Three kinds of wealth abstraction rules

I don't always have the time or the energy to track currency in my elfgames, and although I see the merit in doing so when you're aiming for a specific kind of gamefeel, it's not a great fit for every game. So why is this so often treated as the standard? I mean, it can't be pure nostalgia or blind adherence to the old ways; a lot of the games that still stick with this have traded inventory weight for inventory slots, for instance. Gold for XP could be a plausible reason, but then again, there's no reason you can't implement this with abstracted wealth rules. 

Now, while I can't give you a definitive answer to this conundrum (if there even is one), I have spent some time trying to come up with interesting rules for wealth abstraction, just for fun. If nothing else, perhaps these will inspire some game designers to question why they're still sticking with the ol' Copper/Silver/Gold standard rather than experimenting with fun and less disruptive ways of handling wealth in their games.

WEALTH POINTS

You can spend your wealth points (WP) to add positive modifiers to negotiation checks.

When the party finds treasure, tell them how many wealth points they acquired. A small amount of coins would be worth a single WP for the whole party, while a golden statuette with emerald eyes could earn them as many as 5 WPs.

When you want to buy something, you can make a negotiation check by rolling a d20 vs a Difficulty Rating of...  

• 10 (mundane/cheap items)
• 14 (uncommon/expensive items)
• 18 (rare/exclusive) 

You can bypass a negotiation check entirely by spending a fixed amount of wealth points for each item tier, as seen below: 

• Common/cheap: 10 WPs
• Uncommon/expensive: 15 WPs
• Rare/exclusive: 20 WPs

If you still want to brute force your way through a purchase after a failed negotiation attempt, add +5 to the WP cost. Any wealth points spent on the roll are subtracted from the total cost.

✦ Design notes

So, these rules intentionally put a big emphasis on negotiations over fixed prices. This is meant to represent haggling, rather than how much each item is actually worth. Prices normally fluctuate between stores and different regions IRL, so I thought this was a nice way to incorporate that in a game. And since you always have the option of caving in and paying an exorbitant price even if someone is overcharging you for their wares, I added that bit about bypassing negotiations.

Finally, if I were to implement this mechanic in a game, I'd definitely want to prepare a reference list for treasure and another for typical items, just to keep things fair and easy to run.

WEALTH USAGE DIE

If you want to keep the Copper/Silver/Gold standard but don't want to bother tracking individual coins, you can simply assign an usage die for each. Then, make three item lists: one for things that can be bought with copper, another for items that can be bought with silver, and one for the truly expensive things that only gold can buy.

• Copper can only buy from the copper list.
• Silver can buy from the copper and silver lists.
• Gold can buy from all three lists.

When you want to buy something, roll a copper, silver or gold usage die, as determined by what you're buying. If you roll a 1 or 2, drop the die by a step (d12 > d10 > d8 > d6 > d4 > nil). If you don't have at least a d4, you simply can't afford to buy the things you want.

After completing a quest or exploring a dungeon, the party can potentially increase their wealth usage dice by a step, depending on how much they earned or pillaged. The standard odds for wealth improvement are...

• Copper: 4-in-6
• Silver: 2-in-6
• Gold 1-in-6

The odds above are subject to both positive and negative changes, per the fiction. If the party was promised a fortune in gold, they might have higher odds of improving their gold usage die. If they were simply out in the sewers killing rats, maybe they only get to try to improve copper or silver (not both), with gold being out of the picture entirely. Such is the life of an adventurer.

✦ Design notes

The biggest hurdle to implementing these rules in a game is deciding the starting wealth of PCs. Do you just give them a d4 in copper, in which case they're flat out broke? Are some classes (if you're using those) wealthier from the get go? Are some even poorer? Balancing this out can be fun, but it's the sort of thing that will directly inform how your game feels in play, at least until the party gets some experience under their belts.

GMs can play around with positive and negative modifiers to UD checks, by the way: depending on what you're buying (and from whom), the GM may assign you a positive or negative modifier. This is a good way to represent how cheap or expensive something is, as well as the seller's negotiation skills and their disposition towards the buyer.

WEALTH LEVELS

No rolls, no checks, just a simple Wealth Level (WL).

