Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

How do your players divide up treasure?

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Deykin ap Gwion

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
various methods for making the division 'fairly'.

I'll share how we do it (any questions on how it works, let
me know) first:

Now, we use a 'party ledger', which is maintained by two of
the mages (their characters are the only ones who understand
accounting *grin*). Into the party ledger goes cash,
treasure, etc. They also maintain a double entry type of
bookkeeping.

It's easy to look at a pile of coin, divide it into nine
equal shares (one each for party members, one for the petty
cash fund (which is growing to an alarmingly high number),
and a double share that gets divided equally amongst
hirelings (a bonus in addition to any other salary we owe
them).

Then, you are left with a pile of magic items. (Blame me
for the idea for this, and for the fact that we tried, *and*
for the fact that we still use it *AND* for the fact that
your brain is about to be polluted by it) We use an 'I want
it' auction system, where each player can bid "I want it'
points. These points just build up in the ledger. When
someone wants an item, if no one else lays claim to it, he
gets it for one 'I want it' point.

If two players lay claim, each has to say how many points
they want it worth. You can't 'want it' more than twenty
points worth at a time. This is to prevent rampant 'I want
it' point devaluation =-)

You spend the points whether you get it or not. Ties go to
whoever has spent the fewest 'I want it' points in the
past. This rewards the guy who hasn't been trying to snap
up all the items in the past.

When new characters (PCs) join the group, their PC gets I
want it points equal to the average of all other PCs. This
allows him to have a shot at getting in on the magic splits,
while allowing the most conservative players (Hi Nate!) to
retain their position as being able to get that Staff of the
Flame Magi if it ever comes along (which we'll probably give
him, anyway, but he insists on making sure).

Particularly selfless acts have, in the past, caused the
rest of us players to vote to zero another player's 'I want
it' points. He'd just done the most courageous series of
things, costing himself a magic sword, his entire fortune
(which he'd sunk into a manor estate), and (nearly) his own
life, all to protect the party from a vengeful nobleman. We
felt we owed him =)

Anyway, now that you know how we do it, how do you do it?

Deykin ap Gwion

Sir Clarence

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
Deykin ap Gwion wrote:

<snip>

> Anyway, now that you know how we do it, how do you do it?
>
> Deykin ap Gwion

Well, fortunately we nearly never have any lengthy discussions about
dividing up treasure. Coins and Gems and stuff are equally divided (we
use a party ledger too) and magic usually goes to the one who can use it
most effectively or needs it badly.
In cases when there is more than one interested character for a certain
item and when each of them has a valid point for being the one who
should get it, we usually roll the die to decide it.

Clarence

Harley Hamilton Russell

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
My character at teh moment is a thief, with wisdom 4, thus if its shiny and
available to be grabbed, I have at it and don't let anyone else near it.
Don't ask how many cursed items I've picked up that way its not worth it.

Sea Wasp

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
Deykin ap Gwion wrote:
>
> Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
> dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
> various methods for making the division 'fairly'.

"Who can use this?" is the first question. Usually that settles the
distribution of items.

"Who needs money?" is the second. Usually it gets split evenly among
those who care about it. Often there's one or two characters who don't
care as long as they have enough to live on.

If there's conflicts, the items are distributed on a basis of who
already has more or less, and who gets the MOST benefit out of a given
item.


--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html

Tim Scoff

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
In article <39559DB7...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com>, Deykin ap
Gwion <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:

<SNIP>

> Anyway, now that you know how we do it, how do you do it?
>
> Deykin ap Gwion

Money and gems are divided equally among the entire party if the
party's theif allows the rest of the party to find them. One of his
more creative lines was, "this is just worthless glass" as he threw a
5000 GP diamond over his shoulder when going through treasure.
Note, the above was done relatively openly in that the Players all
knew exactly what was going on even though the Characters didn't.

Magic items are usually given to the person who will benefit the rest
of the party the most by having them. For example our heavy hitter
offensive Invoker was given the Ring of Spell Turning for protection and
any magical weapons go to the Character who uses that item the most but
who doesn't have a magical weapon of that type.

--
Tim Scoff
t...@scoff.net
http://www.scoff.net/Tim

Timothy P. Coyle

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 00:50:47 -0500, Deykin ap Gwion
<tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:

>Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
>dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
>various methods for making the division 'fairly'.

-- snip -- rather interesting "auction" idea

>Anyway, now that you know how we do it, how do you do it?

In my experience as player and DM, the most often-used method is
that of plain common sense.
Most parties I've DMed/been in have created a party treasury,
starting at 1st level. The bulk of the party's winnings in combat and
adventure usually winds up in this general pool of funds. Any party
member with a solid reason can ask the others to draw from the kitty,
and permission is usually granted with a minimum of fuss. One PC is
entrusted with the ledger (usually by a player the others can trust).
Magic items are another story. In general, magic ends up in the
hands of the PCs most able to benefit from their use--fighters with
swords, wizards with wands, etc. Some items, such as potions of
healing, go to PCs that can't reproduce such magical effects on their
own. On rare occasion, I've seen items go to the last PC you'd
expect; this is done for purely diversionary or tactical reasons.
(Example in my current campaign: a ranger with a wand of wonder.)
I'm the first to admit that this system begs for a mature and
sensible group of players in order to function smoothly. I've been
fortunate over the years to have run/been in such groups. YMMV.

TPC


e-mail: timc...@ici.net
AD&D Web Site: http://home.ici.net/~timcoyle/Minarra.html

Barry Smith

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
Deykin ap Gwion wrote:

> Anyway, now that you know how we do it, how do you do it?

Treasure is equally divided in shares similar to your system.

Magic items are first given to those who can use them, and then to those
who have the least number of magic items. It's also my job as DM to make
sure that magical items are of the types that characters of a particular
group can use, and that no one character gets left behind in the magic
items found. Nothing is more frustrating for me, as a player, to get an
item that, not only do I not know what it does, I don't have a use for
it, or it can only be used by others in the group. If this happens too
often, I'm not doing my job right.

To quote Bruce Willis: "What's this? A plastic ice cream scoop? What'd
that cost ya, about 400 dollars?" ;)

--
The Crabman: AD&D's revenge of the lobster.

hnei...@accessweb.com

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 00:50:47 -0500, Deykin ap Gwion
<tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:

>Now, we use a 'party ledger', which is maintained by two of
>the mages (their characters are the only ones who understand
>accounting *grin*). Into the party ledger goes cash,
>treasure, etc. They also maintain a double entry type of
>bookkeeping.

The characters I DM normally just pick stuff up and worry about
recording it later. If they have time to count it, coinage
information is provided (in larger scale situations, this is essential
for encumbrance). Once it's counted, it's their problem.

Gems and jewelry, and other artwork, can be more troublesome.
Sometimes, a specific character wants it. Often, the value is
uncertain so an equal distribution is tough. Appraisal is fine, but
not guaranteed and not precise.

They generally split wealth into equal shares one greater than the
number in the group - the rest goes to a party "slush fund" used for
expenses like removal of curses and diseases, raising fallen party
members, anything they might buy that benefits the group, and
reimbursing party expenses (eg. one character damaged a magic weapon;
they might cover repairs from the fund; recharging a magic item might
also come from there; generally they pay their own way unless the
numbers are quite high).

They don't have hirelings at present, so I have no idea how they would
split this. Past NPC's have been competent adventurers and received
shares the same as the rest of the group.

>Then, you are left with a pile of magic items.

On the fly, the party might discuss who will carry or even use an
unidentified item. Once they are identified, they generally just
discuss the split out (nothing formal). Who can/will make use of it
is important. Who's been a greedy magic hog in the past is also often
important.

They can be fun to watch.

aleph

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
What is all this "we give it to who can use it" crap? ;)

I say that because treasure-division brought out the most mercenary side
yet-seen of our group - about 12 intricate methods were proposed and
brutally shot down after a large gain in a tough, tough adventure.

Greed is a terrible thing to see. No one's willing to agree to a method
that might risk their getting an optimal share..

Here are my favorite two methods that regulate and defeats greed. Each
presumes that there's a degree of liquidity (ie, several different
roughly-equal sets of shares can exist), though. I credit the second one to
Jeff Ford and Jonobie Baker.

You Divide, I Choose
As simple as it sounds, and very effective. Works best for 2 shares, but
there's no reason you couldn't expand it to nine, then re-arrange the
remaining eight, remaining 7, etc. Sounds lengthy, but it's remarkably
fair.

Bid By Consent
1. Arrange the party into a bidding rank. Do it by most kills, best hair,
whatever. But there is a 1st choice and a last choice, and everyone knows
which they are: this is not, however, the final order of taking shares, as
you will see - just of naming them. Bizarrely-fair parties will rotate
rankings.
2. The treasure is arranged in an unsightly lump, and #1 says what he wants.
"10k pp, the Sword of Bork, Rod of Potency, and the Head of Vecna." But,
anyone down the line can -underbid- him and keep what's left, retiring
themselves with their share and forcing him to start over!
3. That's exactly what happens. His greedy share undergoes review by the
other bidders, *in order*. #2 can reduce that named share - and keep what's
left himself - if he wants. #2 wants the Ring of Massive Blasting, though,
which isn't in this share, so of his two action choices ("Modify and Keep"
or "Approve"), he Approves the share. So #1's share moves down the line for
further Approval or Underbidding. #3 wants the Sword of Bork - BADLY. #3
does an extreme thing and guarantees that he gets it by Modifying the share
and Keeping it. He declares that he will take the Sword of Bork and nothing
else! No one can underbid that, so it can't move on! There is no defense
in this method against someone who is so hell-bent on one item alone.
4. He gets it, and retires to begin polishing. He is removed from the
ranking, the rest of #1's original nominated share is returned to the pile,
and #1 chooses a new share. (This one will be underbid twice.) A bit slow,
he chooses three items and a big wad of coin again - probably 1/3 more than
he should get, based on overall treasure size. #2 makes it his own share by
removing the coin from it, #3 approves of #2's share, #4 approves, but #5
removes an item and makes the remaining two items his share (somewhat less
than an equal share, but tailored!). No one further down the line in
willing to underbid #5's two-item share, so #5 keeps it.

