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

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...

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

If he's splitting the extra profit with his companions he's not doing it only for his own benefit - they are benefiting too. Maybe not as much as he is, but in the end it is HIS advantage, so shouldn't he be the one to benefit most from his advantage?

The Wealthy PC doesn't benefit directly from the Barbarian's 22 HP - he gets some benefit when the Barbarian doesn't die in the fight and can keep protecting him, but the Barbarian benefits more from his not dieing than the Wealthy PC does. Is that fair to the Wealthy PC? Well, yes, the Barbarian paid for the HP he should reap the biggest benefit from it.

The one place where this does break down is on abilities that are taken solely for the benefit of the rest of the party - mostly Healing spells, as most other abilities benefit the character possessing them as much, if not more, than any of the other characters. However, that is the niche that the Cleric has chosen for himself, just as the player of the Wealthy PC has chosen the niche of being Wealthier than the other PCs and the Barbarian has chosen the niche of being a walking wall of flesh.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

This is the opposite point I was trying to make in my previous post.

Cash is Points, IF you can transform your cash to items that grant you bonuses to your skills/stats/other. For example, if you can always afford to bribe someone (and other PCs can't) while using Streetwise and get +X to your Streetwise, then you have, in effect, X more levels of Streetwise due to your Wealth. This is even more so when you can buy magical items that give bonuses directly to your stats.

So Rich Guy is not only Rich, but he becomes more Powerful than the other characters, and this gets only worse the further along the campaign is, because of the gap in absolute cash levels increases (assuming proportionality). I have, so far, found no good ways to balance this, which I simply ban Wealth Adv/Disadv in campaigns where I am the GM.

One way that comes to mind is to adjust your thinking in DF. The Rich guy's niche is NOT being Rich. It is being the Fence. And this ability is balanced and does not diminish or overshadow the other PCs, as long as it is used communally (i.e. 'Party Loot is sold to coin and then divided equally, as per the Charter of the Crimson Cloak Adventuring Party...'. If you still want to plug that 'richness' into it, use it in the background and socially. Let the Wealthy Guy have a villa and servants. Let the King treat him with more respect. Make the town guards salute him. Make him the one the Mayor gives the key to the Town. When he throws a party, make it lavish. In short, give him all the benefits of being Rich WITHOUT allowing him to leverage his money to make himself more powerful in all the other niches as well! (In old D&D, there was a Rod of Healing, that was able to cast cure light wounds 1/day/person. I don't know if that is a legal item in DF, but I can easily imagine McMoneybags having a bunch of them, making the healer superfluous, for example.)

EDIT:
For example, let the Rich Guy get titles. More land. Stuff like that in the background. Let everyone know that once the dungeon delving is over, the Rich Guy is so Rich that he will live the rest of his life in luxury, while the Barbarian will go back to his rickety hut with his Sword+5 of Awesomeness, unless the Barbarian is using points to up his Wealth, too... Or money, in which case both of them might have a retirement plan, but the Barbarian has a Sword+3 of KindaCool, while the Rich Guy has that Sword+5 of Awesomeness.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Just like the Wealthy PC wouldn't be able to get the loot to sell if the Barbarian had not enabled the Party to get the loot in the first place. Thing is, even if you say that the Barbarian is benefiting more for his hit points by not dying, the end result is that the party benefits as a whole. When the Fence skims from the top, the Party is not getting the full advantage, but a diminished version. This would be akin to the Barbarian letting the monsters past him and at the Fence, when his hit points are halved.

If only this were so. See my answer to Kromm. Cash is Points. The Wealthy PC will continue getting Wealthier and hence More Powerful than the other PCs. His platemail makes him as good (or better) a meatshield as the Barbarian's extra HP due to the DR. That's my problem with Wealth. It is not the niche of Being Wealthy. It is the niche of Becoming More Powerful Than Everyone Else Just Mark My Words.

