Money

[dsatow]

49 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

And just how does one get one's 15 points worth of Wealthy Lifestyle, then?  (Put another way: How is that any different from Money as written, today?)  Asking because unless I misunderstood, all you appear to have done is renamed the perk without addressing any of the perceived problems with it.

 

Lifestyle changes the direction of the perk and comes with several advantages in game.  It releases its value as a quantitative money function and changes it more towards a role playing/character flavor aspect.

 

Wealth as it is written is a hard currency thing in US dollars by definition.  $100,000 a year in the US is Well Off in most places, but probably not in San Francisco, Manhattan, etc.  In places like Madagascar or El Salvador, $100,000 a year would be considered quite wealthy.

 

It removes a modern monetary constrain so that the perk can be used in a variety scenarios.  Wealth has a numerical connotation which may be difficult to translate into certain scenarios.  In a fantasy setting, is the king wealth or filthy rich?  In a sci-fi scenario, is that Ksafkwectian average or wealthy because he servants?  Lifestyle denotes how much hardship vs. comfort a person has in their day to day living.  It represents how many options are open to this person in this society.

 

[dsatow]

37 minutes ago, drunkonduty said:

So he couldn't buy a fighter jet. Those aren't available to the public. Yes, in a supers world it is possible to buy a fighter jet (thanks Warlord!) but it takes time, contacts, and probably breaking a bunch of laws.  I wouldn't say an out right no to doing that but it would be a big thing and thus require role playing it out and probably have in game consequences. The same for bribing agents.

 

Actual you can buy fighter jets, just not US ones which I think have contracted clauses preventing resale.

http://www.andhrawishesh.com/telugu-film-movies/102-ap-headlines/24052-sirish-bharadwaj-get-bail.html

 

 

[unclevlad]

20 minutes ago, dsatow said:

 

Lifestyle changes the direction of the perk and comes with several advantages in game.  It releases its value as a quantitative money function and changes it more towards a role playing/character flavor aspect.

 

 

Another way to put it...and I wrote a bunch of stuff before recognizing this...Lifestyle focuses on how you're using your money in the everyday world.  Not the money itself.  

 

[Funk Thompson]

15 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

I've toyed with the idea of a Resource skill, similar to what Fate uses. I haven't had the chance to try it in a game, though. I suspect it might work best in a genre where money is more important (fantasy or cyberpunk, but not superheroes).

 

Resource Points already exist, I forgetc which book they are in. But they work very well for any heroic genre that still has gear being mostly bought with points and not money.

[dsatow]

1 point of wealth just doesn't go as far as it used to.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/families-earning-117000-now-qualify-as-low-income-in-californias-bay-area/

[unclevlad]

No, true enough.  That's where the whole notion of "lifestyle" helps because it's largely independent of the vagaries of local costs.  Note, too, that's a family of 4, and that's pre-tax income.  It's not explicitly stated but I think safe to assume:  the wealth levels are after taxes, and considering the expenses of a single person.  Even so, $100K for me in the Southwest, is rather more than $100K in Honolulu, NY, or San Fran.

 

NOTE:  it's only largely independent when you've been to places like Corning, California.  A very nice little town, but......not much there.  Not when I was there a few times in the 80s anyway.  I mean, if an Applebee's is the height of fine dining, well, there's probably no such thing as a luxury lifestyle.

[Surrealone]

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 8:51 PM, dsatow said:

 

Lifestyle changes the direction of the perk and comes with several advantages in game.  It releases its value as a quantitative money function and changes it more towards a role playing/character flavor aspect.

 

Wealth as it is written is a hard currency thing in US dollars by definition.  $100,000 a year in the US is Well Off in most places, but probably not in San Francisco, Manhattan, etc.  In places like Madagascar or El Salvador, $100,000 a year would be considered quite wealthy.

 

It removes a modern monetary constrain so that the perk can be used in a variety scenarios.  Wealth has a numerical connotation which may be difficult to translate into certain scenarios.  In a fantasy setting, is the king wealth or filthy rich?  In a sci-fi scenario, is that Ksafkwectian average or wealthy because he servants?  Lifestyle denotes how much hardship vs. comfort a person has in their day to day living.  It represents how many options are open to this person in this society.

 

In your eyes, perhaps there's a difference (maybe because it's your suggestion) … but, as you've presented it, I still see no difference.

Why? I don't see it your way because if the Lifestyle revolves around or is defined by how much money is associated with the lifestyle, then it's still about money.  And if you look at how you defined the lifestyles, they're defined by and thus about money...

So all you did was give Money a different label and try to define a difference that … in the end … still revolves around money.  In such a case, I prefer the more direct/blunt approach of calling a spade a spade and letting money be money, rather than trying to put some other face on it (much like putting lipstick on a pig).

[dsatow]

5 hours ago, Surrealone said:

In your eyes, perhaps there's a difference (maybe because it's your suggestion) … but, as you've presented it, I still see no difference.

Why? I don't see it your way because if the Lifestyle revolves around or is defined by how much money is associated with the lifestyle, then it's still about money.  And if you look at how you defined the lifestyles, they're defined by and thus about money...

So all you did was give Money a different label and try to define a difference that … in the end … still revolves around money.  In such a case, I prefer the more direct/blunt approach of calling a spade a spade and letting money be money, rather than trying to put some other face on it (much like putting lipstick on a pig).

 

Its about resources rather than just money, but it really is just an opinion.  For you, the effect would probably be like the change in term Disadvantage to Complication.  For others, it means a little more.

[Vanguard]

21 hours ago, Funk Thompson said:

 

Resource Points already exist, I forgetc which book they are in. But they work very well for any heroic genre that still has gear being mostly bought with points and not money.

 

5th (or 4th Ed) Dark Champions

 

Edit: Another source for Resource Point information is APG 1, pg 191.   But I'm pretty sure it's just reprinted info from Dark Champions.

[unclevlad]

It's not even so much about resources but about choices you make.  Where do you shop for food...Wal Mart and the discount grocery chain, or Whole Foods, Trader Joes, and Bristol Farms et al.?  When you eat out, where?  Fast food, the feeding troughs like Golden Corral, a national chain like Olive Garden or Chilis...or a little hole in the wall local place that's not at all expensive but is really good, all the way up to a Del Posto or a Michael Mina?   When you're thinking money, it's how much do you have, and when you do A that means you can't do B.  When you're thinking lifestyle, it's the choices you make, which are not necessarily linked to cost.  

 

Understanding the distinction might take practice...which of course implies having enough money to be able to practice, and the opportunities to make those choices.

 

 

[JmOz]

Another nice idea of associating it with life style let's you created scrooges (has a lot of money but never uses it)

[IndianaJoe3]

On 6/29/2018 at 11:36 AM, Funk Thompson said:

 

Resource Points already exist, I forgetc which book they are in. But they work very well for any heroic genre that still has gear being mostly bought with points and not money.

 

Resource Points address a different issue from my proposed skill.  RPs are more about how much equipment you can carry, rather than serve as a substitute for keeping track of money.

[unclevlad]

55 minutes ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

Resource Points address a different issue from my proposed skill.  RPs are more about how much equipment you can carry, rather than serve as a substitute for keeping track of money.

 

Looking at that aspect in the Fate system (it's online)...the ideas aren't bad but the framework's quite different.  One point that's there...money is never an actual mechanic, it's an excuse to make the mechanic plausible.  For example, pulling off a bribe.  Mechanically it's a skill roll;  the money part says you have that as one of your bribe options.  Need to get to Paris to talk to The World Class Expert...money just keeps the game moving forward, letting you buy plane tickets.

 

I think a problem might be that the abstract notion of "money" doesn't cut it.  What is the point of the perk/ability?  What does money/wealth mean in-game?  In Hero, that's actually genre-specific...so well of course the rules are unclear as all heck,  You also get into a conflict, in supers, with the "must pay points for everything" aspect.  Taken to extremes, that's just ludicrous, but it creates the big gray area between Everyman gear that you want players to have, and items that should cost points.

