Jotenbjorn
Mongoose
I'm thinking of making High Living an option in my campaign, perhaps even a feat. If I were to do this, what would be a fair benefit to balance the cost of high living and perhaps the cost of a feat?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
High Living
- Thread starter Jotenbjorn
- Start date
REalistically, I would not make it a feat, but I would make high living commensurate with an Increased Reputation (local), definitely give someone a better diplomacy check (hey the target may think he's getting paid off if he helps), and/ or preferential treatment with the local law enforcement types.
If you want to add some spice, make him the target of a temptress, pickpocket, local mafia types, swindlers, etc...
Spending money like an insane person should never be a feat.
Basically like real life.
There should be a lot of fun with where you are taking it.
If you want to add some spice, make him the target of a temptress, pickpocket, local mafia types, swindlers, etc...
Spending money like an insane person should never be a feat.
Basically like real life.
There should be a lot of fun with where you are taking it.
Jotenbjorn
Mongoose
That's a good way to handle it.
Yesterday, In Akbitan, my players spend like 12,000 sp in a orgy with musicians, whores, tons of kyros wine, etc.
This called the attention of the justice officer who hire them for a crime investigation (based on JFK assasination, I know there´s little S&S in it, but I want to try something different)
This called the attention of the justice officer who hire them for a crime investigation (based on JFK assasination, I know there´s little S&S in it, but I want to try something different)
The book plainly says
And as a GM I enforce it. There is little to no reason to allow players to save up money as the next adventure they could quite literally lose it all anyway at the start.
If you're building vast stock piles of wealth in Conan you're not really playing it the way the books and the stories outline Conan's world to be.
Expensive things could be paid for in advance or down payment options and I would count that towards your 50% for the week. But players stocking up thousands of silver pieces end up just spending it while 'drunk' or while 'gambling' if they can't come up with some way to blow through their cash.
It isn't hard to come up with things your characters could be buying. Poisons, ancient scrolls, jeweled weapons, fine clothing, expensive wine, slaves, women, gems, jewelry, information, bribes and on and on.
EVERY WEEK, ALL CHARACTERS WILL SPEND A MINIMUM OF
50% OF THEIR CURRENT WEALTH ON HIGH LIVING, IF THAT
WEALTH IS CURRENTLY OVER 50 SILVER PIECES.
And as a GM I enforce it. There is little to no reason to allow players to save up money as the next adventure they could quite literally lose it all anyway at the start.
If you're building vast stock piles of wealth in Conan you're not really playing it the way the books and the stories outline Conan's world to be.
Expensive things could be paid for in advance or down payment options and I would count that towards your 50% for the week. But players stocking up thousands of silver pieces end up just spending it while 'drunk' or while 'gambling' if they can't come up with some way to blow through their cash.
It isn't hard to come up with things your characters could be buying. Poisons, ancient scrolls, jeweled weapons, fine clothing, expensive wine, slaves, women, gems, jewelry, information, bribes and on and on.
Jeffreywns
Mongoose
I too believe the High Living rule helps place the Campaign as "Conan". And anyone who knows about real life mining/oil camps and such knows about blowing wealth on nothing.
That being said I lean toward the DC check modifier as opposed to a skill. You chose to disregard a game mechanics that promotes the Hyborian atmosphere, and I cant see a player wasting a Feat on something some classes already got (and now have lost).
Please don't read this as "the way the game is played" but as my input on a discontinued game I love.
That being said I lean toward the DC check modifier as opposed to a skill. You chose to disregard a game mechanics that promotes the Hyborian atmosphere, and I cant see a player wasting a Feat on something some classes already got (and now have lost).
Please don't read this as "the way the game is played" but as my input on a discontinued game I love.
The rules for High Living are good to "promote the atmosphere" for heroes who live a life like Conan in Howard's stories. But other heroes are possible in the world, people who are a bit stingy for no good reason, or people who really want to amass something like 5.000 gold lunas to i.e. hire a mercenary army or pay a king's ransom or whatever.
