Being Broke in RPGs

[Catullus64]

I really like adventure stories where the heroes are perpetually broke, and have to keep doing adventures just to keep the proverbial lights on. I'm thinking of stuff like Cowboy Bebop, or some of the earlier Witcher stories like The Edge of the World. It's humorous, relatable, and easy setup for why characters keep going on crazy adventures or concocting money-making schemes.

I haven't seen or run many RPGs where this felt like the case, though! In games where the acquisition and spending of wealth is much of a concern at all, successful play tends to result in stored money rapidly outpacing the expense of anything you could spend it on. The better games let you invest it in things like strongholds or crafting systems, but just as often your characters acquire wealth that, if they were sane, would be grounds for retirement.

Honestly, I kinda crave an adventure game where the bills and debt collectors are always on your heels, necessitating dangerous exploits to acquire treasure. That sounds fun to me! I actually tried in one game to have my character drink, gamble, and whore away a fortune won from adventuring, Fafhrd & Grey-Mouser stye, but I couldn't do it!

The biggest and most direct exception I can think of is the latest edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, which is generally not my bag compared to earlier editions, but I like this particular rule. After every adventure, you get the chance to first spend the money on new equipment. Then you get to roll to see how much money your character manages to save. Whatever's left, you lose, with players inventing the exact story of how their character lost all of their money in the interim.

I think some editions of Shadowrun have something like this, but I can't stand playing Shadowrun for more than a session or two due to its mechanics.

Any other RPGs which, either on purpose or just through their implicit economy, tend to result in this? Failing that, any fun stories to tell of campaigns where you were perpetually cash-strapped?

[LibraryOgre]

Generally, I find these to be more available in non-class, non-level games, especially ones which limit the gear treadmill.

To run such a thing in D&D, you need to reduce the amount of magical monsters people fight, and control the magic to a degree many players would find unacceptable... if the fighter can't get magic items, but the spellcaster gets major spells, the differences can get stark, quick. If the classes are "balanced" on the idea of an increase in level resulting in personal power for some, and better gear for others, then removing the better gear makes the game unbalanced, which can be a lot less fun for the people on the low side of the scale.To achieve it in a class and level game, you either need to have the levels not matter that much (Palladium), or a restricted range of levels (E6).

[Zuras]

There are quite a few OSR type games that have extensive carousing rules, which is basically a method of converting gold to XP. This lets you run something like a XP for GP system without the PCs accumulating massive amounts of money.

The problem is that actually dealing with money troubles in an RPG is the exact opposite of escapism for many people. I’ve personally found any method for keeping characters poor besides blowing it to convert to XP ends up feeling adversarial, at least in fantasy games.

On the other hand, in Traveller style sci-fi games the need for cash is basically constant, but only in terms of the astronomical amount of money it takes to keep a spaceship running, not in terms of personal funds.

[NichG]

One thing that would immediately do it would be to have gear require significant upkeep costs rather than acquisition costs. So that way, an adventuring group would always be calculating whether they expect a bigger reward than it would cost to top up the enchantments on their best gear, should they deploy with less, etc.

Also if in general gear that can accept enchants is relatively cheap but fueling them is expensive, you don't get the cycle of doubling your wealth whenever you take out an equally geared adversary.

[Vahnavoi]

This is easier than you'd think. I've managed it by accident in Lamentations of the Flame Princess, just by forgetting (as the game master) to place fungible treasure in my adventure locations. No fungible treasure means no experience points, means very slow advancement, means characters stay low level for long periods, means they don't have easy ways to get rich quick, means they will occasionally have to do dishes at a tavern to pay for upkeep.

It's a fundamentally unstable equilibrium, though. Eventually, the players will think to rob a bank or something, and if they succeed, they will be swimming in coin. There are some pretty good money sinks, however. Even hundreds of thousands of silver pieces start to run out fast when you're outfitting a warship with dozens of crew members and have to pay food and wages for voyages lasting for months or even years. Similarly, building a good library and laboratory for spell research is expensive.

But, it is possible you're sort of looking at the wrong way around. In my games, it isn't money that requires adventuring, it is adventuring that requires money. The player characters do dishes at a tavern to collect funds to get on a ship so they can get away from the mundane world. On the balance of probability, getting on that ship is more likely to get them shipwrecked or eaten by sea monsters than it is to get them rich. Answering the call to adventure doesn't have to be an economically rational decision, the reason the player characters don't retire isn't because they can't, it's because they are impulsive thrill-seekers, social misfits and broken people who can't tolerate a peaceful life anymore.

[KorvinStarmast]

On the other hand, in Traveller style sci-fi games the need for cash is basically constant, but only in terms of the astronomical amount of money it takes to keep a spaceship running, not in terms of personal funds. Traveler also doesn't have a level grind.

Answering the call to adventure doesn't have to be an economically rational decision, the reason the player characters don't retire isn't because they can't, it's because they are impulsive thrill-seekers, social misfits and broken people who can't tolerate a peaceful life anymore. QFT.

[Telok]

On the other hand, in Traveller style sci-fi games the need for cash is basically constant, but only in terms of the astronomical amount of money it takes to keep a spaceship running, not in terms of personal funds.

Funny thing, the Traveller way is pretty similar to early D&D domain management. You have a big, important, fancy thing that, as long as everything is going ok with normal costs & revenue, will just manage to scrape by. But as soon as something happens, like a breakdown in Traveller or monsters in D&D, then the PCs have to spring into action to keep it going and will likely end up near broke again once everything is fixed back up.

You can run it differently, upping payouts or decreasing costs or something. Ignoring money and focusing on social or combat/war bits is another way. But it was part of the general idea of how the games played to be always relatively poor & needing more money while still have wads of cash on hand for personal expenses.

[Ionathus]

D&D and other medieval fantasy are pretty ill-suited to this kind of play, given that the entire concept began with "go in the dungeon, kill the monsters, and take their stuff." It's in the bones of the game and I can't think of a mechanic that would extract that element of progression without killing the spirit of the game.

Monster of the Week has done pretty well on this front for my group. Because the conceit is pretty scrappy to begin with and you're meant to be on the back foot for most of every story, it works well with the concept of being poor. And the advancement/"level up" mechanics are done in a way that reflects your characters' growing competence but doesn't necessarily reflect their growing material wealth.1 I think you could get that game to match the tone of something like Cowboy Bebop pretty easily, having them bopping around from town to town solving mysteries, and just barely earning enough of a living to keep food in their bellies and gas in the Mystery Machine.

1. Note that certain classes ("playbooks") in MotW do allow you to acquire new wealth, material goods, or property when you level up (e.g. certain playbooks can earn a car or a safe house or access to exotic materials). You could either ban those options, or talk about it with your players and say "hey, I really love the 'shoestring-budget' vibe for this game, and want to preserve it, so please keep that in mind when you're leveling up and either avoid gaining material goods, or find a way to justify why this doesn't actually improve your financial prospects all that much (e.g. the car is stolen, the safehouse is rat-infested or in the backwoods, the exotic material is, like, radioactive and highly illegal)."

[Catullus64]

The problem is that actually dealing with money troubles in an RPG is the exact opposite of escapism for many people. I’ve personally found any method for keeping characters poor besides blowing it to convert to XP ends up feeling adversarial, at least in fantasy games.


Speaking personally as something less than a Rockefeller, my real-life financial woes are precisely what makes this fantasy appealing. The idea of being daring and capable enough to try and solve money troubles through adventure. It's the perfect meeting point for me between relatability and escapism.

Regarding some other comments, I see a ship and a stronghold as two very different things vis-a-vis servicing this fantasy trope. A ship is mobile, and thus more readily accommodates adventuring to keep it from falling apart. A stronghold tends to imply more stability, more responsibility for others. For settings that go for the Adventurer's Guild trope (not my cup of tea, exactly), I could see how guild dues and office politics could provide something like this element.

[Vahnavoi]

I wouldn't pay much attention to arguments over escapism - that is not the only, or even main, reason why people play games.

As for ships versus strongholds, your observation is a good one. However, keep in mind that owning a stronghold in old times came with responsibilities, including the duty to supply soldiers and go to war. Additionally, in D&D and its retroclones, player strongholds tend to be border strongholds, meaning they are the ones watching over contested terrain and most likely to see action taken against them. So placing "maintain a stronghold" in opposition with "go on adventure for money" isn't always warranted: being sent to hold fort in the border lands can just be the adventure you go on to make money.

[Zuras]

Speaking personally as something less than a Rockefeller, my real-life financial woes are precisely what makes this fantasy appealing. The idea of being daring and capable enough to try and solve money troubles through adventure. It's the perfect meeting point for me between relatability and escapism.



Everyone has different tastes, but I have absolutely no interest in the financially struggling hero trope in any media whatsoever, to the point that I actively dislike Spider Man.

[Satinavian]

Speaking personally as something less than a Rockefeller, my real-life financial woes are precisely what makes this fantasy appealing. The idea of being daring and capable enough to try and solve money troubles through adventure. It's the perfect meeting point for me between relatability and escapism.
I don't like it.

The idea that the character who is competent enough to overcome all those adventures suddenly becomes too stupid to keep their money together or too incompetent to find a normal job that pays for living like the average person does not sit well with me.

I mean it is one thing if the adventurer doesn't want a normal life because they are a thrill seeker or something. But being forced to go on dangerous adventures you rather wouldn't because you are broke can only happen if you fail at all the other ways to earn a living.

[sktarq]

Step one to doing this is getting session zero buy in from your players.
people have various expectations and disappointing them once established is bound to be a bigger deal than selling them beforehand. But once sold it could make a really good change of pace and opens up interesting characterization that is not otherwise open.

Then figure out why a normal build up of wealth is impossible for the characters...bonus points if it acts as a regular hook for adventures.
Perhaps they are always on the run in some way and thus can't hold down normal jobs and thus safer ways of making rent are not available to them.
Perhaps they are responsible for something that acts as a gold suck
....something like a nearby village that needs new buildings, protection, tribute paid to avoid a normad slaver horde
....or a noble family that they are trying to help keep in some sort of rank (and need the $$ to maintain the illusion they are still of that class)
....or the maintenance on a ship that is slowly getting them to some ridiculously far off place (think a Voyager getting back to the Alpha like campaign)

[Ionathus]

I don't like it.

The idea that the character who is competent enough to overcome all those adventures suddenly becomes too stupid to keep their money together or too incompetent to find a normal job that pays for living like the average person does not sit well with me.

I mean it is one thing if the adventurer doesn't want a normal life because they are a thrill seeker or something. But being forced to go on dangerous adventures you rather wouldn't because you are broke can only happen if you fail at all the other ways to earn a living.

(emphasis mine)

...you do know that it's possible to commit no major financial mistakes and still have money troubles, right? That that happens all the time for a lot of people? Because your post is making it almost sound like poverty is universally a moral failing.

I'm not a mind reader but I feel like you completely missed the point of Catullus's post. I interpreted him to mean "I like to imagine a world where I solve my financial problems using fun superpowers and daring exploits," as opposed to the real world, where you usually have to solve financial problems through a combination of years of hard work, stressful and uncertain decision-making, and a healthy dose of luck in the 'which economic class was I born into' department.

Solving a real-world problem with a fantastical solution is pretty appealing as a story idea. It's okay if that's not your cup of tea but it's not exactly outlandish in terms of wish-fulfillment.

[Satinavian]

...you do know that it's possible to commit no major financial mistakes and still have money troubles, right? That that happens all the time for a lot of people? Because your post is making it almost sound like poverty is universally a moral failing.Yes, bad things can happen, but not all the time. And where do you get the moral angle, when i wrote about "incompetence" ? You can't earn money if you don't have marketable skills. And that just doesn't work for the usually quite hypercompetent PCs who somehow are not able to earn as much as the average low skill worker.


Solving a real-world problem with a fantastical solution is pretty appealing as a story idea.It is not exactly "solving the problem" if next gaming session the same PC must go on life threatening bad jobs again because they are broke again. And again the week after.

[Telok]

I can't think of a mechanic that would extract that element of progression without killing the spirit of the game.

Training costing thousands of gold to level up. Hirelings, porters, and pack animals for the three week hike through trackless wilderness. Repairing and replacing gear, magical and mundane. Tolls, fees, and extortion from roads, bridges, and guilds. Hiring sages to find information like command words to magic items. Paying bards and criers to advertise for a new henchman. Paying the funeral or resurrection expenses of the previous henchman so you don't take the loyalty hit for having a doubly dangerous work environment. And of course the aforementioned houses, manors, keeps, towers, forts, and ships that used to be at least partially player facing and expected reasons to accrue wealth.

You know, all the stuff from 1970-2000 versions of D&D that got dropped as "unfun" or was made implicitly npc only so as not to require rules for it. All the stuff that resulted in the "too much money" trope of 5e D&D.

[Anymage]

I'm not a mind reader but I feel like you completely missed the point of Catullus's post. I interpreted him to mean "I like to imagine a world where I solve my financial problems using fun superpowers and daring exploits," as opposed to the real world, where you usually have to solve financial problems through a combination of years of hard work, stressful and uncertain decision-making, and a healthy dose of luck in the 'which economic class was I born into' department.

Solving a real-world problem with a fantastical solution is pretty appealing as a story idea. It's okay if that's not your cup of tea but it's not exactly outlandish in terms of wish-fulfillment.

The catch is that you have a relatively straightforward problem (I want money), and if you have superpowers it's relatively easy to gather money. Not even by turning to supervillain heists; Homelander makes way more money through licensing deals than he ever could knocking over banks. This provides implicit caps on how powerful PCs can get and the sorts of adventure rewards they can find, which might or might not vibe with what the players are looking for.

You can handwave it with money sinks, which might even include going on the occasional treasure run in order to fund their overall adventuring hobby. This is something that the players will have to expressly sign up for, since it falls apart the instant that a PC decides that it isn't worth their while to go on adventures that don't pay well enough.

[ArmyOfOptimists]

At the end of the day, it comes down to how it's presented. If money-troubles are used as a straight up block that the PCs can only overcome by scrubbing tables and cobbling shoes for weeks on end, where the primary villain is their landlord demanding rent, nobodies going to enjoy that. If you set up a bounty board full of quick one-off quests and jobs to do while you save up for that big adventure to find the Left Sock of Antioch, that sounds like a fun time. Though in the latter case, make sure your players can see the big objective on the horizon. I've been in a few campaigns where the DM was obviously planning something but kept feeding us one-off quests to earn money that didn't go anywhere and it got old fast.

