Abstract Wealth Pyramid #3-44

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by CeeDub

Each level of Independent Income would reduce your workday by 5%, so for 20 points, you'd no longer have to work at all and can live entirely on your pension / royalties / investments.

......and what would determine those? People who simply have oodles of money already don't have to work. They can just live off their cash.

So to not need to work you have to have money and idealy a steady supply of the stuff.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

......and what would determine those? People who simply have oodles of money already don't have to work. They can just live off their cash.

So to not need to work you have to have money and ideally a steady supply of the stuff.

There is a big difference between having a high net worth and a large amount of capital. Local 'old money' in Europe often owns one big piece of property which is expensive to maintain or not very good at generating revenue. But its much easier to switch 10% of your portfolio to stocks than to reinvest the worth of one wing of your palazzo.

People on pensions or disability payments or allowances often have low net worth. These go back a long way: elderly peasants in the 13th century often signed over their land in exchange for being supported at a certain standard as long as they lived, and when Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries he was besieged by English people who had donated a lump sum to a monastery on the same terms. As I keep saying, Independent Income would be a better trait if it focused on situations like that (as whswhs originally intended) and did not try to simulate an investment portfolio.

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

As I keep saying, Independent Income would be a better trait if it focused on situations like that (as whswhs originally intended) and did not try to simulate an investment portfolio.

But it doesn't try to simulate that? It simulates having an income that you don't need to work for, nothing more, nothing less. Beyond that, you can apply any flavor you want.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

There is a big difference between having a high net worth and a large amount of capital.

That's not relevant to anything i wrote.

CeeDub was having people pay 20pts for not needing to work. Money is what makes it possible not to work but he said nothing about getting money for those 20pts.It all needs explaining.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

CeeDub was having people pay 20pts for not needing to work. Money is what makes it possible not to work but he said nothing about getting money for those 20pts.It all needs explaining.

To be fair, with Abstract Wealth all the money is behind the scenes. To avoid penalties to your "credit rolls," you would normally need to work 40 hours a week (I assume the article has relevant rules here, but I haven't read it for a while). With CeeDub's suggestion for Independent Income, each level reduces that amount by 2 hours; beyond that, you simply use the system as is. Yes, storywise in both cases you're getting money deposited into your account on a regular basis (wages/salary for your job, dividends/tribute/royalties/whatever for your II), but that's all in the background when using Abstract Wealth.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by TerryW

Cash on hand in an abstract system can be handled in two different ways, depending on how the group wants to handle it. Either having a pool of cash gives you a bonus to your rolls to make major purchases, or you use cash to make the purchase instead of draining the resources that fuel your lifestyle. In either case, once you've used up the cash (whether it was a reward, loot, or bribe, or whatever) it's gone and you're back to using your lifestyle resources (abstract wealth).

I've been thinking about using Abstract Wealth for a gift economy, and using a conventional price list system (but without currency, i.e. barter) for when you're away from home and dealing with people who have no reason to trust you. Before setting out, you could ask your personal network for tradable items, on the expectation that when you come back you'll share the proceeds of your venture.

Apparently that was the norm for much of human history: gifting within communities, and barter among people who had no ongoing connection. Local barter markets seem to be mostly associated with cultures already used to cash suddenly having none, such as during the collapse of empires.

[TerryW]

Originally Posted by RyanW

I've been thinking about using Abstract Wealth for a gift economy, and using a conventional price list system (but without currency, i.e. barter) for when you're away from home and dealing with people who have no reason to trust you.

That sounds like a good approach to it. It also seems like something that could be adapted for a space campaign. Abstract wealth for when you're in your home economy, or have access to its credit network, but barter when you're in areas where SpaceVisa and Masterstarcard don't reach.

For it's post-apocalyptic setting, d20 Modern used a variation of its abstract wealth rules where your wealth score reflected trade objects on hand: Batteries, spare medical supplies, and other bits and bobbles. It seems like a functional idea, but I never played in that setting so I don't know how well it might have worked in practice.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Varyon

To be fair, with Abstract Wealth all the money is behind the scenes. .

.....and what determines how _well_ you live? Is it 20pts to cover your CoL regardless of what your Status is? That doesn't seem fair to lower Status people.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

.....and what determines how _well_ you live? Is it 20pts to cover your CoL regardless of what your Status is? That doesn't seem fair to lower Status people.

Up to the GM, but I'd say you live as well as your Wealth will allow. In theory, a mismatch between Wealth and Status would mean either a bonus (if Status is lower) or penalty (if Status is higher) to your "credit check" rolls, but in practice I'd imagine Abstract Wealth ignores that complication. I'd have to check the article to be certain, of course.
And that [20] - [10] under my suggestion - doesn't just cover CoL, it supplies the full wages of a typical job at your Wealth level (which under normal GURPS rules is CoL + 10% Starting Wealth per month).

[CeeDub]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

CeeDub was having people pay 20pts for not needing to work.

Not quite. Varyon very correctly pointed out that if (big if) we assume that II reduces the amount of time you need to spend at your job, 20 points for no work at all is overpriced, because Does Not Sleep does more for less*: You get 8x7=56 hours per week for 20 points. At 2.8 hours per point, 15 points would then give you 42 extra hours, so just about one work week. 20 points may be justified if you want to include getting ready and commuting, and/or are very industrious and pull lots of overtime, or are self-employed. That might add up to a 56 hour work week. GM's call.

*Sorry, didn't have my books and got the point cost wrong. Resulting maths should be fixed now.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Money is what makes it possible not to work but he said nothing about getting money for those 20pts.It all needs explaining.

Also not quite. Money you don't need to work for is what makes it possible not to work. GURPS assumes that you work, in whatever capacity, to earn your CoL. That could be through monthly job rolls, or going on adventures and bringing home the loot. To give you the option of getting around that is why the Independent Income advantage exists in the first place.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

.....and what determines how _well_ you live? Is it 20pts to cover your CoL regardless of what your Status is? That doesn't seem fair to lower Status people.

Well, your Status does. How much Wealth you need to cover your Status would need additional rules, or just eyeballing by the GM. The Wealth levels have useful, if short and vague, descriptions. Abstract Wealth already has rules for living below your means. Living above your means is either just not feasible, at least not without acquiring some disadvantages (e.g. Debt, Enemy), or needs more rules.

The point cost being equal regardless of Status and Wealth does seem quite fair to me, because you're not buying assets or cash with your points, you're buying time, and a king has the same number of hours in a day as any pauper.