PDA

View Full Version : Is this something a DM can decide?



MichielHagen
2011-02-16, 05:44 PM
So, a new campaign started last monday and we received 65 items to divide amongst ourselves. To reduce the time we spent on dividing it in the sessions, we are doing this during the week.

We made a spreadsheet with all the items, everyone can bid and overbid on items, starting at 50% of market value. We are bidding on all items at the same time.
In the end everyone should have approximately the same amount bid on all their items.

We have been at that for 2 days now, and are finishing up the last items that have not been bid on (the players with the least amount of bids will probably buy those at 50%, unless they overbid other items).

But now the DM intervenes, he does not approve of this method. He feels everyone should have the same amount of market value on items (so every item as 100%). But this makes the bidding useless, besides, the market value of items is almost never the same as how the players value the items.

The DM want everyone to make a few preferences to what items they should get and then he will divide the items.
I am telling him that this makes no sense if the players themselves are fine with how the dividing goes, but he take a DM-fiat and ends the discussion.

I am.....amazed. He only told me this, but i am not sure what i am to do with this. I am hesitant to inform the other players at this point, because i do not want to be the one to start a fire. I guess i will wait for him to inform the other players and see what their reaction is.

But, is it strange that i am very annoyed by this, to the point that i am not sure if i can deal with this decision, if i can still enjoy the game knowing the DM is unneccesarily restricting players decisions.

Please state your comment, agree with me, disagree with me. I want to know.

Pink
2011-02-16, 05:47 PM
Just getting things clear here.

1. This is a brand new campaign. What you're doing is dividing items during the character creation process yes?

2. Are these 65 items the only ones you have access to?

Comet
2011-02-16, 05:47 PM
Sure, the DM can do it, no problem.

I'm having equal trouble seeing why he would, though.

Maybe talk to him again, say that everyone else is quite okay with your previous method. If he can't be persuaded, I suppose you just have to live with it and hope this kind of heavy handed authority leaning doesn't extend to the rest of the game.

Chilingsworth
2011-02-16, 05:54 PM
Of course the DM can, he's the DM!

Sounds kinda like a senseless thing to do, though.

If I were in your shoes, I'd ask the DM to inform everyone else, and do so immediately, since everyone is already putting alot of effort into their previous plan. If he refuses, then the fallout that is likely to occur because he let the players work out a solution, then quashed it is entirely his fault. If you and the other players don't like whatever system he suggests, then you could always try making him do the item dividing himself. If he's keen on preventing his players from doing work for the campaign, then make him do ALL the work.

MichielHagen
2011-02-16, 05:55 PM
1. Brand new campaign, but not character creation. We created our characters and were told we had no items to begin with. The DM has last session ingame given us a whole bunch of gold and items as part of the story.

2. These 65 items are currently the only ones we have, it is unsure how and when we are to receive more items. We did get about 40k gp money along with the items....

Chilingsworth
2011-02-16, 06:00 PM
1. Brand new campaign, but not character creation. We created our characters and were told we had no items to begin with. The DM has last session ingame given us a whole bunch of gold and items as part of the story.

2. These 65 items are currently the only ones we have, it is unsure how and when we are to receive more items. We did get about 40k gp money along with the items....

In that case, maybe there is method behind his madness? Maybe his wishes have something to do with making sure players have an even amount of gold for later purchases or something?

Pink
2011-02-16, 06:02 PM
Well, since you haven't started the campaign yet, then as DM he is fully within his rights to decide how starting wealth of any type is given out.

I'm confused by what you were actually 'bidding' with if it was a party starting amount instead of personal wealth.

I'm not saying it is necessarily a good move on his part, but he is fully within his rights.

MichielHagen
2011-02-16, 06:10 PM
Well, since you haven't started the campaign yet, then as DM he is fully within his rights to decide how starting wealth of any type is given out.

I'm confused by what you were actually 'bidding' with if it was a party starting amount instead of personal wealth.

I'm not saying it is necessarily a good move on his part, but he is fully within his rights.

We have started the campaign, that was the first session.

We are not "bidding" with anything substantial, but with numbers which would end up in an equal division. So if you bid 1000 gp for one item and 2000 gp for another and those are your only items, the others should also have 3000 gp bids on items, if they have more, you should bid on more items or overbid items. Until all items are bid on and all total bids are equal.
The bids are not actually paid, because the items are already ours.

Siosilvar
2011-02-16, 06:16 PM
Well, since you haven't started the campaign yet, then as DM he is fully within his rights to decide how starting wealth of any type is given out.

