Status, wealth, rank, independent income - Page 4

Polaris · 05-26-2005, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by umbros

If I understand you correctly; when the character accumulates money equal to the starting wealth of the next highest wealth level he must buy that level?

That's always been my understanding. However, IMX it is frequently houseruled in "dungeon crawl" type adventures where the aquisition of loot is expected.

-Polaris

Fnord-Fnairlane · 05-26-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by umbros

If I understand you correctly; when the character accumulates money equal to the starting wealth of the next highest wealth level he must buy that level?

One of two things can happen:

(1) If the GM requires you to pay for advantages gained in play, then pay for the extra wealth or expect an in-game disaster of some sort that uses up some of his funds.

(2) The GM doesn't require you to pay for new advantages: Well done, you've scored some extra points by earning extra money. Hopefully the GM made the player do some work for the in-game bonus, and provided similar opportunities to the other players. You may or may not get to write extra levels of wealth on your character sheet, which may matter if you get a job. IE: you may have the cash, but not get a pay rise.

As discussed in another thread, if you're playing a "D&D style" fantasy game where huge piles of loot are sitting under soon-to-be-dead oversized lizards, don't let your PCs take wealth related advantages and disadvantages.

Kyle Aaron · 05-26-2005, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polaris

That's always been my understanding. However, IMX it is frequently houseruled in "dungeon crawl" type adventures where the aquisition of loot is expected.

What I've said in the past while running some games was this - you pay points for things that last, not for things that are here today and gone tomorrow. So if a character swigs down a Potion of Super Strength, he doesn't have to pay points for that extra strength, because it doesn't last.

Now, consider: in a dungeon-crawling party, does their wealth last? Nope. They spend it on parties and more adventuring gear, and they usually get a very poor return on their investment of time and effort.

I would also say, who cares about the wealth anyway. In what games is it important? Sure, it's important if you're Dead Broke, but is it important if you have four levels of Multimillionaire instead of three? You're adventurers!

That said, I'm curious about Independent Income and Debt. It costs 1pt for each 1% of your current Wealth. 1% of Filthy Rich is thus worth more than 1% of Comfortable. So really it acts as an enhancement or limitation to your Wealth, rather than a separate Advantage. It's an inconsistency in the system's approach, it seems to me. When an Advantage helps out or hinders another one, the 4e system calls it "enhancement" or "limitation."

As I said, I don't think it matters, really. Is anyone here playing GURPS Investment Bankers? But still, there's that little inconsistency, it seems to me. If we were playing a game in GURPS where wealth mattered a lot, I think I'd treat Independent Income and Debt as enhancements and limitations - just to make the approach consistent with the rest of the system. Say, a value of 5pts for each 1% of Wealth level. Dunno the exact numbers, I'd have to think about them.

Polaris · 05-26-2005, 08:42 PM

Jim-Bob,

I can see your point, but let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment (because I actually agree with you more or less). Isn't it true that if a character pays for a "Magic Sword of Super-Keeness", that sword will continue to help him for a very long time....and that such a weapon is out of the price range of characters with average wealth?

My point is that the counter-argument to that is this: If you use gold gained in play to pay money for advantages, then you should have to pay points for those advantages one way (increased wealth level) or the other (the raw advantage and/or signature gear....which I think is underpriced btw).

-Polaris

cmdicely · 05-26-2005, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

That said, I'm curious about Independent Income and Debt. It costs 1pt for each 1% of your current Wealth. 1% of Filthy Rich is thus worth more than 1% of Comfortable. So really it acts as an enhancement or limitation to your Wealth, rather than a separate Advantage. It's an inconsistency in the system's approach, it seems to me. When an Advantage helps out or hinders another one, the 4e system calls it "enhancement" or "limitation."

Actually, its more the other way around; if Wealth didn't have its primary effect, it would clearly be either an enhancement or limitation (depending on if it was above or below average) on Independent Income, since II's principal effect varies with the degree of wealth. But advantages like Claws depend on ST, too, for their principal effect -- when a trait depends on another for its effect, but the contributing traits principal effect is distinct from its effect on the influenced trait, GURPS doesn't make one an enhancement/limitation of the other, generally.

