Independent Income at later TL stages

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Rupert

And yet if you take Wealth in chargen it gives you money, but in game you have to get money and character points to gain Wealth. The same goes for Signature Gear and Reputation. II is, like all these, a social trait, so why is it different?

Youi just have to "have" the money to buy Wealth. You don't have to forfeit it. To my knowledge you don't have to spend money at all to get Signature Gear and the only connection between money and Reputation is maybe for "Reputation:Has a lot of money".

Your Reputation doesn't actually have to be true either. It's about what others _believe_.

Then there are many Social Traits that don't require money at all. At least not in our world and those like it. There were times in the bad ol' days where you could buy Rank. That often devolved into Courtesy Rank though.

So there is no general principle that Social Traits require $ to acquire.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

The merchant living above his station is Very Wealthy and Status 0, living at Status 3, and so his Cost of Living is $12,000/month.

Ah I see. But there is also Merchant Rank. Odds are this merchant is Rank 2-4 which adds another +1 to Status. So he has +1 for Very Wealthy and +1 for Rank 2-4.

Merchant is Status 1. His Very Wealthy gets a +1 and he likely has another +1 for rank Rank 2-4 for a base Status of 3. Social Stigma -3 (one of merchant class) to get the proper reputation. Result:

TL 4 [0]; Merchant (base Status 1) [0], Wealth (Very Wealthy) [20] (+1 to Status), Merchant Rank 2-4 [5] (+1 to Status), Social Stigma -3 (one of merchant class; all the time) [-7].

You had the right idea but used a wrong way to get there.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Youi just have to "have" the money to buy Wealth. You don't have to forfeit it. To my knowledge you don't have to spend money at all to get Signature Gear and the only connection between money and Reputation is maybe for "Reputation:Has a lot of money".

Your Reputation doesn't actually have to be true either. It's about what others _believe_.

Then there are many Social Traits that don't require money at all. At least not in our world and those like it. There were times in the bad ol' days where you could buy Rank. That often devolved into Courtesy Rank though.

So there is no general principle that Social Traits require $ to acquire.

My point was that you have to get the requisite item in play for all of those. II is a social trait like them, so it follows that you have to earn/pay for it in-game as well as with points. You can't just slap the points down and walk away with your new maintenance -free monthly income.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by maximara

Ah I see. But there is also Merchant Rank. Odds are this merchant is Rank 2-4 which adds another +1 to Status.
You had the right idea but used a wrong way to get there.

I did not. Merchant Rank is relevant in societies with some kind of merchant's guild, where being a high-ranking member is statusful. The character I was illustrating was specifically to be a merchant who was rich enough to put on the airs of Status without having Status. It is not a society with a Social Stigma against merchants. Your rewrite misses the point.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Youi just have to "have" the money to buy Wealth. You don't have to forfeit it. To my knowledge you don't have to spend money at all to get Signature Gear and the only connection between money and Reputation is maybe for "Reputation:Has a lot of money".

Your Reputation doesn't actually have to be true either. It's about what others _believe_.

Then there are many Social Traits that don't require money at all. At least not in our world and those like it. There were times in the bad ol' days where you could buy Rank. That often devolved into Courtesy Rank though.

So there is no general principle that Social Traits require $ to acquire.

It's not an issue of needing to specifically spend money to acquire social traits in play, it's an issue of needing to do something to acquire social traits in play. If you want to gain an Ally, you need to go through the effort of befriending an existing NPC. If you want to gain Wealth, you need to go through the effort of accumulating the requisite amount of cash (and if going for a settled lifestyle, one would expect you'd need to spend 80% of it to upgrade from having assets appropriate for your old Wealth level to assets appropriate for you new one). If you want go gain Reputation, you need to perform the deeds that would generate such and possibly (depending on situation) make an effort to spread word of them (or just make up a convincing story and spread word of it, if you want a false Reputation).