See my answer to Kromm for ways in which I would correct this in DF.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

and i would alway play dead broke in you game because in the end i was be as wealth as rich guy in you game, ok i me have $400 left but that is a pidances after a few runs.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

In DF, you can't. Or rather, you can only do it to a limited extent. The GM is supposed to put significant limits on that sort of thing. See the initial notes on Special Orders (DF1, p. 25) and Magic Items (DF1, p. 30).

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

That's a big "if," though. DF is careful not to make this easy. DF 8 is the first volume to offer numbers on such items, and it makes it clear that the GM doesn't have to sell such gear. Wealth works indirectly, providing abilities that points can't normally buy in DF, like DR: Sure, a barbarian or a martial artist can get tougher – a little – but serious DR, as from armor, costs $. The same goes for lots and lots of other goods available for cash. Fundamentally, while there's crossover in places, some capabilities require points and others require cash. Somebody who decides to focus on money is going for the latter.

Healing rods, DX amulets, etc. are generally rare finds – treasures – and not for sale. Every PC has equal odds of finding such things down the dungeon. On the other hand, Mr. Moneybags can buy finer gear that weighs less and breaks less often. This makes him useful, but the quantification is difficult because these factors show their value over a very long time scale, not turn-by-turn in combat, say.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

That would be a case of wealthy guy trying to abuse his wealth advantage :)

Got it. My problem with this is that I have a really hard time considering Wealth a Niche, as it's just a really small part of a character.
Wealthy thief really is a thief, with the skills, stats and core advantages of a thief, but 20 of the 30 free advantage points out of the 300 points thief template went into the wealth advantage. He didn't join the group to sell their loot, he joined to do sneaky thievery things. The party may not get a direct benefit from his Wealth, but, as Ericbsmith said, they don't benefit from the barbarian 22 HP. Of course, it sure is nice when they put these advantage to good use.

Now back in town, wealthy thief has already do its part in the dungeon, and he could go sell only his share. Which would be stupid as that wouldn't benefit the party as much as it could, so he takes care of all the loot. And now, instead of disgressing on "what's the good way of sharing loot", I think I'll stick with martinl idea of Wealth as a Mental Disad. It really makes thinks easier :)

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

If this is limited enough, i.e. stopping the Free Lunch Express, then this would solve my problems with DF Wealth.

If Money cannot be used to buy 'Points' (via magical items or other augmentations), then it reverts to its normal role, i.e. being rich means better living and luxury, and a fatter bank account to retire on.

EDIT:
I see Kromm posted pretty much the same clarification moments later. Thanks, that does make it much clearer where you guys are coming from. I was under the misunderstanding that DF is the no-holds-barred Monty Haul of the Really Bad Old Days. :)

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

And I would cheerfully tell you that:
1) I don't allow Wealth Adv. or Disadv. in my campaigns, AND
2) Even if I did, I certainly subscribe to Kromm's mantra 'A Disadvantage should be disadvantageous.' (not an exact quote)

I am an old school GM. If I notice a player trying to be a smarty-pants, I have no problems throwing the book at him. Literally if need be. :)

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

More than buying improved delving gear, I'd suspect that a money-oriented character is best suited to providing logistics: making sure the PCs have a place to stay in town, buying plenty of mundane stuff like rations, lighting, ten foot poles, and so on; replacing items which are dissolved by acid slimes, tainted by demonic contact, melted by living flames, and disintegrated by spells; hiring wagons and/or beasts of burden to haul back loads of treasure; and underwriting resurrections for PCs who didn't make it out of the dungeon under their own power. The more I think about it, Moneybags sounds more and more like Don Rickles in Kelly's Heroes.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

And if no one wants to play rich guy? Are you going to strongarm someone into doing it? The person who pays good points for being rich will find ways to profit from it.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Very much so. This is his main value to the party. Anybody who thinks it counts as "not pulling his weight" is welcome to pay for his own share of uncursings, lodgings, loot shipping, arrows, drinks, repairs to the inn after drinks . . . In my own experience running fantasy that bordered at times on DF, this was in fact what the rich PCs provided. Basic gear? Well, you could find that. But provisions, rooms, transportation, ammunition, tolls, etc.? It added up. The Very Wealthy patrician (who happened to be a Weapon Master, but so what?) bought the party out of all manner of tedium. It was this, not his fighting skills, that made his word the one most often listened to by the others; in effect, it led to his becoming the de facto leader.

