[Social Engineering / Basic Set] Doubling hireling pay increases loyalty by too much

[FezzedOne]

Under Loyalty Checks on page B519, it says that hirelings get a +1 to loyalty for every 10% by which their pay exceeds what's normal. This presents a problem, since if you pay your hireling double the normal pay for their job, their loyalty will increase by +10. If their loyalty was, say, Neutral, that means it will now be Excellent and the NPC will be willing to die for their employer. The same problematic rule is reiterated on page 39 of Social Engineering. I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this issue and how people go about fixing it (or ignoring it).

[Donny Brook]

I haven't noticed it, but if you don't like the result, just cap the benefits at whatever you think is appropriate.

[martinl]

For stuff like this I usually riff off of the speed/range table.

+1 +30%
+2 +50%
+3 +70%
+4 +100%
+5 +150%
+6 +200%

Sure, it's a bit klunky at the beginning (since the base measurement of the table is 2, not 1), but not enough for me to want to keep track of a special rule.

[Rupert]

Doubling an underling's pay is roughly paying them one wealth level higher. Also, people today seem to be quite happy when they get pay rises of a couple of thousand dollars a year, when that's maybe a 5% pay increase.

Therefore a +100% pay increase/bonus should give a big boost, though possibly not +10. It's possibly helpful to think of it in terms of how many steps up the reaction table the bonus will move the hireling's loyalty, and +10 is certainly a huge shift. On the other hand, +3 is only one step, which seems to me to probably be too little. That suggests to me that a bonus half as big as the rulles suggest might be more appropriate.

I do think it a little odd that offering +100% normal pay for a job only gives a +3 to the roll to find a hireling when it's giving +10 to their loyalty once employed.

[Dalillama]

I figure that if you're going about offering to pay double the normal rate, a lot of people are going to smell something fishy. They'll reckon the job is way worse than advertised, or that it's a swindle and you'll end up shorting them, or that they'll get in serious legal trouble or etc. Someone who actually has the job and has been paid the promised rate knows what the risks are, what the job is like, and that they're going to get paid well for doing it.

[Varyon]

With some frequency I've seen "double wages" used as a rule-of-thumb for "hazard pay," for when hirelings actually experience combat or are similarly endangered (rather than the real-world definition for hazard pay, which is more just working in a potentially-dangerous environment). I don't think I've actually seen this suggested in GURPS, but if going off of said rule of thumb, "double pay" to convince someone working for you to actually fight on your behalf may well call for a +10 bonus, to get someone with a Poor Reaction to agree. Looking at the numbers, however, that much isn't really necessary - once you've got the target's Reaction to Good, they're typically willing to fight alongside you ("accepts any reasonable hazard that the PCs accept"), and at best that calls for only a +6 for someone with Poor Reaction (to go from 7 to 13). To get them to fight on your behalf (that is, in place of you), you typically need Very Good or better Reaction, which may well call for a +10 for someone with a Poor Reaction.

Part of me would be tempted to have double pay work to generally increase Reaction by 1 step - Very Bad->Bad->Poor->Neutral->Good->Very Good->Excellent. As each of those (except for Excellent, which is open-ended) spans 3 values, that indicates +100% would be good for +3, and thus +33% is good for each +1. If you want to round to the nearest 5%, I'd be inclined to go with +35%, +70%, +100%, +135%, and so forth.

[Hide]

Originally Posted by FezzedOne

Under Loyalty Checks on page B519, it says that hirelings get a +1 to loyalty for every 10% by which their pay exceeds what's normal. This presents a problem, since if you pay your hireling double the normal pay for their job, their loyalty will increase by +10. If their loyalty was, say, Neutral, that means it will now be Excellent and the NPC will be willing to die for their employer. The same problematic rule is reiterated on page 39 of Social Engineering. I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this issue and how people go about fixing it (or ignoring it).

Did not you know? This is the method The Empire employs with Stormtroopers!

But seriously, where is the problem? If you are a player character and decide to hire an NPC, you’ve got to keep a wallet full of money and ponder whether it is for you or for someone else.

Dungeon Fantasy wise, if you hire a single 125 CP henchmen for one month that will be at least $ 1,500 (x1.5 your TL3 starting money) and if you want to pay double, then it is $3,000 (x3 your TL3 starting money), not to mention henchmen require a reimbursement for goods expended and have random traits.

You will probably have to spend your own CP in advantages such as wealth or sacrificing your quirks (DFRPG) to earn an extra coin, which ultimately reduces the budget and capabilities of your PC.

The trade-off seems quite fair; but at this point I would rather get an ally tailored by myself instead of hiring a random guy.

If you are thinking of mid-game or end-game situations, things might be a little different. But I still believe you will have to think twice before choosing between buying an epic plate armor or hiring a 125 CP NPC.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by FezzedOne

Under Loyalty Checks on page B519, it says that hirelings get a +1 to loyalty for every 10% by which their pay exceeds what's normal. This presents a problem, since if you pay your hireling double the normal pay for their job, their loyalty will increase by +10. If their loyalty was, say, Neutral, that means it will now be Excellent and the NPC will be willing to die for their employer. The same problematic rule is reiterated on page 39 of Social Engineering. I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this issue and how people go about fixing it (or ignoring it).

I have noticed the bonus but haven’t really worried about players going for a +10 bonus. I use GURPS 3rd Edition and for me, the relevant references would be: B195 Loyalty of Hirelings and its sidebars Loyalty Checks and Changes in Loyalty; B204 NPC Reactions; & B205 Reaction Table.

There is a difference in wording between B195 and B204. B204 says “+1 for every 10% the PCs offer above the going pay rate” while B195 Changes in Loyalty says “add 1 to the hireling’s loyalty for each 10% by which his pay exceeds his true worth” and also notes “loyalty persists for a month after the extra pay ceases.” I would exploit the difference in wording. A hireling whose loyalty jumps to 19 or 20 is working incredibly hard, putting your interests ahead of his own and willing to die for you and that makes the double pay his new “true worth.” If the PCs were very clear about the temporary nature of the pay increase and tell him to sit back, take it easy and look to his own interests at the very start of the month’s loyalty persistence, then they’re probably okay, but only probably.

If they muck it up by taking advantage of the month of loyalty persistence, things go downhill rapidly. First, the hireling knows his true worth and that he’s not getting it. The very first thing to happen when he gets his reduced pay packet is that he takes a -5 to Loyalty since B204 also says “-1 for each 10% the PCs offer below the going pay rate” and he just took a -50% hit to pay for the same work ethic he put in the month before. Second, I’d tend to treat the loss in pay, without warning, as a question about his employers’ competence dropping his loyalty by a further 1, as if the PCs had botched a mission/adventure. The hireling will slack off to his new loyalty level of Bad and be a sluggish worker but should return to Neutral the next month. If the PCs insist that he perform to Neutral standards now, then he will, but he takes a further -1 to Loyalty each month that he is required to perform “above and beyond”. Further, restoring the hireling to double pay now only cancels the -5 for a pay cut but the hireling will not be willing to die for the PC(s) and may not be willing to put their interests ahead of his own unless that’s part and parcel of the job itself (like the fiduciary duty of an accountant or a lawyer). To get those benefits, the hireling requires buying his loyalty with increased pay and the 10% is 10% of his now doubled pay, not his former pay.

Regardless, knowing what he’s really worth, the hireling will be easy to hire away from the PCs if they are not paying him his true worth or not utilizing him to the fullest extent of his abilities and more so if both conditions are true.

There is also a question as to whether money will have any effect on the hireling. Wealth level helps here. While there aren’t terribly many Filthy Rich hireling jobs, those that do exist (say Batman’s Alfred Pennyworth) can by Filthy Rich’s definition buy almost anything they want without considering the cost. You can’t really buy up Loyalty with someone like that, even if you’re offering Multimillionaire as an incentive. Studies have shown that past a certain point, increased monetary compensation doesn’t have much effect on employees. While that point may well be below Filthy Rich in GURPS, Filthy Rich and above wealth levels are definitely there. Wealthy and Very Wealthy might be eligible for having “bought” Loyalty but the can the PCs afford it? “Bought” Loyalty should always be dubious. I would cap "bought" Loyalty as unable to exceed Loyalty 19, i.e. you can buy Excellent reaction Loyalty but you can’t buy “passes all Loyalty checks automatically”.

A couple of other points, buying Loyalty up neither negates nor removes any penalties to Loyalty rolls, they offset them. Also, since a couple of reactions indicate that the loyalty may be to the job (Good reaction) or to the cause (Excellent reaction), rather than to the PCs, the GM should determine where the Loyalty is based (possibly rolling for Loyalty again) and rule accordingly.

I'd also rule that based on expectations, any bonus that lasts in excess of three months becomes "the norm" for that hireling, no longer giving a loyalty bonus but giving a penalty to loyalty for less than the "going rate" if the bonus then vanishes. If you want to increase Loyalty again, you need to buy it up from the new normal.