Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-10-2021, 01:26 AM   #1
FeiLin
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default To be, or not to be… poor

… or rather: (how) should I use the Wealth concept? It focuses mostly around below-average, since that awards players with more points during the creation process.

The issue I have is twofold:

1) A character who receives points for below-average Wealth is likely to either get an equal share of treasures or greeting bankrolled by wealthier PCs. Since gear is orthogonal to CP, yet still contributes hugely to combat effectiveness and general capability, after a few adventures when everyone’s likely to have fairly similar Wealth anyways (perhaps with the exception of multimillionaires, but we tend not to have many of those, anyways), some will have some free points, even though they’re similar in

2) Even if all PCs do have average Wealth, they will gain moneys, so it will still be off after a couple of adventures, albeit as a group. This doesn’t bother me as much, as this would be the case if we ignore Wealth levels altogether, but it bothers me that there’s a dimension outside of CPs that so heavily influences outcomes.

As for solutions, I’m considering a few things.

A) I could not only make the world and any individual rewards befit their Wealth level, but conceivably also expand/enforce the role playing element, explaining to players I expect them to follow their character sheets on this point. I might even penalise bankrolling for poor role playing (ie less CPs) unless it is handled credible (for example, the rich guy starts owning the poorer ones, almost literally, and becomes the de facto group leader).

B) I could do what Dungeon Fantasy does and collect at the other end – that is, when they purchase gear – making the poor pay more. This feels a bit arbitrary, but I guess it would fit the genre of DF.

C) I could see coins up to their Wealth level similar to signature gear (ie untouchable by the GM), while the rest is up for grabs during and between adventures (being stolen or suffer unfortunate accidents, perhaps related to or flavored by the plot). I might have the players come up with reasons why their characters are poor in the first place (such as a very minor compulsive spending or that below-average Wealth represents a complementary inability to make rational/sustainable purchases and the habit of buying a lot of trash that ends up broken or irrelevant). This could also extend to gear, explained by Wealth representing a general negligence towards material things (“your new leather boots are on the verge of breaking already, since your character doesn’t know how to maintain them“).

D) I could scrap the concept altogether, although that doesn’t really solve 2).

Any thoughts or other solutions? I’m inclined to a combination of A) and C), since I definitely like the extra depth of the concept of Wealth.
FeiLin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2021, 03:37 AM   #2
Willy
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Default Re: To be, or not to be… poor

On a short term or single session a low wealth level gives a boon of CPs, and may be an advantage over other players.
BUT on the long run your PC suffers from being poor, just keep in mind he will not be able to afford certain training and equipment, a good deal of folks will snub him, AND his income and loot will be less rich than that of other player. Unless all other folks he mets are equally poor like a thief who lives in a slum.
Even if I personally take poor, to get the few crucial points I need for my Character concept, I ask my GM before taking it, if and under which circumstances I can buy it off.
Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2021, 04:07 AM   #3
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: To be, or not to be… poor

If other PCs are bankrolling someone, that person doesn't suffer from the Disadvantage of low Wealth. Just treat their Wealth as Average, if they functionally don't suffer from lacking equipment or someone to pay living expenses.

You take the Wealth level that you intend to play. If a player selects Struggling, Poor or lower Wealth, that player is indicating that he plans to roleplay his character as that Wealth level and it is their problem how they will justify that, if the PC has connections or marketable skills that could improve their Wealth level.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2021, 04:23 AM   #4
ericbsmith
 
ericbsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY, USA. Near the river Styx in the 5th Circle.
Default Re: To be, or not to be… poor

If the primary or total income is going to come from "loot" you might consider changing Wealth completely and having levels of Wealth buy varying numbers of "shares" of the loot. In real-world age-of-sail the cargo profit was often times split based on a "shares" system, where green recruits might get 1/2 of a share, crewmen would get 1-2 shares each, officers might get 2-10 shares, and the captain would traditionally get 5-10% off the top before the shares are divvied up.

