DF/DFRPG: What would an agent charge?

[tbone]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

But if I'm allowing the PCs to hire people to go fight for/with them... then it stands to reason they can hire people to do the 'not fighting' parts too.

Sure. I only note that treatment of Wealth is one of the notable areas where DFRPG really departs from DF/GURPS. It abstracts buyer contacts into the Wealth stat; agents aren't specifically mentioned, but abstracting them into Wealth, too, seems a perfect fit for DFRPG.

Then again, un-abstracting the agent thing, handling it as its own separate factor, sounds fun to me. Hence the thread!

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by tbone

Sure. I only note that treatment of Wealth is one of the notable areas where DFRPG really departs from DF/GURPS.

DFRPG doesn't depart at all from DF in this. They are identical in their treatment of Wealth.

DFRPG and DF do depart on the treatment of Hirelings. DF has rules for Allies, Henchman, etc; DFRPG does not.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by tbone

An agent in Dungeon Fantasy (or DFRPG) is the townie who

... does things the PCs could do in town, but sometimes better.

A. For most of these things, I'm normally OK with PCs who lack good skills hiring experts at reasonable rates.

B. For selling stuff specifically, this is a clear violation of the spirit of the selling rules, isn't it? "You can sell stuff at 40%, unless you talk to Bob, who will sell it at 100% and give you 70% of that."

In both of these cases there are spotlight time and NPC trust issues, but for B you are effectively rewriting the selling stuff rules via NPC. Probably won't break anything, but definitely against the spirit of the rules.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by martinl

B. For selling stuff specifically, this is a clear violation of the spirit of the selling rules, isn't it? "You can sell stuff at 40%, unless you talk to Bob, who will sell it at 100% and give you 70% of that."

The 'usual ruling' for this is that the Agent has to accompany the party on the mission. This tends to mean the Agent get's paid more than if they were just "selling stuff".

And might die.

In both of these cases there are spotlight time and NPC trust issues, but for B you are effectively rewriting the selling stuff rules via NPC. Probably won't break anything, but definitely against the spirit of the rules.

I don't see it.

Is it against the rules to hire people to fight for you? To do healing for you? To watch the camp while you're in the dungeon? To handle locks and traps that no PC has the skills for? QED.

This is spending money and making social skill checks (finding and hiring an Agent) to make more money. No real difference than spending money (on gear) and making skill checks (kicking in doors, killing orcs, taking the pie).


Again granted, it's the GM's call on how the game is run, but I disagree that hiring NPCs to do jobs the PCs can't is somehow against the rules, in either spirit or letter.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I don't see it.

Is it against the rules to hire people to fight for you? To do healing for you? To watch the camp while you're in the dungeon? To handle locks and traps that no PC has the skills for? QED.

This is spending money and making social skill checks (finding and hiring an Agent) to make more money. No real difference than spending money (on gear) and making skill checks (kicking in doors, killing orcs, taking the pie).


Again granted, it's the GM's call on how the game is run, but I disagree that hiring NPCs to do jobs the PCs can't is somehow against the rules, in either spirit or letter.

Taking a certain Wealth level for a character is more of a social contract with the GM than omitting a certain skill which the character then hires a specialist for. If a player selects low Wealth for his PC, he's saying that this character will not have wordly wealth. It's the player's job to provide a justification for why the character never hits the big times economically, but choosing low Wealth and then trying to circumvent it with a hireling agent strikes me as exactly the kind of bad faith trying to get points for Disadvantages that aren't disadvantageous that I would disallow in a game.

[chandley]

My GMPC who has Very Wealthy (but also Greed, being a dwarf...) sells stuff for the party at one level of wealth lower than his own: e.g. 80% value, and pockets the difference (20%) value. He does this by simply buying equipment off of the party loot pool with cash and then selling on his own time (and prefers to take his loot share in equipment where available). This maximizes his return on the 30 points he spent.

You could have an agent do the same, with the added gamble for agents with lower than Very Wealthy deciding if they want to risk a Reaction roll or Merchant QC to get even MORE money. Needless to say, players wont sell through an agent that cant get them more money than they can get on their own!

This way, PCs who hire an agent can never get to 100% value (they need their own wealth level for that) but can rent up to Wealthy, and even buying an Ally only gets you to 80% (still a bargain compared to buying wealth on your own, but see below). The agents motivation is both a basic wage, AND that 20% on the backend.

I believe Kromm is on record that Allies (not necessarily hirelings) are exposed to the same risks as PCs as part of their being relatively cheap. An agent Ally that didnt go into the dungeon should be exposed to similar hazards (Your agent needs a remove curse, that sword was cursed!). Hirelings come with their own loyalty risks ("That sword was cursed, I got nothing for it" on a failed loyalty roll perhaps) that players should weigh against spending points for a proper Ally.

