Division of Treasure

[Stormborn]

How does your party/players handle dispensing found magical treasure. The group I DM for seems to be very socialist in their approach. They give the item to the PC that needs it the most, and ignore its value when it comes time to split up shares of treasure. Personally I think its unrealistic.

Thats how we do it. Its not unrealistic, its intelligent. When each individual in the party is at their most effective the party is more effective. If the fighter can make better use of that enchanted mace than my cleric then he should have it, cause every bad guy he stops a round or two earlier that I could means a round or two that I can do something else that will help the party, and help my PC, survive to achive our goals.

Whats unrealistic is forgetting that in the context of the game (at least in most cases) the PCs are a group working together to survive horrific conditions and terrible opposition that might not only kill them but, as often as not, their homelands as well. It would be stupid of such a group to not distribute their resources in the most effective manner possible, and any character in such a world who worried more about getting the "best" item than surviving is not going to last very long. Its only when you consider the treasures as "rewards" of play in a metagame sense that dividing them up based on need seemes "unrealistic."

 

[werk]

Thats exactly how my group does it. The value of an item is irrelevant. It should go to the person who needs it most. Any excess or unwanted items gets sold and the cash goes into a party fund.

Yep, same here...need before greed.

Very socialist, it's all about the party's strength as a whole. We'll move around items to help make us a little more effective. For instance, rather than the sorcerer taking an AC boosting item, he may give it to the tank instead and take the tanks old (lesser powered) item. It's probably too meta, but we'll often look at all the party's stat boosting items and try to keep everyone on even numbers

Then again, we don't have magic shops, so we have to make do with what we find.

 

[KenSeg]

We divide the loot by who can use it and needs it the most to make the overall party stronger. If two or more of us can use an item and there is no particular need of any of us for it then we roll for it. We generally keep minor items in our bag of holding for use later.

-KenSeg
gaming since 1978

 

[Umbran]

How does your party/players handle dispensing found magical treasure. The group I DM for seems to be very socialist in their approach. They give the item to the PC that needs it the most, and ignore its value when it comes time to split up shares of treasure. Personally I think its unrealistic.

I think how realistic it is depends upon the group:

It is realistic if the characters get along, are loyal to each other, have common goals they work for, and recognize that proper placement of items benefits everyone.

It is unrealistic if the characters are greedy, and unlikely to stick around for a length of time.

 

[Clueless]

Same here with my groups. And really - be happy that they do that - because the alternative is a lot of inter-player fighting, and possibly destroyed out of character relationships.

 

[Shieldhaven]

The PCs in the game I run make a lot of jokes about one character being greedy. (In fact, that character talks about himself as if he is monstrously greedy and power-hungry.) Then they give the treasure to whoever needs it. They've started to accumulate some rather riskier magic items, though, and those are put in the hands of whoever the party as a whole trusts not to use them or even mess with them.

But when the party looted gloves of +2 Dex and a magic bow in one session, they cheerfully handed them over to the archer that a new player brought in at the next session. As some other posters have said, their lives are dangerous and grim enough that greed is only going to cause inefficiency that they can't afford.

Aside from small amounts of personal money, all gold and money from sold loot goes into a party fund, in the keeping of the team's leader. Eventually they'll decide that someone in the party needs a significant upgrade, and the expense will come out of the party fund. This is how things have worked in almost every game I've ever been in.

Haven

 

[Merkuri]

I've always tried to play it so the item goes to the character who will get the most use out of it. After all, what good is the awesomely powerful sword going to do in the hands of a wizard? Give it to the fighter. Making sure the useful items get passed out to the people who will use them best makes the party as a whole stronger. The wizard benefits by giving the sword to the fighter, because the fighter can better keep baddies away from the squishy party members (like the wizard).

In the campaign before this one (World's Largest Dungeon, played online through the live gaming/chat client, OpenRPG) we went through a phase where we didn't have enough regular players and kept trying to recruit more. Unfortunately, the crucial role of the scout/trapfinder/lockpicker was the one that needed filling by these new players, and they kept being duds. The players wouldn't pay attention, would take forever to scout out a passageway (making the rest of the party wait), and usually eventually stopped showing up. When dropping a player like that the DM usually killed or eliminated the character in such a way that his gear was gone.

