Testing a Wealth characteristic (WEL) - Comments welcomed!
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Feels like Magic.
Two things:
One, players always want to buy, say explosives. Explosives, or high end chemicals or biologicals, absolutely make a huge difference to a game, even if not a fight with supernatural aliens. If you can blow a 3km whole in the ground, that often let's you skip entire scenarios/booby traps/etc. Chemicals or biologicals equally allow players to skip story beats - not just kill someone. Travel arrangements also usually come into play - it's helpful if there's a reason the players can't simply hire 1000 security guards with jet planes to transport them. In traveller terms, the difference between a group with a free trader and a group wirh a free trader, a shuttle, and 5 dtons of C4 is enormous,when considering what scenarios are challenging for the group. But arguably both groups probably have the same wealth score, based on their lifestyle and their high end assets.
Dismissing wealth as not having a large impact because the coolest toys aren't for sale, ignores allll the lesser toys that dramatically change how gameplay works.
Two, a briefcase with 10 million dollars (which is on the low end for modern Hollywood briefcase nowadawys) absolutely changes lifestyles. If I found that, my lifestyle would improve AND I would literally never have to work again. Again, comparing to traveler, if a referee gives the group enough money to pay one extra month of mortgage, but the group instead says 'no, our usual plans have that covered', they can instead buy the best power armour, handheld weapons, computers, and planetary transport money can buy - and the actual scenarios the players can completely wreck vastly change as a result. (See: all the threads where people complain about how much a Patron should pay the group - ref thinks 10k is way too much, but the group wont leave the ship for less than 200k due to the mortgage)
Well, that's another discussion. Things are probably different here in Australia than the UK and definitely than the US. But wealth is relative to those around you too. Even homeless people in London are doing far better than the average person in Gaza or Sudan. But if the PCs are all rolling 2D6 for Wealth, values 6-8 should be what the average PC is expected to have.
My point was that this table isn't an absolute, but relative to setting ground rules, like Traveller Social Standing.
There is no objective way, even in the Third Imperium, that one in 18 people are Knights and 1 in 36 are Barons (with a decent chance of improving that a lot if they choose certain careers). But that's there to add character and flavour for player characters, like the 1 in 6 chance of being an Aristocrat in Space:1889. On average, a typical imperial citizen may be objective social 3 or 4. Certainly that is the case on many planets, just as on many other planets they've eliminated poverty and the majority live in a SOC 9-11 utopia.
Use the labels that make sense for your setting. I just thought making use of the existing characteristic mechanic to differentiate made a lot of sense.
But some of them didn't work for me - "Struggling" is a higher stress term than "Making Do".
Grognardia
Emperor Mongoose
It is good that you are experimenting with new mechanics. But Traveller already has a solid way to handle wealth through Social Standing. SOC quietly covers lifestyle, influence, and access without needing extra tracking. Adding a Wealth stat risks muddying things. It creates odd cases where players expect to throw money at every problem - like Call of Cthulhu, where a high Credit Rating allows wealthy characters to just bribe and buy their way through most obstacles.
Player: "I hand the gangsters a stack of cash big enough they start arguing about who gets to retire first."
GM: "You were supposed to fight them, not bankroll their midlife crises."
Player: "And I rent the entire hotel. Every room. Even the janitor’s closet."
GM: "You were supposed to be hiding from the cultists, not turning the place into your private fortress!"
Player: "I hand the gangsters a stack of cash big enough they start arguing about who gets to retire first."
GM: "You were supposed to fight them, not bankroll their midlife crises."
Player: "And I rent the entire hotel. Every room. Even the janitor’s closet."
GM: "You were supposed to be hiding from the cultists, not turning the place into your private fortress!"
ColinD
Cosmic Mongoose
Call of Cthulhu
If the game doesn't require an exacting economy of purchasing than I think it would work. Since your describing wealth, or lack of it (In Serious Debt, Making do, Struggling, Working Class, Middle Class, Comfortable then it goes to Millionaire and Multi Millionaire).
