Being rich without being Wealthy

[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

[Hilary_155]

It is easier to survive if you have more stuff. I would like to see an advantage/disadvantage that affects your starting money, but not your wealth level. You could pay points to start with more money or get points for starting with less, and this would NOT affect what you have to do later on.

I never liked the idea of paying points for money found during the course of adventuring. If you rob a bank or kill a dragon, you should get the cash without paying character points.

I played an adventure were everyone started dead broke and naked and had to just survive. Once we got out of that situation, we had normal access to normal wealth. But for that adventure, we started with nothing. We used bones as weapons taken from the dead.

*********

I think GMs are free to do what they want anyway. So use whatever rules you want just so long as you have them quantified ahead of time.

-peace

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Hilary_155

If you rob a bank or kill a dragon, you should get the cash without paying character points.

That is how it works. But if the money is spent or stolen, it is gone. If you spend the points to increase your wealth level, then it gets easier to make more money, though the subject is sort of fuzzy.

[RogerBW]

Going by my interpretations of various things Kromm's said, paying points for something locks it in: your wealth won't vanish in a bank collapse, your nifty pistol won't get taken off you by the cops in a random street stop and never seen again.

If you got something but didn't pay points, you can and probably will lose it again.

This doesn't apply in quite the same way to Contacts and Allies, where I typically say either "add this person as a Contact, and the points for that are free" or "if you want to keep in touch with this person, pay N points and add him as a Contact".

[DCB]

Originally Posted by Hilary_155

If you rob a bank or kill a dragon, you should get the cash without paying character points.

Interestingly, there seems to be at least one situation where this isn't the case:

Originally Posted by B.516

If a PC lands a job with a higher wealth level than his own...the GM should let him earn the usual pay for that job....However, if the PC's savings reach the starting wealth of the next-highest wealth level, he must pay the points to buy up his Wealth

(emphasis in the original)

So, at least based on a straight-forward reading, there seems to be at least a partial link between a character's earned-in-game money and his Wealth. However, there doesn't seem to be a requirement to buy up Wealth if the character doesn't have an unusually high-Wealth-level job, so temporary windfalls apparently can (B.291) but need not lead to a Wealth increase.

(All based on rules-as-written; rules-as-played, of course, it's perfectly reasonable for the GM to rule as you've done - it's a common ruling that seems fairly trouble-free.)

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by DCB

Interestingly, there seems to be at least one situation where this isn't the case:

(emphasis in the original)

So, at least based on a straight-forward reading, there seems to be at least a partial link between a character's earned-in-game money and his Wealth. However, there doesn't seem to be a requirement to buy up Wealth if the character doesn't have an unusually high-Wealth-level job, so temporary windfalls apparently can (B.291) but need not lead to a Wealth increase.

(All based on rules-as-written; rules-as-played, of course, it's perfectly reasonable for the GM to rule as you've done - it's a common ruling that seems fairly trouble-free.)

you missing a key difference between the cases, Looted treasure does not require wealth but the high paying job does, is because the later is an ongoing income, the comes with the social ties of it's eqiclent wealth level.

Wealth advantages other the starting cases actual has NOTHING to do with you assets levels but is a social advertising about KEEPING your wealth level.
loot your treasurer, and got rob well tough it's gone you don't have the right connections to be reimbursed for the theft. But if you have the Wealth you do have the social connection to see the Sports car is replaced if not outright returned if it get stolen.

Like signature gear have plot protection for an item, Wealth is plot protection for your income

[Flyndaran]

I'm lazy, so I would just knock the wealth (dis)advantages prices in half and say that it only affects starting money.

[corwyn]

What do people do in the case of a campaign where you know the characters will be travelling adventures with no real job most of the time, such as a traditional fantasy game?

In my case, I'm running a Deadlands game. The posse travels from town to town shootin' trouble where they find it. One of the characters is Struggling, so reduced starting cash. From then on, his wealth level would, by the rules, never come up again, correct?

Does anyone handle this differently?

In Savage Worlds, where the campaign started, low wealth causes the character to lose some of their funds every week or so, whether by philanthropy, being poor with money, bad gambler, what have you.

[Anaraxes]

From then on, his wealth level would, by the rules, never come up again, correct?

Actually, no. The Wealth rules are not the shining star of GURPS, but even for the travelling adventurer, the effects continue.

It's not a matter of just totting up the sum of all the loot on your character sheet once play starts. Characters with low Wealth don't hang on to their money; they fritter it away to no good end. Think of all the stories about lottery winners or athletes that wind up poor again in a few years. If there's a pause in the action, the Struggling character will be the one chopping firewood for a plate of beans a day while his friends earn more money at better jobs. If the group is all impoverished by robbery or misadventure, those with points in Wealth can rapidly restablish themselves while the poor ones can't.

Consider the fact that the character was designed to be Struggling or Poor. If the player is doing his job, then this fact is as important to the character concept as is the fact that he's a crack shot or wily or good with the ladies. The player wouldn't _want_ the character to effectively become Wealthy as soon as play starts. Perhaps the story arc is supposed to result eventual wealth for the character, but having the effects disappear immediately wouldn't be any more interesting of a story than just reading the last page of the book.

On the other hand, some players will use Wealth just as a point crock, in the expectation that other PCs or a rain of loot, DF-style, will make the disadvantage meaningless. In that case, there's always the old rule of thumb that disads that aren't disadvantageous are worth no points. Simply don't accept that character build, reduce the point cost for Wealth drastically, or simply disallow it in the games where you expect loot to be the only income that matters. Not every advantage is for every game, not just the ones that are clearly outside the setting.

[BaHalus]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I'm lazy, so I would just knock the wealth (dis)advantages prices in half and say that it only affects starting money.

I was thinking in something around 1/5, following the other 1 time use only advantages.