A controversial in-game rule (You have been warned)

[Jon_Dahl]

Problem
I think I have noticed what is the quickest way to get rich IF you play according to the wealth-by-level rules of 3.5.

It's killing your mates. Or better yet, have them get killed and take their stuff.
A 5th-level PC has gear worth 9k gp. A 5th-level NPC has 4.3k gp worth of gear. At lower levels it's not that bad, but at higher levels it is. I've seen this happen too many times: one or two of the PCs die, and one or two of the PCs are suddenly richrichrich. Usually this is not a happy event, but nevertheless, they will have too much stuff, and they will soon realize what's the best way to get rich. They are not that motivated to save other PCs from dying, as long as the corpse and gear don't disappear. There's very little I can do. At the end of the day, a dead PC is the biggest bag of loot you can ever find. The usual alignment of PCs is Chaotic Neutral...

Solution
So I now have this Adventurers' Guild. It has a lot of influence and everyone wants to join it. There's a catch-22 though: The gear of a deceased adventurer goes to his or her spouse, children or the guild. No one else may have it, not even with a Will.

This rule has seen use lately, and it has been... weird. Basically the guild operates really well (IMHO) for its members, but once some mid-level adventurer dies, the guild inherites a massive wealth.

I'm just bringing this to you for a review. How would you feel about this? How do you see this rule? The basic idea is just to prevent cannibalizing, that's all :)

[Red Fel]

Here's the thing: You haven't actually mentioned why a character would want to join the guild. You also haven't mentioned how the guild enforces this rule.

Let's look at the second issue first. Say the party is adventuring in the Third Layer of the Abyss. Hrulfgar the Mighty dies to a poisoned injury. His party can't raise him. Are the party members barred from using his items and equipment in their escape from the Abyss? Even if they are, how exactly will the guild stop them from cannibalizing the corpse? Are the items enchanted to magically return to the guild vaults upon Hrulfgar's death? What if Hrulfgar gets a rez in the field - is he naked?

And what if a party of level 15 adventurers returns to the guild, and openly admits to cannibalizing the corpse? Who's going to tell them they can't? Or are the guild NPCs somehow all epic level?

Now for the first issue - why join? Sure, being a member of the guild is a nice thing to be able to claim on your resume, but what's to stop the adventurers from simply being non-guilded adventurers? And what if someone wants to bequeath his sword to the Amazon Queen he met in his journeys, rather than to the guild - should he not join? Do the rules still apply if he leaves?

Basically, membership needs to have advantages. The guild can't exist simply to accumulate wealth (unless that's its diabolical plan all along and it's secretly run by a BBEG). Do members get discounts at guild stores, or access to rare goods, or the opportunity to purchase from the guild vaults?

The bottom line, as I see it, is this. You have an issue with corpse cannibalizing (an IC issue). This is a problem because of WBL (an OOC mechanic). You are trying to resolve this OOC problem with an IC mechanic (the guild), but you haven't explained the necessity or function of this IC mechanic, save that a magical leprechaun appears when you die and steals your loot before your party can.

In effect, you are cannibalizing the corpse before the party can do so, so that you don't have to change WBL progression.

I'm not taking issue because it's "controversial." I'm taking issue because I don't see the point. If your players tend to cannibalize corpses, simply freeze their WBL, or increase CR accordingly. Your players already loot the corpses of their enemies; why stop them from looting their friends? If they're overgeared, upgrade their enemies. You're trying to compensate by limiting the players' actions, rather than by adapting to them.

Are you hip to my jive, Jackson?

[Fouredged Sword]

Basically there are two sides to this problem, IC and OOC.

IC there is a lot of money to be made killing the people walking around with the GDP of most countries clanging around in their backpacks. The guild makes for an interesting solution to this. Let them hand out passports that allow for free travel (without one from ether them or the merchants guild, no kingdom will let you in) and is required to be allowed to deal in magic items (no crafter will take your money). Enforcement becomes a problem, but make it so that it is the rest of the groups duty to return his items. Failure to do so means the guild blacklists you.

