A cut of the profits is, how much, exactly? [Archive] - Wizards Community

A cut of the profits is, how much, exactly? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
fatal error
03-02-06, 03:41 AM Though this game is a star wars one, the situation is not really restricted to star wars. My players, through rising in the ranks of a hutt family (thieves' guild for the unitiated), and have been put in charge of running a casino in the city. Now, how would you recommend handling the financial details of such a situation?

The most obvious course is to figure out how much they should be getting per month. However, this demands several things: A) I have to figure out how much a small-medium sized casino makes in a month. B) How large a cut the criminal organization gets of the profits. Neither of these things are easy to make sure are reasonable.

A second option I have thought of would be to have them only be in charge of keeping the operation going, whilst all profits go directly to the criminal organization, and then the PCs get paid a salary of sorts. This allows me to skip the nitty-gritty details of finance, but also has a greater chance of uproar from the players about wanting to know just how much they're 'losing' to their employers.

And finally, the third option, which I am the most apprehensive about persuing, is to not give any specifics at all. Rather than giving them straight up numbers of credits I would say it was tied up in assets, and financial red tape. But that if they have something (large) they need to buy, they can attempt to 'requisition' their own money from the hutts for such use. This I am the most apprehensive about because it is the most abstract and the most likely to confuse and irritate the players, and the PCs too.

So, what are your opinions on how I should handle this? Which of the three options do you think is best, or do you have another option to present?
MarkB
03-02-06, 04:58 AM There are three basic ways such an operation would be run:

Franchise The managers keep the profits themselves, minus a fixed fee that pays for their use of the brand name and the backing of the parent organisation. They own the establishment outright, though the parent company may choose to withdraw the franchise and leave them without the security of belonging to an organisation.

Shared ownership The managers and their backers each take a share of the profits. The share will be proportional to their percentage of ownership of the casino, which could be highly variable, though guideline figures of 20% minimum and 80% maximum would be reasonable.

Contract management They're employees of the umbrella company, and take a fixed salary. They have no rights of ownership over the establishment, and no rights to any of the profits, though they can expect a good annual bonus if things are going well.

Having the parent company be a criminal organisation doesn't really change the above three options, except that the organisation will be in a better position to dictate terms, and their relationship will be generally less secure and comfortable.

Which is easiest? Option 3, obviously - they get a fixed fee, and you don't have to worry about them holding major assets such as buildings and shares. But it's also an option that practically demands they remain on-site for a large proportion of the time, or they're not justifying their salaries. With options 1 or 2, they can consider themselves investors rather than managers to at least some extent, and thus have some time to themselves.
CzarGarrett
03-02-06, 09:28 AM Some thoughts about the subject:

1. Skimming. Criminal organizations are populated by, well, criminals. Who aren't exactly the most honest of people. In a gambling ring, you could have the dealer, bodyguards, pit bosses, courriers, and bankers all take a little of the top. Even if the intake is actually 300gp a day, by the time the books have been cooked, and the money given to the PCs, it could be down to 150-200.

2. What type of gambling will occur? Some types make a lot more than others, such as craps or roulette. And some just take a percentage, such as draw poker (100 gp buy in, house takes 10%, winner takes rest). Horse racing? Depending on the type of gambling going on, the Hutts might be more or less willing to give the PCs a free reign.

As for me in such a situation here, I'd go for some sort of randomization of intake, collected by the PCs, and given over to the Hutts, minus the PCs cut (and if they skim anything off the top).

That way, the PCs have more of an active hand in the going-ons of the casino, and they have the oppertunity to RP out more situations. Also, should they decide to skim any money, it gives a new adventure (possible) of the PCs escaping the Hutts.
Milandros
03-02-06, 11:41 AM This depends on how senior they are in the criminal heirachy.

If they have a lot of clout, then they could expect a decent cut - maybe 20% or more of the profits, particularly if they handle problems like the police themselves.

If, on the other hand, they're not that feared or well regarded, maybe they get 1% - or a wad of money thrown their way when they've done well, as their boss gives them a bonus for good work.

Another option is that the casino is theirs - but the syndicate comes by every week for its cut, which is intended to leave the players with just enough money not to pack it in and run away. If the players can't pay one week, then loan arrangements can be made - at a suitable rate of interest, of course. Say, 25% per week?

If they're gullible, well-meaning or fooled, then they'll be promised 50% of the profits, after costs and expenses, of course, plus a deduction for the use of facilities, rent, security costs, bribery costs, and so on. Either (a) the PCs will find that they're deeper and deeper in debt to crime lords every month and need to take on extra jobs to pay them, or (b) the PCs will end up being pointed out to the local authorities as the "masterminds" behind this organised crime syndicate, and all the evidence will point that way.

Organised crime syndicates are rarely the romantic band of brothers respecting each other shown in some bad mafia movies. They're nasty - and if the players are mixed in with such, they have to show that they're to be feared and respected, or they'll get relegated to being tools very quickly.
FriendoftheDork
03-02-06, 01:20 PM Here's a simple way to do it: The Hutts demand their share each month, which is a fixed sum and not a percentage. Since some months are more profitable than others, the PCs will have some months where they make money, some where they break even, and some even when they have to pay of their own money to avoid getting indebted.

This makes the players want to make the most of the establishment.

Of course, the Hutts will be in their right to change the "tax" if they see an unexpected rise in income of the place, and will retain ownership. If the PCs disagree the Hutts can always take away the PCs rights. Of course this shouldn't happen as the PCs should be terrified of the Hutts in any case.