I'm confused by what you were actually 'bidding' with if it was a party starting amount instead of personal wealth.

I'm not saying it is necessarily a good move on his part, but he is fully within his rights.

He is within rights, but he should have said this before. If everybody has already spent a bunch of time on this, then they're not going to want to waste that.

That being said, you can just tell him that the "bids" are already deciding which items the characters want, and they'll probably just trade them around after the game starts to match anyway if he goes through with this.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-16, 06:18 PM
We have been at that for 2 days now, and are finishing up the last items that have not been bid on ...
But now the DM intervenes, he does not approve of this method.

Can he? Well yes, he CAN try to do so.

Should he? Very doubtful. At a minimum, he should have registered his objections earlier on. People tend to dislike being told to redo what they spend the last two days doing.

Personally, I usually play where the players handle distribution of the loot IC. The exact methods and honesty with which this is done vary wildly by party, but I think we'd probably just tell the DM to shut up if he tried to retcon the last two days over something so trivial.

Incidentally, a similar method resulted in me getting boots of elvenkind for 50 gp last session. We didn't know exactly what they were at the time of bidding, but nobody else was willing to bid gold on a known magical item. Im not complaining.

Pink
2011-02-16, 06:21 PM
Oh wow, dunno how I missed that. >.<

Well, on division of loot found within game, I would have to say that's up to the players. However I can easily see from a DM's percpective that doing it in such a way is a...well, it starts turning the game from a RP experience into an accounting exercise. As a player I wouldn't want to be apart of such a system, as a DM I wouldn't encourage it, ultimately though

That being said your system is...flawed. If there is no limit on what someone can bid, and everyone just increases their number to be equal when someone increases the pool, then what's to stop a bidding war on one item? Is this done once and then everyone reveals, and from there extra gold is allocated? What about someone who uses all their money on small bids and ends up getting nothing? What stops a massive tie if everyone bids the minimum on everything? I can see why a DM wouldn't want such a system in place. It'd be better if you took a portion of gold and split it up and actually used that to bid, where you at least get to keep money if you loose a bid, and money bid on an item gets added to a party fund or something.

Moginheden
2011-02-16, 06:26 PM
We have started the campaign, that was the first session.

We are not "bidding" with anything substantial, but with numbers which would end up in an equal division. So if you bid 1000 gp for one item and 2000 gp for another and those are your only items, the others should also have 3000 gp bids on items, if they have more, you should bid on more items or overbid items. Until all items are bid on and all total bids are equal.
The bids are not actually paid, because the items are already ours.

The ONLY problem I see here is would your party, (ie the characters) be smart enough to use this system without a spreadsheet, (unless you have a really weird magic spell in your game....)

If your just determining who in the party gets what out of the items the party does have, to me it seems the DM is interfering in territory best left to the players.

D&D is a form of collaborative storytelling. Part of the story comes from the DM, the rest from the players. The DM is the arbitrator to determine how the whole story comes together, but how the player's characters react to the situation should not be managed by the DM beyond "that's physically impossible for your character in this situation" and "are you sure?" (and if they are let them deal with the consequences.)

nedz
2011-02-16, 06:26 PM
Yep: Classic DM Mistake.
The players own their characters and make their decisions any way they want. Sounds like its going to be a short campaign.

Mikeavelli
2011-02-16, 06:34 PM
Yep: Classic DM Mistake.
The players own their characters and make their decisions any way they want. Sounds like its going to be a short campaign.

Agreed wholeheartedly, once the players have a choice in something (or think they have a choice) they become, justifiably, very angry when it's revealed they don't actually have a choice.

This is true of character creation, railroading in game, and all other aspects of D&D.

Xiander
2011-02-16, 06:39 PM
Directly telling the players what to do is always a bad idea. If a GM feels he has to do it, he should do it right of the bat, not after the players have had time to come to their own decisions.

If I were you I would ask him why he dislikes your system? Players get to go for what they want to have, and in the end every one is probably going to be happy. It is not broken, so there is no reason to fix it.

The very important thing is that value to a player does not equal gp value listed in the DMG.

valadil
2011-02-16, 06:43 PM
IMO if the DM isn't going to give the players free reign over their loot, he shouldn't pretend they have any say in the matter. Just give everyone their own items and be done with it. This isn't my preference but some groups like it. If he is going to let them divide things up, the DM should stay out of the matter entirely.

