DF: Suggestions for PCs wanting to purchase permanent base?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Varyon

From this, I'll take it that "ignored for simplicity" was the basic idea here, although I do like the idea that it's all run by someone gambling on the idea whoever buys the residence will likely be dead soon enough that it can just keep being resold over and over, making more money than renting it out to adventurers would.

If necessary, the probabilities can be nudged slightly.

The CEO of Delverhomes LLC is an ancient being of ruthless cunning, after all.

[Kromm]

Given that 1 point can buy you $500 in cash, I have no problem with people turning $10,000 in cash into 1 point. It seems hard to abuse: I part with $10,000 and get a perk. Later, I whine to my GM that the campaign has moved to a place where my home isn't, and the GM gives me the point back. Now I turn around and drop it on . . . $500. I spent $9,500 on the memory of a home far away.

I'd keep homes off character sheets, personally, and treat any sellback as a probable loss in cash. Perhaps use the rules in Dungeons, pp. 14-15 to establish a percentage.

Of course, Monty Haul GMs need to watch this line of thought. If they're routinely giving out megagold, they're going to end up with a group whose every member functionally has +5 to every attribute plus Ambidexterity, Combat Reflexes, Perfect Balance, etc. through privately commissioned "always on" magic items. That isn't conjecture . . . I was that GM once, long ago, and paid the price for it.

So, I counsel keeping treasure modest and making $10,000 such a huge chunk that the heroes don't even look at it before they've replaced all their adventuring gear a few times . . . by which point some elf-queen or archmage has probably awarded them permanent sanctuary in some place way better than a crummy townhouse.

[Willy]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Of course, Monty Haul GMs need to watch this line of thought. If they're routinely giving out megagold, they're going to end up with a group whose every member functionally has +5 to every attribute plus Ambidexterity, Combat Reflexes, Perfect Balance, etc. through privately commissioned "always on" magic items. That isn't conjecture . . . I was that GM once, long ago, and paid the price for it.

Yes the good old problem of filthy rich and beyond PCs, even if they are dumb as bread, ill suited for adventure with no manners and less formal education as a third world kid, they have money a lot of it, and there PLAYERS may be smart

We had this years ago happening in 3rd Ed. , the player did good roleplay but for everybody else it wasn´t funny because Mr. Richboy could avoid every hassle if he had time simply by buying advisors, bodyguards, lawyers ( he never bribed someone personally ) and so on. Our GM was furious about himself, and resorted to a playstile which allowed less preparation aka randomly choosen scenes. In the end he did a smart move and crashed our spaceship, which his richness gracefully allowed to use, if he was with us, on a unknown planet.

Than we all had fun. Well at least all players and there PCs, with the one exeption of his richness which was miserable as he should have been.

We all learned something from this, first in a modern world with teachers everywhere you can, having money, learn nearly everything and avoid most problems, second as GM never ever allow a team with such a widespread welth level. The only occsion where a filthy rich PC occured after this wwas when all other players had at least comfortable or better wealth level.

[Kromm]

In GURPS, I've always been strict with "If it could cost points or cash, you must always pay the points. All the cash does is justify paying those points for things money can buy." So, rich PCs do get value out of their Wealth – better gear, more cash for bribes and expenses, better jobs providing ongoing cash for further costs, and the right to spend points on a wider range of things – but they can't just outstrip the other PCs by turning cash into the Infinite Points Machine. It doesn't work that way. Players who complain that this is unrealistic get shown the hand.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Varyon

As someone who doesn't have that particular book, this strikes me as interesting. Are the upkeep costs and servant wages (normally covered by Cost of Living) just something this option ignores for simplicity, or do residences come with self-repairing servant golems (or whatever) and a self-replenishing food and water source?

I'm not surprised that the rule decides to wave away specifics of ongoing costs (the hired help, maintenance, property taxes, maybe mortgage-style payments if the site wasn't entirely paid for up-front, etc.). Those sound about as much fun as they are in real life.

What I like is the way the rule does it: "The initial investment covers both the premises... and abstract “business interests” that pay the upkeep." Brutally simple. Perfect!

So. As a solution for characters wanting a permanent home, the rule seems a wonderful deal financially, through that's really in comparison to the PCs' normal inn existence, which is a really expensive way to live (per the detailed RL notes Kromm adds above). The home may not be nearly as great a deal for PCs who spend little time in town anyway.

As a solution for GMs wanting to game the permanent base thing as simply as possible, the rule seems just right to me. More than simple enough to take to DFRPG (my interest).

===

It got me thinking, though: what about renting the equivalent of an apartment? It's a place PCs can leave stuff even while adventuring, so it's like a home; it's pay-as-you-go, so it's like an inn (though without the fun common room downstairs).

I think that could be handled as simply as an inn: there's no upkeep or hired help to worry about, so just pay for the room. Payment would be up-front and presumably by the month, but cheaper than an inn. ($400 per month? Less?) Food should be the only necessary added expense: buy rations, or inn meals. (Or work out some typical weekly or monthly cost for simplicity.)

In short, an apartment should be considerably cheaper than inn living - with drawbacks. PCs pay a full month at a time, even if they end up spending just a week or two of the month in town. And PCs who don't come back from adventuring when the next month's rent is due may return to find the landlord has sold off their goods and rented the room to a nice wizard who leaves the hallway reeking of sulphur but at least pays on time.

That's my suggestion for DF apartment-ing. Any suggestions for improvement, especially the monthly cost?

[Willy]

Originally Posted by Kromm

In GURPS, I've always been strict with "If it could cost points or cash, you must always pay the points. All the cash does is justify paying those points for things money can buy."

The problem was this player was smart and the PC filthy rich, he never used money as a second CP source, far from it. He now and than, good roleplay, spend points on game mechanically totally useless skills, which would this PC make happy. But he ruined the game by just throwing money to solve every problem he or worse the party occcured, you know that sort of wealth bosting folk we all love so much.

We need transportation off planet, no chance to hire on a tramp freighter, he just bought his own starship including a crew until reaching our destination, where he sold the thing for scrap. Problems with the police? He spend some points into a top lawer with empire wide connections, so he just spend money for the local associates who bailed the team out in no time, by by prison break. Needing information? Just donate to a university or the traders guild... .

Rulewise 3rd Ed. everything was more than OK, THAT was the problem the GM had just made one mistake at the very beginning, allowing 2 levels of multimillionary was to much, and even a IQ 10 PC with the right set of connections, can ruin the day for everybody. Next time the GM allowed this Characters just as employers, random encounters or very annoying enemys.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by tbone

That's my suggestion for DF apartment-ing. Any suggestions for improvement, especially the monthly cost?

I think renting an apartment is a general assumption for RAW Cost of Living (arguably, owning a house calls for Independent Income of some level, offsetting some of CoL). Renting for only a month at a time (rather than having a 1-2 year lease) might call for an additional charge - say, charge the CoL for 1 status level higher than what the apartment would usually pass for. Note CoL normally covers food, drink, housekeeping, replacement clothing, etc, so if those aren't included, you'd want to drop the price.