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.

[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.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by GWJ

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

Well, at least $150 each to cover Cost of Living. Really at least $500 to cover consumables.

Note that putting more loot as jewelry, trade goods, or gems rewards Wealth. I’d say something like half should be in salable items, and these shouldn’t always be obvious.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by GWJ

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

I’m usually fairly generous because it’s fun to find a sweet haul. Behind the curtain, however, it doesn’t reallly matter that much since the GM can decide what’s available in town and can easily soak cash with a few waves of the plot wand.

Most of my groups are happy to buy a few upgrades, replace consumables, and then start the next adventure. We often just calculate when they would run out of money and start with that (e.g., “After six months, you’re shocked to see the bottom of your treasure chest. Fortunately, it sounds like the chaos on the western marches is getting worse, so paid work shouldn’t be hard to find. . .”).

So I guess a formula might be: Upgrades + Consumables + (Cost-of-living * Weeks-until-next-adventure) = Loot.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by GWJ

BTW How much $ should I give them per adventure...

That's one of them "depends on what you want" questions.

I usually look at how much a magic sword will cost and then decide "how many sessions do I want them waiting to buy this?" Split that amount across those areas* and then quintuple† it. Some spots having the 'minimum' amount of treasure, some having a medium amount and some being hoards.

So if I've decided that the "Orc Warrens" have at most 50K in treasure this gets roughly split between arms and armor for the warriors, a few magic wands/staves for the casters, objects of value in the living/working spaces, and loose "treasure"‡ scattered in pockets, bunks, containers, etc.



* This is tricky as you have to have a feel for how long it will take your Players to 'clear' areas. How many sessions. If you don't have this feel then I'd recommend just winging it and set out treasure 'realistically' (like what you think those monsters would have on their own) and then triple it...

† I say times 5 because 1: for the most part (unless you have a Very Wealthy Character, or one who can pretend to be so with a high Merchant Skill) they won't be getting full market value for these goods. And if they do, then those characters will be lacking in direct dungeoneering capacity so getting more magic items and equipment will beef them back up to capacity. That's the 'times 3' portion of quintupling it. The full times 5 comes in because they will miss some of the treasure. Some will be hidden and they won't find it. Some will be destroyed by Insanely Overpowered Fireballs, some will be kept, some will be lost.

Times five just ends up putting the PCs about where I want them, when I want them. And if not (they missed or gained more treasure than accounted for), I can adjust other areas they haven't yet gotten to.

‡ If your monsters even have 'coins'. Maybe they are trade in spices, or rare minerals, or carved wooden figurines, or coins from an ancient and forgotten land. If you don't put liquid cash in your dungeons, your Poor PCs will suffer for it. This is one way to 'punish' the Poor/Dead Broke party. Making them have to hire an Agent to broker all their treasure...

Unless your Wealthy PC isn't taking cuts for selling (even an Average Wealth PC in a Dead Broke party can make out like a bandit), but then that's a PC making a sacrifice for the group.

...and how much of it shoulde be sealable goods and not just money?

This is going to impact your Poor/Wealthy PCs more than how much "total treasure" you're handing out. The more loose coins you hand out the more immediate liquid resources the Poor PCs have (IE cash). The more valuable objects (art, armor, tools, jewelry, etc), the more liquidable resources your Wealthy PCs will have. So set this ratio according to how want your group to interact with treasure...

I recommend a 3:1, Items to Cash ratio. But that's just what's worked for me.

And that isn't actually always "cash=coins", as in my games I run with a side barter economy, so many 'items' have a liquid value, like spices, lumps/ingots of refined metal, unrefined ore, even coal (yes, one group hauled back a entire wagon load of coal worth 800$)... but that's because I've never liked how D&D monsters all have pocket change in convenient coinages for PCs. Like, where are they spending it? MonsterMart? The Deep Warren Mall?