Ascension - Mageocracy

Game Master bbangerter

I am okay with Tomlin's suggestion. Rolling for something you want seems an iffy option, when we could just have the players/characters discuss who should get it, or at least getting it at 75% price instead of 100%. Less hard feelings that way, too. :)

@Tavrus: Some can be handled on a case by case circumstance if a duplicate item can't be bought. Cases like this would likely be rare in any case. I think some items would be more suitable for one PC over another, and in discussion (Akane's idea is a good one) that may become clearer. Rolling *might* be a good idea as a last resort but I think we should go through these other steps first.

ok, no biggie. i could see more chance of hard feelings if people are suggesting who should get what item, and the person who people vote against really wants the item anyway. no one can argue with rolls. but like i said, doesnt really matter to me.

Tomlin, I'm fine with that suggestion. I do think that rolling for the initial item still makes sense, as we will likely discover items when we are far from a place where a second can be purchased. Since we are back in town I'd be happy to go in for a second one with you and split the cost.

Again, that may not always be an option, though, and certainly will almost never be an option on the spot of discovery.

And now that I've thought about it a little bit longer I realize that the values the GM mentioned are the purchase values, not the sell values. Really we could only get half those values out of the items. So, going back to my initial post on the subject, it would be...

11500 + 2100 = 13600 / 6 = 2266 Gold 6 Silver 6 Copper each

And for getting the featherfall ring I would only minus 1100 gold, not 2200 gold. Which would mean that if we went in for a second one, I would actually be out MORE money by helping someone else get a second one. I personally would be fine with this, as would many other characters I would usually play as, but as far as roleplaying my rogue character, I don't think he would be so kind as that. Although he might, just to keep up a friendly standing with his fellow adventurers... =\

Any thoughts on the dilemma?

As a side note, I'd still be willing to go in for the second ring this time, if you want Tomlin. Just not sure how I'd handle it in the future.

@Tavrus: I wasn't recommending that other PC's vote on it, more that the interested PC's "talk it out" a bit regarding who really wants the item, if it is better suited or more crucial to one or the other, etc. In truth, With the vast majority of items a PC would consider buying out of the pot a duplicate can be bought. So these situations would be rare. If a dupilicate cannot be bought, and discussion amongst the interested PC's can't resolve it, then rolling can be an acceptable Plan C in my book.

@Tunny: You take the ring. Tomlin's interest really wasn't strong. As for future situations, I wouldn't recommend seeing the act of buying a duplicate item as "helping someone" getting a second item. Your willingness to pay the extra for a second one along with the other PC becomes the sign of your commensurate interest in it. If Tunny wouldn't want to help with the purchase of the second item, he doesn't have to. But this means the other interest PC gets the item and not Tunny. Make sense?

It makes sense to me, as a player, but that's entirely different than making sense to Tunny, as a character. Does that make sense?

Sure. I definitely get that there are differences between a player's POV and one's character (I certainly wouldn't do everything like Tomlin!), but IMO this is probably one of those situations where if we agree as a group on a course of action (e.g. treasure divvy'ing) OOC then we need to follow it IC. That gets REALLY ugly otherwise. We'll have enough trouble dealing with the other groups without beating down our own!

so if PC A and PC B want an item, and PC A gets it, exactly who all is chipping in to get PC B a duplicate?

the way i see it, that isnt really equal in any way. people are getting duplicate things and people besides them are paying for it, but what if a particular PC (PC C/D/E) doesnt see an item they want? are they continually chipping in on the "wants" of others? They are never getting things at a "found" price, always buying their own things. the wealth then becomes rather tilted in the favor of those with the most desires.

this post may sound kind of hostile, but that isnt my intent. just wanting to really understand the way you are proposing, as i have never had a group do something like that before.

@Tavrus: sorry, no, I wasn't clear on the proposal. Only PC A and PC B would have to chip in for the item, nobody else.

Let's use Tunny, Tomlin and the Ring of Feather Fall as an example. The Ring has a sell value of 1100gp's (a new one is 2200gp's). If just Tomlin wanted the Ring, he can buy it from the pot for 1100gp's. Easy enough. But since Tunny wants it too, we have a dilemma. The solution I'm proposing is that Tunny and Tomlin would each chip in 1650gp's to buy both a new Ring of Feather Fall (2200gp's) and the Ring of Feather Fall from the treasure list (1100gp's). The total of these two is 3300gp's, half is 1650gp's. So both Tomlin and Tunny would get a Ring of Feather Fall for less than buying it new, but not at the 50% "sell value" rate. Both Tomlin and Tunny would have to decide if they want the Ring enough to pay the 75% value rate (1650gp's). The fact that Tomlin didn't want the Ring enough to pay 1650gp's for it is part of the reason I said Tunny can have it all for himself.

