New House Rule for Wealth directed at Low Tech

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by namada

...the fact that most of these warriors wouldn't realistically own their gear (Patron's provide it)...

Ehhh... all the warriors phayman53 pointed out actually did own their kit. It wasn't supplied by their Patron and lastly, he is correct, prices are inflated in Low-Tech because actual research was done to set the prices instead of relying on "this price feels right" which is how the prices in Basic were generated originally.


phayman53, I think I solved this 'problem' for myself by just doubling everyone's starting money for free last time I ran a game where "Knight" was something I wanted at least one PC to get into. I might also have given everyone 2 horses for free and let the knights pay the difference between the free riding horse and a warhorses... I'm not sure on that one.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by phayman53

That aside, as I said above, the problem isn't that GURPS wealth is too low to cover a knight's equipment, the problem is it seems to not cover any realistic equipment without sinking too-high levels of wealth into a character for their status. Should a Roman Republican Hastati (Status -1) really need "Wealthy" wealth to cover his gear ($2684 for just the armor per Loadouts: Low-Tech, plus $200 for the shield, and more for the weapons)? Likewise, the Hoplite (Status 1 for Early, Status 0 for late) costs FAR too much for their status.

The greave and pectoral are optional, and are $1,700 of that cost. They'd be what a son of a wealthier family would wear when doing their time as a Hastati, assuming they couldn't skip it.

Likewise, many of the Principe wouldn't have the breastplate, almost half the cost of their panoply.

Also, I'm note sure that the Status (and thus corresponding wealth levels) of those men are correct, given that they're all citizens.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Rupert

T
Also, I'm note sure that the Status (and thus corresponding wealth levels) of those men are correct, given that they're all citizens.

Citizen, but plebeian. Status -1 for the poorer of them is not innacurate, unemployed free men surviving only by the liberalities of a patron.

And the Bronze helmet, which is the one expensive mandatory item in the loadout, could very well be a family heirloom. Or purchased with borrowed money against the hope of a succesful and lucrative campaign. Or received from their patron. And possibly cheap, too.

If I were to make a 'generic' status -1 hastati character, I would not give him enough money to purchase the full set of gear at list price out of his '20%' money. That is unrealistic.
I would make him struggling, and wearing a partial set of (possibly cheap) gear, with the helmet bought by either a patron, a debt or signature gear.

A landed medieval knight (or samurai) ? Start at Filthy rich and independent income, season with debt, patron and sig gear to taste, done.

A noble unattached errant knight with nothing to his name but a couple warhorses, heavy plate armor, fine weapons and a couple followers ... Now that is a challenge to design in Gurps. Like a hobo with his own F-15 Strike Eagle and crew. It can be done, but however you build it, it will look wonky.

[Rasna]

Not to mention that GURPS prices for weapons and armors aren't historically accurate, but rather they're mostly based on "game efficiency". For example in XVI-XVII century Europe, mail armor, though usually "inferior" in protective values, was way more expensive than the average plate armor, because making a mail shirt required more hours of labor than making a plate cuirass. Also, the price gap between swords and hafted weapons should be reduced.

The Wealth levels of GURPS are in fact too restrictive for TL1-TL4 military classes, because them alone don't give in account the equipment and the wealth from spoils of war, heredity, subsidies and gifts from a patron (often an overlord, sometimes the State itself), the wealth accumulated by the family over the years and spent to equip the freemen in order to serve their overlord or their city in case of necessity and other mechanics varying among different times and cultures. So IMO is fine to customize it depending on setting.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Is there any scope for noting that a knight's wargear is not just "adventuring gear" but, essentially, the tools of his trade as much as a blacksmith's forge is?

Absolutely. What counts as 'adventuring gear' is not defined, and what is covered by your cost of living isn't fully defined either. Those are GM setting choices.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Absolutely. What counts as 'adventuring gear' is not defined, and what is covered by your cost of living isn't fully defined either. Those are GM setting choices.

Hmm, good point. I guess it would make sense for adventuring gear to be anything discretionary that you have, that is not required to maintain your status. But in that case, a warrior who is required to have gear for his status could count it against his total wealth even under the RAW wealth rules. That said, it still does not solve the problem of gear costing too much for relevant status required gear all up and down the wealth/status spectrum.

I guess you could just rule that a character has the gear appropriate to his status in his culture unless he has lower or higher wealth than usual. Then the 20% is for anything in addition to that. That is definitely one way to solve it, though that will privilege certain cultures over others without costing points and makes the generic part of GURPS more complicated.

[Donny Brook]

For some time, I have thought that the arbitrariness of (a) the adventure gear/settled lifestyle materiel, and (b) the 80% / 20% splits lead to more problems than they solve.

The system I plan to implement, which I think will be far more precise and more integrative, is for characters to choose the CoL level they will enter play with and pay from their starting wealth some Function of that monthly upkeep cost. I am toying with the idea of having the Function relate to the number of months it would take to assemble that lifestyle based on the background economy.

For example, to assemble a Status 0 lifestyle in a typical city in a TL8 developed country would take maybe not even a month of shopping and payment, etc. In contrast it would take several months to assemble a Status 4 lifestyle in the Oklahoma territory in 1820. But I don't have the details of the Function worked out yet.