Wealth does WHAT?!!!

[hal]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'd think that if our world's GM suddenly magically deprived Gates of Microsoft and his savings, he'd at worst lose one level of Wealth, but quickly recover otherwise. If he decides to start business anew, he'll probably be able to gain loans and/or investors on a scale of only mildly reduced Wealth (if reduced at all), start earning a salary comparable to his old one, and quickly bounce up.

And...

Why? *teasing grin*

In GURPS terminology, what do you think would be the reason for it? Hint? Part of the answer is "reputation". If he were to suddenly be bereft of his wealth now, and lose Microsoft, and he failed on his "recovery" the next attempt he made, and then the third attempt only partially succeeded - do you think the investor's (using other people's money) will be as eager to invest?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by hal

And...

Why? *teasing grin*

In GURPS terminology, what do you think would be the reason for it? Hint? Part of the answer is "reputation". If he were to suddenly be bereft of his wealth now, and lose Microsoft, and he failed on his "recovery" the next attempt he made, and then the third attempt only partially succeeded - do you think the investor's (using other people's money) will be as eager to invest?

Addressing the 'reputation' bit: it's the sort of lowercase-r reputation that is distinct from capital-R Reputation, in that its main effect is better emulated through the interaction with Jobs than through any sort of reaction modifier.

As for failed recoveries: a failed recovery is a sign that the player and the GM talked it over, and allowed the player to reduce the PC's Wealth and spend those points on something else (or save them up). Either that, or that the PC was having income/savings above one's Wealth, and thus what's lost is lost.

See also:

Originally Posted by Kromm

Ah, no . . . capital-W Wealth the advantage is in itself a measure of social connectedness, credit rating, and economic power. It doesn't go away just because you lose money in bad times. You still have the connections and the credit history; you just don't have the cash. Small-w wealth the real-world concept certainly varies, but on the other hand isn't anything but your bank balance.

A knight, lord, or ruler tends to have some of his Status owing to his track record as being the holder of land and commander of troops who, in the worst-case scenario, can loot or tax money to repay debts. This is what Wealth is about in such settings, and why it elevates Status.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by hal

And...

Why? *teasing grin*

In GURPS terminology, what do you think would be the reason for it? Hint? Part of the answer is "reputation". If he were to suddenly be bereft of his wealth now, and lose Microsoft, and he failed on his "recovery" the next attempt he made, and then the third attempt only partially succeeded - do you think the investor's (using other people's money) will be as eager to invest?

I don't think you understand the concepts of Wealth and Reputation in GURPS.

If you have a reputation (lower-case) with the game effects of easier access to capital, better job prospects and a network of social connections and formal or informal qualifications that allow you access to jobs that correlate with higher socialeconomic status, you have the GURPS trait Wealth.

If your reputation helps you influence individuals you meet in an adventuring context, it's Reputation.

If it does both, you have both traits. This would obviously be common for reputations linked to professional expertise, but note that neither Wealth and Reputation requires the other. A famous non-conformer or rebel might have adoring fans, but no credit and no way to get a respectable job, and by contrast, a non-entity from the right background, schools, connections and credit history might be able to make a comfortable living without ever seeming to work or coming to the notice of society in general.

Buying Reputation +4 will not get a character a good credit rating or a better job than his skills seem to warrant, not unless the player also takes Wealth. By contrast, taking high Wealth and no Reputation means that a character does not get special treatment from strangers or have rabid fans, but does have good credit, access to investors, connections that get him entry to better jobs, etc.

It's the player's job to justify the social background of his character and explain the interplay of various traits. If he has awesome skills that qualify him for a high-paying job, but took low Wealth, he needs some reason why he isn't employed at such a job. By contrast, if he has average skills, but high Wealth, something in his background should explain that.

Note, however, that in the real world, it is very plausible for salaries to depend on other factors than competence at a job skill.

And the way GURPS works, social connections that serve no other function than explain a higher socialeconomic status than otherwise would be the case are not necessarily Allies (can adventure with you), Contacts (can give you access to favours or information otherwise unavailable), Patron (can aid actively) or Reputation (makes people treat you better in general, not just when it comes to financial matters).

All of these may coexist, but they don't have to. Status is more closely connected to Wealth, with the basic assumption being that these will match, but individual characters absolutely can choose to vary it and explain the discrepancies through character background.

[Anaraxes]

"Wealth" is the GURPS term for an Advantage which does include some bits of what hal is calling "reputation", as well as some specific bits of other general Advantages. Small-r reputation is not the sole domain of the Reputation Advantage, just as every single person a character knows isn't listed as an Ally or Contact or minion commanded by a necessary level of Rank. Wealth only extends to those connections as social influence that affect your Wealth level, so there's still plenty of room for Reputation to do its thing.