Now we come to Independent Income. As a social trait, you need to do something to acquire it. The obvious answer is that you need to invest some of your money, and that's where the issue comes up - the GM needs to decide how much the character needs to invest to gain the right to purchase II, but if any of the players have any sense of economics it's likely any amount other than a substantial sum will risk breaking their sense of immersion. You can correct this by decoupling the purchase of Independent Income from the general requirements for gaining social traits in play - the character gets a sudden windfall and opts to invest rather than spend it, a secret admirer starts sending monetary gifts regularly, etc. At that point, however, I don't see why you couldn't do the same for other social traits. Purchasing an Ally simply results in a new person showing up and being super friendly with that particular character (in whatever manner and for whatever reason the player and GM work out - maybe it's an old friend who's been trying to track the PC down, maybe it's someone the party comes across being bullied and the PC stands up for them, maybe they just "click" with each other after literally running into each other in front of Leene's Bell, whatever). Spending points to increase one's Wealth level results in a similar windfall of cash as the "investment" option of II. Simply paying for a Reputation results in people spreading the word and you becoming generally known for it. That's really not a bad way to handle things, but probably inappropriate for a campaign where Impulse Buys and the like aren't available.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Now we come to Independent Income. As a social trait, you need to do something to acquire it. The obvious answer is that you need to invest some of your money, and that's where the issue comes up

Or you need to lose your job and apply for welfare. Or you need to turn 62 and start collecting Social Security. Or the GM revealed in the last adventure that you're actually the long-lost cousin of the Prince of Fooland, and you convince him to send you a royal allowance. Or you're a street thug who starts a protection racket. Or you invented a useful gadget and now you're collecting royalties on it. Or you buy a house and rent it out. Or you're a child who's been living at home, and now you leave home and your parents give you an allowance. Or any number of other things that aren't investing your money in financial markets.

Independent Income doesn't represent investments. Independent Income represents cash you get each month that doesn't come from a job (with prerequisites and a job roll). You can justify it any way the GM agrees to.

You can correct this by decoupling the purchase of Independent Income from the general requirements for gaining social traits in play - the character gets a sudden windfall and opts to invest rather than spend it, a secret admirer starts sending monetary gifts regularly, etc. At that point, however, I don't see why you couldn't do the same for other social traits. Purchasing an Ally simply results in a new person showing up and being super friendly

You have the cause and effect relationship backward. You propose a justification, and if the GM agrees to the justification, you can take the trait. It's not that taking Independent Income results in your acquiring a secret admirer or an investment portfolio; you can't take a trait and them demand that the GM come up with a way to fulfill it. You have to bring a convincing reason to the GM, and if you can do that, then you can put the points into the trait. If you can't convince the GM, you can't have the trait.

That, at least, is the main thrust of chapter 9 of the Basic Set. Different categories of traits have different requirements. Attributes and secondary characteristics may be improved with bonus character points at your discretion. "To improve social traits, you need an in-play justification in addition to the expenditure of sufficient points." "Most mental and physical advantages are inborn; you cannot buy them after character creation." Buying off disadvantages "generally requires a game-world justification in addition to the point expenditure." "You can only spend character points to improve skills or techniques that, in the GM's opinion, saw significant use in the adventure during which you earned the points."

I have a feeling that old hands at GURPS don't pay close attention to what is said in chapter 9. It is surprisingly specific and helpful.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Or you need to lose your job and apply for welfare. Or you need to turn 62 and start collecting Social Security. Or the GM revealed in the last adventure that you're actually the long-lost cousin of the Prince of Fooland, and you convince him to send you a royal allowance. Or you're a street thug who starts a protection racket. Or you invented a useful gadget and now you're collecting royalties on it. Or you buy a house and rent it out. Or you're a child who's been living at home, and now you leave home and your parents give you an allowance. Or any number of other things that aren't investing your money in financial markets.

And not a one of these is appropriate for the character in my campaign that wants II. However, he does have a wad of spare cash.

Independent Income doesn't represent investments. Independent Income represents cash you get each month that doesn't come from a job (with prerequisites and a job roll). You can justify it any way the GM agrees to.

