Looking for good House Rule on Wealth

[Jareth Valar]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

Actually, I think you could make Independent Income work with the Abstract Wealth system. Here's how I'd do it:

The first 5 levels of Independent Income simply cover a decreasing need to actually work for a living. Each level reduces the time you need to work a "regular job" in a month by 20%, up to not having to work at all at level 5. The remaining levels, up to 20, effectively let you do cheap and normal purchases without reducing your effective Wealth level - each level past 5 eliminates the normal penalty to Wealth rolls for one purchase, either for the month for Normal purchases, or the week for Cheap purchases. So, for example, someone with Independent Income 10 wouldn't have to work a regular job at all, and would be able to make 5 normal purchases in a month, and 5 cheap purchases a week, without any penalty to their Wealth rolls.

That sounds very workable, thank you. Might be an option for later for us. Any thoughts on how to integrate with having a mandatory job? Ours is an FBI game set in early 2000's, so approximately $40,000 per year total (various things go into FBI pay..... O_o). We're planning on it staying FBI for a while and then going independent or other agency after.

[Bengt]

Originally Posted by Jareth Valar

That sounds very workable, thank you. Might be an option for later for us. Any thoughts on how to integrate with having a mandatory job? Ours is an FBI game set in early 2000's, so approximately $40,000 per year total (various things go into FBI pay..... O_o). We're planning on it staying FBI for a while and then going independent or other agency after.

How about treating each II level as either 20% off work or a penalty free purchases. E.g. II 7 could give you no work and 2 purchases or full time work and 7 purchases, or some combination.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Bengt

How about treating each II level as either 20% off work or a penalty free purchases. E.g. II 7 could give you no work and 2 purchases or full time work and 7 purchases, or some combination.

Yeah, that's basically how I'd do it. In fact, they're really two separate traits, and you could split them up completely. Call the first five levels, the "doesn't need to work as much" part, "Independent Income" or "Guaranteed Income", while the other stuff, that prevents penalties to Wealth rolls for purchases, "Extra Disposable Income", perhaps. And there's really no need to limit the number of levels of the latter, I think. If someone wants to pay 100 points to be able to purchase 100 normal purchases for their Wealth level without penalty a month, well, more power to them - the same 100 points sunk into actual Wealth would actually be far more efficient, turning most of the purchases into trivial-level ones anyway.

[phayman53]

Thank you all for your replies so far. Many of you have suggested ignoring the Wealth rules, and that is definitely a way to do it, but I am looking for a balanced way to have more realistic rules rather than ignore the value of different wealth to characters.

Originally Posted by hal

Don't forget that weapons can be purchased as cheap weapons, thereby lowering their cost of procurement.

Also, you may want to use other game systems for their economics than GURPS. I use to use CHIVALRY & SORCERY before I finally settled upon HARN WORLD. T...

Thanks for the suggestion on HARN World, it sounds like a good system for that, but I really don't want to buy another system or try and integrate it into GURPS--at least not right now. It does sound cool though

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

One thing to remember is that "adventuring gear" doesn't mean "all gear that could possibly be used on an adventure". What it really means, I believe, is "discretionary gear" - that is, it's simply all the equipment that's not provided by your social status, that the character is free to choose more or less at will (subject to things like CR), and that they can resell, whether because it's easily transferable, or because selling it won't have a social cost.

For example, your Hastatus character could reasonably claim that their arms and armor should be provided as part of the 80% "settled living" cost. The limitations on this would be a) if they wanted something notably better (either in armor quality or styling), that wouldn't be covered, b) if they tried to sell it, they'd get a lot of social opprobrium heaped on them (a soldier selling the stuff that made him capable of fighting for Rome?! Scandalous!). Also, remember that different characters will have different things provided by their status. That Hastatus gets their arms and armor, but probably doesn't have a residence in Rome itself, whereas a Status -1 urban pleb doesn't get the weapons, but does get a flat as part of their 80%.

