A problem with players saving up money using Independent income

[Maz]

I have a problem in my games with players taking Independent Income (II) and use it to save up money over time.

This is a problem as the game is a traditional; adventure to earn money to get better equipment to take on tougher challenges, to get more money for better equipment and so on. You know; "the circle of fun".

I could just forbid II, but I don't mind the character concept of a wealthy adventurer who can live in relative luxury. The problem only arise when it comes to getting better equipment. As this is a ultra-tech setting, better equipment for one PC can really unbalance the group.


Someone who is Wealthy and have 10 levels II can just live at a low Status-level and save up a lot of money very quickly.



Have you had similar problems, what did you do?

I am considering allowing II but with a limitation to only be allowed to buy a better Cost of Living.

What would you set such a limitation on II to? -20%? -50%?

[spacemonkey]

First, give an explanation of what you'll allow II to give them, whether that's expendable supplies, temporary mercenaries, or w/e. Then allow them to trade II for something else if they don't like your vision of the advantage.

After that, well you control the entire rest of the universe. Companies go bankrupt, the IRS seizes bank accounts due to suspicious income, the DEA seizes property due to the caretaker growing weed in the back 40, criminals hack accounts, unexpected expenses come up, etc. You should take considerably more than is required to take them back under their wealth level, to balance the fact that they went considerably over for awhile. Let II bring them back up to the wealth level they bought, and then see if they'll play it straight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DT7bX-B1Mg

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Maz

I have a problem in my games with players taking Independent Income (II) and use it to save up money over time.

This is a problem as the game is a traditional; adventure to earn money to get better equipment to take on tougher challenges, to get more money for better equipment and so on. You know; "the circle of fun".

I could just forbid II, but I don't mind the character concept of a wealthy adventurer who can live in relative luxury. The problem only arise when it comes to getting better equipment. As this is a ultra-tech setting, better equipment for one PC can really unbalance the group.


Someone who is Wealthy and have 10 levels II can just live at a low Status-level and save up a lot of money very quickly.



Have you had similar problems, what did you do?

I am considering allowing II but with a limitation to only be allowed to buy a better Cost of Living.

What would you set such a limitation on II to? -20%? -50%?

It feels like the problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. Is this a game that worries about cost of living or not? If so, then a character with Independent Wealth should be spending it on cost of living, just as you describe, because he needs to. If this is a game where cost of living doesn't matter, then of course he's going to save it up for gear, because that's all there is to do with it.

If you want him to have independent wealth because it's an accurate reflection of his class, if you're not worried about cost of living, then you don't worry about accurate reflections of his class when it comes to cost of living.

Finally, you said that you want him to have the ability to live in "relative luxury." You also say that any amount of Wealth would quickly unbalance the group. In that case, you shouldn't allow Wealth at all, since it will (as you say) unbalance the group. Instead, allow Status. Assume that all of these characters have sufficient income to handle their status, and the guy who has luxurious apartments and lovely staff, but no access to better gear than anyone else, has higher status.

The purpose of mechanics is not to "create a realistic simulation", but "to serve the purpose of your game." Your games purpose could be to "create a realistic simulation," but this is not the case here. Here, you have DF in space, and DF doesn't generally allow Wealth or, if it does, it handles it in a DFey fashion. You should do the same. If the sole purpose of money in your game is to buy gear, and you want gear values the same across the board, then wealth should be disallowed.

[Maz]

Yes DF in space is a good description. And I want the cake and eat it as well as that's what is fitting for the setting.

Anyway, Status instead of Wealth is a very good point! Because the more I think about it the more Status is actually what I want... although still with money as an explanation for that status.

I guess I have to consider really carefully "how much should it cost the PC to have access to this". Instead of trying to stick to RAW.


But just to clarify:

BOTH living and gear is important. Living is a goal of the game. To get the nice apartment and fancy clothes. That's a goal of the game. However I don't mind a PC having easy access to that, as it created Roleplaying opportunities and opens up for new types of character-concepts.

Gear however can create unbalance in a very mechanical way. Which can often limit my options as a GM rather than open up for new things.

[weby]

You could just allow them to take Independent income only with the limitation of "only for cost of living and related expenses".

Meaning he could only use if for the cost of living and other comforts, like getting a bigger cabin on ship, buying better booze at the bar and so on, but not gear beyond more stylish clothing.

[Maz]

Originally Posted by weby

You could just allow them to take Independent income only with the limitation of "only for cost of living and related expenses".

Meaning he could only use if for the cost of living and other comforts, like getting a bigger cabin on ship, buying better booze at the bar and so on, but not gear beyond more stylish clothing.

That's what I suggested myself in my OP. But what would such a limitation be worth?

[weby]

Originally Posted by Maz

That's what I suggested myself in my OP. But what would such a limitation be worth?

-60% would be my guestimate. (or maybe -50% to keep the math easy: 2 for 1)

[whswhs]

What you describe was the original purpose of II.

Remember that in 3/e, if you were Very Wealthy or better, you automatically had a monthly income, not just starting wealth. II generalized this so that a middle class or working class character could have money coming in regularly. The intent was not "I'm incredibly wealthy and can buy anything I want" but "I have enough to live on without having my time taken up by a job, so I'm free to have adventures." In a Victorian milieu that's quite appropriate.

If you're using II that way, that's bog standard and should not carry a limitation.

If characters are taking II to be something that lets them buy hugely expensive gear, the problem is not that they have II. The 20% upper limit ought normally to prevent that. The problem is that they're getting 20% of an amount of wealth that is inappropriate and unsuitable in your particular campaign. You should hold the wealth level down to something that doesn't disrupt things.

[D10]

Income is income, cost of living is cost of living. I dont think they should have the conection that is being implyed here. Its not like the player bought wealth or status and is living beneath his means and as a consequense is suffering from a negative reputation from his peers. It seems like a regular joe that happens to have a discretionary income, why wouldnt he want to spend it on what he needs the most (equipment?)

If the players are being able to save money, then you are giving them too much time between challenges.

[weby]

Originally Posted by D10

Income is income, cost of living is cost of living. I dont think they should have the conection that is being implyed here. Its not like the player bought wealth or status and is living beneath his means and as a consequense is suffering from a negative reputation from his peers. It seems like a regular joe that happens to have a discretionary income, why wouldnt he want to spend it on what he needs the most (equipment?)

If the players are being able to save money, then you are giving them too much time between challenges.

That is just not true in many cultures through the years. It has been quite common to have a requirement of a certain status to be able to do things like deals that bring in a lot of money and they in turn have thus required the expenditure of money to maintain that status. In those cases most of the money has often indeed gone to maintaining the status.