What's a good Starting Wealth Only house rule?

younglorax · 05-22-2009, 11:55 PM

My search-fu isn't great, so I haven't been able to find any other than some off the cuff comments.

Does anyone have or know of a play-tested or at least well-motivated rule for buying starting wealth rather than full on Wealth?

My thought is that for a game that has the characters adventuring pretty much constantly, it seems like it makes more sense for how much they take in to depend on how well they do at that rather than what they would be earning at a job. Still, it's important to be able to start with a nice chunk of cash.

Is there any houserule you know of related to that intuition? And is it a bad intuition?

ETA: To avoid any confusion, this is not for the game the prospectus I posted is for; I'm just curious.

whswhs · 05-23-2009, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by younglorax

My search-fu isn't great, so I haven't been able to find any other than some off the cuff comments.

Does anyone have or know of a play-tested or at least well-motivated rule for buying starting wealth rather than full on Wealth?

My thought is that for a game that has the characters adventuring pretty much constantly, it seems like it makes more sense for how much they take in to depend on how well they do at that rather than what they would be earning at a job. Still, it's important to be able to start with a nice chunk of cash.

Is there any houserule you know of related to that intuition? And is it a bad intuition?

Just buy Wealth and have them not take jobs. Their "job" will be the freelance career of adventuring, and their only income will come from loot. But they'll get the starting wealth for their wealth level.

And if you want to fast forward, define an average "adventurer" income and a job roll, and you can use that to determine how much money they made while they were having adventures that you didn't play out.

Bill Stoddard

benz72 · 05-23-2009, 12:13 AM

I've done it a couple of different ways.

1) Take the wealth level you want with the modifier Starting Wealth Only (-75%)

2) Buy it all as 'points for cash' with the 25 points you get from taking Dead Broke. This lets you start with $2,500 (TL3) but no job/income/etc. If you want more than $2500 it costs you a point per $100. If you don't use it all, then you save points.

3) Ignore the wealth rules entirely. Buy status or the "well equipped" (5)advantage and I'll let your character take more/nicer stuff from the equipment list. If you want the 10 point version then you can get some really spiff toys.

trooper6 · 05-23-2009, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by younglorax

My search-fu isn't great, so I haven't been able to find any other than some off the cuff comments.

Does anyone have or know of a play-tested or at least well-motivated rule for buying starting wealth rather than full on Wealth?

My thought is that for a game that has the characters adventuring pretty much constantly, it seems like it makes more sense for how much they take in to depend on how well they do at that rather than what they would be earning at a job. Still, it's important to be able to start with a nice chunk of cash.

Is there any houserule you know of related to that intuition? And is it a bad intuition?

Since it sounds like you are wanting to play a Dungeon Fantasy sort of game, then you should check out the Dungeon Fantasy pdf. Dungeon Fantasy 1 pg 23 has info on dealing with Wealth. There is also a little bit of info on Wealth in DF2. (pg. 14-15).

~~Figleaf23~~ · 05-23-2009, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benz72

...3) Ignore the wealth rules entirely. Buy status or the "well equipped" (5)advantage ...

Where is the well equipped advantage?

PK · 05-23-2009, 11:34 AM

This thread is pure gold:

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=25896

Not another shrubbery · 05-23-2009, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

This thread is pure gold:

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=25896

I get a feeling of disconnect... but I like your intro :)

hal · 05-23-2009, 12:35 PM

There was once upon a time, a rule for decoupling starting wealth from Wealth in GURPS 3e. If I recall correctly, it was the simple expediency of paying 1/2 the cost of a given wealth level, which in turn gave you the startng wealth for that wealth level, but not the income benefits thereof.

Thus, a Comfortable weath giving 2x starting wealth, and 2x job income for normal jobs, or 1x income for comfortable jobs, instead did this:

Gives 2x starting wealth.
1x normal income
1/2 x comfortable income

It essentially treated the person as having normal wealth, but 2x starting wealth.

Elv's Time & Money houserules are probably closer to the mark of what GURPS should have used for its wealth rules, and I've struggled with the issues introduced in GURPS for a long long time.

