Wealth: Should it be three different traits?

[Apollonian]

I was just reading How to Be a GURPS GM and ran across the bit from Kromm on p. 13 about wealth and status. Of note was this:

Originally Posted by 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.
...

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.

So... that being said, and being more than a little unclear in Basic, would Wealth work better as three separate traits? I'm thinking Credit Rating, Starting Wealth, and Income, as a starting point.

Starting Wealth is easy, as we already have it; it's the cash you can spend on gear, assets, and such before the game.

Income I'd see as based on the Independent Income advantage, with modifiers for how much time the character has to spend to maintain that income; naturally, you could take it several times to represent different revenue streams, e.g. Income (Rentals), Income (Job at the Mill), Income (Retirement Pension).

Credit Rating, then, covers the majority of what Wealth, as clarified in HtBaGGM, actually does. I'm honestly not sure why it's separate from Status, but that may be because I see little difference between social and economic status. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

Still, I can see it as a trait with a skill-like value; roll against Credit Rating to secure a loan, persuade a hostile party that you are indeed of Status X and thus entitled to Y, get invited to the appropriate parties, get the realtor to show you properties in the appropriate neighborhood, etc. I'm still trying to figure out how it might work.

Anyway. Thoughts?

[sir_pudding]

Isn't that what the Wealth Score in Abstract Wealth does?

[Agemegos]

The thing that struck me about that quote from KROMM is that there is almost no support in the rules for what he considers the primary effects of Wealth.

I think that there ought to be at least two alternative rules modules for different ways that wealth may be handled in the campaign: bean-counting games with detailed load-outs and strict budgets, and games where characters are simply assumed to have or be able to get items consistent with their wealth levels.

I think the tangle of rules surrounding Wealth, Jobs, Independent Income, Debt, Status, Cost of Living, "settled lifestyle", government office, what cost-of-living gets you" etc. needs to be replaced by something simpler and more consistent.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

The thing that struck me about that quote from KROMM is that there is almost no support in the rules for what he considers the primary effects of Wealth.

There's the bit where it says that if your savings exceed your starting wealth you need to raise Wealth or spend the savings.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

There's the bit where it says that if your savings exceed your starting wealth you need to raise Wealth or spend the savings.

Yes. That's a rule about Wealth and money. It does not enable you to use "your credit rating, social network, relationship with bankers and taxmen, and so on, and the follow-on effects on your social freedoms and mobility" in a game.

[Kalzazz]

My goal for wealth rules, if I were to ever design them, is to have a system whereby characters through adventuring are able to get loot, quest rewards, and whatnot such that characters who spent CP on wealth should be able to get new castles and zeppelins and whatnot, as well as shiny swords and such, and that characters who didn't invest CP in wealth should at least be able to get shiny swords

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

The thing that struck me about that quote from KROMM is that there is almost no support in the rules for what he considers the primary effects of Wealth.

I think that there ought to be at least two alternative rules modules for different ways that wealth may be handled in the campaign: bean-counting games with detailed load-outs and strict budgets, and games where characters are simply assumed to have or be able to get items consistent with their wealth levels.

I think the tangle of rules surrounding Wealth, Jobs, Independent Income, Debt, Status, Cost of Living, "settled lifestyle", government office, what cost-of-living gets you" etc. needs to be replaced by something simpler and more consistent.

Isn't the system in Abstract Wealth an "alternative rules module" for "games where characters are simply assumed to have or be able to get items consistent with their wealth levels."?

Meanwhile this system in Dungeon Fantasy 2: Dungeons seems to be at least one way to handle bean-counting games.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Apollonian

So... that being said, and being more than a little unclear in Basic, would Wealth work better as three separate traits? I'm thinking Credit Rating, Starting Wealth, and Income, as a starting point.

I personally think the credit rating benefits should be part of Status, which should lose the free levels from Wealth and replaced with a suggestion you buy some if you want the social/credit benefits of being rich and not just the money, but more or less. Note there are two additional factors that really ought to be separated out of the complex too - monthly expenditures/cost of living (not all equal Status roles require the same outlay, that's probably a freestanding disadvantage, though I've been thinking about a cash purchase from out of starting wealth that gets you the normal stuff for that status and a rule that it's value decays by some amount each month unless you pay to make it up) and work hours required (a limitation on Income perhaps).

[Humabout]

I'm kind of with Sir Pudding here. I really like the idea behind Abstract Wealth, though I think there are still some minor things that would be nice to sort out. Not fixes so much as holes. But that aside, you could even combine the two. Start the game with the usual starting cash, then track effects of Wealth Level using Abstract Wealth and use dollar amounts for any booms or busts (a bust would be something you have to keep rolling to pay off or Joey Fingers comes looking to collect).

[EDIT]

Originally Posted by malloyd

I personally think the credit rating benefits should be part of Status, which should lose the free levels from Wealth and replaced with a suggestion you buy some if you want the social/credit benefits of being rich and not just the money, but more or less. Note there are two additional factors that really ought to be separated out of the complex too - monthly expenditures/cost of living (not all equal Status roles require the same outlay, that's probably a freestanding disadvantage, though I've been thinking about a cash purchase from out of starting wealth that gets you the normal stuff for that status and a rule that it's value decays by some amount each month unless you pay to make it up) and work hours required (a limitation on Income perhaps).

The latter here definitely seems like it could be a nice enhancement/limitation on Abstract Wealth. I'd think that standard would be 40 hours a week worked gets you the level you paid for. Working less for the same money is an enhancement and working more is a limitation. Although these could probably be subsumed into expanded rules for it, too. What would be really nice is a tie-in between Abstract Wealth levels and Status in terms of what status each wealth level pays for before it becomes a burden on wealth rolls.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Isn't the system in Abstract Wealth an "alternative rules module"

Dunno. I don't think I have a copy. If I do I overlooked it and don't know where it is.