Sounds like a good formation.
Gregor: I didn't have a strict preference for which archetype I take, but it'd probably be more along the lines of a debuffer instead of a straight buffer.
I'm not sure what style of fighting Didiana will be using, or how often she expects to use her melee weapon, but her and Gregor are soldiers (of a sort), so they understand combat formation. They don't need to be side-by-side per se, but if Gilda and Gregor are the only two that will regularly use their ranged weapons, they would probably be best at the rear.
So single file:
Matiscio
Lia
Evander
Didiana
Gilda
Gregor
And double-file:
Lia & Matiscio
Didiana & Evander
Gregor & Gilda
@Lia, that sounds good. I'm going primarily for the Inspire Courage and Versatile Performance.
I had it the other way because Evander had volunteered to bring up the rear in case of any surprise threats from the rear. If you all decide differently, that's fine, but it should be a group decision.
So the two options at the moment for single file are:
Matiscio
Lia
Evander
Didiana
Gilda
Gregor
or
Matiscio
Lia
Didiana
Gregor
Gilda
Evander
I switched the order of Didiana and Gregor in the second option from my last post. Gregor and Gilda's position could also be easily changed in that formation.
The two options for double file are:
Lia & Matiscio
Didiana & Evander
Gregor & Gilda
and
Lia & Matiscio
Didiana & Gregor
Gilda & Evander
With the last option, switching Gregor and Gilda's positions probably wouldn't make much difference.
I'd like everyone to weigh in on this since it'll come up fairly often over the course of the adventure.
Edit: Of course, you all can decide to change the formations later if you'd like, but I'd like to go ahead and establish the formations for now as I don't think they're likely to change much.
What's the range of my Magic Missile? 110 ft.? Yeah, that probably where I should be...
Joking aside, my defenses are abysmal so I definitely appreciate being cushioned by the melee types. I'm perfectly fine with either marching order. Comes to down to Gilda, I think, whose defenses are similarly awful (unless I've missed something).
I do intend to have Evander in melee more often than at range, so it might be more beneficial to have him further up - if only so he has to pass fewer people between him and the melee.
Oops, Gilda overlooked the Alertness feat for having her familiar nearby. Those Perception and Sense Motive rolls should've been +2 higher all this time!
Oops, Gilda overlooked the Alertness feat for having her familiar nearby. Those Perception and Sense Motive rolls should've been +2 higher all this time!
Ah, sorry to hear that. : / At this point, it would probably be more trouble than it's worth to go back and retroactively change it. If it was an issue with something in combat, I would certainly do so, though.
Alright, so based on what everyone's said about the formations, here's the ones we'll go with barring any major objections or changes down the road:
Matiscio
Lia
Evander
Gregor
Didiana
Gilda
and
Matiscio & Lia
Evander & Gregor
Didiana & Gilda
Oh no worries, I wasn't looking for a retroactive application... just letting you know when the numbers suddenly popped up why they did so. :)
I'm good with the party order.
Oh no worries, I wasn't looking for a retroactive application... just letting you know when the numbers suddenly popped up why they did so. :)
I'm good with the party order.
Gotcha.
Also, sorry Matiscio, I somehow forgot to add you to the initiative order. Yes, I'll be moving your token for you once everyone has stated their action(s) for the round.
I figured as much, thanks!
I figured as much, thanks!
I did roll your initiative though, so I didn't forget about you entirely. : )
Sorry for the delay, I'm on night shift so I'm just now putting a post together.
Sorry for the delay, I'm on night shift so I'm just now putting a post together.
No worries. We're already moving a bit faster than when we first started. That might have something to do with the fact that we started as we were going into a weekend. That probably didn't help. Slow and steady, though, that's what counts.
Just realized none of those thugs could 5-ft step since they're in difficult terrain. None of them would have provoked an attack of opportunity either way, though. Good to note for everyone for future rounds.
So one comment on how we're running combat.
We're kind of posting all our round 3 actions together, even though some of our actions are "after the enemies" and could very well change when our enemies do something unpredictable.
