Ok, following situation:
Party of 4 players found some loot
- various loot that noone wants that will sell for 4000 gp total
- Cloak of Resistance +1, worth 1000gp or net 500 gp if sold.
Now, noone wants the various stuff, so they're going to sell it. Player A however said he'll take the Cloak of Resistance.
Now obviously to make things fair, player A will receive less money from selling the other stuff, but I'm wondering how much less.
So at first they split the money in 4 piles a 1000 gp, then decide player A has to buy the 3/4 worth of the cloak that the other members own basicly, to keep the loot fair.
The question that arises is should the Cloak be measured at the 500 gp that the party would have earned if they sold it to an NPC? Or should it be worth the full 1000 gp that he would have to pay if he was buying a brand new one.
I kind of can think of arguments for both ideas, but which do you think is fair for everyone?
We typically split coins and gems but items are up for grabs. If he takes the Cloak now later on when something else comes up he is last in line for the new shinies. That way when useful items come up they can be put to use and what is universally agreed to be liquidated gets sold. I suppose if you are playing particularly tedious characters it might be fun to make everyone hash things down to the last copper but generally items help the party even if only one person has it.
If they would have sold everything cloak included, they whould have gained 4500 MO, that splitted in 4 makes 1125 MO each. This means, not selling the cloak, the 3 people who didn't had any item get the 1125 they deserve. The one who took the item takes the rest. You will notice that the rest is 625 MO.
|
We typically split coins and gems but items are up for grabs. If he takes the Cloak now later on when something else comes up he is last in line for the new shinies. That way when useful items come up they can be put to use and what is universally agreed to be liquidated gets sold. I suppose if you are playing particularly tedious characters it might be fun to make everyone hash things down to the last copper but generally items help the party even if only one person has it.
That is how we handle it. Give out items based on need and suitability and then sell the rest and split the cash evenly.
|
This podcast discusses this exact quandary. In great detail.
Gamer's Guide to Party Treasure - LINK
It offers several solutions to the problem.
Make the player "buy" the cloak. The various loot that no one wants is worth 4k, so add the cloak's wholesale value (1000/2) to that. What you now have is 4.5k, which comes out to 4 equal shares of 1125gp. The guy who wants the cloak can buy it at full retail from the party, leaving him with 125gp. Everyone else gets 100% cash.
I know this is kinda non-advice but with my group, division of loot is a character issue that I do not have to deal with as a GM.
Division of loot is no more an issue that I decide for the players than marching order or guard shifts.
The barbarian might demand that he goes first because everyone else walks too slow. Or refuses to guard in town cause he is tired while the mage berates him saying when in town is when you need to guard the MOST. Or takes the glowing greatsword and claims it as his because he likes it.
I know that is not very helpful advice but if you think about it how a group of adventures deals with each others including dividing loot is very much in the control of the players. A GM dividing loot is very Out of Character.
I remember one interesting session where every character refused to go first. Nobody wanted to go first. Not players but characters were all afraid to go first.
On the flip side multiply times I have had interesting situations where two characters demanded to go first and started a series of one-ups-mans ship of reckless behave in a sort of game of chicken to see who was the 'bravest'.
I can understand why a GM might feel the need to divide loot in order to attempt to avoid player conflict which is generally not a good thing but a little character conflict can be interesting. It just depends on how much roleplaying you want mixed in with your tactical wargaming.
My players have basically used two strategy for dividing loot. Same players but different characters.
One is the 'Need' system where everyone is good, generous, and easy going. Everyone takes what they need then sells the rest and divides the gold evenly. Everyone often ends up with widely different amounts of wealth depending on what is found. Characters often chip in to help buy other characters stuff. The one for all and all for one group. This is the system my group uses the most.
