Wealth and paying points for new wealth

Steen · 05-24-2020, 05:26 AM

Apologies if this thread has already been made.

On page 517 of the Basic Set, under "Wealth Level", it's written that PCs who earn amass wealth equal to the starting wealth of a higher level must purchase the Wealth advantage corresponding to that amount of money. I was wondering what your thoughts are on this mechanic. Personally, I can see how it makes sense and is realistic, but I'm afraid that it would be a generally un-fun experience for the players. It might discourage players from getting rich, and result in weird scenarios where classic dungeon delving fantasy players actively leave treasure behind, because they don't want to pay the points for the increased Wealth level.

How do you use this mechanic - if you do? Do your players think it is fair and fun? Or have you changed it in some way, that works for you?
Thank you!

Celjabba · 05-24-2020, 05:48 AM

Wealth have 3 aspects
-it determine starting gear
-it influence the Cost of Living, abstract possessions, job and salaries
-it is a social trait (along with status, ...)

So, as described in the basic Set, Wealth is more adequate for setting with a strong social component.

For Dungeon Delving (and other settings) where the social rating and Job/Cost of living are mostly meaningless, and a character possession are fully listed, alternate rules for wealth exist.

In Dungeon Fantasy and DFRPG, for Dungeon delving.
In Monster Hunter for mission oriented games.

In those setting, you don't have to buy up wealth when your cash go up, because there is no social status or job/salaries/implied possessions gained.

Likewise, even in a "standart" setting, if the only think that change is the number on the cash line, and the character social life is not impacted in a lasting way, you don't have to buy up wealth.

But if a character, having earned a lot of cash, buy himself a better house, hire domestics, upgrade his wardrobe, start frequenting upper social circles, get himself a higher paid job, and so on ... then he is expected to purchase wealth and status to match.
---
Myself as a GM, I would not ask players to purchase wealth increase even in setting where it would make sense, because I don't require players to pay for advantages they earn due to their actions in game (or disadvantages they get rid of,) but that is clearly in houserule territory.

Turhan's Bey Company · 05-24-2020, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steen

On page 517 of the Basic Set, under "Wealth Level", it's written that PCs who earn amass wealth equal to the starting wealth of a higher level must purchase the Wealth advantage corresponding to that amount of money.

To quibble, it does not. I mean, that's what the sentence says, but look at it in the context of the paragraph its in. That's for characters who are already working at a job beyond their wealth level. The import of the paragraph as a whole is that if a character obtains both of the benefits of a higher level of wealth (a high-paying job and a lot of accumulated money), they should pay for the advantage. It doesn't apply of they just have a lot of money kicking around and don't have the job to match.

Anyway, that's probably a rule I wouldn't enforce even in that limited scope. I'm not big on requiring players to retroactively spend points on advantages they manage to acquire through play. I usually regard awarded points as discretional, not something I'm going to make them use.

whswhs · 05-24-2020, 06:27 AM

My take on this—it came up a year or so ago in my current campaign—is that if you get a large amount of money, you can choose to be a rich person, or remain a nonrich person who happens to have money. To do the first, you must buy a higher level of wealth. At that point, you gain the free level of Status, if you didn't already have it, and you're eligible to raise your Status, typically by adopting a more expensive lifestyle (unless you're in a conservative society where the difference between New Money and Old Money is important). You also get a more expensive wardrobe. I'll tend to treat the various social and incidental benefits of wealth as durable, and not take them away casually.

If you do the second, you have the money, but once you spend it, it's gone, with no lasting benefits beyond whatever you spent it on. And I'm going to give you lots of chances to spend it.

Anaraxes · 05-24-2020, 06:28 AM

The Basic Set rules for acquiring Advantages and Disadvantages aren't meant to be symmetrical, or even "fair". They're anti-exploitative. If you gain Advantages during play, you pay for them. If you gain Disadvantages during play, too bad -- them's the breaks, no points for you.

Naturally, those particular rules are among the most ignored. Everyone has their own preference.

The strict accountants want a character's CP total to be a measure of its power, or perhaps a victory score. So, every Advantage gets added to the character sheet, along with every Disad, with points counted both ways. Point totals are allowed to fluctuate, with no attempt to keep everyone at the party at the same point level.

The "what happens, happens" style also notes down all the gained Ads and Disads, but doesn't bother with awarding or subtracting points. Marry the princess and get half the kingdom? Grats, now you have lots of Status and Wealth. You might also have some new political enemies if you ****** someone off along the way or because you're now important enough to be a target, but those aren't necessarily awarded to exactly balance out your Advantage points. Often, there's also no attempt to keep characters at the same point level. Narrative is all.

The "party balance is all" style accounts for points to try to keep PCs at the same character point total, so players don't start feeling neglected or underpowered compared to their friends. Rather than bluntly award a fistful of xp to whoever's gehind, such a GM will often put some more acquirable traits in the path of particular characters to catch them up, make it easy for them to remove an acquired Disad with in-game play (though not the "permanent" ones from character creation), and otherwise make an effort to even out the good and bad things that befall the characters during play.

Any of those approaches can work; which one works best for you and your group of players is something you'll have to figure out. GURPS doesn't break because you're not properly following the character advancement table and awarding proper amounts of treasure per level. The pitfalls are mostly meta/social (Johnny gets mad because Billy's character got lucky and now he can't solve game problems and get into the spotlight as much) rather than game-mechanical. The game-mechanical issues will be changes to the feel of your game (a 150-point game doesn't feel like a 400 point game which doesn't feel like a 1000-point game), and in specific cases, sometimes character viability (the modern-day action-adventure game that turns a character into a blind paraplegics is going to have a hard time continuing with that character), and changes to character concepts (when your character is built around the concept of being driven to become a master swordsman to hunt down the six-fingered man who killed your father, once you actively achieve that goal, the character has to change direction and even personality somehow. Perhaps he'd make a wonderful pirate.)

Stormcrow · 05-24-2020, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

To quibble, it does not.

I don't even think it's a quibble. History and literature alike are replete with people who win a fortune and then squander it. It's why we say "Easy come, easy go."

In GURPS, having lots of cash just means you have lots of cash. As Bill says, if you decide to take the opportunity to increase your Wealth level with bonus character points, you can do so. The cash is just a rationalization for how it happened. If you don't do this, then you just have cash and new gear, but you keep your old job, credit rating, and so on.

Stormcrow · 05-24-2020, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

The Basic Set rules for acquiring Advantages and Disadvantages aren't meant to be symmetrical, or even "fair". They're anti-exploitative. If you gain Advantages during play, you pay for them. If you gain Disadvantages during play, too bad -- them's the breaks, no points for you.

Naturally, those particular rules are among the most ignored. Everyone has their own preference.

Well, no, that's not what's going on or what's in the book. Chapter 9 of the Basic Set is full of details on how you can handle character development. "Traits Gained in Play" is one example in which the player doesn't have to spend anything to get a new advantage. If your character is rewarded by an NPC with the permanent power to turn invisible, you don't spend any character points. You write "Invisibility (Switchable, +10%) [44]" on your character sheet and add 44 character points to your point total.

GURPS point costs aren't meant to be anti-exploitative, exactly. They're meant to hold characters to a budget and control the speed of their improvement. You can't acquire an elective advantage until you have the bonus character points to pay for it, so you're encouraged to play well and earn those points to get what you want.

whswhs · 05-24-2020, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

In GURPS, having lots of cash just means you have lots of cash. As Bill says, if you decide to take the opportunity to increase your Wealth level with bonus character points, you can do so. The cash is just a rationalization for how it happened. If you don't do this, then you just have cash and new gear, but you keep your old job, credit rating, and so on.

What I told my players was, "commit enough cash to buying up possessions equal to the starting wealth for your new wealth level, and pay the difference in character points." Since none of them were nomadic, I allowed them to handwave the details of the 80%—"Congratulations, you've got some spiffy new furniture!" Any of the 20% that they didn't spend on movables turned into ready cash.

None of them spent everything on buying up wealth. Some of the excess went to monthly cost of living (taking into account their new Status, if they went for that); some went to Signature Gear (investing in a bigger ship); and a couple of them bought houses (Independent Income, in an amount equal to the rent they no longer needed to pay).

Donny Brook · 05-24-2020, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celjabba

Wealth have 3 aspects
...
-it influence the Cost of Living, abstract possessions, job and salaries
...

That's not fully correct. Cost of Living and what abstract stuff it gets you is a character choice. You get whatever level of stuff you actually pay for monthly. Characters are expected to be paying for the level appriopriate to their Social Status but are not compelled to. There may be a loss of Status if a too low level is maintained for too long. And in some settings there may be restrictions on living above your Social Status as well.

Celjabba · 05-24-2020, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

That's not fully correct. Cost of Living and what abstract stuff it gets you is a character choice. You get whatever level of stuff you actually pay for monthly. Characters are expected to be paying for the level appriopriate to their Social Status but are not compelled to. There may be a loss of Status if a too low level is maintained for too long. And in some settings there may be restrictions on living above your Social Status as well.

I used "influence" instead of "determine" because of that.
Status and wealth (which, in most setting where they matter, are linked) give a default expectation of what CoL, job, assets and related stuff you should have.
You are free to ignore this, but as you say, there could be consequences.

As I and others said above, if you get treasures and riches and the only thing that change on your character is cash (and adventuring related purchases), wealth doesn't change.

05-24-2020, 05:26 AM	#1
Steen Join Date: Dec 2018	Wealth and paying points for new wealth Apologies if this thread has already been made. On page 517 of the Basic Set, under "Wealth Level", it's written that PCs who earn amass wealth equal to the starting wealth of a higher level must purchase the Wealth advantage corresponding to that amount of money. I was wondering what your thoughts are on this mechanic. Personally, I can see how it makes sense and is realistic, but I'm afraid that it would be a generally un-fun experience for the players. It might discourage players from getting rich, and result in weird scenarios where classic dungeon delving fantasy players actively leave treasure behind, because they don't want to pay the points for the increased Wealth level. How do you use this mechanic - if you do? Do your players think it is fair and fun? Or have you changed it in some way, that works for you? Thank you!