I'm not saying this is a perfect system, but when I GM I'll roll initiative and lump the players into a bucket of "before enemies" and "after enemies" and then solicit for actions from those buckets.
Example #1 After Enemies Round 1
Then it's just back and forth, everyone is acting together from that point forward (barring delays).
Especially at level 1, when a single hit could mean the difference between rolling an attack or deciding to flee, I imagine most folks want to see how/if they are hit or affected by a spell before they post their actions.
Just some thoughts! Of course I'll roll with any way things are run.
@Gilda:
I'm open to changing the system, though it would probably be best to do so after the current combat at this point.
I do have a few concerns, though, which are some of the reasons I didn't go with a system like that or a "block" system, etc.
One, it seems like that could potentially delay combat, causing only one person to potentially be able to post for an entire day.
Two, I know I won't be available 24/7, so if that one person does post, I still might not be able to move us along for several hours or more, further delaying things.
Three, there's also the issue of when you want enemies to have separate initiatives. Yes, having them all share the same initiative does greatly simplify things, but it also doesn't really make sense when there are unique enemies involved (like Nox in the current combat).
So all that being said, I'm still open to adjusting things or even experimenting a bit, but I don't want to risk slowing down the pace too much. As a personal aside, I feel like it takes me the better part of an hour to put together a decent combat post. I'm sure that will change as I get more used to the flow of things, but I also want to avoid putting out subpar posts if at all possible. That will tend to further limit the time windows in which I can post.
It sounds like you and Evander were advocating for similar systems, so you're probably not alone. Admittedly, your system is much more elegant and player friendly, so I'm willing to make changes if everyone would like to, but I also don't want to compromise the complexity of combat too much, either. Feedback on all of that is welcome. Hopefully I didn't ramble too much.
I actually prefer probably one of the slowest methods of resolving combat in PbP, therefore I understand going with all the other ones that are faster.
I prefer to do them all indiviually in initiative order (since block init can negate player's choices with init modifying feats/traits/class abilities). Others can post, out of order, but if the previous action negates, I ask for a different action (they keep rolls though). I realize this makes combat in PbP VERY slow, so I accept just about any method other GM's tend to use.
That said, resolving block initiative (when I have to recap all the players, and take all the enemies at once) takes me forever. When it does, I have less time as a GM to post. If I resolve one player as soon as they post, I can reply much faster and more often, as I have a lot of small opportunities over few large chances to post.
I'm honestly fine with most methods. Sticking to initiative order truly recreates that tabletop feel, but can bring the pace of the game down to snail speed. Putting the players and monsters in blocks is a nice happy compromise between speed and sticking to the spirit of the game's design. Having everyone post regardless of what's going on and whose turn it is, in my opinion a great way of handling large scale encounters like the one we're currently in.
I don't mind how we do it, but right now, the pace of the game feels right to me :)
I don't feel like I have enough experience with this to make any significant comment, but Gilda and Zek both raise good points. At higher levels when combat gets more complex, players and baddies have more options and things like immediate actions (oh my) become relevant, knowing what the enemy did within the round, before your own turn, becomes pretty vital. On the other hand, having the GM make individual posts for individual monsters on their individual initiatives is completely infeasible.
Is the solution separate blocks of baddies? One block for every PC that won the initiative, one for all the CCG thugs, one for Nox, and one for every PC that lost the initiative?
Hell if I know. I'm just writing this to acknowledge the discussion.
If we stick with the current method of handling combat, the easy solution is just have everyone post alternate actions in case the actions of another player change what one player would do - kind of like my Withdraw post, where I changed it based on whether or not Matiscio knocked the enemy out or not.
I'm all for switching to the block initiative, though, but that's just me.
EDIT: Unrelated, but is the Chelish Citizens' Group a lawful militia? Or merely a militia that Thrune orders the dottari to ignore because they support him?
