Armor for points, not money

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

These things don't actually exist, and therefore can't really be purchased (and don't have empirical - rather than theoretical - market prices).

GURPS does allow you to buy things with theoretical rather than empirical prices. For example, there might very well only exist a single suit of plate armor custom-tailored for a specific character.

Inheritance is a common fictional trope for this kind of thing. What are we talking about here, otherwise?

If you have the gear and not the supporting Wealth or an active Patron with that wealth then you are in a situation that whatever assets you had access to when you got the gear are either no longer there or inaccessible to you, regardless of how you got it; effectively, therefore, you did use 100% of that resource.

Besides, like I said, if you want to change it to 50%, or 75% or some other fraction of these ranges you'll still have a point where getting a one-use Patron to give you the equipment is cheaper than Signature Gear, which suggests a hard cap.

We are talking about Patrons. Patrons "serves as your advisor, employer, mentor, or protector". If you just want to inherit something, it would probably be more appropriate to start with a potential advantage (as described on page 33 of the Basic Set) instead.

A specific percentage for all levels of Patron might not be a good idea. Nations do after all tend to supply far more people with equipment than a corporation.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Andreas

GURPS does allow you to buy things with theoretical rather than empirical prices. For example, there might very well only exist a single suit of plate armor custom-tailored for a specific character.
...

And for those, money wouldn't enter the picture leaving only a DR gadget. So why should it cost FEWER points for that one of a kind armor than one that's merely hella' expensive?
These house rules don't have to be as rigid all purpose as scientific theories of reality.
Wonky analogy alert: (They only have to hold long enough to get home like those flimsy plastic grocery bags that seem to spontaneously shred themselves in the night.)

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Andreas

GURPS does allow you to buy things with theoretical rather than empirical prices. For example, there might very well only exist a single suit of plate armor custom-tailored for a specific character.

If they paid money for it then a) that's an empirical market price for it and b) there clearly exists an actor in the economy with the required assets (the buyer).

If the GM allows you to buy it with money then there must exist the money to buy it. If not then Signature Gear isn't the appropriate trait, and instead you should probably get it as abilities with the gadget limitations.

There really isn't a logical scenario where an actual physical item is available for purchase for more money than exists in the setting, because that's not how markets actually work. If it can't ever actually be bought it isn't really for sale.

We are talking about Patrons. Patrons "serves as your advisor, employer, mentor, or protector". If you just want to inherit something, it would probably be more appropriate to start with a potential advantage (as described on page 33 of the Basic Set) instead.

How does that solve the presented problem of wanting to start play with a $400k suit of armor, and otherwise Average starting wealth?

Potential Advantages are things that you will get later, not things you have already inherited at the start of the campaign. Furthermore even taking that [800] points of signature gear as a potential advantage for [400] points is clearly not the correct cost, because you could more cheaply get Multimillionaire 1 for [75] points and be both rich and buy the armor right now, while saving [325] points!

A specific percentage for all levels of Patron might not be a good idea. Nations do after all tend to supply far more people with equipment than a corporation.

This isn't relevant, nobody is actually taking the Patron advantage here. I'm saying that Signature Gear should never cost more than a one-use Patron that gives you the same gear (+50% Cosmic for plot protection). You are arguing that it isn't fair to assume that any hypothetical Patron would give away 100% of its assets in gear to one beneficiary and I'm saying that's fine; you can adjust the range by any fraction you think is fair and there's still going to be a point that suggests a cap on Signature Gear. Again, in actuality most gear that makes sense as a one-time gift, find or inheritance is going to be significantly less than $1000 times starting wealth anyway, putting it below the [16] point cap.

[Kalzazz]

I would as a player be definitely drawn toward paying 16pts for a fully tricked out sword of awesome in the right circumstances

The most tricked out thrusting broadsword I can imagine offhand retails for 31k or so

62 CP seems high . . . 16 seems fine

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

I would as a player be definitely drawn toward paying 16pts for a fully tricked out sword of awesome in the right circumstances

The most tricked out thrusting broadsword I can imagine offhand retails for 31k or so

62 CP seems high . . . 16 seems fine

And that's more-or-less a RAW price cap using the ABC rule. The main thing is that it needs to be one thing or defined set of related things (e.g., a suit of armor), that makes sense as a signature part of your character, and of course the GM needs to agree on both these points, but that's already the case with Signature Gear.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

And for those, money wouldn't enter the picture leaving only a DR gadget. So why should it cost FEWER points for that one of a kind armor than one that's merely hella' expensive?
These house rules don't have to be as rigid all purpose as scientific theories of reality.
Wonky analogy alert: (They only have to hold long enough to get home like those flimsy plastic grocery bags that seem to spontaneously shred themselves in the night.)

