To be, or not to be… poor

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Gear often proves unreliable, despite the assurances of manufacturers and vendors.

For a long time, I did all of my buying according to the adage "You get what you pay for."

As an afterthought, I think "You get what you pay for" was just about certainly coined by the person being paid, not by the person paying. It's an example of not what Wealth does for the customer, but what Propaganda does for the manufacturer or vendor.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

This is where "GURPS is not a simulator" shines through. People will look at Tony Stark and say, "He has all those gadgets because he's rich and can afford them. So if I take lots of Wealth, I can be as rich as Tony Stark, and so I can have all those gadgets."

Yes. Although I didn't create GURPS or most of the rules in it, I've been its steward for 26 years, so I'll take some of the blame for cases where people feel that's a lack of clarity. Because in a way it is; I suppose the very literal-minded would invoke Occam's razor to conclude that the best way to create a rich guy with gadgets and a big company is to take Wealth.

But that isn't the case in GURPS.

As many of us have now concluded, for that you want Allies, Patrons, Signature Gear, Status, Unusual Background (Invention), things built with gadget limitation, and a whole raft of skills: Accounting, Administration, Finance, Leadership, Market Analysis, Merchant, Propaganda, Research, et valde cetera, and all the skills needed to invent, use, and maintain any gadgets. Oh, and some Wealth to pay for the Status. In a lot of ways, Wealth is just a "color trait" to go with the stuff that does what you actually want to do.

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by Kromm

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.

Well reasoned, 5 points to ravenclaw ;)

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It's just a fact that some players really, truly see "realism" as they perceive it to be more important that dramatic niches and meta-game balance. What can you do?

Well... yes? I mean, you seem to be framing it as something shocking or bad, and it's really not. It's not really something I'd agree with, but it's hardly an out-there take.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

Well... yes? I mean, you seem to be framing it as something shocking or bad, and it's really not. It's not really something I'd agree with, but it's hardly an out-there take.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to come off that way! I was unironically and unsarcastically pointing out that there are at least two different stances – privileging realism vs. privileging meta-game balance – on how to treat just about anything (in this case Wealth) in GURPS or in any RPG, and that you can't do much to resolve the two when they clash. Yes, I'm publicly and unapologetically someone who prefers story to simulation, "gamism" to realism, and Rule Zero games to GM-light or GM-less ones . . . that's a product of my psychology, early gaming experiences, and lots of other things. But I wasn't trying to suggest that people who disagree with me are having Hurting Wrong Fun.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kromm

As an afterthought, I think "You get what you pay for" was just about certainly coined by the person being paid, not by the person paying.

I suspect it was done by a third party. IME the common use of "You get what you pay for" is in reaction to someone picking a cheap option and discovering that it's crappy.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Kromm

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.

It sounds like you're considering Signature Gear a core Advantage that gear-bound characters should be expected to take, and have then shaped things around that.

Personally, I consider Signature Gear a weird option for somebody who is bent on having, well, a signature bit of gear. If you've just got to use your ancestral sword, or a particular rifle that you've given a name, or your favorite motorcycle, and losing those will ruin your PC, then absolutely go for it. If you don't care about the specific item, just about having suitable tools for your skills, Signature Gear is a bad fit. And those non-obsessive PCs don't deserve to be hosed by their suitable tools constantly being taken away because they didn't invest them with narrative specialness.


Also, by the book, Allies are protected against disloyalty but they're as easy to get killed as anyone else. Not nearly as reliable as signature gear!

Originally Posted by whswhs

And yet, last year, I replaced our Airport Extreme router, which was a few years old, with a new router that Apple recommended. It kept dropping the links to our computers. After several calls to the manufacturer failed either to resolve the problem or get a replacement, we went down to Best Buy and bought a router there, which is working fine.

So yes, I do rely on gear, but sometimes it proves unreliable. I ran into a case of "you can't trust gear."

Gear isn't 100% reliable all the time isn't 'you can't trust gear', and your story is hardly a horror - you got a bad piece of equipment whose badness was quickly apparent, and when you replaced it everything was fine. The ugliest part is the one where you tried to save money by getting the manufacturer to make good before giving up and replacing the problem item.

Your story can't really be fit into the discussion much, though, since reality doesn't let you buy the router as an Advantage on your character sheet.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Also, by the book, Allies are protected against disloyalty but they're as easy to get killed as anyone else. Not nearly as reliable as signature gear!

I interpret Signature Gear as being largely immune to the whims of the GM (when the GM railroads the party into a "Jail-break" plot, the character with Signature Gear is guaranteed to be able to recover said gear, while everything else is gone - tossed in the incinerator, sold off, split amongst the captors, etc), but if you Parry a heavy weapon with your Signature Gear sword, it's just as likely to end up broken as any other sword of the same quality. Allies should be treated similarly - while the GM can certainly assassinate one of the (small-a) allies you've made during your adventures to start a "Whodunnit?" plot, or kill some off to establish the new enemy is Serious Business, your Allies aren't at risk there... but they can still be killed during combat just as readily as your own character.

[Tymathee]

Something I've noticed which may already be plain as day, is that the Wealth rules and Wealth adjacent traits and rules are simplified and abstracted to the extent necessary to make gaming them enjoyable. I would not want to have any campaign of mine to be "Economy Simulation: The Game" as that's a mind-bogglingly endeavor I'd take no joy in pursuing or even gaming out if I could even do so realistically. Since I'm in college now, I'd probably want to take business and economics classes in order to really ingrain that level of realism into my head. When GURPS begins to require its base of GMs and players to have advanced higher education to even play the game is when the game itself is no longer accessible to play for many... and GURPS is already quite niche within a niche hobby.

Now, I might not mind a GURPS: Business and Economics supplement. Sure would save me precious student money on classes that I might take, as GURPS books are often so well researched and written to not only educate but also to entertain (which facilitates the former better!). It irked the teachers in my public education that some RPG supplements were educating me on topics better than they could.

[ravenfish]

My take is that gear sometimes breaks down, and hireling sometimes prove unreliable, not merely because it's realistic but because it's dramatically appropriate. On the other hand, properly-maintained gear only breaks down rarely, and well-treated hirelings are reliable in the majority of cases, not merely because that's realistic but because the alternative is frustrating rather than entertaining. Ultimately, once you've gotten your other skills to an appropriate level, 50 points in Wealth generally provides more benefit than 50 points in other "power ups".

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I interpret Signature Gear as being largely immune to the whims of the GM (when the GM railroads the party into a "Jail-break" plot, the character with Signature Gear is guaranteed to be able to recover said gear, while everything else is gone - tossed in the incinerator, sold off, split amongst the captors, etc), but if you Parry a heavy weapon with your Signature Gear sword, it's just as likely to end up broken as any other sword of the same quality. Allies should be treated similarly - while the GM can certainly assassinate one of the (small-a) allies you've made during your adventures to start a "Whodunnit?" plot, or kill some off to establish the new enemy is Serious Business, your Allies aren't at risk there... but they can still be killed during combat just as readily as your own character.

I'm not sure whether this is specific RAW, but I'd think that while Signature Gear is not unbreakable, the security would extend to an expectation that if you manage to break it, you'll have the possibility of repairing it.

Characters doesn't speak to this clearly - it talks about having the gear taken away, but not about having it damaged or destroyed. GURPS DF's description ("This makes it part of his abilities, buying the GM’s word that he won’t often be without it.") doesn't talk about destruction specifically but I think it suggests my interpretation...