Independent Income at later TL stages

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Rupert

... That doesn't alter how it's supposed to go if the player just wants to buy II (or Wealth, Reputation, etc.) - they need an in-game justification. For II that would surely involve taking some money that their character has and investing it.

It involves an in game justification, but I see no reason to limit that to investments. A grateful monarch couldd grant an income. A patent or novel or song could pay a royalty. Land could produce rent. Etc.

You're right that no time is set, and it's given as up to the GM. I still think it's a bad fit, however.

Even so, there actually are people in the real world who make their living managing their own investments.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by maximara

That brings up something I am curious about. What about commuter towns? On their Vado and Dripping Springs (NM) come off as Struggling but thanks to the commutes to Las Cruces, NM they are functionally average.

That one seems easy. A city's wealth level importantly reflects its ability to export goods and services, especially to other cities; and GURPS City Stats notes that government, religion, and tourism are perfectly possible exports (even though, for example, tourism involves the tourists coming to you). This is a case of a city exporting labor to another, nearby city.

If any city were made unable to trade with other cities, it would be poorer, usually significantly poorer.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Rupert

And that makes a knight's weapons, horse, and armour 'lifestyle' - he must have them to be a knight. Meanwhile, a townsman of the same Status and Wealth has to pay for them. One of these characters is getting a lot more value out of their back-story than the other in a normal adventuring campaign.

I don't think those things ARE his lifestyle. I think they're the equipment of his occupation.

A normal knight would be expected to occupy a fief, which would provide him with something that looks a lot like Independent Income, though whoever he owes fealty to could take it away if he doesn't meet his feudal obligations—so it's sort of payment for his job. He's supposed to provide his own equipment. Since he can use it to go adventuring, it comes out of the 20% of starting wealth that goes for adventuring gear.

A knight errant with no fief, but starting with money, could put his full starting wealth into buying such gear.

A knight from a poor background might have such gear as an inheritance or gift, like d'Artagnan's sword and horse (though those are from a later era). If he doesn't have the money to buy them, they could be taken as Signature Gear.

On the other hand, in a situation where professional armies were a thing, a heavy armored cavalry soldier might be provided with his gear by his employer, and NOT usually be free to take it on adventures.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Rupert

And that makes a knight's weapons, horse, and armour 'lifestyle' - he must have them to be a knight. Meanwhile, a townsman of the same Status and Wealth has to pay for them. One of these characters is getting a lot more value out of their back-story than the other in a normal adventuring campaign.

Nonono, I said everyone in Alaska, not all hunters in Alaska. If everyone at a certain Status in Alaska is more or less expected to own an AR-15 the way everyone at a certain Status is pretty much expected to own a car, then an AR-15 is reasonable background "lifestyle" equipment for that Status. If only hunters and gun enthusiasts own AR-15s, then AR-15s are not reasonable background equipment for that Status, and the hunters and enthusiasts — and everyone else — has to buy one with starting wealth if they want one.

In other words, you get as part of your background whatever would logically appear on your campaign's customized "What Cost of Living Gets You" table, which takes only the setting's Statuses and TL into account.

In the case of the knight: not everyone is a knight, so knightly equipment is not part of that table, and so knights have to buy their equipment with starting wealth (or find other ways to get it, like Patrons or Signature Gear).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

If that's the scale it makes a big difference whether the car is included in fixed assets or provided by cost-of-living. And you have a very different idea from my insurance company or what it would cost to replace an ordinary adult's household contents. I suppose that we have to treat my furniture and bedding, clothes, kitchen equipment, tableware, and household electronics as provided by my cost of living, as though I was renting my house furnished. So does that mean that Agemegos has $32k in his current account?

Not according to rules as written. P. B26 say that if you have a settled lifestyle, 80% of your starting wealth goes into what amounts to "fixed assets."

As to the cost of replacing household contents, if you think $32K isn't enough, it seems as if the RAW way to deal with this is to say that you are not merely Comfortable, but Wealthy, which gives you $80K in fixed assets, assuming you're not an adventurer, of course. And then you may want to lower the Independent Income levels to come out with the correct rental value for the house; a house worth $2000/month, for example, would be Independent Income 2 rather than 5.

Certainly not. I just think it's queer to defend the rules by explaining that they are broken.

Well, but I'm not defending "the rules." I'm talking about the logic of one specific set of rules: those that relate to independent income.