It need not represent investments. That doesn't mean it cannot. In fact, the first example given in the II description is "stock portfolio".

You have the cause and effect relationship backward. You propose a justification, and if the GM agrees to the justification, you can take the trait. It's not that taking Independent Income results in your acquiring a secret admirer or an investment portfolio; you can't take a trait and them demand that the GM come up with a way to fulfill it. You have to bring a convincing reason to the GM, and if you can do that, then you can put the points into the trait. If you can't convince the GM, you can't have the trait.

That, at least, is the main thrust of chapter 9 of the Basic Set. Different categories of traits have different requirements. Attributes and secondary characteristics may be improved with bonus character points at your discretion. "To improve social traits, you need an in-play justification in addition to the expenditure of sufficient points." "Most mental and physical advantages are inborn; you cannot buy them after character creation." Buying off disadvantages "generally requires a game-world justification in addition to the point expenditure." "You can only spend character points to improve skills or techniques that, in the GM's opinion, saw significant use in the adventure during which you earned the points."

I have a feeling that old hands at GURPS don't pay close attention to what is said in chapter 9. It is surprisingly specific and helpful.

Oddly, I did read it, and I do understand it. The player has a justification for II - "My character wants to gain an Independent Income, and will invest money to gain it along with the points, which he has available right now. How much of his cash do I need to invest to get an II?"

The rules give no guidance at all.

By the way, for some added weirdness, consider what you get for a point of II vs what you get for each point spent using the rules in "Trading Points for Money" (B26). As soon as you're Very Wealthy, II's monthly return is higher than the one-time return from trading points. If it's not a one-shot, or a recreation of 24, II is a far better investment, and the richer you are, the better it gets.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Or you need to lose your job and apply for welfare. Or you need to turn 62 and start collecting Social Security. Or the GM revealed in the last adventure that you're actually the long-lost cousin of the Prince of Fooland, and you convince him to send you a royal allowance. Or you're a street thug who starts a protection racket. Or you invented a useful gadget and now you're collecting royalties on it. Or you buy a house and rent it out. Or you're a child who's been living at home, and now you leave home and your parents give you an allowance. Or any number of other things that aren't investing your money in financial markets.

Independent Income doesn't represent investments. Independent Income represents cash you get each month that doesn't come from a job (with prerequisites and a job roll). You can justify it any way the GM agrees to.

Do you agree that II is meant to be able to represent investments? Certainly, it can represent other things, but the issue comes into play specifically if the character is trying to do investments.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

You have the cause and effect relationship backward.

I never said the onus was on the GM to explain the acquisition of the trait in cases where it modifies the game world (such as creating a new NPC, causing the character to gain a windfall, etc). Indeed, my Ally suggestion mentioned the GM and player working together to work out how the Ally enters the campaign.

What I'm talking about is the interpretation - supported by official GURPS writers IIRC - that acquisition of social traits requires you to have done something to justify it during gameplay. You don't create a new NPC (with appropriate tie-in explanation for the character's arrival) to be your Ally like you would during character creation - you take one of the NPC's you've already met and are on friendly terms with and see if the GM will let you take them as an Ally (and this may require you to get on friendlier terms than you currently are, depending on which NPC you want as an Ally - that mercenary you've hired a few times is probably easier to get as an Ally than the Princess you just completed a quest for, even if the latter actually costs fewer character points), then spend the points. You don't dictate you get a sudden inheritance from a never-before-seen wealthy uncle so you can upgrade from Comfortable to Wealthy - you actually acquire the necessary wealth during play, from saving up, doing quests, etc, then spend the points.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

I did not. Merchant Rank is relevant in societies with some kind of merchant's guild, where being a high-ranking member is statusful. The character I was illustrating was specifically to be a merchant who was rich enough to put on the airs of Status without having Status. It is not a society with a Social Stigma against merchants. Your rewrite misses the point.

