Low Wealth is free points

[GWJ]

I've got a little problem... My players are perceiving Wealth disadvantages as a free points, because of

Thus, selling is most
proftable if the richest party member does it – probably for a
percentage

(Exploits, p. 16)

They just give everything to the most wealth delver to sell it for them! How can I stop this by the book?

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by GWJ

They just give everything to the most wealth delver to sell it for them! How can I stop this by the book?

Does Richie Rich take a percentage before dispersing the funds? In a game in which I’m a player, the delver with Very Wealthy takes a 10% cut before the split between the five PCs (including the rich kid). He gets 28% and the rest of us get 18%, but since his connections lead to a bigger pie for everyone, everyone benefits.

[Kromm]

If one player is fine with sacrificing 10+ points of other abilities to have high Wealth so that the others can all get a "free" 10 points or more from low Wealth . . . that's their call. It seems strange to me, though. When that sort of thing came up in one of my campaigns, the Very Wealthy person was always charging "interest" on any loans and collecting "brokerage fees" on any sales. The net effect was that the richer character remained richer in relative terms, which seemed about right given how points were spent.

(The rich guy was also an alchemist who used his poorer allies as guinea pigs for new potions. "Sure I can give you potions rather than selling them to you. Here you go.")

[Stormcrow]

Dungeon Fantasy has always held more than a hint of Munchkin in my eyes, in which self-interest is always the dominant part of the party's enlightened self-interest.

In most other RPGs I've played, including D&D, self-interest nearly always takes a back seat to the good of the party. One person taking on the responsibility of banker so that all the others can get point breaks is exactly the sort of thing one sees. It's kind of like how most parties will dictate to the cleric what spells they can memorize, because they include the healing spells, and a cleric who hasn't dedicated a spell slot to a healing spell when one is needed is deemed a pariah.

I would not be at all surprised if the good-of-the-body attitude seeps into Dungeon Fantasy games.

[GWJ]

Originally Posted by Kromm

If one player is fine with sacrificing 10+ points of other abilities to have high Wealth so that the others can all get a "free" 10 points or more from low Wealth . . . that's their call. It seems strange to me, though. When that sort of thing came up in one of my campaigns, the Very Wealthy person was always charging "interest" on any loans and collecting "brokerage fees" on any sales. The net effect was that the richer character remained richer in relative terms, which seemed about right given how points were spent.

(The rich guy was also an alchemist who used his poorer allies as guinea pigs for new potions. "Sure I can give you potions rather than selling them to you. Here you go.")

There is always something like "don't tell him how he should roleplay his character! If he want to be charitative, he can!" or "He has the Sense of Duty, so he should not take money from us for help!". I think it's not right. Other "shareable" abilities are very cheap (usually just being of the specific proffession and choosing specific cheap skill), and have also OTHER ways to use (or being problematic, if disadvantage). Wealth isn't. All you have from this (except of extra cash at the start), is ability to more efficient selling of loot. Other abilities are usually useful for you - but if just one person has Wealth, the rest of them has no need to buying it, it will be unuseful (the richest will be always selling for poorer compadres). With DISadvantage there is much worse. You just have little less money, but you can easily (effortlessly!) evade the main effect - all you need is to give your loot to your not-poor friend, to sell this for you, at normal selling price. And you have free points. It's not like skill or ability useful not only for you (like for example DR (it's protects YOU, not your friends) or healing magic (you can heal, but it's not free for you, and not no-limit). Is there ANY disadvantage in the book, which is more meaningless than low Wealth?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by GWJ

There is always something like "don't tell him how he should roleplay his character! If he want to be charitative, he can!" or "He has the Sense of Duty, so he should not take money from us for help!".

Sure, but that's his choice. If this is happening he's paying a bunch of points for an ability that isn't benefiting him more than it is the players who didn't pay for it. He probably is getting something in exchange, in terms of abilities the other PCs paid for but are benefiting him you just aren't seeing it because it isn't so easily measured.

But really low wealth is only "meaningless" for the other players *because* he opts to be charitable. It's not really any different than say Rapid Healing is "meaningless" because the party includes a cleric who always generously heals you up before it would matter.

And you don't mind the cleric doesn't charge them a fee for that do you? Spells cast by other party members are one of the more obvious cases of you benefiting from somebody else's points after all.

[tbone]

There's a long discussion on that very wealth issue here, with plenty of anecdotes and examples of how "sharing the wealth" works in play.

In the end, it doesn't seem terribly different from any other form of group strategizing to maximize resources. Everyone benefits from the money guy's wealth, or the cleric's healing spells and discount holy water, or the druid's discount healing potions... but those benefactors have to sacrifice CP to make it happen, and all kinds of fun trouble can result when the sole financier (or sole healer or whatever) decides to start calling in favors, or gets taken out in a fight.

All in all, I think the game handles this situation just fine by letting the players scheme as they like (and reap whatever comes of it).

[GWJ]

Yeah, but I think it can have very different effects, depending from amount of items in the treasures.

BTW How much $ should I give them per adventure, and how much of it shoulde be sealable goods and not just money?

[Anthony]

The RAW way to handle low wealth is to just say, as GM, that you aren't allowed to take it. The GM is free to ban things.

[GWJ]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The RAW way to handle low wealth is to just say, as GM, that you aren't allowed to take it. The GM is free to ban things.

But I WANT to allow for Low Wealth - just don't know how to prevent cheating like that.