Looking for good House Rule on Wealth

[phayman53]

I both like and dislike the way the wealth rules work in GURPS. I like that it is somewhat abstract and tries to model something more than just "how much stuff you start with". That said, it definitely runs into problems, especially when paired with the realistic supplements like Low-Tech and Loadouts: Low-Tech. Basically, it becomes impossible to purchase realistic amounts of armor and weaponry that ancient common citizens would have without them also having unreasonable amounts of wealth. This is especially bad when using the optional realism 80%/20% rule that limits how much you can spend on adventuring equipment if you have a settled lifestyle.

For instance, a Camillan Hastatus minimum armor required, according to Loadouts: Low-Tech, $1560 for the bronze helmet, scutum, caligae, and short sword (or $1200 if you went with a spear instead of a short sword). Now, even if you are allowed to use all of your wealth on gear, this is more than comfortable wealth at TL2 and the Hastatus is supposed to be Status-1 (which I think is historically incorrect for the Camillan period, I think status 0 is probably more appropriate because they had to own some land, but that is still only Average wealth by default). If you are going to implement the 80%/20% rule, to cover the $1560 (before any other gear) you would need 10.4x the basic starting wealth of TL2, so you would need to be Filthy Rich unless you had partial wealth levels. That seems a bit much for the least well equipped class, and this does not even include optional gear like pectorales and the one shin greave. The Camillan Principe is even worse.

I am not sure how to handle this in an elegant wealth rule system. Ideally I would like:

-to be able to separate the wealth you have to support your settled lifestyle (which needs to come with perks such as giving status at breakpoints, making Cost of Living less than living "on the road", etc.)
-a stat that indicates your default earning potential because of your resources (which the current Wealth advantage seems to have in mind)
-a separate stat that fairly prices starting equipment that one might have above and beyond normal
-Some way of appropriately handling itinerant heroes who don't have a home but may have armor, mounts, and even servants or squires of various costs.

Thoughts?

[Jarreth]

My group ignore it. Mostly due to me as I really don't like how the wealth mechanic works in GURPs.

As for starting equipment and other wealth/property you basically have what makes sense to your character. Everyone have zero points in Wealth and may not lower it.

We usually tie some sort of income to duty which is slightly modified to be hours dedicated to maintaining your duty instead of the check to see if youre available to go on adventure. This can be a job or obligation to your family or anything else that makes sense to the character.

[Brandy]

I posted this to the forums 11 years ago. It may suit you.

I've had some trouble reconciling the following things in GURPS with regard to starting wealth and equipment:
1) Signature gear is awfully good deal compared to low levels of wealth, and no good at all compared to high ones.
2) Trading points for cash is pretty unsatisfactory, and always gives a lesser value than signature gear. . . and signature gear has cinematic plot protection!
3) The offhand comment in Basic about characters usually having access to only 20% of their by-the-book wealth for gear is widely ignored, due to the comment that follows which says that characters with an unsettled lifestyle can have all of it.

So, this is a house rule proposal to address these things. If you don't have a problem with those things, you probably won't like the house rule!

My assumptions:

1) Trading points for cash at character creation should give more starting money than buying an equivalent amount of wealth, because wealth has ongoing benefits.
2) Trading points for cash should at least be comparable to signature gear, because signature gear has plot protection. Wealthy characters should benefit more from points for cash than average or poor ones.
3) Both signature gear and points for cash should be viable alternatives to high levels of wealth at any point level.

Here's the basic idea:
1) Characters may *not* declare themselves to be "living an unsettled lifestyle" and get 100% of their starting wealth. (These character concepts can take a lower wealth level and trade points for cash at start-up). The 20% figure is absolute! The other 80% is what grants the ongoing benefits of wealth: increased earning at jobs, shorter working week, free status, and a higher wealth multiplier.

2) Points may be traded for cash at character creation. The amount of cash that a given number of points gives is based on the wealth formula(see below), which follows the same exponential progression that wealth itself does. Points for cash *are* modified by wealth level, and characters can buy both. Points for cash gives 100% of what the equivalent number of points gives in wealth.

3) Signature gear works just like points for cash, but it is not modified by wealth level. (Wealthy characters are better off paying points for cash than getting signature gear). Signature gear gives 200% of what the equivalent number of points gives in wealth, or twice what points for cash does. Each item of signature gear is a separate purchase.