The other system is the 'Greed' system. Every thing is tentatively to be sold to a vendor but any item can be bought by a character at the same price it could be sold to a vendor for. If more than one character wants an item for the price it could be sold to a vendor then they must bid on the item and it goes to whoever will pay the most. So basically every thing is sold either to a vendor or a character then all the gold is divided evenly between the characters. Then there is the added wrinkle of if a character does not have enough gold to buy an item he can carry a debt he owes the group. I have even had characters go so far as to loan money to other characters at loan shark interest rates. This is the fair and square system that tends to prevent the most player conflict. Although it is not full prove at preventing conflict, I have seen people bid on items they do not really want in an attempt to drive the price up and other under handed tactics.
A third system they have used but not in awhile is a 'Share' system where loot is not necessarily divided equally. A standard member of the gang might get a 'full share'. New members, henchman, or general lackeys might only get a 'half share'. The boss or leaders might get a 'double share'. Doing particularly dangerous stuff might call for a reward of a 'share and a half'. This system probably has the most real world foundation but does not sit well with a lot of players.
A rambling post that boils down to my believe that a GM has enough to worry about, let the players through their characters settle the dividing of the loot.
Make the player "buy" the cloak. The various loot that no one wants is worth 4k, so add the cloak's wholesale value (1000/2) to that. What you now have is 4.5k, which comes out to 4 equal shares of 1125gp. The guy who wants the cloak can buy it at full retail from the party, leaving him with 125gp. Everyone else gets 100% cash.
Your system looks to be like it would result in:
Player 1 gets 1125gp
Player 2 gets 1125gp
Player 3 gets 1125gp
Player 4 gets 125gp and a cloak
That is 3,500 of gold that has been distributed. There is still 500 of gold to distribute. So the buying the cloak at full price is a little more complicated than you depicted. I guess you could then say the remaining 500 gp gets divided among the top three players or maybe between the whole four. I don't know your intent.
If you have to charge the player full price for the cloak it would probably be simpler to say that Player 4 has to put 1000 in for the cloak making a pot of 5000 which then is divided 4 ways for 1250 each with the cloak player only getting 250 as he had to put in a 1000.
Full Greed System
Player 1 gets 1250 gp
Player 2 gets 1250 gp
Player 3 gets 1250 gp
Player 4 gets 250 gp and a 1000 gp cloak (1250 gp - 1000 gp for cloak)
That is fair and will balance out over time as different members 'buy' loot from the group pot but it does raise the question of why you would sell a cloak to a stranger for 500 gp but would demand a 1000 gp from an adventuring companion.
I prefer selling the cloak to the player for 500 gp (the same as you would sell it to a stranger) leaving 4500 to be divided or 1125 share each.
Half Greed System
Player 1 gets 1125 gp
Player 2 gets 1125 gp
Player 3 gets 1125 gp
Player 4 gets 625 gp and a 500 gp cloak (1125 gp - 500 gp for cloak)
If more than one person wanted the cloak they would bid on it and for example say one player was willing to pay 800 gp it would look like this:
Bid Greed System (4800 gp total)
Player 1 gets 1200 gp
Player 2 gets 1200 gp
Player 3 gets 1200 gp
Player 4 gets 400 gp and a 800 gp cloak (1200 gp - 800 gp for cloak)
In reality it is often a little more complicated than this because you might have 5 magic items that are all up for bid. Which then might look like this:
Cloak won by Player 4 for 800 gp
Boots won by Player 1 for 500 gp
Sword sold to vendor for 1000 gp because nobody bid the minimum that the vendor would pay
Dagger won by Player 1 for 600 gp
Necklace won by Player 2 for 500 gp
4000 gold plus 3400 gp of loot = 7400 gp / 4 = 1850 gp per share
Bid Greed System (7400 gp total, 5000 gp in actual gold)
Player 1 gets 750 gp and 500 gp boots and 600 gp dagger
Player 2 gets 1350 gp and 500 gp necklace
Player 3 gets 1850 gp
Player 4 gets 1050 gp and a 800 gp cloak
This bidding system tends to lessen player conflict and it can be somewhat fun to bid on magic items at the end of an adventure especially if you always dreamed of roleplaying an accountant. :)
I agree that this is a decision for the players to make. That said, I think the "fair" thing to do is value items at the sell price when dividing loot.
If you want to get complicated, then you should check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_division
Make the player "buy" the cloak. The various loot that no one wants is worth 4k, so add the cloak's wholesale value (1000/2) to that. What you now have is 4.5k, which comes out to 4 equal shares of 1125gp. The guy who wants the cloak can buy it at full retail from the party, leaving him with 125gp. Everyone else gets 100% cash.
Your system looks to be like it would result in:
Player 1 gets 1125gp
Player 2 gets 1125gp
Player 3 gets 1125gp
Player 4 gets 125gp and a cloak
The cloak counts as wholesale price while it is in the loot pile, because that's what it would be worth if sold. The character who wants it has to be willing to pay the party FULL retail for it AND he therefore takes less cash as a result.
/ note: this method of division gets dicey when it comes to very expensive items or priceless items or things like that.
+1 for the bidding system.
Who is to say that the player that wants the cloak would even pay 1000 gold for it given the choice?
+1 for the bidding system.
Who is to say that the player that wants the cloak would even pay 1000 gold for it given the choice?
Basically, that cloak is useful to every single party member. Why should one player get it over another? This way, you want it, then you pay for it.
/ note: this is one way to do things and it is not be confused with me saying it's the only way, or even the right way, to do things.
// another way to do things is to let one player have the cloak and divide the cash evenly among all players. Next time loot comes up, the guy who got the cloak picks last.
This podcast discusses this exact quandary. In great detail.
Gamer's Guide to Party Treasure - LINK
It offers several solutions to the problem.
Thanks for the shout out Sveden.
Yeah, I can't really add too much more than what we go over in the podcast, but it should give you a lot of different views, but not one solid answer... well, other than it depends on your group.
My personal preference is that you value the item at it's sale price and that is what the PC who gets it pays for it out of his share.
Sean Mahoney
+1 for the bidding system.
Who is to say that the player that wants the cloak would even pay 1000 gold for it given the choice?
Basically, that cloak is useful to every single party member. Why should one player get it over another? This way, you want it, then you pay for it.
/ note: this is one way to do things and it is not be confused with me saying it's the only way, or even the right way, to do things.
// another way to do things is to let one player have the cloak and divide the cash evenly among all players. Next time loot comes up, the guy who got the cloak picks last.
Each player would normally get 1250 gold for selling all the items, so if you get that much gold then how can you complain? If one player keeps the cloak and 750 gold then everyone else still gets 1250 gold, so how is that unfair?
The bidding system ideally finds the real value of the item to the bidders, which is somewhere between 500 gold and 1000 gold. If no one else values the item at more than 500 gold then why should the bidder pay substantially more than that? However, if more than one person wants the item then its value should rise accordingly.
as a GM i would say that he should pay 3/4 of the full market price, meaning that if the other party members wanted to buy their own they would all end up paying 3/4 of the total price for their own. nice way to make it fair imo.
or you could say that he gets this item now, and next time an item comes up someone who hasn't gotten an item yet gets it until everyone has received one, rinse and repeat.
for the most part splitting up loot should be up to the party though, so ask them how they feel about splitting it up giving them options or letting them rp through it. for the most part this works better than 'telling' them how they should split it up.
Each player would normally get 1250 gold for selling all the items
I'm not getting your math. Are you adding the full-retail value of the cloak to the 4k loot pile?
Question for all; when you add up the value of loot, do you use the wholesale or retail value?
My group for example uses wholesale value when determining the cost of loot. Full retail value if of course used to determine total character wealth.
Sorry, I mistaken used 1K for the value of the cloak.
Using the proper sell value...
