Loot Split

[Tallifer]

Hi guys,

I am thinking about proposing the following Loot Split to my party.
It isnt that I feel that the division of loot is poor but unless it is a splittable loot drop (ie gold, gems etc) its often a case of say in the case of a magic item that the person that needs it the most claims it and the rest of the group just nods. At low levels (we are now 6th) this wasnt a concern since the amount of loot earned is minor but as we start to approach Paragon and further it is my feeling that the division of loot will become more important since we will start to need money to buy less mundane things and I wouldn't want people thinking that just because they dont claim an item that they dont benefit from its value.

Your problem is simple. Your dungeon master is not giving you wish lists for treasure which is the standard practice from the core Players' Handbook in the Fourth Edition. That is why all the items are for the Fighter when each player should actually have an item.

The term wish list is mechanically accurate but you should not think of ti as a letter to Santa Claus. It is instead cooperative storytelling. The players are contributing to the story not only through their characters' actions but also through determining what treasure the dragon has. Of course if the dungeon master wants to throw in a surprise or a legendary artifact that is good too, but those should be over and above the expected stuff. Then everyone is happy.

In fact I still see this as very awkward. The rules as written mean that everyone gets a differently leveled item at the end of each adventure, and in fact one player gets nothing. It is supposed to rotate over the course of a campaign. But what if two players have a particular fifth level item in mind, and neither are interested in a sixth level item? And so on.

I just simplify the whole system. Add up the total treasure abstractly in gold pieces. Then at the end of the adventure, the characters "discover" what they hauled out of the dungeon. Each player chooses an item or even items if low level stuff out of the gold piece worth (not actual gold pieces unless that is what the player chooses) he has been given.

 

[Infiniti2000]

How am I doing this?

Your doing this because everyone has to pay 20% of their item's worth, right? Maybe I misunderstand the percentages, so I apologize for that.

Not really
Firstly this would only be true if each party member was given a magical item of the same value at the same time.

No. It only has to even out over the "long term." IME, this is about 4 levels. You're right that if you want immediate status quo, then it can't be done, even in your system, unless the PC getting the item can afford paying the 20% immediately. That sort of a system really sucks wind, though, because now it's a lot like winning a car in a game show. Sounds great until you get the tax bill. No thanks, I don't want any magic items like that.

I'm a little confused by your example. It's incomplete. At level 1, 4/5 PCs get an item, one each of Level 2-5. So, by the time Dalat got his item, there were quite a few additional items to go around, very likely evening things out. And the answer is no, it wouldn't make sense to me for a PC to owe the group anything for a found item (I suppose there might be a corner special case somewhere, but I don't know what). I hate taxes and if you make me frackin pay taxes in a game that isn't called Monopoly, I'm gonna get angry.

Yes, typically this does balance out but what if no-one wanted to keep the item?

This is a separate issue. If no one wants to keep the item, the DM should treat it just like gold from he parcel because that's what it becomes. Time for the DM to pick a non-sucky item next time.

This is the idea.
If the group gets a massively unbalanced item, just because one player can really use it... why does it mean the rest of the group dont get to sell it?

I think we miscommunicated here. My point was in response to my inference that your system somehow makes it fair that when a party member doesn't get any items from treasure, that the "paying for items" makes it fair. I'm saying that that perception is fundamentally flawed. This has nothing whatsover to do with unbalanced items.

Also, considering that non-common items arent sold in Magic Shops, its not as if he/she could get it from a store anyways.

Exactly. This proves my point. By "paying off" your items, you will never make your fellow party members balanced with you. They MUST acquire items through treasure as well, AS MUCH as you do. Thus, all this paying out does nothing whatsoever to mitigate unbalancing selections. Nothing.

What if for some reason the party has 6 magic items, none of which can be used by players 1, 2 & 3 but players 4 & 5 split them up between them. Is this fair?

Again, this is a separate point. It's clearly the DM's fault if this happens and it's not for some specific reason (such as righting a previous imbalance or perhaps for temporary story reasons).

I wasnt going there and am seriously unsure how you could have thought I was...

Oops! Very sorry. Typo, there was a missing NOT. I meant to write "I know you haveN'T said this." I really apologize about that. The next part of the sentence should now make sense. Again, very sorry. My tech writer missed it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But what if two players have a particular fifth level item in mind, and neither are interested in a sixth level item? And so on.