I don't know how well paying bills would go over on a table, though. That sounds like a maximizing of the Ammo Problem. Minutia that nobody really likes tracking or dealing with that either has no impact because it's a solved problem - remember to pay your 5gp a session to stock up! - or it completely cripples the players. It demands meticulous economical balance that most TTRPGs just aren't made for.

[Reversefigure4]

I believe it's Barbarians of Lemuria that uses a rule where your money halves every week of game time, expressly so as to give you the Conan vibe of broke at the start of each adventure. Doesn't matter if you found the lost treasures of Atlantis, in a couple of months you'll have blown it all. It's up to the players whether their character is blowing it on wenching, fine clothes, or donating to orphanages, but the money is always rapidly flowing out. The more they have, the more they waste.

You need two things to make it work:

1) Player Buy-in: You can't make them waste money, you just need everyone to understand what sort of genre they're playing in.

2) A system where money doesn't equal mechanical or narrative power. No magic items to buy, no better armour. Your fabulous manor house rapidly becomes worthless when you can't afford the upkeep. The favours you bought from the Mayor expire because what have you done for him lately?

[Vahnavoi]

If money-troubles are used as a straight up block that the PCs can only overcome by scrubbing tables and cobbling shoes for weeks on end, where the primary villain is their landlord demanding rent, nobodies going to enjoy that.

You say that, but I've both held and played those games. People enjoy them just fine, for the same reason they enjoy situational comedies and slice-of-life series. Ironically given your screen name, you've ended up being a negative nelly because your own expectations blinded you to the fact that other genres exist.

Same goes for the lot of you worrying about player buy-in and expectations. Getting people on board with the premise can be done with one minute pitch. This is neither complex to explain nor complex to implement. Stop presuming players are so married to assumptions of escapist power fantasy (or what have you) that they can't grok this kind of a shift.

---

For other things: the hypercompetence argument is silly. Competence in some narrow task that most people don't want to do does not have to translate to general economic viability. We see this in real life with former soldiers, sailors and professional athletes; in some game systems, it's outright mechanically enforced. For example, a D&D 3.5 Fighter, optimized for fighting, can be average or below average in every mundane life skill (average or below average Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma, no skill ranks in Craft, Profession, Appraise, Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, Gather Information...). This means that they need a loyal ally or retainer to keep their finances; in absence of such ally, if they can't fight, kill, bully and threaten their way to riches, they'll end up just another thug on the run from the law.

But, we can go further and deconstruct the notion that success in extraordinary tasks has anything to do with competence at all. The easiest way to visualize this is a single elimination tournament. Simply because of the tournament format, one contestant will end up as undefeated victor of N matches, but this doesn't guarantee they are the best, or even that their victory had anything to do with skill at all: the same outcome could've happened if every contestant had independent 50/50 chance to win their opponent. Furthermore, like many adventure concepts and modules, the tournament is an unusual event in condensed timeframe: it's not given the victor has done or will do anything else of significance, so why use such obvious outlier to predict how they would do in their daily lives?

This is especially applicable to low level characters, who often aren't all that competent in their respective game systems and whether they live or die is largely up to random chance. This applies even to D&D; played as mercilessly as it can be, D&D doesn't inherently have a smooth upward arc for every character. Such an arc is an illusion created by survivor bias: consider all comparable characters who die, lose their equipment, or are crippled by ability score damage or negative levels, and the curve flattens considerably. The zero-to-hero rags-to-riches version needs the game master to significantly tinker the odds in the player characters' favor, it isn't simply a result of the characters being competent.

[Satinavian]

For other things: the hypercompetence argument is silly. Competence in some narrow task that most people don't want to do does not have to translate to general economic viability. We see this in real life with former soldiers, sailors and professional athletes; in some game systems, it's outright mechanically enforced. For example, a D&D 3.5 Fighter, optimized for fighting, can be average or below average in every mundane life skill (average or below average Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma, no skill ranks in Craft, Profession, Appraise, Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, Gather Information...). This means that they need a loyal ally or retainer to keep their finances; in absence of such ally, if they can't fight, kill, bully and threaten their way to riches, they'll end up just another thug on the run from the law.That might be somewhat true if you explicitely take the one class that has been ridiculed for decades for being useless out of combat. But even the hapless generic D&D fighter is more competent than all the NPC warrier guards and should easily be able to take their place. And even without that, he would at least be able to put his superior physique to any of all the physical labor jobs.
Of course most of the other classes can do way more. Which is not particularly unexpected. Because "Adventuring" is not a narrow task considering how varied the obstacles and solutions are. Only with a broad viarity of skills those are solvable. And a group able to maneuver them should easily be able to pass the much easier challenges of daily life.

I have seen that play out multiple times. Groups doing ****ty jobs for little gain, being held in constant powerty only for the players to realize that if their characters would just retire, they instantly could afford a way better life. The groups medic being able treat life threatening injuires ? That is basically one of the iconic well paying fields. The pseudo-medieval academic wizard guy ? Even without any magic he could easily make it at scribe or clerk. The tinkerer being able to produce adventure ready gear even without proper tools and materials ? What could she do with them. The outdoortsy guy that can supply the whole group in any kind of wilderness ? Would obviously be totally self sufficient. Even the master thief could probably make way more with less risk by just targeting wealthy normal people. And none of that does even touch any special/rare powers the PCs might additionally have over the random NPC.

There can be some hurdles placed with regulations or discrimination but those can be overcome as well. If the tinkerer needs trade guild approval, they can work for some years at someone elses workshop like every normal Journeyman.


This is especially applicable to low level characters, who often aren't all that competent in their respective game systems and whether they live or die is largely up to random chance.
And that brings us back to incompetence.
Most people don't want to play incompetent characters who might only succeed by random chance.


The zero-to-hero rags-to-riches version needs the game master to significantly tinker the odds in the player characters' favor, it isn't simply a result of the characters being competent.That is another topic. Sure, you could play that way. Or, as GM you could just stop that and instead provide challenges that the PCs can overcome by their own abilities and thus, well, competence. Where i live that is colloquially called the "save-the-cat-from-a-tree" adventures when talking about the often hapless beginner PCs some systems produce.

[King of Nowhere]

And that just doesn't work for the usually quite hypercompetent PCs who somehow are not able to earn as much as the average low skill worker.

On the other hand, it's hard to exploit your amazing monster-slaying, treasure finding skills in the current job market...

"But i'm great at solving problems! I defeated rampaging goblins, rampaging zombies, rampaging trolls, rampaging dragons"
"Sorry, but we can't deal with disgruntled customers by waiving a sword"
"... wait, why not?"

"We need somebody to exterminate the dire rats in the cellar"
"Yes! Finally a job suited to my skills"
"Your resume says you slew dragons. Sorry, but you are too overqualified for this position"

[gatorized]

Training costing thousands of gold to level up. Hirelings, porters, and pack animals for the three week hike through trackless wilderness. Repairing and replacing gear, magical and mundane. Tolls, fees, and extortion from roads, bridges, and guilds. Hiring sages to find information like command words to magic items. Paying bards and criers to advertise for a new henchman. Paying the funeral or resurrection expenses of the previous henchman so you don't take the loyalty hit for having a doubly dangerous work environment. And of course the aforementioned houses, manors, keeps, towers, forts, and ships that used to be at least partially player facing and expected reasons to accrue wealth.

You know, all the stuff from 1970-2000 versions of D&D that got dropped as "unfun" or was made implicitly npc only so as not to require rules for it. All the stuff that resulted in the "too much money" trope of 5e D&D.

Which is good. It was boring and unfun.

[stoutstien]

I really like adventure stories where the heroes are perpetually broke, and have to keep doing adventures just to keep the proverbial lights on. I'm thinking of stuff like Cowboy Bebop, or some of the earlier Witcher stories like The Edge of the World. It's humorous, relatable, and easy setup for why characters keep going on crazy adventures or concocting money-making schemes.

I haven't seen or run many RPGs where this felt like the case, though! In games where the acquisition and spending of wealth is much of a concern at all, successful play tends to result in stored money rapidly outpacing the expense of anything you could spend it on. The better games let you invest it in things like strongholds or crafting systems, but just as often your characters acquire wealth that, if they were sane, would be grounds for retirement.

Honestly, I kinda crave an adventure game where the bills and debt collectors are always on your heels, necessitating dangerous exploits to acquire treasure. That sounds fun to me! I actually tried in one game to have my character drink, gamble, and whore away a fortune won from adventuring, Fafhrd & Grey-Mouser stye, but I couldn't do it!

The biggest and most direct exception I can think of is the latest edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, which is generally not my bag compared to earlier editions, but I like this particular rule. After every adventure, you get the chance to first spend the money on new equipment. Then you get to roll to see how much money your character manages to save. Whatever's left, you lose, with players inventing the exact story of how their character lost all of their money in the interim.

I think some editions of Shadowrun have something like this, but I can't stand playing Shadowrun for more than a session or two due to its mechanics.

Any other RPGs which, either on purpose or just through their implicit economy, tend to result in this? Failing that, any fun stories to tell of campaigns where you were perpetually cash-strapped?

Most cyberpunk systems have it built in. The idea that you have so many different cash funnels it only so much coming in from the jobs you do is a stable of the genre. Usually after you get all your gear to complete the latest mission you find yourself with a handful of credits/coins so you take on a new one.
Eventually, if you survive, you get ahead but then you are looking at the major purchases and maintenance overhead that is less about your cash in hand but your overall "buying" power. Running a spy ring to keep info flowing is much more complex than just forking out some paychecks.

[Vahnavoi]

That might be somewhat true if you explicitely take the one class that has been ridiculed for decades for being useless out of combat.

Every class in 3.5 has limited skill selection and a player can botch their picks either by accident or on purpose, fighter is just the most prominent example. For other games, nearly all point buy systems share this trait. This means some characters can be shown from their construction to only excell in particular dangerous occupations and struggle in mundane life, from which follows that the premise of being a bunch a broke murderhobos can be implemented with no contradictions to it.


But even the hapless generic D&D fighter is more competent than all the NPC warrier guards and should easily be able to take their place.

Irrelevant objection; it's not given the NPC guard has a safer or more wealthy position. Getting the spot as overworked and underpaid bouncer of Flying Pig tavern is not winning at life.


And even without that, he would at least be able to put his superior physique to any of all the physical labor jobs.

Doesn't mean he will get the pay he deserves for it, since he still counts as untrained labor for most such tasks and can be cheated out of compensation by more skilled characters. Again, we can often predict this from the very construction of a character. The appeal of adventure doesn't require absolute lack of other options, it only needs to beat appeal of being, say, overworked and underpaid farmhand.


Of course most of the other classes can do way more. Which is not particularly unexpected. Because "Adventuring" is not a narrow task considering how varied the obstacles and solutions are. Only with a broad viarity of skills those are solvable. And a group able to maneuver them should easily be able to pass the much easier challenges of daily life.

It's not "most other classes", since the construction isn't limited to one class or even class-based games. It's most other characters, but those don't have to be the characters in play.

That is why the hypercompetence argument is hollow. There is no reason to posit characters who are poor in spite of their traits, when it's possible to make characters who are poor because of them.


And that brings us back to incompetence.
Most people don't want to play incompetent characters who might only succeed by random chance.

Citation needed. Games of chance are among the oldest and most popular games and tabletop roleplaying game design is no stranger to dice-based LOL random gameplay.

That's not the main point, though. The actual point is that people significantly overstate the degree to which game engines guarantee character prosperity or success, when in fact there is in fact significant leeway to downtune both. Regardless of how many players want to play a random game or a struggle against poverty, for those who do want such a game, doing so is relatively simple.


That is another topic. Sure, you could play that way. Or, as GM you could just stop that and instead provide challenges that the PCs can overcome by their own abilities and thus, well, competence. Where i live that is colloquially called the "save-the-cat-from-a-tree" adventures when talking about the often hapless beginner PCs some systems produce.

It's not another topic. As I noted in my first reply to this thread, I've achieved what Catullus64 wants by accident in LotFP simply by forgetting to place fungible treasures on my players' way. The end result is that the most competent play still doesn't lead to massive gains in power or wealth.

It's easy to avoid saving cats or fighting rats in sewers and still achieve what I'm talking about; having a 50/50 chance against enemy troops or eldritch abominations achieves the exact same flattening of the curve despite being aesthetically different. And aesthetics matter, because humans aren't all that great at distinquishing competence from random success. Defeating spawn of Yog-Sothoth feels more like an achievement than beating a giant rat, even if mechanically odds were the same, skill had exactly as little an effect in both cases, and no wealth was gaines in either case.

[Satinavian]

Getting the spot as overworked and underpaid bouncer of Flying Pig tavern is not winning at life.It's steady income and drunken rowdies are less dangerous than monsters. Beats the everbroke adventure all the time. As does the farmhand. They may all be low paying jobs without prestige but they are safe and can sustain a lifelyhood.
And again, most PCs can do better. But rarely worse : A PC who can't do untrained physical labor probably can't do much adventuring either.

Citation needed. Games of chance are among the oldest and most popular games and tabletop roleplaying game design is no stranger to dice-based LOL random gameplay.Gamblers exist. But most people are in fact not gamblers.

That's not the main point, though. The actual point is that people significantly overstate the degree to which game engines guarantee character prosperity or success, when in fact there is in fact significant leeway to downtune both. Regardless of how many players want to play a random game or a struggle against poverty, for those who do want such a game, doing so is relatively simple.Oh, sure, if you really want, many systems do allow you to build a character that is more like a trained attack dog than a person, doing combat and nothing else. Especially the freer, point buy based ones.
But that is rarely the kind of character anyone actually brings to the table. Instead PCs overwhelmingly tend to be at least somewhat idealized and/or relatable. And not bad at life and helpless in society. Especially not the whole group.

So to paraphrase :

I said "This doesn't make any sense for typical PCs"
and you answer boils down to " You are wrong. If you specifically build your PCs for it, it works."

But that is not actually a contradiction. Of course you can build weird theme groups for whatever.

It's easy to avoid saving cats or fighting rats in sewers and still achieve what I'm talking about; having a 50/50 chance against enemy troops or eldritch abominations achieves the exact same flattening of the curve despite being aesthetically different. And aesthetics matter, because humans aren't all that great at distinquishing competence from random success. Defeating spawn of Yog-Sothoth feels more like an achievement than beating a giant rat, even if mechanically odds were the same, skill had exactly as little an effect in both cases, and no wealth was gaines in either case.Yes, aesthetics matter. Achieving something by yourself feels way more rewarding than just getting a lucky break.

Additionally most PCs i have ever seen are not even remotely that suicidal. If it looks like 50:50 they just don't attempt it, if failure has heavy consequences. Unless they have very special motivation.