You could reason that each party member is entitled to 1125 (4500/4) gold, so as long as everyone gets that much money they have recieved their "fair" share. If one player wants the cloak then he gets 625 gold and the cloak while everyone else gets 1125 gold, again their "fair" share.
But this is just the counter point to the one you've made earlier. I think the best compromise is to have an auction.
If they REALLY want to go the route of making the player buy it then why would he pay more than what the group would get for it if they sold it to a vendor... If they can usually only get 500GP for it why would you make the character that wants it pay 1000GP? That is kinda ripping him off IMO.
So the loot would be divided where each player gets 1000 GP the cloak is for sale at 500. The player who wants it would end up with 500 GP while the other 3 players split the 500... so each get 166ish or make him pay 501 so you can split it 167 each.
I dont think making him give up his entire share of gold to pay for the item is fair. If they were to sell it to a vendor he would get 1000 GP and 125 for his share of the split. He could then buy it off the Vendor and still have 125 GP. The idea of a loot reward isn't to punish the guy.
Scenario 1 he has a cloak and 499GP. Party 1167GP
Scenario 2 he has a cloak and 125GP. Party 1125GP
The way people are suggesting he gets a cloak and no GP. While his party members can use the 333GP they made off letting him buy the loot then and there to buy a cloak when they get back in town and they have a cloak and 333GP.
I don't see why anyone in your group would buy an item in that case. I would just wait till I got back in town and then buy it off vendor.
|
Total loot worth (including cloak of resistance): 4,500
Total gold for individual party members: 1,125
Party Members 1-3 get 1,125
Party Member 4 gets: 625 and Cloak of Resistance (His share-500 for the cloak)
Essentially you take the entire loot pile (even stuff you don't plan on selling) and divide it by the party number, people can then use their share amount to "buy" some of the loot off other party members.
It works for
A) The rest of the party gets a larger share.
B) The one (or more) who buy gets an item at essentially half price.
This will take a bit more thought if the group gets multiple items from the loot pile.
If they REALLY want to go the route of making the player buy it then why would he pay more than what the group would get for it if they sold it to a vendor... If they can usually only get 500GP for it why would you make the character that wants it pay 1000GP? That is kinda ripping him off IMO.
That is what I am talking about.
I would be kind of upset if my best friend had a nice cold can of unopen Coke that he said he was going to sell to a stranger for 50 cents but I pipe up and say 'Hey why don't you let me buy that Coke. I'm thirsty.'
My friend says, 'Sure you have first dibs of course cause you are my best friend. Since you are my friend, I will let you have it for 1 dollar cause that is what a new can of Coke cost in the store.'
I think, 'So I have to buy a used Coke from my best friend for a dollar otherwise he is going to sell it to a stranger for 50 cents. Hmmm.... I knew I should not have let you carry the can of Coke when we found it.' :/
Total loot worth (including cloak of resistance): 4,500
Total gold for individual party members: 1,125
Party Members 1-3 get 1,125
Party Member 4 gets: 625 and Cloak of Resistance (His share-500 for the cloak)Essentially you take the entire loot pile (even stuff you don't plan on selling) and divide it by the party number, people can then use their share amount to "buy" some of the loot off other party members.
It works for
A) The rest of the party gets a larger share.
B) The one (or more) who buy gets an item at essentially half price.This will take a bit more thought if the group gets multiple items from the loot pile.
This is the Half Greed System.
A problem does arise when two players want to buy the same cloak for 500 gp.
Then you can go to the Bid Greed System to settle who gets the cloak or the players can roll to see who gets to buy the cloak.
For any system there has to be a way to resolve when two players very much want the same item. Bidding or Rolling are the solutions I have seen in the past but even rolling can often cause hard feelings if someone is particularly lucky or unlucky over several rolls.
The plus to the Bid system is that the loser of the bidding gets some comfort in that their share of gold is bigger cause the winning Bidder paid so much. Also if someone bid a lot this time they will not have as much to bid next time.
