Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Minor children aren't even allowed in pawn shops in some districts, and in Canada at least while they may be allowed in, it may actually be illegal for the shop to buy from them. I believe the assumption is either that the minor will be at a disadvantage in trade transactions and get swindled, or the minor is selling items that he/she thinks they own but doesn't technically own (family property), or the minor is selling stolen goods, or the transaction counts as a contract, which the minor cannot legally enter into without the approval of a guardian.

So yeah, makes sense in a DF context. "Where'd you get that, kid? Ha, in a dungeon? More likely you stole it from your betters! Get out of here and take your trouble with you."

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

What genre convention? I played my share of dungeon-crawling campaigns in my time and I don't remember having any problems disposing of loot. Ever.

Then someone who has spent 50 points more than you on becoming a mage must be REALLY tough. You're persistently avoiding dealing with my main point, which is that if you've spent 50 points on buying Wealth then you've spent 50 points less on becoming a competent dungeon-delver. No matter how you slice it, you're going to be less useful than the rest of the party. Unless you use the advantage you've paid those 50 points for to help the party, you're essentially a horse-holder. If becoming a good enough nuker is cheap enough that you can spend 50 points on non-combat abilities and still afford to become one, then everybody else, from the tank to the healer would be able to afford it too. And if the rules really allow that, they're not doing a very good job of emulating That Old Game.


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Those 50 points spent on Wealth are actually making him a better Mage, as he gets more starting wealth, and, by genre convention, more gold means more Powerful and Shinier Stuff to kill things that move.

[Edit] I don't mean that buying higher wealth is always the best decision to make, just that it should be a valid one, and should'nt cripple you when compared to buying an ability or stat increase.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Oh well, that solves the problem. Since, by genre convention, everyone performs better with more Powerful and Shinier Stuff, everybody will be buying Wealth, so the situation simply doesn't crop up.



Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

And, of course, the player who spent 50 points on Wealth and is bankrolling the rest of the party is making EVERYONE more powerful in the Dungeon.

Except, of course, this is the exact problem that's being discussed - not everyone is buying Wealth, and the discussion is about what actions should be taken to reward the players that bought the Wealth advantage or to penalize those who took the Wealth disadvantage. Wealth equals starting cash AND earning potential; in DF the main earning potential is in selling the loot. That means that people with positive Wealth should have an easier time selling or buying goods while the people with negative Wealth have trouble doing so.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Yes. High Wealth is a very useful "power" for the whole party. That isn't up for discussion, or disputed, or in any way being doubted here. A high-Wealth character can equip a party nicely, outfitting them really well even if you go with every single point of advice I gave about how PCs bankrolling other PCs should work. The casters will all have nice power items, and if the player of Mr. Moneybags isn't an utter twit, he'll enter play with a backpack full of magic swords to hand out to the fighting PCs, rather than try to order them in play. (Those other PCs will have to settle for what he brought, but still . . .) And the rich guy continues to be valuable as a fence, earning the entire party far more money from each delve.

The issue is whether its fair to let PCs who have such a pal get disad points from Dead Broke. The answer is basically, "Sure, as long as being Dead Broke is actually a disad." In the above case, Dead Broke remains a disad primarily if it means dependency on the wealthy PC. If the other PCs can take the gear and then go, "Haha, sucker! We're armed and dangerous now, and we want equal shares or we won't heal you!", while Mr. Moneybags is actually affected by his -25 points in disads, then Dead Broke isn't a disad at all. The GM can therefore either preempt this situation by not allowing Wealth either way or by enforcing social norms that suit a dungeon game. This has nothing to do with whether high Wealth is useful; it has to do with whether Dead Broke is limiting.

I think what has this discussion going in circles is the focus on Wealth levels above Average. Actually, those work just fine. The issue isn't them at all, but whether Wealth levels below Average are valid disads. The short answer is: "Only if the GM and/or your fellow PCs make them disads for you."

What I keep saying is simply that for social norms that suit a dungeon game and for ways for the GM and fellow PCs to make poverty a disad, one need look no further than the genre conventions. With due respect to Hans, old games from the 1970s absolutely did start heroes out with radically different amounts of money, impose limits on what some classes could own, etc. The treasure-sharing model was often a rule, not just a suggestion. And things certainly were "every man for himself," with actual rules covering how thieves could steal from the other PCs. In that context, Wealth as a rule rather than a roleplaying option is eminently true-to-genre.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

This is not the issue I've been debating, at least not conciously. In my opinion it isn't fair, and I wouldn't allow it in any game I was running, any more than I would allow people to get points for the "Cannot Fight for Toffee" disad (Which I think would be a pretty big disadvantage for a dungeon delver if noone else in the party could fight either).

I agree, but that's not what I've been arguing about. I've been arguing against the notion that above average Wealth is an intrinsically more "worthy" advantage than being a good fighter or mage or a good locksmith or a good healer.

I've got more to say about genre conventions, but I think I'd better spin that off in another thread.


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Except, of course, that I was making an ironic statement to counter the notion that being wealthy would make someone a better mage than spensding 50 points on magic skills. If that was actually true then being wealthy would also make someone a better fighter, healer, locksmith, in which case everybody else would buy wealthy in preference to skills.


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Wealth does make you better at your profession. An expensive weapon does more damage, an expensive set of lockpicks does give a bigger skill bonus, a more expensive Power Item does allow the healer to cast more healing spells. The problem isn't that Wealth isn't useful, the problem is that players tend to conflate Wealth with Money, and as such see it as something they can find in the Dungeon so they can ignore it during character creation.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

In that case a Wealthy character shouldn't be allowed to sell loot for other characters at all. Sounds to me like the rules are simply not clear enough. (Well, that and that the rules are belief-shatteringly implausible).


Hans