Hi all

I'm preparing to revamp my campaign a bit. I've played this system long enough now to know what works well and what annoys the crap out of me. And among other things, that means stepping back from some of the really nitty-gritty book-keeping stuff that - I can only assume - was designed to appeal to D&D fans. Do we need the specs for a million types of blaster pistol? Or attachments that can only be fixed to blaster rifles, meaning you can't (RAW) give certain effects to slugthrowers or blaster pistols? I like the fluff around a lot of this stuff - that's all cool lore - but I find the mechanics seem at odds with the core "narrative" concept of the game. It's unnecessarily fiddly. (The 'Genesys' CR, which obviously doesn't have space for all this stuff, is actually much more streamlined in this area as a result. But I digress.)

This brings me on to money.

Take a show like Firefly . Because, let's not kid ourselves, 90% of us are basing our EotE campaigns on that vibe. That's literally what the vibe was built around. Find a crew. Keep flying. All that jazz. And in that show, they're always struggling for money. Except for the episode when they aren't. But we are very, very rarely told how much money. We're just given a general sense that, for example, River's bounty could buy a better ship than Serenity , or that a compression coil is expensive enough that Mal won't fork out on a new one even when his mechanic tells him he should (fool). In fact, I think the only time that explicit amounts of platinum/credits are discussed, it's when Simon tells the crew how much medicine costs.

Even in Star Wars , amounts of money aren't really discussed. I mean, sure, we know that Obi-Wan offers Han 17,000cr to travel to Alderaan, but the number isn't really important: what's important is that it's a lot of money, enough to get Solo out of a bit of trouble. Even in the prequels, which opens with a Trade War, the only mention we get of money is that 20,000 Republic Credits are not considered a suitable currency on Alderaan. That's it. Because what matters narratively is that they don't have enough money to buy the parts they need ("No money, no parts, no deal"), so that Qui-Gon can come up with some hairbrained scheme involving illegal gambling, risking the life of an underage slave, and an enjoyable but unnecessarily long race sequence. The amounts are not important. All this fiddling with 25cr for a medpac, or 500cr for a blaster pistol, or whatever, seems folly - and is, I suspect, partly a hangover from D&D and partly something borrowed from computer games, where keeping track of lots of tiny numbers is extremely easy because... well, because that's basically what computers do.

So, I'm thinking of developing a system where money is just handwaved. The party either has enough money, or they don't. If they've recently done a job, they can afford cooler stuff than if they hadn't recently done a job; if it's been a while since they had any success, maybe they aren't able to afford fuel and the tanks are nearly dry. Narrative play.

But I'm sure there are some massive holes in this kind of thinking. Most significantly, I can see that not having credits to reward players with might make them feel a bit futile. I'm going to discuss it with them, and see what they think, but in the meantime I figured I'd ask the wise and benevolent community of the FFG forums to point out all the ways in which this is a terrible idea, and why I should just give up GMing and go and herd nerfs for the rest of my life.

Thanks in advance.

16 minutes ago, edwardavern said:

Hi all

I'm preparing to revamp my campaign a bit. I've played this system long enough now to know what works well and what annoys the crap out of me. And among other things, that means stepping back from some of the really nitty-gritty book-keeping stuff that - I can only assume - was designed to appeal to D&D fans. Do we need the specs for a million types of blaster pistol? Or attachments that can only be fixed to blaster rifles, meaning you can't (RAW) give certain effects to slugthrowers or blaster pistols? I like the fluff around a lot of this stuff - that's all cool lore - but I find the mechanics seem at odds with the core "narrative" concept of the game. It's unnecessarily fiddly. (The 'Genesys' CR, which obviously doesn't have space for all this stuff, is actually much more streamlined in this area as a result. But I digress.)

This brings me on to money.