[icefractal]

Solving a real-world problem with a fantastical solution is pretty appealing as a story idea. It's okay if that's not your cup of tea but it's not exactly outlandish in terms of wish-fulfillment.See I'm down with this, but I wouldn't consider it to be "solving" anything if you're broke again by next week.

A one-shot where the PCs risk their lives to get out of the poverty-trap they're in? Sure, sounds fun. It could even be a mid-length campaign by increasing the scope: You're subsistence farmers who risk it all for great riches. And then if you succeed, things are great, you won't have to work for years. Except ... you still can't afford some things you'd like, and wouldn't it be better if your family and friends were also set for life? So you go on an even more dangerous adventure, and if you succeed *there*, you're really set. Except ... now that you compare your new standard of living to the rest of the village, it's apparent how bad the latter is. But improving the lives of the entire village will take a *lot* of gold, several adventures worth. And if you succeed at *that* ... then you really are done. Enjoy your well-earned retirement, or go on further adventures for reasons other than gold.

But characters who can't ever catch a break, who strive and struggle and risk their lives, just to find they're effectively running in place? Not generally my cup of tea, I find it depressing more than enjoyable. I don't demand success, but I want my choices to be "success or failure (which could mean death)", not "status quo or failure".

That's more the case for things the characters choose to do. If you're travelling through the forest and get unexpectedly attacked by a bear, you don't expect to come out of the situation *better* in any way - merely surviving without serious injury is victory enough. But if you delved into the known-to-be-dangerous forest for riches and all you got was your own survival, that's not really a win - you could have just stayed home instead.

Separately, I'm down with games where the characters just don't care about money, so they're often broke because they don't bother to try for any until the point they really need it. I played a Fist of the Forest once who basically didn't "get" money and would just sleep outside if nobody else arranged a room, and that was fun. But that seems like a different situation than the OP is talking about.

[Pex]

I don't, and I'll leave it at that.

[Anymage]

That is why the hypercompetence argument is hollow. There is no reason to posit characters who are poor in spite of their traits, when it's possible to make characters who are poor because of them.

First, that falls apart if characters are built towards different ends. Thus requiring active buy in from the players if you don't want a high risk of someone throwing your plans off.

Second, that's very contingent on the gap between normal competence and hypercompetence. If the character is on the shortlist of people the king would call up in the case of rampaging dragon or similar catastrophic event, a smart ruler would want to keep them on retainer just because that's cheaper than maintaining the battalion that would otherwise have to be kept ready. And unless the character embraces the murderhobo life to it's most chaotic and odious extremes, they're likely very attractive as bodyguards to help handle other adventurer class threats even if the whole of their skillset is hitting things really hard.

None of that's to say you can't pitch a game of Blades in the Dark and find players who are looking for exactly that. Just that you're smarter being upfront so the players and rules are working towards your ends instead of having to work against either.

[Telok]

Which is good. It was boring and unfun.

Your opinion. We liked it when we were playing AD&D. And I responding to a post about how someone couldn't imagine mechanics to extract rapidly increasing wealth from the PCs without "killing the spirit of the game". Its simply that there were such structures and they were part of the spirit of the game. Removing the money sinks without removing the wealth accrual has led to systemic complaints across the last several editions.

[NichG]

I guess another way to do it setting-wise would be to have it be very resource intensive to be your own boss in any form, unless you have some particular hereditary privilege. So most people in the setting effectively choose what amounts to indentured servitude - they can make day-to-day decisions for themselves but if their liege lord says 'I need you over here' or 'I don't need any more blacksmiths, become a fisherman' or even like 'I'm conscripting the lot of you to avenge an insult that a neighboring baron made to me' or whatever then they wouldn't really be able to say no. For those who go that route though, their actual need for coin might be largely reduced - the tax they pay to their liege lord is in goods, that tax covers their land and dwelling, etc. Whereas those who want to legitimately be able to say 'no, I'm going to travel where I want' or 'no, I'm going to do what I want' and actually make it stick without being nobility would need to source those things with coin from people who are probably only selling them as cheaply to nobles as they are due to the power imbalance. So the cost of living associated with not being a slave or sworn soldier or whatever while not being a noble would be 5x or 10x what other people in the setting have to source.

So basically you'd have to be hypercompetent to keep up that lifestyle at least while existing within civilized lands. Adventurers could still go survivalist out on the frontier or in dangerous wilds, and probably that would be a major thing for adventurers to do in such a setting. So they're not necessarily struggling to be able to exist, but they wouldn't be wealthy the same way that a mid-level 3.5e PC is expected to have enough money to buy a small kingdom. And if they did need to operate in civilized lands, how to convert personal power into enough money to get things done without drawing so much attention that the local nobility try to trap them into service would be an uptime decision that would have to be made.

[Anymage]

Removing the money sinks without removing the wealth accrual has led to systemic complaints across the last several editions.

Magic item economies work as very effective money sinks. Complaints about christmas trees are a different topic.

Then again, a lot of rules that got glossed over or removed as editions progressed did so because they were often houseruled or ignored in prior editions. There's obviously a lot of room for different tastes in the hobby, but the trend of D&D follows the general player's preferences rather than setting it.

[Mechalich]

Magic item economies work as very effective money sinks. Complaints about christmas trees are a different topic.

The tricky part with the wealth sinks is the 'why does my character bother?' part. Specifically, if the character has enough money to live like a king for the rest of their life, why are they choosing to instead spend all of their money on a minor boost in personal power?

The easier answer is that personal power is essential to grasp some distant reward that is far, far superior to just living in glorious opulence for a few decades. In many martial arts settings, the answer is an easy one: immortality. Even in D&D, if you're character is a wizard, the path to phenomenal cosmic power unlocks the multiverse and ever greater and grander vistas. An Elminster-type adventuring for centuries doesn't generate many questions. By contrast, a Drizzt-type doing the same thing comes off as bizarrely obsessed. In many ways this is just an extended version of class disparity issues though.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Most cyberpunk systems have it built in. The idea that you have so many different cash funnels it only so much coming in from the jobs you do is a stable of the genre. Usually after you get all your gear to complete the latest mission you find yourself with a handful of credits/coins so you take on a new one.
Eventually, if you survive, you get ahead but then you are looking at the major purchases and maintenance overhead that is less about your cash in hand but your overall "buying" power. Running a spy ring to keep info flowing is much more complex than just forking out some paychecks.
This was my thought as well. Life goes on, you keep taking jobs to keep going. The corps keep a thumb on things and you do what you can.

[Nepenthe]

Any other RPGs which, either on purpose or just through their implicit economy, tend to result in this?

Torchbearer. "Adventurer is a dirty word."
People explicitly only choose to adventure when all other avenues have failed them.

You're also very limited in the amount of treasure you can bring out of a dungeon, and downtime quickly becomes expensive.

[Telok]

The tricky part with the wealth sinks is the 'why does my character bother?' part. Specifically, if the character has enough money to live like a king for the rest of their life, why are they choosing to instead spend all of their money on a minor boost in personal power?

That, like much of the rest of the question, are probably mostly specific to D&D. Most other game systems don't involve hauling around a literal wheelbarrow full of coins (rough estimate around 300,000 pennies) for a sword that's 5% sharper.

In general though, wealth is a means to an end. If your purpose is a kill-loot-upgrade so you can kill bigger cycle then there's no problem as long as there's another upgrade to buy. If your purpose is anything else then you need a game with rules, or you homebrew something where you can deal with that 'why bother' thing.

[Grim Portent]

I feel being broke goes hand in hand with lower power games. D&D is power fantasy and other than magic items nothing is worth buying anyway, so low money doesn't really matter.

In something like Dark Heresy being short on cash is the difference between having enough ammo for your good guns to use them whenever things get tricky and having to conserve shots in case something nastier shows up. Vaporising an enemy with a plasma gun is expensive, and if you aren't rich then you genuinely have to think about if it's better to plink away with lasguns so you can save your plasma for an actual boss fight, or use the plasma gun in any challenging fight so you're more likely to even survive to get to the boss fight in the first place. It also helps make melee combat more cost effective than ranged, a power sword is a one off purchase or piece of loot with no upkeep costs, so picking one over a plasma gun or heavy machine gun is a viable choice for reasons beyond mere gimmickery even though it forces you to expose yourself to danger to use.

Low money games tend to be more oriented around the idea that you can run low on tangible supplies, like bombs, food and medkits, rather than more abstract things like getting tired or running low on spell slots, and they can't be replaced by hiding in a broom closet and taking a nap.

[Witty Username]

The tricky part with the wealth sinks is the 'why does my character bother?' part. Specifically, if the character has enough money to live like a king for the rest of their life, why are they choosing to instead spend all of their money on a minor boost in personal power?


This doesn’t need to be a binary choice though,
1st edition and Ad&d had things like becoming lords, nobles, etc. as being part of the high level experience. Heck in 5e, the high level game I am in, we kinda play like that, with a couple of us being either wealthly or well connected enough that we have a pretty embarrassing lifestyle. Powerful magic items are kinda an impusle buy mentality at that point. As for why we adventure, well, we have obligations and such to fill still. Its a Ravnica game so we have our guild buisness to keep us from getting to sedimentary.

[Slipjig]

The easy way to handle this is to just not keep track of wealth in concrete terms. You can simply narrate it in terms of an elevated lifestyle and the PCs becoming local big shots, but that doesn't necessarily convert to large amounts of free cash.

Another way is to make rewards non-monetary. The favor of the Baron might translate into a job or a small stipend, but most monsters (with the exception of dragons) aren't going to be sitting on giant piles of coins.

Magic items have cash value in theory, but most of them will only be of interest to other adventurers. I mean, who is going to drop a bunch of cash on a Cap of Water Breathing or Immovable Rod? For the kind of people who are likely to have a sack of cash lying around, something like Boots of Flying will be a novelty toy.

[RazorChain]

If you want your players broke, then give them something worthwhile to spend their money on.


I've run plenty of games where the PC's were broke. Those tend to be game that aren't D&D or other fantasy heartbreakers.

Most of these games had much more realistic economy and not a "game" economy that breaks all versimilitude. The same games give the PC's opportunity to spend their money and doesn't usually have 5 minutes workday where the PC's walk away with a mountain of gold and magical items.

[Pauly]

Traveller, depending on how it’s run, can be very cash dependent. The default setting is more or less Cowboy Bebop level of needing cash to repay the loan on the ship and cover docking fees and fuel costs.

Cyberpunk and Shadowrun do it through the nature of the setting. The GM can tune the rewards up or down.

Warhammer WFRP is well known for players being rat catchers, hedge wizards and tavern bouncers struggling to scrape together a few copper coins.

Barbarians of Lemuria does by using abstract wealth and having the players go all George Best between adventures (on being asked what happened to his money after his football career was over, George Best said ‘I spent a lot of money on booze, birds, and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.’). In BoL at the end of a campaign the players get to choose one magic item they want and then any excess wealth evaporates.

Call of Cthulhu can do it with optional rules. Although this works better for example using CoC to do film noir plots rather than straight Lovecraftian horror. Flashing Blades iirc can also do it with optional rules.

Some of the James Bondish games such as Top Secret and Spies kind of did it by having the PCs issued equipment by their government and the players having to MacGayver their way if they were under equipped for missions.

[Beelzebub1111]

I would look to Traveller in this case. Having to finance a mortgage on your ship as well as regular maintenance costs, life support, berthing taxes, and fuel costs contributes a lot when it comes to dividing rewards and it forces you to think about what you are spedinding your money on. Can you cut back on maintenance this month to buy that fancy new laser rifle? Are you willing to find a route to your job that only skims gas giants because you are delinquent on your debts and once you do this one job you'll have enough to pay the collectors.


In D&D terms, make your players pay cost of living and taxes on their gains, then watch them try to evade and hide their wealth.

[Satinavian]

I would look to Traveller in this case. Having to finance a mortgage on your ship as well as regular maintenance costs, life support, berthing taxes, and fuel costs contributes a lot when it comes to dividing rewards and it forces you to think about what you are spedinding your money on. Can you cut back on maintenance this month to buy that fancy new laser rifle? Are you willing to find a route to your job that only skims gas giants because you are delinquent on your debts and once you do this one job you'll have enough to pay the collectors.
Even then, if your adventures hardly make enough to support maintain you, you would be better to sell your ship, pay off the debt and settle on some planet. Only when, even debt, maintenance and interest considered, you can afford a better life than that or progress monetarily would you bother with it unless you do it for the adventure, not the money.

It is not that "eternally broke" is a problem or "motivated by money" is a problem. The problem is the combination. If adventuring makes you eternally broke, it is not the thing to do for the money motivated. It becomes something for the thrill seekers, the wannabe heroes and those who can live fine without money.

[Telok]

It is not that "eternally broke" is a problem or "motivated by money" is a problem. The problem is the combination. If adventuring makes you eternally broke, it is not the thing to do for the money motivated. It becomes something for the thrill seekers, the wannabe heroes and those who can live fine without money.

Right, its not a stable situation. You're either adventuring for some other reason and wealth is a means to an end, or you're hoping for a giant payout and limping along until then.

Part of the original Classic Traveller situation was that specific polities had customs or laws that current RL people consider unacceptable. The Imperium had either exploited colonies, impoverished frontier boonies, oppressive or draconian laws, or nasty social stratification and taxes, depending on where and what was going on. The Zhodani were a telepathic caste system mind control utopia. Vagyr had constant interpersonal gang leadership conflicts as their basis for political and social systems. Aslan had a species exclusive caste/clan system with proscribed gender roles. Hivers & K'ree were too alien of societies for PCs to settle in. Dryone were second class citizens (at best) basically everywhere.

Adventuring/free trading kept the PCs theoretically able to make the big score while keeping them out of various unpalatable entanglements and (usually) ahead of various governments. Couldn't escape the bank though. Plus the anti-aging drugs were hecking expensive, so even a "big score" would run out pretty fast unless you ended up controlling a megacorp or something. Even "sell the ship to retire" didn't work in Classic Traveller, the authors though of it and had the morgage & resale values tweaked that you'd basically come out with a double handful of thousands of credits.

None of this is new. Its all been figured out in various ways over the last 50 years. Just because the last 25 years of D&D editions & close knockoffs doesn't implement any of it worth a **** doesn't mean its a inescapable issue in other systems.

[Bohandas]

You could easily have a Toon canpaign built entirely around being chronically unemployed and trying to pay the rent.

Also I think in the default Paranoia setting most of the PCs' equipment is technically owned by the state.

[Easy e]

I have played characters that eschewed money and treasure. That was not what they were there for, and I didn't want to be bothered with tracking it, so they gave it all away, spent it, etc. They just had enough to scrape by. It led to better, more interesting characters, and less inter-party squabbling over stupid resource management.


