Wealth Houserule to Give Equipment

[Captain Zero]

A player took 5 ranks of Benefit (wealth) in my game and asked what it got him. I realized he should have access to some kinds of equipment for it (or else why not just take 5 ranks of Equipment?). I basically let him treat it like Variable at 2 equipment points per rank of Benefit (wealth). It's still descriptor-restricted, so no firearms or vehicles with weapons. He can hero point for those, but they don't fall into the have-it-on-hand realm.

Thoughts?

[JDRook]

A player took 5 ranks of Benefit (wealth) in my game and asked what it got him. . . . Thoughts?

First off, I think this is exactly backwards. I realize it's a short sentence and you're leaving out a lot of detail, but it sounds like the player bought an effect for his character before he knew what it was it for.

Wealth in DCA/M&M3e is a little more abstract than most of the traits your character can have. Check the sidebar "What Items Do You Pay For?" in the DCA Handbook p146 which addresses this specifically.

My take on it is that Wealth won't make you better in combat, but it can often help you in ways outside of it. Being a billionaire (or having the equivalent resources and influence of one) should definitely make some things easier for your PC. Losing your equipment or getting your car totalled is not as big a deal for you as it is for, say, some hapless web-headed photographer. Equipment or information or other services that could take weeks to get normally you could use your influence to have done before close of business that day (using Wealth rank as equal to Quickness could work here). And there's nothing like a couple hundred grand to keep a business from suing you for damages to the wall you just threw Solomon Grundy through.

Now back to your player. I think you should have answered his question with another question: "What do you think it should do for your character?" This is just a variation on the classic, "If you had a million dollars, what would you do?" which is meant to figure out what you personally value, or in this case, what kind of character your player wants to play. If he wants to be a jet-setting billionaire playboy with a fleet of cars and a beachhouse on every beach in the world, sure, why not? Lifestyle is also pretty abstract in the game. However, if he wants effects that are already described by other Advantages, he should buy those instead of or in addition to the Wealth. For instance, being rich can get you a lot of Contacts and Connections, possibly enough that you have a your own information network and can make one call to be Well-Informed.

If he wants more adventuring equipment, he should buy it, but he could have the option of swapping a few things between scenes if necessary. This is simpler than the Variable you suggested, and IMO more balanced, although with your limits in place it probably wouldn't be an issue.

[WanderingMystic]

I would personally agree with JDRook, just because you take wealth doesn't mean that you should get equipment for free.

One thing I have done in my games is allow characters who have great wealth is to buy equipment that is a bit more powerful or specialized.
The best example is my argument for Green Arrow. Green Arrow uses an equipment array for what anyone else would buy as a power, however his great wealth allows him to afford to have standard equipment (like a bomb) implanted into an arrow as equipment. So I would not necessarily give them free equipment but it might grant them access to things not normally purchasable.

[Murkglow]

To sum up (since this has already been kinda answered): If you want Equipment then buy ranks in the Equipment advantage. That is not what Wealth is for and not what it gives you. If what Wealth gives you (ie better/easier options for a variety of largely noncombat actions) doesn't sound like your cup of tea, then don't buy it.

[Captain Zero]

JDRook, I think you basically said what I said with regards to lifestyle. Maybe I worded it poorly. I said the player could get equipment within the descriptors of his wealth. He's a rich kid playboy, so he can decide to have a luxury car or a yacht in a given scene, even though they normally cost equipment points. Adventuring gear doesn't match the descriptor, so he can't get that stuff without a hero point.

I've felt since 2nd Edition if Benefit (wealth) were strictly roleplay-based, like hand-waving a car replacement or letting you socialize with the social elite, it should only cost 1pp regardless of the amount of money. Since it scales fairly granularly (for M&M), it seems like it should pull more weight. Plus, I didn't want to get into the Wealth subsystem from the GM's Guide.

Thanks for the feedback so far. Does what I'm saying make more sense, or do you fine folks still feel it should be treated like any other Benefit regardless of extra cost?

[WanderingMystic]

If all he is worrying about is something like a fancy car, boat ect.. then I would just hand-wave it with a Wealth of 5. I feel like it is interfering with the game if a character is constantly using said vehicle for transporting the party every adventure, to me that is when it moves to begin a piece of equipment that he should buy.
Bruce Wayne dosnt have to buy equipment to represent his cars yachts, or ability to get on a jet and go anywhere in the world... he dose have to buy his Batmobeil and Batplane however

[JDRook]

I've felt since 2nd Edition if Benefit (wealth) were strictly roleplay-based, like hand-waving a car replacement or letting you socialize with the social elite, it should only cost 1pp regardless of the amount of money. Since it scales fairly granularly (for M&M), it seems like it should pull more weight. Plus, I didn't want to get into the Wealth subsystem from the GM's Guide.

Thanks for the feedback so far. Does what I'm saying make more sense, or do you fine folks still feel it should be treated like any other Benefit regardless of extra cost?

Now that you describe it like that, I actually agree with you about the 1p Wealth idea. Unless you could come up with some difference between, say, Wealth 4 (Multi-Millionaire) and Wealth 5 (Billionaire) that would actually occur in your game setting, there's really no need to make Wealth that granular. You could just as easily have Benefit: Filthy Rich for 1p and a few other Benefits or Advantages to simulate aspects of having a lot of money, like Contacts or Fame or Connections.

[Captain Zero]

Yeah, just doing the 1pp thing may be better. You could take a second for social status to break them up a bit and allow for more varied characters.

[JDRook]

Yeah, a billionaire playboy (Benefit: Famous) is going to be radically different from a billionaire recluse (Benefit: Cypher). See if you can get your player to figure out what he wants the trappings of his money to be and focus on those effects.

There's also all kinds of Complications you can throw in if you want to make the billions problematic (endless calls for investment, sponsorships or charities; targeted by supervillains through theft or kidnapping; internal crimes (known or unknown) in his business holdings, etc). As a wise man once said, Mo' Money, Mo' Problems.

[Scholz2]

See my own issues with wealth herehttp://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43633

[Rev. Pee Kitty]

if Benefit (wealth) were strictly roleplay-based, like hand-waving a car replacement or letting you socialize with the social elite, it should only cost 1pp regardless of the amount of money.

I think there's room for ranks of Wealth, but not the five ranks we have now. The trouble with those is that when a player pays 5 points for something, he expects to get a lot of utility out of it -- and Wealth was obviously designed to function as a social advantage, not as a way to get free gear.

What I've done with Wealth is two-fold. First, I cut it to three levels: Wealthy, Millionaire, and Billionaire. That covers the range well enough, and also means that no one can spend more than 3 points on it, which I think makes it feel less "important" than the as-written version does.

Second, I emphasize that it is a social advantage. The main benefit to Wealth is that you can secure appointments with politicians and celebrities (from mayors at Wealthy to presidents at Billionaire), get invited to exclusive parties, be given the benefit of the doubt by public officials, etc. (This utility scales directly with Wealth rank, which is good.) A side benefit is that you have extra money for bribes, charity, etc.; thus, if the GM agrees that throwing money at a problem will help, each rank of Wealth gives you a +2 circumstance bonus.

I think that makes Wealth worth it. A billionaire pays 3 points, gets the perk of world famous and able to arrange a sit-down with the Queen of England or the Pope, and gets +6 on rolls where money makes a huge difference (e.g., Persuasion rolls to bribe a stoolie). And in no way does this grant any equipment whatsoever.

Plus, I didn't want to get into the Wealth subsystem from the GM's Guide.

Ack, yeah. That was really complex for such a fast-and-loose system. It reminded me of d20 wealth rules, and that's not a good thing.

[JDRook]

What I've done with Wealth is two-fold. First, I cut it to three levels: Wealthy, Millionaire, and Billionaire. That covers the range well enough, and also means that no one can spend more than 3 points on it, which I think makes it feel less "important" than the as-written version does.

That's a much better system. It's like you're either in the financially comfortable top 10%, the more powerful and lately-mentioned 1%, or the near-literal 1-in-a-million super-rich. For the vast majority of game setting, I can't imagine anything more granular than that being necessary. You could also equate those to approximately local/regional, national, and global influence as well.