Once blacklisted, no magic crafter will work for you and no kingdom will allow you in it's borders. You can work around it, but it's a pain in the backside. There should be a grey market alternative for evil groups, but backstabbing is part of an evil party, and they should defend VS each other. Also, they should get loot taken or destroyed more frequently than normal to return the WBL curve to normal if they start to get to wealthy.

Then you have the OOC problem. If I kill your character, you can roll another for next session, and we keep your stuff. OOC problems must be solved OOC. There is no other way. Talk to your group.

[Just to Browse]

The D&D wealth system is indeed terrible and handwavey. If your players are abusing this, ask them nicely not to. If your world needs a better wealth system, then require people to track where their WBL comes from instead of spontaneously generating with hundred thousand gold.

[Windstorm]

one thing I've done in the past is increase the gear value on NPCs by the same % that the party exceeds WBL (because it inevitably happens) however I try to focus a decent percentage into items that have very little value when looted.

think stuff like permanency effects, contingent spells, rune circles. anything that poofs on NPC death or is difficult to loot and sell. this has the effect of increasing the provided challenge usually by an appropriate amount since gold is power in D&D, and does not further exacerbate the problem.

[Jon_Dahl]

I have some words here

Wow! This started better than expected. Good post, and I think I’m hip to your jive, Johnson.

There will be lots special circumstances, such as the example of Hrulfgar the Mighty and Abyss you gave. In such cases, the PCs must do their best to get the gear back to the guild, and they may use the gear in the meantime. As long as the group heads back to the guild within a reasonable time and returns the gear, everything is ok. Case-by-case basis, ok?

A party of 15th-level adventurers dissing the guild and not giving the stuff as promised? Well, that’s going to be hard. Very hard. I don’t think guild could handle that, unless they had higher-level adventurers to punish the group. Maybe hiring a interplanar bounty-hunters to get their heads? The guild has an official charter, so they can do that kind of stuff. The King would listen to the guild too… Guild = Law.

Leaving the guild? You can leave if you wish. However, there are several benefits in the guild. You get all the best adventure tips, you can hook up with other adventurers and the guild will support you in most cases. You get discounts too! You are a professional in a Royal Guild (high prestige); you are NOT a murderhobo. Still not good enough? That’s fine. In that case the guild will be your ruthless rival, and you’ll be alone. And then? YMMV.

Making the enemies tougher would make a lot of sense, I admit. But… I’d just like to stop the cannibalization. That would be better for me, as the DM.

[Fax Celestis]

The Guild might not sell those items or bequeath them to relatives: instead, it might add them to its stores and resell them to new adventurers. Guild membership might be the de facto (or even de jure, in the right community) means of getting legitimate magical items, whereas going outside of the Guild means dealing with higher prices on the black market and potential jail time, fines, getting ripped off, or worse.

Guild membership contracts contain text stating that your magical equipment must return to them upon your untimely demise, and it also includes a caveat that you (or your party mates, in the disappointing occurrence of your death) are responsible for replacing said items if they are lost or unreturned.

Basically, by cornering the magical item market (probably by paying competitive prices to crafters and using a group of artificers to pay for XP costs by reclaiming useless or out-of-fashion equipment), the Guild becomes the only option for adventurers who want to remain competitive: purchasing or crafting magical items without Guild sanction is illegal (or might as well be, depending upon the community and how well the Guild is organized; think of Union enforcement teams: "you work for us or you don't work at all"), and acquiring items via, say, killing a dragon would still be hard to sell those items: who are you going to sell them to? Either the black market (which is illegal) or the Guild (who requires a membership to deal with them).

