Methods of pricing higher-TL gear.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by qchap

Ok, I understand it, but the question is what to do during the TL5? TL4'th Wheel-Lock somehow ended up being more expansive than TL5'th Derringer by the table. Yes, it maybe was more expensive during TL4, but now is TL5 and it should become much more cheaper, so that a poor adventurer could chose the older gear because it's cheaper.



Of course it's obvious. I just wanted someone to help me with it. How much cheaper should it be? I want in to work with every gear in every TL, not just this one. Should I divide the cost by 4 at every TL difference? Or it should be another divisor? Or even completely another formula? This is my question.

There isn't really a set number, I'm afraid. Each piece of gear will lose a different amount of utility when it becomes outdated, and will thus lose more or less value. Worse, some will become collectables, and others won't.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by qchap

Ok, I understand it, but the question is what to do during the TL5? TL4'th Wheel-Lock somehow ended up being more expansive than TL5'th Derringer by the table. Yes, it maybe was more expensive during TL4, but now is TL5 and it should become much more cheaper, so that a poor adventurer could chose the older gear because it's cheaper.

TL4 campaign, TL4 adventurer of Average Wealth
Starting wealth: $2,000
Wheel-Lock Pistol: $200 (10% of starting wealth)
Derringer: N/A

TL5 campaign, TL5 adventurer of Average Wealth
Starting wealth: $5,000
Wheel-Lock Pistol: $200 (4% of starting wealth)
Derringer: $100 (2% of starting wealth)

TL4 campaign, TL5 adventurer of Average Wealth
Starting wealth: $2,000
Wheel-Lock Pistol: $200 (10% of starting wealth)
Derringer: $200 (10% of starting wealth)

Notice that it actually is cheaper for a TL5 character to buy a wheel-lock than a TL4 character, because it takes less of their starting wealth. But notice also the stats for both weapons: the derringer is superior in most respects. Why would anyone want a wheel-lock when they can have a derringer? Or a better question: why would anyone continue to make wheel-locks when they can make derringers?

GURPS $ doesn't try to emulate a real economy, where sellers would lower the price of obsolete equipment to try to get you to buy it. GURPS $ represents the absolute value of an item regardless of TL, and changes the amount of $ available in any given TL. Obsolete equipment doesn't get cheaper in GURPS $; it takes the same amount of value to create it whether it's state of the art or not.

And GURPS equipment lists are not absolute, either. If you want a piece of obsolete technology to be ubiquitous for some reason, have merchants sell it for less than the listed price.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Rupert

There isn't really a set number, I'm afraid. Each piece of gear will lose a different amount of utility when it becomes outdated, and will thus lose more or less value. Worse, some will become collectables, and others won't.

Historically, wheel-locks jsut ended up being repalced instead of put on the dicount rack. They were made ins maller quntieis than flintlocks to begin with and there may not have been a lot of wheel-locks that weren't Decorated to begin with.

Also, every blessed one of them was hand made. That means there was very little invested in specialised machinery. I know of one high end German gunsmith who made wheel-locks in the 1640s but had switched to flintlocks by the 1650s. Even swithing over that late may have had to do with conervatism on the part of his target audience. so if you were custom ordering a Fine, Decorated par of wheel-lock pistols you don't get a discount.

Even if you were talking about "field grade wheel-locks" such as perhaps dragoon cavalry pistols you didn't have to replace the whole gun. You probably needed to take your wheel-locks to a gunsmith after every ten uses to have the pyrite replaced and maybe some work done on the springs too. Then you find out that flintlocks need half as much such maintenance (or less) and you just have the smith replace the whole lock with a new flintlock while keeping the stock and the barrel. So your used wheel-lock turns into a good as new flintlock.

So historically there wouldn't have been a lot of used wheel-locks in the flintlock era to begin with and not much market for them either. I will tell you that the price for the used/plain jane wheel-lock couldn't have dropped below the worth of the stock and barrel by themselves because almost any seller would have the lock converted rather than try and sell the wheel-lock as it was..

