So How Does Your Group Distribute Treasure?

[diaglo]

for the most part we give the items to the munchkin in the group. it keeps him happy. the rest of the stuff we sell.

i use my share to buy ale and whores.

 

[tonym]

Well, either they were mistreating you, the DM never gave out magic for your character, or something was up....

Hm. Maybe all three?

Eventually the DM (who was great), reacted to my griping (I was also griping about how a second player never got cool stuff for his PC either). The DM solved the problem by increasing the amount of magic we found so there was more to go around, and he customized some powerful, cool items to an extent where there was no way for the glib player's PC to use them (or direct them via logic to his friend's PC).

With those changes in place, in a fairly short time my PC became powerful, too, and started making a difference during combat. Which was fun.

It was actually a very good group...apart from treasure distribution for the first two-thirds of the campaign. Oh. And one of the players hated D&D--that was annoying. It was the glib player, actually; he always wanted to play a different RPG.

Anyhow, thanks for letting me vent. You folks rock. I hope I didn't ruffle any feathers.

Tony M

 

[Crothian]

You have to do a lot more to ruffle feathers around here. Many of us have gamed for decades so we've seen, and understand, this type of thing. It's great that the campaign eventually got fun for you.

 

[Steverooo]

for the most part we give the items to the munchkin in the group. it keeps him happy. the rest of the stuff we sell.

i use my share to buy ale and whores.

What, Diaglus, no Cure Disease? How... ODD!

(Sheesh! Diaglo has a new schtick! Lessee... 1974 to 2005 was 'bout thirty years... He should get off this one by about 2036...)

 

[KRT]

I think treasure division is an important part of role playing and character development. It is an economy unto itself and supply and demand runs it, not made up rules. The only rules that should apply to treasure division are the rules of general play regarding fairness to other players (not PCs), courtesy, and respect. If you have a greedy character there is no reason that he/she shouldn't try to angle for the most treasure. Same with egocentric characters (again I emphasize PCs not players). If treasure division is consistently unfair its important to be open about it as players. Is this behaviour of the PC and/or player helpful to the storyline? Do you as a group of players need to do something to balance things? If the player is part of the problem then biased treasure division is merely a symptom of a bigger problem.

 

[schporto]

The group I DM mostly does need before greed. But it breaks down some because they overlap in some bits. That has led to some 'discussions'. Some folks were upset because their weatlh level was well below others (6th level and having 5th level money vs the other having 7th level money). I made a suggestion that will most likely be enacted. If you die, you come back with the gp value of the character with the least money. That SHOULD help eliminate some of the greed.
-cpd

 

[kigmatzomat]

My players first decide what items they want to keep in the party vs. sell. Then they do a need/want check; if only one guy is after it, end of story. With conflicts comes need/want, with need winning but being decided by the group. E.g. bracers of armor +7; the rogue and the mage claimed to need them but since the mage was gutted three fights in a row he got 'em.

When two people want something but don't need it (e.g. cloak of the mountebank), the one who has gone the longest without getting anything cool wins.

I, the GM, do wealth audits every few levels to see who is getting screwed on gear and try to "nudge" the dice on treasure rolls.

So far it seems to be working out pretty well.

 

[pogre]

Every adventure they create a big pile of treasure. Folks negotiate out the magic items with a kind of rotation on dibs. Need is the first concern of all the players fortunately. Never a problem.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

In one campaign I play in -- run by another DM -- the DM manages a list of items looted during the course of the adventure. After the session, all of the items are sold and the money generated is divided evenly between players. Then each player can spend his or her accumulated wealth on the items in the list, buying them at half price. If a PC wants an item from the pile of loot that, even at half price, costs more than his accumulated wealth, he or she can go into debt to the party coffer, and is not able to buy any further magic items, in future sessions, until that expensive item is paid off. This is similar methods have been suggested, but the only wrinkle to this DM's method is that if two players want the same item, they can both buy it hand both have the item.

That may seem a little generous -- on occassion that may mean that everyon in the party dumps a lot of scratch into getting that Amulet of Natural Armor +3 -- but he's trading a little realism (there was only one of them in the adventure) for a complete lack of player wrangling over who gets what. All management of fund and items is done by each player individually, we don't bicker or debate who should get what, and it's all very well balanced, since we all get the same value out of each adventure (although some may manage it better than others).

On a lot of levels I like this very much. It also means that a character playing a class that very rarely gets items that are useful to it, like druids, at least get their fair share of the pool, and can buy items from magic vendors with their share of the loot.

In my own campaign, my players use a far less formal method, something between need before greed and the squeaky wheel gets the magic oil. It's not particularly fair, and quiet players tend to get less. About 9 months ago I presented the other system to them and they didn't like the idea -- voted it down. So I let them bicker.

No method is perfect. I tend to like a lot about the first method I mentioned a lot, although it does take some of the player interaction out of the game. But, since it makes time for other sorts of player interaction, and eliminates the sort of player interaction that is most likely to cause tension between players, it does seem like a pretty good idea. And it's not all that hard or terdious to manage, thanks to the wonders of excel.

 

[sniffles]

The apparently popular "need over greed" method irks me for three reasons.

One: it is unfair. There will always be players fascile at using logic to gobble all the best magic items for their so-called "needy" PCs. Less fascile players will see their PCs carrying hand-me-down magic items. "Here ya go. You can have my old chipped +1 sword; I need this new +2 sword, because blah blah blah."

Two: "need over greed" is totally fake. People aren't that selfless, and wouldn't act like that. ...Well, maybe one person in a party would, but not every-frikkin-body.

Three: "need over greed" is a fancy form of munchkin behavior. Heck, it shouldn't be called "need over greed"; it should be called "Maximizing Party Power!!!11!"

For heaven's sake, if you're doing the "need over greed" method, please show mercy and give the best magic wand to the Rogue once in a while, the best magic arrows to the plain ol' Wizard carrying a shortbow who'll probably never shoot them, and the +4 Ring of Protection to the annoying gnome Bard who'll run away from any monster bigger than chicken. And so forth.

Tony M

I guess my interpretation of "need over greed" must be different than yours, Tony, because when I said my group uses this method, I meant exactly what you describe! We give stuff to the characters who could best use it, not just to the class mosted suited to it. We'd give some wands to the rogue because the wizard probably has plenty of them, and some arrows to the wizard because he's got a bow and he ought to use it occasionally (and if one of the other PCs runs out of arrows they can borrow from the wizard), and we'd give the ring of protection to the bard so he wouldn't always have to run away.

Or at least that's what we'd do with some of our parties. Depends on the characters. If our party is made up of selfish or selfless types, then that's how they'll act.

[Edit] I think you were just channeling Kev for a minute there, Tony.
Kev rocks.