For my character Nina, I can understand the rules for High Living in regards to cash money, but she usually has an amount of ~ lvl x 200 sp in bling bling and finery and currently also a nice, blued, superior mail shirt (which was custom-crafted for her) with a matching steel cap. I don't think that she would sell valuable and useful equipment to afford a few weeks more of High Living, rather she would start looking for lucrative adventuring opportunities as soon as she runs out of cash.
Confiscated / stolen when captured / enslaved / imprisoned / robbed, stealthily pilfered, sunk together with the ship, burned in the tavern / inn, etc - it is easy for a GM to come up with good reasons for why a character is without his valuable and useful (bling bling and finery are useful for a temptress) equipment at the start of the adventure and not just say "you cashed it in for ale and whores." I can't really believe that even Conan would sell i.e. his only Akbitanan warsword for one week more of High Living.
For my character Nina, I can understand the rules for High Living in regards to cash money, but she usually has an amount of ~ lvl x 200 sp in bling bling and finery and currently also a nice, blued, superior mail shirt (which was custom-crafted for her) with a matching steel cap. I don't think that she would sell valuable and useful equipment to afford a few weeks more of High Living, rather she would start looking for lucrative adventuring opportunities as soon as she runs out of cash.
Confiscated / stolen when captured / enslaved / imprisoned / robbed, stealthily pilfered, sunk together with the ship, burned in the tavern / inn, etc - it is easy for a GM to come up with good reasons for why a character is without his valuable and useful (bling bling and finery are useful for a temptress) equipment at the start of the adventure and not just say "you cashed it in for ale and whores." I can't really believe that even Conan would sell i.e. his only Akbitanan warsword for one week more of High Living.
I really like the High-Living rules, but some of my players hate having to loose most of the rewards on booze & bitches. They are use to how you can save up for useful magic items and fancy palaces and such - you know that game! I had an idea, that for every (100xlevel) spent on High-Living, gives +1 Reputation until they they spend more on High-Living. This bonus Reputation is local and is lost when the party travels elsewhere. I also like to scour the internet and diffident rulebooks to find Random Tavern/Brothel Event Tables to help fill-out an adventure.
The concept of High-Living inspired my other games, like say... HeroQuest. In that game, the Heroes save up for some common gear (longsword, crossbow, helmet, shield, and such), but once the Heroes got all they need, there is nothing to save for, and they end-up lugging around a large money pile. With the free-form role-playing I throw into this beer-&-pretzel boardgame, the Heroes can pick-up weapons from fallen monsters, so saving up from them becomes rather pointless (that, and the dropped gold rules I use). So I lower all prices by 1/5th their cost (so a Dagger costs 5 instead of 25), and the players must spend what they acquire after the game, or else it all get spent on wild drunken orgies. The players can save some coins as pocket change, and even a few gems & jewelry to spend latter, but there is a chance that each of these items will be lost to pickpockets, whores, and such (a roll of 1 = item is lost; 1d6 coins are lost). And as an incentive, I give-out 1 Luck Token for so many gold spent on High-Living. These tokens work like Fate Points, but are only good for the next adventure. (these rules are easier to follow then on paper, and are quite fun)
The concept of High-Living inspired my other games, like say... HeroQuest. In that game, the Heroes save up for some common gear (longsword, crossbow, helmet, shield, and such), but once the Heroes got all they need, there is nothing to save for, and they end-up lugging around a large money pile. With the free-form role-playing I throw into this beer-&-pretzel boardgame, the Heroes can pick-up weapons from fallen monsters, so saving up from them becomes rather pointless (that, and the dropped gold rules I use). So I lower all prices by 1/5th their cost (so a Dagger costs 5 instead of 25), and the players must spend what they acquire after the game, or else it all get spent on wild drunken orgies. The players can save some coins as pocket change, and even a few gems & jewelry to spend latter, but there is a chance that each of these items will be lost to pickpockets, whores, and such (a roll of 1 = item is lost; 1d6 coins are lost). And as an incentive, I give-out 1 Luck Token for so many gold spent on High-Living. These tokens work like Fate Points, but are only good for the next adventure. (these rules are easier to follow then on paper, and are quite fun)
Jotenbjorn
Mongoose
While spending water like water is part of the Conan stories, sometimes it's just ridiculous. If the characters manage to actually land a large horde through clever planning you didn't see coming how do you justify forcing them to spend a combined 20,000 gold lunas a piece in a week in an average town? A, everything in the town combined probably isn't worth that much money and B, do you have any idea what kind of inflation you would see locally? It's just a bad rule.
