintest idea how medieval expenditure accounts might have looked so while the d20 Modern example is obviously absurd, a pre-modern situation is a mystery.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

Except that d20 Modern uses "wealth" and purchase DCs instead of actual "costs" for items. The entire concept of the system is so very different that when someone attempts to compare the 2 systems invariabley things get mucked up.

For example the GM in our d20 Modern game attempting to introduce gambling and had a $ amount assigned to the PCs who were boxing as part of their purse. Well that doesn't translate well at all.

He had those of us who weren't in the match be able to wager Wealth as part of the bets. Well my 2nd level PC ended up with a wealth rating of 24 when this was all said and done. Hmmm seems kind of broken to me.

[irdeggman]

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.

Without a doubt the domain level math is an issue, although the newer system is easier than the one in 2nd ed was - if only because of the elimination of the random rolls and rolls for "claims" against other holdings.

We need to recognize IMO the fact that most people now are using PCs routinely and have access to spreadsheet programs that can routinely handle these "difficult" calculations. So the "problem" realy isn't as large as it was in 2nd ed when the access and use of PCs was much more limited.

This doesn't mean that a way to make the calculation simplier for an "eyeballing" effect shouldn't be explored though.

[kgauck]

Except that d20 Modern uses "wealth" and purchase DCs instead of actual "costs" for items. The entire concept of the system is so very different that when someone attempts to compare the 2 systems invariabley things get mucked up.

My comparison only adopted the modern setting, if you used the BR expenditure system in a world familiar to all RPG players, with cars and guns, rather than one, as I suggested might be useful several posts ago, a wealth bonus.

[geeman]

At 06:18 AM 9/29/2006, kgauck wrote:

>My comparison only adopted the modern setting, if you used the BR
>expenditure system in a world familiar to all RPG players, with cars
>and guns, rather than one, as I suggested might be useful several
>posts ago, a wealth bonus.

I really like the idea of a wealth score system. There`s something
about it going back to I think when I used to play using DC
Heroes/MEGS that just appeals to me, and when I saw the D20 Modern
system I initially liked it quite a bit. There`s got to be some way
of accounting for inventory and cash without tracking every coin and
pair of shoes. Unfortunately, all the wealth systems I`ve seen for
abstracting wealth have some sort of breaking point where they fall
apart. At least, that`s always been my experience. Now whenever I
see a wealth score system I always flash to Flounder from Animal
House. "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?" That seems like
something one would/could ask for when making a wealth check.

Still... I do like the idea of a wealth score, or at least some sort
of value that can account for the simple reality that some PCs have
access to financial resources that are unusual. I just can`t figure
out how to implement it. I wrote up a wealth score document for D20
a few months ago--it`s all nicely formatted and everything--but I`m
just not happy with it, so it`s never been used.

Maybe it should be a series of feats or feat-like special
abilities.... D20 Star Wars has a cute system of determining extra
income based on such values for nobles and crime bosses. I thought
those rules were the kernel of a good idea.

Gary

[irdeggman]

Hmmm Gary, Kenneth, you've got me thinking on this one.

there is a lot for switching to a wealth system for domain level play. It is abstract enough to cover things without too much detail and yet flexible enought to account for changes.

It would require a paradigm shift in thinking for a lot of people since the entire wealth process is very, very different than the "normal" way things work in RPG games (especially D&D).

There are also a lot of interface issues that would need to be addressed - like how to handle troops and "assets", how to handle troop training, how to handle using GB (present system) to modify domain action success checks and so one.

But the system is different and so would most definitely keep the domain level of income/expensives separated from the personal level.

IMO this is probably worth some focused discussion. I'll start a different thread to keep the discussion more focused on pros and cons and possible ways to work it.

[ploesch]

Without a doubt the domain level math is an issue, although the newer system is easier than the one in 2nd ed was - if only because of the elimination of the random rolls and rolls for "claims" against other holdings.

We need to recognize IMO the fact that most people now are using PCs routinely and have access to spreadsheet programs that can routinely handle these "difficult" calculations. So the "problem" realy isn't as large as it was in 2nd ed when the access and use of PCs was much more limited.

This doesn't mean that a way to make the calculation simplier for an "eyeballing" effect shouldn't be explored though.

One of the issues I had was that 1/12 and 1/6 maintenance costs. Fractions don't exchange well to PC's. A decimal system would be fine.

Let's explore the wealth option though, and see where that goes.