 

What this really comes down to is that "what can I do with Money?" doesn't have a fixed answer.  It's something a GM needs to address.  It's dependent on genre and style issues.

[RDU Neil]

2 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

What this really comes down to is that "what can I do with Money?" doesn't have a fixed answer.  It's something a GM needs to address.  It's dependent on genre and style issues.

 

I prefer to take the tact of asking the player "What are you intending by taking Money as a perk/being rich, etc. How do you want it to affect the game?"

 

Everything is intent. So, once you understand what the player is hoping for, you can figure out whether that makes sense for play, and if Money is the right way to do it. 

 

As with everything in RPGs, group consensus at every step of the way, beginning with campaign direction and character creation, really answers most of the "problems" by getting in front of disagreements, etc. No one person decides what Money means for the game... the play group agrees on how to make Money cool in play.

[Chris Goodwin]

When these rules first appeared in Champions II, there were no point costs associated with them, for a couple of reasons.  The benefits and drawbacks associated with them were considered to equal themselves out, or at least the GM was recommended to run them that way.  Also, they were intended as part of that no-point-cost background stuff that probably won't come up in play very often. 

[assault]

22 hours ago, unclevlad said:

NOTE:  it's only largely independent when you've been to places like Corning, California.  A very nice little town, but......not much there.  Not when I was there a few times in the 80s anyway.  I mean, if an Applebee's is the height of fine dining, well, there's probably no such thing as a luxury lifestyle.

 

You fly food in on your private helicopter, or have it prepared by your personal chef.

 

No decent hotels? A couple of trucks bring in your glamping gear.

 

:)

[assault]

I've been doing the no point cost thing for a while, in superheroic settings.

 

I will actually push it into territory that comes close to buying powers. The logic works like this:

 

If the Batmobile is basically a sportscar with a fancy paintjob, it can be bought with money, and is worth zero points.

If the Batmobile is basically a magic box that allows Batman to get to where the action is, it is a GM convenience, and is worth zero points. This is not affected by all the neat things it can potentially do.

 

Similarly for the Batplane. I don't care about its stats or point cost, if its actual function is to get Batman to the action occurring in Tierra del Fuego, where he will land, get out and walk. It's convenient for the GM as much as for the player.

 

The same for Wonder Woman's Invisible Plane! On the other hand, she probably is a bit more likely to use it tactically, so maybe she should buy a bit of limited flight to allow that.

 

Naturally, zero point stuff can be destroyed/taken away at the GM's pleasure, so it's not wise to abuse its availability.

[Brian Stanfield]

21 hours ago, Surrealone said:

In your eyes, perhaps there's a difference (maybe because it's your suggestion) … but, as you've presented it, I still see no difference.

Why? I don't see it your way because if the Lifestyle revolves around or is defined by how much money is associated with the lifestyle, then it's still about money.  And if you look at how you defined the lifestyles, they're defined by and thus about money...

So all you did was give Money a different label and try to define a difference that … in the end … still revolves around money.  In such a case, I prefer the more direct/blunt approach of calling a spade a spade and letting money be money, rather than trying to put some other face on it (much like putting lipstick on a pig).

 

I think the main difference between "money" and "lifestyle" in these regional examples can be expressed like this: If I have $5 million I could build a mansion and retire with a very comfortable (maybe not lavish, but close) lifestyle on a vast acreage in the wine country of Southern Illinois. I work for one of these people and see it every day. If, however, I have $5 million in the wine country of Southern California I wouldn't even be able to buy the land, let alone develop it. Money is, after all, money.  "Lifestyle" makes more than a semantic difference here, being the product of the same amount of money.

 

Conversely, I've stayed at a friend's family home which was affordably built in the shadow of the Golden Gate Bridge before any other house, and the community grew around it. It is now so valuable that they can't even conceive of selling it. The money changed around the property, but the lifestyle remains the same. This sort of distinction is of course campaign dependent, so it is a rather relative term, but I believe that the point is that tying a specific dollar amount to a particular lifestyle is problematic. Living modestly in Belvedere is much different than living modestly in Des Moines, and living a lavish lifestyle is equally different and not dependent on the specific dollar amount. 