Many existing traits overlap in their spheres of effect. There's not a rule that requires them to be a perfect disjoint partition of the character design space.

(Cinematic references? Bruce Wayne is an obvious example, along with his fellow travelers Tony Stark and Oliver Queen. But they don't have to be so extremely wealthy. Henry Hill, the main character in "Goodfellas", early on makes a lot of money not justified by his skills, criminal or otherwise.

In real life, raw personal skill in some technical tasks is not the sole and perhaps not even in the primary determinant of wealth.Some people are fortunate in other ways that do increase their incomes. Many of those ways even reasonably count as being "good at your job" in ways that simple professional skill levels don't cover. Nerds, gamers, and techies might hate this fact and wish it were otherwise, but that doesn't mean the game should revolve around that particular facet of social justice.

You could design an alternate system where the equivalent of GURPS "Wealth" is a meta-trait built of of a collection of hyper-limited and targeted Reputation, Status (-80% "Only for jobs table rolls"), and so on. But it's certainly a lot simpler to just call such a thing "Wealth" and make it a package deal. A setting that really wanted to focus on the process of getting and maintaining a mundane job (let's call it "Papers and Paychecks") might need some really fine-grained detail and allow variations in elements of the package to properly represent slight differences in the characters in the office. Most games revolve around the adventuring, though, with mundane employment as a background detail. And so, there's less focus and resolution placed on that Advantage.

And one minor note: hal's complaint that wealth level multiplies job income is in fact a misreading of RAW. There's no need to demand an explanation for an effect that doesn't exist.

Being Comfortable does not mean that you get 2x pay from an Average job. Instead, Wealth of Comfortable is a prerequisite for having a Comfortable job (which might pay twice as much as many Average jobs, but it's a different job).

Originally Posted by B517

If a PC lands a job associated with a higher wealth level than his own (which isn’t easy – see Finding a Job, p. 518), the GM should let him earn the usual pay for that job.
...
Likewise, a wealthy PC may work at a job below his wealth level. He gets the usual pay for that job; he does not receive extra pay simply because he is wealthy!

The dearth of example jobs tables in 4e compared to 3e might obscure the fact that jobs themselves are arranged in the Wealth categories, and each job has its own pay level. They're not all specified as Average jobs and taking a fixed multiplier such as TL base * Wealth. That's simply the default easy, low-res suggestion for settings where no one's taken the time to detail actual rates of pay for various jobs. Detailed rates of pay for particular jobs are setting-dependent (hence the lack of examples).

[Tyneras]

Wealth (as I understand it) is a combination of Assets (cash and property) and Economic Clout (status for jobs and loans and stuff).

Dungeon Fantasy does a fairly good job of all but splitting the two.

[A Ladder]

Slight tangent: If wealth is starting money and economic clout, what would be a good limitation for PCs who just want to purchase Wealth (Starting Money Only -X%)?

I see this useful for either Dungeon Fantasy games or Action! games where social connections and other aspects of economics don't matter all that much.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

Slight tangent: If wealth is starting money and economic clout, what would be a good limitation for PCs who just want to purchase Wealth (Starting Money Only -X%)?

I see this useful for either Dungeon Fantasy games or Action! games where social connections and other aspects of economics don't matter all that much.

As per the Basic Set, you just trade points for cash (B26).

Dungeon Fantasy is a setting with no real economies or coherent societies, so the Wealth just works a bit differently in that setting (see DF1 pg23)...there is no discount to the Advantage/Disadvantage because that is just how the setting itself works. Basically, as long as a switch you use applies to everything in the setting equally, you don't have to worry about it so much.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by trooper6

As per the Basic Set, you just trade points for cash (B26).

What seems to be often forgotten is that is an impulse buy that you can do at any time in play, not just during character creation.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

Slight tangent: If wealth is starting money and economic clout, what would be a good limitation for PCs who just want to purchase Wealth (Starting Money Only -X%)?

Trading Points for Money (B26). This gives you 10% of Starting Wealth per point sacrificed, and is rarely a good deal. DF boosts this to 50%, just like Signature Gear, which makes it a bit better. Note Wealth has influence beyond starting money in DF, however - it determines the base price you get when trying to sell stuff to merchants.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Trading Points for Money (B26). This gives you 10% of Starting Wealth per point sacrificed, and is rarely a good deal. DF boosts this to 50%, just like Signature Gear, which makes it a bit better. Note Wealth has influence beyond starting money in DF, however - it determines the base price you get when trying to sell stuff to merchants.

Impulse Buys suggests boosting it to 100% starting Wealth for gear.