Independent Income at later TL stages

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Rupert

A The player has a justification for II - "My character wants to gain an Independent Income, and will invest money to gain it along with the points, which he has available right now. How much of his cash do I need to invest to get an II?"

The rules give no guidance at all.

There is no fixed amount of money required even for investments. You can win your starship in a game of chance and you can have a massive windfall of investment money which you then squirrel away for long-term income use rather than spend.

In both cases it si the spending of cp that causes the in-game event. That allows you to win that game of chance or to have those successful investments. You don't need to know how the game of chance worked or exactly how much money was required before the monthly income started. Both would be taken care of by the spending of the cp.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by maximara

The base premise was "the merchant in a society where merchants are looked down on"

Going from only that a better fit is

Status 1 base (Merchant) with social stigma (belongs to merchant class) for net Social Status 0 while maintaining the Cost of Living of Status 1.

The TL and higher wealth level are just window dressing to the above core.

The conversation was about Status versus Wealth versus Cost of Living, so I took "where merchants are looked down on" to mean "merchant-class person acquires wealth to live as noble-class person," and that's what I made.

If "looked down on" is supposed to mean that society as a whole looks down on merchants, then sure, Social Stigma is the right way to go. But that wasn't really what the premise was, and this tangent obscures things.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

If the only kind of income appropriate in your campaign is from investments, then that's on you, not the game rules.

If a trait that is meant to be able to represent investments cannot represent investments made after the game starts, that's arguably on the game rules. Of course, that's not part of GURPS' focus, but at least a warning that the trait cannot be purchased as part of in-game investments would be welcome.

I don't think it's appropriate to act like it's not a hole in the rules, however. It's sort of like when, prior to Martial Arts, spears could only be used to stab and couldn't do tip slashes or butt-strike swings. "Just stab with it. If the only way you can use spears in your campaign is to tip slash or do a butt-strike, that's on you, not the game rules."

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Where did I say anything not about finding the justification during game-play? I specifically mentioned an uncle that you learned about on the last adventure. And I didn't say you could raise your Wealth from meeting him; I suggested an Independent Income. I was very careful to make everything come from game-play, not from a whim of the player. You have misread me.

Apparently so. I thought you were saying I was wrong about both possible options - either you earn the right to buy the trait in play, or the GM allows the player to alter the world in some way to give his character the trait - was incorrect, and that the latter bit was incorrect in that you thought I was stating the player can just spend the points and let the GM come up with the justification. It sounds now like you're saying the only option is to earn it - is that correct?

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

There is no fixed amount of money required even for investments. You can win your starship in a game of chance and you can have a massive windfall of investment money which you then squirrel away for long-term income use rather than spend.

In both cases it si the spending of cp that causes the in-game event. That allows you to win that game of chance or to have those successful investments. You don't need to know how the game of chance worked or exactly how much money was required before the monthly income started. Both would be taken care of by the spending of the cp.

I feel this probably is the most fair way to do it, provided you're in a campaign where things like impulse buys are appropriate (and that's sort of what this is - a permanent impulse buy). It doesn't work so well if the goal of one of the characters is to build up their personal wealth to some level, however, as it basically short-circuits an entire character arc by just investing the points and getting a windfall. It's sort of like a DF Swashbuckler who's backstory involves searching for a master to teach him the Coup de Jarnac just spending the first [15] he gains (in the first 3-5 sessions) on the power-up, so that the master he's been searching for just so happens to come to town and teaches him the technique.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I feel this probably is the most fair way to do it, provided you're in a campaign where things like impulse buys are appropriate (and that's sort of what this is - a permanent impulse buy). It doesn't work so well if the goal of one of the characters is to build up their personal wealth to some level, however, as it basically short-circuits an entire character arc by just investing the points and getting a windfall. It's sort of like a DF Swashbuckler who's backstory involves searching for a master to teach him the Coup de Jarnac just spending the first [15] he gains (in the first 3-5 sessions) on the power-up, so that the master he's been searching for just so happens to come to town and teaches him the technique.

To extend the analogy, requiring that the Swashbuckler search, find and convince a master to train him before he can buy the technique is good.

But you don't need (or want) the game system dictating that the character have to spend 3 game session searching, then spend one week climbing a mountain barefoot in the snow, followed by defeating 6 swashbuckler build on 250 cp in order for the master to teach him.
Such details are best left to the GM.

Likewise, you must have a justification to build an Independent income, but the only criteria for that justification should be "the GM accept it".
Wanting a system that would say "for a $400 II, you must invest $75987.15 or assets worth an equivalent amount" is going a step too far, imho.

[Donny Brook]

A GM can do whatever she likes in her campaigns.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Varyon

If a trait that is meant to be able to represent investments cannot represent investments made after the game starts, that's arguably on the game rules. Of course, that's not part of GURPS' focus, but at least a warning that the trait cannot be purchased as part of in-game investments would be welcome.

The trait can totally be purchased as part of in-game investment. It will just be expensive enough to not be worth it.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Varyon

If a trait that is meant to be able to represent investments cannot represent investments made after the game starts, that's arguably on the game rules.

But I didn't say that.

I said, "Independent Income doesn't represent investments. Independent Income represents cash you get each month that doesn't come from a job."

