[Wealth] House system for wealth and assets, critique please

muranternet · 07-09-2010, 03:44 PM

Long time lurker and GURPS player/GM, first post. I've working out a house system to handle the temp/starting wealth problems that have been discussed in other threads, and think this is a decent compromise. Please comment and tell me why it won't work. This has been worked out for a TL3/early 4 typical fantasy-era campaign with appropriate examples, but translates into other TLs easily.

Splitting Wealth into Assets/Wealth (Earnings Potential)
Wealth is handled by chopping it into two leveled traits called Assets and Wealth. Assets covers starting wealth levels and the ongoing total assets of the character. Wealth covers the earnings potential of the character at jobs, whether full time or contract. Each is bought as per the current Wealth advantage with a -50% modifier.

At creation time, the Assets trait determines the starting wealth of the character in cash and equipment. As the campaign progresses, if the character accumulates money and stuff that puts him past the next Assets level, Assets must be bought up or the money lost somehow (hookers and booze, charity, etc.). If the character loses net worth, he doesn't get the points back, but neither does he lose the trait. It just means that if he recovers his money later, he doesn't have to make up the point difference.

Wealth is applied as a standard job table modifier for mundane jobs, and also affects the money earned via in-game contract offers, etc. (It doesn't cover a flat reward, e.g. "$1000 for the head of Sir Badguy"; this can be treated the same as found treasure, going into Assets.)

A character can have radically different Assets and Wealth traits. For instance, a character who has Poor Wealth [-7] but found a suitcase full of money and a Wealthy Assets [10] trait has the money and whatever it can buy for him (maybe paying for higher status Cost of Living or better stuff), but he's still only going to be offered poor levels jobs if he looks for them. A modern character who has Poor Wealth [-7] who works at the gas station and wins a lottery jackpot for Multimillionaire 1 Assets [38] is not suddenly eligible for a job as a bank president. If he loses his money and needs to find a job, it will be a Poor one unless he buys up the Wealth trait.

Conversely, the example given in another wealth thread about a whizbang financial analyst with crushing student loans or who got caught in a Ponzi scheme before the campaign starts could be bought with Wealthy Wealth [15] and Struggling Assets [-5]. If he spends his first few sessions rebuilding his portfolio successfuly, he will have to pay the points difference to make up his Assets trait.

The Free Status: Sidenote
The 1 level of free Status from Wealthy doesn not come into play until both Wealth and Assets are bought to the Wealthy level (10 + 10 CP). This is a consequence of both the possession of money (Assets) and the ability to keep earning it (Wealth). I don't personally like this rule though, as a slumdog millionaire character is not automatically respected by high society, and consequently would be taking either Status -1 to balance it or some other similar social disadvantages. In effect it just makes Wealthy cost 15 points.

The Gameplay Consequences of Assets
If ongoing wealth accumulation has no consequences pointwise, then any points spent on Wealth or Starting/Temporary Wealth are effectively wasted. The character is better off taking the bare minimum of gear and waiting until they find a briefcase full of money. Conversely, the RAW rule of buying up your total Wealth score whenever you get money makes little sense, as the dead broke hobo who finds a car with $500,000 worth of sellable narcotics in the trunk is now fated to spend all the earned CP from the next 10 adventures on paying off his wealth and is suddenly qualified to be a captain of industry. He has little incentive to earn CPs at all, or indeed keep playing the character.

By splitting off assets and paying for that part only, the GM reaches a suitable compromise where a character who started out with less money does so with the knowledge that if they happen to get rich in the future, it will take a bite out of his CP at a time when he might rather be spending it on some other skills. The character who "wasted points" on money at the campaign start may have to also spend some CP, but not nearly as much. A character who goes from Poor Assets (TL3 $200) to Very Wealthy Assets (TL3 $20,000) has a lot of new spending power, but also a 22CP debt to be paid, which is very annoying but not insurmountable. A character going from Comfortable to Very Wealthy assets has a similar increase in spending power, but only a 10CP debt. When the Poor asset guy complains about the fact that it seems unfair, the Comfortable asset guy can counter that it seemed unfair that he had to spend 12CP extra at the campaign start to buy equipment.

muranternet · 07-09-2010, 03:44 PM

Play Examples, TL3/Early 4 Fantasy Campaign, Starting Wealth Base $1000

Creation Time

The party consists of 3 characters: Fred the Fighter, Max the Magician, and Roger the Rogue. The GM has declared that as the characters are intended to be adventurers moving into a new frontier town, they will not have jobs at the campaign starts, but could possibly get some if they want to later, with their ideal goal being to earn enough through adventuring to obviate a normal job.