• At WL1, you can afford common gear, travel rations, simple accommodations, basic services
• At WL2, you can afford quality gear, specialized services, components, luxurious accommodations, weapons, armor, daily wages
• At WL3, you can afford property installments, magic items, monthly wages, horses, livestock

Characters increase their Wealth Level by getting paid for their services, plundering dungeons and undertaking financial ventures. There's no need for hard rules and parameters, either: if it makes fictional sense for a character to be on WL2, then that's their Wealth Level. If they go on a buying spree and overspend, they may drop down to WL1. Easy, clean, simple.

OPTIONAL RULE: if you want to mix gold for XP with these rules, characters can only level up when they reach WL3. Afterwards, they must invest most of their funds into training under a competent tutor, dropping back to WL1.

✦ Design notes

There's no denying that this is an incredibly high trust approach to wealth, bordering on FKR, and that's intentional. If you're completely burned out on currency tracking, this will probably be your favourite take on wealth abstraction in this post. Similarly, this is a great fit for games where wealth doesn't matter all that much, although the optional rule can give it a bit more heft, if that's what you're looking for.

ALL ABOUT THAT CASH

A funny thing happened while I was writing this post: I no longer know how I want to handle wealth in most of the games I'm currently developing. A few of these could be a great fit for some of my games, and indeed, they were built on ideas I initially had for the aforementioned games, but dropped for one reason or another. In a way, I guess this means I succeeded at what I set out to do with this post; I just didn't expect to be on the receiving end of it!

Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go have a design-induced existential crisis. Those are always a lot of fun!

PLANTS!! Or, how to enrich your setting's flora

One of the things that impressed me the most about Avowed was how much care was given to the flora of the Living Lands. It's often vibrant, awe-inspiring and, most important of all, gameable. Want to upgrade your gear? Go harvest some plants. Need a way to deal with large groups of enemies, but don't want to invest in magic? Well, some plants are basically grenades, molotovs or acid bombs. Oh, and you know the cool looking ruins you've spotted on the horizon? They're probably overgrown by giant roots, or if you're lucky, something even cooler!

The way Obsidian managed to seamlessly integrate flora into so many aspects of Avowed made me think of how some of my favourite fantasy writers usually pay a lot of attention to the flora of their own worlds, and how important those details are to making an immersive setting.

In my experience, however, most GMs overlook this aspect of world building completely, myself included. Sure, some of us pay lip service to it, dropping a few references to coniferous trees, berries and stuff like that when prompted by the players, but that's usually as far as it goes.

And honestly? That's completely fine by me. We're just nerds facilitating a game, we can't all be expected to be master world builders who spend hours and hours researching what sort of flora would make the most sense for each region of our settings. Simply put, this is the type of effort that rarely pays off, like developing intricate economies for every city or kingdom.

Still, the reason behind my enthusiasm for Avowed's flora wasn't related to realism or research at all, but how fantastic and unique it felt. And that, my friends, is much more achievable for us lowly GMs. Achievable and gameable.

TABLES ARE ALWAYS THE ANSWER

Well, maybe not always, but that's what I usually default to whenever I want to generate interesting things fast. I quickly settled into six different categories:

• Appearance: Usually the first thing the PCs will notice about a plant, and surprisingly useful for setting the mood, too. Drop some fleshy, writhing plants in the woods and your players are probably going to be immediately wary of the area.
• Biome: The sort of region your weird plants are located in. Try generating at least a couple of plants for each major area in your setting, but don't be afraid of reusing a plant in multiple regions.
• Interactions: Plants don't exist in a vacuum. Defining a few key ways they interact with their environment and the fauna that inhabits it is essential (and a lot of fun, too!).
• Smell: Never underestimate the impact of describing a smell. Our olfactory memory is unreasonably powerful, and you should wield it responsibly.
• Useful properties: I did mention this would be gameable, right?
• Rarity: While most of the categories above are player-facing, this one is more relevant to GMs. You can outright tell your players how rare or common a plant is, but isn't it more interesting to let them work for that knowledge?

Now that we've established what each table will explore, let's dig in!