Warning! Math Zone ahead!

The GURPS wealth table, page 25, uses an exponential formula to derive the wealth multiplier. Not all the values fall directly in line, but this is a good approximation for how much wealth a certain point total is supposed to provide. The formula is:
10 to the power of (points in wealth/ 25). Here's a comparison of the formula-driven values and the given values for a particular wealth level (WealthX is the by-the-book value for wealth multiplier and Formula is the value derived from the formula above).

Wealth Level       Points   WealthX   Formula
Dead Broke            -25       0        0.10
Poor                  -15     0.2        0.25
Struggling            -10     0.5        0.40
Average                 0       1        1.00
Comfortable            10       2        2.51
Wealthy                20       5        6.31
Very Wealthy           30      20       15.85
Filthy Rich            50     100      100.00
Multimillionaire I     75    1000     1000.00
Multimillionaire II   100   10000    10000.00

As you can see 10^(pts/25) is a good approximation of the GURPS wealth multiplier. I've used this formula to derive the points-for-cash values in the table below, which is for TL 3. Other TL tables can easily be derived from the formula:
(10^(pts/25) - 1) * Campaign starting wealth.
These values have been rounded to a convenient dollar amount.

Points for Cash TL/3
pts   $   pts   $   pts    $   pts    $   pts     $
 1  100    6  750    11 1750    16 3400    25    9K
 2  200    7  900    12 2000    17 3800    30   15K
 3  300    8 1050    13 2300    18 4250    35   24K
 4  450    9 1300    14 2650    19 4750    50  100K
 5  600   10 1500    15 3000    20 5300   100   10M

Signature Gear TL/3
pts   $   pts   $   pts    $   pts     $   pts     $
 1  200    6 1500    11 3500    16  6800    25   18K
 2  400    7 1800    12 4000    17  7600    30   30K
 3  600    8 2100    13 4600    18  8500    35   48K
 4  900    9 2600    14 5300    19  9500    50  200K
 5 1200   10 3000    15 6000    20 10300   100   20M

So, some possible character builds under this system at TL3:
John Plain has zero points in wealth. He starts with $200 in adventuring gear and Average Wealth. He has the necessary assets to work an ordinary job, and earns income in the game at the usual rate for regular working hours.

John Poor takes the Struggling disadvantage, but puts those 10 points into points for cash. He starts with $100 in adventuring gear and his points for cash give him another $750 (1500 * 0.5). He lacks the tools, memberships, or contacts to earn much at a job, but he has about four times as much adventuring gear as John Plain. This would work well as a typical adventurer's build.

Malachi Arundel is wealthy (20 points) and has a lot of stuff. He starts with $1000 in gear for his wealth and takes 5 points in points for cash which give him another $3000 ($600 * 5).

Corwin Bearclaw is an adventurer with standard wealth. He a fine thrusting broadsword worth $2400. This will cost him 9 points as signature gear.

[Brandy]

So, at TL 2 with starting wealth $750, $150 of which can go towards gear, you would need 12 points put towards points for cash under this house rule. That would give you an additional $750*(10^(12/25)-1)=$1515 to spend for a total budget of $1665. (11 points doesn't quite get you there).

For your players, you would want to make a table for TL2 like the one I made for TL 3 using the formula. Only one of my players is a math person but they all get the system and like having the ability to have a large budget for stuff without having to play a wealthy character.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Brandy

I posted this to the forums 11 years ago. It may suit you.

Thank you for posting this, this is the kind of rule I was hoping for. Not sure if I would use it exactly, but it is definitely the direction I was hoping for. I didn't respond to it sooner because I did not have time to interact with it.

Originally Posted by Brandy

My assumptions:

1) Trading points for cash at character creation should give more starting money than buying an equivalent amount of wealth, because wealth has ongoing benefits.
2) Trading points for cash should at least be comparable to signature gear, because signature gear has plot protection. Wealthy characters should benefit more from points for cash than average or poor ones.
3) Both signature gear and points for cash should be viable alternatives to high levels of wealth at any point level.

