Off-adventure time

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Say you have a 'wealth' stat. Money you accumulate goes into increasing this stat. Coinsidering what most adventurese spend money on, this stat doesn''t really decrease unless they make a major purchase, say a ship or something. As they get wealthier the parties get better, their armor is shinier, better tarverns, that sorta thing.  In game you'd have some sort of table-when you aquire X wealth you go up the next wealth level.  Perhaps you could have 'wealth' levels for equipment. Until you get to that level, you can't afford to by Y, however you can FIND it :).  Perhaps you make rolls against this stat as apropriate, say to bribe someone, although most adventurese should be able to bribe most low-level guards, at least from a money point of view.  

I hate to pimp my own game (well, not really), but you just described the Donjon Wealth system.

[damion]

Say you have a 'wealth' stat. Money you accumulate goes into increasing this stat. Coinsidering what most adventurese spend money on, this stat doesn''t really decrease unless they make a major purchase, say a ship or something. As they get wealthier the parties get better, their armor is shinier, better tarverns, that sorta thing.  In game you'd have some sort of table-when you aquire X wealth you go up the next wealth level.  Perhaps you could have 'wealth' levels for equipment. Until you get to that level, you can't afford to by Y, however you can FIND it :).  Perhaps you make rolls against this stat as apropriate, say to bribe someone, although most adventurese should be able to bribe most low-level guards, at least from a money point of view.  

I hate to pimp my own game (well, not really), but you just described the Donjon Wealth system.

You know, I'm getting really sick of thinking of something, and it being in Donjon.   :)

[jdagna]

This whole thread makes me chuckle remembering an early fantasy-style campaign I was in.  Our characters had just made a few huge hauls, but were saving up money by buying the cheapest rooms in the inn and living on bread and water.  I pointed out to the GM that 50,000 gold pieces wouldn't actually FIT in a cheap room at the inn and wouldn't the ease of stealing it require us to buy some sort of house (at the very least)?  While the other players hated me from then on, I think it was rather an improvement.

In my own game (a science fiction one), lifestyle prices are listed (both by day, for hotel-living and the like, and by month, for more permanent residences) that include clothes, a rented apartment/house/mansion, and all the household doodads that would go with it.  At higher levels servants (robotic or otherwise) are included.  Players get bonuses when dealing with other people who know of their status (though no one in my current group seems to understand this yet - they're still living at "Lower-Middle Class" which is the minimum allowed by the game for anyone who can afford it).

I have to say, it is nice having the "per day" cost listed because it allows the characters to go have a night on the town without tallying up every meal, drink or movie.

[Mike Holmes]

Players get bonuses when dealing with other people who know of their status (though no one in my current group seems to understand this yet - they're still living at "Lower-Middle Class" which is the minimum allowed by the game for anyone who can afford it).

This sounds like adherence to the old Gamist metric where cash is part of what drives character effectveness. They haven't noticed that they can gain a new sort of effectiveness with it, however, and are sticking to the traditional hoarding technique.

Interesting that you have a lower level at which the characters can live if they are able. This is similar to what I'm proposing. We both seem to agree that given a certain amount of money, people will spend it. The difference is that you see it as a baseline, and I see that level as floating.

In computer memory management there is an axiom that says something like, "Volume of data will expand to take up all available memory." We've all seen this sort of thing. You get a neat new hard drive with all sorts of memory, perhaps ten times what you were using before, and you say to yourself, "Hey, cool, this is all I'll ever need." Then six months later you find yourself wondering where you're going to store the latest game you bought, and are archiving off the ones you don't play.

The same thing happens with any resource. If a person gets a windfall, few are those who don't spend at least some of it. Most people will be seduced by the pleasures available at that higher rate of spending.

What I'm saying is that if characters are like people in RL, they will tend to have "spending habits". They will tend to either save a certain percentage of their income, or even overspend. The point being that the shift in amount spent should be automatic. If the character has a lot of will, or a good reason, he may be able to save 10% of his income or windfalls. Others never save anything.

I see this as a great use for those will statistics that many games have. After the player is done spending his charracters cash, just reduce it to an amount that makes sense according to the character's will. Then do the same with any income. Then calculate what the character is then spending, and from this determine new Social Standing and such. The cool thing is that you can then make this a roll; some characters will still not climb no matter how much they send.

To be really realistic, it is very difficult to actually transcend social barriers. A social class does require money. But it also requires a lifetime of subtle education delivered by parents and peers of that social class. Hence the term New Rich. Just because one flings around cash does not mean that one will be accepted into a social strata. Oh, a person with a lot of cash can get involved financially with a higher social class, but it takes literally years to actually pick up the cues necessary to blend in with a new class.

This counts going down as well as up. If one hasn't enough money to sustain himself in a social status, he may encounter problems (I am reminded of the scene in Trading Places where Dan Akeroyd's character is kicked out of the club with his friends turning their backs on him). But that does not mean that the lower class will suddenly accept this newly poor person with open arms.

A lot of this I learned recently from a PBS documenttary on the subject. It referred to America, and as such I'd assume that classism is as strong or moreso in other countries. What they point out is that classes are actually Tribes, with their own customs and ideosyncracies. As such it is a difficult matter to assimilate into a new tribe. In fact some people try for a lifetime and never quite get it. Some few are very adaptable, and can pull it off, but even then, such a person not originally brought up in such a class can slip up occasionally.

Check out the movie "Six Degrees of Separation" to see what I mean. In most games the ability that Will Smith's character has would probably fall under the heading "advantage" and be called something like "Social Chameleon". Though looking at it, one can see how hard the character actually had to work for it. Another advantage that upper class peo;lle might have is "common touch" which does not make them part of the lower class, but at least makes them less objectionable.

Lots of room for cool design here.

Mike