Fred is the second son of a very minor noble family who decides to strike out on his own as an adventurer. The player figures that in order to reflect this, he should buy Comfortable Wealth [5] and Comfortable Assets [5] and Status 1 [5]. This gives him recognition as a minor member of some backwoods aristocracy, enough money to buy some reasonable weapons and armor, and if he wants to get a job as a militia trainer or what have you, he can earn a commeasurate salary. The player figures that if times are tough he can live at Status 0 as a wanderer ($600/month CoL), but if he gets established in one place he can pay for the full CoL 9$1200/mo) through a mundane job.

Max is a moderately talented magician and a dice/card hustler with appropriate Gambling-related skills who has decided to take up adventuring because he's been running bad, or the good games have dried up. There's nothing that makes him particularly bad at earning an honest living, he just hasn't wanted to try it. The player decides that he should start with Struggling Assets [-5] but no actual Wealth modifier [0]. His CoL is normal for Status 0 ($600/mo) and if he gets a job, it should cover it fine.

Roger is a poor sneak thief who befriended Max at an underground dice game who needs to get out of town and is taking the opportunity to do so in a party for safety. The player takes Poor Wealth [-7] and Poor Assets [-7], and Status -1 [-5]. Roger really doesn't have much in the way of marketable skills, but doesn't like being a Status -2 beggar, hence his choice of occupation. He needs to make money adventuring to cover his $300/mo CoL, since any job he would get would not cover it.

The Party Gets a Contract
In the first adventure, the GM decides that a local merchant has lost an incoming shipment of wine that some highwaymen have intercepted, and the party gets hired to do the job. The GM decides that it's a somewhat risky mission that should take maybe a week to complete, so a base $500 (almost a month's normal wages!) is a good base rate of pay.

Fred is hired for $1000 due to his Comfortable Wealth, with the explanation that the merchant recognizes that someone of his blood would be insulted by less, and he has to pay for all that armor somehow, right? Max is hired at the base rate of $500 for his Average Wealth, as he seems capable enough and there are no other special circumstances that would qualify him for a bonus. Roger is viewed as a lackey at best, or maybe hired as a favor to Fred, and gets offered $100 due to his Poor Wealth, which he is happy to take.

The party gets the wine back, and incidentally finds $1200 in loot which they split evenly. After the adventure, Fred has a total of $(2000 starting +1000 pay + 400 loot =)3400 in total assets. He's still between Comfortable and Wealthy, so there are no extra CP concequences.

Max has $(500 starting + 500 pay +400 loot =)1400 in total assets. This means he is now at the Average Assets level, and has to either pay the point difference (5) or somehow lose the money; Max pays the points out of CP earned and maybe future CP. He always intended to do this.

Roger has $(200 starting + 100 pay + 400 loot =)700 in total assets, bringing him into Struggling; his player opts to not spend the points (which he wants for skills) and blows $250 on partying and drinking; he still has enough to cover his CoL this month if he doesn't earn anything else, so he feels safe.

The Party Gets a Windfall
In the next adventure, the party does something remarkably clever and winds up with the entire contents of a bandit camp, including horses, expensive gear, sellable goods, and cash, which we will simplify and say totals $9000 in value, which they split evenly.

Fred now has $(3400 starting + 3000 loot =)6400 in total assets, which puts him at Wealthy assets. He decided it's worth the 5CP difference, as he can now afford that horse he's always wanted. This has no effect on his future earnings potential from contracts or jobs unless he also buys up Wealth.

Max now has $(1400 starting + 3000 loot =)4400 in total assets, which is above Comfortable but not quite Wealthy assets, for a 5CP difference. He also decides to pay 5CP; the extra money may buy him into some higher stakes games if he can find them, and he can squirrel some away for magic lessons.