If you want to get really fancy, Guild agents put word of recall sigils and permanent greater status spells on those adventurers who are leasing large-ticket items: by continuously monitoring those lessees, those items can be recalled at a moment's notice, protecting the Guild's assets at the expense of their investments.

tl;dr monopoly, long-term equipment lease

[Windstorm]

words

I think the major thing that comes to mind on this is that its still an ingame mechanism that limits player action as a means of dealing with a metaconstruct.

one of the easiest ways to handle this, as has been said, is to account for looted gold as part of WBL, and to inform your players OOC that this is going to be the case, and why. Any player who doesn't have an entitlement stick shoved up their rear is going to understand, even if they don't like it, and it doesn't cause edge cases that break immersion like your guild idea has a tendency to.

if your players throw a fit at being told looted party members count for WBL, then its time to make the Standard Oil Adventuring Guild (tm)

[Fouredged Sword]

Yeah, I think cornering the market on magic items is likely the way to go. The market for magic items can't be that big (not many can afford them), so controlling a large chunk of it is something a few high level adventurers could do. Let them approve people for sale of magic items, and those who are blacklisted must buy from the black market at a 150% markup and sell at 25% until balance is restored. The guild itself should, of course, have their penalties last only as long as they wish them to, and coincidentally, exactly as long as it takes for the party to fall back into the correct WBL.

Even if you only control a chunk of the market, kicking someone out of your little section can cause the rest of the market to understand that they can be charged much more than normal.

[Fax Celestis]

Yeah, I think cornering the market on magic items is likely the way to go. The market for magic items can't be that big (not many can afford them), so controlling a large chunk of it is something a few high level adventurers could do. Let them approve people for sale of magic items, and those who are blacklisted must buy from the black market at a 150% markup and sell at 25% until balance is restored. The guild itself should, of course, have their penalties last only as long as they wish them to, and coincidentally, exactly as long as it takes for the party to fall back into the correct WBL.

Even if you only control a chunk of the market, kicking someone out of your little section can cause the rest of the market to understand that they can be charged much more than normal.

Plus, if you follow this to its logical conclusion, eventually the Guild is wealthy enough that it can start buying governmental power in most communities (probably only LG might have a problem with it; NG and CG could be convinced with the right arguments (like our modern arguments about gun control)), and as such can influence that power to cement its stranglehold on the magic item economy by getting legislation put in place that makes non-Guild-sanctioned crafting and sale illegal.

[Deophaun]

The best thing about the guild is that it means there must be a significant number of adventurers running around to make it viable, which means there are a bunch of NPCs you can off for their full WBL. That means you don't have to kill party members for WBL abuse.

[squiggit]

The guild idea could be potentially interesting in its own right.

But the problem of players letting characters die so they can inflate their WbL is one that has to be dealt with separately because it's an OOC issue.

[Fouredged Sword]

Plus, if you follow this to its logical conclusion, eventually the Guild is wealthy enough that it can start buying governmental power in most communities (probably only LG might have a problem with it; NG and CG could be convinced with the right arguments (like our modern arguments about gun control)), and as such can influence that power to cement its stranglehold on the magic item economy by getting legislation put in place that makes non-Guild-sanctioned crafting and sale illegal.

And then, even in the area's they DON'T control the market (CE countries like drow kingdoms), the restricted supply and demand curve will drive up market prices though lack of competition.

[Jon_Dahl]

I like the idea about barring magical crafting and putting general embargo on rogue adventurers (no offence rogues!)

I know that this could be handled OOC. Actually, an OOC solution would be the best choice here. However, it could result in some quirky metagaming. The gear of dead PCs would be avoided like plague! :smalltongue: All the PCs are CN money-grabbing bastards, and they take what they can whenever they can, but when a comrade falls, they get all god-fearing all of a sudden and bury him/her with his gear. Quite frankly, I wouldn't like that. I choose messy in-game solutions over metagaming any day.

[Fax Celestis]

And then, even in the area's they DON'T control the market (CE countries like drow kingdoms), the restricted supply and demand curve will drive up market prices though lack of competition.