One other concern about block initiative I forgot to mention is action economy. If most of the PCs get to attack before (or even after) the enemies, it could result in very short encounters. That's probably a more minor issue, but still something to consider.
That said, resolving block initiative (when I have to recap all the players, and take all the enemies at once) takes me forever. When it does, I have less time as a GM to post. If I resolve one player as soon as they post, I can reply much faster and more often, as I have a lot of small opportunities over few large chances to post.
I get this, but I think it also depends on each person's availability. For me, I'm more likely to be available for a few longer stretches rather than lots of small stretches.
I'm honestly fine with most methods. Sticking to initiative order truly recreates that tabletop feel, but can bring the pace of the game down to snail speed. Putting the players and monsters in blocks is a nice happy compromise between speed and sticking to the spirit of the game's design. Having everyone post regardless of what's going on and whose turn it is, in my opinion a great way of handling large scale encounters like the one we're currently in.
I don't mind how we do it, but right now, the pace of the game feels right to me :)
Your second to last sentence brings up a really good point. This is a particularly large encounter (in terms of the number of PCs and NPCs involved). Most encounters won't be this large, so it might be a problem that's especially evident for this fight.
I would think block initiative would work better if you could lump all your enemies into one group. Now, I don't think switching back and forth between systems would be a good plan as that could get very confusing very fast for all of us.
The next fight you're all likely to face will be a situation where testing block initiative would be more feasible, so if everyone would like to, I don't mind trying the system in the next encounter. If everyone likes that method better, then we can switch for future encounters.
I don't feel like I have enough experience with this to make any significant comment, but Gilda and Zek both raise good points. At higher levels when combat gets more complex, players and baddies have more options and things like immediate actions (oh my) become relevant, knowing what the enemy did within the round, before your own turn, becomes pretty vital. On the other hand, having the GM make individual posts for individual monsters on their individual initiatives is completely infeasible.
Is the solution separate blocks of baddies? One block for every PC that won the initiative, one for all the CCG thugs, one for Nox, and one for every PC that lost the initiative?
Hell if I know. I'm just writing this to acknowledge the discussion.
Or when you have a swashbuckler, they become relevant at level 1 (lol). But yeah, I think we're seeing one of the constraints of the play-by-post format. Since based on what I've read, most combat encounters will be smaller than the current fight or at least involve enemies that can be clumped into a single group, block initiative might be the better option in the long run. I think my biggest concern is how much it might slow us down. I'll GMPC if I need to, but even with that, it could prevent all but one player from posting for over 24 hours. I don't want us to lose momentum, which seems to be on our side at the moment.
If we stick with the current method of handling combat, the easy solution is just have everyone post alternate actions in case the actions of another player change what one player would do - kind of like my Withdraw post, where I changed it based on whether or not Matiscio knocked the enemy out or not.
I'm all for switching to the block initiative, though, but that's just me.
EDIT: Unrelated, but is the Chelish Citizens' Group a lawful militia? Or merely a militia that Thrune orders the dottari to ignore because they support him?
I think you're right about the alternate actions option. If we stick with the current method, that would be very useful. It was particularly useful for resolving your actions this round.
I'd like to hear from Lia (and Gilda again) as to their opinions, but I'm flexible. I know at least four of you are currently play-by-post GMs in other games, so you've already got more experience than me in this area, so I'm willing to change if it's in everyone's best interests and in the best interests of the game.
Yes, the Chelish Citizens' Group is considered lawful (at least lawful according to Barzillai) and they see themselves as being lawful, in their own twisted way.
Well, Evander doesn't see them as being lawful - but then, he doesn't see most of Barzillai's proclamations as being lawful, apart from him being appointed Lord Mayor by the Queen, so that certainly makes a difference for him.
Well, Evander doesn't see them as being lawful - but then, he doesn't see most of Barzillai's proclamations as being lawful, apart from him being appointed Lord Mayor by the Queen, so that certainly makes a difference for him.
Of course. As a player and as your character, you're free to form your own opinions. The adventure is called Hell's Rebels after all.
