Re: GURPS: Beverly Hillbillies (or: annoyed by GURPS' handling of the nouveau riche)
 

Actually, I remember the Chinese making fun of Obama for not being accorded 'deserved' levels of Status. So probably not TL8 Status 8 after all.

Re: GURPS: Beverly Hillbillies (or: annoyed by GURPS' handling of the nouveau riche)
 

Nonetheless it's how the term seems to be used in the Basic Set. I wasn't making up a new definition for Social Engineering; I was just spelling out the implications of the rules as I read them.

It might make it seem less counterintuitive if you thought of wealth not as "a measure of" [some inner, spiritual form of] merit, but as "a" merit.

Bill Stoddard

Re: GURPS: Beverly Hillbillies (or: annoyed by GURPS' handling of the nouveau riche)
 

The upper classes controlling the wealth is very different from wealth making you part of the upper class. The thing being discussed isn't the platonic idea of a classless meritocracy but a rough approximation, just as the term democracy rarely refers to the platonic ideal of democracy, but just a system that includes democratic elements.

Re: GURPS: Beverly Hillbillies (or: annoyed by GURPS' handling of the nouveau riche)
 

This is far from being the only bizarre use of a common word as a technical term in GURPS; perhaps the best-known example is "Honest".

Another very strange thing about a "classless meritocracy" as defined by GURPS (page B.28) is that it has exactly the same range of Statuses as one that is ruled by a powerful emperor (i.e. Status -2 to Status 8) and actually a wider range than one that is ruled by a mere king. In fact, the rules for Status in GURPS are a bit of a mess, with multiple serious problems ranging from their being badly scattered, through a persistent but not total confusion between government and society. Social Engineering made some effort at cleaning them up, for example in distinguishing Imputed Status clearly, but they are still ugly and complicated and work badly.

Re: GURPS: Beverly Hillbillies (or: annoyed by GURPS' handling of the nouveau riche)
 

Every society in GURPS has that range of Statuses because GURPS only has those statuses, and those statuses don't cease to exist just because your country is ruled by a king, or your tribe by a chief. It's just that in those societies, the higher statuses are unachievable.

A classless meritocracy is going to find those high statuses virtually unachievable - as in Bill's example of the PotUS, who might have to purchase up to three levels of Status in order to hit a hypothetical Status 8. In a pure classless meritocracy, he can't buy those levels, and thus is probably Status 5.

Re: GURPS: Beverly Hillbillies (or: annoyed by GURPS' handling of the nouveau riche)
 

In a society with only imputed Status, that's true. But a "classless meritocracy" can still have a level or two of Status based on "intangibles such as family background, education, lifestyle, and personal achievements or failures." The head of state very likely has at least some of those. They might have, say, Political Rank 5 [25], Wealthy [20], and Status 5 [10] with three free levels. Or if Wealth differences are steeper, Political Rank 6 [30], Multimillionaire 1 [75], and Status 6 [10] with four free levels. Getting up to Status 7 or 8 is going to be really hard, though, if you don't have vestigial politically based Status for the head of state.

Bill Stoddard

Re: GURPS: Beverly Hillbillies (or: annoyed by GURPS' handling of the nouveau riche)
 

That seems like the obvious interpretation of the rules on B. 25–30, and it's the way I thought things worked until others set me straight during the Social Engineering playtest. But this interpretation plays merry hell with the cost-of-living rules and scattered examples that use people of high government rank as examples of high status, for example the cost-of-living table on page B.265. There is an example (in blue text on page B.265) that states that a "person from a good family (Status 1) …becomes "president of a sizeable country (Status 7)" and then enjoys the Status without having to pay the Cost-of-Living. The confusion between government Rank and social Status is pervasive and problematic. The bonuses to Status from Rank and Wealth pretty much have to work differently in a Classless Meritocracy than they do in a standard society (otherwise you end up with the Queen of England at Status 9 and the Duke of Westminster a couple of statuses higher), but there are no rules to support the difference.

That is, in a Classless Meritocracy the bonuses from Wealth and Rank definitely add on to purchased Status. If you apply that procedure to a standard society you get kings &c. with Status above 8, and members of the upper nobility who are fabulously wealthy and also generals come out higher-Status than the king. But the examples make it clear that that is not the way it is supposed to work. And there aren't even hints about how it is supposed to work in detail.

The rules really look as though the designers decided to just make Status such a bad deal that no-one would buy it above 2.


Anyway, if you figure that the President of the USA is typically about Status 5, do you think he ought to react at +5 to the Duke of Westminster? That the Duke of Westminster would react to the PotUS at -5?

Re: GURPS: Beverly Hillbillies (or: annoyed by GURPS' handling of the nouveau riche)
 

On the contrary, there are quite explicit rules there. The rule for a society with imputed Status is that Rank and Wealth boost your Status; the rule for a society with Ascribed Status is that they decrease the cost of the Status you have because of your birth. SE spells this out.

Remember that the point cost of your Status has no reality in the world of the game. It's purely an accounting device.

Bill Stoddard

Re: GURPS: Beverly Hillbillies (or: annoyed by GURPS' handling of the nouveau riche)
 

No I don't because you are misconstruing those bonuses. Your status is what it is. Getting bonuses to it because of of things like Wealth or Rank doesn't necessarily or even usually increase your status. It makes it cheaper to buy. Also possibly cheaper to maintain.

Re: GURPS: Beverly Hillbillies (or: annoyed by GURPS' handling of the nouveau riche)
 

That is definitely not the way it works in a Classless Meritocracy: see B.28. And there is no rule that I know of that explains that it works any differently in a standard society—or at least there wasn't until Social Engineering.