In Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, there's an often-ignored rule: "Player/Characters must pay Gold Pieces equal to 1 % of their experience points for support and upkeep, until such time as they build a stronghold." (p. 24.) Delving Deeper has a similar rule that specifies the time period as per month.
In a comment on yesterday's post about taxes, Rod Thompson said that 1% is about what the base tax rate was in Roman and medieval times. So it seems kind of accurate... except the charge is for upkeep, not just a tax. Now, it's true that, over the long term, a 1% tax on experience points, rather than income, will result in a PC paying much more than 1% of income, since it's a tax on cumulative income, rather than income in a given time period. But should the upkeep cost include taxes, exclude taxes, or be replaced as a tax?
Why would you have a dissociated mechanic like that in the first place?
ReplyDeleteIf someone wants to dodge the law, not pay taxes, and live on the lam - let them keep all their gold.
If someone wants to live like a king, they'll pay through the nose.
I don't see how 1% of experience per any time period makes a lick of sense, or makes the game any better.
At least if it's a tax (on gross income, not XP - how would in-game characters know about XP?) it gives players a *choice*. Dodge the tax? Hide income? Find tax shelters?
Just taking the gold is pretty lame.
'cause them's the rules. It's simpler than handling every support or tax transaction individual. It doesn't *have* to be dissociated, if you don't want it to be; as I've said many times, I interpret experience point as reputation and confidence... so the more well-known you are and the richer everyone thinks you are, the more you get hit up for money.
DeleteIt really, really does have to be dissociated if you want it to be a flat 1% of XP.
DeleteFirst off, XP doesn't map to any concept the characters could have.
Secondly, it doesn't take into account any player choice or character action - it takes place outside of the game.
I personally think level as rep is silly, as I've written about before, but that's your bag.
Even so, there's logical inconsistencies in your treatment. Unless I'm mistaken, you game level drains as reducing ability (i.e. level) but not XP.
So you're saying now that you would lose the ability from the reduced rep, but you would still be getting "hit up for money" (by invisible metagame trolls, presumably) based on your previous highest rep?
It's all dreadfully dissociated, and I fail to see how removing player agency in the realm of upkeep and taxes does anything to help the game.
I'm pretty sure my players would balk if I just asked them to delete 1% of their treasure from their character sheets, no save, no possibility of avoidance, and offered "them's the rules" as the only explanation.
I don't see how any rule can be justified without either an in-game explanation (i.e. makes sense in the game world) or a meta-game explanation (i.e. makes the game more fun). This has neither.
Charles, what you are saying is: you don't *want* to associate experience points to any in-game concept, and therefore they *can't* be associated with anything. And you don't like my associating experience points (and thus, level) with reputation and confidence, so you keep XP dissociated and interpret my rules as if I were treating level as (learnable) ability, which makes me inconsistent.
DeleteWell, yeah, if you refuse to interpret things the same way I do, then everything I say will sound dissociated to you. But that's your choice to keep XP dissociated, not mine. The fact that you don't want to do it that way doesn't mean it can't be done.
Players can refuse the 1% tax, if they want. But there will be consequences in my game, because it's not a dissociated mechanic.
While I do think your rep and confidence explanation of level is silly (see http://spellsandsteel.blogspot.ca/2013/02/xp-for-gold-reputation-and-confidence.html), that's not the issue here.
DeleteCharacters don't know how much XP they have. They also don't know what level they are. That's what I mean by "map to any concept the characters could have". Those are abstractions of the game system.
That doesn't mean XP is dissociated - abstract, but not dissociated. It represents for the player the professional capability of the character. That's clear in every edition from 0 to 5.
How does the player refuse a magical DM tax that isn't being enforced by some in-game entity? That's the point I'm trying to make.
The 'tax' is based on something no-one in the game world could possibly know (XP), and is enforced by someone no-one in the game world could possibly interact with (the GM). That makes it dissociated.
If you want Duke Dorkface of Froo-froo-town enforce a 1% tax on all wealth entering or leaving the city, that's an associated mechanic. It is based on something the people in the game world can measure, and enforced by in-game characters.
It gives players interesting choices. Pony up? Hide some wealth? Flee town and live in the woods? Etc. etc.
Far more than, "it's the first of the month, deduct 1% of your XP from your wealth, or suffer unspecified consequences you can't do anything clear about".
1. "Characters don't know how much XP they have. They also don't know what level they are."
DeleteSure they do. "Am I might enough to fight a Balrog?" (Checks, sees Level is 1.) "Probably!"
2. "How does the player refuse a magical DM tax that isn't being enforced by some in-game entity?"
GM: "OK, this month, you have to pay XXX gp in taxes."
Player: "I don't want to!"
GM: "OK, how are you going to avoid that?"
It's a "magical DM tax" only in the sense that the DM mentions it and the deduction is automatic if no one makes a big deal. If someone wants to play "fool the tax collector" or "flee into the hills", that might be interesting. So why would I fight against that?
The consequences are that, if I'm interpreting XP as reputation, you have to go to town with your ill-gotten gains to increase in level. If you're avoiding the tax-man, how are you going to do that?
