| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
    
 | | 12/09/2005 8:06 PM |
| So I'm in a 3e campaign. One of the things that strikes me as odd, which was a non-issue previously, is the distribution of loot.
One thing about NEARLY EVERY 3e campaign I've been in is that the loot issue was managed very ... clinically. The prices for items (creating, buying, selling, etc.) now fits a reliable, predictable formula. Now this makes the game much easier to learn / port / etc. ... but really I have to admit I long for the old days. Now though all magic items are reduced to a near-cash value and everyone gets and equitable share.
By the old days I mean the days when you split the monetary treasure evenly but then you round-robined for magic items. I mean, for most of them there was no good, clear idea of what they were worth. And really, you couldn't sell them ... there wasn't quite the ubiquitous market of "buy at 50%, sell at 100%" that seems to permeate 3e games. Yes, this is easier to port into a PC/etc. game, but it lacks something.
And sure, you COULD manage things the old way in your 3e game (just as you could insist folks roll 3d6 for stats) ... but the existence of the balance and equitability ensures that (in general) most folks don't do this.
I miss the old days. Don't get the wrong, the system is far more balanced ... but I do miss the old days sometimes. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 12/09/2005 8:19 PM |
| Are you saying that the PCs divide up found magic items based on value rather than usability? That's a very odd (almost cutthroat) way to do magic item distribution, in my experience. Changing to 3E has not changed how our groups distribute non-monetary treasure at all, that's across 3 groups of players (albeit with some definite overlap.)
The CR system doesn't care if you give out treasure to characters slightly unevenly, in my experience, as long as the party's wealth level is around the predicted value. There's no reason characters can't use 'who can use the item best' or dicing off to decide where loot ends up in 3E, I don't think. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
IHawk
Underboss
1049 Posts
Lisle, Illinois
| | 12/09/2005 8:45 PM |
| my home game has the almost all treasures rolled up randomely,
and the 4 PC's split it up on a need's basis. I have only HAD to
adjust treasure once for the druid, but for the most part,
relative value plays little into the splitting of treasure. Now
this ALMOST NEVER works with a non-consistent party.
For the most part i've noticed if the party shares, the value
aspect isn't all that big of a deal.
Then again, in the living campaigns we play in, treasure
split is treatcherous...has been just as bad since the
bad old days of 2nd ED.
mark kelly - ihawk | |
mark - Champion of the Goblin Worg Riders | anteblue_at_yahoo_dot_com
IHawk's Have/Want List | IHawk's Trade List | Completed Trades - 214 | Pending Trades - 0
| |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 12/09/2005 9:25 PM |
| | It has never come down to a value tiebreaker in our games, at least. About the closest it has been is 'well, everyone else already got something.' | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
jgsugden
Commander
4320 Posts
Walnut Creek, CA
| | 12/09/2005 9:33 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by IanB
It has never come down to a value tiebreaker in our games, at least. About the closest it has been is 'well, everyone else already got something.'
I also hear there occasionally instances of 'Hey, the rest of the party didn't see me find this thing ... so ...' ;) | |
Champion of Meepo _*_ Myztek on the Wizards Boards. _*_ (2206 DDM on 03/06/06)
Please note: The use of the  indicates an attempt at humor ... often a bad attempt.
BAD EBAY SELLERS LIST (CLICK HERE): AVOID AT ALL COSTS
| |
|
Zenako
Commander
3468 Posts
| | 12/09/2005 10:05 PM |
| mmm, interesting I was just working out how to distribute the treasure from our last session. The campaign we are playing in right now involves a bunch of Longtime players (a few of their kids, my daughter and two sons of another dad) and is set in the Oriental Adventures/Rogukan world. My character is a Samurai and by that very nature one of the leaders and a paragon of law and order. AS a player I am very detailed oriented and keep track of everything under the sun and it works for me to help divide up the loot. As a session ends we review the booty gained and everyone makes comments on what they would like or need. There is almost no duplication of character types even with ten PC's in the group, which makes class/career specific items easy to handle.