The High Living rule is a load of utter rubbish.
No. No no NO. There are plenty of people in Conan's world who do NOT blow their entire wealth in a few weeks: Including Conan, in his later years.
So, I'm not allowed to play a cautious and careful scholar? Or a noble trying to build up his wealth base? Or a sensible Temptress who knows that her beauty will fade and she needs to save while she can? Or any of a load of other characters who aare not carbon copies of Conan, because no other characters can possibly exist in his world (and REH was very naughty for including some, I presume?)
No, its shoving the rules into the roleplay, where they do not belong
If you're building vast stock piles of wealth in Conan you're not really playing it the way the books and the stories outline Conan's world to be.
No. No no NO. There are plenty of people in Conan's world who do NOT blow their entire wealth in a few weeks: Including Conan, in his later years.
So, I'm not allowed to play a cautious and careful scholar? Or a noble trying to build up his wealth base? Or a sensible Temptress who knows that her beauty will fade and she needs to save while she can? Or any of a load of other characters who aare not carbon copies of Conan, because no other characters can possibly exist in his world (and REH was very naughty for including some, I presume?)
No, its shoving the rules into the roleplay, where they do not belong
As the matter of fact the original form of the High Living rule is against the main rule in ConanRPG (the one 'bout changing whatever is unnecessary or unsuitable for gameplay). So loose it if it's not to your liking.
The character I'm currently playing is a barbarian with fairly little experience with 'civilization,' so wasting money would be 'in character' but for another campaign I'm planning a serious dose of misery would be most in order.
My vote is: leave money spending issues to players themselves and trust them to do it reasonably.
The character I'm currently playing is a barbarian with fairly little experience with 'civilization,' so wasting money would be 'in character' but for another campaign I'm planning a serious dose of misery would be most in order.
My vote is: leave money spending issues to players themselves and trust them to do it reasonably.
So for those of you against High Living how exactly do you get people to adventure as a GM?
What is the incentive to keep playing a character once you have amassed a huge fortune? More fortune?
Why not just make an Aquilonian Rogue or Scholar with 18 int and give them the following feats at first level (true professional and skill focus)
So at level one you have
+2 from being Aquilonian
+2 starting ranks from your race
+3 from skill focus
+4 from your Int
+48 from dumping all your points into craft...(8+4) *4 =48
meaning you get +59 to your craft roll. Take 10 on it and you make 69 silver pieces a week as a level one character.
Just sit back and collect on it, or hey use leadership and only attract people that are doing that. Conan the Role Playing Banker Game.....
The high living rule is there to force adventurers to adventure because money is stupid easy to get in this game.
I'm not even getting into stripping all your enemies bare and taking all their armor, weapons and items, selling them at 50% ot 75% the book cost after you use craft armor or weapon smith to repair the damage you caused by killing their owners.
If you want to let your players have loads of money you need to have a very very good reason to get them to adventure, and saving the world vs a big bad nasty every adventure doesn't quite fit.
But sending a bunch of poor thieves after a huge gem does.
Or sending a pirate ship to loot and plunder.
How about escaping a dungeon with just your loin cloth and a sword?
If you're not tripping over scads of money in Conan you're not looking hard enough. Conan made and lost fortunes all the freaking time.
What is the incentive to keep playing a character once you have amassed a huge fortune? More fortune?
Why not just make an Aquilonian Rogue or Scholar with 18 int and give them the following feats at first level (true professional and skill focus)
So at level one you have
+2 from being Aquilonian
+2 starting ranks from your race
+3 from skill focus
+4 from your Int
+48 from dumping all your points into craft...(8+4) *4 =48
meaning you get +59 to your craft roll. Take 10 on it and you make 69 silver pieces a week as a level one character.
Just sit back and collect on it, or hey use leadership and only attract people that are doing that. Conan the Role Playing Banker Game.....
The high living rule is there to force adventurers to adventure because money is stupid easy to get in this game.