Case in point: I had a player (using GURPS 3e rules) who purchase comfortable wealth as a City Guardsman in a TL 3 fantasy campaign. His skill was 12 with Broadsword, and he didn't have any outstanding features that qualified him for earning 2x normal pay for his job. He had no reputation bonuses, no real "realistic" reason why his character should be paid twice the going rate of a professional soldier.

I've also pointed out the fact, that you can be a peasant who happens to hold a bit more land than is common for someone of your status, and have more income available than would a merchant in the city. Then there is the issue of "Disposable income" where you might have a struggling yuppie who is barely able to find any spare discretionary funds because they've run up their spending habits to afford a lot of luxuries that they might have been wiser to avoid.

This is one reason why I'm not all that enamoured of the GURPS wealth rules. What I would have largely prefered (and I am but a single customer here, so I don't DEMAND it), is a system where GURPS had detailed out what the costs were for cost of living such that the player controls what they are spending.

Kromm himself comments upon the value of Wealth as a sort of "signature gear" like advantage, where if you buy it, it is a plot protection for the character to retain it. But in campaigns where money is a resource, much like spell components are - where you need a certain amount of money to gain a certain effect (like ownership of a piece of equipment), then like spell components, it is designed to be used and kept track of without any real plot protection and/or even a need to say "If it doesn't have plot protection, the GM must remove it".

The PLAYER expends it as they see fit, not the GM. That would be like telling a mage player who purchased a pearl, four preserved butterflies, one goldfish in a small bowl, etc "You didn't buy plot protection for your spell ingredients, which you need in order to cast your spells. I will remove those items from your inventory as I see fit according to the plots I force upon you."

You'd get a quick rebellion of the players if you did that as a GM, or at least MY Players would rebell if I did that.

In any event, the easiest solution to the starting wealth question is to use that from GURPS 3e where you pay 1/2 price for a wealth level, ignore its wealth generation capabilities, but take the starting wealth for that level outright.

John Wood's suggestion I think, has an elegant approach to the problem, but involves introducing some more advantages. Whether this is a good or bad thing is up to you the GM, seeking to determine which houserule you'd rather use in place of the GURPS Wealth rules. That the OP even asked the question implies that he/she is not happy with the current structure.

I can only say "Welcome to the club" with an ironic smile ;)

benz72 · 05-23-2009, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Where is the well equipped advantage?

In my campaigns... and in the campaigns of some of the other GMs in my group who don't like the way wealth works. It's not canon by any means.

Ulzgoroth · 05-23-2009, 04:12 PM

Hmm. So far I see:
-Linear price (Nooo!)
-"Well equipped" (Is this actually defined, or is it a 'run it by the GM and see if they're ok with it' thing?)
-75% off.
-50% off.
-Linked thread (seems to assume wealth will be used as well, not sure what the equivalence is, but in the limit it's -17.5 points)

05-22-2009, 11:55 PM	#1
younglorax Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Richmond, California, USA	What's a good Starting Wealth Only house rule? My search-fu isn't great, so I haven't been able to find any other than some off the cuff comments. Does anyone have or know of a play-tested or at least well-motivated rule for buying starting wealth rather than full on Wealth? My thought is that for a game that has the characters adventuring pretty much constantly, it seems like it makes more sense for how much they take in to depend on how well they do at that rather than what they would be earning at a job. Still, it's important to be able to start with a nice chunk of cash. Is there any houserule you know of related to that intuition? And is it a bad intuition? ETA: To avoid any confusion, this is not for the game the prospectus I posted is for; I'm just curious. Last edited by younglorax; 05-23-2009 at 12:49 AM.

05-23-2009, 12:13 AM	#3
benz72 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chagrin Falls	Re: What's a good Starting Wealth Only house rule? I've done it a couple of different ways. 1) Take the wealth level you want with the modifier Starting Wealth Only (-75%) 2) Buy it all as 'points for cash' with the 25 points you get from taking Dead Broke. This lets you start with $2,500 (TL3) but no job/income/etc. If you want more than $2500 it costs you a point per $100. If you don't use it all, then you save points. 3) Ignore the wealth rules entirely. Buy status or the "well equipped" (5)advantage and I'll let your character take more/nicer stuff from the equipment list. If you want the 10 point version then you can get some really spiff toys. __________________ Benundefined Life has a funny way of making sure you decide to leave the party just a few minutes too late to avoid trouble.