On Alternate Actions In Posts:
The one thing I know that ends up problematic with alternate actions is that folks end up posting a lot of dice roller rolls that either never take effect, or allow some "fudging" as a player.
For example, let's say I see the dice roller is about to give me rolls of 3 then 20.
What sometimes players will do is post something unlikely to happen as their first action and then post the more likely met condition as their second action which happens to have the critical roll (for example).
For an honest player, this is doubly annoying since you see you "ate up" your 20 on an alternate action that you did or didn't have to post. I imagine some folks reconsider their alternate action posting when they see it's the critical hit, knowing they can then "save it" for their next post.
For that reason, I generally am not a fan of alternate actions, at least when they involve rolls.
On "Block Resolution":
In general I think games work best when the players check twice a day - once in the morning and once in the evening. That way folks can spot if a combat started and it depends on them before the enemies. Normally folks with good initiative bonuses end up here, and folks who are maximizing initiative are usually more die-hard players who check PbP forums multiple times per day, so usually jump on the combat right away after the GM starts it.
Once the players "before the monsters" have posted, it's just like what we're doing where everyone all acts together. It's just a matter of getting that first "pointer" to the enemies resolved. Sometimes the entire party acts before the monsters and it's moot. It's almost just like you're running a surprise round every combat, and the people who win initiative in normal rounds just happening to be the only ones that go for the first "block". If the argument against resolving the player(s) who begin round 1 before the monsters is that those individuals might not post a reply quick enough, you still end up with the same issue if they actually were the only person acting first in an actual surprise round.
I also think it helps when the GM gets on and actually posts some updates "mid-block". Like we could have three people facing off vs one troll and 4 players all post attack rolls vs the troll only to have one of the attacks be needed to actual defeat it. Then you have 3 posts that sit there and contribute to the narrative where the character is like "phenomenal swing!" but then during resolution we realize three of those swings didn't actually occur. Then you're left with weird kind of ret-con posts where you're like "does anyone want to revise their actions to instead draw and use an alchemist fire?".
In general when I'm GMing I tend to hone in on when my players post, and I'll refresh a few times during that hour window and try to chime in as decisive actions come in so that the other players who are still pending can have an updated view of the battlefield.
Anyway, please read this as mostly just discussion and not a "it must be done this way" kind of argument. I've got some other GMs who do block initiative slightly different.
GM EndlessForms (a VC of PbP Play) does block form a little differently in his round summaries, where he collapses the players into a list and does away with the actual initiative rolls. He bolds the characters he's waiting for. This is probably an even better, more concise way that I use and I really should adopt it. :)
For that reason, I generally am not a fan of alternate actions, at least when they involve rolls.
That seems like an understandable reason. Alternate actions would likely make things even more convoluted. I appreciate what you said about honest players as well, since, as you said, some of their actions might not happen at all, depending on what happened before.
GM EndlessForms (a VC of PbP Play) does block form a little differently in his round summaries, where he collapses the players into a list and does away with the actual initiative rolls. He bolds the characters he's waiting for. This is probably an even better, more concise way that I use and I really should adopt it. :)
I like the TBD format and making things as concise as possible, but I'll admit that I'm not a fan of clumping everyone together. Resolving everyone in initiative order still seems like a good idea in case the troll (or some other enemy) dies before the next person attacks.
I am a bit concerned about the TBD format, though, as it seems like it can only go so far. I'm guessing I would just bot if the player didn't post by the time the third round came up. Accepting actions out of order can potentially also make it difficult to know where to move character tokens on a map.
So, that being said, I think I would like to try some version of the "block" format for combat. At the risk of derailing our current pace, I'll try to use the system for the next encounter. I want feedback as to people's preferences once we've tried both methods. On balance, it does seem like the block system would be better.
With that in mind, I would probably do block initiative like you mentioned in your earlier post about combat.
Players before enemies post, then I would resolve their actions along with the enemies' actions, then everyone could post after that (those remaining for round one and the players up for round 2 before the enemies). I would still want to resolve actions in initiative order, though, since beneficial spells and such should only apply if cast before the actions of the other characters in question.
