PDA

View Full Version : Loot



A_Man
2013-10-13, 03:27 PM
As the title suggests, I'm gonna be talking about loot the party gets after/during battle.

Now, in this battle, one of our foes threw a magic blade at one of the players, (using an edge that allows the blade to fly back at him). A different character stopped the blade from returning to the foe, and the player who was attacked immediately snatched the blade up.

Now, assuming said character doesn't get brutally slaughtered by our foes, the Player stated that he will decide what he does with the weapon, and that it is in his rights to decide who gets what with the stuff he picks up in combat. (this is all OOC mind you)

To that opinion, the group responded that we aren't going to play that way, and that we shall divy up the spoils and make it a group decision as to who gets what.

Now, along with that came threats from both sides saying that if the other doesn't agree, the other side shall be killed. While 1 player (even if he is a magic user), can't kill a team of 7 if he tried, it doesn't matter for the question here.

Is the player who got attacked justified in wishing to keep the weapon he got, and not share the wealth with the team, or is the team justified in wishing it to be a group decision? Or are the two both justified?

Ravens_cry
2013-10-13, 03:32 PM
Wow, that's a dysfunctional group.:smallyuk: Still, loot (once gotten) is the players concern. Tell them if they want to fight over loot, fight over it in character.:smallamused:

Zerter
2013-10-13, 03:33 PM
Both are justified. For one side to be justified you need more circumstances, like some kind of agreement or social contract. Depending on the situation there might be a compromise though: the team can simply value the weapon at X and deny him X share of the loot in the future. This might be a good moment to work out agreements and stuff for the future.

Ravens_cry
2013-10-13, 03:43 PM
Both are justified. For one side to be justified you need more circumstances, like some kind of agreement or social contract. Depending on the situation there might be a compromise though: the team can simply value the weapon at X and deny him X share of the loot in the future. This might be a good moment to work out agreements and stuff for the future.
That's how my group tries to do it. We sell most stuff and if you want something that was in the loot, you 'buy' it from your share of the loot converted to liquid assets.

RochtheCrusher
2013-10-13, 03:48 PM
First, this should probably be an in-character discussion, because your characters will argue about such things.

Secondly, the party has a definite interest in giving this weapon to the person best suited to use it. If there is no such person, or if the single player has as good a use for it as anyone else, then this point is moot.

And lastly, if we're just talking about gold, or coolness? Let the single character keep that weapon, and lower his share in future until it's paid off. Shouldn't take long.

If the player has a problem with the group deciding what happens with "his loot," and isn't a thief, then point out that his little "policy" would apply against him to the contents of any and every locked container... so it's probably in his best interest to cooperate.

erikun
2013-10-13, 03:54 PM
It really isn't up to the GM to determine who loot is divided up between the party.

That said, this is the reason most groups make "loot arrangements" beforehand, or agreements between everyone at the table on how party members will divide up the loot. It keeps arguments like this (which most players don't like) from starting up. If your party does like such conflict amongst their characters, then they're free to run it as they see fit.

Otherwise, the most practical solution would be that, when sorting out treasure, everyone else grabs a preferred weapon/armor/treasure and then tells Player A, "Well you already have your choice, that sword you snatched earlier. You don't get another."

A_Man
2013-10-13, 03:55 PM
Wow, that's a dysfunctional group.:smallyuk: Still, loot (once gotten) is the players concern. Tell them if they want to fight over loot, fight over it in character.:smallamused:

Unfortunate, but true. :P
--
So, as you guys are saying, this should be an IC discussion, but also, loot should be transferred into gold? (sorta thing?)
So the team should still have everyone get everything equally, but of a player wants the sword, he should be allowed to have it (but lose equal loot from his portion?)

EDIT:

Hmm, problem is, the player in question doesn't want that. He thinks it's a free for all type deal, while the others don't really like that situation. He's already started to gather loot before the fight is over..

Zerter
2013-10-13, 03:59 PM
Tell him you can live with that, then try to kill him. Easy peasy. EDIT: Just think of him as Nale and of yourself as Tarquin and then respect his wishes.

RochtheCrusher
2013-10-13, 04:16 PM
Hmm, problem is, the player in question doesn't want that. He thinks it's a free for all type deal, while the others don't really like that situation. He's already started to gather loot before the fight is over..

See, here's the thing...

Any turn which you spend stealing from the party during combat is also a turn in which you're not performing your job in the party. Meaning that you might as well have stabbed me in the back while stealing my wallet.

If I know you're doing that and you're lucky, I will warn you once before stabbing you for that and leaving you for the monsters to eat. Letting me get my face gnawed off while you steal my loot from me is NOT cool.

Ravens_cry
2013-10-13, 06:46 PM
Unfortunate, but true. :P
--
So, as you guys are saying, this should be an IC discussion, but also, loot should be transferred into gold? (sorta thing?)
So the team should still have everyone get everything equally, but of a player wants the sword, he should be allowed to have it (but lose equal loot from his portion?)

Precisely. It takes some time to do the accounting, but it's fundamentally a fair system if selling points are reachable.


EDIT:
Hmm, problem is, the player in question doesn't want that. He thinks it's a free for all type deal, while the others don't really like that situation. He's already started to gather loot before the fight is over..
Then lean back, smile, and let natural selection take its course after informing the players that their characters probably hate someone stealing from the party as much as they, the players, do.
Let them reward the thief as they see fit.
Like I said, natural selection.:smallamused:

Averis Vol
2013-10-13, 07:13 PM
you're presumably playing a game with friends, so simply telling him not to be such a douche about it should be sufficient. If he is being a detriment to the party, have the group take a vote and when it comes out overwhelmingly against him, waste the little **** and tell him to roll a character that isn't so goddamned greedy and that will actually work with the team instead of against.

Mr Beer
2013-10-13, 08:01 PM
It's not up to the DM how to determine an equitable loot division method, the party should decide that. I think "first person to grab it" is a terrible way to distribute fairly but whatever.

That said, in the interests of pulling annoying players into line, I would likely do as the above poster suggested and tell Grabby Hands McGee to stop being an annoying douchebag.