Steve Jackson Games Forums - GURPS: Beverly Hillbillies (or: annoyed by GURPS' handling of the nouveau riche)

Steve Jackson Games Forums (https://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)

- GURPS (https://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)

- - GURPS: Beverly Hillbillies (or: annoyed by GURPS' handling of the nouveau riche) (https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=108023)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1564959)

I'm not sure what Wealth (Only for doing job) would mean. If the character can only use these assets for stuff according to the job, this is neither Wealth nor a Patron. It's his employer's asset. E.g. you have an Equipment-Granting Patron if and only if you are free to use the equipment for your own purposes.

If you'll get impeached and/or arrested and/or fired for using the friendly local aircraft carrier other than in protection of USA's interests, for using your spysat to check up on your neighbor, for bringing a lover to the office on Sunday as a secrecy measure etc., you don't have any traits - you've got a job.

This is also why I dislike some situations of characters paying for Rank: if your Rank only applies when following the orders of the next upper character, and comes with greater and greater responsibility, one has to wonder why pay points for it at all instead of going freelance. It just doesn't provide as much benefit as it costs.

It depends a bit.

If your job and your adventures are orthogonal or opposed, then Rank (without abuse of position) is useless or detrimental aside from possible imputed status. On the other hand, when an adventuring goal falls within the scope of your job, Rank is among the most potent Advantages possible.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth (Post 1564997)

If the job is the adventure, then one still has to ask the question:

Assuming the same rank was occupied not by the PC, but by a reasonably competent NPC, would he do the same thing? As in, if the adventure is about taking a castle, and the PC knight orders an airstrike using wyverns, by pulling Rank, because that's beneficial for storming the castle, one has to ask: would a moderately competent NPC of the same Rank order the same thing? If yes, it doesn't change anything and isn't worth [5/level].

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1565002)

Assuming the same rank was occupied not by the PC, but by a reasonably competent NPC, would he do the same thing? As in, if the adventure is about taking a castle, and the PC knight orders an airstrike using wyverns, by pulling Rank, because that's beneficial for storming the castle, one has to ask: would a moderately competent NPC of the same Rank order the same thing? If yes, it doesn't change anything and isn't worth [5/level].

It will still be highly useful in the cases where the NPC isn't moderately competent or has other priorities - maybe his son is one of the wyvern riders or he considers using air power against a castle unsportsmanlike. Still not necessarily worth 5/level, but useful.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1564959)

This is also why I dislike some situations of characters paying for Rank: if your Rank only applies when following the orders of the next upper character, and comes with greater and greater responsibility, one has to wonder why pay points for it at all instead of going freelance. It just doesn't provide as much benefit as it costs.

Rank has value because it implies an ability to use authority for your own purposes, either discreetly (or, if one is willing to accept consequences later, somewhat less so.)

Come to think of it, if you want to replace Rank, the best option is probably Reputation (Legitimate Authority).

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1565002)

If the job is the adventure as opposed to the adventure intersecting with the job and highly ordered such that the place that the PC is in would be filled with an NPC and you don't value the PC being able to do a thing so long as it gets done... then maybe.

But those conditions are variously improbable.

The first is certainly a possibility, though I think 'there is no hierarchical organization of people to do the stuff you do' is a very common thing.

The second is quite rare. It implies that the PCs, wherever they are, are playing cogs in a tightly-fitted machine of some kind. In that situation...sure, if the PC knight were replaced with an equivalent NPC, the NPC is likely to order the airstrike. But will they be? Or would the storming force be commanded by someone without sufficient rank to demand wyvern support? Or perhaps by a knight who, not being a PC, hasn't been doing the zany PC-ish things necessary to be aware that a wyvern strike on the south face of the wizard tower will disrupt the ritual powering the Stench moat...unless the PCs can convince him.

And the third...well, will players not pay more points to play the dragon-slayer than to play their torchbearer?

I'd suggest considering, say...an occult investigator with Rank (and a day job) in the EPA (Probably not 5/level, haven't run the numbers). Most of the time, that's not terribly useful in their night work. But that time the bad guys were manufacturing ferric aerosols to attack your Fae allies without properly disposing of the chemicals...

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1564959)

If you'll get impeached and/or arrested and/or fired for using the friendly local aircraft carrier other than in protection of USA's interests, for using your spysat to check up on your neighbor, for bringing a lover to the office on Sunday as a secrecy measure etc., you don't have any traits - you've got a job.

The thing is, we really do consider (Job with a budget of $100,000k per year and no underlings) and (Job with a budget of $1,000,000,000 per year and 10,000 underlings) to be different, and differences in status and rank largely do correspond to differences in budget. The simplest way of implementing that is to just call your budget a specialized form of wealth.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 1565037)

But why is the job budget related to personal wealth? If I get a TIE-Bomber when on the job, but can't fly it for personal use, this isn't Wealth. If I'm given it as part of an assignment, but can keep it and use it as I see fit once I go on shore leave, that's Patron with the Equipment enhancement.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1565049)

But why is the job budget related to personal wealth?

Because a job-budget of $1M is less relevant if I have a personal budget of $1M than if I have a personal budget of $1k.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 1565054)

Because a job-budget of $1M is less relevant if I have a personal budget of $1M than if I have a personal budget of $1k.

I don't get what you mean. If the budget is still not yours to use for personal purposes, and you still have legal responsibility for messing with it or badly managing it (even if in the strictly financial sense you can immediately pay out any losses from your personal funds), I don't see what difference it makes.

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

I think he means that if you have 1M$ pocket cash then you don't give a hoot if your company gives you a car or not. If it grieves you that you can use it only at company time etc. you can just buy one or ten or whatever.