I let each player decide if they want to generate a wish list or not. If not, I pick appropriate items when it's that PC's turn to get something. I have a spreadsheet to track each PC and their current total value. They all average out about every 4 levels, with only minor disparities. When the items that or picked (or chosen) are of equal level, then I do some simple calculations to make the total gp amount of the items for that adventure equal out to L+1 through L+4. This can sometimes help or hurt, but not by much and also I think it averages out.

Note also that we track "party items" separately. The game simply isn't that fun without these sorts of items (e.g., floating lantern), but I don't think they should be counted against a person's items, in any system. For example, if I have to pay 16% for a bag of holding and it's the only one in the party, then I'm not carrying everyone else's crap without them paying a fee. That sort of thinking starts getting ridiculous, however, because then people will start charging interest on delinquent money owed to the party, etc. I think we all know someone for whom this last sentence rings true.

 

[wlmartin]

Your doing this because everyone has to pay 20% of their item's worth, right? Maybe I misunderstand the percentages, so I apologize for that.

What ends up happening is that if no-one wants to claim an item, it goes into the group pot and everyone ends up with 1/5 its ticket price once sold.

If someone wants to claim it, you take the resale value (1/5 its ticket price) and split that into even GP amounts per party member.

To purchase this from the group, the player then needs to pay for everyones share minus his own.


Ie - Level 5 item, ticket price = 1,000gp, resale value = 200gp
5 members in the group, each would get a share (if sold) of 40gp each

To buy this item from the group, the player would need to give over 4 shares (excluding his own beforehand) of 40gp, so 160gp

The end result is that the player gets a magical item that is 1/5 the cost if he purchased one in a shop and pays the group for it. Which is a bargain IMO.

Overall this means that if some players dont want a backpack stacked with Magical Items (perhaps only a sword and armor) then if they decline they get recompensated with gold.

However if there is one person that seems to pick almost any magical item that no-one else in the group could use more or has strong feelings for, to claim those he needs to make sure that the group individually dont lose out.

The only way to make this fair would be to give players an equal distribution of magical items determined by the DM (so not decide amongst yourselves but more "THIS IS FOR YOU" and "THIS IS FOR HER" and "THIS IS FOR HIM")

However this still becomes skewed because players need to wait longer to get that choice item since a DM cant give them out all at once and needs to stagger this via levels.

[/quote]

No. It only has to even out over the "long term." IME, this is about 4 levels. You're right that if you want immediate status quo, then it can't be done, even in your system, unless the PC getting the item can afford paying the 20% immediately. That sort of a system really sucks wind, though, because now it's a lot like winning a car in a game show. Sounds great until you get the tax bill. No thanks, I don't want any magic items like that.

I agree that is less fantastical and people dont get the WOW factor but D&D isnt about players getting a set magical item per x encounters. It is about loot being found and the players getting to divy it up. If a player knows that he is due a magical item before the adventure starts let alone before he opens the next big chest, its a big letdown.

If however there is a system where if a magical item is found and someone wants it, they pay for it.

Magical items are not different than normal loot and they are just harder to divide fairly is all.

I'm a little confused by your example. It's incomplete. At level 1, 4/5 PCs get an item, one each of Level 2-5. So, by the time Dalat got his item, there were quite a few additional items to go around, very likely evening things out. And the answer is no, it wouldn't make sense to me for a PC to owe the group anything for a found item (I suppose there might be a corner special case somewhere, but I don't know what). I hate taxes and if you make me frackin pay taxes in a game that isn't called Monopoly, I'm gonna get angry.

This isnt a tax... think of it this way. If you have EVERY item gets sold regardless of demand and then if someone wants to claim it they have to pay what the group loses.

What if the fighter says "I like not missing, I want those 6 potions of clarity, it will help the group because we will fight better".. some may consider that fair but when other players arent being as greedy and they need to dig into their own pockets to buy healing potions and other ongoing items from the store this amounts to the fighter taking loot from the group and justifing it as a running-cost.

Yes, in most D&D games its easy to just say "Its my turn this time, its yours next and hers next and his next" but that to me is messy and could end up with some people getting cooler items and more money just because they didnt share.

This is a separate issue. If no one wants to keep the item, the DM should treat it just like gold from he parcel because that's what it becomes. Time for the DM to pick a non-sucky item next time.