And good luck traveling to Menzoberranzan1 or wherever and getting out alive on a shopping trip unless you're already a local.

1holy crap, Firefox thinks that's a word.

[icefractal]

A lot of this stuff sound like a good setup - for a campaign about trying to overthrow the tyrannical "Guild". :smallamused:

But - I wouldn't be surprised if your players did just that. They're mostly CN? Why would they appreciate some big entity monopolizing all the magic items, taking their loot, sending bounty hunters after them ... live free or die trying, right? Which might be fine, it just depends if that's what you want in the campaign.

But personally, I would fight fire with fire:
1) Make a corporation. Let's call it Adventure Co.
2) All the PCs are employees of Adventure Co, and also constitute the board of directors.
3) All loot is the property of Adventure Co. Individual PCs may be loaned the use of equipment, but they don't own it. As necessary, gold can be disbursed to an individual PC, but by default isn't.

Now - what personal equipment? :smallwink:

[Red Fel]

A lot of this stuff sound like a good setup - for a campaign about trying to overthrow the tyrannical "Guild". :smallamused:

But - I wouldn't be surprised if your players did just that. They're mostly CN? Why would they appreciate some big entity monopolizing all the magic items, taking their loot, sending bounty hunters after them ... live free or die trying, right? Which might be fine, it just depends if that's what you want in the campaign.

But personally, I would fight fire with fire:
1) Make a corporation. Let's call it Adventure Co.
2) All the PCs are employees of Adventure Co, and also constitute the board of directors.
3) All loot is the property of Adventure Co. Individual PCs may be loaned the use of equipment, but they don't own it. As necessary, gold can be disbursed to an individual PC, but by default isn't.

Now - what personal equipment? :smallwink:

Problem: When the Guild (or Adventure Co., which has a great adventuring acronym) leases out equipment, are they leasing it out to the party, or to the individual? If guildmembers are essentially shareholders, entitled to an undivided share of guild property, could they split equipment amongst the party rather than each taking it out in his or her own name?

If equipment is leased out to the individual, then there can be no sharing. This may extend to consumable items (although it really shouldn't; they should be bought, not leased), but would certainly extend to various reusable magic and wondrous items. If there can be no sharing, you prevent cannibalism, but also prevent - obviously - sharing.

If the equipment is leased out to the group, then the party can share as needed - so if the Wizard dies, the Rogue can grab his Monocle of True Seeing to lead them out of the labyrinth. However, since it's leased out to the group, nothing stops corpse cannibalism - after all, each item belongs to all of them. So mission not accomplished.

While I do like the idea of a guild, when properly constructed and incentivized, I keep coming back to this one major hiccup. Even if the rules could be enforced, and even if the players followed them, you could not reasonably share equipment pursuant to any rules designed to prevent corpse cannibalism.

I take that back. There is a way. A lease constituting a life tenancy would allow the PC to take an item, and lend and use it how he likes; however, upon his death, his lease from the guild terminates. Thus, during his life, he can loan the item to other party members. However, upon his death, the items are no longer his to sublet; they must be returned. This resolves half of the problem (sharing during a PC's life), but still fails to address the fact that the equipment may not be used, not even on a temporary basis, if he snuffs it.

[Windstorm]

I like the idea about barring magical crafting and putting general embargo on rogue adventurers (no offence rogues!)

I know that this could be handled OOC. Actually, an OOC solution would be the best choice here. However, it could result in some quirky metagaming. The gear of dead PCs would be avoided like plague! :smalltongue: All the PCs are CN money-grabbing bastards, and they take what they can whenever they can, but when a comrade falls, they get all god-fearing all of a sudden and bury him/her with his gear. Quite frankly, I wouldn't like that. I choose messy in-game solutions over metagaming any day.

so enforce metagaming penalties, and if they suddenly change character, ask them why they are and if the reason isn't something that's right, XP penalties and WBL penalties.

at least then you're solving metaconstructs with metaconstructs.