This is the best greed-limiting dynamic ever: the least-greedy player gets
the most, and you're pretty much guaranteed to get one or two items you
really want if that's what you want to do.. everyone discards coin in hopes
of lightening their share, so the last person to take a share (not
necessarily the last person in the bidding rank) gets *really* rich.
--
o
___
|\/ (o\-o-----------------------------------------------------
|/\___/ ___ http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~aleph/adndhome.html
------o-/o) \/|-----------------------------------------------
\___/\| Campaign records: 1st ed. Greyhawk, 569 C.Y.

Tim Scoff

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
In article <8j5avo$69j$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, "aleph"
<al...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:

> What is all this "we give it to who can use it" crap? ;)
>
> I say that because treasure-division brought out the most mercenary side
> yet-seen of our group - about 12 intricate methods were proposed and
> brutally shot down after a large gain in a tough, tough adventure.
>
> Greed is a terrible thing to see. No one's willing to agree to a method
> that might risk their getting an optimal share..

I'll tell you what it is, it's healthy self interest. My PC is the
greediest member of the party that I play in and he happily shares the
magic items out.

One example was a Wand of Magic Missiles. There are two mages in the
party and both of us decided that we didn't need it. It was given to
one of our clerics instead so that she can safely aid us in combat as
her current habit consists of running into hand to hand combat on a
regular basis.

Another one was a ring which enables the wearer to go without eating
for one week out of every month. We gave it to the PC who is size Large
and whose eating habits reflect her size.

Early on my PC (the party's theif...) gave his Ring of Protection to
the Large sized PC. She says that it was a selfless gift. I on the
other hand have a very large intimidating friend who I can hide behind
in combat. Not only that but said friend is now protected better so
she's going to survive for longer and allow me to hide behind her for a
longer period of time before I have to face people with sharp pointy
pieces of metal that they want to hit me with.

So as you can see there are many very good reasons for a greedy,
self-serving PC to want to share the magical items with his companions.
The only time that this desire to share dissappears is when the greedy
PC is about to leave and no longer needs his companions to be able to
help him, for example when you're at a gaming convention and you're
never going to see the people you're gaming with ever again.

jbs

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 00:50:47 -0500, Deykin ap Gwion
<tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:

>Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
>dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
>various methods for making the division 'fairly'.

That's your first mistake.

>I'll share how we do it (any questions on how it works, let
>me know) first:
>

>Now, we use a 'party ledger', which is maintained by two of
>the mages (their characters are the only ones who understand
>accounting *grin*). Into the party ledger goes cash,
>treasure, etc. They also maintain a double entry type of
>bookkeeping.

::shudder:: nerds.

>It's easy to look at a pile of coin,

You actually give those out?

>Anyway, now that you know how we do it, how do you do it?
>

>Deykin ap Gwion

I don't worry about splitting the treasure at all. That's the players
job. Anyway they want to do it is fine with me.

Tell me, in your system, how do you handle the thief character that
pocketed all those gems while the rest of the part wasn't looking?

Splitting of treasure is something that should be handled IC, not OOC.

Greedy characters *should* try to hoarde all the treasure and the
other characters should get pissed about it.

Now dividing up xp is a totally different thing. That's entirely up
to me and the players (or characters) have very little say in it. :-)


jbs

Don

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to

As our party's leader I came up with a method for distributing treasure
after one particularly lengthy and unfruitful discussion of who gets what.

1. Coins are immediately divided equally. Leftovers go into the party fund.

2. Any non-magical treasure (art, gems, etc.) goes directly into the party
fund. Items may be purchased from the party fund for their actual value.
Most often, these items are sold once the characters get to town and the
money is divided evenly as per #1.

3. Each magical item found is assigned to an arbiter (who's chosen in
round-robin fashion). Once it's identified, if the entire party can't
decide who gets it within a reasonable amount of time, the arbiter gets to
choose who gets it and his word is final.

We don't really have much of a greed problem in our group, but it helps to
devise some sort of set of rules beforehand just in case there are any
squabbles.


- Don

Check out my dice collection at: http://members.xoom.com/dondueck/index.htm

"I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue" - Lloyd Bridges, Airplane

"We did not follow cleverly invented myths when we told you about the power
and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
- The Apostle Simon Peter, c66 AD


john v verkuilen

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
Depends heavily on the party, actually, though even evil groups have some
incentive to prevent rampant theft and a marginally acceptable division of
spoils, if for no other reason than preventing frequent assassinations.

Last night we spent most of the time going through the large quantities of
stuff we gained over the course of several forays. The group has two
expedition leaders who are both high level wizards. We allocate all treasure
according to everyone else's contracts. First we divided all the mundane
treasure after getting it appraised, compensating those characters who had
made extraordinary expenditures. Then we identified all the items and
allocated them to the rest of the party as we saw fit, based primarily on a
who-needs-it-most criterion as well as a who-hasn't-gotten-recently secondary
criterion.

In another group I played in we divided mundane treasure evenly after
compensating for expenditures. However, item picks were usually allocated by
lottery unless there was an item that really screamed out for a particular
character.

We all publicly rolled a D20 (IC lots were supplied by the priest, whom we all
trusted most), highest roll picking first going down the list. Picks went in
reverse order in the second round, original order the third round, and so
forth. If the number of characters didn't work out to the number of items,
the end would be padded with bags of 500 gold taken off the top of any mundane
treasure or pick options for subsequent expeditions.

Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu

Allen Wessels

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
In article <39559DB7...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com>, Deykin ap
Gwion <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:

> Now, we use a 'party ledger', which is maintained by two of
> the mages (their characters are the only ones who understand
> accounting *grin*). Into the party ledger goes cash,
> treasure, etc. They also maintain a double entry type of
> bookkeeping.

We use the same system, but our party thief does the accounting. He
also resells goods for the party. Since this is out in the open, he is
fair about things, we think. By some quirk of fate this thief is also
the richest member of the party.

> It's easy to look at a pile of coin, divide it into nine


> equal shares (one each for party members, one for the petty
> cash fund (which is growing to an alarmingly high number),
> and a double share that gets divided equally amongst
> hirelings (a bonus in addition to any other salary we owe
> them).

Expenses come off the top of the treasure, after Imperial taxes, and any
cut due sponsors/clients.

> Then, you are left with a pile of magic items. (Blame me
> for the idea for this, and for the fact that we tried, *and*
> for the fact that we still use it *AND* for the fact that
> your brain is about to be polluted by it) We use an 'I want
> it' auction system, where each player can bid "I want it'
> points. These points just build up in the ledger. When
> someone wants an item, if no one else lays claim to it, he
> gets it for one 'I want it' point.

We pile up the magic and use a real auction system. PCs bring cash or
negotiable notes and we auction the items. You had to participate in
the adventure in which the magic was found to bit, unless nobody wants
the item or everyone agrees you may bid.



> If two players lay claim, each has to say how many points
> they want it worth. You can't 'want it' more than twenty
> points worth at a time. This is to prevent rampant 'I want
> it' point devaluation =-)

If two players really want an item badly, the rest of the party
rejoices. 2 mages in the party bid up a Wand of Conjuration to 3.5
times its book value. Very happy rest of the party. The cash from the
auction gets divvied as the orginal shares.



> You spend the points whether you get it or not. Ties go to
> whoever has spent the fewest 'I want it' points in the
> past. This rewards the guy who hasn't been trying to snap
> up all the items in the past.

In these cases, the guy that didn't get an item in the past has a lot
more standing cash, usually.

> When new characters (PCs) join the group, their PC gets I
> want it points equal to the average of all other PCs. This
> allows him to have a shot at getting in on the magic splits,
> while allowing the most conservative players (Hi Nate!) to
> retain their position as being able to get that Staff of the
> Flame Magi if it ever comes along (which we'll probably give
> him, anyway, but he insists on making sure).

New characters in our game are at a disadvantage here. They have to
rely on cash as it comes in. Usually they come pretty well equipped,
but this IS a weakness in our system.



> Particularly selfless acts have, in the past, caused the
> rest of us players to vote to zero another player's 'I want
> it' points. He'd just done the most courageous series of
> things, costing himself a magic sword, his entire fortune
> (which he'd sunk into a manor estate), and (nearly) his own
> life, all to protect the party from a vengeful nobleman. We
> felt we owed him =)

We usually just agree not to bid up an item if the party thinks someone
deserves it. This also assumes the character will pay fair market
value for the item. If an impovershed character "deserves" an item,
usually one of the other characters buys it and works out a deal.

We've used this system for about 12 years and we now look forward to
treasure division. Those sessions can be as entertaining as the game
itself, as characters move behind the scenes to arrange financing or
figure out will be bidding on an item.

- Allen

Jonathan Nusholtz

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
We don't have any kind of organized method in our group. Of course,
our PCs are all evil: 3 goblins, an elf, and a moldman. The elf is
very greedy, and tries to keep all the money he can get. We don't
deal much with civilized people (except to kill them), so we have no
real use for money. Mostly we take it back to give to the "gods" of
our tribe, which include a dragon and a half-orc.

In a recent session, we ran into an enemy treasury, and started using
the highly scientific treasure division method of "everyone takes what
he's closest to." We also keep a lot of stuff in the moldman's
backpack, because it's magic and contains an extradimensional space.
Most of the magic items we get are given to us by allies, who know
what they do and choose who should get them. When it comes to taking
them from corpses, it's usually a matter of who gets there first.

Jonathan Nusholtz
"From now on, I will not try to reason with the idiots I encounter. I will dismiss them by waving my paw and saying 'bah'."

Barry Smith

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
jbs wrote:

> I don't worry about splitting the treasure at all. That's the players
> job. Anyway they want to do it is fine with me.

I've always liked this approach, too. It forces the players to work it
out themselves in character.



> Tell me, in your system, how do you handle the thief character that
> pocketed all those gems while the rest of the part wasn't looking?