No, you can buy them for money in GURPS. Low Tech assumes that "most armor is custom-tailored for the owner".

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If they paid money for it then a) that's an empirical market price for it and b) there clearly exists an actor in the economy with the required assets (the buyer).

If the GM allows you to buy it with money then there must exist the money to buy it. If not then Signature Gear isn't the appropriate trait, and instead you should probably get it as abilities with the gadget limitations.

There really isn't a logical scenario where an actual physical item is available for purchase for more money than exists in the setting, because that's not how markets actually work. If it can't ever actually be bought it isn't really for sale.

It was not empirical before the character bought it. However such purchases are allowed anyway

A Signature Gear item does not necessarily have to be something the character bought with money. For example the character might have happend to find an ancient artifact made by a lost civilization.

How does that solve the problem of wanting to start play with a $400k suit of armor, and otherwise Average starting wealth?

Potential Advantages are things that you will get later, not things you have already inherited at the start of the campaign. Furthermore even taking that 800 points of signature gear as a potential advantage for 400 points is clearly not the correct cost, because you could more cheaply get Multimillionaire 1 for [75] points and be both rich and buy the armor right now, while saving 325 points!

If you want to start with it rather than inherit it during play, then you can just buy directly buy it. That does indeed leave the problem of it being very expensive unless you have high Wealth. Earlier in the thread I suggested a way to greatly reduce that problem.

This isn't relevant, nobody is actually taking the Patron advantage here. I'm saying that Signature Gear should never cost more than a one-use Patron that gives you the same gear (+50% Cosmic for plot protection). You are arguing that it isn't fair to assume that any hypothetical Patron would give away 100% of its assets in gear to one beneficiary and I'm saying that fine; you can adjust the range by any fraction you think is fair and there's still going to be a point that suggests a cap on Signature Gear.

It is relevant. The number of people a Patron supplies is related to how much it can afford to give to each of them. I'm arguing that a very wealthy Patron would tend to give a smaller fraction of its assets to each person it supplies than a less wealthy Patron. So, there is no single fraction I consider fair.

Look at the example given for the Equipment enhancement. "This enhancement only applies if the equipment is yours once given. A soldier with a military Patron would not pay extra for his weapons, since when he goes off duty"

Individual soldiers do not tend to get supplied with equipment worth a significant portion of the entire military's assets, however a soldier would still need the +100% Equipment enhancement as long as the items he get are worth more than 50% of average starting wealth.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Andreas

No, you can buy them for money in GURPS. Low Tech assumes that "most armor is custom-tailored for the owner".

Which cost is still paid to the craftsman or whatever.

It was not empirical before the character bought it. However such purchases are allowed anyway

Only if a buyer exists that can afford that price. This isn't demonstrating that prices for gear in the campaign, listed for player character purchase, can exceed the purchasing power of the most wealthy entities in the setting.

A Signature Gear item does not necessarily have to be something the character bought with money. For example the character might have happend to find an ancient artifact made by a lost civilization.

Such an item is still not going to be worth more money than exists in the setting. If it is, it really should be bought with Gadget Limitations instead, which is exactly what GURPS Characters p. 116 says.

If you want to start with it rather than inherit it during play, then you can just buy directly buy it. That does indeed leave the problem of it being very expensive unless you have high Wealth. Earlier in the thread I suggested a way to greatly reduce that problem.

Your arbitrary house rule suggestion is certainly no more RAW than mine. Mine also has the virtue of being both simpler and more transparent. Where does the 40% come from?

Individual soldiers do not tend to get supplied with equipment worth a significant portion of the entire military's assets, however a soldier would still need the +100% Equipment enhancement as long as the items he get are worth more than 50% of average starting wealth.

Actually, like the example you quoted, soldiers rarely have this enhancement at all, because they aren't allowed to keep their issued equipment for personal use.

This is still irrelevant, because this cap doesn't need any actual Patron to be sensible. Again I'm suggesting that this is a cap on the cost of Signature Gear (a different trait entirely) based on the cost of a notional (non-existent) Patron that gives you the gear and then has no other role in the campaign.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Your arbitrary house rule suggestion is certainly no more RAW than mine. Mine also has the virtue of being both simpler and transparent. Where does the 40% come from?

Wealth tends to increase your money with 900% for each 25 points you spend on it. 25*36% = 900%. I rounded up to 40% since Wealth gives so many other advantages.

Your rule does depending on the setting give access to vastly more expensive items than what you could get by instead investing in the Wealth advantage (and the Wealth advantage is already very impressive since it scales exponentially). Giving potentially unlimited value from just 48 points does not seem like a good idea. My suggestion however only gives small advantages over what you could get by instead using points on Wealth.

