[DF] - Party wealth disparity

[Whyte]

I think I see Hans' point... or what I assume is his point:

Every character has a certain amount of character points. Lets consider these three builds:
1. Fighter with Average Wealth
2. Fighter with Dead Broke
3. Fighter with Wealthy

Now, Fighters 1 and 2 are presumably as good in fighting, skill and attribute-wise (Fighter 1 might have some psychological problems, but anyway). However, Fighter 3 is presumably some points short of the combat potential of Fighter 1 and 2. Therefore, it could be said that he is not 'pulling his own weight', unless he 'contributes' to the party's success with all his abilities, which in this case means Wealth.

In a perfectly cooperative party, the Fighter would always be putting himself on the line to protect the softer characters, the Healer would always be healing and the Moneybags would be transforming loot into gold. Everybody is using his abilities 100% for the good of the party, so everyone is entitled to an equal share. Fighter 1 is the go-to guy when something needs slaying, while Fighter 3 is competent enough to act as a blocker and is the guy doing most of the merchant RP in the town. So each player is presumably getting what they want from their characters.

However, if Fighter 3 refuses to use his Wealth (I'd imagine merchant contacts here more than his starting money, although I could see that being a point, too), then he is not giving 100% of his effort for the party. It could be said he is giving somewhat less. The shares could (and some might say, should) go in proportion of the benefit he is denying for his party mates, so that the end result is the same: everyone gets the same amount in gold.

Is this shafting Fighter 3? Again, some would say no: it was Fighter 1 who did most of the slaying, while Fighter 3 was mostly keeping himself alive and occupying one enemy, so it is fair that Fighter 1 should get more of the loot in items. And the end result in gold is equal. Some would say it is, because Wealth advantage implies more money from loot. But if Fighter 1 and Fighter 3 are getting equal shares of loot, and Fighter 3 is not sharing his contacts, then Fighter 3 will soon be much wealthier than Fighter 1. He can afford better weapons and hence improve his 'effective point value' faster than Fighter 1. Is this fair?

You may have noticed that I have not talked about Fighter 2, yet. Lets hope that he likes playing the beggar, for certainly the rules are fair that a disadvantage is only a disadvantage if it affects the character. In this case, if the rest of the party chips in, sells his lootshare and gives it back as money, GM would totally be in his rights to use pickpockets and burglars galore. Or the character should be giving the money away to his church or some such. Or the party could simply not give him a share. Which begs the question, why does he bother adventuring? Friendship, indentured servant, punishment, revenge, to hone his skills?

I admit, I have a problem with Wealth (in any GURPS campaign), since it is a bit metagamey. Money = better equipment = more powerful character. While other disadvantages stay pretty much the same over the campaign, Wealth is one that means you are even deeper in the hole (DF, or a campaign where most of the money comes from jobs), or one that becomes insignificant (a campaign with lots of equal-share loot and a lenient GM who doesn't make you buy off your Poor Wealth even when you own your own starship). Same can be true with Wealth Advantage: either increasingly more powerful (a low-loot non-DF campaign or a DF campaign) or almost insignificant (a high-loot non-DF campaign with equal shares).

For example. Lets take Fighter 1 and Fighter 3. Lets say that they have 20 point difference in Wealth, and they share loot equally with Fighter 3 enjoying the monetary boost thanks to his Wealth, not shared with Fighter 1. The campaign splutters along, until Fighter 3 has gained enough 'excess' loot to buy an additional magical item giving him +1 in DX, bringing him to equal standing with Fighter 1, but he still has Wealth, too! Campaign continues and Fighter 3 continues piling on magical items until he has, in effect, +X point advantage over Fighter 1. Clearly, having the advantage paid off. Unless the GM demands that points are paid for stat/skill/whatever bonuses granted by items as if they were bought with charpoints in the chargen. This is what our GM did in a scifi play when it became clear that the older characters had like 100+ points worth of accumulated cyberboosts over the newer chars. Until then, cyberaugmentation was considered 'earned in game with money' and hence didn't cost any points.

Yes, I do understand that Fighter 1 and 3 could both get similar magic items if Fighter 3 is pulling for the team and acts as a 0% profit fence for his party members. But we were talking about selfish rat bastards, right?