MichielHagen
2011-02-16, 06:49 PM
Oh wow, dunno how I missed that. >.<

Well, on division of loot found within game, I would have to say that's up to the players. However I can easily see from a DM's percpective that doing it in such a way is a...well, it starts turning the game from a RP experience into an accounting exercise. As a player I wouldn't want to be apart of such a system, as a DM I wouldn't encourage it, ultimately though

That being said your system is...flawed. If there is no limit on what someone can bid, and everyone just increases their number to be equal when someone increases the pool, then what's to stop a bidding war on one item? Is this done once and then everyone reveals, and from there extra gold is allocated? What about someone who uses all their money on small bids and ends up getting nothing? What stops a massive tie if everyone bids the minimum on everything? I can see why a DM wouldn't want such a system in place. It'd be better if you took a portion of gold and split it up and actually used that to bid, where you at least get to keep money if you loose a bid, and money bid on an item gets added to a party fund or something.

I agree with your second paragraph. But the alternative is doing it in session and dividing 65 items ingame would take a whole session of discussions. And in the end, the dividing will not be as equal as it is going to be now.
I would rather really roleplay in the session instead of discuss items.

The bidding is done differently than you imagine.
The bidding on all items is done simultaneously and everyone gets infinite chances to overbid. The players themselves make their bids whenever they have time. So if i bid 50% on an item, another player can make a 60% bid on that item, overbidding me. I then have the opportunity to overbid his bid.
The spreadsheet automatically calculates how much your total bids are and it calculates how much you still have left to spend. Once everyone kind of stop overbidding, they use what they have left to spend on unbid items (which also have a minimum bid of 50% to acquire).
But anyway, how we do it is not really what matters here.

MichielHagen
2011-02-16, 06:53 PM
The very important thing is that value to a player does not equal gp value listed in the DMG.

This exactly what i said.

His response: "No, the value of an item is EXACTLY what is listed in the DMG/MIC".

Me: "That is the market value indeed, but some items can be more valuable to players than their market value suggests"

"No, the pricing of the items is exactly how powerfull that item is, i do not want to see players with more total market value than others.....and that is final."

Me: "...."

Mordar
2011-02-16, 07:00 PM
I wonder if there is a chance the DM is concerned about player/character equity and players "working the system" to the detriment of other, perhaps less savvy players (or those less willing to compete with friends for the things that they want) and ending up with one or two characters that vastly outshine the others.

I agree that there might be some friction with re-aligning the process and catching this earlier would have been far better received.

I can picture situations in which I agree with either side here, and I think I might have tried to round-robin things in some fashion. That said, never had to worry about splitting 65 items and 40k gold in one go before!

- M

Percival
2011-02-16, 07:01 PM
This exactly what i said.

His response: "No, the value of an item is EXACTLY what is listed in the DMG/MIC".

Me: "That is the market value indeed, but some items can be more valuable to players than their market value suggests"

"No, the pricing of the items is exactly how powerfull that item is, i do not want to see players with more total market value than others.....and that is final."

Me: "...."

Your DM sounds like a douche.

Pink
2011-02-16, 07:06 PM
This exactly what i said.

His response: "No, the value of an item is EXACTLY what is listed in the DMG/MIC".

Me: "That is the market value indeed, but some items can be more valuable to players than their market value suggests"

"No, the pricing of the items is exactly how powerfull that item is, i do not want to see players with more total market value than others.....and that is final."

Me: "...."

See, this definitely gives a clearer outlook. I'd recommend popping it into the opening post if you don't want confused people like me.

The simple rebuttal to this problem (provided it is true) is: "Allowing us to split the loot in this manner does reduce our enjoyment of the game."

DnD is all about fun. It would be one thing if some people found the idea of the bidding system to be more work than they want to put into it, but if you all like it, and loot distribution is clearly within player zone, then you should be allowed to do it this way.

I suggest continue to finalize your bids, and sit down with the DM at the beginning of next session and explain as a group that you like doing it this way, and even if some of you end up with less loot than others(*), the group is still happy with it.

*Small rant, but I kinda constantly shake my head at the idea of consistent WBL. WBL is a tool used when starting the campaign at higher levels. It shouldn't be considered as anything other than that definitively, and even then that's only a suggestive number. To me, the items one aquires during the game should be a more organic process. You get gold because you took on a quest, not because you leveled up. You get a magic sword because you followed a treasure map, not because you levelled up. You lose money because your character hires three top class callgirls a night at his luxury hotel, not because he's gone over the amount of gold he should have.