Now, as a system approach; the easiest way I have seen this done is by simply abstracting money into a "Resource Role" type system. Wealthier characters had a better chance of succeeding when rolling to acquire new resources. So, you decide for you wacky plan to work, you need a car. Then make a resource roll to determine if you could source the car in time for the adventure to happen. This takes into account access to the resource, time to acquire said resource, and the funds to get it all into one simple abstraction.

However, this would not work in a D&D-type system without a lot of work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Money (or lack thereof) really doesn't matter to me much.

On the other hand, being constantly in the "hard-scrabble, never really succeeding at anything" mode sucks. I'm in a game where we're level 9...and just barely had our first unambiguous "we did something that mattered to someone" moment. But it wasn't an unambiguous win--there was a railroaded, inevitable cost. We killed the dragon that attacked the ferry, but the ferry broke. And there really wasn't anything we could do about that. And now even selling the dragon's parts for cash is going to be difficult and we're probably going to get screwed financially.

And that sucks! Sure, adventurers don't have to succeed all the time. And probably shouldn't succeed all the time. But usually failing, often making things worse, by no real fault of our own, or just bouncing off the sides of bigger issues? Yeah, not so much fun.

[Grim Portent]

Money (or lack thereof) really doesn't matter to me much.

On the other hand, being constantly in the "hard-scrabble, never really succeeding at anything" mode sucks. I'm in a game where we're level 9...and just barely had our first unambiguous "we did something that mattered to someone" moment. But it wasn't an unambiguous win--there was a railroaded, inevitable cost. We killed the dragon that attacked the ferry, but the ferry broke. And there really wasn't anything we could do about that. And now even selling the dragon's parts for cash is going to be difficult and we're probably going to get screwed financially.

And that sucks! Sure, adventurers don't have to succeed all the time. And probably shouldn't succeed all the time. But usually failing, often making things worse, by no real fault of our own, or just bouncing off the sides of bigger issues? Yeah, not so much fun.

None of which has much to do with money.

You can be poor and succeed most of the time if the work you do doesn't pay well or possibly even pay at all. A superhero setting for example. Spiderman wins almost every conflict he gets into, but in most of his stories he's still in the 'broke college student with a freelance photographer gig' stage of his life because his victories don't get him any money, the heroics are heroics for the sake of being heroic. A Mutants and Masterminds character can be poor for an entire campaign.

Or WHFRPG/Dark Heresy/Call of Cthulhu where the goal isn't get rich, it's stop [BAD THING] from killing or corrupting people and the main use of money is to facilitate stopping bad things from happening. WHFRPG and Dark Heresy tend to have you become rich eventually, mostly by stripping anything you kill and selling the stuff so you can buy better guns, which eventually ends up with you having no better guns to buy and shelling out on fancy stuff instead.

The WoD games don't track money in any real sense, but the general idea is that unless your character was built to be rich (being rich costs character build resources,) then they're probably poor. Being a vampire or werewolf isn't conducive to earning legitimate wealth.


D&D kind of takes what I call the 'Boring Conan' approach. Conan generally got extremely wealthy at the end of his stories, then blew it all on decadent living as if he'd won the lottery, ran out of money and hit the road because wine and prostitutes aren't cheap. Early D&D changed decadent excess to training to get XP, making the pursuit of wealth a feedback loop to get better at adventuring, then XP was replaced with the magic item treadmill, maintaining the feedback loop, and then when they dropped that (5e) the wealth became wealth for the sake of wealth in a game where money is useless.

[Zalam]

Probably worth considering by contrast the model of "character wealth isn't earned, it's something you spend points to have".

e.g. World of Darkness or Champions type games, where Resources/Wealth is a Background/Perk and being rich is something you do instead of being able to kick more rear end.


If a player wants to be so rich they can write off the third luxury sports car they've crashed thanks to a high speed chase scene as inconsequential, they can - but that's consuming char-gen resources that could have gone towards super-strength or bonuses to-hit or something, and can't be directly turned back into bonuses ("cash" and "connections" aren't the same thing, so if you also want to constantly "have a guy for that" etc. you need to spend even more of your power budget on the "rich" fantasy).


There*, "perpetually broke" is opt-in. Something that might happen because, for example, the entire PC group independently decided they wanted to min-max their magical powers rather than tossing some chargen resources at, well, having Resources.



But can also happen because they enjoy the gameplay. And if they get a big score and want to use that to justify stopping being broke AF - they can, but it'll cost them XP. Or they can just burn through it in some fashion. Going back to being broke Conan-style is fine.

* individual WoD games can have different approaches, but the way I've usually seen it run matches what I wrote.

[Grim Portent]

Rogue Trader does something similar IIRC, you can start with a high party wealth but a weak ship, or a low wealth and a strong ship. Strong ship is obviously better for ship things, like combat or long distance travel, but high wealth makes it easier to acquire cool personal level tech which makes it easier to do Indiana Jones style adventures, or spy stuff, or overthrow a mob boss in a space station. Wealth only rises or falls based on if the GM determines you've made a big score or suffered a major loss, so the choice of 'nuke it from orbit' or 'ALL THE PLASMA CANNONS!' can last for most of the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

None of which has much to do with money.


I fully agree, at least in principle. Which is why my first sentence in what you quoted is there. I'm fine with succeeding a reasonable amount and either

a) not being financially rewarded much
b) being financially rewarded significantly.

My characters are much more motivated by seeing their actions have a meaningful impact than they are by material wealth.

However, in practice, I find that many DMs (and some game styles) conflate the two. You're kept poor because you never really succeed at anything. Succeeding always comes at significant cost--you break your tools, have to spend all your cash, etc. So at the end of the day, if you've made any significant difference, you're usually worse off for having done so. No good (or even significant) deed goes unpunished, so to speak. This is the kind of back-handed "grimdark" (scare-quotes intentional, because you can do grimdark without this) attitude that makes people, to some degree, dislike games designed to keep you poor. Because they've learned to associate that with games that insist that you always lose. Or at best can only win at significant cost.

And then there are systems where not getting sufficient cash/item income actively hampers your ability to function according to system expectations. Where leveling up means the foes (generally) get more fearsome...but a good chunk of your power comes from the items you were supposed to acquire as part of doing the deeds that led to leveling up. So if you don't get the wealth, leveling up is actually a negative relative power change (relative to the monsters/events you're facing). Personally, I don't prefer those systems. But they exist, certainly.

[stoutstien]

I find it's usually as simple as having more stuff you want to buy than you could possibly afford. It doesn't have to be scraping by at all because players like to have cool things.
The issue is that system where there is almost no progression outside the PCs themselves it stands to reason money wouldn't hold that value as that cool stuff is just window dressing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find it's usually as simple as having more stuff you want to buy than you could possibly afford. It doesn't have to be scraping by at all because players like to have cool things.
The issue is that system where there is almost no progression outside the PCs themselves it stands to reason money wouldn't hold that value as that cool stuff is just window dressing.

I find that not all players are motivated solely by "does this give me bigger numbers." Mechanical progression is, in my experience, one of the least-motivating factors. I've had players very motivated by things like buying/building a keep...not because it gave them bonuses, but because it would change the setting and keep their characters' loved ones safe. Or buy a tricked out cart as a mobile base. Or fancy clothes. Or alcohol. Lots and lots of alcohol (looking at you Kuo). All things that affect the narrative, but don't actually have any mechanical effects.

So all you have to do is provide opportunities to spend money for narrative value. Doesn't even need to be "progression", just changes to the events at hand. You can be filthy rich, but if you're miles away from anywhere you can spend it, it means nothing. Similarly, you can be poor but be rewarded with people really liking you and it scratches that itch for a lot of players IMX. But what doesn't work is "ok, you succeeded at this quest, and now everyone hates you and still treats you like dirt and you didn't get any money or items." Or cases where any "wins" don't really change anything. Helplessness, the feeling like you can't actually do anything in the fiction layer, that is utterly demoralizing. And one of the big reasons people (IMX) start turning murder-hobo or start trying outlandish things in an attempt to "break the system/setting."

Sure, for players who track money as a score counter (had a few of them) or who disregard anything that doesn't make numbers go up, another pattern is necessary.

[gbaji]

I do tend to agree that level based systems are trickier to manage this in than non-level systems. There are just too many expected assumptions about what a character should have in terms of gear/access/whatever at given levels to rationalize "perpetually poor" as a condition. Although, I suppose, this could be a relative thing though. You could absolutely provide minimal amounts of actual cash (or tradable/sellable gear) such that the PCs are constantly having to choose between upgrading their armor or weapon, or getting spell A or spell B added to their spellbook, etc. It's doable, but tricky IMO.

Non level games are much easier. You have what you have. You just don't hand out as much treasure. IMO though, the biggest problem here is that at some point, the PCs are going to be taking out foes who *should* have fair amounts of treasure/gear on them. You can counter this by having actual adventure costs stack up. How much does it cost to pay for passage to wherever you are going. How much if you want to stay in an Inn. How much for food or mounts for traveling overland? But yeah, it's always hard to rationalize this as the PCs become significantly powerful and are (presumably) taking out seriously powerful opponents.

Honestly? I usually don't bother. I do somewhat assume that beginning characters may have some financial incentives to adventuring, and they may have to deal with living expenses here and there. But honestly, at a certain point this just becomes tedious for the players. I suppose if you have a table full of player who really do want to play a "manage our finances" style game, then go for it. But for the most part, we assume that PCs are capable enough at "something" to be able to "get by" witth some broadly based living level, based on their past and experience. So yeah, this usually means that less capable/experienced PCs probably do have a day job they work, and that may require some roleplaying to get around. But honestly, at a certain point, some characters will have sufficient funds that they realisticall don't have to work if they don't want to. And we also assume that these characters could certainly retire if they want to, and if they continue adventuring, that it's for other reasons than just money.


So yeah. I guess we do this in my game, but only for somewhat just starting out characters. And a lot of the time, this may actually form part of the hook for an adventure. Some members of the party may be part of the local noble's guards maybe and are sent on a "special mission". Or are working for the local scribe who needs special supplies or something. Or are part of the local thieves guild, or merchnts guild, or whatever. And even highly successful adventurers can choose to do things that may/should connect themselves to the environment. Maybe you own several businesses in town, and become aware of a string of murders occuring at/near them. Or you run a shipping business, and several of your shipments have been pirated. Or you're a powerful mage living in your tower, and you need special supplies for your research or something. There's lots of ways to still rope in wealthy/powerful PCs into adventures if you (and the players) want to.

I'm just not sure if "perpetual poverty" is a goal here. It could absolutely be a phase some (most?) characters may pass through. But I suspect most players will want some kind of reward for their characters at some point, that will move them "upwards" financially in some way. It can absolutely be a gradual process, but it should be there IMO.

[stoutstien]

I find that not all players are motivated solely by "does this give me bigger numbers." Mechanical progression is, in my experience, one of the least-motivating factors. I've had players very motivated by things like buying/building a keep...not because it gave them bonuses, but because it would change the setting and keep their characters' loved ones safe. Or buy a tricked out cart as a mobile base. Or fancy clothes. Or alcohol. Lots and lots of alcohol (looking at you Kuo). All things that affect the narrative, but don't actually have any mechanical effects.

So all you have to do is provide opportunities to spend money for narrative value. Doesn't even need to be "progression", just changes to the events at hand. You can be filthy rich, but if you're miles away from anywhere you can spend it, it means nothing. Similarly, you can be poor but be rewarded with people really liking you and it scratches that itch for a lot of players IMX. But what doesn't work is "ok, you succeeded at this quest, and now everyone hates you and still treats you like dirt and you didn't get any money or items." Or cases where any "wins" don't really change anything. Helplessness, the feeling like you can't actually do anything in the fiction layer, that is utterly demoralizing. And one of the big reasons people (IMX) start turning murder-hobo or start trying outlandish things in an attempt to "break the system/setting."

Sure, for players who track money as a score counter (had a few of them) or who disregard anything that doesn't make numbers go up, another pattern is necessary.

Progression doesn't change to mean numbers increase. It anything progression is stuff that isn't just number inflation because those things don't change the state of the game besides your relative gang of goblins becomes a troop of ogres or whatnot. Those things should be built-in at the class/character level besides maybe 20% left for gear.

Now if the party has to decide to spend money on a fancy ball to woo the favor of the court that decides who gets what quests or spend that money on rebuilding the inn the sorcerer decided to fireball therefore winning the favor of the common working folks that's interesting.

Do you spend money on bribes to shed some unwanted attention from one faction or do you spend that gold equipping their rivals?

If you constantly have the means to "do" everything all the time the there isn't much point in tracking it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Progression doesn't change to mean numbers increase. It anything progression is stuff that isn't just number inflation because those things don't change the state of the game besides your relative gang of goblins becomes a troop of ogres or whatnot. Those things should be built-in at the class/character level besides maybe 20% left for gear.

Now if the party has to decide to spend money on a fancy ball to woo the favor of the court that decides who gets what quests or spend that money on rebuilding the inn the sorcerer decided to fireball therefore winning the favor of the common working folks that's interesting.

Do you spend money on bribes to shed some unwanted attention from one faction or do you spend that gold equipping their rivals?

If you constantly have the means to "do" everything all the time the there isn't much point in tracking it.

My point was that for many of my players, spending money to gain advantages in plot related things is very secondary and often kinda meh. What they want is the ability to change the setting, especially long term. Or just provide color for the narrative as it goes. Things like luxuries (pretty clothes that don't have any impact on anything but at most some inconsequential NPC reactions, pets, alcohol, etc). Things like anonymously supplying an orphanage or being the secret benefactor for a clinic, where there's no benefit other than RP. Those get remembered. The details of how they tactically spent money to gain advantages in the quests? Yeah, utterly forgettable.

[stoutstien]

My point was that for many of my players, spending money to gain advantages in plot related things is very secondary and often kinda of meh. What they want is the ability to change the setting, especially long term. Or just provide color for the narrative as it goes. Things like luxuries (pretty clothes that don't have any impact on anything but at most some inconsequential NPC reactions, pets, alcohol, etc). Things like anonymously supplying an orphanage or being the secret benefactor for a clinic, where there's no benefit other than RP. Those get remembered. The details of how they tactically spent money to gain advantages in the quests? Yeah, utterly forgettable.

I personally like the strategic level of play over the tactics level of at least I like it when strategy actual effects tactics. Spending the gold and space to bring that extra day of freshwater could be pointless or it could get you to the objective a day sooner.

If you think about it, gold is just transferable time.