The thief pocketed the gems. Any character IMC that gets away with
finding a little something during their explorations, thief or not, and
keeps it, is fine with me as long as they write it down. It's entirely
in the character's personality whether to reveal to the others that
they've found something valuable IMO. I have a fighter/thief in an IRC
AD&D game, and he will on occasion pocket items that he finds without
informing the group, but I play him that way so that if the group ever
really needs a financial boost, I'll surprise them with a few trinkets.
He's overall a good character, so deliberate withholding of treasures by
him would be out of character-he still considers what he finds "group
treasure". They simply don't know about it... ;)



> Splitting of treasure is something that should be handled IC, not OOC.

Agreed.



> Greedy characters *should* try to hoarde all the treasure and the
> other characters should get pissed about it.

Absolutely.

Barry Smith

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
john v verkuilen wrote:

> Last night we spent most of the time going through the large quantities of
> stuff we gained over the course of several forays. The group has two
> expedition leaders who are both high level wizards. We allocate all treasure
> according to everyone else's contracts. First we divided all the mundane
> treasure after getting it appraised, compensating those characters who had
> made extraordinary expenditures. Then we identified all the items and
> allocated them to the rest of the party as we saw fit, based primarily on a
> who-needs-it-most criterion as well as a who-hasn't-gotten-recently secondary
> criterion.

Sounds like a highly Lawful group. Contracts and such.... ;)

Duane Vanderpol

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
"Deykin ap Gwion" <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote in message
news:39559DB7...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com...

> Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
> dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
> various methods for making the division 'fairly'.
>
> I'll share how we do it (any questions on how it works, let
> me know) first:
[snip]

Sounds interesting but perhaps a tad overly complex.

> Anyway, now that you know how we do it, how do you do it?

A couple of notes first:
1) the DM does not decide how the party divides treasure,
2) thieves who steal from the party are asking to get thwapped and will
deserve whatever they get.

Methods I have used:
The best is when the players realize that fighting over treasure
division does noone any real good and have that disgusting "all for one and
one for all" sort of approach. :-) Cash money is divided equally with
characters taking appraised gems & low-bulk valuables when possible rather
than reducing it ALL to coin. High bulk stuff is either sold, or if the
party has someplace safe to keep it, it's stored until they can get the best
price for it. Magic items are given out according to the following order -
those that can use them at all; those who need them more than others; those
who can make best use of them; those that want them. Reason and the best
interests of the party as a whole take precedence over simple avarice.
If there's only one wizard in the party he gets the Staff of the Magi.
If there are two fighters and only one +1 sword you give it to the fighter
with the 17 strength rather than the fighter with the 18/77 strength. If
there's two clerics and one +3 mace you give it to the one that wears plate
and worships Torm because he spends far more time in combat than the
unarmored, pacifistic druid. For lesser items and potions that either
everyone wants and can use or noone wants nor can use characters throw dice
for first choice or the items are kept as part of the "party fund" until it
can be sold or put to good use.

Now, there once was a party called The Avengers, who being of levels
well into the teens and rulers of small nations, generally had cash just
falling out of their postern gates and despite being generally more LG had
serious "every man for himself" tendencies. The division of treasure was
when that tendency regularly reared it's ugly head and weapons were
frequently drawn with intent to go down swinging rather than let wossname
get the best sword _again_. For a time this group actually divided treasure
up according to character level (one share per level) making the higher
level characters richer much faster than the lower level characters creating
further serious unfairness leading to heated _player_ arguments.
Finally they decided that all items would be given a cash value based on
those given in the 1st Ed. DMG. If a character wanted a given item he would
have to buy it from the party for the stated price. If more than one
character wanted an item then an auction was held with the caveat that all
sales were final and to be paid immediately. Since all purchases were paid
into the party fund, getting into a bidding war only helped everyone else
outbid you next time. Items unpurchased by party members were sold for cash
"on the open market" which was a cheap way of saying "we sell it _somewhere_
to _someone_ but we don't much care precisely where or who". They also
decided to start splitting the party fund equally (1 share per character)
which many didn't _like_ but everyone was willing to live with it. Bidding
wars for some items still got pretty heated with loans often being taken out
from other characters in order to make higher bids and the fact that part of
what you were bidding you'd get back after splitting the party fund).
Hardly the most egalitarian method (and one which still had a number of
drawbacks) but it worked.

I've also used the "dice for everything" approach but use of that never
lasted long. Somebody would eventually get hot dice and win several key
items in a row and changes would be made. Relying on pure randomness was
seldom satisfying.

--
Duane VanderPol
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
Alea jacta est. In omnia paratus. Ars gratia artis.


Duane Vanderpol

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
"Barry Smith" <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote in message
news:395671E5...@premier1.net...

> jbs wrote:
> > Splitting of treasure is something that should be handled IC, not OOC.
>
> Agreed.

Also agreed, but this can too easily spill over into OOC argument so I
now STRONGLY encourage the _players_ to come to some formal agreement before
it becomes an issue for their characters.

> > Greedy characters *should* try to hoarde all the treasure and the
> > other characters should get pissed about it.
>
> Absolutely.

Which only suggests to me that neither should be done with any great
regularity. IMC, characters who for whatever reason (IC or OOC) cheat other
characters out of treasure will be dealt with IC by the other characters and
I become annoyingly fair when it happens. That is, you can get away with
quite a bit if you're a player with any intelligence or running a character
with any skill, but you won't get away with it forever and if the other
characters want to strip you of every possession and stake you to a giant
ant hill then I'll let them (alignments permitting, of course) and not shed
a tear.
A little petty thievery IC is one thing but it's very easy to go too far
or for too long and I'll err on the side of just deserts.

Sea Wasp

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
jbs wrote:

> Tell me, in your system, how do you handle the thief character that
> pocketed all those gems while the rest of the part wasn't looking?

Generally he gets the crap beaten out of him, the gems taken away,
half his prior share of the loot confiscated. If that doesn't teach
him the cardinal rule: Thou Shalt Not Steal From Thy Teammates, the
next time he's kicked out summarily, if he's left alive at all.

(few parties are so dim that the thief can pull this off more than
once or twice without being caught, and once you're caught, NO ONE
trusts you ever again.)

Deykin ap Gwion

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
jbs wrote:

>
> eykin ap Gwion wrote:
>
> >Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
> >dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
> >various methods for making the division 'fairly'.
>
> That's your first mistake.

Think so? Why?



> >I'll share how we do it (any questions on how it works, let
> >me know) first:
> >

> >Now, we use a 'party ledger', which is maintained by two of
> >the mages (their characters are the only ones who understand
> >accounting *grin*). Into the party ledger goes cash,
> >treasure, etc. They also maintain a double entry type of
> >bookkeeping.
>

> ::shudder:: nerds.

*heh* Yes we are. Got a problem with that? I challenge
you to fountain pens at twenty paces sirah!



> >It's easy to look at a pile of coin,
>

> You actually give those out?

How large is a pile? And yes, we do, from time to time.



> >divide it into nine
> >equal shares (one each for party members, one for the petty
> >cash fund (which is growing to an alarmingly high number),
> >and a double share that gets divided equally amongst
> >hirelings (a bonus in addition to any other salary we owe
> >them).
> >

> >Then, you are left with a pile of magic items. (Blame me
> >for the idea for this, and for the fact that we tried, *and*
> >for the fact that we still use it *AND* for the fact that
> >your brain is about to be polluted by it) We use an 'I want
> >it' auction system, where each player can bid "I want it'
> >points. These points just build up in the ledger. When
> >someone wants an item, if no one else lays claim to it, he
> >gets it for one 'I want it' point.
> >

> >If two players lay claim, each has to say how many points
> >they want it worth. You can't 'want it' more than twenty
> >points worth at a time. This is to prevent rampant 'I want
> >it' point devaluation =-)
> >

> >You spend the points whether you get it or not. Ties go to
> >whoever has spent the fewest 'I want it' points in the
> >past. This rewards the guy who hasn't been trying to snap
> >up all the items in the past.
> >

> >When new characters (PCs) join the group, their PC gets I
> >want it points equal to the average of all other PCs. This
> >allows him to have a shot at getting in on the magic splits,
> >while allowing the most conservative players (Hi Nate!) to
> >retain their position as being able to get that Staff of the
> >Flame Magi if it ever comes along (which we'll probably give
> >him, anyway, but he insists on making sure).
> >

> >Particularly selfless acts have, in the past, caused the
> >rest of us players to vote to zero another player's 'I want
> >it' points. He'd just done the most courageous series of
> >things, costing himself a magic sword, his entire fortune
> >(which he'd sunk into a manor estate), and (nearly) his own
> >life, all to protect the party from a vengeful nobleman. We
> >felt we owed him =)
> >

> >Anyway, now that you know how we do it, how do you do it?
> >

> >Deykin ap Gwion


>
> I don't worry about splitting the treasure at all. That's the players
> job. Anyway they want to do it is fine with me.

Ah, but in this instance, I'm a player, and I was wondering
what fair methods others have come up with in the past.



> Tell me, in your system, how do you handle the thief character that
> pocketed all those gems while the rest of the part wasn't looking?

It never hits the party pool. Thus, it doesn't matter
unless the other characters a) find out, and b) care.


> Splitting of treasure is something that should be handled IC, not OOC.

The book keeping thing *is* an IC thing. It has ten year
old RP roots, and we keep it around.



> Greedy characters *should* try to hoarde all the treasure and the
> other characters should get pissed about it.

I agree. And they do, whenever they can. But once
something hit's the Bursar's Chest (a bag of holding like
chest which only handles coinage), it gets hard to slip your
greedy machinations past the mage's in charge and the
paladin (who apparently, will someday be reincarnated as a
CFO).

