[DF] - Party wealth disparity

[Anaraxes]

There's no reason a druid couldn't contribute to a "church" (or other organization), or even independently fund causes. The thread has useful suggestions for disposing of money; all the usual ones would apply.

If the character took Struggling for actual concept reasons, they won't have a problem with getting rid of the money. They find the idea of the Struggling character interesting, and getting rich would violate their concept, every bit as much as losing all their nature powers.

If, on the other hand, Struggling was chosen just for "free points" or outright munchkinism, then they'll object to foiling their plan to get rich and have bonus points. In that case, just have them buy off the disad immediately. If you're really harsh, they get no roleplaying xp while they mis-play their Struggling disad, making it even harder to pay it off. Any munchkin will instantly be motivated, since CP are far harder to come by than GP.

A central trope of the DF genre is rags-to-riches. If you incorporate that into your game, then it's probably best to disallow Wealth-related advantages and disads.

[Maz]

I don't see a problem unless people really exploit it.

It's not any different from people taking low apearance and/or social disads, and rely on the party "face" to talk to NPC's.

For the group as a whole it might be an advtange as the players getting "free" points" can spend them to increase the party "dombat effeciency".



It's only a problem if the GM has a problem with it. And then, the GM has all the power to do "something interesting". For instance, if it's the "Dwarf knight" in the party who has high wealth, then they might not be able to sell elven-made items at all through his contacts as his contacts are dwarven nobles, and they don't like each other.

This problem also only pops up if you have one character to sell all loot and all character trust that character unconditionally. It will be quite easy for the selling character to stash some of the money for himself. (Or for the GM to give him some 'motivation' to do that).

There might also be situations where the "good seller" can't be the one to sell. If his out of action, by sickness or death. Or in a city that don't take kindly to his race/class/culture/looks.


Wealth in DF does not represent "wealth" so the "must buy of if you get rich" doesn't hold. In DF WEalth represent only 2 things.
1) Starting wealth.
2) "Merchant contacts" you can sell too.

Excluding nr. 1 as thats only relevant under character creation Wealth in DF is a social trait, and IMO, should be used that way by the GM.

[Kromm]

Seriously, I don't see the problem. Look at these examples:

Starting cleric buys Power Investiture 3 [30] and Great Healing (VH) IQ [1]-14, Major Healing (VH) IQ [1]-14, Minor Healing (H) IQ [1]-15, etc. Thief buys no healing at all, not even First Aid. If the cleric gets hurt, he rolls at a penalty equal to his wounds to heal himself (Magic, p. 88) . . . if he's even awake. If the thief gets hurt, the cleric heals him flawlessly. Who paid more points for healing? Who benefits more from healing?

Starting scholar buys Book-Learned Wisdom (2, 2) [18], Language Talent [10], and Speed-Reading (A) IQ [2]-15. Barbarian actually gains 3 points for no written competence in his language. They have an adventure wherein the awesome barbarian loot requires understanding a manual. The scholar reads it and tells the barbarian all the magic passwords for using the gear. He doesn't, in fact, find any awesome scholar loot at all. Who paid more points for language comprehension? Who benefits more from language comprehension?

I could go on. The point is, someone with Wealth has a party advantage that offsets the weaknesses of some party members. That's what makes him cool and useful to the party. Disadvantages in DF are supposed to be munchkinized and finessed . . . see Adventurers, p. 15. If they're trumped in ways that have the delvers cooperating and sharing their unique capabilities, then so much the better. Chalk one up for party unity and move on.

[Phaelen Bleux]

I have found that inconveniencing a player with a chosen disad often encourages them to buy it off.

The player I had with Dead Broke often found mysterious holes in his pockets and pouches. . .or always managed to find the dishonest shopkeep who cleaned him out for overvalued or defective goods. . .

Either they are cool with it because they know that have the disad and go with the flow, or they start saving points.

