Is it wrong to want a fair share?

[Lord Pendragon]

I'm starting this thread to discuss a topic brought up in this thread, posts #8, #17, and #28. I didn't want to further hijack that thread to discuss the topic, so here is a brand new thread for that purpose.

Basically, BlackMoria listed as one of his pet peeves about 3.x the way that magic items all have a value, and therefore players are often more concerned about distributing the loot evenly by gp-value, rather than by giving it to whomever most needs it.

Later this was seconded by jmucchiello, who felt that parties might TPK more often than they should, simply because they aren't giving the magic items to the person who could best use them, rather than dividing the party treasure evenly.

I disagreed with this sentiment, because in my mind most PCs are going to want a fair share of the spoils of their hard work, of the rewards that come of putting your life on the line day-in and day-out. And also, in a metagame sense, it doesn't seem right to me that one player's character get 100,000gp worth of toys, while another player's PC have 1/10th that amount. It's a game, and I want the toys as much as the next player.

Is it wrong to expect your PC to have a fair share of the loot? If you're playing a fighter and everything you find in the treasure trove is a wand, scroll or staff, time-and-again, should you be willing to take no treasure at all, because the spellcasters in the party can better use the treasure that's showing up?

It seems to me that even a Good character would want a fair share. Yes, a wizard should be able to choose the choicest spellcasting items for himself, but if everything you find is a wizardly item, does that mean the wizard should take everything you find, and you, the fighter, should be happy to give it to him?

Does that make sense from a character's point of view? From a player's?

 

[Mark]

Is it wrong to expect your PC to have a fair share of the loot?

...

It seems to me that even a Good character would want a fair share.

I don't think it is a matter of Good or Evil (or Neutrality). It's a matter of priorities. It can boil down to a case by case basis, but I guess your questions are geared toward what should be the prevailing norm? I'll go with thast assumption for now.

Does that make sense from a character's point of view?

Depends on the character and if they feel the individual is prioritized above the group.

From a player's?

Depends if the player is portraying the character as one who feels the individual is prioritized above the group.

 

[dreaded_beast]

I don't know if this answers your question, but speaking as a player of the fighter character in the example, I would talk to the DM about why no "fighter-type" magical items ever appeared in the treasure

Speaking as the fighter "in-character", I would probably expect my fair share, especially if the majority of the treasure that was found in past adventures were wands, scrolls, "magic-user type" items. Even though I couldn't use it, I could still sell it for the gold and purchase an item more to my needs.

 

[knifespeaks]

Ah, 5 years in the everquest universe and I leave all the loot arguments of the mmorpg universe behind, only to return to my tabletop rpg roots and see the same questions posted

Irony is alive and well.

The fact of the matter as I see it is that any campaign world which features magic items as buyable and sellable loot is making their own trouble and deserve all the arguments and player angst they get.

It is ridiculous IN THE EXTREME to have items of such power treated as trinkets. The fact that the 'guidelines' posted in the PH and DMG are't explicit to the contrary only serves to fuel this unbalancing fascination with over -powered adventures decked out with numerous powerful magical items.

But lets not let irrelevant details like economics get in the way of adventurers and their 'ph@t lewtz'.

To answer your specific question - yes, equating gold piece value to magical treasure and getting upset if the only treasure is a wand and thus feeling you are not getting your 'fair share' is grossly selfish and destroys everything that is enjoyable in the game.

 

[FireLance]

Back in the old days of D&D, we took whatever magic items we could get and we were happy with it. We didn't have magic shops, not even in the greatest and most advanced of cities, so we were pretty much stuck with whatever the DM decided to give us. There was none of this trading in items that you had no use for to get something that actually helped you. Trying to sell a potion of healing to a dying man was an adventure in itself.

Of course, we had good DMs in those days who actually made an attempt to even out the treasure everyone got. That meant magic weapons and armor for the fighter, wands, scrolls and staffs for the magic-user, holy relics for the cleric and sneaky stuff for the thief. DMs these days ought to get a clue. 20,000 gp of treasure does not mean you give out a single ring of wizardry (I) at the end of the adventure. If you have 4 players, it means you give each one roughly 5,000 gp worth of useful items. Fair's fair, after all. You don't need to be exact down to the last gp, and your players may decide to load up one character anyway, but that's fine. You've done your part.

