How do you handle compulsory point expenditures

[Figleaf23]

Posit #1 - The rules permit a GM at any time to put any trait he wants onto a player's character sheet, and in doing so, change the net point value of the character sheet, or not change it.

True or false?


Posit #2 - The set of cases to which posit 1 applies includes cases where a character has incurred a compulsory trait purchase like Wealth on B517.

True or false?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Posit #1 - The rules permit a GM at any time to put any trait he wants onto a player's character sheet,

True.

and in doing so, change the net point value of the character sheet, or not change it.

False.
Adding traits with positive costs increases the point total. Adding traits with negative point costs decreases the total (and except during character creation does not yield unspent points). The GM can change the costs of traits if he chooses, but he can't change math.

Posit #2 - The set of cases to which posit 1 applies includes cases where a character has incurred a compulsory trait purchase like Wealth on B517.

True or false?

True- The GM may just give the character a level of Wealth, this does, however increase the character's point total by the cost of the advantage.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

False.
Adding traits with positive costs increases the point total. Adding traits with negative point costs decreases the total (and except during character creation does not yield unspent points). The GM can change the costs of traits if he chooses, but he can't change math.

Adding traits with zero cost, or simultaneously adding multiple traits with a total cost of zero, would not change the net value of the character sheet.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Adding traits with zero cost,

Well yes.

or simultaneously adding multiple traits with a total cost of zero,

Yes, but this is the same thing as adding it as a package/bushel/basket/whatever.

would not change the net value of the character sheet.

[Figleaf23]

On the general subject, I'd be interested in views on this scenario:

Corporal Lucky, a PC of Average Wealth, goes into the desert searching for a treasure. He finds it and now must work his way back home. Day 1 (April 29) -- desert survival stuff. Day 2 (April 30) -- desert survival stuff, rolls go badly, Lucky's getting weak. Game session ends. GM calculates the value of the treasure.

Next session Day 3 (May 1) -- GM remembers its time for job rolls and income payments. Makes his job roll, but, well, there'll no payments will happen in the desert, but Lucky is sure the government will have his pay when he gets home.

'But since we're on the topic of money', the GM says the treasure is worth {8x starting money}, so if you're going to keep it, you need to buy up your Wealth. Are you going to keep it, or ditch it? It's pretty heavy and you have a long way to go.'

'Well', says the player, 'it's what I came for, so I'm going to keep it.'

'Okay, Wealthy costs you [20].'

'I don't have that much. I have 3.'

Question: Including a page reference and quote if possible, what do the rules say should happen immediately next, step by step, at the gaming table and on the character sheet?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Question: Including a page reference and quote if possible, what do the rules say should happen immediately next?

There are basically two options: either the adventure provides the excuse for buying the advantage, in which case you simply don't gain the wealth if you can't spend the points, or it's a trait gained during play and doesn't cost bonus points. Either way, covered by B291.

[Tomsdad]

I don't really do compulsory point expenditure as it removes agency from the players. CP use has to be by choice (subject to agreement). I see a difference between saying as a GM "no you can't use CP to get that" and "you must use CP to justify already having this".

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

To pay for a compulsory trait purchase, e.g. B517:

" ... 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 (see
Adding and Improving Social Traits,
p. 291)."

How many times would you like to go around this?

That quote on pg517 explicitly relates to jobs, and jobs as background and so isn't relevant to stuff 'gained in play'

However I agree if you look at pg291 it doesn't distinguish between sources of the cash.

But if you apply that to cash amassed in play then it's clearly double dipping.

In char gen wealth gives you the in game advantage of $X,000 to spend how you like. Which you pay for with Y CP's. Fine. But If I find $X,000 I can spend it how I like (subject to what's available), so why do I also have to spend Y CP's to do so?

Part of the issue may be that wealth while in game terms is a wad of cash to spend and only remains in play as long as the cash does, it also infers a background to how that cash was amassed (job etc) that may remain, but that isn't relevant to suddenly finding cash. Also as an advantage it sometimes grant's free bonuses to certain other advantages. However I'd argue those bonuses are dependent on setting convention and the use the money is put to not by didn't of possessing that cash. I.e having a million gold coins buried in a hole in the ground that no one knows about while you go off on adventure isn't going to add anything to your status, even if walking into court with that million gold coins would. As such I think it's unfair to charge CP on the basis of such extraneous effects.

Think of it like this if you are in a TL3 setting by that quote if I find $2,000 I have to pay the 10CP for the "comfortable wealth = 2x base" advantage*

OK but does that mean that every time I find $200 that means I get 15CP back because that's a "poor wealth = 1/5 x base" disadvantage?

*assuming I didn't already have it.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Anthony

There are basically two options: either the adventure provides the excuse for buying the advantage, in which case you simply don't gain the wealth if you can't spend the points,

Can you tell me what passage says that? I'd like to read it because it doesn't seem to fit -- B517 deals with a case where you've already got the money and you now 'must' buy Wealth.

But if that's the right way, what would happen next in the example? Corporal Lucky only has 3 points. He has the treasure and wants to keep it. Do the rules force him to abandon the treasure?

... or it's a trait gained during play and doesn't cost bonus points. Either way, covered by B291.

B517 seems pretty clear that there's supposed to be 'paying'. Which isn't reflected in the mechanic on B291.

Also, is there a rule that tells you how to sort between those options?

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Can you tell me what passage says that? I'd like to read it because it doesn't seem to fit -- B517 deals with a case where you've already got the money and you now 'must' buy Wealth.

But if that's the right way, what would happen next in the example? Corporal Lucky only has 3 points. He has the treasure and wants to keep it. Do the rules force him to abandon the treasure?

You're clipping an important part of the rule you're quoting. The situation described by the rule concerns where a character is already getting part of the benefit of the Wealth advantage (a job with a higher income) and *then* amasses the cash for that wealth level. Perhaps you can change your example, but there's nothing in the rules that says a windfall of the type
you're describing would force the character to buy the wealth advantage.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Bookman

You're clipping an important part of the rule you're quoting. The situation described by the rule concerns where a character is already getting part of the benefit of the Wealth advantage (a job with a higher income) and *then* amasses the cash for that wealth level. Perhaps you can change your example, but there's nothing in the rules that says a windfall of the type
you're describing would force the character to buy the wealth advantage.

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.