[chandley]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Taking a certain Wealth level for a character is more of a social contract with the GM than omitting a certain skill which the character then hires a specialist for. If a player selects low Wealth for his PC, he's saying that this character will not have wordly wealth. It's the player's job to provide a justification for why the character never hits the big times economically, but choosing low Wealth and then trying to circumvent it with a hireling agent strikes me as exactly the kind of bad faith trying to get points for Disadvantages that aren't disadvantageous that I would disallow in a game.

In Basic GURPS this is true. In DF... its a little less so. The avowed goal of DF and DFRPG is to kill monsters and take their stuff, becoming wealthy (lowercase w) thereby. There is no cap on total character cash value based on wealth level, and so the "social contract" you speak of is altered to be "this is what you can sell for". Remember, good reaction rolls (bards, nymphs) or a QC of Merchant (vs a 15, so no one out of the box really) can boost effective wealth, so the Wealth level on the character sheet is already fluid. Hiring an agent or paying for one as an Ally is just another way to adjust it.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by chandley

In Basic GURPS this is true. In DF... its a little less so. The avowed goal of DF and DFRPG is to kill monsters and take their stuff, becoming wealthy (lowercase w) thereby. There is no cap on total character cash value based on wealth level, and so the "social contract" you speak of is altered to be "this is what you can sell for". Remember, good reaction rolls (bards, nymphs) or a QC of Merchant (vs a 15, so no one out of the box really) can boost effective wealth, so the Wealth level on the character sheet is already fluid. Hiring an agent or paying for one as an Ally is just another way to adjust it.

When I've played dungeon fantasy -esque games, I've disallowed Wealth as an Advantage or Disadvantage for that very reason (long before the DF line).

Now, granted, the DF Wealth is a bit different from baseline GURPS Wealth, but I'd be inclined to look at a character's Wealth level as the end result of whatever the character usually does to sell loot. If he has a lot of contacts and/or success with reliable agents, he has higher Wealth. If he has low Wealth, he might have bad luck with finding reliable agents to sell his stuff and suffer a lot of treachery and deceit.

Basically, DF Wealth seems like a trait to automate the process of making connections, hiring agents, familiarising oneself with the market, locating buyers, etc. Characters with high Wealth find trustworthy or talented people to serve as their off-screen factors and agents, but characters with low Wealth somehow have consistent bad luck when they want to get others to handle their mercantile endeavours.

If you're going to roleplay out the process anyway, maybe the Wealth trait isn't suitable for the campaign.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Taking a certain Wealth level for a character is more of a social contract with the GM than omitting a certain skill which the character then hires a specialist for.

I couldn't disagree more. All not taking Wealth means is "My character doesn't intrinsically have this trait, so if I want to have it's effects I need to hustle". The same as not taking a skill, buying up an attribute, etc.

Especially in a game like DF/RPG where equipment and money are expected to ameliorate those flaws.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Now, granted, the DF Wealth is a bit different from baseline GURPS Wealth, but I'd be inclined to look at a character's Wealth level as the end result of whatever the character usually does to sell loot. If he has a lot of contacts and/or success with reliable agents, he has higher Wealth. If he has low Wealth, he might have bad luck with finding reliable agents to sell his stuff and suffer a lot of treachery and deceit.

Those might be nice houserules if you're finding too many Pcs are taking low Wealth and skating by wit hiring Agents...

But it's not RAW. ;)

Characters with high Wealth find trustworthy or talented people to serve as their off-screen factors and agents, but characters with low Wealth somehow have consistent bad luck when they want to get others to handle their mercantile endeavours.

Characters with high Wealth already have those contacts and never need seek them out. They just have them. They just sell stuff at a higher value, no rolls, no luck, no money changing hands, just done.

That's part of that "automated process" you are referring to.

If you're going to roleplay out the process anyway, maybe the Wealth trait isn't suitable for the campaign.

Who's talking about roleplaying it out? It's a simple abstracted process of a couple rolls* and some luck† and then 'poof' there's a pile of money/gear/etc.

I mean sure, no reason not to rp it all out if you want to. but it's not required.


* That use skills that Wealth does away with needing.
† Also done away with by Wealth. See how much that advantage is already doing?

[dcarson]

The Dead Broke character who used a agent might find that like the one rock band that when it came time to spend large amounts of the wealth that not only was the agent to not be found the offshore bank the money was in didn't really exist.

Which is a good adventure hook.