Money is Currency?

[Aelios]

I appologize if this has been discussed before; if so could somebody please show me where?

Last night I was searching through all my RPG books looking for different ways to quantify wealth. I found only three.
1. Exact wealth, as a "currency" trait that defines exactly how many coins you have and each piece of equipment. By far the most common, it seems to me that this is really only appropriate to a game focused on economic "adventures" and cumbersome in almost all the systems it is actually used in. Obvious examples are D&D, GURPS, and even the Storyteller system.
2. As an ablative trait, that goes down when used and up during some game conditions. I could find only two examples, Donjon and Exalted. Exalted doesn't say when or how the Resources trait would increase, only that it can. Donjon abstracts almost all wealth, allowing a roll to see if you own a certain piece of equipment.
3. As just another trait. Sometimes rolled to determine if you can buy something. Sometimes just ignored, assuming characters have or can buy any equipment they want. Typical of games like Feng Sui, The Window, and Over the Edge.

Each method probably has it's place in various types of games, but it seems to me that in most cases the choice is not decided based on the goals of the game, if it is considered at all.

Why does wealth seem like such a difficult concept to model? How come there aren't more systems that look like #2? And what can a Simulationist GM who doesn't like to keep track of equipment list do?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Why does wealth seem like such a difficult concept to model? How come there aren't more systems that look like #2? And what can a Simulationist GM who doesn't like to keep track of equipment list do?

Probably because Wealth, and what it is used for tends to devolve into counting your pennies to easily.

Example, caught About a Boy the other day. Well, part of it. Hugh Grant plays a man who is independantly wealthy. He's been living off the proceeds of a xmas song his father wrote. Now, he didn't buy anything extravigant, but if he needed something or he wanted something he had plenty of liquid cash to acquire it.

Now, go back to 1986-7 when I saved up all the money I had in the world to get an NES. Not easy on $5 a week. A pathetic allowance for the time.

The difference her is that weath and money is about what you do with it. Hugh Grant in About a Boy was not attempting to do anything special with his money, so it was a non-issue. I was attempting something very special, I thought, so every penny counted.

So to remove money from the equation,you also need to remove what you can do or get with money as well.

Such is my take.

[Big Simon]

d20 modern uses a more abstract system similar to your #2 mechanic, and gives rules for it going up and down.

[Aelios]

(Hmm, I wouldn't have expected a d20 game to be innovative. I'll have to take a look.)

So wealth is like any other trait. It's usefullness is defined by what you can do with it. Logical. But then the question becomes "what /should/ you be able to do with wealth?"

In a typical fantasy game it probably isn't important to know if you can buy a cow or a chicken, but it would be important to know if you can buy sword or armor.  But that doesn't necissarily determine what kind of wealth mechanism to use. Knowing that you need 40gp to purchase a swourd is no different than knowing you need two dots in resources or that you come from a "middle income" background. So we still need a way to decide how to quantify it.

I cleaned the kitchen and dining room for three months to earn my NES; how would that fit into a wealth mechanism? Can I use my "clean house" trait in place of my wealth trait? Given that this was a social contract with my parents it isn't even important to know how much a servant makes or how long it would take to "earn" enough for the purchase. Can I make an contested roll of my "whining" trait vs my parents "income" trait?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Your three categories confuse me a little, because #3 seems to include both systems which do include a "Wealth" value, and systems which do not. Am I understanding you correctly by re-phrasing as follows?

1. Money is quantified literally in the game-world. On my sheet, it says how many dollars (or whatever) are available to my character, and what for. Any purchasing is going to be a matter of decreasing these values on my sheet, in addition to whatever role-playing the GM and I might do. (Classic example: Dungeons & Dragons, late 1970s)

2. Wealth is quantified as a score, but money is left relatively abstract or referred to only as a function of wealth. See below for more discussion and examples.

3. Wealth and money together are handled almost entirely by Drama. I can buy it or I can't, depending on my character's "place" in the world, and we don't monitor how much I have or have left. (Classic example: early Champions, early 1980s)

Here are some historical approaches to the middle category, by game system.

In Call of Cthulhu, one character "skill" is called Credit Rating. You roll it in order to buy things. It's also often used as a social-interaction roll, in terms of getting one's character past bureaucratic or social obstacles.

Exactly what Credit Rating represents is therefore pretty variable in play. In some ways, it's what kind of funds you can lay your hands on ... but perhaps is better understood as your character's ability to refer to available funds, in a way that gets other characters to respect that potential. Or both.

In Army Ants, characters operate strictly in the military sphere, and the sheet includes a variable called Clout. Clout is used at the requisition desk to modify one's attempt to get equipment from the supply people (or rather, ants), and for all intents and purposes, it's "money" in the context of the game. "Social skills and rep such that it affects my ability to get stuff from those who dole it out."

In Sorcerer, a character's Cover score operates as a combination of skills, social signals, possessions, and finances, and may be rolled for any purpose within these spheres.

In Hero Quest (formerly Hero Wars), "Wealth" is an ability very much like any other, and it is employed very much like the Cover score in Sorcerer, except that secondary abilities are almost certainly used to augment and "hone" the use of Wealth for the particular situation.

Best,
Ron

edit: here's a thread! Resources in Burning Wheel and MSH

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Knowing that you need 40gp to purchase a swourd is no different than knowing you need two dots in resources or that you come from a "middle income" background. So we still need a way to decide how to quantify it.

It is different. Gathering and managing resources like GP has a certain amount and type of Step On Up. The other two options has less or at least a different kind (if any).

Keep in mind a game does not have to be Gamist to have Step On Up and a player's preference does not need to be gamist to enjoy Step On Up.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Jack,

I think you're going off a little half-cocked. For one thing, Gamism isn't really the topic at hand - and you're butchering it anyway. When you play with Step On Up, you're playing Gamist. The terms are synonyms. Take this to the GNS forum if you'd like.

For another, let's back up and look at those categories before talking about what really is different or not different. I'm seeing a bit of "is," "is not," that needs to stop.

Best,
Ron

[Aelios]

I suppose my catagories were a little confusing, as I was mixing elements. Perhaps I need four systems to illustate my thoughts.

Yes, Ron, in #1 I meant literal game world currency, dollars, gold pieces, etc. But more generally it can be any currency trait used to purchase wealth. In some ways is closely resembles most experience systems. I.e. spend whatever points to get whatever bonus, based on a fixed exchange rate. I think Exalted actually falls into this category, even though youre resources do not equate exactly to jade pieces there is still a fixed exchange rate between the resources trait and what you can purchase. And in at least one version of D&D you could trade experience for gold.

#2 is a currency trait not based on a fixed exchange rate. Spend whatever points and roll too see if you can complete the purchase. I.e. Donjon; apparently just adding a fortune mechanism to #1 above but really far more abstart, since you are not keeping track of how much wealth you have, but your ability to make purchases, which decreases as you use it.

In #3 I included any possible forture mechanism into tha drama step, which I'm not sure is approprite. So let's say that #3 is purely fortune; you roll a trait to see if you can make the purchase, but the trait never changes as a result of how you use it.  Cover would fit into this category.

#4 then is purely descriptive (drama?). You don't have any traits other than your idea of what your character should be able to do. The purchase is not resolved with any mechanism other than description and role playing.

All of them are valid. All of them are apropriate to some kinds of games. Sometimes you want the crunchiness of counting your pennies, sometimes you just want to know that it's there.  

I am most interested in #2, because I have never seen it used outside of Donjon (Exhalted is really more like #1, and I haven't seen d20 modern), and it seems like an excellent way to abstract wealth, without losing the meanning of currency, that you can spend it.

Arg. I think it's still confusing. Maybe that's because I am confused.

[gentrification]

(Brief lecture on Exalted wealth mechanics deleted, as a warning to those who post at work without their book handy.)


EDIT: To add something to the topic, maybe the reason you see more "concrete" monetary systems is just that, conceptually, it's easier to wrap your mind around. From a design standpoint, I suppose, it's a bit of a pain in the ass to write up a "complete" list of prices for everything the players might conceivably want, but once that's done, all you have to do is add and subtract whenever you buy something or find some treasure. And if all that bookkeeping draws focus away from what the game is really supposed to be about . . . well, you drift, or you play dysfunctionally, or you get tired of it and play something like Exalted.

[Aelios]

(I had either forgotten, or never known about, the wealth roll in Exalted. I thought your stat went down when you purchased something equal to your wealth level, regardless of any fortune mechanic.)

It seems to me that there are a few things to consider when attempting to create a system mechanism for wealth. The above systems are presumably attempts to create such systems but there may or may not be reasoning behind them. And that is what I want to address, why choose or create a wealth mechanism?

--How closely should it model real wealth? What is real wealth? Is it cash or all physical assets?
--Can wealth go up and down?
--Is there a fortune mechanic involved? Is there a chance you may not be able to purchase something even though you are wealthy?
--Should it even be conisdered as part of the system? What if it isn't?

[gentrification]

(I had either forgotten, or never known about, the wealth roll in Exalted. I thought your stat went down when you purchased something equal to your wealth level, regardless of any fortune mechanic.)

Oh, damn. I just double-checked the book, and you are correct. My bad.

[Aelios]

Gentrification: I think you may be on to something, it seems easy to make a catalog of prices, but it is dysfunctional in most games.

Keeping in mind that I am a strong simulationist, producing a gatalog for a historical/fantasy game is pretty easy because there wasn't that many products on the market. For a modern game you colud simply collect JCPenny catalogs etc. But when you start to look at sci-fi games the notion of a catalog becomes absurd. Not only is there no way to even list every product, it is impossible to know what kinds of products would be available. Most systems get around this by listing only ten or twenty "most common" products, or producing large supplemental texts with huge lists.

