I'm having some problems with a group of players splitting the loot from an adventure.
Say there are 5 characters. They find 1,000 gp and split it 200 gp apiece. Easy.
With the 1,000 gp, throw in a Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds (level 3), a 300 gp potion, sells for 150 gp. There are 2 methods of splitting the loot as far as I can see...
A) 1 character gets the potion and 80 gp, 4 characters get 230 gp.
B) Everyone gets 200 gp, one character holds the potion for group use.
Pretty simple on both.
Problem with A
The potion belongs to a single character. If he sells it, fine. If he uses it on himself, fine. The problem, he uses it to save a dying ally. He just used 150 gp of shared loot on someone else. Does/should that ally now owe him 150 gp? Make up the difference on the next loot split? "You know what? I don't want that potion if it's going to cost me."
Problem with B
The group decides what the best use of the potion would be for the group. If it is sold, the 150 gp is split up amoungst the group. If it's used on someone, that's okay, it helped someone in the group. The problem, what constitutes "group items"? Potions? Sure. Scrolls? Okay. A +2 weapon? Hmmm... Magical armor? Um... Well, I am using the weapon to help the group fight monsters. The armor protects me better against monsters to put less of a strain on group resources to keep me alive.
So, all magic items are group items? And whenever sold, split the gold. But, Player A has 10 magic items, and Players B, C, D, and E are looking kind of jealous with their 3 magic items or less.
Advice?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your group is actually splitting hairs over who is using a potion?
If you're the GM, I would just assure them that there will be plenty of loot for everyone, and that if someone is below the curve, things will happen that will make up for it. Try to get them playing as a party rather than as separate business entities.
I saw an EXCELLENT alternate system used in Living Arcanis. It prevented pretty much all problems. It's got two parts.
Part One: The default assumption is that everything is sold for half value. It's the most fair. If there's only one of something, it's better for all of the other players to get some gold than nothing.
Part Two: Should your group come across something that's useful, you are depriving the group of their share. So, it is your obligation to reimburse them. This turns into A, as above most of the time. But, should a magic sword worth 2000 show up, the player with the potion can say "I'm interested", and kick in the potion and the remaining value in gold, as long as it adds up to 400gp.
As for "I used the potion of you", that's entirely the players' problem to decide what to do with things that he/she owns. You want to save an ally, fine. You want to let him die so that you still have a potion, fine.
Just remember, you may be the one who needs the potion next time.
|
|
I agree with rkraus2's method for big loot: magical weapons, armour, and expensive wondrous items. That's what my party does in the game I play in; one of our players totals up the value of what all the times are worth if we sold them, and then we all get to buy from the pool. If two players want an item, they can bid or roll off.
That shouldn't be done for potions. It especially shouldn't devolve to "I'm not going to save you because then I'm down some cash."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not an uncommon problem.
Basically, mature players understand the concept of teamwork, and are fine with group items, including expendables (which, by helping "just one" player, actually help everyone, because that "one" player is also integral to the team). They know that they're playing for the big end-game cash-out (or whatever), and the best treasure allocation benefits the team as a whole.
Less mature players, of course, don't understand this, so it's best to either (i) determine the total treasure value, and dole out cash and items in whichever proportions makes this even or (ii) sell everything and just divide the cash. This latter approach especially is, frankly, stupid, because (assuming selling items around 1/2 retail) they're powering their party down 50% over time; but then, that's less mature players, right?
If you have players who are "jealous", then you have less mature players (note that "mature" here is a factor of player experience, not age), and it just needs to be divvied-up "equitably".
(Example: in our Legacy of Fire campaign, my ranged inquisitor has gotten a +1 ring of protection, +1 longbow, +1 mithril chain shirt; the barbarian has gotten +3 mithril chainmail and a +1 Life Drinker great axe/ I'm cool with this because (i) he can put those to good use, keeping enemies in melee while I attack from range and (ii) if we sold the big items, so he's have a +1 axe and +1 chain, he's much more likely to drop, causing me to waste actions healing him, avoiding melee charges and so on.)
With the way you are doing B you, as the DM, should check the treasure you are giving out and make sure the PCs have a pretty equal amount of useful treasure found as well as give out gold and other treasure that will be traded or sold. At times as a DM you need to alter the treasure the adventure has the character find.
