Steve Jackson Games Forums

Steve Jackson Games Forums (https://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game (https://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=95)
-   -   A sack of DFRPG questions! (https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=152353)

tbone 10-19-2017 01:23 AM
A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
  1. In both BS and DFRPG, I see no mention of how Cowardice interacts with Intimidation. Am I missing something, or is Cowardice, as written, simply not meant to reduce resistance to Intimidation?

  2. By the rules, does encumbrance affect Acrobatics? In Adventurers, neither the section on encumbrance nor the Acrobatics skill entry suggest so, but the description of thieves' armor (p110) does. (Wait – rules for Dungeon Parkour in Exploits give a definite "yes", so I guess this isn't actually a question after all. But let me know if I'm misunderstanding something.)

  3. Exploits p58 says poisoning a weapon is a long action, and refers the reader to page 32, which lists times for long actions – but not weapon poisoning. How long does it take?

  4. Notes for Esoteric Medicine (Druid) in Adventurers and medical treatment rules in Exploits state that a healer's kit is needed to use Esoteric Medicine – a pretty big consideration that's confirmed on Adventurers p114, tucked away in the kit description. The kit also gives +1 to skill. So, it would appear that one never rolls against straight skill for a practical application of Esoteric Medicine; you either roll at +1 for the kit, or you can't use the skill at all. Is this a correct understanding?

  5. Is Esoteric Medicine (Druid) affected by Nature's Strength?

  6. Wounded disad: Regular armor over the location of course protects the wound, but the writeup says nothing about whether natural armor (Tough Skin, fur, scales, etc.) covers what’s described as an "open wound". This omission would suggest that natural armor does protect, but that doesn't sound right. Am I missing something?

  7. Say a friendly group of players wants to cooperate in optimizing $$$ for the entire group, then share it evenly or however they like. (The rules don’t seem to place any arbitrary restrictions on how PCs can share starting wealth, treasure, or proceeds from selling loot; this is good, IMO.) Focusing for the moment only on selling loot, the winning formula to maximize income would seem to be this:
    1. Make sure at least one PC has reliable skills for correctly assessing the value of goods.
    2. Select one "moneybags" PC with either Very Wealthy [30] to automatically score 100% sell value, or Wealthy [20] and high enough social traits (which any bard PC will likely have) to almost always score 100% sell value.
    3. Get top coin for every sale, and share the proceeds as the group agrees.
    Is that a good understanding of how to maximize group income from selling loot?

  8. As above, but to even better munchkinize long-term group wealth: If all the sales are being made by Mr Moneybags, and if the group is willing to sacrifice collective starting wealth in favor of long-term income, does it make sense to further munchkinize the selling process by having everyone else take Poor or even Dead Broke? Those PCs can then divert the disad points into more delving awesomeness (to score even more loot). Mr Moneybags, meanwhile, in exchange for sacrificing so many character points on Wealth, can bask in the joy of financing the group (if that's what makes the player happy), or perhaps can benefit from some other arrangement (such as first choice of awesome loot that the group decides to keep and use, not sell). Any big flaws in this optimization strategy?

  9. Final, less-than-serious question: One Hand gives +1 to Intimidation if the hand is replaced with a knife, etc. Does a Corpse Golem get +2 for two knife-hands? (Less-than-serious rules lawyer response: "No; the book says the bonus is for One Hand; the Corpse Golem has no hands, so gets no bonus.")

sir_pudding 10-19-2017 01:28 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
7. This is the same as it is with the DF line, yes. In my last game this was the Bard's primary role even above Diplomancy and he was optimized for it.

8. The main flaw, and it is a fairly big one, is that they won't have any gear to start, which could very well TPK before they ever get a chance to sell any loot.

tbone 10-19-2017 02:04 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding (Post 2129339)
8. The main flaw, and it is a fairly big one, is that they won't have any gear to start, which could very well TPK before they ever get a chance to sell any loot.
Yep, it is a flaw... with a loophole. Imagine 4 Dead Broke PCs, plus Mr Moneybags with Wealthy: with his starting money, he can distribute $1000 to every PC at the start. (Make that $4000 per PC for Very Wealthy!)

Looks like "one rich PC, everyone else dirt poor" is a viable strategy for a money-hungry PC group in DFRPG (and DF, as you note).

Not that that's a problem; if it's what the players all want, then great! And if it does become a problem, the GM can always steer rewards away from salable loot, or place restrictions on selling ("the Wizard's Guild will henceforth buy magic items only from a licensed wizard"), etc.

It's also worth noting that selling stuff (or otherwise making money) is only part of the equation for optimizing $$$; buying stuff cheap also matters. And the rules for Getting Stuff Cheap call on a more varied set of skills (and miscellaneous traits like Dwarven Gear); it'll likely take varied PCs, not one specialized PC, to optimizing buying.

All in all, I like how these dynamics are playing out in DF/DFRPG...

sir_pudding 10-19-2017 02:58 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone (Post 2129341)
Yep, it is a flaw... with a loophole. Imagine 4 Dead Broke PCs, plus Mr Moneybags with Wealthy: with his starting money, he can distribute $1000 to every PC at the start. (Make that $4000 per PC for Very Wealthy!)

Looks like "one rich PC, everyone else dirt poor" is a viable strategy for a money-hungry PC group in DFRPG (and DF, as you note).
Which assumes that you start in town, and the town you start in has the stuff you need. If it was my game, you might find yourself starting the campaign attacked by bandits on the road or something, and really wishing you hadn't started naked and unarmed, next to a guy who spent all his points on being rich and is encumbered with bags of silver rather than armor and weapons.