Since the group knew that they would be together for some time, it was easy for the characters to look in character to the Nobles to make a determination of whom should get what. My Samurai and the Imperial Sorceror would discuss things and make decisions. The $$ values in 3.0 do make it easy to try and keep allocations somewhat equitably distributed. Shaman scrolls go to the Shaman, CHA items went towards the Sorceror (back in the early days), and so forth.
In some previous game under 1.0 variants or homebrewed campaigns systems, we have had a number of techniques used. For a while, the party would agree on how to divide the treasure into as nearly equal portions as possible and then draw lots for who got to choose first. This kinda worked, but ended up with misplaced items often. The draw lots method also was used on larger piles of treasure and everyone would get two picks (made double the number of PC piles). 1st choice would also get last choice, 2nd choice would end up with next to last choice and so forth.
Had times when characters would all bid for items and whoever was willing to turn in the most would get it? This however tended to ensure that the rich got richer. | |
Built the addition for this addiction, now on to the "gaming table" project....
http://www.maxminis.com/hw_list.asp?user=Zenako last updated 29 May 2006
Set Status: in a nutshell = all of all
In Process trades 0), (Sig last updated 05/29/06) 300 plus Completed Trades -
If I seem scarce at times...blame DDO - Sarlona | |
|
Testament
Underboss
1397 Posts
| | 12/09/2005 10:59 PM |
| Way my players do it in my Age of Worms game is everything goes in the bag. EVERYTHING. During the adventure, it goes to the best qualified person, afterwards, same principle. If two people want the same item (ie, Cloak of Charisma, when you've got a Marshall/Paladin and a Sorc in the party), then its a party vote as to who gets it. If that ties too, then its an auction.
Works well, and there's almost no arguments. Then again, they haven't found an Amulet of Health or a Cloak of Staying Alive (resistance!) yet. | |
Support awesome games: Play Hecatomb!
8-Bit Chibi Goths forever!
Champion of Mephistopheles
"Sorry! I was tryin' to open these beans!"
My Have/Want List, (Updated July 6 2004, will be updated soon)
| |
|
Malin Lug
Sergeant
742 Posts
| | 12/10/2005 12:23 AM |
| In our long running D&D game... we divide things up by usefullness. Where there is a debate, then the two people that are the leaders of the group decide. There has only been one case where there was some resentment, but the player got over it quickly.
In the evil campaign that we were playing, we had to have a written contract before the adventure with overlapping zones of Truth and the Nar Demon Binder writing up the contract. Every coin was inspected by at least two different magic using characters before division.
| |
"Are you not entertained?" 
Champion of the Common Bar Wench
| |
|
Pale Rider
Underboss
1016 Posts
London, Ontario, Canada
| | 12/10/2005 7:33 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
And sure, you COULD manage things the old way in your 3e game (just as you could insist folks roll 3d6 for stats) ... but the existence of the balance and equitability ensures that (in general) most folks don't do this.
I miss the old days. Don't get the wrong, the system is far more balanced ... but I do miss the old days sometimes.
Really? I've run 3 3E games now and played in 1 and every one of them divides magical items based on need and, more rarely, 'dice off' (where interested parties roll a d20 and the best roller wins). Most of my players are able to handle things like this without a problem. | |
Completed Trades: Crescent Hawk, Vimes, demagogue, vidman, Eric is God, Strachan Fireblade, FungiMuncher, Dudeeehm, Shasack, gausse, kyrin, nyjastul69
Champion of the Remorhaz | |
| The Great
Choco Monster
Ghendar
Warlord
11498 Posts
In ur house, stealin' yur minis
| | 12/10/2005 2:41 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
One thing about NEARLY EVERY 3e campaign I've been in is that the loot issue was managed very ... clinically. The prices for items (creating, buying, selling, etc.) now fits a reliable, predictable formula. Now this makes the game much easier to learn / port / etc. ... but really I have to admit I long for the old days. Now though all magic items are reduced to a near-cash value and everyone gets and equitable share.
I'm right there with ya Chris. I know exactly what you mean. It seems too formulaic, too simple. | |
Ghendar - Now snark free!
Champion of the Spider Eater with rider.
