Wonky Resources Question

Let's say I'm a wealthy, spoiled heir. Daddy and Mommy have tragically died, but I have my delicious Resources 5 to console me. Being a foolish and wasteful youth, I see this absolutely spectacular hat. I MUST have it. It costs so much, it's a 5 resources purchase.

Now I have Resources 4.

I keep this hat for a long time.

Over that time, I squander everything else I own, and on stuff I don't hang on to. You know, a Resources 4 party, a Resources 3 ice sculpture...and then I keep trying to live at Resources 3 on Resources 2, so I spend it all away. I'm broke.

Except I have this REALLY nice hat.

If I sell this hat, how much Resources do I have? Assume I've learned my lesson, and find a way to make the money from this sale into an income. How many Resources dots can that justify?

I really wish I knew the answer because on multiple occasions I've basically had to say  no to an intelligent and thought out economic game. Some people like to micro manage thier resources, and the only system we have for resource managment is Story teller fiat.

Hark:

I really wish I knew the answer because on multiple occasions I've basically had to say  no to an intelligent and thought out economic game. Some people like to micro manage thier resources, and the only system we have for resource managment is Story teller fiat.

We use the Manacle and Coin system with actual monetary values for items, etc., which makes for a lot more fun for economic-inclusive games.

Segev:

Let's say I'm a wealthy, spoiled heir. Daddy and Mommy have tragically died, but I have my delicious Resources 5 to console me. Being a foolish and wasteful youth, I see this absolutely spectacular hat. I MUST have it. It costs so much, it's a 5 resources purchase.

Now I have Resources 4.

There is your first problem. Exalted's wealth system is actually shittier than d20 Modern's. I suggest applying the same fix that Mutants & Masterminds applied to the Wealth score: If you successfully purchase an item with a Resource greater than or equal to your current Resources rating, your Resources decrease by one dot for every dot the purchase price exceeds your current Resources. Resources lost in this manner returns at a rate of one per month.

Segev:

Except I have this REALLY nice hat.

Nice hat!

Segev:

If I sell this hat, how much Resources do I have? Assume I've learned my lesson, and find a way to make the money from this sale into an income. How many Resources dots can that justify?

At best Resources 4--the hat is used after all. As for the second part of your question you've struck to the heart of the second problem with Exalted's shitty ass Wealth system: it does not differentiate between minor purchases and major purchases, not does it really attempt to examine residual income from earned income.

Segev:

If I sell this hat, how much Resources do I have?

  None, because a Jaegger beats you up and takes your money for not having a nice hat.

That said, I'd say Resources 4.

Actually there is also another issue.

While you used the example of a hat, the item in question could just as easily be something like a famous gemstone or the royal crown of a long lost country.

What happens when the item in question become more valuable as a collectible?

I have to admit that I never liked the Resources background system. Personally I have toyed around with mixing both the Manacle and Coin system as well as the Resource system.

The result was that we used M&C system when adventuring, but used Resources once the characters started creating businesses or becoming part of paying organizations. Once they get things set up with the proper background story or the proper charms and artifacts we switched them to wealth.

At a first approximation, the only question is, "How many Resources can you sell the hat for?"

Whatever that is, that's now your Resources rating.  You're assumed to invest the money properly-enough, and like any other character with Resources (whatever), you can make Resources (whatever - 1) purchases indefinitely, unless you go nuts.

Resources ratings are such a wide band that it doesn't actually matter if you sell the hat for Resources (whatever) while you still have Resources 4, or worked your way down to Resources X.  You're at the higher of either your previous Resources rating, or the amount you got for the hat.  (If they were the same, you're at that rating, because a mere doubling is less than a bump in Resources).

I know when I tried modeling off values in USD to allow a smooth system from Resources 1 to Resources 8 (Legendary Wealth).  It worked out to something like 37 Resources of a level would equate to a Resource purchase of the level above.  Or that a resource level would be equivalent to 37 resource expenditures of the level below.

This was acquired from trying to have a stable growth curve where a resource 1 expendature was used at $150 and Resources 8 was ~$15 Trillion (Defined as enough to destabilize global trade)

So you give people a resource n or n-1 purchase power every UNIT of time (say every season) and just have them keep track of resource n and n-1 expenditures, since everything else is either worthless to keep track of or out of price range.  If a player wants to go gung-ho and say buy everyone in the kingdom a spoon every day, the just assign them a resource n or n-1 expenditure every so often to account for the costs.  As a result all costs would be some quantity of resource n or n-1 expenditures.

