Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Does it? I thought in meant you start with more money than the others and are able to fence loot more effectively.

Yes, I suppose that is what I'm arguing. Only, it's not ridiculous. In fact, it's very true to Real Life (Or at least to Life-imitating Art). In the chapter The Taste of the Meat in his book Smoke Bellew, Jack London describes a couple of wealthy characters who hire Smoke and his friend Shorty to take them to Dawson. They start out with a lot of money, but they don't get any more along the way. Granted, they don't qualify for the Wealthy advantage, because they only start out with more money, they don't have any skill that would help them earn more, but still. The Yukon of the Gold Rush seems to be a rather close Real Life version of a fantasy dungeon.

Not so. In addition to being points traded for cash (and that should be reckoned into it, shouldn't it?), it is also the ability to fence stuff effectively. So it's an advantage. And it's one well worth the points if it makes the other players willing to give him an equal share. ;-)

If it was the ability to continue to have roughly five times as much money as the rest of the characters as they earn more and more money, it truly would be hugely unbalanced. And quite contrary to the genre conventions, I might add.


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Think of it this way.

A person with Average wealth can sell their loot for 40% of market price in Dungeon Fantasy. A person with Poor wealth can only sell their loot for 10% of market price, and a person with Wealthy can sell for 80% of market price.

If we have five guys in our five-man band and we just raided Dungeon Smashandgrab with total loot of $5000, a single share of that loot, if spread equally around, is $1000. Now if three of our guys are all Average wealth, one is Poor and one is Wealthy and they all go to town and sell their gear on their own, we get something like this:

P: $100
A: $400
A: $400
A: $400
W: $800

Total: $2100

That's only 42% of the nominal value of the loot. What a rip-off!

Instead, we get our Wealthy partner to sell all of our loot and then distribute the proceeds. He's able to get 80% of the entire $5000 total, so we've got $4000 available. If he distributed everything equally, everyone would get $800 - there's absolutely no benefit to him personally to having the Wealth advantage instead of someone else in the party having it.

P: $800
A: $800
A: $800
A: $800
W: $800

Total: $4000

Sucks for him, right? Oh, and look at that, the Poor guy is suddenly getting just as much as everyone else! That doesn't seem very fair, since he got a decent amount of points back for not having much money.

It gets even worse if he's only given a half-share because he's so sucky at his niche because he took Wealth:

P: $888
A: $888
A: $888
A: $888
W: $445

Total: $4000

Why should Wealthy McMoneybags get half the amount of loot that everyone else gets? That's just stupid on the face of it - not only is Wealthy proving to be not an advantage for him to take personally, it's proving to be a disadvantage. Advantages should never be disadvantageous!

Instead, what should happen is Wealthy McMoneybags should keep a share of the loot for himself, and Monkhands McPoorhouse should get a lesser share of the loot, because he's poor. It doesn't have to be exactly by the wealth multipliers everyone has, either - it depends on what everyone decides.

Let's say Wealthy McMoneybags takes an extra half-share from each partner, so he gets three shares and everyone else gets one (except McPoorhouse, who only gets a half of a share). That's 6.5 shares total, so it breaks down like this:

P: $307
A: $615
A: $615
A: $615
W: $1848

With this, everyone's happy. McPoorhouse gets a rather decent cut of the wages (much better than he deserves - probably should only take home 1/4 of a share instead of a full share, really), McMoneybags has extra money so having the Wealth advantage is advantageous to him personally, and the people with Average wealth get over 1.5 times as much as they would have normally. Everyone is a winner.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

In that situation, I'd agree with you. These wealthy guys should'nt get anything out of the delve. But they seem more like employers than co-adventurers, which are built on 250 points + 50 points in disadvantages, if I remember correctly, the wealth advantages being alternatives to other role specific but secondary advantages.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

If all he gets out of it is an equal share he's getting ******. If he'd spent the 30 point from Wealth on, say, Combat Reflexes and Signature Gear he'd still be getting an equal share of the treasure, and he'd be more likely to survive the Dungeon.

