How do you handle compulsory point expenditures

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

Market Analysis (along with Advertising and Finance) existed in 3e, they were introduced in Far Trader (well, at least, they appear in the "New Skills" section of Far Trader, its possible they appeared elsewhere first, since IIRC the 3e practice was skills went in "New Skills" if they weren't in any of the books identified as prerequisites -- but I think they were actually completely new in FT.)

All right. I don't remember those rules very well (when I tried to use them it was probably my worst failed campaign ever). Did Wealth not matter?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by whswhs

And the fact is that most GURPS players don't want to play a game of accounting for what they paid for goods, and how far they shipped them, and what they sold them for, and what expenses they incurred in doing so, and whether they can borrow money to fund the next voyage. And with no demand for such play there's no incentive to create detailed rules for it.

And yet these things loom large in my long-running fantasy campaign, where the PCs are the owners of a powerful merchant house and the players actually keep books in a double-entry Excel file. Their accounting practices are terrible, of course, but they do keep track of all the things you mentioned above, in between fighting galleon-sized dragons while flying around with magic weapons like a bunch of Supermen with swords.

[Agemegos]

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"

Is there more to becoming wealthy thanacquiring a bushel of cash?

[SCAR]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Is there more to becoming wealthy thanacquiring a bushel of cash?

Technically yes, but practically the rules don't really give you much else.

For some games the Wealth trait at character generation is purely about the amount of cash you have to spend on your gear - after that it becomes largely irrelevant. Dungeon Fantasy is pretty much an example of this, except that it does attach a benefit to Wealth during play whereby higher wealth level gets you more money when selling loot. (See DF1.p23 Wealth in Play) - I'm not sure there is anything else like this in the 4e rules.

In a game where Wealth could mean more than just starting cash, there are other (potential) benefits:
Social Engineering (p12) summarises Wealth thus:

It’s the extent to which one is trusted by would-be investors, lenders, and borrowers, as well as control of physical resources, money, or the labor of other people (as free employees or as slaves).

However, that seems to be about as far as the RAW goes in covering such things.

The Wealth level of a Job acts as a multiplier to the Income, but since a character can have a job of a different Wealth level to their personal Wealth level, their personal wealth does not strictly impact their job income. There is an implication that its harder to get/keep a job of a higher wealth level, but not really much else.

Wealth and Status are mostly independent, but closely related - 'ideally' (in a setting where such things might matter) a character with a given Wealth level also has the Typical Status Level (see B517). It would then take money (from a job or Independent Income) to support and maintain the appropriate Status (Cost of Living, etc.).
The 'benefit' of Wealth is then indirectly the benefits of Status - such as a Reaction modifier for relative Status [B29] - see also Social Engineering!

There are (as far as I am aware), no particular rules which cover the 'other benefits of wealth' - such as gaining the 'trust of would-be investors' or getting a loan (so say buy a Spaceship), etc.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by SCAR

The Wealth level of a Job acts as a multiplier to the Income, but since a character can have a job of a different Wealth level to their personal Wealth level, their personal wealth does not strictly impact their job income. There is an implication that its harder to get/keep a job of a higher wealth level, but not really much else.

There is the rule that if you are working at a higher Wealth level job you must buy Wealth when your savings reach a higher starting wealth. This is really the only place that the rules actually require that you increase Wealth, and is because, as Kromm says upthread, it represents the fact that you got the money (and saved it) while making contacts, establishing credit, and being respectable.

[SCAR]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

There is the rule that if you are working at a higher Wealth level job you must buy Wealth when your savings reach a higher starting wealth. This is really the only place that the rules actually require that you increase Wealth, and is because, as Kromm says upthread, it represents the fact that you got the money (and saved it) while making contacts, establishing credit, and being respectable.

I deliberately skipped that, since it has been discussed to death, and has pretty much been established that the 'must buy' doesn't really mean anything, it can't be enforced and there are no rules for doing so.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Is there more to becoming wealthy thanacquiring a bushel of cash?