Roger now has a whopping $(450 starting + 3000 loot =)3450, also Comfortable. However, because Roger was still Poor, the CP difference is 12. This seems like a lot to the player, and it doesn't really make much sense unless he also buys up his Status so he can move into a nicer place, which is also not in keeping his the player's concept for Roger. He makes a deal with the GM where he buys assets to Struggling for 2CP, and decides to spread around about $2600 in his newfound wealth to various town guards, officials, etc., laying the groundwork for possible future contacts, reputations, maybe a guild membership if that's available. Part of this bribery also justifies buying up Wealth to Struggling as well, and the player does so for 2CP more. He's still a low status guy with a shady past, but he's managed to alleviate some of those concerns through contributions and bribery, opening up the possibility of a real job someday that might even pay for his rented room.

Desthro · 07-09-2010, 06:19 PM

To be honest it just seems like a constant points shuffle, when Wealth is a social advantage. Social advantages are always tricky, because they are easily earned (sometimes) and very easily taken away (sometimes) through roleplay activities.

If a character earns a good reputation, the GM should GIVE them the points for it, they after all earned the trait through their RP actions. Likewise, if they use their reputation for ill-gotten gains, they are sure to lose it and the GM will strip them of it. (Should, some GMs are weak...) Wealth should follow the same rule of thumb, it's not an inherent part of the character, it's something socially advantageous. If you earn 1,000,000's adventuring, you should be given the wealth advantage. Now, if you fritter it away and spend it all, you should lose it too. Does this mean that just because you find a diamond worth 1,000,000,000$ you get the wealth advantage? Nah, you have to be able to USE that money, otherwise it's just a REALLY REALLY expensive rock. Use some common sense, if the character is actually wealthy, give them the points, they deserve it. If not, don't.

Breaking it apart and creating more and more point shuffles is just going to make it more cumbersome.

I will give you props on thinking it through though, but if you really try and measure it, it's pretty difficult and very abstract, something that in my opinion requires the human touch and not just a bunch of numbers to measure it by.

muranternet · 07-09-2010, 07:38 PM

I agree that it's kind of an annoying shuffle, and if I really didn't want to deal with it then I'd just say "no wealth traits, everyone gets $X, go." However in a system where you do allow for variable wealth by points, if I knew there would be effectively no consequences for low wealth I'd just take the lowest that was feasible; that's just free points. (Depending on how monty haulish the campaign is of course.)

I do think that the giving and removing player-specific social advantages and disadvantages is unfair, however. Say you have two players with the same in game opportunity to cultivate a contact or a patron through RPing a conversation with a local magistrate. One of the players has Callous, Shyness, whatever, and decides his character would not talk to the guy. The first player gets a free advantage. You have just penalized the second player for good roleplaying. At the very least, maybe the second player does not get the opportunity to buy the advantage, but he should not lose points for playing his character faithfully.

benz72 · 07-09-2010, 10:32 PM

I did something similar, but the starting equipment/cash points were only that. It was like a modified version of wealth as an earning potential trait and buying cash with points (at a graduated scale, not the linear conversion in the standard rules). I dislike the CP shuffle and don't want to do the accounting needed to support it. Things they find (gear/cash) are divorced from CP. Things they RP after character generation (jobs, living accomodations) are affected by the wealh/status level.

DungeonCrawler · 07-09-2010, 10:55 PM

As a system, I like it.

That said, it's a bit more complex than I'd want to use in an actual campaign with real players. But I certainly make them buy up Wealth in order to keep what they've found/earned (if it's over the line to the next level of Wealth); otherwise, it's frittered away.

Using the frittered money as a reason/excuse for the latter expenditure of CPs to buy Contacts, Allies, Reputation, and such is a good idea too. At least, as long as it doesn't actually give those things in and of itself.

Celjabba · 07-10-2010, 12:14 AM

It look good.
Separating asset and wealth is a necessity, i think.

I am not sure the split should always be 50/50, it would depend a lot on the game world.

For one shot game or pure adventuring campaign, it is effectively a 50% reduction on wealth : average wealth and filthy rich assets is very nice if you will never look for a job.

I don't make player pay cp for ongoing wealth accumulation* or others advantages gained ingame, so i cannot really judge how your rules would stand ingame, but in theory, it look usable. IF social wealth is an important part of the game. If not, it can be abused.

Celjabba

*(i don't provide suitcase full of money lying around, either ;) )

muranternet · 07-10-2010, 12:38 AM

Thanks all for the feedback. To address some points:

I think if you allow characters to take variable wealth levels at the start of the game (assuming an ongoing campaign) you have to make them pay for accumulation of wealth ingame, because otherwise Struggling is basically 10 free CP. The comparison I think of is two fighter-type characters. One of them wants to start with a horse and decent armor and some weapons and such, and has to buy Wealthy to pay for it. The other guy makes exactly the same character, but takes Struggling, knowing that in a few adventures he'll get that stuff anyway, and uses the difference to buy 7-8 points more in weapon skill. That's a big plus in exchange for a few sessions of inconvenience.
In a pure adventuring game, it's probably easier to just assume the characters will never have day jobs and just use the Wealth trait to track their starting and ongoing cash accumulation. It's harsher this way though for the poor characters as they can owe significant CP debts.
I don't leave suitcases of money lying around either, but if the players have a good idea for accumulation I don't like to say the game balance faeries just whisk it away either. :P If the haul is significant and you do have a poor guy who suddenly owes a lot of CP, I think some disadvantages are in order to make up the balance.

I think everyone is right about the bookkeeping aspect of the system being a problem. I didn't think so originally, but then realized that to track Assets you also need to be constantly adding up the costs of goods owned. You also have to keep track of CoL, but you were going to do that anyway.

To alleviate the problem it's probably better just to do the accounting occasionally, instead of every adventure (maybe you also do it after they find a suitcase full of money since that seems pretty significant). So you let the characters know that the system is in place, just to make sure that low Wealth/Assets actually has some impact down the road, and say every 5 sessions, or 6 game months, or major plotline, or whatever, you do the books. This also can encourage the players to do it themselves so they save up some CP in the meantime. In my play group the players actually really like to pore over their characters and gear lists, and adding up values can be trivial if you're using GCA.

07-09-2010, 03:44 PM	#1
muranternet Join Date: Jul 2010	[Wealth] House system for wealth and assets, critique please Long time lurker and GURPS player/GM, first post. I've working out a house system to handle the temp/starting wealth problems that have been discussed in other threads, and think this is a decent compromise. Please comment and tell me why it won't work. This has been worked out for a TL3/early 4 typical fantasy-era campaign with appropriate examples, but translates into other TLs easily. Splitting Wealth into Assets/Wealth (Earnings Potential) Wealth is handled by chopping it into two leveled traits called Assets and Wealth. Assets covers starting wealth levels and the ongoing total assets of the character. Wealth covers the earnings potential of the character at jobs, whether full time or contract. Each is bought as per the current Wealth advantage with a -50% modifier. At creation time, the Assets trait determines the starting wealth of the character in cash and equipment. As the campaign progresses, if the character accumulates money and stuff that puts him past the next Assets level, Assets must be bought up or the money lost somehow (hookers and booze, charity, etc.). If the character loses net worth, he doesn't get the points back, but neither does he lose the trait. It just means that if he recovers his money later, he doesn't have to make up the point difference. Wealth is applied as a standard job table modifier for mundane jobs, and also affects the money earned via in-game contract offers, etc. (It doesn't cover a flat reward, e.g. "$1000 for the head of Sir Badguy"; this can be treated the same as found treasure, going into Assets.) A character can have radically different Assets and Wealth traits. For instance, a character who has Poor Wealth [-7] but found a suitcase full of money and a Wealthy Assets [10] trait has the money and whatever it can buy for him (maybe paying for higher status Cost of Living or better stuff), but he's still only going to be offered poor levels jobs if he looks for them. A modern character who has Poor Wealth [-7] who works at the gas station and wins a lottery jackpot for Multimillionaire 1 Assets [38] is not suddenly eligible for a job as a bank president. If he loses his money and needs to find a job, it will be a Poor one unless he buys up the Wealth trait. Conversely, the example given in another wealth thread about a whizbang financial analyst with crushing student loans or who got caught in a Ponzi scheme before the campaign starts could be bought with Wealthy Wealth [15] and Struggling Assets [-5]. If he spends his first few sessions rebuilding his portfolio successfuly, he will have to pay the points difference to make up his Assets trait. The Free Status: Sidenote The 1 level of free Status from Wealthy doesn not come into play until both Wealth and Assets are bought to the Wealthy level (10 + 10 CP). This is a consequence of both the possession of money (Assets) and the ability to keep earning it (Wealth). I don't personally like this rule though, as a slumdog millionaire character is not automatically respected by high society, and consequently would be taking either Status -1 to balance it or some other similar social disadvantages. In effect it just makes Wealthy cost 15 points. The Gameplay Consequences of Assets If ongoing wealth accumulation has no consequences pointwise, then any points spent on Wealth or Starting/Temporary Wealth are effectively wasted. The character is better off taking the bare minimum of gear and waiting until they find a briefcase full of money. Conversely, the RAW rule of buying up your total Wealth score whenever you get money makes little sense, as the dead broke hobo who finds a car with $500,000 worth of sellable narcotics in the trunk is now fated to spend all the earned CP from the next 10 adventures on paying off his wealth and is suddenly qualified to be a captain of industry. He has little incentive to earn CPs at all, or indeed keep playing the character. By splitting off assets and paying for that part only, the GM reaches a suitable compromise where a character who started out with less money does so with the knowledge that if they happen to get rich in the future, it will take a bite out of his CP at a time when he might rather be spending it on some other skills. The character who "wasted points" on money at the campaign start may have to also spend some CP, but not nearly as much. A character who goes from Poor Assets (TL3 $200) to Very Wealthy Assets (TL3 $20,000) has a lot of new spending power, but also a 22CP debt to be paid, which is very annoying but not insurmountable. A character going from Comfortable to Very Wealthy assets has a similar increase in spending power, but only a 10CP debt. When the Poor asset guy complains about the fact that it seems unfair, the Comfortable asset guy can counter that it seemed unfair that he had to spend 12CP extra at the campaign start to buy equipment. Last edited by muranternet; 07-09-2010 at 03:55 PM. Reason: Added the Free Status from Wealthy note

