Being rich without being Wealthy

[Brandy]

I've had some trouble reconciling the following things in GURPS with regard to starting wealth and equipment:
1) Signature gear is awfully good deal compared to low levels of wealth, and no good at all compared to high ones.
2) Trading points for cash is pretty unsatisfactory, and always gives a lesser value than signature gear. . . and signature gear has cinematic plot protection!
3) The offhand comment in Basic about characters usually having access to only 20% of their by-the-book wealth for gear is widely ignored, due to the comment that follows which says that characters with an unsettled lifestyle can have all of it.

So, this is a house rule proposal to address these things. If you don't have a problem with those things, you probably won't like the house rule!

My assumptions:

1) Trading points for cash at character creation should give more starting money than buying an equivalent amount of wealth, because wealth has ongoing benefits.
2) Trading points for cash should at least be comparable to signature gear, because signature gear has plot protection. Wealthy characters should benefit more from points for cash than average or poor ones.
3) Both signature gear and points for cash should be viable alternatives to high levels of wealth at any point level.

Here's the basic idea:
1) Characters may *not* declare themselves to be "living an unsettled lifestyle" and get 100% of their starting wealth. (These character concepts can take a lower wealth level and trade points for cash at start-up). The 20% figure is absolute! The other 80% is what grants the ongoing benefits of wealth: increased earning at jobs, shorter working week, free status, and a higher wealth multiplier.

2) Points may be traded for cash at character creation. The amount of cash that a given number of points gives is based on the wealth formula(see below), which follows the same exponential progression that wealth itself does. Points for cash *are* modified by wealth level, and characters can buy both. Points for cash gives 100% of what the equivalent number of points gives in wealth.

3) Signature gear works just like points for cash, but it is not modified by wealth level. (Wealthy characters are better off paying points for cash than getting signature gear). Signature gear gives 200% of what the equivalent number of points gives in wealth, or twice what points for cash does. Each item of signature gear is a separate purchase.

Warning! Math Zone ahead!

The GURPS wealth table, page 25, uses an exponential formula to derive the wealth multiplier. Not all the values fall directly in line, but this is a good approximation for how much wealth a certain point total is supposed to provide. The formula is:
10 to the power of (points in wealth/ 25). Here's a comparison of the formula-driven values and the given values for a particular wealth level (WealthX is the by-the-book value for wealth multiplier and Formula is the value derived from the formula above).

Wealth Level       Points   WealthX   Formula
Dead Broke            -25       0        0.10
Poor                  -15     0.2        0.25
Struggling            -10     0.5        0.40
Average                 0       1        1.00
Comfortable            10       2        2.51
Wealthy                20       5        6.31
Very Wealthy           30      20       15.85
Filthy Rich            50     100      100.00
Multimillionaire I     75    1000     1000.00
Multimillionaire II   100   10000    10000.00

As you can see 10^(pts/25) is a good approximation of the GURPS wealth multiplier. I've used this formula to derive the points-for-cash values in the table below, which is for TL 3. Other TL tables can easily be derived from the formula:
(10^(pts/25) - 1) * Campaign starting wealth.
These values have been rounded to a convenient dollar amount.

Points for Cash TL/3
pts   $   pts   $   pts    $   pts    $   pts     $
 1  100    6  750    11 1750    16 3400    25    9K
 2  200    7  900    12 2000    17 3800    30   15K
 3  300    8 1050    13 2300    18 4250    35   24K
 4  450    9 1300    14 2650    19 4750    50  100K
 5  600   10 1500    15 3000    20 5300   100   10M

Signature Gear TL/3
pts   $   pts   $   pts    $   pts     $   pts     $
 1  200    6 1500    11 3500    16  6800    25   18K
 2  400    7 1800    12 4000    17  7600    30   30K
 3  600    8 2100    13 4600    18  8500    35   48K
 4  900    9 2600    14 5300    19  9500    50  200K
 5 1200   10 3000    15 6000    20 10300   100   20M

So, some possible character builds under this system at TL3:
John Plain has zero points in wealth. He starts with $200 in adventuring gear and Average Wealth. He has the necessary assets to work an ordinary job, and earns income in the game at the usual rate for regular working hours.

John Poor takes the Struggling disadvantage, but puts those 10 points into points for cash. He starts with $100 in adventuring gear and his points for cash give him another $750 (1500 * 0.5). He lacks the tools, memberships, or contacts to earn much at a job, but he has about twice as much adventuring gear as John Plain. This is probably a typical adventurer's build.

Malachi Arundel is wealthy (20 points) and has a lot of stuff. He starts with $1000 in gear for his wealth and takes 5 points in points for cash which give him another $3000 ($600 * 5).

Corwin Bearclaw is an adventurer with standard wealth. He a fine thrusting broadsword worth $2400. This will cost him 9 points as signature gear.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Bookman

I
3) The offhand comment in Basic about characters usually having access to only 20% of their by-the-book wealth for gear is widely ignored, due to the comment that follows which says that characters with an unsettled lifestyle can have all of it.

