A problem with players saving up money using Independent income

[D10]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

No, you need to actually work. B516 states that "Time spent adventuring is usually not 'on the job.'" How many hours one has to work ultimately boils down to a GM's call, it seems, but if someone can just not show up to work and get his monthly pay, then he either has Independent Income, or Independent Income doesn't matter and should be ignored.

What if im an adventuring business owner who has someone (say a son, or a CEO) to manage my business (competently) while im away, but when im back in town (or in reach of a telephone) Im the one steering the wheels of the enterprise ? Independant income wouldnt work because im not a stock holder, im the owner.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Of course, this raises the question: Is Maz going to track time spent? Is all of this folded into the background? If so, when I buy Independent Income 20 for 20 points and Average Wealth and I make $200 a month (I'm using TL 3 numbers, but the principle tracks to all TLs), and you buy Wealth for 20 points and make $3500 a month, and we both get the exact same amount of adventuring/improvement time, is that right? I don't think so. Then, how much time should you be spending on your job? And does it matter? If I have to wait around at home playing video games for you to get off work so we can go tackle the Space Pirates of Roshan IV, is II really worth my points?

If not, do I get to spend those 8 hours a day training, or going on extra missions while you do not?

In the fantasy campaign im currently playing my character is filthy rich and status 3, and when we are back into my hometown, I usually need to spend a few hours managing pending questions about my business, settling disputes, and dishing out the law. I just do the deciding tho, I have lawyers and managers that cover all the bureaucracy necessary, and I just decide and sign.

Meanwhile the other PCs either accompany me (peasant disputes can get nasty) or do their own stuff.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by D10

What if im an adventuring business owner who has someone (say a son, or a CEO) to manage my business (competently) while im away, but when im back in town (or in reach of a telephone) Im the one steering the wheels of the enterprise ? Independant income wouldnt work because im not a stock holder, im the owner.

II doesn't care why you get income for not working, only that you do get income for not working. If you can wander off for a year and still get your monthly stipend, you have II.

In the fantasy campaign im currently playing my character is filthy rich and status 3, and when we are back into my hometown, I usually need to spend a few hours managing pending questions about my business, settling disputes, and dishing out the law. I just do the deciding tho, I have lawyers and managers that cover all the bureaucracy necessary, and I just decide and sign.

Meanwhile the other PCs either accompany me (peasant disputes can get nasty) or do their own stuff.

...unless the GM doesn't care, right? But in that case, II is a waste of points, see? If your GM is never going to enforce the difference between a guy who works vs a guy who doesn't work, then you should just take wealth and ignore II.

[weby]

Originally Posted by D10

What if im an adventuring business owner who has someone (say a son, or a CEO) to manage my business (competently) while im away, but when im back in town (or in reach of a telephone) Im the one steering the wheels of the enterprise ? Independant income wouldnt work because im not a stock holder, im the owner.

And why would independent income not work? If you have steady income that does not require effort on your part it is indeed independent income. See the beginning of the explanation of Independent Income on B26.

In the fantasy campaign im currently playing my character is filthy rich and status 3, and when we are back into my hometown, I usually need to spend a few hours managing pending questions about my business, settling disputes, and dishing out the law. I just do the deciding tho, I have lawyers and managers that cover all the bureaucracy necessary, and I just decide and sign.

Meanwhile the other PCs either accompany me (peasant disputes can get nasty) or do their own stuff.

Well, your GM has apparently decided that you do not need independent income to get the money and that is fine. GMs can rule as they want. But by RAW income that does not require you to work is independent income.

[D10]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

II doesn't care why you get income for not working, only that you do get income for not working. If you can wander off for a year and still get your monthly stipend, you have II.

...

...unless the GM doesn't care, right? But in that case, II is a waste of points, see? If your GM is never going to enforce the difference between a guy who works vs a guy who doesn't work, then you should just take wealth and ignore II.

Where is that distinction drawn tho ? How much work is enough to be able to say someone works a job ? If his job is to have a weekly meeting with his subordinates to assess the state of things, and its something he can assign someone else to do (a son, or CEO) but when he returns hes the one doing it, how can you say its not a job ?

It seems to me like II is unchangeable and unnaffected by performance, while the business is affected by all sorts of things. Enemies can attack your business, reputation can affect your business, etc.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by D10

Where is that distinction drawn tho ? How much work is enough to be able to say someone works a job ? If his job is to have a weekly meeting with his subordinates to assess the state of things, and its something he can assign someone else to do (a son, or CEO) but when he returns hes the one doing it, how can you say its not a job ?

It seems to me like II is unchangeable and unnaffected by performance, while the business is affected by all sorts of things. Enemies can attack your business, reputation can affect your business, etc.