I'm not even getting into stripping all your enemies bare and taking all their armor, weapons and items, selling them at 50% ot 75% the book cost after you use craft armor or weapon smith to repair the damage you caused by killing their owners.
If you want to let your players have loads of money you need to have a very very good reason to get them to adventure, and saving the world vs a big bad nasty every adventure doesn't quite fit.
But sending a bunch of poor thieves after a huge gem does.
Or sending a pirate ship to loot and plunder.
How about escaping a dungeon with just your loin cloth and a sword?
If you're not tripping over scads of money in Conan you're not looking hard enough. Conan made and lost fortunes all the freaking time.
So for those of you against High Living how exactly do you get people to adventure as a GM?
What is the incentive to keep playing a character once you have amassed a huge fortune? More fortune?
Are you really trying to claim that money is the only possible reason to adventure? Invade their country, kidnap their family, dump them in a wilderness, shipwreck them, blackmail them into doing something. Send them after knowledge, or political advantage, or to protect their people from a monster, or to recover something stolen or revenge themselves on an enemy, or to spy on their enemies, etcetera, etcetera, et-multiple-cetera.
+48 from dumping all your points into craft...(8+4) *4 =48
meaning you get +59 to your craft roll. Take 10 on it and you make 69 silver pieces a week as a level one character.
No you don't. You cannot have more than 3+level skill points in any one skill. Your starting culture ranks can't take you over that, either, so your scholar has +10 at first level.
If you're not tripping over scads of money in Conan you're not looking hard enough. Conan made and lost fortunes all the freaking time.
He kept Tranicos' treasure, though, and his adventures didn't stop. Hell, he became king of one of the world's richest kingdoms and still went adventuring. In fact, his career has a very definite trajectory of increasing wealth, or at least credit. In the early adventures, eg Tower of the Elephant, God in the Bowl he is a penniless thief/thug. By Black Colossus he is a mercenary NCO who is abruptly promoted, and then a pirate captain. In his later career he seems to gravitate to command positions almost at once: Kozaki Hetman, Chief of Afghuli and Kushite tribes. In his later career he is first a General of a large mercenary army and then, of course, a King.
Its not a smooth upward trajectory: there are blips. Also, he doesn't necessarily have a huge amount of actual cash to hand, depending on where he is. But just compare, for example, his standing on God in the Bowl where he's stealing a shiny statue for a minor noble and is dealing with watchmen and a magistrate, with Teeth of Gwahlur where he is playing kings and high priests against each other for one of the greatest treasures in the world. As Conan matures, he does not actually blow all his wealth on high living, he invests it in raising his status and, increasingly often, on building territory, troops and reputation. He doesn't jump straight from penniless adventurer to King: he spends a long period rich and well respected first.
And occasional periods poor and well respected. But that's not because he's blown his wealth: someone has sunk his ship, or he's suffered some other reverse. He doesn't just blow it all on wine women and song.
He keeps himself well supplied with these things, off course, but (in his later career) not to the point that they harm his ambitions.
Why should they personally go after the thieves and brigands when they can just pay a hefty ransom? How many invasions and captured family/clan/friends do you plan to spring on players to keep them going?kintire said:Are you really trying to claim that money is the only possible reason to adventure? Invade their country, kidnap their family, dump them in a wilderness, shipwreck them, blackmail them into doing something. Send them after knowledge, or political advantage, or to protect their people from a monster, or to recover something stolen or revenge themselves on an enemy, or to spy on their enemies, etcetera, etcetera, et-multiple-cetera.
Why recover something stolen? Payment? What could be stolen from them that they couldn't just buy again? Eventually adventurers will have tons and tons of money. And the incentives to get them to go do anything are vast treasurers and going after friends and family (if they have any they really care about). But if they already have vast treasurers from an early level what is the point to have the adventures?
I guess you've never had players turn down adventures flat out because the reward was so pitiful it would be easier for them to just hire others to do it for them. I've seen many by the book adventures where the players are rewarded something sad like 50-100 silver pieces for doing something. A short sword is 50 silver....You kill 5 or 6 guards and you've made more money than had you actually done the stupid quest in the first place.
Protect people from a monster? Why should they what is in it for them? Oh lots of money and fame? Ok then but if your group already has money why should they care?