> Now dividing up xp is a totally different thing. That's entirely up
> to me and the players (or characters) have very little say in it. :-)

heh

Deykin

Deykin ap Gwion

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
hnei...@accessweb.com wrote:

>
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 00:50:47 -0500, Deykin ap Gwion
> <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:
>
> >Now, we use a 'party ledger', which is maintained by two of
> >the mages (their characters are the only ones who understand
> >accounting *grin*). Into the party ledger goes cash,
> >treasure, etc. They also maintain a double entry type of
> >bookkeeping.
>
> The characters I DM normally just pick stuff up and worry about
> recording it later. If they have time to count it, coinage
> information is provided (in larger scale situations, this is essential
> for encumbrance). Once it's counted, it's their problem.

I neglected to mention how the coinage is accounted for =)
We've got a bag of holding like silver coffer, called a
Bursar's Chest, which will only accept coinage. It will,
however, indicate to the opener exactly how much is in
there. The chest itself weighs very little, and so far, we
haven't found an upper limit to its contents.

> Gems and jewelry, and other artwork, can be more troublesome.
> Sometimes, a specific character wants it. Often, the value is
> uncertain so an equal distribution is tough. Appraisal is fine, but
> not guaranteed and not precise.
>
> They generally split wealth into equal shares one greater than the
> number in the group - the rest goes to a party "slush fund" used for
> expenses like removal of curses and diseases, raising fallen party
> members, anything they might buy that benefits the group, and
> reimbursing party expenses (eg. one character damaged a magic weapon;
> they might cover repairs from the fund; recharging a magic item might
> also come from there; generally they pay their own way unless the
> numbers are quite high).
>
> They don't have hirelings at present, so I have no idea how they would
> split this. Past NPC's have been competent adventurers and received
> shares the same as the rest of the group.

Ah, I left out NPCs, who get half shares (or full, depending
on their relationship in the party) of cash in our system.



> >Then, you are left with a pile of magic items.
>

> On the fly, the party might discuss who will carry or even use an
> unidentified item. Once they are identified, they generally just
> discuss the split out (nothing formal).

We always wait until its 'settlin up' time to bestow
permanent ownership of an item. While still adventuring,
most items are just carried by whoever needs it most. Which
would seem fairest if we'd just let that be the end of it,
but greed rears its ugly head later =)

> Who can/will make use of it
> is important. Who's been a greedy magic hog in the past is also often
> important.
>
> They can be fun to watch.

Yeah it can =)

Deykin ap Gwion

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
Don wrote:

> As our party's leader I came up with a method for distributing treasure
> after one particularly lengthy and unfruitful discussion of who gets what.

By party leader, you mean player who is first among equals,
not DM, right?



> 1. Coins are immediately divided equally. Leftovers go into the party fund.

The party fund is small, then? Just holds the modulus?



> 2. Any non-magical treasure (art, gems, etc.) goes directly into the party
> fund. Items may be purchased from the party fund for their actual value.
> Most often, these items are sold once the characters get to town and the
> money is divided evenly as per #1.

Ah, I would have thought they'd be sold and the value end up
in party treasure. That's how we would have done it. But
then, since PCs buy items back from it, the money must end
up in the party pool, so *that's* where the party pool gets
the money to pay for lodging, horses, stabling, and the
like, yes?



> 3. Each magical item found is assigned to an arbiter (who's chosen in
> round-robin fashion). Once it's identified, if the entire party can't
> decide who gets it within a reasonable amount of time, the arbiter gets to
> choose who gets it and his word is final.

How long does arbiter'dom last?

> We don't really have much of a greed problem in our group, but it helps to
> devise some sort of set of rules beforehand just in case there are any
> squabbles.

Its funny... our system looks like we have an extreme
problem with greed. We don't. In fact, just hewing to
common sense would handle it faster. No reason our players
couldn't do it. But we don't. There's just something about
having that big pile of loot in front of you, and no danger
present that brings out the 'optima seeker' in all of us,
or, I should say, brings out the 'thwart any attempt to get
over on us seeker'.

Deykin

Allen Wessels

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
In article <QYv55.41223$FC6.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Duane Vanderpol" <dua...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Not only that, but it is loads of fun. We'd tried most of the other
methods in the past an none of them were satisfactory. Once a party
gets past the "lets set up house together" mode, each character tends to
develop their own goals. Those goals tend to need funding, and the
henchmen tend to want "stuff".

- Allen

Rupert Boleyn

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:51:56 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
wrote:

>Deykin ap Gwion wrote:
>>
>> Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
>> dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
>> various methods for making the division 'fairly'.
>

> "Who can use this?" is the first question. Usually that settles the
>distribution of items.
>
> "Who needs money?" is the second. Usually it gets split evenly among
>those who care about it. Often there's one or two characters who don't
>care as long as they have enough to live on.
>
> If there's conflicts, the items are distributed on a basis of who
>already has more or less, and who gets the MOST benefit out of a given
>item.

The group I currently play with does this when it comes to items, too.
However money is split evenly, and if you don';t want your share you
give it charity. It saves arguments later, we've found.

A group I used to play with had a system of "picks" for items.
Everyone rolled, and the highest got first pick, and so on down the
list. If you didn't want something in that particular pile of loot you
just got skipped, and your name wasn't crossed out. As we just cucled
through the list there were times when one person would have his name
at the top of the list, and in second place, and in third, but we
figured that as he'd chosen not to take any items for quite a while
that was fair enough.

--
"Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>

A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history.

Don

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to

Deykin ap Gwion <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote in message
news:395669B8...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com...

> Don wrote:
>
> > As our party's leader I came up with a method for distributing treasure
> > after one particularly lengthy and unfruitful discussion of who gets
> >what.
>
> By party leader, you mean player who is first among equals,
> not DM, right?

Yes, that's how I understand the term.


> > 1. Coins are immediately divided equally. Leftovers go into the party
> >fund.
>
> The party fund is small, then? Just holds the modulus?

Yes, but some characters donate lots of their coin to the party fund (it's
made clear that this donation becomes *everyone's* property once it enters
the party fund).


> > 2. Any non-magical treasure (art, gems, etc.) goes directly into the
party
> > fund. Items may be purchased from the party fund for their actual
value.
> > Most often, these items are sold once the characters get to town and the
> > money is divided evenly as per #1.
>
> Ah, I would have thought they'd be sold and the value end up
> in party treasure.

Most of it does get sold, but the profits are split amongst the characters
first.


> That's how we would have done it. But
> then, since PCs buy items back from it, the money must end
> up in the party pool, so *that's* where the party pool gets
> the money to pay for lodging, horses, stabling, and the
> like, yes?

Actually, no one's bought an item from the party fund yet. All the
miscellaneous stuff (artwork, etc.) is currenctly on consignment.

> > 3. Each magical item found is assigned to an arbiter (who's chosen in
> > round-robin fashion). Once it's identified, if the entire party can't
> > decide who gets it within a reasonable amount of time, the arbiter gets
> > to choose who gets it and his word is final.
>
> How long does arbiter'dom last?

Until a proper owner for the item is determined. If the party can't agree
on who gets it, the arbiter decides and his word is final.


- Don

Lawrence Mead

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
In article <39559DB7...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com>,

Deykin ap Gwion <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:
> Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
> dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
> various methods for making the division 'fairly'.
>
> I'll share how we do it (any questions on how it works, let
> me know) first:
>
[snip]

My players always seem to like Level-Sharing: Each gets a fraction
of the monetary treasure in proportion to the ratio of his own level
to the total number of levels in the party. For instance, if the levels
are 2,3 and 5, and the treasure gained is 100gp, then the characters
gain 200,300 and 500 respectively. (Being 1st edition, this goes
for this part of the experience too). As far as items goes, that is
up entirely to the players. Mine simply give an item to the PC who
can best use it: swords to fighters, scrolls to mages and clerics, etc.
When there is doubt, they try to even up the power/number of items owned
by each to keep the party balanced.

DMgorgon


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Deykin ap Gwion

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
Duane Vanderpol wrote:

>
> "Deykin ap Gwion" wrote:
>
> > Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
> > dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
> > various methods for making the division 'fairly'.
> >
> > I'll share how we do it (any questions on how it works, let
> > me know) first:
> [snip]
>
> Sounds interesting but perhaps a tad overly complex.

The 'I want it' thing? I wouldn't spring it on a group of
new people, no. It has grown up quite organically over the
past ten years. I may well be quite out of hand. But we
like it.

> > Anyway, now that you know how we do it, how do you do it?
>

> A couple of notes first:
> 1) the DM does not decide how the party divides treasure,
> 2) thieves who steal from the party are asking to get thwapped and will
> deserve whatever they get.

A couple of notes in reply:
1) Its interesting to note how many people have assumed I'm
a DM imposing a treasure division system.
2) I agree.



> Methods I have used:
> The best is when the players realize that fighting over treasure
> division does noone any real good and have that disgusting "all for one and
> one for all" sort of approach. :-) Cash money is divided equally with
> characters taking appraised gems & low-bulk valuables when possible rather
> than reducing it ALL to coin. High bulk stuff is either sold, or if the
> party has someplace safe to keep it, it's stored until they can get the best
> price for it. Magic items are given out according to the following order -
> those that can use them at all; those who need them more than others; those
> who can make best use of them; those that want them. Reason and the best
> interests of the party as a whole take precedence over simple avarice.

One of our parties does it this way. They are almost
saintlike in their ability to give what is needed to the
needful. Suits the characters in that campaign. Doesn't
suit our Old World campaign, though. The characters have
been together for almost fifteen years, game time, but for
various reasons, they are Mercenaries first, friends (a
distant) second.

> If there's only one wizard in the party he gets the Staff of the Magi.
> If there are two fighters and only one +1 sword you give it to the fighter
> with the 17 strength rather than the fighter with the 18/77 strength. If
> there's two clerics and one +3 mace you give it to the one that wears plate
> and worships Torm because he spends far more time in combat than the
> unarmored, pacifistic druid. For lesser items and potions that either
> everyone wants and can use or noone wants nor can use characters throw dice
> for first choice or the items are kept as part of the "party fund" until it
> can be sold or put to good use.
>
> Now, there once was a party called The Avengers, who being of levels
> well into the teens and rulers of small nations, generally had cash just
> falling out of their postern gates and despite being generally more LG had
> serious "every man for himself" tendencies. The division of treasure was
> when that tendency regularly reared it's ugly head and weapons were
> frequently drawn with intent to go down swinging rather than let wossname
> get the best sword _again_. For a time this group actually divided treasure
> up according to character level (one share per level) making the higher
> level characters richer much faster than the lower level characters creating
> further serious unfairness leading to heated _player_ arguments.

