Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jarrod" data-source="post: 2633219" data-attributes="member: 13253">Just hopping in....The problem with the phrase &quot;need before greed&quot; is that the words &quot;need&quot; and &quot;greed&quot; 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 &quot;a sword that can only be weilded by a human fighter named Bob&quot; you will always have the _chance_ that multiple people can use it, and use it well. The problem with &quot;need&quot; is that &quot;need&quot; is relative. Actually... nobody _needs_ anything. They want. It will make them more effective, sure. But they don't _need_. &quot;Greed&quot;... is it &quot;greedy&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jarrod, post: 2633219, member: 13253"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification