How do you handle compulsory point expenditures

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

There is a related reference on B26 which says:

"If a poor PC becomes wealthy, the GM should require the player to
“buy off” the disadvantage with character points"

And there are some rather old comments by Kromm in a similar vein.

Adding these together, and the fact that the source of the money can't matter in any practical way for the rules, I concluded that the rule on B517 serves at the elaboration of the rule where it happened to be convenient and that just happened to be Jobs.

If you disagree, please read my example to refer to the rule on B26, quoted above.

As ever I think context trumps abstract, i.e the source of the wealth very much matters.

the rule on p26 that you quote is actually pretty unworkable if you apply as you have done here.

As all it takes in 1/5th of basic starting wealth to be obtained before you have to pay those 15cp back, and by your interpretation that can come form anywhere.

At TL3 that $200 or what a cheap quality cutlass? That's a very expensive (in game terms) cheap cutlass.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

As ever I think context trumps abstract, i.e the source of the wealth very much matters.

the rule on p26 that you quote is actually pretty unworkable if you apply as you have done here.

As all it takes in 1/5th of basic starting wealth to be obtained before you have to pay those 15cp back, and by your interpretation that can come form anywhere.

At TL3 that $200 or what a cheap quality cutlass? That's very expensive (in game terms) cheap cutlass.

Hm. I actually didn't think I was interpreting anything. At this time, I'm simply trying to get factual information on the process defined in the rules for when a character is compelled to buy a trait but doesn't have any available CP.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Hm. I actually didn't think I was interpreting anything. At this time, I'm simply trying to get factual information on the process defined in the rules for when a character is compelled to buy a trait but doesn't have any available CP.

I think you have to interpret, because I don't see that the rules spell this out in full detail.

Looking at the rules on buying up Wealth, I see that they say you must buy up Wealth when your savings reach the value of the higher starting wealth—if you get the increased money by taking a job whose pay is at a higher Wealth level. That's a lot narrower than "any time you acquire extra money." I don't see that having a windfall, such as loot from an adventure, gambling winnings, or an inheritance, falls under this rule necessarily.

My own interpretation would be that if your character gets that job, and saves money, that's the narrative part of the process in which gaining a social advantage requires both spending the points and providing the story. You have to have both; as far as I can tell you can get them in either order—you could set aside points to buy up Wealth, and then save the money from the better job, or you could save the money from the better job, and then start assigning points when doing so becomes mandatory. The Wealth trait goes on your character sheet when you have both the narrative and the points. "You are required to purchase it" can be read as "You are required to start purchasing it at this point."

But, of course, this is an interpretation.

Bill Stoddard

[SCAR]

Lets look at a couple of scenarios:

A Dead Broke character finds a pot of money equal to the 'average' Starting Wealth. If they
(a) 'buy off' their Wealth: Dead Broke Disadvantage (per B26), which would cost them 25 CPs. (See 'Adding and Improving Social Traits, Wealth B291). - The character is now of Average Wealth.
(b) spend the money as they want buying drinks, burgers, scarves or get robbed. - They're still Dead Broke.

I believe Figleaf23's question relates to the wording on B26:
If a poor PC becomes wealthy, the GM should require the player to “buy off” the disadvantage with character points – see p. 121.
In what way should the GM 'require' the player to spend those 25 points to no longer be Dead Broke? If the player is free to choose between options (a) or (b) above - then this text is pretty meaningless. At best the GM should make it clear to the player, that if they don't 'buy off' the Dead Broke, then they will not be able to maintain an 'Average' lifestyle - 'fate' (or whatever) will conspire to ensure the character returns to being Dead Broke. The GM would be entirely justified in having the PC robbed, cheated, etc. out of their money. they would be suffering the consequences of their -25 point Disadvantage.


An Average Wealth character somehow finds they have managed to acquire 100x Starting Wealth.
(a) The player could spend 50 points to become Filthy Rich, and get all the benefits of such a wealth level - including the free Status!
(b) The player could spend 10, 20, or 30 points to gain an intermediate wealth level, and any other benefits of that wealth level. They would get to keep the extra cash for whatever spending they wanted.
(c) They players could remain as Average Wealth, and keep the money to spend as they wish.


An Average wealth character, gets a Comfortable wealth job. Their extra earnings accumulate until they have 2x Starting Wealth in savings.
According to the rule text on B517:
However, if the PC’s savings reach the starting wealth of the next-highest wealth level, he must pay the points to buy up his Wealth.

What does 'must' mean in this rule, and how can that be enforced by the GM?
Logically this follows the same options as above.
(a) The player spends the 10 CP to buy Comfortable wealth - all is fine.
(b) The player remains as Average Wealth with a Comfortable Job and a pile of money.
If the player chooses option (b), this would seem to violate the 'must' part of the above rule - and the GM could be justified in having the character lose their Comfortable Job.

I think Figleaf23's point is that the rules do not give any guidance on how the GM is supposed to enforce the 'require' and 'must' parts of the rules text referenced.

It seems reasonable, that a Dead Broke character with a pile of money, is going to end up spending and/or losing all the money (over a period of time), until they are again Dead Broke - those are the consequences of having a -25 points Disadvantage.

It does not seem as obvious what the consequences of an Average Wealth character having cash equivalent to Filthy Rich Wealth. (or even a Poor characters getting cash equivalent to Average Wealth.)
Logically they keep the cash, but are still of Average Wealth, and so don't get the benefits of the higher wealth - such as better trade values (DF1.p23, 'Wealth in Play'), or access to better job opportunities, or the 'free' Status from higher Wealth.