Regardless: this system does not at all require other PC's to chip in money. I agree, that would be patently unfair.

ok and so when they buy it from the pot, the money they spend is divided among the party members uninterested with the item?

also another issue (albeit a small one) i see with that is for things that we are likely to repeatedly see: resist cloaks, +1 weapons, rings of protection, etc. If they are using your method, paying like 75% for it, then we get the same item again. if one person had gotten the item without entering a purchase agreement, and the person who didnt get the item had been patient, they would have both gotten it for 50%.

i guess that only affects those two so eh.

Also, what was the final verdict on the amount of gold we got if we did not get an item?

and GM, does Tavrus have a master within the tower or does he basically do his own things in a long-left-alone basement room?

Tomlin, I do understand, and I'm not against it so long as it works (but I can see many situations where it will not work, and rolling for items will become necessary), but I think we should indeed decide as a group. Is anyone apposed to the idea of splitting costs for multiple items of treasure if more than 1 person wants the item, so long as that is a reasonable option?

Also, Tavrus, everyone gets 2266 Gold 6 Silver 6 Copper, unless they take an item, then they will minus that item's sell worth from that amount. For instance, I am taking the Ring of Featherfall, so I will only get 1166g 6s 6c, because the ring can be sold for 1100g. Make sense?

Since we include the sell price of items in the overall pot, there is no additional dividing necessary when someone "buys" an item from the pot. They simply subtract that items sell value from what they get in gold. If this ends up being negative than they subtract that gold from what they currently have.

So there is one more situation we need to consider now before it comes up. What do we do if there is an item of greater value than the pot and what we may individual have on us? Who then gets the ring? Then shall we roll? Would we then take that additional value into account and that person won't get additional loot until they have payed the difference? Any other ideas?

For instance, if a Greater Ring of Fire Resistance (sell worth of 22k) had been found in the dragon's lair, then what?

You'd gets 2266gp's, 6sp's and 6cp's

Yes, the money used by PC's to buy items from the pot is shared with the rest, just like if the party had sold it off because no one wanted it.

If I undersand you second point correctly, yes, if you are patient and wait 'till next time on common items you might save some cash.

Tunny Ninja'd me...and I'm a ninja!

Regarding the Greater Ring of Fire Resistence situation you mention, I would say the item is simply sold. If one item is so expensive that a PC could not buy it out of the pot at it's sell value with the money earned from the divvy'd money AND what they already had, then it represents a substantial portion of the wealth we've earned. It really isn't fair for one person to get that disproportionately high amount of the total pot.

Also, what was the final verdict on the amount of gold we got if we did not get an item?

and GM, does Tavrus have a master within the tower or does he basically do his own things in a long-left-alone basement room?

Weldon Hast periodically stops by to talk with you about the nature of your work - though you are given a fair bit of autonomy to do as you wish.

Hrm.. I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but I couldn't disagree with you more on the idea of selling such a valuable item. If something excessively expensive could be of real use to a party member the last thing we should do is sell it. That would be like throwing away gold, in the hypothetical case it would be throwing away 22k gold.

And to continue being non-argumentative but somewhat disagreeable =)...

The more I think about your proposed loot rules the less I like them. At first glance they seem fair, but in all honesty I think the dice rolling is more fair. For instance, let's take the current situation. By my saying that I would also like the Ring of Featherfall, you no longer get it because you aren't willing to pay a little more for it. How is that fair to you? What if all 6 of us wanted it, but none of us wanted to pay more than the 1100 for it, then the winner is the one who doesn't admit he isn't willing to pay more until everyone else just gives in and he gets it for the desired price. =) You see where I'm going with this? This turns more into a game of poker, where you call other's bluffs.

Honestly, this is a game of dice. When you play any tabletop game you go into it knowing that the roll of dice will decide your fate. I think it's far more fair to let it decide the fate of loot as well. As long as we make sure that no one is rolling on items that won't be of any use to them (such as me rolling for the power orb, or you rolling a spellbook, etc). Then if you win, you get the item and pay for it, if you lose you can buy the item at full price if you really want it.

