Integrated Wealth Management

This one is a bit complicated, but I'm sure a worthwhile idea. I'm not sure if wealth should be tracked each player or character (I would think character), but I do have an idea as to the basic systems with which wealth management can work with. There should be a base coin, to which the value of others can be measured, and as such is the basis for the exchange rates for other coin. Its name and abbreviation should be editable, but it should not have an exchange rate box. A GM can "Create/Edit Currency". Options include full currency name (can include special characters and numbers, displayed in currency tracking, both plural and singular forms can be set, but optional), an abbreviation (used for formulas, no special characters or numbers), and it's exchange rate with the base coin. So for example, if you set the exchange rate to be "1/50" it means 50 of these coins are needed to receive a base coin, and setting it to "8" means that you receive 8 base coins in exchange. In addition, a GM can check off an "automatic exchange" box. Wealth is automatically distributed across coin values that have the box checked, always prioritizing the highest value coin. Not always doing it automatically allows to carry strange and obsolete forms of currency that maybe can't be so easily exchanged, like "human hearts" or "ancient coins", while tracking their exchange rates. On chat you can interact with the currency through commands. There's one I thought of for transactions. "/give to " To and forward is optional, and anything can be put in under "target name", and it can be any number of words. It automatically deducts the number for the abbreviated coin from your accumulated wealth, and gives the message " gives to So for example, if I put in "/give 10 gp to the vendor", 10 gold coins are automatically deducted from my wealth tracking and the chat message appears "Richard gives 10 gold coins to the vendor". Note that "the" is part of the target name. So an input of "/give 10 gp to vendor" would give the message "Richard gives 10 gold coins to vendor" instead. If I do not have 10 gold coins in my wealth tracking, I instead get the message "Richard does not have enough coin to give (to target)". Sorry for the long thread.

This could also be extended and integrated into an inventory system in the future.

Oops, triple post.

And now I can't help to think in the advantages of RPG systems handling Wealth as a character trait, in a sort of abstract or freeform manner.

I agree with Baalsabo; it would be best to perhaps have an inventory system. Nothing incredibly complex; just kind of an Excel list with spots for Name, Weight, Cost, Any kind of damage/effects, and maybe one tab for extra details. Gold and coins could just be put at the top of the list, maybe as a designated spot but I wouldn't be fussed. THis might take up space, but it might be good if Char sheets actually had a checklist of things to have on them, so you could choose to forgo the abilities, stats or inventory.

On the surface this seems like a handy feature, but all of the tracking described here can already be done through the existing interface (though not all automated). I would rather keep a simple interface than have one that covers every possibility.

I wouldn't mind being able to set up a system to automatically add our wealth total. For example, in Pathfinder, each gold is 10 silvers, and each silver is 10 coppers. Setting up a system to keep track of and add the totals together would be nice. If only so I don't need to keep tabbing over to myth-weavers to check how much money I have. Inventory system would be nice for the same reason.

I prefer having a simple tabletop. These "additions" are resources sinks, the time and effort should be used to fix actual problems. Having to click over to another tab on your browser or Alt-Tab on your keyboard is not that hard, and again this seems to be geared towards fantasy games, which seems to go against the Roll 20 system neutrality.

How is a wealth system that doesn't give any specific currencies geared to fantasy games? Most TTGs have SOME sort of wealth and inventory system. The functionality being proposed is "The GM can set up one 'base' unit, then set up the other units as denominations of that unit." For example, the GM could set up the currency as US Dollars, set the base currency as 1 US Dollar, then set up a thing for pennies as 0.01 US dollars, and a thing for nickles as 0.05 US dollars, and so on. An inventory system is nothing more than a section on the character sheet that is a list. Possibly with an ability to put in the weight of the object and have it auto-calculate the total weight carried. I'm not sure how that's geared toward fantasy games. It's just a list of stuff your character is carrying.

My point is there already is a list of stuff you character is carrying on the character sheet. Also, i honestly haven't seen any modern games that need to micromanage wealth down to the penny or nickel, or even the dollar. I think all the dissenters are saying is that it is totally redundant feature and the resources it would take to implement such a feature would be better spent on other things. It is a virtual table top. If my players can't keep track of their sheet with the plethora of available resources, both free and paid, by Alt-Tab or another tab on their browser, then we have a much bigger problem. Also, notice that the paying customers dont like the idea, while the non paying customers do.

