Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Squidmaster 02-26-06, 09:03 PM	Have any of you guys used these rules in your games? I have a player who is very interested in being in charge of a thieves' guild, and these rules seemed idea. My only concern is that they are perhaps too strict in terms of cost and payoff. It seems like it might take a lot longer than the scope of a campaign to make back the investment money, let alone turn a profit. Is this an accurate assessment? What are your impressions?
Saric 02-26-06, 09:34 PM	It takes money to make money, and lucrative jobs with high risk have higher payoff and obviously more risks.... in my opinion those rules aren't very adventurous, rather to have some small flavor and money on the side. Oh and it is something to roll every month when the mage is making his staff of ass-kicking +3 (would be better in a single PC campaign in my opinion.)
dungeonmasterblog 02-26-06, 09:57 PM	I'd be interested in hearing what others think as well. My players have never expressed an interest in operating a side business, but I thought about how I could incorporate this into the campaign (they're sent off on a mission and instead of getting gold, they get a share of the caravan business they're trying to help). Dungeon Master http://www.dungeonsdragonsblog.com
Squidmaster 02-26-06, 11:35 PM	That's a nice little treasure quirk. I need to have a better sense of what kind of numbers people would be rolling on average. I'd hate to have my player buy a mansion or comparably priced hideout for a thieves' guild for 100k or whatever it is, then lose money or break even from that point on. In order to get the money for the building to begin with he's going to have to sacrifice most of his loot unless he starts it at level 17 or something, right? That's what seems off to me at a glance.
ThePrivateer 02-26-06, 11:40 PM	I think the rules are alright, but I don't care for them. Why? Because when I ran the numbers, an average, all 10's commoner can't run a farm and make a profit with any sort of reliability (I think it was only on a roll of 19 or 20 that he broke even, much less didn't lose money). But I imagine they're a fine starting point/reference guide for awarding money to entreprenurial PCs.
ubernex 02-27-06, 03:11 AM	I think the rules are alright, but I don't care for them. Why? Because when I ran the numbers, an average, all 10's commoner can't run a farm and make a profit with any sort of reliability (I think it was only on a roll of 19 or 20 that he broke even, much less didn't lose money). Given the life of the medieval/early modern peasentry that seems just about right, if not a bit generous. "Nasty, brutish and short" after all :)
Rurik_Torunn 02-27-06, 07:06 AM	I think the rules are alright, but I don't care for them. Why? Because when I ran the numbers, an average, all 10's commoner can't run a farm and make a profit with any sort of reliability (I think it was only on a roll of 19 or 20 that he broke even, much less didn't lose money). But I imagine they're a fine starting point/reference guide for awarding money to entreprenurial PCs. That's a problem with DnD rules in general. You need extremely high level commoners to explain how any work can be accomplished at all, given the high DCs and the amount of time needed to craft anything. (Anybody crafted traps yet?) It just doesn't work out. I generally ignore these rules and make up my own.
scott644 02-27-06, 07:16 AM	That's a problem with DnD rules in general. You need extremely high level commoners to explain how any work can be accomplished at all, given the high DCs and the amount of time needed to craft anything. (Anybody crafted traps yet?) It just doesn't work out. I generally ignore these rules and make up my own. Well, in a farm family or community, the higher-level commoners would be guiding the efforts of the lower, so it works. Besides, those are really the rules for a PC's business; somehow I suspect a commoner's business would have a lot less random disaster. Meanwhile, the business rules serve to keep the munchkins from trying to create some kind of shop for 2k gp, then sitting back and letting huge quantities of cash role in. They're now forced to actually adventure if they want a significant income.
DracoPhoenix 02-27-06, 08:16 AM	A nice solo campaign up the guild (mule or hostile) ladder would be a good way of getting him there. I would imagine that most places large enough to support a guild would have one or strong enough deterrant to prevent one starting, so him just setting up shop is probably out. Also, he's going to need the leadship feat, not to mention you taking a crash course in economics - focusing on how loss affects systems (so you can work out how the guild would affect the game) Pray he doesn't get organised though (protection rackets, nice suits etc) Managing the TG would be a full time commitment for him, unless you gave him a very reliable 1st in command, discount on mundane items and let him skim / have access to the thieves vault. I suppose it depends on how deep both sides want and reasonably can support it :D
Squidmaster 02-27-06, 12:02 PM	I think I can speak for both of us when I say that we won't worry about real-world style economic impact. This guy will be very interested in the role playing part though. Are there any real world or fantasy examples of ancient thieving organizations? I'm running a game based in a bronze age setting. What I want to feel more comfortable with is how to get him into the guild money-wise. Should I make him pay the full fees, or cut him a big break on that? I don't want him to have to forgo magical gear for months and months to run this business, but neither do I want him to rake in cash hand over fist with no repercussions. I think the business rules actually do a great job of handling the adventuring businessman, because it allows for trusted seconds in command to take charge of the day to day operations. That seems perfect to me honestly.