How realistic (ICLY) and cool (OOCLY) would it be, if everyone who banked with Nenyuk, got a banking deed, which needed to be in inventory - for every transaction (balance/deposit/withdrawal).
So, if someone died, you could steal their deed, and go and withdraw all their life savings (as against Nenyuk automatically "inheriting it all".
Aside from the weight issue, what would be the difference between keeping all your coins in your backpack and having a deed in your backpack?
Quote from: Desertman on May 29, 2015, 03:34:02 PM
One of the main problems I see with money is that it has become more of a social construct and less of a material construct, which is ironic, since money is in essence the representation of every material construct in the game.
The reason for this? We have a full proof system in place that lets everyone from the richest merchant House family member to the poorest most pathetic street urchin stash away their money with 100% security any time they want.
You want to see money and fortunes and wealth start to mean something in game and start actually moving plotlines and driving real conflicts....make banks give you tickets for the money you deposit, the same way stables do for mounts.
Right now it doesn't matter if someone has 200 coins or 200,000 coins...you will never get your hands on it. If they have a few hundred coins, or tens of thousands of coins...it means absolutely nothing to anyone who might go after them for it. Going after them or starting anything over it is a pointless practice in nothingness because even if you kill them, the money is not and never will be on the table in any way to be a driving force in the plotline.
So what happens? People who are too weak to realistically hold onto vast fortunes hold onto them anyways, because even if you could kill them, there is no reason to.
Quote from: Desertman on June 30, 2015, 03:53:32 PM
A Nenyuk-stamped leather ticket.
Look Ticket
This ticket is made of leather. It has been stamped with the sigil of House Nenyuk. It is commonly used to claim coin deposits at their banks within the cities and outposts of Zalanthas.
A large black coin has been inked on it.
Following that thought:
A half a large black coin has been inked on it.
A small black coin has been inked on it.
A half a small black coin has been inked on it.
It would even give some IC "lore" in regards to people calling it a large and a small.
But really, I would just keep a few tickets in different containers on my body and remember what each was for. Why? Because that's easy and I don't see a problem. I personally would always know how much money was on my tickets and don't see an issue.
In the end, it is a matter of flavor for me. I really hate the idea of paper money in Zalanthas. I really like the idea of leather tickets that do the same thing as your paper money, because it seems to follow the theme. In the end, I don't really care enough to make a stink about what sdesc they give the ticket/banknote items, so long as the general idea gets in.
Quote from: Suhuy on April 20, 2016, 07:13:03 AM
Aside from the weight issue, what would be the difference between keeping all your coins in your backpack and having a deed in your backpack?
It's not, but that was most likely the OPs point.
I always think Nenyuk is the ultimate elf because people keep dying and they get to keep all the coins.
I secretly think that makes up part of their income.
Quote from: Kankfly on April 20, 2016, 08:43:07 AM
I always think Nenyuk is the ultimate elf because people keep dying and they get to keep all the coins.
I secretly think that makes up part of their income.
That and loans and shit probably
Two of my biggest downers when considering the theory of role possibilities.
Borsail, the slavers who really for the most part aren't.
And now this....
Nenyuk, the loan sharks and leg-breakers who aren't.
I would seriously enjoy playing a Nenyuki who gave out loans to people and then sent my underlings after them when they didn't pay up. Nothing huge. Small loans for the most part.
I would also enjoy playing said leg-breaker for my Nenyuki loanshark overlord.
Would be a fun role.
I can still do it I suppose without being in Nenyuk, but, something about having the Nenyuk name behind it gives it a bit more "flair" in my mind. :)
Anything resembling paper money or personal identification papers are a bit anachrononistic for the setting, in my opinion.
In fact, trying to increase Nenyuk's realism just draws more attention to the fact that the whole thing is kind of out of place in the setting. It exists because banks and player housing are good for playability. Better to just hang a lantern on the fact that Nenyuki banks and real estate are a little weird because they exist for playability reasons. House Nenyuk mysterious, inscrutable, untouchable entity that is clearly heavily reliant on psionics and who wields power the other GMHs and city states shouldn't tolerate, yet for some reason do. That's good enough for me.
(Trying to make the fact that Nenyuk pockets the deposits of dead adventurers a core aspect of their business model is a little bit too much on the nose, on the other hand.)
Making it more realistic to the setting would in fact make it seem less out of place.
Make literacy more common, debuff psionics and then we can talk about paper money for Nenyuk. :P
Quote from: Delirium on April 20, 2016, 09:24:52 AM
Make literacy more common, debuff psionics and then we can talk about paper money for Nenyuk. :P
Awww yissss.
I imagine literacy is already pretty common. People just don't want to die so they don't even go there.
Debuff the people who aren't psionists! Yeah!
I'm so confused by this thread.
You're suggesting that Nenyuk give up a rather significant portion of its income, so that tribals and elves and breeds and unaffiliated grebbers and low-life nobodies can have the convenience of being able to carry their wealth around with them and only use the bank to "cash in" their tickets when they need to use it.
I'm thinking Nenyuk would never go for that.
Quote from: Lizzie on April 20, 2016, 10:10:47 AM
You're suggesting that Nenyuk give up a rather significant portion of its income, so that tribals and elves and breeds and unaffiliated grebbers and low-life nobodies can have the convenience of being able to carry their wealth around with them and only use the bank to "cash in" their tickets when they need to use it.
I'm thinking Nenyuk would never go for that.
The tickets have no value unless they are given to Nenyuk.
The tickets do nothing but represent the wealth that is already in the possession of Nenyuk.....
Quote from: Desertman on April 20, 2016, 10:18:02 AM
Quote from: Lizzie on April 20, 2016, 10:10:47 AM
You're suggesting that Nenyuk give up a rather significant portion of its income, so that tribals and elves and breeds and unaffiliated grebbers and low-life nobodies can have the convenience of being able to carry their wealth around with them and only use the bank to "cash in" their tickets when they need to use it.
I'm thinking Nenyuk would never go for that.
The tickets have no value unless they are given to Nenyuk.
The tickets do nothing but represent the wealth that is already in the possession of Nenyuk.....
Right. But with someone possessing a ticket, they would have rights to the money. If someone dies and the tickets are found, Nenyuk would not be able to claim the money. It would have to be held in escrow indefinitely "just in case" someone happens to have a ticket and wants to cash it in.
Presently, when someone dies, the account is immediately terminated and Nenyuk gets to keep it all, and has nothing on hold "just in case" someone stakes a claim for it.
Unless you're suggesting that the tickets be marked with the person's name on it, and Nenyuk would refuse to honor the ticket once that person is dead. In which case the ONLY use this idea would have is to lighten the load of the two or three characters in the world who carry around enough sids in their packs to weigh them down in the first place.
Quote from: Lizzie on April 20, 2016, 10:23:51 AM
Quote from: Desertman on April 20, 2016, 10:18:02 AM
Quote from: Lizzie on April 20, 2016, 10:10:47 AM
You're suggesting that Nenyuk give up a rather significant portion of its income, so that tribals and elves and breeds and unaffiliated grebbers and low-life nobodies can have the convenience of being able to carry their wealth around with them and only use the bank to "cash in" their tickets when they need to use it.
I'm thinking Nenyuk would never go for that.
The tickets have no value unless they are given to Nenyuk.
The tickets do nothing but represent the wealth that is already in the possession of Nenyuk.....
Right. But with someone possessing a ticket, they would have rights to the money. If someone dies and the tickets are found, Nenyuk would not be able to claim the money. It would have to be held in escrow indefinitely "just in case" someone happens to have a ticket and wants to cash it in.
Presently, when someone dies, the account is immediately terminated and Nenyuk gets to keep it all, and has nothing on hold "just in case" someone stakes a claim for it.