With A, the character chose to save a dying ally. The player may be being a little petty in demanding repayment.
I do a mix of A and B.
Potions, wands, scrolls, and other charged or consumable items are group treasure, period. If sold the party splits the money.
Other items are only group treasure if being kept for a purpose.
I do have to change the treasure the module states the party received to ensure that all members have a chance at equitable loot.
|
Well there are a variety of dividing the loot.
Traditionally this is how we have done it:
All art objects ( carpets, statuary, jeweled goblets etc) are sold, and then the proceeds along with any gems and gold coins are divided evenly.
Any magic items are distributed according to need...who can make best use of the item. For example the fighter gets the two handed sword, the rogue gets the rapier, the cleric the mace of disruption, and the wizard the bracers of armor.
Consumables like potions of Cure light Wounds wands of cure light wounds are often owned by the "group" and used when necessary.
This system works when the players trust each other and when they trust the GM.
I generally have my players roll off for it. I typically have 5 players. Going clockwise around the table everyone is assigned a number 1-5. A 6 is a reroll. Roll a 6 sided die, boom, done.
That is, if they have troubles. My players generally understand if they hog all the treasure then everyone else is weaker and having less fun.
Two comments here. Most important one first.
The GM should have NO ROLE WHATSOEVER in how a party splits their loot.
Now, just in case the party is willing to listen to advice though, we always split our loot N+1 ways, where N= party members. The +1 goes to the "party pool" and we buy party items from the party pool.
If an item of loot is clearly better for one party member, they get it. If possible the value of that item is factored into the N+1 loot distribution. If that overblances that character, the party will address any loot imbalance issues at the next loot opportunity.
|
We generally reserve some of the loot for communal use. This is money used to pay the tavern bills, bridge tolls, provisions while travelling, and consumable magic items we expect to use for group activities like combat. Healing potions are a good example; if PC A uses a healing potion to heal PC B (who may be the unconscious cleric!), that doesn't decrease A or B's share of the treasure. It may seem that some people use up more consumable items, but presumably everyone is pulling their weight in some hard to compare way. The wizard uses more scrolls in combat than the fighter, but he doesn't gain more or fewer treasure.
Stuff taken for personal use goes out of your individual share of the treasure. If the wizard wants the scroll to transcribe it into his spellbook, that's personal loot. If the fighter wants the +3 keen scimitar, that's personal loot. These are things you're not going to be expending directly for the power, even though indirectly you being more awesome will probably help the party. It's the direct-indirect part here.
So everyone gets a roughly equal share of the money and the individual use stuff. Now how to divvy up those magic items?
It's a bit about negotiation. If some item is obviously useful to one player, that player should get it, and the other players should get more treasure. If the item is very expensive, that may mean the lucky player needs to dip into his cash reserves from previous adventures to buy out the others. (For example, the +3 Keen Scimitar costs more than an average share of the adventure's loot. The fighter pays the difference to the rest of the party if he can.)
Note that you can also offer other stuff you already own in these negotiations; if you want to Belt of Str+4, you can offer another player the Belt of Str+2 to make up for part of the value.
It's also possible that a player ends up in debt to the party; suppose the loot on a level 1 adventure includes a +2 Greatsword. The barbarian must have the Previoussss, but doesn't have that kind of money. So he still owes the party, and will get a smaller share of the next adventure's loot.
Summary
* Consumable items that will be used for the benefit of the party don't come out of a player's share.
* Shares are as equal as practical; if you want a big thing you have to compensate the others.
* Items go to the one who can use it best.
These points can conflict, and that means negotiations. If there's a Belt of Str+2 and a Greatsword +1, and the barbarian wants both, the rogue can still claim the belt. The barbarian obviously has the best use for the sword, but that leaves him ahead of the others in the treasure department, improving the rogue's claim on the belt.
Items nobody really wants are sold off to get money to buy nicer things, if that's possible in the campaign (magic item availability may vary).
I made an excel sheet that helps distribute based on relative value.
Part One: The default assumption is that everything is sold for half value.
Part Two: Should your group come across something that's useful. . .it is your obligation to reimburse them.