If you're really mean you can use the buisness rules from DMG 2, where you roll profit checks each months based on your profession skills and alot of circumstantial modifiers. I think the DC is 25 to break even, so even despite
positive circumstantial modifiers the PCs need to be pretty high level to make a profit at all, and they need to invest in profession: Casino Management, with synergy from the gambling skill and spot.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
fatal error 03-02-06, 03:41 AM	Though this game is a star wars one, the situation is not really restricted to star wars. My players, through rising in the ranks of a hutt family (thieves' guild for the unitiated), and have been put in charge of running a casino in the city. Now, how would you recommend handling the financial details of such a situation? The most obvious course is to figure out how much they should be getting per month. However, this demands several things: A) I have to figure out how much a small-medium sized casino makes in a month. B) How large a cut the criminal organization gets of the profits. Neither of these things are easy to make sure are reasonable. A second option I have thought of would be to have them only be in charge of keeping the operation going, whilst all profits go directly to the criminal organization, and then the PCs get paid a salary of sorts. This allows me to skip the nitty-gritty details of finance, but also has a greater chance of uproar from the players about wanting to know just how much they're 'losing' to their employers. And finally, the third option, which I am the most apprehensive about persuing, is to not give any specifics at all. Rather than giving them straight up numbers of credits I would say it was tied up in assets, and financial red tape. But that if they have something (large) they need to buy, they can attempt to 'requisition' their own money from the hutts for such use. This I am the most apprehensive about because it is the most abstract and the most likely to confuse and irritate the players, and the PCs too. So, what are your opinions on how I should handle this? Which of the three options do you think is best, or do you have another option to present?
MarkB 03-02-06, 04:58 AM	There are three basic ways such an operation would be run: Franchise The managers keep the profits themselves, minus a fixed fee that pays for their use of the brand name and the backing of the parent organisation. They own the establishment outright, though the parent company may choose to withdraw the franchise and leave them without the security of belonging to an organisation. Shared ownership The managers and their backers each take a share of the profits. The share will be proportional to their percentage of ownership of the casino, which could be highly variable, though guideline figures of 20% minimum and 80% maximum would be reasonable. Contract management They're employees of the umbrella company, and take a fixed salary. They have no rights of ownership over the establishment, and no rights to any of the profits, though they can expect a good annual bonus if things are going well. Having the parent company be a criminal organisation doesn't really change the above three options, except that the organisation will be in a better position to dictate terms, and their relationship will be generally less secure and comfortable. Which is easiest? Option 3, obviously - they get a fixed fee, and you don't have to worry about them holding major assets such as buildings and shares. But it's also an option that practically demands they remain on-site for a large proportion of the time, or they're not justifying their salaries. With options 1 or 2, they can consider themselves investors rather than managers to at least some extent, and thus have some time to themselves.
CzarGarrett 03-02-06, 09:28 AM	Some thoughts about the subject: 1. Skimming. Criminal organizations are populated by, well, criminals. Who aren't exactly the most honest of people. In a gambling ring, you could have the dealer, bodyguards, pit bosses, courriers, and bankers all take a little of the top. Even if the intake is actually 300gp a day, by the time the books have been cooked, and the money given to the PCs, it could be down to 150-200. 2. What type of gambling will occur? Some types make a lot more than others, such as craps or roulette. And some just take a percentage, such as draw poker (100 gp buy in, house takes 10%, winner takes rest). Horse racing? Depending on the type of gambling going on, the Hutts might be more or less willing to give the PCs a free reign. As for me in such a situation here, I'd go for some sort of randomization of intake, collected by the PCs, and given over to the Hutts, minus the PCs cut (and if they skim anything off the top). That way, the PCs have more of an active hand in the going-ons of the casino, and they have the oppertunity to RP out more situations. Also, should they decide to skim any money, it gives a new adventure (possible) of the PCs escaping the Hutts.
Milandros 03-02-06, 11:41 AM	This depends on how senior they are in the criminal heirachy. If they have a lot of clout, then they could expect a decent cut - maybe 20% or more of the profits, particularly if they handle problems like the police themselves. If, on the other hand, they're not that feared or well regarded, maybe they get 1% - or a wad of money thrown their way when they've done well, as their boss gives them a bonus for good work. Another option is that the casino is theirs - but the syndicate comes by every week for its cut, which is intended to leave the players with just enough money not to pack it in and run away. If the players can't pay one week, then loan arrangements can be made - at a suitable rate of interest, of course. Say, 25% per week? If they're gullible, well-meaning or fooled, then they'll be promised 50% of the profits, after costs and expenses, of course, plus a deduction for the use of facilities, rent, security costs, bribery costs, and so on. Either (a) the PCs will find that they're deeper and deeper in debt to crime lords every month and need to take on extra jobs to pay them, or (b) the PCs will end up being pointed out to the local authorities as the "masterminds" behind this organised crime syndicate, and all the evidence will point that way. Organised crime syndicates are rarely the romantic band of brothers respecting each other shown in some bad mafia movies. They're nasty - and if the players are mixed in with such, they have to show that they're to be feared and respected, or they'll get relegated to being tools very quickly.
FriendoftheDork 03-02-06, 01:20 PM	Here's a simple way to do it: The Hutts demand their share each month, which is a fixed sum and not a percentage. Since some months are more profitable than others, the PCs will have some months where they make money, some where they break even, and some even when they have to pay of their own money to avoid getting indebted. This makes the players want to make the most of the establishment. Of course, the Hutts will be in their right to change the "tax" if they see an unexpected rise in income of the place, and will retain ownership. If the PCs disagree the Hutts can always take away the PCs rights. Of course this shouldn't happen as the PCs should be terrified of the Hutts in any case. If you're really mean you can use the buisness rules from DMG 2, where you roll profit checks each months based on your profession skills and alot of circumstantial modifiers. I think the DC is 25 to break even, so even despite positive circumstantial modifiers the PCs need to be pretty high level to make a profit at all, and they need to invest in profession: Casino Management, with synergy from the gambling skill and spot.