Yeah, I can see where that would be unbalancing.

> Finally they decided that all items would be given a cash value based on
> those given in the 1st Ed. DMG. If a character wanted a given item he would
> have to buy it from the party for the stated price. If more than one
> character wanted an item then an auction was held with the caveat that all
> sales were final and to be paid immediately. Since all purchases were paid
> into the party fund, getting into a bidding war only helped everyone else
> outbid you next time. Items unpurchased by party members were sold for cash
> "on the open market" which was a cheap way of saying "we sell it _somewhere_
> to _someone_ but we don't much care precisely where or who". They also
> decided to start splitting the party fund equally (1 share per character)
> which many didn't _like_ but everyone was willing to live with it. Bidding
> wars for some items still got pretty heated with loans often being taken out
> from other characters in order to make higher bids and the fact that part of
> what you were bidding you'd get back after splitting the party fund).
> Hardly the most egalitarian method (and one which still had a number of
> drawbacks) but it worked.
>

> I've also used the "dice for everything" approach but use of that never
> lasted long. Somebody would eventually get hot dice and win several key
> items in a row and changes would be made. Relying on pure randomness was
> seldom satisfying.

No, it usually isn't. Eventually, the 'fairness' of it gets
in the way if 'self interest'.

Deykin

Deykin ap Gwion

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
Lawrence Mead wrote:
>
> In article <39559DB7...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com>,
> Deykin ap Gwion <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:
> > Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
> > dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
> > various methods for making the division 'fairly'.
> >
> > I'll share how we do it (any questions on how it works, let
> > me know) first:
> >
> [snip]
>
> My players always seem to like Level-Sharing: Each gets a fraction
> of the monetary treasure in proportion to the ratio of his own level
> to the total number of levels in the party. For instance, if the levels
> are 2,3 and 5, and the treasure gained is 100gp, then the characters
> gain 200,300 and 500 respectively. (Being 1st edition, this goes
> for this part of the experience too). As far as items goes, that is
> up entirely to the players. Mine simply give an item to the PC who
> can best use it: swords to fighters, scrolls to mages and clerics, etc.
> When there is doubt, they try to even up the power/number of items owned
> by each to keep the party balanced.

I assume you meant that's how they divide up 1000 gp, not
100 =) OF course, I've known some players in the past who
would try hard to convince me that you could divide 100 gp
into three piles of 500, 300, and 200 gold each... also
known as creative accounting.

When I gave XP for GP, I always gave even shares of XP for
gold found, regardless of how they actually divided up the
cash. I stopped giving xp for money, though.

Deykin

USCM_Sulaco

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
In article <39559DB7...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com>,
Deykin ap Gwion <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:
> Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
> dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
> various methods for making the division 'fairly'.
>
> I'll share how we do it (any questions on how it works, let
> me know) first:
>
> Now, we use a 'party ledger', which is maintained by two of
> the mages (their characters are the only ones who understand
> accounting *grin*). Into the party ledger goes cash,
> treasure, etc. They also maintain a double entry type of
> bookkeeping.
>
> It's easy to look at a pile of coin, divide it into nine
> Anyway, now that you know how we do it, how do you do it?

Well, we generally use a system that goes something like:

"Okay, there is a magic sword here. I think the fighter could make the
best use of this item. The Ring of Wizadry is probably best used by the
Mage..."

barring that, if you really want to get "bookkeepy" about it, we
generally pull ou thte DMG or EM and find the GP value of the item. The
player who wants the item in question sacrifices that ammount of their
treasure quota. If two PCs want the same item, it usually comes dwon to
who has gotten the least stuff in the past.

Save for a few part feuds over loot in the long-ago munchkin phase we
when were younger, this system has always worked for us.

--
"Because, as we all know, the path that leads straight to hell
is paved with lead miniatures and polyhedral dice!"

- from the "MST3K Dark Dungeons" Parody

Varsil Savai

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:00:18 GMT, "Robert Fanning"
<roth...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>
>Tim Scoff <t...@scoff.net> wrote in message
>news:tim-E26DE7.1...@news.slurp.net...

>> <SNIP>


>>
>> > Anyway, now that you know how we do it, how do you do it?
>> >

>> > Deykin ap Gwion
>>
>> Money and gems are divided equally among the entire party if the
>> party's theif allows the rest of the party to find them. One of his
>> more creative lines was, "this is just worthless glass" as he threw a
>> 5000 GP diamond over his shoulder when going through treasure.
>
>I had one thief do that after rolling a 20 on their appraisal roll.......
<snip>

Even more entertaining is when the party has conflict over an item
they've incorrectly appraised...
----------------------------------------------------
Consider yourself flamed.


I have erected a spamblocker. Simply remove the
#$% characters if you feel the need to email me.

john v verkuilen

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> writes:

[snip]

>Sounds like a highly Lawful group. Contracts and such.... ;)

Well not exactly, but to a certain extent yes. Individual alignments (such as
they really are--we don't push them) aren't especially lawful, but having a
solid contract seems to be the best way to keep an otherwise disparate group
together, to say nothing of each other's throats.

There are two primary characters who are the sponsors of the expedition. The
rest are technically hirelings or henchmen of the leaders (though some are
actually PCs). My character is one of the leaders and, while not really
lawful, has a "write me a contract" streak from having been a mercenary for
evil people for many years. And people who *violate* contracts will--or not--
live to regret it.

USCM_Sulaco

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
In article <39560E...@wizvax.net>,
sea...@wizvax.net wrote:

> Deykin ap Gwion wrote:
> >
> > Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
> > dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
> > various methods for making the division 'fairly'.
>
> "Who can use this?" is the first question. Usually that settles
the
> distribution of items.
>
> "Who needs money?" is the second. Usually it gets split evenly
among
> those who care about it. Often there's one or two characters who don't
> care as long as they have enough to live on.
>
> If there's conflicts, the items are distributed on a basis of
who
> already has more or less, and who gets the MOST benefit out of a given
> item.

True. Diving up lot is not normally a big issue with a good group
of mature gamers.

In my last campaign, there was this one goofball who demanded that all
loot discovered by the party became communal party property, and you
basically had to ask the other players to "borrow" an item. This was
essentialy becasue this guy wanted access to every item whenever he
wanted them. The problem was that it was a small group at the time; only
three players, one of whom was his wife who was a new player and
deferred to him in all these matters. Eventaully, even she got fed up
with his nonsense and the players voted 2 to 1 against to abolish his
system and divy the loot up fair and square after that. Being the GM,
I did not think it was my place to enforce my will as to how the players
divided their loot.

Robert Fanning

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to

Tim Scoff <t...@scoff.net> wrote in message
news:tim-E26DE7.1...@news.slurp.net...
> In article <39559DB7...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com>, Deykin ap
> Gwion <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Anyway, now that you know how we do it, how do you do it?
> >
> > Deykin ap Gwion
>
> Money and gems are divided equally among the entire party if the
> party's theif allows the rest of the party to find them. One of his
> more creative lines was, "this is just worthless glass" as he threw a
> 5000 GP diamond over his shoulder when going through treasure.

I had one thief do that after rolling a 20 on their appraisal roll.......

> Note, the above was done relatively openly in that the Players all
> knew exactly what was going on even though the Characters didn't.
>
> Magic items are usually given to the person who will benefit the rest
> of the party the most by having them. For example our heavy hitter
> offensive Invoker was given the Ring of Spell Turning for protection and
> any magical weapons go to the Character who uses that item the most but
> who doesn't have a magical weapon of that type.

Tim Scoff

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
In article <3957...@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Robert Fanning"
<roth...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

> Tim Scoff <t...@scoff.net> wrote in message

> > Money and gems are divided equally among the entire party if the
> > party's theif allows the rest of the party to find them. One of his
> > more creative lines was, "this is just worthless glass" as he threw a
> > 5000 GP diamond over his shoulder when going through treasure.
>
> I had one thief do that after rolling a 20 on their appraisal roll.......

Well, he actually made a Pick Pockets roll and threw a 10 GP gem over
his shoulder in the dark cave while he pocketed the 5000 GP gem to sell
later......

Sea Wasp

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
Lawrence Mead wrote:
>
> In article <39559DB7...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com>,
> Deykin ap Gwion <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:
> > Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
> > dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
> > various methods for making the division 'fairly'.
> >
> > I'll share how we do it (any questions on how it works, let
> > me know) first:
> >
> [snip]
>
> My players always seem to like Level-Sharing: Each gets a fraction
> of the monetary treasure in proportion to the ratio of his own level
> to the total number of levels in the party. For instance, if the levels
> are 2,3 and 5, and the treasure gained is 100gp, then the characters
> gain 200,300 and 500 respectively.

And how the heck do the characters know what level they are, and why
do they care about that particular issue even if they do when it comes
to dividing up the loot?

Duane Vanderpol

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
"Deykin ap Gwion" <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote in message
news:39575E73...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com...

> Duane Vanderpol wrote:
> > A couple of notes first:
> > 1) the DM does not decide how the party divides treasure,
> > 2) thieves who steal from the party are asking to get thwapped and will
> > deserve whatever they get.
>
> A couple of notes in reply:
> 1) Its interesting to note how many people have assumed I'm
> a DM imposing a treasure division system.
> 2) I agree.

The notes were just comments on statements made in other replies in the
thread and I actually hadn't personally made an assumption about DM or
player perspectives in your post. Just decided to throw things into one one
response rather than create clutter with several replies.

hnei...@accessweb.com

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:18:00 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
wrote:

>> My players always seem to like Level-Sharing: Each gets a fraction


>> of the monetary treasure in proportion to the ratio of his own level
>> to the total number of levels in the party. For instance, if the levels
>> are 2,3 and 5, and the treasure gained is 100gp, then the characters
>> gain 200,300 and 500 respectively.
>
> And how the heck do the characters know what level they are, and why
>do they care about that particular issue even if they do when it comes
>to dividing up the loot?

I have to agree with that point to some extent - the characters really
only know how effective each was. However, the higher level
characters should contribute more and, assuming they do, receive a
"bonus". In the real world (where even arch magi fear to tread) more
"experienced" workers generally do get remunerated in greater amounts.
Using character levels is not an unreasonable way to simulate that
result in the game.

That said, my players divide everything equally (with one extra share
fore a "party fund" to pay for unexpected and significant costs).

Lawrence Mead

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
In article <3957F2...@wizvax.net>,

sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
> Lawrence Mead wrote:
> >
> > In article <39559DB7...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com>,
> > Deykin ap Gwion <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:
> > > Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
> > > dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
> > > various methods for making the division 'fairly'.
> > >
> > > I'll share how we do it (any questions on how it works, let
> > > me know) first:
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > My players always seem to like Level-Sharing: Each gets a fraction
> > of the monetary treasure in proportion to the ratio of his own level
> > to the total number of levels in the party. For instance, if the
levels
> > are 2,3 and 5, and the treasure gained is 100gp, then the characters
> > gain 200,300 and 500 respectively.
>
> And how the heck do the characters know what level they are, and why
> do they care about that particular issue even if they do when it comes
> to dividing up the loot?
>

*Characters* don't know. The DM does, though, and he is the one
who awards experience :)

DMgorgon

Sea Wasp

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
Lawrence Mead wrote:
>
> In article <3957F2...@wizvax.net>,
> sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
> > Lawrence Mead wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <39559DB7...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com>,
> > > Deykin ap Gwion <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:
> > > > Tonight, after finishing up a rather lengthy quest, we were
> > > > dividing up the treasure, and I got to thinking about
> > > > various methods for making the division 'fairly'.
> > > >
> > > > I'll share how we do it (any questions on how it works, let
> > > > me know) first:
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > My players always seem to like Level-Sharing: Each gets a fraction
> > > of the monetary treasure in proportion to the ratio of his own level
> > > to the total number of levels in the party. For instance, if the
> levels
> > > are 2,3 and 5, and the treasure gained is 100gp, then the characters
> > > gain 200,300 and 500 respectively.
> >
> > And how the heck do the characters know what level they are, and why
> > do they care about that particular issue even if they do when it comes
> > to dividing up the loot?
> >
>
> *Characters* don't know. The DM does, though, and he is the one
> who awards experience

Experience, yes. You don't award the money, individually, though.
That's something PURELY in the characters' purview, not something that
the GM has any control over (unless God Himself appears in flaming
robes to order you how to distribute the money). Thus, again, how is
it that they distribute treasure according to something they do not,
and cannot in most cases (I'd make an exception for spellcasters, who
have a clear-cut measure in standard AD&D of where they are in terms
of advancement) know.

Duane Vanderpol

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
"Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
news:395A2C...@wizvax.net...

> Lawrence Mead wrote:
> > *Characters* don't know. The DM does, though, and he is the one
> > who awards experience
>
> Experience, yes. You don't award the money, individually, though.
> That's something PURELY in the characters' purview, not something that
> the GM has any control over (unless God Himself appears in flaming
> robes to order you how to distribute the money). Thus, again, how is
> it that they distribute treasure according to something they do not,
> and cannot in most cases (I'd make an exception for spellcasters, who
> have a clear-cut measure in standard AD&D of where they are in terms
> of advancement) know.

Even more to the point - if somehow the players came up with some arcane
methodology by which the characters could assign each other "levels", what
character in his right mind would go along with such patent hooey?

"So, let me try to get this straight ONE more time... Because Lord
Thrang here can kill, on average, 0.87 orcs every 1/60th of an hour (and I
don't see why you'd want to divide an hour into 60 parts instead of
something more reasonable like 100...) irrespective of his more notable
physical strength as noted on this incomprehensible 'strength chart' Wizzo
the Stupendous drew up (I still don't understand why it switches to
percentages...), and compared to Furlong the Mighty's 0.62 per 1/60th
rating, and all this is _also_ irrespective of his preference for the
two-handed sword over Furlong's choice of battle axe according to Wizzo's
'weapon damage chart' (which I also don't understand why it differentiates
between larger than man-size and everything smaller...) that Thrang should
be awarded nine treasure shares compared to Furlong's five shares?
Muggwort, this 'shares per level' idea of yours is stupidest idea anyone has
had since Furlong tried to kiss that ghoul three years ago."

Peter Newman

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
The party I play in (currently 3rd to 4th level) has the
following rules. (We're playing D&D using the D&D Cyclopedia
rules)

Each party member [1] gets an equal share of the appraised value
of the item less any sellers percentages. Appraisal is done by my
character the Mage (since he has Appraisal & Bargaining Proficiencies
at 16). Items used up during the adventure aren't divided. Anything
we decide, as a party, not to take with us is not divided.

[1] Including anyone who died. NPC's get a equal share if they are
skilled enough to negotiate it (after all the PC's don't know
who is a PC and who is an NPC). If the NPC's can be convinced into
agreeing to take less my character (who is Neutral Selfish) has no
problems with that.

Say the party is hired to clean monsters out of a temple
and are offered 2,000 GP's for the job plus whatever treasure
we can carry off.

They complete the job and find:

One necklace of Magic Missiles with one remaining missile.

112 Gold Pieces

62 Silver Pieces

5 pairs of fancy shoes (worth 25 GP a pair) that came off
of the dead wizards who invaded the temple. (The DM tries to
persuade my charecter into wearing a pair of these nice looking
fancy comfortable shoes. I refuse on the assumption it is just
a trick so I can be identified as the killer by the vengeful
relatives of the evil Glantrian Wizards.)

One +1 Long sword that we appraise at 6,000 GP's
(the Mage pays 500 Gp's cash to have this magically
Analyzed). We think we can sell it for 4,500 GP's.
One Wizard Spell book that we appraise at 5,000 Gp's
and get a cash offer of 4,000 Gp's for.
One Wizard Spell book that we appraise at 8,000 GP's
after the Wizard (me) Reads it. We get a cash offer
of 6,000 Gp's for it

6 average quality swords and 6 cheap bows that the Orcish
guards had.

One high quality pen & ink set worth 10 GP's.

We also notice that the temple has tons of beautiful
marble flooring but decide to leave them be when my
charecter realizes they are too heavy to move.

The Magic Missile Necklace was used up in the adventure
and is not divided.

Each of the 5 charecters gets
2000 GP/5 = 400 GP

112 Gp/5 = 22 Gp 4SP

62 SP/5 = 12 SP +2 SP's remaining
(we use coins we already had to make change and we
each get 4 Cp's)

The shoes are appraised at 25 GP's a pair. When we go
to sell them the local shoeseller only wants 2 pairs
and will pay 20 GP's a pair. Each party member gets 40/5 =
8 GP's each. The 3 remaining pairs are party treasure to be
sold later.

As a party we decide not to sell the Magic sword. The Wizard and
the Cleric can't use it. The Centaur and the Mystic do not have
the right weapon proficiences so they don't want it. The Dwarf
prefers axes to swords so he rejects it. It remains party
treasure and is loaned to the NPC we hire later. If the NPC
decides to keep it he will owe the Wizard 500 Gp's (what the
Wizard paid for the Analyze on it) and each of the 5 party
members (including the Wizard) a further 800 GP's for it.
(4,500 - 500 (to the wizard))/5). After the NPC dies it
becomes party treasure once more. My Wizard figures out that
it is probably cursed.

We sell the first spell book for 4,000 Gps, each party
member gets 800 GP's. (4,000/5).

On the advise of the Wizard, who wants to learn the 2nd level
spells in the 2nd spellbook, it is not sold but remains party
treasure. The Wizard can use it for free. if he decides to keep
it he will own each of the other 4 PC's 1,200 GP's (6,000/5).

The Wizard (who is Neutral and only proposed the rigid treasure
dividing rules to make sure he gets his fair share) keeps and
uses the pen. It's still party treasure. If the other PC's
remember this he will have to pay them each 2Gp's (10/5) to
get to own it.

We sell the 6 swords for 6Gp's each and each party member
gets 6GP & 2 SP.

We abondon the cheap bows on the advise of the Centaur who
has the Bowyer skill.

The marrble block were not taken and are worth nothing. If one
of the PC's had been dumb enough to cart one of the blocks
back to town he would have gotten to keep whatever he got
for it since we had agreed they were not worth taking.

Allen Wessels

unread,
Jul 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/2/00
to

> Generally he gets the crap beaten out of him, the gems taken away,
> half his prior share of the loot confiscated. If that doesn't teach
> him the cardinal rule: Thou Shalt Not Steal From Thy Teammates, the
> next time he's kicked out summarily, if he's left alive at all.
>
> (few parties are so dim that the thief can pull this off more than
> once or twice without being caught, and once you're caught, NO ONE
> trusts you ever again.)

A good thief could pull this off much more than once or twice without
being caught. After being caught once, it is much more difficult.

When the entire party backs off while the thief is doing his thing, I
think he deserves a little off the top. Either you're there to watch or
you're not. With a lock on one side and the thief's body on the other,
the line of sight ain't so good.

It is amazing the number of traps around that require reaching inside
the chest with the lid only barely open to disarm.

- Allen

Sea Wasp

unread,
Jul 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/3/00
to
Allen Wessels wrote:

> A good thief could pull this off much more than once or twice without
> being caught. After being caught once, it is much more difficult.
>
> When the entire party backs off while the thief is doing his thing, I
> think he deserves a little off the top.

I don't. Not as a player, not as a GM. He's doing the job he's there
for, and his regular share is what he gets paid. If he's stupid enough
to steal from the party he's with, he deserves the consequences.