If anyone's completely opposed to the above, let me know. I'll try to make it as clear as possible when it comes time to try it.
I've found, no matter how you do initiative in PbP, it almost ends up being block anyways. Unless block is strictly, regardless of rolls, all PC's, then all Enemies, or vice versa. I roll for enemies as a group (if they are the same type). Goblins, and Hobs, for example. Usually, one group goes, then all players between go, then the other. If it carries over across the round that works.
For example, for this fight, Gregor went first, then baddies, then everyone else. The way I would normally resolve it is to have Gregor go, then I would do the baddies, then everyone else takes round 1, while Gregor takes round 2, then baddies, everyone else takes round 2, while Gregor takes 3... etc. Now I still resolve it in order, and I don't demand it be played this way, it just works out that way.
I also keep a running init counter, that shows the actions last taken, so when I go back to see when someone did some action, I don't have to read through the entries. Here's how mine looks:
I keep it in a text document, and just update it with each person's actions, reposting it anytime I update the combat.
Or HERE's an example in play from this fight in my campaign
Well, this is embarrassing...
I think I need to invest in heavier armour. Or learn how to use my Swashbuckler's Dodge.
I've found, no matter how you do initiative in PbP, it almost ends up being block anyways. Unless block is strictly, regardless of rolls, all PC's, then all Enemies, or vice versa. I roll for enemies as a group (if they are the same type). Goblins, and Hobs, for example. Usually, one group goes, then all players between go, then the other. If it carries over across the round that works.
For example, for this fight, Gregor went first, then baddies, then everyone else. The way I would normally resolve it is to have Gregor go, then I would do the baddies, then everyone else takes round 1, while Gregor takes round 2, then baddies, everyone else takes round 2, while Gregor takes 3... etc. Now I still resolve it in order, and I don't demand it be played this way, it just works out that way.
I also keep a running init counter, that shows the actions last taken, so when I go back to see when someone did some action, I don't have to read through the entries. Here's how mine looks:
I do like the concept. I think it's similar to what Gilda was proposing. I try to keep everyone's current status up-to-date for each of my combat posts and relate what happened in the last round as part of the narrative, so our formatting is just a bit different it seems.
Well, this is embarrassing...
I think I need to invest in heavier armour. Or learn how to use my Swashbuckler's Dodge.
If it helps your feelings, I don't think Dodging Panche would have made a difference. Even with the +1 charisma from earlier, your AC would have only increased by 3.
Well, Evander doesn't see them as being lawful - but then, he doesn't see most of Barzillai's proclamations as being lawful, apart from him being appointed Lord Mayor by the Queen, so that certainly makes a difference for him.
For the sake of discussion, Didiana is very much with Evander here. She enforces the laws of Cheliax to ensure what any hellknight wants: social cohesion and order. If those laws don't serve that goal anymore (and boy howdy, do they not), then she cannot support the laws.
Zek, how about the dottari though? I understand that the CCG is composed largely of royalists and as such are pretty much 100% douches, but I can't imagine that that's the case for the city guard. Were key positions in the dottari replaced when Barzillai took power, or is the commmon guardsman just deluded somehow?
I mean, Evander pretty much doesn't want to mess with the dottari. That's why I had him look to escape once they started advancing into the crowd. He views them as a lawful authority, since they were here before Thrune. The CCG, however, he views as Thrune's personal thugs, and thus as being fair game to fight.
social cohesion and order
That's what Matiscio is all about. He's a follower of Irori so (re-)establishing a functioning order is high on his agenda.
Zek, how about the dottari though? I understand that the CCG is composed largely of royalists and as such are pretty much 100% douches, but I can't imagine that that's the case for the city guard. Were key positions in the dottari replaced when Barzillai took power, or is the commmon guardsman just deluded somehow?