Segev:

Let's say I'm a wealthy, spoiled heir. Daddy and Mommy have tragically died, but I have my delicious Resources 5 to console me. Being a foolish and wasteful youth, I see this absolutely spectacular hat. I MUST have it. It costs so much, it's a 5 resources purchase.

Now I have Resources 4.

Unless my book has suddenly changed, you have resources 5.  You have a TEMPORARY decrease to Resources 4 while you do some simple RP to bring it back up to 5.  spend 2 minutes (and some time in game) describing how you order some speculative investment in new poppy fields in cooperation with the Guild.  Job Done.

Segev:

Over that time, I squander everything else I own, and on stuff I don't hang on to. You know, a Resources 4 party, a Resources 3 ice sculpture...and then I keep trying to live at Resources 3 on Resources 2, so I spend it all away. I'm broke.

Except I have this REALLY nice hat.

If I sell this hat, how much Resources do I have? Assume I've learned my lesson, and find a way to make the money from this sale into an income. How many Resources dots can that justify?

Assuming after squandering your income and selling it off to people who would take care of the investments, and dropping yourself to resources 0, you have resources 0 after you sell the hat.  However you have Resources 0 and (assuming the hat sold for the 1 Talent worth of Jade you paid for it) a Talent of Jade.

Resources is not how much money you have in your coinpurse or in a vault, it's the continual income you have from ownership and investments.

Assuming living in the street has taught you a lesson and you now actually have learned how to invest, you would have to chat with your ST about how much investing 1 talent would start producing.  I generally use 100 years as a base line for exalts.  If you invest 1 talent, I'd grant you 1/100th of a Talent worth of jade per year... about 10 oblos, which would put you right between one and two dots of resources, and I'd probably put it at one... you've clearly showed an inability to even maintain wealth, so your initial investments are probably a bit shaky.

zarquin:

Resources of a level would equate to a Resource purchase of the level above.  Or that a resource level would be equivalent to 37 resource expenditures of the level below.

This was acquired from trying to have a stable growth curve where a resource 1 expendature was used at $150 and Resources 8 was ~$15 Trillion (Defined as enough to destabilize global trade)

That's where I disagree, from my own pokings I see it as more of an exponential scale... a resource 3 purchase could outfit a man with sword and light armor, a resource 4 purchase could equip a large squad a resource 5 purchase could equip an army of tens of thousands.

Odd_Canuck:

That's where I disagree, from my own pokings I see it as more of an exponential scale...

How is mine not exponential.  It works out to be USD equivalent of resource level x is 4*37^x.  It's exponential, it just uses 37.

I'd like to point out that resources 8 is a hundred billion times higher than resources 1.

Mmmmh.  I mean, that's justifiable, but I think it goes against the spirit of the simple (simplistic?) resources system.

I just assume Resources n is the capital the character has, and it generates a steady stream of income that can buy Resources n-1 or smaller items.

So you can buy all sorts of Resources n-1 stuff off your income without touching your principal, but to buy a Resources n item, you have to liquidate a lot of your principal.  That leaves you with only Resources n-1 of principal left, which generates income enough to buy a steady stream of Resources n-2 stuff.  You then engage in a dramatic action to earn money, and you get back to Resources n.

Verzio:

Mmmmh.  I mean, that's justifiable, but I think it goes against the spirit of the simple (simplistic?) resources system.

I agree, but when you WANT something more complex to do trade agreements, run companies/kingdoms/etc.  the current system has issues.

Here's the thing.  I've wanted to seperate two aspects of Resources: what you have and what you earn.  The two are related, certainly, but not dependent on each other.  You can have stuff, but no income.  You can have income, but no stuff/savings. 

Except that I do not like the idea of introducing a second background, like Estate or something, into this system.  Not right at this point, anyways.

I agree with Canuck's idea of an exponential scale.  Magnitude + cost = final cost.

Selling the hat would give you a static resources 5 purchase if you rolled well on your sales pitch.  Turning that into a resources 5 income would be a helluva lot of work.  I think.  Except that there is no background to represent a static set of assets, so we really are out on a limb here.