This is a good point, but it still requires people not in the ruling class, who were considered commoners (though not plebs) to be at least Wealthy, which is rather high IMHO. It just seems a bit excessive.

Originally Posted by Gnome

Have you checked out "Abstract Wealth" from Pyramid #3/44? It basically turns Wealth into an attribute that you roll against to make purchases.

I have used the system in one campaign, though I combined it with standard Wealth. Every character got 20% of their starting Wealth as equipment/cash, and the Abstract Wealth rules were used to handle the other 80%. This was a TL6 game, and it worked out really nicely. PCs could choose whether to pay for things out of pocket (using "cash on hand") or using Abstract Wealth.
I would use this system again for any game in which I want the characters to have remotely realistic financial situations (so not DF) without having to deal with boring bookkeeping.

I like abstract wealth, unfortunately it starts at TL4 and I am most interested in TL3 and before games at the moment. Is there anyone who has done a conversion for the table to levels lower than TL4?

Originally Posted by ericthered

Armor isn't Cheap. Never was. Hastari aren't so much poor as young and not yet established. The militia class of Rome was reasonably wealthy before the wars that built the republic bankrupted them. After that point the grear should be bought with the 80%, not the 20%.

The period you speak of is iron age. No need to mess with bronze.

This doesn't solve all your problems, but it does make them a lot more manageable.

Well, while it is the iron age, it seems that the plate type armor that the Hastari wore, including their helmets, was bronze at the time. Not sure why, maybe not enough local iron or because bronze was still easier to work with?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Well, while it is the iron age, it seems that the plate type armor that the Hastari wore, including their helmets, was bronze at the time. Not sure why, maybe not enough local iron or because bronze was still easier to work with?

<shrug> Iron wasn't better than bronze except in that it was cheaper because it was more common and you didn't have to combine raw materials from opposite ends of the sea to make it.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by phayman53

This is a good point, but it still requires people not in the ruling class, who were considered commoners (though not plebs) to be at least Wealthy, which is rather high IMHO. It just seems a bit excessive.

Actually, it doesn't, because the 80%/20% rule doesn't require you to fit everything that comes with social standing into that 80%. What the rule really says is that only 20% of your starting wealth is available for "discretionary funds". The remainder of your property can exceed that 80% value, because a) it's basically under the control of the GM as to what you get, and b) it won't be worth more than 80% of starting wealth if you go out and sell it all despite the social stigma.

So, for example, a TL 3 knight could start with Comfortable Wealth. If they took the 80%/20% split, they'd have $200 available to purchase whatever equipment they wanted. But their 80% would include things like a warhorse, arms and armor appropriate for a knight, and probably at least a small amount of land. The fact that all that would add up to more than 80% of $1000 is okay.

[Anthony]

If you look at the job table, a character with wealth matching his status has earnings equal to 10 points independent income, so the question becomes the negative point value of a job.

A typical job at a modern TL is something like 20 days per month; each day ties up a total of about 10 hours (including commute and lunch), but displaces the normal 0.5 hours of lunch, so it's costing you a total of 8 hours 'working' time (this is important because per B346 you're limited to 8 hours working time per day without penalty) and 1.5 hours free time; over a month, that's 160 hours working time and 30 hours free time.

The Extra Sleep disadvantage (B136) costs you 30 hours free time per month, and is [-2]. If we assume losing working hours are 50% worse, the total is [-18]. It seems convenient to round up slightly and just have:

Working Stiff [-1/level]
Each level of Working Stiff means you work one day per month. This assumes an inflexible schedule and working in an office; -20% if you have a highly flexible schedule, -10% if you can work from home.

A person with a job has Working Stiff 20 [-20], Income 10 [10], and No Cost of Living [10].

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Well, while it is the iron age, it seems that the plate type armor that the Hastari wore, including their helmets, was bronze at the time. Not sure why, maybe not enough local iron or because bronze was still easier to work with?