The Donjon system seems to me like it holds just about the right level of abstraction. But it depends on a constant influx of treasure to keep it balanced, which works perfectly in that game but may not work in a more modern or sci-fi game where most wealth is intagable. The same level of abstraction could work very well, as long as there was a way to figure out how much any imagined piece of equipment was worth.

Is this discussion more appropriate to the Game Design forum?

[Ron Edwards]

Moderator sez:

1. This topic is just ginchy right here in this forum. That means "good."

2. Please, never edit posts once they've been responded to. Doesn't matter what you said, you can always post a new one correcting yourself.

Best,
Ron

[gentrification]

Ron: Whoops, apologies for the unnecessary editing.

For those who missed my original post, I was explicating Exalted's wealth rules. Characters have a "wealth" trait; items have a "cost" trait. Both are abstract -- i.e., they represent a very broad estimate of how rich you are or how expensive something is, and nothing is ever described in terms of a specific number of coins.

If your wealth is higher than an item's cost, you can afford to buy it, and the item becomes yours with no further game effect. If the cost is higher than your wealth, then you cannot afford it, and you must find some other way to acquire it (such as stealing), or come back when you're richer.

If your wealth equals the item's cost, you can afford it -- barely -- but your wealth stat drops by one level, representing a major blow to your personal finances. (I had originally asserted that you have to roll to see if your wealth stat drops, but Aelios corrected me on that matter.)

I'm still not sure I would call that a "fixed exchange rate," but it does seem clear that Exalted's system, though abstract, is still meant to model the ebb and flow of actual wealth -- that is, your wealth stat represents some number of real coins, indeterminant but for most practical purposes finite, that are presumed to exist somewhere on your person or at least readily at hand. It is not a system for "fixing" possessions, such as in Hero Wars or Dying Earth.

Aelios: I wouldn't consider a system of hard currency + price lists dysfunctional per se. Certainly it works for people who enjoy simulating that sort of thing at that level of detail. No price list can be complete, obviously, regardless of genre, but I expect most groups just do what mine did and guesstimate for all the weird little items not on the list, using the items that are as a guide.

The Exalted system (and systems like it), on the other hand, can often be . . . problematic. While it dispenses with most of the trivial bookkeeping involved in a typical coin-counting game, it introduces a lot of bothersome ambiguities that are hard to wave away, precisely because it is still, fundamentally, simulating a coin-counting game. The game text, on the other hand, presents it as an essentially genre-related issue: "This game is not about counting pennies."

The system works well enough if everyone is on the same page, but if you have two different players with two different understandings of what the wealth system is supposed to represent, and two different expectations of how the GM should rule when an ambiguity pops up, and both are citing the exact same rules to support their interpretation . . . then you've got the potential for dysfunction.

[M. J. Young]

I think Multiverser handles wealth differently than any of that.

We ignore it. In the main, it just isn't relevant.

O.K., that may be overstating the matter--but we've got no monetary system, no wealth stat, no character currency, and we don't use drama for it. The character owns what he owns; his money is just pieces of equipment. After all, a modern U.S. twenty dollar bill is not terribly easy to spend in Libya; it has no real value. What would its value be in Narnia or Ringworld? If you're jumping between universes, your net worth is really measured in terms of the stuff you carry, and not in terms of any artificial valuation thereof.

If you've got a Gaming Outpost subscription, take a look at http://www.gamingoutpost.com/GL/index.cfm?action=ShowProduct&CategoryID=54411&ProductID=63788&publisherid=54849">Game Ideas Unlimited: Cash. From one perspective, all economy is barter economy; it's you offering what you have to me in exchange for what I have. Currency, in this, is a system for evening out the inequities by converting what you have and what I have into some common means of valuation. Now if I want your cheese but you don't want my bread, you'll still take my money, because you can trade it to the butcher for some meat, and he'll give it back to me for my bread. Money, though, has only the value to which we agree. The same piece of money could be the price of a loaf of bread in one world, a priceless collector's item in another, and tinder in a third. Even the value of gold and gems is entirely dependent on whether people want them or not.

Money is thus more tied to the setting; and the amount of detail provided for how to use it and what it's worth is entirely based on whether it's important to the setting. For The Dancing Princess we took the time to explain the old English coin system (pounds, shillings, crowns, farthings) and give some idea of a day's wage for various jobs the player character might take to settle in to the world. In The Mary Piper we just invented diktar, and gave a few prices as benchmarks as well as standard pay for the jobs the player character could expect to be offered. I'm doing a scenario right now where money is spoken of in quantities without names--it is suggested that someone will offer to pay the character "a hundred" for doing something, but not what that's worth. It's not important enough to the setting to go into detail.

So while I can see how many games use money in the ways you've described, you don't really have to have it at all, as far as I can see.

--M. J. Young