So How Does Your Group Distribute Treasure?

[tonym]

I know what you're saying, Crothian. But based on my experience, it does not wash. I ran in a group that did "need over greed" and my plain ol' Fighter consistently got squat. Whenever I asked for an item, time and time again I'd hear, "Wouldn't it make more sense if it went to so-and-so?"

A pure "need over greed" party doesn't give a magic item to the PC who hasn't had a magic item pick in three treasures. Fairness is irrelevent. All that matters in "need over greed" is designing the party to be the most effective fighting unit.

Tony M

 

[griff_goodbeard]

I know what you're saying, Crothian. But based on my experience, it does not wash. I ran in a group that did "need over greed" and my plain ol' Fighter consistently got squat. Whenever I asked for an item, time and time again I'd hear, "Wouldn't it make more sense if it went to so-and-so?"

A pure "need over greed" party doesn't give a magic item to the PC who hasn't had a magic item pick in three treasures. Fairness is irrelevent. All that matters in "need over greed" is designing the party to be the most effective fighting unit.

Tony M

So you don't like it b/c you had a group that burned you, and a DM who didn't know how to fairly dole out loot?

 

[ForceUser]

I know what you're saying, Crothian. But based on my experience, it does not wash. I ran in a group that did "need over greed" and my plain ol' Fighter consistently got squat. Whenever I asked for an item, time and time again I'd hear, "Wouldn't it make more sense if it went to so-and-so?"

A pure "need over greed" party doesn't give a magic item to the PC who hasn't had a magic item pick in three treasures. Fairness is irrelevent. All that matters in "need over greed" is designing the party to be the most effective fighting unit.

Tony M

What a bunch of jerks. Among my longtime friends, we do NBG with the caveat that everyone deserves to get cool items. When looked through that lens, things typically play out with loot rewards progressing through the group. In other words, if you just got something cool, you're not going to get the next cool thing as well, even if it's most optimal for your PC to get it, unless everyone else passes on it. But hey, that's the way it breaks down when you play among friends. Among friends, loot is not an issue.

On the other hand, I play with some other guys I barely know, and loot distribution is completely different with them. It's just as fair but far more mercenary, with wealth guidelines and item values being assessed and PCs being allowed to buy into items they want. Die rolls break ties when two PCs can afford and both want the same item. It makes sense to resolve it that way when people don't know each other, but I still hate it. I prefer friendship-based loot distribution. Among mature players it's not a problem.

With those same players I barely know, I deliberately craft unique, non-book-standard magic items that are practically impossible to appraise by the standard DMG rules, just to mess with the more mercenary members of the player group. Drives 'em nuts.

 

[tonym]

So you don't like it b/c you had a group that burned you, and a DM who didn't know how to fairly dole out loot?

I don't think they intended to burn me, but it still sucked asking for magic and seeing it go to other PCs who were already extremely powerful. One particularly glib player made it seem as if I was being selfish for even asking for items that obviously would be better in some other PC's hands.

Oh, that's another reason I don't like the "need over greed" system--because that's what glib players call it to shut players like me up. If I argue for another system of treasure distribution, I must be "greedy."

The extremely manipulative and misleading title of "need over greed" is further proof, in my book, that it's an unfair system that favors the glib. The opposite of need is not greed. The system should be called "unequal over fair."

Tony M

 

[Crothian]

I know what you're saying, Crothian. But based on my experience, it does not wash. I ran in a group that did "need over greed" and my plain ol' Fighter consistently got squat. Whenever I asked for an item, time and time again I'd hear, "Wouldn't it make more sense if it went to so-and-so?"

A pure "need over greed" party doesn't give a magic item to the PC who hasn't had a magic item pick in three treasures. Fairness is irrelevent. All that matters in "need over greed" is designing the party to be the most effective fighting unit.

Tony M

Well, either they were mistreating you, the DM never gave out magic for your character, or something was up. And fairness is relevant. Sometimes the need for a magic al item is because you don't have any. I think it was just a bad group.

 

[Crothian]

I don't think they intended to burn me, but it still sucked asking for magic and seeing it go to other PCs who were already extremely powerful. One particularly glib player made it seem as if I was being selfish for even asking for items that obviously would be better in some other PC's hands.

Oh, that's another reason I don't like the "need over greed" system--because that's what glib players call it to shut players like me up. If I argue for another system of treasure distribution, I must be "greedy."

The extremely manipulative and misleading title of "need over greed" is further proof, in my book, that it's an unfair system that favors the glib. The opposite of need is not greed. The system should be called "unequal over fair."

It has nothing to do with the system of handing out magical items, you were taken advantage of my other players. It doesn't matter what they called it, it was not need over greed.

 

[tonym]

...Among my longtime friends, we do NBG with the caveat that everyone deserves to get cool items....In other words, if you just got something cool, you're not going to get the next cool thing as well, even if it's most optimal for your PC to get it, unless everyone else passes on it.

That sounds cool. If our group had used your system, I would've been a lot happier. Your modified system has an important element of fairness.

Tony M

 

[Jarrod]

Just hopping in....

The problem with the phrase "need before greed" is that the words "need" and "greed" have a) immense emotional loading and b) are way the heck out on the spectrum. The phrase polarizes something that should be a conversation and compromise.

Our group does a fair-shares split, and magic items can be bought at their selling (AKA 50%) price. If there's a conflict and two people want something, we work it out through discussion. If there's a single big item that nobody can afford, it goes to whoever can best use it and the difference is made up over time.

There will always be an overlap in what people want, and there will always be some amount of conflict about it. Ring of Protection... who gets it? Cloak of Resistance... well, the fighter has bad Will saves, but the wizard needs his Fort. Some types of items don't conflict, sure, but unless you get down to "a sword that can only be weilded by a human fighter named Bob" you will always have the _chance_ that multiple people can use it, and use it well. The problem with "need" is that "need" is relative. Actually... nobody _needs_ anything. They want. It will make them more effective, sure. But they don't _need_.

"Greed"... is it "greedy" to want the same share as everyone else? I don't think so. People adventure for a bunch of different reasons, and one of those reasons is to get loot. Loot also makes you more effective. To go back to the ring of protection... sure the fighter needs a high AC and the wizard doesn't get attacked much. On the other hand, if someone breaks through and tags the wizard, raising him is a _heck_ of a lot more expensive.

 

[diaglo]

My group is somewhat need-based, in character, though lately they haven't been distributing much treasure. They've been carrying around of stack of stuff they haven't identified, haven't sold, and don't use.

They're either not treasure motivated, or I need to start giving out more interesting stuff (though they don't realize they're carrying some pretty interesting stuff already, and have in the past sold some really interesting stuff!).

i'm still trying to recover my father's sword. stolen some 20+ sessions ago.

i think the most impressive thing we sold back when we were lvl 7 or so was a Sword of Subtlety. even though, both rogues in the party could've used it.

and we lost the Bodak in a Bag. i mean our +1 Mod fort Full Plate and Bag of Holding.

 

[BlackSilver]

Arcane items go to those that can use them, while divine goes to (you guessed it) who can use them.

A fighter that uses a great sword will have the option to trade up (or down), but if he wishes to keep his old sword then he needs to purchase it (not the new one, but the old one) from the party.

If an item comes up that everyone wants and everyone can use (RoP+4 was the example given) then we talk about armor class- who has the highest and why? Spellcasters are given a little more consideration.

Coin, gems, jewels, and sold items (most go for about 50%) are divided amoung the group.

If anyone takes and sells an item that was given to them then the Players remember and that action is brought up the next time something is offered up. (Yes, it is meta gaming, but this is about having fun and screwing over friends is not fun for us.)

Keeping tabs on items cost and a running tab isn't why we game, its to have fun and accounting just isn't fun to us.