Money Perk

[Mirgos]

After looking at the Money Perk, I have a question - does it represent having a job or just income of any sort? And if it is for any income would a Disadvantage be appropriate to show the restrictions a character with a job would have on his free time for adventuring, etc.

Thanks for any help to clear this up in my own head.

Mirgos

[Tonio]

After looking at the Money Perk, I have a question - does it represent having a job or just income of any sort? And if it is for any income would a Disadvantage be appropriate to show the restrictions a character with a job would have on his free time for adventuring, etc.

Thanks for any help to clear this up in my own head.

Mirgos

As is usual for most things HERO, the Money Perk has no default SFX, meaning it doesn't represent how or why the character has access to that money / spending power.

As for a Disadvantage representing a job... I believe most characters are presumed to have some sort of non-adventuring obligations (not sure on that), but if your character's obligations are a significant problem, then sure, I'd say a Disadvantage would be appropriate. =)

[Sean Waters]

Hostage Situation Resolver: Money: Filthy Rich, Usable As Attack (+1) (22 Active Points); OAF (-1), 1 Continuing Charge lasting 20 Minutes (-1/2)

Basically it is a credit card you throw at a hostage taker, which removes their motivation. For 20 minutes.

Does that help?

[Mirgos]

As is usual for most things HERO, the Money Perk has no default SFX, meaning it doesn't represent how or why the character has access to that money / spending power.

As for a Disadvantage representing a job... I believe most characters are presumed to have some sort of non-adventuring obligations (not sure on that), but if your character's obligations are a significant problem, then sure, I'd say a Disadvantage would be appropriate. =)

Thanks - the campaign I'm setting up is Pulp & will probably involve a lot of globe-trotting so I'm thinking any steady job would be disadvantageous (in the general meaning of the word:)), but what value in game terms. I'm still new to the system & not completely sure about this side of things.

Mirgos

[azato]

I would figure out what would be the base level of money/income needed to live at a moderate level in your campaign. There are means to financing travel beyond a character having the income/cash, such as through sponsors. It may make sense to charge points for people to have beyond the "ordinary" amount of spending cash. Anybody can get the money to purchase a gun on a whim, but not everybody can pull out a wad of cash and purchase an automobile on a whim.

I guess it depends how much you want finances to drive the game. If it isn't important - don't worry about it.


Thanks - the campaign I'm setting up is Pulp & will probably involve a lot of globe-trotting so I'm thinking any steady job would be disadvantageous (in the general meaning of the word:)), but what value in game terms. I'm still new to the system & not completely sure about this side of things.



Mirgos

[pinecone]

Yeah, they can have "Globe trotting" jobs....Sailor, Reporter...etc

A gambler could have Wealthy with an activation..:) (Sometimes he's broke, sometimes flush...)...or RSR (Gambling)

[Lord Liaden]

Thanks - the campaign I'm setting up is Pulp & will probably involve a lot of globe-trotting so I'm thinking any steady job would be disadvantageous (in the general meaning of the word:)), but what value in game terms. I'm still new to the system & not completely sure about this side of things.

Mirgos

From the magnificent online Master List of Limitations (http://lostcoastgaming.com/files/masterlists.htm):


Nine-To-Five Job
JackButler, 3 February 2008(created 3 February 2008)

Frequently, Minor: 10 Points


Type: Social
Description: The character has a job with set hours (they can be any hours, despite the name of the Disadvantage) that must be performed at a set location. The job has very limited flexibility for tardiness or absence, and any slippage in work performance will be punished. This can make it difficult to go on adventures. Characters with Identity (Secret Identity) often suffer from this Disadvantage.



On Call
JackButler, 3 February 2008(created 3 February 2008)

Occasionally, Minor: 5 Points
Frequently, Minor: 10 Points
Very Frequently, Minor: 15 Points


Type: Social
Description: This character's job requires him to be on call after hours. This is a common practice for doctors, detectives, and even plumbers. When called out, the character must leave what he is doing (social event, family time, sleeping) to respond to the work emergency. Failure to do so could cause the character to lose his job. On the plus side, he probably earns extra pay for being on call, and might be able to draw overtime pay. The frequency of this Disadvantage is based on how often the character gets called out.


[These are general parameters you can use as examples, adjustable based on what you see as the needs of your campaign -- LL.]

[Mirgos]

Thanks = this is the sort of thing I was thinking! I mean even if a PC has a job that allows travelling, etc they would still have some restrictions placed on their movements & actions. This gives a place to start from.

Mirgos

[OddHat]

I'd suggest that this usually falls under "Secret ID", "Watched" and "Subject to Orders". If you take the points for a Secret ID, one thing you're agreeing to is that it will come up in play and may cause problems; having to be back at work at 9:00 am or risk losing your job is one of those problems.

Many globe trotting Pulp heroes were independently wealthy with ill defined business interests (or gold mines). How they made money never came up in the stories, and thus they wouldn't (as PCs) get disadvantage points to reflect their jobs.

[Sean Waters]

If you want a job to base your wealth off, then you can buy wealth with a limtiation that it requires you to devote time and effort to the job, with a corresponding reduction of loss of income if you don't put int he time.

Given that most jobs take up 40/168ths of your week, I'd call that a pretty impressive limtiation: -1 or even more, s:

Wealth 10 points (requires you to work a job -1) 5 points

[Kdansky]

Buy the way: Assuming a character would like a fixed one-time amount instead of an income (and the free stuff that comes with it from "I have had this for 10 years, obviously I do have a house and a car and a cat and a coffee machine"), like a lottery winning? I thought about 10x the yearly income, but the character really has to pay for everything (assuming he does not have a job).

[Hugh Neilson]

One source of ongoing wealth would be a large investment portfolio, which one could create with lottery winnings. The catch is that dipping into the capital drops the recurring income. Perhaps the structure should be Wealth (annual investment earnings) with a higher level of Wealth that risks Burnout of the annual income.

But really, how complicated do you want to make this? If I were looking for a D&D type setting where every gold coin us tracked, I doubt I would allow wealth to be purchased by points (it becomes like equipment - find it) and, if I did, I'd set a "1 point = x gold coins" standard. Wealth as written really only works when wealth has an ancillary, indirect impact on the game.

[Mirgos]

I'm not sure where I was really going with this - but I wasn't thinking of tracking every £££ the PCs had. More like if someone is a journalist with a middle income how do you differentiate between him (who has to work, take orders, etc) & someone who also takes the 0-point Perk but decides he has no income as such but is wealthy by default.

Not sure if I'm getting my point across well - so I hope I'm making some sense here.

Mirgos

[rreay]

It's the special effect of the money perk. The journalist has his job interfering in his heroing every so often but sometimes gets sent to investigate interesting stories. The trust fund guy gets neither the down side or the up. If the effects are minor enough than it all just falls into special effects.

If the effects are larger than that, maybe the journalist is always in danger of losing his job, then it's time to see what disadvantages might apply. Maybe an occasionally/minor social limitation of some sort to indicate the nature of his job.

[Mirgos]

I see what you are getting at but wouldn't the trust fund guy get dragged along on the adventures/assignments if only to give his player something to do - thus giving him the same benefit.
(Got to use "thus" in sentence YEAH I AM PRETENSIOUS!!!

Mirgos

[Hugh Neilson]

I see what you are getting at but wouldn't the trust fund guy get dragged along on the adventures/assignments if only to give his player something to do - thus giving him the same benefit.
(Got to use "thus" in sentence YEAH I AM PRETENSIOUS!!!

And either one can buy plane tickets for his teammates. There is commonly some spillover of benefits from many abilities.

Which one can ask his editor for access to the dead files office to research some obscure historical matter which has arisen in game?

[rreay]

I see what you are getting at but wouldn't the trust fund guy get dragged along on the adventures/assignments if only to give his player something to do - thus giving him the same benefit.


The journalist gets the whole spotlight for a few minutes doing the initial investigation of a story that can turn out to be so much more. Also, there are minor effects that don't rise to the level of perk; the journalist has the ID to get in tp the mayors press conference, while Trust Fund man gets stopped by security.

Also, from my point of view, in an RPG even negative attention is good. It makes that character the star or the game for a minute. While the journalist is rushing to find a phone trying to make the submission deadline Trust Fund man is left eating chips.

Even if it doesn't add up to a perk or disadvantage having the hooks in the character design give the GM something to have plot points off of. The journalist is getting more attention both positive and negative becasue he is a more interesting character.

[Tom Carman]

I didn't take a formal Disad for this one. I have a Wealthy character who heads up the local branch of his family's business, a mostly hands-off manager who "makes his own hours". If something comes up during working hours, there is a 8- chance that he is at the office that day and can't get away immediately.

[Mirgos]

The journalist gets the whole spotlight for a few minutes doing the initial investigation of a story that can turn out to be so much more. Also, there are minor effects that don't rise to the level of perk; the journalist has the ID to get in tp the mayors press conference, while Trust Fund man gets stopped by security.

Also, from my point of view, in an RPG even negative attention is good. It makes that character the star or the game for a minute. While the journalist is rushing to find a phone trying to make the submission deadline Trust Fund man is left eating chips.

Even if it doesn't add up to a perk or disadvantage having the hooks in the character design give the GM something to have plot points off of. The journalist is getting more attention both positive and negative becasue he is a more interesting character.

Thanks rreay I get it now I just need to think harder about the ingame benefits a PC's job can confer:thumbup:

[Kdansky]

Hey, what about:

"Hunted/Watched: Something at the office might come up: 8-"

:)

[Dead guy on tab]

Not really on topic, but I figure this is the best place to put it. I developed a spreadsheet to calculate a more exponential progression (as well as calculate values for in between point totals) to the wealth perk. I've also included columns for annual income, assets (~3X income), disposable monthly income (~1/100 annual income). The first set is the proposed new perk levels. The second set is the customizable values. To change the levels you either change the base assets (225,000 (0 point value)) or the number next to the exponent (0.63) to tweak to the level you want. The graph below shows you the impact of your modifications. The way I set it, it will cost you 20 points to be the richest man in the world (>$62B) and still roughly match the values set in 5ER. Comments are appreciated.

[Killer Shrike]

It can mean anything you want it to mean. As far as a Disad, if having a job interferes with or provides challenges / obstacles that intrude on the face to face game time, then certainly its ok to take one or more Disads that properly model it as appropriate. If its just a background element that bears little or no influence on the "spotlight" time of the game then no.

Generally speaking, in supers campaigns, most of the downsides of having a life other than being a spotlight character are covered under the larger umbrella of "Secret Id". You can also use DNPC, Watched (lesser form of hunted), and Social Limitations instead of or in addition to as makes sense.

[Mirgos]

It can mean anything you want it to mean. As far as a Disad, if having a job interferes with or provides challenges / obstacles that intrude on the face to face game time, then certainly its ok to take one or more Disads that properly model it as appropriate. If its just a background element that bears little or no influence on the "spotlight" time of the game then no.

Generally speaking, in supers campaigns, most of the downsides of having a life other than being a spotlight character are covered under the larger umbrella of "Secret Id". You can also use DNPC, Watched (lesser form of hunted), and Social Limitations instead of or in addition to as makes sense.

Thanks I think that's the way I'm going to go with it - possibly a Subject to Orders if warranted, but only if I decide I can use it during play.

Mirgos

[Vulcan]

One of my recent characters had 5pts. wealth: Swiss Bank Account. It was money he took with him when he 'changed sides' and broke away from the villian organization he had been working for...

But in order to preserve his capitol, he got jobs as a network engineer - and spent most of his time at work researching cases.

(Yes, I know that most compaines have software that monitors the use of company computers. And who do you think installs and maintains this software? ;))

[Sean Waters]

Here's a thought. perhaps, just maybe, we should not define wealth as income but as capital (yes, I was reading Hugh's post when I thought of this).

Your wealth therefore goes away if you use it BUT you can sue it for other things too - like property and cars and what-have-you that may retain some intrinsic value.

For instance, if you put the wealth in property then you can convert it back to wealth at a later stage, possibly at a profit, but you can't do it quickly.

You could invest part of the wealth in income generating ventures. You can decide if they are low, medium or high risk. Roll 3d6 and that is the percentage income for a low risk venture. Roll a 3 and lose the wealth. For a medium risk, double the percentage income but lose the wealth on a 3 or 4, and for high risk, triple the percentage income but lose th ewealth on a 3, 4 or 5. You can concert investment capital back to wealth very quickly if you need to.

All of this is completely unnecessary, but if you enjoy a financial aspect yo your game it might be an interesting system to develop.

[Trebuchet]

After looking at the Money Perk, I have a question - does it represent having a job or just income of any sort? And if it is for any income would a Disadvantage be appropriate to show the restrictions a character with a job would have on his free time for adventuring, etc.We've always assumed a PC has a job or income unless he states otherwise. Wealth represents something above median/disposable income just as you can take a Disad to represent being below that level.

Everyone on our supers team MidGuard pulls down $100K+; only one PC has Wealth. Everyone has a job; most for the philanthropic organization which secretly funds and supports our team.

[Hugh Neilson]

You could invest part of the wealth in income generating ventures. You can decide if they are low, medium or high risk. Roll 3d6 and that is the percentage income for a low risk venture. Roll a 3 and lose the wealth. For a medium risk, double the percentage income but lose the wealth on a 3 or 4, and for high risk, triple the percentage income but lose th ewealth on a 3, 4 or 5. You can concert investment capital back to wealth very quickly if you need to.

Complete aside but WHERE ARE YOU INVESTING? A completely liquid investment that generates an average return above 10% with minimal risk? I'll split my capital in 20 and buy 20 high risk ventures. Even if I'm unlucky and lose 20% of my capital, the other 16 ventures return 480% x 80% of my capital.

Probably a good starting point for Venture Capital Hero, though.

[Sean Waters]

Complete aside but WHERE ARE YOU INVESTING? A completely liquid investment that generates an average return above 10% with minimal risk? I'll split my capital in 20 and buy 20 high risk ventures. Even if I'm unlucky and lose 20% of my capital, the other 16 ventures return 480% x 80% of my capital.

Probably a good starting point for Venture Capital Hero, though.

Oh I'm not saying it is not generous, but it is relatively simple. The idea was that the % return is annual, not instant. So a 10-30% (on average) annual return (income) based on risk - you'd never get near 480%. You'd be getting an average of 31.5% of your capital as high risk income (still pretty good, I have to concede) with a 4.5% chance of losing the capital of each investment.

That would mean that for your 20 high risk investments you lose 1 and make 30% on 19: for 20X$1000 you make $5985 annually and lose $1000, on average, an annual income of $4985 on $20000.

If that needs tweaking, double the number for losing the investment, so 1x3d6% income you lose on 3 or 4 (2% chance), 2x3d6% you lose on 3 to 6 (nearly 10% chance) and 3x3d6% you lose on 3 to 8 (over 25% chance).

That would mean that for your 20 high risk investments you lose 5 and make 30% on 15: for 20X$1000 you make $4500 annually and lose $5000, on average. That would be a loss of $500 on average (splitting your investment makes no senses for a high risk venture - you might as well put all your eggs in one basket and win or lose big).

Like I said - simply too much work for a lot of games, but if you have a financial/trading aspect to your games then it could be an interesting approach.

[Hugh Neilson]

Oh I'm not saying it is not generous, but it is relatively simple. The idea was that the % return is annual, not instant. So a 10-30% (on average) annual return (income) based on risk - you'd never get near 480%. You'd be getting an average of 31.5% of your capital as high risk income (still pretty good, I have to concede) with a 4.5% chance of losing the capital of each investment.

Do you know of any virtually risk-free investments that generate a 10% annual return? If I were to go so far into such a structure, I'd want something that focuses a bit more on realism.


That would mean that for your 20 high risk investments you lose 1 and make 30% on 19: for 20X$1000 you make $5985 annually and lose $1000, on average, an annual income of $4985 on $20000.

The diversification has turned "risky" into almost 25% annual return with pretty limited volatility, hasn't it?


If that needs tweaking, double the number for losing the investment, so 1x3d6% income you lose on 3 or 4 (2% chance), 2x3d6% you lose on 3 to 6 (nearly 10% chance) and 3x3d6% you lose on 3 to 8 (over 25% chance).

That would mean that for your 20 high risk investments you lose 5 and make 30% on 15: for 20X$1000 you make $4500 annually and lose $5000, on average. That would be a loss of $500 on average (splitting your investment makes no senses for a high risk venture - you might as well put all your eggs in one basket and win or lose big).

In the real world, diversification does work. And a 10% annual return in pretty much perfect safety is still a great deal. But the only thing this proves is any such system would need some playtesting and, like you, I'm not eager enough to implements such a structure to put all the effort into testing it.

Get out a Stock Ticker game and let the players invest through that!


Like I said - simply too much work for a lot of games, but if you have a financial/trading aspect to your games then it could be an interesting approach.

Yup - too much work until there's a good reason to do it.

[Sean Waters]

Do you know of any virtually risk-free investments that generate a 10% annual return? If I were to go so far into such a structure, I'd want something that focuses a bit more on realism.

.......................

Yup - too much work until there's a good reason to do it.

Hugh, mate, this is an ad hoc idea that someone might be interested in developing, as many of my suggestions are, not a thought through system designed to simulate financial investment markets. You don't like the risk to return ratios, you tweak the numbers.

Like I said in both posts, there will be a limited sort of game where this is worth developing at all, or, more like, a limited group of players it is worth developing for. Run a trading game, say where you are a group running a small 'Firefly' type spaceship, or a privateer frigate in the 16th century, or even a cyberpunk game where money is the prime motivator for much of the game, and better wealth rules are essential - the ones we have are incredibly simplistic (not a criticism as such - generally money is not something you worry too much about in RPGs).

In that sort of case, and indeed, thinking about it, in the case of someone asking 'do I need to ahve a job to earn this wealth', it might be sensible to assume wealth is capital rather than income, and work from there.

[Mirgos]

Not 100% sure - been a while since I looked - but doesn't Call of Cthulhu handle wealth with a single roll & then divides that up into percentages of cash, property, investments, etc?