Take a show like Firefly . Because, let's not kid ourselves, 90% of us are basing our EotE campaigns on that vibe. That's literally what the vibe was built around. Find a crew. Keep flying. All that jazz. And in that show, they're always struggling for money. Except for the episode when they aren't. But we are very, very rarely told how much money. We're just given a general sense that, for example, River's bounty could buy a better ship than Serenity , or that a compression coil is expensive enough that Mal won't fork out on a new one even when his mechanic tells him he should (fool). In fact, I think the only time that explicit amounts of platinum/credits are discussed, it's when Simon tells the crew how much medicine costs.

Even in Star Wars , amounts of money aren't really discussed. I mean, sure, we know that Obi-Wan offers Han 17,000cr to travel to Alderaan, but the number isn't really important: what's important is that it's a lot of money, enough to get Solo out of a bit of trouble. Even in the prequels, which opens with a Trade War, the only mention we get of money is that 20,000 Republic Credits are not considered a suitable currency on Alderaan. That's it. Because what matters narratively is that they don't have enough money to buy the parts they need ("No money, no parts, no deal"), so that Qui-Gon can come up with some hairbrained scheme involving illegal gambling, risking the life of an underage slave, and an enjoyable but unnecessarily long race sequence. The amounts are not important. All this fiddling with 25cr for a medpac, or 500cr for a blaster pistol, or whatever, seems folly - and is, I suspect, partly a hangover from D&D and partly something borrowed from computer games, where keeping track of lots of tiny numbers is extremely easy because... well, because that's basically what computers do.

So, I'm thinking of developing a system where money is just handwaved. The party either has enough money, or they don't. If they've recently done a job, they can afford cooler stuff than if they hadn't recently done a job; if it's been a while since they had any success, maybe they aren't able to afford fuel and the tanks are nearly dry. Narrative play.

But I'm sure there are some massive holes in this kind of thinking. Most significantly, I can see that not having credits to reward players with might make them feel a bit futile. I'm going to discuss it with them, and see what they think, but in the meantime I figured I'd ask the wise and benevolent community of the FFG forums to point out all the ways in which this is a terrible idea, and why I should just give up GMing and go and herd nerfs for the rest of my life.

Thanks in advance.

Some games, most notably Shadowrun (at least the first few editions, I can't tell you about 4th or 5th) have a Lifestyle expense. You pay X number of money (nuyen, credits, bottlecaps, whatever) and get Y living conditions, incidental expenses up to Z level aren't even noted, that kind of thing.

Maybe incorporate that into whatever you come up with. So for say 1,000 credits/month, anything less than 100 credits is just handwaved and they have the item.

I would personally put a cap on what can be gotten this way. Common items, no problem, but anything above a certain rarity, weapons other than basic blaster pistols/carbines/rifles, obviously anything restricted, ships, that kind of thing wouldn't just be handwaved even if it was below the threshold for the lifestyle they paid for.

Cotangentially . . .

I acquired a Star Wars Monopoly box and realized that the money in there is star wars money.

So at the beginning of the session, I ask the players how much dough their characters are hauling around and each time we have a transaction we are passing actual notes around.

Taking a taxi ride? How far? 30 - 40 credits. What about the tip? Getting a bite to eat? that's 20 credits.

Need to buy a replacement blaster? Do you have enough cash on hand?

I'm also an accountant so keeping gaming ledgers is a breeze.

6 minutes ago, Mark Caliber said:

Cotangentially . . .

I acquired a Star Wars Monopoly box and realized that the money in there is star wars money.

So at the beginning of the session, I ask the players how much dough their characters are hauling around and each time we have a transaction we are passing actual notes around.

Taking a taxi ride? How far? 30 - 40 credits. What about the tip? Getting a bite to eat? that's 20 credits.

Need to buy a replacement blaster? Do you have enough cash on hand?

I'm also an accountant so keeping gaming ledgers is a breeze.

So it's little plastic bars? That would be cool.

Edit: Nevermind, I googled it and it's just regular paper Monopoly money.

Plastic bars that were the correct color would have been sweet. Metal ones, like brass or bronze, would be even better.

The paper is easy enough to handle in game though.

The "madness" of Shadowrun bookkeeping laughs at SW-RPG - they have tables for pretty much everything you could think of buying so the GM doesn't even have to come up with prices for eating or public transportation although at the same time they give you the tool of Livestyles to throw all of that out of the window (as long as you stay within the limits).

