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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vegepygmy" data-source="post: 5200830" data-attributes="member: 40109">Other (depends on the party). I've been gaming with the same group of players for 6-7 years now, I think, and we've had parties where the PCs were hardcore mercenaries and everyone decided for himself how to spend his share of the treasure (and if you didn't anticipate that you might need healing at some point, or if you spent all your money on offense and little or nothing on defense so you were constantly in need of healing, then it sucked to be you), and we've had "communist" parties where everything was owned/shared by the whole party for the mutual benefit of the party, and we've had parties that were somewhere in between. Personally, I prefer the hardcore mercenary approach, but I understand I'm in the minority. My reason is best illustrated by the following real-life example: one of our players was inspired by the movie "Troy" and wanted to play a light-armored spearman (fighter). As a result, he was constantly taking huge amounts of damage and expected to be healed at the party's expense. This quickly became very irritating to me, because of course that meant he was using up way more than his "fair share" of our group's resources, simply so he could play the archetype he fancied. Now, I have no problem whatsoever with someone else playing the kind of character he wants to play, but I don't think it's right for him to expect my character to pay for it. So my character told his character to buy some goddamn full plate and stop prancing around the battlefield like a half-naked twit, or start paying for his own healing wands. NOTE: This experience isn't why I prefer the "mercenary approach," it's just the easiest way I can think of to explain its appeal.</blockquote>

Verification