Well, I'm not sure you would necessarily know this in character, but ooc - the dottari have undergone a bit of a transformation since Barzillai's arrival. So, while I'm sure there are a few exceptions (like Senior Recruit Ward), by and large the dottari have fallen in line with their new leader and Barzillai's wishes. The AP lists them as LE.
social cohesion and orderThat's what Matiscio is all about. He's a follower of Irori so (re-)establishing a functioning order is high on his agenda.
In this case, one form of government may have to be abolished before another can take its place.
For everyone: We'll be officially out of combat as of my next post, so feel free to interact a bit as you exit Aria Park. For that purpose, Lia should be awake now and I'm assuming Evander also was healed by Gilda's channel. I'll move us along later today.
While I'm thinking about it, I did want to mention that I am taking into consideration potential alignment shifts.
Things like Gregor deciding to protect Lia, despite his apparent racism, push him closer to a good alignment. It'll take more than that to make his actual alignment good rather than neutral, but it's a step in that direction.
Your characters aren't static entities, so their actions will have ramifications, for better or for worse.
social cohesion and orderThat's what Matiscio is all about. He's a follower of Irori so (re-)establishing a functioning order is high on his agenda.
Hopefully without her fascistic undertone of 'the people don't know what's good for them'. We need someone in this party to sing the À la volonté du peuple.
I am pretty sure Matiscio is not looking to impose a corporatist authoritarian regime upon Kintargo, haha.
What with the setting and us fighting devil worshipping fascists, I figured this track would be more fitting for all the action and adrenaline ahead of us. C'mon, we ain't Andoran!
We need someone in this party to sing the À la volonté du peuple.
Well, considering both Lia and Gregor are planning to take levels in bard, maybe they can sing it as a duet. Or, if you don't care about the quality, I'm sure you could convince Gilda to do it if she thought it would make Barzillai mad.
What with the setting and us fighting devil worshipping fascists, I figured this track would be more fitting for all the action and adrenaline ahead of us. C'mon, we ain't Andoran!
Or Lia and Gregor could try to harmonize this song with Didiana's suggestion. It would make for an interesting mix.
Happy 4th of July to those in the U.S.
I also wanted to mention how much I've enjoyed reading all of your posts. You all have made me smile, laugh, and contemplate life at various points in your posts. So... thank you for almost 100 posts so far and here's to the next 1000!
Happy 4th!
Make it 101 :)
Best wishes from a filthy socialist across the pond, ya yanks. Have a good one.
Since yesterday was July 4th, I'm going to give Gilda a bit longer to post before moving us along.
Posting now!
Zek, could you clarify something about the Silver Ravens? The player's guide (and now Porcia's note) has me confused as to whether or not the Ravens are active and well known in Kintargo. The guide states that group has just now gone dark with Barzillai jailing its leadership just a week ago, but then has some of the traits, most notably Historian of the Rebellion, indicate that the Silver Ravens have been gone for decades. Coupled with this note from Rexus's mother which seems to lean to the latter understanding, that the Ravens are unknown and a thing of the past, and I'm left a bit puzzled.
What does the average person in Kintargo think they know about the Silver Ravens, if anything, is what I'm asking. That's the perspective I'm gonna be writing Didiana from.
Zek, could you clarify something about the Silver Ravens? The player's guide (and now Porcia's note) has me confused as to whether or not the Ravens are active and well known in Kintargo. The guide states that group has just now gone dark with Barzillai jailing its leadership just a week ago, but then has some of the traits, most notably Historian of the Rebellion, indicate that the Silver Ravens have been gone for decades. Coupled with this note from Rexus's mother which seems to lean to the latter understanding, that the Ravens are unknown and a thing of the past, and I'm left a bit puzzled.
What does the average person in Kintargo think they know about the Silver Ravens, if anything, is what I'm asking. That's the perspective I'm gonna be writing Didiana from.
Hey Didiana,
That's a great question. There probably are a few discrepancies in the player's guide regarding the Silver Ravens. Your leanings are correct. The average Kintargan wouldn't know anything about the Silver Ravens as they haven't been active in decades. Some of the information currently available to you about the Silver Ravens is intentionally left vague, though, as some of it will be revealed in time.