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by naloth

That's how I would do it. I prefer to use advantages rather than equipment for Supers games provided the equipment will not be something you can go out and buy. That's true even for gadgeteers.

An invading alien army works well using gadgets, especially if the earth locals can't repair/refuel. Often alien gear wouldn't be easy to pick up and use, either. It's fairly realistic that one of these would be an issue:
- fingering
- armor that is made for a different size/shape.
- touch screens that are triggered differently than ours.
- the alien biology is part of the power source
- it has a security lock that would need to be hacked

In a time or space travel, where you're constantly switching TLs I use equipment rules but the local costs for where the PCs are at that given time.

Not actually sure I want to use advantages directly. The problems you list are real but not necessarily insurmountable. So if you buy gear directly with points, PC point costs will fluctuate a lot unless you hold what gear they have static to an unrealistic degree. The point cost could also be more prohibitive than I really want it to be, in some cases. It's complicated—in a previous thread, I talked a bit about ways to pile on the limitations for gadgets to get limitations worth -80%. This includes giving a point-break for the reaction penalty associated with wearing armor in inappropriate circumstances, as well as my attempt to fudge the downsides of the layering armor rules.

There's also the issue of, what if the aliens ship has a workshop where they can build new gear? I think the right approach there might be something like, think of the worst way this could be abused, assign a $ price to the resulting equipment in the worst-abuse scenario, work out how much they can produce per month, and then look at the value of a Patron who can provide that much $ value per month. But figuring out the "worst abuse" case might be tricky. It might boil down to price multipliers by TL and LC.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

There's also the issue of, what if the aliens ship has a workshop where they can build new gear? I think the right approach there might be something like, think of the worst way this could be abused, assign a $ price to the resulting equipment in the worst-abuse scenario, work out how much they can produce per month, and then look at the value of a Patron who can provide that much $ value per month. But figuring out the "worst abuse" case might be tricky. It might boil down to price multipliers by TL and LC.

I played around with the numbers a bit, and one of the things that might be a big issue is armor, particularly using the minifac or whatever cranking out relatively cheap ballistic armor to protect allies. To match metatronic generator prices I think you might effectively be looking at a cost multiplier of 40x or more. Call it 100x for a typical TL10 case. Since 100x wealth is worth 50 points, that suggests you might model it with a 50-point Unusual Background. If the capability is controlled by a Patron, it could effectively increase the value of the Patron by two "levels". On the other hand, if we're talking about a spaceship's minifac or factory system and the GM is already doing things you'd do anyway to keep those options under control (for example reading "per hour" as "per day" per optional rule in Spaceships 2), it might not be a big deal, because the ship is already quite expensive. You might not even need that nerf if it's just a couple minifacs on a large ship.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Not actually sure I want to use advantages directly. The problems you list are real but not necessarily insurmountable.

Sure, mostly just examples of why some alien gear cannot be used easily.

I certainly wouldn't try to make all equipment gadgets. That's for stuff the PC's cannot just go out and buy.

There's also the issue of, what if the aliens ship has a workshop where they can build new gear?

Something similar came up, but I treated it much like a reputation gained in play. You have you cultivate and protect what you have to keep it.

Besides, if all the PCs have it, it's more of a setting thing and not a personal advantage.

I think the right approach there might be something like, think of the worst way this could be abused, assign a $ price to the resulting equipment in the worst-abuse scenario, work out how much they can produce per month, and then look at the value of a Patron who can provide that much $ value per month. But figuring out the "worst abuse" case might be tricky. It might boil down to price multipliers by TL and LC.

You could, but I generally don't worry about pricing out a Patron or equipment I give to all the PCs. You just need to decide on the overall stats. Besides, if what the GM giveth, the GM can taketh later. It makes for good adventure seeds such as "keeping the ship running on a backwater world," "the govt is trying to take our ship," or "our high TL stuff was sold to bad guys, and only we can fix that" if you want to take the game that direction.

Points are for measuring value as needed - usually to start the PCs off on equal footing. As a GM you have an unlimited budget ;)