Ok, now we really do need input from everyone to settle this... =\ Again, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to cause trouble, I'm just trying to make sure everyone gets a fair chance at getting the loot they want/need.

I don't think it is throwing away 22K. A lot of items in the book have prices out of whack compared to their actual usefulness to the party. I think most PC's would rather each party member have 5K to spend on exactly the items they want than one person get a Ring of Greater Elemental Resistance.

Not sure what others use in their house games, that would be interesting to hear. I've used the system mentioned above in a number of games with no problems. The dice rolling system...yeah, just don't like it. YMMV.

Ok, another piece from me i might sound grumpy but that is just because i haven't eaten today and i am working on my off day, i hold no malice to you all

For the rolling, in my group, we don't go rolling on things that we don't really need. every now and again, an item comes up that no one wants, and everyone rolls on it for fun, to see who gets it.

I don't like the "let's buy another duplicate item" idea, for reasons Tunny stated.

As far as the example of the 22k ring, i think we should not sell it. it should go to someone, and that person should take a reduced (50%) or zero share from several future loot divisions, essentially having a debt to the party quantified in gold pieces.

To revise my previous suggestion for loot, perhaps this:

One of my main concerns about the rolling method is that it prevents a PC who really wants an item the opportunity to make their case for it more than a roll. For example, if a Ring of Invisibility came up in the loot pile Tunny might be very, very interested in it. Tavrus might be somewhat interest in it, but it may not be all that high on his list. Yet both could say that want it and a roll-off gives it Tarvus with nothing Tunny can do about it. A rolling system offers no way for someone to assert their level of interest in such an item. Additionally, the "luck of the die" could dictate that a PC loses out on several items in a row and falls behind. A strict rolling system offers no remedies for this.

The bidding idea is interesting, and would in theory solve many of the concerns I have with a rolling system. I agree with Tavrus though that this system could be exploited by others looking to drive up the price. Bidding systems may also make the system far more complicated than anything else suggested.

Tomlin, I wasn't suggesting that we just roll away items without thought for who needs them more or has more practical use for the item. I only mean as a way of finalizing things. I think that in the Invisibility Ring case it would be pretty obvious to everyone that Tunny or Tomlin would have the more practical use of the item. I think that the old "need over greed" system would take care of most issues.

Additionally, I would expect other players to not get greedy. Honestly, I don't think that loot will be a major concern. It's mostly up to the GM to make sure we get a good balance, am I right =). I'm just saying that rolling for it as a final decision in situations where multiple people want a single item that they both have a legitimate and equal use for is, in my opinion, the best option.

As for people "cheating" on rolls.. you know what, I came here to enjoy the game, and I'm not going to cheat. Period. I expect others to do the same.

Really we need to hear from everyone else. Come on people! =D

If I had to pick a side, I'd be on Tomlin's.

But I'm okay with what the rest of you decide.

Yes, i think any loot system will rely on the players to be fair and reasonable about it. For instance, I might want a ring of invisibility, but i recognize that logic dictates the rogue should get it, as it will be infinitely more useful to him.

And yes, i think that discussing who the items should go to should be before the rolls. rolls could only be for something like a Pearl of Power, which would be equally useful for Tavrus and the Magus. It gives the Magus one more shocking grasp, or Tavrus one more Cure Light. so if there were no agreement, then the two interested parties would roll.

with the bidding, yeah it is kinda complicated and would bog things down. and to keep people from gaming the bid up higher, the winning bid would have to not be divided with the person losing the bid (but they keep the amount of money they bid since they lost). although that might stink for them and make them not want to bid, but that means they didnt want the item.

I am fine with whatever we choose though, even if it isnt the system i suggested. talking about the loot first would be best in any event.

Tavrus purchased the following:

16 onyx gems
Wand of Cure Light Wounds [CL 1][50]
Scroll: Desecrate [CL 3]
Scroll: Create Food and Water [CL 5]
Scroll: Protection from Energy [CL 5]

I am personally fine with either method used to determine loot.

Aside from the scrolls I already mentioned DM, I am buying the feather token: Whip - if that is available (Something that can help restrain/bind makes sense for us Law-Enforcement types)

That is readily available Valdr.

FYI, I'm going to start putting out some rumors from time to time - these will include things from current in game events going on from the different factions.

The campaign info tab will always contain the latest bit of gossip and rumor.