Of course, if the smug SoB becomes too insufferable... accidents happen in dungeon delving, right?

EDIT:
I have played a moneybag character a couple of times myself, and when I have, I have been distributing largesse liberally. The idea being that I want those meatshields and healers to -like- me, and to do their utmost that I survive the dungeon delving to make it rain more money on them. To me, this is absolutely more preferable than them calculating how much loot they'd get, if I'd happen to 'trip'.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

In that case a Wealthy character shouldn't be allowed to sell loot for other characters at all.

How are you going to enforce that? GM fiat? You might as well use GM fiat the other direction and enforce the Wealthy character charging a premium to sell the Poor characters loot. The second, at least, has a basis in reality.

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

Sounds to me like the rules are simply not clear enough. (Well, that and that the rules are belief-shatteringly implausible).

This is Dungeon Fantasy - the rules don't need to be grounded in the plausible. We're slaying freaking Dragons and defeating Necromantic Armies, for pete's sake. But, as Kromm said, if you don't like the Wealth rules then simply chuck them all out and don't let anyone take Wealthy or Poor.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Whyte

I think I see Hans' point... or what I assume is his point:

Every character has a certain amount of character points. Lets consider these three builds:
1. Fighter with Average Wealth
2. Fighter with Dead Broke
3. Fighter with Wealthy

Now, Fighters 1 and 2 are presumably as good in fighting, skill and attribute-wise (Fighter 1 might have some psychological problems, but anyway). However, Fighter 3 is presumably some points short of the combat potential of Fighter 1 and 2. Therefore, it could be said that he is not 'pulling his own weight', unless he 'contributes' to the party's success with all his abilities, which in this case means Wealth.

Unless, of course, Fighter 3 has a Huge Honking Flaming Sword of Death And Maiming which he bought with his Wealth. In which case he may be able to deal out more damage than either #1 or #2, making him more effective in his own way.

Wealth doesn't take away from a characters ability to fulfill his niche - in fact, used properly, it can greatly increase niche effectiveness.

[Whyte]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Wealth doesn't take away from a characters ability to fulfill his niche - in fact, used properly, it can greatly increase niche effectiveness.

In which case, Fighter 3 gets his cake and can eat it, too. He is better at his role AND he will keep on getting better faster than Fighter 1.

Why doesn't everybody take Wealth in this case? I mean, what is the point of using 20 points for +1 to your DX, if you can buy Wealth and get Armlets of Munchkin Dexterity (+2 to your DX) with your inflated cash? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

EDIT: (adding to the pose rather than making a new post)

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

But, as Kromm said, if you don't like the Wealth rules then simply chuck them all out and don't let anyone take Wealthy or Poor.

In case it wasn't clear in my previous post, this is my preferred solution to Wealth. I simply won't use it in campaigns that I GM.

I think I calculated it years ago during 3rd Ed how much money it would take to get +5 to all attributes and other cool stuff, and how many points that would take with multimillionaire. The end result was that I could have my char decked up with enough enchantments (with Limit and Name enchantments to limit their attractiveness as loot) to make me easily the most powerful character in the party, and still have enough money left over to buy everyone a pony. Each morning. For the rest of the campaign. Never actually made the char. Too munchkin build even for me.

I did play a character in another campaign with a big chunk of his points in Wealth and Status. Rotten fighter, but excellent social skills. So I simply hired other partymembers as retainers (paying them like twice or thrice what they would have made in their jobs) and then added a bunch of the best swordsmen of the land (NPCs) as bodyguards (again, paying generously). I don't think I had to touch my toy rapier once during the campaign, and it was still good fun. A Robin Hood character was terrorizing my estates, so I simply put a bounty on his head and then settled to wait in my castle and party while the other PCs ferreted him out. And it is always nice to tell the King that as a show of my loyalty, I will present a fully-equipped and -spiffed, state-of-the-art war galley for his birthday. So yeah, that was fun for me. I doubt it would have been as much fun for the other players, if I would have upstaged them in their chosen roles while wearing my RuneArmor Mk4 and wielding Stormbringer in my right and Mjolnir in my left hand.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

How are you going to enforce that?