[Grim Portent]

For me the pro of having to scrimp and save is the feeling of catharsis when you beat an enemy because of that saving, or you manage to beat it without having to dip into your special reserves of money. There's something really satisfying about killing a dangerous enemy in something like DH without having to use the good ammo, or getting a chance to bust out the big guns on a deserving target. It makes the powerful weapons feel special and the dangerous enemies more dangerous.

[Mr Blobby]

Probably worth considering by contrast the model of "character wealth isn't earned, it's something you spend points to have".

e.g. World of Darkness or Champions type games, where Resources/Wealth is a Background/Perk and being rich is something you do instead of being able to kick more rear end.


If a player wants to be so rich they can write off the third luxury sports car they've crashed thanks to a high speed chase scene as inconsequential, they can - but that's consuming char-gen resources that could have gone towards super-strength or bonuses to-hit or something, and can't be directly turned back into bonuses ("cash" and "connections" aren't the same thing, so if you also want to constantly "have a guy for that" etc. you need to spend even more of your power budget on the "rich" fantasy).


There*, "perpetually broke" is opt-in. Something that might happen because, for example, the entire PC group independently decided they wanted to min-max their magical powers rather than tossing some chargen resources at, well, having Resources.



But can also happen because they enjoy the gameplay. And if they get a big score and want to use that to justify stopping being broke AF - they can, but it'll cost them XP. Or they can just burn through it in some fashion. Going back to being broke Conan-style is fine.

* individual WoD games can have different approaches, but the way I've usually seen it run matches what I wrote.

Though 'Resources' in WoD isn't a straight number-figure, more a 'general standard of living'. This means that you can be quite inventive on how it's achieved; from a vampire mooching off their ghoul to a werewolf being given bed/board at the cearn [and all the conventional methods], and you can mix/match too [so L1 for the werewolf is the free bed/board, while L2 is the freelance work she does offscreen etc]. What's more, pretty early on mere 'Muggle Money' becomes relatively worthless - what 'you' want is favours, magical tutoring, grimoires, improved status, that +1 sword etc, and [I]none of this can be bought for cash. Also [depending on the game] you might be trying to by restricted/illegal items so as above, need 'connections' too.


... If you think about it, gold is just transferable time.

This applies very much with WoD. In the modern world, it totally sucks to be penniless. Every task you need to do takes 3x longer and twice as hard. Even something as trivial as 'charging my phone so people can call me' is a task for a homeless person. Now, starting a chronicle where you're basically supernatural street people where part of the first mission is merely finding a dosshouse before dawn and scraping up $20 so the group can in fact, travel to the location in time to ask permission to exist can be fun - but fully expect both players/character to look to up their resources quick just so their adventures can be more... adventurous.

[Mechalich]

What's more, pretty early on mere 'Muggle Money' becomes relatively worthless - what 'you' want is favours, magical tutoring, grimoires, improved status, that +1 sword etc, and [I]none of this can be bought for cash. Also [depending on the game] you might be trying to by restricted/illegal items so as above, need 'connections' too.

I disagree about this part. Money remains exceedingly valuable in the WoD games, because even if money can't buy magic (which is dubious, many a broke wizard has sold their magic sword for a million bucks), money can buy enough power to match magic do to the relatively week nature of magical power in the WoD. Purchasing the services of say, a motorcycle gang, is a far more efficient means of acquiring muscle than putting dots into potence or fortitude.

Now, what the WoD does do is impose a soft cap on how much money a character can have. Resources 5 puts a character in the 1%, but you need resources above that to have real money to play with, and backgrounds above 5 are an optional rule that any GM with experience running the WoD insta-bans.

Truly extreme wealth, which in the modern world means 100 million plus, distorts games, which is why most systems either don't allow characters to have it or simply don't allow characters to use it. The latter is common in video games. The average player in Skyrim, for example, amasses a fortune such that they probably ought to be able to buy the who blasted province outright by the time they're done, but the game doesn't let you purchase any property at all without appeasing the powers that be, and even then, only a little bit.

[Bohandas]

Truly extreme wealth, which in the modern world means 100 million plus, distorts games, which is why most systems either don't allow characters to have it or simply don't allow characters to use it. The latter is common in video games. The average player in Skyrim, for example, amasses a fortune such that they probably ought to be able to buy the who blasted province outright by the time they're done, but the game doesn't let you purchase any property at all without appeasing the powers that be, and even then, only a little bit.

Plus by the end of Skyrim you're powerful enough that you could just topple the powers that be if they didn't literally have plot armor.

[Mr Blobby]

I disagree about this part. Money remains exceedingly valuable in the WoD games, because even if money can't buy magic (which is dubious, many a broke wizard has sold their magic sword for a million bucks), money can buy enough power to match magic do to the relatively week nature of magical power in the WoD. Purchasing the services of say, a motorcycle gang, is a far more efficient means of acquiring muscle than putting dots into potence or fortitude.

Now, what the WoD does do is impose a soft cap on how much money a character can have. Resources 5 puts a character in the 1%, but you need resources above that to have real money to play with, and backgrounds above 5 are an optional rule that any GM with experience running the WoD insta-bans.

Truly extreme wealth, which in the modern world means 100 million plus, distorts games, which is why most systems either don't allow characters to have it or simply don't allow characters to use it. The latter is common in video games. The average player in Skyrim, for example, amasses a fortune such that they probably ought to be able to buy the who blasted province outright by the time they're done, but the game doesn't let you purchase any property at all without appeasing the powers that be, and even then, only a little bit.

I did say relatively worthless - as in 'less valuable as us Muggles see it as'. Not only is a lot of the stuff wanted not on open sale [for various reasons] but most supers develop relatively quickly the means to make money and/or get the stuff they need. Vampires can Obfuscate/Dominate/Presence their way to stuff, 'shifters have Rotes and similar while Mages... have a myriad of ways - from Entropy 'winning the lottery' to Matter 'item restoration' [magick can be very powerful if used creatively]. Sure, a vampire with an AmEx Black Card, a ghoul PA on speed-dial and with a fat roll of cash will find a lot of the mundane issues simply 'melt away' but the point is often the key issues of the story won't be mundane. You think you can buy your way out of a Sabbat ambush, a Union hit-squad or a Dancer attack?

That's why most organisations work with alternatives; Camarilla vampires work with favours while Tradition mages operate a 'Tass standard' with a lot of barter thrown in. No, I don't believe 'many a broke wizard sold their sword Wonder for $ million'; most wizards who'd own such a Wonder would normally know at least another method of 'making some cash' [Rotes, offering training, calling in favours, one-shot tasks etc] and the vast majority of those who owned such a Wonder would normally be fairly capable anyway. What's more, your 'broke wizard' would need to find a buyer who a) wanted the sword and b) had that cash floating about. Which works the other way about; if my Mage wanted a sword Wonder, she wouldn't simply be able to go to a shop and buy it. There is no 'magick eBay' to resort to. At best, she could 'work her contacts', let it be known she was interested in getting a sword and hoping that at some point someone [like your wizard] makes contact. She might be waiting months, years, decades depending on how good that sword was .

But let's say your wizard accepted a million dollars. Now what you gonna do with it? Finding stores/sellers willing to accept [I]literal wads of cash for large purchases is gonna be rather hard in advanced countries like the USA or UK [hell, even small purchases are getting harder]. You'll need to lug it about, as you won't be able to put it in the bank [you will trip the laundering/tax evasion wires the banks have] which also precludes anything like electronic transfers. Anything else? Oh, you think the Union won't have access to the records of 'suspicious activities' the banks and tax folk have? In short; like RL criminals, you'll need connections to actually launder that cash so it becomes spendable. Then there is the possible issue that you do not have 'usable' identity papers...

Which is why I said 'relatively worthless'. Like Walter White or any high-level character in TES, it's very possible to end up with collossal piles of cash you cannot spend. You cannot really fob it off on your fellow X's because they will have the same issue [unless they had an ability to launder it, in which I suspect they'd take it at a discount]. Cash which is unspendable is worthless. Which handily, solves beforehand the 'extreme wealth distortions' seen in other games - the 'worth' of buying Resources 4/5 is not that high than another Sphere/Rote/Abilities/Disciplines etc [many of which can get you the stuff cash also can].

[Beelzebub1111]

Even then, if your adventures hardly make enough to support maintain you, you would be better to sell your ship, pay off the debt and settle on some planet. Only when, even debt, maintenance and interest considered, you can afford a better life than that or progress monetarily would you bother with it unless you do it for the adventure, not the money.

It is not that "eternally broke" is a problem or "motivated by money" is a problem. The problem is the combination. If adventuring makes you eternally broke, it is not the thing to do for the money motivated. It becomes something for the thrill seekers, the wannabe heroes and those who can live fine without money.

Well your players are Travellers. If an easy life was the sole motivation, they wouldn't be Travellers. There has to be something that motivates them beyond simple cash, but that's for the players to decide what they need their money for and why they can't simply sit down or become mailmen to make an honest steady living. You have to balance the desire to live more than their means with the cold reality of the cost of the lifestyle. Hoping for the big score to make your investment worth the life-threatening risk and debt you took on.

Your players are the kind of entrepreneurial capitalists that are willing to take on that risk, simply because of the premise of the game. Same with D&D adventuring. You're some mid-ranked aristocrat who is too above the menial labor of the peasantry but too low for the life of luxury and leisure of royalty. You go dungeon crawling for the same reason Rico didn't pick to be a potato peeler or garbage collector or truck driver as his service in Starship Troopers. You crave the flashiness, the adventure. You crave more than your lot in life so you go for it.

But moreover it's not on the GM to provide the motivation, that's for the players to come up with. The GM's job is to provide the circumstances.

[Mechalich]

You think you can buy your way out of a Sabbat ambush, a Union hit-squad or a Dancer attack?

It is absolutely possible to buy your way around the Sabbat or the Dancers - guns kill people and you can hire guys with guns (this is admittedly more difficult in some countries than others). The Union, no, but that's because the Technocratic Union has more money than everyone else put together and automatically wins any conflict in the entire blasted oWoD that the GM decides Control thinks is worth bothering with - the very existence of the setting is predicated on Technocratic prioritization algorithms.


That's why most organisations work with alternatives; Camarilla vampires work with favours while Tradition mages operate a 'Tass standard' with a lot of barter thrown in. No, I don't believe 'many a broke wizard sold their sword Wonder for $ million'; most wizards who'd own such a Wonder would normally know at least another method of 'making some cash' [Rotes, offering training, calling in favours, one-shot tasks etc] and the vast majority of those who owned such a Wonder would normally be fairly capable anyway. What's more, your 'broke wizard' would need to find a buyer who a) wanted the sword and b) had that cash floating about. Which works the other way about; if my Mage wanted a sword Wonder, she wouldn't simply be able to go to a shop and buy it. There is no 'magick eBay' to resort to. At best, she could 'work her contacts', let it be known she was interested in getting a sword and hoping that at some point someone [like your wizard] makes contact. She might be waiting months, years, decades depending on how good that sword was .

Of course there's no 'magic ebay' but wizards have Telegram, TOR, and other ways of making discrete connections across the internet. Also, since magic swords are broadly useless paradox magnets that the Technocracy doesn't much care about there's lots of reasons for a wizard who acquires one (perhaps inherited from some 14th century ancestor) would try to turn them into something else. And it's not necessary to pay cash. It's not that hard to wire transfer a million dollars for a 'priceless antique' - this is only quasi-legal, but antiquities laws are very poorly enforced (there's a fun anecdote about Nic Cage and a dinosaur skull that's very relevant here).


But let's say your wizard accepted a million dollars. Now what you gonna do with it? Finding stores/sellers willing to accept [I]literal wads of cash for large purchases is gonna be rather hard in advanced countries like the USA or UK [hell, even small purchases are getting harder]. You'll need to lug it about, as you won't be able to put it in the bank [you will trip the laundering/tax evasion wires the banks have] which also precludes anything like electronic transfers. Anything else? Oh, you think the Union won't have access to the records of 'suspicious activities' the banks and tax folk have? In short; like RL criminals, you'll need connections to actually launder that cash so it becomes spendable. Then there is the possible issue that you do not have 'usable' identity papers...

While truly large amounts of cash are indeed physically cumbersome, a million bucks isn't a truly large amount of cash and fits quite nicely inside a briefcase (for reference, 10k in cash occupies a roughly smartphone-sized envelop if the bills are clean). Nor is it a sufficient amount to truly require laundering. You just need to spread it around to a couple of dozen different banks and slow add in the rest around a bit at a time, then use it to buy property in cash.


Which is why I said 'relatively worthless'. Like Walter White or any high-level character in TES, it's very possible to end up with collossal piles of cash you cannot spend. You cannot really fob it off on your fellow X's because they will have the same issue [unless they had an ability to launder it, in which I suspect they'd take it at a discount]. Cash which is unspendable is worthless. Which handily, solves beforehand the 'extreme wealth distortions' seen in other games - the 'worth' of buying Resources 4/5 is not that high than another Sphere/Rote/Abilities/Disciplines etc [many of which can get you the stuff cash also can].

Yes it is possible to have giant piles of cash you can't spend, but the Resources background isn't measured in cash, nor does Resources 5 represent extreme wealth. A character with Resources 5 is a steady member of the 1%, meaning they make about as much as partner at a major law firm or a mid-level executive at a mid-sized corporation. Extreme wealth is represented by backgrounds above five, and really starts to his around Resources 7, which is the billionaire mark. That kind of wealth absolutely does create distortions if granted to a PC, even though a number of NPCs - mostly vampire elders and high ranking technocrats (and probably some nephandi) - would have that level.

[Mr Blobby]

It is absolutely possible to buy your way around the Sabbat or the Dancers - guns kill people and you can hire guys with guns (this is admittedly more difficult in some countries than others). The Union, no, but that's because the Technocratic Union has more money than everyone else put together and automatically wins any conflict in the entire blasted oWoD that the GM decides Control thinks is worth bothering with - the very existence of the setting is predicated on Technocratic prioritization algorithms.

Technically yes, you can pay for your own army of security and constantly ride about in an armoured car - but I don't see any GM allowing this. Hell, why don't we cut out the middleman - have your PC sitting in an armoured fortress far away, interacting with the mission via a Zoom screen on wheels?


Of course there's no 'magic ebay' but wizards have Telegram, TOR, and other ways of making discrete connections across the internet. Also, since magic swords are broadly useless paradox magnets that the Technocracy doesn't much care about there's lots of reasons for a wizard who acquires one (perhaps inherited from some 14th century ancestor) would try to turn them into something else.

These are 'small world networks', best represented by 'Backgound: Contacts'. perhaps using others like Persuasion, Status, Streetwise, Computers, Finance etc. Ie not cash alone - and unreliable and takes time. What's more, some of your contacts will not be interested in mere money - classic example, the Nosferatu.