So the DM is obliged to give magical items that MUST be useful to the group? That is a lot of pressure on the DM and not realistic since this is just a reverse wish list. I like that DMs dole out useful items on occasion but should that be EVERY occasion?

What if the thief gets the +1 thievery boots, +2 stealth cloak, +1 to hit scabard just because no-one else needs those things... that is 3 items he has... by this rational he shouldnt be allowed any more items for at least 3x players in the group, say 15 loot drops!! that is insane!

What if instead everyone gets a fair shot to claim an item and if they do, the one who wants it more / needs it more pays for it. In the above example the thief would be big on magical items but poor on coin whilst the other members of the group have a larger coin sack each...but less items.

So when the time comes to visit town and stock up on supplies and cool items, the Wizard can buy 3 extra rituals, the Fighter can learn those 2 martial practices and the Cleric can buy that +3 Holy Mace... But in the example above if the thief was just allowed to CLAIM those items because others didnt need them, he would be denying his friends the benefit of their fair share of those items.

For those of us that play D&D week to week, it can be months before you get a good magical item after waiting long for one, even a few levels... in the meantime we need to sit on our hands and be restricted by what we can buy with our money because others have got the cool magical items so far?

I think we miscommunicated here. My point was in response to my inference that your system somehow makes it fair that when a party member doesn't get any items from treasure, that the "paying for items" makes it fair. I'm saying that that perception is fundamentally flawed. This has nothing whatsover to do with unbalanced items.

I disagree entirely.
The concept of fairness hangs on the fact that everyone is treated the same.

Whilst I appreciate that everyone over say 4 levels might be treated the same and get the cool items, considering a level progress is worth 10 encounters and a group can get through say 2-3 encounters per session and most groups play weekly... that is 3-5 sessions per level and pottentially 12-20 sessions for it to balance out, which equates to 3-5 months before everyone feels they got their fair share.

I am sorry but fairness spread over that much time is no fairness at all.

If instead the group each get their fair share of the value of the magical item over those 5 months and can use those funds to improve their character and when the time is right, afford their own magical items, then that is fair.

It is the equivilant of telling a 10 year old kid he isnt allowed an Xbox but his brother is... because his brother is older and when you are older you get one. This is unfair and whilst this goes on everyday, it doesnt make it right and to that kid, he only sees something he is not getting.

If however his parents said "You dont get an Xbox but on his birthday we will treat you to a new Wii game?" that is very fair and providing his brother gets the same treatment, everyone wins.

I know you may disagree that the need to do this isnt fun or workable or in line with how D&D feels but you can not argue that this isnt fair as it is the fairest system possible... mathematicaly!
Exactly. This proves my point. By "paying off" your items, you will never make your fellow party members balanced with you. They MUST acquire items through treasure as well, AS MUCH as you do. Thus, all this paying out does nothing whatsoever to mitigate unbalancing selections. Nothing.

Again, this is a separate point. It's clearly the DM's fault if this happens and it's not for some specific reason (such as righting a previous imbalance or perhaps for temporary story reasons).



I get that a lot of people just want to wing it and that is of course upto them. I appreciate the comments and will take them onboard before recommending this method to my group.

I do however take note that people are arguing their objection to this point by stating the completely incorrect facts. Opinion is fine but saying the system I have come up with isnt fair is just plain mathematicaly wrong.


Oh, and I am not saying that if someone doesnt have the money they cant get it (they can always owe the group) and if they want to pay it back over a longer period they can do... these things are particular to the group

The key thing is that the distribution of loot when considering a Magical Item which is a VERY expensive piece of loot is done fairly and unless a DM is giving out the same value loot over a short period of time (specificaly 1 level of adventure) then anything else is unfair be it a small or large percentage

Also, do you want your DM custom making magical items just for you? Isn't it fun to find an item that you didnt think was useful but actually you could find some use for it (such as a wonderous item that refreshes with water) and would you want your DM to exclude such items because he is working to a wish list?

Back in AD&D 2E, there was a D100 table on the treasure charts and things were given out completely random... none of this PICK WHAT YOU WANT mentality and I think we get a lot of this INSTANT GRATIFICATION thing wrong modern computer game culture. The reason there are level 100 players in WoW and its not that there is an ARC where to go from level 1-2 takes a few hours, 2-3 takes a few days, 3-4 takes a few weeks etc etc... is because it is GRATIFYING to level... just as it is gratifying to get loot after loot after loot.

