Econonmics and money-making

[AverageCitizen]

The excerpt today raises a question. When the players specifically target opportunities to earn some quick cash, either by more targeting lucrative quests or by actually stealing from the robber-baron or whatever, do you give them the same amount of treasure they would have gotten anyway? Or do you give them some kind of little bonus and let them be slightly more wealthy than their peers because they have focused on money-making?

What if they do that for the whole campaign?

How would you guys handle that?

 

[Boarstorm]

I would handle it by giving out the parcels.

I mean, they're not behind the DM screen. Wealth is wealth, so long as the wool is pulled over their eyes.

 

[inkmonkeys]

More lucrative quests happen to also be more dangerous quests, which mean the players are accepting more risk for more reward.

Example: Level 1 characters face all level 3 encounters. They go up in level after only 7 encounters instead of 10. They get all their level 1 treasure parcels - which means they earned that money in 7/10 of the encounters other level 1 heroes were. That's faster, and more lucrative.

They want jobs that don't have higher risk but have higher rewards? Tough. Those quests seem too good to be true because they are.

And when they rob the King of Thieves for a princely sum? Go ahead and give them 10 parcels of treasure at once. Make them earn it afterward. Bounty hunters come after the loot, but don't carry much wealth themselves. Bandits target the wealthy folks. Or they run into a couple ochre jellies, which are low on treasure.

In other words, it shouldn't be much trouble. It might even be fun.

 

[Mort_Q]

What if they do that for the whole campaign?

Then the players play a campaign where they seek out lucrative quests and steal from the local robber-baron instead of... whatever the alternatives are.

Work with it. It worked on Firefly.

Set it up as skill challenges, and encounters, and give them the XP and money if they pull it off.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Then the players play a campaign where they seek out lucrative quests and steal from the local robber-baron instead of... whatever the alternatives are.

Work with it. It worked on Firefly.

Set it up as skill challenges, and encounters, and give them the XP and money if they pull it off.

Okay, I understand that the board is generally antagonistic, but please don't jump to the conclusion that I don't think it would work, or that I can't handle it. I was just asking for perspective. I've actually run some very bottom-line oriented campaigns and we all had a good time.

I am a little surprised at the replies, though. I understand that the parcel tables can be used to reflect any sort of campaign, the economy is pretty much arbitrary as it relates to the gameworld. But is it really so crucial to follow the tables exactly? What if in the next campaign (or a simultaneous one) the party isn't so self-centered? Should a party that spends all its time rescuing the innocent (but poor) from the ravages of evil have as much money as a roving band of treasure hunting mercenaries? I think no, personally. By the end the philanthropic group would have hundreds if not thousands of loyal friends, but not as much treasure. A lot of treasure, but just not as much as the indiana jones/firefly group. So either one gets more or the other gets less, in my game.

The reason may just be my players. When they undertake a quest to aid someone who can't reward them, they fully understand the consequences. They expect to have a rough go of the next few because they don't have as much treasure. They tend to accept challenges in return for story-awards.

So I guess I came at it from the wrong angle. Maybe the default is making as much money as possible, and if the players ever deviate from that I should scale the treasure back a little. Just a little, mind you. Just enough for them to notice if they're looking for it.

 

[Sashi]

As soon as you tie wealth to player level you're stuck keeping players at the "proper" wealth level for their, er, level.

The simplest thing to do if you give them lots of money is also give them lots of money sinks. The same society that has the rich robber-baron to steal money from also might have a destroyed poorhouse that needs repairing.

 

[Boarstorm]

Hey, I don't mean to imply that every group of the same level should have exactly the same amount of cash and level of magical items as every other, I'm just saying that a campaign centered on making money is not really any different than one centered on, say, protecting orphans in Cauldron.

Swap some of the magic item rewards for cold, hard cash and you should be golden, while still following the formula for "wealth by level" (which I mentioned I tend to disregard in another thread), and you're golden.

 

[Kitirat]

Okay, I understand that the board is generally antagonistic, but please don't jump to the conclusion that I don't think it would work, or that I can't handle it. I was just asking for perspective. I've actually run some very bottom-line oriented campaigns and we all had a good time.

I am a little surprised at the replies, though. I understand that the parcel tables can be used to reflect any sort of campaign, the economy is pretty much arbitrary as it relates to the gameworld. But is it really so crucial to follow the tables exactly? What if in the next campaign (or a simultaneous one) the party isn't so self-centered? Should a party that spends all its time rescuing the innocent (but poor) from the ravages of evil have as much money as a roving band of treasure hunting mercenaries? I think no, personally. By the end the philanthropic group would have hundreds if not thousands of loyal friends, but not as much treasure. A lot of treasure, but just not as much as the indiana jones/firefly group. So either one gets more or the other gets less, in my game.

The reason may just be my players. When they undertake a quest to aid someone who can't reward them, they fully understand the consequences. They expect to have a rough go of the next few because they don't have as much treasure. They tend to accept challenges in return for story-awards.

So I guess I came at it from the wrong angle. Maybe the default is making as much money as possible, and if the players ever deviate from that I should scale the treasure back a little. Just a little, mind you. Just enough for them to notice if they're looking for it.

I forsee using the tables as general guidelines and not perfectly stick to them. The occassional higher level item (for purposes of giving them future quest situations for example) or additional wealth for doing something non-adventure oriented on the side is no big deal to me. But I get an random encounter or two coming along I might grab a parcel or two for later planned encounters, to equalize it.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Okay, I understand that the board is generally antagonistic, but please don't jump to the conclusion that I don't think it would work, or that I can't handle it. I was just asking for perspective. I've actually run some very bottom-line oriented campaigns and we all had a good time.

Unfortunately, from what I've seen, that makes you the uncommon one on these boards

 

[Boarstorm]

Bite your tongue, Prof!

We're all reasonable here. *sharpens dagger* Aren't we?

Think carefully before you answer.