06-10-2021, 09:58 PM | #31 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA USA
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
Regarding the suggestion upthread on a Wealth supplement, I think that rather than Power-Ups, it belongs in the Social Engineering line. Which is rather the point, I think: it's a social advantage.
|
06-11-2021, 02:18 AM | #32 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sweden, Stockholm
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
Quote:
If a player isn't paying for allies, etc. then they will have issues with their hirelings more often than what is perhaps probable for someone with multimillionare trying to buy the best talent. Is it normal that the best-in-class elite mercenaries turn out to be a bunch of traitors (and perhaps imposers)? Not really. Has that sort of thing happened in real life? Certainly. A PC with money but without allies will run into realistic misfortune improbably often when he tries to just buy the solution with nothing but money. If you really want to play Rich Mc.Moneybags who manages to solve every problem with expert spending of money...
Yeah, sure Rich is going to end up a lot more expensive than a guy that just somewhat secretly has a big fat bank account, but that's hardly surprising when he can reliably have half the police force take a break while he conjures up squads of guards using restricted military hardware. Without advantages (and skills) you can't even expect to be able to go flying around with helicopters everywhere without people complaining about the noise and overall disturbance. Just having a lot of money doesn't let you do that. From a meta-perspective.
__________________
"Prohibit the taking of omens, and do away with superstitious doubts. Then, until death itself comes, no calamity need be feared" Last edited by RedMattis; 06-11-2021 at 11:04 AM. Reason: grammar issues |
|
06-11-2021, 07:50 AM | #33 | |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
Quote:
For a positive example, look at Luck, which is formally not supernatural or exotic in any way (though it can be defined as such). It's simply an after-the-fact, black-box explanation for plausible-but-infrequent occurrences following one specific person. Small-l luck in reality and fiction is essentially always defined after the fact . . . "Boy, he got lucky!" But in GURPS, you can choose to be lucky before the fact. Serendipity follows exactly the same pattern. For a negative example, look at Unluckiness. It, too, is not supernatural or exotic by default. It's a black box explaining why a specific person has more than their share of plausible-but-infrequent glitches. Again, it's after the fact: "Boy, is he unlucky!" But you can choose this fate before the fact in the game. Klutz follows the same pattern. All I've been saying is that points are a meta-game construct, like all of the above traits. They represent nothing in the real world. They are spent by players in our world to pre-select certain positive, after-the-fact outcomes before the fact for characters in the game world. In the game world, Allies and Signature Gear don't look any different from hired help or random stuff ordered off Amazon . . . but on the meta level, they're secretly predestined to be the stalwart companions and memorable kit that, in the telling after the hero has passed, proved to be faithful and best in class. When such constructs exist, there necessarily has to be a difference between them and things merely bought with money. You can see this as "things bought with money are less reliable than things bought with points" or as "things bought with points are more reliable than things bought with money." But since things bought with points are essentially totally reliable, things bough with money must be less so. Yes, this means they might be unrealistically unreliable . . . but that's just a meta-game shadow cast by the reliability effect of points. Wealth that gives money also costs points; however, the meta-game guarantee there isn't "All the things money can buy are insured against misfortune," but, "The money itself is ensured against misfortune." A PC can quite literally have a horrific Odious Personal Habit [-15], a terrifying Reputation [-15], a serious Social Stigma [-15], and Status -1 [-5], yet turn around and put the points those give into Filthy Rich [50]. Since points were spent, the Wealth is durable and they can have high-paying jobs even if the character is ostensibly an outcast. That's the very definition of "meta." But if the buyer of Wealth is really after "being Tony Stark," say, then they should think about paying points for Iron Man suits as gadgets, more points for his closest associates as Allies, yet more points to have Stark Industries as a diffuse Patron that can provide whatever he needs, and a bunch more points on Status to justify the benefits he gets from cost of living. In fact, Wealth isn't the right approach here, beyond enough to go with the Status and cover cost of living. In that universe, Wealth alone is for big-time crooks and various competitors who don't have super-tech.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
|
06-11-2021, 08:09 AM | #34 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
In my current fantasy campaign, the player characters started out as merchants venturing into unknown lands in search of profitable trade. They came back with lots of valuable goods, and got rich.
So I offered them the players the option of raising their characters' Wealth levels, and they took it. What I said was that they needed to designate an amount of money equal to the difference in starting wealth between the old and new levels, and commit sufficient character points to buy the new advantage (with the option of going into point debt to be paid off from experience). And in return they got several things: * They could treat up to 80% of the higher level of starting wealth as available for buying trade goods for their next venture * They could acquire Independent Income based on the new higher wealth level by paying suitable character points * They could upgrade their adventuring gear "for free" up to 20% of the new starting wealth * They could invest in raising Status (this was a mercantile society where getting rich was respectable) and gain better clothes and housing * There was a continuing assumption of wealth, even if they were short of cash—their cash didn't just vanish when they spent it
__________________
Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more. |
06-11-2021, 08:14 AM | #35 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
Quote:
So yes, I do rely on gear, but sometimes it proves unreliable. I ran into a case of "you can't trust gear."
__________________
Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more. |
|
06-11-2021, 08:16 AM | #36 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
Quote:
__________________
Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more. |
|
06-11-2021, 08:22 AM | #37 | |
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
Quote:
At this point, he's not just rich, he's skilled at being rich. And you can through challenges at him that he solves by knowing what he's doing, rather than simply throwing money at the problem. Now, if he's a worthless playboy without those skills and a very loyal steward (ally!) who keeps the core fortune safe... he should have worthless playboy problems. But should still have a supporting skills set that will occasionally be useful.
__________________
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! |
|
06-11-2021, 08:37 AM | #38 | |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
Quote:
For a long time, I did all of my buying according to the adage "You get what you pay for." Not being a rich person, I would decide which things were important and just let other things fall by the wayside. Then I would spend the money I "saved" by not buying most things on just a few, very high-priced and by all accounts high-quality items. These proved no more reliable than Dollar Store items in many cases. These days, I take advantage of living the future to look at the hundreds or in some cases thousands of end-user reviews of dozens of models of items that are all purchasable with a click from the comfort of my home. I then order the models that get the best testimonials. Amazingly, these just about always prove as good as others have claimed. But even more amazingly, there's next to no correlation to price tag or status brands; especially for electronics, I've found that no-name Made in China stuff is actually the best. A nice consequence has been that I can let fewer things fall by the wayside, because now I can cover more bases without breaking the bank. So, I'm not entirely convinced that throwing money at problems is effective or even intelligent. I'd spend those points on Research, not Wealth. Yes. The term for a rich person without all those skills is "fool," as in "A fool and his money are soon parted." After all I've said on this topic, I'll add that I generally allow things acquired with money to be much more reliable in my campaigns if, alongside spending cash, the buyer makes skill rolls to plan, manage, and/or secure their investment (see my Research example above for a simple case). If the player buying gear uses Research before shopping, Connoisseur at the shop, Merchant during the transaction, and suitable maintenance skills afterward, the kit might just prove very reliable. As you say, they can also have an Ally do this . . . but of course, Allies cost points, too.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
|
06-11-2021, 08:54 AM | #39 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
Quote:
* When we were moving, they got in touch and told us they weren't letting anyone move in because of Covid, despite our having signed a lease and been given a move-in date (fortunately, my sister knew a lawyer who wrote them a letter, and they backed down) * The woman who had accepted our application (and fees) was no longer there, and over the course of our stay there there were four or five different managers * When we reported that our hot water had gone out, on December 23, there was no response for nine days, because there was no one in the office, and we learned later that the new office manager hadn't set up the emergency number to actually go anywhere outside of office hours (I told her it was a good thing our plumbing hadn't been flooding our apartment, as it could have caused major property damage) * Maintenance was always slow, even for essentials like hot water (23 days!) or our heat being off (9 days, during freezing weather) So we decided to move, and this time we ONLY looked at rentals that had significantly higher average ratings, and read the reviews closely. And we're now in a place that's cheaper, has very responsive management, has been managed by the same person for many years, and feels more spacious, despite having less square footage (I think it must be a matter of better layout). Having reviews to consult is a big help. Of course any place may get one or two bad reviews, but the overall bar graph tells a story, and so do the specific comments. There's also the strategy of identifying a supplier whose quality runs high, and going back to them the next time. I just identified a brand of men's boxers I'm planning to do that with, for example. Though that isn't 100% effective: I've described, just now, my finding that something bought through Apple wasn't up to the standards I expected from them.
__________________
Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more. Last edited by whswhs; 06-11-2021 at 09:00 AM. |
|
06-11-2021, 09:03 AM | #40 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ronkonkoma, NY
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
Quote:
This is the simulationist speaking. Not everyone as rich as Tony Stark can be a superhero. Buying up Wealth is justification for the character concept, but it doesn't lead to the mechanically inevitable consequence that you can have tech that turns you into a superhero. There's no real economy behind your Wealth that translates into superheroism. If you want to be a technologically-based superhero, take advantages and skills that represent being that superhero, and buy up Wealth just to explain your lifestyle. Yes, you'll also be handed a big pile of cash, but that's just cash to save, use, or blow as you like. It's not an Iron Man suit and an ultra-tech lair. |
|
Tags |
wealth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|