A lot of players seem to forget that paying the $10,000 to hire the ship to the dungeon is as useful as healing people in the dungeon.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Heck, the Wealthy Thief in the game I ran was explicitly the leader, because he was their major investor. He brought the oxcart, and the camp servants that made hanging around in the wilderness looking for Giants to fight much more tolerable.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

not under Whyte and Hans they not. They get penalizes for it. and if not makes Mr moneybages will if true DF fashion I've lost nothing. as my improvement does not relay on money money only makes it nicer. I've played under Stingy loot DM and I've played under Monety Hall DMs.

Wealth IS meant to be unfair to the those that do buy wealth. to paraphrase Kromm when he was talking about ATR Hes paid for X amount of point worth of unfairness.

Whyte, Hans your goals are great in modern Medieval Fantasy Role Playing... but it simply NOT DF.

Don't Compare Wealth to Healing, Healing the party doesn't give a Cleric an edge, it prevents him from losing his niche edge; and I don't mean by preventing the party from getting weaker, He's preventing annoying His God. if he A good god, then not healing the party is likey going to dilating a Pact.

If your playing a sinister cleric then not healing the party jeopardizes the mission you are on for your god against proble braking some Pact the proved you your power.

A Cleric Heals for the Same Reason the Knight obeys his Lord, the Monk abstains from world things, the Thief doesn't snitch... to avoid the bad stuff their concepts have built into them.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

If McMoneybags is doing all that for the Team, it is a very good argument for him getting a bigger share (by skimming the loot-to-cash). I think Hans and I were thinking that everyone pays for their own expenses, or when the whole party is involved, the party pays in equal shares.

With the metagame grief of Free Lunch Express dispelled, this McMoneybags sounds a lot like my McMoneybags character in a non-magic, non-loot oriented campaign. 'We need horses. Who amongst us doesn't have his own horse? No matter, stablemaster, war horses for everybody! *ka-chink*' In this kind of setup, McMoneybags is definitely pulling his own weight.

So just to be whimsical here... What is the collective wisdom on the 'what you could have gotten if you sold it yourself + 1 coin' -scheme by McMoneybags? In how many party would he have an unfortunate accident while dungeon delving? (Assuming everyone pays their own way, so he is not helping them out that way, either.) :)

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

I did misremember - it is "Blessed items" which may not work (or curse) "monster" PCs, not clerical magic in general. (See Monster PCs box in DF3.) Since Blessed items are the using the same "moral" power source, however, the conclusion still stands. (Alternately, the blessed items are not complicated enough to be good moral judges, and their makes use racism as a shorthand, which is equally old skule DF.)

Unless I'm wrong about "blessed items" implying a divine power source.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Most players I know would sell stuff themselves rather than have Moneybags broker the transaction, purely out of spite. Of course, most of the players I know are unlikely to pull that kind of stunt, precisely because of that "frag 'em" attitude you allude to. As I pointed out in a Pyramid article some years back, smart people will charge adventurers as much as possible, knowing they've got loot; very smart people will moderate their greed, realizing that the adventurers got their loot because of a notable talent for extreme bloody violence.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Yeah, "wealth" is one of those GURPS advantage names that causes problems by deviating significantly from it's common English usage, with a side order of being a combo (dis)ad that bundles several things that are commonly seen together in RL but often dissociated in heroes. It is going to continue to cause chaos and confusion (all hail Eris) until some of this changes.

You once mentioned that you considered renaming wealth in 4e. Too bad that fell through.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

If I were in that game, McMoneybags would likely mysteriously wake up one morning to find half of his loot missing.

It's a lot like giving a one-penny tip at a restaraunt. It's one thing if he just keeps all the largess to himself, but if he gives an insignificant amount extra deliberately - enough to show that he didn't forget it, but such a small amount it couldn't pay for a single dinner (you can't even buy a ration for $1!) - then I get upset:(

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

If the coin type were something useful, like an $80 gold coin, it would probably irritate my players but not enough to provoke interparty violence by itself.

If it was a copper piece or even a $4 silver on any sale worth less than about $4, I KNOW how they'd react, because most or all of my players play Warcraft, and they've ALL made violent comments about people who undercut other peoples (many gold piece) auctions by a copper. They all consider it disrespectful, childish, and sarcastic.

It's the kind of irritant that might actually lead to player-on-player pseudoviolence involving nerf weapons or empty plastic soda bottles.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Au contraire, mon ami.

In my hypothetical DF campaign with Wealth allowed, The Wealthy Guy is paying points for being the Fence (and getting better starting gear and better comforts). Thanks to his Fence benefits, he would ensure that the party gets a better price for their loot. He would also get social benefits as detailed in my previous posts. So, he has his niche, and he has paid points for that niche. if the Party allows him to negotiate the accommodations, he finds a Friend of a Friend, who just so happens to be heading to the capital on urgent business: would The Wealthy Guy mind housesitting for him? Need a ship to take them to the adventure site? No problem, there is a trading vessel owned by Wealthy Guy and Company in the harbor, and the captain is happy to make a small detour from his usual route to keep the owner happy.

The Cleric, in my campaigns, is seldom required to heal ANYONE. Certainly not these greedy mercenaries who are not giving tithes to the church in question. One exception being the clerics of the Goddess of Healing, but they are pacifists and unlikely to be dungeon delving (and if they were, they might be just as driven to heal the enemy!). That is, unless the Cleric has a Vow or a Code of Honor requiring him to heal the party members, he can say no and expect no divine retribution (the barbarian looks mightily miffed, though).

In short, I think I am much in agreement with Kromm and Turhan's Bey Company in how McMoneybags should be played for him to be an asset to the Party. Where we differ is how to accomplish that. Me, I'd divide the loot equally (after transferred to money), and keep the Wealthy Guy's wealth in the background: dungeon delving is more like a hobby, not his main source of income. They'd use the skimming of the loot to make the loot the driving force of actual monetary resources in the campaign (which, I admit, might be truer to the roots).

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

It would depend on How he did it, if he did it blatantly the other PC's would stop using his service and rellie on their 'poor' skills... if IC he is promising he has the skill and connect to make sure they don't get short changed and secretly skimming, then occly they players know and ignore it ans long as the not getting less than if they didnt, and the player does not with hold the funds when the need it even if ICly the wealthy chacter get to show of a little.

the point is the Fighter has payed of for his power are slaying the monsters, he except his character to get to behave like a monster slayer. McMoneybags has paid the point to act like he has Money, he does get to ack like that if he cant show off his wealth by the player who did noy pay for the wealth can do the same thing. He does Want ever to rend their own horse, HE want to rents the horses.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

I was suspecting that myself. I know that there is this psychological experiment setup, where you have two people and an amount of money. One of the two can divide the money. But it is the other one who says 'yes' or 'no' to the division. If he says 'yes', they each take their share. If he says 'no', neither gets anything.

Now, in this kind of setup, lets say 100 bucks, the greedy alternative would be 1-99 split, and a rational man would accept 1, because it is more than 0. However, in testing, it was found that people tended to say 'no' to unequal divisions and the most successful (and common) one was 50-50.

I am paraphrasing from memory. :)

In any case, this reminds me of the McMoneybags selling the loot. After all, he is in essence dividing the excess. Many people have remarked that half-and-half of the excess is 'fair' in their mind, which would seem to support the above point.

I was going to add something more, but the thought escaped my mind... Ah, there it is. Like TBC and others mention, the adventurers tend to be pretty violent bunch. And I for one would like my partymembers to think of me as a good guy and an asset to be protected, than 'that greedy, doubledealing, conniving SoB'.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

How would they ever know?

