Is it wrong to want a fair share?

[dreaded_beast]

I feel I should clarify my own position.

Most times, I am more than happy to have a magical item go to whoever can make the best use of it. This is under the assumption that eventually, a magical item will appear that my character can make the best use of and keep me on an equal footing with the rest of the party in terms of magical treasure.

However, if it has reached the point where I personally feel, as a player, that I have not been receiving my due, then I will expect my fair share when it comes to treasure.

For me, DND is a game, which I play to have fun and a good part of that fun is getting the "kewl lewt". I'm not saying that this is how the game should be played or that my is better. I'm just saying that this how I like to play.

I don't mind low-magic, no magic-shop, rare magic item games where PCs should cherish their magic items as being unique. Just tell me in advance before the campaign starts and don't act like that style is superior to all others.

 

[silentspace]

'Wrong' is a relative term.

For good characters, slavery is wrong. For evil characters, helping little orphans is wrong.

For team players, wanting an equal share when another way will make the team more effective is wrong.

For selfish bastards, wanting to give an item to a friend to make the team more effective when that means they get 5% less value in treasure compared to said friend, well that's just plainly wrong.

 

[fafhrd]

Keep the character central. If everyone in your group is operating on the same premise, most of the concerns mentioned in this thread wilt to insignificance. What should largely be an in character issue is treated as metagame, and it needn't be.

"Jaim you saved my life....thanks. Here, take this amulet. Maybe it'll help repay the favor."

Does it need to be said that it's an periapt of wisdom? No. Does the exchange need to be beancounted into mundanity? No. Is the game now broken because such and such a character is worth more GPs than the other? Again I say no.

What about the classic example of the rogue venturing ahead and taking a few extras for the task (without the consent of the rest of the party of course)? Okay so said rogue takes a few extra goodies. Does the GM intervene with a mandate from heaven? S/he could of course, but I'd find it much more interesting to let the rogue get away with it as long as he can. When/if he's found out, you have a nice, tense situation on your hands. Despite popular misconceptions to the contrary, RP can actually happen in an intra-party fashion.

If a character feels cheated(a character not a player), he can bring up his grievance in any number of ways. Deals on distribution and accounting can be handled in character and some characters may resent it or try to push the envelope. "You all saw it! It was my blow which slew the dragon. Surely I deserve a larger share of the riches!" To metagame these circumstances seems like a needless complication and a lost opportunity to examine party dynamics.

 

[rangerjohn]

The problem is the game design assumes the treasure is divided. As others have pointed out, if you don't have the wealth level of your level, your not prepared to fight your CR. If as in the posted example the wizard has all the magic. How is the fighter supposed to hold the opponent off for the wizard to be able to use it. Much less the poor rougue who will be about as useless as breasts on a boar. The original poster didn't refer to one treasure plile, but repeated instances. Now personally, I think the DM is at fault if this is the case.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

The problem is the game design assumes the treasure is divided.

But it doesn't assume that it's equally divided, except in the long run. Expecting everybody in the party to be sufficiently equipped to contribute to encounters is one thing. Counting gp values is quite another. Counting gp values to the degree that it results in perfectly useful magic items getting sold off at salvage rates, which is the consquence of insisting on equal gp values, is just shooting your party in the foot.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I don't believe DMs should start out mandating a division system. Some groups may need the metagame control to make things acceptable but that shouldn't be assumed from the beginning.

IMO a proper game is a mixture of techniques. The gear goes to the best people for it but when the gear becomes disparate item sale becomes much more common *AND* DMs start giving out items targeting the poor. This way the players aren't at loggerhead for too long but are aware that sometimes they will need to do adjustments.

Of course I believe in *not* giving out stupid items. I was in an early 3E game where the DM gave us a ring of regeneration. Too handy to sell but it consumed far too much of our wealth for us to be comfortable (it was worth more than any person's total wealth value). We did swap it around a lot to maximize its performance but still.... we could've found a small armory with a half dozen +2 weapons and sets of +2 armor for the (sale) value of the ring, let alone the retail value of the ring.

 

[rangerjohn]

But it doesn't assume that it's equally divided, except in the long run. Expecting everybody in the party to be sufficiently equipped to contribute to encounters is one thing. Counting gp values is quite another. Counting gp values to the degree that it results in perfectly useful magic items getting sold off at salvage rates, which is the consquence of insisting on equal gp values, is just shooting your party in the foot.

Perhaps if you read the entire post, especially the last.

The original poster didn't refer to one treasure plile, but repeated instances. Now personally, I think the DM is at fault if this is the case.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

dreaded_beast's post very eloquently stated my general position on party treasure.

In my current game, items are given to whomever wants them, with disputes being solved either A) by whomever has significantly less gear (they get priority), or B) if both PCs have roughly the same gear, rock-paper-scissors. After all the items are claimed, those unwanted are sold off, and then the resulting money (from item sales and coin loot) is divided. But the division is uneven, so that PCs with significantly more loot get significantly less (or no) gold.

The point of the system is that it attempts to constantly even out the gear value of the party. Items that are useful to the party are not sold when they could be used instead, but the system tries to balance itself out by A) giving treasure-lite PCs priority in selecting from new loot, and B) using coinage to address the imbalance each time it is divided.

So my practice is somewhat in between the two extremes we've seen in this thread so far. We neither sell items that could best be used by the party, but neither do we ignore an imbalance in gear.

My reason for starting this thread in the first place was the feeling I got from the other thread, that merely wanting to have an equal share was somehow audacious. That regardless of what the party finds or how magic-starved/bloated a certain PC is, no player should even think of wanting his PC to have as many toys as the others. This is the attitude that I find so annoying.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

What about wealthy people?

 

[Doug McCrae]

My PCs get random treasure. They will not be able to sell a magic item...ever.

Why not?