This kind of arrangement could easily transfer to Dungeon Fantasy or other "loot & scoot" genres. The biggest disadvantage of this kind of system is that Players wind up bidding against one-another for shares, turning buying shares into a form of the Prisoner's Dilemma. In this case the most "economical" way to split it is to only allow one player to buy each level of shares above the standard starting share of 1; that is, if you have 5 players then only one player can pull 5 shares, one pulls 4 shares, one can pull 3 shares, one can pull 2 shares, and one pulls 1 share. This prevents everybody from buying 5 shares each and, effectively, divvying the loot as if they each has only 1 share. The fairest way to do this would be to have some sort of blind auction using character points to buy the shares before character creation.

If the *PLAYERS* want to divide loot evenly (whether out of a sense of fairness or to avoid arguments) then everybody just has "Average" Wealth and starting equipment should be bought with Trading Points for Money. If you want to go this route you may want to adjust the Trading Points to scale somewhat exponentially instead of linearly (similar to how wealth increases starting money on an exponential scale).

Honestly, in most games I tell the players to ignore Wealth unless the characters wealth is important to a characters core concept somehow.

And as Icelander said, if one player is bankrolling the others then the other PC's effectively have a higher level of Wealth than they started with, and should be forced to buy it accordingly (or to buy off the Disadvantage). A Disadvantage with no drawbacks is not a Disadvantage. How you do that is up to you, but I would probably require them to save/spend at least 50% of awarded character points towards Wealth until the necessary Wealth level is reached.
__________________
Eric B. Smith GURPS Data File Coordinator
GURPSLand
I shall pull the pin from this healing grenade and...
Kaboom-baya.

Last edited by ericbsmith; 06-10-2021 at 05:45 AM.
ericbsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2021, 04:30 AM   #5
Dr. Beckenstein
 
Dr. Beckenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Default Re: To be, or not to be… poor

"I am not a rich person. I am a poor person with money." - Pablo Escobar, Narcos.
__________________
""The origin of everything good is due to games." - Friedrich August Wilhelm Froebel, creator of the kindergarten.
Dr. Beckenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2021, 06:30 AM   #6
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: To be, or not to be… poor

An idea I had specifically for DF was to split Wealth into three separate traits - Starting Money, Connections, and Frugality. Starting Money is fairly self-explanatory, but had a buyback option - it didn't have as good of a return as starting that way, but a character could functionally "waste" money to retroactively make it as though the character started out with less money than he/she actually did, and get points back, down to Starting Money $0.

Connections was how Wealth primarily functions in DF - it sets what percentage of an item's worth you get when selling it. Originally, I was just going to have it be Starting Money and Connections, but that would lend itself to the party having one character (the designated seller) with maximum Connections (100% value) while everyone else was markedly lower, possibly simply at the minimum (0% value).

This is where Frugality comes into play. Basically, anytime the character has liquid assets, he or she is required to "waste" some percentage of them, paying for inns (instead of just sleeping outside of town in a tent), paying extra for better food and booze, excessively tipping the server, buying rounds of drinks for all the patrons at the tavern, paying for entertainment, getting their weapons and armor gilded, etc. If the player worked out a way to advance the party's goals in the process - such as getting a bonus to information gathering at the tavern by buying everyone a round of drinks, or whatever - that's fine, just so long as they spend the requisite percentage of their share of the loot. Note if the character's share included items the character was going to be directly using, the value of that wasn't a factor in how much they needed to spend - a character with Average Frugality - retaining 60% IIRC (matching what Average Wealth gets out of selling) - who's share of the loot was $1000 and a $2000 sword only needs to "waste" $400, not $1200 (which would require either dipping into previously "taxed" reserves or selling that sword). "Liquid assets" would include anything the party opts to sell rather than distribute, even if they are immediately turning it into something else, and not sharing loot evenly is considered bad roleplaying (so no giving the guy with minimum Frugality only a pittance to stop him from wasting it - he gets a full share).


From the suggestions in this thread, I think it would be appropriate, if using such a system, to link Connections to how much of a share of the loot a character gets. If the party wants to split everything evenly but also get 100% out of anything they sell, they all need maximum Connections. Minimum Connections, while it would mean that character can't sell anything, would still mean some share of the loot - but it would be a small share. Offhand, I'd say Dead Broke is 1 share (and 0% value), Poor is 2 shares (20%), Struggling is 3 shares (40%), Average is 5 shares (60%), Comfortable is 7 shares (80%), and Wealthy is 10 shares (100%). Every party wants at least one member with Wealthy Connections to get as much as possible out of every item sold, but if the rest of the party just stuck with Average Connections, that one member would be getting twice the loot. It may be appropriate to only give liquid assets this treatment - everyone has equal claim to magic items and the like (unclaimed items get sold, and the proceeds split according to shares).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Beckenstein View Post
"I am not a rich person. I am a poor person with money." - Pablo Escobar, Narcos.
High Starting Wealth, high Connections, low Frugality.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2021, 06:49 AM   #7
Donny Brook
 
Donny Brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Snoopy's basement
Default Re: To be, or not to be… poor

Apart from starting money, GURPS wealth is a metagame trait. A GM who is uncomfortable or unwilling to apply the benefits and consequences should not let PCs buy it.

When it is used, it typically acts as a prerequisite for the categories of jobs characters can get. When a character accumulates enough in-play assets that it becomes unrealistic for them to be poor, they should use earned CP to by Wealth to an appropriate level.

Until then, its on the GM to implement low Wealth consequences (without really much guidance) in money situations. Here are some suggestions:
-met with sneering condescension in retail stores that cater above your wealth level (until you flash your roll of bills);
-less wealth makes it harder to get an appointment at a bank or other similar places to arrange certain services;
-poorer PCs have to pay more up front for apartments or rental cars or lawyers or gasoline, etc.
-cabs pass by the poor to pick up the rich guy half a block down;
-placed in the worse seats within whatever class you have paid for on a train/plane/ship;
-poorer PC's off-screen savings/investments underperform or even get defrauded, while Wealthier PCs get invited into better opportunities;
-less Wealthy PCs find only coppers in treasure hoards while the rich ones find gold.
Donny Brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2021, 07:43 AM   #8
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: To be, or not to be… poor

Being genre-conscious is pretty important to this decision. In some games, you don't get wealth for playing the game, like monster hunters. In others, the game is all about the big score.

Wealth is one of those traits I'll think about capping if the genre calls for it. In my last game I had the players just spend points for starting cash and declared them to all have comfortable wealth, because that's what the campaign concept called for (an egalitarian tribe of warriors with higher wealth than the nearby farmers). DF as a genre leans that way, though the books give wealth options.
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic

Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog

Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one!

Last edited by ericthered; 06-10-2021 at 07:46 AM.
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2021, 08:10 AM   #9
Kalzazz
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Default Re: To be, or not to be… poor

In a DF type game to my mind 'Bob is good at selling stuff for the group' is equally valid thing as 'Bob is good at hitting things, healing, whatever'

So I have no problems with my DFRPG party having one guy as designated seller

I do at times give out rewards directly instead of through loot. For instance the church gave them money based on their killing of demons (a church approved activity)

"Upon returning to town rewards are provided for the heroic efforts to purge demons . . . 5600 for Garreth, Zaber, Polly and Val, 11,200 for THrognar and 16800 for Stonemaul" Garreth Zaber Polly and Val had average wealth, Thrognar had Comfortable and was a holy warrior so gave him extra 20% due to being of the cloth, and Stonemaul was Very Wealthy and a Cleric
Kalzazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2021, 08:36 AM   #10
Daigoro
 
Daigoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Meifumado
Default Re: To be, or not to be… poor

The topic comes up often enough that it strikes me that a Power Ups for Wealth would be an interesting book. Discuss the meanings and implications of the existing ads and disads, when and how to use them appropriately, and some alternate systems to use (unless this is a topic already covered in Alternate Attributes?)
__________________
Collaborative Settings:
Cyberpunk: Duopoly Nation
Space Opera: Behind the King's Eclipse
And heaps of forum collabs, 30+ and counting!
Daigoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
wealth

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.