Yep! I mentioned this somewhere else, but I was thinking to just mimic MTG tiers for the resources/items: common, rare, legendary. And they mirror the ones you described.
Connecting the settlements to each other will definitely be part of worldbuilding for the GM. If you take any 3 resources, you already can have 6 settlements where the tier distribution of those resources is different.
Sounds as though we’re on similar pages. Barter and complex trading prices are one of those things that computers are great at simulating and I as a single GM am not, but I think a flavourful tiered system of value like you describe would be workable.
I definitely think it’s worth thinking beyond gold coins when you’re building a fantastical world, so I think you’re asking the right questions of your setting.
The thing that strikes me about this (and it all sounds like a lot of fun), is that it isn’t a system in the sense of generalized or even setting structure - it’s the creation of a value structure for specific scenarios/adventures. It seems like more generalized it becomes the less compelling and comprehensible.
For example, if I reduce this characters (Balls) to an archetype (fuel scavenger) I suddenly have a setting where all fuel scavengers trade fuel for weapons or favor. If I push even further toward general systematization I’m not sure what I get something along the lines of “fuel cost 1 weapon or favor per unit”.
My take, that I’ve shared with MV elsewhere is that while the barter/favor economy is very cool for specific scenarios, I haven’t seen any good ideas on how to generalize it besides telling a referee “Invent desires and trades for each NPC” and this frankly isn’t system design so much as a big middle finger telling the referee to make up their own economy and leave the designer alone. This may all be my misunderstanding of how “system” and “adventure” are used in non-Classic gaming contexts, but it still seems like something that’s not very open to systematization (maybe if you use “favor” as a currency, but that’s pretty abstracted and begs referees to do the work of writing scenarios where it can be accrued).
If the goal isn’t systematization - great! More people should write adventures, and less people write systems. I would love to see one about a trade network and barter on a point crawl.
This is a great post, thank you.
if I reduce this characters (Balls) to an archetype (fuel scavenger) I suddenly have a setting where all fuel scavengers trade fuel for weapons or favor.
The reality is that in AW2e this isn’t the case because of scarcity. It’s not that ALL fuel scavengers etc, it’s that there is only one fuel scavenger, and this is the specific trade that he does. That’s not, per se, different to what you’re saying, except that the “general systematisation” isn’t as specific as you’re saying. The general systematisation is “Everyone needs something. Nothing is free”, or, as it’s put in text There is no status quo in Apocalypse World. And maybe this isn’t actually a system…I’ll go into that more later.
I haven’t seen any good ideas on how to generalize it besides telling a referee “Invent desires and trades for each NPC”
I love that you’ve pointed this out, because I agree it’s a massive difference between good and bad settings, and a personal frustration with a lot of recent indie designs. I think in AW2e itself, as you’ve identified it’s because of where we fall on “what is system”. For example, Apocalypse World DOES systematise wants and needs of NPCs in a structural way. The first way is categorisation: Every NPC is a Threat, and Threats fall into categories like Warlords, Brutes, Slavers, Hunting Packs, Pain Addicts, etc etc. Each category has an Instinct, which is what they push toward with no other external pressures. Forex: Prophets seek to Denounce and Overthrow, Enforcers seek to Victimise Anyone Who Stands Out. This, to start with, gives the MC a significant pointer toward what the NPC wants (in a vaccuum), and thus helps to make the decision. These threats then have a series of “moves” (actions) that the MC is encouraged to interact with: The Prophet “claims territory”, meaning they might make a demand of some valuable location, to be assault and passed over to them. The Enforcers, however, “Demand consideration or indulgence”, and if not met “burst out in uncoordinated, undirected violence.” In both cases, the system of categorisation allows for the game to list more interesting stuff.
An example of this outside of AW would be the text that comes before a monsters’ statblock in D&D monster manuals, text that talks about how the Pit Fiend seeks to engage in politics of Hells. Stuff that isn’t anchored in numbers but is nontheless “true”. In both cases, I don’t think they are “Systems” in the traditional sense, but they are “Structures” and I think that’s providing the same use-case here.
