Guide 8 Question: pooling gold to purchase items (p. 19)

[Nefreet]

Ragoz wrote:

Of course we don't all agree.

Sharing Consumables Thread

Wow. How'd I miss that thread?

It's like Godzilla was rampaging outside the coffee shop where I was complaining that life is boring.

I think I'll take a nap before perusing the material there.

[FLite]

Just a reminder.

RAW vs RAI.

No where, and I mean *no where* in the guide does it say PFS is Rules as Written. It says you cannot contradict the rules, it does not say whether that is the rules as intended, or the rules as written. It just says *the rules*

Further, it says "As a Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary"

The word Judgement implies that it is referring to rules as intended.

Further, it says "We understand that sometimes a Game Master has to
make rules adjudications on the fly,"

Which again implies that GMs are to interpret the Rules as Intended.

I am extremely tired of people arguing "This rule is bad, because if you take this one single interpretation, it is bad, and because RAW, the interpretation I have chosen (from among all the other workable interpretations) is the only one that matters."

Infact, the statement "PFS is Rules-as-written and you cannot make any house rules or interpretations" is, itself a house rule.

[GM Lamplighter]

As the OP, thanks for the discussion on this - it's helped me figure out a tentative answer to the question which prompted me to start this thread.

The only rules which seem to bear on this are:
* no wealth or permanent item transfer;

The precedents that bear are:
* any item you get for 0 gp can only be sold for 0gp (as in, what you paid for it);
* items are otherwise sold for half of their cost.

The philosophy that bears is:
* RAW is at least somewhat based on interpretation unless it is a mathematical formula;
* the GM's role is to supply that interpretation.
* PFS players should play fair.

With this in mind, any item that is purchased by pooling gold and then not used, should be sold at half-price and the money divided between the people who contributed on a pro-rated basis. Anything else currently either allows wealth transfer or is unfair. That's how I'm going to rule; if and when the rules are clarified or changed, I'll re-visit this, of course.

[FLite]

GM Lamplighter wrote:

The precedents that bear are:
* any item you get for 0 gp can only be sold for 0gp (as in, what you paid for it);
* items are otherwise sold for half of their cost.

Half the cost you paid. Alchemists sell back alchemical items they craft for 1/6 full price, gunslingers sell back ammo at 1/4 full price.

(Not saying you were wrong, just making sure it is abundantly clear.)

[Socalwarhammer]

From the players perspective...

"I can give YOU money to buy an item that WE can all use? But I can't give you money for other stuff? And if YOU don't use the item that WE all helped you pay for, you get to keep it and YOU CAN'T pay us back any of the money that WE ponied up in the beginning?"

"Yeah, you want me to pitch in 500gp for that scroll...Nah, I don't think so."

As a GM, I see the sometimes very fragile 'Cooperate' component of Pathfinder Society dropping right into the toilet.

If we want players to explore and work together, we need to have rules that encourage cooperative play. This might just be one of those instances.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Is this, at a deeper level, a distrust and distaste for communal/community purchases and a fear that someone is 'going to come out ahead' and 'everyone else loses'?'

Perhaps even a distrust of Marxian philosophy wherein all members of a given society contribute what they can, and take only what they need?

[GM Lamplighter]

I like Majuba's addition - it provides the "replacing the breath of life someone used on me" option many people have asked for.

EDIT: I still think it should be an official clarification - otherwise, it encourages players to chip in a little bit "just in case" and be able to go without having essentials themselves. We are talking about big items, but why not just do with with a wand of CLW every game?

(Admittedly, this goes to my philosophy that Pathfinders should be at least somewhat self-sufficient, and not be specialists who require a support staff to cover their weaknesses. You never know who Drandle Dreng is going to wake up along with you, after all!)

[pH unbalanced]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Is this, at a deeper level, a distrust and distaste for communal/community purchases and a fear that someone is 'going to come out ahead' and 'everyone else loses'?'

Perhaps even a distrust of Marxian philosophy wherein all members of a given society contribute what they can, and take only what they need?

I was not in favor of this rule when it was first proposed.

My objections have to do with the potential that it would have to break WBE levels, which lead to more powerful fully-optimized characters, which lead to needing to increase the difficulty of scenarios, which leads to making the game more frustrating for new players. This is more of a theoretical problem, but the reading I have done on game world economies show that you have to be ruthless about pulling money out of the system, because once you allow things to get unbalanced in the players favor, it gets very hard to rein things in, and they can spiral out of control very quickly. (That's quickly in Internet time, in PFS it would probably be a season or two.)

You also have to be very careful because players are ok with you making things less expensive, but they riot when you make things more expensive.

That said, I am less concerned with this particular proposal, because you still have to buy the item up front, and you lose money on reselling it, so it does not look to fall into the "free insurance policy" trap the original proposal did. I look forward to seeing how leadership clarifies this policy, but I am expecting (hoping?) that it will keep the abuse factor low enough that it will not affect game balance.

ETA: To be clear, the features this should have to (IMO) be balanced are:
Item/service purchased for full cost
If sold back unused, no character receives more than half the money they put towards the cost
If someone keeps it beyond the scenario, they need to have either fully paid for this item in the first place (i.e. the shared cost was to replace a consumable they already had) or they reimburse the rest of the party for their contributions before the end of the session.

That last is to make sure that the character has paid full cost for the consumable at least once if they keep it.

[Rei]

Having read this thread so far, I'm falling solidly into the camp of "I'm sure campaign leadership meant well, but can we please go back to not being able to reimburse people and not being able to pool money for consumables".

[John Compton]

This sounds like something we can investigate following the team's return to the office.

As an aside, I typically prefer that people politely and constructively misrepresent each other in minor ways than bog down a conversation in debating who is standing on the higher moral high ground.

[KingOfAnything]

I think it is just easiest to say "use it or lose it" unless a PC volunteers to buy the item from the party at the end of the scenario.

[GM Lamplighter]

Thanks, John. I think most of us have what we need to get through until you folks get home and some rest. Hopefully the planes start flying again for you!