Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BlackMoria" data-source="post: 1821942" data-attributes="member: 424">In fact, with one group that I play with, they do EXACTLY that.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't like that because it like playing with accountants where it seemed enjoyment of the game was secondary to getting 'their just due'.Because of this, noone had a magic item for the first few levels - they sold off everything and everyone got money.&nbsp; Trouble was, individually, each person didn't have enough money for a magic item, so noone had one for the first few levels.The party got a +3 sword as treasure.&nbsp; Now, the sword was above the normal value to level ratio so the after the arguments, the sword was sold and the money divided evenly.&nbsp; Trouble was, the sword was needed (a plot device) to defeat a certain monster (the plot) with DR.&nbsp;&nbsp; And we sold it.Now, at 4th level, certain individuals still didn't have magic items because they were saving up for a big ticket magic item.&nbsp;&nbsp; The monster in question shows up, and we get our asses handed to us.&nbsp;&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because the party sold off the sword the DM seeded into the campaign to help defeat it. Because some PCs didn't have any magic items because they wanted the bigger ticket item instead of a +1 item.&nbsp; Because the majority of the players didn't trust the DM to ensure everyone got their due in the long run.&nbsp; The result - a near TPK.&nbsp; The truth was - we did it to ourselves.&nbsp; It was a winable fight if we hadn't sold the sword and if everyone had a few minor magic items. I was a player (and the sole survivor of the near TPK).&nbsp; I played a sorceror and I advocated keeping the +3 sword for one of the fighter types - even though that would give that player a consider 'equity' advantage over me.&nbsp; I advocated keeping magic items, even if that means a inequality of net worth to other players.&nbsp; Because it just makes sense.So...as the title the thread suggests - the other party members wanted their fair share every time - and died as a result.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BlackMoria, post: 1821942, member: 424"] In fact, with one group that I play with, they do EXACTLY that. I don't like that because it like playing with accountants where it seemed enjoyment of the game was secondary to getting 'their just due'. Because of this, noone had a magic item for the first few levels - they sold off everything and everyone got money. Trouble was, individually, each person didn't have enough money for a magic item, so noone had one for the first few levels. The party got a +3 sword as treasure. Now, the sword was above the normal value to level ratio so the after the arguments, the sword was sold and the money divided evenly. Trouble was, the sword was needed (a plot device) to defeat a certain monster (the plot) with DR. And we sold it. Now, at 4th level, certain individuals still didn't have magic items because they were saving up for a big ticket magic item. The monster in question shows up, and we get our asses handed to us. Why? Because the party sold off the sword the DM seeded into the campaign to help defeat it. Because some PCs didn't have any magic items because they wanted the bigger ticket item instead of a +1 item. Because the majority of the players didn't trust the DM to ensure everyone got their due in the long run. The result - a near TPK. The truth was - we did it to ourselves. It was a winable fight if we hadn't sold the sword and if everyone had a few minor magic items. I was a player (and the sole survivor of the near TPK). I played a sorceror and I advocated keeping the +3 sword for one of the fighter types - even though that would give that player a consider 'equity' advantage over me. I advocated keeping magic items, even if that means a inequality of net worth to other players. Because it just makes sense. So...as the title the thread suggests - the other party members wanted their fair share every time - and died as a result. [/QUOTE]

Verification