[Fax Celestis]

I take that back. There is a way. A lease constituting a life tenancy would allow the PC to take an item, and lend and use it how he likes; however, upon his death, his lease from the guild terminates. Thus, during his life, he can loan the item to other party members. However, upon his death, the items are no longer his to sublet; they must be returned. This resolves half of the problem (sharing during a PC's life), but still fails to address the fact that the equipment may not be used, not even on a temporary basis, if he snuffs it.

Sure there is.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wordOfRecall.htm

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/statusGreater.htm

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contingency.htm

Obviously, anything underneath a particular GP value can be considered expendable.

[dascarletm]

I take that back. There is a way. A lease constituting a life tenancy would allow the PC to take an item, and lend and use it how he likes; however, upon his death, his lease from the guild terminates. Thus, during his life, he can loan the item to other party members. However, upon his death, the items are no longer his to sublet; they must be returned. This resolves half of the problem (sharing during a PC's life), but still fails to address the fact that the equipment may not be used, not even on a temporary basis, if he snuffs it.

I don't see a problem with the PCs using said equipment for the duration of the current job. In game: the guild should want them to succeed, and successfully return their goods back to the guild coffers. Out of game: a PC already kicked the bucket, so the party will be under their usual power already. Having a temporary increase in wealth won't hurt too bad since once they go to get more gear, the guild will collect on their dead comrades gear.

[icefractal]

If the equipment is leased out to the group, then the party can share as needed - so if the Wizard dies, the Rogue can grab his Monocle of True Seeing to lead them out of the labyrinth. However, since it's leased out to the group, nothing stops corpse cannibalism - after all, each item belongs to all of them. So mission not accomplished.Ownership remains with the group, individual members are just lent the use of it as necessary. I think you may be mistaking the mission I was attempting to accomplish - this is the IC action I would take in a campaign with a Guild that worked like that. :smallbiggrin:


As far as the OOC issue - it's a real factor, but I think that "no loot reclaiming" is sometimes a step too far. In most games I've played there's personal loot that players buy themselves, and there's also a lot of effectively shared loot that goes to the person who can use it the best.

For example, if the PCs found some badass sword, and instead of selling it and dividing the loot they gave it to the Barbarian, on the basis that he would make the best use of it, then taking that away when the Barbarian dies seems unfair. It isn't really the Barbarian's sword, it's the group's sword that they've given to the Barbarian to use.

[Madeiner]

Solution in my game:

1) OOC, you can't have that gear increase your WBL. That means you find an IC solution that appeases you, but still doesnt allow for gear to be recovered. We may say its customary to bury a dead hero with his gear. We may decide we send it to his wife, or whatever. Doesnt matter, as long as OCC you dont get the gear and IC it is at least credible

2) You may have the gear, and you can discuss whether to take something with the players (!=characters). If you do take something, the deceased person WBL gets a deduction for the same value, so no WBL change.

3) Toxic players are not tolerated, so anyone who thinks "hey i'll get the gear and who cares about the other player starting with less" gets told we are adults trying to play a game to have fun together. You are not okay with that, that's the door. Not that it ever happened...

[Red Fel]

Solution in my game:

1) OOC, you can't have that gear increase your WBL. That means you find an IC solution that appeases you, but still doesnt allow for gear to be recovered. We may say its customary to bury a dead hero with his gear. We may decide we send it to his wife, or whatever. Doesnt matter, as long as OCC you dont get the gear and IC it is at least credible

2) You may have the gear, and you can discuss whether to take something with the players (!=characters). If you do take something, the deceased person WBL gets a deduction for the same value, so no WBL change.

3) Toxic players are not tolerated, so anyone who thinks "hey i'll get the gear and who cares about the other player starting with less" gets told we are adults trying to play a game to have fun together. You are not okay with that, that's the door. Not that it ever happened...

