[DF] - Party wealth disparity

[Kromm]

TBC has the right of it. Let the players do that. But remember that "being a munchkin" is just half of the dungeon tradition – the player half. The other half is the GM's role as bane of the heroes' existence. The GM has a solemn duty not to be a wuss and hand-wave ". . . and then Croesus over there buys all your gear anyway." The most important tradition is this:

PCs who wish to bankroll other PCs must game it out in play.

That is, broke adventurers need to enter play with nothing but rags and have their wealthy benefactors outfit them during gaming time. This has many ramifications:

• Violence can happen on the way to the shop. A knight without a sword or armor might find that tricky.

• At the shop, you pay "town" prices, not "list" prices. It's up to the GM just how much a sword or a shield goes for. Heroes who start with gear get $400 shortswords. Delvers who buy it in Pirateville might end up paying $500, $600, or more.

• Fantasy merchants are greedy. Once word gets out that a rich man is outfitting his personal army, prices will mysteriously go up even more.

• Personal shopping advantages aren't transferable. You use the rich guy's stats to settle prices. Too bad if one of the Dead Broke heroes had Elven Gear or Pixie Shot, or crafting skills that would give cheaper potions or weapons. Such rules assume "your entire life to date," not "a week in town."

• You can't count on availability: "Nobody here sells broadswords," "Sorry, we have no alchemist, so no potions," "Plate armor? Sure. Get fitted and it'll be ready in two months," etc.

• Shopping takes time. Minimum charge for time is $150/person per week or fraction thereof. Mr. Moneybags will pay an extra $900 for him and his five friends to visit the mall.

• Orc and other "monster" delvers can't enter town, so they can't be fitted for armor. If they had started in Orcville and brought their armor, they'd be fine. But apparently, they fell naked off the slave wagon. So sorry.

Also, the rich munchkin should definitely insist on a return on his investment. In this genre, it's bad roleplaying (read: fewer XP) not to do so! "One share plus one per Wealth multiple. Let's see, I'm Very Wealthy, so that's 21 shares for me, one for each of you Dead Broke guys." If the player won't cooperate, make sure he's pressured to think this way. The temple, Wizards' Guild, Thieves' Guild, or similar will politely remind him that they expect such a wealthy and successful member to make a big donation. And what player would want his entire share to become that donation? That's why he gets the big share.

Finally, bankrolling the party makes you the leader. You can turn down the honor all you want, but in a world where the powers of soothsayers work, it will still find you. Too bad for the bard if the NPCs only want to talk to the rich artificer . . . too bad for all the other PCs when, on returning to town, the only Great Wish goes to the guy who funded the mission.

The problem isn't bankrolling Dead Broke PCs at all. One problem is treating the PCs' money as a single shared resource pool from which any of them can draw cash for gear prior to the campaign starting. The other is letting rich heroes be selfless, charitable wimps in a genre where "rich" is equivalent to "greedy, miserly, and calculating," and the selfless, charitable guys all take vows of poverty.