And it's not necessary to pay cash. It's not that hard to wire transfer a million dollars for a 'priceless antique' - this is only quasi-legal, but antiquities laws are very poorly enforced (there's a fun anecdote about Nic Cage and a dinosaur skull that's very relevant here).

Mr Google tells me the IRS would like to hear about that sale. Your seller may not have a legal account which can handle such transations and/or doesn't want to leave a money-trail. Your bank may get paranoid about how come you don't have a 'normal job' but have these huge transations. Again; you need a fully-functioning legal persona which isn't on any Union watch list and is okay seeing large six/seven figure sums going in or out. That's a lot of 'ifs'.


While truly large amounts of cash are indeed physically cumbersome, a million bucks isn't a truly large amount of cash and fits quite nicely inside a briefcase (for reference, 10k in cash occupies a roughly smartphone-sized envelop if the bills are clean). Nor is it a sufficient amount to truly require laundering. You just need to spread it around to a couple of dozen different banks and slow add in the rest around a bit at a time, then use it to buy property in cash.

Does your wizard have sufficient ID /addresses for this? In a manner which doesn't alert pesky others? I've found it difficult to get stuff like bank accounts even when I'm utterly legit. And what you describe is basically is 'self-laundering', which is gonna prove a massive pain in the ass to do. And you're missing the main point; most supers develop the means to raise their own cash / get what they need without having to resort to wandering about self-laundering mounds of cash [and you will lose value doing so]. In this case, my mage would be more likely to teach your wizard a trick or two on how to get a bit of cash as/when needed [Entropy 'luck-fixing' so you win scratchards and horse betting?] rather than a pile of cash for your sword-Wonder. Hell, my mage really likes that sword, and will give a low-level 'psychic paper' ID Wonder too to help on their future wanderings.

What your wizard want now? The means to fish forever or just a big sack of fish?


Yes it is possible to have giant piles of cash you can't spend, but the Resources background isn't measured in cash, nor does Resources 5 represent extreme wealth. A character with Resources 5 is a steady member of the 1%, meaning they make about as much as partner at a major law firm or a mid-level executive at a mid-sized corporation. Extreme wealth is represented by backgrounds above five, and really starts to his around Resources 7, which is the billionaire mark. That kind of wealth absolutely does create distortions if granted to a PC, even though a number of NPCs - mostly vampire elders and high ranking technocrats (and probably some nephandi) - would have that level.

Well, YMWV territory here, not helped by inconsistances in books. Some rank Resources 0 as simply 'minimum-wage, no extra money to splurge' while others have them literally, 'street people' territory. Dots over five are also purely optional and I've never seen them used by a PC. You also miss my point again, which was simply 'conventional wealth is a lot less useful to supers than Muggles'. I didn't say it was of no use at all - just they live in worlds where cash cannot buy you quite a lot of things. That in fact, conventional wealth is less safe too as it can be so easily stripped from you.

[Ionathus]

Training costing thousands of gold to level up. Hirelings, porters, and pack animals for the three week hike through trackless wilderness. Repairing and replacing gear, magical and mundane. Tolls, fees, and extortion from roads, bridges, and guilds. Hiring sages to find information like command words to magic items. Paying bards and criers to advertise for a new henchman. Paying the funeral or resurrection expenses of the previous henchman so you don't take the loyalty hit for having a doubly dangerous work environment. And of course the aforementioned houses, manors, keeps, towers, forts, and ships that used to be at least partially player facing and expected reasons to accrue wealth.

You know, all the stuff from 1970-2000 versions of D&D that got dropped as "unfun" or was made implicitly npc only so as not to require rules for it. All the stuff that resulted in the "too much money" trope of 5e D&D.

These are all just gold sinks, which doesn't change my point. If you want to keep your players poor, choosing a game system that naturally grants them a ton of wealth as they play and then inventing (or adding from older editions) reasons to snatch it back from them feels overly complicated, when you could just play a different game that doesn't assume constant wealth gain.

And on its own, "older editions did it" isn't a very strong argument for me either. Old things aren't automatically worse, but they also aren't automatically better either, and I think there's a reason these specific mechanics faded into the background: because only a small core of players actually want to play Fantasy Sim City, and most of the modern playerbase would rather be spending their game time exploring and fighting and roleplaying quests instead of revising the team budget for the 10th time and making sure all the packhorse horseshoe polishing staff get their 3cp for the week or whatever. Insert gripes about the modern playerbase and "kids these days" here :D


The catch is that you have a relatively straightforward problem (I want money), and if you have superpowers it's relatively easy to gather money. Not even by turning to supervillain heists; Homelander makes way more money through licensing deals than he ever could knocking over banks. This provides implicit caps on how powerful PCs can get and the sorts of adventure rewards they can find, which might or might not vibe with what the players are looking for.

You can handwave it with money sinks, which might even include going on the occasional treasure run in order to fund their overall adventuring hobby. This is something that the players will have to expressly sign up for, since it falls apart the instant that a PC decides that it isn't worth their while to go on adventures that don't pay well enough.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or if you think we disagree. But I agree with the core of what you said -- most superpowered-games or D&D-style power fantasies are going to have wealth accrual as a natural consequence. It's hard to give someone superpowers and not have them get rich off it (or at least maintain a comfortable living).

I think there is a way to do it, if you've got buy-in from the players and everyone's willing to either tweak the rules to the point of breaking or pick a very specific type of game (again, I do think Monster of the Week does this pretty well, though only certain characters there are supernatural and you'd still need to tweak/intentionally avoid certain progression options. But the base progression moves away from "more powerful/richer" and skews towards "more versatile/scrappy" as you level up)

[Satinavian]

because only a small core of players actually want to play Fantasy Sim CityOh, there are a lot of players out there who love playing Fantasy Sim City.
Unfortunately that old-school approach is not particularly good for it either with its utterly borked economy, barebone rules for any activities not related to dungeon delving and very short and cheap PC lifes.

[Mr Blobby]

These are all just gold sinks, which doesn't change my point. If you want to keep your players poor, choosing a game system that naturally grants them a ton of wealth as they play and then inventing (or adding from older editions) reasons to snatch it back from them feels overly complicated, when you could just play a different game that doesn't assume constant wealth gain...

Or simply dial down the amount of 'gold' found/available for trading. Explain that the world is relatively 'cash-poor' and even relatively wealthy folks [barons etc] might have most of said wealth locked into 'stuff' [land, the castle, furniture, weapons etc] which is not easy to sell, while only a very few merchants have enough cash on-hand to take the latest dungeon-haul [and even then only occasionally]. Get the players to more used to getting 'paid' partly through future favours, titles, cool items, special training, land etc than piles of gold [which aren't that portable anyway; I mean how does my Orc on Oblivion lug around her 4m septims?]

[LibraryOgre]

Truly extreme wealth, which in the modern world means 100 million plus, distorts games, which is why most systems either don't allow characters to have it or simply don't allow characters to use it. The latter is common in video games. The average player in Skyrim, for example, amasses a fortune such that they probably ought to be able to buy the who blasted province outright by the time they're done, but the game doesn't let you purchase any property at all without appeasing the powers that be, and even then, only a little bit.

I'd note that the first edition of VtM is from 91, and, while I can't check books I don't have, I'd be surprised if the Resource 5 number has changed substantially... 2.5 million still isn't "Do anything" money, but I tend to peg 3 million as my "retire forever" number.

I mean, in 1992, $1,000,000 was a pretty impressive number for most people. (https://youtu.be/okjXSWbJvZ8?si=e2veY1RlVd8d8sfj)

[Mr Blobby]

Plus, the 'value' of 1991 $1m is between $2.2 and $3m now, depending on which measure you use.

But to some extent I can check the books, and they have changed - not only over editions, but between game lines too. I think it was around 4th where the writers quit giving actual numbers and more a general description of the 'rung' so individual GMs could then work it out to suit their location/time; for example I would do the UK 2023 as;

One ['working class'] - Income £20k, assets of £5k
Two ['lower middle class'] - Income £35k, assets of £20k
Three ['middle class'] - Income £60k, assets of £500k
Four ['upper-middle class'] Income £100k, assets of £2m
Five ['The 1%'] Income £200k, assets of £10m.

The books also talk about stuff like 'where' your income comes from; for example whether it's from employment, a business, trust fund, investments etc. I've known GM's 'clip' some dots off due to the situation the PC has found themselves in [overspent, IRS audit, couldn't work for a duration etc] or the fact a lot of their SoL is not based on actual current cash wealth [good RL example being a retired person who still has lots of 'good stuff' left from their working days like bespoke suits, nice car, house etc but no longer have the cash income to buy new good stuff].

[sktarq]

Yes it is possible to have giant piles of cash you can't spend, but the Resources background isn't measured in cash, nor does Resources 5 represent extreme wealth. A character with Resources 5 is a steady member of the 1%, meaning they make about as much as partner at a major law firm or a mid-level executive at a mid-sized corporation. Extreme wealth is represented by backgrounds above five, and really starts to his around Resources 7, which is the billionaire mark. That kind of wealth absolutely does create distortions if granted to a PC, even though a number of NPCs - mostly vampire elders and high ranking technocrats (and probably some nephandi) - would have that level.

Interestingly Resources is one of the few things that rules ever appeared for >5 dots (also Influence) in the Damnation City splatbook for those who are looking to play that type of game and how basically other major centres of power/influence/money etc could/would spend to block actions by each other.

[Telok]

Oh, there are a lot of players out there who love playing Fantasy Sim City.
Unfortunately that old-school approach is not particularly good for it either with its utterly borked economy, barebone rules for any activities not related to dungeon delving and very short and cheap PC lifes.

True, a touch hyperbolic, but broadly true. The issue presented was having trouble keeping or having PCs feel relatively poor in a game and keeping the game functioning. A problem that's relevant to modern D&D of the last 15-20 years, but not to many other game systems even going back to the early 80s.

The thing about the old eds of D&D was they were designed with money sinks. Well designed? Debatable. But they were there, intentional, and treasure vs costs was considered in the design. The gradual removal of the money sinks from D&D without a similar reduction in treasure amounts is what leads to people thinking this a problem. If there's lack of clear guidance and effective 1st party options about it then most DMs won't have a solution and it spawns threads like this.

Most D&D players don't go much beyond the PH, DMG, and monsters/adventures. Most don't use obscure or undeveloped subsystems. The last D&D game I was in a party that hired npcs or went in for building & owning stuff was in the early 2000s in AD&D when that sort of stuff was mentioned in the PH and had actual rules & numbers in the DMG. But for the last 20 years every D&D character I've played over 5th level was wallowing in spare gold.

Honestly I think its mostly been a trend of the WotC design teams to remove stuff decried as "unfun" from the core rules without any examination of why such rules existed in the first place. So hirelings & domains & money sinks were removed for being "unfun", yet nothing replaced them and the treasure amounts weren't reduced to match. So we see threads like this and answers of "other systems generally handle it all right and D&D used to at least try to handle it".

Want solutions? We got them. Wealth stats, money sinks, Conan style ale & prostitutes, low base treasure amounts, genre shifts, thr game not requiring PCs to need magic items worth literal wheelbarrows full of gold, etc., etc. Put them in the D&D PH & DMG to solve D&Ds problem with it.

[Satinavian]

Honestly I think its mostly been a trend of the WotC design teams to remove stuff decried as "unfun" from the core rules without any examination of why such rules existed in the first place. So hirelings & domains & money sinks were removed for being "unfun", yet nothing replaced them and the treasure amounts weren't reduced to match. So we see threads like this and answers of "other systems generally handle it all right and D&D used to at least try to handle it".I am pretty sure the idea of 3.xs money sink was the magimart. It is basically the first ediction where all magic items have list prices, magic bonuses of various kinds are taken for granted for balancing and monster loot is carefully calibrated to give you just a little bit more than you need to buy the expected equipment.
It is not a system that i would call "without money sink". Of course that magical stuff costs so much more than everything else just to make sure that PCs can't go much over WBL by selling everything mundane not nailed down has the side effect that they are stupidly rich whenever they don't waste all their money to make numbers go a bit higher.

Now 5th on the other had got rid of the magimart. And suddenly there is no money sink anymore. Who could have guessed.

But honestly :
- hirelings are widely disliked by DMs for the action economy consequences and for the swingyness in the parties power based on their presence or absense
- domains tie the party down. And require the DM to craft their own adventures instead of just buying/downloading random modules. Many don't want that
- ale & prostitutes don't work for most character concepts
- Wealth stats in most systems are there to get rid of the bookkeeping for minor stuff, making money less relevant, or are tied to other mechanisms of the same abstraction layer

All of these work in the right circumstances but i do see why none of them have enough support to go into the DMG

[Ionathus]

I don't think "5e's rules for wealth management are underbaked" is the same thing as "5e has a wealth management problem."

Sure, money is sort of vestigial in 5e, but that doesn't matter to many 5e players, because the core gameplay of "kill enemies, get their cool stuff, use it to kill stronger enemies" is still perfectly functional. Fiddling about with money isn't needed because there are so many fewer assumptions about wealth-by-level as opposed to other editions. It's okay for "what do I do with my money" to be kind of an open question, something that the players and DM figure out together instead of having endless rules for.

Of course there are tradeoffs to that approach (like magic item costs being up to DM whims) and those tradeoffs affect the playstyle, but it doesn't break the game. I think in many ways, it does exactly what 5e was meant to do: flatten the math, mitigate the analysis paralysis, get back to rolling the dice and killing the monsters.

[icefractal]

But let's say your wizard accepted a million dollars. Now what you gonna do with it? Finding stores/sellers willing to accept literal wads of cash for large purchases is gonna be rather hard in advanced countries like the USA or UK [hell, even small purchases are getting harder]. You'll need to lug it about, as you won't be able to put it in the bank [you will trip the laundering/tax evasion wires the banks have] which also precludes anything like electronic transfers. Anything else? Oh, you think the Union won't have access to the records of 'suspicious activities' the banks and tax folk have? In short; like RL criminals, you'll need connections to actually launder that cash so it becomes spendable. Then there is the possible issue that you do not have 'usable' identity papers...Is this for Resources or for cash that you just got by whatever magic methods? Because in Mage (either one, really), the only thing that makes Resources worthwhile to spend points on is assuming that it represents legitimate wealth which is weirdly durable to Union / Seer interference (or that you get the dots refunded when they freeze your assets).

Just "a big pile of cash"? Yeah, most of the Spheres can get you that fairly easily. Or skip the middle-man and just directly get the things you were going to spend the cash on. But it can sometimes be convenient to have legit bank accounts that you can use without any criminal/spy protocols required.