The Wealth Advantage in Dungeon Fantasy is essentially paying points to have access to contacts, special offers or other things that other people are not privy too.

If the other players inquire about the value of their loot anywhere in town, they're told that it's worth X*0.4. McMoneybags tells them that he can get X*0.5 for it and they give it to him to sell. He then sells it for X*0.6 (or X*0.8) and if he doesn't feel comfortable walking out with all the cash, just spends the excess with his fellow guildmember, contact, whatever.

How, without metagaming, would the other characters ever have cause to be unhappy with this division?

Hell, if the issue is that he's lying to his fellow party members, nothing forbids the GM from stating that a member of the Merchant's Guild who sells loot in town receives a certain percentage of its value as a rebate into his account with the Guild. Then he's not lying at all, about anything. He just benefits more from selling loot than his fellow adventurers as a result of his position (paid for with points spent on the Wealth Advantage).

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

For example, accompanying the Wealthy Guy to the sale. Granted, it can always be pre-empted, but frankly, if a guy says he can get a better price, are you sure he is actually telling you the full price?

In any case, I see your point. The Wealthy Guy could just as easily offer to buy the loot himself at 0.5 of its countertop value. If he can then sell it ahead at a profit, where is the lie here? But still, the above point remains and it would cause some bad feeling ICly should it come out, and likely even OOCly since that is what people are like.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Half of the excess would still be McMoneybags getting his full share plus 1/4 of everybody else's (everybody keeps the 40% they would have gotten, then splits the extra 40% halfsies with McMoneybags). In a 5 member group that's equivalent to McMoneybags getting a 2.66 shares when everybody else gets only 1 share. Which isn't far off from Langy's earlier suggestion...

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

If the character paid 30 points for Filthy Rich, allowing him to sell for 100% of the value, and splits the difference between what he gets and what the average adventurer would be, this means that the delvers are getting 70% of the value instead of 40%. However, if you look at his side of the bargain:

He gets 100% of his share, plus 4x30% of everyone else's share. This adds up to 220% of his share. He's getting a little more than 3 times what each otehr character gets. Imagine that the delvers have found 5 rods of valuablium, worth $1000. They split it, so each delver gets one. Now, Mr Moneybags sells his for $1000. The rest of the delvers can choose to sell theirs for $400, or let Mr Moneybags sell it, and pocket $700. It's only fair, because they're getting an advantage worth 15 points for free (Halfway between Comfortable and Wealthy), while Mr Moneybags paid 30 points for his. That's 45 points of difference against Mr Moneybags.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

McMoneybags can sell the loot for 80% of it's full "retail" value, not 100%, at least in the examples we were using (None of the templates have Very Wealthy available as a standard option). The other PCs are limited to 40% of it's full value. Our numbers are off from that different start.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

It makes little sense for the characters to ever become upset over this. After all, their friend is buying their loot at higher prices than anyone else in town is offering. If he is profiting by doing so, well, so are they.

If the players would become upset, well, I'd find new players. Envy is an ugly emotion and I don't want it anywhere near my free time. People who are the sort to be envious of an imaginary character having more imaginary coins than another are also the sort to be envious when an imaginary character rolls better, makes cooler enemies in-game or delivers better lines. In other words, anyone who'd really make an issue of this is someone I'm better off without around my gaming table.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

This is not DF nor does it have to do with Wealth Advantage, but it does address the issue of skimming the loot, which is pretty much where this discussion has been revolving around.

One of our campaigns is a scifi campaign. This isn't exactly as it went down, but it illustrates a point. Imagine that the crew of the spaceship is made of a pilot, a mechanic, a computer hacker and a merchant. The ship is attacked by a pirate ship. While the mechanic and the merchant are manning the turret guns, the computer hacker is taking care of the sensors and electronic warfare. The pilot, however, is the most important person, as he is the one who keeps everyone alive by dodging the blasts from the pirate ship. He is also the one who actually hits and neutralizes the pirate ship, with the big main guns of the ship. Once the fight is over, the mechanic fixes the pirate ship. The computer hacker hacks the mainframe of the pirate ship, transferring the command codes to the PCs. They fly both ships to the nearby planet, where the merchant sells the ship.