EDIT: So not only a very likely TPK but the next party probably has to deal with especially well equipped bandits. Honestly this scheme seems more like a combination elaborate mass suicide and highwayman charity than a good way to optimize your character.

evileeyore 10-19-2017 08:25 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone (Post 2129338)
In both BS and DFRPG, I see no mention of how Cowardice interacts with Intimidation. Am I missing something, or is Cowardice, as written, simply not meant to reduce resistance to Intimidation?
Two things:

1 - Intimidation isn't always about physical danger, someone can make threats concerning others that the character cares or other things.

2 - Intimidation is all about convincing someone that you are not only capable of doing as you threaten, but willing. Failing to Intimidate means you've failed at one or both of these things.


Quote:
By the rules, does encumbrance affect Acrobatics? In Adventurers, neither the section on encumbrance nor the Acrobatics skill entry suggest so, but the description of thieves' armor (p110) does. (Wait – rules for Dungeon Parkour in Exploits give a definite "yes", so I guess this isn't actually a question after all. But let me know if I'm misunderstanding something.)
Not as far as I can tell.


Quote:
Exploits p58 says poisoning a weapon is a long action, and refers the reader to page 32, which lists times for long actions – but not weapon poisoning. How long does it take?
Good rule of thumb is one minute.

Quote:
Notes for Esoteric Medicine (Druid) in Adventurers and medical treatment rules in Exploits state that a healer's kit is needed to use Esoteric Medicine – a pretty big consideration that's confirmed on Adventurers p114, tucked away in the kit description. The kit also gives +1 to skill. So, it would appear that one never rolls against straight skill for a practical application of Esoteric Medicine; you either roll at +1 for the kit, or you can't use the skill at all. Is this a correct understanding?
huh. Didn't notice that dumb line in the Druid's write up of the skill. I thought the Druid and Cleric write ups would be nigh identical.

Quote:
Is Esoteric Medicine (Druid) affected by Nature's Strength?
No. Likewise for Clerics.

Though it should, as with the Cleric's ability it requires Sanctity to use.


Hmmm.... so maybe the Cleric's is bestowed by their diety and the Driud's by their kit?

Quote:
Wounded disad: Regular armor over the location of course protects the wound, but the writeup says nothing about whether natural armor (Tough Skin, fur, scales, etc.) covers what’s described as an "open wound". This omission would suggest that natural armor does protect, but that doesn't sound right. Am I missing something?
As per the write up for Tough Skin, it would be an open wound (if not covered by unnatural armor).

Quote:
Is that a good understanding of how to maximize group income from selling loot?
Yes.

Quote:
Final, less-than-serious question: One Hand gives +1 to Intimidation if the hand is replaced with a knife, etc. Does a Corpse Golem get +2 for two knife-hands? (Less-than-serious rules lawyer response: "No; the book says the bonus is for One Hand; the Corpse Golem has no hands, so gets no bonus.")
Corpse Golem doesn't even bother to make Intimidate checks.

But yeah, if you want to have the Corpse Golem make some cutting remarks to scare it's foes, I'd give it +2.

Kromm 10-19-2017 10:12 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone (Post 2129338)

In both BS and DFRPG, I see no mention of how Cowardice interacts with Intimidation. Am I missing something, or is Cowardice, as written, simply not meant to reduce resistance to Intimidation?
Cowardice works just as it does in GURPS: It is about physical danger, mainly fighting, and doesn't have a social danger facet. Intimidation is social (even if it can have physical overtones), so it has no interaction with Cowardice. Fearfulness is the trait of being a general fraidy cat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone (Post 2129338)

By the rules, does encumbrance affect Acrobatics? In Adventurers, neither the section on encumbrance nor the Acrobatics skill entry suggest so, but the description of thieves' armor (p110) does. (Wait – rules for Dungeon Parkour in Exploits give a definite "yes", so I guess this isn't actually a question after all. But let me know if I'm misunderstanding something.)
In general, no – as in GURPS. Encumbrance has no effect when you use Acrobatics to pounce (Exploits, p. 40), dodge (Exploits, p. 48), deal with knockback (Exploits, p. 53), attempt the tricks in Speed Is Armor! (Exploits, p. 58), or break a fall (Exploits, p. 67). But for the specific tasks under Dungeon Parkour (Exploits, pp. 20-21), yes. You'll note that Adventurers, p. 12 speaks of "all uses" for Climbing, Stealth, and Swimming, but not for Acrobatics; this is why

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone (Post 2129338)

Exploits p58 says poisoning a weapon is a long action, and refers the reader to page 32, which lists times for long actions – but not weapon poisoning. How long does it take?
So long that you have to do it "before combat" – say, several minutes, so it makes no sense to try to do it when counting seconds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone (Post 2129338)

Notes for Esoteric Medicine (Druid) in Adventurers and medical treatment rules in Exploits state that a healer's kit is needed to use Esoteric Medicine – a pretty big consideration that's confirmed on Adventurers p114, tucked away in the kit description. The kit also gives +1 to skill. So, it would appear that one never rolls against straight skill for a practical application of Esoteric Medicine; you either roll at +1 for the kit, or you can't use the skill at all. Is this a correct understanding?
All forms of Esoteric Medicine require a kit when you treat injury – so yes, this skill is nearly always used at a bonus in that context. Many uses don't mention the kit, though; e.g., weird treatments (Exploits, p. 63), dealing with swallowed acid (Exploits, p. 65), and counteracting a heart attack (Exploits, p. 66). That is, when the skill stands in for "general medical knowledge."

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone (Post 2129338)

Is Esoteric Medicine (Druid) affected by Nature's Strength?
No. Druids use the roots and berries in their kits, so even when Nature is in a bad way around them, they have access to that. Clerics . . . mostly, they pray and hope for the best, so their situation isn't the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone (Post 2129338)

Wounded disad: Regular armor over the location of course protects the wound, but the writeup says nothing about whether natural armor (Tough Skin, fur, scales, etc.) covers what’s described as an "open wound". This omission would suggest that natural armor does protect, but that doesn't sound right. Am I missing something?
Sort of . . . for one thing, Wounded doesn't actually say "open wound." It says "old wound."