The base premise was "the merchant in a society where merchants are looked down on"

Going from only that a better fit is

Status 1 base (Merchant) with social stigma (belongs to merchant class) for net Social Status 0 while maintaining the Cost of Living of Status 1.

The TL and higher wealth level are just window dressing to the above core. Remember, keep it as simple as possible.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Rupert

And not a one of these is appropriate for the character in my campaign that wants II. However, he does have a wad of spare cash.

If the only kind of income appropriate in your campaign is from investments, then that's on you, not the game rules.

It need not represent investments. That doesn't mean it cannot. In fact, the first example given in the II description is "stock portfolio".

Originally Posted by Varyon

Do you agree that II is meant to be able to represent investments? Certainly, it can represent other things, but the issue comes into play specifically if the character is trying to do investments.

You are both misreading what I said. "Independent Income doesn't represent investments. Independent Income represents cash you get each month that doesn't come from a job." That includes investments, but since investments are only one possible source of Independent Income, it follows that the game does not need to give you rules for every possible kind of justification for Independent Income that you can imagine.

GURPS doesn't tell me how long it takes me on the computer or at an office to secure a welfare check. It doesn't tell me how much allowance my family is obliged to give me if I leave home (though GURPS Worminghall has some advice for attendees of its school of magic). It doesn't tell me how to get my house up to code to rent it out, or how to work with a real estate agency to find renters.

And it also doesn't tell me how to invest money or how much I need to invest.

This is not a failure of GURPS to provide rules. This is Beyond The Scope Of The Rules. The sole purpose of Independent Income is to give you extra cash each month. Where that cash comes from and what you had to do to get it, aside from "you didn't have to have a job to get it," is completely up to you. As it should be.

Oddly, I did read it, and I do understand it. The player has a justification for II - "My character wants to gain an Independent Income, and will invest money to gain it along with the points, which he has available right now. How much of his cash do I need to invest to get an II?"

The rules give no guidance at all.

Because GURPS is not a financial simulator. "If your income derives from investments, you need not specify their value; this trait assumes that you cannot or will not invade your capital." That's the guidance. The rules are telling you, "Don't worry about actual finances; just take the money it gives you."

If you want GURPS to be a financial simulator, write the supplement.

By the way, for some added weirdness, consider what you get for a point of II vs what you get for each point spent using the rules in "Trading Points for Money" (B26).

Why would I compare these? Independent Income is unlimited monthly income scaled to my Wealth; Trading Points for Money is a one-time windfall scaled to the campaign setting. These two things have nothing to do with each other other than the fact that they deal with cash.

As soon as you're Very Wealthy, II's monthly return is higher than the one-time return from trading points. If it's not a one-shot, or a recreation of 24, II is a far better investment, and the richer you are, the better it gets.

So? When you're richer, you can afford to invest more. When you're richer, your parents give you a bigger allowance. Independent Income is a part of your character; Trading Points for Money isn't.

What I'm talking about is the interpretation - supported by official GURPS writers IIRC - that acquisition of social traits requires you to have done something to justify it during gameplay. You don't create a new NPC (with appropriate tie-in explanation for the character's arrival) to be your Ally like you would during character creation - you take one of the NPC's you've already met and are on friendly terms with and see if the GM will let you take them as an Ally (and this may require you to get on friendlier terms than you currently are, depending on which NPC you want as an Ally - that mercenary you've hired a few times is probably easier to get as an Ally than the Princess you just completed a quest for, even if the latter actually costs fewer character points), then spend the points. You don't dictate you get a sudden inheritance from a never-before-seen wealthy uncle so you can upgrade from Comfortable to Wealthy - you actually acquire the necessary wealth during play, from saving up, doing quests, etc, then spend the points.

Where did I say anything not about finding the justification during game-play? I specifically mentioned an uncle that you learned about on the last adventure. And I didn't say you could raise your Wealth from meeting him; I suggested an Independent Income. I was very careful to make everything come from game-play, not from a whim of the player. You have misread me.