I only remember GMing/playing 2 systems without bookkeeping which were Vampire and Scion, and although i liked it most of the times - there were some odd situations when it almost destroyed my immersion. Especially when someone was almost broke, having no number indicator on how broke you really are when you want something to eat/drink or other small expenses, it was somewhat strange for me to wrap my head around it.

So i can see benefits in both approaches - but i would like to hear if your plan works out for your table!

For those style games I just do this:

There's 2 accounts, one the players see, and one that resides solely in my head.

Account 1 is their hard currency on hand to buy what they want. This is what they track and use to buy weapons, upgrades, pay bribes, and other expenses that affect the overall game and story.

Account 2 is "boring" expenses and pocket money. Taxi fare, docking fees, fuel, fast food, ect. It's not tracked on a by-credit basis, but more of an overall "economic health of the party as a whole" basis.

The two accounts are loosely linked. If you've got at least few hundred credits in your personal accounts, your expenses are covered. If not, don't be surprised if one of your next episodes involves being out of gas, or having you ship impounded for unpaid docking fees.

When you get mission payouts, I'm only giving you the credits applied to the first account, the second account is just assumed to be covered.

If you want to dig into Account 2, that's one of the things Obligation as a resource can represent.

56 minutes ago, the mercenary said:

Some games, most notably Shadowrun (at least the first few editions, I can't tell you about 4th or 5th) have a Lifestyle expense. You pay X number of money (nuyen, credits, bottlecaps, whatever) and get Y living conditions, incidental expenses up to Z level aren't even noted, that kind of thing.

Maybe incorporate that into whatever you come up with. So for say 1,000 credits/month, anything less than 100 credits is just handwaved and they have the item.

I would personally put a cap on what can be gotten this way. Common items, no problem, but anything above a certain rarity, weapons other than basic blaster pistols/carbines/rifles, obviously anything restricted, ships, that kind of thing wouldn't just be handwaved even if it was below the threshold for the lifestyle they paid for.

27 minutes ago, Malashim said:

The "madness" of Shadowrun bookkeeping laughs at SW-RPG - they have tables for pretty much everything you could think of buying so the GM doesn't even have to come up with prices for eating or public transportation although at the same time they give you the tool of Livestyles to throw all of that out of the window (as long as you stay within the limits).

1

Yeah, I don't know Shadowrun, but the description that @the mercenary posted didn't fill me with confidence that that would be less book-keeping-y.

29 minutes ago, Malashim said:

I only remember GMing/playing 2 systems without bookkeeping which were Vampire and Scion, and although i liked it most of the times - there were some odd situations when it almost destroyed my immersion. Especially when someone was almost broke    , having no number indicator on how broke you really are when you want  something  to eat/drink or other small expenses, it was somewhat strange for me to wrap my head  around it.

 So i can see benefits in both approaches - but i would like to hear if your plan works out for your table!

4

I sort of see what you're saying. But does it have to be a "number indicator". Could you not just have, for example, something similar to the way range bands work? "Broke", "Poor", "Comfortable", "Well-off", "Wealthy", "Stupidly Rich", and "JK Rowling", or something? That way you're not just handwaving it, but you're also not bogged down with 5 credits at a time, or whatever.

1 minute ago, Ghostofman said:

For those style games I just do this:

 There's 2 accounts, one the players see, and one that resides solely in my head.

 Account 1 is their hard currency on hand to buy what they want. This is what they track and use to buy weapons, upgrades, pay bribes, and other expenses that affect the overall game and story.

Account 2 is "boring" expenses and pocket money. Taxi fare, docking fees, fuel, fast food, ect. It's not tracked on a by-credit basis, but more of an overall "economic health of the party as a whole" basis.

The two accounts are loosely linked. If you've got at least few hundred credits in your personal accounts, your expenses are covered. If not, don't be surprised if one of your next episodes involves being out of gas, or having you ship impounded for unpaid docking fees.

