To me, it would just be simpler to have the buildings/teams alternate to make sure they make enough gold over the time you're gone to pay for the capital they produce, as well as the manager's wages. A non-self-sufficient business is - non-self-sufficient.
What did Diekssus say to support your view on capital attrition, Chemlak? I only saw him parroting rules that didn't really answer my question.
wow coming back to this after a few days, you really do try to be an ass don't you. literally asking for a citation on the rules and then complaining still.
Don't take it personally, Diekssus. In my experience RD is very good at making me question my assumptions, examine the rules, and reevaluate my conclusions.
Whenever I come across one of his posts that seems to read as an attack, I take a step back and treat it as a Devil's Advocate inquiry. I can't swear that I always succeed (there's a post in this very thread that I'm not entirely comfortable with my objectivity in), but it's a good learning experience.
Don't take it personally, Diekssus. In my experience RD is very good at making me question my assumptions, examine the rules, and reevaluate my conclusions.
Whenever I come across one of his posts that seems to read as an attack, I take a step back and treat it as a Devil's Advocate inquiry. I can't swear that I always succeed (there's a post in this very thread that I'm not entirely comfortable with my objectivity in), but it's a good learning experience.
I thought that devils always acted at least with false courtesy? I'd welcome some of that :) but I see your point
I meant no offense, Diekssus, and I apologize if I came off as such.
It seems to me that possessed capital and earned capital could both be considered <i>your</i> capital in a sense. The difference between these, I think, would be the difference in who possesses the "title" to that resource, and thus has the right to redistribute them if they choose.
In the case of possessed capital, the title is yours, while in the case of earned capital the title actually lies with someone else and you have arranged a kind of layaway plan with them. In either case, capital represents resources that you cannot generally take with you, such as warehouses of goods, groups of laborers, political allies, and the goodwill of various spellcasters.
Regardless of who has the title, without constant maintenance goods can spoil, laborers can find other employment, political allies can be persuaded to other causes, and goodwill can be eroded, thus all of these forms of capital can suffer from attrition.
Consider the prospect of the dragon hoard with the dragon still atop it, as presented in a previous post: It represents earned yet not possessed capital, as you have cleared the rest of the dungeon, laying claim to all treasures within (thus "your" treasure). However, until you slay the dragon you do not possess it. If, however, you leave the dragon sitting there to "guard" it for you the dungeon may eventually repopulate or another adventurer may come in, slay the dragon, and take the hoard for themselves. AKA: you just lost your claim to that capital.
On a more modern note, consider layaway contracts. This is like another form of earned capital as you have already put forth the down payment (literally money in this case as opposed to your character's time, but earned either way). The item is contracted to you, and thus "yours". However, if you do not finish paying before the contact expires you loose your investment and get no product. Another version of "earned" capital attrition.
I meant no offense, Diekssus, and I apologize if I came off as such.
I did not consider it an offense, Just in bad taste and unnecessary. In such cases false modesty can go a long way. Apology accepted though.