What's my counterpoint for this observation about advantages/disadvantages?
I'll start off by saying that if this has been addressed in the past, please accept my apologies. I've looked for similar topics but came up empty handed.
First, a little bit of context: I was running a character creation session not too long ago for a 150/-50 modern game. I had this (paraphrased, but pretty accurate) exchange with a player.
Player: So, are the wealth advantages available?
Me: Yes, but you only have 10 points left, so you can take "Comfortable." Or you can take disadvantages.
A couple of minutes go by - the player is looking thoughtful and flipping pages)
Player: So, at this point, the only way I can be "Filthy Rich" is to be a jealous paraplegic?
Me: Well, that's not the only way. You can dial back some of your points to fit "Filthy Rich" into your build.
Player: My point is that just because I'm filthy rich, I can't be as capable as the random guy down the street, or the other PCs, or I have to have things wrong with me?
Me: ...
I didn't know how to address this. The player understood the rules and was okay continuing character creation, but he stresses that he has a valid point. In a way, I think he does, too.
My only counterpoint was that wealth is a sort-of "power" and that to have a more believable or rational use of that power (like his vision of being rich, charming, educated, etc.) would necessitate a higher point-level game. We are playing nosy reporters and overworked civil servants, not playboys and power mongers. Of course, I didn't say it so succinctly to the player weeks ago. I said that in the confines of the point level that we're using, that type of character isn't possible.
What do you all think?
|