These are rumors you would pick up in taverns and inns, overhearing conversations on the street, and so forth.

@GM: Waiting on Aurelion's approval, but assuming Tomlin does go out to talk to Jumai and the Merchant's guild, he will use his disguise skill with his disguise kit ahead of time, and take 10 on the check. He'll not try to change much of his appearance (maybe +5 bonus for "minor details only"?), rather he will try to look like an administrative civil servant from the tower.

That works for me, Valdr's trusty hat of disguise will handle things on his end and since we work for the government I am pretty sure they will back up our false identities if it comes to that.

Okay, I have to apologize for not being very active for the last week or so.

I just started a job, while taking a full load of classes at my college, and doing 15 hours of observation at an Elementary school for one of those classes, so I have been mentally and emotionally drained and not really in the proper shape to be contributing meaningfully to the game.

My last day of observation is Thursday, so after that, it should be full speed ahead, but I will likely get bogged down with papers and such in the coming month or two. I kindly request your patience.

And as a heads up, both myself and Aurelion will be out of town for the next week, although he will continue to be out of town for a week following that. We will do our best to post while away!

Thanks for heads up. Feel free to pick up questioning the drow Tavrus though that might normally be out of character for you.

My rolls have not been good lately.

@Valdr: Fortunately, I don't think that last one counts. I'm pretty sure the GM rolls our Sense Motives for us behind the screen

Hey guys, back now. Sorry again for not being able to post for the last week, it was pretty hectic. I'll do the best I can to catch me and Aurelion up to speed. As I mentioned he is still out of town, but I'll be posting for him when he is unable to do so. I'll try and get him to post if he can, though.

FYI, I will not be available to post Monday night - long weekend. So I will post again tomorrow night, then a three day weekend, then post Tuesday night.

@GM: Would Tomlin/Valdr have the ability to grant Raseb the latitude for his guards he is asking for?

You would need to get formal approval for it, but it could arranged if any of this group were to ask for it (assuming no hidden politics going on to prevent it).

I ended up driving four hours tonight to go pick up my daughter, so no updates from me tonight.

Tomlin, if the guild representative provides us with no leads, where would you want to head next? I have one more question after this one, involving the group of guild agents that Mr. Jumai spoke of, but beyond that I am out of leads.

We could always go to the group with the drow and see what was squeezed out of him?

@Valdr: Sounds good. I have no other questions, so getting back to the group and pooling our data would be the next step. Tomlin would figure the drow is possibly the best lead we have, so checking with them would be a good next step.

Let's head to the drow/Akane and Tavrus.

Later today, I will be cutting off my internet so my posts will be sporadic at best for a few days until I get back to Hawaii. NPC my character as necessary if you like.

On to reuniting part of our group.

I would be happy to detail the rumor(s) or work with others on doing so, but I would need a little information first.

a) The old watch tower ruins south of the city are haunted. Is this true? Has the Mageocracy investigated this / or used this tower recently?

b) Are there any locations where prisoners are usually transfered? What would make the most sense?

As for Tomlin and I needing intel - AKANE - we are waiting on you, Tavrus/Tenro is off in Hawaii and won't be posting until he returns (He gave no specific time frame)

Sorry, I've really been swamped with school and work, but I'll do my best to get to it as soon as I'm capable. I apologize for not saying anything sooner.

its ok i posted it up there.

i am in hawaii, just getting settled in still. but i have been checking my games

I would be happy to detail the rumor(s) or work with others on doing so, but I would need a little information first.

a) The old watch tower ruins south of the city are haunted. Is this true? Has the Mageocracy investigated this / or used this tower recently?

b) Are there any locations where prisoners are usually transfered? What would make the most sense?

As for Tomlin and I needing intel - AKANE - we are waiting on you, Tavrus/Tenro is off in Hawaii and won't be posting until he returns (He gave no specific time frame)

a) The tower has been abandoned for near 100 years. This rumor of it being haunted is fairly new, and most simply dismiss it. Records regarding the tower's history when it was active could be found within the great library though.

b) Typically the prisons would be the location captives would be taken - at least once found guilty of crimes. Sometimes a prisoner might be transferred to another area of the city if it is believed they were involved in crimes in multiple districts and need to be judged by magistrates in a given district. For example if they were taken into custody near the western gate, but it was believed they were also involved in as yet unsolved crimes near the docks, then after any trial based on crimes at the western gate they would be transferred to a holding cell in the docks area for further trial related to the other crimes.