The Need System is by far the simplest but some will get more than others and it is hard for people not to be greedy.
|
|
This is the Half Greed System.A problem does arise when two players want to buy the same cloak for 500 gp.
Then you can go to the Bid Greed System to settle who gets the cloak or the players can roll to see who gets to buy the cloak.
For any system there has to be a way to resolve when two players very much want the same item. Bidding or Rolling are the solutions I have seen in the past but even rolling can often cause hard feelings if someone is particularly lucky or unlucky over several rolls.
The plus to the Bid system is that the loser of the bidding gets some comfort in that their share of gold is bigger cause the winning Bidder paid so much. Also if someone bid a lot this time they will not have as much to bid next time.
The Need System is by far the simplest but some will get more than others and it is hard for people not to be greedy.
I would go with roll, but winners of items auto-lose if another item comes up that they want.
~Example~
4 Person Party
Item drops that members 1 & 2 want
1 & 2 roll and 1 wins
Later item drops that members 1 & 3 want
1 auto "loses" and 3 gets the item. (if 2 & 3 wanted it then they would roll)
Later item drops that 1, 2 & 3 want
1 & 3 auto "lose" and 2 gets the item (if only 1 & 3 wanted it they would roll)
later item drops that all party members want
1, 2 & 3 auto "lose" and 4 gets the item
all 4 players have gotten an item so the system resets
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course these are ways PLAYERS can be fair to each other. Alternatively the DM can alter the loot (pray he does not alter it further) to drop specific items for players.
Of course these are ways PLAYERS can be fair to each other. Alternatively the DM can alter the loot (pray he does not alter it further) to drop specific items for players.
Yea, sometimes if I am running a published adventure and there is a magic item that I know nobody in the group will be interested in then I might change it to something else. A +2 flaming light crossbow might become a +2 flaming battleaxe that a couple of people in the group might find interesting. Often I will leave weird weapons in though. A few times I have had characters take an exotic weapon proficiency because of some interesting weapon they found. A magic self-loading drow hand crossbow comes to mind. It was not super powerful but the player found it interesting and started using it as an alternate weapon.
The problem with putting specific magic items in for players is you can end up walking the line of favoritism in the eyes of the players. It is never good if a player says you gave them something better than you gave me. For one thing, I am not 'giving' people magic items. You guys are earning them and finding them due to your own skill and cunning.
Also even if you do put in a magic item for each player, you are not guaranteed that the group is going to find or recover it. And if you just keep looking for opportunities to slip missed treasure into later treasure finds, it starts seeming predetermined and that player triumphs and mistakes do not matter.
All that being said I do occasionally put items in with the intent that they end up in the hands of certain players but I do it sparingly.
I will run across a cool magic item and think so and so character would love that so I put it in an adventure, usually in the hands of an enemy I am pretty sure they will encounter.
Sometimes the group will still miss out on the item for whatever reason. At times like that after the adventure is over and the characters are not going back, I like to tell them if they missed something especially nice. It lets them know their decisions have an effect and they are in control of their destiny. If they would have not let that bad guy get away he had a really cool ring, or if you would have climbed down into that pit trap and search you could have founded this doodad.
If it is an issue out of character I hope you find a decent solution. If the issue is an in character issue that is just fun. Our groups general rule was discussed earlier however there have been plenty of times when the trust worthy character holding the money made some great RP choices.
We had a paladin who bought an orphange when the rest of the party complained he went back and got the orphange to name two of the wings of the orphange after the loudest objectors in the party.
|
|
I am ignoring the other treasure because it is really irrelative to this argument.
Cloak = 500gp sold
500/4 means each character gets 125 gp from selling it.
Person who wants it gives other 3 people 125 gp a piece.
Anything else is greed and douchbaggery run amuck
Note- this matches a few of the arguments above without confounded the diatribe with irrelevant numbers. The people who did not get the cloak are getting the same amount of money.
Ps- I love the Coke example above. He nailed it.