...*cough* my two cents.

VirOath
2011-02-16, 07:15 PM
This exactly what i said.

His response: "No, the value of an item is EXACTLY what is listed in the DMG/MIC".

Me: "That is the market value indeed, but some items can be more valuable to players than their market value suggests"

"No, the pricing of the items is exactly how powerfull that item is, i do not want to see players with more total market value than others.....and that is final."

Me: "...."

This idea comes from the simple idea that everything and everyone is equal but different, and 2000gp equals an offensive +1, 1000gp equals a defensive +1.

So his view is that by one player getting more of a market value, that the player is going to be stronger than the level is intended to be, kinda like giving away all your exp to one character to boost him levels ahead of what the campaign permits.

As flawed as it is, he believes that if someone has a higher market value of items then that character will be a lot more powerful.

Which is completely false.

woodenbandman
2011-02-16, 07:31 PM
First thing to do:

Oh hey that's such a cute pair of Boots of Elvenkind you have there, Fighter. I'll trade you my +3 Greatsword0 for them!

Xiander
2011-02-16, 07:38 PM
This idea comes from the simple idea that everything and everyone is equal but different, and 2000gp equals an offensive +1, 1000gp equals a defensive +1.

So his view is that by one player getting more of a market value, that the player is going to be stronger than the level is intended to be, kinda like giving away all your exp to one character to boost him levels ahead of what the campaign permits.

As flawed as it is, he believes that if someone has a higher market value of items then that character will be a lot more powerful.

Which is completely false.

Agreed.

The thing is, a character who spends 10000 gold pieces on whatever he likes is per definition better of than a character who spends 5000.

What this does not mean, is that every person should always pick a plus three sword over a pair of winged boots. Even if both items are usable to him, the importance of being able to fly might mean that the loss of market value is a fine trade.

Yukitsu
2011-02-16, 07:45 PM
DMs can do anything they want, but the players can do anything that they want in retaliation.

Ytaker
2011-02-16, 08:11 PM
It's at the limit of what DMs can do. He is essentially vetoing reasonable personal player choice. DMs have control over the world, not the players.

There is some leeway for a DM to control the player in a cutscene, or to stop them doing something blatantly stupid but if they directly control a player to the point of stopping them trading items they are severely stepping on the player's realm of power.

As to how to stop it- you clearly don't want to take your DM's blatantly stupid suggestions to the others. I suggest you do. Have them look over the list and explain why they value his list less than theirs, and how it is theirs. That will give you some extra leeway. His model is blatanly wrong, as a few simple calculations with items can prove.

Could you give us some examples of the poor item choice he's given you? Items that don't match your character concept, or your friend's character concepts.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-02-16, 08:27 PM
First thing to do:

Oh hey that's such a cute pair of Boots of Elvenkind you have there, Fighter. I'll trade you my +3 Greatsword0 for them!
That's... actually not a bad idea.

Do that after the game begins, in character. If the DM objects then you can have a showdown right there and then. If he says "no, your character wouldn't do that" then you know you have a Control Freak DM and can quit the game before you invest any more time in it. Otherwise, it will force him to explain to the Players why he is taking such an aggressive stance on this issue.

At best, you can convince him to open lines of communication with the Players. It's never a good sign when a DM says "no discussion" in the face of Player complaints; I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here and guessing that he suspects one of you of trying to break his campaign rather than simply being a Control Freak DM.

Warlawk
2011-02-16, 08:32 PM
This exactly what i said.

His response: "No, the value of an item is EXACTLY what is listed in the DMG/MIC".

Me: "That is the market value indeed, but some items can be more valuable to players than their market value suggests"

"No, the pricing of the items is exactly how powerfull that item is, i do not want to see players with more total market value than others.....and that is final."

Me: "...."

Short of having the entire party sit down and go through the book to agree on any changes to the pricing (good luck with that) you have exactly one reference to the "value" of magic items. That is the RAW pricing.

It's not perfect, and not everyone will agree with it. But it is still the only published standard we have. I think your DM is well within his rights to dictate that everyone must select items at face value so that everyone gets the same value of items. Not unreasonable at all. Not everyone has to like it, but adhering to the only published standard value listing for items is an extremely reasonable guideline.

He did make a huge mistake by not stating this clearly up front however.

NichG
2011-02-16, 09:03 PM
Short of having the entire party sit down and go through the book to agree on any changes to the pricing (good luck with that) you have exactly one reference to the "value" of magic items. That is the RAW pricing.