It is within the realm of possibility that a member or members of the Silver Ravens are still alive (hence the line in the player's guide about Barzillai jailing the Silver Ravens' leadership), but they haven't been an influential group in Kintargo for years. As the note indicates, they served a greater purpose when rebellion was needed and likely went out of style once Cheliax settled down after its civil war.
Question for Evander... how are your tiefling traits exhibited? Horns? Tail? Eyes?
None of the above. I have the Pass for Human alternate trait, so I don't look like a Tiefling.
None of the above. I have the Pass for Human alternate trait, so I don't look like a Tiefling.
Keep in mind, though, that you still have a few minor oddities that indicate you are a tiefling (like hard finger nails or your eyes flashing red when you're angry or in combat) to other tieflings or close observers who know what to look for.
Yep. Most of what I'm thinking is the eye flashes - especially if I end up using my Deathwatch SLA. That and a subtle feeling of enjoyment at engaging in violence that Evander feels somewhat revolted by. I forgot to include that in my battle with the CCG guy - would have been a perfect spot to include it. Crap.
Wanted to bring it up sooner, when we were discussing marching order, but decided to wait. Now is the best time. Treasure distribution. I've seen PbP groups fall apart over disagreements about this.
There's a few methods people prefer:
Everyone claims what works best for them as their own: This generally works well for all, except the pitfall is that sometimes it just so happens that all the treasure is usable by only one or two of the group. Then the others have nothing.
Buyout: There is a running total of the exact value of all the treasure, and you buyout your shares (to the point of even having a defecit), to keep it as close to WBL fair across the board. This method requires a lot of extra bookkeeping. It can also end up with someone not getting or taking an item that is only good for them, because they already have an expensive item that is only good for them. Then a really useful item gets sold just for WBL fairness.
Free for all: Take what you want, and it's yours. Roll-off if two people want, and just let the dice decide.
It all belongs to the group, everyone just 'borrows' from it: I think this works best, personally, as it's mainly like take what works best, but when new stuff comes in. the old stuff goes back into the group pile in case someone else wants it, or sells and split evenly among all. It never actually belongs to the user, and they alone don't benefit from the sel value.
As a side note, I believe in an extra split of treasure into party loot. So we would split all coin 7 ways , and the remainder goes into the party split. This pays for things like Rezzes, or the fact that if you look at the Rebellion rules, we have to finance it, and the prices go up. We need to put coin into it, and the best way is by maintaining a 7th split.
This may all be hot air, as you may all already agree with me without needing to have the discussion, but I always think it's an important one to have in any group so we are clear from the start.
I played in a PbP with a guy who wanted to collect every BBEG's weapons as souvenirs as part of his 'backstory', to the point that he thought he should get a weapon that was perfectly tailored for one of the other PC's. Then, he wanted to sell 'his' gear to upgrade his own, and benefit solely from the sell value.
Thank you for the thorough post, Gregor. Loot can indeed be a divisive subject, but I like to think we have a really solid group here that hopefully won't make a big deal out of it. It sounds like whoever GM'd the game with that player you mentioned was asking for trouble.
Anyway, of the options you listed, I think the idea that loot is shared, i.e. the fourth option you mentioned, is probably the best option. It still may require people to roll for items to determine who gets to use them initially, but it means that the item will eventually be used for the benefit of the group. I would suggest that an item always be used rather than sold if anyone wants to use it. Selling an item for gold should only happen if no one can use it or everyone agrees to sell it.
If anyone thinks differently about the method, please let me know. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this topic.
Plain gold can be divided up easily enough as well as the gold from items that the party decides to sell, so having 'shared' gold isn't really necessary (other than the 7th share you mentioned). The rebellion hasn't formally begun, so the 7th share isn't quite relevant yet, but it's probably reasonable to think your characters would already be thinking about keeping the rebellion going for the long haul.