We could usually tell when a player was going to work out and when he was not, but the DM liked to give everyone a chance and waited for them to miss their three sessions (this was a blanket rule with this DM... anyone missing three sessions without warning or a good excuse was kicked out) before dropping them.

After the third such rogue character being dropped in a row, the DM wondered out loud why we kept giving the obviously inept rogue characters all the good gear, which we knew would be lost when the player was inevitably kicked out. Our answer was basically, well, what else should we do? We get goggles of infravision, those are obviously good for the rogue. Potions of invisibility? Rogue. Boots of elvenkind? Rogue! Our characters didn't know the player was a douchebag. We can't sell the items easily (in an inescapable dungeon, trying to get out). The obvious choice is to give them to the guy who we're relying on to let us know where the bad things are before we get there.

I don't think of the party as me and a whole bunch of other people who happen to be going in the same direction with the same goals. We're one unit. Each character is a part of one entity. I benefit when I give my gear to the guy who can use it best. Doing otherwise would be like putting a glove on your head because you didn't find a helmet and every other body part got something. Gloves do the head no good. Put them on your hands instead.

 

[getgoldcardsoul]

Thats how we do it. Its not unrealistic, its intelligent. When each individual in the party is at their most effective the party is more effective. If the fighter can make better use of that enchanted mace than my cleric then he should have it, cause every bad guy he stops a round or two earlier that I could means a round or two that I can do something else that will help the party, and help my PC, survive to achive our goals.

Whats unrealistic is forgetting that in the context of the game (at least in most cases) the PCs are a group working together to survive horrific conditions and terrible opposition that might not only kill them but, as often as not, their homelands as well. It would be stupid of such a group to not distribute their resources in the most effective manner possible, and any character in such a world who worried more about getting the "best" item than surviving is not going to last very long. Its only when you consider the treasures as "rewards" of play in a metagame sense that dividing them up based on need seemes "unrealistic."

QFT!!!

Oh, thank you so much! It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who thinks this way.



The first game I DMed, I had a... rather... well, (let's just say "not good") player who insisted every piece of treasure was split up by value, and if you wanted any single item you had to "pay for it" first. At first I was okay with this... but...

She once began arguing OoC loudly and brashly with my younger brother, insisting to the point of demanding that her way was the only way. The argument was over a insignificant item that was just intended to fetch a few coins... but my brother was actually roleplaying well and wanted to keep it not for the coin, but for a sort of sentimental value because his PC was a dwarf... the item in question being an old parchment with dwarven text. So he wanted to keep it for a non-greedy reason (and also to see if it became useful later) but he couldn't have it unless he paid the estimated (erroneously appraised) value for it. I ended the session right there and starting wondering if there was a way I can tactfully un-invite her.



Not to say that this proves that it's necessarily wrong to split everything equally; I just had to experience an extreme side of the issue... thus I don't like it as much as my way.

 

[billd91]

How does your party/players handle dispensing found magical treasure. The group I DM for seems to be very socialist in their approach. They give the item to the PC that needs it the most, and ignore its value when it comes time to split up shares of treasure. Personally I think its unrealistic.

I've hear some other variants. Like rolling for first picks, or half-value buying the items out of your share of treasure. I'd like to hear how other EN worlders deal with their treasure shares.

Keep in mind that social structures in most of the historical eras that medieval fantasy settings model were more communal, centered around peasant villages, parishes, and urban guilds. Individualist capitalism was in its infancy. Coordinated distribution of goods based on need or best use isn't unrealistic at all as long as no one is being completely left out or blatantly shorted.

Rolling for picks or distributing by pure and exacting cash value strike me as the more unrealistic methods.

 

[eschwenke]

Same here with my groups. And really - be happy that they do that - because the alternative is a lot of inter-player fighting, and possibly destroyed out of character relationships.

But Clueless, what if someone's playing a Fated?