To make this simpler for casual players, I would suggest:

Low lifestyle: No cost / -2 social rolls / No "Earning a Living" roll allowed (takes money to make money)
Regular lifestyle: No cost / No bonuses (-2 Social w/ Expensive Taste).
High Lifestyle: 10 Sc / special +2 social rolls (minimum for Expensive Taste flaw)
Exalted Lifestyle: 25 Sc / special +4 social rolls

Smooths out the paperwork requirement, as Regular Lifestyle means no change to the post-game.

This doesn't seem to make sense. Why would anyone ever take Low given this?

That was my thinking. The 'default' no cost of living has to be a penalty or it's not really part of the game.

LOL! My main character Eisener doesn't either...both because I don't like keeping track of the extra paperwork and because earning a mundane living seems to be "below" a Holy Champion of Nier. I like to think that between modules he is ... essentially doing the same thing off camera ... out roaming the world looking for a (just-ish) fight.

OTOH I do try to remember to make rolls with Tukufu, because he's supposed to be hip deep in the "antiquities" trade and a busy busy little bee. Tukufu would definitely "live large" if given the opportunity.

On the whole, in theory, I have no real qualms about a lifestyle cost in the LA campaign. To me its not that big a deal either way...Though it would help me remember if the CPs had a dedicated line for them.



Okay, in practice I think these numbers are off. Both the bonuses and the costs.

(A) I think the bonuses for low and high lifestyles should be +/-1 rather than +/-2. Again, because the game creates a bell curve of probability rather than a straight 5% for each +/-, I would be conservative in giving out bonuses and penalties.
(B) I think buying an Exalted lifestyle should hurt the pocketbook and 25 sc doesn't do that. There is no real reason why my PC Tukufu couldn't/wouldn't take it every time it was available. He'd still make money in most adventures. That seems wrong to me since doesn't have access to any nifty "richness/connectedness" talents or paths despite the fact he calls himself Ambassador. IMO an "exalted" lifestyle should cost around 50 sc since that is more or less the default earnings of an adventure (individual adventures vary a great deal). I think at that point the cost begins to have bite. At this "price point" Tukufu would currently only purchase this life style when he felt flush.
(C) I think exalted life style should only grant a +3 bonus. Bell curve, blah blah blah.
(D) I think there should be something beyond exalted. Maybe the naming conventions could be rejiggered, I'll call it ridiculous ... but really maybe we should call it legendary (and change the other lifestyles to fine and exceptional). This is moving into powerful noble/rock star level. Not sure what this price point is but it should be measured in gold coins (plural), not silver. Most players, most of the time, would not think this is a good deal ... though maybe some certs and favors could give them access to it at reduced/free costs. This is where I'd give a +5 bonus.

I like Southern Skies idea about integrating expensive tastes as a requirement (of sorts) to take high lifestyle where available. There is a Miserly flaw now as well. You should have to make the roll verses your own discipline to buy high lifestyle. Finally the talent Benefits of Station should have some impact on lifestyle.

On the whole, while I like the idea of differentiated levels of success, I do not think the most important element in social interaction should be how much money you outlaid at the start of the module.

I've got a PC that would take low in the big city. It is purely an RP hook for those players that want to "slum". Either because they don't want to be part of the social strata of the local mod, or for what ever reason they just don't fit in.

For example my PC that would take low is a Gnome Necromancer with the "Can't Eat That Feat" talent. I just can't see him living anyplace other than the sewers in Grand Coryan. Keep in mind not everyone takes things for a perceived mechanical advantage. As a side note I could see situations in mods where the writer could make low lifestyle give a benefit. Again, think of Coryan and the Sewers. A low lifestyle PC might already know the ins and outs so to speak.

I would venture that the regular lifestyle has to be the default 0 cost option for 0 bonus/penalty purely on the ease of book keeping rule. If modules were to include prompts as to when players should be making rolls for earning a living then having the low as the 0 cost becomes feasible but otherwise it's just another thing to be lost in the rush of an adventure. The other option is to condsider making the low lifestyle attractive by making it give different bonuses, such as to intimidate rolls or simillar perhaps? A low lifestyle could even have a penalty to the making a living roll to make up for the new bonuses?

Realistically though, unless the module writers include the lifestyle in them then it's fluff that can be handwaved over.

I think this is the best argument that I can create for NOT having lifestyle costs:

Lifestyle costs are mechanics that get in the way of role playing

Simple argument:
explaining the costs, keeping track of, rationalizing in game reasons for these mechanics takes time, time that could be better spent on the roleplaying game. there is a good argument that if its not in the books and its not required to make the "living" shared world work then it shouldn't be added to the modules. The farther away from the rules that are in the rule books the more confusing and the more barriers we have to get new players.

Edit, putting in my actual argument.
[I'm out of time for the time being, but i want to get that down before i go for lunch (I plan on editing this statement to provide a more nuanced response)]

I don't think they get in the way of roleplaying. Like anything else in Arcanis, you can *say* whatever you want about your character, but unless there's a mechanic involved, it's tough to have a consistent adjudication throughout the campaign.

For instance, I can *say* my character is a Noble, but unless I have a mechanic (background, talent, race, etc.) that supports this, there can't really be any 'mechanical benefit' to this.

Same with lifestyle. You can *say* your character is wealthy, dresses well, and is considered an elite of society, but unless there's a mechanical way to represent this, the GM can't really give out any bonuses/penalties consistently when you try to use that to your advantage in an encounter.

I too think that the 'default' could be set to 0 / 0 but allow no "Earn a Living" rolls that way anyone who doesn't want to partake of the bookkeeping doesn't change at all.

Then you could have a 'regular' lifestyle that costs a minimal amount / tier and allows the "Earn a Living". Most folks will come out even or ahead based upon the values.

Then you have the 1-3 additional tiers above that really shine.


John

you could wait for my actual argument before posting an opposing view

I think your character is more than the sum of his parts and his actions speak louder than the money he spends.

perhaps I've spent too much time watching Burn Notice lately, but there is no reason to trust anyone is who they say they are, the only way to tell that is by demeanor, actions and appearance.

yes you can "say" you are anything, but that's a false logical argument regarding why or why not lifestyle choices. Because we aren't talking about applying mechanical benefits to roleplaying elements are we, if we are, I'd really like some recognition mechanically for being a knight path, maybe a stipend for being a noble background.
Actually there is a benefit for those things, its outlined in the mechanical benefits of them. I dont actually need more benefit to being a knight because the roleplaying benefit is the important thing for me.

Sorry, the big bold font sucked me in!

John