Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dodd81

Players getting too rich

Recommended Posts

On 4/8/2019 at 6:58 AM, Dodd81 said:

Thanks for this.

I'm also considering applying some basic food costs and ship upkeep. As well as fuel, docking fees etc. Unsure of what to charge though.

 

In the Jewel of Yavin they charge less than 50 credits per day. It's not much if you already have a lot of credits with you. Hence my previous post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Rithuan said:

In the Jewel of Yavin they charge less than 50 credits per day. It's not much if you already have a lot of credits with you. Hence my previous post

Well I would probably use the cost of things like starships and speeders as a comparative tool.  Whatever a car would cost in your corner of the world, then compare that to things like "parking fees for the day in a public parking garage" or "refueling your vehicle" or "paying for lunch" etc.   Just make a rough conversion and go with that.   I'd probably keep it to 10-20 credits for most "common" expenses.  Everyday, run-of-the-mill stuff.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd recommend giving them something meaningful in story (to the characters) to spend the money on.  Problems that their money can solve or help solve (village devastated by natural disaster, pirates, etc).  Throw credits at gaining information or influencing people (bureaucrats, business owners, criminals, etc) when trying to solve problems in the story.  Make it a suggestion that "Hey, you could throw 2,000 around the cantina and convince some mercs to distract the Big Bad while you sneak into his palace."  Don't let credits totally solve many problems but they can buy "resources" that help put plans together and pull them off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I'd recommend giving them something meaningful in story (to the characters) to spend the money on.  Problems that their money can solve or help solve (village devastated by natural disaster, pirates, etc).  Throw credits at gaining information or influencing people (bureaucrats, business owners, criminals, etc) when trying to solve problems in the story.  Make it a suggestion that "Hey, you could throw 2,000 around the cantina and convince some mercs to distract the Big Bad while you sneak into his palace."  Don't let credits totally solve many problems but they can buy "resources" that help put plans together and pull them off.

This is a good idea, though I would probably phrase it like "If you spend some credits in the cantina, I'll give you an upgrade to your Charm check to try and convince them to do this job for you."   Don't let the credits completely resolve the issue.   Now if it's a mercenary outfit, who literally will do whatever for money, then sure, that's just a business transaction.  But if it's something like "Hey!  random people in this bar that I don't actually know!  I'll give you money if you go risk your lives outside with the gang of thugs chasing me!"  That....that would still likely need a bit of persuasion above and beyond cash in hand. :P   

However you would have to be a little careful about this, as things like this kind of start to step on the toes of a few talents that I recall.  I forget the specs that have them (trader I think definitely), but they basically let a PC spend credits to get bonuses to checks, or accomplish actions that normally would require other specs to do checks and things.    So depending on the method used, I might suggest they take that spec if they really want to be tossing credits around to solve their problems.  I mean, that's the whole point of the specs built like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rithuan said:

How much is too much? Spaceship upgrades and repairs are expensive. The most excellent Mandalorian armor is expensive. A kyber crystal is expensive. But in the end, all of them are possible to buy. So what can you do? Spice up the transaction: add layers that can create great adventures or opportunities to expend additional catch.

 

"The finest Ion turbine is developed in Bespin, and is promising to surpass Corelian and Kuat finest design. An infochant knows someone, but the information is not cheap."

"The gauntlet of "Mandalor the Murderhobo" was found in a survey mission. There is a rumor that his armor might be found in an uncharted sector of wild space. An explorer has an expensive hyperoute map that can lead you where they found the gauntlet."

"Oh you have 10000 credits and you want to buy a lightsaber? yeah sure, do you want to buy the title of grand master too? You cant buy a Lightsaber... unless you are willing to risk a trip to Nar shaddaa and speak with an eccentric collector."

I agree with @Jedi Ronin. That's what I meant by adding layers to the transaction (as I quoted myself)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

This is a good idea, though I would probably phrase it like "If you spend some credits in the cantina, I'll give you an upgrade to your Charm check to try and convince them to do this job for you."   Don't let the credits completely resolve the issue.   Now if it's a mercenary outfit, who literally will do whatever for money, then sure, that's just a business transaction.  But if it's something like "Hey!  random people in this bar that I don't actually know!  I'll give you money if you go risk your lives outside with the gang of thugs chasing me!"  That....that would still likely need a bit of persuasion above and beyond cash in hand. :P   

However you would have to be a little careful about this, as things like this kind of start to step on the toes of a few talents that I recall.  I forget the specs that have them (trader I think definitely), but they basically let a PC spend credits to get bonuses to checks, or accomplish actions that normally would require other specs to do checks and things.    So depending on the method used, I might suggest they take that spec if they really want to be tossing credits around to solve their problems.  I mean, that's the whole point of the specs built like that.

I agree that throwing money around may not solve the problem like automatically recruiting a merc group (or to auto-succeed it'd take more credits) but would typically upgrade, add boost, decrease difficulty, or whatever to skill checks.

I don't have a problem letting player choices and actions duplicating Talents because I think it's way too restrictive.  It becomes like Feats in D&D3.5 where if you didn't have a Feat that explicitly let you do something then you couldn't do it (or the penalties were so severe it wasn't worth it) and players get the message and stay in their lanes instead of being creative and role-playing the situation and character.  Especially in cases like throwing money around - it's a reasonable action that has a reasonable effect on the game (and a cost in a finite resource).  I'd rather GM (and play) in a mode where ideas hit the table and are taken at face value and not "balanced" against what's already available in the system unless really necessary.  Typically players take actions that are reasonably calculated to succeed at some ends or grant some advantage in achieving some ends and when I'm GMing I roll with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I agree that throwing money around may not solve the problem like automatically recruiting a merc group (or to auto-succeed it'd take more credits) but would typically upgrade, add boost, decrease difficulty, or whatever to skill checks.