Your answer to that question will determine what happens next... the same as anything else in the game world.
1. "Sure they do."
DeleteNo, they don't. They have a rough idea of where they stand, but they don't know precisely. Mentzer talks about this in the Red Book - he reminds you that characters don't know what levels are. The *player* obviously does, but the level is a *metagame abstraction* invisible to the character.
2. "OK, this month, you have to pay XXX gp in taxes."
Pay tax to who? Who's asking? How did they find out I have all this stuff? These all condition the players response, and that's my main problem with all of this. It smells like a cop-out on the GM's part (no offense) to try and avoid giving the players a choice.
And you're already realizing that, I think - initially, you said it was because "'cause them's the rules.", but now it's not a rule at all - it's a real tax applied by in-game NPCs.
The player's response is going to be pretty different, I think, if the person asking for the tax is Joe Gumbo, local burgher, vs. Bailiff Jones, appointed by the king.
How can the player make an intelligent choice about how to respond if you don't give them any information?
3. "The consequences are that, if I'm interpreting XP as reputation, you have to go to town with your ill-gotten gains to increase in level."
Which is another reason why interpreting XP as rep doesn't make any sense, but again, that's not the main issue here.
4. "If you're avoiding the tax-man, how are you going to do that?"
How does a lonely druidic hermit level up?
How does a soldier on campaign, far from home level up?
How does a mad wizard in a tower far from civilization level up?
1. Sure, they do! Again, just because you don't want experience points to reflect something in the game-world, that doesn't mean I'm bound by your interpretation.
Delete2. "initially, you said it was because "'cause them's the rules.", but now it's not a rule at all - it's a real tax applied by in-game NPCs."
It's a rule. It turns into a real tax if the player makes it into an issue. There's this thing about following the player's lead about what they want to focus on that's sometimes touted as part of a GM's job. If a player likes fighting, the GM makes sure there are things to fight. If the player want to research magic spells, the GM figures out sources for research materials and suggests expeditions to retrieve ingredients. If a player wants to haggle for equipment, the GM plays an otherwise anonymous merchant. If a player wants to fight an otherwise automatic tax, then the tax is being imposed by an NPC. Simple.
3. I don't even follow your logic on #3. But xp as rep is definitely the main issue; I use it, you don't, so you say that all my conclusions based on xp as rep are wrong. I'm telling you that if you accept xp as rep (which you don't have to, ) then there's nothing dissociated about anything I've said.
4. A lonely druidic hermit, or a soldier on campaign, or a mad wizard far from civilization *don't* level up, if there's no interaction with other characters at all. If the occasional merchant or traveler brings back tales of an encounter with a druid or wizard, or a soldier gambles with his comrades in arms or goes on leave in a nearby town, then the character levels up.
You don't have to play the way I do. But you *do* have to accept that, if I choose to make xp an associated mechanic, it's an associated mechanic. You can't just tell me "I don't like that interpretation, so it's IMPOSSIBLE."
1. So your characters (not your players, your *characters*) talk about XP and levels? They could introduce themselves to NPC's like, "Hi, I'm Joe, a second-level thief - I'm excited, because I'm only 57 XP from Level 3!" and everyone would know what they're talking about?
DeleteGenuine question. Cause that's what it seems you're saying by saying they know their level.
If that's not the case, then basing the tax on XP is dissociated by virtue of using a metagame abstraction. If yes, you run a strange world, but that's your bag.
2. If it's a "rule", rather than a setting decision, it is completely dissociated. There's no rule that your city must be ruled by a mayor, because that would be a bizarre dissociated rule. Similarly, it's a bizarre dissociated "rule" that tax is the same everywhere and is based on XP. You can make your world fit the rule, but isn't it far more elegant to have no rule at all about that?
Tax rates are a setting thing, not a rule thing. If you make tax rates into rules, then those rules are dissociated by virtue of imposing arbitrary restrictions on the setting.
1. They can talk about level the same way they can talk about Strength, Intelligence, etc. "He's stronger than me, but I'm more famous and just *better*." There's no in-game meaning of "1 Strength point". But experience points? I'll post about that tomorrow.
Delete2. Now, you seem to be getting into a weird area, since you're saying that an oversimplification of a genuine in-game fact (all cities have mayors) is "dissociated". That's not what anyone means by "dissociated", at least in the conversations I've seen.
In my campaign every adventure is followed by a month of rest (usually after one or two evenings of playing) to recover and care for other things.
ReplyDeleteEvery time a month passes they have to pay a sort of upkeep, not just tax but also for repairig and restocking equipment, food and other costs. We use ACKS so I just make them pay the amount that a henchmen of the same level would cost per month, at level 4 with around 10k Exp its 200 GP so that not too far off from the 1% rule!
In my campaign every adventure is followed by a month of rest (usually after one or two evenings of playing) to recover and care for other things.
ReplyDeleteEvery time a month passes they have to pay a sort of upkeep, not just tax but also for repairig and restocking equipment, food and other costs. We use ACKS so I just make them pay the amount that a henchmen of the same level would cost per month, at level 4 with around 10k Exp its 200 GP so that not too far off from the 1% rule!