I understand that may people may not understand this and I think you have had to have had experience in old school D&D, pre internet computer gaming and even the early days of decent MMOs like UO to understand this.

In UO, the game was fun and everything was fair game and then to encourage more players they invented a newbie land where you couldnt get attacked or stolen from, it was boring and ruined the game... this concept carried forward into more games and ultimately we have a culture where no-one wants to work for their supper and they want everything instantly and to their terms.

I am not saying D&D players nowadays are about that but what I am saying is that the roadmap to success has changed quite dramatically in modern D&D... you die less, get magical items a lot easier (even to a wishlist in some cases) and a system that brings back the reality of the random nature of loot whilst keeping it fair for everyone is good in my book

 

[SensoryThought]

Fenriswolf described very well the idea of roleplaying the sharing of treasure. Some of the great moments from our campaign have come from in character discussions of whether to sell items or keep them, and what to spend party funds on (a magic tapestry with no combat value comes to mind).

Having player-decided treasure parcel split systems makes you miss out on great opportunities for pcs to argue who deserves what, and develop characters in terms of what they are saving or accumulating treasure for.

 

[fenriswolf456]

The end result is that the player gets a magical item that is 1/5 the cost if he purchased one in a shop and pays the group for it. Which is a bargain IMO.

Overall this means that if some players dont want a backpack stacked with Magical Items (perhaps only a sword and armor) then if they decline they get recompensated with gold.

However if there is one person that seems to pick almost any magical item that no-one else in the group could use more or has strong feelings for, to claim those he needs to make sure that the group individually dont lose out.

If your group is used to this kind of thinking, then sure, a bargain. Some players though, are going to see it as paying his mercernary friends for the right to use an item to benefit the group. A lot of items will lose their lustre if there's a price tag attached.

I still really fail to see how the other party members lose out. The items are being used to help the entire group take on greater challenges, so that you can get more gold and items. It's not like the group is gaining any more gold by a PC buying an item from the group. If your group is really that hard up for gold, why not have a party treasury instead. Someone keeps track of all the gold, and you decide as a group what best serves the party. This way your mage can get those rituals the party needs, or you can get those healing potions, or help poor Clarence the Cleric get his magical mace.

This isnt a tax... think of it this way. If you have EVERY item gets sold regardless of demand and then if someone wants to claim it they have to pay what the group loses.

No, it's more like bargain basement shopping, with people out to kill you for daring to even step into the store.

What if the fighter says "I like not missing, I want those 6 potions of clarity, it will help the group because we will fight better".. some may consider that fair but when other players arent being as greedy and they need to dig into their own pockets to buy healing potions and other ongoing items from the store this amounts to the fighter taking loot from the group and justifing it as a running-cost.

Then the rest of you say "The rest of us like not missing too, so lets split the potions up more evenly." or "You know, you're right, the more you hit, the better you are as a defender, and that saves us from being attacked more often so we don't have to keep buying all these healing potions."

I think it's just coming down to perception issues. You and your group seem to have the mind set that you're individuals who happen to be travelling to the same places, so yes, splitting up the treasure by cost, even items, works just fine for that.

For my groups, we tend to treat ourselves as a party, so we have a party treasury, to help pay for those things we're lacking from our adventuring, and we decide which character gets the best use out of an item and give it to them. Some items are certainly tailored for only one character, but other times it's something more general that most anyone can make use of.

What if the thief gets the +1 thievery boots, +2 stealth cloak, +1 to hit scabard just because no-one else needs those things... that is 3 items he has... by this rational he shouldnt be allowed any more items for at least 3x players in the group, say 15 loot drops!! that is insane!

What if instead everyone gets a fair shot to claim an item and if they do, the one who wants it more / needs it more pays for it. In the above example the thief would be big on magical items but poor on coin whilst the other members of the group have a larger coin sack each...but less items.

Sure, and for paying for items no one else wanted or could use, he now makes it easier for _all of you_ to get by those deadly traps, or open up that chest with chieftan's gold in it, or hit that viscious dragon more often and helping to kill it faster before it rips poor Clarence to pieces.