Nenyuk literally creates money out of rocks. (Technically glass I guess.)
This isn't like real life where paper money is supposed to represent another material asset in some regard and there is a global economy dictating the flow and creation of currency and each currency's value as whole in relation to other currencies.
Nenyuk doesn't want or need your money. They make it....out of rocks......
Nenyuk being concerned about not having "access to commoner's money" is about as much of a concern as Tektolnes being afraid he doesn't have full access to your beetle because when you leave it in the stables you get a ticket for it.
That aside, the banking construct is for the most part an OOC construct.
Adding tickets isn't about making Nenyuk more realistic, though I believe it would, it's about adding a secondary dynamic layer to the banking code's usefulness in terms of creating a tool for interaction and fun in the playerbase.
If tickets were implemented, then Nenyuk would never have the rights to all that unclaimed money, right?
Because the tickets are out there in someone's possession and whoever has the ticket has the claim to the wealth?
How does Nenyuk know when JoeHunter has died out in the wilderness in the first place? Does Nenyuk regularly try and Way every customer to decide whether they are still alive or if their wealth is actually available for collecting?
I'm not sure whether this is an argument for or against banking tickets, it's just a thought I had.
Quote from: manipura on April 20, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
If tickets were implemented, then Nenyuk would never have the rights to all that unclaimed money, right?
Because the tickets are out there in someone's possession and whoever has the ticket has the claim to the wealth?
How does Nenyuk know when JoeHunter has died out in the wilderness in the first place? Does Nenyuk regularly try and Way every customer to decide whether they are still alive or if their wealth is actually available for collecting?
I'm not sure whether this is an argument for or against banking tickets, it's just a thought I had.
The general rule surrounding, "How does Nenyuk remember the face of every single person in the world who puts money in their bank to know their banking details.", has always been....
Magick/Psionics/Don't Question it.
I always assumed that Allanak minted the coins. What with, you know, the Highlord's face being on every single one of them.
Quote from: Suhuy on April 20, 2016, 07:13:03 AM
Aside from the weight issue, what would be the difference between keeping all your coins in your backpack and having a deed in your backpack?
Coins weigh too much, and jingle, and call for attention, especially if you're carrying several piles, or one large mound of coins.
If you've got a deed stashed somewhere, no one is likely to know how much sids is on that deed.
In any case, the idea was to enable PCs to get their hands on the coins of other PCs, as against the money being lost in their accounts forever.
I'm all for a ticket/deed system. Have been for a long time. I also really like the idea of nobles and gmh keeping large sums of hard cash in locked chests in estates as well, just to tempt thieves and on the odd chance a large scale robbery plot might happen and it gets stolen. I don't like universal banks. If you want to travel from Allanak to Luirs and shop big with Kurac, then you should be transporting lots of coins and NEEDING Byn escort, not just hiring them because you want to give them something to do. I hope Red Storm never sees a bank. Don't take that away from the raiders.
A 100% fool proof system shouldn't exist in keeping your coin safe with Nenyuk. A deposit slip or whatever you want to call it I think would work much better. Join a clan if you want more security of your shit. This system would even make more sense because Nenyuk wouldn't need to remember every single face, you just have your deposit slips and hand them in for their value and that's that.
Quote from: Desertman on April 20, 2016, 09:20:11 AM
Making it more realistic to the setting would in fact make it seem less out of place.
Only by moving the setting away from where it currently is and more towards one where it makes sense to have an advanced banking institution. We're not talking about changing Nenyuk the institution here, just making it more ubiquitous and unavoidable within the setting. I don't think it's the dissonance Nenyuk's current existence produces is a big enough deal to weaken the fabric of the setting in such a way.
Nenyuk, being relatively simple in that it acts only as a savings depository for the vast majority of people, can at least lay claim to being a primitive bank that somewhat fits the setting. As soon as you start having it issue paper money or promissory notes of any kind, suddenly we're talking about 18th century European banking innovations. And instead of Nenyuk being this weird thing that sits in one room in each city that most of the time you don't have to think about, suddenly it becomes omnipresent and everywhere.
If we want money to be more vulnerable, let's do it in a way that moves things closer to where the setting should be by shutting down the bank entirely. (You can let Nenyuk continue to exist as a shadowy property-ownership house which also provides financial services only to noble and merchant houses. It just no longer acts as a depository for commoners).
The net effect of this seems like it would be a massive increase in the amount of coins the average PC would have. And this would be more and more true over time. I wouldn't want the game to go in that direction.
It's good for the game that Nenyuk keeps the coins when a PC dies.
Quote from: flurry on April 20, 2016, 08:25:02 PM
The net effect of this seems like it would be a massive increase in the amount of coins the average PC would have. And this would be more and more true over time. I wouldn't want the game to go in that direction.
It's good for the game that Nenyuk keeps the coins when a PC dies.
Yeah..I don't really want people to have more money. Playability wise. I would totally go for banks being unlinked though.
Three things.
1. I'm not against this in principle. Pickpockets would be in the business of making loads of cash now. There may need to be some added check to prevent (too much) abuse from pick pockets. Perhaps you'd need a merchant house member (con artist who can write cavilish) to forge a document using the code from the original ticket. I like this idea because you wouldn't be able to steal someone's ticket and just cash it in. You would need to make connections with other player characters. Or if you're a templar, you could perhaps whole-sale loot someone.
2. Using ic justifications to prevent fixes to fundamentally game-level problems is pretty lame. (See no warehouses because merchant houses wouldn't allow them something something. See no psi intercept)
3. Psi intercept 2016.
I'd be interested to see banking only allowed for highborn and house clan accounts.
It'd make crime and economy far more interesting and give clans specialised benefits. It'd probably drive PC to PC prices down, and reduce the benefits of spamming stuff for coins. You can still be wealthy, you just need to be able to protect it.
Quote from: Case on April 21, 2016, 01:17:17 AM
I'd be interested to see banking only allowed for highborn and house clan accounts.
If banking were made available to nobles only they might as well just store their money in their bedrooms. There's not much difference in the long run.
Some of these ideas seem to inadvertently be suggesting to just remove banks completely. I understand the minor differences involved between having a bank note in my backpack and stuffing all my life savings there, but ultimately if things ran that way I'd just as soon not use a bank, period.
I'm all for change within the game, but with the banking system my vote is that it stays as it is now. Psionics are only half-fleshed out by the code and documentation, there are lots of other variables that would be included in a world where everyone has basic psionic powers. For example, how could torture exist when everyone can just willfully knock themselves unconscious to avoid the pain? There are other possibilities involved with psionics here too. It's entirely plausible that people leave a sort of psionic "signature", unique to their own identity, which allows Nenyuk to know who you are when you come in to withdraw or deposit money. I think these things are better left vague for purposes of playability. It could be that if there were no banks, more money would be floating about and in the hands of the players, but I think there are certain options every player wants to have available, even if it's not always realistic to the setting. One of those things is the ability to store your hard earned cash somewhere.
As for banks in Red Storm and elsewhere, I think it's fitting that they exist only in the city-states. One of the reasons people willingly suffer though the cruel and harsh dictatorship of Allanak, policed by corrupt and brutal templars, is that they have access to more infrastructure than you would hoofing it out in the desert all alone. And one of those benefits is probably the banking system. So whatever the explanation for how banks work, how Nenyuk knows you are you, etc., I think they function pretty well under their current design, for reasons both IC and OOC.
Quote from: Suhuy on April 21, 2016, 02:51:46 AM
Quote from: Case on April 21, 2016, 01:17:17 AM
I'd be interested to see banking only allowed for highborn and house clan accounts.
If banking were made available to nobles only they might as well just store their money in their bedrooms. There's not much difference in the long run.
Which Seniors or thieves can raid.
Quote from: Centurion on April 20, 2016, 05:40:45 PM
I'm all for a ticket/deed system. Have been for a long time. I also really like the idea of nobles and gmh keeping large sums of hard cash in locked chests in estates as well, just to tempt thieves and on the odd chance a large scale robbery plot might happen and it gets stolen. I don't like universal banks. If you want to travel from Allanak to Luirs and shop big with Kurac, then you should be transporting lots of coins and NEEDING Byn escort, not just hiring them because you want to give them something to do. I hope Red Storm never sees a bank. Don't take that away from the raiders.
A 100% fool proof system shouldn't exist in keeping your coin safe with Nenyuk. A deposit slip or whatever you want to call it I think would work much better. Join a clan if you want more security of your shit. This system would even make more sense because Nenyuk wouldn't need to remember every single face, you just have your deposit slips and hand them in for their value and that's that.
Yes.
Quote from: Case on April 21, 2016, 01:17:17 AM
I'd be interested to see banking only allowed for highborn and house clan accounts.
It'd make crime and economy far more interesting and give clans specialised benefits. It'd probably drive PC to PC prices down, and reduce the benefits of spamming stuff for coins. You can still be wealthy, you just need to be able to protect it.
YES!
Employ PCs now, hire the goddamn Byn!!!
When the banking code changes went in initially I was playing a wealthy PC.
It convinced my character it was worth it for them to keep around ten large out of the bank as "non-taxed income" basically on an IC level.
I kept a large portion of my funds in the bank for a rainy day.
But I had a "daily operations bank" outside of Nenyuk's secure vaults that let me withdraw and deposit without having to pay a fee.
OOC'ly to be honest I just liked the idea of having that horde there incase a thief or something ever got ballsy enough to come for it. If they did, I enjoyed the concept of it being possible for them to actually have a chance to get at my wealth.
Most people aren't into the whole "actual risk" thing though, and I get that. I personally found it enjoyable to risk a large portion of my wealth in a realistic manner that offered a potential reward to villains beyond my clothing.
Quote from: Suhuy on April 21, 2016, 02:51:46 AM
Quote from: Case on April 21, 2016, 01:17:17 AM
I'd be interested to see banking only allowed for highborn and house clan accounts.
Some of these ideas seem to inadvertently be suggesting to just remove banks completely.
Why, yes, I
am in favor of that.
I'd be happy if coins were replaced with papers or coins were made to weigh far far far far far less.
I think a lot of people don't carry around coins because there's a significant (coded) hassle to carrying them around.
carry around five dollars worth of pennies for an hour and tell me how it feels.
The weight of coins is fine - it's probably too light if anything. There should be a random chance of your (glass) coins shattering and/or cutting a hole through your pack and spilling on to the road.
*cough*denominations*cough*
Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 21, 2016, 02:37:19 PM
The weight of coins is fine - it's probably too light if anything. There should be a random chance of your (glass) coins shattering and/or cutting a hole through your pack and spilling on to the road.
sorry, obsidian is nigh unbreakable.
Quote from: Patuk on April 21, 2016, 02:02:44 PM
Quote from: Suhuy on April 21, 2016, 02:51:46 AM
Quote from: Case on April 21, 2016, 01:17:17 AM
I'd be interested to see banking only allowed for highborn and house clan accounts.
Some of these ideas seem to inadvertently be suggesting to just remove banks completely.
Why, yes, I am in favor of that.
Well yeah that is what I was mostly saying.
Quote from: evilcabbage on April 21, 2016, 03:35:23 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 21, 2016, 02:37:19 PM
The weight of coins is fine - it's probably too light if anything. There should be a random chance of your (glass) coins shattering and/or cutting a hole through your pack and spilling on to the road.
sorry, obsidian is nigh unbreakable.
And yet somehow someone is carving Tek's face in to itty bitty little bits of it :P
It's one of the reasons I kind of like the Dark Sun use of ceramics for currency instead of an (abundant) stone. You think about how obsidian is used and represented in Armageddon and you start scratching your head over how this coinage thing even begins to work.
Probably because of magick. Sigh.
Ideally a primitive world would be using something for currency that has intrinsic value. What we have in the game is basically fiat currency--tiny bits of obsidian that only hold value because they have Tek's face engraved on them. Their value is entirely derived from the fact that Allanaki templars make and demand payments using them. That's another modern financial tool that is probably out of place in game. It's part of why in-game accumulation of wealth by simply stockpiling currency is so silly. Replacing obsidian coins with paper money won't fix these problems.
A primitive money should be something that has an innate value, which is why I don't think Dark Sun's ceramic coins work, either. Historically standardized money was almost always metal of some form, so that makes things tricky. One exception to this was cowry shells. It'd be cool if Zalanthas could replace the silly obsidian coins with something like that. Heck, you could almost use spice grains. It would be a windfall if we replaced the coins with something else that also happened to be lighter.
But spice is illegal in the highlords city!
HERESY!
Uh
Maybe coin shaped ivory?
Remove currency from the game as well. All trade is now done in barter, favors, and influence. NPC shopkeepers will get animated every time you need a new knife.
Quote from: Jihelu on April 21, 2016, 05:10:51 PM
But spice is illegal in the highlords city!
HERESY!
Uh
Maybe coin shaped ivory?
Yeah, wouldn't it be cool if spice grains were used as currency everywhere in the known
except Allanak? You can never have too much innate conflict built into the setting.
Coins of any kind can't have intrinsic value unless you can flawlessly reconvert them into the raw material. Obsidian coins don't make sense because the coins themselves have no value, because you can't melt a pile of them down and make them into something else. Making coins out of anything non-metallic has this problem. Something like gemstones or cowrie shells make more sense because you aren't destroying their value when you make them currency.
I would like it if we could trade spice for items in some stalls in Storm. Like the food tent will take any kind of spice in differing amounts for any of its food, but the resizing tent guy will only take zharal.
Kooky idea: What if we just had two kinds of coins: one worth 100 sid and another worth 500. NPC vendors would not give change. This would (1) solve the heaviness problem; (2) encourage more bartering among the masses and PC-to-PC trading. It'd probably have negative consequences on off-peaker crafters who want to buy short bones, though.
Quote from: nauta on April 21, 2016, 05:19:20 PM
Kooky idea: What if we just had two kinds of coins: one worth 100 sid and another worth 500. NPC vendors would not give change. This would (1) solve the heaviness problem; (2) encourage more bartering among the masses and PC-to-PC trading. It'd probably have negative consequences on off-peaker crafters who want to buy short bones, though.
So how would we buy multiple items in one go?
Yes, leather tickets as banking deeds. Have them with a password printed on them that you have to know because who the hell can read? This prevents most people from just finding tickets on dead bodies like the lottery and I can see leading to some interesting encounters.
Yes, the banks should not be connected. I love that idea. You want to go buy some shit from Luirs. I want to raid you. Works out for both of us and the byn, right?
Also, if you want to get rid of coins and use a new currency I have the perfect idea. Salt. It was used as a currency in RL history at one point. It has intrinsic value of its own.
Quote from: nauta on April 21, 2016, 05:19:20 PM
Kooky idea: What if we just had two kinds of coins: one worth 100 sid and another worth 500. NPC vendors would not give change. This would (1) solve the heaviness problem; (2) encourage more bartering among the masses and PC-to-PC trading. It'd probably have negative consequences on off-peaker crafters who want to buy short bones, though.
you are pure evil.
love it.
Quote from: evilcabbage on April 23, 2016, 07:02:09 AM
Quote from: nauta on April 21, 2016, 05:19:20 PM
Kooky idea: What if we just had two kinds of coins: one worth 100 sid and another worth 500. NPC vendors would not give change. This would (1) solve the heaviness problem; (2) encourage more bartering among the masses and PC-to-PC trading. It'd probably have negative consequences on off-peaker crafters who want to buy short bones, though.
you are pure evil.
love it.
Oh shit! nauta, run! He's going to turn you into a cabbage!
Your plan still involves having our version of pennies, right?
I had an elf once who rarely had more than thirty sids on him at any one time and I'd like the option of being able to play a poor person again.
one sid, 100 sid, 1000 sid.
if you want to be exact, go for it.
cast 'mon un cabbage divan chran' nauta
Tendrils of green vines begin to writhe as you chant.
You utter an incantation.
Vines sweep out of the ground, wrapping around Nauta and dragging her into the earth!
I think currency and the way banks works is an IC concept.
I'd venture to say almost none of either city-state's population uses Nenyuk. If your commoner has so much coin they can't carry it around perhaps you're commonering wrong.
Personally I wish Nenyuk required a particular status of citizen to use.
Quote from: Majikal on April 24, 2016, 02:10:05 PM
I'd venture to say almost none of either city-state's population uses Nenyuk. If your commoner has so much coin they can't carry it around perhaps you're commonering wrong.
Personally I wish Nenyuk required a particular status of citizen to use.
I agree. I would further say I think the presence of the bank leads to a lot of bad commonering. Your bank account balance is a number you can make go up in a game that otherwise lacks numbers to make go up. The mere presence of the bank encourages players to min-max the economy and accumulate wealth, because they can. While it's easy to say "well, players should just avoid doing that," if there's agreement that players shouldn't be doing this, then why not put caps on how how your bank balance can go, or remove it completely?
Rejig encumbrance and coin weight so carrying 500-1500 coins isn't a huge hindrance for low strength characters and the need for the bank vanishes.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on April 24, 2016, 06:51:44 PM
Quote from: Majikal on April 24, 2016, 02:10:05 PM
I'd venture to say almost none of either city-state's population uses Nenyuk. If your commoner has so much coin they can't carry it around perhaps you're commonering wrong.
Personally I wish Nenyuk required a particular status of citizen to use.
I agree. I would further say I think the presence of the bank leads to a lot of bad commonering. Your bank account balance is a number you can make go up in a game that otherwise lacks numbers to make go up. The mere presence of the bank encourages players to min-max the economy and accumulate wealth, because they can. While it's easy to say "well, players should just avoid doing that," if there's agreement that players shouldn't be doing this, then why not put caps on how how your bank balance can go, or remove it completely?
Rejig encumbrance and coin weight so carrying 500-1500 coins isn't a huge hindrance for low strength characters and the need for the bank vanishes.
be more like the cabbage, who has never held more than a few thousand coins on his characters at any point in his entire arm career.
Quote from: evilcabbage on April 24, 2016, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: hyzhenhok on April 24, 2016, 06:51:44 PM
Quote from: Majikal on April 24, 2016, 02:10:05 PM
I'd venture to say almost none of either city-state's population uses Nenyuk. If your commoner has so much coin they can't carry it around perhaps you're commonering wrong.
Personally I wish Nenyuk required a particular status of citizen to use.
I agree. I would further say I think the presence of the bank leads to a lot of bad commonering. Your bank account balance is a number you can make go up in a game that otherwise lacks numbers to make go up. The mere presence of the bank encourages players to min-max the economy and accumulate wealth, because they can. While it's easy to say "well, players should just avoid doing that," if there's agreement that players shouldn't be doing this, then why not put caps on how how your bank balance can go, or remove it completely?
Rejig encumbrance and coin weight so carrying 500-1500 coins isn't a huge hindrance for low strength characters and the need for the bank vanishes.
be more like the cabbage, who has never held more than a few thousand coins on his characters at any point in his entire arm career.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on April 24, 2016, 06:51:44 PMWhile it's easy to say "well, players should just avoid doing that," if there's agreement that players shouldn't be doing this, then why not put caps on how how your bank balance can go, or remove it completely?
Tell me I'm not the only one who remembers when coins were weightless and took up no space.
I'm not sure how to explain how I think that Nenyuk is so good without ... explaining why I think so. Which is IC. Whoever made the Nenyuk clan is a mastermind.
IMHO, coin weights are too light. I would sincerely love to see either deeds or denominations done.
an obsidian coin
an ivory coin (100)
A jade, impressively s-desced coin (1000)
A coin carved from pure fuckallinite, carved with rad shit (10000...because nobles)
Quote from: nauta on April 21, 2016, 05:19:20 PM
Kooky idea: What if we just had two kinds of coins: one worth 100 sid and another worth 500. NPC vendors would not give change. This would (1) solve the heaviness problem; (2) encourage more bartering among the masses and PC-to-PC trading. It'd probably have negative consequences on off-peaker crafters who want to buy short bones, though.
offer stone; barter
Is there an acceptable method for independents to store their wealth?
It always seems to roll into: Independents should probably not be storing their wealth.
Quote from: Jingo on April 27, 2016, 01:26:54 AM
Is there an acceptable method for independents to store their wealth?
It always seems to roll into: Independents should probably not be storing their wealth.
It's the part where they have wealth that seems to be the issue
If it's a problem, then our fundamental game systems need to be reconsidered.
Not just banking.
Part of the fun of the game for a lot of people is trying to acquire wealth for your character.
That's a base fundamental, perhaps THE base fundamental of almost every RPG I can think of.
Get loot, become wealthy.
I don't think we should be looking for ways to ensure that part of the game becomes nigh impossible for independents. If you do that then the people who enjoy playing independents will probably find it much less enjoyable.
Also, once your independent PC reaches a certain threshold of wealth, power, and influence, staff WILL bring the world to life to fuck with you (and never positively). It won't be just random thieves either. It will be people so high up the chain you might as well just be playing against staff avatars. Had it happen more than a few times with past independents of mine. They are certainly on top of it once you reach a certain point.
I think a better direction to take the thought process behind "How to deal with wealthy independents.", is not, "How do we prevent it.".
I think a better direction would be come up with an idea/ideas for, "How do we make it both realistic and enjoyable for independents who reach that threshold.".
It's cool and fun to get wealthy with an independent. But once you reach a certain point, you really do stop playing with/against the playerbase. From then on, it's just you vs whatever high ranking NPC gets animated to fuck with you directly or through another PC via proxy. The game then becomes about as enjoyable as just receiving a request via the request tool saying, "We are taking your money and there's nothing you can do about it.". It amounts to the same thing for you in terms of playability.
The Minor Merchant House system is a pretty awesome money-sink, but it's also a very flawed system that has some very key points that need to be corrected/fixed and to date it's working off of the same documentation that was put in hypothetically. There haven't been any changes to it yet in terms of revisions based on player feedback from them actually being part of the system. It's still just the system that was put in based on, "How we think this might work without ever having anyone actually try it.".
I think the key for making wealthy independents more interesting, and more interesting to play is to figure out this:
- How do we allow wealthy independents to actually utilize their wealth for the fun of the game, and themselves, while also making the game entertainingly difficult for them?
Right now the only solution I've seen is, "Take away their money, influence, or allies via animations of untouchables.". It's pretty "meh".
Quote from: Desertman on April 27, 2016, 08:46:41 AM
I think the key for making wealthy independents more interesting, and more interesting to play is to figure out this:
- How do we allow wealthy independents to actually utilize their wealth for the fun of the game, and themselves, while also making the game entertainingly difficult for them?
Right now the only solution I've seen is, "Take away their money, influence, or allies via animations of untouchables.". It's pretty "meh".