I actually love to be swallowed. - Posted By gss_000 on 09/04/2007 2:32 PM
How many times in life do you get to eat your own Cthulhu - Posted By Pedro on 03/31/2008 2:29 | |
|
Feathers
Underboss
1140 Posts
| | 12/10/2005 3:42 PM |
| Every campaign I've DMed has seen the players adopt a Need Before Greed approach. If they see a bunch of coins and several magic items, they divvy up the coins and then they go through the magic items and they ask themselves who can use what. So the bow goes to the archer, the scrolls go to the caster, etc. If they find something they can't use, they sell it and split the cash. If someone doesn't get an item, then next time, that player usually gets more leeway when the next batch of items comes around. But not if there is an item perfectly suited to another character.
In the campaign I play in now, we also do pretty much the same thing. However, we're a bit more cutthroat, since this campaign has no alignment. We're all play our characters pretty much as neutral evil or neutral good. In this case, we also split up the coins and then give items based on need. However, we also let the person who killed the monster get first pick.
I'm not really into the rule in the DMG that assigns all treasure, including items, a monetary value and then splits everything evenly. | |
Champion of Neogi
Completed Trades/Transactions: sttmxn, Krush, jgsugden, Ayrychx2, Venport, Tysac
| |
| Knight of Argenis
Corim Danex
Warlord
6705 Posts
West Valley City, Utah
| | 12/10/2005 8:18 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by jgsugden
quote:
Originally posted by IanB
It has never come down to a value tiebreaker in our games, at least. About the closest it has been is 'well, everyone else already got something.'
I also hear there occasionally instances of 'Hey, the rest of the party didn't see me find this thing ... so ...' ;)
That bothers me when that happens. It seems most prevalent with rogues, who in part have a job to secretly acquire stuff or use skills to do so. If the rogue ends up with an unfair amount of treasure, it makes me not want to play D&D with the player who handles things that way. | |
"Look to God and live." Alma 37:47
Vindicated Champ of Hippogriff (Arcadian Hippogriff) and Uncommon Horse | |
|
Zenako
Commander
3468 Posts
| | 12/10/2005 11:05 PM |
| | Something that also heavily skewed the old systems was that Experience also depended on treasure gained and in some worlds you got experience based on what treasure you as an individual ended up with. Which made it even more important to try and be somewhat even about things. This abstraction is clearly gone from 3.0 and up. | |
Built the addition for this addiction, now on to the "gaming table" project....
http://www.maxminis.com/hw_list.asp?user=Zenako last updated 29 May 2006
Set Status: in a nutshell = all of all
In Process trades0), (Sig last updated 05/29/06) 300 plus Completed Trades -
If I seem scarce at times...blame DDO - Sarlona | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 12/11/2005 2:50 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Corim Danex
quote:
Originally posted by jgsugden
quote:
Originally posted by IanB
It has never come down to a value tiebreaker in our games, at least. About the closest it has been is 'well, everyone else already got something.'
I also hear there occasionally instances of 'Hey, the rest of the party didn't see me find this thing ... so ...' ;)
That bothers me when that happens. It seems most prevalent with rogues, who in part have a job to secretly acquire stuff or use skills to do so. If the rogue ends up with an unfair amount of treasure, it makes me not want to play D&D with the player who handles things that way.
To me it is just a fun part of old-school D&D. I've never seen a rogue take totally excessive amounts of treasure from the group - just enough to comfortably squander in style the next time they hit town. [:)] | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Jeb McDonald
Sergeant
401 Posts
Central New Jersey
| | 12/11/2005 9:40 PM |
| | We tend to split things up by usefullness. If several characters want the same item or if the item would be equally useful to several of them, we roll d20s and then remember who got the item so the loser can get the next item. This has worked pretty well in our group which has played together for seven(ish) years. | |
The man who thinks he can, and the man who thinks he can't are both right. Which one are you? | |
|
ilarue
Underboss
1259 Posts
| | 12/12/2005 9:40 AM |
| | My players are pretty good about splitting up treasure. Only one of my players is slightly greedy, but they other players are pretty good about keeping him in check. They usually give magic items to whoever could use it best; when things could go equally well to different people they usually give it to the person with the least number of magical items. I've never done anything to influence this; they just do it on their own. | |
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes--Who will gaurd the guards?
Champion of the Commoner Mob Leader | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |