Independent Income at later TL stages

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Rupert

The problem is, because the investments are being made in-play, out of a known amount of money, we really do need to know what a decent amount is, and even with rather high rates of return it's very large, especially at high wealth and TLs.

For example, TL10 and Filthy Rich means $5M starting wealth and $50K/month per level of II. That's $600K/year and at a 12% rate of return after inflation (and taxes, the way GURPS treats things) that means $5M in investments.

Well THERE'S yer problem!

"If your income derives from investments, you need not specify their value; this trait assumes that you cannot or will not invade your capital."

Now, you might argue, "It says I don't need to specify the value of my investments; it doesn't say I can't do that." And that would be true. But it's also true that the black box that is Independent Income will accept any dollar amount the GM chooses as the hypothetical value of the investment and still do exactly the same thing. There is no economic simulation happening inside Independent Income. You're expecting the tools of GURPS to do things they aren't designed to do, and you're unhappy when they fail to do them. Independent Income is strictly a character-points-for-monthly-cash proposition, not an investment strategy.

One reason we really need to know how much it will cost is that the character intends to rebuild their fortune and reclaim Multimillionaire status. They currently have a little over $30M, and need $20M more.

"To improve your Wealth, you must amass money equal to the starting wealth of the desired Wealth level after paying any necessary bribes, taxes, etc." (p. B291)

You don't have to spend that money on achieving the Wealth level; you just have to amass it, because having Wealth is about the social implications of it, not about the player investing cash. So long as your "$" spot on your character sheet is at $50 million or more at the end of an adventure, you have all the justification the book asks for to improve your Wealth to Multimillionaire 1.

It's fine if you want to play out investments and so on, but these will NOT be part of your Wealth or your Independent Income. They're done purely with the "$" on your character sheet.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Rupert

I'd really rather not, and besides, the number it gives is pretty colossal,


The problem is, because the investments are being made in-play, out of a known amount of money, we really do need to know what a decent amount is, and even with rather high rates of return it's very large, especially at high wealth and TLs.

For example, TL10 and Filthy Rich means $5M starting wealth and $50K/month per level of II. That's $600K/year and at a 12% rate of return after inflation (and taxes, the way GURPS treats things) that means $5M in investments.

One reason we really need to know how much it will cost is that the character intends to rebuild their fortune and reclaim Multimillionaire status. They currently have a little over $30M, and need $20M more.

That brings up another problem - they clearly should invest now, pay their points, and get a free increase in come when their Wealth goes back up, because if they wait until they're a Multimillionaire each level of II will cost $50M.

There's just no way handwaving this away will make any of my players happy. The discrepancies are just too great.

You are correct.
And in this situation, Gurps Wealth rules fail. They are not made for it.

I have no suggestion to solve this within RAW Gurps, because I never played Gurps at that level of financial details.

But I would strongly suggest not trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by trying to reconcile the two, and instead finding another asset management system and bolting it in place.
At least if you insist into using some kind of rules abstraction instead of roleplaying the investment in excel.

GURPS Traveller Classic -Far Trader, perhaps ?
I remember it have some impressive finance rules, although I never used them, so I cannot comment on the realism.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Well THERE'S yer problem!

"If your income derives from investments, you need not specify their value; this trait assumes that you cannot or will not invade your capital."

Now, you might argue, "It says I don't need to specify the value of my investments; it doesn't say I can't do that." And that would be true. But it's also true that the black box that is Independent Income will accept any dollar amount the GM chooses as the hypothetical value of the investment and still do exactly the same thing. There is no economic simulation happening inside Independent Income. You're expecting the tools of GURPS to do things they aren't designed to do, and you're unhappy when they fail to do them. Independent Income is strictly a character-points-for-monthly-cash proposition, not an investment strategy.

So, with no actual in-game justification, they should just dump some points into II and gain $50K/month per point in income? I don't know about you, but that does terrible things to my suspension of disbelief (and as the character had no plausible source of II at the moment aside from sinking cash into investment it also means the campaign setting would be warped all out of shape).

So, I have to make something up, and when I look at the numbers, things fall apart. And the solution, apparently, is to just ignore that. I'm sure the gun-nuts would be very happy with that advice were it given with respect to questions like "How much damage should pistol X do if my character has a custom 12" barrel mounted on it?"

"To improve your Wealth, you must amass money equal to the starting wealth of the desired Wealth level after paying any necessary bribes, taxes, etc." (p. B291)

You don't have to spend that money on achieving the Wealth level; you just have to amass it, because having Wealth is about the social implications of it, not about the player investing cash. So long as your "$" spot on your character sheet is at $50 million or more at the end of an adventure, you have all the justification the book asks for to improve your Wealth to Multimillionaire 1.

It's fine if you want to play out investments and so on, but these will NOT be part of your Wealth or your Independent Income. They're done purely with the "$" on your character sheet.

I am well aware of that. That's why the character wants to accumulate more money. At no point have I ever mentioned expending money to buy [I]Wealth[I].

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

You wrote: "No part of which rectifies the point that you've invented a job that's in all respects better than other jobs at its Wealth level." But I had not specified anything to do with wealth level for the job, and I provided no setting information which could give you a basis to compare it to other jobs, so your assertion that I invented a better job than others had no basis for you to draw such a conclusion.

Statements about the wealth level are completely irrelevant. Statements about the setting are unnecessary, because being superior to other jobs is literally the purpose for which the suggestion was made.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I asserted that it's possible for some jobs to be better than others and that it's up to the GM to make those calls.