It's ultimately up to the GM to tackle. GURPS doesn't say how many hours you need to spend working (I presume 40 a week?), but obviously if II is in play, it should be enough to justify II. What is enough depends on all kinds of considerations. In the case of your campaign, your GM doesn't want to fuss with it. It doesn't matter, so having II is a waste of points. If he wanted to make II something that matters, he'd need to make you work more hours, and he's also need to make the fact that you work more hours matter (There are times you couldn't adventure, or you'd lose out on training times that didn't have to do with your job, etc). Or perhaps he'd force Job rolls and failed job rolls would lose income, or even your job entirely, while II is not subject to that.

It's a balancing act, but one you only need to make if you want to include II. Maz wants to include II, hence the direction of our discussion.

[weby]

Originally Posted by D10

Where is that distinction drawn tho ? How much work is enough to be able to say someone works a job ? If his job is to have a weekly meeting with his subordinates to assess the state of things, and its something he can assign someone else to do (a son, or CEO) but when he returns hes the one doing it, how can you say its not a job ?

It says under II that you can work less if you want as II and still make a living, if you read to the end there is the example of only having to work 10 hours if you have both.

It seems to me like II is unchangeable and unnaffected by performance, while the business is affected by all sorts of things. Enemies can attack your business, reputation can affect your business, etc.

The basic II is unaffected by such. If you want to represent uncertain traits you do the same thing as anything else in such: you add a limitation(things like require skill roll, power modifier or activation roll)

[D10]

Originally Posted by weby

The basic II is unaffected by such. If you want to represent uncertain traits you do the same thing as anything else in such: you add a limitation(things like require skill roll, power modifier or activation roll)

I was under the impression it was not necessary to model a job you are constantly roleplaying (in my case) after job rolls or II rules, it would be just a consequence of higher wealth requiring lesser hours to the point where you need only not be completely absent from your business to be able to collect its profits. And when determining said monthly profits, the appropriate starting wealth was the best guideline.

[D10]

Either way, have you considered voicing this concern with your player and to try with his help to find some niche where both of you are confortable with his II working ? If hes able to accept II in the form of a Luxurious Living Credit Card that only works for certain kinds of things, for instance, it would solve your problems more than slapping aspected (-20% Civilian uses) would.

[weby]

Originally Posted by D10

I was under the impression it was not necessary to model a job you are constantly roleplaying (in my case) after job rolls or II rules, it would be just a consequence of higher wealth requiring lesser hours to the point where you need only not be completely absent from your business to be able to collect its profits. And when determining said monthly profits, the appropriate starting wealth was the best guideline.

Necessary: definitely not as it depends on your GM. They are free to use or not use any rules they decide.

But if you read the 10 hour work example on B26 you can see what RAW says.

In my current fantasy campaign all the characters have some level of independent income. They jointly own a casino that gives them some II with the 11- limitation. One is a noble and his parents send him a stipend to cover part of the costs every year(modeled as II with the yearly sum divided/12 as value), one is collecting a cult and gets II by taking some of the tithes to himself so that he has time to do research and such in the extra time.

[Maz]

Thanks for all the great comments Mailanka.

I really agree with you that you should change the rules to fit your game, not the other way around.



To make my setting clear here is some more info:

It is SLA Industries.
If you don't know it's here's a short resume: It's a dystopian cyberpunk setting. It takes place in a megacity owned and rules by a single mega-crop. It has both mundane criminal activity (serial killers, abductions, gangs), sci-fi monstrosities gone wrong (biogenetics and tech), as well as supernatural horrors. And of course also military enemies (terrorist and other enemy organisations).

The players are SLA Operatives. A combination of FBI, CIA, SWAT and Spec. Ops. as well as being in the limelight of the mass media that makes the successful and popular into heroes.

The Operatives are the best of the best. They receive some training (in specific training packages - a bit like classes), and a starting budget for equipment. They are organised into squads. But from there on they are self funded and self-run. They earn money primarily by taking "missions", getting "kills" or by getting lucky and getting sponsorship deals with subcompanies.



They need money to get into the circle of the rich and famous to sell themselves as celebrities. And once there, keep up the lifestyle befitting the rich and famous.
But they also need money to maintain their equipment and get upgrades to take on tougher missions.

--------------

I want players to be able to come from the street (having worked hard to prove themselves to be accepted to be an operative or to come from privilege having chosen operative-life for the thrill or fame. But I also want it to matter. I want someone from the street to start with nothing and be overwhelmed by the quick rise to money. And also be able for the rich to have a starting edge with better toys from the start, but more importantly better connections among the establishment.

So, I want a combination of traditional GURPS Wealth and status. But, then, wealth in GURPS already includes some status after all.

I want the rich character to already be established as rich. Have a nice apartment nice car. Nice clothing. Be able to live in relative luxury. While the poor have a small rotten apartment and an old motorcycle.

The PC's won't have time for jobs. Between training, PR-work and socialising they will have to complete missions in order to both earn money and improve their "rank". So wealth won't help them earn more money on the job. But on the other hand I will give those from a wealthy background a bonus to get better sponsorship deals and also be able to get better missions.