Yeah, that's sort of what I do. But then I just wondered whether I actually care how much a blaster rifle costs. Like, does that matter? If the players have to do a job before they can afford it, then just do that. Or just let them have it, if it's not narratively significant. It's not gonna break the game. Am I wrong?

For every day expenses like food and lodging I nearly always hand wave it.

Perhaps you could house rule a series of talents for wealth. It still remains an abstraction but every rank allows you to live more lavishly.

This game could be switched over to a "Resources" system where each character has a Resources level of green dice and can upgrade on a roll by taking Obligation. Items/services would have a Difficulty instead of a price along with a Rarity indicating how hard to find the item, how long it takes, and how long before you can try again in the same system. Rules would need to be incorporated for pooling Resources (what can four people each with Resources 2 accomplish together?) as well as how to raise/lower the score permanently (both in character creation and afterwards). A Resources system should also include upkeep on major items (that ship doesn't refuel itself). Such a system has obvious upsides in bookkeeping but it also demands a GM to make decisions on how often Resource rolls can be made. Is it a set number per session, roll until failure (better go for the easy purchases first), one roll per item with no limit (everybody will have lots of little things) or something else.

This kind of thing has been done in the Mutant Chronicles 3e game, the old Storyteller Games (Vampure, Werewolf, etc.), and many others. Conversely, Shadowrun and other games that still use digital accounting for all significant purchases but also have a blanket "lifestyle" cost for incidentals are not the same thing. They are really no different from current/5e D&D in this.

This almost begs for some sort of nebulous stat akin to Encumbrance or Strain - a rating that doesn't necessarily represent a number figure, but more an equivalent idea as it were. It could be ranked like a skill, but then it doesn't really flux. I agree that in this system, managing credits is needlessly fiddly but I do appreciate the impetus for such.

I think V:tM (original version at least) did this elegantly - if you had a 5 in Resources, blammo, you could pretty much buy anything. If you had a 1, well then you had to scrape together couch-change to pay for that cool leather jacket you wanted. Lifting this mechanic into EotE seems easy at first but there would be a lot of homework about determining what is 1 vs 2 vs 3 and so on, and how to manage pooling of resources - e.g. 2 + 2 != 4 as it were.

I guess this ultimately depends on the tone of the game. While I like to keep the PCs lean, I too am unclear on how to determine a hard number for soft items. Is 100cr a lot? A little? Even after playing and running this game since the EotE beta I still ran into this last week at my very latest game.

23 minutes ago, edwardavern said:

If the players have to do a job before they can afford it, then just do that. Or just let them have it, if it's not narratively significant. It's not gonna break the game. Am I wrong?

You're not wrong, but my answer to "We need a blaster rifle for this job" is: "The job pays 1,000 in advance."

After all, that's the whole point of getting an advance, to help cover known expenses up front.

It also fits the RPG "player agency" mold well. Spend the cash up front and have an easier time on the quest, or try and pocket the money and hope you don't need that specialty item after all...

51 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

This game could be switched over to a "Resources" system where each character has a Resources level of green dice and can upgrade on a roll by taking Obligation. Items/services would have a Difficulty instead of a price along with a Rarity indicating how hard to find the item, how long it takes, and how long before you can try again in the same system. Rules would need to be incorporated for pooling Resources (what can four people each with Resources 2 accomplish together?) as well as how to raise/lower the score permanently (both in character creation and afterwards). A Resources system should also include upkeep on major items (that ship doesn't refuel itself). Such a system has obvious upsides in bookkeeping but it also demands a GM to make decisions on how often Resource rolls can be made. Is it a set number per session, roll until failure (better go for the easy purchases first), one roll per item with no limit (everybody will have lots of little things) or something else.