I agree with all of these assumptions. The only exception is that I am not sure extra cash for signature gear is the pest way to go. PK has a rule that signature gear is a perk that adds plot protection only on one item up to a certain amount. I like that idea.

Originally Posted by Brandy

Here's the basic idea:
1) Characters may *not* declare themselves to be "living an unsettled lifestyle" and get 100% of their starting wealth. (These character concepts can take a lower wealth level and trade points for cash at start-up). The 20% figure is absolute! The other 80% is what grants the ongoing benefits of wealth: increased earning at jobs, shorter working week, free status, and a higher wealth multiplier.

So what about an itinerant character who has the connections and status to earn his wealth level? Would the 80% go to things like wardrobe, servants, assistants, etc.? Hmm, I could see that make sense. A TL3 Knight Errant would have at least one page, a tent, probably a groom, some horses, etc. But then what separates this character from a landed status 2 knight? The itinerant one should have to pay higher cost of living (Basic says double to maintain status on the road), but what advantage does he get for spending the same points on the same wealth level, but without the advantage of a home base?

Originally Posted by Brandy

2) Points may be traded for cash at character creation. The amount of cash that a given number of points gives is based on the wealth formula(see below), which follows the same exponential progression that wealth itself does. Points for cash *are* modified by wealth level, and characters can buy both. Points for cash gives 100% of what the equivalent number of points gives in wealth.

3) Signature gear works just like points for cash, but it is not modified by wealth level. (Wealthy characters are better off paying points for cash than getting signature gear). Signature gear gives 200% of what the equivalent number of points gives in wealth, or twice what points for cash does. Each item of signature gear is a separate purchase.

...

So, some possible character builds under this system at TL3:
John Plain has zero points in wealth. He starts with $200 in adventuring gear and Average Wealth. He has the necessary assets to work an ordinary job, and earns income in the game at the usual rate for regular working hours.

John Poor takes the Struggling disadvantage, but puts those 10 points into points for cash. He starts with $100 in adventuring gear and his points for cash give him another $750 (1500 * 0.5). He lacks the tools, memberships, or contacts to earn much at a job, but he has about four times as much adventuring gear as John Plain. This would work well as a typical adventurer's build.

Malachi Arundel is wealthy (20 points) and has a lot of stuff. He starts with $1000 in gear for his wealth and takes 5 points in points for cash which give him another $3000 ($600 * 5).

Corwin Bearclaw is an adventurer with standard wealth. He a fine thrusting broadsword worth $2400. This will cost him 9 points as signature gear.

This makes sense, I like it. Good examples too, thank you!

Originally Posted by Brandy

So, at TL 2 with starting wealth $750, $150 of which can go towards gear, you would need 12 points put towards points for cash under this house rule. That would give you an additional $750*(10^(12/25)-1)=$1515 to spend for a total budget of $1665. (11 points doesn't quite get you there).

Thank you for working an example based on the specific issue I brought up, I appreciate it!

This is definitely a rule change I will consider!

[phayman53]

An alternative way of handling extra gear with no additional wealth finds its roots in the way ATE handles wealth. In ATE for every point of extra gear, you get half the starting wealth extra. That is nice and simple and linear, but it does not take into account the diminishing returns of losing character points. Another idea I had was to separate starting wealth from extra gear completely. So wealth level would give you your normal 20% of listed wealth, but each point of extra gear give you more total cash like this (basically, each point buys half of the next wealth level):

[Edit: this was supposed to be a table with two columns, Points in the first column, multiple of starting wealth in the second]
Points Multiple of TL starting Wealth
1 *0.5
2 *1.0
3 *1.5
4 *2.0
5 *3.5
6 *5.0
7 *12.5
8 *20
9 *40
8 *60
9 *80
10 *100
11 *280
12 *460
13 *640
14 *820
15 *1000
etc.

This extra starting wealth would not impact your earning power in any way, it just represents gear that can be used for adventuring that you have accumulated over and above what would normally be able to have.

So, the TL2 Camillan Hastatus from Loadouts: Low-Tech would have Average Wealth, and $150 from that to use towards his weapons, armor, and travelling kit. He could then pay 4 points to cover the rest of the gear he would need to outfit himself in basic Hastati kit, giving him $1650 to spend on weapons, armor, etc. Or, if he wanted the additional optional equipment, it would cost him 6 points to cover the almost $3300 he would need.

However, a TL3 Knight Errant Norman Milite would be status 2 and have wealth (wealthy) for $1000 in starting gear. However, he would also need, according to Loadouts: Low-Tech, $7,370 in armor, $120 for a shield, $600 for a thrusting broadsword, $40ish for a spear, etc. Plus, let's go with the $5000 for the heavy warhorse in Basic (though the size and stats on that aren't the greatest) for a total kit of about $14,000. This would mean he would have 20 points in Wealth, plus need an additional 7-8 points in gear to equip himself to the standard of a Norman Milite.

That seems reasonable to me. The advantage of this scheme is it is straight-forward to calculate. The disadvantage is that the points in gear get no help from wealth, so there is diminishing returns at high wealth levels for the fist few points spent.

Is this too generous? Too useless to characters with high wealth?

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Thank you for working an example based on the specific issue I brought up, I appreciate it!

This is definitely a rule change I will consider!

Thanks! I'm glad you found it interesting.

[hal]

Don't forget that weapons can be purchased as cheap weapons, thereby lowering their cost of procurement.

Also, you may want to use other game systems for their economics than GURPS. I use to use CHIVALRY & SORCERY before I finally settled upon HARN WORLD. These days, I use GURPS for the role-playing rules, and both HARN WORLD & HARN MANOR for prices and job incomes. HARN MANOR handles not only the income for Knights, but also that of landed mobility as well as incomes for peasants and Freeman farmers and/or craftsmen.

Yields for crops such as barley, oats, rye, wheat etc, are reasonably accurate as far as how many bushels of seed are required for planting per acre, as well as how much one can expect to harvest in a single growing season (per medieval England's timeperiod).

One benefit of HARN for me is that income for characters is tightly linked with how much land ANY character holds. From the general 15 acres for serfs (can be as little as 5 acres) to as many as 60 acres for a yeoman - to as many as 1200 to 2400 acres held by a knight, to as many as 30 knight's holdings for a Baron.

That's just me though. ;)

Also, if it helps? For tech levels greater than TL 3, I make cost of living equal 85% wage incomes for the given wealth levels. That GURPS used the same monthly cost of living across the the history of time strikes me as a bit unreasonable. ;)

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by phayman53

I both like and dislike the way the wealth rules work in GURPS.

I have tended to avoid getting into the details of a character's finances preferring to handwave it as "that seems like a reasonable purchase for someone of your resources". If I wanted to systematise it I'd go with rating purchases by wealth level and making a roll of 11- modified by a number based on how many levels of wealth difference there is between your wealth and the purchase with an additional modifier for how many non-minor purchases you'd made that month.

But of course that's so much more work than I'm prepared to on boring stuff without getting paid for it than I'm willing to do.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by phayman53

I both like and dislike the way the wealth rules work in GURPS. I like that it is somewhat abstract and tries to model something more than just "how much stuff you start with". That said, it definitely runs into problems, especially when paired with the realistic supplements like Low-Tech and Loadouts: Low-Tech. Basically, it becomes impossible to purchase realistic amounts of armor and weaponry that ancient common citizens would have without them also having unreasonable amounts of wealth. This is especially bad when using the optional realism 80%/20% rule that limits how much you can spend on adventuring equipment if you have a settled lifestyle.

One thing to remember is that "adventuring gear" doesn't mean "all gear that could possibly be used on an adventure". What it really means, I believe, is "discretionary gear" - that is, it's simply all the equipment that's not provided by your social status, that the character is free to choose more or less at will (subject to things like CR), and that they can resell, whether because it's easily transferable, or because selling it won't have a social cost.

For example, your Hastatus character could reasonably claim that their arms and armor should be provided as part of the 80% "settled living" cost. The limitations on this would be a) if they wanted something notably better (either in armor quality or styling), that wouldn't be covered, b) if they tried to sell it, they'd get a lot of social opprobrium heaped on them (a soldier selling the stuff that made him capable of fighting for Rome?! Scandalous!). Also, remember that different characters will have different things provided by their status. That Hastatus gets their arms and armor, but probably doesn't have a residence in Rome itself, whereas a Status -1 urban pleb doesn't get the weapons, but does get a flat as part of their 80%.