It's not perfect, and not everyone will agree with it. But it is still the only published standard we have. I think your DM is well within his rights to dictate that everyone must select items at face value so that everyone gets the same value of items. Not unreasonable at all.

There is a difference between saying 'you have 40000gp at character gen, use the published item values to buy your equipment' and 'you find these 65 items in a dragon's hoard and I insist that you split them between yourselves evenly by market value.'

The first is just giving players a tool by which they can construct their characters without supervision and without running every purchase by the GM. In essence the second is preventing someone from, e.g., carrying a scroll of stone to flesh to use on someone else's behalf if petrified, or deciding to give over the powerful sword in the loot to the fighter who can actually use it rather than selling it even though he's above wealth at the time. Its very peculiar because its a constraint on what the characters choose to do rather than on how the rest of the world reacts to the characters.

Jay R
2011-02-16, 11:04 PM
The DM cannot win this argument, if the PCs are smart.

Finish your division, the way you want to do it, away from the game. Walk into the game with the list of preferences he asked for, making sure that each item is listed as a preference only by the person who "bought" it. If he divides it any other way, simply pick up the items that you think are yours anyway.

The alternative is a direct confrontation. Each of you provide a list of preferences, which is as follows:

"I prefer that the DM let the party divide the party's goods their own way."

But I prefer the first solution: just letting him do what he wants to do, and making it have no effect.

Jay R
2011-02-16, 11:16 PM
"No, the pricing of the items is exactly how powerfull that item is, i do not want to see players with more total market value than others.....and that is final."

This is based on the idea that a fighter with a staff of the magi and a wizard with a +3 sword are exactly as powerful as a fighter with a +3 sword and a wizard with a staff of the magi.

This is nonsense, and all economic activity is based on the idea that goods and services are more valuable to one person than to another.

Your DM does not understand very basic economics, and I'd be very careful doing any market activity in his world. (On the other hand, keep an eye out for economic fallacies you can exploit.)

MichielHagen
2011-02-17, 03:04 AM
I wonder if there is a chance the DM is concerned about player/character equity and players "working the system" to the detriment of other, perhaps less savvy players (or those less willing to compete with friends for the things that they want) and ending up with one or two characters that vastly outshine the others.

- M

I believe this is the mayor thing the DM is trying to deal with, but he has not put this argument on the table yet.
But i do not think this is the way to fix this. If a player decides to go for a less optimal item, should the DM force him to take the better item? Suggesting why certain items would be better is definitely reasonable, but the decision should be the players.

Ceaon
2011-02-17, 03:36 AM
This is the way I see it.

The DM has NOT provided you with starting gear, then dropped a load of items on you the first session. Later he demands you divide it evenly, something he probably (falsely) assumed you would all do. It's clear to me that those items are your "starting gear". If you look at it that way, you can see better where he's coming from.

Still makes him overcontrolling though, since he's now half-choosing the starting gear of your characters. I think if all players just confront him with this (in an adult fashion), this should be no problem at all. Solve problems when they come up, don't avoid them. Somewhere down the (campaign) road, avoidance will come back to bite you.

ericgrau
2011-02-17, 04:38 AM
Bidding is the PHB method even. I don't see why he should have a problem with it. The total market value of the items should be appropriate, ya. But if players are competing for certain items then bidding makes sense. If anything the player should keep the market value in mind when making his decision, and his bid should be in that neighborhood, but some things he needs more than normal.

I can only see a problem if some players way overbid on certain items, or one player got a lot of good items for 1/2 price. But this is saying that the players are dumber than the DM. Maybe 1 or 2 are in which case the group should notice and help them out. But all of them?

Earthwalker
2011-02-17, 04:52 AM
Do all the players have the same level of familiarity with DnD as each other ?

Looking at it from the GMs side of things and giving him the benifit of the doubt I think he is trying to avoid a situation where after loot is divided.

Player 1 has 40 items,
Player 2 has 20 items
Player 3 has 3 items
and Player 4 has 2 Items one that is usless but has a pretty name.

Of course if the players are bidding and when it all is said and done and you have this situation its proably handle better by saying to the players that the loot division they have come up with just hasn't worked and they should find a better way.

Of course the loot division might not end up like that so nothing needs to be said.

I would suggest completing your bidding and then seeing how the loot divison works out, show it to the GM and see how far off everyone getting the same value your system is.

If it is a long way off perhaps its not the best method.