05-23-2009, 11:34 AM	#6
PK Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Dobbstown Sane Asylum	Re: What's a good Starting Wealth Only house rule? This thread is pure gold: http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=25896 __________________ Reverend Pee Kitty of the Order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Twitter) (LJ) MyGURPS: My house rules and *GURPS* resources. #SJGamesLive: I answered questions about *GURPS After the End* and more! {Watch Video} - {Read Transcript}

05-23-2009, 12:35 PM	#8
hal Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Buffalo, New York	Re: What's a good Starting Wealth Only house rule? There was once upon a time, a rule for decoupling starting wealth from Wealth in GURPS 3e. If I recall correctly, it was the simple expediency of paying 1/2 the cost of a given wealth level, which in turn gave you the startng wealth for that wealth level, but not the income benefits thereof. Thus, a Comfortable weath giving 2x starting wealth, and 2x job income for normal jobs, or 1x income for comfortable jobs, instead did this: Gives 2x starting wealth. 1x normal income 1/2 x comfortable income It essentially treated the person as having normal wealth, but 2x starting wealth. Elv's Time & Money houserules are probably closer to the mark of what GURPS should have used for its wealth rules, and I've struggled with the issues introduced in GURPS for a long long time. Case in point: I had a player (using GURPS 3e rules) who purchase comfortable wealth as a City Guardsman in a TL 3 fantasy campaign. His skill was 12 with Broadsword, and he didn't have any outstanding features that qualified him for earning 2x normal pay for his job. He had no reputation bonuses, no real "realistic" reason why his character should be paid twice the going rate of a professional soldier. I've also pointed out the fact, that you can be a peasant who happens to hold a bit more land than is common for someone of your status, and have more income available than would a merchant in the city. Then there is the issue of "Disposable income" where you might have a struggling yuppie who is barely able to find any spare discretionary funds because they've run up their spending habits to afford a lot of luxuries that they might have been wiser to avoid. This is one reason why I'm not all that enamoured of the GURPS wealth rules. What I would have largely prefered (and I am but a single customer here, so I don't DEMAND it), is a system where GURPS had detailed out what the costs were for cost of living such that the player controls what they are spending. Kromm himself comments upon the value of Wealth as a sort of "signature gear" like advantage, where if you buy it, it is a plot protection for the character to retain it. But in campaigns where money is a resource, much like spell components are - where you need a certain amount of money to gain a certain effect (like ownership of a piece of equipment), then like spell components, it is designed to be used and kept track of without any real plot protection and/or even a need to say "If it doesn't have plot protection, the GM must remove it". The PLAYER expends it as they see fit, not the GM. That would be like telling a mage player who purchased a pearl, four preserved butterflies, one goldfish in a small bowl, etc "You didn't buy plot protection for your spell ingredients, which you need in order to cast your spells. I will remove those items from your inventory as I see fit according to the plots I force upon you." You'd get a quick rebellion of the players if you did that as a GM, or at least MY Players would rebell if I did that. In any event, the easiest solution to the starting wealth question is to use that from GURPS 3e where you pay 1/2 price for a wealth level, ignore its wealth generation capabilities, but take the starting wealth for that level outright. John Wood's suggestion I think, has an elegant approach to the problem, but involves introducing some more advantages. Whether this is a good or bad thing is up to you the GM, seeking to determine which houserule you'd rather use in place of the GURPS Wealth rules. That the OP even asked the question implies that he/she is not happy with the current structure. I can only say "Welcome to the club" with an ironic smile ;) __________________ Newest Alaconius Lecture now up: https://www.worldanvil.com/w/scourge-of-shards-schpdx Go to bottom of page to see lectures 1-11

05-23-2009, 04:12 PM	#10
Ulzgoroth Join Date: Jul 2008	Re: What's a good Starting Wealth Only house rule? Hmm. So far I see: -Linear price (Nooo!) -"Well equipped" (Is this actually defined, or is it a 'run it by the GM and see if they're ok with it' thing?) -75% off. -50% off. -Linked thread (seems to assume wealth will be used as well, not sure what the equivalence is, but in the limit it's -17.5 points) Last edited by Ulzgoroth; 05-23-2009 at 04:19 PM.