Is it wrong to want a fair share?

[Evilhalfling]

Fair shares can be difficult. The party I am running gives according to need, passing items around to whoever can make the best use of them. They sell all unwanted items and split cash evenly, ignoring who got what item.
They also freely lend each other money for upgrades and craft costs (mostly done by party members)

My response as a DM is to call for occasional magic item audits, where all players calculate values of their stuff, including lands and properties.
Then the next couple of treasure finds will be heavy on items for those that have dropped back.

 

[was]

Taking the argument on its face value. I'd question the DM's treasure placement methods. As a current player, our group divides stuff according to whomever can use it best. Luckily the little treasure we have gotten is pretty diverse. When I DM, I do my best to mix it up so there's something for everyone. Just
not all at once of course.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The one common theme in many of the responses so far as been that the DM provides varied treasure, and then the party divides the loot up based on who needs it. This is a great system, but doesn't really get at the heart of my query. Sure, the party can divide it up based on need if the treasure itself provides something for everyone. Nobody needs to complain, because everyone's getting a fair share naturally.

The question comes up when certain characters aren't getting a fair share. The fighter in the party that's only finding scrolls and wands. The wizard in the party fighting nothing but barbarians with magic swords and armor.

Say you're in a game where treasure finds do not provide something for everyone. Is a character justified in wanting a (roughly) equal cut of the treasure, even though he can't actually use what's been found? Is a player justified in wanting his PC to have as much loot as the next guy, even if he has to sell what's been found and buy/craft it himself?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Say you're in a game where treasure finds do not provide something for everyone. Is a character justified in wanting a (roughly) equal cut of the treasure, even though he can't actually use what's been found?

I would say that all depends upon the personality of the character.

Is a player justified in wanting his PC to have as much loot as the next guy, even if he has to sell what's been found and buy/craft it himself?

Ideally every player should be treated fairly. If it is not happening, the player has every right to talk to the DM and the other players to try and work something out to make things better, but I think there are better options than demanding that your character gets to choose magic items that are of no use so he can sell them. If people in the group are not willing to try and work things out, it may be time to find a new group.

 

[takyris]

Varies by campaign -- which includes players and GMs.

If I meet some guys at a convention, and we sit down for a game, a) I don't care very much, since I can always just say what I found later, but b) I want stuff to be mostly equal -- a one-shot with strangers is not a good time for a GM to run a game that gives all kinds of great treasure to wizards.

If I'm in a campaign where we're members of a mercenary team, then it's the responsibility of the team leader to make sure that everyone is taken care of. If I'm a fighter, and ain't nothin' been found but wands and scrolls, then I might be justified in going to him with a complaint -- but then, if the wizard uses all those wands and scrolls up in the big fight at the end of the dungeon, it's not like the wiz came out much ahead. So that's likely a wash.

If I'm in a campaign where there are no magical shops and nobody can sell magical items because they're rare and unique, then I figure there's a pretty good indication of which way an item is supposed to go. Note: If I'm in a "magical items are rare" campaign, I also expect the GM to pay close attention to my character and not toss me a Axiomatic Greataxe with wonderfully descriptive flavor text when I'm playing a Neutral Fighter specializing in two-weapon combat with a hatred for Devils. If the GM is going to limit magical items, in the interests of making them special representation of the characters, then he'd better do his job right.

In the average D&D campaign, I'd say this, and I know it sounds fatalistic: If you have a good group of players and a fair GM, then any good-faith system is going to work. If you have troublesome players and/or a not-fair GM, no system in the world is going to make everyone happy.

 

[Clueless]

Hm... well. In one campaign I was in it fell pretty firmly into an IC decision. Prompted by the then 17 year old party thief saying, shortly after the first mission where we all got shoved together by fate, "OK. Well. If we're going to keep working together... I'm leader. And I get first pick of the gems." And for some wierd reason they BOUGHT IT when I said it, and actually followed the commands of the kid?! *still boggling* But we eventually ended up in a sort of combination of methods:
1) Critical need trumped. We all liked each other's characters out of game so we were willing to make sure no one died who didn't need to.
2) Usefulness next. Since the resale rate was abysmal - or we were unlikely to find a good place to offload some of the goods, we tended to sort and share instead of resell. Things that got resold were things *no one* wanted. There was no risk of someone claiming a wand as 'their share' and selling the item when someone else was going "But, but... I... but?"
3) Balance, the GM was decent about making sure there was an even mix of items to appeal to all. When there wasn't, generally the player would agree to forgo something later - or pay back into the party trove with gold or gems. Randomly generated treasure - while less powerful things came out of it - did tend to produce a good mix.
4) If it was a gem, Seryi got first pick. (Seriously, they went with it for the whole campaign, lord knows why...)

The other campaign I'm in - we actually don't have as much of a treasure issue. Mostly because the people we fight don't always *have* treasure on them - or it's something we wouldn't want to take with us. We've used a few methods - all agreed on in character.
1) Gold, metals, gems etc: split evenly. Thats what we have a bank account for. Trade the difference in gold as need be.
2) Property: even ownership and partnership rights. If you want to sell part of your rights, you do so with permission from the others, the others have first bidding if you want to sell your percentage.
2) Items: critical need, use, in party trade as need be. We don't tend to look at the monetary value at this point, more of "How useful Is it to me?" Depending on play an item might be valuable in funds - but worthless in use. We've never resold. Mostly because the GM makes really neat unique items the rare times he give things out - why would we? And again, there's the problem of 'not everyone in the world can afford to buy it'. He's good about doing the balance as well, in fact I think sometimes he'll make mental notes to himself when we're complaining about some bad stat or something not working out right - and slip in the chance to get it later in the game.

We've only hit the jackpot three times in the game.
Once in raiding a mercanes castle, we claimed the vault and all property in the castle. (And the castle. And the deed to the land in Sigil someone had taken as payment for getting us all blackmailed.)
Once in raiding a Lady's Maze, where we put all the items in a list and went round robin. Each person picks one item off the list as it circulates around the room - if someone else wanted it they could work out a trade privately later.
And third, well, we haven't split the loot up yet - but it involved dragons. It'd also be a spoiler for the storyhour so I won't go into details.

 

[Clueless]

The question comes up when certain characters aren't getting a fair share. The fighter in the party that's only finding scrolls and wands. The wizard in the party fighting nothing but barbarians with magic swords and armor.

Say you're in a game where treasure finds do not provide something for everyone. Is a character justified in wanting a (roughly) equal cut of the treasure, even though he can't actually use what's been found? Is a player justified in wanting his PC to have as much loot as the next guy, even if he has to sell what's been found and buy/craft it himself?

Ok, valid point here. Everyone has been saying what they do but not really answering the question. Let's try some old fashioned logic....

From the responses:
Generally everyone seems to be playing a game with balanced eq, that is divided by use and price.
Generally most DMs are following a balanced eq system.
Generally most responses have been that if things are getting really uneven, then it'd be a good idea to talk to the GM about letting you get some useful stuff too because you're being left out.

.... I think that pretty much answers that one by induction.
Yes. A player is justified. It seems to be a standard expectation in most gaming groups and with most GMs. There is little reason for a GM not to do so beyond pure setting realism - "The bad guys wouldn't have that sort of stuff". However, story takes a backseat to player enjoyment (since the enjoyment *is* the point of the game), so it is reasonable to expect either reassurance that "Your day will come." or an even share in some manner.

It's also an equality issue. If you were all eating dinner together and one person took *all* the mashed potatos and no one else got any... then there'd be just cause to complain. Same goes here - when the unevenness becomes upsetting, you are allowed to complain. Players are equals at the table, which means they have as much a right to be there as anyone else, to make rolls, to get story hooks tossed at them, get fan mail from NPCs they've saved, and... to get loot. AKA: to get whatever gives them jollies in the game. The only point at which *that* should change is an in character (and hopefully agreed on out of character) reason.

 

[Abraxas]

Say you're in a game where treasure finds do not provide something for everyone. Is a character justified in wanting a (roughly) equal cut of the treasure, even though he can't actually use what's been found? Is a player justified in wanting his PC to have as much loot as the next guy, even if he has to sell what's been found and buy/craft it himself?

My answer is: It depends, but generally no. So many things would have to be going wrong in such a game if you need to demand a value based split I would have to ask, why would you be playing in it.

Lets say you're the fighter and every item found to date is a spell completion or spell trigger item (plus a few other items that only divine or arcane spellcasters can use). If this is the case there are probably other players (the rogue, the monk, the barbarian) who are also up the creek with respect to items and no one is likely to have anywhere near the resources they are supposed to have. In which case you should be talking to the DM, not demanding things from the other players.

If on the other hand, its a campaign where none of the items are ideal for your fighter, there is still no reason you can't use some of the items, even if indirectly. The scroll of bull's strength may require the cleric to cast, but there's no reason it can't be the fighter's and the cleric has instructions to cast it on him when he asks. If you can't trust your fellow adveturers that much why would you be with them in the first place.

If you're just going to sell the items why not sell off the ones no one wants anyways? Thats what our groups have done.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I'll bet that for every PC that died because he insisted in splitting treasure up equally, there are dozens who died because they were under-equipped for their level. Now, the PCs in BlackMoria's story did both - they divided up the loot like accountants AND were under-equipped for their level to boot, even after selling off a +3 weapon worth 18,000 gp.

Let's not make the mistake of going to extremes. Blindly dividing up treasure down to the last copper piece is a mistake, but so is consistently giving one PC more or less treasure than he should have. One mistake does not excuse the other. Players should trust the DM to give them nice gizmos to play with over the course of the campaign if not immediately, and DMs should not betray that trust. If this breaks down, we're back to the accountants again.

Well put.

Any group of players that is motivated by pure greed will break any system and make the experience un-fun. That is true in real life; it will remain true in simulated lives.

I have used the "divide down to the last copper" method as described in the PBH. It works just fine if you have a player in your group who is nimble with a calculator.

We have a large party in one campaign. And we would need to accumulate a large and varied pile of loot to have a prayer at a fair division. With the monetary based system we can do division more often. Everyone understands that sometimes all you get might be a pile of cash and a potion, but that means you will get first dibs of a cool item in the future if you are willing to plunk down your wallet.

As for items not going to the right people, my PC has loaned money to other PCs that are bidding against me for the same item. It is not about winning. If another PC really, really wants an item I am happy to help them; but we have to settle on what is the fair price to pay.

The one downside I have observed is that I would not enforce standard DMG sale prices for all items. Frex, a +1 Keen Elfbane Dwarfbane sword is a fun item to drop into the hands of a 5th level party. It is not too powerful an item for them to use. But if they can just turn around and sell it for 16000 gp that is another thing entirely...