Deykin ap Gwion

unread,
Jul 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/3/00
to
Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> Allen Wessels wrote:
>
> > A good thief could pull this off much more than once or twice without
> > being caught. After being caught once, it is much more difficult.
> >
> > When the entire party backs off while the thief is doing his thing, I
> > think he deserves a little off the top.
>
> I don't. Not as a player, not as a GM. He's doing the job he's there
> for, and his regular share is what he gets paid. If he's stupid enough
> to steal from the party he's with, he deserves the consequences.

I don't think it's ought to be a player or Gm issue at all,
should it? It's a player character issue, IMO.

I suspect you and Mr Wessels are using 'deserves' in
slightly different senses. From a game rules perspective,
the thief got it, he pocketed it, so it's his loot, and
deserves anything he can get away with. Until he gets
caught. This may well be considered a violation of whatever
social contract the party of characters might implicitly or
explicitly have developed. And thus deserves the
consequences.

The players oughtn't let their metagame knowledge of what
the thief has done trickle down to the characters any more
than the GM ought to allow his personal sense of fair play
to constrain such doings. Let the in character consequences
of an in game event handle the situation.

As always, just my take on it,
Deykin

Allen Wessels

unread,
Jul 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/3/00
to

> I don't. Not as a player, not as a GM. He's doing the job he's there
> for, and his regular share is what he gets paid. If he's stupid enough
> to steal from the party he's with, he deserves the consequences.

A good thief is looking for an angle ALL of the time. Stupid is
relative to the results. If you think you're gonna get caught, you
don't do the deed.

As a GM, I'd rather the thief not indulge. That's up to the characters
to work out, though.

- Allen

Allen Wessels

unread,
Jul 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/3/00
to
In article <39606D0A...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com>, Deykin ap
Gwion <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote:

> I don't think it's ought to be a player or Gm issue at all,
> should it? It's a player character issue, IMO.

Yep.

> I suspect you and Mr Wessels are using 'deserves' in
> slightly different senses. From a game rules perspective,
> the thief got it, he pocketed it, so it's his loot, and
> deserves anything he can get away with. Until he gets
> caught. This may well be considered a violation of whatever
> social contract the party of characters might implicitly or
> explicitly have developed. And thus deserves the
> consequences.

You know, it is amazing. The thief gets nailed for skimming, but who
gripes when the cleric says that their god needs a particular item for
sacrifice and that is not really part of "shares". Or the mage needs to
haul out a bunch of stuff as components. Or the fighter absolutely has
to have the monster head for a trophy.

Each character has individual needs that sometimes compete with the
goals of the group. Part of the fun is reaching compromise.

> The players oughtn't let their metagame knowledge of what
> the thief has done trickle down to the characters any more
> than the GM ought to allow his personal sense of fair play
> to constrain such doings. Let the in character consequences
> of an in game event handle the situation.

Bingo.

- Allen

Sea Wasp

unread,
Jul 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/3/00
to
Allen Wessels wrote:
>
> In article <396066...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>
> > I don't. Not as a player, not as a GM. He's doing the job he's there
> > for, and his regular share is what he gets paid. If he's stupid enough
> > to steal from the party he's with, he deserves the consequences.
>
> A good thief is looking for an angle ALL of the time. Stupid is
> relative to the results. If you think you're gonna get caught, you
> don't do the deed.

You WILL be caught. It's not a matter of if. ONCE, you can get away
with. Steal from people you travel with constantly? Nope, you'll get
caught. And that's the end of the line.

Duane Vanderpol

unread,
Jul 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/3/00
to
"Deykin ap Gwion" <tig...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com> wrote in message
news:39606D0A...@my-deja.what-do-you-think.com...

> Sea Wasp wrote:
> >
> > Allen Wessels wrote:
> >
> > > A good thief could pull this off much more than once or twice without
> > > being caught. After being caught once, it is much more difficult.
> > >
> > > When the entire party backs off while the thief is doing his thing, I
> > > think he deserves a little off the top.
> >
> > I don't. Not as a player, not as a GM. He's doing the job he's
there
> > for, and his regular share is what he gets paid. If he's stupid enough
> > to steal from the party he's with, he deserves the consequences.
>
> I don't think it's ought to be a player or Gm issue at all,
> should it? It's a player character issue, IMO.

For the most part, yes. However, many character actions can end up
involving meta-game issues. If my character decides to kill your character
and it's all perfectly motivated and justified in-character that isn't going
to change a whit how YOU the player are going to feel when your favorite
character gets whacked.
Treasure is not just a reward to the characters within the game, it's in
some measure a reward to the players for their handling of their characters.
When a thief character "skims off the top" he's doing more than acting
in-character. From a meta-game viewpoint he's cheating both the other
characters and the other players of part of the reward that they have every
right to expect.

> I suspect you and Mr Wessels are using 'deserves' in
> slightly different senses. From a game rules perspective,
> the thief got it, he pocketed it, so it's his loot, and
> deserves anything he can get away with. Until he gets
> caught. This may well be considered a violation of whatever
> social contract the party of characters might implicitly or
> explicitly have developed. And thus deserves the
> consequences.

Yes, the character deserves what he gets (or can get away with) from a
game rules perspective, but there's a reason why characters form
"adventuring parties". The whole game is generally percieved to be a
cooperative enterprise among characters and players. The characters don't
hang around each other because they then have more opportunities to cheat
each other, they do so because cooperation is beneficial. It isn't a game
of one character versus all the other characters and the world, it's the
characters as a group against the world. Just because a character CAN do
something and justify it doesn't mean he should or that he may do so without
expecting in-character and meta-game consequences. The notion that a
character can do whatever he likes so long as he can justify it in-character
and also get away with it is a meta-game attempt to justify in-character
actions.

> The players oughtn't let their metagame knowledge of what
> the thief has done trickle down to the characters any more
> than the GM ought to allow his personal sense of fair play
> to constrain such doings. Let the in character consequences
> of an in game event handle the situation.

If your thief character brashly palms valuables from the shop of every
merchant he encounters in a city the DM is justified in arranging for
potential capture and punishment of the thief not just because it's the DM's
job to provide obstacles for all the characters to overcome, but also
because the thief (through his perfectly justifiable in-character actions)
may nonetheless be making far more of a jerk of himself within the game than
is at all necessary. The DM doesn't have to let your character get away
with it just because it's justifiable in-character. By that same meta-game
reasoning it is reasonable for other players to seek to catch and punish a
thief character for stealing from other characters not just because it's
logical in-character action for them to do so but also because the thief
character's actions are not necessarily justifiable from a meta-game
viewpoint.

Duane Vanderpol

unread,
Jul 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/3/00
to
"Allen Wessels" <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:awessels-283612.13574803072000@[206.13.28.144]...

> In article <396066...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>
> > I don't. Not as a player, not as a GM. He's doing the job he's there
> > for, and his regular share is what he gets paid. If he's stupid enough
> > to steal from the party he's with, he deserves the consequences.
>
> A good thief is looking for an angle ALL of the time. Stupid is
> relative to the results. If you think you're gonna get caught, you
> don't do the deed.

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" (Baretta!) is a reference
to accepting responsibilty for your actions not to avoiding getting caught
in the first place. It's an incredibly broad statement to apply to ALL
thieves to say that if you're good at it you're looking to cheat your
friends all the time. Greed happens. :-) I can accept a greedy thief
succumbing to temptation and all that but there ARE meta-game issues to
consider.
For example, if you're playing a thief working in a party with LG and
paladin types you're being a bit of a jerk as a player if you try and play
him as looking for every opportunity to lie, cheat, and steal. Same thing
as if you rolled up a new CE character to play in a party that included a LG
cleric of Lathander.

> As a GM, I'd rather the thief not indulge. That's up to the characters
> to work out, though.

But it's also up to the DM to work to maintain a certain level of
civility among players. Like it or not, it's a natural and very
understandable reaction for a player to see his character being cheated by
someone his character ostensibly trusts (regardless of the moniker of
"thief") and want a little payback. The best way to avoid hard feelings and
pointless intra-party violence is to persuade a thief player that stealing
from his compatriots is very very rarely going to be worth the trouble.
Thieves do not have to seek to steal at _every_ opportunity any more
than a fighter needs to see a bloody sword as the solution to _every_
disagreement.
Besides, since the DM is the one who is going to have to adjudicate the
thief's success at keeping his treacherous ways a secret he's pretty much up
to his neck with the involved characters in working it out.

Robert Baldwin

unread,
Jul 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/4/00
to
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 17:20:02 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
wrote:

>Allen Wessels wrote:
>>
>> In article <396066...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>>
>> > I don't. Not as a player, not as a GM. He's doing the job he's there
>> > for, and his regular share is what he gets paid. If he's stupid enough
>> > to steal from the party he's with, he deserves the consequences.
>>
>> A good thief is looking for an angle ALL of the time. Stupid is
>> relative to the results. If you think you're gonna get caught, you
>> don't do the deed.
>

> You WILL be caught. It's not a matter of if. ONCE, you can get away
>with. Steal from people you travel with constantly? Nope, you'll get
>caught. And that's the end of the line.


Yup. And the reaction of the other *players* is nearly as certain.
I've seen way too many groups (of players) turn against each other and
spend all their time bickering beause one player insists on pilfering
from the pc (before or after loot division). it's become one of those
things I file as "deliberately disruptive behavior" and just don't
allow IMC.

--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
"Pain is inevitable; Misery is an option".
-
Remove the spam-block to reply

USCM_Sulaco

unread,
Jul 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/4/00
to
In article <3961615b...@news.rio.com>,

rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 17:20:02 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Allen Wessels wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <396066...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
> >>
> >> > I don't. Not as a player, not as a GM. He's doing the job
he's there
> >> > for, and his regular share is what he gets paid. If he's stupid
enough
> >> > to steal from the party he's with, he deserves the consequences.
> >>
> >> A good thief is looking for an angle ALL of the time. Stupid is
> >> relative to the results. If you think you're gonna get caught, you
> >> don't do the deed.
> >
> > You WILL be caught. It's not a matter of if. ONCE, you can get
away
> >with. Steal from people you travel with constantly? Nope, you'll get
> >caught. And that's the end of the line.
>
> Yup. And the reaction of the other *players* is nearly as certain.
> I've seen way too many groups (of players) turn against each other and
> spend all their time bickering beause one player insists on pilfering
> from the pc (before or after loot division). it's become one of those
> things I file as "deliberately disruptive behavior" and just don't
> allow IMC.

