Wealth > Status Pyramid Article

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

GURPS does assume a 'heroic' average. Many traits from what I can tell can be decreased by 1 for a 'baseline regular person'; 9 on all attributes and Status -1 with Struggling Wealth. I'm not sure how much that affects your numbers, but it tends to line up for me.

The wealth levels, as we've just discussed, are on the low side, and ability scores other than ST don't have good enough benchmarks to know what is realistic, but in general it's "young adult fit for military service", so average 20-30 year old.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by bocephus

In a TL3-4 game thats $1000-$2000 per 10pts and again a full suit of armor with light war horse, sword, pack horse, finery, living expenses, etc easily $4000 even with my 50% starting equipment discount (house rule)... your Itinerant Knight is not ahead of your Scout who got lots of skills for survival or the mage that spent that on Magery 3 and a few spells. The Knight has nice gear but he's pretty much a 1 trick pony. He can fight, pack, ride and care for his horses, he MUST maintain clothing etc appropriate to his status (paid in points).

This knight doesn't sound like a Status 0 character. Two horses and a full kit of awesome sounds roughly like Status 2.

Originally Posted by Anthony

The wealth levels, as we've just discussed, are on the low side, and ability scores other than ST don't have good enough benchmarks to know what is realistic, but in general it's "young adult fit for military service", so average 20-30 year old.

Maybe I missed something, which direction are they on the low side?

Originally Posted by Anthony

My favorite number, though: the median net worth of owners was $228,200. The median net worth of renters was $2,523.

This makes it sound like the Status difference between the two is pretty big. In fact it's almost the difference between Poor and Very Wealthy (x100 difference) or Status -2 and 3. Neat. Mind, I'm not sure 'net worth' translates to Wealth, but just something I noticed.

[Balor Patch]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

This makes it sound like the Status difference between the two is pretty big. In fact it's almost the difference between Poor and Very Wealthy (x100 difference) or Status -2 and 3. Neat. Mind, I'm not sure 'net worth' translates to Wealth, but just something I noticed.

The social difference is probably flattened by the expectation that many of those renters will be owners later in life.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

The social difference is probably flattened by the expectation that many of those renters will be owners later in life.

In theory, yes, but in practice the wealthy do still treat the poor differently, if just less upfront about it and less derisively than in the past; For instance, a Status 3 person might still see a Status -2 or -1 as an equal and a person nowadays except when it comes to societal matters like money, job, being rich enough to understand being a connoisseur, etc. That's even true for the difference between 0 and 1.

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

FWIW In the U.S. as of 2018:

Average mortgage balance: $148,0602
Average new mortgage balance: $260,3863

This suggests that the average mortgage borrower has paid off substantially more than the 10% suggested in your estimate.

Quote directly from B266 What cost of living gets you. A TL8 example.

Status 0: A house (heavily mortgaged) or large apartment, and a car.

Regardless of any RL statistics the, game even defines status0 as heavily mortgaged, and I continue to find that keeping in the RAW general guidlines it really does play out fine.

My interpretation of the current state of "suburbia" (which is a specific segment of house ownership) really isnt the issue that should be focused on.

If they are not heavily leveraged then they do not meet the written definition of Status0. The Suburb setting being imagined might be mostly Status1-2, but the wealth numbers still work RAW.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

Maybe I missed something, which direction are they on the low side?

Median net worth and median income are both higher than GURPS 'average' wealth.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Median net worth and median income are both higher than GURPS 'average' wealth.

Ah, that's what you meant, yes. Well, that tells me one of the following;

A) GURPS money isn't based on probably any setting. If all numbers in GURPS are lower than they should be, then they simply can be multiplied by X to get them to the setting (in this case IRL) costs.
B) Inflation is bigger than expected. Not a surprise. Considering that a loaf of bread is 1$ in GURPS, that would mean from what I've seen of real* bread, IRL prices are roughly x2.1.
C) 'Median' doesn't translate to 'Average'. Again, not a surprise. Considering GOP, Wealth might just be a level higher for most people than assumed.

*There is bread that is cheaper but considering how empty the bread is from a nutritional standpoint, I'd rule that bread as $0.50 in GURPS in a campaign where bad nutrition matters and exists. Or that bread is what negative Status thrives on normally. Either way.

[Hyrneson]

Hi gang. Sorry to disappear but a combination of high winds and squirrels took down my internet line.

The article was from volume two of Pyramid, July 28, 2006, "Building the Low-Tech Landscape". It's part of a series that Matt Riggsby wrote on developing a good set of stats for running a medieval realm.
http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=5953

In the last section of the article he proposes that the steps in the rules for wealth are too far apart. He doesn't change the Wealth rule but instead enhances it by providing for additional steps.

- - -
The wealth levels in GURPS are fine for putting a character in a general economic ballpark, but may be regarded as a bit coarse-grained for this kind of work. GURPS has character wealth increasing by factors of two or three or more, when in reality there's a broad range of levels of income. The GM may also want to allow fractional wealth levels to reflect a fuller spectrum of incomes, as detailed here:
[TABLE CAN BE FOUND IN THE ARTICLE]
This is useful for dealing with small gradations both among poor peasants and other workers and among more powerful figures. The difference between a count and a baron, for example, might not be a quantum leap in income and direct holdings, but rather a slightly higher income and the allegiance of several lesser noblemen. The count might have an Ally Group, Wealth (Wealthy+1), and a few points in Independent Income where subordinates simply have Wealth (Wealthy).
If a character takes a fractional wealth level, the GM may want to impose a similar fractional Status adjustment: 2 points for Status +1/3, and 4 points for Status +2/3. Each level of fractional Status increases monthly Cost of Living by 1/3 of the amount of the difference between the higher and lower levels of Status. Status +1/3 provides a +1 Reaction bonus to people of the same Status in circumstances where Status would normally apply. Status +2/3 provides a +1 Reaction bonus to people of the same Status or a Status one lower. The difference is too subtle for people with more distant Status to discern.

- - -

The site 'Game in the Brain' also takes a swing at the issue but proposes a new rules approach.
https://gameinthebrain.blogspot.com/...nd-status.html

I definitely wouldn't mind if Matt had any comments he wanted to add to this thread.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Hyrneson

In the last section of the article he proposes that the steps in the rules for wealth are too far apart. He doesn't change the Wealth rule but instead enhances it by providing for additional steps.

Nice. I've done something similar, but it didn't occur to me to break up Status before, usually using Heir for the in between (for instance, both royal children may have Status 6, but one has Heir getting half the benefit of Status 7).

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

... using Heir for the in between (for instance, both royal children may have Status 6, but one has Heir getting half the benefit of Status 7).

How do you give a +6.5 modifier on reaction rolls?