Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

In general, the players are trying to kill monsters and take their stuff. They measure success through amount of stuff taken, amount of monsters killed, and number of character points awarded.

Material goods are not the only measure of success.

Partially, but just because you have Wealthy on your character sheet shouldn't mean that after the first delve is over your character no longer has any advantage in amount-of-stuff over the rest of the party. It's just like in regular GURPS - someone with the Wealth advantage should always have more money than someone with Poor, and someone who is a Multimillionaire should always have more stuff than someone who is just Average in wealth.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

There isn't one. The Fighter paid points to be able to kill stuff in melee, so he should get to kill stuff in melee. The Archer paid to kill stuff at a distance, so he should get to kill stuff at a distance. The Rogue paid to be able to spot traps, so he should get to spot traps. The Wealthy Guy paid to have significantly more stuff than everyone else, so he should get to have more stuff.

After 10 adventures, the Melee guy still gets to kill things in Melee, the Archer is still shooting stuff at a distance, and the Rogue is still spotting traps. Why, pray tell, should the Wealthy Guy's advantage magically disappear and he no longer gets to have significantly more stuff than the other people? That's exactly what you're advocating - because if everybody splits all income exactly equally the longer the group keeps adventuring the more the money disparity between the characters will evaporate, leaving the Wealth advantage as merely a means to fence goods for more money. Even the Cleric can take his Healing abilities and do a few jobs on the side while he's in town, for the extra pocket change... but yet the Wealthy Guy can only use his Wealth for the benefit of the party.

Wealth, in GURPS, has always been a combination advantage of "what you have" and "what you can earn." You're advocating removing the second part, or at least taking the second part and forcing that player to share it with everyone else in the party.

Lets take it to a different genre. Professor Xavier is a very wealthy man; his Wealth means he earns a lot of money from his school and other investments. In this genre the argument you're using is that his Wealth cuts into the party's effectiveness as a fighting team, therefore he should take any revenues he earns from the school and split it equally with the rest of the party... just to be fair. And it doesn't matter if the party is made up of Logan, a guy who showed up one day without a penny or a memory, Ms. Lee a young student, and several Professors that all work at the school - they're all party members, they should all get an even cut of the profits.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Did he? I thought he paid to start with more money than the rest and to be able to get better prices for the stuff he sells. Yes, I know I've said that several times before, but no one has actually addressed it. Maybe if I elaborate a bit. See below.

His advantage doesn't magically disappear. He is still able to get better prices for the stuff he sells. This is an advantage you don't get from GURPS Wealth. DF Wealth appears to be different from GURPS Wealth, yet you want to conflate them.

What's 'merely' about that?

The DF rules allow PCs to do jobs on the side? Then what's to prevent the Fence from doing jobs on the side just as the healer does?

Wealth, in GURPS, seems to be about income unrelated to campaign events. I understand that in DF this has been replaced by the ability to fence stuff. You're advocating adding this ability for no added cost without reducing the advantage some other way. Indeed, the DF rules seem to add a new restrictions to Average Wealth without compensation. So why drag vanilla GURPS Wealth into the discussion? The two advantages are manifestly different.

Why bother? Different genres would presumably use GURPS Wealth and so wouldn't say anything about DF Wealth.

No more that our DF Wealthy guy should take the money he starts with and distribute it. But if Professor Xavier teams up with Cyclops, Logan, Sorm, Nightcrawler, et alii to go plunder Attilan, then everyone should get an equal share of the loot. Well, given the disparity of point values, I can see Professor X getting several shares, but that has little to do with his wealth.

But in the genre I'm actually arguing about, a group of people pool their talents to 1) loot a dungeon and 2) dispose of said loot. Some persons contribute the ability to kill the monsters that guard the loot, some the ability to keep everybody else alive, some the ability to find the loot and extricate it from its hiding place, and some the ability to dispose of the loot. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that they'd all deserve an equal share of the final sum.


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

No, we have been addressing it and saying 'that is not the end-all-be-all of the Wealth advantage'. You just continue to ignore that. If you want to house-rule it so that your version of the advantage is the Correct one, go ahead, I won't stop you - but that's not how it is. Nothing at all is ever mentioned in the DF books that the Wealthy guy doesn't get to keep having more money as the adventures continue, and if there was supposed to be that big a change between regular GURPS and Dungeon Fantasy it would have been mentioned.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

I think a big part of the problem here is that for wealth in DF to work properly, it has to become a mental disadvantage. Normally, only mental disadvantages restrict a PC's choice of action - other disads only affect their chances at succeeding.

Non DF wealth is a combination of raw assets and status/earning potential (already a bit confusing). The second half is enforced by society - NPCs essentially. In DF, most wealth generation is done outside of the context of society - the PCs have to enforce wealth, as NPCs have a much weaker effect if the PCs co-operate.

In general, socially enforced advantages and disadvantages are less effective in DF. DF PCs spend much less time in the context of society, and their primary focus is outside of it. That's why the "monster" rule is in there (among other things, it makes clerical magic racist[1]), and why wealth was changed.

