Status & Wealth - Nobility

[Phil C.]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Knight A, looks to be a commoner. A well educated perhaps commoner...but a commoner nonetheless. [...] The Baron could very easily strip him of his holdings. He would still be a Knight, but unlanded...and probably the shame of losing all that Wealth would be enough to justify putting him back down to Status 1.

But according to Status 1, he would no longer be a knight. Not even an unlanded knight. This is the inherit problem I'm finding with making someone's Status the combination of both social class and wealth in this particular setting. I realize Status and Wealth aren't easily separated.

Are you guys suggesting when a Filthy Rich baron becomes Comfortable for some reason, that I adjust his Status level so that his resulting Status is still 3? That would make sense, I suppose.

Originally Posted by trooper6

Knight B is the traditional route. He was born into Status 2. So he was gentry, he became a squire and then a Knight. Then he went beyond that got more wealth which he used to get the holdings...now he's landed. If he lost his level of wealth...considering that his wealth is tied up in his holdings, he might just lose his holdings...and goes back to being an unlanded knight. Or his holdings are still there, but worthless and generating less income than they should...or they are occupied by Orcs, or whatever...so he's functionally Status 2. People probably still respect him and invite him to parties, depending on how that wealth is lost.

Functionally status 2? What does that mean?

Originally Posted by trooper6

Knight C...well, this guy was born into Status 3, but has not enough money to sustain it. Looks to me like this person was the second son of a Count or some noble. Knight C may have earned his knighthood...or may have just gotten it as a favor to his father. And this Knight...well, clearly is not good with money. He's probably wracking up debt like no tomorrow. His credit is terrible, he owes everybody money. Maybe his holdings aren't even doing so well. He might overtax his subjects to fund his gambling habit...or undertax his subjects. Either way, he's not doing something proper...however he will probably not get called on it because he is of so high status by birth.

But what if Knight C gains higher Wealth? Are we dropping his Status level down so his Wealth bonus still equates to Status 3.

Originally Posted by trooper6

The relationship between Status and Wealth and Connections and Reputation, and all that stuff allows you to make truly customizable characters.

I need to understand how the relationship between Wealth and Status change, though. Important - I think a Wealth bonus would be better applied to reaction rolls, and not the Status level. I think Wealth and Status are already appropriately linked by requiring characters to pay for their Cost of Living (based on Status) with their job income (based on Wealth). There's no need to tie the two together with a Wealth bonus to Status. Effectively, all we want to happen is for Wealth to be considered in social interactions -- reaction rolls. This would still allow for the same dynamic and flexibility you mentioned, but wouldn't alter what (I think) should be an independent value.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Phil C.

But according to Status 1, he would no longer be a knight. Not even an unlanded knight. This is the inherit problem I'm finding with making someone's Status the combination of both social class and wealth in this particular setting. I realize Status and Wealth aren't easily separated.

Are you guys suggesting when a Filthy Rich baron becomes Comfortable for some reason, that I adjust his Status level so that his resulting Status is still 3? That would make sense, I suppose.

Only if it makes sense that a massive loss of Wealth did not simultaneously lower your Status in the first place. But rare as actually losing Wealth really is, losing Wealth without in fact losing some Status is still far rarer. Status is after all, the more fragile of the two denominators.

[Phil C.]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Not actually. If you fail to pay cost of living, your Status slips. See p. B265. In essence, if I'm Status 2 but can only afford to pay for Status 0, I'm treated as Status 0 because I'm not meeting my obligations. In the feudal case, this means I failed to pass suitable taxes up the chain and provide suitably equipped troops (or failed to show up, suitably equipped, as troops, if I'm a lone knight).

So, we do have a sort of "raw" (or base) Status and "effective" Status.

B265:
The GM may also reduce your effective Status to the level you’re supporting in any situation where your reduced circumstances would cause a negative reaction; e.g., at a “society” function or when meeting strangers who do not recognize your face. Living above your Status costs more, but gives you a more comfortable lifestyle. It might even let you pose as someone of higher Status.

If someone is treated as a Status 0, that doesn't mean they are actually Status 0 -- because they still may be nobility. Right? This is just their "adjusted" Status.

So someone may be Status 3 (landed knight) with +1 from Very Wealthy (appropriate for Status 3, cost of living, etc.), and would have an effective Status of 4. This follows the same logic as a Status 2 character being treated as Status 0, due to a loss in Wealth.

We aren't changing their raw/base Status, we're only changing the "effective" Status, due to Wealth.

So, my argument is that Status doesn't need to be adjusted so that the final Status balances with Wealth to equal the appropriate social class -- as suggested by earlier posts. Instead, Status is an independent variable -- related to and modified by Wealth -- resulting in an "effective Status" for the purposes of reaction rolls.

To simplify this confusing relationship, the bonus from Wealth should apply to reaction rolls in appropriate situations. Instead of having to define raw/base Status and effective Status.