Kyle Aaron · 05-26-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polaris

I can see your point, but let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment (because I actually agree with you more or less). Isn't it true that if a character pays for a "Magic Sword of Super-Keeness", that sword will continue to help him for a very long time....and that such a weapon is out of the price range of characters with average wealth?

Certainly. But consider how adventures usually go. They stomp into the dungeon and slay the monsters, and come out with 20,000 GP of treasure each. They go to the inn and blow 5,000 GP each on having a party. Then it's off to the healer, and 5,000GP to get healed from their wounds of the dungeon. They go to a tailor and blow 5,000 GP on fine clothes. Those fine clothes will wear out because the idiots wear their silk shirts while hiking overland:D So that won't last. So now they're left with 5,000GP to spend on the Sword of Super Keenness.

Well, that sword's not in the local village, is it? So it's a hike to the city with Ye Olde Magickal Shoppe to get it, probably more adventuring on the way, and spending another 1,000GP or so in rations, servants, magical healing, etc. That leaves 4,000 GP for the Sword of Keenness. Will it be enough? Usually not.

That's what I meant by the thing of the wealth not lasting from a dungeon crawl. What's the GM going to make them pay for? The 20,000GP they found, or the 4,000 GP they managed to keep? If you make them pay for the whole lot, then you'll turn the game into GURPS Investment Banking. PCs will be reluctant to spend money, and will look for ways to increase it at minimum CP cost. Who wants to run that sort of game? Not me or anyone I know.

So you'd make them pay for the wealth they kept, which is a small fraction of what they originally found.

Of course, they could just find the Magical Pigsticker in the dungeon. But then there's the question of, did anyone else get any goodies? If they did, fine. If not, then they're selling the thing and splitting the wealth.

Okay, now they've got the sword. It can break in combat, or be stolen if the character gets knocked out. So, here the GM can say to the player, "okay, if you don't spend character points on keeping the thing, that's okay, but you may lose it some day. If you do spend CP on it, then you can be sure that, even if you lose it, you'll have some opportunity to get it back."

See, I don't view character points as like money - you spend them to get stuff. Character points are also things that influence how a story goes. So for example Enemy is a disadvantage, you get extra points because you're giving up some control over what happens to your character, giving it to the GM. Whereas having extra ST costs you points, because your character is more able, and you'll have more control over what happens in their life.

Similarly, if you pay points for the Magic Pigsticker, then you're saying, "I want this to be part of my character's story, to have it always help their life." So it'll hang around for a bit.

Like I said, you pay points for things that last. You don't get CP for taking hit points damage, because it doesn't last. Similarly, you shouldn't have to pay CP for finding treasure, except where that stuff will last, and stay with you.

So if someone has a Dead Broke character, even if they win the lottery, they'll blow it away. This sort of thing genuinely happens to people. You don't make a poor person rich simply by giving them money, they won't be able to handle it. They have to spend character points - time and effort - on learning how to handle it. Imagine the Dead Broke guy who works in dead-end jobs, saves his pennies and slowly works his way up the career ladder from the gutter, so he can have Average job and Wealth level. That's 25 points, or 20,000 hours of "work-study." That translates to 4 years of full-time work.

Now, anyone can talk their way into an Average job, sure. But will they keep it? The guy who spend the CP, that represents his making efforts towards it. The guy who didn't spend the CP, he didn't make efforts, and got fired after a few days or weeks.

So spending the CP means effort and time were spent - your character cared about that stuff. Because they cared and made an effort, they'll get to keep it. That doesn't mean that the Dead Broke guy can't find a dropped wallet with $500 in it, or that the Average guy can't be homeless for a couple of weeks after losing his job and wife one day. But each of them will eventually go back to their Dead Broke or Average level as before.

Quote:

My point is that the counter-argument to that is this: If you use gold gained in play to pay money for advantages, then you should have to pay points for those advantages one way (increased wealth level) or the other (the raw advantage and/or signature gear....which I think is underpriced btw).

On your general point there, I pretty much agree. I just think you have to distinguish between the things that'll last, and the things that won't. You pay CP for those that last.

Sig. Gear's a side-point which we've already dealt with in other threads. Ellie and Kromm get upset when we rehash old points, simply restating what we believe, so let's leave it there, mate. Either that, or at least start another thread for it!:D

Christian · 06-29-2005, 07:22 AM

OK, I'll add my question here:

What TL did you have in mind for the "generic cost of living" table.

An example for explanation:

A mayor of a TL 8 city Status 3 has to pay his COL. Lets assume he isn't paying from his salary (which he usually does) but instead uses his wealth. How much wealth lvl and independent income does he need to pay that $12.000?

At TL 8 he has $20.000*5 if he is wealthy (20 CP). He needs Independent Income for 12 CP to be able to pay his COL.

Now one of his ancestors a few hundreds of years ago was also kind of a mayor. Just at that TL 3 time he was called a knight. Status was 3 as well, as was his COL: $12.000.

Now how rich would that knight have to be: At TL 3 he has $1.000*100 if he is filthy rich (50 CP). He also needs Independent Income of 12 to be able to pay his COL.

So why the heck does the knight have to be 20 times as rich as his mayor counterpart, to get comparable luxury?

It would be very helpful to give guidelines how to design COl tables for different TL. A very easy way, assuming that the COL table was designed having TL 8 in mind would be as follows:

-2 Starting Wealth * 0.5%
-1 Starting Wealth * 1.5%
0 Starting Wealth * 3%
1 Starting Wealth * 6%
2 Starting Wealth * 15%
3 Starting Wealth * 60%
4 Starting Wealth * 3
5 Starting Wealth * 30
6 Starting Wealth * 300
7 Starting Wealth * 3.000
8 Starting Wealth * 30.000

This would allow the status 3 people of all ages to buy their COL with the same lvl of wealth.

CrownedSun · 06-29-2005, 07:53 AM

All that Independent Income means is "GM! Yo! I want $# each month, regardless, and there's nothing you can do otherwise."

I agree with you; any character can "invest" their money. This doesn't guarentee you, forever, an income however. The stock market might go against you, and you might loose what you invested. If you put a bunch of money into a 15 year bond, for instance, that's fine. 15 years later, in game, you'll have made a shitload of money with no problem. No independent income is required.

"Private Investor" probably //is// a job. It has a "freelance" level of monthly income, and a prerequisite skill of Finance. It DOES require time. Not a whole huge amount of time, but it's not just tossing money in and waiting for the huge return. "Playing" the stock market is one thing; trying to make a living off it is another thing entirely and can very easily follow the actual job rules (remember, Begger is provided as a "job" in Fantasy).

Anyone can employ a broker, of course, but that's another thing entirely. Honestly, having a good trustworthy broker who you can TRUST to make sure you get money every month probably IS one form of the Independent Income advantage. Similar to having an Ally or a contact, you have to pay a few points to get a "free" income.

If you just get a broker without paying the points, well, all kinds of things can happen in that case. Look around; there are all kinds of horror stories out there. You are correct that you can't //go broke//, but you can very easly lose your investment capital.

Anyway, "stocks" is not the only way to handle Independent Income. Though a lot of people will probably use that excuse. There can be pensions, a bit of social security (for someone with Struggling perhaps), large Welfare Checks from the government, Trust Funds, etc. Alex Abel, in Unknown Armies, probably has some independent income. He has so much money that just having money gets him more ;)

And one note; Wealth is NOT having a job. Wealth includes your house, your car, everything you own. A job is something separate, though your Wealth affects what kind of job you'll get and what you'll get paid. The two relate to each other, but are quite different. Having a job doesn't cost anything in terms of point value.

garfield · 06-29-2005, 07:59 AM

Quote: