Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So my Pathfinder group has a bit of a split in view of loot. We had our first major drop, and +3 equivalent weapon and gold value wise it far outstrips the value of anything else we've got. Some in the party feel that the person who claimed that item should take a smaller cut in the coin share of the loot because he got that item.

Now it's a continuing adventure, we're at the level where we will be seeing more of these types of things in the near future, so some of us don't feel that its necessary to "penalize" him on spendable coin because he can put that item to best use instead of just selling it and letting everyone else in the party gain a few thousand gold.

I'm curious what everyones thoughts are on the issue. Should a party member who lays claim to a high value item get less coin then everyone else, or should he still be entitled to a fair share?

huh.

TBH we've never really had an issue like this.

We tend to just give the item(s) to whomever is best suited to wield/use the item and then split "cash" equally anyway -- with normally a pool or party fund to pay for group expenses and the like.

I agree with reds8n on this one for once. Loot should be split between the group, and weapons and the like should be given to those or that characther that can make the best use of it. Seeing how the group as a whole benefits of having a well eqiped figther, paladin or whatever class said player may be runing.

I can see the point of deducting a reasonable amount in terms of gold when a person gets a high value item and distributing that gold to the other players. More representative I feel of how most groups actually work.

Personally I would just let the players agree between themselves how they want to split stuff.

A lot depends on the party and campaign.

In “epic quest to save the world” games, things tend to be handed out to whoever can use them best. Spare stuff and cash is split evenly after that. Over time, it all evens out.

Our general policy for more normal campaigns is to evaluate all items at their sell value, and then let party members take them as part of their split. If you don’t have enough cash to buy it, you can borrow from another person, or owe the party fund.

Often small expendable things like potions are just handed out.

When I first started items like that were placed in the loot pile at their sell value. If a character wanted it, they would receive less of the liquid assets (gold, etc...). If the item was more than they could afford, they wouldn't lose any of their current money, but they'd not get any of the gold until it was 'paid off'.

Nowadays it's, "Jim's character can use this and it's an upgrade. Jim do you want this?" If Jim wants it, he gets it. If no one wants it, it gets sold and the coins split amongst the party.

We tend to allocated loot as needed, and split the cash/liquid assets without the items being taken into account. Of course, if someone needs an extra X gold for an enchant, or an upgrade item from the merchants, etc, others in the group will always provide it.

I mean, it's a cooperative game - and we're a team. We all know each other, and the characters aren't ones we take to pick up games in stores or anything.

TBH I can't even understand how bringing an existing character to another game/campaign even works - even if we did get an awesome episode of Community out of it.

If you're playing a game with several neutral characters that are only there for the gold, just divvy up everything according to it's selling value. It's the simplest way to avoid arguments of cost.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0029.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0129.html

OOTS, answering all our questions.

WWHD?

We've handled it a number of different ways (which doesn't help much, does it?)

Currently, all non-consumable items are liquidated into gold unless someone wants to compensate everyone else for the gold piece sale price of the item (essentially, they get the item for 50% minus their cut, everyone else gets the same share they would have gotten if they sell it).

It works as a pretty good compromise and will only hit an issue when two people want the same item. In that case, we're going to have them bid on it

Obviously, this only works in a setting where you can sell magic items easily- settings without magic item shops and the like can't do that.

In previous games, we've given the loot to whoever "needs" it or can use it, but sometimes particular players are more pushy or outspoken than others and end up getting a disproportionate amount of loot.

The longest running campaign that I was a part of, our DM had us literally "wish list" most of our magic items... as a result, it was obvious where a magic weapon would go (for instance, my character had the only Khopesh in the party). Gold/silver was equally split, and the most honorable/trustworthy held onto the gems/other items that were to be sold in town.

This allowed the DM to ensure that there was no one in the party with vastly more power than others in combat due to an abundance of magic items vs. no magic items.

I let my PCs handle it however they want.

Its always up to players to decide.

My characters lust for gold etc normally so I end up fighting hard to keep loot for myself. I sometimes screw up plans to simply get my hands on the loot first.

Its worse when i hardly spend my money.

Where I am, its first in first served unless agreed upon by the players (with final word being the person who was first in first served).

We've generally stuck to a bidding system in the past. Total the gp value of all coin and loot, divide that number equally among all players, and then they bid on items that they want. Highest bid gets the item.

Items without bids gets sold and total coinage is split among the players with each player getting an equal share minus the value of items they won bids for (also an extra share is usually set aside for a group fund, as well as certain items the players don't bid on such as healing and rezzing items).

We allow players to bid up to their share x2 to cover highly valuable items, understanding that they get no future loot until that debt is paid off. They may also add gold that they had previously saved, which gets added to the other player's shares.

As a GM I let the group have a majority vote and they can say how they handle divisions of spoils.

I tend to play games that don't have gold, or if they do its very abstract. Its much simpler and requires far less book keeping.

For D&D and the like I usually go the even split route although I have played a rogue with an embezzling habit before now. The GM secretly gave me extra gold at the expense of the group who were given chances to discover my bastardry in the guise of seemingly random skill checks. I was playing a thief so.....

When I GM I equally split all the cash and tailor loot specifically for group members.

 reds8n wrote:
huh.

TBH we've never really had an issue like this.

We tend to just give the item(s) to whomever is best suited to wield/use the item and then split "cash" equally anyway -- with normally a pool or party fund to pay for group expenses and the like.

