Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Radiating Gnome" data-source="post: 2637004" data-attributes="member: 150">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.</blockquote>

Verification