More important, all DR protects against blows. Armor DR goes outside the wound, while natural DR reflects general toughness (i.e., you are injured and bleed but don't lose as many HP as somebody else). The missing link is under Tough Skin (Adventurers, p. 16), which is quite explicit: "It's also flesh, so it won't stop anything that requires a scratch (e.g., poison) or skin contact (e.g., electrical shock) if the attack carrying it does damage equal to or greater than the DR of any armor."

Thus, if you have Wounded and natural DR, the DR will subtract from damage from blows; otherwise, Wounded would reduce the cost of or forbid Tough Skin! However, natural DR won't help you against "poison that merely gets on your wound," because with Wounded, that's always something that requires skin contact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone (Post 2129338)

Say a friendly group of players wants to cooperate in optimizing $$$ for the entire group, then share it evenly or however they like. (The rules don’t seem to place any arbitrary restrictions on how PCs can share starting wealth, treasure, or proceeds from selling loot; this is good, IMO.) Focusing for the moment only on selling loot, the winning formula to maximize income would seem to be this:
  1. Make sure at least one PC has reliable skills for correctly assessing the value of goods.
  2. Select one "moneybags" PC with either Very Wealthy [30] to automatically score 100% sell value, or Wealthy [20] and high enough social traits (which any bard PC will likely have) to almost always score 100% sell value.
  3. Get top coin for every sale, and share the proceeds as the group agrees.
Is that a good understanding of how to maximize group income from selling loot?

As above, but to even better munchkinize long-term group wealth: If all the sales are being made by Mr Moneybags, and if the group is willing to sacrifice collective starting wealth in favor of long-term income, does it make sense to further munchkinize the selling process by having everyone else take Poor or even Dead Broke? Those PCs can then divert the disad points into more delving awesomeness (to score even more loot). Mr Moneybags, meanwhile, in exchange for sacrificing so many character points on Wealth, can bask in the joy of financing the group (if that's what makes the player happy), or perhaps can benefit from some other arrangement (such as first choice of awesome loot that the group decides to keep and use, not sell). Any big flaws in this optimization strategy?
If somebody thinks it's fun to play fantasy Reuben Tishkoff, why not? If they want to give up 20-30 points of delving abilities to have Wealth and/or high social traits, that's their chosen role in the group – and more power to them! It isn't any more "bad" or "broken" than somebody playing the cleric who shells out for Power Investiture 5 and lots of Energy Reserve to Bless people all the time and walk around at -1 to spells, or the knight-defender type who gets Rallying Cry, Sacrificial Block, Sacrificial Parry, Shield-Wall Training, and trades quirk points for more Leadership and Tactics so he can use "Onward to Victory!" (Exploits, p. 57).

(Aside: I've always had one player want to be the party moneybags, so I might be biased in favor of it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone (Post 2129338)

Final, less-than-serious question: One Hand gives +1 to Intimidation if the hand is replaced with a knife, etc. Does a Corpse Golem get +2 for two knife-hands? (Less-than-serious rules lawyer response: "No; the book says the bonus is for One Hand; the Corpse Golem has no hands, so gets no bonus.")
Welll . . .

They'll be terrible at Intimidation due to low Will (a mere 8) and the Automaton trait (which gives -3). Starting at default Will-5, they'll have skill 0; with the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, they'll have skill 4-5. So I say go ahead and give them +2 because they need the help!

Of course, no official monster has Intimidation at all because it isn't very worthwhile against PCs . . .

evileeyore 10-19-2017 11:46 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129381)
So I say go ahead and give them +2 because they need the help!
So you're saying they need a helping hand?

martinl 10-19-2017 11:55 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129381)
If somebody thinks it's fun to play fantasy Reuben Tishkoff, why not? If they want to give up 20-30 points of delving abilities to have Wealth and/or high social traits, that's their chosen role in the group – and more power to them!
In my experience, this goes two ways - either there is absolute trust and co-operation within the group, or at least for Mr. Moneybags, and the ability to get better prices on loot is just a small subset of the benefits. Co-operation without suspicion is just a powerful tool, period. (As Kromm mentions, it is less important to group success than having a good & trustworthy healer.)

The other way is that someone gets resentful or suspicious, and suddenly it matters a LOT that only one PC owns all the stuff, but is significantly weaker at the murderizing part of the game...

Kromm 10-19-2017 12:22 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore (Post 2129399)

So you're saying they need a helping hand?
I think you've put your finger on it, yeah.

MIB.6361 10-19-2017 12:29 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129416)
I think you've put your finger on it, yeah.
I don't think I have a full grasp of your line of puns.

Kromm 10-19-2017 12:57 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinl (Post 2129401)

In my experience, this goes two ways - either there is absolute trust and co-operation within the group, or at least for Mr. Moneybags, and the ability to get better prices on loot is just a small subset of the benefits. Co-operation without suspicion is just a powerful tool, period. (As Kromm mentions, it is less important to group success than having a good & trustworthy healer.)
Total and essentially unquestioned cooperation is hugely powerful, yes. It makes a bigger difference than "character builds" to overall success. (Those who play GURPS will understand it when I say this: "It's like having a gang of equally powerful Allies around constantly, meaning each fellow party member effectively gives you a free 20-point power boost, or a 40-point one if we treat the inevitable meta-game connection as de facto Summonable.")

In the specific case of finances, I see little game-balance problem with it (see below for the social problems). The truly powerful stuff – very fine rapiers ($10,000), suits of epic plate ($12,000), ironskin amulets ($28,720), Might items ($30,000 for +1 to ST), etc. – is just so costly that even a Very Wealthy delver with $20,000 won't be equipping the whole party with it. One or two such items are about as good a use of 30 points as anything else, and handing gewgaws off to friends rather than keeping them to compensate for the effectiveness lost by not having those 30 points in combat abilities . . . well, that level of team spirit is admirable!

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinl (Post 2129401)

The other way is that someone gets resentful or suspicious, and suddenly it matters a LOT that only one PC owns all the stuff, but is significantly weaker at the murderizing part of the game...
And that can be bad.

If the wealthy person who equips everyone ends up on the other side of an argument with those who carry the equipment, and tries to give orders or ask for the gear back, the likely outcome is a forceful "no" to Moneybags – or worse, the assassination of Moneybags. There's no upside to that, as it most likely leaves Moneybags' player upset and ruins the game for all. And if Moneybags' player was complicit in a scheme to equip allies, get assassinated or otherwise die, and create a replacement character who's useful in other ways . . . well, that's very skeevy and likely to upset the GM and also ruin the game for all.

There's no easy fix for this.

"No loans!" is heavy-handed, difficult to explain, and liable to be yet another way to upset people and ruin the game. The fairest method is probably to give a voice to Moneybags' "excellent financial connections in town." If Moneybags is assassinated, they'll make it impossible to buy and sell in town, and might send well-armed repo critters. If Moneybags is merely given no say in how the gear is used, Moneybags might be able to pull strings that mean the others had better like that gear, because once again, they can't buy and sell in town. Making these potential consequences known ahead of time, before any loaning happens, is reasonably fair and not too heavy-handed.

Ultimately, though, "Don't be a jerk!" and "Know your fellow players!" are the only sure-fire solutions.

sir_pudding 10-19-2017 01:51 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Again though, I really don't see how this party is getting past the first encounter in order to ever benefit from this. I suppose that instead of cash, Moneybags could start with enough gear for an entire party that just coincidentally matches the needs of his new naked friends but even then they'll need to equip in the midst of a fight (though honestly I would be inclined to have him pick gear without input from the other PCs in that case).

Kromm 10-19-2017 02:30 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding (Post 2129443)

Again though, I really don't see how this party is getting past the first encounter in order to ever benefit from this. I suppose that instead of cash, Moneybags could start with enough gear for an entire party that just coincidentally matches the needs of his new naked friends but even then they'll need to equip in the midst of a fight (though honestly I would be inclined to have him pick gear without input from the other PCs in that case).
The DFRPG (which is the subject of this forum) supposes that starting gear and money are "just there" – there's no need to shop for it, so you can start your first adventure at once. While it might be amusing to mess with the players, it would probably be best not to. Remember that while GURPS is a full-spectrum RPG, the DFRPG sets aside social complexities to get to the action. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with everybody pooling their money and starting with whatever they all agree to spend it on. Even if you include social complexities, they might be a long-established mercenary unit with a successful captain, family with a rich matriarch or patriarch, criminal crew with a wealthy mastermind, etc., and the first adventure is merely the first "on screen" adventure in a longstanding association.

sir_pudding 10-19-2017 02:51 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129453)
The DFRPG (which is the subject of this forum) supposes that starting gear and money are "just there" – there's no need to shop for it, so you can start your first adventure at once.
Even in the case of Dead Broke characters?

Quote:
While it might be amusing to mess with the players, it would probably be best not to. Remember that while GURPS is a full-spectrum RPG, the DFRPG sets aside social complexities to get to the action. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with everybody pooling their money and starting with whatever they all agree to spend it on. Even if you include social complexities, they might be a long-established mercenary unit with a successful captain, family with a rich matriarch or patriarch, criminal crew with a wealthy mastermind, etc., and the first adventure is merely the first "on screen" adventure in a longstanding association.
In which case Dead Broke isn't as much of a disadvantage (only affecting your selling ability) and shouldn't be worth as much, IMO.

Edit: If this does work, the really Munchkin way for arbitrary amounts of starting wealth would be:
  1. Go off template and make a party patron without any useful adventuring skills and tons of money.
  2. Give away all your money and equip the rest of the party.
  3. Retire the your character.
  4. Repeat the above N times.
  5. Make a new character who can sell stuff but still adventure competently.
  6. Then start the first adventure.

scimon 10-19-2017 02:57 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Ah but the dead broke character also has to put up with the watch questioning him all the time. Plus of course your PC's have basically given themselves the job of bodyguards... And every thief in town knows who the whale is.

Plus I don't think you can get Signature Gear for things you were gifted. (At least not for a while anyway).

sir_pudding 10-19-2017 03:02 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Yeah, I am not inclined to let money or gear change hands before play starts, regardless of what Kromm says. Otherwise every party could just start with infinite wealth.

scimon 10-19-2017 03:10 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Dunno about infinite unless you do the trick I used to do in Bards Tale where I created lots of party members. Looted them, kicked them from the party and carried on going.

That I'd crack down on.

sir_pudding 10-19-2017 03:14 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scimon (Post 2129468)
Dunno about infinite unless you do the trick I used to do in Bards Tale where I created lots of party members. Looted them, kicked them from the party and carried on going.
Yeah that's what I am taking about.
Quote:
That I'd crack down on.
"You have to play the first concept you think of! No changing your mind!" seems significantly less fun then "No trading before the game starts" (which honestly is how most people play anyway, I think).

Kromm 10-19-2017 03:18 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Dead Broke means what it says by "You start with nothing but rags to wear." Your rich patron friend would have to hand you gear and hope it's useful to you, because you start with nothing other than those rags. Other PCs start with whatever their cash and points can scare up, however weird or hard to find it might be; you do not.

Signature Gear must be paid for normally using "some combination of Starting Money and Extra Money." Neither of those is "I got it from a friend" – or for that matter, "I got it from a quest-giver." So yes, starting with nothing also deprives you of that option, though the players of characters who start with nothing rarely plan to depend on a vital piece of equipment that needs insurance.

And since you start with nothing, you can forget about starting play with a Weapon Bond to "any weapon you can afford," because you can afford nothing.

It might seem a gray zone whether "start with" should be read this stringently for Dead Broke delvers, but that was intended sense of the words. If you start Dead Broke, you start with zip, nada, rien. Your friends can promptly set you up with gear, but you won't have Signature Gear or Weapon Bond for it, and they'll actually have to transfer it from their character sheet to yours in play.

So while I wouldn't go so far as to make Dead Broke worth fewer points, I would say that in addition to "You cannot trade points for cash," there's an implicit "If your friends equip you, they must do so in play."

sir_pudding 10-19-2017 03:22 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129475)
So while I wouldn't go so far as to make Dead Broke worth fewer points, I would say that in addition to "You cannot trade points for cash," there's an implicit "If your friends equip you, they must do so in play."
Okay now I am totally confused. What does "in-play" mean in this context if it doesn't mean "after the first adventure begins"?

Kromm 10-19-2017 03:27 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding (Post 2129461)

Go off template and make a party patron without any useful adventuring skills and tons of money.

Retire the your character.

Make a new character who can sell stuff but still adventure competently.
Pretty much none of which is strongly supported in the game. The GM is encouraged to enforce templates (Adventurers, p. 14). Replacement PCs are for dead people (Exploits, p. 87). If players start killing off characters to bring in replacements, that's fine – but this will cost everybody points for the adventure (Exploits, p. 92). The GM who's willing to ignore all that is probably experienced enough to handle the situation with a well-placed guffaw or eye-roll.

sir_pudding 10-19-2017 03:30 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129482)
Pretty much none of which is strongly supported in the game. The GM is encouraged to enforce templates (Adventurers, p. 14). Replacement PCs are for dead people (Exploits, p. 87). If players start killing off characters to bring in replacements, that's fine – but this will cost everybody points for the adventure (Exploits, p. 92). The GM who's willing to ignore all that is probably experienced enough to handle the situation with a well-placed guffaw or eye-roll.
Requiring that you only make one character at a time, play every character you ever make and forbidding changes of concept or backup characters (or just making tons of characters for fun) seems to be antithetical to my group's idea of fun. Forbidding pre-campaign trading is the assumed default. YMMV, of course.

Kromm 10-19-2017 03:36 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding (Post 2129479)

Okay now I am totally confused. What does "in-play" mean in this context if it doesn't mean "after the first adventure begins"?
It means after the adventure begins, of course – but during all the events outlined in Getting Ready to Go (Exploits, pp. 13-15), the heroes are safe in town, with whatever stuff they wanted to start with, but free to buy more stuff with remaining cash, scrounge in gutters, beg, seek quests, make deals with sponsors, pursue rumors, etc. See Adventures (Exploits, p. 87) for the general phase structure. This precludes rich PCs being randomly mugged, unless the GM wants town to be something other than the safe haven it's intended to be.

sir_pudding 10-19-2017 03:39 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129490)
It means after the adventure begins, of course – but during all the events outlined in Getting Ready to Go (Exploits, pp. 13-15), the heroes are safe in town, with whatever stuff they wanted to start with, but free to buy more stuff with remaining cash, scrounge in gutters, beg, seek quests, make deals with sponsors, pursue rumors, etc. See Adventures (Exploits, p. 87) for the general phase structure. This precludes rich PCs being randomly mugged, unless the GM wants town to be something other than the safe haven it's intended to be.
I often start adventures with an encounter, so I guess I am off script there.

Kromm 10-19-2017 03:40 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding (Post 2129486)

Requiring that you only make one character at a time, play every character you ever make and forbidding changes of concept or backup characters (or just making tons of characters for fun) seems to be antithetical to my group's idea of fun. Forbidding pre-campaign trading is the assumed default. YMMV, of course.
Every group is different! My players have always been big on the "create a unit" approach, so they select abilities and gear collectively, which means a lot of "Character A will cover for Character B" goes on.

On the other hand, swapping indefinite numbers of PCs into and out of the game without ever playing them? Never seen it, never met a group that did it. It might be fun, but if you allow it, it breaks the cash economy no matter how you handle it, because even just parading in infinite Poor guys who drop cheap gear will eventually lead to infinite money. All my rules interpretation changes is how quickly it breaks . . .

sir_pudding 10-19-2017 03:48 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129496)
Every group is different! My players have always been big on the "create a unit" approach, so they select abilities and gear collectively, which means a lot of "Character A will cover for Character B" goes on.
Oh, mine too, but what I have never seen is "and then we will swap gear before the campaign starts in order to optimize based on some rules exploit". The idea that characters can do anything at all active prior to the campaign starting is frankly pretty alien to my experience.
Quote:
On the other hand, swapping indefinite numbers of PCs into and out of the game without ever playing them? Never seen it, never met a group that did it.
Nobody has ever gone with concept A instead of B, or started a character and then abandoned it for a different one, or made a bunch of backup characters in advance, or anything like that? These are pretty typical for my experience. How do they create a unit without choosing between alternate character concepts in the first place?
Quote:
It might be fun, but if you allow it, it breaks the cash economy no matter how you handle it, because even just parading in infinite Poor guys who drop cheap gear will eventually lead to infinite money.
I don't really see how, if you assume, as I do, that characters that have never see play effectively don't exist yet.

Kromm 10-19-2017 04:02 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding (Post 2129500)

Nobody has ever gone with concept A instead of B, or started a character and then abandoned it for a different one, or made a bunch of backup characters in advance, or anything like that? These are pretty typical for my experience. How do they create a unit without choosing between alternate character concepts in the first place?