You stopped reading after the first sentence. The second sentence replaces the idea denied by the first one. I don't deny that Independent Income can represent investments; I deny that that's all it does. "All" that it does is give you cash without you have to work a job for it.

I don't think it's appropriate to act like it's not a hole in the rules, however. It's sort of like when, prior to Martial Arts, spears could only be used to stab and couldn't do tip slashes or butt-strike swings. "Just stab with it. If the only way you can use spears in your campaign is to tip slash or do a butt-strike, that's on you, not the game rules."

As I said before, if you want to write GURPS Finances, go ahead.

But GURPS Martial Arts does not fill holes. It expands detail. Your GURPS game does not have holes if you don't include tip slashes or butt-strike swings. Those are just beyond the detail you're interested in.

The details of how an Independent Income based on investments is set up is also beyond the detail that GURPS is interested in. If you want to expand on that detail, write the supplement. But that doesn't mean the Basic Set has a hole.

Apparently so. I thought you were saying I was wrong about both possible options - either you earn the right to buy the trait in play, or the GM allows the player to alter the world in some way to give his character the trait - was incorrect, and that the latter bit was incorrect in that you thought I was stating the player can just spend the points and let the GM come up with the justification. It sounds now like you're saying the only option is to earn it - is that correct?

Your only option is to do what the GM tells you you need to do.

But what the book says is that there are different ways to add or improve different types of traits. I summarized them earlier. In general, you need to provide some in-game justification first. You don't necessarily have to earn that justification during a game: some justifications are available offstage, like "spent a year in Russia; acquired Russian (Broken)" or "got a background check done; acquired Security Clearance."

The advice on social traits on page B291 is pretty specific. Allies, Contacts, Patrons, and Reputations must be earned on adventures. Signature Gear must be acquired on adventures (even if it's just something you picked up off the floor). Clerical Investment, Legal Enforcements Powers, Rank, Security Clearance, Status, etc., must be bestowed by an authority, which "might" require some unspecified prerequisite. Personal Tech Level can be raised just by interacting with a society at the new TL. Wealth is raised by "amassing" money.

What I'm not saying, and what the rules aren't saying, is that players can declare a justification that requires earning in play that they haven't earned in play.

The point here is that there isn't a single procedure to any of this, including Independent Income. There is no rule about how to throw money at Independent Income to earn it, because that's not what Independent Income is all about. Independent Income is about any source of non-job monthly income. It is a black box that takes in any GM-approved justification and spits out money.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

Likewise, you must have a justification to build an Independent income, but the only criteria for that justification should be "the GM accept it".
Wanting a system that would say "for a $400 II, you must invest $75987.15 or assets worth an equivalent amount" is going a step too far, imho.

And I don't want, and have not asked, for a firm statement on how much money a level of II should cost. I've asked for the game to have guidance as to how much a GM should charge.

While the certainly isn't a financial simulator, it has clear guidelines (some might say rules) on how much jobs should pay, how much money or value of goods a PC should start the game with and how much of that might be spent on 'adventure useful' stuff, with several ways to gain that cash (including having an ongoing stipend or monthly debt). It has precise pricing for a huge range of goods, from towels to starships, and ways to calculate the cost of custom-made goods and buildings (and magical items and services) that rely on the guidelines about jobs and pay.

So GURPS clearly considers money very important, and provides precise numbers for income and for prices. It even has some basic guidelines on how to work out how merchants make money and how much value their stock needs to have. So why is it so very important to defend it not having anything, not even a short box on the matter, on how much II might cost to buy as an investment in game?

I'd like to point out that this is not the first time it's come up in my campaign, and I don't see why it wouldn't come up in other people's. It seems like a sensible move for someone who has made a goodly amount of money adventuring to want to put some of it into investments of various kinds (stocks, real estate, etc.) and enjoy a guaranteed income. If nothing else, it's a form of insurance against coming home from an adventure that worked out badly and having to live on the streets. You can also have it paying the costs of upkeep of your stuff while you're away.

So we have here an advantage that is clearly something purchasable with money (it's description includes the possibility of it being from stocks or a trust), that's in a category that we're told you should have an in-play justification for as well as the points (and these traits are not ones where the examples suggest you should just make up a story for them, BTW), and yet there's nothing on this very obvious in-game justification for gaining the advantage.

In a game that has a lot of rules/guidelines for how much things cost this is an oversight.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The trait can totally be purchased as part of in-game investment. It will just be expensive enough to not be worth it.

A statement like that leaves a lot of context unsaid. A trait can only be purchased with GM approval. A character investing in-game money for in-game returns is not thereby alone buying a character trait. Such an in-game investment should be 'worth' whatever the in-setting market provides. So your comment might appear to mix two different concepts: (a) setting consistency with (b) the point cost/value of character traits.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The trait can totally be purchased as part of in-game investment. It will just be expensive enough to not be worth it.

That does depend on how long (in game-time) the campaign is expected to run, and what the local ROI tends to be.

Just what that was at various TLs, for the sort of thing one might be able to gain something like an Independent Income from, and which historical settings an II from investment was essentially impossible to justify, would be nice.

Such information also gives an idea about how wealthy a patron, etc., would need to be to give out II in the form of stipends or revenue streams from something (like from a mill or use fees on a bridge or the like).