Gnaritas
2011-02-17, 06:23 AM
Do all the players have the same level of familiarity with DnD as each other ?

Looking at it from the GMs side of things and giving him the benifit of the doubt I think he is trying to avoid a situation where after loot is divided.

Player 1 has 40 items,
Player 2 has 20 items
Player 3 has 3 items
and Player 4 has 2 Items one that is usless but has a pretty name.


We have 5 players.
P5: he has the least experience, he joined our games over half a year ago. He is a good roleplayer and tries to focus on that. But he has developed a good realization of what is optimal and what is not.
P4: Myself: I joined this group 2 years ago, i played as a player for a year, i was a DM for the last year. I have probably the least experience with D&D sessions, but i read a lot and have a better understanding of the rules than most other players. Because i read a lot, i also have a better grasp on what character-options are available.
P2-3: They both have a good understanding of the game.
P1: He is the least knowledge-able player in my opinion, but even he has a good understanding of how things work.

An awkward division of the items is not the case, when i see the other people's bids i can definitely see why they are bidding on those items.

Earthwalker
2011-02-17, 06:47 AM
From the sound of things if you go on with the bidding you are going to be able to turn up to the next session with all the loot divided and when everything is worked out the monetary value of the goods between the players is going to be about equal anyway.

It might be an idea sshowing your completely lists to the GM and see if it sets his mind at ease.

Of course I was asuming the GM was just worried about loot division being fair, if he is just a control freak there isnt much you can do

Gnaritas
2011-02-17, 07:45 AM
The DM has changed his opinion to:

"In the end i want the total market value of the items of each player to be approximately the same, with a maximum of 10% difference between the lowest and highest."

I think it will end up that way anyway, if not i can change some of my bids so it will. I have no problem with this, though i still question the reasoning behind this, but i am not making an issue of that now.

Story closed, thanks for your responses and letting me unwind here.

shadmere
2011-02-17, 08:53 AM
The DM has changed his opinion to:

"In the end i want the total market value of the items of each player to be approximately the same, with a maximum of 10% difference between the lowest and highest."

I kind of assumed that his original assertion was actually something more like this. I mean, no group of five players are going to end up with exactly the same market value of gear.

Sebastrd
2011-02-17, 11:28 AM
The DM only holds as much power as the players entrust him with. If the players decide, as a group, that they prefer to divide the magic items as you have done, the DM cannot stop you. If he refuses to cooperate with the group and insists on "his way or the highway", kindly remind him that he will be the one hitting the highway. No DM is above getting fired.

Typewriter
2011-02-17, 11:36 AM
It sounds like the way he's thinking of it is that you guys are starting out with loot you already have, and each character should be in guidelines with WBL.

I believe that's his thinking, but that leads to problems.

What happens when you try to hand something to another player? DM magic causes it to bounce away? And why these 65 items? If he is doing it just to get characters up to WBL why doesn't he let you choose what you buy?

How well did your characters know each other before the session began? If you're complete strangers, then giving up wealth (because you can sell items that you don't need) makes it seem like your all a bunch of really nice guys.

I know you got 50,000 gold worth of items, but I'm happy with my 10,000 gold worth of items. Makes sense for long time friends, but anyone else...

shadmere
2011-02-17, 11:37 AM
Seriously. "Your character can't/wouldn't make that choice" should only happen in the most extreme, ridiculous situations.

Typewriter
2011-02-17, 12:47 PM
Seriously. "Your character can't/wouldn't make that choice" should only happen in the most extreme, ridiculous situations.

I agree, I'm not saying I would do it, I'm just saying that that's what it sounds like.

My players tend towards mixed alignment and if the CN Rogue is choosing helpful baubles over wealth then I'm going to raise my eyebrows at it. And that's in a party of his friends that he grew up with.

Warlawk
2011-02-17, 01:00 PM
I agree, I'm not saying I would do it, I'm just saying that that's what it sounds like.

My players tend towards mixed alignment and if the CN Rogue is choosing helpful baubles over wealth then I'm going to raise my eyebrows at it. And that's in a party of his friends that he grew up with.

Choosing something that strikes his whim instead of following logic kinda seems like archetypal behavior for CN to me...

Tyndmyr
2011-02-17, 01:13 PM
I agree, I'm not saying I would do it, I'm just saying that that's what it sounds like.

My players tend towards mixed alignment and if the CN Rogue is choosing helpful baubles over wealth then I'm going to raise my eyebrows at it. And that's in a party of his friends that he grew up with.