Murdering them with PCs works pretty well, too.
Finding new ways to spend money is a better solution than new ways to earn or store money. Making 'sids is piss-easy if you have a crafting or thieving skill.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 27, 2016, 02:00:33 PM
Murdering them with PCs works pretty good, too.
Finding new ways to spend money is a better solution than new ways to earn or store money. Making 'sids is piss-easy if you have a crafting or thieving skill.
I recommend the introduction of this "banking ticket" or something similar to make murdering them something that happens more often when they decide to amass massive amounts of wealth. (But not pay the right people/hire the right people to protect it.)
Nobody is saying indie's shouldn't be able to accumulate wealth. The point is doing so should require some effort. There should be a barrier to entry. It should not be simply a matter of walking to an NPC and typing deposit (and paying a tariff).
All we need is to get it to the point where players who aren't terribly concerned with accumulating wealth don't do so by default because it's so easy and inexpensive. It's so easy an inexpensive, in fact, not doing so requires ridiculous IC contortions. It should be reduced to being one of a number of options one can spend money on. If you have to jump through a few hoops before you can safely seal your wealth away, you'll be incentivized to be more creative and searching in finding something to do with extra money.
Making big, safe piles of money more rare would help wealthy indies by giving their wealth more significant. One of the reasons money means little in the game is any PC that's lived a few IC months and didn't literally junk money every time he had 500+ coin in his inventory is going to be rich, because that's what the current system encourages.
No argument on that front here.
Did you know you can't actually JUNK money? I found this out when I tried to junk money for just this reason heh. I wanted to stay poor.
I have been lobbying for being able to junk money for about a year now, since I learned that :/ I hate that you can't.
junk coin does not work?
I'm not saying there's an overlap in the players who want to junk money and the players who use the bank and live in bombproof apartments, but...
If you want your money to disappear, make your apartment into a mini-game for some eager thief out there and forget to lock your door.
I rarely have an excess of coins. Sometimes I just want to junk money to give it to a VNPC for roleplaying purposes.
I rarely have enough money to be considered rich on an OOC level, even though sometimes I'll work my butt off for it, because I'm an irresponsible brat who shouldn't be allowed to handle money.
One time I made 5000 coins for my brother so he could live in an apartment in Allanak while being employed by the Byn. That was by far the most I have _ever_ had on me, and I'm hearing about these people with 10,000-50,000 coins and I'm like wtf, but I've never had a multi-year character with armormaking, so.
Quote from: CodeMaster on April 27, 2016, 10:27:37 PM
I'm not saying there's an overlap in the players who want to junk money and the players who use the bank and live in bombproof apartments, but...
If you want your money to disappear, make your apartment into a mini-game for some eager thief out there and forget to lock your door.
This is a possibility.
See my post earlier in this thread regarding me intentionally leaving around 10,000 coins in a chest for a potential daring thief to possibly get from me.
However, I had a very IC reason for doing that. (I was taking so much money "in and out" regularly that if I just didn't get hit for an IC year, more or less, I would actually SAVE money on the Nenyuk fees even if the whole 10,000 got swiped by some thief at the end of that year. It never actually got hit.)
Most people don't have an IC reason to leave their wealth in situations where they know it is vulnerable when the alternative is to walk to Nenyuk and get instant untouchable access.
Quote from: CodeMaster on April 27, 2016, 10:27:37 PM
I'm not saying there's an overlap in the players who want to junk money and the players who use the bank and live in bombproof apartments, but...
If you want your money to disappear, make your apartment into a mini-game for some eager thief out there and forget to lock your door.
This is exactly what I mean by "ridiculous IC contortions." If my character is rational, conscientious and frugal, s/he cannot reallly avoid becoming rich. That means in order to avoid becoming wealthy, I
must play a character who is either frankly stupid, careless, lazy, and/or a spendthrift. Wealth accumulation and storage should not be so easy and such a no-brainer that I must give my character traits I don't want them to have in order to avoid it. Not to mention your example implies an assumption that all characters will rent an apartment when they are able too--but again, I shouldn't have to make up a reason for my character to get an apartment just so I can have a money sink.
I shouldn't have to design my character around avoiding getting rich. I definitely shouldn't have to act out of character.
if you're conscientious and frugal, then yeah. Of course you'll accumulate money.
You may not believe this, but there are plenty of ''stupid'' people in the real world.
And ... no. I guess I should say that there are plenty of people who aren't money smart in the real world.
Five TVs man. Five fucking TVs. I think I mentioned this before how this guy I knew who was always complaining about not having enough money was always smoking weed, was always renting movies /and/ being late to return them, was always buying alcohol going out to the club and bla bla bla - had bought five TVs.
This type of being bad with money isn't rare. Not at all. Especially among those already living in poverty. This type being bad with money is rare among people who have money, because ... it makes sense that people who are bad with money would have no money.
anyway... yeah. Of course if you're conscientious and frugal you're most likely to be wealthy.
I'm fucking horrible at saving money. So now I just hardly ever spend it, but when I do I pretty much spend it all.
Quote from: Chettaman on May 02, 2016, 08:39:59 PMOf course if you're conscientious and frugal you're most likely to be wealthy.
Doesn't fit the setting for it to be that easy.
I'd much prefer if the difficulty curve were shifted so that we could see some actual economic desperation and barely making ends meet.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on May 09, 2016, 06:36:06 PM
Quote from: Chettaman on May 02, 2016, 08:39:59 PMOf course if you're conscientious and frugal you're most likely to be wealthy.
Doesn't fit the setting for it to be that easy.
I'd much prefer if the difficulty curve were shifted so that we could see some actual economic desperation and barely making ends meet.
I hear you, but at the end of the day you probably have to impose constraints on yourself to see this happen.
Dump I
I had a
hell of a time making any money when I was playing a non-crafter in the Byn. The T'zai Byn "Runner" role puts some huge constraints on what you can do to generate wealth. 5 sid was a big deal to me back then -- and I look back on it fondly. When they kicked me out I was flirting with hunger for a while (until I figured out where to buy cheap food).
Other times you can run into a newbie PC's dead body and can't help but make 1k off of it -- and all of a sudden your desperate 'rinther is no longer poor. It's up to you to stop this from happening: play a superstitious character who doesn't like looting the dead, or a paranoid character who's worried about the repercussions of being caught, or a spice addict whose expensive habit keeps her down.
Dump II
Armageddon isn't really built around the idea of grinding for material wealth (I realize I'm preaching to the choir -- this thread is filled with some of my favorite players). You can do it, and that's what the early game tends to be modelled around, but it's not designed to be the complete rat-pellet experience that World of Warcraft is, for example.
To me, Arm is more centered around the idea of building shared stories with an element of unpredictability (personified in this case by the horrible diceroll). If banking deeds and other more liquid forms of wealth assist in this basic idea, then I'm all it. If making it harder to grind wealth makes more people want to interact with each other and tell stories, I'm all for that too.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on May 09, 2016, 06:36:06 PM
Quote from: Chettaman on May 02, 2016, 08:39:59 PMOf course if you're conscientious and frugal you're most likely to be wealthy.
Doesn't fit the setting for it to be that easy.
I'd much prefer if the difficulty curve were shifted so that we could see some actual economic desperation and barely making ends meet.
characters who can should go and have a drink everyday. Characters who can should get free food cooked by an expert in their craft, hired by the house that can afford that. Characters who can should pay for expensive prostitutes at every turn.
- if you had to eat everyday. If you were alcohol took a night to pass through you. If mudsex lasted five in game minutes. xD
then you'd have to pay like:
40(vennant steaks) x 11(days of the week) = 440 coins a week
+ 11(whisky shots) x 11 = 121 (and who's gonna go and get one drink?)
+ 50 per prostitute x 11 = 550
== 1111 + misc expenses an rl day ... and then sooner or later rent. And sleep. They probably have to sleep. They can't work non stop like us heroes. - so people go without eating everyday and people - well no. They're gonna drink to ease their sorrows and they'll do the sex like nine times instead to save cash. These people suffer, man!
Even if they got a bag of salt everyday they'd make a 100 or a little less. 1100, man. That is almost exactly how much they need to live comfortably, man!
and then there's the argument that time is different from them to us as well as how much sleep they need and I might just be twisting words to make sense, but really. Living comfortably isn't as cheap for some people.
and I don't know about you, but that's a lot if you ask me. I agree - making coins and survival is pretty easy for us. I always imagine we're "heroes" compared to the rest of the plebeians, though. Pip-pip!
No. In a desperate, resource-starved primitive society, people should not have to live like modern, immature and irresponsible university students who eat out and go drinking every night to run out of money. And reading the documentation, I'm not seeing anywhere that says "your PC is automatically a heroic exception to the norm in this desperate, brutal world."
Quote from: CodeMaster on May 09, 2016, 10:40:38 PM
I hear you, but at the end of the day you probably have to impose constraints on yourself to see this happen.
As things work now, yes. But the entire point of this line of conversation is the way things work now isn't ideal, and I am talking about how changing the banking system might move it to the better.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on May 10, 2016, 10:14:14 AM
No. In a desperate, resource-starved primitive society, people should not have to live like modern, immature and irresponsible university students who eat out and go drinking every night to run out of money. And reading the documentation, I'm not seeing anywhere that says "your PC is automatically a heroic exception to the norm in this desperate, brutal world."
Quote from: CodeMaster on May 09, 2016, 10:40:38 PM
I hear you, but at the end of the day you probably have to impose constraints on yourself to see this happen.
As things work now, yes. But the entire point of this line of conversation is the way things work now isn't ideal, and I am talking about how changing the banking system might move it to the better.
The PC's in Armageddon are naturally predisposed towards qualities that make them inherently the exception to the rule.
Much like the player characters in just about every other game in existence, the characters played by the players are ALMOST always given to having an unnaturally ability to excel above the standard masses.
Why?
Because that's how video games work.
Armageddon isn't at this time any different and never has been.
The documentation might not have a sentence in it that says, "Armageddon works like a standard video game and has standard video game elements.".
The reason for that? It is understood by most people who play video games.
Now, if your argument is, "I want to see this aspect of this particular video game changed.". Then fine.
But, pretending things aren't how they are and have always been isn't the right step in that direction.
Yes, PC's are naturally predisposed to excelling above the squabbling rabble that is the VNPC population of the world. That is understood.
Should that be changed?
That is the question.
I like playing heroes and the vast majority of my characters actually are "better" than your standard VNPC especially towards the middle/end of their careers. For me, I would have to say no to "nerfing PC traits" to make them more like playing a VNPC, which in my opinion is what it would amount to. I don't want to play a VNPC.
Playing a VNPC would be godawful boring. I don't want to have to spend every game session desperately scraping for survival to the point that I don't have time to interact, build stories, and play out scenes because my hunger bar is ticking down.
Quote from: Delirium on May 10, 2016, 10:41:34 AM
Playing a VNPC would be godawful boring. I don't want to have to spend every game session desperately scraping for survival to the point that I don't have time to interact, build stories, and play out scenes because my hunger bar is ticking down.
This.
At one point I got slotted into a position and basically forced into playing what I would consider to be an NPC. A lively NPC to be sure, but I still felt like I was just being used as an NPC to fulfill someone else's predetermined plotline and/or wishes for how they thought things should go.
I quit almost immediately when I realized, "I'm not even running the show anymore. I'm just their hiring NPC.".
Nope. Been there. Definitely not in the boat of, "go back there again".
Strawmen. I have no idea how you get from "I should not automatically become wealthy just because my PC survives a few months" to "I don't want to have to spend every game session desperately scraping for survival to the point that I don't have time to interact, build stories, and play out scenes because my hunger bar is ticking down."
If you make the choice your character should have their ducks in order, that they should be wealthy, I'm all for the tools being in the game that make that possible without necessarily there being a huge time sink. But that is a choice you make for your character, rather than it being the default as it is.
It's only the default if you know how to do it - you can choose not to, or choose to let your character be unwise with their money.
I remember having a very tough time as a newbie (admittedly, many years ago) making money and not starving to death.
You have to remember that sometimes things that appear easy only appear so because you have your veteran glasses on.
What I'm talking about has no bearing on an PC's ability to survive basically. I'll believe new players are struggling to survive when I don't see every stable maxxed out with dung all the time, but ultimately that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the step beyond survival, where the character's extra coins are being deposited into the bank and gradually, inexorably, increasing.
"You can choose not to" sounds simple, but it isn't. We are talking about the very core of the game here: the power to define who your character is and play a role.
Yes, I can choose to never use the bank. I can choose to never pick up valuable salvage or resources. I can choose to never loot coins of corpses. I can choose to throw character's money away. I can choose to do all sorts of things if I want my character to be poor. But when I have to act against my character, or literally design my character's personality so they will be inclined to make such decisions, my ability to play and roleplay are seriously constrained. What if I don't want to play a character who is paranoid about Nenyuk? Who is superstitious about carrying large number of coins? I should not have to resort to such extremes.
Chettaman's claim that people who are modest and frugal will inevitably be rich isn't even true in the cushy modern world. I see no reason why it should be true in Armageddon, and I'm pretty sure it can be changed without apocalyptic consequences for basic survival or characters actually trying to accumulate wealth.
One of the best ways to keep your PC from getting wealthy is to spend your coin as quickly as possible. Luxury purchases - food, drink, whores, jewelry, etc. - are a great way to do this. Even better when a PC can supply them, as it's instant interaction.
The default of Zalanthas is hardscrabble poverty. Most of our PCs will have that as a background. Once they stop being VNPCs and become PCs, the money tends to come in. And what do people do when suddenly flush with cash? They splurge. It's not "living like an immature college student," it's the feast part of "Feast or famine."
It also helps to set limits on your playstyle. Try only crafting one item to sell per RL day, or only getting paid by PCs and clan salaries. Or have a cap on how much money you ever possess at one time. It's possible to play a character that's comfortable, with time to interact, not terribly likely to starve to death, and who still thinks selling something for fifty coins is a big fucking deal worth celebrating.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on May 10, 2016, 01:43:39 PM
Yes, I can choose to never use the bank. I can choose to never pick up valuable salvage or resources. I can choose to never loot coins of corpses. I can choose to throw character's money away. I can choose to do all sorts of things if I want my character to be poor. But when I have to act against my character, or literally design my character's personality so they will be inclined to make such decisions, my ability to play and roleplay are seriously constrained. What if I don't want to play a character who is paranoid about Nenyuk? Who is superstitious about carrying large number of coins? I should not have to resort to such extremes.
Even if you don't want to play a character who does any of these things there is one character we almost all play: the kind who can die at any given time. You can't take your 'sid with you, it doesn't accrue interest in the bank. Beyond a given nest egg, what does amassing it really benefit you?
Yes, I could restrict my characters who are not supposed to be rich or become rich to fatalist, hedonist, spendthrift superstitious and paranoid bumpkins who know nothing about the world, its economy or the value of things. Strangely, I do not find these appealing suggestions nor do I appreciate the insinuations that accompany them.
Or we could do something really easy like let set a minimum bank account balance of 3000 coins. (Bonus points if you make a templar and Guild-accessible list of such accounts accessed in the last month.) Or one of another dozen ideas I have that would have a similar effect. It would be so easy to change the basic incentives that lead to the problems I'm talking about, without affecting low-level survival or high-level wealth accumulation. I really do not understand the resistance here.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on May 10, 2016, 06:22:22 PM
Yes, I could restrict my characters who are not supposed to be rich or become rich to fatalist, hedonist, spendthrift superstitious and paranoid bumpkins who know nothing about the world, its economy or the value of things. Strangely, I do not find these appealing suggestions nor do I appreciate the insinuations that accompany them.
Or we could do something really easy like let set a minimum bank account balance of 3000 coins. (Bonus points if you make a templar and Guild-accessible list of such accounts accessed in the last month.) Or one of another dozen ideas I have that would have a similar effect. It would be so easy to change the basic incentives that lead to the problems I'm talking about, without affecting low-level survival or high-level wealth accumulation. I really do not understand the resistance here.
I'd love to hear your ideas (maybe in another thread?) This idea about carrying your coins until you have 3000 of them is an intriguing start.
**edited below
I couldn't see nenyuk puting restrictions on how many little black stones they could possibly acquire. The new tax on coins is right up their alley, though.
I didn't mean to come so hostile. But I did.
In the real world, even people who aren't partying college students are bad with money. Adults who have been alive for more than fifty years, immature maybe or just ... listen, man. My brother lives in like a small commune (Four trailers and a shed) of trailers between mississippi and Louisiana. He's like 38 or something and his girlfriend is like 40/ 50 or something. All of the people who live in this place are adults who raise kids and go to work and live the life they understand. I'll admit, they do immature things like smoke weed and drink beer every night moment. But seriously... all these people have to come home to is hanging out with each other, smoking weed, drinking beer, chatting about whatever, playing dominoes or the card game phase ten. These people, I think you can call ignorant or maybe immature, whatever the case - they're living their lives however they see fit. And I'm sure they know exactly what kind of life they live... maybe ignorant is the wrong word. Maybe immature is the wrong word. I would say... broken. These people are broken. But it's the life they live and only an incredible change in whatever the problem is will ever give them a chance to change.
I promise you, I know what I'm talking about, because I've lived with more than one group like this - and this is America. I imagine in places where an armageddon-like life-style is reality - except drugs are much easier to acquire (like in armageddon). I imagine those people would or even /do/ act immature and literally blow all of their money on whatever they want, because they have nothing else to look forward to.
But. I've never been outside America as an "adult", so I can't speak with any experience about any other place.
That and I still need to get my own life together. I'm really starting to consider I'm just an idiot who doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.
No, no. If these god damn people all pooled their money and worked together as well as they fucking do now towards /saving/, they could be something incredible. How does this not make sense to them, right? How in the fucking world do they get up everyday, get drunk, get high, go to work and then come back, get drunker, get higher, go to bed and rinse and repeat?
... because it doesn't sound bad. These broken fools aren't even broken, man. They just may never become anything greater. Not because they can't, but because they got no reason to change up this routine that works and they enjoy it ''enough''.
There /are/ people who work towards better things. And there are people who don't believe there is anything better. - in comparison or otherwise. In armageddon it's a little different. In armageddon, they /are/ ignorant. They are the oppressed.
** as for the real world and frugality. (that word didn't get spell-checked, so it must be real!) But my idea of frugal is intense. I've walked miles at a time everyday while owning a vehicle. I've slept on floors and furniture, because beds aren't a necessity. Sometimes I didn't even own furniture. Just like crates and stuff. I've eaten nothing but peanut butter and banana sandwiches, because it's cheap and ramen makes me sick after enough of it. (but indulged regularly, because I love food) My idea of frugal is so frugal, it's probably another word. (probably insanity).
Man. What the hell is a car owner's tax in SC? Don't we already pay taxes to fix roads and stuff? SC&G is the company that generates and gives out electricity. What the fuck, man? I can generate electricity with two fridge magnets, copper fishing wire and any metal rod - and probably a bike or something. xD. - save $150 a month, right there. - and through this, if you could create your own engine that ran off of the electricity you created you wouldn't need gas for your car. Um... let's say you fill up once a week for $30. 30 x 4(weeks) = $120 a month Or you could just walk, bike or carpool. Let's say you know how to repair your own vehicle and you're even able to create all the things you need to do so. Bam - you save however much you would of actually paid someone else to do it. Food? Learn how to grow food and livestock.
150(electricity) + 120(gas) + car repair + Farming (I dunno, no experience farming)
If real people were as capable as the people in arm are... they'd be able to be rich. But even in this world, brainwashing is a reality. The ease and comfort of ''team work'' has made people lazy to the truth that they could just do it themselves. The idea that people have to get up and go to work so they can make money to have these things that they could take care of themselves isn't just an idea - it's how we live. It's how we survive now. I'm not saying it's bad... I'm just saying that's how it is. We /could/ be better - even as frugal as we already are. So why in the fuck do we get up every day, cook and eat breakfast that was gathered by someone else, brush our teeth, shower, go to work or school, go to work or school, go to work, come home, watch tv/ read books/ play video games/ or whatever, and then go to sleep to do the same thing?
because it's not so bad. It works.
again. I may just be an idiot twisting words.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on May 10, 2016, 06:22:22 PM
Yes, I could restrict my characters who are not supposed to be rich or become rich to fatalist, hedonist, spendthrift superstitious and paranoid bumpkins who know nothing about the world, its economy or the value of things. Strangely, I do not find these appealing suggestions nor do I appreciate the insinuations that accompany them.
Or we could do something really easy like let set a minimum bank account balance of 3000 coins. (Bonus points if you make a templar and Guild-accessible list of such accounts accessed in the last month.) Or one of another dozen ideas I have that would have a similar effect. It would be so easy to change the basic incentives that lead to the problems I'm talking about, without affecting low-level survival or high-level wealth accumulation. I really do not understand the resistance here.
This sounds like a fantastic way to ensure everyone rushes to 3,000 coins as soon as possible in order to secure their "starting hoard".
If anything all this does is ensures everyone in the world has at least 3,000 coins to their name.
This might be the worst idea I have ever heard if your goal is to make it so that people don't have so much money so easily.
As for The Guild and Templars being able to see bank accounts.....find out IC is all I'm going to say about that.
QuoteI couldn't see nenyuk puting restrictions on how many little black stones they could possibly acquire. The new tax on coins is right up their alley, though.
It's all quite the reverse, really. Banks want big deposits because they want big cash reserves because they want to be able to make big, profitable loans. Storing, recording, tracking, and providing ready access to money is costly. It's pretty questionable why Nenyuk only charges 10 sid to permanently and forever store 100 sid for rando commoners--surely, even taking into account the chance the commoner will forfeit his 100 sid for some reason, that isn't worth it for Nenyuk.
Yet for some reason Nenyuk's fees are very low for low depositors, and very expensive for high-value depositors. The high value depositors are the ones who Nenyuk should be letting in for free! There's a reason why it's so hard for my character to justify not using the bank--the value of the service provided is far higher than the price.
Abolish bank fees and introduce minimum balance for 2016.
Quote from: Desertman on May 11, 2016, 12:06:37 AM
This sounds like a fantastic way to ensure everyone rushes to 3,000 coins as soon as possible in order to secure their "starting hoard".
If anything all this does is ensures everyone in the world has at least 3,000 coins to their name.
This might be the worst idea I have ever heard if your goal is to make it so that people don't have so much money so easily.
Please explain your reasoning. I'm especially interested in the in-character reasoning that literally every character, from Bynner to rinth rat to raider to militiaman to beggar, will use to come to the conclusion that it's a good idea for them to save up 3000 coins just so they can open a bank account with Nenyuk.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on May 11, 2016, 02:57:41 PM
QuoteI couldn't see nenyuk puting restrictions on how many little black stones they could possibly acquire. The new tax on coins is right up their alley, though.