Appearance	Biome	Interactions
1. Glowing tendrils	1. Rainforest	1. Calms nearby creatures
2. Umbrella-like leaves	2. Desert	2. Makes observers hallucinate
3. Gem-like flowers	3. Tundra	3. Attracts and feeds wildlife (prey)
4. Thorny, enormous vines	4. Swamp	4. Burrows when it rains
5. Fuzzy, humming moss	5. Mountains	5. Shrieks when approached
6. Spiral petals	6. Grasslands	6. Protected by predators
7. Color-changing fronds	7. Volcanic	7. Attracts lightning
8. Knotted roots	8. Coastal	8. Unroots itself and migrates
9. Maw-like blossoms	9. Swamps	9. Trips travelers
10. Skin-mimicking bark	10. Rocky hills	10. Changes color near magic
11. Feather-like leaves	11. Fjords	11. Hosts friendly insects
12. Stained glass bark	12. Lakes	12. Attracts fairies
13. Skeleton-like branch	13. Graveyards	13. Worshipped by undead
14. Sparkling stems	14. Savannas	14. Boosts plant growth
15. Fur-like shrubs	15. Prairies	15. Houses prey animals
16. Covered in red sap	16. Riverlands	16. Contaminates water
17. Crescent moon flowers	17. Islands	17. Darkens surroundings
18. Iridescent spores	18. Wastelands	18. Taints the soil
19. Bioluminescent patterns	19. Overgrown ruins	19. Repairs structures
20. Pulsing, organic growths	20. Underground	20. Infested with spiders

Smells	Properties	Rarity
1. Rotting meat	1. Healing salve	1. Common
2. Sweet honey	2. Disinfectant	2. Uncommon
3. Fresh rain	3. Stamina potion	3. Rare
4. Burnt sugar	4. Strong adhesive	4. Very Rare
5. Spiced wine	5. Powerful antidote	5. Legendary
6. Crushed metal	6. Alchemical marvel	6. Seasonal
7. Bone dust	7. Armor-like bark	7. Endangered
8. Vanilla	8. Highly nutritious	8. Abundant
9. Cinnamon	9. Fire-starting oil	9. Cultivated
10. Wet fur	10. Insect repellent	10. Regional
11. Lavender	11. Poison enhancer	11. Corrupted
12. Dragon's breath	12. Dye-making flowers	12. Ancient
13. Sea salt	13. Paralyzing sap	13. Interdimensional
14. Goblin sweat	14. Fermented alcohol	14. Sentient
15. Blood	15. Magic enhancer	15. Transient
16. Sulphur	16. Demon bait	16. Infernal
17. Arcane fire	17. Charming fragrance	17. Artificial
18. Fairy dust	18. Rust removal	18. Sacred
19. Wet stone	19. Highly explosive	19. Cursed
20. Phoenix feathers	20. Water purifier	20. Mythical

WEIRD GREEN WONDERS

Yeah, that should do it. I'm excited to start making some truly bizarre plants and dropping them in my campaigns, and if y'all end up doing the same, I'd love to know how it goes!

On encounter design, combat and incentives

After writing the third Hexember post, I couldn't stop thinking about two blog posts regarding incentivized behavior, the first by Luke Gearing, and the second by Zedeck Siew. Did I unintentionally incentivize players to act diplomatically rather than violently through how I designed the hex's points of interest? And if so, is that really such a bad thing?

COMBAT & MODERN ELFGAMES

It's no secret that 5e has more rules and guidelines for combat than anything else, and while I'm not trying to start a discourse on "eliding", it's my personal opinion that if most of the tools bestowed by a system are related to violence, then you shouldn't be surprised when violence becomes the players' default approach to every problem or situation. That incentive is baked into the game, and while most OSR games are better about this, there's still a prevalence of combat-related rules in them.

Paradoxically, OSR combat has been frequently touted as a fail state, particularly when it's fought fairly. The maxim "combat as war, not sport" is also a mainstay in these discussions, even if the rules don't always reflect it. One could argue that the high lethality found in the majority of OSR games supports those points, but that lethality usually ceases to be a problem once characters have enough experience under their belts. Some games have done their part to mitigate that power creep (shoutout to Into the Odd, Cairn and CY_BORG!), but when it comes to older games, well, character advancement tended to lead to HP bloat and/or disparity, as seen with the good ol' linear fighters vs. quadratic wizards conundrum.

