High wealth bank rolling the whole group.

[zylosan]

Given that the relationship between wealth level and the mulitple of the starting wealth multipler is non linear, do you allow one wealthy character to bank roll the entire group? Allowing other charcters to be less well rounded via higher combat abilities, etc.

[Randyman]

Sure! Why discourage teamwork among players in chargen?

[lexington]

Originally Posted by zylosan

Given that the relationship between wealth level and the mulitple of the starting wealth multipler is non linear, do you allow one wealthy character to bank roll the entire group? Allowing other charcters to be less well rounded via higher combat abilities, etc.

A rich PC can only pay for the expenses of poorer ones if she actually hires them. B26

[Stormcrow]

It depends on the genre, but in general there is nothing to stop it, except perhaps Miserliness. It has to make sense in context, however.

Characters tells you not to let wealthy PCs buy things for poor PCs because they're getting points for being poor. However, Wealth is more than just starting money; it's your ongoing ability to buy things. No matter how much equipment a wealthy character gives to a poor character, the poor character will still have problems trying to buy things on his own (e.g., he can't buy a car because he doesn't have the cash and doesn't have good enough credit for a loan).

If a wealthy character constantly pays for everything for a poor character, to the point that you can't tell that the poor character is actually poor, then he's not poor, and should take the appropriate level of Wealth. (And the wealthy character should reduce his if he's giving away a big enough chunk of his own wealth and influence.)

[zylosan]

I like the idea this idea.

"If a wealthy character constantly pays for everything for a poor character, to the point that you can't tell that the poor character is actually poor, then he's not poor, and should take the appropriate level of Wealth. (And the wealthy character should reduce his if he's giving away a big enough chunk of his own wealth and influence.) "

In some situations I might also rule that supporting a leech (a non-employee) PC would have social concequences as well. Perhaps lose of status for sporting a whole gangle of leeches, to a negative reputation as a sucker or sugar daddy. Could also give the leech player an enemy disadvantage in the form of other family members who do not appreceate the leech, to jelous rivals out to sabatoge the leech to be next in line for the golden ***.

[Flyndaran]

Someone known for supporting leeches will simply attract other leeches thinking the character is a push over.
A known leech will attract scorn for not pulling their own weight.

These seem more realistic and easier to mete out than some metagaming bashing by the GM.

[laguna]

see, I donno if I've been doing it how it was intended, but I've been using wealth as a sort of "wallet size" kinda like in zelda.

technically speaking, I've been using wealth to represent how competent a person is in managing their money. if you are rich and low on money, and you acquire a large sum, you will know exactly what to do with it. A poor character however, doesn't know what to do with that much money and wastes it in a character appropriate manner by the beginning of the next session.

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by zylosan

In some situations I might also rule that supporting a leech (a non-employee) PC would have social concequences as well. Perhaps lose of status for sporting a whole gangle of leeches, to a negative reputation as a sucker or sugar daddy.

Historically speaking, having a gaggle of bodyguards, entertainers, associates and other assorted hangers-on following one around was considered a mark of high status- this is the historical origin of the entourage. The larger and more splendid the entourage following you around, the more important the person is. This is not confined to european cultures, it is a phenomenon that appears very consistently once a society rises above subsistence level.

So it might be more appropriate for the wealthy to equip the other PCs than not- it is more likely that being seen associating with shabbily attired and equipped persons will hurt his standing in society than supporting them would.

In any case, I am inclined to think that it is entirely reasonable for a wealthy PC to equip his companions- if anyone should be penalized, it's the PCs who took the disadvantage and aren't playing it, not the PC who is using an advantage to his benefit.

[PK]

Originally Posted by zylosan

Given that the relationship between wealth level and the mulitple of the starting wealth multipler is non linear, do you allow one wealthy character to bank roll the entire group? Allowing other charcters to be less well rounded via higher combat abilities, etc.

Sure! That's really no different than the one PC with Healing always fixing up the group, or the one PC who maxed out ST and HP always soaking all the damage, or the one PC who took Charisma 5, Voice, and every social skill sweet talking the entire party into situations or getting benefits.

If a player wants to be Mr. Moneybags, and there's no setting-specific reason that makes a rich PC improper, then I say let 'em! The only time it can be somewhat abusive is if you let the other PCs all start off the game with disadvantageous Wealth as well. Fortunately, it's entirely reasonable for the GM to disallow that -- after all, if Mr. Moneybags is paying your way, then he's your "employer", in a sense, so your Wealth level has to at least be high enough to justify your job! But a group of Average Wealth PCs being funded by a single Filthy Rich one is great -- being "the rich one" is really no different than being "the strong one" or "the sneaky one". You're helping the party using your unique abilities.

[warmachine]

To expand on RPK's point, from an accounting point of view, subsidies shouldn't be a problem if the player of the wealthy character isn't a pushover. Being the major funder gives him leverage over group decisions. The poorer PCs are gaining more equipment and services than their CP investment in Wealth should allow but they're losing political power in the group. This is probably a fair trade-off.