Now, you can try to make the PCs treat each other the way society expects them to. This is a reasonable approach, but you should make sure that the players are OK with it and willing to act that way. Since many social ads/disads work because a significant fraction of the population is intolerant, greedy, or bastardly in general, however, this may not go over well. Many players do not want to be artificially constrained to act that way, or play characters like that.

The other option, which I think I prefer, is that social ads/disads should be discounted for players that don't depend too much on society. Not sure what the discount should be, but it should be small (or zero) for ads (periodic town trips allow for exploitation), and large for disads (town trips are not mandatory, and much of what goes on there can be done by proxy.

[1] The implication is, of course, that "God(s)" hate(s) Orcs, regardless of their moral character. Again reasonable for DF, but not necessarily required either.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Citation please. The only thing that impacts clerical magic is the Excommunicated social stigma, which Orcs and most other monster races do not possess (and which is entirely possible for humans to possess).

The CLERIC may be racist, and getting to the temple to be healed may be nigh impossible because the town runs you off with torches and pitchforks, but there is no supernatural enforcement of this.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

He gets three times as much money, sure. That's the advantage he paid for, which makes this setup fair. Other PCs paid for traits that mean they take fewer HP of damage (even lose fewer limbs . . .), don't need to buy equipment (because they turn into wolves, have Gizmos, cast spells, are ascetic monks, etc.), or otherwise excel in areas that aren't "earning money." That, too, is fair. "All PCs have an equal crack at being rich" isn't how game balance works here. "All PCs have an equal crack at being good at their chosen niche" is how it works. A rich character has chosen the niche of being, well, rich.

The players are trying to accomplish the goal of becoming powerful. For some PC concepts, that means "a big power item, a huge Energy Reserve, high Magery or Power Investiture, and lots of spells." For others, that means, "deliver as much damage per second as possible." For still others, that means, "sneak anywhere with no risk of getting caught." Money isn't, in fact, central to that goal for anybody who hasn't decided to invest in Wealth and make "getting really, really rich" his personal definition of "powerful." Power nearly always means more points – however they're spent – and more points are analogous to the old-school goal of leveling up, which was always far more important than getting rich in, say, NetHack, AD&D, or Diablo II.

In short, it's all about going from being a 250-point mage, warrior, thief, or moneybags to being a 500- or 750- or 1,000-point mage, warrior, thief, or moneybags. Bank balance only matters to that goal for the moneybags. As DF is nearly completely bereft of social context, it's simply impossible to have a stronghold, become a lord, raise an army, etc. That isn't on the table for any PC, which is why – past a certain point – cash isn't as useful as points.

That's precisely what I've been saying in every post, yeah. While we didn't arrive at identical conclusions, you've said pretty much what I've been trying to say. Let's hope it's clearer to some people!

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Yes, he did. That's part of Wealth.

As Langy said, in GURPS the Wealth advantage also includes earning potential and DF does NOT change that. You can ignore that all you want, but you would be wrong in doing so.

Where is the Fence going to get goods to fence besides the Dungeon? So either he has to go on an adventure all by himself to get goods to Fence[1] for his own personal profit or he doesn't get to do it at all.
[1]at least goods that the other characters can't lay claim to shares of.

The Wealth advantage has been reduced in some other way - the PC can't just go out and find a job where he can earn income in DF, because that's not in genre. In exchange for this he gets to Fence stuff for more money; if he doesn't get to personally profit from this by getting a larger share of the loot then you are nerfing the ability of the Wealthy character to earn more money than the other PC's - and like it or not, Earning Potential is part of the Wealth advantage in GURPS.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

...until someone writes those up as traits with a DF-relevant meaning. Armies as Ally Groups of spear-carriers in the mold of D&D followers, feudal holdings as a no-cost source for provisions, mundane gear, and lodging between adventures. Hmmm...

(Yes, I know this doesn't actually touch the central "money only means so much" point, but it has given me ideas.)

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Lets say this is so. Therefore, the Wealthy Fighter has effectively 20 more character points than the Average Wealth Fighter at this point of the campaign, and it will steadily get worse for the Average Wealth Fighter. This is assuming that the Wealthy Fighter is not letting the other guys in on the action.

So. Lets start from the beginning. Lets say that the Wealthy Fighter gets that better armor for himself. He can, indeed, be a more efficient fighter than the Average Wealth Fighter, because he can take a couple of hits and still continue fighting. Fair enough. This would be an argument to let him have the full share, yes? So far so good. During the dungeon delving, he gets hurt and the healer heals him.

Now, they return to the town to sell the loot. As shown by previous posters, the most efficient way to dispose of the loot is to let the Wealthy Fighter sell it. One might even argue that it would make sense for the other characters to bite their tongues and accept whatever division as long as they get even 1 dollar more than they would if they were to sell the loot themselves. In the previous example of 2000/4000 worth of loot for 5 adventurers, This would break up as (201, 401, 401, 401, 2596). The Wealthy Fighter, in this scenario, would be buying everyone a round of beers and then pocketing about 6.5 times the others' share. Everyone benefits. So what is the problem?