07-09-2010, 03:44 PM	#2
muranternet Join Date: Jul 2010	Re: [Wealth] House system for wealth and assets, critique please Play Examples, TL3/Early 4 Fantasy Campaign, Starting Wealth Base $1000 Creation Time The party consists of 3 characters: Fred the Fighter, Max the Magician, and Roger the Rogue. The GM has declared that as the characters are intended to be adventurers moving into a new frontier town, they will not have jobs at the campaign starts, but could possibly get some if they want to later, with their ideal goal being to earn enough through adventuring to obviate a normal job. Fred is the second son of a very minor noble family who decides to strike out on his own as an adventurer. The player figures that in order to reflect this, he should buy Comfortable Wealth [5] and Comfortable Assets [5] and Status 1 [5]. This gives him recognition as a minor member of some backwoods aristocracy, enough money to buy some reasonable weapons and armor, and if he wants to get a job as a militia trainer or what have you, he can earn a commeasurate salary. The player figures that if times are tough he can live at Status 0 as a wanderer ($600/month CoL), but if he gets established in one place he can pay for the full CoL 9$1200/mo) through a mundane job. Max is a moderately talented magician and a dice/card hustler with appropriate Gambling-related skills who has decided to take up adventuring because he's been running bad, or the good games have dried up. There's nothing that makes him particularly bad at earning an honest living, he just hasn't wanted to try it. The player decides that he should start with Struggling Assets [-5] but no actual Wealth modifier [0]. His CoL is normal for Status 0 ($600/mo) and if he gets a job, it should cover it fine. Roger is a poor sneak thief who befriended Max at an underground dice game who needs to get out of town and is taking the opportunity to do so in a party for safety. The player takes Poor Wealth [-7] and Poor Assets [-7], and Status -1 [-5]. Roger really doesn't have much in the way of marketable skills, but doesn't like being a Status -2 beggar, hence his choice of occupation. He needs to make money adventuring to cover his $300/mo CoL, since any job he would get would not cover it. The Party Gets a Contract In the first adventure, the GM decides that a local merchant has lost an incoming shipment of wine that some highwaymen have intercepted, and the party gets hired to do the job. The GM decides that it's a somewhat risky mission that should take maybe a week to complete, so a base $500 (almost a month's normal wages!) is a good base rate of pay. Fred is hired for $1000 due to his Comfortable Wealth, with the explanation that the merchant recognizes that someone of his blood would be insulted by less, and he has to pay for all that armor somehow, right? Max is hired at the base rate of $500 for his Average Wealth, as he seems capable enough and there are no other special circumstances that would qualify him for a bonus. Roger is viewed as a lackey at best, or maybe hired as a favor to Fred, and gets offered $100 due to his Poor Wealth, which he is happy to take. The party gets the wine back, and incidentally finds $1200 in loot which they split evenly. After the adventure, Fred has a total of $(2000 starting +1000 pay + 400 loot =)3400 in total assets. He's still between Comfortable and Wealthy, so there are no extra CP concequences. Max has $(500 starting + 500 pay +400 loot =)1400 in total assets. This means he is now at the Average Assets level, and has to either pay the point difference (5) or somehow lose the money; Max pays the points out of CP earned and maybe future CP. He always intended to do this. Roger has $(200 starting + 100 pay + 400 loot =)700 in total assets, bringing him into Struggling; his player opts to not spend the points (which he wants for skills) and blows $250 on partying and drinking; he still has enough to cover his CoL this month if he doesn't earn anything else, so he feels safe. The Party Gets a Windfall In the next adventure, the party does something remarkably clever and winds up with the entire contents of a bandit camp, including horses, expensive gear, sellable goods, and cash, which we will simplify and say totals $9000 in value, which they split evenly. Fred now has $(3400 starting + 3000 loot =)6400 in total assets, which puts him at Wealthy assets. He decided it's worth the 5CP difference, as he can now afford that horse he's always wanted. This has no effect on his future earnings potential from contracts or jobs unless he also buys up Wealth. Max now has $(1400 starting + 3000 loot =)4400 in total assets, which is above Comfortable but not quite Wealthy assets, for a 5CP difference. He also decides to pay 5CP; the extra money may buy him into some higher stakes games if he can find them, and he can squirrel some away for magic lessons. Roger now has a whopping $(450 starting + 3000 loot =)3450, also Comfortable. However, because Roger was still Poor, the CP difference is 12. This seems like a lot to the player, and it doesn't really make much sense unless he also buys up his Status so he can move into a nicer place, which is also not in keeping his the player's concept for Roger. He makes a deal with the GM where he buys assets to Struggling for 2CP, and decides to spread around about $2600 in his newfound wealth to various town guards, officials, etc., laying the groundwork for possible future contacts, reputations, maybe a guild membership if that's available. Part of this bribery also justifies buying up Wealth to Struggling as well, and the player does so for 2CP more. He's still a low status guy with a shady past, but he's managed to alleviate some of those concerns through contributions and bribery, opening up the possibility of a real job someday that might even pay for his rented room. Last edited by muranternet; 07-09-2010 at 03:46 PM. Reason: Paragraph breaks for readability