Actually, like the example you quoted, soldiers rarely have this enhancement at all, because they aren't allowed to keep their issued equipment for personal use.

This is still irrelevant, because this cap doesn't need any actual Patron to be sensible. Again I'm suggesting that this is a cap on the cost of Signature Gear (a different trait entirely) based on the cost of a notional (non-existent) Patron that gives you the gear and then has no other role in the campaign.

However a soldier that gets too keep equipment would need the enhancement.

You don't need an actual Patron, but you were using the Patron advantage as motivation for why you should never need to pay more than a certain amount of points for gear. So, whether you would actually get such a benfit from such a Patron is rather relevant.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Your rule does depending on the setting give access to vastly more expensive items than what you could get by instead investing in the Wealth advantage (and the Wealth advantage is already very impressive since it scales exponentially).

You couldn't get an item that costs more than is possible from Wealth with Signature Gear in the first place, so no.

Giving potentially unlimited value from just 48 points does not seem like a good idea.

I never suggested that. I suggested that Signature Gear should never cost more than 48 points. It is still limited to gear that the GM would generally allow you to purchase anyway, and that has to be a single item or closely defined set of items and significantly identified with your character. I'm not suggesting a new trait, I'm just talking about capping signature gear.

My suggestion however only gives small advantages over what you could get by instead using points on Wealth.

I've read your suggestion several times and I still can't make heads-or-tails of it.

Calculate how much extra money you could have gotten by instead spending the points on Wealth

What points? How many?

the highest achievable Wealth level

What does this even mean? The highest Wealth in the setting? The Wealth you'd get if you spent all your points on Wealth? Where does this even come from?

4,000 from Poor Wealth is subtracted

Why? This step isn't in your instructions.

Frankly this seems totally arbitrary and not based on any existing game mechanics or economics. You haven't explained the reasoning very clearly at all.

How many points for Kalazz's 31k sword? Flyn's 400k armor?

Also since this gives you fungible currency rather than gear it doesn't directly address the issue, and it seems open to abuse.

You don't need an actual Patron, but you were using the Patron advantage as motivation for why you should never need to pay more than a certain amount of points for gear. So, whether you would actually get such a benfit from such a Patron is rather relevant.

Signature Gear shouldn't logically cost more than 50% more than a hypothetical one-time Patron that can give you the same arbitrary amount of gear. Assume the Patron is Santa Claus if you must give it some identity.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

You couldn't get an item that costs more than is possible from Wealth with Signature Gear in the first place, so no.
I never suggested that. I suggested that Signature Gear should never cost more than 48 points. It is still limited to gear that the GM would generally allow you to purchase anyway, and that has to be a single item or closely defined set of items and significantly identified with your character. I'm not suggesting a new trait, I'm just talking about capping signature gear.

48 points in Wealth is almost enough to get Filthy Rich, which gives 100 times the average starting wealth. Depending on the setting, there might very well be gear that is far more expensive than that.

I've read your suggestion several times and I still can't make heads-or-tails of it.
What points? How many?

It is an alternative rule for exchanging points for money, so the points are the number of points you are exchanging for money.

What does this even mean? The highest Wealth in the setting? The Wealth you'd get if you spent all your points on Wealth? Where does this even come from?

The highest Wealth level you could achive by spending the points you are exchanging for money on Wealth.

Why? This step isn't in your instructions.

It is. "Calculate how much extra money you could have gotten by..." If you calculate how much extra you get like that, you have to subtract what you started with.

Frankly this seems totally arbitrary and not based on any existing game mechanics or economics. You haven't explained the reasoning very clearly at all.

How many points for Kalazz's 31k sword? Flyn's 400k armor?

Also since this gives you fungible currency rather than gear it doesn't directly address the issue, and it seems open to abuse.

It gives the same (or sligthly more) amount of money you could get by instead spending the points on Wealth. Getting less money from exchanging points like that is one of the most common complaints about how exchanging points for money works and it is a very reasonable complaint.

For a character with average Wealth at TL 3, it would cost 32 points (Very Wealth gives 20k and 2*40% more than that is enough to pay for it) for the sword and 58 points for the armor (Filthy Rich+8*40%).

Signature Gear shouldn't logically cost more than 50% more than a hypothetical Patron that can give you the same arbitrary amount of gear. Assume the Patron is Santa Claus if you must.

Sure, if you can actually get gear of unlimited value from such a Patron (though even in that case you might want to increase the point cost by slightly more than 50% since you might not have full control over what kind of gear your Patron gives you).