It's all quite the reverse, really. Banks want big deposits because they want big cash reserves because they want to be able to make big, profitable loans. Storing, recording, tracking, and providing ready access to money is costly. It's pretty questionable why Nenyuk only charges 10 sid to permanently and forever store 100 sid for rando commoners--surely, even taking into account the chance the commoner will forfeit his 100 sid for some reason, that isn't worth it for Nenyuk.
Yet for some reason Nenyuk's fees are very low for low depositors, and very expensive for high-value depositors. The high value depositors are the ones who Nenyuk should be letting in for free! There's a reason why it's so hard for my character to justify not using the bank--the value of the service provided in unquestionable way too good for the price.
Abolish bank fees and introduce minimum balance for 2016.
Quote from: Desertman on May 11, 2016, 12:06:37 AM
This sounds like a fantastic way to ensure everyone rushes to 3,000 coins as soon as possible in order to secure their "starting hoard".
If anything all this does is ensures everyone in the world has at least 3,000 coins to their name.
This might be the worst idea I have ever heard if your goal is to make it so that people don't have so much money so easily.
Please explain your reasoning. I'm especially interested in the in-character reasoning that literally every character, from Bynner to rinth rat to raider to militiaman to beggar, will come to the IC conclusion that it's a good idea for them to save up 3000 coins just so they can open a bank account with Nenyuk.
I'm not claiming they will have an IC reason for doing it.
I'm saying this will introduce a fantastic OOC reason for doing it, and people will.
I wish we played a game where people didn't do IC things for OOC reasons, but we don't. That's not the game we are playing. You have to keep the reality of your situation in mind before introducing changes.
I'm a firm believer in the banking systems being an IC construct /way/ more than it is an OOC one.
I imagine a dood storing 100 coins and paying 10 of those 100 coins. Now he has 90. - then he dies. Now Nenyuk has 90 + 10.
I imagine if a noble dood storing 100,000 coins and he has to give up 10,000. Now he has 90,000. - This character is far less likely to die. But even if he did die, their house would inherit the coins, I imagine. So Nenyuk gains little to nothing from a dead NOBLE person with so much coin. However if this person /is/ just a random frugal hunter, the rest of that 90,000 goes to Nenyuk.
But maybe you're right. I'm not sure how much it costs to keep records safe.
Guards, employees, uh... rent for the space maybe? hm. I see what you're saying, I think.
While the employees get paid 100 a month - bla - random number - 100 x 100 = 100,000
I dunno how many apartments real or virtual are in the cities and how many actually get rented, but it just came to me that it must be more than enough to cover these costs. And so this banking thing just becomes a little thing on the side. (now that there /is/ a tax, anyway). In a larger scheme of things, the family /is/ profiting. Not from the bank alone, but in the larger scheme of things.
hm... but if they did want to make a profit solely from the bank, I dunno. I can't imagine people using the bank if they were taxed /heavily/.
Also to meet you both in the middle: a minimum of 500. It's a much more realistic number, if you ask me. 3000 makes a frugal freak like me squelch. To most of the oppressed in the cities they might never make it to 3000. While some will think, "A bank account!" What a goal! I need one of those to be someone!"
but if it were 500 most of the people in the cities would think, "Eh. That's not too hard. Sure. Why not?"
Obviously the number isn't set in stone for the idea to work. The idea for this particular proposal, though, is you make getting a bank account an affirmative choice on the part of the character by making sure they need more money than they would usually have rolling around in their backpack.
My characters' threshold before they start to get annoyed/worried/weighed down by their purse ranges anywhere between 300 and 1000 coins, depending on the particular character, so I wanted to set the minimum a bit higher than that. I proposed 3000 because the higher the number, the more obvious its effect in encouraging players to think about and make choices ICly about what they do with their money. But I imagine something as low as 1500 would have some effect; I've certainly had characters who never had that much money at once.
I haven't played in a very long time -- I feel I've been gone for ten years, and have only recently come back to play, so maybe my opinion on this is a little dated.
Nenyuk would be in the business of increasing their wealth and political power; to be quite honest, I'm surprised -- from a thematic standpoint -- that they are tolerated as well as they are, and are as quiet as they are. The are (presumably) trusted to hold the funds and assets of not just the common drudgery, but the nobility and templarate in both the north and south. The closest comparable entity from Earth, in terms of raw power, would be the Pope to middle-ages Europe. Of course, even the Pope had the Vatican -- Nenyuk physically resides in "every major city." That means that they are not centralized, and the individual family members would be easily corruptible if offered more power. In all the years that Armageddon has run, I'm not sure that they have ever addressed this: how either of the terribly pompous "Powers that Be" tolerate a non-noble house, free of any sworn allegiance, to single-handedly hold the power to crush the masses and sway a war is totally beyond me. I'd personally would love to an RPT that would split Nenyuk or update the role that it plays.
I'm also a major fan of gritty realism. Nenyuk acts like a giant Bag of Holding that transcends time and space, and for some reason, every single one of its agents and employees knows exactly who you are and what you look like, even if you're just some shitty Bynner, and whether you're alive or dead. I know that a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is required for games, but we already have coins that have weight, so I see no reason to stop there.
I actually like the banking deed idea. It works very similar to the way you get a stub from a stable for your animal. It doesn't have to involve anything anachronistic or theme-breaking (like literacy): your slip could basically just be an assortment of symbols that Nenyuk would use to organize their business. Things like a symbol for the city where the deposit exists, painted colored marks to represent large, small, tens, and ones of the balance, or symbols to denote the 'row and column' of a given safety deposit box. If you are nobility, your stamp is marked with the seal of your house and you get treated like the awesome 'possum that you are -- and Krath help any poor soul of a commoner who shows up with a house-marked ticket and no matching signet ring. (Although, I guess if you're wicked enough to get both the ticket, the signet ring, and the nice clothes -- well, you've already committed execution-worthy crimes, what's one more to add to the pile?)
But I would take it a bit further and segregate the major cities. If you drop 10,000 coins off in Allanak, it doesn't magically just poof up in Tuluk, ready to be withdrawn. This would accomplish a couple of things: 1, it makes the game more realistic, but still playable; 2, it allows a believable way for a templar or noble to seize assets within their own city, and 3, it ensures that players think more carefully about which city they are hanging around in and how they transport their money. It'll mean that if you're going to go up north to load up on wood, and all of your money is in Allanak, you have to actually transport your own money or pay someone else to do it, and hope you don't get robbed along the way.
I have always supported the banking deed idea fully.
banking deeds that use thumb prints to identify who's who! - or something of this nature.
this way - if someone came up to the table and was like, "Here's my multipass, ya nenyuk bastard! I need to make a withdrawl!"
"So you do, breed. ... Now match your thumb print to the one on the deed."
"Well I..."
"you can't?! Oh, sorry. Guess all the money is ours now, suckuh! Muahahaha!"
also - people should be charged to waste nenyuk time when checking their balance. Damn peasants.
Quote from: Chettaman on May 12, 2016, 01:23:02 AM
banking deeds that use thumb prints to identify who's who! - or something of this nature.
this way - if someone came up to the table and was like, "Here's my multipass, ya nenyuk bastard! I need to make a withdrawl!"
"So you do, breed. ... Now match your thumb print to the one on the deed."
"Well I..."
"you can't?! Oh, sorry. Guess all the money is ours now, suckuh! Muahahaha!"
also - people should be charged to waste nenyuk time when checking their balance. Damn peasants.
*roleplays cutting victim's hand off, degloving them, and slipping their fingers on, then wishes up* >]