@Thraxis first off I would like to say I agree with you that automation of inventory in general is totally unnecessary. However I do not agree with your reasoning or with your holier than thou attitude. As far as I know almost all modern games could micromanage wealth if the GM wanted to, for instance in a campaign I play in we have to keep track of that denomination our currency is in as if it was just in gold we wouldn't be able to carry it all. On you point that these "additions" are resources sinks, this is flawed logic all additions are resource sinks and the addition in question would be a laughable one, its a question of priorities (notice that he never requested this be done tomorrow or that it should be done before important fixes). I would 100% say that this doesn't need to be in roll20 but I also wouldn't cry over what could have been done with the hour it took to implement. Also the fact you pay and he doesn't is irrelevant the dev team have to add things non-subscribers want at some point to entice them to subscribe, its far easier to say "hay look we added the thing you wanted it sure would be nice if you gave use money." than "give us money and we may think about adding that thing you like.". Now on to the real problem, it would be far more useful (and system agnostic) to simply make attributes work like spreadsheet cells that way you could implement the currency part your self if you wished. For instance you could have a attribute for copper, gold, plat, etc then a total gold attribute with something like "=gold+(plat*100)+(copper/10)" this would work well for my game as the price of things tend to be in gold until a lot later game, but we have to carry our currency in the correct denominations (also our money doesn't just magically swap denominations we have to use a bank).

First of all, your inference of any "attitude" is simply your inference. Do not add tone in your head as you read, and then assign it to me and attack me based on your faulty perception. You know nothing about me, so don't assume to. As far as i know, any GM can do whatever they want to with whatever game they want. At no point do I assume to speak for the Dev Team, unlike yourself, who assumes to speak for them on two points. Perhaps the Dev Team can speak for themselves or do we need you to tell them how to run the site? They seem quite capable and intelligent to me and also, I understood that Roll20 was a business. Only an hour to implement the feature requested? and your basis of fact on this is? Frankly, I just made a statement of fact, if you actually look. All I did was point it out, you took it beyond that. Notice that I did not level that at one person, hence my use of the plural "customers." Nor did i mention any one specificly so your rush to defend whoever you think you are defending is thinly veiled flaming. You agree with me then proceed to flame me and my "flawed" logic in the guise of jumping to some one's defense. All additions are NOT resource sinks, if they add something. A redundant addition is a resource sink, as redundancy is not addition. Not to mention, you can already do all this stuff with the interface if you choose to...

My point is there already is a list of stuff you character is carrying on the character sheet. Nope. Just double checked. There is a section for attributes, a section for GM Notes, a section for abilities, and a Bio section. No "Inventory" section. Unless it's added for supporters only, it ain't there. Also, i honestly haven't seen any modern games that need to micromanage wealth down to the penny or nickel, or even the dollar. I'll use Pathfinder as an example, because it's a system I'm familiar with. In Pathfinder, there are four types of currency: Copper, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Each one is worth 10 of the previous. So 10 copper is a silver, 10 silver is a gold, etc. Now, depending on your GM, you might need to keep track of all of those separately (as is realistic) or you may be allowed to lump it all into one sum that can be converted at any time with no effort. Personally, my GM has us keep track of all the separate denominations separately, because we can't magically turn 10 silver coins into one gold coin. Gotta go to a bank or something to get the money changed. However, prices in the rule books are usually listed in Gold. It would be nice to be able to convert between gold and silver easily without needing to go open up a separate calculator or do mental math. I think all the dissenters are saying is that it is totally redundant feature and the resources it would take to implement such a feature would be better spent on other things. "All the dissenters" currently amounts to you and one other person. The resources it would take to implement this feature amount to about 2 hours work, tops. I could go do something similar in C++ or Java right now with little to no thought. It's just basic variables and math. Also, it's not a redundant feature. This function does not exist as of yet. If something is redundant, it means it does the same thing as an existing feature. So this is not redundant. It is a virtual table top. If my players can't keep track of their sheet with the plethora of available resources, both free and paid, by Alt-Tab or another tab on their browser, then we have a much bigger problem. I for one, could actually use a feature like this. Why? My computer is a piece of junk. It overheats, it sputters, and it lags. Anything that means my computer is doing less work is great for me. Having another tab with my sheet open makes my computer do more work. Yes, I need a new computer. No, I can't afford one. So that's out. So what are people in my position supposed to do? For now, I make it work, but if I could have all of my character information in one place ON the table, that would be great. Also, notice that the paying customers dont like the idea, while the non paying customers do. First off, my opinion is no less valid than yours, regardless of whether I can afford to donate or not. Second, you are the only supporter to post in this thread, and as I mentioned before, one of two people to contest this idea directly. Only an hour to implement the feature requested? and your basis of fact on this is? I can't speak for Pigalot, but MY basis is that I'm a programmer. I know how it works. Implementing the currency system, for example, would simply be a matter of creating an array, then assigning each index a value. When you want to add another currency denomination, you add another cell to the array. Then have it do some math with a variable based on the information given. Okay, it's a bit more complicated than that, but I already have it mapped out in my head. It's easily done. Frankly, I just made a statement of fact, if you actually look. All I did was point it out, you took it beyond that. You mad an uninformed statement of "fact". We pointed out your mistake. That's not "taking it beyond" anything. Notice that I did not level that at one person, hence my use of the plural "customers." Nor did i mention any one specificly so your rush to defend whoever you think you are defending is thinly veiled flaming. He defended not-paying consumers as a whole. He never mentioned anyone specifically either. You agree with me then proceed to flame me and my "flawed" logic in the guise of jumping to some one's defense. All additions are NOT resource sinks, if they add something. A redundant addition is a resource sink, as redundancy is not addition. Not to mention, you can already do all this stuff with the interface if you choose to... Your logic is flawed in assuming that it's redundant. Redundant doesn't mean "extra". It means that the feature already exists. And it doesn't. There is currently no way to automatically calculate wealth based on a series of denominations set by the GM. That feature doesn't exist. If it existed, this thread wouldn't exist. Thus, the feature is not redundant. EDIT: I went downstairs to get a drink, and it occurred to me that perhaps by "redundant" you meant "unnecessary because this functionality exists outside of Roll20. Thus, we don't need it in Roll20" My response to that is this: MapTools exists. iTabletop exists. There are dozens of dice rollers online, as well as many chat clients. There are character sheet forms on Myth-Weavers, and various map-making tools spread across the internet. The entire premise of Roll20 is "unnecessary" by that logic. So sure, we can do it outside of Roll20. I can also use a virtual tabletop outside of Roll20, and roll dice outside of Roll20, and set up chat macros outside of Roll20. Doesn't mean Roll20 shouldn't have those features, and the same applies to inventory and wealth management.