The entire point of wealth is to buy helpful goods and services. :smallconfused:

NichG
2011-02-17, 01:32 PM
I agree, I'm not saying I would do it, I'm just saying that that's what it sounds like.

My players tend towards mixed alignment and if the CN Rogue is choosing helpful baubles over wealth then I'm going to raise my eyebrows at it. And that's in a party of his friends that he grew up with.

Alignment doesn't speak to what one values as their goal, it speaks to how one goes about morally/ethically achieving or sacrificing those goals.

E.g. a CN pirate (rogue) that wants wealth above all else, versus a kleptomaniac CN were-squirrel rogue that likes nuts and baubles above all else, versus a CN hedonist rogue that just wants pleasure and doesn't care about coin, versus...

Murphy80
2011-02-17, 02:45 PM
The DM has changed his opinion to:

"In the end i want the total market value of the items of each player to be approximately the same, with a maximum of 10% difference between the lowest and highest."

I think it will end up that way anyway, if not i can change some of my bids so it will. I have no problem with this, though i still question the reasoning behind this, but i am not making an issue of that now.

Story closed, thanks for your responses and letting me unwind here.

I'm glad it seems to have worked out, I wonder if someone else might have complained to the DM. His initial attitude and sticking his nose so blatantly into what should be player business seems...odd to me. If my players took this initiative I would be quite interested to see how it worked out.

Telonius
2011-02-17, 03:21 PM
Just my 2cp ...

I'm DMing a campaign of Shackled City right now, and here's how we work it.

Before the session starts, I've made a list of all of the lootable items, along with their market value, that the players will encounter. We run the session, and I keep track of what the characters have looted. After everything's done, I send out a list of what they found and how much each of the magic items are worth. Then, I tally up the total market value of everything looted, and calculate each character's share. The players can use that share to either "buy" individual items looted, or spend the gold at Ye Olde Magick Mart. Anything that isn't claimed by the start of the next session is assumed to be liquidated.

It's quite a bit of work on the front end for the DM, but it really does speed up play during the session. People aren't furiously scribbling down every single piece of loot, only to erase them from their character sheet as soon as they sell the that Trident of Fish Command. There aren't very many items that multiple characters would want. The few times that it's happened, the players have been pretty good about letting the character who needs the bonus most get the looted item.

MichielHagen
2011-02-17, 03:38 PM
Just my 2cp ...

I'm DMing a campaign of Shackled City right now, and here's how we work it.

Before the session starts, I've made a list of all of the lootable items, along with their market value, that the players will encounter. We run the session, and I keep track of what the characters have looted. After everything's done, I send out a list of what they found and how much each of the magic items are worth. Then, I tally up the total market value of everything looted, and calculate each character's share. The players can use that share to either "buy" individual items looted, or spend the gold at Ye Olde Magick Mart. Anything that isn't claimed by the start of the next session is assumed to be liquidated.

It's quite a bit of work on the front end for the DM, but it really does speed up play during the session. People aren't furiously scribbling down every single piece of loot, only to erase them from their character sheet as soon as they sell the that Trident of Fish Command. There aren't very many items that multiple characters would want. The few times that it's happened, the players have been pretty good about letting the character who needs the bonus most get the looted item.

This looks like our most common situation.

However, this time there were 65 items. I can remember evening where there were 10 items and it would take 1 hour of time during the session before the items were divided.
It don't really think any one of our party even cares if they get a lesser share of the treasure, what i do know i want is to decide for myself which items i want and how much i value them at.

Typewriter
2011-02-17, 03:50 PM
The entire point of wealth is to buy helpful goods and services. :smallconfused:

True, but do you want 10,000 gold worth of stuff now, or treasure enough to sell/trade for 25,000 gold worth of stuff later.

Alignment was a poor argument, but people know what I meant - if you're playing someone who likes treasure more than other people then accepting a smaller share of the treasure may be a bit odd. My players almost always play greedy hoarders, so uneven splitting of treasure is uncommon.

EDIT: Typos

HunterOfJello
2011-02-17, 04:14 PM
This is one of the few areas in D&D where the DM deserves absolutely no say in what's going on.

How a party distributes loot is completely up to the party. The DM should work as a mediator is there's a major dispute or to encourage and give suggestions to setting up long-term policies for loot distribution but that's it. The DM decides everything in the game up to the player's conscious actions. Those belong to the players themselves.