If the Average Wealth character with 100x Starting Wealth in Cash, has a 'Wealthy' Job, then not paying the points for the Wealth level equivalent to their Job would likely result in their finding it harder to get on with other 'properly Wealthy' people in their professional circle and ultimately risk losing their job.
The rules as written might imply this with the use of the word 'must', but they don't actually say this, and don't give any clues as to how the GM is supposed to enforce the 'must' or the consequences of the player not doing so.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Hm. I actually didn't think I was interpreting anything. At this time, I'm simply trying to get factual information on the process defined in the rules for when a character is compelled to buy a trait but doesn't have any available CP.

Only weather or not the compulsion is actually in place is subject to the interpretation of the rules.

Even if it's interpretation of letter vs. spirit of them. So to go back to my example should a character who has trading $800 of starting money for 15cp by taking the 'wealth:poor' disadvantage, have to pay 15cp (either straight away or at some point in the future) when he picks up a gem worth $200 or a poor quality short sword worth $200?

Basically the problem is because different advantages and disadvantages have such a wide range of effect and wide rage of in and out of game justifications, I don't think there really a good single rule for judging how they are compensated for when they come up as side effect of what happens at the table.

More over the more you tend towards as single system the more likely you are to get weird results when dealing with such a wide range of possible situations. Or put another way rules still have to be judged on their applicability by those applying them.

Take the following farsical exchange:

GM: "you've had your arm chopped off, you have only one arm but you gain +X cp for the one arm disadvantage"

Player: "brilliant now I can turn all those hours of practice at the piano into +3 on my piano skill with those cps"

And on a more general point

Basically starting with one less arm than normal is a disadvantage compared to other characters who have both. But I don't see why losing an arm in a fight should suddenly mean you get an arm's worth better in some other aspect of your life.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

GM: "you've had your arm chopped off, you have only one arm but you gain +X cp for the one arm disadvantage"

Well, a GM could do that, but there's no reason he needs to give compensatory points for that disadvantage.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

... and the fact that the source of the money can't matter in any practical way for the rules, ...

I'm not sure I agree with you here. The jobs case is significant because higher income from a job is one of the only ongoing benefits of the Wealth advantage. It is, IMO, very important to the point that the character should only be required to buy the advantage if he's getting the benefits of the advantage.

Just having a lot of cash on hand is not the equivalent, in GURPS terms, of having Wealth.

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

There is a related reference on B26 which says:

"If a poor PC becomes wealthy, the GM should require the player to
“buy off” the disadvantage with character points"

"Should" is not mandatory, and, in any case, "wealthy" may refer not to assets alone but the combination of liquid assets and social advantage represented by Wealth in GURPS (which would be consistent with the one specific case on p. B517 where purchase is explicitly mandatory in the RAW, where one both has a higher-wealth Job and savings -- not total assets -- equivalent to the Starting Wealth of a higher Wealth level.)

Adding these together, and the fact that the source of the money can't matter in any practical way for the rules

I don't see any reason to believe this is a fact of any kind.

I concluded that the rule on B517 serves at the elaboration of the rule where it happened to be convenient and that just happened to be Jobs.

I don't think that what is on p. B26 -- clearly phrased as a suggestion to the GM -- is a rule at all. Clearly, the rule on p. B517 is conceptually linked to that suggestion, but its not an elaboration of a rule on p. B26.

In any case, given that the GM is expressly free to give a character any trait in play with no expenditure of CP, just changes to point total, and given that, in addition, the GM is also free to award bonus points to individual PCs on any basis he choses, its probably best to view the "must purchase" rule on p. B517 as indicating that when the event it describes occurs, the character acquires the indicated Wealth level and their CP value increases, and the GM is free to choose how the character must pay for it (or if they must pay for it). Since the rule refers to savings plus continuation in a high-Wealth job, the PC is free to avoid the situation, as well, either by dissipitating savings before the reach the threshold or by leaving the high-Wealth job.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Well, a GM could do that, but there's no reason he needs to give compensatory points for that disadvantage.

So by extension no reason why he should require CPs to pay for an advantage gained through play.

(Like "wealth" through a large in session haul)

[Lamech]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Looking at the rules on buying up Wealth, I see that they say you must buy up Wealth when your savings reach the value of the higher starting wealth—if you get the increased money by taking a job whose pay is at a higher Wealth level. That's a lot narrower than "any time you acquire extra money." I don't see that having a windfall, such as loot from an adventure, gambling winnings, or an inheritance, falls under this rule necessarily.

As I've said before I agree with this.

In the case of Corporeal Lucky he worked hard for his wealth so I wouldn't require him to buy any wealth. It wouldn't increase his independent income, get him a higher status, or the like, but he would have that X,000$ worth of treasure! (Less taxes and middlemen taking their cut.) Even if Lucky was Dead Broke I would let him keep the treasure he still worked hard for it! He could however buy up his wealth using the treasure as an excuse. He would probably even conveniently get hired as a professional treasure hunter if the did!

Now to take a different scenario, if Corporeal Lucky started with both Snatcher+permanent and Dead Broke, and he tried to Snatch his way to riches, I would require buying off the Dead Broke disadvantage. Furthermore unless the player had a good reason for having both Dead Broke and Snatcher+Permanent on his starting character I wouldn't let it fly. Its almost as bad as Unfazable+Fearlessness 8!