Now, what should be the equitable sharing? Lets say that the normal selling price is 0.4, but the merchant manages to negotiate 0.6. Should the sharing be 0.1 each of the others and 0.3 for the merchant? Should it be 0.125 for everyone else and 0.225 for the merchant (0.5 shared+ 0.1 commission)? After all, while the Merchant has the same Wealth as everyone else, he has spent more points to charisma, appearance and such, which allowed him to negotiate a higher price. In DF, this is represented (mainly?) by Wealth. His advantages, so why shouldn't he be the main beneficiary?

We came to the conclusion that the only fair way to share it was 0.15 equal share to everyone:
Without the Pilot's skills, they'd all be dead and no loot.
Without the Mechanic's skills, they'd have a broken pirate ship (less valuable).
Without the Hacker's skills, they'd have a pirate ship that doesn't work.
Without the Merchant's skills, they'd have less money for the sale.

In short, it took everyone's contribution to make it happen, and the last guy on the line is not in a preferential position simply because he is contributing to the party in the loot-money transfer zone. We also found it counter productive to start counting 'contributions towards the goal'. We all take the risks, we all share equally.

Now, this is not totally applicable to the DF, since the Wealthy Guy is presumably filling another slot as well, and presumably doing it well enough (but in the above scifi example, the Merchant was shooting from the turret, too). But the general idea is the same:
Without the Cleric, the Monster would have splattered...
... the Meatshield, who was protecting...
... the Mage, who incinerated the Monster, leaving behind the chest...
... with a trap that the Thief disarmed, hence allowing them to grab the loot...
... which was sold by the Wealthy Guy.

Now, the wealthy guy can be any one of the above. Now, why should the Wealthy Guy's Wealth Advantage allow him to have a larger share of the loot than
a) Cleric's Healing Advantages and Spells?
b) Fighter's Combat Reflexes and Strength?
c) Mage's Magery and Spells?
d) Thief's Alertness and Danger Sense?

If I understand correctly, in Kromm's and Turhan's Bey Company's games the Wealthy Guy is supposed to act as the logistics support, in other words, providing for the other characters between dungeon delving or arranging new equipment or transportation. This is a good argument as to why he is entitled to a larger share, since he is taking on some Party expenses, too.

The other argument, which is that he is entitled to a larger share because his advantage happens to be about money I find less satisfactory. Yes, I admit, it is RAW and there is an argument that a rich guy's niche is being rich. But let me ask you this... If instead of Wealth advantage, he would get his better prices through charisma and social skills, would he still be entitled to a larger share? If so, why? Why would his specialization to social skills entitle him to a larger share of the loot, when the loot was gained by the sweat and blood of his fellows (and his, presumably)?

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Still sounds screwy to me. All the other niches support the party as a whole in one way or another. And it doesn't emulate any dungeon fantasy game I've ever come across. I've never encountered the "Being much richer than all the other PCs" niche in any game I've ever played. Now that I've been told that the rules did support some characters starting with ten times more money than others, I'm sure I must have been in games where that happened even if I can't remember it, but I really don't see it as anywhere near as big a deal as this Wealth thing appears to be. That one character started with 20 gp and another with 200 is going to be forgotten long before they've reached 2nd level (both having earned about 2000 gp along the way).

So money doesn't help achieve any of those other goals? I find that hard to imagine.

It doesn't matter as much as I originally thought, though. I was thinking in terms of the Wealthy character having spent 50 out of 100 points on his wealth. If it's actually 20 points out of 300, he should be able to pull his own weight in the dungeon-crawl. I'd probably just buy Wealth myself and undercut his prices ;-).


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

How does "I can get you 1.5 to 1.75 times as much money for your loot as you can get on your own" not supporting the rest of the party? Because he's taking a similar cut for himself instead of doing it as charity for the rest of the gang?

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

The answer doesn't change because you ask the question once more. For the same reason the fighter doesn't charge him for defending him from the monsters, the healer doesn't charge him for healing him, the rogue doesn't charge him for opening the safe, etc.


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Agreed. When I use terms like "enforce" and "should roleplay," I'm not talking rules and regulations designed to prevent (or cause) hard feelings. I'm talking about polite understandings between friends. If somebody plays with envious, annoying gits who get real-life hate on over a game, then nothing I can write for DF or in any other gaming book is going to help . . . People like that should find a new hobby.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Not in DF, not really. See the subject line: DF. There, points are the main way to realize 90% of your goals. Coin helps, but hoarding coin is mainly the tongue-in-cheek joke of the series. There isn't all that much you can do with coin that points won't do better. However, it's a valid character concept to fight that trend and be Coin Guy anyway.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Metagame issues that cause real world anger should not be brushed off like that. Just because their CHARACTERS don't know its happening, doesn't mean the PLAYERS don't know it's happening. This is why things like cheating with dice rolls is bad: it makes PLAYERS angry - the characters don't have a clue it's going on.

It may be "bad roleplaying" to then take it out in character, and it's probably not very helpful to the underlying issue of lack of respect, but it doesn't change the fact that one PLAYER is ******* off the other PLAYERS.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Let's consider this for an instant:

Mr Moneybags doesn't want to "scam" his party members, and decides that he wants his share of the loot in items, that he sells at 100%. The other adventurers can do whatever they wish with their shares. They're getting only 40% though. In this situation, yeah, Mr Moneybags could be said to be acting selfishly, in that he just adds power, not synergy, to the party. And it's fair, because he paid points for being able to sell items for more.

Now, Mr Moneybags has a keep business sense (He's Filthy Rich after all), so he purchases the items from his party companions at +75% of what the merchant offers them, and stashes them until they return to town after the next delve (since after the first visit to the merchant, the prices are fixed, even if it's another character who tries to sell the item), and sells them for a tidy profit. He's not only getting more cash, he's also making everyone else earn more cash.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Yes, part of the reason I mentioned that psychology experiment was because I recalled seeing 'halfsies' in the previous posts. It indeed seems to be the 'acceptable' level of graft, while you correctly point out that McMoneybags gets almost three times as much money in the end. And this 1:2.66 seems a mite large difference for a 20 point advantage in a 300 point game (?). But it of course depends a lot how you use money in your game. What I have heard so far from Kromm and TBC about DF, it seems that money is pretty much a background feature and the true prizes are the magical items that are not for sale and the experience. In this kind of game, it indeed is no big deal.

To answer Icelander...

It not about money, per se, but what that money buys in the campaign. I am from a gamer background where more IC money meant better IC equipment which allowed the chars to leverage their adventuring potential quite a lot. To take that scifi campaign as an example, a 1:3 disparity in money inflow would have meant that the Wealthy Guy would have had equipment pretty much impervious to the guns that the other PCs (and most of the NPCs) would be using, allowing him to 'muscle in' to other character's niches.

I believe that I am not alone in feeling that every character should feel like they are the main character occasionally. When they can do their thing. When they are constantly overshadowed by someone else, that is when the annoyance sets in.

And yes, humans tend to be spiteful when it comes to resources, imaginary or not. Must be a survival trait to some extent to dislike the guy 'hogging' the resources. :)

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

You (the people who disagree with me) can keep posting the same arguments over and over again and we (me and the people who agree with me) can keep posting the same arguments over and over again, but I don't see what good that accomplishes. If I could come up with new arguments, I would, and if you could come up with new arguments, I'd certainly consider them carefully. But for now, maybe we should agree to disagree?


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

I too have suffered from the mistaken idea that money were useful in DF, a prime source of superior equipment and useful items. If it's just an irrelevance, well, that's a whole different story.


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

In a "normal" game 20 points in Wealth gives a character, of any point value, 5x the monthly income of someone without it (p. B516). The pay raise is part and parcel with the advantage.

