Status, wealth, rank, independent income

[CrownedSun]

Originally Posted by Silverblade

If he already has assets, sure - but if the Full Time Adventurer starts out as "dead broke", and has no assets...

It's worth noting that Dead Broke means you LITERALLY have nothing. You're a homeless street person or a begger. You maybe own some old clothes and threadbare shoes, that's it. Most "Adventurers" will have Average wealth or better, since Armor and Swords and stuff are pretty damned expensive in GURPS terms. Some might be Struggling or even Poor in the game world, starting off with very little. These are the down on your luck kind of adventurers.

It's possible to play a Dead Broke adventurer, but they would be the exception rather than the rule. Many many "adventurers" are going to have Wealth levels of Comfortable or even higher.

The money accumulates over time and he rarely spends anything, one day he'll have a sizeable cash reserve (and, as an adventurer, he'll carry it all in a purse on his belt, even millions of it :p ) but he'd still be dead broke.

No; he'll have to pay for the increased assets he has. Once the Dead Broke adventurer has gone from $0 to $200, he'll have to cough up the 10 points needed to go to "Poor". It's another 5 points once he reaches $500 and hits Struggling wealth, and a final 10 points when he gets to Average (unless he continues to gather up money.) Note, the poor sod can always blow through his money and remain dead broke forever. However, even sometihng as simple as "getting a sword and a horse of my own" can pull you into "Average" or even "Comfortable" (especially if you throw in some armor) in most Medieval campaigns. The most difficult part of becoming a knight was always the money, for instance.

[Nikolai]

Originally Posted by Kromm

An adventurer who starts out Dead Broke gets to enter play naked,

Well, not exactly naked. ;-) P. B25 says that you have the "clothes you are wearing". As per p. B266, they are "a full wardrobe appropriate to your Status - you need not purchase this separately".

Originally Posted by Kromm

If he doesn't, he hasn't made the commitments needed to keep the money and something will happen to it.

Well, but as I read the box about "Traits gained in Play" on p. B291, the GM could easily say that money earned in play means acquiring a higher Wealth Level automatically - without changing any rules.
Or wouldn't you say?
This is how I handle it in my Fantasy Campaign: If the players take below-average Wealth at character creation, they have to buy it up to Average with CP if they earn money later on (as per "Later Earnings" on p. B26).
But if they have reached Average or higher wealth, they get the CP for higher levels automatically if they earn the appropriate money in play. (They also loose the levels again if they loose their money.)
[They even get back CP initially paid for above-average wealth at character creation if they earn money in play that theoretically would have let them reach this wealth level assuming they had only taken Average Wealth at character creation. (I am aware that this part is bending official rules. But taking above-average wealth at character creation just seemed to unattractive because characters with Average Wealth can expect to get higher Wealth Levels for free after some time adventuring.)]

(I haven't really read most of this thread, so sorry if someone has already written something similar.)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Mettius

On one hand we have the reduced requirement of work hours.

I think that's a 3/e thing. Checking the sections in 4/e on Wealth levels and on jobs, I see nothing about working shorter hours if you have more wealth. I think work hours have been decoupled.

Of course, if you're Filthy Rich (100x starting wealth and job income), then you presumably could work only 20% of the time and make as much as a Very Wealthy bloke. Or you could take Independent Income and not have to work at all. In 3/e it was specified that you couldn't take II if you were Very Wealthy or better, because you already had its advantages; that's not true in 4/e.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Nikolai

But if they have reached Average or higher wealth, they get the CP for higher levels automatically if they earn the appropriate money in play. (They also loose the levels again if they loose their money.)

They don't get free CP to buy up their wealth, there's never such a thing as a freebie.
If they don't spend the CP then they don't have a higher wealth, and a GM should take that into account when making sure they loose/waste their accumulated until they are down to their actual/purchased wealth level.

[Nikolai]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

They don't get free CP to buy up their wealth, there's never such a thing as a freebie.

Yes, there is.
A freebie that the GM awards "as a consequence of events in the game". See p. B291, as I said.

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

If they don't spend the CP then they don't have a higher wealth, and a GM should take that into account when making sure they loose/waste their accumulated until they are down to their actual/purchased wealth level.

I think that should depend on the campaign. In my fantasy campaign in which one major goal is treasure hunting, I would regard it as kind of ridiculous to make the PCs loose all the wealth they found (including all magic swords etc. found in the dungeon) just because they can't or don't want to spend the CP on Wealth or Signature Gear.
I can see that for other campaigns it would be OK - I was just arguing that in my opinion, the box on p. B291 makes my choice an official option for the GM (at least without the part of getting back CP spent on Wealth during character creation).

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Nikolai

Yes, there is.
A freebie that the GM awards "as a consequence of events in the game". See p. B291, as I said.