If combat is the baked-in solution to most problems, then rewarding it would only worsen the issue at hand. This leads us to the crux of my encounter design philosophy: if the players want to maim and kill everything in their way, they are free to do so. The world, on the other hand, won't reward them for committing senseless violence. Most of the time, they'll only be wasting their resources and risking their lives by acting that way — just like in real life.

STICK VS. CARROT

Let's face it: if rewarding violence is the carrot, and if most of the rules are combat-oriented, there's an argument to be made that not rewarding it is akin to punishing the players for playing the game as written, or as it was intended to be played — hence, the stick. This could lead us to an entire discussion about setting expectations, the importance of a session zero and so on, but that's one rabbit hole I'm not willing to dive into today, lest this post completely loses its original purpose: discussing incentives in play.

So what's the solution here? Should you just play a different game if you don't want to reward violence?

Well, not necessarily, no. As mentioned above, setting expectations before play is an important part of literally any game, and unlike 5e, a lot of OSR/NSR games have plenty of rules for approaching the world in many different ways. But then again, rewarding players for engaging with those rules could be seen as just as bad as rewarding violence; you're just signaling that diplomacy, careful exploration and scheming are the optimal ways to play the game. 

While there's nothing wrong with that playstyle (some would go as far as saying that the ideal OSR playstyle looks a lot like what I just described), it can become stale. Once the characters start doing what's optimal rather than what their backgrounds and personalities dictate, are the players still roleplaying them, or are they just gaming? Going too far in the opposite direction is just as bad, mind! "It's what my character would do" has traumatized countless GMs, including yours truly.

Me, I advocate for balance in all things. Naturally, that goes for encounters and their rewards, too.

BALANCING INCENTIVES

Balancing what you incentivize with your rewards is simpler than you might expect. When you're writing any situation, encounter or location, consider what's logical. Sometimes, violence is the best answer, one that may wield the best rewards. Oftentimes, it isn't. The secret here is letting whatever makes the most sense happen, rather than trying to direct your players and their characters towards being kind and diplomatic or bloodthirsty murderers through in-game rewards. Let them do what's natural for them and reap the consequences, good or bad.

The first three Hexember posts actually have relevant examples of logical consequences, rather than incentivized behaviors:

• Fighting (and killing) the sickly giant from the Stinging-Tree Canyon won't lead the party to a tomb full of gold, and it may even lead to a few PCs getting sick, too. On the other hand, they'll have put an end to the poor giant's suffering, and that counts for something. A party that sneakily avoids the encounter entirely won't risk contracting the disease, but the giant may still be a problem for anyone who passes through the canyon in the future. No obvious rewards here.
  
• Combat isn't really much of a concern in the Chronal Wastes, but if the party does end up in a fight while trapped in the war zone, they'll actually benefit from defeating the enemy squad, gaining access to firearms that won't be invented anytime soon. Violence would be rewarded, but only because looting a superior force's advanced weapons is a logical conclusion to fighting them.
• The Crimson Crystarium is what brought us here in the first place, so it's a little more ambiguous than the examples above. The vampire packs encountered in that hex can be approached in several different ways, and one pack actually initiates combat in a "honorable" manner (sport and war, yadda, yadda). Outright murdering that pack turns the others hostile, yes, but only because it makes sense. Hell, murdering any pack would have that result, even if I didn't outright spell that. Meanwhile, there's another pack that won't even directly engage the party, and if attacked, will leave combat as soon as they've gotten their share of blood. Finally, killing the "diplomatic" pack could potentially lead to an even better reward (as many weird healing crystals as the party can carry), with the consequence of making every other pack hostile. But would ridding the lands of bloodsucking monsters be such a bad thing? No easy answers here. No simple solution.
  

And that, I guess, is what I've been trying to get at: when designing a situation, encounter or location, consider the logical consequences of its likely outcomes. It shouldn't matter whether those consequences would be beneficial or prejudicial to the players and their characters, as long as they're organic. 

The world is your character, and playing it straight can do wonders for your campaign's verisimilitude.