I don't have a problem letting player choices and actions duplicating Talents because I think it's way too restrictive.  It becomes like Feats in D&D3.5 where if you didn't have a Feat that explicitly let you do something then you couldn't do it (or the penalties were so severe it wasn't worth it) and players get the message and stay in their lanes instead of being creative and role-playing the situation and character.  Especially in cases like throwing money around - it's a reasonable action that has a reasonable effect on the game (and a cost in a finite resource).  I'd rather GM (and play) in a mode where ideas hit the table and are taken at face value and not "balanced" against what's already available in the system unless really necessary.  Typically players take actions that are reasonably calculated to succeed at some ends or grant some advantage in achieving some ends and when I'm GMing I roll with it.

That's fine, honestly the "actions that duplicate talents" thing, I mostly agree with.  If nobody at my table is planning on taking a particular type of spec that would utilize that as a main type of action, I don't really care.  I just always point it out, due to the ever nebulous nature of the PCs and their specs.  If you have a PC at your table who is a Trader, suddenly letting everyone do the same thing he had to spend exp into, does sort of undercut that spec's contribution to the team dynamic.  But if everyone is a murderhobo, then yeah, it doesn't really have a problem in any direction.

Edited by KungFuFerret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

That's fine, honestly the "actions that duplicate talents" thing, I mostly agree with.  If nobody at my table is planning on taking a particular type of spec that would utilize that as a main type of action, I don't really care.  I just always point it out, due to the ever nebulous nature of the PCs and their specs.  If you have a PC at your table who is a Trader, suddenly letting everyone do the same thing he had to spend exp into, does sort of undercut that spec's contribution to the team dynamic.  But if everyone is a murderhobo, then yeah, it doesn't really have a problem in any direction.

Yes, if I had a player with a certain Talent I'd try to be mindful of not letting other players simply replicate it.  It also depends on what the Talent does.  If it's simple like adding Boost or removing Setback then the game already establishes that player actions can do that stuff without a Talent.

There's a bunch of content in the career books that have sections that discuss how GMs can let players almost-replicate Talents due to actions, decisions, the situation, other abilities that get close to doing it naturally, etc.  So the idea is discussed in the actual game books but this sort of stuff does usually just naturally flow at the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The OP said 100,000 credits, even in the EotE setting that’s not wealthy. That’s a medium sized stake in a Sabacc game.  It wouldn’t buy that great of a ship either. Just check out some gambling movies from the sixties or seventies, where the main characters are rolling around with 50k in their pocket (enough to buy a house, and have plenty left over.

Edited by Eoen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 7:57 PM, Eoen said:

The OP said 100,000 credits, even in the EotE setting that’s not wealthy. That’s a medium sized stake in a Sabacc game.  It wouldn’t buy that great of a ship either. Just check out some gambling movies from the sixties or seventies, where the main characters are rolling around with 50k in their pocket (enough to by a house, and have plenty left over.

I will cede that your suggestion of having a lot of money on the characters is perfectly valid, but I think the OP is saying he does not want that feel for the game that the OP is currently running. If the idea is that every game must be "Dirt Poor' as we call it in my circle then No I don't agree even though almost all of my games are ran that way. It is ok to have the game run in either manner, and that is something that the GM and the players must agree to. In my model the Gm would lay down the expectations and the players would either agree or not play in that particular game. If you sign up as a player though in my opinion if you find yourself unable to accept the GMs rulings you should bow out. Anything else is really just sabotage in one or more degrees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

I will cede that your suggestion of having a lot of money on the characters is perfectly valid, but I think the OP is saying he does not want that feel for the game that the OP is currently running. If the idea is that every game must be "Dirt Poor' as we call it in my circle then No I don't agree even though almost all of my games are ran that way. It is ok to have the game run in either manner, and that is something that the GM and the players must agree to. In my model the Gm would lay down the expectations and the players would either agree or not play in that particular game. If you sign up as a player though in my opinion if you find yourself unable to accept the GMs rulings you should bow out. Anything else is really just sabotage in one or more degrees. 

What! Gamers will never agree on anything 100% and the my way or the highway routine gets old too. As a long time gamer I don't stay in any GM's game I consider to be more consistently depressing than real life (were I've done enough scraping by).

As far as rules goes I don't even agree that the GM should be the final arbiter of the rules (which is why I no longer play house built rules games either), just the referee of the current session. 

 

Edited by Eoen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eoen said:

What! Gamers will never agree on anything 100% and the my way or the highway routine gets old too. As a long time gamer I don't stay in any GM's game I consider to be more consistently depressing than real life (were I've done enough scraping by).

As far as rules goes I don't even agree that the GM should be the final arbiter of the rules (which is why I no longer play house built rules games either), just the referee of the current session. 

 

Well I respect your opinion on that and most of all I respect your ability to vote with your feet :) I agree with you that you should not play in games where you can't accept the GM's view on things. And I will add that some GM's have views that I find to be terrible lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Well I respect your opinion on that and most of all I respect your ability to vote with your feet :) I agree with you that you should not play in games where you can't accept the GM's view on things. And I will add that some GM's have views that I find to be terrible lol. 

Some people just prefer low fantasy, I'm more into medium to high fantasy, which is why I run Age of Rebellion and play in Force and Destiny. Though l loved Fafnir and the Gray Mouser.

Edited by Eoen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Some people just prefer low fantasy, I'm more into medium to high fantasy, which is why I run Age of Rebellion and play in Force and Destiny. Though l loved Fafnir and the Gray Mouser.

Yeah! The Lankhmar stories are awesome. I should use that for some inspiration. Thanks Eoen :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...