Living with other people's Wealth

[CeeDub]

Salutations!

What would be the effect on the character point cost of the Wealth advantage (and is that even the right advantage in this case?) if a character were able to enjoy certain benefits of normal or high Wealth, but has very little control over that wealth?

Example 1: The son or daughter of a gentleman landowner in a campaign set in Victorian England (high TL5 / low TL6). He/she would have high status (probably 2, maybe 3) and the Social Stigma (2nd-class citizen) disadvantage, if female. They would live in a large house, waited on by servants, but could not freely dispose of the considerable wealth of the estate because it is owned by their father. The latter would likely provide an allowance which could easily be represented with Independent Income or a low-ish level Abstract Wealth advantage, but how should the limited access to other benefits be reflected?

Example 2: A suburban teenager in the modern world (TL8). Status would be 0 or perhaps 1, if the parents have comfortable or higher wealth, offset by Social Stigma (Minor). The parents may provide a (small) allowance. If not, or if the teenager supplements his/her allowance with a job, he or she likely has a part-time job, possibly tax-free; e.g. babysitting, mowing lawns, tutoring, etc. As previously, the teenager would live in a large house with free food and other amenities, but has otherwise very limited access to cash and assets, like the family car(s).

I considered the Patron advantage, but that seems appropriate only for individual patrons and organisations that are more powerful than the character. However, considering that the second-born son of a Victorian gentleman usually pursued a military career, he was quite likely to be more of an adventurer than his father, with the corresponding higher character point value. In a Supers campaign, teenage superheroes frequently have much higher point totals than their normal parents. As far as I can tell, the Patron advantage cannot account for a discrepancy in this direction.

Side question: Should the possibility of inheritance be considered? Would sex and birth order under male-preference cognate primogeniture (as, I believe, was common in Victorian England) change the point value, if any? For the heir apparent, this is easy; just buy it as a deferred advantage. But what about daughters and younger sons?

[tshiggins]

You could go with an "Independent Income," to represent the fact that the PC has an "allowance," but no control of the principal.

You could use a "Claim to Hospitality" for the ability to stay for free on any property owned by the family, as long as the PC doesn't trash the place (or has enemies who do).

Also, lots of levels of "Wealth" make for a huge character, so "Patron" may not be out of line, at least for starting characters.

[CeeDub]

Originally Posted by tshiggins

You could go with an "Independent Income," to represent the fact that the PC has an "allowance," but no control of the principal.

Yes, but II is always a percentage of the PC's starting wealth, which leads me right back to the original question: How much Wealth should the PC pay for?

Originally Posted by tshiggins

You could use a "Claim to Hospitality" for the ability to stay for free on any property owned by the family, as long as the PC doesn't trash the place (or has enemies who do).

Ooh, nice! Good catch. Reading the description of CtH again, Allies might also work.

Originally Posted by tshiggins

Also, lots of levels of "Wealth" make for a huge character, so "Patron" may not be out of line, at least for starting characters.

I agree that Wealth and related advantages are a massive points sink, but for many upper-class men in aristocratic societies, Wealth would often have been the defining trait. I'm confident that I could write up Lord Godalming (father of Arthur Holmwood of Dracula fame) under 100 points, easy.

Spoiler:  

Zero points or less if Terminally Ill is allowed. Which doesn't fit the original question; if a character is that close to inheriting everything, I'd make him buy it all at full price. Just saying. Any excuse to use the spoiler tag.

[Landwalker]

I seem to recall reading something (either in a book or here on the forums) many, many moons ago that suggested that wealth by virtue of one's position as "Heir" would basically be buying the appropriate level as a "potential advantage," which I believe is basically buying it at half cost (the other half being paid when one actually inherits said position).

I also seem to recall that the status of a fancy-pants person's child is one less than that of the fancy-pants person, but I can't promise I didn't just make that up without realizing it.

All appropriate disclaimers about not having my books on hand or having the time to do a deep forum search apply.