I don't really see how, if you assume, as I do, that characters that have never see play effectively don't exist yet.
Oh, people change ideas and concepts all the time. I was referring specifically to your six-step process, which included "Retire the character" as a permitted step before "Then start the first adventure." People can and do create dozens of characters before settling on one! But bringing them into the campaign, disbursing funds, and retiring them isn't permitted. Trading beforehand happens after all characters are final (that is, after the unit is formed) but before I'd allow anybody to retire.

sir_pudding 10-19-2017 04:10 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129508)
Oh, people change ideas and concepts all the time. I was referring specifically to your six-step process, which included "Retire the character" as a permitted step before "Then start the first adventure." People can and do create dozens of characters before settling on one! But bringing them into the campaign, disbursing funds, and retiring them isn't permitted. Trading beforehand happens after all characters are final (that is, after the unit is formed) but before I'd allow anybody to retire.
Deciding not to ever play a character seems to be something that people ought to be able to do.

I am not really sure what the difference between trading beforehand under these circumstances and trading as soon as possible in-play is, except that the former avoids the risks of a) having to fight with the gear on your sheet (or lack thereof in the case of Dead Broke) and b) the starting town not having the thing that you want, both of which, frankly, seem to be a pretty good deterrent to making Mr. Moneybags and the Dead Broke Delvers.

ULFGARD 10-19-2017 04:20 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
It seems like the moneybag & Dead Broke party idea could be fun, but it's a matter of play style. It's in keeping with munchkinism to do something like that, of course. I remember in the way back days having DMs who allowed swapping gear, but also rolled randomly to see if some of the gear swapping was done to NPCs who subsequently decided not to join the party - or even swindlers who take them for as much as they can get. That made it fun, but risky.

PK 10-19-2017 05:41 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding (Post 2129511)
Deciding not to ever play a character seems to be something that people ought to be able to do.
Sure, but then you don't get to say that the other PCs get that character's extra gear and cash. If you never actually play the character, then they were never a part of the group.

(And really, if you disagree and think that it's fair to allow infinite "theoretical" characters to appear, drop their cash, and then disappear, then Wealth really doesn't matter . . . as you're basically okay with PCs starting with infinite cash, all donated by their fairy Schroedinger's companions.)

sir_pudding 10-19-2017 05:44 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PK (Post 2129537)
Sure, but then you don't get to say that the other PCs get that character's extra gear and cash. If you never actually play the character, then they were never a part of the group.

(And really, if you disagree and think that it's fair to allow infinite "theoretical" characters to appear, drop their cash, and then disappear, then Wealth really doesn't matter . . . as you're basically okay with PCs starting with infinite cash, all donated by their fairy Schroedinger's companions.)
Well I don't think that they should be able to trade at all before they are played, it seems like an unnecessary extra step in character creation. If as you say, they were never part of the group, why should they be able to trade with them?

dripton 10-19-2017 07:19 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
DFRPG is a role-playing game, designed to be played with a GM, who has the power to say "no." So the rules don't have to account for every single edge case. If someone tried making a rich PC whose sole purpose was clearly to die and leave all his stuff to that player's next PC, who didn't pay points for all that gear, I'd wreck that plan, one way or another.

But that doesn't mean all combinations of rich and poor PCs are bad. I've seen a group where the rich PC hired the other PCs. I've seen a group where a rich PC *owned* one of the other PCs. These kinds of power relationships aren't for everyone, but if the group wants to do that, it's fine.

tbone 10-20-2017 01:11 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129381)
Cowardice works just as it does in GURPS: It is about physical danger, mainly fighting, and doesn't have a social danger facet. Intimidation is social (even if it can have physical overtones), so it has no interaction with Cowardice. Fearfulness is the trait of being a general fraidy cat.
A good clarification. Thanks. (And to evileeyore for the similar response.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129381)
In general, no – as in GURPS. Encumbrance has no effect when you use Acrobatics to pounce (Exploits, p. 40), dodge (Exploits, p. 48), deal with knockback (Exploits, p. 53), attempt the tricks in Speed Is Armor! (Exploits, p. 58), or break a fall (Exploits, p. 67). But for the specific tasks under Dungeon Parkour (Exploits, pp. 20-21), yes. You'll note that Adventurers, p. 12 speaks of "all uses" for Climbing, Stealth, and Swimming, but not for Acrobatics; this is why
Got it. FWIW, I've always penalized any use of Acrobatics for encumbrance, and will continue doing so as a house rule. But it's still good to know what the official ruling is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129381)
So long that you have to do it "before combat" – say, several minutes, so it makes no sense to try to do it when counting seconds.
Sounds good. If it ever matters, I suppose I'll say something like "5 minutes plus 1 minute per extra dose" – with more hurried application possible at considerable risk to the poisoner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129381)
All forms of Esoteric Medicine require a kit when you treat injury – so yes, this skill is nearly always used at a bonus in that context. Many uses don't mention the kit, though; e.g., weird treatments (Exploits, p. 63), dealing with swallowed acid (Exploits, p. 65), and counteracting a heart attack (Exploits, p. 66). That is, when the skill stands in for "general medical knowledge."
Sounds good... though, I just re-read the Healer's Kit description on Adventurers p114, and have questions again. (Sorry to pick at this, but the nitty-gritty of medical tasks is life & death stuff.)

I was about to ask whether the +1 bonus for a healer's kit means that it's essentially a good-quality healer's kit – but the description makes clear that it's basic equipment. (Which also preempts my follow-up question: "Isn't there a basic-level healer's kit?") So why the +1 bonus? If I'm inferring correctly: If a task can be accomplished by First Aid or Esoteric Medicine, then the healer's kit simply substitutes for a first-aid kit, which would also offer +1; hence the +1 for either kit. (From that bonus, I assume that the $50, 2-lb. first-aid kit itself counts as a good-quality first-aid kit; $10 plain bandages are its merely-basic equivalent.)

Do I seem to have that right?