@Ian McKie You can for an inventory list add tables into the characters bio, I think adding a table just for this wouldn't be very system agnostic, but the currency isn't to bad an idea, I still think it would be better to give users a more "powerful" attributes section and let them set this sort of thing up them self than add special functionality just for it. @Thraxis Stonefur I will address you post to help you clear up some misconceptions. First of all, your inference of any "attitude" is simply your inference. Do not add tone in your head as you read, and then assign it to me and attack me based on your faulty perception. You know nothing about me, so don't assume to. If multiple people perceive a attitude problem from what your typing perhaps you should think about how people may take your choices of words and phrases used in you post before you post them. As far as i know, any GM can do whatever they want to with whatever game they want. At no point do I assume to speak for the Dev Team, unlike yourself, who assumes to speak for them on two points. Perhaps the Dev Team can speak for themselves or do we need you to tell them how to run the site? They seem quite capable and intelligent to me I never said a GM couldnt do what they want nor did I speak for the dev team. Also this is a suggestion thread the point is to give suggestions to the devs. and also, I understood that Roll20 was a business. That's why I pointed out the simple fact that people are more likely pay for things that offer them what they want, I would think that is the very reason that roll20 have a suggestions forum that non-subscribers can post in. Only an hour to implement the feature requested? and your basis of fact on this is? I have been programming for 20 years and have at least 10 years working as a professional web app programmer, and I am fairly sure the programmers for roll20 are better than I am, a similar sort of system would take me only an hour, maybe two if I hit some road blocks. What is your basis of fact that this wouldn't be the case? Frankly, I just made a statement of fact, if you actually look. All I did was point it out, you took it beyond that. You voiced an opinion not fact, so I voiced my opinion .... this is how a discussion works. Notice that I did not level that at one person, hence my use of the plural "customers." Oh come on that was a clear jab at the other posters in the thread, and don't pretend it wasn't. Nor did I mention any one specificly so your rush to defend whoever you think you are defending is thinly veiled flaming. You agree with me then proceed to flame me and my "flawed" logic in the guise of jumping to some one's defense. I agreed with your final concussion (that the functionality is not necessary but then again the lighting wasn't necessary and was far harder to implement than this would be), not your logic, attitude or assumptions. I wasn't defending anyone I just didn't agree with your assumption that it was good business practice to ignore the suggestions of potential customers. Your definition of flaming seems to be anyone who has a contrary opinion to your self, sadly its not, it is "hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users" although I would agree that I may have sounded a little hostile that was only because I was disagreeing with your hostile attitude towards the suggestion of another user. All additions are NOT resource sinks, if they add something. A redundant addition is a resource sink, as redundancy is not addition. Not to mention, you can already do all this stuff with the interface if you choose to... Currently roll20 has no means of doing what is suggested, the suggestion isn't add a place where I can type things (this would be redundant), it is add functionality to automate some calculations (this is unnecessary and in the case of inventory list would not be system agnostic enough in my books to be added but is not redundant).