[Brian Stanfield]

So what I'm wondering now is should there be some connection between a gadget pool that can be infinitely varied, or a base, or a tactical vehicle, and wealth? I guess that the wealth is just "assumed" in these cases, but should it be a perk that a player must buy in order to have access to all these things?

[unclevlad]

31 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

So what I'm wondering now is should there be some connection between a gadget pool that can be infinitely varied, or a base, or a tactical vehicle, and wealth? I guess that the wealth is just "assumed" in these cases, but should it be a perk that a player must buy in order to have access to all these things?

 

Base or tactical vehicle where you put in the points...no, you don't need Wealth.  The points subsume that.  Besides, something like a Quinjet can't be priced.  They can't exist in our world.  And if I remember the Base rules, location aspects play a role in the point cost.  If it's the gadget pool where points have been paid...same thing.  I'd rather see points in Inventor, or Contacts related to picking up components, than basic wealth.  If you're talking buying routine, mundane stuff, then real-world limitations apply, such as availability, traceability, and legality.

[Lucius]

 

I think this is still in 5th edition: I should update it.

 

I drag it out whenever a thread like this gets going.

 

35 I Hire What I Need: Summon 32 200-point Hirelings, Vehicles, Bases , Expanded Class of Beings Anything or anyone that can be bought, hired, or rented (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Variable Advantage (+1 Advantages; Limited Group of Advantages; +1 3/4) (244 Active Points); Extra Time (Hours to Days to Weeks depending on what's being sought, -4), Arrives Under Own Power (or maybe you have to go to it, homes don't usually move for instance) (-1/2), Summoned Being Must Inhabit Locale (-1/2), Activation Roll 14- (Sometimes, what you want just isn't available; -1/2), Limited Power Real Money. The more often the power is used, the more likely it is to fail as the money runs low. (-1/2)

 

53 I Buy what I Need: Variable Power Pool, 50 base + 3 control cost, (75 Active Points); Extra Time (Hours to Days to Weeks depending on what's being sought, -4), Limited Special Effect Common SFX (Only what can be bought; -1/2), Activation Roll 14- (Sometimes what you want isn't available; -1/2), Limited Power Real Money: the more often the power is used, the more likely it is to fail (-1/2), Limited Power Complications: illegal purchases may get you arrested, valuable things may draw thieves, weird stuff gets reported in the media, etc (-1/4); all slots IIF Minimum (-1/4)

 

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And I'll throw in a free palindromedary tagline

[Greywind]

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Base or tactical vehicle where you put in the points...no, you don't need Wealth.  The points subsume that.  Besides, something like a Quinjet can't be priced.  They can't exist in our world.  And if I remember the Base rules, location aspects play a role in the point cost.  If it's the gadget pool where points have been paid...same thing.  I'd rather see points in Inventor, or Contacts related to picking up components, than basic wealth.  If you're talking buying routine, mundane stuff, then real-world limitations apply, such as availability, traceability, and legality.

 

Also the quinjets were built by Stark. So any money outlay as far as it went, came from him.

[JmOz]

3 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

Also the quinjets were built by Stark. So any money outlay as far as it went, came from him.

I think it was Black Panther...at least the later designs...

[unclevlad]

It's comics.  Continuity is fluid.  If I recall the Marvel Universe wiki on the quinjet...you're both right.  But actually, both are combinations of tech genius and WEALTH.  Stark and T'challa clearly both have 15 point wealth perks.  

 

BUT, this is also a difference between the game universe and the comics universe.  The comics universe has no concept of points, so there is no concept of "paying for" something with points.  Nope;  it's gotta be cash coming from somewhere for the materials, land, system components, etc.  That's why actually having some level of Wealth is helpful even in the gaming universe, because the concept of points is only on the player/GM side of the fence.  Having the money is very handy for story consistency.