So this is where I want to break out the difference (IMO, very much IMO) between structure and system.
In the same way AW2e’s NPC impulses are, Stonetop’s Value system is structured but not a system: Value 1 and Value 1 aren’t necessarily equivalent in the same way that 50gp and 50gp are. Rather there are general vibes that certain things take certain inputs of raw goods and work and scarcity, but (as Jeremy said) this is logarithmic, not linear. As such, the system is saying “consider that a prosperity two town might have access to this kind of stuff”, but it’s not a currency about which commodity trading can exist because it lacks the structure. The whiskey/salt thing is a great example, because they structurally hold the same value, but aren’t systematically enforced: Ie there’s no trade system that allows for commodification of either, because the trade isn’t a SYSTEM, it’s a fiction, guided by structure.
In contrast, D&D 5e’s PHB/DMG offers system, but not structure, for acquiring spellcasting (“about 10-50gp, plus the cost of components”). It tells you that it’ll cost 50gp for a level 2 spell, but it provides no structure about the kind of towns that might have spellcasters, or the way that spellcasters might ply trade. In the same way that a bullette has an armoured hide and soft underbelly is a structure, but AC20 is a system (and AC20, AC14 while prone is a nice marriage of the two).
My take, that I’ve shared with MV elsewhere is that while the barter/favor economy is very cool for specific scenarios, I haven’t seen any good ideas on how to generalize it besides telling a referee “Invent desires and trades for each NPC” and this frankly isn’t system design so much as a big middle finger telling the referee to make up their own economy and leave the designer alone.
I wholly agree with you, here, except that I disagree that SYSTEM is critical. Rather, I’d suggest that SYSTEM or STRUCTURE can be helpful. That we can support the GM/Ref through methods other than system. An example of structure that isn’t systematised could be saying “The city must import almost all of its food due to poor farming lands nearby, but is able to trade for significant volumes of precious metals in nearby mountains.” I would say that these are still asking you to invent desires and trades, but not nearly as much a middle finger. I would argue the GM/Ref in this instance is well supported, in such a way as to create a non-currency trade (if not trading “system”), regardless of whether there is a strict system in place. In the same way that a well-written dungeon room, presenting a stiff, aged, swollen shut door and a wide pit trap provides plenty of support for any referee without using the words “DC18 strength check” or “DC10 athletics check”.
Whether or not that means the goal isn’t systematisation…I’m not sure. Because, sure I don’t think the goal is systematisation, but not in the way that you’re suggestion (ie “please leave me, the lazy game designer, alone”). I think it’s simply taking a step back from anchoring facts in numbers, and instead anchoring them in ideas. I think a trade network/barter on a point crawl would be SUPER rad, but I’m not sure if it needs system or just structure.
(As a side note, I’m willing to bet that better and more descriptive terms have been used elsewhere for what I’m talking about here. Please let me know if you can think of one)
Very late to the party, but I was in a similar situation when making hex-crawly post-apocalyptic sci-fi game. Here’s the table I came up with (quests, essentially, but maybe with a twist):
"
Everything is up for trade, but you must find a specific someone who wants to buy what you’re selling (or sell what you want to buy). Prices and availability fluctuate wildly, and an eccentric buyer might see value in something you find useless.
As Facilitator, have someone have the thing or know someone who does. Roll 1d8 on the following table if you’re not sure:
[1]: They have it and don’t use it much. They’ll trade it to you for any single item you have.
[2]: They will get one in a day or two, and want any two items you can procure in trade.
[3]: They have it, and they’re quite fond of it. They’ll trade only for your favourite item.
[4]: They have it, but they don’t feel safe these days. They’ll trade it for any weapon.
[5]: They have it, and they’ll give it to you now. But, they’ll ask an unreasonably large favour of you later.
[6]: They had it. It must have been stolen. Help them find it and they’ll give it to you for your second-favourite item.
[7]: They know a person who has it, but it will cost you your least favourite item just for them to tell you who that is.
[8]: Famously, one of those was abandoned nearby. Check the nearby hexes (find it on a 1 or 2 on 1d6, or on the final hex checked).