No, but there is more to becoming Wealthy -- acquiring the points.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by SCAR

Technically yes, but practically the rules don't really give you much else.

Exactly. Unearthing this fact amid accumulated legend is a challenge.

... Social Engineering (p12) summarises Wealth thus:

However, that seems to be about as far as the RAW goes in covering such things.

In some older threads, it was suggested that this 'shadow advantage' Wealth acted as a kind of plot protection for your wealth. The rules don't say anything about how that might work and neither did the forum discussion, so far as I read. Some GMs make this meaningful by actively creating game events to soak up PC money, but this is not suggested in the RAW text.

The Wealth level of a Job acts as a multiplier to the Income, ...

I'm not sure about that. Here is what Basic says:

"The monthly pay numbers above
are for workers of Average wealth.
Assume that those of lower Wealth
normally have jobs that pay less than
this, while those of higher Wealth usually
have jobs that pay more. Multiply
the average pay and pay range for jobs
suitable to a given wealth level by the
starting wealth multiplier for that
wealth level (see Wealth, p. 25).
Example: “Comfortable” wealth
doubles starting wealth; therefore,
Comfortable jobs pay twice as much.
At TL8, this means that monthly
income for those of Comfortable
wealth is typically $5,200, but can
range from $4,200 to $7,200."

All I can see there is sort of campaign-building advise about scaling jobs in the campaign world against each other by Wealth multiplier. There nothing that makes it applicable to a character.

... but since a character can have a job of a different Wealth level to their personal Wealth level, their personal wealth does not strictly impact their job income. There is an implication that its harder to get/keep a job of a higher wealth level, but not really much else.

I read the referenced section, sort of hoping to find something there that connects a character's Wealth level to the ease of finding a matching Job. What the section actually does is apply a general modifier for the availability of higher paid jobs.

Wealth and Status are mostly independent, but closely related - 'ideally' (in a setting where such things might matter) a character with a given Wealth level also has the Typical Status Level (see B517). It would then take money (from a job or Independent Income) to support and maintain the appropriate Status (Cost of Living, etc.).
The 'benefit' of Wealth is then indirectly the benefits of Status - such as a Reaction modifier for relative Status [B29] - see also Social Engineering!

Indirectly and situationally. It would also be possible for a character to pay for a high-status CoL from pure 'adventure' gains, provided he has enough, no matter what his Wealth level.

My personal view is that the Wealth, Jobs, and CoL sections should be ripped out of Basic, rewritten intelligibly, and replaced.

[SCAR]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Indirectly and situationally. It would also be possible for a character to pay for a high-status CoL from pure 'adventure' gains, provided he has enough, no matter what his Wealth level.

One thing with Wealth, is using Independent Income to cover CoL -
At TL8, CoL is 3% of SW, so II3 [3 points] covers CoL (assuming Typical Status for Wealth)
At TL9, CoL is 2% of SW, so II2 [2 points] covers CoL;
AtTL10, CoL is 1.2% of SQ, so II2 [2 points] covers CoL;

'Adventuring' gains will get depleted quite quickly for someone trying to live at a higher Status!

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

My personal view is that the Wealth, Jobs, and CoL sections should be ripped out of Basic, rewritten intelligibly, and replaced.

It would certainly seem like a good subject for at the very least a Pyramid article, if not a Social Engineering supplement (if there is actually sufficient scope in the subject matter)!

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

My personal view is that the Wealth, Jobs, and CoL sections should be ripped out of Basic, rewritten intelligibly, and replaced.

My view would be that the Wealth, Status, Jobs, and CoL provide enough of a framework for GMs to find a combination of the available traits to reflect how PC economics are going to be handled in their own games. Games will range from "money never matters" to "loot is the games primary objective" and the intent is that GMs will determine how all these rules will interact in their own games.