But in those games, I wouldn't worry about Resources being overpowered, the reverse is more likely to be a problem.

[Mr Blobby]

In pure sheet logistics, you're basically swapping 'Wonder' for 'Resources', which would be completely down to the GM to decide... personally, I'd be okay with doing this XP-free, though I think you'd lose some dots in translation.

Anyway, you're pointed out the obvious; that if you're a super [of any type] in the advanced world, you do need some form of legal 'clean' identity and ideally, some form of legit income so the tax authorities etc simply nod your returns through. Which often means that your 'visible lifestyle' needs to somewhat gel with what the 'official story' which is given - and very few can explain away turning up to your bank with $1m in a briefcase, esp if your account is never that flush. Even using Mind tricks on the manager won't work because it's computer wires you're tripping and they don't control that. What's more, this works the other way; the buyer would also need the above to allow the digital transfer too.

Which is why my alternative of 'Entropy Rote so you win gambling and some 'psychic paper' ID' would be more attractive a trade. You 'earn' your $1,000 a week from various Sphere-assisted hustles which is an eternal Resources: 2 which the Union etc can't really destroy easy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think "5e's rules for wealth management are underbaked" is the same thing as "5e has a wealth management problem."

Sure, money is sort of vestigial in 5e, but that doesn't matter to many 5e players, because the core gameplay of "kill enemies, get their cool stuff, use it to kill stronger enemies" is still perfectly functional. Fiddling about with money isn't needed because there are so many fewer assumptions about wealth-by-level as opposed to other editions. It's okay for "what do I do with my money" to be kind of an open question, something that the players and DM figure out together instead of having endless rules for.

Of course there are tradeoffs to that approach (like magic item costs being up to DM whims) and those tradeoffs affect the playstyle, but it doesn't break the game. I think in many ways, it does exactly what 5e was meant to do: flatten the math, mitigate the analysis paralysis, get back to rolling the dice and killing the monsters.

I agree with this. And I'd dislike having any of the mitigation methods mentioned baked into the PHB. Because that sets expectations that only work for a small percentage of games. Especially adding a domain layer. Of my two current parties, both would be violently allergic to such things. In fact, I can think of one of the last 15 or so that I've had where that would be even mildly interesting to the characters... But mostly in post game after they've retired from adventuring.

Not having a "wealth management minigame" built in is a pro, not a con for me personally. I should be able to care as much or as little about wealth as my character needs, not be forced into only playing greedy characters OR careless ones. In fact, I prefer when wealth is mostly orthogonal to character power. It may buy QoL in fiction, but it shouldn't really determine whether you succeed or fail. Or even really how you succeed/fail.

[Telok]

I am pretty sure the idea of 3.xs money sink was the magimart. It is basically the first ediction where all magic items have list prices,....

But honestly :
- hirelings are widely disliked by DMs for the action economy consequences and for the swingyness in the parties power ....

All of these work in the right circumstances but i do see why none of them have enough support to go into the DMG

Yeah the 3.x D&D magic item stuff was close, but it predicated the game on turning wheelbarrows of money into a sort of "you get to keep playing your character" after a while. And 4e D&D did the same thing but in an even less engaging method. You couldn't easily run a "poor" characters game beyond the low levels. And the 1e values are deceptive as they weren't for PCs buying them, but for the xp value of offloading them. Meh, its water under the bridge.

Hirelings are one thing WotC D&D is ultra super bad at. There's solutions of course, but even they run into issues with D&D scaling when you port them in from other games. Its part of the same issue D&D has with horses. And that other stuff, again sure, its not a panacea for all ills not is any one solution applicable to all sorts of D&D games. But by not having any of it and just leaving DMs to figure it out on their own gives us these threads.

And heck, its not like I have this wealth thingy issue with D&D. But I didn't have artificers, half-races, no-skill fighters, or +1 swords in the D&D games I ran either. That doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be player options or DMG advice for those things or that they're wrong for wanting stuff that's perfectly appropriate for the genres D&D encompasses. That'd just be insulting to the people who keep asking these questions about the game year after year.

[DigoDragon]

Failing that, any fun stories to tell of campaigns where you were perpetually cash-strapped?

I'm in a Fallout style campaign and my wasteland doctor is always throwing his caps at orphanages and the poor. He is usually holding just enough caps to get by, and whenever he completes a job, he ends up donating most of his pay. It's just his nature of being selfless. Plus side, he now has a not-insignificant reputation with nearly every town he's been to and it's getting the notice of some groups, both good and bad.

[Witty Username]

A small thing, but magic items don't need to be involved to get this problem of floundering wealth leading to underperfomance.
Mundane equipment can definitely change the power of a character, armor being the most blatent example.

[icefractal]

I don't think "5e's rules for wealth management are underbaked" is the same thing as "5e has a wealth management problem."

Sure, money is sort of vestigial in 5e, but that doesn't matter to many 5e players, because the core gameplay of "kill enemies, get their cool stuff, use it to kill stronger enemies" is still perfectly functional. Fiddling about with money isn't needed because there are so many fewer assumptions about wealth-by-level as opposed to other editions. It's okay for "what do I do with my money" to be kind of an open question, something that the players and DM figure out together instead of having endless rules for. As long as adventures don't expect me to get strongly motivated by gold or be super-excited about getting it, I'm fine with that. Not that I'm against downtime stuff, but how well it works varies by GM and some character concepts just don't have expensive goals.

[Bohandas]

One of the default Toon adventures that comes with the core rulebook is literally about the characters squatting in a house they don't own

[gatorized]

A small thing, but magic items don't need to be involved to get this problem of floundering wealth leading to underperfomance.
Mundane equipment can definitely change the power of a character, armor being the most blatent example.

Which isn't an issue if players don't have to spend money on mundane items

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Some of my favorite examples for defending the 15 minute adventuring day also work for keeping wealth levels low. My basic thesis is that opportunities to make real money are finite. In 3e terms of there was a button I could push to a CR 1 or 1/2 encounter which would yield 1/13 wbl, I would happily push it everytime I was at full hp while consistently upgrading my mundane and eventually magical gear reducing the risk of death or even taking damage to statistically 0. The DM controls when reasonable challenges that will pay out real rewards are available.

The Town:

The characters are criminals specialized in armored truck robberies. Their fixer takes the majority of the haul, but handles gear and identifies the safest targets. The payouts are still around 10k.

One of the gang members complains about being brought about two weeks after a payout, he lives in a working class apartment so this windfall easily could have covered a couple months of bills while still leaving a a few thousand in fun money.


Watching I was annoyed at the main character who was much better at holding money for not smacking the guy and giving him a couple hundred bucks an telling him notto let this happen again or he's out of the gang. The guy of course ends up doing the bad job and it goes poorly.

My takeaway: Regular windfalls ruined them for normal work even though this left some members of the gang periodically broke and gave them an unimpressive standard of living. Also, challenges appropriate to their skills with good payouts are scarce.

Boondock Saints:

The main characters have a series of escalating battles with criminals. While they do loot their enemies they are limited to the weapons, jewelry, and bill rolls. This is basically just enough to upgrade their gear, pay upkeep, an old reward contacts.

Takeaway: Their rewards are trivial compared to the net worth of the enemies they vanquish.

Kill Bill 1&2:

All of the Vipers seem to be rough equals (with the Bride being a head above) in combat ability despite this there is a huge rift in the success of the Vipers ranging from O-Ren becoming an underworld figure on par with an active Bill to Budd who has difficulty holding a job as a bouncer.

Despite this, Budd comes the closest to killing the Bride. This is likely in part due to her underestimating him due to his humble circumstances.

Takeaway:

Exceptional combat ability is not readily marketable. As in the Town appropriate challenges that pay out worthwhile rewards are scarce.

[Brookshw]

Skimmed the first page and was surprised not to see WFRP mentioned. I raise it as that game specifically calls for you to lose all your monies between adventures (other than a bit of change based on your social station) unless you specifically take steps to save it, which has an opportunity cost.

[Slipjig]

Exceptional combat ability is not readily marketable. As in the Town appropriate challenges that pay out worthwhile rewards are scarce.

This is an important point. There just aren't that many times that people need to hire somone to enact violence. Even if your character is an assassin or enforcer, criminals don't need to murder people all that often. And when they DO, your average robbery or leg-breaking can be easily handled by a low-level character, so there's no reason to spend a bunch of money on a high-level contractor.

[Anymage]

This is an important point. There just aren't that many times that people need to hire somone to enact violence. Even if your character is an assassin or enforcer, criminals don't need to murder people all that often. And when they DO, your average robbery or leg-breaking can be easily handled by a low-level character, so there's no reason to spend a bunch of money on a high-level contractor.

In our world there isn't that wild a difference between a moderately competent thug and an olympic martial artist. Especially when the target of the violence is some noncombatant nobody. In a world with superheroes and superhero scale threats, having supers on your side as local champions and/or personal bodyguards is just a good idea.

[Mechalich]

In our world there isn't that wild a difference between a moderately competent thug and an olympic martial artist.

I mean there is, but only within the confines of circumstances were everyone respects certain rules. Olympic level martial artists, boxers, and other masters of fighting sports can, and do, make quite large amounts of money in their respective sports.

The equalizer is technology. The reality is that there is minimal difference between the ability of someone with a few hours worth of firearms training (which covers most starting law enforcement officers) and the world's best marksman when it comes to killing a human being with a firearm at close (<25 meters) ranges.

Even in history, combatant capability variance increases as one goes back in time. Noble-born champions in many pre-industrial societies were better fed, better trained, better armed, and better armored than peasant militias and in small group scenarios those differences were telling. Such combats were also much more lucrative. Pre-industrial arms and armor were much more valuable than modern ones, in part because all durable goods were massively more valuable in such times, and also because these were valuable items that required expensive materials and labor costs to produce.

[Satinavian]

Exceptional combat ability is not readily marketable.
Depends on the setting. In most pseudo-medieval ones, the ruling classes are martial classes because the power to defend your people and crush your enemies is indeed just that valuable.

But that is not even the point. Even if pure combat ability were not marketable, the sensible job alternatives to adventuring in many cases don't revolve around applying violence. Which is also what makes them so much safer. Among typical adventurer groups for D&D alikes are crafters who could make money doing that scholars using that for the job, priest who could as well just run a parish, wildernes experts who could easily live on their own etc. And that is all without going into extraordinary abilities. And this is not very different in many other settings. If you take a typical Shadowrun group and asked "would those be able to pay a proper life whe they used their abilities for other things than shadowrunning", the answer would often be "yes".

[Mr Blobby]

...Exceptional combat ability is not readily marketable. As in the Town appropriate challenges that pay out worthwhile rewards are scarce.


This is an important point. There just aren't that many times that people need to hire somone to enact violence. Even if your character is an assassin or enforcer, criminals don't need to murder people all that often. And when they DO, your average robbery or leg-breaking can be easily handled by a low-level character, so there's no reason to spend a bunch of money on a high-level contractor.

Which is a point which [kinda] still holds true now - that in most things, the extra rewards for being in say, the top 10% of X skill/trade does not really correlate with the costs of getting to being the top 10% - at least not in anything approaching a 'normal job'. I personally view 'adventuring' to be similar to the setup in RL non-rich sports; the 'downtime job' is something which [modestly] supports the PC off-season and the questing you RP are the 'competitions' which the end payout is somewhere between 'none' [injury ended your attempt] to 'life-changing' ['You are world champion, here's a massive cheque with many zeroes!']. And as Satinavian points out, almost all PCs will have some form of fallback position to earn some living [or not require it], even if it's not at the SoL that lucking out adventuring gives.

[gatorized]

I found a great way to eliminate the 15m day is to not use a system with arbitrary limits on how often you can use your fun abilities

[Kardwill]

If you take a typical Shadowrun group and asked "would those be able to pay a proper life whe they used their abilities for other things than shadowrunning", the answer would often be "yes".

Usually, in most "outcasts trying to get money" stories, getting rich is not the real goal, but a means to that end (For example "living free of corporate rule" for a Shadowrunner, or "escaping the law and settling in a faraway place", or "quickly getting of of my debts with that nasty crimelord", or "finance the rebellion", whatever...) That's the reason those stories make sense (and are more interesting than a simple "need big money" motivation). Because as you say, if living confortably was the sole factor, there are safer and more legal ways to achieve that goal.

For example, take Firefly, a typical story about a gang in a spaceship trying to scrounge a few bucks. Most of the crew and passengers are very highly competent individuals that could probably get a legitimate (and probably confortable, or at least decent) life where they don't get shot at by overzealous cops, crazed reavers and psychotic crimelords. But that's not an option : They're outcasts, weirdoes, outlaws and fugitives that need to get away from the Alliance because they wouldn't fit in the policed Central worlds, nor in the rural Rim backwaters.
Mal and Zoe didn't blow all their savings buying the Serenity because they thought it would get them rich, but because it would allow them to make a living while flying away from the Alliance. The ship is not a way to "make money", it's a way to live free, and earning money is a way to keep flyin'. So earning money is still a strong motivation that fires up several of their adventures, but it's only a means toward an end, which cannot be achieved with a "normal life".
Money gets them in trouble, but their adventures are not about money.

I think the same can be said of Cowboy Beebop, which was used as an example in the first post. The Bebop crew is starved for cash, but cash is mostly a way to feed their lifestyle, and none of the crew would fit in the civilian world. Even Jet Black, the "legitimate, serious, honest guy" of the lot, can't simply sell the ship and settle back in a normal life as security consultant somewhere, because the ship is his way to run away from his old life.

Freedom to live the way you want to (even if it's a self-destructive one) appears to be an important part of this kind of story.

[Satinavian]

Usually, in most "outcasts trying to get money" stories, getting rich is not the real goal, but a means to that end (For example "living free of corporate rule" for a Shadowrunner, or "escaping the law and settling in a faraway place", or "quickly getting of of my debts with that nasty crimelord", or "finance the rebellion", whatever...) That's the reason those stories make sense (and are more interesting than a simple "need big money" motivation). Because as you say, if living confortably was the sole factor, there are safer and more legal ways to achieve that goal.
Well, yes, that is kinda the recurring theme of the thread.

Of course it is easy to find other motivations for the avdenturer lifestyle. It is even assumed/the default for many genres. But :


I really like adventure stories where the heroes are perpetually broke, and have to keep doing adventures just to keep the proverbial lights on.

Some people want specifically
a) everbroke adventurers who
b) are forced to keep adventuring because
c) they need the money. Not to get rich, but just to pay the bills.

