[DF] - Party wealth disparity

[Whyte]

Originally Posted by Keeh

Usually, when Fighter 3 extra cash nets him the 20 000$ for the Armlets of Munchkin Dexterity +2, Fighter 1 should have enough normal cash for those nice Armlets of Munchkin Dexterity +1 that cost only 5 000 $.

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...