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by Landwalker

I seem to recall reading something (either in a book or here on the forums) many, many moons ago that suggested that wealth by virtue of one's position as "Heir" would basically be buying the appropriate level as a "potential advantage," which I believe is basically buying it at half cost (the other half being paid when one actually inherits said position).

I also seem to recall that the status of a fancy-pants person's child is one less than that of the fancy-pants person, but I can't promise I didn't just make that up without realizing it.

The Heir bit is in the Basic Set in the "Potential Advantages" sidebox.

The Status of the child being one lower is, I think, in Banestorm or Fantasy - not sure which, if either - but makes for a good "rule of thumb" for offspring of nobility, particularly adult offspring.

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by CeeDub

Yes, but II is always a percentage of the PC's starting wealth, which leads me right back to the original question: How much Wealth should the PC pay for?

(SNIP)

[/spoiler]

I'd go with no more than two levels of Wealth, with Independent Income. That covers "walking around" money, for a "Trust Fund" baby who doesn't have to pay for housing (the single largest cost-of-living expense, for most people).

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

The Heir bit is in the Basic Set in the "Potential Advantages" sidebox.

The Status of the child being one lower is, I think, in Banestorm or Fantasy - not sure which, if either - but makes for a good "rule of thumb" for offspring of nobility, particularly adult offspring.

Heir should also be "Duty". An heir is an heir not just so he can have more money to spend on dissipation but so the family's stake is kept together. He is effectively an administrator.

[whswhs]

In Worminghall I provided another variant suited to young men who were away at college: They pay half cost for Wealth. In return, they get the 20% of starting wealth that pays for portable possessions, but not the 80% that pays for household goods—that's their parents' household goods, which they enjoy when they're at home. They get clothes at the appropriate standard of living.

Note that it's not mandatory for the Wealth and Status to be equal to those of the parents. A younger son may be one level down, for example.

[Anthony]

It would probably be more useful if the Wealth advantage were adjusted to just reflect the amount of wealth the character is free to use for adventuring purposes (regardless of source; if you have free use of it, treat it as yours). It doesn't really matter how much a character's furniture is worth unless for some reason it's being sold, nor does the nominal owner matter as much as the actual effective owner, except to the extent that it creates a Duty.

[CeeDub]

Anthony's reply just spawned an idea: The character buys as much Wealth as he or she has actual control over (between Dead Broke and Struggling for a modern day teenager; Poor to Comfortable for a Victorian heir), and the rest with a modifier.

Let's see what daddy's money actually does for a character:

• It provides household goods (and a household), but not Starting Wealth.
• It supports Status, which must be maintained through lifestyle, but in my opinion does not grant free Status: The PC would pay for the same Status his or her father has, but does not get the free imputed Status that comes with Wealth above Comfortable.
• Cost of Living is taken care of, unless the PC supports another "household" away from home, which was not unusual in Victorian England, even if it was only a flat in the city or a room at a boarding house. The cost of that would need to come out of his personal wealth or allowance (Independent Income).
• Independent Income, probably calculated based on the discounted wealth (daddy's money). This is an advantage that may persist even if the PC does not inherit. As in, the father leaves a yearly stipend for his other children to be paid out of his estate.

I initially thought about "Granted by Familiar" (-40%), but the Potential Advantage modifier for heirs is already -50%. It seems to me that "spares" and daughters*, who only enjoy their father's wealth temporarily should pay less, not more, since they are likely to eventually lose that advantage instead of gaining it fully. In modern (Western) societies, where the inheritance is split equally among all children, it's even more complicated. I'd say -50% (standard Potential Advantage) for the heir apparent, -60% for equal heirs, and -70% for unlikely heirs?
* Depending on the setting's inheritance laws. AFAIK, in Victorian England, an (eldest) daughter with no brothers could inherit.

Edit: Thinking some more about it, -40% ("Granted by Familiar", requires purchase of the father as an Ally) may be more appropritate if the PC can actually use that wealth, as in, lives at home. The -50% Potential Advantage could be interpreted as a self-made man who will at some point inherit wealth that he, until then, has no access to whatsoever.