07-09-2010, 06:19 PM	#3
Desthro Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Albuquerque	Re: [Wealth] House system for wealth and assets, critique please To be honest it just seems like a constant points shuffle, when Wealth is a social advantage. Social advantages are always tricky, because they are easily earned (sometimes) and very easily taken away (sometimes) through roleplay activities. If a character earns a good reputation, the GM should GIVE them the points for it, they after all earned the trait through their RP actions. Likewise, if they use their reputation for ill-gotten gains, they are sure to lose it and the GM will strip them of it. (Should, some GMs are weak...) Wealth should follow the same rule of thumb, it's not an inherent part of the character, it's something socially advantageous. If you earn 1,000,000's adventuring, you should be given the wealth advantage. Now, if you fritter it away and spend it all, you should lose it too. Does this mean that just because you find a diamond worth 1,000,000,000$ you get the wealth advantage? Nah, you have to be able to USE that money, otherwise it's just a REALLY REALLY expensive rock. Use some common sense, if the character is actually wealthy, give them the points, they deserve it. If not, don't. Breaking it apart and creating more and more point shuffles is just going to make it more cumbersome. I will give you props on thinking it through though, but if you really try and measure it, it's pretty difficult and very abstract, something that in my opinion requires the human touch and not just a bunch of numbers to measure it by.