It's a thing about making large plates of metal. That's TL1 for bronze but just before the beginning of TL4 for iron. So TL2 can make bronze breastplates but not iron ones. If the hastari helmet was made from one piece of metal that explains it too.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Brandy

I posted this to the forums 11 years ago. It may suit you.

Thank you for posting this, this is the kind of rule I was hoping for. Not sure if I would use it exactly, but it is definitely the direction I was hoping for. I didn't respond to it sooner because I did not have time to interact with it.

Originally Posted by Brandy

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.

I agree with all of these assumptions. The only exception is that I am not sure extra cash for signature gear is the pest way to go. PK has a rule that signature gear is a perk that adds plot protection only on one item up to a certain amount. I like that idea.

Originally Posted by Brandy

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.

So what about an itinerant character who has the connections and status to earn his wealth level? Would the 80% go to things like wardrobe, servants, assistants, etc.? Hmm, I could see that make sense. A TL3 Knight Errant would have at least one page, a tent, probably a groom, some horses, etc. But then what separates this character from a landed status 2 knight? The itinerant one should have to pay higher cost of living (Basic says double to maintain status on the road), but what advantage does he get for spending the same points on the same wealth level, but without the advantage of a home base?

Originally Posted by Brandy

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.

...

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 four times as much adventuring gear as John Plain. This would work well as 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.

This makes sense, I like it. Good examples too, thank you!

Originally Posted by Brandy

So, at TL 2 with starting wealth $750, $150 of which can go towards gear, you would need 12 points put towards points for cash under this house rule. That would give you an additional $750*(10^(12/25)-1)=$1515 to spend for a total budget of $1665. (11 points doesn't quite get you there).

Thank you for working an example based on the specific issue I brought up, I appreciate it!

This is definitely a rule change I will consider!

[phayman53]

An alternative way of handling extra gear with no additional wealth finds its roots in the way ATE handles wealth. In ATE for every point of extra gear, you get half the starting wealth extra. That is nice and simple and linear, but it does not take into account the diminishing returns of losing character points. Another idea I had was to separate starting wealth from extra gear completely. So wealth level would give you your normal 20% of listed wealth, but each point of extra gear give you more total cash like this (basically, each point buys half of the next wealth level):

[Edit: this was supposed to be a table with two columns, Points in the first column, multiple of starting wealth in the second]
Points Multiple of TL starting Wealth
1 *0.5
2 *1.0
3 *1.5
4 *2.0
5 *3.5
6 *5.0
7 *12.5
8 *20
9 *40
8 *60
9 *80
10 *100
11 *280
12 *460
13 *640
14 *820
15 *1000
etc.

This extra starting wealth would not impact your earning power in any way, it just represents gear that can be used for adventuring that you have accumulated over and above what would normally be able to have.

So, the TL2 Camillan Hastatus from Loadouts: Low-Tech would have Average Wealth, and $150 from that to use towards his weapons, armor, and travelling kit. He could then pay 4 points to cover the rest of the gear he would need to outfit himself in basic Hastati kit, giving him $1650 to spend on weapons, armor, etc. Or, if he wanted the additional optional equipment, it would cost him 6 points to cover the almost $3300 he would need.

However, a TL3 Knight Errant Norman Milite would be status 2 and have wealth (wealthy) for $1000 in starting gear. However, he would also need, according to Loadouts: Low-Tech, $7,370 in armor, $120 for a shield, $600 for a thrusting broadsword, $40ish for a spear, etc. Plus, let's go with the $5000 for the heavy warhorse in Basic (though the size and stats on that aren't the greatest) for a total kit of about $14,000. This would mean he would have 20 points in Wealth, plus need an additional 7-8 points in gear to equip himself to the standard of a Norman Milite.

That seems reasonable to me. The advantage of this scheme is it is straight-forward to calculate. The disadvantage is that the points in gear get no help from wealth, so there is diminishing returns at high wealth levels for the fist few points spent.

Is this too generous? Too useless to characters with high wealth?