I've thought about the much repeated request for a GURPS book on wealth. But aside from the publisher not seeming to think this is a priority, I don't think that I'm up to the task of sorting out the existing rules into something that makes sense as a complete system. I think there would need to be quite different rules as a starting point.

I made up II, back in the days of 3/e and the original GURPS Steampunk, because I had a specific need: I needed to represent gentlemen (and ladies) who had "an income" in the Victorian sense, meaning they didn't have to hold a job—and secondarily, people such as pensioners. They were too much a part of the steampunk scene to be left out. And I basically gave them all the privilege that a Very Wealthy or better character had in 3/e of having a certain amount of money come in every month, because the MONEY wasn't the issue; the issue was "no day job."

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Rupert

That doesn't alter how it's supposed to go if the player just wants to buy II (or Wealth, Reputation, etc.) - they need an in-game justification. For II that would surely involve taking some money that their character has and investing it.

Given the rate of income shown in this thread, I don't think you can justify Independent Income with investments once the game has started. Apparently, 7% yearly is considered a good investment. As each point in II gets you 12% of Starting Wealth (for your Wealth level) each year, that means you need to invest around 1.7x your Starting Wealth for each point you put in II, which is a pretty hefty sum (it works out to around 17 months' wages, once you account for CoL), particularly considering a character with investments is probably Settled, so that's actually around 8.5x their starting funds (as they start with only 20% of Starting Wealth as actual funds).

And, of course, unless you're running a campaign that lasts decades, buying II during play is a horrible idea if you need to actually invest both the funds and the character points for it. Even if you get a fantastic yearly return of 12% of your investment (which I think would usually require active participation to maintain), you're looking at spending, say, $20,000 in order to get $200 per month - you've got to keep that up for 100 months (8 years, 4 months) just to get your money back (and that doesn't account for your missing character point).

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

“GURPS: lets you play anything except a householder with investments.”

TL 8 [0]; Wealth (Comfortable) [10]; Independent Income 3 [3]; Status 1 [5].

Starting wealth: $40,000
Starting money on hand: $8,000
Independent Income: $1,200/month
Cost of Living: $1,200/month

Customization Notes: If you want extra spending money for adventures, take one or more extra levels of Independent Income for an extra $400/month per level.

[Celjabba]

For people who don't want to rely on the GM fiat for
"You have/ don't have this as part of your settled lifestyle",
adapting Pyramid 3.83 Schrödinger’s Backpack rules into Schrödinger’s assets may be a possibility ?

I wouldn't for my tables, and have no idea how to setup the roll penalties without opening the door to various abuse*, but maybe someone can make it work ?

*the original article is clearly delimited in scope. Extending it to all lifestyle assets would be a challenge

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Not according to rules as written. P. B26 say that if you have a settled lifestyle, 80% of your starting wealth goes into what amounts to "fixed assets."

It's worth noting that that's really framed as a quite optional rule.

"Realistically, if you have a settled lifestyle, you should put 80% of your starting wealth into home, clothing, etc., which leaves only 20% for “adventuring” gear. If you are a wanderer (pioneer, knight-errant, Free Trader, etc.), or Poor or worse, the GM might allow you to spend all your starting wealth on movable possessions." [Boldface added.]

And the use of the word "Realistically" there is pretty questionable.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by safisher

Given that GURPS is not a reality simulator, Ind Inc is just a way to spend points to create a character concept that the player finds interesting. There have been a number of explanations for it in this thread. But what it comes down to is the points generate an effect for the PC. Sometimes the points allow the PC to speak a language, or sense danger, or smooth talk NPCs. Sometimes the points represent the PC's place in society. In a very rough sense, the GURPS rules for wealth are mostly a PC-facing game effect that can be controlled using points. That's all it is.

The problem is that these rules are not very good at simulating many common character concepts, such as the impoverished aristocrat, the merchant in a society where merchants are looked down on, or the person who lacks the social standing expected of someone in their position. I suppose you could represent Richard Sharpe with a lower Wealth and Reputation (jumped-up ranker: aristocrats and conservative officers, 12 or less) and ignore the Status rules

There are adventure stories, like NCIS, where the character's home lives and finances are offscreen, but there are also ones, like Tintin or Beam Piper's Four-Day Planet, where one or both is onscreen (Tintin's finances are a blank slate, but his apartment and then Marlinspike Hall are often settings for action).

I submit that if you asked people reasonably knowledgeable about economics, sociology, etc, to design these rules they would look very different, But because they are tradition, people will defend them.