And that is a problem. Because this doesn't make sense in most constellations. I have seen many GMs trying to force it and it never worked. It peobably could work if a whole table was actively trying to achieve this esthetics but as soon as people try to play their characters it falls apart when those characters are not specifically created for this theme.

I mean, the basic premise is already that the PCs don't actually like adventuring but have to resort to keep afloat. Of course that also means that as soon as another option is revealed, the PCs should stop if played to character. Which means we need to use long strings of coincidences that block all the other paths popping out all the time and/or make all the PCs particularly inept with money or oblivious to opportunities. But many players like their PCs to be smart.

[Mr Blobby]

More especially, the GM would have to wreck any PC's IC attempts to escape the 'adventuring grind'. This would piss me off as a player not because 'I like my characters to be smart' [sometimes they're distinctly average in brainpower] but it would be repeated, overt railroading. I'm reminded of the game I eventually walked away from when I came to realise that my PCs main goal [one I'd straight-up stated at creation] was never going to be refrenced or even worked towards by the GM [which the PC would have done too, on realising 'this group' wasn't going remotely towards what they wanted to achieve, and thus a waste of their time.]

So... inability of players to find a suitably fuzzy goal for their PC? Lazy GM who can't be arsed to incorperate [however loosely] the PCs goals into their campaign? I'm not sure who's at fault here.

[Easy e]

In Shadowrun, it is not possible for the Runners to get "normal" jobs with their skill sets. They are outside of society. They can not walk into a mega-corp and get hired as they have no System Identification Number (SIN) they are Sinless and therefore outside the system.

If your world is set-up where the characters are always outside of the society they are part of, the always broke set-up can work. See the previous example of Firefly.

[icefractal]

In Shadowrun, it is not possible for the Runners to get "normal" jobs with their skill sets. They are outside of society. They can not walk into a mega-corp and get hired as they have no System Identification Number (SIN) they are Sinless and therefore outside the system.

Although even in SR, the issue can arise when the group is primarily mercenary and run payouts are too stingy. Not "go legit instead", but "be normal criminals instead". When breaking into a heavily guarded facility and possibly provoking a grudge from a megacorp earns you less than stealing a car, there's issues?

[Satinavian]

In Shadowrun, it is not possible for the Runners to get "normal" jobs with their skill sets. They are outside of society. They can not walk into a mega-corp and get hired as they have no System Identification Number (SIN) they are Sinless and therefore outside the system.
Really ?

Every single one of them has at least one fake SIN and contacts to get other such papers. That might be not enough to work at a megacorp but is plenty enough for a normal life - which is what most shadowrunners live anyway just for cover. I mean, look at how many runs are basically built around infiltration. Obviously runners are able to blend into normal society and pass all non-depth identity checks perfectly fine when on a job.

And that is without consideing all the people who would hire even SINless. E.g. most magical folk could trivially get proper jobs because it is still rare and sought after.

But even if people want to stay illegal, there are often better options. Ending the shadowrunner carrer to become smuggler, or shadowdoc is not particularly difficult, if the runs don't pay. Deckers can do their own thing anyway. And yes, what icefractal said.

[Mechalich]

It is certainly possible to say that all adventurers are broke because all adventurers are operating outside of normal society, with the corollary that adventurers who get rich buy their way back in, as successful criminals in the real world sometimes do, but this has massive consequences for what kind of character concepts make for viable adventurers in a setting.

[gbaji]

Honestly? I think this is something better left up to the player(s) to decide for their characters. As mentioned up a bit, trying to force this is effectively railroading the RP of all of the characters. You can certainly create a setting where resources and cash are scarce, but trying to go past that to finagle things such that the PCs are "always broke", and adventuring just to avoid brokeness or trying to "make it rich" or whatever, takes away from the PC motivation range that could otherwise exist.

Just create the setting and let the players figure out why their characters do what they do. And if a player really wants his character to be "eternally broke", then the player can roleplay out how his character wasted all his treasure on booze and women, or lost it all betting on the ponies, or someone sold him a fake castle, or whatever. Key point is that the player is choosing to run their character that way. If a player wants his character to be smart with money, and spend it wisely and save it up, and as a result of adventuring and treasure gathering, that character becomes fabulously wealthy, then that's just what happens. Let the player also decide if he wants this character to retire to the lap of luxury, or has some unfinished business or compulsion that continues to drive him. It's really not the GM's job to come up with this stuff.

Now... That doesn't mean you can't create whole new difficulties and potential adventures off of various things that may happen to a wealthy adventurer, just as easily as a poor one. Just as the characters should be able to do what they want in a setting, the setting (and a host of NPCs within it) should certainly react to what the characters are doing as well.

[Anymage]

Honestly? I think this is something better left up to the player(s) to decide for their characters. As mentioned up a bit, trying to force this is effectively railroading the RP of all of the characters. You can certainly create a setting where resources and cash are scarce, but trying to go past that to finagle things such that the PCs are "always broke", and adventuring just to avoid brokeness or trying to "make it rich" or whatever, takes away from the PC motivation range that could otherwise exist.

Quibbling here, but there's a big difference between the players collectively and the players individually. Trying to strongarm a group of players into a game that they're not enthused about will sour the mood at the table pretty quick, but so will one person playing a character who doesn't match with the theme of the campaign or the rest of the PCs.

This ultimately ties back to getting player buy-in before trying an unusual campaign. (And in the case of systems where more wealth = better gear = more character power, be mindful how you're throwing that balance off.) Once everybody has bought into the premise, though, deciding that your character's evolution would go in a different direction is part of the reason why "it's what my character would do" has the reputation it does.

[Satinavian]

This ultimately ties back to getting player buy-in before trying an unusual campaign. (And in the case of systems where more wealth = better gear = more character power, be mindful how you're throwing that balance off.) Once everybody has bought into the premise, though, deciding that your character's evolution would go in a different direction is part of the reason why "it's what my character would do" has the reputation it does.
Even such cases are better handled in other ways than with GM power keeping the character in question in line.

A player thinks their PC and his personal development growth don't fit the campaign premise anymore ? "I would like to switch my character because i don't think the current one is working out/a good fit"

A player loses interest in the campaign itself ? "Hey guys, i don't really have fun anymore with this campaign. Could we write my character out ?"


Not even those instances need to cause any drama.

[gbaji]

Quibbling here, but there's a big difference between the players collectively and the players individually. Trying to strongarm a group of players into a game that they're not enthused about will sour the mood at the table pretty quick, but so will one person playing a character who doesn't match with the theme of the campaign or the rest of the PCs.

This ultimately ties back to getting player buy-in before trying an unusual campaign. (And in the case of systems where more wealth = better gear = more character power, be mindful how you're throwing that balance off.) Once everybody has bought into the premise, though, deciding that your character's evolution would go in a different direction is part of the reason why "it's what my character would do" has the reputation it does.

I think there's an absolutely huge gulf betweeen "I killed your best friend, stole your horse, burned down your house, and betrayed you to the big bad, because that's what my character would do" (you know, the *actual* reason this has the reputation it has), and "I'd really appreciate it if, when my character does manage to make some money over the course of the adventure, the GM wouldn't arbitrarily decide to have it stolen, or lost, or take control of my character and say that I blew it in a drunken poker game because that's the campaign he's running".

There is a point at which you have crossed from player buyin to a setting and/or theme and into destruction of player agency. And a lot of the suggestions to make this sort of thing work that I've been reading cross firmly over that line IMO.

[Bohandas]

Everyone has different tastes, but I have absolutely no interest in the financially struggling hero trope in any media whatsoever, to the point that I actively dislike Spider Man.

I don't like woe-is-me type superheroes in general. Whether they're broke, or the X-Men, or the rock powers guy from the Fantastic 4 with the body dysmorphia.

Spiderman also has the issue of none of his powers actually being spider based. The only on-theme ability he has is the webs, and those are from a gadget.

And how's he getting the money to make all these gadgets if he's broke? A part time job as a tabloid photographer won;t pay for that!

[oxybe]

I don't like woe-is-me type superheroes in general. Whether they're broke, or the X-Men, or the rock powers guy from the Fantastic 4 with the body dysmorphia.

Spiderman also has the issue of none of his powers actually being spider based. The only on-theme ability he has is the webs, and those are from a gadget.

And how's he getting the money to make all these gadgets if he's broke? A part time job as a tabloid photographer won;t pay for that!

His wall climbing is also on-theme (though how it works in-universe not so much on theme). And surprisingly one of his scariest abilities when used in the right way because it's not really wall-climbing... he's able to make microfine hairs basically extract from anywhere on his body and because "something SCIENCE something!" he can stick to anything... which is really what the power is: super adhesion rather then simply "can scale stuff". Scaling walls is just his most common use of it

It's been used as a gag a few times, like how he just kinda stuck to the Hulk's arm and just didn't fall off, but because it can stick to ANYTHING this also includes regular human flesh.

I believe it was during One More Day where a VERY angry Peter Parker basically broke into jail to confront the Kingpin, who was bragging about how he's so big and strong and still has all this power even in prison and Peter, as Peter, no suit because this was Peter-level of personal beef, tore into him and at one time during the fight just casually lifted the big guy by the skin on his chest using only his fingertips, because he was just that stuck to Pete. Oh and uh... Kaine Parker, one of the spidey clones, would just... un-face people at one point by sticking his hand to their face. human flesh is pretty tearable when you have super strength and super adhesion.

As for his tech, I can't speak about newer Spidey media, but I know at one time his web fluid was said to be some formula he made synthesized from stuff you could basically buy in bulk at walmart or other big box stores, it just took some time to stew in his closet where Aunt May can't find it and it came with a weird shopping list. outside of the magical "toss it in the countertop nuke box and receive a cartridge web fluid" most of the tech Spidey uses in his broke phase isn't supposed to be high tech. You usually get stuff like spider-tracers or high-tech AI suits once he's made contact with the likes of the Fantastic 4, SHEILD or the Avengers and basically has free rein to their "I have access to console commands" level of resources because he's so endearing and smart and well-meaning. During his poor finances phase (which is usually because he's paying Aunt May's mortgage while going to school), at best you might get a rubberized suit under his costume for fighting someone like Electro and maybe having him borrow the personal lab of Curt Connors/breaking into someplace in an emergency to synthesize something more complex.

Some of the media has him leave being a journalist during or post university and actually working/apprenticing at someplace like Oscorp where he would have easier access to experimental tech and materials, as well as a better paygrade to actually afford stuff.

[LibraryOgre]

It was one of the things I loved about The Superior Spider-man... Octavius taking over Peter's body and saying "Holy crap, this kid could have MURDERED me a dozen times over, in eighty different ways."

[oxybe]

It was one of the things I loved about The Superior Spider-man... Octavius taking over Peter's body and saying "Holy crap, this kid could have MURDERED me a dozen times over, in eighty different ways."

I think it really did sink in after he accidentally unhinged the Scorpion's jaw and sent it flying across the room.

[flond]

There are a few systems, but honestly the easiest way to do this is to just turn money from a mechanical concern to a narrative one. Use Firefly or Fate or something wher3 money isn't systematized and then just inform the players when they do manage a haul that it's 3 months later and they've finally squandered the last of the money or drinking, get rich quick schemes and hush money.

[WilliamJoel333]

I really like adventure stories where the heroes are perpetually broke, and have to keep doing adventures just to keep the proverbial lights on.
Definitely not D&D 5e!

[Pauly]

The other way of looking at ‘broke’ is that it isn’t a measure of “what you have” -v- “what you need”, it’s a measure of “what you have” -v- “what you want”.

If we look at Firefly and Cowboy Bebop the charcaters aren’t actually ‘broke’. They have ships, they have large arsenals, they almost certainly could earn what they need to survive comfortably doing regular jobs. However in both cases what they want is freedom, and that costs more than mere survival.

You may be able to achieve this effect in a D&D campaign where “level appropriate gear” is only available if you work for the evil empire, but if you don’t you have to take gear that is several levels lower. Similar to Cyberpunk/Shadowrun where the corporates have access to all the best stuff yet the party is generally scraping by on old tech, stuff knocked together by 2 guy in a shed, and stuff scavenged from the battlefield.

[Mechalich]

If we look at Firefly and Cowboy Bebop the charcaters aren’t actually ‘broke’. They have ships, they have large arsenals, they almost certainly could earn what they need to survive comfortably doing regular jobs. However in both cases what they want is freedom, and that costs more than mere survival.

Not really. Leaving aside the characters in those series whose inability to get jobs is because they're on the run from the law, both series present retro-future universes where the economics of independent merchant marine operation are highly dubious. Captain Reynolds does, in fact, have periods where he works quite a few legitimate jobs in the course of Firefly's run, they mostly happen offscreen but are referenced, but the margins are simply too low for him to take home any real money as a result.

The Serenity is functionally part of a subsistence ecosystem, everyone is working all day long just to get by, economic growth and technological change are minimal, and only a tiny elite are making any real money. This is how most humans lived for most of human history, something like Firefly presents a far-future setting where this has become the case again, because reasons. Mal and his crew are simply small time merchants rather than farmers.

Yes, it's true that some characters in scenarios like this have personal pathologies that prevent them from ever settling down, or the aforementioned problems with the law that provide an alternative reason why they simply can't settle down, many of them would settle down if they came into enough money to do so. However, that's extremely unlikely to happen, since it would require stringing together several successful high-paying jobs in a row. That successful is the sticking point in TTRPGs. Many tables have a very low tolerance for in-game failure - the well known preference of parties to fight to the death rather than try to run away being just one example - which means they are going to succeed most of the time, and they will consequently save up money and reach a position where they could potentially retire, often quite quickly. Skyrim offers a useful example: the amount of gameplay necessary to get yourself a house in Whiterun and be basically set for life is minimal compared to the total size of the game. The Dragonborn could quite reasonably try to retire at level ten if you know, they weren't made part of some epic quest to save the world without being asked.

[Mr Blobby]

However, it's a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy; the Skyrim PC does this 'adventuring stuff' because they are Dragonborn, and thus have dragon-esque tendencies such as wanting to dominate everything, become powerful and have a hoard. That motivation is relatively rare otherwise there would be no dungeons left worth looting in the first place. If they end up owning a farm, it's most likely because a) they can and/or b) as a hoard storage facility.

As for the earlier point... saying they aren't broke because they have a ship is akin to saying a builder isn't broke if they own a van, drills and so on - ie the tools of their trade. That yes, on paper they have fair wealth... but it's almost all locked up in their kit etc and are thus 'cash poor' [like today owning a £300k house but unable to afford a £1k repair bill]. But I hold by my original point; if you have a situation where your players are collecting cash by the crate and have nothing realisitic to spend it on, chances are the solution is to simply dial back the cash in your 'world' and/or increase the stuff which can be purchased.