I would replace the more specific words of Millionaire and Multi-Millionaire with Rich and Magnate or Tycoon.
This reminds me of Credit Rating in Call of Cthulhu.
If the game doesn't require an exacting economy of purchasing than I think it would work. Since your describing wealth, or lack of it (In Serious Debt, Making do, Struggling, Working Class, Middle Class, Comfortable then it goes to Millionaire and Multi Millionaire).
I would replace the more specific words of Millionaire and Multi-Millionaire with Rich and Magnate or Tycoon.
Sounds like a fun session.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Number 2. Are you serious? You are out of touch with the world My friend. I live on an island in the Carribean. Sometimes kilos of cocaine wash up on the beach. If the locals find them, they sell them to the local dealers at a big discount. Even at that big discount, they just changed their lives forever. All for the low, low price of around $1,000. So, if you think that a briefcase that contains millions won't change someone's life, than you are just plain out of touch or way too privileged to understand.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Don't underestimate compound interest.
With some self control, you automatically move to the next wealth factor.
With some self control, you automatically move to the next wealth factor.
There's already precedent, even back in CT, to relabel Social Standing as something else if that made more sense. A lot of Aliens do, but in a setting where wealth replaces class (arguably modern America), this can apply. Matt might be replacing SOC with WEL here (or not).
And in relation to those two examples... carrying around such a large pile of cash is impractical. And what's to stop the gangsters just mugging the player? In regards to the second one... you've neatly described how they're going to fail, by making their location extremely public and notorious.
I dunno. I'm VERY used to this approach to assets from years of Champions play. Half the PCs are millionaires, but that barely matters, since the struggling student over there is the one with the Power Cosmic, and a Lear jet is just a plot convenience.
Last edited:
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
In a world of superheros, money matters less, yes, but unless this game is about people with powers, then wealth is the most important aspect to almost every game. (From an in-game view). Have a problem, throw money at it. This works 99% of the time. If everyone is basically the same in power, then the deciding factor will always be money. Hire mercenaries to murder the people that you can't. Donate money to an election and own a President. Someone annoying you? Bury them under lawyers until they go broke.
I don't know what @MongooseMatt meant by "premium items" and them being unavailable, but for people with money, nothing is unavailable.
Pendragon is another game where wealth is barely tracked below the level of entire manors. Yeah, it has currency, but that's more about buying a higher grade of living if you have some. Your character is maintained by their Lord. But also, a knight that uses pay to win tactics is probably going to lose Honour as a result.
No "powers", but baked into the society and knightly class that PCs are part of.
It's a matter of setting focus.
No "powers", but baked into the society and knightly class that PCs are part of.
It's a matter of setting focus.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Sumptuary laws (from Latin sūmptuāriae lēgēs) are laws that regulate consumption.[1] Black's Law Dictionary defines them as "Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures for apparel, food, furniture, or shoes, etc."[2] Historically, they were intended to regulate and reinforce social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures, often depending on a person's social rank.
Societies have used sumptuary laws for a variety of purposes. They were used to try to regulate the balance of trade by limiting the market for expensive imported goods. They made it easy to identify social rank and privilege, and as such could be used for social discrimination and to stabilize social hierarchies.[3][1] They could also be used to prevent, or at least reduce opportunities for political bribery and corruption.
The laws often prevented commoners from imitating the appearance of aristocrats, and could be used to stigmatize disfavoured groups. In Late Medieval cities, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to limit the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie. Bourgeois subjects appearing to be as wealthy as or wealthier than the ruling nobility could undermine the nobility's presentation of themselves as powerful, legitimate rulers. This could call into question their ability to control and defend their fief, thus inspiring traitors and rebels. Such laws continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.[3]
According to historian Lorraine Daston, sumptuary laws "furnish the historian of rules with an extreme case of rule failure," as such laws frequently failed to reduce excess and may even have exacerbated excess.[1] Sumptuary laws were often revisable regulations rather than stable laws, as governing authorities sought to prohibit the latest rebellious or extravagant fashions.[1]
Societies have used sumptuary laws for a variety of purposes. They were used to try to regulate the balance of trade by limiting the market for expensive imported goods. They made it easy to identify social rank and privilege, and as such could be used for social discrimination and to stabilize social hierarchies.[3][1] They could also be used to prevent, or at least reduce opportunities for political bribery and corruption.
The laws often prevented commoners from imitating the appearance of aristocrats, and could be used to stigmatize disfavoured groups. In Late Medieval cities, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to limit the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie. Bourgeois subjects appearing to be as wealthy as or wealthier than the ruling nobility could undermine the nobility's presentation of themselves as powerful, legitimate rulers. This could call into question their ability to control and defend their fief, thus inspiring traitors and rebels. Such laws continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.[3]
According to historian Lorraine Daston, sumptuary laws "furnish the historian of rules with an extreme case of rule failure," as such laws frequently failed to reduce excess and may even have exacerbated excess.[1] Sumptuary laws were often revisable regulations rather than stable laws, as governing authorities sought to prohibit the latest rebellious or extravagant fashions.[1]
Unless honour matters enough that you can't literally buy it (oh no, I am dishonored. I buy every castle in the kingdom. Dishonor me? None of them have a home. Who's dishonored now? Oh they don't want to sell? I buy every farm around them. Oh they don't want to sell? I buy every merc in the kingdom and burn every farm i don't own.) Dishonor doesn't stop players with high wealth from trying to pay to win.
The superhero comment us a little better, but if someone is batman, then they just go buy Tony stark, and now they're batman with the Ironman suit. Then they buy every politician and make mutants actually welcome and now they're batman with an Ironman suit and magneto and proffessor x eating out of their pocket. It doesn't matter if they have super powers, because money let's them make the strongest super powers work for them.
The call of cthulhu example is a really good (but not very extreme) example of what wealth rating often devolves into. Aliens come to the world? Hire every scientist on the planet to find a weakness. Synthesize kryptonite.
Again, you don't try to fight with money. You just change the entire game world so that you don't need to fight in the first place.
That's getting a bit silly, mate.
And well off topic. It appears Matt is talking about maybe taking things up to the "doesn't care about daily costs of living" level, not "richer than Croesus". I took the scale up to a suggested 15, since that's the normal Traveller maximum for characteristics, and it seemed like something that needed to be mentioned. Plus... billionaires at 15 felt right. But that does not mean Matt has any intention of allowing that to be an option in the game.
Besides, a mere billionaire can't do any of the things you talk about. Even wealthy countries can't.
And well off topic. It appears Matt is talking about maybe taking things up to the "doesn't care about daily costs of living" level, not "richer than Croesus". I took the scale up to a suggested 15, since that's the normal Traveller maximum for characteristics, and it seemed like something that needed to be mentioned. Plus... billionaires at 15 felt right. But that does not mean Matt has any intention of allowing that to be an option in the game.
Besides, a mere billionaire can't do any of the things you talk about. Even wealthy countries can't.
I tend to regard any GM statement beginning with "You were supposed to..." as a failure admission by that GM. That's a confession of attempted railroading, which is an over-riding of player agency - not a good thing at a game table. If you want to control all the characters, become a writer, not a GM.
Okay, I wasn't going to touch this but you have awoken the gamer in me
First off, you immediately went to an edge case. Of course you can find people in the world for whom a relatively low amount of money can change lives... but those are not really the characters we are looking at (if they were, this elevation would have taken place before play).
Second, I have now done a little investigation as to how much money you can put into a briefcase. Estimates vary, but it starts at $1m at the low end, and $2-3m seem to crop up a lot. Goes a lot higher if you can use bills that seem unreasonably large.
So, someone finds said briefcase - what do they do next?