All these headaches about treasure distribution have made me decide to do away with giving out treasure. Instead, each PC in my campaign is tied to an organization that gives them equipment appropriate for their level. Every time they level up, they trade in all their old equipment and get new equipment (whatever they want) equal to the standard gear for a PC of their level. Nobody complains that he's short-changed, everyone whatever equipment he thinks best suits his concept, and I don't have to worry about second-guessing the players or putting treasure in the adventure. This leaves me more time to think about NPCs and motivations and plots and challenging encounters and stuff. Everyone wins.

 

[Numion]

By the rules you get only 1/2 value of stuff you sell, and IMO this means magic items. Most of the stuff gets sold. But if there's something that someone needs, he can 'buy' it from the loot with his share for 1/2 the price (because thats what the party would get by selling it). Nobody loses, and people get the stuff they need.

In the event there was an adventure that mostly featured stuff suitable for wizards, then no, the wizard couldn't have it all. He would get some, but most would be sold so that the rest of the group could buy wares suitable to them .

 

[shilsen]

I don't know if this answers your question, but speaking as a player of the fighter character in the example, I would talk to the DM about why no "fighter-type" magical items ever appeared in the treasure

Speaking as the fighter "in-character", I would probably expect my fair share, especially if the majority of the treasure that was found in past adventures were wands, scrolls, "magic-user type" items. Even though I couldn't use it, I could still sell it for the gold and purchase an item more to my needs.

Good point. I tend to keep a careful eye on the treasure the party gets, so that there are invariably items which each of the PCs can use. Most of what they obtain will not be specifically geared to individual PCs, of course, but a small and vital percentage will be.

 

[Berandor]

If you're playing a fighter and everything you find in the treasure trove is a wand, scroll or staff, time-and-again, should you be willing to take no treasure at all, because the spellcasters in the party can better use the treasure that's showing up?

Normally, yes. The next treasure will probably include some fighter item and perhaps no or lesser caster items, so it all evens out over the course of a campaign.

However, if the treasure hoards really include, time-and-again only specific items, it's time you ask your DM about it. Perhaps the wizard has taken all craft feats, and the DM expects your fighter to have the wizard craft a personalized weapon, so the wizards gets some wands instead. Maybe it's an oversight. But talking is warranted then - and in-game, then I'd want my share, too. Perhaps the wizard can pay for getting the wand instead of seeing it sold?

 

[Telperion]

Magic shops are the Evil that destroyes the value of any given magical item. Why would you carry around a +3 sword when you can sell it, give the shopkeeper a large amount of gold and be the happy owner of a +5 Flaming Burst sword? That is one fundamental flaw I try to keep out of my games.

Magical items are something that sets their owner apart from the rest of the world. They should give the (N)PC a value that cannot be calculated in gold, and even if the magic item is a "trinket" it should be valued for it's rarity alone.

When dividing loot you shouldn't be calculating gold values, because there's no one around who could / would give you gold for magical items anyway. Utility, useability and purpose should be your main goals. Even though that weird Wondrous Item you just got from the giant's cave might not seem all that interesting now it, certainly could prove useful later on.

For these particular reasons I run low magic worlds where magical items are difficult to come by, costly to create (assuming you got the feats) and not available for purchase! Well, barring the commong Cure potions, Remove Disease and Remove Curse you can get from your local Temple. Assuming the cleric there likes you and his God likes you too...

 

[Li Shenron]

Is it wrong to expect your PC to have a fair share of the loot? If you're playing a fighter and everything you find in the treasure trove is a wand, scroll or staff, time-and-again, should you be willing to take no treasure at all, because the spellcasters in the party can better use the treasure that's showing up?

...

Does that make sense from a character's point of view? From a player's?

This problem is possibly the only example in the entire game where I believe that metagaming is GOOD.

I have played a few adventures where players were allowed to take more loot than the other because (1) they "needed it" more, (2) the character was more charismatic and therefore should be able to convince the others to give him more, or (3) the character is stronger and if the other don't give him more look he beats them. In all of these occasions, the result really sucked.

The DMG makes it clear that, although it's not strictly a game rule, the DM should enforce equal sharing of treasure and magic items, and I think Monte Cook was just right. It may not be elegant from a RP perspective, but it's the only safe way to play, unless of course all players are very mature and honest: this should always be the case, but IMXP it's very hard for even mature gamers to resist the temptation of getting something more

In any case the DM should tell the players that since in this game all classes are at the same level when having the same xp and the starting gold per level is the same for everyone, the game itself is clearly based on the assumption that every character should always get an equal share of treasure, every other sharing method is not guaranteed to maintain balance