View Single Post
Old 12-24-2017, 07:18 AM   #17
ArchonShiva
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Alternate Wealth rules

Wow, I am amazed at how much vitriol suggesting a simple and compatible alternate rule brings out! I guess I should avoid doing this without including an introductory essay about how an original rule is inherently flawed.

It's an alternate rule, guys. DFRPG already has a rule for this you can just keep using if you're happy with it. Pointing out flaws or conflicts in the alternate rule (as some have, to be fair), or suggesting improvements, is the raison d'être of forums. But a general stance which projects "I refuse to live in a world where someone is considering this alternate rule" seems a bit... extreme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan506 View Post
Respectfully, this seems like an inelegant solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
If the problem indeed doesn't exist, nothing in the ensuing post remotely supported that argument.

The rule is mechanical. The desired effects are:
1. It allows rich and poor characters to continue existing in play;
2. It allows poor characters to continue existing in play;
3. It makes points spent on or gained from Wealth matter for everyone;
4. It rebalances the burden of Wealth across all characters, rather than stick the bard with paying for all of it.

If you don't feel like any of these are desirable outcomes, then clearly you should steer well clear of this heretical rule.

The explanation for the rule isn't that rich characters pay less, of course they don't. But when the Very Wealthy guy pays (in-universe) $25,000 for a sword worth $6,000, the game effect is that the player removes $2,400 from his character sheet, and "other sources" provide the other $20,600, because the character is independently wealthy. The poor guy, on the other hand, probably isn't paying a penny above $6,000 for the sword. But the King's Men fine him for loitering, charge him weapons tax, he has to pay protection money to avoid his house being burned down, etc. It's income inequality, translated into gaming terms: successful highwaymen can't just buy castles, but noblemen restructuring under chapter XI are kept in posh homes by rich friends to prevent the system from collapsing.

A character can't cheat by buying everything for everyone, because (e.g.) their rich dad would balk at this, or the church would freak out at outfitting the wizard, or whatever gets the game mechanics of the rule across. Don't fret the occasional potion.

This version of Wealth, much like in that other popular sjgames RPG, represents access to money rather than a number of physical coins in your pocket. It's an effect-facing rule, which makes a character better or worse equipped in the long run.

Regarding the helping everyone argument, that's just ridiculous: Setting aside the fact that rules should still work if PCs aren't so cooperative, of course everything helps everyone! But when a player says "in this game, I'd like to be strong", he pays points to be strong (which helps everyone) and he's the one who gets to be strong! It's not unreasonable for the guy who says "I'd like to be rich and better equipped!" to be afforded the same distinction. Not to mention that having one Unfazeable character doesn't make everyone else's Fright Checks irrelevant, and it's not unreasonable to want Wealth to work more like mostly everything else in the game.

Note that the face character can still invest in Merchant and reaction modifiers and benefit everyone by getting higher selling prices. A good sell-bot bard will still regularly manage to double the take from a dungeon expedition.

The rule in the book is perfectly fine, and creates a certain game experience. I'm aware of some people being unhappy with some facets of that rule (myself included), and suggested an alternative, that's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlangsdorf View Post
The Cleric spends 22 points for Turning, but everyone benefits when he uses the ability. Why should the Face's ability to get more money for loot be any different?

My usual problem with wealth in DF is that it's too tempting to create a single face character with Wealth and have the rest of the part be Struggling and trade character points for money.
You answered your own question, I think.

Closing comment: Using this rule, the Wealth advantages should be opened up to more templates. Knight and probably Holy Warrior should have access up to Very Wealthy, maybe limit Barbarian, Druid, Scout and Martial Artist to Comfortable, and let everyone else get Wealthy. This list is off the top of my head.
ArchonShiva is offline   Reply With Quote