[Kromm]

No, you're missing the point. The intent of the game design is that the +1 or +2 to Status from Wealth is actual base Status. It isn't an "effective Status" modifier at all. Capital-W Wealth changes your Status. Small-w wealth – including what you can afford to pay as cost of living – affects only effective Status. You seem to be confusing Wealth with wealth. Wealth is a highly complex, abstract social advantage that encompasses about as much as IQ does, including but not limited to starting money, job qualifications, social connections, credit rating, land, and a hidden economic parallel to Status.

[Phil C.]

Likewise -- if a Status 0 adventurer comes into a crap-ton of money, I would feel comfortable giving him increased Wealth, as it doesn't change his actual Status, just his effective Status as it relates to social contexts.

Which may be a different interpretation of Wealth.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Phil C.

Likewise -- if a Status 0 adventurer comes into a crap-ton of money, I would feel comfortable giving him increased Wealth, as it doesn't change his actual Status, just his effective Status as it relates to social contexts.

Which may be a different interpretation of Wealth.

Yeah, that's a different take than the game uses. If you win the lottery tomorrow, your Wealth does not change by default. That's just the spoils of war, the way the cookie crumbles, etc. It's no different from making a friend in play, which doesn't require Ally, or finding a magic sword, which doesn't grant you Signature Gear or a gadget built as advantages. Your Wealth only changes if you specifically invest the required capital – taking it out of play – to buy, bribe, and insure your way to a social position where future changes in fortune won't alter the respect and credit accorded to you. This is the big difference between somebody who keeps their winnings as liquid assets and uses them for trips, cars, and homes, and somebody who invests their winnings in nonliquid assets that will continue to make them money in the future. The former only requires cash; the latter also calls for points, which represent the work done to build networks.

[Phil C.]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Wealth is a highly complex, abstract social advantage that encompasses about as much as IQ does, including but not limited to starting money, job qualifications, social connections, credit rating, land, and a hidden economic parallel to Status.

I'm starting to understand your point. It's a little too nebulous for my tastes, I think. Feels like a terribly artificial mechanism, and more than a little awkward to define and/or use.

If you could articulate the following senario in terms the rules, I would be grateful.

An unlanded knight (Status 2)-- is Very Wealthy (+1), due to some business investments, connections, and all the other factors you say might make-up Wealth. This means that he bought Status 1, and his +1 from Wealth makes him Status 2 -- so that he specifically equals Status 2, as an unlanded knight.

What if bad things happen to the unlanded knight, and his business investments go belly up, and he loses face among some of his connections, etc. He goes from Very Wealthy, to Comfortable -- losing his +1 bonus from Wealth. Without the bonus, his Status is 1. Is he now a Status 1 unlanded knight? Or do we increase his bought Status to 2, so he's still the appropriate Status for his social class? Please explain.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Phil C.

What if bad things happen to the unlanded knight, and his business investments go belly up, and he loses face among some of his connections, etc. .

You just said that he lost Status.

[Phil C.]

Originally Posted by Kromm

If you win the lottery tomorrow, your Wealth does not change by default. That's just the spoils of war, the way the cookie crumbles, etc. It's no different from making a friend in play, which doesn't require Ally, or finding a magic sword, which doesn't grant you Signature Gear or a gadget built as advantages. Your Wealth only changes if you specifically invest the required capital

Perhaps, but consider the following...

B291:
The GM may rule that you have suddenly acquired a new trait – most
often an advantage or a disadvantage – as a consequence of events in the
game: social interaction, combat, divine intervention, etc. This has nothing
to do with bonus points!
When you acquire an advantage this way, write it on your character
sheet and increase your point total by the value of the advantage. You do
not have to pay for it with bonus points. For instance, if the GM rewards
you with a 10-point Patron after you save the life of a powerful duke,
your point value goes up by 10 points and the game goes on.
The GM may allow you to refuse such an advantage if your character
could refuse it in the game world. You could refuse wealth, but if the
gods granted you Magery, you wouldn’t have much say in the matter! If
you refuse an advantage, you do not get equivalent bonus points to
spend on other things.
Similarly, when you acquire a disadvantage this way, just write it
down and lower your point value accordingly. You do not get any extra
points for it – that’s just the breaks of the game! For instance, if you lose
an arm in battle, add One Arm [-20] and reduce your point value by 20
points; you do not get 20 points of new abilities to compensate.

So, I would simply adjust their point level, and give them the new advantage/disadvantage as they gain or lose wealth. Though, not immediately. If they earn a crap-ton of treasure, and invest it and such, and not just spend it all away -- then I would increase their Wealth.

If some Average Wealth PCs got 50,000 silver, for example, and bought a big ship (an asset), I'd go ahead and bump them up in Wealth to reflect that new level -- and just adjust their point total. If the ship gets destroyed, and they've got no other wealth (lowercase-w) (liquid or asset) to show for it, then I'm going to drop their Wealth level and adjust the point total.

And if their Very Wealthy, because they own a big expensive ship, then I would use their effective Status of 1, instead of 0, when their ownership of the sea vessel is apparent in their social interactions. Despite their effective Status due to Wealth, they are still only commoners (Status 0).

[Phil C.]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

You just said that he lost Status.

Not if Status is a "formal measurement of social class", as in a feudal setting. Loss of his business connections, etc., would be a reflection of his Wealth. According to Kromm's assertions.