Right, that would be the 'any problems with my suggestion are the fault of the hypothetical user' defense...

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Many jobs described for GURPS settings imply capital ownership or access while others do not. I don't see your basis for objecting to that.

That's somewhat true, but the difference between 'ownership' and 'ownership or access' is a big one. Many jobs give you some kind of access that you could abuse, at risk of the displeasure of the people who actually own what you're accessing. Can you cite examples that give you ownership of a high-value asset?

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Statements about the wealth level are completely irrelevant. Statements about the setting are unnecessary, because being superior to other jobs is literally the purpose for which the suggestion was made.

Well, it was you who brought up the wealth level, so okay, whatever. I don't know what you mean by the purpose of the job being to be superior to other jobs. As far as I can recall this Job discussion goes back to me suggesting to Rupert that he could model relatively passive income as a Job rather than as an II. That was the purpose as far as I know. But the setting is important because it's part of what the GM would use to define other jobs to compare the one at issue to. If you don't know what you're comparing to you can't very well conclude something is superior.

Right, that would be the 'any problems with my suggestion are the fault of the hypothetical user' defense...

Defense of what? The GM defines jobs. If doing so creates some sort of problem it's within the ability of the GM to remedy. Seems obvious.

That's somewhat true, but the difference between 'ownership' and 'ownership or access' is a big one. Many jobs give you some kind of access that you could abuse, at risk of the displeasure of the people who actually own what you're accessing. Can you cite examples that give you ownership of a high-value asset?

"High-value" is relative so I won't try to guess what satisfies that criterion for you. The reason I said ownership or access is that the Job descriptions don't necessarily distinguish.

The Jobs Tables that used to be familiar in 3e don't seem to be produced as much anymore, so examples for 4e are harder to find, but Fantasy p.138-139 lists Armourers and Smiths (who would have tools and likely a workshop), Fisherman (who would likely have a boat and at least some tackle), and Tavernkeeper who would presumably have a tavern.

There is also the example of Sir Adrian Carter-Sandlebury (Britannica-6 p.38) of whom "The GM may assume “country landowner” is his job."

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Rupert

So, with no actual in-game justification, they should just dump some points into II and gain $50K/month per point in income?

No, not no in-game justification, just not an entire economic system for a justification.

You might justify it with a cash investment, but now you need to define return rates, economic forecasts, environmental and political uncertainties, bad decisions, etc., etc. Almost any amount of cash might turn into a level of Independent Income, given the right circumstances. If any amount of cash will do, then GURPS is not simulating the investment process. The cash is just an in-game excuse to gain a level of Independent Income.

You could invent other excuses that have nothing to do with cash. Maybe you lost your job, and the Independent Income represents welfare payments. Maybe you rescued an amazing investor on an adventure who can promise to do a much better job managing your portfolio. Maybe you're a criminal who found someone new to extort. They're all just excuses to add Independent Income to your character sheet, and none of them have anything to do with giving up cash.

So if all you need is an excuse, an "in-game justification," then earning and investing cash isn't required for adding Independent Income. It's just a trait that says, "For whatever reason, you get some extra cash every month that you didn't have to work for."

[Calvin]

Originally Posted by Rupert

So, with no actual in-game justification, they should just dump some points into II and gain $50K/month per point in income? I don't know about you, but that does terrible things to my suspension of disbelief (and as the character had no plausible source of II at the moment aside from sinking cash into investment it also means the campaign setting would be warped all out of shape)

By the same token I could dump some points into Altered Time Rate and suddenly gain the ability to move at double the speed of everyone else. Well, obviously this is silly and buying ATR does require in-game justification.

But I wouldn't bother trying to work out a new branch of physics to justify it, just like I wouldn't get hung up with amortization rates and initial capital if a PC wanted to pick up Independent Income. If the exact level seems to high or low, then raise or lower it accordingly. Because the truth of the matter is that the exact dollar amount does not matter.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Rupert

The problem is, because the investments are being made in-play, out of a known amount of money, we really do need to know what a decent amount is, and even with rather high rates of return it's very large, especially at high wealth and TLs.

Your problem is that you're wanting a transparent equivalency between in-game money and the actions of a character and the meta-game currency of cp and the actions of a player and I'm afraid those are non-intersecting sets.

The player gets however much II he pays for with cp and well, no else's character had to spend $ to get that so his doesn't either. that's what's "fair".

So view things as the character having had an absolute windfall successs at investing and the player having bought that success with the cp he spent. These things are happening on two different levels and the direction of influence is pretty strict from player and meta-game cp down to the character and in-game $ with no real transactions taking place the other way.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The player gets however much II he pays for with cp and well, no else's character had to spend $ to get that so his doesn't either. that's what's "fair".

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?

Besides it still doesn't fix how spending a point when you've a low level of Wealth automatically gains you a vastly higher amount of money coming in if you raise your Wealth. Wealth gives you greater amounts of money from II for free - and it is free, because the cost of Wealth does not change as your levels of II (or Debt) change.

[Calvin]

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?

Who says it's different? What rule?

If a player wants higher Wealth, they should have an in-game reason for the purchase.

If a player wants Signature gear, similarly, they need an in-game reason.

So too for Reputation.

What makes you think Independent Income is somehow the exception, not just among these few advantages, but the entire game system. Because it doesn't require you to sit down with a financial advisor to figure out what your assets are worth in a role-playing game?