Of course, in that case, everyone's share of the treasure suffers. So it's not only in the Wealthy players best interest to get a greater share of the loot, it's in the best interest of everyone else as well, because they'll all suffer if there isn't a Wealthy player in the group to fence their loot for more money.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

You missed the one where they decide to give him a half-share because he's so sucky in the Dungeon and in return he refuses to fence any of their stuff. In which case his final payoff is the same as everyone else, but everyone gets far less money than they could have if they'd just given him a larger share and had him fence all their stuff.

P: $111
A: $444
A: $444
A: $444
W: $444

Total $1887

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Just as there's absolutely no benefit to anyone to be able to heal instead of someone else in the party. In fact, it's a distinct disadvantage to the healer, though hopefully compensated for by being allowed to walk in the middle. Just as the Wealthy character will probably be allowed to walk in the middle.

I've already said (post #57) that I wouldn't allow anyone to get points for being poor any more than I'd allow the healer to get points for the "Cannot Fight for Toffee" disad.

Only if he insists on not doing his share for the party. If he's fencing the stuff, I for one would readily give him a full share.

Absolutely. I agree.

I agree. So why should the Combat Monster who bought the advantages of combat abilities, the healer who bought the advantage of being able to heal, the locksmith who bought the advantage of being able to open locks and disable traps, and the artillery wizard be penalized by getting less of the swag?

The fighter isn't going to charge the fence for standing in front of him when the monsters charge, or for each monster he kills, the healer isn't going to charge him for patching up his wounds, the thief isn't going to charge him for opening the safe (Well... not if everybody keeps a sharp eye on him while he does it and frisk him afterwards ;-)). So why should the fence be allowed to charge extra for doing his job?

In other words, he gets three times as much as everybody else (I'm ignoring the Poor guy as per the above) for the same character point investment. How can this possibly be fair and equitable?

But McMoneybags who wouldn't have $1000 worth of loot to sell off if the other guys hadn't killed the monsters, healed the wounds, zapped the other monsters, and found and opened the secret safe, wins three times as much as the others.


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Unless the other characters allow him to walk in the middle. Which is no different than the healer being more likely to survive if he'd spent his points on on Combat Reflexes and (fighting) Signature Gear instead of the ability to heal other people.

Just as they'll all suffer if there isn't a healer around to heal wounds, a fighter around to melee, an archer around to do that long-distance killing thing, a rogue around to spot traps, etc. What's the difference?


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

You seem to be saying that there should be no advantage at all to actually taking the Wealth advantage, Hans. If the Wealthy guy can't actually benefit from his advantage more than anybody else in the group, it isn't an advantage for him to take it. He'd be much better served just buying an Ally with the Wealth advantage if he can't get one of the other players to do it for him.

That's just ridiculous.

So, sorry if it offends your sensibilities that the person with the Wealth advantage happens to have more money than the person without the Wealth advantage, but that's how the game is designed. If you don't want advantages to actually have any effect in play, then outlaw them in your house-rules.

Anyways:

The reason this is fair and equitable is because he paid for that advantage. That's like saying 'but why can the soldier who bought Weapon Master and tons of combat skills kill three times as many bad guys as my guy who doesn't have a single combat skill on him?'

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

No, I'm saying there should be no more advantage to taking the Wealth advantage than to spend the same amount of points any other way. No more, and no less.

And I suppose that if the Healer guy can't actually benefit from his healing abilities more than anybody else in the group, it isn't an advantage for him to buy them?


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Did he? I thought he paid for starting out with more money and for being able to fence loot with better results.

No, it isn't, and if you think it is, I advice you to read some of my posts on the subject. And think about the difference between ends and means while you do.

EDIT: Hum... thinking about ends and means made me suspect that I may be in the wrong because I'm assuming that the goal of the game (for the players) is to get rich and powerful (Just as it was in those old genre games that I remember). So before I get any more strident, let me ask: What is the players trying to accomplish and how do they measure success?


Hans