05-24-2020, 05:48 AM	#2
Celjabba Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Luxembourg	Re: Wealth and paying points for new wealth Wealth have 3 aspects -it determine starting gear -it influence the Cost of Living, abstract possessions, job and salaries -it is a social trait (along with status, ...) So, as described in the basic Set, Wealth is more adequate for setting with a strong social component. For Dungeon Delving (and other settings) where the social rating and Job/Cost of living are mostly meaningless, and a character possession are fully listed, alternate rules for wealth exist. In Dungeon Fantasy and DFRPG, for Dungeon delving. In Monster Hunter for mission oriented games. In those setting, you don't have to buy up wealth when your cash go up, because there is no social status or job/salaries/implied possessions gained. Likewise, even in a "standart" setting, if the only think that change is the number on the cash line, and the character social life is not impacted in a lasting way, you don't have to buy up wealth. But if a character, having earned a lot of cash, buy himself a better house, hire domestics, upgrade his wardrobe, start frequenting upper social circles, get himself a higher paid job, and so on ... then he is expected to purchase wealth and status to match. --- Myself as a GM, I would not ask players to purchase wealth increase even in setting where it would make sense, because I don't require players to pay for advantages they earn due to their actions in game (or disadvantages they get rid of,) but that is clearly in houserule territory. Last edited by Celjabba; 05-24-2020 at 06:01 AM.

05-24-2020, 06:27 AM	#4
whswhs Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Lawrence, KS	Re: Wealth and paying points for new wealth My take on this—it came up a year or so ago in my current campaign—is that if you get a large amount of money, you can choose to be a rich person, or remain a nonrich person who happens to have money. To do the first, you must buy a higher level of wealth. At that point, you gain the free level of Status, if you didn't already have it, and you're eligible to raise your Status, typically by adopting a more expensive lifestyle (unless you're in a conservative society where the difference between New Money and Old Money is important). You also get a more expensive wardrobe. I'll tend to treat the various social and incidental benefits of wealth as durable, and not take them away casually. If you do the second, you have the money, but once you spend it, it's gone, with no lasting benefits beyond whatever you spent it on. And I'm going to give you lots of chances to spend it. __________________ Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more.

05-24-2020, 06:28 AM	#5
Anaraxes Join Date: Sep 2007	Re: Wealth and paying points for new wealth The Basic Set rules for acquiring Advantages and Disadvantages aren't meant to be symmetrical, or even "fair". They're anti-exploitative. If you gain Advantages during play, you pay for them. If you gain Disadvantages during play, too bad -- them's the breaks, no points for you. Naturally, those particular rules are among the most ignored. Everyone has their own preference. The strict accountants want a character's CP total to be a measure of its power, or perhaps a victory score. So, every Advantage gets added to the character sheet, along with every Disad, with points counted both ways. Point totals are allowed to fluctuate, with no attempt to keep everyone at the party at the same point level. The "what happens, happens" style also notes down all the gained Ads and Disads, but doesn't bother with awarding or subtracting points. Marry the princess and get half the kingdom? Grats, now you have lots of Status and Wealth. You might also have some new political enemies if you ****** someone off along the way or because you're now important enough to be a target, but those aren't necessarily awarded to exactly balance out your Advantage points. Often, there's also no attempt to keep characters at the same point level. Narrative is all. The "party balance is all" style accounts for points to try to keep PCs at the same character point total, so players don't start feeling neglected or underpowered compared to their friends. Rather than bluntly award a fistful of xp to whoever's gehind, such a GM will often put some more acquirable traits in the path of particular characters to catch them up, make it easy for them to remove an acquired Disad with in-game play (though not the "permanent" ones from character creation), and otherwise make an effort to even out the good and bad things that befall the characters during play. Any of those approaches can work; which one works best for you and your group of players is something you'll have to figure out. GURPS doesn't break because you're not properly following the character advancement table and awarding proper amounts of treasure per level. The pitfalls are mostly meta/social (Johnny gets mad because Billy's character got lucky and now he can't solve game problems and get into the spotlight as much) rather than game-mechanical. The game-mechanical issues will be changes to the feel of your game (a 150-point game doesn't feel like a 400 point game which doesn't feel like a 1000-point game), and in specific cases, sometimes character viability (the modern-day action-adventure game that turns a character into a blind paraplegics is going to have a hard time continuing with that character), and changes to character concepts (when your character is built around the concept of being driven to become a master swordsman to hunt down the six-fingered man who killed your father, once you actively achieve that goal, the character has to change direction and even personality somehow. Perhaps he'd make a wonderful pirate.)