If anything I've had players make cities pay them not to rape and pillage their tiny towns and hamlets with their hordes.
It's a feat....No you don't. You cannot have more than 3+level skill points in any one skill. Your starting culture ranks can't take you over that, either, so your scholar has +10 at first level.
True Professional (General)
You have devoted yourself completely to your craft or profession, limiting your opportunities in other areas but gaining impressive abilities in your chosen life-style. This is most often taken by labourers or free townsmen.
Benefit: You may ignore level-based rank limits imposed upon any one Craft or Profession skill.
He kept Tranicos' treasure, though, and his adventures didn't stop. Hell, he became king of one of the world's richest kingdoms and still went adventuring. In fact, his career has a very definite trajectory of increasing wealth, or at least credit. In the early adventures, eg Tower of the Elephant, God in the Bowl he is a penniless thief/thug. By Black Colossus he is a mercenary NCO who is abruptly promoted, and then a pirate captain. In his later career he seems to gravitate to command positions almost at once: Kozaki Hetman, Chief of Afghuli and Kushite tribes. In his later career he is first a General of a large mercenary army and then, of course, a King.
Usually because he killed the champion of those groups, or was just such a bad ass they gave it to him out of respect. But had he not been a penniless wanderer he never would have had any reason to adventure in the first place. If already had scads of money, why run around as a mercenary? Understand what I'm saying?
You mean he spent his money on High Living???Its not a smooth upward trajectory: there are blips. Also, he doesn't necessarily have a huge amount of actual cash to hand, depending on where he is. But just compare, for example, his standing on God in the Bowl where he's stealing a shiny statue for a minor noble and is dealing with watchmen and a magistrate, with Teeth of Gwahlur where he is playing kings and high priests against each other for one of the greatest treasures in the world. As Conan matures, he does not actually blow all his wealth on high living, he invests it in raising his status and, increasingly often, on building territory, troops and reputation. He doesn't jump straight from penniless adventurer to King: he spends a long period rich and well respected first.
High living is a tool that forces people to do something with their vast mountains of treasure they accumulate. If they can't come up with something, you as the DM just say it is wasted on booze, cloths, parties and women.
If your players are working towards something like saving for a pirate boat, or using it to hire thieves etc, have them start in on that. Otherwise chip away at their cash reserves any chance you get unless they can explain what they are doing with all that money.
Why should they personally go after the thieves and brigands when they can just pay a hefty ransom?
For exactly the same reason that first world governments are extremely reluctant to pay ransoms nowadays: once people get the idea that you will meekly pay vast sums of money whenever you kidnap their relatives, they will kidnap them every week.
Why recover something stolen? Payment? What could be stolen from them that they couldn't just buy again? Eventually adventurers will have tons and tons of money. And the incentives to get them to go do anything are vast treasurers and going after friends and family (if they have any they really care about). But if they already have vast treasurers from an early level what is the point to have the adventures?
Reiov, I can think of no way to say the next bit without sounding slightly rude, so apologies for that in advance: If you cannot find anything to motivate your players except for "I can haz shinies" its not my problem, nor is it a problem that a high living rule will solve. Let's just accept that some other peoples games (and, indeed Conan's tales) are slightly more varied than that. Nothing wrong with a quest after loot of course, but if that's all you ever do you might want to consider that a bit of variety adds a lot of spice.
I guess you've never had players turn down adventures flat out because the reward was so pitiful it would be easier for them to just hire others to do it for them.
No. But then, I pay attention to my player's situation when designing adventure hooks.
Protect people from a monster? Why should they what is in it for them? Oh lots of money and fame? Ok then but if your group already has money why should they care?
Or perhaps they actually care about the people involved? Not all adventurers have to be money grabbing sociopaths.
It's a feat....
I see. I was aware that your example was made of pure dribble, but I see that I was shooting the messenger. My apologies. Solution: ban or seriously modify this insane feat.
If already had scads of money, why run around as a mercenary?
Because he was extremely ambitious and wanted to start playing on an international scale, where "scads of money" suddenly doesn't look like so much.
You mean he spent his money on High Living???