Similar to conflict: spending through the session decreases, getting payed increases the chances of the end of session "resources roll" (similar to morality)

It's doable, I'm running my Star Trek Genesys campaign and the party is an ecclectic gaggle of Starleet and non Starfleet personnel on a mission for Starfleet Intelligence. They were handed a covert credit line to Proxima First Financial, and told to equip themselves. The short version is the mission is a covert discreet invesigation. They bought all manner of stupid **** (guns-bombs) and haven't used any. Point is the focus of the campaign isn't amassing stuff and combat is to be a last resort, so money is essentially irrelevant. Most of the encounters involve social checks, hacking, and data analysis.

Hand waving money works as long as the focus of the game isn't amassing stuff. If getting stuff is a focus then hand waving it makes one of the primary points of a campaign irrelevant.

1 hour ago, 2P51 said:

Hand waving money works as long as the focus of the game isn't amassing stuff. If getting stuff is a focus then hand waving it makes one of the primary points of a campaign irrelevant.

In FFG's SW getting stuff--and modding that stuff to crazy levels--is a focus in many games. This could be solved if signature gear were purchased with XP (as talents or such) but, as is, it's purchased with credits. This makes the current system of accounting work best even as it becomes pointless for minor expenditures (and overlooks upkeep) because credits are basically a currency for playing the power-up game. This applies to almost all character types.

Attachments are OP, and the general costs/values specifically in the game are a mess I agree. I was speaking more in general terms in that if you have a game where money/resources matter not tracking them would be more or less counterproductive depending on the level of hand wavery.

A question to consider, if you've not already done so: What happens when a character wants to use one of the talents that have an in-built credit cost? Or when a character has the talent that gives them credits every session? Something you probably should have an answer for prior to implementing this kind of change at your table.

1 hour ago, Sunrunner said:

A question to consider, if you've not already done so: What happens when a character wants to use one of the talents that have an in-built credit cost? Or when a character has the talent that gives them credits every session? Something you probably should have an answer for prior to implementing this kind of change at your table.

Most of those are isolated to a few specs. Either rework them or get rid of the spec. It's no different from barring Strategist from a campaign that won't have Mass Combat or barring Propagandist from a campaign not using Duty.

22 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

This game could be switched over to a "Resources" system where each character has a Resources level of green dice and can upgrade on a roll by taking Obligation. Items/services would have a Difficulty instead of a price along with a Rarity indicating how hard to find the item, how long it takes, and how long before you can try again in the same system. Rules would need to be incorporated for pooling Resources (what can four people each with Resources 2 accomplish  together?) as well as how to raise/lower the score permanently (both in character creation and afterwards). A Resources system should also include upkeep on major items (that ship doesn't refuel itself). Such a system has obvious upsides in bookkeeping but it also demands a GM to make decisions on how often Resource rolls can be made. Is it a set number per session, roll until failure (better go for the easy purchases first), one roll per item with no limit (everybody will have lots of little things) or something else.

 This kind of thing has been done in the Mutant Chronicles 3e game, the old Storyteller Games (Vampure, Werewolf, etc.), and many others. Conversely, Shadowrun and other games that still use digital accounting for all significant purchases but also have a blanket "lifestyle" cost for incidentals are not the same thing. They are really no different from current/5e D&D in this.

3

This feels like the sort of thing that I could spend days getting sucked into. I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of Resources=green dice, but I can also see that being an unnecessarily complicated system. Like you said, there's some decisions to be made there about how that works. Will think on it.

22 hours ago, themensch said:

This almost begs for some sort of nebulous stat akin to Encumbrance or Strain - a rating that doesn't necessarily represent a number figure, but more an equivalent idea as it were. It could be ranked like a skill, but then it doesn't really flux. I agree that in this system, managing credits is needlessly fiddly but I do appreciate the impetus for such.

I think V:tM (original version at least) did this elegantly - if you had a 5 in Resources, blammo, you could pretty much buy anything. If you had a 1, well then you had to scrape together couch-change to pay for that cool leather jacket you wanted. Lifting this mechanic into EotE seems easy at first but there would be a lot of homework about determining what is 1 vs 2 vs 3 and so on, and how to manage pooling of resources - e.g. 2 + 2 != 4 as it were.