This is a perfect example of an OOC solution to the OOC metaconstruct of WBL - simply having an agreement with the players. If the players understand that their characters aren't to loot other players' corpses, and they agree, they'll come up with reasons not to do so. As Madeiner suggests, this could be sending it to the widow or family, donating it to the guild or church, burying it with the PC, or accepting an offset in WBL for it (with DM consent). This also obviates the need for an elaborate in-character organization and rule structure that controls the matter.

That said, I like the idea you have for a guild, and I think it has some very interesting potential for various in-game impacts beyond merely controlling WBL. As a potential resource for "adventuring guilds in a fantasy setting," I might suggest looking into the anime/manga Fairy Tail, which has an elaborate hierarchical structure of adventuring guilds - and it's basically, and almost exclusively, through this structure that adventurers can find quests, and clients can find adventurers. It's a great way to create a monopoly by the guild without creating a monopoly - instead of a single adventuring guild, there are many, some rivals and some allies, some lawful and some outlawed, and so forth. It would make an interesting game of factions.

[nedz]

A TPK is a solution to this problem, and a likely consequence of PCs regarding their mates as walking loot rather than indispensable allies.

A better solution is to reduce the XP of replacement PCs. Now there is a cost: XP for more WBL.

The simplest solution is for the DM to reduce the treasure found should the party be above WBL.

Now you can use thieves and disjunctions, but these are really clumsy unless driven by plot or circumstance.

[Slipperychicken]

You could instead try requiring that each PC have a will (which has ressurection clauses, and doesn't give too much to other PCs), and the other PCs to respect it, or at least not steal the guy's stuff.

[Jon_Dahl]

I don't see a problem with the PCs using said equipment for the duration of the current job. In game: the guild should want them to succeed, and successfully return their goods back to the guild coffers. Out of game: a PC already kicked the bucket, so the party will be under their usual power already. Having a temporary increase in wealth won't hurt too bad since once they go to get more gear, the guild will collect on their dead comrades gear.

My thoughts exactly. It doesn't matter if they finish the mission with screwed WBL, but balance should be found soon.


A lot of this stuff sound like a good setup - for a campaign about trying to overthrow the tyrannical "Guild".

Haha! I would invite you to do so, but after the campaign, if we still continue playing, I'd have this conversation with you and other players:


1) OOC, you can't have that gear increase your WBL. That means you find an IC solution that appeases you, but still doesnt allow for gear to be recovered. We may say its customary to bury a dead hero with his gear. We may decide we send it to his wife, or whatever. Doesnt matter, as long as OCC you dont get the gear and IC it is at least credible

2) You may have the gear, and you can discuss whether to take something with the players (!=characters). If you do take something, the deceased person WBL gets a deduction for the same value, so no WBL change.

3) Toxic players are not tolerated, so anyone who thinks "hey i'll get the gear and who cares about the other player starting with less" gets told we are adults trying to play a game to have fun together. You are not okay with that, that's the door. Not that it ever happened...

[RedMage125]

Suggestion for a benefit to being in such a Guild:

The Adventurer's Guild controls the magic item trade.

"You want to buy magic items? Sure, let's see your Guild Membership"

Any scabs would need to resort to a Black Market, which has its own dangers (and plot hooks), not to mention consequences of the Guild discovering them.

You can do things to MAKE the guild an attractive choice.

[eastmabl]

The way my DM handled character death when it wasn't almost a TPK and the character wasn't being resurrected:

The loot you got from your dead mate replaced the most of the loot that awaited you in the dungeon.

[docnessuno]

From an OOC perspective i actually consider the WBL-increase that happens on a PC death a game balancing factor. If the encounters are difficult enough that a PC death is a common occurrence, overall the party will see their WBL increased, thus increasing their effectiveness and reducing the chance of further deaths occurring.