How to handle treasure distribution

[jerichothebard]

Chalk another group up for the "Who needs it gets it" method. Our team is occasionally imbalanced by this - our bow-specialized ranger, for example, didn't get a magic weapon until 7th level, because it never came up in the treasure piles. But all in all, it has worked well. It gets a little sketchy when players come and go, though.

jtb

 

[Rystil Arden]

Typically, in my campaigns the players take the few things they want and sell the rest for gold to craft their own. In one adventure where I was a Neutral Good Wizard in a party with a bunch of Chaotic Neutral characters who were actually evil (the DM let them get away with evil acts while allowing them to stay neutral), I was the one who kept track of all the treasure. I falsified my identification records to make sure that too much treasure didn't fall into evil hands (you may ask--why was I in this group at all? GM fiat prophecy is the answer; its what I get for asking someone else to please GM for a change [none of my players is particularly skilled at it]) , giving the rogue things that he wanted on the side to make sure he never felt the need to steal from his own party (he would have if he didn't think he was already getting an unfair advantage), and then I donated the rest of the money to charity. Even though my bookkeeping was actually robbing the other party members (save the rogue) of about 50-60% of the treasure they should have received, nobody ever noticed. I mention this because it has to be the most unfair way of distributing treasure I have ever seen, and still noone complained. That leads me to believe that complaints on divisions for any remotely fair scheme are probably based on out of character value-tallying, so as long as you don't give out numbers and GP values for each item, the players are unlikely to notice disparities caused by nearly-even distributions.

 

[Random Hero]

Stop The Bickering

The best way to handle your situation is an old fashion duel to the death where each of the characters is given a dagger and stripped of armor, the winner is still alive and has their precious magic item!!

No, not really....

Seriously though, I have found that the best way to split the party treasury up is to give one character an item that they want and remove them from the magic item treasure split for a while (until the party feels that they have earned the item that they got).

This method can cause conflict if one or more person in the party is either greedy or just feels that an item will benefit them more. In this situation, the party members in question argue for a while but eventually find a common ground or understanding. If they cannot come to a consensus than I don't really know what to tell you...

These things have to be cleared up in different ways based on the characters involved... I don't think bickering accomplishes anything within a party except for causing more dissention.

If it goes that far, I think that it is up to the DM/GM to decide.

 

[Kyrail]

Well, in my game we split loot how a goodly party of non-accountants would actually handle it. You find something, you figure out who's its best for, balanced by the amount of magic items people already have, and you give it to someone. You don't keep talley's like a miser and play the "But you got it last!" game. You just do what's best for the party.

This was a pretty big switch for my group, who has previously done the appraise and pay system, where you actually buy the item. The big problem I found as a player in that game, was that there were items that I wanted, but I was not willing to pay 9,000 gp for. Things like Steadfast boots that big you big bonuses to bullrushes... those are great! They're not 9,000 gp great. However I will eventually be bullrushed, and wish I had those boots. We end up splitting the loot and buying something that has half the value of the item he just found, because no one was willing to pay for it. This even crossed over into crafted items. I wanted someone to make me a new Pariapt, but under that system, you charged for your XP! It's like we were a group of people with a common goal, but we still wanted to make a profit off the person who would save out life one day.

So when I ran the game, we (with a party vote) switched to the more altruistic system of share and share alike, and so far (level 6) it's worked very well... though one of the players did drop out of the game, It had less to do with the loot system than my Dm style in general. I think the rest of the party is more happy with what we're doing now.

 

[ARandomGod]

We go through a number of magic items, and we are allowed to trade items for full value, or sell them for half value.

Far from making me cringe, I think that THAT is about the best way for the GM to really control magic items. You want to make your own? Sell for half and make. You want this one? Keep it. You want to trade in for a list of what's at the store? Here's the list. (I mean, I'd probably charge a surcharge for realism...)

I like that a lot. I'll suggest it. It will not be used (by the other GM's in my group).

However, I do agree in general about sharing.
On the one hand, in one group I'm in we're considering pooling a share of our treasure to give the blaster mage a +6 int item way earlier than he could afford it. On the other hand, I fully expect to be recompensed as time goes on. Of course, part of that recompense is gonna be the fact that he took the magic item creation feats and I didn't... But that's another story.

If people consistently kept magic items, or if I were the bandit in question, I wouldn't have an issue pointing out to the group that indeed I do feel cheated. And worse, my character is starting to feel cheated.

Then I'd take everything from everybody one day and leave the group with all their loot. I mean, that character could never play again, and it's possible that the GM would make him into some sort of nemisis (With a LOT of magic items), but hey, I like the story.

 

[Telas]

We have a Gnome.....

Which means we have double-entry accounting. Money's split evenly, as are items that nobody wants (gems, etc). Anything that anyone wants is bought at 25% of value from the "party treasure". "Party treasure" is used for scrolls, potions, etc, and when the "party treasure" account gets big enough, we distribute it evenly.

We've got an excel spreadsheet that works brilliantly. If we get a 50GP gem and a +5 Vorpal Sword of Galaxy Slaying from one adventure, we can handle it. If we get a bunch of gems, we can handle it.....

I used to use the "take what benefits the party best" model, but we found it to be kinda munchkin-ey. Would real people do that? Or would they try to account for something in a more realistic manner?

I'm not criticizing, just telling you how we see it.

Telas

 

[Trainz]

I used to use the "take what benefits the party best" model, but we found it to be kinda munchkin-ey. Would real people do that? Or would they try to account for something in a more realistic manner?

I do not believe that this analogy works. In fact, most analogies between real life and D&D rarely work.

Real people wouldn't do that, because they don't go around risking their lives versus horrific monsters.

A better analogy would be to compare an adventuring party to an army platoon who will be facing enemy soldiers and tanks.

Option A: Each soldier in the platoon receives an M-16, 3 full magazines, and 3 grenades.

Option B: Each soldier in the platoon receives an M-16, 3 full magazines, no grenades, but private Morrison also receives a bazooka.

Clearly, option A is more fair, but has no chance of survival. Option B gives more stuff to a single individual, who when the time arises, will have a chance to defeat the enemy tank.

Which is what we do in our games.

 

[Telas]

A better analogy would be to compare an adventuring party to an army platoon who will be facing enemy soldiers and tanks.

Option A: Each soldier in the platoon receives an M-16, 3 full magazines, and 3 grenades.

Option B: Each soldier in the platoon receives an M-16, 3 full magazines, no grenades, but private Morrison also receives a bazooka.

Well, when I was Infantry, we were assigned weapons; it wasn't pick and choose.

(BTW, it's seven magazines and four grenades, normally.)

That argument was raised. If the group is "on a mission", then it works fine. If you're doing this to make money, earn fame, or whatever, then... well... This is especially so if you have a high player turnover rate.

Again, this is what we do. Y'all are a different group, with different opinions.

Telas