 I guess this ultimately depends on the tone of the game. While I like to keep the PCs lean, I too am unclear on how to determine a hard number for soft items. Is 100cr a lot? A little? Even after playing and running this game since the EotE beta I still ran into this last week at my very latest game.

Ooh, that's interesting! Yes, I'm very intrigued by that possibility. Essentially creating an abstract Wealth tracker. You're right that the maths needs a bit of thinking about... maybe it's more like Silhouette, a kind of exponential chart...?

22 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

You're not wrong, but my answer to "We need a blaster rifle for this job" is: "The job pays 1,000 in advance."

After all, that's the whole point of getting an advance, to help cover known expenses up front.

It also fits the RPG "player agency" mold well. Spend the cash up front and have an easier time on the quest, or try and pocket the money and hope you don't need that specialty item after all...

Things like "payment in advance" is a good point to consider. That is something my players often go for, and hand-waving it potentially robs them of that. So I'll have to give it some thought. Good point.

21 hours ago, 2P51 said:

Hand waving money works as long as the focus of the game isn't amassing stuff. If getting stuff is a focus then hand waving it makes one of the primary points of a campaign irrelevant.

2

My players pretend to like getting stuff, but actually haven't accumulated much in the way of "gear". Occasionally one of them will decide to buy a better weapon, but since they're based on Coruscant it always feels like a let-down. "Yes, you find a weapons dealer easily. Yes, they have a marginally superior weapon. It costs 1000 credits. Well done." Players don't remember that stuff. But they absolutely remember the weapon they took from the Wookiee gladiator, or the blunderblasters they confiscated from illegal arms-runners. Narrative weapons are interesting.

18 hours ago, Sunrunner said:

A question to consider, if you've not already done so: What happens when a character wants to use one of the talents that have an in-built credit cost? Or when a character has the talent that gives them credits every session? Something you probably should have an answer for prior to implementing this kind of change at your table.

This is a valid point. Fortunately, none of my players current has these specs, and I'd probably just ask them not to take them. If they really want to I'll have to rework all the talents, of course...

24 minutes ago, edwardavern said:

Ooh, that's interesting! Yes, I'm very intrigued by that possibility. Essentially creating an abstract Wealth tracker. You're right that the maths needs a bit of thinking about... maybe it's more like Silhouette, a kind of exponential chart...?

I think that it could probably be accomplished with some rough guidelines. I think you're on to something there modeling it after Silhouette, maybe it would be easy enough to just assign credit sums there. But the point, in my mind, is to completely remove the need to do that sort of accounting and I'm not sure it still wouldn't be a lot of work to put a framework around it.

19 hours ago, themensch said:

I think that it could probably be accomplished with some rough guidelines. I think you're on to something there modeling it after Silhouette, maybe it would be easy enough to just assign credit sums there. But the point, in my mind, is to completely remove the need to do that sort of accounting and I'm not sure it still wouldn't be a lot of work to put a framework around it.

Hmm, yes, removing a fiddly system to replace it with a fiddly system is a bit pointless.

Some of the alternate ideas do sound great and would be a good way to get rid of the micromanagement, as all but the really small pools should succeed against a diff 0 - so those could fall under the table as long as the PCs aren't broke.

One thing to ask now is how thought out and complex it should be when you go big with pricetags. I can imagine some tables of things that could happen to the pool or the PCs with enough threat or even despairs showing up. Aswell as some quick but thought out mechanics to build difficulty pools - as some of those purchases could lead to the upcoming story arcs and therefore qualify to be worth rolling. Stuff like you were ripped off by the last merchant and either you paid too much for what you got, or the price was right but it was some faulty hardware you bought - or maybe everything seems right but the merchant was a shady fence and you got some marked stuff which is beeing tracked. All the story you could pull out of such rolls...

So the benefits of a more comlex system are not actually reducing the effort of bookkeeping but maybe replace plain number crunching with something that has narrative potential on somewhat meaningful expenditures.

I see a few factors at play, here.

For one, handwaving is on a different level than abtraction. If your players are satisfied following plot motivation and narrative required to drive it, then leaving things at "That week of gallavanting leaves you only two jumps" might be okay. Otherwise, to echo @HappyDaze , RPGs are often propelled by material interest -- and crime particularly is about big scores and big spends, thus "it's a lot of money" may not work for a game in the way it works for fiction.

I think there are degrees of bookkeeping, most dependent on the table. My players like the regular but straightforward CoDB I include like fuel cells (we use a map) and docking fees (I've broken out facility and economy info). At the same time, like you I hate book-shopping and only once have summarized a purchase; otherwise, gear and equipment has been obtained through play -- for example, with anything more than a junky secondhand blaster, the party goes through arms or gear dealers with names and locations and interactions beyond "ye olde weapons shoppe."

I do wonder if you could abstract monetary resources the same way I've abstracted Mechanics resources. Essentially, I didn't like FFG reducing it to money but individual parts, like, say Fallout junk, would be for computerized accounting (and even then, that system makes me fidgety).

So the party has a spare parts pool used for a check that's preliminary to repairs/attachments*/mods. Use same difficulty as intended Mechanics check. Success-plus improves chances; failure and/or Threat/Despair complicate -- you can obviously adapt to purchases. Both canceled and uncanceled F/Th/D remove dice from the pool to prevent the obvious positive feedback loop. The pool can be increased by flat die amounts or through checks for salvage (DDDD, subtract a D for amount or quality). Vehicle encumbrance keeps a group honest about active size.

Has worked incredibly well over two years. I've thought of using a variant for alchemy, but money could work, too.

* House rule, 'nother topic for 'nother time

On 12/4/2018 at 4:04 PM, edwardavern said:

Even in the prequels, which opens with a Trade War, the only mention we get of money is that 20,000 Republic Credits are not considered a suitable currency on Alderaan        

I obviously meant Tatooine . No idea what happened there...!

On 12/4/2018 at 4:29 PM, Mark Caliber said:

Cotangentially . . .

I acquired a Star Wars Monopoly box and realized that the money in there is star wars money.

So at the beginning of the session, I ask the players how much dough their characters are hauling around and each time we have a transaction we are passing actual notes around.

Taking a taxi ride? How far? 30 - 40 credits. What about the tip? Getting a bite to eat? that's 20 credits.

Need to buy a replacement blaster? Do you have enough cash on hand?

I'm also an accountant so keeping gaming ledgers is a breeze.

I somehow missed the post originally. That's awesome. I mean, it's literally the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do... but it's still awesome.

On 12/4/2018 at 7:20 PM, Rimsen said:

Similar to conflict: spending through the session decreases, getting payed increases the chances of the end of session "resources roll" (similar to morality)

Oooh, wow, I somehow missed this one as well. That's... interesting! I have no idea if it would work, or if I even like it - why is there a random element, after all? - but it's a really interesting way of thinking about it.

13 hours ago, wilsch said:

My players like the regular but straightforward CoDB I include like fuel cells (we use a map) and docking fees (I've broken out facility and economy info  ).      

Fuel and docking fees are two things I started doing and then instantly regretted. It became so unnecessarily fiddly, and I never could get the amounts to work - either they were too harsh, or just not large enough to be interesting. It was fun crunching the numbers as an exercise, but in-game it just became a chore.

I'm kind of intrigued by an idea where players have an abstract amount of resources (X units), but those resources have to be committed to things. Maybe ship maintenance/fuel requires 4 units to be committed, for example; the players can take resources out of that pot, but as soon as they go below the threshold the starts to break down. Maybe, as with VtM, players can commit X units to lifestyle, or to weapon maintenance, or something. Buying small things is handwaved; larger things maybe reduce the player's available pool...

...although TBH, now that I write that down, it doesn't feel like it's going to be any less book-keepy. Hmm.

1 hour ago, edwardavern said:

TBH, now that I write that down, it doesn't feel like it's going to be any less book-keepy. Hmm.

Nope. Books will need to be kept if you go that route

Ultimately, if you and your players can make the 'bookkeeping' interesting then use it. Otherwise you should avoid this topic like a plague.