06-14-2021, 03:40 AM | #71 |
Night Watchman
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
Could you do it at less than book length? I co-edit a GURPS fanzine, The Path of Cunning, and it sounds interesting. PM or e-mail me.
__________________
The Path of Cunning. Indexes: DFRPG Characters, Advantage of the Week, Disadvantage of the Week, Skill of the Week, Techniques. |
06-14-2021, 03:38 PM | #72 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ft Collins, CO
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
Quote:
This has always been challenging. In the past I have started with telling players of 'poor' PCs that they needed to roleplay being poor. To have reasons built into their character that suck money away (gambling debts, sick mother and her medical bills, spendthrift girlfriend) and just handwave that even though you got $XXX share after the adventure/dungeon, somehow you only have 0.5 * $XXX to spend. They have to understand that they get no benefit from the other half of that share. As an even more draconian rule, if players of 'rich' PCs start bankrolling 'poor' PCs, you could start taking character points from the rich PCs to buy off the poor PC's disadvantage. That's basically what they are doing - make them pay for it. My $0.02 |
|
06-22-2021, 06:21 PM | #73 |
Join Date: Sep 2018
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
The Wealth Advantage/Disadvantage has rules for continued income during the game but it's a super weird game where your players continue to punch a clock and collect a paycheck after the campaign starts. Wealth should primarily affect starting resources.
With the exception of Dungeon Fantasy's weird gamified idea of Wealth, loot isn't a part of the wealth advantage, nor is shopping or consumption of ammunition or any other oddity. Being poor doesn't mean you don't have friends that can help you and it doesn't mean you're bad at managing money. That said if your campaign has a paycheck. If the players run a tavern, or fly a cargo ship, or are part of a fantasy Mercenary company. The GM should point out that the poor player would normally be paid less than regular crew. If your poor players are short-cutting the problems they'd normally face because of poverty by getting handouts I think you're well within your rights to use those negative character points for other disadvantages like Lower Status, or an enemy exciseman. |
06-23-2021, 07:05 AM | #74 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
I wouldn't expect it to be that weird, although not the genre(s) I'd typically be interested in. There's plenty of fiction where the characters have obligations during the day and do most of their plot-relevant stuff on nights and weekends, occasionally skipping out on their daytime obligations when absolutely necessary. Granted, those characters are often children/young adults, and the daytime obligations are school rather than work, but the same can easily apply to adults working a 9-5 M-F job.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
06-23-2021, 07:40 AM | #75 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ronkonkoma, NY
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
GURPS isn't only about emulating fiction, and it's not necessary to find models in literature to justify something. Often it's about setting up a fantastic and/or exciting environment and letting players do what they want with it. Other times the management of money may play a part, and a job between adventures will usually offset the character's Cost of Living expense. Sometimes it's just about verisimilitude: you're not a full-time adventurer, so you have to be doing something when you're not adventuring.
|
06-24-2021, 06:06 AM | #76 |
Join Date: Nov 2013
|
Re: To be, or not to be… poor
In my games, I consider the wealth just a starting point. If during the adventures the characters amass enough wealth to change levels, they get a higher level of the advantage free of charge. If on the other hand, they lose money, they might lose the advantage. This is not different, I think, from a character gaining a disadvantage like "one-hand" from a combat wound.
As for bankrolling, I think it is important if the players at least act naturally. Is the rich character giving way too much money to the poor ones for no good reason? If so, the player should probably be penalised for bad role-playing; as with doing anything that doesn't make sense. On the other hand, if the poor character is geared up by the rich one to be his bodyguard or something like that; or the rich player become an employer of the poor one and demands some kind of service from time to time; that can help the game become more interesting just as well. It is important that disadvantages like that do represent an actual disadvantage, though. From the game start. So the initial situation of the character should play a hand into how the game starts. In other words, I wouldn't allow the rich character to buy things to the poor one before the game even started. My approach to points might be a bit unusual though. I usually have a policy of not letting points do "meta-game" stuff. For instance, the version of signature gear in my campaign doesn't really protects the character's item in any way; it can still be stole, destroyed and whatnot without any kind of protection. It does allow you, though, to purchase gear that is either very rare or unique in the setting - things that you wouldn't be able to purchase normally without at least some adventuring to find who might be selling it - from the get go. |
Tags |
wealth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|