[Wood Golem]

I recently noticed a monetary unbalance in my game. A couple of PC's with Rank, Wealth, Patron, etc. were making just as much as a couple of bards (one of which is poor) who were conning, begging, running the local tavern's entertainment, etc. Meanwhile, others with none of those listed advantages / abilities, but who still had an average lifestyle were suffering the most. Travel in between cities and towns the PC rangers covered for all of the characters' shelter and a portion of the food while the wealthy PC's supplied the remainder of the food. This enabled the bards to further save their money for nicer clothes, rooms, food, services for themselves in the next town.
I laid down the law and started putting into effect the incomes and costs of living that the characters paid for (or received cp for). They each figured out an average 'monthly earnings' for their character and subtracted the cost of living to figure their 'spending money'. Then additional incomes / debts are applied; any extra money is a bonus while lingering debts that aren't paid will start to build and may result in an enemy. At the end of every month all PC's roll for their jobs and get +/- their spending money depending on the result.
Now, when the PC's are traveling, it's assumed the rangers are collecting furs or whatever to sell and the bards are restricted to living the lifestyle they can afford. I've left out a lot of the semantics & unnecessary details leaving the excuses for such things to the players' imagination. Cost of living handles a lot of the previous burden we had when considering trail rations and inn meals.
When it comes to dungeons and loot, if that's primarily what they've been doing for the month, then their money will depend on the skill(s) of the few that can barter / fence the goods they've found. A general success provides enough money for the groups' total income and costs while a failure may only provide for the groups' cost of living. A critical success can mean an initially incorrect evaluation of an item that now turns out is a much better item (possibly magical). A crit the other way results in a loss of item(s) from thieves and/or more storyline tangents.

[arnej]

I still like portraying Wealth disads as roleplaying challenges. Just as you must roleplay Bad Temper, or Overconfidence, the job is the player's to roleplay a Poor or Struggling character. The player has to find ways to justify having fewer funds for whatever - alimony, kid sister is in the hospital or needs bail money, bad business sense, loan shark interest payments, etc.

Han Solo got paid "more money than he could imagine." It didn't set him up for life - it just let him try to get Jabba off his back (and yes, I know it didn't work.)

It shouldn't be the GM who has to figure out how to separate the PC from his money - it should be the player.

And if they don't, then they get penalized for bad roleplaying.

arnej

[Last Pawn]

If the party is inclined to stick together over several delves you could also look at individual Wealth as each character's investment in the party which in turn determines the share of the loot that they're entitled to. A character with Struggling wealth would bring less financial assistance to the party when stocking up for the next delve, so why should they get the same amount of loot?

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by Last Pawn

If the party is inclined to stick together over several delves you could also look at individual Wealth as each character's investment in the party which in turn determines the share of the loot that they're entitled to. A character with Struggling wealth would bring less financial assistance to the party when stocking up for the next delve, so why should they get the same amount of loot?

He might be much more useful in other ways. The only healer, a superb fighter, the only "locksmith" in the party. What's a few $ worth of equipment against that?

In another thread I was told that Wealth is what the character gets from his mundane background life. If so, his Wealth is not correlated in any way to the money he gets from adventuring (he might even lose Wealth if he loses his job because he's gallivanting about). Getting a sackful of money and buying blue-chip stock instead of cool adventuring equipment with it might be an excuse to let him buy up his Wealth, but he'd still need to spend the points.



Hans

[thulben]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I could go on. The point is, someone with Wealth has a party advantage that offsets the weaknesses of some party members. That's what makes him cool and useful to the party. Disadvantages in DF are supposed to be munchkinized and finessed . . . see Adventurers, p. 15. If they're trumped in ways that have the delvers cooperating and sharing their unique capabilities, then so much the better. Chalk one up for party unity and move on.

The thing is that with that approach, the optimal party solution is: one character takes Very Wealthy and the rest take Dead Broke and spend the points gained elsewhere on the sheet. I'm all for the munchkin spirit, but that seems a bit extreme.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by thulben

The thing is that with that approach, the optimal party solution is: one character takes Very Wealthy and the rest take Dead Broke and spend the points gained elsewhere on the sheet. I'm all for the munchkin spirit, but that seems a bit extreme.

A bit too extreme for comfort, I think. The Dead Broke characters are going to have problems buying enough equipment to see them through the first few adventures, even if the VW character is bankrolling them and particularly if it's a large party, and they're screwed if the VW character happens to get killed: "We'll just pay the temple to get him resurrected. We'll just head to town and sell these...oh. Right.