So when the time comes to visit town and stock up on supplies and cool items, the Wizard can buy 3 extra rituals, the Fighter can learn those 2 martial practices and the Cleric can buy that +3 Holy Mace... But in the example above if the thief was just allowed to CLAIM those items because others didnt need them, he would be denying his friends the benefit of their fair share of those items.

For those of us that play D&D week to week, it can be months before you get a good magical item after waiting long for one, even a few levels... in the meantime we need to sit on our hands and be restricted by what we can buy with our money because others have got the cool magical items so far?

Not really. You're talking 1/5 of 1/5 of the price of an item. Going by that alone, you're looking at getting paid for 20-25 items that have been taken by other party members before you could afford to buy one yourself, and that's if you don't get any items in that time for which you subsequently paid out for.

Lets say you got absolutely no items by the time you're level 6, so 20 items.

34,400 total item value => 6,880 resalue value => 1,376 gold burning a hole in your pocket. So after turning down items for the gold, you can now afford a level 5 item, or a couple of level 3s.

But, more than likely, you also got items. It's too much to go through every example and combination, but say you got a level 2, 4, 6, and 8 item. That comes out to you paying the others in the group 1049.6 gold.

So, after weeks of play and passing through 5 levels, you've gained just over 300 gold.

This is why some of us don't jive with your system, it just seems to us to be a lot of work for little overall gain.

It is the equivilant of telling a 10 year old kid he isnt allowed an Xbox but his brother is... because his brother is older and when you are older you get one. This is unfair and whilst this goes on everyday, it doesnt make it right and to that kid, he only sees something he is not getting.

If however his parents said "You dont get an Xbox but on his birthday we will treat you to a new Wii game?" that is very fair and providing his brother gets the same treatment, everyone wins.

It's not quite the same.

Your system is "Your brother gets an Xbox, but only if he pays you $50 of his allowance money. Now you can go get that Wii game if you want. Though consider holding on to that money, as you may just get that new bike in a few months, and have to pay him $60."

It really looks like you're just shifting a small amount of gold around all the time. But I can see how that can be important if your group is dividing up the gold and you're expected to outfit yourself on your own. It's also a benefit if you happen to not be wanting any of the items found.

I do think it will take away from the attractiveness of items.

I know you may disagree that the need to do this isnt fun or workable or in line with how D&D feels but you can not argue that this isnt fair as it is the fairest system possible... mathematicaly!

I get that a lot of people just want to wing it and that is of course upto them. I appreciate the comments and will take them onboard before recommending this method to my group.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't fair, just that, at least to me, it seems to take out some of the fun factor out of the game when you start bringing out the abacus to divvy out the treasure. It doesn't seem as glorious to have gained the Majestic Orb of Roundness when you have to pay your friends for it.

The key thing is that the distribution of loot when considering a Magical Item which is a VERY expensive piece of loot is done fairly and unless a DM is giving out the same value loot over a short period of time (specificaly 1 level of adventure) then anything else is unfair be it a small or large percentage

Certainly, in the short term. But most D&D groups play in campaigns where they expect to gain quite a few levels and gather a number of magical items. Sure, you may be the one who didn't get a magic item after first level, so you got roughly 150 gold extra from the treasure haul. Next adventure level, you do manage to get a couple of items, and you've since had to pay that 150 gold plus more from your share, but then you get some back, and then pay more, and so on up through the levels.

Looking at it long term, you're not really getting anything out of this other than some fun moving gold back and forth. Again, if this is something you and your group enjoys, more power to you.

Also, do you want your DM custom making magical items just for you? Isn't it fun to find an item that you didnt think was useful but actually you could find some use for it (such as a wonderous item that refreshes with water) and would you want your DM to exclude such items because he is working to a wish list?

I rather despise wish lists in general. I do like the idea of letting the DM know what sort of items you're looking for. I do think players should have some input in the direction they'd like to see their characters go, rather than just get random loot all the time that they only take because it's better than not having a magic item at all. It could give the DM some ideas, pointing out items that are interesting.

I understand that may people may not understand this and I think you have had to have had experience in old school D&D, pre internet computer gaming and even the early days of decent MMOs like UO to understand this.

In UO, the game was fun and everything was fair game and then to encourage more players they invented a newbie land where you couldnt get attacked or stolen from, it was boring and ruined the game... this concept carried forward into more games and ultimately we have a culture where no-one wants to work for their supper and they want everything instantly and to their terms.