The problem is, for Hans (I assume) and I, that while the other players are using their full potential for the party's benefit, the Wealthy Fighter is using his Wealth for only his own benefit. Even in the the case of 50/50 split of the above 40%, he is still benefiting from doing something the others did without additional compensation.

Were I the healer of this party, I'd tell the guy that the next time he is wounded, my services would be available for a fee. Taken into account dangerous surroundings and the potentially life-threatening nature of the wound if left untreated, I'd say it would be very fair for him to pay a good chunk of his share. After all, without me, he would die in the dungeon or at the very least, need to head back to town to buy healing from them, costing time and money (and additional danger as he staggers bleeding through the countryside, where robbers might very well take this opportunity to jump him). Similarly, the Mage would be presenting a bill for every spell cast, the Fighter for every monster fought and the Thief for every square foot of the dungeon searched for traps, with an additional bill for actually disarming the traps rather than letting the Wealthy Fighter to walk into it. After all, why should our services be free simply because they happen in the Dungeon, while his services (as a fence) allow him to skim from the top?

Were the money play only a little part save for background in the campaign (such as the Wealthy Guy living in a villa he rents in the town, while the rest are sleeping in the inn between adventures, he eating better food, having nicer clothes, having servants), I wouldn't mind so much. However, especially in DF but also in other campaigns, money buys you stuff. It allows you to leverage your Wealth into other advantages. I already talked about my hypothetical Multimillionaire char getting decked with most of the boosting enchantments from the book. Wealth is an insidious advantage. It allows your character's effective point total to be inflated due to stuff you buy with your money, faster than the other characters' point totals. You will end up outstripping them. And since human beings tend to be an envious bunch, at some point there will be resentment.

Here is what I think is the major sticking point with our two views:

Start of the Campaign

Hans & I:
Wealth gives you extra starting money and makes you a good fence, allowing the party to prosper. Healing allows you to heal your partymembers, which helps the party to achieve their goals.

Opposing view:
Wealth gives you extra starting money and makes you a good fence, which allows you to earn extra money and keeps you much wealthier than the rest of the PCs. Healing allows you to heal your partymembers, which helps the party to achieve their goals.


Mid-Campaign

Hans & I:
Wealth gives you extra starting money and makes you a good fence, allowing the party to prosper. Healing allows you to heal your partymembers, which helps the party to achieve their goals.

Opposing view:
Wealth gives you extra starting money and makes you a good fence, which allows you to earn extra money and keeps you much wealthier than the rest of the PCs AND that money allows you to buy (more) stuff (than the other PCs) that already has more than covered the point cost of your Wealth Advantage (Free Lunch, Baby!). Healing allows you to heal your partymembers, which helps the party to achieve their goals.


It is that Free Lunch aspect that really gets to me, but you see the difference, yes? The healer's ability is taken as communal, while McMoneybags' ability to fence the loot is taken as personal. What Hans and I are saying is that McMoneybags' ability to fence should be taken as communal, as far as it pertains to the Party's loot. If the Healer wants to make an extra buck healing people in town, good for him. The Fighter can act as a bounce, McMoneybags' can act as a fence to NPCs and charge them for the privilege, the Thief can pickpocket and the Mage can analyze magic items for NPC adventurers.

Eric brings up a point that if McMoneybags is sharing his fencing talent communally, the disparity in wealth evens out. Yes, this is true. Does it diminish his ability to fence, which makes him the go-to man of the party whenever there is selling or buying involved? Not in the least. Lets take this example... A barbarian in a loincloth and a sword (a really good one, he is of Average Wealth) and a knight in shining plate go adventuring together, facing the same dangers, protecting each other's backs. Should the knight be many times as wealthy as the Barbarian afterwards? I'd say no. They both have a bunch of swag, and the earlier disparity in armor is diminished. Does this mean that the knight got no benefit from having his armor in the beginning? Of course not. Does this mean he got no benefit from his advantage? Nope, he got twice as many stuff as he would have if he had been Average Wealth. But so did the Barbarian, and he didn't have the Wealth Advantage! True, but here's the thing... he isn't the fence. It is the same as with the healer. The healer makes the other chars effectively have a regeneration advantage: they heal fast! But, they heal fast only because the healer has taken those powers. Same with the knight. The Barbarian is getting more swag because he is adventuring with the knight.

Wealth is an insidious advantage. I am sure I have said that before. But if we look at points as the statement of RP niche, it gets a bit easier:

Barbarian: 'I want to be really good in a fight!'
Healer: 'I want to be the guy who makes sure everyone survives.'
Mage: 'I blow stuff up and decipher magical puzzles.'
Thief: 'I scout, sneak, backstab and take care of traps and locks.'
Knight: 'I am the Face. I am also good fighter, and probably even better than the Barbarian up front.'

Now, this can be different in the DF, if there is little to none social RP in the town to give the Knight some spotlight time. But even then, it clearly stakes out his expertise. And depending on how stingy the GM is about loot, the Knight might actually keep his edge on the equipment for a good while.

Wow. This is long already. Let me cut here and give some examples from our campaigns (non-DF Wealth, but addresses some of the same concerns) later...