Like in old school gaming, Money buys you better mundane equipment. The really good stuff is the reward for Adventures!

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Well, I think I am already on record for opposing Wealth Advantage/Disadvantage in all campaigns? :)

However, point taken. I think part of this is the visceral reaction when someone gets paid more for the same job. He is not using his talents to benefit the Party to the fullest. I do think this would be a near-equivalent of the Healer asking, say, 25% of the cost of healing in the Town for his services. Note that this does not apply if the Rich Guy is providing logistical support as per Kromm's answer!

Again, not a biggie, but in the interests of party harmony, if I were the GM, I'd make sure that the players would be OK with whatever arrangement they come up with together prior to the approval of the character. I can see char concepts requiring this. Personally, I'd be more comfortable taking Wealth more as pseudo-status and cost-of-living thing, like I have explained earlier in this thread. I think this would work better than counting numbers. Or even making it an outside revenue stream (scaled to the loot) while keeping the Fence ability. This would allow him to benefit the party, and give him excess cash for largesse, without looking like he is leeching off the rest of the party.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

No. Part of the Wealth advantage is a direct bonus to income. In a DF game where the characters can't have regular jobs, that should translate into 'gets more of the loot', because the loot is the only source of income.

If he has the same Wealth level of everyone else, then the Charismatic guy didn't pay character points specifically to have more money than everyone else. He paid specifically for some other ability, which as a secondary consequence allowed him to make more money - but it is not the advantage that specifically states 'you've got more money than poor people'.


Also: For Hans and Whyte (the only two people arguing the other side and, maybe coincidentally, the only people in this thread who apparently have never read Dungeon Fantasy) - a Dungeon Fantasy character is built on 250 points with 50 points of disadvantages and 5 quirks. Only Wealth levels up to Very Wealthy are allowed for purchase at the start of the game, and you aren't allowed to purchase most magical gear with your money or there are huge markups on the magic stuff (as the GM wills it - he can say Ye Olde Magick Shoppe has all the magic gear possible up to and including that $200,000,000 doorway into a pocket dimension, but he can also say all they have are Knives of Shinyness and they're going for ten times the book price). You're supposed to get most of your Cool Stuff from delving, not from shops.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

You can be against the Wealth advantage all you want... this thread is still about the Wealth advantage. Lookie the title up there - it says DF and Wealth in it!

Since all monetary rewards in the game are by GM fiat anyway, I have a hard time seeing the character as leeching off the others. Maybe the GM is increasing the total loot found by the party by an amount to make up for the guy with Wealth.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Again, it is partly a perception thing... If the Rich Guy gets the same share AND gets some excess from outside source, it means they are equal partners as far as dungeon delving is concerned. And if he gets an allowance from his dad, the Duke (not that Duke!), then so be it. If he is taking a middleman cut... That doesn't seem like an act of a friend, you know? Using it more like independent income (scaled to loot) would feel... more neighborly.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

Eh. Why not just have it be 'I buy your loot from you at 1.5x market price if you want to sell it'. That sounds very neighborly, even if he goes ahead and sells it for 2x market price and pockets the difference.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

I was a bit disappointed when I couldn't find a spell like good old Mordenkainen's magnificient mansion, with it's bubble baths, full staff of phantomatic masseurs and nine course banquet. Now that was adventuring with comfort.

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

So? I'm not saying that the DF rules doesn't allow the PC who has bought Wealth to enrich himself at the expense of the other PCs. I'm saying that I don't think that it is a reasonable rule. Far more reasonable to say that if there is no outside source of wealth, the Wealth advantage should either not be allowed or changed to do something else -- which was what I originally thought had been done (i.e. to "More money at start and better fencing skills).

It's not as big a deal as I originally thought, though. If I was playing in a DF game, I'd simply buy Wealth myself and be done with it.


Hans

Re: [DF] - Party wealth disparity
 

:D Yeah, I want one of those too - I think technically it would be a Gate to a mansion that you bought independently with the 80% of your starting money that can't be spent on adventuring gear and are maintaining with your Cost of Living.