TOPIC: Standardization of trade token transmutes & more

I like the idea of including what things transmute into on the tokens. Not sure if Im on board with changing the formulas for existing trade goods.

I'd like to have Rumor tokens be transmutable into something.

Mike Steele wrote: I'd like to have Rumor tokens be transmutable into something.

I hear they can be transmuted into poker chips

Picc wrote: I like the idea of including what things transmute into on the tokens. Not sure if Im on board with changing the formulas for existing trade goods.

Formulas would all stay the same, just changing the expression from 25 tokens to 150 points like the other recipes. Put everything on the same page.

Symbols should keep people from thinking 150 commons = 1 aragonite. But never underestimate stupid or lazy.

The reason I like this is the same reason for the change of names for Grand Eldritch - easier to explain for new people.

Rares are 6 points, Uncommon 3, Common 1 and Aragonite needs 150 units but only accepts Rares.

Ed

Joshua Baessler wrote:

Picc wrote: I like the idea of including what things transmute into on the tokens. Not sure if Im on board with changing the formulas for existing trade goods.

Formulas would all stay the same, just changing the expression from 25 tokens to 150 points like the other recipes. Put everything on the same page.

Symbols should keep people from thinking 150 commons = 1 aragonite. But never underestimate stupid or lazy.

Ah well that Id be fine with

I definitely like the idea of marking the trade token on each token. On the other hand I'm pretty happy with the trade good unit system already in use but perhaps that is just me

Kirk Bauer wrote: I definitely like the idea of marking the trade token on each token. On the other hand I'm pretty happy with the trade good unit system already in use but perhaps that is just me

Nope. It's not just you. I think the trade good unit system is fine, too.

I like the idea of having something on the token that identifies the trade token, but it might make it too busy.

Also, like Brad's suggestion of putting the units in parenthesis after the statement.

So the

Aragonite = 25 rares (150 units)

This just eliminates a small amount of confusion, that I know occasionally exists.

An icon on the token sounds great.

Adding the total units in parentheses sounds good also.

But I would be against removing "25 rare armor or weapons" part of the text.

I love the idea of something on the tokens indicating what it transmutes to however I think changing the nomenclature of exchange is a bit more confusing than what we are currently using

I like the suggested change of nomenclature and the inclusion on tokens of what they transmute into. The one thing with the nomenclature is you will have to add on the aragonite tdb entry 1 rare = 6 units. 25 rare weapons or armor or 150 units of rare weapons or armor.

One other comment is potentially adding the transmute explanation on the trade goods? So the Aragonite token just says "required 25 rare weapons or armor to craft this token" or something along those lines.