(edited for content)
This is the method my last few groups have all used. We call it the "Accounting Method" because it does take a little bit of paperwork, but it's extremely fair and does the GM the favor of keeping gear levels very close to equal.
In addition, we tag some items as "party loot" and just ask "Who wants to carry this?" rather than determining ownership. Party loot generally includes: all healing potions and wands; sharable utility items like a Folding Boat, Campfire Bead, or Portable Hole; disposable utility items like Potion of Water Breathing, Scroll of Teleport, Wand of Identify.
This is a player/character issue alone. Someone is always going to end up ahead of the others after pile is split, but teamwork and a bit of maturity at the table will go a long ways
Yeah, i am startin to see some problems with thisin a game that i am about to join.
One player is taking at least one of every item (potions and elixers) to be sold and is also getting the very expensive staffs and other items.
The rest of the group seems to not care except for the fact that they have almost nothing while one character is loaded with most of the party loot.
Okay guys just to make this easier I'll take the potion but I'll spit it on the ground after quaffing it then I'll panhandle for a few minutes to make the gold back so everyone can be happy until we all get our +2 longswords.
srsly just give the potion to one person then move on, because there are plenty of more fat lootz to be acquired while everyone roleplays and has an awesome time with just rocking a game of pathfinder.
while i agree, the problem arises when one character has 50k worth of loot and the rest of the group has 10k each.
When you cannot sell anything because a party member takes everything to be sold, then there is a problem.
We use the followi ng system:
Everything except money is group owned and and used by the one who benefits the most. Stuff nobody can/wants to use is sold. After selling it's money and thus divided.
example: The party finds a greatsword +2. The party fighter uses a greatsword +1. He gets the +2 and the +1 goes to the party pool. The switchhitter ranger interested so he gets the +1.
Consumables are distributed and the one who gets them can do what he wants with them except selling them. Only if nobody wants them they can be sold but then the money is divided.
|
while i agree, the problem arises when one character has 50k worth of loot and the rest of the group has 10k each.
When you cannot sell anything because a party member takes everything to be sold, then there is a problem.
Then you have one of two problems:
1) The GM is not including loot that is interesting and useful to the poorer players. You can solve this by having the GM insert more loot intended specifically for the poorer players.
2) The players are allowing the richer PC to claim an unfair share of the treasure that no one particularly wants, which he then sells for personal profit. (I think this is what you meant by "a party member takes everything to be sold.") You can solve this one by putting sale profits from this kind of item back into the general pool of gold to be split evenly (no one sells an item for personal profit), by having the poorer characters claim more items to sell for personal profit, or by requiring that someone claiming an item pay back its sale value to the other party members (thus making it pointless to sell an item for personal profit - you only take it if you want to use it).
My group generally finds a strict accounting unnecessary and gives items to the people who can use them, but we try to make sure that everyone gets a roughly equal share and if someone falls behind on treasure we try to give them bigger shares until they catch up.
The GM need not intervene but he should remind the players that Pathfinder adventures are balanced on a basis that assumes that all party members will have approximately the same amount of wealth invested in magic items. Thus if one player has significantly more wealth than everyone else it destabilizes the game.
That much being said, I do like the N+1 system, and consumable things like potions and wands ought to be seen as "party treasure" rather than individual items, unless circumstances are unusual.
Peet
The GM should have NO ROLE WHATSOEVER in how a party splits their loot.I heartily disagree with this. A GM already has a role in that he/she decides what loot the party finds. There is no reason the GM cannot mediate and resolve arguments within a party.
The GM can mediate with the PLAYERS if the PLAYERS are completely immature or idiots and can't work out loot distribution themselves. I would say a GM in that situation is a GM who is going to have more serious game problems than loot distribution.
The GM should have NO ROLE in what the CHARACTERS do with the loot they find.
This goes to what I consider to be the core GM-Player contract. Which is that the WORLD belongs to the GM, but the CHARACTERS belong to the players.
I feel like we're coming from different places. While I try to have people play with their character's motivations in mind, I don't try to separate the character from the player. If I talk about the party, it's about the people around the table.