Who says I want to enforce it? I'm arguing that it's a broken rule. I certainly wouldn't want to enforce a broken rule.

However, off the top of my head, it sounds to me like you shouldn't be converting loot to money but to character points. Then if the Dead Broke guy wants some money/equipment to call his own, he can spend the points on buying off his Dead Broke while the Wealthy guy can spend them on buying up his fighting skills.

This is Dungeon Fantasy - the rules don't need to be grounded in the plausible.

They don't have to be realistic. They do have to be self-consistent (at least if I'm going to be running/playing a game).

But, as Kromm said, if you don't like the Wealth rules then simply chuck them all out and don't let anyone take Wealthy or Poor.

I don't even have the DF rules or a way to get them[*], much less any plans to run a game. I'm simply arguing about whether the rule makes sense or not. A purely intellectual exercise. So telling me that I can ignore it if I like is a supremely irrelevant argument. If it makes sense, I'm wrong; if it doesn't make sense, I'm right. Can we concentrated on discussing whether it makes sense or not?

[*] I don't do online credit transfers and the last time I checked I couldn't spend the money I earned from selling articles to JTAS to buy stuff from SJG[**].

[**] One of the reasons why it's been a very long time since I finished an article. :-(

Hans

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by Whyte

In which case, Fighter 3 gets his cake and can eat it, too. He is better at his role AND he will keep on getting better faster than Fighter 1.

Why doesn't everybody take Wealth in this case? I mean, what is the point of using 20 points for +1 to your DX, if you can buy Wealth and get Armlets of Munchkin Dexterity (+2 to your DX) with your inflated cash? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

You're expressing my argument perfectly. I agree with you 100% here.


Hans

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Whyte

Why doesn't everybody take Wealth in this case? I mean, what is the point of using 20 points for +1 to your DX, if you can buy Wealth and get Armlets of Munchkin Dexterity (+2 to your DX) with your inflated cash? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Because Wealth isn't the be-all-and-end-all, and 20 points of Wealth doesn't translate into a Bracelet which gives +40 points worth of advantages. Wealth is one of MANY ways of making you effective in your niche; it's not the ONLY way. It's no different than weighing "More DX" against "Weapons Master" - both have a base cost of 20 points and both provide solid benefits, but one is not necessarily superior to the other. I was merely countering the argument that points sunk into Wealth make one less effective in your niche, which is what you (and Hans) put forth, and is not necessarily true.

[Keeh]

Originally Posted by Whyte

Why doesn't everybody take Wealth in this case? I mean, what is the point of using 20 points for +1 to your DX, if you can buy Wealth and get Armlets of Munchkin Dexterity (+2 to your DX) with your inflated cash? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

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 $.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Because Wealth isn't the be-all-and-end-all, and 20 points of Wealth doesn't translate into a Bracelet which gives +40 points worth of advantages. Wealth is one of MANY ways of making you effective in your niche; it's not the ONLY way. It's no different than weighing "More DX" against "Weapons Master" - both have a base cost of 20 points and both provide solid benefits, but one is not necessarily superior to the other. I was merely countering the argument that points sunk into Wealth make one less effective in your niche, which is what you (and Hans) put forth, and is not necessarily true.

Either 20 points worth of Wealth does allow you to buy equipment that gives you the equivalent of 20 points' worth of niece-specific abilites or else buying 20 points worth of Wealth does make you less effective in your niche. You can't have it both ways.


Hans

[Langy]

Either 20 points worth of Wealth does allow you to buy equipment that gives you the equivalent of 20 points' worth of niece-specific abilites or else buying 20 points worth of Wealth does make you less effective in your niche. You can't have it both ways.

Sure you can. Since Wealth is also 'earning power' as well as starting assets (not current assets, especially in a DF game), a high-Wealth character might start out with lower niche-specific awesomeness but, later on in the game, be able to sell enough loot for enough more money than others in the party that he can purchase the equivalent of 20 or 40 or more points in niche-specific abilities.

Besides, the argument was that Wealth might give +20 points of niche-specific abilities instead of giving +40 points in niche-specific abilities.

A character with high Wealth should be just as viable as a character with lower Wealth else there's something wrong with the pricing scheme for Wealth.