The GM can choose to make any CP award he chooses to.
If you're handing out 20 CP for wealth to someone, than it's fair to award 20 CP to the player who already has that level of wealth to be spend on other things.
Of course, depending on the situation, awarding the previously wealthy character, further wealth levels, status, etc., can be appropriate too.

Originally Posted by Nikolai

I think that should depend on the campaign. In my fantasy campaign in which one major goal is treasure hunting, I would regard it as kind of ridiculous to make the PCs loose all the wealth they found (including all magic swords etc. found in the dungeon) just because they can't or don't want to spend the CP on Wealth or Signature Gear.

Not really. You either give them the Wealth as a CP award, or you give them CP and expect them to buy wealth, or allow them to pay for it later.
If players don't want to pay the CP to buy the wealth necessary to retain said wealth, then they are specifically choosing to have their wealth lost in play.

Originally Posted by Nikolai

I can see that for other campaigns it would be OK - I was just arguing that in my opinion, the box on p. B291 makes my choice an official option for the GM (at least without the part of getting back CP spent on Wealth during character creation).

That official option is for the GM to make CP awards of whatever he chooses to do.

[Kromm]

Requiring points be spent on Wealth to keep acquired wealth in the long term is no less fair or more ridiculous than requiring points be spent on First Aid to keep hard-earned lessons in the field long term. The points represent de facto Allies, Contacts, Patrons, Reputations, etc. that have zero adventuring use and so are abstracted into Wealth. Their effect is to give you access to the bankers, brokers, old boys' networks, tax cuts, etc. you need to remain wealthy. If a PC adventures for ages, piles up gold, and then expects to stay in play as someone with a Filthy Rich non-adventuring job once he gets old, then he had better pay for the Wealth. If he doesn't, then he has big pile of uninvested, unsecured, irreplaceable cash that will dwindle and leave him at Average wealth after a year or two, because he lacks the social clout (represented by points in the social advantage called Wealth) to keep banking fees, jealous nobles, lawsuits, taxmen, or just plain old thieves from consuming his stash.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Kromm

If he doesn't, then he has big pile of uninvested, unsecured, irreplaceable cash that will dwindle and leave him at Average wealth after a year or two, because he lacks the social clout (represented by points in the social advantage called Wealth) to keep banking fees, jealous nobles, lawsuits, taxmen, or just plain old thieves from consuming his stash.

This is realistic, look at what happens to lottery winners.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

This is realistic, look at what happens to lottery winners.

Which goes back to the "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and he can feed himself for life", or "give a man a loaf of bread and you feed him for a day, teach a man to farm and he can feed himself for life" cliches.

[Nikolai]

Originally Posted by Kromm

If a PC adventures for ages, piles up gold, and then expects to stay in play as someone with a Filthy Rich non-adventuring job once he gets old,

The way I understood the rules for jobs on p. B517, there is an important difference between your Wealth Level and the Wealth Level of your job. Being Filthy Rich doesn't mean you automatically find a job with a wealth level of Filthy Rich. You have to have the appropriate abilities to find one as per the box on p. B518 ("Finding a Job") and your actual Wealth Level doesn't necessarily help you with that. If your cost of living is higher than the income from your job, you start losing your Wealth.
Is any of this incorrect? Would you say that you are unable to loose your Wealth if you have payed CP for it?

OK, but apart from that, let’s look at the following example:
I assume that we agree that your Wealth Level isn’t just determined by your cash but also by other valuable goods you own.
Let’s say a PC with Average Wealth finds, say, a fine Thrusting Broadsword with Accuracy+3 on it. A powerful sword, but not too much out of the ordinary for a high fantasy campaign. The monetary value of it is $4*600 for the sword and $33*5,000 for the enchantment=$167,400 in total. (If the standard assumptions from GURPS Magic for the value of magic items are being used.)
The campaign is TL 3, so average wealth means $1,000. $167,400 is between Filthy Rich and Multimillionaire 1. I further assume that the interval for Filthy Rich extends from $100,000 to $999,999, so being Filthy Rich is enough to own the sword.
That means the PC who found the sword would either need to pay 50 CP for Filthy Rich or 167,400/500=335 CP for Signature Gear in order to be allowed to keep it.
It is pretty unlikely that he has that many CP. (And even if he had, he would be far better of to raise his Broadsword skill and ST with these 50 CP and keep using his ordinary $600 thrusting broadsword.)

Originally Posted by Kromm

he lacks the social clout (represented by points in the social advantage called Wealth) to keep banking fees, jealous nobles, lawsuits, taxmen, or just plain old thieves from consuming his stash.

The last example you mentioned is the only one that seems applicable to our PC who found the magic sword. You emphasize that Wealth is a social advantage. So are you saying that the CP in wealth represent his ability to keep thieves from stealing his new sword? That doesn’t make too much sense to me, traits like Perception and IQ seem far better suited for an ability like that. You might say Wealth represents some sort of Destiny not to loose his sword (which otherwise miraculously happens to all average people), but I don't like that idea much.