Handling Disadvantages like Wealth

[darebear]

One thing that I have never understood about GURPS is why you would get points for taking a lower wealth level. What is to stop a player taking Dead Broke then receiving "gifts" from the other players like weapons, armor, whatever? I mean no one who is "Dead Broke" is a) going to be adventuring and b) anyone who is with them would naturally help them out since to do otherwise is just dumb. Also, what happens if the character (in a fantasy world) finds a treasure or part of a treasure haul? Does he have to spend character points to buy off being poor? Also how much money do you have to have to reach other wealth levels? That is nowhere to be found. There are a lot of holes like this in the system which can be exploited in character development. One can always say it is the GMs responsibility but he has enough to worry about without having to create a system of rules to deal with the rules.

[Ulzgoroth]

Basically?

Wealth is not there to balance adventuring resources. At least, that's what I've gotten out of the threads I've followed.

Dead Broke gives you points back for being just plain not part of society in certain respects, not for not owning a gun because you can't afford one. The owning a gun thing? That doesn't really cost points (though you can spend points to get it...)

If the other PCs buy you a rifle, you're probably still Dead Broke. If they also employ and integrate you so that you'd, for instance, actually have a reason to set foot in a bank that you weren't robbing, then you need to buy up your Wealth level.

EDIT: It seems as if Wealth is intended for a certain sort of game, and to represent something that isn't quite what the name suggests. For instance, if your characters are going to be going off and finding treasure in the woods? You may not want to use Wealth at all. Dungeon Fantasy restructures Wealth significantly to give it a place in that sort of game. (Personally, I think I'd hardly ever use Wealth. I don't really buy into the idea.)

[lexington]

Originally Posted by darebear

One thing that I have never understood about GURPS is why you would get points for taking a lower wealth level. What is to stop a player taking Dead Broke then receiving "gifts" from the other players like weapons, armor, whatever?

The rules forbid that, just for starters. See B26.

Originally Posted by darebear

I mean no one who is "Dead Broke" is a) going to be adventuring

Sure they will. An asskicking aesetic might consider it immoral to own anything at all.

Originally Posted by darebear

b) anyone who is with them would naturally help them out since to do otherwise is just dumb.

As B26 points out, the really smart thing to do is hire these people. That way you have more effective allies and they have to do what you tell them.

Originally Posted by darebear

Also, what happens if the character (in a fantasy world) finds a treasure or part of a treasure haul? Does he have to spend character points to buy off being poor?

Yes.

[sir_pudding]

There are quite a few threads discussing this, and I'm actually surprised it's not in the FAQ. Essentially Wealth grants some plot protection to your assets. It doesn't do much to protect individual pieces of gear (for that take Signature Gear) but it does protect your overall ability to earn and maintain wealth. It represents whatever social contracts, and institutional protections that the wealthy enjoy in your campaign setting that serve to insulate them against loss.

Just as in real life most people who win lotteries and the like are unable to hold onto the money, GURPS characters who gain wealth significantly above their Wealth level (and don't invest character points in maintaining it) will likely lose it.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Just as in real life most people who win lotteries and the like are unable to hold onto the money, GURPS characters who gain wealth significantly above their Wealth level (and don't invest character points in maintaining it) will likely lose it.

Though I'm not sure whether that's meant as a directive for the GM to try to angle them into losing it, or just something that's expected to happen naturally.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Though I'm not sure whether that's meant as a directive for the GM to try to angle them into losing it, or just something that's expected to happen naturally.

The way I handle it:

• If a character gets a windfall and spends it on new toys, expenses, or just shoves it in dirty sock under the mattress, then nothing happens. He hasn't actually improved his Wealth level in anyway. It's really no different from gaining a trait in play (in this case Spending Points for Money).
• If a character gets a windfall and tries to invest it, then he has to pay for Independent Income and/or Wealth with earned CP, if he doesn't then his investment fails, or he's taxed or robbed or what have you.
• If a character wants to spend his earned CP to raise his Wealth level, and his actions and/or campaign developments can justify it, then he gets the higher Wealth level.
• If a character raises his Status in play either through his own actions (and CP) or campaign events then he gets whatever Status-appropriate assets he would have gotten with his 80% of Starting Wealth, gratis, via whatever mechanisms make sense in the setting (loans, grants, gifts, improved credit). But he must now make his new CoL payments or risk losing Status, so generally it's in his interest to raise Wealth to compensate.
• If a character gets a higher Wealth level through campaign events (he gets a raise, is granted a fief, inherits a trust fund) then his Wealth goes up and so does his point value (this is the same as getting any other trait from game events).

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by darebear

One thing that I have never understood about GURPS is why you would get points for taking a lower wealth level. What is to stop a player taking Dead Broke then receiving "gifts" from the other players like weapons, armor, whatever? I mean no one who is "Dead Broke" is a) going to be adventuring

Shang Chi, Master of Kung Fu and the Littlest Hobo beg to disagree.

and b) anyone who is with them would naturally help them out since to do otherwise is just dumb. Also, what happens if the character (in a fantasy world) finds a treasure or part of a treasure haul? Does he have to spend character points to buy off being poor?

Nope. He could just waste his windfall, the way poor people who win the lottery regularly do.

[Centisteed]

Heck, aside from all of this, it would be poor
role-playing. If you can already pick & choose
what you want from the point allotment, why
would you make a character you don't want
to play?

[Kromm]

In GURPS, Status = social standing and Wealth = economic standing, and your complete socioeconomic profile – what we would call "social class" in the real world – comes from the two taken together. Since you can't retain Status that you can't pay for, low Wealth tends to drag you down. Someone with low Wealth has few everyday possessions, which is where 80% of his starting money goes (p. B26), and cannot afford a high cost of living and all that comes with it (pp. B265-266). "All that comes with it" is what the reserved 80% buys, incidentally.

These considerations are meant to have social implications in the game world: A TL8 person who chooses to be Poor [-15] starts with $4,000 and not $20,000, and has $3,200 and not $16,000 in assets, which are kept up with a cost of living consistent with that for Status -2 (p. B517), meaning "a room in a flophouse or shelter . . . or a patch of sidewalk" (p. B266). In short, he's a homeless itinerant or a drifter, and here's the important part: By getting 15 points for Poor, he's accepting and locking in his legal status as "homeless itinerant." It isn't just money that's affected, but others' perceptions of him. If a cop catches him flashing gift goods from rich party members, sees him entering a residence provided by said allies, etc., the cop will intervene. Such incidents should provide approximately -15 points of inconvenience.

There's also the bit about how much gear you start with, but that's actually a secondary effect of Wealth. The primary effects concern your credit rating, social network, relationship with bankers and taxmen, and so on, and the follow-on effects on your social freedoms and mobility. Wealth represents these things first of all. If the GM has no intention of enforcing the ramifications, then low Wealth isn't a valid disadvantage, any more than low Appearance would be valid in a campaign where all the PCs teleoperate giant battlemechs via FTL radio and never appear in the flesh.

[Harald387]

I'm looking forward to the upcoming Social Engineering largely to help settle questions like this.