Yep, this is what we've always done.

In my Pathfinder group, it works roughly like this:

First, everything, money, items etc is pooled into one big central pile at the end of the adventure or run.

Then we suss it out, first by items. Our party is diverse enough that there usually isn't too much arguing over any one particular item (except for the rare things that increase multiple things). If there is two or more people wanting an item, the first layer is to go for compromise. Example of this would be something like "well, you got this item, so it is fair that I get this item", and we are good enough friends that it usually works out. In the rare circumstance where that doesn't work, we resort to the tried and true d20, highest number gets to pick where it goes.

For money, it gets split evenly amongst the players, as well as what we call the "bank", which is a place where we put our cash into to fund large projects or purchases. This is where we'd pull money from to get someone de-crused, or rezzed or in our case (as our game has moved to an area where we are building and controlling organizations of our own) funding and growing our operations. Our party currently has three, the mage has political ambitions and control in the main city, the monk has a dojo and school and I (the rogue) am building a pirate fleet.

Having the GM hand out loot seems odd. Sure, you can have the monsters using stuff that certain character want (which is cool) but it should be up to the party to split things up. How to deal with cash, and any conflicts that arise, are good fodder for roleplaying. Having it just handed down from on high takes that away.

There are plenty of times for the GM to hand out stuff. Gifts from the queen, rewards from the town they just saved, etc.

I should also add to my post that unusued or outdated magical items are also added to the "bank" to either be sold off, or passed out to NPC allies if they are with us in a fight.

We also reserve instances for special circumstances based on the story. For example, my rogue sacrificed himself for the party and triggered an adventure in the afterlife to get me back. As my character was incinerated, at the end of the adventure was loot that mostly went to my character simply to get him back up to speed. But again, special circumstances, I never stop our mage from getting more scrolls and spellbooks. ;p

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
huh.

TBH we've never really had an issue like this.

We tend to just give the item(s) to whomever is best suited to wield/use the item and then split "cash" equally anyway -- with normally a pool or party fund to pay for group expenses and the like.

Yep, this is what we've always done.

Wow. Yeah, exactly. I don't think I have ever seen a loot dispute at our table. Other than someone wanted a crapton of party gold to do something (we don't even have personal gold really) and we asked them to hold off until next time we came back to town. And they said okay. It was really tense.

"Kronk gets everything!"

"But, surely the staff of healing would be better off with the cleric, don't you..."

"EVERYTHING! Hahahaha!"

"Let's just play cards, guys."

"Hahahahaha!"

Or the item goes to whomever could get the best use. That sometimes work, too. I guess.

I just had an unpleasant flashback to dealing with DKP in my college MMO days.

Anyway, I say hash it out ICly. That'll let your DM take it easy for at least two sessions.

 pretre wrote:
Wow. Yeah, exactly. I don't think I have ever seen a loot dispute at our table. Other than someone wanted a crapton of party gold to do something (we don't even have personal gold really) and we asked them to hold off until next time we came back to town. And they said okay. It was really tense.

Yep, I think the worst it ever got was 2 players who wanted the same weapon, and we just agreed that the next time there was a good one, they got it, or would be given some extra cash towards it and usually we also effectively play with a single cash pool too. Don't think it's ever gotten to the point of what I'd call an argument.

You guys have been lucky. Some of my past groups have been...shall we say "colorful"? You haven't lived until you've seen a fist fight over DnD

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
You guys have been lucky. Some of my past groups have been...shall we say "colorful"? You haven't lived until you've seen a fist fight over DnD

In hindsight i guess we have been lucky in my groups. Tbh even as a player I haven't had issues with dividing loot. If we find soemthing that on party member would obviously benefit most from. They get first dibs. Currency just usually got split equally by default. But never enforced by the GM. We once had an entire sub plot in one campaign where the party thief was holding out on gems he was keeping off the party books ( with the GMs approval ) and to give him credit he roleplayed it really well. Trying to explain how he was coming across all these shiny things he kept using in combat and such. When we finally rumbled him none of us were even mad. 4+ sessions alone on side plots covering events spawned from all of this were very memorable. None of us were mad in person. But we all laughed about it and roleplayed IC about how betrayed the other party members felt.

A very memorable campaign!

I give each player a knife. The last one standing, gets the first choice of loot. Then the guy who is just lying on the ground moaning. Then the guy in the ambulance.

But seriously, we normally divvy up all gold stuff, valuables that no one wants in particular get earmarked to sell, and are then split evenly, and then specifics get given to whoever needs them most. So if we have a spell slinger of some kind who reeeeally wants that shortsword of X, but we also have a ninja character who wants it, the ninja is more likely to get it, simply because it'll see more use and be more valuable to the team in his hands. Similarly, a staff of X is going to get offered to the wizard first and foremost, then anyone else who has a mind to use it, then it goes in the 'hump around until we find something more valuable or reach a buyer' pile

Currently in a 4e game that is rotating GMs.

Items usually go to whoever is best suited to use it, if they want it. Otherwise it gets sold or melted into Residuum. Haven't really had that issue too much, as we went with the wish list approach. (Which I should really get around to filling out...)

Gold, gems and jewelry go into the Bag of Holding split evenly when we get back to town, with a share for party expenses like rituals, lodging and party supplies.