:roll:
No, I mean he turned his money into wealth so that he could build up his power and, in due course, take over a major kingdom. And which point he was one of the three or four richest people in the entire world: and the adventures went on.
High living is a tool that forces people to do something with their vast mountains of treasure they accumulate. If they can't come up with something, you as the DM just say it is wasted on booze, cloths, parties and women
Translation: High living is a tool that allows the GM to roleplay his players' characters for them.
People pay ransoms all the time, and they did it even more so in the old days. History is replete with examples of nobles and family members being held for ransom by enemies.kintire said:For exactly the same reason that first world governments are extremely reluctant to pay ransoms nowadays: once people get the idea that you will meekly pay vast sums of money whenever you kidnap their relatives, they will kidnap them every week.
Richard the Lionhearted spent quite a number of months being held for ransom...which was ultimately paid. Jeez I bet you're loads of fun to play a thief with.
Money makes the world go round and it is a sure fire way to motivate people.If you cannot find anything to motivate your players except for "I can haz shinies" its not my problem, nor is it a problem that a high living rule will solve. Let's just accept that some other peoples games (and, indeed Conan's tales) are slightly more varied than that. Nothing wrong with a quest after loot of course, but if that's all you ever do you might want to consider that a bit of variety adds a lot of spice.
Kidnapping loved ones and or blackmail bribery gets very very old if that is all you have to do to motivate people. I'm not saying money never gets old, it's just that players can only rescue the princess from the castle so many times before they want something else to do.
Especially if they are a long way from home, adventuring. What good does it do to tell the players (who come from all over) that player X's brother's sister's cousin was kidnapped back in their home country and now you should go rescue them... By the time the news gets there they may already be dead, half the party may have no desire to go as they would rather keep on their current quest or may not be allowed in the country.
Same thing goes for invasions. If the party is running around Stygia, why would they care about an invasion in their home land they have little to no hope of getting too in time to make a difference? I think you're forgetting just how long it takes for people to get anywhere by horse or boat.
I guess if your players never left the country they are from, never really adventured anywhere then sure you could use the invasion, kidnapping etc hooks a couple of times but after that then what?
Thank your stars on that one. It is a common problem for MANY many GMs. Adventure hooks can be quite hard to get experienced players to take willingly. Over 3/4 of the time I end up having to make it up on the spot as the players wander so far from the hooks themselves. I'd rather not play the hard ass GM that makes it no fun and doesn't allow players to think outside of the box and only follow proscribed path xyz to their destination.No. But then, I pay attention to my player's situation when designing adventure hooks.
You can craft an adventure to your players all you like but again unless your group is very small good luck getting a consensus and or not splitting up the party.
Besides what if the PC says no or doesn't want to and instead wants to do something else? Its not like you can cast a geas spell on them every time especially in Conan.
I've had multiple players in many different gaming systems come back and slaughter the PCs and NPCs that forced them to do things against their will and honestly it is a lame GM tactic.
And don't tell me you use the super high level Godlike NPC that forces the NPCs to carry out the GM's will, that is lazy GMing at its worst.
Half the classes are outlined as money grubbing sociopaths...demonic scholars, thieves, pirates,temptresses, pillaging barbarians, blood thirsty soldiers and on and on.Or perhaps they actually care about the people involved? Not all adventurers have to be money grabbing sociopaths.
Good to know you're party is made up of nice characters for the most part.
Or let the player have it and laugh at how 1 dimensional their character is...and then force them into situations where their craft whatever is absolutely useless.I see. I was aware that your example was made of pure dribble, but I see that I was shooting the messenger. My apologies. Solution: ban or seriously modify this insane feat.
Or take the unimaginative approach and ban it out right.
Come on no he didn't. You are reaching.Because he was extremely ambitious and wanted to start playing on an international scale, where "scads of money" suddenly doesn't look like so much.
Which is what the whole point of high living is for.. if players aren't spending their wealth on a goal of some sort step in and lighten their loads to motivate them.No, I mean he turned his money into wealth so that he could build up his power and, in due course, take over a major kingdom. And which point he was one of the three or four richest people in the entire world: and the adventures went on.
At least someone is role playing at that point....Translation: High living is a tool that allows the GM to roleplay his players' characters for them.