~

As a DM, I always hand my groups a sheet of paper with the title Party Contract on top. None of them have required it so far, but I keep it in a folder ready to bust it out if there's ever a serious dispute. If so, I'd encourage them to create a coherent system for basing loot distribution on in the future and have them all sign it. However, it's all up to them.

Typewriter
2011-02-17, 04:22 PM
This is one of the few areas in D&D where the DM deserves absolutely no say in what's going on.

How a party distributes loot is completely up to the party. The DM should work as a mediator is there's a major dispute or to encourage and give suggestions to setting up long-term policies for loot distribution but that's it. The DM decides everything in the game up to the player's conscious actions. Those belong to the players themselves.

~

As a DM, I always hand my groups a sheet of paper with the title Party Contract on top. None of them have required it so far, but I keep it in a folder ready to bust it out if there's ever a serious dispute. If so, I'd encourage them to create a coherent system for basing loot distribution on in the future and have them all sign it. However, it's all up to them.

Just to clarify, I agree that a DM should not involve himself, I'm just pointing out what seems to be the DMs logic. I might think it's weird if a particular character is acting out of his norm, but I'm not going to say anything, and I'm definately not going to tell them "No".

The Cat Goddess
2011-02-17, 04:42 PM
The DM has changed his opinion to:

"In the end i want the total market value of the items of each player to be approximately the same, with a maximum of 10% difference between the lowest and highest."

I think it will end up that way anyway, if not i can change some of my bids so it will. I have no problem with this, though i still question the reasoning behind this, but i am not making an issue of that now.

Story closed, thanks for your responses and letting me unwind here.

You said there were 65 items and some gold. I'm going to assume the gold was a not-insignificant amount...

Use the coinage to balance the loot selection. If one guy has 5,000 less "value" in items than everyone else, he gets 5,000 gold off the top and the rest is divided evenly.

However, in all the games I have been in or run, it comes down to NBG looting. Need Before Greed. The +3 Axe goes to the Barbarian and he puts his old +2 Axe into the community treasure pool. Each character buys their own Wand of Cure Light Wounds and tells the Cleric and Bard where it is, so after battle they can get healed and the spellcasters don't have to worry about saving spells for it. If the party finds a +3 Ring of Protection, the guy with the lowest AC usually gets it. If he's got a +2 Ring, then he gives that up to the party... and whoever only has a +1 Ring gets it. Then the +1 Ring gets sold and that money is divided evenly.

Often a character will have a "dry spell" of not getting any items... so the party, by mutual consent, will give him all the gems/jewelry for awhile. Entirely separate from his normal share of coinage.

valadil
2011-02-17, 04:55 PM
However, in all the games I have been in or run, it comes down to NBG looting. Need Before Greed. The +3 Axe goes to the Barbarian and he puts his old +2 Axe into the community treasure pool. Each character buys their own Wand of Cure Light Wounds and tells the Cleric and Bard where it is, so after battle they can get healed and the spellcasters don't have to worry about saving spells for it. If the party finds a +3 Ring of Protection, the guy with the lowest AC usually gets it. If he's got a +2 Ring, then he gives that up to the party... and whoever only has a +1 Ring gets it. Then the +1 Ring gets sold and that money is divided evenly.


This is my preferred method. It usually leaves everyone pretty happy and doesn't have a lot of overhead.

One of my groups insists on buying things. Like, they divide wealth and low end treasure evenly (ie, that pile of +1 leather armor from the guards). Then people can buy the loot that's left. They start at whatever price the party could sell it at. Sometimes players bid on things. I think the money that's left at the end of all that is again divided among the players.

The problem with that method is that it only works if stuff is evenly valued. I gave them a +2 tome of health once. It was more expensive than everything else in the pile. Everyone could use it. Their method didn't include a way to give that to just one person, so they sold it.

I think 65 items is too many to give out at once. My suggestion for dealing with those is to treat it like an M:tG draft. Divide the items into piles. One pile per player. They should be roughly equal value. Each player gets a pile. They pick one item from it, then pass the pile to the left. Afterwards, let them trade. I *think* this will be quicker than bidding for 65 separate items.

Regarding the GM's role in this. I agree that it doesn't make sense for the GM to tell the players what their characters want to take. However it is the GM's job to make sure the session flows smoothly and that people are getting along. If my players take 3 hours dividing loot, I'm going to speed them up. If my players are about loot every other week, I'm going to step in so we don't have shouting matches. I haven't had to do those things thankfully, but I'm prepared to sacrifice some of the realism of the game to keep the session flowing nicely and the players happy.