I'm getting to 30 years of playing rpgs, and got in late on the MMO train, of which I've since gotten off of.

Personally, I don't find gank-fests fun. Tastes vary, sure, but I don't see the fun in taking your level 1 character outside of town and being killed by level 20 bandits just because they want your stuff, or worse, for a laugh. I'd doubt players in D&D would find that enjoyable as well.

I am not saying D&D players nowadays are about that but what I am saying is that the roadmap to success has changed quite dramatically in modern D&D... you die less, get magical items a lot easier (even to a wishlist in some cases) and a system that brings back the reality of the random nature of loot whilst keeping it fair for everyone is good in my book

For my game, I'm planning more random loot for the party to come across. I'll tailor a bit for the party, because there's little point in putting a magic item in the treasure if absolutely no one is going to use it. It may as well just be gold in that case. But just because the melee characters want to use swords, doesn't mean I won't throw in the odd mace.

I haven't really noticed dying less now than I did back in 1st and 2nd ed. It's certainly harder to just outright and die, certainly, as PCs aren't as fragile as they were, but then neither are a lot of the creatures they're facing now.

The amount of magic is totally up to the DM. I'm not sure if it's really more, just that the distribution is much more evenly spread out over the levels in 4E, as opposed to the more geometric distribution of previous editions. But that's for another disussion.

 

[Sunseeker]

Honestly I avoid making rules on how my party should split loot. I let them decide and moderate if things get heated. About the only "rule" I've ever favored is the "Need vs Greed" system and a loot ladder.

IE: If someone needs an item, ie: the barbarian needs the giant warhammer we just found, if noone else needs, he gets it. If multiple people feel they "need" it, the solution is for them each to roll a d20, high-roll wins.

If nobody needs the item it goes to "greed", in which everyone who wants the item rolls a d20, high-roll wins.

I add a loot ladder to simply prevent too many items going to one player. When a player wins an item, they drop to the bottom of the ladder, and must wait for each other player to get some(or waive their claim on something) to get another item.

Yeah I know it's very MMO-y. But it works. Most of the time however the party decides for themselves how loot is broken up, and because of that they're more often than not happy with the results.

 

[Holy Bovine]

My proposal was :

Loot that can be split : (Gold, Gems etc) is split as normal
Non-Magical Loot that can't be split : (Art etc) is saved until it can be cashed in and then treated as Gold
Magical Loot that can be split :
a) It isn't claimed by anyone and treated as Non-Magical Loot (either sold for 1/5th value or melted into residium for the same)
b) It is claimed by someone in the party

If it is claimed, then that party member would owe the group a division equal to the items re-sale value with their share deducted (ie a 1000gp item, split by 5 is 200gp, 4 party members means he would owe 3/4, or 150gp to the group)

This could be paid immediately or later or perhaps instead of claiming his share on future treasure.

This would mean that even if the next 3 magical items we find are suited to the Fighter and no-one has any need to claim them, the party doesn't lose out on the value of the item as if it was instead a pile of gold and it would (i think) create more value to the item if you end up sacrificing the next level of loot just to pay for it out of your share.

How does this sound?
Is this something that you would be agreeable to if proposed in your group?
Can you see any downsides to this?

I would run screaming from any group that implemented the scheme you've laid out here. Fortunately we have DMs who don't live under rocks and ignore everything that is happening in their games. Thus magical items the party come across are either useful to 1 or 2 PCs (so we come to an amicable agreement who gets what depending on who has what) or not useful to anyone and get sold/turned into residium.

This kind of nitpicky, lawyerly stuff wouldn't fly in any group I've ran or played in and in fact I can think of only a single player who would have been totally with this - but I can't stand that guy and don't game with him anymore (for this and other reasons).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That all sounds so wrong.

First, you don´t loot. You divide the treasure. If the PC´s have reasons to mistrust each other, such a system could work. But usually the treasure should go to the person who can use it or can utilize it best to accomplish the party´s goal.

Paying out seems inappropriate for a D&D story. Maybe in the next city, the item bought will be for the poor guy, who didn´t get a lot from the dragon´s hoard.

 

[frankthedm]

The only DM involvement needed in treasure splitting is calling for initiative rolls when combat breaks out. Only by player deaths at each other 's hands will the players understand the importance of making agreements about treasure division before going on adventures together.