We appear to definitely be coming from different places. If you don't distinguish between players and characters, how do you deal with players who make character decisions based on info the player has but the character doesn't?
This seems like a serious impediment to the avoidance of metagaming. Assuming you want to avoid that.
Lots of words
Smack your group. Potions are consumables, meant to be consumed. They apply temporary benefits and can be used by anyone. If everyone deems it useless, then go sell it. Otherwise, give it to someone, don't count it as loot that needs to be split and move on.
The only time it should ever be a problem is if you have someone hoarding potions and not using them. But really, giving your group fighter a 300gp potion isn't greatly increasing his wealth. It's giving himself a one time lifesaver for himself or someone else in the party.
|
|
I feel like we're coming from different places. While I try to have people play with their character's motivations in mind, I don't try to separate the character from the player. If I talk about the party, it's about the people around the table.We appear to definitely be coming from different places. If you don't distinguish between players and characters, how do you deal with players who make character decisions based on info the player has but the character doesn't?
This seems like a serious impediment to the avoidance of metagaming. Assuming you want to avoid that.
I haven't had a lot of problem with it, although perhaps my metagaming tolerance is just high.
|
I have been making "chronicle sheets" for my game. Generally to be fair, I assume that everything is sold at half value, except money and gems. I then list everything that was lootable with the sale value, which the PCs can "buy out" basically paying out the total so that everyone gets a fair share.
The only thing that I do not include is cure potions, because that is unanimously a group item, to be used on whoever needs it.
I did check with my players before implementing this system, and they seem to like it. We had problems with players calling "dibs" and having items that could be used by others, just because they though it was cool to have, even though they were never using them. This left the other players with a bad taste in their mouths.
Anyway, it also helps them track their XP gain!
I keep a loot list of everything the party's found. Then it goes on a few things.
1.) All gold is party gold. Doesn't have to be shared evenly, but if you want to take more than your even share the party has to okay it. You can do what you will with your even share.
2.) "Needed" items (weapons, armor, "Big Important Magic Stuff" like headbands/belts of attributes) go on an as-needed basis. If the Dex based Rogue wants to snatch the Belt of Giant's Strength from the Barbarian someone should wallop him. The 13 AC Wizard needs the Ring of Protection more than you do, Tanky McTankerton the 35 AC Sword and Board Fighter. And so on.
3.) All items that can be evenly used by everyone go into the Hyperspace Backpack* which anyone can reach into at any time (using the same actions as pulling from a normal backpack) to retrieve things like Potions of Cure X Wounds and such whenever they're needed.
4.) Items that nobody else can use automatically go to the guy who CAN use them (Wands and Scrolls and such when they're on nobody's spell list and nobody has UMD). If he doesn't want it it goes in the loot pile to be sold later or used in some sort of extremely niche emergency.
5.) Utility items that are not "necessary" go on an "I want it." basis, with a little leaning towards who can use it best or if it shores up a weakness or greatly enhances a non-core strength. The Monk with bunches of ranks in Climb who climbs everything gets the Rope of Climbing, that guy with absolutely no AoE or Ranged option gets the Necklace of Fireballs and so on. If nobody really needs these items or would benefit greatly from it, they're just distributed when someone says "Oh that's cool I kinda want that." Our Cleric doesn't really NEED a Bag of Boulders, but he sure has a lot of fun with it, and he called it so he got it.
6.) Everything unclaimed goes in the pile.
I'm sure there's flaws in this system but we haven't really stumbled on them yet.
*Note: I don't really keep track of encumbrance unless it gets ridiculous (no you can't pack an elephant into your bandolier, but otherwise you should be fine). IMO it's just another number that slows the game down for little reason. Everyone has hammerspace essentially, or all their backpacks are Bags of Holding Type Infinity. Well sort of. I do put a soft limit of "you can't carry more than your maximum carry weight/heavy load" but no one's reached it yet so eh.
|
I've been in groups with sharing/ distribution systems and its fine but it really has been better for me to just make sure people are happy and anything sold ever is group money. And don't count penneys if someone makes a few gold here and their doing something fun for them don't complain and find something fun your self.
Although one thing did come up when a player started doing side jobs using party equipment, transportation, and cargo space. We eventually asked him to cut the party in on the profit (I don't remember the split - but he wasn't risking the party so it wasn't a big deal).
The way my players tend to handle loot distribution is a lot like others have mentioned:
The group decides on useful items that they want. If more than one player wants a particular item, they hash that out between themselves. All trade items go into a party pot, all items for sale go into the party pot. Between sessions I check each character's personal wealth to make sure they're roughly on track (accounting for a share of the party pot) and fiddle future treasures to bring up anyone who's being left behind.
I use HeroLab and even create a non-character called "Party Pot" who holds it all (my players love getting Bags of Holding and Portable Holes as early as possible to make this easy to administer).
There's an extra player.
If you've got five PCs, then there needs to be a 6th "party" fund. Incoming treasure is divided six ways with one share going to a communal fund.
Anything the party needs is paid for out of that fund. Need to bribe a town guard? Party fund. Need a scroll to cast a spell to get past a door? Party fund. Need a bag of holding to carry around more and more loot? Party fund.
So, you find 1,000gp and a potion of cure moderate wounds. Fine. That's 1,150gp worth of "stuff". 191gp each with a little silver to round it out. The party share purchases the potion, so the party fund is now 41gp and a potion.
Now, you're saying "but if PC #1 needs to use that potion, they should pay for it." Nope. Party items and funds are for things that benefit the group... like not having a member die. It's not the same as treating yourself to some new magic boots.
Once you start having a party fund, it becomes second-nature to start buying useful consumables that the PCs would normally be too greedy to buy for themselves. The only trick is tracking who's carrying what on behalf of the party. If the party ever has five potions that it owns, it'd be smart to keep one on each member.
Just a thought. With a party fund you don't need to nickel & dime the little things like "ownership".
while i agree, the problem arises when one character has 50k worth of loot and the rest of the group has 10k each.
When you cannot sell anything because a party member takes everything to be sold, then there is a problem.Then you have one of two problems:
1) The GM is not including loot that is interesting and useful to the poorer players. You can solve this by having the GM insert more loot intended specifically for the poorer players.
2) The players are allowing the richer PC to claim an unfair share of the treasure that no one particularly wants, which he then sells for personal profit. (I think this is what you meant by "a party member takes everything to be sold.") You can solve this one by putting sale profits from this kind of item back into the general pool of gold to be split evenly (no one sells an item for personal profit), by having the poorer characters claim more items to sell for personal profit, or by requiring that someone claiming an item pay back its sale value to the other party members (thus making it pointless to sell an item for personal profit - you only take it if you want to use it).
My group generally finds a strict accounting unnecessary and gives items to the people who can use them, but we try to make sure that everyone gets a roughly equal share and if someone falls behind on treasure we try to give them bigger shares until they catch up.
Actually, in this case it's more a matter of.
I am joining a group at 6th level and the DM told me to start with the 16k gold as per recommended by the CRB.The rest of the group stated wait a minute, we don't have anywhere close to that.
The DM totalled everything up and stated that 16k gold is about right for what each member of the group should have.
Most of the players had around 5k-8k gold (combined cash and loot), but one of the players has all the rest of the party loot on him. He then took the 22.6k gold staff that the adventure path just gave out.
When stated that he should give that staff up to help the rest of the group, the response was screw you guys, this staff fits my druid nicely, why should i give it up.
Now, i am glad i have not had to deal with this, but i will be soon and there may be some fun inter-party conflict when that one player tries to claim everything else under the sun.
My character will just not stand up for that, nor will this player..
Who knows? i am pretty sure there will be other magic items(duh) but that one player is screwing everyone else.
Thankfully, it is not me.... yet.
We typically use a group/communal loot system. IE, all loot ultimately belongs to the group and is borrowed by the players. Each person still has their gear, but the group has first dips on anything discarded, and if it gets sold, the money is split.
This has some interesting effects.
I craft myself a +2 sword. We find a +3 sword. I take the +3 sword, and put the +2 sword into the group pool.
Items always go to a person who can best use it. If more than one person can use it well, we roll off(happen often with general defensive items).
Consumables are carried by the person most likely to need them(For example, a fighter is more likely to need a cure potion than a cleric who can spontaneously case cures)