As for Esoteric Medicine tasks that don't require a kit: Such tasks could logically exist, sure. But unless I'm missing a key passage, I wouldn't be able to pick that up from the rules text alone. None of the mentioned tasks (weird treatments, etc.) say a kit isn't necessary, while the healer's kit description lays down a pretty authoritative-sounding "Required to use that skill [Esoteric Medicine]". Unless there's a published clarification down the road, I think new players are going to read this as meaning that, yes, a healer's kit is always necessary for Esoteric Medicine (and thus the +1 bonus always applies).

While on the topic of kits, a few quick questions with reference to "Equipment Modifiers" (Exploits p7):
  • Would you say it's generally kosher to allow kit-based Esoteric Medicine rolls at -10 for no equipment? Or -5 for improvised equipment? (Again, this is a matter of how strictly to take that word "required" in the kit description. If kit-less attempts are possible, I'd think that a simple first-aid kit, the wrong specialty of healer's kit, or surgical instruments would count as improvised equipment; does that sound sensible?)
  • Keeping in mind that the general first-aid kit is already good-quality (if I understand correctly), is there a theoretical fine-quality first-aid kit ($200, 8 lbs.)?
  • Is there a theoretical good-quality healer's kit ($1000, 50 lbs.)? Fine-quality ($4000, 200 lbs.)? And if a basic healer's kit functions as a good-quality first-aid kit for a +1 bonus (for those tasks allowing First Aid or Esoteric Medicine), should a good-quality or better healer's kit function as a fine-quality first-aid kit for a +2 bonus?
  • I assume that good-quality and fine-quality surgical instruments ($1500, 75 lbs, +1 bonus / $6000, 300 lbs., +2 bonus, respectively) are perfectly allowable; any objections?

Finally, one more question about kits: Are there kits that are required for, or kits that can optionally aid, the following skills?
  • Diagnosis
  • Herb Lore*
  • Pharmacy*
  • Poisons*
  • Veterinary
*For analyzing, brewing, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129381)
No. Druids use the roots and berries in their kits, so even when Nature is in a bad way around them, they have access to that. Clerics . . . mostly, they pray and hope for the best, so their situation isn't the same.
Got it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129381)
If somebody thinks it's fun to play fantasy Reuben Tishkoff, why not?... It isn't any more "bad" or "broken" than somebody playing the cleric who shells out for Power Investiture 5 and lots of Energy Reserve to Bless people all the time and walk around at -1 to spells...
I don't think it sounds bad or broken either; it all sounds fun to me. Just wondering whether there were any major considerations that would throw cold water on the Moneybags scheme. (There are some minor ones, I see; your points about Signature Gear and Weapon Bond are good ones!)

In short, I'd be happy to let DFRPG players try this sort of thing; if they all enjoy it, then great. If problems do crop up, the GM should be able to come up with all kinds of subtle discouragements.

For example, just the social intricacies of dependence on Moneybags should give at least a little pause to more munchkin-y players. They'll want to keep in mind that, no matter how happily communal the group is in money-sharing, there'll always be that post-sale moment where Moneybags alone holds all the coin. (They do trust him completely, right?) Shady fences in town, and the thieves they deal with, will take note of all this cash flowing through one PC; lots of eyes will be on Moneybags as he makes his rounds of high-priced sales. And merchants who are willing to pay top coin to Moneybags, with his slick Appearance and smooth Charisma, might be less willing to cut sweet deals when he's surrounded by ragged, uncouth adventurer pals.

Finally, there's this problem: What if Moneybags – who didn't spend lots of points on sweet dungeon survival abilities – gets clobbered by an ogre? Boom, no more easy income.

Me, I'd pay good silver to see this scene of panic play out among a party of Dead Broke PCs: "Guys, don't worry, don't worry! We'll just get Moneybags resurrected! We've picked up at least $15,000 in loot, so we'll go to town, have Moneybags sell it all, and... wait... "

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129381)
They'll be terrible at Intimidation due to low Will (a mere 8) and the Automaton trait (which gives -3). Starting at default Will-5, they'll have skill 0; with the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, they'll have skill 4-5. So I say go ahead and give them +2 because they need the help!.
Yeah, with or without Ginsu hands, I guess they won't be doing much Intimidation.

Good thing they don't negotiate, either. Shaking hands on the deal would not be advised.

Bruno 10-20-2017 08:47 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding (Post 2129539)
Well I don't think that they should be able to trade at all before they are played
Correct. Nobody is suggesting they should be, and I think this is where the discussion gap is.

If Mr. Moneybags starts play with enough equipment to kit up a band of Poor mercenaries to protect him in a dungeon delve, he can certainly give it to them after play starts. Which yes, if you like to drop them in the middle of a fight is going to be an issue for the Poor PCs, but the structure in DFRPG is that you start play In Town, looking for work.

Either way, however, if I change my mind about what character I'm going to play six times, I can't dump the wealth of the five unplayed PCs with the rest of the party, because they never existed. It doesn't matter if I changed concepts because I couldn't decide if I was playing a Knight or a Thief, or because the GM had to keep rejecting my character sheets because I couldn't follow the rules to save my life - the Knight and the Thief I didn't play didn't exist any more than the 10-headed ogre I tried to play but was told I was crazy for trying.

EDIT: I have been in or GMed for multiple groups where one PC was "The rich noble/wizard/whatever" and the rest of the party were employees; they decided the structure for them splitting the wealth was "payroll". Notably, we had one GURPS DF game where the rich guy also hired an NPC personal servant, a cook, a horse groom, two guards (to protect the surface campsite with all the NPCs while the PCs were down in a dungeon), and a guy to drive the horsecart that they used to haul loot. Which also meant buying food and tents for everyone, but they had a great night watch rotation.

Kromm 10-20-2017 09:38 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Many groups (okay . . . most of mine as a GM and several I've been in as a player) do something like this:
  1. Discuss general goals: "We need a healer," "More ranged weapons this time! We always get hosed by flying things," "No barehanded martial artists, ok? Tired of paying for replacement fists," "Don't forget to have two heavy fighters this time . . . I still remember when Sam the Ogre got mind controlled," and so on.

  2. Choose specific roles: "I'll take the cleric," "I'll play a scout," "Put me down for a barbarian," "I like knights," etc.

  3. Create characters (or dig up previously created ones) – and yes, however many the player likes. Sometimes done collaboratively.

  4. Select characters from among that stable. Sometimes done collaboratively.

  5. Tweak characters in collaboration with the others in the group to maximize ability coverage and minimize undesired overlap; e.g., "Oh, you have those spells, too? No problem, I'll take this other set."

  6. Establish the final, tweaked characters as a team and come up with a team origin story. In effect, the team is a "character" created by everybody.

  7. Tweak team logistics collaboratively to maximize effectiveness. The characters are finalized at this stage, but we could imagine them saying things like: "You're short on cash? I can loan you $900 for a greatsword," "I'll carry your healer's kit so you'll stay at Light encumbrance," "Let's pool all our leftover money in a fund for group basics, tents, and such."
I think those last three steps, especially step 7, might explain the missing link in the conversation about wealth.

Actual play starts after step 7. Steps 6-7 for a party amount to establishing a rationale for working together – a good thing, in general. In effect, the GM lets the players do a little pre-adventure discussion and trading as a reward for not being a rabble with no motivation.

martinl 10-20-2017 10:11 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone (Post 2129641)
For example, just the social intricacies of dependence on Moneybags should give at least a little pause to more munchkin-y players.
I'd also like to bring up that some PCs might have disads that make this level of money trust harder for the PCs (if not the players themselves).

MIB.6361 10-20-2017 10:31 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dripton (Post 2129571)
<snipped verily> If someone tried making a rich PC whose sole purpose was clearly to die and leave all his stuff to that player's next PC, who didn't pay points for all that gear, I'd wreck that plan, one way or another.
This is pretty much my thought on the matter. I'm not an adversarial GM, but if someone pulls a stunt like this I just say "Yes, that's very clever. But no." And when they insist, I just remind them the world will set itself right.

sir_pudding 10-20-2017 11:19 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 2129668)
Correct. Nobody is suggesting they should be, and I think this is where the discussion gap is.
Kromm's example of the longstanding mercenary company seems to imply that the Moneybags character gave gear to the Dead Broke PCs a long time ago, (which to my mind means they aren't Dead Broke). Then he says that the Dead Broke PCs still start with nothing. Hence I have a confuse.

sir_pudding 10-20-2017 11:24 AM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 2129677)
Many groups (okay . . . most of mine as a GM and several I've been in as a player) do something like this:
Well mine too, except nothing actually "changes hands" before the game starts and they make characters that reflect the backstory that is established; so if they are for example a longstanding mercenary company they won't all have Dead Broke except for the Very Wealthy captain.

Kromm 10-20-2017 12:11 PM
Re: A sack of DFRPG questions!
 
Dead Broke PCs in a party with not-Dead-Broke PCs who give them gear are still Dead Broke!

Their gear comes from donations – not from starting money or extra money bought with points. They start with nothing bought in a way that allows Signature Gear (or Weapon Bond, unless the GM feels generous). Due to Dead Broke, they cannot spend points on extra money to mitigate that, or for any other reason, and they have no selling power (0%). In effect, they are bottom-of-the-social-ladder individuals who serve a wealthy master who happens to be a fellow adventurer . . . their gear is their master's, not theirs (whence the absence of Signature Gear), and society refuses to accord them any financial privileges (whence the inability to trade points for cash or to sell anything).

The only facet of Dead Broke the rich associate lets the others avoid is -$1,000 apiece in gear (worth about -2 points apiece on its own). That wasn't free. The PC providing the gear spent money and possibly points to do so, with all that implies for the party's overall capabilities. Imagine:
Team A
  • One Wealth (Very Wealthy) individual with 220 points in abilities useful in the field. Gives away $17,500 and keeps $2,500 for personal gear, which can include Signature Gear and weapons with Weapon Bond.

  • Five Wealth (Dead Broke) people with 250 points in abilities useful in the field. Each has $3,500 in gear from the person above, which cannot include Signature Gear or weapons with Weapon Bond.

Team B
  • One Wealth (Average) delver with 247 points in abilities useful in the field. Traded 3 points to have +$1,500 in cash, for a total of $2,500 in gear, which can include Signature Gear and weapons with Weapon Bond.

  • Five Wealth (Average) adventurers with 245 points in abilities useful in the field. Traded 5 points to have +$2,500 in cash, for a total of $3,500 in gear, which can include Signature Gear and weapons with Weapon Bond.
Both teams have $20,000 in gear, distributed the same way (1 Χ $2,500 + 5 Χ $3,500). Team A averages 245 points in adventure-useful stuff, while Team B averages 245.3 points in adventure-useful stuff. Team A has one person with signature or bonded hardware; Team B has six people with gear like that. Team A has one star seller (sells at 100%), but can't do business if anything happens to that person; Team B has six salespeople who can sell at 40%, possibly a bit better if any have suitable abilities (as any bard, thief, or cleric is likely to).

I honestly couldn't tell you which is better – it looks like a genuine coin toss to me. I see Team A spending a lot of time at first rescuing their Very Wealthy pal from danger, because if that person dies, they're out of luck selling treasure; yes, the player could create a replacement, but not right away. I see Team B doing better in battles but not quite as well at getting rich in town. I imagine it comes down to what the players find fun! And regardless of whether anybody gets killed, after the first adventure, starting gear won't matter much anyway and the real meaning of Wealth level will be selling treasure. Having one person be good at that to compensate for the rest isn't any different from having one person having, say, huge reaction bonuses and doing all the negotiating for a group full of people with disadvantages that give reaction penalties.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.