I am glad to see you are both still regenerating. You were confrontational, and the only defense you have is to blame me cause you and him didn't like my "attitude", which again is completely in your head. Two people with a negative preconception? Your accusation that i took a jab at every other poster is inflammatory and 100% negative interpretation. It is clear what i was saying, so you attempt to assign your own derived opinion based, again, on your illusory conclusions. Typical trap troll tactics...any one else can read the posts, and take from it what they will. I am confident I don't look the way you do in your response, you do everything you accuse me of, and still try and blame me. You at no point have demonstrated any evidence of my attitude. Maybe if you said that you were a programming pro at the outset, and supported you original statement by saying that, but you are so predictable, and leave that for your salvo response. The audience does not need a play by play on the super breakdown where you try and mince meat everything i said with a cause i called you out for flaming cause you were being confrontational based on you own faulty perceptions...The sad thing is i couldn't even bring myself to really finish either one of your responses. I really like the snipping too...respond to all of it or don't waste the time. FACT: Payers did not like it , Users did...you can read that for yourself, so you may want to check the difference between opinion and fact. The definition of flaming then the admission that your were being hostile is a nice touch too. I never said that there was a difference in the importance of the user's opinion based on subscription level any where, you drew a negative conclusion in response to my statement.

I am glad to see you are both still regenerating. You were confrontational, and the only defense you have is to blame me cause you and him didn't like my "attitude", which again is completely in your head. Typical trap troll tactics...any one else can read the posts, and take from it what they will. I am confident I don't look the way you do in your response, you do everything you accuse me of, and still try and blame me. Maybe if you said that you were a programming at the outset, and supported you original statement by saying that, but you are so predictable. The audience does not need a play by play on the super breakdown where you mince meat everything i said cause i called you out for flaming cause you were being confrontational based on you own faulty perceptions...The sad thing is i couldn't even bring myself to really finish either one of your responses. I really like the snipping too...respond to all of it or don't waste the time. Could you please stop posting nothing but hostile and inflammatory posts in this thread so the rest of us can get on with a constructive discussion/debate on the topic at hand, if you solely have a problem with my attitude and no comments on the actual topic at all would you mind directing them directly at my PM or take them to a mod.

I'm going to step in here. If you feel offended, flag it and move on. Do not continue to direct comments at the person you feel offended you since that just perpetuates the problem. - Gauss

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander here.

I'll also add that suggestion threads are for suggestions. They are not for arguing whether a suggestion is or isn't a supposed resource sink. The only people who will decide the validity of a proposed suggestion are the Roll20 Developers and no one else. I would actually have to disagree with you on this one, any member should be able to give an opinion on a suggestion as long as its constructive, no matter what that opinion may be or there is no point in having a suggestions forum you may as well just have a suggestions email address instead.

A few things I would like to make very clear: 1) We take the requests of paying users far more seriously than nonpaying. Far, far more seriously. This does not, however, mean such a member's request is always best for the whole platform. More often than not, we use their input to help refine a feature we're already working on instead of soliciting a new project to tackle, if that makes sense. 2) The suggestions forum exists for basically positive discussion among members about features. If you think that your suggestion being on this board means it's being collected... well, there are over 1000 suggestion threads. I'll let you figure out how realistic it is that we'd be actively implementing even a tenth of them. This forum exists for YOU. We've considered shutting down the suggestions board several times as we're not actively taking suggestions, but have thus far decided against it, because we want to encourage the community rallying around the better ideas that are important to them. Debate is fine and encouraged. Flaming is not. 3) Don't mess with the mods. They'll be far nicer about this than I will, but the moderators here are all volunteers we've hand picked because they are amazingly polite, caring individuals who give of their time and energy to HELP you. They log the bugs you bring to the table. They bring to the developers the better suggestions from the forums. They deal with messes they didn't start and have no obligation to clean up. IF you have a problem with a moderator that you think needs dealt with, you can contact me directly via the forums private messaging and I'll handle it. Otherwise, if a mod says something, consider it the gospel. And don't mess with the mods. 4) Plenty of folks are right about plenty of things in this thread. The wealth management system is something we will probably never do. There are plenty of other virtual tabletops that people can use if they don't like this decision or any other. But these forums exist to talk about such issues, to a certain extent. Everybody got something right. But... 5) ...the need to be right isn't why we're here. We're here to have constructive community conversations about our specific application. We're here to play games, and further something like 90% of the games people play on this site are games where NOBODY WINS. Roleplaying games are about communication and collaboration. So if you can't do that, I don't know why you're here. You don't need to get the last word on every discussion. If that's difficult to understand, you might prepare to find your speaking privileges revoked. That said, every once in awhile a roll might show who gets the last word. I roll 20.