07-09-2010, 07:38 PM	#4
muranternet Join Date: Jul 2010	Re: [Wealth] House system for wealth and assets, critique please I agree that it's kind of an annoying shuffle, and if I really didn't want to deal with it then I'd just say "no wealth traits, everyone gets $X, go." However in a system where you do allow for variable wealth by points, if I knew there would be effectively no consequences for low wealth I'd just take the lowest that was feasible; that's just free points. (Depending on how monty haulish the campaign is of course.) I do think that the giving and removing player-specific social advantages and disadvantages is unfair, however. Say you have two players with the same in game opportunity to cultivate a contact or a patron through RPing a conversation with a local magistrate. One of the players has Callous, Shyness, whatever, and decides his character would not talk to the guy. The first player gets a free advantage. You have just penalized the second player for good roleplaying. At the very least, maybe the second player does not get the opportunity to buy the advantage, but he should not lose points for playing his character faithfully.

07-09-2010, 10:32 PM	#5
benz72 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chagrin Falls	Re: [Wealth] House system for wealth and assets, critique please I did something similar, but the starting equipment/cash points were only that. It was like a modified version of wealth as an earning potential trait and buying cash with points (at a graduated scale, not the linear conversion in the standard rules). I dislike the CP shuffle and don't want to do the accounting needed to support it. Things they find (gear/cash) are divorced from CP. Things they RP after character generation (jobs, living accomodations) are affected by the wealh/status level. __________________ Benundefined Life has a funny way of making sure you decide to leave the party just a few minutes too late to avoid trouble.

07-09-2010, 10:55 PM	#6
DungeonCrawler Join Date: Jul 2008	Re: [Wealth] House system for wealth and assets, critique please As a system, I like it. That said, it's a bit more complex than I'd want to use in an actual campaign with real players. But I certainly make them buy up Wealth in order to keep what they've found/earned (if it's over the line to the next level of Wealth); otherwise, it's frittered away. Using the frittered money as a reason/excuse for the latter expenditure of CPs to buy Contacts, Allies, Reputation, and such is a good idea too. At least, as long as it doesn't actually give those things in and of itself.

07-10-2010, 12:14 AM	#7
Celjabba Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Luxembourg	Re: [Wealth] House system for wealth and assets, critique please It look good. Separating asset and wealth is a necessity, i think. I am not sure the split should always be 50/50, it would depend a lot on the game world. For one shot game or pure adventuring campaign, it is effectively a 50% reduction on wealth : average wealth and filthy rich assets is very nice if you will never look for a job. I don't make player pay cp for ongoing wealth accumulation* or others advantages gained ingame, so i cannot really judge how your rules would stand ingame, but in theory, it look usable. IF social wealth is an important part of the game. If not, it can be abused. Celjabba *(i don't provide suitcase full of money lying around, either ;) )

07-10-2010, 12:38 AM	#8
muranternet Join Date: Jul 2010	Re: [Wealth] House system for wealth and assets, critique please Thanks all for the feedback. To address some points: I think if you allow characters to take variable wealth levels at the start of the game (assuming an ongoing campaign) you have to make them pay for accumulation of wealth ingame, because otherwise Struggling is basically 10 free CP. The comparison I think of is two fighter-type characters. One of them wants to start with a horse and decent armor and some weapons and such, and has to buy Wealthy to pay for it. The other guy makes exactly the same character, but takes Struggling, knowing that in a few adventures he'll get that stuff anyway, and uses the difference to buy 7-8 points more in weapon skill. That's a big plus in exchange for a few sessions of inconvenience. In a pure adventuring game, it's probably easier to just assume the characters will never have day jobs and just use the Wealth trait to track their starting and ongoing cash accumulation. It's harsher this way though for the poor characters as they can owe significant CP debts. I don't leave suitcases of money lying around either, but if the players have a good idea for accumulation I don't like to say the game balance faeries just whisk it away either. :P If the haul is significant and you do have a poor guy who suddenly owes a lot of CP, I think some disadvantages are in order to make up the balance. I think everyone is right about the bookkeeping aspect of the system being a problem. I didn't think so originally, but then realized that to track Assets you also need to be constantly adding up the costs of goods owned. You also have to keep track of CoL, but you were going to do that anyway. To alleviate the problem it's probably better just to do the accounting occasionally, instead of every adventure (maybe you also do it after they find a suitcase full of money since that seems pretty significant). So you let the characters know that the system is in place, just to make sure that low Wealth/Assets actually has some impact down the road, and say every 5 sessions, or 6 game months, or major plotline, or whatever, you do the books. This also can encourage the players to do it themselves so they save up some CP in the meantime. In my play group the players actually really like to pore over their characters and gear lists, and adding up values can be trivial if you're using GCA.