I have to say that I truly find this unfathomable, just as I find the
reluctance of the players unwilling to part with their loot and have
their PC live a frugal life. This is all makebelieve; why does it matter
what amount of imaginary money is possessed by an imaginary character?
It isn't like the money is real, or whoever has the most fake money
wins, so why get your knickers ina twist over it? Even in a game like
monopoly, where the whole point is to get the most money and win, I have
rarely seen anyone but children get into an argument over it. Yet it is
disconcertingly common to hera tales of gamers, not just characters,
involved in huge spats over loot and cash in a game.

The whole idea of RPGs is to play a character, and many characters
just do not or should not have cash as a major concern (such as
paladins) and for some it is a major concern (such a thieves and
mercenaries) and so confrontations over money and items should
occur, but they should occur between charactersin the game, not between
the players. It makes no sense whatsoever to worry about such things.

There are far less arguments over inequitable XP distribution, yet this
is a mare tangible thing that has a direct bearing on the players and
their characters. Why should that be so? Is this a reflection of our
societ, that we place so much merit on a person's possessions and wealth
that we cannot abide the idea of less advantaged in even imaginary loot?

--
"Superstition is the religion of fools."

Dave's Wyrld http://www.homestead.com/daves_wyrld
My D&D Page http://www.homestead.com/daves_wyrld/adnd.html

Sea Wasp

unread,
Jul 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/4/00
to
USCM_Sulaco wrote:

> I have to say that I truly find this unfathomable, just as I find the
> reluctance of the players unwilling to part with their loot and have
> their PC live a frugal life. This is all makebelieve; why does it matter
> what amount of imaginary money is possessed by an imaginary character?

Has nothing to do with it, per se.

1) While there are characters (in my campaigns, it seems to average
one or two per party) who don't care overly much about money, most of
the characters DO. Thus the argument has little to do with players,
and everything to do with the characters.

2) Money isn't the only treasure, and often in fact is the least
debated part of the treasure. Magical and "special" items are the
usual causes of most argument.

3) What kind of moron steals from his companions? This isn't a player
issue (though it can be, if there's one player who always has his
characters do particularly boneheaded things), but a character issue.
If you steal from the people you're travelling with, you're an idiot.
Why should anyone trust you? I know I sure won't.

Mike Harvey

unread,
Jul 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/7/00
to
First off, I _am_ giving XP for kills and for treasure taken, plus
story awards. I'm not asking whether this is a good thing or not.

My question is: when the party is hired to do a job for a fee, should
the fee count toward XP the same as loot, or should it just be a fee
and nothing more? You DMs who award XP for treasure, how have you
handled this?

(We're playing Cyclopedia D&D, FWIW...)

Mike

Andrew Tellez

unread,
Jul 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/7/00
to

Mike Harvey wrote:
>
> First off, I _am_ giving XP for kills and for treasure taken, plus
> story awards. I'm not asking whether this is a good thing or not.
>
> My question is: when the party is hired to do a job for a fee, should
> the fee count toward XP the same as loot, or should it just be a fee
> and nothing more? You DMs who award XP for treasure, how have you
> handled this?

Way back when I used to award for treasure, it was only for items that
were taken or recovered. I only awarded it for treasure, that is, for
items of worth and interest. The proceeds from the sale of used orcish
swords wouldn't count, though the orc chieftan's gold sceptre might. I
also only awarded it for treasure gained in an adventurous manner.
Buying the sceptre from the orc chieftan wouldn't count, though tricking
him out of it would. Fees paid for work weren't given XP awards either.

One of the reasons I stopped was that it was a pain determining whether
items deserved XP awards or not. (The other was that it didn't make
much sense to me, anyway.)

The Black Douglas

unread,
Jul 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/7/00
to
I would recommend EITHER giving the fee an XP point value OR giving the
PCs a story goal for completing the mission. Doing both is unnecessary,
and perhaps overly complex.

Personally, I go with the second option, as this allows the possibility
of an adventure with a non-tangible reward, without changing your
system.

I would give treasure XP only for obvious valuabes recovered, not
mundane items that are then sold (nor indeed for magic items that are
then sold). Thus, gold, gems and jewellery all qualify, as do goblets,
artwork and historic artefacts. However, orcish swords, armour, and the
like do not.

Mike Harvey wrote:
>
> First off, I _am_ giving XP for kills and for treasure taken, plus
> story awards. I'm not asking whether this is a good thing or not.
>
> My question is: when the party is hired to do a job for a fee, should
> the fee count toward XP the same as loot, or should it just be a fee
> and nothing more? You DMs who award XP for treasure, how have you
> handled this?
>

> (We're playing Cyclopedia D&D, FWIW...)
>
> Mike

--
The Black Douglas

"There's nothing so dangerous as a wounded mosquito"
-- Monty Python's Flying Circus

Zorlon

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
I give an xp award for completing the mission based on the mission's
difficulty, or what the players accomplished. Usually it's about the same
amount as the employer's pay.

Jimmy Kerl

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
Mike Harvey wrote:
>
> First off, I _am_ giving XP for kills and for treasure taken, plus
> story awards. I'm not asking whether this is a good thing or not.
>
> My question is: when the party is hired to do a job for a fee, should
> the fee count toward XP the same as loot, or should it just be a fee
> and nothing more? You DMs who award XP for treasure, how have you
> handled this?
>
> (We're playing Cyclopedia D&D, FWIW...)

Fees definitally count IMO (playing w/RC too)

all gold does really that earned in the process of adventuring.
except, salaries, or incomes from who knows what would not count.


>
> Mike

--

pr0t0

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to

"Mike Harvey" <michael...@intel.com> wrote in message
news:39664E37...@intel.com...

> First off, I _am_ giving XP for kills and for treasure taken, plus
> story awards. I'm not asking whether this is a good thing or not.
>
> My question is: when the party is hired to do a job for a fee, should
> the fee count toward XP the same as loot, or should it just be a fee
> and nothing more? You DMs who award XP for treasure, how have you
> handled this?
>
> (We're playing Cyclopedia D&D, FWIW...)
>
> Mike

I usually jot down (secretly on the side) exp. for character deeds that fit
their alignment an amount equal to 15 points here, 15 points there and then
add them up and give them to the party. (e.g. A neutral good party has
figured out that the merchant they encounter is actually a spy for an evil
conspiracy against them. Lets say that the PC's choose that Instead of
killing him, squeezing him for information regarding said conspiracy would
be better. Anyway, how do thy go about "squeezing" the information? Do they
pull out his toenails? or do they tie him down to a donkey and threaten to
send him off into the desert to die on his own to get the information? etc
etc etc..) 15 points here and there can add up nicely for the party at the
end of the adventure.. some other things to give such amounts of experience
for is role-playing.. (do your players say "I hit it for 4 points of
damage!" ? or do they say "My sword flashes a silvery arc of death, ripping
through the armor of the hideous creature ...taking away 8 points of its
life!" ? ..I would give 15 experience for the second role-play example) I
like to give experience to players who help create the atmosphere of the
game.. not just sit there rolling dice, but those who problem solve, explore
and role play there characters and contribute to the game, deserve
experience.. even if it is just 15 points. it helps encourage participation.
..just some thoughts :) -fretboard

Xeno

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 14:40:07 -0700, Mike Harvey <michael...@intel.com>
wrote:

>First off, I _am_ giving XP for kills and for treasure taken, plus
>story awards. I'm not asking whether this is a good thing or not.
>
>My question is: when the party is hired to do a job for a fee, should
>the fee count toward XP the same as loot, or should it just be a fee
>and nothing more? You DMs who award XP for treasure, how have you
>handled this?
>
>(We're playing Cyclopedia D&D, FWIW...)

It makes sense to give XP for wealth and equipment recovered with effort,
but not for stuff that is simply found and taken without resistance.
However, if you fight a monster more powerful than you and you defeat it
and take its treasure, you should earn XP for that (though it is more
logical that you earn XP for defeating the monster, not acquiring its
loot).

A system awarding XP for treasure can break down for situations like
conning a bullywug of 5 intelligence out of an extremely valuable magical
dagger he thought was just an ordinary weapon, or conning a leprauchan (not
an easy task) and getting only 3 gold pieces out of it. In both cases,
awarding for treasure gained doesn't suit what would be the logical amount
of XP deserved.

In general, a character should be awarded XP not for results usually
(unless it's a major goal or something) but for the means he employed
(especially if they were innovative, creative, and particularly suited his
class and alignment and personality).

--
"I reckon your longsword looks like my longsword. I reckon I got to kill
you now." -- Stumpy Anklebasher, a 3'11" CN dwarf fighter in D&D who
thinks he's a thief

O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
Matthew Shelton a.k.a. Xeno
* E-mail: mlsh...@memphis.edu
* Homepage: http://www.people.memphis.edu/~mlsheltn
Standard Notice to SPAMMERS: Disclosure of my e-mail address
does NOT qualify as consent to send me unsolicited advertisements.

Brian

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
"Teasure is its own reward" is something from the past that keeps bumping
around in my head.

I reward ep's for treasure only in the way it is spent..on training. This
allows the player to determine how he's gonna spend it and will affect how
much he wants to train to improve his character's performance.
Other than that, treasure is just something you have to lug around.


"Mike Harvey" <michael...@intel.com> wrote in message
news:39664E37...@intel.com...

> First off, I _am_ giving XP for kills and for treasure taken, plus
> story awards. I'm not asking whether this is a good thing or not.
>
> My question is: when the party is hired to do a job for a fee, should
> the fee count toward XP the same as loot, or should it just be a fee
> and nothing more? You DMs who award XP for treasure, how have you
> handled this?
>
> (We're playing Cyclopedia D&D, FWIW...)
>

> Mike

0 new messages