View Single Post
Old 12-23-2017, 02:12 PM   #13
InexplicableVic
 
InexplicableVic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Default Re: Alternate Wealth rules

Respectfully, this seems like an inelegant solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

First, the premise is somewhat illogical and counterintuitive, because it's highly unlikely that rich and poor people are going to be charged astronomically different prices for the same item. In fact, it's more likely that the rich guy pays more for services, not goods, because that's the "going rate" in the rich neighborhood (check out the differences in landscaping prices based on zip codes!).

But for goods, regardless of the wealth differences, if any two people go into Walmart for a compound bow, they're both paying $400. The rich guy isn't paying less, the poor guy isn't paying more. Sure, this is a 2017 example, and perhaps it doesn't truly reflect a TL3 economy, but I don't think that's how it commonly worked. "Hey, you want a loaf of bread? One shilling for you, Mr. Noble. Mr. Poor Guy, you want a loaf? 1,000 shillings." I don't think so.

Second, the Thief or Bard pays 20 points (or 10) for some level of wealth, and that benefits both him and the whole group, just like the Knight pays 20 points (or in some cases 40+) in Weapon Master that benefits the whole group, especially the Thief, as the Knight cuts down swaths of enemies that could put the Thief's life in significant danger. The Thief's 20 points in Wealth help the group get a better profit, which is important, because the Thief is probably not getting any of that without his buddies killing monsters for him, casting spells for him, breaking down stuck doors for him, healing him, etc. If the Thief wants to get more of a cut, he can play it that way. Perhaps he rationalizes it and explains it to the group. They'll agree or not. I highly doubt I would as a player. And I suspect that the proposal might even lead to members of the group saying, "OK, Mr. Thief, so after you get your cut for being our fence, here's the bill for the healing spells I cast on you, at $x per energy, point," or "Here's the bill for me saving your life when those two ogres were bearing down on you," etc.

Third, and finally, I think the rules make a certain amount of sense, if not perfect: The wealthier character can find buyers for items and can get close to full value for them, while the poor character, who has no connections, is selling his stuff to the local pawn shop. They know he can't do much better, so he's getting pennies on the dollar for his stuff, which the pawn shop will sell at a big profit. Sounds a lot like real life.

I can see how for big ticket items that are more negotiable, a wealthier character might get a better deal, but not necessarily due to his wealth (although that may come into play) as much as the wealthier character has better knowledge of prices, more purchasing experience, etc. I guess the question is, is the broadsword for sale negotiable like, say, a $30,000 car? If so, maybe the wealthier guy gets it for somewhat cheaper. But I don't think the very wealthy guy gets it for $12,000 (40%), and the person's who's struggling pays $39,000 (130%). Highly doubtful. Money talks. I don't see the shopkeeper giving the wealthy guy a break on a longsword so he can get almost no profit or take a loss, but then tells the poor guy it's going to cost several times more than what the rich guy just paid (which will end up with the shopkeeper not making a sale, not making a profit, etc.). If there are items in short supply, that's a different story--it will drive up the price. But a routine transaction? It's going to be substantially the same price for everyone. The advantage of Wealth is that it's far easier for the wealthy guy to buy it.

In the end, changing game mechanics that are rooted in common sense to a mechanic that doesn't make much sense to solve a problem that may be a niche case in some games isn't a great idea.

Last edited by InexplicableVic; 12-23-2017 at 02:16 PM. Reason: Left off the last four words!
InexplicableVic is offline   Reply With Quote