I never have this problem, most characters end up with 80% tied up in non-adventuring gear, because there is no way that their concepts could be "non-settled" and no way the campaign could support "non-settled" characters. When I do run campaigns with "non-settled" characters, then they are usually all wandering knights, gypsy performers, whatever and therefore everyone has 100% of their Starting Wealth to spend. Most campaign concepts are going to produce either all settled or all wandering PCs, rather than a mix.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I never have this problem, most characters end up with 80% tied up in non-adventuring gear, because there is no way that their concepts could be "non-settled" and no way the campaign could support "non-settled" characters. When I do run campaigns with "non-settled" characters, then they are usually all wandering knights, gypsy performers, whatever and therefore everyone has 100% of their Starting Wealth to spend. Most campaign concepts are going to produce either all settled or all wandering PCs, rather than a mix.

Am I right in thinking that the all-wandering cast doesn't have much need to muck about with jobs and such, and therefore the other advantages of wealth don't really mean much?

[benz72]

Perhaps we ought examine the feasibility of decoupling Wealth into it's components and buy them all separately

Starting Cash
Fixed (non-adventuring) Property
Income
Status
Liquidity
Duty (job, doesn't get paid if doesn't perform)
somehting else I can't put my finger on at the moment

Buy as much fixed property and starting cash as is appropriate to your lifestyle in whatever proportion you like.

Make any status bonus a function of visible expenditure and not 'wealth level'

Balance some incomes with the Job duty, you can tweak that duty to represent the increased/lessened time at work mentoined in the wealth templates if you feel it's appropriate. (I've always wondered how guys who work scant hours got to be multi-millioaires in the first place.)

If you want to have your fixed property be very liquid (e.g stocks vice a manor house) you could pay a premium for it by charging different cp/$ for more 'useful' types of wealth.

I think Pyramid did an article on something like this but don't have time to look it up right now.

What do you think?

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by benz72

I think Pyramid did an article on something like this but don't have time to look it up right now.

What do you think?

One of the reasons I didn't get into this aspect of it was because there is a very good article that does this part of redefining wealth already. I think it was called The Color of Money.

[edited to add: Googled for it and added the link.]

[elv]

Originally Posted by Bookman

One of the reasons I didn't get into this aspect of it was because there is a very good article that does this part of redefining wealth already. I think it was called The Color of Money.

I also offered my own "take" on revising 3e Wealth rules: Time and Money.

Much of this is still relevant; in particular the discussion of campaign types at the end, and also my attempt to finesse the problems of Cost of Living by focusing on what is important to the player (i.e., how much extra you've got to spend on game-related stuff).

You may find it of interest.

John

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Bookman

Am I right in thinking that the all-wandering cast doesn't have much need to muck about with jobs and such, and therefore the other advantages of wealth don't really mean much?

In the last all-wandering campaign I ran, the PCs were a troupe of travelling performers (kind of a Wild Bill Wild West show, with Illusion magic), and therefore they still had a job (with income based on ticket sales). In general I think I've always had employed PCs make Job Rolls, and all PCs pay CoL (which made unemployed PCs wish they were employed). Of course I've also always used the Time Use rules, and had lots of downtime. "Everyday is an Adventure!" doesn't really make sense to me.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

In the last all-wandering campaign I ran, the PCs were a troupe of travelling performers (kind of a Wild Bill Wild West show, with Illusion magic), and therefore they still had a job (with income based on ticket sales). In general I think I've always had employed PCs make Job Rolls, and all PCs pay CoL (which made unemployed PCs wish they were employed). Of course I've also always used the Time Use rules, and had lots of downtime. "Everyday is an Adventure!" doesn't really make sense to me.

I suspect we're closer than you might think then WRT the starting wealth. I would have abstracted all of the travelling gear (wagons, horses, props and sets) and the other gear that they use to make their money as the 80% of wealth, I think. It sounds like you probably had them buy that sort of thing from the 100% they started with? Just a guess, there.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Bookman

I suspect we're closer than you might think then WRT the starting wealth. I would have abstracted all of the travelling gear (wagons, horses, props and sets) and the other gear that they use to make their money as the 80% of wealth, I think. It sounds like you probably had them buy that sort of thing from the 100% they started with? Just a guess, there.

Actually, IIRC, all the startup costs were provided by a mysterious investor (a Patron for all the PCs) the starting wealth only went to their personal gear.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Bookman

3) The offhand comment in Basic about characters usually having access to only 20% of their by-the-book wealth for gear is widely ignored, due to the comment that follows which says that characters with an unsettled lifestyle can have all of it.

I personally allow it, but it's paid for elsewhere. You have the option of taking the full starting wealth in gear, or the "free with status" items.

There are also social ramifications to being such a wanderer. You might be a knight (high status), but if you don't have lands and aren't attached to a household, you're an outsider to most of the 'quality' people.