My group handles items by giving it to the person who can use it best. Anything no one wants we sell and we try to make sure that we share the wealth.
My group handles items by giving it to the person who can use it best. Anything no one wants we sell and we try to make sure that we share the wealth.
This is basically the Need System.
This is by far the simplest and easiest system. It works just fine as long as no one is too greedy. Even if some players are a little greedy it is ok as long as it is not more than the generous people can bear. It normally works fine if all the players are real life friends.
If you are playing with people you don't know that well, over the internet, volatile friends hyped up on Mountain Dew, etc. You might need a more structured system to avoid conflict.
Kind of like the way we share snack foods in the office break room. People bring stuff, people share stuff, it all works out until someone takes the whole box of donuts and hides it in their desk. :)
But again I generally let the players handle this unless it starts to really get out of hand and a couple of people are ruining everyone else's enjoyment of the game. But that gets into a whole other topic of how a GM should handle player conflict and disruption.
One of the problems with giving stuff to those who need it, is it can often times throw off party wealth. For instance, the most common items people get in treasure, are going to be weapons and armor. Mages have no need for a +3 Longsword. If the treasue comes out to be lots of stuff for the non-casters, then the casters get gypd and receive no monies. Typically, we try and split up wealth by calculating total value of the items, then distributing a share. Then, an item can be taken out of the loot by paying an equal value out of his share.
Say the share is 5,000 gp of loot apiece. But there is a +1 sword. He 'buys' the sword from the loot with part of his share so some people would get more of other things. There have been times when a few people gained no items, but lots of gold, or no gold and lots of items etc.
Now the buying of the share isn't a perfect art. If the items a person wants is more than a share, and no one else wants the items, we'll generally give them to him so he can be better.
My group handles items by giving it to the person who can use it best. Anything no one wants we sell and we try to make sure that we share the wealth.The problem with this is what about items everyone wants/could use best such as the example Cloak of Resistance which is a boon to anyone.
Funny thing is that half of the party members don't buy cloaks of resistance LOL. As for it throwing the party wealth off we make sure they stay at similar levels. However I can see how playing with strangers would make my the system I suggested impossible.
Or you can handle it like our newest player did, who happens to be a dragon-born. First time we find something, he took the entire treasure chest and dumped it into a bag of holding because he needs it to start his hoard. Ummm, yeah, that's gonna be real fun for us when you do this with EVERY BIT of loot we discover. I've already been shut down when another player pocketed the money he found (and I'm the rogue) with "first to the loot gets whatever he wants". Any suggestions on how to deal with this?
The general question here is how do you value loot that is not cash or sold for cash.
If you are going by the "wealth by level" guidelines (which it seems a lot of GMs do) then the "fair" way to split things up is for each character to end up with equal loot value after the distribution.
So if the rogue takes the 1,000gp cloak, then he has 1,000g of wealth on his back. That means each other party member should get 1,000g, and the remaining 1,000g should be split four ways, so that each party member ends up with 1,250g worth of wealth.
This ends up exactly the same mathematically as if the 4,000g were divided equally, and the rogue paid each party member 250g for their "share" of the cloak.
The problem with this approach is when there is one item that is so much more valuable than the rest of the loot, that all the rest of the loot won't make up the difference for the other characters. In those cases the "fair" thing to do is to sell the item and split the proceeds, but that is probably not the "most effective party tactic" thing to do, especially if the items is clearly going to make a character much more effective in combat.
In those cases our group gives the item to the character who needs it, but they get no other loot, and the next time we get a loot pile, we rebalance party loot to make up the difference. In fact our level 8 party just went through exactly that exercise a few weeks ago.
Or you can handle it like our newest player did, who happens to be a dragon-born. First time we find something, he took the entire treasure chest and dumped it into a bag of holding because he needs it to start his hoard. Ummm, yeah, that's gonna be real fun for us when you do this with EVERY BIT of loot we discover. I've already been shut down when another player pocketed the money he found (and I'm the rogue) with "first to the loot gets whatever he wants". Any suggestions on how to deal with this?
Heh... my immediate reaction is "play with adults?"
But that's snarky. If the party is an evil party, this sort of behavior can be realistically described as "role playing." However I hate that kind of role playing. But some groups like it. In such a party, the dragonborn would likely discover his "treasure hoard" had a surprising tendency to shrink.
If the party is good, this is totally ridiculous behavior.
Or you can handle it like our newest player did, who happens to be a dragon-born. First time we find something, he took the entire treasure chest and dumped it into a bag of holding because he needs it to start his hoard. Ummm, yeah, that's gonna be real fun for us when you do this with EVERY BIT of loot we discover. I've already been shut down when another player pocketed the money he found (and I'm the rogue) with "first to the loot gets whatever he wants". Any suggestions on how to deal with this?Heh... my immediate reaction is "play with adults?"
But that's snarky. If the party is an evil party, this sort of behavior can be realistically described as "role playing." However I hate that kind of role playing. But some groups like it. In such a party, the dragonborn would likely discover his "treasure hoard" had a surprising tendency to shrink.
If the party is good, this is totally ridiculous behavior.
First, he would have to find the Bag. >:)
I don't like to play in evil parties. This behavior is one reason why. If I were to be in such a party and someone literally bagged the whole treasure chest for themselves, I would have absolutely no qualms coup de gracing that character in their sleep. Then I'd find the bag easily.
People hording gold and not sharing with the party often rely the rest of the party when they are unconscious. As cleric many times this Dragonborn would be very upset. Oh he would be healed eventually, but the someone else would have the bag of holding, if we split up shares his would have been donated or used to pay other expenses. Not to mention just because I heal the poor guy does not mean that I remember to pick up his weapons when he fell.
Oh, I meant the dragonborn would have to find the Bag first. Why loot stuff from the bag, when the Bag mysteriously disappeared and you woke up with a knot on your head from after going on watch?
Oh, I meant the dragonborn would have to find the Bag first. Why loot stuff from the bag, when the Bag mysteriously disappeared and you woke up with a knot on your head from after going on watch?
Oh, I get it.
Still, I don't see the sense in knocking the dragonborn on the head. My evil characters don't play nice. That dragonborn would wake up dead. End of dragonborn, end of story. Roll up a new character, and if you want to steal all the loot, we'll rinse and repeat.
As I said, I don't like to play in parties like this. I have zero patience for this behavior in RL, and less in game.
Evil does not equal douche. I know many non-evil characters who are complete douches, and evil characters who are very personable.
True in absolute terms blackie... but in practical terms I've only seen this sort of behavior from players who seem to think evil = douche.
I've rarely seen anyone play a good character act this way for any length of time in any party. And while I've seen a rare few chaotic neutral, I've seen a ton of evil characters doing this.
So while it may not be an absolute truth to say evil party = douche behavior, my experience has been that douche behavior is virtually ALWAYS associated with evil parties.
But the reverse is not true. I've been in lots of campaigns with evil parties whose characters acted like they had a damn ounce of sense.
That's just bad RP man. Throughout history, the truly scary evil guys were the nice guys and the well loved charismatic folks. John Wayne Gacy was loved by the neighborhood and he did charity work. That is evil.
Yes, that's one of the things that drives me crazy about the players who play evil as pure stupid. Playing a stupid character is role playing stupid, not evil. Evil people who screw everyone over all the time don't last long in the real world because the good guys want to put them behind bars, and the intelligent evil guys just put them six feet under.
When I play evil characters the LAST thing I want to do is advertise that I'm evil all the time. It's much, much more interesting to keep everyone guessing, and evil or not, sometimes I need someone to watch my back without worrying they are going to stick a dagger in it.
For the most part when I've played evil characters I would only steal from someone if they weren't contributing to the party. As an adventurer Id rather have someone on my side rather then some extra gold.
Or you can handle it like our newest player did, who happens to be a dragon-born. First time we find something, he took the entire treasure chest and dumped it into a bag of holding because he needs it to start his hoard. Ummm, yeah, that's gonna be real fun for us when you do this with EVERY BIT of loot we discover. I've already been shut down when another player pocketed the money he found (and I'm the rogue) with "first to the loot gets whatever he wants". Any suggestions on how to deal with this?
Just an update, I spoke with the player this weekend (he's in another campaign I'm in as well) and got his take on it. He confirmed it was a "well, I'm a dragonborn & it's what I would do" RP moment but says it was just for flavor & if we want/need the loot his char will, reluctantly (more RP), share it. He also said he figured my rogue would just find a way to help himself to some for more RP, though my char isn't known for thievery.
Who knew all the "talk with the player" advice on every problem player/gm post could actually work? In this case even though I've only known him for less than a year he's a nice guy & has been a good player in the other campaign so I had hopes we could work it out.
Or you can handle it like our newest player did, who happens to be a dragon-born. First time we find something, he took the entire treasure chest and dumped it into a bag of holding because he needs it to start his hoard. Ummm, yeah, that's gonna be real fun for us when you do this with EVERY BIT of loot we discover. I've already been shut down when another player pocketed the money he found (and I'm the rogue) with "first to the loot gets whatever he wants". Any suggestions on how to deal with this?Heh... my immediate reaction is "play with adults?"
But that's snarky. If the party is an evil party, this sort of behavior can be realistically described as "role playing." However I hate that kind of role playing. But some groups like it. In such a party, the dragonborn would likely discover his "treasure hoard" had a surprising tendency to shrink.
If the party is good, this is totally ridiculous behavior.
Not all that ridiculous even with a good party. I have had really good characters give away group treasure for a good cause or refuse payment on behave of the group. The paladin might have all the social skills and do most of the negotiating but refuses to drive a hard bargain.
I read just recently on the forums about another groups paladin that was carrying the group treasure using it to pay for an orphanage then taking the group members to showing them the building named after them and all the children they were providing homes for. Some of the characters might have become better for it, others maybe not.
If you are a tactical wargamer you might be perfectly happy to kill a dozen wolves to save one child, heck who are we kidding, they would risk their lives to kill the wolves no matter what, the kids is just incidental they are after power. Giving a hundred gold to save a child would make no sense in a wargame. Wargamer is about acquiring power through character ability and equipment with gold being a means to equipment. Giving away gold in a wargame is losing power which is losing. Losing is generally not fun in wargaming.
Roleplaying is about story telling and creating images and ideas that are fun to think about. Losing is almost required for a good story. Stories with no losing are generally not very interesting stories.
Games are often designed to be 'fair' but if you are roleplaying then like live especially medieval live is rarely perfectly fair with everyone having their fair share of resources whether they be good or evil.
But again it is all about how much roleplaying you want mixed in with your tactical wargaming. Everyone has a different balance that is right for them.
Me personally I love a good tactical battle with the battlemap and miniatures but I find I have more fun if when it comes to the loot I don't worry too much about how fairly it is divided.
RP, sure I can see it. But there's no mechanical difference between someone RPing their character as selfish & greedy and someone doing it so their character can be a god compared to the rest. You still end up with one person who can spend his wealth to outclass all the other party members. I agree fairness in the world is not required, but it is surely necessary to some extent for the GAME, or it becomes harder for the DM & other players if one person has a huge advantage in weapons, armor & magic items. And even if they don't spend it on themselves (hoard it, give it away, build an orphanage) wealth is usually a necessary part of players being able to equip themselves to face higher level monsters. So unless the DM is providing the other characters with a means to keep up with him, he can easily create a noticeable disparity, which to me is no fun when I'm the weaker bystander watching him walk through encounters at will, or being killed because the DM has to up the CR.