Assuming a reasonably well-balanced person (so, you know, not your average Traveller...), first thoughts might be to clear debts which, with credit card balances and student loans, might easily be dealt with now but they will actually take a noticeable chunk from the briefcase. Then you have the big one - the mortgage (or outright property purchase if renting).
On the face of it, yes, life-changing... but by how much? You have way less stress in your life, you are (finally) your own person, but have you jumped up a category on that chart? Your earnings have not gone up (entirely possible that you have not quit your job just by finding that briefcase, particularly at the low end of its contents) and there is an argument that all you have done is get to where your parents or grandparents managed to go in much cheaper times.
Yes, location matters. There are places in the world where that briefcase may have bought you only an average or little above average house. There are others where it may have bought you something close to a mansion.
This is interesting. For Average Joe or Jane, the briefcase has improved their quality of life. But maybe not their Wealth score? It is the difference between 'having' and 'gaining' (I was going to use the term 'earning' but, beyond a certain point in wealth, it does not seem quite the right term
).Someone earlier suggested changing the term Millionaire to Rich. One thing I wanted the table to demonstrate was that being a millionaire no longer makes one 'rich' (again, places in the world where this is absolutely the reverse, but we have assumed areas where the typical Traveller player lives - Europe, North America, Australia, Japan, etc). There has been a long slide, but things have really changed over recent years to the point that people on what used to be perfectly good salaries are now in positions where they can easily be struggling. That particular tide has been rising fast.
To cut a very long story short, I do have issues with The Man, and can see that social mobility is rapidly becoming Not A Thing.
And all of this is within the context of a group of talented individuals who are already being funded to battle an extra-dimensional threat that endangers the entire human race.
So, you know, that is the bit the rules need to model
Also someone in this thread mentioned going out and buying a bunch of explosives. I honestly have no idea where an ordinary person would go to buy those (and I am afraid to Google it...),.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
If you are in the demolition industry or the like, or know someone who is, then you can learn where to get them.
Or if you have chemistry, paramilitary, military, or terrorist training, or know someone who does, you can make them yourself.
"To cut a very long story short, I do have issues with The Man, and can see that social mobility is rapidly becoming Not A Thing." Social mobility in the west is virtually at a standstill, and in most of the world there is no social mobility apart from within your own caste.
Caste - royalty, nobility, middle class, working class, underclass
or billionaire, millionaire, comfortable, struggling, poor
or priest, politician, merchant, labourer, slave
or...
there is some really interesting literature and academic studies on this.
Or if you have chemistry, paramilitary, military, or terrorist training, or know someone who does, you can make them yourself.
"To cut a very long story short, I do have issues with The Man, and can see that social mobility is rapidly becoming Not A Thing." Social mobility in the west is virtually at a standstill, and in most of the world there is no social mobility apart from within your own caste.
Caste - royalty, nobility, middle class, working class, underclass
or billionaire, millionaire, comfortable, struggling, poor
or priest, politician, merchant, labourer, slave
or...
there is some really interesting literature and academic studies on this.
It doesn't matter where they buy it. This is still a game, and if no one at the table knows, they'll often roll for it - say, Streetwise or military rank or profession. Or they'll ask a contact for it. Enough games out there exist like this, shadowrun comes to mind, that the players including referee will be used to saying 'yes but' or 'yes and'. I refer back to my traveler examples in the previous posts. The small purchases, which are able to edit the world (such as explosives changing terrain, or buying something to convince entire groups if people to help you, whether mercs, or political swaying), these are the concerns with a wealth mechanic. Especially when no one at the table knows exactly how to actually purchase them, and they make up rulings on the spot.
Arkathan
Emperor Mongoose
"Sinister" policies are meant to control the proletariat. Mobility, of any sort, is an obstacle to that control. Serfs with no hope of raising their status or getting away with protest tend to comply.
So, social scores tied to your bank account and "smart" cities for example.
Similar threads
